tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post499499212383858807..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Genomic Junk and EvolutionUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger295125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-65790252173634898922014-03-30T19:18:33.753-07:002014-03-30T19:18:33.753-07:00Peer review as he said is the fallacy of appeal to...Peer review as he said is the fallacy of appeal to authority. Just because others agree on it, does not make it any more valid. By that standard, all the pastors that agree on a matter of faith, make that faith valid, no? see the ignorance in this idea of 'peer' review? Who the hades cares if a bounch of so called scientists, who can not show one bit of repeatable evidence to back up macro evolution claim that they know better? It's amazing how easily you evo's destroy your own argument with these infernal and never ending logical fallacies!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04734288895063641321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-69941926242253483612010-07-23T03:26:38.771-07:002010-07-23T03:26:38.771-07:00Joe
No games- just provide any genetic data that y...Joe<br /><i>No games- just provide any genetic data that you think supports your position.</i><br /><br />I have already. <br /><br /><i>And ID does not argue against common ancestry.</i><br /><br />No, that's why UncommonDescent.com is named as it is. <br /><br /><i>Evidence for common ancestry is not evidence for a mechanism.</i><br /><br />Like you know anything about evidence. <br /><br /><i>You should just focus on providing positive evidence for your position, starting with a testable hypothesis pertaining to blind, undirected chemical processes. </i><br /><br />I don't need to. Just because you are not convinced does not mean a thing. The people who count, the people at the sharp end doing the research, they count. Armchair commentators like you don't count in the slightest.CBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12115278693368333238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-5707454170005833312010-07-19T15:25:46.673-07:002010-07-19T15:25:46.673-07:00OM:
Let's play a game. Why don't you name ...OM:<br /><i>Let's play a game. Why don't you name a single one of these "various transitions" and I'll go and see what I can find out about it from contemporary science.</i><br /><br />No games- just provide any genetic data that you think supports your position.<br /><br />Then we can discuss it.<br /><br /><i>At the same time you can research (i.e. read the bible) what ID's position is on that particular transition and we can compare results at the end of the process?</i><br /><br />ID isn't based on the Bible.<br /><br />And ID does not argue against common ancestry.<br /><br />Evidence for common ancestry is not evidence for a mechanism.<br /><br /><i>If no direct data is available then we can at least discuss how ID and "Darwinism" can work towards finding out the answer and which has the best chance of discovering something relevant.</i><br /><br />You should just focus on providing positive evidence for your position, starting with a testable hypothesis pertaining to blind, undirected chemical processes.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-17828808023906411612010-07-19T15:21:34.579-07:002010-07-19T15:21:34.579-07:00Ummm a generalization is a form.
Zachriel:
They ...<b> Ummm a generalization is a form.</b> <br /><br />Zachriel:<br /><i>They are contrary.</i><br /><br />A generic drug is pretty much the same as the name brand. <br /><br /><i> A generationization is less specific.</i><br /><br />I know I said that- it is a less specific form.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-27044990670182774752010-07-11T07:18:02.203-07:002010-07-11T07:18:02.203-07:00Joe G: Ummm a generalization is a form.
They are...<b>Joe G</b>: <i>Ummm a generalization is a form. </i><br /><br />They are contrary. A form is more specific. A generationization is less specific. Hence, if you ever bothered an answer questions, then a cat is a form of mammal (a subset of the class), hence implies that that a cat is a mammal. <br /><br />Everyone can see you refuse to answer simple questions that can help elucidate your views.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-5444678540683008562010-07-11T06:15:00.957-07:002010-07-11T06:15:00.957-07:00Joe
What detail do you have?
Do you know the gene...Joe<br /><i>What detail do you have?<br /><br />Do you know the genes involved in the various transtions? No.</i><br /><br />Let's play a game. Why don't you name a single one of these "various transitions" and I'll go and see what I can find out about it from contemporary science. <br /><br />At the same time you can research (i.e. read the bible) what ID's position is on that particular transition and we can compare results at the end of the process? If no direct data is available then we can at least discuss how ID and "Darwinism" can work towards finding out the answer and which has the best chance of discovering something relevant. <br /><br />I'm game, are you? I can't see how you could not be, after all you want to *know* too right?CBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12115278693368333238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-26823028519564504612010-07-11T06:12:04.232-07:002010-07-11T06:12:04.232-07:00Joe
Yes seeing that judge jonesy wouldn't let ...Joe<br /><i>Yes seeing that judge jonesy wouldn't let the publisher testify and the anti-IDists goty away with lying...</i><br /><br />Had the publisher testified what do you suppose they would have said that would have changed the outcome of the case?CBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12115278693368333238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-89197271683815596302010-07-11T06:10:49.611-07:002010-07-11T06:10:49.611-07:00Joe
Yes we have to first be made aware of a histor...Joe<br /><i>Yes we have to first be made aware of a historical event before we can delve into how and why.</i><br /><br />What is the historical event that ID claims to shed light on? <br /><br />Was the designer's input into the process?<br /><br />A) Before the universe existed?<br />B) Fine tuning in the big bang?<br />C) Direct intervention once?<br />D) Direct intervention many times? <br />E) Quantum tuning of events?<br /><br /><br />C'mon Joe. Which one of those options best describes the "historical event" that ID claims to study? If none of the above, then what?<br /><br />I mean, because if we go on all you've said so far then all we know is that "At some point in time, somewhere, an unknown designer did something unknown to something unknown an unknown number of times and for an unknown duration". <br /><br />Has ID filled in a single gap yet? If so, what was the data? <br /><br />Hahahahahahah.CBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12115278693368333238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-78129132708286962372010-07-11T06:07:27.663-07:002010-07-11T06:07:27.663-07:00Joe G,
Yes seeing that judge jonesy wouldn't l...Joe G,<br /><i>Yes seeing that judge jonesy wouldn't let the publisher testify and the anti-IDists goty away with lying...<br /><br />And ID wasn't pased. That decision is only valid in a samll insignifcant district in a PA.</i><br /><br />Let's hear one of those lies then. As far as I can recall the only lies told were by the IDists. <br /><br />http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2005/10/buckingham_lies_under_oath_in.php<br /><br /><i> School board members Bill Buckingham, Sheila Harkins and Alan Bonsell and Supt. Richard Nilsen have, under oath, either said they have no memory of making the remarks related to creationism or denied making them.<br />But some residents and former district officials insist the board members made the statements they later denied making...<br /><br />When attorneys asked Buckingham whether he said at a school board meeting that all he wants is a book that offers balance between what he said are the "Christian view of creationism and evolution," Buckingham stated, "Never said it."<br /><br />But a taped television interview at the time shows Buckingham, the board's chief proponent of intelligent design, talking about teaching creationism in science class.</i><br /><br />I guess video recordings of lies won't be considered sufficient evidence by you Joe. But that's OK because what you think is about as relevant to science as a gnats chuff.CBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12115278693368333238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-56021676669218642402010-07-11T06:03:43.673-07:002010-07-11T06:03:43.673-07:00Joe G,
The evidence exists and is being studied.
...Joe G,<br /><i>The evidence exists and is being studied.</i><br /><br />Citation please.<br /><br />What evidence?<br /><br />Who is studying it?CBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12115278693368333238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-71065349174359669582010-07-11T05:33:23.337-07:002010-07-11T05:33:23.337-07:00Zachriel:
It says "In mathematics, a multise...Zachriel:<br /><i> It says "In mathematics, a multiset (or bag) is a generalization of a set." It doesn't say it's a form of a set. </i><br /><br />Ummm a generalization is a form.<br /><br />IOW thanks you for continuing to expsoe your ignorance.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-50290493570766704072010-07-10T17:50:13.770-07:002010-07-10T17:50:13.770-07:00Zachriel: A multiset is a form of set
Joe G: That...<b>Zachriel</b>: <i>A multiset is a form of set</i><br /><br /><b>Joe G</b>: <i>That is what I said and supported witrh a link to wikipedia. </i><br /><br />No. It says "In mathematics, a multiset (or bag) is a generalization of a set." It doesn't say it's a form of a set. <br /><br /><b>Joe G</b>: <i>And BTW a cat is a mammal because of the way we classify living organisms.</i><br /><br />That wasn't the question. A cat is a form of mammal. Does that mean (imply that) a cat is a mammal?Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-88693237081144424372010-07-10T16:35:39.869-07:002010-07-10T16:35:39.869-07:00Zachriel:
A multiset is a form of set.
That is wh...Zachriel:<br /><i>A multiset is a form of set.</i><br /><br />That is what I said and supported witrh a link to wikipedia.<br /><br />So what is your problem?<br /><br /><i>Clearly, determining historical events is important to understanding how and why they occurred.</i><br /><br />Yes we have to first be made aware of a historical event before we can delve into how and why.<br /><br />That is what I have been telling you for years - we study the design to try to answer the hows and whys...<br /><br />And BTW a cat is a mammal because of the way we classify living organisms.<br /><br />But no one knows what makes a cat a cat other than a cat is the result of the succesful mating between a tom and she-cat....Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-49036601452341447972010-07-10T15:47:02.705-07:002010-07-10T15:47:02.705-07:00Joe G: What is the connection between your questio...<b>Joe G</b>: <i>What is the connection between your question and what I said? </i><br /><br />We're trying to parse your use of words, through a parallel case. <br /><br />A multiset is a form of set. Does that mean a multiset is a set? <br />A cat is a form of mammal. Does that mean a cat is a mammal? <br /><br />As usual, you didn't answer the questions. <br /><br /><b>Zachriel</b>: <i>Determining the history of life, including ancestry, is important to understanding how those posited trnsitions occurred. </i><br /><br /><b>Joe G</b>: <i>No </i><br /><br /><b>Joe G</b>: <i>My claim is we have to determine what changes to the genome can account for in order to determine that history. </i><br /><br />That doesn't justify your answer. Clearly, determining historical events is important to understanding how and why they occurred.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-77110000220905539192010-07-10T15:17:28.836-07:002010-07-10T15:17:28.836-07:00Zachriel: Determining the history of life, includi...Zachriel: <i>Determining the history of life, including ancestry, is important to understanding how those posited transitions occurred.</i> <br /><br /><b>No genetics is important to understanding if those transitions could occur.</b> <br /><br />Zachriel:<br /><i>So your claim is that determining the history is not important to understanding that history.</i><br /><br />Only someone twisted and dishonest could reach that inference. <br /><br />My claim is we have to determine what changes to the genome can account for in order to determine that history.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-34641107096222826312010-07-10T15:13:46.465-07:002010-07-10T15:13:46.465-07:00I said a multiset is a form of set.
In mathematic...<b>I said a multiset is a form of set.</b><br /><br /><i>In mathematics, a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiset" rel="nofollow"><b>multiset</b></a> (or bag) is a generalization of a set.</i><br /><br />Zachriel:<br /><i>Is a cat a form of mammal?</i><br /><br />What is the connection between your question and what I said?<br /><br />Or is your medication kicking in?Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-81228766515169501912010-07-10T14:28:09.106-07:002010-07-10T14:28:09.106-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-8756302419404939822010-07-10T13:39:15.792-07:002010-07-10T13:39:15.792-07:00BTW OM, the fact that you keep linking to sites ab...BTW OM, the fact that you keep linking to sites about "evolution" proves you are a spineless equivocating coward.<br /><br />ID is not anti-evolution.<br /><br />Evidence for "evolution" is not evidence for any particular mechanism.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-30475202402644885242010-07-10T13:37:46.687-07:002010-07-10T13:37:46.687-07:00Designing agenicies can do things that blind, undi...<b>Designing agenicies can do things that blind, undirected processes cannot.<br /><br />For example they can create complex functioning systems from scratch.</b><br /><br />OM:<br /><i>I guess you missed the part where I asked for more detail then "the designer did it".</i><br /><br />I guess you missed the part where I told you that is what science is for. <br /><br />And your position is void of details.<br /><br /><i>Remember, we were talking about the insufficient of chemical evolution to get us to life and that's where ID is supposed to jump in and supply the details?</i><br /><br />IOW you don't undestand how science operates.<br /><br /><b>That is what science is for you moron.</b><br /><br /><i>Science will never give you the answers you seek.</i><br /><br />Actually you are seeking the answers..<br />Don't tell me what I am seeking.<br /><br /><i>You will live all your life awaiting that evidence that will never come.</i><br /><br />The evidence exists and is being studied.<br /><br /><b>And your position is void of details.</b><br /><br /><i>I know. You don't have to keep rubbing it in!</i><br /><br />What detail do you have?<br /><br />Do you know the genes involved in the various transtions? No.<br /><br />Do you know if changes to the genome can account for the anatomical and physiological changes required? No.<br /><br /><b>Dean Kenyon wrote one- now he is an IDist.</b><br /><br /><i>Yes, he also was involved with "Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins" and we all know what a help that was to ID at Dover.</i><br /><br />Yes seeing that judge jonesy wouldn't let the publisher testify and the anti-IDists goty away with lying...<br /><br />And ID wasn't pased. That decision is only valid in a samll insignifcant district in a PA.<br /><br /><b>Manufactured diatribe.<br /><br />It wouldn't hold up in Court.</b><br /><br /><i>Yet you can't point out a single factual error in that text or the Wikipedia article.</i><br /><br />And you cannot verify anything in the wikipedia article.<br /><br />Go figure...Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-12285158422362681012010-07-10T13:30:25.936-07:002010-07-10T13:30:25.936-07:00OM
Not when you call a multiset a set you don'...OM<br /><i> Not when you call a multiset a set you don't.</i> <br /><br /><b>Joe G: I didn't do that ...<br /><br />I said a multiset is a form of set.</b> <br /><br />Zachriel:<br /><i>Thar she blows!</i><br /><br />Zacho is still upset that he was exposed as a poseur...Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-79284569331600695682010-07-09T14:46:23.725-07:002010-07-09T14:46:23.725-07:00Joe
Designing agenicies can do things that blind, ...Joe<br /><i>Designing agenicies can do things that blind, undirected processes cannot.<br /><br />For example they can create complex functioning systems from scratch.</i><br /><br />I guess you missed the part where I asked for more detail then "the designer did it". Which is essentially what you've just said. Again. Remember, we were talking about the insufficient of chemical evolution to get us to life and that's where ID is supposed to jump in and supply the details? And you sure did that...<br /><br /><i>That is what science is for you moron.</i><br /><br />Science will never give you the answers you seek. You will live all your life awaiting that evidence that will never come. Sad really. Perhaps you are relying on the various ID science labs to provide the answers. Well, I understand that one ID lab has just bought a second computer! Well on the way I'd say...<br /><br /><i>And your position is void of details.</i><br /><br /><a href="http://www.springer.com/?SGWID=0-102-24-0-0&cmType=search&queryText=evolution" rel="nofollow">I know. You don't have to keep rubbing it in!</a><br /><br /><i>Dean Kenyon wrote one- now he is an IDist.</i><br /><br />Yes, he also was involved with "Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins" and we all know what a help that was to ID at Dover. I hope he keeps up that level of quality in his future endeavours. <br /><br /><i>Manufactured diatribe.<br /><br />It wouldn't hold up in Court.</i><br /><br />Yet you can't point out a single factual error in that text or the Wikipedia article. You just keep saying it's invalid but won't say why. I guess it's simply because you disagree with the overall conclusion.CBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12115278693368333238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-42326840983116002292010-07-09T14:37:53.764-07:002010-07-09T14:37:53.764-07:00Joe
I do not accept anything from the agenda drive...Joe<br /><i>I do not accept anything from the agenda driven AAAS.</i><br /><br />I guess if you can't object at the factual level all you've left is the ideological level.CBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12115278693368333238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-82943228629500054752010-07-09T14:32:24.942-07:002010-07-09T14:32:24.942-07:00Zachriel: Determining the history of life, includi...<b>Zachriel</b>: <i>Determining the history of life, including ancestry, is important to understanding how those posited transitions occurred. </i><br /><br /><b>Joe G</b>: <i>No genetics is important to understanding if those transitions could occur. </i><br /><br />So your claim is that determining the history is not important to understanding that history.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-9131684941067913932010-07-09T14:27:41.883-07:002010-07-09T14:27:41.883-07:00OM: Not when you call a multiset a set you don'...<b>OM</b>: <i>Not when you call a multiset a set you don't. </i><br /><br /><b>Joe G</b>: <i>I didn't do that ...<br /><br />I said a multiset is a form of set. </i><br /><br /><a href="http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=6647;st=420#entry172879" rel="nofollow">Thar she blows! </a>Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-11382626760628103522010-07-09T14:06:51.501-07:002010-07-09T14:06:51.501-07:00OM,
I do not accept anything from the agenda driv...OM,<br /><br />I do not accept anything from the agenda driven AAAS.<br /><br />The ONLY reason you do is because you happen to agree with them.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.com