Allan Miller Doubles Down of his Dishonesty
-
It just keeps getting better and better. Now Allan spews:
Please tell us how you determined tat insertions and deletions are due to errors in replication. Next please tell us how you determined that blind and unguided processes produced replication.
Or just admit that you are a dishonest evobabbler.
EvoTARDS, always lying and overselling their position.
It just keeps getting better and better. Now Allan spews:
You’re just making stuff up. Insertion/deletion, point mutation etc do not come from ‘reactions’. They come from errors in replication. Replication is a copying process of descent, not design.
Please tell us how you determined tat insertions and deletions are due to errors in replication. Next please tell us how you determined that blind and unguided processes produced replication.
Or just admit that you are a dishonest evobabbler.
EvoTARDS, always lying and overselling their position.
posted by Joe G @ 9:01 AM
28 Comments:
At 8:43 AM,
Unknown said…
Until the design community can come up with a workable model of how and when (at least) design was implemented I rather suspect the consensus view will hold the field.
A workable model means it will explain (as in say why and how) the data exists the way it does. It will answers some when and how questions at least. It will have some predictive power.
Design itself is not a cause. I can draw a picture of a two-headed, feathered giraffe and it doesn't do or create anything. An agent can be a cause. Have you got a designing agent? Something that implemented the design?
At 9:17 AM,
Joe G said…
Jerad, the scientifically illiterate coward spews again!
Let's see- evos cannot tell us how nor when and theirs is the mechanistic concept.
OTOH how and when design was implemented comes AFTER design is detected.
Evos don't have a testable model for unguided evolution. Evolutionism doesn't have any predictive power.
BTW, design, being both a noun and verb, vcan indeed be a cause. And the existence of design means there was a designer. And again we can determine design is present without knowing the designer. Jerad loves to demonstrate that he is a scientifically iliterate coward.
Nice job asshole.
And nice to see that you can't even stay on-topic. Fucking pussy.
At 10:37 AM,
Joe G said…
The science of Intelligent Design is the determination and study of design in nature.
A murder is still a murder even though no one can tell us who did it, why, how nor when. An artifact doesn't stop being an artifact just because no one can tell us who did it, why, how nor when.
And wrt ID those questions are irrelevant and add nothing to the understanding of the design.
Determining design so we can then better understand how it works, which would lead us to understand how to repair it if it breaks. That is more important than ignorant evoTARDs' pithy demands.
At 4:46 PM,
Unknown said…
"Jerad, the scientifically illiterate coward spews again!"
It's good to have a purpose in life.
"Let's see- evos cannot tell us how nor when and theirs is the mechanistic concept."
Actually, the modern evolutionary theory is much clearer about the how and when than is any ID hypothesis. Based on dating techniques and mutations and cumulative selection. What's your explanation?
"OTOH how and when design was implemented comes AFTER design is detected."
But we're all waiting. You've claimed design has been detected but you're a bit short on th how and when. In truth, no one in the ID community is working on the how and when are they? If they are then show me the hypothesis that they are working on.
"Evos don't have a testable model for unguided evolution. Evolutionism doesn't have any predictive power."
Good work keeping the party line.
"BTW, design, being both a noun and verb, vcan indeed be a cause. And the existence of design means there was a designer. And again we can determine design is present without knowing the designer. Jerad loves to demonstrate that he is a scientifically iliterate coward."
Too bad there is zero evidence for a designer outside of the claimed designed things. Nice try but you can't just magic a designer.
"Nice job asshole."
My pleasure.
"And nice to see that you can't even stay on-topic. Fucking pussy."
Do you use lots of profanity in your daily discourse with your family and friends? I'm thinking you have some odd fixation with it.
"The science of Intelligent Design is the determination and study of design in nature."
Too bad there's not a lot of academic work to back that assertion up.
"A murder is still a murder even though no one can tell us who did it, why, how nor when. An artifact doesn't stop being an artifact just because no one can tell us who did it, why, how nor when."
Designed artefacts and murders require agents. If no agent is possible or proven then other explanations are sought. Have you got a design agent?
"And wrt ID those questions are irrelevant and add nothing to the understanding of the design."
So far, your detection of design has led to zero insights about the nature of the agent of design. So . . . what's the point? Where is the understanding of the method and the intent? Surely a designer would have some intent? Some goal? Some purpose?
"Determining design so we can then better understand how it works, which would lead us to understand how to repair it if it breaks. That is more important than ignorant evoTARDs' pithy demands."
But you've continually asserted that you have detected design and yet nothing has come of it. Nothing. Your researchers must be pretty lame. Or non-existent.
At 5:02 PM,
Unknown said…
I do understand that you must be embarrassed by the lack of ID research. That the ID gurus are doing a piss-poor job of holding up their end of the bargain. That the heralded end of the materialistic paradigm has not happened. And yet you and thousands of others like you keep buying the books and reading the blogs and keeping the faith.
When is the great shift going to happen?
Just a suggestion, based on prevalent trends, it might be a good idea to think about what you're going to do when it's been 30, 40, 50 years and the ID hypothesis is no further along than it is right now. Or even has lost ground.
Be honest, there's nothing new coming out of ID research. No new results. No great results. No ID journals publishing ID research have arisen.
Ever get the feeling you've been sold a false bill of hope? That you've been left out to dangle in the wind? That Dr Dembski and Berlinski and Meyers and Wells (I won't include Dr Behe because I respect him) have left the field of battle in favour of standing on the sidelines spouting rhetoric?
Where is the research? Where are the hypotheses? Why is it taking so long?
At 6:20 PM,
Joe G said…
Actually, the modern evolutionary theory is much clearer about the how and when than is any ID hypothesis.
Liar or just ignorant.
Based on dating techniques and mutations and cumulative selection.
Yet you cannot say how it was determined that all mutations are happenstance events and cumulative selection is a design mechanism as it only applies if there is a goal. Natural selection doesn't have a goal.
Read "Not By Chance" and stop being so fucking ignorant of what is being debated.
You've claimed design has been detected but you're a bit short on th how and when.
The only people who care about those questions are scientifically illiterate assholes.
"Evos don't have a testable model for unguided evolution. Evolutionism doesn't have any predictive power."
Good work keeping the party line.
It's a fact. And that is why you are so hot and bothered over ID. We wouldn't be having this discussion if your position had some support.
Too bad there is zero evidence for a designer outside of the claimed designed things.
That is all science requires. Did you have a point?
"The science of Intelligent Design is the determination and study of design in nature."
Too bad there's not a lot of academic work to back that assertion up.
There's plenty. OTOH there still isn't anything that supports bwe.
Designed artefacts and murders require agents
Yes, they do. Very good.
If no agent is possible or proven then other explanations are sought.
You ignorant fuck! To even get to consider the design inference other explanations have been considered and discarded.
As I said you are a scientifically illiterate ass.
So far, your detection of design has led to zero insights about the nature of the agent of design.
Only cry-babies care about that.
But you've continually asserted that you have detected design and yet nothing has come of it.
That's OK. Until we get the resources we need, the resources that evoTARDs are using to no avail, I wouldn't expect much beyond detection.
Heck given all the resources your position has it hasn't produced anything. So perhaps you should worry about that.
At 6:24 PM,
Joe G said…
Easy pickins:
I do understand that you must be embarrassed by the lack of bwe research. That the bwe gurus are doing a piss-poor job of holding up their end of the bargain. That the heralded end of the ID paradigm has not happened. And yet you and thousands of others like you keep buying the books and reading the blogs and keeping the faith.
When is the great shift going to happen?
Just a suggestion, based on prevalent trends, it might be a good idea to think about what you're going to do when it's been 30, 40, 50, 150+ years and the bwe hypothesis is no further along than it is right now. Or even has lost ground.
Be honest, there's nothing new coming out of bwe research. No new results. No great results. No bwe journals publishing bwe research have arisen.
Ever get the feeling you've been sold a false bill of hope? That you've been left out to dangle in the wind? That Dr Dawkins and Coyne and Shubin and Carroll have left the field of battle in favour of standing on the sidelines spouting rhetoric?
Where is the research? Where are the hypotheses? Why is it taking so long?
BWE dead on arrival and only has ignorant assholes to support it.
At 7:25 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
When's the ID revolution happening, Joe?
At 7:36 PM,
Joe G said…
And speaking of ignorant assholes, here is Richie.
How's the cupcake revolution, cupcake?
At 2:30 AM,
Unknown said…
"Yet you cannot say how it was determined that all mutations are happenstance events and cumulative selection is a design mechanism as it only applies if there is a goal. Natural selection doesn't have a goal."
Are you serious? When there is no indication of any mechanism or agent that determines/dictates mutations? You're just firing blindly, trying to be a merchant of doubt.
Also, the implications you refuse to address (such as why would a designer pick a seemingly ineffective and lengthy process?) show how empty your hypothesis is. What is your hypothesis by the way?
" 'You've claimed design has been detected but you're a bit short on th how and when.'
The only people who care about those questions are scientifically illiterate assholes."
Uh huh. Like all those in the ID tent who are convinced the designer is God? Just ask Casey Luskin. Or Dr Behe. Or Dr Dembski. Or Dr Meyer.
" 'Too bad there is zero evidence for a designer outside of the claimed designed things.'
That is all science requires. Did you have a point?"
Yup. That ID proponents are trying to 'magic' a designer out of thin air. That faith is not good enough apparently; that it's necessary to point to gaps in the current scientific knowledge and claim that those gaps are unbridgeable via natural processes and thereby filling the gap with an undefined and undetected designer.
That fact that you and all the other ID proponents have shown zero interest in pursuing further questions about the designer is telling. Not only don't you have the ability or data, you haven't got the motivation.
" 'Designed artefacts and murders require agents'
Yes, they do. Very good."
So, who is your designer?
"You ignorant fuck! To even get to consider the design inference other explanations have been considered and discarded."
Via an argument from ignorance: we don't know how natural processes could have done it, therefore design. Also, you're trying to prove a negative. Tisk, tisk.
" 'So far, your detection of design has led to zero insights about the nature of the agent of design.'
Only cry-babies care about that."
It's okay Joe, we know you've already decided who the designer is.
"That's OK. Until we get the resources we need, the resources that evoTARDs are using to no avail, I wouldn't expect much beyond detection."
Are you saying Dr Behe and Dr Dembski and Dr Gonzales and Dr Meyer and Dr Wells don't have whatever resources they need? Or that the Discovery Institute couldn't provide them? What resources do they need anyway? You're quick on the rationalisation but pitifully short on details. Besides, don't you have to have a hypothesis before you start investigating? What's your hypothesis?
When is the ID revolution going to happen? How long are you going to wait before you throw in the towel? 100 years? 150 years? Are you going to keep arguing that mutations might not be random in a desperate attempt to cling to an ever narrowing ledge?
At 7:16 AM,
Joe G said…
Are you serious? When there is no indication of any mechanism or agent that determines/dictates mutations?
So ignorance is all you have. Got it.
Also, the implications you refuse to address (such as why would a designer pick a seemingly ineffective and lengthy process?) show how empty your hypothesis is.
LoL! Targeted searches are not lenghty and ineffective. You are an imbecile.
Like all those in the ID tent who are convinced the designer is God? Just ask Casey Luskin. Or Dr Behe. Or Dr Dembski. Or Dr Meyer.
Total asshole. That is their PERSONAL opinion. It is NOT based on science- even they say so.
That ID proponents are trying to 'magic' a designer out of thin air.
Spoken like an imbecile on an agenda. Your position tries to 'magic" mysterious mutations out of thin air.
That faith is not good enough apparently; that it's necessary to point to gaps in the current scientific knowledge and claim that those gaps are unbridgeable via natural processes and thereby filling the gap with an undefined and undetected designer.
Faith is all you have as bwe requires faith. And the design inference is based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships. IOW you are just an ignorant asshole.
That fact that you and all the other ID proponents have shown zero interest in pursuing further questions about the designer is telling.
It tells me that we aren't as childish as our opponents.
You ignorant fuck! To even get to consider the design inference other explanations have been considered and discarded."
Via an argument from ignorance: we don't know how natural processes could have done it, therefore design. Also, you're trying to prove a negative.
More ignorant spewage from the master. Yours is the argument from ignorance, Jerad. You don't have any idea how to model and test unguided evolution.
OTOH the design inference is based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships.
Are you saying Dr Behe and Dr Dembski and Dr Gonzales and Dr Meyer and Dr Wells don't have whatever resources they need?
That is a fact. Are you really that much of an asshole that you can't realize that?
So here we have Jerad that asshole evoTARD, unable to support unguided evolution. Unable to lead by example and thinking his ignorance means something.
Go fuck yourself, Jerad- oops you need a dick to do that and you are obviously dick-less.
At 9:29 AM,
Unknown said…
" 'Are you serious? When there is no indication of any mechanism or agent that determines/dictates mutations?'
So ignorance is all you have. Got it."
I'll take that as an admission that you have no evidence for mutations being programmed or dictated.
" 'Also, the implications you refuse to address (such as why would a designer pick a seemingly ineffective and lengthy process?) show how empty your hypothesis is. '
LoL! Targeted searches are not lenghty and ineffective. You are an imbecile."
What? What does that have to do with the millions and millions of extinct species that, apparently according to you, designed and implemented before the current modern forms came into existence? Anyway, can't have a targeted search without an agent. Who's your agent?
" 'Like all those in the ID tent who are convinced the designer is God? Just ask Casey Luskin. Or Dr Behe. Or Dr Dembski. Or Dr Meyer.'
Total asshole. That is their PERSONAL opinion. It is NOT based on science- even they say so."
Might explain why they're not interested in doing any research about the designer. They've already decided. As I suspect you have as well. You're just too cowardly to admit it.
At 9:29 AM,
Unknown said…
" 'That ID proponents are trying to 'magic' a designer out of thin air. '
Spoken like an imbecile on an agenda. Your position tries to 'magic" mysterious mutations out of thin air."
Uh, mutations exist. Dr Lenski's experiment has documented hundreds. They look pretty random. You're assuming an agent of design but you won't admit it.
"Faith is all you have as bwe requires faith. And the design inference is based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships. IOW you are just an ignorant asshole."
Design requires an intelligent agent. Who's your agent?
" 'That fact that you and all the other ID proponents have shown zero interest in pursuing further questions about the designer is telling. '
It tells me that we aren't as childish as our opponents."
Or that you're not looking for information about the designer because you've already decided who it is.
" 'Via an argument from ignorance: we don't know how natural processes could have done it, therefore design. Also, you're trying to prove a negative.'
More ignorant spewage from the master. Yours is the argument from ignorance, Jerad. You don't have any idea how to model and test unguided evolution."
You ARE trying to prove a negative: strictly natural processes aren't capable. AND you're only arguing in the gaps in current knowledge. You're arguing from ignorance.
" 'Are you saying Dr Behe and Dr Dembski and Dr Gonzales and Dr Meyer and Dr Wells don't have whatever resources they need?'
That is a fact. Are you really that much of an asshole that you can't realize that?"
Gee, Dr Behe has a university laboratory, he does do research. Dr Dembski and Meyer and Wells have the coffers of the Discovery Institute. How much do they need? Dr Dembski seems more interested in teaching theology now. Meyer and Wells publish books, they don't do research. If those guys wanted to do research the DI could fund it.
"So here we have Jerad that asshole evoTARD, unable to support unguided evolution. Unable to lead by example and thinking his ignorance means something."
Good thing there are thousands of working biologists doing research and finding more and more evidence consistent with universal common descent via strictly natural processes. Whereas ID has . . . . uh . . .
"Go fuck yourself, Jerad- oops you need a dick to do that and you are obviously dick-less."
Funny how your ranting responses always end in profanity. No wonder no one takes you seriously. You get so worked up and angry . . . not sure why. Embarrassed? Tired of being left out to dry by the ID leaders NOT coming up with the goods? Ashamed that you're not allowed to say who you think the designer is/was? Upset that not even your heroes take you idea of magic, hidden programming seriously?
At 10:50 AM,
Joe G said…
I'll take that as an admission that you have no evidence for mutations being programmed or dictated.
I'll take that as an admission that you are an ignorant asshole.
Again read "Not By Chance" and stop being so willfully ignorant.
What does that have to do with the millions and millions of extinct species that, apparently according to you, designed and implemented before the current modern forms came into existence?
What does that have to do with anything I have said?
Might explain why they're not interested in doing any research about the designer.
Actually IDists have explained why. Again your ignorance means nothing but you think that it does. Strange.
At 11:00 AM,
Joe G said…
Uh, mutations exist.
Yes they do. And no one knows why they occur. And they don't appear to do much of anything. Let alone construct new maulti-protein machinery.
Dr Lenski's experiment has documented hundreds.
LoL! If Lenski is any measure then bwe is dead on arrival. Nothing in his experiment supports natural selection as a designer mimic.
They look pretty random.
So do the ones and zeros on a computer buss.
Design requires an intelligent agent.
Yes it does. Very good.
You ARE trying to prove a negative: strictly natural processes aren't capable.
Wrong again. YOU cannot demonstrate that blind and undirected processes are capable. That is why yours is an argument from ignorance. You can't even figure out a way to model blind and undirected processes doing something- more ignorance.
OTOH the design inference is based on our KNOWLEDGE of cause and effect relationships. And knowldge is the antithesis of ignorance.
Good thing there are thousands of working biologists doing research and finding more and more evidence consistent with universal common descent via strictly natural processes.
Liar. Universal Common Descent can't be tested without assuming it. And Lenski has shown there are severe limits to mutation.
Look Jerad, I am not using profanity. I am pointing out the obvious. You are a liar. You are scientifically illiterate. And you are an asshole. Each of those I can prove in a court of law.
BWE, so pathetic that it cannot lead by example.
At 11:01 AM,
Joe G said…
Blind watchmaker evolution was built on ignorance and relies on our ignorance.
At 5:25 PM,
Unknown said…
" 'I'll take that as an admission that you have no evidence for mutations being programmed or dictated.'
I'll take that as an admission that you are an ignorant asshole."
So I'm right then. You have no evidence that mutations are programmed or dictated.
"Again read "Not By Chance" and stop being so willfully ignorant."
I would do but, funny, no reputable reviewer seems to give it any kind of credibility. AND the book is 15 years old. Haven't you got something current?
" 'What does that have to do with the millions and millions of extinct species that, apparently according to you, designed and implemented before the current modern forms came into existence?'
What does that have to do with anything I have said?"
Oh gosh, it just might say something about your designer. That's he's not very powerful. That he's a tinkerer. That he hasn't got a clear view of what he wants. That his abilities are limited. That his designs are crap and need a lot of revising.
You just don't get it do you? Your design guess just doesn't match the data.
" 'Might explain why they're not interested in doing any research about the designer. '
Actually IDists have explained why. Again your ignorance means nothing but you think that it does. Strange."
They have? Really? Does that mean, like you, that they're happy just giving up asking questions? Is that real science? Hmmmm?
At 5:35 PM,
Unknown said…
" 'Uh, mutations exist.'
Yes they do. And no one knows why they occur. And they don't appear to do much of anything. Let alone construct new maulti-protein machinery."
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Sorry, I just had a moment.
You propose or think (even though you're too cowardly to admit it) that mutations are programmed or proscribed. BUT you have zero evidence that that is the case. AND you have little knowledge of what mutations are capable of accomplishing.
Why am I bothering responding to you?
"LoL! If Lenski is any measure then bwe is dead on arrival. Nothing in his experiment supports natural selection as a designer mimic. "
Shall we agree to inscribe that on your tombstone?
" 'They look pretty random. '
So do the ones and zeros on a computer buss."
To an untrained eye. Is that what you have?
" 'Design requires an intelligent agent.'
Yes it does. Very good."
And you continue to avoid (out of cowardice? How will God judge your reluctance to acknowledge him?) to have the guts to own up to your convictions. Sad.
" 'You ARE trying to prove a negative: strictly natural processes aren't capable. '
Wrong again. YOU cannot demonstrate that blind and undirected processes are capable. That is why yours is an argument from ignorance. You can't even figure out a way to model blind and undirected processes doing something- more ignorance."
Your argument is an argument of Ignorance trying to prove a negative. Clean up your own house and then criticise another. You don't even understand the argument from ignorance fallacy.
"OTOH the design inference is based on our KNOWLEDGE of cause and effect relationships. And knowldge is the antithesis of ignorance."
I'm sorry you can't spell knowledge. And cause requires an agent. Of which you have . . . none.
At 5:47 PM,
Unknown said…
"Liar. Universal Common Descent can't be tested without assuming it. And Lenski has shown there are severe limits to mutation."
Every day universal common descent is being tested. Stop playing the Discovery Institute fool. They won't pay you. They'll ditch you in a minute.
"Look Jerad, I am not using profanity. I am pointing out the obvious. You are a liar. You are scientifically illiterate. And you are an asshole. Each of those I can prove in a court of law."
You frequently resort to profanity. And, regarding courts of law . . . in 2005 ID was brought up to legal scrutiny. And it was found lacking in scientific rigour. Dr Dembski didn't even bother to show up. Dr Behe did and I give him full marks for that. I've got lots of time for Dr Behe. He stands up for his beliefs. He's not afraid to be honest. Are you, like him, willing to be clear?
"BWE, so pathetic that it cannot lead by example."
When you've got a clear hypothesis call. Otherwise, You just don't get it. You've got no scientific model. No research agenda. No evidence that contradicts the current model. You're dead in the water. AND you think you're stance is justification enough. Sad.
At 6:24 PM,
Joe G said…
How is universal common descent tested? Please be specific.
in 2005 ID was brought up to legal scrutiny.
Bullshit. In 2005 an ignorant school boards' actions were brought up to legal scrutiny.
And it was found lacking in scientific rigour.
By a scientifically illiterate judge.
BWE, so pathetic that it cannot lead by example."
When you've got a clear hypothesis call.
Right- you don't even have a clear hypothesis. You don't have any model for unguided evolution. It doesn't make any predictions and it is useless as a researh heuristic.
You don't get it Jerad. You are an ignorant troll- poeriod end of story.
At 6:34 PM,
Joe G said…
You propose or think (even though you're too cowardly to admit it) that mutations are programmed or proscribed.
You fucking piece of shit asshole. I have said that mutations are direced. I have told you to read "Not By Chance" and stop being such an ignorant faggot.
BUT you have zero evidence that that is the case.
Actually scientists have presented the evidence. Again your ignorance is amazing.
AND you have little knowledge of what mutations are capable of accomplishing.
I have more knowledge of such things than you will ever have.
And the ones and zeros look random to any eye. I have a very trained eye for what happens on computer busses- tat was my life for a couple decades you wanker.
Your argument is an argument of Ignorance trying to prove a negative.
No dumbass- yours is the argument from ignorance because you cannot demonstrate anything. If you had something then ID would be dead.
Clean up your own house and then criticise another.
Nice projection you cowardly assface. ID exists because of the failure of your position.
You are a real ignorant cowardly faggot, Jerad.
OTOH the design inference is based on our KNOWLEDGE of cause and effect relationships. And knowldge is the antithesis of ignorance."
I'm sorry you can't spell knowledge.
Yes, you are sorry and I did spell knowledge.
And cause requires an agent.
Yes it does. Very good. And if your position could account for what we think is designed then ID would be a non-starter.
ID requires that your position fail beforebeing considered and ID is being considered because your position is a total failure.
At 6:40 PM,
Joe G said…
You have no evidence that mutations are programmed or dictated.
And yet it has been presented.
I would do but, funny, no reputable reviewer seems to give it any kind of credibility. AND the book is 15 years old. Haven't you got something current?
Yes you are an ignorant faggot.
"Not By Chance" is still valid and the people who rail against it can't support their claims.
Your design guess just doesn't match the data.
It isn't a guess and it matches the data very well. OTOH all your position has is sheer dumb luck which isn't science at all.
They have? Really?
Really.
Does that mean, like you, that they're happy just giving up asking questions?
What? That means that you are a little faggot wanker punk.
Is that real science?
You don't know what science is.
BWE has nothing on the how- no one is even looking. BWE is pure dogma- no science needed.
At 3:11 AM,
Unknown said…
"Bullshit. In 2005 an ignorant school boards' actions were brought up to legal scrutiny."
And ID was declared to be non-scientific.
"By a scientifically illiterate judge."
Gosh, before the trial started many ID proponents were lauding him. But, somehow, after his judgement he became illiterate.
"You fucking piece of shit asshole. I have said that mutations are direced. I have told you to read "Not By Chance" and stop being such an ignorant faggot."
Too bad that book has zero respect from biologists working in the field.
"And the ones and zeros look random to any eye. I have a very trained eye for what happens on computer busses- tat was my life for a couple decades you wanker."
As usual, Joe's version of mathematics is what counts. For someone who worked with computers you have a shocking lack of understanding of random numbers. Didn't you ever read a discussion of random number generators?
"No dumbass- yours is the argument from ignorance because you cannot demonstrate anything. If you had something then ID would be dead."
ID is dead. No hypothesis, no evidence, no research.
"Nice projection you cowardly assface. ID exists because of the failure of your position. "
ID existed before Darwin came along and skewered it. Not in its current form albeit. But the same approach was there.
"You are a real ignorant cowardly faggot, Jerad."
'Cause you know about such things eh?
"OTOH the design inference is based on our KNOWLEDGE of cause and effect relationships. And knowldge is the antithesis of ignorance."
Too bad you haven't got a cause/designer. Oh well.
"ID requires that your position fail beforebeing considered and ID is being considered because your position is a total failure."
Matter of opinion. Funny that the evidence keeps stacking up in favour of evolutionary theory. Those gaps in our knowledge are getting smaller all the time.
"Yes you are an ignorant faggot."
You seem to think about homosexuals a lot.
"It isn't a guess and it matches the data very well. OTOH all your position has is sheer dumb luck which isn't science at all."
What is kind of sad is that you can't follow the mathematics presented in Not By Chance. You just want it to be true because you've already decided the way things are instead of looking at ALL the data.
"What? That means that you are a little faggot wanker punk."
You are fixated on homosexuals. Interesting.
At 7:32 AM,
Joe G said…
Only ignorant faggots think that faggot = homosexual.
Judge Jones knows even less about science than you do, Jerad. And you appear to be totally ignorant of science.
But anyway- from an ID proponent:
Suffice it to say, I have little patience with the "identify the designer" rhetoric. It's not just an example of sloppy thinking. It's a form of sloppy thinking that gunks up any sincere interest in design. It turns an attempt to adhere to logical, responsible thinking into a sinister motive. So perhaps, there is a better question to ask. Why do ID critics refuse to publicly acknowledge that it is illogical to identity the designer using the criteria of mainstream ID (IC and CSI)?
Yup Jerad loves sloppy thinking.
As for Judge Jones:
Dr Behe puts Judge Jones in his place Good reading that one.
Too bad that book has zero respect from biologists working in the field.
Too bad those biologists can't support their claims. That is very telling.
Also James Shapiro's "Evolution: A View from the 21st Century" supports "Not By Chance".
For someone who worked with computers you have a shocking lack of understanding of random numbers.
Evidence please. Or are you just an asshole?
ID is dead. No hypothesis, no evidence, no research.
And yet we have presented all of the above. OTOH bwe is totally void of content.
ID existed before Darwin came along and skewered it
How did he skewer it? That requires actual evidence which he never had,
Too bad you haven't got a cause/designer
The existence of the design says there was one. But I understand that you cannot utilize logic.
Funny that the evidence keeps stacking up in favour of evolutionary theory.
Liar. It's as if you can't help yourself.
What is kind of sad is that you can't follow the mathematics presented in Not By Chance.
Evidence please. What is really sad is bwe doesn't have any math, cannot be measured, cannot be tested and is not science.
At 4:41 AM,
Unknown said…
"Only ignorant faggots think that faggot = homosexual."
Well, you know more about being a bigot than I do.
"Judge Jones knows even less about science than you do, Jerad. And you appear to be totally ignorant of science."
I guess those graduate level physics classes I took were a waste of time then.
"Suffice it to say, I have little patience with the "identify the designer" rhetoric. It's not just an example of sloppy thinking. It's a form of sloppy thinking that gunks up any sincere interest in design. It turns an attempt to adhere to logical, responsible thinking into a sinister motive. So perhaps, there is a better question to ask. Why do ID critics refuse to publicly acknowledge that it is illogical to identity the designer using the criteria of mainstream ID (IC and CSI)?"
Sounds like a rational for dodging a perfectly legitimate issue.
" 'For someone who worked with computers you have a shocking lack of understanding of random numbers.'
Evidence please. Or are you just an asshole?"
You betray yourself with your statements.
"And yet we have presented all of the above. OTOH bwe is totally void of content."
Interestingly enough, even Dr Spetner admits there is evidence that some evolution has taken place. Read his statement here:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Chance-Shattering-Modern-Theory-Evolution/dp/1880582244/
"The existence of the design says there was one. But I understand that you cannot utilize logic."
Too bad a vast majority of biologists don't believe you've detected design. And too bad no ID proponent has the balls to write a guide to design detection with examples from biology. Showing how it avoids false-positives of course.
Interesting too some of the one-star reviews of Dr Spetner's book on amazon.com and amazon.co.uk
Also, this review is very interesting:
http://wasdarwinwrong.com/kortho36.htm
By the way, if you don't really understand what 'random' is how do you know what non-random is?
At 7:09 AM,
Joe G said…
Because YOU are a little ignorant fagot, I am a bigot? How does that work?
I guess those graduate level physics classes I took were a waste of time then.
Well you don't appear to know anything about science
Sounds like a rational for dodging a perfectly legitimate issue.
Except it isn't a legitimate issue.
You betray yourself with your statements.
Liar
Interestingly enough, even Dr Spetner admits there is evidence that some evolution has taken place. Read his statement here:
Dumbass. His book is about evolution taking place. It just isn't unguided.Unguided/ bwe just breaks things.
Too bad a vast majority of biologists don't believe you've detected design.
Again that alleged majority cannot support bwe so it doesn't matter what they say about design.
And too bad no ID proponent has the balls to write a guide to design detection with examples from biology.
Too bad for your cowardly ignorance it has been done. Heck I even I have written such a guide.
Interesting too some of the one-star reviews of Dr Spetner's book on amazon.com and amazon.co.uk
And not one of those one-star reviewers can refute Sptener with actual evidence, Very telling that.
By the way, if you don't really understand what 'random' is how do you know what non-random is?
I know what rtandom is. According to Mayr, random wrt mutations means happenstance/ chance. WRT natural selection non-random means not every individual has the same probability of being eliminated.
At 7:11 AM,
Joe G said…
"In the book I show that neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory cannot do what is claimed for it. The theory cannot account for the development of life from some simple beginning. It cannot account for the broad sweep of evolution." Spetner- oops Jerad loses!
At 7:16 AM,
Joe G said…
And genetic algorithms, including Dawkins' weasael, demonstrate the power of non-random/ directed evolution. Gert is ignorant. Not only that he didn't refute Spetner. Go figure...
Post a Comment
<< Home