Kristine
Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006
|
| Quote (The whole truth @ May 11 2012,06:37) | | Quote (Woodbine @ May 11 2012,04:07) | Gildo has always been desperately insecure about how he is perceived.
See this archetypical post from 2005, the last paragraph in particular.
The tragic fuck even provides links to prove he's not a complete fool..... 
 |
I would absolutely love to play a game of chess, in person, with that bloviating gasbag.
You're certainly right about his insecurity. I guess having a monstrous IQ (LOL) can't make up for having no balls. |
Well, numero uno, that people do not buy it is not so perplexing, not since I spent time at NASM hearing parents misinterpret the exhibits for the kiddies and saying things like, "The plane's exhaust pushes the plane through the air." Simple concepts continue to elude the general pop in many sciences.
But, more importantly, number two: I find, whilst skulking about new territories for IDists, such as the comments at Inside Higher Ed, etc., that they are no longer correcting those who mistake ID for theistic evolution (e.g., "God guided evolution" or "Well, I think God had something to do with it," etc.). Yes, this still goes on, and quite frequently, too, even years after Kitzmiller. They - and I do not know if this is Gil and Co. - are quick to correct anyone who says that ID is creationism, but comments that confuse ID with "I accept evolution but believe in God" are left to slide. Which is interesting, because theistic evolutionists are not acceptable to the UDudes.
Interesting? Yes. An evolution of tactics? Probably. Perplexing? No.  More like, desperate.
--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?
AtBC Poet Laureate
"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive
"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr
|
