RichTard Hughes- STILL Choking on Information

-
Yes it is true- Richtard Hughes is such an intellectual midget that he sez I am wrong- he doesn't have anything to offer demonstrating I am wrong, he just sez it:

RichTard Hughes, STILL choking on information:

Joe, you're entirely wrong. Your hilariously idiotic cake episode highlights that, but you're too stupid to see that. You've never calculated the CSI of anything, nor has any other IDer.

Unfortunately for RichTard Hughes I am exactly correct and have provided a reference to support my claim:

Artifact:

The causal tie between an artifact and its intended character -- or, strictly speaking, between an artifact and its author's productive intention -- is constituted by an author's actions, that is, by his work on the object.

IOW RichTard Hughes really thinks his ignorance is a refutation!

But that is to be expected- ya see his position is based on ignorance so he "thinks" that his ignorance can be used as a refutation.

And Richtard- thanks for staying away. That makes my blog a better place. Traffic here has picked up in the past week...

Thanks again.

RichTARD Hughes- A "Challenge" Based on Ignorance

-
It never fails- ask evoTARDs to support the claims of evolutionism and instead of doing that they spew evoTARDgasms. Enter RichTARD Hughes, AKA Captain Coward. Ya see kairosfocus has issued a challenge to evoTARDs asking them to support blind watchmaker evolution. The point is is bwe is a bottom-up approach that posits incremental steps. That is the nature of the beast so it is up to its supporters to provide the evidence to support that claim.

In contrast there is Intelligent Design, which is a top-down approach. It does not posit anything about the designer(s) except that at least one existed. It does not posit how the design came to be. The who, how, why, where and when all come AFTER design is detected and studied.

Back to the ignorant fuck RichTARD Hughes who is obvioulsy too much of a coward to actually respond to KF by supporting bwe. Instead RichTARD sez:

KF is of course free to set the bar for his personal satisfaction at whatever pathetic level of detail he requires, but given that he’s often accused of being a massive hypocrite I’m sure he’ll be happy to provide us with a corresponding ID narrative. 

I mean, ID isn’t just a negative case against Evolution, is it? 

Things I’m sure he’s eager to include:

Who is / was the designer?  

What was their motivation(s)?  

What was their method of fabrication?  

How many design interventions were there?  

What specifically was designed?  

What specifically wasn’t designed?

Please feel free to add your questions in the comments. I’d ask that if math is invoked for any design justification then in is comprehensively completed and not just talked about in a big numbers / hand-wavy sort of way. Any new concepts you bring to the table must be empirically tested rigorously so we can attest to their design detection capabilities. Thanks in advance KF, we know you’ll engage us in good faith and we’re eager to have productive dialogue.

Where to even start- 1- As I said ID doesn't require a corresponding narrative as ID does not posit the same thing that bwe does

2- ID is not anti-evolution so no, it is not a "negative case against" (wtf is that? double-negative) evolution. ID is anti-bwe having sole domion over evolutionary processes. IOW Richie is totally ignorant of ID and very proud of it. And I have already proven to Richie that ID is more than an argument against something.

3- Who the designer is is irrelevant to ID.

4- Motivation is irrelevant to ID.

5- Methodology of manufacture is irrelevant to ID

6- How many design interventions is irrelevant to ID

All of those come AFTER detecting and studying the design and all relevant evidence. And guess what? THAT is exactly how it goes with archaeology and forensic science. And yes, SETI too.

As for what was and wasn't designed, well that is what science is for, dumbass. Unlike you cowards we have provided a methodology for making such determinations.

IOW there isn't having any productive dialog with a willfully ignorant shit-eating cowards like RichTARD Hughes and the rest of the cowardly minions of the septic zone.

The sad part is Richie and the other evoTARDs only attack ID because they can't support their position's claims. If they could then ID would be a non-starter as ID claims blind physical processes are not up to the task.

ETA:

The RichTARD does prove that ID is not a scientific dead-end as it is obvious the design inference opens up new questions that we will attempt to answer via scientific investigation.

LoL@ RichTARD's confusion. Wm Dembski, in "No Free Lunch" says your first four questions are irrelevant wrt Intelligent Design. Wm Dembski and the others have limited ID to the detection and study of design. It's as if you are really proud to be an ignorant ass.

RichTard Hughes- Still as Clueless as Ever

-
RichTard Hughes is at it again, this time making the easily refuted claim:

Geocentrism. Clearly spawned from creationist views ...

What an ignorant puke. Geocentrism was the SCIENTIFIC point of view-

Geocentric Model:

In astronomy, the geocentric model (also known as geocentrism, or the Ptolemaic system), is the superseded theory, that the Earth is the center of the universe, and that all other objects orbit around it. This geocentric model served as the predominant cosmological system in many ancient civilizations such as ancient Greece. As such, most Ancient Greek philosophers assumed that the Sun, Moon, stars, and naked eye planets circled the Earth, including the noteworthy systems of Aristotle (see Aristotelian physics) and Ptolemy.

RichTard Hughes is so freaking ignorant he is trying to rewrite history. RichTard Hughes is the result of "education" via evotard propaganda.

Pathetically clueless...

Richie TARDBOY Hughes- So Ignorant and Proud of it

-
Richie TARDBOY Hughes is so fucking ignorant that it thinks that the identity of the designer is the same as the origin of the designer. Seriously, see for yourselves- I had posted:

Concerning life on earth it is very possible to have an ET designer. And SOP requires that we take it one step at a time- proximate as opposed to ultimate.

That means only an imbecile would give a rat's ass about the origin of our designer(s). Enter Carpathian and Richie the Cupcake.

And ignoramus Richie responded with:

Some guy called Dembski, 2001: "Appendix: Design-Theoretic Research Problems....

15. Identity Problem -- Who is the designer?" 

Who to take seriously. Hmmmmm. 

BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

What a total fucking jackass Richard T Hughes is! It thinks that the identity of the designer is the same as the origin of the designer.

Thank you Richie, my father's day got off to a great start. And that cupcake tried to tell me that I don't understand the ID fundamentals when it is obvious that it doesn't understand anything.

Dick's Choice

-
This post is inspired by Richie "cupcake" Hughes' post over on TSZ

Dick Hughes, is a good, atheist man with his own brand of morality who finds himself in a terrible position: He is in a hospital which has caught fire and he only has time to visit one of two rooms and escape before the whole building comes down, killing all within.

In room A is a beautiful, newborn baby girl. There is time to save only her.
In room B there are 10,000 IVF embryos, each waiting to develop into a wonderful child. There is time to save only them.

Should Dick:
1) Save the Baby
2) Save the IVF embryos
3) Save neither as natural selection knows best

And if (3) Should he even save himself from the fire?

Richie Hughes opines:

Does he *really* believe that NS is a moral system or that we think it is? Everyone knows gravity or electromagnetism have better morals.  Not understanding that agent actions are a part of NS probably means you should go away and read about evolution and not opine on it for a decade or two…

LoL! I never said NS is a moral system. If evolutionism is right then there isn't any such thing. Morality would be whatever anyone wanted it to be. And agent actions would only be part of NS if evolutionism is true. Richie needs to shut up for more than two decades as he is totally clueless.

And yes, Allan Miller, it has been proven that I understand natural selection better than at least some evos, li,e Richie. 

Richie T (for The cupcake) Hughes

-
OK Richie admits that he didn't invent the word "cupcake" nor its use as a nickname. Which is strange because the only reasons why he would take issue for my using it is if he did invent it or thinks that I have never given it to someone else as a nickname.

The reason I say he thinks he invented its usage is because after I called him a cupcake he called me an unoriginal copycat. Unless he invented it that would mean that Richie The cupcake Hughes is an unoriginal copycat.

Pot, meet kettle. LoL!

What's the point? All of this has Richie The cupcake Hughes in a nuclear (or nuculer) meltdown.

And that brings us to a new nickname for Richie- The Cupcake Syndrome. Richie cupcakes has reached critical mass and has had yet another meltdown. And I did it!

Yeah baby..........




BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA (breath) BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAA

RichTARD Hughes- aka Captain Coward- the Al Gore of "cupcake"

-
Yes folks, RichTARD Hughes is not only the inventor of "BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAAAAHAHAHA", but this amazing tard is also the inventor of calling someone "cupcake"!

No one has ever used either of those before Richie Hughes came along and enlightened us!

Ain't that special...

Richie Hughes- Liar and Equivocator Extraordinaire

-
Yeah, I know this doesn't come as any surprise but Richie Tardboy Hughes is back spewing lies and equivocations. Take a look:

We looked at evolution, and were so impressed we made genetic algorithms. These algorithms work incredibly well, and can take information from their environment and generate new information within themselves.

Genetic algorithms model directed evolution and not natural selection and drift. Also they can only generate what they were programmed to generate meaning all the information was there from the get go. Richie is equivocating "evolution" with "natural selection and drift"

Now for the lie:

Even your Mungs and Joe Gs have effectively retreated to OOL, claiming that that is an insurmountable hurdle to ‘bootstrap’.

All I have said is that without explaining the OoL you cannot say that blind and undirected processes produced the diversity of life. The observed IC structures that rule biology are, by themselves, still  an insurmountable hurdle to natural selection and drift.

Unfortunately Richie the cupcake Hughes is either too stupid or too deceitful to understand any of that.

 

Richie Tardboy Hughes- Ignorant of Evolution

-
Earth to Richie Tardboy Hughes- evolution can occur without universal common descent being true. IOW you are proud to be an ignorant asshole and it shows.

Richie sez:

Man is quite a clever problem solver. We use pattern recognition, intelligence and exogenous information to design these classes of models. They do okay, but apparently (emperically) not as well as GAs, which without our intelligence (or hubris or preconceptions) find novel ways to build explanatory frameworks.

GAs area tool that man made. Therefor anything it does traces back to us. GAs are an example of intelligent design evolution. There is nothing about GAs that support unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution.

Back to the point of the OP- Richie spews:

If you think evolution is okay but was initially configured, don’t be upset with Lenski or Tiktaalik’s location.  

LoL! Lenski supports baraminology and you are the one who is upset with Tiktaalik's location as it upsets your position's scheme. Also evolution can occur without universal common descent. IOW you are nothing but a grand equivocator and a coward.

 If you despise all things evolution (and you do, poster child for ID is simply upset with evolution) then also be upset with Eureqa’s outperformance. 

Again only a moron faggot would think that ID is anti-evolution and here is Richie tardboy Hughes. And Eureqa is a designed program. Meaning it wouldn't exist and couldn't do anything without us. Everything it does traces back to humans. It is a designed thing doing what it was designed to do.

The botton line is GAs are design all the way down.

RichTard Hughes Proves He does not understand Science

-
Richtard Hughes thinks he is being all clever and shit, when actually all he is doing is exposing his scientific illiteracy.

Telic Thoughts has a thread on the alleged "god of the gaps argument".

My buddy Jim posted the following on how the design inference works:

1- We observe X

2- Everytime we have observed X and knew the cause it has ALWAYS been via agency interaction

3- We have NEVER observed blind, undirected (chemical) processes producing X

4- Therefore when we observe X and don't know the cause we can safely infer it was via agency interaction

5- And to refute that inference all one has to do is show that blind, undirected (chemical) processes do indeed suffice.

Then I sit back and let the flailing begin…

RichTard Hughes flails

Hmm, what number should "I smuggle some question-begging bad analogy in there, because we've never seen 'agency interaction' ACTUALLY DESIGN THIS THING"?

I think he's left it out.

Unfortunately for Richtard science does not need to observe the agency actually designing the thing.

If we did then archaeology, forensics and SETI would be in big trouble.

Geez Rich are you really that ignorant of science?

To top it off midwifetoad chimes in with:

Nor have we ever observed x in the process of being designed (although we have observed x being incrementally modified through mutation and selection).

Unfortunately no one has ever observed mutation and selection constructing a functional multi-part system- IOW there isn't any justification for what the toads baldly asserts.

IOW all the toad can do is lie.

So ignorance and lies are the only way around the logic behind the design inference.

Got it.

Richie Hughes- Ignorant Liar of Nested Hierarchies

-
Richie the big coward Hughes has spewed that I am wrong in my assessment of evolutionism and nested hierarchies. That means Darwin, Mayr, Denton, Wagner, et al., are also wrong. Unfortunately for Richie he just spewed that I am wrong without actually trying to show that I am.


Nested hierarchies require distinct groups. That is their trademark, just look at Linnaean Classification and all existing nested hierarchies- oops she doesn't know what they are!

Extinction has only defined the groups: it has by no means made them; for if every form which has ever lived on this earth were suddenly to reappear, though it would be quite impossible to give definitions by which each group could be distinguished, still a natural classification, or at least a natural arrangement, would be possible.- Charles Darwin chapter 14

and

There is another stringent condition which must be satisfied if a hierarchic pattern is to result as the end product of an evolutionary process: no ancestral forms can be permitted to survive. This can be seen by examining the tree diagram on page 135. If any of the ancestors X, Y, or Z, or if any of the hypothetical transitional connecting species stationed on the main branches of the tree, had survived and had therefore to be included in the classification scheme, the distinctness of the divisions would be blurred by intermediate or partially inclusive classes and what remained of the hierarchic pattern would be highly disordered.- Denton, “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis” page 136 (X, Y and Z are hypothetical parental node populations)

and

The goals of scientists like Linnaeus and Cuvier- to organize the chaos of life’s diversity- are much easier to achieve if each species has a Platonic essence that distinguishes it from all others, in the same way that the absence of legs and eyelids is essential to snakes and distinguishes it from other reptiles. In this Platonic worldview, the task of naturalists is to find the essence of each species. Actually, that understates the case: In an essentialist world, the essence really is the species. Contrast this with an ever-changing evolving world, where species incessantly spew forth new species that can blend with each other. The snake Eupodophis from the late Cretaceous period, which had rudimentary legs, and the glass lizard, which is alive today and lacks legs, are just two of many witnesses to the blurry boundaries of species. Evolution’s messy world is anathema to the clear, pristine order essentialism craves. It is thus no accident that Plato and his essentialism became the “great antihero of evolutionism,” as the twentieth century zoologist Ernst Mayr called it.- Andreas Wagner, “Arrival of the Fittest”, pages 9-10

AGAIN, Linnaean taxonomy is the observed nested hierarchy and it has nothing to do with descent with modification. The US Army is a nested hierarchy and it has nothing to do with descent with modification.

Transitional forms, by their very nature, would ruin a nested hierarchy by blurring the lines of distinction.

Evos are so stupid that they think that just because a nested hierarchy can be depicted as a branching tree pattern that all branching tree patterns form a nested hierarchy.

Rich TARD Hughes is a pathetic imp who couldn't explain what a nested hierarchy is nor why unguided evolution would predict one. Well all evoTARDs fit that category.

Richard Tard Hughes, Too Much of a Coward to Support His Claims

-
Yes once again RichTARD Hughes proves he is a coward- this time by lying about Neil Shubin.

Shubin said:

Let's return to our problem of how to find relatives of the first fish to walk on land. In our grouping scheme, these creatures are somewhere between the "Everythings" and the "Everythings with limbs". Map this to what we know of the rocks, and there is strong geological evidence that the period from 380 million to 365 million years ago is the critical time. The younger rocks in that range, those about 360 million years old, include diverse kinds of fossilized animals that we would recognize as amphibians or reptiles. My colleague Jenny Clark at Cambridge University and others have uncovered amphibians from rocks in Greenland that are about 365 million years old. With their necks, their ears, and their four legs, they do not look like fish. But in rocks that are about 385 million years old, we find whole fish that look like, well, fish. They have fins. conical heads, and scales; and they have no necks. Given this, it is probably no great surprise that we should focus on rocks about 375 million years old to find evidence of the transition between fish and land-living animals.- Neil Subin pages 9-10

And that can only mean that the data points represent the time when there were fish, and no tetrapods-> 385 mya and a time when there were fish and tetrapods-> 365 mya.

RichTARD Hughes chimed in and said I was wrong and instead of producing any evidence that I am wrong he just kept referencing his own TARD saying I am wrong.

So when I called him on it little Ms Liddle closed the thread to save him from embarrassment.

What about RichTARD you pathetic little coward- dare to try to support your claims?

My prediction is you won't....

Rich Hughes says the ToE should be disconfirmed!

According to Rich Hughes the theory of evolution (ToE) should be disconfirmed:

If the ToE is true we should observe evidence of gradual changes in life through time. If we don't observe gradual changes through time the ToE is at risk of disconfirmation.

We do not observe gradual changes through time.

That was one of the reasons for punctuated equilibrium.

So is the ToE disconfirmed or is Richie Hughes just full of shit?

RichTard Hughes Still as Clueless as ever

-
When I asked Richtard Hughes what is the definition of the wrod "spontaneous" he sed:

Instantaneous, all at once. Which is what this math requires.

IOW Richtard can't even read a dictionary as that is not what the words means:

spontaneous

Richtard knows nothing about science and nothing about English. No surprise there...

RichTARD Hughes, the "Al Gore" of "BWAAAAAHAAAAHAAAHAHAHAAAA"

-
The wonders of evotard never cease to amaze me.

First RichTARD thinks he can refute what I say about GAs without ever addressing what I say. Not only that it is clear he doesn't understand GAs- but I digress.

Now RichTARD is flattered that I am copying him- something quite unintentional as it was the appropriate response given the drool I was responding to- by posting a couple lines of "BWAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAHAHAHAAAA" with a breath pause in between.

RichTard Hughes- the queen of ignorance thinks HE invented "BWAAAAAHAAAHA"

To that I say:


BWAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAAAAAAAHAHAAAAAAAAAAHAHAAAHAHAAAAAAAAA

evotards for egomaniacs...

Lenski- Supporting Baraminology (Clueless EvoTards)

-
RichTard Hughes is at it again-> equivocation and supporting baraminology. Geez RichTard you are one clueless evotard.

Lenski has been monitoring E. coli (bacteria) for thousands of generations. The only things observed are slight changes as the E. coli are still E. coli.

True, some "evolved" the ability to get citrate through their membrane so that already existing protein machinery can break it down for food for the cell.

Ho hum-> this has been observed before:

Hall, B.G. 1982. Chromosomal mutation for citrate utilization by Escherichia coli K-12. J. Bacteriol. 151:269-273.

Pos, K.M., Dimroth, P., and Bott, M. 1998. The Escherichia coli citrate carrier CitT: a member of a novel eubacterial transporter family related to the 2-oxoglutarate/malate translocator from spinach chloroplasts. J. Bacteriol. 180:4160-4165


IOW nothing new and definitely nothing that would suggest the evolutionary processes observed in these experiments are enough to account for the diversity of living organisms starting with a population of prokaryotic-like organisms. However I am sure that cowards such as RichTard Hughes will keep trotting it out as if it is such evidence. That is because evotards are clueless intellectual cowards.

Richard Tardboy Hughes Chickens Out

-
As if we didn't predict this- Richie Tardboy Hughes invited me over to AtBC so he could show me the entailments for unguided evolution. A day later and Richie appears to have bailed-> no surprise there. And no one stepped up to try to cover for him-> again no surprise.

When it comes to supporting evolutionism evos cower. Why is that?

The CSI of a baseball?

How pathetic and moronic are the anti-IDists?

Well Rich Hughes and others, have asked for the CSI of a baseball.

The CSI of a baseball.

Did you get that?

Let me explain- the ONLY reason to ask for the CSI of something is you question how it came to be that way.

IOW Rich Hughes and his band of mental midgets have some doubt in their pointy little heads pertaining to how baseballs came to be the way they are.

I understand their position. Heck if chance and necisssity can bring about something as intricate as a living organism, something as plain (in comparison) as a baseball should be a piece of cake.

However I digress.

To know the SI of something all you have to do is count the bits. If the number of bits is 500 or more, then you have CSI.

So if you really wanted to know the SI of a baseball all you have to do is to figure out how to make one, write down the instructions, and count the bits.

And I also see that countinmg would also be a problem for Richie and his minions...

RichTard Hughes- Chokes On Information, Again

-
It is sad to see evolutionists reduced to babbling incoherently just at the mention of the word "information". It makes me wonder how they have made it as far as they have in their life. We live in the information age- thanks to the interwebs information is at the ends of our fingertips. Information allows our world to function.

But mention the word "information" to an evolutionist, and as with Pavlov's dogs, they start drooling and appear unable to function.

I tell them how to measure information, I tell them how to measure information in biology. And they just mess themselves all in a hurry to misrepresent what I say.

Getting the information down to bits is how the interwebs function- it is how computers function. Letters are broken down into bits, then sent on their merry way.

The point being is CSI (Complex Specified Information) is about bits. And to determine the number of bits we have to first break down the information into bits.

What does all of this have to do with RichTard Hughes? Apparently he is too ignorant to grasp these concepts and therefor Intelligent Design is wrong.

That is right, because evolutionists refuse to understand simple concepts and also refuse to support their claims, Intelligent Design is false.

Yes it does give me a sense of pride to have a thread in my honor over on the another tard bloviating chicaney forum. The sad part is even with the "protection" of their little monkey group they still don't have a set to ante up.

Why is Richard Tard Hughes so Angry?

-
It: was another blustery day

Little Richie Hughes finds himself on the pitch, in his school shorts, shirt and tie, with the ball at his feet and twelve meters from the goal. He is wondering what the fuck is happening as no one has ever passed him the ball and he was watching the birds setting off for the south. He is snapped back to reality by overwhelming shouts for him to kick the ball with some yelling for him to kick it in the goal. Little Richie has never had the ball before let alone score a goal! So all at once he turned and with his mightiest of kicks Little Richie scored, only to have his best friend knock him down for kicking the ball past him for an own goal.

From thence on Richie was a cupcake and his friends let him know it every day.