Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Joe G.'s Tardgasm

Pages: (919) < ... 29 30 31 32 33 [34] 35 36 37 38 39 ... >

Lou FCD Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2010,12:02    lulz at little joey tardbucket getting smacked down by a 13 year old girl. You *know* that's gotta sting his misogynistic little peepee. Poor joey. -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2010,12:05    Awwww, Cakeboy tries to goad me: http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010....on.html and links to his prior tour-de-tard: http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2009....ed.html I'll be replying here, to keep your blog a wasteland. You can reply to yourself if you like, like JAD. Joe, you're entirely wrong. Your hilariously idiotic cake episode highlights that, but you're too stupid to see that. You've never calculated the CSI of anything, nor has any other IDer. -------------- "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

Wolfhound Posts: 468 Joined: June 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2010,18:17    Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,11:50) Quote (Louis @ Nov. 25 2010,10:49) Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,16:44) [SNIP] However it isn't worth posting that here because the people who run this septic tank have already changed my words- IOW this is a dishonest venuee and you chumps are proof of that. Bolding mine. Evidence or STFU. Louis The evidence is in the one thread I started. The one I titled "ID is not anti-evolution" but some assface changed it. IOW Louis you shut the fuck up you fuck... Why are you such an asshole?  Seriously.  What made you into such an angry, bitter, nasty, mean-spirited, hateful person?  Why does the thought that you were not made all speshul-like upset you so much?  You have the same viceral, violent reaction to universally accepted evolutionary processes that your run-of-the-mill Bible-soaked fuckwit does.  Why is this?  If you hate this board and the people on it so much, why don't you just fuck off?  When I don't want to read something, I put it down.  If I don't want to watch a program, I turn off the television.  If I wanted to remain an ignorant shitbag I'd advocate ID/creationism instead of real science and call everybody who agrees with universally accepted science a liar and whatnot whilst failing to read the papers which support it this universally accepted science.  But that's just me.  Your motives are you own, I suppose. -------------- I've found my personality to be an effective form of birth control.

Badger3k Posts: 861 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2010,18:31    Quote (Wolfhound @ Nov. 27 2010,18:17) Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,11:50) Quote (Louis @ Nov. 25 2010,10:49)   Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,16:44) [SNIP] However it isn't worth posting that here because the people who run this septic tank have already changed my words- IOW this is a dishonest venuee and you chumps are proof of that. Bolding mine. Evidence or STFU. Louis The evidence is in the one thread I started. The one I titled "ID is not anti-evolution" but some assface changed it. IOW Louis you shut the fuck up you fuck... Why are you such an asshole?  Seriously.  What made you into such an angry, bitter, nasty, mean-spirited, hateful person?  Why does the thought that you were not made all speshul-like upset you so much?  You have the same viceral, violent reaction to universally accepted evolutionary processes that your run-of-the-mill Bible-soaked fuckwit does.  Why is this?  If you hate this board and the people on it so much, why don't you just fuck off?  When I don't want to read something, I put it down.  If I don't want to watch a program, I turn off the television.  If I wanted to remain an ignorant shitbag I'd advocate ID/creationism instead of real science and call everybody who agrees with universally accepted science a liar and whatnot whilst failing to read the papers which support it this universally accepted science.  But that's just me.  Your motives are you own, I suppose. His mommy called him "special", and he knows mommy is never wrong? -------------- "Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2010,22:12    Joe, or should I call you friend of Jordan? Whichever--try this next time you visit.  Give an answer to any of the fairly straightforward questions that have been asked of you.  You pretend, as many others before you have, to be about the science.  Your actions belie this falsehood, however.  You fail to grasp that acceptance comes from offering details.  Of course, in the long run, acceptance comes from a combination of offering supportable details and a willingness to acknowledge mistakes and move on from falsified positions. So, how about it, Joey?  Can you give an example of anything?  Anything at all? 1.  The information content of anything?  You pick. 2.  The number of words in the sentence, "The red brick fudges the upstairs house."? 3.  Whether or not virtual particles are things? 4.  If "chairs" are things. 5.  A single example of anything you talk about.  You pick the topic.  You define the example.  Anything??? -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2010,09:15    Poor Joe is attention starved. http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010....on.html When I claim "You've never calculated the CSI of anything, nor has any other IDer." he replies Quote Unfortunately for RichTard Hughes I am exactly correct and have provided a reference to support my claim: But 'forgets' to include any math or an example. whoopsy. then we have Quote And Richtard- thanks for staying away. That makes my blog a better place. Traffic here has picked up in the past week... Yes, your last 3 posts have a total of 2 comments. That's nearly a whole comment per post. Well done! Most tools I found can't count Intelligent Reasoning's traffic as it is too low, but this one http://bizinformation.org/us/www.intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com suggests under 10 visitors a day. And I'm probably 4 of them. -------------- "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: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2010,09:49    Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 29 2010,09:15) Poor Joe is attention starved. http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010....on.html When I claim "You've never calculated the CSI of anything, nor has any other IDer." he replies Quote Unfortunately for RichTard Hughes I am exactly correct and have provided a reference to support my claim: But 'forgets' to include any math or an example. whoopsy. then we have Quote And Richtard- thanks for staying away. That makes my blog a better place. Traffic here has picked up in the past week... Yes, your last 3 posts have a total of 2 comments. That's nearly a whole comment per post. Well done! Most tools I found can't count Intelligent Reasoning's traffic as it is too low, but this one http://bizinformation.org/us/www.intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com suggests under 10 visitors a day. And I'm probably 4 of them. Richard, you are an enabler. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2010,10:04    Keeping Joe, erm, 'prolific', is bad for ID. And funny. My compassion ran out when he started trying to arrange meet-ups for fisticuffs. -------------- "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

Wolfhound Posts: 468 Joined: June 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2010,14:16    Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 29 2010,11:04) Keeping Joe, erm, 'prolific', is bad for ID. And funny. My compassion ran out when he started trying to arrange meet-ups for fisticuffs. S'okay, Richard; I've got your back. <*flexes*>  RAWR!! -------------- I've found my personality to be an effective form of birth control.

fnxtr Posts: 3504 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2010,19:27    Quote (Wolfhound @ Nov. 29 2010,12:16) Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 29 2010,11:04) Keeping Joe, erm, 'prolific', is bad for ID. And funny. My compassion ran out when he started trying to arrange meet-ups for fisticuffs. S'okay, Richard; I've got your back. <*flexes*>  RAWR!! swoon. -------------- "[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory "Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2010,19:37    Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 29 2010,16:04) Keeping Joe, erm, 'prolific', is bad for ID. And funny. My compassion ran out when he started trying to arrange meet-ups for fisticuffs. That's strange. When JoeJoe starting trying to get the big boys out into the car park for a pagga, he became almost immeasurably funnier in my book. I mean, seriously, that is how science SHOULD be settled. Everyone into the car park for a full on battle royale, last scientist standing gets his or her theory pronounced to be true. Come to think if it, that is kinda how it works now.... Louis -------------- Bye.

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2010,19:49    Quote (Louis @ Nov. 29 2010,19:37) Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 29 2010,16:04) Keeping Joe, erm, 'prolific', is bad for ID. And funny. My compassion ran out when he started trying to arrange meet-ups for fisticuffs. That's strange. When JoeJoe starting trying to get the big boys out into the car park for a pagga, he became almost immeasurably funnier in my book. I mean, seriously, that is how science SHOULD be settled. Everyone into the car park for a full on battle royale, last scientist standing gets his or her theory pronounced to be true. Come to think if it, that is kinda how it works now.... Louis He's got some new tard up: http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010....ed.html He seems to not understand the compression/Shannon part at all. -------------- "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

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2010,20:21    Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 29 2010,20:49) He seems to not understand the compression/Shannon part at all. Not to mention the specification part.   Quote With that said to measure biological information, ie biological specification, all you have to do is count the coding nucleotides of the genes involved for that functioning system and then multiply by 2 (four possible nucleotides = 2^2). Randomize the coding nucleotides so they do nothing and specify nothing - neither "viability" nor "minimal function" nor "specific effects." Count them, and multiply by two, and arrive at precisely the same value. So, Joe, tell us again how your procedure measures "specified" information? -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

Hermagoras Posts: 1260 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2010,21:57    Quote (Wolfhound @ Nov. 27 2010,18:17) Why are you such an asshole?  Seriously.  What made you into such an angry, bitter, nasty, mean-spirited, hateful person?   Questions for the ages, really. -------------- "I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 30 2010,00:53    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 29 2010,20:21) Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 29 2010,20:49) He seems to not understand the compression/Shannon part at all. Not to mention the specification part.   Quote With that said to measure biological information, ie biological specification, all you have to do is count the coding nucleotides of the genes involved for that functioning system and then multiply by 2 (four possible nucleotides = 2^2). Randomize the coding nucleotides so they do nothing and specify nothing - neither "viability" nor "minimal function" nor "specific effects." Count them, and multiply by two, and arrive at precisely the same value. So, Joe, tell us again how your procedure measures "specified" information? Just to make it funnier when Joey comes back around and ignores this death-stroke to his theory, I'll put another copy up.  I do apologize, Bill; this probably makes you a double child molester. -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

Stanton Posts: 266 Joined: Jan. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 30 2010,07:35    Quote (Hermagoras @ Nov. 29 2010,21:57) Quote (Wolfhound @ Nov. 27 2010,18:17) Why are you such an asshole?  Seriously.  What made you into such an angry, bitter, nasty, mean-spirited, hateful person?   Questions for the ages, really. Because the Nobel Prize Committee doesn't make "pity prizes"?

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 30 2010,15:49    Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 29 2010,19:49) Quote (Louis @ Nov. 29 2010,19:37)   Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 29 2010,16:04) Keeping Joe, erm, 'prolific', is bad for ID. And funny. My compassion ran out when he started trying to arrange meet-ups for fisticuffs. That's strange. When JoeJoe starting trying to get the big boys out into the car park for a pagga, he became almost immeasurably funnier in my book. I mean, seriously, that is how science SHOULD be settled. Everyone into the car park for a full on battle royale, last scientist standing gets his or her theory pronounced to be true. Come to think if it, that is kinda how it works now.... Louis He's got some new tard up: http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010....ed.html He seems to not understand the compression/Shannon part at all. To be fair to Joe, this new thread-o-tard has recently become a hotbed of in-depth discussion. Get your Google adds going, Joe! Monetize and retire! -------------- "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

Lou FCD Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 30 2010,20:26    OK. So hypothetical TARDfight between TARDbucket Joey and TARDbucket Denny. Obviously, neither coward would ever throw the first punch and they would both piss themselves and run away crying, so the interesting question becomes: Who runs away crying with pissed britches first (and support your position)? -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

MadPanda, FCD Posts: 267 Joined: Nov. 2010 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 30 2010,20:45    Color me one stunned eater of bamboo: he's got nothing coherent but insults, and not even particularly creative insults at that. For those of you who actually visit this person's little corner of cyberspace, I thank you from the bottom of my furry heart for your sacrifice. Joe, you probably don't care one whit for the opinion of a complete stranger, but I gotta tell you, son, you don't come across as someone who knows the material, understands the field, or is capable of having a rational discussion about it.  In fact, you come across like a strong argument against the side to which you cling limpet-like in the face of contrary evidence. It would help if instead of merely asserting (for example) that you've read the papers suggested and that they don't say what they're supposed to say...but were also capable of explaining when asked to do so where the papers fall down and why, without also stooping to the sort of language that gives the likes of Mooney and Nisbet conniptions. As it is, you appear to have nothing but urine, wind, and vinegar to help make your case.  That may work with your echo chamber peanut gallery on your blog, sir, but it doesn't fly out nearly so well out here in the wild. The MadPanda, FCD -------------- "No matter how ridiculous the internet tough guy, a thorough mocking is more effective than a swift kick to the gentleman vegetables with a hobnailed boot" --Louis

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 30 2010,22:20    Joe seems to be arguing that you don't have more information with two copies of a dictionary than you do with just one. Trivially, though, you have the information of how many copies there are. That will increase as log_2(n) with increasing n. (I think we covered that in Elsberry and Shallit 2003.) Given a species with n base pairs, sometimes a tetraploid daughter species can be produced that has 2n base pairs. If there is no change in information for that case, as it appears Joe argues, would we expect that parent and daughter species of that sort are morphologically indistinguishable? -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 30 2010,22:27    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 30 2010,22:20) Joe seems to be arguing that you don't have more information with two copies of a dictionary than you do with just one. Trivially, though, you have the information of how many copies there are. That will increase as log_2(n) with increasing n. (I think we covered that in Elsberry and Shallit 2003.) Given a species with n base pairs, sometimes a tetraploid daughter species can be produced that has 2n base pairs. If there is no change in information for that case, as it appears Joe argues, would we expect that parent and daughter species of that sort are morphologically indistinguishable? These creationists (including Joe, Dembski, Meyer, et. al.) all have two major problems... 1) They don't know anything about Biology.  So they are forced to develop these analogies that really have no bearing on the situation.  Now, don't get me wrong, I've used analogies while teaching, it helps... but one really shouldn't try to overturn 150 years of science with a poor analogy.* 2) They do not, ever, take what they say through the logical continuation.  They say whatever it takes to make the current argument go away and wonder why we turn it around and slam them on it later.  Like Joseph at UD... his argument against me was that bacterial flagella could be descended from a common ancestor... wait... what?  Isn't that what we've been saying all along? * I'm reminded of AFDave's argument that the biggest difference between a watch and a cell was that both are complex.** ** Yes, that's what he said... the DIFFERENCE was that BOTH were complex. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2010,00:50    Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 30 2010,20:26) OK. So hypothetical TARDfight between TARDbucket Joey and TARDbucket Denny. Obviously, neither coward would ever throw the first punch and they would both piss themselves and run away crying, so the interesting question becomes: Who runs away crying with pissed britches first (and support your position)? Reminds me of Dr. Cauis and Sir Hugh.  What a fight, what a fight! -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2010,07:19    Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 29 2010,19:49) Quote (Louis @ Nov. 29 2010,19:37)   Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 29 2010,16:04) Keeping Joe, erm, 'prolific', is bad for ID. And funny. My compassion ran out when he started trying to arrange meet-ups for fisticuffs. That's strange. When JoeJoe starting trying to get the big boys out into the car park for a pagga, he became almost immeasurably funnier in my book. I mean, seriously, that is how science SHOULD be settled. Everyone into the car park for a full on battle royale, last scientist standing gets his or her theory pronounced to be true. Come to think if it, that is kinda how it works now.... Louis He's got some new tard up: http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010....ed.html He seems to not understand the compression/Shannon part at all. And your evidence for that is? -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2010,07:20    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 30 2010,22:20) Joe seems to be arguing that you don't have more information with two copies of a dictionary than you do with just one. Trivially, though, you have the information of how many copies there are. That will increase as log_2(n) with increasing n. (I think we covered that in Elsberry and Shallit 2003.) Given a species with n base pairs, sometimes a tetraploid daughter species can be produced that has 2n base pairs. If there is no change in information for that case, as it appears Joe argues, would we expect that parent and daughter species of that sort are morphologically indistinguishable? No Wes, if you have two copies of the same dictionary you do not have more information than if you just had one. Ya see Wes the information is the same in both. Your problem is you are wed to Shannon's version of information which isn't information at all. -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2010,07:24    Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 30 2010,22:27) Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 30 2010,22:20) Joe seems to be arguing that you don't have more information with two copies of a dictionary than you do with just one. Trivially, though, you have the information of how many copies there are. That will increase as log_2(n) with increasing n. (I think we covered that in Elsberry and Shallit 2003.) Given a species with n base pairs, sometimes a tetraploid daughter species can be produced that has 2n base pairs. If there is no change in information for that case, as it appears Joe argues, would we expect that parent and daughter species of that sort are morphologically indistinguishable? These creationists (including Joe, Dembski, Meyer, et. al.) all have two major problems... 1) They don't know anything about Biology.  So they are forced to develop these analogies that really have no bearing on the situation.  Now, don't get me wrong, I've used analogies while teaching, it helps... but one really shouldn't try to overturn 150 years of science with a poor analogy.* 2) They do not, ever, take what they say through the logical continuation.  They say whatever it takes to make the current argument go away and wonder why we turn it around and slam them on it later.  Like Joseph at UD... his argument against me was that bacterial flagella could be descended from a common ancestor... wait... what?  Isn't that what we've been saying all along? * I'm reminded of AFDave's argument that the biggest difference between a watch and a cell was that both are complex.** ** Yes, that's what he said... the DIFFERENCE was that BOTH were complex. Unfortunately for Ogre I understand biology better than it does. ID is around becaue evos have failed to support their claims. IOW you don't have any science to overturn. And I did not say that on UD- you are mistaken. Also ID is OK with universal common descent- even in the case of the BF- however ID says it evolved via a targeted search not an accumulation of genetic accidents, ie the theory of evolution. How can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum evolved in a population that never had one via an accumulation of genetic accidents? -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2010,07:25    Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Nov. 30 2010,20:45) Color me one stunned eater of bamboo: he's got nothing coherent but insults, and not even particularly creative insults at that. For those of you who actually visit this person's little corner of cyberspace, I thank you from the bottom of my furry heart for your sacrifice. Joe, you probably don't care one whit for the opinion of a complete stranger, but I gotta tell you, son, you don't come across as someone who knows the material, understands the field, or is capable of having a rational discussion about it.  In fact, you come across like a strong argument against the side to which you cling limpet-like in the face of contrary evidence. It would help if instead of merely asserting (for example) that you've read the papers suggested and that they don't say what they're supposed to say...but were also capable of explaining when asked to do so where the papers fall down and why, without also stooping to the sort of language that gives the likes of Mooney and Nisbet conniptions. As it is, you appear to have nothing but urine, wind, and vinegar to help make your case.  That may work with your echo chamber peanut gallery on your blog, sir, but it doesn't fly out nearly so well out here in the wild. The MadPanda, FCD Nice projection... -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2010,07:28    Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 29 2010,09:15) Poor Joe is attention starved. http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010....on.html When I claim "You've never calculated the CSI of anything, nor has any other IDer." he replies Quote Unfortunately for RichTard Hughes I am exactly correct and have provided a reference to support my claim: But 'forgets' to include any math or an example. whoopsy. then we have Quote And Richtard- thanks for staying away. That makes my blog a better place. Traffic here has picked up in the past week... Yes, your last 3 posts have a total of 2 comments. That's nearly a whole comment per post. Well done! Most tools I found can't count Intelligent Reasoning's traffic as it is too low, but this one http://bizinformation.org/us/www.intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com suggests under 10 visitors a day. And I'm probably 4 of them. My blog's stat page counter says 200 visits per day. Over 4,000 last month. Go figure... -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2010,07:31    Quote (Wolfhound @ Nov. 27 2010,18:17) Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,11:50) Quote (Louis @ Nov. 25 2010,10:49)   Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,16:44) [SNIP] However it isn't worth posting that here because the people who run this septic tank have already changed my words- IOW this is a dishonest venuee and you chumps are proof of that. Bolding mine. Evidence or STFU. Louis The evidence is in the one thread I started. The one I titled "ID is not anti-evolution" but some assface changed it. IOW Louis you shut the fuck up you fuck... Why are you such an asshole?  Seriously.  What made you into such an angry, bitter, nasty, mean-spirited, hateful person?  Why does the thought that you were not made all speshul-like upset you so much?  You have the same viceral, violent reaction to universally accepted evolutionary processes that your run-of-the-mill Bible-soaked fuckwit does.  Why is this?  If you hate this board and the people on it so much, why don't you just fuck off?  When I don't want to read something, I put it down.  If I don't want to watch a program, I turn off the television.  If I wanted to remain an ignorant shitbag I'd advocate ID/creationism instead of real science and call everybody who agrees with universally accepted science a liar and whatnot whilst failing to read the papers which support it this universally accepted science.  But that's just me.  Your motives are you own, I suppose. And more projection! I see you clowns can spew one evotardgasm after another but you don't seem to be able to produce any positive evidence for your position. Why is that? You morons can't even understand that ID is not anti-evolution! Geez wolfie all you have is anger and spittle... -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2010,07:37    Quote You morons can't even understand that ID is not anti-evolution! Is it possible to tell the difference between a targeted search and a search without a target Joe? If so, how? And Joe, if the designer is all that why does it not just create the thing it wants directly? I mean, if it can set a target by definition it knows what it's looking for and could just directly create it. So why bother with all the messy "evolution" at all? -------------- 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

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2010,07:56    Where do the bulk of JoeJoe's efforts lie on this pyramid? Even mocking this individual has become boring. Louis -------------- Bye.

Pages: (919) < ... 29 30 31 32 33 [34] 35 36 37 38 39 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard