The (Old) Bathroom Wall

With any tavern, one can expect that certain things that get said are out-of-place. But there is one place where almost any saying or scribble can find a home: the bathroom wall. This is where random thoughts and oddments that don’t follow the other entries at the Panda’s Thumb wind up. As with most bathroom walls, expect to sort through a lot of oyster guts before you locate any pearls of wisdom.

12895 Comments

This is a test of the new Bathroom Wall

Reed A. Cartwright:

This is a test of the new Bathroom Wall

More testing.

Dang; if only somebody had told me there wuz gonna be a test I could’a studied fer it… :p

Entries here show up on the main page’s Recent Comments panel. Should they? I’m thinking that perhaps all the bathroom wall traffic will drown out the main PT comments rendering the Recent Comments panel less than useful.

I may not be able to prevent comments on pages from showing up in the recent comments box, but I’ll look into it. Thanks for pointing that out.

BTW the Update function is really cool. I trust it will be featured on the main site soon?

Oops, ignore my last comment. The answer is implicit in your original post

This should be fun!

http://www.care2.com/c2c/share/detail/600991

Blog: Stages of denialism

Denialists never want to admit that they are wrong about anything, so they keep a debate going as long as possible to sooth their egos. Then, when their views are discredited by the mainstream scientific communities, they appeal to the prejudices of the general public instead.

Global Warming (GW) denialist stages:

“Global warming is not happening and may not happen. Why worry about it?”

“Global warming IS happening, but there is no evidence that humans are a factor in the problem.”

“Global warming is happening, humans are a factor, but there is nothing we can do to stop it anyway.”

‘Global warming is happening, humans are a factor, we can stop it, but the costs of trying to stop it would outweigh the benefits.”

Decades ago, most GW denialists were at stage one. Today, most of them are at stage two, with some already moving to stage three or four. Truly honest and fair people should have stopped at stage one.

Creationist (evolution denialist) stages:

“Species are eternal and unchanging, existing in their present form since Creation. There is no evidence for evolution.”

“Species do change, but only within the limits of created kinds. Evidence cited for evolution can also fit within Creationism.”

“Even if evolution occurs, an Intelligent Designer must have been involved, so complex are some biological forms.”

“Evolution is as unscientific as Creationism.”

The difference between a skeptic and a denialist, on any subject, is that a real skeptic knows in advance what evidence would convince him that something is real or that action of a certain kind is justified. A denialist has no such standards. His commitment to an ideology trumps any scientific standard. Gaps in scientific knowledge, which would motivate most scientists to look for more data, are wrongly used by denialists to reject completely a concept they do not like because of prejudice. This is dishonesty.

I’ve changed the panel size to ten to make it easier for y’all to play with it. We’ll eventually settle on a larger number.

Great idea.

Besides color (and tabbing the BW from the main page) I would suggest keeping or increasing PT default font size - no reason to humor trolls ranting off masses of texts.

With this PT has evolved as a dynamic site on the web. Kudos!

PS: In preview I get the default font size. Yet another reason to keep posted comments as default size.

‘Nuther thing: refreshed the 2nd page and got back to page 1. Saturday is cookie day, nom nom nom - but anyways.

There is cookie support, for the last viewed tab, but it may be iffy.

I’m not sure what you mean about font sizes. Are you asking for comments to have the same font size as the entries?

If you access the page normally via the url http://pandasthumb.org/bw/, then last page viewed will be properly retrieved. If you use the a link with a fragment ID, then it won’t try to cookie. I’ll try to patch the tabs library that we’re using to change that.

The tabs also understand links to specific comments and will load the proper panel. Try it out.

http://pandasthumb.org/bw/#comment-149706

It seems Sal Cordova has matriculated back to UcD. He is now holding forth on how Fisher’s Theorem is the death of Darwinism, on the back of Michael Lynch’s new book on genetic architecture.

If by Darwinism, Sal means the strawman pseudo-religion invented by creationists, great! Kick it down, Sal, just don’t erect Kimuraism in its place when you find that we haven’t all become YECs.

If, OTOH, Sal means a theory composed of strands assuming Deep Time, common descent, variability, and selection, then he should increase his dosage. Nothing in Lynch affects those things. As I understand Lynch’s work, the relatively small populations of eukaryotes and multicellular organisms coupled with neutral drift is the key source of variation upon which selection operates.

Sal also does a quick switch in his post between ‘biodiversity’ as used in a quote from Lynch, and ‘diversity’ as used in a discussion of Fisher’s Theorem. The two terms mean vastly different things.

RAC Wrote:

Are you asking for comments to have the same font size as the entries?

Yup; both for hampering trolls and for editing breaks et cetera in fairly accurate previews.

Comment preview is going to become 2.0ified as well. The preview will be displayed on the entry page, probably under the update button.

On Wallace’s personal blog he whines

Wesley R. Elsberry apparently couldn’t stand being proved wrong about the propaganda film Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial, so he just deleted a comment of mine that illustrated exactly how wrong he was. He claimed to have moved them “to the bathroom wall” but I suspect he lied.

Such a lovely display of Christian ethics and morals… Not only is his foolish behavior undermining his own credibility (what little there is left of it) but Wallace seems perfectly content in dragging down Christianity with him.

Okay, I changed the hue of the default color scheme to fit with our bluish color scheme.

[Crossposted from Good Math, Bad Math]

@ SC:

Oh, you are here now, kvetching over the same points. As the Panda’s Thumb thread that activated you is now closed due to your ranting, I will post my belated answer here instead. (Isn’t the ability to google crosslinks to get to the full picture wonderful?)

On PT:

I provided a URL that just humiliated him!

The URL DiEb looked at and when skewered you, sparing me the analysis?

Here:

I know the difference between the a Fourier Tranform (which is defined by an Integral symbol, upper case “S”), and an Fourier Series (represented by uppercase Sigma for Summation)

The thread here answered that already, but more detail is provided in the link above.

The continuing misunderstanding of how to make proper limits is clearly exhibited, demonstrating the shallowness that Mike Elzinga, DiEB and others have noted several times over now.

H fckng sshls. plgz t Dvsn NW bfr gt pssd ff nd strt fckng wth . dn’t wnt t mk m md. Trst m n ths. r scrt scks bg tm.

H fckng sshls. plgz t Dvsn NW bfr gt pssd ff nd strt fckng wth . dn’t wnt t mk m md. Trst m n ths. r scrt scks bg tm.

^ | | Oh good, it works.

Not only is his foolish behavior undermining his own credibility (what little there is left of it) but Wallace seems perfectly content in dragging down Christianity with him.

why oh why do you let people who are obviously not completely (or even partially) sane get to you so, Pim?

he certainly doesn’t speak for xianity, or ID, or creationism, or anything other than the random delusions flitting through his skull.

I hope you at least can confine your non-arguments with him in this new locale.

Frankly, i still say he’s not worth your effort.

What Ichthyic said. I made one final insult to whatever Wallace had been blubbering about, but he is not worth ANYONE’s time, save as a crashtest dummy.

So why post a mention of him at all? Well, I feel that creationists reveal the seabed of asshole-ish stupidity (as opposed to crackpot asshole-ish-ness and stupidity, though there are PLENTY of those, more mundane, types of creationists, of course!), but the thing that mimics a human personality sometimes takes on compellingly repulsive forms, unique in their awfulness. Anything unique is a treasure to be admired, at least for a very brief time. Or so I deeply believe. The wonder of the human mind, to this mere human, is that the most sickeningly ugly dross can be used to understand life (yes, and the UNiverse and everything.) Sal Cordova represents one of these bizarrely ugly mounds of dishonesty that move along sifting through the intellectual/moral/spiritual feces that covers the bare idiocy of standard creationism. I believe W. Wallace, like some self-poisoning pair of ragged claws, scuttling across the putrid floors of this silent poisoned sea represents another.

From a very, very distant point of view, William Wallace provides us all with a unique service, although thanking him for that service would be absurd: he provides it despite himself, and I would never wish his fate on the shittiest person I have ever met.

Booger!

Ben Stein pooped here.

Put. It. On. The. Table. Already.

Ah, but you see, in order to put the main entree on the table, first people have to have swallowed all those appetizers that are cluttering the table right now…

Oh, and didn’t someone (or several someones) say that science ignores religious beliefs and that no scientific studies are intended to challenge those beliefs?

that would have been only YOU, moron.

the people who responded to you correctly pointed out that any time a religion makes testable claims about the way things work, science is more than happy to oblige.

“My religion claims the world is 6000 years old”

Science survey says:

No.

“My religion claims the universe expands and contracts infinitely”

Science survey says:

No.

“My religion says the earth is sitting on top of an elephant’s back.”

Science survey says…

No.

getting a clue there, yet, fuckwit?

Kris–

DS said: You see problems with evolution, do something about it. You see problems with science, do something about it. You want to discuss science, read some papers. Otherwise go back to looking for butterflies in your backyard.

This, exactly. Venting at the regulars here may be very satisfying, but (assuming you meant well and put a foot wrong) it is obvious that you have utterly failed to get whatever brilliant point you had in mind across…partly due, in my opinion, to your having adopted some tactics and language generally used by people who do NOT have honest discussion in mind. Your sense of timing and placement may also have played a role in any mis-identification (whinging about how obsessed we are about creotards, on a thread dedicated to discussing the idiocy of creotards, is somewhat akin to showing up at a John Birch Society meeting in a Che Guevara tee shirt and singing the Internationale).

If you really mean to do as you claim, then don’t lecture, preach, or yammer at us. DO. Then show your work. Cite your results. Put the evidence, as it were, on the table. That will work a lot better than this ‘plague on both your houses’ bullshitting.

The MadPanda, FCD

Very cute!

I wonder how much cognitive dissonance evolutionists go through when they think such creatures came about by random explosions.

If IBIG/Kris wants to have a “discussion” he/she/they can come here. I suggest that no one allow them to pollute real threads with their bullshit any longer. I certainly have no intention of responding to any of him on any other thread.

Imagine the depths of depravity that one must stoop to in order to waste hundreds of hours lying and displaying your own ignorance in order try to prevent anyone from having a real discussion about science. Imagine how sick and twisted you would have to be to claim you were a real scientist just so you could pretend to discuss science. Imagine how obsessed you would have to be in order to spend so much time and money getting new ISPs and addresses just so you could spew filth and hatred for a few more hours. I guess four hundred pages of monumental stupidity weren’t enough for the asshole. This is your mind on creationism. Jesus wept, I can’t be bothered.

Dogbarf is exactly right.

There was a random explosion at the zoo. The propane tank of a hot dog wagon. Fortunately, it was caused by the operator forgetting to turn off a flame when he went on break, so there were no serious injuries. But a vast number of organic molecules were admixed in a random, chaotic explosion.

And when the smoke cleared, there was an unexpected positive result. An adorable baby fennec fox had been randomly generated. Just as predicted by the theory of evolution.

Well now Kris can defend science by publishing his scathing rebuttal of a twenty three year old paper. All you have to do is send it in to the editor Kris. I know I can’t wait for it to come out, especially the institutional affiliation and contact information part.

It’s so cute when creationists try to pretend to learn science. When will they learn that quote mining doesn’t indicate comprehension? So now it’s definite that Kris is no scientist, so he lied about that. He definitely did claim to be one and without anyone asking, so that’s another thing he lied about. He obviously never read the papers so he lied about that as well. He definitely asked a question about the molecular clock, which he apparently still doesn’t understand despite having “read” the papers, so add that to the list of lies. Then again, he also claimed to be a male, which I find highly suspect, especially his exaggerated claims about the size of his imaginary genitalia. Yes, that was a real scientific argument! And he claims not to be IBIG, despite the obvious similarities. Yea, right.

Kris, if this is the way that you defend science, please, become a creationist. Our side could use the help.

harold said:

Dogbarf is exactly right.

There was a random explosion at the zoo. The propane tank of a hot dog wagon. Fortunately, it was caused by the operator forgetting to turn off a flame when he went on break, so there were no serious injuries. But a vast number of organic molecules were admixed in a random, chaotic explosion.

And when the smoke cleared, there was an unexpected positive result. An adorable baby fennec fox had been randomly generated. Just as predicted by the theory of evolution.

Well, if that story is true it is the first real evidence for evolution.

We have to learn much more about that subject. Cheers!

Well let’s compare shall we?

“I disagree that it is extremely rare to find long-standing antagonistic schools of thought in science, or that eventually all scientists come to agree on what was once in dispute.

On what grounds do you disagree? Perhaps you’d care to name some counter-examples?”

Science: gravity, geocentrism, relativity (general and special), plate tectonics, germ theory, DNA, transposons, neutral theory, punctuated equilibrium (All resolved and current consensus)

Religion: Thousands of separate sects, all in fundamental disagreement, no possible hope of any resolution, often resulting in wars, genocides, jihads, inquisitions, etc.

“Many things that are put forth by so-called scientists as scientific evidence or proof are either very questionable or absolute crap…

Many”? Alright; please name five of this “many”. If you actually do know of “many” such examples, naming five shouldn’t be difficult for you, right?”

Science - no real scientist has EVER claimed absolute “proof” for anything (and no mathematic proofs don’t count). This is just a bold faced lie by someone who doesn’t understand how science works. And even if someone were to claim this, they wouldn’t be doing science or following the scientific method, so no one would care.

Religion - turtles, young earth, world wide flood, dinosaurs on the ark, virgin birth, resurrection, etc. etc. etc.

“Many things in science that are touted as evidence or proof are based on eyewitness or earwitness testimony, with no verifiable or testable evidence or proof.

“Many”? Please name five of this “many”. If you actually do know of “many” such examples, naming five shouldn’t be difficult for you, right?”

See above.

Kris -

Assuming you’re out there, I have a few questions for you -

1) Who is the designer?

2) What did the designer design?

3) How did the designer design it?

4) When did the designer design it?

5) What is an example of something that might not have been intelligently designed?

Sorry, harold, Kris won’t bother answering you. He’s too busy crowing about how we’re all scared of his big bad self. (eyeroll)

I bet he’s Biggy’s muppet.

The MadPanda, FCD

MadPanda -

Sorry, harold, Kris won’t bother answering you.

This part I strongly agree with.

He’s too busy crowing about how we’re all scared of his big bad self. (eyeroll)

I bet he’s Biggy’s muppet.

I don’t think so. Kris has better spelling and grammar, and for all his incoherence and dishonesty, IBIG wouldn’t likely use an ID that denied being religious.

Kris, don’t bother exploding into a teary-eyed defensive rage and diagnosing me with “mental illness” unless you’re also prepared to answer the five questions.

Kris said:

“I don’t care what Eric Alm MIGHT have meant. I care about what he said. “

Nothing illustrates the intellectual dishonesty and baldfaced cluelessness of science deniers like that quote. Never mind what a scientist actually believes, if he used a word that has one damning definition out of several, then damned he is!

I know scientists Kris. Some good friends of mine are scientists. You sir, are no scientist.

Kris’ particular complaint concerning “disagreements and long standing arguments in science” brings to mind a pet peeve I have - the misunderstanding that some people have concerning where science ends and other domains begin and the deliberate mischaracterization/dishonest tactics some folks use to take advantage of this.

For example - a number of folks I know seem to think that science is responsible for any bad policies that the government is thinking about concerning global climate change. “Oh…those scientists telling us that we need to use smaller cars and recycle more!” I tend to cock my head to one side and say something like, “umm…I don’t think that any scientists are telling you that - I’m betting it’s an advertiser, marketer, politician, or maybe even an economist.” The response is something like, “Oh…their just working for the scientists; it’s science’s agenda!”

Uh huh. It just irks me. What do most (if any) scientists gain by insisting someone act a certain way on a piece of information? Why would any scientist, or even better, science in general, care about what kind of car you drive or what kind of house you live in? What does any scientist gain by promoting specific actions to reduce the impact of global climate change?

To be sure, science is definitely interested in determining a) whether the planet is heating up (the data does seem pretty conclusively positive on this one) and b) man’s specific association with a. But as far as data goes, that’s about all that science can provide. Are some scientists concerned about the implications of the data and hope people will act a certain way because of it? ABSOLUTELY! People have opinions and strong feelings about such implications and scientists are people, but does this mean that their opinion on what people do is science? NO!

This is the exact problem with Kris’ “example” of an argument in science concerning the Spotted Owl. The only thing that actual ornithologists and ecologists did was point out that the type of clear cut logging going on in the Pacific Northwest was endangering an already pressured bird. Did science say that logging had to stop? No. Did science say that the bird had to live? No. Did science offer ANY social or political claims one way or the other? No. Was the scientific data used as a political tool to present social/economic/philosophical opinions and policies? You betcha! Was science using that political tool? Heh…not likely. There are many others who are much more adept at that.

It’s no wonder creationists want to blur the lines of responsibility that science has - they really, really, really want to cover up the fact they have mastered the use of political tools, but no nothing about actual science.

harold said: I don’t think so. Kris has better spelling and grammar, and for all his incoherence and dishonesty, IBIG wouldn’t likely use an ID that denied being religious.

Points taken, but that doesn’t rule out that he’s a complete and utter muppet.

Their reading for comprehension seems to be about at the same level.

The MadPanda, FCD

Robin -

The answer to your dilemma is simple.

People have motivations for denying reality.

They either deny reality because they want to keep doing something, and they don’t like the prediction of what will happen if they do (or they want to pretend that they are unaware of the consequences of their acts for others).

Or they deny reality because they want to claim certain authority or power - I tell you what god wants and you do it. My special cure for cancer will work no matter what the doctors told you.

Science makes no comment on what is “good” or “bad”, but denialists realize perfectly well that most people do consider it “bad” to damage the common environment for future generations, profit from harmful products while denying the harm, lie to gain power, sell “medical” treatments that don’t work to desperate people etc.

A streetlight forms no moral judgments, but sometimes criminals want to knock out a street light, so that it won’t illuminate their activities.

What I wanna know is whether Walt Brown, Jr. is Kris’ BFF.

Kris said:

You talk big but when things don’t go your way you pussy out and it’s either ban time, delete time, or off to the BW. What are you and so many others here really afraid of? Are you afraid that comments here, rather than on the BW, are more likely to be seen by visitors to this site and that you might look stupid to those visitors if you allow and leave all challenging or questioning comments here?

I’ve been “given” another thread? Wow, how magnanimous of you.

Man, you’re funny! Since when should the world revolve around you? Why should anyone bother giving you a forum to spout your nonsense anyway?

As for your accusations, I got news for you - you’re just plain wrong. Few, if any, posts are outright deleted here, unlike the “fair-minded and science-oriented” (ha!) site UD. Further, there’s nothing wrong with posting here on the BW or at AtBC. We all read these areas - so do lurkers and passer-bys, so your gripe is a strawman. Basically you’re like a 3 y.o. throwing a tantrum because his parents won’t let him play with the steering wheel on the Interstate. Tough! Grow up! You’re posts have zero to do with the topics of the threads, so why should you being given some leeway to disrupt those threads?

Get a clue, Kris - you’re an idiot.

harold said:

Kris -

Assuming you’re out there, I have a few questions for you -

1) Who is the designer?

2) What did the designer design?

3) How did the designer design it?

4) When did the designer design it?

5) What is an example of something that might not have been intelligently designed?

I have absolutely no idea, especially since I’m not a creationist and I have never put forth any kind of statement that would indicate that I am, to people with a brain and the ability to use it of course.

You mentally ill dolts are nothing but a bunch of cum guzzling, cock sucking, pig fucking, turd loving, ass munching, pimple popping bottom feeders who wouldn’t know reality if it slapped you in the face.

Now, does that sound like something that would come from a creationist?

By the way, I mean every word of it. ROFLMAO!!

Robin said:

Kris said:

You talk big but when things don’t go your way you pussy out and it’s either ban time, delete time, or off to the BW. What are you and so many others here really afraid of? Are you afraid that comments here, rather than on the BW, are more likely to be seen by visitors to this site and that you might look stupid to those visitors if you allow and leave all challenging or questioning comments here?

I’ve been “given” another thread? Wow, how magnanimous of you.

Man, you’re funny! Since when should the world revolve around you? Why should anyone bother giving you a forum to spout your nonsense anyway?

As for your accusations, I got news for you - you’re just plain wrong. Few, if any, posts are outright deleted here, unlike the “fair-minded and science-oriented” (ha!) site UD. Further, there’s nothing wrong with posting here on the BW or at AtBC. We all read these areas - so do lurkers and passer-bys, so your gripe is a strawman. Basically you’re like a 3 y.o. throwing a tantrum because his parents won’t let him play with the steering wheel on the Interstate. Tough! Grow up! You’re posts have zero to do with the topics of the threads, so why should you being given some leeway to disrupt those threads?

Get a clue, Kris - you’re an idiot.

You really are a dunce. I never said or implied that anyone should give me a forum or a thread. Any schooling you’ve received was clearly a total waste of time and effort, on the part of your teachers. I’ve met 5 year olds with better reading skills than you have.

Watch out! There’s a creationist behind you! BOO!

DS said:

If IBIG/Kris wants to have a “discussion” he/she/they can come here. I suggest that no one allow them to pollute real threads with their bullshit any longer. I certainly have no intention of responding to any of him on any other thread.

Imagine the depths of depravity that one must stoop to in order to waste hundreds of hours lying and displaying your own ignorance in order try to prevent anyone from having a real discussion about science. Imagine how sick and twisted you would have to be to claim you were a real scientist just so you could pretend to discuss science. Imagine how obsessed you would have to be in order to spend so much time and money getting new ISPs and addresses just so you could spew filth and hatred for a few more hours. I guess four hundred pages of monumental stupidity weren’t enough for the asshole. This is your mind on creationism. Jesus wept, I can’t be bothered.

Real threads?? As compared to what?

Your insanity, stupidity, and paranoia are showing yet again. Speaking of depths of depravity.

BOO!

stevaroni said:

Kris said:

You see the standards, methods, and results of scientific studies, or at least carefully selected studies, as a weapon against creationism,

The “standards” are simple, and, frankly, trivial. In order for science to consider Creationism as a realistic explanation of the world, they ask that creationists put some actual evidence on the table that creationism even exists.

In 2000 years creationism has yet to present the tiniest scrap to show that their story has any more integrity than Santa Clause or the Tooth Fairy.

How can that possibly be? You’re talking about the most massive events in the history of the universe, and they leave less evidence than the Easter Bunny. “He” at least leaves something behind that can be examined, and you can even objectively show that there are bunnies and there is Easter.

All Creationism has is Dembski’s dodgy math - work so shaky that he steadfastly refuses to defend it in any venue where people can actually ask questions, and Behe’s bald-faced assertions that well-document structures have never been investigated by science - despite being shown in person that the information he seeks is readily available.

IN ADVANCE of any possible or imagined challenge by creationists to any of the standards, methods, or results.

Then challenge it already, troll.

We’ve been telling you guys this for years.

You have some actual evidence?

This is an open venue. Nobody is censoring you, nobody is stopping you.

Put. It. On. The. Table. Already.

You guys are like the kiddie football team that keeps whining that the big boys won’t let them into the game, and when the big boys point to the field and say “go ahead” you guys always figure out some way to chicken out and not play.

then you go up to the bleachers, and call your parents and whine about how the big kids won’t let you play when the truth is you’ve never brought a ball, have no team, and are violently allergic to grass and mud.

That comment of mine has nothing to do with whether scientists should consider creationism as a realistic explanation of the world. It has to do with the paranoia, intent, and behavior of most of the people on this site.

Kris said:

Rolf Aalberg said:

Scientists should be skeptical, unless evidence is, perhaps, overwhelming.

Why don’t you try persuasion with, what I presume you have, overwhelming evidence that ID is true, and ToE is false?

Well, if I had ever said that ID is “true” and/or that the ToE is “false” you might have a point. I’ve never said either.

You actually do that every time you express ANY sympathy for Creationist views. From a strictly scientific standpoint, Creationism has NO legitimacy whatsoever. They are not even remotely simular in terms of scientific credibility. Would you also debase astronomy by arguing that geocentricism is merely an alternate scienitific idea, or debase geography by claiming that flat-Earthism is an alternative idea in that field of study? That just as stupid as what you do with regards with evolution! You are an evolution denialist and that is the essence of Creationism.

Kris said:

The stuff Joe put forth is interesting, but I wouldn’t go so far as to say it’s a “fact” that he “apparently found” Ediacaran-like metazoan trace fossils nearly one hundred million years prior to the initial onset of this fauna in the Vendian (latest Precambrian).

All things in science are important, but any alleged evidence of Precambrian or Cambrian life should be really strong before making any sort of conclusions.

This from the loon who argues that we should give respect to Creationist dogmas, which have NO evidence whatsoever, let alone any strong evidence like he is demanding from us!

Kris said:

I have absolutely no idea, especially since I’m not a creationist and I have never put forth any kind of statement that would indicate that I am, to people with a brain and the ability to use it of course.

You mentally ill dolts are nothing but a bunch of cum guzzling, cock sucking, pig fucking, turd loving, ass munching, pimple popping bottom feeders who wouldn’t know reality if it slapped you in the face.

Now, does that sound like something that would come from a creationist?

By the way, I mean every word of it. ROFLMAO!!

You really are a dunce. I never said or implied that anyone should give me a forum or a thread. Any schooling you’ve received was clearly a total waste of time and effort, on the part of your teachers. I’ve met 5 year olds with better reading skills than you have.

Watch out! There’s a creationist behind you! BOO!

That comment of mine has nothing to do with whether scientists should consider creationism as a realistic explanation of the world. It has to do with the paranoia, intent, and behavior of most of the people on this site.

You say you are not a Creationist when you are challenged to justify your sympathy for Creationist ideas, but you argue passionately for those ideas at all other times. That makes you the worst sort of coward and liar. Hence the insults you continue to recieve. When you start behaving consistently, we will take you a little more seriously, even if you drop the phony act and admit to being what you appear to be most of the time: A hard-core evolution denialist.

About this Archive

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter