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

Tuesday, November 24, 2015

Easily Refuting RichTARD Hughes- The Positive Case for Intelligent Design

-
The criteria for inferring design in biology is, as Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University, puts it in his book Darwin ‘ s Black Box: “Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.”
Intelligent Design makes testable claims. And these claims are tested and can be potentially falsified via Newton’s four rules of scientific investigation, AKA Occam’s Razor/ parsimony.
ID is based on three premises and the inference that follows (DeWolf et al., Darwinism, Design and Public Education, pg. 92):
1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.
2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.
3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.
4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.
This tells you not only what to look for- the positive case- but also follows Newton and Occam in that if you can slice off the designer by showing that mother nature, father time and their offspring, emergence are all that is required, the design inference is refuted.
Both IC and CSI are examples of work and counterflow. Neither can exist without the intervention of an intelligent agency.
What is irreducible complexity? Wm. Dembski in No Free Lunch, refined the definition as:
IC– A system performing a given basic function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of well-matched, mutually interacting, non-arbitrarily individuated parts such that each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system’s basic, and therefore original, function. The set of these indispensable parts is known as the irreducible core of the system.
Numerous and Diverse Parts If the irreducible core of an IC system consists of one or only a few parts, there may be no insuperable obstacle to the Darwinian mechanism explaining how that system arose in one fell swoop. But as the number of indispensable well-fitted, mutually interacting,, non-arbitrarily individuated parts increases in number & diversity, there is no possibility of the Darwinian mechanism achieving that system in one fell swoop.
Minimal Complexity and Function Given an IC system with numerous & diverse parts in its core, the Darwinian mechanism must produce it gradually. But if the system needs to operate at a certain minimal level of function before it can be of any use to the organism & if to achieve that level of function it requires a certain minimal level of complexity already possessed by the irreducible core, the Darwinian mechanism has no functional intermediates to exploit.

35 Comments:

  • At 1:14 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.

    2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.


    Can you provide a worked out example of calculating the information content of a biological system? Like ATP Synthase for example.

    3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.

    Can you provide a worked out example for a biological system (ATP Synthase is again a good example) showing how you've ruled out naturalistic and undirected causes?

    4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.

    That depends on who you think the designer is. For example: a time-travelling designer is much less likely than a member of an advanced alien race. (Which of course brings up questions such as: how did they get here? Where is the evidence for their labs and living quarters and resource usage?)

    You say you've made a positive case but you have a lot of details to spell out.

     
  • At 8:49 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Can you provide a worked out example of calculating the information content of a biological system?

    Again? Search my blog- it's all there.

    Can you provide a worked out example for a biological system (ATP Synthase is again a good example) showing how you've ruled out naturalistic and undirected causes?

    Such an explanation is missing from all scientific papers. No one even knows how to test such a claim. It can't even produce testable hypotheses. So it is eliminated by mainstream science for the FAILure to find any support.

    That depends on who you think the designer is.

    Only a moron would say such a thing.

    You say you've made a positive case but you have a lot of details to spell out.

    Your position is void of details. It can't even be tested. So if you ever get your house in order we may listen to you about ours. Until then all you are is a little cry-baby.

     
  • At 8:50 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    BTW, dipshit, Behe's criteria alone is the positive case. You know the part of the OP that you ignored as if your ignorance means something.

     
  • At 11:49 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Again? Search my blog- it's all there.

    Link to your best example.

    Such an explanation is missing from all scientific papers. No one even knows how to test such a claim. It can't even produce testable hypotheses. So it is eliminated by mainstream science for the FAILure to find any support.

    I'm asking you to defend your system. If you can.

    Only a moron would say such a thing.

    Different designers have different needs, abilities and motivations. Surely those things matter and affect the design.

    Your position is void of details. It can't even be tested. So if you ever get your house in order we may listen to you about ours. Until then all you are is a little cry-baby.

    I'm just asking you to provide detailed answers to back up your claims.

    BTW, dipshit, Behe's criteria alone is the positive case. You know the part of the OP that you ignored as if your ignorance means something.

    I read it but I'd like to know what the quantifiable objects procedure is for determining that a) something is designed and b) that necessity and chance are ruled out.

    Everything I've looked at on your blog doesn't quite answer the questions. If I missed something then please, provide links to the pertinent posts.

    And if you're figured out the relative cardinality of the primes I'd like to hear that as well.

    If you've found the extra coding you claim exists in the cell that would be good to address.

    Any details of ID research agenda and when it plans to go past: that looks designed . . .love to here about that.

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

    Measuring Information- enjoy

    I'm asking you to defend your system.

    I did. You cannot support yours.

    I'm just asking you to provide detailed answers to back up your claims.

    The details are in the OP.

    I read it but I'd like to know what the quantifiable objects procedure is for determining that a) something is designed and b) that necessity and chance are ruled out.

    Obviously you didn't understand it.

    And if you're figured out the relative cardinality of the primes I'd like to hear that as well.

    You were too stupid to grasp the explanation the first time and there isn't any evidence that you have gained any knowledge since then so it is hopeless trying to explain it to you.

    If you've found the extra coding you claim exists in the cell that would be good to address.

    I posted the evidence and the reasoning. Feel free to try to find a mistake or an alternative explanation for the evidence.

    Any details of ID research agenda and when it plans to go past: that looks designed .

    We have already passed that point to where we know it was designed. And no one has an alternative scientific explanation.

     
  • At 2:58 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    I did. You cannot support yours.

    Well, show us where your have laid out a specific, objective, quantifiable method for ruling out chance and necessity. And show us where you have elucidated a specific, objective, quantifiable procedure for design detection.

    The details are in the OP.

    The OP is pretty general and vague. Show us a worked out biological example. ATP Synthase would be good since you've already declared it must be designed. Show us how you came to that determination.

    Obviously you didn't understand it.

    Show us where you you gave worked out biological examples of those things please.

    You were too stupid to grasp the explanation the first time and there isn't any evidence that you have gained any knowledge since then so it is hopeless trying to explain it to you.

    Except you didn't give a specific relative cardinality of the primes. And all you have to do prove me wrong is to either give the explanation again or link to your previous explanation. You said the relative cardinality of the even integers is half that of the integers. You said the relative cardinality of the multiples of three is one-third that of the integers. Those are specific answers (even if they're wrong). But you have NOT given such an answer for the primes. It's not a matter of me understanding it. Either you have an answer or you don't. So far you haven't shown you have an answer.

    I posted the evidence and the reasoning. Feel free to try to find a mistake or an alternative explanation for the evidence.

    But you haven't found the coding have you? And you can't say how it's stored or how it affects development. I'm just asking you to defend your claims which is NOT dependent on me coming up with an alternative. The truth is: you can't support your own claims.

    We have already passed that point to where we know it was designed. And no one has an alternative scientific explanation.

    If you've passed that point there where is the research into the WHEN design was implemented. Or HOW design was implemented. Or BY WHO. Or WHY. You haven't even found a designer have you? It's just all some vague supposition based on very few research results and a lot of misinterpretations of the data.

    You say you have a positive case then show it. Show us one or two worked out biological examples. That should be easy if what you say is true. Just give the links and let us consider things.

     
  • At 3:15 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Well, show us where your have laid out a specific, objective, quantifiable method for ruling out chance and necessity

    That isn't required, dipshit.

    Show us a worked out biological example.

    Follow the link I provided, dumbass.

    Except you didn't give a specific relative cardinality of the primes.

    As I said, you are too stupid to understand what I have already said.

    I posted the evidence and the reasoning. Feel free to try to find a mistake or an alternative explanation for the evidence.

    But you haven't found the coding have you?

    Nice cowardly non-response.

    If you've passed that point there where is the research into the WHEN design was implemented. Or HOW design was implemented. Or BY WHO. Or WHY.

    There are more important questions to answer first.

    You say you have a positive case then show it.

    I already have- you choked on the link I provided. Others have also. OTOH your position has nothing- not even a methodology.

     
  • At 5:32 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    That isn't required, dipshit.

    Well, if you can't provide a biological example then a) how do we know your procedure works and b) how do we know if anyone is using it?

    Follow the link I provided, dumbass.

    The link about Newton's procedure does not have a worked out biological example. That's the only link in the thread.

    As I said, you are too stupid to understand what I have already said.

    I think it's pretty obvious that you can't say what the relative cardinality of the primes is. We'll just leave that as a fail on your part then.

    I posted the evidence and the reasoning. Feel free to try to find a mistake or an alternative explanation for the evidence.

    Look, I'm just saying you haven't found the coding, nor have you posted worked out biological examples of your procedures. It's hard to evaluate what you are claiming if you can't show how it works.

    Nice cowardly non-response.

    But it's true; you haven't found the coding yet. Maybe you should work on that so you don't look like a faith-head.

    There are more important questions to answer first.

    You don't seem to be answering any questions. And neither are the Christians who are behind the ID movement. The Bible is all the answer they need. That's why they're not trying to do any research into ID. As far as they're concerned they've 'proved' design and they 'know' the designer is God so they don't need to do any more work.

    I already have- you choked on the link I provided. Others have also. OTOH your position has nothing- not even a methodology.

    There is only one link in the OP. And that doesn't address intelligent design wherein you DO admit an unnecessary 'cause': an undetected, undefined, non-specific designer. I think you must really be a Christian you know; you act just like one.

    IF you can't show us your methodology in practice then it's just so much hot air. Apply it to something like ATP Synthase and give us a chance to evaluate it. Or don't and look foolish. It's your call.

     
  • At 6:31 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Jerad the fucking retard- The following is the link, moron: measuring information

    I think it's pretty obvious that you can't say what the relative cardinality of the primes is.

    Yes, we know you are an ignorant ass.

    Look, I'm just saying you haven't found the coding,

    I posted the evidence and the reasoning. You are a coward for not addressing it.

    IF you can't show us your methodology in practice

    Already have and yours still doesn't even have a methodology.

     
  • At 5:12 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Jerad the fucking retard- The following is the link, moron: measuring information

    That 'link' lists many of your blog posts. I'll take a look at the first one that comes up in that search: Measuring Information - Revisited (August 15th, 2012).

    Now what do we do when all we have is an object?

    One way of figuring out how much information it contains is to figure out how (the simplest way) to make it.

    Then you write down the procedure without wasting words/ characters and count those bits. The point is that you have to capture the actions required and translate that into bits. That is if you want to use CSI. However by doing all of that you have already determined the thing was designed Now you are just trying to determine how much work was involved.

    But anyway, that will give you an idea of the minimal information it contains- Data collection and compression (six sigma DMAIC- define, measure, analyze, improve, control).


    So, how much information does an asteroid have? Or a rainbow? How about Fingal's Cave? Or Stonehenge? I don't think your method is very useable. AND how much of that information is CSI?

    CSI is a threshold, meaning you don't need an exact number. And it is a threshold that nature, operating freely has never been observed to come close to. Once CSI = yes you know it was designed.

    But how do you know it's CSI? You're asserting your conclusion: that nature can't generate CSI. You have to prove that not just assume it.

    In the preceding and proceeding paragraphs William Dembski makes it clear that biological specification is CSI- complex specified information.

    So, you define CSI so it matches something like DNA? Isn't this just the same old argument: it looks designed because all the inanimate objects that we've examined that have dependent patterns were 'intelligently' designed? The rings of Saturn depend on an interlocking series of dependancies, would you say those were intelligently designed or just the fallout of natural processes? I still don't see a rigorous examination of how dependent and interlocking the systems have to be. It seems like Dr Dembski is just pointing at DNA and saying: look, it's complicated, it must be designed. If not then where's his objective, quantifiable procedure for determining CSI?

    With that said, to measure biological information, ie biological specification, all you have to do is count the coding nucleotides of the genes involved for that functioning system, then multiply by 2 (four possible nucleotides = 2^2) and then factor in the variation tolerance:

    Yes but by that criteria a Paris japonica (whose genome is 150 billion base pairs) has more 'information' in its genome than do human beings. Is that right? Why does a plant have a genome that's almost 50 times the size of a human being's? Is that all information?

    Okay, maybe you do have a system but lets see you work it out, step-by-step for a a particular biological system or life form. Unless you're just going to assume CSI and then count the number of base pairs in the genome in which case my question about genome size needs to be addressed.

     
  • At 5:12 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Yes, we know you are an ignorant ass.

    I'm sorry but you don't know what the relative cardinality of the primes is so you might as well stop being abusive about it.

    I posted the evidence and the reasoning. You are a coward for not addressing it.

    I have addressed you 'evidence'. It seems like it's mostly based on one paper which erroneously suggested that mutations are guided. And you haven't found the coding, that is true. And because your guided hypothesis is not accepted your going to have to do some work and find the physical proof instead of just waving your hands about and whining. Do some work!

    Already have and yours still doesn't even have a methodology.

    Look, you link to stuff other people have written, you buy into other people's ideas without being able to check their work for yourself. Dr Behe claims to have found some irreducibly complex structures but those are disputed (so he needs to do some more work). Dr Dembki's claims to have a system for detecting CSI but no one uses it (including him and you). All I see is him saying really complicated, interdependent systems have CSI therefore they are designed. He doesn't have an objective, quantifiable procedure. Except for counting the number of base pairs in a genome I don't see you doing any mathematics at all. You just say: look, Dr Dembski said so so it's true. Or Dr Spetner said so so it's true. Etc, etc.

    Where are the worked out examples of the objective, quantifiable procedures? You should be able to give me a method that I can apply to lots of different things but I haven't seen that.

     
  • At 11:53 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I have addressed you 'evidence'. It seems like it's mostly based on one paper which erroneously suggested that mutations are guided

    Wrong again, you are retarded.

    And because your guided hypothesis is not accepted

    There isn't any unguided hypothesis and guided evolution can and is being modeled.

    Dr Behe claims to have found some irreducibly complex structures but those are disputed

    Disputed by who? And what is their evidence?

     
  • At 11:56 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    But how do you know it's CSI?

    Is ignorance your argument? Really?

    Look, dipshit, if your position had any answers you wouldn't need to flail away at ID like a little girl. And yet all you can do is flail away at ID like a little girl proving that you don't have anything.

     
  • At 6:17 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Wrong again, you are retarded.

    Well you seem remarkably reluctant to provide many details. And since there is virtually no peer-reviewed support for your view I guess we'll just leave it as a dead end then.

    There isn't any unguided hypothesis and guided evolution can and is being modeled.

    We were talking about how your guided hypothesis is not accepted. And you change the subject. And you can't spell modelled.

    Disputed by who? And what is their evidence?

    Are you serious? Disputed by everyone who isn't in the ID camp. If you want to read their evidence then read their reviews of Dr Behe's non-peer reviewed books. I trust you don't need someone to show you those reviews.

    Is ignorance your argument? Really?

    Excuse me but ID proponents claim that CSI is obvious but they have a hard time providing a clear, objective, quantifiable method for detecting it. What's wrong with asking for that? You are doing science after all . . .

    Look, dipshit, if your position had any answers you wouldn't need to flail away at ID like a little girl. And yet all you can do is flail away at ID like a little girl proving that you don't have anything.

    Excuse me. I'm just asking you to defend your claims. If you can't that's fine with me. I'm not flailing away.

    Perhaps we should just leave it all at: you've not defended your position. I'm happy with that.

    Nor have you found the relative cardinality of the primes. I've not forgotten. :-)

     
  • At 9:47 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And since there is virtually no peer-reviewed support for your view I guess we'll just leave it as a dead end then.

    There aren't any that support your view, dipshit.

    We were talking about how your guided hypothesis is not accepted.

    I am saying that yours doesn't have any testable hypotheses.

    Disputed by everyone who isn't in the ID camp.

    No, it isn't.

    If you want to read their evidence then read their reviews of Dr Behe's non-peer reviewed books.

    I have. No one has offered anything that refutes Behe

    Excuse me but ID proponents claim that CSI is obvious but they have a hard time providing a clear, objective, quantifiable method for detecting it.

    Moron.

    I'm just asking you to defend your claims.

    I have. You are a moron, Jerad. And you cannot defend your position.

    Ya see, cowardly bluffer, you can only falsify ID by demonstrating the mechanisms of your position are capable of producing what we say is designed. Absent that all you have is ignorant spewage.

    Nor have you found the relative cardinality of the primes.

    Yes, your ignorance knows no bounds. And obviously you are proud of that.

     
  • At 11:35 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    There aren't any that support your view, dipshit.

    We were talking about your view. I guess you've given up trying to defend it or answer questions.

    I am saying that yours doesn't have any testable hypotheses.

    No wonder you have trouble keeping track of the conversation, you keep changing topics.

    No, it isn't.

    Well, it is actually.

    I have. No one has offered anything that refutes Behe

    And how would you know? Do you have a pertinent degree? Have you done research in a pertinent field? You read a book that referenced an old paper that even the authors admit was wrong and you bought the argument anyway. You're a true believer and that means you don't really understand the arguments on either side. You just KNOW who is right.

    Moron.

    I'm sorry but that is true. If you read most of the ID arguments for CSI at some point they just say: this or that has CSI. There's no test or objective, quantifiable procedure. Look here, this is complicated with lots of interacting parts and systems . . it's got CSI! It must be designed!!

    I have. You are a moron, Jerad. And you cannot defend your position.

    Your defence never seems to get to the point of an objective, quantifiable procedure that can be applied to lots of different objects or systems. And you never seem to be able to provide a well worked out biological example.

    Ya see, cowardly bluffer, you can only falsify ID by demonstrating the mechanisms of your position are capable of producing what we say is designed. Absent that all you have is ignorant spewage.

    Well that's just not true at all. First of all, ID has not proven its case yet. In fact, it hasn't even got a decent, clear hypothesis. So far ID is: some things look designed. And that's it. And the design inference has not been proven because you can't detect design dependably and you haven't found a true irreducibly complex biological system. You BELIEVE those things have been done but that doesn't make it so. You personally are just dependent on what other people tell you to be the case. And they're wrong.

    Yes, your ignorance knows no bounds. And obviously you are proud of that.

    Well, you've have plenty of chances to say what the relative cardinality of the primes is and you keep failing to do so. So I say you can't. And that's the end of it.

     
  • At 1:36 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Well, you've have plenty of chances to say what the relative cardinality of the primes is

    I have already explained it, dipshit. That you keep asking is proof that you are a willfully ignorant infant.

    We were talking about your view.

    I am talking about yours. You have nothing but bluff and bluster. You are a blind and ignorant follower.

    Well, it is actually.

    Evidence please. Strange that evos are always trying to refute the concept.

    And how would you know?

    Unlike you I am familiar with the science.

    There's no test or objective, quantifiable procedure

    All evidence to the contrary, of course. Your ignorance is not an argument, Jerad.

    Your defence never seems to get to the point of an objective, quantifiable procedure that can be applied to lots of different objects or systems.

    Liar.

    Ya see, cowardly bluffer, you can only falsify ID by demonstrating the mechanisms of your position are capable of producing what we say is designed. Absent that all you have is ignorant spewage.

    Well that's just not true at all

    Science 101, moron. It's all in the OP you fuckwit.

    First of all, ID has not proven its case yet.

    Proof is for math, not science.



    Compared to what your position has, ID has by far the clearest hypotheses.

     
  • At 4:44 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    I have already explained it, dipshit. That you keep asking is proof that you are a willfully ignorant infant.

    I checked. The most you ever said was that you thought the relative cardinality of the primes was less than some other cardinality. That's not knowing what it is. That's just avoiding admitting you don't know what it is. Just like you can't find the extra coding in the cell. You think saying it's in there somewhere is knowing it's there. It isn't.

    So, we can now put the relative cardinality of the primes into the trash bin because you can't say what it is.

    I am talking about yours. You have nothing but bluff and bluster. You are a blind and ignorant follower.

    You changed the subject to avoid answering a challenge. So noted.

    Evidence please. Strange that evos are always trying to refute the concept.

    It's really, really, really easy to find professional biologists and scientists of any kind who disagree with any and all of ID precepts. There are whole books about how wrong it is. Keep up the denying though, it just buries your cause deeper and deeper.

    Unlike you I am familiar with the science.

    You hide it remarkable well. Every day when you continually show your misunderstanding of the research (like the paper that hypothesised that mutations are guided but which was later superceeded) you betray your inability to do science or to understand the work that has been done and published and reviewed by others who know the field.

    All evidence to the contrary, of course. Your ignorance is not an argument, Jerad.

    Show us your objective, quantifiable procedure and a clear, worked out biological example then.

    Science 101, moron. It's all in the OP you fuckwit.

    You haven't established design. You haven't provided a clear, objective, quantifiable procedure for detecting design or provided a worked out biological example. You haven't found an irreducibly complex biological structure or provided a clear, objective, quantifiable procedure for finding one nor have you shown a worked out biological example. You have been saying for years and years that design has been detected but you can't point to any follow-on research exploring aspects of the designer and his techniques and timing and motivations.

    And you can't tell what the relative cardinality of the primes is.

    Proof is for math, not science.

    Duck, dodge and deny. None of which supports your case.

     
  • At 7:17 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The most you ever said was that you thought the relative cardinality of the primes was less than some other cardinality.

    Moron liar.

    It's really, really, really easy to find professional biologists and scientists of any kind who disagree with any and all of ID precepts.

    It's really, really, really easy to find professional biologists and scientists of any kind who cannot support the claims of evolutionism.

    Show us your objective, quantifiable procedure and a clear, worked out biological example then.

    I already have and you choked on it.

    You haven't established design.

    Yes we have and you don't have anything to refute that inference.

    You haven't provided a clear, objective, quantifiable procedure for detecting design or provided a worked out biological example

    Liar

    You haven't found an irreducibly complex biological structure or provided a clear, objective, quantifiable procedure for finding one nor have you shown a worked out biological example.

    Liar

    You have been saying for years and years that design has been detected but you can't point to any follow-on research exploring aspects of the designer and his techniques and timing and motivations.

    That is your asinine agenda, not ours.

    Look, moron, your position has NOTHING, not even a methodology.

     
  • At 1:51 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Moron liar.

    Well prove me wrong then. Tell me what the specific relative cardinality of the primes is.

    It's really, really, really easy to find professional biologists and scientists of any kind who cannot support the claims of evolutionism.

    Again, you change the subject. I take it as a given then that a vast, vast majority of scientists do not support ID at all.

    I already have and you choked on it.

    You've never shown a complete worked out example. Like most ID supporters, you just parrot what someone else has said. You can't actually work through a biological example on your own.

    Yes we have and you don't have anything to refute that inference.

    Funny then that only true believers like you think that. And you can't actually do the work yourself so you're just buying into the faith.

    Liar

    Well, you haven't.

    Liar

    Well, you haven't.

    That is your asinine agenda, not ours.

    What else is ID for then? Just like the Christians you think no more science needs to be done then? If you've detected design then what?

    Look, moron, your position has NOTHING, not even a methodology.

    I'm asking you about your procedures and methods. And you should be able to provide me a clear, worked out biological example. And really you should be able to apply your methods and procedures to any example I provide. If you really have a workable, objective, quantifiable procedure. You can't seem to be able to show one. Instead you just keep claiming you have one without being able to link to one. That last link you provided (to a bunch of your previous posts) didn't contain a quantifiable procedure that I could see. At some point you just say: it's got CSI or it's irreducibly complex so it must be designed!!

    Why don't we start with a method for detecting CIS. You quoted a paragraph from Dr Dembski which contains no procedure or method; just a bit of hand waving. Show us how you detect CSI.

     
  • At 9:25 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Jerad, you are a liar and a willfully ignorant little bitch. Everything that you say that I haven't done has been done on this blog. I even linked to most of it and you choked on that.

    You are a loser and a bluffing coward.

     
  • At 11:42 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Jerad, you are a liar and a willfully ignorant little bitch. Everything that you say that I haven't done has been done on this blog. I even linked to most of it and you choked on that.

    Well let's see you apply your method to an object and a biological system then.

    Show us how your methods work for:

    The Rings of Saturn

    and

    the virus that causes Poliomyelitis.

    Those should be easy and good tests.

    You are a loser and a bluffing coward.

    Prove me wrong and apply your objective and quantifiable methods to the above examples.

    I'd ask you to tell me the relative cardinality of the primes but I know you can't.

     
  • At 2:48 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    from Kirk K. Durston, David K. Y. Chiu, David L. Abel, Jack T. Trevors, “Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins,” Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 4:47 (2007)

    That's from the FIRST article in my link, moron.

     
  • At 2:19 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    from Kirk K. Durston, David K. Y. Chiu, David L. Abel, Jack T. Trevors, “Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins,” Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 4:47 (2007)

    If that's part of your methodology . . . okay. Although that work only addresses sequences of proteins not DNA sequences. Plus you've got to be able to evaluate this:

    H(Xf(t)) = -∑P(Xf(t)) logP(Xf(t))

    Anyway, can you show us your objective and quantifiable method(s) 'in action' by applying them to

    The Rings of Saturn

    and

    the virus that causes Poliomyelitis.

    No more arguing about whether you can or can't. Just show us you can. No more arguing about what constitutes your methods. Just show us what they are.

    Either you can or you can't. Which is it to be?

     
  • At 10:00 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Although that work only addresses sequences of proteins not DNA sequences.

    Proteins do the work.

    Anyway can YOU show us YOUR objective and quantifiable methods in action by applying them to any biological structure requiring multiple proteins. Until you do that you are a waste of time.

     
  • At 12:05 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Proteins do the work.

    Like I said, if that's part of your objective, quantifiable method for detecting design or ruling out chance and necessity . . . fine. But you still haven't shown us your methods in 'action'.

    Anyway can YOU show us YOUR objective and quantifiable methods in action by applying them to any biological structure requiring multiple proteins. Until you do that you are a waste of time.

    I guess you can't show me how your methods deal with

    The Rings of Saturn

    or

    The virus that causes Poliomyelitis.

    Otherwise I'm sure you'd be happy to show it off.

    Guess that's the end of that topic then. You haven't got an objective, quantifiable procedure to do the things you claim. I'll remember that.

     
  • At 9:50 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Like I said, if that's part of your objective, quantifiable method for detecting design or ruling out chance and necessity . . . fine. But you still haven't shown us your methods in 'action'.

    That paper is the methodology in action, dipshit.

    You haven't got an objective, quantifiable procedure to do the things you claim.

    Only a fucking retard would say that and here you are.

    Anyway can YOU show us YOUR objective and quantifiable methods in action by applying them to any biological structure requiring multiple proteins. Until you do that you are a waste of time.

     
  • At 11:43 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    That paper is the methodology in action, dipshit.

    Fine then show us how to apply it to:

    The Rings of Saturn

    and

    The virus that causes Poliomyelitis.

    Only a fucking retard would say that and here you are.

    Well, you can't seem to show us an example of your method in action. Except for parroting what other people have already written.

    Anyway can YOU show us YOUR objective and quantifiable methods in action by applying them to any biological structure requiring multiple proteins. Until you do that you are a waste of time.

    Let's focus on your claims for the time being. So far you've had a hard time defending them via showing us how to apply your methodology to some examples that have not already been discussed by others. If you can. You're not just cannon fodder for the guys from the Discovery Institute are you? You can show us how to apply your claimed methods to examples can't you?

     
  • At 3:33 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Fine then show us how to apply it to:

    Pay me- I don't work for free.

    Well, you can't seem to show us an example of your method in action.

    Your ignorance is not an argument

    Let's focus on your claims for the time being.

    Fuck you. Without a reference there isn't anything to discuss. And you are too much of a coward to provide that reference.

     
  • At 4:01 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Pay me- I don't work for free.

    So your claims go unsupported. Just as I thought.

    Your ignorance is not an argument

    Your inability to support your claims means I don't have to have an argument.

    Fuck you. Without a reference there isn't anything to discuss. And you are too much of a coward to provide that reference.

    Oh dear. Poor Joe can't support his claims so he thinks he can deflect that by trying to make it my fault. Too bad that doesn't really work. If your claim is correct then it should be absolutely correct, that is: it doesn't need a reference. Your saying so is just a dodge.

    Again: you claim to have a method for determining design and ruling out chance and necessity. I'm asking you to show your method 'in action' by applying it to . .

    The Rings of Saturn

    and

    The virus that causes Poliomyelitis.

    It should be easy for you to do that; if your claims are correct. But you seem to be having a problem.

     
  • At 4:07 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So your claims go unsupported.

    Your ignorance is not an argument.

    Your inability to support your claims means I don't have to have an argument.

    I have supported my claims. I just refuse to keep doing so over and over again. That is why I have this blog.

    AND if you cannot show me what it is that you accept for science then it is useless for me to keep spoon-feeding you as all you will do is be an infant and refuse to be spoon-fed.

    Anyway can YOU show us YOUR objective and quantifiable methods in action by applying them to any biological structure requiring multiple proteins. Until you do that you are a waste of time.

    If you can't or refuse to do that then fuck off as you are but a cowardly little bitch.

     
  • At 4:13 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Your ignorance is not an argument.

    Your claims go unsupported. That is not ignorance, that's just the way it is.

    I have supported my claims. I just refuse to keep doing so over and over again. That is why I have this blog.

    Yet you can't show your methods applied to two simple examples:

    The Rings of Saturn

    and

    The virus that causes Poliomyelitis.

    AND if you cannot show me what it is that you accept for science then it is useless for me to keep spoon-feeding you as all you will do is be an infant and refuse to be spoon-fed.

    I just want you to show me your methods applied to

    The Rings of Saturn

    and

    The virus that causes Poliomyelitis.

    Anyway can YOU show us YOUR objective and quantifiable methods in action by applying them to any biological structure requiring multiple proteins. Until you do that you are a waste of time.

    Right now we're seeing if you can support your claims.

    If you can't or refuse to do that then fuck off as you are but a cowardly little bitch.

    At the moment, you keep avoiding addressing the question: can you show your method as applied to . . .

    The Rings of Saturn

    and

    The virus that causes Poliomyelitis.

    Yes or no?

     
  • At 4:17 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Your claims go unsupported.

    LIAR.

    Right now we're seeing if you can support your claims.

    I have. And like a little cowardly bitch you just repeat your same ole ignorance.

    The EF is what I would use for the rings of Saturn and the EF would say that necessity and chance suffice to explain them.

    As for the virus it would have to be viewed in context, which is something you are too stupid to understand.

     
  • At 4:24 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    I have. And like a little cowardly bitch you just repeat your same ole ignorance.

    Then spell it out.

    The EF is what I would use for the rings of Saturn and the EF would say that necessity and chance suffice to explain them.

    Show us the quantifiable calculations.

    As for the virus it would have to be viewed in context, which is something you are too stupid to understand.

    So, are you saying you can't do it? Have you got a method or not?

     
  • At 4:30 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Show us the quantifiable calculations.

    Talk to the astronomers and cosmologists. They did all of that work, years ago. You could just grow up and get an education.

    As for the virus it would have to be viewed in context, which is something you are too stupid to understand.

    So, are you saying you can't do it?

    No. I am saying tat you are too stupid to understand that context matters. I have already shown that the basic living organism is intelligently designed- biological reproduction is IC- remember you choked on that too! But a virus is incapable of reproduction- it needs a host. Also there is the fact that they way the virus is now doesn't mean that is how it was designed.

    So the method would be to see if necessity and chance can produce a virus, but you refuse to say how that could be done and then see if it matches any of the specs in the OP. If so we infer it was designed.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home