Here's a dose of high-octane woo tard
here's a taste:
Quote The room belonged to Christopher Key, who was in town to demonstrate the wares of S.W.A.T.S. -- Sports with Alternatives to Steroids -- a two-man company run out of the back of a gym near Birmingham. Stocky and genial, with short black hair carefully curled at his forehead, Key began by telling the players that there would be thousands of cellphones in the Superdome the following night and that frequencies from those phones would be swirling through their bodies. "They're going to affect you guys very negatively," Key said rapidly and with a twang. "We figured out a way to manipulate that so that you aren't affected . . . [to] give you strength, give you balance, give you flexibility and help with pain."
This time, while holding the phone to Dial's chest, Key easily forced the player's arm down to his side. Dial smirked, bemused. "What happened," Key said, "was the frequencies from the phone, as soon as they came into your energy field, they zapped ya, like a Taser."
And then Key passed out his remedy for the frequencies: stickers, which he calls chips, bearing holograms of a pyramid. Key told the players that on game day they should place the chips on three acupuncture points -- one on the inside of each wrist before they tape their arms (the chips also come embedded in bracelets), and one over the heart. "It's going to help your heart have so much more energy," he said. "Come the fourth quarter, you guys will not be gassed at all."
Has Gary jumped ship?
There is massive problems with the myth and fairy tale theory of natural selection acting on random mutations NDE.
Its false and its about time over 150 lie and disgrace is made public and official.
JoeMorreale1187January 30, 2013 at 11:48 am
It’s been proven that NDE cannot account for the origin of information and neither of its increase and continuation. This is not Religion but the scientific evidence that has demonstrated this .
Ok, poking at poor Gary, who misses points about as badly as this dolt whining about near death experience not accounting for the origin or increase of information.
But if you're judged by the company you keep, Lord, these people are stupid. Fine, you don't have to judge the "leading lights" by the morons they attract, since they're all moronic sounding simply by themselves, regardless of whether or not they could think better.
Quote We are not dealing with reason here, but indoctrination and polarising rhetoric feeding rage-filled contempt that has become artificially, willfully obtuse.
I'd add that we who accept evolution knowledgeably, Xians, Muslims, Jews, atheists, agnostics, whatever, do have one certainty, which is that we ought to follow epistemological standards as objectively as possible. Of course we do have some certainty about evolution as the best explanation thus far (and realistically, that it could be entirely overthrown seems about as unlikely as that the conservation of momentum will be), just as we do about the rest of established science.
Nothing wrong with that, certainly. Those who are inconsistent in the application of the standards of evidence do have a problem.
25,000 generations of evolution used to explain the existence of modularity in the brain.
Hod Lipson is one of those authors I look for.
Basic finding is that including a 'wiring cost' induces the formation of modular networks.
Quote (CeilingCat @ Jan. 30 2013,07:32)KairosFocus defines selective hyper skepticism again: Quote that fallacy which seeks to reject or dismiss otherwise credible evidence by demanding an inappropriately high type or degree of warrant not applicable to matters of fact, i.e. the general type of question being discussed. Especially, where the same standard is not exerted in assessing substantially parallel cases that make claims that one is inclined to accept.
The irony just burns.
What irony? That reasonable standard applies exactly to Muslims, Buddhists, animists, Darwinists, atheists, Jews, and New Agers alike. KF never fails to apply it equally to others (ok, not equally so much as righteously), don't you forget it!
As far as that goes, I'm not much impressed by claims that Jesus didn't exist (obviously I mean a man), or that at least there isn't fairly good evidence that he did, but KF's list of "evidences" doesn't even distinguish between sheer miracle and rather reasonable narrative that seems likely to have been at least inspired by a real event. And the ID BS is straight out of scholasticism (remember Torley's attempt to link ID with medieval philosophy? Like it ever left it), if deliberately twisted to be even more favorable to ID than even scholasticism's unwarranted assumptions are.
But Corny's just as concerned about open-mindedness, as one would expect for a tendentious reactionary whose common tactic is to take any news of evolution and point out, as any reasonable person would, that it's obviously impossible for evolution to do. The evidence that it did and that the hallmarks of design, such as rationality and forethought, are missing in wild-type life mean not a damn thing to such a scoundrel. No explanation for it, just complete denial of same (or idiotic acceptance of evolutionary limits as evidence for evolution, but not for those limits, which are transcended by design, if you're Behe), such is ID open-mindedness.
He open-mindedly lies (if he's stupid/in denial enough to believe, sort of, he still has no excuse for such intellectual dishonesty/stupidity, given his opportunities to learn):
Quote Evolutionists, on the other hand, are much more certain and there is a never-ending drum roll of high truth claims from their camp. These truth claims are unwarranted and it is them, rather than the theory itself, that are the problem. So I’m not so much concerned about the theory itself as I am about the certainty with which it is presented.
How many times have these IDiots complained about the tentative words used so often in discussions of evolution? Don't know about Corny specifically, but again, he has no excuse not to realize how tentative it is treated as being, other than that he's a bigot who typically lies about "evolutionists," their motives, and their evidence. But anyway, he's concerned about our certainty, and helpfully points out that:
Quote Jesus died for our sins and without Him we have no hope.
So, uh, Corny's uncertain about that? Is that a fair judgment?
Just as kindly he is certain that we don't know his religious tripe:
Quote Here’s a suggestion, read one of the gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John). Read a page a day and it will require only a month or two. It will make you more knowledgeable of what is, after all, the most influential book ever written. Shouldn’t you have some knowledge of what that book actually says?
Why no, how thoughtless of me, I have never read the Gospels, you know, except for all of them, early on. Fortunately, though, he'd never jump to an unwarranted conclusion, being a completely sanctimonious ignorant dolt.
But please don't tie evolution to Xianity. Like we're as stupid as you are, Corny. Xianity fails with or without evolution, at least on normal epistemological grounds (I'm trying not to attack anyone's religious faith, but when this jerk is lying all over the place about everything, I have to call it as I see it), and it's his pigheaded certainty that evolution exists to undermine Xianity that causes him to link the two. Sure, many on the "new atheist" side do as much, but what of that?
Corny, so carefully trying to unpack the certainties that he projects onto others. As big a hypocrite as exists among a whole movement of hypocrites.
Quote (The whole truth @ Jan. 24 2013,00:33)Way cool:
That is way cool! Thanks for sharing that TWT!
Effinell what is it about IDC that draws pompous windbags to it like flies to excrement? FL, KF, GI Joe, this clown... is it the smell?
gary can you program your bug to "choose" to dance and sing some little ditty it made up about how the ravens are going to win the superbowl?
that would be pretty cool. and certainly intelligently caused right? think i am getting the hang of this new terminology now.
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 29 2013,14:58) Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 29 2013,00:38) Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 28 2013,15:51) Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 28 2013,17:33) Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 15 2013,19:27) Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 13 2013,00:10) Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 09 2013,04:43)Joe, on the 'WJM - atheists are dishonest, thick and/or irrational' thread
Quote I know how to test Intelligent Design evolution. And no one appears to know how to test blind watchmaker evolution.
Care to reveal your methodology?
Already have- more than once, too.
How to test and falsify ID
That's bullshit, Joe. Dembski's Explanatory Filter - Newton's First Rule, for that matter - are no help to you here. You don't 'test ID' by attempting to demonstrate 'blind and undirected processes' doing evolution, regardless whether that attempt succeeds or fails.
You need a method of reliably distinguishing ID causes from 'natural' ones in biological history. You haven't got one.
Fuck you soapy sam. Your position doesn't have any methodology beyond "it ain't designed no matter what!"
Fuck yourself, old bean. You think that is all evolutionary theory amounts to, so you will forever rail helplessly against it, with your convincing counterargument: "it is, I tells ya".
Whatever asshole. It's a fact that you cannot produce any positive evidence tat accumulations of genetic accidents didit.
Did what? What is your evidence that a designer did "it"? Are we back to the Explanatory Filter again?
The Explanatory Filter got plugged up with tard so they went to the Backup EF then it blew up with dogmite* so I think there's no Filter of any kind left, it's just all science** all the time.
*dogma laced with thermite
**for certain values of science
Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 28 2013,14:18) Quote contacting the admin of my blog network and accusing me of lying, threatening to attack me, threatening my family, stealing images of me and using them for your own avatar, for example
1- You do lie
2- You deserve to have your ass kicked for all the lies you spew
3- I never threatened your family
4- I didn't steal your picture. YOU made it public. YOU posted it on the intertubes
The "I didn't do it but if I did you totally deserved it" defense.