Posted on 07/03/2003 10:22:13 AM PDT by RightWhale
that's bull. Below is the same link I've always posted when darwoodians slip into denial mode instead of getting up off their lazies and looking for themselves.
It's amusing how far you will reach to find an insult. Here's a good example. By "here", I obviously mean "on this thread". Are you contending that you already posted this new cite on this thread? If so, kindly show me where.
Could you show me in this new cite exactly where Darwin committed plagarism? I have now "gotten off my lazies" and read it a great deal more often than it's merits warrant and cannot find any such reference. If you were not, to be polite, "mistaken", it would be but a moment's matter to point this out to me, but, of course, you do not, because you cannot, because, as I have pointed out before, you are bluffing, and hoping no one bothers to read it.
"the evolution believing atheist cannot find God for the same reason a thief cannot find a policeman." And the same applies for looking for anything that doesn't shine a most favorable light on your god Darwood.
If official global demographics are to be believed, Most evolutionists are believers, including the Pope in Rome. So your homily is largely irrelevant.
Note: this is not being submitted to a moderator; and it's not the subject of an abuse report. It's just compiled here as a handy reference.
#55: That thread got pulled because you yahoos didn't like the beating you were taking.
#76: It has as much to do with this thread as the morons that accused me of getting a thread yanked. Or did you just conveniently miss that?
#78: It would bother me too if I lurked on conservative boards foisting marxist crap on unsuspecting christians/conservatives.
#82: [H]ypocrite? I have every right to defend myself ...
#89: Hopefully you have a clue now.
#99: ... You never do. Which makes you clueless and irrelevant. shoo fly
#131: If you know the answer then spit it out. Save your insults for that morning shave in front of the mirror.
#199: You are nuts. ... So stop making crap up.
#225: you people never learn.
#226: enough of the lies[.] your side got its collective butt kicked to Uranus in the last one.
#229: shoo fly!
#279: I had not said a word to the pup. get your facts straight for once[.] I thought you said you guys had all discussed this privately? Did you leave out the pup again?
#283: Justify your behavior.
#295: take the pup with you
#299: Right after the spin, lies and tossed insults. How convenient Mr. Altruistic[.] Put your pup on a leash
#336: seek help
Prof. Brimley's comment, far from an insult, is the most cogent comment on fine-tuning arguments ever uttered by human tongue. The world isn't "just right" for us: we are right for the world, because evolution has naturally shaped us to conform to it. We are so in tune with the properties of our world that they look like prerequisites.
Response: Your problem seems to be with free speech/thought. Odd for someone who hangs around a message board.
Perhaps someone could help me understand how the response fits the prior post.
Darwin's ideas were similar to Wallace's, Lyell's and Blyth's. Duh. The article uses the word "plagarism", but does not actually present evidence of plagarism, just long-winded, obtuse references to, for example, apparently unpublished notes of Blyth's. Showing, I guess, that plagarism might have been possible.
I guess you could call this the fossil gap argument with colors reversed. Because it was physically/chronologically possible that plagarism happened, therefore, plagarism happened.
By the same token, it's possible I might be all the mass murderers in recent history: no contrary evidence suggests otherwise, after all.
What really strikes me about this cite is that, in the unlikely event that it's case were to be made, it does absolutely nothing to dethrone evolutionary theory. It is just an irrelevant ad hominem attack on the first guy to bulldog it into common consideration.
In that regard, it kind of reminds me of your general behavior--eschewing arguments or evidence in favor of mining the far reaches of irrelevant absurdity for the chance at an insult, so I can see why you might actually think this silly exercise in imaginative pettifogging is somehow a devastating argument.
It's like the eternal sci-fi novel come to life. We get to see a set of characters interact just as they always do, but without some of the control of our day-to-day industrial context. Load the colonists on their ship and watch them continue their arguments long centuries after the original subject was forgotten. Hatfield-McCoy, Gunfight at the OK Corral, Serbs versus somebody 500 years ago, Muslims versus somebody 800 years ago. On and on it goes, lightyear after lightyear. Who knows, when they finally arrive at their new planet the first thing they will do after leaving the ship and breathing in the fresh air is duke it out. A thousand years later their progeny will still be arguing. That's what the mirror reflects.
Excuse me? You complied with my request and showed me, exactly, in the cite you offered, where the tangible evidence of plagarism actually exists? Could you point out where, in this thread or any other, you did so? I seem to have missed it. Since you know that you have done so, surely it can't be a severe strain on your resources to show me where? Since fame and fortune awaits anyone who were to unambiguously make such a demonstration, I'd think you'd be eager to show it off.
Ditto for the wondeful day I had. Hope yours was equally satisfying.
I believe I can help with that. I hypothesis that the point it to pick a fight. Therefore, it is not necessary or efficient to try to understand the deponent's evidence or the reasoning arising therefrom. Devoting intellectual resources to understanding an argument would be a mis-use of resources if the point is to sting and run until one of the stingee's can be pursuaded to ring the abuse bell.
The hallmark of this would be a constant bombardment of shallow, insulting patter, featuring a great deal of repetition, leveraging off of a tiny collection of actual cites, intended more for camoflage and crowing than for substantial evidence related to the subject at hand.
Hey, I give full credit for any HHGTTG reference. I only give half credit for Monty Python jokes. Those are no brainers.
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.