Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Wednesday, August 21, 2013

Global Warming Due to Clean Air!

-
That's right, cleaning up our atmosphere has allowed more of the sun's rays through to the Earth's surface, which has in turn allowed the Earth to fully rebound from the little ice age.

Yes, the clean air laws of the 1970s and 80s are to blame! LoL!

Read about it here >ENLIGHTENING GLOBAL DIMMING AND BRIGHTENING

posted by Joe G @ 9:51 AM  

24 Comments:

  • At 6:39 PM, Blogger Alan Fox said…

    Hey Joe!

    why no posts at UD?

     

  • At 9:11 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hey Alan, lately there has been a total lack of evoTARD spewage to correct.

     

  • At 10:01 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OK Alan, I have just exposed you, Lizzie and mark as morons again.

     

  • At 2:21 AM, Blogger Jerad said…

    Alan,

    I rather suspect Joe is not allowed to create posts at Uncommon Descent because of his habit of resorting to profanity and character assassination rather than making reasoned arguments and presenting hard evidence. Joe's style is just to claim everyone he disagrees with is wrong and a moron. But who knows, it seems like the atmosphere at UD is getting more and more poisonous so someday Joe may become an invited author.

    ~jerad

     

  • At 7:26 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    LoL! Jeerad you can't handle reasoned arguments and you definitely can't handle evidence. You are nothing but a liar and anasshole, like Alan.

     

  • At 2:04 AM, Blogger Jerad said…

    Uh huh.

    I tell you what, point me to something you've published or a class you've taught. Show me some academic work you've done that was reviewed by people knowledgeable in the field.

    And try and actually be civil instead of swearing and jeering like a 12-year old. If you can.

     

  • At 8:20 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Keep moving the goalpost like the coward that you are.

     

  • At 1:06 PM, Blogger Jerad said…

    Let's see . . . so you can't point to any academic work that you've created. In fact, in our previous discussions about mathematics you couldn't remember some standard topics that should have been in the course you claimed to take. You didn't/couldn't tell me the name of the course or the textbook you used. Here and elsewhere you avoid answering questions you claim to have answers for.

    People are going to start taking you even less seriously, if that's possible. Perhaps you'd like to try and

    a) present a concise and coherent theory of ID which addresses all the major threads of evidence. Your version not someone else's. I'm sure you have one.

    b) stop claiming that there is some extra coding in cells without showing some real evidence.

    c) either prove that some mutations are not random or stop claiming that they might be. You're just trying to be a merchant of doubt but you've got nothing to sell.

    d) stop resorting to profanity and insults like a primary school bully.

    e) stop asking stupid questions like: can you link to this supposed theory of evolution. You know what the theory is yet you pretend it doesn't exist just to be funny/annoying/clever.

    You know, if we were neighbours, we'd probably get along just fine. You're a down-to-earth guy who dislikes authority and knows how to look after himself. I don't understand why you continually present such a negative and rude persona.

     

  • At 7:13 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Jerad,

    Again YOU are no one to question me. And you can't even handle explanations that childfren can.

    And fuck you as you cannot link to any theory of evolution it is i\obvious that it does not exist- except in the minds of evoTARDs.

    a) present a concise and coherent theory of ID which addresses all the major threads of evidence. Your version not someone else's. I'm sure you have one.

    Again no one can present a concise and coherent theory of unguided evolution- which BTW even Lizzie Liddle says is unscientific.

    b) stop claiming that there is some extra coding in cells without showing some real evidence.

    I have presented the evidence- as I said you are ignorant of what evidence is.

    c) either prove that some mutations are not random or stop claiming that they might be.

    YOU cannot prove that any mutations are random. You donb't even know how to do such a thing as you don't have a testable hypothesis.

    OTOH there is Dr Spetner's "Not By Chance" and James Shapiro's "Evolution- A View from the 21st Century" that support my claim.

    Again your ignorance means nothing.

    d) stop resorting to profanity and insults like a primary school bully.

    Stop being such a piece of shit asshole.

    e) stop asking stupid questions like: can you link to this supposed theory of evolution.

    Strange that you can't. Heck you can't even muster a testable hypothesis for unguided evolution.

     

  • At 5:10 PM, Blogger Jerad said…

    If you really can't find a discussion of the theory of evolution then I pity you.

    You have no physical evidence that there is coding in cells aside from nuclear and mitochondrial DNA. If you find some let the world know.

    You can't prove that mutations are not random. So, the most parsimonious argument which makes the fewest assumptions is that they are random.

    It's too bad you feel the need to act so poorly when debating these issues. I can't imagine how it is that you 'fix' things, including relationships, when you so easily resort to insults and profanity.

     

  • At 7:28 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Jerad, If you cannot link to this alleged "theory" of evolution then you are a liar and a loser.

    I have presented the evidence for coding in cells. OTOH your position cannot demonstrate that matter and energy are all that is required.

    YOU cannot prove that all mutations are random. You have no idea how to even determine that they are.

    It's too bad that you feel that your bald assertions and lies actually mean somethintg...

     

  • At 8:09 AM, Blogger Jerad said…

    Jerad, If you cannot link to this alleged "theory" of evolution then you are a liar and a loser.

    Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins. Variation in the system comes from mutations, duplications, etc in the genome.

    I have presented the evidence for coding in cells. OTOH your position cannot demonstrate that matter and energy are all that is required.

    Guessing there is some extra coding is not proof. You've got to find it. Good luck with that.

    YOU cannot prove that all mutations are random. You have no idea how to even determine that they are.

    If they're not random then they would be predictable in some way. If you can't find some way of predicting when mutations occur then . . .

    Can you predict when mutations will occur?

    Do you really understand what 'random' means? Mathematically I mean. I know you're swayed by one book you read. What if that book is wrong? Is it possible you agree with it because it supports your already held belief?

    It's too bad that you feel that your bald assertions and lies actually mean somethintg...

    Too bad your usual riposte is to use profanity and to call people names. And, it's too bad you haven't got any research to back up most of your contentions. Maybe that's why you resort to name calling and swearing. Hmm . .

     

  • At 8:41 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.

    YECs accept that happens, Jerad.

    Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.

    That's very weak and vague, Jerad.

    Variation in the system comes from mutations, duplications, etc in the genome.

    And how was it determined the variation is unguided?

    I have presented the evidence for coding in cells. OTOH your position cannot demonstrate that matter and energy are all that is required.

    Guessing there is some extra coding is not proof.

    Was that some sort of refutation of the evidence I have presented? Are you really that much of a coward?

    And it is very telling tat you couldn't present anything to support your position- more cowardly bullshit.

    If they're not random then they would be predictable in some way.

    Not really. Being directed doesn't mean they are predictable. That's just a simple-minded view of "random"- and it is all you have.

    Do you understand what random means? I say it is as Mayr says- happenstance/ chance/ undirected/ unguided

    As for research- fuck you as your position has nothing and that is why you can't produce it.

    I don't resort to name calling, Jerad. I call it like it is.

     

  • At 8:44 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And thank you for not linking to this alleged theory of evolution. You're so full of shit it's pathetic.

     

  • At 1:47 AM, Blogger Jerad said…

    And how was it determined the variation is unguided?

    It's unpredictable. Fits no pattern. Hasn't been proven to be directed.

    I have presented the evidence for coding in cells. OTOH your position cannot demonstrate that matter and energy are all that is required.

    You have presented a hypothesis. An explanation of something. That's not evidence. Evidence is data in support of your hypothesis. Where is your evidence?

    And it is very telling tat you couldn't present anything to support your position- more cowardly bullshit.

    Pardon me for not reproducing 150 years of research. I guess I'm just lazy.

    Not really. Being directed doesn't mean they are predictable. That's just a simple-minded view of "random"- and it is all you have.

    If a phenomena is unpredictable and there's no proven cause for it then the default assumption would be that it's random. You are assuming an unproven, undetected, undefined agent. You've got to prove your case.

    As for research- fuck you as your position has nothing and that is why you can't produce it.

    hahahahahahahahahahahahahah :-)

    And thank you for not linking to this alleged theory of evolution. You're so full of shit it's pathetic.

    Mostly straight out of Wikipedia. Do you want me to find 175 other versions?

    You say that statement was weak and pathetic. But you've got nothing to offer in return.

    You say you know better than working scientists how science works but you've published nothing. Or done any research.

    You claim to understand better than mathematicians concepts like infinity and random because you read a book or some papers that support the position you've already adopted.

    You think debating is swearing and calling other people names. Your evidence consists of other people's ideas which have not been granted academic respect.

     

  • At 7:22 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And how was it determined the variation is unguided?

    It's unpredictable. Fits no pattern.

    That doesn't mean anythuing, Jerad. Again your ignorance also means nothing.

    Hasn't been proven to be directed.

    Science doesn't do proof, you ignorant ass.

    I have presented the evidence for coding in cells. OTOH your position cannot demonstrate that matter and energy are all that is required.

    You have presented a hypothesis

    Nope, I presented evidence, Jerad.

    And it is very telling tat you couldn't present anything to support your position- more cowardly bullshit.

    Pardon me for not reproducing 150 years of research

    Now you are just lying. Or perhaps you actually believe that shit which means that you are delusional.

    Not really. Being directed doesn't mean they are predictable. That's just a simple-minded view of "random"- and it is all you have.

    If a phenomena is unpredictable and there's no proven cause for it then the default assumption would be that it's random. You are assuming an unproven, undetected, undefined agent. You've got to prove your case.

    You can't prove your case, moron. And science is not about proof, you idiot.

    And thank you for not linking to this alleged theory of evolution. You're so full of shit it's pathetic.

    Mostly straight out of Wikipedia. Do you want me to find 175 other versions?

    You don't even know what a theory is you ignorant fuck.

    And fuck you as you cannot produce any evidence that supports your position. You are a delusional coward and a piece of shit loser.

     

  • At 2:20 AM, Blogger Jerad said…

    Nope, I presented evidence, Jerad.

    No, you hypothesised an explanation for an unexplained situation. Fair enough. Now you have to find and provide evidence in support of that hypothesis. If you can. You're right, science doesn't do proof and I shouldn't have used that term.

    And it is very telling tat you couldn't present anything to support your position- more cowardly bullshit.

    Funny that over the last 150 years thousands and thousands of biologists disagree with you. Too bad you ID guys can't even agree on what ID is saying aside from: some unnamed, undefined, unspecified designer did it. Not much of a hypothesis is it?

    Now you are just lying. Or perhaps you actually believe that shit which means that you are delusional.

    Hey, if you want to be ignorant of all the work that has been done and is being done then . . . it's up to you. But it doesn't mean the work isn't there. You might not have noticed but the world does not revolved around you and your self-imposed limited viewpoint.

    Not really. Being directed doesn't mean they are predictable. That's just a simple-minded view of "random"- and it is all you have.

    So, can you establish that mutations are directed? Have you got any evidence to that effect or are you just being a merchant of doubt and blowing smoke again?

    You don't even know what a theory is you ignorant fuck.

    Maybe. But you haven't come up with one for ID. Or for your supposed extra coding in the cell. Or for your version of infinity. In fact, mostly you just bluster and swear and attempt to intimidate. Is that how science is done then?

    And fuck you as you cannot produce any evidence that supports your position. You are a delusional coward and a piece of shit loser.

    hahahahahahahahahahahahahha Classic Joe when he can't think of anything to say. You know, it could be that the reasons you're not recognised as some kind of uncelebrated genius is a) you're wrong and b) you can't string together a coherent argument.

    When you've got a coherent explanation (aside from some designer did it) for the genetic, fossil, morphologic and bio-geographic data let us know. And remember: a designer could do whatever they want so you have to do more to establish that the designer actually existed. You might start with AT THE VERY LEAST stating when design was implemented.

    And if you can't do that then why shouldn't you be labelled a coward who can't even stand up and support your own ideas?

     

  • At 7:25 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Jerad,

    You are an ignorant asshole as I have stood up and supported my own ideas.

    Also I have presented EVIDENCE for the extra coding- gain your ignorance is amusing but not a refutation.

    BTW not one of your biologists can demonstrate natural selection actually doing something- not in 150+ years- IOW you are a bluffing liar and a delusional coward. You lose, assface.

     

  • At 4:45 PM, Blogger Jerad said…

    You are an ignorant asshole as I have stood up and supported my own ideas.

    Not to the level of being publishable in a scientific journal. That is, being examined and scrutinised by people who know the field.

    Also I have presented EVIDENCE for the extra coding- gain your ignorance is amusing but not a refutation.

    Again, you have proposed a possible explanation but have provided no data, aside from the unexplained situation, to support your claim. Are you sure you understand how science works? Where is you research? Where is your mechanism? Have you got anything to support your contention other than a guess?

    BTW not one of your biologists can demonstrate natural selection actually doing something- not in 150+ years- IOW you are a bluffing liar and a delusional coward. You lose, assface.

    Poor Joe. Hasn't got a real argument. Hasn't got any real academic support for his ideas. Can't carry on a conversation without resorting to profanity and abuse. Desperately trying to get some recognition in the ID community but keeps embarrassing them by going off half cocked and swearing at people.

    There's a big long thread going on at UD involving Dr Liddle and myself that I'm sure you're just aching to participate in. Why are you holding back? Someone told you to stay out? Have you embarrassed UD again? Dear, dear. It's hard being one of the non-elite isn't it?

     

  • At 7:37 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Jerad,

    Unguided evolution doesn't have anything in a scientific journal.

    And again I have provided evidence for the extra coding. Just because you are an ignorant asshole doesn't mean anything to me. Here's the challenge, jerad- link to what you think I said and then we can discuss it in that thread.

    As for UD I bet you still can't present any evidence for your position because you are an ignorant coward.

     

  • At 8:42 AM, Blogger Jerad said…

    Unguided evolution doesn't have anything in a scientific journal.

    hahahahahahahahahahahahhaha

    And again I have provided evidence for the extra coding. Just because you are an ignorant asshole doesn't mean anything to me. Here's the challenge, jerad- link to what you think I said and then we can discuss it in that thread.

    I remember what you said. You said that because synthesised ribosomes don't behave like naturally occurring ones there must be something else in the cell that accounts for that.

    That's not evidence! That's just a guess as to a possible explanation. A hypothesis. Find the coding. That's evidence. Find a mechanism. That's evidence.

    As for UD I bet you still can't present any evidence for your position because you are an ignorant coward.

    Have you tried looking at the academic references in any good book on evolutionary theory? You really should come up with a better argument than what you've got you know. You're beginning to sound like an old LP with a skip.

     

  • At 7:35 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Jerad, Laugh all you want, you are an ignorant ass who couldn't support his position if your life depended on it.

    You said that because synthesised ribosomes don't behave like naturally occurring ones there must be something else in the cell that accounts for that.

    Please explain what a "naturally occurring ribosome is- ya see there isn't any evidence that nature can build one.

    BTW finding the coding would be proof and only scientifically illiterate assholes require proof.

    And if ribosomes didn't need anything else artificial ribosomes would work exactly as ribosomes do inside of cells. It isn't surprising that you can't grasp that fact.

    As for UD I bet you still can't present any evidence for your position because you are an ignorant coward.

    Have you tried looking at the academic references in any good book on evolutionary theory?

    I can't find any evolutionary theory. And I have looked in science journals and biology textbooks for evidence that natural selection can actually do something and didn't find anything.

    Go figure. And it is very telling that you cannot find anything either

     

  • At 2:21 PM, Blogger Jerad said…

    Please explain what a "naturally occurring ribosome is- ya see there isn't any evidence that nature can build one.

    Not only is the default assumption (backed up by several lives of evidence) that nature can and has produced robosomes you have no evidence to the contrary. Not that that bothers you of course 'cause you're convinced you're right without evidence.

    BTW finding the coding would be proof and only scientifically illiterate assholes require proof.

    What? Have you always been an armchair quaterback or have you actually, ever done any scientific work at all?

    And if ribosomes didn't need anything else artificial ribosomes would work exactly as ribosomes do inside of cells. It isn't surprising that you can't grasp that fact.

    Well, you know, given the choice between buying your logic and that of lots and lots of highly educated researchers in the field I pick . . . wait for it . . . them.

    I can't find any evolutionary theory. And I have looked in science journals and biology textbooks for evidence that natural selection can actually do something and didn't find anything.

    Oh dear. I am sorry. I didn't realise you have a reading comprehension deficiency.

     

  • At 10:29 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Jerad, fuck you asshole as there isn't any evidence that nature can produce a ribosome- you are a liar and a bad liar at that.

    And it is very telling that you cannot reference any theory of evolution...

     

Post a Comment

<< Home