Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Sunday, July 31, 2011

CAKE! Time to Observe More EvoTardgasms

-
In the post Measuring Information/ specified complexity, I said:
One way of figuring out how much information it (an object) contains is to figure out how (the simplest way) to make it.

Then you write down the procedure without wasting words/ characters and count those bits.

That will give you an idea of the minimal information it contains.

I say that because all the information that goes into making something is therefor contained by it.

And if you already have the instructions and want to measure the information?

Again just count the bits in the instructions.

For example a cake would, at a minimum, contain all the information in the recipe.

Ya see a recipe is a capturing of the actions- information flows from designer to design:
The causal tie between an artifact and its intended character -- or, strictly speaking, between an artifact and its author's productive intention -- is constituted by an author's actions, that is, by his work on the object.- Stanford-Artifact

That simple concept is lost on evotards. What is also lost on evotards is you wouldn't use CSI to determine if an object was designed. To me CSI is only good when you have the bits- no interpretation of actions required. If you just have an object there are other methods to determine how it came to be and humans use them successfully all the time.

Let the evotardgasms begin...

107 Comments:

  • At 12:55 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    You're the least creative person i know. Your unwillingness to do any sort of work aside, is there any expression you haven't, erm, "borrowed"?

     
  • At 8:17 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You don't know me and you are a loser, liar and a moron.

    You are also a projectionist as you have demonstrated a profound unwillingness to do any sort of work-> you sure as hell cannot produce any positive evidence for your position.

    Typical evotard coward.

     
  • At 8:22 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    As for "borrowed" is there anything evolutionism hasn't borrowed from Creationists?

    Let's see "natural selection" the concept first discussed by Ed Blythe- a Creationist.

    Taxonomy- a concept put forth by Linne- a Creationist.

    Genetics- Mendell a Creationist.

    Reproductive isolation- first by Creationists and then borrowed by evotards.

     
  • At 8:23 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    But anyway it is very telling that Richtard the evotard cannot address the OP and instead has to make shit up and spew it as if it means something.

     
  • At 8:30 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    Wow, Joe has decided to put out his cake again! Very nice of you, Joe.

    So let's get back to the question you failed to answer last time. Is information as you calculate it additive?

     
  • At 8:32 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    oleg:
    So let's get back to the question you failed to answer last time.

    Liar.

    oleg:
    Is information as you calculate it additive?

    Are the ACTIONS additive?

    If you have to do the same actions to make another cake then yes it is additive. I have been over this with you already.

     
  • At 8:41 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    I am not asking about actions, Joe. I am asking about Information. Shannon information is additive. I would like to know whether your definition yields an additive quantity or not.

    No reason to get overly excited. It's a simple technical question. Just trying to learn more about your theory.

     
  • At 8:44 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    oleg:
    I am not asking about actions, Joe. I am asking about Information.

    Are you ignorant? Can you read?

    Did you read the OP?

    Try again.

    HINT- It is the ACTIONS which transfer the INFORMATION from designer to design.

    Geez you are one ignorant fuck but thanks for the evotardgasm.

     
  • At 8:51 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    You do not write very well, Joe. It is not clear from your opening post whether information, as defined by you, is additive. Or perhaps my reading comprehension is low this morning.

    Whatever the reason, I am asking you to clarify that aspect. Is information, as defined by you, additive?

    No reason to get snippy. Just answer the question. It's either additive or it isn't.

     
  • At 9:00 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Your reading comprehension is low every day:

    If you have repeat theactions to make another object (cake) then yes it is additive. I have been over this with you already.

    If the actions are additive then so is the information, duh.

     
  • At 9:01 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And BTW I am not defining information so this:

    It is not clear from your opening post whether information, as defined by you, is additive.

    Is bullshit.

    But we expect that from you.

     
  • At 9:20 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    Just to make sure I understand what you're saying, Joe, I'd like you to confirm what I think you're trying to say: information required to bake a cake is an additive quantity. The quantity of information required to bake two cakes equals the information to bake one cake plus the information to bake the second cake.

     
  • At 9:24 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Ah - how to calculate 'undefined' information - useful, very useful.

     
  • At 9:25 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    oleg:
    information required to bake a cake is an additive quantity.

    If the ACTIONS are also additive- meaning the information is linked to the actions.

    oleg:
    The quantity of information required to bake two cakes equals the information to bake one cake plus the information to bake the second cake.

    It would depend on how they are made.

    If they are made one at a time then the info follows the actions. If you make them at the same time then the information is whatever those actions were.

     
  • At 9:26 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Richtard:
    Ah - how to calculate 'undefined' information - useful, very useful.

    What are you blathering about now?

    Information has been defined. I said I didn't define it- others have- moron.

     
  • At 9:28 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Oleg,

    If you and two grad students are working on a project are the man-hours additive? Meaning when someone asks you for the man-hours on the project do you add all three people's hours?

     
  • At 9:32 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    But again, Joe, I am not asking you about the actions required to bake a cake. I am asking about the information content of a cake. That's the subject of your post. After all, you wrote about "figuring out how much information it (an object) contains."

    How you derive your theory is your business. You may think about the actions required to bake a cake, I don't care. I want to know, when you have figured it all out, whether or not the quantity you have defined is additive. Like Shannon information.

    The technical term is an extensive quantity. Volume of an incompressible fluid is an extensive quantity. You add one gallon of water to another gallon, you get two gallons. Mass is extensive. Energy. Momentum. These are examples of additive, or extensive, quantities.

    On the other hand, density and temperature are intensive quantities. When you put together two gallons of water with the same temperature and density, the temperature and density of the resulting liquid remain unchanged. These quantities are not additive.

    So, here is again my question to you. Is information contained in a cake an intensive quantity or an extensive one?

     
  • At 9:32 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Watch Joe dance as he can't answer a very simple yes / no question! Go Joe, go! Bluffer on a string, twirling 'round.

     
  • At 9:32 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    Yes, man-hours are another example of an extensive (additive) quantity.

     
  • At 9:40 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    oleg:
    But again, Joe, I am not asking you about the actions required to bake a cake.

    Then obviously you are too stupid to follow along.

    oleg:
    I am asking about the information content of a cake. That's the subject of your post. After all, you wrote about "figuring out how much information it (an object) contains."

    And that is the ACTIONS required to produce it- just as I have said.

    IOW you are a menatl case.

    oleg:
    How you derive your theory is your business.

    It is not a theory. It is a fact of life as supported by Stanford.

    oleg:
    I want to know, when you have figured it all out, whether or not the quantity you have defined is additive.

    It is as additive as man-hours as the two are directly linked.

    However you appear to be too stupid to understand that.

     
  • At 9:40 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    Watch Joe dance as he can't answer a very simple yes / no question!

    I have answered the question you moron.

    EvoTards always blaming others for their confusion.

     
  • At 9:40 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Final I learn something here. Thanks Oleg - I do work in OLAP relational databases sometimes and one needs to provide the rules if you should aggregate or average based on such dimensions and time, geography, etc. I now have the right words!

     
  • At 9:42 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    So Joe, if a cake contains N information, do 2 cakes contain 2N informationn?

     
  • At 9:44 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    So Joe, if a cake contains N information, do 2 cakes contain 2N informationn?

    As I said it depends on how they were made.

    If two people each made a cake, therefor there are two cakes (using the same actions/ recipe) then yes you have twice the info.

     
  • At 10:08 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "If two people each made a cake, therefor there are two cakes (using the same actions/ recipe) then yes you have twice the info."

    So the aggregate information of two identical cakes is variable and contingent on if they were made by one or two entities?

    What about if 2 people are baking one cake?

     
  • At 10:29 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    And if one person makes 2 identical cakes, how much info?

     
  • At 10:31 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    So the aggregate information of two identical cakes is variable and contingent on if they were made by one or two entities?

    No.

    RichTard:
    What about if 2 people are baking one cake?

    It is their actions, moron.

     
  • At 10:33 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    If two people each made a cake, therefor there are two cakes (using the same actions/ recipe) then yes you have twice the info.

    So if a gene is duplicated, you have twice the information?

     
  • At 10:33 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Richtard:
    And if one person makes 2 identical cakes, how much info?

    Nothing says "I am a stupid evotard" like RichTard's comments.

    It is the person's actions Rich. If the person makes the separately then it is twice the info.

    If the person makes them out of one double batch then whatever those actions were = the info.

     
  • At 10:35 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OMTard:
    So if a gene is duplicated, you have twice the information?

    What was the amount of information before the duplication?

    HINT- You have no fucking idea.

     
  • At 10:39 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Well, help me learn, Joe.

    Let's say there are two receipes, one for one cake and one for 2. The reciepe for 2 cakes simply has teh ingredients doubled and a line or two of recursion - a very small percentage of the total reciepe. It yields 2 identical cakes, the same as following the receipe twice.

    These (identical) cakes have different information based on whoch receipe you follow?

     
  • At 10:53 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    Well, help me learn, Joe.

    Well, you have already proven that you are incapable of learning.


    Richtard:
    It yields 2 identical cakes, the same as following the receipe twice.

    I doubt they would be identical.

     
  • At 10:55 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The only point I am making is the information flows from the designer to the design just as the reference states.

    But the evotardgasms are entertaining. However it would be nice if someone actually tried to stay on-topic.

     
  • At 11:00 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "I doubt they would be identical"

    Then do they have different amounts of information in them?

     
  • At 11:03 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    Then do they have different amounts of information in them?

    Do the work and figure it out.

     
  • At 11:17 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Do the work and figure it out."

    Oh, has widdle joe painted himself into a corner? You're the one who claims this can be done, so show us.

    JOEFAIL.

     
  • At 11:25 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Richtard:
    You're the one who claims this can be done, so show us.

    It can be done by anyone who isn't a complete imbecile. So I understand why you need help.

    DICKFAIL

     
  • At 11:26 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So ERichTard the evotard coward thinks I painted myself into a corner because he is too much of a coward to do the work.

    Why do you run away from experiments Richtard?

     
  • At 11:27 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "It can be done by anyone who isn't a complete imbecile. So I understand why you need help."

    So the hypothesis that Joe Gallien isn't "a complete imbecile" can be falsified by Joe Gallien doing it. Hurry up and do it then Joe, I'm sure you want to set the record straight.


    Its so easy to make you dance, because you're SO BAD AT BLUFFING.

     
  • At 11:28 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Don't cry, Joe.

     
  • At 11:29 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Richtard:
    Don't cry, Joe.

    I am laughing at you, imbecile.

     
  • At 11:30 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "It can be done by anyone who isn't a complete imbecile. So I understand why you need help."

    Richtard:
    blah, blah, blah I am a fucking coward, blah, blah, blah

    Is that all you have?

    BWAAAAHAAAAHAAAAHAAAHAAAA

    Thanks for the evotardgasms- as predicted.

     
  • At 11:31 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And BTW you are the dancer, but it looks more like a grand-mal seizure

     
  • At 11:33 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Still bluffing, Joe?

    Keep dancing, Joe.

    Painted yourself into a corner? Don't cry.

    Show us you're not (by your own a measure) " a complete imbecile"

    Oh wait, you can't.

    Don't cry.

     
  • At 11:40 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Still an ignorant faggot RichTard?

    Keep up the seizures.

    Stuck your head up your ass again? That's OK that is home for you.

    Unfortunately you have already demonstrated that you are a complete imbecile and a coward.

    Do the work Rich and stop acting like a little cry-baby.

    What's that? It ain't an act?

    Figures...

     
  • At 11:42 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    But you are right RichTard- I can't show you anything because A) you are too much of a coward to face me and B) You are too much of an imbecile to understand anything

     
  • At 11:44 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Hey Joe, you're the (obviously bluffing) design theorist. Show us.

    Again, coward, "Then do they have different amounts of information in them?"

    Caught with your pants down, Joe, how predictable.

     
  • At 11:45 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    You are welcome, Rich.

    Joe,

    If the amount of information, as you defined it, depends on which way the cakes are made, then it makes no sense of talking about the information content of a cake. The information so defined is about the process of making a cake and not about the cake itself. Furthermore, you yourself say that different ways of making a cake result in different amounts of information. Therefore the information content according to Joe is not a property of a cake.

    Such situations do arise in physics. For example, energy can be inputted into an object in a number of ways. Luckily for us, however, the energy content does not depend on how it was transferred to the object. It just depends on the state of the object alone. So energy is a property of an object.

    In contrast, the amount of heat is not a property of an object. There is no such thing as "heat content."

    So your definition of information in a cake fails. It does not describe information content of a cake (whatever it is). It describes the process of making a cake and different ways of making a cake yield different amounts of information. This is not a consistent definition.

     
  • At 12:05 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard,

    That is your dog, not mine.

    The only point I am making is the information flows from the designer to the design just as the reference states.

    And you and oleg are too stupid to grasp that concept.

     
  • At 12:08 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "The only point I am making is the information flows from the designer to the design just as the reference states."

    So you now CAN'T calculate the (C)SI of cake. How predictably disappointing, Joe.

    If we have no empirical hurdle, we have do demarcation criteria, we have no science.

    Thanks for showing us why ID fails, again.

    Oh, and don't cry.

     
  • At 12:10 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    oleg:
    If the amount of information, as you defined it,...

    Explain. I am using the word information as it is standardly defined.

    Again the information flows fom designer to the design. You don't seem to be able to grasp that simple concept.

    oleg:
    Furthermore, you yourself say that different ways of making a cake result in different amounts of information.

    Not so. Different information can still equal the same number of bits.

    But that doesn't have anything to do with what I am saying.

    oleg:
    So your definition of information in a cake fails.

    Maybe to you but every rational person understands it perfectly.

     
  • At 12:12 PM, Blogger oleg said…

    Oh, where is that "rational person"? I see no one here who finds you procedure of measuring information content reasonable.

     
  • At 12:13 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "The only point I am making is the information flows from the designer to the design just as the reference states."

    Richtard:
    So you now CAN'T calculate the (C)SI of cake.

    So you just don't care how ignorant you are. You obviously don't read what I post or you read it but can't comprehend it or you read it and twist it.

    The CSI of a cake is irrelevant as CSI is used to positively identify design- just as I have been telling you for years- and we have other ways of determining design from non-design just given an object.

    RichTard:
    If we have no empirical hurdle, we have do demarcation criteria, we have no science.

    And that is why your position isn't science.

     
  • At 12:16 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    oleg:
    Oh, where is that "rational person"? I see no one here who finds you procedure of measuring information content reasonable.

    Man you are dense.

    Obviously Stanford University understands it.

    But obviously you cannot follow what I posted. Read the last paragraph in the OP, again, for the first time.

     
  • At 12:18 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    From the OP:

    Ya see a recipe is a capturing of the actions- information flows from designer to design:

    The causal tie between an artifact and its intended character -- or, strictly speaking, between an artifact and its author's productive intention -- is constituted by an author's actions, that is, by his work on the object.- Stanford-Artifact

    That simple concept is lost on evotards. What is also lost on evotards is you wouldn't use CSI to determine if an object was designed. To me CSI is only good when you have the bits- no interpretation of actions required. If you just have an object there are other methods to determine how it came to be and humans use them successfully all the time.

     
  • At 12:21 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Joe, from your OP:

    "One way of figuring out how much information it (an object) contains..."

    Do you stil lstand by that?

    If you do, some calculations, please and thank you.

     
  • At 12:44 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Yes I stand by that. And I cannot help it if you are too stupid to undertsand the concept.

     
  • At 12:53 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Yes I stand by that. And I cannot help it if you are too stupid to undertsand the concept."

    Okay - so let's see you figure out "much information it (an object) contains" for cake. The for 2 cakes.


    Math please, Mr. bluffer.


    Oh, and don't cry.

     
  • At 1:45 PM, Blogger oleg said…

    Joe,

    In order to speak meaningfully of the information content of an object (your term in the opening post), you have to make sure that the quantity in question does not depend on how the object is made. If it varies depending on the particular way the object is made then you cannot ascribe the amount of information to the object. You have to define separately amounts of information for each way of making it.

    This is where your recipe fails.

     
  • At 2:22 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "Yes I stand by that. And I cannot help it if you are too stupid to undertsand the concept."

    RichTard:
    Okay - so let's see you figure out "much information it (an object) contains" for cake.

    I told you how to do it. As I said I think it is a fool's errand but you assholes wanted to know how to do such a thing so I told you.

     
  • At 2:24 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    oleg:
    In order to speak meaningfully of the information content of an object (your term in the opening post), you have to make sure that the quantity in question does not depend on how the object is made.

    I take it that you are too stupid to follow what I post:

    One way of figuring out how much information it (an object) contains is to figure out how (the simplest way) to make it.

    Ya see, moron, you don't really know how it was made just given the thing. That is part of what you have to figure out.

     
  • At 2:28 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    For RichTard:

    And if you already have the instructions and want to measure the information?

    Again just count the bits in the instructions.

    For example a cake would, at a minimum, contain all the information in the recipe.

    Ya see a recipe is a capturing of the actions- information flows from designer to design:


    I guess your tears are blurring your vision...

     
  • At 2:28 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "I told you how to do it."

    SHOW me how to do it. Bluffer.

     
  • At 2:34 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    To see if something is designed, get the instructions from the designer.


    PRICELESS!

    Don't cry, Joe.

     
  • At 2:35 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    To see if something is designed, get the instructions from the designer.

    Yup, you would say something like that, moron.

     
  • At 2:37 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "I told you how to do it."

    Richtard admitting stupidity:
    SHOW me how to do it.

    If you too stupid to understand what I have alreay told you, ie how to do it, then showing you won't work either.

     
  • At 2:39 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    To see if Richtard Hughes is a moron just read his posts.

    Case closed.

     
  • At 2:43 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    I'm not convinced by your nebulous explanation (and neither are you, you're just not honest) - feel free to prove me wrong by doing it.

    You're scared to even try. No one believes this guff you're coming up with, not even you. But as you've painted yourself into this corner...

    But don't cry, Joe.

     
  • At 2:59 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Richtard:
    I'm not convinced by your nebulous explanation...

    Of course YOU are not. Then again you are an evotard who is "convinced" his position is right even though you cannot produce any positive evidence to support it.

    IOW Richtard yoiu will never be convinced of anything you already didn't believe.

     
  • At 3:00 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Of course YOU are not"

    Actually Joe, I doubt anyone is. See if you can find someone? Maybe on UD.

    Not even you are.

     
  • At 3:02 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Actually I have only seen a handful of evotards who even doubt the concept.

    Heck even Stanford University supports it.

    Or are you too cowardly to check the reference provided?

     
  • At 3:29 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "
    Heck even Stanford University supports it.
    "

    How amny times do they mention "information" in that article. Be precise, please.

     
  • At 3:30 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Oh - great laughing at you at AtBC right now - come over and enjoy the fun!

     
  • At 6:14 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Richtard:
    Oh - great laughing at you at AtBC right now -

    As expected, duh.


    BWAAAAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAA

     
  • At 6:15 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Heck even Stanford University supports it.

    Richtard:
    How amny times do they mention "information" in that article.

    Not required, moron.

     
  • At 5:38 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    For example a cake would, at a minimum, contain all the information in the recipe.

    Is it possible for the cake to contain more information then the recipe?

    Is it possible for the recipe to contain more information then the cake?

     
  • At 8:27 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Is it possible for the cake to contain more information then the recipe?

    What's the point to your question?

    OM:
    Is it possible for the recipe to contain more information then the cake?

    What's the point to your question?

    IOW tell me how they are relevant to the OP and the topic.

     
  • At 9:29 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    So Stanford supports " Measuring Information/ specified complexity" by not mentioning it at all. Only in the wacky, zany world of IDists!

     
  • At 9:54 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    What's the point to your question?

    Several points.

    If your system of determining information content has value these questions should be trivial to answer. If you cannot answer these trivial questions then I don't believe that your system, such as it is, can be applied in general.

    You said in the OP
    I say that because all the information that goes into making something is therefor contained by it.,

    My questions are designed to expand upon that point. If it's possible to have a cake with less information then the recipe it took to create it then something is wrong with your original claim.

    IOW tell me how they are relevant to the OP and the topic.

    Ah, the "your questions are not relevant to the OP so I refuse to answer them" dodge. It had to come sooner or later, it was expected.

    A shame, but expected.

    It's like if I proposed a new mathematical system with 2 numbers and somebody asks "Can you add those two numbers up to get a third number" and I reply "Your question is not relevant to my claim and so I refuse to answer it".

    These two questions are obviously directly related to your claims in the OP and would serve to illustrate how deeply you've thought about these issues.

    That you can't just give me a straight answer speaks volumes to the onlookers as to the depth of your thinking on these matters.

     
  • At 10:55 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    So Stanford supports " Measuring Information/ specified complexity" by not mentioning it at all.

    Wrong again, asshole. Stanford supports the claim that information flows from designer to the design.

     
  • At 10:59 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    If your system of determining information content has value these questions should be trivial to answer.

    So you can't follow along.

    The system is because retarded evos started asking moronic questions about the information in specific objects.

    I told them it was a fool's errand but if they wanted to do such a thing this is how you would do it.

    That said they may be a value in that but I haven't heard of it.

    OM:
    If you cannot answer these trivial questions then I don't believe that your system, such as it is, can be applied in general.

    I doubt you can apply anything. You sure as hell are too cowardly to actually support your position.

     
  • At 11:17 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    You sure as hell are too cowardly to actually support your position.

    And it seems you are unable to answer the simplest questions regarding yours.

     
  • At 11:22 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    And it seems you are unable to answer the simplest questions regarding yours.

    And yet I have. OTOH you cannot answer anything pertaining to yours.

     
  • At 1:20 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    And yet I have.

    But you've failed to answer my questions. That you may have "answered" questions in the past is irrelevant. Did you do this when you worked Joe?

    Hey, Joe, got the time?

    No, I already answered a question earlier regarding how my day was so get lost idiot.

    OTOH you cannot answer anything pertaining to yours.

    Like what Joe? What questions do you have regarding "my position"?

     
  • At 1:27 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    But you've failed to answer my questions.

    Your irrelevant questions?

    Man are you dense.

     
  • At 1:27 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    What questions do you have regarding "my position"?

    Can you produce a testable hypothesis for it here on this blog?

     
  • At 1:31 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    Can you produce a testable hypothesis for it here on this blog?

    For what? Evolution? You'll have to be a bit more specific.

    And I thought we were talking about questions, now suddenly we're talking about hypothesis.

    Can you produce a testable hypothesis for ID here on this blog?

     
  • At 1:33 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    Your irrelevant questions?

    Your original post contained claims about cakes, recipes and information.

    I asked a specific question about recipes, cakes and information.

    That you claim these questions are irrelevant is absurd.

    It's almost like you are unwilling to commit yourself to a position. But that can't be right, can it?

    Or perhaps you simply don't have an idea as to the answers?

     
  • At 6:09 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Can you produce a testable hypothesis for it here on this blog?

    OM:
    For what?

    Your position you wanking coward.

    OM:
    Can you produce a testable hypothesis for ID here on this blog?

    I have, dumbass.

     
  • At 6:11 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Your original post contained claims about cakes, recipes and information.

    It appears you didn't understand any of it.

    Perhaps that is the problem.

    First you have to demonstrate an understanding and then you get to ask questions.

     
  • At 4:12 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    I have, dumbass.

    So test it already! What are you waiting for?

    If it's testable, test it.

    If it's not, it's not testable and so it's not what you claim.

    So test it and prove it!

     
  • At 7:53 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    So test it already!

    It is tested every day and so far it has passed all tests.

     
  • At 9:17 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    It is tested every day and so far it has passed all tests.

    Then it should be easy for you to give, say, 10 examples of such tests that ID passes ever day.

     
  • At 9:28 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Then it should be easy for you to give, say, 10 examples of such tests that ID passes ever day.

    Tests of irreducible complexity account for at least ten examples and they have all passed.

     
  • At 9:39 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    Tests of irreducible complexity account for at least ten examples and they have all passed.

    Citations to the primary literature then please.

    It's not that I don't believe you, it's just that I don't believe you.

     
  • At 9:44 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Citations to the primary literature then please.

    Citations for failed experiments?

    Man you are a moron.

     
  • At 9:45 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    "Failed experiments" is an apt characterization of ID.

     
  • At 9:50 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    oleg chimes in:
    "Failed experiments" is an apt characterization of ID.

    Nice projection- too bad your position doesn't have any successful experiments to support it.

    Loser...

     
  • At 11:37 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Didn't Demsbki retract a paper that was 'the death of darwinsm"?

     
  • At 12:24 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Darwinism was stillborn.

     
  • At 2:26 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Well killing it is proving suprisingly difficult, then.

     
  • At 2:36 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    It is just "alive" to a minority of evotards. And their numbers are dwindling. It's only a matter of time now.

     
  • At 3:27 PM, Blogger oleg said…

    We've heard that before, Joe. In the summer of 2004, Dembski made this prediction:

    "In the next five years, molecular Darwinism—the idea that Darwinian processes can produce complex molecular structures at the subcellular level—will be dead. When that happens, evolutionary biology will experience a crisis of confidence because evolutionary biology hinges on the evolution of the right molecules. I therefore foresee a Taliban-style collapse of Darwinism in the next ten years. Intelligent design will of course profit greatly from this. For ID to win the day, however, will require talented new researchers able to move this research program forward, showing how intelligent design provides better insights into biological systems than the dying Darwinian paradigm."

    Here we are, seven years later. It appears that the rumors of Darwinism's demise were greatly exaggerated.

     
  • At 3:28 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Yes, 150 years and still dying :-)

     
  • At 5:14 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Yes, 150+ years and still nothing to show for itself. Strange, that...

     
  • At 5:16 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    oleg:
    It appears that the rumors of Darwinism's demise were greatly exaggerated.

    It appears darwinism's claims have been greatly exaggerated. That dog hasn't hunted in over 150 years.

     
  • At 5:26 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    oleg quoting Dembski:
    In the next five years, molecular Darwinism—the idea that Darwinian processes can produce complex molecular structures at the subcellular level—will be dead.

    The prediction has been fulfilled oleg. There isn't any evidence that genetic accidents can accumulate in such a way as to produce complex molecular structures at the subcellular level.

    Way to go Bill!

     

Post a Comment

<< Home