Guano

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.

1,040 thoughts on “Guano

  1. Fine Erik, have it your way.

    You’re not contradicting anything I’ve said because nothing I’ve said can be contradicted. So drop the pretense.

  2. Mung,

    “What is the proper way to indicate disrespect of or lack of respect for an entity no one believes in?”

    How about: Fuck you and the imaginary, so-called ‘God’ you rode in on.?

  3. OMagain,

    That’s why I am trying to do-does Lizzie and her sycophants think a decision is material or immaterial?

  4. For those who may not know the background, this is what started the ‘poof’ discussion:

    “A few years ago, I lectured at Hillsdale College as part of a week-long lecture series on the intelligent design [Intelligent Design] debate. After Michael Behe’s lecture, some of us pressed him to explain exactly how the intelligent designer [Intelligent Designer] created the various “irreducibly complex” mechanisms that cannot–according to Behe–be explained as products of evolution by natural selection. He repeatedly refused to answer. But after a long night of drinking, he finally answered: “A puff of smoke!” A physicist in the group asked, Do you mean a suspension of the laws of physics? Yes, Behe answered. Well, that’s not going to be very persuasive as a scientific answer. And clearly Behe and other ID proponents prefer not to answer the question.” – Larry Arnhart (2006)

    Lizzie is still stuck unable to change her grammar because an omniscient Intelligent Designer in principle *could* ‘poof’, while a mere ‘intelligent designer’ couldn’t. But folks, as she says of herself, she’s “too damn old to change,” so we should just let her rest in her outdated expressions, even if a better way to communicate is possible.

  5. Mung: Elizabeth, do you think force and energy are the same thing? There’s plenty of available energy out there. We’re constantly reminded that the earth is not a closed system.

    I see you can’t defend WJM’s brain fart either and are reduced to your usual rock throwing. Oh well, there’s always UD for you to go cry at.

  6. Mung: Alan Fox’s posts can still be found at UD, so what on earth are you talking about?

    Amazing that there’s anyone slimy enough to actually defend UD’s disgusting censorship tactics.

  7. RandomnessdoesntExist:
    Our existence was intentional since everything physical began to exist and no natural force can precede the Universe, only an act can bring us here. Intention precedes reality, i have the intention to throw you a rock, after i had the intention a physical chain of causes and effects took place to energize my movement to throw you the rock, rock didn’t had the intention to be thrown itself. Only if you are conscious you have intentions.

    Materialism is dead, onlypseudo-philosophers use it to make an argument for atheism (the belief that you are a random cosmic accident that nothingness spewed without free will or purpose).

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C5pq7W5yRM

    Preaching, preaching, preaching: theism is boring, boring, boring.

    Feel free to go elsewhere and bother someone else if you don’t have anything interesting to add to the conversation.

  8. RandomnessdoesntExist: Please prove me that you are a random cosmic accident that nothingness spewed without free will or purpose (that’s what you get if you say that you were made without intention).

    Preaching, preaching, preaching, boring, boring, boring.

    Proof is for formal mathematics and whiskey drinking.

    You know better. You know that I can’t PROVE that I was “spewed … without purpose”. Nor have I the faintest interest in trying. Why would I? What do you have to offer me as an incentive? Nothing. Your approval of my point of view is less than worthless.

    You know better. You know that YOU cannot PROVE that YOU were “spewed WITH purpose” — although it’s quite likely that you have an interest in trying to do so. That kind of attitude is highly correlated with christian evangelism and your kind of feel-good-if-you-win-over “materialists” day-to-day preaching. You sound just like every other hideously-bad presuppositional christian I’ve ever heard; you’re all the same.

    Sure, if you don’t want to listen to my suggestion that you go elsewhere and bore someone else for a change, I might as well tell you to feel free to stay here and continue to harp on your boring and stupid ideas. So: feel free!

    Ya feel better now? A little thanks from you would not go amiss!

  9. GlenDavidson:
    I thought he was just making it clear that there was no reason to read his posts.

    That, and the repetition of “Lewontin” (always getting it wrong) and ‘Dawkins said that life has the appearance of design.’Just refer to something over here, then copy/paste (or its equivalent) the same old rubbish.

    Has anyone been known to read his posts through in, say, the last five years?

    Glen Davidson

    I would rather read Boragain77’s comments. Or wrestle bears. Or roll myself in honey and juggle bee hives.

    I wouldn’t hold your breath waiting for He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named to participate here. Without the power to edit comments, delete comments, add loud-speaker comments within other comments, or run to Barry to have someone banned, he would not know how to have a fair and honest discussion.

  10. stcordova: I never said it was, actually the opposite. You’re now refuting arguments which I never made.Maybe you can try refuting the arguments I actually made.

    You claimed common descent can’t explain convergence. I agreed and gave you the proper scientific explanation.

    It’s too early for you to start with the slimy evasions.

  11. Mung,

    Speaking of “silliness”, it’s very entertaining to watch you ridicule cordova for one thing (time) that doesn’t change the fact that you and he are both pushers of the same imaginary, so-called ‘God’ and associated, variously interpreted, variously proselytized fairy tales. Asserting an old Earth and an old universe does nothing to legitimize the rest of your ID-creationist twaddle.

  12. Instead of calling ‘God’ she, he, or it, how about calling ‘God’ shit? The s for she, the h for he, and the it for it. There, now everyone is happy, eh?

  13. This blog is a fucking joke. You let TROLLS like mung run amok, you cater to lying assholes like gordon elliott mullings, you let IDiots and non-IDiots call people by their real names even though their real names are NOT their user names (except when I do it by calling kairosfocus by his real name), your moderation is totally unfair and unbalanced, you put comments in Guano that DO NOT belong there and you leave comments in threads that DO belong in Guano (according to your so-called rules), the Guano section is just plain stupid, the thread topics are mostly asinine (especially lately), you put restrictions on non-IDiots that you DO NOT put on IDiots, you punish honesty and truth, you illegitimately censor FACTS including easily verifiable quotes, Elizabeth is trying to mother hen the world, and you, Alan, are a two faced jerk. Every day this blog becomes more like UD.

  14. “Alan Fox on June 7, 2015 at 9:18 am said:
    Mung: Only if you never actually intended to make Salvador look like a fool.

    Nope. I’m genuinely curious how someone can maintain the contradiction between belief and evidence. And it’s clear from evidence that Sal is not unique in juggling faith and reality. That’s why I said I wasn’t pressing him for an answer as I realise facing these contradictions may be traumatic.

    ETA making it clear who I’m responding to”

    Yeah, so it’s okay for mung and alan and anyone else to post stcordova’s real name (Sal or Salvador) even though his username is “stcordova”, not Sal or Salvador. The only difference between stcordova and [redacted AF] (in this context) is that [redacted AF] whines about people posting his real name, and stcordova doesn’t. So, the so-called ‘rule’ against “outing” here only applies to posting the real name of whiners like [redacted AF]. And there is NO fucking “outing” in posting [redacted AF]s real name and/or information about his family that HE posted PUBLICLY on UD or elsewhere.

  15. Patrick,

    The so-called “rules” here are NOT applied equally. Maybe you should all stop bitching about the way that the so-called rules at UD are unequally applied. The so-called “rules” here are applied at the whims of the moderators, just like at UD. And even worse is the catering in any way to a LYING, falsely accusatory, insane, theocratic/autocratic monster ([name redacted -NR]) who doesn’t even comment here because he’s a COWARDLY LIAR.

  16. Mung,

    “What you all need to understand is that Salvador does not care about the evidence for the age of the earth. To him it’s irrelevant.”

    That’s pretty funny coming from you, mung. To you and your fellow IDiot-creationists the massive evidence of evolution and the absence of evidence of a designer-god is irrelevant.

    By the way, why don’t you spew all of your anti-YEC assertions at UD? You’re not afraid to do that, are you?

  17. keiths,

    As I’ve mentioned before and you know very well, that line about not seeing any evidence was PRIOR to the proceeding, doofus. That I over-reacted was the verdict of the two people who made findings. You can look it up. But I know you prefer to misrepresent, lie, etc. as you’ve done with Glen in this thread. It’s, you know, your thang.

  18. There was no “proceeding”, walto. It was just people commenting on a blog thread.

    No one agreed with your false accusation. You banned yourself. You unbanned yourself, and here you are.

    Let it go, and lay off the false accusations in the future.

  19. I must say, there’s something to the intrepidness with which you will lie, lie, lie. It’s impressive, in its (kind of disgusting) way. There’s a place for it, too. You are almost legend with the nimrods at UD.

    I’m proud to know you. Keep it up!!

  20. GlenDavidson: It’s about you, is it?

    Once an attention whore, always an attention whore. Did anyone really think we’d finally get a YEC who will honestly deal with the evidence?

  21. Anyone who is aware of Cordova’s extensive track record vis a vis such things as quote-mining, and unilateral editing of statements made by people other than Cordova in forums controlled by Cordova, may be forgiven for thinking that Cordova is a massively disingenuous, two-faced, lying sack of shit.

    However, here at TSZ, we must heed the TSZ ‘rules of engagement’, and under those rules, it would of course be wrong to call Cordova a massively disingenuous, two-faced, lying sack of shit. So don’t do that.

  22. Allan,

    I think even quote mining can be done in good faith.

    Probably depends on whether you include intent to deceive in the definition.

    I’m really not sure why Sal attracts such opprobrium.

    I had a similar reaction when I first encountered Sal about ten years ago. The venom he was attracting seemed out of proportion to his actual behavior.

    Then I learned more about his actual behavior.

  23. Mung:

    Tom, when was the last time you were banned from UD and have all your posts at UD ever been deleted?

    Isn’t it time you all got over this whole Barry deleted the posts of a sock-puppet thing? And you call UD an echo-chamber. Can it get any more “holier than thou”?

    It’s about time for you waddle back to UD, kiss Barry’s ass a bit more and tattle about how awful TSZ is, innit?

  24. keiths:
    I had a similar reaction when I first encountered Sal about ten years ago. The venom he was attracting seemed out of proportion to his actual behavior.

    Then I learned more about his actual behavior.

    Me, too, and I suspect many others. Google

    Sal Cordova bestiality

    and that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

  25. People choosing not to participate at UD is completely rational. 1) Because UD is driven by censorship of views. Barry Arrington bans anyone who criticises and rejects ID too clearly or directly & who seems to know either too much science or has experienced IDist equivocation, and 2) Because one can actually receive a real human answer at TSZ sometimes, that is not simply about ‘protect & promote IDism’, where skepticism is not the final goal, but simply a process of exploration.

    Nota bene: I am not an ideological ‘skeptic’ (there is no common term ‘skepticist’). But like everyone, in some cases and at some times I am skeptical, and certainly (which is not a ‘skeptically’ intoned word) I have grown skeptical enough of IDism to take a stand against it and to become a theist opponent of IDism (one of the rare ones who take the time), the Discovery Institute and the IDM. Their double-talk, equivocation, deception and fear-mongering simply went too far.

    Sure, TSZ was started and is run by an atheist and a vast majority of its posters (minus stcordova, Mung, WJM & Robert Byers – the 4 IDists/creationists, then big gap to the non-IDists/non-YECs, Steven Schaffner, perhaps BruceS and a small few others, along with myself who are theists), are atheists or agnostics. That alone doesn’t sway me from posting here. A small few TSZers, perhaps 3 or 4 are angry, haughty, cynical, vindictive, etc., not only about IDism and YECism, but about theism in general. That’s their problem, and it leaves a bad taste of TSZ (medicine?), but it has nevertheless done a marvelous job in taking the air out of the UD windbags! And if you don’t think Denyse O’Leary is a bimbo news wind bag…

    TSZ is not a fantasy land that ‘serves the ID community’ like a proud martyrs party for the self-expelled by double-talking, as has become the norm at the UD blog that Mung is attempting to defend here. If you want to discuss something scientific, you’ll likely find a PhD in the field or in a nearly-related field who can engage you (unlike at the DI’s official ENV, which allows no comments).

    At UD, it’s a bunch of low-level culture warriors, with occasional stir-ups by ID-friendly fundies. They have a Rottweiler in ‘Timaeus,’ [redacted by EL]. Timaeus will ‘save’ UD because at the end of the day, just as with StephenB and VJTorley, he doesn’t think that in its final examination ‘ID’ is a ‘strictly scientific’ concept, i.e. unlike the Discovery Institute leaders. They feign to suggest this disconnect doesn’t destroy the IDM, and so far it hasn’t…that is, until William Lane Craig came along and saved the day.

    It’s just like your complete and stubborn failure to answer the simple question I’ve repeatedly asked you, Mung, about why the IDM ignores non-IDist design theorists and disrespects (and largely ignores) theists who reject IDism.

    ‘Please don’t ask me questions I can’t answer in my own threads! It makes me look bad.’

    Why would anyone want to be in ‘conversation’ with a person who obviously doesn’t respect them or want to play fair in dialogue? Pouting about this in public just makes you look foolish, Mung. Oh, but wait, since it is Discovery Institute policy, yes policy (I was there if you doubt it), to suggest its followers use pseudonyms, all Mung has to do when reading this is think “Hmm, this has nothing to do with the integrity of the actual human being behind the pseudonym ‘Mung’,” and he can feel absolved of any wrongdoing.

    A person like Mung makes me think that a nation-wide “Boycott the IDM!” movement should be started that particularly targets evangelical Protestant churches. If they can’t respectfully face those 2 simple categories of people – non-IDist design theorists and theists who reject IDism – head-on, then what does that say about their integrity as people of faith? Faith in hiding from reality?

    Then again, it would be conceding too much importance to IDism to imagine it even needs to be boycotted. Can’t the USA public be trusted to reject an ideology that obviously thrives on pity and fear-mongering, that depends on tithes and donations from right wing evangelical churches and rich benefactors above all, and that is really, only, surely, truly, faithfully suggesting that we ‘teach the controversy’ and promote ‘academic freedom’ 😉 in the end?

    “Why are those people so mean to us? We’ve done nothing wrong (except directly banning them, and sometime erasing things they wrote from the public record). We’re nice people (except when we tolerate for years people like ‘Joe’ who are simply a&%holes). We tell the truth (except when we double talk and equivocate). We give clear definitions (except when we flip-flop between terms even on our own definitions page). Why don’t they like us?! Sob.”

  26. Elizabeth,
    Links to UD posts are ok, right?

    So, just substitute this for me writing the year of Timaeus’ birth, and the rest of the post can be reinstated (i.e. taken out of guano): [redacted by EL]

    Note the sentence: “[redacted by EL]” – Timaeus

    Since a quick search reveals [redacted by EL], voila! The math’s not difficult.

  27. Hey look, if you folks don’t see what’s going on at UD…

    KN acknowledges strengths of posters there. Drop StephenB, VJTorley & Timaeus from the lineup and what’s left (note that people here recently commented on Erik Anderson being interviewed by Luskin, a different level)?

    p.s. OM, I didn’t need to do a quick search, since I knew [redacted by EL] already. The point is that Timaeus volunteered that information at UD, which makes it in no way a violation of TSZ rules.

  28. This is getting hilarious. Now “[redacted by EL]” was just redacted and a post sent into Guano because of it. :) WTF?

    First, it should be ‘Moderation Issues’ not Guano. Second, is someone going to answer the question: Links to UD posts are ok, right?

  29. William J. Murray: BTW, I’d like to thank everyone contributing.

    Presumably that means “I’ll be off now, and perhaps will be back when the dozens of points that crush my idea have receded into the past”.

    If you want to design an experiment that will support your claims of PSI and randomness then I’m willing to code it. But you are not actually interested in testing your claims are you, it’s all just so much mental masturbation with you.

  30. Patrick:

    I once dated a girl who’s memory was so good that she could remember things that never actually happened.

    A perfect partner for walto. Their arguments would be limited only by their imaginations.

  31. I once dated a girl who’s memory was so good that she could remember things that never actually happened.

    A perfect partner for walto. Their arguments would be limited only by their imaginations.

    Even more annoying, of course, are the keiths of the world who either can’t remember stuff that DID happen or pretend not to.

  32. walto,

    Even more annoying, of course, are the keiths of the world who either can’t remember stuff that DID happen or pretend not to.

    You’re welcome to point that out if it ever happens. Be prepared to supply actual evidence for your claim.

  33. And please note all that by “actual evidence” above keiths means items to which keiths agrees (or finds it in his interest here to pretend to).

    So, it’s kind of a tough burden to meet for those who disagree with him about anything. But again, with him being right about everything that’s ever occurred to him, it’s silly to disagree.

    So never mind.

    But I do like the idea of a Mung/keiths dance team.

  34. The difference between you and, well, everyone else, William is that other people have actually achieved things. You’ve written a few shitty books that you now disclaim. When you get round to incrementing the sum total of human knowledge by a single iota then perhaps your attitude might be warranted. Until then, know that the universe is unmoved by your existence – if you had never been it would not have changed anything tomorrow.

  35. Like Glen Davidsons claim Si02 can increase C14? :-)

    So flat-out lying is your game now. Smiley faces don’t make up for writing the opposite of the truth.

    It’s so appalling how you just make things up. Kind of an anti-Jesus thing you do.

    Glen Davidson

Comments are closed.