Guano (1)

Comments that seem to me to be in violation of the game rules will be moved here, and closed to further comment.  Do not regard having your post moved here as a reprimand, merely as a referee’s whistle. 🙂

Feel free to comment on them at any other peanut gallery of your choice.

1,658 thoughts on “Guano (1)”

  1. Joe G: Mike, we can do things with nature that nature, operating freely cannot do.

    What does “nature, operating freely” even mean?

    You’ve been throwing the term around for years without ever explaining what it’s supposed to be.

  2. Thorton: What does “nature, operating freely” even mean?

    You’ve been throwing the term around for years without ever explaining what it’s supposed to be.

    As I have told you- it is in “Nature, Design and Science” bt Del Ratzsch- it means no agency involvement- ie nature by itself.

  6. If you’ve used html tags, past them into the html editor rather than the visual editor. Or, if you use the visual editor, just use the wysiwyg buttons, and don’t put html tags in.

    Good luck!

  11. Rich: Please engage me, Joe. I’m trying to find a common starting point, ground that we can both agree on. The very reasonable question I politely put above is a good faith attempt at that. So please answer me.

    Respond to the OP, Rich- or go away.

  12. Elizabeth — I just found a duplicate sentence and removed it, I hope I didn’t trash your “fold”.

  13. Joe, I’m trying to talk specifics with you. please humour me. I wouldn’t want readers to think you’re being evasive, by asserting and not supporting.

  14. Rich:
    Joe, I’m trying to talk specifics with you. please humour me. I wouldn’t want readers to think you’re being evasive, by asserting and not supporting.

    Please read and respond to the OP- or go away

    Elizabeth- Rich is being a fucking faggot- can you please do something about him.

  17. Rich:
    There’s no martyrdom for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_by_cop for any of us, and it’s usually transparently obvious.

    Ah, you beat me to it. It seems obvious that Joe would like to get banned here to claim martyrdom over at UD and not have to respond to any questions he’s been asked.

    I apologize in advance for you having to move this comment to Guano, Elizabeth. My ability to assume good faith lapsed for a bit.

  18. Patrick: Ah, you beat me to it.It seems obvious that Joe would like to get banned here to claim martyrdom over at UD and not have to respond to any questions he’s been asked.

    I apologize in advance for you having to move this comment to Guano, Elizabeth.My ability to assume good faith lapsed for a bit.

    Why would I get banned because some evotard can’t stay on-topic?

  21. Joe G,

    So, joe gallien, the insane muslim creationist homophobe starts the malicious insults yet again and is allowed to spew whatever he wants on a site that allegedly has rules, and the people who respond to him are expected to ignore his constant insults, false accusations, and implied threats and be nice. So much for “good faith”.

  22. Rich: He used words that I ascribe a certain meaning to. You also ascribe meaning to them – but are they the same meaning? Given your post regarding the definitions of “evolution” I would have thought you’d be sympathetic to that. So, I’m politely asking again, and I know to clear things up and advance your argument you’ll want to respond:

    Well I don’t see how answering your tripe will advance the argument I made in the OP, so I will pass.

  23. It’s a waste of time arguing with Joe. He’s proven repeatedly that (a) he can’t learn anything (b) he’s not interested in learning anything and (c) he will never, ever admit a misunderstanding despite (d) not being very bright. So my advice is, don’t waste your time.

  24. Rich: It’s a shame that you don’t want to clarify and support your ideas further, a pervasive frustration many have with ID in general.

    Any shame is all yours, Rich. But you should stop blaming others for your failures- didn’t you and your counselors discuss that?

  25. Thorton: I’m only asking you the exact same questions you asked everyone else in this thread Joe.You were given our answers.Why is it wrong to ask for your answers those same questions?

    Please provide ID’s explanation for Tiktaalik and the earlier fossilized tetrapod tracks.

    Please provide your definition of a “transitional fossil”, and tell us how to recognize one when you see it.

    Thorton- you off-topic whining, while entertaining, is still whining-

    Transitional fossil- I do not engage in question begging- it is up to the people making the claim to support it. Take some fish and fish embryos, perform targeted mutatgenesis and see what develops and select from there and do it again – support your claims with biology, not imagination- or just say “we don’t know”

    Now get back on topic please

  26. Joe,

    If you have no interest in discussing the topic suggested by Elizabeth then you have no business polluting this thread. Sod off.

  27. So funny Thorton comes here and thinks it actually refuted something I said. Too bad it didn’t actually read the paper that was supposed to refute me and now it has to throw a hissy fit.

    Life is good…

  28. Joe G: Again what does any of that have to do with the OP?

    It has to do with you answering the same questions that you demanded everyone else answer. Here they are again.

    Please provide ID’s explanation for Tiktaalik and the earlier fossilized tetrapod tracks.

    Please provide your definition of a “transitional fossil”, and tell us how to recognize one when you see it.

    Looks like you claim that “ID has more answers than science” is more empty bluster. What a surprise.

    Or are you admitting that you are too much of a coward to actually address the OP?

    The OP has been addressed by myself and several others. It was conclusively demonstrated that once again you don’t understand the subject matter. The rest is just your ego venting.

  29. Thorton: Er…science DID predict predict a fish/tetrapod transitional form like Tiktaalik would be found.That was the whole reason Shubin et al searched in the location they did.

    What did ID predict on the subject Joe?

    Liar- science didn’t even predict living organisms would exist- not in a blind watchmaker universe, anyway.

  30. Thorton: It has to do with you answering the same questions that you demanded everyone else answer.Here they are again.

    Please provide ID’s explanation for Tiktaalik and the earlier fossilized tetrapod tracks.

    Please provide your definition of a “transitional fossil”, and tell us how to recognize one when you see it.

    Looks like you claim that “ID has more answers than science” is more empty bluster.What a surprise.

    The OP has been addressed by myself and several others.It was conclusively demonstrated that once again you don’t understand the subject matter. The rest is just your ego venting.

    Anothre lie- you have not even demonstrated an understanding of the OP

  31. Patrck- CSI has more rigour than anything your position has to offer. Also the OP contains the procedure for measuring it wrt biology.

    And again you are confused- your position needs to step up, and it hasn’t.

    You are claiming that something other than known chemistry and physics is required for life. It is up to you to support that claim.

    Umm it is up to YOU to suport the claim it is so reducible, duh.

    Good faith, my ….

  32. Joe G:
    So funny Thorton comes here and thinks it actually refuted something I said. Too bad it didn’t actually read the paper that was supposed to refute me and now it has to throw a hissy fit.

    Life is good…

    You’re the one who ALWAYS throws a hissy fit, joe. And you’re the coward who ALWAYS runs away from answering relevant questions, and from producing any evidence, and from producing coherent definitions of your rhetorical talking points, and from the real definitions of scientific terms, and from the real discoveries made via scientific research, and from dealing with the FACT that you don’t have the slightest clue about science, evidence, nature, evolution, or anything else that matters.

  33. OM: So when will you be testing it? What are you waiting for?

    It has been tested. Don’t blame me for your ignorance.

  34. OM:
    whatever Joe, whatever. you’ve had your moment in the spotlight. Let’s see how long it lasts.

    LoL- who do you think you are?

    Do you not realize that you are just an ignorant wanker?

  37. damitall:
    So Granville Sewell’s argument that evolution violates 2LoT is another iteration of the argument from incredulity – the belief that life on earth is just too complex to have arisen by what is known of evolutionary mechanisms.
    And yet year by year more evidence comes to light that random events CAN produce new function and “information” in organic molecules. Year by inexorable year, actual experiments give insights into completely feasible ways in which complex, multiprotein structures could have evolved.
    And year on year, all those results are hand-waved away – hand-waved, not refuted by experiment or research – by the closed-minded IDists and creationists as they mill around in the ever-shrinking corner they have painted themselves into.

    Hence their main tactics – ban us from their blogs, or swear at us!

    So the positive evidence for your position is what?

    You get banned because you never ante up and never demonstrate any understanding.

  39. Thorton: I’m sure in you mind you’re always correct.

    Nope

    Not so much out here in reality with the rest of us though.

    LoL! You know nothing about reality- actually you don’t appear to know anything.

  41. Patrick:
    Joe,

    This is a courtesy note to let you know that I am discontinuing my participation in this discussion.

    Patrick

    You were participating in a discussion?

    I strongly disagree.

  43. Rich: Okay. This helps. Thank you. As fish are common to both clauses, why include it?

    To prevent a richtardgasm. But I only stemmed the flow.

    Also, Ostracoderms (fish) were around approximately 510 million years ago. Why isn’t this part of the data. I think this will help you hone your understanding of things.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostracoderms

    LoL! Why are trying to lock-down on the TRANSITION period- you know NARROW the range of dates.

    Holy cow with Rich at the helm his “team” would have been digging down to bedrock and beyond…..

  44. Joe G: o prevent a richtardgasm. But I only stemmed the flow.

    Now now Joe, I’d hate for you to get moderated for having a pottymouth.

  45. Rich: No – you’re understanding was completely at odds with what he wrote, as I have pointed out above. Move on.

    No, you are wrong and you just can’t stand the thought of it.

  46. Your words aren’t his thoughts. He clearly talks about fossils, not “the time when there were fish, and no tetrapods”. So, you are wrong.

    So you refuse to take the challenge.

    Another prediction fulfilled…

  47. Your errors have already been pointed out and corrected.

    What errors, Rich? Or are false accusations still the best you have to offer?

  49. It it was found to be wrong.

    LoL! When a tard references his own tard as support, something is wrong.

  50. Reading the same dumb Creationist 2LoT arguments on this thread I can’t help but to think of that classis comment archived at FSTDT:

    “One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn’t possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it.

    Sometimes there just aren’t enough facepalms…

Comments are closed.