Guano (2)

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.

[New page 30485 created as an antidote to the page bug – AF]

396 thoughts on “Guano (2)”

  1. Patrick: Do you have a precise, measurable definition of “Complex Specified Information”?No one thus far has been able to provide an example of how to calculate CSI, by Dembski’s definition, for any biological artifact.

    Yes, we have, Patrick and I have posted it on this blog. OTOH your position doesn’t offer up anything measureable. Perhaps that is what has you confused.

  2. Alan Fox: Then let’s have the link.

    Again? Just so you can spew your vitriol? All you do is flail away and deny. It isn’t any use discussing things with you under this format.

    Look, Alan, if your position had something then you wouldn’t have to worry about ID. Yet you can’t even test the majority of claims your position makes.

  3. Alan Fox: So you haven’t a definition? That’s what I thought. Thanks for the confirmation.

    I posted the definition, Alan. Do try to grow up

  5. Frankie,

    Yes, Alan used a poor choice in words.

    And it led him to make a false statement:

    My point was that Shannon information does not refer to information content.

    That’s clearly incorrect, because Shannon information does refer to information content. Messages carry Shannon information, and Shannon information is information, after all.

    Instead of simply acknowledging and correcting his mistake, Alan is yet again trying to evade responsibility for it. ‘Pitiful’ is the right word for this childish behavior.

  6. John Harshman:
    Frankie,

    I’m sorry. I have only myself to blame. I responded to Frankie.

    And you received a proper answer. Just because it made you look like a fool is no reason to get in a hissy-fit.

  7. Frankie: For example no one knows how to test the claim that ATP synthase arose via stochastic processes such as natural selection, drift and/ or neutral construction.

    Frankie (who is not Joe or Virgil), just because you lack the intelligence and imagination necessary to devise even the simplest of scientific test doesn’t mean that everybody suffers from the same handicap. After all, even a grade school kid knows that frequency is not equal to wavelength.

  9. LoL! Right after I get finished saying Just cuz the word “evolution” appears in the text doesn’t mean it supports evolutionism/ the alleged theory of evolution. Talk about desperation… Richie jumps right in with another bluff.

    Please present the evidence that your list pertains to natural selection, drift and/ or neutral construction producing exon shuffling or anything else you referred to.

    Or admit it is all a bluff based on your misunderstanding of the debate.

  10. LoL! Your literature bluff is duly noted.

    Please present the evidence that your list pertains to natural selection, drift and/ or neutral construction producing exon shuffling or anything else you referred to.

    Or admit it is all a bluff based on your misunderstanding of the debate.

  11. Lip service is not a demonstration. Amazing what bullshit Richie will accept if he thinks it supports his claims.

  12. I see that Richie’s literature bluff is being protected by my calling him on it goes to guano. How typical of TSZ

  15. I see that Richie is too stupid to understand the argument:

    The process ID uses that is the same as those other venues was laid out by Sir Isaac Newton in his four rules of scientific investigation. That means they all use the EF or something very, very similar to it. They have to eliminate necessity and chance and then find a pattern.

    No surprise there

  16. He’s about to have his tunie meltdown again. I’m surprised that sort of thing is compatible with his Muslim beliefs.

  20. keiths:
    keiths:

    Joe:

    Now that’s mathematical rigor.

    What does it matter where they went? Make your case as opposed to just being an ass

    And nice quote-mine

  24. Yes, it is a given that you two cannot actually form coherent arguments and have to lash out like the cowards that you are. Thank you for proving my point- that your position cannot muster testable hypotheses and cannot be tested.

  26. But let’s face it, Mung is a self-admitted professional troll who contributes precisely nothing anywhere he posts. The clue, is after all, in the name.

    – Hey, that script work yet?
    – Nope, It’s Mung, Smith got to it first.
    – Damn.

  27. ID has testable hypotheses and they have been tested. Your ignorance is neither and argument nor a refutation. And the scientists who accept evolutionism cannot test its claims. Peer-review is devoid of explanations for NS, drift and neutral construction producing ATP synthase or a bacterial flagellum.

    Don’t blame me just because you are gullible and afraid to look into things for yourself.

  30. Woodbine: Everytime I read Joe’s ‘thoughts’ I can faintly hear the Laurel & Hardy theme.

    Most likely because you are too dim to grasp what I post. That is what your posts say about you, anyway

  31. Robin: Yeah, I know…just trying to be a little tongue-in-cheek about Joe’s consistent inconsistency. “Oh…if ID wins, there will be no more reason for ID because evolution won’t exist! Oh…but ID isn’t anti-evolution or anything!”

    Joe is nothing if not…uh…nope…Joe is just nothing.

    LoL! Any and all alleged inconsistencies are in your little mind. Make your case as opposed to spewing bullshit. It’s as if you guys don’t give a shit about Lizzie’s rules

  33. walto,

    Anyhow, getting back to the subject at hand, you asked for (not that you actually want, of course), evidence that you had supported libertarianism here. I.e., I wrote,

    In the libertarianism thread you made claims about the merits of that perspective that YOU would not back up upon questioning by (I believe) cubist.

    to which you responded:

    No, I did not. If you disagree, provide links to such claims.

    Recent defenses of yours are easy to find. There are many older ones too, but I’m too lazy. The best batch come from what I like to call “Patrick’s Christmas, 2015 sentiments.” They appear on the Noyau, in a discussion that led Neil to create the Libertarianism thread so we could continue there.

    So right off we see that I made no claims in the Libertarianism thread. You’re as sloppy with your accusations as you are with your ethics (but I still have hope for you).

    They all support libertarianism, and, as frosting, also display your extremely high opinon of yourself:

    No one who has asserted that government force should be used against people who are not harming others, purely to achieve some goal that person thinks desirable, has any moral standing to criticize those of us who value honesty, integrity, and honor. [Noyau, 12/25/15 at 8:01 PM]

    That describes my personal view of you and hints at my personal morality. It has nothing to do with libertarianism (my political views arise from my morality, not vice versa).

    My personal morality is that other people are their own ends, not means to my ends. I don’t care if you call yourself the Crips, the Cosa Nostra, or the government, once you start using force against people who aren’t harming you, you’re on the wrong side.

    More about my personal morality.

    An authoritarian who supports that initiation of force, who thinks that it is acceptable to have a career using government coercion to interfere with otherwise peaceful people, and who was paid in tax dollars has the ethics of a thief. Such a person should be spending his time figuring out how to atone for living at the expense of others, not providing unsolicited advice to people who value integrity and honor. [Noyau, 12/27/15 at 10:54 PM]

    More of my personal morality, applied to your behavior.

    I see a lot of people with knee-jerk reactions to libertarianism, but for me it comes down to the idea that interactions between people should be mutually consensual. Live and let live, treat others as you’d wish to be treated, an’ it harm none do as ye will — however you want to phrase it, it’s a matter of working together voluntarily rather than at the point of a gun. [Noyau, 12/27/15 at 11:48 PM]

    My personal views.

    The morality underlying the libertarian political movement is the non-coercion principle. Frederic Bastiat summarized the consequences nicely: “Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.”

    I suppose you could call this a claim, but it’s just a statement of fact. You can look it up on the Libertarian Party’s website.

    Finally, libertarians make a point of investigating the actual costs of government programs, including unintended consequences. Statists look only at the intended (not even actual) benefits. [Noyau, 12/28/15 at 2:21 PM]

    I’ll give you half a point for this one, since the second sentence is based on my experience. To clarify, please consider it prefaced with “In my experience . . . .”

    Those all regard what you take to be the merits of libertarianism.

    Nope. They are statements about my personal morality combined with a few easily verifiable facts about libertarianism.

    You received questions and criticisms about those claims and descriptions from (at least) me, cubist and hotshoe, but repeatedly refused to answer them. Just like erik.

    Erik repeatedly made a claim about objective reality and refused to either support it or retract it. I wrote about my personal beliefs and applied them to your behavior. I’m glad it’s stuck with you for so long. Maybe you will reach the point where “honesty”, “integrity”, and “honor” are more than just words to you.

    I’m rooting for you, walto!

  34. walto,

    Wow, thanks for the excellent example of your extreme sanctimony. When I think you’ve already exhibited the holier than thou stuff to the max, you always manage to surprise me by dialing it up to eleven. You are most awesome!

    . . .

    But who cares about evidence. Let us leave that stuff alone now, You have bigger fish to fry! Let me instead close by thanking you for all you do in attempting to improve the morality of others by insulting them. It’s consistent with your libertarian ideals, and your whitewashing of Trump, in addition to your own deep glorious sanctimony. The only thing that makes me sad is that you deserve the same sort of credit that keiths does for your noble work in that area, and I fear I may have lavished more on him than I have on you. For that, I sincerely apologize.

    That’s it, that’s it, let the self-loathing flow through you (sure, you’re interpreting it as anger now, but deep down you know what it is). It’s rough, but the only way to accept and change is to re-experience everything you’ve pushed down, every moral compromise you’ve made, every time you deliberately avoided thinking about how you were living at the expense of others. Get it all out (keep projecting if you must) and then maybe, just maybe, you’ll come to a place where you can try to begin making amends.

  35. fifthmonarchyman: The issue being discussed is the unity of reason. The rest is just digression. And a rather silly digression at that.

    I was responding to your post, you moron. Why did you digress, if digression it was?

    Why is your chosen digression important and mine not worth you time?

    As I noted, it wasn’t my digression, it was yours. Then you responded irrelevantly to my response to your digression.

    You really don’t get anything right, do you? Almost anything you write is seriously wrong in some manner or other, and you project your digressions onto myself.

    Glen Davidson

  36. fifthmonarchyman: Avoiding honest disclosure of your beliefs while attacking the beliefs of others might be a way to score debate points but it is not cool.

    Then why must you do that, moron?

    My beliefs weren’t at issue, and you tried to make them the issue, without characterizing them correctly to boot.

    The problem is I’m not interested in a debate about God’s existence.

    So why do you turn a discussion about belief into accusations regarding my supposed statements about God?

    I’m barely interested in a debate about God’s existence, which is why I never discussed God’s existence. You were too uncivil to respond to what I wrote, instead making up shit about what you imagined I had written.

    Glen Davidson

  37. Sal, don’t mind Tom. He’s just a bored high school teacher.

    Recently, he’s been jumping up and down trying to get someone’s attention.

    Anyone’s.

    So its no wonder he’s zoomed in on you.

    Maybe it’s some some sort of Phi Zeta frat initiation. At least try to bitch slap an ID supporter…. and you’re in!

    But Tom was not counting on getting slapped back. So he’s not a shoe in for Phi Zeta…. yet.

    You need to turn your head to the left and to the right, Sal. You need to help Tom out. Don’t embarass him with a loss of Phi Zeta.

  38. fifth:

    I think if you were to ask the average crowd at the Walmart if truth exists. The answer would be yes for the overwhelming majority of muggles.

    newton:

    What percentage do you think would describe truth as a person?

    fifth:

    Close to 100% of the Biblically literate Christians would identify Jesus with the Truth.

    fifth,

    You’re dodging newton’s question, for obvious reasons.

    You know as well as I do that if you asked the average Walmarter to tell you something about truth, the answer would not begin with the word “He”.

    If you asked them about Jesus, however, the answer would almost certainly begin with that word.

  39. Cross-posted from the Moderation Issues thread:

    Alan,

    This comment violates no rules and should be restored from Guano to the original thread:

    Mung:

    According to keiths all circles are identical.

    No.

    Mung, you’re better off saying nothing than saying something stupid and false.

    Please do so immediately and exercise more self-restraint going forward.

  40. walto,

    And so it doesn’t seem like I’m being obscurantist here, my remark that my book must be a page-turner since keiths read it in about 7 minutes does not require evidence.

    Why not? No one’s taking the seven-minute part literally, but you are implying — dishonestly — that I raced through your book. Why does your lie deserve an exemption?

    And why not simply get your shit together and stop lying?

  41. Alan,

    With that out of the way, I’ll note that you have yet again — apparently uncomprehendingly — demonstrated your chronic dishonesty to your entire audience.

    Neil made his quotemining accusation:

    And here I am wondering why you have posted three quote mines.

    I called him on it. He then reiterated the accusation:

    Yes, those were quote mines.

    You wanted so desperately for me to be wrong, and for Neil to be innocent, that you immediately lied about what Neil had done:

    What accusation? I’ve only seen Neil expressing his opinion.

    Lying seems to be your tactic of first resort. You are, by far, your own worst enemy, Alan.

    It’s interesting. I feed you the rope, and you fashion it into a noose and slip it over your head. You just can’t help yourself, can you?

  42. keiths: What I am arguing is that at TSZ, it is shitty to make false accusations, and one way of discouraging that is to put people on the hot seat when they do it. You don’t like it, Mung doesn’t like it, and hotshoe, despite her empty protests, clearly does not like it.

    Yep, you’re still an idiot and apparently the world’s worst mind-reader.

    I love it when you “put me on the hotseat”. These are the only times I get to have this much fun – dodging my realworld chores so I can justifiably sling insults at someone’s repeated dumbassery. It’s specifically that it’s your dumbassery that makes it so delicious to me. Slinging insults at a poor JW-escapee like Erik is tainted with pity; it has to be a champion atheist wanker like you, brought down by his own jumping to stupidity, to be a real thrill.

    Okay, if you mean “clearly does not like it” as a synonym for “love it” — then you’re right!

  44. Alan,

    Same question as for Neil: If you insist on guanoing comments, why not post links to them in the original thread?

  45. Erik,

    Of all the annoyances in web discussions, an annoyed moderator acting out his annoyance at the expense of an ongoing discussion is among the worst.

    Indeed. It’s an abuse.

  47. Here is a thought- instead of attacking Kirk why don’t you just show him/ us how easy it is for stochastic processes to produce proteins? That would be the non-cowardly venue, anyway

  48. What role does intelligent design play in evolution by intelligent design?

    That doesn’t even make any sense. Perhaps you should grow up, get an education and come back when you are able to ask coherent questions and are also prepared to answer questions about your position.

  49. What role does intelligent design play in evolution by intelligent design?

    That doesn’t even make any sense. Perhaps you should grow up, get an education and come back when you are able to ask coherent questions and are also prepared to answer questions about your position.

    I didn’t accuse anyone of ignorance

  50. Allan Miller,

    My own view is that proteins came some considerable time after the beginning of life.

    Life without proteins is impossible

    Once proteins became embedded in life, RNA-only organisms were quickly rendered extinct.

    What RNA-only organisms? What makes them organisms?

    Well at least we know that Allan isn’t interested in science and evidence.

Comments are closed.