RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (324) < ... 187 188 189 190 191 [192] 193 194 195 196 197 ... >   
  Topic: Joe G.'s Tardgasm, How long can it last?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2013,07:33   

Please tell us more of what you know about "grammer", Joe

:D

--------------
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

  
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2013,07:35   

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 07 2013,04:30)
Quote (The whole truth @ Mar. 01 2013,23:46)
Hey joey, you say:

"IOW complex specified information is a term to differentiate between Shannon Information and information that has a specific meaning."

But dumbski, your fearful leader, says:

"To define CSI requires only the mereological and statistical aspects of information. No syntax or theory of meaning is required."


Which one of you IDiots is wrong?

twit- you are a moron. Dembski is saying that we do NOT have to know the meaning- and we don't.

Tell you what, joey, measure and define the CSI in the sentence below, using only the mereological and statistical aspects of information, and do not include anything that has to do with syntax or theory of meaning.

'You are a muslim IDiot-creationist.'

After you do that, get dumbski to come here and say whether he agrees with your measurement and definition.

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2013,08:03   

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 07 2013,04:33)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 01 2013,19:35)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 01 2013,15:03)
[url=http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/information]information[/a]:

b: the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something (as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific effects See also “Meyer, “Signature in the Cell” page 86

When Shannon developed his information theory he was not concerned about "specific effects". Shannon was looking for a way to quantify information, regardless of any meaning. Shannon gave us a way to check for a proper transmission (across a communication channel) and storage of information, counting bits. He also gave us a way to figure out the information carrying capacity of any signal.
He did that by linking information to uncertainty and then linking that to measures of probability.
But anyway, that is why Dembski used “specified information”- Specified Information is Shannon Information with meaning/ function. Meaning/ function is observed and then Shannon’s methodology is applied to quantify it.
So when IDists speak of "information" we are talking about specified information. THAT is the information used in and associated with information technology and everyday living. It is also the "information" without which communication would be impossible.

So even Dembski admits that information does not equal meaning.

Otherwise you would have information + information, which is just silly.

Another own goal from JoeG.  Give him a hand folks.

No, Dembski does not admit that information does not equal meaning.

Everyone in the world knows that information = meaning. That is how the word is normally used, dipshit.

"Everyone in the world knows that information = meaning."


"Dembski is saying that we do NOT have to know the meaning- and we don't."

So, joey, you're claiming that the information in CSI must have meaning but you're also claiming the you do not have to know the meaning of the information in CSI to do, uh, what? Measure and define the CSI in sentences, organisms, or something else?

And how much CSI is there in a water molecule?

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2013,08:27   

Joe, here's one that talks about measuring the kinetics (no, not kinetic energy) of a single molecule: http://bernstein.harvard.edu/papers....996.pdf

Although, since temperature is merely a measure of kinetic motion of a molecule and they can monitor one in the picosecond time frame, then a temperature measurement can be determined.

Here's one in which they 'melt' a single molecule of DNA: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc....1301382

How can that be Joe, since a single molecule can't be liquid according to you.

I already said that I had not stated the parameters perfectly and would have willingly accepted two different answers.  One of which makes sense because I described the system as closed.  The other is easily determinable with a google search on energy of water disassociation.

However, you, Joe completely failed to do any of that and instead tried to argue that "mol" equals "molecule".  This is typical of you, arguing about something that is well established (see information below) and trying to make it sound like you know what's going on.

It's painfully obvious to all of us that, until we laughed at you for it, you had no clue what a 'mol' was.  Sorry, but that's the simple truth.  You can bluster and scream and threaten all you want to, but that's the impression that everyone got... not just me.

If you would, perhaps, think things through before opening your mouth (or typing and hitting 'send'), then it would save you a lot of embarrassment.  You can still act like a jerk, I'd never try and take that away from you.  I'm merely suggesting that you learn about things before posting on them.  And posting someone else's comments with no context or verifiable evidence is not 'learning'.

As far as information

Information = meaning is a red herring.
1) scientists do not use it that way when talking about information.
2) It doesn't matter what everyone "thinks" it means.  Most of the people in the US think "theory" means "hypothesis".  That doesn't mean that "theory" DOES mean "hypothesis".  It just means that most people are ignorant (as you are about information).

I think you've inspired another blog post Joe.  Thanks.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1774
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2013,09:37   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 07 2013,07:33)
So ronrey!

So very very ronrey!

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2013,11:19   

Ah yes, here's exactly what I said
Quote
Hey Joe, trick question, in a closed system how does the entropy of one mole of water change as it disassociates into hydrogen and oxygen?  How does the entropy change as the disassociated gases recombine into water?


Here's the link for STeve's benefit (and it is funny).  (Thanks blipey)

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y203116

But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Henry J



Posts: 4594
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 08 2013,11:24   

So he thinks the word "water" is specific to lots of molecules in the liquid state? That's about word usage (although his does seem to differ from what I'm used to), rather than the underlying subject matter.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 08 2013,11:30   

Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 08 2013,11:24)
So he thinks the word "water" is specific to lots of molecules in the liquid state? That's about word usage (although his does seem to differ from what I'm used to), rather than the underlying subject matter.

Almost everything Joe argues about is word usage rather than the underlying concepts.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 555
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 08 2013,13:39   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 08 2013,12:30)
   
Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 08 2013,11:24)
So he thinks the word "water" is specific to lots of molecules in the liquid state? That's about word usage (although his does seem to differ from what I'm used to), rather than the underlying subject matter.

Almost everything Joe argues about is word usage rather than the underlying concepts.

And almost every creIDiot ends up trying to support their arguments through redefinition of words, sooner rather than later.  This inevitably fails anyway, because even if you grant them their idiosyncratic definitions, they use them in fallacious arguments that can't support a hypothesis no matter what premises are given.

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 08 2013,23:42   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 08 2013,09:30)
Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 08 2013,11:24)
So he thinks the word "water" is specific to lots of molecules in the liquid state? That's about word usage (although his does seem to differ from what I'm used to), rather than the underlying subject matter.

Almost everything Joe argues about is word usage rather than the underlying concepts.

That's because joey only uses the Gallien Dictionary Of Tard, which was scribbled by joey on a cardboard box with a broken crayon.  :)

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2013,19:11   

Joey,

The next time you send a letter to the admins at Skeptic Ink complaining that I misrepresented something, you might actually state the things I misrepresent.

It might, though I doubt it, interest you to know that everything I said came from kairofocus' website.

You don't like what I say, then complain to him.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2013,01:21   



--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
Ptaylor



Posts: 1008
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2013,20:45   

Joe's latest, with a little gem of a sentence tucked away inside it:
     
Quote
Alan Fox:

     
Quote
   I don’t know how long you have been following this site. There was a commenter using the pseudonym “Mathgrrl” (real name Patrick May) who spet a while asking for a demonstration of how to calculate CSI.


And it was provided. All Patty did was say it wasn’t good enough- IOW he acted like the bratty child he is.

It was very telling that Pat could never give us anything from his positiion that we could could compare CSI against. It’s easy to disagree- any child can do that. However Pat could never provide any reason nor anything that he accepts that we could compare with.

     
Quote
   I am sure the “laws” of this present universe are not violated in ant colonies.


The point is that the laws alone cannot account for any colonies (nor termite mounds nor beaver dams).

UD link, the bolding is mine.
Anyone, please help - does Joe have a complete lack of self awareness, or is he simply speaking from experience?

--------------
We no longer say: “Another day; another bad day for Darwinism.” We now say: “Another day since the time Darwinism was disproved.”
-PaV, Uncommon Descent, 19 June 2016

  
Henry J



Posts: 4594
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2013,22:12   

Quote
Anyone, please help - does Joe have a complete lack of self awareness, or is he simply speaking from experience?

I'm not aware of the answer to that question!

  
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 555
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2013,03:47   

Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 12 2013,23:12)
 
Quote
Anyone, please help - does Joe have a complete lack of self awareness, or is he simply speaking from experience?

I'm not aware of the answer to that question!

Of all the hyperenergetic IDC trolls on the inTardnets, I find Joe the least interesting to try to understand.

He's just an asshole.

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2013,08:00   

He's not really more boring than the other deluminaries. KF, gpuccio, upright, Hunter, Gary. He's just more profane.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10758
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2013,09:30   

Quote (Ptaylor @ Mar. 12 2013,20:45)
Joe's latest, with a little gem of a sentence tucked away inside it:
     
Quote
Alan Fox:

     
Quote
   I don’t know how long you have been following this site. There was a commenter using the pseudonym “Mathgrrl” (real name Patrick May) who spet a while asking for a demonstration of how to calculate CSI.


And it was provided. All Patty did was say it wasn’t good enough- IOW he acted like the bratty child he is.

It was very telling that Pat could never give us anything from his positiion that we could could compare CSI against. It’s easy to disagree- any child can do that. However Pat could never provide any reason nor anything that he accepts that we could compare with.

     
Quote
   I am sure the “laws” of this present universe are not violated in ant colonies.


The point is that the laws alone cannot account for any colonies (nor termite mounds nor beaver dams).

UD link, the bolding is mine.
Anyone, please help - does Joe have a complete lack of self awareness, or is he simply speaking from experience?

Funny how he never mentions CAEK.

--------------
"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

  
k.e..



Posts: 3789
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2013,09:55   



--------------
"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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10758
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2013,13:06   

Joey 3 chins is so stupid:

Quote
KeithS is a clueless tard. Back on Dec 7, 2012 keiths sed:


Intelligent design proponents make a negative argument for design.

No, we don't. Every design inference needs to eliminate necessity and chance first.

...


So its a positive argument based on ruling tings out... :p  NOT this THEREFORE that.

--------------
"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

  
Kattarina98



Posts: 1266
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2013,12:59   

Joe jeopardizes his place in heaven!111!!!one

Alan Fox proposed that KF join the discussion at the Skeptical Zone where he would be welcome, Mung doubted the friendly atmosphere, and Joe answered thusly:    
Quote
   
Quote
Strange. My own experience over at TSZ was just the opposite of what you claim KF could expect if he went there.


Mung:
I second that and can prove it.


The only one who tried to drag Lizzie's site into the gutter - wasn't that you, Joe, when you posted graphic porn?

--------------
Barry Arrington is a bitch.

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2013,13:15   

Do they think friendliness means agreement?

Just hop over to SZ and everyone will bow down and worship your brilliance?

The point of these sites is to shine light on disagreements. I've seen very few conversions. At best, everyone gets to put his own argument is the best possible terms, without being banned.

Something not possible at any ID site, with the possible exception of Hunter's.

(I suspect the reason Glen Morton took his stuff down is that it did include conversions.)

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Robin



Posts: 1431
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2013,13:44   

Quote (Kattarina98 @ Mar. 19 2013,12:59)
Joe jeopardizes his place in heaven!111!!!one

Alan Fox proposed that KF join the discussion at the Skeptical Zone where he would be welcome, Mung doubted the friendly atmosphere, and Joe answered thusly:      
Quote
     
Quote
Strange. My own experience over at TSZ was just the opposite of what you claim KF could expect if he went there.


Mung:
I second that and can prove it.


The only one who tried to drag Lizzie's site into the gutter - wasn't that you, Joe, when you posted graphic porn?

KF doubts the friendly atmosphere too:

Quote
PS: My experience of the attitude and behaviour of some of those harboured at various objector sites, and the lack of policing of abusive commentary leads me to the conclusion that — apart from to make a simple statement for record — there is no point in trying to argue a matter on the merits with those who have no intention of being reasonable, have every intention of being abusive [including threatening my family], and/or with those who enable or harbour such.


"...Yeah...and I'm gonna be back to talk about them Rolexes."*


*MIB

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10758
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2013,13:52   

Quote (Robin @ Mar. 19 2013,13:44)
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Mar. 19 2013,12:59)
Joe jeopardizes his place in heaven!111!!!one

Alan Fox proposed that KF join the discussion at the Skeptical Zone where he would be welcome, Mung doubted the friendly atmosphere, and Joe answered thusly:      
Quote
     
Quote
Strange. My own experience over at TSZ was just the opposite of what you claim KF could expect if he went there.


Mung:
I second that and can prove it.


The only one who tried to drag Lizzie's site into the gutter - wasn't that you, Joe, when you posted graphic porn?

KF doubts the friendly atmosphere too:

Quote
PS: My experience of the attitude and behaviour of some of those harboured at various objector sites, and the lack of policing of abusive commentary leads me to the conclusion that — apart from to make a simple statement for record — there is no point in trying to argue a matter on the merits with those who have no intention of being reasonable, have every intention of being abusive [including threatening my family], and/or with those who enable or harbour such.


"...Yeah...and I'm gonna be back to talk about them Rolexes."*


*MIB



--------------
"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

  
Kattarina98



Posts: 1266
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2013,12:33   

Over on his ronery blog Joe rants:
Quote
Over on Amazon discussions I am having a back-and-forth with a few assholes- John Grove, Richie "cupcake" Hughes and Ray O'Keefe Cruit, they of the little pee-pee.


Rich, may we have a linky to the fun?

--------------
Barry Arrington is a bitch.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10758
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2013,12:56   

Quote (Kattarina98 @ Mar. 20 2013,12:33)
Over on his ronery blog Joe rants:
 
Quote
Over on Amazon discussions I am having a back-and-forth with a few assholes- John Grove, Richie "cupcake" Hughes and Ray O'Keefe Cruit, they of the little pee-pee.


Rich, may we have a linky to the fun?

Surprisingly, they're deleting his comments.

http://www.amazon.com/review.....ML1X28E

Joe: Kids - you can't use amazon any more

Kids: Are you being a dick on the Internet again, Dad? Please don't post any more porn. You're such an embarrassment. I wish I was adopted.

Editz4spellz

Edited by Richardthughes on Mar. 20 2013,13:10

--------------
"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

  
Kattarina98



Posts: 1266
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2013,13:06   

Thanks!

--------------
Barry Arrington is a bitch.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10758
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2013,13:34   

For LULZ, please enjoy joe being caught telling a whopper (henceforth Cupcakegate).

here's the dialogue from untelligent reasoning:

 
Quote

"John Grove- Ignorant Blowhard EvoTARD"

11 Comments - Show Original Post Collapse comments






1 – 11 of 11


Rich Hughes said...
Shhhh big guy its okay... there there.. don't cry. Have a donut.

Oh, Here's me calling you 'cupcake' back in '07. Sorry but get your own material, chubs. Even my 5 year old stuff is too good for you:

http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2007.......on.html


SO RONREY, FATTY?

1:56 AM

Joe G said...
And Captain Coward shows up spewing more bullshit cowardice.

I have been calling people "cupcake" for decades Richie. You didn't invent the word you egomaniac faggot.

6:25 AM



Rich Hughes said...
Sorry cupcake, the first recorded instance is of me calling you Cupcake. Sorry it was so devastating that five years later you're still not over it.

11:06 AM

Joe G said...
LoL! As predicted, the egomaniac faggot thinks he invented it because he ahs the first recorded instance? Really Richie? There isn't a recorded instance of me using the word "cupcake" to describe a person?

Do you want to bet on that?

1:24 PM



Rich Hughes said...
No-one said I invented it, Joe (strawmantastic). Goes to show how good your predictions are. The point is it shows how much it affected you, and you're still not over it.

Poor fatty.

1:27 PM

Joe G said...
Well if you didn't invent it then you copied it. And if you copied it tat means you are not very bright- your own words.

And nice to see that your egomania is still intact...

1:52 PM



Rich Hughes said...
"Well if you didn't invent it then you copied it"

So you're caught lying again, suprise!

It just amuses me that it still hurts you so much, 5 years later. MAN UP!



1:56 PM

Joe G said...
Richie, you think that you invented it. You didn't say it but you think it. Otherwise there wouldn't be any reason for you to attack me about using the word.

And BTW I called evos cupcakes in my posts before 2007.

You lose fuckface

2:01 PM

Joe G said...
My use of "cupcakes" in 2006:

poor clueless cupcakes

So Richie read that and then came back to my blog and used it for hos own.

LOSER

2:05 PM



Rich Hughes said...
Here comes Joe's meltdown:

"Richie, you think that you invented it"

No, I don't.

"You didn't say it but you think it"

Don't waste your gift of telepathy here, Tardman, when there's so much unsolved crime!

"Otherwise there wouldn't be any reason for you to attack me about using the word."

Attack!!!? I'm laugh at you, and your complete lack of intelligence and creativity when engaging me. All you can do is parrot back what others say. Because your are an idiot. Really really stupid.

2:07 PM



Rich Hughes said...
Why doesn't google cache have a refence of that in your fully indexed blog?

2:12 PM


Now then, not being stupid like Joe, I can actually check the google cache:




and with Joe's recent change:



It bothers him so much he went back to change a post to prentend he used it first, without understanding how the internet works. And he's a 'design detective'.

Thanks for the laughs Joe, you are king of the tards.

Editz4Picz - thanks Katrina!

Edited by Richardthughes on Mar. 21 2013,14:53

--------------
"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

  
Kattarina98



Posts: 1266
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2013,13:42   

The link to the first image doesn't work for me.

--------------
Barry Arrington is a bitch.

  
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 555
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2013,14:03   

Quote (Kattarina98 @ Mar. 21 2013,14:42)
The link to the first image doesn't work for me.

first one works for me, second one doesn't.

not that i need further evidence that joe's a belligerent dishonest blowTard

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
Robin



Posts: 1431
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2013,14:08   

Quote (Kattarina98 @ Mar. 21 2013,13:42)
The link to the first image doesn't work for me.

The link to the second image doesn't work for me, but the first one works fine. So there! ...or something...

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
  9690 replies since Feb. 24 2010,12:00 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (324) < ... 187 188 189 190 191 [192] 193 194 195 196 197 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]