Antievolution.org - Antievolution.org Discussion Board -Topic::Telic Thoughts Thread

Posted: June 10 2010,13:56

Quote (fnxtr @ June 10 2010,12:39)

Zach,

any idea why it's Canada with a *?

Thanks,

* I think it means "Too busy crying that another year goes by and they can't win at hockey, a game they invented." Go Blackhawks!

** Alternatively, "Too busy crying that another year goes by, and they still have Denyse O'leary as a citizen, dragging down their national writing and IQ scores".

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

oldmanintheskydidntdoit

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: June 10 2010,14:40

chunkdz seyz

Quote

Of course these are plausible. That's the point. I've long characterized origin of life research as a race between the 'bottom up' approach and the 'top down' approach, and that both approaches are equally valid for establishing conceptual proofs. This post is just a brief update on the race from the 'bottom up' perspective.

But since you don't seem very interested in learning what a leading researcher has to say about abiogenesis, and because you seem more interested in preaching your message of anti-creationist bigotry, perhaps your missive would be better received among your vulgar PT peers. Feel free to take your bigotted vendetta with you when you leave.

Perhaps you could treat your followers to another blog post about the dangers of Kirk Cameron? That seems more your speed. Or better yet, won't your foul mouthed minions be impressed when you blog about disgraced creationist Ted Haggard! I hear he's opening a new church in Colorado. That should start a real frenzy of poo-flinging!

But he said it in response to Matzke. And how careful he is with words!

Can it be the same chunkdz who also typed these very words??

Quote

Anyhow if you are upset about it, then you should have said so rather than tossing insults and hypocritically posturing in feigned outrage.

Who's hypocritically posturing in feigned outrage now chunkdz? Note that almost everybody else on the thread went "yeah, that's impossible, a just so story" and you failed to correct their misunderstanding of your intent.

Yet you put on your fancy typing gloves to answer one particular critic in detail.

Bet you planned that for weeks huh chunkdz?

Poor bastard...

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

fnxtr

Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006

Posted: June 10 2010,16:23

Quote (J-Dog @ June 10 2010,11:56)

� �

Quote (fnxtr @ June 10 2010,12:39)

Zach,

any idea why it's Canada with a *?

Thanks,

* I think it means "Too busy crying that another year goes by and they can't win at hockey, a game they invented." Go Blackhawks!

Quite right (shrug). Too bad for us.... how many Canadians on the Chicago team, btw?

Whatever. See you at the next Winter Olympics, J-Dog. ;-)

� �

Quote

** Alternatively, "Too busy crying that another year goes by, and they still have Denyse O'leary as a citizen, dragging down their national writing and IQ scores".

We've had this conversation before.

--------------
"[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

Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

Posted: June 11 2010,06:33

Quote (Zachriel @ June 10 2010,06:49)

Since Bilbo has been working on the fix to the edit feature, all our comments are disappearing into the ozone.

Still disappearing ...

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

You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

oldmanintheskydidntdoit

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: June 12 2010,05:54

Denial Smith talks about atheists but I think he's really talking about himself:

Quote

This is a common missive amongst the atheist clan. They talk as if, given enough time and data, all their beliefs will be vindicated. It's as if, to them, science can only go a certain way. It's funny, in a way, because their hopes and dreams rely on one of the most notoriously unreliable forms of knowledge we know of. The reality is that science could, given enough time and data, completely crush all their hopes and dreams with results that contradict all of their beliefs.

Oh well. I think Jesus mentioned something about houses built on shifting sand�

Link. Yes, indeed. That most unreliable of ways of knowing that might tomorrow find out that the Sun does in fact orbit the earth and the computer Denial is typing on is in fact pen and parchment.
I'll think I'll wait and see how Daniel's "Science from an ID viewpoint" pans out....

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

Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

Posted: June 13 2010,08:57

Quote (Zachriel @ June 11 2010,06:33)

Quote (Zachriel @ June 10 2010,06:49)

Since Bilbo has been working on the fix to the edit feature, all our comments are disappearing into the ozone.

Still disappearing ...

Someone with posting privileges, please ask why Zachriel has been subjected to a silent bannination.

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

You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

Rob R.

Posts: 12
Joined: Sep. 2008

Posted: June 13 2010,12:41

Quote (Zachriel @ June 13 2010,08:57)

Quote (Zachriel @ June 11 2010,06:33)

�

Quote (Zachriel @ June 10 2010,06:49)

Since Bilbo has been working on the fix to the edit feature, all our comments are disappearing into the ozone.

Still disappearing ...

Someone with posting privileges, please ask why Zachriel has been subjected to a silent bannination.

I tried posting your question in the edit/preview and open threads. Neither comment showed up. I imagine Guts is doing some of the changes he talked about.

Quack

Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

Posted: June 13 2010,14:20

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 12 2010,05:54)

Denial Smith talks about atheists but I think he's really talking about himself:

D�j� vu?

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
Robert Byers.

oldmanintheskydidntdoit

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: June 15 2010,11:23

Mr Cordova speaks his mind. Such as it is.

Quote

Larry's looking kinda senile these days. I've read some of his blog, he seems to have reading comprehension issues. Wells pretty much slammed Moran to the floor.

Tard.

Hey, Sal, when are you publishing your first paper on introns?

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

Robin

Posts: 1431
Joined: Sep. 2009

Posted: June 15 2010,13:03

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 12 2010,05:54)

Quote

Denial Smith:

The reality is that science could, given enough time and data, completely crush all their hopes and dreams with results that contradict all of their beliefs.

LOL..."The reality is..." Now that's irony.

Um...hate to burst your bubble Mr. Smith, but the reality is that actual scientists (as opposed to the pseudos at the Dishonesty Institute) don't really have any hopes and dreams when it comes to reality; they merely accept what the data tells them about reality and present an explanation that people can use to make predictions about reality which then lead to the ability to make tools to help live in the reality we have.

I would love to know what "hopes and dreams" Mr. Smith has in mind that he thinks are the horses scientists have bet everything on.

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed. �Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

Posted: June 17 2010,08:13

Zachriel's latest comments on Telic Thoughts.

Quote

Bradford: You should be ashamed for this comment. The critics can come here as you have.

Really?!

Quote

eric: The Disappearing Defender

If all else fails and the problem can't be made to disappear, then one can disappear from the conversation without dealing with the problem, typically without even acknowledging that any serious problem exists.

Interesting.

Odd. Neither comment appeared. Indeed, it looks as if Zachriel has been "disappeared from the conversation."

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

You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

Posted: June 17 2010,08:24

Quote

eric: A Handy Reference to Typical Failed Dodges for the Origin of the Cell's Multi-Molecular Machines

It's hard to tell, but eric's magnum opus appears to claim that replication and reproduction are fundamentally different processes, and natural selection works uniformly in the former case to reduce complexity. Apparently, he thinks replication is an "individual sport," even though it may perhaps involve a network of interacting molecules; and that if the replicator templates a helpful peptide that this means it can't be replicated. Or something. Can't ask any questions.

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

You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

olegt

Posts: 1405
Joined: Dec. 2006

Posted: June 17 2010,11:00

Sal reminisces fondly:

Quote

I'm really not complaing about Matheson. Personally I hope Matheson turns into anoterh Abbie Smith. He'll be a rich source of future quotations.

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout �

Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: June 17 2010,11:16

Quote (olegt @ June 17 2010,11:00)

Sal reminisces fondly: �

Quote

I'm really not complaing about Matheson. Personally I hope Matheson turns into anoterh Abbie Smith. He'll be a rich source of future quotations.

We have to tip our hats to Sal and Joe - when anyone becomes interested in ID these two will quickly paint the right picture.

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

carlsonjok

Posts: 3326
Joined: May 2006

Posted: June 17 2010,11:23

Quote (olegt @ June 17 2010,11:00)

Sal reminisces fondly: �

Quote

I'm really not complaing about Matheson. Personally I hope Matheson turns into anoterh Abbie Smith. He'll be a rich source of future quotations.

Ah, Abbie. One of the highlights of 2009 for me was when she made Casey Luskin say "tits."

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. �We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: June 19 2010,00:11

http://telicthoughts.com/in-defe....-259783

Quote

ID guy Says:

June 18th, 2010 at 10:04 am ully:
If my style reminds you of someone, well I am sure it's just a coincidence, just like the resemblance between ID guy's style and substance and that of Joe G is just a coincidence.

No, it's not a coincidence.

As I have said already it is by design�

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

MichaelJ

Posts: 462
Joined: June 2009

Posted: June 19 2010,22:01

Quote (olegt @ June 18 2010,02:00)

Sal reminisces fondly: �

Quote

I'm really not complaing about Matheson. Personally I hope Matheson turns into anoterh Abbie Smith. He'll be a rich source of future quotations.

Yes quotes such as

"You Sal Cordova. You cottage cheese dripping pussy"

Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

http://telicthoughts.com/in-defe....-259783

Posted: June 20 2010,07:40

Quote (Richardthughes @ June 19 2010,00:11)

Quote

ID guy Says:

June 18th, 2010 at 10:04 am ully:
If my style reminds you of someone, well I am sure it's just a coincidence, just like the resemblance between ID guy's style and substance and that of Joe G is just a coincidence.

No, it's not a coincidence.

As I have said already it is by design�

A love letter to Joe G:

Quote

ully: Nobody even comes close to Joe G's greatness. Except perhaps for some great prophets in the distant past. So no � I humbly accept my place at the feet of Joe G.

A lover's spat with ID guy:

Quote

ully: Except you are too stupid and ignorant to address these issues. I have no idea why the owners of various blogs such as these allow you to comment, except perhaps for entertainment value, but it certainly reflects poorly on them for allowing you to be the de facto spokesperson for ID in many threads. None of your buddies like Bradford ever contradict you because they seem to feel you're a useful idiot. But every rational person with the slightest interest in this fringe debate (OK, that doesn't sound very rational I have to admit) knows by now that you are a pathological liar and sad loser who has nothing better to do than spew insults from behind your PC in your little backwater. But hey, please go on, since you do a great job proving ID is a sham for uneducated knuckleheads who want to get Jesus back in the classroom.

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

You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

Posted: June 20 2010,07:48

Quote

eric: As a simple illustration, if you saw rocks arranged to form a message in English, would you have any serious doubt about the fact that this required intelligent agency? Would you say, "That is only supporting evidence that we don't understand something."?

don provan: I would specifically say that I don't understand something about the English speaker that put these rocks here.

eric not_at_home: The key observation is that you inferred that there was an English speaker, even though none was seen. You infer it because you recognize that the rocks can be reasonably eliminated as the source of the message. What you didn't do was endlessly appeal to a lack of knowledge about rocks. This shows that there can be situations where we infer intelligent agency based on the observed effects and the recognized limitations of natural processes. In other words, it is a legitimate type of reasoning. The rest is details � when can one do this? under what conditions is it warranted? etc.

At first it seemed that "eric not_at_home" was an anti-eric commenter � the lights are on but no one's at home eric � but it appears to be eric "eric". In any case, eric not_at_home thinks that when we look at a sign written in English, whether made of rocks or neon-tubing, that the knowledge of English-speaking humans who can move rocks and fashion neon-tubing are a mere detail to "design detection."

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

You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

Posted: June 21 2010,09:13

Quote (Zachriel @ June 20 2010,07:48)

Quote

eric: As a simple illustration, if you saw rocks arranged to form a message in English, would you have any serious doubt about the fact that this required intelligent agency? Would you say, "That is only supporting evidence that we don't understand something."?

don provan: I would specifically say that I don't understand something about the English speaker that put these rocks here.

eric not_at_home: The key observation is that you inferred that there was an English speaker, even though none was seen. You infer it because you recognize that the rocks can be reasonably eliminated as the source of the message. What you didn't do was endlessly appeal to a lack of knowledge about rocks. This shows that there can be situations where we infer intelligent agency based on the observed effects and the recognized limitations of natural processes. In other words, it is a legitimate type of reasoning. The rest is details � when can one do this? under what conditions is it warranted? etc.

At first it seemed that "eric not_at_home" was an anti-eric commenter � the lights are on but no one's at home eric � but it appears to be eric "eric". In any case, eric not_at_home thinks that when we look at a sign written in English, whether made of rocks or neon-tubing, that the knowledge of English-speaking humans who can move rocks and fashion neon-tubing are a mere detail to "design detection."

Don follows up.

Quote

don provan: We ruled out rocks because rocks don't speak English.

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

You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

Posted: June 23 2010,06:50

Quote

eric: Haven't counted noses, but it turns out that some of the very earliest modern advocates for "biology requires ID=yes" took the position that the intelligence was not God. So that quadrant is most definitely populated.

This was so even before Thaxton, et al, wrote The Mystery of Life's Origin in 1984.

Thaxton is a Christian Creationist.

Quote

eric: Richard Dawkins has mused � on camera no less � about the possibility that life was designed, even while insisting that God does not exist.

Very, very poor example. You're placing Dawkins in a category that he "mused" about, that is, examined and rejected. So the only two names you provided don't belong in the quadrant.

-
Posted to Telic Thoughts, but comment never appeared.

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

You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

Posted: June 23 2010,12:45

Quote

Berlinski's, er Wisdom: And as far as we can tell, very few of those carrying out the horrors of the twentieth century worried overmuch that God was watching what they were doing either.

That is, after all, the meaning of a secular society.

Quote

don provan: The unstated premise of Berlinski's note is that Christians are moral and atheists are not.

Quote

chunkdz: Provan, the unstated premise of your intentional misrepresentation is that you are in love with Richard Dawkins.

Don provan asks chunkdz to explain what is wrong with his summary of the idea behind "God is watching you". Of course, chunkdz doesn't explain anything.

Quote

chunkdz: What an awful disgrace you are. You should really feel shame about the way you conduct yourself here.

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

You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

Texas Teach

Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

Posted: June 23 2010,13:05

Quote

chunkdz: Provan, the unstated premise of your intentional misrepresentation is that you are in love with Richard Dawkins.

Cue chunkdz's homoerotic fanfic about Provan and Dawkins in 3...2...1...

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

Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: June 24 2010,09:15

Don't show brandford this:

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatc....lie.php

Viva Beck....

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

Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: June 29 2010,13:40

Slimey sal...

http://telicthoughts.com/de-fact....-260041

Quote

...I cannot say formally whether an Intelligent Designer (God, ET's, whatever) was invovled. My philosophical belief is that God was the Designer, but that is not a scientific inference, only a circumstantial an personal view. My belief might be true, but there is an insufficient amount of evidence to make a direct inference, only a circumstantial one�.

The question of whether evolutionary processes can make such structures is in principle a testable and falsifiable hypothesis. I'm not so sure the best in the mainstream really think Natural Selection is the primary answer. I expect there will be continued debate over which mechanisms can effect certain structures.

Right now, there is not even agreement over what parts of biology function, much less how they evolved. 20 years from now, our knowledge could be substantially greater than what we're working with today. I don't think there is any need to try to settle the issue today as I trust that the scientific method of observation, hypothesis forming, and experiment will bring us closer to the truth.

Comment by Salvador T. Cordova � June 28, 2010 @ 6:57 pm

And yet you think the earth if 6000 years old you queef. Yes, queef. I went there.

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

Quack

Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

Posted: June 29 2010,15:49

Quote (Richardthughes @ June 29 2010,13:40)

Slimey sal...

http://telicthoughts.com/de-fact....-260041

�

Quote

...I cannot say formally whether an Intelligent Designer (God, ET's, whatever) was invovled. My philosophical belief is that God was the Designer, but that is not a scientific inference, only a circumstantial an personal view. My belief might be true, but there is an insufficient amount of evidence to make a direct inference, only a circumstantial one�.

The question of whether evolutionary processes can make such structures is in principle a testable and falsifiable hypothesis. I'm not so sure the best in the mainstream really think Natural Selection is the primary answer. I expect there will be continued debate over which mechanisms can effect certain structures.

Right now, there is not even agreement over what parts of biology function, much less how they evolved. 20 years from now, our knowledge could be substantially greater than what we're working with today. I don't think there is any need to try to settle the issue today as I trust that the scientific method of observation, hypothesis forming, and experiment will bring us closer to the truth.

Comment by Salvador T. Cordova � June 28, 2010 @ 6:57 pm

And yet you think the earth if 6000 years old you queef. Yes, queef. I went there.

Some do; some don't. And my English vocabulary has been, ahem, enriched.

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
Robert Byers.

Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

Posted: July 01 2010,18:02

Quote

kornbelt888: God must love sinners, because he created so many of them.

He made way more beetles.

The Creator, if He exists, has an inordinate fondness for beetles. � J.B.S. Haldane

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

You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

Posted: July 07 2010,08:44

Still blocked at Telic Thoughts.

Quote

Bradford: NJ is in the forefront of a battle between those determined to advance their own greedy interests at the expense of the public good on the one hand and fiscally concerned factions on the other.

Not since the American Revolution have so many New Jersians owed so much to concerned factions.

Quote

Bradford: Waive the Jones Act

The problem is Bradford's reliance on unreliable sources. The Jones Act has not been an impediment to the cleanup, and the U.S. has accepted foreign aid. You would think that Bradford would learn not to trust his sources, but he never does.

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

You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: July 07 2010,08:58

Bradford is an emotional and intellectual cripple.

I'm sure he can 'learn' more here:

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/42502/

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

Gunthernacus

Posts: 235
Joined: April 2007