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. OMagain: So chemistry is not involved at any level? Good to know.

    I didn’t say that. Good to know that you are still an infant.

  2. walto,

    You obviously misunderstand badly what you read in English given your responses. It is quite shocking even to imagine that a US higher educational institution could possibly pay you to teach youth based on your misreading of words and their meanings. But have faith, even you can be healed.

  3. To the surprise of absolutly no one, Brave Sir Mung has waddled back to UD and lied about what has gone on here.

    Mung at UD : “I want to thank VJT for his OP. I post over at TSZ but had declined to participate in that particular thread.

    What stands out to me is that the question was raised, “What Is A Code?” – but never answered.”

    Of course multiple people answered the question on that thread but poor Mung just can’t bring himself to pass the truth to the IDiots.

  4. walto,

    Patrick, I’d give this quest up. One exhibiting the self-protectiveness Erik is manifesting with his (really amazingly) evasive responses can’t be argued or pleaded or wheedled out of it. It’s hopeless.

    It’s all in Anna Freud.

    I apologize if my persistence is coming across as spam, but I’m not dropping this. It is grossly intellectually dishonest and cowardly to refuse to clarify or retract a claim. This is supposed to be a venue for understanding the basis of our differences, where people are expected to post in good faith. Erik is not abiding by those expectations and I’m going to keep calling him on his transparent evasions until he does.

  5. We live in the same world, hotshoe, while you’re obviously the scum of it. Faithless, angry, offensive, mocking; uninspiring, petty, trivial and unrepentant.

    I have no anger for/against depressing atheists. This is a feeble venue of voices, Lizzie has organised. But one must be careful trying to bring medicine or encouragement to a rabid dog, especially an aged alone one like hotshoe. They tend to like to bite. 🙁

    From what he has said, it is true that KN is a USAmerican naturalist empiricist anti-compatibilist atheist Jew, making stuff up. That a “shit-minded” “marshmallow-filled head” (those terms are allowed here!) atheist would try to trick otherwise is inconsequential. We see through that façade of a human being.

  6. Why doesn’t Brave Sir Mung give us his definition of “biological information” and show he’s not just being a trolling IDiot again?

  7. Poor baby Mung, everyone treats him so badly. 😭

    Running from the evidence won’t make the evidence go away oh Brave Sir Mung.

  8. Let’s see how long Brave Sir Mung refuses to give his definition of “biological information.”

    Since IDiots never define their terms I say he won’t. Ever.

  9. Richardthughes: I don’t know Joe. That’s your thing, scientists study evolution.

    LoL! Thank you for proving that you do not post in good faith. The claim that drift and natural selection produced the diversity of life is evolutionism. Mayr even uses that word so obviously it isn’t just me, cupcake,

  10. Mung: It’s nice to see people admit that in one context they will say one thing and in another context they will say exactly the opposite.

    Oh, you mean like the hypocrites who post one thing on TSZ then waddle back to UD to post the exact opposite?

  11. Joe Felsenstein: Not one that you have managed to understand.

    Here’s how to understand what I was talking about: Try reading the comment immediately before mine, to which I was reacting.It was about “directed evolution” by a Designer tweaking mutations to make them nonrandom.You didn’t understand.

    You didn’t have a point, Joe. The comment before yours was an imbecilic strawman. Directed evolution doesn’t require that a designer tweak mutations. But I wouldn’t expect you to understand.

  12. Mung

    You know, what with you being so righteous and all.

    LOL! Brave Sir Mung. First with the snarky comments, first to turn tail and run when the questions get too tough.

    You’re the best and brightest of the Creationists Mung. Hold that banner high!

  13. petrushka:
    I didn’t respond fully because there’s not much that can be said without violating site rules.

    Mung’s posts on the topic of code have been almost entirely qoute mines. None of the people he has quoted would support his position that code and translation together are a prerequisite to evolution.

    This. ^^^ It’s pretty obvious Brave Sir Creationist isn’t interested in honest discussion in direct violation of the rules. But we’re not allowed to point out this out.

  14. Richardthughes: And there we have it again, so many times. ID simply boils down to being upset with evolution.

    My side can explain low IQ creationists with boilerplate go-to moronic stock phrases. Frankie, you’ve failed the reverse turing test, Patrick can write a bot smarter than you.

    Again, cupcake, science mandates that all design inferences eliminate necessity and chance explanations first. And the fact that you steadfastly refuse to even try to support your position says it all. I have farts that are smarter than you

  15. OMagain: Look, if you don’t like unguided evolution all YOU have to do is actually step up and support guided evolution.

    Been there, done that and you choke every time. But thanks for proving that you are scientifically illiterate

  16. OMagain: Then why can’t you answer the question? The inference to best explanation is that you don’t know.

    It is clear that you don’t know jack except how to be belligerent. You are a fine example that humans evolved from lower animals. Your parents must be proud.

  17. “You should consider facial hair, Gregory.”

    Oh, really, Alan? Actually, I’m on it already. With a few more greys than in my student days (yet still decades younger than a few depressing asshole atheists here).

    Why not consider (image forthcoming) compared with low lying Dennett?

  18. Gregory:
    “You should consider facial hair, Gregory.”

    Oh, really, Alan? Actually, I’m on it already. With a few more greys than in my student days (yet still decades younger than a few depressing asshole atheists here). 😉

    Why not consider (“happy human beards” image forthcoming) compared with low lying Dennett?

  19. fifthmonarchyman,

    I am always amazed at the emotional baggage that your side has invested in these sorts of conversations. I really wish you all could just learn to relax a little bit

    When people tell me I am arguing in bad faith when I am not, I tend to tell them to fuck off. Short, sweet and to the point.

  20. Mung
    But then, my money would also be on Joe knowing what a code is, and on Joe agreeing that the genetic code is a code, and on Joe saying that people who argue otherwise are doing so for reasons that have nothing at all to do with science.

    How about a whiny sanctimonious asshat who makes strawman arguments claiming “no one will say what code is” then equivocates and is too big a chickenshit to commit to his own definitions? Any bets on that?

  21. Mung: I’m pretty sure this site has a Complaints department. Or maybe I’m thinking of the Whine Cellar. Request away, Mr. “I don’t know what a real code is” Mathematician.

    You should know Mung. You’re the whiniest most thin-skinned “professional victim” to ever post here by far.

  22. Elizabeth: Not all epigenetic effects are beneficial though – how does it make an individual fitter to have epigenetic markers that predispose her to depression, say, inherited from a mother who became depressed?

    Elizabeth: The standard one: better able to produce viable offspring in the current environment.

    Yes.It’s the entire principle – the better a variant reproduces the more copies of that variant there will be in the next generation.

    Sorry, what problem are you referring to?

    Lizzie, try to concentrate!

    You don’t understand what problem is being referred to? In the earlier paragraph you said that not all inheritances make one fitter?

    The ability to better reproduce is simply judged by what has reproduced better. So someone with a epigenetic marker for depression is still able to reproduce just fine. So by what standard can you say that it doesn’t make them fitter?

    It is, therefore it does. There is no way to call something less fit in a neo_Darwinian model, if that something continues to reproduce the same as others.

    Fess up Lizzie, do you obfuscate on purpose, or do you truly not understand your own words?

  23. Mung: I don’t know of any process that is not teleological.

    process: a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end.

    Perhaps we should cease to speak of evolution as a process.

    Oh goody, now Mung is going to equivocate over the definition of “process”. Maybe we’ll hear how the process of erosion that allows rivers to carve incised meanders is really directed by the Meander Fairy.

  24. ROTFL – is this demonstration supposed to be atheist ‘coherency’ in debate?! 😉

    The militant atheist worldview is negative garbage that is undignified to humanity as a created ‘species’. It is anti-theism, while trying to convince itself of scientific supernaturalism. Ridiculous idolatry. 🙁

    Oh, and btw Barry’s IDism is just as full of shit as the atheists and their worldview he chooses to regularly dance with. You folks deserve each other and won’t get any further until the music stops & brings a new rhyme.

  25. Too many people here don’t distinguish between ‘ID’ and ‘IDT’ (theory, for those uninitiated into the conversation).

    And lo and behold, KN is practising philosophistry again. 😉

    “ID is consistent with methodological naturalism — as well as consistent with metaphysical naturalism.”

    As well as anything KN says being full of what comes out of a pig’s rear end?

    “Certainly those are all perfectly “natural” by my lights!”

    Again, your so-called ‘lights’ are very dim in comparison. You have little religious Jewish light to shine, for example. And this by itself clouds your intellect (clouds obscure sunshine, btw).

    “if you think there’s a difference between science and metaphysics –as Newton did, as Leibniz did, and as did many great theistic scientists — then you’re already committed to methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism is nothing other than that distinction.”

    Have you actually read Paul de Vries’ article, which (apparently) coined the term MN, KN? You’re conflating several definitions of MN into one and seem not to realise it. Your ‘nothing other’ comment reveals a very weak and thin PoS, which makes sense since you are not trained in it.

    ALL varieties of ‘naturalism’ are ideologies. Period. ‘Methodology in natural science’ need not be ideologically ‘naturalistic’ and that’s where your pro-naturalism (actually atheistic or at least confused agnostic) worldview breaks down.

    Ok, maybe this question will help shed ‘light’ on KN’s philosophistic approach to this topic: please give us 3 examples, KN, of what is ‘real’ and at the same time ‘not natural.’ Just 3 will be enough.

    “I’m arguing that Newton is a methodological naturalist…”

    Yes, that’s obvious, KN. But you’re also unqualified to do so. What you say is silly and it shows (to anyone who has ears that can hear).

    Sadly, disenchantedly, anti-religious-Judaism, you (secularist apostate) are lost in the ideology of naturalism. Lizzie is too, in her apostacy. She blames (or praises) Dennett for this. Who do you blame, KN? Your childhood rabbi? All powerful science? Sellar-ars-out?

  26. Too many people here don’t distinguish between ‘ID’ and ‘IDT’ (theory, for those uninitiated into the conversation).

    And lo and behold, KN is practising philosophistry again. 😉

    “ID is consistent with methodological naturalism — as well as consistent with metaphysical naturalism.”

    As well as anything KN says being full of what comes out of a pig’s rear end?

    “Certainly those are all perfectly “natural” by my lights!”

    Again, your so-called ‘lights’ are very dim in comparison. You have little religious Jewish light to shine, for example. And this by itself clouds your intellect (clouds obscure sunshine, btw).

    “if you think there’s a difference between science and metaphysics –as Newton did, as Leibniz did, and as did many great theistic scientists — then you’re already committed to methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism is nothing other than that distinction.”

    Have you actually read Paul de Vries’ article, which (apparently) coined the term MN, KN? You’re conflating several definitions of MN into one and seem not to realise it. Your ‘nothing other’ comment reveals a very weak and thin PoS, which makes sense since you are not trained in it.

    ALL varieties of ‘naturalism’ are ideologies. Period. ‘Methodology in natural science’ need not be ideologically ‘naturalistic’ and that’s where your pro-naturalism (actually atheistic or at least confused agnostic) worldview breaks down.

    Ok, maybe this question will help shed ‘light’ on KN’s philosophistic approach to this topic: please give us 3 examples, KN, of what is ‘real’ and at the same time ‘not natural.’ Just 3 will be enough.

    “I’m arguing that Newton is a methodological naturalist…”

    Yes, that’s obvious, KN. But you’re also unqualified to do so. What you say is silly and it shows (to anyone who has ears that can hear).

    Sadly, disenchantedly, anti-religious-Judaism, you (secularist apostate) are lost in the ideology of naturalism. Lizzie is too, in her apostacy. She blames (or praises) Dennett for this. Who do you blame, KN? Your childhood rabbi? All powerful science? Sellar-ars-out?

    *TELL us which word, phrase or sentence you think is Guano worthy* Stop TAMSZ admin cowardice, already under double standard lacking equality.

  27. What, are you Brit-France afraid of a “pig’s rear end”? Much worse has come out of the mouths of your atheist ‘comrades’ at TAMSZ. Stand aside, Alan, your ‘moderation/admin’ is junk.

  28. For the 3rd time:

    Too many people here don’t distinguish between ‘ID’ and ‘IDT’ (theory, for those uninitiated into the conversation).

    And lo and behold, KN is practising philosophistry again. 😉

    Too many people here don’t distinguish between ‘ID’ and ‘IDT’ (theory, for those uninitiated into the conversation).

    And lo and behold, KN is practising philosophistry again. 😉

    “ID is consistent with methodological naturalism — as well as consistent with metaphysical naturalism.”

    As well as anything KN says being full of what comes out of a pig’s rear end?

    “Certainly those are all perfectly “natural” by my lights!”

    Again, your so-called ‘lights’ are very dim in comparison. You have little religious Jewish light to shine, for example. And this by itself clouds your intellect (clouds obscure sunshine, btw).

    “if you think there’s a difference between science and metaphysics –as Newton did, as Leibniz did, and as did many great theistic scientists — then you’re already committed to methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism is nothing other than that distinction.”

    Have you actually read Paul de Vries’ article, which (apparently) coined the term MN, KN? You’re conflating several definitions of MN into one and seem not to realise it. Your ‘nothing other’ comment reveals a very weak and thin PoS, which makes sense since you are not trained in it.

    ALL varieties of ‘naturalism’ are ideologies. Period. ‘Methodology in natural science’ need not be ideologically ‘naturalistic’ and that’s where your pro-naturalism (actually atheistic or at least confused agnostic) worldview breaks down.

    Ok, maybe this question will help shed ‘light’ on KN’s philosophistic approach to this topic: please give us 3 examples, KN, of what is ‘real’ and at the same time ‘not natural.’ Just 3 will be enough.

    “I’m arguing that Newton is a methodological naturalist…”

    Yes, that’s obvious, KN. But you’re also unqualified to do so. What you say is silly and it shows (to anyone who has ears that can hear).

    Sadly, disenchantedly, anti-religious-Judaism, you (secularist apostate) are lost in the ideology of naturalism. Lizzie is too, in her apostacy. She blames (or praises) Dennett for this. Who do you blame, KN? Your childhood rabbi? All powerful science? Sellar-ars-out?

    *TELL us which word, phrase or sentence you think is Guano worthy* Stop TAMSZ admin cowardice, already under double standard lacking equality.
    “ID is consistent with methodological naturalism — as well as consistent with metaphysical naturalism.”

    As well as anything KN says being full of what comes out of a pig’s rear end?

    “Certainly those are all perfectly “natural” by my lights!”

    Again, your so-called ‘lights’ are very dim in comparison. You have little religious Jewish light to shine, for example. And this by itself clouds your intellect (clouds obscure sunshine, btw).

    “if you think there’s a difference between science and metaphysics –as Newton did, as Leibniz did, and as did many great theistic scientists — then you’re already committed to methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism is nothing other than that distinction.”

    Have you actually read Paul de Vries’ article, which (apparently) coined the term MN, KN? You’re conflating several definitions of MN into one and seem not to realise it. Your ‘nothing other’ comment reveals a very weak and thin PoS, which makes sense since you are not trained in it.

    ALL varieties of ‘naturalism’ are ideologies. Period. ‘Methodology in natural science’ need not be ideologically ‘naturalistic’ and that’s where your pro-naturalism (actually atheistic or at least confused agnostic) worldview breaks down.

    Ok, maybe this question will help shed ‘light’ on KN’s philosophistic approach to this topic: please give us 3 examples, KN, of what is ‘real’ and at the same time ‘not natural.’ Just 3 will be enough.

    “I’m arguing that Newton is a methodological naturalist…”

    Yes, that’s obvious, KN. But you’re also unqualified to do so. What you say is silly and it shows (to anyone who has ears that can hear).

    Sadly, disenchantedly, anti-religious-Judaism, you (secularist apostate) are lost in the ideology of naturalism. Lizzie is too, in her apostacy. She blames (or praises) Dennett for this. Who do you blame, KN? Your childhood rabbi? All powerful science? Sellar-ars-out?

    *TELL us which word, phrase or sentence you think is Guano worthy* Stop TAMSZ admin cowardice, already under double standard lacking equality. Edit that word, phrase or sentence, delete what comes after * and “live and let live”. Otherwise you are simply atheist assholes, miserable in your…

  29. For the 4th time, because you are acting like a dictator jerk, tell me what’s ‘wrong’ according to Lizzie’s rules and I’ll edit it. If you can’t come up with anything, then let the post stand:

    Too many people here don’t distinguish between ‘ID’ and ‘IDT’ (theory, for those uninitiated into the conversation).

    And lo and behold, KN is practising philosophistry again. 😉

    “ID is consistent with methodological naturalism — as well as consistent with metaphysical naturalism.”

    As well as anything KN says being full of what comes out of a pig’s rear end?

    “Certainly those are all perfectly “natural” by my lights!”

    Again, your so-called ‘lights’ are very dim in comparison. You have little religious Jewish light to shine, for example. And this by itself clouds your intellect (clouds obscure sunshine, btw).

    “if you think there’s a difference between science and metaphysics –as Newton did, as Leibniz did, and as did many great theistic scientists — then you’re already committed to methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism is nothing other than that distinction.”

    Have you actually read Paul de Vries’ article, which (apparently) coined the term MN, KN? You’re conflating several definitions of MN into one and seem not to realise it. Your ‘nothing other’ comment reveals a very weak and thin PoS, which makes sense since you are not trained in it.

    ALL varieties of ‘naturalism’ are ideologies. Period. ‘Methodology in natural science’ need not be ideologically ‘naturalistic’ and that’s where your pro-naturalism (actually atheistic or at least confused agnostic) worldview breaks down.

    Ok, maybe this question will help shed ‘light’ on KN’s philosophistic approach to this topic: please give us 3 examples, KN, of what is ‘real’ and at the same time ‘not natural.’ Just 3 will be enough.

    “I’m arguing that Newton is a methodological naturalist…”

    Yes, that’s obvious, KN. But you’re also unqualified to do so. What you say is silly and it shows (to anyone who has ears that can hear).

    Sadly, disenchantedly, anti-religious-Judaism, you (secularist apostate) are lost in the ideology of naturalism. Lizzie is too, in her apostacy. She blames (or praises) Dennett for this. Who do you blame, KN? Your childhood rabbi? All powerful science? Sellar-ars-out?

    *TELL us which word, phrase or sentence you think is Guano worthy* Stop TAMSZ admin cowardice, already under double standard lacking equality.
    “ID is consistent with methodological naturalism — as well as consistent with metaphysical naturalism.”

    As well as anything KN says being full of what comes out of a pig’s rear end?

    “Certainly those are all perfectly “natural” by my lights!”

    Again, your so-called ‘lights’ are very dim in comparison. You have little religious Jewish light to shine, for example. And this by itself clouds your intellect (clouds obscure sunshine, btw).

    “if you think there’s a difference between science and metaphysics –as Newton did, as Leibniz did, and as did many great theistic scientists — then you’re already committed to methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism is nothing other than that distinction.”

    Have you actually read Paul de Vries’ article, which (apparently) coined the term MN, KN? You’re conflating several definitions of MN into one and seem not to realise it. Your ‘nothing other’ comment reveals a very weak and thin PoS, which makes sense since you are not trained in it.

    ALL varieties of ‘naturalism’ are ideologies. Period. ‘Methodology in natural science’ need not be ideologically ‘naturalistic’ and that’s where your pro-naturalism (actually atheistic or at least confused agnostic) worldview breaks down.

    Ok, maybe this question will help shed ‘light’ on KN’s philosophistic approach to this topic: please give us 3 examples, KN, of what is ‘real’ and at the same time ‘not natural.’ Just 3 will be enough.

    “I’m arguing that Newton is a methodological naturalist…”

    Yes, that’s obvious, KN. But you’re also unqualified to do so. What you say is silly and it shows (to anyone who has ears that can hear).

    Sadly, disenchantedly, anti-religious-Judaism, you (secularist apostate) are lost in the ideology of naturalism. Lizzie is too, in her apostacy. She blames (or praises) Dennett for this. Who do you blame, KN? Your childhood rabbi? All powerful science? Sellar-ars-out?

    *TELL us which word, phrase or sentence you think is Guano worthy* Stop TAMSZ admin cowardice, already under double standard lacking equality. Edit that word, phrase or sentence, delete what comes after * and “live and let live”. Otherwise you are simply atheist assholes, miserable in your…

  30. Too many people here don’t distinguish between ‘ID’ and ‘IDT’ (theory, for those uninitiated into the conversation).

    OK so far?

    And lo and behold, KN is practising philosophistry again. 😉

    “ID is consistent with methodological naturalism — as well as consistent with metaphysical naturalism.”

    As well as anything KN says being full of what comes out of a pig’s rear end? (Apparently the term ‘asshole’ is allowed and often atheist TAMSZ people say such things.)

    OK so far?

    “Certainly those are all perfectly “natural” by my lights!”

    Again, your so-called ‘lights’ are very dim in comparison. (Oh, is that REALLY ‘too personal’ for TAMSZ!?). You have little religious Jewish light to shine, for example (or does he really shine religious Jewish light here at TAMSZ?!). And this by itself clouds your intellect (clouds obscure sunshine, btw).

    OK so far?

    “if you think there’s a difference between science and metaphysics –as Newton did, as Leibniz did, and as did many great theistic scientists — then you’re already committed to methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism is nothing other than that distinction.”

    Have you actually read Paul de Vries’ article, which (apparently) coined the term MN, KN? You’re conflating several definitions of MN into one and seem not to realise it. Your ‘nothing other’ comment reveals a very weak and thin PoS, which makes sense since you are not trained in it.

    OK so far?

    ALL varieties of ‘naturalism’ are ideologies. Period. ‘Methodology in natural science’ need not be ideologically ‘naturalistic’ and that’s where your pro-naturalism (actually atheistic or at least confused agnostic) worldview breaks down.

    Ok, maybe this question will help shed ‘light’ on KN’s philosophistic approach to this topic: please give us 3 examples, KN, of what is ‘real’ and at the same time ‘not natural.’ Just 3 will be enough.

    OK so far?

    “I’m arguing that Newton is a methodological naturalist…”

    Yes, that’s obvious, KN. But you’re also unqualified to do so. What you say is silly and it shows (to anyone who has ears that can hear).

    Sadly, disenchantedly, anti-religious-Judaism, you (secularist apostate) are lost in the ideology of naturalism. Lizzie is too, in her apostacy. She blames (or praises) Dennett for this. Who do you blame, KN? Your childhood rabbi? All powerful science? Sellar-ars-out?

    OK so far?

    Be specific; word or phrase you object to according to TAMSZ rules.

    It looks like you are simply denying the possibility of challenging ‘KN’ on his self-admitted disenchanted, spiritless (other than mere consciousness), worldview. Isn’t that what you’re trying to dictate here, Alan Fox?

  31. Alan Fox: As I said, you are welcome to challenge KN’s ideas. Why not make a start in your next comment? This site is a platform for people to share their strong opinions and argue for them in a non-rancorous way.

    Alan, be specific or just shut up with your atheist moralising. It is silly. This site (with mostly weak and empty atheist opinions), because of base people like you, is simply not worth it.

  32. Adapa: Goodthing then ToE doesn’t posit accidents.

    Why do people who believe in evolution always lie? Denial? Ignorance?

    The entire premise of the theory of evolution is that it is a bunch of accidental copying errors that make life possible. It is the only kind of theory you can have which does not require a creator. And yet it is so hard for you side to own up to it because it is also so impossible.

    You are a fucking dipshit. I already knew that about you. But you are really a stupid fucking dishonest, piece of shit dipshit, who doesn’t even have the slightest interest in knowledge or truth. Your posts are utterly worthless.

    (admin-if you are going to move my post, make sure you move every other ad hominen bullshit response on this thread.)

  33. Mung: Far more interesting than the subject of the current OP.

    At UD you say

    I want to be there in case someone ever manages to address the issues raised by the supporters of ID.

    Why don’t you write an OP on those issues then? As you seem to imply they are unaddressed? What are these issues raised by ID that evolutionists are scared to touch? If you honestly want to see them addressed, raise them!
    http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/zachriel-goes-into-insane-denial-mode/#comment-589219

    I like exposing anti-ID “critics” who claim to have science and reason on their side for the self-deluded frauds they are.

    Chuckle. Is that what you think you’ve been doing?

  34. Mung,

    The signs are there for those who will see.

    It doesn’t surprise me that you say that you don’t see ID as a movement with religious and political aims, because you’re a card carrying member of the odious, theocratic wedge agenda.

  35. Mung:

    I like exposing anti-ID “critics” who claim to have science and reason on their side for the self-deluded frauds they are.

    OMagain:

    Chuckle. Is that what you think you’ve been doing?

    Awww. How cute. Little Mungie is playing “grown-up”.

  36. In order to get [redacted] some additional “views” on his [redacted], I here offer (without comment) the culmination/denouement of a piece he recently uploaded to that site: I hope everyone will go there and read it in its entirety. [It’s a little hard to find: it begins on page 119.] Let the views grow!

    [redacted]

  37. If only [redacted]s posts here were as legible as his published prose. I found a lot to disagree with in his “redacted” but at least I understood it.

  38. Alan Fox:
    @ Walto

    I edited your link as it was affecting the display of the thread.

    Thanks, Alan. You have defiled my post with your disgusting, desolate, disenchanted, atheist fingers, but you have indeed fixed the link.

  39. Kantian Naturalist:
    If only [redacted]’s posts here were as legible as his published prose.

    I found the English pieces in the linked publication legible, including [redacted]’s. I’m not competent to opine on the legibility of the Russian pieces: the vast majority of the articles there are not in English. But I must say, they also looked to be legible.

Comments are closed.