RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (341) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: UnReasonable Kansans thread, AKA "For the kids"< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Posts: 76
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 18 2007,14:30   

It really does smell a lot like a copy & paste of Ftk's greatest hits from here, though I haven't done a direct comparison.

Here are just the first several paragraphs:
would you mind if I make a list of words and phrases taken from this forum which are highly inappropriate when discussing the issues surrounding this debate? It may take quite some time to put together as there is a lot to work with here, but I'd be willing to point them out.

Stating your case is one thing -- nasty and vulgar responses on a regular basis is another, and you're certainly not going to convince someone of your point when you act in such an unprofessional and childish manner.

Iíve sat in on many lectures, classes, and debates regarding these topics, and Iíve also read many peer-reviewed papers, and I can tell you that I have never seen words in them like the following:

pathetic, moron, ass-whopping, crotch, homos, stupid, IDiot, etc., etc., etc.

Nor have I ever seen the sarcasm, ridicule and habitual poking fun of others who hold difference scientific perspectives or religious ideals at any of the aforementioned places where scientific issues are usually addressed.

In actuality, there is little science discussed here at all. The object of most of these threads seems to be merely to ridicule others...

I have read quite a few peer-reviewed articles. Scientists at KCFS linked to them all the time when they were discussing various issues with me. I've also gone back privately to some of those same scientists when I've needed help finding an additional article on a particular subject.

Obviously, there were things in some of those articles that I would have had to ask more questions about to completely understand, but overall I was able to comprehend the content.

You have to use a lot of spin to suggest that from that deposition Behe believes that astrology is currently (meaning *in our modern scientific world*) a valid scientific theory.

Clearly he's talking about history.

It appears to me that someone is indeed impersonating FTK by cutting-n-pasting her words from this forum.

  10202 replies since Mar. 17 2007,23:38 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (341) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]