Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Saturday, February 21, 2015

OMagain- Proud to be Ignorant

-
OM took umbrage to my recent post exposing it as an ignorant asshole. Now it spews:

The thing is Joe, we’re not opponents. You know that saying “not even wrong”? That’s you that is. For you to be an opponent of mine you’d have to have a coherent position. 

LoL! You are right, in a sense. YOU don't have a coherent position so you are not an opponent of ID.

YOU don't have a theory. YOU don't have any methodology. You don't have models nor testable hypotheses. You have nothing but your lies and bullshit.

So you can’t talk about specifics until design is determined, yet it’s my job to falsify ID by showing that undirected processes can produce what ID claims requires and intelligent agency. But if you’ve not determined design, how can I do that? 

We have determined intelligent design is present I have presented evidence here to that effect. You are more than welcome to come here and discuss it but we know you won't because you are a moron who couldn't understand the evidence if its life depended on it. Again your ignorance doesn't mean anything to us. OTOH your position still has nothing. It cannot lead by example. It can only offer promissory notes saying the future will uncover the answers.

Why does omagain and all of our detractors, think their ignorance means something

22 Comments:

  • At 9:56 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    YOU don't have a theory. YOU don't have any methodology. You don't have models nor testable hypotheses. You have nothing but your lies and bullshit.

    What's your theory/hypothesis/model so we have something to mull over?

     
  • At 10:04 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Exactly what I have posted and exactly what other IDists have written about.

     
  • At 11:01 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Exactly what I have posted and exactly what other IDists have written about.

    So, what do you favour? Front loading or incremental adjustments? I'm guessing the latter since you don't think (some at least) mutations aren't random. How often do you think the designers influence a mutation? Every day? A few times a year? When they've got a new design they're keen to introduce? Very, very slowly to fool some people into believing in unguided evolution and to test the faith of others?

    Or did I miss your personal view?

     
  • At 12:36 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Designers influence mutations? Yeah and there are programmers influencing my computer's ones and zeros.

     
  • At 5:22 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Designers influence mutations? Yeah and there are programmers influencing my computer's ones and zeros.

    That's pretty much a non-answer. I really don't understand why you won't come clean and state clearly your hypothesis regarding the history of life on this planet. You think the one offered by evolutionary theory are incorrect but you're reluctant to offer up an alternative. I don't get that. What's the problem?

     
  • At 3:51 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Designers influence mutations? Yeah and there are programmers influencing my computer's ones and zeros.

    Perhaps you could be a bit clearer. I know you favour the idea that many mutations are not random but there's still the question of whether there is extra 'programming' dictating the mutations (but where is that extra programming and how does it get into the cells AND is it different for different species) OR are the designers sending out a stream of updates?

     
  • At 1:33 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    There isn't any evolutionary theory and I don't care much for stories- I prefer science. However I understand that you would rather have a story

     
  • At 1:26 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    There isn't any evolutionary theory and I don't care much for stories- I prefer science. However I understand that you would rather have a story

    But doesn't doing science require having a hypothesis to test? Some kind of model that you test experimentally? That you compare to old and new data?

    So, what's your hypothesis?

     
  • At 6:09 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    ID has that and your position does not.

     
  • At 9:18 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    ID has that and your position does not.

    What is the ID hypothesis? Something that specifies front-loaded or something else.

     
  • At 12:24 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    ID's entailments pertain to the design- as in how we can determine if an object, structure or event is the product of nature, operating freely or was there intelligent agency activity.

    And to refute ID all one has to do is demonstrate tat necessity and chance suffice to account for the design.

     
  • At 12:30 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

  • At 4:34 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    ID's entailments pertain to the design- as in how we can determine if an object, structure or event is the product of nature, operating freely or was there intelligent agency activity.

    Yes but what is your hypothesis regarding how design figured into the development of life?

    And to refute ID all one has to do is demonstrate tat necessity and chance suffice to account for the design.

    Except . . . you believe that some (at least) mutations are not random, that they are directed or influenced. So, even if evolutionary biologists propose a plausible, step-by-step mutational process by which a complication structure could have arisen what's to stop you from just saying: but the mutations could have been directed? Which is then saying that your designers are making lots and lots of incremental tweaks and adjustments. Which means you don't think all the information is front loaded. Is that what your hypothesis is?

    Intelligent Design: The Design Hypothesis Updated

    There is no unifying hypothesis there.

     
  • At 7:04 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    There is no unifying hypothesis there.

    That is not a requirement and it is much more than unguided evolution can muster.

    Propose a plausible blah, blah, blah? Who the fuck gets to decide what is and isn't plausible, Jerad? Evolutionary biology can't even tell us what makes an organism what it is.

    You need something TESTABLE. We have it, you do not.

    The non-random nature of mutations was posited by Spetner, 1997 and confirmed by Shapiro, J., 2013

    Guess what else, Jerad? If your scenario requires more than two specific mutations you don't have enough time.

     
  • At 2:02 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    There is no unifying hypothesis there.

    That is not a requirement and it is much more than unguided evolution can muster.

    Not a requirement? Isn't that how science is done? Propose a hypothesis and then test it?

    Propose a plausible blah, blah, blah? Who the fuck gets to decide what is and isn't plausible, Jerad? Evolutionary biology can't even tell us what makes an organism what it is.

    Well, so far, I haven't heard you propose anything except: life looks designed. You haven't even ventured a guess regarding when or why.

    You need something TESTABLE. We have it, you do not.

    If we proposed a plausible, step-by-step path that could have formed the bacterial flagellum what's to stop you from saying all the mutations were guided? Are you sure you're stance is falsifiable?

    The non-random nature of mutations was posited by Spetner, 1997 and confirmed by Shapiro, J., 2013

    Non-peer reviewed books for the general public. Did you read any of the reviews of those books? The point being: the views expressed by Spetner and Shapiro are not accepted as part of biological science.

    Guess what else, Jerad? If your scenario requires more than two specific mutations you don't have enough time.

    Depends on who you listen to doesn't it?

     
  • At 6:13 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Not a requirement?

    There isn't a requirement for a unifying hypothesis you moron.

    Isn't that how science is done?

    You have no clue about science.

    Propose a hypothesis and then test it?

    I proposed several. OTOH your position has nothing.

    Well, so far, I haven't heard you propose anything except: life looks designed.

    That's because you are an ignoramus on an agenda.

    You haven't even ventured a guess regarding when or why.

    And more ignorance.

    If we proposed a plausible, step-by-step path that could have formed the bacterial flagellum what's to stop you from saying all the mutations were guided?

    You need a way to actually test your proposal- you know SCIENCE

    Are you sure you're stance is falsifiable?

    Yes, OTOH your position is untestable.

    Non-peer reviewed books for the general public.

    Listen asshole, yours doesn't have any peer-reviewed papers to support it so stuff it.

    Did you read any of the reviews of those books? The point being: the views expressed by Spetner and Shapiro are not accepted as part of biological science.

    Of course they are part of biological science as they have the evidence to support them. OTOH their detractors have NOTHING, Jerad.

    Guess what else, Jerad? If your scenario requires more than two specific mutations you don't have enough time.

    Depends on who you listen to doesn't it?

    In a way, yes. If we listen to IDists who say the mutations are directed then there is enough time. However, given your position, there isn't enough time:

    waiting for two mutations

    Your ignorance, while amusing, still means nothing.

     
  • At 9:19 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    You have no clue about science.

    Hey, it's okay with me if you don't have a unifying hypothesis.

    I proposed several. OTOH your position has nothing.

    None of which came even close to addressing when design was implemented. Not that I remember anyway.

    You haven't even ventured a guess regarding when or why.

    And more ignorance.

    Well, you haven't that I remember.

    Listen asshole, yours doesn't have any peer-reviewed papers to support it so stuff it.

    According to you. There are other opinions.

    Of course they are part of biological science as they have the evidence to support them. OTOH their detractors have NOTHING, Jerad.

    Except that the reviewers say they misinterpreted some of the evidence and ignored other evidence.

    In a way, yes. If we listen to IDists who say the mutations are directed then there is enough time. However, given your position, there isn't enough time:

    If you think the mutations are directed then it's impossible to falsify your opinion. Any step-by-step mutational pathway that is proposed to create a specific body type or part you'll just say the mutations were directed. So your claim that it's possible to falsify ID by showing a pathway is not true.

     
  • At 9:24 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hey, it's okay with me if you don't have a unifying hypothesis.

    It's OK with science too.

    None of which came even close to addressing when design was implemented.

    That isn't a requirement.

    Listen asshole, yours doesn't have any peer-reviewed papers to support it so stuff it.

    According to you.

    No one seems to be able to find any.

    Except that the reviewers say they misinterpreted some of the evidence and ignored other evidence.

    They can say whatever they want. They don't have the evidence to support their claims. And they don't have an alternative.

    If you think the mutations are directed then it's impossible to falsify your opinion.

    That is incorrect.

    Any step-by-step mutational pathway that is proposed to create a specific body type or part you'll just say the mutations were directed.

    That is your ignorant opinion.

    So your claim that it's possible to falsify ID by showing a pathway is not true.

    That isn't the falsification criteria. As I have said you have issues and should seek help.

     
  • At 4:17 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    So your claim that it's possible to falsify ID by showing a pathway is not true.

    That isn't the falsification criteria. As I have said you have issues and should seek help.

    Ah but you have said that it's possible to falsify ID by showing a plausible, step-by-step, mutational pathway by which certain structures or binding sites could occur.

    My question is: if a step-by-step path is found will you accept it or just claim that the mutations were directed?

     
  • At 6:05 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Ah but you have said that it's possible to falsify ID by showing a plausible, step-by-step, mutational pathway by which certain structures or binding sites could occur.

    Ahh but that is NOT what I said. Obviously you have ignorance issues.

    You have to do more than posit some story, Jerad.


    My question is: if a step-by-step path is found will you accept it or just claim that the mutations were directed?


    So you didn't grasp the importance of the article I linked to. Typical

     
  • At 9:58 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Ahh but that is NOT what I said. Obviously you have ignorance issues.

    Okay, what if a bacterium without a flagellum was allowed to reproduce in a lab and after many generations it developed a flagellum. Would you then just claim that the mutations that brought that about were directed and so ID was not refuted?

    It's a easy question to answer.

     
  • At 5:45 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So you did NOT understand the importance of the article I linked to. Typical.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home