tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post6662338179916722969..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: RetroVirus Turned Hero: “We Once Thought it Was Junk”Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger61125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-9120592686580053682013-04-17T23:30:14.146-07:002013-04-17T23:30:14.146-07:00Lenovoimportance mother of bride dresses by a coun...Lenovoimportance <a href="http://www.honeybuy.com/c/Mother-Of-The-Bride-Dresses" rel="nofollow"><strong>mother of bride dresses</strong></a> by a country's customs, geography,faith,lifestyle.Precisely the same color,and will bebrought on bymany associations in people's minds.That is Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16337303870987607903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-18584540698044279452013-02-03T05:32:50.573-08:002013-02-03T05:32:50.573-08:00velikovskys said:
"If IDist were archaeologi...velikovskys said:<br /><br />"If IDist were archaeologists, they would look at Stonehedge and say " it looks designed" all done." <br /><br />joey responded with:<br /><br />"Again with your ignorant spewage. Do you really think your ignorance means something? Really?"<br /><br />So, joey, what would you IDiots do after saying that Stonehenge looks designed? You can't say that you IDiots would try to figure out who the designer was, or how, when, where, or why the designer designed Stonehenge, or whether the designer found, quarried, carved, moved, and placed the stones of Stonehenge, or whether the designer designed the tools and methods for others to find, quarry, carve, move, and place the stones, because ID doesn't say anything about the designer, remember? <br /><br />According to your own claims about ID, velikovskys is right. You IDiots would say that Stonehenge looks designed, all done.<br />The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-89211595735613036912013-02-03T04:50:51.567-08:002013-02-03T04:50:51.567-08:00joey insultingly spewed:
"Why don't you ...joey insultingly spewed:<br /><br />"Why don't you ignorant morons step up and do something other than insulting and spewing your belligerent tirades?"<br /><br />You first. <br /><br />"I understand taht it bothers you that your position has nothing but lies and equivocations, but your ignorance isn't going to change the fact that you are cowards and your position has nothing."<br /><br />Actually, you don't understand. I'm very comfortable with my "position" because my "position" is based on the legitimate scientific pursuit of knowledge about nature. Religious beliefs, such as yours, are a very poor substitute for reality, and being grossly dishonest about your beliefs and agenda is an invitation to the scorn that you deservedly get.<br /><br />The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-30494099378250441192013-02-03T02:28:36.856-08:002013-02-03T02:28:36.856-08:00I didn't say that you said that oak trees coul...I didn't say that you said that oak trees could change their behavior. <br /><br />So, joey, are you saying that your assertions..<br /><br />"What is beneficial one day is not beneficial the next." <br /><br />And:<br /><br />"Even quicker."<br /><br />And:<br /><br />"Not only that most times changing behaviour is the way to go, as opposed to waiting for some magical mutation."<br /><br />..don't apply to oak trees? <br /><br />Exactly which organisms do your assertions apply to and which don't they apply to? <br /><br /><br /><br /> The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-22645467892309602462013-02-02T07:51:47.822-08:002013-02-02T07:51:47.822-08:00I never said oak trees could change their behaviou...I never said oak trees could change their behaviour. Obvioulsy you are just a belligerent coward.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-48372340800145948982013-02-01T21:59:48.160-08:002013-02-01T21:59:48.160-08:00joey: "What is beneficial one day is not bene...joey: "What is beneficial one day is not beneficial the next."<br /><br />Me: It changes every day?<br /><br />joey: Even quicker. <br /><br />How much "quicker", exactly, joey?<br /><br />"Non-sequitur."<br /><br />So, oak trees aren't evolved/evolving organisms that had/have mutations? Just think, if oak trees would just change their behavior, especially "quicker", they wouldn't have to 'wait' for any mutations! The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-29780257329038981962013-02-01T07:11:58.040-08:002013-02-01T07:11:58.040-08:00Vel,
The mecahnisms of common descent have humans...Vel,<br /><br />The mecahnisms of common descent have humans giving rise to humans, chimps giving rise to chimps- IOW nothing that supports evolutionism.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-64255806797816493272013-01-31T06:06:04.132-08:002013-01-31T06:06:04.132-08:00vel:
So the designer is supernatural?
Non-sequit...vel:<br /><i>So the designer is supernatural? </i><br /><br />Non-sequitur.<br /><br /><b>The scientific literature is my proof- it is completely void of blind and undirected chemical processes producing a living organism from non-living matter.</b><br /><br /><i>Does the validity of the ToE depend how life began?</i><br /><br />Absolutely.<br /><br />And the ToE doesn't try to answer anything. It can't answer anything. It is useless.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-17517411285841510312013-01-31T06:00:42.026-08:002013-01-31T06:00:42.026-08:00twitty:
It changes every day?
Even quicker.
Exp...twitty:<br /><i>It changes every day?</i><br /><br />Even quicker. <br /><br /><i>Explain how an oak tree could change its behavior every day.</i><br /><br />Non-sequitur. <br /><br />Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-87013486981360106892013-01-30T06:43:12.698-08:002013-01-30T06:43:12.698-08:00joey said:
"Yes and "beneficial" i...joey said:<br /><br />"Yes and "beneficial" is relative."<br /><br />Yeah, "evolutionists" already know that.<br /><br />"What is beneficial one day is not beneficial the next."<br /><br />It changes every day?<br /><br />"Not only that most times changing behaviour is the way to go, as opposed to waiting for some magical mutation."<br /><br />Explain how an oak tree could change its behavior every day. <br /><br />The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-20410187981879294522013-01-30T06:31:37.185-08:002013-01-30T06:31:37.185-08:00joey puked up the usual chunks:
"No- the way...joey puked up the usual chunks:<br /><br />"No- the way to the designers and processes is FIRST to DETERMINE DESIGN EXISTS AND THEN STUDY IT. And tat is exactly what ID is about"<br /><br />Hey joey, why don't you IDiots actually do what you expect scientists to do? Determine if design exists and study it. Figure out exactly who or what the alleged 'designer' is and how, when, where, and why the alleged 'designer' did all of the alleged designing. And then determine and study the design of the alleged 'designer' and figure out who or what designed the 'designer' of the alleged 'designer' and all of its other antecedents, and how, when, where, and why all of the antecedents designed all of the other designers. Or did the alleged 'designer' just poof out of nothing and there are no antecedents?<br /><br />Come on joey, show the world how smart you are and the evidence you can come up with in your state of the art basement lab. <br />The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-10934481067896042712013-01-29T19:51:29.933-08:002013-01-29T19:51:29.933-08:00Chubby Joke G
That is part of our knowledge of ca...<i>Chubby Joke G<br /><br />That is part of our knowledge of cause and effect relationships. And they definitely need to heed Newton's four rules of scientific investigation.</i><br /><br />Fatboy regurgitates his normal evasive non-answers, pees his pants and waddles away. What a surprise. Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-37937443204403355102013-01-29T17:06:24.614-08:002013-01-29T17:06:24.614-08:00V: How do you tell natural effects from designer e...V: How do you tell natural effects from designer effects, can they work in combo,does the designer olely use natural processes.<br /><br />J: Two things:<br /><br />1) How does anyone ever do it in any case? How could courts proceed on your radical skepticism?<br /><br />2) No one ever does it non-tentatively. It's always based on plausibility criteria or the fact that there is only one known logical possibility. And plausibility is ALWAYS based on current data and inductive inferences.<br /><br />V: Because it is a fatal flaw in ID. It runs into all the problems studying the distant past ,plus an arbitrary unknown force<br /><br />J: No, god-of-the-gaps inferring is fatally flawed. But no one is arguing that scientists shouldn't attempt to formulate naturalistic explanations for phenomena that seem to be regular. If such explanations can be reduced and extrapolated back in time to the same initial conditions, then they are also corroborated BACK to the same initial conditions. That's what we don't remotely have yet, though. And story-telling doesn't change that. There is no evidence for that kind of success YET.<br /><br />V: Try Theobald's evidences.<br /><br />J: Theobald's approach amounts to something like this:<br /><br />1) He ad-hoc-ly assumes that tree-generation rules magically correlate to the phenotypic/morphological and extinction effects of mutational mechanisms if you start with a single-celled organism as the first organism.<br /><br />2) He ad-hoc-ly rules out common design as an explanation of similarity even though common design is known to explain certain things.<br /><br />3) He ad-hoc-ly assumes that both known stratigraphic ranges correlate well with actual stratigraphic ranges and actual stratigraphic ranges correlate well with existential ranges. Heck, they recently increased a known stratigraphic range of a phylum by over 200 million years if I remember correctly. The Cambrian explosion alone is a constant reminder of just how ad-hoc this assumption of Theobald's is.<br /><br />4) He ad-hoc-ly assumes mutational rate estimates are soundly-inferred despite all the problems found with those over-simplistic inferences.<br /><br />In short, Theobald's approach is this: Assume all the ad-hoc assumptions I make aren't really ad-hoc. But I know better, V. They are ad-hoc.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-35757503439540211952013-01-29T15:40:42.329-08:002013-01-29T15:40:42.329-08:00No, ID is just not about the designer(s). That is ...<b>No, ID is just not about the designer(s). That is because we do NOT have to know the designer(s) BEFORE determining design or not.</b><br /><br />vel:<br /><i>Then how does ID know the designer is intelligent? </i><br /><br />Gee, you don't know anything about ID. What are you even doing here?<br /><br /><i>Because unlike ID it is about the designer,his capabilities, other physical evidence of his presence other than the design, tool marks.</i><br /><br />No- the way to the designers and processes is FIRST to DETERMINE DESIGN EXISTS AND THEN STUDY IT. And tat is exactly what ID is about<br /><br /><i> If IDist were archaeologists, they would look at Stonehedge and say " it looks designed" all done. </i><br /><br />Again with your ignorant spewage. Do you really think your ignorance means something? Really?<br /><br /><br /><b>Again, vel, the design inference is based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships</b><br /><br /><i>Your cause is unknown Joe. Without a mechanism there is no cause. Design alone is not a mechanism</i><br /><br />Design is a mechansim BY DEFINITION. So is agency involvement.<br /><br /><b>If you don't like the design inference tehn you can always just step up and demonstrate that blind and undirected processes can produce</b><br /><br /><i>I don't have to,thousands of scientists are busily doing it</i><br /><br />And yet they have NOTHING to show for all of their efforts.<br /><br />And BTW, IDists have said exactly what would falsify ID.<br /><br />And all you and your ilk can do is whine because it involves you morons producing positive evidence for your claims.<br /><br />As for sound arguments- any time you want to ante up- so far you haven't posted any. However you have proven quite ignorant of ID and science.<br /><br /><br /><br />Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-76584950166776387992013-01-29T15:32:56.406-08:002013-01-29T15:32:56.406-08:00doogie hoser:
Both archaeology and forensics use t...doogie hoser:<br /><i>Both archaeology and forensics use the process of comparing the unknown to other known-to-be-human-designed objects.</i><br /><br />That is part of our knowledge of cause and effect relationships. And they definitely need to heed Newton's four rules of scientific investigation.<br /><br />Not every death is a murder.<br /><br /><i>What process does ID use to make the determination </i><br /><br />I have told you many times already. Obvioulsy you have serious mental issues<br /><br />Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-57630305627359808432013-01-29T15:28:55.195-08:002013-01-29T15:28:55.195-08:00Yes and "beneficial" is relative. What i...Yes and "beneficial" is relative. What is beneficial one day is not beneficial the next. Not only that most times changing behaviour is the way to go, as opposed to waiting for some magical mutation.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-68690063341245243032013-01-29T09:06:23.865-08:002013-01-29T09:06:23.865-08:00Joe,
LoL! Natural processes only exist in nature a...<b>Joe,<br />LoL! Natural processes only exist in nature and therefor cannot account for its origin, which science says it had.<br /><br />So it is a GIVEN that there was something other than nature.</b><br /><br />So the designer is supernatural? Why didn't you just say so,why so coy?<br /><br /><b><br />The scientific literature is my proof- it is completely void of blind and undirected chemical processes producing a living organism from non-living matter.</b><br /><br />Bait and switch? Does the validity of the ToE depend how life began? But if you can show any evidence in the scientific literature how life can be designed otherwise I'd be interested.<br /><br /><b>What did they design?<br /><br />Many different things including DNA</b><br /><br />Once? For every species? For every individual? Who is they and how did they do it,when did they do it. These are all question the ToE tries to answer, if your theory is better maybe you should be at least as ambitious.velikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01825529912160289226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-76133045501585375122013-01-29T08:48:03.646-08:002013-01-29T08:48:03.646-08:00Joe,
No, ID is just not about the designer(s). Th...<b>Joe,<br /><br />No, ID is just not about the designer(s). That is because we do NOT have to know the designer(s) BEFORE determining design or not.</b><br /><br />Then how does ID know the designer is intelligent? Directed? Design in a way recognizable by humans in the 21st century? Wishes to leave evidence of design? Is more probable than naturally occurring design?<br /><br />These are the assumptions about the unknown, what is the basis for these assumptions? The design? That assumes the conclusion,that the object is designed and then bestows on an unknown designer those capabilities to make it possible. Therefore a designer with those capabilities can design an object, therefore the object is designed. A perfect circle.<br /><br /><b>How do you tell natural effects from designer effects, <br /><br />Both archaeology and forensics depend on doing just that.</b><br /><br />Because unlike ID it is about the designer,his capabilities, other physical evidence of his presence other than the design, tool marks. If IDist were archaeologists, they would look at Stonehedge and say " it looks designed" all done. <br /><br /><b>Again, vel, the design inference is based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships</b><br /><br />Your cause is unknown Joe. Without a mechanism there is no cause. Design alone is not a mechanism<br /><br /><b> If you don't like the design inference tehn you can always just step up and demonstrate that blind and undirected processes can produce</b><br /><br />I don't have to,thousands of scientists are busily doing it<br /><br /><b> what we say is designed.</b><br /><br />For the record,exactly what specifically is designed? Two things that are impossible to have occurred naturally,that are solely the result of design<br /><br /><b>If you do that then we are refuted.</b><br /><br />Do you not understand your own theory? With an unknown designer with unknown capabilities and unknown goals anything logically possible is possible. It is impossible to refute. Any thing can be the result of design. Nothing can be eliminated. Tell me one thing that cannot be the result of design?<br /><br /><b><br />But you won't because that takes work</b><br /><br />I don't really care what you think, it is a free country. I just prefer a sound argument to a bad one.<br /><br />velikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01825529912160289226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-24851931135831800452013-01-29T07:30:30.284-08:002013-01-29T07:30:30.284-08:00Chubby Joke G
V: "How do you tell natural ef...<i>Chubby Joke G<br /><br />V: "How do you tell natural effects from designer effects"<br /><br />Both archaeology and forensics depend on doing just that.</i><br /><br />Both archaeology and forensics use the process of comparing the unknown to other known-to-be-human-designed objects.<br /><br />What process does ID use to make the determination Chubs?Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-4655795286722718032013-01-29T07:26:47.282-08:002013-01-29T07:26:47.282-08:00Paul
The God of random mutations. Wow! What a Goo...<i>Paul<br /><br />The God of random mutations. Wow! What a Good Shepherd, always there with his crook, when they stray in the mountain mists, to stop them falling through the gaps and ravines.</i><br /><br />No. The ones with the deleterious mutations (on average) fall through the gaps and ravines. The ones with neutral and beneficial mutations (on average) make it through the gaps and ravines, get to reproduce and pass on their beneficial traits.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-82367489794821272972013-01-29T04:23:44.839-08:002013-01-29T04:23:44.839-08:00I just assume that designers are capable of design...<b>I just assume that designers are capable of designing the things they design</b><br /><br /><i>What did they design?</i><br /><br />Many different things including DNAJoe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-58777119359219536042013-01-29T04:22:41.328-08:002013-01-29T04:22:41.328-08:00And we already know tat blind and undirected proce...<b>And we already know tat blind and undirected processes are not up to the task.</b><br /><br /><i>Prove it</i><br /><br />The scientific literature is my proof- it is completely void of blind and undirected chemical processes producing a living organism from non-living matter.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-14250030359175189092013-01-29T04:21:06.729-08:002013-01-29T04:21:06.729-08:00LoL! Natural processes only exist in nature and th...LoL! Natural processes only exist in nature and therefor cannot account for its origin, which science says it had.<br /><br />So it is a GIVEN that there was something other than nature.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-31034705276622027242013-01-29T04:18:49.689-08:002013-01-29T04:18:49.689-08:00Theobald's evidences can be used to support a ...Theobald's evidences can be used to support a common design.<br /><br /><i> ID studiously avoids any speculation on the Designer,</i><br /><br />No, ID is just not about the designer(s). That is because we do NOT have to know the designer(s) BEFORE determining design or not.<br /><br /><i> How do you tell natural effects from designer effects, </i><br /><br />Both archaeology and forensics depend on doing just that.<br /><br />Again, vel, the design inference is based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships. If you don't like the design inference tehn you can always just step up and demonstrate that blind and undirected processes can produce what we say is designed. If you do that then we are refuted.<br /><br />But you won't because that takes workJoe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-16459721479621917882013-01-28T22:37:32.728-08:002013-01-28T22:37:32.728-08:00Joe,
No, I said ID is NOT about the designer
The...<b>Joe,<br /><br />No, I said ID is NOT about the designer</b><br /><br />Then what do you say about the designer? That he designs what he designs. Any evidence he designs living organisms? Has designed living organisms?<br /><br /><b><br />LoL! Yet you don't know how that biology came to be nor do you know whether or not those observed mechanisms are design mechanisms or blind watchmaker mechanisms. YOU don't have any way of determining the difference.</b><br /><br />Welcome to the club,neither do you. Plus you need to provide a designer, nature ,on the other hand, is already present velikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01825529912160289226noreply@blogger.com