Designed to deceive: Creation can't hold up to rigors of science

CONTRA COSTA TIMES ^ | 12 February 2006 | John Glennon

[AndrewC]

So when you try to engage him in debate, he resorts to ad hominem attacks

You've got the unmitigated gall to post that, when you have entered this thread with this....

To: Havoc

Hey, slurpee-slinger

Do you think your Junior College "education" puts you in any position to debate this with your betters?

Your "endless monkees" argument is similar to the "tornado creating a 747 from a trailer park" strawman argument.

More lies.

But that is what you do, right liar? Or should I say "serial liar?"

1,114 posted on 02/15/2006 12:36:49 AM EST by freedumb2003 (American troops cannot be defeated. American Politicians can.)

[Petronski]

"Liar" is not ad hominem.

[Right Wing Professor]

Chuckle. Anything you say, genius.

[staytrue]

Your own words betray you. YOU SAID "Christian dander is up." YOU DID NOT SAY "scientific viewpoints opposing evolution is up."

Your only goal is to replace solid science with the religion of creationism.

[AndrewC]

"Liar" is not ad hominem.

You are a liar.

[Petronski]

Truth is an absolute defense. If you can prove I am a liar, it is not ad hominem. If you cannot, then you have engaged in a weak ad hominem attack of your own.

[freedumb2003]

Do you use a random phrase generator?

Everyone who meets you on FR laughs at you, then dismisses you.

The only reason I post to you is a combination of pity and fascination.

Just how foolish can one poster make him/herself and still not be Zotted?

99.995% of your posts are ad hominem, yet you somehow think this is "debate."

I guess that is so fascinating.

Just as a reminder: I have a 6-figure salary in IT and hire MANY domestic USA people. In fact, today I on-boarded a WINDOWS expert. From CHICAGO. At $35K + benefits. But he also was able to communicate and is already working on several projects that require analytical skills and the ability to create and execute on a plan.

I will be mentoring him because I can see he has the right attitude.

Keep that picture in mind when you have to come in on the next holiday. He makes $35K and will probably double that in the next 3 years.

[Petronski]

Everyone who meets you on FR laughs at you, then dismisses you.

Some of us come back to laugh again and again and again.

[freedumb2003]

I guess you don't know what "ad hominem" means.

I admit to the "slurpee slinger" but it also points to the fact that he doesn't have valid "quals."

He is a proven liar and that fact shades his attempts at "argumentation."

[AndrewC]

Truth is an absolute defense.

What is truth?

In any case, your statement was unqualified. Liar.(and that is ad hominem, even if true). President Bush was a drinker. True. The Rats tried that Ad Hominem just before the election.

[Havoc]

Oh, I'm savaged -- taken aback, I must step back and consider the poverty that is my life and ..

Not hardly. Get some new schtick spanky, you're boring.

[AndrewC]

I guess you don't know what "ad hominem" means.

Yes, I do. You just tried it there.

[freedumb2003]

If you're the Republican research division, they should fire you. lol

OK -- I am not sure if you live with your mommy and daddy. But the rest is true, based on your own posts.

And your lies are legendary.

[Petronski]

What is truth?

Now you're just trolling.

[freedumb2003]

No you don't.

I can direct you to some sites on communication theory and logical fallacies if you wish.

[AndrewC]

Now you're just trolling.

Hey, it was you that threw the word into the discussion. And you didn't address the other part. Liar.(another ad hominem, even if true)

[RunningWolf]

Here are more words from freedumb2003 from a religion thread

//Using the explicit criteria established by Religion, one can find that Christ, muhammed, charles manson and satan worshippers are all equally "correct."//

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1551451/posts#32

Wolf

[AndrewC]

No need. I know what it means.

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting).

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

[freedumb2003]

Oh, I'm savaged -- taken aback, I must step back and consider the poverty that is my life and .. Not hardly. Get some new schtick spanky, you're boring.

If you find fulfillment being a 7-11 clerk, more power to you. Just don't bring it to the Globalization threads.

You never acually address the post. You just give sardonic replies like a 13-yo might do so.

I defy you to actually address a post without a variation of "I know you are but what am I?"

I told you I just hired someone who has your purported skill set. For twice what you make as a 7-11 clerk.

What do you think about this? Could it possibly be your attitude?

I told you I make a 6-figure salary in an industry that has rejected you. What do you think about this? Could it possibly be your lack of skills?

Or will you just say "up your nose with a rubber hose" as usual?

[Havoc]

Again, boring.