Neil Rickert is Confused, as Usual
-
Neil sez:
So, no, Neil, there aren't any contradictions, just your confusion.
Neil sez:
Changing topics: the most obvious issue with ID, is that for intelligent design to work would require an extremely mechanical design. So ID is, implicitly, an extremely materialistic and mechanistic theory. Yet the proponents of ID are anti-materialist and anti-mechanist. They somehow fail to see the contradictions in their own positions.That is so wrong. That ID is not a mechanistic theory does not mean that IDists are anti-mechanists. That is just stupid talk, Neil. That the DESIGN is material and exists in this physical world has already been confirmed by IDists. That is how and why we can study it. It does not mean that materialistic processes produced it. That is what ID is against. And BTW, design is a mechanism.
So, no, Neil, there aren't any contradictions, just your confusion.
posted by Joe G @ 9:41 AM
33 Comments:
At 2:06 AM,
Jerad said…
It does not mean that materialistic processes produced it.
Yup, God did it. End of story.
At 10:02 AM,
Joe G said…
Wrong again, as usual.
At 3:53 PM,
Jerad said…
Wrong again, as usual.
It's not my fault you haven't got any evidence. You haven't identified the designer (no design without a designer); you can't say when design was implemented; you can' say how design was implemented. Design doesn't just happen, it takes time and energy and infrastructure and equipment. You've not identified any of those things. And then you say none of those questions are interesting which points out just how much of a Christian apologist you really are. They only people who would say those questions aren't interesting and important or those who have already decided that God did it and therefore there is no need to figure those things out.
What's a real laugh is that you're too much of a coward to admit your real motivation. What do you think God thinks about that? That you won't stand up and be counted, that you will deny his hand in his creation?
At 4:14 PM,
Joe G said…
LoL! It isn't my fault that you cannot assess the evidence. Design detection can and does take place without knowing the designer. That is science 101. If you knew who designed it then you wouldn't have to go about figuring out if it was designed or not.
Design detection can and does take place absent all of your after-the-fact add-ons. And the only way to get to your questions in the absence of direct observation or designer input is by studying the design and all other relevant evidence. And there still remains far more important questions to answer that are more readily assessable. But all of those questions will have to wait until ID is the reigning paradigm. Right now there are many people, such as yourself, who are too stupid to asses the evidence and too cowardly to put forth testable claims.
And BTW, moron, science was once used by those to understand God's Creation. Science was the way to know the work of God. You are such an ignorant tard, Jerad.
My real motivation is to trounce to laughable stupidity of materialism which only has cowardly imbeciles like you for support. Added to that is the motivation to understand why we are here as there is clearly a purpose to our existence. The evidence tells us that- the same evidence your position cannot explain- it just happened isn't science, loser.
But thank you for once again proving that you are a scientifically illiterate troll.
At 4:15 PM,
Joe G said…
Suffice it to say, I have little patience with the "identify the designer" rhetoric. It's not just an example of sloppy thinking. It's a form of sloppy thinking that gunks up any sincere interest in design. It turns an attempt to adhere to logical, responsible thinking into a sinister motive. So perhaps, there is a better question to ask. Why do ID critics refuse to publicly acknowledge that it is illogical to identity the designer using the criteria of mainstream ID (IC and CSI)?- Mike Gene
IDists agree with Mike Gene. And no one can find any real fault with what Mike Gene said.
At 4:29 PM,
Joe G said…
http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2017/12/intelligent-design-designers-and.html
At 4:36 PM,
Jerad said…
LoL! It isn't my fault that you cannot assess the evidence. Design detection can and does take place without knowing the designer. That is science 101. If you knew who designed it then you wouldn't have to go about figuring out if it was designed or not.
No designer means no design. No method of design implementation means no design. No resources supporting design implementation means no design. It doesn't matter what you think you've discerned; if the supporting evidence isn't there then you're wrong.
Design detection can and does take place absent all of your after-the-fact add-ons. And the only way to get to your questions in the absence of direct observation or designer input is by studying the design and all other relevant evidence. And there still remains far more important questions to answer that are more readily assessable. But all of those questions will have to wait until ID is the reigning paradigm. Right now there are many people, such as yourself, who are too stupid to asses the evidence and too cowardly to put forth testable claims.
Bitch and moan and whine. You need to show that the supporting evidence exists! And you can't even be bothered to do that. You expect the world to bow down over your inference without clear and unambiguous supporting evidence?
Personal example: until someone can point to hard and measurable evidence in a multi-verse I'm not buying it. It's too airy-fairy, too nothing really. You can pontificate all you like but until there is something solid I'm agnostic. Same with ID; I'm not buying it until you've got something more than just 'this stuff looks designed'. And, to be honest, you haven't even got a solid test for design.
And BTW, moron, science was once used by those to understand God's Creation. Science was the way to know the work of God. You are such an ignorant tard, Jerad.
So you're saying that's what science is still doing? You're admitting God did it?
My real motivation is to trounce to laughable stupidity of materialism which only has cowardly imbeciles like you for support. Added to that is the motivation to understand why we are here as there is clearly a purpose to our existence. The evidence tells us that- the same evidence your position cannot explain- it just happened isn't science, loser.
Fair enough. At least you're being honest. Now we can have a more honest discussion.
I never said I was a materialist. That's just an assumption on your part.
Suffice it to say, I have little patience with the "identify the designer" rhetoric. It's not just an example of sloppy thinking. It's a form of sloppy thinking that gunks up any sincere interest in design. It turns an attempt to adhere to logical, responsible thinking into a sinister motive. So perhaps, there is a better question to ask. Why do ID critics refuse to publicly acknowledge that it is illogical to identity the designer using the criteria of mainstream ID (IC and CSI)?- Mike Gene
It's not sloppy to admit that design requires a designer. And it's a matter or trying to support the design conjecture to find supporting evidence such as: when was design implemented, how was design implemented, by whom?
Otherwise, it is just saying God did it. And if that's the case then just be honest and stop dicking around.
At 4:47 PM,
Jerad said…
http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2017/12/intelligent-design-designers-and.html
Yeah, yeah. You want us all to accept design so that you can then introduce God into the mix.
People do see things that don't look natural. They consider how it could have come about. They study unguided processes and consider intelligent agents.
BUT, if they propose intelligent agents but they can't find any evidence that such agents were around they don't just keep shouting DESIGN, DESIGN, DESIGN!!
They look for supporting evidence. Which you clearly are NOT doing. It's really really simple. When you propose something that others are having a hard time buying you look for more evidence. You don't just bitch and moan, claiming to be more scientific and accusing everyone else of prejudice and bias. You look for more evidence. You trying and answer other questions about your supposition.
We know there were people around when Stonehenge and the lines as Nazca were created. We can recreate what they did using tools we understand they had.
This is all so easy and basic and yet no one in the ID camp (except maybe Dr Behe) gets it. They just want the rest of the world to change their mind because you guys think you've got something which you can't even quantify mathematically.
And don't even try and argue that you can since I KNOW no one can apply Dr Dembski's metric to lots of examples. That is a dead end.
Just do some real work supporting your contention. That's it. Do some work.
At 4:49 PM,
Joe G said…
All of the evidence is there, Jerad. You are just too stupid to understand it and too cowardly to offer up anything scientific.
Bitch and moan and whine.
That is all YOU have, Jerad. That is all that YOU are doing, Jerad.
I'm not buying it until you've got something more than just 'this stuff looks designed'.
We have much more than that and no one has any other valid explanation.
So you're saying that's what science is still doing?
Nope. You suck at fishing. Science can and does study designs absent a designer. Scientists and educated people know that the only possible way to know who did it is by studying the design and all relevant evidence. OTOH you appear to be ignorant of that.
I never said I was a materialist. That's just an assumption on your part.
It is all over everything you post.
It's not sloppy to admit that design requires a designer.
You can't even read.
And it's a matter or trying to support the design conjecture to find supporting evidence such as: when was design implemented, how was design implemented, by whom?
There are ways of doing that without having to PROVE it, Jerad. Science is not about PROOF, Jerad.
So I thank you for continuing to prove that you are scientifically illiterate
Otherwise, it is just saying God did it.
You ignorant fuck. ID does not require God but ID is OK with God did it. Now it is up to us to study it so we can figure it out. But you are so fucking retarded you won't even be able to understand that nor what it means.
We have the DESIGN and you still have nothing to explain it.
At 4:56 PM,
Joe G said…
. You want us all to accept design so that you can then introduce God into the mix
ID doesn't require God but ID is OK if God did it. And if that is the reality of it then there isn't anything to be done but study it.
We have the supporting evidence - we have evidence from several different branches of science. And compared to anything else that is by far more than all others combined.
We know there were people around when Stonehenge and the lines as Nazca were created.
That doesn't mean they did it
We can recreate what they did using tools we understand they had.
Not with all artifacts. And Stonehenge is questionable
They just want the rest of the world to change their mind because you guys think you've got something which you can't even quantify mathematically.
LoL! We have the math whereas your position doesn't. Clearly you are ignorant
Just do some real work supporting your contention. That's it. Do some work.
That's precious coming from you. IDists can support their claims whereas the alternatives cannot.
ID is not about the who and how. Those are separate questions just as abiogenesis is separate from evolution.
At 4:23 PM,
Jerad said…
ID doesn't require God but ID is OK if God did it. And if that is the reality of it then there isn't anything to be done but study it.
How do you know God exists? What abilities does 'God' have? Can 'God' violate the laws of physics?
We have the supporting evidence - we have evidence from several different branches of science. And compared to anything else that is by far more than all others combined.
All your 'evidence' is essentially what you claim is design detection.
We know there were people around when Stonehenge and the lines as Nazca were created.
That doesn't mean they did it
They are by far the best candidates. We know when they lived, we know what kind of technology they had, we have been able to recreate some of the methodology used. People don't just stop at design detection. Unless you're an ID proponent that is.
LoL! We have the math whereas your position doesn't. Clearly you are ignorant
Fine. Show me a worked out mathematical example. Try the Giant's Causeway if you can't think of another example. Let's see the math.
That's precious coming from you. IDists can support their claims whereas the alternatives cannot.
They haven't come up with much past: we've detected design have they?
ID is not about the who and how. Those are separate questions just as abiogenesis is separate from evolution.
ID is about much of anything then is it? It doesn't do any science after design detection. Except to whine that it's not about answering any more questions. And that's science?
At 6:04 PM,
Joe G said…
ID doesn't require God but ID is OK if God did it. And if that is the reality of it then there isn't anything to be done but study it.
How do you know God exists? What abilities does 'God' have? Can 'God' violate the laws of physics?
Are you on drugs or are you retarded? Your questions don't have anything to do with what I said.
All your 'evidence' is essentially what you claim is design detection.
And yet no one can refute it by demonstrating nature can do it.
They are by far the best candidates.
Except you cannot test the claim they did it. And AGAIN, everything we know about it came from hundreds of years of studying it and all relevant evidence. Just as I said.
They haven't come up with much past: we've detected design have they?
Not true- again your ignorance is not an argument, Jerad.
ID is about much of anything then is it?
The opinion of an ignorant troll is meaningless, Jerad.
It doesn't do any science after design detection.
The opinion of an ignorant troll is meaningless, Jerad. And that is all that you have. Nice job, loser
At 3:21 AM,
Jerad said…
And yet no one can refute it by demonstrating nature can do it.
ID has to stand on its own merits. If your methodology is flawed then ID fails. I have yet to see anyone carry out the calculations in Dr Dembski's metric. And I don't see ID proponents looking for evidence of a designer or design implementation.
Except you cannot test the claim they did it. And AGAIN, everything we know about it came from hundreds of years of studying it and all relevant evidence. Just as I said.
We found evidence of human occupations, tools, preliminary constructions. In the case of the Egyptian pyramids they even left written records. You really don't understand how historical research works. You do not just study the design of objects.
Again, ID has come up with nothing except: this stuff looks designed. No follow-on work, no looking for more supporting physical evidence. Not even a research agenda which doesn't require a vast amount of resources.
At 1:42 PM,
Joe G said…
Jerad, science mandates that all design inferences be tested against what nature can do. Science 101, moron. So if someone could just step up and demonstrate a designer is not required- by merely demonstrating nature is up to the task- then ID falls.
Your whining will never refute ID, Jerad. You have to actually do some work. But you won't because you aren't a scientist. You don't even understand the basics of science.
We found evidence of human occupations, tools, preliminary constructions. In the case of the Egyptian pyramids they even left written records. You really don't understand how historical research works. You do not just study the design of objects.
Are you really that fucking retarded? Really?
Again what I said Jerad verified. Everything we know about artifacts is done by studying them and all other relevant evidence. That is what I have been saying for decades and Jerad's willful ignorance doesn't refute it.
Again, ID has come up with nothing except: this stuff looks designed.
Again, ID has come up with far more than that. And also again, Jerad's ignorance is not an argument.
At 2:16 PM,
Jerad said…
Jerad, science mandates that all design inferences be tested against what nature can do. Science 101, moron. So if someone could just step up and demonstrate a designer is not required- by merely demonstrating nature is up to the task- then ID falls.
So, you admit that you ID guys can't say whether or not unguided processes could have done it? You're waiting for others to prove you wrong? Too funny.
Are you really that fucking retarded? Really?
Well, you pretty clearly don't understand how real archaeology is done.
Again what I said Jerad verified. Everything we know about artifacts is done by studying them and all other relevant evidence. That is what I have been saying for decades and Jerad's willful ignorance doesn't refute it.
AND ALL OTHER RELEVANT EVIDENCE. You guys haven't got any other evidence. Exactly what I've been saying. Any you're not even looking. Truth.
Again, ID has come up with far more than that. And also again, Jerad's ignorance is not an argument.
Nope, you've got nothing.
At 2:30 PM,
Joe G said…
So, you admit that you ID guys can't say whether or not unguided processes could have done it?
No, I am saying that we have irrefutable evidence for Intelligent Design.
You're waiting for others to prove you wrong?
No, I am asking for others to support their own claims. It isn't my fault that they can't.
Well, you pretty clearly don't understand how real archaeology is done.
You clearly can't make that argument. I clearly know more than you about it and you are allegedly married to an archaeologist. And not even she can make the case that I don't understand real archaeology.
You are just a loser and a coward
You guys haven't got any other evidence.
We have evidence from several different scientific venues. That means we have other evidence, dipshit.
We have irrefutable evidence for ID. Jerad's ignorance will never refute that.
At 6:13 AM,
Jerad said…
No, I am saying that we have irrefutable evidence for Intelligent Design.
Not according to a VAST majority of people working in the field. Which is why you should be looking for more evidence instead of just having a hissy fit and claiming you're right and everyone else is wrong.
No, I am asking for others to support their own claims. It isn't my fault that they can't.
You are too funny. You claim that ID is refutable but you also claim you have irrefutable evidence for ID. In other words, you don't think ID is refutable. You are not arguing in good faith. You are sure you are right and HAVE to deny any and all evidence to the contrary. This is why you continually deny that any work is being done along certain lines. It's not just your wheeze that some mutations are guided (and you personally cannot say which are) you absolutely have to make it look like real scientists aren't even trying to work on issues. Otherwise you'll have to admit your side is sitting-on-its-hands while mainstream science is very busy. But you can't do that can you?
You clearly can't make that argument. I clearly know more than you about it and you are allegedly married to an archaeologist. And not even she can make the case that I don't understand real archaeology.
You clearly don't. You just make up stuff because you think that's how something is done. I rather suspect you've never even been on an archaeological dig.
You are just a loser and a coward
Whatever.
We have evidence from several different scientific venues. That means we have other evidence, dipshit.
It's all supposed design detection. And some really stupid arguments like: could it be a coincidence that the moon is exactly the right size to bring about a total eclipse? Ignoring the fact that the moon is moving away from the earth and someday will not be able to eclipse the sun. Ignoring the fact that there are annular eclipses. It's all just self-centred rubbish. You believe in God, you believe humans were the whole point of the creation of the universe, therefore it's all designed for us. Any other way of viewing things has to be wrong because it would imply that God might not care or even exist. And then everything else you believe in would fall away. And you can't let that happen.
We have irrefutable evidence for ID. Jerad's ignorance will never refute that.
Nope, you think you've detected design purely because you can't see how unguided processes could have brought about certain structures. It's a giant argument from ignorance. The best you got is from Dr Behe and even he admits he's working with (his interpretation) of the current knowledge base and if that changes then his argument could fail.
You have to attack anything that might bring down design detection because that's all you've got. You won't publish anything, you won't look for more supporting evidence, you haven't even got a research agenda.
At 9:20 AM,
Joe G said…
Jerad, you are clearly deluded. Not one of your alleged vast majority can demonstrate nature can produce what we say required a designer. So no one cares what they say. They don't have any science to support their claims.
ID could be refuted if someone could show that nature could produce what we say required a designer. But just like Stonehenge no one will be able to as nature is incapable of doing so.
I clearly know more about archaeology than you ever will.
It is not supposed design detection. Our methodology is more rigorous than archaeology and forensic science.
There isn't anything that may bring down ID. No one is doing any work to see if blind and mindless processes are up to the task. Your whole position is a giant argument from ignorance, dipshit- it's claims cannot be tested and no one is doing anything about it.
So fuck off, loser
At 4:04 AM,
Jerad said…
ID could be refuted if someone could show that nature could produce what we say required a designer.
and
There isn't anything that may bring down ID
Like I said, you're not arguing in good faith. You've already made up your mind. Is that how you do science?
ID needs to stand on it's own merits; it doesn't win just because you think another view has failed. The fact you think so proves you aren't doing science. You're just trying to fill the gaps in knowledge with God. You guys can't can't plug those holes so it must be God. Too bad for you that the holes are getting smaller and smaller.
And that's all aside from the fact that:
You have no research agenda.
You have no peer-reviewed publications that explicitly support ID.
You are not doing any pro-ID research by trying to answer some clear follow-on questions.
You are not attempting to find more supporting evidence.
I suspect you've never done any real archaeological work at all.
At 4:16 AM,
Jerad said…
And by the way . . .
You guys can't even work out the math in Dr Dembski's formula and you blame evolutionary scientists because your guy came up with something he couldn't compute!!
That is just hilarious!!
AND, just to be clear, the fact that no one has done work that you claim needs to be done for your design detection formula to be computed doesn't give you design. It does mean you don't have a design detection metric. Which means you don't have a methodology at all. Well, except to say: we can't figure out how unguided processes could be responsible therefore it must have been designed. That's what you guys have. And if you're wrong about design then you have nothing at all.
At 9:53 AM,
Joe G said…
Jerad, Your ignorance is very entertaining. The only reason for Dembski's equations is because your evolutionary biologists don't have any other way to test their claims.
So to be clear your position has nothing but deluded losers, like yourself- congratulations.
And yes Jerad, it is true that it is IMPOSSIBLE for blind and mindless processes to produce what we say is intelligently designed. That is arguing in god faith as that is REALITY.
And to be clear our design detection technique are by far more than you and yours have. You don't even have any methodology. Your opposition had to come up with a way to test your claims. How pathetic is that?
Lok, Jerad, al you are is a bluffing liar and coward. God luck with that
At 9:56 AM,
Joe G said…
ID needs to stand on it's own merits; it doesn't win just because you think another view has failed.
True, clearly you are just an ignorant troll as I have told you how it works. Science mandates that al design inferences first eliminate other alternatives. And then we see if there is some specification like Behe's criteria. If we have both then intelligent design is determined to exist.
This has been explained to your so many times now and you are still too stupid to grasp it.
Clearly you don't know anything about science
At 10:09 AM,
Joe G said…
how to test and falsify ID
And AGAIN, that is by far more than evolutionism has
At 2:33 AM,
Jerad said…
Jerad, Your ignorance is very entertaining. The only reason for Dembski's equations is because your evolutionary biologists don't have any other way to test their claims.
That doesn't even make any sense. Dr Dembski proposes a quantifiable way of testing for design and you blame everyone else because you can't use it.
So to be clear your position has nothing but deluded losers, like yourself- congratulations.
When you get some supporting evidence and start doing some research and start publishing work then maybe people will start taking you seriously.
And yes Jerad, it is true that it is IMPOSSIBLE for blind and mindless processes to produce what we say is intelligently designed. That is arguing in god faith as that is REALITY.
Interesting you put 'god' in there by accident. And since you've clearly already made up your mind, i.e. you will continue to deny evidence to the contrary, what's the point of anyone trying to refute your claims? You admit you won't listen anyway. Is that how science is done? Ignore the evidence when you're sure you're right?
And to be clear our design detection technique are by far more than you and yours have. You don't even have any methodology. Your opposition had to come up with a way to test your claims. How pathetic is that?
A test that can't be computed ? hahahahahahahahahahahah
Lok, Jerad, al you are is a bluffing liar and coward. God luck with that
God has nothing to do with it. And it's working out nicely thank you. A lot of people are doing a lot of work (and publishing it) filling in the gaps in our knowledge. It's slow and laborious but that's how science works sometimes. Unlike you, real scientists don't just sit at home on their computers repeating things other people say because they fit your 'irrefutable' opinion.
True, clearly you are just an ignorant troll as I have told you how it works. Science mandates that al design inferences first eliminate other alternatives. And then we see if there is some specification like Behe's criteria. If we have both then intelligent design is determined to exist.
How can you possibly eliminate all the other possibilities? Are you saying we will never, ever find some new unguided, natural process that might be responsible? Are you saying we already completely understand all the ramifications and effects of the processes we have identified? Is that how you do science? You think you know enough to be able to stop looking?
ID is so clearly designed to support a theistic point of view that even a conservative judge in a public court could see that it's not science.
Ten years from now there will still be no ID research and you will still be saying exactly the same things. ID doesn't move forward at all because no one knows how to 'test' God.
This has been explained to your so many times now and you are still too stupid to grasp it.
I get it but it isn't science. Unless you're a 'true believer' who has already made up their mind and denies any evidence or data to the contrary.
Clearly you don't know anything about science
Maybe. But where is your research, your data, your publications, even a research agenda? You don't need resources to come up with a resource agenda. Since you understand science so well why don't you come up with one. Let's hear it since ID is not a science stopper. If you had the money and resources what research would you do?
At 9:54 AM,
Joe G said…
That doesn't even make any sense.
Only because you are ignorant. Dembski's equations are for eliminating blind and mindless processes. That is the claim of your position. If someone had some way to test the claims of your position the equations wouldn't be required.
The reason Dembski doesn't have any numbers to plug into the equation is the failure of evos to provide anything. See- you can't even get that far as to show the claims of your position are even probable to any degree.
When you get some supporting evidence
We have the evidence, asshole. Your position doesn't.
And since you've clearly already made up your mind, i.e. you will continue to deny evidence to the contrary
There isn't any evidence to the contrary, loser. So there isn't anything to deny.
How can you possibly eliminate all the other possibilities?
Science, dumbass.
ID is so clearly designed to support a theistic point of view that even a conservative judge in a public court could see that it's not science.
Only an imbecile would think that a scientifically illiterate judge could decide what is and isn't science. he believed ;;lies and was fooled by a literature bluff.
And finally if Jerad's position had any research and supporting evidence then ID would fall. Seeing that ID is growing stronger every day it is obvious that all Jerad has is to whine like a little bitch and lie like a little wanker.
I have already been over and over the type of research ID would do. On the other hand no one is doing any blind watchmaker research. It is a useless concept.
At 9:58 AM,
Joe G said…
We have eliminated nature, operating freely, from producing Stonehenge, Jerad.
We have eliminated nature, operating freely, from producing the Egyptian pyramids, Jerad.
We have eliminated nature, operating freely, from producing Nan Madol, Jerad.
That is how archaeology is done. That is how forensics is also done. If you don't eliminate nature then it comes back at you. Newton's four rules apply- but then again, even though I linked to them for you, you are too ignorant to understand them.
At 2:53 AM,
Jerad said…
Only because you are ignorant. Dembski's equations are for eliminating blind and mindless processes. That is the claim of your position. If someone had some way to test the claims of your position the equations wouldn't be required.
Too bad you can't compute it then.
The reason Dembski doesn't have any numbers to plug into the equation is the failure of evos to provide anything. See- you can't even get that far as to show the claims of your position are even probable to any degree.
Too bad he proposed something he couldn't compute. But thanks for admitting you can't calculate it, as I've always said.
We have the evidence, asshole. Your position doesn't.
Beyond "We think this stuff was designed" you've got nothing. No supporting evidence, no research, no research agenda, you guys can't even agree on when ID was implemented.
There isn't any evidence to the contrary, loser. So there isn't anything to deny.
Thanks for proving my point that you have already made up your mind.
Science, dumbass.
And I thought science wasn't about proof, i.e. being sure. Silly me.
Only an imbecile would think that a scientifically illiterate judge could decide what is and isn't science. he believed ;;lies and was fooled by a literature bluff.
Funny that no one has challenged the ruling then. Perhaps they figure that losing again in a higher court would put a few more nails in the ID coffin.
And finally if Jerad's position had any research and supporting evidence then ID would fall. Seeing that ID is growing stronger every day it is obvious that all Jerad has is to whine like a little bitch and lie like a little wanker.
It's hard to see how ID is growing stronger when it doesn't even have a research agenda, something you haven't been able to provide.
I have already been over and over the type of research ID would do. On the other hand no one is doing any blind watchmaker research. It is a useless concept.
So, what's the agenda?
We have eliminated nature, operating freely, from producing Stonehenge, Jerad.
We have eliminated nature, operating freely, from producing the Egyptian pyramids, Jerad.
We have eliminated nature, operating freely, from producing Nan Madol, Jerad.
Non-living examples. Much easier.
That is how archaeology is done. That is how forensics is also done. If you don't eliminate nature then it comes back at you. Newton's four rules apply- but then again, even though I linked to them for you, you are too ignorant to understand them.
Like I said, clearly you haven't done any real archaeology. Let's say you find a nice, round stone that fits into your palm and you think it might be a hand axe. What do you do next?
At 8:59 AM,
Joe G said…
Too bad you can't compute it then.
Too bad your position doesn't have anything to compute
Beyond "We think this stuff was designed" you've got nothing.
We have more than that, loser. And your position still has NOTHING
And I thought science wasn't about proof, i.e. being sure.
What a little dick- being sure and proof are not the same thing
Non-living examples. Much easier.
LoL! Life is by far more intricate and complex than any artifact, asshole.
That is how archaeology is done. That is how forensics is also done. If you don't eliminate nature then it comes back at you. Newton's four rules apply- but then again, even though I linked to them for you, you are too ignorant to understand them.
Like I said, clearly you haven't done any real archaeology.
Like I said you are an ignorant asshole who couldn't make a case if your life depended on it.
Let's say you find a nice, round stone that fits into your palm and you think it might be a hand axe.
Why would a round stone be a hand axe? How many round axes do you know of?
It's as if you are proud to prove that you are retarded.
Look, moron, if archaeologists don't eliminate nature they get burned. Newton's four rules and all. But then again you are ignorant of Newton's four rules and you have never conducted any investigation.
If someone found an alleged hand axe and someone else demonstrated nature could produce it the hand axe inference is tossed. An archaeologist named Henri Breuil refuted claims of human artifacts by showing nature could do it
At 4:59 PM,
Jerad said…
Too bad your position doesn't have anything to compute
Too funny, you guys proposed a computation which you are blaming us for not being able to compute. That's a big FAIL.
We have more than that, loser. And your position still has NOTHING
You mean like a research agenda? Which you still haven't provided.
What a little dick- being sure and proof are not the same thing
Not that you can provide either.
LoL! Life is by far more intricate and complex than any artifact, asshole.
You provided non-living examples and you agree that living ones are more complex and you can't provided one of those. Thank you!! You really don't pay attention sometimes.
Why would a round stone be a hand axe? How many round axes do you know of?
FAIL!! You lose. You didn't bring up the obvious checkpoint. Like I said, you clearly haven't done any real archaeology.
Look, moron, if archaeologists don't eliminate nature they get burned. Newton's four rules and all. But then again you are ignorant of Newton's four rules and you have never conducted any investigation.
Fail, fail, fail. You have just shown that I was correct: you haven't done any real archaeology at all. Thank you.
If someone found an alleged hand axe and someone else demonstrated nature could produce it the hand axe inference is tossed. An archaeologist named Henri Breuil refuted claims of human artifacts by showing nature could do it
Still failing. I'm loving this. Go on, keep digging the hole deeper.
At 5:13 PM,
Joe G said…
Too funny, you guys proposed a computation which you are blaming us for not being able to compute.
So you are retarded. Got it
Why would a round stone be a hand axe? How many round axes do you know of?
FAIL!! You lose.
Fuck you, loser. Make your case- I dare you to try
If someone found an alleged hand axe and someone else demonstrated nature could produce it the hand axe inference is tossed. An archaeologist named Henri Breuil refuted claims of human artifacts by showing nature could do it
That happens to be true.
But anyway you have never conducted any investigation so you don't get to say that I failed
At 5:48 PM,
Joe G said…
You provided non-living examples and you agree that living ones are more complex and you can't provided one of those.
I have provided many such examples. Clearly you have serious issues and should seek help.
Let's say you find a nice, round stone that fits into your palm and you think it might be a hand axe.
Why would a round stone be a hand axe? How many round axes do you know of?
Seeing that Jerad refused to answer my questions (which prove he is an idiot) why would anyone side with him that I failed something?
At 6:02 PM,
Joe G said…
Oldest Stone hand Axes Unearthed- and what a surprise- my claim is supported!
Jerad is a total LOSER
Even Wikipedia supports me- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand_axe
Only Jerad the loser uses a round stone for a hand axe...
At 11:57 PM,
Joe G said…
Images of ROUND stones:
round stones
Post a Comment
<< Home