Guano (3)

Dirty penguin

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 as links no longer work properly on Guano (2)]

Post n° 56711

250 Replies to “Guano (3)”

  1. Gregory Gregory says:

    J-Mac,

    You want a definition so you can have a debate with the end already wrapped up before you start it? Do think you deserve a conversation like that?!

    1) I don’t deal with rude people who shorten peoples’ names. Kenny might be a saxophonist, athlete or character on South Park. But he is *not* a Brown University professor of biology. Grow up, snot nose nobody with a ‘creationist’ badge who hasn’t earned and doesn’t possess a shred of respect for his knowledge about biology or genetics.

    2) You just admitted you willingly throw 99% of Christians under the bus. Yet are you not representing yourself *AS* one yourself?! (please excuse if i mixed this up, not having visited this site much in several months) & you likened ‘theistic evolution’ to accepting evolutionary biology by religious persons to being a ‘Judas Iscariot.’

    The combination of these things, sir, respectfully, comes across to me as far-out nut-bar material, like running around on the front lawn naked with underwear on one’s head shouting in raving splurges of chanting about their ‘messiah complex’ (or maybe that’s just for those in the 0.05%, not the 1% of living ‘disciples’ you claim to be), in order to ‘edify’ the neighbours on their street & then wonder why people move to the other side of the street when you return to normal and go out walking.

  2. Rumraket Rumraket says:

    Nonlin.org: So “evolution” is false

    No it isn’t.

    – witness the numerous FAILED attempts to abiogenesis

    There have been attempts at abiogenesis? Please link those publications.

    evolution (LTEE)

    What about it? It is a very successful ongoing experiment that have confirmed and substantiated numerous models and predictions of evolutionary biology.

    infinite monkey random creativity

    Never heard of it. What is that? An experiment somewhere? Please link the publication where the results of the “infinite money random creativity” experiment was published, and explain how that has anything to do with what we are discussing here.

    How is your hypothesis still standing if not a religious belief?

    Because it has survived countless tests and isn’t a religious belief, but an evidentially derived conclusion. And it has little to nothing to do with most of the incredibly dumb and silly shit your post blathers about. You are an ignoramus-gimp, a troll, and a child. Go away.

    What are “forces of nature”?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction.

    Can you demonstrate they are not controlled by the Designer?

    No, of course not. That was my whole point. It is an unfalsifiable conjecture to claim that everything we see around us is controlled by the invisible inscrutable mind of God. You can believe it if it makes you happy, but it can never amount to a scientific hypothesis.

  3. Entropy Entropy says:

    Nonlin.org,

    You’re so unbelievably stupid. Maybe you should change your monicker to Straightjacketed nonthinking.

  4. Nonlin.org says:

    Entropy: I hadn’t looked into Darwin’s “Origin” for quite a while. I find it beautiful

    Of course. After all, it is a fairy tale for low IQ individuals and bots.

  5. Entropy Entropy says:

    Nonlin.org:
    Of course. After all, it is a fairy tale for low IQ individuals and bots.

    I see that behaving like an shameless idiot makes you proud Nonlin. Keep at it. That surely teaches me the quality of the foundations of your beliefs, and the respect that your beliefs deserve.

  6. Entropy Entropy says:

    Nonlin’s Designer is a prankster. He designed Nonlin to be profoundly stupid. He also designed the Dunning–Kruger effect to ensure that Nonlin would never understand just how stupid (s)he was designed to be.

    The Designer must be laughing his ass out looking at Nonlin’s performance, and at our frustration trying to get past Nonlin’s unsurmountable stupidity.

  7. J-Mac says:

    Robert Byers:
    there is no evidence for other human types exceeding out intellectual status.
    YES evidence is king. Yes humans gathering evidence is poorly done and if we did it HOW would we know? how would we know we failed? it still requires a paradigm of what evidence is.
    Its welcome if more newsworthy folks question evolutionary biology narrative we hear now.
    I recently saw the FOOL PENN and TELLER shows on youtube.
    the magic is all about distraction and other ways smart careful folks miss how they are tricked.
    Thats what happened in evolutionism acceptance.
    A biological theory was not based on biological scientific evidence. It was based on other evidences. Yet nothing from real gooy biiology.
    a misdirection has been going on about evolution as a biological theory or even hypothesis.
    there is no evidence for evolution based on bio sci evidence. if so evos name your top three or one.
    its as hopeless as this new book.

    Takes your meds Bob!
    Remind Harshman to do the same…

  8. Rumraket Rumraket says:

    J-Mac: My kids demand it.

    You don’t have kids you nutbag. Go back in your padded cell to shit in your palms and smear it on the walls.

  9. Patrick Patrick says:

    The following is a copy of a private email from keiths, posted with his permission. I am sharing it because I believe it is pertinent to this thread and nothing in the Rules prohibits doing so.

    Alan:

    I’ll let this one stand but the ad-hoc arrangement is that you can relay keiths’s messages to squawk box thus allowing him “to defend himself”.

    There is no “ad-hoc arrangement.” There’s just you — a disgraced moderator — trying to censor me, while Patrick steps in to circumvent the abuse.

    Your permission is neither sought nor required for comments here or anywhere else.

  10. Patrick Patrick says:

    Alan Fox:
    Patrick,

    @ Patrick

    I’ll let this one stand but the ad-hoc arrangement is that you can relay keiths’s messages to squawk box thus allowing him “to defend himself”.

    Alan,

    There is no rule against me posting personal email I receive. There is no rule that allows any admin to suspend a member for 30 days (or any amount of time). There is no rule that keiths has broken. There is no authorization from Elizabeth for your treatment of keiths.

    You’ve abused your admin privileges long enough.

  11. DNA_Jock says:

    Patrick notes:

    There is no rule against me posting personal email I receive. There is no rule that allows any admin to suspend a member for 30 days (or any amount of time).

    True, and true.

    There is no rule that keiths has broken. There is no authorization from Elizabeth for your treatment of keiths.

    False, and false.
    However (and very unfortunately for your uber-legalistic interpretation), there is no “10th amendment” rule that reserves unenumerated rights to the people. That is to say, there is no rule that forbids moderators from banning commenters, whether temporarily or permanently. Frighteningly, there is no rule that forbids moderators from banning commenters even if they are, unlike keiths, entirely innocent.
    It’s a benevolent dictatorship, and the dictator is away. Here’s hoping the plenipotentiaries are as benevolent as the dictator.
    Although my suspicion is that most of them reckon this is getting a mite old.

  12. dazz dazz says:

    I take back what I said about Sal. He’s just as stupid as FMM, Bill or Nonlin

  13. Patrick Patrick says:

    The following is a copy of a private email from keiths, posted with his permission. I am sharing it because I believe it is pertinent to this thread and nothing in the Rules prohibits doing so.

    newton,

    Maybe we should dock their pay.

    Or get better admins. There are lots of computer-savvy people at TSZ who are capable of doing a proper test offline before updating plugins. I, for one, would be happy to do this sort of volunteer work on behalf of TSZ.

  14. Nonlin.org says:

    Rumraket: Nonlin.org: 1. So the paper is written prior to conducting the experiment?

    No, who the hell said that? What an incredibly stupid thing to write.

    It would be nice if a pre-experiment paper were ever written, but it’s not what happens. How can someone not know this?

    This doesn’t even make sense as a response to anything I wrote. It’s unhinged.

    2. Is that an admission the experiment did not succeed?

    What an incredibly stupid question.

    Not succeed at what? An experiment cant fail to succeed at something it isn’t designed to test. That was my whole point.

    1. The only thing stupid is you pretending that whatever was written reflects the original intent when in fact the paper was written after (like all others!) and crafted to present the results in the best light (like all others!).
    2. Since the paper was written after, how do you know “the original intent”? To be believable, “the original intent” should have been declared before the test, not after.

    Honestly, how stupid can you be to believe a declared intent after the facts? No doubt, this is contributing big time to the reproducibility crisis: http://nonlin.org/hard-science-is-soft-science/

    The comments you make reflect you’re either clueless or dishonest. Your pick.

  15. J-Mac says:

    Neil Rickert: This could be a good start:
    Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the rocks.

    You are an idiot! Give me one reason why I should put an admin on the ignore ?

  16. Kantian Naturalist Kantian Naturalist says:

    J-Mac: You are an idiot! Give me one reason why I should put an admin on the ignore ?

    It really does amuse me that you act as if we need to prove ourselves to you. If you want that kind of authority, start your own blog. By all means, please, put Neil on ignore. And me. And everyone else at TSZ.

  17. phoodoo says:

    Alan Fox: Well, let’s see how things go. It’s an experiment.

    Did Lizzie say it is an experiment? Who decides how it is going, Lizzie?

    When did Lizzie announce its an experiment? Are you an experiment? I think the experiment failed.

    Alan Fox: There are admins who, from time to time and depending on who is available and what needs doing, will moderate comment threads.

    How many admins are there? How many moderators are there? Are they the same thing?

    You are out of your mind.

  18. phoodoo says:

    Alan Fox,

    Shame on you:

    Alan Fox: Well, let’s see how things go. It’s an experiment.

    Did Lizzie say it is an experiment? Who decides how it is going, Lizzie?

    When did Lizzie announce its an experiment? Are you an experiment? I think the experiment failed.

    Alan Fox: There are admins who, from time to time and depending on who is available and what needs doing, will moderate comment threads.

    How many admins are there? How many moderators are there? Are they the same thing?

  19. dazz dazz says:

    Gregory,

    Apparently all you can do is to pull petulant, pedantic ad-hominems. Here’s one for you of my own trademark: you’re a fucking asshole

    Please, fuck off

  20. Gregory Gregory says:

    “This is admittedly speculative…”

    Vincent Torley is Gish Galloping himself into a Aussie-Japanese tsunami of absurdity parading as ‘reasonable doubt’. It's tragicomic to witness, but he seemingly must do this in order to earn special apologetic badges among skeptics (or the site Distrusting Christianity, from which he got 'inspired' by the darkness to read what he read, research THE WAY he did (which Daniel has been so polite to point out) & thus attempt to snuff out the light in himself in order to 'prove a point' (what point isn't the point here, apparently, or at least he hasn't gone that far to figure it out yet).

    The Twelve saw him next – but who were they and what did they believe?”

    Who’da thunk the spiral for Vincent J. Torley, English teacher, once a PhD in philosophy, would end up here, almost craving heterodoxy in his bloviating bloggy posting? Has Nishida finally taken over his ‘western soul’ (screed against that coming soon, dripped in Lizzlie dust) with intellectual paralysis, a crisis of broken tolerance at 57?

    Well, then again, he could just write “This is admittedly speculative…”, rub some dirt on it & insist his mouth is clean again. But why would he go so far down the path to require that? ‘Who really knows other than VJT himself,’ like Neil more directly than Torley said. I agree with Neil’s sad assessment of Torley, which is likely why Torley started here, instead of elsewhere in the Light.

  21. Entropy Entropy says:

    Nonlin.org:
    Unless you think “evolution” is directed which would make you an ID proponent. Probably not what you want to say.

    It’s authentically amazing that you can be so profoundly stupid that you wouldn’t read what I wrote to figure out what I actually said, instead of hasting to make such an idiot out of yourself.

    Then again, all of your OPs have been ridiculously stupid. What else should we expect from you if not more stupidity?

  22. J-Mac says:

    John Harshman: Don’t worry. Nobody can tell the difference between the ones you think are ready and the ones you think are not.

    I really enjoy imagining you foaming saliva if front the computer when even your wildest speculations, whether about birdies losing bones or the appearance of genes in the tree of life, require you to admit evolutionary miracles…

    Faith is blind… someone wise once said… Have a nice life… if you can…;-)

  23. J-Mac says:

    John Harshman: Getting closer. At least you don’t think that flightless birds have lost a bone any more. Why would you say that the keel is the main part of the breastbone? The sternum is widespread in amniotes, and only birds have keels.

    Now, why is loss of the keel a miracle? It’s the attachment site for the major flight muscles, so if a species no longer flies, those muscles no longer have to be large and have large attachment sites, so any mutation that reduces the size of the keel will not be selected against. Where’s the problem?

    As for the pelvis, have you heard of whales?

    Blah… blah… blah…the so stories of Johnny Harsh…
    The whale and birdie evolutionary fairy-tales… Come kids and let us listen to the idiot! Stories like that have gotta be true because they are cloaked in the word “science”…

  24. J-Mac says:

    Something smells here…
    Could it be that stinky trolls are still allowed at TSZ?
    Mi..da!

  25. dazz dazz says:

    J-Mac: Something smells here…

    Must be your brain farts

  26. Entropy Entropy says:

    I don’t know why I started reading the OP. J-Mac is amazingly stupid. I thought Nonlin was the worst, the stupidest of them all. Nope. J-Mac gives Nonlin plenty of competition for the title. What a mindless moron!

  27. Entropy Entropy says:

    Nonlin.org,

    Holy crap Nonlin, you’re astoundingly stupid. I wonder what you imagine you’re accomplishing other than ridiculing yourself.

  28. J-Mac says:

    CharlieM:
    Neil Rickert,

    He sits, he reads, he has no cloo,
    What can he do, but call it woo.
    His mind cannot be shifted.

    My tribute to William McGonagall

    Charlie,
    Don’t waste your time on Neil! Unless it is something he wants to hear, he will try to criticize new OPs by ID supporters. It makes him feel important and in control…
    That’s what happens to most retired kindergarten mathematician when they have toooo much time on their hands and live in boring, Chicago suburbs…
    Most of retirees there grow weed there these days…though I hear most of them never really had a job…

  29. J-Mac says:

    Charlie,
    Don’t waste your time on you know who!

    If admins here have shown some consistency, this blog wouldn’t suck so much…
    But Lizzy already knows that and cares very much…
    When she returns…If she returns… I will …………………… s

  30. phoodoo says:

    Alan Fox:
    phoodoo,
    Make complaints about admins and moderation in the appropriate thread.

    What makes you think its a complaint about moderation? Its not, its a complaint about the post he made.

    If someone makes an asshole post, I am not allowed to also mention that they happen to be a moderator also now?

    Is that another rule you just made up after you quit but actually didn’t?

  31. Kantian Naturalist Kantian Naturalist says:

    If I wanted to read the incoherent illiterate ravings of an ignorant buffoon I’d follow Trump on Twitter but I don’t expect them at TSZ.

  32. BruceS says:

    Kantian Naturalist:
    If I wanted to read the incoherent illiterate ravings of an ignorant buffoon I’d follow Trump on Twitter but I don’t expect them at TSZ.

    I’d suggest going to wherever you parked your priors and then updating them.

  33. J-Mac says:

    Entropy,

    Are you a homosexual?

    Yes or No

  34. J-Mac says:

    Kantian Naturalist,

    Are you a homosexual?
    Yes or No?

  35. J-Mac says:

    graham2,

    Are you a homosexual?
    Yes or No?

  36. J-Mac says:

    stcordova,

    Are you a homosexual?
    Yes or No?

  37. J-Mac says:

    walto:
    Have we started banning important, paradigm-creating scientists now? Is that how low we’ve sunk????!!??

    Are you a homosexual?
    Yes or No?

  38. J-Mac says:

    Kantian Naturalist: You know my philosophical positions. I don’t see why my gender or sexual orientation have anything to do with this, and I will not answer your question. You can draw whatever inferences you wish based on that. I don’t respect you enough to care what you think about me.

    Why would you decline to answer the yes or no question?
    Are you not feeling comfortable about this?

  39. J-Mac says:

    Neil Rickert:
    Moved a bunch of posts to guano.

    Are you a religious man, Neil?

  40. J-Mac says:

    Kantian Naturalist: Why would I refrain from disclosing my sexual orientation to a complete stranger on the Internet?

    It’s a baffling mystery.

    You don’t have to, Unless you are “them” I have a 50/50 chance of guessing it. I’m 99% sure though because of your history…

  41. J-Mac says:

    What baffles me the most is why so many closet homosexuals here are so afraid to admit what their sexual presence is…If evolution did it to you, why should you be such a coward?

  42. J-Mac says:

    I couldn’t help but notice that the majority of comments here are attacks on VJ, rather than what he wrote… Is this going to be a new standard at TSZ? Can I do the same or my comments are going to be moved to guano without any bias?

    Admins, please advise…

    Thank you in advance!

  43. fifthmonarchyman says:

    Tom English: that’s no more than a stinking piece of shit that’s stuck to my shoe as I’ve walked the turf.

    Do you even realize how unpleasant and bitter you sound?

    My suggestion to you is find something better to spend your time on. Life is too short to waste your life on stuff that you find so distasteful.

    Perhaps you could take up gardening or woodworking.

    peace

  44. dazz dazz says:

    fifthmonarchyman: What am I chopped liver

    You are not expanding anything ID related. You don’t have a design detection methodology. You know jackshit about science.

    You’re just another delirant creationist ignoramus convinced that you can do science better than trained scientists. Gary Gaulin, J-Mac, Edgar Postrado, Puccio, yourself… you guys are dime a dozen

  45. Entropy Entropy says:

    J-Mac:
    I have a feeling that this OP is going to become the most popular OP ever at TSZ…Why shouldn’t become the one?

    You’re an ass-hole

  46. dazz dazz says:

    If anything, this thread should illustrate what’s wrong with your approach to ‘design detection’ and science in general. Seems to me in a situation like this where there’s an apparent anomaly or unexpected result, scientists would need to propose explanations (hypothesis) from which experiments can be derived to either support or discard those explanations.

    If you have demons as a hypothesis, why call it design detection instead of demon detection?
    How would we characterize demons in particular, in a way that would allow us to empirically test the hypothesis? I bet you won’t even try.

    When physicists proposed dark matter as an explanation to an unexpected result they did that because extra matter would account for the observed results. Matter is known to do that, hence it works as an explanation, at least until something better comes up. Do you think “gravity demons” that push around galaxies at will would have worked too as an alternative explanation?

    We all know where this is going. You will simply proclaim that such anomaly couldn’t possibly be explained by natural processes, therefore design. Demons, gods, sky pixies, doesn’t matter. Let me give you my response to that in anticipation: fuck off

  47. Nonlin.org says:

    Allan Miller: So what stops either lineage from changing? If change can occur at all, and repeatedly, it can only be cumulative.

    What a stupid question and even stupider comment! Wow!

  48. Nonlin.org says:

    Rumraket: Because it has none of the traits associated with personality.

    Personality?!? As a simple meat computer, how would you even know about “personality”?

  49. J-Mac says:

    OMagain: Rumraket: I don’t believe you. And I don’t believe you are capable of arguing the truth of that claim.
    I’ve got one.
    Hey, J-Mac, how much does the information increase by and what units are you using there?

    Enough to make Remraket’s and your balls sweat… that is if you have ones…

    Same units as the increase in the sweaty balls temperature…

  50. Tom English Tom English says:

    fifthmonarchyman: Ignoring me might be a possibility.

    I’ve probably ignored you more than any other of the regulars in the Zone has ignored you. But I am bothered by the thought that you’re abusing children the way that you were abused as a child. I’m talking about the abuse that made you into the kind of person that we see here in the Zone.

    fifthmonarchyman: It certainly would be more fruitful than discussing intersubjective verses subjective experience in this thread in my opinion.

    You should do something about your ignorance before stating an opinion. Hint: The distinction just might have something to do with the issue of whether invisible pink unicorns (and God and Brahman) are in the same category as natural selection.

    fifthmonarchyman: you could take a crack at the riddle and explain how you would go about detecting design when it comes to Max’s demon

    I explained why the “riddle” is a cute little trap. And you have since revealed your noxious little “gotcha.” Basically, you’ve lied about your objective in this thread.

    fifthmonarchyman: You could explain how you differentiate between natural selection and personal choice.

    They’re not in the same category, so your question is ill posed. And it is not for no reason that I’ve brought up the distinction of subjective and intersubjective experience. [ETA: You’re indicating that there has to be a decision between the two. I’m saying that personal choice isn’t even on the table when we’re considering natural selection as an account of adaptive evolution.]

Comments are closed.