Guano (1)

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.

1,658 thoughts on “Guano (1)”

  1. Gregory

    “Philosophy is, in fact, not easy. Bullshitting is easy. Philosophy is not.” – Kantian Naturalist

    ROTFLMAO! KN’s philosophistry regularly on display.

  2. RumraketRumraket

    stcordova: We don’t know, but you still insist we know and that it’s junk.

    I insist that we know the relative proportions to a decent level of accuracy.

    This is different from claiming that we know with certainty which parts are junk and which parts aren’t.

    Again, nobody has advocated for not doing functional annotations or various expression and biochemical assays for the entire genome. In fact I would even advocate for doing studies on differentiating cells and specific tissues so we find out not only what the functional regions are specifically, but what their specific functions are.

    stcordova: The truth is you BELIEVE and put your faith and trust in an idea that doesn’t have direct empirical evidence

    No, that isn’t the truth and you KNOW it isn’t the truth. You know it is a falsehood and you are now knowingly and deliberately telling something you know is untrue.

    That makes you a lying sack of shit. I emplore you to stop being a lying sack of shit.

    I believe I have the moral high ground here also, because even the mentally debilitating religion you mindlessly worship COMMANDS you to not tell falsehoods.

    Exodus 20:16 “You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.”

    These are supposedly words directly from god. And they’re supposedly not a story, or an allegory, or a metaphor. But a direct, unambigous commandment, and you are FAILING to live up to it RIGHT NOW.

  3. Gregory

    Alan Fox,

    Obviously your ‘book’ (of judgment) is rather primitive, Alan Fox. Sophistry is not synonymous with lying. I don’t doubt that KN as deeply as his self-confessed as-horizontal-as-possible persona here can muster actually believes he is telling the truth. No accusation of lying. That doesn’t make his attempted ‘philosophy’ not appear rather closer to philosophistry than wisdom. But sadly you can’t see that. And you, sir, are obviously not one competent to impartially judge, fellow atheist cheerleader of bottom-less and top-less intellectual vacuity.

  4. Gregory

    “Can you offer — and defend — an example of top-down causation?”

    Yes, you moronic atheist, a disgraceful excuse for a human being. I linked to your own post. That’s ‘top-down causation’. Period.

  5. Frankie

    Joe Felsenstein: As a “professional liar for evolution” (according to Frankie), let me just point out that Weasel programs are stochastic processes, namely processes that have a random part.They simulate strong natural selection, mutation and genetic drift.That may not be enough for Frankie, to consider them as not simulating evolution.But there is no accounting for taste.Setting Frankie’s high standards aside, we can see that Weasel is an excellent demonstration of how the nonrandom phenomenon of natural selection works dramatically differently from pure chance.

    They do not simulate natural selection at all, Joe. NS is not a search heuristic actively searching for a pre-specified target. OTOH weasel is a search heuristic actively searching for a pre-specified target.

    As for natural selection and pure chance, well NS is non-random in a very trivial way, ie not all variations have the same chance of being eliminated.

    So thank you, Joe, for demonstrating the dishonesty of evolutionists

  6. Frankie

    keiths:
    aleta,

    Yes.As a glaring example, ‘Virgil’ never seems to have considered the implications of his “set subtraction method” for comparing the cardinalities of finite sets such as these:

    A = {hen, fox, sheep, wolf}
    B = {1,2,3,4}

    “Cantor math” is able to determine that A and B have the same cardinality.“JoeMath” fails at even this trivial task, because his set subtraction method only works when one set is a subset (proper or otherwise) of the other.

    Mathematicians think. Joe doesn’t.

    What a total crock. Obviously you don’t use set subtraction when it doesn’t apply. You have serious issues, keiths

Comments are closed.