Eliminating Evolutionism
-
As I have said and supported, many times, in order to infer intelligent design is present we must first eliminate necessity and chance. Once that is accomplished you see if there is a pattern that can be matched against what known intelligent agencies produce. This follows Newton's four rules of scientific investigation, Ockham's Razor, parsimony and the explanatory filter.
This brings us to the elimination of evolutionism, ie the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms. (Also known as the blind watchmaker thesis)
The idea is not testable as there aren't any entailments and no predictions. It cannot be modeled. It cannot be measured. There aren't any research programs. It is useless. And natural selection has proven to be impotent.
Hitchens applies:
As I have said and supported, many times, in order to infer intelligent design is present we must first eliminate necessity and chance. Once that is accomplished you see if there is a pattern that can be matched against what known intelligent agencies produce. This follows Newton's four rules of scientific investigation, Ockham's Razor, parsimony and the explanatory filter.
This brings us to the elimination of evolutionism, ie the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms. (Also known as the blind watchmaker thesis)
The idea is not testable as there aren't any entailments and no predictions. It cannot be modeled. It cannot be measured. There aren't any research programs. It is useless. And natural selection has proven to be impotent.
Hitchens applies:
That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.Evolutionism is eliminated due to its total failure to generate anything.
47 Comments:
At 3:39 AM, Unknown said…
Well, I was going to try and find links for all the things you say don't exist regarding evolutionary theory but then I realised that I and others have been posting links for your for years and you continually deny the evidence when it's presented to you. So I'm not going to bother.
But please note: ID cannot even agree what it's saying except: some stuff looks designed to us. It can't say when design was implemented which means it can't point to the fossil or genomic or morphologic or bio-geographic records and say: there is where a design was implemented. And I don't think it ever will be that specific because then it runs the risk of being proven wrong.
This is the real reason the people behind ID at the Discovery Institute aren't interested in doing anything except being merchants of doubt regarding evolution. Anything they get specific about they might lose. The only one of the whole ID crowd who is really trying to do some real work and research (and is not afraid to talk about it) is Dr Behe, him I will listen to and respect. So far he's gotten a lot wrong but he knows what the arguments should be and how to try and make them. I still think irreducible complexity is one of the best shots ID has but after 150 years (even Darwin recognised the IC issue) no thing or system has been proven to be irreducibly complex.
Anyway, if you continue to ignore evidence and being unable to come up with explanations of your own then no one is going to take you seriously. How many years have you been saying first design must be detected before more can be said and then immediately admitted design has been detected? Where is the follow on research? Where is the research agenda? Where are the publications? Where are the specific predictions? (I love how the Discovery Institute loves casting doubt on junk DNA but refuses to predict how much of the genome will eventually be found to have a real function. They haven't got a clue, they aren't doing any research, they're just quote-mining real research.)
Meanwhile supporters like you are left out on the front lines to take the brunt of criticism. You support the cause, you buy the books which helps pay people like Stephen Meyer and Jonathan Wells and Casey Luskin and Anne Gauger and Douglas Axe and William Dembski and David Berlinski their stipends. Thanks to people like you they don't have to actually do any ID research because their adoring fans lap up every publication. Maybe you can't do any research but you really should hold the Discovery Institute's feet to the fire and get them to do some real work.
You may now return to ignoring 150 years of research and publications. Best stay out of any real academic library while you're at it. You might learn something there.
At 5:59 AM, Joe G said…
LoL! You are nothing but a bluffing coward. Evos are such fucking liars they are a bane to humanity. Jerad is the epitome of bluffing ignorance.
Congratulations
At 6:14 AM, Joe G said…
Jerad:
Well I can't refute what you said because it is all true but I am going to lie and attack ID cuz that is all I know."
Life is good...
At 1:02 PM, Unknown said…
LoL! You are nothing but a bluffing coward. Evos are such fucking liars they are a bane to humanity. Jerad is the epitome of bluffing ignorance.
I maybe a hideous liar but that doesn't take away from the fact that ID proponents cannot agree on what was designed and when, that there is no ID research agenda or even work being done. It is still the case that ID has no explanation for the fossil, genomic, morphologic or bio-geographic records except to say: that's the way the designer did it. And it can't just be because y'all have to wait 'til design is detected 'cause you told me it has been detected a while ago. So where is the research? Where are the predictions? Where is the added insight?
You tell me you know how to do science well . . . what science have ID proponents done in the last 20 years? Has there been peer-reviewed papers and research clearly, explicitly in support of ID. Where is it? Have you go anything past: this stuff looks designed? Anything?
Are you and your fellow believers just going to keep buying the books so that the guys at the Discovery Institute don't have to look for other jobs? What have they done really of substance that has made a difference? Do they really deserve your cash?
And again, when people have bothered to track down references which refute your claims you just ignore them or call it all a pack of lies. You are a denier, pure and simple. You cherry pick data that matches your already decided belief and you tend to only read publications that uphold your bias. You can't even do the math in Dr Dembski's formula. You can prove me wrong by computing phi-s(T) for a given example (since you punted on p(T|H) by assuming H = 0 (when H isn't a number) and then claiming Dr Dembski agreed with that but was just trying to make it look like he was being nice to the evos,(,
EVEN IF evolutionary theory is a bankrupt notion you and ID have provided nothing of any substance to counter it. No research, no research agenda, no data, nothing.
At 4:07 PM, Joe G said…
Jerad, Unguided evolution cannot explain the fossil,genomic, morphologic or bio-geographic records.
You don't have a mechanism capable of getting beyond prokaryotes and we gave you starting populations of prokaryotes! You are a pathetic little bluffing bitch.
The science of ID is in the detection and study of design in nature. That there are unanswered questions proves that the design inference is not a dead end.
We study the design so we can understand it. The who and when A) don't help and B) are difficult to determine even in archaeology.
Evos can't say anything about the how and when, Jerad. They don't even know the if part- if such a thing is possible.
And again, when people have bothered to track down references which refute your claims you just ignore them or call it all a pack of lies.
They are what they are. It isn't my fault that you assholes are a bunch of ignorant asswipes who refuse to understand what is being debated.
EVEN IF evolutionary theory is a bankrupt notion you and ID have provided nothing of any substance to counter it.
There isn't any evolutionary theory and you wouldn't know substance if it was sitting on your face.
Strange that dembski and others have written about ID research agendas and provided plenty of data and evidence.
Perhaps your wife can read more chicken livers to see if we are doing it correctly.
BTW, I don't have to assume tat H=0. The fact that no one can provide H is more than enough evidence to support my claim. Unfortunately you are too stupid to grasp that.
Also you will never support evolutionism by attacking ID, especially attacking ID with your willful ignorance.
At 4:36 AM, Unknown said…
LoL! You are nothing but a bluffing coward. Evos are such fucking liars they are a bane to humanity. Jerad is the epitome of bluffing ignorance.
Unlike you who can't seem to do some simple mathematics or even address the science involved (except to parrot arguments made by others) without abusing people you disagree with.
Jerad, Unguided evolution cannot explain the fossil,genomic, morphologic or bio-geographic records.
I'm sorry you don't understand the explanations but that doesn't mean the theory is wrong.
You don't have a mechanism capable of getting beyond prokaryotes and we gave you starting populations of prokaryotes! You are a pathetic little bluffing bitch.
No, you just don't believe in the mechanism. You've already decided that because you haven't seen something happen that it didn't AND couldn't happen. You don't understand the mounds and mounds of evidence which show the mechanism in action. And you continually deny the evidence when it is presented to you.
The science of ID is in the detection and study of design in nature. That there are unanswered questions proves that the design inference is not a dead end.
Funny that no one is working on any follow on questions. Go on, show me the research agenda and who is working on it.
We study the design so we can understand it. The who and when A) don't help and B) are difficult to determine even in archaeology.
That's the whole point of archaeology. Unlike ID which strategically avoids bringing God into the picture.
Evos can't say anything about the how and when, Jerad. They don't even know the if part- if such a thing is possible.
You denying the evidence and the explanation does not mean they don't exist.
BTW, I don't have to assume tat H=0. The fact that no one can provide H is more than enough evidence to support my claim. Unfortunately you are too stupid to grasp that.
Then why did Dr Dembski put it in his formula?
Also you will never support evolutionism by attacking ID, especially attacking ID with your willful ignorance.
Those are two different things. Why would I conflate them?
At 10:13 AM, Joe G said…
Jerad, You are an ignorant piece-of-shit. All you can do is lie, lie, and lie. You are a bluffing coward.
You are sorry for being so fucking gullible. You are sorry for not even trying to post a testable hypothesis for unguided evolution. You are sorry for not even trying to post the entailments of unguided evolution. You are sorry for not understanding the basics of science.
No, you just don't believe in the mechanism.
No, you are just an ignorant and gullible asswipe.
We study the design so we can understand it. The who and when A) don't help and B) are difficult to determine even in archaeology.
That's the whole point of archaeology
Then they have FAILed. They don't know who built Stonehenge. They can only guess and that ain't science. They don't know how it was built. and when keeps changing. And that is a structure we can build.
Then why did Dr Dembski put it in his formula?
I have explained that you ignorant shit breath
At 11:36 AM, Unknown said…
Jerad, You are an ignorant piece-of-shit. All you can do is lie, lie, and lie. You are a bluffing coward.
You still haven't pointed out a single mistake in a single evolutionary research paper. You just say they're wrong but not why.
You are sorry for being so fucking gullible. You are sorry for not even trying to post a testable hypothesis for unguided evolution. You are sorry for not even trying to post the entailments of unguided evolution. You are sorry for not understanding the basics of science.
I have posted one before. You just denied it. Why bother trying to convince someone who DOESN'T actually consider all the evidence.
No, you are just an ignorant and gullible asswipe.
Unlike you who reads Dr Spetner's books but can't do the mathematics in them. But hey, he supports your already fixed view so he must be right eh?
Then they have FAILed. They don't know who built Stonehenge. They can only guess and that ain't science. They don't know how it was built. and when keeps changing. And that is a structure we can build.
What do you want them to do: throw up their hands and give up because they'll never know for sure since we don't have a time machine? You're view of science is really weird.
I have explained that you ignorant shit breath
You're explanation makes no sense. He's a mathematician, he put p(T|H) in the formula for a reason (which he spells out in the paper). You think it's rubbish so the whole formula (and therefore the whole paper) is a giant waste of time. But yet you keep referring people to it. That doesn't even make sense. People say: you haven't got a metric. You say: we do, Dr Dembski wrote one down. But you think it's not really a metric at all. Too funny.
At 12:53 PM, Joe G said…
You still haven't pointed out a single mistake in a single evolutionary research paper.
So you enjoy being a dick, wonderful. No one is debating evolution, dickface.
I have posted one before.
Liar. Strange that you can't do it again.
Why bother trying to convince someone who DOESN'T actually consider all the evidence.
You don't even know what evidence is. I was an evolutionist until I considered the evidence. Antony Flew was an atheist until he considered all of the evidence. I don't know of any scientists who switched to unguided evolution after considering all of the evidence.
You are just a bluffing liar.
Unlike you who reads Dr Spetner's books but can't do the mathematics in them.
Liar- and a shit-eating liar at that.
What do you want them to do: throw up their hands and give up because they'll never know for sure since we don't have a time machine?
No fuckface. And that doesn't follow from what I said. You are just a pathetic little imp.
My point is they have it much easier than ID and yet you demand more from ID than them. You are an asshole.
He's a mathematician, he put p(T|H) in the formula for a reason (which he spells out in the paper).
Yes, asshole. However not every scenario has a chance hypothesis as evidence by your failure too produce one for ATP synthase. Everyone's failure, so you ain't alone.
And it is a metric. It shows your position to be totally barren.
So please stop your pathetic lies and just admit that unguided evolution doesn't have any entailments nor predictions nor testable hypotheses.
At 2:14 PM, Rich Hughes said…
We know people built Stonehenge. We know where they lived and what tools they used. Whoops.
At 2:32 PM, Joe G said…
LoL! What "people", cupcake? How do you know people thousands of years ago were capable? What tools did they use to quarry the stones? What tools did they use to carry the stones? What tools did they use to place the stones?
Whoops, indeed...
At 2:49 PM, Unknown said…
So you enjoy being a dick, wonderful. No one is debating evolution, dickface.
Then why do you keep saying unguided evolution is empty?
Liar. Strange that you can't do it again.
I might as well bash my head against a brick wall. You've decided, against the available evidence, that mutations are guided.
You don't even know what evidence is. I was an evolutionist until I considered the evidence. Antony Flew was an atheist until he considered all of the evidence. I don't know of any scientists who switched to unguided evolution after considering all of the evidence.
If you'd bother to listen you could hear lots of stories about former staunch Christians who became atheists and believe in unguided evolution.
You are just a bluffing liar.
Show me the evidence for guided evolution.
Liar- and a shit-eating liar at that.
Show me you can compute phi-s(T) in Dr Dembski's formula after having bailed on p(T|H).
No fuckface. And that doesn't follow from what I said. You are just a pathetic little imp.
Archaeologists have considered all the evidence and come up with some plausible ideas about who built Stonehenge and why. But that's not good enough for Joe who thinks they haven't got anything.
My point is they have it much easier than ID and yet you demand more from ID than them. You are an asshole.
Not at all, that's the point. You've got fossils and genomes and morphology and bio-geographic data and all you've come up with is: some of this stuff looks designed. Why are you addressing ALL the evidence and figuring out why things happened the way they did? You've 'detected' design so now DO SOMETHING!!
Yes, asshole. However not every scenario has a chance hypothesis as evidence by your failure too produce one for ATP synthase. Everyone's failure, so you ain't alone.
My chance hypothesis is universal descent via unguided modification. What's yours?
And it is a metric. It shows your position to be totally barren.
Which no one uses and you say is BS anyway 'cause H = 0.
So please stop your pathetic lies and just admit that unguided evolution doesn't have any entailments nor predictions nor testable hypotheses.
Joe is soooo convinced that there must be a designer that he can't look at the data and the fact that there is NO evidence for guidance and think maybe he could be wrong. I've considered my position many times after starting to post at UD. Many times. I wonder, I tested, I reconsidered all the arguments.
I think you came to accept design via some other argument (since there is no evidence for guided mutations) and then searched around for a justification. And now that you've found one which lets you reinterpret all the evidence and data and research in that light then you think you're home free. You think you've won. But it's all based on an assumption that things are guided somehow, somewhere. But you can't find that guidance. No one can find it. After 150 years of looking it can't be found. Keep looking, by all means. You might get lucky. But don't tell me everything is done and dusted, that unguided evolution is a busted flush. Not until you've proven guidance. And you can't magic that into existence because you think some stuff looks designed. Find the 'extra programming'. Find the guidance. If you can.
At 3:15 PM, Joe G said…
Still no evolutionary theory. Still no testable hypothesis for unguided evolution. Still no entailments- it's a science thing, Jerad.
All Jerad can do is flail away like a little girl as if that somehow helps him.
You've decided, against the available evidence, that mutations are guided.
Liar. You've decided, without any evidence, that mutations are unguided.
My chance hypothesis is universal descent via unguided modification
BWAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
That has nothing to do with chance, asshole.
Look, obviously you are just an ignorant shit who can only shit on other people's ideas just because they have them.
Which no one uses and you say is BS anyway 'cause H = 0.
NOT IN ALL CASES YOU IGNORANT FUCK.
Again don't blame me because you cannot produce a chance hypothesis for the formation of ATP synthase. Only cowards do shit like that and that is all you do.
At 4:23 PM, Rich Hughes said…
Poor old Chubs - keeps rolling out creationist nonsense even when he should know better:
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=7640;st=600#entry232063
I imagine that when you get your box of 12 donuts for breakfast there's one you don't like but you keep eating it, because you can't learn.
Now tell us how using ID methodology you calculated the specified information of stonehenge etc etc? Oh, riggghhht.
Dembski has moved on from CSI to ASC, you and Gordon Mullings (who's shoulder you cry on with made up tales of woe) have moved backwards to FIASCO, which is so stupid even Dembski was more advanced 15 years ago with his *first* version of CSI.
At 6:01 PM, Unknown said…
All Jerad can do is flail away like a little girl as if that somehow helps him.
Have you calculated phi-s(T) yet? Have you found your 'extra programming' in the cell yet?
Liar. You've decided, without any evidence, that mutations are unguided.
Ah, now we see how Joe does science. Instead of going with the explanation with the fewest undefined causes Joe thinks you can assume an undefined and undetected agent (because he can't prove one exists) and that the other camp has to prove a negative, that such an agent doesn't exist. Pretty funny. Have you tried putting that into a research publication Joe?
That has nothing to do with chance, asshole.
Absolutely it does because there is no detected or defined guide involved.
Look, obviously you are just an ignorant shit who can only shit on other people's ideas just because they have them.
This from the guy that has blog post after blog post calling people evoTards and saying evolutionary theory has got nothing. Meanwhile he can't prove a designer exists. He can't say what the designer did or when. He can't find his hoped-for extra programming. He can't say how the extra programming in stored or encoded. He can't say how it affects descent with modification.
NOT IN ALL CASES YOU IGNORANT FUCK.
Okay, give me an example of H as Dr Dembski has defined it when it's not zero.
Again don't blame me because you cannot produce a chance hypothesis for the formation of ATP synthase. Only cowards do shit like that and that is all you do.
I don't really care about Dr Dembski's formula, I just wanted to establish that not only does no one use it but that you can't compute the terms. Or have you figured out phi-s(T) for some example yet?
At 8:28 PM, Joe G said…
Jerad, Thank you for helping me prove that my OP is true.
Instead of going with the explanation with the fewest undefined causes Joe thinks you can assume an undefined and undetected agent
LoL! Mother nature makes stones yet can't make Stonehenge. However Jerad thinks mommy can produce something much more complex and intricate.
The intelligent agency has been detected. The only other "explanation" is sheer dumb luck, which isn't science.
I go with our knowledge of cause and effect relationships.
“The same narrow circumstances that allow us to exist also provide us with the best over all conditions for making scientific discoveries.”
“The one place that has observers is the one place that also has perfect solar eclipses.”
“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 combined circumstance that we live on Earth and are able to see stars- that the conditions necessary for life do not exclude those necessary for vision, and vice versa- is a remarkably improbable one.
This is because the medium we live is, on one hand, just thick enough to enable us to breathe and prevent us from being burned up by cosmic rays, while, on the other hand, it is not so opaque as to absorb entirely the light of the stars and block the view of the universe. What a fragile balance between the indispensable and the sublime.” Hans Blumenberg- thoughts independent of the research done by Gonzalez.
ALL of the evidence- and all yours has is to say it all "just happened"
You are a pathetic coward, jerad.
At 8:35 PM, Joe G said…
LoL! Richie the cupcake cocksucker strikes again.
Unfortunately Richie doesn't know the word "entailment"- I have been using it for decades- as he cannot say what unguided evolution entails. all he can do is run back to the swamp and stroke the other evoTARDs.
No one uses CSI for Stonehenge, Richie. We have been over this many times and obviously you are too stupid to learn. CSI is still valid. NFL is still valid. Nothing has been superseded, moron.
It is very telling that all you can do is spew your ignorance and think it means something.
Thank you for helping me support this OP.
At 8:39 PM, Joe G said…
LoL! Please read Richie's dumbass link about Stonehenge- not one word about how it was constructed nor who did it.
Richie is such a gullible dumbass he thinks the little we know are real answers.
1- We do not know who built it. The remains found did not come with labels and could be anyone who just showed up.
2- We do not know how it was constructed
3- The when keeps changing
4- The why is anyone's guess
5- We do not know how they moved the stones to the current location
Richie is a dumbass lying fuck and he knows it. National Geographic- LoL!
At 9:09 PM, Rich Hughes said…
It's obvious people built it, Joe. Not ghosts or aliens or badgers or sky daddy. A 'pathetic' level of detail ID can't get to.
Also, the 'tell' that your distressed is you start your posts with 'LOL', chubs. ;)
At 9:29 PM, Joe G said…
Geez, Richie- it is pathetic that you think that actually says who built it. "People"- wow.
How did they do it, Richie? Why are you avoiding all he other questions?
Guess what Richie, it wasn't people who designed people. That level of detail is the same as yours.
The "tell" that you are an imbecile are your posts, cupcake. Now what about those entailments for unguided evolution?
At 2:36 AM, Unknown said…
Jerad, Thank you for helping me prove that my OP is true.
Have you computed phi-s(T) yet? Have you found your hoped for extra programming? Can you tell us how it's encoded and stored? Can you tell us how it affects development? What is your research agenda? What peer-reviewed papers have been published supporting your idea?
LoL! Mother nature makes stones yet can't make Stonehenge. However Jerad thinks mommy can produce something much more complex and intricate.
No designer found and yet we have fossils and genomes and a bio-geographic distribution.
The intelligent agency has been detected. The only other "explanation" is sheer dumb luck, which isn't science.
Really. Is this the eternal tinkerer that has left hundreds of millions of years of extinct species and humans that can die from a multiple of nasty bugs and diseases?
“The same narrow circumstances that allow us to exist also provide us with the best over all conditions for making scientific discoveries.”
Gosh, you mean we're well adapted to our environment?
“The one place that has observers is the one place that also has perfect solar eclipses.”
Sounds like the old rainbow argument doesn't it?
“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.”
Meanwhile, several times, almost all life on earth has been wiped out by asteroid impacts. And one could happen again. Or a massive CME could take us out.
“The combined circumstance that we live on Earth and are able to see stars- that the conditions necessary for life do not exclude those necessary for vision, and vice versa- is a remarkably improbable one."
Keep checking for killer asteroids. And earthquakes and cosmic rays and tidal waves and plagues. Oh, I forgot, you think some of those things are learning experiences. Sent to test us.
"This is because the medium we live is, on one hand, just thick enough to enable us to breathe and prevent us from being burned up by cosmic rays, while, on the other hand, it is not so opaque as to absorb entirely the light of the stars and block the view of the universe. What a fragile balance between the indispensable and the sublime.” Hans Blumenberg- thoughts independent of the research done by Gonzalez.
Again, so we're well adapted to our environment.
ALL of the evidence- and all yours has is to say it all "just happened"
Well, after a few billion years, nature has come up with life forms that thrive in the given conditions. Why did it take the designer so long? The eternal tinkerer: can't get it right, has to keep fussing and tweaking and failing. Lots and lots and lots and lots of death and failed life forms.
You are a pathetic coward, jerad.
I am very much afraid of all the ways the universe and even other life on earth can kill us.
At 9:10 AM, Joe G said…
Have you computed phi-s(T) yet
Don't need to for the reason provided. Obviously you are just a little imp.
No designer found and yet we have fossils and genomes and a bio-geographic distribution.
And unguided evolution can't explain any of it.
But anyway, Jerad is too stupid to grasp the evidence and too cowardly to post the entailments of unguided evolution
Thank you for helping me make my case against evolutionism.
At 11:03 AM, Unknown said…
Don't need to for the reason provided. Obviously you are just a little imp.
What about for those cases where H is not zero then? Hey, if you can't compute it you might as well just admit it and get it over with.
And unguided evolution can't explain any of it.
Absent a designer it does a pretty good job. This is the same designer who gave us the perfect eclipse but has almost wiped out life on earth several times yes? Nice guy. A bit slow too.
But anyway, Jerad is too stupid to grasp the evidence and too cowardly to post the entailments of unguided evolution
I'm tired of you just saying it's all lies. You never address the evidence so why bother?
Found your hidden programming yet? Figured out how it's encoded or stored? Got some idea of how it affects design? How is it distributed? Is it subject to mutations like the genome? So many questions and not an answer in sight . . .
At 11:44 AM, Joe G said…
What about for those cases where H is not zero then?
What about them? Are you saying that you are too stupid to figure them out on your own?
Absent a designer it does a pretty good job.
At what?
This is the same designer who gave us the perfect eclipse but has almost wiped out life on earth several times yes?
Your theological "arguments" are as lame as you.
But anyway, Jerad is too stupid to grasp the evidence and too cowardly to post the entailments of unguided evolution
I'm tired of you just saying it's all lies.
You haven't posted any, asshole. Grow up.
You never address the evidence so why bother?
You haven't posted any evidence that supports unguided evolution. You are an equivocating coward who thinks it is OK to assume what has to be demonstrated.
Thanks again for helping me prove my OP.
At 1:39 AM, Unknown said…
What about them? Are you saying that you are too stupid to figure them out on your own?
I wanted to see if you could do it. Apparently not.
Your theological "arguments" are as lame as you.
But, if the whole shebang is designed then your designer kills more then it's saves lives.
You haven't posted any evidence that supports unguided evolution. You are an equivocating coward who thinks it is OK to assume what has to be demonstrated.
You deny whatever is posted so what's the point in trying? No way you would ever agree with anything I post. You think mutations are guided/directed (without proof) even though you can't find what doing the guiding. Talk about living on a promise.
Found your extra programming yet? Figured out how it's stored or encoded? Found out how it affects development? Figured out how it's changed for different species? Are you trying to find answers for those questions? Is anyone trying to find answers for those questions?
At 7:37 AM, Joe G said…
You deny whatever is posted so what's the point in trying?
Pointing out that it doesn't support unguided evolution is not denial, asshole. Don't blame me because you are too stupid to make a case.
But thank you for continuing to prove my OP is true.
At 8:16 AM, Unknown said…
Pointing out that it doesn't support unguided evolution is not denial, asshole. Don't blame me because you are too stupid to make a case.
It is denial when you accept design/guidance without real evidence; you guys just say: this stuff is really improbable, it must be designed. AND you haven't got a clue how design was implemented, when design was implemented,why so many designs were left to go extinct or killed off, why so many designs can kill us, what the point of all this design is, etc. You personally can't compute the metric in a paper you continually reference in support of your stance. Not that it matters since no one actually uses the metric but it you can't do it and no one uses it then you should stop pretending it supports your side.
At 11:07 AM, Joe G said…
There is positive evidence for intelligent design. Just because you are too ignorant to assess the evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
AND you haven't got a clue how design was implemented
Neither do archaeologists when it comes to the megalithic structures they study.
All you can do is lie like a little lying bitch. You can't post any entailments for unguided evolution. I have posted ID's entailments. And all you can do is choke on them.
You are an imbecile, Jerad.
Your position doesn't have any metrics. It is based only on ignorance.
But anyway I posted an old post that has evidence for ID in it. I know you won't be able to respond with anything of substance. And seeing tat you refuse to post any entailments for unguided evolution and have nothing to add nor anything of substance to say you most likely won't be getting any posts through here.
I am tired of dealing with lying asshioles like you, Jerad.
At 11:10 AM, Rich Hughes said…
". Now what about those entailments for unguided evolution?"
Tell you what Joe, we'll run a comparative analysis of "guided" vs. "unguided" over AtBC if you want. I won't do it here because when things start going badly for you you'll stop promoting comments. We can do it on your thread and you'll be able to comment all you want. But it will be unchangeable and undeletable.
At 11:27 AM, Joe G said…
Fcuk you Richie. You are a coward and a loser.
I stop posting comments when they go off topic and are substance free- which includes almost all of your posts, Richie.
That said you won't be posting any entailments for unguided evolution because there aren't any. You lose, asshole.
At 11:50 AM, Rich Hughes said…
Clearly you're the coward as evidenced by your response and your behaviour in general.
You had your change and a venue, you elect to remain ignorant.
At 11:57 AM, Joe G said…
Your projection is duly noted, cupcake.
Now how about those entailments for unguided evolution. I have already posted ID's entailments so everyone knows who the real coward is, cupcake.
At 11:59 AM, Joe G said…
It is very telling that a post that eviscerates evolutionism doesn't have any contradicting comments from evos.
At 12:16 PM, Rich Hughes said…
The venue awaits if you want to talk about entailments. Because you censor and change your blog history, clearly this blog isn't the venue.
At 12:27 PM, Joe G said…
Your venue changes my posts- it moves them also. So that definitely isn't the place for a serious discussion.
Why can't you just cross-post your tripe here? Why do you have to hide behind a mob of assholes?
At 12:31 PM, Rich Hughes said…
There's a MUCH bigger audience at AtBC who might want to contribute. I think its a cool topic and am prepared to approach it with no animus. You can invite other IDists if you like. I'll get a seperate thread set up if you want with no post alteration or moving.
At 12:42 PM, Joe G said…
BWAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Richie the coward, chokes! I went to his venue and NOTHING- Not one entailment for unguided evolution.
Nice job, cupcake.
At 1:22 PM, Rich Hughes said…
No, I want your commitment before I begin. Silly boy.
At 1:35 PM, Joe G said…
Yes I fully commit to totally destroying your asinine attempt at providing entailments for unguided evolution.
Silly twerp.
At 1:49 PM, Unknown said…
Joe, I really can't understand why you don't take up the offer to have a dedicated thread on After the Bar Closes. It can't hurt you and it will show that you are willing to consider the best evidence. You might even attract some other Uncommon Descent commenters.
It's up to you obviously but there's not a good reason NOT to do it that I can think of.
At 1:51 PM, Joe G said…
Jerad, go fuck yourself- I accepted and there is already a dedicated thread there. I am there now and Richie BAILED.
Evidence? You don't know what that is. We all know you won't post any entailments for unguided evolution. You think we can just assume what has to be demonstrated. You are a scientifically illiterate troll, Jerad.
In a thread that calls you out, you choked.
At 3:04 PM, Rich Hughes said…
Patience, cupcake. First comment is up.
At 7:05 PM, Joe G said…
You are a proven asshole, Richie and your first comment proves it.
It's as if you are proud to be willfully ignorant about what is being debated. You are a pathetic loser. But thanks for proving my claims are true.
At 9:40 AM, Rich Hughes said…
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=6647;st=8850#entry243182
At 10:56 AM, Joe G said…
Yup, Richie is stalling- too much of a coward to actually ante up.
At 11:44 AM, Rich Hughes said…
I'm waiting for your promised participation at AtBC.
At 11:50 AM, Joe G said…
I am waiting for those promised entailments for unguided evolution.
You have the entailments of a bluffing coward.
Nicely done.
Post a Comment
<< Home