Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [RTB Discussion Group] fine minds think alike...

Expand Messages
  • Mark Penn
    What you see below is an Ad Homimen attack. For Pisani and Dave, the uneducated among us, this is when you make personal attacks that ignore the content of
    Message 1 of 16 , Feb 21, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      What you see below is an Ad Homimen attack. For Pisani and Dave, the uneducated among us, this is when you make personal attacks that ignore the content of the message as if "well your ugly" is an actual intellectual reply.

      Mark




      ________________________________
      From: "PIASAN@..." <PIASAN@...>
      To: RTB_Discussion_Group@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Sun, February 21, 2010 12:13:42 PM
      Subject: Re: [RTB Discussion Group] fine minds think alike...

       

      From: Mark Penn
      He is the only other person that I have found besides myself that has seen from
      the very beginning the connection between AGW and Evolution:


      Sunday, February 21, 2010

      ____________ _________ _________ __

      THE REPORT FROM WASHINGTON
      Darwin is freezing over
      Exclusive: Ellis Washington likens evolution 'fraud' to today's 'global warming'
      scare
      ************ *
      ************ *

      Pi comments:
      This can be found at:
      http://www.wnd. com/?pageId= 43&authorId= 59&tId=8

      So can this:
      Ellis Washington, authorized biographer for the conservative intellectual Dr. Michael Savage (see www.MichaelSavage. com), is former editor of the Michigan Law Review and law clerk at The Rutherford Institute. He hosts a radio program Thursdays at 11 a.m. Eastern on 1620 AM in Atlanta. It can be heard online at the Radio Sandy Springs website. Washington is a graduate of John Marshall Law School and a lecturer and freelance writer on constitutional law, legal history and critical race theory. He has written over a dozen law review articles and several books, including "The Inseparability of Law and Morality: The Constitution, Natural Law and the Rule of Law" (2002). Washington's latest book is "The Nuremberg Trials: Last Tragedy of the Holocaust."

      Now.....
      What was that about arguments from authority? Mark presents a "law clerk", "lecturer and free lance writer on constitutional law, legal history, and critical race history" as an "expert" on the scientific aspects of evolution.

      On the other hand, I presented a YEC atronomer when making a point about astronomy and the problems distant starlight present to YEC claims.

      What expertise does Washington have that makes him expert or an authority on science? Mark, if you're going to present an "expert", could it at least be one with expertise in the relevant subject matter?

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Mark Penn <yeshuahameshiach150 65@yahoo. com>
      To: RTB_Discussion_ Group@yahoogroup s.com
      Sent: Sun, Feb 21, 2010 2:56 am
      Subject: [RTB Discussion Group] fine minds think alike...

      He is the only other person that I have found besides myself that has seen from
      he very beginning the connection between AGW and Evolution:

      unday, February 21, 2010
      ____________ _________ _________ __
      THE REPORT FROM WASHINGTON
      arwin is freezing over
      xclusive: Ellis Washington likens evolution 'fraud' to today's 'global warming'
      care
      ____________ _________ _________ __
      Posted: February 20, 2010
      :00 am Eastern

      y Ellis Washington
      ____________ _________ _________ __
      Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen.
      ~ Sir John Houghton, founder of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
      IPCC)
      … I am quite conscious that my speculations run beyond the bounds of true
      cience. ... It is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaw[s] and holes as
      ound parts.
      ~ Charles Darwin, letter to Asa Gray
      s this man-caused global warming (now climate change) fraud comes crashing down
      pon the heads of all the state-controlled scientists, U.N. bureaucrats, Al
      ore, political hacks on both sides of the aisle and humanist academics, I am
      eminded of an aphorism I wrote in an earlier article: "Show me a monopoly and
      'll show you a tyranny."
      cannot help to see this manmade climate change scam being our modern-day
      quivalent to Charles Darwin's theory of evolution 150 years ago, which I
      onsider scientific mythology or fairy tales for adults.
      n a fine article published in the U.K. Daily Mail by Jonathan Petre of
      rofessor Phil Jones' BBC interview, the title said it all: "Climategate U-turn
      s scientist at center of row admits: There has been no global warming since
      995."
      ne hundred fifty years ago, Charles Darwin, an unremarkable British naturalist,
      as able to beguile the entire education, political, scientific and intellectual
      orld with his sophistic and unscientific theories of the origin of man as
      hronicled in his two famous books: "The Origin of Species" (1859) and "The
      escent of Man" (1871). As it was then so it is now; Darwin and his zealous
      egions of followers had not one shred of verifiable evidence for their theory.
      ruth and logic are not required to join the cult of Darwin or global warming;
      omplete religious devotion is. ((( Read some of Dave's emails to see proof of
      his. - Mark)))
      ut for some Chinese hackers publishing private e-mails between professor Jones
      nd his colleagues at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit and
      ennsylvania State University, the public may have never known that all of their
      ata on climate change was counterfeit and contrived; but more importantly, that
      he entire theory of manmade global warming was a willful scientific fraud from
      ts beginning.
      hey're hijacking science! Read this month's insightful Whistleblower magazine
      ssue -- global warming is just the tip of the science-fraud iceberg
      n modern times, education, science, politics and money have become inseparable
      nd thus degraded. Tens of trillions of dollars in federal grant money is now in
      eopardy, money dishonest U.N. bureaucrats for decades have been extorting from
      merica's taxpayers and corporations.
      how me a monopoly and I'll show you a tyranny.
      n America we have record-shattering snowstorms and cold fronts from Florida to
      laska. Presently there is snow in 49 of our 50 states. Global-warming patron
      aint Al Gore is nowhere to be found because he knows he would be laughed to
      corn at any venue where he appeared. Even a Senate committee hearing discussing
      he impacts of global warming was canceled last week due to record-breaking
      nowstorms in America's capital.
      rdinary citizens can just look out their windows and see that the premise
      ehind anthropogenic (man-caused) global warming is a complete deception that
      he United Nations has wasted untold hundreds of billions of dollars funding. If
      bama and the Democrats have their way, America will have to pay additional tens
      f trillions of dollars over the next 15 years just to comply with the Kyoto
      rotocols by drastically lowering our standard of living to levels of the 1860s!
      Show me a monopoly and I'll show you a tyranny.
      y the way, the world's three most polluting countries – China, India and Brazil
      have made it clear to the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that
      hey have no intention on lowering their carbon-dioxide emissions, because
      ree-market capitalism makes their economies grow stronger while the economies
      f the U.S. and most European countries are being crippled with socialism.
      ones also conceded the existence of the Medieval Warming Period, which occurred
      rom approximately A.D. 800 to 1300, as well as recent warming cycles from 1910
      o 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, which professor Jones was forced to admit had
      othing to do with man causation and that the growth of cities has no effect on
      lobal warming.
      ne man, Charles Darwin, 150 years ago through his diabolical theory of
      volution has done what the Goths, the Visigoths, the Saxons, the Vandals and
      ttila the Hun could not do – destroy Western civilization by marginalizing
      bjective truth. Before Darwin, Western civilization was based on logic,
      ymmetry and the Judeo-Christian traditions of intellectual thought.
      Column continues below)
      arwinism is a radical, evolutionary worldview that systematically denigrated
      hristianity, the Constitution and the academy and has tried to destroy
      bjective truth. Now most politicians, judges, academics, theologians and
      ntellectuals believe that truth is relative; morality is in the eye of the
      eholder. Every man does what is right in his own eyes.
      how me a monopoly and I'll show you a tyranny.
      lways follow the money. Al Gore has made approximately $500 million dollars and
      on the Nobel Peace Prize propagating the Big Lie of global warming
      nternationally. It is critical with these people that mankind (i.e., America)
      e the blame. Why?
      ook at it through the eyes of shyster lawyers. To fund their frivolous tort
      awsuits unscrupulous lawyers look to find "deep pockets" (i.e., large
      orporations, doctors, inventors) for their clients to sue. Radical
      nvironmentalists are following the same strategies. America has the ultimate
      eep pockets to fund United Nation boondoggles for years until we bankrupt
      urselves.
      nderstand, dear reader, that liberalism has three characteristics: 1)
      iberalism it is a pagan religion rooted in perverse ideology, fanaticism and
      umanism – the idea that man is the center of all things; 2) Liberals love
      umanity, but hate people. Liberalism views people as separate and antagonistic
      o nature, thus population-control advocates want to drastically reduce the
      orld's population through various socialist, statist policies; and 3) As
      resident Ronald Reagan said, liberalism will always fail because it will
      ollapse upon the weight of its own immorality.
      And Darwinism is freezing over.
      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      ------------ --------- --------- ------
      Read it for yourself - "Refuting Compromise" (See it for yourself why the RTB
      taff will not comment on Dr. Sarfati's scientific and logical arguments and
      iblical critique of the teachings of Dr. Ross and his devoted followers.)
      O TO: http://www.creation ontheweb. com
      ahoo! Groups Links
      Individual Email | Traditional
      http://docs. yahoo.com/ info/terms/

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • PIASAN@aol.com
      That is not true. What you see below is an argument from authority fallacy committed by Mark. When I discussed the light travel time problem for YEC, I had
      Message 2 of 16 , Mar 1, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        That is not true. What you see below is an "argument from authority" fallacy committed by Mark.

        When I discussed the light travel time problem for YEC, I had presented a YEC astronomer as an "expert" on the matter of starlight and the time it takes such light to reach Earth. This is entirely in an astronomer's area of expertise.

        On the other hand, Mark presents his "expert" on the matter of global warming and evolution. When I check the credentials of Mark's "authority", I find he has no relevant expertise. In other words, he isn't an "expert" at all.

        That is not an ad hominem attack as I am not challenging the person, just his qualifications and expertise.

        Since I was unable to find any information that makes Dr. Savage "expert" in any relevant field of this discussion, I still ask why I should accept his claims as more authoritative than my own?






        -----Original Message-----
        From: Mark Penn <yeshuahameshiach15065@...>
        To: RTB_Discussion_Group@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Sun, Feb 21, 2010 12:54 pm
        Subject: Re: [RTB Discussion Group] fine minds think alike...


        What you see below is an Ad Homimen attack. For Pisani and Dave, the uneducated
        mong us, this is when you make personal attacks that ignore the content of the
        essage as if "well your ugly" is an actual intellectual reply.
        Mark


        _______________________________
        rom: "PIASAN@..." <PIASAN@...>
        o: RTB_Discussion_Group@yahoogroups.com
        ent: Sun, February 21, 2010 12:13:42 PM
        ubject: Re: [RTB Discussion Group] fine minds think alike...

        From: Mark Penn
        e is the only other person that I have found besides myself that has seen from
        he very beginning the connection between AGW and Evolution:

        unday, February 21, 2010
        ____________ _________ _________ __
        THE REPORT FROM WASHINGTON
        arwin is freezing over
        xclusive: Ellis Washington likens evolution 'fraud' to today's 'global warming'
        scare
        *********** *
        *********** *
        Pi comments:
        his can be found at:
        ttp://www.wnd. com/?pageId= 43&authorId= 59&tId=8
        So can this:
        llis Washington, authorized biographer for the conservative intellectual Dr.
        ichael Savage (see www.MichaelSavage. com), is former editor of the Michigan
        aw Review and law clerk at The Rutherford Institute. He hosts a radio program
        hursdays at 11 a.m. Eastern on 1620 AM in Atlanta. It can be heard online at
        he Radio Sandy Springs website. Washington is a graduate of John Marshall Law
        chool and a lecturer and freelance writer on constitutional law, legal history
        nd critical race theory. He has written over a dozen law review articles and
        everal books, including "The Inseparability of Law and Morality: The
        onstitution, Natural Law and the Rule of Law" (2002). Washington's latest book
        s "The Nuremberg Trials: Last Tragedy of the Holocaust."
        Now.....
        hat was that about arguments from authority? Mark presents a "law clerk",
        lecturer and free lance writer on constitutional law, legal history, and
        ritical race history" as an "expert" on the scientific aspects of evolution.
        On the other hand, I presented a YEC atronomer when making a point about
        stronomy and the problems distant starlight present to YEC claims.
        What expertise does Washington have that makes him expert or an authority on
        cience? Mark, if you're going to present an "expert", could it at least be one
        ith expertise in the relevant subject matter?



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Mark Penn
        Of course it was an ad hominem. He and you didn t bother to talk about his message only his credentials . Stop lying while you are behind.
        Message 3 of 16 , Mar 1, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          Of course it was an ad hominem. He and you didn't bother to talk about his message only his "credentials". Stop lying while you are behind.




          ________________________________
          From: "PIASAN@..." <PIASAN@...>
          To: RTB_Discussion_Group@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Mon, March 1, 2010 12:56:48 PM
          Subject: Re: [RTB Discussion Group] fine minds think alike...

           

          That is not true. What you see below is an "argument from authority" fallacy committed by Mark.

          When I discussed the light travel time problem for YEC, I had presented a YEC astronomer as an "expert" on the matter of starlight and the time it takes such light to reach Earth. This is entirely in an astronomer's area of expertise.

          On the other hand, Mark presents his "expert" on the matter of global warming and evolution. When I check the credentials of Mark's "authority", I find he has no relevant expertise. In other words, he isn't an "expert" at all.

          That is not an ad hominem attack as I am not challenging the person, just his qualifications and expertise.

          Since I was unable to find any information that makes Dr. Savage "expert" in any relevant field of this discussion, I still ask why I should accept his claims as more authoritative than my own?

          -----Original Message-----
          From: Mark Penn <yeshuahameshiach150 65@yahoo. com>
          To: RTB_Discussion_ Group@yahoogroup s.com
          Sent: Sun, Feb 21, 2010 12:54 pm
          Subject: Re: [RTB Discussion Group] fine minds think alike...

          What you see below is an Ad Homimen attack. For Pisani and Dave, the uneducated
          mong us, this is when you make personal attacks that ignore the content of the
          essage as if "well your ugly" is an actual intellectual reply.
          Mark

          ____________ _________ _________ _
          rom: "PIASAN@..." <PIASAN@...>
          o: RTB_Discussion_ Group@yahoogroup s.com
          ent: Sun, February 21, 2010 12:13:42 PM
          ubject: Re: [RTB Discussion Group] fine minds think alike...

          From: Mark Penn
          e is the only other person that I have found besides myself that has seen from
          he very beginning the connection between AGW and Evolution:

          unday, February 21, 2010
          ____________ _________ _________ __
          THE REPORT FROM WASHINGTON
          arwin is freezing over
          xclusive: Ellis Washington likens evolution 'fraud' to today's 'global warming'
          scare
          *********** *
          *********** *
          Pi comments:
          his can be found at:
          ttp://www.wnd. com/?pageId= 43&authorId= 59&tId=8
          So can this:
          llis Washington, authorized biographer for the conservative intellectual Dr.
          ichael Savage (see www.MichaelSavage. com), is former editor of the Michigan
          aw Review and law clerk at The Rutherford Institute. He hosts a radio program
          hursdays at 11 a.m. Eastern on 1620 AM in Atlanta. It can be heard online at
          he Radio Sandy Springs website. Washington is a graduate of John Marshall Law
          chool and a lecturer and freelance writer on constitutional law, legal history
          nd critical race theory. He has written over a dozen law review articles and
          everal books, including "The Inseparability of Law and Morality: The
          onstitution, Natural Law and the Rule of Law" (2002). Washington's latest book
          s "The Nuremberg Trials: Last Tragedy of the Holocaust."
          Now.....
          hat was that about arguments from authority? Mark presents a "law clerk",
          lecturer and free lance writer on constitutional law, legal history, and
          ritical race history" as an "expert" on the scientific aspects of evolution.
          On the other hand, I presented a YEC atronomer when making a point about
          stronomy and the problems distant starlight present to YEC claims.
          What expertise does Washington have that makes him expert or an authority on
          cience? Mark, if you're going to present an "expert", could it at least be one
          ith expertise in the relevant subject matter?

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Mark Penn
          The facts have emerged, in recent years and months, from research into past ice ages. They imply that the threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside
          Message 4 of 16 , Mar 1, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            The facts have emerged, in recent years and months, from research into past ice ages. They imply that the threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind. (Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, in International Wildlife, July 1975)
             
            The cooling has already killed thousands of people in poor nations... If it continues, and no strong measures are taken to deal with it, the cooling will cause world famine, world chaos, and probably world war, and this could all come about by the year 2000. (Lowe Ponte, The Cooling, 1976)
            January 1994 Time magazine:  The ice age cometh? Last week's big chill was a reminder that the Earth's climate can change at any time ... The last (ice age) ended 10,000 years ago; the next one— for there will be a next on—could start tens of thousands of years from now. Or tens of years. Or it may have already started.
             
             
            *** People that can't make up their minds whether the Earth is cooling or warming and will lie prove either position, do you really think they will be honest and up front about the valid science that proves a Young Earth and the Bible as written? If so I have a bridge to sell you.
             
            This hoax also exposes scam artists such as Ross and Fuz that takes the "science" of scam artists and adopts it as scripturally compatible.

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Dave Oldridge
            ... Once more you make a totally unsuibstantiated character assault instead of actually producing EVIDENCE of a young earth or universe. As for your take on
            Message 5 of 16 , Mar 2, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              On 01/03/2010 1:10 PM, Mark Penn wrote:
              > The facts have emerged, in recent years and months, from research into past ice ages. They imply that the threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind. (Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, in International Wildlife, July 1975)
              >
              > The cooling has already killed thousands of people in poor nations... If it continues, and no strong measures are taken to deal with it, the cooling will cause world famine, world chaos, and probably world war, and this could all come about by the year 2000. (Lowe Ponte, The Cooling, 1976)
              > January 1994 Time magazine: The ice age cometh? Last week's big chill was a reminder that the Earth's climate can change at any time ... The last (ice age) ended 10,000 years ago; the next one— for there will be a next on—could start tens of thousands of years from now. Or tens of years. Or it may have already started.
              >
              >
              > *** People that can't make up their minds whether the Earth is cooling or warming and will lie prove either position, do you really think they will be honest and up front about the valid science that proves a Young Earth and the Bible as written? If so I have a bridge to sell you.
              >
              > This hoax also exposes scam artists such as Ross and Fuz that takes the "science" of scam artists and adopts it as scripturally compatible.

              Once more you make a totally unsuibstantiated character assault instead
              of actually producing EVIDENCE of a young earth or universe.

              As for your "take" on global warming, I find it particularly good
              evidence that human beings, collectively, are probably no smarter than
              ayeast culture in a beer vat.

              The FACT is that we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The fact is that
              you and your fellow scam artists are determined to produce more and more
              of it as long as it makes you comfortable and rich. The fact is that
              you rely on propaganda that, for the most part, relies on abject
              ignorance on the part of your target audience, both when you talk about
              evolution and when you talk about global warming.

              You are by the teachings of Holy Church a rebellious, obdurate HERETIC
              who teaches that lying is a "good Christian witness." For that, you
              will experience not my wrath, but that of Almighty God, whom you despise
              and blaspheme with your actions.

              But, in case you are actually interested in learning some science, here
              is an experiment you can try. Get a thermos. Put tap water in it and
              measure the temperature. Throw in a couple of ice cubes and wait until
              they are just about melted. Measure the temperature again. It will
              fall to 32F and stay there until the ice is all gone. Is any energy
              being added to the system? Not any significant amount. What is
              happening is that the heat of fusion of the ice is being taken from the
              water. Once the water and the ice reach the same temperature, the ice
              melts very, very slowly.

              Studying global warming requires that we consider the actual energy
              content of the atmosphere and the hydrosphere. especially the latter.
              This includes the LACK of energy in ice formations and when those melt
              we have to understand that the energy for that comes mostly from the
              liquid phase. When a huge chunk of antarctic ice breaks off, it takes
              an amount of energy equivalent to that required to warm the resulting
              water from freezing to 176F to actually melt it at 32F. This is why
              global warming can actually result in colder weather in many places--at
              least until the glaciers are actually gone. It is also possible that
              the resulting imbalance could tip the scale back to ice age conditions
              and cause the reglaciation of North America and Asia. We probably just
              don't know enough to predict one way or another.

              What we CAN see is that CO2 levels are rising, that human CO2 output is
              enormous (and mostly vanishing into sinks we don't understand but not
              ALL vanishing), that our consumption of CO2-producing products is
              increasing exponentially and that idiots like you don't want to pay any
              attention to the phenomenon whatever!

              But that's all right. You have your head firmly in the sand and are loudly proclaiming that the lion won't kill you because it's busy eating a zebra. Believe me when I tell you that the lion will eventually finish the zebra and get hungry again.

              Of course YOU would rather lie and libel your way through life and then you will express complete horror when God sends you packing to serve your true master for ever! Such are the ways of the devil and his disciples.

              Still waiting for that SHRED of credible scientific evidence for a young earth.

              NOT holding my breath. That could be fatal.



              --

              Dave Oldridge
              Skype: daveoldridge
              Ham Radio: VA7CZ
            • PIASAN@aol.com
              From: Mark Penn do you really think they will be honest and up front about the valid science that proves a Young Earth and the Bible as written? If so I have a
              Message 6 of 16 , Mar 2, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                From: Mark Penn
                do you really think they will be
                honest and up front about the valid science that proves a Young Earth and the
                Bible as written? If so I have a bridge to sell you.

                ************
                Pi:
                When do you think you'll present some of that "valid science"?




                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • PIASAN@aol.com
                From: Mark Penn Of course it was an ad hominem. He and you didn t bother to talk about his message only his credentials .
                Message 7 of 16 , Mar 2, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  From: Mark Penn <yeshuahameshiach15065@...>
                  Of course it was an ad hominem. He and you didn't bother to talk about his
                  message only his "credentials". Stop lying while you are behind.
                  **************

                  Pi:
                  Well, coming from a true master of the ad hominem, such as yourself, I guess I should defer to your superior abilities in delivering them.

                  You presented a paper by Dr. Savage as if he has some "authority" as an "expert" in the topic(s) under discussion. As such, his credentials are subject to question. That is the difference between us. When I present someone as an "authority" he has relevant expertise.

                  I fail to see how a "law clerk" and former editor of a law review has any expertise relevant to the subject of this discussion. As such, there is no reason to grant his comments any more credibility than mine, or Dave's, or even yours.






                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.