Freethought & Rationalism Archive

hezekiah jones · 05-14-2003, 06:29 PM

Isn't that a chess piece on Socrates' ID? Also, Sarfati has written a few book reviews at amazon.com. He has at least one additional side interest which I found amusing.

Valentine Pontifex · 05-15-2003, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by hezekiah jones
Isn't that a chess piece on Socrates' ID? Also, Sarfati has written a few book reviews at amazon.com. He has at least one additional side interest which I found amusing.

You mean

this?

No. It is a image of a trophy that is too small to make clear what it is. This is for him being idiot^h^h^h^h^huser of the month.

hezekiah jones · 05-15-2003, 11:42 PM

Oh you mean "Member of the Month"? If I got to use the Concise OED's definition 6b* I'd have voted for him too.

* PENIS

pangloss · 05-16-2003, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Valentine Pontifex
He is also one of the biggest hypocrites I have ever observed -- even online.

How many people in the same breath can accuse the other side of using ad hominem arguments and in the same breath dismisses credentials, changes "Glenn Morton" to "Glenn Moron", uses words like bozo and other insults. And this is often in the same post.

He loves to use the word "nonscientist" and by that reasoning his side's lack of scientists should mean that his side can be dismissed on the same reason he tries to dismiss ours.

"Momma Dee Dee" has stated that such things are not really ad homs because Socrates "provides evidence" for them.

I, however, have yet to see evidence that Glenn Morton is a "moron," or that TalkOrigins participants are "bozos", etc.

It is truly amazing - they actually complain when such blatant rule-violations are pointed out to them!

In a PM, "Momma Dee Dee" chastized me for reporting a post in which SockRat had called tgamble an idiot and then "doing far worse". My "far worse" reply was edited, of course, while SockHole's post remained untouched. And what had I done that was "far worse" than calliong someone an idiot?

Why, I had pointed out that Sochole had used an ad hom....

KC · 05-16-2003, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by pangloss
"Momma Dee Dee" has stated that such things are not really ad homs because Socrates "provides evidence" for them.

I, however, have yet to see evidence that Glenn Morton is a "moron," or that TalkOrigins participants are "bozos", etc.

I think we are all bozos on the Talk.Origins bus.

KC

WinAce · 05-16-2003, 06:48 PM

Quote:

The theorem "lying is wrong" cannot be deduced from the axiom "God does not exists", but it can be from the axioms of Biblical Christianity. Therefore an atheistic liar is not being inconsistent with his own philosophy, while a professing Christian is.
- Socrates, TheologyWeb

Quote:

Also, lying would be inconsistent with our belief that Jesus Christ is �the way and the truth and the life� (John 14:6). But it�s impossible to conclude �lying is wrong� from either of the premises �Evolution is true� or �God does not exist�. So on what basis should a consistent evolutionist be concerned about alleged lying?
- Sarfati, AiG Feedback

Also, if you don't want your irony meter to explode, quickly stuff it in the closet somewhere. In the same feedback, 'Sarfcrates' says:

---------

--------------------

---------

--------------------

Ready?

--------------------

-----------

-------

-----
--
-

Quote:

Also, a fair-minded person would see through Plimer�s unethical debating tactics such as guilt-by-association, innuendo, half truths, and name-calling.

:banghead:

hezekiah jones · 05-16-2003, 10:11 PM

If it really is Sarfati, and it sure as hell seems like it is, then that's just .................... sad.

RufusAtticus · 05-18-2003, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by pangloss
"Momma Dee Dee" has stated that such things are not really ad homs because Socrates "provides evidence" for them.

Which is complete and utter bullshit, since Socrates provides no evidence for anything and abandons threads when called on his crap claims. Dee Dee tried to apologise for Socrates's behavior with that excuse in the very thread where I clearly demonstrated that Socrates does not support his abusive rhetoric with evidence. When I corrected her and pointed her to the earlier discussion, she got all defensive and tried to change the topic to staff decisions or something.

Bubba · 05-19-2003, 03:00 PM

Which is why I'd like to see a good moderated debate with an evolutionist going against against either Sartifati and company or the crash test dummies at ARN. They would loose just oh soooo badly in an open debate where they had to post evidence.

Chris

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

05-14-2003, 06:29 PM	#41
hezekiah jones Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: WI Posts: 4,357	Isn't that a chess piece on Socrates' ID? Also, Sarfati has written a few book reviews at amazon.com. He has at least one additional side interest which I found amusing.

05-15-2003, 11:42 PM	#43
hezekiah jones Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: WI Posts: 4,357	Oh you mean "Member of the Month"? If I got to use the Concise OED's definition 6b* I'd have voted for him too. * PENIS

05-16-2003, 10:11 PM	#47
hezekiah jones Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: WI Posts: 4,357	If it really is Sarfati, and it sure as hell seems like it is, then that's just .................... sad.

05-19-2003, 03:00 PM	#49
Bubba Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Orient, OH USA Posts: 1,501	Which is why I'd like to see a good moderated debate with an evolutionist going against against either Sartifati and company or the crash test dummies at ARN. They would loose just oh soooo badly in an open debate where they had to post evidence. Chris

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.