Intelligent Design in the lab
-
FIRST SELF-REPLICATING SYNTHETIC BACTERIAL CELL-
So ID is proving its worth in science labs- go figure...
FIRST SELF-REPLICATING SYNTHETIC BACTERIAL CELL-
So ID is proving its worth in science labs- go figure...
posted by Joe G @ 9:27 AM
98 Comments:
At 9:36 PM,
Unknown said…
When you say ID is proving its worth, do you mean smart people are proving their worth, or did Venter somehow prove something about Intelligent Design?
Smart people can design things using their intelligence, true. That's what Venter et al did. I don't see how it relates to your fantasy of Intelligent Design (which has been thoroughly dismissed by most scientists as pure nonsense, but you know that).
Grasp at straws much?
At 7:10 AM,
Joe G said…
What Venter et al. accomplished is an example of ID in the lab.
And just because you can't see how it relates to ID doesn't mean anything to me.
You appear to be a complete dolt and are what is wrong with education.
As for scientists dismissing ID- whatever- they sure as hell can't support any alternative position.
At 10:08 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
Erm, people have been designing things for a while. Do you know Venter's vies on ID? Do you think he's supportive?
At 10:35 AM,
Ghostrider said…
OK, so humans can design things. Neat.
Humans can synthesize naturally occurring genomes and get them to reproduce. Neater.
What does that have to do with the claim that the original genomes were purposely designed?
At 10:56 AM,
Joe G said…
That is right Richtard.
And guess what else?
We have never observed blind, undirected processes design anything from scratch.
At 10:59 AM,
Joe G said…
Humans can synthesize naturally occurring genomes and get them to reproduce.
Naturally occurring genomes?
There isn't any evidence that nature, operating freely can produce a genome.
So just how is it a "naturally occurring genome"?
What does that have to do with the claim that the original genomes were purposely designed?
It demonstrates the power of agency involvement.
So what would count for evidence of ID in a lab?
At 11:00 AM,
Joe G said…
Do you know Venter's vies on ID? Do you think he's supportive?
I don't care what his views on ID are.
What I do know is he cannot support the premise that our existence is due to accumulated accidents...
At 10:13 PM,
Unknown said…
I am not teaching anymore. I guess education is now fixed.
At 7:11 AM,
Joe G said…
I am not teaching anymore. I guess education is now fixed.
At least where you used to teach...
At 6:20 PM,
blipey said…
You failed to answer the question, Joe.
How does Venter's design prove that the world was designed?
Perhaps you could give us a brief outline that lays this argument out?
Remember to address the design of the universe in your outline and directly tie it in with Venter et al.
Thanks.
At 7:16 AM,
Joe G said…
How does Venter's design prove that the world was designed?
It was never intended to do that.
I never claimed it did that.
IOW clownie it is clear that you are nothing but an ignorant asshole.
At 6:35 PM,
Unknown said…
At least where you used to teach...
No. Things are pretty fucked over there still. What doe that say about your powers of observation? Or deduction?
Given that you stated "[TFT is] what is wrong with education" and I have left but education still has things wrong, what foundation do you have to stand firm on anything?
You know, being an asshole is not the same as refuting another's position.
At 8:56 PM,
blipey said…
Let's see.
A. ID claims that the world was designed
B. Joe claims that Venter et al supports ID
C. When asked how Venter et all supports ID, Joe claims that B has nothing to do with A.
This is going places!
At 9:56 PM,
Joe G said…
A. ID claims that the world was designed
Basically correct.
Ya see the world we see today has changed from the original.
B. Joe claims that Venter et al supports ID
Joe claims the experiment is an example of intelligent design.
Genetic engineering is an example of intelligent design.
These are experimental examples of what intelligent agencies can do given the resources to do it.
When blind, undirected chemical processes are given the same resources nothing much happens.
At 10:01 PM,
Joe G said…
Things are pretty fucked over there still. What doe that say about your powers of observation? Or deduction?
It tells me they need to get rid of more assholes.
Or perhaps they replaced you with someone even less capable- perhaps blipey is now teaching there- or richie retardo hughes- thorton- now any of those would be make a bad situation a worse situation.
And yes clueless teachers are what is wrong with the education system- not 100% of the problem- but the closer to 0% the better.
However you are right- so why do you think coming here and acting like an asshole refutes anything I have posted?
At 12:46 PM,
Unknown said…
I'm not refuting what you have posted. There is nothing to refute. I am just telling you stuff because you are so intellectually curious!
At 5:03 PM,
Joe G said…
I'm not refuting what you have posted.
You can't.
There is nothing to refute.
But you don't know anything.
I am just telling you stuff because you are so intellectually curious!
And you are so intellectually bankrupt!
At 5:51 PM,
blipey said…
So, how does Venter et all support the idea that the world was designed? You forgot to explain that.
At 6:15 PM,
Joe G said…
So, how does Venter et all support the idea that the world was designed?
Are you really that stupid?
It was never intended to do that.
I never claimed it did that.
What part of that don't you understand?
At 4:20 PM,
blipey said…
"ID is proving itself in labs..."
-JoeTard
Since ID is so useful to Venter et al, how is it again that Venter et al is using the idea that the universe was designed in their research?
Thanks for trying once again to claim that the universe is designed without explaining how the universe is designed.
At 8:45 PM,
Joe G said…
I said:
"So ID is proving its worth in science labs-"
Since ID is so useful to Venter et al, how is it again that Venter et al is using the idea that the universe was designed in their research?
You are a moron.
Joe claims the experiment is an example of intelligent design.
Genetic engineering is an example of intelligent design.
These are experimental examples of what intelligent agencies can do given the resources to do it.
When blind, undirected chemical processes are given the same resources nothing much happens.
What part of that don't you understand you pinheaded freak?
Thanks for trying once again to claim that the universe is designed without explaining how the universe is designed.
Umm I wasn't trying to do that you ignorant freak.
As for the universe being designed that was taken care of in "The Privileged Planet".
And all your position has is all this is an accident.
Accidents and deep time- nothing scientifically testable...
At 3:36 AM,
blipey said…
Let's see:
ID is the claim that the universe is designed.
JoeTard claims that ID is useful in the lab.
JoeTard refuses to tell us how the idea that the universe is designed helps us in the lab.
Nice. How again was the idea that the universe is designed useful to Venter?
At 10:15 AM,
Joe G said…
ID is the claim that the universe is designed.
That is false.
IOW you are an ignorant freak and you think your ignorance is meaningful discourse.
I have asked Erk some questions to see if it understands but it refuses to answer my questions.
Instead it keeps spewing the same ignorant remarks as if they refute what I am saying.
So one more time:
Joe claims the experiment is an example of intelligent design.
Genetic engineering is an example of intelligent design.
These are experimental examples of what intelligent agencies can do given the resources to do it.
When blind, undirected chemical processes are given the same resources nothing much happens.
What part of that don't you understand you pinheaded freak?
At 10:29 AM,
Hawks said…
Joe claims the experiment is an example of intelligent design.
Genetic engineering is an example of intelligent design.
This is not evidence in favor of ID. In fact, it is totally irrelevant to anything regarding ID. It would not matter one iota if intelligent humans could NOT make organisms. ID allows for any type of designer and as long as we can conceive of a designer that could make organisms, ID remains a possibility.
At 4:45 PM,
Joe G said…
Joe claims the experiment is an example of intelligent design.
Genetic engineering is an example of intelligent design.
These are experimental examples of what intelligent agencies can do given the resources to do it.
When blind, undirected chemical processes are given the same resources nothing much happens.
This is not evidence in favor of ID.
That is only because, according to you and your ilk, there cannot be any evidence for ID.
Yet this experiment is exactly what I said "Intelligent design in the lab".
It would not matter one iota if intelligent humans could NOT make organisms.
Humans didn't make an organism- besides the organisms that possibly arise after having sex.
These are experimental examples of what intelligent agencies can do given the resources to do it.
Deal with it.
ID allows for any type of designer and as long as we can conceive of a designer that could make organisms, ID remains a possibility.
ID will remain a possibility as long as you and your ilk fail to provide positive evidence for your position.
ID will also remain the best explanation until then.
At 5:52 PM,
blipey said…
JoeTard from upthread:
Blipey: "A. ID claims that the world was designed"
JoeTard: "Basically correct."
JoeTard just now:
Blipey: "ID is the claim that the universe is designed."
JoeTard: "That is false."
Starting now, please equivocate...
At 11:28 PM,
Hawks said…
That is only because, according to you and your ilk, there cannot be any evidence for ID.
No, that is because humans performing any experiments are totally irrelevant. If humans succeed, ID still stands intact. If humans fail, ID still stands intact.
At 10:24 AM,
Joe G said…
moronic clown:
ID claims that the world was designed"
and:
"ID is the claim that the universe is designed."
The two are not the same asshole.
But anyways if you are not going to answer my questions then fuck off.
At 10:24 AM,
Joe G said…
No, that is because humans performing any experiments are totally irrelevant.
It is totally relevant for the reasons provided.
At 1:52 PM,
Hawks said…
Me:No, that is because humans performing any experiments are totally irrelevant.
It is totally relevant for the reasons provided.
By which, I think you mean something like:
These are experimental examples of what intelligent agencies can do given the resources to do it.
Sure, I can agree with the above statement. But that is totally irrelevant to what you wrote in the opening post:
So ID is proving its worth in science labs- go figure...
You are simply conflating ID (as in design detection, the "science" championed be Dembski et al) and "intelligent design" as in what intelligent designers do. WHat intelligent designers (i.e. humans) can do is totally irrelevant to ID (the "science")
At 2:15 PM,
Joe G said…
You are simply conflating ID (as in design detection, the "science" championed be Dembski et al) and "intelligent design" as in what intelligent designers do.
You are simply clueless and you think that helps your case.
WHat intelligent designers (i.e. humans) can do is totally irrelevant to ID (the "science")
That is false.
As I and other IDists have been saying for years the design inference is based on our observations and experience with designing agencies and nature, operating freely-> ie no agency involvement.
At 5:58 PM,
blipey said…
So, the universe is not designed then? Continuing now, equivocate....
At 7:02 PM,
Hawks said…
Me:WHat intelligent designers (i.e. humans) can do is totally irrelevant to ID (the "science")
Joe:That is false.
No, Joe. The designer of life on Earth could very well have been an omnipotent being. You know what omnipotent means, don't you? If not, I'll quickly say that such a thing could do anything - ANYTHING!!! So if humans fail at something, it means NOTHING since the designer could have done it anyway.
At 7:09 PM,
Joe G said…
So, the universe is not designed then?
When?
At 7:16 PM,
Joe G said…
Hawks, you ignorant slut.
What we humans do is very relevant because that is the whole freaking point.
Ya see "Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as a product of inteligence." page 3 of "The Design of Life"
The reason we study these artifacts is so we can understand them- you know, science and reverse engineering.
AND-
As I and other IDists have been saying for years the design inference is based on our observations and experience with designing agencies and nature, operating freely-> ie no agency involvement.
At 10:02 PM,
Hawks said…
Ya see "Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as a product of inteligence." page 3 of "The Design of Life"
Yeah, ID is about detecting signs of intelligence.
So now that Venter has done something new, what, precisely, has been added to ID? For example, explain this in the context of the following quote:
As I and other IDists have been saying for years the design inference is based on our observations and experience with designing agencies and nature, operating freely-> ie no agency involvement.
At 11:54 PM,
blipey said…
Universe.
Designed or not?
It's pretty easy, Joe. What says ID?
At 7:00 AM,
Joe G said…
Hawks:
Yeah, ID is about detecting signs of intelligence.
IOW you can't even read.
If you are too stupid to understand a simple sentence then you are too stupid to understand ID and science.
At 7:01 AM,
Joe G said…
clownie,
Explain the relevance of your question in a thread about lab experiments.
At 7:46 PM,
Hawks said…
IOW you can't even read.
If you are too stupid to understand a simple sentence then you are too stupid to understand ID and science.
And after all these years, Joe still doesn't know the fundamentals of ID. Go figure.
At 7:10 AM,
Joe G said…
And after all these years, Joe still doesn't know the fundamentals of ID.
Great, another false accusation from an ignorant asshole.
Go figure....
At 12:04 PM,
blipey said…
ID has no opinion on the design of the universe? I find that hard to believe, not to mention directly contradicted by the literature.... :)
At 3:10 PM,
Joe G said…
ID has no opinion on the design of the universe?
What does that have to do with the topic of this thread?
At 8:43 PM,
blipey said…
Interesting that you have no problems with this line of comments until you're backed into a corner.
A not unprecedented turn of events....
So, according to JoeTard:
1. Earth: designed
2. Universe: not designed
Interesting. I'll check with Dr. Dr. Dumbass to see if you're spouting the company line.
At 7:11 AM,
Joe G said…
Interesting that you have no problems with this line of comments until you're backed into a corner.
Ummm I am not backed into a corner.
I am following my blog's policy- stay on topic.
Also it is very noticeable that you didn't answer my questions.
And it is interesting that you always pull that shit.
So, according to Joe:
1. Earth: designed
2. Universe: not designed
Nope, not my claim.
IOW the bliptard has to lie because it refuses to answer my questions.
Typical billirgerent internet faggot.
At 11:44 AM,
Hawks said…
Me:And after all these years, Joe still doesn't know the fundamentals of ID.
Joe:Great, another false accusation from an ignorant asshole.
Go figure....
You still don't know that ID is about design detection.
For the record: those of us who are not ID supporters obviously know that ID is mainly a "wedge", but I'm here talking about ID "Science" as ID supporters use the term.
At 4:01 PM,
Joe G said…
You still don't know that ID is about design detection.
Is that why I have been saying that ID is about the detection and understanding of design for more than a decade?
You probably thought ID stopped at the detection of design.
At 6:18 PM,
Hawks said…
You probably thought ID stopped at the detection of design.
In reality, of course, it even fails at design detection.
So now that Venter has done something new, what, precisely, has been added to ID?
At 7:08 PM,
Joe G said…
You probably thought ID stopped at the detection of design.
In reality, of course,
In reality it is as Dembski stated"
"Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as a product of inteligence." page 3 of "The Design of Life"
it even fails at design detection.
No it doesn't.
So now that Venter has done something new, what, precisely, has been added to ID?
I already told you- this gives us new insights as to what designing agencies can do.
And no one has ever observed blind, undirected chemical processes doing anything like it.
IOW you still don't have any evidence for your position.
At 10:28 PM,
Hawks said…
Me:it even fails at design detection.
Joe:No it doesn't.
OK, so use ID to detect the design in Venter's organisms.
I already told you- this gives us new insights as to what designing agencies can do.
But, of course, these new insights are totally irrelevant. A designing agency could be an omnipotent god according to ID, so of course some sort of designing agency could make these organisms. Just as some of them could make the Earth from scratch.
This research adds no evidence in favor of ID whatsoever.
At 7:04 AM,
Joe G said…
OK, so use ID to detect the design in Venter's organisms.
What a moronic statement.
We use scientific techniques to detect design.
Also we have observed Venter making the organism- no design detection required.
However there are those "watermarks" he did put in the sequence.
But, of course, these new insights are totally irrelevant. A designing agency could be an omnipotent god according to ID, so of course some sort of designing agency could make these organisms. Just as some of them could make the Earth from scratch.
This research adds no evidence in favor of ID whatsoever.
It is ID in the lab.
And it shows what designing agencies can do.
Ya see that is how design detection works- observations and experience.
Right now we have obsrvation and experience with designing agencies creating a genome from scratch.
And we have never observed nor do with have any experience with blind, undirected chemical processes doing that.
IOW you still don't have any positive evidence for your position.
I take it that bothers you.
At 1:01 PM,
Hawks said…
And it shows what designing agencies can do.
And that is, of course, irrelevant.
At 3:05 PM,
blipey said…
So, you've come out supporting "Earth is Designed" and also (on this thread--so it must be on topic, you wouldn't be off topic, would you????) come out for "Universe not designed".
What fundamental difference exists between the Earth and the Universe that makes one designed and the other not designed?
At 3:16 PM,
Joe G said…
And it shows what designing agencies can do.
And that is, of course, irrelevant.
Perhaps to you, but it is very relevant to ID and science for the very reasons provided.
You can ignore those reasons because you are willfully ignorant.
At 3:40 PM,
Joe G said…
ErTard iktard,
You said "ID is the claim that the universe is designed."
In reality it is as Dembski stated-
"Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as a product of inteligence." page 3 of "The Design of Life"
At 9:12 PM,
Unknown said…
Maybe if Dembsky stated: "Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are simply and non-rigorously explained as a product of some unkown and unquantifiable intelligence, making my assertion unscientific and useless to science." we could get on board.
At 9:21 PM,
Joe G said…
Umm the reason ID is still around is because you and your ilk don't have anything but to mindlessly flail away at ID.
But anyways let's take a look-
that are simply and non-rigorously explained
More rigor in ID than your position, which is nothing but "any explanation except design."
as a product of some unkown and unquantifiable intelligence,
ID is not about the designer.
And as a matter of fact without direct observation or designer input the only possible way to make any determination about the designer(s) or the specific process(es) used is by studying the design in question.
That is how archaeologists do it and that is how forensic scientists do it.
making my assertion unscientific and useless to science."
Your bullshit assertions are unscientific and useless to science.
However seeing that one of the 3 basic questions that science asks is "how did it (the thing being investigated) come to be this way?", it is obvious that the design inference is very importatnt to science-> that is if science is interested in reality and there is only one reality behind our existence.
At 8:35 AM,
blipey said…
JoeTard: "Umm the reason ID is still around is because you and your ilk don't have anything but to mindlessly flail away at ID."
Now that's something we might get behind! ID isn't around because it:
1. makes sense
2. has scientific value
3. explains anything
4. etc.
It is around because we make fun of it! Keep fighting for the cause, Joe--you do such a good job.
Oh, and nice on the ErTard IkTard. Not the freshest or funniest thing around but it shows a lot of progress on your part and perhaps shows a glimpse of some innate originality bone. Keep working on it!
At 9:43 AM,
Joe G said…
"Umm the reason ID is still around is because you and your ilk don't have anything but to mindlessly flail away at ID."
Now that's something we might get behind!
It isn't something you might get behind assface.
It's what you do.
ID isn't around because it:
1. makes sense
2. has scientific value
3. explains anything
4. etc.
ID makes more sense than your position.
ID has more scientific value than your position
ID explains most things better than any explanation you can develop.
At 9:44 AM,
Joe G said…
"Umm the reason ID is still around is because you and your ilk don't have anything but to mindlessly flail away at ID."
Now that's something we might get behind!
Yes you do get behind out-of-context quote mining- that's wrong- you don't get behind it you do it and encourage other cowards to do the same.
At 3:56 PM,
Hawks said…
Me:And that is, of course, irrelevant.
Joe:Perhaps to you, but it is very relevant to ID and science for the very reasons provided.
It's really VERY simple, Joe. Of course some sort of intelligence could do it, since ID allows for ANY sort of designer. Therefore, whatever humans can do is irrelevant.
When testing ID, one simply can't test the limits of intelligence, one has to test the limits of non-intelligence.
At 5:48 PM,
Joe G said…
It's really VERY simple, Joe. Of course some sort of intelligence could do it, since ID allows for ANY sort of designer. Therefore, whatever humans can do is irrelevant.
Nice of you to keep ignoring the reasons I have provided.
When testing ID, one simply can't test the limits of intelligence, one has to test the limits of non-intelligence.
I covered that also.
Why do you assholes think your ignorance is meaningful discourse?
At 6:27 PM,
blipey said…
You're the one who said ID is around because we make fun of it. If you didn't mean it, you shouldn't have said it.
Oh well.
At 8:49 PM,
Joe G said…
You're the one who said ID is around because we make fun of it.
You make fun of it because you cannot produce any positive evidence for your position.
If you could produce positive evidence for your position then ID would fade away.
At 9:06 PM,
blipey said…
Once again missing the point...ID exists merely as a vehicle to be made fun of. You said it yourself.
At 10:39 PM,
Joe G said…
No fagtard- you are missing the point:
You make fun of it because you cannot produce any positive evidence for your position.
If you could produce positive evidence for your position then ID would fade away.
ID exists merely as a vehicle to be made fun of. You said it yourself.
Only a small-minded fool would infer that is what I said.
And there you are...
At 4:58 PM,
blipey said…
Joe, we can all read it. I'll point it out again:
JoeTard: "Umm the reason ID is still around is because you and your ilk don't have anything but to mindlessly flail away at ID."
In context and everything. The reason ID exists is BECAUSE we make fun of it. Not really any gray area there.
At 8:23 AM,
Joe G said…
Erik,
You mean you can read whatever you want into it.
That is what low-life little faggots do.
And seeing that you are a low-life little faggot you won't accept the explanation but will continue to be an asshole.
At 7:35 PM,
Unknown said…
And seeing that you are a low-life little faggot you won't accept the explanation but will continue to be an asshole.
I intelligently designed and created the italicized comment above.
At 8:43 PM,
blipey said…
Alright, Joe. Why else is ID around? Let's put forth some options:
1. provide original research (please cite research)
2. provide lines of study that some of the best and brightest minds are pursuing (please provide minds and schools or labs that are employing said minds)
3. providing superior education to school children (please provide schools employing ID curricula and lesson plans employed)
4. anything else you may find germane.
Thanks for not providing any of these. Double thanks for the name-calling.
At 7:11 AM,
Joe G said…
Why else is ID around?
1- Because it is a better explanation for our existence than your position.
2- Unlike your position ID is based on observations and experiences
3- Unlike your position ID can be objectively tested
trado's options:
1. provide original research (please cite research)
Please cite any research conducted under blind, undirectyed chemical processes
2. provide lines of study that some of the best and brightest minds are pursuing (please provide minds and schools or labs that are employing said minds)
Please provide the lines of study pertaining to blind, undirected processes that some of the best and brightest minds are pursuing.
3. providing superior education to school children (please provide schools employing ID curricula and lesson plans employed)
Please provide the schools providing blind and undirected curriculums.
At 7:12 AM,
Joe G said…
Double thanks for the name-calling.
What name calling?
I was merely making an observation...
At 8:57 PM,
blipey said…
Right. You got nothing. Thanks.
At 7:09 AM,
Joe G said…
Nice projection clownie.
I take it that is all you have...
At 11:54 AM,
blipey said…
Joe, when asked to provide a school that was teaching ID, you PROVIDED NONE.
When asked to supply the name of a lab that is using ID research, you PROVIDED NONE.
When asked to provide a university that researching ID, you PROVIDED NONE.
When asked to supply research that has been published supporting ID, you PROVIDED NONE.
It's pretty easy to tell that you have nothing. Jackasses provided nothing. Smart jackasses say something like, "Yeah, buddy! Here's the fucking schools that are implementing ID curriculum. Go suck on that douchebag!"
So we'll just go with you being a regular jackass.
At 1:37 PM,
Joe G said…
Joe, when asked to provide a school that was teaching ID, you PROVIDED NONE.
So what?
You can't provide the names of schools teaching the blind watchmaker thesis.
And I provided the following:
1- Because it is a better explanation for our existence than your position.
2- Unlike your position ID is based on observations and experiences
3- Unlike your position ID can be objectively tested
When asked to supply the name of a lab that is using ID research, you PROVIDED NONE.
And what lab is using blind, undirected chemical processes research?
You provided nothing.
When asked to supply research that has been published supporting ID, you PROVIDED NONE.
And what research has been published supporting blind, undirected chemical processes?
Again you have provided nothing.
IOW it is very clear that you don't have anything but to ignorantly flail away at ID.
At 6:26 PM,
blipey said…
Continue, Joe. When it dawns on you that making changes to the status quo requires that you provide a reason to do so, people may start to take you seriously. Until then, you can continue to provide fodder for the easily amused (of course, that is your purpose in life--an interesting symbiosis, don't you think?)
At 6:39 PM,
Joe G said…
I will continue to expose ignorant assholes such as yourself.
I will continue to expose the fact that not one of you can support the claims of your position and that all you can do is flail away like a little girl whenever ID is mentioned.
Status quo?
And just how the fuck did that "status quo" ever get to be the status quo?
Obviously not by providing anything positive.
So yes I will continue to rail against your brand of intellectual cowardice.
And I will continue to talk about ID to the local students and expose them to the bullshit position that is the status quo.
Continue?
Absolutely. After all I am just going up against a deck of cards stacked up to look like something solid...
Smoke and mirrors clownie- that is all you have...
At 8:23 PM,
blipey said…
JoeTard: "Smoke and mirrors clownie- that is all you have..."
Institutions studying ID? Labs doing ID research? Schools implementing curricula?
Nothing?
It's sad, Joe. There isn't even smoke in the air; everyone can see you have no clothes. Except for you. Maybe you can find that mirror...
At 8:40 PM,
Joe G said…
Smoke and mirrors clownie- that is all you have...
Institutions studying blind, undirected chemical processes?
Labs doing blind watchmaker research?
Schools implementing blind watchmaker curricula?
Yes it is sad that you cannot provide any postive evidence for your position.
OTOH I have provided plenty of evidence for ID...
At 9:07 PM,
blipey said…
JoeTard: "OTOH I have provided plenty of evidence for ID..."
Right. You just want to keep it all hid up in a shoebox so none of the big bad schmientists can steal it. Any other reason that you're not sharing any of it?
For example, what secondary school is implementing an ID curriculum? What lesson plan are they implementing?
Short pants, Joe. They're easier to put on and still attractive...
At 9:47 PM,
Unknown said…
Isn't the blind watchmaker, I assume the Dawkins book, about evolution, which is taught in schools?
At 7:05 AM,
Joe G said…
OTOH I have provided plenty of evidence for ID...
clueless asshole:
Right.
Here it is, again:
Intelligent Design: The Design Hypothesis
Intelligent Design in Biology Textbooks
Intelligent Design in Biology Textbooks Continued
The Design Inference in Peer-Review
More evidence for ID in Biology- The ribosome is a genetic compiler
More Evidence for Intelligent Design- Wet Electricity
The Privileged Planet
Factors required for Complex Life
OTOH neither you nor any scientist has ever put forth any positive evidence for blind, undirected processes.
IOW it is as I said- all your position has is smoke and mirrors.
Either that or perhaps you have all your positive evidence in a shoewbox hidden from everyone...
At 7:12 AM,
Joe G said…
TFT:
Isn't the blind watchmaker, I assume the Dawkins book, about evolution, which is taught in schools?
The blind watchmaker is about a particular type of evolution.
And I have been told it isn't being taught.
If it were then it would be easy to get it booted as it does nothing but promote atheism. And as such would fall under that establishment clause.
But I will be keeping a close watch on the local books because when my kids start taking biology in HS I will pull a "Maureen O'Hair"- inverted...
At 10:11 AM,
blipey said…
Joe. Actually answer the question. What secondary schools are teaching ID? What lesson plans are they implementing? Surely you know of some?
As for you list of things, I'll just state that my list includes every biology textbook used in United States. And any YouTube video that anyone made saying that ToE is right. And any conversation I had in a conference room about ToE.
Surely that list will satisfy you? That's about a trillion times longer than any list you have. Oh right, neither your list or my list actually answers the question....
So, how about it? Secondary schools? Lesson plans? Where and what?
Words Joe and ot a substitute for answers. Short and simple wins the race.
At 10:40 AM,
Joe G said…
As for you list of things, I'll just state that my list includes every biology textbook used in United States. And any YouTube video that anyone made saying that ToE is right. And any conversation I had in a conference room about ToE.
Yet not one of those venues has ever produced any positive evidence for blind, undirected processes.
That is all I am asking for clownie yet you have never been able to produce anything.
Your position needs viagra as it is as impotent and limp as you are.
And that is why you have to flail away like a little girl whenever ID is mentioned.
So actually answer the question you coward-
What is the positive evidence for your position?
At 6:56 PM,
blipey said…
So there are zero secondary schools teaching ID?
There are zero labs researching ID?
There are zero universities offering ID programs?
Wow. I need to get aboard this movement!
Please continue to think you're important.
At 7:43 PM,
Joe G said…
So you don't have any positive evidence supporting your position.
And you still think your ignorance and belligerence is meaningful discourse.
Amazing.
What an impotent little prick you are.
Oh well.
There are zero labs researching ID?
Every lab- including Venter's.
Hell Venter finally figured out that the whole deal is software driven.
Also you ignorant fuck- the question is whether or not scientists, conducting science, should be allowed to reach a design inference if that is what the data warrants.
And as many people have demonstrated, the data warrants a design inference.
No positive evidence for your position.
No labs doing blind watchmaker research.
This status quo is nothing but a hand-job.
Now I understand why the vast majority of people reject this alleged status quo...
At 7:48 PM,
Joe G said…
So there are zero secondary schools teaching ID?
Every school that teaches science.
There are zero labs researching ID?
Every lab conducting science.
There are zero universities offering ID programs?
Too many run by Nazi thought police.
However there are IDEA centers and many do offer science, so ID is there regardless of the efforts to stifle it.
You can only deny the obvious for so long.
It was easy for you and your ilk to do so until science kept pulling up more and more evidence for ID.
Now all you have is the multiverse and a bunch of strange coincidences.
Voodoo science...
At 7:49 PM,
blipey said…
Oh. Right. Software driven. Is it UNIX or Fortran based? Maybe Logo (since that was graphics driven)? Jesus, you're stupid.
The vast majority of people do no such thing, Joe. The vast majority of people could give a shit. That's one of the many areas in which you go totally off base. The vast majority of people don't even know that the almost vanishing minority of people who are ID supports exist. They don't know that the vast majority of experts in the field of evolutionary biology exist. They just don't care.
The fact that you think that YOU are in the thoughts of the vast majority of people is laughable.
At 7:51 PM,
blipey said…
Which schools, Joe? List them.
What are the lesson plans they teach? List them.
If you're not going to, shut up; no one cares.
At 7:10 AM,
Joe G said…
Oh. Right. Software driven.
That's right asshole.
The vast majority of people do no such thing, Joe.
The vast majority of people reject the premise that our existence is the result of a series of accidents.
That is a fact.
And the scientific polls support my claim.
Which schools, Joe?
Every school that teaches science.
At 7:12 AM,
Joe G said…
I take it that it bothers clownie that he cannot produce any positive evidence for its position.
That is what the people care about asshole.
And if you can't produce any positive evidence then shut up as there isn't any need to keep proving that you are a coward.
At 7:14 AM,
Joe G said…
software-driven biological machines
IOW Erik your ignorance is exposed once again...
At 3:22 PM,
blipey said…
Joe, you not surprisingly failed to answer the questions. I'll remind you:
Software. What programming language? Fortran? Logo? Apple Basic?
Schools. What lesson plans do they implement that are directly related to ID? What schools are these?
If you're going to avoid the question, try to do it in a less obvious way.
At 3:34 PM,
Joe G said…
Erik, not surprisingly you have failed to provide positive evidence for your position.
Software.
That is what the evidence says.
What programming language?
Life.
And if you can't produce any positive evidence then shut up as there isn't any need to keep proving that you are a coward.
At 11:33 PM,
blipey said…
Life used to have fewer things (as proven by your family not having you at one point). Life now has more things (as proven by you being born). Therefore: ToE!!!!!
Boy, this answering questions like JoeTard is great. It requires no knowledge, no research, and very little in the way of creative thinking.
Let's go, Joe! I'll answer any question you want. Bring it on!
At 7:31 PM,
Joe G said…
clowtard:
Life used to have fewer things (as proven by your family not having you at one point).
Actually science has said over 90% of all species have gone extinct, meaning life used to have more thngs...
Post a Comment
<< Home