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

Thursday, November 12, 2015

Proof that Jerad is an Ignorant Fuck

-
My months I have been arguing with Jerad about the utility of saying that all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality. He has failed, miserably, to support the claim that the concept has any use at all. However that has not stopped him from posting references that have nothing to do with that concept and saying that it refutes my claim.

Jerad is such a clueless little-minded fool he actually posted:

You can't even understand Wikipedia articles which clearly state that countability is a core concept of Cantor's work which is foundational to modern mathematics. 
I never claimed anything to the contrary and that has nothing to do with what I am saying. And the sad part is he thinks he has made some winning point.

The concept of saying that all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality is a useless concept as it does not have any utility. And Jerad is upset because he cannot demonstrate otherwise.

posted by Joe G @ 7:23 PM  

68 Comments:

  • At 2:49 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    As he admits, Joe thinks that the concept that all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality is useless. He really thinks that the cardinality of the positive even integers is half the cardinality of the positive integers. Clearly Joe does not understand countably infinite or cardinality. And he's never been able to tell me specifically what he thinks the 'relative' cardinality of the prime numbers is.

    I keep trying to spoon-feed him easy to read articles which explain the use of the concepts and how Cantor's work is part of the foundation of modern mathematics. Part of that foundation is the truth that all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality.

    Since Joe has no idea what he is talking about his equivocating over which bit he agrees with or is questioning is not worth arguing over. He doesn't get the whole concept so anything he says is dismissible.

    Since he's a denialist there is no reason to continue to educate him anymore. He can't understand material that is handed to him, he won't do any work to educate himself, he hasn't even got through freshman-level calculus let alone a real Set Theory course. It doesn't matter what minor point he thinks he's not denying, it's all a mystery to him really.

    Anyone who disagrees with Joe is a liar, a moron, a fool. But because no one takes him seriously his ignorance, abusive behaviour and denialist ways don't matter.

     

  • At 6:54 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    As Jerad has proven, the concept of all countably infinite sets having the same cardinality is useless- it doesn't have any utility. And to top it off Jerad is a pathological liar.

     

  • At 12:18 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    As Jerad has proven, the concept of all countably infinite sets having the same cardinality is useless- it doesn't have any utility. And to top it off Jerad is a pathological liar.

    Anyone can take a course on Set Theory (which Joe has not done) or read a textbook on Set Theory (which Joe has not done), I'd recommend the classic book by Irving Kaplansky, and see whose right.

    But Joe really, really does believe that the cardinality of the even positive integers is half of the cardinality of the positive integers. Which means he hasn't got a clue about cardinalities or what Cantor's work entails. If anyone agrees with him I'd be interested in hearing from them. I cannot find any academic support for his view; not too surprising since it's wrong.

    You don't have to believe me, go check things out for yourself.

     

  • At 1:05 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Anyone can take a course on Set Theory (which Joe has not done) or read a textbook on Set Theory (which Joe has not done),

    And everyone who does so will see that my claims are correct.

    But Joe really, really does believe that the cardinality of the even positive integers is half of the cardinality of the positive integers.

    Really, I have proven that is so. Set subtraction is all I needed to do so. Jerad even confirmed it.

    There isn't any utility for saying that all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality. You don't have to believe me, go check things out for yourself- please do.

     

  • At 6:18 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    And everyone who does so will see that my claims are correct.

    Here's a course, check it out: http://www.umsl.edu/~siegelj/SetTheoryandTopology/

    Really, I have proven that is so. Set subtraction is all I needed to do so. Jerad even confirmed it.

    I did no such thing. That idea is wrong, wrong, wrong. And, guess what . . . . NO ONE USES IT. So, by your standards, it's worthless.

    Read the course. Show you can do some real math.

    There isn't any utility for saying that all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality. You don't have to believe me, go check things out for yourself- please do.

    Read the course. I know you won't but at least I showed you the real stuff. It's up to you whether you want to try and actually learn something.

     

  • At 5:41 PM, Blogger William Spearshake said…

    Hi Jack Jones

     

  • At 7:46 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I did no such thing.

    Yes, you did. If set A = {0,1,2,3,4,...}; set B = {1,3,5,7,9,...}; set C = {0,2,4,6,8,...}

    A-B=C- YOU confirmed that, Jerad. If A and B had the same cardinality set subtraction should confirm it but it doesn't.

    There isn't anything in that course that shows a utility for saying all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality. Jerad is a bluffing little bitch.

     

  • At 7:52 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Earth to William- If I am Virgil Cain why would I also be Jack Jones? You losers are so paranoid that I bet you see me in your sleep.

    Keep up the piss-poor detective work

     

  • At 10:36 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Yes, you did. If set A = {0,1,2,3,4,...}; set B = {1,3,5,7,9,...}; set C = {0,2,4,6,8,...}

    A-B=C- YOU confirmed that, Jerad. If A and B had the same cardinality set subtraction should confirm it but it doesn't.

    A - B = C BUT they all have the same cardinality. You just can't get your head around that concept which is why I KNOW you've never taken a real Set Theory course. And why you can't understand the course I linked to. And why you're a mathematical pygmy.

    There isn't anything in that course that shows a utility for saying all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality. Jerad is a bluffing little bitch.

    Really? Did you actually read the whole thing? Do you think it's acceptable to build up mathematics with the Axiom of Choice?

    The fact that all countable sets have the same cardinality is fundamental to the rest of Set Theory and Set Theory is fundamental to modern mathematics so you're saying no one is using it is like saying a house doesn't need a foundation because no one 'uses' it.

    Like I said, you're a mathematical moron. Lots of people are but most admit it. You just think you can be right by being belligerent, rude and abusive. And you can't even understand the real work you deny.

     

  • At 11:49 AM, Blogger William Spearshake said…

    No, I was not claiming that you were Jack Jones. I have simply decided to lump all obnoxious abusive turds under the same name. It makes it easier to keep track.

     

  • At 11:58 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Nice projection- That is exactly why you are all evoTARDs-

     

  • At 12:09 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    A - B = C BUT they all have the same cardinality.

    Obviously not

    You just can't get your head around that concept

    No, asshole, I merely disagree with it.

    The fact that all countable sets have the same cardinality is fundamental to the rest of Set Theory

    Liar

    Look, Jerad, you are just a piece of shit bluffing loser. Don't blame me because you are unable to think for yourself.

     

  • At 2:13 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "I merely disagree with every accomplished mathematician" Fixed that for you, Chubs.

     

  • At 1:45 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Obviously not

    We already know you don't understand 140 year old well established mathematics so you can stop embarrassing yourself in public.

    No, asshole, I merely disagree with it.

    And yet you can't find a mistake in any of the work or theorems that establish it. You lose.

    Liar

    How would you know? You can't understand the work even when it's handed to you. That's why no one is taking you seriously. That's why no one 'uses' your system.

    Look, Jerad, you are just a piece of shit bluffing loser. Don't blame me because you are unable to think for yourself.

    I took the courses, I had my work judged and criticised and evaluated by other people. I learned how to expand my thinking. You've never taken a real Set Theory course and you can't understand the material when it's handed to you. Your opinion doesn't count.

    You can't even do the mathematics behind the books you claim established mutations are directed. You just buy the books and believe. You hand money to the people who say the things you want to believe and they pay their mortgages and buy new computers and do NO work on ID except to publish more books.

     

  • At 10:33 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Not one of cupcake's "accomplished mathematicians" can tell us the utility of saying that all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality.

     

  • At 10:36 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Jerad, We already know that you are a bluffing coward and a pathological liar. Set subtraction exposes the mistake. You are too stupid to understand that.

    I took the courses too, Jerad. I never got less than an A in every math class up to and including calculus I and II.

    Evolutionism doesn't have any math that supports it, asswipe.

     

  • At 11:24 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    LOL @ Chubbs, arguing over something he can find no utility in!

     

  • At 11:36 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    LoL! @ cupcake- What a dumbass- my argument is that it doesn't have any utility. And no one can find any use in it.

     

  • At 12:08 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    So why are you arguing or even caring about it then, TubsTard?

    What are the odds that you're right and everyone else is wrong? Delusional. Stick to something you're good at - eating.

     

  • At 12:37 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    LoL! RichTard cupcake gets caught with his ignorance exposed, again, and throws his typical hissy-fit to try to deflect that fact.

    What are the odds that you're right and everyone else is wrong?

    About what? If the concept isn't of any utility then there isn't any right or wrong.

    Is there anything you are good at, Richie? You suck at debating. You suck at science. Right, you are good at sniping like a flailing infant.



     

  • At 12:50 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Quality meltdown there chubs. You've written many posts and comments on a thing you think "has no utility". What a moron!

    "If the concept isn't of any utility then there isn't any right or wrong"

    You're just making shit up again, fatty.

    "sniping like a flailing infant."

    Is that what flailing infants do, snipe?

    The comedy never ends!

     

  • At 12:55 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Quality ignorant spewage there, cupcake. I have explained my position many times to people who are clearly too stupid to support theirs or understand mine.

    And all you do is make shit up, cupcake. That is all you can do. Your comedy, as pathetic as it is, never ends. Please move to Paris...

     

  • At 4:27 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Jerad, We already know that you are a bluffing coward and a pathological liar. Set subtraction exposes the mistake. You are too stupid to understand that.

    As I've already said you've amply demonstrated that you can't understand Cantor's work even though 140 years of mathematicians have done so. It's probably time to give it up. Seriously. You're just looking more and more foolish every day.

    I took the courses too, Jerad. I never got less than an A in every math class up to and including calculus I and II.

    I'm glad you got through most of freshman level mathematics. But you never got to a real Set Theory course. But tell me, when you took the limit as x went to infinity what did you think that meant?

    Evolutionism doesn't have any math that supports it, asswipe.

    What in the hell are you talking about? You're so much a denialist that you are mixing up your topics. Proof again that you don't really understand what your are talking about.

     

  • At 4:29 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    I have explained my position many times to people who are clearly too stupid to support theirs or understand mine.

    But you can't tell use what the 'relative' cardinality of the primes numbers is. And don't keep saying you have done so when you haven't. You have to come up with the goods now.

     

  • At 4:58 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Please move to Paris...

    Someday your daughter is going to go to a rock concert and you're going to sit at home and hope she's safe and okay. You're going to wonder and worry until it's over and she's safe back at home. There are parents in Paris whose children are not coming home again. And you make some sick joke about it.

    Why don't you move to Kabul or Iraq or Iran or Paris. You fucking coward. You sick fuck. Making fun of people who are grieving and in pan.

     

  • At 7:57 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I have been to Iraq. I have been to Colombia. I have been to Afghanistan. I am not making a joke, Jerad. You and Richie should mover to paris- do the world a favor.

     

  • At 7:58 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    But you can't tell use what the 'relative' cardinality of the primes numbers is.

    I have explained that to you, Jerad. It isn't my fault that you are a willfully ignorant asshole.

     

  • At 8:02 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    As I've already said you've amply demonstrated that you can't understand Cantor's work even though 140 years of mathematicians have done so.

    Except I do understand Cantor's work, moron. I disagree with his conclusions and i have explained why.

    But tell me, when you took the limit as x went to infinity what did you think that meant?

    Tell us what that has to do with the unused concept that all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality or admit that you are just an ignorant child.

    You're so much a denialist that you are mixing up your topics.

    LoL! Hey moron, YOU brought up mathematics and directed mutations. I was just pointing out that evolutionism doesn't have any math and it doesn't have any use for math.

     

  • At 9:10 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    I have been to Iraq. I have been to Colombia. I have been to Afghanistan. I am not making a joke, Jerad. You and Richie should mover to paris- do the world a favor.

    I would never, ever say that to you in the way you are saying it to me. You are a sick person.

    I have explained that to you, Jerad. It isn't my fault that you are a willfully ignorant asshole.

    Your system can not state a quantifiable answer to the question: what is the relative cardinality of the primes. You lose.

    What did you think it meant in Calculus when you took the limit as x approaches infinity?

    Except I do understand Cantor's work, moron. I disagree with his conclusions and i have explained why.

    But since you can't find a fault with any of the theorems or proofs that support Cantor's work you lose.

    Tell us what that has to do with the unused concept that all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality or admit that you are just an ignorant child.

    Not being able to understand the evidence that has been presented to you is not an argument. You lose.

    LoL! Hey moron, YOU brought up mathematics and directed mutations. I was just pointing out that evolutionism doesn't have any math and it doesn't have any use for math.

    There was even a whole international conference on mathematical models and evolution:

    http://www.math.le.ac.uk/people/ag153/homepage/MBE15/MBE15.htm

    And, of course, there are tons of papers. This one looks very interesting, it's about mathematical models of fitness landscapes.

    http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7799.html

    Here's a book about Structural Equation Modelling.

    https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=zgjxnPKoKlAC&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=mathematical+modelling+biological+evolution&ots=ZwAuoY1UEq&sig=0-F8f5cmtWaUEDIzVxIR1_-_TQ0#v=onepage&q&f=false

    Here's a guidebook for biologists discussing mathematical modelling in ecology and evolution

    https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Z_bFNHJi_VQC&oi=fnd&pg=PP2&dq=mathematical+modelling+biological+evolution&ots=5TEODTQqYp&sig=YNptgFcEF7ErYCOdI3lxUOj-9g4#v=onepage&q=mathematical%20modelling%20biological%20evolution&f=false

    And on and on and on. Of course you will deny all this partly because you don't understand any of it. You lose.

     

  • At 9:47 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Your system can not state a quantifiable answer to the question: what is the relative cardinality of the primes.

    My system can do that.

    What did you think it meant in Calculus when you took the limit as x approaches infinity?

    I know that it has nothing to do with the concept I am debating which makes you an ignorant asshole.

    Not being able to understand the evidence that has been presented to you is not an argument

    LoL! You not being able to support your claims is evidence that you are an ignorant asshole.

    There was even a whole international conference on mathematical models and evolution:?

    EvolutionISM, assface. Try to follow along.

    What is the equation for natural selection and drift producing any bacterial flagellum? What is the math?

     

  • At 10:04 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    My system can do that.

    So what is the quantifiable relative cardinality of the primes?

    I know that it has nothing to do with the concept I am debating which makes you an ignorant asshole.

    I didn't say it did. I'm just asking to see what you thought it meant.

    LoL! You not being able to support your claims is evidence that you are an ignorant asshole.

    We know you don't understand the evidence, you don't have to keep pointing it out. We got it.

    EvolutionISM, assface. Try to follow along.

    What do you think 'evolutionism' means? I just looked it up but I don't want to put words in your mouth.

    What is the equation for natural selection and drift producing any bacterial flagellum? What is the math?

    I don't know since that's not my area of interest. I'm pretty sure the state of the art isn't that far along. But that doesn't mean that there aren't a lot of mathematical models for various aspects of evolutionary theory. Even if you don't understand them and deny they exist. Which is typical of most ID proponents: they tell all their fans that this or that doesn't exist and the true fans don't bother to look things up for themselves; they just believe what one book they read told them. Sound familiar? That's what you did with directed mutations. You read a book or two and bought the whole idea hook, line and sinker. You DIDN'T think for yourself and check it out. You just jumped on the bandwagon because you already wanted to believe that there must be a purpose for human existence. Or at least some human existence. You seem fairly disrespectful of some human beings' lives.

    It's also clear there are no models at all for design 'cause the only think ID says is: the designer did it. Which is not quantifiable at all. Especially when you can't say when the designer was around, what they did exactly, how they did it, how long it took them to do it, what tools and resources they used, etc. Which is not surprising since recent ID movement was dreamed up as an attempt to make a form of creationism scientific so that God could be introduced into science classrooms. And all that is documented in things like the Discovery Institute's Wedge Document, the works of Barbara Forrest and the transcript of the trial in Dover in 2005.

     

  • At 11:46 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Look, dumbass, Cantor's system leads to logical contradictions as exemplified above with A-B=C

    There isn't any evolutionary theory. And as for directed mutations the evidence is much more than that one paper, dipshit. Again no one can model undirected mutations producing functional systems. We can model directed mutations producing all sorts of engineering solutions.

    Design is quantifiable- IC is quantifiable. CSI is quantifiable. You are just an ignorant dipshit. BTW ID has existed in one form or another since the time of Aristotle. And science doesn't care if God was the designer. Science only cares about reality.

     

  • At 11:47 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What do you think 'evolutionism' means?

    The same thing it meant for Mayr when he wrote "What Evolution Is" in 2004. Dawkins calls it the blind watchmaker thesis.

     

  • At 12:43 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Look, dumbass, Cantor's system leads to logical contradictions as exemplified above with A-B=C

    It's not my fault you can't think outside of the box and see Cantor's resolution of the situation. I guess you can't think for yourself that well. Don't feel bad, you're in the majority. But that doesn't make you right.

    There isn't any evolutionary theory. And as for directed mutations the evidence is much more than that one paper, dipshit. Again no one can model undirected mutations producing functional systems. We can model directed mutations producing all sorts of engineering solutions.

    What other papers are you basing your assumptions on then?

    You can easily model general mutational trends with stocastic models. But you don't understand probability and statistics. You think signals on a computer bus are random because 'they look that way'.

    I haven't seen anyone model directed mutations for biological systems showing how that can lead to development of life forms. Please give a worked out example. Since ID is science after all, someone must have done that.

    Design is quantifiable

    Show me where that's been done for ID and the things it claims is designed. A worked out example would be nice.

    IC is quantifiable.

    And where was that done? Can you show me a worked out biological example?

    CSI is quantifiable.

    And how are you doing that? And do you have a worked out biological example?

    You keep saying many, many things exist but you can never show a worked out example for a biological system. It's all just in someone's head without anyone really walking their talk. Can you do that, show us how all those things are done for biological systems?

    You are just an ignorant dipshit. BTW ID has existed in one form or another since the time of Aristotle. And science doesn't care if God was the designer. Science only cares about reality.

    Which is why I referenced the 'recent' ID movement. Do pay attention. Science does care if you don't follow Ockham's Razor and appeal to unnecessary causes, like God. Some mysterious designer that leaves no traces of its work, resource management, design development, living facilities, transport materials and sites. Who do you think the designer was then? Or are you just going to cover your balls and say you don't know?

    The same thing it meant for Mayr when he wrote "What Evolution Is" in 2004. Dawkins calls it the blind watchmaker thesis.

    Explain to me how that differs from modern evolutionary theory and further more explain why the things I linked to support your viewpoint that there are no models in evolution/evolutionism/modern evolutionary theory.

     

  • At 12:43 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Also, since you're hoping I forget about it, please tell me what your system says the specific relative cardinality of the primes is.

    Also, please give me an objective, quantifiable design detection technique that is applicable to biological systems and a worked out example. You keep saying such a thing exists, you keep flailing around and NOT showing the system.

    You haven't yet found the extra coding in the cell or said how it's stored, encoded and translated or when it affects cell development. Talk about living on faith!!

    You haven't taken any math courses above the 100-level but you claim to have a greater insight into modern mathematics than thousands and thousands of people who have actually studied the pertinent issues. And you have yet to find a single error in a proof of a theorem which establishes all the things you say are wrong.

    Also, I haven't forgotten what a dick you are about Paris. I won't stoop to your juvenile level, but I won't forget that you did.

    I know you won't answer any of the questions I've proffered but it doesn't mean you got away with dodging and deceiving. It means you are a coward and a bluffer who tries to live by keeping moving. A strategy that probably works well behind enemy lines but not in matters of truth and science. There you have to stop and produce.

     

  • At 1:04 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    It's not my fault you can't think outside of the box and see Cantor's resolution of the situation.

    You're the one in the box, dumbass.

    What other papers are you basing your assumptions on then?

    What assumptions?

    You can easily model general mutational trends with stocastic models.

    Dumbass. You cannot model them producing a functional system.

    I haven't seen anyone model directed mutations for biological systems showing how that can lead to development of life forms.

    So what? You haven't seen anyone use evolutionism for anything.

    Show me where that's been done for ID and the things it claims is designed.

    I have many such examples on my blog.

    You keep saying many, many things exist but you can never show a worked out example for a biological system.

    Your ignorance is not an argument nor a refutation.

    Which is why I referenced the 'recent' ID movement.

    Recent ID is based on ancient ID

    . Science does care if you don't follow Ockham's Razor and appeal to unnecessary causes,

    Science doesn't care that you are an ignorant asshole.

    Explain to me how that differs from modern evolutionary theory

    There isn't a modern evolutionary theory, asshole. Do try to follow along.

    further more explain why the things I linked to support your viewpoint that there are no models in evolution/evolutionism/modern evolutionary theory

    I did. Obviously you are just too stupid to understand anything.

     

  • At 1:07 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Also, since you're hoping I forget about it, please tell me what your system says the specific relative cardinality of the primes is.

    I did that for you months ago and I will not rehash it with an obvious loser.

    Also, please give me an objective, quantifiable design detection technique that is applicable to biological systems and a worked out example.

    It's on my blog and I even presented some of it to you. You choked on it, as usual.

    You haven't yet found the extra coding in the cell

    The evidence says it exists. Not my fault that you are ignorant.

    I see it upsets you that Cantor's system leads to logical contradictions.

    Please move to Paris and grow a beard

     

  • At 5:22 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    What assumptions?

    No points for avoiding the question.

    Dumbass. You cannot model them producing a functional system.

    Define a functional system. Be specific.

    So what? You haven't seen anyone use evolutionism for anything.

    Again, no points for avoiding the question. You do that a lot you know, avoid the question.

    I have many such examples on my blog.

    Link to one then.

    Your ignorance is not an argument nor a refutation.

    Your inability to provide a worked out example for a biological system means you lose.

    Recent ID is based on ancient ID

    You're right you know, the Wedge Document has ancient ancestors. Trying to prove the existence of God is a very old endeavour.

    Science doesn't care that you are an ignorant asshole.

    So no argument against the fact that bringing a designer into the argument is calling on unnecessary causes?

    There isn't a modern evolutionary theory, asshole. Do try to follow along.

    So, you can't explain the difference between 'evolutionism' and modern evolutionary theory. Got that settled then.

    did. Obviously you are just too stupid to understand anything.

    You didn't say shit actually. You just bluffed and dodged and hoped we'd forget or give up.

     

  • At 10:20 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Define a functional system.

    Your ignorance isn't an argument.

    So no argument against the fact that bringing a designer into the argument is calling on unnecessary causes?

    That isn't a fact, moron. We bring a necessary/ required designer into it. And you cannot show that the designer is not required.

    So, you can't explain the difference between 'evolutionism' and modern evolutionary theory.

    There isn't any modern evolutionary theory, asshole.

     

  • At 10:22 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Look, Jerad, until you can present testable hypotheses for evolutionism and the evidence to support them, there isn't any use discussing science with you as all you will do is deny, deny, deny. You are a mindless child and a belligerent loser.

    If your position had something then ID would have been a non-starter, yet here it is getting stronger every day.

     

  • At 11:57 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Your ignorance isn't an argument.

    So you can't define a functional system.

    That isn't a fact, moron. We bring a necessary/ required designer into it. And you cannot show that the designer is not required.

    Well, you have still to show me an objective, quantifiable procedure for ruling out chance and necessity and and worked out biological example. So a designer is NOT required.

    You make a lot of claims which you can't back up.

    What is the relative cardinality of the primes?

    There isn't any modern evolutionary theory, asshole.

    And you can't tell me the difference between evolutionism and modern evolutionary theory.

    You can't show me an objective, quantifiable design detection procedure with a worked out biological example.

    Look, Jerad, until you can present testable hypotheses for evolutionism and the evidence to support them, there isn't any use discussing science with you as all you will do is deny, deny, deny. You are a mindless child and a belligerent loser.

    You make a lot of claims which you can't back up. So you think you can make it look likes it's my fault. You don't get ID no matter how badly I defend modern evolutionary theory. You still have to show your design detection technique and your procedure for ruling out chance and necessity and have worked out examples for biological systems. You can't do those things so You haven't shown a designer is necessary. And you've got no other evidence for a designer.

    You can' keep running and trying to outrun the questions. But 10 years from nw when you are still doing the same things and there is no further ID research what are you going to do then?

    The Christians are leaving you out to dry. They have no intention of doing any ID research. For them it's all a matter of faith. And you bought it: hook, line and sinker.

    And you can't figure out what the relative cardinality of the primes. I know you didn't do it before and you're claiming you did without evidence is just lying.

     

  • At 2:27 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "If your position had something then ID would have been a non-starter"

    Joe admits there is no positive case for ID.

     

  • At 10:28 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Richie, cupcake, chokes again. Just because your position can falsify ID that does not mean ID doesn't have a positive case. I and many others have said what the positive case for ID is. Obviously you are just a willfully ignorant moron.

     

  • At 10:31 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So you can't define a functional system.

    Science already has, you ignorant fuck.

    Well, you have still to show me an objective, quantifiable procedure for ruling out chance and necessity and and worked out biological example.

    Well you can't show us an objective, quantifiable procedure for ruling in chance and necessity and and worked out biological example

    And you can't tell me the difference between evolutionism and modern evolutionary theory.

    You still can't find this alleged modern evolutionary theory. It's as if you are a faggot liar.

    You make a lot of claims which you can't back up.

    That's your uneducated opinion.

    There isn't any unguided evolutionary research. No one uses unguided evolution for anything.

    And it is clear that bothers you.

     

  • At 1:51 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Science already has, you ignorant fuck.

    But can YOU define and functional system. Pay attention and try and answer the question.

    Well you can't show us an objective, quantifiable procedure for ruling in chance and necessity and and worked out biological example

    Sigh. I'm asking you if YOU can provide an objective, quantifiable procedure for ruling out chance and necessity with a worked out biological example. Apparently, you can't.

    You still can't find this alleged modern evolutionary theory. It's as if you are a faggot liar.

    I'm asking if YOU can tell me the difference between modern evolutionary theory and evolutionism. Apparently you can't. And you're the one who referenced 'evolutionism' initially. I guess you don't know what it means.

    That's your uneducated opinion.

    No, that is a fact.

    You said you could tell me the relative cardinality of the primes based on your system but you can't.

    You said there is an objective, quantifiable design detection system but you can't tell me what it is with a worked out biological example.

    You said you have ruled out necessity and chance but you can't show me an objective, quantifiable procedure and a worked out biological example.

    There isn't any unguided evolutionary research. No one uses unguided evolution for anything.

    All the real research is about unguided evolution.

    And it is clear that bothers you.

    Things that aren't true don't bother me. People who bluff and bluster and make claims they can't back up don't bother me. They make me laugh. You are being laughed at. While you buy the books and such that makes claims that you can't support. Enjoy.

     

  • At 2:44 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    But can YOU define and functional system.

    If you want to make it personal then come and say it to my face. Or better yet, buy a dictionary and get an education.

    I'm asking you if YOU can provide an objective, quantifiable procedure for ruling out chance and necessity with a worked out biological example.

    Why is that a requirement? You have refused to say.

    I'm asking if YOU can tell me the difference between modern evolutionary theory and evolutionism.

    The difference is evolutionism exists as a concept and the theory of evolution doesn't exist.

    You said you could tell me the relative cardinality of the primes based on your system but you can't.

    I did and I even explained it further.

    You said there is an objective, quantifiable design detection system but you can't tell me what it is with a worked out biological example.

    And yet I have.

    You said you have ruled out necessity and chance but you can't show me an objective, quantifiable procedure and a worked out biological example.

    You can't say why that is a requirement.

    All the real research is about unguided evolution

    Not according to the researchers.

    People who bluff and bluster and make claims they can't back up don't bother me.

    All you have are bluffs and bluster and you can't support anything.

    Nice own goal.

     

  • At 4:23 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    If you want to make it personal then come and say it to my face. Or better yet, buy a dictionary and get an education.

    I'm just trying to establish whether or not you can actually do the work. I guess you can't.

    Why is that a requirement? You have refused to say.

    It was your claim. I guess you can't provide a worked out biological example of an objective, quantifiable example of your procedure for ruling out chance and necessity. If you can't uphold your claims you shouldn't make them.

    The difference is evolutionism exists as a concept and the theory of evolution doesn't exist.

    So which did you claim there were no mathematical models of? You keep avoiding the answers so it's hard for me to keep track.

    I did and I even explained it further.

    No, you did NOT give a specific answer as to the relative cardinality of the primes and your continued inability to address that indicates that you can't. I'm not going to give up and let you win. You can't answer the question.

    And yet I have.

    No, you have NOT provided a worked out biological example of an objective, quantifiable design detection procedure. The cracks are not just showing, they're bigger than your answers.

    You can't say why that is a requirement.

    You said you ID guys had ruled out necessity and chance and I'm asking you to provide an objective, quantifiable procedure with a worked out biological example. Otherwise you're just whistling in the wind.

    Not according to the researchers.

    Show me where the researchers say their work is in support of guided evolution and/or mutations. Go on.

    All you have are bluffs and bluster and you can't support anything.

    Look, you've said some things that you can't back up. I guess it's time to stop asking since you clearly can not come up with the goods.

    Nice own goal.

    It's not working. You talk big and you're failing even bigger. Put up or shut up.

     

  • At 6:19 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I'm just trying to establish whether or not you can actually do the work.

    You can't do anything but whine.

    It was your claim.

    No, it wasn't.

    So which did you claim there were no mathematical models of?

    There aren't any mathematical models of natural selection and drift producing protein machinery.

    No, you did NOT give a specific answer as to the relative cardinality of the primes

    Yes, I did.

    No, you have NOT provided a worked out biological example of an objective, quantifiable design detection procedure

    Yes, I have.

    You said you ID guys had ruled out necessity and chance

    Yes we have and you cannot say otherwise.

    and I'm asking you to provide an objective, quantifiable procedure with a worked out biological example.

    Tat isn't a requirement.

    Show me where the researchers say their work is in support of guided evolution and/or mutations.

    I didn't say that. But I did provide a researcher saying that unguided evolution isn't used.

    Look, you've said some things that you can't back up.

    Your ignorance is not a refutation, dipshit.

     

  • At 12:51 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    You can't do anything but whine.

    Okay, okay, I get the picture. You can't support your claims. I got it.

    No, it wasn't.

    You claimed you had ruled out chance and necessity but you can't provide a worked out biological example of your objective and quantifiable procedure.

    You claimed design had been detected but you can't provide a worked out biological example of your objective and quantifiable procedure.

    You claimed you had figured out the relative cardinality of the primes yet you didn't and you've spent days pretending you did instead of just restating or linking to your answer.

    You claimed that mutations are guided but you can only list one paper that even the authors admit didn't prove that. But since you've already spent years claiming mutations are guided based on a couple of faulty books you read you can't back down now that the basis for the claim has crumbled.

    You claimed over and over again that there must be extra coding 'somewhere' in the cell but you can't find it, you can't say how it's stored or encoded and you can't say how or when it affects development. You just keep saying it has to be there. But are you or anyone else doing any work trying to find it or figure out how it works? Nope. Nada, zip, zero.

    You claim making conclusions about the designer and the design procedure comes after design has been detected. You guys have been claiming design has been detected for a long time and yet NO ONE is doing any work trying to move past that point. And you know why? Because the Christians behind ID don't care. They think the designer is God so they're done. They aren't going to spend any time or money investigating the designer or his methods or motivations or procedures. The Bible tells them everything they want to know. And you're just helping by buying their books and helping to pay for their kids to go to nice universities. How many children does Dr Behe have?

    There aren't any mathematical models of natural selection and drift producing protein machinery.

    http://www.jstor.org/stable/2407703?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

    http://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/abstract/S0169-5347(07)00131-0?_returnURL=http%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0169534707001310%3Fshowall%3Dtrue

    You don't even bother to look for things you claim don't exist. Oh, wait, I know what you're going to say: you're going to claim that the mutations are guided.

    Tat isn't a requirement.

    I get it, you can't come up with the goods. You've proven that over and over again.

    I didn't say that. But I did provide a researcher saying that unguided evolution isn't used.

    One guy? That's it? hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah You said: "Not according to the researchers." and you've only got one guy? Too funny.

    Typical denialist ploy: find one person or one quote or one paper and claim your case is proven. No wonder you guys don't 'do' science.

    Your ignorance is not a refutation, dipshit.

    Your inability to come up with the goods is though.

     

  • At 9:22 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OK Jerad, thank you for continuing to prove that you are a willfully ignorant asshole. And your links prove that you are nothing but an ignorant bluffing loser.

    Good luck with that

     

  • At 1:08 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    OK Jerad, thank you for continuing to prove that you are a willfully ignorant asshole. And your links prove that you are nothing but an ignorant bluffing loser.

    You can't shift the blame for you failing to defend your claims. Especially the one about being able to specifically state what the relative cardinality of the primes is. I know you can't say what it is. The audience knows you can't say what it is. We're just waiting to see if you're man enough to admit you can't do it. Probably not; you are just an abusive bully after all.

    Good luck with that

    I'm good. Waiting for you to defend your claims. Which you can't do. Too bad you aren't man enough to admit that you've failed. I make mistakes every day and I admit it as soon as possible. You, however, just keep on denying and denying and denying. Without doing any actual research or work of your own. You're just an ID fan-boy who can't actually compete. And that is the truth. Keep buying all those books though, Dr Behe has a lot of mouths to feed. I bet he has a nicer car that you do. He's figured out how to make ID pay. On the backs of true believers like you. Who buy non-peer reviewed work because it supports your pre-held beliefs. Casey Luskin does no research, doesn't publish peer-reviewed science work and yet still earns a good living 'cause folks like you keep buying the Discovery Institutes publications. Oh those guys have got it figured out, they don't have to do much except churn out a couple of books a year. That plus a few big grants and they've got their money sorted out. Congratulations on keeping their gravy train chugging along.

     

  • At 6:15 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Poor chubs - low IQ and a handful of go-to phrases.

     

  • At 6:45 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Poor cupcake, pitiful one-liners and no IQ

     

  • At 6:47 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You can't shift the blame for you failing to defend your claims

    Your willful ignorance means nothing, Jerad.

    Especially the one about being able to specifically state what the relative cardinality of the primes is.

    Your willful ignorance means nothing,Jerad.

    You are nothing but an ignorant asshole, Jerad. Keep up the good work.

     

  • At 7:02 PM, Blogger William Spearshake said…

    Poor Joe. Getting his ass whipped on his own blog.

     

  • At 7:49 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    By what? Yours still doesn't have a theory. Yours still doesn't have anything. If you ever do have something only then can you talk about my ass getting whipped.

     

  • At 7:52 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    You tell 'em, 'ID Leader'!

     

  • At 7:56 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Whatever you say cheap-seat cheerleader!!!111!

     

  • At 8:11 PM, Blogger William Spearshake said…

    Maybe Joe should tell as again about wavelength equally frequency. That is always good for a laugh.

     

  • At 8:15 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Maybe William should tell us about the chemical reactions that make the genetic code

     

  • At 8:16 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Pyramid power!!!11

     

  • At 8:17 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Cupcake ignorance!11!!1!

     

  • At 8:19 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Tics and Melons :P

     

  • At 8:22 PM, Blogger William Spearshake said…

    "Maybe William should tell us about the chemical reactions that make the genetic code."

    What would you like to know? That chemical reaction occurs billions of time every day. Millions of time a day in everyone's body. Well, maybe not in yours.

     

  • At 8:45 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    William, Chemical reactions do not govern the genetic code. Obviously you are an ignoramus

     

  • At 8:45 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Tics and Melons

    Oh joy!11! Moar cupcake ignorance!!!1111!11111!!!

     

  • At 8:57 PM, Blogger William Spearshake said…

    Virgil/Joe/Frankie/Sockpuppet: "William, Chemical reactions do not govern the genetic code."

    Hmm. I guess all of the biochemists in the world are wrong when they say that DNA transcription and protein production is a chemical process. Maybe you should publish a paper on it. Or are you too busy fixing toasters?

     

  • At 8:46 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I guess all of the biochemists in the world are wrong when they say that DNA transcription and protein production is a chemical process

    No one says that, moron, because it isn't true. AGAIN- mRNA codons do NOT become amino acids via some physicochemical process. There isn't any physicochemical between mRNA codon and amino acid.

    Even Larry Moran's biochemistry textbook says the genetic code is a real code just like Morse Code.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home