|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,814 Year: 3,071/9,624 Month: 916/1,588 Week: 99/223 Day: 10/17 Hour: 6/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Hey Cobra Snake (kyle) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1875 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
I Liked this:
Name: KyleEmail: 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: 64.7.162.63 CommentsI 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/
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5032 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Interesting, there is more to style than I had suspected
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
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.
Fred often participates in many discussions at the same time, and I suppose because he is rushed you often find that his responses don't really address what you said. 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" On the one hand you're left asking yourself what's the point of debating with someone who isn't bothering to read what you write, and on the other you feel you can't ignore it because he's so smug and obnoxious. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1875 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: You mean, he never said you were a "complete moron" for not agreeing with him? quote: 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...)...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Your reply reminds me that I would like to use The Great Debate forum for formal debates. Replies would be by turn between two opponents with moderation by two moderators, one evolutionist and one Creationist. Moderators would post comments after each reply in an attempt to a) give feedback; b) provide guidance; c) keep discussion focused; d) keep discussion understandable by the average person. Moderators would not be permitted to post content.
Debate would be limited to a certain number of posts by each side, maybe 10 or so. At the end of the debate the two moderators would each summarize, assess, and choose a winner. I expect that'll mean a tie most of the time. There would be a parallel thread to the debate that everyone who wants to comment could post to. How about a debate between you and Fred on Haldane's dilemma. Or if you feel this topic is exhausted (or has exhausted you This opportunity is available to anyone, of course. I suggest it to you first because you already have a hot topic with Fred. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1875 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
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=30 He, 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Hi Scott,
I looked at the debate with Jep, seems like the moderator lost control over that one. The Haldane debate with Fred was unmoderated. To everyone: The format for the debate that I envision includes feedback and comments from both the Creationist and the evolutionist moderator after each exchange. If anyone is interested in a one-on-one debate in The Great Debate forum please reply on this thread and include your choice of topic. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5679 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: How's about geologic evidence for/agin the Noachian deluge? Cheers Joe Meert (always willing) Heck I can even get a pen name like Woody Peczkis and argue BOTH sides [This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 05-16-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Noah's flood is fine, but I'd like to narrow the topic. How about hydrodynamic sorting? I assume you'd want the con side, and if that's okay with you (if not please suggest another topic) then...
We need a Creationist to take the pro side. Tranquility Base? TrueCreation? Anyone else? --PercyEvC Forum Administrator
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"Noah's flood is fine, but I'd like to narrow the topic. How about hydrodynamic sorting? I assume you'd want the con side, and if that's okay with you (if not please suggest another topic) then...
We need a Creationist to take the pro side. Tranquility Base? TrueCreation? Anyone else?"--Well I think I gave a couple of my pennies with a comment on Hydrodynamics as it relates to depositional models over in the Flood Discussion thread: Post #319 - http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=11&t=7&p=22 quote: --Tranquility seemed to agree with a responding post:
quote: ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
How do your debates work Percy (timewise - I'm in Australia)? Thanks for the invitaiton - I'll think about it. I really don't know that much about hydrodynamic sorting as I'm sure you know! There's only a handful of studies to base this on anyway. I'm a generalist with
(i) a deep fascination for the mainstream/flood explanations of the origin of the geological column(ii) a 'good handle' on how paleontology works and (iii) a professional expertise in molecular biology (mainly structural and genomic biology of proteins). ------------------You are go for TLI [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-20-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Cobra_snake Inactive Member |
quote: SLP, I was talking about the site in general, I wasn't really referring to his debate with you. 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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1875 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: 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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Cobra_snake Inactive Member |
"I wasn't either, I was remarking on your laughable praise for Fred's site and apparently for Fred's tone"
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. "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:" Well, it appears to me that the message you sent was to inform Fred of an earlier rebuttal of yours. So, you did not send him a direct message, correct? All I'm saying is perhaps you should have sent him a message to allow him to respond to your claims if he wishes. "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. "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" If you are indeed Fred's "intellectual and scientific superior", then perhaps you should tone down the level of mean-spirited remarks. 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". "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? "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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024