Science, Quantification and Evolutionism
-
Yup those dang evoTARDs are at it again. Neil Rickert has a post on the septic zome Science and Quantification in which he moans about CSI.
Earth to Neil- your position, evolutionism, cannot be quantified. There isn't anything that is defined precisely enough to allow for forming a testable hypothesis.
Why is it that you morons don't discuss that? Never mind, the answer is there-> you are morons.
As predicted RichTARD sez something about "Darwins" (the unit)- OK Richie- how many Darwins does it take to get an upright biped from a knuckle-walker or quadraped? The point is Richie doesn't have a clue- no one does- Haldanes and Darwins are useless when discussing such alleged evolutionary transformations.
He also links to this- http://phys.org/news181467990.html- but that doesn't have anything to do with measuring the differnce between two members of the same clade.
Totally clueless, cowardly equivocators...
I blogged about the darwin over two years ago:
Evolutionary Unit of Measure- the Darwin
Evolutionists love to nag IDists about the alleged lack of rigor pertaining to ID's measuring sticks- specifically complex specified information and irreducible complexity.
So when I recently asked about measuring evolution, Dave the Thought Provoker dredged up the Darwin:
Rate of evolution
Haldane's paper in which he coined the term.
Unfortunately the differences in the traits that can be measured in this manner can be accounted for by epigenetic factors.
But anyway we also have "the haldane", Philip Gingerich talks about both - Research on Rates of Evolution
One problem is neither deal with genetics, as in how many mutations does it take.
Does anyone think these units of measure are of any use?
If so please explain.
And ANOTHER prediction fulfilled RichTARD the coward spews another false accusation- why is it that cowards just blurt shit without ever supporting it? You are a pathetic little imp Richie
Yup those dang evoTARDs are at it again. Neil Rickert has a post on the septic zome Science and Quantification in which he moans about CSI.
Earth to Neil- your position, evolutionism, cannot be quantified. There isn't anything that is defined precisely enough to allow for forming a testable hypothesis.
Why is it that you morons don't discuss that? Never mind, the answer is there-> you are morons.
As predicted RichTARD sez something about "Darwins" (the unit)- OK Richie- how many Darwins does it take to get an upright biped from a knuckle-walker or quadraped? The point is Richie doesn't have a clue- no one does- Haldanes and Darwins are useless when discussing such alleged evolutionary transformations.
He also links to this- http://phys.org/news181467990.html- but that doesn't have anything to do with measuring the differnce between two members of the same clade.
Totally clueless, cowardly equivocators...
I blogged about the darwin over two years ago:
Evolutionary Unit of Measure- the Darwin
Evolutionists love to nag IDists about the alleged lack of rigor pertaining to ID's measuring sticks- specifically complex specified information and irreducible complexity.
So when I recently asked about measuring evolution, Dave the Thought Provoker dredged up the Darwin:
One Darwin is defined to be an e-fold (about 2.718) change in a trait over one million years.
Rate of evolution
Haldane's paper in which he coined the term.
Unfortunately the differences in the traits that can be measured in this manner can be accounted for by epigenetic factors.
But anyway we also have "the haldane", Philip Gingerich talks about both - Research on Rates of Evolution
One problem is neither deal with genetics, as in how many mutations does it take.
Does anyone think these units of measure are of any use?
If so please explain.
And ANOTHER prediction fulfilled RichTARD the coward spews another false accusation- why is it that cowards just blurt shit without ever supporting it? You are a pathetic little imp Richie
posted by Joe G @ 9:56 AM
6 Comments:
At 9:38 AM,
Anonymous said…
Is everyone a tard to you? Maybe you should intelligently responded to evolutionary sciences without making others feel lower. Not to mention, it makes you look very insensitive.
At 9:45 AM,
Joe G said…
Is everyone a tard to you?
No and tard is as a tard does.
Maybe you should intelligently responded to evolutionary sciences without making others feel lower.
Maybe evolutionary sciences are total BS and don't require an intelligent response.
As Hitchens said:
"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
As for being insensitive- far from it. I am very sensitive to the nonsense spewed by evolutionists. It bothers me that they pass off BS as science. It should bother everyone.
So I will expose the evoTARD whenever I come across it.
But thanks for stopping by.
At 7:08 PM,
N/A said…
Calling someone a retard because they accept the proof as fact is entirely insensitive. Why is evolution BS, huh? Do you just don't accept it because you don't even know what you're talking about?
Evolution is proven fact.
At 8:48 PM,
Joe G said…
I accept evolution, as in allele frquencies change over time. What I don't accept, because not only it lacks evidence but it also seems to lack a method of testing, is the premise that all of life's diversity owes its collective common ancestry to some unknown populations of prokaryotic-like orgamisms via accumulations of random mutations.
Perhaps you should eductae yourslef as to what is being debated.
At 7:11 PM,
Anonymous said…
What don't you get about it? Any unbiased person knows that evolution is as much as a fact as gravity.
"Eductae"?
At 7:50 PM,
Joe G said…
Yes, your equivocation is duly noted.
Post a Comment
<< Home