Joined: Jan. 2006
Here, you said
|Okay, Dave, you need to WAKE UP. Â Seriously. Â There is no one â€ślyingâ€ť in the pulpits or anywhere else. Â They believe what they put forth. Â So, if they are wrong, itâ€™s not deliberate. Â And, to refuse to acknowledge the part that Dawkins, et. al. plays in this deliberately burying your head in the sand. Â The other side thinks that Dawkins et. al. are a bunch of liars as well - I donâ€™t. Â I believe that they support their true beliefs on the topic just like the preachers from the pulpit do. Â The point is that BOTH sides believe the other to be devious liars so itâ€™s kind of ridiculous for you to make a statement like evolution is â€śseen by some as a threat to their religious beliefsâ€ť. Â While that may be true, those from the opposite end are just as threatened by the notion that evolution may not answer the question as to how everything in nature came to be. Â They base their philosophical and faith beliefs on this â€śfactâ€ť, so anything opposing it brings about as much tension and repulsion to them as it does to those who believe their religious beliefs are threatened by evolution.|
Beginning about here, you spent pages and pages defending the indefensible and reprehensible attack Sal made on Skatje Myers with outright lies like
|It's disgusting to you, Dave. But, copulation with man, woman (she's bisexual), beast, and relative is okay with Skatje. |
Now, over the last few pages you've made quite a few scurrilous accusations against Eugenie Scott, such as
|Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 05 2008,19:28)|
That. is. a. riot.
Eugenie IS an atheist. She is in the churches evangelizing for atheism. I heard the woman lecture at KU on how Darwinism and religion can work in harmony...blah, blah, blah...there are no conflicts or controversial issues....blah, blah, blah...but, then turns around and blasts anyone whose religion doesn't jive with her philosophical views.
Then the atheist who introduced her asked her if she believed science supported her atheism. She said yes, and said some of her friends believe that the anthropic principle lends support that there may be a designer of the universe....she smiled condescendingly, waved her hand, and said that the AP doesn't sway her in the least.
She got an A+ from the secular humanists with that little lecture for sure...
which doesn't jibe at all with the first quote about both sides truly believing what they say.
You are a liar, and I'm calling you on this one. You are weaseling and hold advocates of the Intelligent Design Creationism Hoax to a standard of honesty so low that I'd have to tromp around in the sewers to find it. You then have the audacity to question the integrity of Eugenie Scott, and accuse her of deception? I think not.
Now you can defend that third statement with actual evidence, or you can retract it and apologize, or you can talk to the bathroom wall until you do.
ETA: Notpologies not accepted.
Edited by Lou FCD on Feb. 05 2008,23:17
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound