Building on Previous Lies and Stawmen

-
This is in response to Kevin the coward McCarthy, aka ogre mkv's bullshit lying spewage.

All in one post Kevin uses equivocation, misrepresentation and lies- and absolutely no evidence just pure bluff.

1- Darwin's strawman

2- Intelligent Design is NOT anti-evolution and baraminology, the Creation model of biological evolution, is OK with natural selection, ie evolution. They just understand its observed limits.

3- There isn't any peer-reviwed articles that demonstrate a prokaryote can evolve into something other than a prokaryote. Endosymbiosis for the origin of mitochondria is hypothetical only.

4- Kevin is in denial, ie he lies to himself, by saying that the theory of evolution is NOT the blind watchmaker thesis AND that ID is anti-evolution. Yet the ONLY way ID could be anti-evolution is if the theory of evolution were the blind watchmaker thesis!

5- Kevin cannot produce ONE peer-reviewed paper that demonstrates blind and undirected processes can construct new, useful multi-protein configurations requiring more than two new protein-to-protein binding sites.

6- Kevin finishes off his garbage by misrepresenting Dr Wells, who set out to destroy Darwinism, not evolution. Evolution can be true with Darwinism being false.

So to recap, Kevin is spewing from his ass, as usual.

Thumbs high, little guy...

Ground Control to Toronto

-
More clueless evoTARDs. This time we have Toronto who wanted to know if the designer had the ability to design. I told him we know the capabilites of the designers we didn't directly observe by what they left behind.

For example we know someone had the ability to build Stonehenge because we have Stonehenge. If we didn't have Stonehenge then no one could say whether or not humans from 4,000 years ago could build such a structure. And if we didn't have the Antikythera mechanism we couldn't say that someone from 2,000+ years ago had the ability to make one.

We find out about the designers we cannot/ did not observe by studying what they left behind. That is how it is done in science, Toronto. Just because you are clueless wrt everything doesn't mean it's all wrong.

How NOT to Refute the Law of Conservation of Information, by R0b

-
It appears simple reasoning skills are beyond the capabilities of evoTARDs. Case in point a poster named R0b (R0bb). R0b's blunder

In thinking of a counterexample to the LCI, we should remember that this two-level search hierarchy is nothing more than a chain of two random variables. (Dembski’s search hierarchy is like a Markov chain, except that each transition is from one state space to another, rather than within the same state space.) One of the simplest examples of a chain of random variables is a one-dimensional random walk. Think of a system that periodically changes state, with each state transition represented by a shift to the left or to the right on an state diagram. If we know at a certain point in time that it is in one of, say, three states, namely n-1 or n or n+1, then after the next transition it will be in n-2, n-1, n, n+1, or n+2, as in the following diagram:

Follow the link for the diagram

Assume that the system is always equally likely to shift left as to shift right, and let the “target” be defined as the center node n. If the state at time t is, say, n-1, then the probability of success q is 1/2. Of the three original states, two (namely n-1 and n+1) yield this probability of success, so p1 is 2/3. Finally, p2 is 1/5 since the target consists of only one of the final five states. The LCI says that p1 ≤ p2/q. Plugging in our numbers for this example, we get 2/3 ≤ (1/5)/(1/2), which is clearly false.

R0b, at any given point in time there will only be 2 final states (given the intial postion and two possible moves), not 5. Ya see even though we can see there COULD be 5 different final states. However the thing can only "see" two from its position.

So yes, if one totally fucks up the scenrio then LCI falls. However in reality it is safe, just not safe from you. ;)

dr who's Abductive "Reasoning"

-
Just when you thought evoTARDS couldn't be any dumber, I give you dr who, again:

Let’s do abductive reasoning.

Life is a chemical phenomenon.

Nope that is a faulty starting premise as there isn't any evidence tat life is only a chemical phenomenon. If you had that evidence then ID would be a non-starter, dumbass.

And BTW dr dumbass, Christians are OK with humans authoring, ie being the writer of, the Bible. IOW you are just a dumbass to your rotten little core.

Congratulations....

dr dumbass responds:

I’ll take that to mean that Joe suspects that my reasoning to the best explanation would be correct on condition that there’s nothing other than chemicals in the basic physical composition of life. Otherwise, he’d have thought of a better objection.

I don't need a better objection because that one alone shoots down your "reasoning".

The evidence, Joe, is that’s all we observe when we actually physically examine life.

Maybe that is all you and your materialist minions observe but tayht doesn't mean anything.

Ya see, moron, the translation of nucleotides into proteins is not a chemical reaction and cannot be described by chemical reactions. You are either dishonest, a known, or ignorant, also known.

Being a chemical phenomenon doesn’t mean that it can’t have emergent properties, which it certainly does have.

When you have a method to test your claim please let us know. Unil then it is obvious that you are full of shit.

And to finish off hos stupidity we get:

As for the Christians, I’m glad to hear it, and delighted that they’ve all appointed Joe as their spokesperson.

No one appointed me as any spokeman. However anyone can look it up to see that they think Moses was the author of the first books.

Joe Felsenstein, STILL Choking on and Lying About CSI

-
Earth to Joe Felsenstein- shut up.

In my earlier post (linked in the preceding comment) I showed a simple numerical example of the accumulation of 100 bits of CSI.

CSI = 500 bits of SI BY DEFINITION.

KF misunderstands Dembski’s argument. It is not about islands of function, and it is intended to apply to evolution after the Origin Of Life.

Chapter 3 of "No Free Lunch" make it clear that CSI pertains to origins. Elizabeth Liddle agrees:

I’m sure CSI pertains to origins.

Someone needs to get their story straight. And given that Joe F didn't even know that CSI = 500 bits of SI I know who I am going with.

So what does Joe do? Finish with a flourish of unwarranted authority:

Sorry, Dembski is not talking only about prebiotic evolution, he means his argument to apply to evolution after the OOL. I can only suppose that KF feels Dembski’s argument does not apply for evolution after the OOL. (Would that mean that KF thinks that more than 500 bits of CSI could get into the genome after the OOL?) I have read Dembski very carefully and it is quite clear that he does not restrict his theorem to the OOL.

So what happened with the 500 bit part? Did the jelly fall out of your doughnuts and mess up those pages?

Dembski restricts his theorem to blind and undirected processes. And if you start with the very CSI that needs explaining, to do the explaining, then you are fucking retarded. And if you grant that the intitial CSI was designed then good luck demonstrating any subsequent evolution was via blind and undirected processes.

Patrick may, aka MathGrrl, Just Another Clueless Lying EvoTARD

-
Yup the cowardly Patrick may is still at it..

Hey Patrick- if YOU want to win you have to come up with a testable hypothesis along with supporting evidence for your position. To date no one has so you would be the first.

The fact is that there is no scientific theory, or even hypothesis, of intelligent design. It explains no observations and makes no predictions.

Yes, your projection is duly noted. However I and other IDists have psoted testable hypotheses wrt ID as well as predictions it makes. Just because you can either ignore thejm or hand-wave them away doesn't mean they don't exist.

There is no reasonable doubt after this many years that ID is anything other than a fundamentalist Christian political movement.

Really? Other who know better say otherwise:

John Morris, the president of the Institute for Creation Research:

"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."

Hmmm...

Patrick is such a dickless coward. He doesn't understand science and he can't support his position, but he sure as hell can lie about his oponents and their claims.

Bill Nye, Science BlowTARD

-
Bill Nye has, once again, exposed his ignorance wrt Creationists and evolution. He is just another dolt who bought Darwin's strawmen and he is going to stick with them no matter what the evidence-> pathetic.

And no, Bill, engineers do not need nor use the theory of evolution. Mathematicians do not need nor use the tehory of evolution. Not even medical doctors need nor use the theory of evolution.

IOW Bill, you should stick to explaining simple experiemnts to kids as that is about all you do know.

Saving Social Security

-
Saving social security is a hot topic these days- that and global warming, LoL! But anyway WHY does social security need to be saved? No, I am not talking about because it helps retirees- I am talking about what happened to all the money that has been collected.

The money that has been paid into social security has been replaced with IOUs. Congress has borrowed it to fund projects not related to SS. When it should have been finding ways to invest the money wisely, it borrowed it and didn't pay it back.

So all we need is the voting record for congress so we can find out who didit and make them pay it back. Garnish wages and THEIR SS benefits. If they are dead take everything non-living that they left.

Or does someone have a better idea?

Alan Fox- Another EvoTARD Ignorant of Pornography

-
Yes Alan Fox is a putz, a liar and a loser. Now he is adding whiny bitch and ignorant asshole to that list- Observe:

I am sorry it wasn’t as obvious to Kairosfocus as it was to others that my invitation to post here contained a light-hearted reference to the only (as far as I am aware) IP ban ever meted out at The Skeptical Zone, received by Joe Gallien in response to his linking a graphically pornographic image here.

Again if what I linked to is pornography (it doesn't fit the definition) then so is what Lizzie posted in plain view. Also if it wasn't that then it would have been something else. Ya see, Alan, the moderation policy over there is one-sided and the moderator(s) appear to ignorant asswipe(s).

I hope that clears up any misunderstanding and if Kairosfocus changes his mind about commenting here, I am sure he will find the moderation rules will be adhered to fairly.

One thing is obvious Alan, not one of you will ever support your position beyond providing bald assertions. So why the fuck would any opponent post there? There is nothing to be gained from having a discussion with you and your ilk-> just fustration and a very empty feeling as there is no hope with materialists running science.

Has Natural Selection Been Refuted? The Spewage of Joe Felsenstein

-
Joe Felsenstein seems to think his raw spewage about natural selection and CSI means something.

I encourage people to read it and see if they see any evidence that natural selection can create CSI. What Joe does is totally mess up the concept of CSI.

Joe sez:

Generating specified information
Evolution does not happen by deterministic or random change in a single DNA sequence, but in a population of individuals, with natural selection choosing among them. The frequencies of different alleles change. Considering natural selection in a population, we can clearly see that a law of conservation of specified information, or even a law of conservation of information, does not apply there.

Joe, if you have populations then you are starting with the very thing that needs explaining in the first place. As I said, you are clueless.

But anyway the article is a joke and does not demonstrate that natural selection can produce anything, let alone CSI.

Science, Quantification and Evolutionism

-
Yup those dang evoTARDs are at it again. Neil Rickert has a post on the septic zome Science and Quantification in which he moans about CSI.

Earth to Neil- your position, evolutionism, cannot be quantified. There isn't anything that is defined precisely enough to allow for forming a testable hypothesis.

Why is it that you morons don't discuss that? Never mind, the answer is there-> you are morons.

As predicted RichTARD sez something about "Darwins" (the unit)- OK Richie- how many Darwins does it take to get an upright biped from a knuckle-walker or quadraped? The point is Richie doesn't have a clue- no one does- Haldanes and Darwins are useless when discussing such alleged evolutionary transformations.

He also links to this- http://phys.org/news181467990.html- but that doesn't have anything to do with measuring the differnce between two members of the same clade.

Totally clueless, cowardly equivocators...

I blogged about the darwin over two years ago:

Evolutionary Unit of Measure- the Darwin


Evolutionists love to nag IDists about the alleged lack of rigor pertaining to ID's measuring sticks- specifically complex specified information and irreducible complexity.

So when I recently asked about measuring evolution, Dave the Thought Provoker dredged up the Darwin:

One Darwin is defined to be an e-fold (about 2.718) change in a trait over one million years.

Rate of evolution

Haldane's paper in which he coined the term.


Unfortunately the differences in the traits that can be measured in this manner can be accounted for by epigenetic factors.

But anyway we also have "the haldane", Philip Gingerich talks about both - Research on Rates of Evolution

One problem is neither deal with genetics, as in how many mutations does it take.

Does anyone think these units of measure are of any use?

If so please explain.

And ANOTHER prediction fulfilled RichTARD the coward spews another false accusation- why is it that cowards just blurt shit without ever supporting it? You are a pathetic little imp Richie

Joe Felsenstein- Ignorant of Science

-
Joe sez:

In my view that’s the problem with the Design Inference that uses CSI. The problem is not in the definition of CSI, it’s in the assertion that it could not have arisen by natural selection.

Umm earth to Joe- evidence, you need some evidence that natural selection can produce CSI. And as of today you don't have any. However if you ever demonstrate natural selection can produce CSI then you will falsify a major tenet of Intelligent Design and ID would fall.

IOW Joe, it ain't an assertion that ns can't produce CSI. That inference is based on all of our knowledge of natural selection.

Measuring Information- Revisited

-

The causal tie between an artifact and its intended character — or, strictly speaking, between an artifact and its author’s productive intention — is constituted by an author’s actions, that is, by his work on the object.- Artifact

When discussing information some people want to know how much information does something contain?

If it is something straight-forward such as a definition, we can count the number of bits in that definition to find out how much information it contains.

For example:

aardvark: a large burrowing nocturnal mammal (Orycteropus afer) of sub-Saharan Africa that has a long snout, extensible tongue, powerful claws, large ears, and heavy tail and feeds especially on termites and ants

A simple character count reveals 202 characters which translates into 1010 bits of information/ specified complexity.

Now what do we do when all we have is an object?

One way of figuring out how much information it contains is to figure out how (the simplest way) to make it.

Then you write down the procedure without wasting words/ characters and count those bits. The point is that you have to capture the actions required and translate that into bits. That is if you want to use CSI. However by doing all of that you have already determined the thing was designed Now you are just trying to determine how much work was involved.

But anyway, that will give you an idea of the minimal information it contains- Data collection and compression (six sigma DMAIC- define, measure, analyze, improve, control).

CSI is a threshold, meaning you don't need an exact number. And it is a threshold that nature, operating freely has never been observed to come close to. Once CSI = yes you know it was designed.


On Shannon Information and measuring biological information:

The word information in this theory is used in a special mathematical sense that must not be confused with its ordinary usage. In particular, information must not be confused with meaning.- Warren Weaver, one of Shannon's collaborators

Is what Weaver said so difficult to understand?

Kolmogorov complexity deals with, well, complexity. From wikipedia:

Algorithmic information theory principally studies complexity measures on strings (or other data structures).

Nothing about meaning, content, functionality, prescription. IOW nothing that Information Technology cares deeply about, namely functional, meaningful, and useful information. Not only Information Technology but the whole world depends on Information Technology type of information, ie the type of information Intelligent Design is concerned with.

And both Creationists and IDists make it clear, painfully clear, that when we are discussing "information" we are discussing that type of information.

And without even blinking an eye, the anti-IDists always, and without fail, bring up the meaningless when trying to refute the meaningful. “Look there is nature producing Shannon Information, you lose!”- ho-hum.

Moving on-

Biological specification always refers to function. An organism is a functional system comprising many functional subsystems. In virtue of their function, these systems embody patterns that are objectively given and can be identified independently of the systems that embody them. Hence these systems are specified in the same sense required by the complexity-specification criterion (see sections 1.3 and 2.5). The specification of organisms can be crashed out in any number of ways. Arno Wouters cashes it out globally in terms of the viability of whole organisms. Michael Behe cashes it out in terms of minimal function of biochemical systems.- Wm. Dembski page 148 of NFL

In the preceding and proceeding paragraphs William Dembski makes it clear that biological specification is CSI- complex specified information.

In the paper "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories", Stephen C. Meyer wrote:

Dembski (2002) has used the term “complex specified information” (CSI) as a synonym for “specified complexity” to help distinguish functional biological information from mere Shannon information--that is, specified complexity from mere complexity. This review will use this term as well.

In order to be a candidate for natural selection a system must have minimal function: the ability to accomplish a task in physically realistic circumstances.- M. Behe page 45 of “Darwin’s Black Box”

With that said, to measure biological information, ie biological specification, all you have to do is count the coding nucleotides of the genes involved for that functioning system, then multiply by 2 (four possible nucleotides = 2^2) and then factor in the variation tolerance:

from Kirk K. Durston, David K. Y. Chiu, David L. Abel, Jack T. Trevors, “Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins,” Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 4:47 (2007):

[N]either RSC [Random Sequence Complexity] nor OSC [Ordered Sequence Complexity], or any combination of the two, is sufficient to describe the functional complexity observed in living organisms, for neither includes the additional dimension of functionality, which is essential for life. FSC [Functional Sequence Complexity] includes the dimension of functionality. Szostak argued that neither Shannon’s original measure of uncertainty nor the measure of algorithmic complexity are sufficient. Shannon's classical information theory does not consider the meaning, or function, of a message. Algorithmic complexity fails to account for the observation that “different molecular structures may be functionally equivalent.” For this reason, Szostak suggested that a new measure of information—functional information—is required.

Here is a formal way of measuring functional information:

Robert M. Hazen, Patrick L. Griffin, James M. Carothers, and Jack W. Szostak, "Functional information and the emergence of biocomplexity," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, Vol. 104:8574–8581 (May 15, 2007).

See also:

Jack W. Szostak, “Molecular messages,” Nature, Vol. 423:689 (June 12, 2003).


original posts can be found here, here and here

Darwin's Strawman- Alive and Well (Unfortunately)

-
Evolutionists love to chide us for references to Charles Darwin because they say that he was so 19th century and this is the 21st. Yet it is Darwin's strawman from the 19th century that those same evolutionists are still propping up and carrying around.

What strawman is that?

The "fixity of species" strawman. That is the idea that God Created every existing species pretty much as it was in the 19th century. However educted Creationists put the level of the Created Kind at the level of Genera, and that means they accept speciation- Linnaeus, who Darwin had to have read, the founder of modern/ Linnaen taxonomy (KPCOFGS), was searching for/ trying to figure out what the Created Kinds were when he developed his system. And he is the one who said that the Created Kind was at the level of his Genus. Variation is a key element to baraminology. And this is the very variation which Darwin denied his opposition.

What's the point? Well morons like Kevin R McCarthy, the NCSE and all evos still use the variation allowed by baraminology as evidence against it. IOW they are still fighting that same 150+ year old strawman.

And the ignorant liberal media have that strawman so far up their ass they spew it at all Republicans running for office.

Unfortunately the genral public doesn't seem to care. The theory of evolution is totally meaningless to them. Well it is totally useless so it is only meaningful to the evos making money off of it.

So a biology textbook disclaimer would be to expose that strawman- don't say the theory of evolution is only a theory. Say it argues against the strawman of the fixity of species. That way all their examples of variations within populations cannot be used as evidence against some accepted position. All they will have is their dicks in the hands and their heads up their ass- well OK that will be the same.

See also Do Species Change?

Richard T Hughes says Jerry Coyne and other evoTARDs are Cowards

-
Yup Richie, aka Captain Coward, sed:

The coward is the one who doesn't promote all the comments: Joe.

Well Richie, Jerry Coyne doesn't post my comments. Neither does Kevin McCarthy, the sensous curmudgeon and a host of other cowardly evoTARDS.

OTOH I post all on-topic comments and comments that follow my meager blog rules. So don't blame me because YOU are too cowardly to stay on-topic and follow those meager rules.

Whooooops....

-
OK I'm back- a slight mix-up with google....

"Random", with Respect to Biology and Evolution

-
People, evos in particular, seem to have a difficult time understanding the what the word random means with respect to biology and the theory of evolution. Let me see if I can help them out.

As plain as can be, with respect to biology and the theory of evolution, the word random means, happenstance, not planned, no purpose nor objective, haphazard, accidental.

That's it. So when someone says something about random mutations that is what they are talking about.

Why Intelligent Design is NOT a Wholly Negative Argument

-
EvoTARD quote-miners think their quote-mining ignoramce is some sort of refutation of Intelligent Design. They also think their ignorance of science is a refutation of Intelligent Design.

Ya see the design inference consists of TWO components- ALL design inferences do, including archaeology and forensic science. Those two components are 1) eliminating necessity and chance AND 2) A match of some prespecified criteria, ie the positive aspect.

IOW we follow Newton's Four Rules of Scientific Reasoning (occam's razor, parsimony, explanatory filter):

1. admit no more causes of natural things than are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances,

2. to the same natural effect, assign the same causes,

3. qualities of bodies, which are found to belong to all bodies within experiments, are to be esteemed universal, and

4. propositions collected from observation of phenomena should be viewed as accurate or very nearly true until contradicted by other phenomena.

So what is the quote-mine? EvoTARDS only see the first component of the design inference, are too stupid or ignorant to understand the second component and prattle on as if the second component doesn't exist. And the sad part the way I said it is exactly how scientists do it. But then again if you ar an evoTARD you ain't no scientist and you sure as hell don't understand science.

So as anyone with an IQ over 70 can see and understand, ID is NOT a wholly negative argument. Just because elimination of other causes is a requirement of any and all design inferences does not make it a wholly negative argument. Only a drooling moron would think so- so enter RichTARD Hughes...

Why ATP synthase is (positive) evidence for Intelligent Design

-
Why ATP synthase is evidence for Intelligent Design.

ATP synthase is evidence for Intelligent Design because it matches the scientific criteria for a designed object/ structure/ event. Namely that necessity and chance cannot account for it- or perhaps evolutionary scientists are just incompetent because they have no idea how to test the claim that necessity an chance can construct ATP synthase- and it contains an ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components-> See How to Test and falsify Intelligent Design.

IOW the design inference is reached by following Newton’s Four Rules of Scientific Reasoning. That must be what has Kevin McCarthy so confused- he knows nothing of science nor reasoning.

More Evidence for Intelligent Design in Biology Textbooks- the (proton translocating) ATP Synthase

ATP synthase all experiments point to Intelligent Design

So only via ignorance, equivocation and promissory notes can Kevin say the ATP synthase is not evidence for ID

Coppedge vs JPL- Was a Settlement Reached?

-
OK I am getting tired of waiting and searching for news on Coppedge vs JPL, so it's time to start my speculation. That way I will say one thing and in a few days the official ruling will come out and contradict what I said. But the fact I said it will speed up the decision- some sort of butterfly effect.

That's how it goes right? Waiting for something to happen so you start talking about it like it ain't going to happen and BAM, it happens.

So anyways the decision is taking forever and that may mean that there won't be one because a settlement was reached and part of the settlement could include a gag order. And that gag order could even include to don't say anything, not even that a settlement was reached.

No, I don't know how much Coppedge received, maybe close to a million. Becker was paid handsomely and JPL took it on the Chin- LoL!

So that is my story and I'm sticking to it until the actual ruling is published...

Got Drought? Get the Interstate Water Distribution System

-
This is the 21st century and we are still dealing with droughts and floods. We have the technolgy, we can do something about droughts and floods.

For thousands of years humans have been able to take water from one place and bring it to another. This was accomplished with tunnels, canals and aquaducts.

That said, my proposal is to connect existing water systems- rivers, streams, lakes, etc. using technology we already have. To accomplish this we can dig canals, install tunnels, pipelines and aquaducts.

This way when one section of the USA is dry/ in a drought stage, the sections of the USA that have rain can share that bounty with those who are less fortunate.

Another advantage of my system is that it could, if applied properly, alleviate flooding.

It will also put many Americans back to work. The only issue is where is the money going to come from?

One solution is the 1%- it would be an investment. They pay now and then we ante up when when we pay our water bill.

Phase 1

Phase 1 would set up the country in zones, and to install controlled spillways along major rivers and their tributaries in those zones, starting with known flood zones of populated areas.

These spillways would lead to (holding) reservoirs for future use including redistribution to/ from another zone (Phase 2).

We need to refill our aquifers- the Ogallala aquifer, is one of the largest systems in the world and I am sure she could use a good drink. And the Ogallala feeds a great deal of farmland, which feeds us.

Another thing to think about is if the ice sheets melt and ocean levels rise, we could mediate that rise by controlling how much water flows back via our river system by using these spillways to divert some of that flow.

Diversion rate = ice sheet melting rate

We can even use the wind and sun to power the flow up hills and mountains. More jobs.

This way, instead of continually reacting to floods and droughts, we can control the horizontal. We can control the verticle. We can change the focus- we can increase the freshwater fish population and farm land.

We can put America back to work and get us out of this ridiculous debt.

Write to your congress-people and Senators and tell them of this plan. If enough people speak up perhaps they will listen. But you can't win the lottery if you don't play...

Kevin R McCarthy Chokes on the Evidence and Admits His Position does NOT Have Any!

-
Yup, you read that right- when presented with positive evidence for Intelligent Design Kevin choked and admitted that his position does not have any evidence.

You can read all about it here- notice the cowardly equivocation Kevin throws in.

Petruska Sez Let's Turn Liddle's Blog into a Gossip Column!

-
Yup you know you have lost when all you can do is gossip about your opponents as opposed to supporting your position. Well that is exactly what the evoTARDs are doing.

They have the gossip forum AtBC. They have the gossip forum at the Sucking Faggot Curmudgeon. And now petruska wants to turn the septic zone into a gossip column.

Nothing says evos are cowardly little faggot liars more than these types of forums and here is petrushka pushing for one more.

Well that is par for the course- they cannot discuss science as they are totally ignorant of the concept. They cannot discuss the positive evidence for their position because they don't have any. So all they have left is to gossip like little old ladies.

Life is good...