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. phoodoo says:

    Alan Fox,

    Have done so repeatedly. As such it is empirical to call you a liar.

  2. Frankie Frankie says:

    What is Richie adding to the discussion? Why are his asinine antics OK?

  3. phoodoo says:


    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.

  4. Richardthughes Richardthughes says:

    phoodoo: I will not respect the site any longer.

    Oh noes! Phoodoo’s respect!

  5. phoodoo says:

    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.

  6. Richardthughes Richardthughes says:


    I must believe in good faith all your shitty attempts are the best you can do.

    Awww. And I thought I was helping you learn basic statistics.

  7. phoodoo says:


    Your are drunk. Why don’t you learn something. Dumb post.

    I can do this all day Richard.

  8. Richardthughes Richardthughes says:

    phoodoo: I can do this all day Richard.

    I hope so, resident IDist 😉

  9. phoodoo says:


    Shitty post Richard. Does your butthurt?

  10. Richardthughes Richardthughes says:


    You’re using it wrong:

    butthurt (adjective): overly or unjustifiably offended or resentful

    (Oxford Dictionary)

    As in ‘Phoodoo is butthurt.’

  11. phoodoo says:


    Are you drunk.

    Learn something. You don’t understand words. Shitty attempt.

  12. Richardthughes Richardthughes says:

    phoodoo: You don’t understand words

    Then why are you writing to me?

  13. phoodoo says:

    Alan Fox,

    Were you drunk when you wrote this Alan?

    Shitty attempt.

  14. phoodoo says:

    Alan Fox,

    Let’s not forget what you have already said are acceptable posts Alan.

    You asked for it.

  15. Alan Fox Alan Fox says:


    Shitty attempt at what?

  16. phoodoo says:

    Alan Fox,

    I am learning from you and Patrick, Alan. You have already said what is acceptable.

    Dumb post.

  17. Alan Fox Alan Fox says:


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

  18. phoodoo says:

    Alan Fox,

    Dumb post. Shitty effort.

    (You and Patrick clarified that this was acceptable).

  19. phoodoo says:

    Alan Fox,

    Alan is hilarious when he drunk posts.

    (Go back and look at what you said was acceptable Alan.)

  20. phoodoo says:


    That was a shitty attempt at a post Patrick. Why don’t you learn something?

  21. phoodoo says:

    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.)

  22. phoodoo says:

    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.

  23. phoodoo says:

    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)

  24. phoodoo says:


    Richard tweaking noses and trolling as usual.

    (Apparently Alan likes it when its not done to him).

  25. Frankie Frankie says:

    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

  26. Frankie Frankie says:

    Robin: Already did on both counts. Next.

    Now you are just lying

  27. Frankie Frankie says:


    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

  28. Frankie Frankie says:

    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.

  29. Frankie Frankie says:

    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

  30. Frankie Frankie says:

    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.

  31. dazz dazz says:

    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

  32. dazz dazz says:

    Mung: Didn’t you claim that Weasel is not a GA?

    Yes I did moron

  33. dazz dazz says:

    Mung: Didn’t you claim it could not be a GA because the target was known in advance?

    Yes I did moron

  34. Mung Mung says:

    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.

  35. Frankie Frankie says:

    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.


  36. Frankie Frankie says:

    Some people are too stupid to understand what “evolution by design” means.


  37. Frankie Frankie says:

    OK perhaps Adapa is just stupid and desperate

  38. Frankie Frankie says:

    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

  39. Frankie Frankie says:

    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.

  40. Frankie Frankie says:

    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

  41. Frankie Frankie says:

    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

  42. William J. Murray says:


    Go back and read the thread, moron. You’re such an idiot.

  43. Mung Mung says:

    Pathetic, keiths.

  44. keiths keiths says:


    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.

  45. Mung Mung says:

    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.

  46. Mung Mung says:

    Still pathetic, keiths.

  47. keiths keiths says:

    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.

  48. Adapa says:

    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.

  49. William J. Murray says:

    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.