The US Health-Care Joke

-
The USSC has ruled that it is OK for the US Government to tax people for NOT buying something. Did you catch that? That's right, usually when you make a purchase you get taxed for that purchase. Now if you choose not to purchase health insurance you get taxed for that!

That's right if you are healthy and feel that you don't need to waste your money of health insurance, you get taxed for being healthy and not buying health insurance. How stupid is that?

Why doesn't the Government just mandate individual health and tax the losers who are obese and unhealthy? Because liberals are too fucking stupid to understand individual responsilities and think other people have to take care of the imbeciles who cannot take care of themselves.

Ya see the reason why health-care is so expensive in the US is because as a country we are very unhealthy-> very, very unhealthy. And the only way to change that is to mandate individual health.

Making people pay thousands of dollars for something they may never use is not only stupid but it takes millions of dollars out of our pockets that would be better spent for other things- like a healthy diet and excercise equipment.

For a President that is allegedly "smart" this plan is just ignorant...

"Semiotic theory of ID" and totally clueless evoTARDs

-
835 comments, and counting and still no evidence from the evoTARD minions to refute the argument. Well, to be honest, there isn't any evidence that evoTARDs know what evidence is!

The funniest part about that thread is that Upright Biped is using evoTARD tactics against them and you can tell they do not appreciate it.

why the ST is evidence for ID

Natural Selection- Deterministic or Stochastic?

-
Jerry Coyne sez that natural selection is deterministic and non-random. However a simple reading of the definitions says natural selection is stochastic:

Deterministic:

Deterministic model
Definition
noun

A mathematical representation in which every variable alters according to a mathematical formula, and not to random fluctuations.

Supplement

It is one in which every set of variable states is uniquely determined by parameters in the model and by sets of previous states of these variables. Therefore, deterministic models perform the same way for a given set of initial conditions.

For instance a deterministic model can be applied to describe the predator-prey systems wherein the prey shows an age-specific vulnerability to predation.

Stochastic:

detereministic: Referring to events that have no random or probabilistic aspects but proceed in a fixed predictable fashion.

Stochastic (from the Greek στόχος for aim or guess) is an adjective that refers to systems whose behavior is intrinsically non-deterministic, sporadic and categorically not intermittent. A stochastic process is one whose behavior is non-deterministic, in that a system's subsequent state is determined both by the process's predictable actions and by a random element. However, according to M. Kac[1] and E. Nelson,[2] any kind of time development (be it deterministic or essentially probabilistic) which is analyzable in terms of probability deserves the name of stochastic process.

As for natural selection:

“Natural selection is the result of differences in survival and reproduction among individuals of a population that vary in one or more heritable traits.” Page 11 “Biology: Concepts and Applications” Starr fifth edition

“Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity—it is mindless and mechanistic.” UBerkley

“Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view.” Dawkins in “The Blind Watchmaker”?

“Natural selection is therefore a result of three processes, as first described by Darwin:

Variation

Inheritance

Fecundity

which together result in non-random, unequal survival and reproduction of individuals, which results in changes in the phenotypes present in populations of organisms over time.”- Allen McNeill prof. introductory biology and evolution at Cornell University

OK so it is a result of three processes- ie an output.

What drives the output? The inputs.

The variation is said to be random, ie genetic accidents/ mistakes.

With sexually reproducing organisms it is still a crap-shoot as to what gets inherited. For example if a male gets a beneficial variation to his Y chromosome but sires all daughters, that beneficial variation gets lost no matter how many offspring he has.

Fecundity/ differential reproduction- Don't know until it happens.

Can't tell what variation will occur. Can't tell if any of the offspring will inherit even the most beneficial variation and the only way to determine differential reproduction is follow the individuals for their entire reproducing age.

Then there can be competing "beneficial" variations.

In the end it all boils down to whatever survives to reproduce, survives to reproduce.

But anyway- all of the variables of natural selection are either entirely stochastic (variation) or have a stochastic element. Therefor, by definition, natural selection is stochastic. Or at the very least natural selection cannot be deterministic.

Sorry Jerry, you lose... (again)

Natural Selection is Deterministic?

-
Q- In what way is natural selection deterministic?

A- Whatever survives to reproduce determines what the next generation will be

Q- What survives to reproduce?

A- Whatever is good enough and/ or lucky enough to do so

Q- What about the fittest?

A- The fittest, wrt biology, are the individuals who leave behind the most offspring, you know those surviving reproducers

Q- So where does determinism come in?

A- Whatever surivives to reproduce is determined by a number of factors

Q- That's it?

A- Apparently

Q- And this is what gave rise to the diversity of life?

A- Yup, it's settled science

Q- What is "settled science"?

A- It's when "mainstream" scientists don't know what the fuck is going on and they are pretty sure no one ever will, so they make something up

Jerry Coyne- Still Spewing Lies

-
But I bet he belives his bullshit-

Jerry sez:

Here are what I see as foundational principles of evolution:

■ Evolution (genetic change in populations) occurred

■ Life originated about 3.5 billion years ago and the original lineage and its descendants split many times, leading to the millions of species alive on Earth today and the many more who have gone extinct

■ (The flip side of the above point): those millions of species have common ancestors, so that any pair of species, no matter what they are, had a common ancestor at some time in the past.

■ Evolutionary change involves the gradual (that is, over tens to millions of years) transformation of populations; it is not instantaneous nor do individuals themselves evolve

■ The appearance of design in nature is the result of natural selection

Umm, Jerry, there still isn't any evidence that natural selection can produce the appearance of design, you are lying, again, as usual.

Also there still isn't any evidence that a prokaryote can "evolve" into something other than a prokaryote- so that would be a problem for your cliam.

Throwing time around is not scientific and if that is all you have, (and it is) then you have nothing.

BTW Jerry, HOW living organisms arose directly impacts HOW they evolved. If the "how" of origins = design, then the subsequent evolution was also by design.

Jerry Coyne, liar for evolutionism....

Elizabeth Liddle- Just Another EvoTARD Equivocator

-
I don't know if evoTARDs are plain ignorant, stupid or just dishonest- they seem to think that everything with the word "evolution" means the blind watchmaker didit.

Earth to evoTARDs-> Intelligent Design is NOT anti-evolution, only dishonest morons think that it is. Heck even YEC accepts that allele frequencies change over time, ie evolution occurs.

What's the point? Well Lizzie Liddle sez:

And, for that matter, does that mean that if we could generate a code from no-code by means of evolutionary processes, he would concede?

No, dumbass. Equivocation never demonstrated anything beyond the ignorance of the equivcator. In this case that would be your ignorance, Liz.

That said, if you could demonstrate that the genetic code can arsie without agency involvement, then yes you would have refuted the argument that the genetic code requires a designer.

However you can't because you don't even know where to start- Allan Miller's scenario exists in his imagination only and is irrelevant to science.

Lizzie also sez:

So I am at a loss to know what your argument for ID actually is.

Just about the entire planet is at a loss to know what your argument for your position actyually is. You have a blog but apparently you are too much of a chicken-shit to use it to support your position.

KeithS- Another Clueless EvoTARD

-
KeithS is just another stupid eboTARD. This time he is exposing his hypocrisy:

If you’d like us to take your argument seriously, you’re going to have to show us that it can withstand critical scrutiny. So far, you haven’t done so.

Hey dumbass, YOUR position's claims cannot withstand scrutiny. Perhaps that is why the majority of Americans do not take it seriously.

Obvioulsy the semiotic argument for ID withstands scrutiny because you cannot step up and demonstrate that stochastic processes can produce the genetic code, nor genetics nor anything worth talking about.

Ypou ask Upright Biped to answer Reciprocating Bill's and Lizzie's questions- well RB is an imbecile who hasn't even demonstrated an understanding of what UB is saying and Lizzie is just clueless.

Jerry the Liar Coyne and his Mental Midgets- all Drooling Spewage and No Evidence

-
Yup, go figure. Jerry the liar Coyne opens a thread for me and yet he doesn't let me post and no one there offers anything that refutes what I said. Sure I can read many ignorant-filled comments and plenty of lies, but not one piece of evidence.

Is Jerry the liar Coyne an ignorant fucking coward too?

It seems that Jerry is still playing with that little "toy" between his legs...

Mike Elzinga- EvoTARD with a Priceless EvoTARDgasm

-
From Wikipedia:

A code is a rule for converting a piece of information (for example, a letter, word, phrase, or gesture) into another form or representation (one sign into another sign), not necessarily of the same type.

Mike Elzinga- the famous spewer of water having a melting point- is now exposing his ignorance pertaining to codes:

What is the “code” for nucleosynthesis in stars and supernovae?

Can you write down the “code” for making a water molecule? How about benzene? How about urea? Amino acids?

What is the “code” for making a salt crystal? What is the “code” for making solid iron?

Where along the chain of complexity in condensed matter do “codes” take over from physics and chemistry?

This should not be a hard question; but we can’t seem to get an answer.

BWAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA-

Earth to Mike Elzinga, the finga sniffa, what the fuck is wrong with you? Why is a code required for nucleosynthesis in stars and supernovae?

With the genetic code you have one molecule representing a totally different molecule-> NOTE, dumbass, the DNA molecule does not make up nor become the other molecule (polypeptide) that it encodes- no physical connection.

Hydrogen and oxgen BECOME H20-> a physical connection. With nucleosynthesis in stars and supernovae one type of atom becomes another type of atom- there is a physical connection.

Yes, EvoTARDs, The Genetic Code is a Code

-
From Wikipedia:

A code is a rule for converting a piece of information (for example, a letter, word, phrase, or gesture) into another form or representation (one sign into another sign), not necessarily of the same type.

So with the genetic code we have DNA, specific codons of DNA, that then get transcibed into mRNA, which then get processed and translated into the unrelated polypeptide. So you have one type of molecule representing another different type of molecule.

The DNA is NOT the code- the code is the rule for converting the DNA into a polypeptide. Two totally unrelated molecules- meaning one does not make up the other. (Mike Elzinga and Flint are too stupid to grasp that point- oh well)

How is this evidence for ID? Codes require knowledge to implement and carry out. And mother nature just isn't up to the task

However if some, some day before I die, comes along and demonstrates that such a code can arise via chemistry and physics alone, I will change my mind.

Jerry Coyne Spawns a New Word

-
Coyneurysm-

a localized, pathological, bloviation-filled oratory spewage caused by the extreme fear of the design inference. Can be contagious amongst the weak-minded, ie evoTARDs.


This is not to be confused with an evoTARDgasm which is a localized, pathological, bloviation-filled oratory spewage caused by extreme ignorance.

Kevin ReTard McCarthy, aka Ogre MK V- Still Squawking Like a Little Lying Bitch

-
Recently Kevin Retard McCarthy posted this bit of tripe:

JoeG has more comments on my blog than every other commenter combined. There are some great quotes attributed to JoeG. I think the best was the discussion in which I asked him to explain his version of thermodynamics by asking what would happen to the energy level in a closed system as one mol of H2O disassociated into H and O, then back into water. His response began an epic multipage discussion about how a “mol” is not “one molecule” of water. I even admitted that it was a trick question when I asked it (because in a closed system it can’t happen. Yet, he thought the ‘trick’ was that one molecule of water couldn’t change state. We had many laughs at that one.

Of course, JoeG also thinks that hail is not made of water and that finding out about your family and casually mentioning them in a comment is equal to a valid discussion.

1- Hail is made up of ice and dust, not water. Rain is made up of water and dust. There is a difference between water and ice. Even first graders understand that. So what is KevTARD's issue?

2- Kevin did not know that "upper and lower" meant ELEVATION

3- Kevin does not understand that there is a difference between evolution the thing and the theory of evolution which attempts to explain that thing

4- Given that there is no way I could assume that Kevin knew that a "mole" was a unit of measure

5- Kevin's "closed system" was never properly defined. I even told him that and yet he prattles on anyway. No, Kevin, you never said that your mole of water was the only thing in your closed system. Obvioulsy you are an illiterate fuck

6- Yes I posted on KevTARD's blog- someone had to try to correct all the mistakes he makes and he makes plenty.

7- No I never said nor implied that one molecule of H2O cannot change states. I said that if you have only one molecule of H2O you cannot tell if it is water, ice or steam.

Excuse me ENV, That Ain't No Table Jerry Coyne is Pounding

-
Evolution News and Views has an article From Jerry Coyne, More Table-Pounding, Hand-Waving but Jerry isn't pounding the table, well maybe unintentionally from the bottom. And the hand that is waving is so you don't notice what the other hand is pounding. Just make sure that if you shake his hand, shake the hand he was waving, unless he switches mid-stroke. Then just slowly walk away and make sure he doesn't come around and pat you on the back when you are leaving.

Jerry the Liar Coyne Wants to Know About Voles

-
Dr Denton tells us that although genes may influence every aspect of development they do not determine it.

Dr Sermonti tells us that we do not know what makes a cat a cat other than the successful mating of a tom with a she cat.

Rodent's bizarre traits deepen mystery of genetics, evolution:

The study focuses on 60 species within the vole genus Microtus, which has evolved in the last 500,000 to 2 million years. This means voles are evolving 60-100 times faster than the average vertebrate in terms of creating different species. Within the genus (the level of taxonomic classification above species), the number of chromosomes in voles ranges from 17-64. DeWoody said that this is an unusual finding, since species within a single genus often have the same chromosome number.

Among the vole's other bizarre genetic traits:

•In one species, the X chromosome, one of the two sex-determining chromosomes (the other being the Y), contains about 20 percent of the entire genome. Sex chromosomes normally contain much less genetic information.

•In another species, females possess large portions of the Y (male) chromosome.

•In yet another species, males and females have different chromosome numbers, which is uncommon in animals.

A final "counterintuitive oddity" is that despite genetic variation, all voles look alike, said DeWoody's former graduate student and study co-author Deb Triant.

"All voles look very similar, and many species are completely indistinguishable," DeWoody said.

In one particular instance, DeWoody was unable to differentiate between two species even after close examination and analysis of their cranial structure; only genetic tests could reveal the difference.

Nevertheless, voles are perfectly adept at recognizing those of their own species.

Yup after all this “evolution” a vole is still a vole. This study alone should cast a huge shadow over evolutionism.

In “The Deniable Darwin” David Berlinski puts it this way:

SWIMMING IN the soundless sea, the shark has survived for millions of years, sleek as a knife blade and twice as dull. The shark is an organism wonderfully adapted to its environment. Pause. And then the bright brittle voice of logical folly intrudes: after all, it has survived for millions of years.

This exchange should be deeply embarrassing to evolutionary biologists. And yet, time and again, biologists do explain the survival of an organism by reference to its fitness and the fitness of an organism by reference to its survival, the friction between concepts kindling nothing more illuminating than the observation that some creatures have been around for a very long time. “Those individuals that have the most offspring,” writes Ernst Mayr, the distinguished zoologist, “are by definition . . . the fittest ones.” And in Evolution and the Myth of Creationism, Tim Berra states that “[f]itness in the Darwinian sense means reproductive fitness-leaving at least enough offspring to spread or sustain the species in nature.”

This is not a parody of evolutionary thinking; it is evolutionary thinking.Que sera, sera.

That's it Jerry, lesson over. ;)

Wow! Featured by Jerry the Liar Coyne!

-
Jerry the Liar Coyne has a blog about me but unfortunately he is too dishonest or stupid to stand up and actually refute what I said by supporting what he said.

YOU are the coward, Jerry and a liar too.

What is Pornography?

-
Once again RichTARD Hughes proves that he is an ignorant freak. Obvioulsy so is Elizabeth Liddle, but we will get to that.

So what is pornography?

Pictures, movies and writing about sex are sometimes called pornography (or porn). Pornography is a picture, movie or writing that is created to make people get sexually excited.

That said, I am sure that both RichTARD Hughes and Elizabeth Liddle find the picture in this post to be sexually exciting, ie it is pornography.

Well RichTARD and Elizabeth also find this to be sexually exciting too, although I personally find it a huge turn-off, ie not sexually exciting at all. As a matter of fact that picture is the opposite of porn, unless of course you are a sick fuck like Richie and Lizzie.

But then again RichTARD thinks that a URL defines what is and isn't porn- oops RichTARD doesn't think....

Jerry Coyne- Liar for Evolutionism

-
When all else fails just lie, right Jerry?

Jerry spews:

And, of course, there are all those transitional forms in the fossil record showing that, despite the IDiots’ objections, new genera, families, and even orders have arisen through natural selection. Here’s one such transformation—the evolution of whales from a terrestrial artiodactyl (even-toed ungulate) ancestor:

Hey dumbass liar- no one can say anything about what was involved just by looking at the fossils.

Jerry also spews his shit about cats and dogs- Jerry no one knows how long it will take, so shut up already.

And yes dogs differ morphologically but they are all the same species. Voles differ genetically but they still look the same.

Genetic engineering and artificial selection do not mean that nature could do it, so your plant examples are moot- also both ID and YEC accept speciation even with all its ambiguity.

Whales? No Jerry, not one geneticist nor developmental biologists knows if a fully terrestrial animal can evolve into a totally aquatic animal- no way to test it.

BTW Jerry YOUR motivation is NOT the honest pursuit of anything- YOU are nothing but a drool-spewing liar.

Is it because you are so fucking ugly that you reject ID and Creation? "No designer would have made me so fucking ugly therefore natural selection"

The "Skeptical" Zone- Just Another EvoTARD Wasteland

-
Congratulations to "Dr" Elizabeth Liddle for turning her incorrectly named blog into an evoTARD wasteland- a place where evoTARDs can gather to gossip and never have to worry about supporting anything they say.

Another prediction fulfilled...