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... > Uncommonly Dense Thread 4

Pages: (356) < ... 168 169 170 171 172 [173] 174 175 176 177 178 ... >

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 11 2012,17:30    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 11 2012,16:43) Quote (Henry J @ July 11 2012,16:39) That's only if his words have any weight to start with. ;) Hmm. What's the oppostive of a citation? Gordo:   Quote Viruses, of course, are not self-replicating. They hijack the machinery of a living cell, and act as rogue programs. (The use of the term computer virus was in part inspired by that.) But Gordo, these "rogue programs" were also designed, remember? Programs have programmers etc etc. So, Gordo, explain that! He's a bit of a shit this "designer" of yours, no? [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/origin-of-life/id-foundations-15-migneas-simplest-self-replicator-the-vnsr-and-a-designed-origin-of-cell- based-life/#comment-427656]DUH![/URL] EDIT: Even KF's post titles are overly verbose and break the links. Fuck it, it can stay like that as a testament to his windbaggery. That's a strange definition of 'self-replicating'. The virus synthesizes things external to itself to make more of itself. Are we not self replicating , as we don't make our own food / atmosphere / gravity etc? These are complex things that we are most surely 'hijacking'. -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

Kattarina98 Posts: 1267 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: July 11 2012,17:51    Quote (Richardthughes @ July 11 2012,17:30) Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 11 2012,16:43) Quote (Henry J @ July 11 2012,16:39) That's only if his words have any weight to start with. ;) Hmm. What's the oppostive of a citation? Gordo:     Quote Viruses, of course, are not self-replicating. They hijack the machinery of a living cell, and act as rogue programs. (The use of the term computer virus was in part inspired by that.) But Gordo, these "rogue programs" were also designed, remember? Programs have programmers etc etc. So, Gordo, explain that! He's a bit of a shit this "designer" of yours, no? [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/origin-of-life/id-foundations-15-migneas-simplest-self-replicator-the-vnsr-and-a-designed-origin-of-cell- based-life/#comment-427656]DUH![/URL] EDIT: Even KF's post titles are overly verbose and break the links. Fuck it, it can stay like that as a testament to his windbaggery. That's a strange definition of 'self-replicating'. The virus synthesizes things external to itself to make more of itself. Are we not self replicating , as we don't make our own food / atmosphere / gravity etc? These are complex things that we are most surely 'hijacking'. Ha, KF's trick didn't work. Remember his comment was in answer to Jerad who talked about a very simple first replicator, and KF started arguing about the cell instead? Well, kuartos noticed and wants an answer now - of course he hurries to kowtow: "I don't buy it." But nevertheless he wants Gordo's opinion. -------------- Barry Arrington is a bitch.

Bob O'H Posts: 2564 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 12 2012,05:46    Quote (Richardthughes @ July 11 2012,13:48) Barry crows: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....g-crowd Quote The world has been cooling, not warming, for 2,000 years.  Not that the facts will change the minds of the religious zealots pushing global warming hysteria. He's being dense on many levels. I'd like to propose a new fallacy 'Arrington's missmeasurement' that uses denominator drive growth from a cherry picked interval to make a case. The article states:   Quote a cooling of -0.3°C per millennium (which is 0.03°C per centuary, by by math) but if we look at more recent history: Ballpark, what is that per century? So who are the "religious zealots pushing" an agenda? edited Barry, predictably, didn't even read the article he was linking to: Quote German researchers used data from tree rings – a key indicator of past climate – to claim the world has been on a ‘long-term cooling trend’ for two millennia until the global warming of the twentieth century. (emphasis added) I would link to it, but it's from the Daily Mail. -------------- It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 12 2012,06:08    Gordo: Quote Notice, first, the revealing absence of clear lists of examples showing the transitions from chemicals to first life forms, then from unicellular ancestors to major step by step sequences of FOSSILS showing how the main body plans originated, and onward to the myriads of particular forms. If these were there, we would see them proudly displayed in every museum, textbook and major darwinist web site, not clusters of misleading icons and tendentious explanations shaped by the eye of darwinist faith and question-begging historically inapt redefinitions of science. I missed the part where Gordo told us how ID explains it... Gordo is asked to define his terms and refers back to Gould, as if that's support for his position: Quote Examples were given, and the remarks of a major expert were put on the table, repeatedly. That should have been more than enough for a reasonable discussion. In addition, the issue of “missing links” has been a major subject on this matter for the past 150 years. The pretence that all of this is new, and that I need to provide further explanation of a suspect claim from a suspect source, is a patent strawman tactic.. Quote You brought up the notion of final body plans, you should be able to define it. Gross and irresponsible misrepresentation, given what has already been laid out. Quote You know, that might be a good argument, but I can’t say for sure because you still haven’t explained your terms. That you think these are my terms is evidence of the undue influence. The issue is as stated and repeatedly excerpted from Gould. let the darwinist advocates argue with Gould and the fossils, not us. Quote How do you know that final forms outnumber transitionals unless you can tell transitional forms apart from final forms? Wrong framing, and he who succssfully mis-frames can win a debate on persuasiveness in the teeth of the evidence. Quote n particular, it does not allow us to brush aside the absence of the TRANSITIONAL SEQUENCES that should dominate the record were the CV + DRS –> DWM, i.e chance and necessity macro evo picture true. Have you seen the vids of Sternberg and Berlinsky in the IOSE body plan origins page? Do you see why a pattern where 50,000 or even 500 or 50 transitional forms consistently in the record, should leave behind samples that highlight that in “an almost unmanageably rich” fossil record? Transitional sequences should be all over the place, but we find few and far between, with the eye of darwinist faith called on to fill in transitions in place of the abundance of plain sequences. If we can see a sequence for circumpolar gulls, or for different racial characteristics of people, or for finches in the Galapagos [which turned out to be interfertile unexpectedly], why not for the much more important major body plan origins? Note this: Quote Transitional sequences should be all over the place, but we find few and far between So you admit they exist then Gordo? What do you accept as a transitional sequence then Gordo? And why is more then one required in any case Gordo? One is sufficient to make the point, that they exist at all! If ID is true there will be NONE AT ALL! Gordo, Gordo, Gordo. The problem with lying is that you have to remember all your lies. One moment there are no transitional fossils, the next there are "few". http://tinyurl.com/GordonT....TheLiar -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 12 2012,06:11    And Gordo, if Gould is right about A and you accept it then why was he wrong about B, C, D, E etc? Seems to me you are picking and choosing, essentially quote-mining ideas. Sure, I can probably build a good case for ID from PZ Myers if I take out single sentences from multiple sources and don't provide full context, just like you are doing with Gould. Yet only fools like Joe and BA will be impressed. -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 12 2012,09:31    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 12 2012,06:08) Gordo:   Quote Notice, first, the revealing absence of clear lists of examples showing the transitions from chemicals to first life forms, then from unicellular ancestors to major step by step sequences of FOSSILS showing how the main body plans originated, and onward to the myriads of particular forms. If these were there, we would see them proudly displayed in every museum, textbook and major darwinist web site, not clusters of misleading icons and tendentious explanations shaped by the eye of darwinist faith and question-begging historically inapt redefinitions of science. I missed the part where Gordo told us how ID explains it... Gordo is asked to define his terms and refers back to Gould, as if that's support for his position:   Quote Examples were given, and the remarks of a major expert were put on the table, repeatedly. That should have been more than enough for a reasonable discussion. In addition, the issue of “missing links” has been a major subject on this matter for the past 150 years. The pretence that all of this is new, and that I need to provide further explanation of a suspect claim from a suspect source, is a patent strawman tactic..   Quote You brought up the notion of final body plans, you should be able to define it. Gross and irresponsible misrepresentation, given what has already been laid out.   Quote You know, that might be a good argument, but I can’t say for sure because you still haven’t explained your terms. That you think these are my terms is evidence of the undue influence. The issue is as stated and repeatedly excerpted from Gould. let the darwinist advocates argue with Gould and the fossils, not us.   Quote How do you know that final forms outnumber transitionals unless you can tell transitional forms apart from final forms? Wrong framing, and he who succssfully mis-frames can win a debate on persuasiveness in the teeth of the evidence.   Quote n particular, it does not allow us to brush aside the absence of the TRANSITIONAL SEQUENCES that should dominate the record were the CV + DRS –> DWM, i.e chance and necessity macro evo picture true. Have you seen the vids of Sternberg and Berlinsky in the IOSE body plan origins page? Do you see why a pattern where 50,000 or even 500 or 50 transitional forms consistently in the record, should leave behind samples that highlight that in “an almost unmanageably rich” fossil record? Transitional sequences should be all over the place, but we find few and far between, with the eye of darwinist faith called on to fill in transitions in place of the abundance of plain sequences. If we can see a sequence for circumpolar gulls, or for different racial characteristics of people, or for finches in the Galapagos [which turned out to be interfertile unexpectedly], why not for the much more important major body plan origins? Note this:   Quote Transitional sequences should be all over the place, but we find few and far between So you admit they exist then Gordo? What do you accept as a transitional sequence then Gordo? And why is more then one required in any case Gordo? One is sufficient to make the point, that they exist at all! If ID is true there will be NONE AT ALL! Gordo, Gordo, Gordo. The problem with lying is that you have to remember all your lies. One moment there are no transitional fossils, the next there are "few". http://tinyurl.com/GordonT....TheLiar Gordon's written a lot of words when he should have said "I can't / won't define a transitional form" -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

Kattarina98 Posts: 1267 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: July 12 2012,09:39    Quote (Richardthughes @ July 12 2012,09:31) Gordon's written a lot of words when he should have said "I can't / won't define a transitional form" 5487 words in three consecutive bloviating comments. And I still suspect that he's just too chicken to say that he only accepts chimeras as transitional fossils. -------------- Barry Arrington is a bitch.

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: July 12 2012,09:41    Someone should ask KF what percentage of plants and animals get fossilized. For example, has he ever seen a modern plant or animal in the early stages of fossilization. If all currently living things suddenly disappeared, leaving behind only mineralized remains, what evidence of them would you expect to find? -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

Kattarina98 Posts: 1267 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: July 12 2012,10:09    KF now in full creationist mode.     Quote Don’t forget the observed variability across deer and similar animals. Does this provide a branching, incremental account of the origin of the body plans for these animals, or does it simply show variations and adaptations of a general already existing form? In a case where red deer from Europe (which have quite a range of variants out into Asia, as i recall) and Elk from North America were found freely interfertile when introduced in NZ for hunting, never mind the taxonomic categorisations. Gordo, why do you even bother to come up with sciencey sounding justifications for ID? Why not just say "The designer created each kind in its form (allow for wriggle space of adaptations)" and be done with it? Edit: By the way, Gordo, the Deer and Elk story is a nice example of why evolution is true. Edited by Kattarina98 on July 12 2012,12:25 -------------- Barry Arrington is a bitch.

Patrick Posts: 666 Joined: July 2011 (Permalink) Posted: July 12 2012,13:04    noam_ghish looks for answers on UD: Quote Who’s the ignoramus? Barry or the German Researcher? That's a rhetorical question, right?

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 12 2012,15:43    Gordon Mullings gets asked for specifics, shits the bed: Quote F/N: I see an attempt to draw us out on a further tangent regarding triceratops and kin. I will simply say, what is the vertical transformational significance of variations beyond say those of the deer family or say the pattern of diversity we may see across mastodons and elephants, or the Finches of the Galapagos? Again, where is the lead up to the general body plan, and the lead out to a farther along one, climbing up a branch to an alleged “higher” life form? I trust this makes the pivotal issue sufficiently plain, and why I see no point in further entertaining distractors maintained even after I took a fair amount of time to already address and correct them. After a couple of rounds like that, it becomes evident that side-tracking was the rhetorical object, not clarity. http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-427720 -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 12 2012,15:58    Furthering their mission to show the scientists of tomorrow how it's done, the magnificently-named Christian-apologetics.org shows how to do a lit search (UD link): Quote One journal article I have here somewhere shows Al Jazeera really has twin talking heads, one speaking what they really think, in Arabic, and the other, the Western friendly version, in English. -------------- 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

NormOlsen Posts: 104 Joined: Nov. 2011 (Permalink) Posted: July 12 2012,17:16    Better have a look before it disappears: Diogenes lays down a beating. (UD link)

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 12 2012,19:11    Quote (NormOlsen @ July 12 2012,17:16) Better have a look before it disappears: Diogenes lays down a beating. (UD link) The usual suspects at UD won't or can't get it.  It's like they just didn't evolve the gene get The Designer to let them see facts that are contrary to their beliefs.   They did evolve get The Designer to give them however, a TREMENDOUS case of Cranium in Rectum. Hugh Jass, RIP -------------- Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10 Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08 UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

Ptaylor Posts: 1180 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 12 2012,23:14    I can't see Diogenes lasting too much longer at UD, taking on Dense and BSI77, among others. Nullasalus has already lit the fuse (UD link) for a Barry style banhammering:   Quote Diogenes, Quick question. Do you deny the Law of Non-Contradiction? ;) -------------- We no longer say: “Another day; another bad day for Darwinism.” We now say: “Another day since the time Darwinism was disproved.” -PaV, Uncommon Descent, 19 June 2016

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5287 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 12 2012,23:41    Quote (Ptaylor @ July 12 2012,23:14) I can't see Diogenes lasting too much longer at UD, taking on Dense and BSI77, among others. Nullasalus has already lit the fuse (UD link) for a Barry style banhammering:       Quote Diogenes, Quick question. Do you deny the Law of Non-Contradiction? ;) Diogenes is absolutely hammering O'Dreary, and batshit77, and even Joe G. I predict he'll be silently banned before COB tomorrow. -------------- "CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology" "If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic." "Jews and Christians are Muslims." - Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

CeilingCat Posts: 2363 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 13 2012,00:59    Robert Byers gets Quote of the Day, ID Division, for #18:     Quote Evolution has no proof marsupials are anything other then pouched placentals. Except that marsupials don't have placentas.  But they do have pouches, so under ID Logic™, he's half right.

Freddie Posts: 371 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: July 13 2012,01:15    Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ July 12 2012,23:41)   Quote (Ptaylor @ July 12 2012,23:14) I can't see Diogenes lasting too much longer at UD, taking on Dense and BSI77, among others. Nullasalus has already lit the fuse (UD link) for a Barry style banhammering:           Quote Diogenes, Quick question. Do you deny the Law of Non-Contradiction? ;) Diogenes is absolutely hammering O'Dreary, and batshit77, and even Joe G. I predict he'll be silently banned before COB tomorrow. I do rather hope that Diogenes is able to survive long enough to respond to this one from Byers:   Quote Diogenes. I wrote an essay called “Post Flood Marsupial Migration Explained” by robert Byers. Just google. I say marsupials of S America simply walked there around the pacific rim and possibly only became marsupial upon entering s america. Jumping over to Antartica was no big deal and unrelated to australia. There is no reason to see marsupials as connected from a former united southern breakof of Gondwana etc. Evolution has no proof marsupials are anything other then pouched placentals. ETA: Gah, beaten to it - I shouldn't have spent so much time laughing at the contents of that thread. -------------- Joe: Most criticisims of ID stem from ignorance and jealousy. Joe: As for the authors of the books in the Bible, well the OT was authored by Moses and the NT was authored by various people. Byers: The eskimo would not need hairy hair growth as hair, I say, is for keeping people dry. Not warm.

Kattarina98 Posts: 1267 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: July 13 2012,01:21    Banhammerishly brilliant! Will this be Diogenes' swan song? http://tinyurl.com/88rhjrn....88rhjrn http://tinyurl.com/7atkosb....7atkosb -------------- Barry Arrington is a bitch.

keiths Posts: 2195 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 13 2012,01:43    A tasty tardicle from tgpeeler: Quote What these idiots, excuse me, these distinguished scientists don’t understand is that every time they have a rational thought (granted, that seems to be the exception) or express said thoughts orally or in writing they use free will. What law of physics explains why “dog” means Rover and “cat” means Felix? Um, that would be none of them. Since the laws of physics describe or govern the behavior of matter/energy and thought/information/communication requires language which is the manipulation of symbols. Hello??? Anybody out there? IN PRINCIPLE, physics cannot account for thought/information. Only a MIND can freely AND purposefully arrange symbols according to the rules of logic and a language in order to think. These people are pinheads. There’s no getting around that. I am writing a paper on this. -------------- And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

CeilingCat Posts: 2363 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 13 2012,04:11    Quote (Kattarina98 @ July 13 2012,01:21) Banhammerishly brilliant! Will this be Diogenes' swan song? http://tinyurl.com/88rhjrn....88rhjrn http://tinyurl.com/7atkosb....7atkosb He must read UD regularly:     Quote When the Higgs boson was announced, I checked around to all the past and present creationist posts. No cheering. No “Hooray for science!” No “Congratulations!” All around, bitterness, hostility, gritted teeth, resentment, and envy of science. Most had predicted the Higgs would never be discovered. After it was, some continued to deny it outright. (Reply #9) "Bitterness, hostility, gritted teeth, resentment, and envy of science" - that's how I spell "Denyse". Edited by CeilingCat on July 13 2012,04:14

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 13 2012,04:51    Quote (The whole truth @ July 12 2012,00:28) Quote (Richardthughes @ July 11 2012,11:48) Barry crows: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....g-crowd   Quote The world has been cooling, not warming, for 2,000 years.  Not that the facts will change the minds of the religious zealots pushing global warming hysteria. He's being dense on many levels. I'd like to propose a new fallacy 'Arrington's missmeasurement' that uses denominator drive growth from a cherry picked interval to make a case. The article states:     Quote a cooling of -0.3°C per millennium (which is 0.03°C per centuary, by by math) but if we look at more recent history: Ballpark, what is that per century? So who are the "religious zealots pushing" an agenda? edited It's pretty tough for arrington the fundagelical troll to know what's going on since he lives under a bridge and never watches weather reports. Obviously he hasn't noticed all the indicators that the temperature is increasing overall and all the high temperature records that are being set already this summer. Apparently it will take temps like 150 Fahrenheit under that bridge before he gets a clue.   I'll never understand why religious zealots are so determined to deny human-caused global warming. Why the fuck do they fight it so much? What does it have to do with their stupid religious beliefs? And if they're so "moral" and caring and loving and such good christians, WHY don't they care about the terrible effects that human-caused global warming is having and will have on people and other organisms as the temperature goes up, the glaciers melt, the sea level rises, the droughts and storms and floods get worse, etc.? Denial is a river in Egypt. It all goes back to when they found out their short commings The Historical Roots of America's Christian Fundamentalism Line up AIDS denial Holocaust Denial Evolution Denial ...the list goes on -------------- "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

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 13 2012,05:53    Gordo:   Quote Onlookers: Notice the silence on the material issues, coming from the evo mat objectors to the design inference. KF Duh. That's not how it works Gordo. You are posting on a pissant blog that no doubt gets the majority of it's traffic from people taking the piss. Were you to publish your work as a paper in a journal where it could be reviewed I can *guarentee* you would hear from "evo mat objectors". But why should anybody bother to correct your fundamental misunderstandings on a blog? Sure, it's been tried and you give out "warnings" when people don't come around to your point of view. You won't be able to do that if you publish you know, you'll actually have to address specific objections with specific rebuttals. But that's why you don't publish right Gordo? You can't force a panel of reviewers to bend to your will in the real world can you? Fucking hypocritical coward that you are. Quote Jerad: Pardon, but you — by willfully ignoring some very direct warnings on drumbeat repetition of tangential talking points while diverting from central issues — have now convinced me that your objective in this thread always was or has become distractive thread-jacking, using the tactics pioneered at UD by the sock-puppet MathGrrl. You have had more than adequate information to walk back from strawman mischaracterisations off on successive tangents, but insist on more and more of same. Kindly, take that as a warning. http://tinyurl.com/gordoli....dolies3 You've no idea how it works do you Gordo? HINT: There's a reason you are not getting anywhere with your "ideas". HINT2: Your greatest fans, Joe and BA77, are verbally incontinent fools. Just like you. It's easy to impress IDiots with sciencey-sounding words. But nobody else is getting fooled! HINT3: If you are going to use terms like "fully formed body plans" then be prepared to define them when asked or look like the fool we all know you already are. -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

Febble Posts: 310 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 13 2012,06:24    Quote (CeilingCat @ July 13 2012,00:59) Robert Byers gets Quote of the Day, ID Division, for #18:     Quote Evolution has no proof marsupials are anything other then pouched placentals. Except that marsupials don't have placentas.  But they do have pouches, so under ID Logic™, he's half right. Quarter right. Only the females have pouches.

Badger3k Posts: 861 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: July 13 2012,08:05    Quote (Febble @ July 13 2012,06:24) Quote (CeilingCat @ July 13 2012,00:59) Robert Byers gets Quote of the Day, ID Division, for #18:       Quote Evolution has no proof marsupials are anything other then pouched placentals. Except that marsupials don't have placentas.  But they do have pouches, so under ID Logic™, he's half right. Quarter right. Only the females have pouches. Well, I'm sure some of the males have pouches, they're just closed at the top.  :p -------------- "Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

Robin Posts: 1431 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: July 13 2012,08:40    Quote (NormOlsen @ July 12 2012,17:16) Better have a look before it disappears: Diogenes lays down a beating. (UD link) Ok...I broke down and fell off the wagon here. Best chuckle I've had in a long time! And yeah, I'm sure it will be disappeared-ed in a brief bit, but I do hope there's one or two more swings before it goes. -------------- we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

Tracy P. Hamilton Posts: 1239 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 13 2012,10:15    Quote (Robin @ July 13 2012,08:40) Quote (NormOlsen @ July 12 2012,17:16) Better have a look before it disappears: Diogenes lays down a beating. (UD link) Ok...I broke down and fell off the wagon here. Best chuckle I've had in a long time! And yeah, I'm sure it will be disappeared-ed in a brief bit, but I do hope there's one or two more swings before it goes. I too fell off the wagon briefly to check if Diogenes' postings were still there.  I can't believe they haven't been disappeared yet.  Y'all let me know. -------------- "Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV "The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen "We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

Kattarina98 Posts: 1267 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: July 13 2012,10:22    What's the difference between batshit77 and Diogenes? Both have a huge archive, but only one of them is honest. This is a battle of achives over at Corny's blog; maybe I should have posted it in AtBC's Cornelius Hunter thread, but since we are talking about Diogenes here ... anyway, feel free to move it. I'm not going to verbally quote Batshit77's spam fest; he came up with - Piltdown Man - Icon Of Evolution - Ape To Man - The Ultimate Deception - Jonathan Wells - video - Hominid Hype and the Election Cycle - Casey Luskin - September 2011 - Dr. Leakey produced a biased reconstruction (of 1470/ Homo Rudolfensis) based on erroneous preconceived expectations of early human appearance that violated principles of craniofacial development - Lucy - The Powersaw Incident - a humorous video showing how extremely biased evolutionists can be with the evidence to make it fit their preconceived Darwinian worldview - and Gauger's latest BS And Diogenes:     Quote So basically, the pathological liars of creationism can point to one real hoax per century for evolutionists: Piltdown Man. That's several hundred frauds per century for creationists, and one per century for evolutionists. The rest are all your lies and fabrications. Let's look at BA77's scientific "experts." http://conservapedia.com/Evoluti....opology Oh, Conservapedia, the website that is the personal Stalinist gulag of another *LAWYER*, Andy Schlafly. Conservapedia, that says the Theory of Relativity was a fraud plagiarized by Einstein and pulled off by the media. Conservapedia, that for years asserted quantum field theory was a hoax. Good thing you trust lawyers instead of experimental evidence. Science & Human Origins: Interview with Casey Luskin (on the severe and large gaps in the hypothetical human evolution fossil record) - July 2012 - podcast http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry......1-07_00 Oh, a podcast from another lawyer, Casey Luskin! Luskin, who in his new book, dismisses the intermediate status of Homo habilis on the grounds of Spoor et al. 1994, an article which, if Luskin had read it, actually shows that the one and only *true* Homo habilis fossil they studied, *IS* in fact intermediate in inner ear structure between Australopiths and Homo erectus. And then asserts that Australopithecines did not walk upright, by quote-mining and citing Oxnard 1975, when Oxnard believed no such thing. Remember when Luskin said Lucy was the most complete hominid fossil ever found? Luskin, who is once again flogging the lie that scientists said Junk DNA = non-coding DNA. Tell that to Jacques Monod. Or when Luskin in 2005 said chromosomal fusion causes Down's syndrome, and that a mutant with chromosomal fusion would be non-viable (ignoring massive cytogenetic evidence to the contrary)? Nebraska Man: A Single Pig Tooth! Funny, the guy who published that paper, Osborn, never claimed it was an ancestor of man, and denounced the imaginative cartoon in the London Daily News. In the whole world, only one scientist (not an author of the article) asserted it was an ancestor of man. Osborn thought it was an ape. When he figured out his mistake, he published a retraction within 5 years. What ID proponent has ever retracted a false claim after just 5 years? Never. Since we're on the subject of teeth, let's recall Glen Rose Man-- that creationist Carl Baugh found a tooth in a Cretaceous strata and said it was from pre-Flood man. 1. And the Paluxy manprints, promoted by Henry Morris and A.E. Wilder-Smith and hundreds of creationists since the 1930's till today. 2. The Freiberg skull made of black coal, and the Calaveras skeleton, all frauds promoted by Henry Morris. 3. And "Homo phenanthropus mirabilis", the Beria, Kentucky "Manprints" (actually chalk drawings) promoted by A. E. Wilder-Smith. 4. And Burdick's trilobite/footprint, promoted by A. E. Wilder-Smith. 5. And many, many other frauds and lies promoted by Henry Morris, A. E. Wilder-Smith and the Institute for Creation Research. But William Dembski borrowed his best ideas from A. E. Wilder-Smith, and said Henry Morris was a great man. Yes, they were great by creationist standards: he got away with fraud again and again. Icon Of Evolution - Ape To Man - The Ultimate Deception - Jonathan Wells - video http://vimeo.com/1908008....9080087 I agree that the subtitle "The Ultimate Deception" is an accurate description of Jonathan "peppered moths don't rest on trees" Well's Icons of Evolution, and indeed his entire career. http://tinyurl.com/7b4w632....7b4w632 -------------- Barry Arrington is a bitch.

Robin Posts: 1431 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: July 13 2012,12:07    Methinks someone might have to explain Joe to Diogenes. It seems the latter thinks the former's perspective is in line with the rest of the IDists. Yo Diogenes...if you read this, you might want to note that it's not that Joe isn't one the same wavelength with the rest of the DI denizens, he's not sane. -------------- we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

Patrick Posts: 666 Joined: July 2011 (Permalink) Posted: July 13 2012,12:22    Quote (Robin @ July 13 2012,13:07) Methinks someone might have to explain Joe to Diogenes. It seems the latter thinks the former's perspective is in line with the rest of the IDists. Yo Diogenes...if you read this, you might want to note that it's not that Joe isn't one the same wavelength with the rest of the DI denizens, he's not sane. In all seriousness, I am still not 100% convinced that Joe is not a sophisticated bot operated by someone with a twisted sense of humor.  He responds to nearly all comments with some variant of "Your position doesn't explain anything.", aside from those on his blog where he mixes things up with schoolyard style vulgarity. It is difficult to distinguish his output from that of a Markov text generator.

Pages: (356) < ... 168 169 170 171 172 [173] 174 175 176 177 178 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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