Trying this again ... Information ...

[rossum]

I'd love to be challenged, to find a "flaw" or "hole" in my work

There is a flaw somewhere near line 42 of page 17 of your work. I'm afraid I cannot be more specific without seeing the whole page.

rossum

[rogue06]

A while back an ex-Twebber left Tweb and sent me a PM upon departing.
In that PM he said, quote, "I honestly believe that many at TWeb are insane."
I thought at that time that "insane" was a bit extreme.
In time I've come to wonder if perhaps he actually had it right.

I have it on good authority that it is a requirement to be on staff here.

[rogue06]

When everyone (both atheists and Christians) keep telling you the same thing and you keep ignoring it, maybe you are the one with the problem, Jorge.

Keep in mind that, for all practical purposes, Jorge thinks that only YECs are Christian so he would reject any and every thing that you, as a dirty compromising OEC, has to say.

The trouble for him is that several YECs have also told him pretty much the same thing as well.

[Roy]

Listen, stupid, this is your second post here.

An excellent example of how always starts out politely and respectfully with new posters at Tweb.

A while back TWeb had a system crash in which over 14,000 (? - give or take) of my posts were lost.

Is that an admission that you cannot demonstrate any background/context that differs from rogue's recollection of a certain pre-crash thread?

[oxmixmudd]

Obviously I was delusional ...
Jorge

There Jorge - how does it feel to be 'quote mined'.




Jim

[gladiatrix]

Hypothesis confirmed. Clucky is still angry at everyone because he got caught using a fake web-bought PhD to pimp his book.

Of course the honest thing to do would have been to not brag about a phony degree in the first place but you can bet that thought never crossed his teeny YEC mind.

Hey, stupid, hadn't I booted you off this thread a while back?

Why ban someone from a thread (IMO it looks like the banner might be afraid of what the "bannee" might say)?

But then, just like the rest of your kind, rules and laws don't apply to you do they.

A loaded question that presumes as FACT that people not belly-crawling in slobbering, abject F-E-A-R of your alleged God/bribed with post-mortem "promises" of that old Heaven-cookie, can't possibly be moral/decent human beings (and that's a particular "flavor" of this alleged entity, too, so many "versions" under the Christian "umbrella").

IOW, you do have statistics showing that theists (Christians in particular) are the most law-abiding/moral human beings (few in prison, little divorce, rarely have abortions, etc.), in sharp contrast to atheists/other non-believers, right, Jorge?

As for the rest of your lying, dishonest post, it is ignored as it should be.

What did HMS_Beagle lie about?

WOW - a new Atheist joins TWeb.
She's come to the right place, for sure -- lots of support for Atheists here!
Being this was her first post, it was very informative about her character.
Therefore, she and most TWebber will get along great, of that I am sure.

Why thank you, I find comparison to knowledgeable posters of integrity such as rogue06, oxmixmudd, Roy and other evolution-supporters here to quite flattering.

You appear unaware that "knowledgeable"-"integrity" and "evolution supporters" are mutually exclusive terms.

1. And you appear to be able to do nothing but belch up unsubstantiated accusations, given that you've not posted any evidence to support your slur that evolution supporters are without knowledge/integrity (without support, it's just another example of bearing false witness against opponents one has yet to get the better of >>> sour grapes, MUCH!)

2. However, I strongly suspect that the level of any given poster's "knowledge/integrity" in your-verse is directly proportional to his/her fawning/unquestioning agreement with your every pronouncement

What did Beagle Boy lie about?

Try MOST THINGS.

If it's "MOST THINGS", then it should be no trouble for you to point out one of these alleged porkies, given there's such a "target rich environment" ("MOST THINGS"), according to you.

Failure to substantiate your allegation would mean that you are the one actually guilty of what you are so busy accusing HMS Beagle of doing and should perhaps take the advice of that book (well, your particular interpretation of cherry-picked sections of it that is) you worship and arrange for an emergency PLANKectomy.

Listen, stupid, this is your second post here. A while back TWeb had a system crash in which over 14,000 (? - give or take) of my posts were lost. My point is that I have over 14 years (?) and 16,000 (?) posts of experience that more-than-amply support what I say about Beagle Boy or anyone else here on TWeb. You have 2 - count them, TWO - posts with "experience" measured in minutes. In other words, you are c-l-u-e-l-e-s-s of what you are talking about. Ergo, I will not waste any time supporting my claim to the likes of you.

1. When asked to substantiate your accusation that HMS Beagle lied, one that should be easy to do given that according to you, "MOST THINGS" posted by him are such, your only "defense" to cover up the FACT that you can do no such thing (prove me wrong any time) is pompous bloviating about your post count/years on this forum.

2. IOW, since when does the fact that you have more posts/years on this forum than I substantiate your claim that I'm clueless and/or absolve you from putting your evidence where your full-of-false-witness mouth is (what does one have to do with the other, red herring, MUCH!)?

3. This kind of childish evasion on your part tell me that you can't support your accusation of lying against HMS Beagle, one that should be easy for you to support in light of the FACT that you assert the lie was in the post you responded to:

Hypothesis confirmed. Clucky is still angry at everyone because he got caught using a fake web-bought PhD to pimp his book.

Of course the honest thing to do would have been to not brag about a phony degree in the first place but you can bet that thought never crossed his teeny YEC mind.

Hey, stupid, hadn't I booted you off this thread a while back?
But then, just like the rest of your kind, rules and laws don't apply to you do they.
As for the rest of your lying, dishonest post, it is ignored as it should be.

Jorge (bold added)

A. The bolded accusation clearly indicates that HMS Beagle lied in the post you responded to, so I ask you again, just what did he lie about (should be easy to point out in the post you assert is the source...."MOST THINGS" and all of that!)

Now go away, impetuous child.

ROFL! A childish attempt at condescending intimidation...do get over yourself, but since you've got NOTHING to back up that accusations you've vomited up against HMS Beagle or actually put forward any argument supporting your claims, this kind of blustering is "as good as it gets" from someone without the "goods" (evidence).

That you seem to have nothing of value to offer was exemplified weeks ago as far as I'm concerned by just these two exchanges HERE and HERE.

Of course you could easily disprove my suspicion that you've got nothing but "God^[1]~POOFED!^[2]~it! by giving us the scientific details (evidence supporting them?) on the mechanism that generated your "information" leading to the alleged "functional complex information" (define?) with an example of any biological system that actually exhibits your description (let's see the color of your science).

----
^[1] This is a very specific "flavor" (the right-wing YEC version) of the Christian God, one of many "flavors" that Christians have been viciously savaging each other over for the better part of two thousand years with no consensus on what "flavor" is RC ("religiously correct", assumes there's one to be had) which itself further assumes without evidence that there is such an entity ("flavor" notwithstanding) to begin with.

^[2] According to the Bible, that "mechanism" would be by "speaking" the universe/everything into existence (a mere 6000 years ago in YEC/ID-verse) no less, . Now that's nothing but spell-casting, albeit on a grand scale, which is why I suspect there are passages in the Bible calling for the murder of "witches", no would-be "competitors" allowed by the self-declared "jealous" God or Grand Magician by any other name. But then the "crimes" of witchcraft (most often used against "uppity" women) and blasphemy are obvious, self-serving charges ginned up by theists as a pretext/"excuse" to sadistically butcher any nay-sayers without compunction or conscience, usually done as publicly as possible, thus terrorizing any other would-be naysayers into silence.

The rest of your (above) post is ignored and dismissed as it is obviously coming from an immature ignoramus. Believe or say as you wish - I cannot prevent that. Just know that you are less-than-ZERO to me. Now go back to sniffing Darwin's socks and Dawkin's underwear.

More kindergarten-level baiting-n-taunting spew from you instead of a reasoned argument(s) showing that the label of "immature ignoramus" is a warranted and since the "caliber" of the above is characteristic of most of your posts I've read, I can only conclude this kind of "argumentation" is "as good as it gets"/ your "personal best" (So thanks, I'm quite flattered to be on the "less-than-ZERO" list of someone such as you, just one indication that I'm doing the right thing/on the right side! )

[Jorge]

whatever. Don't let the door hit you on your behind on the way out.

That's right, Sparko, anything except admit that you are a dishonest dorko, Sparko.
Par for the course ...

Jorge

[Jorge]

What is wrong with that is that without putting forward your new theory, the likelyhood you will get random questions that expose weaknesses in your theory is close to zero.

Do you suppose that if the fellow that solved Fermat's last theorem had simply gone into a room and asked: "What questions do you have about Fermat's theorem" that he would have found the flaw that was found with his first version - even if the room was full of PhD mathematicians that had all tried to solve the problem and failed? No - he presented the theorem and those knowledgable enough to analyze it for flaws did so. They found the flaw, and that enabled him to return to the task and finish the proof.

It's just stupid Jorge. It shows an ignorance and arrogance that almost guarantees your work is empty.

If you wanted serious questions, you would have needed to be less paranoid and more forthcoming. As it is you've just ruined another potentially good conversation.


Jim

Wow - you've gotten really REALLY good at creating BS straw men - anything except admit that your are w-r-o-n-g.
Good boy! That's the ol' O-Mudd that I've gotten to know so well over the years.

Jorge

[Jorge]

If someone said "the only honest way to answer "what's 2 + 2?" is to say 22", and i answered "4", i wouldn't be too upset about being called dishonest by the person who posed the question.

I also note that you haven't engaged with the substance of my response. To borrow your own phrase, "Oh well, at least you're consistent!"

Engage with the "substance" of your post? "Substance"? Really?
Stop deluding yourself, Lurch -- you are intellectually dishonest - period!

Jorge

[Jorge]

I have it on good authority that it is a requirement to be on staff here.

That's the first believable, honest comment I've heard from you in a 'coon's age.

Jorge

[Jorge]

Keep in mind that, for all practical purposes, Jorge thinks that only YECs are Christian so he would reject any and every thing that you, as a dirty compromising OEC, has to say.

You lie and you KNOW you lie. I've explained myself on this point more times than I can recall. What I actually think is that only Biblical Creationists (aka, "YECs") are orthodox biblical Christians. If you're going to attribute a position to someone then make sure that it's accurate. Otherwise you are being dishonest (as if you didn't already know that).

The trouble for him is that several YECs have also told him pretty much the same thing as well.

See comment above. Those "YECs" that have told me the same are either confused, clueless or don't know/understand my position at all.

Jorge

[37818]

Jorge,

As much as I essentially agree with a Christian Bible-based only view. The YEC view is not fully biblical. What is actually true matters. Which of course begins with God and His word (John 17:17; Romans 10:17-18; Psalm 19:1-4).

[Jorge]

Jorge,

As much as I essentially agree with a Christian Bible-based only view. The YEC view is not fully biblical. What is actually true matters. Which of course begins with God and His word (John 17:17; Romans 10:17-18; Psalm 19:1-4).

Biblical Creationism (aka "YEC) is fully biblical - in fact, it is the ONLY fully biblical position that I am aware of. And yes, I am aware of all other biblical positions - there are literally hundreds of them, all man-created, of course.

It would do you well to become educated in these matters and dismiss the decades of indoctrination that you appear all-too-willing to parrot. Mostly you are not to blame for this. The indoctrination is pervasive and relentless.

Needless to say, I agree 100.00% with you that it is the TRUTH that matters - nothing else.

Jorge

EDITED TO ADD:

I had started a new thread and now that thread is vanished. It seems that the Orwellian Evolutionist Thought Police is doing its job. In any event, here was a reply to what I had posted in that now-defunct thread - it's from a PhD scientist whose career was literally destroyed/ended by the Evolutionists. He went on to drive a truck for over 30 years and retired from that in 2005 :

Greetings and welcome XXXXXXXX. I am one of over 3,000 professors fired or denied tenure for doubting Saint Darwin. This is a modern form of religious persecution, but few people know about it. With my teaching and research career ended I became a truck driver until my retirement in 2005.

I have published about 20 books and half of them are children's books about about alligators. I have caught, studied and released over 200 alligators up to 450 pounds...................

Again, welcome,
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Ph.D.

Jorge

[Sparko]

your other thread was moved to the padded room where it belongs. as will this one if you just keep up the trolling and insults instead of discussing the topic of information.

[rogue06]

You lie and you KNOW you lie. I've explained myself on this point more times than I can recall. What I actually think is that only Biblical Creationists (aka, "YECs") are orthodox biblical Christians. If you're going to attribute a position to someone then make sure that it's accurate. Otherwise you are being dishonest (as if you didn't already know that).




See comment above. Those "YECs" that have told me the same are either confused, clueless or don't know/understand my position at all.

Jorge