Joined: May 2006
Here's the re-post, since I fear that I might have to be archiving what I write there again:
|Glen Davidson Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation. |
November 2nd, 2007 at 4:25 pm
Not a new one, but I don’t know why the following comment hasn’t been posted. I don’t mean to continue to treat with people whose only motivation is to attack those they hate with religious bigotry, however I should be allowed to respond to the dishonest quotemines and vapid unsupported accusations of those without any conscience or competence to discuss science. So here’s the re-post:
Glen Davidson Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
November 2nd, 2007 at 10:27 am
Garrison Seeber Says:
November 1st, 2007 at 3:26 pm
“only further emphasizes the Neanderthal mentality of your suppressive beliefs”
Validate that claim…
Well, let’s see… this might be difficult but I’ll give it a shot.
Unfortunately, you’re too dumb to know what validation means. It does not mean quotemining. I use harsh words, but I also back them up, while you only tell lies and attack.
Below are validating quotes from our buddy Glen, the self proclaiming intellectual, that clearly exhibit his use of Neanderthal tactics in his attempts to bully others on the blog seeking only to exercise their constitutional rights to freedom of speech.
Follow with me if you will:
- As pathetic as your knowledge of science is…
As we’ve shown previously, and as I demonstrated there as well. Try to learn to read above third-grade level.
- you lack intellectual integrity…
Another quotemine. I’d shown where he had not dealt with matters in an intellectually honest fashion. Rather than arguing pointedly with what I’ve written, you just whine and lie, again.
- your knowledge of science is abysmal
As is obvious to anyone who knows science, and has been amply demonstrated in these comments. Just because you ignore every bit of substance that I’ve written to back up my claims does not alleviate you of your responsibility to deal with them with intellectual honesty. Neither does your lack of intellectual honesty alleviate your responsibilities.
- you simply act as if science is as mindless as your sponsors are
And I’m sure that if you had anything intelligent to say, you’d be arguing against what I wrote, instead of quote-mining my supporting evidence out of it, with your typical dishonest tactics.
- this is part of your sleazy tactics.
Another sleazy quotemine from one who doesn’t even know what intellectual integrity means. Indeed, it was a part of his sleazy tactics, as I demonstrated, and which argumentation you ignore as you have from the beginning.
- A rather simplistic analysis…
OK, it was an extremely simplistic analysis. Sorry that I gave him the benefit of the doubt.
- Ben’s pathetic fallacy of argumentum ad hominem.
Which fallacy you compound, as you quotemine and attack without paying any attention to the facts and arguments.
- That’s the best you can do, Ben?
- you’re digging your own grave there, Ben.
- So what’s your point?
Here’s how an honest person would have quoted:
So what’s your point? Are we supposed to throw out English science, since it was based in a non-politically correct economic system? Here’s Ben saying that Western culture must (selectively) go, due to its many sins. Ben the PC man. Very good, Ben, you’re now part of the ranks of the nihilists and bigots who fault civilization’s advances just because much of the past evil was retained for so long (and into the present, one might (or might not) argue).
Since my response was to his faulting of “Darwinism” based on the inadequate grounds that it comes from a time of imperialism, I dare say that the honest quote demonstrate my point. Which is why you dishonestly left that out.
- Ben, you’re now part of the ranks of the nihilists and bigots
- Your understanding of evolution is as deficient as your understanding of history, Stein.
- One does not write of “Darwinist means,” unless one is a science illiterate, as Ben is.
That’s right. He’s shown himself to be illiterate in science right there, and by continuing to write of “Darwinism” as if it depended upon the writings of one man.
- It isn’t a lacuna, ignorant one…
Were he not ignorant, the issue of abiogenesis would not have come up. And if you weren’t ignorant, you’d recognize that I made an important point. I am not as nice as I was previously, by the way, mostly because Ben has ignored where he has been corrected in the past.
- someone so bereft of intellectual honesty as Ben is would even attempt to supply evidence for his scurrilous charges.
- IDists simply hate the Enlightenment…
Yes, they attack it at its very foundation, at its requirement for demonstrable evidence. Another issue you can’t deal with, though apparently there are none you can address, java.
- bigoted theists…
A particularly disgusting quotemine from java. I very carefully pointed out that many theists are nothing like the bigoted and dishonest IDists, but he quotemines it as he wishes to misrepresent it.
- More tendentious nonsense.
And of course I justified that remark. You’ve justified none of your attacks.
- Ben has no truthful criticisms to make…
Here’s the context that this extremely dishonest person wishes to be ignored:
More tendentious nonsense. Darwinism and its successors have never ever sought to explain everything. Darwin sought to integrate biology with Newtonian-type science, and largely succeeded. But I guess Ben has no truthful criticisms to make of MET, so he resorts to what IDists always end up using, untrue assertions.
- I’d like to know where you got such a disingenuous idea as that
This is where that came from:
But it’s difficult to believe it will. Theories that presume to explain everything without much evidence rarely do.
I’d like to know where you got such a disingenuous idea as that “Darwinism” presumes to explain everything.
- evil liars, most likely the sorts of anti-science anti-intellectual persons
More quote-mining, of course, and yes, I demonstrate that you who lie constantly are of that kind.
- Not all of us are as pitiful as you anti-science ranters.
- the usual arrogance of the ignorant
Indeed, it was the usual arrogance of the ignorant, which you continue.
- if you weren’t a slimy little worm, and actually knew something, I’m sure you could have written something intelligent.
And instead of making up for your dishonest attack, you pile on more quoteming dishonesty.
- your anti-intellectual rant ad nauseam
Since you have done nothing but stupidly rant, I rather suspect that this has been well-validated.
Now maybe it’s just me but that sounds more like a Neanderthal then it does a civilized Intellectual that I think Glen would have us believe that he is.
Why yes it does, and since it is your dishonest quotemining and vicious unsupported attack that compiled it in such a tendentious fashion, it looks like you have shown that you were just projecting.
There is no reason to either block or smother the above post. Just because it may very well be one of the writers, producers, or main characters whose dishonest claims have been refuted is no excuse to either smother or expel this post.
It will certainly be a sorry day if you protect “one of your own” from a response to his unwarranted and unsupported attack on the person, without the slightest hint of being capable of answering what I actually wrote (hence the quotemining).
Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy