RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (622) < ... 386 387 388 389 390 [391] 392 393 394 395 396 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 21 2014,14:01   

Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 21 2014,02:21)
   
Quote
After accepting that eye lens cells and possibly more also have no nucleus, you'll then need to show that all white blood cells have the exact same code, which is exactly the same as all other cells like muscle, lung, liver, brain and germ cells, oops!

No, I don't need to do that.  First, all cells can accumulate mutations when they copy themselves, so it is false to claim that biologists expect all cells in an individual to have the EXACT same code.  Basic types of white blood cells have nuclei and a full set of chromosomes, and people can be identified by the DNA in white blood cells in a blood sample (http://www.biology.arizona.edu/human_bio/problem_sets/dna_forensics_2/06t.html).  I already talked about B cells and immunoglobins with rearranged genes, so that is not an issue.   Moreover, immunoglobin production is becoming well understood and does not involve or require intelligence ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed.....0807577 ; http://genomemedicine.com/content....t....20 ;  

If I'm ever on trial for murder, and there's irrefutable DNA of mine at the scene, say, from a piece of skin, hair, or blood, I'm calling earth-shattering SuperScientist Gary Gaulin to testify as an expert witness that the science here is totally unproven.

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 21 2014,14:56   

I'm still waiting for evidence against the theory.

https://sites.google.com/site.......ign.pdf

--------------
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.

   
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 21 2014,15:24   

No you aren't: you are busy ignoring and denying problems with your assertions, as fast as you can.

If something emerges at a higher level from a lower level, then the two levels are de facto not the same, and are therefore not self-similar, and what emerged cannot be described as having been designed, so how do you justify using the terms self-similar and designed?

You claim that intelligence is pervasive through all of the biological realm, so what are the units of intelligence, and how many of them occur in a mushroom, in a liver cell, in an oak tree, and in the white-eye gene in fruit flies?

What does resorption of brains in tunicates have to do with loss of the genome?

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 21 2014,15:31   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 21 2014,15:56)
I'm still waiting for evidence against the theory.

https://sites.google.com/site.......ign.pdf

Funny.
We're still waiting for evidence in support of the "theory".
There isn't any, there hasn't been any, and you are running away from that topic as fast as your pudgy little legs will carry you.

As for evidence against your "theory" -- we've provided mountains.  Most especially, every single item that counts as intelligence and does not involve motor control or sensory input is evidence against your "theory".  
Then there is your abuse of 'learn' and its variants.  There are no standard definitions of 'learn' that support your nonsense.  The canonical definition from Cognitive Science is entirely contrary to your usage.
And so it goes.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2014,06:53   

Poor Gary -- asks for evidence against his "theory".
Gets it, in spades, and flees the playing field.

Or perhaps he can't unpack the references.
Let's get more concrete -- evidence against Gary's theory:
The act of composing music (not the act of writing the score, the prior act of composition)
The act of recognizing a melody that has been transposed to a different key, played on a different instrument, at a different tempo.
The act of conceptualizing a new theory (not writing it down, creating it).
The act of recognizing a face in a crowd.
The act of crafting a mental plan to accomplish a complex goal.
The act of setting a complex goal for oneself.
Recognizing a superior performance -- of a piece of music, a gymnastics routine, a great play in a sports game, etc.  That is to say, the act of judging that this or that complex set of actions was 'masterful' as opposed to 'pathetic'.  Analogous to the judgements we make of your "theory", although inverted.  Your work is pathetic, not masterful.

It's up to you, now, Gary.  Admit your "theory" has evidence against it (and zero evidence for it) or show how and why each of these do not count as acts of intelligence.
Specifically, and supported with evidence and (valid) logic.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2014,19:08   

There are a couple of new threads ready for your enjoyment!

http://humanevents.com/2014.......0688954

Anyone in this forum know someone named Dr. GS Hurd?

http://humanevents.com/2014.......2305646

Thanks for the tip-off!

--------------
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.

   
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2014,21:13   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 23 2014,03:08)
There are a couple of new threads ready for your enjoyment!

http://humanevents.com/2014.......0688954

Anyone in this forum know someone named Dr. GS Hurd?

http://humanevents.com/2014.......2305646

Thanks for the tip-off!

You can't mean this ...?

Quote
Robert Dekko  Gary Gaulin • a day ago
I studied your theory in quite a great amount of detail. From your word soup of terrible descriptions to your inaccurate portrayal of matter, behavior and intelligence to your absurd self-aggrandizement, your theory is bunk.


Absurd self-aggrandizement indeed.

Is there a word for beyond intellectually bankrupt?

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2014,21:54   

Quote (k.e.. @ Aug. 22 2014,21:13)
You can't mean this ...?

 
Quote
Robert Dekko  Gary Gaulin • a day ago
I studied your theory in quite a great amount of detail. From your word soup of terrible descriptions to your inaccurate portrayal of matter, behavior and intelligence to your absurd self-aggrandizement, your theory is bunk.

No that's not what I mean, Even the NCSE is having problems with Robert Dekko, who is well known as a profane troll who is in my opinion overzealously trying to make Atheists look like ignorant drunken barbarians (a false-flag operation).

This one from Robert's partner in mayhem named Cueball who in this reply to me is (supposed to be) helping out a vertebrate paleontologist (not a biologist) is going to be a classic though:

Quote
Cueball to Gary Gaulin  

.......

Also, being good at coding doesn't mean you're a biologist.

http://humanevents.com/2014.......851622


--------------
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.

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2014,22:22   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 22 2014,19:08)
There are a couple of new threads ready for your enjoyment!

http://humanevents.com/2014.......0688954

Anyone in this forum know someone named Dr. GS Hurd?

http://humanevents.com/2014.......2305646

Thanks for the tip-off!

Pretty much anyone who isn't an ignoramus concerning criticism of "intelligent design" creationism knows who Gary Hurd is.

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

    
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2014,22:34   

Gary complains that his critics over there haven't read every word of his tripe.  However, this makes no difference at all, (a) because he equally ignores complaints from those who have read it all, and (b) so many errors are obvious on a simple reading of small excerpts that it is impossible that larger excerpts could yield anything beyond even more errors.

----------
Gary, if something emerges at a higher level from a lower level, then the two levels are de facto not the same, and are therefore not self-similar, and what emerged cannot be described as having been designed, so how do you justify using the terms self-similar and designed?

You claim that intelligence is pervasive through all of the biological realm, so what are the units of intelligence, and how many of them occur in a mushroom, in a liver cell, in an oak tree, and in the white-eye gene in fruit flies?

There are no standard meanings of intelligence that allow the use to which you try to put the term.

What does resorption of brains in tunicates have to do with loss of the genome?


-------
Lastly, Richard Forrest is an accomplished vertebrate paleontologist, known for work on marine reptiles, and he's also an IT consultant, so he's competent to assess Gary's rubbish from both the computational and the scientific sides.  Gary Hurd has been an expert on creationist and IDist claims for a very long time. He's published an impressive quantity and diversity of publications in mathematics, biology, chemistry, and more.  We all know the potential failings of arguments from authority, but nonetheless these are people who can conclude with great authority that Gaulin's stuff is unscientific crap.



Quote
There are a couple of new threads ready for your enjoyment!

http://humanevents.com/2014.......0688954

Anyone in this forum know someone named Dr. GS Hurd?

http://humanevents.com/2014.......2305646

Thanks for the tip-off!
Gary spouts incoherent  rubbish, gets thoroughly trashed by everyone and is unable to say anything competent in his own defense.  Indeed, great enjoyment is to be had, albeit at Gary's expense.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2014,23:02   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 22 2014,22:22)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 22 2014,19:08)
There are a couple of new threads ready for your enjoyment!

http://humanevents.com/2014.......0688954

Anyone in this forum know someone named Dr. GS Hurd?

http://humanevents.com/2014.......2305646

Thanks for the tip-off!

Pretty much anyone who isn't an ignoramus concerning criticism of "intelligent design" creationism knows who Gary Hurd is.

Oh lucky ignoramus me, I'm finally catching onto who's who concerning criticism of "intelligent design" CREATIONISM.

http://humanevents.com/2014.......0755688

--------------
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.

   
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2014,23:19   

Gary, you are the person who wants to label your trash "intelligent design", so why are you surprised if people take you at your word?  IDists have dragged ID through the mud and have succeeded in totally destroying any credibility that it might lay claim to.  Their claims notwithstanding, its proponents have demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt that ID in the only form that most people  know about (i.e., not yours) is nothing but warmed-over creationism that is trying to hide its religious roots.

In fact, irony abounds here, because your ideas assert unknown forms of intelligence and also do not involve recognizable design, as you claim that intelligence emerges from nonintelligent but yet somehow self-similar precursors.  Why you should want to call it "intelligent design" and how you think the term is justified for your nonsense is unclear. What you have is incoherent rubbish from the foundation on up.

In fact, it's as though you were saying something like, "I have invented this great new political system that will allow everyone to live together in peace and harmony, with unparalleled wealth for everyone, with honest and competent leaders, law makers, and judges.  I propose to call it Nazism," and then wondering why people react adversely to your suggestions.

Also, you are ignoring contributions to intelligent design by Edgar Postrado, whose voluminous ideas are both more extensive and more recent than your heap of compost and thus by your own standards supersede it.

  
Tony M Nyphot



Posts: 491
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2014,23:58   

Quote (k.e.. @ Aug. 22 2014,20:13)
     
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 23 2014,03:08)
There are a couple of new threads ready for your enjoyment!

http://humanevents.com/2014.......0688954

Anyone in this forum know someone named Dr. GS Hurd?

http://humanevents.com/2014.......2305646

Thanks for the tip-off!

You can't mean this ...?

     
Quote
Robert Dekko  Gary Gaulin • a day ago
I studied your theory in quite a great amount of detail. From your word soup of terrible descriptions to your inaccurate portrayal of matter, behavior and intelligence to your absurd self-aggrandizement, your theory is bunk.




No...I think he means this one.
    
Quote
Timothy Horton  Gary Gaulin • 2 days ago
GaGa, you've got an almost 400 page thread over at ATBC where your brain dead stupidity has been beaten into a fine pink mist. But I suppose you're not happy until you soil yet another discussion with your mental feces.

Thanks for the link Gary, I did enjoy that.

--------------
"I, OTOH, am an underachiever...I either pee my pants or faint dead away..." FTK

"You could always wrap fresh fish in the paper you publish it on, though, and sell that." - Field Man on how to find value in Gary Gaulin's real-science "theory"

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2014,00:13   

Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Aug. 22 2014,23:58)
Quote (k.e.. @ Aug. 22 2014,20:13)
     
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 23 2014,03:08)
There are a couple of new threads ready for your enjoyment!

http://humanevents.com/2014.......0688954

Anyone in this forum know someone named Dr. GS Hurd?

http://humanevents.com/2014.......2305646

Thanks for the tip-off!

You can't mean this ...?

       
Quote
Robert Dekko  Gary Gaulin • a day ago
I studied your theory in quite a great amount of detail. From your word soup of terrible descriptions to your inaccurate portrayal of matter, behavior and intelligence to your absurd self-aggrandizement, your theory is bunk.




No...I think he means this one.
    
Quote
Timothy Horton  Gary Gaulin • 2 days ago
GaGa, you've got an almost 400 page thread over at ATBC where your brain dead stupidity has been beaten into a fine pink mist. But I suppose you're not happy until you soil yet another discussion with your mental feces.

Thanks for the link Gary, I did enjoy that.

You're very welcome. It's important to excessively boost the confidence of the ones being led off the edge and into scientific oblivion by those who comfort you by holding your hand all the way to the rock-bottom.

I gave you fair warning. Choice is yours.

--------------
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.

   
Tony M Nyphot



Posts: 491
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2014,00:14   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 22 2014,22:02)
http://humanevents.com/2014.......0755688

I notice that Robert Marks II showed up in the comments to say:

     
Quote
2. In the comments about my column in Human Events, addressing the contents of the book would be more fruitful than name calling, throwing zingers or repeating tired old anti-ID clichés. Such shallow exchanges are typically done by those lacking the intellectual capacity to engage in intelligent debate.


Speaking of "addressing the contents of the book would be more fruitful than name calling, throwing zingers or repeating tired old anti-[Evolution] clichés" and that "shallow exchanges are typically done by those lacking the intellectual capacity to engage in intelligent debate."...I sorely wish someone would welcome the return of Galapagos Finch by linking to ERV's post below:

How not to blog anonymously: Robert Marks

(I don't have any of the prerequisite commenting profiles, but I may have to create one just for this. I feel Oleg's discovery should be noted.)

--------------
"I, OTOH, am an underachiever...I either pee my pants or faint dead away..." FTK

"You could always wrap fresh fish in the paper you publish it on, though, and sell that." - Field Man on how to find value in Gary Gaulin's real-science "theory"

  
Tony M Nyphot



Posts: 491
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2014,00:20   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 22 2014,23:13)
 
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Aug. 22 2014,23:58)
 
Quote (k.e.. @ Aug. 22 2014,20:13)
         
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 23 2014,03:08)
There are a couple of new threads ready for your enjoyment!

http://humanevents.com/2014.......0688954

Anyone in this forum know someone named Dr. GS Hurd?

http://humanevents.com/2014.......2305646

Thanks for the tip-off!

You can't mean this ...?

         
Quote
Robert Dekko  Gary Gaulin • a day ago
I studied your theory in quite a great amount of detail. From your word soup of terrible descriptions to your inaccurate portrayal of matter, behavior and intelligence to your absurd self-aggrandizement, your theory is bunk.




No...I think he means this one.
        
Quote
Timothy Horton  Gary Gaulin • 2 days ago
GaGa, you've got an almost 400 page thread over at ATBC where your brain dead stupidity has been beaten into a fine pink mist. But I suppose you're not happy until you soil yet another discussion with your mental feces.

Thanks for the link Gary, I did enjoy that.

You're very welcome. It's important to excessively boost the confidence of the ones being led off the edge and into scientific oblivion by those who comfort you by holding your hand all the way to the rock-bottom.

I gave you fair warning. Choice is yours.

I'm not too worried.

Though some may fall from a high edge, the enormously swelled head of one Gary Gaulin, long since dashed on the rocks of scientific oblivion below, will cushion them well.

--------------
"I, OTOH, am an underachiever...I either pee my pants or faint dead away..." FTK

"You could always wrap fresh fish in the paper you publish it on, though, and sell that." - Field Man on how to find value in Gary Gaulin's real-science "theory"

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2014,00:48   

Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 22 2014,23:19)
Gary, you are the person who wants to label your trash "intelligent design", so why are you surprised if people take you at your word?

The double standard that allows new theories to be judged by their title is none the less scientifically unethical. I got stuck having to return honesty and integrity to science, before you and your friends do even more damage to society. Before I even started developing the Theory of Intelligent Design the paranoids you suck-up to were accusing me of slipping pseudoscience into the public schools "under radar" and other nonsense.

The now common practice of not even having read what is being misrepresented is extremely sinister, and should NEVER EVER be taught in public schools. Don't blame me for repercussions from this scam becoming public knowledge.

--------------
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.

   
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2014,05:39   

Gary, it is possible the American Nazi Party have all the answers to our societal ills - but they are never going to achieve anything. You know why? Because they're called the fucking American Nazi Party, that's why.

Only an idiot could have watched what happened to ID ten years ago and imagine that naming their own work 'the Theory of Intelligent Design' (complete with identical 'certain features' tag-line) would be a good idea.

You are that idiot, Gary.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2014,07:11   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 23 2014,01:48)
... I got stuck having to return honesty and integrity to science, before you and your friends do even more damage to society...

How are you 'returning honesty and integrity to science' when you have nor display those characteristics yourself?

You demanded evidence against your "theory".
Evidence was provided.
You immediately began the distraction maneuver of shifting the conversation to focus on a thread on a different blog.

The honest and integrity-driven thing to do would be to rise to the challenge -- either your "theory" has evidence against it or the evidence can be dismissed with other evidence and clear chains of logic.  Distraction maneuvers, however, are all you are capable of.

Your "theory" has been dismissed on the (lack of) merits.
Your failure to even make an attempt to defend it is duly noted.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2014,07:28   

I like this Robert Dekko fella:

Quote
What are you rambling about? "to share needing to try affording"? Gibberish. I can't tell if you're angry at other ID proponents for not backing you up and giving you funding or what. Also, who would need to afford to pay you to write a paper? Didn't you already have your manifesto typed and ready to go? It's 40 pages of more garbled nonsense, it feels like it takes years just to decipher it, I've seen cryptograms easier to read.

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2014,07:38   

GiGo actually tells Richard Fucking Forrest that Forrest doesn't have the ability to understand his theory! That is awesome.

Forrest:
Quote
if you think your "theory" is of the world-shattering significance you imagine it to be, submit it to a reputable academic journal. If it is rejected, perhaps you should consider the possibility that it is l not be because there is some vast international conspiracy to suppress your ideas, but because it is a load of incoherent garbage,


linky

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2014,07:44   

Not having any idea who the mysterious GS Hurd is, is hilarious too.

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2014,07:45   

I want a reality show where every week a new prestigious scientist is grilled by GG about Teh Awesome Theory of ID!

   
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2014,08:05   

"Epic Fails at the Gaulin Tracksite"?
"The Epic of the Massachusetts Madman"?
"Laugh Til You Drop"?

The most accurate, though, would be:
"Pseudo-Scientist[s] of Massachusetts"
Even if it were focused solely on Gary, it might need to plural -- who knows how many of the voices in his head have different notions than whatever the current content of his link points to?

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2014,08:11   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 23 2014,01:48)
...
The double standard that allows new theories to be judged by their title is none the less scientifically unethical...

Well, it certainly is.  Although some titles are well on their way to being instant indicators of epic failure.  In physics, it's any paper that announces a working perpetual motion machine.  In biology, it is, or should be, any announcement of 'intelligent design' without significant limiting qualifiers.

Fortunately, that's not what's happening.
Your work is being judged by its lack of evidence and the mountains of evidence against it.

Your work is being judged by the normal standards applied to putative theories.  You've been told that right from the start, and despite all the (untracked and un-noted) changes, you've not advanced even a trace from that point.

Your personality is being judged by what you show.  Whiny self-aggrandizement.  Dishonesty.  Refusal to engage with material criticism and critiques.  Deflection and distraction maneuvers.
And, of course, the brutal contradiction between who you present yourself as and who you actually are.  A pitiful loser with no education in science, a job that seems to be exactly commensurate with your skills and abilities, and a pay rate to match.  A cry-baby.  A fool.  A buffoon of the first degree.  If it were an act, you'd be science's court jester.  Tragically, at least for you, it's no act.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2014,09:02   

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 23 2014,07:38)
GiGo actually tells Richard Fucking Forrest that Forrest doesn't have the ability to understand his theory! That is awesome.

<a href="humanevents.com/2014/08/19/biological-information-new-perspectives-from-intelligent-design/" target="_blank">linky</a>

Gaulin:                                                                                Forrest:  
Owns some vertebrate trackways                                         Finds & studies vertebrate fossils  
Is named on some museum labels                                        Writes monographs on museum specimens
Has an unpublishable "theory"                                              Publishes testable hypotheses        
Writes computer programs                                                  Has an IT company
Doesn't understand that models don't prove stuff                  Does understand that
Has one pedagogical paper                                                   Has multiple papers on original research
Has difficulty writing understandable sentences                       Does not
Considers that the list above is superior to the list at right      Has a better grasp on reality

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2014,09:14   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 23 2014,00:48)
Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 22 2014,23:19)
Gary, you are the person who wants to label your trash "intelligent design", so why are you surprised if people take you at your word?

The double standard that allows new theories to be judged by their title is none the less scientifically unethical. I got stuck having to return honesty and integrity to science, before you and your friends do even more damage to society. Before I even started developing the Theory of Intelligent Design the paranoids you suck-up to were accusing me of slipping pseudoscience into the public schools "under radar" and other nonsense.

You do know you're not stuck, right Gary.  You can stop.  You can hand off your "work" to someone else.  You can decide you've done enough and leave it for others.

If you decide to continue tilting at windmills, you need to accept that you have chosen to do so.  You have chosen to go from site to site inviting ridicule.  Quit pretending to be a victim.  You have chosen to spend your time this way, and you can walk away anytime you like.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2014,09:31   

Quote
I got stuck having to return honesty and integrity to science, before you and your friends do even more damage to society.

(cue Hans Zimmer)

Gaulin Begins

  
socle



Posts: 322
Joined: July 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2014,10:06   

Quote (Woodbine @ Aug. 23 2014,09:31)
 
Quote
I got stuck having to return honesty and integrity to science, before you and your friends do even more damage to society.

(cue Hans Zimmer)

Gaulin Begins

That sentence screams "Reluctant Hero".  From tvtropes:
 
Quote
They didn't want these powers, this magic, this curse, or whatever it is that was foisted upon them. The responsibility to save the world? Forget it! All those exciting adventures and the ability to potentially do anything? Take it away. They want nothing to do with it.

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2014,10:53   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 23 2014,08:13)
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Aug. 22 2014,23:58)
Quote (k.e.. @ Aug. 22 2014,20:13)
       
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 23 2014,03:08)
There are a couple of new threads ready for your enjoyment!

http://humanevents.com/2014.......0688954

Anyone in this forum know someone named Dr. GS Hurd?

http://humanevents.com/2014.......2305646

Thanks for the tip-off!

You can't mean this ...?

       
Quote
Robert Dekko  Gary Gaulin • a day ago
I studied your theory in quite a great amount of detail. From your word soup of terrible descriptions to your inaccurate portrayal of matter, behavior and intelligence to your absurd self-aggrandizement, your theory is bunk.




No...I think he means this one.
      
Quote
Timothy Horton  Gary Gaulin • 2 days ago
GaGa, you've got an almost 400 page thread over at ATBC where your brain dead stupidity has been beaten into a fine pink mist. But I suppose you're not happy until you soil yet another discussion with your mental feces.

Thanks for the link Gary, I did enjoy that.

You're very welcome. It's important to excessively boost the confidence of the ones being led off the edge and into scientific oblivion by those who comfort you by holding your hand all the way to the rock-bottom.

I gave you fair warning. Choice is yours.

Gary the "fine" as in "beaten into a fine pink mist" statement is not actually "fine" as in good but atomized or totally dog shit under a tractor tire. And the "beaten" part referers to pulverized not on the podium. As for your completely dilusional modus operandi stunning just stunning.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
  18634 replies since Oct. 31 2012,02:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (622) < ... 386 387 388 389 390 [391] 392 393 394 395 396 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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