Wednesday, May 30, 2012

Karma/good riddance/LOL

Tuesday, May 29, 2012

joe g, stone cold stupid

From his blog:

TUESDAY, MAY 29, 2012
Evolutionism- Evolution is Directed by the Surviving Reproducers
EvoTARDs love to spew that opponents of the theory erect a strawman when we say that the theory posits accumulations of random genetic events. EvoTARDs (wrongly) claim that together with the random genetic events there is the directing/ guiding factor of natural selection.

When it is pointed out that natural selection is a result and whatever is good enough is that result, the conversation basically ends.

The point being that whatever survives to reproduce is the result and therefor constitutes this mysterious "directing/ guiding" element of evolutionism.

So according to evoTARD "logic" the "direction" of evolution is "whatever it is/ whatever it happens to be". Pure genius.........
posted by Joe G @ 6:43 PM 0 comments


When or if the "conversation ends" it's because you and the rest of the IDiots don't listen and DON'T GET IT. You have been told many, many, many times about how natural selection works but you are just way too stupid to understand.

If I feel like it I'll come back later and try to explain it to you one more time.

Tuesday, May 22, 2012

The "righteous"

Read this:

(For some reason I am not able to make many urls into clickable links here. You'll have to copy the above url, paste it into your browser search bar, and hit enter. I'm sorry for the inconvenience.)

Wednesday, May 2, 2012

Many people have asked...

...the IDiots to explain exactly how the acceptance of "ID" (especially by biologists/evolutionary scientists) would change science for the better. What new and useful research avenues, methods, tools, etc., would be created and used?

Some IDiots (joe g, etc.) have said that reverse engineering would then be done on organisms, etc., but reverse engineering is already being done in every instance where it applies and can be done. The only other response IDiots have (when they have any at all) is that an "ID inference" could be made. Well, so what?

No matter how many times the IDiots are asked what new and useful difference the acceptance of "ID" would make in scientific research, they NEVER have a USEFUL answer, and they run from the question like chickens from a fox.

Let's take a little trip back in time:

Pay close attention to the fact that dembski never actually answered the question, and nothing has changed since, and of course the real reason the IDiots never answer the question (and run away) is because the acceptance of "ID" or the "ID inference" would NOT create ANY new or useful research avenues, methods, tools, etc.

So, IDiots, here's another chance for you to answer the question: EXACTLY HOW would the acceptance of "ID" or the "ID inference" usefully change the way scientific research (especially biology/evolutionary science) is done?