Freethought & Rationalism Archive

RufusAtticus · 05-11-2002, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Some of you don't like that the evolution forums were pulled. Some of you feel it was cowardice, or an admission that creation doesn't hold water. Please feel free to conclude anything you like. I never expected evolutionists to change their minds, but I was hoping that some of you would see how foolish your so-called evidence was.

How the hell was he supposed to show us how foolish our evidence was when his only responses were "sez you" and "just-so Barney story?" Did he expect us to take his assertions, as a linux expert, that our evidence was not good enough?

~~RvFvS~~

fleetmouse · 05-11-2002, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RufusAtticus:


How the hell was he supposed to show us how foolish our evidence was when his only responses were "sez you" and "just-so Barney story?" Did he expect us to take his assertions, as a linux expert, that our evidence was not good enough?

~~RvFvS~~

I just had a good time with him on his morality forum. What a bad tempered little penguinista, can't take a bit of debate and good natured ribbing without exploding into a tantrum. Insulted me he did, called me an idiot. I'll be curious to see if he cancels my account.

Every time I wait for one of his replies, I'm thinking, "he can't possibly be so thick as to say [X]." and then he goes and says it! Quite remarkable.

L

[ May 11, 2002: Message edited by: Lispli ]

LiveFreeOrDie · 05-12-2002, 06:36 AM

One less source of ignorance is always a good thing IMO.

I am elated.

RufusAtticus · 05-14-2002, 05:49 AM

Well it the new rules have been posted at petreley.org.

<a href="http://forums.petreley.org/msg.php?th=84&start=0" target="_blank">Check them out.</a>

The first part reads something like this.

"Because my friends and I can't behave when discussing science, I am banning the evidence for evolution to prevent us from starting flame wars."

~~RvFvS~~

pseudobug · 05-14-2002, 06:16 AM

Peterely is a ridiculous little peckerhead. The man violated practically every one of the rules he came up with on his defunct evolution board.

If anything, the evolutionists visiting and making arguments gave the most substantive refutation of the tripe that petreley and his minion gbledsoe posted. I say let him rot. His board traffic is way down as the Evo-Cre debate was the only one generating any hits. He and his fundie buddies can engage in their mutual mental masturbation while fantasizing over the great sky-daddy.

[ May 14, 2002: Message edited by: pseudobug ]

LiveFreeOrDie · 05-16-2002, 07:38 PM

Here's a little goodbye note I left for Nick:

Well, the evolution forums are gone. I can't say I'm surprised. This pattern has repeated itself many times on other discussion forums. Some group of creationists starts a discussion board, a few scientifically-minded people show up and start pointing out the faults in creationist thinking and asking tough questions and before you know it either: a) all the pro-evolution posters are banned (a la ICR) or b) the forum is closed completely.

So Nick doesn't like people who use links as references for their arguments. Apparently he thinks it is perfectly reasonable for posters to construct, de novo, the full argument for evolution. That's a rather silly position when you consider it. After all, is there anyone here who could construct, de novo, a full and
compelling argument supporting heliocentrism?

It would appear to me that Nick's opposition to URL's was for a rather more direct reason - Nick and his fellow creationists were having an ever more difficult time coping with the amount of evidence against them.

He denies this, of course, dismissing it with a wave of his hand as "not compelling". Funny he never explained how or why that link I gave describing isochron dating was "not compelling".

And of course Nick couldn't pass up a chance to use his favorite debating technique - the ad hominem. With no real evidence to back him up, he resorts instead to derogatory labels like "laziness", "cowardice", and "intellectual dishonesty". Well, let me tell you something. "Laziness" is when someone won't even take the time to become educated on a topic before pontificating about it. "Cowardice" is when someone refuses to consider facts that are contrary to his opinion. And "intellectual dishonesty" is what happens when discussion is censored. One would think that arguments that were lazy, cowardly, or dishonest would be rather easy to refute, but the best the creationists could muster was "Sez you" and "Just-so Barney".

The truth, Nick, is rather plain to see. I can't say it any better than Jack Nicholson did in "A Few Good Men": The truth is you can't handle the truth. Before railing against the supposed failings of the nonbeliever, you would be wise to consider the words of St. Augustine of Hippo:

Quote:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and seasons, about the kinds of animals,
shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from knowledge and experience.
Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. . . . Reckless and incompetent
expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon
Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.

Anybody who still feels that the pro-evolution posters are lazy, cowardly, or dishonest, or that the theory of evolution is seriously flawed, is welcome to discuss the topics at either of the following discussion boards:

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

<a href="http://www.christianforums.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?forumid=70" target="_blank">http://www.christianforums.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?forumid=70</A>

I hope to see you there.

RufusAtticus · 05-16-2002, 11:44 PM

Well he apparently read your post. He has surfaced on Christian Forums, where he isn't capapble of censoring descentors.

~~RvFvS~~

Jack the Bodiless · 05-16-2002, 11:53 PM

That Augustine quote is VERY handy!

Late_Cretaceous · 05-17-2002, 06:41 AM

Quote:
"Funny he never explained how or why that link I gave describing isochron dating was "not compelling"

I suppose it is hard to find something compelling when one does not even have the courtesy to read it.
Why didn't he complain about creationists posting links to other URLs. Didn't he himself post a link to an alleged case of elderly people growing third sets of teeth?
I am almost glad that I never had the opportunity to post there.

ps what name is he using at christianforums?

lpetrich · 05-17-2002, 07:52 AM

I had revealed to certain people here that I had used a certain pseudonym in Nick Petreley's late evolution forum; shall I reveal it to all the others who had been reading it?

05-14-2002, 06:16 AM	#15
pseudobug Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: land of confusion Posts: 178	Peterely is a ridiculous little peckerhead. The man violated practically every one of the rules he came up with on his defunct evolution board. If anything, the evolutionists visiting and making arguments gave the most substantive refutation of the tripe that petreley and his minion gbledsoe posted. I say let him rot. His board traffic is way down as the Evo-Cre debate was the only one generating any hits. He and his fundie buddies can engage in their mutual mental masturbation while fantasizing over the great sky-daddy. [ May 14, 2002: Message edited by: pseudobug ]</p>

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

05-12-2002, 06:36 AM	#13
LiveFreeOrDie Junior Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Milwaukee, WI, USA Posts: 77	One less source of ignorance is always a good thing IMO. I am elated.

05-14-2002, 05:49 AM	#14
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	Well it the new rules have been posted at petreley.org. <a href="http://forums.petreley.org/msg.php?th=84&start=0" target="_blank">Check them out.</a> The first part reads something like this. "Because my friends and I can't behave when discussing science, I am banning the evidence for evolution to prevent us from starting flame wars." ~~RvFvS~~

05-16-2002, 11:44 PM	#17
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	Well he apparently read your post. He has surfaced on Christian Forums, where he isn't capapble of censoring descentors. ~~RvFvS~~

05-16-2002, 11:53 PM	#18
Jack the Bodiless Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: UK Posts: 5,815	That Augustine quote is VERY handy!

05-17-2002, 06:41 AM	#19
Late_Cretaceous Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Alberta Posts: 1,049	Quote: "Funny he never explained how or why that link I gave describing isochron dating was "not compelling" I suppose it is hard to find something compelling when one does not even have the courtesy to read it. Why didn't he complain about creationists posting links to other URLs. Didn't he himself post a link to an alleged case of elderly people growing third sets of teeth? I am almost glad that I never had the opportunity to post there. ps what name is he using at christianforums?

05-17-2002, 07:52 AM	#20
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	I had revealed to certain people here that I had used a certain pseudonym in Nick Petreley's late evolution forum; shall I reveal it to all the others who had been reading it?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.