Posted on 12/17/2005 3:58:48 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Ridicule was more fun when the objects of ridicule were still here, but the threads were constanly being pulled.
The mods started a thread to see who was causing the flame wars, and it turned out to be the creationists. About a dozen went down in flames after cursing Jim Robinson.
If you don't want to be ridiculed, the best policy is not to say stupid stuff in the first place, and if you do happen to say something that is incorrect, admit it.
How much intelligence does it take, for example, to notice that a suntan is not equivalent to evolution? How much pride do you have to swallow to admit it isn't a good line of argument?
Does it make you guys even more important in each other's eyes to constantly ridicule someone not here to defend themselves?
No, since that's not why we're doing it, but feel free to jump to *more* bizarre conclusions about our motivations any time you please. It only reinforces the ludicrousness and hypocrisy when you write snotty stuff like:
"Amazing how you can know the thought process of every written word by others. Even when a statement might be read more than one way, you always know the intent of the author."
Is that the scientific ethic at work?
No, it's guys talking about a post. Confused much?
As if your egos could tolerate any more masturbatory input.
We'll have to defer to you on that, you being the expert on such things.
It's no wonder you are held in such high esteem by your opponents.
Yeah, yeah, sure sure, it has *nothing* whatsoever to do with the fact that we constantly catch them posting falsehoods and misrepresentations and flubs, and provide documentation of their blunders, and how we defend a field (evolutionary biology) that they consider to be the Devil's work, drawing souls to damnation. It's actually about our *attitudes*. Yeah, that *must* be it...
Where ridicule is needed is cases where someone defends the indefensible, or continues asserting things that are beyond mere ignorance.
Not in front of the kids, now!
I always tank up on eggnog down at the local tavern. And I always drive home. Wouldn't want the kids see me staggering down the street.
Amazing that I've never claimed to be able to do that, and none of my refutation of your post relies on any such omniscience, and yet you make the accusation anyway.
Are you trying to distract attention from the fact that you're not going to specifically address any of my points? Is so, it's not working.
Even when a statement might be read more than one way, you always know the intent of the author.
You mean like *you* did when you made wild presumption about PatrickHenry's motives for deploying his ping list, despite having no grounds for your conclusion?
If you think I've leapt to any conclusion as egregious as that one of yours -- if you feel that I have made any conclusion that was not a reasonably supportable one -- feel free to make a case for it by quoting me and then arguing why you think so.
Until then, your unsubstantiated and rather bizarre broadside will be taken as the cheap evasion it appears to be -- an excuse to hand-wave away my entire point-by-point post, instead of dealing head-on with the points I've made.
Furthermore, if drawing a conclusion about an author's intent is some sort of arrogant presumption of being a mind-reader, what are we to make of *your* performance in presuming to know the various authors' intents when you chose their posts as "examples" of specific tactics for your list, most of which involved specific scenarios of motivation? Hm? You can't have it both ways. If it's out of line for *me* to draw a conclusion about someone's intent, then it's equally out of line for *you* to do so as you have done so frequently on this thread. You don't want to be a blatant *hypocrite*, do you?
And the way you change the meaning of words and terms on a dime is quite a talent as well.
If you think you can make a case for me having done so in any particular case, feel free to quote where you believe I have done that, and make your case.
Until then, you're just flinging poo like an ill-trained simian.
I guess you can't ever lose an argument when you can redefine the thoughts and words of others so that you make yourself believe they agree with you.
I guess you can't ever lose an argument when you resort to generalized unsubstantiated broadsides as a substitute for dealing on a point-by-point basis with what people have written to you.
The astute reader will note that darbymcgill's childish outburst of insults (the whole post) would serve as a generalized broadside against almost *any* post, by *anyone*, on *any* topic. None of its accusations are tied to anything I've actually written -- no examples are given, no case is made. It's so nonspecific and broadly ad hominem that it's a longwinded version of "you suck!"
This is wonderfully hypocritical coming from the same person who wrote on an earlier thread:
So, once again you screamed the loudest, called me the most names and never once addressed my arguments, i guess that makes you the WINNER.And yet that is a *wonderfully* apt description of darbymcgill's own outburst against me. What a blatant double-standard darbymcgill keeps...
Do you linger when you pass mirrors or do you have one of those little video windows in the corner of your monitor?
Now do you have anything to actually rebut what I've written and are you going to provide it, or are you going to continue to issue gradeschool-level taunts that fail to address any of my points?
See, this is the kind of bad behavior a belief in evolution encourages.
You still haven't provided anything specific.
That is because you are wrong.
The only time I've seen folks go after a typo is when the typo itself happened to be *funny*, or triggered a bunch of puns. Like earlier in this thread when someone typed "viscous" (a word meaning "thick and sticky") when they actually meant "vicious" (cruel). The mental image of a Freeper being called "thick and sticky" was too funny to let pass without some jokes.
Where ridicule is needed is cases where someone defends the indefensible, or continues asserting things that are beyond mere ignorance.
Right -- when someone actually *was* behaving in a ridiculous manner, and we were pointing it out.
I one typed viscous in a college paper that was read in class. The response was vicious.
Try the following sites. I know you won't believe scientists, so try some religious sites:
ReligiousTolerance.org Carbon-14 Dating (C-14): Beliefs of New-Earth Creationists
The American Scientific Affiliation: Science in Christian Perspective Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens.
This site, BiblicalChronologist.org has a series of good articles on radiocarbon dating.
How does the radiocarbon dating method work? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)
How precise is radiocarbon dating?
Is radiocarbon dating based on assumptions?
Has radiocarbon dating been invalidated by unreasonable results?
The criticism must've been quite thick.
Jorge's response was a blustering excuse about how he wasn't going to read a "huge reading assignments".
I responded by pointing out that if he was *really* the hotshot biology student and ex-evolutionist he claimed to be, he would *already* know such material (as well as fitting rebuttals suitable for ultimately rejecting that evidence), so that excuse was moot. I then invited him *again* to actually address the *very* small fraction of the full body of evidence which I had posted for his critique, and asked him to point out where, exactly, it was flawed in a way that would make the scientific conclusions cross-confirmed by it "transparently idiotic".
It has now been over 36 hours, and Jorge seems to have vanished.
Of course, this is in keeping with the way he vanished and failed to respond the last time I issued him the same challenge to deal with the evidence, on January 30, 2005...
(You'd think that more than ten months would be enough time for him to come up with *some* material, but he seemed woefully unprepared when I asked him again in this thread.)
For someone so arrogant about his alleged education, training in biology, and former evo-status, Jorge seems to be *awfully* shy about backing up his claims that evolutionary biology is "idiotic"...
Don't forget: Eugenics is an intelligently-designed attempt to point microevolution in a beneficial direction. Eugenics is perfectly compatible with creationism.
I stand by my point-by-point examination of your anal nitpicking and its followup.I'd missed that exchange. Excellent!
Is THAT where creationists get their argument that ERV insertions aren't really random? That is so lame!
Jorge has credentials?? All is clear now. He must be related to several of the other posters here. They've been referring to him quite a lot in their postings, as their "bigshot scientist relative who rejects evolution".
..... such as claiming that 1720 is a really big number for three days while everybody on the thread keeps pointing to it, and the person who posted it doesn't realize the OBVIOUS typographical error.
No, evolutionist constrew what they deem as evidence, to fit the their convoluted, illogical agenda...
You're definitely in a world of your own.
Good, because I don't want to be in a world where everything is meaningless, and circumstances come about by chance, I want to live in the reality of the intellegence of a creator who takes care of his own.
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.