RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (1000) < ... 611 612 613 614 615 [616] 617 618 619 620 621 ... >   
  Topic: Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10758
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,16:23   

Quote (Glen Davidson @ Aug. 30 2007,16:21)
Another question I'd like to ask the doofus Granville: ?If we never find the killer of Jon Benet Ramsay, will IDists have sufficient reason to believe that Granville Sewell did it?

It's the same idea, that if we lack evidence that something was done by some certain phenomenon, then we can conclude that some preconceived agent was responsible. ?By ID "logic" I have every right to suppose that Granville killed Jon Benet because no other agent has been found to be responsible. ?

Fortunately, neither science nor the judiciary operates according to the staggeringly bad thinking of IDists. ?But Granville intends to fix that flaw as best he can.

Glen D

also:

http://www.frankston.com/public/?name=HolmesianFallacy

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

  
phonon



Posts: 396
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,16:25   

Hi all. It's been a while since I went to uncommondescent, but in just one swift perusal there are plenty of chuckles to be had.

The best one has got to be:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....eatures

   
Quote
What if we DID find irreducibly complex biological features?


What if? As in -we haven't- but what if we DID?

What if dog was spelled C-A-T? (obscure?)

another little humorous bit
http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwini....el-behe

   
Quote
Michael Behe has certainly given his critics a thrashing at his Amazon weblog.

O! Well, I have to see how he's thrashing all his detractors leaving nasty comments at his amazon blog.
http://www.amazon.com/gp....3512859
What's this?
   
Quote
Comments disabled

Curses foiled again!

And since the Nobel committee isn't beating down Behe's or Dembski's door any time soon, they might as well have a few victories in the science fiction category.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....i-prize
I tell, you ID is catching on! As fiction.

--------------
With most men, unbelief in one thing springs from blind belief in another. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

To do just the opposite is also a form of imitation. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10758
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,16:28   

Quote (phonon @ Aug. 30 2007,16:25)
Hi all.

You're late. Your dinner's cold...

wait - what's this? Cheesy Poof crumbs on your collar??!!

And you smell like you were in some floating fungus factory or something....


:angry:

--------------
"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: 10758
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,16:39   

"3 Anonymous Members"

I'm guessing Wes, FtK and Davetard?

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

  
Rob



Posts: 154
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,16:44   

Granville:  
Quote
In any debate on Intelligent Design, there is a question I have long wished to see posed to ID opponents: ?If we DID discover some biological feature that was irreducibly complex, to your satisfication and to the satisfaction of all reasonable observers, would that justify the design inference??

If Granville really wanted to pose that question to ID opponents, he would be doing so on a site that allows ID opponents.

BTW Granville, if we DID discover a prime number between 7 and 11, would that justify the design inference?  If we discovered a plateau that couldn't be scaled from any side, even with a temporary ramp that's extensible to any length, would we infer design, or infer that it's time to check ourselves into rehab?

--------------
-- Rob, the fartist formerly known as 2ndclass

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10758
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,17:06   

FtK (who is banned and so just a snippet)

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-134904

Basically, she moans about being moderated.

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

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1028
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,17:07   

Quote
Granville: Quote ?
Quote
In any debate on Intelligent Design, there is a question I have long wished to see posed to ID opponents: ?If we DID discover some biological feature that was irreducibly complex, to your satisfication and to the satisfaction of all reasonable observers, would that justify the design inference??


If Granville really wanted to pose that question to ID opponents, he would be doing so on a site that allows ID opponents.


Ah, but he didn't say that he wanted an intelligent answer. ?Assuming that he doesn't, it makes sense for him to ask the question among his kind, the IDiots.

They only want to ask questions, they don't want the answers, to learn, to think, or to have to bother with anyone who has gotten past bronze age myths. ?They do know one thing, which is how to avoid inconvenient answers.

And thanks, RTHughes, for the link regarding the Holmes' fallacy. ?

Glen D

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,17:12   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 30 2007,17:06)
FtK (who is banned and so just a snippet)

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-134904

Basically, she moans about being moderated.

Wow, that is some breathtaking hypocrisy, even by FTK's standards.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,18:19   

Quote (heddle @ Aug. 30 2007,15:59)
I think that Sewell's question is ill formed. Though I know little about evolution, I can easily imagine that it can produce systems that will not function if any part is removed. Nevertheless, I think what Sewell was really asking, or what I'd like to think he was asking, is this: is there any scientific observation at all, apart from the absurd (The LHC discovers "Made by God" in 300 languages etched on the side of the Higgs boson) that would make an anti-design person suddenly take the design argument seriously. I think it is an interesting question, somewhat related to the falsifiability of evolution, and I think the answer is probably, for the majority, no.

EDIT: utf coding errors

Nor can it be otherwise.  After all, A "designer" is a religious concept, not a scientific one.  So it is immune, one way or the other, to scientitif testing or evidence.

Either one has faith, or one does not.  

Which is precisely why ID is . . . well . . . a complete waste of time.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
stevestory



Posts: 10209
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,18:52   

Quote (Rob @ Aug. 30 2007,17:44)
Granville:  
Quote
In any debate on Intelligent Design, there is a question I have long wished to see posed to ID opponents: ?If we DID discover some biological feature that was irreducibly complex, to your satisfication and to the satisfaction of all reasonable observers, would that justify the design inference??

Nope.

Claim CI102:
Systems are irreducibly complex if removing any one part destroys the system's function. Irreducible complexity in organisms indicates they were designed.
Source:
Behe, Michael J., 1996. Darwin's Black Box, New York: The Free Press.
Response:

  1. Irreducible complexity is claimed to indicate (but does not) that certain systems could not have evolved gradually. However, jumping from there to the conclusion that those systems were designed is an argument from incredulity. There is nothing about irreducibly complex systems that is positive evidence for design.

  2. Irreducible complexity suggests a lack of design. For critical applications, such as keeping an organism alive, you do not want systems that will fail if any one part fails. You want systems that are robust (Steele 2000).

References:

  1. Steele, Diana. 2000. Scientists search for secrets of robust systems. Dallas Morning News, 18 Sep. 2000, Science section, http://nasw.org/users/dsteele/Stories/Robust.html

   
stevestory



Posts: 10209
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,19:00   

Quote (heddle @ Aug. 30 2007,16:59)
I think that Sewell's question is ill formed. Though I know little about evolution, I can easily imagine that it can produce systems that will not function if any part is removed. Nevertheless, I think what Sewell was really asking, or what I'd like to think he was asking, is this: is there any scientific observation at all, apart from the absurd (The LHC discovers "Made by God" in 300 languages etched on the side of the Higgs boson) that would make an anti-design person suddenly take the design argument seriously. I think it is an interesting question, somewhat related to the falsifiability of evolution, and I think the answer is probably, for the majority, no.

EDIT: utf coding errors

I'm going to muse on this question, but I'm going to do so on the Bathroom Wall, since I might wind up bashing religion.

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4820
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,20:02   

I added a comment following FtK's on my blog:

Quote

Thanks for the link to Wells's tripe. Saves me having to type it in myself. That's a truly astounding job of spinning being shown to be in error on a wide range of facts that Wells has there.

As for the delay in moderating, I do have a life away from the keyboard. Today involved a bunch of debugging routines on the robots with a colleague from the DevoLab, followed very shortly by agility lessons with Ritka. If FtK thinks her ephemeral prose deserves more attention than Ritka, she needs to think again.


--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4820
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,21:00   

And one more...

Quote

Since FtK wandered into my weblog, I thought I might wander into hers. But I got this response back,

Quote

   It doesn?t look like you have been invited to read this blog. If you think this is a mistake, you might want to contact the blog author and request an invitation.


I?m sure that?s just an oversight that FtK will correct the next time she?s at her keyboard. I won?t complain if that doesn?t happen until after the Labor Day holidays; there are more important things than computers around.


--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Richardthughes



Posts: 10758
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,22:32   

Sal reads us, apparently. Is he banned? If not, why doesn't he chat here?

http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwini....-134948

Quote
Ah, so this thread is no longer the original but has evolved into the counter part of ATBC and the Infidels Peanut Gallery.

I responded to Ms. Smith...


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

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4820
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,22:38   

Sal's account still has posting privileges; I just checked.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Hermagoras



Posts: 1260
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,23:49   

Wow, the comments at ERV's blog are fun.

--------------
"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
djmullen



Posts: 327
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,00:16   

Salvador tells the simple truth:

"...I'm just a dumb uneducated dolt who has an overinflated view of himself..."

And I'm not quote mining.  Check it yourself at https://www.blogger.com/comment....6852021

  
djmullen



Posts: 327
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,00:20   

Granville S. asks:  
Quote
In any debate on Intelligent Design, there is a question I have long wished to see posed to ID opponents: ?If we DID discover some biological feature that was irreducibly complex, to your satisfication and to the satisfaction of all reasonable observers, would that justify the design inference??
Why should it? ?Evolution can produce irreducibly complexity. ?Ever hear of scaffolding? ?Co-opting? ?Dropping needless components? ?You haven't? ?TARD!

  
djmullen



Posts: 327
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,00:45   

We've really got to do something about these extraneous question marks.

Meanwhile, "One Species? Genome Discovered Inside Another?s"
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/532850/?

?
Quote

Scientists at the University of Rochester and the J. Craig Venter Institute have discovered a copy of the genome of a bacterial parasite residing inside the genome of its host species.

The research, reported in today?s Science, also shows that lateral gene transfer?the movement of genes between unrelated species?may happen much more frequently between bacteria and multicellular organisms than scientists previously believed, posing dramatic implications for evolution, pest, and disease control.


Seems there's a parasite called Wolbachia, which "has implanted itself inside the cells of 70 percent of the world?s invertebrates". Now they've "found at least one species where the parasite?s entire or nearly entire genome has been absorbed and integrated into the host?s. The host?s genes actually hold the coding information for a completely separate species.?

Didn't I mention something about co-option in my last message? ?Here it is, on a grand scale. ?Lynn Margulis is going to win a Nobel prize yet!

Thanks to www.dvorak.org/blog for the tip

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,02:58   

Sal appears to be talking about himself now. Maybe it's some sort of therapy.
Quote
ERV went of into tangents without answering the very simple question directly and cleary on behalf of the debate.


No, really Sal? I guess you are annoyed at somebody else stealing your tricks!

Sal, there are a few unanswered questions for you over at the SciPhiShowForums....

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2709
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,07:25   

Quote
bornagain77: If RM/NS was truly the power behind the development of novel information of life on earth then ?the survival of the fittest? would belong to the most lethal (non-living) viruses since they have vastly greater access to the powers of RM/NS than higher organisms above them.

No. If a pathogen is completely lethal, it will kill every available host, exterminate the local population, and die out.

Quote
bornagain77: I found some "tentative" evidence that HIV is degrading instead of evolving, At this site:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-07/uoa-ctf071307.php

Citing some laboratory research that suggests HIVs from the late 1980s are more virulent than HIVs from the 2000s, Worobey added, "For HIV, the really cool thing is that these changes can take place on a more rapid timeline that previously thought."

Learning comes slowly to some people--but if bornagain77 can only put the two thoughts together. A tendency to reduced virulence is a *prediction* of the Theory of Evolution.

(A weak appeal to authority would be appropriate. Why don't the scientists working in this area of research consider this to be an evolutionary paradox? Perhaps because it's not a paradox. Maybe even read the journal article. "If this infection is relatively recent, then avirulence may have evolved over a shorter time frame than previously suggested. This finding could have implications for the future trajectory of HIV disease severity.")


Hypothesized SIVagm Transmission Pattern across sub-Saharan Africa

Quote
bornagain77: If the virus is in reality slowly degrading into a less virulent form it would be hard evidence for the Genetic entropy of the virus and would effectively refute any assertions of evolution occurring in the virus..

Killing a host is easy. Coopting their cellular apparatus while leaving them alive to spread the disease is not so easy.

--------------
Proudly banned three four five times by Uncommon Descent.
There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,07:35   

Quote
If the virus is in reality slowly degrading into a less virulent form it would be hard evidence for the Genetic entropy of the virus and would effectively refute any assertions of evolution occurring in the virus..


I'm not particularly knowledgeable in this field, but I did know that virulence becoming degraded is normal and expected. What good a virus that kills it's host before it's had a chance to infect another host?

If I remember correctly, there were some predictions that the time HIV takes to kill you will eventually be longer then the human lifespan and so the virus becomes just another passenger on humanity. There might be other proven instances of this already, I don't know.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,07:58   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 31 2007,15:35)
 
Quote
If the virus is in reality slowly degrading into a less virulent form it would be hard evidence for the Genetic entropy of the virus and would effectively refute any assertions of evolution occurring in the virus..


I'm not particularly knowledgeable in this field, but I did know that virulence becoming degraded is normal and expected. What good a virus that kills it's host before it's had a chance to infect another host?

If I remember correctly, there were some predictions that the time HIV takes to kill you will eventually be longer then the human lifespan and so the virus becomes just another passenger on humanity. There might be other proven instances of this already, I don't know.

Oh for Christ's sake don't say that.

AIDS is GOD's way of getting rid of HOMOS!

If AID's is becomming less virulent then that means GOD loves homo haters less, and we know GOD loves homo haters RIGHT?.

How can you say that? Do you hate GOD? HOMO?

AND ANOTHER THING!

ID states that no new information can be born...right?

SO that means everything is degrading since the garden of Eden....right?

So WHY WOULD GOD MAKE AIDS LESS HOMO KILLIN'?? ?HOMOS!!!!!

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,09:14   

Quote (Zachriel @ Aug. 31 2007,07:25)
?  
Quote
bornagain77: If RM/NS was truly the power behind the development of novel information of life on earth then ?the survival of the fittest? would belong to the most lethal (non-living) viruses since they have vastly greater access to the powers of RM/NS than higher organisms above them.

No. If a pathogen is completely lethal, it will kill every available host, exterminate the local population, and die out.

This is ridiculous. I've understood that since high school science classes. Bornagain77 seems to think that the 'goal' of a virus -- a sign of its adaptive success -- is to kill as many people as possible. If he can't understand that the real goal of a virus is to simply reproduce and spread itself as widely as possible, and that quickly killing your host runs counter to this, then I think we have more evidence that he's 16 years old and (badly) home-schooled.
History is full of terrifying diseases that popped up, killed too many people too fast, quickly burned themselves out, and were never heard from again.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,09:27   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 31 2007,09:14)
This is ridiculous. I've understood that since high school science classes. Bornagain77 seems to think that the 'goal' of a virus -- a sign of its adaptive success -- is to kill as many people as possible. If he can't understand that the real goal of a virus is to simply reproduce and spread itself as widely as possible, and that quickly killing your host runs counter to this, then I think we have more evidence that he's 16 years old and (badly) home-schooled.
History is full of terrifying diseases that popped up, killed too many people too fast, quickly burned themselves out, and were never heard from again.

IDers in general have a problem with host/pathogen interactions and co-evolution of same.

One of my most interesting interactions on FtK's dear departed blog was an attempt to get her (and DaveTard) to think about the reason why some nosocomial pathogens are actually becoming MORE virulent, contrary to the typical pattern seen with pathogens in the wild. This was part of a discussion re Dr. Egnoramus' assertion that doctors don't need to learn about evolution, since it has no relevance to their jobs. It turns out that pathogens that live in hospitals don't have to depend on the host to spread them to new hosts, like most pathogens do. If you kill your host too fast, they won't bring you near some new hosts. In a hospital the pathogens can rely on their hosts coming to them; attenuation of virulence that is selected for under "wild" conditions is not selected for in a hospital setting.

Personally, I think doctors and other health-care professionals need to understand how selection works, and this is a good example of why. Ftk and DaveTard, naturally, were unable to think this problem through to a logical conclusion, but even after the answer was pointed out to them, they pretended that it really was not a good reason for doctors to learn about evolution.

I hope they never get sick...

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
† † † † † † † † † † † † - Pattiann Rogers

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10758
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,09:31   

FtK's incredulity would be a science stopper, if her opinion counted for anything:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-135013

Quote
I simply can?t imagine that Darwin is going to be the saving grace from ?over-population, pollution, starvation, disease and conflict? in the world.

Good grief?


Hmmm... Not wanting to get all Pianka, but diseases will fair better against people if their are lots of them. Pollution - well nylonase is thriving, what other consumers of waste will RM + NS create? Starvation - understanding pests life cycles can increase yiel., Disease - antibiotic resistance, anyone? Conflict.. dunno about that one.

--------------
"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: 10758
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,09:38   

Denyse...Waterloo...

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....picture

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,09:50   

FTK shows her deep deep ignorance!

Quote
The peppered moth provides ?proof of evolution?. *eyes rolling* It provides proof that the mechanisms of evolution are certainly observable in nature, but even Jacob in OT history understood how natural selection worked.


Quote
Jacob, however, got some fresh shoots of poplar, almond and plane trees, and he made white stripes in them by peeling off the bark down to the white core of the shoots.
38
The rods that he had thus peeled he then set upright in the watering troughs, so that they would be in front of the animals that drank from the troughs. When the animals were in heat as they came to drink,
39
the goats mated by the rods, and so they brought forth streaked, speckled and spotted kids.


I strongly suspect Jacob did not understand natural selection. If this is what FTK understands as natural selection "she" is far far far more gone then I ever thought.

How Natural Selection Works

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10758
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,11:29   

Slimey Sal Sez:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwini....-135017

Quote
PS
Can Hermagoras spell the word ?YES?? What sort of sweet things are they saying about me over at ERV? Keep me posted.


You're not banned, Sal. You can go there (or here) and find out for yourself. ?Of course, like the EF thread on the SCI phi show, your 'arguments' get quickly destroyed and you flee back to the reality proof safety of UD.

--------------
"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: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,11:44   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 31 2007,19:29)
Slimey Sal Sez:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwini....-135017

 
Quote
PS
Can Hermagoras spell the word ?YES?? What sort of sweet things are they saying about me over at ERV? Keep me posted.


You're not banned, Sal. You can go there (or here) and find out for yourself. ?Of course, like the EF thread on the SCI phi show, your 'arguments' get quickly destroyed and you flee back to the reality proof safety of UD.

It must be hard to be a blamange a stiff non-descript peice of vegetable.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
  29999 replies since Jan. 16 2006,11:43 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (1000) < ... 611 612 613 614 615 [616] 617 618 619 620 621 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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