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. phoodoo,

    Start a thread, Phoodoo. They’re alway hilarious. Make sure to include your fan fiction about Lizzie’s motivations.

  3. Richardthughes,
    You are going to remind people to think? Are you trying to tell a joke?

    You are the biggest idiot on here. And every time you throw your worthless vacuous diarrhea into a thread, I will remind you that this is all you are capable of, because you are just plain dumb. You are not, insightful, intelligent, resourceful, or even on topic, but that is not what is so bad. What is bad is that you are the most boring poster here. There is never even a hint of anything clever or amusing ever coming out of your skull. You are like Adapa on Xanax. Petrushka at least works at making his criticism interesting. You drool on your computer while you think how to say you don’t like what someone wrote.

    Finally you slobber-type “Na-uh, Not every chimpanzee eats babies, do they? Wait, let me use, what the fuck is that called, oh yea, google. Do chimps eat Campbells-ism.? Honey, how do you use this cut and glue again? Why can’t they just put a picture of some glue? Hurry, I need to say something else boring, I only did it twelve times this hour so far.”

    Here is something to keep in that small space you call a mind. People read this site for entertainment! Do you know what that is? No? You remember when your mom used to give your crayons? Try to think back to last week. Those were not for eating. That was for entertainment. Go try to draw some cucumbers to scare your cat you fucking moron.

  4. Richardthughes,

    Go learn something moron. Read an abstract about chimps that don’t eat babies. Do you eat babies Richard?

    (note to Patrick, moron is not an insult. You see , its just the term that I use for atheists who don’t even know why they are atheists, because they are not smart enough to contemplate. Its like when they use the word IDiots, you know that is Ok, right? See the problem with your moderation?)

  6. hotshoe_,

    Oh, are you Jewish, an Abrahamic theist, like Eppie & Popo (Ann Landers and Dear Abby) were too? Varieties of Religious Language.

    I had thought you were a flaming anti-theist atheist, hotshoe asshole. Is that incorrect?

    You sure sound like a USAmerican (creaturely impoverished) Baba Yaga to me! 😉 Y’know, the kind of witch we warn children about? And who only ever gets more angry and warped in reply…

  7. hotshoe_,

    You’re a negativist, hotshoe. Rarely if ever offering something positive, constructive. That’s the kind of person I keep away from. Too often, they only damage themselves. 🙁 🙁

  10. The “quality of your comments here”, Patrick, is like that of a ‘one-trick pony.’ Your atheism apparently stinks up your ability to understand what is being said beyond a low-level empiricism or historicism. You appear as a repetitive, obtuse fool.

  11. Gregory,

    The “quality of your comments here”, Patrick, is like that of a ‘one-trick pony.’ Your atheism apparently stinks up your ability to understand what is being said beyond a low-level empiricism or historicism.

    Yes, dear. The important thing is that you can maintain that feeling of smug superiority while defending Erik’s behavior that directly opposes the site goals. Do enjoy that.

  12. Why not, sweet cheeks (trying to duplicate the trite language of TAMSZ regulars/admins) elevate your pathetic reductionism?

    If you come to the other side, try to learn something beyond your one-trick worldview, you’d see there’s nothing smug or superior, but rather more sincerely and openly inquisitive ‘over there’.

    You are a blight on this site’s ‘goals’, Patrick, as Lizzie has stated them. You couldn’t simply stop even after Lizzie recommended it. Instead, you wanted ‘ANSWERS’ to your myopic questions and aggressively DEMANDED them.

    If you cannot see that you are in the wrong in your bullying insistence, then there is little communicative hope for you.

  13. Ogrethe5th:
    “Frankie”, YOU are the one derailing us from the OP. The OP states that ID is not anti-evolution.

    I have provided a logical proof that shows two possible results.

    The first is that you don’t know what you’re talking about with regards to ID. In a previous comment, I provided a link that shows the leaders of the ID movement (not you, “Frankie”) do think that ID is anti-evolution and have publicly stated it so.

    The second is that ID actually is not anti-evolution, in which case the only distinguishing feature between ID and evolution is the designer. Therefore, to have any discussion about ID, we must have the designer.

    Which case is correct?

    BTW: You still have to cite material that is not yours “Frankie”. Just because you have “permission”, that doesn’t mean you get to claim it as your own. Plagiarism is illegal. Of course, if you admit to having written it, then you are also admitting to being a sockpuppet of a user who has been banned from this forum. Either way, you really need to learn how to do things in a proper fashion.

    Loser- The ID leaders are quoted in the OP and they say that ID is not anti-evolution. They say that ID is anti- blind watchmaker evolution, ie Darwinian evolution. You have been told this many times and you continue to misrepresent ID.

    And the design is evidence for a designer.

  14. Patrick:
    OMagain,

    Took you a while.

    Insulting someone by calling them JoeG is against the rules.

    I would rather be a Joe G than Patty [ outing elided ]

  15. Ogrethe5th:
    Mung,

    I don’t care. None of that is relevant.

    I’m trying to keep this on topic. The topic is “Is ID anti-evolution”. “Frankie” says it’s not, but I’ve quoted many ID authors who say that it is.

    Do you agree with “Frankie”, going against Dembski, Meyer, and Behe or do you agree with them and disagree with “Frankie”?

    Regardless of either version, regardless of the definition of ID, regardless of what ID says about complexity, specified complexity, functional specified complexity, functional specified information, or any of that other stuff… the fundamental difference is that ID requires an “intelligent designer” for ONE event (at a minimum).

    Produce the designer. Say what it did, when, how, and how you know.

    Kevin, ID leaders say that ID is anti- materialistic evolution. Kevin is too stupid to understand what that means. He thinks it means that ID is anti-evolution because he is too stupid to understand that evolution by design is still evolution.

  16. Patrick:
    Moved a comment of Frankie’s to Guano and removed his guess at my surname.Outing is not allowed here, Frankie.

    I didn’t guess your name- I know who you are. I also know that you are a coward and a liar.

  17. Ogrethe5th,

    Again, then the only difference between evolution (the real theory of evolution, not “accumulation of genetic mistakes”) and ID is the designer.

    There isn’t a real theory of evolution and according to evolutionary biologists all mutations/ genetic changes are accidents, errors and/ or mistakes. That you are too stupid to understand that doesn’t make it wrong.

  18. Adapa: You say the evidence supports ID and ID isn’t anti-evolution.

    You also say the evidence supports Biblical baraminology which is about as anti-evolution you’ll find.

    Care to resole this huge contradiction?How can the evidence support baraminology and evolution too?

    How is baraminology anti-evolution? It is OK with a change in allele frequencies, ie evolution. It is OK with natural selection occurring, ie evolution.

    Why do you think your ignorance means something?

  19. Acartia: Fair enough. Now, provide us with the method used to determine that the flagellum is designed. Remember, you can’t use IC as it has been shown that it is not. And you can’t use any equation that requires an estimate of the probability that it arose naturally unless, of course, you have an estimate for that.

    I await your response.

    The bacterial flagellum is IC and you have nothing that demonstrates otherwise. You have nothing to test the claim that natural selection, drift and neutral changes can produce one. You have nothing but lies and misrepresentations

  20. Adapa,

    Please produce the evidence that says baraminology is based on a 6,000 year old earth. Please show us that baraminology is against a change in allele frequency over time.

    Or shut up

    PS baraminology accepts speciation- your ignorance, while amusing, is not an argument

  21. Adapa,

    I am attacking evolutionism, not evolution. Your ignorance causes you to be confused. And if you cannot support your position then perhaps you should focus on that and leave ID alone.

  22. Adapa: OK then, what is the wavelength for a frequency of 10KHz?

    If you have a wave on an oscilloscope then you have both the wavelength and the frequency in that one wave. Wavelength and frequency are just different numerical representations of the SAME wave.

    I do NOT have your wave on my ‘scope. Try to follow along. That way you don’t come off as a belligerent ass.

  23. Tom English,

    Boo hoo Boo hoo, waa , waa, poor Tommy. They didn’t like your little algorithm that you spent so much time befuddling people with? So sorry.

    Were you trying to say something in your little crying rant here though?

    I really like when you call her O’Sneery. Wow, touche. You wield such a powerful cutting tool, you deaf, dumb and blind boy. Do you play a mean pinball too?

  24. hotshoe_: How about no personal insults?

    What do you get out of it, anyways?

    What will you miss if you stop making “Mung is [insert something most people will see as insulting]” statements?

    Well, of course this applies to persons other than Mung, too, but I don’t see you writing in that style about most persons.

    I’ve been observing Mung’s hypocrisy and attempts to manipulate/control all conversations for years now. One of his favorite tactics is to whine / play the poor victim while treating others exactly the way he complains about. You may choose to ignore the stench of his dishonesty and hypocrisy, I choose to point it out. To each his own.

  25. Mung:
    I would like to draw to the attention of the admins this post by Adapa. Not because it is Guano-worthy, but because it establishes the basis for why Adapa’s posts directed at me tend to violate the site rules of addressing the poster and not the post.

    It is clear that he is on a mission that has absolutely nothing to do with addressing the content of my posts.

    Now while I have in general chosen to just ignore Adapa’s posts and thus failed to draw them to the attention of the admins, this doesn’t mean the admins should ignore them and do nothing when they clearly violate the site rules.

    The problem is Mung that you have been repeatedly trying to game the site rules while not posting in good faith. The problem is quite obvious, especially given all the shit you talk about TSZ and its members while posting at UD. It’s what the last three weeks of discussion over moderation have been about. Thanks again for showing everyone you’re not interested in honest discussion, just twisting words and trying to dishonestly manipulate everything you touch. That’s why you constantly whine more than any other three posters put together. It’s all about how much you can get away with.

  26. This post is on topic for moderation issues. Please do not move it.

    The problem is Mung that you have been repeatedly trying to game the site rules while not posting in good faith. The problem is quite obvious, especially given all the shit you talk about TSZ and its members while posting at UD. It’s what the last three weeks of discussion over moderation have been about. Thanks again for showing everyone you’re not interested in honest discussion, just twisting words and trying to dishonestly manipulate everything you touch. That’s why you constantly whine more than any other three posters put together. It’s all about how much you can get away with.

  27. fifthmonarchyman: Words have meanings and you don’t have the right to your own private definitions.

    Yes, I do have the right to my own private definitions. Stop telling me about what rights I have.

    Regardless, I’m not using “private” definitions. I merely UNDERSTAND what it means for something to be defined. Definitions are human acts and nothing more. They’re conventions we use so we can communicate, that is all. The definitions were made up by human beings to begin with. They’re simply descriptions of concepts associated with words or terms. To say that they’re from god is both unabashedly and unmistakably wrong, it’s also silly if not stupid.

    fifthmonarchyman: no you are apparently misunderstanding what is being said. I would guess this is because you start from the wrong place in your thinking

    I understand extremely well what is being said. At every point questioning between us I have constantly have to lecture you on the subject while having demonstrated mistaken understanding or outright contradictions in your mindless presuppositionalist claims. You really are exceedingly out of your depth here, and this is coming from somebody who knows he’s rather philosophically naive.

    fifthmonarchyman:
    It all starts with God not you

    No, it doesn’t. When the word LOL started being used on the internet, it wasn’t god that intervened and defined it. It was internet users. Mere human beings behind their monitors typing on their keyboards.

    fifthmonarchyman: We don’t define God as good
    God is good by definition

    These are not contradictory statements.

    Yes they are. They’re literally outright contradictory

    fifthmonarchyman: Definitions are ultimately from God who is sovereign over language.

    Thank you for this beautiful but ultimately irrelevant statement of faith.

    Even if your claim was true, it would not establish that god was actually objectively morally good. It would merely mean god was begging the question when it defined itself as morally good.

    That’s the problem with definitions. They’re intrinsically subjective.

    fifthmonarchyman: When I say that God is good by definition I mean that Good is part of what it means to be God. I don’t mean that I have defined him as good.

    Yes it does. That is literally what it means. Seriously what the fuck is wrong with you people? It’s like your brain explodes on any subject that involves godbelief. It’s absurd to see how you flail around all over the place trying to make shit up as you go along, because you’re desperate to deny anything that could possibly show you’ve been wrong about this whole god business. Fearful pathetic men, all of you.

  28. Richardthughes,

    Are you belligerent, cupcake? THAT is a shame. You shouldn’t be a belligerent cupcake.

    I haven’t read the Bible in decades and have no opinion on it other than it has a better chance of being true than your position does. I don’t have any religious beliefs as I doubt any one religion is right.

  29. OMagain,

    I see that you cannot read or perhaps you are incapable of reading for comprehension. Either way your ignorance is not an argument. Try again

  30. I see that Ogre has ran away now that its ignorance and deception has been exposed, again.

  32. I see that Ogre has ran away now that its ignorance and deception has been exposed, again.

  33. “If you cannot see that you are in the wrong in your bullying insistence, then there is little communicative hope for you.”

    If Erik doesn’t want to answer your question the way you want him to, he is not REQUIRED to do so. Do you disagree? We already know that you will use it to impugn his character, deny him ‘good faith,’ etc. That says more about your character than it does about his. But the point is that on the Internet people can answer or not answer whatever they want. And pouting about it, demanding, insisting isn’t going to do anything to change that. 😉

    What I see in Patrick’s demands, bullying and sheer sense of entitlement is a very immature and small-souled human being who demonstrates little charity or sense of justice. Likewise, he has shown no willingness or care to read the links Erik provided to religious interpretation of Scripture. (Not to mention pandering to fellow atheists at TAMSZ as if the only ‘stupid’ person on this site is the one who inquired if he understood there is more than just a single literal, historical LEVEL at which one can *and should* interpret Scripture.)

    I’d prefer if the self-righteous bully just bowed out of the thread; at least KN and Erik can get beyond ad nauseam repetition at a higher level of discourse than anything the admin has displayed on any thread on this site.

  36. Richardthughes: Well as the distribution fits known randomness, what should we infer? If not random and invoked by some non random process we should be able to see this happening and replicate it. Get to work IDists, come back with results.

    The distribution of ones and zeros in a digital signal appear random. Only a fool would infer they are random. Is that you, cupcake?

  40. Adapa: OK so you now claim organisms were designed to adapt to their environment.Then how did the Designer manipulate the environment to get the specific results It wanted?How did the “design” account for sudden unexpected catastrophes like the Chicxulub asteroid strike?

    Bumped for Frankie who forgot to answer. Expect a cowardly diversion / attack on ToE.

  41. “All he really has to do to…”

    Does he really HAVE TO? Imo, no he doesn’t. And I think both Lizzie and the ‘spirit’ of her rules/guidelines support that.

    And Erik has already said more than the anti-learning, dirt-dwelling atheists could understand in this thread, to which they’ve shown no integrity of character towards wisdom, grace and charity beyond mere accusation and bullying. The hostility was not started by Erik in this thread; he has been on the brunt of it based on the largely atheist and anti-theist, thinly human posters here.

  42. Gregory,

    Are you getting new pearls for Christmas? Not to cast before swine, but because clutching seems to have worn out your old set.

  43. Richardthughes:
    Frankie,

    ” …cars move the way the do because that is how they were designed to operate”

    Their movement included large falls, catastrophic impact and cartwheeling down hills. is that ” how they were designed to operate”?

    If it isn’t then “that mutations occur because organisms were designed to be able to adapt” is SOL.

    Your desperation is showing. Just because shit happens doesn’t change a thing, cupcake.

  44. Richardthughes:
    Frankie,

    Just so readers can look at Frankie’s reply (which I suspect will end up in guano). The perils of making things up on the spot, Frankie.

    Wow, Richie can’t defend his stupidity and desperately flails away

  45. llanitedave: Labeling Harris a ‘know-it-all’ is a compensatory move on walto’s part, an attempt to take Harris down a notch.

    Hah. What is this, another Ann Landers quote?

    Suck it, “Dr.” keiths; you’re a quack, and you can sue me for that nickel. Oh, and I’m reporting you to the Board of unlicensed know-it-alls–that is, if I can get past my overwhelming desire to take Harris’s place as your hero–which, right now, is preventing me from taking any positive actions in my life.

    Still not meditating either, “Doc”–sorry.

  47. Richardthughes: Non-sequitur. Again, can you show us those predictions?

    The answer was provided. Don’t blame me for your lack of education. Or do you think that a car driven off of a cliff would just keep going?

  48. Richardthughes,

    Classic thread, very “Gallionesque”.

    The thread was hijacked by a bunch of sore losers who couldn’t stand to see their strawman toppled. Very evoTARDesque

  49. Richardthughes,

    Seeing that you didn’t understand the gravity one, you don’t have a chance at understanding the others. I suggest that you get an education and then perhaps you can discuss things with the grownups.

  50. Richardthughes,

    Cold air falls and warm air rises, yet you’ve said “Heavy than air objects falling is a prediction of gravity”,

    And what I said is true and context matters. Perhaps you need a timeout and a nap

Comments are closed.