Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Monday, September 21, 2009

The Gossip is in and it is never disappointing

Gossip factory AtBC (another tired baby crying) is still cranking out the gossip.

oldmanwithadickuphisass is gossiping about me.

The Rich Hughestard has joined in. Tards of a feather type of thing.

What the oldmanwithadickuphisass doesn't understand is that the computer code is not readable except with a computer.

The code is NOT the disc. The code is not reducible to the matter that makes up the disc.

Then a couple of comments down the oldmanwithadickuphisass gets on me for using his type of tactics against is type of ilk.

When people make bald assertions I respond accordingly.

And seeing that is all those mother-friggers have are bald assertions my responses of "Prove it" are right in line with their grade-school antics.

But anyway I am more than willing to take on any one of those fruitloops in a debate.

We can both put up some money and see who knows best.

NOTE to ErASSmus- this post is to expose your gossip.

You chumps are like a bunch of old ladies.

Thanks for the laughs...

44 Comments:

  • At 7:34 AM, Blogger Maya said…

    Tough talk, Joey. Come on over to AtBC and you'll have plenty of people willing to debate.

    Maya

     
  • At 7:40 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I see the type of "debate" that goes on over there.

    I am not going to go into a mob-mentality atmosphere.

    I am here Maya. Anyone can come here.

    However I will debate anyone in person, in a public forum, with credentialed judges who can decide who delivers and who doesn't.

    But anyway Maya I will definitely wipe you out in a debate.

     
  • At 7:40 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Maya Papaya has her? profile blocked.

    Why do all intellectual cowards do that?

     
  • At 7:58 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Could it be that Maya Papaya can't understand normal thinking?

    I say it is so...

     
  • At 9:35 AM, Blogger Maya said…

    The reason my profile is blocked, Joey dear, is that there are some disturbed people on the Internet. People who post violent fantasies about what they'd like to do to those who don't share their beliefs on pseudo-science blogs. People who threaten college professors when those professors mop the floor with them in an argument. In short, willfully ignorant people with poor self-control.

    People like you.

     
  • At 9:39 AM, Blogger Maya said…

    You might take a little heat at AtBC, but if you could actually support any of the ridiculous assertions you post on UD, you'd get many serious responses. You might even learn something (which, I suspect, is the real reason you don't want to go there).

    If AtBC isn't acceptable, I suggest the talk.origins newsgroup. No one is going to debate you here where you can moderate them out of existence. We've seen the echo chamber of UD, which is why there is a long running thread at AtBC dedicated to mocking it.

    It's too bad you lack the intellectual courage to defend your views in a forum where you can't run and hide.

     
  • At 9:43 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Yes Maya evolutionists are very disturbed.

    Two even sent emails to my former employer.

    PZ wants to breal out the steel-toed boots and baseball bats- that is violoence for ya.

    I just fight fire with fire.

    BTW I will defend my PoV.

    I will put up $10,000 against any one of you assholes- public forum- face to face.

    Then we will see who the real coward is.

     
  • At 10:02 AM, Blogger Maya said…

    Creationists, including the Intelligent Design variant, love verbal debates because they can pack the crowd with supporters bussed in from area churches, use the GIsh Gallop and other techniques to spew their lies faster than anyone could possibly refute them, and then claim victory.

    That's not how science works. If you really think you can defend Intelligent Design, let's see it in an open forum without the arbitrary constraints of a verbal debate. Let's see your evidence, theory, predictions, and tests written down and discussed. A peer reviewed journal would be best, but one of the online venues I mentioned above would be a good start.

    I say you've got nothing but bluster. Prove me wrong.

     
  • At 10:04 AM, Blogger Maya said…

    Please provide a cite to PZ making a credible threat.

    Then explain how that justifies your response to David Kellogg.

    You're just the kind of wannabe bully my brothers love to meet.

     
  • At 10:16 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Please provide a cite to PZ making a credible threat.

    PZ said to break out the brass knuckles, steel-toed boots, and baseball bats- then use them against people like me.

    Then explain how that justifies your response to David Kellogg.

    All responses to Kellogg were because of his bullshit.

    You're just the kind of wannabe bully my brothers love to meet.

    Evolutionists are the bullies. I am the one who can put a stop to that.

    For example if I ever meet PZ or Lenny Flank, I will have no problem with punching them right in the nose.

    And if they get up I will do it again.

     
  • At 10:19 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Maya,

    If you really hate ID then all YOU have to do is to actually support the claims of YOUR position!!!!

    That you cannot is one of the reasons ID persists.

    But it is obvious that all you can do is gossip.

    As for bluster please provide a testable hypothesis for your position based on the proposed mechanisms.

    Ya see you don't have any evidence nor tests.

     
  • At 10:27 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Joe can't go elsewhere. Like all Creationists, he needs a venue where he can turn off comments if things go bad for him. And they do, and he does.

     
  • At 10:55 AM, Blogger Maya said…

    In other words, you got nothin'.

    I knew that.

     
  • At 2:34 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Maya,

    Get meaner, angier, louder, fiercer:

    The only appropriate response should involve some form of righteous fury, much butt-kicking, and the public firing of some teachers, many school board members, and vast numbers of sleazy, far-right politicians … I say, screw the polite words and careful rhetoric. It's time for scientists to break out the steel-toed boots and brass knuckles, and get out there and hammer on the lunatics and idiots.- PZ Meyers

    I would love him to try that with me.

     
  • At 2:36 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Joe can't go elsewhere.

    And yet I do.

    Like all Creationists, he needs a venue where he can turn off comments if things go bad for him.

    1- By your "logic" Darwin was a Creationist

    2- I turn off comments because assholes like Richtard Hughes can't stay on topic and can never add anything to the discussion.

    As a matter of fact Richtard can only post bald assertions.

    Why is that?

     
  • At 3:03 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Maya,

    I found the source:

    PZ's rant:


    "I say, screw the polite words and careful rhetoric. It's time for scientists to break out the steel-toed boots and brass knuckles, and get out there and hammer on the lunatics and idiots. If you don't care enough for the truth to fight for it, then get out of the way."

    You see how easy it is to refute your nonsense?

    You can't understand normal thinking...

     
  • At 3:07 PM, Blogger Maya said…

    Like many other creationists, you seem to love a quote mine.

    If you look at the page you link to, you will see that PZ points out that the "quote" is actually a combination of two different statements he made. If you read each of those in context, you will see that he is speaking about rhetoric, not physical violence.

    I realize the idea is quite foreign to you, but most people don't think that punching people is an appropriate response to verbal disagreements. Your pre-pubescent posturing highlights the paucity of your arguments.

     
  • At 3:13 PM, Blogger Maya said…

    By the way, Joey dear, your pathetic attempt to avoid the burden of proof is noted and rejected. You claim to be able to support the concept of Intelligent Design. Let's see your evidence, a real hypothesis, and some testable predictions.

    Closing your eyes, plugging your ears, and singing "La la la!" off key at the top of your voice is not going to make the past 150 years of scientific discoveries go away. Claiming that there is no evidence for modern evolutionary theory shows that you are either profoundly ignorant or lying.

    More importantly, even if there were no evidence, that would provide not one scintilla of support for intelligent design creationism.

    Now, you can either huddle here and on UD, spewing more bogus claims, unfounded assertions, and empty threats, or you can present your arguments in an open forum and defend them as best you can. You'll still be a willfully ignorant, not terribly bright, undereducated loud mouth, but you won't be quite such a bitch.

     
  • At 3:20 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    There is no quote mine.

    PZ incites violence against people like me.

    That you are to fucked up to understand that doesn't mean anything to me.

     
  • At 3:28 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    There is no quote mine

    This is a LIE, as Maya points out.

    If it isn't, link to the original.

     
  • At 3:32 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    By the way, Joey dear, your pathetic attempt to avoid the burden of proof is noted and rejected. You claim to be able to support the concept of Intelligent Design. Let's see your evidence, a real hypothesis, and some testable predictions.

    Supporting Intelligent Design

    Closing your eyes, plugging your ears, and singing "La la la!" off key at the top of your voice is not going to make the past 150 years of scientific discoveries go away. Claiming that there is no evidence for modern evolutionary theory shows that you are either profoundly ignorant or lying.

    Perhaps you should pull your head out of your ass BEFORE posting.

    What I have said is there isn't any genetic data which links to the transformations required.

    And there isn't any evidence we are the result of an accumulation of genetic accidents.

    In fact I have made it more than clear that I argue against the blind watchmaker-type processes having sole dominion of evolutionary processes.

    I have provided some possible mechanisms in which organisms could have been designed to evolve.

    And again I will put up $10,000 one on one- each has to defend their position. And if possible show flaws in the opponents position.

    I have also noticed you couldn't provide a testable hypothesis based on the proposed mecahnsisms- IOW you can't support shit- no one has shown any indication they can, so why should I bother goinmg to a mob-mentality forum?

    One on one is better.

     
  • At 3:36 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I linked to the original you freak.

    Here it is AGAIN:

    PZ's rant

    But thanks for continuing to prove you are an ignorant fuck

     
  • At 4:46 PM, Blogger Maya said…

    How cute. More ID Creationist tripe demonstrating that you don't have the first clue about the scientific method and falsifiability. Oh, and you seem to think that "complex specified information" is something other than Dembski's goobledegook.

    Bring that stuff to AtBC or talk.orgins and we'll have some fun. I'm not wasting time refuting your silliness here where you can delete or change what I write.

    Come out and talk with the grownups or hide here and at UD like the coward you are. The choice is yours.

     
  • At 5:05 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    More ID Creationist tripe demonstrating that you don't have the first clue about the scientific method and falsifiability.

    Was that supposed to refute what I posted?


    BWAAAAAHAAAAHAAAAAA

    I know more about science than you do.

    Why is it you can't post a testable hypothesis?

    Did you also realize tat "ID Creationist" exists in tghe minds of the willfully ignorant assholes?

    IOW you prove that AtBC is nothing but ignorant gossip.

    BTW when I find grownups I will talk with them.

    You and your ilk are no where near the "grownup" phase of life.

    Maya you can't understand normal thinking.

    BTW how am I "hiding" here?

    I am here and obviously you found me.

    Again I will put up $10,000...

     
  • At 5:08 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    BTW I posted on AtBC and it went as predicted.

    The regulars over there are nothing but a bunch of monkees who couldn't support their position if their lives depended on it.

    You and Richtard are perfect examples of the assholes who think arguing from ignorance is meaningful discourse.

     
  • At 5:22 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    BTW Maya, if you can't post a testable hypothesis for your position here, why should I think you will post one on some other forum?

    Ya see there isn't any reason to go to those other forums.

    I am sure if something comes up that allegedly supports your claptrap I will hear about it.

     
  • At 5:25 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Joe, the link you post to is PZ commenting on someone else who quotes a third person who Frankensteined two quotes together without context. Bravo.

     
  • At 6:01 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Richtard, what is wrong with you?

    I posted TWO links.

    One that did what you said and the other which was the ORIGINAL SOURCE OF THE QUOTE.

    Here is the second link for the third time:

    http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/perspective/

    That is the ORIGINAL in CONTEXT.

    But thanks for continuing to prove that you are an asshole.

     
  • At 6:04 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Ah, there is no quote mine? Even though the actual quote mine was pointed out to you? Really. And your reasoning is because you think you know what he was saying?

    Wow. That's awesome. Especially from someone who makes wild statements and then when people try to figure out what he said always comes up with a variant of:

    "You assholes can't tell what I'm thinking..."

    Super, Joe. Should we ask to see your bank statement so we know you have $10,000 to put up? IDiots, as has been proven earlier, can't even be counted on to come up with the cost of decent bottle of scotch whisky.

     
  • At 6:46 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Another asshole chimes in.

    How nice.

    I PROVIDED THE ORIGINAL SOURCE.

    WHAT PART OF THAT DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?

    I PROVIDED IT BEFORE ANY CHARGE OF QUOTE-MINING.

    Why do you continue to think your ignorance is meaningful discourse?

    You want to see my bank statement?

    I will gladly show it to you.

    Just let me know when you are in the area and I will meet you at your hotel or where-ever you are performing or a nearby pub.

     
  • At 6:51 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Frankenstein:

    The only appropriate response should involve some form of righteous fury, much butt-kicking, and the public firing of some teachers, many school board members, and vast numbers of sleazy, far-right politicians … I say, screw the polite words and careful rhetoric. It's time for scientists to break out the steel-toed boots and brass knuckles, and get out there and hammer on the lunatics and idiots.- PZ Myers

    BTW does PZ say it is out of context?

    I then followed that with the ORIGINAL:

    "I say, screw the polite words and careful rhetoric. It's time for scientists to break out the steel-toed boots and brass knuckles, and get out there and hammer on the lunatics and idiots. If you don't care enough for the truth to fight for it, then get out of the way." PZ Myers

    I provided links to both.

    You don't do that if you are quote-mining.

     
  • At 10:31 PM, Blogger TFT said…

    You seem very angry, Joe. You use such harsh and impolite language. I am concerned that you will remain angry forever.

    It seems like you enjoy being antisocial. No, actually you seem miserable and angry, causing you to appear antisocial. Which is it? I am just curious.

    I know you claim you are not religious, but ID is merely creation science--there is no other basis for it. So when I accuse you of being religious it is because of your argument about creation that comes from religion. How else to interpret it?

    Not that you will take my advice, but here is an idea: stop calling people names, stop moderating your comments and maybe you will get a better discussion out of this blog.

    However, your position, being as strained and unsupportable as it is will probably mean that your visitors will continue to tell you you are wrong, but following my 2 suggestions, they may be nicer about it.

    Of course, I doubt it.

    Peace, Joe.

    --TFT

     
  • At 1:24 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    why don't you just email it to me, Joe? you can cross out the account number, but leave the routing number please.

     
  • At 7:15 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    why don't you just email it to me, Joe?

    Because you are a low-life asshole.

    Are you the person I am debating against?

    If not there isn't any reason for you to see it.

     
  • At 7:27 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You seem very angry, Joe.

    That expains my laughter.

    You use such harsh and impolite language.

    No I don't.

    I always use the appropriate lanuage for the people I am engaged with.

    I am concerned that you will remain angry forever.

    Thanks but you have many issues you need to take care of.

    It seems like you enjoy being antisocial.

    That's only because you don't know me.

    As a matter of fact you don't seem to know very much about anything.

    I know you claim you are not religious, but ID is merely creation science--there is no other basis for it.

    So ignorance and lies are all YOU have also.

    Why is it then that Creationists know the difference between their position and ID?

    Why is it that the ONLY people who try to conflate the two are always the same people who know the least about each?

    And why is it that the president of the Institute of Creation Research (John Morris) said:

    >"The differences between Biblical creationism and the IDM should become clear. As an unashamedly Christian/creationist organization, ICR is concerned with the reputation of our God and desires to point all men back to Him. We are not in this work merely to do good science, although this is of great importance to us. We care that students and society are brainwashed away from a relationship with their Creator/Savior. While all creationists necessarily believe in intelligent design, not all ID proponents believe in God. ID is strictly a non-Christian movement, and while ICR values and supports their work, we cannot join them."

    So when I accuse you of being religious it is because of your argument about creation that comes from religion.

    My arguements for design come from observation, experience and testing.

    Nothing in ID comes from religious texts.

    Not that you will take my advice, but here is an idea: stop calling people names, stop moderating your comments and maybe you will get a better discussion out of this blog.

    I call them as I see them and moderation is required because I deal with assholes- like you- on a daily basis.

    That is not name-calling that is an observation- one based on a wwealth of evidence.

    However, your position, being as strained and unsupportable as it is will probably mean that your visitors will continue to tell you you are wrong, but following my 2 suggestions, they may be nicer about it.

    I have supported my position, as have many other people- as a matter of fact Anthony Flew, once a very prominent atheist, now accepts ID based on the DATA.

    But anyway people can tell me that I am wrong all day. Until they support what they are saying it is meaningless.

    I take it that is why you are so frustrated- you cannot refute what I say and you sure as hell can't support your position.

     
  • At 7:30 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Proof Richtard Hughes is a tard:

    Joe, the link you post to is PZ commenting on someone else who quotes a third person

    Actually Richtard the first quote (the spliced together quote) was from PZ.

    PZ even admitted it at the link I provided.

    Ya see PZ thought it was funny that someone used his quotes to try toi get a response and yet no one responded.

    IOW Richtard, you are a tard through-n-through.

     
  • At 9:50 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Does 10,000 dollars make your argument more or less correct? Could you work an EXAMPLE that shows this?

     
  • At 10:19 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Does your being an asshole make your position more or less correct?

    Does your being an asshole make my position more or less correct?

    Or are you just an asshole because you don't have any other options?

    And why do you think your ignorance is meaningful discourse?

     
  • At 12:47 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    I was wondering why you think that $10,000 makes your argument better.

    Do you have a pending book deal?

     
  • At 1:21 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I was wondering why you think that $10,000 makes your argument better.

    Stop wondering because that isn't what I think.

    What the 10K shows is that far from hiding I am willing to ante-up.

     
  • At 1:31 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    No, actually putting up the $10,000 would show that you may possibly be a stand-up guy. Merely saying that you are going to put up $10,000 by typing it on your blog means absolutely nothing.

    Much like Dumbski saying that'd he'd send a bottle of single malt scotch to opponents and never actually doing so....

     
  • At 1:48 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Funny everything you post means absolutely nuthin'.

    And an asshole like you trying to slam someone else is hilarious.

     
  • At 11:19 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "...third person who Frankensteined two quotes together without context." The bit of my quote you omitted, Joe. Quote mining, you IDists just can't help yourself, can you?

     
  • At 11:28 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Richtard,

    I provided the ORIGINAL IN CONTEXT quote.

    Did PZ say that the spliced quote was out of context? No.

    But anyway Richtard- YOU said:

    Joe, the link you post to is PZ commenting on someone else who quotes a third person who Frankensteined two quotes together without context.

    PZ Myers is commenting on someone quoting PZ Myers.

    And there wasn't anything taken out of context.

    I have explained all of that already.

    So why do you think your tard is meaningful discourse?

    You evotards just can't help yourself, can you?

     

Post a Comment

<< Home