Creationists

[daws101]

You are like a two year old! This isn't ad libs, you crackpot.

np, what detective douche bag does is not an ad lib of any kind.
to adlib one must have the ability to think on their feet and be original .
detective douche bag is a plagiarist and not a skilled one.

I wouldn't call him a plagiarist as much as I would simply call him unoriginal. He is very eager to cut as deep as possible, and uses others own words against them to do this.

so true ,doing so kills any small credibility he might have had.
I recall something about bearing false witness being a sin...

 

[UltimateReality]

You are like a two year old! This isn't ad libs, you crackpot.

np, what detective douche bag does is not an ad lib of any kind.
to adlib one must have the ability to think on their feet and be original .
detective douche bag is a plagiarist and not a skilled one.

I wouldn't call him a plagiarist as much as I would simply call him unoriginal. He is very eager to cut as deep as possible, and uses others own words against them to do this.

So your sole purpose on here isn't to attack Christians? I would think you need to get the log out of your own eye before you go after the splinter in mine.

If your words turned back on you are offensive, and cut deep, then this is a prime example of what they call "dishing it out but not being able to take it."

I've said it before, the internet is a bad place for exchanges of this type. Because I am not in relationship with you, most or all of the typical social conventions are thrown out the window. Daws is a prime example of this. I guarantee you his ginormous balls would shrink up like raisins if he was having the same discussion with me face to face. And why attack my distinguished law enforcement career simply because we differ in opinion? Both he and Hawly can't keep up with the discussion so they resort to personal attacks. Not to say that I haven't, but they drew first blood.

 

[Hollie]

np, what detective douche bag does is not an ad lib of any kind.
to adlib one must have the ability to think on their feet and be original .
detective douche bag is a plagiarist and not a skilled one.

I wouldn't call him a plagiarist as much as I would simply call him unoriginal. He is very eager to cut as deep as possible, and uses others own words against them to do this.

So your sole purpose on here isn't to attack Christians? I would think you need to get the log out of your own eye before you go after the splinter in mine.

If your words turned back on you are offensive, and cut deep, then this is a prime example of what they call "dishing it out but not being able to take it."

I've said it before, the internet is a bad place for exchanges of this type. Because I am not in relationship with you, most or all of the typical social conventions are thrown out the window. Daws is a prime example of this. I guarantee you his ginormous balls would shrink up like raisins if he was having the same discussion with me face to face. And why attack my distinguished law enforcement career simply because we differ in opinion? Both he and Hawly can't keep up with the discussion so they resort to personal attacks. Not to say they I haven't, but they drew first blood.

Your primary malfunction is that your delicate ego was damaged by:
a) your creepy advances all being refused,
b) your fundie christian arguments have been thoroughly refuted and,
c) your creepy stalking has been exposed.

 

[newpolitics]

np, what detective douche bag does is not an ad lib of any kind.
to adlib one must have the ability to think on their feet and be original .
detective douche bag is a plagiarist and not a skilled one.

I wouldn't call him a plagiarist as much as I would simply call him unoriginal. He is very eager to cut as deep as possible, and uses others own words against them to do this.

So your sole purpose on here isn't to attack Christians? I would think you need to get the log out of your own eye before you go after the splinter in mine.

If your words turned back on you are offensive, and cut deep, then this is a prime example of what they call "dishing it out but not being able to take it."

I've said it before, the internet is a bad place for exchanges of this type. Because I am not in relationship with you, most or all of the typical social conventions are thrown out the window. Daws is a prime example of this. I guarantee you his ginormous balls would shrink up like raisins if he was having the same discussion with me face to face. And why attack my distinguished law enforcement career simply because we differ in opinion? Both he and Hawly can't keep up with the discussion so they resort to personal attacks. Not to say they I haven't, but they drew first blood.

The "he/she did it first" line is not an excuse for your own action. Also, I disagree with your claim about this forum of communication being the only one that allows such impersonal confrontation. Going back as far as written letter, there have been exchanges of this nature through personal letters, for instance. The distinction now is the anonymity available through the Internet, and would agree that it makes it easier fling insults, but this is an aspect afforded by everyone. It might also allow people to be more intelligent, being that in eye to eye confrontation, anxieties and fears may prevent some from speaking their mind or from being able to form coherent, logical strings of thought, because strong emotions get in the way. Absent the intensity of human confrontation, ideas can and thoughts might be more easily gathered and expressed. So, there is a give and take with the anonymity and impersonal aspect of online debate. It not only allows for greater ease of insult, but greater ease of intellectual expression in general, good and bad. Your insinuation that Daws or Holly wouldn't say these to you in person is self-refuting. Neither would you.

Copying and pasting someone's post and changing the wording to fit your narrative is a cheap move. It is not difficult to stomach or deal with intellectually, as it is basically plagiarism, and thus constitutes an informal breach of conduct, known as the golden rule. It is a tactic no one wants to use, because for most, it is beneath them. Yet, you seem to have no problem proudly using such a distasteful tactic. This is the annoyance of others. If you consider the standard of a real debate, such a tactic would be derided and ridiculed, and you would lose points for it, so why is it okay here? It's not. It's a cheap move, that has no place in a mature debate. It is analogous to poking someone in the eyes in a street fight anyone is free to do it, but it is considered a cheap move and not the considered to be skillful. You might technically beat someone with this maneuver, but it would be a shameful win. Same here, except, there is no audience to deride you for it, so you can get away with it. So, you are taking advantage of the Internet in this regard.

 

[UltimateReality]

I wouldn't call him a plagiarist as much as I would simply call him unoriginal. He is very eager to cut as deep as possible, and uses others own words against them to do this.

So your sole purpose on here isn't to attack Christians? I would think you need to get the log out of your own eye before you go after the splinter in mine.

If your words turned back on you are offensive, and cut deep, then this is a prime example of what they call "dishing it out but not being able to take it."

I've said it before, the internet is a bad place for exchanges of this type. Because I am not in relationship with you, most or all of the typical social conventions are thrown out the window. Daws is a prime example of this. I guarantee you his ginormous balls would shrink up like raisins if he was having the same discussion with me face to face. And why attack my distinguished law enforcement career simply because we differ in opinion? Both he and Hawly can't keep up with the discussion so they resort to personal attacks. Not to say they I haven't, but they drew first blood.

Your primary malfunction is that your delicate ego was damaged by:
a) your creepy advances all being refused,
b) your fundie christian arguments have been thoroughly refuted and,
c) your creepy stalking has been exposed.

Speaking of stalkers, another poster has challenged you to a debate and his request goes ignored for a day. However, the second I show up, you show up. Creeeeeeepy.

 

[UltimateReality]

I wouldn't call him a plagiarist as much as I would simply call him unoriginal. He is very eager to cut as deep as possible, and uses others own words against them to do this.

So your sole purpose on here isn't to attack Christians? I would think you need to get the log out of your own eye before you go after the splinter in mine.

If your words turned back on you are offensive, and cut deep, then this is a prime example of what they call "dishing it out but not being able to take it."

I've said it before, the internet is a bad place for exchanges of this type. Because I am not in relationship with you, most or all of the typical social conventions are thrown out the window. Daws is a prime example of this. I guarantee you his ginormous balls would shrink up like raisins if he was having the same discussion with me face to face. And why attack my distinguished law enforcement career simply because we differ in opinion? Both he and Hawly can't keep up with the discussion so they resort to personal attacks. Not to say they I haven't, but they drew first blood.

The "he/she did it first" line is not an excuse for your own action. Also, I disagree with your claim about this forum of communication being the only one that allows such impersonal confrontation. Going back as far as written letter, there have been exchanges of this nature through personal letters, for instance. The distinction now is the anonymity available through the Internet, and would agree that it makes it easier fling insults, but this is an aspect afforded by everyone. It might also allow people to be more intelligent, being that in eye to eye confrontation, anxieties and fears may prevent some from speaking their mind or from being able to form coherent, logical strings of thought, because strong emotions get in the way. Absent the intensity of human confrontation, ideas can and thoughts might be more easily gathered and expressed. So, there is a give and take with the anonymity and impersonal aspect of online debate. It not only allows for greater ease of insult, but greater ease of intellectual expression in general, good and bad. Your insinuation that Daws or Holly wouldn't say these to you in person is self-refuting. Neither would you.

Copying and pasting someone's post and changing the wording to fit your narrative is a cheap move. It is not difficult to stomach or deal with intellectually, as it is basically plagiarism, and thus constitutes an informal breach of conduct, known as the golden rule. It is a tactic no one wants to use, because for most, it is beneath them. Yet, you seem to have no problem proudly using such a distasteful tactic. This is the annoyance of others. If you consider the standard of a real debate, such a tactic would be derided and ridiculed, and you would lose points for it, so why is it okay here? It's not. It's a cheap move, that has no place in a mature debate. It is analogous to poking someone in the eyes in a street fight anyone is free to do it, but it is considered a cheap move and not the considered to be skillful. You might technically beat someone with this maneuver, but it would be a shameful win. Same here, except, there is no audience to deride you for it, so you can get away with it. So, you are taking advantage of the Internet in this regard.

While I would agree that altering your posts and parroting them back to you is a tactic, the intention of it is not to "poke you in the eye". The purpose is to force you to view your own vitriol and bigotry by reflecting it back on you. While you may think Christianity is a joke, it is very sacred to me. Do negative comments about homosexuality cut deep to you? The same could be said for your comments about my faith. Now before you go and say I choose my faith, but you didn't choose homosexuality, I would say to you... everyone always has a choice. To deny this is to is to claim your sexual urges rule you, that you are powerless to overcome your same sex attraction. It is this powerlessness and hopelessness that makes me think homosexuality is an addiction, not a personality trait. That is where evolution comes in, since it boots ethics, and aligns with your claim is that you are helpless to do anything except what you are programmed to do. Christianity is the antithesis of this, claiming humans have free will and choice. Could this be the reason so many homosexuals are drawn to the materialistic worldview and a deep hatred of Christianity, because Christianity claims you have a choice? And just like Lady Gaga, evolution claims are that you are "born this way". Could Lady Gaga's claim, which is basically the materialistic worldview's claim, that you are born this way just as easily be applied to alcoholics, pedophiles, kleptomaniacs, mass murderers, and anyone with urges they feel powerless to overcome?

 

[Hollie]

So your sole purpose on here isn't to attack Christians? I would think you need to get the log out of your own eye before you go after the splinter in mine.

If your words turned back on you are offensive, and cut deep, then this is a prime example of what they call "dishing it out but not being able to take it."

I've said it before, the internet is a bad place for exchanges of this type. Because I am not in relationship with you, most or all of the typical social conventions are thrown out the window. Daws is a prime example of this. I guarantee you his ginormous balls would shrink up like raisins if he was having the same discussion with me face to face. And why attack my distinguished law enforcement career simply because we differ in opinion? Both he and Hawly can't keep up with the discussion so they resort to personal attacks. Not to say they I haven't, but they drew first blood.

Your primary malfunction is that your delicate ego was damaged by:
a) your creepy advances all being refused,
b) your fundie christian arguments have been thoroughly refuted and,
c) your creepy stalking has been exposed.

Speaking of stalkers, another poster has challenged you to a debate and his request goes ignored for a day. However, the second I show up, you show up. Creeeeeeepy.

And as usual, you are unable to post a single comment without including me in your nonsensical diatribes.

Your history of creepy stalking has been something of frequent discussion outside the limits of this thread. I suppose you are unable to take an objective view of your pathology; your desperate pleas for my attention, your frequent "threats" to leave the thread only to return time after time, and your seriously deranged belief in conspiracy theories.

You need help, Bunky.

 

[Hollie]

Over at Jeffrey Shallit’s blog, he’s had an interesting review of ID’iot math.

It seems that just as the ID'iots have been bumbling and fumbling with the amazing, disappearing gawds model, the ID’iots have been bumbling and fumbling in vain attempts to cabal together the ID’iot inspired “it’s just too complicated to occurred without the Christian gawds”.


Recursivity

The Mathematics of Intelligent Design

Here we have a classic example (Sequences Probability Calculator | Uncommon Descent) why it's hard to take intelligent design seriously.

The flagship blog of intelligent design presents a worthless piece of software, not even at the level of a bad junior-high-school science project, as an accomplishment. It `tries to answer questions like this: “a random process generating sequences of length L from an alphabet of S symbols in T trials of t seconds each, involving c chemical reactions, does exceed the resources of the universe (age, max number of chemical reactions, universal probability bound)?”'. We are told that this silly exercise "may give an idea of the numbers involved in scenarios as origin of life, production of biopolymers, binary and character text generation, and so on." Right.

The author clearly doesn't know what "random process" means (hint: it doesn't necessarily mean uniform probability). And his program doesn't take into account anything interesting about chemistry at all. It's just worthless number pushing.

Garbage in, garbage out. Come to think of it, that's pretty much the description of intelligent design.

Addendum: they've already removed the page. I guess there are some things that are so stupid, even Uncommon Descent can't get behind it. But you can still see the software here: (Sequence Probability Calculator v.1.1.)

Addendum: it's now back again. Not much different than before, except they added a few English mistakes.

 

[LittleNipper]

we have no Idea how old the universe is or how we got here

Uh... Yes we do. The universe, as we know it, is 13.7 billion years old. How we got here is an ambiguous question. The universe? Humans?

And the universe, as you perceive it, could not be 13.5 billion years old or 13. 9 billion years old, or 12.5 billion years old. "On bother," said the Democrat, "What's another trillion among friends! Anyway, it's just money!"

The universe you perceive is self-sustaining. The universe I see is held together by God's design alone.

 

[UltimateReality]

Over at Jeffrey Shallit’s blog, he’s had an interesting review of ID’iot math.

It seems that just as the ID'iots have been bumbling and fumbling with the amazing, disappearing gawds model, the ID’iots have been bumbling and fumbling in vain attempts to cabal together the ID’iot inspired “it’s just too complicated to occurred without the Christian gawds”.


Recursivity

The Mathematics of Intelligent Design

Here we have a classic example (Sequences Probability Calculator | Uncommon Descent) why it's hard to take intelligent design seriously.

The flagship blog of intelligent design presents a worthless piece of software, not even at the level of a bad junior-high-school science project, as an accomplishment. It `tries to answer questions like this: “a random process generating sequences of length L from an alphabet of S symbols in T trials of t seconds each, involving c chemical reactions, does exceed the resources of the universe (age, max number of chemical reactions, universal probability bound)?”'. We are told that this silly exercise "may give an idea of the numbers involved in scenarios as origin of life, production of biopolymers, binary and character text generation, and so on." Right.

The author clearly doesn't know what "random process" means (hint: it doesn't necessarily mean uniform probability). And his program doesn't take into account anything interesting about chemistry at all. It's just worthless number pushing.

Garbage in, garbage out. Come to think of it, that's pretty much the description of intelligent design.

Addendum: they've already removed the page. I guess there are some things that are so stupid, even Uncommon Descent can't get behind it. But you can still see the software here: (Sequence Probability Calculator v.1.1.)

Addendum: it's now back again. Not much different than before, except they added a few English mistakes.

This post really exposes your limited understanding of your own evo fundie camp's origins arguments involving chance and necessity. While trying to sound intelligent, you have totally exposed yourself as a fraud. Your comment about random processes and taking into account chemistry allude to the necessity arguments that have long been disproved. The base pairs have no affinity for the sugar-phosphate backbone. The backbone will readily accept any of the four nucleotides without any higher probability occurrence for a specific one. There is no chemistry "law" that can account for the complex information contained in dna.

 

[Hollie]

Over at Jeffrey Shallit’s blog, he’s had an interesting review of ID’iot math.

It seems that just as the ID'iots have been bumbling and fumbling with the amazing, disappearing gawds model, the ID’iots have been bumbling and fumbling in vain attempts to cabal together the ID’iot inspired “it’s just too complicated to occurred without the Christian gawds”.


Recursivity

The Mathematics of Intelligent Design

Here we have a classic example (Sequences Probability Calculator | Uncommon Descent) why it's hard to take intelligent design seriously.

The flagship blog of intelligent design presents a worthless piece of software, not even at the level of a bad junior-high-school science project, as an accomplishment. It `tries to answer questions like this: “a random process generating sequences of length L from an alphabet of S symbols in T trials of t seconds each, involving c chemical reactions, does exceed the resources of the universe (age, max number of chemical reactions, universal probability bound)?”'. We are told that this silly exercise "may give an idea of the numbers involved in scenarios as origin of life, production of biopolymers, binary and character text generation, and so on." Right.

The author clearly doesn't know what "random process" means (hint: it doesn't necessarily mean uniform probability). And his program doesn't take into account anything interesting about chemistry at all. It's just worthless number pushing.

Garbage in, garbage out. Come to think of it, that's pretty much the description of intelligent design.

Addendum: they've already removed the page. I guess there are some things that are so stupid, even Uncommon Descent can't get behind it. But you can still see the software here: (Sequence Probability Calculator v.1.1.)

Addendum: it's now back again. Not much different than before, except they added a few English mistakes.

This post really exposes your limited understanding of your own evo fundie camp's origins arguments involving chance and necessity. While trying to sound intelligent, you have totally exposed yourself as a fraud. Your comment about random processes and taking into account chemistry allude to the necessity arguments that have long been disproved. The base pairs have no affinity for the sugar-phosphate backbone. The backbone will readily accept any of the four nucleotides without any higher probability occurrence for a specific one. There is no chemistry "law" that can account for the complex information contained in dna.

In your failed attempt at copying and pasting what you don’t understand, you have inadvertently neglected to take into consideration you have copied and pasted into an argument not connected with your copy and paste.

Fundie Christians simply make themselves look foolish by copying and pasting out of context ID’iot blathering.

 

[daws101]

np, what detective douche bag does is not an ad lib of any kind.
to adlib one must have the ability to think on their feet and be original .
detective douche bag is a plagiarist and not a skilled one.

I wouldn't call him a plagiarist as much as I would simply call him unoriginal. He is very eager to cut as deep as possible, and uses others own words against them to do this.

So your sole purpose on here isn't to attack Christians? I would think you need to get the log out of your own eye before you go after the splinter in mine.

If your words turned back on you are offensive, and cut deep, then this is a prime example of what they call "dishing it out but not being able to take it."

I've said it before, the internet is a bad place for exchanges of this type. Because I am not in relationship with you, most or all of the typical social conventions are thrown out the window. Daws is a prime example of this. I guarantee you his ginormous balls would shrink up like raisins if he was having the same discussion with me face to face. And why attack my distinguished law enforcement career simply because we differ in opinion? Both he and Hawly can't keep up with the discussion so they resort to personal attacks. Not to say that I haven't, but they drew first blood.

lol again wrong detective douche bag I'm no different on line then I am in real life, this discussion would exactly the same in real life as it is here.
you do know before the internet people did gather and debate.
as to your law enforcement career so what? you have the constant need to self aggrandize your actions. you might have been a fair cop but as always you over play your hand.
btw YOU are in a relationship with all of us no matter how much you deny it. as to drawing first blood you were talking shit and making false accusations before I typed my first post.
so quit trying to put lipstick on a pig and calling it truth.

 

[daws101]

I wouldn't call him a plagiarist as much as I would simply call him unoriginal. He is very eager to cut as deep as possible, and uses others own words against them to do this.

So your sole purpose on here isn't to attack Christians? I would think you need to get the log out of your own eye before you go after the splinter in mine.

If your words turned back on you are offensive, and cut deep, then this is a prime example of what they call "dishing it out but not being able to take it."

I've said it before, the internet is a bad place for exchanges of this type. Because I am not in relationship with you, most or all of the typical social conventions are thrown out the window. Daws is a prime example of this. I guarantee you his ginormous balls would shrink up like raisins if he was having the same discussion with me face to face. And why attack my distinguished law enforcement career simply because we differ in opinion? Both he and Hawly can't keep up with the discussion so they resort to personal attacks. Not to say they I haven't, but they drew first blood.

Your primary malfunction is that your delicate ego was damaged by:
a) your creepy advances all being refused,
b) your fundie christian arguments have been thoroughly refuted and,
c) your creepy stalking has been exposed.

bump!

 

[daws101]

So your sole purpose on here isn't to attack Christians? I would think you need to get the log out of your own eye before you go after the splinter in mine.

If your words turned back on you are offensive, and cut deep, then this is a prime example of what they call "dishing it out but not being able to take it."

I've said it before, the internet is a bad place for exchanges of this type. Because I am not in relationship with you, most or all of the typical social conventions are thrown out the window. Daws is a prime example of this. I guarantee you his ginormous balls would shrink up like raisins if he was having the same discussion with me face to face. And why attack my distinguished law enforcement career simply because we differ in opinion? Both he and Hawly can't keep up with the discussion so they resort to personal attacks. Not to say they I haven't, but they drew first blood.

The "he/she did it first" line is not an excuse for your own action. Also, I disagree with your claim about this forum of communication being the only one that allows such impersonal confrontation. Going back as far as written letter, there have been exchanges of this nature through personal letters, for instance. The distinction now is the anonymity available through the Internet, and would agree that it makes it easier fling insults, but this is an aspect afforded by everyone. It might also allow people to be more intelligent, being that in eye to eye confrontation, anxieties and fears may prevent some from speaking their mind or from being able to form coherent, logical strings of thought, because strong emotions get in the way. Absent the intensity of human confrontation, ideas can and thoughts might be more easily gathered and expressed. So, there is a give and take with the anonymity and impersonal aspect of online debate. It not only allows for greater ease of insult, but greater ease of intellectual expression in general, good and bad. Your insinuation that Daws or Holly wouldn't say these to you in person is self-refuting. Neither would you.

Copying and pasting someone's post and changing the wording to fit your narrative is a cheap move. It is not difficult to stomach or deal with intellectually, as it is basically plagiarism, and thus constitutes an informal breach of conduct, known as the golden rule. It is a tactic no one wants to use, because for most, it is beneath them. Yet, you seem to have no problem proudly using such a distasteful tactic. This is the annoyance of others. If you consider the standard of a real debate, such a tactic would be derided and ridiculed, and you would lose points for it, so why is it okay here? It's not. It's a cheap move, that has no place in a mature debate. It is analogous to poking someone in the eyes in a street fight anyone is free to do it, but it is considered a cheap move and not the considered to be skillful. You might technically beat someone with this maneuver, but it would be a shameful win. Same here, except, there is no audience to deride you for it, so you can get away with it. So, you are taking advantage of the Internet in this regard.

While I would agree that altering your posts and parroting them back to you is a tactic, the intention of it is not to "poke you in the eye". The purpose is to force you to view your own vitriol and bigotry by reflecting it back on you. While you may think Christianity is a joke, it is very sacred to me. Do negative comments about homosexuality cut deep to you? The same could be said for your comments about my faith. Now before you go and say I choose my faith, but you didn't choose homosexuality, I would say to you... everyone always has a choice. To deny this is to is to claim your sexual urges rule you, that you are powerless to overcome your same sex attraction. It is this powerlessness and hopelessness that makes me think homosexuality is an addiction, not a personality trait. That is where evolution comes in, since it boots ethics, and aligns with your claim is that you are helpless to do anything except what you are programmed to do. Christianity is the antithesis of this, claiming humans have free will and choice. Could this be the reason so many homosexuals are drawn to the materialistic worldview and a deep hatred of Christianity, because Christianity claims you have a choice? And just like Lady Gaga, evolution claims are that you are "born this way". Could Lady Gaga's claim, which is basically the materialistic worldview's claim, that you are born this way just as easily be applied to alcoholics, pedophiles, kleptomaniacs, mass murderers, and anyone with urges they feel powerless to overcome?

wow! an all about me rant and gay bashing at the same time...Christian contradiction at it's finest!

 

[daws101]

we have no Idea how old the universe is or how we got here

Uh... Yes we do. The universe, as we know it, is 13.7 billion years old. How we got here is an ambiguous question. The universe? Humans?

And the universe, as you perceive it, could not be 13.5 billion years old or 13. 9 billion years old, or 12.5 billion years old. "On bother," said the Democrat, "What's another trillion among friends! Anyway, it's just money!"

The universe you perceive is self-sustaining. The universe I see is held together by God's design alone.

I have some beach front property in Iowa you might like!?

 

[UltimateReality]

Over at Jeffrey Shallit’s blog, he’s had an interesting review of ID’iot math.

It seems that just as the ID'iots have been bumbling and fumbling with the amazing, disappearing gawds model, the ID’iots have been bumbling and fumbling in vain attempts to cabal together the ID’iot inspired “it’s just too complicated to occurred without the Christian gawds”.


Recursivity

The Mathematics of Intelligent Design

Here we have a classic example (Sequences Probability Calculator | Uncommon Descent) why it's hard to take intelligent design seriously.

The flagship blog of intelligent design presents a worthless piece of software, not even at the level of a bad junior-high-school science project, as an accomplishment. It `tries to answer questions like this: “a random process generating sequences of length L from an alphabet of S symbols in T trials of t seconds each, involving c chemical reactions, does exceed the resources of the universe (age, max number of chemical reactions, universal probability bound)?”'. We are told that this silly exercise "may give an idea of the numbers involved in scenarios as origin of life, production of biopolymers, binary and character text generation, and so on." Right.

The author clearly doesn't know what "random process" means (hint: it doesn't necessarily mean uniform probability). And his program doesn't take into account anything interesting about chemistry at all. It's just worthless number pushing.

Garbage in, garbage out. Come to think of it, that's pretty much the description of intelligent design.

Addendum: they've already removed the page. I guess there are some things that are so stupid, even Uncommon Descent can't get behind it. But you can still see the software here: (Sequence Probability Calculator v.1.1.)

Addendum: it's now back again. Not much different than before, except they added a few English mistakes.

This post really exposes your limited understanding of your own evo fundie camp's origins arguments involving chance and necessity. While trying to sound intelligent, you have totally exposed yourself as a fraud. Your comment about random processes and taking into account chemistry allude to the necessity arguments that have long been disproved. The base pairs have no affinity for the sugar-phosphate backbone. The backbone will readily accept any of the four nucleotides without any higher probability occurrence for a specific one. There is no chemistry "law" that can account for the complex information contained in dna.

In your failed attempt at copying and pasting what you don’t understand, you have inadvertently neglected to take into consideration you have copied and pasted into an argument not connected with your copy and paste.

Really??? I think it is you who needs to read your own cut and paste. Don't look now but your ignorance is showing.

Fundie Christians simply make themselves look foolish by copying and pasting out of context ID’iot blathering.

Here Einstein, I have bolded the portions of your incompetent post above I was referring to. And unlike you, I can actually compose thoughts of my own, which the above post was.

 

[UltimateReality]

I wouldn't call him a plagiarist as much as I would simply call him unoriginal. He is very eager to cut as deep as possible, and uses others own words against them to do this.

So your sole purpose on here isn't to attack Christians? I would think you need to get the log out of your own eye before you go after the splinter in mine.

If your words turned back on you are offensive, and cut deep, then this is a prime example of what they call "dishing it out but not being able to take it."

I've said it before, the internet is a bad place for exchanges of this type. Because I am not in relationship with you, most or all of the typical social conventions are thrown out the window. Daws is a prime example of this. I guarantee you his ginormous balls would shrink up like raisins if he was having the same discussion with me face to face. And why attack my distinguished law enforcement career simply because we differ in opinion? Both he and Hawly can't keep up with the discussion so they resort to personal attacks. Not to say that I haven't, but they drew first blood.

lol again wrong detective douche bag I'm no different on line then I am in real life, this discussion would exactly the same in real life as it is here.
you do know before the internet people did gather and debate.
as to your law enforcement career so what? you have the constant need to self aggrandize your actions. you might have been a fair cop but as always you over play your hand.
btw YOU are in a relationship with all of us no matter how much you deny it. as to drawing first blood you were talking shit and making false accusations before I typed my first post.
so quit trying to put lipstick on a pig and calling it truth.

PM me and lets meet in person to continue our discussion on Intelligent Design and Atheism. We can meet at a restaurant of your choice and I will even buy. My job takes me all over the US so there is a good chance I will be with in 100 miles of your town in the next 6 months. PM the town you are in and I will give the dates I will be there. We will see how big those raisins are in person Internet Bravado Boy.

 

[Hollie]

This post really exposes your limited understanding of your own evo fundie camp's origins arguments involving chance and necessity. While trying to sound intelligent, you have totally exposed yourself as a fraud. Your comment about random processes and taking into account chemistry allude to the necessity arguments that have long been disproved. The base pairs have no affinity for the sugar-phosphate backbone. The backbone will readily accept any of the four nucleotides without any higher probability occurrence for a specific one. There is no chemistry "law" that can account for the complex information contained in dna.

In your failed attempt at copying and pasting what you don’t understand, you have inadvertently neglected to take into consideration you have copied and pasted into an argument not connected with your copy and paste.

Really??? I think it is you who needs to read your own cut and paste. Don't look now but your ignorance is showing.

Fundie Christians simply make themselves look foolish by copying and pasting out of context ID’iot blathering.

Here Einstein, I have bolded the portions of your incompetent post above I was referring to. And unlike you, I can actually compose thoughts of my own, which the above post was.

You’re getting frothy, my little stalker man. You see, ruthlessly copying and pasting from christian creationist websites does nothing to support your wish to promote your gawds.

I see you’re embarrassed at having your silly cut and paste exposed as yet more fraudulent nonsense from Christian creationist hacks. You might have actually perused the link to the fraudulently and incompetently composed Sequence Probability Calculator v.1.1.) authored by fundie hacks. It really is nothing more than another fraud perpetrated by Christian fundies. Meyer and Dembski have set a pattern, now followed by many Christian fundies wherein they phony-up bad math and phony “probabilities”.

It’s the usual tactic coming out the Christian creation ministries. That’s why fundie Christians such as Meyer, who has no expertise or training in biology, penned a book that was widely panned by the relevant science community as a fraud. And with good reason: Meyer had nothing to contribute to the Christian creationist arguments from ignorance. He simply trotted out the worn out creationist canards such as “the chances are too great...”

Have you ever wondered why the charlatans at the Disco ‘tute never chose to disassociate themselves from that organization after the Ann Gauger fiasco? Obviously, you wouldn’t know any better but professional credentials carry with them, professional integrity. That the hacks at the Disco ‘tute chose to ignore that breach of professionalism is not surprising. When you’re running a pyramid scheme-type syndicate, professionalism is of little concern.

 

[Hollie]

So your sole purpose on here isn't to attack Christians? I would think you need to get the log out of your own eye before you go after the splinter in mine.

If your words turned back on you are offensive, and cut deep, then this is a prime example of what they call "dishing it out but not being able to take it."

I've said it before, the internet is a bad place for exchanges of this type. Because I am not in relationship with you, most or all of the typical social conventions are thrown out the window. Daws is a prime example of this. I guarantee you his ginormous balls would shrink up like raisins if he was having the same discussion with me face to face. And why attack my distinguished law enforcement career simply because we differ in opinion? Both he and Hawly can't keep up with the discussion so they resort to personal attacks. Not to say that I haven't, but they drew first blood.

lol again wrong detective douche bag I'm no different on line then I am in real life, this discussion would exactly the same in real life as it is here.
you do know before the internet people did gather and debate.
as to your law enforcement career so what? you have the constant need to self aggrandize your actions. you might have been a fair cop but as always you over play your hand.
btw YOU are in a relationship with all of us no matter how much you deny it. as to drawing first blood you were talking shit and making false accusations before I typed my first post.
so quit trying to put lipstick on a pig and calling it truth.

PM me and lets meet in person to continue our discussion on Intelligent Design and Atheism. We can meet at a restaurant of your choice and I will even buy. My job takes me all over the US so there is a good chance I will be with in 100 miles of your town in the next 6 months. PM the town you are in and I will give the dates I will be there. We will see how big those raisins are in person Internet Bravado Boy.

"Internet Bravado Boy"

Oh, that's rich coming from the Internet Tough Guy... behind the keyboard.


Good luck daws. I am but one amongst a likely fortunate multitude that escaped "Ultimate Tough Guy's" creepy, unwelcomed advances.

If you share your PM address, "Ultimate Tough Guy" might feel at liberty to share his Boy George penetration fantasies.

 

[daws101]

So your sole purpose on here isn't to attack Christians? I would think you need to get the log out of your own eye before you go after the splinter in mine.

If your words turned back on you are offensive, and cut deep, then this is a prime example of what they call "dishing it out but not being able to take it."

I've said it before, the internet is a bad place for exchanges of this type. Because I am not in relationship with you, most or all of the typical social conventions are thrown out the window. Daws is a prime example of this. I guarantee you his ginormous balls would shrink up like raisins if he was having the same discussion with me face to face. And why attack my distinguished law enforcement career simply because we differ in opinion? Both he and Hawly can't keep up with the discussion so they resort to personal attacks. Not to say that I haven't, but they drew first blood.

lol again wrong detective douche bag I'm no different on line then I am in real life, this discussion would exactly the same in real life as it is here.
you do know before the internet people did gather and debate.
as to your law enforcement career so what? you have the constant need to self aggrandize your actions. you might have been a fair cop but as always you over play your hand.
btw YOU are in a relationship with all of us no matter how much you deny it. as to drawing first blood you were talking shit and making false accusations before I typed my first post.
so quit trying to put lipstick on a pig and calling it truth.

PM me and lets meet in person to continue our discussion on Intelligent Design and Atheism. We can meet at a restaurant of your choice and I will even buy. My job takes me all over the US so there is a good chance I will be with in 100 miles of your town in the next 6 months. PM the town you are in and I will give the dates I will be there. We will see how big those raisins are in person Internet Bravado Boy.

what's the point? I would just get you thrown out of any restaurant anywhere .
besides as I've already explained an eye to eye "meeting" would give you no imaginary advantage.
societal niceties have never stopped me from speaking my mind.
finally, why would I waste my time and gas to hear you rant and brag ,you do that in this thread for free.