Intelligent Reasoning

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

Friday, February 20, 2015

Piotr Gasbag- Still Proudly Clueless

-
Piotr posted the following over on TSZ:

Biniba boncianla den diani yali n den tieni tisiga ni. Bin den diani ke li ta yemma leni yabi n den la leni binuni hali micilima n den wani ti mama gi go twa tipo bimawanggikaba.

He wants to know how ID would handle that. Well Piotr CONTEXT is important. If we saw that on a cave wall we would know that some intelligent agency put it there as mother nature is not capable.

So what was your point, Piotr? Do you think science is conducted in a vacuum?

Read the nonsense for yourselves

posted by Joe G @ 10:11 AM  

28 Comments:

  • At 10:49 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    You know what he's trying to get at: he just wants to see what kind of analytic tools might be used in design detection AFTER the more obvious approaches had been tried.

    Why not just make a good-faith attempt to discuss the issue?

     

  • At 12:29 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    No, I don't know what he is trying to get at. He obviously doesn't understand the issue, which is can we tell if intelligent agency interaction is required to explain what we are observing.

    Context matters in science and it is very telling tat your ilk is ignorant of that.

    Why not make a good-faith attempt to understand what is actually being debated?

     

  • At 3:50 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    No, I don't know what he is trying to get at. He obviously doesn't understand the issue, which is can we tell if intelligent agency interaction is required to explain what we are observing.

    If the situation were very ambiguous what kind of analytic tools would you consider using?

    Context matters in science and it is very telling tat your ilk is ignorant of that.

    I don't think that's true. But I do think the ID crowd has been very reluctant to present a hypothesis for how life developed and for spelling out analytic techniques for determining design.

     

  • At 9:59 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    If the situation were very ambiguous what kind of analytic tools would you consider using?

    Every one currently employed plus any I could think of in the given context.

    I don't think that's true.

    It is true that context matters and you at least appear to be ignorant of it.

    But I do think the ID crowd has been very reluctant to present a hypothesis for how life developed

    That isn't part of ID

    and for spelling out analytic techniques for determining design

    Fuck you, Jerad. Especially in the light that your position doesn't use any analytical tools. We- humans that is- have tried and true design detection techniques. And anyone can come along and show they are flawed by demonstrating what we claim is intelligently designed can be accounted for via blind and undirected processes.

    But we know you won't- you won't show us how your position does it so we can compare to see which holds up.

     

  • At 7:21 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    It is true that context matters and you at least appear to be ignorant of it.

    I do think context matters but I don't think it's true that everyone except ID proponents ignore that.

    But I do think the ID crowd has been very reluctant to present a hypothesis for how life developed

    That isn't part of ID

    Except . . . it is. ID proponents think that an intelligent designer helped life develop in some way, at some time, for some purpose. But no one really wants to spell out even when or to what extent.

    Fuck you, Jerad. Especially in the light that your position doesn't use any analytical tools. We- humans that is- have tried and true design detection techniques. And anyone can come along and show they are flawed by demonstrating what we claim is intelligently designed can be accounted for via blind and undirected processes.

    I don't understand you're continued abuse when I'm just asking you to explain your position more than you have.

    But we know you won't- you won't show us how your position does it so we can compare to see which holds up.

    If my position is so bad then I should consider others yes? And if I want to consider yours then I need to know what it is. But it's really hard to get any ID proponent to go beyond 'that looks designed'. No one wants to even have a guess on when or to what extent. How can anyone get their head around a hypothesis which doesn't exist?

     

  • At 9:16 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I do think context matters but I don't think it's true that everyone except ID proponents ignore that.

    The evidence betrays you.

    Except . . . it is. ID proponents think that an intelligent designer helped life develop in some way, at some time, for some purpose. But no one really wants to spell out even when or to what extent.

    That isn't part of ID. Grow up.

    And LoL! Your position doesn't have any hypotheses so how can anyone get their head around something that doesn't exist?

    Why can't you lead by example? ID posits testable entailments and that is much more than your position has so stuff it, Jerad.

     

  • At 10:00 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Why can't you lead by example? ID posits testable entailments and that is much more than your position has so stuff it, Jerad.

    My stance is basically the same as that stated in lots and lots of books and papers about evolutionary theory so I don't feel the need to talk about it.

    But I am interested in what hypothesis/model/thoery ID supports. Or even which one you think is the correct one. Why is it so hard to get any ID proponent to discuss their model?

     

  • At 10:06 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    My stance is basically the same as that stated in lots and lots of books and papers about evolutionary theory so I don't feel the need to talk about it.

    LoL! Typical bluffing coward. And we have discussed our model. Your ignorance, while amusing, means nothing.

     

  • At 11:04 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    LoL! Typical bluffing coward. And we have discussed our model. Your ignorance, while amusing, means nothing.

    If you have discussed it then I'm afraid I'm not very clear on what it is: front loading or incremental adjustments? I'm thinking the latter but that's still not being terribly clear about how often adjustments are made. Or necessary.

    Actually, you might be a front-loading person since you believe in (as yet undiscovered) extra programming in the cell . . . somewhere . . .

    Which brings up another question actually: is the extra programming in a human different from that in a guppy or a daisy? If so then . . . how did the different programming get put into the cells and when?

     

  • At 12:37 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Yes, we know that you are afraid.

    Lead by example or fuck off.

     

  • At 5:28 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Yes, we know that you are afraid.

    Lead by example or fuck off.

    This just does not make sense. Evolutionary theorist are quite open and up front about what they believe to be the case. You disagree but you can't say that there is no one promoting the 'cause'.

    Regardless, independent of what evolutionary theory is saying, what are you saying? What is your explanation(s) for the evidence we have documenting the development of life on earth? Tell me something about your argument instead of just arguing against some one else's. Please.

     

  • At 3:54 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Yes, we know that you are afraid.

    Lead by example or fuck off.

    I don't see how my reiterating my stance helps me to understand yours. You seem very reluctant to talk about your view of things.

    Again: is all the necessary coding and information front-loaded into the system OR are the designers continually updating their designs?

     

  • At 1:34 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Jerad, why do you ask questions that are irrelevant to ID?

    And why do you accept stories as science?

     

  • At 1:35 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And why the fuck can't you stay on-topic?

     

  • At 1:27 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Jerad, why do you ask questions that are irrelevant to ID?

    And why do you accept stories as science?

    I'm talking about you having a proper hypothesis that you can test against the data and with experimentation.

    You do have a hypothesis don't you? Isn't that the way science is done?

     

  • At 6:08 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Yes, ID's entailments ARE the testable hypotheses. OTOH your position doesn't even have that.

    So shut up already about testable hypotheses.

     

  • At 9:20 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Yes, ID's entailments ARE the testable hypotheses. OTOH your position doesn't even have that.

    So shut up already about testable hypotheses.

    So, do the entailments specify whether biological systems were front loaded with all necessary coding/programming or that there has been lots of adjustments by the designers?

     

  • At 12:24 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    No

     

  • At 4:38 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    So, do the entailments specify whether biological systems were front loaded with all necessary coding/programming or that there has been lots of adjustments by the designers?

    No

    No, the entailments do not specify which case is to be assumed/hypothesised?

    So what are you saying really? Is there a central, core intelligent design hypothesis that explains why life on earth developed in the way it did?

     

  • At 6:59 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    No, ID does not say how life developed beyond that it was designed to evolve and evolved by design.

     

  • At 2:07 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    No, ID does not say how life developed beyond that it was designed to evolve and evolved by design.

    T'ain't much is it? It doesn't say how or when or why.

    By the way . . . does that mean ebola was evolved by design? Polio? Malaria? Prostate cancer? Tape worms? Anthrax? Measles?

    What about all the severely autistic children? By design?

    Is homosexuality part of the design then? It's been around for a very long time.

     

  • At 6:05 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    T'ain't much is it?

    It's more than you have.

    It doesn't say how or when or why.

    That isn't part of ID. And your position cannot say anything about those questions either.

    By the way . . . does that mean ebola was evolved by design? Polio? Malaria? Prostate cancer? Tape worms? Anthrax? Measles?

    What about all the severely autistic children? By design?

    Is homosexuality part of the design then? It's been around for a very long time.

    You are fucking dense, Jerad. Darwinian evolution can easily account for disease and deformities- as I have told you many times now.

    Obviously you love being an ignorant and cowardly asshole.

     

  • At 9:13 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    It doesn't say how or when or why.

    That isn't part of ID. And your position cannot say anything about those questions either.

    So, you haven't got a real, explanatory hypothesis. Stuff looks designed but nobody knows when or how or why. Got it.

    You are fucking dense, Jerad. Darwinian evolution can easily account for disease and deformities- as I have told you many times now.

    Oh, so the designer is a) not around any more or b) doesn't mind that lots of people die or are crippled by various and sundry causes. I wonder which one it is . . .

    Obviously you love being an ignorant and cowardly asshole.

    I'm just trying to figure out what you, as an ID proponent, believe happened or is happening. What's wrong with that?

     

  • At 9:19 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So, you haven't got a real, explanatory hypothesis

    That is your uneducated opinion.

    Stuff looks designed but nobody knows when or how or why.

    The why was answered in "The Privileged Planet", and no one says stuff just looks designed. Investigators realize saying something is designed means quite a bit. But then again we have been over and over that already.

    Oh, so the designer is a) not around any more or b) doesn't mind that lots of people die or are crippled by various and sundry causes.

    Or that diseases and such are an impetus for learning, which is a requirement in a universe designed for scientific discovery.

    I'm just trying to figure out what you, as an ID proponent, believe happened or is happening. What's wrong with that?

    For one you need to focus on your own lame-ass position. It needs help, desperately.

     

  • At 4:13 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    The why was answered in "The Privileged Planet", and no one says stuff just looks designed. Investigators realize saying something is designed means quite a bit. But then again we have been over and over that already.

    Ah yes, the universe with it's CMEs and supernovas and killer asteroids was designed so that humans being can occupy one minor planet in one galaxy amongst billions. The designers sure aren't very economical with their designs are they? What percentage of all the solar systems in the universe have humans beings? 0.0000000000000000001%? Less?

    Or that diseases and such are an impetus for learning, which is a requirement in a universe designed for scientific discovery.

    Oh right. How stupid of me not to realise that when the 8-year old son of a friend of mine got brain cancer and died a year later that it was a learning experience. My bad. I wonder if all the plague victims over the centuries realised how lucky they were to be part of a great education situation. Or the countless numbers of folks who have died from Malaria. Or the measles. Or Whooping Cough. Or Thetnus. Or Anthrax. Or Influenza. I wonder if those Africans kids who have been infected with that parasite that eats their optical nerves realise how blessed they are?

    Do you suppose earthquakes and tsunamis and tornados and floods are also chances to 'learn' as well? I guess we're really fortunate to be threatened in so many ways by natural disasters. I never thought about it that way before!!

    For one you need to focus on your own lame-ass position. It needs help, desperately.

    I'm trying to figure out what your point of view has to offer in contrast. So far I'm finding it pretty difficult to nail down.

     

  • At 6:09 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Ah yes, the universe with it's CMEs and supernovas and killer asteroids was designed so that humans being can occupy one minor planet in one galaxy amongst billions.

    What a totally ignorant thing to say. You must be proud to be an ignorant asshole, Jerad.

    "The Privileged Planet" doesn't say anything like that. Grow up and stop being such a fucking wanker.

    How stupid of me not to realise that when the 8-year old son of a friend of mine got brain cancer and died a year later that it was a learning experience. My bad. I wonder if all the plague victims over the centuries realised how lucky they were to be part of a great education situation. Or the countless numbers of folks who have died from Malaria. Or the measles. Or Whooping Cough. Or Thetnus. Or Anthrax. Or Influenza. I wonder if those Africans kids who have been infected with that parasite that eats their optical nerves realise how blessed they are?

    Your emotional pleas just expose your desperation.

    I'm trying to figure out what your point of view has to offer in contrast.

    In contrast to what?

     

  • At 9:55 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    What a totally ignorant thing to say. You must be proud to be an ignorant asshole, Jerad.

    The universe is really, really big and most of it is uninhabited and uninhabitable by humans beings.

    "The Privileged Planet" doesn't say anything like that. Grow up and stop being such a fucking wanker.

    It's true though isn't it: there are lots of ways the universe can kill us off easily.

    Your emotional pleas just expose your desperation.

    If your child died from a brain tumour would you consider it a learning experience?

    I'm trying to figure out what your point of view has to offer in contrast.

    In contrast to what?

    Other views.

     

  • At 5:48 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The universe is really, really big and most of it is uninhabited and uninhabitable by humans beings.

    It can still be explored.

    If your child died from a brain tumour would you consider it a learning experience?

    My sister died of a brain tumor. She was 3. OTOH a mother fucker like myself fell 60+ feet from a hemlock and lived. I was 5.

    And what do those other views say besides we are just here just because?

     

Post a Comment

<< Home