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. “I’ll let your comments stand”

    Wow, how generous you are, Alan, in your defense of atheism.

    Such comments as this, “God, how I hate these dirty little theist ‘scholars’,” of course, are just seen as ‘friendly’ in your ‘moderator’s’ ethic. Why guano a comment like this? Is it simply 3 points, not enough to penalise?

    Despairing, quasi-happy atheist grandmas like hotshoe should be regularly guano’d; no, they should be celebrated at TA/SZ as ‘inspiring’ gurus.

  2. Erik:

    hotshoe_: Not that Eric will have the spine to either retract or apologize for his mistreatment of KN.

    He was pretty enthusiastic about the challenge at first, but soon turned for no reason and began to whine about it. I am not expecting an apology.

    Spineless, Erik, spineless.

  3. “Spineless, Erik, spineless.”

    That’s a ‘good faith’ statement at TA/SZ, of course! 😉

  4. Patrick:
    Frankie,

    Please leave the insults out of your comments as per Elizabeth’s rules.

    With respect to Avida, why do you think that selectable intermediates invalidate the results?

    You guys started with the insults. Grow up.

  5. Allan Miller: Reply)

    Allan stop being an asshole. Or is that the best you have to offer?

    I never said nor implied that scientists prefer non-ID causes least of all. Walter Bradly has made the case for gravity being evidence for ID. And what type of evolution are you talking about?

  7. The goals of scientists like Linnaeus and Cuvier- to organize the chaos of life’s diversity- are much easier to achieve if each species has a Platonic essence that distinguishes it from all others, in the same way that the absence of legs and eyelids is essential to snakes and distinguishes it from other reptiles. In this Platonic worldview, the task of naturalists is to find the essence of each species. Actually, that understates the case: In an essentialist world, the essence really is the species. Contrast this with an ever-changing evolving world, where species incessantly spew forth new species that can blend with each other. The snake Eupodophis from the late Cretaceous period, which had rudimentary legs, and the glass lizard, which is alive today and lacks legs, are just two of many witnesses to the blurry boundaries of species. Evolution’s messy world is anathema to the clear, pristine order essentialism craves. It is thus no accident that Plato and his essentialism became the “great antihero of evolutionism,” as the twentieth century zoologist Ernst Mayr called it.- Andreas Wagner, “Arrival of the Fittest”, pages 9-10

    OM is too stupid to grasp what that means.

  8. OMagain: No, you have not.

    I see nothing in there that supports your claim. Perhaps you could point to it?

    It might be the case that in your opinion blurry boundaries disallow nested hierarchies, but as discussed your opinion is not all that relevant.

    But if all those people agree with you, funny how you can’t actually find a single quote where they actually say what you claim they are saying. Not for a single one of them.

    How very strange!

    You are a moron. Of course that quote supports my claim. You have to be very ignorant not to understand that.

  10. hotshoe_,

    Congratulations, Lizzie, you’ve got a soul-hating baby boomer bigot doing your anti-theistic dirty work for you. But she speaks so ‘sweet and nobly,’ doesn’t she, with her FFS and self-admitted meanness. You’re hosting a chorus of mostly USAmerican under-educated atheists showing their personal disgust, cynicism and ‘skepticism’ here at TA/SZ. Will you put it on your resume?

  11. Allan Miller,

    I do not deny phylogeny. And if baraminology is horseshit then so is common ancestry.

    You didn’t even read what Creationists say about baraminology. You are one sad chump

  12. Allan Miller:
    Frankie,

    Wrong on all counts.

    Do you think Mendel’s Accountant has anything to teach us about the capacity of evolution, then? Or is this yet another example of methodologies you don’t accept leading to conclusions you fully support?

    I am right on all accounts. UNDIRECTED evolution, Allan. Grow up and learn what is actually being debated, Geez

  13. Elizabeth: What parameters are you referring to?

    Behe’s criteria for IC were:

    Won’t work if one component is removed
    Evolves via a long series of non-advantageous steps..

    Both these criteria are fulfilled in examples of EQU evolution in AVIDA

    Look Elizabeth, I posted Sanford’s paper tat tells what parameters are not correct and that when the proper parameters were entered EQU did not evolve.

    And again you love your willful ignorance. IC has ALWAYS been about the pathway. Yes you can see if something is IC by removing a part and seeing if it still functions. But it has always been about the pathway. That is all in Darwin’s Black Box.

  14. Adapa: That wouldn’t falsify DESIGN because a sufficiently powerfulDESIGNER could manufacture something that is identical to the same biological entity, down to the last atom,which evolved through natural processes.

    Creationist FAIL.

    IDists have said exactly what would falsify ID. JYOU aren’t in any position to say otherwise. Loser.

  15. Allan Miller:
    After all, God has no apparent need of taxonomy. He can label every individual by its genetic sequence, or some equivalent unique key, if he wants. It’s us that struggle a bit, and require compartments.

    Nice strawman. Do you hump it?

  16. OMagain: Yes, ID is falsified if someone can show how evolution can create a sufficient quantity of FIASCO, where FIASCO is defined as “what evolution cannot create”.

    And yet according to you the entire universe is designed. ID is the default for people like you, and it’s default for a very good reason. Nobody can prove a negative.

    I can’t prove X was not designed as a designer could have created X even if evolutionary processes could also have created X (as already noted).

    So you’ve wonJoe Frankie. You’ve “WON” for all the other creationists out there.

    So why don’t you go a celebrate? Perhaps a watermelon/tick based cocktail?

    Geez, we didn’t need any more evidence that you are a jackass, OM. But thanks anyway.

    The only fiasco is undirected evolution and evoTARDs like yourself.

  17. OMagain: And yet it seems my non-scientific position is the one that’s winning. How strange.

    How is it winning? It’s all lies, equivocations and misrepresentations.

  18. OMagain: Well, I’d rather be ignorant than be satisfied with an explanation like “Bacteria exist because the intelligent designer wants them to”. Give me ignorance any day over plain wrong! At least ignorance can be cured, pig-headed wrongness cannot!

    LoL! Your position isn’t even wrong! You are ignorant and wrong. Deal with it.

  19. Adapa: Too bad Joe but IDiots say lots of ridiculous and untrue things.That’s why they’re known as IDiots.The simple fact is what you claim would falsify your DESIGN claims wouldn’t do so at all for the reason given.As usual you can’t address the argument but start spewing insults at those who point out the IDiot stupidity.

    Whatever. You are a known ignorant liar and coward.

  20. OMagain:
    You have to wonder why they can’t spot the pattern.

    IDC: This bar is too high for your evolution to leap.
    Evolutionist: No it’s not, look at this demonstration.
    IDC: No, I meant this slightly higher bar. Look, it can’t make it.
    Evolutionist: Well, here, look, it can if I create a different experiment
    IDC: No, I meant this higher bar yet, look, it’ll never reach that!

    You claim to follow the evidence where it leads Frankie, but you never seem to spot the pattern of the ever shrinking gap do you?

    LoL! EvoTARDS have never demonstrated anything.

  21. Alan Fox:
    @ Frankie

    Accusing other commenters of lying is against the rules here. You are creating unnecessary work for admins. Please adhere to the rules if you wish to continue commenting without restriction.

    Tell them to stop lying and I won’t accuse them of such.

  22. OMagain: Well, I’d rather be ignorant than be satisfied with an explanation like “Bacteria exist because the intelligent designer wants them to”. Give me ignorance any day over plain wrong! At least ignorance can be cured, pig-headed wrongness cannot!

    You are ignorant and no one says they are satisfied with that type of explanation.

  23. “Literal readings of Genesis have a well-established pedigree. It is certainly not a straw-man position.”

    Fetish, fixation perhaps? Pooh, pooh, little anti-YEC. Outdated.

    “OK, if that is the box you want to put me in, I acknowledge your input.”

    Everyone is in a ‘box’, not only according to your atheist ideology. Yet when people accurately describe that box you’re actually (psychologically) in, as you’ve presented it to them digitally, you cry foul. Who then could be ‘real’ to challenge your ‘skepticism’?

    “I’m not sure what you mean by ‘cultural science'”

    That’s quite obvious. Might have missed a world then? Horizontal blind moron.

    “even in areas science deals with, people can choose how to use its results according to how they want to live their lives.”

    CHOOSE – so then stop your idiotic anti-human ‘enlightened’ Toronto attitude. We humans choose. Yes.

    Stop vamping this as necessarily scientific reductionism when the broader conversation of Science, Philosophy and Theology/Worldview is available. You shrink obviously when this trialogue is on the table. You are not ‘home of the brave’, BruceS.

  24. Alan Fox is flagged for his atheism. Only an idiot atheist could have Guano’d that post. Nothing therein violates Lizzie’s rules. But you’re playing to a ‘skeptic’ audience’, aren’t you, Alan?

  25. “Calling a fellow commenter a moron is guano-worthy.”

    ROTFL! How many times has that claim and ‘worse’ been violated by anti-theist atheists towards theists, yet condoned by Alan Fox, hypocrite? 😉

    And what if they actually are ‘morons,’ Alan Fox? Is it wrong anyway to say that?

    Or atheists by definition *cannot* be morons in your view? Too many hypocrites like life-long atheist ‘Alan Fox’, actually *ONLY* atheists moderate this site. Does that tell people anything?

    Ok, so the particular word ‘moron’ will be removed from that post and re-posted. Atheist ignoramuses like Alan Fox will nevertheless still ‘dictate’ the rules at TA/SZ because Lizzie apparently *wants* to promote anti-theism here.

  26. Alan Fox,

    Well, it’s the same self-absorbing atheist lube you seem to like most, Alan. So please do reality the favour not to plead impartial when that is shown to be obviously false. Knock yourself up with Randism (or KN’s stunted philosophistic views of ‘spirit’ and ‘spiritual’) if that’s what you really like for your ‘religious language’, Alan. That doesn’t make it profound or attractive to most people (who are not represented at this atheist-skeptic blog).

  28. petrushka:
    I find the lack of belief in sky fairies to be disturbing. Joe Frankie has proved his case conclusively.

    I find petrushka to be an insipid troll intent on equivocations and strawman humping.

    The sad part is this post will end up in guano whereas the provoking post will remain. Sad, really.

  29. OMagain:
    Allan,
    It was predictable that your opponent would ignore all the other points you made. It proves that your opponent is not interested in an honest and open discussion.

    Alan didn’t make any points that support unguided evolution. Obviously OM is happy to be a dishonest little prick.

  30. Adapa: Mindless repetition of your same nonsensical IDiot claims won’t make them true Joe.After a decade you still haven’t learned that.

    Then get to your sooper-dooper IDiot lab, make a codon out of modeling clay and sticks, have it produce a stick and modeling clay amino acid.Should be easy if codons are just arbitrary symbols as you say.

    Try to actually make a case as opposed to spewing your ignorance.

  31. Frankie: Try to actually make a case as opposed to spewing your ignorance.

    I just did Joe. If codons are just arbitrary symbols representing amino acids then it should be easy for you to make functioning codons produce amino acids out of any material, just like you case send messages in Morse code using any material. But you can’t because your IDiot stupidity is dead wrong.

  32. Adapa: I just did Joe.If codons are just arbitrary symbols representing amino acids then it should be easy for you to make functioning codons produce amino acids out of any material, just like you case send messages in Morse code using any material.But you can’t because your IDiot stupidity is dead wrong.

    LoL! Your ignorant spewage is not a case. Your “argument” doesn’t follow. Also functioning codons do not produce amino acids you ignorant turd.

  33. petrushka,

    My understanding of the word “code” — which may not be the only possible one — is a system of transferring information such that an arbitrary reader can discover the meaning of the message.

    Your understanding is meaningless.

    I await any demonstration by ID advocates that design is possible.

    We have shown it exists so obviously it was possible. OTOH your position can’t show anything.

  34. Adapa,

    Mindless repetition of your same nonsensical IDiot claims won’t make them true Joe. After a decade you still haven’t learned that.

    Your ignorant spewage is neither an argument nor a refutation.

    Then get to your sooper-dooper IDiot lab, make a codon out of modeling clay and sticks, have it produce a stick and modeling clay amino acid. Should be easy if codons are just arbitrary symbols as you say.

    That’s moronic and exemplifies all that is wrong with evos. Also mRNA does not produce the amino acids. Again your ignorance is showing.

  36. hotshoe_: Yep, that’s bullshit.Goddamn.

    Neil never said what Mung claims he did.

    It’s a short thread.All anyone has to do is look up.

    I mean, I could see getting confused about people’s positions in a thousand-comment thread with lots of complicated replies and sub-conversations.But Mung has no excuse for getting Neil wrong here.

    The fact that Mung flew over to ID to crow about it convinces me it’s not just an honest misunderstanding on Mung’s part. Goddamn.Is there any one of them who’s not a walking advertisement for the slogan “religion poisons everything” ?

    (shrug) Mung’s a Creationist. Lying is what they do. Lying is all they do.

  37. Mung:
    If the evidence was ever produced it escaped my attention.

    LOL! Poor butthurt baby. What’s the matter Mung? Your latest batch of IDiot lies and bullshit is getting trounced so badly you need a diversion?

    Why did you slither over to UD and lie about what Neil posted here?

    Oh, and you still haven’t provided your definition(s) of code.

  38. If somebody tried to comfort me after every time I fapped (or even just once), I’d think they should get their heads checked. Call me a weirdo but I also don’t mourn the loss of an egg when women menstruate.

    I take it you cry like a little bitch every time you touch your dick, phoodoo?

  40. “we try to distinguish ourselves from some other sites”

    Oh, please. This is an anti-IDism secular-atheist pit of complaint. This is not a ‘site.’ Don’t try to ‘we’ me with your self-righteous atheist morality. It’s a shallow sell, Alan. C’mon be serious if not sincere.

    “please do not equate atheism and secularism. They are distinct concepts.”

    Oh, goodness, a goon pretending to have knowledge. What a sight! Anti-religious Anglo-French emptiness. Arrogant despair welcome in the kitchen. No thanks.

  41. keiths,

    But keiths, you are a very well established asshole, even by people who agree with your position, so what are you puffing on about?

  45. keiths,

    keiths,

    Are you aware enough to realize that if there was a poll about who the biggest atheist asshole on this site is, you would win that by a landslide?

    This is by people who supposedly agree with your worldview.

    You would also win it on a few other websites.

  46. phoodoo,

    And there we have those unable to understand or form a coherent argument resorting to personal attacks again. Don’t worry Phoodoo, we don’t ascribe your level of honesty or insight to all Christians.

  47. phoodoo: Are you aware enough to realize that if there was a poll about who the biggest atheist asshole on this site is, you would win that by a landslide?

    C’mon, man. I could at least give him a run!

    I bet Gregory would vote for me, anyhow. 🙁

  48. phoodoo,

    keiths,

    Are you aware enough to realize that if there was a poll about who the biggest atheist asshole on this site is, you would win that by a landslide?

    I demand a recount!

  49. walto: You are a very angry person.

    When you say that there isn’t any law that such-and-such,do you mean that no law has been discovered that such and such or that no law could be discovered that such and such?And if the latter, what do you take to be the essence of lawlikeness that is lacking in the genetic code?

    I’m angry because you are a belligerent infant? Really? LoL!

  50. Reciprocating Bill:
    Frankie G:

    I get it! We’re supposed to assume our conclusions.

    OK – Arbitrary constructs can arise in nature. The evidence? Codes that originated in nature are evident everywhere – particularly in biology! Take the genetic code, for example…

    And when you find evidence for your spewage be sure to try to have it published so someone cares.

Comments are closed.