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... > Uncommonly Dense Thread 3

Pages: (501) < ... 392 393 394 395 396 [397] 398 399 400 401 402 ... >

Tracy P. Hamilton Posts: 1239 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 12 2011,16:26    Quote (Ptaylor @ April 12 2011,15:21) PaV 'Go away little girl' has waded in, complaining about liberals and presenting this bizarre challenge:   Quote MathGrrl: I have a challenge for you. Scientists assert the “Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum”. I say that it has not been rigorously demonstrated. For scientists—and you in particular—to convince me of this supposed “law”, please apply this “law” to the destruction of the World Trade Centers. Unless you can demonstrate clearly that it applies to that event, then the “Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum” is just hyperbole. I await your proof. And when you “prove” that, then I’ll show you how to calculate CSI for any one of your four scenarios. Anyone here know what he is on about? PaV is on about 70 on the IQ scale. Conservation of angular momentum was proved by Emmy Noether from rotational invariance.  OMG, another Math Girl! Start calculating CSI, IDiot. -------------- "Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV "The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen "We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

Tracy P. Hamilton Posts: 1239 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 12 2011,16:31    PaV is an idiot: Quote PaV In a seemingly stunning laboratory tour de force, scientists were able to extract ancient enzymatic samples and analyze their structure. No enzymes were isolated since none exist.  A common ancestor was derived from modern organisms DNA, then expressed. -------------- "Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV "The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen "We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

didymos Posts: 1828 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: April 12 2011,16:43    Uprectum BiTARD demonstrates some of that vaunted UD  "civility": Quote IDcurious, I love the way to twisted up the Wiki quote to serve your purpose. Here is the entire descriptive initial entry in total for “Natural Theology”: Wiki: “Natural theology is a branch of theology based on reason and ordinary experience. Thus it is distinguished from revealed theology (or revealed religion) which is based on scripture and religious experiences of various kinds” You are a bullshit artist and I am gonna be here to call you on it. So smile… Of course, his quote-mining accusation is itself bullshit.  Uprectum apparently doesn't know what ellipses mean. -------------- I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

fnxtr Posts: 3504 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 12 2011,17:35    Quote (Ptaylor @ April 12 2011,13:21) PaV 'Go away little girl' has waded in, complaining about liberals and presenting this bizarre challenge:   Quote MathGrrl: I have a challenge for you. Scientists assert the “Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum”. I say that it has not been rigorously demonstrated. For scientists—and you in particular—to convince me of this supposed “law”, please apply this “law” to the destruction of the World Trade Centers. Unless you can demonstrate clearly that it applies to that event, then the “Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum” is just hyperbole. I await your proof. And when you “prove” that, then I’ll show you how to calculate CSI for any one of your four scenarios. Anyone here know what he is on about? He's on about 500mg of vitamin stupid. Apparently WTC rotated when it blew up so we should be able to calculate the angular momentum. Or CSI is real but not applicable to mathgrrl's scenarios. (I don't know why he didn't just say that weeks ago.) Or something. Therefore Jesus. HTH -------------- "[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

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: April 12 2011,17:37    "I'm here to call you on it."   sounds like some kinda dirty homo double entendre -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

didymos Posts: 1828 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: April 12 2011,17:40    Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ April 12 2011,15:37) "I'm here to call you on it."   sounds like some kinda dirty homo double entendre That little "So smile..." thing at the end too. -------------- I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: April 12 2011,17:47    hey big boy you are big hairy sexy bad naughty old bullshit artist but i am heeeeeere to call you on it.  hold still boy what does he think he is doing some kinda public service?  christ, yes, thank you amen hallelujah, upright bitard you are Phil Fucking A. Thranrosophist, your opinions about who the fucks is and who is not a bullshit artist are realy the seminal contribution of UD to anyfuckingthingwhatsofuckingever. now fuck off directly at a rate proportional to the contribution of your identity politics to the incessant fallacious reasoning from consequences or assuming conclusions that you yapping parroting pantomimes of reason prefer instead of peer dialogue.   dude if i had Joe G on my team it doesn't matter what the fuck the game was I would have to think I was on the wrong motherfuckin team yo -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

paragwinn Posts: 539 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: April 12 2011,17:48    Quote (Ptaylor @ April 12 2011,15:21) PaV 'Go away little girl' has waded in, complaining about liberals and presenting this bizarre challenge:     Quote MathGrrl: I have a challenge for you. Scientists assert the “Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum”. I say that it has not been rigorously demonstrated. For scientists—and you in particular—to convince me of this supposed “law”, please apply this “law” to the destruction of the World Trade Centers. Unless you can demonstrate clearly that it applies to that event, then the “Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum” is just hyperbole. I await your proof. And when you “prove” that, then I’ll show you how to calculate CSI for any one of your four scenarios. Anyone here know what he is on about? Could possibly have something to do with this paper: Steven E. Jones, (2006). “Why Indeed did the WTC Buildings Collapse?,” The Hidden History of 9-11-2001, Research in Political Economy, Volume 23, P. Zarembka, editor, Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2006. Quote Those who wish to preserve as inviolate fundamental physical laws may wish to take a closer look.  Consider the collapse of the South WTC Tower on 9-11: . . . We observe that approximately 34 upper floors begin to rotate as a block, to the south and east.  They begin to topple over, as favored by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.  The torque due to gravity on this block is enormous, as is its angular momentum.  But then – and this I’m still puzzling over – this block turned mostly to powder in mid-air! How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives? -------------- All women build up a resistance [to male condescension]. Apparently, ID did not predict that. -Kristine 4-19-11 F/Ns to F/Ns to F/Ns etc. The whole thing is F/N ridiculous -Seversky on KF footnote fetish 8-20-11 Sigh. Really Bill? - Barry Arrington

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: April 12 2011,17:49    Quote (didymos @ April 12 2011,18:40) Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,April 12 2011,15:37) "I'm here to call you on it."   sounds like some kinda dirty homo double entendre That little "So smile..." thing at the end too. i bet he felt naughty after he typed that.  dirty.  ashamed.  must punish that.  so he hit the red button that activated that darwin buttplug.  ahhh now bi-tard is a leeeeeetle big more upright ETA:  there is nothing that you can do to yourself that will make you straight, Louis.  aaaand the inverse nothing you do to yourself can make you gay.  and then the observation that nothing you do with a woman can make you gay.  nothing. who cares anyway right but i have really blowed some rednecks' mindses with all that bullshit right there.   i doubt upright bi-tard muddies his loafers but i would like to go camping with him.  if you know what i mean.  and i think you do.  hahah.  yeah.  oh yeah.  what?  i'm just saying that unctuous prick ain't going fucking camping.  and if he did i would bet he is the sort of yoneg that shits on top of the ground and leaves a little piece of toilet paper there to show everyone like he was a proud two year old. -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

paragwinn Posts: 539 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: April 12 2011,18:05    Barry Arrington, Caveman Lawyer: Quote mathgirl writes: “Reading the source material from Orgel will show that he uses the term “specified complexity” in a subjective, descriptive, qualitative sense.” I take it then that you agree that the concept of CSI as Orgel used it is not meaningless. Good we are making progress. what he conveniently omitted from her comment: Quote Dembski claims that CSI is a numerical, measurable metric. They are using the same words, but referring to different concepts. Barry, what is it about our modern world that frightens you so? -------------- All women build up a resistance [to male condescension]. Apparently, ID did not predict that. -Kristine 4-19-11 F/Ns to F/Ns to F/Ns etc. The whole thing is F/N ridiculous -Seversky on KF footnote fetish 8-20-11 Sigh. Really Bill? - Barry Arrington

didymos Posts: 1828 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: April 12 2011,18:10    Quote (paragwinn @ April 12 2011,16:05) Barry, what is it about our modern world that frightens you so? It's the gays. -------------- I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

Kristine Posts: 3061 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 12 2011,19:41    Quote (fnxtr @ April 11 2011,23:29) Quote (socle @ April 11 2011,21:09) Finally, someone posts a substantive response to Mathgrrl's CSI challenge:     Quote If something is both complex and specified, then it is specified complexity. An example would be shakespear’s sonnet. It is both extremely improbable to come about by chance and at the same time it is meaningful. So there. Even if you cant calculate a number for it, we still know it is a real thing. You just cant argue that. On second reading, I call Poe-sock. I call a Bacon-sock. (Couldn't resist.) (Lots of 9-11 truthies about that Shakespeare sock too, yanno...I'd love to see these guys get into that stuff. You can lead a man to Waterloo...) -------------- Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip? AtBC Poet Laureate "I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive "Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

Ptaylor Posts: 1180 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 12 2011,20:17    Bruce David is having a discussion with StephenB on logic and philosophy on the Does Good come from God II thread. Bruce points out that that Stephen's views differ considerably from those of many well respected philosophers. Stephen's reply, shortened:     Quote Hume, Kant, and Locke? Morons! -------------- We no longer say: “Another day; another bad day for Darwinism.â€� We now say: “Another day since the time Darwinism was disproved.â€� -PaV, Uncommon Descent, 19 June 2016

noncarborundum Posts: 320 Joined: Jan. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: April 12 2011,20:26    Quote (Ptaylor @ April 12 2011,20:17) Bruce David is having a discussion with StephenB on logic and philosophy on the Does Good come from God II thread. Bruce points out that that Stephen's views differ considerably from those of many well respected philosophers. Stephen's reply, shortened:         Quote Hume, Kant, and Locke? Morons! Stephen is channeling Vizzini from Princess Bride. Of course, we know how that turned out. -------------- "The . . . um . . . okay, I was genetically selected for blue eyes.  I know there are brown eyes, because I've observed them, but I can't do it.  Okay?  So . . . um . . . coz that's real genetic selection, not the nonsense Giberson and the others are talking about." - DO'L

Lou FCD Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 12 2011,20:39    Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ April 12 2011,18:49) who cares anyway right but i have really blowed some rednecks Sig line up for grabs. -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: April 12 2011,21:53    i tell you i did the brutal, uh, how you say, "sexy time" to ID Guy thing and you get excited about grammatical license?  i've seen better -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

CeilingCat Posts: 2363 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: April 13 2011,00:12    Quote (Ptaylor @ April 12 2011,20:17) Bruce David is having a discussion with StephenB on logic and philosophy on the Does Good come from God II thread. Bruce points out that that Stephen's views differ considerably from those of many well respected philosophers. Stephen's reply, shortened:         Quote Hume, Kant, and Locke? Morons! And then he quotes approvingly from the Greatest Thinker of Them All: Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen. "Due to his contribution to televised preaching Sheen is often referred to as one of the first televangelists."  Wikipedia Tard on a stick.

fnxtr Posts: 3504 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 13 2011,01:31    Quote (paragwinn @ April 12 2011,15:48) Could possibly have something to do with this paper: Steven E. Jones, (2006). “Why Indeed did the WTC Buildings Collapse?,” The Hidden History of 9-11-2001, Research in Political Economy, Volume 23, P. Zarembka, editor, Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2006.   Quote Those who wish to preserve as inviolate fundamental physical laws may wish to take a closer look.  Consider the collapse of the South WTC Tower on 9-11: . . . We observe that approximately 34 upper floors begin to rotate as a block, to the south and east.  They begin to topple over, as favored by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.  The torque due to gravity on this block is enormous, as is its angular momentum.  But then – and this I’m still puzzling over – this block turned mostly to powder in mid-air! How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Assuming for a moment that this actually happened, I'm guessing the bending rebar blew the surrounding matrix away.  If only guys who ask questions like this really wanted answers. -------------- "[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

fnxtr Posts: 3504 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 13 2011,01:33    Quote (Kristine @ April 12 2011,17:41) Quote (fnxtr @ April 11 2011,23:29)   Quote (socle @ April 11 2011,21:09) Finally, someone posts a substantive response to Mathgrrl's CSI challenge:       Quote If something is both complex and specified, then it is specified complexity. An example would be shakespear’s sonnet. It is both extremely improbable to come about by chance and at the same time it is meaningful. So there. Even if you cant calculate a number for it, we still know it is a real thing. You just cant argue that. On second reading, I call Poe-sock. I call a Bacon-sock. ;) (Couldn't resist.) (Lots of 9-11 truthies about that Shakespeare sock too, yanno...I'd love to see these guys get into that stuff. You can lead a man to Waterloo...) Heh heh heh. Who's a naughty librarian... eta Mmmmm... bacon... -------------- "[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

Alan Fox Posts: 1556 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 13 2011,08:31    Re Arrington's post on Orgel and Wicken, stirred to act by an encounter with mung at ARN I spent a few seconds googling Wicken as I hadn't heard of him before Barry promoted Gordon's quote-mine. I noticed this (sorry if it's old news. I don't get out much!):     Quote The information content of any organized system is difficult to quantify. Reductionist reasoning would suggest that the elements of information are ‘coded’ and ontologically self-standing within the system itself. This is not so. The generation and interpretation of information always requires larger contexts in which it can be understood, because they involve more information than the system itself can possibly contain. Strictly construed, these contexts contribute to that information content. The ways in which they so contribute are not quantifiable in the present understanding of information theory. This non-quantifiability applies from biological organizations to machines to linguistic structures. link Information content not quantifiable? Non-quantifiability of biological organizations? Gordon, Barry, how is Wicken supporting your case?

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: April 13 2011,09:38    There's a very simple rule for telling that a statement is quote mined. A. Does it appear to be critical of evolution? B. Is it presented by an ID/creationist? Never fails. No false positives. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: April 13 2011,09:45    i think "quote mine" could be enhanced to consider that some mining activity by tards is not just for nuggets (quotes) but to completely undermine the epistemic value of concepts or heuristics.   "information is a meaningful concept when Wicken uses it but not when Ddddddddr Ddddddembski types it from his broom closet at Jesus and Careers Technical Institute" Tranmaw is desperately trying to drum up attention to her latest poo     Quote For a while, one heard the claim that ID advocates invented the Marx-Freud-Darwin triad of materialist influences evident in your Sunday Fishwrap. That was an unlikely scenario in my experience because, in order to communicate with a broad audience from a minority position (which they apparently do if you believe the frantic screeds of the Darwin lobby), they must riff off an accepted cultural link. don't bother thinking about the sound of it riffing itself off into a fishwrap, it's just too nasty.  sounds like someone shuffling a stack of dead babies of course the DI lies about any specific particularities but repealing the enlightenment is the fucking name of their gig full stop.  soooooooo what Dennis is that list too short or too fucking long? whether or not ID is anti epicurus darwin marx and freud is not so much about the slippery eel of "what is ID" right, Lenny Flank killed ID.  it is about "Last-thursdayism, or not", you fucking tards. Bitching about materialism yawn.  there is nothing to see there but fundylous high dudgeon. it's like this Science:  We tested this hypothesis.  Here is our result. IDC:  Oh yeah you can't do that <infinite regress of knowledge denial> because nothing can be known if Jesus didn't die on the cross for your sins and rise again on the 3rd day where he now waits in Heaven for the moment of his return no man shall know the hour ner the day. Science:  Cool story bro.  Hey do you know what a hypothesis is? IDC:  SKLECTIVE HYPERSKEPTICISM!  YOU ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE!  OILY HOMOS DRAGGED TO DISTRACT WITH A SINFUL FLAMING LINKED TRAIL! Science:  Hey, um, I got to get back to this so um yeah please fuck off quietly now thank you.  no don't come back.  mmk.  yes.  all right.  good bye now.  SLAM JBF also wrote a recent short book by JBF that specifically addresses the Discovery Institute's war on fishwraps fishwrap would be a charitable name for tranmaw's nasty ass-garment thing that holds that stick you guys already know all that shit about the DI though you could write that part of the book.  the sensuous curmudgeon be hitting it too yo -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Tracy P. Hamilton Posts: 1239 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 13 2011,10:59    Quote (midwifetoad @ April 13 2011,09:38) There's a very simple rule for telling that a statement is quote mined. A. Does it appear to be critical of evolution? B. Is it presented by an ID/creationist? Never fails. No false positives. Unlike the 'Splanatory Filter -------------- "Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV "The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen "We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

Tracy P. Hamilton Posts: 1239 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 13 2011,11:14    "News" posts: Quote He said it: Science needs to fail to advance? But not EPIC FAIL, like UD. -------------- "Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV "The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen "We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

Tracy P. Hamilton Posts: 1239 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 13 2011,11:18    News again: Quote They said it: Why did two materialist atheists write a book against Darwinism? Because they don't know what they are talking about, and you don't have the knowledge to recognize it because you are an IDiot. -------------- "Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV "The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen "We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

Kristine Posts: 3061 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 13 2011,12:43    Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ April 13 2011,11:18) News again:   Quote They said it: Why did two materialist atheists write a book against Darwinism? Because they don't know what they are talking about, and you don't have the knowledge to recognize it because you are an IDiot. So much for the teaching of evolution being some sort of "atheist's agenda." As I've said before, sometimes they almost get it. Sometimes. -------------- Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip? AtBC Poet Laureate "I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive "Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

carlsonjok Posts: 3326 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 13 2011,13:28    Mathgrrl is back!  And she is in fighting trim.  She dismisses Joseph,   challenges BarryA, corrects Collin, and spanks PaV (twice).  And, for shits and giggles, pokes Joseph again. ETA: For those of you that avoid UD due to weak stomaches, the sum of her comments can be expressed thusly: -------------- It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

carlsonjok Posts: 3326 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 13 2011,13:40    Food Fight! Mathgrrl:     Quote 16 MathGrrl 04/13/2011 11:25 am I spend a day and a half away and come back to find another thread with my name in it. That’s flattering, in a being stalked kind of way. In any case, I regret to inform you that you have created a thread based on a misconception. Here is my response to your similar claim in the previous thread: Barry Arrington,     Quote    mathgirl writes: “Reading the source material from Orgel will show that he uses the term “specified complexity” in a subjective, descriptive, qualitative sense.”    I take it then that you agree that the concept of CSI as Orgel used it is not meaningless. Good we are making progress. Please don’t put words in my mouth. I meant exactly what I wrote. The concept of “specified complexity” presented by Orgel is not the same as the concept of “specified complexity” discussed by Dembski. I have said nothing about whether or not Orgel’s concept is coherent or meaningful. BarryA:     Quote 18 Barry Arrington 04/13/2011 12:31 pm Mathgrrl, I will tell you what is ridiculous: Your attempt to convince people that Orgel and Dembski are talking about two different concepts, when that is plainly false. Like the Wizard of Oz you can tell people “don’t look behind that curtain” until you are blue in the face. But I’ve looked behind your curtain, and there is nothing there but a blustering old man. I will not retract an obviously true statement no matter how much you huff. You’ve been found out. Deal with it. How much you want to bet that Barry's little rejoinder was followed by a silent bannination? -------------- It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 13 2011,14:01    "an obviously true statement" from the makers of "obviously designed" Still no CSI math, eh Barry? -------------- "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

carlsonjok Posts: 3326 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 13 2011,14:07    Quote (carlsonjok @ April 13 2011,13:40) How much you want to bet that Barry's little rejoinder was followed by a silent bannination? Oops. Barry apparently overestimated his own cleverness and left the door open for Mathgrrl to respond:   Quote 19 MathGrrl 04/13/2011 1:02 pm Barry Arrington,   Quote    I will not retract an obviously true statement no matter how much you huff. You made the following claim in reference to me:   Quote    QuiteID, she said the concept is meaningless (unless her friends are using it). That claim is untrue. You cannot produce any support for it. Intellectual honesty requires that you retract it. -------------- It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

Pages: (501) < ... 392 393 394 395 396 [397] 398 399 400 401 402 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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