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)”

  4. AhmedKiaan:
    most of the ID blogs have disappeared. “Something somewhere somehow did something.” is not enough to maintain the 2 or 3 that are left. UD’s been fading for years. Since the political maneuver failed, there’s nothing left to talk about. A new ID blog would be hopeless.

    LoL! What does evolutionism have? Something changed and things kept changing for no reason and voila! The diversity of life

  5. phoodoo: how you know that non-coding DNA has no function.

    phoodoo: That is a completely uneducated and unfounded position

    We know you’re uneducated, nothing new under the sun

  6. dazz:
    We know you’re uneducated, nothing new under the sun

    Now, now Dazz, rules are rules!

    Oh, wait, not here they aren’t. I almost forgot you are atheist.

  7. Frankie,

    No, it turns on the fact that Common Descent cannot account for the anatomical and physiological differences observed.

    No, it doesn’t turn on that either, O Endlessly Repetitious One.

  8. Allan Miller:
    Frankie,

    No, it doesn’t turn on that either, O Endlessly Repetitious One.

    Of course it does. If you cannot account for the anatomical and physiological differences observed then Common Descent is a non-starter.

    And look in the mirror if you want to see an endlessly repetitious person.

  10. stcordova

    DNA with a half life of 521 years give or take PH and temperature, is problematic for fossils with DNA (like those in Amber!).Say DNA half life under generous conditions of PH and temperature is 100 more than 521 years, but 52,100 years.For a 200 million old fossil in amber, that’s 3838 half life cylces!

    Psst…hey dumbass… Jurassic park was a work of fiction

  11. llaniteDave responding to Glen Davidson:

    Wait — Sal is on his third college biochemistry class, and he still doesn’t know that C14 decays to Nitrogen?

    That misrepresents the point being made about the compounding interest problem. The issue isn’t the daughter product of Nitrogen, but the maintenance of C14/C ratio (PMC).

    But it’s no surprise to see stupid comments like that from Glen Davidson, the same guy that classifies silicon dioxide as an organic compound and tried to suggest it as an explanation for C14 contamination of fossils. That retarded comment by Davidson is still somewhere in the TSZ archives and he was livid for a month for me pointing out his silliness.

  13. stcordova: That misrepresents the point being made about the compounding interest problem.The issue isn’t the daughter product of Nitrogen, but the maintenance of C14/C ratio (PMC).

    But it’s no surprise to see stupid comments like that from Glen Davidson, the same guy that classifies silicon dioxide as an organic compound and tried to suggest it as an explanation for C14 contamination of fossils.That retarded comment by Davidson is still somewhere in the TSZ archives and he was livid for a month for me pointing out his silliness.

    And if Sal weren’t merely lying like the sad sack of shit he is he’d present it.

    Of course I was livid over his lies. First he lied while quoting what I wrote, but because that showed what a dishonest asshole he is he went on to lie without the quote.

    Like he’s doing again.

    Glen Davidson

  14. To be fair to Glen Davidson, I actually mischaracterized his stupid comment, and I feel I must now make amends. Sorry Glen, your actually comment was actually more stupid than I made it out to be, and so now I dug up your actual quote.

    The actual remark by him was insinuating that INorganic matter can be source of C14 contamination. He apparently didn’t seem to grasp carbon-free INorganics chemicals like silica don’t have C14 as a matter principle since they are carbon-free. In either case, his comment qualified for a tard award of the day:

    Here is Glen trying to explain the origin of C14 contamination:

    There’s a lot of silica and other inorganic matter in most coals

    To which I responded:

    How does inorganic matter contribute to the C14 in sample since inorganic usually means not involving carbon?

    Yeah Glen, how does Silica (SiO2) add C14 to coal? Hahaha!

    And there was weeks of entertainment after that from Glen seeing him go ballistic. See:

    YEC Part 2

  15. GlenDavidson: And if Sal weren’t merely lying like the sad sack of shit he is he’d present it.

    Of course I was livid over his lies.First he lied while quoting what I wrote, but because that showed what a dishonest asshole he is he went on to lie without the quote.

    Like he’s doing again.

    Like I said before, our YEC buddy here didn’t earn the nickname “the human shit stain” for nothing.

  16. stcordova:
    Here is Glen trying to explain the origin of C14 contamination:

    Sal that seems to be a rather blatant lie on your part. From reading the context GD was just describing how most coal has lots of contaminants in general. He never said or implied silica added to the 14C content in coal.

    Is lying for your religious beliefs really the best you can do?

  17. Adapa: Like I said before, our YEC buddy here didn’t earn the nickname “the human shit stain” for nothing.

    Quite.

    He mixes stupidity with malice for the entire Sal experience.

    He was stupid enough in that thread to write:

    It’s far more informative than someone who doesn’t seem to understand inorganic compounds don’t have carbon.

    Since inorganic compounds like CO2 and carbonates do have carbon, yes, he’s a fucking retard. Projecting with the hate and malice of a dumbfuck who’s been caught in his stupidity and lies.

    It is especially stupid that he’d go back to lying using the quotes that show how he relies on little but his dishonesty.

    Glen Davidson

  18. BK:
    I have already refuted this with the very well known, and accepted fact, that Baumgardner and associates did not include any sample processing controls.

    That qualifies as Tard comment of the hour. The experiment in question was conducted by non YECs in the process of trying to determine instrument errors in AMS machines. They were not doing the RATE group experiments!!!!

    You can’t even get which experiment is which, much less refute the points. The experiment in question was:

    R. E. Taylor and J. Southon, “Use of Natural Diamonds to Monitor 14C AMS Instrument Backgrounds,” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 259 (2007): 282–287.

    To examine one component of the instrument-based background in the University of California Keck Carbon Cycle AMS spectrometer, we have obtained measurements on a set of natural diamonds pressed into sample holders. Natural diamond samples (N = 14) from different sources within rock formations with geological ages greatly in excess of 100 Ma yielded a range of currents (∼110–250 μA 12C− where filamentous graphite typically yields ∼150 μA 12C−) and apparent 14C ages (64.9 ± 0.4 ka BP [0.00031 ± 0.00002 fm] to 80.0 ± 1.1 ka BP [0.00005 ± 0.00001 fm]). Six fragments cut from a single diamond exhibited essentially identical 14C values – 69.3 ± 0.5 ka–70.6 ± 0.5 ka BP. The oldest 14C age equivalents were measured on natural diamonds which exhibited the highest current yields.

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168583X07002443

    But to your tard comment’s credit, your tard comment of the hour though still wasn’t as tarded as Glen Davidson’s comment trying to explain C14 contamination via SiO2.

  19. Sal, I’ve already posted the pertinent conclusions from Taylor and Southon in comment 5 on this page….do try to keep up.

    I posted the rebuttal to Bertche’s evaluation of Taylor an Southon 2007 experiments, and BK conflated the discussion of Taylor of Southon 2007 with RATE group experiments. That’s a tard mistake.

    For the reader’s benefit, let’s track the evolution BK tard responses.

    I quoted Baumgardner’s rebuttal of Bertche right here, notice the bolded statement:

    In his 2008 critique Bertsche references the Taylor and Southon 2007 paper describing their application of accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) to natural diamonds. Bertsche calls attention to the authors’ statement, “The oldest 14C age equivalents were measured on natural diamonds which exhibited the highest current yields.” He claims that this means that the measured C-14 cannot be intrinsic to the diamonds themselves. What Bertsche fails to mention is that the correlation of low 14C level with high ion current was restricted to only a subset of the authors’ data. Such a correlation did not exist across all the samples the authors tested and reported.

    In response, BK said:

    The Glories of Global Warming and the Faint Young Sun Paradox

    I have already refuted this with the very well known, and accepted fact, that Baumgardner and associates did not include any sample processing controls. Not only is this a critical and fatal error but given the modifications necessary for modified sample processing chemistry that were required for the diamond analysis makes it all the more necessary. Their data is bogus

    BK was clear referring to RATE experiments conducted by Baumgardner and the YECs, not the Taylor and Southon 2007 experiments.

    I was providing Baumgardner’s rebuttal of Bertche’s flimsy evaluation of Taylor and Southon 2007 experiments, not Bertche’s other flimsy evaluations of RATE experiments. BK in other words attacked an argument I didn’t make.

    Like I said, BK’s comment deserves tard award of the hour, but to the comment’s credit, it’s not as bad as trying to explain C14 contamination using SiO2.

  20. stcordova: That qualifies as Tard comment of the hour.

    By those standards your argument is Tard Comment of the 21st Century. Using a non C14 bearing inert sample to determine the noise floor of the AMS machine doesn’t make the sample be the actual age of the noise floor. It only sets a minimum age for the sample.

    There’s a freight shipping company with a scale for weighing their trucks. It can measure from 50,000 lbs. to 1,000 lbs. Yesterday a stray housecat walked on the scale and the scale readout was 1,000 lbs. By Sal’s retarded YEC “logic” the cat must weigh 1000lbs, all cats everywhere must weigh at least 1000 lbs, and everything science knows about the average weight of housecats is wrong.

    Yes Sal, what you claim is really that stupid.

  21. phoodoo: Alan Fox “I see nothing!Nothing!”

    Just put them on ignore. I was stupid for responding to white trash but it won’t happen again

  22. No, OMagain, neither myself nor ID was affected by the decision. IC structures remained as unexplainable via blind and mindless processes the day after the trial as they were before the trial started.

    If lies, misrepresentations and bluffing are the best you and yours have- and it is- then it won’t be long until the rest of the world figures that out

  23. Try making a case, OM. What’s that? You can’t but you thin k your mindless one-liners mean something?

  24. Mung: You should take a page from Lizzie’s playbook. Create a “Moderation Issues” thread, close your other threads to comments, and tell people to take it up in moderation issues. Be sure to proclaim loudly that no one is being censored.

    Continuing with my New Years resolution, I would just like to support Mung’s earlier claim that he is a moron.

  25. Acartia:

    Continuing with my New Years resolution, I would just like to support Mung’s earlier claim that he is a moron.

    Mung:

    I thought that what I wrote was that I never denied being a moron. Are you misrepresenting what I wrote?

    Acartia is stating the obvious.

  27. Acartia: Would this statement be considered a dickish move:

    I dunno. Did I claim that I am a moron, or was your statement a dickish move?

  28. Yes, Richie, I am aware of your bogus challenge. I won’t post pictures of dead people on my blog, does that mean it is porn? Or are you just a desperate ass?

  29. Richie, what is it with you and your cowardly innuendos? Are you really that chicken-shit that you are afraid to make a case?

  30. And no Richie, I don’t need any more evidence that you are a pinheaded little child. Thanks anyway.

    So why are evos too afraid of taking on this topic?

  31. LoL! If Richie and his minions are what is considered to be “smart” then stupid is the way to go. You are so pathetically self-unaware, Richie. You are good at cheerleading, throwing stones, poking, but you suck at science and everything else.

  32. Frankie: Why is it a turd? Please explain. No one forces you to read an OP nor participate in a thread

    It’s a turd because all you ever do is shit up every forum you’ve ever posted at. Until your mouth gets you banned anyway. You endlessly post the same IDiot one-liner claims, endlessly chicken out and run from every question on those claims. Been that way for going on two decades now.

    Speaking of your mouth getting you a time out, when does your suspension at BioLogos end?

  33. OMagain sez that I am a sad man because OMagain cannot follow along. Talk about desperation and a total lack of integrity

  34. adapa, respond to the OP. Your questions are irrelevant and demonstrate a lack of integrity.

  36. Richie’s weekday meltdown
    That poor pathetic clown
    He doesn’t know shit
    Is quite the dim-wit
    He is the biggest idiot in town

    smooches 😎

  37. Robin: Oh that’s irony, Joe! If only you would read it.

    What an ass. If you think you can refute what I said have at it. Your first grade whining and schoolyard taunts are meaningless

  38. stcordova: I have found that experimental facts and patience are a much better avenue to truth than the rush to judgement of the “we are junk, and we love being junk” crew.

    Oh boy. Keep ignoring the positive arguments Sal. Keep repeating the same nonsense about rushing to conclusions without evidence. Keep misrepresenting everyone with that crap about being junk. jDNA doesn’t make anyone junk, your intellectual dishonesty does make you look like a piece of shit though

  39. Alan Fox:
    I don’t know if anyone else has looked back at the history of Joe’s OP. Ogrethe5th provides some links which support the contention that Joe’s OP is ripped off some earlier work of his* going back at least to 2006. I suggest anyone still wishing to try discussing Joe’s OP with him might profit from glancing in the comment sections of some earlier manifestations.

    ETA *I’m not going there!

    I don’t understand- two of Alan’s links were to posts from Ogre and both prove that Ogre is a clueless imbecile and ignorant.

    Why did Alan want people to see that Ogre is a closed-minded imbecile? How is that supposed to affect my OP?

  40. colewd: My experience is that expression levels vary depending on the functional condition of the cell.

    Your experience? your delusions of grandeur are hilarious Bill. Sorry to break it to you but you’re no authority, and your “research” does not exist

  43. Frankie 150+ years of research and the evidence for the evolution of the eye hasn’t changed since Darwin. 150+ years of research and evolutionists cannot unpack any of the alleged evolutionary steps at the genetic level.

    Normally I let the stupid gas your dumbass blows go right on by but this is too good to pass up.

    Evolution of opsins and phototransduction
    Shichida, Matsuyama
    Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2009 Oct 12; 364(1531): 2881–2895.

    Abstract: Opsins are the universal photoreceptor molecules of all visual systems in the animal kingdom. They can change their conformation from a resting state to a signalling state upon light absorption, which activates the G protein, thereby resulting in a signalling cascade that produces physiological responses. This process of capturing a photon and transforming it into a physiological response is known as phototransduction. Recent cloning techniques have revealed the rich and diverse nature of these molecules, found in organisms ranging from jellyfish to humans, functioning in visual and non-visual phototransduction systems and photoisomerases. Here we describe the diversity of these proteins and their role in phototransduction. Then we explore the molecular properties of opsins, by analysing site-directed mutants, strategically designed by phylogenetic comparison. This site-directed mutant approach led us to identify many key features in the evolution of the photoreceptor molecules. In particular, we will discuss the evolution of the counterion, the reduction of agonist binding to the receptor, and the molecular properties that characterize rod opsins apart from cone opsins. We will show how the advances in molecular biology and biophysics have given us insights into how evolution works at the molecular level.

    Damn but you’re one ignorant creationist.

  44. Frankie: The link to acartia’s sock claiming a molecular code turns water into ice can be found at the link I provided earlier.

    Yes, there is a link. But, I notice that you refuse to provide the actual quote where I claim that the water molecule is a code. Could that possibly be because you are a liar?

    Do you see what I did there? By asking you if you are a liar, I am not making a claim that you are a liar. Which is what I was doing with the “is H2O a code?” question. A question that you twisted to make the false claim that I said that the water molecule is a code.

    But, let’s stop beating around the bush. I am making the claim, here in front of everyone, that you are a liar. Since this fact can be demonstrated by checking out the link you provided, I don’t think that I am violating the rules of this site.

    But, on a related note, it is very telling that FrankenJoe gets really defensive when anyone questions him on the idea of DNA being a code. Is there a part of him, deep down, that realizes that equating the DNA “code” with human made codes is questionable at best, intentionally misleading at worst?

  45. Anyone can follow the link and see what acartia’s sock posted. So let’s cut to the chase- I am calling acartia a bullshit lying moron and a shit eating coward

  46. Acartia
    But, on a related note, it is very telling that FrankenJoe gets really defensive when anyone questions him on the idea of DNA being a code. Is there a part of him, deep down, that realizes that equating the DNA “code” with human made codes is questionable at best, intentionally misleading at worst?

    Pretty sure there’s no one on the planet who doesn’t know Joe G is a compulsive liar. This is just the latest example. He’s been corrected dozens of times over his equivocation of the word “code”. Code can mean an intelligently created system using arbitrary symbols to convey meaning, as in the case of Morse code. It can also mean any physical process where the output can be mapped to the inputs as in the case of DNA. Note that the second definition doesn’t require the use of arbitrary symbols and doesn’t require intelligence.

    Like I just pointed out, the fun with Chubs is not watching him make his same ignorant blunders year in and year out. It’s watching him lie and squirm to avoid admitting he was wrong. 🙂

  48. Why do evoTARDs always attack in groups? Are you guys really that insecure? Does one loser supporting another loser really help?

    Is it my fault that you don’t know the difference between a solid and a liquid? Is it my fault that you are ignorant of codes? Is it my fault that your lack of understanding has the genetic code as a purely chemical process with “nucleotides that fit well (chemically) with a specific amino acid”? Really?

  49. Frankie
    Is it my fault that you don’t know the difference between a solid and a liquid? Is it my fault that you are ignorant of codes? Is it my fault that your lack of understanding has the genetic code as a purely chemical process with “nucleotides that fit well (chemically) with a specific amino acid”? Really?

    Is it our fault you’re too dumb to know ice is made of water? Is it our fault you dishonestly equivocate over two different definitions of ‘code’? Is it our fault you don’t understand transcription and translation are both complicated chemical reactions that wouldn’t work with just any arbitrarily selected materials for codons? Really?

  50. Adapa:
    LOL!Nobody melts down quite like our chubby little toaster repairman.

    ThereAin’tNoClappaLikeAdapaGotFromHisPapaNoDoctorCanZappaCausedaNeisseriaDoneAdapdaedandDaMofoBuboBurnsLikeCaponesDirtyWetCappa

Comments are closed.