Principia

Oh, lucky timing. I saw Bender's post, and felt it necessary to put some self-defense.

I was pretty sorry too, for having read it, *and* answered it (note to self, never respond to a thread that other people are unwilling to discuss). Have any of you ever read Wouk's The Caine Mutiny? The whole time I was at ARN arguing this thread, I felt like I was up against Queeg. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

SC

I love how all of the ARN regulars are coming here to accuse me, posting as if I *care* about returning to that horrid place. In case anybody else wonders why Leonard's name comes up so often here, it is because he is part of the support group formed at <a href="http://www.arn.org/ubb/Forum10/HTML/000109.html" target="_blank">ARN</a>. Here's another <a href="http://www.arn.org/ubb/Forum10/HTML/000099.html" target="_blank">thread</a>, or this one depicting a routine <a href="http://www.arn.org/ubb/Forum10/HTML/000073.html" target="_blank">huddle</a>, or perhaps this one, which had everything to do with ID and <a href="http://www.arn.org/ubb/Forum10/HTML/000067.html" target="_blank">science</a>. In fact, Forum10 appears to be the 'secret hideout' of the Christian monopoly there, but what do I know? It is just amusing to find people patting each other's back, and congratulating on fine 'mockery.' I guess, so long as snide comments are said in 'private' they are OK. <img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" />

This should be my last post on this thread, since it is clear to me and any reasonable person that it has become a place for ex-ARNs to come post their grievances. Having 'discovered' Forum10, I find myself redeemed for doing what I did, since quite a few posters not immediately involved weren't innocent bystanders, but rather active (though hidden) participants. They were out to create a hostile environment, and when one of their own suffered a setback, I guess that's how the whole thing exploded.

[ March 17, 2002: Message edited by: Scientiae ]</p>

Vorkosigan

See Pomp? That's why I mentioned Van Til in the Lewis thread. I knew you'd ask Doug to explain Bible Equations, so I was getting some pre-emptive revenge.

Michael

faded_Glory

Douglas,

Whatever. You expressed the wish to debate Evolution in our FD&D Forum, and were welcome to do so. I found your contributions in that debate seriosly lacking in scientific content, you were unable to counter scigirl's arguments, and I wasn't really surprised to see you walk off. Lack of time seems a strange excuse when shortly hereafter you re-surfaced at ARN with a high posting frequency, but if it makes you feel better to dress it up like that, be my guest.

Initially I considered you one of those who accept YEC because of insufficient education, and thought that exposure to some more advanced data and theories might make a difference, but after the scigirl debate it has become clear that you are simply utterly unwilling to even consider your views as potentially erroneous.

Your 'biblical equations' settle it for me. I am under no obligation to have a high opinion of you.

In good health,

fG

Douglas J. Bender

Here's a post from a committed anti-IDist to Scientiae. It can be found at <a href="http://www.arn.org/ubb/FORUM1/001989.html" target="_blank">http://www.arn.org/ubb/FORUM1/001989.html</a> .


Care to argue against dayton, and Myrmecos, and any number of others from ARN regarding your "aroma", Scientiae? You are a liar, and exhibit a coward's approach to truth.


In Christ,

Douglas

[ March 17, 2002: Message edited by: Douglas J. Bender ]</p>

Douglas J. Bender

Pompous Bastard,


You said:
I'm so sorry you had to waste five minutes of your life reading the post of mine which Scientiae so thoughtfully posted here. Perhaps if you spent 15 minutes reading it, however, you might understand it.


In Christ,

Douglas

pangloss

Since Douglas feels the need to 'prove' the bible with a bunch of asinine numbers games, so be it.

There is no convincing such an irrational mind.

He belonged at ARN, alongside mturner, bertvan, and all the other simpletons.

pangloss

I suspect this sort of thing actually happens quite a bit at ARN as it does on other Christian boards, such as the baptist Board and the old OCW.

When I was banned at ARN some time ago, I received an email from one 'Jimmy' who also posted as 'Ecko'. He boasted of having 'taken part' in getting me banned - said he 'and others' had been in contact with the moderator, urging him to ban me. Later, one Duane 'Pinky' Salmon also admitted to have taken part in this. The whole time, of course, everyone at ARN just blamed me.

After I got banned most recently, for not joining in the Nixonization of Pinky after he died, I discovered that, again, I was the victim not of rules violations, but of a collusion by paranoid ARN IDiots lobbying the moderator to ban me. Indeed, I received an email form the moderator asking what he was to do about the 'complaints' he was receiving.

So, I don't think the activities there are as benign as they are made out to be...

Douglas J. Bender

faded-Glory,


You said:
Nice rebuttal ("Whatever"). And, it was YOU who offered to set up a "Formal Debate" between scigirl and myself, which I appreciated. It was NOT the case, however, that I "expressed the wish" to do so, except after you had offered the opportunity. Try to keep the spinning at a minimum, please.

Actually, given that I am not a scientist, and am only formally trained in mathematics, your "finding" is not all that "revelatory" or "insightful" - the point is not "scientific content", but whether my arguments and reasoning were valid (and they were). Scigirl, being a scientist, was able to come up with many more interesting "scientific links" and "data", but her conclusions were wrong, and her arguments were faulty. In fact, she kept trying to tell me that it was my responsibility to prove that there was some barrier to microevolution becoming macroevolution, when in actual fact it was scigirl's responsibility to prove that microevolution can result in macroevolution. I tried to make that point once, by pointing out that placing the burden on me was like requiring someone to prove that the process of gaining weight does not eventually lead to larger species - the "burden of proof" lies with the person making the claim in the first place.

Actually, one of the main reasons I felt that the debate was not "fruitful" was that scigirl was not understanding that her points did not prove her position. This, combined with a lack of time, and the "crisis", sapped my motivation to re-engage the debate, though I planned to.

Thank you for your courteous and sincere offer. However, I already explained the reason for my posting at ARN (even "with a high frequency" - note that if someone posts 10 quick and short posts, they have a "high posting frequency", but might have spent a lot less time than someone who posted one long and detailed post...surely you can discern that a "high frequency of posting" does not necessarily imply a "high amount" of time spent?). The posts I made at ARN were generally ones which did not require a great deal of time or effort on my part, and thus were more of a means of "intellectually relaxing", and provided a form of intellectual "stimulation". But they did not require great care in thought and detailed research.

Baloney. And I initially considered you pompous and arrogant, and then changed my opinion when you became slightly more polite (apparently just in order to snare me into a "Formal Debate"). It seems my initial impression of you was the more accurate one. And, you are completely wrong that I am "unwilling to even consider [my] views as potentially erroneous", at least regarding the debate about "microevolution and macroevolution". I am, however, unwilling to consider my views about Jesus "potentially erroneous", for the same reason that I am unwilling to consider my views about my name, my gender, and my humanity, "potentially erroneous" - because I know the truth regarding those things.

No, you are not under any such "obligation". And neither am I under any obligation to feel that you are objective and fair-minded, or that you are capable of thinking that evolution is untrue. And, that's nice about your opinion regarding the "Biblical Equations" - however, it's very easy to offer your opinion, but a bit more difficult to support it.

I do not believe that you are willing to consider the possibility that God exists, and that (macro)evolution is untrue. Your posts here settle it for me.


In Christ,

Douglas

[ March 17, 2002: Message edited by: Douglas J. Bender ]</p>

Douglas J. Bender

Pangloss said:
Ah, the infamous "Pangloss" - what a displeasure meeting you. Your viciousness and unreasonableness are legendary - I see that you waste no time in upholding your image.

Now, here, nowhere have I said or implied that I "feel the need to prove the Bible with numbers and equations" - all I ever claimed is that I found two equations which, to an honest and discerning mind, would do so. By the way, I am completely "rational", and don't see why you proclaim that because you have an irrational mind, there is no convincing you - it's a nice gesture to admit your own faults, but it's quite out of character for the great Pangloss.

Myself, mturner, bertvan, and the others at ARN are "simpletons"? Your slander was spoken like the noble and unassailable intellectual giant that you are not.


In Christ,

Douglas

[ March 17, 2002: Message edited by: Douglas J. Bender ]</p>

Principia

&lt;Eh, forget it, Queeg's not worth my time.&gt;

SC

[ March 17, 2002: Message edited by: Scientiae ]</p>