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

498 thoughts on “Guano (3)”

  1. 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.]

  2. swamidass: There are a large range of views at PS. One of our selling points, right now, is that we are far more effective at dealing with Trolls than TSZ or Panda’s Thumb

    The view of trolling is subjective…What one thinks is trolling is not necessarily what others view as such… It’s also easier to ignore “trolling” if it helps your case or hidden agenda…

    Why don’t you ask Dr. Gauger and Dr. Nelson whether they would like to see Dr. Trashittata, Tim Horton’s and other soldiers of your militia to comment on their neutral blogs? I’m sure Dr. Behe and Dr. Axe would agree with them as well as other members of DI…

  3. BruceS: Hilbert spaces etc are derived from biology?

    The language and concepts of quantum physics to me means appropriate mathematicsas used by physicists.It does not mean whatever is used byvarious commentators on TSZ or popularizers of QM.

    And I was not referring to epistemology of concepts.

    ETA:reworded for clarity and/or greater pedantry

    I don’t read Neil’s comments but from your quote I doubt he knows what he is talking about… I also doubt he is a mathematician… unless he used to teach third grade math… That’s why the ignore button comes in so handy… 🙂

  4. Gregory:
    J-Mac,

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutheran_Church%E2%80%93Missouri_Synod

    This is the official standing on creationism vs evolution of the Confessional Lutheran Church from the link you provided:

    “The LCMS officially supports literal creationism but does not have an official position on the precise age of the earth.[49] An official publication of the synod, the well known “Brief Statement of 1932,” states under the heading “Of Creation”: “We teach that God has created heaven and earth, and that in the manner and in the space of time recorded in the Holy Scriptures, especially Gen. 1 and 2, namely, by His almighty creative word, and in six days.”[50] “

    Their official Synod Pamphlet also shows a very strong support for ID.
    As far as I can tell Swamidass supports neither creationism nor ID. He also embarrassed himself at UD by claiming that ‘abiogenesis is an axiom’…

    Unless I missed something, rather than being a Confessional Lutheran that “…designate those who accept the doctrines taught in the Book of Concord of 1580 (the Lutheran confessional documents) in their entirety because (quia) they are completely faithful to the teachings of the Bible…” Swamidass uses his Christian affiliation just as a label for his hidden agenda…This conclusion would explain why he allows the trashing of God, Christianity, religion, creationism, ID by his atheistic/agnostic militia…

    I got banned because I gradually exposed his hypocrisy…among other things…
    I didn’t care one way or another when he asked me if I was trying to get banned… I told him that theistic evolution or evolutionary creation is just a smoke screen for the chasms of evidence that evolutionary theory has to face and by saying maybe God guided it (filled the evolutionary gaps) is not only stupid. It is not scientific… John Harshman tried to exposed that but he receive a warning that it was not going to be tolerated…
    That’s how Dr. Swamidass has become my second favorite Dr. Maybe after Sean Carroll who extensively uses the word “maybe” to fill the gaps in his speculations…

  5. Allan Miller:
    J-Mac,

    Quantum help? What the hell is that? Is it like wiffly whizz-bang, or porkonensis?

    Give me one reason why I should even attempt to explain it to an ignorant like you?
    Disregard my request… I don’t want to know… lol

  6. Entropy: The original looks like a load of bullshit. Complicated bullshit, but still bullshit.

    Thank you Mr. BS!
    I really enjoy reading your …. when you say BS when you are blowing too much steam… The Mayo Clinic says it is good for you… so …It has to be true…

  8. Alan Fox: I know gpuccio has declined to post here in the past but let me assure him that any comment (or opening post) he cares to make here* will remain visible and unaltered. He should also be reassured that at least two of our admins, Mung and vjtorley**, are, or have been, regular contributors to UD and will, I’m sure, ensure that he will be treated fairly.

    That’s a lie. Nothing stops you from treating people unfairly.

    Like, for example, the way you are able to talk about moderation in any thread you want, but you censor others who even mention the word.

  9. Alan Fox:
    Moved a comment to guano. Reminder that moderation issues should be raised in the thread entitled “Moderation Issues”

    Oh, I see.

    Alan Fox: I know gpuccio has declined to post here in the past but let me assure him that any comment (or opening post) he cares to make here* will remain visible and unaltered. He should also be reassured that at least two of our admins, Mung and vjtorley**, are, or have been, regular contributors to UD and will, I’m sure, ensure that he will be treated fairly.

    *subject to the rules, legal stuff, spam, porn excepted. Comments that step outside “address the post, not the poster” may be moved by admins to “Guano” but nevertheless will remain visible.

  11. Alan Fox:
    Thanks to Joe F for finding time to respond to gpuccio. Let’s hope he notices. I’d pass on a heads-up myself but somehow, if I try to post at Uncommon Descent, my comments disappear without trace.

    I know gpuccio has declined to post here in the past but let me assure him that any comment (or opening post) he cares to make here* will remain visible and unaltered. He should also be reassured that at least two of our admins, Mung and vjtorley**, are, or have been, regular contributors to UD and will, I’m sure, ensure that he will be treated fairly.

    *subject to the rules, legal stuff, spam, porn excepted. Comments that step outside “address the post, not the poster” may be moved by admins to “Guano” but nevertheless will remain visible.

    **Not sure whether Vincent still has posting rights at UD.

    You are allowed to post this and no one is allowed to fucking reply where you posted it?

  12. Alan Fox: I’m not a mathematician but it seems that gpuccio’s basic argument is that mathematical manipulation of numbers (something to do with counting similarities in nucleotide sequences) proves that evolution doesn’t work. His argument appears to rely on several assumptions such as strict determinism, uniqueness of function and the need to search all sequence space.

    Fuck off Alan.

  14. Alan Fox:

    Link to colewd (Bill Cole’s) comment relaying Joe F’s OP

    Relaying? Is that what you call it?

    Does Bill Cole know nothing about copyrights? Copying Joe’s entire post into the UD thread, so that no one has to come here to read (and possibly interact), is not the least cool.

    As an attorney, Barry Arrington should know that the comment is in violation of copyright law, and hence should delete the comment. (No, I do not have standing. Barry should do the right thing irrespective of whether he’s been threatened with a lawsuit.)

  15. Hope I got the formatting close. Please let me know of any errors and I will correct as needs be.

  16. Tom English: Copying Joe’s entire post into the UD thread, so that no one has to come here to read (and possibly interact), is not the least cool.

    It would certainly improve communication if the discussion could take place in one place. And that certainly won’t happen at Uncommon Descent as several interested parties are unable to participate there and, given past experience, there is no guarantee that comments will not be deleted.

    Presumably, Joe F owns copyright on his article. I am pretty ignorant on copyright and infringements. Where does fair comment and relaying morph into copyright infringement?

  17. Alan Fox,

    This belongs in moderation issues. You’re perpetuating pathology instead of doing something to remedy it. I do not believe that you’re the least unclear on the illegality of copying-and-pasting an entire article and an entire comment.

    ETA: Do please move this comment to guano.

  18. we all know why those distinguished professors ran away from the heat of a serious discussion with gpuccio, it’s obvious: lack of solid arguments.

    I doubt that anybody can have a serious discussion with gpuccio. The IDIot doesn’t have a hair of seriousness in him. He’s a dishonest piece of shit. Oozing misconceptions and bare-faced lies that can only pass for arguments to his stupid admirers.

  19. Entropy:
    colewd,

    Again, Why didn’t you warn gpuccio to stay away from dishonest tactics? Do you really think that gpuccio is a fucking angel?

    Oh no, the site is going to be sued for libel again. Jock must be on the phone with Lizzie’s lawyers right now. Alan is preparing a statement and will be declaring that he is forced to appoint himself more powers because of the legal implications in the UK.

  20. Entropy: Why the hell did you feel like warning Joe against using dishonest tactics when gpuccio goes for dishonest tactics each and every fucking time? Joe is a serious scientist, while gpuccio is a fucking dishonest ass-hole. So, why don’t you give this fucking warning to gpuccio instead?

    Talk about Machiavellian, I think Entropy wants to get Lizzie thrown in jail, so Jock can take over the site!

  21. Relax, phoodoo, and educate yourself about the “honest opinion” defense. If you wish to discuss moderation issues, we should move to that thread.

  22. DNA_Jock,

    No no, I am discussing 150 examples of thieves, and safe rules.

    If you wish to discuss the honest opinions defense, you and Alan should do that, with Keiths perhaps.

    But me, no, I am sticking with the thief arguments, I just think Entropy makes a good thief argument, so I would like to highlight it:

    Entropy: I doubt that anybody can have a serious discussion with gpuccio. The IDIot doesn’t have a hair of seriousness in him. He’s a dishonest piece of shit. Oozing misconceptions and bare-faced lies that can only pass for arguments to his stupid admirers.

    There are many roads that lead to Rome Jock.

  23. You are correct, phoodoo, that Entropy makes a good ‘thief’ argument, although you have quoted from the wrong Entropy post, which leads me to believe that you don’t understand the ‘thief’ argument.
    This is his many roads lead to Rome argument.
    The post you quoted from is unhelpful, but pretty accurate.

  24. DNA_Jock:
    You are correct, phoodoo, that Entropy makes a good ‘thief’ argument, although youhave quoted from the wrong Entropy post, which leads me to believe that you don’t understand the ‘thief’ argument.
    This is his many roads lead to Rome argument.
    The post you quoted from is unhelpful, but pretty accurate.

    Well, so says you honorable moderator Jock.

    I wonder why gpuccio hasn’t taken up Alan’s offer and responded to him here?

    Wait, maybe, maybe he thinks Alan is an Idiot that doesn’t have a hair of seriousness in him. That he’s a dishonest piece of shit. Oozing misconceptions and bare-faced lies that can only pass for arguments to his stupid admirers.

    Maybe, who knows?

    Maybe he thinks YOU are a dishonest piece of shit that oozes misconceptions and bare faced lies that can only pass for arguments to your stupid admirers (are there some?) Who can really say for sure the reason Jock?

    Anyway, carry on.

    Oh, and Fuck off. Or jerk off a hobo. As you wish.

  25. CharlieM:
    I would also like to hear what the experts say about quantum information in relation to flagellar self assembly or polymerases but no scientist here seems willing to discuss this with you J-Mac.

    That’s because the scientists here don’t see the point of discussing anything with J-Mac. J-Mac doesn’t have a clue. J-Mac’s bullshit about quantum anything consist of little more than woo-woo. Misconceptions on top of other misconceptions. It is very hard to figure where to start, and trying to correct any of those misconceptions, or asking for clarifications, results in a plethora of insults from J-Mac. Thus, there’s no point in trying to help her/him out.

  27. John Harshman: Why do you want to cause ignorance? Or might I suggest that “confusion” is the better term, as your wit is incoherent.

    Of course . Your incoherence…whether deliberate or not, I don’t care…
    You are such a waste of time…Get a life!
    Good bye!

  28. BruceS: But I do want to emphasize that based on all the posts I have seen from Eric here and at PS, I think he is sincere and honest about his beliefs.

    Well, this will go to guano, but based on Eric’s “answers” to my comments, I have the very opposite impression. He’s either impressively stupid, or he’s dishonest. I think the latter makes more sense though.

  29. “Gregory, As you are an IDist working with Marks & Ewert & who posts at PS”

    Nope. Stop lying please.

  31. timothya: What has this to do with your assertions about Jerry Coyne?

    Oh boy! I have no time to read the comments for you and explain…
    Good bye!

  32. Allan Miller: What’s that got to do with the price of fish?

    How do I tell A. Miller that he is a ignorant and I no longer wish to contuinue our converations coz his fish smells? Joke the DNA?

  35. Gregory:
    I still haven’t learned what your argument is, after all that. Not a [mainstream] creationist, not an IDist. But a _______? Surely you haven’t made a positive contribution to this thread about the Bradley Center, ID 3.0 & Dembski’s return from retirement. That part is clear. That you seem to think everybody is selfish except for you in your own personal religion as a Catholic apostate, that part is far less trustworthy. That you don’t understand why reflects solely on you, not on everyone else.

    1. What church/religion to do you belong to?
    2. What kind of evolution do you believe in?
    3. What kind of evolution can you prove?
    4. What kind of religion/faith can you prove?
    I think you are speculative moron… let’s see the proof you are not…
    Readers: Let’s watch for ways Gregory is going to try to avoid to answer some or all questions directly or even indirectly …
    He a waste of time…

  38. Rumraket: You have posts going back at least to 2012 on Larry Moran’s blog saying the same stupid shit you’ve always been saying.

    So, J-Mac is a lying troll?

    I’m devastated.

  39. J-Mac, I’m reading your comments and thinking, this guy must be joking! Nobody can be that stupid, nobody! But you have never wrote anything that contradicts your displays of irremediable stupidity. So, I have to accept the evidence. You truly are extraordinarily stupid. Beyond anything I’ve even seen. Nonlin is something else in terms of stupidity, but you, no words can make justice to your level of stupidity.

  41. Holy crap. Is there any way to stop idiots like J-mac from posting any more of these ridiculous OPs?

  42. Entropy:
    Holy crap. Is there anyway to stop idiots like J-mac from posting any more of these ridiculous OPs?

    Holy carp! You have nothing to say, again!
    Until you post an OP we should do what? Ignore your rediculous comments? That would be too harsh for rediculous comments lol…

  43. J-Mac: including some 35 trillion microbe species predicted by microbiologists lately will use anything but triplets… There will be more code variants discovered, we both know that, but not doublets.. It makes no sense from many aspects of life-systems but mainly from quantum mechanics prospective…
    So, that’s why I’m willing to make the predictions…

    How brave of you to predict the exact same thing common descent does. On the basis of “quantum mechanics prospective” no less.

    Dude, it’s obvious you’re just a nut without a clue. Get yourself a different hobby, and start taking your meds again.

  44. Entropy,

    I think you no longer deserve a response from posters.

    If Neil and Alan are too cowardice to warn you, then I suggest no one responds to you at all.

    You posts give the appearance that you are a parasitic douchebag.

  45. OMagain: It’s like phoodoo and his “secret” reasons why the world has to be full of pain and misery in order to achieve his gods goals of giving us the ability to grow. Those that live short brutish lives that we may extend our souls do it gladly, I’m quite sure….

    What is this? The Farmers’ Wives Association Convention?

  46. Allan Miller: Question away. That’s rather the point of writing the piece, for scrutiny, comment and criticism. That’s how science is done, not by inscription on tablets of stone.

    You seem unable to formulate any actual critique; just a lot of ‘nothing-to-see-here’ meta.

    But if you want me to be bound by a particular standard, hold yourself to it or be dubbed a hypocrite. If you think speculations are unjustified where they haven’t been subjected to direct experiment, then where does that leave ID?

    Oh, grow up!!! You got slapped around you can’t get over it? This is what happens when you don’t follow the argument wherever it may lead…Ideologies have no substance…You should try doing science instead…

    Friendly Atheist Biologist- T_aquaticus has some new ideas up your alley…🤣

  50. J-Mac: Rum,
    You don’t know anything about quantum mechanics….When you do know or learn enough about it, you have two options only:
    You will likely go crazy or you will never be the same again…
    Which one would you prefer?

    That you ask your nearest adult to help restrict your internet time at wherever you are currently institutionalized. And that you resurrect your regiment of anti-psychotics.

Comments are closed.