RichTard Hughes- Proving He has Absolutely No Clue
-
In the thread "Nostril Moving Gene" David Kellogg tried to accuse me of instigating name-calling, to which I responded that I don't in 99.9% of my opponents.
So what does RichTard Hughes chime in with?
The ignorance of this fuck is astounding! Look at what I was responding to (note the person also):
Thorton, who can only attack, insult and instigate!
But anyway, thanks RichTard/ bathroom stall boy- thanks for proving that you are a totally clueless loser and pathological liar.
In the thread "Nostril Moving Gene" David Kellogg tried to accuse me of instigating name-calling, to which I responded that I don't in 99.9% of my opponents.
So what does RichTard Hughes chime in with?
Here's case of Islamic creationoist Joe/ Jim ? John instigating:
"That tells me that you are a fucking ignorant blow-hole."
1/1000 is teh wrong number, so Joe / Jim / John is lying (again)
The ignorance of this fuck is astounding! Look at what I was responding to (note the person also):
Thorton:
LOL! Getting desperate now JoeTard, are we?
Posting a speculative article from a wingnut Panspermia pusher. Yep, ID is all about the science, all the time.
Thorton, who can only attack, insult and instigate!
But anyway, thanks RichTard/ bathroom stall boy- thanks for proving that you are a totally clueless loser and pathological liar.
posted by Joe G @ 7:17 AM
32 Comments:
At 9:39 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
Okay - what about "MathGrrl is sadly pathetic.", Joe / Jim / John the creationist Muslim?
At 10:22 AM,
Joe G said…
What about it RichTard/ bathroom stall boy/ needledick bugfucker/ and pathological liar?
Keep grasping, you may find one, but in the process you will uncover the other 999.
Yeah baby...
At 10:24 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
I've found one in one of your recent posts. It wasn't hard. Methinks you doth protest too much. Infact " RichTard/ bathroom stall boy/ needledick bugfucker/ and pathological liar?" is another example.
At 11:01 AM,
Ghostrider said…
In the thread "Nostril Moving Gene" David Kellogg tried to accuse me of instigating name-calling, to which I responded that I don't in 99.9% of my opponents.
So what does RichTard Hughes chime in with?
LOL! Joe, you couldn't make yourself look any dumber or more hypocritical if you tried.
At 11:06 AM,
Joe G said…
RichTard:
I've found one in one of your recent posts.
You only think you did. I notice you failed to make your case.
RichTard:
Infact " RichTard/ bathroom stall boy/ needledick bugfucker/ and pathological liar?" is another example.
Wrong again, as usual.
Not only that, you have serious reading comprehension issues
At 11:08 AM,
Joe G said…
tardtard:
LOL! Joe, you couldn't make yourself look any dumber or more hypocritical if you tried.
Why do evotards think their blustering assertions are all that is required?
At 11:37 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
"Wrong again, as usual."
Really, how so? That isn't ad hominem?
At 11:44 AM,
Joe G said…
"Wrong again, as usual."
RichTard:
Really, how so?
History- as in you are not someone new coming here and commenting for the first time.
IOW as I said you have serious reading comprehension issues.
At 11:47 AM,
Joe G said…
I am not an expert and I don't initiate, well 99.9% of the time I don't- so maybe once out of every thousand opponents I may.
OPPONENTS- the (history) slate doesn't get wiped clean just because this is a new day or a new post.
At 11:50 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
"OPPONENTS- the (history) slate doesn't get wiped clean just because this is a new day or a new post."
Your 'history' is entirely fictitious, arbitrary and unsupported.
At 11:51 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
"History- as in you are not someone new coming here and commenting for the first time."
make up your own definitions much?
At 11:53 AM,
Joe G said…
RichTard:
Your 'history' is entirely fictitious, arbitrary and unsupported.
Sed the known pathological liar and intellectual coward.
At 11:55 AM,
Joe G said…
"History- as in you are not someone new coming here and commenting for the first time."
RichTard:
make up your own definitions much?
You have no idea what you are talking about. I didn't make up any definition. It is a fact that we have a history meaning this is not the first time you have responded to me.
Context is another word RichTard is ignorant of....
At 11:59 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
"Sed the known pathological liar and intellectual coward."
Again - ad hominem, with no support. becoming a theme for you, isn't it Joe / Jim / John (the creationist Muslim)?
At 12:07 PM,
Joe G said…
It is supported by your posts!
The evidence is in the OP of this thread.
Heck you have admitted to lying about things I have said.
You just can't help yourself.
At 12:13 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"Heck you have admitted to lying about things I have said."
Link?
And please, only one of us has (at least) 3 personas, purports to be available at a parking lot and is a Muslim creationist. That's you, if you're having trouble guessing.
At 12:18 PM,
Joe G said…
"Heck you have admitted to lying about things I have said."
RichTard:
Link?
RichTard Hughes- Another Day, Another Lie
RichTard:
And please, only one of us has (at least) 3 personas, purports to be available at a parking lot and is a Muslim creationist.
That must be you.
At 12:21 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
What a great link. Your anability to give answers to 'can mutations be beneficial / create information' was still funny today.
Is a retracted accusation a lie? Really?
And your history clearly and unequically shows that "only one of us has (at least) 3 personas, purports to be available at a parking lot and is a Muslim creationist. That's you, if you're having trouble guessing."
At 12:25 PM,
Joe G said…
Yeah, it was a great link as it proved you are an admitted liar.
Your anability to give answers to 'can mutations be beneficial
I answered that.
create information'
Pretty sure I covered that also.
Is a retracted accusation a lie?
You lied, got caught and then apologized.
And your history clearly and unequically shows that "only one of us has (at least) 3 personas
Perhaps in your twisted little bitty mind, but you still doin't have anything beyond your say-so.
And your say-so is meaningless.
At 12:29 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"I answered that."
I must have missed that.
Yes or no, then?
The fact that you are Jim , John and Joe is easily supported. When cornered you retract to pretending it was a ruse all along, much like your fictitious parking lot address. One wonders if any of your world is in fact real.
At 12:42 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"create information"
So Blind, undirected processes can create iformation? Just so we're all clear.
At 12:44 PM,
Joe G said…
So Blind, undirected processes can create iformation?
Not complex specified information.
No evidence for such a thing- as I said.
At 12:47 PM,
Joe G said…
"I answered that."
I must have missed that.
That is your problem.
Yes or no, then?
Yes, it all depends. They can be beneficial, they can be neutral or the can be detrimental- it all depends on the scenario.
Most "beneficial" mutations seem to be a loss of function mutations.
The fact that you are Jim , John and Joe is easily supported.
I am sure that you think so.
When cornered you retract to pretending it was a ruse all along
and another lie.
At 12:48 PM,
Joe G said…
So once again RichTard gets handed his ass and is forced to take the thread off-topic.
At 2:45 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Not complex specified information.
Why not? If they added 1 bit to 499 bits of SI, they'd create CSI. Not too hard, right?
"Most "beneficial" mutations seem to be a loss of function mutations."
Citation, please.
"and another lie."
Demonstrably not. Would you like me to link to your bitchslapping, Joe / Jim / John the creationist Muslim?
At 2:53 PM,
Joe G said…
Not complex specified information.
Why not?
No evidence.
If they added 1 bit to 499 bits of SI, they'd create CSI.
They? Where did they get the 499 bits of SI from?
"Most "beneficial" mutations seem to be a loss of function mutations."
Citation, please.
Michael J. Behe, "Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations and 'The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution'," Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4) (December, 2010)
Then there are Lenski and all the anti-biotic resistance experimnts.
When cornered you retract to pretending it was a ruse all along
and another lie
Demonstrably not.
I would love to see the evidence that I said I was all of those personas- ie that I retracted to pretending all those personas were mine, and that I was cornered into doing so.
But anyway get back on-topic or stay away...
At 4:32 PM,
Hermagoras said…
I did not "try to accuse [you] of name-calling." In fact, I defended your potential for civility in my first comment. I pointed out your characteristic incivility later. Turns out that you have not lived up to any hopes that my initial comment in your favor suggested. Ah well.
At 5:36 PM,
Joe G said…
I did not "try to accuse [you] of name-calling."
Correct- you didn't try, you did accuse me of it.
And I thought that was strange given your history of blatantly misrepresenting ID.
IOW people like you invite incivility. So go fucking pound sand.
Just who the fuck do you think you are?
At 12:00 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
DONT METION MY DAD!
At 12:03 PM,
Joe G said…
OK, I WON'T. BUT YOU BETTER TELL TARDTARD...
At 1:32 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Your ability to make a luaghingstock of yourself is fantastic. Keep up the good work.
At 1:39 PM,
Joe G said…
As the title of this thread says:
RichTard Hughes- Proving He has Absolutely No Clue
Consider the source of the laughter RichTard-> drooling, moronic, evotards. It's as if you and your ilk are on a permanent acid trip.
Yeah baby...
Post a Comment
<< Home