RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (356) < ... 229 230 231 232 233 [234] 235 236 237 238 239 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 4, Fostering a Greater Understanding of IDC< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Zachriel



Posts: 2613
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2012,07:54   

Quote
Mung: And even if my inference is wrong, I can still make the inference.

Heh. Think weíre trying to make *valid* inferences.

--------------
Not joey

   
Freddie



Posts: 366
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2012,09:45   

page bug.

--------------
Joe: Most criticisims of ID stem from ignorance and jealousy.
Joe: As for the authors of the books in the Bible, well the OT was authored by Moses and the NT was authored by various people.
Byers: The eskimo would not need hairy hair growth as hair, I say, is for keeping people dry. Not warm.

  
Freddie



Posts: 366
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2012,10:28   



Joe must be confident in his position at UD these days - the KF love-in has borne fruit. †I'm not sure KF will get the inference that all those at TSZ are 'cunts' which is clearly what Joe is implying. †

Perhaps there is someone over there that can help Joe with his question ...

--------------
Joe: Most criticisims of ID stem from ignorance and jealousy.
Joe: As for the authors of the books in the Bible, well the OT was authored by Moses and the NT was authored by various people.
Byers: The eskimo would not need hairy hair growth as hair, I say, is for keeping people dry. Not warm.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10325
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2012,10:41   

Quote (Freddie @ Oct. 20 2012,10:28)


Joe must be confident in his position at UD these days - the KF love-in has borne fruit. †I'm not sure KF will get the inference that all those at TSZ are 'cunts' which is clearly what Joe is implying. †

Perhaps there is someone over there that can help Joe with his question ...

Who says "tunie"? What a child.

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

  
The whole truth



Posts: 1177
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2012,16:59   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 20 2012,08:41)
Quote (Freddie @ Oct. 20 2012,10:28)


Joe must be confident in his position at UD these days - the KF love-in has borne fruit. †I'm not sure KF will get the inference that all those at TSZ are 'cunts' which is clearly what Joe is implying. †

Perhaps there is someone over there that can help Joe with his question ...

Who says "tunie"? What a child.

And to think that the holier-than-thou IDiots at UD go on and on and on about their so-called 'grounded morals'.

Imagine how the IDiots would react if it were an ID opponent who made the "tunie" remarks and had posted the picture or a link to it on UD.

--------------
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: 3353
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2012,19:32   

Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 20 2012,16:59)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 20 2012,08:41)
Quote (Freddie @ Oct. 20 2012,10:28)


Joe must be confident in his position at UD these days - the KF love-in has borne fruit. †I'm not sure KF will get the inference that all those at TSZ are 'cunts' which is clearly what Joe is implying. †

Perhaps there is someone over there that can help Joe with his question ...

Who says "tunie"? What a child.

And to think that the holier-than-thou IDiots at UD go on and on and on about their so-called 'grounded morals'.

Imagine how the IDiots would react if it were an ID opponent who made the "tunie" remarks and had posted the picture or a link to it on UD.

Any amount of Joe's explanations?  Nope... no sane person could understand Joe's explanations.

Of course, a sane person wouldn't be in the ID camp either.  

Insanity trying to convince sanity.  Nope, not gonna happen.

Hey Joe.  "Fuck you, moron." is NOT an explanation of ID... or maybe it is.  I'm sane, so I can't understand those people.

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

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

   
The whole truth



Posts: 1177
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2012,05:44   

Here's something to consider: If joey g was designed, just think what his designer must be like.  :O

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

   
REC



Posts: 574
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2012,11:13   

KF retroactively modifies his post against the lone voice of dissent left on UD:

Quote
Jerad: Did you add your PS later? I donít remember seeing it before, I certainly did not skip it on purpose.

(KF quoted) PS: ... The exchange on what p(T|H) ó probability of being in a special describable zone T on chance ó is a manifestation of reading to snip and snipe, not to seriously address the matter.


We know how this goes..first, he's sniping and snipping" then willfully misunderstanding, then it is blood libel and the nuclear tripwire.

It seems like the majority of the UD regs have been put off by their colleagues' behavior. No Gil. Hunter shut down his comments on his blog (because of Joe's potty mouth) and doesn't comment at UD. Sal is gone. PaV posts OPs, but no discussion.

  
stevestory



Posts: 9037
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2012,19:44   

So ID Creationism was born with brain defects, stumbled around for a few years sticking its hand in the toaster, falling backwards onto the grill, stumbling into the piranha pond, using the hair dryer in the jaccuzi, then got stabbed in the neck after trying to run a con on Judge Jones, and is now in a vegetative state with no brain function while the Discovery Institute agonizes over pulling the plug...

...but obviously the creationists aren't giving up. Anybody got a line on what their next strategy will be?

   
olegt



Posts: 1390
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2012,19:55   

Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 21 2012,19:44)
So ID Creationism was born with brain defects, stumbled around for a few years sticking its hand in the toaster, falling backwards onto the grill, stumbling into the piranha pond, using the hair dryer in the jaccuzi, then got stabbed in the neck after trying to run a con on Judge Jones, and is now in a vegetative state with no brain function while the Discovery Institute agonizes over pulling the plug...

...but obviously the creationists aren't giving up. Anybody got a line on what their next strategy will be?

Let Joe Gallien represent himself in the next court case?

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout Ľ

  
sparc



Posts: 1736
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2012,01:48   

Wouldn't one expect that those who started the dFSCI et al. game define the term? pure gold TARD

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
k.e..



Posts: 3073
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2012,05:57   

Quote (sparc @ Oct. 22 2012,09:48)
Wouldn't one expect that those who started the dFSCI et al. game define the term? pure gold TARD

Well it looks like UD expurgated censored our very own Dr Elizabeth Liddle's attempts to get just those terms defined.....it appears they're not actually numbers, unless you count arm waving. Thus it can be deduced that the number is infinite......

But for the LULZ and Steve Story's benefit....

May 2011
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-liddle
Quote
I wish to publicly commend UD commenters ellazimm and Dr Elizabeth Liddle for their seriousness, civility, responsiveness in dialogue, and general positive tone.

We need more objectors like these ladies. And, I hope that, increasingly, we will have them.

Ladies, well done. † END



And ALMOST a year later

http://theidiotsofintelligentdesign.blogspot.com.au/2012.......th.html

Quote
kairosfocus
January 22, 2012 at 1:16 am

Dr Liddle:

Sorry, that will not wash.

You plainly enmeshed yourself in what is obviously a derail attempt on a thread that is SUPPOSED to be about the front-loading hypothesis.

You provided what seemed to be the innocent aside that I accommodated by giving a simplified explanation, making a pause in a fairly busy day for that. ES then dropped the other shoe, and you neatly referred to his comments as though nothing was out of order.

If this were a thread on something more closely related or a theme that was not significant and largely new to many of UDís readership, and a guest post by someone who is somewhat of a critic of UD and the debates/tone that too often crop up here, I would be far more tolerant.

But right now, this looks uncommonly like dumping garbage on your neighbourís newly mown lawn, when he is entertaining guests. (And, remember, I just had to call Joe and PG to order. Is this any way to treat a guest? Can you understand how I feel like the parent having to correct a child who decides to act up in front of guests? [That noise you hear is foot tapping and old Mr Leathers being limbered up to be applied to the seat of learning with vigour. Six of the best is about right . . . ])

I hope you understand why I went livid on seeing such, repeated.

The Caribbean word for this is: broughtupcy.

As in, the plain want of it. And, no less than FOUR UD regulars have been implicated.

Surely, we can do better than this!


(And a bunch of other blather)

From here:

[URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/biology/id-foundations-15a-a-testable-id-hypothesis-front-loading-part-a-a-guest-post-by-genomicus



/comment-page-1/#comment-416434]http://www.uncommondescent.com/biology....-416434[/URL]
--------------------------------------

So, gordo has resorted to an implied, if not explicit threat: "and old Mr Leathers being limbered up to be applied to the seat of learning with vigour. Six of the best is about right . . ."

If anyone were to say ANYthing like that to him you better believe that he would totally freak out and would be SCREAMING I've been threatened! I've been threatened! I've been threatened Mafioso style! He even claims that it's a threat, slander, and outing tactics when someone simply addresses him by, or mentions, his real name!

His threatening desire to dish out a beating with "old Mr. Leathers" ("good Guyana cane") is obviously not only aimed at Elizabeth Liddle, but also at the other three in the "FOUR", and I don't believe for a nanosecond that he's thinking that joe is part of that "FOUR". He's obviously referring to Peter Griffin, eigenstate, Elizabeth Liddle, and woodford. He must have forgotten about Petrushka.

And think about the fact that he has named his instrument of abuse, "old Mr. Leathers". Obviously it's a near and dear friend that he turns to on a regular basis, to enforce his tyrannical demands.

That UD let's that maniac (gordo) post there is all that anyone should need, to see that the IDiots who run and promote that site and its dishonest agenda are the lowest of the low. ALL of the IDiots are mental cases.

Keep in mind that gordo uses the 'guilt by association' crap all the time, including in that thread with his "enmesh" and other attacks on Elizabeth Liddle. Consider that when it comes to all the birds of a feather IDiots who associate with gordo on UD.

I'm sure that gordo would also like to beat me with his "old Mr. Leathers", and I really wish he would try. Man do I wish he would try. I'm also sure that if he and I were face to face that he would run away screaming in fright. "Bydand", my ass. He's a sniveling, spineless COWARD.





Posted by The whole truth at 12:25 AM


--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"Abbie Smith (ERV) who's got to be the most obnoxious arrogant snot I've ever seen except for when I look in a mirror" DAVE TARD
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus

  
The whole truth



Posts: 1177
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2012,07:41   

Quote (k.e.. @ Oct. 22 2012,03:57)
Quote (sparc @ Oct. 22 2012,09:48)
Wouldn't one expect that those who started the dFSCI et al. game define the term? pure gold TARD

Well it looks like UD expurgated censored our very own Dr Elizabeth Liddle's attempts to get just those terms defined.....it appears they're not actually numbers, unless you count arm waving. Thus it can be deduced that the number is infinite......

But for the LULZ and Steve Story's benefit....

May 2011
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-liddle
†  
Quote
I wish to publicly commend UD commenters ellazimm and Dr Elizabeth Liddle for their seriousness, civility, responsiveness in dialogue, and general positive tone.

We need more objectors like these ladies. And, I hope that, increasingly, we will have them.

Ladies, well done. † END



And ALMOST a year later

http://theidiotsofintelligentdesign.blogspot.com.au/2012.......th.html

 
Quote
kairosfocus
January 22, 2012 at 1:16 am

Dr Liddle:

Sorry, that will not wash.

You plainly enmeshed yourself in what is obviously a derail attempt on a thread that is SUPPOSED to be about the front-loading hypothesis.

You provided what seemed to be the innocent aside that I accommodated by giving a simplified explanation, making a pause in a fairly busy day for that. ES then dropped the other shoe, and you neatly referred to his comments as though nothing was out of order.

If this were a thread on something more closely related or a theme that was not significant and largely new to many of UDís readership, and a guest post by someone who is somewhat of a critic of UD and the debates/tone that too often crop up here, I would be far more tolerant.

But right now, this looks uncommonly like dumping garbage on your neighbourís newly mown lawn, when he is entertaining guests. (And, remember, I just had to call Joe and PG to order. Is this any way to treat a guest? Can you understand how I feel like the parent having to correct a child who decides to act up in front of guests? [That noise you hear is foot tapping and old Mr Leathers being limbered up to be applied to the seat of learning with vigour. Six of the best is about right . . . ])

I hope you understand why I went livid on seeing such, repeated.

The Caribbean word for this is: broughtupcy.

As in, the plain want of it. And, no less than FOUR UD regulars have been implicated.

Surely, we can do better than this!


(And a bunch of other blather)

From here:

[URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/biology/id-foundations-15a-a-testable-id-hypothesis-front-loading-part-a-a-guest-post-by-genomicus




/comment-page-1/#comment-416434]http://www.uncommondescent.com/biology....-416434[/URL]
--------------------------------------

So, gordo has resorted to an implied, if not explicit threat: "and old Mr Leathers being limbered up to be applied to the seat of learning with vigour. Six of the best is about right . . ."

If anyone were to say ANYthing like that to him you better believe that he would totally freak out and would be SCREAMING I've been threatened! I've been threatened! I've been threatened Mafioso style! He even claims that it's a threat, slander, and outing tactics when someone simply addresses him by, or mentions, his real name!

His threatening desire to dish out a beating with "old Mr. Leathers" ("good Guyana cane") is obviously not only aimed at Elizabeth Liddle, but also at the other three in the "FOUR", and I don't believe for a nanosecond that he's thinking that joe is part of that "FOUR". He's obviously referring to Peter Griffin, eigenstate, Elizabeth Liddle, and woodford. He must have forgotten about Petrushka.

And think about the fact that he has named his instrument of abuse, "old Mr. Leathers". Obviously it's a near and dear friend that he turns to on a regular basis, to enforce his tyrannical demands.

That UD let's that maniac (gordo) post there is all that anyone should need, to see that the IDiots who run and promote that site and its dishonest agenda are the lowest of the low. ALL of the IDiots are mental cases.

Keep in mind that gordo uses the 'guilt by association' crap all the time, including in that thread with his "enmesh" and other attacks on Elizabeth Liddle. Consider that when it comes to all the birds of a feather IDiots who associate with gordo on UD.

I'm sure that gordo would also like to beat me with his "old Mr. Leathers", and I really wish he would try. Man do I wish he would try. I'm also sure that if he and I were face to face that he would run away screaming in fright. "Bydand", my ass. He's a sniveling, spineless COWARD.





Posted by The whole truth at 12:25 AM

Ah, the memories.


And about this:

"...making a pause in a fairly busy day..."

Yeah, gordo was fairly busy downloading BDSM videos.

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

   
Woodbine



Posts: 816
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2012,07:52   

So, I took a peek at UD and the sidebar told me everything I needed to know.

It's Mungtard all the way down!



He was a regular at ARN once upon a time and distinguished himself as one of those turds who believed their occasional, vocal†contrarianism was tantamount to wisdom.

Anyone know why he's resurfaced and being all prolific 'n shit at UD?

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2012,08:07   

Quote (Woodbine @ Oct. 22 2012,05:52)
Anyone know why he's resurfaced and being all prolific 'n shit at UD?

He says he's on vacation. Apparently he's got nothing better to do.

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2012,09:02   

Quote (keiths @ Oct. 22 2012,09:07)
Quote (Woodbine @ Oct. 22 2012,05:52)
Anyone know why he's resurfaced and being all prolific 'n shit at UD?

He says he's on vacation. Apparently he's got nothing better to do.

aside from the tard that bung brings to the table, it's hilarious that the active thread on UD is the one dedicated to a discussion on another site where the participants or more or less banned from UD

metametatard



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

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3353
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2012,09:53   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 22 2012,09:02)
Quote (keiths @ Oct. 22 2012,09:07)
Quote (Woodbine @ Oct. 22 2012,05:52)
Anyone know why he's resurfaced and being all prolific 'n shit at UD?

He says he's on vacation. Apparently he's got nothing better to do.

aside from the tard that bung brings to the table, it's hilarious that the active thread on UD is the one dedicated to a discussion on another site where the participants or more or less banned from UD

metametatard

It is very interesting.

I would actually like to converse with these guys, but since they are incapable of discussing the actual science or answering questions about their notions, there's not a lot of point.  Still, if they didn't ban people for asking questions and pointing out that they still don't have a decent hypothesis for ID, then I would be willing to talk to them.

It's like JoeG.  I've banned him from my blogs, not because I can't answer his questions, but because he refuses to answer mine (and he's an ass).  Joe's own blog is heavily moderated (why, I don't know because he let's almost everything through).  This is the only place that has unfettered discussion, but the ID types refuse to come here to talk.

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

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

   
stevestory



Posts: 9037
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2012,11:37   

Quote (sparc @ Oct. 22 2012,02:48)
Wouldn't one expect that those who started the dFSCI et al. game define the term? pure gold TARD

Have they gotten more boring, or have I gotten more bored? Because my first thought was 'what the fuck is dFSCI?' and after reading three comments I thought 'I don't give a SHIT what dFSCI is supposed to be, this shit is worthless'.

They want to paradigm shift from evolution, but they can't find the clutch.

These nimrods need to read their Kuhn. As long as the dominant paradigm is producing metric tons of new research and puzzle solutions, a competing paradigm which answers nothing and just babbles infinitely that the current paradigm is defective will never get anywhere.

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2012,12:25   

gpuccio gives up:
 
Quote
To all at TSZ:

Guys,

this situation is beyond any hope.

You must excuse me, but I cannot any more follow your crazy posts.

I have made very detailed point, and nobody has addressed them.

Mark, who is obviously the most honest in your lot, is completely confused now about what ďcircularityĒ even means, after having started a whole thread on the circularity of my argument, and having stated many times that my argument is circular. Mark, I appreciate your honesty, a little bit less your reasoning.

Of Keiths I really appreciate nothing. I have clearly demonstrated that his argument of circularity is bogus. He has addressed njone of my detailed arguments, and now he is patronizing me about what is empirical and what is circular. Good bye, Keiths.

Zachriel is more of a problem. I cannot really understand of he is less intelligent than I thought, or just less honest. I will leave the thing open, for the moment. I have had many satisying discussions with him, and I donít want to ruin everything.

Joe Felsenstein, I must say with great regret, is beyond any sense.

What about Petrushka? He is not at his best, but hios way of completely changing argument in a blissful solitute is in some way appealing.

So, what I can say?

I would like to just simply ask each of you who may like to answer:

Your thread started about the supposed circularity of the dFSCI definition and procedure. I ask each of you, explicitly: after all I have said, do you still believe and affirm that my argument is circular?

I think I deserve an explicit answer to that from each of you. If you donít give it, itís OK, but that says much about your moral character.

If you give it, I will just ackowledge your answers. For total sincerety, however, I must say that at this point I feel like paraphrasing Dawkins: Whoever in your lot, at this point, and without having addressed any of my points, still affirms that dFSCI is a circular concept, is either stupid or dishonest.

I am sorry, but I had to say that. From my heart.

Thatís all, folks.


The crowd applauds:
kf

 
Quote
Those over at TSZ who ó as is clearly seen ó are continuing to indulge such tactics, knowing that there are those who will be gulled by it, tell us all we need to know about their agenda.

 
Quote
We can identify dFSCI.

We have billions of cases of known cause: design.

We have excellent inductive reason backed up by the needle in the haystack analysis to see why that is so.

That to disagree we do not see straightforward counterexamples but ever so sophistical rhetorical tactics is telling on the true balance on the merits.

Upright Dickhead:
 
Quote
Claiming ďcircularityĒ in these arguments basically amounts to an intellectual pacifier. Itís what you say when you have nothing of substance.

GP, you did a great job.


gpuccio thanks his audience:

 
Quote
KF, Joe, Mung, UB, CentralScrutinizer, and all those who have taken part:

Thank you.

And retreats. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....To7zKM8


Tell you what UD people. You've won. Congratulations.

Now what? What are you going to do with the now scientific (it's been "proven") dFSCI concept?

Go on, do tell....

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2012,12:27   

Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 22 2012,12:37)
Quote (sparc @ Oct. 22 2012,02:48)
Wouldn't one expect that those who started the dFSCI et al. game define the term? pure gold TARD

Have they gotten more boring, or have I gotten more bored? Because my first thought was 'what the fuck is dFSCI?' and after reading three comments I thought 'I don't give a SHIT what dFSCI is supposed to be, this shit is worthless'.

They want to paradigm shift from evolution, but they can't find the clutch.

These nimrods need to read their Kuhn. As long as the dominant paradigm is producing metric tons of new research and puzzle solutions, a competing paradigm which answers nothing and just babbles infinitely that the current paradigm is defective will never get anywhere.

Sorry old chap during your sabbatical they moved several hundred units, logscale, down the crank shaft.

They could give less than half of a shit about science or making a positive case. †

It's so bad that if you start a sockpuppet out over there with the "Hi I am new to this debate but I am in college and I want to study ID" they immediately know you're a sock because nobody has said that, ever.

So, design detection works but only because they are retarded and slightly aware of it

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2012,12:31   

gpuccio,
Quote
Zachriel is more of a problem. I cannot really understand of he is less intelligent than I thought, or just less honest.

Hmm, yes, which is it. It, after all, can only be one of those two possibilities.

It's not possible gpuccio is wrong at all. No sir. Not at all.

So now that you've run away gpuccio, what will change? You going to stop commenting at UD? I suspect not. Yet all you lot ever talk about is stuff you talk about with us lot. You know that right?

After all, it's not like you can talk about ID is it?

ID is not a thing, it's a not-thing. And it's whatever evolution is but the opposite. Even if that makes no sense, that's ID.

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

  
onlooker



Posts: 17
Joined: Sep. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2012,14:02   

I'm already skirting the limits of Lizzie's rules at TSZ, but I have one final point about gpuccio's latest UD comment:
Quote
My attitude is, IMO, completely justified. . . . I am obviously right

gpuccio, think for just one moment about the fact that your main supporters at UD are Joe, Mung, and kairosfocus. †You are clearly more intelligent than they are, but that's a low bar to clear. †It certainly doesn't justify the arrogance you are demonstrating as you stand in the smoking rubble of your claims.


"My dFSCI argument is not circular."

  
Quack



Posts: 1803
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2012,16:28   

Quote
Now what? What are you going to do with the now scientific (it's been "proven") dFSCI concept?

Go on, do tell....


Miss the point, don't you? The purpose of dFSCI has been fulfilled; proof that evolution is false. What more is there to do?

--------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself ‚ÄĒ and you are the easiest person to fool.
¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬†¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬†         Richard Feynman

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10325
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2012,17:26   

I'm not sure why I read KF's posts. Insomnia?

anyhoo:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-437324

Quote
...Do you not see that in the high contingency case, there is a SECOND default, chance?


If you have TWO 'defaults', I'm thinking you don't understand 'default'.

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

  
Amadan



Posts: 1269
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2012,17:38   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 22 2012,23:26)
I'm not sure why I read KF's posts. Insomnia?

anyhoo:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-437324

† †
Quote
...Do you not see that in the high contingency case, there is a SECOND default, chance?


If you have TWO 'defaults', I'm thinking you don't understand 'default'.

Surely God's Vicar on Montserrat couldn't be referring to Plan B?

Edited by Amadan on Oct. 22 2012,23:39

--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
Patrick



Posts: 562
Joined: July 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2012,18:03   

Quote (onlooker @ Oct. 22 2012,15:02)
gpuccio, think for just one moment about the fact that your main supporters at UD are Joe, Mung, and kairosfocus.

Fair point.  If any one of those . . . special individuals were cheering me on in an argument, I'd start checking my premises, logic, and ethics immediately.

  
The whole truth



Posts: 1177
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2012,18:25   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 22 2012,10:25)
gpuccio gives up:
Quote
To all at TSZ:

Guys,

this situation is beyond any hope.

You must excuse me, but I cannot any more follow your crazy posts.

I have made very detailed point, and nobody has addressed them.

Mark, who is obviously the most honest in your lot, is completely confused now about what ďcircularityĒ even means, after having started a whole thread on the circularity of my argument, and having stated many times that my argument is circular. Mark, I appreciate your honesty, a little bit less your reasoning.

Of Keiths I really appreciate nothing. I have clearly demonstrated that his argument of circularity is bogus. He has addressed njone of my detailed arguments, and now he is patronizing me about what is empirical and what is circular. Good bye, Keiths.

Zachriel is more of a problem. I cannot really understand of he is less intelligent than I thought, or just less honest. I will leave the thing open, for the moment. I have had many satisying discussions with him, and I donít want to ruin everything.

Joe Felsenstein, I must say with great regret, is beyond any sense.

What about Petrushka? He is not at his best, but hios way of completely changing argument in a blissful solitute is in some way appealing.

So, what I can say?

I would like to just simply ask each of you who may like to answer:

Your thread started about the supposed circularity of the dFSCI definition and procedure. I ask each of you, explicitly: after all I have said, do you still believe and affirm that my argument is circular?

I think I deserve an explicit answer to that from each of you. If you donít give it, itís OK, but that says much about your moral character.

If you give it, I will just ackowledge your answers. For total sincerety, however, I must say that at this point I feel like paraphrasing Dawkins: Whoever in your lot, at this point, and without having addressed any of my points, still affirms that dFSCI is a circular concept, is either stupid or dishonest.

I am sorry, but I had to say that. From my heart.

Thatís all, folks.


The crowd applauds:
kf

Quote
Those over at TSZ who ó as is clearly seen ó are continuing to indulge such tactics, knowing that there are those who will be gulled by it, tell us all we need to know about their agenda.

Quote
We can identify dFSCI.

We have billions of cases of known cause: design.

We have excellent inductive reason backed up by the needle in the haystack analysis to see why that is so.

That to disagree we do not see straightforward counterexamples but ever so sophistical rhetorical tactics is telling on the true balance on the merits.

Upright Dickhead:
Quote
Claiming ďcircularityĒ in these arguments basically amounts to an intellectual pacifier. Itís what you say when you have nothing of substance.

GP, you did a great job.


gpuccio thanks his audience:

Quote
KF, Joe, Mung, UB, CentralScrutinizer, and all those who have taken part:

Thank you.

And retreats. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....To7zKM8


Tell you what UD people. You've won. Congratulations.

Now what? What are you going to do with the now scientific (it's been "proven") dFSCI concept?

Go on, do tell....

gpuccio sanctimoniously barfed:

"Your thread started about the supposed circularity of the dFSCI definition and procedure. I ask each of you, explicitly: after all I have said, do you still believe and affirm that my argument is circular?

I think I deserve an explicit answer to that from each of you. If you donít give it, itís OK, but that says much about your moral character.

If you give it, I will just ackowledge your answers. For total sincerety, however, I must say that at this point I feel like paraphrasing Dawkins: Whoever in your lot, at this point, and without having addressed any of my points, still affirms that dFSCI is a circular concept, is either stupid or dishonest.

I am sorry, but I had to say that. From my heart."

gpukio is trying hard to be a gordo clone, with the "I am sorry, but I had to say that." game. He pretends that it bothers him to be a demanding prick and call his opponents stupid or dishonest, just like when gordo pretends to be "sad" or "sorry" while pouring out fire and brimstone on anyone who doesn't worship his every word.

And the "From my heart." crap? Yeah, his insulting accusations are from his heart, but he's "sorry"? How can he be sorry for something that is from his heart? He's pretending to be god-jesus, and he's getting his schtick straight from the bible. In the bible god-jesus is often depicted as being sad/sorry when it wreaks death and destruction or other punishing acts on those who don't kiss its tyrannical ass and even on some who do. Sad and sorry in the sense of a parent who says to their kid, 'I'm sad and sorry but I have to beat your ass with Mr Leathers. This is going to hurt me more than it hurts you.'

Total sincerity? Hey pukio, if you had even the slightest concern for total sincerity you'd admit that you're a god-wannabe with no moral character who wants to rule the universe.

You and your IDiotic ilk have been getting 'explicit' answers for as long as you've been pushing your dishonest creationist/dominionist agenda (that you call "ID"). You don't want 'explicit' answers unless they are explicitly what you want to hear. You want, expect, and demand total agreement and worship. You god pushers think that you ARE god.

Oh, and it's so kind of you to offer to take a few minutes of your precious time to "just ackowledge" the "explicit answer" you expect. I'll be happy (not sorry at all) to give you an "explicit answer" that I "believe and affirm": you're a malignantly narcissistic IDiot with an ignorant, circular argument. Acknowledge that, shithead.

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

   
Amadan



Posts: 1269
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2012,07:04   

Sans paroles:


--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
k.e..



Posts: 3073
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2012,09:10   

Golly, Denyse had a shave.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"Abbie Smith (ERV) who's got to be the most obnoxious arrogant snot I've ever seen except for when I look in a mirror" DAVE TARD
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus

  
Mark Frank



Posts: 46
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2012,13:44   

After God knows how many posts and hours one of the UD crowd finally gets the circularity point. To my utter amazement it is Joe.

  
  10669 replies since Aug. 31 2011,21:06 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (356) < ... 229 230 231 232 233 [234] 235 236 237 238 239 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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