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. Frankie,

    I have asked this question of Alan repeatedly. He has decided he won’t even pretend to be unbiased. His role is to be a propagandist, and allow whatever he wants from his side.

    I will not respect the site any longer.

  2. Alan Fox,

    Bullshit Alan. You moderate with one eye closed. Its getting more obvious all the time. Don’t pretend you don’t see the other posts.

  3. phoodoo,

    You’re using it wrong:

    butthurt (adjective): overly or unjustifiably offended or resentful

    (Oxford Dictionary)

    As in ‘Phoodoo is butthurt.’

  4. phoodoo,

    Not true. I clarified what was unacceptable. Further discussion of moderation issues should continue in the dedicated thread.

  5. Alan Fox,

    You don’t understand English, or science Alan. Dumb post.

    (I am learning from you and Patrick and Richard. I asked you if Richard’s post were acceptable and you said yes.)

  6. Alan Fox,

    Your post is dumb. Let me tell you why:

    Because I asked if Richard’s posts were acceptable and you said yes. Thus your post is dumb. (Explanation provided)

    Now I see why you couldn’t follow the rules at UD.

  7. Alan Fox,

    I already read what is acceptable. See below. THAT is why your post is dumb. (explanation provided)



    The moderators didn’t see this post:

    Adapa January 7, 2016 at 3:51 am

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

    Mung’s hilarious when he drunk posts. 😀

    or this

    Richardthughes Post authorJanuary 6, 2016 at 6:28 pm

    Because in good faith I must believe all the things you’re getting wrong and your shitty previous attempt are not a cunning ruse of a GA mastermind.

    or this

    Richardthughes Post authorJanuary 6, 2016 at 5:27 pm

    Mung: Because the initial starting population was randomly generated, unlike evolution.


    How many fucking examples do you need Alan?
    . . .

    Adapa’s comment skirts the line but doesn’t seem to explicitly violate any of the rules. I would not have Guano’d it either, regardless of who wrote it.

    The same is true of Richard’s first comment.

    Richard’s second comment doesn’t even come close to violating any rule.

    If you disagree, please make your case with reference to the specific rules you think were broken.

    (Quote in reply) (Reply)

  8. The boy blunder’s false accusation is duly noted. I have not presented a strawman and the boy blunder cannot make a case to the contrary

  9. Robin,

    LoL! No, the links you provided did no such thing. Make your case instead of relying of a literature bluff.

    What I said is a fact, not a strawman. And you have yet to say what these alleged quantifications are for natural selection, drift and neutral changes

    And your posts indicate dishonesty

  10. Alan Fox:

    Remember those rules. Accusations of lying are against the rules here.


    I know it’s a pain but as someone else is prone to claim “I already did” without a link, would it be unreasonable to suggest a link to the appropriate comment?

    A lie is a lie and I will call people out who lie. Robin has spewed false accusations my way and just links to shit without any commentary on how it refutes what I posted. And when I read the links they don’t refute what I say.

  11. Alan Fox: That is not even a coherent sentence, let alone any kind of summary of any sort of explanation.

    LoL! Of course you would say it isn’t coherent. That is only because you don’t have a clue nor any money to buy a vowel.

    As for the Creationists they say the diversity today evolved from the originally created kinds

  12. Robin: Not according to what you’ve written.

    Right…fishapods. That’s still wrong.

    Fuck you and your false accusations. And according to Neil Shubin, fish-a-pods is right.

  13. Mung: Did you publish your results from the current exercise showing all the possible solutions?

    Yes I did moron

    Best = [‘964*+8753-1/2’, ‘8753*964+1/-2’, ‘8753*964+-1/2’, ‘8753*964-1/+2’, ‘8753*964-+1/2’, ‘1/-2+8753*964’, ‘+964*8753-1/2’, ‘-1/2+8753*964’, ‘1/-2+964*8753’, ‘-1/2+964*8753’, ‘964*8753+1/-2’, ‘964*8753+-1/2’, ‘964*8753-1/+2’, ‘964*8753-+1/2’, ‘8753*+964-1/2’, ‘+8753*964-1/2’]
    Max = 8437891.5
    Valid = 1828915200

    Time = 02:36:37

  14. stcordova: A bad mutation can and likely will drift out of the population

    For the record, I think Salvador is full of **it. Drift could care less about “bad” or “good” mutations.

  15. Every kid in any given classroom learns the same thing from the same teacher and the same books. Yet they all don’t get the same score on the tests. They don’t all give the same answers. And yet some evoTARD thinks all bacteria should respond the same way to the same environment even though VARIETY is the key to survival.


  16. Robin/ Dick cannot link to this alleged theory of evolution so we can read what it really says. It cannot be linked to because it only exists in the aether

  17. Flint: What a delightful example of religious thinking. You want intent and purpose to be where it’s not? Simple, just DEFINE it there! See, wasn’t that easy? Here we have the quintessential notion of “religious evidence”.

    LoL! There isn’t any religious thinking there, Dick. And it isn’t my fault that you cannot understand the argument. But feel free to flail away- it is all you have.

    BTW no one is adding intent and purpose where it is not. Saying that there isn’t any intent and purpose is a religious concept.

  18. Robin: Please explain how it does not meet the definition of a scientific theory Joe.

    LOL! I made no appeal to emotion Joe.

    Citation please.

    Not unless there’s actual scientific research supporting it. You know…research demonstrating the validity of the hypotheses that underlie the theory.

    Yeah, and when he’s working as an evolutionary biologist, he doesn’t refer to anything called “blind watchmaker evolution”.

    No Dick, you have to show how it is a scientific theory, Start with the quantification part.

    Citation for baraminology? Are you serious? Look it up. And it seems there is more to support it than there is for evolutionism. And of course Dawkins refers to it as blind watchmaker evolution

  19. Robin: Then show the quantification that’s been done with them.

    IC you can actually count the parts of the IC core. CSI is a measurement of information, which Shannon told us how to do

    Nice assertion. Got anything showing it’s been done?

    LoL! Just because you are ignorant of the concepts doesn’t mean I am asserting. And I have already done what you ask. I am not going to do it for every evo that shows up. Do your own homework

  20. Mung,

    Surely he can show where I claimed that information was being smuggled in.

    I didn’t make that assertion.

    You asked Rich how much information was being smuggled in, and I asked you to answer your own question and to show your work.

    Pathetic, Mung.

  21. keiths: You asked Rich how much information was being smuggled in, and I asked you to answer your own question and to show your work.

    You didn’t assert that I claimed that information was being smuggled in. So you’re attempting to shift the burden of proof. Bully for you. I decline to play your silly game. If you have an argument, make it.

  22. You didn’t assert that I claimed that information was being smuggled in. So you’re attempting to shift the burden of proof.

    What ‘burden of proof’?

    You asked a dumb question, and I told you to answer it yourself.

  23. Mung: Elizabeth is delusional then. Granted. And TSZ is a joke, because it’s a haven for people who are anti-ID and anti-theist and who have no interest in adhering to the stated principles of this site.

    If TSZ is a joke it’s because you’re the biggest clown in here Mung. Funny how whenever you leave interesting scientific conversations break out.

  24. petrushka said:

    To be fair, I have provided almost 50 page links just to the use of quote mine number three, and have invited William to browse through them to see if any of them are anything other than naked quotes.

    Naked quotes (bereft of any kind of contextualization) are not quote-mines, dumbass.

Comments are closed.