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

Tuesday, July 02, 2013

aiguy, a willfully ignorant crybaby and proud of it

-
Over on TSZ crybaby aiguy asks "What Does “Intelligence” Mean in ID Theory?"

LoL! It means exactly what I have been telling aiguy/ RDFish for years-> it means agency, ie one that can manipulate nature for its own or some purpsoe.

aiguy sez:

[Footnote: As an aside, ID proponents often change the subject when talking about computer intelligence. If I point out that computers can design things, they respond that the computer only can do this because it was itself designed by a real intelligent agent, a human being. In other words, rather than try to judge whether or not a computer that can design things is intelligent per se, ID proponents start talking about "Who designed the designer?" and about how this computer came to exist. I'm not sure why ID proponents don't realize that they believe human beings were also designed by a real intelligent agent, yet this doesn't disqualify us from being intelligent per se!]

What a total asshole! IDists have explained all of that ad nauseum. And yes we realize that we are also designed by a real agent.

Whatever a computer spits out can be traced back to the designer of the computer and program(s). Whatever we spit out can be traced back to our designer.

The rest of aiguy's diatribe just proves that he is totally ignorant of investigation techniques. Not only that he doesn't understand that saying someting was deigned by some agency is a total game changer.

And dipshit Neil Rickert chimes in:

My first reaction to the idea of ID was “of course biological organisms are intelligently designed; evolution is itself an intelligent design system.” 

LoL! Evolution didn't produce the first living organisms, moron. Evolution occurs AFTER living organisms are on the scene. And Neil's cowardly equivocation is also duly noted.

So intelligence just refers to some agency. Intelligence designed and built Stonehenge.

Q- What designed and built Stonehenge?
A- Intelligence!

Q- What do you mean by Intellgence?
A- Agency

Q- How can you tell when agencies act?
A- We find signs of counterflow and work

aiguy ignored that too because he is proud to be a willfully ignorant asshole.

posted by Joe G @ 9:29 AM  

37 Comments:

  • At 10:52 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    So funny to watch you bluffing on Humphreys’ models. thanks for the lols!

     

  • At 11:07 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So funny to read your false accusations and ignorant spewage.

     

  • At 11:16 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Its another case of :
    Smarter person challanges Joe
    Joe has a google
    Copypasta
    Joe gets asked for specifics
    Joe keeps as vague as possible so as not to get found out.


    So obvious, so shallow. You are king of the tards.

     

  • At 3:34 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So more false accusations and bald assertions.

    Got it.

     

  • At 5:49 PM, Blogger socle said…

    Joe,

    Your bro Granville is in distress. He's getting reamed so hard he's trying to derail his own thread. You gotta go over there and open up a can o' whoopass!

     

  • At 8:35 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    LoL! The only way he could be getting reamed is if materialists actually had the nads to ante up- ie produce positive evidence for their position.

    And that hasn't happened yet.

     

  • At 5:16 PM, Blogger Diogenes said…

    Security Clearance sez: "Whatever a computer spits out can be traced back to the designer of the computer and program(s). Whatever we spit out can be traced back to our designer."

    Our designer was evolution. But, if your hypothesis were correct, and our designer were God, then "Whatever we spit out can be traced back" to God, which means humans have never created CSI. If humans have have never created CSI, then you have evidence that intelligence creates CSI. Thus, CSI cannot be used to indicate an intelligent cause.

    The most you can say is that when humans design a plane or write a sonnet, they have "reshuffled" CSI from something else. That something else could be anything, but we don't create CSI, so you have no evidence intelligence creates CSI, so ID is dead.

    Thanks for killing it, Security Clearance.

     

  • At 5:22 PM, Blogger Diogenes said…

    Security Clearance says:

    "Q- What do you mean by Intellgence?
    A- Agency"

    What do you mean by agency? Don't bother defining it-- you'll only define it in terms of some other cultic bafflegab that only has a special meaning to your cultic fellows.

    In the 19th and early 20th century, many creationists believed in vitalism, the belief that biological actions could never be explained in terms of chemistry, and coined the term vital force or elan vital as the cause of any biological function that couldn't be explained by chemistry. Any biochemical experiment whose result couldn't be explained by 19th century chemistry was said to be "explained" by "vital force."

    THAT IS NOT AN EXPLANATION. You have merely given a name to what you're too dumb to understand.

    Huxley (ya that Huxley) laughed at the stupidity of creationists, and said that their "vitalism" was analogous to coining a word "aquosity" and then saying that all unexplainable behaviors of water were caused by its "aquosity."

    "Q- What do you mean by Intellgence?
    A- Agency"

    THAT IS NOT AN EXPLANATION. You have merely given a name to what you're too dumb to understand.

     

  • At 11:00 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    equivical cowrd sez:
    Our designer was evolution.

    Blind watchmaker evolution can't design anything.

    But, if your hypothesis were correct, and our designer were God,

    That ain't my hypothesis.

    then "Whatever we spit out can be traced back" to God, which means humans have never created CSI.

    Well humans, not the designer, nor God, created computers and computer programs.

    So humans are at least capable of manipulating nature and all of its given CSI to create artifacts.

    If humans have have never created CSI, then you have evidence that intelligence creates CSI.

    Humans have produced CSI and many objects that contain it.

    The most you can say is that when humans design a plane or write a sonnet, they have "reshuffled" CSI from something else.

    That alone is enough to demonstrate agency involvement as only agency is able to do that.

    That something else could be anything,

    Not really. Nature, operating freely cannot give rise to nature, operating freely. So materialism and naturalism are non-starters.

    "Information is information, neither matter nor energy." NW- so materialism is again a non-starter.

    So we are stuck with every time we have observed CSI and knew the cause it has always been via agency involvement.

    Deal with that, equivocating coward.

     

  • At 11:06 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    ignorant coward axes:
    What do you mean by agency?

    That which can manipulate nature for its own purpose. Buy a dictionary, dipshit.

    Geez anyone with an IQ over 50 knows that saying an agency was involved says quite a bit. Archaeologists say it when they determine something is an artifact. Forensic scientists say it when they determine a crime was committed.

    BTW, here it is, the 21st century, and biology still cannot be explained in terms of physics and chemistry.

    Huxley was a moron who couldn't explain anything. And morons like you quote him because you are too ignorant to know any better.

     

  • At 11:48 PM, Blogger Diogenes said…

    No.You're lying. No dictionary defines agency that way. You lied.

    You lied about archaeology and forensics. No archaeologist or forensic scientist ever says that "agency" is an explanation. My cousin is a forensic scientist and none of them gibber about "agency" and they'd be fired if they tried. You lied.

    You lied about the definition of agency. From dictionary. com:

    "1. an organization, company, or bureau that provides some service for another: a welfare agency.
    2. a company having a franchise to represent another.
    3. a governmental bureau, or an office that represents it.
    4. the place of business of an agent
    5. Indian agency
    6. an administrative division of a government.
    7. the duty or function of an agent
    8. the relationship between a principal and his or her agent
    9. the state of being in action or of exerting power; operation: the agency of Providence.
    10. a means of exerting power or influence; instrumentality"

    No mention of purpose. You lied.

     

  • At 9:37 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You lied about archaeology and forensics. No archaeologist or forensic scientist ever says that "agency" is an explanation.

    So artifacts are not from an agency? Artifact means there was an artist. And an artist is an agency.

    My cousin is a forensic scientist and none of them gibber about "agency" and they'd be fired if they tried.

    So crimes are not committed by some agency?

    Are you retarded?

     

  • At 9:47 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And dio is correct- I defined "intelligence" and sed it was "agency".

     

  • At 9:17 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Poor Joe. All the grown ups are ignoring him at UD. Everyone finds him a tiresome idiot these days . He's fun to laugh at, though.

     

  • At 9:39 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Little dumbass Richie. Too stupid to engage in discussions about science and too stupid to realize that the only people ignoring me on UD are the willfully ignorant evoTARDS- ie Lizzie liddle, Alan Fox, and keiths.

    Little retard Richie- relegated to cheerleading and cowardice.

     

  • At 2:14 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    I'd be interested if you could be more specific about the agency behind the human genome since, as you say, intelligent design implies agency.

    Also, where are the signs of work and counterflow?

     

  • At 11:39 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I'd be interested if you could be more specific about the agency behind the human genome since, as you say, intelligent design implies agency.

    Can't help you.

    Also, where are the signs of work and counterflow?

    All over the place- living organisms, all the factors required for humans, the laws that govern our universe, etc.

     

  • At 5:53 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    " ;I'd be interested if you could be more specific about the agency behind the human genome since, as you say, intelligent design implies agency.'

    Can't help you."

    Does that mean you can't or won't be more specific? You've stated that intelligence implies an agent. So . . . what is the agent behind intelligent design?

    " 'Also, where are the signs of work and counterflow?'

    All over the place- living organisms, all the factors required for humans, the laws that govern our universe, etc."

    Okay. But where are the laboratories, the waste products, the power supplies, the design specifications? These are typical detritus of work and counterflow. Surely there should be evidence of these.

     

  • At 3:31 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    " 'I'd be interested if you could be more specific about the agency behind the human genome since, as you say, intelligent design implies agency.'

    Can't help you."

    And why is that? You're clearly assuming a certain level of expertise and design capacity for a start. You're assuming some kind of purpose behind the design. You are making assumptions about the intelligent designer and you should be able to acknowledge those assumptions at least.

    "Also, where are the signs of work and counterflow?"

    All over the place- living organisms, all the factors required for humans, the laws that govern our universe, etc.

    Ummm . . . it seems like those things are the output of the work NOT the counterflow. Where are the workshops, the infrastructure required, the power sources? If the designer was something like a human then there would have to be a lot of equipment around. Do we know that the laws that govern the universe are changeable even?

    I think you are hypothesising a lot about your intelligent designer purely based on what s/he/it is supposed to have accomplished and based on what s/he/it did/didn't leave behind. But you won't own up to those assumptions. Instead you say you can only study the designed object itself for clues. But if you are assuming design then you are also assuming designer characteristics.

    And no matter how much you'd like to think the design hypothesis has been proven it hasn't. You like to believe it has because people you agree with has asserted it has.

    Even Dr Dembski has not given several clear demonstrations of how to calculate P(T|H) in his 2005 paper. Can you show how to calculate that for a particular example?

     

  • At 1:11 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    But where are the laboratories, the waste products, the power supplies, the design specifications?

    And where are all those for Stonehenge?

     

  • At 1:16 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I assume that the designer is capable of designing the things designed.

    And counterflow is in the output.

    Also if your sad position had something, anything, then we wouldn't even be discussing Intelligent Design.

    As for calculating probabilities, please read "Probability's Nature and Nature's Probability"- there's nothing to calculate as no one from your side can provide any numbers. IOW you chumps can't even demonstrate a feasibility.

     

  • At 1:54 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "And where are all those for Stonehenge?"

    They've found tools used by the people who built Stonehenge and the hundreds of other stone circles. The people and their methods are not as mysterious as you want to believe. You should try and keep up with real archaeology.

    "I assume that the designer is capable of designing the things designed."

    Which means you are limiting the designer's abilities based on what you think s/he/it designed. Because things could have been done differently. Your designer is a tinkerer who took billions of years to 'get it right'.

    "And counterflow is in the output."

    Actually, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines counterflow as "the flow of a fluid in opposite directions (as in an apparatus)". So I guess you just made up your usage.

    "As for calculating probabilities, please read "Probability's Nature and Nature's Probability"- there's nothing to calculate as no one from your side can provide any numbers. IOW you chumps can't even demonstrate a feasibility."

    Why do you always avoid answering questions and challenges to your position? It's like you only know how to attack ant not defend. Kind of like the soldiers first into battle, sometimes known as cannon fodder.

    Show me how to calculate P(T|H) or be a man and admit you can't do it. Why did Dr Dembski include it in his work if he didn't think it was important?

     

  • At 9:49 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    They've found tools used by the people who built Stonehenge and the hundreds of other stone circles.

    That is NOT laboratories, the waste products, the power supplies, the design specifications- try again or admit taht you are a goal-post moving coward.

    Also please tell me which tools found were used in cutting and transporting the stones. And BTW, the other stone circles do not resemble Stonehenge. Not only that their existence does not mean they were designed and built by agencies. How was that determined?

    Which means you are limiting the designer's abilities based on what you think s/he/it designed.

    So what?

    Because things could have been done differently.

    Prove it.

    Your designer is a tinkerer who took billions of years to 'get it right'.


    Prove it.

    It appears that you are just an asshole strawman creator.

    Actually, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines counterflow as "the flow of a fluid in opposite directions (as in an apparatus)". So I guess you just made up your usage.

    LoL! As if your ignorance means something. Please read "Nature, Design and Science" to educate yourself.

    As for calculating probabilities, please read "Probability's Nature and Nature's Probability"- there's nothing to calculate as no one from your side can provide any numbers. IOW you chumps can't even demonstrate a feasibility."

    Why do you always avoid answering questions and challenges to your position?

    Why do YOU think that your ignorance means something?

    Your question is answered. Just because you don't like the answer or are too ignorant to understand it, doesn't mean it wasn't given.

    It's like you only know how to attack ant not defend.

    Nice cowardly projection as that is all you do. Except you attack with ignorance.

    "As for calculating probabilities, please read "Probability's Nature and Nature's Probability"- there's nothing to calculate as no one from your side can provide any numbers. IOW you chumps can't even demonstrate a feasibility."

    Deal with that you ignorant ass. I think it is funny that you cannot produce any numbers. And it is even funnier that you think it is up to your opponents to do your job for you.

     

  • At 11:26 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    " 'They've found tools used by the people who built Stonehenge and the hundreds of other stone circles.'

    That is NOT laboratories, the waste products, the power supplies, the design specifications- try again or admit taht you are a goal-post moving coward."

    Gee, I don't think even stone age people needed laboratories. Waste products . . they've found chips from carving the stones. Power supplies . . . humans mostly, perhaps a pack animal or two. Since they didn't have a written language they didn't leave a design specification.

    "Also please tell me which tools found were used in cutting and transporting the stones. And BTW, the other stone circles do not resemble Stonehenge. Not only that their existence does not mean they were designed and built by agencies. How was that determined?"

    Clearly you've never really studied the stone circles of Great Britain. Did you know Stonehenge is not the largest? Do you know what the largest one is? Bone tools and hammers were used to split the stone. And they were moved by boat and by wooden log rollers. And ropes.

    " 'Because things could have been done differently.'

    Prove it."

    Well, it would depend on the technical skill of the designer wouldn't it? IF the designer is all powerful, all knowing then why couldn't s/he/it have just created all modern species from the get-go?

    " 'Your designer is a tinkerer who took billions of years to 'get it right'.'

    Prove it."

    Hmmm . . . how about layer after layer of dateable fossils? How about the hind legs of whales? How about the giraffe's laryngeal nerve? How about human males prostate gland? How about influenza? How about malaria? How about muscular dystrophy? How about polio? How about cancer? How about Alzheimer's disease? Yeah, that last one was clearly thought of by a kind and loving and wise designer. "I know," the designer said, "some of my people don't appreciate enough what they have and what I've done for them. So . . . I'm going to invent this condition wherein some of them slowly lose their memories. It will be hideously painful for their relatives, some of whom are good faithful people. But hey, a little suffering never hurt anyone."

    "LoL! As if your ignorance means something. Please read "Nature, Design and Science" to educate yourself."

    Will that explain how to calculate P(T|H)? I kind of doubt it 'cause no one has been able to that I know of.

    "As for calculating probabilities, please read "Probability's Nature and Nature's Probability"- there's nothing to calculate as no one from your side can provide any numbers. IOW you chumps can't even demonstrate a feasibility."

    Will that explain how to calculate P(T|H)?

    "Why do YOU think that your ignorance means something?"

    I'm not ignorant; I'm just checking to see how you answer some important questions. Mostly you don't which doesn't help your cause.

    "Your question is answered. Just because you don't like the answer or are too ignorant to understand it, doesn't mean it wasn't given."

    Really? Someone can show me an example where P(T|H) in Dr Dembski formula is calculated? Where is that?

     

  • At 11:27 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "Nice cowardly projection as that is all you do. Except you attack with ignorance."

    I know how to calculate P(T|H). The question is: do you? And if you don't then Dr Dembski's paper must be just so much goobledy-gook to you.

    "As for calculating probabilities, please read "Probability's Nature and Nature's Probability"- there's nothing to calculate as no one from your side can provide any numbers. IOW you chumps can't even demonstrate a feasibility."

    If you don't really understand probability, and it seems like you don't, then much of that book must be like reading ancient greek to you.

    "Deal with that you ignorant ass. I think it is funny that you cannot produce any numbers. And it is even funnier that you think it is up to your opponents to do your job for you."

    Oh gosh no. But I expect people who take Dr Dembski's ideas seriously to be able to understand them, explain them and use them. This isn't about me even though you will try and deflect the conversation to avoid admitting you can't calculate P(T|H). Truth be told, you PERSONALLY can't produce any numbers. JoeMaths fails.

     

  • At 11:33 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    So one of the books you reference defines counterflow as "things running contrary to what, in the relative sense, would (or might) have resulted or occurred had nature operated freely."

    It that the definition you had in mind? 'Cause I think evolution is an example of nature operating freely.

     

  • At 12:25 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    'Cause I think evolution is an example of nature operating freely.

    Good for you. Unfortunately there isn't anything we observe wrt evolution that we can use to extrapolate universal common descent. There isn't any microevolutionary events that we can extrapolate into new body plans requiring new body parts, ie macroevolution.

     

  • At 12:27 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I know how to calculate P(T|H).

    I doubt it. Show me how you do it wrt any bacterial flagellum.

    If you don't really understand probability, and it seems like you don't, then much of that book must be like reading ancient greek to you.

    You don't seem to understand anything. And you definitely cannot provide any numbers as your position is devoid of any details and has nothing to do with any math.

     

  • At 12:35 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Gee, I don't think even stone age people needed laboratories.

    How do you know?

    Since they didn't have a written language they didn't leave a design specification.

    Engineering without a written language? That's just stupid.

    Clearly you've never really studied the stone circles of Great Britain. Did you know Stonehenge is not the largest? Do you know what the largest one is? Bone tools and hammers were used to split the stone. And they were moved by boat and by wooden log rollers. And ropes.

    That is the speculation. Has anyone else done it to see?

    Well, it would depend on the technical skill of the designer wouldn't it? IF the designer is all powerful, all knowing then why couldn't s/he/it have just created all modern species from the get-go?

    So you have no idea if it could have been done differently. In fact you have no idea how it was done.

    Hmmm . . . how about layer after layer of dateable fossils?

    So what?

    How about the hind legs of whales?

    LoL! You only think they are legs. They could be remnants of hind flippers.

    How about the giraffe's laryngeal nerve? How about human males prostate gland? How about influenza? How about malaria? How about muscular dystrophy? How about polio? How about cancer? How about Alzheimer's disease?

    What about them? How could we learn in a perfect world? What would be the purpose of our existence?

    BTW that nerve is explainable to anyone who understands how nerves work.

     

  • At 12:37 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    But I expect people who take Dr Dembski's ideas seriously to be able to understand them, explain them and use them. This isn't about me even though you will try and deflect the conversation to avoid admitting you can't calculate P(T|H). Truth be told, you PERSONALLY can't produce any numbers.

    NO ONE CAN PRODUCE ANY NUMBERS YOU IGNORANT ASS. Tat is because your position doesn't even deserve a seat at the probability discussion table. Dr Johnson goes over that in the book you refuse to read- "Probability's Nature and Nature's Probability"

     

  • At 5:40 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "Good for you. Unfortunately there isn't anything we observe wrt evolution that we can use to extrapolate universal common descent. There isn't any microevolutionary events that we can extrapolate into new body plans requiring new body parts, ie macroevolution."

    Maybe YOU can't but that doesn't mean others can't. The genomic, geodiversity, phylogenic and fossil evidence all are consistent with common descent. And your alternate model is . . .

    " 'I know how to calculate P(T|H).'

    I doubt it. Show me how you do it wrt any bacterial flagellum."

    I'll work on that and get back to you.

    "You don't seem to understand anything. And you definitely cannot provide any numbers as your position is devoid of any details and has nothing to do with any math."

    Oh I understand quite a lot actually. But this discussion is about what YOU understand and can calculate. And, so far, you've demonstrated zero calculating ability.

    " 'Gee, I don't think even stone age people needed laboratories.'

    How do you know?"

    'Cause we know how they did the things they accomplished. Are you just asking questions in an attempt to sew doubt? You don't seem really interested in getting at the truth and/or settling an issue.

    " 'Since they didn't have a written language they didn't leave a design specification. '

    Engineering without a written language? That's just stupid."

    You should really spend some time studying history and archaeology instead of just saying stuff.

    " 'Clearly you've never really studied the stone circles of Great Britain. Did you know Stonehenge is not the largest? Do you know what the largest one is? Bone tools and hammers were used to split the stone. And they were moved by boat and by wooden log rollers. And ropes.'

    That is the speculation. Has anyone else done it to see?"

    Clearly you are mostly ignorant of the work that has been done. You accuse me of being ignorant of stuff when you blatantly expose your own ignorance. AND you didn't know that Stonehenge is NOT the largest stone circle in Britain. Pathetic.

    " 'Well, it would depend on the technical skill of the designer wouldn't it? IF the designer is all powerful, all knowing then why couldn't s/he/it have just created all modern species from the get-go?'

    So you have no idea if it could have been done differently. In fact you have no idea how it was done."

    I have a very good idea of how current life forms arose. You, on the other hand have . . .

    " 'Hmmm . . . how about layer after layer of dateable fossils?'

    So what?"

    Well, excuse me but I prefer NOT denying basic physics.

    " 'How about the hind legs of whales?'

    LoL! You only think they are legs. They could be remnants of hind flippers."

    You really should spend some time studying the evidence instead of just making stupid statements.

     

  • At 5:40 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    " 'How about the giraffe's laryngeal nerve? How about human males prostate gland? How about influenza? How about malaria? How about muscular dystrophy? How about polio? How about cancer? How about Alzheimer's disease?'

    What about them? How could we learn in a perfect world? What would be the purpose of our existence?"

    There you go again, making assumptions about the 'purpose' of our existence and design. You do so all the time and won't admit it. You are making assumptions about the goal and the ability of the designer and yet you refuse to acknowledge it.

    "BTW that nerve is explainable to anyone who understands how nerves work."

    Uh huh. Go on, which ID rationalisation are you going to repeat?

    " 'But I expect people who take Dr Dembski's ideas seriously to be able to understand them, explain them and use them. This isn't about me even though you will try and deflect the conversation to avoid admitting you can't calculate P(T|H). Truth be told, you PERSONALLY can't produce any numbers.'

    NO ONE CAN PRODUCE ANY NUMBERS YOU IGNORANT ASS. Tat is because your position doesn't even deserve a seat at the probability discussion table. Dr Johnson goes over that in the book you refuse to read- "Probability's Nature and Nature's Probability""

    I guess that's a fail on your part then. The issue here isn't whether Johnson can explain things, it's whether or not you understand the arguments enough to use them. And it seems you can't 'cause you just keep trying to pass the buck.

    From the book: If the probability of an outcome is P, the number of trials (n) for that outcome to become probable is n = log (base 2) 0.5 / log (base 2) (1 - P) = -1/log (base 2) (1 - P).

    Explain to me where 0.5 came from in this equation.

     

  • At 7:12 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Good for you. Unfortunately there isn't anything we observe wrt evolution that we can use to extrapolate universal common descent. There isn't any microevolutionary events that we can extrapolate into new body plans requiring new body parts, ie macroevolution."

    Maybe YOU can't but that doesn't mean others can't.

    No one can.

    The genomic, geodiversity, phylogenic and fossil evidence all are consistent with common descent.

    Liar. You have no idea what the evidence for common descent would look like.

    You should really spend some time studying history and archaeology instead of just saying stuff.

    I have. And I know that archaeologists mostly speculate.

    Clearly you are mostly ignorant of the work that has been done.

    Liar. The work that has been done doesn't demonstrate anything. It sure as hell doesn't demonstrate the people of the time could do it.

    AND you didn't know that Stonehenge is NOT the largest stone circle in Britain.

    Liar.

    I have a very good idea of how current life forms arose.

    OK then tell us how many mutations it took to get a eukaryote from a prokaryote- and tell us what genes were involved- or admit that you don't have a fucking clue and you are a liar.

    Well, excuse me but I prefer NOT denying basic physics.

    We are talking BIOLOGY, dumbass. Physics cannot tell us how the fossils came to be.

    LoL! You only think they are legs. They could be remnants of hind flippers."

    You really should spend some time studying the evidence instead of just making stupid statements.

    Fuck you asshole. I have studied it only only evoTARDs on an agenda think they are legs.

     

  • At 7:30 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    There you go again, making assumptions about the 'purpose' of our existence and design.

    Yup, I can do that.

    As for that nerve, do your own research and stop being so fucking ignorant.

    NO ONE CAN PRODUCE ANY NUMBERS YOU IGNORANT ASS. Tat is because your position doesn't even deserve a seat at the probability discussion table. Dr Johnson goes over that in the book you refuse to read- "Probability's Nature and Nature's Probability"

    I guess that's a fail on your part then.

    It's a fail on my part because you can't provide any numbers for your position? How does that work, exactly?

    From the book: If the probability of an outcome is P, the number of trials (n) for that outcome to become probable is n = log (base 2) 0.5 / log (base 2) (1 - P) = -1/log (base 2) (1 - P).

    Explain to me where 0.5 came from in this equation.

    OK page 11- The book explains it- you need a probability of 0.5 or better- from the book:

    "A possible outcome becomes probable when its proability is at least 0.5 since any lower probability makes it more likely not to happen."

    Now fuck off as you aren't in any position to question me- especially given your cowardly avoidance of defending your position.

     

  • At 1:44 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    " 'The genomic, geodiversity, phylogenic and fossil evidence all are consistent with common descent. '

    Liar. You have no idea what the evidence for common descent would look like."

    :-) Poor Joe, he hasn't got any idea of how or when the designer did it but he thinks he can win the argument by trying to find holes in evolutionary theory by calling names and putting words into people's mouths.

    " 'You should really spend some time studying history and archaeology instead of just saying stuff.'

    I have. And I know that archaeologists mostly speculate."

    HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH I'm married to an archaeologist, you're just making stuff up.

    " 'Clearly you are mostly ignorant of the work that has been done.'

    Liar. The work that has been done doesn't demonstrate anything. It sure as hell doesn't demonstrate the people of the time could do it."

    You should talk to some real archaeologists and not just read crap like Erich Von Daniken.

    "' 'AND you didn't know that Stonehenge is NOT the largest stone circle in Britain. '

    Liar. "

    Okay, what is the largest stone circle in Britain? I've been there, I've walked amongst the stones.

    "OK then tell us how many mutations it took to get a eukaryote from a prokaryote- and tell us what genes were involved- or admit that you don't have a fucking clue and you are a liar."

    I don't know the answer to that question but all the available evidence says it happened. And none of the evidence contradicts common descent. Go figure.

    "Fuck you asshole. I have studied it only only evoTARDs on an agenda think they are legs."

    And you're an expert on morphology and whale anatomy? Gosh, what university did you get your PhD from again?

    "NO ONE CAN PRODUCE ANY NUMBERS YOU IGNORANT ASS. Tat is because your position doesn't even deserve a seat at the probability discussion table. Dr Johnson goes over that in the book you refuse to read- "Probability's Nature and Nature's Probability""

    And you believe Dr Johnson over hundreds, thousands of other Drs because . . . maybe you have a bias or an agenda? Maybe?

    I don't have tons of money to buy books. I've looked through some pages that come up on Amazon's Look Inside feature. But I do notice that on page one Dr Johnson uses a Taylor series expansion of a log function to get the formula with the 0.5 in it. The Suprise Me option seems a bit random.

     

  • At 9:47 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Please reference archaeologists who do not speculate.

    Please reference the archaeologists who have demonstrated the people of the time could build Stonehenge.

    Avebury contains the largest stone circle in Eorope.

    There isn't any evidence that prokaryotes became eukaryotes. That your position requires it is not evidence.

    And there aren't any Drs that can produce the probability numbers for unguided evolution.

    And BTW it is very telling that you cannot provide a reference to this alleged leg on a whale.

     

  • At 9:49 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Oh there isn't any evolutionary theory. So I cannot poke holes in something tat doesn't exist.

    And if you think that I am wrong then I challenge you to reference said theory.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home