Misc. side comments to things in other topics

The "The Nature of Mutations II" topic is already going astray, with side comments concerning Peter Borger. And I wanted to add something to this diversion, but it would be wrong to further contribute to the topics decay - so I started this "Free For All" topic.From a schrafinator comment, at the above mention topic.

quote:

---

In my fantasy world, it really bugged him that I, an illogical, intellectually inferior woman, was able to completely take him to task when he tried to use a paper on equine limb evolution as support of his ideas. He had no idea what the paper was talking about and just mined a completely out of context quote from it.

​

He never admitted anything, but came as close as I ever saw him come to conceding.

​

I know it's probably only a fantasy, however.

---

A phrase I once heard used in a "Bloom County" comic - "Women, and their nutty hormones".Moose

what are you trying to say?

Salty, from the same topic as cited in message 1, said:

quote:

---

It is too bad that this forum finds it necessary to engage in personal attacks. I know from personal experience how fruitless that can be. It is the price one pays for straying from atheistic purposeless Darwinism. I don't blame Borgher for not returning. Now I am sure someone will go after me. Salty

---

I focus in on the "atheistic purposeless Darwinism" phrase.Salty, I presume your alternative is the "theistic purposeful anti-Darwinism"? Or perhaps it would be better phrased as the "anti-Darwinian purposeful theism"?Either way, it seems that your religious and/or philosophical beliefs are driving your scientific inclinations.Moose

quote:

---

Either way, it seems that your religious and/or philosophical beliefs are driving your scientific inclinations.

---

Ya think?He has recently called anyone that basically doesn't agree with him "insane." (on ISCID)Thats rich, eh?

I am partly responsible for dragging the thread off topic. I was making an effort to draw salty ON topic through a variety of methods (unsuccessfully). As he tends to meander wildly in his conversations he brought up Borger's banning and I made a comment that I thought Borger should not have been banned i.e. agreed with salty. The intent was not to get into a long discussion on Peter Borger.I tried a lot of different approaches to salty to get him to make a real attempt at answering questions. The one method that universally fails is if he feels slighted. What he considers insult is also rather unpredictable...schrafinators posts somehow angered salty for no apparent reason. However, nothing else I have tried seems to be getting anywhere either...anybody else see anything I have missed..for those of you who have tuned in?I mean, if the guy is going to hang around here..the least we could do is try to get him to participate on topic in threads so that we don't end up with every thread he enters hopelessly derailed.cheers,
M

Besides salty's thinly veiled religious fundamentalism, I would focus more on Darwinsim and Darwinian which he uses frequently...to this day he has never explained what he means by either.

Actually, I think he did answer this one in Message 59 of the What is Salty's 'semi-meiotic hypothesis' thread, revealing that he knows the definition of neither evolution nor Darwinism.--Percy

Salty writes

quote:

---

Percipient. Evolution was the transformation of life forms from one to the next. Darwinism is an hypothesis which claims to provide the mechanism by which such transformations took place. It is probably the most tested hypothesis in the history of science. It has never been demonstrated. Nevertheless, the Darwinians maintain that it is going on all around us even as I respond to your post. Does this help explain the difference? salty

---

Ok Percy..you are correct...he did give his (comical) definition of Darwinism...and Evolution...from the quote it appears he equates the two. However, he still has not defined Darwinian. At other times he has also claimed that he believes evolution has occurred but stopped at some undefined time...which is in conflict with his negative view of evolution from his above quote where he dismisses it outright.I am not surprised at salty's inconsistencies as he does not seem to be able to formulate or express his ideas on this site. However, given his rather combative nature, I am surprised that he is so unwilling to state his opinions when asked questions.Anyway, I'll keep trying to nudge him on topic and will not flame him....cheers,
M

To me it seems that the evolutionists are operating under as strong a delusion as Salty. Despite evidence to the contrary, Salty believes his ideas have legitimacy, and the evolutionists believe that Salty can be engaged in rational discussion.Bad debate forces good debate to other venues. I'm not convinced that bad debate is better than no debate at all, and my inclination is to suspend the biggest contributors to the problem, be they Creationist or evolutionist.It has been periodically pointed out that rebutting Creationist positions is often a valuable learning experience. I not only agree, I've experienced the same thing myself. But once this beneficial aspect is obtained and a repetitive period takes over there seems little point in continuing.------------------
--Percy
   EvC Forum Administrator

Hmm..perhaps my intention was a bit vague. I am under no illusion that salty is capable of rational discussion since he has demonstrated for months on this board (and now at ISCD) that he cannot. However, in the past, a relentless flame war ensued, hopelessly derailing every single topic where he was posting.I am not expecting him to say anything substantial...but the topic of the thread has at least for the most part stayed somewhere in the neighborhood of Nature of Mutations. This was really my only intention with what I have been doing...I may have had a slight curiousity as to whether he could reply to a direct question with a direct answer but instead he is meandering all over the place, selectively answering, and claiming that dead people would agree with him.I agree that it is sickeningly repetitive to engage him in "discussion". On the other hand, I am not sure that banning him (if that is what you are hinting at) would work out as it would be seen as "evilutionist bias"...unless a creationist banned/suspended him.cheers,
M

Well, being confrontational makes him clam up.Asking questions makes him clam up.Just hoping that he will 'spill the beans' only makes for repeated hero-worhsip posts.Feigning praise and asking questions just gets the same treatment.Oh well...I did notice in a post at ARN I think it was that someone equated Rivista - salty's main outlet since he abandoned research and reason over 20 years ago - to Origins and Design and PCID...------------------
(2) "A second characteristic of the pseudo-scientist, which greatly strengthens his isolation, is a tendency toward paranoia," which manifests itself in several ways:
...(3) He believes himself unjustly persecuted and discriminated against...(4) He has strong compulsions to focus his attacks on the greatest scientists and the best-established theories. ..

I would have to concur..salty is one of the few people who posts where if he were to accidentally multiply duplicate his posts..I am not sure I would be able to tell given the similarity of his response to any question addressed to him..and many that are not.What I do not agree with is that he "clams up"...if he were clamming up he would not be such an annoyance.

That is true...Maybe "clams up as far as dealing with the substantive issues goes."?

Has he ever dealt with a substantive issue? I mean other than claiming Grasse would agree with him only to have Mr. Pamboli show that Grasse in fact contradicts most of what salty says

Salty has just had his manifesto 'published' in PCID.