"Intelligent design" legislation in New York reborn

National Center for Science Education ^ | 21 March 2006 | Staff

[taxesareforever]

Ah, the art of the non sequitur. You're a pro. :)

I much prefer it being called "the art of connection."

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I much prefer it being called "the art of connection.""


I never knew you would get so upset when your own statements were used against you. I would have done it a long time ago.

The lurkers will know that you completely contradicted yourself. When you say that the only way to really know if something happened is to have been there, you make it hard to be taken seriously when you turn around and say that the hearsay testimony of people who lived thousands of years ago is good enough for you to know what happened in biblical times. There is a logical contradiction in your position, and whether you are bright enough to see it, or perhaps too embarrassed and proud to admit the mistake, is irrelevant. The lurkers will know what you said, and how silly you looked using the most contorted logical arguments to get out of it.

[taxesareforever]

Heh, heh, heh. Psst, psst, your record is broken. The needle is sticking.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Heh, heh, heh."

Keep laughing. The lurkers all know what a fool you made of yourself. :)

[taxesareforever]

The lurkers all know what a fool you made of yourself. :)

You must have me mixed up with someone eles. "A fool says in his heart, There is no God". And I certainly claim that there is a God.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"You must have me mixed up with someone eles. "A fool says in his heart, There is no God". And I certainly claim that there is a God."

That is not what makes you a fool. What makes you a fool is your statement,

"And this is why I believe some studies by some archaeologists are skewed. Were they there? No. That is the only way that anyone can know for sure whether something is true."

and the follow up contention that the above doesn't apply to you, because you have hearsay evidence and can know what happened in Biblical times even though YOU were not there. What makes you a fool is your refusal to see the blindingly obvious contradiction between what you said in that quote and what you said later.

Don't worry. The lurkers see the contradiction. :)

[taxesareforever]

Your statement: Common design would mean that God is a sadist. What makes you a fool is your statement,

And what makes you a fool is.....?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Your statement: Common design would mean that God is a sadist. What makes you a fool is your statement,"

That is not true. I never said that like that. Why must you now lie? Are you that desperate to cover logical error?

"And what makes you a fool is.....?"

Continuing to debate a liar.

I notice you had to look through my posts in other threads to come up with a statement you could use completely out of context. Why don't you address your silly claim that

""And this is why I believe some studies by some archaeologists are skewed. Were they there? No. That is the only way that anyone can know for sure whether something is true."

coupled with your contention that this doesn't apply to you?

Oh, because your an anti-evo prevaricator. :)

[CarolinaGuitarman]

That should be *you're*.

[taxesareforever]

"Your statement: Common design would mean that God is a sadist.

Sorry I screwed up the original post. However, you did make this statement on another thread. So, are your statements on another thread not admissible as what you believe even though they relate to the same subject? Sounds like your skin isn't as thick as you would want us to think. Got under it a little did I?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"However, you did make this statement on another thread. So, are your statements on another thread not admissible as what you believe even though they relate to the same subject?"

When they are taken out of context and used as a subterfuge, yes, they are inadmissible. Your desperation is palpable.

"Sounds like your skin isn't as thick as you would want us to think. Got under it a little did I?"

No, it is I who got under YOUR skin by exposing the silliness of your statement,

"And this is why I believe some studies by some archaeologists are skewed. Were they there? No. That is the only way that anyone can know for sure whether something is true."

coupled with your contention that this doesn't apply to you.

The embarrassment of making such a moronic claim has made you hilariously desperate to change the subject. Sorry, it isn't working.

Nor will it work on any crevo thread you ever go on again. I won't forget. :)

[taxesareforever]

Hey, you forgot to include what you said on that other evo thread. So here it is Common design would mean that God is a sadist.

I want you to remember me on other evo threads. Don't worry I'll be there. Comments like that above leave you open to lots of feedback.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Hey, you forgot to include what you said on that other evo thread."

Because it was a feeble attempt by you to change the subject.

"I want you to remember me on other evo threads. Don't worry I'll be there."

Well, you better be there, because, as you have said, if you were not there, you can't know what happened. :)

[taxesareforever]

Are you trying to say that what you said, Common design would mean that God is a sadist wasn't relevant to this exchange?

The reason I'll be responding on other evo threads is that everyone is in need of the truth.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Are you trying to say that what you said, Common design would mean that God is a sadist wasn't relevant to this exchange?"


Yes. It was a very unsubtle attempt by you to change the subject from your silly claim.

"The reason I'll be responding on other evo threads is that everyone is in need of the truth."

And with you there, they'll get a good laugh too. :)

[taxesareforever]

And with you there, they'll get a good laugh too. :)

Sure didn't sound like you were laughing on Post# 847. But don't worry, I'll be there none the less. :)

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Sure didn't sound like you were laughing on Post# 847"

Probably because that wasn't my post. :)

This is too easy.

[taxesareforever]

Okay, Post #848.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Sure didn't sound like you were laughing..."

Looks like I was. :)

"Why don't you address your silly claim that

""And this is why I believe some studies by some archaeologists are skewed. Were they there? No. That is the only way that anyone can know for sure whether something is true."

coupled with your contention that this doesn't apply to you?

Oh, because your an anti-evo prevaricator. :)"