RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (246) < ... 172 173 174 175 176 [177] 178 179 180 181 182 ... >   
  Topic: Joe G.'s Tardgasm, How long can it last?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2012,10:18   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Oct. 22 2012,10:12)
Was Joe G the "JohnPaul" of ARN fame? That could explain a lot.

Yes, I dug something up along those lines, or someone else did.

--------------
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 Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3221
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2012,11:25   

Apparently Joe and frisbee_kid have been banned at SkepticInk, so not "John" has appeared and continues the exact same comment series, using pretty similar language to Joe.

Since it's not my blog, I don't see the IPs and such, but Joe has used "John" before.

http://skepticink.com/tipplin....ent-937

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

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

   
The whole truth



Posts: 964
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2012,18:07   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 22 2012,09:25)
Apparently Joe and frisbee_kid have been banned at SkepticInk, so not "John" has appeared and continues the exact same comment series, using pretty similar language to Joe.

Since it's not my blog, I don't see the IPs and such, but Joe has used "John" before.

http://skepticink.com/tipplin....ent-937

john is joe g is frisbee_kid is john paul is joseph is IDguy, etc.


"I don't know what is giong on wrt logins- I just post."

Yeah sure joey, you lying piece of shit.

"I don't just say stuff."

BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


And Tiktaalik bugs you no end, doesn't it joey? It eats at you night and day and crawls over your skin like an incurable rash. It's a monster that lives under your bed and an irritating itch that you can't scratch. It's the monkey on your back and the fly in your soup. You're obsessed with it because it's a profound example of evolution and common descent and you just won't tolerate anything that goes against your fairy tale belief that the designer allah individually and 'specially' created every 'kind', and especially humans, and especially you.

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

   
Soapy Sam



Posts: 476
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2012,19:09   

Breaking News
Joe says something new! He mentions Stonehenge! And ... er ... "if your position had any evidence to support we wouldn’t be talking about proving a designer." This is devastating stuff; he's finally broken free of his tendency to endless repetition and become one of ID's foremost thinkers.
   
Quote
seeing that natural processes only exist in nature, they cannot account for its origin, which science says it had. So we infer it was something other than nature that gave us nature.

And what, other than nature, is there? There's us, obviously, but it can't have been us. So I give you ... ta-dah! ... Supernature! It's real; Joe proved it. Meantime, if you can't say how many mutations it took to get from reptilian jaw to mammalian middle ear, I'm afraid it's curtains for Darwinism. Turn the lights out when you go.

Edited by Soapy Sam on Oct. 23 2012,19:10

--------------
Evolutionists trust entropy for creation of life but are like men who horse a crocodile to get across a river - niwrad.

The organism could already metabolize citrus. Joe G

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3221
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2012,21:38   

Quote (Soapy Sam @ Oct. 23 2012,19:09)
Breaking News
Joe says something new! He mentions Stonehenge! And ... er ... "if your position had any evidence to support we wouldn’t be talking about proving a designer." This is devastating stuff; he's finally broken free of his tendency to endless repetition and become one of ID's foremost thinkers.
   
Quote
seeing that natural processes only exist in nature, they cannot account for its origin, which science says it had. So we infer it was something other than nature that gave us nature.

And what, other than nature, is there? There's us, obviously, but it can't have been us. So I give you ... ta-dah! ... Supernature! It's real; Joe proved it. Meantime, if you can't say how many mutations it took to get from reptilian jaw to mammalian middle ear, I'm afraid it's curtains for Darwinism. Turn the lights out when you go.

It's not new.  On about page 20 or 30 of this thread is a discussion of how stonehenge was formed using human designers.

I think it was Afarensis that demolished him on that one.

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

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

   
Soapy Sam



Posts: 476
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2012,02:02   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 24 2012,03:38)
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Oct. 23 2012,19:09)
Breaking News
Joe says something new! He mentions Stonehenge! And ... er ... "if your position had any evidence to support we wouldn’t be talking about proving a designer." This is devastating stuff; he's finally broken free of his tendency to endless repetition and become one of ID's foremost thinkers.
     
Quote
seeing that natural processes only exist in nature, they cannot account for its origin, which science says it had. So we infer it was something other than nature that gave us nature.

And what, other than nature, is there? There's us, obviously, but it can't have been us. So I give you ... ta-dah! ... Supernature! It's real; Joe proved it. Meantime, if you can't say how many mutations it took to get from reptilian jaw to mammalian middle ear, I'm afraid it's curtains for Darwinism. Turn the lights out when you go.

It's not new.  On about page 20 or 30 of this thread is a discussion of how stonehenge was formed using human designers.

I think it was Afarensis that demolished him on that one.

I know - thinly disguised sarcasm! You could distil his entire output into about twenty sentences, the Greatest Hits on heavy rotation.  

In his determination to follow Newton's rules, and not introduce unnecessary entities, he thinks it probable aliens 'did' Stonehenge...

--------------
Evolutionists trust entropy for creation of life but are like men who horse a crocodile to get across a river - niwrad.

The organism could already metabolize citrus. Joe G

  
Quack



Posts: 1717
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2012,05:34   

Quote
And Tiktaalik bugs you no end, doesn't it joey? It eats at you night and day and crawls over your skin like an incurable rash. It's a monster that lives under your bed and an irritating itch that you can't scratch. It's the monkey on your back and the fly in your soup. You're obsessed with it because it's a profound example of evolution and common descent and you just won't tolerate anything that goes against your fairy tale belief that the designer allah individually and 'specially' created every 'kind', and especially humans, and especially you.


Joe's "kinds' must be a great stumbling block to him.

We now know that there are many species genetically separated to a degree that interbreeding is impossible, and yet theey may be close to (or even?) impossible to differentiate between morphologically.

I just read about a species of frog that turned out actually to be three different species and yet they share the same habitat and appear as one homogenous species, but they can not and do not interbreed. Yet sharing the same ecological niche, isn't that a nice problem after being separate for 20 million years?

OTOH, species may be very similar in gentoype and yet be very dissimilar in phenotype.

--------------
The fundamental choice to be made, given the available information, is not whether chance provides a better explanation than design, but whether natural laws provide a better explanation than a design.

  
The whole truth



Posts: 964
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2012,07:25   

Quote (Quack @ Oct. 24 2012,03:34)
Quote
And Tiktaalik bugs you no end, doesn't it joey? It eats at you night and day and crawls over your skin like an incurable rash. It's a monster that lives under your bed and an irritating itch that you can't scratch. It's the monkey on your back and the fly in your soup. You're obsessed with it because it's a profound example of evolution and common descent and you just won't tolerate anything that goes against your fairy tale belief that the designer allah individually and 'specially' created every 'kind', and especially humans, and especially you.


Joe's "kinds' must be a great stumbling block to him.

We now know that there are many species genetically separated to a degree that interbreeding is impossible, and yet theey may be close to (or even?) impossible to differentiate between morphologically.

I just read about a species of frog that turned out actually to be three different species and yet they share the same habitat and appear as one homogenous species, but they can not and do not interbreed. Yet sharing the same ecological niche, isn't that a nice problem after being separate for 20 million years?

OTOH, species may be very similar in gentoype and yet be very dissimilar in phenotype.

"We now know that there are many species genetically separated to a degree that interbreeding is impossible, and yet theey may be close to (or even?) impossible to differentiate between morphologically."

Some butterflies come to mind. With some of them morphological similarities or differences can be very unreliable when trying to determine which species is which. Even microscopic dissection of the genitalia (a common practice by some lepidopterists) isn't always fool proof. DNA studies are turning up some surprises, and renaming and/or the reassignment of species or genera is fairly common.

--------------
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: 964
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2012,07:33   

Quote (Soapy Sam @ Oct. 24 2012,00:02)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 24 2012,03:38)
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Oct. 23 2012,19:09)
Breaking News
Joe says something new! He mentions Stonehenge! And ... er ... "if your position had any evidence to support we wouldn’t be talking about proving a designer." This is devastating stuff; he's finally broken free of his tendency to endless repetition and become one of ID's foremost thinkers.
     
Quote
seeing that natural processes only exist in nature, they cannot account for its origin, which science says it had. So we infer it was something other than nature that gave us nature.

And what, other than nature, is there? There's us, obviously, but it can't have been us. So I give you ... ta-dah! ... Supernature! It's real; Joe proved it. Meantime, if you can't say how many mutations it took to get from reptilian jaw to mammalian middle ear, I'm afraid it's curtains for Darwinism. Turn the lights out when you go.

It's not new.  On about page 20 or 30 of this thread is a discussion of how stonehenge was formed using human designers.

I think it was Afarensis that demolished him on that one.

I know - thinly disguised sarcasm! You could distil his entire output into about twenty sentences, the Greatest Hits on heavy rotation.  

In his determination to follow Newton's rules, and not introduce unnecessary entities, he thinks it probable aliens 'did' Stonehenge...

"You could distil his entire output into about twenty sentences..."

Are you sure it would take that many?   ;)

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

   
fnxtr



Posts: 2040
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2012,10:16   

Who was it posted the Joe G bingo card, again?

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3221
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2012,10:21   

Quote (fnxtr @ Oct. 24 2012,10:16)
Who was it posted the Joe G bingo card, again?

Rich.  It's in the early pages of this thread.

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

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

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10006
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 29 2012,14:47   

Nonreligious / Muslim Joe / Jim / JohnPaul:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/educati....-437806

Quote
....
As if-

1- As If God needs defending
2- As if humans could
3- As if anyone cares what keiths sez

But anyway, being brought up in a Christian family and having attended catholic schools, it is clear to anyone with an IQ over 50, that pain and suffering are the result of the fall of man. We brought it upon ourselves, with a lttle help from below. Now we have to deal with it.

Individual salvation can be had, as can individual damnation- equal opportunity. The choice is yours.

So that is how Christians explain and accept the world, keiths- unless they have changed in the past thirty + years.


This is also consistant with baraminology...

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

  
Soapy Sam



Posts: 476
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 29 2012,19:43   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 29 2012,20:47)
Nonreligious / Muslim Joe / Jim / JohnPaul:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/educati....-437806

 
Quote
....
As if-

1- As If God needs defending
2- As if humans could
3- As if anyone cares what keiths sez

But anyway, being brought up in a Christian family and having attended catholic schools, it is clear to anyone with an IQ over 50, that pain and suffering are the result of the fall of man. We brought it upon ourselves, with a lttle help from below. Now we have to deal with it.

Individual salvation can be had, as can individual damnation- equal opportunity. The choice is yours.

So that is how Christians explain and accept the world, keiths- unless they have changed in the past thirty + years.


This is also consistant with baraminology...

So ... he creates a perfect Eden, apart from this snake and this tree. Tells 'em not to eat the fruit. "Go on, have a nibble", says the snake. 6,000 years later, the world is full of disease, cataclysm and sin. "It's your own fucking fault" says God. "Your ancestors ate a fruit, and I told 'em not to".

Yes, that all seems totally in order. Pass me the scourge.

--------------
Evolutionists trust entropy for creation of life but are like men who horse a crocodile to get across a river - niwrad.

The organism could already metabolize citrus. Joe G

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2040
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2012,00:02   

Quote (Soapy Sam @ Oct. 29 2012,17:43)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 29 2012,20:47)
Nonreligious / Muslim Joe / Jim / JohnPaul:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/educati....-437806

   
Quote
....
As if-

1- As If God needs defending
2- As if humans could
3- As if anyone cares what keiths sez

But anyway, being brought up in a Christian family and having attended catholic schools, it is clear to anyone with an IQ over 50, that pain and suffering are the result of the fall of man. We brought it upon ourselves, with a lttle help from below. Now we have to deal with it.

Individual salvation can be had, as can individual damnation- equal opportunity. The choice is yours.

So that is how Christians explain and accept the world, keiths- unless they have changed in the past thirty + years.


This is also consistant with baraminology...

So ... he creates a perfect Eden, apart from this snake and this tree. Tells 'em not to eat the fruit. "Go on, have a nibble", says the snake. 6,000 years later, the world is full of disease, cataclysm and sin. "It's your own fucking fault" says God. "Your ancestors ate a fruit, and I told 'em not to".

Yes, that all seems totally in order. Pass me the scourge.

... and all the while, this deity knew what was going to happen, because it.. erm... designed A&E that way.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3221
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2012,22:50   

He's socking it up at Skeptic Ink

http://skepticink.com/tipplin....6627780

I'm already tired of him and the same damn arguments every single time.

At least learn a new damn song... or go join a seminary or something.

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

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

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10006
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2012,09:03   

have some JoeLOLS / Meltdown:

http://www.blogger.com/comment....2826821

and here's his *favourite* graph:




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

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3221
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2012,09:52   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 01 2012,09:03)
have some JoeLOLS / Meltdown:

http://www.blogger.com/comment....2826821

and here's his *favourite* graph:



So, I guess the fact that the 10 warmest years in the last 130 years have all been within 2000-2012.  With 2011 being the absolute warmest and 2012 possibly being warmer than 2011.

One thing I notice about that graph is, while certain line segments are showing a downward trend, the line segments themselves keep starting and ending higher and higher...

almost as if the temperature is increasing.

Just out of curiosity, what statistical measure did Joe use on that graph?  What's the confidence?  What's the error range on those line segments.

This is ALMOST as good as AFDave's made up data graph.  But Joey can't even do something like that right.

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

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

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2012,10:09   

Joe's too stupid to make that graph

It came from skeptical science.  which is a great page by the way

--------------
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: 964
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2012,06:33   

Hey joey, shouldn't you be telling your fellow IDiot jonathan mclatchie that "ID is OK with common descent"?

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-buy-it

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

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2012,11:13   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 01 2012,10:03)
have some JoeLOLS / Meltdown:

http://www.blogger.com/comment....2826821

he really is a sucker for anything that is contrarian and suits his culture war. the hilarious thing is that he doesn't really have these ideas himself, he doesn't create anything on his own he just consumes the tard as it comes to him and shits it out all over himself and his blog and smears it every where he goes and the style with which he smears shit is about the only thing worth noting about joe


aint that right joe?  you are in fact so stupid that you not only don't know how they measure these things but you also don't even give a fuck because your amazing talents and skills at being retarded give you a precedent for rejecting science before you even know what it says.

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

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 2830
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2012,17:49   

Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 02 2012,06:33)
Hey joey, shouldn't you be telling your fellow IDiot jonathan mclatchie that "ID is OK with common descent"?

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-buy-it


Yes, ID is OK with common descent:

http://www.discovery.org/csc........ons.php

Casey Luskin's video (that explains what the theory is and is not) is here:

http://www.discovery.org/v....7......7....7

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
Henry J



Posts: 3964
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2012,20:41   

Quote
Yes, ID is OK with common descent:

What's sort of funny about that is that if ID were defined as simply the notion that some intelligence engineered some stuff, then it would be consistent with common descent. Unless said engineer went around copying stuff from one lineage into another, or making the same changes in several lineages while leaving their close relatives unmodified, then it wouldn't break the nested heirarchy aspect of the theory.

Henry

  
The whole truth



Posts: 964
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2012,21:55   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 04 2012,15:49)
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 02 2012,06:33)
Hey joey, shouldn't you be telling your fellow IDiot jonathan mclatchie that "ID is OK with common descent"?

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-buy-it


Yes, ID is OK with common descent:

http://www.discovery.org/csc........ons.php

Casey Luskin's video (that explains what the theory is and is not) is here:

http://www.discovery.org/v....7......7....7

The thing is, that DI page is a pack of lies and bullshit.

And luskin is one of the most flagrant liars on planet Earth and, like the other IDiot-creationists, would say anything to push his dominionist agenda.

The biggest mistake IDiot-creationists make is underestimating their opponents. IDiots obviously and arrogantly believe that non-IDiots are incapable of seeing through the dishonest, transparent facade (the 'ID inference or theory') that IDiots have deviously erected in their unsuccessful attempt to hide their dominionist agenda.

IDiots are so caught up in their lies, arrogance, and delusions that they think (if it can be called thinking) they can spew lie after lie after lie and projectile vomit the same old pseudo-scientific bile over and over and over again and somehow their opponents (rational people) won't notice what a rancid mess it all is. The deceitful, cowardly games IDiots play are not going to get them anything but well deserved ridicule and condemnation.  

If you don't want to be lumped with the massively tainted (by their own corrupt words and actions) IDiots at UD, the DI, etc., I strongly suggest that you completely split yourself from them and actually come up with a coherent and strictly scientific hypothesis (and supporting, testable evidence) for intelligent design and that you be completely honest in every way at all times if you want to be taken seriously. I also suggest that you listen carefully to your scientific critics and that you should not try to bullshit your way past intelligent, educated people.

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

   
Kattarina98



Posts: 1249
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2012,09:25   

Zachriel gets owned by Joe - take that!

Quote
Linnean taxonomy was invented by a CREATIONIST named Karl von Linne [sic], aka Carolus Linnaeus. He set up the system when he was trying to determine what were the Created Kinds. The system he used he based on a COMMON DESIGN. Yes, that means the observed objective nested hierarchy amongst metazoans is also based on a common design.

The strange part is many people do not realize any of what I just posted. That is because the high priests of evolutionism have done a good job at hiding that fact. Ya see they stole Linne's idea, ...


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

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3221
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2012,09:33   

Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 09 2012,09:25)
Zachriel gets owned by Joe - take that!

 
Quote
Linnean taxonomy was invented by a CREATIONIST named Karl von Linne [sic], aka Carolus Linnaeus. He set up the system when he was trying to determine what were the Created Kinds. The system he used he based on a COMMON DESIGN. Yes, that means the observed objective nested hierarchy amongst metazoans is also based on a common design.

The strange part is many people do not realize any of what I just posted. That is because the high priests of evolutionism have done a good job at hiding that fact. Ya see they stole Linne's idea, ...

I think that was directed at me, since I made a blog post with that same title.

Curiously, JoeG doesn't mention that cladistics, which is what modern taxonomists use, is based on evolutionary relatedness, not "what they look like".  For example, we know that red pandas are weasels, not bears.  Even though they look superficially like tiny (squeeee!) bears.

If things were really based on common DESIGN, then we would have all the flying things in one group, all the swimming things in one group, all the land things in another group.  Because, if you look at the design, a dolphin is much more like a shark than a hippo.

Curiously, of course Linnaeus was a creationist.  He died 80 years before Darwin published.  Dur!

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

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

   
Kattarina98



Posts: 1249
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2012,10:42   

Quote
all the flying things in one group, all the swimming things in one group, all the land things in another group
Believe it or not, over at TalkRat there is a guy who is currently defending this idea - cetaceans from mosasaurs, birds from pterosaurs ... Great fun!

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

  
Henry J



Posts: 3964
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2012,11:36   

And each marsupial from the type of placental that it happens to sort of resemble?

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3221
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2012,11:48   

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 09 2012,11:36)
And each marsupial from the type of placental that it happens to sort of resemble?

Oh! You've met Robert Byers.

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

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

   
Henry J



Posts: 3964
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2012,11:57   

Well, not in person, no. (thankfully)

  
damitall



Posts: 315
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2012,12:00   

Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 09 2012,10:42)
Quote
all the flying things in one group, all the swimming things in one group, all the land things in another group
Believe it or not, over at TalkRat there is a guy who is currently defending this idea - cetaceans from mosasaurs, birds from pterosaurs ... Great fun!

"Socrates" benefits from TR's lenient moderation - he's been banned from most other places

His style is an unpleasant droning whinge, replete with nested self-quotes.

And he has a phobia re. apostrophes

  
  7368 replies since Feb. 24 2010,12:00 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (246) < ... 172 173 174 175 176 [177] 178 179 180 181 182 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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