Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Monday, June 02, 2014

What is Parsimony

-
Wikipedia says:
Occam's razor (also written as Ockham's razor and in Latin lex parsimoniae) is a principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness used in problem-solving devised by William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347). It states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but—in the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better.

Understanding Evolution says:
The parsimony principle is basic to all science and tells us to choose the simplest scientific explanation that fits the evidence.  

OK competing hypotheses and scientific explanations. Well materialism and its bastard child evolutionism don't have scientific hypotheses nor do they posit scientific explanations- no, innumerable  improbable coincidences are neither hypotheses nor scientific.

Also innumerable improbable coincidences is by far the more complicated solution as it is akin to continually winning lotteries which is very improbable and therefor very, very complicated for an explanation. So complicated no one even knows what the explanation is.

That is why one coordinated design is by far more parsimonious than innumerable improbable coincidences.


139 Comments:

  • At 10:28 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    LOL@Chubsfail.

    (who is also back to standard creationist non promotion of comments)

    "Magic" is only one thing. Do you think it is the most parsimonious explanation for things?

     
  • At 10:33 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    From same Wikipedia link:

    "Put another way, any new, and even more complex theory can still possibly be true. For example: If an individual makes supernatural claims that Leprechauns were responsible for breaking a vase, the simpler explanation would be that he is mistaken, but ongoing ad hoc justifications (e.g. "And, that's not me on film, they tampered with that too") successfully prevent outright falsification. This endless supply of elaborate competing explanations, called saving hypotheses, cannot be ruled out—but by using Occam's Razor.[29][30][31]"


    JOEFAIL

     
  • At 11:04 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Magic is all your position has, asshole.

    What position makes supernatural claims? Your more complex position can't even be tested dick-breath. But yes, it could be true, it just isn't testable and therefor not science, moron.

    And I will not post your vile ignorance on my blog again, dipshit.

    BTW my kids think what I am doing is a good thing. They were mortified when I told them about evolutionism and materialism. And they think I need to do more.

     
  • At 11:06 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    BTW non-posting of comments is something I learned from evoTARDS you fucking little ignorant bitch.

     
  • At 11:07 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Did you let them read your blog?

    No?

    because its shameful, and they'd see what an ignorant, bigoted wanna be bully their father is.

     
  • At 11:08 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    All your posts get through at AtBC - the venue where you won't go because you get repeatedly humiliated.


    You intellectual and emotional child.

     
  • At 11:19 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Yes my kids read what I post. And my youngest daughter's god-father is a homosexual you ignorant fuck.

    As for ATBC, why bother? There isn't anyone there who can support materialism nor evolutionism. If any one of those assholes shows up in front of me I will show them real humiliation.

    It looks like we are done here. Comments are for people who have something to say.

     
  • At 11:23 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Every time Richie leaves the confines of evoTARD circle-jerk forums he gets humiliated but he is too stupid to realize it.

     
  • At 6:05 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "Also innumerable improbable coincidences is by far the more complicated solution as it is akin to continually winning lotteries which is very improbable and therefor very, very complicated for an explanation. So complicated no one even knows what the explanation is."

    Except that's not true. Since evolution had no particular goal in mind.

    Think of it this way: suppose you get in your car in Chicago and start driving the speed limit, making random legal turns at every junction. You've got no fixed destination. Let's say after 10 days you end up in Atlanta. You could go back and say that that was incredibly improbable and that the process that got you there was like winning the lottery at every turn.

    Except . . . you could say the same thing if you ended up in Cleveland or Baltimore or Sarasota or Las Alamos or . . . just about any place really. They're all pretty unlikely. But the probability you end up someplace accessible by road is very high.

    You're not winning the lottery at every step, you're just making a small change in the grand scheme of things. It's the accumulation of lots of small changes that add up to something big and highly unlikely.

     
  • At 6:28 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Except that's not true. Since evolution had no particular goal in mind.

    What does that have to do with anything?

    Your "analogy" was funny. Too bad it doesn't have anything to do with the fact that evolutionism and materialism = innumerable improbable coincidences, regardless of the outcome. It isn't testable and it isn't scientific.

     
  • At 6:33 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Put a blind person behind the wheel, with nothing guiding him/ her and tell me what happens.

     
  • At 1:29 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "Your "analogy" was funny. Too bad it doesn't have anything to do with the fact that evolutionism and materialism = innumerable improbable coincidences, regardless of the outcome. It isn't testable and it isn't scientific."

    No, it is not built on innumerable improbable coincidences. It's built on a accumulation of minor random variations. The 'final' result is highly improbable but then so is every other outcome.

    "Put a blind person behind the wheel, with nothing guiding him/ her and tell me what happens."

    ??? Evolution is 'blind' only in that it doesn't know where it is going. It can't since there's no intelligence behind the process.

     
  • At 7:24 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    No, it is not built on innumerable improbable coincidences. It's built on a accumulation of minor random variations.

    The two are the same except yours doesn't pertain to the solar system nor the universe.

    And AGAIN, evolutionism doe NOT explain the origin of life. It does not explain the origin of the solar system and it doesn't explain the origin of the universe.

    Why do you clowns insist on focusing on the smallest part of your position? You can't even get to evolution. And once you do differing accumulations of genetic accidents is still unscientific because it cannot be tested.

    Evolution cannot see ahead- a driver can. Heck neither evolutionism nor materialism has a car nor a driver.

     
  • At 11:57 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Bwahahah idiot fatty. We're not proposing an overarching theory that unites cosmology, physics chemistry and biology. That's a strawman of your own making. Crossposting because you're a coward.

    I hope your daughters don't read your blog, they'll be so disappointed with their idiot father.

     
  • At 12:25 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So Richie is so fucking ignorant that he doesn't know what materialism posits. And now he thinks his ignorance means something.

    What a douche-bag asshole faggot Richie is.

     
  • At 12:29 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    My kids are much smarter than Richie. They actually understand what materialism and evolutionism posit.

    OTOH Richie is nothing but an ignorant little bitch.

     
  • At 12:32 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    We're not proposing an overarching theory that unites cosmology, physics chemistry and biology.

    1- There isn't any theory

    2- Materialism posits innumerable improbable coincidences. Evolutionism is part of materialism.

     
  • At 4:26 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    " 'No, it is not built on innumerable improbable coincidences. It's built on a accumulation of minor random variations. '

    The two are the same except yours doesn't pertain to the solar system nor the universe."

    Whew, that's good 'cause I never intended it to.

    "And AGAIN, evolutionism doe NOT explain the origin of life. It does not explain the origin of the solar system and it doesn't explain the origin of the universe."

    Again, good because it was never intended on doing so.

    "Why do you clowns insist on focusing on the smallest part of your position? You can't even get to evolution. And once you do differing accumulations of genetic accidents is still unscientific because it cannot be tested."

    The theory of evolution was only 'designed' to address the origin of new species.

    Let's focus on the accumulation of small, likely, random variations. Do you think that it's possible for a serial accumulation of small, random chance events can add up to a highly improbable outcome? For example: take a day in your life. What is the probability that any of your days will turn out exactly as they did? Very, very low. But you are going to have a day with some outcomes. Each little crossroads is a branching and each branch has a non-zero probability. Shall I have eggs or bacon or both for breakfast? Do I leave the house at 8:15 or 8:20? Each of those events is insignificant but if you add up a days worth of those events and their probabilities (I know, they don't get added if they're independent) then you end up with a highly improbably outcome.

    "Evolution cannot see ahead- a driver can. Heck neither evolutionism nor materialism has a car nor a driver."

    Evolution cannot see ahead, correct. In my analogy, my driver is not looking ahead, just making a random choice at each junction. It was just an analogy, we can let it go if it bothers you.

     
  • At 7:04 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Whew, that's good 'cause I never intended it to.

    Then you either cannot pay attention or you are just stupid.

    The theory of evolution was only 'designed' to address the origin of new species.

    It can't even do that. But that is moot because my post applies to materialism, as a hole (spelling intended).

    Let's focus on the accumulation of small, likely, random variations.

    Go ahead and try to model that- I dare you. Once you do we will have something to discuss.

    In my analogy, my driver is not looking ahead, just making a random choice at each junction.

    LoL! The driver needs to look ahead to see the turns.

     
  • At 9:00 PM, Blogger Glenn J said…

    I may be wrong, but I do not think it is possible to create an analogy illustrating the accumulation of random small changes that doesn't depend on multiple assumptions of preexisting intelligence.

    The premise of the analogy is "Let's assume a car (built by intelligent design) and a road (built by intelligent design) and a driver (far, far more complex in design characteristics than either the car or the road) and look! the result is completely random."

    It's like... Give me $1000 to put in the bank and I will prove to you that I have a $1000 in the bank.

     
  • At 10:27 PM, Blogger Glenn J said…

    In the back and forth above, these statements were made:
    Unknown said: 'No, it is not built on innumerable improbable coincidences. It's built on a accumulation of minor random variations. '

    Joe G said: The two are the same except yours doesn't pertain to the solar system nor the universe.

    Unknown said: Whew, that's good 'cause I never intended it to.

    Going on my previous thought, Unknown's analogy DID IN FACT claim the planet and the whole universe; he claimed the car, the road and the driver ALL as "givens".

    It seems typical of evolution apologists to claim a whole lot for their theory as "givens".

    I don't think they give the slightest thought to how much they just ASSUME into their theory.

     
  • At 1:33 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    " 'Whew, that's good 'cause I never intended it to.'

    Then you either cannot pay attention or you are just stupid."

    Uh, everyone knows that Darwin wasn't trying to figure out the origin of life on earth. He made a guess but his intention was to explain how new species arose.

    " 'The theory of evolution was only 'designed' to address the origin of new species.'

    It can't even do that. But that is moot because my post applies to materialism, as a hole (spelling intended)."

    Well, your post is about parsimony. And I was talking about how cumulative selection of lots and lots of small, random, probable variation can add up to a big improbable and that's why it's the most parsimonious explanation.

    " 'Let's focus on the accumulation of small, likely, random variations.'

    Go ahead and try to model that- I dare you. Once you do we will have something to discuss."

    How about you flip a coin 10 times writing down the results each time. The pattern you get will be an accumulation of events each of which had a 0.5 probability of occurring. But the final pattern has a probability of 2^-10 which is pretty small. So, a series of likely events can accumulate as something improbable.

    " 'In my analogy, my driver is not looking ahead, just making a random choice at each junction. '

    LoL! The driver needs to look ahead to see the turns."

    Sigh. You are determined to misinterpret the analogy. Let's just drop it.

     
  • At 7:14 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Uh, everyone knows that Darwin wasn't trying to figure out the origin of life on earth.

    I wasn't talking about Darwin. As I said you cannot follow along. My post refers to materialism, which includes evolutionism.

    And if you cannot say how life originated then you have nothing to say about its subsequent evolution as the two are directly linked. It is only if materialistic processes produced life that we would infer they also produced its diversity.

    Well, your post is about parsimony.

    Wow, very good.

    And I was talking about how cumulative selection of lots and lots of small, random, probable variation can add up to a big improbable and that's why it's the most parsimonious explanation.

    Cumulative selection is a design mechanism as it implies a goal.

    How about you flip a coin 10 times writing down the results each time.

    Umm that is not random variation and it has NOTHING to do with biology. BTW flipping a coin X times there is a probability of 1 that you will get some pattern of heads and tails. I thought you knew something about math.

    You are determined to misinterpret the analogy

    No, I am exposing your false analogy. So yes you should drop it.

     
  • At 7:15 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hi Glen J. Thank you for your posts.

     
  • At 7:51 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "I wasn't talking about Darwin. As I said you cannot follow along. My post refers to materialism, which includes evolutionism.

    And if you cannot say how life originated then you have nothing to say about its subsequent evolution as the two are directly linked. It is only if materialistic processes produced life that we would infer they also produced its diversity."

    How the first basic self-replicator arose (or arrived) is a separate issue from what happened after that. But then you think life started out as some complicated and front-loaded mechanism so you disagree with my axiom.

    "Cumulative selection is a design mechanism as it implies a goal."

    No, it doesn't. Random mutations in genomes are cumulatively selected for based on their effects on the creature or plant and it's reproductive fitness in the environment where it abides. There is no 'intelligent' design in that, just environmental pressures which differ from location to location.

    " 'How about you flip a coin 10 times writing down the results each time.'

    Umm that is not random variation and it has NOTHING to do with biology. BTW flipping a coin X times there is a probability of 1 that you will get some pattern of heads and tails. I thought you knew something about math."

    Of course you will get some pattern of heads and tails! My point is that flipping a coin is generating a random sequence of heads and tails and that the end pattern is an accumulation of individually probable events. But the particular end result is highly improbable. You can create a very unlikely outcome by accumulating sequences of probable variations.

    "No, I am exposing your false analogy. So yes you should drop it."

    An analogy is not supposed to be a copy of the situation, just a way of trying to explain an aspect of the situation. Like in chemistry class when they taught you about electron shells. That's a simplistic analogy but it's useful for understanding the situation at the basic level. Would you stop teaching chemistry that way? Do you understand the partial differential equations that are the real models for electron behaviour? Would you just not bother to teach chemistry until the students had taken multiple years of mathematics first?

     
  • At 7:55 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Another good learning analogy is thinking of electricity like water. It's not completely right but it can help kick start greater understanding. And, again, the real rules are complicated mathematical differential equations past the basic volts, watts, amps and ohms.

     
  • At 8:11 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    How the first basic self-replicator arose (or arrived) is a separate issue from what happened after that.

    No, it isn't. Not only that it is a huge leap from some simple self-replicator to a living organism.

    "Cumulative selection is a design mechanism as it implies a goal."

    No, it doesn't.

    Of course it does. Cumulative selection implies there is actual selecting going on and it is selecting towards some goal.

    Random mutations in genomes are cumulatively selected for based on their effects on the creature or plant and it's reproductive fitness in the environment where it abides.

    That is incorrect. There isn't any selecting going on. Natural selection eliminates what doesn't work. Anything that is good enough to survive, survives.

    As for your "analogy", it sucked and wasn't an analogy of materialism.

    But anyway you have no idea what mutations can cause what changes. You have no idea how many mutations it takes to get a bacterial flagellum, for example. You have no idea if accumulations of mutations can even produce one.

     
  • At 8:12 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Another good learning analogy is thinking of electricity like water.

    Materialism cannot account for either.

     
  • At 8:12 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Another good learning analogy is thinking of electricity like water.

    Materialism cannot account for either.

     
  • At 8:13 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Dawkins' example of cumulative selection had a goal. And no one has produced a model in which cumulative selection didn't have a goal.

    Perhaps you can be the first.

     
  • At 8:17 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Waiting for Two Mutations squashes cumulative selection, for obvious reasons.

     
  • At 9:03 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "No, it isn't. Not only that it is a huge leap from some simple self-replicator to a living organism."

    It sure took a long time! Billions of years but not one great leap. It is possible that life on earth was 'seeded' by the arrival of a virus or bacteria on an asteroid in which case it's really clear that the development of species after that is a completely separate topic and issue. The evidence for universal common descent implies one (or very few) common ancestor(s).

    "Of course it does. Cumulative selection implies there is actual selecting going on and it is selecting towards some goal."

    When the 'selection' is carried out by environmental pressures (climate, terrain, humidity, pressure, etc) then how is there a goal there? There's no plan or 'map'. Organisms are not 'selected' based on their resemblance to some criterium.

    "That is incorrect. There isn't any selecting going on. Natural selection eliminates what doesn't work. Anything that is good enough to survive, survives."

    Which means that there is differential reproductive rates and so those that are better suited to their environment, those that can compete more successfully for natural resources, leave more offspring so their traits are handed down. I would not have used the term 'natural selection' but biologists know what it means and we're kind of stuck with it now.

    "But anyway you have no idea what mutations can cause what changes. You have no idea how many mutations it takes to get a bacterial flagellum, for example. You have no idea if accumulations of mutations can even produce one."

    But we can see in the fossil, genomic, morphological and bio-geographic records what, in the absence of evidence for any other mechanism, what universal common descent with modification can accomplish given time.

    You can doubt that it happened that way but you've got no evidence of another mechanism in existence at the time which explains the data.

    " 'Another good learning analogy is thinking of electricity like water.'

    Materialism cannot account for either."

    What? I was just talking about analogies and their usefulness.

    "Dawkins' example of cumulative selection had a goal. And no one has produced a model in which cumulative selection didn't have a goal."

    He was just trying to show how quickly accumulation of random variation can have a measurable effect. He stated that he was just modelling a smart aspect of evolutionary theory.

    "Perhaps you can be the first."

    I'm happy with evolutionary theory. Tons and tons of evidence and no other 'cause' has been proven to have existed at the time that can account or explain the data we see.

    "Waiting for Two Mutations squashes cumulative selection, for obvious reasons."

    Uh huh. I think Dr Lenski's experiment has settled that issue. And there is all that other data . . .

     
  • At 9:20 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    It sure took a long time! Billions of years but not one great leap.

    Wow, you are ignorant. The earth is allegedly 4.5x years old. The first living organism allegedly appeared 3.8 billion years ago. And it is still a great leap from a simple replicator to a living organism regardless of the time involved.

    When the 'selection' is carried out by environmental pressures (climate, terrain, humidity, pressure, etc) then how is there a goal there?

    The environment doesn't select.

    Which means that there is differential reproductive rates and so those that are better suited to their environment, those that can compete more successfully for natural resources, leave more offspring so their traits are handed down.

    You have no idea- whatever is good enough can be many, many different things. Leaving more offspring doesn't do anything beyond that.

    But we can see in the fossil, genomic, morphological and bio-geographic records what, in the absence of evidence for any other mechanism, what universal common descent with modification can accomplish given time.

    Your mechanism can't account for the fossil record. It can't even get beyond prokaryotes given the starting point of prokaryotes.

    You can doubt that it happened that way but you've got no evidence of another mechanism in existence at the time which explains the data.

    You don't have a mechanism that explains the data. You don't even have a model nor a testable hypothesis.

    He was just trying to show how quickly accumulation of random variation can have a measurable effect.

    Yes, evolution by design is very powerful. See, we do have a mechanism that can explain the data.

    I'm happy with evolutionary theory.

    Obviously because you are ignorant of what it entails.

    Tons and tons of evidence

    Bullshit. There isn't any evidence that prokaryotes can evolve into something other than prokaryotes. There isn't any evidence that mutations can produce the changes required.

    I think Dr Lenski's experiment has settled that issue.

    Lenski proves my point. 50,000+ generations and the only major announcement is of a gene duplication that provided a way to utilize citrate in an oxygen-rich environment. And Lenski doesn't know if gene duplication is a materialistic process.

    IOW you have nothing but your ignorance.

     
  • At 9:22 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So Jerad is happy with a "theory" that cannot be modeled and doesn't make any predictions based on the mechanisms of natural selection and genetic drift.

    Talk about being scientifically illiterate...

     
  • At 10:01 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "Wow, you are ignorant. The earth is allegedly 4.5x years old. The first living organism allegedly appeared 3.8 billion years ago. And it is still a great leap from a simple replicator to a living organism regardless of the time involved."

    Like I said, things took a long time. Step by step.

    "The environment doesn't select."

    Oh, Right.

    "You have no idea- whatever is good enough can be many, many different things. Leaving more offspring doesn't do anything beyond that."

    Yup, it can be. Which is why sometimes you have descendent species and parent species around at the same time. So? You came from your grandfather but no one would think it's odd that he'd still be around while you were alive.

    And the ones that lived long enough to reproduce created offspring which passed on their characteristics with modifications.

    "Your mechanism can't account for the fossil record. It can't even get beyond prokaryotes given the starting point of prokaryotes."

    In your opinion. Anyway, the topic was accumulation of lots of small variation giving you an improbable result. Do you agree now that that is possible?

    "You don't have a mechanism that explains the data. You don't even have a model nor a testable hypothesis."

    In your opinion. But most biologists disagree with you. I'll stick with them.

    "Yes, evolution by design is very powerful. See, we do have a mechanism that can explain the data."

    But you haven't got an agent. Too bad about that. And, even with that, you can't explain why the designer implemented the designs we see in the data. You can only wave your hands and say because that's the way s/he/it wanted to do it. Your hypothesis lacks explanatory power.

    "Obviously because you are ignorant of what it entails."

    I understand it pretty well actually.

    "Bullshit. There isn't any evidence that prokaryotes can evolve into something other than prokaryotes. There isn't any evidence that mutations can produce the changes required."

    Sure there is. Lacking evidence for some other cause or mechanism we've got the fossil, genomic, morphologic and bio-geographic data.

    "Lenski proves my point. 50,000+ generations and the only major announcement is of a gene duplication that provided a way to utilize citrate in an oxygen-rich environment. And Lenski doesn't know if gene duplication is a materialistic process."

    You haven't found another mechanism that can do it. You prove there is some agent or give me a model that explains the data precisely and then we'll talk. Don't just wave your hands and say design. Get specific.


    "So Jerad is happy with a "theory" that cannot be modeled and doesn't make any predictions based on the mechanisms of natural selection and genetic drift.

    Talk about being scientifically illiterate..."

    :-) Except it can do all those things. You just like saying it can't. But saying so doesn't make it true.

    By the way, your hypothesis really can't do any of those. You can't make predictions. You can't model it. You've got no methods or motivation or even a time frame. You believe in some kind of front loaded genomic start but you won't say what you think it looked like. You can't show how your front loaded genome 'devolved' into all the species we see in existence today. And, you haven't got a designer or counter-flow. No labs, no waste, nothing. Just a wish that there was an unspecified and undetected designer.

    Let's get back to parsimony and accumulation of small random variations creating a highly improbable outcome. Or have you conceded that point?

     
  • At 10:43 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hiding behind father time is not scientific. And not one of those biologists who disagree with me can demonstrate that I am wrong. That means their opinion is meaningless.

    Except it can do all those things

    Liar.

    Let's get back to parsimony and accumulation of small random variations creating a highly improbable outcome.

    Try to do it in context.

     
  • At 11:16 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Gee, you didn't address all those things I said your hypothesis couldn't do. So you concede on those points?

    "Hiding behind father time is not scientific. And not one of those biologists who disagree with me can demonstrate that I am wrong. That means their opinion is meaningless."

    It's not hiding. Mutations occur randomly. Experiments give good estimates for the rates of mutations. If they weren't random could we measure their average rate? Selective breeding shows there's enough variation through mutations to create all the breeds of dogs and brassicas in about 2000 years or less. The data just keeps mounting up buddy. Meanwhile you've got no designer, no counter-flow, no time frame, no tools, workshops, methodology, rationale . . .

    "Liar."

    Don't you think it would be better if you actually had some data trying to prove your negative assertion? Oh, wait, I forget. You can't prove a negative. Too bad for you eh?

    "Try to do it in context."

    Do you concede that it is possible to create a highly improbable outcome via an accumulation of small random variations? Or are you going to hide behind more bluff and bluster and profanity?

    How about you show me where in the cell your extra programming is. Or tell me what you think the first form of life on earth was like. What did its genome look like? When was it created? How did it reproduce? If humans are so advanced then why didn't they appear AFTER the sponges and the lichens and the fungii and the bacteria and the viruses and all the other plants and animals found in the fossil record? Why is it that the fossil record clearly indicates the evolutionary process starting out with simple life instead of complex organisms?

     
  • At 11:24 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Is hiding behind a designer (which you haven't detected or specified) whose abilities and motivations you don't know scientific?

    I wish you did actually know who the designer was 'cause I'd love to ask s/he/it why my genome has 1000s of repeated sequences that don't seem to code for anything. And your genome has different numbers of some of those sequences which is why DNA identity tests work. Oh, maybe that's why the designer 'did it', so that our DNA tests would work. Silly me!!

    I'd also like to ask the designer what's the deal with all the horrible and loathsome diseases I can catch even if I live a good and pious life. What's with malaria and polio and the plague and whooping cough and measles and typhoid and TB and ebola. Nothing to do with free will, just lots of things out there trying to kill me. If the designer just wound things up and let 'em go and didn't/doesn't care that millions and millions of people died from the flu less than 100 years ago then the designer must be a pretty nasty being indeed.

     
  • At 11:29 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Gosh I forgot about the supposedly designed universe which could kill all the humans in existence with one good sized rock hitting the earth. Or a cosmic ray burst. Or a comet. Or even a particularly nasty solar flare.

    And then there's earthquakes and floods and typhoons and hurricanes and tornados and tidal waves. Heck someone in England was killed the other day when a piece of a church fell on him.

    Poisonous snakes and spiders. Those are nice to have around. NOT! If humans only had a different genetic code we might be immune from some of the things trying to kill us but, damn, we use the same scheme as most of the rest of life on this planet. Oh well. Back to the drawing board eh?

     
  • At 11:50 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Gee, you didn't address all those things I said your hypothesis couldn't do.

    I already have in other blog posts. And you appear to be ignorant on how we can determine the presence of a designer.

    It's not hiding.

    Of course it is. It cannot be tested directly and you think father time is the remedy.

    Mutations occur randomly.

    Your opinion.

    Selective breeding shows there's enough variation through mutations to create all the breeds of dogs and brassicas in about 2000 years or less

    True, but natural selection is nothing like selective breeding. NS couldn't produce those breeds of dogs. NS has never been shown to produce anything of note.

    Don't you think it would be better if you actually had some data trying to prove your negative assertion?

    What? I am asking for your position to present something positive. Yet it cannot.


    Do you concede that it is possible to create a highly improbable outcome via an accumulation of small random variations?


    It depends on the CONTEXT. You cannot show that differing accumulations of genetic accidents can do anything. And you can't even get to a living organism without relying solely on luck. Just to get a planet that can support life all you have is sheer dumb luck.

    How about you show me where in the cell your extra programming is.

    There isn't any extra programming, just the required programming. And if your position had something then you wouldn't need to worry about it as the way to the design inference is through your lame position.

     
  • At 11:55 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    We don't hide behind a designer. The evidence says there was at least one. And if we knew who the designer was we wouldn't need science.

    I'd also like to ask the designer what's the deal with all the horrible and loathsome diseases I can catch even if I live a good and pious life.

    It's called entropy and disease is what unguided evolution brings.

    So anyways all Jerad can do is stomp, kick and whine. Strange that all he needs to do is step up and present positive evidence for materialism and evolutionism and ID goes away.

     
  • At 12:00 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Or are you going to hide behind more bluff and bluster and profanity?

    All you have are bluff and bluster.

    Biologists don't know what makes an organism what it is- that should be basic stuff yet they can't crack it. Biologists don't know how many mutations it takes to get new protein machinery let alone the changes required to produce universal common descent. They don't even know what genes were involved in the alleged divergence between chimps and humans.

    All they appear to know is what goes on inside cells.

    OTOH evolutionary and genetic algorithms demonstrate the power of evolution by design. Dawkins' weasel would never complete if it wasn't guided to the target. Heck I doubt it could produce any sentence given trillions of tries.

    That means your requires more assumptions than ID.

     
  • At 12:11 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "I already have in other blog posts. And you appear to be ignorant on how we can determine the presence of a designer."

    I've read Dr Dembski's paper (and understood the mathematics and the criticisms). And I've read a lot about irreducible complexity and the criticisms. That stuff just doesn't wash. Dr Dembski's approach is used by no one and even he's abandoned it. And Dr Behe, as much as I admire his convictions, has not made his case yet.

    "Of course it is. It cannot be tested directly and you think father time is the remedy."

    :-) How do you propose to test your designer? Are you going to send s/he/it a questionaire or just keep saying s/he/it must be there because you think natural processes aren't up to the job? How do you test something that isn't natural? And if you can't test it, is it scientific?

    "Your opinion."

    Disprove it. Explain to me, mathematically, how the mutations rates observed are not random. Cut and paste from whatever sources you like. Direct me at anything online that makes the case.

    "True, but natural selection is nothing like selective breeding. NS couldn't produce those breeds of dogs. NS has never been shown to produce anything of note."

    It's not the same but my point was that mutations provide enough variation to create great variation in morphology. And if artificial selection can do it then why can't environmental pressures do it through culling? Why do you think the processes are so much different when they're working with the same raw materials?

    "What? I am asking for your position to present something positive. Yet it cannot."

    Except that the scientific community has decided that evolution has been proven. Agree or disagree, if you want to shift the paradigm you've got to do the work. Welcome to the party.

    " 'Do you concede that it is possible to create a highly improbable outcome via an accumulation of small random variations?'

    It depends on the CONTEXT. You cannot show that differing accumulations of genetic accidents can do anything. And you can't even get to a living organism without relying solely on luck. Just to get a planet that can support life all you have is sheer dumb luck."

    So, you agree that it is possible for an accumulation of random variation to create an improbable outcome. And we've established that mutations create a lot of variation for selection to work on. Yes? And all that variation can accumulate in a genome? Because it does get passed on to offspring.

    "There isn't any extra programming, just the required programming. And if your position had something then you wouldn't need to worry about it as the way to the design inference is through your lame position."

    So, I take it it still hasn't been discovered. Just checking.

    I wish you would make up your mind though: is there programming aside from DNA or are mutations not random. And I read reviews of that book claiming to prove that mutations are not random. Instead of just reading things you agree with you should try reading the criticisms as well.

    Too bad you didn't take a stab at some of the other issues I brought up. Oh well, maybe some other day.

     
  • At 12:42 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I've read Dr Dembski's paper (and understood the mathematics and the criticisms). And I've read a lot about irreducible complexity and the criticisms. That stuff just doesn't wash.

    Right and yet you cannot provide any evidence that contradicts what they say.

    How do you propose to test your designer?

    We test for DESIGN. Archaeologists cannot test to see if the humans of thousands of years ago were capable of building Stonehenge.

    Are you going to send s/he/it a questionaire or just keep saying s/he/it must be there because you think natural processes aren't up to the job?

    Materialistic processes and the design says there was at least one designer. That is based on the fact that materialistic processes can't do it and there design criteria is met.

    Explain to me, mathematically, how the mutations rates observed are not random.

    Wrong. YOU have to demonstrate that mutations are stochastic/ purely materialistic. You then have to show that they can accumulate is such a way as to do the things you say they can. Yet Lenski is a fly in your ointment as his experiments prove the severe limitations of mutations.

    It's not the same but my point was that mutations provide enough variation to create great variation in morphology.

    Yet you cannot determine if mutations are materialistic and the variation is limited.

    And if artificial selection can do it then why can't environmental pressures do it through culling?

    Lack of supporting evidence.

    Except that the scientific community has decided that evolution has been proven.

    Evolution isn't being debated. And this alleged scientific community can't support unguided evolution. They can't even provide a testable model.

    So, you agree that it is possible for an accumulation of random variation to create an improbable outcome.

    My point in the OP is innumerable improbable coincidences. So please stop trying to change the scenario.

    And we've established that mutations create a lot of variation for selection to work on.

    Not really. And we still don't know if mutations are totally random. That only works if materialistic processes produced living organisms- and there isn't any evidence for that.

    Because it does get passed on to offspring.

    Humans give birth to humans. Doesn't help you at all.

    Too bad you didn't take a stab at some of the other issues I brought up.

    Your whining and crying is your issue. Your inability to support your position is your issue too.

     
  • At 12:46 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    is there programming aside from DNA or are mutations not random.

    LoL! The DNA isn't a program- not even wrt evolutionism. There is programming that runs the cells and the vast majority of mutations are not random.

    Artificial ribospmes don't function. Partially artificial ribosomes barely function. That alone says there is more to it than physics and chemistry.

     
  • At 3:04 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "Right and yet you cannot provide any evidence that contradicts what they say."

    No need for me to reproduce what many others have already written. The truth is out there to borrow a phrase.

    "We test for DESIGN. Archaeologists cannot test to see if the humans of thousands of years ago were capable of building Stonehenge."

    hahahahahahahah OF course they can!! And do. Haven't you ever heard of experimental archaeology? Besides, there has been a lot of speculation of how and why Stonghenge was built. Published speculation.

    "Materialistic processes and the design says there was at least one designer. That is based on the fact that materialistic processes can't do it and there design criteria is met."

    So, you're still going to try and prove a negative, that natural processes are incapable. Noted.

    "Wrong. YOU have to demonstrate that mutations are stochastic/ purely materialistic. You then have to show that they can accumulate is such a way as to do the things you say they can. Yet Lenski is a fly in your ointment as his experiments prove the severe limitations of mutations."

    hahahahahahahahha You are really funny. Look, you are in the severe minority. It's upon you to prove your point which is in contradictions to decades of research and publications.

    Dr Lenski's experiments have only been running for a relatively short while. They can't possibly prove that something could not have happened.

    "Yet you cannot determine if mutations are materialistic and the variation is limited."

    Mutations are or are not materialistic? What does that mean??? You're not even making sense now. You might have an argument trying to prove they aren't random but 'materialistic'? hahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

    "Lack of supporting evidence."

    You are just like the little boy in primary school who stamps his feet and keeps saying "I won't".

    "Evolution isn't being debated. And this alleged scientific community can't support unguided evolution. They can't even provide a testable model."

    Only according to you and some others like Dr Berlinski. Even Dr Behe disagrees with you.

    "My point in the OP is innumerable improbable coincidences. So please stop trying to change the scenario."

    And I showed you that the innumerable events don't have to be individually improbable. You just refuse to even give an inch in case your whole argument crashes to the ground. Plus you just don't get the math.

    "Not really. And we still don't know if mutations are totally random. That only works if materialistic processes produced living organisms- and there isn't any evidence for that."

    Joe, arguing against things no one has said and arguing for things no one can support.

    "Humans give birth to humans. Doesn't help you at all."

    :-) Are you the same as humans living 30,000 years ago? Do you have the same features, immune system, head size, height, lactose tolerance, eye colour? Keep stepping it back buddy. And read Dr Dawkins book The Greatest Show On Earth.

    "Your whining and crying is your issue. Your inability to support your position is your issue too."

    :-) Fortunately for me my position is supported by decades of data and research, innumerable publications and more popular books than ID can ever hope to achieve. And the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community.

    "LoL! The DNA isn't a program- not even wrt evolutionism. There is programming that runs the cells and the vast majority of mutations are not random."

    Uh huh. Too bad you can't prove that.

    "Artificial ribospmes don't function. Partially artificial ribosomes barely function. That alone says there is more to it than physics and chemistry."

    Talk about a leap of faith. You think you've found a problem and then you jump to design. Is that scientific?

     
  • At 1:05 AM, Blogger bpragmatic said…

    unknown is a "scientifically" illiterate asshole. As any thinking individual can readily see.

     
  • At 7:36 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    No need for me to reproduce what many others have already written.

    LoL! Evidence matters, not what people have written. Your position doesn't have any supporting evidence.

    OF course they can!!

    It is impossible to test what people of thousands of years ago could do.

    Haven't you ever heard of experimental archaeology?

    Yes I have and it does not test the capability of peoples from thousands of years ago. And the speculation hasn't been tested.

    So, you're still going to try and prove a negative, that natural processes are incapable.

    Wrong again. Materialistic processes have never had any positive evidence to support them.

    Look, you are in the severe minority.

    Nope. More people accept some sort of design than people who accept materialism. And that doesn't matter only evidence matters.

    It's upon you to prove your point which is in contradictions to decades of research and publications.

    There aren't any publications that support materialism. You are deluded or ignorant. There aren't any publications supporting unguided evolution either.

    Dr Lenski's experiments have only been running for a relatively short while.

    Generations matter. 50,000+ generations and nothing that supports your position. How much longer is it going to take for your position to have some supporting evidence?

    Mutations are or are not materialistic? What does that mean???

    So you are ignorant of what is being debated. Why am I not surprised. Materialistic means reducible to matter and energy.

    You are just like the little boy in primary school who stamps his feet and keeps saying "I won't".

    Nice projection. I have looked, moron. And it is very telling that you cannot present anything but your bluff and bluster.

    "Evolution isn't being debated. And this alleged scientific community can't support unguided evolution. They can't even provide a testable model."

    Only according to you and some others like Dr Berlinski. Even Dr Behe disagrees with you.

    Dr Behe agrees with what I said, so stuff it.

    And I showed you that the innumerable events don't have to be individually improbable.

    Only in certain scenarios, which have nothing to do with materialism.

    Plus you just don't get the math.

    You haven't provided any math. You must be an asshole.

    "Not really. And we still don't know if mutations are totally random. That only works if materialistic processes produced living organisms- and there isn't any evidence for that."

    Joe, arguing against things no one has said and arguing for things no one can support.

    Jerad, totally ignorant of what is being debated and thinks his ignorance means something.

    Are you the same as humans living 30,000 years ago?

    Possibly.

    And read Dr Dawkins book The Greatest Show On Earth.

    Read it. It is void of science

    Fortunately for me my position is supported by decades of data and research, innumerable publications and more popular books than ID can ever hope to achieve. And the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community.

    You are deluded and ignorant. Unlike Jerad I have actually looked and there isn't any evidence to support evolutionism.

    Too bad you can't prove that.

    It is being proved every day.

    "Artificial ribospmes don't function. Partially artificial ribosomes barely function. That alone says there is more to it than physics and chemistry."

    Talk about a leap of faith. You think you've found a problem and then you jump to design. Is that scientific?

    Talk about being totally ignorant. The problem is real and the inference of design is based on the criteria, the scientific criteria. OTOH you have nothing at all to show that ribosomes evolved via accumulations of genetic accidents. It can't even be tested.

    You lose.

     
  • At 7:39 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Explain to me, mathematically, how the mutations rates observed are not random.

    Explain to me, mathematically, how the 1s and 0s on a computer buss observed are not random.

    Explain to me, mathematically, how the letters in sentences observed are not random.

    Explain to me mathematically how many mutations it takes to produce a new body plan with new body parts.

     
  • At 8:40 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Jerad- How can we test the claim that natural selection and/ or drift produced bacterial flagella?

    Please be specific.

     
  • At 5:29 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "LoL! Evidence matters, not what people have written. Your position doesn't have any supporting evidence."

    Since this is your catch response I'll not bother to reply again.

    "It is impossible to test what people of thousands of years ago could do."

    You can get a very good idea.

    "Nope. More people accept some sort of design than people who accept materialism. And that doesn't matter only evidence matters."

    I'm not talking about materialism. I'm talking about evolutionary theory. And I think you'll find that in Europe most people do accept evolutionary theory.

    "There aren't any publications that support materialism. You are deluded or ignorant. There aren't any publications supporting unguided evolution either."

    Sigh.

    "Generations matter. 50,000+ generations and nothing that supports your position. How much longer is it going to take for your position to have some supporting evidence?"

    Who knows? Why are you throwing in the towel after so little time?

    "You are deluded and ignorant. Unlike Jerad I have actually looked and there isn't any evidence to support evolutionism."

    Except of course that thousands upon thousands of highly educated people whose work is scrutinised by their pears everyday disagree.

    "Explain to me, mathematically, how the 1s and 0s on a computer buss observed are not random."

    What does that have to do with mutation rates? I suspect the 1s and 0s on a computer bus are not random because of the limited instructions and memory locations available and their rates of use. But it's a side issue anyway.

    "Explain to me, mathematically, how the letters in sentences observed are not random."

    Again, what does this have to do with mutation rates? In English certain letters and letter combinations occur with greater frequency. And purely random letter sequences would not convey meaning or information.

    "Explain to me mathematically how many mutations it takes to produce a new body plan with new body parts."

    What odes that have to do with mutation rates?

    Really, you do tend to wander off topic.

    "Jerad- How can we test the claim that natural selection and/ or drift produced bacterial flagella?

    Please be specific."

    You can start with a bacteria which hasn't got a flagellum and wait a long while to see if one develops. You can find a step-by-step mutational path which could have occurred but I suspect you will just say that we don't know if it happened that way. You can also try and find another 'cause' which was in existence at the time with the design capabilities.

    Your position though is just to be a merchant of doubt. We weren't there so we can't know. And then you jump to design. Not very scientific.

    And you think that if someone like me chooses not to distill years and years of research and explanations that it can't be done.

     
  • At 7:11 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Since this is your catch response I'll not bother to reply again.

    Except it isn't a catch phrase, it is reality.

    I'm not talking about materialism.

    I am. If you can't stay on topic then why are you here?

    And I think you'll find that in Europe most people do accept evolutionary theory.

    And yet I bet they can't tell me how to test the claim that differing accumulations of genetic accidents brought about the diversity of life.

    Sigh.

    So you agree then.

    Who knows? Why are you throwing in the towel after so little time?

    Because throwing time around isn't scientific. Relying on promissory notes isn't scientific.

    Except of course that thousands upon thousands of highly educated people whose work is scrutinised by their pears everyday disagree.

    Then why can't you present any of these alleged papers so we can have a look?

    "Explain to me mathematically how many mutations it takes to produce a new body plan with new body parts."

    What odes that have to do with mutation rates?

    It has to do with being able to test evolutionism. Obviously you can't test it.

    You can start with a bacteria which hasn't got a flagellum and wait a long while to see if one develops. You can find a step-by-step mutational path which could have occurred but I suspect you will just say that we don't know if it happened that way.

    What are evos waiting for then?

    Your position though is just to be a merchant of doubt.

    To the willfully ignorant it may seem that way. However we have a methodology and apparently you do not.

    And then you jump to design.

    Wrong again.

    And you think that if someone like me chooses not to distill years and years of research and explanations that it can't be done.

    You are deluded. If you were correct then Behe would be an evolutionist.

    These years and years of research have not told us what makes an organism what it is. They have not told us how many mutations it takes to get a new body plan. They haven't told us what genes are involved in new body plans.

    They can't even produce a testable hypothesis wrt differing accumulations of genetic accidents.

    IOW the only people who believe in evolutionism are the people who have a personal agenda.

     
  • At 8:29 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "Except it isn't a catch phrase, it is reality."

    Only in your world.

    "I am. If you can't stay on topic then why are you here?"

    We were talking about whether or not mutations were random and the possibility of lots of small probable events adding up to one, very unlikely event. You think that has something to do with materialism.

    "And yet I bet they can't tell me how to test the claim that differing accumulations of genetic accidents brought about the diversity of life."

    Some can. You should read more biology.

    "Because throwing time around isn't scientific. Relying on promissory notes isn't scientific."

    And giving up, trying to prove a negative IS scientific?

    "Then why can't you present any of these alleged papers so we can have a look?"

    You'll find them referenced in any good book on evolution. If you really cared to look.

    "What are evos waiting for then?"

    Who says people aren't working on those things? Just because you're view of the science is that it hasn't done anything in 150 years it can't and won't so we'll give up.

    "To the willfully ignorant it may seem that way. However we have a methodology and apparently you do not."

    Not that you use it really.

    "You are deluded. If you were correct then Behe would be an evolutionist."

    Uh huh. What if he's wrong? Can you look at his research and examine it from a biological point of view? He's not even a biologist!!

    "These years and years of research have not told us what makes an organism what it is. They have not told us how many mutations it takes to get a new body plan. They haven't told us what genes are involved in new body plans."

    So, you think those questions haven't been answered so you're going to give up. Very scientific. No wonder you haven't published any scientific papers.

    "They can't even produce a testable hypothesis wrt differing accumulations of genetic accidents."

    Not one you'll accept you mean.

    "IOW the only people who believe in evolutionism are the people who have a personal agenda."

    Not me. No agenda. Lots of Christians believe in evolution. And non-Christians. I don't make my money on evolution being true or not. Nor do I judge myself on it either. Nor do I have a blog where I use lots of profanity casting aspersions on people with whom I disagree.

     
  • At 8:54 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Only in my world? My world deals with reality. Your world is fantasy

    We were talking about whether or not mutations were random and the possibility of lots of small probable events adding up to one, very unlikely event.

    The OP is about innumerable improbable coincidences. Not small probable events adding up.

    You think that has something to do with materialism.

    Materialism is what is contrasted with ID so materialism is the topic. Again don't blame me because you are unable to follow along.

    And yet I bet they can't tell me how to test the claim that differing accumulations of genetic accidents brought about the diversity of life."

    Some can. You should read more biology.

    No one can and I have read plenty on biology.

    And giving up, trying to prove a negative IS scientific?

    I don't know what you are talking about. Asking your position for positive evidence is not trying to prove a negative and reaching a design inference is far from giving up.

    You'll find them referenced in any good book on evolution. If you really cared to look.

    I looked. You are either dishonest, ignorant or very gullible.

    Who says people aren't working on those things?

    What is the evidence that they are working on those things?

    Just because you're view of the science is that it hasn't done anything in 150 years it can't and won't so we'll give up.

    You don't have to be an asshole just because you have nothing.

    Not that you use it really.

    We really use it.

    What if he's wrong?

    Then he said he will change IF that ever happens. THAT is the nature of science.

    Can you look at his research and examine it from a biological point of view?

    You can't but scientists could.

    So, you think those questions haven't been answered so you're going to give up.

    They haven't been answered and you are the one giving up.

    But Jerad's logic archaeologists gave up. Forensic scientists give up.

    Not one you'll accept you mean.

    I don't know no one has presented one. Evos are cowards. Not my fault.

    "IOW the only people who believe in evolutionism are the people who have a personal agenda."

    Not me. No agenda.

    All evidence to the contrary, of course.

    Lots of Christians believe in evolution.

    Then I doubt they are Christians. And believe is the right word.

    A Christian who doesn't accept the Bible is hardly a Christian.


    And non-Christians. I don't make my money on evolution being true or not. Nor do I judge myself on it either. Nor do I have a blog where I use lots of profanity casting aspersions on people with whom I disagree.

    When assholes come here spewing shit, as you have done and are doing, I respond in kind.





     
  • At 9:40 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    There is a final, even more bizarre twist. Because of Moon-induced tides, the Moon is gradually receding from Earth at 3.82 centimeters per year. In ten million years will seem noticeably smaller. At the same time, the Sun’s apparent girth has been swelling by six centimeters per year for ages, as is normal in stellar evolution. These two processes, working together, should end total solar eclipses in about 250 million years, a mere 5 percent of the age of the Earth. This relatively small window of opportunity also happens to coincide with the existence of intelligent life. Put another way, the most habitable place in the Solar System yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them. The Privileged Planet

     
  • At 5:02 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "Only in my world? My world deals with reality. Your world is fantasy"

    Too bad you don't have thousands of peer-reviewed papers to back you up. Very sad.

    "The OP is about innumerable improbable coincidences. Not small probable events adding up."

    Do you still think thank individual generic mutations are improbable?

    "Materialism is what is contrasted with ID so materialism is the topic. Again don't blame me because you are unable to follow along."

    Materialism in NOT contrasted with ID. ID could imply an alien species, perfectly natural. Please do try and keep up.

    "No one can and I have read plenty on biology."

    Too bad you didn't understand it.

    "I don't know what you are talking about. Asking your position for positive evidence is not trying to prove a negative and reaching a design inference is far from giving up."

    But saying something could not have happened, as you are, IS trying to prove a negative.

    "I looked. You are either dishonest, ignorant or very gullible."

    Or you're very ignorant.

    "What is the evidence that they are working on those things?"

    Gee, why don't you go and read some biological journals.

    "We really use it."

    Uh huh. Show me an example of a peer-reviewed paper where Dr Dembski's design detection procedure is used.

    "Then he said he will change IF that ever happens. THAT is the nature of science."

    Then why hasn't he recanted when lots and lots of biologists have take him to task?

    "You can't but scientists could."

    AND they have. And found it laking.

    "They haven't been answered and you are the one giving up."

    Not at all. Dr Lenski's experiment continues. Other work is being done. New fossils are being discovered.

    "But Jerad's logic archaeologists gave up. Forensic scientists give up. "

    hahahahahahahahahhahahaha You have no clue really.

    "I don't know no one has presented one. Evos are cowards. Not my fault."

    Or you just don't get it.

    "Then I doubt they are Christians. And believe is the right word."

    O my. Joe thinks he can judge who is a true Christian. From a purely scientific point of view I'm sure.

    "There is a final, even more bizarre twist. Because of Moon-induced tides, the Moon is gradually receding from Earth at 3.82 centimeters per year. In ten million years will seem noticeably smaller. At the same time, the Sun’s apparent girth has been swelling by six centimeters per year for ages, as is normal in stellar evolution. These two processes, working together, should end total solar eclipses in about 250 million years, a mere 5 percent of the age of the Earth. This relatively small window of opportunity also happens to coincide with the existence of intelligent life. Put another way, the most habitable place in the Solar System yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them. The Privileged Planet"

    hahahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahah You are such an egotist.

     
  • At 5:11 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    You seem to have dropped the discussion of whether or not an accumulation of fairly probable minor events can add up to a big improbable event. And you haven't addressed my responses to your mathematical challenges. Nor have you come up with any real challenge to the scientific consensus of evolutionary theory. Except to try and prove a negative: that natural processes could not have done it. Which is not positive evidence for design. And that's what Dr Dembski's design detection procedure rests on: a negative argument. And a jump to a conclusion. Are Dr Dembski (who hasn't argued for his design detection algorithm for years and years) and Dr Behe motivated in some way? Are they true Christians? How can you tell?

     
  • At 7:42 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Too bad you don't have thousands of peer-reviewed papers to back you up.

    Neither do you.

    Do you still think thank individual generic mutations are improbable?

    Your position can't account for DNA.

    Materialism in NOT contrasted with ID.

    Of course it is. If materialism is true then ID is false. If ID is true then materialism is false.

    Too bad you didn't understand it

    I understand it better than you ever will.

    But saying something could not have happened

    I am not saying that. Stop being an asshole

    Or you're very ignorant.

    Then it is very telling that you cannot refute what I said by presenting the evidence.

    Show me an example of a peer-reviewed paper where Dr Dembski's design detection procedure is used.

    Thurston et al.

    Then why hasn't he recanted when lots and lots of biologists have take him to task?

    Only EVIDENCE will get him to recant.

    Not at all. Dr Lenski's experiment continues.

    Continues to support baraminology.

    You have no clue really.

    Nice projection.

    Or you just don't get it.

    And more cowardly projection. Post one, coward.

    O my. Joe thinks he can judge who is a true Christian.

    And another cowardly response.

    You are such an egotist.

    You are such a cowardly asswipe.

     
  • At 7:45 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You seem to have dropped the discussion of whether or not an accumulation of fairly probable minor events can add up to a big improbable event.

    That is YOUR strawman

    And you haven't addressed my responses to your mathematical challenges

    Rvolutionism and materialism don't have any math

    OTOH YOU haven't any evidence to support your position. You don't have a methodology. All you have is sheer dumb luck.

     
  • At 7:49 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Except to try and prove a negative: that natural processes could not have done it.

    No asshole. There osn't any evidence that MATERIALISTIC processes could do it.

    It's as if you are proud to be an asshole, Jerad. What is your problem?

    BTW archaeology says that materialistic processes could not have produced artifacts. Do you spew your ignorance to your wife too?

     
  • At 7:52 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I would love to hear about these Christians who do not accept the Bible.

    I would also love to hear about this evolutionary position in which any ole accumulations of mutations can produce the diversity of life.

     
  • At 8:44 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    " 'Too bad you don't have thousands of peer-reviewed papers to back you up.'

    Neither do you."

    :-)


    " 'Do you still think thank individual generic mutations are improbable?'

    Your position can't account for DNA."

    Nice non-response.

    "Of course it is. If materialism is true then ID is false. If ID is true then materialism is false."

    Really. What if the designer were an alien or a time traveller? Something natural. Then you have materialism AND ID.

    " 'But saying something could not have happened'

    I am not saying that. Stop being an asshole"

    Of course you are. You're saying natural processes could not have brought about DNA. That's a negative argument.

    "Thurston et al."

    Link?

    " 'Not at all. Dr Lenski's experiment continues.'

    Continues to support baraminology."

    :-)

    " 'O my. Joe thinks he can judge who is a true Christian.'

    And another cowardly response."

    Well, you're the one who said that Christians who believe in evolutionary theory can't be real Christians.

    "Rvolutionism and materialism don't have any math"

    hahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

    "OTOH YOU haven't any evidence to support your position. You don't have a methodology. All you have is sheer dumb luck."

    :-)

    "No asshole. There osn't any evidence that MATERIALISTIC processes could do it."

    :-)

    "BTW archaeology says that materialistic processes could not have produced artifacts. Do you spew your ignorance to your wife too?"

    She's smart enough not to argue with 1000s of biologists about DNA and evolution.

    " 'I would love to hear about these Christians who do not accept the Bible.'

    I would also love to hear about this evolutionary position in which any ole accumulations of mutations can produce the diversity of life."

    Wise move, not annoying your Christian buddies who believe in evolution.

     
  • At 7:37 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OK Jerad concedes the point that unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution doesn't have anything in peer-review. Jerad also concedes that materialism doesn't have any supporting math. And he also concedes that hos position cannot account for DNA.

    She's smart enough not to argue with 1000s of biologists about DNA and evolution.

    LoL! I am smart enough to know those 1000s of biologists cannot support anything wrt unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution.

    Wise move, not annoying your Christian buddies who believe in evolution.

    I don't know of any Christians who accept unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution.

    Well, you're the one who said that Christians who believe in evolutionary theory can't be real Christians.

    I said Christians who do not accept the Bible cannot be Christians. That is obvious to anyone who knows anything about Christianity.

     
  • At 7:40 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And Jerad concedes the fact that there are design-centric venues that do eliminate necessity and/or chance before determining design.

    And when Jerad is hit with facts, like a coward he just laughs.

     
  • At 9:44 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "OK Jerad concedes the point that unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution doesn't have anything in peer-review. Jerad also concedes that materialism doesn't have any supporting math. And he also concedes that hos position cannot account for DNA."

    Hardly. I just find you funny.

    "LoL! I am smart enough to know those 1000s of biologists cannot support anything wrt unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution."

    Anyway, archaeological artefacts are generally inanimate objects.

    "I don't know of any Christians who accept unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution."

    You should get out more often. Or maybe you haven't heard of Kenneth Miller.

    "I said Christians who do not accept the Bible cannot be Christians. That is obvious to anyone who knows anything about Christianity."

    I know Christians who accept the Bible (not literally) and who believe in evolution. But they're not as narrow minded as you are.

    "And Jerad concedes the fact that there are design-centric venues that do eliminate necessity and/or chance before determining design."

    Nope, I just find you amusing.

    "And when Jerad is hit with facts, like a coward he just laughs."

    It's not my fault you're comical.

     
  • At 9:56 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hardly. I just find you funny.

    And I find gullible assholes like you to be very funny.

    Anyway, archaeological artefacts are generally inanimate objects.

    So what? Evolutionism cannot explain biological reproduction. It has to start with it.

    You should get out more often.

    I get out quite a bit.

    Or maybe you haven't heard of Kenneth Miller.

    He lies too much to be a Christian.

    I know Christians who accept the Bible (not literally) and who believe in evolution.

    What evolution do they believe in Jerad? If they accept unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution then they do NOT accept the Bible.

    "And Jerad concedes the fact that there are design-centric venues that do eliminate necessity and/or chance before determining design."

    Nope, I just find you amusing.

    Your ignorance finds my knowledge amusing. But that is how it is for ignorant people.

    It's not my fault you're comical.

    Your ignorance is your fault and yes it is comical.

    "There is a final, even more bizarre twist. Because of Moon-induced tides, the Moon is gradually receding from Earth at 3.82 centimeters per year. In ten million years will seem noticeably smaller. At the same time, the Sun’s apparent girth has been swelling by six centimeters per year for ages, as is normal in stellar evolution. These two processes, working together, should end total solar eclipses in about 250 million years, a mere 5 percent of the age of the Earth. This relatively small window of opportunity also happens to coincide with the existence of intelligent life. Put another way, the most habitable place in the Solar System yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them. The Privileged Planet

    Scientific fact, asshole. But go ahead and laugh. It proves that you are a coward with nothing to say.

     
  • At 4:30 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "And I find gullible assholes like you to be very funny."

    You know, I do respect everything you did for your country and you should never have been left out to dry as it sounds like you were. I realise you're used to calling things the way you see them and when you're in some god-forsaken place with local intelligence then your call is probably right. But you really should learn to respect others who are likewise better able to make scientific calls. I don't mean me, I mean people who have spent their lives doing research. They have the knowledge.

    " 'Anyway, archaeological artefacts are generally inanimate objects.'

    So what? Evolutionism cannot explain biological reproduction. It has to start with it."

    I'm just saying inanimate objects are easier to classify as designed or not in general.

    " 'Or maybe you haven't heard of Kenneth Miller.'

    He lies too much to be a Christian."

    You really shouldn't judge others' beliefs. It's very unChristian.

    "What evolution do they believe in Jerad? If they accept unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution then they do NOT accept the Bible."

    So, you think they're not real Christians. Who made you an authority?

    "Your ignorance finds my knowledge amusing. But that is how it is for ignorant people."

    :-)

    "Your ignorance is your fault and yes it is comical."

    :-)

    "Scientific fact, asshole. But go ahead and laugh. It proves that you are a coward with nothing to say."

    :-)

     
  • At 7:11 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Jerad,

    It is very telling that you cannot present any evidence to support the claims of evolutionism. And guess what, neither can your researchers with this alleged knowledge.

    You are a gullible little imp and that is the truth of you.

     
  • At 2:07 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "It is very telling that you cannot present any evidence to support the claims of evolutionism. And guess what, neither can your researchers with this alleged knowledge."

    The evidence is out there. No sense in repeating it ad nauseaum to a denier like yourself.

    "You are a gullible little imp and that is the truth of you."

    You actually know very little about me or what I've gone through. Not completely your fault but your assumption is telling.

    This isn't a culture war, it's a search for reality. I prefer my reality to be founded on scientific consensus, where ideas are presented and scrutinised by people who know the field. Where results are subject to repeated results. Where individual opinion and bias are ruled out.

    So far, ID has not passed the egalitarian scientific criteria. And it's not good just claiming some kind of ideological bias. What works is what passes. And, so far, ID just doesn't pass.

    Keep trying but don't say the system is faulty just because you haven't gained acceptance. Work harder.

     
  • At 4:12 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    You spent time in some foreign countries. You were there, you had first-hand knowledge and experience of what was going on. You were right to question and call out people who thought they knew better than you did.

    Look at biological research. There are people, hundreds, thousands, who have spent years and years looking at the way thing work at that level. Your alternative viewpoint might be right but don't your think you owe all those researchers the respect and dignity to at least assume they're being intelligent and honest instead of just being materialist whores?

    I assume that anyone ID proponent I engage is being honest and sincere. Will you extend the same courtesy to your perceived opposites?

     
  • At 4:30 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "It is very telling that you cannot present any evidence to support the claims of evolutionism. And guess what, neither can your researchers with this alleged knowledge."

    It is very telling that what almost everyone else on the planet considers evidence you choose to ignore.

    "You are a gullible little imp and that is the truth of you."

    Not so gullible to swallow all the half-truths and rubbish generated by The Discovery Institute and people like Barry and Gordon at UD. You really need to work on your critical thinking skills.

     
  • At 7:24 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Jerad, You are a fucking LIAR and a childish asshole. Evolutionism doesn't have any methodology. It has to start with what needs explaining. Materialism doesn't have any methodology either. Just how can sheer dumb luck be methodological?

    BTW there are thousands of scientists who do not accept evolutionism. By your "logic" there shouldn't be any.

     
  • At 7:26 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The evidence is out there.

    No, it isn't. As I said you are either very gullible, very ignorant or very dishonest.

     
  • At 7:27 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    It is very telling that what almost everyone else on the planet considers evidence you choose to ignore.

    Fuck you. You are a lying asshole. We have considered the evidence and nothing supports evolutionism. And the majority of people on the planet see it our way.

     
  • At 5:00 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "Jerad, You are a fucking LIAR and a childish asshole. Evolutionism doesn't have any methodology. It has to start with what needs explaining. Materialism doesn't have any methodology either. Just how can sheer dumb luck be methodological?"

    It's not my fault you don't understand something so simple. But you never did get the mathematics of infinity either.

    "BTW there are thousands of scientists who do not accept evolutionism. By your "logic" there shouldn't be any."

    By my logic? It's not my fault many people in the ID movement are deniers for ideological reasons. Anyway, there's at least a couple of orders of magnitude more that do accept evolution. including a vast majority of biologists.

    "Fuck you. You are a lying asshole. We have considered the evidence and nothing supports evolutionism. And the majority of people on the planet see it our way."

    I wouldn't be so sure. You know in Europe the acceptance of evolution is much higher than it is in America. And that's not a lie. Nor is the fact that many, many, many more scientists accept evolution than don't.

    I was listening to one of Dr Meyer's interviews in support of his book Darwin's Doubt. He makes a huge negative argument (random mutations and natural selection couldn't 'do it') and lots of fallacious assumptions (the information for new body plans had to be known ahead of time). I'm not a biologist but his obfuscations are so completely blatant and obvious I'm surprised he gets anyone to believe him. At least Dr Berlinski is smart enough not to offer any kind of alternative theory; he's protected himself from being proved wrong by only being a merchant of doubt.

    How long is it going to take I wonder 'til loyal foot soldiers like you start to figure out that the ID movement has produced nothing of substance. Like the global warming deniers it's all about changing people's minds NOT about the science. And making some money to continue the cause.

    And, no matter what else you say, you cannot coverup the severe lack of original research done by the ID community. Compared to what's produced by mainstream biology it's just about nil. And that's giving it some leeway. To claim anything else is just delusional.

    And guess what? Using profanity and calling people names just makes you look desperate and childish. Like a school yard bully who's got nothing except intimidation left.

     
  • At 7:32 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    It's not my fault you don't understand something so simple.

    Nice cowardly bluff.

    But you never did get the mathematics of infinity either.

    Followed by a cowardly lie.

    It's not my fault many people in the ID movement are deniers for ideological reasons.

    There isn't anything to deny. You are just a gullible aswipe.

    Anyway, there's at least a couple of orders of magnitude more that do accept evolution. including a vast majority of biologists.

    Evolution isn't being debated you ignorant ass. And not one of your alleged majority can support unguided evolution. No one can model it.

    You know in Europe the acceptance of evolution is much higher than it is in America.

    So what? In India and China I am sure that only a minority, of that, accept unguided evolution. And no one in Europe can present a testable hypothesis for unguided evolution.

    How long is it going to take I wonder 'til loyal foot soldiers like you start to figure out that the ID movement has produced nothing of substance.

    LoL! Evolutionism has never produced anything. Materialism has never produced anything. So fuck you, asshole.

    Compared to what's produced by mainstream biology it's just about nil.

    You know why they call it mainstream? Because streams are shallow. Mainstream biology doesn't know what makes an organism what it is. Mainstream biology doesn't know how many mutations it takes to make a bacterial flagellum nor any other adaptation. They don't even know what genes are involved. It's as if they are ignorant little children.

    < Using profanity and calling people names just makes you look desperate and childish.

    And all your bluffs and bluster prove that you are nothing but a little wanker. All you have are lies and bullshit.

    It has been noticed that you have failed to present anything that would support any of your childish claims.

     
  • At 8:50 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "You know why they call it mainstream? Because streams are shallow. Mainstream biology doesn't know what makes an organism what it is. Mainstream biology doesn't know how many mutations it takes to make a bacterial flagellum nor any other adaptation. They don't even know what genes are involved. It's as if they are ignorant little children."

    :-) And ID does? ID knows nothing. It doesn't know when designs were implemented. It doesn't know how. It doesn't know who came up with the designs. It doesn't know who implemented the designs. And it doesn't know why so many designs (found in the fossil record) were implemented and then abandoned. Heck, ID proponents can't even agree to what ID IS saying except that something like god did it. Unified in denial.

    And let's be honest, no one is really trying to figure those things out. The few ID researchers are engaged in trying to prove that evolutionary theory is wrong. Trying to make a negative argument.

    "And all your bluffs and bluster prove that you are nothing but a little wanker. All you have are lies and bullshit."

    Joe's swearing again!! Go to the naughty corner!!

    "It has been noticed that you have failed to present anything that would support any of your childish claims."

    :-) Doesn't matter what I say or present. You've made up your mind and are shut-down to anything that might contradict your convictions. It's not about the evidence which is why you have to claim that Christians who believe in evolution aren't real Christians. You can't let there be any chink in the armour. Can't let reality in can we?

    Fundamentalist are all the same in one way: our way or no way. Tolerance is negligible. Holding the party line is paramount. Just like when you got LASER wrong. Even after you looked it up and saw you were wrong you still couldn't admit it. A bit afraid of failure are we?

    (cue the flood of profanity . . . )

     
  • At 9:05 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And more bluff and bluster from the coward.

    Jerad you cannot present anything. I have looked and there isn't anything that supports evolutionism and materialism. You are a liar and a loser.

    BTW Christians who do not accept the Bible cannot be Christians as Christianity is based on the Bible. It isn't my fault tat you are too stupid to understand that. And alleged christians who bear false witness, as Miller does, are deluded and self-unaware.

    BTW assface, Antony Flew was a devote atheist who fought against ID until he looked at the evidence. Then he accepted the evidence points to design.

    I was also an evolutionist looking to rub my parents' faces in it until I looked closely and found there isn't any evidence to support unguided evolution.

    Heck even the article on 29+ evidences for macroevolution says it does not support any mechanism.

    Grow up and buy a vowel as you are just a clueless dolt.

     
  • At 4:44 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "Jerad you cannot present anything. I have looked and there isn't anything that supports evolutionism and materialism. You are a liar and a loser."

    I'm not a liar. You are a denialist. My model matches the data. No matter what anyone says, you claim they are wrong. Pure denialist.

    "BTW Christians who do not accept the Bible cannot be Christians as Christianity is based on the Bible. It isn't my fault tat you are too stupid to understand that. And alleged christians who bear false witness, as Miller does, are deluded and self-unaware."

    So, somehow, somewhere you got to be arbitrator of what 'Christian' means. Fascinating.

    "BTW assface, Antony Flew was a devote atheist who fought against ID until he looked at the evidence. Then he accepted the evidence points to design."

    Or until he got delusional. It's a dilemma.

    "I was also an evolutionist looking to rub my parents' faces in it until I looked closely and found there isn't any evidence to support unguided evolution."

    Are you sure you didn't give up to soon?

    "Heck even the article on 29+ evidences for macroevolution says it does not support any mechanism."

    Says you.

    "Grow up and buy a vowel as you are just a clueless dolt."

    Nice that you didn't swear this time. We just might civilise you yet!! Not sure what vowels have to do with it though . . . couldn't you have made a more Biblical allusion . . . something about the mote in one's eye or something like that.

     
  • At 7:22 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Jerad is a wanker and a liar. You don't have a model nor do you have any evidence for your position. And it doesn't matter what people say you scientifically illiterate asswipe- it matters what they can demonstrate.

    And in classic cowardly fashion Jerad attacks Flew. What a pathetic piece-of-shit you are Jerad.

    "I was also an evolutionist looking to rub my parents' faces in it until I looked closely and found there isn't any evidence to support unguided evolution."

    Are you sure you didn't give up to soon?

    Positive. Here we are in the 21st century and evolutionism still has nothing to offer.

    "Heck even the article on 29+ evidences for macroevolution says it does not support any mechanism."

    Says you.

    Wrong again- the AUTHOR says that right in the article.

    Nice that you didn't swear this time.

    And yet you continue to lie, bluff and bluster.

    We just might civilise you yet!!

    If you are "civilized" then I want no part of that ignorant bullshit.

     
  • At 10:21 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "Jerad is a wanker and a liar. You don't have a model nor do you have any evidence for your position. And it doesn't matter what people say you scientifically illiterate asswipe- it matters what they can demonstrate."

    So far ID has demonstrated nothing. You haven't shown there was a designer around, you haven't even specified what they designed or how or when or why. Maybe you should work on your unfounded hypothesis a bit more eh?

    "And in classic cowardly fashion Jerad attacks Flew. What a pathetic piece-of-shit you are Jerad."

    Not me, I was just reporting other people's speculations. I haven't read a word Flew wrote nor have I a personal opinion about his opinion.

    "Positive. Here we are in the 21st century and evolutionism still has nothing to offer."

    Aside from the fact that literally millions of people disagree with you, you give up on something after 150 years? As I recall the design paradigm held sway for 1000s of years and yet people are abandoning it. Oddly enough, the retreat of design corresponds to the advancement of modern science and evolutionary theory. Funny that. It's almost like a better idea has come along. Except amongst those who have some theological interest in trying to prop up their belief system. Something many, many Christians don't feel the need to do. Oh, but I forget, you have decided you can cull those folks from your ranks. It's kind of like the Waldensian crusade again!! Kill the heretics!

     
  • At 7:51 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Jerad, ID has a methodology for determining design. Yours doesn't have any methodology. We have testable hypotheses and you don't. We have a testable model and you don't.

    Reporting other people's speculations? That means you are a coward, Jerad.

    Millions of people disagree with me yet cannot demonstrate that I am wrong? More cowardice.

    What retreat of design? It is going strong and getting stronger, thanks to the failure of materialism and evolutionism.

    Nice to see that Jerad still thinks that criminals are law-abiding citizens.

    Let's see Christianity is based on the Bible yet Jerad thinks that those who reject the Bible and do things contrary to it. can be Christians. That would mean those who do not accept the law and do things contrary to it are law abiding.

     
  • At 4:50 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "Jerad, ID has a methodology for determining design. Yours doesn't have any methodology."

    Uh, it's called science. Your methodology for determining design is used by no one. Ever. Acolytes like you call upon it but it's not actually used.

    "We have testable hypotheses and you don't. We have a testable model and you don't."

    Hey, find a fossil or genome that can't fit the model and we'll talk. Find the rabbit in Cambrian.

    "Reporting other people's speculations? That means you are a coward, Jerad."

    Not at all. It just means there is widespread speculation of Flew's motivations. Not brought about by me. But noted.

    "Millions of people disagree with me yet cannot demonstrate that I am wrong? More cowardice."

    They can and do. You just deny it.

    "What retreat of design? It is going strong and getting stronger, thanks to the failure of materialism and evolutionism."

    Really? Where is the published research? Where are the university positions?

    If what you say is true then there should be legions of mindless money-grubbing lecturers yearning to jump onto the ID bandwagon. But, oddly, that doesn't happen.

    "Nice to see that Jerad still thinks that criminals are law-abiding citizens."

    ????

    "Let's see Christianity is based on the Bible yet Jerad thinks that those who reject the Bible and do things contrary to it. can be Christians. That would mean those who do not accept the law and do things contrary to it are law abiding."

    Nothing to do with me. I'm just saying that people who are self-reported Christians disagree strongly about certain things. And you put yourself up as someone who can decide who is and who is not a true Christian. I don't know. but you say you do. Stick with the discussion. If you can.

    Do you ever pray? Assuming you do do you get guidance that says be belligerent and abusive to those who disagree with you? I'm just curious. Because you seem a very odd Christian in practice.

     
  • At 7:58 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Jerad, there isn't any science that supports materialism and evolutionism.

    Your methodology for determining design is used by no one.

    It's used all the time- forensics uses it and archaeologists use it.

    Hey, find a fossil or genome that can't fit the model and we'll talk.

    What model? Unguided evolution doesn't have a model. Unguided evolution can't get beyond prokaryotes meaning it cannot account for fossils.

    It just means there is widespread speculation of Flew's motivations.

    You mean there is widespread cowardice amongst atheists.

    They can and do.

    Liar

    Look, if all you can do is lie like a little wanker then fuck off. You are nothing but a pathetic little coward.

    And nice of you to ignore what I said about Christians and Christianity. As I said you are a pathetic little imp.

    Assuming you do do you get guidance that says be belligerent and abusive to those who disagree with you?

    You are an asshole, Jerad. I am not belligerent to anyone- I am calling you out because you are an obvious liar- apparently all evolutionists are liars, it is all they have.

    People can disagree with me and I am OK with it. But asshole cowardly liars like you are another story.

     
  • At 2:05 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "Jerad, there isn't any science that supports materialism and evolutionism."

    You mean: none that you accept. Be specific.

    "It's used all the time- forensics uses it and archaeologists use it."

    Mostly forensic scientists and archaeologists look for patterns they recognise, they do not first tty and rule out all possible natural explanations.

    "What model? Unguided evolution doesn't have a model. Unguided evolution can't get beyond prokaryotes meaning it cannot account for fossils. "

    Don't dodge the answer. Find a fossil that's out of place or a genome that couldn't not have arisen via universal common descent with modification then we'll talk.

    "You mean there is widespread cowardice amongst atheists."

    Like I said, I have no opinion on the matter.

    "Look, if all you can do is lie like a little wanker then fuck off. You are nothing but a pathetic little coward."

    Potty-mouth is back!!

    "And nice of you to ignore what I said about Christians and Christianity. As I said you are a pathetic little imp."

    I just find it amusing that you think you can be judge and jury. I bet you agree with the Waldensian and Albigensian crusades. If someone doesn't agree with me then they don't count.

    "You are an asshole, Jerad. I am not belligerent to anyone- I am calling you out because you are an obvious liar- apparently all evolutionists are liars, it is all they have."

    You do sound just like the primary school kids I deal with when they are presented with information that contradicts their stories. Step 1: cast aspersions on your opponents and hope they get scared and back down.

    "People can disagree with me and I am OK with it. But asshole cowardly liars like you are another story."

    I have always been completely honest and straightforward. You are NOT okay with disagreements. You continually get abusive. You need anger management. Seriously.

     
  • At 7:29 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Jerad, you are all bluff and bluster. You are a coward and obviously scientifically illiterate.

    Mostly forensic scientists and archaeologists look for patterns they recognise, they do not first tty and rule out all possible natural explanations.

    As I said you are ignorant of science. No one has to rule out all possible natural explanations. Science doesn't require that. However both need to rule out known natural processes because if a known natural process can account for it then it ain't an artifact nor a crime.

    "What model? Unguided evolution doesn't have a model. Unguided evolution can't get beyond prokaryotes meaning it cannot account for fossils. "

    Don't dodge the answer.

    It's a FACT, not a dodge. Why do YOU dodge reality? I say it is because you are an ignorant coward.

    Find a fossil that's out of place or a genome that couldn't not have arisen via universal common descent with modification then we'll talk.

    YOU find a fossil or a genome that unguided evolution can account for and then we will talk.

    I just find it amusing that you think you can be judge and jury.

    It's just common sense you moron. As I said you are obviously too much of a coward to deal with my explanation.

    Step 1: cast aspersions on your opponents and hope they get scared and back down.

    That is all you do. That is all evolutionists ever do.

    I have always been completely honest and straightforward.

    Liar

     
  • At 9:01 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "Jerad, you are all bluff and bluster. You are a coward and obviously scientifically illiterate."

    So says a man who thinks he knows mathematics better than millions of people with PhDs.

    "It's a FACT, not a dodge. Why do YOU dodge reality? I say it is because you are an ignorant coward."

    So says a man who believes in an undetected and undefined designer who left no counterflow that is supposed to be present.

    "YOU find a fossil or a genome that unguided evolution can account for and then we will talk."

    So says a man who cannot specify when or how or why design was implemented and he wishes people would stop pointing that out.

    "It's just common sense you moron. As I said you are obviously too much of a coward to deal with my explanation."

    So says a man who disagrees with the Archbishop of Canterbury (for one) and a lot of other Christians.

    "That is all you do. That is all evolutionists ever do."

    So says a man who hasn't read even a fraction of the 150 years of research papers supporting evolutionary theory.

    "Liar"

    So says a man who is apparently psychic because he just knows when people are lying.

     
  • At 9:30 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So says a man who thinks he knows mathematics better than millions of people with PhDs.

    Liar.

    So says a man who believes in an undetected and undefined designer who left no counterflow that is supposed to be present.

    Liar- counterflow is present- design is present.

    So says a man who cannot specify when or how or why design was implemented and he wishes people would stop pointing that out.

    So Jerad admits he is scientifically illiterate. Jerad, your position cannot say how, why nor when. And yours is the mechanistic position.

    So says a man who disagrees with the Archbishop of Canterbury (for one) and a lot of other Christians.

    Liar.

    So says a man who hasn't read even a fraction of the 150 years of research papers supporting evolutionary theory.

    Liar. Jerad must be psychic if he can say shit like that.

    So says a man who is apparently psychic because he just knows when people are lying.

    When people spew lies, are you are, then they are liars. No psychic abilities required.

     
  • At 5:07 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "Liar."

    It's true, you do think you understand mathematics better than mathematicians.

    "Liar- counterflow is present- design is present."

    Counterflow is the stuff ASIDE FROM the designed object. It's the waste, excess, documentation, etc. Please try and follow your own arguments.

    "So Jerad admits he is scientifically illiterate. Jerad, your position cannot say how, why nor when. And yours is the mechanistic position."

    When is pretty easy. Look at the dating results. How . . . universal common descent via modification which includes mutations, recombinations, duplications, genetic drift, etc. Why . . . the process is undirected so the results are dictated by accumulation of variation as guided by environmental pressures.

    I know you won't accept any of that but you can't say there isn't an evolutionary explanation. Meanwhile you got . . . . uh . . . . nada. Not even a guess.

    "Liar."

    You DO disagree with a lot of other Christians. You, in your infinite wisdom, say the Christians you disagree with are not Christians. That mote in your eye is getting bigger all the time.

    "Liar. Jerad must be psychic if he can say shit like that."

    If you've read a lot of biological research then you must not have understood it.

    This is the trouble with ideologues, they haven't got an exit strategy. When they're wrong they can't admit it because a) they view knowledge as some kind of heirarchy where the guys at the top get to dictate the truth and b) they think admitting they're wrong about one thing will lead to a slippery slope of failure. It's all or nothing, black and white, right and wrong, with us or against us. But the world (and science) are more complicated than that kind of fundamentalist attitude.

    "When people spew lies, are you are, then they are liars. No psychic abilities required."

    You just have no capacity or ability to even admit a suggestion that you might be wrong. Anything you disagree with is a lie. You are right and everyone else is wrong.

    But, you still can't come up with even a guess as to when design was implemented let alone how or why. Say what you will about evolutionary theory but it does address those issues. ID does not. That is the truth. And ID proponents will do their best to deflect the conversation away from the big hole in the centre of ID: no when, where, how or why.

     
  • At 7:25 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    It's true, you do think you understand mathematics better than mathematicians.

    Jerad, the little faggot psychic strikes again.

    Counterflow is the stuff ASIDE FROM the designed object.

    Wrong again, asswipe.

    When is pretty easy. Look at the dating results.

    What dating results?

    How . . . universal common descent via modification which includes mutations, recombinations, duplications, genetic drift, etc.

    That is just vague shit and you have no idea if the changes you mention are unguided. You are an asshole.

    Why . . . the process is undirected so the results are dictated by accumulation of variation as guided by environmental pressures.

    Model that and we can have something to discuss.

    I know you won't accept any of that but you can't say there isn't an evolutionary explanation.

    There isn't anything to accept and it has nothing to do with unguided evolution.

    You DO disagree with a lot of other Christians.

    What's your point?

    You, in your infinite wisdom, say the Christians you disagree with are not Christians.

    Liar.

    If you've read a lot of biological research then you must not have understood it

    Fuck you you ignorant coward.

    You just have no capacity or ability to even admit a suggestion that you might be wrong. Anything you disagree with is a lie. You are right and everyone else is wrong.

    Hey faggot- there isn't any evidence that I am wrong. You are too much of a faggot coward to present any evidence, so fuck you coward.

    But, you still can't come up with even a guess as to when design was implemented let alone how or why.

    Jerad the faggot psychic strikes again.

    Say what you will about evolutionary theory but it does address those issues.

    Liar.

    Tell us the mutations that produced a bacterial flagellum- tell us how many it took, what genes were involved and when it occurred.

    And ID proponents will do their best to deflect the conversation away from the big hole in the centre of ID: no when, where, how or why.

    LoL! You are an ignorant little wanker as that has NOTHING to do with ID. Al of those questions come AFTER design is determined.

    As I said you are an ignorant little imp, and apparently very proud of that.

     
  • At 7:42 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Jerad, just to help you with your ignorance- a few years ago Dr Behe had a peer-reviewed article that was a review of the peer-reviewed literature- PEER-REVIEWED.

    In that peer-reviewed article Dr Behe wrote there isn't any support for unguided evolution to be found in peer-review. Other scientists have come to the same conclusion.

    You are a liar and a coward.

     
  • At 9:03 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "Jerad, the little faggot psychic strikes again."

    You know you can have a potty mouth and still have a decent vocabulary. Except for Joe I guess.

    "What dating results?"

    Oh, that's right, you deny those as well.

    "That is just vague shit and you have no idea if the changes you mention are unguided. You are an asshole."

    Prove they are guided. And then try and explain the designer's motivations and procedures that produced the fossil record. (I know you won't but don't think you get a pass.)

    "Model that and we can have something to discuss."

    Hard to model random events. If you could they wouldn't be random. BUT you can make statistical estimates which is done.

    "There isn't anything to accept and it has nothing to do with unguided evolution."

    You disagree but the theory addresses the issues. ID addresses none of them. AND no one is even trying to address them. Funny that.

    "What's your point?"

    Sigh. It would be nice if you bothered to follow the conversation rather than just being abusive.

    "Liar."

    Joe, always right even when he's wrong.

    "Fuck you you ignorant coward."

    Joe, abusive bully.

    "Hey faggot- there isn't any evidence that I am wrong. You are too much of a faggot coward to present any evidence, so fuck you coward."

    Joe, abusive bully AND can't understand the research.

    AND can't even harbour a guess as to what was designed or when or why.

    "Jerad the faggot psychic strikes again."

    You're playground tactics might work with some but not on adults.

    "Tell us the mutations that produced a bacterial flagellum- tell us how many it took, what genes were involved and when it occurred."

    No one knows. But evolutionary theory addresses the way things happen. ID hasn't got a clue. Maybe you should work on that other than just saying: the designer did it.

    "LoL! You are an ignorant little wanker as that has NOTHING to do with ID. Al of those questions come AFTER design is determined."

    Which you claim has happened. The truth is no one wants to determine the designer. I wonder why?

    "Jerad, just to help you with your ignorance- a few years ago Dr Behe had a peer-reviewed article that was a review of the peer-reviewed literature- PEER-REVIEWED."

    And which paper are you referring to?

    "In that peer-reviewed article Dr Behe wrote there isn't any support for unguided evolution to be found in peer-review. Other scientists have come to the same conclusion."

    Uh huh. How many agree with your conclusion and how many disagree?

    You know that Dr Behe's ID work has been roundly criticised over and over again. And in 2005, on the witness stand, he was presented with material that contradicted his stance. I have a lot of respect for Dr Behe because, unlike some, he wasn't afraid to take the stand but it doesn't make him right.

    You should really consider the reasons that you choose to believe the ID crowd.

    "You are a liar and a coward."

    Tell me something about the designer. How did they do their work? When? Why does the fossil record look the way it does? Start explaining things other than just saying: the designer did it.

     
  • At 10:43 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So Jerad continues to prove that he is a little ignorant coward and piece-of-shit liar.

    Jerad if you ever find some evidence that supports unguided evolution do come back and we can have a discussion. Until then you are just a little faggot wanker.

    And in 2005, on the witness stand, he was presented with material that contradicted his stance.

    Ignorant asshole.

     
  • At 10:45 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You should really consider the reasons that you choose to believe the ID crowd.

    OK- evolutionism and materialism have absolutely nothing and the evidence fits the design inference.

    You should really consider the reasons that you choose to believe the anti-ID crowd.

     
  • At 6:11 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "So Jerad continues to prove that he is a little ignorant coward and piece-of-shit liar."

    And Joe continues to prove that he can barely carry on a disagreement without being abusive.

    "Jerad if you ever find some evidence that supports unguided evolution do come back and we can have a discussion. Until then you are just a little faggot wanker."

    I've seen lots and lots of evidence. All of which you deny. Meanwhile you can't even begin to address any of the how, whens or whys of ID. But, then again, neither can anyone else!! And, in fact, no one is even trying. I keep hearing: there is no evidence for unguided evolution, the paradigm is dead! But no one can come up with any kind of alternative except: the designer did it. Not really science is it?

    "Ignorant asshole."

    I read the transcript of the trial.

    "OK- evolutionism and materialism have absolutely nothing and the evidence fits the design inference."

    So, you think there was design. When? How? Why does the fossil record look the way it does? Why didn't the designer give us a different genetic code from viruses and bacteria so that we wouldn't get ill and die so often? How did Polio come about? Why do whales have the vestiges of legs under their skin? What does the design paradigm say about the dinosaurs? You've had as much time as anyone else to study them and draw design inference conclusions . . . so, what are they? Why let them die out? If they were around so long, even if an asteroid killed them off then why not bring them back?

    Don't worry, I know you won't and can't answer any of those but I just thought I'd point out AGAIN that the ID crowd isn't even trying to answer any questions like that. The designer did it is good enough for ID proponents because that's all they care about.

    "You should really consider the reasons that you choose to believe the anti-ID crowd."

    I have, a lot. Let's start with multiple lines of supporting evidence all of which points to universal common descent via inherited modifications.

    (I know, I know, you'll keep saying that the evidence does not support evolutionary theory BUT you won't try and explain the fossil record from a design point of view. How about explaining genomes then? Why are there so many repeated sequences in human genomes? Why did the designer do it that way? I'll wait . . . . . probably a very, very, very long time . . . how long has ID been around? You'd think by now some ID proponent would have tried to explain fossils, or Malaria or cancer or . . . something.)

     
  • At 7:18 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Jerad, there isn't any disagreement here- you are a fucking cowardly liar.

    I've seen lots and lots of evidence.

    And yet you are too cowardly to present any of it here. That tells me you are lying.

    Meanwhile you can't even begin to address any of the how, whens or whys of ID.

    As I have told you many times, that has nothing to do with ID. And your position cannot say how and it is the mechanistic position.

    I read the transcript of the trial.

    And obviously you are too ignorant to understand it.

    Dr Behe responds and shows Miller and Jones to be an ass

    So, you think there was design.

    I know there was.

    When? How?

    Tell me why I have to know that before making a design inference or admit that you are an ignorant asshole.

    Why does the fossil record look the way it does?

    Unguided evolution can't explain the fossil record so stuff it. Unguided evolution can't even get beyond the given starting populations of prokaryotes.

    Why didn't the designer give us a different genetic code from viruses and bacteria so that we wouldn't get ill and die so often?

    So childish antics are the best you have- got it. Why didn't unguided evolution do that?

    Why do whales have the vestiges of legs under their skin?

    Only ignorant assholes think that they do.

    What does the design paradigm say about the dinosaurs?

    They existed and unguided evolution cannot explain them.

    If they were around so long, even if an asteroid killed them off then why not bring them back?

    If an asteroid killed them off there would be fossils in the K-T boundary layer and just above it. That is not what is observed. You are ignorant.

    Let's start with multiple lines of supporting evidence all of which points to universal common descent via inherited modifications.

    That has NOTHING to do with unguided evolution you cowardly fuck. And nothing points to universal common descent- the premise can't even be tested.

    How about explaining genomes then?

    Unguided evolution can't explain genomes. It has to start with genomes.

    So here is Jerad, full of cowardly bluffs and bluster, flailing away like a little girl because he can't do anything else.

     
  • At 7:19 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Jerad, just to help you with your ignorance- a few years ago Dr Behe had a peer-reviewed article that was a review of the peer-reviewed literature- PEER-REVIEWED.

    In that peer-reviewed article Dr Behe wrote there isn't any support for unguided evolution to be found in peer-review. Other scientists have come to the same conclusion.

    You are a liar and a coward.

     
  • At 9:12 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "Jerad, there isn't any disagreement here- you are a fucking cowardly liar."

    Joe, bully.

    "And yet you are too cowardly to present any of it here. That tells me you are lying."

    I can't help that you deny the evidence.

    "As I have told you many times, that has nothing to do with ID. And your position cannot say how and it is the mechanistic position."

    But ID HAS NO MODEL!! IT HAS NO THEORY!! It's just: the designer did it. You don't agree with evolutionary theory but there is a theory even if you deny it. ID has nothing except an assertion. It can't even say how many designers there were or what they did or when!!

    "Dr Behe responds and shows Miller and Jones to be an ass"

    Too bad he was so lost for words at the trial. What was his response to the pile of books? Those aren't . . . good enough? What does that even mean? He didn't have the evidence to hand.

    "Tell me why I have to know that before making a design inference or admit that you are an ignorant asshole."

    Because just making the inference doesn't EXPLAIN anything!! You don't know when, where, how, why. You can't explain why the fossil record looks the way it does. You can't explain why whales have hind leg bones. You can't explain polio. You can't explain why men have nipples. You've got: the designer(s) did it. That's it. That's not a theory, that's not even science. And if you're wrong about the design inference . . . you got nothing.

    "Unguided evolution can't explain the fossil record so stuff it. Unguided evolution can't even get beyond the given starting populations of prokaryotes."

    Uh huh. Evolutionary theory says you EXPECT to get a tree of common descent with the existing forms at the end of branches mostly composed of extinct species. Which is what we see in the fossil record.

    You can keep ducking and diving but you've got no theory. Just the designer(s) did it.

    "So childish antics are the best you have- got it. Why didn't unguided evolution do that?"

    Because unguided evolution is unguided. It has no goal and so doesn't plan ahead. It's universal common descent!! Please respond to what evolutionary theory actually says rather than just flailing about making stuff up.

     
  • At 9:12 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    " 'Why do whales have the vestiges of legs under their skin?'

    Only ignorant assholes think that they do."

    Okay, what are the bones that look like leg bones under whales' skins then?

    " 'What does the design paradigm say about the dinosaurs? '

    They existed and unguided evolution cannot explain them."

    And there you go. That's what ID says. They existed. Wow, what a scientific theory. I'm overwhelmed by the understanding that gives me.

    "If an asteroid killed them off there would be fossils in the K-T boundary layer and just above it. That is not what is observed. You are ignorant."

    hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha Good lord, you really don't understand the research do you?

    "That has NOTHING to do with unguided evolution you cowardly fuck. And nothing points to universal common descent- the premise can't even be tested."

    Of course you can test it. Find an anomaly. It's tested every day!!

    "Unguided evolution can't explain genomes. It has to start with genomes."

    You can't even try and explain genomes or anything else. ID is an empty shell designed to make some people happy. There is research ongoing trying to figure out how the process got started. Is anyone in the ID community trying to do something similar? Nope, the designer(s) did it, that's good enough.

    "So here is Jerad, full of cowardly bluffs and bluster, flailing away like a little girl because he can't do anything else."

    Here's Joe being a bully. Just like on the playground.

    "Jerad, just to help you with your ignorance- a few years ago Dr Behe had a peer-reviewed article that was a review of the peer-reviewed literature- PEER-REVIEWED.

    In that peer-reviewed article Dr Behe wrote there isn't any support for unguided evolution to be found in peer-review. Other scientists have come to the same conclusion."

    I asked you for a link to that paper which you failed to provide.

     
  • At 9:16 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    PS If you're just going to be abusive, rubbish a theory you don't understand and NOT come up with even any kind of attempt at explaining the evidence except to say: the designer(s) did it then . . . don't bother. I've read enough of all that from you over the years.

    Explain something. 'The dinosaurs existed' is not explaining. It's avoiding.

     
  • At 9:26 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Jerad, you are nothing but a cowardly liar piece-of-shit. I understand evolutionism better than you ever will so fuck off.

    Okay, what are the bones that look like leg bones under whales' skins then?

    They only look like legs bones to ignorant assholes.

    "If an asteroid killed them off there would be fossils in the K-T boundary layer and just above it. That is not what is observed. You are ignorant."

    Good lord, you really don't understand the research do you?

    Obviously you don't.

    You can't even try and explain genomes or anything else.

    Nice projection you coward.

    Of course you can test it.

    How can it be tested, Jerad? You are all mouth but always fail to support that mouth.

     
  • At 9:37 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I can't help that you deny the evidence.

    I cannot deny what doesn't exist.

    But ID HAS NO MODEL!

    Yes, it does. Evolutionary and genetic algorithms model evolution by design.

    Too bad he was so lost for words at the trial.

    No, he wasn't.

    What was his response to the pile of books?

    The pile was a bluff you ignorant asshole.

    Those aren't . . . good enough?

    He didn't say that, asshole. You didn't read hos response and that makes you a total faggot.

    Tell me why I have to know that before making a design inference or admit that you are an ignorant asshole."

    Because just making the inference doesn't EXPLAIN anything!!

    Jerad admits that he is an ignorant asshole. Making a design inference explains quite a bit. For one it says that mother nature wasn't up to the task. For another it says that agency involvement was required. That alone tells us what direction the investigation should take.

    Obviously you are just a clueless little cry-baby loser.

    You can't explain why whales have hind leg bones.

    They don't have leg bones. Your ignorance is not evidence.

    Unguided evolution can't explain whales.

    "Unguided evolution can't explain the fossil record so stuff it. Unguided evolution can't even get beyond the given starting populations of prokaryotes."

    Uh huh.

    So you agree.

    Evolutionary theory says you EXPECT to get a tree of common descent with the existing forms at the end of branches mostly composed of extinct species.

    Reference please. I bet you can't even do that.

    Please respond to what evolutionary theory actually says rather than just flailing about making stuff up.

    No one seems to be able to link to this theory. It's as if evos just make shit up.

    So please link to this theory so we can all read what it says. I am interested to see what it says about the genetic code.

     
  • At 9:39 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

  • At 9:42 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You can keep ducking and diving but you've got no theory. Just the designer(s) did it.

    What is the theory of archaeology? What is the theory of forensic science? What is the theory of SETI?

    Unlike unguided evolution, ID has a methodology.

    As investigators know, saying a designer did it tells us quite a bit. Of course it doesn't say much to an ignorant asshole like yourself, but no one cares about that.

     
  • At 9:46 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

  • At 12:35 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "Jerad, you are nothing but a cowardly liar piece-of-shit. I understand evolutionism better than you ever will so fuck off."

    But, if I do, who will you abuse?

    "They only look like legs bones to ignorant assholes."

    No comment.

    "How can it be tested, Jerad? You are all mouth but always fail to support that mouth."

    I told you. Every fossil that is recovered is a test of the theory. Every time a genome gets sequenced it's a test of the theory. So far, no anomalies have been found.

    "Yes, it does. Evolutionary and genetic algorithms model evolution by design."

    But you cannot explain why the fossil record looks the way it does. You have no theory about how or why things came about the way they did except to say: the designer(s) did it that way.

    "He didn't say that, asshole. You didn't read hos response and that makes you a total faggot."

    Okay, I just skimmed through some of Dr Behe's testimony (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12pm.html) and it looks like I was remembering incorrectly. I was wrong, I apologise.

    "Jerad admits that he is an ignorant asshole. Making a design inference explains quite a bit. For one it says that mother nature wasn't up to the task. For another it says that agency involvement was required. That alone tells us what direction the investigation should take."

    So, when are you going to do some investigating so you can start explaining the how, when and why's? You've had decades to study the designs, where is the info about the designers?

    "They don't have leg bones. Your ignorance is not evidence."

    No comment.

     
  • At 12:37 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    " 'Evolutionary theory says you EXPECT to get a tree of common descent with the existing forms at the end of branches mostly composed of extinct species.'

    Reference please. I bet you can't even do that. "

    Not my problem if you don't understand the basics of the notion of universal common descent.

    "Please respond to what evolutionary theory actually says rather than just flailing about making stuff up."

    I told you: it says you'll get universal common descent via modification.

    "No one seems to be able to link to this theory. It's as if evos just make shit up."

    You just don't understand the implications.

    "So please link to this theory so we can all read what it says. I am interested to see what it says about the genetic code."

    If you have universal common descent via modifications then you will get shared, preserved genes, ERVs, preserved junk, etc.

    "Dr Behe's paper"

    Good. Read the conclusion (it won't let me cut-and-paste, sorry) and tell me where in the paper it says that natural processes could not have 'done it'.


    "What is the theory of archaeology? What is the theory of forensic science? What is the theory of SETI?"

    There is no unifying theory to any of those because there is no single unifying principle. Archaeology rests on several models including stratigraphy. The first two are in the business of finding patterns based on past KNOWN examples and then drawing conclusions about the 'designer'. In fact, there would be no point to the disciplines if you didn't draw conclusions about the perps. SETI is merely looking for patterns. They've had some 'close calls' but so far nothing. I would agree that ID is closest to SETI but I would also say that neither one has a theory.

    "Unlike unguided evolution, ID has a methodology."

    Nope. You don't know how design was arrived at or implemented.

    "As investigators know, saying a designer did it tells us quite a bit. Of course it doesn't say much to an ignorant asshole like yourself, but no one cares about that."

    It says nothing until you put it in context of the type of designer you are hypothesising. With archaeology and forensics you are usually talking about human beings whose abilities are fairly well known in a general sense. And, as I said before, there would be no point in archaeology or forensics if conclusions about the 'agents' were not made. So far, ID has made NO, repeat NO conclusions about their agent.

    "Whether Intelligent Design is Science
    A Response to the Opinion of the Court in Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School District "

    I know what he said out of court. But in court, when he had to answer probing questions, he didn't come off so well. It's the truth.

     
  • At 12:54 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    ot my problem if you don't understand the basics of the notion of universal common descent.

    OK so you can't support your claim.

    Every fossil that is recovered is a test of the theory.

    No, it isn't.

    Every time a genome gets sequenced it's a test of the theory

    In what way are genomes a test of Common Descent?

    But you cannot explain why the fossil record looks the way it does.

    Neither can you.

    You have no theory about how or why things came about the way they did except to say

    Nice projection.

    If you have universal common descent via modifications then you will get shared, preserved genes, ERVs, preserved junk, etc.

    Too bad you cannot test that. IOW you have no idea what to expect.

    Read the conclusion (it won't let me cut-and-paste, sorry) and tell me where in the paper it says that natural processes could not have 'done it'.

    There isn't any evidence that unguided evolution can do anything but break things.

    Unguided evolution can't even be modeled.

    "Unlike unguided evolution, ID has a methodology."

    Nope.

    Yes, it does, asshole. Your ignorance, while amusing, is meaningless. Heck I have blogged about the methodology several times.

    You don't know how design was arrived at or implemented.

    That has nothing to do with ID you cowardly fuck.

    It says nothing until you put it in context of the type of designer you are hypothesising.

    LoL! I told you what it says.

    With archaeology and forensics you are usually talking about human beings whose abilities are fairly well known in a general sense.

    That you think that means something proves that you are an asshole. And we know the abilities by what they left behind for us to study, dipshit.

    And, as I said before, there would be no point in archaeology or forensics if conclusions about the 'agents' were not made.

    Archaeology is mostly speculation and forensics doesn't always "get their man". Yet they can determine a crime has been committed. The who comes after. Archaeology says what it can by studying the design and all relevant evidence.

    IOW you are just a drooling imbecile.

    As for Behe- in court the judge proved to be a moron. There isn't anything Behe could do about that.

    And only assholes think that science is decided in the courtroom. Here it is 9+ years later and unguided evolution still cannot account for the immune system.

     
  • At 12:54 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    The pertinent sentence from the conclusion of Dr Behe's paper:

    Adaptive evolution can cause a species to gain, lose or modify a function.

    It does go on to say that deleterious mutations predominate but it does not say that there is no support for unguided evolutionary processes.

    It doesn't.

    Even Dr Behe says mutations can cause a species to gain a function.

    You wonder why so many biologists can't be bothered to debate ID proponents. It's because they would have to spend so much time spelling everything out. When you are really participating in an academic environment you have to work to keep up. You can't just keep saying: show me, I don't get it. If you can't compete you lose.

    Joe, you've got losing tactics. The evidence you claim isn't there. The evidence you say isn't there IS there. The original point of this post, parsimony, still upholds evolutionary theory. That is, existing, natural processes which have left lots of counterflow are preferred to an unknown, undetected and undefined designer(s).

    I'm not anti-ID. There's just nothing to work with.

    If, as an archaeologist, I conclude some artefact was man-made it's because it fits in with what I can infer humans are capable. Same with forensics: if it matches a pattern it's because we're comparing it to KNOWN man-made situations.

    ID doesn't know (or want to guess) who the designer is. What the designer(s)' capabilities are. What the designer(s)' motivations were/are. In all honesty, ID proponents avoid such questions like the plague. They say: oh, we need time to study the design to draw conclusions but they are even trying to do that. That's not the point of the ID paradigm.

    It's not science because it doesn't have any solid results or mathematics to back it up.

    It's not even exploration because it can't elucidate an ability to detect false positives or negatives.

    No science. No mathematics. Not even a good hypothesis.

     
  • At 12:56 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "Jerad, you are nothing but a cowardly liar piece-of-shit. I understand evolutionism better than you ever will so fuck off."

    But, if I do, who will you abuse?

    The next lying evoTARD coward who dares show up here. And I will just get back to my regular routine of exposing the lies of evolutionism and supporting ID.

     
  • At 1:08 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    It does go on to say that deleterious mutations predominate but it does not say that there is no support for unguided evolutionary processes.

    There isn't any, Jerad. You cannot link to any, Jerad.

    Even Dr Behe says mutations can cause a species to gain a function.

    ID is OK with evolution by design which utilizes mutations, Jerad.

    You wonder why so many biologists can't be bothered to debate ID proponents.

    I know why the won't- they don't have anything to debate with.

    The evidence you say isn't there IS there.

    Just repeating it doesn't make it so, assface. You actually have to present something for your words to count.

    The original point of this post, parsimony, still upholds evolutionary theory.

    By bald declaration, only.

    That is, existing, natural processes which have left lots of counterflow are preferred to an unknown, undetected and undefined designer(s).

    Counterflow requires an intelligent designer. It is part of the definition.

    I'm not anti-ID. There's just nothing to work with.

    Not for you but that is because you are an imbecile.

    If, as an archaeologist, I conclude some artefact was man-made it's because it fits in with what I can infer humans are capable. Same with forensics: if it matches a pattern it's because we're comparing it to KNOWN man-made situations.

    Moron, that is called knowledge of cause and effect relationships and it is exactly what the design inference (ID) is based on.

    ID doesn't know (or want to guess) who the designer is.

    You are a FUCKING ASSHOLE! That has NOTHING to do with ID. That is a separate question just as the origin of life is separated from evolutionism.

    You are a fucked up piece-of-shit liar and wanker, Jerad.

    It's not science because it doesn't have any solid results or mathematics to back it up.

    ID has more than unguided evolution.

    No science. No mathematics. Not even a good hypothesis.

    That's unguided evolution for you.

     
  • At 1:15 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    ID doesn't know (or want to guess) who the designer is.

    How are we supposed to do that? Please be specific. And how will that help us in any way to understand the design?

    What the designer(s)' capabilities are.

    What? We assume designers are capable of designing the things they design.

    What the designer(s)' motivations were/are.

    Addressed in "The Privileged Planet"- as I have told you several times.

    In all honesty, ID proponents avoid such questions like the plague.

    They seem petty and irrelevant.

    They say: oh, we need time to study the design to draw conclusions but they are even trying to do that.

    Psychic faggot Jerad strikes again!

    That's not the point of the ID paradigm.

    ID is about the detection and study of design. And that pisses Jerad off.

     
  • At 1:17 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So all unsolved crimes aren't crimes because we don't know who the perpetrator was.

    Strange world that Jerad lives in...

     
  • At 4:19 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    " 'Read the conclusion (it won't let me cut-and-paste, sorry) and tell me where in the paper it says that natural processes could not have 'done it'.'

    There isn't any evidence that unguided evolution can do anything but break things."

    You can't even be bothered to address an issue brought up by an academic paper you referenced.

    That is sad Joe. Very sad.

    You made a claim about a paper published by Dr Behe. You provided the link. The conclusion of the paper contradicts your claim. You can't admit that.

     
  • At 4:22 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "Yes, it does, asshole. Your ignorance, while amusing, is meaningless. Heck I have blogged about the methodology several times."

    Really? You've talked about how the designer(s) implemented design? I must have missed that post.

    How many individuals did they introduce into the environment to ensure the new variation got fixed then? Have you addressed that?

     
  • At 4:24 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "That you think that means something proves that you are an asshole. And we know the abilities by what they left behind for us to study, dipshit."

    Great, Then tell me the abilities of the designer(s).

    I'll wait. . . .

     
  • At 4:29 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "As for Behe- in court the judge proved to be a moron. There isn't anything Behe could do about that."

    Except he could have given more convincing testimony. Read the transcript.

    "And only assholes think that science is decided in the courtroom. Here it is 9+ years later and unguided evolution still cannot account for the immune system."

    I don't think science is decided in the courtroom. But Dr Behe could not come up with the goods when it counted.

    AND, guess what, ID cannot account for the immune system except to say: the designer(s) did it. And you call that science?

     
  • At 4:29 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "As for Behe- in court the judge proved to be a moron. There isn't anything Behe could do about that."

    Except he could have given more convincing testimony. Read the transcript.

    "And only assholes think that science is decided in the courtroom. Here it is 9+ years later and unguided evolution still cannot account for the immune system."

    I don't think science is decided in the courtroom. But Dr Behe could not come up with the goods when it counted.

    AND, guess what, ID cannot account for the immune system except to say: the designer(s) did it. And you call that science?

     
  • At 4:30 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    I still love your analysis of the dinosaurs: They existed. Wow. How profound is that?

     
  • At 4:44 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "You are a FUCKING ASSHOLE! That has NOTHING to do with ID. That is a separate question just as the origin of life is separated from evolutionism."

    But you keep telling me that conclusions about the designer can be made from studying the design. So . . . draw some conclusions so you can explain the data.

    "You are a fucked up piece-of-shit liar and wanker, Jerad."

    And you are are bully and abusive.
    It's not science because it doesn't have any solid results or mathematics to back it up.

    "ID has more than unguided evolution."

    Fine, then let's hear it's explanation of the fossil record.

    " 'ID doesn't know (or want to guess) who the designer is.'

    How are we supposed to do that? Please be specific. And how will that help us in any way to understand the design?"

    You now want me to do your work for you? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    Okay, I'd say that your designer(s) are tinkerers, entities who don't really know how things are going to work, they just keep tweaking genomes and see what happens. Based on the fossil record. What have you got?

    "What? We assume designers are capable of designing the things they design."

    Joe, surely that sounds just as hollow to you as it does to me.

    "Addressed in "The Privileged Planet"- as I have told you several times."

    What? The designer(s) wanted the sun and the moon to appear to be the same size so eclipses could occur? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

    "They seem petty and irrelevant."

    Because you can't answer them?

    "Psychic faggot Jerad strikes again!"

    Joe fails to answer a question. Again.

    "ID is about the detection and study of design. And that pisses Jerad off."

    Not at all. I do it myself all the time. It's part of life and mathematics.

    "So all unsolved crimes aren't crimes because we don't know who the perpetrator was."

    Not at all. We can still infer that they are within the capacity of some human being. Some known designer. Who is your designer? Go on . . . tell us.

    You can run but you can't hide forever. You have to come up with the goods sometime.

    Too bad about the Behe paper, it didn't support your interpretation. Sigh. Better luck next time eh?

     
  • At 4:49 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "ID doesn't know (or want to guess) who the designer is. What the designer(s)' capabilities are. What the designer(s)' motivations were/are. In all honesty, ID proponents avoid such questions like the plague. They say: oh, we need time to study the design to draw conclusions but they are even trying to do that. That's not the point of the ID paradigm.

    It's not science because it doesn't have any solid results or mathematics to back it up.

    It's not even exploration because it can't elucidate an ability to detect false positives or negatives.

    No science. No mathematics. Not even a good hypothesis."

    You just reposted this without addressing it.

    I won't be so childish to suggest that you agree with my sentiments but I will suggest that you are failing to keep up.

    Because ID does not have a central theory or explanation. In fact, it doesn't have any kind of explanation at all except for: the designer(s) did it.

    No hypothesised methodology; i.e. how design was implemented.

    No hypothesised timeline; when design was implemented.

    No hypothesised technical specification.

    Nothing really.

    That's why it's not science. Not because it's design, because it's not offered up the goods.

     
  • At 11:45 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    " 'It does go on to say that deleterious mutations predominate but it does not say that there is no support for unguided evolutionary processes.'

    There isn't any, Jerad. You cannot link to any, Jerad."

    Nice of you to dodge the point that the article doesn't say what you claimed. AND that Dr Behe said that random mutations can add functions.

    "ID is OK with evolution by design which utilizes mutations, Jerad."

    So, you're backing off from: you can't get certain linked mutations, to: who knows if the mutations aren't directed? That's called shifting the goal posts.

    "Counterflow requires an intelligent designer. It is part of the definition."

    Are you sure counterflow means what you think it means? I'm having a hard time finding a standard definition for the way you use the word.

    "Moron, that is called knowledge of cause and effect relationships and it is exactly what the design inference (ID) is based on."

    Except when doing forensics or archaeology we are looking for human agents. And we have examples of known human design of inanimate things. You don't know who or what the designer(s) are and no other examples of their work so you cannot draw a particular cause and effect conclusion. You are trying to magic a designer out of thin air.

    "You are a FUCKING ASSHOLE! That has NOTHING to do with ID. That is a separate question just as the origin of life is separated from evolutionism."

    Nice that you agree that origin of life and evolution are two separate issues.

    It's not a separate question for ID though except that ID proponents don't want to go there because for most of them the designer = the biblical God. The nature and motivation of the designer are clearly important when trying to explain things like the fossil record or ERVs.

    "You are a fucked up piece-of-shit liar and wanker, Jerad."

    You are a bully.

    "ID has more than unguided evolution."

    You just don't understand the evolutionary mathematical models.

    "How are we supposed to do that? Please be specific. And how will that help us in any way to understand the design?"

    That's your problem but I would start with the things you claim are designed. Look at the fossil record. Clearly if all life on earth was planned and designed then . . . some one is pretty bad at it. Why else would they have to take hundreds of millions of years and lots of extinct species to get to us (assuming you think we're the point of the whole process which you do 'cause you think the whole universe is designed for us)? Why leave us vulnerable to lots of diseases promulgated by viruses and bacteria? Maybe the designer(s) are actually evil and like to see us suffer. You do the work!

    The fact that you admit you don't even know how to draw conclusions about the designer(s) tells me how little you or anyone else in the ID movement care to take that step. Why? Because that's not the point of the iD inference.

     
  • At 11:47 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "What? We assume designers are capable of designing the things they design."

    When in doubt argue in a circle. You might fool some.

    "Addressed in "The Privileged Planet"- as I have told you several times."

    Great, then you can make some conclusions about the designer. Let's hear some.

    "Psychic faggot Jerad strikes again!"

    Why point out my mistakes when you can hurl abuse?

    "ID is about the detection and study of design. And that pisses Jerad off."

    I just don't believe that that is true. If it were there would now be ID proponents trying to explain how there being a designer explains the fossil record as we see it. But no one is.

    "So all unsolved crimes aren't crimes because we don't know who the perpetrator was."

    What? hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahha

    You should stop comparing ID with forensics. The whole point of forensics is to find out who done it. But ID is not really interested in saying who done it because most ID proponents have already decided the designer is God. But admitting that means it will no longer be accepted as science thereby undercutting the ID wedge attempt. So you're stuck standing on the head of a pin trying not to fall off when someone shakes things up a bit and starts to ask questions that a real scientific theory with explanatory power should be able to answer.

     
  • At 1:32 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Why point out my mistakes when you can hurl abuse?

    Umm I have pointed out your mistakes and you just ignore what I say. So now I will just call you what you are.

    "ID is about the detection and study of design. And that pisses Jerad off."

    I just don't believe that that is true.

    Too bad because that is the stated purpose of ID.

    If it were there would now be ID proponents trying to explain how there being a designer explains the fossil record as we see it.

    That doesn't even follow. ID is about explaining the design and the fossil record wasn't designed. IOW you are an imbecile.

    "So all unsolved crimes aren't crimes because we don't know who the perpetrator was."

    What?

    According to you we can't say a crime was committed until we know the perp.

    You should stop comparing ID with forensics.

    The comparison works but you have to be educated to understand it.

    The whole point of forensics is to find out who done it.

    Nope. It is to determine if a crime was committed and analyze the evidence. Then detectives take over to find out who did it.

    But ID is not really interested in saying who done it because most ID proponents have already decided the designer is God.

    How ignorant is it to conflate ID proponents with ID?

    But admitting that means it will no longer be accepted as science thereby undercutting the ID wedge attempt.

    You are an imbecile. Science doesn't care if God was the designer. Science only cares about reality and if the reality is God did it then science is OK with that- it has to be, Heck Newton, Kepler, et al., saw science as a way of understanding God's work.

    So you're stuck standing on the head of a pin trying not to fall off when someone shakes things up a bit and starts to ask questions that a real scientific theory with explanatory power should be able to answer.

    Unguided evolution can't answer anything.

     
  • At 1:33 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Yes, it does, asshole. Your ignorance, while amusing, is meaningless. Heck I have blogged about the methodology several times.

    Really? You've talked about how the designer(s) implemented design? I must have missed that post.

    Well obviously you are too stupid to understand a simple sentence.

     
  • At 1:53 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So, you're backing off from: you can't get certain linked mutations, to: who knows if the mutations aren't directed? That's called shifting the goal posts.

    Asshole this discussion is about unguided evolution. Don't blame me because you were caught equivocating.

    Are you sure counterflow means what you think it means? I'm having a hard time finding a standard definition for the way you use the word.

    The word, in context,and definition come from "Nature, Design and Science".


    "Moron, that is called knowledge of cause and effect relationships and it is exactly what the design inference (ID) is based on."


    Except when doing forensics or archaeology we are looking for human agents.

    And another cowardly non-sequitur.

    You are trying to magic a designer out of thin air.

    Unguided evolution is all about magic.

    Nice that you agree that origin of life and evolution are two separate issues.

    I didn't and do not agree as the two are directly linked. How life originated determines how it evolved. And only if blind and undirected processes produced life would we infer they produced the diversity. OTOH if life was deigned then we would infer it was designed to evolve and evolved by design. Rather simple actually.

    It's not a separate question for ID though except that ID proponents don't want to go there because for most of them the designer = the biblical God.

    IDists have said it is a separate question. And that is because we can determine design without knowing the designer.

    The nature and motivation of the designer are clearly important when trying to explain things like the fossil record or ERVs.

    Cuz you say so? LoL! Unguided evolution cannot explain the fossil record. As for ERVs, well that is a case of "they surely look like ervs to me", which isn't science.

    You are a bully.

    Why, because I caught you spewing lie after lie and called you on them?

    You just don't understand the evolutionary mathematical models.

    There aren't any mathematical models for unguided evolution.

    "How are we supposed to do that? Please be specific. And how will that help us in any way to understand the design?"

    That's your problem but I would start with the things you claim are designed.

    It's my problem that you are an ignorant asshole? How dopes that work?

    Look at the fossil record. Clearly if all life on earth was planned and designed then . . . some one is pretty bad at it

    LoL! Far better than you are at it, asshole.

    Why else would they have to take hundreds of millions of years and lots of extinct species to get to us (assuming you think we're the point of the whole process which you do 'cause you think the whole universe is designed for us)?

    There isn't any evidence that was how it went.

    The fact that you admit you don't even know how to draw conclusions about the designer(s) tells me how little you or anyone else in the ID movement care to take that step.

    Strange that I have told you how the only possible way to do that is. And we have some conclusions- 1) the designer wasn't from earth 2) the designer(s) were/ are smarter than we are and 3) the designs are way above our pay grade.

    As I have been telling you, it took centuries of study to come up with what we "know" about Stonehenge and its designers- and that isn't very much. And Stonehenge is within our capabilities.

    That means only a complete drooling imbecile would think that we could take something that is well beyond our current capabilities and come up with more than we have on Stonehenge.

     
  • At 1:53 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    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)?- Mike Gene

     
  • At 1:59 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    But you keep telling me that conclusions about the designer can be made from studying the design.

    And we have made some.

    It's not science because it doesn't have any solid results or mathematics to back it up.

    It has both. Your ignorance means nothing.

    ID has more than unguided evolution.

    Fine, then let's hear it's explanation of the fossil record.

    You first. Please start with prokaryotes evolving into something other than prokaryotes- only scientific explanations, please.

    So all unsolved crimes aren't crimes because we don't know who the perpetrator was.

    Not at all. We can still infer that they are within the capacity of some human being. Some known designer.

    So only ID has to ID the designer. You are a two-faced faggot.

    Thank you.

     
  • At 2:01 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You made a claim about a paper published by Dr Behe. You provided the link. The conclusion of the paper contradicts your claim.

    The conclusion of the paper does NOT say that unguided evolution can produce irreducibly complex protein complexes. You are confused.

    There isn't anything in the paper that says unguided evolution can do anything of note.

    Read the paper as opposed to just the conclusion.

     
  • At 3:14 PM, Blogger Unknown said…


    "That doesn't even follow. ID is about explaining the design and the fossil record wasn't designed. IOW you are an imbecile."

    Just a minute here . . . the creatures were designed and that casts no light on the fossil record? Really?

    "According to you we can't say a crime was committed until we know the perp."

    What? You find a dead body with a bullet hole in the head and no gun visible I think you can conclude there was a crime committed. Get a grip!! Forensics is mostly a support science. Sometimes it DOES determine there was a crime when it wasn't obvious.

    "Nope. It is to determine if a crime was committed and analyze the evidence. Then detectives take over to find out who did it."

    I'm glad you're not a detective.

    "How ignorant is it to conflate ID proponents with ID?"

    Alright, but it is true that most ID proponents have a Christian agenda. And that colours their view of what ID research should pursue.

    "You are an imbecile. Science doesn't care if God was the designer. Science only cares about reality and if the reality is God did it then science is OK with that- it has to be, Heck Newton, Kepler, et al., saw science as a way of understanding God's work."

    But science does care if you're just going to stop asking questions and say: God did it. And my point is: that is exactly what some ID proponents are doing. Something was designed, that's explanation enough. We're done here. Even you asked me how were you supposed to go beyond design detection? How could you make inferences about the designer.

    "Unguided evolution can't answer anything."

    Your opinion. But it does try. ID can't even manage to try mostly.

    "Yes, it does, asshole. Your ignorance, while amusing, is meaningless. Heck I have blogged about the methodology several times."

    Okay, tell me how the designer implemented design.

    "Asshole this discussion is about unguided evolution. Don't blame me because you were caught equivocating."

    But you have changed your argument haven't you? It's no longer: you can't possibly get the right combination of mutations, to: what if the mutations are directed?

    "The word, in context,and definition come from "Nature, Design and Science"."

    Link please.


    "And another cowardly non-sequitur."

    Do you deny that archaeology and forensics are looking for possible human agents?

    "Unguided evolution is all about magic."

    You ARE trying to magic a designer out of thin air.

    "I didn't and do not agree as the two are directly linked. How life originated determines how it evolved. And only if blind and undirected processes produced life would we infer they produced the diversity. OTOH if life was deigned then we would infer it was designed to evolve and evolved by design. Rather simple actually."

    Fine, then the nature of the designer affects how design was implemented and carried out. Right? Because the nature of the designer would affect the design, correct?

    "IDists have said it is a separate question. And that is because we can determine design without knowing the designer."

    But you state that the way life originated tells us something about its generation. So, the nature and motivations of the designer tell us about how life propagated.

    "Cuz you say so? LoL! Unguided evolution cannot explain the fossil record. As for ERVs, well that is a case of "they surely look like ervs to me", which isn't science."

    hahahahahahahahahahahahahh You don't know what ERVs are.

    "There aren't any mathematical models for unguided evolution."

    Read: none you understand.

     
  • At 3:33 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    " 'Why else would they have to take hundreds of millions of years and lots of extinct species to get to us (assuming you think we're the point of the whole process which you do 'cause you think the whole universe is designed for us)?'

    There isn't any evidence that was how it went."

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    Joe reality. Not reality at all. We can't discuss the data if you deny it.

    Again, explain the fossil record from the ID point of view. What does it tell us about the speciation process.

    "Strange that I have told you how the only possible way to do that is. And we have some conclusions- 1) the designer wasn't from earth 2) the designer(s) were/ are smarter than we are and 3) the designs are way above our pay grade."

    That's it? Ooo, it's too hard. We're not intelligent enough? hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
    And you call it science? Ask questions!! Test hypothesises!! Do some work!!!

    "As I have been telling you, it took centuries of study to come up with what we "know" about Stonehenge and its designers- and that isn't very much. And Stonehenge is within our capabilities."

    It didn't take centuries at all. And, apart from inventing a time machine to see how it actually came about, we have some decent guesses at least. ID has nothing to say except: it's above our pay grade.

    "That means only a complete drooling imbecile would think that we could take something that is well beyond our current capabilities and come up with more than we have on Stonehenge."

    But to not even try . . . that's not science is it? You three points above are childish. You call that science? That's not even trying. "It's too hard." :-)

    "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)?- Mike Gene"

    Because the suspicion is that the ID movement has an ulterior motive so, to dispel that fear, it would be good to show a willingness to do some follow up work. Yes? Come up with the goods.

    IF you have a theory then it should explain things. So, explain the fossil record from a design paradigm.

     
  • At 3:33 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    " 'But you keep telling me that conclusions about the designer can be made from studying the design. '

    And we have made some."

    If you mean the few childish suppositions listed above then I don't think even you really find "it's above our pay grade" sufficient. Science is about asking questions and finding answers not about passing because something is too hard.

    "You first. Please start with prokaryotes evolving into something other than prokaryotes- only scientific explanations, please."

    Ah, you said explain the fossil record. And for that I refer you to Donald Prothero's book about Evolution and the fossil record.

    Also I would reference the last half-a-century genomic research which clearly indicates universal common descent. Which, in the absence of an undefined and unspecified designer, indicates that natural processes 'did it'.

    "So only ID has to ID the designer. You are a two-faced faggot."

    You aren't even trying is the point. Not even a rough guess!! You just don't get it do you? NO ONE is even seriously trying to pin down design.

    Forensics try and draw the net as tightly as possible. Archaeology works bloody hard trying to narrow down its conclusions. ID just waves it's hands and says, according to you, it's above our pay grade. And then claims to be science. hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

    "The conclusion of the paper does NOT say that unguided evolution can produce irreducibly complex protein complexes. You are confused."

    But it did not say it couldn't. Did it? You said that the paper proved that materialistic processes were incapable. And irreducible complexity is NOT mentioned in the paper. IS IT??

    "There isn't anything in the paper that says unguided evolution can do anything of note."

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH You could say the same about a research paper regarding the death of Alexander Hamilton. Stop being childish.

    Dr Behe's paper DOESN NOT make the assertion you claim it makes. You cannot find that assertion anywhere in there. Cut your losses.

     
  • At 8:40 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    ID is about explaining the design and the fossil record wasn't designed. IOW you are an imbecile.

    Just a minute here . . . the creatures were designed and that casts no light on the fossil record?

    The fossil record is allegedly very incomplete. The design is found in living organisms.

    Although the Cambrian is supposed to be evidence for the sudden infusion of genetic information.

    You find a dead body with a bullet hole in the head and no gun visible I think you can conclude there was a crime committed.

    That is exactly the reasoning ID uses, dipshit.

    I'm glad you're not a detective.

    I used to be and I was very successful. Being able to repair things requires being a forensic scientist and a detective.

    Alright, but it is true that most ID proponents have a Christian agenda. And that colours their view of what ID research should pursue.

    Most evolutionists are materialistic atheists and that fucks up their research.

    But science does care if you're just going to stop asking questions and say: God did it.

    Then it is a good thing that ID doesn't do that.

    And my point is: that is exactly what some ID proponents are doing.

    Names, please. And then point to the research that will show a bacterial flagellum can evolve via blind and undirected chemical processes. You assholes just throw up your arms and say it evolved without even knowing if it can.

    You are a fucked up asshole.

    Even you asked me how were you supposed to go beyond design detection?

    No, asshole. I asked you how we are supposed to identify the designer. Grow up.

    "Unguided evolution can't answer anything."

    Your opinion.

    Nope, it's a fact.

    Heck I have blogged about the methodology several times.

    Okay, tell me how the designer implemented design.

    The methodology has to do with ID, that is it is for determining design. Grow up.

    But you have changed your argument haven't you?

    Nope.

    It's no longer: you can't possibly get the right combination of mutations, to: what if the mutations are directed?

    It has been that way for decades.

    Nature, Design and Science look inside pages 4-5 for counterflow

    Do you deny that archaeology and forensics are looking for possible human agents?

    They are looking for signs of work and counterflow- ie signs of an intelligent agency- FIRST. Then they make determinations from there.

    You ARE trying to magic a designer out of thin air.

    The evidence demands at least one. Not my fault.

    Fine, then the nature of the designer affects how design was implemented and carried out. Right?

    Possibly, but ID isn't about that.

    But you state that the way life originated tells us something about its generation.

    That is an obvious fact.

    So, the nature and motivations of the designer tell us about how life propagated.

    Maybe.

    You don't know what ERVs are.

    Of course I do and have blogged on them. Endogenous retrovirus- basically alleged bits and pieces of leftover invading viruses. IOW they are sequences that look like they came from a virus. That doesn't mean they did.

    Check out my links section and look at the ERV page.

    There aren't any mathematical models for unguided evolution.

    Read: none you understand.

    Read: fuck you bitch, obviously none that you can present.

    Heck you can't even tell me how many genetic accidents it takes to produce some multi-protein complex- simple math.

     
  • At 8:52 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Joe reality. Not reality at all. We can't discuss the data if you deny it.

    Jerad you are too much of a coward top produce anything. You sure as hell have no idea what genes were involved in what transformations. Your position can't explain anything beyond the given prokaryotes- THAT is the REALITY fuckface.

    Again, explain the fossil record from the ID point of view. What does it tell us about the speciation process.

    YOU tell us how unguided evolution got beyond prokaryotes. Or fuck off.

    That's it? Ooo, it's too hard. We're not intelligent enough?

    Obviously you are not intelligent enough to produce evidence for unguided evolution.

    And you call it science? Ask questions!! Test hypothesises!! Do some work!!!

    Unguided evolution doesn't do any of that.

    "As I have been telling you, it took centuries of study to come up with what we "know" about Stonehenge and its designers- and that isn't very much. And Stonehenge is within our capabilities."

    It didn't take centuries at all.

    So they everything we know today was known centuries ago? Fuck you.

    And, apart from inventing a time machine to see how it actually came about, we have some decent guesses at least. ID has nothing to say except: it's above our pay grade.

    Again, fuck you- obviously you have your head up your ass. Your position has all the resources and answers nothing.

    But to not even try . . . that's not science is it?

    How is unguided evolution coming along? Still nothing? Not even trying?

    "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)?- Mike Gene"

    Because the suspicion is that the ID movement has an ulterior motive so, to dispel that fear, it would be good to show a willingness to do some follow up work.

    And yet ID wouldn't exist if your position had some solid evidence and testable hypotheses that tested positive. Maybe a testable model.

    IDists have been studying the design.

    IF you have a theory then it should explain things.

    And ID explains the design in nature.

    So, explain the fossil record from a design paradigm.

    It doesn't have anything to do with the design paradigm.

    You do realize that ID is OK with universal common descent...

     
  • At 9:05 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Science is about asking questions and finding answers not about passing because something is too hard.

    Yet unguided evolution doesn't ask any questions and it always passes to father time.

    How many mutations did it take to form the mammalian inner ear? What genes were involved?

    Are organisms the sum of their genomes? How can we test that claim?

    Can mutations really do what universal common descent requires of them?

    Nothing like that- a cowardly "theory" if ever there was one. Notice tat all of those questions actually pertain to evolution.

    You first. Please start with prokaryotes evolving into something other than prokaryotes- only scientific explanations, please.

    Ah, you said explain the fossil record.

    And if you cannot get beyond prokaryotes you cannot explain the fossil record, duh. So have at it or fuck off.

    Also I would reference the last half-a-century genomic research which clearly indicates universal common descent.

    Only if common descent is assumed. If we assumed a common design the it would clearly indicate a common design.

    There isn't any genetic data that demonstrates the changes required are even possible via changes to the genome.

    You aren't even trying is the point.

    You stupid fuck- ID has very limited resources and the more important questions come first.

    You are one sick wanker, Jerad. Your position can't answer anything and here you are forcing ID to answer irrelevant bullshit.

    Forensics try and draw the net as tightly as possible.

    Detectives might. Forensics is limited.

    Archaeology works bloody hard trying to narrow down its conclusions.

    And still end up with speculation.

    ID just waves it's hands and says, according to you, it's above our pay grade.

    The designer is irrelevant- what does it add? If saying a human didit means something then saying a non-human didit means something too. So fuck you.

    And then claims to be science.

    The science is determining design exists, moron.

    You said that the paper proved that materialistic processes were incapable.

    No, I didn't. You are a demented faggot.

    Dr Behe's paper DOESN NOT make the assertion you claim it makes.

    Seeing that you are obviously ignorant of what I claimed, how do you know?

     
  • At 11:58 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "The fossil record is allegedly very incomplete. The design is found in living organisms."

    Are you saying extinct creatures were not designed or just that you can't know?

    " 'You find a dead body with a bullet hole in the head and no gun visible I think you can conclude there was a crime committed.'

    That is exactly the reasoning ID uses, dipshit. "

    No, you see something you can't explain via natural processes so you claim design. But you haven't examined all the natural processes enough. You've given up.

    "No, asshole. I asked you how we are supposed to identify the designer. Grow up."

    I didn't think you meant an individual!! That would be a ridiculous request.

    "The methodology has to do with ID, that is it is for determining design. Grow up. "

    I'm talking about the designer(s)' methodology. How was it done and implemented? Be a detective.

    " 'It's no longer: you can't possibly get the right combination of mutations, to: what if the mutations are directed?'

    It has been that way for decades."

    Not according to the front-loaders.

    "Nature, Design and Science look inside pages 4-5 for counterflow"

    Since I don't have a copy of that book perhaps you'd like to copy out the definition.

    " 'Fine, then the nature of the designer affects how design was implemented and carried out. Right?'

    Possibly, but ID isn't about that."

    Then ID doesn't go anywhere. Oh look, we think that was designed. And then what?

    " 'So, the nature and motivations of the designer tell us about how life propagated.'

    Maybe."

    And the designer would probably have wanted things to play out in a certain way. Or would have wanted to avoid some scenarios. So the designer(s)' abilities and motivations are important.

    "Heck you can't even tell me how many genetic accidents it takes to produce some multi-protein complex- simple math."

    People are doing research into those things. Are ID proponents doing research into the designer(s)' methods?

    " 'Again, explain the fossil record from the ID point of view. What does it tell us about the speciation process.'

    YOU tell us how unguided evolution got beyond prokaryotes. Or fuck off."

    So, you're not interested in giving a better explanation?

    "So they everything we know today was known centuries ago? Fuck you."

    No, it didn't take centuries once the questions were asked to figure out some things about Stonehenge and its designers.

    "Again, fuck you- obviously you have your head up your ass. Your position has all the resources and answers nothing."

    Well, tell me what questions you would research once design was detected given sufficient resources.

     
  • At 11:58 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "And yet ID wouldn't exist if your position had some solid evidence and testable hypotheses that tested positive. Maybe a testable model."

    Sigh. ID existed before Darwin wrote his book. I keep being told that design has been detected and yet it's hard to find a decent research agenda by ID proponents to carry on with.

    "IDists have been studying the design."

    Looking for what exactly? Here's your chance, tell me what questions they are trying to answer.

    "And ID explains the design in nature."

    'The designer(s) did it' is not really an explanation. A detective would look for means and motive.

    " 'So, explain the fossil record from a design paradigm.'

    It doesn't have anything to do with the design paradigm."

    What? How could it not?

    "You do realize that ID is OK with universal common descent..."

    Yes, I know, for those of you who think the mutations were directed. But I don't think the front-loading ID proponents would agree with you.

    "Are organisms the sum of their genomes? How can we test that claim?"

    You are aware of the knock-out experiments that have been done?

    "Can mutations really do what universal common descent requires of them?"

    That's what Dr Lenski's experiments are about.

    "You stupid fuck- ID has very limited resources and the more important questions come first."

    Limited resources? When almost half the US population question evolutionary theory? Just ask for some money!!

    "You are one sick wanker, Jerad. Your position can't answer anything and here you are forcing ID to answer irrelevant bullshit."

    It's not irrelevant. The means and motives of the designer(s) speak to the way design was implemented and when.

    "The designer is irrelevant- what does it add? If saying a human didit means something then saying a non-human didit means something too. So fuck you."

    What kind of conclusions can you draw from the design being non-human?

    "Seeing that you are obviously ignorant of what I claimed, how do you know?"

    You said: "In that peer-reviewed article Dr Behe wrote there isn't any support for unguided evolution to be found in peer-review. Other scientists have come to the same conclusion."

    But his paper does not say that.

    It doesn't.

     
  • At 4:38 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Are you saying extinct creatures were not designed or just that you can't know?

    Living organisms would not exist without being Intelligent Designed.

    No, you see something you can't explain via natural processes so you claim design.

    Moron. We see something that meets the criteria of design, and yes that includes materialistic processes cannot account for it, and we claim design. That is how it works with forensics and archaeology, dipshit.

    But you haven't examined all the natural processes enough.

    Prove it.

    I didn't think you meant an individual!! That would be a ridiculous request.

    Yet cops are looking for the specific individual(s) who committed the crime. But anyway then saying a non-human did it is good enough.

    I'm talking about the designer(s)' methodology.

    Then you are an imbecile,just as I have been saying.

    Not according to the front-loaders.

    Talk about moving goal posts.

    Then ID doesn't go anywhere. Oh look, we think that was designed. And then what?

    Then we study it so that we can understand it and have any hope of answering other questions. Are you really that fucking retarded Jerad?

    And the designer would probably have wanted things to play out in a certain way. Or would have wanted to avoid some scenarios. So the designer(s)' abilities and motivations are important.

    Maybe to you.

    People are doing research into those things.

    Bullshit.

    Are ID proponents doing research into the designer(s)' methods?

    Again, you are a moron- YOURS is the mechanistic position that says step-by-step gradual processes didit.

    So, you're not interested in giving a better explanation?

    A better explanation than what? Please be specific. If you can't get beyond prokaryotes, which you can't, then yours can't explain the fossil record.

    No, it didn't take centuries once the questions were asked to figure out some things about Stonehenge and its designers.

    Asshole- it took centuries as Stonehenge has been researched for centuries.

    Well, tell me what questions you would research once design was detected given sufficient resources.

    Where does the immaterial information reside? How does the design function and how can we duplicate it? How can we maintain it? What is the purpose of our existence?

     
  • At 4:54 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Oops forgot a bit:\

    "Nature, Design and Science look inside pages 4-5 for counterflow"

    Since I don't have a copy of that book perhaps you'd like to copy out the definition.

    You ignorant asshole I linked to the book and all you have to do is wait for the page to open, click on the book to take a look inside and make it to pages 4 and 5.

    Are you really that fucking stupid?

    And yet ID wouldn't exist if your position had some solid evidence and testable hypotheses that tested positive. Maybe a testable model.

    Sigh. ID existed before Darwin wrote his book.

    And it still exists because there still isn't any evidence for unguided evolution doing something other than breaking things.

    I keep being told that design has been detected and yet it's hard to find a decent research agenda by ID proponents to carry on with.

    Well you do have your head up your ass. But tell us of the blind watchmaker research agenda.

    Looking for what exactly? Here's your chance, tell me what questions they are trying to answer.

    I have already been over and over that on my blog.

    The designer(s) did it' is not really an explanation.

    Of course it is. For one it tells us that mother nature didn't do it. It also tells us there may b=very well be a purpose to what we are observing.

    A detective would look for means and motive.

    Detectives leave science behind. And ID has a motive for the designer- read "The Privileged Planet"

    Yes, I know, for those of you who think the mutations were directed. But I don't think the front-loading ID proponents would agree with you.

    No one cares what you think.

    Are organisms the sum of their genomes? How can we test that claim?"

    You are aware of the knock-out experiments that have been done?

    Yes and they do not come close to answering that question.

    "Can mutations really do what universal common descent requires of them?"

    That's what Dr Lenski's experiments are about.

    Then Common Descent is falsified.

    "You stupid fuck- ID has very limited resources and the more important questions come first."

    Limited resources?

    Very limited. Give us all the resources that evolutionists are wasting and get back to me in 150 years.

    "You are one sick wanker, Jerad. Your position can't answer anything and here you are forcing ID to answer irrelevant bullshit."

    It's not irrelevant.

    Very irrelevant.

    The means and motives of the designer(s) speak to the way design was implemented and when.

    If we knew the designer, the means and motivation we wouldn't need science to help us determine design is present. You have no idea how to conduct an investigation.

    "In that peer-reviewed article Dr Behe wrote there isn't any support for unguided evolution to be found in peer-review. Other scientists have come to the same conclusion."

    But his paper does not say that.

    You have to read the paper. See if you find any reference to natural selection or unguided evolution actually doing something. Behe's paper is a review of the literature and the lack of references to the literature in support of unguided evolution is the whole point.

    IOW the BEST that your position can muster is in Behe's paper and it doesn't look good for your side.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home