Intelligent Reasoning: RichTARD Hughes- A "Challenge" Based on Ignorance

Tuesday, March 11, 2014

RichTARD Hughes- A "Challenge" Based on Ignorance

-
It never fails- ask evoTARDs to support the claims of evolutionism and instead of doing that they spew evoTARDgasms. Enter RichTARD Hughes, AKA Captain Coward. Ya see kairosfocus has issued a challenge to evoTARDs asking them to support blind watchmaker evolution. The point is is bwe is a bottom-up approach that posits incremental steps. That is the nature of the beast so it is up to its supporters to provide the evidence to support that claim.

In contrast there is Intelligent Design, which is a top-down approach. It does not posit anything about the designer(s) except that at least one existed. It does not posit how the design came to be. The who, how, why, where and when all come AFTER design is detected and studied.

Back to the ignorant fuck RichTARD Hughes who is obvioulsy too much of a coward to actually respond to KF by supporting bwe. Instead RichTARD sez:

KF is of course free to set the bar for his personal satisfaction at whatever pathetic level of detail he requires, but given that he’s often accused of being a massive hypocrite I’m sure he’ll be happy to provide us with a corresponding ID narrative.

I mean, ID isn’t just a negative case against Evolution, is it?

Things I’m sure he’s eager to include:

Who is / was the designer?

What was their motivation(s)?

What was their method of fabrication?

How many design interventions were there?

What specifically was designed?

What specifically wasn’t designed?

Please feel free to add your questions in the comments. I’d ask that if math is invoked for any design justification then in is comprehensively completed and not just talked about in a big numbers / hand-wavy sort of way. Any new concepts you bring to the table must be empirically tested rigorously so we can attest to their design detection capabilities. Thanks in advance KF, we know you’ll engage us in good faith and we’re eager to have productive dialogue.

Where to even start- 1- As I said ID doesn't require a corresponding narrative as ID does not posit the same thing that bwe does

2- ID is not anti-evolution so no, it is not a "negative case against" (wtf is that? double-negative) evolution. ID is anti-bwe having sole domion over evolutionary processes. IOW Richie is totally ignorant of ID and very proud of it. And I have already proven to Richie that ID is more than an argument against something.

3- Who the designer is is irrelevant to ID.

4- Motivation is irrelevant to ID.

5- Methodology of manufacture is irrelevant to ID

6- How many design interventions is irrelevant to ID

All of those come AFTER detecting and studying the design and all relevant evidence. And guess what? THAT is exactly how it goes with archaeology and forensic science. And yes, SETI too.

As for what was and wasn't designed, well that is what science is for, dumbass. Unlike you cowards we have provided a methodology for making such determinations.

IOW there isn't having any productive dialog with a willfully ignorant shit-eating cowards like RichTARD Hughes and the rest of the cowardly minions of the septic zone.

The sad part is Richie and the other evoTARDs only attack ID because they can't support their position's claims. If they could then ID would be a non-starter as ID claims blind physical processes are not up to the task.

ETA:

The RichTARD does prove that ID is not a scientific dead-end as it is obvious the design inference opens up new questions that we will attempt to answer via scientific investigation.

LoL@ RichTARD's confusion. Wm Dembski, in "No Free Lunch" says your first four questions are irrelevant wrt Intelligent Design. Wm Dembski and the others have limited ID to the detection and study of design. It's as if you are really proud to be an ignorant ass.

44 Comments:

At 10:39 AM, Unknown said…

"1- As I said ID doesn't require a corresponding narrative as ID does not posit the same thing that bwe does"

What does the ID paradigm say exactly? Some biological structures or creatures appear to be designed?

"2- ID is not anti-evolution so no, it is not a "negative case against" (wtf is that? double-negative) evolution. ID is anti-bwe having sole domion over evolutionary processes. IOW Richie is totally ignorant of ID and very proud of it. And I have already proven to Richie that ID is more than an argument against something."

ID is anti-theory of evolution which posits common descent via natural, unitelligent processes only. Most ID proponents won't even guess when or how or (sometimes) even which biological structures were designed. But it's clearly anti-theory of evolution.

"3- Who the designer is is irrelevant to ID."

So, it could have been ancient astronauts? Yes? Or an evil god-like creature? How about time travellers? Are you sure it's irrelevant to most ID proponents?

"4- Motivation is irrelevant to ID.

5- Methodology of manufacture is irrelevant to ID"

So, in the ID paradigm, the state of the fossil record says nothing about the how and when and why design was implemented? Is ID saying anything really except: some things appear designed?

"6- How many design interventions is irrelevant to ID"

What if it were a series of different designers? Is that not pertinent? Is design still going on? What happened to the designers? Don't you want to know?

If those issues are not pertinent then ID will never have much explanatory power, i.e. it won't be able to address when and how and why biological structures and creatures are the way they are. And were.

The whole point about having a THEORY or model is to explain the hows, whys and wherefores.

"All of those come AFTER detecting and studying the design and all relevant evidence. And guess what? THAT is exactly how it goes with archaeology and forensic science. And yes, SETI too."

Except that with archaeology and forensic science there is a real push and need to find collaborating evidence. Like with Stonehenge, we have found evidence of the times the structure was creature, in what sequence and some of the tools used. But, oddly, ID proponents seem grandly uninterested in looking for such evidence regarding their designer. IF SETI ever detects a designed signal you can bet they won't just put down their listening devices and say: see, we told you so. They will laser in on the source of the signal and look for more.

"As for what was and wasn't designed, well that is what science is for, dumbass. Unlike you cowards we have provided a methodology for making such determinations."

Hmmmmmm. Apply your methodology to the Bimini atoll. Or the glass found in the deserts of Egypt. Or the terrain around the explosion in Siberia in 1908. Or give some clear and unambiguous examples of the method being applied. Especially interesting would be examples of how the method avoid false positives and false negatives.
At 1:00 PM, Joe G said…

What does the ID paradigm say exactly?

It says quite a bit. I have blogged about a lot of what it says.

Some biological structures or creatures appear to be designed?

Nope, darwinism/ neo-darwinism sez that.

ID is anti-theory of evolution which posits common descent via natural, unitelligent processes only.

You are conflating the process with the theory/concept. Also there isn't any way to test what you claimed. It's a non-starter.

So, it could have been ancient astronauts? Yes? Or an evil god-like creature? How about time travellers? Are you sure it's irrelevant to most ID proponents?

You are confused. What IDists care about is irrelevant to ID. ID has a narrow focus- the detection and study of design.

No one needs to know who the designer is before we can detect and study the design.

So, in the ID paradigm, the state of the fossil record says nothing about the how and when and why design was implemented?

The fossil record can only tell us that those organisms existed, died and were fossilized.

Is ID saying anything really except: some things appear designed?

And what, exactly does the blind watchmaker thesis say? We are here just because?

What if it were a series of different designers? Is that not pertinent? Is design still going on? What happened to the designers? Don't you want to know?

Are you retarded? It does NOT matter how many designers there were in order to detect and study the design.

If those issues are not pertinent then ID will never have much explanatory power, i.e. it won't be able to address when and how and why biological structures and creatures are the way they are. And were.

LoL! The only way to answer those question is by first detecting and then studying the design and all relevant evidence. Obviously you didn't read the OP or you are too stupid to grasp what I said.

Also the blind watchmaker can't tell us anything.

The whole point about having a THEORY or model is to explain the hows, whys and wherefores.

And the blind watchmaker can't do any of that. Archaeology and forensic science can only do so by studying the evidence.

Except that with archaeology and forensic science there is a real push and need to find collaborating evidence.

And with ID we have plenty. With the blind watchmaker there isn't any testable hypotheses.

Like with Stonehenge, we have found evidence of the times the structure was creature, in what sequence and some of the tools used.

No one knows who nor how. And that is after centuries of study. And if we don't know how then we cannot say humans did it because we don't know if they were capable.

Hmmmmmm. Apply your methodology to the Bimini atoll. Or the glass found in the deserts of Egypt. Or the terrain around the explosion in Siberia in 1908. Or give some clear and unambiguous examples of the method being applied. Especially interesting would be examples of how the method avoid false positives and false negatives.

So archaeology and forensic science are shit then. Or perhaps you are just an ignorant troll.

Or maybe you are upset because unguided evolution is unscientific...
At 1:05 PM, Joe G said…

ID is anti-theory of evolution which posits common descent via natural, unitelligent processes only

Yet all attempts to test this alleged "theory" have found it wanting. Natural selection has been a bust wrt being a designer mimic and no other process has been put forth to take its place.
At 1:51 PM, Joe G said…

As I said over on UD:

My point is we may never be able to answer those first 4 questions. The designer(s) is (are) way above our pay grade and so are the methods used. As I said we still don’t know the who, how and why of Stonehenge and that is something that is within our capabilities. We may be able to figure a way it could have been manufactured but that doesn’t mean it will be the way it was.
At 2:53 PM, Unknown said…

"You are conflating the process with the theory/concept. Also there isn't any way to test what you claimed. It's a non-starter."

Of course there is. Find some evidence which disproves the theory. A fossil out of place. Something that is irreducibly complex. An organism with no possible antecedent.

"The fossil record can only tell us that those organisms existed, died and were fossilized."

BUT if they were designed then it casts some light on the design process. It's contra-flow. Why won't you address the implications? And what the data suggests about the design timing and process?

"And what, exactly does the blind watchmaker thesis say? We are here just because?"

Not at all. Any of the popular books written in the past decade discuss how the fossil, bio-geographic and genetic data are consistent with universal common descent with modification. Which tells us the process, the timing and the why. To deny that is just wilful ignorance trying to score points with the denialists.

"Are you retarded? It does NOT matter how many designers there were in order to detect and study the design."

Perhaps not. But a series of designers implies a much different process than a single designer don't you agree? Or are you too reluctant to offer an opinion?

"LoL! The only way to answer those question is by first detecting and then studying the design and all relevant evidence. Obviously you didn't read the OP or you are too stupid to grasp what I said."

Okay, give me some examples where unknown design was detected and then studied.

"And the blind watchmaker can't do any of that. Archaeology and forensic science can only do so by studying the evidence."

As does the theory of evolution. It explains all the fossil, biogeographic and genetic evidence. What does ID explain? Except to say: that's what the designer wanted to do?

"No one knows who nor how. And that is after centuries of study. And if we don't know how then we cannot say humans did it because we don't know if they were capable."

Being ignorant of the research just makes you look uninformed and wrong.

"So archaeology and forensic science are shit then. Or perhaps you are just an ignorant troll."

So you just avoided addressing any of the situations I brought up. One of which I've discussed with you before. Or even to suggest any situation where the ID design detection technique has been successfully used. Interesting.

"Yet all attempts to test this alleged "theory" have found it wanting. Natural selection has been a bust wrt being a designer mimic and no other process has been put forth to take its place."

All the discovered evidence supports the theory. It's being tested every time someone finds a new fossil or discovers a new species. Every day evolutionary theory is upheld. But the ID supporters have yet to find a biological structure that truly is irreducibly complex or find a fossil that cannot exist in its geological layer.

"As I said we still don’t know the who, how and why of Stonehenge and that is something that is within our capabilities. We may be able to figure a way it could have been manufactured but that doesn’t mean it will be the way it was."

With that criteria you will never be able to 'prove' ID because you weren't there and you can't disprove the negative that natural processes were incapable.

Your arguments are merely spouted to cast doubt. You adamantly refuse to apply your criteria to your own contentions.

AND we have very, very good ideas about Stonehenge. Again, your ignorance about the research just makes you look . . . ignorant. But you don't really want to take the time to find out the real story. Just like the Von Daniken fans from the 70s: my hero says this so that's what I believe.
At 3:44 PM, Joe G said…

Of course there is. Find some evidence which disproves the theory. A fossil out of place. Something that is irreducibly complex. An organism with no possible antecedent.

Fossils don't say anything about a mechanism and blind watchmaker evolution can't acciunt for metazoans.

BUT if they were designed then it casts some light on the design process.

It does?

Any of the popular books written in the past decade discuss how the fossil, bio-geographic and genetic data are consistent with universal common descent with modification.

Nothing to do with blind watchmaker processes, And genetic data doesn't support universal common descent. You are sadly mistaken.

Okay, give me some examples where unknown design was detected and then studied.

Stonehenge- any artifact. Any fire investigation.

As does the theory of evolution. It explains all the fossil, biogeographic and genetic evidence.

LoL! Not scientifically. Heck unguided evolution can't even get beyond the given prokaryotes.

Being ignorant of the research just makes you look uninformed and wrong.

And you are just bloviating. Also everything we "know" came from centuries of investigation. Just as I said.

All the discovered evidence supports the theory.

Liar.

Every day evolutionary theory is upheld.

By lying liars.

But the ID supporters have yet to find a biological structure that truly is irreducibly complex

We have found many and you have choked on each and every one.

You are either ignorant or bluffing. Either way you haven't shown how the first 4 questions are relevant to ID. And I know that makes you upset.
At 2:51 AM, Unknown said…

Stonehenge was not unknown design.

You cannot show an example where the ID community's design detection methodology has been used successfully since all the claimed irreducibly complex mechanisms are disputed. Part of the problem is, of course, that you cannot prove a negative, i.e. that natural processes could not have 'done it'. But hey, it's your argument so if you want to keep failing be my guest.

You never address the biogeographic evidence.

You don't understand the genetic evidence.

You won't even address the ramifications of the fossil evidence on your design paradigm. The fossils are your CONTRA-FLOW. So, what does it say about the design process?

You can't and won't explain anything. And, no matter what you say, virtually no research is being done by ID proponents and few (if any) real research papers are being published by ID researchers.

Whereas new data is being discovered everyday which is consistent with universal common descent via natural processes. You say people who hold that view are liars but you can't come up with a coherent and viable alternative hypothesis.

Can you?
At 7:00 AM, Joe G said…

Stonehenge was not unknown design.

It was at one time. And seeing tat no one knows how it was designed in a way it still is.

You cannot show an example where the ID community's design detection methodology has been used successfully since all the claimed irreducibly complex mechanisms are disputed.

Disputed by who and for what reason?

Part of the problem is, of course, that you cannot prove a negative, i.e. that natural processes could not have 'done it'. But hey, it's your argument so if you want to keep failing be my guest.

LoL! YOU cannot demonstrate that blind and undirected natural process can do anything. Yours is a position tat lacks everything, even a methodology to test it.

You never address the biogeographic evidence.

Blind watchmaker evolution cannot explain it.

You don't understand the genetic evidence.

I understand it better than you do.

You won't even address the ramifications of the fossil evidence on your design paradigm.

There aren't any ramifications.

You can't and won't explain anything.

And yet I have. OTOH blind watchmaker evolution can't and won't ever explain anything.

And, no matter what you say, virtually no research is being done by ID proponents and few (if any) real research papers are being published by ID researchers.

There isn't any blind watchmaker research, dipshit.

Whereas new data is being discovered everyday which is consistent with universal common descent via natural processes.

Liar

You say people who hold that view are liars but you can't come up with a coherent and viable alternative hypothesis.

They are liars and ID is a better explanation for the evidence than blind watchmaker evolution.

I noticed that you have failed to produce a testable hypothesis wrt blind watchmaker evolution. Is that because you are a coward or a loser?
At 7:25 AM, Joe G said…

And still nothing that shows Richie's first 4 questions are relevant to ID. It's as if Jerad thinks that flailing like a faggot is a refutation.
At 10:20 AM, Unknown said…

"It was at one time. And seeing tat no one knows how it was designed in a way it still is."

YOU don't know.

"Disputed by who and for what reason?"

Thousands of highly trained and experienced scientists. There are more parsimonious explanations.

"LoL! YOU cannot demonstrate that blind and undirected natural process can do anything. Yours is a position tat lacks everything, even a methodology to test it."

I'd agree with you but I have a harder time ignoring ALL the data which supports the theory. AND there's no alternate hypothesis.

You can't even address all the data. What do you think of the biogeographic distributions?

"Blind watchmaker evolution cannot explain it."

Of course it can. You just don't understand the theory.

"There aren't any ramifications."

Okay, you explain the fossil record from your design paradigm. Go on. I've been waiting to hear this.

"There isn't any blind watchmaker research, dipshit."

Wow, you really are wilfully ignorant. No wonder only a few people read your blog.

"I noticed that you have failed to produce a testable hypothesis wrt blind watchmaker evolution. Is that because you are a coward or a loser?"

I have in the past and there are plenty of examples to be found. You're just repeating the ID mantra and avoiding coming up with an alternative explanation.

At least KF makes some attempt to sling some pseudo-mathematics about. He gets it wrong but at least he tries. You can't even try to explain the fossil record from a design perspective. Let alone the genetic and biogeographic data.

Name calling you're good at. Well, not really. You're not very creative there either.
At 10:21 AM, Unknown said…

"It's as if Jerad thinks that flailing like a faggot is a refutation."

Well, you're like KF in one way: you're homophobic.
At 10:27 AM, Joe G said…

No one knows how Stonehenge was designed and built. No one but the builders and whoever else saw it.

There aren't any blind watchmaker explanations for molecular machinery. You are lying.

And I understand the blind watchmaker thesis. It can't even muster testable hypotheses.

And please reference the alleged blind watchmaker research and testable hypotheses. I know tat you are lying.

And I explained the fossil record- are you really tat dishonest? And I have supported ID with evidence and methodology. Again you are an ignorant ass.
At 10:36 AM, Joe G said…

LoL! I'm homophobic because Jerad is flailing like a little faggot? How does that work?

And still nothing that shows Richie's first 4 questions are relevant to ID.

Little Jerad is soooooo upset
At 7:20 AM, Unknown said…

"No one knows how Stonehenge was designed and built. No one but the builders and whoever else saw it."

So much of archaeology is just pointless speculation and paper publishing to get tenure. Got it.

"And please reference the alleged blind watchmaker research and testable hypotheses. I know tat you are lying."

Joe, too lazy to do some research.

"And I explained the fossil record- are you really tat dishonest? And I have supported ID with evidence and methodology. Again you are an ignorant ass."

Let's see . . . was it the way the designer wanted to do it or was it that the fossil record shows the degradation of the initial, front-loaded genetic information?

OH WAIT, you did say that all the fossil record can tell us what that those critters existed and died. Is that your explanation? EXPLAINING the fossil record is saying why it looks the way it does you know. EXPLAINING something isn't just saying: oh look, something happened.

Jeeze Joe, get some cahunas and top being so homophobic.
At 7:25 AM, Joe G said…

So much of archaeology is just pointless speculation and paper publishing to get tenure.

I already told you most of archaeology is speculation.

And I have done the research you coward. Don't blame me for the failure of blind watchmaker evolution.

And you need some balls Jerad as you cannot tell me how Richie's first 4 questions are relevant to ID. You are a wussy wanker and tosser.
At 10:26 AM, Unknown said…

"I already told you most of archaeology is speculation."

Clearly you do not understand real archaeology. You read a couple of books or watched some TV programs.

"And you need some balls Jerad as you cannot tell me how Richie's first 4 questions are relevant to ID. You are a wussy wanker and tosser."

Because you are happy not asking questions about the designer. You are happy there being no independent supporting evidence for this intelligent agent you assume was available. You are buying into the wedge strategy to just get the acceptance of the design paradigm before you declare that it must have been god.

IF you really thought the designer might not have been god then you'd be searching madly for your famous contra-flow. You'd be looking for laboratories or raw materials. You'd be willing to spell out a possible timeline for design implementation. You don't care about asking those questions and your arguments boil down to arguments from ignorance from the every closing gaps in scientific knowledge. That's why ID is a science stopper. Some questions are not allowed to be answered. And you're buying into the mantra: don't talk about it. Don't get sucked into speculation. Don't show your hand. You've allowed yourself to be cut off at the knees just so you can hope to help bring god into science. And you personally like the idea of bloodying the nose of those in authority. You fancy yourself smarter and more insightful than people much more educated and experienced than you are. You think many politicians and scientists and academics are fools and only espoused their views so they can feed at the public funding trough. You think the world is really simple, something you can figure out by thinking for 10 minutes. You don't do science and you arrogantly think you understand it better than those who do.

When someone asks you a question and you say: I don't have to answer that, I don't think it has anything to do with ID then you're admitting ID is not science. Because there is one thing that is ALWAYS true about science: you never stop asking questions.
At 10:39 AM, Joe G said…

Clearly you do not understand real archaeology.

Clearly you are an asshole.

You read a couple of books or watched some TV programs.

Been there done that and that is why I say what I do.

"And you need some balls Jerad as you cannot tell me how Richie's first 4 questions are relevant to ID. You are a wussy wanker and tosser."

Because you are happy not asking questions about the designer.

You are an asshole. What I want and do is different from ID is.

It's as if you are proud to be a fucking moron, Jerad. Those questions have nothing to do with ID. And the reason we study the design, as Dembski said that is what is about, is to try to answer those questions.

But they are NOT part of ID.

That has been explained ad nauseum and obvioulsy you are too retarded to grasp it.

And again, unlike blind watchmaker evolution, Intelligent Design can actually be tested and potentially falsified. That is what makes it science.
At 6:04 PM, Unknown said…

"Clearly you are an asshole."

I might be. But I know a lot of archaeologists.

"Been there done that and that is why I say what I do."

I'm glad you admit that your archaeological knowledge comes from books and TV programs.

"You are an asshole. What I want and do is different from ID is."

Yet you are still afraid to get specific about the designer which you're sure exists or existed. Or maybe it was a lot of them. All toiling away in their undiscovered labs, having their coffee breaks, just plugging along to earn some money to feed their families. Working for the man. What do you think?

"It's as if you are proud to be a fucking moron, Jerad. Those questions have nothing to do with ID. And the reason we study the design, as Dembski said that is what is about, is to try to answer those questions."

Well hey, how long are you going to study the design (since you've got no other evidence to look at) before you come up with something?

Or is it really that no one is actually doing that work? Are you? Is Dr Dembski? Or Dr Behe? Is anyone seriously studying . . . what design are they studying? . . . supposed designed biological structures in an attempt to find out something about the designer? Can you tell me who is doing that work?

"But they are NOT part of ID."

ID isn't really much of anything is it? It doesn't do any research. It just looks for things that current science can't explain (as you admitted when you said WHEN science can explain it then ID will back off) and say it must have been a designer.

"That has been explained ad nauseum and obvioulsy you are too retarded to grasp it."

I get you very well. You do no research. You look for gaps in our knowledge. You guess/hope those gaps won't be closed. You claim only a designer could bridge that gap. You say you'll back down if the gap is closed but then why not just wait and see if it is closed? Why jump to design?

"And again, unlike blind watchmaker evolution, Intelligent Design can actually be tested and potentially falsified. That is what makes it science."

Too bad no one in the ID community is testing it eh? Or spending time showing the world what great design detectors you are. Or studying claimed designed objects to discern things about the designer.

I shouldn't pick on you really. You're just one of the many minions who can't do any of the actual work required. You don't have the knowledge or equipment or resources to run experiments or test the hypothesis. But your ideological leaders aren't doing the work either. Why is it that Dr Dembski isn't doing any ID research? Why is it that Dr Meyer spends more time publishing books rehashing other people's work and does no original research? How about Dr Wells? He's highly trained. What research has he done in the last 20 years?

You're being sold down the river by people from the Discovery Institute who make money selling books and lecture tours. You're a good little foot soldier but your generals are not fighting fit.

KF, Dr Torley, Barry the whole crowd at UD, none of them do research either. Who is really, seriously trying to further the case of ID in the lab?
At 7:37 PM, Joe G said…

Umm I know a few archaeologists too. And anyone who thinks they can piece together the past with 100% certainty is a moron. And here you are.

Well hey, how long are you going to study the design (since you've got no other evidence to look at) before you come up with something?

I am not working on your questions. Also after more than 150 years and bwe is still empty.

I take it that bothers you.

ID isn't really much of anything is it?

Not to a moron like you. However, unlike bwe it can be tested.

But anyway I see that you are really bothered because you cannot support the claims of your position and are forced to bluff because of your ignorance.

You are the one down the river. No testable model. No testable methodology. Just pure bullshit and gullible little assholes like you who eat it up.
At 3:05 AM, Unknown said…

"Umm I know a few archaeologists too. And anyone who thinks they can piece together the past with 100% certainty is a moron. And here you are."

Good thing no one is saying they can. But we do know a lot about Stonehenge.

"I am not working on your questions. Also after more than 150 years and bwe is still empty.

I take it that bothers you."

BWE is not empty. Just you saying so doesn't make it true.

No one is working on studying design. It's a dead end. Your attempts to cover up ID shortcomings by casting aspersions on well established science is sad. You'd think if evolutionary theory was so weak there'd be scads of people doing research which topples it. Strangely . . . there isn't any. Funny that. Why aren't you working on it?

You aren't working on it because you've decided to stop asking questions. You're convinced so you just stop. Just like Dr Dembski has stopped. And Dr Wells. Dr Meyer does no research. But he makes money getting you to buy his books. You're one of his cash cows.

"But anyway I see that you are really bothered because you cannot support the claims of your position and are forced to bluff because of your ignorance.

You are the one down the river. No testable model. No testable methodology. Just pure bullshit and gullible little assholes like you who eat it up."

Evolutionary theory is being tested every day. Every day there are thousands of researchers working on aspects of the bigger picture. Tomorrow we may hear of a new discovery which casts doubts on all or part of the theory. It's testable, it's being tested daily. It's falsifiable.

But almost no one is doing ID research. Testing the hypothesis. You aren't that's for sure. You're happy to just buy into the Discovery Institutes agenda, stick your fingers in your ears and claim all is well.

But it's not. There's no research, no publications. And the gaps your sticking your intelligent agent into are getting smaller and smaller.

Better get to some science eh? Tomorrow's science is coming!!
At 8:50 AM, Joe G said…

But we do know a lot about Stonehenge.

Yes for studying it and all relevant evidence, just as I said. And guess what? Stonehenge didn't stop being an artifact just because we couldn't answer those questions- who, when, why and how.

You lose.

BWE is not empty.

No one can provide supporting evidence for it. No one can provide a testable model for it. And no one uses it for anything. It is empty.

No one is working on studying design.

People are studying the design every day.

Your attempts to cover up ID shortcomings by casting aspersions on well established science is sad.

You are sad as you don't even know what science is.

OTOH IDists have provided testable methodology. But you, being a scientifically illiterate wanker, don't know anything about science and therefor choked on it.

Evolutionary theory is being tested every day.

Liar. No one knows how to test it.

I will prove it- How can we test the claim that any bacterial flagellum evolved via blind physical and chemical processes?

I bet you choke on that just as all evo scientist have.
At 8:51 AM, Joe G said…

And BTW assface- the science of tomorrow may uncover a pre-cambrain rabbit. That means your position is bullshit according to you.
At 1:32 PM, Unknown said…

"Yes for studying it and all relevant evidence, just as I said. And guess what? Stonehenge didn't stop being an artifact just because we couldn't answer those questions- who, when, why and how.?

Huh? We have very good ideas about who, when why and how. Of course it's still an artefact. What are you talking about?

"People are studying the design every day."

Who? What are their research goals? We are talking about ID proponents yes?

"I will prove it- How can we test the claim that any bacterial flagellum evolved via blind physical and chemical processes?"

I rather suspect that someone is working on a step-by-step mutational path. But, of course, you lot will just say: but you don't know that's how it happened. I've seen it before. It's called shifting the goalposts.

And that's part of the problem: since we can't travel back in time we can never PROVE exactly how the bacterial flagellum arose. But some explanations require fewer assumptions. ID ASSUMES some unspecified intelligent agent who came up with a design. Evolutionary theory does not.

"And BTW assface- the science of tomorrow may uncover a pre-cambrain rabbit. That means your position is bullshit according to you."

Yup. As has been acknowledged by evolutionary scientists for decades!! What's your point? Are you looking for such an artefact? Is any ID proponent looking for such a find? What is the Discovery Institute doing with their money anyway? Have you looked into that? How much research are they really funding?

I'm betting that won't happen. And I'm betting that way because of the decades and decades of work and research which have failed to turn up such an anomaly. It could happen, it's true. And I'll change my mind if it does.

For decades new data has shrunk the gaps within which an intelligent designer might still have sway. And yet some people who think 'god did it' have not changed their basic belief. Are you sure the ID community is really following all the data?
At 2:39 PM, Joe G said…

We have very good ideas about who, when why and how.

Humans is not a who. And all else is pure speculation and untestable, especially the why.

"I will prove it- How can we test the claim that any bacterial flagellum evolved via blind physical and chemical processes?"

I rather suspect that someone is working on a step-by-step mutational path.

But you have no idea who nor how tghey are going about it. You just have a feeling someone is doing it. LoL!

Ads for fewer assumptions, that would be design. Yours requires, who knows what- but Hawkings said numerous improbale coincidences.

For over 150 years nothing has supported bwe. Nothing at all. No one knows how to test it.

And that bothers you.
At 6:24 PM, Unknown said…

"Humans is not a who. And all else is pure speculation and untestable, especially the why."

What, you won't accept the conclusion unless I can point to a particular person? We know the group/tribe of people. We have some of their tools.

I hope you're never on a jury. You'd refuse to accept any conclusion except that which was 100% witnessed!!

"But you have no idea who nor how tghey are going about it. You just have a feeling someone is doing it. LoL!"

It was just speculation on my part. But general research in that area is being done all the time. I rather doubt anyone but ID proponents thinks that that particular evolutionary sequence is of particular interest.

"Ads for fewer assumptions, that would be design. Yours requires, who knows what- but Hawkings said numerous improbale coincidences."

You honestly think that assuming an intelligent agent who we know close to nothing about, who has left no labs or plans or piles of raw materials, who now seems strangely absent is a more parsimonious hypothesis than blind watchmaker evolution? Wow. I guess that's why they call it faith.

We're talking about DNA mostly here. I admit that if we found something like a Corvette on another planet we'd have no chance but to conclude it was designed. All the machined parts which couldn't have come together without intelligent influence. But DNA isn't that clean. It's a mess. The human genome is littered with broken genes, ERVs, tons of repeats. Some of the coding seems to be fairly deep but so much is just rubbish.

Your designer must be a tinkerer (billions of years of extinct 'mistakes') and a crap coder.

OH but I forget. You think it was all front loaded. And that humans are, in some way, part of the detritus after millennium of DNA degradation.

"For over 150 years nothing has supported bwe. Nothing at all. No one knows how to test it."

Find that rabbit in the Cambrian. A test that wasn't suggested by an ID proponent. An evolutionary biologist came up with that.

It's tested everyday. Stop marching to the Discovery Institute's tune and think for yourself for once.

And work on some research. You always bail on that bit. Who is trying to find your hypothesised 'extra' programming in the cell? Who is trying to show that all existing genomes can be derived from some ancient master copy? Do you seriously even think about such things or it is all just paraded for the heathens and the infidels who just don't get the real point?

If you just said: I have faith that God brought all this about I wouldn't argue with you. I have no argument with faith. But you keep wanting to claim you are doing science. And you aren't. You've got almost no research or publications. You've got almost zilch acceptance by those working in the field. You've even got shot down in the courts a few times.

Show me how it works. Take the Bimini atoll and show me how the design detection algorithm works for that.
At 6:38 PM, Joe G said…

We know the group/tribe of people. We have some of their tools.

We don't have any tools for transporting the stones. No tools for stone cutting. The tools that have been found could just be from a group or tribe who came upon Stonehenge and settled the area.

But general research in that area is being done all the time.

Doubtful.

I rather doubt anyone but ID proponents thinks that that particular evolutionary sequence is of particular interest.

So the how, when, where and why only mater when its ID?

Thanks for proving that you are a wanker on an agenda.

YOURS is the position that sez it has an incremental process, yet you don't think that is of any interest.

OTOH ID is a top-down framework meaning design detection comes first and the how is irrelevant to detecting design.

You honestly think that assuming an intelligent agent who we know close to nothing about, who has left no labs or plans or piles of raw materials, who now seems strangely absent is a more parsimonious hypothesis than blind watchmaker evolution?

Untold numbers of unspecified and mysterious mutations vs one design?

We're talking about DNA mostly here.

Your position can't explain DNA. To explain DNA is to explain the OoL, and if your position could do that ID dies.

"For over 150 years nothing has supported bwe. Nothing at all. No one knows how to test it."

Find that rabbit in the Cambrian

What a dolt- that isn't a test for bwe.

No one knows how to test bwe. It is useless. Nothing can come from it because no one can investigate any alleged incremental pathways.

And that is why you are forced to flail away at ID. Too bad you are too scientifically illiterate to do that correctly.
At 2:58 AM, Unknown said…

"We don't have any tools for transporting the stones. No tools for stone cutting. The tools that have been found could just be from a group or tribe who came upon Stonehenge and settled the area. "

Too bad the dating techniques disagree with you.

"So the how, when, where and why only mater when its ID?"

Nope. But only the ID community thinks that particular sequence matters so much. Because Dr Behe came up with it as an irreducibly complex structure. Funny that no one else in the ID community is doing any research on the flagellum or any other irreducibly complex things. Not even Dr Behe seems to be pursuing that particular line of thinking anymore.

"YOURS is the position that sez it has an incremental process, yet you don't think that is of any interest."

There's lots of interest. It's you lot that think that one particular process is so fascinating.

"OTOH ID is a top-down framework meaning design detection comes first and the how is irrelevant to detecting design."

Too bad no one seems to be using the supposed design detection techniques. How many designs have you detected recently? Is Dr Dembski out in the field detecting design?

"Untold numbers of unspecified and mysterious mutations vs one design?"

One design? When? AND a designer. Can't have design without a designer now can we?

So you do think it was all front loaded. So, how do you explain that the most intellectually advanced product of the process, humans, came along after so much time of degradation?

"Your position can't explain DNA. To explain DNA is to explain the OoL, and if your position could do that ID dies."

Yup, you're a front loader for sure.

"'Find that rabbit in the Cambrian'

What a dolt- that isn't a test for bwe."

So, you're not going to look. What are you going to do? Just wait and see if the real scientists find enough data to make you change your mind?

"No one knows how to test bwe. It is useless. Nothing can come from it because no one can investigate any alleged incremental pathways."

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha Classic ID denialism.

And on your side, no one is doing anything at all.

"And that is why you are forced to flail away at ID. Too bad you are too scientifically illiterate to do that correctly."

If there were some ID publications or research there'd be more to say. But, oddly enough, at this point, ID is barely even a hypothesis. And since no one is doing any work on it . . .

Why don't you guys shut up and do some work? Instead of just buying books and making fun of stuff you don't understand?
At 9:12 AM, Joe G said…

Too bad the dating techniques disagree with you.

What? How can the dating techniques show that the tools were used to transporting and stone cutting? You are retarded.

But only the ID community thinks that particular sequence matters so much.

Wrong again, as usual. Look asshole YOUR position sez it haz incremental stepwise processes. So it is up to you to demonstrate such a thing. Stop blaming us because you can't.

Not even Dr Behe seems to be pursuing that particular line of thinking anymore.

IC is still going strong and only morons would think Behe abandoned it.

Too bad no one seems to be using the supposed design detection techniques

Everyone uses it. How else do you think people detect design?

One design? When? AND a designer. Can't have design without a designer now can we?

Yup one design and only a moron would think that we have to know when and who.

"Your position can't explain DNA. To explain DNA is to explain the OoL, and if your position could do that ID dies."

Yup, you're a front loader for sure.

And you are a cowardly asshole for sure.

"No one knows how to test bwe. It is useless. Nothing can come from it because no one can investigate any alleged incremental pathways."

Classic ID denialism.

Typical cowardly non-response.

And on your side, no one is doing anything at all.

Your ignorance means nothing.

And why don't YOU shut up get to work? ID exists because of the total failure of materialism and its bastard child evolutionism. But obviously you are too stupid to grasp that fact.
At 2:21 PM, Unknown said…

"IC is still going strong and only morons would think Behe abandoned it."

Right. Irreducibly complex things are being found every day. Too bad no one hears about them eh?

"Everyone uses it. How else do you think people detect design?"

I'm sure they don't use Dr Dembski's method.

"Yup one design and only a moron would think that we have to know when and who."

One design implies a time. What if the 'who' was a complete evil dirtbag who wanted to create life just to watch creatures suffer and die? Is that palatable to you?

What if the 'designer(s)' were aliens wanting to create a planet full of critters they could eat?

What if the 'designer(s)' were time travellers trying to change the history of life on earth?

"And why don't YOU shut up get to work? ID exists because of the total failure of materialism and its bastard child evolutionism. But obviously you are too stupid to grasp that fact."

ID is a rebranding of the kind of creationism promulgated by William Paley. It's learned a few new tricks but, at the base, is the same basic belief: god did it. And the Discovery Institute has figured out how to milk the believers for money.
At 4:17 PM, Joe G said…

Right. Irreducibly complex things are being found every day. Too bad no one hears about them eh?

Well evo cowards control the media releases. But yes, people do hear about IC quite a bit. And bwe can't explain anything anyway.

I'm sure they don't use Dr Dembski's method.

They have to use the ef or something like it. Science mandates it.

One design implies a time.

So what? We don't have to know when in order to detect design. Again you are a moron, Jerad.

ID is a rebranding of the kind of creationism promulgated by William Paley.

Spoken like an ignorant ass.

Look dipshit, materialism and bwe are intellectually bankrupt. And you are a coward for taking it out on ID.
At 6:21 PM, Unknown said…

"So what? We don't have to know when in order to detect design. Again you are a moron, Jerad."

True if you're not really interested in the follow-on questions as any good scientist would be.

But I forget, the purpose of ID isn't to do science. If it was there'd be research and papers and people asking a lot of questions. There isn't though. You're happy just trying to shove design into the discussion and not following up on the implications. Which is pretty cowardly if you ask me.

Your front loading hypothesis doesn't explain or match the data. Try again.
At 6:33 PM, Joe G said…

Jerad,

You are a dumbass on an agenda. Those questions are irrelevant to Intelligent Design. And no one is prevented from asking them nor trying to answer them.

Just how do you think we can do that given that the design is way above our capabilities and just understanding it is problematic?

As I said you are proud to be a scientifically illiterate asshole pushing double-standards.

BWE doesn't match anything- it doisn't explain anything but disease and deformaties.
At 6:41 PM, Joe G said…

The science of ID is the determination and study of design.

The science of bwe is...?
At 3:38 AM, Unknown said…

"Just how do you think we can do that given that the design is way above our capabilities and just understanding it is problematic?"

Is anyone in the ID community working on it? Where's the research agenda? Mainstream scientists are working on it, stuff gets published every day. From the ID community . . . anything?

"BWE doesn't match anything- it doisn't explain anything but disease and deformaties."

And I thought you said malaria and polio were down to us. I'm confused.

"The science of ID is the determination and study of design."

Where is the research and publications from those practicing the science of ID?

IF BWE is dead in the water then why isn't the ID community doing some work? You'd think they'd be dancing on the corpse rather than just standing on the sidelines moaning.
At 6:53 AM, Joe G said…

"Just how do you think we can do that given that the design is way above our capabilities and just understanding it is problematic?"

Is anyone in the ID community working on it? Where's the research agenda? Mainstream scientists are working on it, stuff gets published every day. From the ID community . . . anything?

Thanks for continuing to prove that you are a tosser and wanker.

Where is the research and publications from those practicing the science of ID?

The research is in poeer-reviewed papers and it doesn't require people practicing ID, whatever that means. People practicing science is all that counts. And plenty of people practicing science have uncovered the evidence for ID.

OTOH no one has uncoverd any evidence for bwe doing anything but bringing on disease and deformaties.

And guess what Jerad? All this time and you still have failed to refute anything I posted in the OP. That means you are still aloser.
At 8:27 AM, Joe G said…

Just how do you think we can do that given that the design is way above our capabilities and just understanding it is problematic?

Jerad, if you can't answer that question then fuck off.
At 10:23 AM, Unknown said…

"The research is in poeer-reviewed papers and it doesn't require people practicing ID, whatever that means. People practicing science is all that counts. And plenty of people practicing science have uncovered the evidence for ID."

Really? Funny that close to 100% of the people doing that work would disagree that their work is evidence for ID. And you'd think they'd know.

So, that's the plan then: just sit around and wait and see what main stream science comes up with? Oh wait, many ID proponents say that main stream science is biased, full of liars and is heading in the wrong direction. It's too materialistic. If you think that way then surely waiting for ID-positive results is not the optimal strategy.

"OTOH no one has uncoverd any evidence for bwe doing anything but bringing on disease and deformaties."

Right. So why don't human beings appear in the fossil record until the last several million years? OH, I KNOW! It's that undefined and undiscovered mysterious programming you claim is in cells. Funny that that programming didn't just spit out humans at the start don't you think? I mean, why spend millions and millions and millions of years coming up with now extinct forms? What was the point of that? Front-loading brings up more problems than it solves I think.

"And guess what Jerad? All this time and you still have failed to refute anything I posted in the OP. That means you are still aloser."

A lazy eh?

"Just how do you think we can do that given that the design is way above our capabilities and just understanding it is problematic?"

Oh but I think we can!! You specify exactly what was designed and then we can discern things about the process and the designer.

But I forget, you can't be that specific. Deftly avoiding any scrutiny about the designer. Nice how your science-stopping refusal to be more specific provides you some room to duck and cover. Nice.

Guess we'll just have to wait for the materialist consensus to finally come around to seeing things your way eh?
At 10:41 AM, Joe G said…

Really? Funny that close to 100% of the people doing that work would disagree that their work is evidence for ID.

No one cares if they disagree. They sure as hell can't say how their research supports bwe.

If you think that way then surely waiting for ID-positive results is not the optimal strategy.

I don't have to wait- ID-positive results are in.

You specify exactly what was designed and then we can discern things about the process and the designer.

We have discerned what was designed. And no one can discern anything about the designer nor the process because both are above our comprehension.

Again Stonehenge took us centuries and we still don't know who, how nor why.

And your position can't say how nor when. So obviously it ain't important.
At 3:28 AM, Unknown said…

"We have discerned what was designed. And no one can discern anything about the designer nor the process because both are above our comprehension."

And there you have it folks. Stop asking questions because we can't understand how or why (but not when eh?) design was implemented. Now how did you come to that conclusion? Couldn't be because you might have a innate bias about who the designer(s) was/were? Couldn't be that 'cause you're following all the evidence no matter where it leads. So . . . how do you know the designer and the process are beyond our comprehension?

"Again Stonehenge took us centuries and we still don't know who, how nor why."

You'd be great on a jury. There might be tons and tons of inferential evidence and you'd keep saying: but we don't REALLY know that's how it happened.
At 7:00 AM, Joe G said…

Stop asking questions because we can't understand how or why (but not when eh?) design was implemented.

Go fuck yourself assface. No one has stopped asking questions and ID doesn't prevent anyone from looking for those answers. It's as if you are proud to be a little faggot Jerad.

OTOH no one is asking questions wrt bwe. No one knows what mutations caused what transtions and no one cares.

So . . . how do you know the designer and the process are beyond our comprehension?

Well dipshit because designing livimng organisms and universes is beyond our capabilities and therefor beyond our comprehension. And that means so is teh designer.

You are just an imbecile.

There might be tons and tons of inferential evidence and you'd keep saying: but we don't REALLY know that's how it happened.

Fuck you asshole. Strange how you can't say what any of thnat alleged evidence is. No tools were found for stone cutting nor for transportation. Nothing was found for setting the stones in place. So tell us fuckface, what evidence is there for who, how and why?

And then tell us how we had to know all that BEFORE determining Stonehenge was designed. If you can't do that then you are just a piece-of-shit clinging on to its scientific illiteracy.
At 3:04 AM, Unknown said…

"Well dipshit because designing livimng organisms and universes is beyond our capabilities and therefor beyond our comprehension. And that means so is teh designer."

Joe gives up. That's not doing science Joe. Doing science means trying to understand things.

"There might be tons and tons of inferential evidence and you'd keep saying: but we don't REALLY know that's how it happened. "

Welcome to historical sciences. And you'll keep saying evolutionary theory has no evidence because we weren't there to observe it happening.

"Fuck you asshole. Strange how you can't say what any of thnat alleged evidence is. No tools were found for stone cutting nor for transportation. Nothing was found for setting the stones in place. So tell us fuckface, what evidence is there for who, how and why? "

Go read the latest research instead of demanding that everyone else do the work for you. And if they decided not to bother stop saying there is no evidence.

"And then tell us how we had to know all that BEFORE determining Stonehenge was designed. If you can't do that then you are just a piece-of-shit clinging on to its scientific illiteracy."

My point is that we CAN say a lot about how and when and why and by whom Stonehenge was created ASIDE from just studying the design.

You should really find an example you know more about.
At 7:23 AM, Joe G said…

Joe gives up.

On what, exactly?

That's not doing science Joe.

You don't know anything about science, Jerad. Your position has absolutely nothing and you think it's science.

Doing science means trying to understand things.

And understanding things does NOT require us to know who designed it. We don't know who designed Stonehenge. We don't have to know how, when nor where something was desogned in order to understand it either. As I said you are just an ignorant fuck.

BTW bwe hasn't led to any understanding.

And you'll keep saying evolutionary theory has no evidence because we weren't there to observe it happening.

Liar. BWE doesn't have any evidence, period- well except for breaking things. If there was evidence for natural selection being a designer mimic today I couldn't say that it wasn't a designer mimic before. However there isn't any evidence for natural selection actually doing something...

Go read the latest research instead of demanding that everyone else do the work for you.

Been there done that, asshole. Now what?

My point is that we CAN say a lot about how and when and why and by whom Stonehenge was created ASIDE from just studying the design.

All we think we know came after centuries of studying it and all relevant evidence- just as I said, moron. And guess what? Stonehenge is within our capabilities to reproduce.

It's as if you are proud to be an ignorant wanker, Jerad.

Again bwe doesn't know the "how" to anything. And it'ssupposed to be the "how" position.
At 6:15 PM, Unknown said…

"And understanding things does NOT require us to know who designed it. "

Your lack of curiosity is astounding. I'm beginning to think you're avoiding the how, when and why issues deliberately. What are you trying to avoid i wonder . . . .
At 6:53 AM, Joe G said…

"And understanding things does NOT require us to know who designed it. "

Your lack of curiosity is astounding.

And another cowardly non-sequitur.

And seeing tat no one is looking into the hows of bwe your lack of curiousty is astounding.

I'm beginning to think you're avoiding the how, when and why issues deliberately.

I am for all the reasons provided. Again your willful ignorance is astounding. Also bwe has nothing to say on the how, when and why, so perhaps you need to shut up and focus on your position.

Intelligent Reasoning

Tuesday, March 11, 2014

RichTARD Hughes- A "Challenge" Based on Ignorance

44 Comments:

About Me

Previous Posts