Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ · 10-06-2002, 07:01 PM

The one from two years ago:

Arrogance: 7.8 Not as bad as some, but worse than others.

Ignorance: 9.8 Did you READ the man's points? A complete inability to accurately represent any actual posistion, coupled with his woeful claimed statistical analysis (from an astronomer, not anyone who deals with bioogy or anything), shows his idiocy. Further, the fool believes that there is an ACTIVE CONSPIRACY to deny creationism/ID a chance.

Writing inability: 5.6 I've seen much, much worse. Only two blatant errors in writing, and semi-coherrent throughout. Not too bad.

Albion · 10-06-2002, 07:42 PM

"However, that is not what intelligent design proposes, and The Dispatch knows it. What intelligent design proves is that life is too complex to have evolved through random natural processes."

Well, 10 out of 10 for people unclear on the concept. So this poor mucker thinks that God is a nonrandom natural process? I wonder what a poor deity needs to do before being classified as supernatural by this character.

Albion · 10-06-2002, 07:47 PM

When I see people claiming that Francis Crick doesn't support evolution, I really can't take anything they say on the subject seriously. I wouldn't want that guy to be my doctor, MD notwithstanding.

Oolon Colluphid · 10-07-2002, 02:27 AM

Anyone care to score this?

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001490" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001490</a>

Oolon

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ · 10-07-2002, 05:56 AM

Ummmm.....

KC · 10-08-2002, 01:39 PM

Arrogance: 7

Assumes standard antievolution party lines, ie, blames it on liberals, evolution as dogma, etc. Extra point for assuming pretentious writing style will hide lack of substance.

Ignorance: 8

Fails to understand that micro- and macroevolution are relative terms regarding degree of divergence, and do not imply different mechanisms. Extra 'duh' point for "The theory remains a theory". One Dembski "I'll stick to the math over the biology' point for "Mathematics wholly refutes evolution". One Carl Baugh point for "Evolution has been rife with hoaxes
claimed to be the "missing link" by a scientific community bent on embracing the theory to be authentic"

Writing inability: 8

A fine example of pretentious twaddle: "Some biologists have supported evolution based upon their position
that the basis of biology is created by evolution".

Cheers,

KC

[ October 08, 2002: Message edited by: KCdgw ]</p>

RufusAtticus · 10-09-2002, 02:24 PM

Look what I found in my Newspaper's archives.

Quote:

If a creator can't be taught, neither should evolution

Your Jan. 5 editorial regarding the ''creator'' trait in Georgia's character education curriculum raised some questions.
First, how does teaching ''respect for the creator'' push religion any more than does the teaching of a theory of origins (molecules to man evolution) that contradicts scriptural accounts (accepted by many thousands of theists); well accepted laws of science, e.g. the Law of Biogenesis and the Second Law of Thermodynamics; and observed facts, e.g., genetic stability and fossil stasis?
If teaching an atheistic or agnostic student respect for the creator violates the separation of church and state, why does not the teaching of materialistic evolution whether of the Darwinian, neo-Darwinian, or punctuated equilibria type to a Christian, Moslem, Jew or other theist violate the separation of church and state? After all, the U. S. Supreme Court has referred to secular humanism as a religion along with Buddhism, Taoism and other religions that do not teach a belief in the existence of a creator god. Secular humanists themselves have declared it to be a religion based on a belief in evolution (Humanist Manifesto I & II).
Secondly, how can anyone say that ''honesty and kindness'' are positive traits to be included in character education unless there is a creator that serves as a standard? If we came into existence through a process of killing off less fit competitors, then perhaps dishonesty and cruelty are the positive traits that give one a survival advantage. At the least, one cannot be criticized for following a cruel and dishonest path in a quest for survival.
Before anyone raises the issue of separation of church and state regarding government-operated schools, one must first determine what is and what is not ''religion.''
Ronald E. Houser

Albion · 10-09-2002, 02:34 PM

Quote:

If we came into existence through a process of killing off less fit competitors,

Oh dear, another 10 out of 10 for people unclear on the concept. Why are creationists so desperate to say that this never happened in the past when watching one nature programme on the Discovery Channel will show all the gory details of it going on right now.

Darwin's Finch · 10-09-2002, 02:41 PM

Egads! That last one may take the prize. Let's see..."Law of Biogenesis", the obligatory appeal to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the Supreme Court referring to secular humanism as a religion, the standard reference to the Humanist Manifesto.... I won't even touch the "honesty and kindness" remark.

Arrogance: 8.5

Ignorance: Can't get an accurate reading. My BS detector melted halfway through the letter.

Writing Ability: Passable but irrelevant. See above.

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ · 10-09-2002, 09:04 PM

Arrogance: 9.2

Ignorance: 10

Writing Inablility: 4

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-06-2002, 07:01 PM	#11
Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Heaven Posts: 6,980	The one from two years ago: Arrogance: 7.8 Not as bad as some, but worse than others. Ignorance: 9.8 Did you READ the man's points? A complete inability to accurately represent any actual posistion, coupled with his woeful claimed statistical analysis (from an astronomer, not anyone who deals with bioogy or anything), shows his idiocy. Further, the fool believes that there is an ACTIVE CONSPIRACY to deny creationism/ID a chance. Writing inability: 5.6 I've seen much, much worse. Only two blatant errors in writing, and semi-coherrent throughout. Not too bad.

10-06-2002, 07:42 PM	#12
Albion Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: US east coast. And www.theroyalforums.com Posts: 2,829	"However, that is not what intelligent design proposes, and The Dispatch knows it. What intelligent design proves is that life is too complex to have evolved through random natural processes." Well, 10 out of 10 for people unclear on the concept. So this poor mucker thinks that God is a nonrandom natural process? I wonder what a poor deity needs to do before being classified as supernatural by this character.

10-06-2002, 07:47 PM	#13
Albion Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: US east coast. And www.theroyalforums.com Posts: 2,829	When I see people claiming that Francis Crick doesn't support evolution, I really can't take anything they say on the subject seriously. I wouldn't want that guy to be my doctor, MD notwithstanding.

10-07-2002, 02:27 AM	#14
Oolon Colluphid Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Alibi: ego ipse hinc extermino Posts: 12,591	Anyone care to score this? <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001490" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001490</a> Oolon

10-07-2002, 05:56 AM	#15
Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Heaven Posts: 6,980	Ummmm.....

10-08-2002, 01:39 PM	#16
KC Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: San Narcisco, RRR Posts: 527	Arrogance: 7 Assumes standard antievolution party lines, ie, blames it on liberals, evolution as dogma, etc. Extra point for assuming pretentious writing style will hide lack of substance. Ignorance: 8 Fails to understand that micro- and macroevolution are relative terms regarding degree of divergence, and do not imply different mechanisms. Extra 'duh' point for "The theory remains a theory". One Dembski "I'll stick to the math over the biology' point for "Mathematics wholly refutes evolution". One Carl Baugh point for "Evolution has been rife with hoaxes claimed to be the "missing link" by a scientific community bent on embracing the theory to be authentic" Writing inability: 8 A fine example of pretentious twaddle: "Some biologists have supported evolution based upon their position that the basis of biology is created by evolution". Cheers, KC [ October 08, 2002: Message edited by: KCdgw ]</p>

10-09-2002, 02:41 PM	#19
Darwin's Finch Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Gardnerville, NV Posts: 666	Egads! That last one may take the prize. Let's see..."Law of Biogenesis", the obligatory appeal to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the Supreme Court referring to secular humanism as a religion, the standard reference to the Humanist Manifesto.... I won't even touch the "honesty and kindness" remark. Arrogance: 8.5 Ignorance: Can't get an accurate reading. My BS detector melted halfway through the letter. Writing Ability: Passable but irrelevant. See above.

10-09-2002, 09:04 PM	#20
Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Heaven Posts: 6,980	Arrogance: 9.2 Ignorance: 10 Writing Inablility: 4

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.