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. Rich:
    Joe if you can’t give a date range for the age of the universe, you’ve got no business opining on if you think it’s designed.

    LoL! That doesn’t even follow.

    Time is one of the probabilistic resources in play.

    So what? Time doesn’ construct anything.

    Of course the real answer is that you’re desperate not to admit your YEC status.

    I sure have exposed your ignorant status

    Hence your obfuscation when asked the simplest of questions.

    Nice hissy-fit.

  2. OMTWO: Er, Joe, it was you who suggested we meet! I’m simply taking you up on that suggestion.

    Remember, you said:

    I said I’m happy to meet and said where and when.

    Next week?

    Ok, sure. When?

    Any day, what day is good?

    Huh? Ok, I can make it to Boston between the 19 and 26 of this month, beyond that I’m not in the USA again until the start of June.

    Scared I’d pull out a clown mask are you Mr Dubble Chin?

    You are all foreplay Joe. When it gets to the action, no so much man there. Yeah, yeah, it was a thick sweatshirt and it was cold. I know.

    So, Joe, perhaps I can meet you at the next ID for kidz night you run at your local school, “Imaginary High”?

    One more time –

    YOU are a proven liar. No one believes you when you say anything, let alone that you will be in the States next week.

    Not only that you are anonymous meaning I do not know your name nor what you look like. That means actually finding you would be impossible.

  3. Joe G: I sure have exposed your ignorant status

    Are you a YEC or not Joe? Feel free to answer with a response irrelevant to the question asked as you normally do.

  4. Joe G: One more time –

    YOU are a proven liar. No one believes you when you say anything, let alone that you will be in the States next week.

    And you’ve got the nerve to call other people cowards.

    Not only that you are anonymous meaning I do not know your name nor what you look like. That means actually finding you would be impossible.

    Coward.

  5. Joe G:

    I sure have exposed your my ignorant status

    Fixed that for you.

    Nice hissy-fit.

    Says the world champion of hissy-fit meltdowns and flounces.

    P. S. Biscuits and gravy, with a side of grits.

  7. OMTWO: It’s not a false accusation that you don’t understand orbital mechanics. You don’t!

    I understand orbital mechanics. Obviously you are just a loser and a liar.

  10. OMTWO: But you don’t actually *say* anything other then “you are wrong”.

    So there is nothing to refute!

    For example, I suggest that your understanding of orbital mechanics is lacking and you could write a program that simulates what you claim happens (planets spiral into the sun) to demonstrate your claim but instead you respond that I should check the peer reviewed literature or google it.

    So should I “refute” your suggestion that I google it? How exactly do I do that?

    If you provided your model that could be refuted. But you can’t do that, can you?

    Again all you have to do is support YOUR position. That is what I am asking but obviously you are too much of a coward to do so.

  11. olegt: Yes, you did. You kept asking silly questions like this:

    Oleg- CONTEXT is everything- I was talking about a one star universe- one star with one planet/ moon system.

    IOW thank you for continuing to prove that you are dishonest.

  12. Joe G: No you can’t, Newton never dealt with a one star universe- you are a liar.

    That is precisely what Newton did. He considered a single star with a single planet orbiting it. That is known as the Kepler problem in mechanics.

  15. Joe G: Oleg- CONTEXT is everything- I was talking about a one star universe- one star with one planet/ moon system.

    Yet you can’t even demonstrate that such a thing can even exist, can you?

  16. Joe G: Heck you can’t even get such a system in the first place.

    If that’s the case, why did you talk about it yourself as noted in my previous comment?

  18. Robin: ‘Fraid that isn’t what that site indicates. Nice try though Joe.

    Nope. Care to try again?

    LoL! Materialism = matter, energy, necessity and chance being all that is required. The EF mandates that we go through necessity and chance before considering a design inference.

    Are you really that stupid? Really?

  19. Joe G: If you can’t keep your dogs in check perhaps you should just close the blog.

    Or maybe you should just get the hell out of here and spew your nonsense from the safe confines of your own blog. No one is forcing you to post here.

  22. stcordova: The subject of future posts.

    Post them here. I don’t really think we want you to be that prolific. Its a science blog, not Sal’s lifestory. Thanks.

  23. LoL! ALL of YOUR posts belong in guano as it is obvious that you have absolutely nothing to add but your cowardly belligerence.

  26. yaeh I get it- You do not think, YOU do not reproduce (we hope) and all you observe is uranus.

    See any klingons?

  27. stcordova: So far as I can tell, I haven’t seen responses to this point by:
    flint
    toronto
    cubist
    rich

    Still look for assurances your worth the effort Sal. I’ve put you through my Inductive Filter and you failed.

  28. stcordova: But thank you for attempting to respond, even though your response wasn’t to the question that was asked.

    Still waiting for a position on good-faith dialogue here from you, Sal.

  29. LoL! As if YOU should talk about manners, Captain Coward, I mean limp noodle…

    And obviously Oleg doesn’t understand what I posted, or worse…

  30. Already have- you choked and refused ante-up so we could compare.

    IOW you pulled your typical Catain Coward, limp noodle approach to the debate.

  32. stcordova

    It seems essentially that your side won’t believe unless they see the Designer in action in real time.

    Quit with the lying you slimy douche. At least four people responded and gave you things that would be positive evidence for ID without seeing your precious Designer in action.

    If all you want to do is lie why don’t you drag your sorry ass back under your rock at UD.

  33. The strength of evolutionism is the absence of direct witness of the Designer in action. It’s a strong card to play.

    I think this says it all. Forget the mountains of consistent evidence generated by tens of thousands of HONEST scientists over the last century and more. Forget that “you can’t prove me wrong” is not positive evidence for anything whatsoever. Pretend that if we CALL evolutionary biology “evolutionism” we have somehow dissociated it from those mountains of consistent evidence.

    Sal just cannot realize that real scientists, engaged in figuring out how biology works, have no use for lying ankle-biters ASSERTING that their research is supported only by the LACK of Sal’s imaginay playmate.

    Thornton identifed the exact word to describe Sal: Slimy.

  34. Joe G:
    Wait- intelligent designers add plenty to archaeology and forensic science. And one of the three basic questions science asks is “how did it come to be this way?”, and design is one possible way/ mechanism.

    But please present a testable hypothesis for your position so we know what you would accept.

    Your assertions and demands are completely ridiculous, as usual. Anything that has to do with design in archaeology and forensics is about HUMAN design or HUMAN actions. Archaeology and forensics are NOT concerned with things being designed or caused by gods, angels, extra cosmic designers, magic, miracles, spirits, ghosts, demons, or any of the other fairy tale stuff you IDiots push.

    And who’s “we”? You and your imaginary friend? You and your imaginary god? You and your ticks? You and your caek? You and your watermelons? Do you really believe that constantly saying “we” makes your asinine assertions and demands more credible?

    Something you really need to get through your arrogant skull is that NO ONE has to prove ANYTHING to you. You are a nobody. You have NO scientific standing. You have never done any science. You have never contributed anything to science. You’re just a loud-mouthed fool with no clue about science.

  36. Yes “eliminate” is the same as go through. Ya see the EF has three decision nodes to “go through” in order to have design as the result. Two of those decision nodes represent materialism.

    And no time limit but heck, you still don’t have any idea how to go about testing your own position.

    As for relevant questions- you avoid them all the time. If materialism could answer anything we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

    But anyway, I see you can whine and cry, but can you produce any positive evidence for your position?

  37. LoL! Thomas Henry Huxley called the theory of evolution “Darwinism” in honor of Darwin.

    But anyway everything is news to someone as obvioulsy ignorant as you are.

  38. Ya know if you could only step up and support your position, you could refute ID. But you cannot so all you have is to attack ID with your nonsensical spewage.

  39. Joe G:
    Norbert Weiner– who is an authority on information said:

    Fred the giant frog god, who is an authority on everything, said: you are an IDiot.

    My authority can beat up your authority.

  40. I answered your questions- you don’t like the answers because you are a baby.

    And YOU avoid all my questions so why should I answer yours?

  42. Joe G:
    Exactly!

    One more time-

    The first two nodes of the EF represent materialism. In order to reach the design inference node we have to first go through materialism’s nodes.

    Children understand this- so what is Robin’s issue?

    That’s the second time you’ve admitted that you’re a child.

  44. Will someone please start a thread that is about something real, and interesting? All this evasive, delusional gibberish coming from WJM is just BORING.

  45. I think he’s just trolling to drum up web hits for his name. but the obvious solution is to avoid posting on these threads.

    As I am doing. 🙂

  46. Creodont2: Will someone please start a thread that is about something real, and interesting? All this evasive, delusional gibberish coming from WJM is just BORING.

    Ditto for ‘that will be in my next post, I’m not answering that question in this one” Sal Cordova.

  47. LoL! That means there won’t be any threads supporting materialism nor the “theory” of evolution.

    Instead all we will get is evasive, delusional gibberish coming from evos…

  48. Also materialism cannot explain any physical evidence-

    That’s right Joe. You’ve won. Congratulations.

    Clap.

    Clap.

    Clap.

    Now, if you don’t mind, the adults are talking.

  50. You know first you should define religion and then demonstrate how ID follows that definition.

    Obvioulsy you are too stupid to realize that.

Comments are closed.