Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Joe G.'s Tardgasm

Pages: (919) < ... 235 236 237 238 239 [240] 241 242 243 244 245 ... >

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2014,07:56    Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 16 2014,07:54) Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 16 2014,07:41) Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 15 2014,18:29) How old is the earth, Joe? No one knows. As I said to determine the age of the earth you have to know how it was formed. And as olegt said your position requires that the proto earth be so hot that no crytaline stuctures survived. That is an untestable assumption. But you, being a scientifically illiterate fuck, won't be able to understand that. Was life designed? No one knows. To determine if it was designed you have to know how it was designed. Lol @ Chubs' "were you there?" YEC gambit. Life has all of the trademarks of being designed. And only a moron would think that we have to know how something was designed before we can determine that it was designed. And here is Richie doing exactly that. RichTARD Hughes- proud to be a scientifically illiterate fuck. -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5287 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2014,07:56    Poor Chubs. Compulsive liar. Can't hold a job.   Doesn't have any friends. Can't go a day on a science discussion board with making threats and getting kicked off. Even his fellow Creationists at UD think he's an asshole He's sooooooooo ronery!       -------------- "CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology" "If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic." "Jews and Christians are Muslims." - Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2014,07:58    Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 16 2014,07:56) Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 16 2014,07:54) Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 16 2014,07:41)   Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 15 2014,18:29) How old is the earth, Joe? No one knows. As I said to determine the age of the earth you have to know how it was formed. And as olegt said your position requires that the proto earth be so hot that no crytaline stuctures survived. That is an untestable assumption. But you, being a scientifically illiterate fuck, won't be able to understand that. Was life designed? No one knows. To determine if it was designed you have to know how it was designed. Lol @ Chubs' "were you there?" YEC gambit. Life has all of the trademarks of being designed. And only a moron would think that we have to know how something was designed before we can determine that it was designed. And here is Richie doing exactly that. RichTARD Hughes- proud to be a scientifically illiterate fuck. All the trademarks! ™ Doesn't the world have all the trademarks if being billions of years old, chubs? -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2014,07:58    Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 16 2014,07:56) Poor Chubs. Compulsive liar. Can't hold a job.   Doesn't have any friends. Can't go a day on a science discussion board with making threats and getting kicked off. Even his fellow Creationists at UD think he's an asshole He's sooooooooo ronery!   :D  :D  :D Nice projection bathroom stall boy -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2014,07:59    Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 16 2014,07:58) Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 16 2014,07:56) Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 16 2014,07:54)   Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 16 2014,07:41)   Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 15 2014,18:29) How old is the earth, Joe? No one knows. As I said to determine the age of the earth you have to know how it was formed. And as olegt said your position requires that the proto earth be so hot that no crytaline stuctures survived. That is an untestable assumption. But you, being a scientifically illiterate fuck, won't be able to understand that. Was life designed? No one knows. To determine if it was designed you have to know how it was designed. Lol @ Chubs' "were you there?" YEC gambit. Life has all of the trademarks of being designed. And only a moron would think that we have to know how something was designed before we can determine that it was designed. And here is Richie doing exactly that. RichTARD Hughes- proud to be a scientifically illiterate fuck. All the trademarks! ™ Doesn't the world have all the trademarks if being billions of years old, chubs? What trademarks show the world is billions of years old? Please be specific, loser. -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2014,08:01    OK seeing that evoTARDs choose to be totally clueless I will continue to expose their ignorance. Yes Intelligent Design is both testable and potentially falsifiable: ID is based on three premises and the inference that follows (DeWolf et al., Darwinism, Design and Public Education, pg. 92): Quote 1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design. 2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity. 3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity. 4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems. There you have it- to falsify Intelligent Design all one has to do is demonstrate that natural selection can produce irreducibly complex biological systems. -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2014,08:02    As Dr Behe said: [quote]Now, one can’t have it both ways. One can’t say both that ID is unfalsifiable (or untestable) and that there is evidence against it. Either it is unfalsifiable and floats serenely beyond experimental reproach, or it can be criticized on the basis of our observations and is therefore testable. The fact that critical reviewers advance scientific arguments against ID (whether successfully or not) shows that intelligent design is indeed falsifiable. In fact, my argument for intelligent design is open to direct experimental rebuttal. Here is a thought experiment that makes the point clear. In Darwin’s Black Box (Behe 1996) I claimed that the bacterial flagellum was irreducibly complex and so required deliberate intelligent design. The flip side of this claim is that the flagellum can’t be produced by natural selection acting on random mutation, or any other unintelligent process. To falsify such a claim, a scientist could go into the laboratory, place a bacterial species lacking a flagellum under some selective pressure (for mobility, say), grow it for ten thousand generations, and see if a flagellum--or any equally complex system--was produced. If that happened, my claims would be neatly disproven.(1) How about Professor Coyne’s concern that, if one system were shown to be the result of natural selection, proponents of ID could just claim that some other system was designed? I think the objection has little force. If natural selection were shown to be capable of producing a system of a certain degree of complexity, then the assumption would be that it could produce any other system of an equal or lesser degree of complexity. If Coyne demonstrated that the flagellum (which requires approximately forty gene products) could be produced by selection, I would be rather foolish to then assert that the blood clotting system (which consists of about twenty proteins) required intelligent design. Let’s turn the tables and ask, how could one falsify the claim that, say, the bacterial flagellum was produced by Darwinian processes?[quote] The criteria for inferring design in biology is, as Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Leheigh University, puts it in his book Darwin ' s Black Box: "Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.” That is the positive case. For example: As I posted in an earlier blog: The ATP Synthase is a system that consists of two subsystems-> one for the flow of protons down an electrochemical gradient from the exterior to the interior and the other (a rotary engine) that generates ATP from ADP using the energy liberated by proton flow. These two processes are totally unrelated from a purely physiochemical perspective*- meaning there isn't any general principle of physics nor chemistry by which these two processes have anything to do with each other. Yet here they are. How is this evidence for Intelligent Design? Cause and effect relationships as in designers often take two totally unrelated systems and intergrate them into one. The ordering of separate subsystems to produce a specific effect that neither can do alone. And those subsystems are composed of the ordering of separate components to achieve a specified function. ATP synthase is not reducible to chance and necessity and also meets the criteria of design. -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5287 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2014,08:10    Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 16 2014,08:01) There you have it- to falsify Intelligent Design all one has to do is demonstrate that natural selection can produce irreducibly complex biological systems. You lose Fatty.   Quote Evolution of Hormone-Receptor Complexity by Molecular Exploitation Bridgham, Carroll, Thornton Science, Science 7 April 2006: Vol. 312 no. 5770 pp. 97-101 Abstract:  According to Darwinian theory, complexity evolves by a stepwise process of elaboration and optimization under natural selection. Biological systems composed of tightly integrated parts seem to challenge this view, because it is not obvious how any element's function can be selected for unless the partners with which it interacts are already present. Here we demonstrate how an integrated molecular system—the specific functional interaction between the steroid hormone aldosterone and its partner the mineralocorticoid receptor—evolved by a stepwise Darwinian process. Using ancestral gene resurrection, we show that, long before the hormone evolved, the receptor's affinity for aldosterone was present as a structural by-product of its partnership with chemically similar, more ancient ligands. Introducing two amino acid changes into the ancestral sequence recapitulates the evolution of present-day receptor specificity. Our results indicate that tight interactions can evolve by molecular exploitation—recruitment of an older molecule, previously constrained for a different role, into a new functional complex. link Now what Chubs - a Joe Gallien chin counting contest? -------------- "CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology" "If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic." "Jews and Christians are Muslims." - Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2014,08:48    Note the date. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2014,09:35    Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 29 2014,13:33) Quote (NoName @ Jan. 29 2014,12:03) Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 29 2014,12:50) ... YOU have to demonstrate the existence of macroevolution, not me. It has already been proven, in the only way that matters. Just as the ability to walk from New York to New Jersey proves that one can walk from New York to Los Angeles. Or New York to Tierra del Fuego. Insurmountable barriers? That's your claim, you demonstrate it. No, it hasn't been proven and your analogy is bullshit. There isn't one instance of microevolution that can extrapolated into macroevolution. Anti-biotic resistance? Not a chance Peppered moths? Not a chance Beaks of the finch? Not a chance You've got nothing but to hide behind father time. What is the barrier Joe? What prevents "microevolution" from becoming "macroevolution" when you look across deep time. Oh and Are you really a Young Earth Creationist!?!?!??!  Really!>??!?! -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5287 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2014,09:39    Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 16 2014,08:48) Note the date. Pathetic innit? The IDiot movement died after Kitzmiller v. Dover.  Most of the major player like Behe and Dembski knew the game was over so they slunk off to other things.  The Disco Tooters tried bravely to pick up the tard torch but all they could produce were clowns like Axe and Gauger and pretty boy Meyer. That's why we get lumpshits like Joeboi here citing Behe's idiocy from 8, 10 years ago.  Nothing new has come out of the ID camp in a decade.  In his tiny little mind Joe is reliving the Golden Age of Tard when giant IDiots walked the earth. Cue Bruce Sprinsteen's "Glory Days".   -------------- "CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology" "If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic." "Jews and Christians are Muslims." - Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2014,09:57    First, Joe, you are wrong. There is significant evidence of macroevolution. Whales, horses, and humans. This evidence comes from both fossils and genetics.  of course, evolution has been used to make predictions about this, that have been confirmed. So, to prevent macroevolution from happening, there must be a barrier that prevents it.  What is the barrier? Let me give you an example. I could win the lottery. It would be very, very, very unlikely. But I could win. There's no barrier in the system that says "Ogre will never win the lottery, even if he bought every single ticket." The evidence is there. YOU must explain why you disagree with all the evidence. What this barrier that you think exists is, how it works, AND a better explanation that fits all the evidence. It's called science. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2014,10:24    Jesus now that Joe is reboiling Behe's non sequiturs "It looks designed, therefore design!" which was only rated "breathtaking" and not actually "earth shattering" by Judge Jones where does he go from here? Well he could update us all with another creationist trope that claims something about the earth being too hot for crystals or some such rot. Why stop there Joe why not go for the full tard house? Roll them all out Joe C14, zircons etc etc the whole steaming pile. Oh and by the way just because you don't think GAs demonstrate Darwinian evolution doesn't mean dick. Just check the GA literature ...your name doesn't appear and neither do any of the retards at the DI. ID is fucked Joe and you know it. But please keep showing up for your regular uncensored reaming it's the best publicity for the anniversary of the death of ID. -------------- "I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit "ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus "I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2014,19:35    Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 16 2014,08:10) Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 16 2014,08:01) There you have it- to falsify Intelligent Design all one has to do is demonstrate that natural selection can produce irreducibly complex biological systems. You lose Fatty.   Quote Evolution of Hormone-Receptor Complexity by Molecular Exploitation Bridgham, Carroll, Thornton Science, Science 7 April 2006: Vol. 312 no. 5770 pp. 97-101 Abstract:  According to Darwinian theory, complexity evolves by a stepwise process of elaboration and optimization under natural selection. Biological systems composed of tightly integrated parts seem to challenge this view, because it is not obvious how any element's function can be selected for unless the partners with which it interacts are already present. Here we demonstrate how an integrated molecular system—the specific functional interaction between the steroid hormone aldosterone and its partner the mineralocorticoid receptor—evolved by a stepwise Darwinian process. Using ancestral gene resurrection, we show that, long before the hormone evolved, the receptor's affinity for aldosterone was present as a structural by-product of its partnership with chemically similar, more ancient ligands. Introducing two amino acid changes into the ancestral sequence recapitulates the evolution of present-day receptor specificity. Our results indicate that tight interactions can evolve by molecular exploitation—recruitment of an older molecule, previously constrained for a different role, into a new functional complex. link Now what Chubs - a Joe Gallien chin counting contest? Thanks for this. I wrote it for my blog. I now have a subscription to science so I can grab all these. Weeeeeee -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Driver Posts: 649 Joined: June 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2014,02:58    Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 16 2014,13:37) Quote (Driver @ Feb. 15 2014,23:56) Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 16 2014,00:07)     Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 15 2014,18:04)     Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 15 2014,18:00)         Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 15 2014,17:54) Poor Fattytard.  He's ronery again.   :( Hi Timmy you ignorant fuck- Are you still clueless as to who posited blind watchmaker evolution, dumbass? Was it the same Fattytard who calculated the CSI of a cake by counting the letters in the recipe?   :D  :D  :D Only a moron would think that is what happened. And here you are, Timmy. You must be proud to be a dumbass, Timmy. Joe: [A] cake would, at a minimum, contain all the information in the recipe. Of course, in any given language, the meaning of a one bit word can in principle be defined as any string S. For example, let the definition of a new word, "u" (pronounced "caek") be the recipe for Banoffee marshmallow cake here That is, the definition of "u" is the string S where S is "Ingredients 165g butter, plus extra for greasing 165g soft light brown or light brown muscovado sugar 325g self-raising flour..." ...etc... "Method Heat oven to 190C/170C fan/gas 5. Grease and line the bottom of a round 21cm loose-bottomed cake tin..." ...etc. Then the 'Joe CSI' of the cake would be the minimum required to specify the recipe, i.e. one bit represented by the word "u". In practice in a real language, "u" would be defined as a combination of strings, S1, S2, S3 etc, where S1 might be "Ingredients" and S2 might be defined as "the mixture of 165g butter, plus extra for greasing 165g soft light brown or light brown muscovado sugar 325g self-raising flour" and so on. Yet it remains that any recipe can be specified by a one bit word (presuming all valid one bit words haven't already been used), whether the one bit word is defined as the whole recipe or as a combination of parts of the recipe. Any valid string of letters can be the definition of a new one bit word. The limit on the (for want of a better word) compressibility of any string is only the length of the available (unused) valid words in that language. Now, although God is an Englishman - that is, He is at least certainly not French and by no means a woman - there is nothing special about English. We can always define any string in English as a one bit word in a different language, so that the minimum length of cake recipe is one bit. That is, in Caekian, the minimum recipe of our cake is "!" A real world example of this power of language would be the word "asshole" in the somewhat limited language, Gallien. "Asshole" means anything and everything, and as such is the perfect reply to any criticism. Another possible reply in Gallien, to use our new word "u", meaning caek (that particular caek) is "i know u are, but what am i?" Now, when you eat the cake, I have seen it implied that you eat the recipe, or at least part of the recipe. The rest stays with you as waste. English would be well served to add a definition of "waste" as the contents of the blog "Intelligent Reasoning", or any post from that blog. Driver are you proud to be an ignorant ass? Why do you quote-mine? The recipe is a capturing of the ACTIONS. So the ingredients don't matter as far as how much information there is? My point also applies to actions. Define the word "u" as "Mix together X,Y, and Z then bake at 160 degrees for 1 hour". One bit. You can define a one bit word to represent any actions. One bit recipe. -------------- Why would I concern myself with evidence, when IMO "evidence" is only the mind arranging thought and matter to support what one already wishes to believe? - William J Murray [A]t this time a forum like this one is nothing less than a national security risk. - Gary Gaulin

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2014,04:11    Quote (Driver @ Feb. 17 2014,10:58) Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 16 2014,13:37) Quote (Driver @ Feb. 15 2014,23:56)   Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 16 2014,00:07)     Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 15 2014,18:04)       Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 15 2014,18:00)           Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 15 2014,17:54) Poor Fattytard.  He's ronery again.   :( Hi Timmy you ignorant fuck- Are you still clueless as to who posited blind watchmaker evolution, dumbass? Was it the same Fattytard who calculated the CSI of a cake by counting the letters in the recipe?   :D  :D  :D Only a moron would think that is what happened. And here you are, Timmy. You must be proud to be a dumbass, Timmy. Joe: [A] cake would, at a minimum, contain all the information in the recipe. Of course, in any given language, the meaning of a one bit word can in principle be defined as any string S. For example, let the definition of a new word, "u" (pronounced "caek") be the recipe for Banoffee marshmallow cake here That is, the definition of "u" is the string S where S is "Ingredients 165g butter, plus extra for greasing 165g soft light brown or light brown muscovado sugar 325g self-raising flour..." ...etc... "Method Heat oven to 190C/170C fan/gas 5. Grease and line the bottom of a round 21cm loose-bottomed cake tin..." ...etc. Then the 'Joe CSI' of the cake would be the minimum required to specify the recipe, i.e. one bit represented by the word "u". In practice in a real language, "u" would be defined as a combination of strings, S1, S2, S3 etc, where S1 might be "Ingredients" and S2 might be defined as "the mixture of 165g butter, plus extra for greasing 165g soft light brown or light brown muscovado sugar 325g self-raising flour" and so on. Yet it remains that any recipe can be specified by a one bit word (presuming all valid one bit words haven't already been used), whether the one bit word is defined as the whole recipe or as a combination of parts of the recipe. Any valid string of letters can be the definition of a new one bit word. The limit on the (for want of a better word) compressibility of any string is only the length of the available (unused) valid words in that language. Now, although God is an Englishman - that is, He is at least certainly not French and by no means a woman - there is nothing special about English. We can always define any string in English as a one bit word in a different language, so that the minimum length of cake recipe is one bit. That is, in Caekian, the minimum recipe of our cake is "!" A real world example of this power of language would be the word "asshole" in the somewhat limited language, Gallien. "Asshole" means anything and everything, and as such is the perfect reply to any criticism. Another possible reply in Gallien, to use our new word "u", meaning caek (that particular caek) is "i know u are, but what am i?" Now, when you eat the cake, I have seen it implied that you eat the recipe, or at least part of the recipe. The rest stays with you as waste. English would be well served to add a definition of "waste" as the contents of the blog "Intelligent Reasoning", or any post from that blog. Driver are you proud to be an ignorant ass? Why do you quote-mine? The recipe is a capturing of the ACTIONS. So the ingredients don't matter as far as how much information there is? My point also applies to actions. Define the word "u" as "Mix together X,Y, and Z then bake at 160 degrees for 1 hour". One bit. You can define a one bit word to represent any actions. One bit recipe. And Joe represents the entropy i.e. wasted information. -------------- "I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit "ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus "I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

fnxtr Posts: 3504 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2014,21:59    So I wonder if those old stone antennae, the pyramids, were designed by a GA. Chuckles? -------------- "[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory "Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

Texas Teach Posts: 2084 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2014,22:19    Quote (fnxtr @ Feb. 17 2014,21:59) So I wonder if those old stone antennae, the pyramids, were designed by a GA. Chuckles? If GA stands for goddamn alien, then Joe might agree. -------------- "Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr "I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2014,23:15    He's also back to not promoting all the comments on his thrill a minute blog. Same old creationists. -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2014,10:37    Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 17 2014,23:15) He's also back to not promoting all the comments on his thrill a minute blog. Same old creationists. And now calling other places "echo chambers" after doing it(!) -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2014,10:45    Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 18 2014,10:37) Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 17 2014,23:15) He's also back to not promoting all the comments on his thrill a minute blog. Same old creationists. And now calling other places "echo chambers" after doing it(!) poster child for Krueger-Dunning -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2014,15:34    See Joe argue in support of Noah's flood: http://www.skepticink.com/tipplin....e-flood -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2014,15:41    Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 18 2014,15:34) See Joe argue in support of Noah's flood: http://www.skepticink.com/tipplin....e-flood Joe: "Nope, I have no interest in the Bible other than it is a collection of old books." but also Joe: "And I only hate atheists who misrepresent the Bible" and "What Bible are you using? And why do all Bible scholars disagree with you? “And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills that were under the whole heaven were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered” (KJV). High hills,not mountains. See also- http://www.answersingenesis.org/....sis.org " and Joe: "And yes a 6,000 year old earth is dumb and it isn't part of the Bible" And also: That whole page is a shrine to his Tard. -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

socle Posts: 322 Joined: July 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2014,15:55    Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 18 2014,15:41)   Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 18 2014,15:34) See Joe argue in support of Noah's flood: http://www.skepticink.com/tipplin....e-flood Joe: "Nope, I have no interest in the Bible other than it is a collection of old books." but also Joe: "And I only hate atheists who misrepresent the Bible" and "What Bible are you using? And why do all Bible scholars disagree with you? “And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills that were under the whole heaven were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered” (KJV). High hills,not mountains. See also- http://www.answersingenesis.org/....sis....sis.org " and Joe: "And yes a 6,000 year old earth is dumb and it isn't part of the Bible" And also: That whole page is a shrine to his Tard. Nice to see Wally B's Hydropants Theory getting a mention by Joe in that thread.

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2014,16:08    Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 18 2014,13:41) Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 18 2014,15:34) See Joe argue in support of Noah's flood: http://www.skepticink.com/tipplin....e-flood Joe: "Nope, I have no interest in the Bible other than it is a collection of old books." but also Joe: "And I only hate atheists who misrepresent the Bible" and "What Bible are you using? And why do all Bible scholars disagree with you? “And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills that were under the whole heaven were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered” (KJV). High hills,not mountains. See also- http://www.answersingenesis.org/....sis....sis.org " and Joe: "And yes a 6,000 year old earth is dumb and it isn't part of the Bible" And also: That whole page is a shrine to his Tard. He's hit the jackpot: Quote Talk to Walter Brown and associates Joe, you do know that's tantamount to saying "i know absolutely fuck all about basic, middle-school-level physics", don't you? -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2014,11:52    Meltdown accomplished at untelligent reasoning. 2 days early! -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

JonF Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2014,12:33    Quote (JohnW @ Feb. 18 2014,17:08) Joe, you do know that's tantamount to saying "i know absolutely fuck all about basic, middle-school-level physics", don't you? The scary thing about Waltie-poo is that he occasionally gets something right. He's pretty sound on the problems with a vapor/ice canopys tantamount to saying

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2014,12:44    Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 19 2014,11:52) Meltdown accomplished at untelligent reasoning. 2 days early! Meltdown over-spill into uncommonly dense! -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

REC Posts: 638 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2014,13:02    Joe: "Natural selection doesn’t select." ? "Goal-oriented targeted searches are Intelligent Design evolution in action. .... to achieve a pre-specified result." There's the killer for you. No one in ID ever has, or can, demonstrate that anything we observe in nature is a "pre-specified result."

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2014,13:29    I took a quick scan through his writings. What's funny is that he thinks everything I write on my blog is an assault on him. Poor Joe, so clueless, so arrogant, so egotistical. Joe, let's be clear, you don't know any more about ID than anyone else. You are a loud guy with a blog. Your thoughts on ID, evolution, and the Bible are just that (and only that) your thoughts. My writings respond to specific claims. You may or may not have made that claim, but it is still an ID claim, because someone who claims to be an ID proponent has made the claim. If you have a problem with what I write about, then I would suggest you get with your fellow ID proponents and come up with a SINGLE, testable, notion of ID. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Pages: (919) < ... 235 236 237 238 239 [240] 241 242 243 244 245 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard