Guano (1)

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.

1,658 thoughts on “Guano (1)”

  1. Joe G:
    No, you are mistaken as the blind watmaker just refers to materialism- I will call it sheer dumb luck if you like as that is all it boils down to.

    And yes your position needs to explain the universe.

    Since I haven’t stated my position, you have no idea what it is. Do you always play the turnabout game to avoid answering questions?

  2. William J. Murray: My argument here is directly about motivation, not “good faith”. People make all sorts of erroneous or irrational claims in “good faith”. Whatever one’s motivation is doesn’t indicate their conclusion is right or wrong; my point is that for “some” (changed due to popular protest) people on both sides, the debate really cannot be about evidence, facts, math, or science; it must be about something else.

    And “some” Catholic priests are pedophiles too.

    Your original premise was fatally flawed, your “new, improved’ premise is completely pointless.

    Anything else you wish to discuss?

  3. William J. Murray: It’s a trivial part of the premise. As I already said, there is no conclusion I reach that is dependent on “most” contributors not being qualified because the argument is only about those contributors that are in fact not qualified, not whether or not they represent a majority of the participants.

    LOL! Right. That’s why you titled the thread

    “Why the NDE/ID Debate Is Really (FOR MOST) A Proxy Fight

    …because you weren’t concerned with a majority of the participants.

    Summer Olympics are coming up in London. Still time to qualify for the 100 meter backpedal.

  4. creodont:

    Actually, you are claiming that science is wrong and that you are right,

    Prove that is what I am claiming or retract it.

    I doubt you even know what science is…

  5. creo

    you’re the one who can’t or won’t support your position

    Yet I have supported my position.

    You are just full of false accusations

  6. This is pretty funny Elizabeth- you have turned your blog into an evo circle-jerk- complete with false accusations.

    Congratulations…

  7. Joe G:
    Creodont,

    Who cares? How is that question even relevant?

    I didn’t ask you, but if you’d like to answer it maybe you’ll find out how it’s relevant.

    How is anything you say relevant? Your remarks are nothing but repetitive snark.

  8. Mike Elzinga: Let me use an apt metaphor that applies to you.

    You are standing on the New Jersey side of the Hudson River with your back to New York City denying the existence of New York City.

    People try to tell you to turn around and look, but you refuse to do so; denying all the while that New York City exists.

    The evidence is all around you, even as you bang on your computer keys denying that it is there.You just have to look.

    Nobody in chemistry and physics uses the notion of CSI because there are far better concepts that describe what is going on.But if you don’t learn them, you’ll never know.

    Forget CSI; it is a useless idea in science.

    Exactly what I expected- no evidence and no clue…

  9. dr who: I’ll help you make your observations less selective, and more complete. You could have said that every time you have observed CSI and thought you knew the cause, it has always appeared to come from a living material intelligent agency for whom CSI would be a prerequisite. You have never observed an intelligent designer who did not owe its existence to pre-existing CSI, and therefore, it does not make sense to infer that intelligence is the best explanation for the existence of CSI of unknown origin.

    Isn’t that better?

    Nope- mangled does not make it better- but I take it that you don’t have any supporting evidence for your position….

  10. olegt: Liz, I have a suggestion. Why not open a new sandbox for Joe G. to play in?

    Yes, oleg- it would be much easier for you to misrepresent ID without me around.

    So believe me when I say I understand why you don’t want me around.

    Liz is trying her best to protect you evotards but I still have my blog and will continue to expose the lies and ignorance that is being offered up as reasonable discourse…

  11. olegt: You’re the only one here who thinks that random landscapes have any relevance to this thread. They don’t.

    The OP is irrelevant, oleg….

  12. (1) Do nothing until ID proponents get their act together and figure out how CSI can be either calculated or measured.

    YOU need to get YOUR act together as we have told you how to do just that.

    Do you really think that your refusal to grasp a concept is somehow a refutation of that concept?

    Really?

    Liz, YOU have some nerve to talk about “good faith”…

  14. Geoxus: Perhaps the disagreement is deeper. Since AFAIK you reject universal common ancestry, you will see many “origins” in things others will look as events in continua of descent. Regardless of what you think Dembski meant.

    Except it has nothing to do with what I think Dembski meant. It is all right there in “No Free Lunch”, and it is confirmed by Meyer in “Signature in the Cell”.

    Evois, caught misrepresenting CSI, start the damage control….

  15. dr who: On the CSI thread, you stated that the only occasions on which we observe CSI and know the cause, it is intelligently designed (or words to that effect). Presumably you were referring to things that humans intelligently design which contain “CSI”. So, surely this means that CSI is something that doesn’t pertain solely biology , let alone solely to the OOL.

    Within biology, are you claiming that [i]all[/i] CSI comes from intelligent “frontloading” and that there is no intelligent “sideloading”? If so, your view seems to be radically different from that of I.D.ists like Michael Behe.

    Read “No Free Lunch” and “Signature in the Cell” and buy a vowel, as you are obvioulsy clueless.

  16. First read this–

    Mycoplasma genitalium– an organism all evotards should be personally familiar with and complex specified information, the concept evos remain willfully ignorant of.

    CSI has a lower threshold of 500 bits of specified information. Biological function is a specification.

    Mycoplasma genitalium has 580076 base pairs, which equals 1,160,152 (d’oh) bits of information carrying capacity. Out of that 529477 bp code for proteins, ie functionality. That equals 1,058,954 bits of specified information, which is well above the 500 bit threshold.

    Heck just looking at the number of protein coding genes it is obvious that the 500 bit threshold would be easily surpassed.

    No need to get a perfect number for the organism, the threshold is set.

  17. Rich:
    William J Murray – Your emperor has no clothes (CSI). If he does, please produce the calcs. If not, be good enough to admit it and we can all move on.

    LoL! The naked coward sez CSI has no clothes!

    Good faith my ass….

  18. Try this again, this time with the correct links:

    Evos are having such a difficult time with information I had to find out why. So I disguised myself by going to a local library and setting up an account from which I could start posting on forums as an die-hard atheistic evolutionist.

    I have been doing this for just over a year- started around Darwin’s birthday 2010.

    Finally I have been let in on the secret technology they use to measure information and I managed to smuggle out some pictures:

    evo information measuring technology (IMT)

    They also have a more complex IMT

    And finally, the one I have been waiting to uncover this yellow thingy.

    So that is the problem. Dealing with evotards is like dealing with someone who cannot speak nor understand the language. It doesn’t matter how many times or how loud you tell them. Might as well talk to a wall.

  20. Rich:

    No one knows, Rich. And if you show me someone who sez they know I will show you someone who is full of shit (it will be the same person).

    As I have already told you, several times, to determine the age of the earth you have to know how it was formed. Apparently you are too dense to grasp that…

  22. Joe G: Umm there isn’t any evidence for non-flying bat ancestors evolving their hands into wings and becoming flying bats. One can only assume it happened- it can’t be tested.

    I just showed you two papers with the evidence for the specific genetic mutations in mammals that produced the bat’s wing. There is also fossil evidence of an earlier, primitive bat dating from approx. 52.5 MYA, Onychonycteris finneyi

    There’s not much point in discussing things since all you can do is childishly deny the evidence presented. Enjoy your time in the Guano pile Joe.

  23. I just showed you two papers with the evidence for the specific genetic mutations in mammals that produced the bat’s wing.

    So there was an experiment that took a rat, made the changes and it developed wings?

    No Thorton, there isn’t any fossil evidence of any non-bat evolving into a bat- the primitive bat has wings.

    And no there isn’t any discussion with you as you have no idea what evidence is.

  24. petrushka: It has always seemed odd to me that when deciding which of two agents is responsible for the history of a gene sequence, that the agent that has no physical presence and has never been observed is preferred to an agent that is observable and which has been the subject of a century and a half of active research. I suppose that’s why Dembski avoids discussing Bayes.

    I have a bit of trouble grasping why Dembski, Sewell, Abel, et. al. can do what they do without extreme embarrassment.

    When I watch these characters – as well as their cheerleading followers – I get the impression that they think nobody else in the world knows anything about math or biology (or chemistry and physics for that matter).

    But taking logarithms of things is not highfalutin math. Kids in middle and high school learn this stuff. These ID/creationists strike me as petulant children who cannot imagine that there are millions of us in the world who know math far, far beyond the bollixed up pretenses that ID/creationist leaders crank out.

    Neither of the ID/creationist followers on this forum appears to know even enough middle school algebra to know what a logarithm is; yet they sure act as though they know all about CSI.

    They appear to be just mud-wrestling for no particular purpose other than poke at “evilutionists”.

  25. Mike Elzinga: I would seriously suggest that you have not read it yourself.You don’t appear to have the ability.

    So if you are going to continue to snark at and taunt people, you should at least demonstrate that you can understand some math.

    Elizabeth is giving a pretty clear demonstration here, and you don’t even know what is happening.

    LoL! One ignorant person sticking up for another ignorant person.

    That’s funny shit Mike-

    ya I know- guano

  26. dr who: I wasn’t “refuting CSI”. I was pointing out why explaining the origin of biological CSI by intelligent design is a non-starter.

    But YOU aren’t in any position to point out anything….

  27. Mike Elzinga: Well, I just wanted to confirm that your answer is the same as the ID/creationist answer.

    However, it’s wrong; and it is wrong for a large number of reasons.For example, DNA and RNA and many organic compounds are crystals.How do you think we know this?Do you know how x-ray crystallography works?Do you know how Rosalind Franklin obtained her Fourier transform images of DNA?

    So are the various forms of carbon (look it up) and most other condensations of atoms and molecules.

    In particular, crystals near their melting temperatures can take on all sorts of complex patterns of continued evolutionary growth.They can evolve, and morph into other forms in very much the same way that living organisms do.We even use this knowledge in the lab and in the industries that make things.

    In case you think of melting temperatures as thousands of degrees, note that water melts at 0 Celsius; and most living organisms are made up of soft matter in the temperature range of liquid water.What happens to soft matter if you cool it sufficiently?

    The question of “complexity” has no meaning if you cannot say what complexity refers to and at what point on an evolutionary scale it becomes relevant.

    Dembski et.al. rule out crystals because they think crystals are frozen things.No ID/creationist has ever looked beyond their narrow dogmas at the huge fields of condensed matter and organic chemistry. They simply have no idea of what is going on around them in the physical universe and in the huge industries that use this knowledge.

    What you see in the “simple” world continues on right up the ladder to organic compounds and the compounds that make up living organisms.How do you think we know this?

    Mike- you are just totally clueless- you think you can make stuff up and have it mean something.

  28. Elizabeth: I didn’t say it was.I don’t think it is.That’s why I think it stands on its own, and can be critiqued as a coherent whole.

    Joe, this kind of comment would normally lead me to send it to guano, but I tend to give extra leeway if the comment is directed at me.Please read the site rules, and try to stick with them.If you can’t, I will simply re-open one of your old posts, and let you post there without moderation and nowhere else, and people can engage with you or not, as they please.You will not be censored, but I am not going to spend time I could better spend elsewhere vetting all your comments for rule violations.This site has a specific purpose and that purpose is respectful dialogue.Please try to be respectful if you want to participate in the dialogue.

    Liz- buy a fucking vowel- I am finished- you win, you can wallow in your ignorance and you can stick your false accusations up your….

  29. olegt: Oh, it’d be fun if kairosfocus showed up here. He is a chatty fellow.

    He won’t show up here- why should he? Obviously you tards are beyond help….

  30. Joe G: Hi Mike- materialism can’t explain water. It can’t explain gravity. It just has to start with all the stuff it needs to explain.

    I look at the real world, Mike. And the evidence for Intelligent Design is there. And if you had any evidence to support your position, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. So just the fact taht we are having it, and all you can to is try to insult me, is evidence enough that you have nothing.

    Thank you

    Look who’s talking about being insulting.

    Actually, the only reason there are debates like this is because people like you are determined to control all the thoughts and actions of others, and because you won’t accept reality. Debates like this do not occur because you IDists have any evidence that supports your claims or because there is no evidence of evolution or the physics Mike refers to. You’re the one with nothing but bluster and bad manners.

    Explain water and gravity on the basis of immaterialism. And didn’t you say that you were done here?

  32. SELECTIVE, hyperskepticism , slathered in oil of ad Hominem which is applied to a straw man which burns to obsfurcate. Or something. Oh, there’s probably a red herring in there too…

  33. Mike Elzinga: No; you don’t look at the world.You have no idea of what has been accounted for.

    You accused me of making up physics and chemistry examples when I tried to direct your attention to many of the very interesting things that go on in the natural world.

    So, despite your assertions, I don’t see any evidence you really pay attention to anything other than ID/creationism; and as Elizabeth has already pointed out, you don’t even get that right.

    Yes, I am quite aware of the fact that “materialism” is something you fear and loathe.But your fear and loathing and your refusal to even look at nature doesn’t change the fact that nature does what it does whether you like it or not.

    Elizabeth’s demo has a specific point which she has stated clearly and repeatedly.What is more, many of these little demonstrations can be used as models for specific phenomena that occur in nature.We make these kinds of models all the time.The more correctly we get nature correct in our models, the more the models replicate what we see in nature.

    It’s not hard to understand.You just need to go out and look.There are huge fields of condensed matter and organic chemistry on which major industries in the world are based.There are absolutely NONE based on the ideological writings of Dembski and other ID/creationists.Perhaps you could explain why that is.

    LoL! More rantings, more false accusations and still no evidence-

    I don’t fear materialism Mike- I know it is total untestable nonsense.

    And Elizabeth’s demo doesn’t have anything to do with anything ID claims.

  34. Creodont: The fact that you avoid relevant questions over and over again, and try to turn everything around and put the burden on other people to prove that your claims are wrong means that you have already given up hope of ever supporting your claims.

    You wouldn’t know a relevant question pertaining to ID if your life depended on it.

    And again the way to the design inference is THROUGH your position. So if YOU or someone, could support your position ID would fade away.

  35. Rich: Reminds me of:

    As for your example, I’m not going to take the bait. You’re asking me to play a game: “Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position.” ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it’s not ID’s task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering.”

    ID: Questions everything, offers nothing.

    And what, exactly, does YOUR position have to offer?

    Anything? Anything at all?

  36. LoL! Mike sed “water melts”….

    And Mike, we have said what complexity refers to. And there are plenty of IDists and Creationists that are organic chemists and physicists.

    BTW it was non-IDists who said crystals don’t count as complex- your anger continues to betray you.

  37. Elizabeth: I’m not sure whether Meyer has collaborated with Dembski, although Meyer certainly cites Dembski copiously.But in thepassage from Meyer you cite, Meyer is not using “complexity” in the sense in which Dembski uses it when he refers to”event-complexity” (“difficulty of reproducing the corresponding event by chance”), which can apply equally to a compressible sequence or an incompressible one.Dembski uses the term “descriptive complexity” to denote a sequence that is difficult to compress, and the term “specified complexity” for a pattern that is both easy to compress (“pattern simplicity”) and has “event-complexity”.

    Meyer, on the other hand, only calls a pattern is only “complex” if it is incompressible as well as having lots of Shannon information, and “specified” if it “was specifically arranged to perform a function”.

    This kind of confusion is, in my experience, typical of ID writings, but Dembski himself is generally clear about what he means in a given context, and as this exercise was specifically undertaken to show that Dembski claim in Specificiation: the Pattern that Signifies Complexity is false, andI am using the definitions he gives in that paper for this purpose.

    I am positive they have collaborated- it is in their books.

    And the confusion is all your because you have only read one measley paper.

    But anyway have fun with your strawman- I am growing tired of correcting you and the guys at UD don’t give a hoot about anything you say, even though I tried to get them involved

    Ya see it is just no use to try to deal with you.

    CJYman knows more about CSI than any evo ever will and you just dismiss his statement only because you don’t have a clue.

    Pathetic- and a definite lack of good faith…

  38. Creodont: You keep ridiculing the “position” of other people even though you usually know little to nothing about their “position”. Obviously, in your dogmatic mind, science and any “position” that doesn’t exactly match yours is wrong, has no evidence, can’t be tested, has nothing, makes no testable predictions, has nothing to do with science, is “tard”, and a lot of other useless and negative things. I’m surprised that you’re not willingly living in a jungle somewhere, with no access to anything that science has ever provided.

    I can’t help but notice that you avoid many relevant questions and that you must think that your assertions and snarky remarks are all you need to do to overthrow the fields of science that bother you. It won’t work.

    Wrong again, as usual- I don’t ridiclue anyone’s position- I just point out the obvious.

    And obvioulsy you don’t have a clue or esle you would just present the evidence that refutes my claims.

    BTW I am all for science- just not YOUR tard version of it.

  39. dr who: A fairy who could magic a Prince into being a frog wouldn’t be natural.

    Prove that A fairy who could magic a Prince into being a frog wouldn’t be natural.

    The same applies for the OOL

    And that refers to the OoL in THIS UNIVERSE- as I have already told you, but you ignored.

    We observe intelligence in natural beings

    Doesn’t mean naturedidit.

    It’s probably universal and doesn’t have a beginning.

    Yet science says it had a beginning.

    As I explained in a post above, when we do find well supported explanations for things, they’ve always been natural,

    Yet you refuse to provide a mathematically rigorous definition of “natural”. IOW you are clueless.

  40. Creodont: Then explain what CSI is in a way that makes sense and demonstrate how to measure it in a wide variety of things, and demonstrate how CSI can explain the origin of whatever kind of information it is that you’re referring to.

    And aren’t you going around in circles? The I in CSI is for information, but you claim that CSI pertains to the origin of life, or to the origin of CSI, or to the origin of the universe, or whatever is convenient, so you’re claiming that complex specified information can explain the origin of information and the origin of life and whatever else needs explaining. You’re using the things you’re assuming to try to explain the things you’re assuming.

    If CSI exists or existed outside of this universe, where and by whom or what is or was it stored, and where and from whom or what did that thing get it?

    Is there CSI in stars, black holes, planetary orbits, asteroids, comets, gravity, magnetic fields, impact craters, solar wind, solar flares, and atoms? If so, how much?

    We have said what CSI is and you are onviously too stupid to grasp the concept.

    And again all YOU have to do to refute ID is stand up and demonstrate matter, energy, necessity and chance are all that is required.

    Stop being such a coward and do some science!

  41. Creodont: Of course you never make a typo or use the wrong word or mix words up or misspell anything, do you?

    From what I’ve seen, I doubt that you made it through third grade.

    From what I seen you are still in kindergarten.

  42. beaver are intelligent = ice is not water = you can measure the CSI of a cake by counting the number of letters in the recipe = ticks are attracted to watermelon = joe is the biggest douche on the intarwebz

  44. madbat089: WJM: “I deliberately constructed [my worldview] as it now exists. I don’t conflate it with “reality” (as many empiricists seem to do here), but rather recognize it as only a tool by which I interact with what I assume to be objectively existent”

    This may be a clue.

    What he seems to be saying it that he is a compulsive game-player. He will mess with peoples’ minds as long as it pleases him.

    He is counting replies to him, running up the comment count, and attempting to make the thread as long as he can while drawing all attention to himself.

    It’s called The Guild of Narcissism 7000. He can’t find a game site, so he hijacks one.

    The one who gets the most attention for absolutely nothing wins.

    I say let him play with himself and see if he can win.

  45. madbat089: Sadly, I think you completely underestimate WJM’s claims. After all my interactions with him, I am convinced he is not just playing games, but actually MEANS it when he says that he thinks he deliberately constructed his worldview.

    I suspect there is a clinical profile for it, but I am not qualified to give one and could only guess.

  46. Creodont: Just when I think that you’ve reached the limits of dumb answers, or the limits of avoiding the actual questions, you manage to surprise me.

    LoL! A moron asks moronic questions and throws a hissy fit when things doesn’t go its way.

    Life is good…..

  47. Creodick:

    Lumping ID with religious beliefs is accurate. ID is not scientific.

    ID can be tested and either confirmed or falsified. Unlike YOUR position it is based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships.

    And as I have been telling evos for years, you can’t even produce a testable hypothesis for your position that isn’t full of equivocations.

  48. Joe G: No, Flint- YOUR position is incoherent, no matter how it is interpreted.

    It is based on faith, so it is also some sort of theology.

    No Joe, your position is incoherent, no matter how it is interpreted, and since it is totally based on religious faith and religious mumbo jumbo, it is 100% theological.

    Heck, you can’t even come up with a testable hypothesis or any evidence for your position.

    Back to the original topic- Trying to communicate with someone like you is impossible. You have the temperament of an abused pit bull and the vocabulary and writing skills of a third grade dropout who lives in an inner city ghetto. You never discuss anything and neither do any other IDists. You all preach and act as though you have the key to all knowledge and morals, and all of your arrogant sermons are nothing but negativity.

    There’s nothing positive in what you say or in the ID agenda. It’s all about telling people that there’s something wrong with them for not believing in the fairy tales you believe in. What you really want is total control, and you’re pissed because you don’t and can’t have it over science. Science is what has shown and will continue to show that religious beliefs are bunk, and that really bothers you. It bothers you so much that you spend virtually every waking minute trying to destroy science and replace it with your crackpot beliefs, even though you and all other IDists couldn’t and wouldn’t live without what science has provided.

    Without science you wouldn’t even have a computer and you’d have to step out of your filthy cave, if you even had a cave, and shout into the wind and hope that someone might hear your incessant bitching, and it’s very doubtful that anyone would hear you because the other cave people would live far away so that they wouldn’t have to ever encounter or listen to you.

    Your interpersonal dynamics need some serious work, and I strongly suggest that you also get involved in some anger management therapy. You’ve spent years on the internet saying the same things over and over and it hasn’t gotten you anywhere positive. Endlessly repeating yourself, avoiding relevant questions while calling other people cowards, making bald assertions, bashing scientists and science, picking fights, lying, and ranting in gutter-speak will not bring about any positive changes in science or in you, and neither will pushing a dishonest agenda.

    Get over yourself and grow up.

  49. No Joe, your position is incoherent, no matter how it is interpreted, and since it is totally based on religious faith and religious mumbo jumbo, it is 100% theological.

    Only if you redefine “incoherent”, “religious”, “faith” and “theological”.

    Heck, you can’t even come up with a testable hypothesis or any evidence for your position.

    We have. OTOH your position still has nothing.

    Trying to communicate with someone like you is impossible.

    Nice projection.

    You never discuss anything and neither do any other IDists.

    and more projection.

    Without science you wouldn’t even have a computer

    Computer’s exist in no thanks to your science.

    But anyway with all your rantings, and all the time you spend on the intertubes spreading your brand of retardation, you would think you would have some time to produce a positive case for your position. But seeing tat you can’t do that all you have is to try to attack me and other IDists.

    That said ,Madelyn Murray O’Hair is nothing compared to what I have coming. So keep chanting that I have nothing- I am sure people said the same thing about O’Hair, and look what she did…

Comments are closed.