Re: More Ad Hom

On Dec 21, 9:39 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 20, 9:36 am, richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Dec 20, 3:56 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@xxxxxxx> wrote:nst me.

Your dishonest misrepresentation of what I responded to.

Oh dear, Glenn.
Let's get this straight:

I already have. You however seem to have a problem with seeing
yourself exposed. But I'll have another go at it:

Here is Mark VandeWettering's post:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/706b44b506fe1aea
Anyone can read it in full to see which questions you have snipped and
evaded. It's a long post, so I won't post it in full.

But you did, or enough of it to create the appearance that I responded
to the parts I snipped. I'll inlcude a pasted portion of your post
below as evidence to show this to be fact.



Here is your response *IN FULL*

Yep, that is all I said.



"Tha tha tha thats it folks."http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/6aa91deaf2ca689d

What is dishonest about that, Glenn? I have posted you entire
response, have not edited it in any way, and provided a link to both
your post and the post to which it was "responding".

I have already told you in the post you are replying to above, and in
another post I made just after the first. You dishonestly
misrepresented *what I responded to*.
You don't even address that claim here; instead you appear to think it
meant that I either think Mark's post is hidden from view or that I am
denying what I said.
Yes, anyone *can* see what I responded to and what I snipped. But
readers may, if they don't take the time to look and analyze what is
being said carefully, assume that I responded to the part of Mark's
post that you included in your claim of what I responded to.

You are not preaching to a bunch of ignorant creationists here whom
you can distract with unfounded assertions of dishonesty. You are
shown to be dishonest by your own words and your own posting history
which anyone can confirm simply by checking back up the thread.

Pathetic.

Quite pathetic, Richard. Here's the relevant part of your post:

**********************
[...]> The FAQ author seems not capable of recognizing an ad hominem,
consistently uses red herrings and faulty reasoning rather than
address the claim. Or he assumes that Creationists use this argument
to conclude that "Darwin was wrong", which of course he did.
Was there an ad hom *anywhere* in this FAQ or the "Claim"?

Mark
Here is your response:
"Tha tha tha thats it folks."

I call this "snipping awkward questions", Glenn.
What do you call it?
************************

Again, I call that deliberate, dishonest misrepresentation of what I
responded to. What I *responded to* was:

"Probably because you are frequently wrong, and always disagreeable."

And as I have already said, anyone can look this up. It's fact, unlike
your supposed "evidence" or "support" which is mostly from your own
imagination, or a rephrased repeat of your own claims.

You didn't respond to the many points he made and the questions he
asked you.


Again, idiot, this and other stupid things you pull are quite obvious,
dishonest, and you don't bother trying to back your claims up.

Glenn, you are so transparently wrong that I doubt that even the
creationists are persuaded!

The
example of your "DI acknowledged" claim is recent and also an
excellent example, which is why I included it in this current waste of
my time with you. You had and have *no* evidence, read *evidence*,
whatsoever for that claim.

So why has Philip Johnson conceded that there is no scientific theory
of ID, and why did the DI remove the word "scientific" from their
definition if ID "theory"?

You certainly show the desire to make it
stick by illogically linking one event to another.

So what's your explanation for the evidence?
Your "explanation" that scientific theories don't in general include
the word "scientific" won't wash, because it does not explain why the
word was removed.

You show yourself
to be dishonest. You said I had no contradictory evidence, yet you are
aware that I posted a quote of the same article you used as evidence,
that did refer to ID as a scientific theory.

The quote you posted was from an earlier date, when the word
"scientific" was still included!

That *is* evidence,
Richard.

Quite so. And now the word has been removed. It's the *only* change to
the definition.

Unlike your unsupportable imaginings. You wanted the DI to be
seen as admitting that ID isn't scientific,

I don't need to. There's a court ruling to that effect. If you don't
like it, take it up with the courts.

and you want to make me
appear as being dishonest.

You appear dishonest regardless of what I do, Glenn. That's because
you *are* dishonest. I'm not making you dishonest, you chose to be
dishonest.

But you're just full of hot air, a pitiful
example of someone who who likes to make it known that "hates
dishonesty". You're dishonest and your arguments are illogical and
unsupported. You're a *loon*.

So why not address the numerous instance of misrepresentation,
distortion and outright falsehood I identify on creationist web
sites?

That's evidence.

Of course, I know that you won't because, as you have demonstrated so
amply, you are moral and intellectual coward.

Just a typical, shoddy little creationist.

RF

.

Relevant Pages