Hey Cobra Snake (kyle)

I Liked this:Name: Kyle
Email: cobra_snake31@hotmail.com
From: Michigan
Referral: I'm a creationist defender of the Truth!
EvolutionistStockAnswer: --
Date: 29 Mar 2002
Time: 05:38:40
Remote Name: 64.7.162.63Comments
I can't help but laugh whenever I see this site! I almost died laughing when I say that you had evolutionist "stock answers" prepared for them! Great sense of humor.Seriously, all you evolutionists, perhaps you should be a little less upset of this site Fred has created. I find it quite refreshing to see a Creationist like Fred actually insulting the evolutionary position. It's very refreshing after reading volumes and volumes of anti-creation insults. I don't understand how evolutionists can even pretend to be offended by the contents of Fred's site, after they likely support the huge amount of literature directly mocking the PEOPLE behind the Creation movement. Indeed, much of this anti-creation hatred is seen here in this very guestbook! It's fine with me, you can pretend that I am nothing but an evolved flat-earther with no sense of intelligence. You can continue calling me a "fundamentalist fringe lunatic that wishes to demolish science in general in order to fit my peculiar world-view." You can continue to call me a "Bible-thumper."However, silly ad hominem attacks do nothing but either display your immaturity or display the weakness of your position. Indeed, it's much easier to think Creation has no basis when you are convinced that Creation scientists (with or without "quotations") are nothing but evolved flat-earthers!To all the evolutionists who manage to keep their cool when speaking to the anti-intellectual, Bible-thumpin', fundamentalist fringe Creation "scientist", I must thank you, while pointing out that you are in the minority.Of all the "misquotations", "quoting out of context", and "scientific incompetence" of which I and others of the Creationist mindset have been accused of, at least I do not have to be associated with the terribly childish ad hominem attacks in which even the most prominent evolutionary scientists are fond of.----------------------------------------------------------------------Apparently, you don't see Williams for what he is, nor have you seen him in action on the internet, where he makes the most obnoxious, rude 'evo' look like Mr.Rogers.To see him twist reality and flap in the breeze, try here: http://www.geocities.com/huxter4441/

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
When I first encountered Fred on the Internet I found him very annoying and obnoxious, but after several years of reflection and therapy his style doesn't bother me much anymore.
...What really annoyed me, though, was when he would add rhetorical jabs to a nonsensical answer. A typical Fred interaction of this nature might go like this (this abbreviated example isn't really fair to Fred, but I'm just trying to get the idea across):

​

Me: "2LOT only applies to closed systems and so can't be used to argue against the possibility of evolution. --Percy"

​

Fred: "Precip [as he would affectionately call me], your slip is showing. You don't understand 2LOT. Entropy decreases are impossible. Try again. --Fred"

---

You mean, he never said you were a "complete moron" for not agreeing with him?

quote:

---

Fred is very persistent, very knowledgeable, very talented and resourceful in debate, and it's extremely puzzling that someone so bright could possess so many strong misperceptions.

​

--Percy

---

I agree that Fred certainly puts forth an air that he is the thngs you wrote, however, I think another 'evo' put it best when describing Fred (and those like him that rely upon one or a few 'arguments'):When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.I modified that to:When you have convinced yourself that you have a hammer, you try to make everything into a nail.Hence Fred's standard attempts to discuss only what he wanted to, regardless of the topics being discussed. Fred has a great deal of ignorant crap on his website (his 'biblical evidences' are particularly amusing), so I frankly do not agree that he is as bright and resourceful as you portray him to be. He has his hammer, and he is bound and determined to 1. NEVER admit that his hammer is really one of those plastic ones you get for your three-year old or 2. that with each swing of his mighty hammer, he misses the nail.
That is, his arguments are basically hollow, once you've cut through his 'official', 'scientific' sounding rhetoric, but you are hard pressed to get that point across to him. Observe his continuously repeated mantra that Haldane's model was a purely mathematical one devoid of evolutiopnary assumptions (that is why, according to him, it should be accepted over actual observation-based models...)...

I already tried that, sort of. See my link in the first post. I also tried that with Rev. Jerry Don Bauer, who posts as 'Jep', or Jeptha'. See:
http://www.creationweb.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=3ce41a984965ffff;act=SF;f=30He, like Fred, simply tried to divert the topic into an area he had convinced himself he knew a lot about.I don't really have the time - or the inclination - to do anything like that this summer.Too much going on.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
SLP, I was talking about the site in general, I wasn't really referring to his debate with you.

---

I wasn't either, I was remarking on your laughable praise for Fred's site and apparently for Fred's tone - "I find it quite refreshing to see a Creationist like Fred actually insulting the evolutionary position..."

quote:

---

However, Fred told me that you never informed him of your recent rebuttals, and that he plans to respond soon. I just think it's a little unfair of you to totally slam Fred for unethical conduct without giving him a head's up that you accused him of many things in your recent rebuttals.

---

Am I supposed to provide him with a singing Telegram or something? We had an email exchange in Feb. regarding the articles, and I informed him that I would be responding. Indeed, here is a verbatim message that I had sent to him:Following the link, one sees, at the bottom, this:RESPONSE TO WILLIAMS' SECOND INSTALLMENT.
See Williams twist common English phrases to try to score points...A link to the second response. It isn't like I was trying to hide anything.
As for 'accusing' him of many things, I actually provide simple documentation for the serious charges (hell - his laughable "as well = as well as" bit is right there in print!) and provide a 'disclaimer' for my opinions. Fred has no such disclaimers anywhere. In addition, you might have noticed that I was RESPONDING to him, not posting something out of the blue.
Funny thing is, in another emaiul exchange, the paragon of Christian virtue wrote:"Whatever you say, doc. I look forward to your handwave of that silly claim you made at the baptist board. You really are weak on genetics. Its amazing you got a PhD in a semi-related field."Of course, Fred NEVER checked the BB to see my response; he never addressed my questions there; he never responded HERE to his questions for me that I answered!

quote:

---

I think that Fred is at times a bit too harsh, but I have observed that you are not exactly the high prince of fair and reasonable discussion.

---

After dealing with the likes of Fred and Karl Crawford and Walter "You misrepresent me" ReMine, should it really surprise anyone that folks get a bit testy? Of course, unlike to trio I mention (and plethora of others), I at least try to address requests made of me and can supposrt my claims with something other than repeated assertions and insults.So - how about that Something Better News, eh?Edited by derwood, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
I don't really see what's so wrong with Fred's site, as long as you realize that its purpose for the most part is not to convey scientific information.

---

That is certainly not how it appears to the interested layman. But I agree - it contains almost no scientific information and what such information there is is for the most part used incorrectly.

quote:

---

"As for 'accusing' him of many things, I actually provide simple documentation for the serious charges (hell - his laughable "as well = as well as" bit is right there in print!)"

​

All I'm suggesting is that maybe you should have informed Williams of your response, because you made some pretty serious "documented" accusations against his competence and honesty. Sorry if I sound mean, it is really just a simple suggestion.

---

Mean?

quote:

---

"Whatever you say, doc. I look forward to your handwave of that silly claim you made at the baptist board. You really are weak on genetics. Its amazing you got a PhD in a semi-related field."

​

I agree that Fred should not say things like that. However, like I said before, you are not exactly the high prince of fair and reasonable discussion:

​

"I have pointed out your incompetence again"
"Let the aspersion casting and obfuscation begin!"
"Your intellectual and scientific superior"

---

There is a little thing called context.My message titled "I have pointed out your incompetence again"?A reply to Fred's message titled:"I have refuted you yet again"A message which contained the following text:"May the handwaving begin!"Hence my reply:"Let the aspersion casting and obfuscation begin!"As for my 'signature' ("Your intellectual and scientific superior"), that is a goog-natured dig. You see, Fred often signed his messages with things like "Your idol", so I signed mine with something that was at least grounded in reality.
But enough about that.

quote:

---

If you are indeed Fred's "intellectual and scientific superior", then perhaps you should tone down the level of mean-spirited remarks.

---

I think my CV speaks for itself. I'm no Nobel Laureate, but then, I don't claim or imply that I am (or should be)... Mean-spirited? How's this:
"You had no hope because your claims were
thoroughly bogus."
"You need to go to the gym more, its a better workout
than waving your hands at your computer."
"...don't read anything more into this than what it is, common
courtesy, even to someone who is a complete bonehead)."Those are the MILD ones. Fred reaps what he sows. Of course, like all 'Christian' creationists, Fred justifies his nature with biblical lore:"The Bible *does* justify various methods of communicating
with morons. Some need to be told they are morons. You qualify as one such individual. "Yes, I will watch my tone...

quote:

---

If you disagree with what Fred wrote about you in the above e-mail message, then why should you resort to such low blows? Regardless of the accuracy or intelligence of Fred's comments, you should be able to keep your cool if you are indeed his "intellectual and scientific superior".

---

I am not sure where this odd belief that individuals with legitimate academic credentials are supposed to be able to suppress their emotions came from. Why are such individuals supposed to sit back and take such verbal abuse? Do nothing when their characters are impugned? Some - those with much more patience than I - can sit back and take it and not respond in kind. I can't. Maybe I should have my meal card stamped "NO DESSERT"?

quote:

---

"Of course, Fred NEVER checked the BB to see my response; he never addressed my questions there; he never responded HERE to his questions for me that I answered!"

​

Maybe he was busy?

---

He was not too busy to post his 'questions' in the first place. He was not too busy to request that I specifically address his post.
Was he?

quote:

---

"After dealing with the likes of Fred and Karl Crawford and Walter "You misrepresent me" ReMine, should it really surprise anyone that folks get a bit testy?"

​

As you stated before, if you are Fred's "intellectual and scientific superior" then you should not have to lower yourself to whatever you deem are Fred's standards. Don't you think that is a pretty reasonable suggestion? I try to be reasonable.

---

You do? Is that why you praised Fred's site for being "insulting"?Well, enough of this.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Percipient:
[b]

SLPx writes:

---

I am not sure where this odd belief that individuals with legitimate academic credentials are supposed to be able to suppress their emotions came from. Why are such individuals supposed to sit back and take such verbal abuse? Do nothing when their characters are impugned? Some - those with much more patience than I - can sit back and take it and not respond in kind. I can't. Maybe I should have my meal card stamped "NO DESSERT"?

---

This is a good point, but if I can offer a suggestion, I felt the problem I had following the Haldane debate was due to two problems:

• The intermixing of the emotional portions with the discussion/information portions; and
• The resulting emotional way in which the discussion/information portions were presented, with more more regard given to acerbic asides than to clarity.

Just one opinion. --Percy[/QUOTE]I would agree. And I especially like the fact that you refer to me as "XXX".

​

[This message has been edited by Percipient, 05-31-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
"That is certainly not how it appears to the interested layman."

​

Fred even tells the visitors that his site is not, for the most part, about documenting serious scientific evidence.

---

Maybe so, but he does (or did, anyway) post to various groups about how he has 'disproven' this or that from time to time. For example:Fred wrote in this thread, "New series at "Evolution, a Fairy Tale for Grownups", in the newsgroup alt.fan.rush.limbaugh:"Regarding Genetics, I wrote an article that provides overwhelming evidence we could not have evolved from a common ancestor with a chimp. Note that a leading Geneticist in personal correspondence has confirmed the math and acknowledged its a "serious problem" for the theory."

quote:

---

"There is a little thing called context."

​

Well, I didn't know about the context. Now that I do, your message doesn't seem so bad. However:

​

"Of course, it is far more informative to read my relaity based response to Williams first laughabvle attempts at 'refutation""

​

"I will be tearing down Williams pseudoscinetific gibberish in a day or two."

​

"I suspect thart any actual reply will consist of aspersion casting, insults, and a continued insistence that Haldnae's dilemma is real and unsolved. Thats all he can do."

​

I think it seems fairly obvious that you have been the creator of some mud-slinging and mean-spirited comments. Percy also seems to agree with my assesment here, so maybe you should argue with him instead.

---

It might seem that way if one were to only read the pertinent threads here on this forum, I agree. Though it is pointless, I could link to dozens of posts by Fred elsewhere demonstrating that I am doing nothing but carrying on a tradition that Fred began long ago.

quote:

---

"I think my CV speaks for itself. I'm no Nobel Laureate, but then, I don't claim or imply that I am (or should be)... Mean-spirited? How's this:"

​

I think it is fairly obvious that both you and Fred are guilty of unneccesary slander. However, you WERE the one that brought it up:

​

"Apparently, you don't see Williams for what he is, nor have you seen him in action on the internet, where he makes the most obnoxious, rude 'evo' look like Mr.Rogers."

---

What is slanderous about that? I didn't write the above followed or preceeded by "I am the nicest guy on the net, but this Fred guy...".

quote:

---

If you are going to accuse Williams of rude behavior, I would think that you would make sure your own behavior was in check. As it stands, both of you seem equally guilty and neither should be pointing fingers at the other- rather you should try to make peace as well as you can.

---

I have tried to do so on a number of occasions. See Fred's 'moron' comments to see what gets returned. Even when he gets conciliatory, he cannot help by make comments such as this, in response to a doctorate-holding geneticist from Stanford, emphasis mine:
******************************************************************S: That's why he retracted the argument and did not use it again. As for his other arguments against ReMine, you are soundly beaten. For instance, you have yet to answer the question: how many beneficial mutations need to be fixed to account for the divergence of humans and chimps?Fred:
LOL! I am soundly beaten because I can’t prove that 1667 is not enough to account for human evolution? I will repeat this to you. You have to be a complete fool to believe such a small difference can account for the difference between chimp and man. I’m sorry, but I really do believe this and I’m not goin to mince words. You have to be a complete moron to hold such an indefensible position.
*************************************************So there you have it - if you do not completely agree with Fred Williams, creationist electrical engineer, then you are obviously a complete fool and/or a complete moron.
But you are right - an 'intellectual' should be able to respond to repeated statements like that without responding in kind.

quote:

---

"I am not sure where this odd belief that individuals with legitimate academic credentials are supposed to be able to suppress their emotions came from."

​

It seems to me that being "intellectual" would mean that you would generally try to avoid ad hominem attacks and other logical fallacies, especially before accusing your opponent of the same.

---

I do not see where I claimed to be an "intellectual". Please point out some of these 'logical fallacies' that I have employed. Again, I never wrtote explicitly or implicitly anything remotely like "I am a nice guy, but Fred Williams is a rude so-and-so." Had I done so, then your position would be warranted.

quote:

---

"Is that why you praised Fred's site for being "insulting"?"

​

You're right- "insulting" was the wrong word. What I meant was "teasing" in a playful sort of way, but that sounds kinda gay, don't you think?

---

I don't know - what does 'gay' sound like?