Printable Version of Topic

-Antievolution.org Discussion Board
+--Forum: After the Bar Closes...
+---Topic: "A NEW MONKEY EVERY SEVENTEEN YEARS" started by Ichthyic


Posted by: Ichthyic on June 17 2006,21:22

to borrow a line from our dearly departed Thordady...

Arden opined: (man, was that irritating)

"Some people have talked about starting new AFD threads to discuss certain facets of his, uh, 'theories'."

Well, this is the thread to do this in.

example:

maybe someone would like to go through Dave's threads and count the number of times he actually has contradicted himself.

I'll eventually be adding the number of times he violates the precepts he says he holds so dear (both old covenant and new).

other ideas:

-the number of times he has simply ignored a specific question.
-how many times he has changed the subject abruptly when it was becoming so obvious he was wrong (hint: that will be a VERY large number)
-the number of times he has called the ToE a religion.

lots of opportunity for merriment, so feel free to pile on.

enjoy....

p.s.  maybe somebody could add in the number of times Thordaddy used the word "opine".
Posted by: Faid on June 17 2006,22:55



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
p.s.  maybe somebody could add in the number of times Thordaddy used the word "opine".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



:O

Ichthyic, I am a mortal man.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 18 2006,06:21

Hmmm.... do you conceive of this as The New AFD Thread, or is this thread more like the Director's Commentary on the preexisting ones? Or maybe more like the footnotes?

Another thing we might discuss is AFD's interestingly irritable reaction when confronted with sincere Christians who don't feel the need to buy into YEC.

And finally, since AFD is by a long margin the purest YECer we've had here, we could just discuss the psychopathology of that belief system.
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 18 2006,09:40

hmm, i thought i was pretty clear, but if I had to pick I'd go with:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
or is this thread more like the Director's Commentary on the preexisting ones
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



but hey, whatever metadiscussion works.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
we could just discuss the psychopathology of that belief system.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



sure thing.  The issue runs parallel to the thread I started on indoctrination methods.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 18 2006,10:18

Well, Ichthy, since you're the Master of Ceremonies here, why don't you start off with whatever topic you think is most worthy of discussion?
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 18 2006,10:36

hey, wasn't this thread you're idea?

what I wanted to do with Davey's hypocrisy wrt his own religion will take some time, which i don't have today.

I don't want to control this thread.

let it run free!
Posted by: deadman_932 on June 18 2006,11:02

Well, I think it's pretty obvious what he's doing...everyone sees his tactics, dishonest as they are: redefinition, avoidance, pretense, red herrings, straw men, claims of victimhood, things that would get him tossed out of a debate or courtroom, or any peer-reviewed journal.

Dave's nutty claim that Portuguese is a mix of French and Spanish is a perfect example. No article/book I have ever seen so far agrees with him, but he claims victory based on latin cognates...and avoids presenting a list of loanwords derived from French. His view is that science works somehow by lying the loudest and longest. He's simply mental.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 18 2006,11:53

Quote (deadman_932 @ June 18 2006,16:02)
Well, I think it's pretty obvious what he's doing...everyone sees his tactics, dishonest as they are: redefinition, avoidance, pretense, red herrings, straw men, claims of victimhood, things that would get him tossed out of a debate or courtroom, or any peer-reviewed journal.

Dave's nutty claim that Portuguese is a mix of French and Spanish is a perfect example. No article/book I have ever seen so far agrees with him, but he claims victory based on latin cognates...and avoids presenting a list of loanwords derived from French. His view is that science works somehow by lying the loudest and longest. He's simply mental.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, AFD's posts are such dismal examples of reasoning that I can't help but ponder what the psychological motivation is for him to be like this. WHY does he make so little sense? Why is he incapable of realizing he doesn't make sense? All I can figure is that it's an especially pernicious combination of two separate issues -- an unchecked egomania and slavish devotion to a severe, especially childlike strain of Fundamentalist Protestantism. A big part of his self-identity seems to be a terror of not buying every single part of the most exteme YEC biblical hyperliteralism, as though the last 400 years of biblical scholarship (or scholarship of ANY kind) had never happened. We're basically seeing a mind that never left the early 17th century, preserved like a bug in amber.

On the other hand, AFD is a raging egomaniac who seems to have become completely convinced of his superiority at everything, and his ability to win any argument by sheer force of will. Many of the touchstones of his life have no doubt reinforced this delusion -- being in the Air Force, being a pastor in his church, his whole Christian Patriarch shtick. Plus, his religion as he interprets it reinforces this, of course -- he's completely convinced since his 'opponents' are liberal atheists or whatever that Jesus WANTS him to win, so therefore, anything he does will result in his victory. The Christian knight triumphing over the heathens, transplanted to the 21st century. This is what is responsible for why he thinks he can actually win arguments in areas about which he very literally knows nothing. He argues biology and geology by doing cut-and-pastes from AIG, and in linguistics he claims that no one before him has ever analytically looked at Portuguese and the Romance languages before. I cannot IMAGINE venturing into a debate SO POORLY PREPARED as that, so I can't help but wonder WHY he's willing to do so. I think this is it -- he has far too high an opinion of himself, and he's convinced Jesus won't let him lose, and that the people he's debating can't be trusted on anything -- if they disagree with me and refute me, they're heathens, so I can disregard it.

By now, his ego is so thoroughly tied up with this, that he can't quit, even tho it's been a complete fiasco for him. If he admitted he's lost any argument here, he'd have to admit that the liberal atheists were right about something and he was wrong. And if they're right about THIS, what else might they be right about? The whole idea must terrify him. No, have to hold the line. Yield on nothing, no matter how ridiculous I end up looking.

As far as the whole lying thing is concerned, that's pretty obvious. As several people have pointed out, he no doubt thinks that if the lies are FOR Jesus and AGAINST the heathens, God will forgive it all. All for the larger good. It's not even really lying anymore that way.

Also, it doesn't help that when all else is said and done, Dave is really, really, dumb.
Posted by: ericmurphy on June 18 2006,20:54

Generally I don't get into psychoanalyzing guys like Bill Paley, or Dave (although I was okay with psychoanalyzing Thordaddy since his homosexual panic was so overt), but I will say I've run into people like Dave before. They simply will not admit that they're wrong about anything. Generally people outgrow this particular pathology sometime between high school and the end of college, but then look at our president. At any rate, Dave is certainly not alone in his congenital inability to admit error. Dave is a particularly pathological example of this behavior, but I think he's just at the far end of the curve.

At any rate, if we're keeping track of the number of times Dave has simply ignored and/or failed to acknowledge devastating rebuttals to his claims: Well, the Portuguese thing is the most obvious example. His continued refusal to engage Mr. Aftershave in dealing with the six independent lines of evidence that all corroborate radiocarbon dating curves would be another glaring example. Dave seems to think Occam's question is some sort of digression from the topic. Sheesh! Could he be any more cement-headed?

Another example would be his statement that three billion (or even three billion billion) years is not enough time to get from bacteria to cnidaria. When challenged to provide evidence as to this impossibility, we got…crickets chirping. Well, he did make some statement about information never increasing, but when confronted with the research by Claude Shannon (from the 1940s, for crying out loud), we got…crickets chirping.

His failure to come to terms with the explanation for excess C14 (or, indeed, any C14 at all) in coal seams and diamonds is another egregious example. He simply will not admit that I've ever given him an explanation. He doesn't disagree with it, or attempt to refute it; he simply refuses to admit I ever even said it.

I know Dave hates it when people call him a liar, but man, how else can you characterize statements like that? It's not like he could have forgotten; I gave him exactly the same answer three times in the last two days.
Posted by: Chris Hyland on June 19 2006,04:51

My favourite so far has been:

Dave: You can't just say the human and chimp GULO gene share a lot of sequence identity and say that's proof of common descent.

Us: What we are saying is that there are so many shared errors including entire missing exons, that indicate that the genes did indeed share a common ancestor.

Dave: No you're wrong, you can't just say the human and chimp GULO gene share a lot of sequence identity and say that's proof of common descent.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 19 2006,06:00

That's nothing compared to Dave saying a chart of 3 languages is MORE DETAILED than a chart of 6 languages (which contains all the data in the 3-language chart). Wow. Something sort of snapped when I read that.
Posted by: Ved on June 19 2006,06:18

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 19 2006,12:00)
That's nothing compared to Dave saying a chart of 3 languages is MORE DETAILED than a chart of 6 languages (which contains all the data in the 3-language chart). Wow. Something sort of snapped when I read that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Might want to sit down, Arden. Afdave is cornered. Now he has to stretch so far in order to support his position that he's becoming extremely difficult for a sane person to read.
Posted by: Louis on June 19 2006,07:37

I have been dealing with another similar chap to Dave on a different forum.

The level of doublethink is outstanding, the intellectual dishonesty is staggering.

What I really love is the persecution complex and paranoia however. These guys already feel persecuted before anyone dares to correct their asinine nonsense. It's a weird combination, they assume their faith and specific claims make them superior to everyone and yet at the same time they feel persecuted by everyone.

And the L word (liar) really upsets them. If they tell umpteen lies and ANYONE has the gosh darned temerity to actually call them on just one of them, they whine like a cut cat in a barrell of brine. They play every card they can "I've been insulted" "All you guys can do is insult" etc. It's just another red herring to distract from the incredibly observable fact that they have not even the beginnings of the ability to refute or rebut just one of the points made against their claims.

The psychopathology is all too clear. The minute these guys start trying to base their extremely dubious faith based claims on "evidence" by effectively ignoring anything they don't like, you can read their minds. They doubt their specific faith, they know that it's nonsense and they sure as heck aren't going to let go of the thing so they shout louder and lie more.

Louis
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 19 2006,08:07

Okay, I have come to a new conclusion about AFD's psychopathology. Check out the following interchange.

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

A couple weeks ago you said the Indians of North and South America originally had writing but lost it. You offered no proof of this at all. I asked you for proof. You ignored it. Proof now. What is your evidence?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Answered this long ago.  Archaeology has confirmed that civilization began in Mesopotamia about 6000 years ago.  I know you think that humans lived before that, but your proof is faulty (cave paintings erroneously dated older than 6000 ya).  So the only real evidence we have (written records) says that humans have only been on the planet for about 6000 years.  And archaeology has shown that they were able to write at least as far back as 5500ya, but doubtless all the way back to Adam, around 6000 ya.  I have not shown you the evidence for this yet, but I will.  The N. Am and S. Am Indians (and all peoples of the earth) descended from ONE COUPLE and ONE CIVILIZATION, which appeared upon the earth about 6000 ya.  They had writing among other things.  So all I have to do to show that the N. Am and S. Am indians lost their ability to write is show the plausibility of the Biblical version of human history.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Note especially the line I boldfaced:

So all I have to do to show that the N. Am and S. Am indians lost their ability to write is show the plausibility of the Biblical version of human history.

Let this sink in. What AFD is saying is that if he comes up with a version of Genesis that he finds convincing (and I think we can agree his standards for a 'convincing' Genesis account would be EXTREMELY lax), then that proves that Indians in North and South America had writing but lost it. That would be his 'proof'.

He thinks that's establishing a connection.

It's simply stupefying.

I think the bottom line fact is that AFD is simply not coming from the same planet as us. He quite honestly has no concept of 'proof' that ANY educated person would recognize. There is no concept of 'evidence' in his mental landscape that agrees with learning. His concept of 'proof' is to assemble a bunch of random anecdotes around a central idea, then to declare you've won. It's completely structureless.

It's exactly the same as the Monty Python's Holy Grail dialogue "if she weighs the same as a duck, she's made of wood. And therefore a WITCH!"

AFD: This is your brain in the 12th century.
Posted by: Shirley Knott on June 19 2006,08:27

Arden, I can't believe you are surprise by this.
It has been clear from the start that Davetard's acquisition of notions follows the path from "I want it to be true" to "is there anything that can make it sound plausible" to "It is true!".  That's  all he needs, it's all he's got, and, yes, he truly does not understand that this has the same relationship to finding knowlege that a million monkeys happening to produce the works of Shakespeare has to literature.
It is all about justifying pre-chosen beliefs, not about finding truth.  I mean, why search for truth when you've already got it?

hugs,
Shirley Knott
Posted by: Nebogipfel on June 20 2006,02:14

Arden Chatfield said:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We're basically seeing a mind that never left the early 17th century
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Absolutely right, but the punchline is that AFDave would regard that as a compliment. His reasoning has remained pure and untouched by the corruption of atheist materialist thinking that has blighted natural philosophy since the Enlightenment...


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I cannot IMAGINE venturing into a debate SO POORLY PREPARED as that, so I can't help but wonder WHY he's willing to do so.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, he's said on a number of occaisions that he's not here to actually debate, but to preach the Good News to us benighted "Darwinists".  As you said, he's in a completely different world; the idea that geologists, physicists and biologists might not be motivated by a desperate need to do away with God gives a  "does not compute"  in Dave's world, and his posts are, to quote someone or other, the sound of a paradigm shifting without a clutch. :D

FWIW, I think he's sincere insofar as he believes he's bringing salvation to the unbelievers, so in that respect I'd put him in with the people who sincerely believe they were Cleopatra in a past life.  I wouldn't underestimate the power of the fear of He11, though. Logical thought tends to evaporate in the face of eternal damnation.
Posted by: ericmurphy on June 20 2006,09:52

You know, I've spent about (realistically, here) the last thirty years reading about some of the most fascinating natural objects imaginable. I've read articles on black hole formation; how supernovas create neutron stars, how they create the entire periodic table (except for hydrogen, some helium, and trace amounts of primordial lithium); on how the nature of quasars is beginning to be understood, how they convert matter to energy with a mind-blowing efficiency of 30 percent; about the extremely-large-scale structure of the universe (above the level of galactic superclusters); about gamma-ray bursts that can be seen from one end of the universe to the other; about how neutrinos from SN1987a sluiced through all of us for weeks on end around 20 years ago, without us ever noticing it; how the universe expanded from the size of an apple to the size of the solar system in tiny, tiny fractions of a second, how one percent of those white dots you see in TV static is a remnant from the big bang, the birth of the observable universe; and on and on and on and on.

But now AF Dave is here to tell me that all of that is complete fiction, a fairy tale, false evidence planted for us to find by a deceitful and duplicitous god. All those tens of thousands of scientists, working their entire professional careers over the past five hundred years, they're all deluded fools who have been driven, motivated, and misled by their incomprehensible desire to deny the obvious existence of God (presumably so they can cheat on their wives without feeling guilty about it).

Instead, we live in this tiny, cramped little universe, barely larger than the moon's orbit, with stars and galaxies painted on the ceiling like a cheap 19th-Century opera house. It's all an illusion, folks, and God's laughing at us as He watches us scramble about, trying to make sense of a universe that makes no sense, and doesn't need to make sense; that follows no rhyme or reason other than that God wanted it that way.

This is the universe Dave wants us all to live in, his dark, dank little universe, with no wonders, no spectacles, just tawdry parlor tricks performed by a bored god for no reason other than to show us all how bad-ass He is and how worthless and impotent we all are. And Bill Paley is right there, cheering him on, with his constipated, restricted universe of Christmas ornament crystal shells of informational energy, no more exciting or intriguing than a Christmas display at the local Walgreen's.

Really makes life worth living, doesn't it?
end


Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a
Ikonboard © 2001 Jarvis Entertainment Group, Inc.