Posted on 04/29/2008 10:20:32 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
My last post on the subject of your proposed debate many moons ago.....
“If you have data present it and I will engage it”
Gee, that is exactly my present position. If you have data, or your pet “Pedigreed” Scientist has data, present it and I will engage it.
Is this position backing down from my “sure, why not?” acceptance? No. It is saying that if you have data present it and I will engage it.
In case you have forgotten, it was you who belittled and denigrated your betters (Peter Duesberg et al). That’s the main reason I proposed the debate with Duesberg...to force you to back up your sneering, unscientific claims about a subject you freely admit to know VERY LITTLE about. I got you to agree, then you backed out. It’s that simple. If this thing is on again, please say so explicitly (which includes agreeing not to back out at the last minute) and I will once again go to the trouble of trying to set it up. But this on again, off again crap has got to stop. Make up your mind once and for all and we’ll go from there.
PS If you can find scientist from the AIDS alarmist camp who specializes in HIV/AIDS, all the better. But barring that, it will fall upon you to do the heavy lifting (which you blithely claim is so light).
You can drag out your sorry excuse for a scientist or you could actually support something you believe in yourself. Why would you accept something as fact if you are unaware of the supporting exidence?
Is it your lack of knowledge or your lack of intelligence that causes you to back away from debate?
Is that you speaking, or did you forget to insert the quotation marks again? As for the substance of the message, whoever wrote it has no idea what they are talking about. Thus, I’m inclined to think it came directly from you. Is my assumption correct? If not, please provide the link so I know who I am replying to.
You are intellectually bankrupt. You have not offered a single defense of any statement you have made. You are what is wrong with ID. It is empty. Vacant. Without merit. Even Ben Stein has gone into hiding out of embarassment. You should too.
If you have the data or the person with the data then please present it. They can put forth their best case and then ping me to engage the data. You can call this a “debate” if you wish, but it will be the same thing I do on any Science thread on FR.
So I agree to the same thing I have always agreed to. Present the data and I will engage it. You characterized this as “backing away”, but I have yet to see the data so how could I “debate” something you have failed to present?
That means a lot coming from a plagiarist. You are what is wrong with the Temple of Darwin. Your ethics and morals are about as solid as pond scum.
“I am not an expert on either virus or HIV and would be relying entirely upon the body of knowledge that your “expert” has already rejected.”
So is this going to be about HIV/AIDS or about I.D./Creationism? Whatever the subject, have your pet Pedigreed Scientist post their data and I will engage it, the offer still stands from lo those many moons ago and I take exception to your characterization of this stand as “backing away” multiple times from a debate.
I will no longer respond to your prattling. Good luck with your godly ways. You are a thread killer.
Shaking the dust off my feet...good riddance to you and your non-random, random natural selection god.
==I take exception to your characterization of this stand as “backing away” multiple times from a debate.
Your exception is duly noted. I will once again try to get the wheels of progress turning on the AIDS debate. And if you are still game to engage where we left off on the “codes upon codes” debate, in addition to whatever I might have to say on the matter, I would be happy to look for a Creation/ID scientist to engage you on that topic as well.
Olive Branch: For some reason, the bitter taste emanating from the tail-end of our previous exchanges “many moons ago” still lingers. I actually enjoyed our banter when our paths first crossed. But all that changed when the DC crowd jumped in. We both became different people when that happened. That’s the way I see it anyway.
I was left with a rather favorable impression of our past exchanges, which made your coming onto this thread both barrels blazing in my direction a bit curious to me. I guess that particular exchange did end with me taking exception to you wanting to see Scientists frog marched off to prison and you taking exception to my characterization of the AIDS deniers being granola eating anti-corporate coffee enema having Luddites.
But what is that little disagreement between FRiends?
Anyway I tend to remember our previous exchanges which were more civil and dealt with the Science of ERV’s and pseudogenes; rather than what I would characterize as the “wild eyed conspiracy theories” about HIV Scientists being in collusion with drug companies to make people sick taking “unnecessary” anti-retroviral medications and the need to “frog march” Scientists off to prison.
Hopefully we can keep this more of the latter and less of the former; however I am not encouraged that the last one who agreed to “debate” your “Pedigreed” Scientist is no longer on speaking terms with you by decree of the Moderators.
==I guess that particular exchange did end with me taking exception to you wanting to see Scientists frog marched off to prison and you taking exception to my characterization of the AIDS deniers being granola eating anti-corporate coffee enema having Luddites.
Is it your position that scientists should never be sued or sentenced to prison under any circumstances whatsoever? Is it also your position that all HIV/AIDS skeptics are granola eating anti-corporate coffee enema having Luddites? If not, you may wish to be more precise with your language, because two can play at that game. I know of plenty of Darwinian environmentalists/global warming fanatics, not to mention Darwinian fascists and communists who fit that description. Should I then generalize and make the claim that all Darwinists are totalitarian environmentalist Luddites? The heat generated from such an exchange could prove temporarily satisfying, but I am quite confident that the resulting illumination would make it difficult to perceive even the faintest of shadows.
Please present the data you wish me to present rather than attempting to rehash our AIDS/granola conflict.
Still a geocentricist? Should we delve into that as well?
That would be “present the data you wish me to debate”.
==Still a geocentricist? Should we delve into that as well?
Are you still an atheist? Do you still hate Christianity with every fiber of your being? Do you still beat your wife, torture animals, and pretend to be conservative so you can spread your liberal lies on FR?
In the same sense, of course, that the brown stuff seems to always stick to the bowl when you pull the handle?
Since you've never encountered science, we'll have to wait and see I suppose.
However you have said... “I don’t believe in geocentricism, but I believe something pretty close.”
Are you embarrassed by your beliefs? Why? Please tell us how the present astronomic model is in error.
I’m not embarrassed in the least. I am drawing attention to the deliberate imprecision in your language. Like I said, two can play at that game. If all heat and no light is your policy, then by all means keep it up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.