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.
Rest assured so is your reputation as a Lover Of Truth.
Still waiting for that explanation in your own words as to why Punk Eek fails Mung.
Run away little PaV.
FUcK youR G-o-D
Post in good faith or fuck off.
Hello, Guano.
Gregory, the only post that cubist made on this thread prior to your latest piss-taking was this:
You immediately turn and accuse him of… lacking spirituality!
What the fuck is wrong with you?
If you are referring to yourself, then I doubt it. I think you should makes yourself a permanent home in Guano.
What’s it to you, “Gregory” ?
And why are you trying to drag someone else’s thread off topic with your stamp-collecting ?!? Don’t you have a shit-fit when you think someone is derailing your thread? Yes? Then why under god’s blue heaven would you do that yourself to Alan Fox?
Please mind your own business, hotshoe. Nick Matzke is a grown man and can respond how he wants. He wrote what I quoted. We’ve had cordial contact before. Can’t a man be curious?
I assume we’ll hear no more little girl crying by you about people posting OT things in your threads. Right?
Time for a dogpile!! This is high-class stuff here Nick, with the likes of cubist, hotshoe and thorton. High-class!
OK, so we will hear more little girl crying from you besides your hypocritical behavior. At least you’re consistent.
Good luck with your petty-tyrant tantrum, Barry.
Do let us know when (if) you finally do an honest day’s work.
Here is a link to some comments by the “evil atheist” Jamie Farren himself. Looks like he did a bang-up job of documenting the attempts to push Meyer’s Creationist book off on students as being an honest and fair critique.
AC: What Do You Think
Notice Mr. Farren’s offer to publicly debate the topic of evolution vs. ID and explain why the actions were necessary. I notice not a single IDiot including the professional liars at the DI took him up on it.
Looks like Lacy Cuntskin and the IDiots are lying yet again about what really happened. What a surprise.
Or what Bully? Your petty tin-pot dictator powers begin and end at Uncommonly Dense.
thorton,
umm, thornton, as much as I detest Luskin, all he stands for, and everything I have ever heard of him, it still makes my stomach hurt when you name him “cuntskin” – that can do splash damage to those decent human beings who happen to possess actual cunt skins and who see their sex being used as a term of opprobrium. Will you please consider not using that term in the future?
No, I don’t call people I hate “dicks” “dickheads” or “pricks”, either.
I do call them assholes. Everyone’s got one, so it doesn’t single out just half of our species to bear the weight of the insult.
Actually that’s the first time I’ve ever referred to the slimy turd by that moniker. But I agree, The Attack Gerbil is a better choice.
Odd how the psychotic liars seem to have the upper hand in the culture wars. Why do you suppose that is? Seems to me you lot with your “500 coins, therefore ID” is on the losing side, and has been for some time now.
Perhaps, after all, the truth is not really on your side. Ever consider that?
After all, how long could a worldwide conspiracy of psychotic liars be maintained for? If that’s your belief as to why ID is being suppressed then you are even more out there then I thought. Tin foil hat much William?
“will Gregory ever stop talking about his desire to talk about something interesting, and actually talk about something interesting?”
Hello. Thanks for that, Steve. Just got off the phone with people far above almost anyone at TSZ. Question: When will you personally deliver a “something interesting” thread here at TSZ? Haven’t seen a lead thread by you so far.
LOL! You’re a legend in your own mind.
“His own threads have been snooze-fests — promising great things, but ending up saying nothing.”
What have Steve Schaffner’s threads so far said and done?
Nothing. There hasn’t been one. It sure is easy to criticise.
Go make your own thread, Gregory! Everyone wins. You can make things more interesting and we can not read it.
In response to
I’ve had an epiphany. Per Gregory, merely ‘professing’ atheism oppresses him, it’s as bad as what Stalin did.
I think Gregory is channeling Denis.
Holy shit, Gregory really is an online stalker. Look at the effort he’s taken to dig up a five-year-old letter of yours in order to accuse you of living in western Michigan. Yuck, that’s just creepy crawly behavior.
This was written by TSZ’s ‘Mike Elzinga,’ wasn’t it? – http://blog.mlive.com/readreact/2009/01/creationists_entropy_argument.html
A charlatan hiding behind a sock-puppet, a narrow natural scientist-specialist unwilling to show the courage to answer simple questions direclty or profess a sincere identity, who is this man who naively swears (with a whopping ’50 years’ of experience!) that WARFARE between science, philosophy and theology/worldview is the ONLY way?
Elzinga has shown himself a sour-mouthed, vengeful Scrooge. As has hothead, thoton, cubit and a small few other gang of empty-hearts here at TSZ.
For everyone else, awaiting Lizzie’s response to her strange title in this thread and failure to address the ideology of ‘naturalism’ in contrast to ‘natural science,’ I bid the rest of you thanks for contemplation, conversation and Happy Holidays!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I love it!
Thorton. Stop lying. This is not Cornelius Hunter’s site.
Of course there is a barrier: the biosphere.
The biosphere is complete and mature. That is why we only observe oscillating traits. There are only perturbations in the biosphere, no catastrophic events that would trigger macro-evolution. Thorton’s own comment regarding beneficial and deleterious traits were a long-winded way to describe the oscillating nature of traits due to a corresponding oscillation in environmental conditions. This is clear evidence for the lack on need for macro-evolutionary change. Hence, none is observed.
Only a huge unfilled niche, which no current body plan was equipped to deal with, would cajole nature into dusting off its macro-evolutionary software program.
Thorton blurbs: “There is no known barrier anywhere that prevents micro-evolutionary changes from accumulating over time into macro-evolutionary ones. Indeed, there is a huge amount of evidence that this is exactly what happened in the history of extant species.”
phoodoo,
You’re a hilarious little troll, phoodoo. Anyone can see through your shenanigans. Go away.
Still wrong there Tulip. It means chance with a 50% probability.
She didn’t leave it out Tulip. She posted this
Not her problem you’re too ignorant to understand what “stochastic” means.
Heh, I’d give it no more than a 4 out of 10 because of the boring repetition of all that right-wing religionist crap about how atheists only believe in evolution because they hate Jesus. I would give it even less but phoofoo did manage to come up with a new twist:
Well, no, my mom’s been an atheist since I was a baby; she never forced me to go to church (although she did allow us to attend with our best friends who were churchgoers, so that we could see what it was like) and I’ve never hated my mom, not even when I was a teenager.
Still, it’s a brand-new way for an IDiot to be wrong, so I give an extra point to phoofoo for novelty.
Bullshit, This is her theory of evolution, you lying little twit:
“Lizzie: Evolutionary theory is not the theory that what we observe is explained by “chance”. Chance explains nothing. What does explain adaptive evolution, very nicely, is the theory that when living things reproduce, the biochemical processes involved in reproduction are sufficiently complex and interactive that the results are variable, and it is therefore extremely unlikely that any two offspring will be identical to themselves or their parents, and also quite likely that one of the dimensions along which they vary will affect the chance that they will leave viable offspring, again, because the things that may happen to an organism are extremely complex, interactive, and varied.”
The first bolded part is referring to random mutations you ignorant knob.
The second bolded part is referring to natural selection.
Damn but you’re a dense one.
thorton,
And its “chance” NOT “A chance” . Chance! you retarded moron!!
I’ll rephrase for the slow teenager.
Then play a betting game with me. We take turns rolling an unbiased die. Every time a 6 comes up I pay you
10. Because of chance we each might win so it must be a fair game.
Fair = chance according to you, right?
Put your money where your mouth is.
Is that better Tulip?
More rhetorical word game playing in lieu of trying to understand the concepts. Sigh…
Misogynisticly?
Yeah, yeah, I’ll escort myself to Guano.
To hell with that patronizing sexist bullshit. Lizzie is not a “girl”; she is a full-grown competent adult. The kind of people who would call an adult scientist “girl” in a conversation like this are the same as the kind of filthy bigots who would call a black professor “boy”.
You may not be aware of your own sexism, Phoofoo, or you may have used it deliberately to cut, but in either case it’s unforgivable in this context.
Lizzie is far too nice and would never tell you that your kind is not welcome here. So I’m not speaking for Lizzie, but I’ll tell you: sexist piggery is not welcome here nor anywhere that decent humans coexist.
vs
Liz is still attempting to sell the explicitly false.
Points. Laughs.
That’s not additional information; we already know that Liz, whom the challenge example was about, knows English. We also know the phrase is in English. Also, she only made that “concession” after realizing the ridiculousness of her position, which she then tries to save face by adding this equally inane caveat:
Almost any other explanation than (categorical) ID would have “greater force” upon finding the molecular arrangement: “Hi, Liz! Whatcha lookin’ at? Maybe some molecules that can only be explained via ID?” because it was found in the DNA of an ancient ant trapped in amber?
Don’t piss down my back and call it rain. You would immediately assume it was a hoax or prank of some kind. You may not know how it got there, or who did it, but you would certainly know it was the product of ID. It wouldn’t matter where you found that configuration of molecules, or in what; you’d know- as much as you can know anything – that it was the product of (categorical) ID.
But, by all means, keep bluffing and shuffling.
You’re blithering again. No one I know ever said we can’t detect design when we have outside information of known previous designs to pattern match against.
Now that you’ve rejected ID’s main premise that we can detect design just from the object itself, what’s next for Mr. “it looks designed to me so it MUST be designed”?
Crop circles, when investigated, appear to be made by humans.
Biological artifacts, when investigated, appear to be made by evolution.
It’s that “when investigated” thing that ID is missing.
But, dearest William, that’s not what you are finding is it?
If we were to start to pull out such information from DNA then I’d be convinced that ID was true (some version of it).
Yet we’ve not pulled out anything approaching “War and Peace” from DNA have we?
Do tell William, what is the equivalent of “War and Peace” that ID claims to have found that proves the ID case?
Your point is presumably you’re an obtuse tit. Hello Guano.
As William makes reality with his mind, aren’t his hallucinations actually real? Big-boy pants, William.
Phoodoo, impervious to education. Fine creationist stock.
Is quantum physics also a lie because you can’t understand it? Or shoelaces?
2 Corinthians 10:5
Pathetic. The equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears. Textbook dogma.
Phoodoo just likes being upset with evolution. He’s never advanced and pro-ID argument.
Run out of responses to arguments made already have you?
You’re the scrub riding the bench on the sidelines while everyone else is actively participating. You’ve never even touched the ball.
It may be hard for you to fathom but science really doesn’t much care when people choose to remain willfully ignorant unless they are spoon fed. It’s your loss, not science’s.
Bullshit. No one offered any papers here with the claim that the papers contained rigorous computable ‘plausibility’ metrics. Besides, you have no way of knowing what’s in the papers because you still haven’t read them.
Can we call your latest failed gambit the “WJM ignorance of the literature bluff”?
Tell us about BUTTHURTism, Greg.