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

Re: Evolution: Molecular Genetics 101

Expand Messages
  • Ptah
    ... The degree of your ignorance never ceases to amaze me. For two years you have been in this group, and yet you still post excrement as exemplified above.
    Message 1 of 282 , Aug 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In achristianvsatheistclub@yahoogroups.com, "carlo"
      <mygroups992000@...> wrote:

      > And this idiot thinks something came from nothing and things
      > just 'happen' to be complex

      The degree of your ignorance never ceases to amaze me. For two
      years you have been in this group, and yet you still post excrement
      as exemplified above. I almost feel sorry for you, but your
      egregious ignorance makes me sick. No human without a brain injury
      or a genetic disorder should be this dense. You do not learn
      anything of value. Furthermore, you are the King of Fallacies.

      First point, jackass: when did I ever state anytime in the last two
      years, that "something came from nothing" or that "things just
      happen to be complex"? Not to mention that this is a red herring
      because what does any of that have to do with Creationism or ID
      being true or false? I wouldn't call this dismal failure of a
      tactic of yours a straw man because you can't even refute the
      assertions that you allege I made, such as "something comes from
      nothing". Go ahead, humor us; give us an argument as to
      why "something came from nothing" is erroneous. Give me a second
      while I get some popcorn.

      Second point, jackass: if a rational person refuses to accept
      Creationism or ID without evidence or even a logical explanation,
      then that does not mean they believe "something came from nothing".
      This "cretin logic" of yours is an example of bifurcation.

      Third point, jackass: requesting evidence in response to another's
      apparently illogical assertion, such as Creationism's, "God done
      it!", and ID's, "Where there is a design there is a designer!", is
      rational thinking. You make such an assertion, it better be
      falsifiable. It better be able to be observed, measured, and
      tested. It better be logical.

      Fourth point, jackass: "complexity" in relation to what? What then
      is *not* complex? Can your concept of "complexity" in the universe
      be anymore subjective and misconstrued? Your concept of complexity
      is egocentric and anthropocentric, to say the least.

      Fifth point, jackass: You assume that Creationism and ID are true
      because humans do not or can not understand the universe, and
      therefore only some sort of divine esoteric intelligence called god
      can make sense of it all, because it even *created* it all.
      Therefore, you insinuate that "everything" in the universe is an
      example of the "design" of this god, especially since "everything"
      is "something" as opposed to "nothing", which you thereby conclude
      is "evidence" for this god, since no other "theory" can adequately
      explain the universe's "origin" and/or "reason" for
      being "complex". This is an example of argumentum ad ignorantiam,
      among other things.

      Need I even go on? Should I mention that you are fallaciously
      assuming that a Creator/Designer can only be the Christian god? You
      incriminate yourself time and again; one sentence from you provides
      a mountain of evidence supporting your apparent ignorance.

      Your teacher,

      p.s. So did you ever dig up evidence for that alleged Jesus fellow
      yet? I'm still waiting.
    • Tim H
      ... or they would not have come into popular usage. ... is exactly what I said originally. TIM H: Duh! Didn t I just get through saying that I agreed with it?
      Message 282 of 282 , Aug 3, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        > Tim H wrote:
        > I do agree that there is something to stereotypes
        or they would not have come into popular usage.
        > ME: Then we're agreed. The above, by the way,
        is exactly what I said originally.

        TIM H:
        Duh! Didn't I just get through saying that I agreed
        with it?

        > <<No, tenacity I can admire, and you do have
        that quality, but closed-mindedness, cognitive
        rigidity, and lack of intellectual flexibility,
        I disdain...>>
        > ME: How am I closed-minded, hm? I can work
        within any scenario, but we haven't dealt in "if,
        thens". My point was that when it comes to evolution,
        you were clueless and passed off a misunderstanding
        of the concept as actual fact to a person who had
        spent valuable time studying it.
        > If I'm closed-minded for showing you the above,
        then you're a moronic twit for not realizing that
        you were doing it.

        TIM H:
        I have explained to you more than once, and in
        different ways, that I am not clueless and did
        not pass off any misunderstanding as a fact. I
        took responsibility for my inflammatory statement
        that I should not have made. I freely admitted
        that I am no expert on the subject. Yet you still,
        even now, want to make an issue of it. So, yes,
        you are closed-minded and inflexible. Isn't it
        about time to move on from this?

        > <<But that's my point. It doesn't prove
        you have the correct answers.>>
        > ME: Are you going to tell me that the truth
        is invariably trounced by debating skills?

        TIM H:
        I never said "invariably", so stop putting words
        in my mouth. Are you going to tell me that just
        because you can debate better than someone else
        that you invariably have all the correct answers?
        Are you going to tell me that it's not possible
        that someone (and I'm not talking about myself)
        could have all the correct answers, but not be
        good at expressing themselves, could be made to
        look like a fool (and I'm not talking about myself)
        by someone (and I'm not talking about you) who is
        a very skillful debater? I hope not, because you'd
        be wrong.

        > The truth is the truth, and if you present it even
        > closely to accurately, it trumps lies and ignorance
        > every time.

        TIM H:
        Oh, no, lies and deception can be just as effective,
        if not more so. It just depends on how dishonest
        you're willing to be and how good you can debate.

        > Arguing only works within the philosophical
        realm where nothing is for granted.
        > But if you're working within scientific
        understanding, there isn't much to debate.
        > <<That's fine. Debate is one way to exercise
        the brain, but I believe there are better ways...>>
        > ME: You should try Yoga if you prefer not to debate.

        TIM H:
        So, my only choices are debating and Yoga? I don't think so.

        > <<There is more than one way to exchange ideas.
        Debating is not the only method that can be used.>>
        > ME: If two people are discussing two ideas and
        the opposing view point and which one is better and
        the like, then the two are debating.
        > That's the "intelligent discussion" you're mentioning.
        > You seem to think that all debate results in mud-slinging.
        It doesn't.

        TIM H:
        And whether you know it or not, your continual
        condescending attitude does not make you appear
        to be brilliant, regardless of your self-delusion
        that it does. It only makes you look insecure...

        > <<Having a reasonable, mature, intelligent
        discussion does not mean you have to tippy toe
        around to avoid hurting someone's fragile ego.>>
        > ME: In other words, you're looking for a
        debate without personal insults. Yes, I understand.
        What you *don't* seem to understand is that if you
        pass off knowledge that isn't accurate as actual
        knowledge, and then denounce the actual knowledge
        as clap-trap with a simple reassertion, you *will*
        be ridiculed, and that's what you did.

        TIM H:
        No, I've already stated several times that I am
        not looking for a debate---another example of your
        closed-mindedness. You don't listen very well,
        because your mind is closed off to what I have
        been trying to explain to you, preferring to
        be enchanted only with yourself and what you
        have to say. You may be a good debater, but
        you're not a good communicator.

        > <<Can't we please move beyond this? Do you
        have to keep dragging this on forever? I have
        responded to this so many times already...>>
        > ME: No, I won't. Because the above is a
        prime example of what debating should and shouldn't
        be. *Intelligent* discussion involves knowing what
        you're talking about and the willingness to correct
        false answers. You didn't exhibit either in your
        debate with Ken,

        TIM H:
        I will say it one last time, then I'm totally done
        with the subject. I was not debating with Ken.

        > so how could you possibly be annoyed at the
        disdain you received? You were being intellectually
        dishonest. Don't preach to me about intellectual
        discussion if the process of intellectualism died
        long before it hit the table.

        TIM H:
        Preach to you? It's really amazing to me how I can
        make an honest effort to have an honest discussion
        about this with you, and all you can do is put your
        own spin on it. But then, as a debater, it's all
        about making yourself look good and the other guy
        look bad, isn't it? And you call me intellectually

        > <<If you, or someone you dearly care about was
        arrested for rape, how would you want to be treated?>>
        > ME: Honestly? If I raped someone, I'd like to
        be left alone. I don't want to go to jail, right,
        wrong, or otherwise.

        TIM H:
        Get real. That's not even reasonable...

        > And thus the Golden Rule fails. You have to
        qualify it to make it work.

        TIM H:
        And I suppose you think that's logical?

        > No such ubiquitously applicable standard
        exists. The morals must be contextual and not
        absolute, and thus the Golden Rule is a nice
        little foundation, but it must be expanded.
        > ~Guy~

        TIM H:
        You leave out much of my post, and don't really
        address my points. Then you finish it off with
        some BS intellectualism. How disappointing...
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.