Annoying creationists

[joobz]

No comment is necessary.



Joobz, add this one to your list, it's priceless.

Done and done.
1.)Thermodynamics is a study of kinetics, "dynamics is in the name!"
2.)Natural Selection is a restatement of the First Law of Thermodynamics.
3.)Probability can exceed 1.
4.)A failure of a model proves that the natural, observed event is impossible5) Anyone thinks that H. Sapiens evolved from a random gigabase genome with only point mutations.
6.)ev demonstrates decreasing rates of convergence with increasing population

 

[Yahzi]

You may believe that faith is a mindless act of self-deception and immune to reason but that describes science almost as well as it does religion.

Up is down!

Black is white!

I have declared it; therefore, it must be so.

In this brave new world of argument-by-vacuous assertion, I shall issue the ultimate challenge: I double-dog dare ya!

 

[articulett]

I guess that's why I still look at this thread now and then.

He's mostly a bore, 'cos he keeps reciting the same lies over and over, but when he comes out with a new lie, his self-righteous self-importance does make it funny.

Well it's not technically a lie if he actually believes it--that is, it's self deception--a confabulation--but not a lie. Of course if he knows he's lying (and one would imagine that would be the case given the number of times he's been told), then he's a liar. For now, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt (cognitive dissonance). It's hard when your eternal salvation rests on how well you believe a certain fairytale.

 

[articulett]

Up is down!

Black is white!

I have declared it; therefore, it must be so.

In this brave new world of argument-by-vacuous assertion, I shall issue the ultimate challenge: I double-dog dare ya!

It's not his fault--clearly this is a mind damaged from childhood by the notion that there are higher truths that can be found by twisting primitive texts into meaningful truths--a mind that can't help but think upside down (top down "design"--cannot comprehend bottom up evolution)...a mind told that faith is good--it's bad to doubt--arrogant to ask questions--and wicked to lose faith.
It truly is brain damaging to tell trusting children that their eternity depends on how much they can make themselves believe a particular version of the truth.

And John, I think your intelligent designer can fight his own battle. He's free to present his evidence at any time--if you religionists would get your story straight about what name the intelligent designer wants to be called and what he does and what he wants and why he didn't mention DNA in the bible (or any other future scientifically established facts) it would help. It's hard to take an invisible immeasurable entity seriously--and you guys can't even agree as to who is or isn't a Christian--or who and/or what goes to heaven, hell, limbo, purgatory, and/or reincarnates. You can't even tell us what a soul is or does or feels or thinks or how it does so without a body or brain (or how your god does it). The fact that everyone truly believes all sorts of different variations on the theme (for example virgins in the afterlife) and many of them are clearly false...and none of them have more evidence for them than any other--how in the world can you imagine we would care about your "opinion" on the topic more than you care about ours? If the evidence for your beliefs is the same as for the beliefs you mock (Scientology perhaps?), then your beliefs deserve the same mockery. But believers never seem to see that. That's why I stick to evidence. Got any?

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

There are many creatures that have gone extinct. The issues I have raised here about the ev program is that your contention that these creatures are evolving from one to the next does not have a mathematical basis. You are extrapolating the similarities of animals to your concept of evolution. If you are correct about the theory of evolution, you must have some mechanism(s) that allow the transformation of genomes from one species to the next. Ev shows that the process of random point mutation and natural selection is profoundly slow, too slow to account for these changes. Hard science requires this type of accounting and it doesn’t appear that the theory of evolution can pass this type of test.

If not by evolution, then by what process which satisfies the rigorous mathematical basis which you apparently require, have the myriad of past and present lifeforms come to exist on Earth?

State your hypothesis and supporting mathematics.

I have made no scientific claims to origins of life and explanation for all the different life forms we observe. It is you evolutionarians that claim you have the scientific explanation for these observations. I am showing how unscientific your explanations are and that your views are simply another faith and belief system without scientific basis despite all your claims.

Up is down!

Black is white!

I have declared it; therefore, it must be so.

In this brave new world of argument-by-vacuous assertion, I shall issue the ultimate challenge: I double-dog dare ya!

What are you squealing about? Don’t you like the mathematics of ev?

Here’s something for Paul and the rest of you evolutionarians to consider. Paul has extrapolated a value for the case of a 100k genome with 16 binding sites each 6 bases wide and a population of 1,000,000 to take 200,000,000 generations to evolve. Now the data for the human and chimpanzee genome are now becoming available. The initial estimate is that there about 20,000 genes in the human genome. I haven’t seen an estimate for the number of genes in the chimpanzee genome. Since according to evolutionarian estimates there are about 500,000 generations separating the two species and ev shows that it takes 4000 times as many generations to evolve 96 loci on a genome that is 30,000 times shorter by random point mutations and natural selection. How are you going to explain even one single gene difference between the two species?

You have about as much chance of giving a scientific explanation for this as joobz has for explaining abiogenesis. I’ll help you out, joobz explanation is anything is possible and if it sounds good it must be true. He is a modern Leonardo joobinzi.

The auditors are here and the evolutionarian books do not balance. You had better pray more and louder to your natural selection god, he doesn’t seem to be listening.

 

[cyborg]

I am showing how unscientific your explanations are and that your views are simply another faith and belief system without scientific basis despite all your claims.

YEAH! Because only idiots would participate in silly old belief systems that are without scientific basis! Like the Bible!

You had better pray more and louder to your natural selection god, he doesn’t seem to be listening.

You first. Get Yahweh to make me into a pillar of salt. Go on, you know you want to.

 

[John Hewitt]

And John, I think your intelligent designer can fight his own battle. He's free to present his evidence at any time--if you religionists would get your story straight about what name the intelligent designer wants to be called and what he does and what he wants and why he didn't mention DNA in the bible (or any other future scientifically established facts) it would help. It's hard to take an invisible immeasurable entity seriously--and you guys can't even agree as to who is or isn't a Christian--or who and/or what goes to heaven, hell, limbo, purgatory, and/or reincarnates. You can't even tell us what a soul is or does or feels or thinks or how it does so without a body or brain (or how your god does it). The fact that everyone truly believes all sorts of different variations on the theme (for example virgins in the afterlife) and many of them are clearly false...and none of them have more evidence for them than any other--how in the world can you imagine we would care about your "opinion" on the topic more than you care about ours? If the evidence for your beliefs is the same as for the beliefs you mock (Scientology perhaps?), then your beliefs deserve the same mockery. But believers never seem to see that. That's why I stick to evidence. Got any?

Is this addressed to me?

 

[drkitten]

Is this addressed to me?

No, it's not. That's why the section you quoted begins "And John,"

This also explains the rest of your scientific illiteracy. Because you can't figure out what words mean.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Paul has extrapolated a value for the case of a 100k genome with 16 binding sites each 6 bases wide and a population of 1,000,000 to take 200,000,000 generations to evolve.

If I said that, I was an idiot. Rfrequency > Rcapacity in that situation, so I doubt it would ever converge.

I'm currently running a series of experiments varying the genome size, but with wide binding sites that will allow a million base genome. I estimate it will take about a month to run the experiments. Stay tuned.

~~ Paul

 

[I less than three logic]

If I said that, I was an idiot. Rfrequency > Rcapacity in that situation, so I doubt it would ever converge.

I'm currently running a series of experiments varying the genome size, but with wide binding sites that will allow a million base genome. I estimate it will take about a month to run the experiments. Stay tuned.

~~ Paul

Not that I doubt you were being an idiot ( ), but I attempted a search of this thread and couldn't find where you'd made such a claim. Of course, my search may be been inaccurate or you may have made the claim in another place. Perhaps Kleinman can post a link to where you made the claim, instead of just saying you did.

 

[John Hewitt]

No, it's not. That's why the section you quoted begins "And John,"

I inquired whether or not Articulette's posting was addressed to me because I seem to be the only "John" on this thread while his comments seem unrelated to anything I have posted.

This also explains the rest of your scientific illiteracy. Because you can't figure out what words mean.

I fail to see how this inquiry could lead you to think that I am scientifically illiterate.

 

[drkitten]

I fail to see how this inquiry could lead you to think that I am scientifically illiterate.

Nor could you see that a posting beginning "And John," was addressed to you.

Which leads me to believe that your failure to see something is independent of whether or not it's there, and of no concern to me.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Not that I doubt you were being an idiot ( ), but I attempted a search of this thread and couldn't find where you'd made such a claim. Of course, my search may be been inaccurate or you may have made the claim in another place.

I think I may have said it over at evolutionisdead.

~~ Paul

 

[John Hewitt]

Nor could you see that a posting beginning "And John," was addressed to you.

Which leads me to believe that your failure to see something is independent of whether or not it's there, and of no concern to me.

I infer that you felt the posting was addressed to me, though I cannot understand why you do not just say so. As you know, my analysis of evolution, bioepistemic evolution, is based on on data, which describes pattern rather than concrete objects. Thus it considers evolution as an IT proocess often involving software rather than mere hardware. These concepts can be tricky, which may explain why you have difficulty grasping them.

Articulette's note read

And John, I think your intelligent designer can fight his own battle. He's free to present his evidence at any time--if you religionists would get your story straight about what name the intelligent designer wants to be called and what he does and what he wants and why he didn't mention DNA in the bible (or any other future scientifically established facts) it would help. It's hard to take an invisible immeasurable entity seriously--and you guys can't even agree as to who is or isn't a Christian--or who and/or what goes to heaven, hell, limbo, purgatory, and/or reincarnates. You can't even tell us what a soul is or does or feels or thinks or how it does so without a body or brain (or how your god does it). The fact that everyone truly believes all sorts of different variations on the theme (for example virgins in the afterlife) and many of them are clearly false...and none of them have more evidence for them than any other--how in the world can you imagine we would care about your "opinion" on the topic more than you care about ours? If the evidence for your beliefs is the same as for the beliefs you mock (Scientology perhaps?), then your beliefs deserve the same mockery. But believers never seem to see that. That's why I stick to evidence. Got any?

I have not identified myself as a religious person, the only intelligent designer I have considered was Francis Crick's aliens with a consideration of how such an alien could be distinguished from God.

I have not discussed the bible, heaven, hell, limbo, purgatory, reincarnates, souls, the variability of religion, virgins in the afterlife or scientology. What I deal in and would like to see is evidence. I am asking Articulette what any of the above has to do with me.

 

[Yahzi]

I fail to see how this inquiry could lead you to think that I am scientifically illiterate.

Not in the obvious way: we are not so narrow-minded as to assume that one must be literate in order to be scientifically literate. Common sense knows no educational boundries.

However, the fact that you are illiterate, and unaware of it, strongly implies that you are unaware of even your grossest deficiencies. The ability to recognize what one does not know is crucial to science and common sense. Hence, your willingness to participate in a textual discussion even while you are functionally illiterate suggests you lack that most basic capacity for education, learning, and productive discourse: self-awareness.

 

[joobz]

Not that I doubt you were being an idiot ( ), but I attempted a search of this thread and couldn't find where you'd made such a claim. Of course, my search may be been inaccurate or you may have made the claim in another place. Perhaps Kleinman can post a link to where you made the claim, instead of just saying you did.

Why can't you go and look for it, huh???

Are you too lazy of an evolutionarian to go and do research. or are you just afraid to having your weak evolutionary ideas disproven?!?!?

-----
Oh my, It's way to easy to write this wakazoolian junk.

 

[dv82matt]

No, it's not. That's why the section you quoted begins "And John,"

This also explains the rest of your scientific illiteracy. Because you can't figure out what words mean.

Seriously, could you possibly be more of a jerk? This is flawed logic and an example of exactly the kind of thing that gives people like John the impression that science is a dogma that cannot tolerate dissent.

 

[hammegk]

State your hypothesis and supporting mathematics.

Actually, evolution being the theory (lots & lots of hypotheses -- no doubt about that) with proponents here, it would be appropriate for them to provide 'supporting mathematics' to add needed rigour to the current just-so-story.



FYI to those who don't already know; drkitten & articulette are 'jerkettes' rather than 'jerks'.

 

[dv82matt]

FYI to those who don't already know; drkitten & articulette are 'jerkettes' rather than 'jerks'.

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Actually, evolution being the theory (lots & lots of hypotheses -- no doubt about that) with proponents here, it would be appropriate for them to provide 'supporting mathematics' to add needed rigour to the current just-so-story.

It's disingenuous to say evolution is a just so story as there is plenty of evidence that it is real. Are you referring to a particular aspect of evolution, or are you of the persuasion that since we don't know everything we don't know anything?

 

[John Hewitt]

Not in the obvious way: we are not so narrow-minded as to assume that one must be literate in order to be scientifically literate. Common sense knows no educational boundries.

However, the fact that you are illiterate, and unaware of it, strongly implies that you are unaware of even your grossest deficiencies. The ability to recognize what one does not know is crucial to science and common sense. Hence, your willingness to participate in a textual discussion even while you are functionally illiterate suggests you lack that most basic capacity for education, learning, and productive discourse: self-awareness.

Nonetheless, I am scientifically literate, more so I suspect than you. What is more, and as I have mentioned to you previously, what I look for is an intelligent discussion directed to the subject. I am sorry you feel unable to deliver that.