Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Ive never been a" DNA is everything " fan.

The sequence of the encoding (if it is only the sequence, and has not some additional quantum encoding supplements, or s.th.) is the only verifiable evidence, for it can be processed by a computer from various points of view. This morphology IMV is top design mumbo jumbo. On the grounds of 'morphology' I may claim for example that the Black Beer is developed on the grounds of evolution of alcoholised Coke ('obviously'), for they look very much alike - they both have soda water basis, they are both dark in color and the only difference is that the Black Beer has subjected the high fructose corn syrup of the Coke to further 'evolutionary' fermentation.

farmerman wrote:

Saying that no one has "classified anything" since Linneaus is silly. Since Linnaeus, weve discovered and classified over 2 million new species of animals.

I mean in principle. No new Kingdom, Phylum, and Class have been discovered or amended. A few quotes ago I asked you where do you classify the Bigfoot (if exists) and the Monster of Loch Ness (if real) and the Varan de Komodo (if classifiable) ... and the Mummy of the Visitor from the 11c B.C. Egyptian Tomb?

farmerman wrote:

I have no idea where you get this Quahog -like idea that only old data ismeaningful.

From observations ... of you and your colleagues ... and their publishers.

farmerman wrote:

You seem to be trying to drag up unrelated factoids from your Google adventures and you've yet to make a cohesive point.

I start understanding why you hate Google so much - because it makes feasible to catch contradictions in time, in statements, impossibility, etc. very easily. You cannot play any more the good old schlager 'When the audience is illiterate - everything goes'.

2 Replies

@Herald,

It's evident not everything one finds on Google are factual. It requires more than several credible sources for it to have any quality of trust.

You didn't know that! What a putz.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

It's evident not everything one finds on Google are factual.

Can you give an example with s.th. that I have quoted.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Quote:

I mean in principle. No new Kingdom, Phylum, and Class have been discovered or amended.

Bullshit. Since Linneaus weve added at least 2 Kingdoms into the eukaryotic genera and weve certainly added several Phyla.
You just have a HUUGE problem with phylogenetic evolution. The fact that its demonstrable, evidenced, and repeatable in lab experiments probably really frot your shorts no?
The discovery of "knock out" genes to test evolutional connections is something that the IDers and Creationists have to shut up about. You've been railing all along about "NO EVIDENCE" (when actually the problem is that youre all just too damned thick or obstinate, or glued to a worldview that doesn't allow such "heresy") [Or all of the above, ho knows]

First you say we hb=vent found any new speicies, now youre dancing around saying that you didn't mean that at all.

Ive actually had some of my crew insert information into Wikepedia stubs to bring em up to fact. That's all done for free.

DNA is the bookkeeping of evolution, that's all. Obviouly when evolution begins, a "fit" individual may already have a genetic predisposition , many call it a "Hopeful Monster".
Genetic codes are , of course , able to be read by computers. But its not like a bar code at all. read Svante Paabo's papers on sequencing
Homo neanderthalensis (r...) ... Homo sapiens idaltu..... and.... Homo sapiens sapiens

1 Reply

@Herald,

Simply put, you prove your ignorance again. The reason is nothing can be 100% accurate.

Quote:

Don't be so sure... - A Scientist's Thesis
scientiststhesis.tumblr.com/post/35959797649/dont-be-so-sure
Nov 18, 2012 - You cannot, ever, be 100% sure of anything at all.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Bullshit. Since Linneaus weve added at least 2 Kingdoms into the eukaryotic genera and weve certainly added several Phyla.

In your place I would be not so sure who is presenting the 'bulshit'. The taxonomy reads: Life - Domain - Kingdom - Phylum- Class - Order - Family - Genus - Species
There is no way to add 'at least 2 Kingdoms into the eukaryotic genera' as the Genus is sub-sub-...sub class of the Kingdom, and so is Genus to Phylum. For further details see the taxonomy.

Further wrote: You just have a HUUGE problem with phylogenetic evolution.
Obviously it is not only me ... who has 'HUUGE problem' with the taxonomy.

Further wrote:The discovery of "knock out" genes to test evolutional connections is something that the IDers and Creationists have to shut up about.
The discovery of "knock out" genes is nothing, for we are talking about genesis here, not about post factum experiments.

Further wrote:You've been railing all along about "NO EVIDENCE"
You are talking as if you have the DNA sequences for the whole 4 billion years history record of life on Earth ... and as if you know what it is all about.
You have no evidences, FM. Your morphological 'evidences' may fall apart any moment ... like a tower of cards. Not to say that you even don't have the correlation of the genetic sequences to most of the morphology.

Further wrote: Ive actually had some of my crew insert information into Wikepedia
This is not proving anything. To put declarative knowledge into whatever in comparison to its operationalisation into procedural knowledge by logical inferences & comparative analyses are very different things.

2 Replies

@Herald,

You're pretty dumb for someone who thinks you know more than farmerman on eukaryotic genera.

http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/indexmag.html?http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/artmay98/classif.html

Quote:

From Aristotle's time until at least the mid-twentieth century, there were two kingdoms of life recognized—Plants and Animals

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

You're pretty dumb for someone who thinks you know more than farmerman on eukaryotic genera.

Farmerboy may remember a lot and parroting the official party line, but he seems to lack good reasoning and logical thinking skills.
Remember, this is not about remembering. Wink

btw it looks like farmerboy is your new guru, or what?

man o man

where do these people come from?

0 Replies

@Herald,

Id suggest that, before you try to spout your knowledge, you go and actually look at the binomial nomenclature that is the Linnean system. Science HAS added 2 new kingdoms , whether you believe it or not cn be settled by you doing further reading. I use this stuff every day in documenting "index fossils" for basin analyses and "lag deposits"
Youre in my court sonny, don't argue what you have no idea about.

Quote:

The discovery of "knock out" genes is nothing, for we are talking about genesis here, not about post factum experiments.

So am I. Doing repeatable experiments and projecting results in light of "falsifiability" is a valid forensic tool. It IS a bit different than your MOOGA BOOGA world but so be it.
If I want to show the relationship between birds and reptiles and, besides fossils of intermediates, I go and take a bird and "turn off" certain SNP genes in an embryo and then develop a bird with "teeth" or even "finger joints ", I think that is a reasonable bit of circumstantial evidence that, along with the rest of the growing pile of circumstantial evidence, makes the credible argument for descent with modification quite nicely.

Quote:

FM. Your morphological 'evidences' may fall apart any moment

It may, but so far its actually just gotten stronger. PS Wheres any evidence AT ALL for ID? eve been waiting for the Discovery Intitute to publish all its touted and long promised "factual information and evidence regarding the proof for Universal Intelligence"--So far (at least since 2002) Theres been nothing.
Whatever happened to the "Wedge Strategy"?

At least science gives us something to shoot at. ID only gives us silence.

Quote:

This is not proving anything. To put declarative knowledge into whatever in comparison to its operationalisation into procedural knowledge by logical inferences & comparative analyses are very different things.

Whatever you were trying to get across was lot by your language skills. If youre saying that my guys only put stubs into Wikepedia from "Book lrnin" , then youre fulla **** sonny. They've done math equations and coreected equations where they were actually printd up wrong, and they've reported on research results. What've you done lately besides dance around in new directions every time your oldest one was challenged?

2 Replies

@farmerman,

The Six Kingdoms of life on earth, in case Herald and Quahog need some further schooling on the subject:

Plants, Animals, Protists, Fungi, Archaebacteria, Eubacteria

You know, this is really rookie stuff. Kids in 9th grade biology learn the kingdoms of life

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

The Six Kingdoms of life on earth, in case Herald and Quahog need some further schooling on the subject:

Plants, Animals, Protists, Fungi, Archaebacteria, Eubacteria

You know, this is really rookie stuff. Kids in 9th grade biology learn the kingdoms of life

be clear now! schooling or indoctrination?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

I use this stuff every day in documenting "index fossils" for basin analyses and "lag deposits". Youre in my court sonny, don't argue what you have no idea about.

The very circumstance that you are 'indexing everyday fossils' with kingdoms presented as sub-class of genera (the plural of genus) as you said, cannot be a proof that you know what you are doing.

farmerman wrote:

So am I. Doing repeatable experiments and projecting results in light of "falsifiability" is a valid forensic tool.

... and what criminal deeds you are investigating ... performed 3.5 billion years ago, in order even to protect them against falsification not "falsifiability"? Falsifiability is the feasibility and the access to the ability to perform any falsification. Anyway.

1 Reply

@Herald,

So , all you seem to be left with are insults now. Run out of Google clips for me?

You seem to miss much of the nuance of English AS a SECOND LANGUAGE. Youre trying to sound intelligent and, instead, youre just sounding stupid.

0 Replies

@Quehoniaomath,

Neither schooling or indoctrination will help you two! You both have a mental block that prevents you from learning facts no matter how they are presented.
Hopeless!

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Neither schooling or indoctrination will help you two! You both have a mental block that prevents you from learning facts no matter how they are presented. Hopeless!

Dear Mr. Ci, you are not presenting any facts, nor even anything that might be interpreted as evidences at first approximation.
Would you be so kind to tell us where are 'the facts' here:

Quote:

So, all you seem to be left with are insults now. Run out of Google clips for me? You seem to miss much of the nuance of English AS a SECOND LANGUAGE. Youre trying to sound intelligent and, instead, youre just sounding stupid.

Can you make a list of the facts on ID and evolution on the grounds of the above text.
     1. Evidence No.1 ...
     2. Evidence No.2 ...
        ...
     N. Evidence No.N
BTW, notwithstanding that English is actually my third language I am not making at least dysgraphia and dyslexics on the quotes.

2 Replies

@Herald,

The 'facts' I posted were from Wikipedia. If you disagree with the facts presented, challenge them from some other credible sources. I'll not wait very long for you to accomplish that, because you're already brain dead.

0 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

Can you make a list of the facts on ID and evolution on the grounds of the above text.
1. Evidence No.1 ...
2. Evidence No.2 ...

You've been xposed to vidence regarding Evolution. Its just obvious that you deny everything. SO lets try ID.

HMM. The first major slug of evidence is a statement in the record.
"The planet is to complex to have arisen by evolution. That's in the record that starts just about every ID pamphlet.
Not much of anything there.

HOW ABOUT what the Discovery Institute has been saying since the late 1990's
"Wait, weve begun with our "WEDGE STRATEGY" and this will be based upon the best scientific evidence . In a few years we shall publish papers on the fact of "Intelligence in the Universe"
Not much happened there either.
There are other statements like "Irreducible complexity" which don't offer any port for reasonable conclusions.

After a point one must merely throw up ones hands and exclaim that "ID is nothing more than Creationism and it hasn't proven anything of what it claims even though it wants to be thought of as "Scientific"

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

"The planet is to complex to have arisen by evolution. That's in the record that starts just about every ID pamphlet.

You haved no evidences that 'every ID pamphlet' starts with 'to_ complex'.

farmerman wrote:

Not much of anything there.

This is you own personal opinion. It is based most probably on personal emotions, perceptions, interests and attitude to the things. This could not be an expert opinion of top consultant ... as you are presenting to be.

farmerman wrote:

Not much happened there either.

We don't know. There may be a whole rack of boxes with classified reports out there. The fact that nothing has been published does not necessarily mean that nothing has happened.

farmerman wrote:

There are other statements like "Irreducible complexity" which don't offer any port for reasonable conclusions.

If you are consulting your clients the way you consider ID - wow to 'em.

farmerman wrote:

After a point one must merely throw up ones hands and exclaim that "ID is nothing more than Creationism and it hasn't proven anything of what it claims even though it wants to be thought of as "Scientific"

After a point one must merely throw up ones hands and exclaim that "Evolution is nothing more than Eugenics and it hasn't proven anything of what it claims even though it wants to be thought of as 'Scientific' "
This is a simple test to verify whether a given claim is serious or not ... and whether it has something saying or just moving at random some electrons on the net. If you are curious to know, your 'statement' has failed the semantics test ... as it could be applied to any case scenario.

3 Replies

@Herald,

Simply put, all the scientific findings for the age of this planet seems to coincide with about 4.5 billion years old.

If you can present any evidence that can challenge current scientific appraisals, please present them. It's not about eugenics which is an idea that's based on people's imagination. We need facts and evidence, not conjecture.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Quote:

The fact that nothing has been published does not necessarily mean that nothing has happened.

You really believe this ? If the IDers even came close to some conclusion, thyed be out trying to show the world. Look wht happened when M Behe published his stuff on "Irreducible complexity". I hve to dmit , it was a super gret phrse, but there was nothing behind it. The chemistry was unable to find a stopping point beneath which blood (or oxygenating circulatory fluids) would not clot. We always found a simpler and simpler enzyme in which some simpler animal had incorporated into its circulatory system an acted as a "leak stopper"

Quote:

You haved no evidences that 'every ID pamphlet' starts with 'to_ complex'.

Ive read hundreds of "papers" from ID proponents ("Science writers" and popular writers). So far , almost all of them start their arguments pro ID with that statement. Then they add several other "clichés and trite argument" attempts that weve all heard over nd over and over again

Quote:

If you are consulting your clients the way you consider ID - wow to 'em.

provide me with ONE scientific argument wherein the Microbiological or biochemical indicators can be traced back to a reasonable "starting point" that does not relate to yet a simpler organisms structure or chemistry of similitude.(I defy you because you cant)

Evolution has failed neither any "semantic" or scientific test. ID is based upon a religious point of view. If you deny that youre a bigger fool than you sound. Evolution hs evidence, lab data, testability, falsifiability , and the ability to be connected by taxon cycles to their kingdom's own unique phylogenetic evolution.
Again, if you deny that, youre blind of seeing simple fact.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know