TSZ's Allan Miller is still Confused
-
Allan Miller is the joke who thinks that genetic code isn't a real code despite the fact that it fits the definition of a real code and meets the same criteria as Morse code. Now the moron says something just as ignorant:
Step 1 in testing ID is to see if law/ regularity can account for what we are investigating. Step 2 is to add chance to that. And again if no one can figure out how to test those then we can just eliminate them.
I have told this to Allan too so obviously the moron loves to wallow in his willful ignorance.
Then the moron doubles-down on his ignorance:
Allan Miller is the joke who thinks that genetic code isn't a real code despite the fact that it fits the definition of a real code and meets the same criteria as Morse code. Now the moron says something just as ignorant:
I occasionally had fun (we live in a rural area; we have to make our own fun) ragging Joe G about that. Evolution isn’t testable; ID is. Step 1 in ‘testing ID’: test evolution.No, dumbass. For one ID is not anti-evolution. You have been told this and yet you choose to remain willfully ignorant. For another if we cannot test the claims of evolutionism then we can just eliminate by invoking the Hitchens- "That which can be declared without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
Step 1 in testing ID is to see if law/ regularity can account for what we are investigating. Step 2 is to add chance to that. And again if no one can figure out how to test those then we can just eliminate them.
I have told this to Allan too so obviously the moron loves to wallow in his willful ignorance.
Then the moron doubles-down on his ignorance:
IOW, if something is truly not testable, you can’t claim that something that crucially depends on it is [testable].LoL! If something is truly not testable then it can be eliminated and we move on from there. Tat is all ID requires- the elimination of other, non-telic explanations. But then again Allan is too stupid to grasp that simple point.
posted by Joe G @ 11:11 AM
10 Comments:
At 10:13 PM,
Jerad said…
For one ID is not anti-evolution.
But clearly it is. It claims that undirected processes are not up to the job.
For another if we cannot test the claims of evolutionism then we can just eliminate by invoking the Hitchens- "That which can be declared without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
Test all you want. Look for fossils, try and find irreducibly complex biological structures.
Step 1 in testing ID is to see if law/ regularity can account for what we are investigating.
And don't throw in the towel as ID proponents do after a few decades when their particular questions haven't been completely answered. And you know what they want: complete and total step-by-step answers to some developmental questions while, at the same time, they propose some undefined designer did something at some time. It's just all too funny really. They have a double standard; they don't care WHEN design was implemented or HOW design was implemented. No one in the ID community is trying to address those issues. No one.
Step 2 is to add chance to that. And again if no one can figure out how to test those then we can just eliminate them.
Just because Joe doesn't get it doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.
Tat is all ID requires- the elimination of other, non-telic explanations.
But how does that work in the ID world? It means that after a few decades of experiments they throw in the towel and claim unguided processes can't do it. And Joe's position is even more tenuous.
Joe thinks SOME mutations are guided. He has trouble saying which. So when he looks at Dr Lenski's experiment (for example) he wants to say that unguided processes haven't been able to move past bacteria in four decades so they can't do what is claimed.
BUT, at the same time, he says that any beneficial mutations come from some undetected and undefined extra programming in cells. And he thinks that some of Dr Lenski's results come from pre-programmed diversity .
So Joe thinks that some of Dr Lenski's results are based on guidance. And some of Dr Lenski's results prove that unguided processes are limited. But where is the line? Why can't Joe spell out the difference?
Inquiring minds want to know. But don't hold your breath. Joe won't be able to explain it. Sadly.
At 8:55 AM,
Joe G said…
Jerad, Thank you for continuing to prove that you are willfully ignorant as evolution by design is still evolution.
Your position cannot account for the organisms that left the fossils. IC has been found and your position cannot account for it.
And again your prove that you are totally ignorant as yours is the position tat claims to have a step-by-step process for producing the diversity of life and its systems and subsystems. All we want is for you and yours to support that claim- science 101, assface.
Jerad you and yours don't have a testable methodology whereas ID does. And finally Jerad is ignorant of the scientific research that demonstrates mutations are directed. And when pointed to the research he is too cowardly to address it so he attacks the source.
You are a pathetically ignorant little imp, Jerad
At 4:59 PM,
Jerad said…
Your position cannot account for the organisms that left the fossils.
It can't explain every single mutational step but it's better than saying some designer sometime did something which we can't tell you yet.
IC has been found and your position cannot account for it.l
Not according to a vast majority of biological scientists. Please try again.
And again your prove that you are totally ignorant as yours is the position tat claims to have a step-by-step process for producing the diversity of life and its systems and subsystems. All we want is for you and yours to support that claim- science 101, assface.
And you know what, people are doing research into just such things. And what is ID doing in the meantime? Jack shit. No one in the ID community is trying to figure out when design was implemented or how. Pathetic. Not even trying.
Jerad you and yours don't have a testable methodology whereas ID does. And finally Jerad is ignorant of the scientific research that demonstrates mutations are directed. And when pointed to the research he is too cowardly to address it so he attacks the source.
Look, the 'science' behind guided mutations is contested. That is clear and obvious. So you can't say it's proven. I acknowledge that you did, at one time, provide a reference to A paper that had been latched onto by the ID community. But I also provided references saying how that work had been misinterpreted. And for you to ignore that is just disingenuous. As usual. Because you don't really care about what is true. You just care about being a denier for God.
Maybe you should stop trying to shout down the opposition and start trying to generate some research. Oh, wait, my bad. You can't do scientific research. Oooops. I am soo sorry. I promise not to say such stupid stuff in the future. I promise to remember that you have no academic credentials. no publications, no scientific job experience and not indications whatsoever that you have any real capacity in the matter.
At 5:23 PM,
Joe G said…
Jerad, Yours can't explain anything. And it is much worse than saying some designer did it because at least the designer scenario can be tested.
You can bluff all you want but the fact remains IC has been found and your position cannot explain it. Not even your alleged vast majority of biologists. That is why the evos had to lie, bluff and misrepresent their way through the Dover trial. And luckily they had a scientifically illiterate judge who was fooled by it all.
You say people are researching how blind and mindless processes could create protein machinery and vision systems but the fact is you don't know and you sure as hell cannot site any such research.
And again IDists are not on your asinine agenda. There are more important issues to be taken care of first.
Look Jerad, you don't even know what science entails. You can't even read a dictionary. You can't follow an argument and you are too che\icken-shit to actually formulate one.
At 2:17 AM,
Jerad said…
Jerad, Yours can't explain anything. And it is much worse than saying some designer did it because at least the designer scenario can be tested.
You can test God? Wow, I'd like to see that.
You can bluff all you want but the fact remains IC has been found and your position cannot explain it. Not even your alleged vast majority of biologists. That is why the evos had to lie, bluff and misrepresent their way through the Dover trial. And luckily they had a scientifically illiterate judge who was fooled by it all.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH Too funny. Your side couldn't come up with a decent argument and some, like Dr Dembski, were too scared to even show up.
You say people are researching how blind and mindless processes could create protein machinery and vision systems but the fact is you don't know and you sure as hell cannot site any such research.
Deny, deny, deny for God. No matter what research is presented to you, you just claimed the mutations are guided. BUT, as is now clear, you can't say which ones are guided and which aren't. Too funny.
And again IDists are not on your asinine agenda. There are more important issues to be taken care of first.
IDist don't have an agenda. Except to pray for guidance.
Look Jerad, you don't even know what science entails. You can't even read a dictionary. You can't follow an argument and you are too che\icken-shit to actually formulate one.
At least I know how to compute a correlation coefficient.
At 1:00 PM,
Joe G said…
Jderad is willfully ignorant. ID does not require God and it is a matter of record that the evos lied, bluffed and misrepresented their way through the Dover trial.
You also keep saying, like a coward, tat I am denying something yet you never provide any evidence for that. It's as if you are proud to be a lying coward.
And no, you clearly don't understand what correlation means.
At 3:50 PM,
Jerad said…
Jderad is willfully ignorant. ID does not require God and it is a matter of record that the evos lied, bluffed and misrepresented their way through the Dover trial.
Really? Where exactly did an 'evo' lie under oath?
ID is based on God. Obviously. Unless you're going to deny God. Be my guest.
You also keep saying, like a coward, tat I am denying something yet you never provide any evidence for that. It's as if you are proud to be a lying coward.
You always deny any evidence presented to you that you disagree with. You do it over and over and over again.
Additionally, you continue to avoid answering questions based on claims you've made. Such as . . .
What is the relative cardinality of the primes?
How can you determine which mutations are random and which are directed?
Where is the extra programming in cells? How is it encoded? How does it chemically affect development?
Please state, clearly, which mutations are guided and which are random. That should be easy. Just do it.
You have built up a huge list of issues you can't address and questions you avoid. And you have shown over and over again that you deny any research you disagree with. Your version of science amounts to cherry picking the results you agree with and denying the rest.
And no, you clearly don't understand what correlation means.
You clearly cannot compute a correlation coefficient you think exists. It's so obvious you haven't got a clue and you haven't got the balls to admit you're wrong.
YOU claim there is a correlation between mutations and fitness. So find the correlation coefficient.
Or shut up.
Your call.
At 4:10 PM,
Joe G said…
Really? Where exactly did an 'evo' lie under oath?
They lied on the stand in the courtroom.
ID is based on God.
ID does not require God nor the supernatural. That is what the ID leaders say.
You always deny any evidence presented to you that you disagree with.
Liar
What is the relative cardinality of the primes?
Already answered and you choked on it because you are ignorant of relativity.
How can you determine which mutations are random and which are directed?
Science- read the references I gave
You clearly cannot compute a correlation coefficient you think exists.
I never said anything about a correlation coefficient. Obviously you are just an ignorant fuck-tard
YOU claim there is a correlation between mutations and fitness.
And YOU agreed. The correlation is that mutations are beneficial, neutral or detrimental with respect to fitness.
I can't help it if you are too stupid to understand that even though it has been spelled out for you several times. I even provided the definitions and you still choked. It's as if you are proud to be willfully ignorant and a cry-baby loser.
At 4:40 PM,
Jerad said…
They lied on the stand in the courtroom.
When exactly?
D does not require God nor the supernatural. That is what the ID leaders say.
So you agree with them? When they agree that that there is a theory of evolution?
Already answered and you choked on it because you are ignorant of relativity.
Nope, you never provided a numerical answer.
I never said anything about a correlation coefficient. Obviously you are just an ignorant fuck-tard
.
Joe claims there is a correlation but can't compute the correlation coefficient. Got it.
And YOU agreed. The correlation is that mutations are beneficial, neutral or detrimental with respect to fitness.
I can't help it if you are too stupid to understand that even though it has been spelled out for you several times. I even provided the definitions and you still choked. It's as if you are proud to be willfully ignorant and a cry-baby loser.
Not that it matters since no one take your blog seriously . . . . l
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH
YOU have not scientific publications, you don no research, no one from the ID community defends you on your blog. . .
,
At 8:44 PM,
Joe G said…
When exactly?
The day they started testifying
So you agree with them?
Yes
When they agree that that there is a theory of evolution?
And yet they cannot reference it
Nope, you never provided a numerical answer.
Not required. You clearly don't understand relativity
Joe claims there is a correlation...
The correlation between mutations and fitness is summed by: some are neutral wrt fitness, some are detrimental wrt fitness and some are beneficial wrt fitness.
Jerad is too stupid to understand that. And he thinks his stupidity is an argument.
Noted.
Jerad also thinks all correlations have to have a mathematical representation or else they aren't correlations. Strange that no one else agrees with that bit of nonsense.
And yes when discussing definitions dictionaries are the way to proceed.
YOU have no scientific publications, you do no research, no one from the evo community defends you. You can't read nor form an argument.
Post a Comment
<< Home