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]
That would normally be against the rules. But I understand, Patrick is your bitch, so its cool.
The laws of physics are still the same!
On the other hand, anyone who doesn’t understand the connection between the senses and perception simply isn’t smart enough to participate in the discussion.
You’ll have to sit this one out, Mung. It’s above your pay grade.
And Patrick is your bitch.
And Patrick is your bitch.
colewd,
Stop being such a coward. Read Theobald.
colewd,
Stop being such a coward. Read Theobald.
Liar.
Liar.
Liar. Pathetic Liar. But what ought one expect from someone who drinks from the fountain of lies.
Patrick is a demonstrable liar. But that’s ok, because he’s a moderator.
Hypocrite
It takes a very small man to lie as much as you do, walto.
You’re fucking retarded (please guano)
Tom English:
Clearly not addressed to the person!
Pathetrick:
Liar. Hypocrite.
Liar*
Patrick:
Mung:
Mung is too dim to realize that adding two asterisks is still an instance of “adding asterisks to personal insults”.
Liar* Liars** Lying***
Even dim Patrick is catching on that I am responding that way to people who are breaking his own rule for deciding what is Guano and what is not.
“Mung is fine with ID leaders peddling things they know are not true.”
“Mung is too dim…”
If you want to attack me personally, fine. But do it in Noyau, where it is allowed.
You wouldn’t want any moderator here to suffer from an attack of conscience.
phoodoo,
No, I’m asking why the same groups of species differ more in some genes then others. The evolutionary explanation which you summarily dismiss is that the different genomic regions have been subject to different intensities of selection. So what’s your alternative explanation?
More junk DNA. I think you could have probably anticipated the evolutionary explanation yourself without needing it spoon fed.
FFS. Go back to the bible you fucktard. There’s nothing here for you.
Mung,
Clearly Mung hasn’t watched the video. But continue looking stupid, Mung. It’s what you do best.
There wasn’t anything wrong with the comment you deleted, Alan. Try to make a case as opposed to blanket censorship
Unfortunately you cannot interact with anyone as you don’t have any science to support the claims of your position.
Calling people liars is against the rules. But I guess a small sin is acceptable to you in pursuit of your more important goal, converting the sinners.
Fuckwit.
Mung,
Always amusing to watch idiots fall over themselves. I give you a solid D- for honesty. Your objective morality detecter must be broken, or also in Barry’s purse.
Straight up lies.
Salvador Sociopath “Liar” Cordova simply makes shit up as he goes along.
Please give a reference to the “garbology theory of SINES with CTFC binding sites” that claims they’re all nonfunctional.
Please give a reference to the “garbology theory of ALUs that generate circRNAs” that claims they’re all nonfunctional.
Please give a reference to the “garbology theory of pseudogenes that serve as miRNA sponges” that claims they’re all nonfunctional.
Salvador Sociopath “Liar” Cordova will not be able to satisfy these requests, because these theories are inventions of his mind that he needs to prop up a revisionist history that makes evolutionary biologists appear bad.
Salvador Sociopath “Liar” Cordova’s intentions have nothing to do with facts, truth or good science, it’s personal gain. Salvador Sociopath “Liar” Cordova probably isn’t even a creationist or ID-proponent, he’s probably an atheist sociopath who due to his sociopathy has no moral scruples telling lies to gullible religionists so they can support him financially.
Tom:
In Mung’s case, it’s intra.
Said keiths, while bending over to try to determine exactly where my balls were in relation to Barry’s ass, because, you know, that’s precisely the sort of thing that keiths is fixated on.
Mung,
Speaking of fixations, it’s telling that you would bring Barry’s ass into this. I was talking about his purse.
You have multiple fixations. If that’s not true, feel free to stop talking about them.
To each his own. If that is what you choose to fixate on, who am I to judge?
You are concentrated on Barry’s purse. Or my testicles. Your choice.
And you didn’t miss it. Such concentration! Are you attracted to the smell?
Is Phoodoo still dodging? Pathetic.
Richardthughes,
Are you still posting things you haven’t read Richard? Pathetic.
Another dodge Phoodooo. I’m honest about what I have and haven’t read, Unlike YOU.
Richardthughes,
Are you still posting stuff that you can’t read Richard?
Pathetic!
phoodoo,
No, he doesn’t mean any of that. dipshit.
Richardthughes,
I wonder why Richard always disrespects the rules of this forum. Is it because he hates Lizzie? Is it because he doesn’t know what he is typing? Could it be both?
Probably.
Frankly, I’d never even heard of you before you showed up over at UD and started spouting nonsense and never even addressed the scientific case for ID. You’re like the Salvador Cordova of theistic evolutionists.
keiths:
Mung:
That’s the point, doofus.
Right over your head.
I find it rather ridiculous, but not surprising given Tom Englishes prior record of cheesy criticisms, that Tom is trying to argue technical points here, that the authors are clearly not going to respond to here, so it is really just a pointless exercise in Tom claiming his information is correct.
Is the math right, are the presumptions right, are the conclusions right-who the hell knows, because any objection English or Joe might have clearly needs to be addressed precisely by the authors. Such criticisms are meaningless, unless equal responses are heard from the other side.
Joe’s line “This was immediately refuted by critics (starting with Richard Wein and Jason Rosenhouse).” is a typical example of such nonsense. This is exactly how wikipedia tries to slant the discourse of any subject they have their particular pet viewpoint (materialism). So and so has criticized the work as being inaccurate…
Anyone can make such a claim. That is supposedly to be clearly against the rules at Wikipedia, but that never stops them.
Can’t resist. Keiths “misunderstands” when I say a tapeworm infestation could be described at “nasty” in the sense of “that’s a nasty problem you have” to highlight the two meanings. What a pillock!
walto,
No what I said was Tom’s post was jerkish as usual. And since Patrick is abusing his authority once again, I shall repeat, his POSTS are jerkish and childish, and therefore his conclusions also suspect.
The people he is critiquing are much more level headed and intelligent in their writings, so what reason is there to believe Tom. Idiotic posts like Tom’s are usually written by people who write idiotic posts (no rules broken right Patrick? But that won’t stop you).
Fair Witness:
Mung:
Yes. Unlike you in both respects.
Erik,
I do think that rape counts. Freaks like Mung who think that rape isn’t evil can substitute any other sin from among the many committed here on earth, according to their conception of God’s morality.
For any such sin an omniGod has the power to prevent it without compromising anyone’s free will. He doesn’t. That means that either a) he doesn’t exist, or b) he isn’t the omniGod you claim him to be.
A perfectly good God will eliminate all unnecessary evil from the world, not just ‘contain’ it.
Plantinga tried to argue that some evil is necessary in service of the greater good of free will. My argument shows that the evil isn’t necessary. God can eliminate it without depriving anyone of free will.
DNA_jock’s trolling,
Sakur-tetrode obviously doesn’t apply in the liquid state and when the approximation no longer are close to ideal gases.
Many of the figures quoted are assuming standard temperatures and pressures or thereabout.
Grasping at straws as usual, DNA_jock. You said, Keiths is correct to disagree with physicist and chemists who support the energy dispersal (spreading) metaphor. You’ve not shown Keiths is right, not done any of the requested derivation in question posed to you. Since you don’t reciprocate to my questions, I won’t reciprocate to any more of yours. You’re now on my ignore list until I change my mind, troll.
Yup. So Erik got that right. Right?
ETA: And petrushka is a liar.
“Logical priority is epistemological priority, not ontological priority.” – KN
It’s moronic things, smelling of haughty and vacuous scientism, like this that regularly reveal ‘poser’ philosopher status for this site’s resident USAmerican atheist philosophist.
Hint for KN: epistemo-LOGICAL + onto-LOGICAL It just displays mixed-up, confused, distorted, indeed illogical prioritization, which appears endemic. And since he recognises this illogic as credit rather than deficit, not much can be done at this point. Carry on with the illogical wallowing forked by Wallace, still suckling primarily at the breast of Darwin’s mob.
“I’ve had Gregory on ignore for a long time. And I’m now putting you on ignore as well.” – KN
That’s the level of your TAMSZ resident philosophist: run & hide when theists call him out on his ‘LOGICAL’ inconsistencies made in public on this blog behind the safety of his backwards-looking pseudonym. He seems to think this is a good public image for him: the skeptic atheist (not allowed to mention other personal characteristics he’s named about himself) who cannot face reality, except scientistically, naturalistically, philosophistically. Is that really the kind of PRIORITY children should be forced into?
Ironically, the guy wouldn’t even have had jobs, including his current position, except for Catholics! Any thanks to the Catholic Church for his employment?! Nobody likes an ungrateful bastard.
The philosophistry on display here – epistemo-LOGY supposedly LOGICALLY prior to onto-LOGY – is apparently just another level of ignorance higher that you can possibly achieve as ‘thinkers,’ TSZers. Lizzie has set the bar so very high for anglo-American ‘skeptics.’ 😉
“I’ve had Gregory on ignore for a long time. And I’m now putting you on ignore as well.” – KN
That’s the level of your TAMSZ resident philosophist: run & hide when theists call him out on his ‘LOGICAL’ inconsistencies made in public on this blog behind the safety of his backwards-looking pseudonym. He seems to think this is a good public image for him: the skeptic atheist (not allowed to mention other personal characteristics he’s named about himself) who cannot face reality, except scientistically, naturalistically, philosophistically. Is that really the kind of PRIORITY children should be forced into?
The philosophistry on display here – epistemo-LOGY supposedly LOGICALLY prior to onto-LOGY – is apparently just another level of ignorance higher that you can possibly achieve as ‘thinkers,’ TSZers. Lizzie has set the bar so very high for anglo-American ‘skeptics.’