Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Young Cosmos

Pages: (32) < ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... >

Mister DNA Posts: 466 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2008,16:15    Quote (argystokes @ Jan. 02 2008,16:09) What any of this has to do with moral relativism, I have no idea. (just kidding. I know that it's a common talking point to call someone a moral relativist when they believe in giving people greater freedoms). I don't think Ftk knows what moral relativism is. And of course, FtK is not going to expound on her position, other than some stuff about "icky feelings". -------------- CBEB's: The Church Burnin' Ebola Blog Thank you, Dr. Dembski. You are without peer when it comes to The Argument Regarding Design. - vesf

Annyday Posts: 583 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2008,16:16    Congratulations to FtK and Sal on managing to finally get a reasonably extended discussion of just how icky horse sex is. I'm just going to assume you enjoy it, due to the sheer willfulness with which you've pushed to center your position on ranting about sex with animals, incest, orgies, homosexuality, marriage and pedophilia. Your logical connection with "Darwinism" is nonexistant, delusional, and already easily refuted. The rest of this is unrelated bad logic and appeal to emotion. By "emotion" I mean "fear, disgust and hate", which I guess some people are into. I won't touch that, and since you won't properly support any other argument - for instance, a scientific one - at all, that leaves nothing worth saying. Have fun. -------------- "ALL eight of the "nature" miracles of Jesus could have been accomplished via the electroweak quantum tunneling mechanism. For example, walking on water could be accomplished by directing a neutrino beam created just below Jesus' feet downward." - Frank Tipler, ISCID fellow

incorygible Posts: 374 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2008,16:17    Er...after months of lurking and muttering exasperated remarks in the general direction of the screen, I really can't believe I'm going to make my first comment on this thread in defense of FTK, at least on one narrow point in particular: My dictionary confirms my general understanding of 'condone' to mean "forgive or overlook" or "approve or sanction, usually reluctantly". Given Skatje's post and comments, and my interpretation thereof, I would suggest that FTK does not misuse the word. That being said, considering the rest of FTK's 'arguments' on this and other matters, I'm going to go take a shower and pray that she doesn't now identify me as part of a rapidly dwindling subset of reasonable sorts with whom she'd deign to converse. The horror . . . Edit (there, now I feel fully de-lurked): argy beat me to it. And while we could certainly debate the various connotations of the word, it is silly to hold up FTK's use of it as "quote-mining" in such a target-rich environment.

Lou FCD Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2008,16:17    Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 02 2008,17:11) Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,17:05) Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 02 2008,16:01)   Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,15:26) We already know they get along fine with 2 mother's or 2 father's Greengrocer's apostrophe. Oh, shut up, apostrophe boy.  I know I screwed up...I type in a hurry and rarely check the preview screen. It just takes too much time. If only you could edit your comments.... I had considered going there, Steve.  But at the moment, I'm amusing myself with something much more fun. PZ got wind of Sal's quotemining of Skatje. -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2008,16:20    Quote (Annyday @ Jan. 02 2008,17:16) Congratulations to FtK and Sal on managing to finally get a reasonably extended discussion of just how icky horse sex is. I'm just going to assume you enjoy it, due to the sheer willfulness with which you've pushed to center your position on ranting about sex with animals, incest, orgies, homosexuality, marriage and pedophilia. Your logical connection with "Darwinism" is nonexistant, delusional, and already easily refuted. The rest of this is unrelated bad logic and appeal to emotion. By "emotion" I mean "fear, disgust and hate", which I guess some people are into. I won't touch that, and since you won't properly support any other argument - for instance, a scientific one - at all, that leaves nothing worth saying. Have fun. Maybe FtK is concerned about it because rural right-wingers enjoy sex with animals. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/11/1356/79678 Us big-city atheists don't share their perversions.

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2008,16:27    Quote (incorygible @ Jan. 02 2008,16:17) Er...after months of lurking and muttering exasperated remarks in the general direction of the screen, I really can't believe I'm going to make my first comment on this thread in defense of FTK, at least on one narrow point in particular: My dictionary confirms my general understanding of 'condone' to mean "forgive or overlook" or "approve or sanction, usually reluctantly". Given Skatje's post and comments, and my interpretation thereof, I would suggest that FTK does not misuse the word. That being said, considering the rest of FTK's 'arguments' on this and other matters, I'm going to go take a shower and pray that she doesn't now identify me as part of a rapidly dwindling subset of reasonable sorts with whom she'd deign to converse. The horror . . . Point taken. A good example of why settling on the definitions is the first task in any formal debate. My apologies, FtK. If that is how you defined "condone", then my definition is different. We were talking about two different things. But the argument about the word "condones" revolved around your writings, not Sal's. His quote-mining and innuendo stand on their own, independent of any argument about your word usage or definitions. The usage of "forgive or overlook" won't absolve him; he implied active participation. -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

csadams Posts: 124 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2008,16:27    Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 02 2008,16:17) Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 02 2008,17:11) But at the moment, I'm amusing myself with something much more fun. PZ got wind of Sal's quotemining of Skatje. Microwave popcorn: $0.39 Iced diet Pepsi: $1.87 Watching PZ ream Sal such that Sal wishes it was by the horse he's fixated on: Priceless -------------- Stand Up For REAL Science!

Ftk Posts: 2239 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2008,16:30    Condone - from Webster’s dictionary:  to forgive or overlook. Quote Not all cases of bestiality are this way though. Animals can approach humans for sexual reasons too. Ever owned a dog? They’ll come right up to you and start poking at your crotch. What if you don’t have pants on at the time? And what if you maybe enjoy a little complication-free oral sex? You go to jail for it? It’s not like you shoved your meat into their face and raped them. The animal isn’t hurt, so animal abuse doesn’t apply. The second argument against zoophilia is that animals are unable to consent to have sex. That’s complete crap. Animals understand what sex is and they CAN communicate it. Not in words, of course, but in action. … Sexual relationships between humans and animals come as such a shock to people, but it doesn’t to me. There can be very deep, meaningful relationships between humans and their pets. Obviously they can’t obtain the same level a deep human-to-human relationship, but loving your pets isn’t anything unusual. People care for their pets, talk to them, spoil them, feel relaxed in their company, and mourn them when they die. This relationship is so underestimated. Why does it come as a surprise that when someone feels a deep connection to their pet, they might be interesting in doing something more expressive and intimate like we do in human-to-human relationships? If that is not “condoning” zoophilia, then I don’t know what is. [qu[ote]Finally, if your moral code justifies quote-mining and innuendo about a teenage girl having sex with a collared peccary, I think you have no credibility in discussing the moral codes of others. [/quote] This is certainly not an example of quote mining, but then it doesn’t surprise me that you would think it is.  Darwinists cry “quote mine” at the drop of a hat.  The innuendo about a “young lady” (no mention of a “teenager girl“ - please keep your facts straight) bringing home a collared peccary to Mom and Dad has already been condemned by me.  The fact that you keep stating that I justify it is dishonest. -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

Ftk Posts: 2239 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2008,16:33    Oh, hell.  You guys are posting faster than I can respond to you. I'm going to beg off a while and let everyone have there say before I try to respond to anyone further.  Right now, I'm thinking about 6 different questions that have been posed to me and my thoughts are becoming a tangled mess. Later... -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

Mister DNA Posts: 466 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2008,16:33    Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 02 2008,16:20) Quote (Annyday @ Jan. 02 2008,17:16) Congratulations to FtK and Sal on managing to finally get a reasonably extended discussion of just how icky horse sex is. I'm just going to assume you enjoy it, due to the sheer willfulness with which you've pushed to center your position on ranting about sex with animals, incest, orgies, homosexuality, marriage and pedophilia. Your logical connection with "Darwinism" is nonexistant, delusional, and already easily refuted. The rest of this is unrelated bad logic and appeal to emotion. By "emotion" I mean "fear, disgust and hate", which I guess some people are into. I won't touch that, and since you won't properly support any other argument - for instance, a scientific one - at all, that leaves nothing worth saying. Have fun. Maybe FtK is concerned about it because rural right-wingers enjoy sex with animals. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/11/1356/79678 Us big-city atheists don't share their perversions. Does anyone here remember Neal Horsley's "Christian Gallery" website? Actually, it's still up and it makes Fred Phelps' site look positively tame by comparison. Years ago, he used to have a page up that advocated the use of nuclear weapons against major US cities - there was an infamous page of graphics that showed why the cities needed to be nuked. -------------- CBEB's: The Church Burnin' Ebola Blog Thank you, Dr. Dembski. You are without peer when it comes to The Argument Regarding Design. - vesf

incorygible Posts: 374 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2008,16:51    Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,16:30) The innuendo about a “young lady” (no mention of a “teenager girl“ - please keep your facts straight) bringing home a collared peccary to Mom and Dad has already been condemned by me.  The fact that you keep stating that I justify it is dishonest. O RLY? Would you care to explain your use of the following bolded phrase:   Quote Sal's AtBC peanut gallery form of humor Tu quoque may not be a particularly effective justification, but it certainly constitutes an attempt. (You must agree that it seems a rather odd adjective phrase to use if anything other than a half-assed attempt at justification was implied.) Would you care to retract the above italicized accusation of dishonesty? Or would you prefer to continue speaking out of both sides of your mouth?

Ftk Posts: 2239 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2008,16:52    Quote (csadams @ Jan. 02 2008,16:27) Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 02 2008,16:17)   Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 02 2008,17:11) But at the moment, I'm amusing myself with something much more fun. PZ got wind of Sal's quotemining of Skatje. Microwave popcorn: $0.39 Iced diet Pepsi: $1.87 Watching PZ ream Sal such that Sal wishes it was by the horse he's fixated on: Priceless You never cease to amaze me, Cheryl. -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

argystokes Posts: 766 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2008,16:56    Incorygible wrote: Quote That being said, considering the rest of FTK's 'arguments' on this and other matters, I'm going to go take a shower and pray that she doesn't now identify me as part of a rapidly dwindling subset of reasonable sorts with whom she'd deign to converse. The horror . . . Did you know AFDave is still citing you as one of the people he's met online that he likes? You sure do know how to get some good creationist luvvin! -------------- "Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

csadams Posts: 124 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2008,17:00    Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,16:52) Quote (csadams @ Jan. 02 2008,16:27) Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 02 2008,16:17)   Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 02 2008,17:11) But at the moment, I'm amusing myself with something much more fun. PZ got wind of Sal's quotemining of Skatje. Microwave popcorn: $0.39 Iced diet Pepsi: $1.87 Watching PZ ream Sal such that Sal wishes it was by the horse he's fixated on: Priceless You never cease to amaze me, Cheryl. Thank you, thank you very much! PS: If you don't want your first name used here, then don't use mine.  mmkay?  Ta ever so . . . :) -------------- Stand Up For REAL Science!

Ftk Posts: 2239 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2008,17:01    Quote (incorygible @ Jan. 02 2008,16:51) Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,16:30) The innuendo about a “young lady” (no mention of a “teenager girl“ - please keep your facts straight) bringing home a collared peccary to Mom and Dad has already been condemned by me.  The fact that you keep stating that I justify it is dishonest. O RLY? Would you care to explain your use of the following bolded phrase:   Quote Sal's AtBC peanut gallery form of humor Tu quoque may not be a particularly effective justification, but it certainly constitutes an attempt. (You must agree that it seems a rather odd adjective phrase to use if anything other than a half-assed attempt at justification was implied.) Would you care to retract the above italicized accusation of dishonesty? Or would you prefer to continue speaking out of both sides of your mouth? I didn't try to "justify" a thing.  I'm saying that you're all extremely hypocritical.  AtBC members make comments that put Sal's to shame on a routine basis.  Nobody says a thing about their behavior.  Strange. -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

incorygible Posts: 374 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2008,17:01    Quote (argystokes @ Jan. 02 2008,16:56) Did you know AFDave is still citing you as one of the people he's met online that he likes? You sure do know how to get some good creationist luvvin! LOL! You know, part of me actually just had the brief urge to track Davey down. But much as I don't (usually) listen to other agenda-driven parts of me advocating re-establishing ties with long-lost exes, I'm going to ignore that part, too --  nothing good can come of it. Nevertheless, a man needs luvvin -- is it too late to choose the peccary?

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2008,17:03    Quote (incorygible @ Jan. 02 2008,16:17) Er...after months of lurking and muttering exasperated remarks in the general direction of the screen, I really can't believe I'm going to make my first comment on this thread in defense of FTK, at least on one narrow point in particular: My dictionary confirms my general understanding of 'condone' to mean "forgive or overlook" or "approve or sanction, usually reluctantly". Given Skatje's post and comments, and my interpretation thereof, I would suggest that FTK does not misuse the word. That being said, considering the rest of FTK's 'arguments' on this and other matters, I'm going to go take a shower and pray that she doesn't now identify me as part of a rapidly dwindling subset of reasonable sorts with whom she'd deign to converse. The horror . . . Edit (there, now I feel fully de-lurked): argy beat me to it. And while we could certainly debate the various connotations of the word, it is silly to hold up FTK's use of it as "quote-mining" in such a target-rich environment. Of course. Personally I just wanted FTK to know what it felt like to say something, and then provide something else, in this case the specific part of the post in question that she felt most significantly encapsulated her point, as further proof and in support of her original argument. Mostly. And I was interested in the specific part that would be picked. Now, perhaps, the other pending "questions" can be dealt with in a similar matter?   -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

incorygible Posts: 374 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2008,17:05    Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,17:01) I didn't try to "justify" a thing.  I'm saying that you're all extremely hypocritical.  AtBC members make comments that put Sal's to shame on a routine basis.  Nobody says a thing about their behavior.  Strange. I defended your use of 'condone' as proper, but if you expect the same for your use of 'justify', you're pissin' up the wrong tree, lady. I guess I'm a hypocrite that way.

Assassinator Posts: 479 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2008,17:15    Too bad I haven't seen a reaction from Ftk yet on my posts concering morality and Darwinism, wich is also concering the zoophilia part.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2008,17:15    Quote (Mister DNA @ Jan. 02 2008,17:33) Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 02 2008,16:20)   Quote (Annyday @ Jan. 02 2008,17:16) Congratulations to FtK and Sal on managing to finally get a reasonably extended discussion of just how icky horse sex is. I'm just going to assume you enjoy it, due to the sheer willfulness with which you've pushed to center your position on ranting about sex with animals, incest, orgies, homosexuality, marriage and pedophilia. Your logical connection with "Darwinism" is nonexistant, delusional, and already easily refuted. The rest of this is unrelated bad logic and appeal to emotion. By "emotion" I mean "fear, disgust and hate", which I guess some people are into. I won't touch that, and since you won't properly support any other argument - for instance, a scientific one - at all, that leaves nothing worth saying. Have fun. Maybe FtK is concerned about it because rural right-wingers enjoy sex with animals. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/11/1356/79678 Us big-city atheists don't share their perversions. Does anyone here remember Neal Horsley's "Christian Gallery" website? R the MFing A. Edited by stevestory on Jan. 02 2008,18:19

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2008,17:21    Quote (Assassinator @ Jan. 02 2008,23:15) Too bad I haven't seen a reaction from Ftk yet on my posts concering morality and Darwinism, wich is also concering the zoophilia part. Same here. I rather feel we're being ignored. -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

Ftk Posts: 2239 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2008,17:22    Quote (argystokes @ Jan. 02 2008,16:56) Incorygible wrote: Quote That being said, considering the rest of FTK's 'arguments' on this and other matters, I'm going to go take a shower and pray that she doesn't now identify me as part of a rapidly dwindling subset of reasonable sorts with whom she'd deign to converse. The horror . . . Did you know AFDave is still citing you as one of the people he's met online that he likes? You sure do know how to get some good creationist luvvin! I doubt he'll speak up again when he sees someone is being unfair to a creationist.  Certainly he wouldn't want to be accused by his peers of "know[ing] how to get some good creationist luvvin!" Good work, Argy. It's interesting that it took a lurker to point out Dave's innacurate accusation.  I can't imagine the rest of you all agreed with his definition. But then, god forbid we point that out since it was a "creationist" being accused of something that is inaccurate. I'd extend to Incorygible my appreciation for him speaking up, but that would probably make him look bad, so I won't. -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2008,17:25    Quote (incorygible @ Jan. 02 2008,18:05) Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,17:01) I didn't try to "justify" a thing.  I'm saying that you're all extremely hypocritical.  AtBC members make comments that put Sal's to shame on a routine basis.  Nobody says a thing about their behavior.  Strange. I defended your use of 'condone' as proper, but if you expect the same for your use of 'justify', you're pissin' up the wrong tree, lady. I guess I'm a hypocrite that way. We're atheists on a daily basis!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111

Mister DNA Posts: 466 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2008,17:25    Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 02 2008,17:15) Quote (Mister DNA @ Jan. 02 2008,17:33)   Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 02 2008,16:20)     Quote (Annyday @ Jan. 02 2008,17:16) Congratulations to FtK and Sal on managing to finally get a reasonably extended discussion of just how icky horse sex is. I'm just going to assume you enjoy it, due to the sheer willfulness with which you've pushed to center your position on ranting about sex with animals, incest, orgies, homosexuality, marriage and pedophilia. Your logical connection with "Darwinism" is nonexistant, delusional, and already easily refuted. The rest of this is unrelated bad logic and appeal to emotion. By "emotion" I mean "fear, disgust and hate", which I guess some people are into. I won't touch that, and since you won't properly support any other argument - for instance, a scientific one - at all, that leaves nothing worth saying. Have fun. Maybe FtK is concerned about it because rural right-wingers enjoy sex with animals. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/11/1356/79678 Us big-city atheists don't share their perversions. Does anyone here remember Neal Horsley's "Christian Gallery" website? R the MFing A. I read the linked article - not the comments. Reading the comments at DailyKos is right up there with self-trepination on my "things I like to do" list. I've never been clear about whether or not the Nuremberg Files were posted at the Christian Gallery or not - and I've never had the stomach to search through that site to find out. And the link does nothing to clear that up. -------------- CBEB's: The Church Burnin' Ebola Blog Thank you, Dr. Dembski. You are without peer when it comes to The Argument Regarding Design. - vesf

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2008,17:46    Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,17:22) It's interesting that it took a lurker to point out Dave's innacurate accusation.  I can't imagine the rest of you all agreed with his definition. But then, god forbid we point that out since it was a "creationist" being accused of something that is inaccurate. Umm, just for the record, I think it was oldman who first brought up the apparent lack of the use of the word "condone" in Skatje's blog post. And just for the record, my definition is as accepted as your definition, which makes it OK to agree with my definition. It's not a problem. It's certainly not as much of a problem as agreeing with Sal about something which is indefensible to all who are not wearing creationist blinders. And finally, just for the record, I immediately apologized to you for the confusion, in case you didn't notice. You're quite welcome, even if you can't bring yourself to type "Thanks". Carry on. -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

incorygible Posts: 374 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2008,17:49    Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,17:22) I doubt he'll speak up again when he sees someone is being unfair to a creationist.  Certainly he wouldn't want to be accused by his peers of "know[ing] how to get some good creationist luvvin!" Good work, Argy. It's interesting that it took a lurker to point out Dave's innacurate accusation.  I can't imagine the rest of you all agreed with his definition. But then, god forbid we point that out since it was a "creationist" being accused of something that is inaccurate. I'd extend to Incorygible my appreciation for him speaking up, but that would probably make him look bad, so I won't. Do you ever climb down off that cross? Never mind -- I've lurked on this thread long enough to know the answer (note that I've posted here before, hon). So I defend you on one narrow point of diction and now you're making hay, eh? No worries -- you have a lot of straw men to prop up. Have your little 'victories' been so few and far between? (Never mind -- I know the answer to that one, too, m'dear.) Only you, FtK, could use my interjection on behalf of accuracy/consistency as an argument that you'll never find it among us hypocritical non-creationists. Only you could follow up a number of posts agreeing with my interjection with "I can't imagine the rest of you all agreed with his definition". Only you could mention Argy by name -- whose defense of your use of 'condone' preceded my own, as noted in the edit -- one little period before asserting that it "took a lurker" to point out. Only you could presume to know, on the basis of a few posts, when I would choose to speak up against the dread Darwinian gestapo. Only you would characterize this incident as "unfair" to creationists. Need any more nails, luv?

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2008,17:59    Meanwhile, Sal is slipping from contemptible to just plain weird:     Quote Winston Churchill on the battle against the Nazi Darwinists and Perverted Science ...There is a video which dramatizes the victory of Christian civilization against the Nazi Darwinists in the Battle of Brittain. You can get a copy of the The Battle of Britain starring Michael Caine, Christopher Plummer, and Trevor Howard from Amazon. Winston Churchill describes his voracious reading during his early 20s: "From November to May I read for four or five hours every day history and philosophy. Plato's Republic - it appeared he was for all practical purposes the same as Socrates; the Politics of Aristotle, edited by Dr. Welldon himself; Schopenhauer on Pessimism; Malthus on Population; Darwin's Origin of Species: all interspersed with other books of lesser standing." Winston Churchill, My Early Life: 1874-1904 -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

Ftk Posts: 2239 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2008,18:06    Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 02 2008,17:46) Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,17:22) It's interesting that it took a lurker to point out Dave's innacurate accusation.  I can't imagine the rest of you all agreed with his definition. But then, god forbid we point that out since it was a "creationist" being accused of something that is inaccurate. Umm, just for the record, I think it was oldman who first brought up the apparent lack of the use of the word "condone" in Skatje's blog post. And just for the record, my definition is as accepted as your definition, which makes it OK to agree with my definition. It's not a problem. It's certainly not as much of a problem as agreeing with Sal about something which is indefensible to all who are not wearing creationist blinders. And finally, just for the record, I immediately apologized to you for the confusion, in case you didn't notice. You're quite welcome, even if you can't bring yourself to type "Thanks". Carry on. I don't know what's not to agree with in regard to what Sal wrote.  Obviously Skatje finds it morally acceptable to have sex with animals as well as participating in incestuous relationships.  It's written in black and white.  No quote mining necessary.  I find it seriously odd that this is condsidered quote mining. -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2008,18:09    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 02 2008,15:59) Meanwhile, Sal is slipping from contemptible to just plain weird:       Quote Winston Churchill on the battle against the Nazi Darwinists and Perverted Science ...There is a video which dramatizes the victory of Christian civilization against the Nazi Darwinists in the Battle of Brittain. You can get a copy of the The Battle of Britain starring Michael Caine, Christopher Plummer, and Trevor Howard from Amazon. Winston Churchill describes his voracious reading during his early 20s: "From November to May I read for four or five hours every day history and philosophy. Plato's Republic - it appeared he was for all practical purposes the same as Socrates; the Politics of Aristotle, edited by Dr. Welldon himself; Schopenhauer on Pessimism; Malthus on Population; Darwin's Origin of Species: all interspersed with other books of lesser standing." Winston Churchill, My Early Life: 1874-1904 Well, obviously: 1.  Hitler was a Darwinist. 2.  Churchill fought Hitler. 3.  Therefore Churchill was a creationist. I'm looking forward to part 2: 4.  Stalin was a Darwinist. 5.  Hitler fought Stalin. 6.  Therefore Hitler was a creationist. And part 3: 7.  Stalin was a Darwinist. 8.  Churchill was a creationist. 9.  Stalin and Churchill were on the same side. 10.  Therefore Sal is suing his brain for non-support. -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

Assassinator Posts: 479 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2008,18:17    Ftk, fact is, you're lacking a LOT of knowledge the evolutional theory and Darwinism. Really, a lot, even some mucho importanté basics (like the morality thing). How can we properly discuss this with you then?

Pages: (32) < ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard