Re: The Reasonable Minority

On Dec 14, 10:50 am, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Dec 14, 9:13 am, Evopeach <keaton1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Dec 14, 5:44 am, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Dec 14, 12:53 am, Evopeach <keaton1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Dec 13, 9:35 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Dec 13, 4:10 pm, Evopeach <keaton1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Dec 12, 8:45 pm, "Geoff" <geb...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Evopeach wrote:
So your lumping anyone associated with ID, IC, SC with snake oil
salesmen and apparently all politicians etc. is somehow a vailid
inference and not just a sophomoric fallacy.

Well, not all politicians are full of ***. But otherwise, your statement
rings true. Says a lot, doesn't it?

You see saying that none of the DI people do any science is just
ignorance and stupidity on the plain face of it because one can review
the works of several hundred scientists identified with the concept
and the DI who publish in scientific journals regularly.

Cite!

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=...

Pick out 100 PhDs in the biological sciences from the list and review
their CV ...I don't do homework for your team.

I can't believe you trotted out that pathetic strawman. You're really
getting desperate, aren't you? Appeal to authority, appeal to numbers,
what's next? Oh, yes- appeal to B-movies.

Oh well, you succeeded in your goal, which was obviously to get people
to respond. Apparently even I fell for it. Doesn't mean anything
though: you're still a loser who knows nothing of science, and a petty
racist to boot. I'm sure you think god loves you, but I bet god pukes
when you pray.

little g must denote the pig god from hell you pray to. and whatever
is presented from any source would be clever enough for you to fall
for... still living at home i'll bet

Actually, this is all about your credulity, isn't it? You can't seem
to discern what's science and what isn't.

When you put your racism ahead of an accurate reading of a scientific
work, that tells us

something, doesn't it?

That is an ad hominem to any reasonable person with a scintilla of
knowledge on critical thinking elements and fallacies. But you ego is
in the way...typical.

Congratulations! You actually found one! I still have no confidence
that you know what it means- this is obviously an example of the
stopped clock phenomenon.

On top of that, the post in which you found this didn't even exist
when you made your accusation. If this was a criminal matter, you'd be
guilty of trying to enforce a law ex post facto. So...you still lose.

When you think a B-movies is going to supplant
peer review, that tells us something.

Another false attribution and anonther fallacy. Never even related the
two in any post.

When you bray about this list of

names of yours- you do know that there are more scientists named
"Steve" or some variant thereof who say your list is bunk, don't you?-
that says something about you.

And that is what form of true rhetoric?

It's called "satire". The number of scientists named "Steve" (or
"Stepan", or "Stefanie" or some other variant) who accept evolution
and reject ID as pseudoscientific bunk far outnumber the total number
of people on your silly list. And "Steven" isn't even a very common
name.

It simply illustrates the weakness of the standard lie that anyone on
the list is not a real scientist, doesn't publish, not a biologist, is
strictly religiously motivated (even Chang admitted that was not
true).

Strawman: I never said that. While it is true that many of the people
who signed your statement are not practicing biologists or even
practicing scientists, some are. However, quite a few of those have
recanted signing the document, saying it was presented to them in a
misleading way, and that while technically true, the statement in no
way indicates they are skeptical of common descent or of evolutionary
theory in general. More to the point, their names on that document
should not in any way be construed as a form of support for
creationism, ID, or any other pseudoscientific claptrap.

It says you have no evidence to support your silly, childish claims.
It says you have to resort to fallacies and lies instead of reason and
evidence. And in the end, you're still a snarling little loser who
cannot muster a shred of truth to support your claims.

ANother dumb ad hominem.

See? I *knew* you had no idea what the term means. Let's get this
straight: your arguments are not wrong because your a racist and a
loser. I don't know why you're a racist, but your arguments are wrong
because the evidence tells us that. You're a loser because you hold to
your failed arguments.

Where's the data please? Why can't you back up anything you say with
real-world

examples? Why can't you apply what you go on about to the simplest
real problem in biology? All you have is "...still living at home
i'll bet" (I am glad to not be homeless; I am quite happy with the
house I own, thank you- not that I would rely on that in place of a
scientific argument, mind you. I'm not that desperate.)

Ah, no response? No data to present? No applications of your
"scientific" ideas to real-world problems? Why would you skip over
this part if your "theory" is so powerful?



Caught you in a bold faced lie and you're retort is to restate your ad
hominem..typical from the imbecile sector.

Me? Lie? No, you're once again getting confused. I didn't lie about
anything. And you still haven't been able to point out an ad hominem
in any of my posts.

Still defing the world in your own feeble mind.. just like your buddy
who thinks math is not science.

You are descending into incoherence.



You failed at that task before, and I have no

confidence you'll do any better now, since you *still* don't know what
it means. This inability to learn would be troublesome in a 4-year
old, you know, but it's standard fare from creationists.

Yes I understand you're system and approach have permitted you to
differentiate between "a dog and a cat" based on common ancestory.

Your assignment for the next month is to list all the differences
between a turnip and a goat.

That's easy. A turnip is a root vegetable that stores well in cool,
dry environments, a member of the mustard family (Brassicaceae) and is
possessed of a mild, slightly nutty flavor. A goat is a person,
sometimes (as with creationists) with an IQ approaching that of a
vegetable, who constantly screws up and receives justified
opprobrium, and is possessed of slightly (or wildly) nutty ideas.



If you weren't such a pitiful moron...still trying for 1st base I'll
bet...I would try to be your pegagog on critical thinking..once more,
appeal to authority is fine and exceptable if the people
qualified..what a dunce.

Ah. "..still trying for 1st base I'll bet". Now there's a science-
based argument that demolishes evolution! <snicker> Doesn't tell me
how baramins work, though <snicker>

Finally, something we agree on: your qualifications as a pegagog on
critical thinking are in all ways exceptable.

In fact, an appeal to authority would distress most real experts in
their respective fields. The ones I have known would react in this
way: "Don't trust what I say just because I said it. Trust what I say
because the evidence supports it."

Wish it were true... then the macro-theory of evolution would already
be in the dust bin of history right on top of the flogiston theory,
the ether, spontaneous generation and a pile of others.

Funny, isn't it, how it was scientists NOT accepting the authority of
experts- or religion- that overturned each one of those ideas you
mention. If it was true that scientists were so reluctant to go
against received wisdom, we'd still be in the Dark Ages. And plenty
of smart people- some of them creationists, even- have been testing
evolutionary theory for longer than you or I have been alive. Some
parts fall by the wayside, and what's left is stronger than ever.

But the really funny thing is that you keep bleating the same old
song, but you never seem to get around to presenting any evidence for
an alternative to evolution.



But a reliance on authority rather than evidence is also standard
fare for creationists.

In your feeble opinion.

Fine. Provide the data. Show everyone how wrong I am. If there's
enough data to toss evolution onto the trash-heap of science, cite
some. Real evidence, please: as someone once had as a .sig: "the
plural of anecdote is not data". You've been strangely silent on this
issue the whole time you've been posting here. Why is that, I wonder?

The whole basis of religion is authority over reason.
Rediculous..you
obviously know nothing of the historical church fathers and their
writing, reasoning, education, scholarship and debates.

All religion requires faith, and faith is received wisdom, or wisdom
accepted on the basis of some authority. Whether it's the authority
of clergy, or parents, or society, it's still authority. When the
great philosophers of the church were arguing reason, they weren't
arguing religion. If they were arguing religion, it was usually
matters of practice, not dogma. Finally, if they did argue dogma, it
was an argument of whose authority was better- not whether there
should be authority or not.

so that's not surprising. The

most vehement supporters of authority somehow always turn out to be
the ones most desperate to coat their superstitions with a veneer of
reason. Like you.

And the thickness of your veneer of reason covering the hatred for all
things involving religious faith is a subject for nanotechnology.

You're shopping in the wrong store, bud. I have nothing against
religion per se. I do despise how some people become warped by it, to
the point of not seeing the real world. But that's more a function of
the person, rather than the religion, since most people of faith are
quite decent.

Chris

It's just my dislike of racists like you and all other fanatical evos
herein.

See your acknowledgement that races exist(otherwise racist has no
meaning) means there are subpopulations of homo sapien. And of course
in evolutionary terms among subpopulations are inferior ones. Inferior
in terms of fitness and thus subject to being weeded out. Weeded out
so that the fit can comsume more food, resources which will be less
scarce after the inferior sub-populations are gone.

For me there are no races, just homo sapiens, so nearly identical
genetically as to preclude any actual subpopulations.

Its just disgustng what evolution has spawned with its racist
attitudes built into the core of its fabric.

Shame you you Chris

.