Kevin R. McCarthy, aka Ogre MkV, Argues FOR a Common Design
-
When it comes to a common design pertaining to living organisms evotards always start convulsing and spewing.
However when it comes to designs outside of biology evotards argue for it.
The sad part is they will say I made the whole concept up- the concept of a common design based on standards- and then turn around and use the very same concept.
When it comes to a common design pertaining to living organisms evotards always start convulsing and spewing.
However when it comes to designs outside of biology evotards argue for it.
The sad part is they will say I made the whole concept up- the concept of a common design based on standards- and then turn around and use the very same concept.
posted by Joe G @ 1:52 PM
69 Comments:
At 10:40 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
except he's arguing for common specifications (outcomes), not design. Duh,
He doesn't care how it happens, and whet mechanisms are used, just the outcomes.
At 11:22 AM,
Joe G said…
Ummm common specifications lead to a common design, duh. The outcomes are the design based on the specifications, duh.
The claim of a common design doesn't care how it happens nor what mechanisms are used, just the outcomes.
Or are you really so ignorant that you don't understand the concept?
Thanks for the christmas present!
At 12:21 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
An idiot blurts: "Ummm common specifications lead to a common design, duh."
"I want something to cool me down in the summer" - yeah lollipops look just like fans look just like baseball caps.
FALSIFIED. IDIOT.
At 12:32 PM,
Joe G said…
Richtard the fucking moron blurts:
"I want something to cool me down in the summer" - yeah lollipops look just like fans look just like baseball caps.
Only a moron would say that.
But yes RichTard, YOU are a falsified idiot.
Perhaps in 2012 you will grow a set and actually have something of substance to say.
At 12:33 PM,
Joe G said…
But thanks again for proving that you are ignorant of design and how standardized specifications lead to a common design.
Do you still think your ignorance is some sort of refutation?
Really?
At 12:39 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
No, I think my example shows easily what a maroon you are. Note you didn't address it, only had a good cry and called me names. No doubt you'll want to fight soon, and be offering me another fake address. Muppet.
This is a great time of year to count one's blessings; We're very lucky that ID is unfortunate enough to have such limited proponentists as yourself.
At 12:45 PM,
Joe G said…
Your "example" proves that you are an ignorant and useless tool.
Just what the fuck was your "example" supposed to refute?
What the fuck was your "example" an example of?
And yes please continue to demonstrate that you are a shit-eating moron. I feel very blessed by that...
At 12:49 PM,
Joe G said…
RichTard:
"I want something to cool me down in the summer"
Good for you
RichTard:
yeah lollipops look just like fans look just like baseball caps.
Only if they were designed to look like each other.
So again, what's your point?
At 12:50 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
I gave a specification. I showed at three very different things could fulfill that specification. They are all very different in design and not designed by the same entity, nor do they achieve the specification through common methods.
So once again, we've caught you making things up. It's trivially easy. You're not getting brighter, only angrier.
Enjoy your Christmas pudding, no doubt you've measured its CSI.
At 12:51 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
I love it when your have your central thesis directly refuted you go into "SO WHAT?" mode.
So you're completely incorrect and an idiot, Joe.
At 12:52 PM,
Joe G said…
RichTard:]
I gave a specification.
No, you didn't. Obviously you have no idea what a specification is.
I showed at three very different things could fulfill that specification.
No you didn't. You just named three things. Taking a baseball hat OFF makes you cooler, moron.
At 12:55 PM,
Joe G said…
RichTard:
I love it when your have your central thesis directly refuted
It hasn't happened yet. And at the rate you're going you never will refute anything I post.
At 12:58 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Again, you've addressed nothing I've written, you gone straight into denial.
Which bits do you have issue with? Can you elaborate?
At 1:01 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"Taking a baseball hat OFF makes you cooler, moron." Not if its reflecting/ removing enough direct sunlight, Moron.
Poor Joe, been caught making things up. but that's all 'design theory' is, eh?
At 1:02 PM,
Joe G said…
RichTard,
You are a moron who obviously doesn't have a clue.
You have not posted any specification.
"I want something to cool me down in the summer"
Is not a specification. Only a total loser would say that it is and here you are.
At 1:04 PM,
Joe G said…
"Taking a baseball hat OFF makes you cooler, moron."
Not if its reflecting/ removing enough direct sunlight,
YOU did NOT specify the type of hat you cowardly wanker.
I would love to see you demonstrate that putting a baseball hat on makes you cooler.
At 1:04 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
So what,according to you, are the components of a specification?
Please open wide before inserting the other foot.
At 1:06 PM,
Joe G said…
It has nothing to do with me but thank you for continuing to prove taht you are an ignorant coward.
Read about it you ignorant fuck:
Specification (technical standard)
At 1:08 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"YOU did NOT specify the type of hat you cowardly wanker."
meeeow. No I did not (apart from baseball" - I idn't say what it was to be made of, how big it was to be, I simply gave the spefication that "I want something to cool me down in the summer" - and there are baseball hats that can do that. There are of course many other things that cando that as well.
Don't cry.
At 1:09 PM,
Joe G said…
RichTard:
No I did not (apart from baseball" - I idn't say what it was to be made of, how big it was to be, I simply gave the spefication that "I want something to cool me down in the summer"
Except that isn't a specification. It is too general.
At 1:12 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Oh sorry - I didn't say technical specification or design specification, I said "specification", which is far more in line with Kevin's example:
"If you say it’s a 20 ounce coke, then there better be 20 ounces of coke in it." - bottles, cans, postmix syrup? HE DOESN'T SPECIFY.
"If you say the heater will warm you to 92F, then it had better hit 92F." by conduction, convection or radiation? HE DOESN'T SPECIFY.
Watch Joetard flail at things he doesn't understand. He's so angry, because things don't mean what he wants them to mean. Poor Joe.
At 1:13 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"Except that isn't a specification. It is too general"
Asserts Joe, without support. so what are the units of specification non-generality, how does one measure it and how much is enough for your own very unique to JoeTard definition?
At 1:15 PM,
Joe G said…
RichTard,
You are an ignorant fuck as Kevin was talking about the same thing- design specifications- as I am.
BTW once you say "coke" that tells you the mix.
At 1:18 PM,
Joe G said…
"Except that isn't a specification. It is too general"
Asserts Joe, without support.
Exactly the response a cry-baby would provide.
BTW moron YOU proved it is too general by showing three very different items can provide it.
geez you are dumber than the shit you eat.
At 1:19 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
BTW once you say "coke" that tells you the mix.
Idiot - postmix is the system restaurants use where the beverage is constituted from a syrup, gas and water. Its logistically more efficient.
So a riot. You can't define what you mean (no shock there) but Kevin is definitely talking about it, but I'm definitely not! Wah wah wah.
At 1:19 PM,
Joe G said…
Andf thanks for exposing your cowardice by not reading the article I linked to.
At 1:21 PM,
Joe G said…
I know what postmix is and I also know the companies tell you what it should be- ie they give you the SPECIFICATIONS- dumbass.
At 1:22 PM,
Joe G said…
Kevin says:
Let’s set a blasted convention on what 1, 2, and 3 mean when dealing with fan speeds, heater warmth levels, and heating pads. On some, ’1′ is the fastest or hottest setting. On others, ’3′ is the fastest or hottest setting.
Manufacturers, please, reach an agreement and stick to it.
He is clearly talking about a design specification.
At 1:23 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"Exactly the response a cry-baby would provide."
Exactly the retort one would expect from someone who sucks his own dad's cock.
Its not a very clever trick, Joe - and I do it so much better than you.
BTW moron YOU proved it is too general by showing three very different items can provide it.
I showed three things that could provide it in Kevin's first example, also. Whoops. Idiot. and you're still making your own criteria up. But let's take a step back.
Per Joe:
1. Common spec shows common design
2. We know common spec because only one thing can fulfill it.
From 1 + 2, we get
3. One thing that is designed shows common design (with itself).
You are a king of tards.
At 1:29 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"Andf thanks for exposing your cowardice by not reading the article I linked to."
Thanks for moving the goalposts.
"Let’s set a blasted convention on what 1, 2, and 3 mean when dealing with fan speeds, heater warmth levels, and heating pads. On some, ’1′ is the fastest or hottest setting. On others, ’3′ is the fastest or hottest setting.
Manufacturers, please, reach an agreement and stick to it."
How is this not, per your own words "Except that isn't a specification. It is too general." Please explain.
So these products will all be made the same way, despite using very different mechanisms to achieve their goals? You are an incredible idiot.
They can be made in different countries by different companies using different methods to harness different parts of physics.
At 1:32 PM,
Joe G said…
RichTard,
Thanks for admiitting that you suck your dad's cock.
1. Common spec shows common design
Wrong- if things are designed via the same specifications then they exhibit a common design.
2. We know common spec because only one thing can fulfill it.
Now I get it- you are so full of shit that you do not understand what i am saying.
Dude you are one pathetic piece of shit.
At 1:34 PM,
Joe G said…
Richtard:
How is this not, per your own words "Except that isn't a specification. It is too general." Please explain.
You would be SPECIFYING the fan speed indicator and the fan speed- they would all be standardized.
So these products will all be made the same way, despite using very different mechanisms to achieve their goals?
Not required. Again you are an ignorant fuck and your ignorance doesn't mean anything here.
The only thing that matters is the RESULT.
At 1:40 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Oh I get it, writing it in capitals helps. Great I am SPECIFYING "I want something to cool me down in the summer"
The only thing that matters are teh results (your words).
IDDDDDDIIIIIOOOOOOOOOOOT.
At 1:47 PM,
Joe G said…
Richtard the dumbsass:
The only thing that matters are teh results (your words).
You are sooo fucking mental- that was in response to the fact that the methods do NOT have to be the same- just the results. The specification refers to the results-
man you are one stupid freak...
At 1:49 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Still waiting for the units of specification and how to tell if something is or isn't specified. Guess we'll be waiting like the CSI of cake, eh?
catch you later, bluffer.
At 2:14 PM,
Ghostrider said…
JoeTard said...
Wrong- if things are designed via the same specifications then they exhibit a common design.
Really?
The specification is
""I want something to cool me down in the summer""
An ice cream cone, a sudden rain shower, and a 5000BTU air conditioner all meet the specification.
Where's the common design?
At 7:39 PM,
Joe G said…
RichTard:
Still waiting for the units of specification and how to tell if something is or isn't specified.
As I said obvioulsy you are too stupid to be having this discussion.
Units of specification? Well it all depends on what you are specifying you moron.
At 7:41 PM,
Joe G said…
Thortard:
The specification is
""I want something to cool me down in the summer""
Except that isn't a specification.
Again one moron trying to support another moron does not eman the morons are right.
But if you can find a couple of design experts to agree with you tell them to post here and I will expose them as total assholes just as I have exposed all other evotards.
At 7:44 PM,
Joe G said…
A specification (often abbreviated as spec) is an explicit set of requirements to be satisfied by a material, product, or service.
And guess what? This:
"I want something to cool me down in the summer" , does NOT meet that.
IOW once again RichTard and ThorTard prove taht they do not know anything about anything.
At 12:50 AM,
Ghostrider said…
JoeTard said...
A specification (often abbreviated as spec) is an explicit set of requirements to be satisfied by a material, product, or service.
And guess what? This:
"I want something to cool me down in the summer", does NOT meet that.
Yes JoeTard, it does.
"cool down" explicitly defines the desired effect on body temperature, lower it not raise it.
"me" explicitly defines the person to be affected, not you or anyone else.
"summer" explicitly defines the time period where the spec needs to be met, not any other season.
What are not given in this particular spec are tolerances: how much to cool down, how rapidly, etc. But that doesn't change the fact that the original statement is still a specification.
At 1:53 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
Actually Joe, it is a specification.
Sorry. But feel free to show us the demarcation criteria for specification, with the relevant math and examples. We know you're great at that...
At 8:34 AM,
Joe G said…
RichTard:
Actually Joe, it is a specification.
It is too fucking vague to be a specification you ignorant fuck.
The demarcation would be as I said- if you give the specification to two people and if they build the same thing you have a good spec. If not you don't.
At 8:42 AM,
Joe G said…
A specification (often abbreviated as spec) is an explicit set of requirements to be satisfied by a material, product, or service.
And guess what? This:
"I want something to cool me down in the summer", does NOT meet that.
ThorTard/ OA:
Yes JoeTard, it does.
No, you ignorant fuck, it doesn't. And it is clear that it isn't because you cannot find two designers to agree with you and what you say is meaningless because you are a proven ignorant faggot.
At 8:43 AM,
Joe G said…
ThorTard/ OA:
What are not given in this particular spec are tolerances: how much to cool down, how rapidly, etc.
And that means there isn't any specification, just vague notions.
At 9:02 AM,
Joe G said…
"I want something to cool me down in the summer" is not a specification, rather it is a customer's desire/ want.
From that a company would work with the customer to put together a set of technical specs in order to design and manufacture something that will fulfill that want/ desire.
Not that the evotard morons can grasp any of that...
At 2:53 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"It is too fucking vague to be a specification you ignorant fuck."
Nope, show me your math, cakeboi.
At 4:38 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"
From that a company would work with the customer to put together a set of technical specs in order to design and manufacture something that will fulfill that want/ desire.
Not that the evotard morons can grasp any of that..."
How silly of us. Companies ask each of their customers what they want. You, presumably, have Tardflakes(c) for breakfast.
At 5:39 PM,
Joe G said…
It is too fucking vague to be a specification you ignorant fuck.
Richtard
Nope,
Then it is strange that you cannot find any design engineers who agree with you.
At 5:41 PM,
Joe G said…
Richtard:
Companies ask each of their customers what they want.
That ain't what I said, nor implied.
Nice to see that you are still an ignorant fuck.
At 6:55 PM,
Joe G said…
And BTW you ignorant fuck, there are companies that work with customers to get them what they want.
At 11:52 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"Then it is strange that you cannot find any design engineers who agree with you."
I've not looked. But I know what a specification is, thanks. And like you, I don't make up people to support my cause, like "Jim" and "John Paul", your imaginary allies. You fool.
Keep fixing those 'fridges
At 7:38 AM,
Joe G said…
No, obviously you don't have a clue as to what a specification is.
OTOH I have decades of experience writing them, editing them and using them to design equipment.
IOW you are a fucking piece of shit liar.
At 7:55 AM,
Joe G said…
The funny part is there is only RichTard and MAYBE a handful of evotards who think what RichTard provided was a "specification"- out of 6 billion+ people only a handful of evotards agrees with RichTard.
But that is because they have to redefine words to suit their needs.
At 10:01 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
"No, obviously you don't have a clue as to what a specification is."
Then provide us a test that we can apply to see if something fulfills the specification criteria. Liek you can't with DESIGN.
Maroon. Kevin - hope you're enjoying this pal.
At 10:04 AM,
Joe G said…
Richtard:
Then provide us a test that we can apply to see if something fulfills the specification criteria.
I provided the definition of a specification and your statement does not fit that definition.
At 10:34 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
"I provided the definition of a specification and your statement does not fit that definition."
Actually it does. You're the only one here who thinks it doesn't. perhaps the definition isn't specified enough? We need an operational definition. But when we try and move you out of 'opinion' and into 'testable fact', you have a melt down and cry into your CSI cake batter.
But the fact you can't rigorously define specification bodes badly for ID in general.
At 10:49 AM,
Joe G said…
"I provided the definition of a specification and your statement does not fit that definition."
Actually it does.
Then make your case, if you can.
However that is too late because of your own words and the confirmation of ThorTard/ OA.
Yeah see, moron, if something is specified then you cannot have three very different things as a solution.
Again your ignorance of the English language means nothing.
At 11:06 AM,
Joe G said…
And BTW, moron, a baseball cap that reflects sunlight still traps your body heat. And that is why taking off a baseball cap cools you down.
At 11:16 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
"And BTW, moron, a baseball cap that reflects sunlight still traps your body heat. And that is why taking off a baseball cap cools you down."
Not if it reflects more heat than it retains, idiot.
At 11:17 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVPKxalxVN4
:-)
At 11:29 AM,
Joe G said…
Yes RichTard, very good- a very specific type of baseball cap with a specified insert.
Now you are finally catching on
At 11:40 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
So baseball caps can cool you down, yes or no?
Please show much much MORE specified it is, then a generic one. Show your (math) workings.
At 11:42 AM,
Joe G said…
Just watch the video you fucking ignorant coward. Then go ahead and read the specs. Then go ahead and read the specs of a generic baseball cap and compare.
At 11:15 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
Still no math, Joe? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you!
At 11:16 AM,
Joe G said…
Yes Richie, your position still doesn't have any math. And no I am not shocked.
At 11:19 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
Too right! what did Ronald Aylmer Fisher know about math, eh?
At 11:25 AM,
Joe G said…
His math sure as hell didn't support the premise of accumulations of random mutations.
IOW Richie your ignorance is showing again.
At 11:01 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
http://www.genetics.org/content/148/2/719.full
At 11:09 PM,
Joe G said…
Great another link with no explanation from Richtard.
But let me guess- he is saying that differential reproduction due to heritable random mutations, leads to a 1 to 1 correlation male to female?
In what way does that support the claim that all living organisms owe their collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of prokaryotic-like organisms via accumulations of random mutations?
Thank you for proving that you are a clueless fuck.
Post a Comment
<< Home