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

Saturday, September 01, 2012

This Just In- "Roughly" = +/- 25 million

-
The TARD nevers ceases to amaze me. In order to defend tiktaalik as a correct prediction, not of any Darwinian mecahnsim mind you, RichTARD the coward Hughes is now redefing the word "roughly" to be able to cover a 50 million year spread.

Ya see Shubin said he was looking for the origin of limbed animals in rocks roughly 375-380 million years old. However he should have been looking at deposits roughly 400 million years old. Richie thinks that 400 million is covered by the adjective "roughly" before the 375-380 million remark.

That has got to be one of the most cowardly and ignorant "arguments" of all time.

Nice going ace...

posted by Joe G @ 9:48 PM  

32 Comments:

  • At 9:55 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe

    "The age of the universe is the time elapsed since the Big Bang. The best current estimate of the age of the universe is 13.75 ± 0.11 billion years"

    0.11 Billion >>>> 25 Million.

    Joe shots, blows off his own foot.

    Thanks. Now get back to licking KFs ass, Gimpy.

     

  • At 10:00 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTARD FAIL- they did NOT say the universe is roughly 13.75 with roughly being 0.11 billion years.

    You are really desperate and it shows.

     

  • At 10:09 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    No, that was there most accurate estimate, not their ROUGH one. would teh round estimate have bigger or smaller error bands than their most accurate?

    I know exactly who is desperate..

    you asserted your own definition of "roughly" with no support. It gets boring whupping you, its to easy. Sucking off KF has made you soft.

     

  • At 10:13 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Richie you cowardly and ignorant little fuck- your reference has NOTHING to do with the OP. It has nothing to do with +/- 0.11 billion equaling "roughly".

    Why did you post it? How is it supposed to refute anything I said?

    And as I said if Shubin can just arbitrarily change his date by more than 25 million years it just demonstrates the arbitrary nature of your side's "science".

     

  • At 10:16 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    hey - you're the one asserting out of your ass that roughly can't be +/-25 million (>3% in this case) - and yet we have a best estimate +/- 110 million. Whoopsy! Retard Joe makes shit up, gets easily refuted, tries to backpeddle, looks like a tool on his own blog (again).

     

  • At 10:19 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Richie- your reference has NOTHING to do with the word "roughly". They don't use it, they don't reference it. that their best guess requires such a big spread just proves my point. No one knows and they are guessing which requires a large target.


    You are one deperate asshole and it shows.

     

  • At 10:19 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/astronomy/solarsystem/where.shtml

    " The Milky Way Galaxy contains roughly 200 billion stars."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way

    "The Milky Way is a barred spiral galaxy 100,000–120,000 light-years in diameter containing 200–400 billion stars."

    Whoopsy Joe!

     

  • At 10:22 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Actually, as a percentage its quite a small margin of error, something you're not bright enough to understand.

     

  • At 10:22 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Richie- you are really desperate now. You need the ONE source to say roughly = 200 billion.

    You are one dense fuck

     

  • At 10:23 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Yeah Richie, I know the ignorant spiel about the %. You make the target number so large that your margin of error is huge but looks small.

    Got it. And that tactic only fools fools, like you.

     

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

    what do you think is a reasonable number for "roughly", Joe?

     

  • At 8:49 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Almost exact < 1%

     

  • At 7:37 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    See Joe flail, now that's he on the hook.

    Joe originally:

    " ....redefining the word "roughly" to be able to cover a 50 million year spread.

    ....That has got to be one of the most cowardly and ignorant "arguments" of all time.
    "

    You originally took umbrage to an absolute number, but having painted yourself into a corner changed to a percentage, which you've arbitrarily picked as <1%.

    Joe before:


    "Roughly never means +/- 25 million you ignorant fuck"

    and yet by by the new >1% measure, many things are roughly +/- 25 million. I guess you, by your own measure consider yourself an ignorant fuck. And you are, but for other, obvious reasons...

     

  • At 8:43 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    See Rich suck because that is all he does.

    I said < 1%, LESS THAN.

    As I said you are one desperate faggot

     

  • At 8:46 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTARD:
    You originally took umbrage to an absolute number

    No. YOU tried to change what SHUBIN said to include a 50 million year margin of error, which may not even be enough.

     

  • At 8:48 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    typo.

    and yet by by the new <1% measure, many things are roughly +/- 25 million. I guess you, by your own measure consider yourself an ignorant fuck. And you are, but for other, obvious reasons...

    Joe defeats himself (using his own arbitrary metric) - no-one is suprised. Joe consdiers himself an ignorant fuck.

     

  • At 8:51 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Joe now:

    "You originally took umbrage to an absolute number

    No. YOU tried to change what SHUBIN said to include a 50 million year margin of error, which may not even be enough"

    Joe before:

    "Roughly never means +/- 25 million you ignorant fuck"

    TARDFIGHT! Joe vs Joe.

    can +/-25 million be less than 1% error for some things?

     

  • At 9:10 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    0% is less than 1%, dumbass. .1% is less than 1%.

    Ya see it all depends on what you are trying to estimate. And if your fudge factor is 25 million years then you has better be trying to roughly estimate more years than this universe has. IOW once again you would have to pull something out of your ass.

    But you, being an expert at having your fudge packed, so you may like that

     

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

    "And if your fudge factor is 25 million years then you has better be trying to roughly estimate more years than this universe has"

    I'm sorry, it's hard to parse this broken English. Is it your contention that the universe is less than 25 million years old?

     

  • At 9:40 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Yes, you are sorry. That is most of the problem.

    Is it your contention that the universe is less than 25 million years old?

    Nope, it is my contention that in order to use 25 million years as a fudge factor you need to be measuring something older than this universe allegedly is- by a few more zeros.

    But as I said you must be getting your fusge packed now...

     

  • At 9:44 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    So how old is the universe?

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/roughly

    "...2

    : without completeness or exactness : approximately "

     

  • At 9:50 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    No one knows how old the earth is. That is because no one knows how it formed and how it formed directly impacts not only its age but how we can determine its age.

    And if your position is right and this is all just an accident then it stands to reason that we cannot know the age of the universe because we are just accidents to.

     

  • At 9:53 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    What utter YEC Gibberish.

    "No one knows how old the earth is. That is because no one knows how it formed and how it formed directly impacts not only its age but how we can determine its age"

    You don't know much, do you? You should stop trying to fuck around with science. It's clearly beyond you. Daft YEC twat,

     

  • At 9:56 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Nice cowardly response, as usual.

    I know more than you ever will richie. That much is obvious. All YOU can do is blindly follow who you think is the leader.

    That is because you are a coward who never had an original thought.

     

  • At 9:58 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    To Richie a YEC is anyone who understands science and can actually make a positive case.

    That is why Richie will NEVER be a YEC...

     

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

    "All YOU can do is blindly follow who you think is the leader."

    LOL@BIBLEBOI

     

  • At 10:42 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Umm I don't follow the Bible you ignorant faggot.

    I don't even own one. My daughter only knows about religion in a general sense.

    IOW you are more ignorant than I thought anyone could be.

    Congratulations gay boi

     

  • At 10:54 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Okay Fatty Joe! We caught your fat ass pic on a creationist website. and being "John Paul" dipshit fundy at large.

     

  • At 11:07 PM, Blogger OgreMkV said…

    Hey Joe, according to your YEC beliefs, the Earth is 6000-10,000 years old.

    That's a margin of error of almost 50%.

    No need to thank me.

     

  • At 8:17 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hey Kevin, I don't have any YEC beliefs you ignorant little faggot.

    Try again asshole...

     

  • At 8:23 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OK faggot Richie, My picture on a website does not mean I am a YEC, even if that picture is on a YEC website.

    As I keep saying you are an imbecile and your posts prove that on a daily basis.

    But thanks for continuing to prove that you are one of te most ignorant people, ever.

     

  • At 9:59 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    To Richie and Kevin a YEC is anyone who understands science and can actually make a positive case.

    That is why neither Richie nor Kevin will NEVER be a YEC...

     

Post a Comment

<< Home