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... > The Skeptical Zone

Pages: (41) < ... 25 26 27 28 29 [30] 31 32 33 34 35 ... >

clamboy Posts: 299 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 30 2016,00:44    "Carl Woese - Evolution Skeptic" - YYYYYAAAAAWWWWNNNNN So damned old, Mung, so damned OLD!

RumraketR Posts: 19 Joined: Nov. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 30 2016,14:17    I agree, I don't expect much interesting intellectual output from any of them. But there's still a difference between the complete and utter volitional braindamage one is disposed to receive from phoodoo, fmm and frankie, versus what can on rare occasion at least approach the form of a question borne out of a tiny hint of genuine curiosity from Mung, Sal and... well I think that's it.

Soapy Sam Posts: 659 Joined: Jan. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 30 2016,15:45    There's always Old King Cole. He's a merry old soul. Importuning passers-by to tell him how common descent is tested. Upon having it explained, moving on to the next ... 'tell me, how is common descent tested?'. Like stabbing water. -------------- SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G BTW, when you make little jabs like “I thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,” you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington

Henry J Posts: 5787 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 30 2016,16:23    Surely you're not saying that no matter how many different ways "nested hierarchy" gets described and elaborated on, it never gets through?

clamboy Posts: 299 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 30 2016,23:02    Quote (RumraketR @ Dec. 30 2016,14:17) I agree, I don't expect much interesting intellectual output from any of them. But there's still a difference between the complete and utter volitional braindamage one is disposed to receive from phoodoo, fmm and frankie, versus what can on rare occasion at least approach the form of a question borne out of a tiny hint of genuine curiosity from Mung, Sal and... well I think that's it. Thank you, O omniscient Lord, for blessing us with your presence. No, no, that's okay, I don't need all that revealed to me...NO!

fnxtr Posts: 3504 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 31 2016,11:53    Quote (Soapy Sam @ Dec. 30 2016,13:45) There's always Old King Cole. He's a merry old soul. Importuning passers-by to tell him how common descent is tested. Upon having it explained, moving on to the next ... 'tell me, how is common descent tested?'. Like stabbing water. Knowledge, knowledge everywhere, Not a drop in did sink. -------------- "[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

Glen Davidson Posts: 1100 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 31 2016,12:16    Quote (fnxtr @ Dec. 31 2016,11:53) Quote (Soapy Sam @ Dec. 30 2016,13:45) There's always Old King Cole. He's a merry old soul. Importuning passers-by to tell him how common descent is tested. Upon having it explained, moving on to the next ... 'tell me, how is common descent tested?'. Like stabbing water. Knowledge, knowledge everywhere, Not a drop in did sink. An inveterate questioner, wanting nothing but detailed answers. Oh, and ID, which has no meaningful answers at all, let alone detailed ones. Glen Davidson -------------- http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

clamboy Posts: 299 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 31 2016,14:54    Gregory, to Joe Felsenstein: "You write as a professional biologist should without the bluster of the internet know-it-all with no humility." Can a living being so oblivious to its own nature maintain biological functions?

Patrick Posts: 666 Joined: July 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 01 2017,21:03    Quote (clamboy @ Dec. 29 2016,19:55) Quote (Patrick @ Dec. 28 2016,14:18) Quote (clamboy @ Dec. 26 2016,21:08) Meanwhile, Mung has decided that TSZ is now his personal blog. I wouldn't mind so much, if only his posts were not so damned *boring*! (Some of the replies from certain regulars give me actual food for thought, which is why I keep going back.) The worst part of TSZ at the moment is that Mung is solidly in the reality-based peak of the bimodal distribution of participants. I see your point, Patrick, I really really do, in this world of phoodoo and Joekie, but I will have to agree to disagree. "Nothing From Nothing" - a sophomoric rehash of hackneyed, refuted apologetics, straight from the land of Snoreway. Maybe not too bad for a PHI 101 freshman student. "A Christmas Story" - a pristine example of the exact opposite of all that TSZ has stood for: Mung provides no actual examination of the opposing side, he engages in his typical refusal to employ the principle of charity...same old Mung, that is, dull, dull, dull. "Evolution Skeptics!" - the words of someone who is a willful ignoramus, barely a step above JoeG in terms of long-term childish ranting. I really enjoy much of what KN posts, and walto, and dazz, and Sal is game for a laugh. Patrick, your straight-up no-nonsense bluntness makes for good reading. But Mung...lord a mighty, I have yet to read anything from him that makes me go "Hmmm," and his jokes and sniping are space-wasters. I don't disagree with anything you wrote, but I still have a soft spot for Mung.  Somewhere around my insular cortex.  I suspect I could last as long as two beers with him before we came to blows.

Acartia_Bogart Posts: 2927 Joined: Sep. 2014 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 01 2017,23:28    Quote (Patrick @ Jan. 01 2017,21:03) Quote (clamboy @ Dec. 29 2016,19:55) Quote (Patrick @ Dec. 28 2016,14:18)   Quote (clamboy @ Dec. 26 2016,21:08) Meanwhile, Mung has decided that TSZ is now his personal blog. I wouldn't mind so much, if only his posts were not so damned *boring*! (Some of the replies from certain regulars give me actual food for thought, which is why I keep going back.) The worst part of TSZ at the moment is that Mung is solidly in the reality-based peak of the bimodal distribution of participants. I see your point, Patrick, I really really do, in this world of phoodoo and Joekie, but I will have to agree to disagree. "Nothing From Nothing" - a sophomoric rehash of hackneyed, refuted apologetics, straight from the land of Snoreway. Maybe not too bad for a PHI 101 freshman student. "A Christmas Story" - a pristine example of the exact opposite of all that TSZ has stood for: Mung provides no actual examination of the opposing side, he engages in his typical refusal to employ the principle of charity...same old Mung, that is, dull, dull, dull. "Evolution Skeptics!" - the words of someone who is a willful ignoramus, barely a step above JoeG in terms of long-term childish ranting. I really enjoy much of what KN posts, and walto, and dazz, and Sal is game for a laugh. Patrick, your straight-up no-nonsense bluntness makes for good reading. But Mung...lord a mighty, I have yet to read anything from him that makes me go "Hmmm," and his jokes and sniping are space-wasters. I don't disagree with anything you wrote, but I still have a soft spot for Mung.  Somewhere around my insular cortex.  I suspect I could last as long as two beers with him before we came to blows. I think I could last a few beers with Mung (more if he is paying). He has a rare trait amongst IDists. He has the ability to laugh at himself. Joe, Mullings, Cunningham, Arrington and Murray, on the other hand, simply take themselves, and their stupid religion, too seriously for me to want to spend valuable drinking time with. Even if they are paying (which they wouldn't).

clamboy Posts: 299 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2017,00:59    Quote (Patrick @ Jan. 01 2017,21:03) Quote (clamboy @ Dec. 29 2016,19:55) Quote (Patrick @ Dec. 28 2016,14:18)   Quote (clamboy @ Dec. 26 2016,21:08) Meanwhile, Mung has decided that TSZ is now his personal blog. I wouldn't mind so much, if only his posts were not so damned *boring*! (Some of the replies from certain regulars give me actual food for thought, which is why I keep going back.) The worst part of TSZ at the moment is that Mung is solidly in the reality-based peak of the bimodal distribution of participants. I see your point, Patrick, I really really do, in this world of phoodoo and Joekie, but I will have to agree to disagree. "Nothing From Nothing" - a sophomoric rehash of hackneyed, refuted apologetics, straight from the land of Snoreway. Maybe not too bad for a PHI 101 freshman student. "A Christmas Story" - a pristine example of the exact opposite of all that TSZ has stood for: Mung provides no actual examination of the opposing side, he engages in his typical refusal to employ the principle of charity...same old Mung, that is, dull, dull, dull. "Evolution Skeptics!" - the words of someone who is a willful ignoramus, barely a step above JoeG in terms of long-term childish ranting. I really enjoy much of what KN posts, and walto, and dazz, and Sal is game for a laugh. Patrick, your straight-up no-nonsense bluntness makes for good reading. But Mung...lord a mighty, I have yet to read anything from him that makes me go "Hmmm," and his jokes and sniping are space-wasters. I don't disagree with anything you wrote, but I still have a soft spot for Mung.  Somewhere around my insular cortex.  I suspect I could last as long as two beers with him before we came to blows. If Mung were buying, and if it were good beer, I would be happy to drink and listen to him hold forth about, say, the infield fly rule. Or the timing of traffic lights in New London. Or the comparative bad-ass-ness of "Master of Puppets" over "Ride the Lightning." Again, he would have to be buying, and nothing he yammers on about at TSZ would be acceptable as a topic of conversation. He's got a smidgen of spunk, and a soupcon of self-mockery, but he seems to have no interest in learning anything new. That is what is too bad.

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2017,22:04    But he owns lots of books. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 08 2017,01:58    Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 04 2017,06:04) But he owns lots of books. I love it when he quotes Schopenhauer but misses his meaning. Quote Religion is the masterpiece of the art of animal training, for it trains people as to how they shall think. -------------- "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

clamboy Posts: 299 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 13 2017,20:19    Sometimes I love Robert Byers: ETA: Bad link deleted. I suck.

Henry J Posts: 5787 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 13 2017,23:55    Heck, if you want to see poultry in motion, just watch a chicken cross a road.

Quack Posts: 1961 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2017,01:53    Quote (clamboy @ Jan. 13 2017,20:19) Sometimes I love Robert Byers: Poultry in spastic motion Link not working. Try this one: Poultry in spastic motion Edited by Quack on Jan. 14 2017,02:21 -------------- Rocks have no biology.               Robert Byers.

Quack Posts: 1961 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2017,02:07    Duplicate deleted. Edited by Quack on Jan. 14 2017,02:08 -------------- Rocks have no biology.               Robert Byers.

clamboy Posts: 299 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2017,09:25    Quote (Quack @ Jan. 14 2017,01:53) Quote (clamboy @ Jan. 13 2017,20:19) Sometimes I love Robert Byers: Poultry in spastic motion Link not working. Try this one: Poultry in spastic motion Thanks, Quack! The teevee on the typewriter n' me ain't good friends.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2017,10:16    That Byers post was just embarrassing.

Henry J Posts: 5787 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2017,16:13    Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 14 2017,09:16) That Byers post was just embarrassing. To whom? Probably not to Byers.

Texas Teach Posts: 2084 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2017,17:34    Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 14 2017,16:13) Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 14 2017,09:16) That Byers post was just embarrassing. To whom? Probably not to Byers. If Byers ever gained the capacity to feel embarrassed, I imagine his face would melt like the Nazis in Raiders. -------------- "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

Henry J Posts: 5787 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2017,18:30    You call that archaeology?

Soapy Sam Posts: 659 Joined: Jan. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2017,19:25    Not half as embarrassing as Byers on marsupials. No, that's not a street name for a new drug. -------------- SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G BTW, when you make little jabs like “I thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,” you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2017,00:29    Byers's post at TSZ really represents the creationist intellect.

Henry J Posts: 5787 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2017,17:47    Isn't "creationist intellect" an oxymoron? (I resisted saying that as long as I could, but it was futile. )

Cubist Posts: 559 Joined: Oct. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2017,20:16    Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 15 2017,17:47) Isn't "creationist intellect" an oxymoron? No, it isn't. Whatever psychological deficits may be typical of Creationists as a group, said group doesn't include any more idiots than any other population of comparable size. And it's long been noted that Creationists can be pretty sharp cookies in any context which doesn't impinge upon their essentially religious idée fixe. This doesn't suggest a deficit in IQ; rather, it suggests a highly specific deficit in rationality, possibly founded on compartmentalized thinking and a delusional belief system which has given them a great deal of emotional solace over their lifetime.

Woodbine Posts: 1218 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2017,21:08    Joe-TARD   Quote ID isn’t a mechanistic claim but design is a mechanism. Edited by Woodbine on Jan. 16 2017,03:08

paragwinn Posts: 539 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2017,21:40    Quote (Cubist @ Jan. 15 2017,18:16)   Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 15 2017,17:47) Isn't "creationist intellect" an oxymoron? No, it isn't. Whatever psychological deficits may be typical of Creationists as a group, said group doesn't include any more idiots than any other population of comparable size. And it's long been noted that Creationists can be pretty sharp cookies in any context which doesn't impinge upon their essentially religious idée fixe. This doesn't suggest a deficit in IQ; rather, it suggests a highly specific deficit in rationality, possibly founded on compartmentalized thinking and a delusional belief system which has given them a great deal of emotional solace over their lifetime. To add to the above comment, there are some other factors involved. Tempering one's confidence in one's intellectual abilities in the form of "pride comes before a fall" can lead to subordinating curiosity to faith and doctrine so that you dont lose out on the rewards that faith is supposed to bring about. Being taught that the world around you is hostile to your faith community fosters an attitude of defensiveness when one encounters "opposing" knowledge as well as a dependence on one's religious elders in pointing out whats worth knowing and what isnt. Teachings that emphasize the immutability of spiritual knowledge compared to "worldly" knowledge can foster a denigrating attitude towards rationality-based tentative approaches to issues concerning our place in the universe. These factors work to maintain one's certainty about whats in line with one's faith and about how to deal with "opposing" knowledge (or from their perspective, false so-called knowledge and undermining influences on faith). Working oneself out from under these factors takes boldness in consideration of what one fears to lose (sense of certainty, community, purpose in many situations). It's difficult to see what can be gained until the effort is well underway. -------------- 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

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2017,01:54    Quote (Woodbine @ Jan. 15 2017,22:08) Joe-TARD   Quote ID isn’t a mechanistic claim but design is a mechanism. where?

Woodbine Posts: 1218 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2017,09:46    Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 16 2017,07:54)   Quote (Woodbine @ Jan. 15 2017,22:08) Joe-TARD       Quote ID isn’t a mechanistic claim but design is a mechanism. where? http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....-....-160627

Pages: (41) < ... 25 26 27 28 29 [30] 31 32 33 34 35 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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