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 Replies to “Guano (1)”

  1. Frankie Frankie says:

    Richardthughes: Not really cupcake. I show up

    LoL! You are an ignorant coward. You wouldn’t face me if you life depended on it

  2. Frankie Frankie says:

    Richardthughes:
    The OP that shows you don’t understand ID?

    No, the OP that proves you are a liar and a loser

  3. Adapa says:

    Frankie: LoL! You are an ignorant coward. You wouldn’t face me if you life depended on it

    Do you still live in that empty parking lot you gave as an address to meet you last time?

  4. Richardthughes Richardthughes says:

    Frankie: No, the OP that proves you are a liar and a loser

    How so? Explain. All I see is you not understanding CSI’s entailment so (like Barry) and hence not understanding ID. Funny spending so much time on something and failing so hard!

  5. Richardthughes Richardthughes says:

    Frankie: LoL! You are an ignorant coward. You wouldn’t face me if you life depended on it

    Parking lot ! :p

  6. Adapa says:

    Richardthughes:
    Adapa,

    He should apply for Casey Luskins job. He’ll never be an ID leader but… Actually attack gerbil is likely beyond him also.

    Maybe FrankenJoe could be the attack piss-ant.

  7. Richardthughes Richardthughes says:

    Frankie:
    This is great. I never have to read another comment by Richie, Sal or Adapa

    Hand over ears defense. Impressive and brave!

  8. Frankie Frankie says:

    Rich, I can’t even see your comments. It doesn’t matter anyway as you don’t have anything of substance to say.

  9. Richardthughes Richardthughes says:

    Mung,

    Maybe he’s in Barry’s purse?

  10. Frankie Frankie says:

    dazz,

    Look, dazz the spazz, you don’t get to start with all of the steps that need to be accounted for. Behe never says that one step is too far for Darwinian processes to traverse.

  11. Frankie Frankie says:

    Is “numerous” equal to or greater than “one”? Can someone please show dazz the spazz how to use a dictionary

  12. Frankie Frankie says:

    Flint: The sun does not shine in the daytime. That is a given. I SAID SO! Prove me wrong to my satisfaction.

    The organisms are too simple, Flint. Nice to see that you are still an infant

  13. Frankie Frankie says:

    Please stop moderating my comments in my thread. Thank you

  14. Frankie Frankie says:

    dazz,

    He never says what you claim. And as for you I stepped in some of you today and threw away my slipper

  15. Frankie Frankie says:

    dazz,

    Yes, you are lacking logic and any kind of thinking skill, dazz.

  16. Richardthughes Richardthughes says:

    Again, CSI (per Dembski) is only present if not accounted for by ‘natural forces’, so by definition they can’t create CSI. Frankie does not understand ID, but likes the turbo encabulator.

  17. Mung Mung says:

    Erik: Why are you waiting, if there’s no such thing as intention?

    dazz has nothing better to do. scoffing and mocking without intent. 🙂

  18. Frankie Frankie says:

    dazz,

    LoL! You didn’t corner anything but your own ignorance.

  19. Frankie Frankie says:

    dazz,

    Your whining is not an argument. All you have is a falsification that demands we prove a negative and no positive case.

    You guys love to say that attacking evolutionism will not prove ID and yet all you do is try to attack ID and think it proves evolutionism.

  20. Frankie Frankie says:

    Alan Fox:
    Moved a comment of Frankie’s to guano. Try and grasp the idea that the rules prohibit personal attacks.

    Holy shit- all you guys are doing is posting personal attacks. Stop the hypocrisy.

  21. Frankie Frankie says:

    dazz,

    LoL! What a dolt! Of course your objections are subjective and those things come from ID experts and flow directly from ID.

    Your desperation, while amusing, is not an argument.

  22. Frankie Frankie says:

    I see Richie responded and I am sure the response is full of nonsense. However it hasn’t made it through the filter so I cannot see it. Maybe Richie will grow a pair and post his refuting OP for all to laugh at.

  23. Frankie Frankie says:

    OMagain,

    Stay on topic or stuff it, OM. You don’t have anything but to badger IDists with your ignorance. I am not interested.

    You are filtered out

  24. Frankie Frankie says:

    Flint: Wrong. ID was confected in the first place, as an attempt to stick the Christian god into evolution. Since this requires completely misrepresenting evolutionary theory in every possible way, ID is effectively anti-evolution.

    Please note: It is anti-evolution as understood by science. Whether it’s anti-evolution as misrepresented by IDiots depends on the IDiot. Maybe it’s not anti-YOUR misunderstanding of evolution, but so what?

    ID doesn’t have anything to do with Christianity. Obviously you have issues and should seek help. And I understand evolution better than you ever will. Loser

  25. Frankie Frankie says:

    Flint,

    This is the hole Behe has crawled into

    Wrong again, moron. It is the hole evos dug when they made the claim of having a step-by-step process for producing the diversity of life, including flagella. Obviously you are just another evoTARD loser

  26. phoodoo says:

    Richardthughes,

    Well, we already know why you are here, to be a troll, just like you say. You are good at that.

  27. Frankie Frankie says:

    dazz,

    actually they model Darwinian evolution

    LoL! A program that is designed to do something and does it has nothing to do with Darwinian evolution. Darwinian evolution is not a search and GAs are. Darwinian evolution is not actively searching for a solution and GAs do.

    So GAs model Darwinian evolution only in the minds of the willfully ignorant

  28. Frankie Frankie says:

    Alan Fox: This is arrant nonsense, Frankie. There is no testable ID hypothesis. You haven’t provided one and neither has anyone else, neither here nor in any other location, in any book or paper or on a website.

    There is NO testable scientific hypothesis for “Intelligent Design”.

    I posted one, Alan, You can deny it all you want but that shows you are being dishonest

  29. Frankie Frankie says:

    Alan Fox: This is such a ridiculously inane and idiotic statement that I’m struggling to reply within the rules of this site. Common Descent is an entailment of the theory of evolution. The nested hierarchies that result from common descent are found always in the right chronological strata and always confirmed by molecular phylogenetics. Stupid remarks like yours take seconds to bang out on a keyboard but a full reply takes time and effort which, I suspect, will be wasted.

    Darwin didn’t say anything about nested hierarchies and Mayr said they are the antithesis of evolutionism. You don’t know what a nested hierarchy entails. Transitional forms would ruin any attempt at forming a nested hierarchy. Common Descent cannot be tested, Alan. There aren’t any hypotheses for NS producing Common Descent.

    You love to spew trash but you can never back it up

  30. Frankie Frankie says:

    Alan Fox: This is such a ridiculously inane and idiotic statement that I’m struggling to reply within the rules of this site. Common Descent is an entailment of the theory of evolution. The nested hierarchies that result from common descent are found always in the right chronological strata and always confirmed by molecular phylogenetics. Stupid remarks like yours take seconds to bang out on a keyboard but a full reply takes time and effort which, I suspect, will be wasted.

    Alan the little baby can dish it out but he can’t take it. Just pathetic but typical. How dare you attack me and then hide behind the moderator’s skirt

    Darwin didn’t say anything about nested hierarchies and Mayr said they are the antithesis of evolutionism. You don’t know what a nested hierarchy entails. Transitional forms would ruin any attempt at forming a nested hierarchy. Common Descent cannot be tested, Alan. There aren’t any hypotheses for NS producing Common Descent.

  31. Frankie Frankie says:

    dazz,

    1. You claim that GA’s target a solution, but can’t explain why they follow different paths each run

    I said that GAs are designed to solve problems and I explained why they follow different paths

    2. You claim each time it seems to get stuck, it’s reached “the” solution, but you can never know if the next mutation may produce a fitter candidate, hence you’re wrong.

    And you can’t show that the next mutation will get beyond the design it is stuck at. So you don’t have an argument

    3. You contradict yourself when you claim GA’s are directed and contingent.

    That is only your opinion. Try to make a case

    4. You are incapable of considering you might be wrong and refuse to test your claims, ignoring my offer to test what would happen to a GA if the random variation was removed.

    Except I have considered that I may be wrong, it’s just that no one can refute what I have said. You are one dishonest poster, dazz

  32. Frankie Frankie says:

    dazz,

    And morons should be named after you

  33. Mung Mung says:

    LoL. I finally started watching the video. It’s design, you morons.

  34. Mung Mung says:

    “I’ve written software that essentially makes wind turbine blades live, mate, and die.”

    And I’ve written software that essentially makes ID critics turn into morons.

  35. keiths keiths says:

    Mung,

    The “spec” doesn’t mention legal or illegal sequences.

    Don’t be a pedantic dipshit.

    The effect is the same whether you treat mathematically non-viable sequences as illegal or give them a score of zero.

    As I’m sure everyone realizes. Including you.

  36. Richardthughes Richardthughes says:

    Your squeaky wheel is wasted here Mung. Go fix uncommon descent.

  37. Mung Mung says:

    keiths: Don’t be a pedantic dipshit.

    Post your code, if you can.

  38. keiths keiths says:

    Rich,

    Your squeaky wheel is wasted here Mung.

    Attack gerbils need squeaky (exercise) wheels. Mung is auditioning for Casey’s spot at the DI.

  39. Richardthughes Richardthughes says:

    Mung:
    I get it, I really do get it. TSZ is bad, but not as bad as UD.

    That’s the narrative you push. I think most neutral readers will find our most limiting factors are You, Phoodoo and Virgil (in reverse order)

  40. Adapa says:

    Mung:
    Zero Featured Threads. By Design.

    Not just drunk posting, drunk OP starting. But always with the whining.

  41. Adapa says:

    Mung:
    Squeak squeak.

    No Featured thread.

    You should teach TSZ a lesson by taking your business elsewhere and never coming back.

  42. Richardthughes Richardthughes says:

    Mung:
    Squeak squeak.

    No Featured thread.

    You fight for your right to have that thing you don’t want. Or something.

  43. Adapa says:

    Mung:
    Sudden disappearance! Evolution in reverse.

    Current count of featured posts = ???

    Zero?

    Why don’t you start your own board. Then you can have as many Featured Posts as you like. Of course you wouldn’t be able to whine and pout like a little baby as you do here.

  44. Adapa says:

    Mung: “I’ve written software that essentially makes wind turbine blades live, mate, and die.”

    Poor Mung, too dense to understand analogies.

  45. OMagain says:

    When you don’t have shit, distract.

  46. phoodoo says:

    Richardthughes,

    Oh for heaven’s sake, now I see it is not just you inability to understand biology and science Richard, its your inability to understand what a clueless fucking moron you are.

    I mean, I guess we can’t blame you, in a way, but we can still ridicule you for being so utterly inane and so embarrassingly uneducated, right? Right? I mean, you can’t help being so contemptibly stupid, I get that. You can’t help that you are so painfully humorless. Perhaps its just not your fault that of all the worthless, ineffective genes for intelligence, you got a box full of rotten, sour, maggot infested fruit. But was it someone who made you coral your children to draw pictures of the words on the screen and then help you to chose the words closest to butthurt? Did someone force you.

  47. Frankie Frankie says:

    Robin: Sorry Joe, but unless you can show how a non-human designer is anything other than supernatural (a la Behe’s claim), no atheist can accept such a concept.

    LoL! Unless you can show a non-human designer is supernatural- Behe did not say the designer was supernatural- you don’t have anything but your whining

  48. Richardthughes Richardthughes says:

    You’ve changed your tunie, Frankie.

  49. phoodoo says:

    stcordova: I’d like to reiterate, I have no problem, or less problem calling ID science for detecting design in man-made things

    Did you really just write this sentence Sal, with zero ability to know how ridiculous it was?

    You have no problem using science to detect if something is man made, if it is man made?

    Sal, what is wrong with your brain? Are you trying to parody Richard?

  50. phoodoo says:

    Alan Fox,

    That’s a lie.

Comments are closed.