Jerry Coyne's Strange Faith
-
Jerry Coyne's strange faith has all living organisms as just bags of molecules. That also means that scientists are not very smart as they cannot produce life from non-life when it should be easy given Coyne's assessment.
It is so funny watching atheists bash religion all the while all but admitting their position rests on nothing but faith.
Jerry Coyne's strange faith has all living organisms as just bags of molecules. That also means that scientists are not very smart as they cannot produce life from non-life when it should be easy given Coyne's assessment.
It is so funny watching atheists bash religion all the while all but admitting their position rests on nothing but faith.
posted by Joe G @ 12:34 PM
102 Comments:
At 5:24 PM,
Unknown said…
As opposed to your faith which is: some undefined, undetected and unnamed designer did it by means we haven't been able to ascertain for reasons we'd rather not speak about as we would be taken as faith-heads and we're not even sure when.
At 10:50 AM,
Joe G said…
LoL! My "faith" is that we humans can determine if nature operated freely or if an intentional agency was required. And the evidence says that an intentional agency was required. And your position doesn't even have a methodology!
IOW you are just an ignorant asshole, Jerad.
BTW your position doesn't know how, why, when- your position cannot answer any of those questions even though it claims to have a step-by-step processes for producing the diversity we observe.
So grow up you little infant cry-baby.
At 10:58 AM,
Joe G said…
some undefined, undetected
Intentional agencies have been defined and the designer has been detected- the evidence, Jerad, that stuff you are too ignorant to assess.
BTW we haven't been able to ascertain how the Antikythera mechanism was made, nor have we identified its designer. So by your "logic" archaeology is just faith-based. And seeing that not all crimes are solved your "logic" says forensics is also faith-based.
At 11:30 AM,
Unknown said…
The truth is that no one in the ID community is ever going to even try to figure out anything about ID once they've claimed it's been detected. Because that's job done. God did it and that's what counts. Even the folks at the Biologic Institute are working on stuff trying to disprove evolutionary theory. They're not interested in doing any research about the how or when of ID.
(And remember: the only intelligent designers we have knowledge of with anything close to the abilities you claim had to be in existence are humans. But then almost everyone in the ID community claims to know God.)
You can point at lots of things physicist and archaeologists and biologists don't know but people are doing work trying to find answers. They like having questions to work on. The ID community, the people you've decided to get into bed with, don't care about doing ID research. ID has been detected and that's it. No need to ask anymore questions. We know what we need to know. No ID research is going to happen.
At 12:06 PM,
Joe G said…
The truth is you are an ignorant wanker. Heck in over 150 years your position still cannot answer the simple questions and no one in the evo community is trying to figure out how stochastic processes could have done it. Evolution did it and that is all that counts. Evos are trying to disprove ID and they are not interested in supporting their own claims.
(And remember you still don't have a mechanism capable of doing what you require)
No one is trying to answer the questions of how materialistic processes could have produced something like ATP synthase. You morons don't even know where to start. However our KNOWLEDGE of cause and effect relationships says that ATP synthase required an intentional agency. KNOWLEDGE- something your position lacks.
The evo community, the people you've decided to get into bed with, don't care about evo research. Evolution is accepted and that is it. No need to ask any more questions. We know nothing and that is OK. No evo research is ever going to happen.
You are such a sad fuck, Jerad. In a world in which all it takes to refute ID is to actually step up and demonstrate stochastic processes are capable you would rather spew your ignorant diatribe. You are a pather\tic little coward.
At 12:16 PM,
Unknown said…
Always good to hear a good Joe rant: full of sound and fury but signifying nothing.
Evolution research is going on as well you know. You've been shown paper after paper after paper. You deny their results but you can't deny that work is being done. Unless you're delusional.
The thing that must gall you the most is that you know damn well no one in the ID community is ever going to do anymore ID work. Even Dr Dembski has given up on it (https://billdembski.com/a-new-day/>. Dr Behe is just about the only one who even tries sometimes and he won't even make the attempt to get his ID work into peer review.
God did it, job done. Haven't you read The Wedge Document? It was never about science, it was about getting faith into the schools and the government. Even Uncommon Descent is descending into more and more threads and comments about religion.
ID is stumbling to a halt. One of these days it's going to fall over and die. And then some new Creationist, faith-based excuse will rear its head. It's been going on for decades now. Get off the boat while you still can.
At 12:23 PM,
Joe G said…
Always good to hear a good Joe rant: full of sound and fury but signifying nothing.
In was mocking you, dumbass. Your posts are all rants full of sound and fury but signifying your ignorance.
Evolution research is going on as well you know.
And yet no one can answer the basic questions. So methinks you are lying.
You've been shown paper after paper after paper.
The papers that use "evolution" in an equivocating way don't count. I have yet to see one paper demonstrating the sufficiency of stochastic processes producing complex protein machines.
You deny their results but you can't deny that work is being done.
What work, Jerad? Evos still can't answer anything.
The thing that must gall you the most is that you know damn well no one in the ID community is ever going to do anymore ID work
Only an ignorant coward would say such a thing and here you are.
You are such a sad fuck, Jerad. In a world in which all it takes to refute ID is to actually step up and demonstrate stochastic processes are capable you would rather spew your ignorant diatribe. You are a pather\tic little coward.
ID will never be falsified because evos are too stupid and too cowardly to actually do the work that would refute it.
At 12:24 PM,
Joe G said…
The wedge doc- the one that says your position isn't science, never was and requires a huge leap of faith. That one?
At 12:29 PM,
Unknown said…
You've picked a couple of things that are unknown. But work is being done on those and lots and lots of other questions. Everyday a bit more is known, a bit more can be answered. Some day even you won't be able to deny any more.
But ten years from now, when absolutely no ID research has been done. When others have given up trying to get the dead horse to run . . . what bandwagon will you jump on then?
ID will never be falsibied eh? It's happening now. Pay attention.
At 1:17 PM,
Joe G said…
I can pick thousands of things that are unknown wrt evolutionism. And no one is doing the work to find out how natural selection did it.
But anyway I see that it bothers you that your position has all the power to falsify ID but none of the science. Your bullshit cowardly proclamation is meaningless. But we understand that is all that you have.
At 2:55 PM,
Unknown said…
Lots of people are doing the work. You're just a denialist. And you've been convinced by someone that mutations are directed, something which has NOT been established.
You pick and choose stuff; like quote-mining. If you want to do science then you have to follow ALL the data, not just the stuff that upholds what you've already decided is true.
I'm not bothered by your shaky, non-supported position. And I am right about the dearth of ID research. And it's not going to get any better. Dr Dembski is done with ID. Casely Luskin has left the Discovery Institute. Dr Meyer keeps saying the same thing over and over again without doing any real research. Dr Belinski won't even take a stand, he's a real coward. The only one I have time for is Dr Behe and he hasn't been able to convince any real scientist of his concepts. People like you, who can't even proof-read one of his papers are convinced because you decided what was true without considering ALL the data.
ID: dead in the water. Or almost.
At 3:45 PM,
Joe G said…
Lots of people are doing the work.
That is your unsupportable opinion. Name one lab working on the problem of how natural selection, drift and neutral construction can produce ATP synthase, any bacterial flagellum or any multi-protein complex.
And you've been convinced by someone that mutations are directed, something which has NOT been established.
I am convinced by the evidence, something that you are too stupid to assess. Not only that unguided evolution is sterile as in it doesn't produce any predictions and cannot be tested.
If you want to do science then you have to follow ALL the data,
I do, asswipe. OTOH all you can do is spew false accusations and nonsensical innuendos.
And I am right about the dearth of ID research.
Nope you are just an ignorant ass on an agenda.
Dr Meyer keeps saying the same thing over and over again without doing any real research.
Yes, you are ignorant. His research is the same as what Watson and Crick did to elucidate the structure of DNA.
The only one I have time for is Dr Behe and he hasn't been able to convince any real scientist of his concepts.
LoL! Your "real scientists" can't convince anyone but the choir. They have failed, miserably, to make their case.
And all you have is to attack me with your cry-baby, infantile spewage.
You are such a sad fuck, Jerad. In a world in which all it takes to refute ID is to actually step up and demonstrate stochastic processes are capable you would rather spew your ignorant diatribe. You are a pather\tic little coward.
ID will never be falsified because evos are too stupid and too cowardly to actually do the work that would refute it.
At 3:45 PM,
Joe G said…
ID: dead in the water.
Water, just another thing your position cannot explain.
At 4:35 PM,
Unknown said…
That is your unsupportable opinion. Name one lab working on the problem of how natural selection, drift and neutral construction can produce ATP synthase, any bacterial flagellum or any multi-protein complex.
Google "ATP synthase origins research" and deny each and every link that comes up. I got about 47,000 hits.
You are a denialist. Pure and simple.
Yes, you are ignorant. His research is the same as what Watson and Crick did to elucidate the structure of DNA.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Keep buying the books Joe. Keep Dr Meyer in his nice house with his nice car and all that stuff.
LoL! Your "real scientists" can't convince anyone but the choir. They have failed, miserably, to make their case.
Let's see how big is ID's 'choir' compared to that of evolutionary theory? Not that a denialist like yourself would even consider that they might be wrong.
You are such a sad fuck, Jerad. In a world in which all it takes to refute ID is to actually step up and demonstrate stochastic processes are capable you would rather spew your ignorant diatribe. You are a pather\tic little coward.
Research is being done (which you deny), intermediate results turn up all the time (which you deny). And, because you think mutations are directed, you'll deny an answer when it is found. You're not interested in the science, you're too far up the asses of some creationists who have an agenda.
ID will never be falsified because evos are too stupid and too cowardly to actually do the work that would refute it.
See, you've already decided. You deny things against your position. You do not follow all the data,
Water, just another thing your position cannot explain.
So, you're denying chemistry now?
At 5:05 PM,
Unknown said…
I'm really getting why you got so screwed over when you were in the military: you're the perfect foot soldier. You believe what you're told and do what you're told. You say you've looked at the evidence when really all you've done is decide who you're going to believe. The Discovery Institute is screwing you over like you've been screwed over before. They're getting you to buy their books and pay their bills and show support for their agenda. And you've bought it; lock, stock and barrel.
And when the smoke has cleared and the battle is well and truly over, the generals on your side will be safe and sound in their bunkers blaming everyone but themselves for the loss. As they always do. And you'll be wondering why you were left out with your balls in the wind again. Just another army puke, putting his life on the line.
At 5:41 PM,
Unknown said…
Do you even understand why I bother to respond to your posts? I like making you look stupid. Just about everything you say is so completely ill-informed and retarded that I find it completely funny. All I have to do is respond and you start spraying stupid. Like the idea that H in P(T|H) is = 0. H is a hypothesis not a value. Dr Dembski clearly stated that. But you thought it was zero. Too funny. Or your completely dumb version of Cantor's work. The more I argued against you the more you doubled down. Absolutely hilarious. I can tweak you into responding so easily.
Not only are you being used by the Discovery Institute but the 'opposition' find you funny and love to watch you make up stupid shit to justify your adopted beliefs. You're like the court jester. Not to be taken seriously by anyone. Actually, I might be wrong about that. You're more like the village idiot. Except that I don't make fun of people who are actually handicapped. Maybe you are though. Interesting thought . . .
At 6:43 PM,
Joe G said…
Do you even understand why I bother to respond to your posts? I like making you look stupid.
And yet all you have done is make yourself look like a liar, bluffer and whiner.
H is a hypothesis not a value.
AGAIN if there isn't a hypothesis then a 0 works just fine.
Or your completely dumb version of Cantor's work.
What? You mean you still cannot grasp the implications of set subtraction?
So what we have is Jerad, an ignorant coward, trying to lie his way into some points of some kind.
At 6:47 PM,
Joe G said…
I'm really getting why you got so screwed over when you were in the military:
Except I was never in the military.
You believe what you're told and do what you're told.
That's you, bitch.
You say you've looked at the evidence when really all you've done is decide who you're going to believe.
Again, that is you, bitch.
They're getting you to buy their books
I buy more books written by evolutionists. And that is why I know more about the subject than you ever will.
The battle is coming and I am bringing it. I can do it without the DI but after I make my case I bet they will jump right in.
At 6:56 PM,
Joe G said…
Google "ATP synthase origins research" and deny each and every link that comes up. I got about 47,000 hits.
And how many are relevant? How many show that there are actual experiments going on to test such a thing?
And nice to see that you are proud to be ignorant. Please tell us the difference between what Meyers does and what watson and Crick did. I dare you to try. He has already made his case that there isn't any difference and only an imbecile would deny it.
Let's see how big is ID's 'choir' compared to that of evolutionary theory?
What theory? Quantification is fundamental to science and your position lacks that. But then again your ignorance of science is astounding.
Research is being done
Nope, just speculations based on a world-view. Lenski is the only one doing the experimentation and it doesn't look so good for you guys.
And because you think that mutations are undirected no amount of evidence will be good enough. Too bad unguided evolution cannot even be modelled whereas directed evolution is.
ID will never be falsified because evos are too stupid and too cowardly to actually do the work that would refute it.
See, you've already decided.
Those are the facts. I have also decided the Sun appears to rise in the east and set in the west. I am open to being shown I am wrong but there isn't anyone that can do so. Don't blame me for your failures, loser.
So, you're denying chemistry now?
Where do you get chemistry from, moron? How does yours explain the elements, the strong and weak nuclear forces, EM force, etc?
At 1:20 AM,
Unknown said…
What? You mean you still cannot grasp the implications of set subtraction?
Oh yeah, have you figured out the relative cardinality of the primes yet? hahahahahahahahahahahahha
The battle is coming and I am bringing it. I can do it without the DI but after I make my case I bet they will jump right in.
Well, I won't prejudge whatever it is you're going to say but if you can't even understand that a hypothesis is not zero then . . .
Besides, the Discovery Institute is desperate for people with PhDs to stand up and be counted. They're not going to give a fuck about you. Count on it. They'll use you if you goose-step in time otherwise you're cannon fodder.
And how many are relevant? How many show that there are actual experiments going on to test such a thing?
Why don't you read a few thousand of them and find out? Or just keep denying that work is being done. You really don't know anything beyond a few books do you?
And nice to see that you are proud to be ignorant. Please tell us the difference between what Meyers does and what watson and Crick did. I dare you to try. He has already made his case that there isn't any difference and only an imbecile would deny it.
Dr Meyer (NOT Meyers by the way) hasn't done any original research for his books. That should be obvious to someone like you who supposedly understands complicated shit like cause and effect. You read the books but you don't understand.
What theory? Quantification is fundamental to science and your position lacks that. But then again your ignorance of science is astounding.
Gotta love this since ID can't quantify anything. No one, not even Dr Dembski can use his quantification. NO ONE in ID will even offer a guess as to when design was implemented. And that includes you. You guys can't quantify anything. I know why most ID proponents won't even try; it's God so we're done. And you're just part of their big party.
Nope, just speculations based on a world-view. Lenski is the only one doing the experimentation and it doesn't look so good for you guys.
You really don't understand research at all.
Too bad unguided evolution cannot even be modelled whereas directed evolution is.
Really? Let's see the model then. Show me the mathematical formulas.
At 10:16 AM,
Joe G said…
Really? Let's see the model then. Show me the mathematical formulas.
Genetic algorithms, moron.
Oh yeah, have you figured out the relative cardinality of the primes yet?
Is that supposed to be an argument that refutes set subtraction? Or are you ju8st a cowardly moron?
Well, I won't prejudge whatever it is you're going to say but if you can't even understand that a hypothesis is not zero then
So you are a moron. If you can't understand that 0 is fine when there isn't a hypothesis then you are just an ignorant bastard.
Besides, the Discovery Institute is desperate for people with PhDs to stand up and be counted.
Liar
Why don't you read a few thousand of them and find out?
Your literature bluff is duly noted. Why is it that I can find evolutionary biologists and biochemists who say that no one knows how ATP synthase evolved?
Or just keep denying that work is being done.
What work? They are sitting at desks speculating how it could have happened.
You really don't know anything beyond a few books do you?
I know more than you ever will.
Dr Meyer (NOT Meyers by the way) hasn't done any original research for his books.
Yes, he has. Your ignorance is meaningless.
That should be obvious to someone like you who supposedly understands complicated shit like cause and effect.
He goes over cause and effect relationships, dipshit.
Gotta love this since ID can't quantify anything.
Lo0L! IC is a quantifiable element. CSI is also a quantifiable element. You must be one ignorant asshole.
IC is all about the number of components and CSI is about the number of bits. Your ignorance is your problem, Jerad.
You really don't understand research at all.
LoL! YOU really don't understand what evos are actually doing. You are just another gullible loser who doesn't have the thinking skills to figure anything out for yourself.
At 10:18 AM,
Joe G said…
And nice to see that you are proud to be ignorant. Please tell us the difference between what Meyer did and what watson and Crick did. I dare you to try. He has already made his case that there isn't any difference and only an imbecile would deny it.
At 12:52 PM,
Unknown said…
Genetic algorithms, moron.
Really. Well, pick an algorithm and show me how it would be used to intelligently design something. How about ATP synthase?
Is that supposed to be an argument that refutes set subtraction? Or are you ju8st a cowardly moron?
It shows that your notion of set subtraction can't handle lots and lots of situations. Which is why you keep not being able to answer the question.
So you are a moron. If you can't understand that 0 is fine when there isn't a hypothesis then you are just an ignorant bastard.
A hypothesis is a possible explanation of a phenomena. It's not a number. You can't just make up shit to cover your ass. This isn't the CIA. Or DIA.
Your literature bluff is duly noted. Why is it that I can find evolutionary biologists and biochemists who say that no one knows how ATP synthase evolved?
You should really try harder to pay attention. The point was that work was being done. Of course you can't understand the research so you do the cowardly thing and say none of it applies. 47,000 hits. And you say it's all crap. Deny, deny, deny.
What work? They are sitting at desks speculating how it could have happened.
How would you know since you haven't read any of the papers?
Yes, he has. Your ignorance is meaningless.
Like what? What original research in ID has Dr Meyer done?
He goes over cause and effect relationships, dipshit.
That's not research! Jeeze you really are ignorant. But we who enjoy watching you make a fool of yourself love it.
IC is a quantifiable element. CSI is also a quantifiable element. You must be one ignorant asshole.
IC is all about the number of components and CSI is about the number of bits. Your ignorance is your problem, Jerad.
Great, show me the results for a complex biological system. Take ATP synthase since you know so much about it.
At 12:52 PM,
Unknown said…
And nice to see that you are proud to be ignorant. Please tell us the difference between what Meyer did and what watson and Crick did. I dare you to try. He has already made his case that there isn't any difference and only an imbecile would deny it.
And you just believe him. Like the good little foot-soldier you are. He's near the top of the ID pyramid and you're near the bottom, eating the dust and giving him your blind faith.
Watson and Crick were trying to figure out the molecular structure of DNA. Dr Meyer's books are not research, they are surveys (and misinterpretations) of research written for non-specialists. Completely different things. Watson and Crick's work was published in peer-reviewed, scientific papers. Dr Meyer's book are attempts to convince the gullible that ID is correct. Watson and Crick's work was widely lauded by the academic community. Dr Meyer's books are considered academic rubbish by working biologist who know something about the field.
Dr Meyer does not have a degree in biology, has done no biological research. In fact, his PhD is in philosophy and history of science. His PhD was from Cambridge which is impressive and I do think he is a better philosopher than a biologist. But you can hear the creaking of the scaffolding that holds up some of his arguments. He's sold his soul and he knows it. He'll never be taken seriously by any decent academic institution again. He's wedded to the Discovery Institute just to support his family. Oh and people like you who shell out money for his quote-mining literature bluffs. Have you ever listened to him in a debate with a real scientist? He just keeps talking really fast trying not to let the other person get a word in. He's very rude. And you can tell he's hoping to just suck up all the on-air time so the other person doesn't have time to refute his crap. He's been trained to do that kind of Gish gallop. He does it time and time again. But popular books and 10-minutes 'debates' on radio programmes are not research or persuasive. Oh, unless you are a true believer. Someone who thinks he does biological research and that his 'work' matches up with that done by Watson and Crick.
A century from now people will still remember Watson and Crick but Dr Stephen Meyer will have been mostly forgotten. His influence on science is nil. Such a shame, he's an intelligent man. He's just sold out. I assume he really does believe in God and I'm sure he derives much comfort and sustenance from that. I have many strong Christian friends and I respect and applaud true faith which doesn't have to convince other people. But Dr Meyer is a shuckster and a shill. He's selling snake-oil. And you're one of his dupes.
At 12:59 PM,
Joe G said…
Well, pick an algorithm and show me how it would be used to intelligently design something.
They all do, dumbass. Start with Dawkins' weasel.
It shows that your notion of set subtraction can't handle lots and lots of situations.
That is the opinion of an imbecile.
Which is why you keep not being able to answer the question.
Wrong again.
A hypothesis is a possible explanation of a phenomena.
So you are too stupid to understand the explanation. Got it.
You should really try harder to pay attention. The point was that work was being done.
And your literature bluff doesn't help you.
How would you know since you haven't read any of the papers?
I have read many more papers on ATP synthase than you have.
Like what? What original research in ID has Dr Meyer done?
Read his books. Your ignorance is not an argument.
That's not research!
LoL! You are a moron incapable of following along. 2- Cause and effect relationships take research to determine. 2- It was in direct response to your claim of cause and effect relationships
Great, show me the results for a complex biological system. Take ATP synthase since you know so much about it.
So you are too stupid to count? And that is supposed to be my problem?
At 1:02 PM,
Joe G said…
And nice to see that you are proud to be ignorant. Please tell us the difference between what Meyer did and what watson and Crick did. I dare you to try. He has already made his case that there isn't any difference and only an imbecile would deny it.
And you just believe him.
And you are a willfully ignorant bitch, Jerad. Make your case, I dare you.
Dr Meyer's books are not research,
You don't know because you have never read them.
Dr Meyer's books are considered academic rubbish by working biologist who know something about the field.
LoL! Not one of your working biologists can refute what he wrote.
But anyway, like the coward that you are you have failed to make your case. But I am sure that in your little mind you think that you have.
At 1:07 PM,
Unknown said…
They all do, dumbass. Start with Dawkins' weasel.
Dr Dawkins weasel program is not a genetic algorithm. You show me. Pick an algorithm and show me how it can be used to intelligently design a complicated biological system like ATP synthase.
Wrong again.
You haven't been able to tell me the relative cardinality of the primes have you?
So you are too stupid to understand the explanation. Got it.
You don't understand what a hypothesis is.
And your literature bluff doesn't help you.
Work is being done. You lose.
Read his books. Your ignorance is not an argument.
I didn't read any original research in his books. Tell me what I missed?
2- Cause and effect relationships take research to determine. 2- It was in direct response to your claim of cause and effect relationships
Give me an example from Dr Meyer's books.
So you are too stupid to count? And that is supposed to be my problem?
Show me the results for a complicated biological system like ATP synthase or admit you're just a bluffing twerp.
At 1:12 PM,
Joe G said…
Dr Dawkins weasel program is not a genetic algorithm.
Yes, it is. Obviously you are just an ignorant ass.
You haven't been able to tell me the relative cardinality of the primes have you?
I have explained why. Obviously you are just an ignorant coward.
You don't understand what a hypothesis is.
I didn't read any original research in his books.
You didn't read his books
Give me an example from Dr Meyer's books.
Read them for yourself. You made the claim support it or retract it.
Show me the results for a complicated biological system like ATP synthase
The results are in the peer-reviewed papers that you have never read. ATP synthase is composed of several different proteins. Or are you too stupid to grasp that too?
You are a liar and a coward. Not only that you are too stupid to understand what is told to you.
Work is being done.
Just because you think so doesn't make it so.
At 1:15 PM,
Unknown said…
LoL! Not one of your working biologists can refute what he wrote.
Okay, so you didn't understand the reviews by people like . . . what's his name . . . the guy who writes Sandwalk. You can read several on Amazon.
But anyway, like the coward that you are you have failed to make your case. But I am sure that in your little mind you think that you have.
Joe claims to understand infinities better than Cantor but can't compute the cardinality of the primes.
Joe claims to understand science better than most working scientists but can't tell the difference between a book written for non-specialists and actual biological research.
Joe claims that in the conditional probability P(T|H) that H = 0,
Joe thinks that abuse and swearing is a substitute for making a real point.
Joe can't show how to use a genetic algorithm to intelligently design an complex biological structure or system even though he claims that's how it works.
Joe is making himself look like a damn fool. Joe is wrong but can't back down because he'd have to admit that his whole online personae has been wrong. And he can't have that. Then he'd look even more stupid.
At 1:23 PM,
Unknown said…
Yes, it is. Obviously you are just an ignorant ass.
Then show me how it can be used to develop ATP synthase.
I have explained why. Obviously you are just an ignorant coward.
So set subtraction doesn't work? Or you're just too dumb to make it work?
Read them for yourself. You made the claim support it or retract it.
You claimed first You can't back your claim up.
The results are in the peer-reviewed papers that you have never read. ATP synthase is composed of several different proteins. Or are you too stupid to grasp that too?
Show me the ID relevant results that support your claims. I don't think you can. I think you just say shit and hope people will back off.
Just because you think so doesn't make it so.
47,000 hits for ATP synthase origins Google academic search. And you just keep denying and bluffing and avoiding answering questions based on your claims.
At 1:26 PM,
Joe G said…
Okay, so you didn't understand the reviews by people like . . . what's his name . . . the guy who writes Sandwalk.
They have all been dispensed with. Obviously you didn't understand those reviews nor the refutations of them.
Joe claims to understand infinities better than Cantor but can't compute the cardinality of the primes.
Wow, so you are a willfully ignorant coward.
Joe claims to understand science better than most working scientists but can't tell the difference between a book written for non-specialists and actual biological research.
Yes, we all know that you have to lie to try to score points. It ain't working though.
Joe claims that in the conditional probability P(T|H) that H = 0,
Only when there isn't any H. As I said you are obviously too stupid to have a discussion with.
Joe thinks that abuse and swearing is a substitute for making a real point.
LoL! Jerad thinks his lies and bluffs are a substitute for making a real point.
Joe can't show how to use a genetic algorithm to intelligently design an complex biological structure or system even though he claims that's how it works.
Umm, dumbass, my point was that GAs emulate directed evolution, and they do. You probl;em is your ignorance.
Joe is making himself look like a damn fool.
Coming from a known fool like you that is a complement.
At 1:28 PM,
Joe G said…
Can Larry Moran show how life came from non-life via stochastic processes? No. Can he or any evo show that stochastic processes produced the cambrian diversity? No
Can Larry Moran or any evo show how stochastic processes produced ATP synthase? No. Is there anyone working in a real lab conducting experiments to show such a thing is possible? No
At 1:32 PM,
Joe G said…
Then show me how it can be used to develop ATP synthase.
Why is that required? Where we the designers of ATP synthase or are you just a cowardly wanker?
I have explained why. Obviously you are just an ignorant coward.
So set subtraction doesn't work?
Ignorant coward it is, then.
You claimed first You can't back your claim up.
It is in his books. Again why do you think your ignorance is an argument?
The results are in the peer-reviewed papers that you have never read. ATP synthase is composed of several different proteins. Or are you too stupid to grasp that too?
Show me the ID relevant results that support your claims
All results are ID relevant, moron.
47,000 hits for ATP synthase origins Google academic search.
Your literature bluff has already been duly noted. Pick one article, read it and make your case. I dare you.
At 1:34 PM,
Unknown said…
They have all been dispensed with. Obviously you didn't understand those reviews nor the refutations of them.
Refuted with peer-reviewd work? Nope.
Wow, so you are a willfully ignorant coward.
So you can't determine the cardinality of the primes.
Only when there isn't any H. As I said you are obviously too stupid to have a discussion with.
An explanation can never have a numerical value. You lose. Again.
Umm, dumbass, my point was that GAs emulate directed evolution, and they do. You probl;em is your ignorance.
So you claim. But you can't show how that could be used to develop a complex biological system or structure.
Can Larry Moran show how life came from non-life via stochastic processes? No. Can he or any evo show that stochastic processes produced the cambrian diversity? No
No one claiming to have t
he answer. I say that work is being done. 47,000 hits on a Google search for ATP synthase origins.
Can Larry Moran or any evo show how stochastic processes produced ATP synthase? No. Is there anyone working in a real lab conducting experiments to show such a thing is possible? No
Are you stuttering?
At 1:38 PM,
Joe G said…
Refuted with peer-reviewd work?
Theirs wasn't peer-reviewed work.
So you can't determine the cardinality of the primes.
Not until I develop a system, dipshit. However there still isn't anything that prevents it.
An explanation can never have a numerical value.
If there isn't any explanation then H gets a 0. Not my fault that you are too stupid to grasp that simple point.
So you claim.
And supported.
I say that work is being done. 47,000 hits on a Google search for ATP synthase origins.
And yet you cannot pick one and make your case.
At 1:39 PM,
Unknown said…
Why is that required? Where we the designers of ATP synthase or are you just a cowardly wanker?
Well, if you can't use a genetic algorithm to model an intelligent design situation. . .
Ignorant coward it is, then.
Joe can't figure out the cardinality of the primes!!
It is in his books. Again why do you think your ignorance is an argument?
Then show it.
All results are ID relevant, moron.
Because you believe the fiction that mutations are directed. You're a faith-head.
Your literature bluff has already been duly noted. Pick one article, read it and make your case. I dare you.
You pick one for me to use. Go on.
At 1:42 PM,
Joe G said…
Well, if you can't use a genetic algorithm to model an intelligent design situation. . .
They all do.
Then show it.
Make your case or admit that you cannot.
Because you believe the fiction that mutations are directed.
YOU believe the fiction that mutations are undirected. Too bad you don't have any methodology to make that determination.
Your literature bluff has already been duly noted. Pick one article, read it and make your case. I dare you.
Jerad the coward pussy's out
At 1:46 PM,
Unknown said…
Theirs wasn't peer-reviewed work.
Well then you find a fault with their reviews.
Not until I develop a system, dipshit. However there still isn't anything that prevents it.
But you're not actually working on a system are you? You're just trying to score points against the 'evotards'. You haven't got anything to work with.
If there isn't any explanation then H gets a 0. Not my fault that you are too stupid to grasp that simple point.
Not my fault you don't understand what a hypothesis is or what Dr Dembski was working on.
And yet you cannot pick one and make your case.
I'm giving you an advantage. You pick one of those papers (giving you the chance to have a good counter argument) and then we'll talk.
Otherwise, tomorrow I will pick one. And you can deny, deny, deny.
At 1:49 PM,
Unknown said…
They all do.
So you can't actually show how it works with one.
Make your case or admit that you cannot.
You made a claim, you haven't supported that claim.
YOU believe the fiction that mutations are undirected. Too bad you don't have any methodology to make that determination.
Explain to me the mathematics behind your claim that mutations are directed. No fuss, no mess, just explain the data.
Jerad the coward pussy's out
Hey, I was trying to give you an advantage. Tomorrow I'll pick one of the papers.
At 1:49 PM,
Joe G said…
Well then you find a fault with their reviews.
Obviously. There is an entire book demolishing the negative reviews of "Darwin's Doubt". It's as if evos are totally clueless cowards.
But you're not actually working on a system are you?
I have explained that too. It's as if you are proud of your willful ignorance.
Not my fault you don't understand what a hypothesis is or what Dr Dembski was working on.
And yet I do. OTOH you are too stupid to understand my explanation.
Otherwise, tomorrow I will pick one.
And I can watch you squirm as I destroy your claim.
At 1:54 PM,
Joe G said…
So you can't actually show how it works with one.
Get an education then come back and talk. I am not here to teach you about GAs.
Explain to me the mathematics behind your claim that mutations are directed.
Why the mathematical requirement? The evidence for directed mutations has been provided. Your ignorance of said evidence is meaningless.
Hey, I was trying to give you an advantage. Tomorrow I'll pick one of the papers.
And I will kick your ass with it.
At 1:57 PM,
Joe G said…
This is my claim:
Name one lab working on the problem of how natural selection, drift and neutral construction can produce ATP synthase, any bacterial flagellum or any multi-protein complex.
That means the paper needs to address that and not mere "evolution". Good luck with that
At 2:01 PM,
Unknown said…
I have explained that too. It's as if you are proud of your willful ignorance.
You can't find the cardinality of the primes. You're not working on a system. You're bluffing and hoping people will forget your bogus claims.
And yet I do. OTOH you are too stupid to understand my explanation.
Not my fault you disagree with Dr Dembski.
And I can watch you squirm as I destroy your claim.
I'll have a good look tomorrow morning.
Get an education then come back and talk. I am not here to teach you about GAs.
Look, it should be easy for you. Show me how a GA can be used to develop a complex biological system or structure. As you claimed.
Why the mathematical requirement? The evidence for directed mutations has been provided. Your ignorance of said evidence is meaningless.
You said things needed to be 'quantified'. So, quantify your claims that mutations are directed. Show us the mathematics.
And I will kick your ass with it.
Maybe. But you'll have to understand the mathematics first.
At 2:05 PM,
Unknown said…
Name one lab working on the problem of how natural selection, drift and neutral construction can produce ATP synthase, any bacterial flagellum or any multi-protein complex.
A
That means the paper needs to address that and not mere "evolution". Good luck with that
What if the paper addresses aspects of the problem? How are you going to evaluate the 'evidence'? Are you going to dismiss it if your exact wording doesn't appear?
At 2:07 PM,
Joe G said…
Judge Jones dismissed ID's claims because the wording wasn't as anal-retentive as he wanted. So yes, the wording has to be there or it doesn't do what you claimed. It also has to be experimental and not theoretical
At 2:11 PM,
Joe G said…
You can't find the cardinality of the primes.
I could if I wanted to. Ante up ten thousand dollars and we will see.
Not my fault you disagree with Dr Dembski.
Not my fault you are too stupid to understand simple explanations.
Show me how a GA can be used to develop a complex biological system or structure.
I never made that claim. Obviously you are just a sore loser.
You said things needed to be 'quantified'.
Science requires it. You would have known that had to the basic understanding of science.
So, quantify your claims that mutations are directed. Show us the mathematics.
But yours cannot do so for undirected mutations.
But you'll have to understand the mathematics first.
What mathematics? We are talking about biology. The mathematics says that more than two specific mutations is beyond evolutionism.
At 2:18 PM,
Unknown said…
Judge Jones dismissed ID's claims because the wording wasn't as anal-retentive as he wanted. So yes, the wording has to be there or it doesn't do what you claimed. It also has to be experimental and not theoretical
I get the experimental issue.
I could if I wanted to. Ante up ten thousand dollars and we will see.
You can't do it can you.
I never made that claim. Obviously you are just a sore loser.
So you do or don't think GAs model intelligent design?
Science requires it. You would have known that had to the basic understanding of science.
So quantify your claims about ID. Show us the numbers.
But yours cannot do so for undirected mutations.
Show us the math behind your claims.
What mathematics? We are talking about biology. The mathematics says that more than two specific mutations is beyond evolutionism.
So you didn't understand the math then.
At 2:21 PM,
Joe G said…
So you didn't understand the math then.
Obviously you didn't.
So you do or don't think GAs model intelligent design?
They do and I have explained why they do.
So quantify your claims about ID. Show us the numbers.
Already explained.
Show us the math behind your claims.
Dembski has. Again your ignorance is meaningless.
You can't do it can you.
Ante up or shut up, coward.
At 3:36 PM,
Joe G said…
The following is the page Jerad has reffered to:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=atp+synthase+origins+research&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwjjyJa7rYzMAhXDMz4KHct9DSkQgQMIGjAA
Unfortunately the entire first page is devoid of the work for the alleged evolution of ATP synthase via stochastic processes. Ooops, nothing on page 2, either.
At 1:44 AM,
Unknown said…
You can't figure out the cardinality of the primes. Clearly.
You can't use Dr Dembski's work to quantify CSI or anything else. Clearly
You can't show how you would use a GA to create a complex biological system or structure. Clearly.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1016/0014-5793(89)81259-1/epdf (from 1989)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1016/0014-5793(90)80014-A/epdf (from 1990)
http://www.biochemj.org/content/ppbiochemj/254/1/109.full.pdf (from 1988)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1016/j.febslet.2004.08.065/full (from 2004)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1742-4658.2008.06354.x/full (from 2008)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014579303003958 (from 2003)
Like I said, people are working on the problem. No one is just sitting around, waving their hands and saying 'it's too complicated, it must have been designed'. Oh, wait . . . some people are doing that. ID supporters are doing that. They are taking money from dupes who buy their books and they are doing NO ID research at all. A few are trying some work at the Biologic Institute but they're trying to show evolution couldn't do it. They're not even pretending to show how things were designed. In fact, what they are really trying to do is show that things were designed. Didn't you already say that had been established? Apparently the case has not been made otherwise why would Douglas Axe and Anne Gauger be working on it?
At 2:46 AM,
Unknown said…
Oh look, there's more:
http://jeb.biologists.org/content/jexbio/172/1/137.full.pdf (from 1992)
http://www.amjbot.org/content/91/10/1523.full.pdf+html (from 2004)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168952501023381 (from 2001, I can't get access to the full article but the title alone tells you that work is being done even though you say it isn't.)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014579397009976 (from 1997)
https://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/17/12/1776.full (from 2000)
http://www.pnas.org/content/99/7/4448.full (from 2002)
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131106/ncomms3742/full/ncomms3742.html?hc_location=ufi (from 2013, note the title includes 'experimental' and 'evolution')
http://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/gb-2007-8-4-r51 (from 2006)
Search google scholar for 'ATP synthase evolution experiment'. I got about 63,000 hits. Since you're a denier and can't understand the research you'll just say, without reading any of them, that not a single one is good enough. It would take you a lifetime just to read them all. So any judgement you make is clearly just exhibiting your bias.
Conclusion: you've made up your mind and can't be swayed by contrary data. You don't argue in good faith. You're a grunt whose trying to help his side win. Funny thing about grunts, they are the first to get killed or abandoned when the shit hits the fan.
At 11:02 AM,
Joe G said…
You can't figure out the cardinality of the primes.
You are an ignorant asshole, clearly
You can't use Dr Dembski's work to quantify CSI or anything else.
And yet I have. Obviously you are just an ignorant ass.
You can't show how you would use a GA to create a complex biological system or structure.
Not required.
My turn:
You cannot show how stochastic processes produced ATP synthase.
You cannot show how stochastic processes produced any bacterial flagellum.
Your position doesn't have any methodology to test its claims.
All you can do is post a literature bluff and you are too cowardly to actually make your case. Why the blank links and no summary from you?
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1016/0014-5793(89)81259-1/epdf
LoL! Nothing in that paper about producing ATP synthase via stochastic processes. Obviously you are just an asshole, jerad.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1016/0014-5793(90)80014-A/epdf
More of the same- nothing to do with stochastic processes producing ATP synthase. Do you realize what has to happen with gene duplications? Not only does the gene have to be duplicated but if its binding site isn't also duplicated one has to be created. Then it has to be expressed. And then changes have to occur such that a new shape is formed. That is way more than two specific mutations.
You will accept anything if you think it supports your position. You are one sad fuck.
http://www.biochemj.org/content/ppbiochemj/254/1/109.full.pdf
Nope, nothing about the evolution of ATP synthase via stochastic processes in that one either.
Obviously you are just an ignorant ass, Jerad.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1016/j.febslet.2004.08.065/full
And more of the same. So far not one of these addresses what I asked for. And it seems that when it comes to the evolution of ATP synthase they all assumed it happened and have set out to theoretically figure out how by examining the components, finding similar sequences and thinking they must be related via descent with modification.
Look, it is obvious that Jerad will post anything as long as he thinks it supports his claims. However it is very telling that all he can do is post bald links without a summary explaining how they support him.
You are a loser, Jerad.
At 11:06 AM,
Joe G said…
LoL!:
Sequence analyses show that the V- and F-ATPases evolved from
the same enzyme that was already present in the last common ancestor of all known
extant life forms
Yeah cuz our position requires it! Jerad will accept anything he thinks supports his untestable position.
Yes, Jerad, people are working on ATP synthase. But no one knows where to start to show that stochastic processes didit.
At 11:13 AM,
Unknown said…
You have not used Dr Dembski's equation. You didn't calculate p(T|H) correctly. Nor did you calculate phi-sub-s(T) at all. H is not a value. What is the definition of hypothesis? Does it include the value 0?
I said people were working on the question which clearly they are. Your lie and deny stance is getting shakier and shakier. I'd say they're making some good process towards showing that stochastic processes did it. Since no one can prove that mutations are guided. No matter how much you want to believe that because a few books you read said so.
Anyway, i was right. You will lie and deny until you die. Someday someone will propose a plausible developmental path for ATP synthase and you will just say: how do you know the mutations were random? You will continue to lie and deny. It doesn't matter to me or the science 'cause no one takes you seriously anyway. But you should really admit that you'll never budge.
At 11:27 AM,
Joe G said…
Jerad is a dumbass loser. P(T|H) is not about CSI. Grow up and stop being such an ignorant tool.
And again I see that you cannot grasp simple explanations. That is your problem, not mine. What value do you give H if H is non-existent? How can you figure out the conditional probability of hitting a target with something tat doesn't exist?
I said people were working on the question which clearly they are.
That is your opinion. So far it all seems to be theoretical and no experiments to show such a thing is even possible.
I'd say they're making some good process towards showing that stochastic processes did it
Tat is your opinion but they would have an easier time showing how stochastic processes can produce Stonehenge.
Since no one can prove that mutations are guided.
Science isn't about proof, you ignorant fuck. However the evidence says most mutations are guided. But then again you are too simple to assess the evidence. That is why you didn't post any summaries for your links.
Someday someone will propose a plausible developmental path for ATP synthase
Only a child would accept such a thing. If they demonstrate it that would be different. And yes they have to show that the genetic changes were accidents, errors and mistakes. You don't get a free ride, asswipe.
And look, stop blaming me for your failures. Only losers do shit like that and you do it on a daily basis.
At 11:29 AM,
Joe G said…
I love how Jerad gets his bluff handed to him and throws a hissy fit
At 11:46 AM,
Unknown said…
And again I see that you cannot grasp simple explanations. That is your problem, not mine. What value do you give H if H is non-existent? How can you figure out the conditional probability of hitting a target with something tat doesn't exist?
It doesn't get a value. You say the probability doesn't exist.
That is your opinion. So far it all seems to be theoretical and no experiments to show such a thing is even possible.
And you know that because you read over 60,000 papers?
Tat is your opinion but they would have an easier time showing how stochastic processes can produce Stonehenge.
That is your opinion. Like I said: you will never admit you were wrong.
Science isn't about proof, you ignorant fuck. However the evidence says most mutations are guided. But then again you are too simple to assess the evidence. That is why you didn't post any summaries for your links.
Why should I post summaries: you can read can't you?
And no, the evidence does not say that. Only a few books that you read say that.
Only a child would accept such a thing. If they demonstrate it that would be different. And yes they have to show that the genetic changes were accidents, errors and mistakes. You don't get a free ride, asswipe.
Mutations are radom with respect to fitness. That has already been shown. You just lie and deny. Because you read some non-peer reviewed books (with pretty scathing reviews by real scientists).
I love how Jerad gets his bluff handed to him and throws a hissy fit
I'm not throwing a hissy fit. It doesn't matter what you think since no one takes you seriously. I just like seeing you lie and deny and then lie and deny that you lied and denied. It's pretty funny, like watching an 8-year old kid saying it wasn't him who ate the cookies and spilt the milk.
If you want to lie and deny for Jesus it's up to you. 'Cause that's what this whole ID thing is about. With the exception of a very few who just like to thumb their nose at 'science' most ID proponents are Christians who don't mind quote-mining and making stuff up because it's all for a greater good. And you're right there with them, shovelling the same stuff. As the Clash put it: he who fucks nuns will later join the church. It'll be Joe for Jesus soon. Unless you've got a better idea of who the designer is . . . do you?
If the designer is not God then who is it? They're pretty elusive . . . no signals, no ships, no labs, no notes, no documentation. Hmmm . . . now where could the designer(s) be? No hard physical evidence at all. I don't know any physical being that doesn't leave some signs or traces. I wonder . . .
At 11:56 AM,
Joe G said…
It doesn't get a value.
That is your opinion. Too bad that you cannot support it.
Like I said: you will never admit you were wrong.
Fuck you, loser. You will NEVER show that I am wrong and I know that bothers you.
Why should I post summaries:
To make your case, moron. And to show that you actually understood the content. Obviously you didn't.
And you know that because you read over 60,000 papers?
Find ONE that refutes me then or shut up.
And no, the evidence does not say that.
Yes, it does. You are too stupid to assess it. That isn't my problem.
Mutations are radom with respect to fitness.
Meaningless as to whether or not they are accidents, errors and mistakes or if they were intentional.
That has already been shown.
Bullshit. The evidence has some mutations occurring in direct response to environmental cues. IOW mutations occur that aid fitness.
I'm not throwing a hissy fit.
Yes, you are. You have been exposed as an ignoramus and now you are forced to attack me.
BTW, asshole, I am not a christian. You must be one desperate ass.
No hard physical evidence at all.
And yet we have presented plenty of hard physical evidence for an intelligent designer. All you do is deny, deny, deny but never show us any viable alternative that can explain it.
Look, Jerad, you are a firm believer in materialism and evolutionism. You are so gullible that you will believe anything evos say. Some day you may grow up and start thinking for yourself.
At 11:58 AM,
Joe G said…
Heck you are so stupid that you think P(T|H) is about CSI. CSI is about information and Shannon told us how to measure that.
Can you provide the H for ATP synthase, Jerad?
At 4:57 PM,
Unknown said…
Let's be really clear:
You slammed and dissed Cantor's approach to cardinal numbers and claimed to understand it better. And yet you can't answer a basic question regarding the cardinality of the primes. And you claim to not have worked out your 'system' completely even though you previously said your approach was better.
You just make shit up and then can't defend it but won't admit it.
And this has nothing to do with intelligent design. It's just you wanting to argue with people you don't like.
You can not figure out the cardinality of the primes. I'll bet money on that.
At 5:03 PM,
Unknown said…
Let's be clear about something else. . .
In Dr Dembski's formula p(T|H) is the conditional probability of T given/assuming H. H is defined to be the applicable naturalistic hypothesis. H is not a value. You say it is zero. It doesn't make sense to ask what is the probability of T given zero.
You don't get the mathematics. You make up some dumb-ass 'explanation' but you're just blowing shit. No one is convinced.
And, as usual, you cannot find anyone else who agrees with you.
At 5:10 PM,
Joe G said…
In Dr Dembski's formula p(T|H) is the conditional probability of T given/assuming H. H is defined to be the applicable naturalistic hypothesis. H is not a value. You say it is zero. It doesn't make sense to ask what is the probability of T given zero.
You are one dense fuck, Jerad. It isn't as if I haven't been over and over this with you already. H exists for some things but not for others. When it doesn't exist we give it a 0 and say that it is impossible/ highly improbable for naturalistic processes to produce it.
What is H for ATP synthase?
At 5:12 PM,
Unknown said…
And something else:
You think there can never be a naturalistic explanation for the development of ATP synthase. You completely disregard the tens of thousands of research papers dealing with the evolutionary development of ATP synthase. You say it's because no one has come up with an answer that you will accept AND that they never will be able to.
You have clearly already decided what is true. You are not interested in the research. And underneath it all you have decided that some mutations are guided and so you've decided that all research is rubbish. But . . .
How can you do any research exploring guided mutations? If you think mutations are guided then your conclusion will always be: well, I guess that's what the designer wanted. God did it. God is doing it.
Lying and denying for Jesus. Because we already know what is true.
At 5:14 PM,
Joe G said…
ou slammed and dissed Cantor's approach to cardinal numbers and claimed to understand it better.
That is a bullshit version of what I did but I come to expect that from you. I just disagree with his saying all countable and infinite sets have the same cardinality. And I have explained why he was wrong. You are too stupid to grasp explanations and can only parrot the party line.
You can not figure out the cardinality of the primes. I'll bet money on that.
You don't have any money and only an infant would think that no one can figure out the relative cardinalities of primes.
It looks like Jerad the math guy doesn't like difficult math problems.
At 5:22 PM,
Joe G said…
You think there can never be a naturalistic explanation for the development of ATP synthase..
And there will never be a naturalistic explanation for Stonehenge and it is much less complex.
You completely disregard the tens of thousands of research papers dealing with the evolutionary development of ATP synthase.
Liar
You say it's because no one has come up with an answer that you will accept AND that they never will be able to.
Liar
You have clearly already decided what is true.
The evidence, Jerad. I go by the evidence.
What is H for ATP synthase? Surely one of those thousands of papers that you think refute me has that.
How can you do any research exploring guided mutations?
Read Shapiro or remain ignorant. Your choice.
How can anyone do any research exploring unguided evolution? It doesn't make any predictions and Lenski has demonstrated the severe limitations of evolutionary processes even given his main find appears to be via directed mutations.
If you think mutations are guided then your conclusion will always be: well, I guess that's what the designer wanted.
You are such a fucking coward, Jerad.
At 1:25 AM,
Unknown said…
BTW, asshole, I am not a christian. You must be one desperate ass.
You act like one. You talk like one. You swallow their arguments hook, line and sinker. For all intents and purposes your are one.
And yet we have presented plenty of hard physical evidence for an intelligent designer. All you do is deny, deny, deny but never show us any viable alternative that can explain it.
No, you have looked at some biological structures and systems and said: we can't figure out how these could have happened without guidance therefore they were designed. And the same with some physics constants.
Heck you are so stupid that you think P(T|H) is about CSI. CSI is about information and Shannon told us how to measure that.
You still can't compute it.
Can you provide the H for ATP synthase, Jerad?
The best approximation is the current evolutionary synthesis but that is preliminary.
You are one dense fuck, Jerad. It isn't as if I haven't been over and over this with you already. H exists for some things but not for others. When it doesn't exist we give it a 0 and say that it is impossible/ highly improbable for naturalistic processes to produce it.
Look, it doesn't matter how often you bitch and moan, H is not a value. And p(T|H) is not zero just because you can't figure out what H is. If you don't have an H then you can't say what the probability of T given H is.
Just because you don't know what H is doesn't mean it's impossible. It means you're just ignorant.
Anyway, none of it really matters since no one takes you seriously.
At 1:32 AM,
Unknown said…
That is a bullshit version of what I did but I come to expect that from you. I just disagree with his saying all countable and infinite sets have the same cardinality. And I have explained why he was wrong. You are too stupid to grasp explanations and can only parrot the party line.
And you're still wrong. But it doesn't really matter anyway.
You don't have any money and only an infant would think that no one can figure out the relative cardinalities of primes.
You can't do it, that's for sure.
It looks like Jerad the math guy doesn't like difficult math problems.
You made the claim but you can't do it.
And there will never be a naturalistic explanation for Stonehenge and it is much less complex.
Stonehendge is not a living object.
The evidence, Jerad. I go by the evidence.
Not all the evidence. You pick and choose based on what agrees with your view.
What is H for ATP synthase? Surely one of those thousands of papers that you think refute me has that.
H is the current evolutionary theory.
How can anyone do any research exploring unguided evolution? It doesn't make any predictions and Lenski has demonstrated the severe limitations of evolutionary processes even given his main find appears to be via directed mutations.
Typical Creationist reasoning. Lying and denying for Jesus.
You are such a fucking coward, Jerad.
At least I'm not lying and denying for Jesus.
At 10:25 AM,
Joe G said…
The best approximation is the current evolutionary synthesis but that is preliminary.
That isn't an answer you cowardly bullshitter.
You act like one. You talk like one. You swallow their arguments hook, line and sinker. For all intents and purposes your are one.
That must mean you are shit- you act like shit, you t6alk like a little shit and you eat shit. For all intents and purposes you are shit.
No, you have looked at some biological structures and systems and said: we can't figure out how these could have happened without guidance therefore they were designed. And the same with some physics constants.
Your ignorant opinion is neither evidence nor an argument, Jerad. I know it upsets you that your position doesn't have any answers but that is a fact of life.
You still can't compute it.
And yet I have, moron.
H is not a value. And p(T|H) is not zero just because you can't figure out what H is. If you don't have an H then you can't say what the probability of T given H is.
If H doesn't exist it gets a value of 0. And that means the probability is also 0. Your position doesn't even deserve as seat at the probability table. Dr Johnson laid that to rest in his book on nature's probability.
Just because you don't know what H is doesn't mean it's impossible. It means you're just ignorant.
It's YOUR ignorance, asshole. It's YOUR position, dipshit. Your position relies on ignorance. It survives on ignorance.
At 10:29 AM,
Joe G said…
And you're still wrong
That is your opinion. Too bad you cannot find anyone who uses the concept that I am debating.
Stonehendge is not a living object.
Your position cannot explain living organisms, moron.
Not all the evidence.
Yes, all of the evidence and you are no one to say otherwise. OTOH you are too stupid to assess any evidence.
Typical Creationist reasoning.
Typical cowardly evoTARD response
At least I'm not lying and denying for Jesus.
Neither am I. But you are lying and denying just as all evoTARDs do. That is all you can do. And I am OK with that.
At 10:31 AM,
Unknown said…
That isn't an answer you cowardly bullshitter.
It doesn't matter anyway. No uses Dr Dembski's formula or even tries to.
That must mean you are shit- you act like shit, you t6alk like a little shit and you eat shit. For all intents and purposes you are shit.
Hey, it's not my fault you sound just like the Christians behind ID.
Your ignorant opinion is neither evidence nor an argument, Jerad. I know it upsets you that your position doesn't have any answers but that is a fact of life.
I'm not upset. You're the one who is being abusive and swearing.
And yet I have, moron.
Nope, H is not zero.
If H doesn't exist it gets a value of 0. And that means the probability is also 0. Your position doesn't even deserve as seat at the probability table. Dr Johnson laid that to rest in his book on nature's probability.
Nope, H is not zero, it's not a number value at all.
It's YOUR ignorance, asshole. It's YOUR position, dipshit. Your position relies on ignorance. It survives on ignorance.
Whine at Dr Dembski, if he came up with something that can't be computed it's not my problem.
At 10:34 AM,
Unknown said…
Your position cannot explain living organisms, moron.
You're the one who brought up Stonehenge.
Yes, all of the evidence and you are no one to say otherwise. OTOH you are too stupid to assess any evidence.
Your 'evidence' has been addresses. Every book you've read which you says proves some dumb-ass thing has been reviewed by people who know the pertinent field. But you lie and deny those reviews.
Typical cowardly evoTARD response
Again, it's not my fault you sound just like a Creationist.
Neither am I. But you are lying and denying just as all evoTARDs do. That is all you can do. And I am OK with that.
Good think no one cares what you think.
At 10:40 AM,
Joe G said…
You're the one who brought up Stonehenge.
Because it is more simple than a living organism. If nature cannot produce it then it has no chance at producing life.
Your 'evidence' has been addresses. Every book you've read which you says proves some dumb-ass thing has been reviewed by people who know the pertinent field. But you lie and deny those reviews.
You are just a fucking child- you "argue" like a little spoiled brat.
All those reviews have been thoroughly rebutted. You are just too stupid to grasp that nor understand the rebuttals. And guess what? IC still exists and your position doesn't have anything to explain it.
Again, it's not my fault you sound just like a Creationist.
And it isn't my fault that you are a cowardly evoTARD.
Good think no one cares what you think.
LoL! Keep saying that and some day it might come true. However when I take evos to court I doubt you will be saying that.
At 10:45 AM,
Joe G said…
It doesn't matter anyway. No uses Dr Dembski's formula or even tries to.
Your position has nothing, Jerad. Lenski has shown that evolutionary processes have severe limitations.
Hey, it's not my fault you sound just like the Christians behind ID.
Hey it's not my fault that you are a shit-eating punk who "argues" like a spoiled brat.
I'm not upset.
All evidence to the contrary.
Nope, H is not zero
BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You are one willfully ignorant asshole. The equation for CSI does NOT include P(T|H)
Nope, H is not zero, it's not a number value at all.
So you are too stupid to understand simple explanations. Got it.
Whine at Dr Dembski, if he came up with something that can't be computed it's not my problem.
BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You are one fucking imbecile, jerad. It can't be computed because you and yours have failed to provide anything to compute. Yours make untestable claims and because of that it isn't science. But you are too dim to grasp that.
Without P(T|H) you have absolutely NOTHING to test the claims of your position.
At 10:54 AM,
Unknown said…
Because it is more simple than a living organism. If nature cannot produce it then it has no chance at producing life.
Uh huh.
You are just a fucking child- you "argue" like a little spoiled brat.
I'm not the one swearing and being abusive.
All those reviews have been thoroughly rebutted. You are just too stupid to grasp that nor understand the rebuttals. And guess what? IC still exists and your position doesn't have anything to explain it.
Uh huh. Whatever you say.
And it isn't my fault that you are a cowardly evoTARD.
You still sound like a Creationist.
LoL! Keep saying that and some day it might come true. However when I take evos to court I doubt you will be saying that.
You're right, I'll be too busy laughing at you.
Your position has nothing, Jerad. Lenski has shown that evolutionary processes have severe limitations.
Uh huh. It is true though that no one uses Dr Dembski's equation. No one.
Hey it's not my fault that you are a shit-eating punk who "argues" like a spoiled brat.
When you can't deny, abuse I guess.
You are one willfully ignorant asshole. The equation for CSI does NOT include P(T|H)
Whatever. H is still not a numerical value and it certainly isn't zero. How can the probability of H given zero even make sense?
So you are too stupid to understand simple explanations. Got it.
I understand explanations that make sense. Your's does not make sense.
You are one fucking imbecile, jerad. It can't be computed because you and yours have failed to provide anything to compute. Yours make untestable claims and because of that it isn't science. But you are too dim to grasp that.
If Dr Dembski's is so dumb as to spend hours and hours and hours of time coming up with something that no one can computer then he's got a real screw loose.
Without P(T|H) you have absolutely NOTHING to test the claims of your position.
Good thing no one in evolutionary research uses it then eh? Dr Dembski came up with it, you say it can't be computed . . . I guess he's the moron.
At 10:58 AM,
Joe G said…
Jerad, all of you posts contain abuse hurled at me. And don't blame Dembski for exposing your position for the bullshit that it is. Unguided evolutionary research is an oxymoron.
Your position is total untestable bullshit. And I will be laughing at the trial as the evoTARDs choke on that
At 11:15 AM,
Unknown said…
Your position is total untestable bullshit. And I will be laughing at the trial as the evoTARDs choke on that
And what case will you bring to the court? What will be your complaint?
At 11:35 AM,
Joe G said…
The complaint is non-science being passed off as science, duh. And every evoTARD who testifies will confirm that fact.
Q- How can we test the claim that natural selection, drift and any other stochastic processes produced ATP synthase?
A- (choke)
Then we just keep switching out systems until the case is made.
At 4:56 PM,
Unknown said…
The complaint is non-science being passed off as science, duh. And every evoTARD who testifies will confirm that fact.
Q- How can we test the claim that natural selection, drift and any other stochastic processes produced ATP synthase?
A- (choke)
Then we just keep switching out systems until the case is made.
What particular transgression will prompt the case? In which jurisdiction? Who will be bringing the complaint?
Why hasn't this attempt been made before?
How will you defend your definition/view of science as opposed to those who support the teaching of evolutionary theory?
Does your definition of science include: dark matter, dark energy, black holes, string theory?
At 5:31 PM,
Joe G said…
LoL! I use the standard and accepted definition of science. And it is obvious evolutionism doesn't make the cut.
The transgression is exactly what I said. What the fuck is wrong with you?
At 11:05 PM,
Unknown said…
The transgression is exactly what I said. What the fuck is wrong with you?
Sigh. You have to have a particular incident to bring to the court. And you have to have standing in the jurisdiction.
At 10:07 AM,
Joe G said…
Fucking moron- the incident is teaching bullshit as science- just as I said. And I have kids in the schools so that means I have standing in the jurisdiction.
At 1:30 PM,
Unknown said…
Of course that's not going to work. No court will accept you bringing a case like that.
Don't spend too much money, you're going to lose it all.
At 2:05 PM,
Joe G said…
LoL! As if an ignorant ass, such as yourself, knows.
At 2:06 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Joe blusters about court cases and ID clubs, but lacks the balls in real life.
At 2:36 PM,
Joe G said…
And Richie is a shit-eating ignoramus and coward- balls? richie likes those bouncing on his chin
At 2:39 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
But really Chubbers, you're not. Because your a fantasy-talker, not a doer.
At 2:41 PM,
Joe G said…
And that is why I went to the Mideast, South America, Africa, Europe- well all over doing things.
Look Richie, you are just an ignorant asswipe and projectionist.
At 2:43 PM,
Joe G said…
Perhaps Richie can tell us how to test the claim that ATP synthase arose via natural selection and drift- doubt it but it's worth a try to see if he understands science
At 2:45 PM,
Joe G said…
Too bad Richie and Jerad won't be testifying for evolutionism. They could make my case for me
At 2:48 PM,
Joe G said…
As is always the case Richie has nothing of substance to say and can only attack with its ignorance
At 2:49 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"Too bad Richie and Jerad won't be testifying for evolutionism. They could make my case for me"
Chubber's day-dream world.
You came 4th out of 4 for 3 library places, you tragedy.
At 2:56 PM,
Joe G said…
LoL! The election came out exactly how I wanted it to. I did not seek the position. It was offered to me because usually no one runs for it. As soon as other people put their names in I was very happy because I didn't want any part of it.
But Richie is too fucked up to understand what happened. He is in its own little unaware place.
You two would easily make my case for me because you two are scientific morons. You couldn't tell anyone how to test the claims of evolutionism and you would crash and burn.
At 2:58 PM,
Joe G said…
Richie avoids the science question and presses on with its ignorance.
A weekend meltdown in progress...
At 3:02 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
You ran for a position you didn't want. Uh huh. Do you know how to not win easier? Don't run.
DUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRRPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
At 3:06 PM,
Joe G said…
LoL! Richie is too stupid to understand simple explanations.
I didn't run for it, Richie. I didn't spend any money nor do anything to secure the position. I didn't nominate myself. I didn't ask to be nominated.
Richie Hughes, self-proclaimed inventor of "BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA" and "cupcake" as an insult, is also proud to be willfully ignorant.
At 3:09 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"self-proclaimed inventor of "BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA" and "cupcake" as an insult"
I've never said that and have said the opposite many times. Yet you keep repeating it. Why do you repeat often corrected lies, Joe?
You can refuse to be nominated, Joe. No one has to run for the library "against their will". You simpleton.
At 3:14 PM,
Joe G said…
All of what you said about BWAAAHAHA and cupcake indicates that you think you are the originator. That you are too stupid to understand that reflects on you, not me.
And AGAIN, I would have taken the position if no one else stepped up. The library needs trustees. You must be the biggest cowardly TARD ever.
But anyway- you are to chicken-shit to answer scientific questions about the claims of your position. That is all I need to know
At 4:11 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Chubbers: "All of what you said about BWAAAHAHA and cupcake indicates that you think you are the originator."
Me, in my last post: "I've never said that and have said the opposite many times."
Choo Choo Math quiz. If there are three people on a ballot for 3 positions, Does Chubstard need to step up?
At 4:29 PM,
Joe G said…
Again Richie proves it is too stupid to understand anything. All of what you said about BWAAAHAHA and cupcake indicates that you think you are the originator. That you are too stupid to understand that reflects on you, not me.
There wasn't anyone on the ballot- there wasn't any ballot until well after I was nominated. Also after the election there were resignations. I declined the request to accept one of those positions. BTW there were two openings and three people on the ballot.
As I said you are just an ignorant asshole on an agenda to spew ignorance.
But anyway- you are to chicken-shit to answer scientific questions about the claims of your position. That is all I need to know
At 4:35 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Joe: " I would have taken the position if no one else stepped up. The library needs trustees"
Joe: "I declined the request to accept one of those"
At 4:39 PM,
Joe G said…
By the time they asked I already had other commitments. AND they had an odd number of trustees- 5- at the time. And even number means there could be a dead-lock in voting.
Then again you are too stupid to understand that
At 4:42 PM,
Joe G said…
Richie is too chicken-shit to answer science questions about the claims of his position. All he can do is attack with ignorant spewage.
Weekend meltdown in full swing
Post a Comment
<< Home