RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

    
  Topic: What happened to dictionaries?, When did idiots get so lazy?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2006,01:15   

This thread should probably have been started by some remarkably stupid comment or article somewhere...

However, I am lazy...

Reading AFDave's ramblings, I am reminded of a problem that goes far beyond the ramblings of Creationist idiots.
When did it become acceptable for people to redefine words to better suit their position?

Maybe this all happened when Bill Clinton redefined the term "sex" to only be applicable to vaginal intercourse.
Maybe it happened earlier, I just dont know.

I've watched Fundies change words like "religion", "evidence", "proof", "intelligent", etc....
They started doing it with more than words, they have started doing it with general concepts.  How many times has Bill Dembski blogged about something that should obviously(even if you're an IDer) run counter to his argument...yet he makes it his own?

In the past, scientific debate was always careful and considerate presentation of evidence.  Now Science vs. Religion debates are disgusting shouting matches.  

The worst offenders have to be the biblical literalists.  I dont hold a personal grudge against their beliefs, but how many old, thoroughly debunked arguments can one group make?

AFDave...for shame....
You plan on presenting your "belief" to children.
Why do I get the feeling that you will use your position of authority to force your "beliefs"(especially those unsupported by anything that you can even pretend is evidence) onto those unfortunate children?

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2006,06:20   

I assure you this goes back much further than Bill Clinton. Orwell had a lot to say about it.

A crucial part of the agenda of the religious right -- arguably the ONLY program of the IDC movement -- is to redefine 'science' such that the gibberish they do can be called 'science'. They want to redefine science such that the supernatural qualifes as science -- THEIR version of the supernatural. This is what they're referring to when they bitch about 'materialistic biases'. They want to define science essentially so that any vague, ill-thought out silliness with a Christian bent gets called 'science'.

They seem not to realize that this would also admit ANYONE'S version of the supernatural -- ANYONE'S nonsense -- into science, and that science would essentially cease to exist. They haven't thought this through, simply because they're grabbing at whatever they think might work. They must assume that sometime down the line, after they've acheived 'dominion', that non-Christian 'science' will be purged somehow.

The only really remarkable fact here is that people are still taking AFDave seriously and still indulging him after all these months.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2006,08:36   

Indulge him? I thought you were all doing it for me. After all, I am the one who goaded him by telling him I could run faster, junp higher and screw better than him.

The guantlet was thrown and everyone picked it up. Plus we get to find out lots of neat info about RM dating, geology, archaeology, etc. It has proved to be a very informative thread for me anyway.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2006,09:23   

Quote (BWE @ Aug. 22 2006,13:36)
Indulge him? I thought you were all doing it for me. After all, I am the one who goaded him by telling him I could run faster, jump higher and screw better than him.

Well, sure, we can ALL run faster, jump higher and screw better than AFDave, but isn't that setting the bar kind of low?  :p

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2006,10:31   

Quote
The only really remarkable fact here is that people are still taking AFDave seriously and still indulging him after all these months.


ya know, i feel the same way most times, but I find myself referring to that thread often to show folks the quintessential nature of a true YECreobot:  How rational discourse and evidentiary arguments fail to influence them at all, how they exhibit all the signs of being addicted; including rampant denial and projection, and how even observers of the thread who would normally just lurk have felt compelled to speak up about Dave's irrational and illogical posts.

All of which affects Dave not one whit.

In fact, I just used Dave as an example of why Allen MacNeill's course at Cornell had the exact impact most of us expected: none.  Allen himself posted in that thread that essentially none of the students changed their minds about ID.  the ID student leader (Hanah?), after seeing all of the evidence, still felt free to criticize Dawkins, but had no criticism for Behe or Dembski.

I really think folks like Allen and Pim should spend more time debating folks like Dave Hawkins.

You guys should check that thread out on PT if you haven't done so already.

Allen had some very troubling comments there.

like this:

Quote
It’s people like you folks (PT posters) that make me wonder if I’m really on the right side, here. When Sal Cordova treats me and my students with civility and you folks heap nothing but scorn on them, what am I (and they) supposed to conclude?



I dunno Allen, maybe that false civility shouldn't be favored over accuracy?  maybe that civility is in the eye of the beholder, as Sal is #### near always insulting as he quotemines and lies for Jeebus?  That civility is more than just the lack of using swear words?

I begin to see why many in the field of evolutionary biology are questioning aspects of evolutionary psych, if Allen represents that field accurately with what he says and the papers he cites.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
ScaryFacts



Posts: 337
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2006,11:18   

First post from a 2-week lurker...

I just wanted to thank all of you who have taken the time to post facts and *real* information for lurkers like me.

I am not a scientist, but I stumbled here looking for a discussion of ID v. Evo a couple weeks ago and have devoured the AFDave thread.  Even if Dave is not convinced by facts and refuses to support his "hypothesis", I have benefited greatly from the info.

I came to this with only the most basic understanding of evolution with a science background that ended with AP Physics, Bio and Chem as a high school senior.  Your consistently informative posts and linked references have given me the beginnings I needed.

One of these days I may even have learned enough to post something beneficial myself!

Keep up the good work.

Kevin

   
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2006,11:24   

I can hardly speak for everybody else here, but thanks.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2006,13:17   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 22 2006,11:20)
The only really remarkable fact here is that people are still taking AFDave seriously and still indulging him after all these months.

I don't think anyone's taking Dave "seriously," Arden—I don't think anyone has since it became apparent that, despite his claims to the contrary, nothing would persuade him of the falsity of his "UPDATED Creator God Drivel."

I do admit to a morbid fascination, though. Dave really is like a party pinata: hit him just the right way, and all kinds of nifty thingamajigs spill out. His attempts to explain away the stratigraphy of the Grand Canyon are priceless, and are worth the price of admission (which is admittedly pretty low) all by themselves.

I do look for Dave's latest posts with interest every day. I have to say I'm not adding much to the conversation in terms of the fascinating nuggets of real science contributed by the likes of JonF, Deadman, and Occam's Aftershave. I'd say my function is to keep Dave honest about his claims, but since that's a practical impossibility, I have to say I'm functioning more as someone to point out to the lurkers just how dishonest he really is about his claims, like when he keeps saying he's been persuaded by the evidence supporting biblical inerrancy.

What evidence? is my response, every time. I have to admit, as much as Dave hates it, I get a kick out of it.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
  7 replies since Aug. 22 2006,01:15 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

    


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]