KC

I've had it with that place. Could they get any more whiny, paranoid, self-righteous, hypocritical, or smug?

Cheers,

KC

Richiyaado

I thought I'd had it, too, but I had the impulse to start posting there again and now I can't seem to stop. I'm doomed.

Lizard

I've had it with that place. Could they get any more whiny, paranoid, self-righteous, hypocritical, or smug?

Cheers,

KC

Me:
No. That's why I swore off when the board went down for several days. Cold turkey is the best approach.

I look in from time to time, and what do I see? No scientific arguments. Psychoanalysis of pro-science posters. Evasion. Deception. Same old YEC questions, posed in ID terms.

Have you ever wondered why there are *no* ID scientists posting on ARN? (With the exception of Mike Gene, who seems to have some kind of job tangentially related to biology, but he won't say what it is. Probably a lab technician.) The only scientists posting there are on the science side (well really???). The rest are deluded. They have to use whatever weapons they have in their arsenals, and they're not science or rationality. Ad hominems, strawmen, evasions, etc., etc.

I've often wondered what would happen if *all* the science-literate posters stopped posting. Would there be an ARN board at all? Probably not, because all the ID proponents do is attack "Darwinism." They have no positive theory. Not even a hypothesis. No research. No published papers. Guys, there's no *there* there.

Richyaado, all I can say is you've got the bug, and you've got it bad! Cold turkey before it's too late!

Uh, Ruse is a philosopher of science, not a scientist. Ruse is always willing to give all sides a listen, but he states clearly that he is a pro-evolution person, and he does not endorse ID. This is another case of selective quoting. To say someone "should not be ignored" is different from saying "he's making good sense."

Liz

[ July 20, 2002: Message edited by: Lizard ]</p>

Richiyaado

You're right, Liz, it must be a bug. Hopefully, I'll recover soon.

BTW, aside from Mike Gene, didn't PLA say he/she is an evolutionary biologist? I was rather surprised at his/her ham-handed taunting of Aptamer recently. It seemed a bit out of character for PLA.

pangloss

I completely disagree. PLA made a habit out of taunting those he disagreed with in the past. When I posted my exposure of Wells' out of context quotes from Icons there, he went on a tear.
I also had some interesting xchages with him via a go-between at the old CARM board, where he used some of the same quotes (out of context) and 'analogies'* that he has at ARN. He also was presented at CARM as being a "biggie in the field" and he claimed to have studied the isse (molecular phylogenetics) for 12 years.

I sincerely doubt that PLA is an evolutionary biologist. Like all creationists, I suspect that he has some tangential area of expertise, like wound healing or something.

*The uncanny similarity of an analogy he used at CARM several years ago to one used by Paul Nelson in one of his ARN essays lead me to believe that PLA is actually Paul Nelson. His dogged defense of Wells is also a clue, and some (including me for a time) thought PLA might have been Wells...

Richiyaado

Well, I have no idea who PLA is. But at least now I know what the real I.D. 'research program' is.