AE Public Forum
Antievolution.org is the critic's resource on antievolution. The public bulletin board is a lightly moderated place for general discussions, using a set of rules first implemented in 1992 for the Fidonet "Evolution Echo".
Updated: 10 years 25 weeks ago
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by stevestory
Gary why don't you head over to Dembski's old blog, http://uncommondescent.com/....ent.com and see if you can find supporters who might promote your theory?
Gary why don't you head over to Dembski's old blog, http://uncommondescent.com/....ent.com and see if you can find supporters who might promote your theory?
Categories: AE Public BB
Joe G.'s Tardgasm
Post by Driver
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 14 2014,19:54)Doesn't look like Petrushka even knows that Joe exists.
Let him know when you see him.
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 14 2014,19:54)Doesn't look like Petrushka even knows that Joe exists.
Let him know when you see him.
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 5
Post by Richardthughes
A terrible idea:
Quote 108
StephenBMarch 14, 2014 at 1:01 pm
UD administrators: I believe that GPuccio, Eric Anderson, and Timaeus should be given posting privileges
A great idea:
Give Joe G, Batshit77 and Gary Gaulin positing priveleges.
Look, UD / ID is dying a tragic, slow death. Let's make the last season awesome with SWEARING! YOUTUBE! and MYTHEORYOFID!
A terrible idea:
Quote 108
StephenBMarch 14, 2014 at 1:01 pm
UD administrators: I believe that GPuccio, Eric Anderson, and Timaeus should be given posting privileges
A great idea:
Give Joe G, Batshit77 and Gary Gaulin positing priveleges.
Look, UD / ID is dying a tragic, slow death. Let's make the last season awesome with SWEARING! YOUTUBE! and MYTHEORYOFID!
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 5
Post by fnxtr
Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 12 2014,07:25) Quote (CeilingCat @ Mar. 12 2014,16:34) Quote (sparc @ Mar. 11 2014,23:46) Quote (REC @ Mar. 11 2014,10:29)I think Sal is following O'Leary's tactics, and launching multiple YEC blogs this month:
Liars For Darwin
is running.
If he wants to make a living out of his creationist idiocy Sal should go for a theology degree and then open his own little church rather than running this obscure online "university" which is so obviously pseudoscienctific and especially so anti-academic that it will not attract even the dumbest IDiots. Like Dembski he may not be a good enough speaker, though.
It worked for L. Ron Hubbard.
And he didn't even get the theology degree.
Hubbard? Of course he only used the tools of theology sycophancy and greed the rest were sheep & collateral damage.
Whereas ID, on the other hand... um...
Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 12 2014,07:25) Quote (CeilingCat @ Mar. 12 2014,16:34) Quote (sparc @ Mar. 11 2014,23:46) Quote (REC @ Mar. 11 2014,10:29)I think Sal is following O'Leary's tactics, and launching multiple YEC blogs this month:
Liars For Darwin
is running.
If he wants to make a living out of his creationist idiocy Sal should go for a theology degree and then open his own little church rather than running this obscure online "university" which is so obviously pseudoscienctific and especially so anti-academic that it will not attract even the dumbest IDiots. Like Dembski he may not be a good enough speaker, though.
It worked for L. Ron Hubbard.
And he didn't even get the theology degree.
Hubbard? Of course he only used the tools of theology sycophancy and greed the rest were sheep & collateral damage.
Whereas ID, on the other hand... um...
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 5
Post by k.e..
Quote (CeilingCat @ Mar. 12 2014,16:34) Quote (sparc @ Mar. 11 2014,23:46) Quote (REC @ Mar. 11 2014,10:29)I think Sal is following O'Leary's tactics, and launching multiple YEC blogs this month:
Liars For Darwin
is running.
If he wants to make a living out of his creationist idiocy Sal should go for a theology degree and then open his own little church rather than running this obscure online "university" which is so obviously pseudoscienctific and especially so anti-academic that it will not attract even the dumbest IDiots. Like Dembski he may not be a good enough speaker, though.
It worked for L. Ron Hubbard.
And he didn't even get the theology degree.
Hubbard? Of course he only used the tools of theology sycophancy and greed the rest were sheep & collateral damage.
Quote (CeilingCat @ Mar. 12 2014,16:34) Quote (sparc @ Mar. 11 2014,23:46) Quote (REC @ Mar. 11 2014,10:29)I think Sal is following O'Leary's tactics, and launching multiple YEC blogs this month:
Liars For Darwin
is running.
If he wants to make a living out of his creationist idiocy Sal should go for a theology degree and then open his own little church rather than running this obscure online "university" which is so obviously pseudoscienctific and especially so anti-academic that it will not attract even the dumbest IDiots. Like Dembski he may not be a good enough speaker, though.
It worked for L. Ron Hubbard.
And he didn't even get the theology degree.
Hubbard? Of course he only used the tools of theology sycophancy and greed the rest were sheep & collateral damage.
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 5
Post by midwifetoad
UD conducts a debate against an invisible opponent.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....allenge
UD conducts a debate against an invisible opponent.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....allenge
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 5
Post by CeilingCat
Quote (sparc @ Mar. 11 2014,23:46) Quote (REC @ Mar. 11 2014,10:29)I think Sal is following O'Leary's tactics, and launching multiple YEC blogs this month:
Liars For Darwin
is running.
If he wants to make a living out of his creationist idiocy Sal should go for a theology degree and then open his own little church rather than running this obscure online "university" which is so obviously pseudoscienctific and especially so anti-academic that it will not attract even the dumbest IDiots. Like Dembski he may not be a good enough speaker, though.
It worked for L. Ron Hubbard.
And he didn't even get the theology degree.
Quote (sparc @ Mar. 11 2014,23:46) Quote (REC @ Mar. 11 2014,10:29)I think Sal is following O'Leary's tactics, and launching multiple YEC blogs this month:
Liars For Darwin
is running.
If he wants to make a living out of his creationist idiocy Sal should go for a theology degree and then open his own little church rather than running this obscure online "university" which is so obviously pseudoscienctific and especially so anti-academic that it will not attract even the dumbest IDiots. Like Dembski he may not be a good enough speaker, though.
It worked for L. Ron Hubbard.
And he didn't even get the theology degree.
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 5
Post by k.e..
Quote (sparc @ Mar. 12 2014,07:46) Quote (REC @ Mar. 11 2014,10:29)I think Sal is following O'Leary's tactics, and launching multiple YEC blogs this month:
Liars For Darwin
is running.
If he wants to make a living out of his creationist idiocy Sal should go for a theology degree and then open his own little church rather than running this obscure online "university" which is so obviously pseudoscienctific and especially so anti-academic that it will not attract even the dumbest IDiots. Like Dembski he may not be a good enough speaker, though.
Demski not a good enough speaker? Doesn't he have a Sunday school class weekend child minding gig?
Quote (sparc @ Mar. 12 2014,07:46) Quote (REC @ Mar. 11 2014,10:29)I think Sal is following O'Leary's tactics, and launching multiple YEC blogs this month:
Liars For Darwin
is running.
If he wants to make a living out of his creationist idiocy Sal should go for a theology degree and then open his own little church rather than running this obscure online "university" which is so obviously pseudoscienctific and especially so anti-academic that it will not attract even the dumbest IDiots. Like Dembski he may not be a good enough speaker, though.
Demski not a good enough speaker? Doesn't he have a Sunday school class weekend child minding gig?
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 5
Post by sparc
Quote (REC @ Mar. 11 2014,10:29)I think Sal is following O'Leary's tactics, and launching multiple YEC blogs this month:
Liars For Darwin
is running.
If he wants to make a living out of his creationist idiocy Sal should go for a theology degree and then open his own little church rather than running this obscure online "university" which is so obviously pseudoscienctific and especially so anti-academic that it will not attract even the dumbest IDiots. Like Dembski he may not be a good enough speaker, though.
Quote (REC @ Mar. 11 2014,10:29)I think Sal is following O'Leary's tactics, and launching multiple YEC blogs this month:
Liars For Darwin
is running.
If he wants to make a living out of his creationist idiocy Sal should go for a theology degree and then open his own little church rather than running this obscure online "university" which is so obviously pseudoscienctific and especially so anti-academic that it will not attract even the dumbest IDiots. Like Dembski he may not be a good enough speaker, though.
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 5
Post by Glen Davidson
Quote Quote This is all no great surprise. Why on earth should we expect that a theory drawn up 80 or so years ago will remain inviolable today? As I am sure Darwin expected, evolution is complex and doesn’t have a single operative principle, although obviously natural selection is a big part of it. (I need to be careful what I say here – one ticking off I got was from a biologist who was unhappy that I had over-stressed natural selection at the molecular level, which I freely confess was a slight failure of nerve – I have found that saying such things can induce apoplexy in folks who see the shadows of creationism everywhere.) My complaint is why this seemingly obvious truth gets so little airplay in popular accounts of genetics and evolution. I’m still puzzled by that.
Ball apparently doesn’t realize that Darwinism is the creation story of new atheism, and must therefore be held inviolate.
Yes, that's why such sentiments appear in prominent science journals, blogs, and in the responses we make the grotesque ignorance of UD posts.
No, wait, it's the IDiots who have to invent an inviolate "Darwinism" for "atheism," and are too stupid even to notice the difference between "Darwinism" and "Neodarwinism."
Better than dealing with what science actually says, the evidence, or anything like the truth, of course.
Glen Davidson
Quote Quote This is all no great surprise. Why on earth should we expect that a theory drawn up 80 or so years ago will remain inviolable today? As I am sure Darwin expected, evolution is complex and doesn’t have a single operative principle, although obviously natural selection is a big part of it. (I need to be careful what I say here – one ticking off I got was from a biologist who was unhappy that I had over-stressed natural selection at the molecular level, which I freely confess was a slight failure of nerve – I have found that saying such things can induce apoplexy in folks who see the shadows of creationism everywhere.) My complaint is why this seemingly obvious truth gets so little airplay in popular accounts of genetics and evolution. I’m still puzzled by that.
Ball apparently doesn’t realize that Darwinism is the creation story of new atheism, and must therefore be held inviolate.
Yes, that's why such sentiments appear in prominent science journals, blogs, and in the responses we make the grotesque ignorance of UD posts.
No, wait, it's the IDiots who have to invent an inviolate "Darwinism" for "atheism," and are too stupid even to notice the difference between "Darwinism" and "Neodarwinism."
Better than dealing with what science actually says, the evidence, or anything like the truth, of course.
Glen Davidson
Categories: AE Public BB
DI EN&V
Post by Wesley R. Elsberry
DI EN&V:
Quote
But there's one problem: Bruno's execution, troubling as it was, had virtually nothing to do with his Copernican views. He was condemned and burned in 1600, but it was not because he speculated that the Earth rotated around the sun along with the other planets. He was condemned because he denied the doctrine of the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, and transubstantiation, claimed that all would be saved, and taught that there was an infinite swarm of eternal worlds of which ours was only one. The latter idea he got from the ancient (materialist) philosopher Lucretius. Is it any surprise, then, that, as a defrocked Dominican friar denying essential tenets of Catholic doctrine and drawing strength from the closest thing to an atheist in the Roman world, he might have gotten in trouble with the Inquisition? Yet a documentary series about science and our knowledge of the universe fritters away valuable airtime on this Dominican mystic and heretic, while scarcely mentioning Copernicus, the Polish guy who actually wrote the book proposing a sun-centered universe.
and
Quote
Neil deGrasse Tyson does include a few hedges. While wandering the streets of modern-day Rome, he admits that Bruno wasn't a scientist and that his view of a sun-centered solar system was a "lucky guess." And during the animated dramatization of Bruno's sentence, the dark and menacing judge finds the brave Dominican guilty not just of being a Copernican, but of various theological trivialities which are never otherwise mentioned or explained. Despite these hints at nuance, not one viewer in a thousand could miss the real message: Christianity has been the enemy of science, and its henchmen tried to kill off the first brave souls who ventured a scientific thought.
From the Cosmos narration by Tyson:
Quote
Giordano Bruno lived in a time when there was no such thing as the separation of church and state, or the notion that freedom of speech was a sacred right of every individual. Expressing an idea that didn't conform to traditional belief could land you in deep trouble. Recklessly, Bruno returned to Italy. Maybe he was homesick, but still he must have known that his homeland was one of the most dangerous places in Europe he could possibly go. The Roman Catholic Church maintained a system of courts known as the Inquisition, and its sole purpose was to investigate and torment anyone who dared voice views that differed from theirs. It wasn't long before Bruno fell into the clutches of the thought police.
The DI complains that Bruno wasn't killed for his views on cosmology alone. But the point that Tyson clearly laid out in Cosmos was that disagreeing with "traditional belief" could be, and sometimes was, fatal. I don't see any workaround for the lead-up that Cosmos *actually* used, rather than the one the DI would like people to think that they used. People could, and did, end up paying the ultimate penalty for expressing views that were not entirely compatible with "traditional belief". And the grounds upon which death could be served up were sometimes incredibly narrow. Regardless of whether the DI thinks Bruno was a negligible non-entity in the history of science or not, his death stands as a significant event in the annals of religious intolerance, just as Cosmos rightly pointed out.
Well, we've long known that the DI couldn't be troubled to read things for comprehension that they critique (see here for details), but now they can't even watch a TV show?
DI EN&V:
Quote
But there's one problem: Bruno's execution, troubling as it was, had virtually nothing to do with his Copernican views. He was condemned and burned in 1600, but it was not because he speculated that the Earth rotated around the sun along with the other planets. He was condemned because he denied the doctrine of the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, and transubstantiation, claimed that all would be saved, and taught that there was an infinite swarm of eternal worlds of which ours was only one. The latter idea he got from the ancient (materialist) philosopher Lucretius. Is it any surprise, then, that, as a defrocked Dominican friar denying essential tenets of Catholic doctrine and drawing strength from the closest thing to an atheist in the Roman world, he might have gotten in trouble with the Inquisition? Yet a documentary series about science and our knowledge of the universe fritters away valuable airtime on this Dominican mystic and heretic, while scarcely mentioning Copernicus, the Polish guy who actually wrote the book proposing a sun-centered universe.
and
Quote
Neil deGrasse Tyson does include a few hedges. While wandering the streets of modern-day Rome, he admits that Bruno wasn't a scientist and that his view of a sun-centered solar system was a "lucky guess." And during the animated dramatization of Bruno's sentence, the dark and menacing judge finds the brave Dominican guilty not just of being a Copernican, but of various theological trivialities which are never otherwise mentioned or explained. Despite these hints at nuance, not one viewer in a thousand could miss the real message: Christianity has been the enemy of science, and its henchmen tried to kill off the first brave souls who ventured a scientific thought.
From the Cosmos narration by Tyson:
Quote
Giordano Bruno lived in a time when there was no such thing as the separation of church and state, or the notion that freedom of speech was a sacred right of every individual. Expressing an idea that didn't conform to traditional belief could land you in deep trouble. Recklessly, Bruno returned to Italy. Maybe he was homesick, but still he must have known that his homeland was one of the most dangerous places in Europe he could possibly go. The Roman Catholic Church maintained a system of courts known as the Inquisition, and its sole purpose was to investigate and torment anyone who dared voice views that differed from theirs. It wasn't long before Bruno fell into the clutches of the thought police.
The DI complains that Bruno wasn't killed for his views on cosmology alone. But the point that Tyson clearly laid out in Cosmos was that disagreeing with "traditional belief" could be, and sometimes was, fatal. I don't see any workaround for the lead-up that Cosmos *actually* used, rather than the one the DI would like people to think that they used. People could, and did, end up paying the ultimate penalty for expressing views that were not entirely compatible with "traditional belief". And the grounds upon which death could be served up were sometimes incredibly narrow. Regardless of whether the DI thinks Bruno was a negligible non-entity in the history of science or not, his death stands as a significant event in the annals of religious intolerance, just as Cosmos rightly pointed out.
Well, we've long known that the DI couldn't be troubled to read things for comprehension that they critique (see here for details), but now they can't even watch a TV show?
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 5
Post by Reciprocating Bill
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 11 2014,04:38) Quote (Quack @ Mar. 11 2014,03:27) Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 10 2014,22:48) Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 10 2014,14:28)Could Robert Byers aspire to be the Gary Gaulin of creationism? Is he that great?
I dunno about that. Would Byers be able to collect large numbers of details (each of which is more or less accurate if taken on its own), the way Gaulin does?
Henry
RB is funny in a weird sort of way, but he knows nothing, understands nothing - in short, he's immersed in ignorance to up over his head.
RB being Byers, not our beloved Reciprocating Bill.
Anyone confuses me with Robert Byers, I shoot mys... him.
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 11 2014,04:38) Quote (Quack @ Mar. 11 2014,03:27) Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 10 2014,22:48) Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 10 2014,14:28)Could Robert Byers aspire to be the Gary Gaulin of creationism? Is he that great?
I dunno about that. Would Byers be able to collect large numbers of details (each of which is more or less accurate if taken on its own), the way Gaulin does?
Henry
RB is funny in a weird sort of way, but he knows nothing, understands nothing - in short, he's immersed in ignorance to up over his head.
RB being Byers, not our beloved Reciprocating Bill.
Anyone confuses me with Robert Byers, I shoot mys... him.
Categories: AE Public BB
Young Cosmos
Post by Richardthughes
Sal makes a prediction:
Quote Please do this for every topic point in the Opening Post since this is deep. Provide links to threads that elaborate pro or con, OK? Otherwise this discussion will have 40,000 replies!
Emphasis mine.
Yeah. 40,000.
Sal makes a prediction:
Quote Please do this for every topic point in the Opening Post since this is deep. Provide links to threads that elaborate pro or con, OK? Otherwise this discussion will have 40,000 replies!
Emphasis mine.
Yeah. 40,000.
Categories: AE Public BB
DI EN&V
Post by J-Dog
Quote (Texas Teach @ Mar. 11 2014,16:18) Quote (Lou FCD @ Mar. 11 2014,16:03) Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 27 2014,11:13)The DI ENV is pushing an article by Stephen Webb that supposedly "schools" Stephen Meredith on IDC and "occasionalism".
Anybody else see the problem in Webb's thing that I do?
Quote They then test their hypothesis by calculating the probability that a specific set of causes can create new biological forms.
lulz, as if cID theoristsists have ever actually calculated anything, ever.
I'm sure some of them calculated how much money they could make off the rubes. That's kind of sciency, right?
FTFY! :)
Quote 'm sure some ALL of them calculated how much money they could make off the rubes. That's kind of sciency, right?
Quote (Texas Teach @ Mar. 11 2014,16:18) Quote (Lou FCD @ Mar. 11 2014,16:03) Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 27 2014,11:13)The DI ENV is pushing an article by Stephen Webb that supposedly "schools" Stephen Meredith on IDC and "occasionalism".
Anybody else see the problem in Webb's thing that I do?
Quote They then test their hypothesis by calculating the probability that a specific set of causes can create new biological forms.
lulz, as if cID theoristsists have ever actually calculated anything, ever.
I'm sure some of them calculated how much money they could make off the rubes. That's kind of sciency, right?
FTFY! :)
Quote 'm sure some ALL of them calculated how much money they could make off the rubes. That's kind of sciency, right?
Categories: AE Public BB
Gordon's Diary
Post by steve_h
Dear Diary,
just spent another hectic day monitoring the viral Dr Torley thread. I just can't believe it, every time I check it's gone up by at least one. Bydand!
Dear Diary,
just spent another hectic day monitoring the viral Dr Torley thread. I just can't believe it, every time I check it's gone up by at least one. Bydand!
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 5
Post by Glen Davidson
Headline at UD:
Quote Researchers: Dishonesty can mean greater creativity
Funny, the IDiots seem to be about as uncreative as anyone can be.
No tradeoffs, there, they just go for the worst possible fate, uncreative dishonesty.*
Glen Davidson
*Not saying that they're consciously lying, but at UD we've mostly got people who are deeply dishonest with evidence and with themselves.
Headline at UD:
Quote Researchers: Dishonesty can mean greater creativity
Funny, the IDiots seem to be about as uncreative as anyone can be.
No tradeoffs, there, they just go for the worst possible fate, uncreative dishonesty.*
Glen Davidson
*Not saying that they're consciously lying, but at UD we've mostly got people who are deeply dishonest with evidence and with themselves.
Categories: AE Public BB
Wildlife
Post by DaveH
An old photo, but always worth showing for the sake of the comedy potential of the name...
Great tits
Just posted to draw attention to the amazing bit of research about these guys' evolutionary arms race with the pied flycatcher. Carl Zimmer has a summary here . Information Parasites? Who knew? (Except for IDC-ists, obviously....)
An old photo, but always worth showing for the sake of the comedy potential of the name...
Great tits
Just posted to draw attention to the amazing bit of research about these guys' evolutionary arms race with the pied flycatcher. Carl Zimmer has a summary here . Information Parasites? Who knew? (Except for IDC-ists, obviously....)
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by k.e..
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 09 2014,06:31) Quote (Woodbine @ Mar. 08 2014,21:25) Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 08 2014,01:26)I just gave a couple more examples of how I influence science, on a daily basis, by being where the science action is at.
Burger King?
See. With all the clown makeup, you can't even tell who or what they really are.
No one but you Gary would put clowns, burgers and science in the same sentance. If only it was funny. Sad lonely clown GiGo asks scientists if they want fries with his offal burnt offering & mistakes cream pie throwers for his friends.
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 09 2014,06:31) Quote (Woodbine @ Mar. 08 2014,21:25) Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 08 2014,01:26)I just gave a couple more examples of how I influence science, on a daily basis, by being where the science action is at.
Burger King?
See. With all the clown makeup, you can't even tell who or what they really are.
No one but you Gary would put clowns, burgers and science in the same sentance. If only it was funny. Sad lonely clown GiGo asks scientists if they want fries with his offal burnt offering & mistakes cream pie throwers for his friends.
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by NoName
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 08 2014,22:31) Quote (Woodbine @ Mar. 08 2014,21:25) Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 08 2014,01:26)I just gave a couple more examples of how I influence science, on a daily basis, by being where the science action is at.
Burger King?
See. With all the clown makeup, you can't even tell who or what they really are.
Well, that's what happens when you smear makeup all over your eyes and start bragging about the improvement of your vision.
Oh, you weren't being self-referential?
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 08 2014,22:31) Quote (Woodbine @ Mar. 08 2014,21:25) Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 08 2014,01:26)I just gave a couple more examples of how I influence science, on a daily basis, by being where the science action is at.
Burger King?
See. With all the clown makeup, you can't even tell who or what they really are.
Well, that's what happens when you smear makeup all over your eyes and start bragging about the improvement of your vision.
Oh, you weren't being self-referential?
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 5
Post by Soapy Sam
KF! Fresh KF! Get yer KF 'ere!
Quote F/N, FYI — FTR: Any serious commenter intending to be fair would have checked out that NM falsely accused me of deceit in an earlier thread several weeks ago [at roughly Christmas time], as in: “Gish Gallop” . . . as Rational Wiki defines, a very serious accusation of public deceit (and as a rule a patently false accusation, starting with the late Mr Gish himself, who could not have won the vast majority of 3 – 400 debates if he had been doing what he was caricatured as doing by hard core evolutionary materialist ideologues in order to dismiss what he was saying and showing by smearing the messenger, i.e. accuse without good warrant of wholesale “quote mining,” which is itself an informal — and in our experience here at UD, usually false — accusation of deceitful out of context quotation . . . note the in extenso cites I had to give to correct that insinuation and later accusation, regarding especially Gould’s career-long position as a world class expert on what the fossil record actually substantiates and contains).
Pause for breath. That's Sentence 1 over. Aaaaand ...
Quote That is the context in which I informed him that absent amends for that, he was not welcome and would be removed as a slanderous heckler, cf. 299 above where I pointed this out to F, and 39 on here, where I summarised what happened to JG . . . with links to the scene of the crime. NM chose to double down, and I took disciplinary action for cause. F’s cleverly misleading half-truth on in the same thread, speaks volumes, sadly revealing volumes. Onlookers, THIS is the COMMON level of behaviour by too many objectors to design thought, and if these unscrupulous hecklers are allowed free reign in UD’s threads, there would be a fever swamp race to the gutter. I do this for the record, not to feed the troll who will predictably continue twisting the matter into pretzels. KF
KF! Fresh KF! Get yer KF 'ere!
Quote F/N, FYI — FTR: Any serious commenter intending to be fair would have checked out that NM falsely accused me of deceit in an earlier thread several weeks ago [at roughly Christmas time], as in: “Gish Gallop” . . . as Rational Wiki defines, a very serious accusation of public deceit (and as a rule a patently false accusation, starting with the late Mr Gish himself, who could not have won the vast majority of 3 – 400 debates if he had been doing what he was caricatured as doing by hard core evolutionary materialist ideologues in order to dismiss what he was saying and showing by smearing the messenger, i.e. accuse without good warrant of wholesale “quote mining,” which is itself an informal — and in our experience here at UD, usually false — accusation of deceitful out of context quotation . . . note the in extenso cites I had to give to correct that insinuation and later accusation, regarding especially Gould’s career-long position as a world class expert on what the fossil record actually substantiates and contains).
Pause for breath. That's Sentence 1 over. Aaaaand ...
Quote That is the context in which I informed him that absent amends for that, he was not welcome and would be removed as a slanderous heckler, cf. 299 above where I pointed this out to F, and 39 on here, where I summarised what happened to JG . . . with links to the scene of the crime. NM chose to double down, and I took disciplinary action for cause. F’s cleverly misleading half-truth on in the same thread, speaks volumes, sadly revealing volumes. Onlookers, THIS is the COMMON level of behaviour by too many objectors to design thought, and if these unscrupulous hecklers are allowed free reign in UD’s threads, there would be a fever swamp race to the gutter. I do this for the record, not to feed the troll who will predictably continue twisting the matter into pretzels. KF
Categories: AE Public BB
