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. Erik: He’s doing pragmatism. It’s something extraordinary and amazing every time I see it. Always equally pointless too. Lack of sense of direction is definitional to it. And also lack of foundation. These features it shares with postmodernism. I always wondered how postmodernism became recognised as a philosophical school. It had to borrow from somewhere that had the same pretentions.

    The bullshit of such philosophistry as his knows few limits.

  2. It is clear to me that Gregory is subnormally mentally endowed. I’ll put him on ignore too.

  3. 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.’

  4. Alan Fox,

    Alan, Rumraket has a history of making more offensive comments than Gregory, and has done so just recently, so why don’t you also put Rumraket in the pre-moderation category, if you are attempting to be fair?

    Is there some cognitive bias there?

  5. Alan Fox: You seem to be harbouring a bit of a chip on your shoulder, William. Nothing to do with your recent experiments in moderation, is it?

    You seem to be harboring some resentments towards being moderated, Alan. Anything to do with sneaking in to UD under a disguise and still being recognized and treated as a trolling twit?

    Promises, not policies. When they’re carried out, they become policies.

    Go ahead, double down on you stupidity. Always good for a laugh.

  6. walto: Generally, neither of them has provided anything like “policies.

    Actually, they both have, on their websites and (at least for trump) in speeches. But that might actually require some effort on your part to go and find out what they are instead of hoping you’ll be spoonfed such information whenever a media broadcast happens to catch your eye or ear like some paraplegic octogenarian in a nursing home.

    Ugh. Still a bunch of retards at this site.

  7. “As I said, there is a specific issue that Gregory is aware off and that he can resolve if he wishes.” – Alan Fox

    This is hogwash. I already removed the paragraph in question and the post was still rejected by Alan.

    He is not ‘still waiting.’ He got a message from me yesterday asking the very same thing phodoo asked. And then today he writes, still leaving me in pre-moderation without explanation, and says he’ll be away for 7 days. So, does that make it up to the other 2 ‘moderators’ to flip off the pre-moderation switch?

    TAMSZ moderation is typical biased atheism, which Lizzie ironically insists it was never her intention to attract.

    “Actually, I disagree with you here. Outing isn’t the issue, since I’ve been pretty open about my real-life identity. The issue is the personal nature of his attacks on me.” – KN

    The irony is that KN can’t recognise I don’t attack him personally at all; but he is so personally wrapped up in his ideas (which by itself isn’t always a problem) that if you attack his ideas, which I do with gusto, repetition and precision, he *will* take it personally. With such a person, you therefore cannot even argue because they take every rebuttal and argument against their IDEAS as instead an attack against them.

    You folks put your little KN in an adults discussion not protected here in agnostic-atheist-skeptic space, and you’ll discover quickly enough for yourselves the poverty of his Sellars-out position. But such revealing of intellectual posturing isn’t welcome here because a lot more atheists take the convincing humanistic arguments against their uninspiring lives & ultimately empty scientistic storytelling as a personal attack, not just as an ‘ideas’ attack on their atheistic worldview.

    The fragility of KN’s esoteric, jargonistic portrayal of ‘philosophy’ is simply a pitiful example of USAmerican philosophy gone wrong, not right. And like I said, his self-deceptively ‘nuanced’ portrayal of religion is barely credible given who pays his bills and puts food on his table. Sounds like a spoiled, ungrateful human being … who is being protected by fellow naturalistic agnostic moderators to spew more philosophistic dehumanisation.

  8. “The issue is “outing”. I’m hoping Gregory will contact me via PM or he can discuss it with another admin if he prefers.” – Alan Fox

    Alan has apparently confused lies with truth again. He was already contacted via PM before this bluff of ‘authority’! And even the one supposedly ‘outed’ disagrees! ; )

    Atheist morality is kinda like, umm, well, loose & ungrounded?

  9. “if someone wishes to propose a serious hypothesis regarding the origin of language, they really do need to provide a mechanism. I haven’t seen any good ones yet. Language remains a mystery.” – vjtorley

    I know one; if ‘mechanism’ is the right word for it (it’s rather more ‘organic’ or at least both at the same time). But after fare-welling yourself at Uncommon Descent recently, you’d seemingly now rather talk with ‘skeptics’ than Abrahamic theists who see through that little transparent bath screen you’re wearing after departing the IDMs ranks. Not sure that’s the best decision. You’re looking for new places & I answered & you said nothing. Does stubborn, defiant UD pride still remain?

    Here’s a name for the language part anyway: Henning Anderson. He doesn’t Wizard of Oz unveil the mystery answer … such a philosopher’s question ; )

    Oh, and since this is something you’d likely never be able to teach at Japanese schools, here’s one of the best philosophy films I’ve seen recently, and which I assigned to my students today. So, enjoy if you haven’t seen it before. My voice differs in private, Vincent, if you’re not afraid to knock. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-rmGy9gWvE

  10. colewd:
    GlenDavidson,

    Glen you need to read carefully.Your whole response is out of context because you read ID guys when I wrote anti ID guys.

    OK, I misread the one thing that meant almost nothing anyway. Not sure what your point actually was, other than to misrepresent what’s involved with evolutionary evidence. Anti-ID barely exists, but you use it as if your derogatory cant was representation instead of the misrepresentation that it is.

    You’re completely delusional if you think misreading that bit of drivel threw off everything that I wrote there. But I guess I’m supposed to assume that such bizarre nonsense was written in good faith, hence I have to take you as officially delusional

    Glen Davidson

  11. Glen’s an asshole.

    I’m not even going to try to hide the insult in the midst of a bunch of other unreasonable bullshit and pray to the mods to not do anything because I’m not on Glen’s side.

    Treat others with respect and dignity even if they disagree with you, like you would want to be treated. Failure to do so will land your post in Guano, where it belongs.

  12. keiths:

    Entropy is a measure of missing information: the gap between the information contained in the macrostate and the information required to pin down the exact microstate.

    Mung:

    How do we measure the information contained in the macrostate?

    keiths:

    You don’t have to. You can go straight to the difference — the entropy.

    Mung:

    Entropy is a measure of the information gap. That is what you wrote. If I don’t know where I started, and where I ended up, then how do I know what the difference was?

    You have to be smarter than the average Mung, which for most people is not very difficult.

    A typical Mung might think that if entropy can be defined as a difference, it must be calculated as a difference. A smarter person would realize that it can be calculated a number of ways, as long as it satisfies the definition being used.

  13. Frankie
    2- Common Design-

    You IDiots haven’t established any design, let alone common design.

    you still don’t have a mechanism for your 1) Common Descent

    Of course we do. You can learn about them in any Biology 101 or Genetics 101 course.

  14. Adapa: You IDiots haven’t established any design, let alone common design.

    you still don’t have a mechanism for your 1) Common Descent

    Of course we do.You can learn about them in any Biology 101 or Genetics 101 course.

    You’re the idiot, Adapa. And a willfully ignorant idiot at that. We have established design for living organisms and many of their systems and subsystems. And you don’t have anything to refute our claim.

    And what is this alleged mechanism for universal common descent and how can it be scientifically tested to see if it can do what you claim? I have read the books you say to read and there isn’t anything there for a testable mechanism.

  15. Frankie: You’re the idiot, Adapa. And a willfully ignorant idiot at that. We have established design for living organisms and many of their systems and subsystems. And you don’t have anything to refute our claim.

    LOL! Sure you have Frankenjoe. That’s why the scientific literature is full of IDiot research and the Nobel Prize has been awarded to IDiot “scientists” like you. Oh, wait…

    And what is this alleged mechanism for universal common descent

    Same as the last 30 times you demonstrated your ignorance. Genetic variations winnowed by selection pressure or passed via neutral drift and and carried forward as heritable traits. Science has only know about this for the better part of a century. Probably why you IDiots haven’t heard of it yet.

    and how can it be scientifically tested to see if it can do what you claim?

    It’s been empirically observed to work in the field, in the lab, and in simulations. That you’re too stupid to understand how the process works isn’t science’s problem.

  16. Frankie:

    LoL! There aren’t any Nobel prize winning evos- that is no one has won a Nobel prize for any revelations into unguided evolution.

    LOL! So in Frankenjoe IDiot world Francis Crick never won a Nobel for his initial work on identifying DNA. Jack W. Szostak never won a Nobel for his work on chromosomes. In 2005 thirty-eight Nobel winners didn’t petition the Kansas Board of Education to support the teaching of evolution in biology classes.

    Damn but you’re an ignorant IDiot.

    Nice try but that has never been shown to do what you say.

    It has to everyone with an IQ over 50. As I said, that you’re too stupid to understand how the process works isn’t science’s problem.

    It has never been shown to produce the changes required. It only “works” on a very small scale.

    Just like no one has ever seen macro-gravity move planets in their orbits, only local micro-gravity. Right Frankenjoe?

    And if what you say is true then it is strange that evos had to lie and bluff their way through the Dover trial

    LOL! More than a decade and you’re still butthurt over getting your YEC pseudoscience rejected.

  17. Adapa,

    So in Frankenjoe IDiot world Francis Crick never won a Nobel for his initial work on identifying DNA.

    What did that have to do with unguided evolution? Nothing

    Jack W. Szostak never won a Nobel for his work on chromosomes

    What does that have to do with unguided evolution? Or are you too stupid to read what I posted?

    In 2005 thirty-eight Nobel winners didn’t petition the Kansas Board of Education to support the teaching of evolution in biology classes.

    Not one winner was due to their work with unguided evolution.

    Nice try but that has never been shown to do what you say.

    It has to everyone with an IQ over 50

    That leaves you out. And too bad there isn’t anything in peer-review that supports your claim

    BTW the Dover trial had nothing to do with YEC. Obviously you are a deluded dick

  18. Frankie:
    And too bad there isn’t anything in peer-review that supports your claim

    15 years of Frankenjoke repeating the same moronic creationists claims and he still hasn’t learned a thing. 😀

    Maybe you should consider liposuction for that fat-filled ignorant YEC head of yours Joke. Be sure to ask for the machine with the heavy duty pump so it doesn’t overload and burn out.

  19. Frankie: A species is often defined as a group of individuals that actually or potentially interbreed in nature

    OK, you’re stupid enough to think lions and tigers are the same species. Any other IDiots want to chime in?

  20. Adapa: OK, you’re stupid enough to think lions and tigers are the same species.Any other IDiots want to chime in?

    You moron- follow the link to see who said that:

    http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_41

    A species is often defined as a group of individuals that actually or potentially interbreed in nature.- UC Berkley

    Adapa probably thinks that whites and blacks are different species…

  21. Frankie

    A species is often defined as a group of individuals that actually or potentially interbreed in nature.- UC Berkley

    See the “in nature” part Joke?

    Do lions and tigers interbreed in nature i.e in the wild? Or are they only interbred in captivity?

    The hallmark of a species is its natural reproductive isolation from other groups, either through geographic, behavioral, or morphological differences. In the real world the boundaries between sub-species can be quite blurred.

    Damn you’re an ignorant one.

  22. walto: So, is that it? Is that the whole theory?

    What? You are the one who said there is a “theory of mechanics.”

    I am pretty sure there are many different theories about how mechanical things work, but I am unaware of a “theory of mechanics”. You seem to be confusing a body of theories with a single theory.

    If you would like to now admit that there is no specific ‘theory of evolution” feel free to do so. I know others, like Rumraket, would never be honest enough to do so.

  23. “Gregory: who’s the heavyweight?” – vjtorley

    No one with courage or composure for more than a distant teaching position, shell of himself, lost in IDism, perhaps not so far from you, language-san. But you’d fit in right well there with your ‘theistic science’ at BioLogos, vjtorley, make no mistake. Except that their main audience is evangelical YECs, not atheists, i.e. those who appear to be your main apologetics target, while professionally surrounded by them.

    At UD you hid and ran away when your theology was challenged for it’s apparently distorted mixture with ‘strictly scientific’ ‘Intelligent Design Theory’ courtesy of the Discovery Institute. I asked simple direct pertinent questions that the UD moderation curtain saved you from answering. Will you run away from calm reasonable incisive questioning of your ‘philosophical’ position here again?

    And frankly, all pretentiousness aside, I really don’t think you have the balls, chief, for a thread here titled: “The Question I’d Really Like to Ask Vincent J. Torley” at The Skeptical Zone. But just say the word, vjtorley, and your wish could likely be granted. 😉

  24. fifth,

    The fact is that all of us (including you) have no real reason to believe that our pet theory is the correct one. That is unless the author or nature chooses to reveal his mind to us.

    Even if that were true, we’ve long since established that you are helpless when asked how you can reliably distinguish between genuine revelations and FMM brain farts.

  25. phoodoo:
    Rumraket,

    BRAVO.is that the theory of evolution.

    There is no question mark, so is that a question?

    BRAVO is something you say when you think something is well done. In this case, what Tom wrote I think is well written, true and it neede to be said.

    So no, it’s not a theory of evolution.

    How many years has it taken them to come up with that?150 plus years?

    The evolutionary theory first proposed by Darwin has been extensively modified during those 150 years, yes.

    At least Tom admits there is a theory of intelligent design.

    Technically I don’t think Tom is saying there is a bona fide theory of ID, rather he’s just calling the collection of pseudo-scientific screeds produced by Dembski et al over the last 2 decades for “ID theory” in a colloquial sense of the word. I suspect he didn’t even really mean to call it “theory”. It’s mostly just complete fucking shite that most you creduluous ignoramuses* are impressed by because it has fancy, technical-sounding jargon and abbreviations and the people saying it play dress-up with suits and ties, or lab-coats and get Dr. in front of their names.

    You give me the impression that you are so brainlessly wetted to your views that “the smart people on my side have merely to speak” and that is good enough for you. It doesn’t really matter what they say, as long as they say something, that it sounds fancy and technical, and that whoever says it has Dr. in front of their name, then that’s good enough for you to consider it “equal”. These people who’s bullshit you buy, phoodoo, they’re laughing at you behind your back, and all the way to the bank.

    * A particularly gruesome example is you, who is UTTERLY clueless about anything and everything you dare to speak up about around here. In a way that seems to be a good explanation for why your only output is mockery and trolling, because you have nothing of intellectual value to contribute to any discussion. You dumb, dumb piece of shit.

  26. Rumraket: You give me the impression that you are so brainlessly wetted to your views that “the smart people on my side have merely to speak” and that is good enough for you. It doesn’t really matter what they say, as long as they say something, that it sounds fancy and technical, and that whoever says it has Dr. in front of their name, then that’s good enough for you to consider it “equal”. These people who’s bullshit you buy, phoodoo, they’re laughing at you behind your back, and all the way to the bank.

    * A particularly gruesome example is you, who is UTTERLY clueless about anything and everything you dare to speak up about around here. In a way that seems to be a good explanation for why your only output is mockery and trolling, because you have nothing of intellectual value to contribute to any discussion. You dumb, dumb piece of shit.

    Rumraket can spell dumb. How about that Alan?

  27. Rumraket: * A particularly gruesome example is you, who is UTTERLY clueless about anything and everything you dare to speak up about around here. In a way that seems to be a good explanation for why your only output is mockery and trolling, because you have nothing of intellectual value to contribute to any discussion. You dumb, dumb piece of shit.

    Take it to Noyau, where it belongs.

  28. If I asked you to solve the chemical potential for a degenerate quantum state could you honestly do it? And that’s a simple particle physics problem. And here you are spouting off like “I know what Necessary Beings have to do” You’re just a dumbass.

  29. colewd: Would you ever attribute 3 perfect bridge hands to a fair dealer.

    In what way is that analogy related to our previous knowledge of evolutionary processes, you poor fuckwad? You keep babbling about sequence space as if that was a problem for evolution, but for any given organism, a single insertion would multiply it’s sequence space. Do you see a problem there?

  30. dazz,

    In what way is that analogy related to our previous knowledge of evolutionary processes, you poor fuckwad? You keep babbling about sequence space as if that was a problem for evolution, but for any given organism, a single insertion would multiply it’s sequence space. Do you see a problem there?

    Your a software guy right. Imagine you are a designer and want to build mobility into a bacteria. You have the technology to cut and past the DNA into the genome through crispr technology. You need to arrange the DNA so the bacteria can rebuild this motor every time it divides. How would you go about coming up with this sequence? Estimate that you have 100k nucleotides to arrange in order to build the motor. Thats 4^100000 possible ways to arrange it.

    So fuckwad, you think more sequential space is going to help you here?

  31. dazz: In what way is that analogy related to our previous knowledge of evolutionary processes, you poor fuckwad? You keep babbling about sequence space as if that was a problem for evolution, but for any given organism, a single insertion would multiply it’s sequence space. Do you see a problem there?

    Classic Dazz post.

    The “wad-fornicating” judge. In the mold of the “shit-judge” Rumraket. The “uneducated ass judge” AhmedKiaan, and the “click-bait whore” judge Tom English.

    Classic evolutionists.

  32. Well, I feel like Tom is saying that even if you expanded Richard Hughes brain twenty times, and gave it twenty times the reasoning skills it has now, twenty times the deductive logic, and twenty times the verbal skills, he would still have only just enough intellect to slap himself in the nose with a wet platypus pelt and say mommy, mommy isn’t this funny…

    That’s what I feel he is saying.

  33. Alan Fox,

    I doubt that you know what evidence is, Alan. I know that you cannot present any evidence that prokaryotes can evolve into something other than prokaryotes and endosymbiosis doesn’t help you.

  34. Alan Fox:
    Moved a comment to guano. Please attack arguments, not fellow commenters.

    The following attacks your argument, Alan:

    I doubt that you know what evidence is, Alan. I know that you cannot present any evidence that prokaryotes can evolve into something other than prokaryotes and endosymbiosis doesn’t help you.

  35. walto: Exactly.It’s hard to imagine anybody more uncivil than Frankie.People do try to match him, though.It’s like an arms race, nobody wants the other guy to get the upper hand.

    Geez, seeing that I respond in kind that says my opponents are more uncivil than anyone

  36. LoL!@Richie- Only the delusional think I am fat- well perhaps the skinniest of toothpick people would also say that- which are you, Richie?

  37. I’d say keiths has had his balls handed to him repeatedly again and again here at TSZ, but no one has been able to demonstrate that keiths actually had any balls in the first place.

    Why does ketihs’ godlessness permit him to fail again and again? Maybe it’s because he has no balls.

  38. Mung:
    I’d say keiths has had his balls handed to him repeatedly again and again here at TSZ, but no one has been able to demonstrate that keiths actually had any balls in the first place.

    Why does ketihs’ godlessness permit him to fail again and again? Maybe it’s because he has no balls.

    Loopner’s disease- born without a spine (SNL)

  39. LoL.

    I’d still say keiths has had his balls handed to him repeatedly again and again here at TSZ, but no one has been able to demonstrate that keiths actually had any balls in the first place.

    Why does keiths’s godlessness permit him to fail again and again? Maybe it’s because he has no balls.

    And the mods can’t find their balls either.

  40. Substance-free Richie strikes again. And still nothing on the alleged supernatural stochastic processes.

    Life is good. I support my claims and Richie starts his usual meltdown…

  41. Substance-free Richie strikes again. And still nothing on the alleged supernatural stochastic processes.

    Life is good. I support my claims and Richie starts his usual meltdown…

    (Richie started the meltdown shit. So either move both posts to guano or leave both posts as they are- fucking hypocrites)

Comments are closed.