Comments that seem to me to be in violation of the game rules will be moved here, and closed to further comment. Do not regard having your post moved here as a reprimand, merely as a referee’s whistle. 🙂
Feel free to comment on them at any other peanut gallery of your choice.
Nope, that’s just your normal every day smell. Perhaps if you pulled your head out of your arse and washed up….
So OM gets corrected and throws a hissy-fit- typical:
I already have presented such evidence. OTOH YOU still cannot produce any evidence for your position.
Nope, keep fishing though and keep avoiding supporting your position….
LoL! Most amusing is you trying to slam me by making stuff up.
Exactly, everything YOU say can’t be trusted to have anything to do with sanity.
Did Richie really just say “To be fair”? Is that weak eye of yours directly connected to that weak mind?
LoL! You quote-mined it because it does not say what you think it says. IOW it does not support your original spewage.
And yet another appeal to authority.
You’re a liar joe, as usual. You have said that natural selection does nothing and that nature doesn’t select, and plenty of other negative things about natural selection. Something that allegedly “does nothing” and natural selection that “doesn’t select” cannot “work”. Your own words (and word games) always trip you up.
And all you have is your belligerence and lies. Go fall from another tree, only a much taller one this time. Either that or take that naked hike in Yellowstone. Don’t forget the barbecue sauce.
“what can natural selection do?”
What it does and can do has already been explained to you MANY times. Just because you are unable and unwilling to grasp it doesn’t mean that science is going to throw out evolutionary theory.
Anyone will go with the experts over an ignorant piece of shit like you.
joe, you are a waste of atoms.
joe, you’re a prime example of wobbling instability.
Perhaps you should read Games People Play by Eric Berne. It describes you to a T.
You don’t have any explanation for anything, joe. All you have is games, belligerence, projection, and bullshit.
Insecure much?
Unresponsive.
Evasive.
Next?
Buy a personality, and a clue.
You’ve never studied anything in your life.
Wow. Just when I thought that the tard limit of the universe had been reached.
You never cease to amaze, joe.
Strawman.
Delusional celebration.
No evidence for your claim.
How much CSI is there in “the designer” and scrambled eggs, joe?
“IDiot”
Look it up…
Still choking on cake, eh oleg….
Yes, THAT us hilarious, thanks.
Nice spewage- what is this alleged contradiction- can you actually make a positive case- I doubt it.
LoL!
the whole tooth, posting as Creodolt, still has nothing to say.
However it does have a point as all it does is attack people and never supports anything.
Nice job, ace…
IDiots want everyone else to blindly believe that the ID “doctrine” stands apart from religion or that religious “doctrine” stands apart from ID. The ID (actually IDC) “doctrine” is a (dishonest) part of the “superset” of creationist religious beliefs which say quite a lot about worship, the flud, created kinds (baramins), miracles, holy ghosts, zombies, a talking snake, encyclopedic fruit, justified genocide, sin, evil, eternal punishment, people living with dinosaurs and trilobites, angels holding up planets and stars, etc.
One thing that joe doesn’t want to admit and desperately hopes that everyone else will ignore is that the people who created and push the ID “doctrine” are all zealous religious creationists. It’s logically impossible to believe in a creator/designer (god) and not be a creationist.
It’s also interesting that IDiots believe that “the designer” is outside of (stands apart from) nature but is inextricably connected to and responsible for everything in nature. Any creator/designer, or connection between a creator/designer and nature, are strictly imagined yet they’re pushed as proven fact by IDiot creationists, but the mountains of evidence connecting religion to IDC are expected to be ignored by rational, observant, educated people. Strange that. Go figure.
LoL! More ignorant spewage-
Intelligent Design traces its roots back to the ancient Greeks who argued about teleology in nature.
BTW, dumbass, Creation is a subset of the ID superset and ID does not say the designer is responsible for everything in nature.
Now go brush your tooth…
Your entire being is based on your insane imagination.
The teaching of science in public school science classes can be and is legislated and adjudicated in the USA at least. The same goes for IDC pseudoscience, only it is legislated and adjudicated out of public school science classes. I take it that bothers you.
When ID creationism stops relying on and promoting imaginary religious bullshit, narcissism, worn out lies, bigotry, lame excuses, threats, the victim mentality, brainwashing, false accusations, made up numbers, bogus claims, strawmen, cowardice, unlawful impositions, preaching, appeals to authority, endless whining, quote mining, false so-called martyrs, hypocrisy, rhetorical talking points, and attacks on or intrusions into science, scientists, evolution, the law, public education, public policies, and peoples’ private lives, and actually comes up with ample, testable, scientific evidence, some supported, testable hypotheses, and a coherent, rational theory, I might stop saying it’s dangerous, insane, dominionist bullshit.
And that is retarded, especially seeing what passes for science in the US science classrooms.
Yes IDC is pseudo-something as it only exists in the minds of the willfully ignorant, and here you are….
For some reason I do not mind being told that I do not know anything about science by a dolt that sez water has a melting point. 😛
Right back at you.
It has been explained thousands of times, by scientists, that you and other IDiots have absolutely no clue as to what science is. Your delusional beliefs are NOT scientific. Stop trying to force them into science and science education and everyone elses life. Keep your crazy shit to yourself.
Science and reality don’t care what you believe or think, and no one is preventing you from believing or thinking whatever you want. Just stay away from telling science and rational people that they should believe and think the way you do and there won’t be any problem. In other words, butt out of science and other peoples’ lives with your IDC dominionist agenda.
Your position is materialism and it doesn’t have any details.
And all you are is an ignorant and belligerent evoTARD.
Why wait? Why not go after all of us evil ‘materialists/evolutionists/Darwinists’ right now? So you’re all bluff and bluster as usual, eh?
Stickers on textbooks? Oh man, I’m scared to death and I’m sure all the other “evotards” around the world are too. Why don’t you put stickers on all of them right now? Don’t you want to save all those kids from the evil of materialism/evolutionism/Darwinism? Don’t you want to be their hero? Get crackin’ joe!
By the way, I’m sure that your buddy dembski can give you a lot of solid advice on how to handle and crush “evotards” in court, what with the vast experience and victories he has accumulated in such situations. ROFLMAO
Your arguments are downright pathetic, and your word games are typical of delusional IDiots. Immaterial, non-material, what’s the difference? Whichever words you use it’s still just pushing fairy tale religious crap.
Can you please show some scientifically testable, immaterial or non-material “evidence” that supports IDC claims?
Reverse engineering. That’s a good one, yeah, as if that has never been done or attempted and will never be done or attempted on anything by scientists, especially if they didn’t or don’t believe in a sky daddy. joe g has spewed that lame reverse engineering BS too. Your and joe’s condescending and distorted opinions of what scientists actually do are so uninformed it’s not even funny.
Engineers and scientists will be overjoyed to hear that you have come up with a “theory” to enable them to design things. Up til now they have been completely stymied by the lack of that “theory”. Scientists will also be thrilled to see that you have come up with a “theory” and “conceptual framework” that will enable them to compare organisms. I’m sure that comparing organisms and how they function has never occurred to scientists before. And I’m positive that scientists will welcome your “information-based heuristic” as a productive research tool and will undoubtedly find it an entirely new idea. Without your brilliant suggestions scientists just wouldn’t know what to do. Thank you for your amazing insights.
By the way, don’t you believe that you already know the “purpose” of everything? Do you need your ‘faith’ propped up by science? Do you think that scientists can or will find a personal note about purpose from your chosen god inside a cell if they use your design “theory”, “heuristic”, and “conceptual framework”?
And one last question for now: Do you consider yourself a “biological device”?
That just might qualify for the top ten list of stupid questions.
Are there any IDiot ‘authorities’ you don’t worship and appeal to joe?
Maybe you should go tell that to this blustering assclown who claims NS doesn’t work.
As soon as you pull your head out of your ass- give or take a few seconds.
Fuck you- you assholes are such ignorant fucking children it’s pathetic.
Richie pom-poms-
Your chins are good for dumping loads on. And no need to guess- we all know your favorite food is semen.
Please don’t do this Joe G. Even moving it to guano makes me feel the need for a shower afterwards.
Lizzie
I mean blind and undirected processes
We have evidence for artificial processes.
And you don’t have any evidence that asexual reproduction was any different in the past.
Via blind and undirected chemical processes. ID is not anti-evolution.
Also academics who hace signed up to materialism- a religious belief based on faith alone- are going to have a distorted view of science.
BTW LoL means I am laughing at your spewage- which means your post didn’t have any weight.
Richie pom-poms needs to get a life and stop lying like a little cry-baby.
No one knows how much time nor how many generations it would take to get any prokaryote to evolve into something other than a prokaryote
You can’t even get more than two new protein-to-protein BINDING SITES.
That sucking sound is oleg sucking Richie.
Already have one. Thanks anyway.
Now YOU need to buy a vowel as you are obvioulsy clueless…
oleg-
Look in a mirror- proponents of materialism are all asshat and blow the cattle.
You direct your posts at a strawman?
But anyway, Tom, can you provide a testable hypothesis for materialism, or are you a liar for scientism.
BTW Tom, are you aware that Darwin erected and argued against a starwman in “On the Origins of Species…”?
Thank you, Joe. Here is a bunny.
You are welcome gumball- And as I have already said, I have a rabbit. And one is enough.
That’s not a rabbit Joe. It’s one of your fluffy whisker covered chins.
Except I no longer have any whiskers and I still only have one chin…
My last post here evoked a response which turns out to be a lesson in comedic timing. I could not have predicted the response any better.
Upright BiPed
“My last post here evoked a response which turns out to be a lesson in comedic timing. I could not have predicted the response any better. “
When you have a history of posting inane drivel that gets laughed at, predicting that repetition of the inane drivel will elicit more laughter isn’t that difficult.
Upright Biped
Semiosis is a descriptive word used to indicate the use of representations and symbols within a process. If a process is said to operate in a semiotic state, then the phrase “semiotic state” is an indicator that representations and symbols are used within that process. If a person who is familiar with the term is told that a process is “semiotic” or that it operates in a “semiotic state”, that person will immediately understand that the process includes the use of representations and symbols.
The chemical pathway of DNA to protein doesn’t use representations or symbols.
A physical dynamic therefore exist between these material objects as a result of the arbitrary representation.
The chemical pathway of DNA to protein doesn’t use any arbitrary representation.
In prior exchanges on this objection, I have asked a simple question: “If in one instance we have a thing that actually is a symbolic representation, and in another we have something that just appears to be a symbolic representation – then someone can surely look at the physical evidence and point out the distinction between the two”.
The chemical pathway of DNA to protein doesn’t appear to be a symbolic representation to those who have studied and understand genetics. The map still isn’t the territory, no matter how desperately you wish it to be.
What it is within the material evidence that compels us to believe that the same material consequences which we find demonstrated in all semiotic systems, does not demonstrate a semiotic system when we find those same exact material consequences in regard to genetic information?
“all fish have fins
whales have fins
therefore whales are fish”
Still too dense to get basic logic I see.