|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
 Posted - 10/31/2004 : 00:32:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JerryB
"Well, I could just lock the thread, and thus prove you wrong."
AHHH....It comes out..... and this is the reason this forum is so unbalanced as far as debating the issues. There are no issues to debate:
"The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise."
The truth is you welcome no dissent at all in critical thinking, science or logic. And if anyone comes in here with any other ideas other than your pre-conceived conclusions, you'll just lock the dang thread.
The moderator is also the chief troll. LOL..Lock the thread and obviously lose the debate, Dufus.
ROFLMAO.....
Yeah, I'm pretty sure Dave's post was to remind you that you are a guest. His action of not locking the thread is indicative of his goodwill and tolerance.
You really need to stop with this straw-man stuff and start addressing the meat of people's posts. You come off like a child* to whom we must explain everything.
*Note to self: Jerry's next post will be about how I called him a child.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 10/31/2004 00:36:19 |
 |
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2004 : 00:38:39 [Permalink]
|
******I won't be banning you for the ideas you present, but for the fact that you're a complete hypocrite and an obnoxious ass.********
LOL....More direct name calling from someone that cannot handle the argument. You've had your chance and all you did was make up math, misunderstand science and when I posted a logical syllogism you accused me of quoting Aristotle. If you can't handle the argument, then stay out of it and let someone else try. Are you afraid someone might learn something? Scary, 'eh?
If you can call me an ass, then I can call you what you are, an intellectual obstructionist that simply cannot stand it when facts are presented that goes against your secular humanist religion.
Now you have trolled me ever since I came in here. What better way to stifle free speech and insure no one else in this country believes anything other than the secular humanist tripe you preach. It will be my pleasure to be banned by you. LOL --Idiot. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2004 : 00:42:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JerryBIt will be my pleasure to be banned by you. LOL --Idiot.
The sad part of it is, I've no doubt that you consider merely getting a rise out of people an intellectual "win." Poor, persecuted Jerry. You are truly a martyr for your religion, oops, I mean science.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2004 : 01:01:44 [Permalink]
|
No, I'm sure the thread will not be allowed to continue long enough for me to get a win, if it does, I think it has become apparent to several where it is headed. Can't have that.  I'm still waiting on several outstanding questions, I'm waiting to hear the predictions and hypotheses of Darwinism. I was asked for them for ID, I gave them and they were not refuted.
I'm waiting for some responses in thermodynamics and other issues.
The fact that you think this is all religion is irrelevant to me. I don't go to church or have much anything to do with religion. That's just the way you want to paint it because you're scared to death of the science that backs what I espouse and this is the only argument you have against it.
Nor do I view myself as persecuted over a religious belief, letting science lead me where it may lead? Most definitely. Do you guys happen to do any book burnings in your spare time? |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2004 : 01:45:49 [Permalink]
|
My quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ToE can be falsified. For example, if cats and dogs were more divergent in their genetic composition than cats and frogs are then ToE would be false. The prediction is then for example that releatedness of organisms (as decided before the advent of molecular genetics) should be verified by genetic comparisons.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JerryB quote:
"If frogs were closer to cats than dogs, then frogs would be mammals and dogs something else. Silly analogy.
And one cannot predict something that already is. That's not a prediction that's a description. "
You missed the point. Morpholgical/bevioural classification has previously concluded that cats and dogs are more closely related (eg, they are mammals and so suckle their young) than are cats and frogs (frogs don't suckle their young so they will not be mammals). If ToE is true, then the prediction is that genetic comparisons will come to the same conclusion. This prediction is falsifiable.
Scientific theories do not have to predict future events. They do have to be falsifiable. I could for example measure the height of a sample of kiwis. Based on the average height of the sample population I can predict that the kiwi I caught this morning (and keep in a cage) but have not measured yet will be of a certain height (+- uncertainty). I've got a hypothesis that can be tested.
PS. When I say kiwi here, I mean the bird, not the holder of the New Zealand passport.
JerryB wrote:
"Does Darwinism actually have any predictions that can be falsified? You would be well advised to come up with some because if you cannot after making the assertions you have made in this thread then you have just falsified Darwinism right here in front our fellow skeptics."
This is just illogical. If I failed to state any falsifiable predictions regarding evolution, then I have not falsified Darwinism any more than I have falsified Newtons law of gravity. I would just have failed to state any falsifiable predictions. And again see the falsifiable prediction above regarding cats, dogs and frogs. (Please note also that this is not a prediction of Darwinism as such. With the advent of molecular genetics something known as "the new synthesis" is more appropriate. Or just call it evolutionary theory or ToE if you will).
My quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SLOT does predict this. But all you are saying in your examples is that SLOT is falsifiable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JerryB quote:
"That's exactly what you asked me to do. Reread your question. "
OK then, how does SLOT make ID falsifiable?
My quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A pond might get disordered (is that a word?), but a pond can hardly be called living.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JerryB quote:
"When did I say that the matter changing states of order had to be living? In fact, there is little difference as they both are comprised of molecules consisting of atoms. Matter is matter and all matter matters in the eyes of SLOT."
Then what is the relevance of this to evolution or life in general?
My quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Things die, but as in my example above, they acquire energy (to reduce CO2, thus decreasing entropy).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JerryB quote:
"But you have not shown how the intake of energy by a heterotroph reduces the entropy of that heterotroph. Energy is not negentropy and when a heterotroph consumes energy, nothing in the real world is 100% efficient and so a certain amount of that |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2004 : 02:01:54 [Permalink]
|
And to further explain my previous post...
Jerry, you brought our mission statement into this discussion. I'll quote it again here, for good measure:The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise. I'd like you to demonstrate to me, precisely, how you being allowed to summarily dismiss posts as not being "intelligent" fits with our mission here at the Skeptic Friends Network.
To the mind of this critical thinker, it doesn't. The promotion of critical thought involves specific and unambiguous teaching of why certain ways of thinking are incorrect. It requires an explanation of why your correspondents here fail to understand the subjects you bring up. Simply ignoring them - as you have been doing, lately - does nothing to encourage the development of a desire for correct conclusions, which is what we're all about.
So again I ask: what it is about your poor social skills in the past few days which meshes with our mission statement? Why is it that we should allow you to remain when you obviously fail to embrace the ideals expressed in the statement you quoted? It should be clear to anyone reading this far into this thread that you consider our mission to be tedious, as it tends to be repetitive and boring for you.
If you're looking for exciting and new debates, where is that written in our mission statement?
Also, I must say that I find it ironic and amusing that you, so prideful of your search for truth, would post here with as much vigor and vehemence in complete ignorance of who you're arguing against. The surprise you expressed when I stated that I was an administrator here was quite plain. Common sense on the Internet dictates that one watch and learn for a while before setting foot in an unknown forum. You're likely to put said foot straight into your mouth.
Oh, and while I was writing this, you wrote:quote:
LOL....More direct name calling from someone that cannot handle the argument.
I'm still waiting for you to counter my last logical and mathematical argument. It seems to me that such stonewalling on your part is indicative of who "cannot handle the argument."
Besides which, I never said that you and I could debate without name-calling. You said that, and then failed to follow through.quote:
You've had your chance and all you did was make up math...
No, I made one error in math, and I agreed it was an error. An inconsequential error, at that, since even with my wrong numbers, your argument was unchanged. My error made no difference whatsoever to your point, yet you pounced upon it as if it did. Quite paranoid behaviour, seems to me.quote:
...misunderstand science...
You have failed to demonstrate this "fact" in any way. Address this point of yours directly, please.quote:
...and when I posted a logical syllogism you accused me of quoting Aristotle.
Well, this is just wrong, on two counts, as shown by the previous posts in this thread: I accused you of digging up Aristotlean ideals (not "quoting Aristotle") when you wrote "The fact that function is an intelligently assigned property, yet is found in nature," which is not a logical syllogism in any way.quote:
If you can't handle the argument, then stay out of it and let someone else try.
Everyone else here is free to try. This thread hasn't been locked, nor have you been banned. Feel free to post your email address, so that no matter what may happen to you or this thread, others can follow up with you directly. Far be it from me to stifle the flow of information.quote:
Are you afraid someone might learn something?
No, I am trying to learn something, but you absolutely refuse to help me by explaining where I've gone wrong. It's highly frustrating.quote:
Scary, 'eh?
No, what's scary is that you think you're doing well here, all the while virtually spitting on the ideals you profess.quote:
If you can call me an ass, then I can call you what you are...
I will remind you again: you suggested the ground rules for polite discourse in this thread. I didn't tell you to behave well until after you said that everyone should behave well, but then disregarded your own suggestion.quote:
...an intellectual obstructionist that simply cannot stand it when facts are presented that goes against your secular humanist religion.
But you've got no evidence of any such thing. You're being unscientific and illogical. Again. (You're also being ungrammatical with the noun-verb disagreement.)quote:
Now you have trolled me ever since I came in here.
This is simply a lie. Your first post to this thread: 10/27/2004 at 23:58:03. My first post to this thread: 10/28/2004 at 07:27:16. You had nearly seven-and-a-half hours before I said a word. And then, the first post I wrote to you was over a full twelve hours after that. You managed to make twelve (12!) posts before I ever began actually directing any words towards you, or you towards me.
Twelve posts in about 20 hours. And you claim I was trolling you. Your insistence upon science, logic and math seems to be failing.quote:
What better way to stifle free speech and insure no one else in this country believes anything other than the secular humanist tripe you preach.
You must be kidding. While we (the staff here) were more than pleased to have served over 40,000 people this past month (if I remember correctly), we have no responsibility to allow you a place to say an |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2004 : 03:21:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I'd like you to demonstrate to me, precisely, how you being allowed to summarily dismiss posts as not being "intelligent" fits with our mission here at the Skeptic Friends Network.
To the mind of this critical thinker, it doesn't. The promotion of critical thought involves specific and unambiguous teaching of why certain ways of thinking are incorrect. It requires an explanation of why your correspondents here fail to understand the subjects you bring up. Simply ignoring them - as you have been doing, lately - does nothing to encourage the development of a desire for correct conclusions, which is what we're all about.
First, you are extremely confused if you consider yourself a mature, free-critical thinker since you have trolled me like a juvenile ever since I've been in here.
I do not summarily dismiss any post at all. I address them line by line down to the slightest detail. I dismiss posts that do not address any of the topics we are discussing. I dismiss troll posts such as yours that go into multi-fora trying to dig up personal dirt on me rather than address the discussion. I dismiss posts that keep asking the same question over and over like the guy that keeps asking me who the designer is when I have stated over and over that I do not know.
Give me an intelligent post even similar to anything we are discussing and see how quickly it is addressed.
quote:
So again I ask: what it is about your poor social skills in the past few days which meshes with our mission statement? Why is it that we should allow you to remain when you obviously fail to embrace the ideals expressed in the statement you quoted? It should be clear to anyone reading this far into this thread that you consider our mission to be tedious, as it tends to be repetitive and boring for you.
We? Do you have a mouse in your pocket? Don't give me that elitist crap about what I think about the mission statement. I simply quoted it for you to show what a crock you are in honoring it. And don't preach to me about my poor social skills. Look what the competent moderator has allowed to happen in this thread over its course:
1) To which Jerry, the insane ID "scientist", responded:
2) I can tolerate morons like verlch, but assholes like you, who are clearly intelligent enough to realize what you are doing is a telling a deliberate lie, I despise.
3) Yep, only thing left to do is call you names..... moron.
4) You are probably a loki troll or a severely ignorant person. Either way you are a liar and a waste of time.
5) Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, I hate you.
6) if you say LOL one more time, mother fucker, I'm going to kick you in the throat.
7) You are a moron, that's why.
8) An idea-- go to the fucking link I cited, and read the goddamned quote. No, you lazy fuck, I didn't "make this up."
Yeah, I've ignored a few posts. I apologize that my social skills are so poor, but notice that I did not respond in kind to these immoral idiots. I don't care if people are atheists, agnostics, Jews or Muslims, gay, straight or bisexual. But I have no respect for people who have no morals at all and couldn't care less that kids are probably reading this. Low-life immoral scums of the earth fairly well sums that up.
quote:
If you're looking for exciting and new debates, where is that written in our mission statement?
Insure you never put that in there. Truth in advertising and all that........
quote:
Also, I must say that I find it ironic and amusing that you, so prideful of your search for truth, would post here with as much vigor and vehemence in complete ignorance of who you're arguing against. The surprise you expressed when I stated that I was an administrator here was quite plain. Common sense on the Internet dictates that one watch and learn for a while before setting foot in an unknown forum. You're likely to put said foot straight into your mouth.
This is simply unethical behavior on your part. It is standard ethics on the Internet to let people know when they are debating a moderator rather than the moderator get pissed off and gag the other person because he is bested in debate. That is where you are at right now. The readers can decide this for themselves. LOL...Like this post will even be up in a few days.
quote:
I'm still waiting for you to counter my last logical and mathematical argument. It seems to me that such stonewalling on your part is indicative of who "cannot handle the argument."
Here we go again. Please cut and paste that argument in the very next post.
******This is simply a lie.******
Just noting you are name-calling again by calling me a liar. How many strikes would that be on your part, and are the controls set up in a way you can gag yourself?
Now. Let's cut to the chase. I personally challenge you to a one on one debate in ID verses Darwinism. You are so far into this that if you refuse you will look like an idiot. Do you actually know any science? Or are you all uneducated bluster? Your call, Mississippi. |
| Edited by - JerryB on 10/31/2004 04:18:30 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2004 : 06:44:11 [Permalink]
|
Don't ban Jerry, Dave; he's too much fun to watch.
Hmm. Come to think of it, I really can't remember anyone getting kicked from here, nor even any locked threads, and there've been some rough and rowdy ones. I'd not want to set precident just on account of Jerry, no. Me, I've been called worse by better many times, although apart from a couple of pretty dumb remarks, he's mostly left me alone. Too alone, indeed. As I recall, I've still got a couple of questions hanging out there.
Now then Jerry, please explain to me exactly why blind cave fishes have rudimentary eyes if they were created as a whole and not evolving away from them.
And why does the electric eel, a creature capable of navigating by electrical pulses, have eyes. Seems silly, especally as it is blinded by electricity-induced cataracts at an early age.
It gets better; the surinam toad has no tongue and must cram it's prey into it's cavernous gullet with it's forelimbs. Whassup wid dat?
A fish's tail is a marvelous means of aquatic propulsion, yet the 1/2 ton pelagic sunfish has all but none. It swims by waggling it's dorsal and ventral fins. Did somebody forget something?
To revisit the human body, why do we have too many teeth for the size of our jaws and often have to have our wisdom teeth, which grow in at odd angles, yanked?
Why do non-venomous snakes have duvernoy's organ, and why are those marvelous venom glands degenerate in serpents such as pythons, that kill by constriction?
Why do snakes have two lungs and only use one, the other being degenerate?
Why cannot naked mole rats control their body temperture as efficently as other mammals?
I can keep this going 'till the raven dies and falls from Pallas, and the Vogons run out of poetry. Each of these few examples argue aganist any sort of a designer, sacred or profane, and in favor of evolution. You may spin virtual skeins of mathmatics and slather them with as much cosmic bullshit as you can come up with, but none of it will will change the fact that a blind cave fish and an electric eel have eyes.
Evolution happens! Get smeggin' used to it!
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2004 : 07:39:37 [Permalink]
|
Instead of complaining about how badly your being treated (which is only in response to you being a prick in the first place) why don't you explain how your NOT advocating a supernatural designer?
Once again:
You state that it's impossible for CSI to occur randomly in nature.
You state that CSI "must" be designed.
Therefore, you state that no designer can naturally occur.
Therefore, you state that the designer is of supernatural origin.
It's interesting that once you get called on the inconsitencies and misinformation you post, that you resort to being a prick and accusing DaveW of "trolling" you..... rather than address the problems raised with your posts.
So, explain how your "science" doesn't really advocate a supernatural designer. Then we can move on to your fallacious use of terms (like "Darwinism" and "complex macroevolution") and your total abscense of evidence for your claims (like SLOT causes aging in living organisms). |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2004 : 07:56:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JerryB
8) An idea-- go to the fucking link I cited, and read the goddamned quote. No, you lazy fuck, I didn't "make this up."
Yeah, I've ignored a few posts. I apologize that my social skills are so poor, but notice that I did not respond in kind to these immoral idiots. I don't care if people are atheists, agnostics, Jews or Muslims, gay, straight or bisexual. But I have no respect for people who have no morals at all and couldn't care less that kids are probably reading this. Low-life immoral scums of the earth fairly well sums that up.
Right. But here's the deal-- I asked you a question about how you felt about the ID movement's idea to "destroy" science as we know it and replace it with a new "theistic" science. It's a fair question, and even if I'm stupid, it seems to be an important thing to address. After all, you claim to be for ID but also not into religion. Thus, one might wonder how you address other (perhaps more influential) IDers who want to move towards a type of religion.
However, in responding to this, you accused me of making it up. Now, I could have understood this if, say, I didn't link anything, or if I did, but put the link in a strange place. But I didn't. The link was right there. So not only did I not make it up, but you were lazy enough to not even bother to check the reference and reply to it. And worse, you accuse me of making the quote up.
This, of course, wasn't true, and my question remains unanswered.
Finally, I should apologize for my own language in my earlier reply. I had just returned from a Halloween soiree and obviously had too much candy. Er, wine. Anyhow, I obviously reacted a bit too harshly to the (false) accusation that I had made up a damaging quote regarding the ID movement.
Now, perhaps you could respond to the question... |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2004 : 10:24:46 [Permalink]
|
Dave has said it but I'm going to weigh in now. Lets everyone try to stay cool. This is a topic that can make the blood boil, and I understand that. Name-calling is not going to further the debate and may just bring it to an end as far as Jerry's participation is concerned.
Jerry, you need to understand where you are. Did you not think we would be somewhat (or less than somewhat) hostile to the idea of ID? A skeptic must remain open to new ideas, but demands for evidence are par and if they are not supplied, you will be called on it. They will be challenged if they are found lacking in any way. This goes for everyone. But Jerry, you came to us with the claim and it is incumbent upon you to support that claim. It frustrates us when you seem to dance around many of the calls for you to back up your assertions. That also goes for us and our assertions too. But frankly, the ID claim is yours. So you are on the hot seat.
Again, no more name-calling! And that goes for everyone!
Oh yes, Jerry, no one has ever been banned from our site. If you happen to manage that feat (not an easy task regardless of what you think) you would be the first... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2004 : 11:25:36 [Permalink]
|
JerryB, I'd just like to clarify why I asked a couple of questions in my last post.
You said:
"Of course it's silly. But no more silly that you implying that energy from the sun somehow overcame SLOT in macroevolution allowing homo sapiens to magically morph from an amoeba."
My reply was:
"Are you implying that the sun can overcome SLOT in microevolution?
Are you implying that the sun can overcome SLOT with regards to the growth and maintenance of phototrohic organisms?"
It looks like I read a little too much between the lines when I asked these questions, but I had in the back of my head my the idea that you had earlier in this thread stated that you were an "evolutionist".
So I went back and found thses quotes of yours:
"But I never said that SLOT prohibits evolution. I am an evolutionist."
"No, I suspect evolution is to blame for this."
"But I have never said that SLOT denies evolution."
Why are we then having this discussion?
|
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
| Edited by - Hawks on 10/31/2004 11:30:00 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2004 : 12:09:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hawks
So I went back and found thses quotes of yours:
"But I never said that SLOT prohibits evolution. I am an evolutionist."
"No, I suspect evolution is to blame for this."
"But I have never said that SLOT denies evolution."
Why are we then having this discussion?
Jerry said:
"I stated that SLOT forbids the complexity in complex macroevolution. This is not the same thing as the broader category: evolution."
and...
"One need not accept macroevolution when one accepts evolution. The two terms are not the same."
See, Jerry is not an evolutionist in any scientific sense of the word. He has adopted the same viewpoint as the Creationists, namely that "micro-evolution" occurs (since changes in current species are undeniably apparent), but that "macro-evolution" doesn't. Science does not recognize a distinction between these two processes, as macroevolution is simply microevolution over time.
The reason there is confusion about Jerry's position is because he claimed to be an "evolutionist," which to most people would mean that he accepts the theory of evolution. But like many terms he's thrown around in this thread, Jerry uses the word with special connotations peculiar to him. In truth, he rejects the fundamental concepts of evolution and that species evolve over time into new species. He isn't an evolutionist except per his own definition of it.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 10/31/2004 12:11:35 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2004 : 14:03:50 [Permalink]
|
Damn guys, y'all are gettin' slow. I picked up on Jerry's anti 'secluar humanist' bent the first time he bad-mouthed Talk Orgins. Fundies, IDists, and others hate TO because they can't refute anything on the site. It's too well and accuratly referenced and too available. Jerry's antipathy to it is pretty much typical of fundie denial and far from uncommon.
Hey, if you want to make Jonathon Sarfati (Socratis) squeal like he was being sodomized by an echidna walking backward, go to TheologyWeb and reference TO. It's pretty amazing and highly amusing.
I don't reference TO all that much any more. It's too easy. More fun to get other references elsewhere, although I often wind up back there. And what I reference is often on the site, anyway. I am still in the process of recovering my links from the Clamitous Computer Crap-out a while back.
Jerry is no more than another fundie in the mold of Dembski, I think. He is quite a bit better spoken than most, but he's really come up with nothing new beyond the smoke screens.
I wonder if he makes decent barbeque.....
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
