Skip to comments.
Creationism: God's gift to the ignorant (Religion bashing alert)
Times Online UK ^
| May 21, 2005
| Richard Dawkins
Posted on 05/25/2005 3:41:22 AM PDT by billorites
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 481-500, 501-520, 521-540 ... 2,661-2,678 next last
To: longshadow
501
posted on
05/25/2005 6:49:34 PM PDT
by
PatrickHenry
(Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas. The List-O-Links is at my homepage.)
To: jwalsh07
technocrats Ward Churchill used this term to denigrate the victims in the WTC towers.
Ward Churchill is a Marxist.
Therefore jwalsh is a Marxist.
To: VadeRetro
I've been to England too, courtesy of the U.S. Navy. I'm beginning to see the elements of a conspiracy here...
503
posted on
05/25/2005 6:51:12 PM PDT
by
Junior
(“Even if you are one-in-a-million, there are still 6,000 others just like you.”)
To: AntiGuv
Who do you consider "his fellow travellers" and more importantly what do you propose is the "dent" that should be made by "what Dawkins says about President BushThe Euro left and their allies in America. Simple, Dawkins deserves scorn. You won't find Dawkins being scorned on an evo/crevo thread, except by me of course, because science trumps ideology and politics here.
To: VadeRetro
Marx lived in England for a time. I visited England for three days. (Hangs head.) Never been there. (Whew!)
To: jwalsh07
"the man is vile, therefore the points he raises are invalid."
argumentum ad hominem. "the man's general attitudes on a broad subject are hostile, therefore the points he raises in this narrow and specific case are invalid."
also argumentum ad hominem.
Perhaps also an example of the Genetic Fallacy: You assert that he is wrongheaded on religion in general, therefore he must be wrong in any point he raises on any topic involved with religion. I'm not certain this is quite within the bounds of Genetic Fallacy but, if it is not, it is closely related.
Address the points, not the man.
If you are going to bandy semantics with me, Walsh, it would behoove you think it through first.
506
posted on
05/25/2005 6:52:18 PM PDT
by
King Prout
(blast and char it among fetid buzzard guts!)
To: PatrickHenry
To: VadeRetro; PatrickHenry
PH isn't avid for Primes today?
508
posted on
05/25/2005 6:53:04 PM PDT
by
King Prout
(blast and char it among fetid buzzard guts!)
To: VadeRetro
You don't consider yourself a creationist? What is this, Lying A**hole Night? Or Stupid Night?Still the internet hero Mr STFU?
To: King Prout; RightWingNilla
Because of all this trollish activity, I'm being distracted from the important task of claiming my sacred right to all primes.
510
posted on
05/25/2005 6:55:44 PM PDT
by
PatrickHenry
(Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas. The List-O-Links is at my homepage.)
To: jwalsh07
Yes. So what aside from who wrote it do you understand about Dawkins's article?
511
posted on
05/25/2005 6:56:00 PM PDT
by
VadeRetro
( Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
To: RightWingNilla
Hahahahaha! Hot damn, LOLOLOLOLOLOL. What a guy!
To: PatrickHenry
well, damn, I'll let you have the leftover of the one I bagged earlier. want me to nuke it, or is cold all right?
513
posted on
05/25/2005 6:57:50 PM PDT
by
King Prout
(blast and char it among fetid buzzard guts!)
To: RightWingNilla
Multiple of 3.
514
posted on
05/25/2005 6:57:54 PM PDT
by
VadeRetro
( Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
To: King Prout
I've debated you before Prout, you ended up crawling off mumbling about Downs Syndrome not being a mutation. You're just a good ole southern blowhard.
I see we're all playing nicely tonight ;)
516
posted on
05/25/2005 6:58:21 PM PDT
by
general_re
("Frantic orthodoxy is never rooted in faith, but in doubt." - Reinhold Niebuhr)
To: jwalsh07
Hahahahaha! Hot damn, LOLOLOLOLOLOL. What a guy! Glad you like it :)
Seriously, that was the first time I heard that word.
To: jwalsh07
I see. Well, your statements have all the hallmarks of a guilt-by-association fallacy. If my interpretation was incorrect with relation to evolutionary biology, then I retract my dim assessment of your aims.
science trumps ideology and politics here
As well it should. Science is eternal. Ideology and politics are ephemera. You would do well to remember that. JMO.
518
posted on
05/25/2005 7:00:37 PM PDT
by
AntiGuv
(™)
To: VadeRetro
Yes.Proud of being an internet hero who uses foul language and makes stupid assertions behind the anonymity of the keyboard?
So what aside from who wrote it do you understand about Dawkins's article?
I understand what I read Retro. I also understand that you're a punk.
And there you have it.
To: AntiGuv
I don't give you advice. I don't need yours.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 481-500, 501-520, 521-540 ... 2,661-2,678 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson