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) < ... 331 332 333 334 335 [336] 337 338 339 340 341 ... >

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2018,11:25    Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 03 2018,11:16) Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,02:58) Quote The "equivalence" you are talking about is not between frequency and wavelength. Yes, it is. Frequency and wavelength are interchangeable- and yes, dumbass they both refer to the same fucking wave. That is the fucking point. They are just different numerical representations of the same fucking wave, just as I have been saying. I know creationists as a group aren't known for their smarts, but Joe just might be the dumbest of them all.  Even stupider than Byers. My lawn is about 800 square feet.  It's also green.  Therefore color and area are interchangeable - they both refer to the same lawn. LoL! Coming from the moron who didn't know that "equal" and "interchangeable" are synonyms, Johnny's spewage reflects his cowardice -------------- "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: Jan. 03 2018,11:27    Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 03 2018,11:13) Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,17:14) Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 03 2018,05:33)   Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,12:58)   Quote The "equivalence" you are talking about is not between frequency and wavelength. Yes, it is. Frequency and wavelength are interchangeable- and yes, dumbass they both refer to the same fucking wave. That is the fucking point. They are just different numerical representations of the same fucking wave, just as I have been saying.     Quote Your equivalence is a self referential circular argument So what? When I said it that was the purpose. As with all your arguments Joe they aren't actually arguments they are all circular creationist apologetics. Dick face. It wasn't an argument, dipshit. You were never part of the discussion in which I made that statement, moron. Yes it is. Joe recognises he's been sprung and resorts to flinging dung. LoL! So now Davey gets to tell me what I was saying, what it meant and that it was my argument. What a cowardly lowlife you are, Davey -------------- "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: Jan. 03 2018,11:28    Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 03 2018,11:10) Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,17:13) Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 03 2018,05:31)   Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,12:50)     Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 03 2018,00:35)     Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,05:35) keiths continues to puke all over himself when it comes to nested hierarchies. And even though it has been proven that Doug Theobald is totally wrong keiths continues to reference him on nested hierarchies. Theobald wrongly spews:       Quote The only known processes that specifically generate unique, nested, hierarchical patterns are branching evolutionary processes. WRONG! Linnaean Taxonomy is an objective nested hierarchy and it doesn't have anything to do with branching evolutionary processes. Corporations can be placed in objective nested hierarchies and again they have nothing to do with branching evolutionary processes. The US Army is a nested hierarchy and it too has nothing to do with branching evolutionary processes. Clearly Theobald is ignorant of nested hierarchies. He goes on to spew:       Quote It would be very problematic if many species were found that combined characteristics of different nested groupings Umm, TRANSITIONAL FORMs have combined characteristics of different nested groups, Dougy. And your position expects numerous transitional forms. But Doug's biggest mistake was saying that phylogenies form a nested hierarchy- they don't as explained in the Knox paper-  “The use of hierarchies as organizational models in systematics”, Biological Journal of the Linnaean Society, 63: 1–49, 1998. And for fuck's sake even Darwin knew that if you tried to include all of the alleged transitional forms you couldn't form distinguished groups:       Quote Extinction has only defined the groups: it has by no means made them; for if every form which has ever lived on this earth were suddenly to reappear, though it would be quite impossible to give definitions by which each group could be distinguished, still a natural classification, or at least a natural arrangement, would be possible.- Charles Darwin chapter 14 Nested hierarchies require distinct and distinguished groups- again see Linnaean Taxonomy. AND nested hierarchies are artificial constructs. So only by cherry picking would Common Descent yield a nested hierarchy. And I understand why the losers here don't want to discuss it. Zachriel, Alan Fox and John Harshman are also totally ignorant when it comes to nested hierarchies. Now I know why I was banned from the skeptical zone- so I couldn't refute their nonsense to their faces. This way they can continue to ignore reality and prattle on like a bunch of ignoramuses. Sad, really. Here is another hint from the Knox paper:       Quote Regardless of what is eventually learned about the evolution of Clarkia/Heterogaura, the complex nature of evolutionary processes yields patterns that are more complex than can be represented by the simple hierarchical models of either monophyletic systematization or Linnaean classification. Notice the either or at the end? Only Linnaean classification is the objective nested hierarchy with respect to biology. And what does UC Berkley say about Linnaean classification?:       Quote Most of us are accustomed to the Linnaean system of classification that assigns every organism a kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species, which, among other possibilities, has the handy mnemonic King Philip Came Over For Good Soup. This system was created long before scientists understood that organisms evolved. Because the Linnaean system is not based on evolution, most biologists are switching to a classification system that reflects the organisms' evolutionary history. and       Quote *The standard system of classification in which every organism is assigned a kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. This system groups organisms into ever smaller and smaller groups (like a series of boxes within boxes, called a nested hierarchy). It was based on a common design scheme. To help everyone here to understand your special pleading why don't you include an US-ARMY org chart? Put lots of arrows on it and comments etc etc. Only a moron would think I am using special pleading. I know that you cannot make a case that I am using any type of special pleading, loser. Only Joe G a well known moron creationist would think he is not special pleading. Lets see if that's the case.....yup done and dusted. Case closed Joe. Wittle Davey Whiskers "argues" like a little faggot. I see it is too chicken-shit to try to make its case. Figures Joe moron creationist argument breaks down resorts to playground  taunts. Hey Joe fuck off DICK FACE. LoL! My argument is sound. YOU broke down. And all you ever do is resort to playground taunts. You must be one cowardly, ignorant and dickless person. -------------- "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

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2018,11:28    Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,09:25) Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 03 2018,11:16) Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,02:58)   Quote The "equivalence" you are talking about is not between frequency and wavelength. Yes, it is. Frequency and wavelength are interchangeable- and yes, dumbass they both refer to the same fucking wave. That is the fucking point. They are just different numerical representations of the same fucking wave, just as I have been saying. I know creationists as a group aren't known for their smarts, but Joe just might be the dumbest of them all.  Even stupider than Byers. My lawn is about 800 square feet.  It's also green.  Therefore color and area are interchangeable - they both refer to the same lawn. LoL! Coming from the moron who didn't know that "equal" and "interchangeable" are synonyms, Johnny's spewage reflects his cowardice I have a screwdriver with interchangeable heads.  I had no idea they were all identical.  What a waste of money. Come to think about it, interchangeable heads might solve your problem, caekboy.  You'd be able to swap yours for a functioning one. -------------- 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

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2018,11:29    Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,09:28) And all you ever do is resort to playground taunts. That has to be the least self-aware comment in history. -------------- 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

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2018,11:30    Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,19:24) Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 03 2018,11:18)   Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,17:21) keiths continues to puke all over himself when it comes to nested hierarchies. And even though it has been proven that Doug Theobald is totally wrong keiths continues to reference him on nested hierarchies. Theobald wrongly spews:           Quote The only known processes that specifically generate unique, nested, hierarchical patterns are branching evolutionary processes. WRONG! Linnaean Taxonomy is an objective nested hierarchy and it doesn't have anything to do with branching evolutionary processes. Corporations can be placed in objective nested hierarchies and again they have nothing to do with branching evolutionary processes. The US Army is a nested hierarchy and it too has nothing to do with branching evolutionary processes. Clearly Theobald is ignorant of nested hierarchies. He goes on to spew:           Quote It would be very problematic if many species were found that combined characteristics of different nested groupings Umm, TRANSITIONAL FORMs have combined characteristics of different nested groups, Dougy. And your position expects numerous transitional forms. But Doug's biggest mistake was saying that phylogenies form a nested hierarchy- they don't as explained in the Knox paper-  “The use of hierarchies as organizational models in systematics”, Biological Journal of the Linnaean Society, 63: 1–49, 1998. And for fuck's sake even Darwin knew that if you tried to include all of the alleged transitional forms you couldn't form distinguished groups:           Quote Extinction has only defined the groups: it has by no means made them; for if every form which has ever lived on this earth were suddenly to reappear, though it would be quite impossible to give definitions by which each group could be distinguished, still a natural classification, or at least a natural arrangement, would be possible.- Charles Darwin chapter 14 Nested hierarchies require distinct and distinguished groups- again see Linnaean Taxonomy. AND nested hierarchies are artificial constructs. So only by cherry picking would Common Descent yield a nested hierarchy. And I understand why the losers here don't want to discuss it. Zachriel, Alan Fox and John Harshman are also totally ignorant when it comes to nested hierarchies. Now I know why I was banned from the skeptical zone- so I couldn't refute their nonsense to their faces. This way they can continue to ignore reality and prattle on like a bunch of ignoramuses. Sad, really. Here is another hint from the Knox paper:           Quote Regardless of what is eventually learned about the evolution of Clarkia/Heterogaura, the complex nature of evolutionary processes yields patterns that are more complex than can be represented by the simple hierarchical models of either monophyletic systematization or Linnaean classification. Notice the either or at the end? Only Linnaean classification is the objective nested hierarchy with respect to biology. And what does UC Berkley say about Linnaean classification?:           Quote Most of us are accustomed to the Linnaean system of classification that assigns every organism a kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species, which, among other possibilities, has the handy mnemonic King Philip Came Over For Good Soup. This system was created long before scientists understood that organisms evolved. Because the Linnaean system is not based on evolution, most biologists are switching to a classification system that reflects the organisms' evolutionary history. and           Quote *The standard system of classification in which every organism is assigned a kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. This system groups organisms into ever smaller and smaller groups (like a series of boxes within boxes, called a nested hierarchy). It was based on a common design scheme. Davey's ignorant call of "special pleading" is just its cowardice. Davey will never be able to actually make a valid case for it. And I am more than OK with that. Nonsense  creationist special pleading Joe. Don't you have your own dick face blog for that lame piece of special pleading? In fact if you google dick face nested hierarchy your blog is right at the top. It's all facts, Davey. But seeing that you are just an ignorant child molester you wouldn't know anything about that. I see that you are still too chicken-shit to try to make your case. Only true as creationist special pleading. BTW why do you call creationist animal "kinds" as per Genesis "common design" ARE YOU CONFUSED? What does your Imam think of that? -------------- "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

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2018,11:32    Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 03 2018,11:28) Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,09:25) Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 03 2018,11:16)   Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,02:58)   Quote The "equivalence" you are talking about is not between frequency and wavelength. Yes, it is. Frequency and wavelength are interchangeable- and yes, dumbass they both refer to the same fucking wave. That is the fucking point. They are just different numerical representations of the same fucking wave, just as I have been saying. I know creationists as a group aren't known for their smarts, but Joe just might be the dumbest of them all.  Even stupider than Byers. My lawn is about 800 square feet.  It's also green.  Therefore color and area are interchangeable - they both refer to the same lawn. LoL! Coming from the moron who didn't know that "equal" and "interchangeable" are synonyms, Johnny's spewage reflects his cowardice I have a screwdriver with interchangeable heads.  I had no idea they were all identical.  What a waste of money. Come to think about it, interchangeable heads might solve your problem, caekboy.  You'd be able to swap yours for a functioning one. LoL! They are interchangeable because they go in the SAME screwdriver. That means they all have the same base. Go ahead, try to use the Philips head for a slotted screw. -------------- "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

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2018,11:32    Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,19:28) Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 03 2018,11:10) Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,17:13)   Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 03 2018,05:31)   Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,12:50)     Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 03 2018,00:35)       Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,05:35) keiths continues to puke all over himself when it comes to nested hierarchies. And even though it has been proven that Doug Theobald is totally wrong keiths continues to reference him on nested hierarchies. Theobald wrongly spews:         Quote The only known processes that specifically generate unique, nested, hierarchical patterns are branching evolutionary processes. WRONG! Linnaean Taxonomy is an objective nested hierarchy and it doesn't have anything to do with branching evolutionary processes. Corporations can be placed in objective nested hierarchies and again they have nothing to do with branching evolutionary processes. The US Army is a nested hierarchy and it too has nothing to do with branching evolutionary processes. Clearly Theobald is ignorant of nested hierarchies. He goes on to spew:         Quote It would be very problematic if many species were found that combined characteristics of different nested groupings Umm, TRANSITIONAL FORMs have combined characteristics of different nested groups, Dougy. And your position expects numerous transitional forms. But Doug's biggest mistake was saying that phylogenies form a nested hierarchy- they don't as explained in the Knox paper-  “The use of hierarchies as organizational models in systematics”, Biological Journal of the Linnaean Society, 63: 1–49, 1998. And for fuck's sake even Darwin knew that if you tried to include all of the alleged transitional forms you couldn't form distinguished groups:         Quote Extinction has only defined the groups: it has by no means made them; for if every form which has ever lived on this earth were suddenly to reappear, though it would be quite impossible to give definitions by which each group could be distinguished, still a natural classification, or at least a natural arrangement, would be possible.- Charles Darwin chapter 14 Nested hierarchies require distinct and distinguished groups- again see Linnaean Taxonomy. AND nested hierarchies are artificial constructs. So only by cherry picking would Common Descent yield a nested hierarchy. And I understand why the losers here don't want to discuss it. Zachriel, Alan Fox and John Harshman are also totally ignorant when it comes to nested hierarchies. Now I know why I was banned from the skeptical zone- so I couldn't refute their nonsense to their faces. This way they can continue to ignore reality and prattle on like a bunch of ignoramuses. Sad, really. Here is another hint from the Knox paper:         Quote Regardless of what is eventually learned about the evolution of Clarkia/Heterogaura, the complex nature of evolutionary processes yields patterns that are more complex than can be represented by the simple hierarchical models of either monophyletic systematization or Linnaean classification. Notice the either or at the end? Only Linnaean classification is the objective nested hierarchy with respect to biology. And what does UC Berkley say about Linnaean classification?:         Quote Most of us are accustomed to the Linnaean system of classification that assigns every organism a kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species, which, among other possibilities, has the handy mnemonic King Philip Came Over For Good Soup. This system was created long before scientists understood that organisms evolved. Because the Linnaean system is not based on evolution, most biologists are switching to a classification system that reflects the organisms' evolutionary history. and         Quote *The standard system of classification in which every organism is assigned a kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. This system groups organisms into ever smaller and smaller groups (like a series of boxes within boxes, called a nested hierarchy). It was based on a common design scheme. To help everyone here to understand your special pleading why don't you include an US-ARMY org chart? Put lots of arrows on it and comments etc etc. Only a moron would think I am using special pleading. I know that you cannot make a case that I am using any type of special pleading, loser. Only Joe G a well known moron creationist would think he is not special pleading. Lets see if that's the case.....yup done and dusted. Case closed Joe. Wittle Davey Whiskers "argues" like a little faggot. I see it is too chicken-shit to try to make its case. Figures Joe moron creationist argument breaks down resorts to playground  taunts. Hey Joe fuck off DICK FACE. LoL! My argument is sound. YOU broke down. And all you ever do is resort to playground taunts. You must be one cowardly, ignorant and dickless person. Joe is a moron, Joe is a moron. -------------- "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

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2018,11:33    Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 03 2018,11:29) Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,09:28) And all you ever do is resort to playground taunts. That has to be the least self-aware comment in history. It is a fact that all you assholes do is try to insult people who prove that you are morons -------------- "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: Jan. 03 2018,11:34    Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 03 2018,11:30) Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,19:24)   Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 03 2018,11:18)   Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,17:21) keiths continues to puke all over himself when it comes to nested hierarchies. And even though it has been proven that Doug Theobald is totally wrong keiths continues to reference him on nested hierarchies. Theobald wrongly spews:           Quote The only known processes that specifically generate unique, nested, hierarchical patterns are branching evolutionary processes. WRONG! Linnaean Taxonomy is an objective nested hierarchy and it doesn't have anything to do with branching evolutionary processes. Corporations can be placed in objective nested hierarchies and again they have nothing to do with branching evolutionary processes. The US Army is a nested hierarchy and it too has nothing to do with branching evolutionary processes. Clearly Theobald is ignorant of nested hierarchies. He goes on to spew:           Quote It would be very problematic if many species were found that combined characteristics of different nested groupings Umm, TRANSITIONAL FORMs have combined characteristics of different nested groups, Dougy. And your position expects numerous transitional forms. But Doug's biggest mistake was saying that phylogenies form a nested hierarchy- they don't as explained in the Knox paper-  “The use of hierarchies as organizational models in systematics”, Biological Journal of the Linnaean Society, 63: 1–49, 1998. And for fuck's sake even Darwin knew that if you tried to include all of the alleged transitional forms you couldn't form distinguished groups:           Quote Extinction has only defined the groups: it has by no means made them; for if every form which has ever lived on this earth were suddenly to reappear, though it would be quite impossible to give definitions by which each group could be distinguished, still a natural classification, or at least a natural arrangement, would be possible.- Charles Darwin chapter 14 Nested hierarchies require distinct and distinguished groups- again see Linnaean Taxonomy. AND nested hierarchies are artificial constructs. So only by cherry picking would Common Descent yield a nested hierarchy. And I understand why the losers here don't want to discuss it. Zachriel, Alan Fox and John Harshman are also totally ignorant when it comes to nested hierarchies. Now I know why I was banned from the skeptical zone- so I couldn't refute their nonsense to their faces. This way they can continue to ignore reality and prattle on like a bunch of ignoramuses. Sad, really. Here is another hint from the Knox paper:           Quote Regardless of what is eventually learned about the evolution of Clarkia/Heterogaura, the complex nature of evolutionary processes yields patterns that are more complex than can be represented by the simple hierarchical models of either monophyletic systematization or Linnaean classification. Notice the either or at the end? Only Linnaean classification is the objective nested hierarchy with respect to biology. And what does UC Berkley say about Linnaean classification?:           Quote Most of us are accustomed to the Linnaean system of classification that assigns every organism a kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species, which, among other possibilities, has the handy mnemonic King Philip Came Over For Good Soup. This system was created long before scientists understood that organisms evolved. Because the Linnaean system is not based on evolution, most biologists are switching to a classification system that reflects the organisms' evolutionary history. and           Quote *The standard system of classification in which every organism is assigned a kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. This system groups organisms into ever smaller and smaller groups (like a series of boxes within boxes, called a nested hierarchy). It was based on a common design scheme. Davey's ignorant call of "special pleading" is just its cowardice. Davey will never be able to actually make a valid case for it. And I am more than OK with that. Nonsense  creationist special pleading Joe. Don't you have your own dick face blog for that lame piece of special pleading? In fact if you google dick face nested hierarchy your blog is right at the top. It's all facts, Davey. But seeing that you are just an ignorant child molester you wouldn't know anything about that. I see that you are still too chicken-shit to try to make your case. Only true as creationist special pleading. BTW why do you call creationist animal "kinds" as per Genesis "common design" ARE YOU CONFUSED? What does your Imam think of that? Linnaean taxonomy is based on a common design scheme, just as I have said. -------------- "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

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2018,11:34    Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,19:32) Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 03 2018,11:28) Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,09:25)   Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 03 2018,11:16)   Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,02:58)     Quote The "equivalence" you are talking about is not between frequency and wavelength. Yes, it is. Frequency and wavelength are interchangeable- and yes, dumbass they both refer to the same fucking wave. That is the fucking point. They are just different numerical representations of the same fucking wave, just as I have been saying. I know creationists as a group aren't known for their smarts, but Joe just might be the dumbest of them all.  Even stupider than Byers. My lawn is about 800 square feet.  It's also green.  Therefore color and area are interchangeable - they both refer to the same lawn. LoL! Coming from the moron who didn't know that "equal" and "interchangeable" are synonyms, Johnny's spewage reflects his cowardice I have a screwdriver with interchangeable heads.  I had no idea they were all identical.  What a waste of money. Come to think about it, interchangeable heads might solve your problem, caekboy.  You'd be able to swap yours for a functioning one. LoL! They are interchangeable because they go in the SAME screwdriver. That means they all have the same base. Go ahead, try to use the Philips head for a slotted screw. No Joe don't talk about your wife like that. Is she a moron too? -------------- "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

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2018,11:34    Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 03 2018,11:32) Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,19:28) Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 03 2018,11:10)   Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,17:13)   Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 03 2018,05:31)     Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,12:50)       Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 03 2018,00:35)       Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,05:35) keiths continues to puke all over himself when it comes to nested hierarchies. And even though it has been proven that Doug Theobald is totally wrong keiths continues to reference him on nested hierarchies. Theobald wrongly spews:         Quote The only known processes that specifically generate unique, nested, hierarchical patterns are branching evolutionary processes. WRONG! Linnaean Taxonomy is an objective nested hierarchy and it doesn't have anything to do with branching evolutionary processes. Corporations can be placed in objective nested hierarchies and again they have nothing to do with branching evolutionary processes. The US Army is a nested hierarchy and it too has nothing to do with branching evolutionary processes. Clearly Theobald is ignorant of nested hierarchies. He goes on to spew:         Quote It would be very problematic if many species were found that combined characteristics of different nested groupings Umm, TRANSITIONAL FORMs have combined characteristics of different nested groups, Dougy. And your position expects numerous transitional forms. But Doug's biggest mistake was saying that phylogenies form a nested hierarchy- they don't as explained in the Knox paper-  “The use of hierarchies as organizational models in systematics”, Biological Journal of the Linnaean Society, 63: 1–49, 1998. And for fuck's sake even Darwin knew that if you tried to include all of the alleged transitional forms you couldn't form distinguished groups:         Quote Extinction has only defined the groups: it has by no means made them; for if every form which has ever lived on this earth were suddenly to reappear, though it would be quite impossible to give definitions by which each group could be distinguished, still a natural classification, or at least a natural arrangement, would be possible.- Charles Darwin chapter 14 Nested hierarchies require distinct and distinguished groups- again see Linnaean Taxonomy. AND nested hierarchies are artificial constructs. So only by cherry picking would Common Descent yield a nested hierarchy. And I understand why the losers here don't want to discuss it. Zachriel, Alan Fox and John Harshman are also totally ignorant when it comes to nested hierarchies. Now I know why I was banned from the skeptical zone- so I couldn't refute their nonsense to their faces. This way they can continue to ignore reality and prattle on like a bunch of ignoramuses. Sad, really. Here is another hint from the Knox paper:         Quote Regardless of what is eventually learned about the evolution of Clarkia/Heterogaura, the complex nature of evolutionary processes yields patterns that are more complex than can be represented by the simple hierarchical models of either monophyletic systematization or Linnaean classification. Notice the either or at the end? Only Linnaean classification is the objective nested hierarchy with respect to biology. And what does UC Berkley say about Linnaean classification?:         Quote Most of us are accustomed to the Linnaean system of classification that assigns every organism a kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species, which, among other possibilities, has the handy mnemonic King Philip Came Over For Good Soup. This system was created long before scientists understood that organisms evolved. Because the Linnaean system is not based on evolution, most biologists are switching to a classification system that reflects the organisms' evolutionary history. and         Quote *The standard system of classification in which every organism is assigned a kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. This system groups organisms into ever smaller and smaller groups (like a series of boxes within boxes, called a nested hierarchy). It was based on a common design scheme. To help everyone here to understand your special pleading why don't you include an US-ARMY org chart? Put lots of arrows on it and comments etc etc. Only a moron would think I am using special pleading. I know that you cannot make a case that I am using any type of special pleading, loser. Only Joe G a well known moron creationist would think he is not special pleading. Lets see if that's the case.....yup done and dusted. Case closed Joe. Wittle Davey Whiskers "argues" like a little faggot. I see it is too chicken-shit to try to make its case. Figures Joe moron creationist argument breaks down resorts to playground  taunts. Hey Joe fuck off DICK FACE. LoL! My argument is sound. YOU broke down. And all you ever do is resort to playground taunts. You must be one cowardly, ignorant and dickless person. Joe is a moron, Joe is a moron. And yet I am smarter than you... -------------- "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: Jan. 03 2018,11:35    Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 03 2018,11:34) Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,19:32) Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 03 2018,11:28)   Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,09:25)   Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 03 2018,11:16)     Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,02:58)     Quote The "equivalence" you are talking about is not between frequency and wavelength. Yes, it is. Frequency and wavelength are interchangeable- and yes, dumbass they both refer to the same fucking wave. That is the fucking point. They are just different numerical representations of the same fucking wave, just as I have been saying. I know creationists as a group aren't known for their smarts, but Joe just might be the dumbest of them all.  Even stupider than Byers. My lawn is about 800 square feet.  It's also green.  Therefore color and area are interchangeable - they both refer to the same lawn. LoL! Coming from the moron who didn't know that "equal" and "interchangeable" are synonyms, Johnny's spewage reflects his cowardice I have a screwdriver with interchangeable heads.  I had no idea they were all identical.  What a waste of money. Come to think about it, interchangeable heads might solve your problem, caekboy.  You'd be able to swap yours for a functioning one. LoL! They are interchangeable because they go in the SAME screwdriver. That means they all have the same base. Go ahead, try to use the Philips head for a slotted screw. No Joe don't talk about your wife like that. Is she a moron too? At least she isn't a cunt like your mother -------------- "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

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2018,11:35    Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,19:34) Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 03 2018,11:30) Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,19:24)   Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 03 2018,11:18)     Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,17:21) keiths continues to puke all over himself when it comes to nested hierarchies. And even though it has been proven that Doug Theobald is totally wrong keiths continues to reference him on nested hierarchies. Theobald wrongly spews:             Quote The only known processes that specifically generate unique, nested, hierarchical patterns are branching evolutionary processes. WRONG! Linnaean Taxonomy is an objective nested hierarchy and it doesn't have anything to do with branching evolutionary processes. Corporations can be placed in objective nested hierarchies and again they have nothing to do with branching evolutionary processes. The US Army is a nested hierarchy and it too has nothing to do with branching evolutionary processes. Clearly Theobald is ignorant of nested hierarchies. He goes on to spew:             Quote It would be very problematic if many species were found that combined characteristics of different nested groupings Umm, TRANSITIONAL FORMs have combined characteristics of different nested groups, Dougy. And your position expects numerous transitional forms. But Doug's biggest mistake was saying that phylogenies form a nested hierarchy- they don't as explained in the Knox paper-  “The use of hierarchies as organizational models in systematics”, Biological Journal of the Linnaean Society, 63: 1–49, 1998. And for fuck's sake even Darwin knew that if you tried to include all of the alleged transitional forms you couldn't form distinguished groups:             Quote Extinction has only defined the groups: it has by no means made them; for if every form which has ever lived on this earth were suddenly to reappear, though it would be quite impossible to give definitions by which each group could be distinguished, still a natural classification, or at least a natural arrangement, would be possible.- Charles Darwin chapter 14 Nested hierarchies require distinct and distinguished groups- again see Linnaean Taxonomy. AND nested hierarchies are artificial constructs. So only by cherry picking would Common Descent yield a nested hierarchy. And I understand why the losers here don't want to discuss it. Zachriel, Alan Fox and John Harshman are also totally ignorant when it comes to nested hierarchies. Now I know why I was banned from the skeptical zone- so I couldn't refute their nonsense to their faces. This way they can continue to ignore reality and prattle on like a bunch of ignoramuses. Sad, really. Here is another hint from the Knox paper:             Quote Regardless of what is eventually learned about the evolution of Clarkia/Heterogaura, the complex nature of evolutionary processes yields patterns that are more complex than can be represented by the simple hierarchical models of either monophyletic systematization or Linnaean classification. Notice the either or at the end? Only Linnaean classification is the objective nested hierarchy with respect to biology. And what does UC Berkley say about Linnaean classification?:             Quote Most of us are accustomed to the Linnaean system of classification that assigns every organism a kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species, which, among other possibilities, has the handy mnemonic King Philip Came Over For Good Soup. This system was created long before scientists understood that organisms evolved. Because the Linnaean system is not based on evolution, most biologists are switching to a classification system that reflects the organisms' evolutionary history. and             Quote *The standard system of classification in which every organism is assigned a kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. This system groups organisms into ever smaller and smaller groups (like a series of boxes within boxes, called a nested hierarchy). It was based on a common design scheme. Davey's ignorant call of "special pleading" is just its cowardice. Davey will never be able to actually make a valid case for it. And I am more than OK with that. Nonsense  creationist special pleading Joe. Don't you have your own dick face blog for that lame piece of special pleading? In fact if you google dick face nested hierarchy your blog is right at the top. It's all facts, Davey. But seeing that you are just an ignorant child molester you wouldn't know anything about that. I see that you are still too chicken-shit to try to make your case. Only true as creationist special pleading. BTW why do you call creationist animal "kinds" as per Genesis "common design" ARE YOU CONFUSED? What does your Imam think of that? Linnaean taxonomy is based on a common design scheme, just as I have said. Only creationists say that. Game up Joe. -------------- "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: Jan. 03 2018,11:37    Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,19:35) Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 03 2018,11:34) Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,19:32)   Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 03 2018,11:28)   Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,09:25)     Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 03 2018,11:16)     Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,02:58)       Quote The "equivalence" you are talking about is not between frequency and wavelength. Yes, it is. Frequency and wavelength are interchangeable- and yes, dumbass they both refer to the same fucking wave. That is the fucking point. They are just different numerical representations of the same fucking wave, just as I have been saying. I know creationists as a group aren't known for their smarts, but Joe just might be the dumbest of them all.  Even stupider than Byers. My lawn is about 800 square feet.  It's also green.  Therefore color and area are interchangeable - they both refer to the same lawn. LoL! Coming from the moron who didn't know that "equal" and "interchangeable" are synonyms, Johnny's spewage reflects his cowardice I have a screwdriver with interchangeable heads.  I had no idea they were all identical.  What a waste of money. Come to think about it, interchangeable heads might solve your problem, caekboy.  You'd be able to swap yours for a functioning one. LoL! They are interchangeable because they go in the SAME screwdriver. That means they all have the same base. Go ahead, try to use the Philips head for a slotted screw. No Joe don't talk about your wife like that. Is she a moron too? At least she isn't a cunt like your mother Very strange...... Has your wife gone? -------------- "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

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2018,11:38    keiths continues to puke all over himself when it comes to nested hierarchies. And even though it has been proven that Doug Theobald is totally wrong keiths continues to reference him on nested hierarchies. Theobald wrongly spews:   Quote The only known processes that specifically generate unique, nested, hierarchical patterns are branching evolutionary processes. WRONG! Linnaean Taxonomy is an objective nested hierarchy and it doesn't have anything to do with branching evolutionary processes. Corporations can be placed in objective nested hierarchies and again they have nothing to do with branching evolutionary processes. The US Army is a nested hierarchy and it too has nothing to do with branching evolutionary processes. Clearly Theobald is ignorant of nested hierarchies. He goes on to spew:   Quote It would be very problematic if many species were found that combined characteristics of different nested groupings Umm, TRANSITIONAL FORMs have combined characteristics of different nested groups, Dougy. And your position expects numerous transitional forms. But Doug's biggest mistake was saying that phylogenies form a nested hierarchy- they don't as explained in the Knox paper-  “The use of hierarchies as organizational models in systematics”, Biological Journal of the Linnaean Society, 63: 1–49, 1998. And for fuck's sake even Darwin knew that if you tried to include all of the alleged transitional forms you couldn't form distinguished groups:     Quote Extinction has only defined the groups: it has by no means made them; for if every form which has ever lived on this earth were suddenly to reappear, though it would be quite impossible to give definitions by which each group could be distinguished, still a natural classification, or at least a natural arrangement, would be possible.- Charles Darwin chapter 14 Nested hierarchies require distinct and distinguished groups- again see Linnaean Taxonomy. AND nested hierarchies are artificial constructs. So only by cherry picking would Common Descent yield a nested hierarchy. And I understand why the losers here don't want to discuss it. Zachriel, Alan Fox and John Harshman are also totally ignorant when it comes to nested hierarchies. Now I know why I was banned from the skeptical zone- so I couldn't refute their nonsense to their faces. This way they can continue to ignore reality and prattle on like a bunch of ignoramuses. Sad, really. Here is another hint from the Knox paper:   Quote Regardless of what is eventually learned about the evolution of Clarkia/Heterogaura, the complex nature of evolutionary processes yields patterns that are more complex than can be represented by the simple hierarchical models of either monophyletic systematization or Linnaean classification. Notice the either or at the end? Only Linnaean classification is the objective nested hierarchy with respect to biology. And what does UC Berkley say about Linnaean classification?:     Quote Most of us are accustomed to the Linnaean system of classification that assigns every organism a kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species, which, among other possibilities, has the handy mnemonic King Philip Came Over For Good Soup. This system was created long before scientists understood that organisms evolved. Because the Linnaean system is not based on evolution, most biologists are switching to a classification system that reflects the organisms' evolutionary history. and     Quote *The standard system of classification in which every organism is assigned a kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. This system groups organisms into ever smaller and smaller groups (like a series of boxes within boxes, called a nested hierarchy). It was based on a common design scheme. Davey's ignorant call of "special pleading" is just its cowardice. Davey will never be able to actually make a valid case for it. And I am more than OK with that. -------------- "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: Jan. 03 2018,11:39    Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 03 2018,11:35) Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,19:34) Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 03 2018,11:30)   Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,19:24)     Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 03 2018,11:18)     Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,17:21) keiths continues to puke all over himself when it comes to nested hierarchies. And even though it has been proven that Doug Theobald is totally wrong keiths continues to reference him on nested hierarchies. Theobald wrongly spews:             Quote The only known processes that specifically generate unique, nested, hierarchical patterns are branching evolutionary processes. WRONG! Linnaean Taxonomy is an objective nested hierarchy and it doesn't have anything to do with branching evolutionary processes. Corporations can be placed in objective nested hierarchies and again they have nothing to do with branching evolutionary processes. The US Army is a nested hierarchy and it too has nothing to do with branching evolutionary processes. Clearly Theobald is ignorant of nested hierarchies. He goes on to spew:             Quote It would be very problematic if many species were found that combined characteristics of different nested groupings Umm, TRANSITIONAL FORMs have combined characteristics of different nested groups, Dougy. And your position expects numerous transitional forms. But Doug's biggest mistake was saying that phylogenies form a nested hierarchy- they don't as explained in the Knox paper-  “The use of hierarchies as organizational models in systematics”, Biological Journal of the Linnaean Society, 63: 1–49, 1998. And for fuck's sake even Darwin knew that if you tried to include all of the alleged transitional forms you couldn't form distinguished groups:             Quote Extinction has only defined the groups: it has by no means made them; for if every form which has ever lived on this earth were suddenly to reappear, though it would be quite impossible to give definitions by which each group could be distinguished, still a natural classification, or at least a natural arrangement, would be possible.- Charles Darwin chapter 14 Nested hierarchies require distinct and distinguished groups- again see Linnaean Taxonomy. AND nested hierarchies are artificial constructs. So only by cherry picking would Common Descent yield a nested hierarchy. And I understand why the losers here don't want to discuss it. Zachriel, Alan Fox and John Harshman are also totally ignorant when it comes to nested hierarchies. Now I know why I was banned from the skeptical zone- so I couldn't refute their nonsense to their faces. This way they can continue to ignore reality and prattle on like a bunch of ignoramuses. Sad, really. Here is another hint from the Knox paper:             Quote Regardless of what is eventually learned about the evolution of Clarkia/Heterogaura, the complex nature of evolutionary processes yields patterns that are more complex than can be represented by the simple hierarchical models of either monophyletic systematization or Linnaean classification. Notice the either or at the end? Only Linnaean classification is the objective nested hierarchy with respect to biology. And what does UC Berkley say about Linnaean classification?:             Quote Most of us are accustomed to the Linnaean system of classification that assigns every organism a kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species, which, among other possibilities, has the handy mnemonic King Philip Came Over For Good Soup. This system was created long before scientists understood that organisms evolved. Because the Linnaean system is not based on evolution, most biologists are switching to a classification system that reflects the organisms' evolutionary history. and             Quote *The standard system of classification in which every organism is assigned a kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. This system groups organisms into ever smaller and smaller groups (like a series of boxes within boxes, called a nested hierarchy). It was based on a common design scheme. Davey's ignorant call of "special pleading" is just its cowardice. Davey will never be able to actually make a valid case for it. And I am more than OK with that. Nonsense  creationist special pleading Joe. Don't you have your own dick face blog for that lame piece of special pleading? In fact if you google dick face nested hierarchy your blog is right at the top. It's all facts, Davey. But seeing that you are just an ignorant child molester you wouldn't know anything about that. I see that you are still too chicken-shit to try to make your case. Only true as creationist special pleading. BTW why do you call creationist animal "kinds" as per Genesis "common design" ARE YOU CONFUSED? What does your Imam think of that? Linnaean taxonomy is based on a common design scheme, just as I have said. Only creationists say that. Game up Joe. Only Creationists tell the facts? That is true as I have never met an evo who was honest -------------- "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

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2018,11:39    Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,19:34) Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 03 2018,11:32) Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,19:28)   Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 03 2018,11:10)   Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,17:13)     Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 03 2018,05:31)     Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,12:50)       Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 03 2018,00:35)         Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,05:35) keiths continues to puke all over himself when it comes to nested hierarchies. And even though it has been proven that Doug Theobald is totally wrong keiths continues to reference him on nested hierarchies. Theobald wrongly spews:           Quote The only known processes that specifically generate unique, nested, hierarchical patterns are branching evolutionary processes. WRONG! Linnaean Taxonomy is an objective nested hierarchy and it doesn't have anything to do with branching evolutionary processes. Corporations can be placed in objective nested hierarchies and again they have nothing to do with branching evolutionary processes. The US Army is a nested hierarchy and it too has nothing to do with branching evolutionary processes. Clearly Theobald is ignorant of nested hierarchies. He goes on to spew:           Quote It would be very problematic if many species were found that combined characteristics of different nested groupings Umm, TRANSITIONAL FORMs have combined characteristics of different nested groups, Dougy. And your position expects numerous transitional forms. But Doug's biggest mistake was saying that phylogenies form a nested hierarchy- they don't as explained in the Knox paper-  “The use of hierarchies as organizational models in systematics”, Biological Journal of the Linnaean Society, 63: 1–49, 1998. And for fuck's sake even Darwin knew that if you tried to include all of the alleged transitional forms you couldn't form distinguished groups:           Quote Extinction has only defined the groups: it has by no means made them; for if every form which has ever lived on this earth were suddenly to reappear, though it would be quite impossible to give definitions by which each group could be distinguished, still a natural classification, or at least a natural arrangement, would be possible.- Charles Darwin chapter 14 Nested hierarchies require distinct and distinguished groups- again see Linnaean Taxonomy. AND nested hierarchies are artificial constructs. So only by cherry picking would Common Descent yield a nested hierarchy. And I understand why the losers here don't want to discuss it. Zachriel, Alan Fox and John Harshman are also totally ignorant when it comes to nested hierarchies. Now I know why I was banned from the skeptical zone- so I couldn't refute their nonsense to their faces. This way they can continue to ignore reality and prattle on like a bunch of ignoramuses. Sad, really. Here is another hint from the Knox paper:           Quote Regardless of what is eventually learned about the evolution of Clarkia/Heterogaura, the complex nature of evolutionary processes yields patterns that are more complex than can be represented by the simple hierarchical models of either monophyletic systematization or Linnaean classification. Notice the either or at the end? Only Linnaean classification is the objective nested hierarchy with respect to biology. And what does UC Berkley say about Linnaean classification?:           Quote Most of us are accustomed to the Linnaean system of classification that assigns every organism a kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species, which, among other possibilities, has the handy mnemonic King Philip Came Over For Good Soup. This system was created long before scientists understood that organisms evolved. Because the Linnaean system is not based on evolution, most biologists are switching to a classification system that reflects the organisms' evolutionary history. and           Quote *The standard system of classification in which every organism is assigned a kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. This system groups organisms into ever smaller and smaller groups (like a series of boxes within boxes, called a nested hierarchy). It was based on a common design scheme. To help everyone here to understand your special pleading why don't you include an US-ARMY org chart? Put lots of arrows on it and comments etc etc. Only a moron would think I am using special pleading. I know that you cannot make a case that I am using any type of special pleading, loser. Only Joe G a well known moron creationist would think he is not special pleading. Lets see if that's the case.....yup done and dusted. Case closed Joe. Wittle Davey Whiskers "argues" like a little faggot. I see it is too chicken-shit to try to make its case. Figures Joe moron creationist argument breaks down resorts to playground  taunts. Hey Joe fuck off DICK FACE. LoL! My argument is sound. YOU broke down. And all you ever do is resort to playground taunts. You must be one cowardly, ignorant and dickless person. Joe is a moron, Joe is a moron. And yet I am smarter than you... Let's take a vote on that Mr Couldn't Get Elected Dog Catcher. -------------- "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

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2018,11:40    Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 03 2018,11:35) Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,19:34) Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 03 2018,11:30)   Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,19:24)     Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 03 2018,11:18)     Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,17:21) keiths continues to puke all over himself when it comes to nested hierarchies. And even though it has been proven that Doug Theobald is totally wrong keiths continues to reference him on nested hierarchies. Theobald wrongly spews:             Quote The only known processes that specifically generate unique, nested, hierarchical patterns are branching evolutionary processes. WRONG! Linnaean Taxonomy is an objective nested hierarchy and it doesn't have anything to do with branching evolutionary processes. Corporations can be placed in objective nested hierarchies and again they have nothing to do with branching evolutionary processes. The US Army is a nested hierarchy and it too has nothing to do with branching evolutionary processes. Clearly Theobald is ignorant of nested hierarchies. He goes on to spew:             Quote It would be very problematic if many species were found that combined characteristics of different nested groupings Umm, TRANSITIONAL FORMs have combined characteristics of different nested groups, Dougy. And your position expects numerous transitional forms. But Doug's biggest mistake was saying that phylogenies form a nested hierarchy- they don't as explained in the Knox paper-  “The use of hierarchies as organizational models in systematics”, Biological Journal of the Linnaean Society, 63: 1–49, 1998. And for fuck's sake even Darwin knew that if you tried to include all of the alleged transitional forms you couldn't form distinguished groups:             Quote Extinction has only defined the groups: it has by no means made them; for if every form which has ever lived on this earth were suddenly to reappear, though it would be quite impossible to give definitions by which each group could be distinguished, still a natural classification, or at least a natural arrangement, would be possible.- Charles Darwin chapter 14 Nested hierarchies require distinct and distinguished groups- again see Linnaean Taxonomy. AND nested hierarchies are artificial constructs. So only by cherry picking would Common Descent yield a nested hierarchy. And I understand why the losers here don't want to discuss it. Zachriel, Alan Fox and John Harshman are also totally ignorant when it comes to nested hierarchies. Now I know why I was banned from the skeptical zone- so I couldn't refute their nonsense to their faces. This way they can continue to ignore reality and prattle on like a bunch of ignoramuses. Sad, really. Here is another hint from the Knox paper:             Quote Regardless of what is eventually learned about the evolution of Clarkia/Heterogaura, the complex nature of evolutionary processes yields patterns that are more complex than can be represented by the simple hierarchical models of either monophyletic systematization or Linnaean classification. Notice the either or at the end? Only Linnaean classification is the objective nested hierarchy with respect to biology. And what does UC Berkley say about Linnaean classification?:             Quote Most of us are accustomed to the Linnaean system of classification that assigns every organism a kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species, which, among other possibilities, has the handy mnemonic King Philip Came Over For Good Soup. This system was created long before scientists understood that organisms evolved. Because the Linnaean system is not based on evolution, most biologists are switching to a classification system that reflects the organisms' evolutionary history. and             Quote *The standard system of classification in which every organism is assigned a kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. This system groups organisms into ever smaller and smaller groups (like a series of boxes within boxes, called a nested hierarchy). It was based on a common design scheme. Davey's ignorant call of "special pleading" is just its cowardice. Davey will never be able to actually make a valid case for it. And I am more than OK with that. Nonsense  creationist special pleading Joe. Don't you have your own dick face blog for that lame piece of special pleading? In fact if you google dick face nested hierarchy your blog is right at the top. It's all facts, Davey. But seeing that you are just an ignorant child molester you wouldn't know anything about that. I see that you are still too chicken-shit to try to make your case. Only true as creationist special pleading. BTW why do you call creationist animal "kinds" as per Genesis "common design" ARE YOU CONFUSED? What does your Imam think of that? Linnaean taxonomy is based on a common design scheme, just as I have said. Only creationists say that. Game up Joe. And yet Mayr and Simpson, to evos, said it. -------------- "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: Jan. 03 2018,11:40    Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 03 2018,11:39) Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,19:34) Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 03 2018,11:32)   Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,19:28)   Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 03 2018,11:10)     Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,17:13)     Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 03 2018,05:31)       Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,12:50)         Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 03 2018,00:35)         Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,05:35) keiths continues to puke all over himself when it comes to nested hierarchies. And even though it has been proven that Doug Theobald is totally wrong keiths continues to reference him on nested hierarchies. Theobald wrongly spews:           Quote The only known processes that specifically generate unique, nested, hierarchical patterns are branching evolutionary processes. WRONG! Linnaean Taxonomy is an objective nested hierarchy and it doesn't have anything to do with branching evolutionary processes. Corporations can be placed in objective nested hierarchies and again they have nothing to do with branching evolutionary processes. The US Army is a nested hierarchy and it too has nothing to do with branching evolutionary processes. Clearly Theobald is ignorant of nested hierarchies. He goes on to spew:           Quote It would be very problematic if many species were found that combined characteristics of different nested groupings Umm, TRANSITIONAL FORMs have combined characteristics of different nested groups, Dougy. And your position expects numerous transitional forms. But Doug's biggest mistake was saying that phylogenies form a nested hierarchy- they don't as explained in the Knox paper-  “The use of hierarchies as organizational models in systematics”, Biological Journal of the Linnaean Society, 63: 1–49, 1998. And for fuck's sake even Darwin knew that if you tried to include all of the alleged transitional forms you couldn't form distinguished groups:           Quote Extinction has only defined the groups: it has by no means made them; for if every form which has ever lived on this earth were suddenly to reappear, though it would be quite impossible to give definitions by which each group could be distinguished, still a natural classification, or at least a natural arrangement, would be possible.- Charles Darwin chapter 14 Nested hierarchies require distinct and distinguished groups- again see Linnaean Taxonomy. AND nested hierarchies are artificial constructs. So only by cherry picking would Common Descent yield a nested hierarchy. And I understand why the losers here don't want to discuss it. Zachriel, Alan Fox and John Harshman are also totally ignorant when it comes to nested hierarchies. Now I know why I was banned from the skeptical zone- so I couldn't refute their nonsense to their faces. This way they can continue to ignore reality and prattle on like a bunch of ignoramuses. Sad, really. Here is another hint from the Knox paper:           Quote Regardless of what is eventually learned about the evolution of Clarkia/Heterogaura, the complex nature of evolutionary processes yields patterns that are more complex than can be represented by the simple hierarchical models of either monophyletic systematization or Linnaean classification. Notice the either or at the end? Only Linnaean classification is the objective nested hierarchy with respect to biology. And what does UC Berkley say about Linnaean classification?:           Quote Most of us are accustomed to the Linnaean system of classification that assigns every organism a kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species, which, among other possibilities, has the handy mnemonic King Philip Came Over For Good Soup. This system was created long before scientists understood that organisms evolved. Because the Linnaean system is not based on evolution, most biologists are switching to a classification system that reflects the organisms' evolutionary history. and           Quote *The standard system of classification in which every organism is assigned a kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. This system groups organisms into ever smaller and smaller groups (like a series of boxes within boxes, called a nested hierarchy). It was based on a common design scheme. To help everyone here to understand your special pleading why don't you include an US-ARMY org chart? Put lots of arrows on it and comments etc etc. Only a moron would think I am using special pleading. I know that you cannot make a case that I am using any type of special pleading, loser. Only Joe G a well known moron creationist would think he is not special pleading. Lets see if that's the case.....yup done and dusted. Case closed Joe. Wittle Davey Whiskers "argues" like a little faggot. I see it is too chicken-shit to try to make its case. Figures Joe moron creationist argument breaks down resorts to playground  taunts. Hey Joe fuck off DICK FACE. LoL! My argument is sound. YOU broke down. And all you ever do is resort to playground taunts. You must be one cowardly, ignorant and dickless person. Joe is a moron, Joe is a moron. And yet I am smarter than you... Let's take a vote on that Mr Couldn't Get Elected Dog Catcher. Let's just meet and get it over with, coward. -------------- "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: Jan. 03 2018,11:41    Only a loser coward would think that a vote could settle who is smarter- enter little Davey Whiskers -------------- "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

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2018,11:41    Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,19:39) Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 03 2018,11:35) Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,19:34)   Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 03 2018,11:30)   Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,19:24)     Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 03 2018,11:18)       Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,17:21) keiths continues to puke all over himself when it comes to nested hierarchies. And even though it has been proven that Doug Theobald is totally wrong keiths continues to reference him on nested hierarchies. Theobald wrongly spews:               Quote The only known processes that specifically generate unique, nested, hierarchical patterns are branching evolutionary processes. WRONG! Linnaean Taxonomy is an objective nested hierarchy and it doesn't have anything to do with branching evolutionary processes. Corporations can be placed in objective nested hierarchies and again they have nothing to do with branching evolutionary processes. The US Army is a nested hierarchy and it too has nothing to do with branching evolutionary processes. Clearly Theobald is ignorant of nested hierarchies. He goes on to spew:               Quote It would be very problematic if many species were found that combined characteristics of different nested groupings Umm, TRANSITIONAL FORMs have combined characteristics of different nested groups, Dougy. And your position expects numerous transitional forms. But Doug's biggest mistake was saying that phylogenies form a nested hierarchy- they don't as explained in the Knox paper-  “The use of hierarchies as organizational models in systematics”, Biological Journal of the Linnaean Society, 63: 1–49, 1998. And for fuck's sake even Darwin knew that if you tried to include all of the alleged transitional forms you couldn't form distinguished groups:               Quote Extinction has only defined the groups: it has by no means made them; for if every form which has ever lived on this earth were suddenly to reappear, though it would be quite impossible to give definitions by which each group could be distinguished, still a natural classification, or at least a natural arrangement, would be possible.- Charles Darwin chapter 14 Nested hierarchies require distinct and distinguished groups- again see Linnaean Taxonomy. AND nested hierarchies are artificial constructs. So only by cherry picking would Common Descent yield a nested hierarchy. And I understand why the losers here don't want to discuss it. Zachriel, Alan Fox and John Harshman are also totally ignorant when it comes to nested hierarchies. Now I know why I was banned from the skeptical zone- so I couldn't refute their nonsense to their faces. This way they can continue to ignore reality and prattle on like a bunch of ignoramuses. Sad, really. Here is another hint from the Knox paper:               Quote Regardless of what is eventually learned about the evolution of Clarkia/Heterogaura, the complex nature of evolutionary processes yields patterns that are more complex than can be represented by the simple hierarchical models of either monophyletic systematization or Linnaean classification. Notice the either or at the end? Only Linnaean classification is the objective nested hierarchy with respect to biology. And what does UC Berkley say about Linnaean classification?:               Quote Most of us are accustomed to the Linnaean system of classification that assigns every organism a kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species, which, among other possibilities, has the handy mnemonic King Philip Came Over For Good Soup. This system was created long before scientists understood that organisms evolved. Because the Linnaean system is not based on evolution, most biologists are switching to a classification system that reflects the organisms' evolutionary history. and               Quote *The standard system of classification in which every organism is assigned a kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. This system groups organisms into ever smaller and smaller groups (like a series of boxes within boxes, called a nested hierarchy). It was based on a common design scheme. Davey's ignorant call of "special pleading" is just its cowardice. Davey will never be able to actually make a valid case for it. And I am more than OK with that. Nonsense  creationist special pleading Joe. Don't you have your own dick face blog for that lame piece of special pleading? In fact if you google dick face nested hierarchy your blog is right at the top. It's all facts, Davey. But seeing that you are just an ignorant child molester you wouldn't know anything about that. I see that you are still too chicken-shit to try to make your case. Only true as creationist special pleading. BTW why do you call creationist animal "kinds" as per Genesis "common design" ARE YOU CONFUSED? What does your Imam think of that? Linnaean taxonomy is based on a common design scheme, just as I have said. Only creationists say that. Game up Joe. Only Creationists tell the facts? That is true as I have never met an evo who was honest Hey Joe did you know Whales have vestigial legs? Thus proving they evolved from land mammals? -------------- "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: Jan. 03 2018,11:43    Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,19:41) Only a loser coward would think that a vote could settle who is smarter- enter little Davey Whiskers OK....... job almost done here. Same time tomorrow Joe? -------------- "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

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2018,11:43    Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 03 2018,11:41) Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,19:39) Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 03 2018,11:35)   Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,19:34)   Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 03 2018,11:30)     Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,19:24)       Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 03 2018,11:18)       Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,17:21) keiths continues to puke all over himself when it comes to nested hierarchies. And even though it has been proven that Doug Theobald is totally wrong keiths continues to reference him on nested hierarchies. Theobald wrongly spews:               Quote The only known processes that specifically generate unique, nested, hierarchical patterns are branching evolutionary processes. WRONG! Linnaean Taxonomy is an objective nested hierarchy and it doesn't have anything to do with branching evolutionary processes. Corporations can be placed in objective nested hierarchies and again they have nothing to do with branching evolutionary processes. The US Army is a nested hierarchy and it too has nothing to do with branching evolutionary processes. Clearly Theobald is ignorant of nested hierarchies. He goes on to spew:               Quote It would be very problematic if many species were found that combined characteristics of different nested groupings Umm, TRANSITIONAL FORMs have combined characteristics of different nested groups, Dougy. And your position expects numerous transitional forms. But Doug's biggest mistake was saying that phylogenies form a nested hierarchy- they don't as explained in the Knox paper-  “The use of hierarchies as organizational models in systematics”, Biological Journal of the Linnaean Society, 63: 1–49, 1998. And for fuck's sake even Darwin knew that if you tried to include all of the alleged transitional forms you couldn't form distinguished groups:               Quote Extinction has only defined the groups: it has by no means made them; for if every form which has ever lived on this earth were suddenly to reappear, though it would be quite impossible to give definitions by which each group could be distinguished, still a natural classification, or at least a natural arrangement, would be possible.- Charles Darwin chapter 14 Nested hierarchies require distinct and distinguished groups- again see Linnaean Taxonomy. AND nested hierarchies are artificial constructs. So only by cherry picking would Common Descent yield a nested hierarchy. And I understand why the losers here don't want to discuss it. Zachriel, Alan Fox and John Harshman are also totally ignorant when it comes to nested hierarchies. Now I know why I was banned from the skeptical zone- so I couldn't refute their nonsense to their faces. This way they can continue to ignore reality and prattle on like a bunch of ignoramuses. Sad, really. Here is another hint from the Knox paper:               Quote Regardless of what is eventually learned about the evolution of Clarkia/Heterogaura, the complex nature of evolutionary processes yields patterns that are more complex than can be represented by the simple hierarchical models of either monophyletic systematization or Linnaean classification. Notice the either or at the end? Only Linnaean classification is the objective nested hierarchy with respect to biology. And what does UC Berkley say about Linnaean classification?:               Quote Most of us are accustomed to the Linnaean system of classification that assigns every organism a kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species, which, among other possibilities, has the handy mnemonic King Philip Came Over For Good Soup. This system was created long before scientists understood that organisms evolved. Because the Linnaean system is not based on evolution, most biologists are switching to a classification system that reflects the organisms' evolutionary history. and               Quote *The standard system of classification in which every organism is assigned a kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. This system groups organisms into ever smaller and smaller groups (like a series of boxes within boxes, called a nested hierarchy). It was based on a common design scheme. Davey's ignorant call of "special pleading" is just its cowardice. Davey will never be able to actually make a valid case for it. And I am more than OK with that. Nonsense  creationist special pleading Joe. Don't you have your own dick face blog for that lame piece of special pleading? In fact if you google dick face nested hierarchy your blog is right at the top. It's all facts, Davey. But seeing that you are just an ignorant child molester you wouldn't know anything about that. I see that you are still too chicken-shit to try to make your case. Only true as creationist special pleading. BTW why do you call creationist animal "kinds" as per Genesis "common design" ARE YOU CONFUSED? What does your Imam think of that? Linnaean taxonomy is based on a common design scheme, just as I have said. Only creationists say that. Game up Joe. Only Creationists tell the facts? That is true as I have never met an evo who was honest Hey Joe did you know Whales have vestigial legs? Thus proving they evolved from land mammals? They don't have vestigial legs. They may have vestigial hind fins. There isn't any genetic evidence that says the transformation from land mammal to whale is even possible. You don't have a testable mechanism. -------------- "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: Jan. 03 2018,11:44    Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 03 2018,11:43) Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,19:41) Only a loser coward would think that a vote could settle who is smarter- enter little Davey Whiskers OK....... job almost done here. Same time tomorrow Joe? LoL! You are done, Davey. You have already proven that you are an ignorant coward. What else is there? -------------- "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

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2018,11:45    Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,19:40) Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 03 2018,11:39) Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,19:34)   Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 03 2018,11:32)   Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,19:28)     Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 03 2018,11:10)     Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,17:13)       Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 03 2018,05:31)       Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,12:50)         Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 03 2018,00:35)           Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,05:35) keiths continues to puke all over himself when it comes to nested hierarchies. And even though it has been proven that Doug Theobald is totally wrong keiths continues to reference him on nested hierarchies. Theobald wrongly spews:             Quote The only known processes that specifically generate unique, nested, hierarchical patterns are branching evolutionary processes. WRONG! Linnaean Taxonomy is an objective nested hierarchy and it doesn't have anything to do with branching evolutionary processes. Corporations can be placed in objective nested hierarchies and again they have nothing to do with branching evolutionary processes. The US Army is a nested hierarchy and it too has nothing to do with branching evolutionary processes. Clearly Theobald is ignorant of nested hierarchies. He goes on to spew:             Quote It would be very problematic if many species were found that combined characteristics of different nested groupings Umm, TRANSITIONAL FORMs have combined characteristics of different nested groups, Dougy. And your position expects numerous transitional forms. But Doug's biggest mistake was saying that phylogenies form a nested hierarchy- they don't as explained in the Knox paper-  “The use of hierarchies as organizational models in systematics”, Biological Journal of the Linnaean Society, 63: 1–49, 1998. And for fuck's sake even Darwin knew that if you tried to include all of the alleged transitional forms you couldn't form distinguished groups:             Quote Extinction has only defined the groups: it has by no means made them; for if every form which has ever lived on this earth were suddenly to reappear, though it would be quite impossible to give definitions by which each group could be distinguished, still a natural classification, or at least a natural arrangement, would be possible.- Charles Darwin chapter 14 Nested hierarchies require distinct and distinguished groups- again see Linnaean Taxonomy. AND nested hierarchies are artificial constructs. So only by cherry picking would Common Descent yield a nested hierarchy. And I understand why the losers here don't want to discuss it. Zachriel, Alan Fox and John Harshman are also totally ignorant when it comes to nested hierarchies. Now I know why I was banned from the skeptical zone- so I couldn't refute their nonsense to their faces. This way they can continue to ignore reality and prattle on like a bunch of ignoramuses. Sad, really. Here is another hint from the Knox paper:             Quote Regardless of what is eventually learned about the evolution of Clarkia/Heterogaura, the complex nature of evolutionary processes yields patterns that are more complex than can be represented by the simple hierarchical models of either monophyletic systematization or Linnaean classification. Notice the either or at the end? Only Linnaean classification is the objective nested hierarchy with respect to biology. And what does UC Berkley say about Linnaean classification?:             Quote Most of us are accustomed to the Linnaean system of classification that assigns every organism a kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species, which, among other possibilities, has the handy mnemonic King Philip Came Over For Good Soup. This system was created long before scientists understood that organisms evolved. Because the Linnaean system is not based on evolution, most biologists are switching to a classification system that reflects the organisms' evolutionary history. and             Quote *The standard system of classification in which every organism is assigned a kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. This system groups organisms into ever smaller and smaller groups (like a series of boxes within boxes, called a nested hierarchy). It was based on a common design scheme. To help everyone here to understand your special pleading why don't you include an US-ARMY org chart? Put lots of arrows on it and comments etc etc. Only a moron would think I am using special pleading. I know that you cannot make a case that I am using any type of special pleading, loser. Only Joe G a well known moron creationist would think he is not special pleading. Lets see if that's the case.....yup done and dusted. Case closed Joe. Wittle Davey Whiskers "argues" like a little faggot. I see it is too chicken-shit to try to make its case. Figures Joe moron creationist argument breaks down resorts to playground  taunts. Hey Joe fuck off DICK FACE. LoL! My argument is sound. YOU broke down. And all you ever do is resort to playground taunts. You must be one cowardly, ignorant and dickless person. Joe is a moron, Joe is a moron. And yet I am smarter than you... Let's take a vote on that Mr Couldn't Get Elected Dog Catcher. Let's just meet and get it over with, coward. OK how about Bhagdad? Or is it too soon? -------------- "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

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2018,11:45    Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 03 2018,11:45) Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,19:40) Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 03 2018,11:39)   Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,19:34)   Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 03 2018,11:32)     Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,19:28)     Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 03 2018,11:10)       Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,17:13)       Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 03 2018,05:31)         Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,12:50)           Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 03 2018,00:35)           Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,05:35) keiths continues to puke all over himself when it comes to nested hierarchies. And even though it has been proven that Doug Theobald is totally wrong keiths continues to reference him on nested hierarchies. Theobald wrongly spews:             Quote The only known processes that specifically generate unique, nested, hierarchical patterns are branching evolutionary processes. WRONG! Linnaean Taxonomy is an objective nested hierarchy and it doesn't have anything to do with branching evolutionary processes. Corporations can be placed in objective nested hierarchies and again they have nothing to do with branching evolutionary processes. The US Army is a nested hierarchy and it too has nothing to do with branching evolutionary processes. Clearly Theobald is ignorant of nested hierarchies. He goes on to spew:             Quote It would be very problematic if many species were found that combined characteristics of different nested groupings Umm, TRANSITIONAL FORMs have combined characteristics of different nested groups, Dougy. And your position expects numerous transitional forms. But Doug's biggest mistake was saying that phylogenies form a nested hierarchy- they don't as explained in the Knox paper-  “The use of hierarchies as organizational models in systematics”, Biological Journal of the Linnaean Society, 63: 1–49, 1998. And for fuck's sake even Darwin knew that if you tried to include all of the alleged transitional forms you couldn't form distinguished groups:             Quote Extinction has only defined the groups: it has by no means made them; for if every form which has ever lived on this earth were suddenly to reappear, though it would be quite impossible to give definitions by which each group could be distinguished, still a natural classification, or at least a natural arrangement, would be possible.- Charles Darwin chapter 14 Nested hierarchies require distinct and distinguished groups- again see Linnaean Taxonomy. AND nested hierarchies are artificial constructs. So only by cherry picking would Common Descent yield a nested hierarchy. And I understand why the losers here don't want to discuss it. Zachriel, Alan Fox and John Harshman are also totally ignorant when it comes to nested hierarchies. Now I know why I was banned from the skeptical zone- so I couldn't refute their nonsense to their faces. This way they can continue to ignore reality and prattle on like a bunch of ignoramuses. Sad, really. Here is another hint from the Knox paper:             Quote Regardless of what is eventually learned about the evolution of Clarkia/Heterogaura, the complex nature of evolutionary processes yields patterns that are more complex than can be represented by the simple hierarchical models of either monophyletic systematization or Linnaean classification. Notice the either or at the end? Only Linnaean classification is the objective nested hierarchy with respect to biology. And what does UC Berkley say about Linnaean classification?:             Quote Most of us are accustomed to the Linnaean system of classification that assigns every organism a kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species, which, among other possibilities, has the handy mnemonic King Philip Came Over For Good Soup. This system was created long before scientists understood that organisms evolved. Because the Linnaean system is not based on evolution, most biologists are switching to a classification system that reflects the organisms' evolutionary history. and             Quote *The standard system of classification in which every organism is assigned a kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. This system groups organisms into ever smaller and smaller groups (like a series of boxes within boxes, called a nested hierarchy). It was based on a common design scheme. To help everyone here to understand your special pleading why don't you include an US-ARMY org chart? Put lots of arrows on it and comments etc etc. Only a moron would think I am using special pleading. I know that you cannot make a case that I am using any type of special pleading, loser. Only Joe G a well known moron creationist would think he is not special pleading. Lets see if that's the case.....yup done and dusted. Case closed Joe. Wittle Davey Whiskers "argues" like a little faggot. I see it is too chicken-shit to try to make its case. Figures Joe moron creationist argument breaks down resorts to playground  taunts. Hey Joe fuck off DICK FACE. LoL! My argument is sound. YOU broke down. And all you ever do is resort to playground taunts. You must be one cowardly, ignorant and dickless person. Joe is a moron, Joe is a moron. And yet I am smarter than you... Let's take a vote on that Mr Couldn't Get Elected Dog Catcher. Let's just meet and get it over with, coward. OK how about Bhagdad? Or is it too soon? Go on ahead. I will meet you there. -------------- "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: Jan. 03 2018,11:48    keiths continues to puke all over himself when it comes to nested hierarchies. And even though it has been proven that Doug Theobald is totally wrong keiths continues to reference him on nested hierarchies. Theobald wrongly spews: Quote The only known processes that specifically generate unique, nested, hierarchical patterns are branching evolutionary processes. WRONG! Linnaean Taxonomy is an objective nested hierarchy and it doesn't have anything to do with branching evolutionary processes. Corporations can be placed in objective nested hierarchies and again they have nothing to do with branching evolutionary processes. The US Army is a nested hierarchy and it too has nothing to do with branching evolutionary processes. Clearly Theobald is ignorant of nested hierarchies. He goes on to spew:   Quote It would be very problematic if many species were found that combined characteristics of different nested groupings Umm, TRANSITIONAL FORMs have combined characteristics of different nested groups, Dougy. And your position expects numerous transitional forms. But Doug's biggest mistake was saying that phylogenies form a nested hierarchy- they don't as explained in the Knox paper-  “The use of hierarchies as organizational models in systematics”, Biological Journal of the Linnaean Society, 63: 1–49, 1998. And for fuck's sake even Darwin knew that if you tried to include all of the alleged transitional forms you couldn't form distinguished groups:     Quote Extinction has only defined the groups: it has by no means made them; for if every form which has ever lived on this earth were suddenly to reappear, though it would be quite impossible to give definitions by which each group could be distinguished, still a natural classification, or at least a natural arrangement, would be possible.- Charles Darwin chapter 14 Nested hierarchies require distinct and distinguished groups- again see Linnaean Taxonomy. AND nested hierarchies are artificial constructs. So only by cherry picking would Common Descent yield a nested hierarchy. And I understand why the losers here don't want to discuss it. Zachriel, Alan Fox and John Harshman are also totally ignorant when it comes to nested hierarchies. Now I know why I was banned from the skeptical zone- so I couldn't refute their nonsense to their faces. This way they can continue to ignore reality and prattle on like a bunch of ignoramuses. Sad, really. Here is another hint from the Knox paper:   Quote Regardless of what is eventually learned about the evolution of Clarkia/Heterogaura, the complex nature of evolutionary processes yields patterns that are more complex than can be represented by the simple hierarchical models of either monophyletic systematization or Linnaean classification. Notice the either or at the end? Only Linnaean classification is the objective nested hierarchy with respect to biology. And what does UC Berkley say about Linnaean classification?:   Quote Most of us are accustomed to the Linnaean system of classification that assigns every organism a kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species, which, among other possibilities, has the handy mnemonic King Philip Came Over For Good Soup. This system was created long before scientists understood that organisms evolved. Because the Linnaean system is not based on evolution, most biologists are switching to a classification system that reflects the organisms' evolutionary history. and     Quote *The standard system of classification in which every organism is assigned a kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. This system groups organisms into ever smaller and smaller groups (like a series of boxes within boxes, called a nested hierarchy). It was based on a common design scheme. Davey's ignorant call of "special pleading" is just its cowardice. Davey will never be able to actually make a valid case for it. And I am more than OK with that. -------------- "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

paragwinn Posts: 539 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2018,11:49    Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,09:33)   Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 03 2018,11:29)   Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,09:28) And all you ever do is resort to playground taunts. That has to be the least self-aware comment in history. It is a fact that all you assholes do is try to insult people who prove that you are morons DOUBLE COUP-FOURRE!! bolding mine, all mine -------------- All women build up a resistance [to male condescension]. Apparently, ID did not predict that. -Kristine 4-19-11 F/Ns to F/Ns to F/Ns etc. The whole thing is F/N ridiculous -Seversky on KF footnote fetish 8-20-11 Sigh. Really Bill? - Barry Arrington

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2018,11:51    Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,19:43) Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 03 2018,11:41)   Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,19:39)   Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 03 2018,11:35)     Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,19:34)     Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 03 2018,11:30)       Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,19:24)         Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 03 2018,11:18)         Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,17:21) keiths continues to puke all over himself when it comes to nested hierarchies. And even though it has been proven that Doug Theobald is totally wrong keiths continues to reference him on nested hierarchies. Theobald wrongly spews:                 Quote The only known processes that specifically generate unique, nested, hierarchical patterns are branching evolutionary processes. WRONG! Linnaean Taxonomy is an objective nested hierarchy and it doesn't have anything to do with branching evolutionary processes. Corporations can be placed in objective nested hierarchies and again they have nothing to do with branching evolutionary processes. The US Army is a nested hierarchy and it too has nothing to do with branching evolutionary processes. Clearly Theobald is ignorant of nested hierarchies. He goes on to spew:                 Quote It would be very problematic if many species were found that combined characteristics of different nested groupings Umm, TRANSITIONAL FORMs have combined characteristics of different nested groups, Dougy. And your position expects numerous transitional forms. But Doug's biggest mistake was saying that phylogenies form a nested hierarchy- they don't as explained in the Knox paper-  “The use of hierarchies as organizational models in systematics”, Biological Journal of the Linnaean Society, 63: 1–49, 1998. And for fuck's sake even Darwin knew that if you tried to include all of the alleged transitional forms you couldn't form distinguished groups:                 Quote Extinction has only defined the groups: it has by no means made them; for if every form which has ever lived on this earth were suddenly to reappear, though it would be quite impossible to give definitions by which each group could be distinguished, still a natural classification, or at least a natural arrangement, would be possible.- Charles Darwin chapter 14 Nested hierarchies require distinct and distinguished groups- again see Linnaean Taxonomy. AND nested hierarchies are artificial constructs. So only by cherry picking would Common Descent yield a nested hierarchy. And I understand why the losers here don't want to discuss it. Zachriel, Alan Fox and John Harshman are also totally ignorant when it comes to nested hierarchies. Now I know why I was banned from the skeptical zone- so I couldn't refute their nonsense to their faces. This way they can continue to ignore reality and prattle on like a bunch of ignoramuses. Sad, really. Here is another hint from the Knox paper:                 Quote Regardless of what is eventually learned about the evolution of Clarkia/Heterogaura, the complex nature of evolutionary processes yields patterns that are more complex than can be represented by the simple hierarchical models of either monophyletic systematization or Linnaean classification. Notice the either or at the end? Only Linnaean classification is the objective nested hierarchy with respect to biology. And what does UC Berkley say about Linnaean classification?:                 Quote Most of us are accustomed to the Linnaean system of classification that assigns every organism a kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species, which, among other possibilities, has the handy mnemonic King Philip Came Over For Good Soup. This system was created long before scientists understood that organisms evolved. Because the Linnaean system is not based on evolution, most biologists are switching to a classification system that reflects the organisms' evolutionary history. and                 Quote *The standard system of classification in which every organism is assigned a kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. This system groups organisms into ever smaller and smaller groups (like a series of boxes within boxes, called a nested hierarchy). It was based on a common design scheme. Davey's ignorant call of "special pleading" is just its cowardice. Davey will never be able to actually make a valid case for it. And I am more than OK with that. Nonsense  creationist special pleading Joe. Don't you have your own dick face blog for that lame piece of special pleading? In fact if you google dick face nested hierarchy your blog is right at the top. It's all facts, Davey. But seeing that you are just an ignorant child molester you wouldn't know anything about that. I see that you are still too chicken-shit to try to make your case. Only true as creationist special pleading. BTW why do you call creationist animal "kinds" as per Genesis "common design" ARE YOU CONFUSED? What does your Imam think of that? Linnaean taxonomy is based on a common design scheme, just as I have said. Only creationists say that. Game up Joe. Only Creationists tell the facts? That is true as I have never met an evo who was honest Hey Joe did you know Whales have vestigial legs? Thus proving they evolved from land mammals? They don't have vestigial legs. They may have vestigial hind fins. There isn't any genetic evidence that says the transformation from land mammal to whale is even possible. You don't have a testable mechanism. Nothing in PubMed about that Joe. You are the only creationist pushing that turd down the road. -------------- "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

Pages: (919) < ... 331 332 333 334 335 [336] 337 338 339 340 341 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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