Interesting little article:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/08/inherit_the_spin_the_ncse_answ.html
1. a-t-h-E-I-s-t. It's from a + theos + ism. I have yet to figure out what "most athy" means, or even "athy", so please: spell the word correctly.
2. I laugh at the cretinist lies in the article. It sounds like ICR propaganda.
For instance, the "cambrian explosion"--isn't, although cretinists would love for people to believe that it means something instantaneous. I wouldn't call between 5 and 20 million years an "explosion" or "instantaneous"--would you?
3. Read talkorigins.org. Do not lie and say you've been there; you haven't. Do not lie and say that it's all been refuted; it hasn't. Do not give us the Discovery Institute, ICR, Answersingenesis, Kent Hovind, or any other huckster.
What lies? Did you check to see if the article actually appeared as he said it did in the newspaper? Was that a lie? Did the cited textbooks not actually have the disinformation quoted? Where was the lie?
What makes you so angry, Bow-Wow?
JCFolsom:What lies?
The entire article. I even pointed out one. But if you makes you feel better: Icons of Obfuscation Happy reading!
What makes you so angry, JC? What makes you so angry? Really: what makes you so angry? Why are you so angry? Do you have to be so angry? You should do somthing about your anger. Your anger will only hurt you. So why are you so angry?
IOW: don't give me piss-poor pop psych and think I'm not going to throw it back at you.
Knight_of_BAAWA: JCFolsom:What lies? The entire article. I even pointed out one. But if you makes you feel better: Icons of Obfuscation Happy reading!
Well, now, the article I cited wasn't about his book. That the same questions were covered in one way or another in that book is irrelevant, and your citing it is pretty much just an ad hominem. The question at hand is, did the NCSE actually answer Wells' questions the way he indicates, and if so, is the evidence of propaganda by Darwin's evangelicals really present in the textbooks he says it is. Because, if the answer to both these questions is yes, than it is clear that the atheist establishment cares more about the public sharing their beliefs than actually giving a truthful and informative presentation of the evidence.
Knight_of_BAAWA:The entire article. I even pointed out one. But if you makes you feel better: Icons of Obfuscation Happy reading!
JCFolsom:Well, now, the article I cited wasn't about his book.
And yet the article contains the same refuted-to-death garbage. So it's perfectly relevant. And no, the citing of it isn't an ad hominem. Further, you don't even know what anad hominem fallacy is.
JCFolsom: The question at hand is
does Wells have a clue as to what he's discussing, or is he just mouthing refuted-to-death cretinst propaganda. That is the question. And the answer is the latter, as he quite well demonstrates.
Here's something for you to think about: why are cretinists so scared of evolution?
I know perfectly well what an ad hominem is. I referred to your reference of your little article as such because the implication is that, since he was wrong before (according to your little website), he must be wrong now. In other words, you've shown before that he's wrong or lying, so he is either an ignoramus or liar and we shouldn't pay attention to any further arguments. This disregards the fact that the veracity of previous arguments has no bearing on the veracity of current ones, unless those current ones cite the prior. In this case, I didn't see that.
For a more clear example, you are a ***, and a troll, and a waste of breath. You are an angry, foaming-at-the-mouth god-hater, likely with some sort of daddy issues, who apparently has an utter inability to be civil. Your arguments are false just because such an unrepentant bigot makes them. Even if your points were true before, the fact that you said them has invalidated them. You may well have created god by arguing against god's existence. All of existence just hates you that much. Your mother should be shot for not having aborted you.
There. That enough ad hominem for ya?
JCFolsom:I know perfectly well what an ad hominem is.
Had you, you wouldn't have misused it. But I'll help you there, too:
Ad hominem explained
JCFolsom:I referred to your reference of your little article as such because the implication is that, since he was wrong before (according to your little website), he must be wrong now.
I didn't imply that. However, given that he uses exactly the same refuted-to-death arguments, he clearly must be wrong again. It's like repeating the same garbage about faked moon landings, but in different places.
Now then: why are you so angry? You'll notice that you're the only one who's gotten angry here.
I'm sorry, did you say something? Oh, sorry, I don't talk to simians.
Butthurt: you has it.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap