Joined: Oct. 2009
|Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 05 2012,11:29)|
|Joe climbs down:|
|OK my apologies to R0bb and UD-|
? does NOT change.
Hey, Joe, if you can be wrong about that perhaps you can also be wrong about, oh I dunno, everything else as well?
Ever considered that? That perhaps it's your lack of understanding that's the problem, not the science of evolution?
But it's OK, Joe has not really admitted any significant error:
|And that means the new search grid excludes R0bb’s 1.1, 1.2, 1.3. And that has been my point all along.|
Ya see, IOW Joe is always right even when he's wrong. His all along point is still true, despite a few hiccups along the way. So Joe is the only true, undisputed understanderer after all exactly as Joe suspected all along.
Did he also apologize to R0bb for all of these comments made by Joe directly to him in the last 48 hours alone?
|Blah, blah, blah- It has already been proven that your intent is just to purposely mess up whatever Marks or Dembski says.|
So why should anyone try to respond to you?
|Ok R0bb- your math is invalid because your your sets were imporperly defined. That is why we don’t leave math up to people intent on messing it up.|
|And you’re just realizing that now? Did you not read the equatuation and discussion or did you jusrt decide to post without understanding it?|
|They look as if a 3 year old defined them. Other than that, nice job for a 3 year old.|
|Yes, you could so define the set, if you want to be a jerk or if you are a 3 year old.|
|That you refuse to understand that exposes your agenda and your lack of integrity.|
|As I said you appear not to know anything about the topic that you are trying to discuss.|
But seeing that you are anonymous you don’t care that you look foolish.
|R0bb’s post on TSZ are a failure- a failure to comprehend what Dembski and Marks are saying which led to a failure to properly address what they said.|
And one reason that you don’t see progress here is you and your ilk prevent it. This thread is a great case in point…
|Why are you even asking me? Everything is defined in the paper you are referencing. And if you can’t understand what is in the paper, as obvioulsy you do not, then you should not try to discuss it.|
So no, I have indulged you enough- no, more than enough.
|Explain yourself, I dare you…|
|That you can’t even be honest about that exposes your agenda.|
I thought not.
I would suggest that counts as prima facie evidence of uncivil behaviour and name calling. Do the moderator's on that site have no shame? (a rhetorical question)
Joe: Most criticisims of ID stem from ignorance and jealousy.
Joe: As for the authors of the books in the Bible, well the OT was authored by Moses and the NT was authored by various people.
Byers: The eskimo would not need hairy hair growth as hair, I say, is for keeping people dry. Not warm.