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. Alan Miller said:

    I’m quite sure Petrushka is wrong about all sorts of stuff. But I never even mentioned him, in defence or otherwise, so I’m not sure why the snarl ‘n’ sneer.

    ROFL!! What a tool.

  2. phoodoo,

    They’re either intellectually dishonest and covering for a moron because he’s one of theirs or they’re all a bunch of morons. Whatever.

  3. Reciprocating Bill,

    You’re a fucking tool as well, RB. You and I both know petrushka is laughably wrong, but you can’t just admit it, you’ve got to search for some way you can possibly find some way to disagree with me or some phrasing I used without appearing to dispute him because he’s one of your tribe.

    Go fuck yourself, comrade.

  4. Anything, ANYTHING but admitting petrushka is just flat-out wrong. ROFLMAO!

    What a bunch of tools.

  5. Neil Rickert: Quoted for emphasis.

    However, we can put this in perspective.Christian theology depends, to a large extent, on quote-mining the old testament.And Christian apologetics adds a lot of quote-mining of the new testament.So it isn’t all that surprising to see quote-mining being defended.

    Except nobody is defending quote-mining, dumbass; what is being argued is whether or not a creationist quoting a mainstream (non-creationist) biologist in their pro-creationism argument is by definition “quote-mining”.

  6. keiths:

    Pay attention, William.Here’s what I wrote:

    I don’t provide links to assholes too lazy to read the fucking thread they’re commenting in.

  7. William J. Murray: I don’t provide links to assholes too lazy to read the fucking thread they’re commenting in.

    We can’t read the evidence of this “creationist non-quote-mining in their Creationist arguments” when assholes making the claim are too lazy to back up their bullshit.

  8. Adapa: So you can’t provide a single example of the bullshit you were spewing.What a surprise.Thanks for admitting Petrushka was right all along.

    Whether they tell you or not, Adapa, I’m pretty sure they consider you as much of an idiot here as I do.

  9. Alan Fox: For the lurkers, what is itprecisely you think Petrushka is wrong about?

    Three intellectually honest people. Wow.

    I have an idea, let’s assume everyone is posting in good faith!

    Well, to be fair, I think several of them are posting in good faith, but they’re just hopelessly stupid.

  10. Adapa: Yes PaV, we do see them. Here’s a paper describing protofeathers that date back to the late Cretaceous

    Creationists. So much ignorance, so little desire to learn.

    Adapa, I don’t know you from “Adam,” but you come across like an arrogant prig.

    As to protofeathers, I’ve been debating that for eleven years. There really isn’t any true “protofeathers.” End of story.

    ” . . .So little desire to learn.”

    To learn what? The Ptolomeic System of planetary motion?

    To be an evolutionary biologist, all you need is a dictionary; and then you coin new words as needed–that is, as the latest experimental findings runs counter to Darwinian expectations.

    No one likes a “know-it-all.” Give us a break.

  11. dazz: Why? Let me guess… because without god there’s no truth maybe?

    For evolutionary naturalists, survival matters. Survival for its own sake. Consequently, moral values – truth among them – don’t matter. Truth for its own sake is at odds with survival.

    By the way, you are woefully unfit to talk about any god. Shape up.

  12. Is Richardthughes an IDiot? Probably.

    We are evangelical at heart. However we are passionate about bringing the whole Church together and helping Christians of different denominations and groupings to learn from each other. To this end, you will find a range of voices, views and opinion on this site, not all of which will be considered orthodox evangelical.

    Unlike TSZ, where orthodoxy reigns supreme.

  13. Richardthughes:
    *points and laughs*

    Those who invested the most in ID have lost the most.

    What got into Mung tonight? He’s attention whoring all over TSZ, spamming half a dozen threads. Must be mad from grief over ID’s demise.

  14. Adapa: What got into Mung tonight?He’s attention whoring all over TSZ, spamming half a dozen threads.Must be mad from grief over ID’s demise.

    He seems to be in one of his drunk posting sprees

  15. Is the mind natural, or supernatural ? and what does it tell us about ID theory ?

    DesCartes, the 17th century philosopher was a dualist, proposing that our consciousness/mind has a separate reality from our body.6 Is there a God-created soul and spirit and consciousness which exists apart from the body? This is a scientific a philosophical and a religious question. If there is a non-physical soul and spirit, then it might not be detectable by any direct physical measurement, and therefore, it might be, by definition, supernatural. I agree on dualism , based on clinical experiments and testimonies 2 , and philosophy of the mind 3 . Since the mind cannot be detected physically, it is a non-physical entity, and does not belong to the realm of the physical world, and is supernatural.

    1. The mind is supernatural
    2 The effects of the mind are natural, physical, tangible, visible, and can be tested scientifically.

    Popper argued that the central property of science is falsifiability. That is, every genuinely scientific claim is capable of being proven false, at least in principle.

    So can the substance of the mind be subject to scientific scrutiny and inquiry ? No.
    Can the effects of the mind subject to scientific scrutiny and testing ? yes.

    According to Discovery, the theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. 4 ID is a scientific theory that employs the methods commonly used by other historical sciences to conclude that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. ID theorists argue that design can be inferred by studying the informational properties of natural objects to determine if they bear the type of information that in our experience arise from an intelligent cause. The form of information which we observe is produced by intelligent action, and thus reliably indicates design, is generally called “specified complexity” or “complex and specified information” (CSI). An object or event is complex if it is unlikely, and specified if it matches some independent pattern.

    The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has however stated that “creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science.” 5

    So they question the fact , that the action of a supernatural agent cannot be tested by the methods of science. There is however a shift of terminology, while Discovery points to the effects of intelligence, and how features in nature point to a intelligent agent, the academy of sciences requires that the intervention , the act per se of creation, should be possible of observation, and testing. And if it does not meet that critecia, its not science. Is that true?

    The distinction is basically operational x historical sciences. While through operational sciences following questions can be answered :

    1. What is X ( Elucidating the components and structure )
    2. What does X ( the action, how it works, functions, and operates )
    3. What is the performance of X ( what is the efficiency etc. )
    4. What is the result of the performance of X ( the result of the action. )

    historical sciences ask:

    5. What is the origin of X ( how did X arise )

    The action of X can be observed and tested in operational sciences. The action of X however cannot be observed directly in historical sciences, since events in the past are in question.

    Proponents of ID are acused of making a false distinction, and there is no such thing as operational x historical science. But Jeff Dodick writes: 7

    Despite the still-regnant concept of science proceeding by a monolithic “Scientific Method”, philosophers and historians of science are increasingly recognizing that the scientific methodologies of the historical sciences (e.g., geology, paleontology) differ fundamentally from those of the experimental sciences (e.g., physics, chemistry). This new understanding promises to aid education, where currently students are usually limited to the dominant paradigm of the experimental sciences, with little chance to experience the unique retrospective logic of the historical sciences. A clear understanding of these methodological differences and how they are expressed in the practice of the earth sciences is thus essential to developing effective educational curricula that cover the diversity of scientific methods.

    And Ann Gauger uses the same line of reasoning, when she writes:

    Defenders of methodological naturalism often invoke definitional or “demarcation criteria” that say that all science must be observable, testable, falsifiable, predictive, and repeatable. Most philosophers of science now dismiss these criteria because there are too many exceptions to the rules they establish in the actual practice of science. Not all science involves observable entities or repeatable phenomena, for example –you can’t watch all causes at work or witness all events happen again and again, yet you can still make inferences about what caused unique or singular events based on the evidence available to you. Historical sciences such as archeology, geology, forensics, and evolutionary biology all infer causal events in the past to explain the occurrence of other events or to explain the evidence we have left behind in the present. For such inference to work, the cause invoked must now be known to produce the effect in question. It’s no good proposing flying squirrels as the cause of the Grand Canyon, or a silt deposit as the cause of the Pyramids. Squirrels don’t dig giant canyons or even small ones, and silt doesn’t move heavy stone blocks into an ordered three-dimensional array. However, we know from our experience that erosion by running water can and does produce gullies, then arroyos, and by extension, canyons. We know that intelligent agents have the necessary design capabilities to envision and build a pyramid. No natural force does. These are inferences based on our present knowledge of cause and effect or “causes now in operation.” The theory of intelligent design also qualifies as historical science. We cannot directly observe the cause of the origin of life or repeat the events we study in the history of life, but we can infer what cause is most likely to be responsible, as Stephen Meyer likes to say, “from our repeated and uniform experience.” In our experience the only thing capable of causing the origin of digital code or functional information or causal circularity is intelligence and we know that the origin of life and the origin of animal life, for example, required the production of just such things in living systems. Even though other demarcation criteria for distinguishing science from non-science are no longer considered normative for all branches of science, it is worth checking to see how well intelligent design fares using criteria that are relevant for an historical science. Briefly, although the designing agent posited by the theory of intelligent design is not directly observable (as most causal entities posited by historical scientists are not), the theory is testable and makes many discriminating predictions. Steve Meyer’s book Signature in the Cell, Chapters 18 and 19 and Appendix A, discusses this thoroughly. 8

    We can detect and make a distinction between the patterns and effects of a mind , and compare to the effects of natural causal agencies , physical and chemical reactions and interactions, and draw conclusions upon the results. Thats where ID kicks in, detecting design patterns, and test what is observed in the natural world, to see if they have signs of a intelligent causal agency, and compare the evidence with the efficiency of natural causes, to then, at the end, infer which explanation makes most sense, and fits best the evidence. So intelligent design does not try to test or to detect or to identify the designer, nor try to detect and test the action of creation, and neither is that required to detect design and infer it as the best explanation of origins, but examine the natural effects , and upon the results, draw inferences that can provide conclusions of the best explanation model for the most probable origin and cause of the physical parts. So the mere fact that a supernatural agent and its action cannot be scrutinized and observed directly and scientifically, does not disqualify ID as a scientific theory.

    1) On the definition of the concepts thinking, consciousness, and conscience,

  16. otangelo:
    Is the mind natural, or supernatural ? and what does it tell us about ID theory ?
    Since the mind cannot be detected physically, it is a non-physical entity, and does not belong to the realm of the physical world, and is supernatural.

    I got this far, and decided nothing following was worth reading. OF COURSE the mind can be detected physically. What do you think the brain does? Saying we can only detect the neural activities of the brain but can’t detect the mind, is like saying we can only detect sunshine and rain but can’t detect weather. The mind, like weather, is a term used to describe a PROCESS. The argument that we can’t detect processes, we can only detect the side-effects of processes, is kind of, uh, unreasonable. General terms encompassing countless individual events as an overall pattern, are not ipso facto supernatural.

    (Unless, of course, this is the silly conclusion we’re trying to reach before we start. In which case, why bother with evidence at all?)

  17. Allan:

    True enough – my gills are worse than useless, for example.


    They are useless because you don’t actually have gills.



    Poor Mung. He woke up as Mung again.

  18. phoodoo:
    First off Joe, Jerry Coyne doesn’t even allow opposing viewpoints to post on his blog.

    Sure he does. He just doesn’t allow obscenity-spewing assholes to post off topic rants. That’s why you got the gate, not your viewpoint.

  19. phoodoo:

    Then provide some evidence.You just yap and yap, to fill your quote of junk mining.

    Coyne even lets Joe G post over at WEIT.

    Go ahead phoodoo, tell us how Frankie/Virgil cain/Joe G all agree with Coyne’s views on evolution.

    You’re just angry because your language got you tossed.

  20. Mung:
    I had facts and information. My thread was closed to comments because Elizabeth wanted to close it in spite of the facts and information. But Flint can’t be bothered with that.

    You mean your 15th thread whining about the moderation was closed because it was superfluous given the other 14. But if you weren’t perpetually whining about your victimhood you wouldn’t be Mung.

  21. stcordova: I disagree with your characterization.You’re just mincing words and not giving a charitable reading.

    You’re getting a hell of a lot more charity than you deserve given the fact you’re only here to learn how to better lie about science to push your YECkery.

  22. Looks like Mung has dropped another turd in the punch bowl then been too shy to defend it.

  23. Flint: I don’t think anyone is deliberately being obtuse here, and everyone is addressing what they think you mean.

    I clearly and unambiguously mentioned the selection coefficient in the OP in the context of the question of population size and drift and provided a link to the paper. I was obviously aware of it’s relevance. For keiths to claim what he did is just keiths being himself. It needed to be called out.

    keiths has been acting like an ass since his first post in the thread where he accused me of being dishonest. I showed he was wrong about that too.

    This, by the way, is the same keiths who can admit when he’s wrong.

  24. Allan Miller: The perpetual unhappy zone of the IDist. Evolution is nonsense, but God designed it and it’s great.

    This place already has enough asshats without you being yet another one.

  25. Flint: I have pondered this, and I’ve tentatively concluded that one can either reproduce your exact words (aka “quote mining”) or one can rephrase your words (and be told “that’s not what I said”.)

    When, exactly, is the last time I accused you of quote-mining something I wrote? If I haven’t, is that because you never reproduce my exact words?

    Your premise is demonstrably false. Don’t let that bother you though. Be ignorant!

  26. cubist: Colewd is using Hoyle’s tornado-in-a-junkyard argument. They may not realize they’re using it, but any “mainstream evolution is doing it wrong! wrong, I say!! wrong!!!” argument which is centered around the BIGSCARYNUMBER of the total search space is, fundamentally, a tornado-in-a-junkyard argument. This argument has an underlying presumption which colewd, in common with most (if not all) of the people who use said argument, do not acknowledge: Namely, that the particular sequences-of-interest they’re talking about are evenly distributed throughout the entirety of that BIGSCARYNUMBER total search space, with no clustering at all.

    This is stupendously false and stupendously ignorant.

  27. keiths,

    Yes, morons usually do bust out laughing at things they are too stupid to understand. I would expect no less from the likes of you.

  28. keiths:


    It’s okay, Virgil.Just put the pencil down and tell me what you think the answer is — not what it “should be”.

    OK, so you are also too stupid to understand my answer. Figures.

  29. And Flint, any time you would like to tell us how to test the claim that ATP synthase arose via stochastic processes would be a welcome addition. However we all know that you would rather shit on everything than to actually try to support the claims of your position.

  30. Alan Fox:

    ATP synthase does not have much to do with the late Justice Scalia. If you want to propose an ID hypothesis for how ATP synthase arose, may I suggest you put up an OP.

    Yes Alan, I already know that you cannot follow along.

  31. Flint,

    All you need is imperfect replication and time, and you’ll get life sooner or later – probably within 100 million years or so.

    Cuz you proclaim it so? You are a hypocrite.

    Actual experiments show that the odds of complex organic molecules forming spontaneously is very high, if not unity.

    Some complex organic molecules, yes. But not all of the molecules required for a living organism.

    BTW, “spontaneously” does not mean instantly.

  32. keiths:
    Why not answer the questions, Frankie?

    What does the set S look like at 3:07:10? What is the size of the set? Is the set finite or infinite?

    ETA: It’s as if you’re embarrassed to say that a set containing seven elements is an infinite set.


    Why not respond to my refutations of your claims, keiths? Why the need to play games?

    I bet that you are embarrassed that I have exposed you as a chump and you can’t have that

  33. Flint,

    Alas, a refutation requires more than simply saying “you’re wrong” or simply asserting something.

    And yet that is all you and yours are capable of.

    You have to support it.

    You have never done so. Again, your hypocrisy is showing

  34. keiths:
    The funny thing is that Joe is wrong even according to JoeMath:

    By that same logic, the counts are finite — always and forever. Therefore the sets are finite.

    That doesn’t follow at all. But it is another one of your gobsmackingly stupid statements.

  35. keiths:

    Don’t confuse your poor reasoning with my position.

    Your position is poor reasoning and making gobsmackingly stupid statements

  36. I see that my detractors are still too chickenshit to answer my question. But they sure are cowardly enough to attack me with their ignorance.

  37. Joe Felsenstein: So, apparently you don’t know what a “transtional form” is.

    Yes a transitional form has to exist in a specific time. If not it is just a mosaic form. The clue is in the word “transitional”. May I suggest that you buy a dictionary?

  38. “Philosophy is, in fact, not easy. Bullshitting is easy. Philosophy is not.” – Kantian Naturalist

    ROTFLMAO! KN’s philosophistry regularly on display, now talking-up his smack to a decorated, well-respected Quaker cosmologist, leaps and bounds beyond his competencies, from his (let’s be honest, even while he tries to hide it) despicable and despairing atheist worldview.

  39. Kantian Naturalist’s pretentious posts on this blog, obviously, are not examples of ‘top-down’ causation; they are quite clearly ‘bottom-up.’ Right?

    Yet he CLICKED ‘Post Comment’ from below? Socialist irresponsible? How could any HUMAN BEING suggest otherwise? Duh, Homer.

    Oh, “Dennettian terms”? – twinkle, twinkle little star.

    KN’s ‘bullshitting’ (as he so nicely labelled his own tendency) has ‘bottom-up’ caused him to say everything he wrote unwittingly? What an utter fool of a philosophist! Maybe he ate the wrong noodles today that somehow caused his sophistry to ache?

    Philosophistry costs very little to its proponents, yet many ‘skeptics’ their (non-horizontal) souls, including deceptive, despairing, disenchanted (oh, but happy, superficial clappy!) Jewish atheists, as we have been repeatedly shown on TAMSZ (the atheist miserable skeptical zone).

    Oh, mention ‘Jewish’ = Guano? Wise up.

Comments are closed.