Posted on 11/22/2005 12:44:07 PM PST by Michael_Michaelangelo
I thought maybe I should come up with some original ideas but than I thought, Look at how many people have already done that ; )
LOL, fabulous!
Yes, but it has some good points.
Good example. If someone disagrees with you, they are a liar. Nice!
You have big problems with reading comprehension, don't you?
No, feel free to disagree with me all you like. I even said so explicitly. What I *do* insist upon, however, is that the AECreationists stop lying their faces off every time they open their mouths.
Here are just a few examples -- out of thousands -- of AECreationist gross dishonesty and truth-twisting propaganda, which you have my permission to repost at any time, since you claim to be a crusader against lies and bullying (from a past post of mine):
Take for example the way that creationst Kent "Dr. Dino" Hovind declares that radiocarbon dating produced wildly different dates for the skin and bones of the same mammoth specimen, in order to attempt to raise questions about the accuracy of radiocarbon dating.For a very recent example, here's something from this week on http://www.pandasthumb.org/ (my highlighting in red):THIS. IS. A. LIE.
Hovind's *own* citation which he gives in "support" of this his false claim -- which is the scientific paper which is the original report on the specimens in question -- states quite clearly that they were DIFFERENT specimens taken from DIFFERENT locations.
When challenged on this point, Hovind gave specimen ID numbers which he claimed were for the samples in question (which, again, Hovind claimed were from the same individual mammoth), and looking up those IDs in the primary literature shows that not only were they indeed NOT from the same mammoth, one of them WASN'T EVEN FROM A MAMMOTH AT ALL (it was from a rhino). Nonetheless, creationist Hovind has never retracted his false claims about the evidence itself.
Freeper Havoc (a creationist) repeated Hovind's lie here on FreeRepublic.
When I pointed out that even Hovind's own citation contradicts Hovind's version, and showed him documentation of that, Havoc mumbled a reply ("you haven't displayed a falsehood, you just make these assertions") and failed to retract the false claim he had repeated from Hovind.
HAVOC THEN REPOSTED THE SAME FALSE CLAIM SHORTLY THEREAFTER ON ANOTHER THREAD.
Summary of the ability of the two creationists (Hovind and Havoc) to present information they *know* is false, and to *fail* to retract when reminded of their falsehoods, is presented here, along with links to all appropriate documentation.
(Quick aside -- Fester, do you condone this behavior of your fellow creationists? Yes or no? Is lying for the "cause" of creationism acceptable to you?)
This sort of behavior, unfortunately, is *typical* of creationists. Here, want dozens of more examples of their distortions? A few more for the road? Another? Still more, perhaps? How about even more? Ooh, here are some good examples. And there's lots more where that came from, like this and this and this and lots more here and *tons* here and countless more here and yet more here, a goodie... Wait, there's more over here, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., *ETC.*, etc., etc., etc., . How about 300 more creationist misrepresentations? Not enough, you say? Well then visit Creationist Lies and Blunders. And at least half of these are outright lies, repeatedly used long after their dishonesty has been exposed (the rest are merely creationist stupidity, *still* knowingly used after the errors have been explained, which is yet *another* form of creationist dishonesty).
Furthermore, I catch IDers/creationists lying on a regular basis on almost every "crevo" thread here on FreeRepublic. Usually they're just cribbing from this extensive list of hundreds of persistent AECreationist dishonesties and distortions, but often they come up with new ones, including libeling via false accusations, misrepresenting what people have written, posting their false presumptions about science as if they were established fact, etc.William Dembski [a darling of the "ID"/creationist movement -- Ich.] finally managed to find the transcript of Shallits testimony. Since Ive been correct on predicting his behavior all the way along so far, Ive taken another stab at it at Dispatches from the Culture Wars.
Update: Holy cow, I missed this the first time. Yesterday I asked the rhetorical question, would Dembski continue to embarrass himself in this situation regarding Shallits testimony? Well, we have our answer. Not only is he continuing to embarrass himself, hes digging the hole even deeper. Hes now compounding his dishonesty with an attempt to erase the past. He has now deleted all three of his previous posts where he made the false claim that Shallit had been pulled from testifying by the ACLU because his deposition was an embarrassment and a liability to their case, even after one of those posts got almost 100 comments in reply to it. Theres no word so far on whether he will change his name to Winston Smith.
This really is dishonest behavior, theres no two ways about it. Clearly, Dembskis world is one in which he thinks he can rewrite history and no one will notice. Im dying to hear how his toadies will defend this behavior. Its not defensible on its own, so they can only attempt to distract attention away from it with a tu quoque argument or pointing fingers at others. So lets hear what they have to say. Salvador? OBrien? DonaldM? Lets hear you defend this dishonest and Orwellian behavior. And tell us again how its evolution that undermines ethics and morality while youre at it.
Update #2: Oh, heres Dembskis latest on the subject, in a comment responding to being asked what happened to the previous posts on the subject:
The previous postings were a bit of street theater. I now have what I needed. As for responding to Shallit and his criticisms, I have been and continue to do so through a series of technical articles under the rubric The Mathematical Foundations of Intelligent Design you can find these articles at www.designinference.com. The most important of these is titled Searching Large Spaces. Shallit has indicated to me that he does not intend to engage that body of work: http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archive .
A bit of street theater? Okay, let me see if I understand this. Dembski engaged in a bit of street theater - meaning told a lie - to get a copy of the transcript that he could have gotten two months ago because its been publicly available all along? And now instead of admitting to the lie, hes just erasing the evidence of it? Okay, lets call a spade a spade here. Dembski is a lying scumbag with no regard for the truth whatsoever. Period. Just when you think hes hit rock bottom, Dembski begins to tunnel.
I have many hundreds of examples from my own personal experience with them.
Ogre, no one is asking you darwinists to believe anything. All the ID folks are asking is for "equal time". Get it.
You'll get "equal time" when you have "equal evidence". Get *THAT*?
Move over and quite blocking the aisle.
Stop whining that you have nothing to actually present.
Intelligent Design has every bit as much or more credibility than has darwinism.
ROFL!!!!!!
Wow, and you call others paranoid! You are keeping files on people? No thanks, I'll play elsewhere. Have a good night.
Wow, 450 whole scientists are skeptical. Turn out the lights on the theory and go home! < /sarcasm >
I refer you to project Steve.
That alone makes the anti-evolution creationists' list of "skeptical scientists" look pretty foolish, but *this* one *really* blows their agenda out of the water:
The "Clergy Letter Project": An Open Letter Concerning Religion and ScienceBut hey, I guess MM and his science-hating friends know better than ~10,000 Christian clergy, eh?"Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.
"We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as one theory among others is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among Gods good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that Gods loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.
[As of 22 November 2005, there are 9,975 signatures collected to date]
Click the links that follow to see the alphabetical lists of clergy members who have endorsed this letter
A to E - F to J - K to O - P to S - T to Z
Listing by States
...or are they all part of the "vast Darwinian conspiracy" too, who are likewise "professional propagandists that are assigned to twist" things in the anti-evolution creationists' paranoid world?
Yes, but it has some good points.
I assume this parody/satire/derivative wasn't unexpected. I assumed someone was going to do this. However, I noticed the unoriginal imitation wasn't named a 'Troll Kit'.
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
Nope.
What i often see among "strict" evolutionists
is blnkered and dogmatic persecution of
any ideas that conflict with their
"comfy chair" pholsophy that they bluster
with arrogant pompsity about..like the
ones who mocked and svorned and persecuted
with the "evidence" "that everybody knows"
like the way they did to Gallileo...
Protecting their lofty perches, and grand
titles and stipends, with braggadocio and
the fanatacism as virulent as any whilng
dervish...only to have the inexorable grind
of the Wheel of Fate slowly grind their lies
away...Who are you?
You have captured the essence of Ichy. Search Ichy out in the whole forum. What you'll find is that he is a one trick pony. He is an evo propagandist with no other purpose here, and all he ever does is post boiler plate text; never has any evo posted evidence to support his claims Re: evolution. That is of course no surprise, since there is no evidence, but that hasn't stopped any of their troll tricks here.
For a long time I have from time to time felt exasperated with you that you should be so able to so completely to insulate your thinking in nonscientific fields from you excellent command of the scientific method in science fields. So far as I have observed you, you would no more think of going off half-cocked, with insufficient and unverified data, with respect to a matter of science that you would stroll down Broadway in your underwear. But when it comes to matters outside your specialities you are consistently and brilliantly stupid. You come out with some of the gaddamndest flat-footed opinions with respect to matters which you haven't studied and have had no experience, basing your opinions on casual gossip, newspaper storeis, unrelated individual data out of matrix, armchair extrapolation, and plain misinformation--unsuspected because you haven't attempted to verify it.
I'll bet that i can come up with a list of
scientists that support Evolution as the
complete and only explanation for the ascent
of Man, who have scratched their butts in
public, that dwarfs all the lists put
together...and it would have the same
relevence as the list of "Steves".
BWAHAHAHA!
If you jam your index fiingers any further into your ears, they'll meet in the center of your head.
You are correct and credit goes where credit is due
Imitation is also a form of design.
"To see evolutionary measures and tribal morality being applied rigorously to the affairs of a great modern nation, we must turn again to Germany of 1942. We see Hitler devoutly convinced that evolution produces the only real basis for a national policy.
"The German Fuhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practices of Germany conform to the theory of evolution." -
Sir Arthur Keith, Evolution And Ethics (1947), p. 28
4...3...2...
If you believe that all clergy actually BELIEVE and preach the word of God, you are sadly mistaken. I prefer to place my faith in the unshakable word of God than to a bunch of educated idiots.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.