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. <

    blockquote cite=”comment-156717″>

    Alan Fox:

    Seems reasonable.

    So have you moved the goalposts now from “there is no theory of evolution” via “there is no scientific theory of evolution” to “there is no supporting evidence for the theory of evolution”?

    LoL! It has always been about a scientific theory, Alan- always. There isn’t a scientific theory of evolution.

    You obviously have serious issues and should seek help.

  2. Dembski hasn’t quit ID and Richie is still a sore loser. Life is good.

    Does Richie think he invented “let me google tat for you” ? Wow what a head case. First he thinks he invented “cupcake” as an insult and “BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA” as a way to mock people, and now this. How pathetic, even for Richie.

  3. From my post on the subject of the ToE which Alan won’t allow to be published:

    Many times I have said that there isn’t a scientific theory of evolution. And just as many times I have been told that I am wrong.

    No goalposts were moved, Alan. You just have reading comprehension issues.

    But perhaps now you will allow that post to go through seeing that you agree with it.

  4. Alan Fox: Maybe he’s snowed in or just laid off till New Year.

    No Alan, I love exposing you and yours as the scientifically illiterate pukes that you are. It’s been entertaining watching you squirm and babble.

  5. Pedant:
    Incoherence, thy name is Mung.

    If you have a point, can you make it?

    The point is blind watchmaker evolution is a non-starter, not science and the atheists who push it are hindering science.

  6. Pedant: References don’t explain themselves. Life is short.

    Richie thinks they do as all he does is post links without any explanation on how they supports his claims

  7. Mung: Pretend like I’m really, really dumb.

    No need to pretend. You’re the dipshit who started an OP yet can’t say why, or come up with a better alternative to evolutionary theory. That’s Joe Gallien level of dumb.

  8. I think it’s cute that evos here still think there is a scientific theory of evolution. That’s not just dumb it’s desperate.

  9. Yep, Alan just can’t see anyone but Frankie who breaks the rules around here. Just a big pack of atheist angels.

    The Helen Keller of moderators. Nothing for Alan to see.

    “Wait, wait, did Frankie say there is not a clearly articulated theory of evolution? Censor! Censor! Kids might be reading!”

  10. Frankie:
    I think it’s cute that evos here still think there is a scientific theory of evolution. That’s not just dumb it’s desperate.

    Scientifically illiterate and compulsive liar YEC says there’s no scientific theory of evolution. That will sure rattle the scientific community.

    Any other personal fantasies you want to share with us big guy?

  11. LoL! Alan Fox has already admitted that Darwin’s is not a scientific theory and no one else has come close, so what the heck is adapa babbling about?

    Hey adapa either link to this alleged scientific theory of evolution or admit that you are a rejected loser.

    I think it’s funny that evos can only attack me but can never refute me (wrt the alleged scientific ToE). Talk about desperation. But hey they are within the rules 🙄

  12. Mung,

    You’re the dipshit who started an OP yet can’t say why,

    Scientifically illiterate and compulsive liar YEC says there’s no scientific theory of evolution

    Have the rules changed or are the refs asleep?

    How many guys here still believe in the blind watchmaker? I thought your dumb and dumber comment was just sarcasm but maybe not so much 🙂

  13. Mung: Pretend like I’m really, really dumb. Adapa dumb. Pedant dumb. OMagain dumb.

    Said the guy who just embarrassed himself again with another low quality OP he can’t even defend.

    Remind us all Mung, what’s your problem with evolution again? If it included a step where your chosen deity does something, would that make it OK?

  14. Great, Alan is back using his heavy-handed moderation unfairly, as usual. And he is moving posts that don’t break the rules.

    I know that you are a sore loser Alan but this is beyond the pale. At least one other mod OK’ed my posts for publishing in the thread they were meant for. Who is Alan to say otherwise? Is Alan the King Rat?

  15. Alan Fox:
    Moved some comments to guano.

    Now why would you do that Alan? The only person who breaks the rules here is Frankie, right? And those others, they know the rules, so obviously they would never break them. You even praised them for being so good at following the rules. Plus they never said there is no theory of evolution.

    So its just for show, right?

  16. Alan Fox:
    Moved some comments to guano. Complaints about moderating decisions should be raised in the “moderation issues” thread.

    And when that is done you just guano them anyway. I see you are still upset that I exposed the fact there isn’t a scientific theory of evolution.

  17. Frankie:
    The problem with common ancestry is that you don’t have a mechanism capable of accounting for all of the changes required to get from prokaryotes to the diversity observed. All of your “evidence” assumes common ancestry is true

    Actually we do. Science has known the mechanisms of evolution for many decades. Just because you’re ignorant as mud doesn’t make everyone else ignorant too.

  18. colewd: enough time to explore the search space which is a half a billion orders of magnitude larger

    Bill Cole is just another pathetic JoeG or FMM. Repetition, repetition, and more repetition of the same ignorant crap over and over again.
    You can explain those things to him a million times and it won’t make a difference.

    Not worth wasting one more second on him

  19. Alan Fox,

    Bill Cole is just another pathetic JoeG or FMM. Repetition, repetition, and more repetition of the same ignorant crap over and over again.

    Is this in the rules? Should I reply to Dazz?

  20. Richie chokes again-

    1- Common is an entailment of a common design which is depicted by Linnaean taxonomy. Common design is an observed fact of engineering and construction. Common descent is untestable- whoopsie

    2- Has nothing to do with blind watchmaker evolution. Your continued equivocation is duly noted

    3- UD isn’t a top 5 ID resource- ENV; Biologic Institute; Discovery Institute; Access Research Network; IDEA Center

    4- You don’t know what you are talking about as first design has to be determined to exist before we even ask those other questions. ID is about the detection and study of design in nature. Your inability to grasp that simple fact is a reflection on your scientific illiteracy

    The conclusion that something was designed can be made quite independently of knowledge of the designer. As a matter of procedure, the design must first be apprehended before there can be any further question about the designer. The inference to design can be held with all firmness that is possible in this world, without knowing anything about the designer.—Dr Behe

    With archaeology design is determined, then investigated to answer those other questions. The same goes for forensic science and all other investigative venues.

    Good grief, it’s as if you think you are some kind of authority when reality says you are far from it.

  21. And:

    “Once specified complexity tells us that something is designed, there is nothing to stop us from inquiring into its production. A design inference therefore does not avoid the problem of how a designing intelligence might have produced an object. It simply makes it a separate question.”- Wm. Dembski- pg 112 of No Free Lunch

    Richie won’t let the facts get in the way of trying to score points…

  22. 1- Common is an entailment of a common design which is depicted by Linnaean taxonomy. Common design is an observed fact of engineering and construction. Common descent is untestable- whoopsie

    2- Has nothing to do with blind watchmaker evolution.

    3- UD isn’t a top 5 ID resource- ENV; Biologic Institute; Discovery Institute; Access Research Network; IDEA Center

    4- You don’t know what you are talking about as first design has to be determined to exist before we even ask those other questions. ID is about the detection and study of design in nature.

    The conclusion that something was designed can be made quite independently of knowledge of the designer. As a matter of procedure, the design must first be apprehended before there can be any further question about the designer. The inference to design can be held with all firmness that is possible in this world, without knowing anything about the designer.—Dr Behe

    With archaeology design is determined, then investigated to answer those other questions. The same goes for forensic science and all other investigative venues.

  23. adapa cannot deal with the evidence and so attacks the messenger. Typical but still pathetic

  24. Deal with the argument, adapa. It is very clear and easy to understand if you have the basic reading skills. And don’t talk of evidence- you don’t seem to know what that word means.

    BTW attacking the messenger(s) as opposed to the message(s) is a sure sign you didn’t understand the arguments presented.

  25. fifthmonarchyman: I’m not asking about specific beliefs. I’m asking about belief in general.

    peace

    There is no such thing as “belief in general”. There are only specific beliefs. What makes it reasonable to hold a belief depends on the context and on the kind of belief that it is. The criteria used to evaluate a causal explanation of climate change are going to be different from the criteria used to evaluate whether Russian hacking made a substantial difference in the US election.

    The truly amazing thing here is FMM’s total lack of self-awareness. We keep on making points that are obvious to everyone but him, and yet he’s the only one here who is thinking deeply. It’s a really interesting kind of narcissistic personality disorder.

  26. newton: If you sincerely believed an omniscient being was revealing the Truth to you, I can’t imagine any logic presented a finite being would be persuasive to dissuade you that an omniscient being was revealing the truth.

    Exactly. Which is why FMM’s “epistemology” is pragmatically indistinguishable from insanity.

  27. colewd:

    Why do you think this is stupid?

    You continuing to argue evolution has to search the entire n^v space is exceptionally stupid, or dishonest, or both. Feel free to clarify which it is.

  28. colewd:

    Honestly dude i have never seen you make a coherent argument.

    Where you keep your head lodged you haven’t seen anyone’s argument.

  29. colewd:

    Do you realize that I have never made this claim.Do you have reading comprehension problems.

    Ahem.

    colewd: If not, what is the basis of the assumption that you had 3 billion years to design all the above if I were to stipulate that 3 billion years was enough time to explore the search space which is a half a billion orders of magnitude larger?

    We’ll add liar to your impressive resume.

  30. keiths,

    Just out of curiosity keiths, did your mother swat you over the head repeatedly with a studded lion taming whip when you were an infant?

  31. phoodoo,

    Just out of curiosity keiths, did your mother swat you over the head repeatedly with a studded lion taming whip when you were an infant?

    No. Yours?

  32. Flint: Yep. One person’s insults are quarantined, while essentially identical insults from favored people are left alone. And while this is obviously biased, I think the problem lies more in the insults than in the selection of which insults to move. If we keep calling one another ignorant jerks, nobody is enlightened no matter whose calls get moved.

    So here is the thing, in such an environment, when they obviously so willfully want to fuck with one side of a conversation, WHY does this site deserve intelligent conversation then? One of the posts I just showed you is from a moderator themselves!

    So this site is for baby talk, and other sites are for real ideas. That’s what they want. With Lizzie’s blessing!

  33. Alan Fox: That most variation we find in the human genome may be due to genetic drift rather than selection doesn’t speak against the importance of natural selection.

    You actually said that.

    Amazing Alan.

    If its true, OF COURSE IT SPEAKS AGAINST THE IMPORTANCE OF NATURAL SELECTION!!!

    No wonder you only see violations from the side you disagree with Alan, you don’t understand what sentences mean.

    Pointing out your willful ignorance and dishonesty serves a purpose!!

  34. Tom English: Ewert is clueless. George Montañez has been reading criticisms over the years, and has actually made an effort to respond to them in his latest paper. He’s a very bright guy. But, as a doctoral candidate at Carnegie Mellon, he ought not spend time on stuff like this.

    Tom is a strawman humper.

  35. Allan Miller:
    Frankie,

    I don’t think ‘entailment’ means what you think it means. Anyway, Linnaeus was a clueless hack. Mayr too. This is fun!

    And another piece of substance-free spewage.

    Common design is a consequence of archetypes. Buy a dictionary

  36. colewd:

    The above does not =Evolution has to search the entire search space.

    Don’t make the first lie worse by tacking on another one.

  37. Adapa: They can and have been shown to knowledgeable folks with the scientific chops to understand them.Too bad for you that list doesn’t include unemployed toaster repairmen.

    Always follows the rules huh Alan?

  38. Adapa: (shrug) It’s Mung. Misrepresenting evolutionary science is what he does..

    That’s addressing the post, huh Alan?

    Can’t get one past you!

  39. Adapa: When all you do is continue to argue from your own ignorance-based personal incredulity instead of presenting any supporting evidence then no, it’s not OK. Especially after you’ve been corrected on your ignorance and blunders several dozen times. Unless your goal is just to troll and/or make yourself look like an ass in which case you’re doing fine.

    Yep, you can’t get one past eagle eyes Alan alright.

    Frankie, your posts still getting held up in moderation thanks to the fair handed Alan?

  40. Yeah, c’mon Alan, get yourself up at 3 in the morning and look at that bloody squirrel! 🙂

  41. Allan Miller:
    Yeah, c’mon Alan, get yourself up at 3 in the morning and look at that bloody squirrel!

    Oh, TODAY is the first day Alan missed others breaking the rules!!

    All those other times, he just didn’t bring his bifocals.

Comments are closed.