Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-17-2019 11:59 AM
35 online now:
1.61803, AZPaul3, caffeine, edge, GDR, PaulK, Percy (Admin), ringo, Tangle, Taq (10 members, 25 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 853,914 Year: 8,950/19,786 Month: 1,372/2,119 Week: 132/576 Day: 33/99 Hour: 9/8


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
34567Next
Author Topic:   Idiocy of the most amusing kind.....
Zaphod
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 91 (13504)
07-14-2002 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Percy
07-14-2002 3:16 PM


Yeah, I realize that. I've been lurking in these forums for some time, and am aware of Jet's tactics. He's none too popular, I see.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Percy, posted 07-14-2002 3:16 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Percy, posted 07-14-2002 11:35 PM Zaphod has not yet responded

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 91 (13505)
07-14-2002 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Zaphod
07-14-2002 4:14 PM


"Well, an ad hominem attack is an attack on the person's character instead of the argument at hand. It's a fallacy because the character is not at issue here. "
--Yes I fully agree, though I think I knew what ad hominem was as you said it, though I was looking for more along the lines of a dictionary definition. Is it interchangeable with another word or am I trying to make ad hominem seem like an abbreviation?

------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Zaphod, posted 07-14-2002 4:14 PM Zaphod has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Zaphod, posted 07-14-2002 4:20 PM TrueCreation has not yet responded
 Message 19 by John, posted 07-14-2002 4:28 PM TrueCreation has not yet responded

  
Zaphod
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 91 (13506)
07-14-2002 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by TrueCreation
07-14-2002 4:16 PM


quote:
Is it interchangeable with another word or am I trying to make ad hominem seem like an abbreviation?

There's no synonym I'm aware of, at least when it comes to a single word, but you can certainly abbreviate. ad hom is is acceptable.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by TrueCreation, posted 07-14-2002 4:16 PM TrueCreation has not yet responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 91 (13507)
07-14-2002 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by TrueCreation
07-14-2002 4:16 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
Is it interchangeable with another word or am I trying to make ad hominem seem like an abbreviation?


Well, transliterated from Latin it means "against the man." There is also ad hominem tu quoque which is basically "well, you did it too!!!!!"

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by TrueCreation, posted 07-14-2002 4:16 PM TrueCreation has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18481
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 20 of 91 (13527)
07-14-2002 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Zaphod
07-14-2002 4:15 PM


Zaphod writes:

Yeah, I realize that. I've been lurking in these forums for some time, and am aware of Jet's tactics. He's none too popular, I see.

Of course, to be fair, this *is* the Free For All forum where anything goes. But for everyone's edification and enjoyment, here's a brief Jet retrospective. Enjoy!

--Percy



Jet Retrospective

  • Your opinion is totally worthless to me.

  • Did I read that correctly? OK, I'll just bite my lip, refrain from laughing, and move on to your next point.

  • Please reference the Biblical teachings that will show that I, as a Christian, am supposed to value the opinions of persons who openly reject God, and His Holy Word. Also reference the Biblical teachings that will show that I, as a Christian, should never verbally chastise pagans for their dogma and beliefs.

  • Are you seriously attempting to deny the existance of early evolutionary thought with its ties to pagan religious rites and rituals? Is so, I suggest you go back to college and take a few classes in ancient history and ancient religions. Seriously!

  • You offer nothing other than the most common and typical pre-teen drivel.

  • When I have the desire to discuss and debate with school children, I will visit the nearest elementary school. Until that time, I expect a certain degree of logic and reason to be employed by those I engage. I do not believe that is asking too much.

  • That was post #108, not #8. Please pay attention if you expect to continue to be responded to.

  • If your comprehension skills are somewhat lacking, don't blame me, blame your teachers. I have no intention of spelling things out as if I were speaking to a group of extremely immature elementary school children.

  • That causes me to question if you truly are able to recognize who is petty, ignorant, and arrogant.

  • Evo's of above average intelligence are usually able to understand the concept of right and wrong, of good and evil. You obviously do not qualify to be included in that group.

  • Typical response from a darkened mind.

  • I admit to the expectation of reason and understanding within those to whom I may choose to reply. This, unfortunately, is not always the case. As a youth, one of the many principles greatly impressed upon me was the necessity of developing a great power of reason. I can thank my father, and my grandfather, for that. Perhaps, at times, I require and expect too much from some individuals. The power of reason is not an automatic consequence of physical maturity. Some, like myself, have worked at truly developing it, and others have not. Mores the pity!

  • Aside from your mind-numbing ramblings, you post pretty good. You post nonsense, but you do it very well!

  • It seems that some individuals have never read the Isaiah Scrolls. It would probably be wise for them to do so before making foolish and inaccurate statements concerning Hebrew teachings, and thereby making fools of themselves in the process.

  • Really, the limited knowledge of history that some evolutionists are privy to is most difficult to fathom.

  • If you can't accept the fact that the TOE is pagan in its' origin, that is fine by me.

  • As to your first point, I said "Logical" conclusion. Your conclusion obviously does not qualify as being in the arena of logic.

  • You failed ancient history, didn't you! Otherwise you couldn't possibly have your facts so screwed up. History man, history! Take a refresher course. You desperately need it!

  • I am never opposed to examining all sides of an issue, even when I am convinced that one side, (in this case, the argument for evolution), is so full of errors, misinformation, and outright lies that it is, without a doubt, completely inane.

  • This site was a waste of my valuable time. The author of this site is a walking oxymoron.

  • Your inability to grasp the enormity involved in the discussion of contrary perceptions of data and evidence from an highly intellectual point of view, coupled with your tremendous inability to engage in any sort of meaningful interlocution based upon the intellectual understanding of those scientists who are directly involved, not to mention your gross misunderstanding of the proper etiquette necessary for a productive intercourse and exchange of ideas, joined with your arbitrary dismissal of concepts that you obviously do not comprehend on the same level as the scientists who are engaged in the various fields of science, does make for a rather ordurous experience for anyone of an opposing view who may wish to engage you in discussion. Possessing a proclivity for verbosity is not necessarily a negative characteristic. I would, however, consider you the exception to the rule. Sorry!

  • If anyone needs to get serious here, it is you. Your polemic sermons of a wonderful fossil record that simply does not exist other than in your own mind, and your inordinate desire for someone to rebutt your nonsensical posts is cause for questionable concern. Either post something with some real substance or accept that you are hereby considered as irrelevant and incoherent as your previous posts have been.

  • Deserving of a reply? I don't recall ever making such a claim. I honestly could not care less if anyone chooses to reply to any of my posts. You choose to do so on your own and at the risk being labeled by me as just another nefandous proponent of that most unscientific of theories, which you refer to as Darwinian evolution!

  • It is very obvious from your post that you are a prime example of an illinformed Evo, who attempts to make a point by spouting endless drivel, offering no specific facts concerning the relative nature of the TOE while totally ignoring the countless unscientific assumptions and assertions that must be accepted in order to believe in the TOE. Talk about someone adept at parroting the mindless dogma of a bankrupt theory. You seem to have developed it into an art form. Kudos!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Zaphod, posted 07-14-2002 4:15 PM Zaphod has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by nator, posted 07-15-2002 2:52 PM Percy has responded
 Message 25 by axial soliton, posted 08-29-2002 2:56 AM Percy has not yet responded
 Message 36 by Brad McFall, posted 10-30-2002 10:31 AM Percy has not yet responded
 Message 43 by doinker, posted 11-09-2002 2:03 PM Percy has not yet responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 333 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 21 of 91 (13577)
07-15-2002 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Percy
07-14-2002 11:35 PM


ROTFLMAO!!!!

That was GREAT, Percy!!

I am disappointed, however, that you did not include Jet's accusation that I had spammed his Creationist research institute with snail mail, and this is why he couldn't send me any literature regarding the facility.

ROTFL!!!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Percy, posted 07-14-2002 11:35 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Percy, posted 07-15-2002 3:48 PM nator has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18481
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 22 of 91 (13585)
07-15-2002 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by nator
07-15-2002 2:52 PM


Oh, I dearly wanted to include that one, but I left it out because it needed additional context to understand how outrageous he was being.

When I first starting compiling the list I thought it would have at most ten entries, and I couldn't believe that I just kept finding more and more. And everytime I thought, "Okay, that's the best one, I won't find one better than that," a short while later I would find a better one.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by nator, posted 07-15-2002 2:52 PM nator has not yet responded

    
frank
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 91 (13589)
07-15-2002 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Zaphod
07-14-2002 4:14 PM


If I remember correctly, ad hominem can be of 2 types, abusive - attacks ones character, and circumstantial, which attacks the speakers position, e.g., we should dismiss ones argument about a company because the speaker is the president of the company.

Frank


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Zaphod, posted 07-14-2002 4:14 PM Zaphod has not yet responded

  
KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 6047 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 24 of 91 (16146)
08-28-2002 1:02 AM


well jesus is biblically the human form of God. so thats close, but he never had a human form until the year 0 a.d.

so... that guy is moron.

------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi


    
axial soliton
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 91 (16212)
08-29-2002 2:56 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Percy
07-14-2002 11:35 PM


How could 1 guy figure out so many ways to say the same thing about himself?

Even though it looks like Jet beat a hasty retreat, I just don't want his false bravado to go unrewarded. To wit:

quote:
"For the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of his reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a small band of theologians, who have been sitting there for centuries."

People having his world-view only recently stopped murdering and torturing scientists. Now that science has nearly escaped the oppression of religion, the only final rock is the one dreamed up by creationists.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Percy, posted 07-14-2002 11:35 PM Percy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Tokyojim, posted 09-02-2002 2:46 AM axial soliton has responded

  
Tokyojim
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 91 (16387)
09-02-2002 2:43 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by joz
06-05-2002 5:47 PM


Dear Joz,
Let me help you understand where Jesus is mentioned in John 1:1-23. In the first verse, you find this: "In the beginning was the Word. The Word was with God. The Word was God." THis is what Jet was referring to. The "Word" is a reference to Jesus. words are used to communicate and God used Jesus (God incarnate or God in the flesh) to reveal Himself to mankind. see v. 18. If you doubt that Word is a reference to Jesus, just read vers 14 where we are told that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.
And in v. 2 & 3, you have a reference to Jesus creating cows among other things.
For a first timer reading that passage, I can understand how you wouldn't understand it. Jet was a little too hard on you for that, but he was right. Well, granted you won't find the word "cow" in the text, but the implication is there.
So the Baptist guys were not implicating Allah after all although perhaps they could have made it a bit more understandable to those who do not know the Bible - since that presumably was their target group. I think you jumped to a false conclusion on that one, but I understand what you were thinking.
Hope that helps.
Regards,

Tokyojim


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by joz, posted 06-05-2002 5:47 PM joz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by mark24, posted 09-02-2002 5:05 AM Tokyojim has not yet responded
 Message 33 by wmscott, posted 09-06-2002 8:46 PM Tokyojim has responded

  
Tokyojim
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 91 (16389)
09-02-2002 2:46 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by axial soliton
08-29-2002 2:56 AM


Axial,
What do you mean by the following statement?

"People having his world-view only recently stopped murdering and torturing scientists. Now that science has nearly escaped the oppression of religion, the only final rock is the one dreamed up by creationists."

Sorry, but you'll have to explain that a little more clearly for this ignorant creationist.
Tokyojim


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by axial soliton, posted 08-29-2002 2:56 AM axial soliton has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by axial soliton, posted 09-05-2002 5:15 PM Tokyojim has responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3359 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 28 of 91 (16397)
09-02-2002 5:05 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Tokyojim
09-02-2002 2:43 AM


Tok,

Haven't seen Joz post here for a while, unfortunately.

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Tokyojim, posted 09-02-2002 2:43 AM Tokyojim has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by joz, posted 09-06-2002 1:35 PM mark24 has not yet responded

    
axial soliton
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 91 (16677)
09-05-2002 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Tokyojim
09-02-2002 2:46 AM


This is not difficult. Christianity suppressed science and oppressed scientists through the Dark Ages and for as long as it could control education and information. An example among many :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/319712.stm

Christianity wanted to be the institution to tell people how to live in the world around them and control what they did and how they did it. Control means power and money. Now, science is superbly providing information to people on how to live in the world around them and getting better at it all the time. And, science does not have the control and ego baggage.

Why does Christianity feel it necessary to compete with science on technology?

The bible is not a very good technology book. Why is Christianity even in the business of technology?

What we need is a strong philosophical institution to maintain and improve things like integrity, kindness, and morality. Maybe after the Church's present morality crisis, it can step up to that role. This is the point that needs to be stressed. Technology is not the same as philosophy. People need both.We need our religions to teach kindness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Tokyojim, posted 09-02-2002 2:46 AM Tokyojim has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Mammuthus, posted 09-06-2002 5:16 AM axial soliton has responded
 Message 38 by Tokyojim, posted 11-04-2002 11:30 AM axial soliton has not yet responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4639 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 30 of 91 (16735)
09-06-2002 5:16 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by axial soliton
09-05-2002 5:15 PM


Hi Axial

Though I agree with most of your post I disagree with the last part "Technology is not the same as philosophy. People need both.We need our religions to teach kindness."

I don't think we require religion to teach kindess. In cases where it does, great, but there are plenty of kind atheists/agnostics

Cheers,
Mammuthus

quote:
Originally posted by axial soliton:
This is not difficult. Christianity suppressed science and oppressed scientists through the Dark Ages and for as long as it could control education and information. An example among many :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/319712.stm

Christianity wanted to be the institution to tell people how to live in the world around them and control what they did and how they did it. Control means power and money. Now, science is superbly providing information to people on how to live in the world around them and getting better at it all the time. And, science does not have the control and ego baggage.

Why does Christianity feel it necessary to compete with science on technology?

The bible is not a very good technology book. Why is Christianity even in the business of technology?

What we need is a strong philosophical institution to maintain and improve things like integrity, kindness, and morality. Maybe after the Church's present morality crisis, it can step up to that role. This is the point that needs to be stressed. Technology is not the same as philosophy. People need both.We need our religions to teach kindness.



This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by axial soliton, posted 09-05-2002 5:15 PM axial soliton has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by axial soliton, posted 09-07-2002 11:58 AM Mammuthus has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
34567Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019