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) < ... 233 234 235 236 237 [238] 239 240 241 242 243 ... >

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2014,06:44    Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 30 2014,14:57) And here's peer reviewed literature showing you to be a fat know-nothing again: http://scholar.google.com/scholar....=0%2C44 Thanks! LoL! Richie you are an asshole as that link doesn't do refute anything I have said. Why is it that you can NEVER make your case and you think your stupidity and ignorance somehow refutes me? -------------- "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: Feb. 03 2014,06:51    Evolutionists first- From Talk Origins: Quote Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constituencies of populations of organisms. That this occurs and has been observed is generally undisputed by critics of evolution. What is vigorously challenged, however, is macroevolution. Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa.In evolutionary theory, macroevolution involves common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level (Freeman and Herron 2004; Futuyma 1998; Ridley 1993). From Jerry Coyne: Quote “MACROEVOLUTION: ‘Major’ evolutionary change, usually thought of as large changes in body form or the evolution of one type of plant or animal from another type. The change from our primate ancestor to modern humans, or from early reptiles to birds, would be considered macroevolution. “MICROEVOLUTION: ‘Minor’ evolutionary change, such as the change in size or color of a species. One example is the evolution of different skin colors or hair types among human populations; another is the evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria.” - Coyne, Jerry A. Why Evolution Is True. 2009. Oxford University Press, Glossary, pp. 268-269. What do creationists say?: Quote evolution, biological n. 1) “microevolution”—the name used by many evolutionists to describe genetic variation, the empirically observed phenomenon in which exisiting potential variations within the gene pool of a population of organisms are manifested or suppressed among members of that population over a series of generations. Often simplistically (and erroneously) invoked as “proof” of “macro evolution” 2) macroevolution—the theory/belief that biological population changes take (and have taken) place (typically via mutations and natural selection) on a large enough scale to produce entirely new structural features and organs, resulting in entirely new species, genera, families, orders, classes, and phyla within the biological world, by generating the requisite (new) genetic information. Many evolutionists have used “macro-evolution” and “Neo-Darwinism” as synonymous for the past 150 years. Some evos will say that micro is changes within the species, ie at or below the species level and macro is changes above the species. But that is too vague, besides YECs accept speciation so by that definition YECs would accept macroevolution. Got that? Macroevolution is the evolution of new body plans requiring new body parts. The point? EvoTards claim that macro-evolution is just more micro-evolution. IOW micro-evolutionary events add up to equal macro-evolution. But is that claim supported by the evidence? Let's look. With micro-evolution we get variation in beaks in finches. Variation in beaks cannot be added up to get something other than a bird, nor something other than a finch. No new body plans. No new body parts. Well how about anti-biotic resistance? Another no: Quote Evolutionists frequently point to the development of antibiotic resistance by bacteria as a demonstration of evolutionary change. However, molecular analysis of the genetic events that lead to antibiotic resistance do not support this common assumption. Many bacteria become resistant by acquiring genes from plasmids or transposons via horizontal gene transfer. Horizontal transfer, though, does not account for the origin of resistance genes, only their spread among bacteria. Mutations, on the other hand, can potentially account for the origin of antibiotic resistance within the bacterial world, but involve mutational processes that are contrary to the predictions of evolution. Instead, such mutations consistently reduce or eliminate the function of transport proteins or porins, protein binding affinities, enzyme activities, the proton motive force, or regulatory control systems. While such mutations can be regarded as “beneficial,” in that they increase the survival rate of bacteria in the presence of the antibiotic, they involve mutational processes that do not provide a genetic mechanism for common “descent with modification.” Also, some “relative fitness” cost is often associated with such mutations, although reversion mutations may eventually recover most, if not all, of this cost for some bacteria. A true biological cost does occur, however, in the loss of pre-existing cellular systems or functions. Such loss of cellular activity cannot legitimately be offered as a genetic means of demonstrating evolution. Got that? No matter how many mutations occur bacteria give rise to bacteria. Even with endosymbiosis all you get is bacteria with mitochondria or chloroplasts, which does not make it a eukaryote. Lenski? 50,000+ generations and no new protein complexes. Modifying existing structures- well just what in an invertebrate can be modified as to give rise to vertebrates? Single-cell anemia is another micro-evolutionary event that isn't going to lead to macro-evolution. Change in eye color is another micro-evolutionary event that isn't going to lead to macro-evolution. The point being is there isn't anything in micro-evolutionary events that anyone can extrapolate to a macro-evolutionary event meaning evotards are liars. But we already knew that. However I am sure evotards can IMAGINE micro-evolutionary event adding up to a macro-evolutionary event. And as long as they can IMAGINE it they think it is science. -------------- "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

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2014,07:23    Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 03 2014,06:42) Kevin McCarthy, scientifically illiterate: Quote •  Describes the so-called barrier in evolution that prevents so-called macroevolution from occurring. Evidence supporting this claim must be included. ”I say it exists” is not evidence. In your discussion, you will need to show an understanding of how actual evolution works (not the typical ID strawman), how new taxonomic groups are formed (hint, I’ve described this in detail), and an explanation of how new taxonomic orders arise if not by evolution (the designer did it is not an explanation unless you provide evidence for the designer as well). No, dumbass. It is up to YOU to demonstrate the validity of macroevolution. It isn’t up to us to prove a negative and only someone ignorant of science would ask us to. And here is Kevin. That said, just look at Lenski’s experiment- 50,000+ generations and not even a new protein, let alone a new multi-protein complex. Also Kevin is full of shit as neither he nor anyone else has described macroevolution in any detail. Doing so would be to discuss the genes involved along with how those genes and networks came to be. You have nothing but branching of species. Unfortunately there isn’t anything in the observed cases of speciation that we can extrapolate into macroevolution. My bet is Kevin doesn’t understand what macroevolution entails. Quote •  Who is the designer and the evidence for the DESIGNER to exist (not any supposed works of said designer). It’s very silly to say that the tooth fairy is the cause of teeth disappearing when there’s no evidence that the tooth fair exists. Inferences about a designer are not sufficient when there is an alternate explanation for the diversity of life. Double-dumbass. We don’t even know who designed Stonehenge. Ya see, moron, REALITY dictates that in the absence of direct observation of designer input, the ONLY possible way to make any scientific determination about the designer(s) or specific process(es) used, is by studying the design and all relevant evidence. The evidence that people built Stonehenge is, wait for it, Stonehenge and the other evidence left behind. If we knew who the designer was we wouldn’t need science to help us make a design inference- design would be a given. It’s as if Kevin is proud of his ignorance of science. Forensic science examines the scene for evidence the criminal may have left behind. Archaeologists don't look for existing civilizations. They look for ancient civilizations and they find them by locating the supposed works of the people. SETI looks for the supposed works of ET. Kevin is obviously retarded. Quote •  The computation of complexity, specified complexity, complex specified information, or any other ID notion about complexity, information, or specificity. This computation can be for a gene, a protein, a structure, or an organism. The same computation for a non-designed system (you choose, but examples would be a rock of the same mass as an organism, a string of random numbers the same length as the gene or protein (include a string of data that has been encrypted using an approved method (256 bit AES for example)). In this description all variables should be explicitly defined and explained. The results should also be explained (i.e. why does this value indicate design while that value indicates non-design.) I already provided you with that and you obviously choked on it. Quote •  The existence of front-loading in any open-source genetic algorithm. I have often heard that programmers ‘design’ the results of genetic algorithms by inserting the ‘correct’ values in the program somehow. Since there are numerous examples of open-source genetic algorithms, it should be trivial to determine where, exactly, the information is front-loaded. An alternate version of this would be a detailed explanation of how a ‘search’ in a genetic algorithm is different from a ‘search’ by a population in the real world. This should be mathematically rigorous not “because living things are different than programs”. Just shut up- you are obviously proud to be an asshole. Genetic algorithms are goal-oriented. They are designed for specific purposes. For a GA to design an antenna, for example, all of the information for that antenna has to be programmed in and the offspring are compared to that. They employ a targeted search and cumulative selection to achieve a pre-specified result, ie the specification of the antenna required. Dawkins’ “weasel” is unable to design an antenna because it isn’t designed to. Only GAs specifically designed to design an antenna can do so. Got that, dipshit? Quote •  Which is the designer responsible for and why? A) The creation of the entire universe and everything in it. B) The creation of only living things on Earth. C) The creation of only ‘complex’ (include a definition and how you determine complexity) structures in organisms. D) The front-loading of living things with genes that will help their descendants survive (examples required). E) something not yet mentioned by ID advocates. Again, THAT is what science is for, Kevin. Quote •  A page number of any description of any of this or experiments that support these statements in Meyer’s Darwin’s Doubt. I have asked this multiple times from multiple people who feel that my treatment of Darwin’s Doubt is incomplete. Yet not a single one of them have responded Kevin, you butchered that book. You should be ashamed but yet you are not. Strange. Joe. 1) YOU said that there was a barrier to macroevolution.  Just tell us what it is. 2) Humans designed stonehenge, Joe... Humans. WIth known characters of strength, lifespan, innovativeness, and creativity. We still know NOTHING about your so-called designer.  Was it human?  Like Behe's time travelling cell-biologists.  Did Doctor Who, just stop at a million points in the history of the Earth and drop stuff off? 3) Joe, teh recipe for Caek isn't what I asked for.  If you have done this, provide a link.  No, the number of bits in the word 'aardvark' doesn't count either. 4) And yet, genetic algorithms have resulted in systems that are way better than a team of HUMAN engineers have ever come up with.  Indeed, in at least one case, evolution has resulted in a system that human engineers can't even understand, much less duplicate. Why don't you explain, in detail,* the difference between a goal oriented program and a goal oriented environment, when in both, the organisms are only their to survive (Avida). 5) You have to show the existence of a designer before you can start talking about what he did Joe.  Once again, you contradict yourself within just a few paragraphs. Your skill in that is amazing. We know that stonehenge is designed, because we know that humans designed it.  We know that living things are designer because we have no idea who or what the designer is and haven't even begun to find out yet.  Joe, you can't even do circular reasoning right... your train fell of the circular track halfway through. And that is why these questions remain unanswered.  When Joe speaks for your position, then you are doomed. ___ * Not really, I don't want to listen to your whining anymore. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Driver Posts: 649 Joined: June 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2014,07:30    Joe about his banning at TSZ: Quote what I posted was NOT pornographic. Are you going to tell your friends at UD what the filename was, Joe? Was it a picture of an unpleasant cat? -------------- Why would I concern myself with evidence, when IMO "evidence" is only the mind arranging thought and matter to support what one already wishes to believe? - William J Murray [A]t this time a forum like this one is nothing less than a national security risk. - Gary Gaulin

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2014,07:53    Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 03 2014,14:51) Evolutionists first- From Talk Origins:     Quote Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constituencies of populations of organisms. That this occurs and has been observed is generally undisputed by critics of evolution. What is vigorously challenged, however, is macroevolution. Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa.In evolutionary theory, macroevolution involves common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level (Freeman and Herron 2004; Futuyma 1998; Ridley 1993). From Jerry Coyne:     Quote “MACROEVOLUTION: ‘Major’ evolutionary change, usually thought of as large changes in body form or the evolution of one type of plant or animal from another type. The change from our primate ancestor to modern humans, or from early reptiles to birds, would be considered macroevolution. “MICROEVOLUTION: ‘Minor’ evolutionary change, such as the change in size or color of a species. One example is the evolution of different skin colors or hair types among human populations; another is the evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria.” - Coyne, Jerry A. Why Evolution Is True. 2009. Oxford University Press, Glossary, pp. 268-269. What do creationists say?:     Quote evolution, biological n. 1) “microevolution”—the name used by many evolutionists to describe genetic variation, the empirically observed phenomenon in which exisiting potential variations within the gene pool of a population of organisms are manifested or suppressed among members of that population over a series of generations. Often simplistically (and erroneously) invoked as “proof” of “macro evolution” 2) macroevolution—the theory/belief that biological population changes take (and have taken) place (typically via mutations and natural selection) on a large enough scale to produce entirely new structural features and organs, resulting in entirely new species, genera, families, orders, classes, and phyla within the biological world, by generating the requisite (new) genetic information. Many evolutionists have used “macro-evolution” and “Neo-Darwinism” as synonymous for the past 150 years. Some evos will say that micro is changes within the species, ie at or below the species level and macro is changes above the species. But that is too vague, besides YECs accept speciation so by that definition YECs would accept macroevolution. Got that? Macroevolution is the evolution of new body plans requiring new body parts. The point? EvoTards claim that macro-evolution is just more micro-evolution. IOW micro-evolutionary events add up to equal macro-evolution. But is that claim supported by the evidence? Let's look. With micro-evolution we get variation in beaks in finches. Variation in beaks cannot be added up to get something other than a bird, nor something other than a finch. No new body plans. No new body parts. Well how about anti-biotic resistance? Another no:     Quote Evolutionists frequently point to the development of antibiotic resistance by bacteria as a demonstration of evolutionary change. However, molecular analysis of the genetic events that lead to antibiotic resistance do not support this common assumption. Many bacteria become resistant by acquiring genes from plasmids or transposons via horizontal gene transfer. Horizontal transfer, though, does not account for the origin of resistance genes, only their spread among bacteria. Mutations, on the other hand, can potentially account for the origin of antibiotic resistance within the bacterial world, but involve mutational processes that are contrary to the predictions of evolution. Instead, such mutations consistently reduce or eliminate the function of transport proteins or porins, protein binding affinities, enzyme activities, the proton motive force, or regulatory control systems. While such mutations can be regarded as “beneficial,” in that they increase the survival rate of bacteria in the presence of the antibiotic, they involve mutational processes that do not provide a genetic mechanism for common “descent with modification.” Also, some “relative fitness” cost is often associated with such mutations, although reversion mutations may eventually recover most, if not all, of this cost for some bacteria. A true biological cost does occur, however, in the loss of pre-existing cellular systems or functions. Such loss of cellular activity cannot legitimately be offered as a genetic means of demonstrating evolution. Got that? No matter how many mutations occur bacteria give rise to bacteria. Even with endosymbiosis all you get is bacteria with mitochondria or chloroplasts, which does not make it a eukaryote. Lenski? 50,000+ generations and no new protein complexes. Modifying existing structures- well just what in an invertebrate can be modified as to give rise to vertebrates? Single-cell anemia is another micro-evolutionary event that isn't going to lead to macro-evolution. Change in eye color is another micro-evolutionary event that isn't going to lead to macro-evolution. The point being is there isn't anything in micro-evolutionary events that anyone can extrapolate to a macro-evolutionary event meaning evotards are liars. But we already knew that. However I am sure evotards can IMAGINE micro-evolutionary event adding up to a macro-evolutionary event. And as long as they can IMAGINE it they think it is science. Hey Joe* since you are now the world's pre-eminent ID authority given that  the sun has set on the rest of them they are enjoying book royalties from rubes..all except Dembski who has yet to pay off his advances what specifically can you say about a "Design that is a mechanism, but not a specific mechanism". Make it easy on yourself what design in the real world has no specific mechanism? Which part of the Boeing 747 Design is not specified? In fact take any REAL WORLD example you like. Joe has it occurred to you you just might not be up to the task of removing specificity from science. Given that your highest "professional" achievement hasn't registered on any recognized academic scale and you have produced no original research how do you hope to do it? Could you be gunning for another Duck Dynasty phenomenon? Tard Dynasty has a nice ring to it don't you think. Think about it Joe, they are stealing your best lines and making millions from your unique ourvre.   * The last last time someone said that to me it was followed by "..you want my sister?") -------------- "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

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2014,08:04    Quote (k.e.. @ Feb. 03 2014,07:53) Could you be gunning for another Duck Dynasty phenomenon? Tard Dynasty has a nice ring to it don't you think. Oh crap.  Do NOT give them ideas like this. "Now, on the channel that brought you a show about driving on snow and the guy who claims aliens are the cause of everything... The HISTORY Channel presents... Intelligent Design... starring Joe, who agreed to meet with us only in a parking lot in a different city than where he lives because he was afraid of us disturbing his vegetarian ticks." -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2014,08:10    Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 03 2014,08:04) Quote (k.e.. @ Feb. 03 2014,07:53) Could you be gunning for another Duck Dynasty phenomenon? Tard Dynasty has a nice ring to it don't you think. Oh crap.  Do NOT give them ideas like this. "Now, on the channel that brought you a show about driving on snow and the guy who claims aliens are the cause of everything... The HISTORY Channel presents... Intelligent Design... starring Joe, who agreed to meet with us only in a parking lot in a different city than where he lives because he was afraid of us disturbing his vegetarian ticks." Oh I'd watch a show about Joe. Its basically Honey Boo Boo but with a more childish mind. -------------- "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

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2014,12:29    Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 03 2014,06:10) Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 03 2014,08:04) Quote (k.e.. @ Feb. 03 2014,07:53) Could you be gunning for another Duck Dynasty phenomenon? Tard Dynasty has a nice ring to it don't you think. Oh crap.  Do NOT give them ideas like this. "Now, on the channel that brought you a show about driving on snow and the guy who claims aliens are the cause of everything... The HISTORY Channel presents... Intelligent Design... starring Joe, who agreed to meet with us only in a parking lot in a different city than where he lives because he was afraid of us disturbing his vegetarian ticks." Oh I'd watch a show about Joe. Its basically Honey Boo Boo but with a more childish mind. Dick Dynasty. -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5287 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2014,15:21    Fattytard on his own blog finally admits to ID's real dilemma:     Quote Stop criticizing ID for focusing on probabilities when that is all we have That's right JoeTard.  ID has no description of the Designer or its powers / limitations, no purpose for the design, no mechanism of manufacture, no timeline, no testable hypotheses, no way of falsification.  In fact ID has no positive evidence at all.  But damn, they do have those pulled out of their ass probabilities!     -------------- "CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology" "If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic." "Jews and Christians are Muslims." - Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2014,16:13    Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 03 2014,15:21) Fattytard on his own blog finally admits to ID's real dilemma:       Quote Stop criticizing ID for focusing on probabilities when that is all we have That's right JoeTard.  ID has no description of the Designer or its powers / limitations, no purpose for the design, no mechanism of manufacture, no timeline, no testable hypotheses, no way of falsification.  In fact ID has no positive evidence at all.  But damn, they do have those pulled out of their ass probabilities! :D  :D  :D I took a screen shot of that one and will continue to reference it until such evidence is actually produced. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Woodbine Posts: 1218 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2014,17:41    Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 03 2014,21:21) Fattytard on his own blog finally admits to ID's real dilemma:         Quote Stop criticizing ID for focusing on probabilities when that is all we have Joe-Tard POTW?

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2014,17:46    Quote (Woodbine @ Feb. 03 2014,17:41) Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 03 2014,21:21) Fattytard on his own blog finally admits to ID's real dilemma:         Quote Stop criticizing ID for focusing on probabilities when that is all we have Joe-Tard POTW? +1. -------------- "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

Mindrover Posts: 65 Joined: April 2010 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2014,01:11    I know that this must come from the "Blindingly Obvious News" desk, but Joe cannot possibly be thinking his arguments through. His argument that it is not up to ID to "prove a negative" regarding macroevolution is a prime example. While Joe may be trying to draw parallels with James Randi's inability to disprove telepathy, he forgets the other part of the argument. Joe has not been asked to form a coherent thesis from nothingness - he is being asked to provide evidence to his assertion that there is a barrier to macroevolution. While you cannot prove a negative, you can certainly disprove a positive argument. This is not a case of "If never A then always B", this is a case of "explain why you say A can never happen". "B" is not even in the discussion. All that we can take from this, avoiding derogatory cheap-shots, is that he cannot prove that macroevolution is wrong. I congratulate Joe for admitting such.

Mindrover Posts: 65 Joined: April 2010 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2014,01:26    On further reflection, I may have fallen into the same trap that caught ID proponents - Anthropomorphization.

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2014,21:06    How long before Joey claims on his blog that he would have crushed Bill Nye? I say before 8PM tomorrow. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Texas Teach Posts: 2084 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2014,22:07    Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 04 2014,21:06) How long before Joey claims on his blog that he would have crushed Bill Nye? I say before 8PM tomorrow. Yes, but Joe also believes he would have beaten the Seahawks. -------------- "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

Ptaylor Posts: 1180 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2014,16:49    Joe seems particularly excited about the DI's Censor of the Year award going to Jerry Coyne. And you have to hand it to him; he has some good criticisms: First on UD:   Quote Only a cowardly lowlife would call or write to a university to get a course removed just because that course made you soil your diaper. Enter Jerry Coyne and Ball State… Then on his own blog:   Quote Jerry Coyne- Voted Asshole Douchebag of the Year for 2013 ... You are a sick fuck Jerry. A coward, a liar and a piece-of shit all in one- well that covers all evoTARDs- Jerry is just one of the leaders. Well, Joe, having put it that way I guess you have a point. Edited by Ptaylor on Feb. 11 2014,21:18 -------------- We no longer say: “Another day; another bad day for Darwinism.â€� We now say: “Another day since the time Darwinism was disproved.â€� -PaV, Uncommon Descent, 19 June 2016

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5287 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2014,18:22    Quote (Ptaylor @ Feb. 10 2014,16:49) Jo seems particularly excited about the DI's Censor of the Year award going to Jerry Coyne. And you have to hand it to him; he has some good criticisms: First on UD:     Quote Only a cowardly lowlife would call or write to a university to get a course removed just because that course made you soil your diaper. Enter Jerry Coyne and Ball State… Then on his own blog:     Quote Jerry Coyne- Voted Asshole Douchebag of the Year for 2013 ... You are a sick fuck Jerry. A coward, a liar and a piece-of shit all in one- well that covers all evoTARDs- Jerry is just one of the leaders. Well, Joe, having put it that way I guess you have a point. Moar big bad Fattytard:   Quote Dr Eric Hedin (Ball State) must be a really mild-mannered person. I'm pretty sure I would have went after Coyne and told him to his face to shut his mouth. And as he stood there shitting himself I would let my dogs loose in his house. I guess the parking lot was too far for him to waddle this time.   -------------- "CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology" "If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic." "Jews and Christians are Muslims." - Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

Driver Posts: 649 Joined: June 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2014,22:02    Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 11 2014,00:22) Quote (Ptaylor @ Feb. 10 2014,16:49) Jo seems particularly excited about the DI's Censor of the Year award going to Jerry Coyne. And you have to hand it to him; he has some good criticisms: First on UD:       Quote Only a cowardly lowlife would call or write to a university to get a course removed just because that course made you soil your diaper. Enter Jerry Coyne and Ball State… Then on his own blog:       Quote Jerry Coyne- Voted Asshole Douchebag of the Year for 2013 ... You are a sick fuck Jerry. A coward, a liar and a piece-of shit all in one- well that covers all evoTARDs- Jerry is just one of the leaders. Well, Joe, having put it that way I guess you have a point. Moar big bad Fattytard:     Quote Dr Eric Hedin (Ball State) must be a really mild-mannered person. I'm pretty sure I would have went after Coyne and told him to his face to shut his mouth. And as he stood there shitting himself I would let my dogs loose in his house. I guess the parking lot was too far for him to waddle this time.   :D That half hour Joe spent at WEIT replying to all them evilutionists and telling them what's what. Only for none of his comments to see the light of day and username banned. Joe will never get that half hour back. He's furious. -------------- Why would I concern myself with evidence, when IMO "evidence" is only the mind arranging thought and matter to support what one already wishes to believe? - William J Murray [A]t this time a forum like this one is nothing less than a national security risk. - Gary Gaulin

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2014,00:59    Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 10 2014,16:22) Moar big bad Fattytard:     Quote Dr Eric Hedin (Ball State) must be a really mild-mannered person. I'm pretty sure I would have went after Coyne and told him to his face to shut his mouth. And as he stood there shitting himself I would let my dogs loose in his house. I guess the parking lot was too far for him to waddle this time.   :D Wait until he finds out Ball isn't a state. -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

Mindrover Posts: 65 Joined: April 2010 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2014,07:41    No, I'm pretty sure that Joe thinks "Ball" is one of the states of matter (Water, Hail, Cake, Ball, etc).

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2014,08:02    Comes from living under a Ball Jar. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2014,08:33    He thinks other men only have one as well? -------------- "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

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2014,11:21    Joe Gallien: A proponent of butt pounding. Quote 11 JoeFebruary 10, 2014 at 6:30 pm We have the facts and need to pound them with the facts until their butt hurts. What would Mr leathers say? -------------- "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

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2014,11:47    Quote (k.e.. @ Feb. 11 2014,06:33) He thinks other men only have one as well? Just Hitler. -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2014,09:50    Joe is having some math problems. I think he had a 'gotcha moment' but then worked it out and tried to save face: https://www.blogger.com/comment....9410439 -------------- "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

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2014,10:02    Quote (JohnW @ Feb. 11 2014,19:47) Quote (k.e.. @ Feb. 11 2014,06:33) He thinks other men only have one as well? Just Hitler. Actually it was Mao Say Dong..... -------------- "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

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2014,10:16    Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 12 2014,17:50) Joe is having some math problems. I think he had a 'gotcha moment' but then worked it out and tried to save face: https://www.blogger.com/comment....9410439 So does that mean specifics are now ruled back into ID? Jesus you would think they'd all agree on this. This should be fun ....Joe can we have the Designers list of ingredients and her recipe for Adam and Eve starting with Joe's favorite part of the body? I imagine it would start with dirt.... -------------- "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

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2014,08:51    And now Joe has turned up at John Loftus' Debunking Christianity. Language Matters He's such a widdle stalker.  Anywhere he can try and convince people I'm wrong.  Good luck Joe. It's really sad. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2014,11:11    That's  kind of a sad thread. Any word you use to denote evolution will be demonized. Better just to teach kids how science works. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

Pages: (919) < ... 233 234 235 236 237 [238] 239 240 241 242 243 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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