Replies

OK, to the details then.

[Please lose the la-de-dah airy wave-aways, evasions, and changes of subject.]

Proverbs 15...A mild answer breaketh wrath: but a harsh word stirreth up fury

I've been explaining that Ann's work has deficiencies which you have thus far ignored. Your answers have not been so much mild as simply squirmy. You may not like hardball, but you love dodge-ball.

* You appear to think your answers are some sort of scientific dogma rather than darwinian polemics and that if anyone disagrees about these disputed points then they have revealed themselves as less than human...pig ignorant if you will.

Yes, I think my answers are totally factual. Ann's point, never mind how she argues it, is that the accumulated science of the last 150 years is wrong. While so arguing, she also seriously misstates what the science of the last 150 years has even taught us. Thus, in rebutting her, I not only reaffirm the factual and logical basis for what science IS saying but I have to correct her on the TEXT of what science is saying. She gets that much wrong.

If you think it's all simply polemics, you're lost in a world of your own. There's real evidence and it tells a very clear story.

So you're basically saying you're not wrong because THERE ARE NO FACTS. Even Ann doesn't go there. She seems to accept that evidence does mean something, only somehow all of biology and paleontology have messed it up for the entire 20th century and well into the 21st. Luckily, she and Dembski are here to lead us to the truth.

*It appears to me you don't understand you are a particpant in polemics. It does appear to me you think yourself qualified to pose as an authoritative referee in scientific disputes. And I find that an arrogant and amusing conceit.

I write almost nothing of the materials that I cite and at no point rely on my own credentials. This is the ultimate in airy wave-aways. Please select a point of fact and dispute it.

I mean, you've got the nerve to imply that what I have posted is all fantasy. If you can prove any part of it wrong, you've got a Nobel coming.

So stop being so squirmily evasive and get to work.

* You and inch have helped me change my weltanschauung vis a vis darwinists. I find you both thin-skinned, haughty, nasty and obstreperous. You approach, imo, tends to call into question anything you post. Those confident in the quality and accuracy of their arguements tend to be a lot less confrontational and insulting. They let the facts speak for themselves.

Dealt with. If I were tall, leggy, and blonde, could you forgive me being as foaming-at-the-mouth mean, dumb, and wrong as Ann?

I think the main thing Ichneumon and I have done which bothers you is point out that Ann's claims (and yours regarding hers) don't hold water. If you're having a bad time, that's it.

*You and inch marry insult and information and you expect us to joyously attend the wedding. I hope you don't think that approach is convincing. It is just the opposite.

You know, Ann hates people who play the victim game. I don't think you're her type. Try dealing with the text of the arguments presented.

Thus far, all you have as a justification for coming back dumb as a stump on another thread with answered material is that 1) "Evos are all meanies," and 2) "It's all polemics and there are no facts."

That will keep you pretty safe from factual rebutall, yes. It also renders your opinion pretty irrelevant. I invite you to rethink that along with the details we've discussed already.

I continue to recommend doing your rethinking out loud. Gets you away from polemics / apologetics, whatever you call stupid Holy Warrior lawyer games these days. It is possible to explain with some honesty why you think as you think and do as you do, assuming you aren't doing a scummy thing and you know it.

I've been explaining that Ann's work has deficiencies which you have thus far ignored. Your answers have not been so much mild as simply squirmy. You may not like hardball, but you love dodge-ball.

*Like facts shoe-horned to fit inside Darwinian Ideology, comments/intent insisted upon my others are reflexively gainsaid and reframed to harmonise with your ideological polemics.

Yes, I think my answers are totally factual. Ann's point, never mind how she argues it, is that the accumulated science of the last 150 years is wrong.

*She isn't insiting all facts are wrong, at least from the excerpts I have read. She is insisting the materialistic ideology accounting for those facts is wrong.

While so arguing, she also seriously misstates what the science of the last 150 years has even taught us.

* LOL Mr. Referee, there you go again. That is a position one agrees with only if one accepts darwinian ideology.

Thus, in rebutting her, I not only reaffirm the factual and logical basis for what science IS saying but I have to correct her on the TEXT of what science is saying. She gets that much wrong.

*Yes, quite. Pity that no longer is Ideological Materialism considered a tautology.

If you think it's all simply polemics, you're lost in a world of your own. There's real evidence and it tells a very clear story.

*Yes. And the very real evidence tells different stories to different individuals predicated upon their weltanschauung, philosophy,ideology, denial of Teleology etc etc. You insist yours is the only possible interpretation and you cite the totalitarian ideology of materialism as the sine qua non of science and one heads-down the ideological and endless loop of self-reflective certitude.

So you're basically saying you're not wrong because THERE ARE NO FACTS.

*So, basically that ain't what I am saying. You know, if you are SO wrong about another human being in real time circumstances, what gives you and your ilk such certitude about prehistory?

Even Ann doesn't go there. She seems to accept that evidence does mean something, only somehow all of biology and paleontology have messed it up for the entire 20th century and well into the 21st.

*LOL "ALL" of biology, huh?

Luckily, she and Dembski are here to lead us to the truth.

* Not you, obviously. Ideology, much like a delusion, is not correctable by logic and fact

I write almost nothing of the materials that I cite and at no point rely on my own credentials. This is the ultimate in airy wave-aways. Please select a point of fact and dispute it.

*In point of fact, you have done just what I said on this thread.

I mean, you've got the nerve to imply that what I have posted is all fantasy.

*You have got a lot of nerve to claim I implied something I haven't.

If you can prove any part of it wrong, you've got a Nobel coming.

*Arafat got a Nobel.

So stop being so squirmily evasive and get to work.

* LOL Yeah, you speak and I leap. Patience.

Dealt with.

*LMAO Oh...

If I were tall, leggy, and blonde, could you forgive me being as foaming-at-the-mouth mean, dumb, and wrong as Ann?

*This thread is about Ann's book. Ann herself is very intelligent, well-educated, and well-spoken. I realise her expose of how politics for the left replaced religion has caused them no end of anxiety and anger and set their teeth on edge but that is the way things go. She isn't responsible for the scandal taken by atheists and ideologues. She could be a source or metanoia, though :)

I think the main thing Ichneumon and I have done which bothers you is point out that Ann's claims (and yours regarding hers) don't hold water. If you're having a bad time, that's it.

*LOL There you go again....Are you familiar with the word solipsism? Are you even reading what I type?

*You and inch marry insult and information and you expect us to joyously attend the wedding. I hope you don't think that approach is convincing. It is just the opposite.

You know, Ann hates people who play the victim game.

* LOL again, I am far from a victim. Just because I refuse to celebrate the nuptials of insult and information doesn't make me a victim. It makes me a moral and normal individual who would no more attend that wedding than I would have attended the wedding of Mr and Mr Elton John.

I don't think you're her type.

* I am married and not on the make

*LOL Dumb as a stump. That observation really doesn't say much about you. If I thought you were as dumb as a stump, I'd not repeatedly ping you. Unless, as seems obvious, you just want to get my atention so you can insult me. Now, in observing that, I desire to make known your little labels, insults, gainsays etc have no effect on me. My skin is thicker than Richard Dawkins skull.

That will keep you pretty safe from factual rebutall, yes. It also renders your opinion pretty irrelevant. I invite you to rethink that along with the details we've discussed already.

* LOL I am reminded of a song by the great Roger Miller Got your invitation to the blues Roger accepted the invitation. I accept nothing from you, unless salt trucks, lined-up as far as the eye can see, accompany the invitation.

*Well, that was, for you, a generous end to a lengthy and lamentable post.

And now, ta-ta,have a good weekend, brother. And, chin-up. If materialism is so unassailable don't sit athwarth a false science yelling "stop." Enjoy the idiocy and stump-intellects of us yokels and pig-ignorant women. Even a darwinian ought know you can't reason with the pig-ignorant :)