| Quote |
| Better go with a Bach Fugue, just to be sure |
Or...
form_srcid: Occam's Toothbrush
form_cmd: view_author
Your IP address is 38.107.191.98
View Author detected.
view author posts:
Retrieve source record and display it.
form_author:
form_srcid: Occam's Toothbrush
q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND t1.author = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'Occam\'s Toothbrush%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC
DB_err:
DB_result: Resource id #4
| Date: 2006/04/30 01:16:39, Link 71.192.118.23 |
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush |
| what I don't get is why anyone is giving this afdave turd the time of day, let alone actually arguing with him. he's clearly not here to learn anything, doesn't have anything to teach anyone else, and doesn't contribute anything but a bunch of irrelevant non-sequiturs, unfunny jokey asides, and empty promises that he might eventually participate in a real debate about any of the issues he pretends to think are in question. why bother? at least with idiots like Ghost of Paley you get the illusion of an actual discussion about issues this board exists to explore; afdave isn 't even pretending to discuss anything, he just aspires to be a provocative #######. |
| Date: 2006/04/30 01:38:15, Link 71.192.118.23 |
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush |
|
afdave: I would be glad to believe what you believe if I could be convinced of it by sound arguments ... norm: Whoever instructed you in what a sound argument is lied to you. Please explain what you think a sound argument is. It's plainly obvious from a cursory reading of a handful of afdave posts that his definition of "sound argument" is "any argument which purports to demonstrate, however lamely and illogically, that which I have already decided I believe." My question is, why give him the satisfaction of even responding to his crap, let alone participate in his delusion that he is engaging in debate? The best face I can put on his blithering idiocy here is that although he could never convince anyone here of anything (both because his arguments are unsupportable and because he wouldn't know how to construct them properly if they were), he imagines himself as a lone soldier bravely pinning down a superior enemy force and keeping it from being effective elsewhere. Why do you waste your time, and why do you give him the exposure? And don't start with the "for the benefit of the lurkers" saw; there would be no lurkers if people weren't moving his drivel over here from PT and putting his name in lights at the top of discussion topics. Just ignore him and he'll go away; as it is it looks like you're all hard at work trying to create the next Larry Fafarman. |
| Date: 2006/05/01 03:38:57, Link 65.166.248.38 |
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush |
| [cue smart people who should know better taking afdave's moronic bait] |
| Date: 2006/05/02 06:33:19, Link 65.166.248.38 |
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush |
|
Your child would have no grasp of language and would have no tools with which to abstract any of these concepts. Without the word "why," you can't ask why, much less speculate about possible answers. I know that misses your point, but that's what your scenario made me think of. |
| Date: 2006/05/02 07:16:18, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
I "like" how everyone keeps encouraging him by endlessly responding to him, regardless of his demonstrated inability to offer or even understand anything constituting reasoned arguments or evidence, thereby continually pushing his moronic threads to the top of the board and creating the impression (for anyone who doesn't already know better) that he might actually be sustaining his side of a debate. Of course, when I say "like," I really mean hate. Don't feed the moron. |
| Date: 2006/05/02 12:20:28, Link 71.192.118.23 |
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush |
| Somebody wanna fill me in on wtf any of this has to do with evolution? |
| Date: 2006/05/04 02:58:53, Link 71.192.118.23 |
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush |
|
I vote "who cares." If he could deliver on any of it he would just do it instead of holding phony narcissistic votes as if everyone's hanging on his every word while he rations out his genius to us in carefully measured doses. |
| Date: 2006/05/04 03:08:22, Link 71.192.118.23 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
|
| Date: 2006/05/05 05:13:19, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
He looks more like a GoPcentrist to me. |
| Date: 2006/05/05 05:21:04, Link 65.166.248.38 |
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush |
|
I can't be the only person who has recognized the immutable 1st Law of Trolldynamics: Ignore them and they will go away. Y'all should try it sometime. |
| Date: 2006/05/09 05:50:32, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
I see it as the converse; they know the things they know, and for them the HOW is that they've simply decided that they know--the scripture/cult leader/voice in my head said so, so it must be true. Having chosen such an empty and useless methodology for supporting their knowledge, they assume that science must have based its findings on the same arbitrary, made-up, and useless HOWs of knowing, which are then open to be attacked despite any actual understanding of what those HOWs are (but don't you dare attack my HOWs, you anti-religious bigot..... even though I can describe your HOWs as a religion if it suits my argument, etc. etc.). |
| Date: 2006/05/09 06:17:46, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
What a maroon. Everything has a cost. Bigger brains, among other things: 1) Consume more energy, requiring more food intake/metabolic processing and generating more heat that needs to be dissipated; 2) Take up more space, requiring tradeoff with other critical skull-based systems and/or making the head larger, affecting balance and needing more robust bodies to support the weight--as well as increasing the chance of accidental damage; 3) Require more developmental complexity, creating more things that can go wrong, larger maternal pelvises (ever watched a human birth? $hitty 'design' there, huh?), etc., etc. If all of these factors don't add up to an organism that survives and reproduces more effectively in its environment than the original model, the bigger brain doesn't happen. afdave is/was supposedly an engineer. I don't know what he worked on, but an automobile-industry engineer with his moronic mindset would churn out designs for cars with ever bigger and more powerful engines, proposing 20,000-HP monsters that would weigh 30 tons, cost millions of dollars and travel like rockets down the freeway, consuming hundreds of gallons of gas per minute, impossible to control. That model wouldn't sell and would become extinct, as would his job. He really doesn't think at all, does he. |
| Date: 2006/05/11 04:45:41, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
Uh, "indifferent" doesn't mean "not different," it means unbiased, or neither right nor wrong. I think you're looking for "undifferentiated." And wtf does biology have to do with marriage? Marriage is a social, legal, religious--human--construct, not a biological one. If you want to start looking at biology as a deterministic factor in our concept of marriage, you'll have to start dealing with the prevalence of homosexual behavior in the biological world. Good luck with that. |
| Date: 2006/05/11 05:31:22, Link 65.166.248.38 |
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush |
|
It's amazing how easy it is to prove a broad, overarching thesis with a single piece of anecdotal evidence. The mainstream media is clearly racist against white people, I'm convinced. No doubt about it. In fact, I think this story proves not only that, but just about anything else one might want it to prove. Gravity a myth? Yep, look at the Carr case. Pigs fly? Carr murders. 2+2 = 3.14159? Carr Carr Carr Carr Carr. GoP, you're a genius. |
| Date: 2006/05/12 11:05:12, Link 71.192.118.23 |
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush |
|
Hi Larry! Douchebag. |
| Date: 2006/05/16 05:14:14, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
Tautology. Once the evidence convinces you, you will be convinced. This ignores that you've already decided what to believe, in the face of a planet full of evidence you've already demonstrated you're not willing/able to understand or accept. |
| Date: 2006/05/17 12:20:57, Link 71.192.118.23 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
I don't know. I might expend the energy to click on a link to see a monkey humping a football for a few seconds. UD isn't even worth that effort. |
| Date: 2006/05/19 05:24:12, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
Where's the data to demonstrate that the number of scientists who are 'disillusioned' with 'Darwinism' is 'rapidly growing?' Can you show that this is the case or does it just suit your purposes to claim that this is so? I think what scientists are 'disillusioned' with is morons like you continuing to use the strawman of a 150-year-old body of work to attack a field of work which has progressed, well, 150 years since there was anything which could have been called Darwinism. But again, it suits your purposes to call it that, however dishonest it may be to do so, so as a dishonest creationist, you lie for Jesus. What I don't understand is why the others here bother trying to teach you anything when you clearly have no desire to learn, and are primarily here to feed your own egotistical delusion that you are fighting a good fight against evolutionary theory. You're every bit as dense, pedantic, and unable to learn as Larry Fafarman. Come to think of it, PT was so willing to feed that troll that he'd still be the #1 OT blatherer there, if he had been able to control his egomania enough to keep himself from being banned. |
| Date: 2006/06/06 02:04:18, Link 65.166.248.38 |
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush |
| I really think GoP's main satisfaction in any of this is in making all of you think he really believes this crap. |
| Date: 2006/06/06 02:05:46, Link 65.166.248.38 |
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush |
| Who is dumber, the fool, or the fool who argues with him? |
| Date: 2006/06/16 05:28:30, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
No, just too stupid to understand that headline writers, not biologists and paleontologists, write headlines. Does GilDodgen think that defending his ideas also obligates him to defend every representation of them, however brainless, in the media? Maybe since my IQ is well above room temperature (tickle said 145, how impressive), I'm too smart to understand GilDodgian logic. |
| Date: 2006/06/16 05:31:29, Link 65.166.248.38 |
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush |
| ...Holding my breath in rapt anticipation of GoP's next post assuring that he will, eventually, someday, post the next part of his 'model'... |
| Date: 2006/06/16 05:33:04, Link 65.166.248.38 |
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush |
|
Notice I did not say I was holding my breath for the actual model, just the next assurance that it will supposedly eventually be posted. I need some oxygen here. |
| Date: 2006/06/16 05:35:57, Link 65.166.248.38 |
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush |
|
I can only imagine how many astrophysicists and cosmologists have gathered here, lurking, waiting with bated breath for GoP to post the theory they expect will revolutionize their field. Of course, they knew that an evolutionary biology message board was the place to come for this, since where else would one communicate such a model if they had one? |
| Date: 2006/06/22 05:22:27, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
Under the right conditions, it apparently takes a lot less than a year:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization Not to support any of AFD's idiotic conjecture but he can't be wrong about everything... |
| Date: 2006/06/22 07:42:38, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
...taken several years and a stint in the military after the age for which SAT scores are relevant. I mean, he claims to be an engineer, and I would think he'd had at least that much additional education by the time he took the test. He11, you're not even supposed to have a 12th grade education when you take the test, think about it. It's a test for 16 year olds, Tardboy; taking it when you are that much older and more educated normalizes your score to, well, normal. |
| Date: 2006/06/23 05:56:18, Link 71.192.118.23 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
"Darwinist" states: 2 + 2 = 4 Sal quotes him as: 'Darwinist said, "2 = 4", what a maroon.' Dembski states: 2 + 2 = 400000000 Sal quotes him as: 'Dembski said "2 + 2 = 4", what a sexy genius.' |
| Date: 2006/06/25 12:38:26, Link 71.192.118.23 |
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush |
|
Let me get this straight. GoP would have us believe that he can present a convincing model of a geocentric, geostationary universe, but we're supposed to wait until Tuesday for the next installment. Hmm. If he hasn't worked it out yet, how does he know it's a viable model? If he has worked it through already, why do we have to wait until Tuesday? I can see why you're all waiting spellbound for the next installment of his bu11sh!t. He's laughing at your credulity even as you think you're circling like wolves, waiting to tear him to pieces. The sport is making you all think he believes this crap. Why waste your time? Let me guess, if you don't argue with his silliness "the lurkers" are liable to think there may be something to his BS. Come on. |
| Date: 2006/06/28 02:57:04, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
Yes. Very disappointing. Granted, some of Lenny's specific posts were less than constructive, but wholesale deletion and banning of a person's comments because of who they are without regard to content is arrogant and fascist. It's a shame PZ has stooped this low because of, as I see it, mere ego.
Simple rules for simple minds. Do I get banned now? |
| Date: 2006/06/28 05:32:07, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
Which sounds very much as if you are negating what he has to say because you disagree with him--outright censorship of opposing opinions--not because of him "dragging the thread right down into the sewer". Which is it? Is this about behavior or viewpoint? I respect your viewpoints and read your blog every day, but I think it's sad that you've responded to Lenny's accusations of "dick-waving" with this, well, dick-waving. Lenny can be annoying but I think the cure is much worse than the disease when you start banning people who are so passionately on the right side of most arguments. |
| Date: 2006/06/29 02:44:24, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
What a super idea! This would obviate the need for all these messy laws. Let's just arrest everyone, put us before a jury of their peers, and the jury can just make up what we're each guilty or not guilty of, right off the top of their heads! "Tard" doesn't even begin to cover it. |
| Date: 2006/06/29 06:35:44, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||
|
AFDolt's reading comprehension seems to be just as good as his reasoning ability. Dolt claims:
Article says:
You stupid git. |
| Date: 2006/06/29 07:19:25, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
The truth is that dolts like you believe what you want to believe, then distort the evidence to fit your conclusions. The only question is whether you realize you're doing it or not. I'll take this as one of the few instances where it was an honest mistake. |
| Date: 2006/06/29 07:33:27, Link 65.166.248.38 |
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush |
| AFDolt's article seems to reference this study, which actually looked at survey responses by medical students, not scientists. So the only errors Dolt made were embracing the conclusion of the referenced study because it seemed to fit his preconceptions, not bothering to find and read the actual study to discover that the article he quoted misrepresented it (medical students are not scientists nor are they trying to be), and failing to notice the difference between 10% of a group self-identifying as uninformed idiots (like him) and 90% of a group self-identifying as uninformed idiots (like him). Par for Dolt's course so far. |
| Date: 2006/06/29 07:35:44, Link 65.166.248.38 |
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush |
| AFDolt's article seems to reference this study, which actually looked at survey responses by medical students, not scientists. So the only errors Dolt made were embracing the conclusion of the referenced study because it seemed to fit his preconceptions, not bothering to find and read the actual study to discover that the article he quoted misrepresented it (medical students are not scientists nor are they trying to be), and failing to notice the difference between 10% of a group self-identifying as uninformed idiots (like him) and 90% of a group self-identifying as uninformed idiots (like him). Par for Dolt's course so far. |
| Date: 2006/06/29 23:26:43, Link 71.192.118.23 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
A lofty claim, but can you back it up with evidence? |
| Date: 2006/07/03 12:32:59, Link 71.192.118.23 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
Yep, but for all the time and energy misguidedly invested in arguing with his bloviations, one could forgive a casual observer for thinking he was just as much a legitimate scientist and thinker as anyone else on this board. What's the satisfaction in having your chain yanked by someone who lives for only that? |
| Date: 2006/07/11 01:25:26, Link 65.166.248.38 |
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush |
| I will soon be posting a detailed analysis of GoP's model which will completely demolish it and destroy his "credibility." Keep a look out for this tour de force on, um, Thursday. No, make it Friday. Actually, I have a lot of work to do and I won't be getting to it until next week. But really, it's almost ready to post, just needs a little polishing, definitely have it by the end of the month. No later than middle of August at the latest. So watch out Paley, by September 1st at the very very latest, you will be humiliated and discredited. Unless something comes up, in which case count on a firm date of sometime this fall, early winter at worst. Barring illness. Or act of FSM. And it goes without saying, if a hurricane hits the mainland US in 2006 I will be somewhat delayed, so you can be sure that a total deconstruction of your specious claims will be in the offing by 1/1/07, rock solid, not a minute later than that. (This schedule assumes 4 built-in snow days and does not account for flooding, tornadoes, visitation of earth by aliens, or the return of Jesus Christ in a rusty red '78 Datsun pickup truck. These events, or anything else, like my being completely bereft of ability to provide the information I am promising, may push back the scheduled date of arrival.) So watch out, Ghost, your days are numbered. |
| Date: 2006/07/12 03:31:47, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
I have a theory that states it requires an IQ greater than 151 to comprehend the fact that an IQ of 151 isn't particularly high. So far I have only one data point, DaveTard, but using the ID standard of evidence that's actually way, way too much. On the other hand, it's not my job to match ID's pathetic level of lack of detail in making up stuff. |
| Date: 2006/07/17 09:27:21, Link 71.192.118.23 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
...pokes at Downard. |
| Date: 2006/07/17 10:54:58, Link 71.192.118.23 |
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush |
| I just want to take a moment to recognize the heroic fortitude of GoP, who, while bedridden with an illness so grave so as to make him utterly unable to further substantiate his geocentric model, bravely soldiers on with his life's mission to prove that Hitler was a liberal. Inspiring courage, man. |
| Date: 2006/07/17 13:50:25, Link 71.192.118.23 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
If you have an unfinished model, just post it, instead of constantly telling us you're too ill to go on, too busy, etc., meanwhile posting prolifically on other matters. Nobody's buying "writer's block" from you, bub. More like the opposite, when it happens to suit you to be unshutuppable. Just think, in 1000 years, cosmologists will remember GoP--"he had that workable model of the geocentric universe that we're still seeking, but unfortunately he got bogged down in "Hitler was a Liberal" and never found time to finish it. Plus, he got sick a lot. And, you know, he was really busy, a lot of stuff came up, his car broke down, the condenser fan on his fridge went out that one time, and remember that flat tire back in '09, and a bunch of other pitiful excuses, but whew, that model would have sure revolutionized our understanding of the universe. Oh well, I guess we're stuck with what we have. But at least we got that "Hitler was a Liberal" stuff worked out for us, praise FSM, he did find time in his busyillnesswritersblockexcuseland for that." |
| Date: 2006/07/17 14:04:20, Link 71.192.118.23 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
The beer is flat and the popcorn is stale. Out with it, or retract your assertion that you have a model. Fraud. |
| Date: 2006/07/17 23:31:56, Link 71.192.118.23 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
I could actually hear DaveTard sniffling and whimpering while I read that. I even think I saw an electronic tear fall on my screen halfway through. |
| Date: 2006/07/18 02:17:21, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
It's just mindboggling to me that "girly man" gets thrown around as an insult so casually on a site that has a photo of Bill Dembski prominently featured at the top of every page. |
| Date: 2006/07/18 23:16:01, Link 71.192.118.23 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
Or at least work on some fresh excuses, right? One's as good as the other for you. |
| Date: 2006/07/19 10:29:53, Link 71.192.118.23 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||
I don't see why not. Because as a certain retired engineer in LA with no life, too much time on his hands, wacky theories about the real explanation behind meteor showers, and more alter egos than David Bowie will tell you,
|
| Date: 2006/07/19 23:30:29, Link 71.192.118.23 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||
I think you're unfairly understating the potency of Fafafafafafafa's argument here. Larry didn't merely say that, he said it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, which as you know vastly inflates the convincitizational power of any specious argument. What keeps me awake at night is the possibility that he will discover the tactic of typing in all caps, which would make the argument so unbelievably powerful that, hey, I think he just convinced me in advance! |
| Date: 2006/07/20 09:28:59, Link 71.192.118.23 |
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush |
|
Is it Tuesday yet? Fraud. |
| Date: 2006/07/20 10:52:46, Link 71.192.118.23 |
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush |
| As an atheist, I suppose I have nothing to look forward to after death except decay and dirt. Ghost, on the other hand, seems to have a plan whereby he can continue to be an a$$hole forever. |
| Date: 2006/07/20 11:33:07, Link 71.192.118.23 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
Well, you know, he's been sick and all. If it wasn't for his little infection you'd be convinced already and you know it. I wonder how long before Ghost starts making excuses instead of arguments on this thread too, then launches a whole new topic he cannot follow through on, hoping to see the last one(s) fade off the front page. Fraud. |
| Date: 2006/07/22 00:30:30, Link 71.192.118.23 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
Or better yet, Google "davetard site:antievolution.org" |
| Date: 2006/08/05 01:34:51, Link 71.192.118.23 |
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush |
|
Tick....tick....tick....tick....tick.... <crickets chirp> Tick....tick....tick....tick....tick.... <yawn> Tick....tick....tick....tick....tick.... Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..... Fraud. |
| Date: 2006/08/18 12:36:42, Link 71.192.118.23 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||
Followed by
Typical GoP lying/inability to shut up. How's your geocentric model, fraud? Must have been pissed to see Arden post to it and put it back up the list, just as it was about to fall off the front page. Fraud. |
| Date: 2006/09/05 12:21:35, Link 71.192.118.23 |
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush |
|
Fraud. Oops, did I just put GoP's utter failure to (even really try to) substantiate his geocentric BS back on the front page again? Sorry. Fraud. |
| Date: 2006/09/21 04:24:32, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
What would be the point? Google is obviously part of the E.A.C.* and would just rig the search results to support any claim an E.A.E.** like you would make. *Evil Atheist Conspiracy **Evil Atheist Evolutionist |
| Date: 2006/09/25 05:10:43, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
So god's plan was to give that individual HIV through whatever mechanism (poof?) and let them die a horrible, painful, protracted death from AIDS, unless that person got some "intercessory prayer" treatment, in which case god would poof it all away like a bad dream. This god needs to find a constructive hobby, like burning ants with a magnifying class or tying firecrackers to puppies' tails. |
| Date: 2006/10/03 05:31:49, Link 65.166.248.38 |
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush |
| That's funny, to me it seems like the whole thing is about Bill getting paid. Dembski, that is. |
| Date: 2006/10/06 09:01:30, Link 71.192.118.23 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
In order to provide a theoretical framework under which to best understand CD, I have developed what I call RD, "rational distance," which provides a similar rough-and-tumble numerical output which represents the difference between this person posting utterly mindless drivel and them having any idea what the heck they're talking about. Simply assign four completely made up numerical values to whatever variables you might desire to pull out of your rectum, multiply those numbers together, and divide by the scientific content of Intelligent Design (zero). The result is the approximate "Rational Distance" between "Cognitive Distance" and any kind of a useful notion. |
| Date: 2006/10/21 23:23:44, Link 71.192.118.23 |
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush |
|
Zero, it seems to be a recurring theme that you post a bunch of incoherent off-topic babble somewhere, note that nobody has responded to your incoherent off-topic babble, then quote a huge section of said incoherent off-topic babble and concomitant lack of response to another board, with a complaint that you're being ignored on the first board. If you want to be part of the conversation here or there or wherever, why not trying to post something germaine to the topic of the board you're on, instead of a bunch of coincidence-whoring gobbledygook? Perhaps no one has yet mentioned to you that they find your posts irrelevant, impossible to decipher, and apparently symptomatic of some emotional and/or mental disorder? I think you should consider that you're not being ignored because your ideas are controversial, but because they're less than sane. |
| Date: 2006/10/24 04:27:01, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
What, exactly, is your point? That if you calculate the (completely meaningless) number value of words, you can find bible-related coincidences between those numbers and virtually anything you want? Who cares? -------- I found myself saying, "hereoisreal" is so full of sh*t I think he's about to pop." hereoisreal = 115. I opened the nearest book, "Supervisors' Safety Manual," and found that the caption at the top of page 115 is "Atmospheric Pressures." Pressure, pop, get it? Wow. "Wow, have you ever looked at your hand, I mean really looked at it," I thought. Then I realized that the only picture on page 115 was of a person with eczematous dermatitis--on his hand! I kept the book (because it doesn't belong to me). |
| Date: 2006/10/24 05:46:10, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
To the extent that the bible is written in any particular language, isn't that language Hebrew, which has neither an I nor an N? Would you agree that the significance of all these moronic bible number coincidences is dependent on a particular english translation of the bible? Does that mean that non-english speakers are irrelevant to the truths supposedly embedded in these coincidences? Do we find the same supposedly significant coincidences in other languages, where not just the text of the bible would be different, but where you would generate different numbers from given words, based on different alphabets? Or are the coincidences different? What if coincidences in other languages contradict the content of the ones you find? Does that make yours wrong? What if I post a slew of similar coincidences, based on the same translation that you are using, and they seem to say that you should jump off the roof of a tall building? Will you do it? Could you please just do it anyway? |
| Date: 2006/10/26 02:26:21, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
1 * 4 = 4 1 * -4 = -4 Is one real? It's like being sucked past the event horizon of a black hole, if black holes were made of stupid. |
| Date: 2006/10/30 03:58:26, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
Or... |
| Date: 2006/10/30 08:55:58, Link 71.192.118.23 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
Don't forget the tattoo!  |
| Date: 2006/11/01 02:26:56, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||
|
What a rich source of tardation! I mean, the first three words you see on the site are... UNDERSTANDING EVOLUTION SUCKS! Obviously they think so, since they've made no attempt to understand evolution or apparently anything else.
followed immediately by
So, um, you need to have a free mind and be willing to be objective about....having already decided that evolution is objectionable and inadequate. OK. Then we've got the hot-off-the-presses evolution news that the fundies lost in Dover. 10 months ago. UNDERSTANDING EVOLUTION SUCKS SUCKS! |
| Date: 2006/11/01 06:02:34, Link 65.166.248.38 |
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush |
| Is it just me, or has GoP become much less strident and obnoxious the last couple weeks? Did they change his meds? |
| Date: 2006/11/02 03:21:11, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
Why would you assume that, to the extent one might consider the existence of the supernatural, one would focus exclusively on a singular entity? Or that one would describe the entity or entities using the proper noun "God" that gives away that you're unable to consider anything but the assumed existence of the one entity you are obsessed with? How could a god or gods, had it/they once existed, now be dead? What or who would kill a god? Since there is no empirical evidence for a god or gods ever having existed, what could constitute evidence of their death? Oh yeah, you wanted a simple answer. One. Zero, based on your experiences and observations in life, what, if you were a betting person, are the chances that Osiris is dead or never was? |
| Date: 2006/11/02 04:13:12, Link 65.166.248.38 |
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush |
|
Nothing vague about it. Probability is expressed as a value between 0 and 1. 50/50 = 0.5, 1 in a million = .000001, etc. How about my question? |
| Date: 2006/11/02 05:58:57, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
So do sperm donors! Sorry. |
| Date: 2006/11/02 23:17:48, Link 71.192.118.23 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
Federal penitentiary isn't much of a bully pulpit. |
| Date: 2006/11/02 23:34:23, Link 71.192.118.23 |
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush |
|
Dude, reach around to the back of your neck, just above the hairline. You'll feel a small on/off switch. Now, I know you can't see it, but it is labeled "brain on/off switch." I don't know exactly how yours is set up, but from what you've contributed to this board so far I think we all can agree that yours is currently in the off position. So flick the switch to the opposite position (I know your brain is still warming up from a long dormancy so I'll just tell you that the opposite of "off" is "on," which means you have just turned your brain "on." Got it?). OK, now that that's done, ponder my simple question: How in the h3ll could anyone answer a question about a probability calculcation any more simply than saying, ONE? Do you only recognize English statements that contain chapter and verse citations? |
| Date: 2006/11/03 02:26:53, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
With all the time spent wrecking the careers of IDists and preventing them from doing any ID research (or even submitting any proposals for doing so), where would Darwinists find the time to also execute the weak? There are only so many days in the materialist week. And if non-atheists love the weak so much, why do they revere a god who visits so much pain, misery and degradation on the weak? |
| Date: 2006/11/03 02:33:26, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
One of my fondest ID/Evolution-related pleasures is imagining the disgust in D'Tard's soul when he reflects on all the times he pleasured himself while fantasizing various arrangements with |
| Date: 2006/11/08 09:07:09, Link 65.166.248.38 |
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush |
|
Since zero's postings have absolutely nothing to do with evolution, intelligent design, the price of tea in China, or anything else rational, and are not generating any conversation or responses (expect to point out their total lack of coherence and relevance), I vote to delete or close the thread and ask him to quit with the bible numerology stuff or bug off. Not that I get a vote. Just sayin'. |
| Date: 2006/11/08 09:15:17, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
No. We aren't. |
| Date: 2006/11/09 12:28:05, Link 65.166.248.38 |
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush |
 |
| Date: 2006/11/10 09:35:54, Link 65.166.248.38 |
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush |
Here's what those guys looked like a few beers later... |
| Date: 2006/11/10 18:07:09, Link 71.192.118.23 |
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush |
|
The palindrome of Bolton would be "Notlob." It don't make sense! I'm not prepared to pursue my line of inquiry any longer as I think this is getting too silly. |
| Date: 2006/11/10 18:12:18, Link 71.192.118.23 |
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush |
Is this the same guy? No, seriously. |
| Date: 2006/11/13 12:06:26, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
Apparently you're not familiar with the AFDave thread. |
| Date: 2006/11/16 07:27:31, Link 65.166.248.38 |
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush |
|
I must say I'm disappointed that this board doesn't pay more attention to the speeding juggernaut that overwhelmingevidence.com is becoming. I bet you're scared that OE's gathering momentum threatens to crush your puny materialistic theories, so you choose to avoid it altogether. But the evidence of the staggering popularity of this site is undeniable: 1) Someone posted a comment there as recently as 44 hours ago. 2) There have been over two (well, actually exactly two) new blog posts entered there in the last two days. 3) The incredible appeal of this site to its target audience, high school students, is obvious--otherwise why would the top 4 users be 1) a 56-year old woman, 2) a college sophomore (schen24), 3) a 33-year old woman (siddigrl), and 4) a 38-year old guy (troutmac)? Huh? Huh? Just more uncomfortable questions the materiodarwiniacistic cult chooses to ignore. |
| Date: 2006/11/22 11:38:20, Link 65.166.248.38 |
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush |
| crackpotsezwot? |
| Date: 2006/12/13 15:19:41, Link 71.192.118.23 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
Of course. No honest, competent or sane judge would have ruled Dover like the lying, plagiarizing, activist, wacky Judge Jones. The UD pundits convince us beyond a doubt that the opinion was just bad, corrupt, awful law. So, uh, how come none of these same people are arguing that the Dover policies should be enacted elsewhere, to bring about a similar lawsuit in a jurisdiction not presided over by such a leftist loony like Jones--the only judge in the world who would have ruled against it? Because they know they'd lose anywhere. Easier to just play the martyr over Dover than actually do anything, since everything they try to do just turns to shit. |
| Date: 2006/12/17 16:40:47, Link 71.192.118.23 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
Um, just to clarify, does the farty flash thing consist of "new ideas," "evidence," or both? |
| Date: 2006/12/18 07:35:23, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
Dembski's fartimation will one day doubtless be seen on a historical par with events like Martin Luther burning a paper bag full of dogshit on the porch of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, ringing the door bell and running away, or the time Brutus, Cassius, and their fellow conspirators committed an atomic wedgie unto Julius Caesar on the floor of the Roman senate. In both cases, the sheer juvenile hilarity of the practical joke shaped the course of all subsequent human events in a way actually getting off one's xtian ass and doing some scientific research to back up one's scientific claims never could. |
| Date: 2006/12/18 15:44:27, Link 71.192.118.23 |
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush |
|
Or, to cut more directly to the moist Tardy goodness... It’s interesting though that the National Academy of Science’s membership is quite the reverse of the nation as a whole with people possessing advanced scientific degrees representing 99% of its membership. I don’t think any organization so skewed from the population as a whole should be given the advisory role in gov’t that the NAS enjoys. It’s a clique of educated experts. Poorly educated, willfully ignorant, and uninformed people need not apply. |
| Date: 2006/12/18 16:54:43, Link 71.192.118.23 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||
Let's parse it out: Judge Jones, a dog, received anal sex from the ACLU. How is that clever? I challenge you to come up with a limerick about Judge Jones and the ACLU that is substantially less clever. |
| Date: 2006/12/18 17:02:39, Link 71.192.118.23 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||
It’s truly a horrible day for Dr. Dr. Dembski when his followers can’t attack the criticisms of his arguments and are thus reduced to attacking criticisms, parodies, and mockeries of his farts and jokes. So there. |
| Date: 2006/12/20 08:46:49, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
I don't think he looks dumb. |
| Date: 2006/12/21 10:44:18, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
Similar to how saying "the sun came up at 6:19 AM this morning" is an admission that you are a geocentrist. |
| Date: 2006/12/21 11:02:41, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
But look at the staggering popularity in Denmark! Considering that the Danish population is 1/60th of the US, that means ID is approximately 40 times as popular in Denmark as in the US! Danske Waterloo! Danske Waterloo! |
| Date: 2006/12/21 12:43:38, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||
Is there any theoretical limit to the number of wild assertions, utterly unsupported by any cited evidence yet still "possibly" true, that these nefarious newspapers refuse to report?
Sure Sal, anything's possible. |
| Date: 2006/12/21 16:09:40, Link 71.192.118.23 |
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush |
|
What advanced educational equvalency does one acquire by reading one's wife's subscription to Mad magazine for 20 years? D'Tard might be able to flesh out his CV a little. Of course, why do you need a CV if you're already a master programmer, a computer engineer, a self-made millionaire, a certifiable genius, a ship captain, owner of many landmark high-tech patents, and the 2nd vice-dictator of the best little blog on the censornet? |
| Date: 2006/12/22 04:24:37, Link 71.192.118.23 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
I hereby request that you mail me a check for one million dollars. We can both dream, can't we. |
| Date: 2006/12/22 09:27:15, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
As opposed to your rigorously scientific *poof* scenario, for which you offer oodles of repeatable experimental data. This guy couldn't get a clue if you ran up and stabbed him in the eye with one. Why not just leave him to blather to himself? |
| Date: 2006/12/22 15:35:59, Link 71.192.118.23 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
I think you're exaggerating a little here; norm and raging bee don't do that more than three or four times a week. Five, tops. |
| Date: 2006/12/26 04:18:38, Link 71.192.118.23 | ||||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||||
What matters is not whether TM has evidence. The point is, you can't prove the ACLU didn't bribe Judge Jones. By ID standards of evidence, this allegation is conclusively proven. They don't have to match your pathetic level of detail in providing any basis for their claims. |
| Date: 2006/12/26 04:30:14, Link 71.192.118.23 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
I suspect that a good understanding of ID will allow us to understand why a dropped piece of toast always lands buttered side down. |
| Date: 2006/12/27 04:34:31, Link 71.192.118.23 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
That, and talking about god. |
| Date: 2006/12/27 07:11:47, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
Oh please, there is no connection between he-who-must-be-capitalized-(even-his-pronouns) and the identity of the undesignated telic entity who hath created us. There is a litany of possibilities for who the designer could be: 1) Space aliens (don't ask who designed them, materialist pawn; you're just 2) God 3) Yahweh 4) The father 5) The son 6) The holy ghost 7) G-d 8) 9) Jehovah 10) Jesus 11) Elohim 12) Abhir 13) Shaphat See, the possibilities are endless; there is no religion here. To recap, there is no relationship whatsoever between the supernatural, omnipotent, omniscient, eternal creating telic entity IDers refuse to ever talk about and the supernatural, omnipotent, omniscient, eternal creating telic entity IDers can't shut up about. |
| Date: 2006/12/27 11:07:43, Link 65.166.248.38 |
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush |
|
Suggested New Years Resolution for IDers: 1) Do some freakin' science. |
| Date: 2006/12/27 11:45:05, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
Look at the staggering popularity in Denmark! And Sweden! Svensk Waterloo! Svensk Waterloo! |
| Date: 2006/12/27 12:30:42, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
Yep. I don't need any government that can't sustain itself on fresh air and sunshine. For instance, if I need a road to drive somewhere, I'll just buy one. If my house catches on fire, I'll put it out myself. If someone steals from me, I'll just do my own police work, then try them in my own court. My kids don't need any education that I can't give them myself. All of this would be easy, if the IRS would just let me keep 100% of the money I earn. |
| Date: 2006/12/28 04:11:24, Link 71.192.118.23 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
I only included beings we have verifiable scientific evidence for. I read every page of the bible and didn't see your "FSM" mentioned once. Can someone email Carol Clouser and ask her what the ancient Hebrew word for spaghetti is? |
| Date: 2006/12/28 04:18:44, Link 71.192.118.23 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
No, you can only say stupid, dishonest, unsupportable YEC things here. But that's not prescriptive, though, just descriptive. So it could change. <not holding breath> |
| Date: 2006/12/28 05:20:28, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
You need to add "...petulantly and repeatedly claiming victory" at the end there. |
| Date: 2006/12/28 07:31:51, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||||
For D'Tard to have more than one synapse, he would need at least three neurons. Clearly he does not have more than two (if you listen hard you can hear them faintly rubbing together in the sections you quote), so I'm not sure what your point is. And it's "as well as," not "as good as." Are the fundies attacking grammar now too? |
| Date: 2006/12/28 09:59:51, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
The difference between that "evolutionist" and AFDave is that after the 3 years and the new fossil, the evolutionist changed his mind about his thesis and went back to work, whereas Dave would just keep making more and more convoluted and dishonest arguments to make it appear that the evidence still supported his unchangeable conclusion, all the while declaring victory every time he spoke. |
| Date: 2007/01/01 09:35:08, Link 71.192.118.23 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
It can't end soon enough. |
| Date: 2007/01/01 09:37:33, Link 71.192.118.23 |
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush |
| Did I mention it can't end soon enough? |
| Date: 2007/01/03 12:55:16, Link 71.192.118.23 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
Hustler? |
| Date: 2007/01/03 16:49:04, Link 71.192.118.23 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||
Please, stop with the homoerotic imagery! I mean, I don't have a problem with it, but I wouldn't want you to draw Ghost of Paley to this thread. He can smell manly muscle pics three domains away, like a shark smells blood. You set out to mock Denyse O'Bleary, then the next thing you know you have an implacable troll on your hands.... |
| Date: 2007/01/03 16:53:34, Link 71.192.118.23 |
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush |
|
<delete double post, grrr> As an aside, how come I visit dozens of message boards run by (apparently) complete tards, where comments show up right after they are posted and the board overall works the way it's supposed to, while the one run by scientists seemingly can't get out of its own way? |
| Date: 2007/01/05 10:35:14, Link 65.166.248.38 |
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush |
 |
| Date: 2007/01/07 09:02:56, Link 71.192.118.23 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||
I, like, totally agree with what you just said. I always have. |
| Date: 2007/01/09 12:00:57, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
Perhaps Dell found someone with a 160 IQ (as measured by scores from SATs taken at the age of 25) or who had a more advanced science degree (obtained through decades of reading Scientific American). |
| Date: 2007/01/11 11:44:29, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
Duh, school boards unmotivated by religion and who understand ID don't have to be sued under the establishment clause, because they aren't interested in inserting religious apologetics into science curricula. So if by "winning the day" Joseph means that there would not have been a decision so devastatingly unfavorable to ID, he would be right--because there would have been no need for one. |
| Date: 2007/01/12 17:22:12, Link 71.192.118.23 |
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush |
| Looks like D'Tard's pic was taken about 20 minutes after he woke up on Rosarita beach. |
| Date: 2007/01/13 12:11:32, Link 71.192.118.23 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
Is D'Tard absolutely sure they weren't actually yelling, "I wish you'd shave your back?" Because that wouldn't support his "making the world's children smarter" meme quite as much. |
| Date: 2007/01/14 06:10:26, Link 71.192.118.23 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
Tard Force One, who enjoys mocking others for their typos and misspellings (in only the most wholesome and christian way of course), hath adopteth not one but two utterly grammatically retarded sentences unto his holy signature. |
| Date: 2007/01/14 06:17:59, Link 71.192.118.23 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
 Clearly this thread's time of reckoning is at hand. I say I win.
|
| Date: 2007/01/23 09:23:01, Link 65.166.248.38 |
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush |
|
Avo: What. Is. Your. Proposed. Scientific. Theory. Of. Intelligent. Design? Just once, any IDer, anywhere, ever, please tell us what the theory is supposed to be. What is your model, how can it be tested, and what does it predict? In your response, please feel free to omit references to the alleged inadequacies of any other theory. Also please keep in mind that part of the bargain is that you need to be prepared to update or discard your theory should it be falsified. If you cannot commit to this, please leave science alone and go back to church. |
| Date: 2007/01/24 10:44:34, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||||
Pathetic. How about,
There. I've explained nothing, I've claimed nothing, and no matter what experimental result you get, I can always say, "well, that's gravity at work." Or maybe
And it must be true, because we've proven Lamarckianism to be incorrect! Nothing wrong with assuming there are only two possible choices, is there? If that was all evolutionists had to offer we'd be laughed out of the universities. Perhaps you should consider why your ideas are so poorly received by virtually everyone who knows anything about biology. It's not them, it's you. Go back to church; you obviously have nothing to offer to science or discussions of science, or any intention of doing so. That you cannot resist manufacturing bogus sciencey support for your superstitious beliefs isn't science's problem; it's yours. |
| Date: 2007/01/24 12:41:08, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||
It's so sad. Avo thinks he/she can easily demonstrate the unfairness of our demands to actually cite ID theory and evidence by turning the questioning around and demanding the same pathetic level of detail we all know we'll never get from him/her or from ID. Of course, it will impact Avo's thinking not one bit that the people he/she's arguing with can immediately begin to thoroughly answer her questions, and he/she will never own up to the real meaning of the contrast between this and his/her/ID's own total inability and obstinate refusal to forthrightly answer ours.
Right. Because, Avo, you're not just disliking it, you're trying to convince others they should dislike it too. |
| Date: 2007/01/26 12:46:00, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
It's hard to understand why D'Tard would have to spend any time proving his toughness, when all one has to do is view this to understand just how hard the man is: Well hard. I'd sooner tangle with GoP's three toughest boyfriends. Can you imagine the knuckle-scuffing that would result from trying to punch through that manly beard? Unfortunately for Tardboy, it also apparently proves that a SAT-derived 150 IQ, a Scientific American-derived PhD in science, and |
| Date: 2007/01/30 18:36:11, Link 71.192.118.23 | ||||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||||
This quizzlestick person over at OE must be loki. I mean, come on:
Yep, the same tired old objections to our theory: 1) You don't have one. 2) There's no legitimate research to back up the theory you don't have. I mean come on, evolutionistas, is that the best argument against ID theory you can come up with? That it doesn't exist? As we all know, you can't prove a negative, so the theory that there is no ID theory is itself fallacious. QED, design.
We don't have time to do scientific research, we're too busy "explaining the difficult scientific concepts." To ourselves.
It's a lot bigger when it's hard, I swear. No really. Stop! Come back! |
| Date: 2007/02/05 11:05:29, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
Avo's recipe for blueberry pie would likely consist solely of long-refuted criticisms of your blueberry pie recipe. |
| Date: 2007/02/06 14:39:37, Link 71.192.118.23 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
Like, totally. From a secular/Darwinist perspective, why get "freaked out" about nuclear war? Heck, if mankind is part of nature, so's the firestorm! Why not just shoot yourself in the head? It's all just part of nature, right? Tard this massive and dense must have an event horizon; be careful not to get too close. |
| Date: 2007/02/07 10:39:43, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
Duh, unless in the four billion years between now and then, our descendants happen to begin living on other planets. Of course, if the DI succeeds in "renewing" science, we probably won't be able to achieve that. |
| Date: 2007/02/12 17:55:21, Link 71.192.118.23 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
It was a dark and stormy night... Really, is it possible to construct a more ham-handed, artless, incompetent chunk of English language than "pasty-faced profs spluttering the formulas for selling out to materialism on behalf of dying institutional churchianity to increasingly empty pews are now obviated"? If D'OL is a journalist, I'm a nuclear physicist astronaut billionaire porn star hitting 75 home runs a season while curing cancer and raising the dead. |
| Date: 2007/02/13 12:39:01, Link 71.192.118.23 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
Lee Harvey Oswald was a Marine. It’s reasonable to ask about connections between service in the Marine Corps and individuals that are taking it upon themselves to assassinate world leaders. Right, Tard? |
| Date: 2007/02/15 03:42:25, Link 71.192.118.23 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
I don't understand why D'Tard thinks he's getting anywhere with this big, bad, tough Marine act. I mean, there's one simple response that destroys the illusion of DT's toughness like a Mannlicher-Carcano-fired 6.5mm bullet destroying Kennedy's skull: |
| Date: 2007/02/15 04:08:19, Link 71.192.118.23 |
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush |
I'm not a scientist (because I've only subscribed to Scientific American for a total of maybe 3 years), and I can't claim to be a genius (because I took my SATs when I was 16, not 24), but if I was a 1337 h@xxor like D'Tard, I would put my Dell-trained mind to work on the only existing digital photo of myself and crop it thusly: But then again, who are we to judge the time management of a person who is simultaneously performing advanced mycology experiments, sailing the seas as captain of a great ship, managing a vast fortune, trying to resist impregnating the women of the world, and licking the boots of the great William A. Dembski? I'm sure he's just too busy to be concerned with minor aesthetic matters. Like getting dressed in the morning. Or scraping the Twinkies residue from the corners of his mouth. |
| Date: 2007/02/18 06:37:33, Link 71.192.118.23 |
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush |
| When you click the "Learn more about Josh here" link, Bozeman grows an inch, from 6'3" to 6'4". |
| Date: 2007/02/18 06:59:26, Link 71.192.118.23 | ||||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||||
This is priceless:
Scary. I wonder what else is going on in that basement.
|
| Date: 2007/02/19 12:56:49, Link 71.192.118.23 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
 |
| Date: 2007/02/21 05:57:04, Link 71.192.118.23 |
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush |
 The tinfoil hat came out crappy. |
| Date: 2007/02/22 06:27:27, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||
Let's review the powerful scientific tools with which the stupIDs intend to fashion their "renewal" of science: 1) Youtube videos. 2) Flatulent flash animations. 3) "Street theater" including fraudulent accusations of racism and reporting scientists to Homeland Security. 4) Press releases. 5) Lots of talking about god. 6) Lots of lying about ID being about god. 7) Cheesy poofs. Am I missing anything? |
| Date: 2007/02/22 11:54:27, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
The phrase
juxtaposes so elegantly with Tell me you haven't thought the words "hairy teat" while gazing at this picture. |
| Date: 2007/02/22 13:04:17, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||
Denial. You'll feel a lot better if you just admit it. The first step to getting help is admitting you have a tard problem. |
| Date: 2007/02/25 10:38:30, Link 71.192.118.23 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||
Does that mean that because humans have so far been unable to achieve a net energy gain from nuclear fusion, the sun is currently not designed, but will become designed if and when this problem is solved?  |
| Date: 2007/02/26 08:09:05, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||||||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||||||
I think there's more to D'OH!'s post than you realize. I applied my handy Explanatardy Filtard to this passage and found an intriguing pattern:
Coincidence? I think not. |
| Date: 2007/02/26 10:22:11, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||||
More simply, "davescot is right, and everyone who does not fawningly suck up to him is a homo." |
| Date: 2007/02/26 12:02:00, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||||
Some vintage GilDodgen tard over at UD:
Uh, I guess that depends on whether you know what the word "technology" means.
To paraphrase at a level more appropriate for the average tard on the street, "technology" means "how we get stuff done." Using a rock to crack a nut is a technology. Which part of "technology" requires "smelt(ing) and refin(ing metals) at temperatures reachable through carbon-based fire?" I think I can see where GD went wrong with this:
See, that's your problem right there. |
| Date: 2007/02/27 09:32:43, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||||
T*A*R*D = 1440! |
| Date: 2007/03/01 06:10:03, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||
I just go to Imageshack or similar free web hosting site; on the front page there's a "browse" button to find the file on your PC, and a "host it!" button to upload it. When the image is uploaded it provides a list of URLs you can copy n paste depending on what you want to do with the pic. For AtBC the last one, "Direct link to image," is the one to use. |
| Date: 2007/03/02 04:04:42, Link 71.192.118.23 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||
The stupIDs should check whether these local mayors subscribe to Scientific American*; if so, they are scientists and could be added to the dissent from darwin petition thingy. ---------- *Other acceptable forms of scientific certification include house boat ownership, SAT-measured genuis IQ, |
| Date: 2007/03/02 06:35:46, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||
Have you ever noticed with IDers that in one sentence they will declaim the staggering growth of ID's megasuperhyperpopularity (particularly in Denmark and now apparently Turkey), then in the next sentence whine that they are subject to hostility, censorship, and oppression so overwhelming that they can't even propose any actual theory or potential supporting research*? Which one is it? Is ID more popular than ---- *Additionally, on a personal level, the intellectual climate is so smothering that Denyse O'Dreary has been rendered incapable of constructing a grammatically-correct English sentence, Bill Dembski cannot surface long enough to write a book he's already been paid for, and D'Tard has been reduced to a gibbering, cheesy-poof smeared heap of quivering |
| Date: 2007/03/02 07:29:39, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||
I'm surprised that this response has lasted over an hour:
Possibly the most delicious aspect of enjoying ID tard is their incredibly low capacity for detecting sarcasm and irony whenever it's cloaked in the faintest pretense of ID-friendliness. I'm waiting for the day when everyone on UD realizes that everyone else is a loki troll and the whole thing just vanishes in a puff of satirical smoke. |
| Date: 2007/03/02 14:37:25, Link 71.192.118.23 |
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush |
| As we all know, RM+NS cannot possibly add new information to the genome. What you atheist fundamentalists call "evolution" in this case is clearly just a loss of function: the creationist meme's gene for telling the truth about itself has deleteriously mutated such that the resulting meme, ID, is incapable of admitting it is creationism. No information was added and no new species has formed; this is clearly mere variation within a created kind. I believe it shows the inevitable degradation of genetic information since the ark, which doesn't matter anyway because Jeebus will be calling me (not you) home any day now. |
| Date: 2007/03/03 08:17:23, Link 71.192.118.23 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
Wouldn't that be a tardbit? |
| Date: 2007/03/05 13:56:34, Link 71.192.118.23 |
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush |
|
ID predicts: Indianapolis 29, Chicago 17. Take that, materialists! |
| Date: 2007/03/06 11:53:25, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||
Did you date a lot of women with cancer? |
| Date: 2007/03/12 11:43:30, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
The answer is yes. Yes, I have tried to make a logical, evidence-based comment at Uncommon Descent. |
| Date: 2007/03/16 11:22:32, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||||||||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||||||||
The stupIDs seem to operate on the assumption that since ID is 100% right and evolution 100% wrong, any and all arguments that might support ID and/or discredit evolution are therefore correct. No argument is too idiotic to embrace, if it can be construed to support ID. |
| Date: 2007/03/21 07:12:05, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||
Every now and then when I feel like experiencing the contents of my stomach squirting uncontrollably out through my mouth and nostrils, I like to curl up with something by Dembski's good friend Ann Coulter:
I'm sure Dembski would gladly give Chuck D a pass on his racist meanderings if we explained that they were intended merely as "street theater." |
| Date: 2007/03/23 07:01:52, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||
At least your dog isn't pretending that his output is scientific. |
| Date: 2007/03/23 07:22:48, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
I thought one had to be like 80+ before taking 'spry' as a compliment. |
| Date: 2007/03/27 04:12:22, Link 71.192.118.23 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||
Indeed...  (Former Dallas Cowboy OL Nate Newton) |
| Date: 2007/03/27 10:29:16, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||
It's not Dembski's task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories about where his arse is. |
| Date: 2007/03/28 05:44:28, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||||||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||||||
I just hope FTK realizes that Dave assumes they're doing it, you know, for the kids:
|
| Date: 2007/03/30 07:28:33, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||||||||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||||||||
I thought everyone already knew Lenny was a herpetophile. |
| Date: 2007/03/30 08:30:42, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
That's just retarded. Do you also consider lack of belief in Santa Claus a matter of faith? Your absurd position would require us to label as 'faith' any lack of belief in anything which had not been conclusively demonstrated to be nonexistent. I don't believe the moon has a rich, creamy caramel center not because I have 'faith' in my position, but because I've seen absolutely no evidence to support it being true, and because there are other, very well-supported theories of what the moon is made of. It's concievable that the moon really is that delicious, but labeling me as having 'faith' in my position (which is not even a true position but just acceptance of the null hypothesis of the proposition "the moon has a caramel center") simply because I assume it is not so, is just stupid. "Atheism is a faith" is a bogus rhetorical device which does more to reveal the benighted intellects of the credulous, superstitious twits who use it, than it does to illuminate what atheism is actually about. |
| Date: 2007/04/02 10:51:57, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||
OK, so Al Gore is the most arrogant, wasteful, hypocritical, just plain bad person ever to walk the earth. So stipulated. WTF does that have to do with the question of the degree to which global warming is man-made and what we can and/or should do about it? Nothing, of course. It's just like Dembski's idiotic maunderings about that horrible racist, Charles Darwin, as if smearing the character of someone 150 years dead somehow forever falsifies arguments that person made. UD Tards, suck my tu quoque. |
| Date: 2007/04/03 08:06:34, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
Do you own a time machine? It seems that virtually everything you talk about doing occurs in the future. |
| Date: 2007/04/06 08:07:36, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
Ask him what he uses to get those pesky ground-in cheesy poof stains out of his muumuu.  |
| Date: 2007/04/07 18:17:43, Link 71.192.118.23 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||
As the Wedgie Document clearly states, it is DI's 20 year goal to "To see bad parody and farts as the dominant perspective in science." |
| Date: 2007/04/10 15:17:49, Link 71.192.118.23 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
I propose a new standard for FDA drug approval: One report. About a cat. If somebody says somebody's cat benefitted from a certain drug, that's science and by golly, you're in. |
| Date: 2007/04/11 12:23:35, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
A majority of Americans cannot identify the nation of Israel on a world map. According to ID logic, does that mean geographers should just accept that we don't really know where Israel is? |
| Date: 2007/04/24 04:33:25, Link 71.192.118.23 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||
Apparently you didn't get the memo, it's really E = God. It's the science equivalent of solving algebraic equations by multiplying both sides by zero. |
| Date: 2007/04/27 07:54:41, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
What a tool!  |
| Date: 2007/05/01 10:55:43, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||
Like Princess Eve said, they hypothesized, tested theories, adapted to the findings, and discarded unworkable theories, just like evolutionists do. Ergo, nothing to publish. |
| Date: 2007/05/08 07:42:33, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
Truly, the real ID action is now over at Overwhelmingignorance.crap, where a blog post entitled Has This Site Gone Extinct? gets a snappy response in only 13 days, resulting in a fast-paced conversation that so far has flooded the intartubes with 5 total posts over an eyeblink-like 27 days. Hilariously, they conclude that the fetid moribundity of their site has resulted from the recent efforts to ban trolls--while lamenting that they cannot compose a Trolls' Greatest Hits list to whip up enthusiasm for the site, because "unfortunately, unless the data was backed up all those troll posts were zapped." Hmmm...... "Man, our site would be doing better, if only we hadn't banned all the people who were posting on the site just to mock it, and if only we could recover their deleted comments so there would be something here worth reading." For some reason I think there might still be some trolls left unpurged over there. Will the last loki please turn out the lights on your way out? |
| Date: 2007/07/02 06:57:20, Link 71.192.118.23 |
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush |
|
What is it about the crank mind that makes them so enamored with huge, garishly-colored fonts? Time cube! |
| Date: 2007/07/02 17:40:30, Link 71.192.118.23 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
And paper bags. Mental ones anyway. |
| Date: 2007/07/02 17:41:35, Link 71.192.118.23 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||
I believe the term is "hate fuck". |
| Date: 2007/07/02 17:43:54, Link 71.192.118.23 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
I know that guy!  |
| Date: 2007/07/02 18:16:51, Link 71.192.118.23 |
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush |
|
Sorry for all those deletable comments over at the evolution/ugly people thread. Normally I try to stay strictly with the science and the sound argument stuff, but I was led astray by the uncouth comments of others. Plus beer. Maybe just the beer. |
| Date: 2007/07/03 06:08:17, Link 71.192.118.23 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
No more so than other respected sources like Encyclopedia Britannica, apparently. Wikipedia also has the advantage of not costing $1695. Plus the errors in your $1695 version don't get corrected in three minutes, they get corrected never. It's foolish to rely on any one source for anything (except sex), of course. I don't watch CNN (rarely) to find out what's really going on, I watch it to see what CNN says is going on--which I take with a huge grain of salt and a chaser of "they're a massive for-profit corporation with a vested financial interest in how they frame virtually every factoid they present." At least with Wikipedia there's the transparency of being able to see who wrote and edited the articles, and what those peoples' other edits and viewpoints are. Of course, for the real truth we all go to conservapedia, right?  Oh, I guess not. |
| Date: 2007/07/03 08:56:47, Link 71.192.118.23 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||
Interestingly, CNN provides strong evidence against one of ID's central claims, that new information cannot be created without the intervention of an intelligent agent. Paula Zahn is clearly not an intelligent agent, but every bit of information that passes through her is given a new, right-wing slant. However, the mutation is always deleterious to the organism (truth), so I'm ultimately not sure how to score that one.
|
| Date: 2007/07/03 10:28:23, Link 71.192.118.23 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
That makes sense when you look at the sheer sublime ideals represented by our 32 teeth packed into enough jaw space for 28, and a vestigial organ (appendix) that becomes infected and kills 400 people a year in the US alone. I really don't see how we could be any better. |
| Date: 2007/07/03 11:34:38, Link 71.192.118.23 | ||||||||||||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||||||||||||
Doncha know, ID makes its predictions after they are confirmed. Only materialist presuppositionalist atheists like you would have a problem with that. |
| Date: 2007/07/03 14:59:04, Link 71.192.118.23 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
Is that anything like the Nude Bomb?  I'd love to spend two hours photoshopping that into The Tard Bomb, with Dr Dr Dr Dr Dr Dr Rev Dr Fuhrer Dr Dembski leering over a reclined |
| Date: 2007/07/06 07:57:14, Link 24.201.75.12 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
Let's take a moment to review the recent scientific output from the UD gang: 1) URL sockpuppetry (or whatever this is called) 2) Flatulent Flash animations 3) Global warming denial 4) HIV/AIDS denial 5) Forging alliances with the Pleasurian community (William Brookfield) 6) Forging alliances with the holocaust-denial community (Johannes Lerle) 7) Quack medicine advocacy (DCA) 8) Reporting someone to DHS (Eric Pianka) 9) Bogus accusations of racism (Kevin Padian) 10) Launched overwhelmingevidence.com, antievolution site for 45-year old teenagers, recently voted the least popular URL in the history of the Internet with over one non-troll post per month. This is pretty impressive. I'm surprised anyone still doubts ID, with a body of work like this backing it up. Edit: Accidentally gave UD research team credit for work done by obvious OE troll hblavatsky (orbo quack prepetual motion machine asserted as proof of god) |
| Date: 2007/07/10 08:58:44, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
It's amazing that even though every piece of research published by "Darwinists" apparently supports the contradictory conjecture of ID--by complete accident!--the stupIDs can't seem to do a single iota of original research to support their own assumed conclusion, even on purpose. |
| Date: 2007/07/10 09:02:30, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
Clearer that crandaddy is a pedantic, pseudointellectual, pompous ass who should burn his thesaurus? Crystal clear. |
| Date: 2007/07/11 18:06:53, Link 71.192.118.23 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
Get angry at the ones who seek to spread their ignorance to others. The world is full of people with a host of better options choosing to negate and destroy their bodies and minds anyway. If you think you can help them, do so. If you cannot, let it go. If they intentionally try to drag you and the people around you down with them, get pissed. My $.02. |
| Date: 2007/07/12 06:16:00, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
The english language contains 26 letters. Are we to assume that throwing a bunch of letters together--along with about six other basic punctuation marks--suddenly makes a coherent argument? (Sal apparently does) This is truly a concentration of Tard so dense that it creates a black hole o' Tard, and by even quoting it you risk slipping past the event horizon and being thrown into an alTardnate universe. |
| Date: 2007/07/13 14:39:07, Link 71.192.118.23 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||
I can't, thank dog. |
| Date: 2007/07/15 05:16:28, Link 71.192.118.23 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||
Fart noises?
Goddidit! |
| Date: 2007/07/15 14:34:35, Link 71.192.118.23 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||
Is this the same guy?  |
| Date: 2007/07/20 03:53:01, Link 71.192.118.23 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||
Who buys more lottery tickets per capita, scientists or creationists? Hmmm. |
| Date: 2007/07/23 15:14:35, Link 71.192.118.23 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
Paul, nobody cares. EE is being addressed right here, right now, with less moderation than you're proposing somewhere else. Why don't you just tackle some of the open issues here instead of disingenuously suggesting that the real conversation hasn't started--because the DI site hasn't turned their censorship down far enough to allow it (yet)? How about starting in on the egregious quote-mining exaples Afarensis has claimed? |
| Date: 2007/08/02 13:54:16, Link 71.192.119.246 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
I can see how nitpickingly excluding people from atheist organizations would really help boost the number of people those organizations can claim identify as atheists. What? |
| Date: 2007/08/03 10:52:06, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
He was much worse than poor. He mainly giggled and shifted in his seat with a loony grin on his face, failing to utter a single complete sentence about anything. He fumbled incoherently through his IC mousetrap BS, but nobody who didn't already know his spiel would have known what he was trying to say, let alone what his argument would prove if it were valid. I think Colbert took it easy on him because he was so pathetic. Too bad it wasn't the Daily Show, Jon Stewart would have made him look a lot more foolish. |
| Date: 2007/08/07 16:38:38, Link 71.192.119.246 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
However, they did kick Kirk's ass:  Oh, you said triffles. Nevermind. |
| Date: 2007/08/13 14:11:59, Link 71.192.119.246 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
 |
| Date: 2007/08/13 16:20:54, Link 71.192.119.246 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
The only antipathy this atheist feels in regard to your imaginary sky buddy is directed at his arrogant and insipid self-appointed representatives, and their behavior toward those who disagree with them on the subject. Do you hate Zeus? "I would say" that you do. Doesn't mean much, does it. |
| Date: 2007/08/13 16:49:00, Link 71.192.119.246 |
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush |
| How does this relate to the Legos theology of John's Gospel? |
| Date: 2007/08/13 16:58:05, Link 71.192.119.246 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
Yawn. |
| Date: 2007/08/14 06:53:55, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
For me it takes only one step, when Heddle or anybody else starts blathering about their irrelevant religious opinions to begin with. I understand why some of us might have initially reacted viscerally to Heddle's attribution of hatred unto us--I did--but it should only take about three seconds to realize we're just being sucked into a boring theological exposition of one person's idiosyncratic and daft superstitions. Ultimately, is it really any more interesting than hearing an addict rationalize about why it's OK to take one more hit? (I'm not suggesting an equivalence between Heddle's beliefs and substance abuse, just the extent to which it's pointless to discuss the matter with either person.) |
| Date: 2007/08/14 09:08:14, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
Well, it's much faster and easier. For instance, if you asked a mathematician "what's the smallest prime number of more than a trillion digits?" It would probably take him/her a long time and a large amount of effort and resources to figure out the answer. OTOH, you could ask me the same question and I could instantly blurt out "fifty seven point oh-six-three." From the standpoint of response time and ease of calculation at least, my answer is superior. Stupid, useless and wrong, but faster and easier. And so children, that's how religion helps us understand the answers to questions about what it means to be human. |
| Date: 2007/08/14 09:28:56, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
The answer "I don't know" is always a more useful answer to any real question than "goddidit." At least when you say "I don't know," the door is still open for someday figuring out the real answer. |
| Date: 2007/08/14 14:06:01, Link 71.192.119.246 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
You mean in the last 6000 years, right Sal? |
| Date: 2007/08/16 09:00:07, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
Oh no, it's the incontrovertible argument from misspelled unwholesomeness! We should just admit goddidit to prevent further embarassment. |
| Date: 2007/08/16 11:08:11, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
Does the current lack of a comprehensive "materialistic" explanation for each one of these phenomena provide the slightest shadow of a scintilla of a hint of a suggestion of the tiniest, most microscopic little piece of evidence that there's anything non-materialistic behind them? NO. NO. NO. NO, NO, NO, and uh-uh. Please, let us know as soon as you find some of this non-materialistic evidence. Or when you can suggest what evidence might eventually be found. Or how we might find it. Even hypothetically. Please. Otherwise and until then, you're just talking out your ass and spouting the same arguments from ignorance/false dichotomies as the stupID IDiots. As usual. Meanwhile science marches on, providing more and more (admittedly provisional and incomplete) explanations of those same phenomena your woo tells us utterly, absolutely NOTHING useful about. Believe whatever you want, but arguing with smarter people (I'm not including myself in this group) who know more about the subject just makes you look stupid. er. |
| Date: 2007/08/16 11:22:23, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||||
Professor Feynman, er, I mean Louis, can you prove that there isn't any non-materialistic evidence that Skeptic isn't a stupid bastard? NO. NO. NO, NO and NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
| Date: 2007/08/17 06:48:16, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
It's not ID per se that is the danger, it's the psychoactive ingredient, Tard. As anyone can see from the addled masses over at uncommondescentintotard.com, most ID users are just as happy to get their Tard from other substances like GWD (global warming denial), HIVD (HIV denial), and BBL (blind biblical literalism), and many if not most show symptoms of multiple addictions. |
| Date: 2007/08/31 09:52:23, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||
Do tell, how did that helicopter pilot end up containing your DNA? On second thought, please don't, Senator Craig. |
| Date: 2007/09/01 07:21:40, Link 71.192.119.246 | ||||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||||
Things are going just as well over at underwhelminginterest.com: The up side is that they've been able to allocate more money to ID research by downgrading their server:  While their recent purge of loki trolls has reduced their site traffic slightly, at least the quality is up. Only serious ID supporters now comment:
Fortunately for us IDiots are both incapable of understanding sarcasm or irony, and unable to google "h p blavatsky" to find quotes from the real Blavatsky:
|
| Date: 2007/09/04 06:57:47, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||
And if that is true, then why isn't the DI looking for another school district to implement the same policy, so they can get the issue in front of a different judge and get the "right" outcome? They know Dover was a disaster and don't want to go there again, and all their protests to the contrary are just for appearances. |
| Date: 2007/09/04 17:15:36, Link 71.192.119.246 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
Is there a "robots" section? |
| Date: 2007/09/07 05:58:16, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
By this logic, all we would have to do is to make a flash animation of Dembski with a bunch of farty noises, put it on a site that gets up to several hits a month from actual young people (this is stipulated, AFAIK there is no concrete evidence that anyone under the age of 24 has ever visited OE), and "young people" would never take Dembski seriously again. |
| Date: 2007/09/12 11:37:13, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
Anything to slow down the prodigious scientific output of the ID crowd. If we don't distract them with stuff like this they'll have proved the existence of god by the end of 2007 and we'll all have to start going to church. I'm not giving up my Sunday mornings! |
| Date: 2007/09/14 04:02:34, Link 71.192.119.246 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
Thanks for demonstrating once again the total lack of connection between ID and religious apologetics, Dr Dr Dr Dr Dumbass. |
| Date: 2007/09/14 04:05:32, Link 71.192.119.246 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
It was a dark and stormy night.... |
| Date: 2007/09/17 06:31:11, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
What is your evidence that the evolution of man is "the most complicated phenomenon of the evolution"? In what units do you measure the complicatedness of evolutionary phenomena? And what is your theory, anyway? Am I oversimplifying your/JAD's piddlings when I summarize them as "god made species evolve, then he/she/it died"? |
| Date: 2007/09/17 09:00:50, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
And yet she achieves it by doing exactly the opposite. It's a strange world, isn't it. |
| Date: 2007/09/17 09:42:17, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
It was a dark and stormy night.... |
| Date: 2007/09/18 09:12:05, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
If you click on the "about" link on the UD front page (because who would visit UD without stopping to guffaw at DaveTard's ridiculous, grainy, off-center, 100# overweight, unshaven, Flashdance sweatshirt-wearing mug), the whole page consists of "This is a placeholder. You must edit the template." Can't DT put down the cheesy poofs long enough to apply his formidable 1337 h@xx0r skillz to, uh, editing the template? |
| Date: 2007/09/20 14:28:04, Link 71.192.119.246 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
Oh yeah? Faith you, pal. |
| Date: 2007/09/20 15:34:39, Link 71.192.119.246 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||
OK, let's stipulate that current MET has no explanation whatsoever for these flea spines. How does that support any hypothesis of yours? |
| Date: 2007/09/21 11:04:39, Link 71.192.119.246 |
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush |
|
If ID Were Carpentry We would use ignorant criticisms of your hammers to drive our nails, then claim it was just your materialistic presuppositions which led you to conclude our alleged dream home was really only a pile of lumber. |
| Date: 2007/09/21 11:44:29, Link 71.192.119.246 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
VMartin can't understand how a particular butterfly evolved to look the way it does, therefore goddidit. |
| Date: 2007/09/21 12:20:53, Link 71.192.119.246 | ||||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||||
With all the crazy shit going on in the world, I'm sure nobody would even really notice if this happened:
I mean, not to the point that anyone would write it down or anything. |
| Date: 2007/09/26 03:55:59, Link 71.192.119.246 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
It's impressive what ID brings to the table in terms of synthesizing the imaginary evidence. If you ever want to know what would be true if some new and completely made-up set of observations was taken, just ask an IDiot. Assuming of course that the answer you're looking for is goddidit. |
| Date: 2007/10/01 04:05:33, Link 71.192.119.246 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
|
| Date: 2007/10/02 03:57:30, Link 71.192.119.246 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
Is there any proposition, however illogical and supported by evidence, that this sentence couldn't be used to support? |
| Date: 2007/10/02 04:01:39, Link 71.192.119.246 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||
It's amazing how convincing one's antintellectual meanderings become, once one simply applies boldfacing, italics, and underlining at the same time. You do know you can use colored fonts, right? There's smilies, too! Then you'd really be proving your invisible and ineffective sky daddy. |
| Date: 2007/10/02 05:35:38, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
I edited your comment (in bold) for higher accuracy. |
| Date: 2007/10/02 06:50:30, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||
It's amazing how easily MET can be disproven, simply by posing a rhetorical question. Clearly, now that scientists are finally faced with this one killer question--one that they've never thought of before and cannot answer--they can all just throw up their hands and admit goddidit. I'm sure they were getting tired of faking all the evidence, suppressing all the ID research, etc. anyway. Now they can just go to church for their answers, since DanTard has slain the Darwinist beast with this historic zinger. |
| Date: 2007/10/02 07:58:44, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
As soon as we had ID, we knew goddidit, it wouldn't have taken 30 years. |
| Date: 2007/10/02 09:14:45, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||||
I'll take FTK's lack of response as acknowledgement that she is indeed a rank hypocrite and knows this. I assume this just gets mentally filed under some subsection of the ever-acceptable Lying For Jesus exceptions to the moral/ethical behavior theists are so well known to claim exclusive basis for. Anything is OK if it advances the Goddidit Hypothesis. |
| Date: 2007/10/02 09:20:40, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
Is it too late to edit the posting subheading to add the scare quotes DanTard has shown are so appropriate?
|
| Date: 2007/10/02 10:48:31, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
How many public apologies does one person have to make before they start thinking first and acting second the next time they get the impulse to attack someone and/or make outrageous accusations about them publicly? |
| Date: 2007/10/06 10:08:10, Link 71.192.119.246 |
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush |
| FTK, I'm quite appalled at the time you spend here at AtBC. Don't you have a family to spend time with? |
| Date: 2007/10/11 07:10:12, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||
Or maybe just name one? |
| Date: 2007/10/12 04:27:33, Link 71.192.119.246 |
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush |
|
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin] I just don't get your collective fascination with this stupid, self-absorbed, dishonest woman. FTK: "blah blah blah....non-materialist theories should be studied....blah blah blah" Obvious Question: "Please name a non-materialist theory." FTK: "You guys are mean, blah blah blah, don't you have anything better to do than hang out on this board for hours each day (but only half as much as I do), blah blah blah, oh, I'm being bombarded with questions, blah blah blah, evolution is a religion, blah blah blah, I'm really busy right now, blah blah blah, I heart YEC I mean I don't heart YEC I mean I need to study it more (while kissing YEC ass on every other board I frequent), blah blah blah, I already answered that question, blah blah blah...." Repeat ad nauseum. |
| Date: 2007/10/12 12:09:16, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||
Some disguise:
About as convincing as Superman's Clark Kent disguise.   Christian apologetics can put on glasses and comb its hair different, but nobody's fooled (except via willing suspension of disbelief, just like in the movie theater). |
| Date: 2007/10/17 07:17:13, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||
Christopher's been talking to trees, apparently. I can't say I'm surprised.
In what relevant sense could it be said to not matter? It would matter to me, obviously, as I have a natural instinct to stay alive and will (like all living things, religious or not) struggle vigorously to prevent being "terminated." It would matter to my family, because they are emotionally attached to me and because I provide a significant proportion of their material support. It would matter to the legal authorities, because they are vested with the responsibility to make sure people are not "terminated" by religious wackos like you or anyone else. It would matter to the company where I work, because there are tasks that I am expected to get done and significant costs that would be incurred in replacing me. And it would matter to my community, because they would live in increased fear of violence due to, apparently, a creationist nut who goes around "terminating" people to score irrelevant rhetorical points against a scientific theory he repeatedly demonstrates that he doesn't understand. In short, of course it would matter. What does this have to do with whether the available scientific evidence concerning the origins of biological diversity is best explained by MET? Look up "argument from consequences." It's a well-known logical fallacy. Look that one up too, "fallacy." If your argument is fallacious, and it is, that means that it can't be said to prove anything regardless of what premises you accept. |
| Date: 2007/10/17 12:23:07, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
Because acting "like animals" gets poor results and everyone knows it. Whatever your moral foundation, failure to abide by the rules of civilized society quickly gets one cut off from the benefits thereof. People like to pretend that their "moral" behavior is motivated by some lofty set of objective ideals, but the fact is that people follow moral and ethical standards first and foremost because they realize that that is the best way to achieve access to social and material resources. If I start "terminating" other people, even assuming that there's some short-term benefit to me, it will quickly result in me being ostracized, hunted, and either eliminated or permanently deprived of access to the things I want. So why would I? The few people who do choose that course of action aren't lacking in supervision by a supernatural being, they're mainly just sociopaths. And where do you get the assumption that anyone w would want to kill others, or that it might necessarily be beneficial to do so? Sounds to me like you're the immoral pig, restrained only by fear of some omnipotent boogeyman from carrying out your savage impulses. I would hazard a guess that most or all of the evilutionists on this board share neither your blood lust nor your assumption that there would be something to be gained by indulging in it. I find it interesting that you not only claim to be interested in science but are a science teacher, yet every time you're asked to address substantive questions about your idiotic assertions, you decline to do so and instead start talking about praying and heaven and crap like that. Don't enter the discussion if you're not willing/able to sustain it. Clearly you're not. I'm sorry that you teach young people science or anything else. |
| Date: 2007/10/18 09:53:13, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
You forgot unvolution, nonvolution, antivolution, and yousayyouwannarevolution. |
| Date: 2007/10/19 07:43:59, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
Funny, once I squinted through all the nonsense characters to see what was actually written, I thought for a second that someone had hacked their site and defaced their comment policy with crazy crap. Then I looked at Google cache and sure enough, it's been crazy crap all along. |
| Date: 2007/10/19 07:55:09, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
It looks pretty clear to me that it's a cellphone self-portrait. I doubt that D'Tard knows anything about the Rule of Thirds, but as the UD Banning Czar he's a key part of the Rule of Tards. |
| Date: 2007/10/19 11:42:40, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
Hear hear on the SNPA. The pile of empties in my recycling closet is so big it's #$&#%@ embarassing. |
| Date: 2007/10/22 11:43:39, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
Just leave out the sweater please. |
| Date: 2007/10/23 07:52:27, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
Or, in 186 fewer words, "I can't answer." |
| Date: 2007/10/23 11:10:05, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
Bac Flag? I thought they broke up back in the 80's.  |
| Date: 2007/10/23 13:39:37, Link 71.192.119.246 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
Christopher, I really don't think that this is true. I think that as it becomes clearer and clearer exactly what sort of idiot you are, we are adjusting our treatment of you so as to treat you as just that kind of idiot. |
| Date: 2007/10/25 06:54:36, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
That's not the breath of the hounds of hell, it's the rest of us collectively yawning in boredom. |
| Date: 2007/10/29 04:00:35, Link 71.192.119.246 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
So you actually spoke the word "hurrah"? |
| Date: 2007/10/30 17:16:17, Link 71.192.119.246 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
Link? |
| Date: 2007/10/31 15:31:42, Link 71.192.119.246 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
With or without nuts? Oh, William Brookfield. With nuts. |
| Date: 2007/11/02 16:37:16, Link 71.192.119.246 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||
Won't you be red-faced when David Thomson of the Quantum AetherDynamics Institute wins his Nobel. |
| Date: 2007/11/03 07:56:01, Link 71.192.119.246 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||
The cod, or the joke? |
| Date: 2007/11/05 10:10:04, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
So your god created the world such that incest was A) explicitly prohibited, i.e, sin; and B) essential to the implementation of his plan. Way to set you up to fail. You should really seek help getting out of that abusive relationship, even if your boyfriend is imaginary. |
| Date: 2007/11/05 10:39:24, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
Mmmmm. I could really go for some enceladus right now.  |
| Date: 2007/11/05 12:04:42, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
PG, I thought I was. I loves dem hos. |
| Date: 2007/11/06 08:11:15, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
Of course, the therapeutic value of a shag or a beer is much diminished, when one has invested one's life in hating oneself for thinking about either. If Polegreaser had a shag, according to his theology, this might very well cause god to create a virus or bacteria that would kill hundreds of thousands of poor people each year. Of course, this wouldn't bother Ray, as he thinks the victims deserve it, because only he himself passes his personal explanatardy filtard for christian-ness sufficient to warrant being treated as a human being. |
| Date: 2007/11/08 05:54:48, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||
Whoever they are, I bet adding Larry Fafarman would probably raise the competence level of the group. |
| Date: 2007/11/08 08:15:47, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||||||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||||||
Evidence please, for your assertion that Fafarman knows how to sit on the toilet properly. |
| Date: 2007/11/08 10:15:48, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||||
Obviously, BA77 is an idiot. |
| Date: 2007/11/12 16:34:40, Link 71.192.119.246 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
Which makes exactly as much sense as "He put Darwin and Nietzsche together and got 4." |
| Date: 2007/11/16 07:02:18, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
"Evolution" isn't a fair comparison term because the word is used in so many non-biological contexts. Let's see how "Intelligent Design" does against two of its intellectual equals, which can be represented by quite unambiguous search terms**:  I must admit, I didn't expect this result. But it does make sense. **Disclaimer: I will not be held responsible for the psychological effects resulting from anyone searching these terms and viewing the results. |
| Date: 2007/11/16 09:23:41, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||||
It's hard to tell from the graph but I'm not sure that the "Intelligent design" and "Michael Medved" results added together would even be as popular as either goatse or tubgirl.  I tried the search just for laughs, assuming that ID would of course be searched more often than the two most disgusting images on the intertubes, but no. In terms of popularity, this is kind of like a restaurant that claims its food is delicious and extremely popular, when in fact the guy in the sidewalk vending cart out front is pulling down twice as much revenue selling feces-dipped roadkill-on-a-stick. |
| Date: 2007/11/16 10:26:48, Link 65.166.248.38 |
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush |
|
Other searches more popular than intelligent design: Flatulence Scabies Ebola Britney spears underwear Crystal meth Boring Stupid Dull |
| Date: 2007/12/10 15:37:13, Link 71.192.119.246 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||
You mean George Washington Carver. |
| Date: 2007/12/11 11:18:09, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
A stupid professional simulated wrestling event. It's an annual stupid event, which you can see stupidly peaking at the same stupid time annually if you expand the search result graph to show all years. |
| Date: 2007/12/20 15:35:11, Link 71.192.119.246 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
When did Dembski lose 20 Kg? Girly-man looks about 60 max to me. |
| Date: 2007/12/20 16:25:37, Link 71.192.119.246 | ||||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||||
 The sweater wears him. |
| Date: 2007/12/21 10:39:42, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
OK, so one day the genetic code of one species reorganized itself and poof, a new species. Hmmm. So mom and dad were, hippos or, say, deer, but baby pops out and it's....a whale? I hope mom was standing near the shoreline. How is a "saltation" event different from a cat giving birth to a dog, or any of the other absurd examples IDiots like to say evolution requires? It looks like D'Tard thinks we might still get our "dat." Won't the UD faithful be surprised when they realize ID predicted that! Big tent indeed. |
| Date: 2007/12/21 11:08:44, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||
He's bilious, anyway. |
| Date: 2007/12/21 11:13:31, Link 65.166.248.38 |
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush |
| Edit:remove double post |
| Date: 2007/12/21 11:16:33, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
Feynman's dead. Has been for 19 years. Judging by the age of the biology research VM likes to cite, he's not that up to date on anything else. So I guess it's understandable he hasn't heard about Feynman's passing. I wonder if he knows about Czechoslovakia breaking up yet. |
| Date: 2007/12/21 11:18:08, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
More like "think-proof." |
| Date: 2007/12/21 12:49:30, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||||
I was referring to your notion of Feynman having a discussion with someone:
How's the weather in Czechoslovakia? |
| Date: 2008/01/08 15:15:20, Link 71.192.119.246 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||
What is it about the IDiot brain that prevents linking normally, by embedding the link like this, as part of the text in the post? Instead they feel they need to provide every link like this:
Dolts. |
| Date: 2008/01/10 16:40:39, Link 71.192.119.246 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||
Someone's getting hungry.....  Edit: Because I'm an effing idiot who originally quoted the wrong post. |
| Date: 2008/01/18 11:15:58, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||
The Redskins lost the game (I assume because the Seahawks prayed harder), and Gibbs resigned 4 days later. |
| Date: 2008/01/25 11:50:08, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
Obviously, if Darwinismus wasn't such an irretrievably flawed theorismus, the Evolutionist poopyheads who read this thread would be able to provide a comprehensive Darwinoidical explanismus for any biological phenomenismus VM might care to cite. The fact that you obviously cannot do this clearly demonstrates that VM's favored explanismus, which he does not have to provide*, must be correct by default. Don't you get it? __ *According to his buddy JAD, the explanismus in this case would be "god made descending testicles, then he died". I love it so! |
| Date: 2008/01/28 08:56:30, Link 65.166.248.38 |
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush |
 |
| Date: 2008/01/30 16:14:51, Link 71.192.119.246 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
Wow, FtK, for once you're right; that is a load of crap. Everyone knows there is no "ID theory", so for the scientific community to regard it as "absolute horse**** unworthy of serious consideration" is impossible. There's nothing to consider. Stupid journalists. |
| Date: 2008/01/31 07:02:14, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||
How does evidence that life on earth may have been created by, say, space aliens save Gil or anyone else from nihilism? Since ID doesn't specify anything about the designer, whatever evidence he's talking about may just as well point to an advanced civilization that seeded Earth with frontloaded bacteria designed to evolve life here into a food source, conveniently situated here for them to dine upon at some future date when they choose to drop back in again. It doesn't get much more nihilistic than that, does it Gil? [Edited so I could make a self-referential note that I edited it] |
| Date: 2008/02/02 10:14:14, Link 71.192.119.246 |
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush |
|
I think it's the diagnostic criteria for narcissism that would be relevant to the question, Thought Revoker, not the dictionary definition. Excessive focus on dictionary definitions instead of scientific ones, of course, do seem to be quite emblematic of anti-science activists... BTW, I'm not asserting that you are a narcissist by these criteria; I haven't paid a lot of attention to your comments here because I don't find your original post or this one very relevant to the EvC conflict which (mostly) brings me here. I will say however, you're not as much of a narcissist as Larry Fafarman. FWIW. |
| Date: 2008/02/04 06:12:29, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||||
Uncommon Descent: We delete more comments before 9 AM than most anti-ID sites get all day. |
| Date: 2008/02/04 08:42:59, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||
There's no evidence anywhere on UD that anyone perceives them as dishonest, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. According to all the comments I can see, every single commenter at UD is perfectly happy with UD's comment moderation practices. [Edited for increased sarcasm] |
| Date: 2008/02/05 12:08:40, Link 71.192.119.246 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
And you think there is evidence that the Nazis were scrupulously careful about making sure that they only brutalized the exact people they intended to? They started a war of conquest that killed over 30 million people in Europe, for fuck's sake--not even counting the 6+ million Jewish people you apparently think are just a figment of history's imagination. Larry, you're a Complete. Fucking. Idiot. I'd have more respect for someone who thought it was perfectly OK that the Nazis systematically exterminated 11 million people in the camps, than you, who adopts your evil revisionist bullshit just to provoke and get attention for your worthless shell of a self; at least that person would be honest, if also irredeemably odious like you. You should be banned not only from PT but from the human race. Your only redeeming feature is that you might be seriously mentally ill and could some day get help and get better. Unless and until you show some progress toward that goal, drop dead, please. |
| Date: 2008/02/05 13:02:47, Link 71.192.119.246 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||
Ha ha. From there:
Of course, nothing says quality control like having a superfluous dot after your URL ("caseyluskin.com."), or a top-notch graphic like this:  Ouch. |
| Date: 2008/02/05 16:48:23, Link 71.192.119.246 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
Don't do us any favors, Caseykins. What are you willing to consider doing if we give you a pony? |
| Date: 2008/02/06 04:15:12, Link 71.192.119.246 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
No, not if you recognize that his "area of expertise" is creating blogs that consist of a single post by him, followed by 800 comments. By him. In that area, he's outstanding in the field.  |
| Date: 2008/02/06 10:00:03, Link 65.166.248.38 |
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush |
| I have no reason to presume there are “rules” behind using any 117 X 87 pixel graphic. |
| Date: 2008/02/06 11:06:02, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||||
Thank you for the compliment, but don't even think of putting it to your own use, as I will aggressively protect my copyright to it. |
| Date: 2008/02/06 11:14:51, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||||||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||||||
I'm sorry, scratch my last threat. I've just been informed by my lawyer, Casey Luskin, that there is an obscure provision in copyright law specifically exempting 117 x 87 pixel graphics from protection of any kind, so steal away. |
| Date: 2008/02/06 15:51:27, Link 71.192.119.246 | ||||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||||
Kind of like the way a rich creamy dog turd tends to spread once you get it stuck to your shoe. |
| Date: 2008/02/07 07:57:08, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||||||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||||||
He does know it, he just doesn't like the way things currently work and is dreaming of a day when the shock troops of science-discrediting are controlled by him and people like him, who get to force science to return the preordained results they want. And when he says...
...he's not joking, he's fantasizing. It's the one time he takes his right hand out of the cheesy poofs bag and puts it to another use. |
| Date: 2008/02/07 17:38:58, Link 71.192.119.246 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||
"fair hearing" = "got what he wanted" "unfair hearing" = "didn't get what he wanted" |
| Date: 2008/02/08 18:32:15, Link 71.192.119.246 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
I haven't even read the thread and it's obvious this is an utterly bogus apology. A real apology acknowledges the wrong done, it doesn't just say "sorry for whatever, can we forget about it". Not that anything FtK says ever means anything even slightly substantial anyway. |
| Date: 2008/08/01 12:40:11, Link 65.166.248.38 |
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush |
| Vox Day = (Heddle x GoP) - Brain |
| Date: 2008/08/19 18:13:40, Link 71.192.119.246 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
How can having some crazy fanatic who hates you and everyone like you burn your face with acid be torture, when your family doctor might use the same type of acid to burn a wart off your face? Are you really as stupid as you appear or is this some type of performance art project? |
| Date: 2008/08/22 17:24:47, Link 71.192.119.246 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
Nothing; they both unfairly dismiss 'space aliens done did it creationism.' |
| Date: 2008/09/19 11:51:36, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
She would probably also have been one of the twits who, when the professor assigned a three-page essay, would ask, "both sides?" |
| Date: 2009/03/23 09:06:57, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
IIRC Joe lives in or around Manchester, NH. |
| Date: 2009/03/28 12:25:28, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||||
I can take that one for you Denial:
|
| Date: 2009/03/29 12:55:39, Link 71.192.119.246 | ||||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||||
I find sacrificing virginity is a little less messy, a lot more fun, and equally effective, when it comes to preventing volcanic eruptions. |
| Date: 2009/03/30 18:16:30, Link 71.192.119.246 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||
New UD strategy: Treat logic and reason so rudely that they get insulted and leave--ID wins! |
| Date: 2009/04/09 04:36:14, Link 71.192.119.246 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
If your creator god had "infinite intelligence" as you put it, then how can the creation of the universe have been so damn strenuous for her? Why would an infinitely powerful and eternal being be so deeply invested in one part of her creation, one which is such an infinitesimally small fraction of her overall work? If a being has an infinite quantity of something (in this case intelligence), how can there be a "relative" aspect to how much of that something the being invests in any given project? If I have infinite X, and I expend a trillion units of X doing a task, I still have infinite X. What's "relatively" large about that trillion-unit project, when I can still do an infinite number of additional projects if I want? Even if you think you know we're the only life in the universe, what evidence do you have that making us is one of the harder things she ever did? It's fascinating how you godbots always want to tell us how unknowable the mind of god is at one moment of convenience, then the next thing we know you're telling us all kinds of things you do know about her. You tell us you're not here to make a scientific argument, but all you do is make sciencey arguments to scientists about science, telling them their science is wrong because of what you "know" about your unknowable god. You're incredibly tedious and I have no idea why so many here are willing to engage you at length when you're clearly acting in bad faith and have no intention of learning anything that would cause the slightest irritation to your delicate and worthless presuppositions. |
| Date: 2009/04/09 15:01:41, Link 71.192.119.246 | ||||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||||
Because your snappy rhetorical retorts are so devastating. |
| Date: 2009/04/22 14:46:05, Link 71.192.119.246 |
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush |
|
God, who cares. It's all word games to Denial. He doesn't give a flying fuck about science, and nobody here thinks he does. Like all such dishonest stealth religious apologetics (and that's all he offers, 100%), the actual useful content of his epistemology is zero--by design. He's just trying to distract himself and others from reality and prop up his doomed superstitions for one more day, week, or year. He's like AFDave lite, just not as smart and less energetic. At least AFD showed us a depth and breadth of applied intentional ignorance that you just don't see every day. Denial's just another regular guy, with nothing much to say, who can't shut up because he's AFUOJ.* *All fucked up on Jesus Edited because they put an edit button up there |
| Date: 2009/05/20 17:18:48, Link 71.192.119.246 | ||||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||||
Of course not. Just the good ones. |
| Date: 2009/06/17 16:24:02, Link 71.192.119.246 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
Why worry about something so unlikely? |
| Date: 2009/06/17 16:25:23, Link 71.192.119.246 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
But since you can't prove he can't do it, ID wins by default. |
| Date: 2009/08/07 13:59:51, Link 71.192.119.246 | ||||||||||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||||||||||
To paraphrase Sherlock Holmes, once you have eliminated all the explanations you refuse to accept, the one that remains, however retarded, is the one which must be taught in public school science class. |
| Date: 2009/08/30 06:25:49, Link 71.192.119.246 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
The Darwinistas will never be able to prove it's not in Kenya. |
| Date: 2009/08/30 06:45:23, Link 71.192.119.246 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||
So if I learn a few Russian profanities, and go around swearing in Russian, the first Russian-speaking person who happens to understand what I'm saying is doing design detection? Really Barry? Really? This is the major new branch of science you claim to be founding? It's amazing these tards can remember to breathe in again after breathing out, let alone make a cogent scientific argument. |
| Date: 2009/09/02 16:38:12, Link 71.192.119.246 | ||||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||||
A lot of them don't even seem to have any google. |
| Date: 2009/09/10 07:51:52, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||
While the Pope is clearly Christian, I would argue that he's no true Scotsman. |
| Date: 2009/09/10 07:53:10, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
Obviously you do not realize that FL, and only FL, shall determine who is a Christian and who is not. What were you thinking? |
| Date: 2009/09/10 15:41:11, Link 71.192.119.246 |
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush |
| It's going to be AFDave Lite. At best. |
| Date: 2009/09/11 07:32:55, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||
And does the Pope wear underwear under his |
| Date: 2009/09/14 07:02:18, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
That's getting off easy. Everyone dies; FL's loving god would have you tortured infinitely, forever, for your crime of coming to your own conclusions about how the universe works. Don't blame FL though, he's been held captive by Jebus for so long that he's suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. |
| Date: 2009/09/16 10:42:42, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||||
Does she know how to post a link that doesn't direct to one of her many blags? |
| Date: 2009/09/17 03:54:55, Link 71.192.119.246 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||
Apparently they are well received by trendy gay men as well.* ____ *Not that there's anything wrong with that! |
| Date: 2009/09/17 07:44:49, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
It's occurred to me to start a thread about fundy humor, UD in particular, but I would have to find at least a few examples to start with. I find it's almost impossible to find any instances of IDCers even trying to be funny; they are virtually all humorless, self-important blowhards who can't generate or appreciate any humor more subtle or complex than a digitally recorded fart. The only humor they're capable of seems to be the unintentional kind, which ultimately manifests itself here, not on UD. |
| Date: 2009/09/17 09:06:08, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
Plus there seems to have been some hiccups in the implementation, as the US is rife with criminals and Australia seems to be getting highly competitive in the religious wackaloonery department. |
| Date: 2009/09/17 11:27:23, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
Non-involvement of supernatural causation isn't an entailment of evolutionary theory any more than it is an entailment of theories of meterology or chemistry. None of these theories include supernatural causation, because no evidence for such has been found, and because each discipline continues to advance and expand without it (and in the case of biology, repeatedly explaining many that-which-science-cannot-explain questions your intellectual predecessors used in their anti-evolution arguments). What you're arguing against is statements by individuals about what they think or believe--statements which I doubt you could find many examples of, had religious activists not spent the last 150 years insisting there must be supernatural involvement in biology (as they generally do not with the other disciplines), and accusing biologists of culpability for everything from bad breath to Hitler for their crime of following wherever the evidence leads. You may wish to believe evolution is wrong, or that it is partially correct but your god was involved at some point--go ahead; just admit you're doing so without the kind of evidence you require of any other branch of science. But either way there's nothing about the science of evolution that says a god couldn't have been involved, so you're really just arguing with the opinions of individuals, not the scientific framework of evolution. Once you come up with real, verifiable evidence of supernatural involvement, I promise you'll win a Nobel prize and your evidence will be integrated into the theory. Deal? |
| Date: 2009/09/17 14:03:22, Link 71.192.119.246 | ||||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||||
None of this refutes what I said. "Evolutionary theory does NOT admit conscious anticipation of the future, i.e. conscious forethought" because there is no evidence that it does, just as meterological theories don't admit conscious forethought due to the absence of evidence of that. Evolutionary theory doesn't deny the possibility that evidence of teleology could be presented, but you certainly haven't presented any. Like I said, present that evidence and it will be integrated into the theory. They'll have to change the name of the theory, and maybe it will be named after you, but it will be included. The fact that you can't supply any, and that you and your ilk spend all your time complaining about imaginary shortcomings of evolution and zero actually looking for evidence, speaks volumes. You would have your superstitions included in what we describe as "science" by fiat, but the fact is you have no real interest in science and would rather destroy knowledge than create it. |
| Date: 2009/09/17 14:56:29, Link 71.192.119.246 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
There are an endless number of things one could complain are not included in a given theory, but every single one of those is excluded not by dogma and orthodoxy but because of the lack of evidence for them. Provide the evidence for teleology, for ID, for whatever you can support with evidence and a falsifiable hyopthesis that withstands vigorous testing, and it will have to be included. You aren't even trying, and neither are any of your IDC betters. What's the hypothesis? You don't have one and I predict you never will. I think you can't accept this because you can only think in terms of dogma and orthodoxy (your obsession here with defining who is and is not a True Christian is exhibit #1), and so can only conceive of evolution in those terms. Your sad Jebus-vs-whatever culture war is the only thing you know, and the only thing you care about, when it comes to your thinking about science and evolution. |
| Date: 2009/09/18 15:20:46, Link 71.192.119.246 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
If this argument were correct, reality would be incompatible with Christianity. But FL's basic issue is that he thinks reality is wrong, and is annoyed that anyone is allowed to disagree with him. |
| Date: 2009/09/18 16:46:14, Link 71.192.119.246 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
Can you point me to where it started? I'm lost. |
| Date: 2009/09/18 16:51:27, Link 71.192.119.246 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||
Floyd's throwing down the gauntlet. He's 100% sure that you can't give an example of a Christian who accepts evolution, whom he cannot dismiss as being not-a-True FL-Approved Christian™* --- *All rights reserved, the Floyd Lee Boring Fundy Apologetics Co. Inc. |
| Date: 2009/09/18 18:06:16, Link 71.192.119.246 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||
Once again, Floyd is confident that there's no Christian he cannot dismiss from that faith if it suits him, since in his mind Christianity consists of exactly what he says it consists of, nothing more, nothing less, nothing else. He's challenging people to claim they're Christians, but he'll be the judge of that. |
| Date: 2009/09/19 15:13:45, Link 71.192.119.246 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||
They're looking at WEASEL in the only terms they know; to them it's our scripture and if it's lost, so are whatever fundamental truths it may have contained. Since they stake their entire worldview on an assumption of scriptural infallibility, they can only apprehend that establishing fallibility of WEASEL negates our god. They can't grok the fact that only the principle behind WEASEL matters, and that any of a million possible implementations of the concept would demonstrate the same thing about selection. To them everything either proves or disproves Jebus, and if it disproves Jebus it must be attacked and destroyed, facts and reason be damned. They don't understand why WEASEL is important, they don't understand that it's really not very important at all (it's really just a thought problem to help people understand one facet of evolution and you don't need to run or even write the program to understand what the algorithm does or does not do), and they don't understand that the idea either works or it doesn't, regardless of what idiot writes the code. They think that if we can't produce the sacred scrolls, they win, because blind faith to a book is the only thing they understand and the only thing they care about. |
| Date: 2009/09/24 04:02:27, Link 71.192.119.246 | ||||||||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||||||||
She probably recommended 999999% more Jebus, then filled the rest of her testimony with links to her blogs. |
| Date: 2009/10/01 11:12:08, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||||
Here. Unfortunately for FL, by FL's stated standards Augustine was not a "good YEC" at all. Since Augustine didn't believe exactly the same thing FL does (because Augustine said the world was created instantly, not in 6 days like the Bible says), Augustine wasn't a Christian at all. |
| Date: 2009/10/01 18:04:37, Link 71.192.119.246 |
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush |
| OK, Christianity is incompatible with evolution because Floyd is the Only True Christian and evolution is a theory scientists made up when they got together and voted to fabricate 150 years of scientific work that falsely showed God doesn't exist. Am I missing anything? |
| Date: 2009/10/02 09:15:07, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||
Why is it that the sum total of IDCers' interest in science manifests itself in strenuous attempts to throw doubt on the research and conclusions of science, and absolutely no interest is ever shown in performing any of their own research to support their own hypotheses (which as far as I've seen do not exist)? Rhetorical question. |
| Date: 2009/10/06 10:34:31, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||
It's pretty easy to "win" (in your own mind) the argument "evolution is incompatible with christianity" when you believe you are the only legitimate arbiter of what christianity is, and you're fully willing to lie about evolution consists of. |
| Date: 2009/10/06 15:59:57, Link 71.192.119.246 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||
Wow. These are the great minds who mean to overthrow science. The 'big tent' of IDC is so large that any argument that can be taken to somehow discredit evolution, however idiotic, irrelevant, or misinformed, is taken to be absolutely, utterly true. If a six-foot pile of elephant shit mixed with razor blades and rat poison was being attacked by all the armies of the world, some of these IDiots would defend it to the death, if only you scrawled "Darwin Sucks" on it. |
| Date: 2009/10/07 08:46:26, Link 65.166.248.38 | ||||||
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush | ||||||
That happens as soon as Floyd subjects the beliefs of anyone who honestly believes themself to be Christian, to his narrow fundie interpretations. Floyd has only two tactics in the "Christianity is incompatible with evolution" debate, both fundamentally dishonest: 1) He reserves the exclusive right to define one of the two relevant terms, Christianity. 2) He reserves the right to lie unashamedly about the definition of the other term, Evolution. There is no real debate here, Floyd's just wallowing in being a mental master |
| Date: 2009/10/09 18:10:17, Link 71.192.119.246 |
| Author: Occam's Toothbrush |
|
Day 27, FL's No-True-Scotsman definition of Christianity continues to be incompatible with his Strawman definition of Evolution. All fallacy, all the time, folks, step right up! Yawn. |
| Date: 2009/10/10 16:30:56, |
