Not that more proof is needed ...

[rwatts]

Self-ordering is not the same as Self-organizing.
As always, you people are clueless on the difference between the two.
And it is that cluelessness that doesn't allow you to see your error.

So what on earth makes you think I (and/or that paper) have no idea as to the difference Jorge?

What I mean is, did you conveniently forget the number of times where I asked you to post S-H-O-R-T posts so that I wouldn't have to spend hours just reading them, only to find out that I had just wasted hours of my life reading rubbish?

See my question above.

Let's see if you have the capacity to address just that short question.

Even so, the title alone pretty much tells us that we are about to hear a flock of Alice-in-Wonderland stories. What I mean is, seeing "Darwin" in the same sentence as "origin of multicellularity" immediately tells me that I'm about to encounter a sack full of just-so stories all based on the presupposed "fact" of Darwinian Evolution.

They were testing aspects of the theory Jorge. To test a theory, one has to presuppose something about it.

So sorry about that.

Jorge

No need to be sorry Jorge. Let us see if you are man enough to address that small question I asked at the start. By address, I mean supply an answer that is not a rant, that is coherent, logical and has supporting evidence.

[nmanning]

Very nice dodge (of the substance of my post), numnuts.

Right now you hold the top spot on the Dodge Master List.

Jorge

Dodge? You think your post had "substance"?

I'll bet you think Palin is a great role model, too.


I provided you a link to Darwin's collected works.

I note that you did not reply to that post.

You are on top of the Creationist Hypocrite List.


Oh - and you name calling is oh so clever - "numnuts". That is a good one. It seems to be at about your intellectual level.

[nmanning]

Yes - his collected works:

http://darwin-online.org.uk/

Aren't you the fellow that passes himself off as having an earned PhD, yet 'earned' this degree by reviewing a few books and coughing up a few grand to some unaccredited Christian diploma mill? :

Where o where has Mr."Numnuts" gone?

[Jorge]

I certainly don't need any more convincing about the IDEOLOGICAL agenda -- not scientific -- that Evolutionists have. Here's the latest news on that topic. BTW, note that this is their 4th (that's FOURTH) attempt at this. In typical fashion, they will continue pushing and pushing until they get what they want - this is not unlike the LGBT agenda which operates exactly the same way. I also noted how they try to make this into a DEM v. REP issue. Nonsense!


Tragically, the statement that, "the percentage who believe evolution was not guided by God is on the rise" is very true. That is an unavoidable, predictable effect of the Humanists/Atheists/Theistic Evolutionists having taken over the "educational" system, cramming Evolution down the throats of the defenseless students and often lying by omission and by falsehoods.

Oh well ... as the saying goes, there will be Hell to pay!

SOURCE: http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/03/de...es-darwin-day/

Jorge

Little by little, even the hundreds of millions of years that the Evo-Faithful have awarded themselves are proving to be insufficient to explain the observations. Here's the latest evidence testifying to that fact:

"See http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0212141447.htm - "We consistently find with every new fossil that the earliest mammals were just as diverse in both feeding and locomotor adaptations as modern mammals," said Zhe-Xi Luo, PhD, professor of organismal biology and anatomy at the University of Chicago and an author on both papers. "The groundwork for mammalian success today appears to have been laid long ago."
.
.
So, if the earliest mammals were just as diverse as modern mammals, then pray tell, Evo-Guru, when-oh-when did their Evolution take place? Perhaps it was while no one was looking? Yeah, and that's why we have no evidence - because no one was looking.

One can only wonder at what howlers the Evo-Faithful will conjure up to save their day.

Jorge

[Jorge]

So what on earth makes you think I (and/or that paper) have no idea as to the difference Jorge?

See my question above.

Let's see if you have the capacity to address just that short question.

They were testing aspects of the theory Jorge. To test a theory, one has to presuppose something about it.


No need to be sorry Jorge. Let us see if you are man enough to address that small question I asked at the start. By address, I mean supply an answer that is not a rant, that is coherent, logical and has supporting evidence.

You and others here on TWeb seem to always be questioning my "manhood".
In typical fashion, ad hominem to the rescue, huh.

The answer to your question is one word: experience.

Years - nay, decades! - of experience have proven beyond doubt that people of your ideology are wholly ignorant (often times by choice) as to the difference between self-ordering and self-organizing (or, more simply, the difference between order and organization).

There you have it : coherent and logical. The "evidence" you want would force me to search amongst countless books, papers, articles, posts and personal exchanges. No, I'm not going to make such a huge investment of time. What for? Besides, I could prove it to you very easily if we were at this moment sitting face-to-face at a table. It would take me a few minutes to prove to you that you don't know/understand that difference.

Of course, now (unseen by me), you will Google the hell out of that topic and by the end of the day you'll "know" what I'm talking about. But that's cheating. Be honest and ask yourself right now (before going to any source to become educated) if you could fully explain why and how 'order' and 'organization' are different and why Materialism is completely stumped at how raw mass-energy can produce organization (not order) UNLESS a guiding mechanism/agent is acting.

After you've done that, you will have learned, Grasshopper.

Jorge

[Jorge]

Dodge? You think your post had "substance"?

I'll bet you think Palin is a great role model, too.


I provided you a link to Darwin's collected works.

I note that you did not reply to that post.

You are on top of the Creationist Hypocrite List.


Oh - and you name calling is oh so clever - "numnuts". That is a good one. It seems to be at about your intellectual level.

You're a bore, numnuts. ("numnuts" came from a Peter Sellers movie)

Let's do this ...

At this time I noticed that you have 24 posts. Going back to the pre-crash TWeb, I must be approaching 16,000 posts. Granted, many of those posts were poking fun and rattling the cage of specimens like you but ... regardless. When you start getting close to 25% of my posts -- that would be 4,000 posts since you may be math-challenged -- then you may direct a post at me. Until then, go haunt someone else, okay?

BTW, my personal library contains most (if not all) of Darwin's collected works (certainly the most important ones) so you're about 25 years behind the curve. One more reason for me to give you time - LOTS of time - to get caught up.

"Hasta la vista, baby!" The Terminator

Jorge

[nmanning]

You're a bore, numnuts. ("numnuts" came from a Peter Sellers movie)

Oh no - I bore the man with the diploma mill "doctorate"... Whatever shall I do???

Let's do this ...

At this time I noticed that you have 24 posts. Going back to the pre-crash TWeb, I must be approaching 16,000 posts. Granted, many of those posts were poking fun and rattling the cage of specimens like you but ... regardless. When you start getting close to 25% of my posts -- that would be 4,000 posts since you may be math-challenged -- then you may direct a post at me. Until then, go haunt someone else, okay?

I will direct posts as I see fit - to you or anyone else.

You are nothing, a nobody. A laughingstock. You do not tell me what to do on this forum or anywhere else.

BTW, my personal library contains most (if not all) of Darwin's collected works (certainly the most important ones) so you're about 25 years behind the curve. One more reason for me to give you time - LOTS of time - to get caught up.

Yes, I am so certain that your 'personal library' is so well stocked - I'm sure you have Darwin's works right next to your TrueOrigins essays and Archie comics.

But it is a shame that you never took the time to read anything in his books - sorry, I mean for understanding, not for finding tidbits to rip from their context and try to exploit.

"Hasta la vista, baby!" The Terminator

Jorge

Why is it that so many creationists have these pathetic, transparent delusions of grandeur?

[JonF]

You're a bore, numnuts. ("numnuts" came from a Peter Sellers movie)

It's numbnuts.

[Jorge]

I will direct posts as I see fit - to you or anyone else.

You do not tell me what to do on this forum or anywhere else.

I don't tell anyone what to do -- unlike the Prez B. Obama.

Likewise, you don't tell me. Just know that from this point forward I will sidestep you and your posts in the same way as I sidestep cow manure when I'm taking a pleasant stroll at the farm. In the meantime, do continue your militant attack on things that you know nothing about -- you're only making yourself look worse with each post.

Jorge

[Jorge]

It's numbnuts.

In the movie, the parrot and Peter Sellers kept saying, "numnuts!", if I recall.
Anyway, "numnuts" worked better for the comedy aspect and nmanning is definitely comical.

Jorge

[rwatts]

You and others here on TWeb seem to always be questioning my "manhood".
In typical fashion, ad hominem to the rescue, huh.

The answer to your question is one word: experience.

Years - nay, decades! - of experience have proven beyond doubt that people of your ideology are wholly ignorant (often times by choice) as to the difference between self-ordering and self-organizing (or, more simply, the difference between order and organization).

There you have it : coherent and logical. The "evidence" you want would force me to search amongst countless books, papers, articles, posts and personal exchanges. No, I'm not going to make such a huge investment of time. What for? Besides, I could prove it to you very easily if we were at this moment sitting face-to-face at a table. It would take me a few minutes to prove to you that you don't know/understand that difference.

Of course, now (unseen by me), you will Google the hell out of that topic and by the end of the day you'll "know" what I'm talking about. But that's cheating. Be honest and ask yourself right now (before going to any source to become educated) if you could fully explain why and how 'order' and 'organization' are different and why Materialism is completely stumped at how raw mass-energy can produce organization (not order) UNLESS a guiding mechanism/agent is acting.

After you've done that, you will have learned, Grasshopper.

Jorge

So you don't have anything to support your claim (such as references to other material)? At best all you can do is simply repeat it, but offer more of a rant in the process:-

"Years - nay, decades! - of experience have proven beyond doubt that people of your ideology are wholly ignorant (often times by choice) as to the difference between self-ordering and self-organizing (or, more simply, the difference between order and organization)."


As is usual, well done Jorge.


PS Jorge, these folk are talking about self-organization and self-assembly. It seems you don't understand this.

[oxmixmudd]

Why is it that so many creationists have these pathetic, transparent delusions of grandeur?

That is not at all hard to explain. The delusion of scientifically justified YEC depends on isolation from the truth, from the real data and its implications. But from within that isolated environment, it is possible, perhaps even likely, for one to think far higher of ones capabilities than would be possible otherwise.

Jim

[Jorge]

So you don't have anything to support your claim (such as references to other material)? At best all you can do is simply repeat it, but offer more of a rant in the process:-

"Years - nay, decades! - of experience have proven beyond doubt that people of your ideology are wholly ignorant (often times by choice) as to the difference between self-ordering and self-organizing (or, more simply, the difference between order and organization)."


As is usual, well done Jorge.


PS Jorge, these folk are talking about self-organization and self-assembly. It seems you don't understand this.

You want a reference? Sure, here are two: (1) The First Gene by David L. Abel and,
(2) Without Excuse, by Gitt, Compton and Fernandez.

Try harder, Roland.

Jorge

[rwatts]

You want a reference? Sure, here are two: (1) The First Gene by David L. Abel and,
(2) Without Excuse, by Gitt, Compton and Fernandez.

Try harder, Roland.

Jorge

I was hoping for references to papers from real physicists and biologists, showing that they don't understand the difference Jorge, because, as I point out, those papers you object to are discussing self-organisation and self-assembly.

So what makes you think that the authors of those papers are confused?

[Jorge]

I was hoping for references to papers from real physicists and biologists, showing that they don't understand the difference Jorge, because, as I point out, those papers you object to are discussing self-organisation and self-assembly.

So what makes you think that the authors of those papers are confused?

"Confused" isn't the word that I'd use. Some know the score but wish to retain their jobs and avoid the label of "pseudo-scientist". Others know the truth but are ideologically bound to the falsehoods that The Establishment promotes. Others serve their Master - Satan - and are all about spreading lies so as to lead people into Hell. Others are simply ignorant - they don't know anything other than what they've been indoctrinated to believe. Others are intellectually lazy and/or dishonest and so do not pursue the truth (with hard work) or do not accept the truth (with integrity). Others do not wish to submit to the truth because it would cramp their chosen/preferred lifestyle.

In short, there isn't a single, one-size-fits-all reason. Try harder, Roland.

Jorge