More Ad Hom
Glenn
announcement- Ad Hominem" that two basic issues concerning ad homs
were not resolved; whether ad homs have to be explicit and whether an
ad hom included in an argument that does address an opponents argument
be considered ad hom. Of course, I was the only one who disagreed on
either and both. So I will provide a subject for the first here, and
look forward to seeing responses.
Under the heading "CA130 Ad Hominem" in "Index to Creationist Claims"
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
is "CA131. Darwin suffered from psychoneurosis."
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA131.html
The second response to the "Creationists claim" appears to be reacting
as if the "Claim" is an ad hominem:
"The theory of evolution is based on evidence, not on the authority of
Darwin. Aspects of Darwin's life are of historical interest, but they
have no relevance to science."
The "Claim": "Charles Darwin became chronically ill shortly after
returning from his voyage on the Beagle, making him an invalid for
much of his life. His symptoms -- depression, vomiting, palpitations,
etc. -- match no organic illness and appear to be psychogenic
(originating in his mind). The cause of this illness could be anxiety
that his theory was wrong or guilt from rejecting God."
Is the FAQ author claiming that the alleged claim an ad hom? But
regardless, is the alleged claim ad hom, and did the FAQ author
address the "argument"?
I read through one reference to the "Claim"
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=112
and not the second, for if the first is not ad hom or is not what is
actually addressed by the "Response[s]", would complicate the issues,
to perhaps include the fallacy of guilt by association.
I submit that the "Claim" is an accurate enough representation of the
referenced article. However, neither the "Claim" or the article is ad
hominem. The "Claim" makes no conclusions about theory being wrong or
being "relevant to science". It proposes possible reasons for Darwins
illnesses. In any event, the 2nd "Response" seems to be a red herring
at best, not responding to the actual "Claim", nor any claim made in
the first referenced article. Darwin's illness, whatever it was,
seemed clearly to affect at least some of his "work and conclusions";
whether he was "right" or not in his conclusions concerning some
things.
Response 1 seems to be little more than a war of references to
literature that is described in the Response itself as much
controversy in the past over different proposed diagnoses (and same
references are included in the Creationist article as well), except
that it implies some reason to respond to the *"Claim"* as if some
part of the claim included at least an intimation that Darwin was
"psychotic": "Even if Darwin's illness was an anxiety disorder, such a
disorder has nothing to do with being psychotic." It doesn't, and the
title doesn't.
The referenced article is titled "Was Charles Darwin psychotic? A
study of his mental health",
but the author does not in the article claim that he was psychotic. I
would hope that psychoneurosis is not confused as being the same as
psychotic: "The diagnosis of the cause of his mental and physical
problems includes a variety of debilitating conditions, but
agoraphobia with the addition of psychoneurosis is most probably
correct." Did the FAQ author address the "Claim", or is this another
red herring.
The third "Response" seems off topic completely,"Some people can
achieve great things while suffering seemingly debilitating
conditions", since the "Claim" or article makes no mention or claim
that Darwin didn't achieve "great things". That Darwin is claimed to
have researched and wrote several major books seems to be a "self
directed" red herring, since researching and writing books does not
make them "great things", nor is the fact that he was chronically ill
while he did so in any way, a response to the "Claim" or "supporting"
article.
The FAQ author seems not capable of recognizing an ad hominem,
consistently uses red herrings and faulty reasoning rather than
address the claim. Or he assumes that Creationists use this argument
to conclude that "Darwin was wrong", which of course he did.
Was there an ad hom *anywhere* in this FAQ or the "Claim"?
Inez
> It appear to me that in the recent thread "OT: Public service
> announcement- Ad Hominem" that two basic issues concerning ad homs
Since it was my thread and since I was arguing this point with you,
I'll clarify that my own view is that if I insult someone, and the
audience decides that this means the person's argument is therefore
invalid, there is an Ad Hominem fallacy, but it was commited by the
audience, not by me.
> ...and whether an
> ad hom included in an argument that does address an opponents argument
> be considered ad hom.
I'm guessing you meant to type "doesn't" in this bit.
Well gosh, that flies in the face of your earlier definition of Ad
Hominem, doesn't it?
Mark VandeWettering
> It appear to me that in the recent thread "OT: Public service
> announcement- Ad Hominem" that two basic issues concerning ad homs
> were not resolved; whether ad homs have to be explicit and whether an
> ad hom included in an argument that does address an opponents argument
> be considered ad hom. Of course, I was the only one who disagreed on
> either and both.
Probably because you are frequently wrong, and always disagreeable.
> So I will provide a subject for the first here, and
> look forward to seeing responses.
>
> Under the heading "CA130 Ad Hominem" in "Index to Creationist Claims"
> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
> is "CA131. Darwin suffered from psychoneurosis."
> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA131.html
>
> The second response to the "Creationists claim" appears to be reacting
> as if the "Claim" is an ad hominem:
> "The theory of evolution is based on evidence, not on the authority of
> Darwin. Aspects of Darwin's life are of historical interest, but they
> have no relevance to science."
>
> The "Claim": "Charles Darwin became chronically ill shortly after
> returning from his voyage on the Beagle, making him an invalid for
> much of his life. His symptoms -- depression, vomiting, palpitations,
> etc. -- match no organic illness and appear to be psychogenic
> (originating in his mind). The cause of this illness could be anxiety
> that his theory was wrong or guilt from rejecting God."
>
> Is the FAQ author claiming that the alleged claim an ad hom?
Did you see him claim that? I went to the page and read it. Did you?
> But regardless, is the alleged claim ad hom, and did the FAQ author
> address the "argument"?
>
> I read through one reference to the "Claim"
> http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=112
> and not the second, for if the first is not ad hom or is not what is
> actually addressed by the "Response[s]", would complicate the issues,
> to perhaps include the fallacy of guilt by association.
>
> I submit that the "Claim" is an accurate enough representation of the
> referenced article.
Perhaps overly speculative in its conclusions, but fair enough.
> However, neither the "Claim" or the article is ad hominem. The "Claim"
> makes no conclusions about theory being wrong or being "relevant to
> science".
True enough. But I don't think the page says it was ad hominem.
> It proposes possible reasons for Darwins
> illnesses. In any event, the 2nd "Response" seems to be a red herring
> at best, not responding to the actual "Claim", nor any claim made in
> the first referenced article.
Nevertheless, it is true.
> Darwin's illness, whatever it was,
> seemed clearly to affect at least some of his "work and conclusions";
Hold on right there. I don't think that's clear at all. Certainly
nothing in the creationist claim supports this conclusion. Would you
like to tell us what evidence you have to support this conclusion?
> whether he was "right" or not in his conclusions concerning some
> things.
>
> Response 1 seems to be little more than a war of references to
> literature that is described in the Response itself as much
> controversy in the past over different proposed diagnoses (and same
> references are included in the Creationist article as well), except
> that it implies some reason to respond to the *"Claim"* as if some
> part of the claim included at least an intimation that Darwin was
> "psychotic": "Even if Darwin's illness was an anxiety disorder, such a
> disorder has nothing to do with being psychotic." It doesn't, and the
> title doesn't.
>
> The referenced article is titled "Was Charles Darwin psychotic? A
> study of his mental health",
Uh... you can write those two sentences, one after another, and not feel
the least little twinge of dishonesty?
> but the author does not in the article claim that he was psychotic.
Sorry, I forgot to whom I was addressing myself.
> I would hope that psychoneurosis is not confused as being the same as
> psychotic: "The diagnosis of the cause of his mental and physical
> problems includes a variety of debilitating conditions, but
> agoraphobia with the addition of psychoneurosis is most probably
> correct." Did the FAQ author address the "Claim", or is this another
> red herring.
>
> The third "Response" seems off topic completely,"Some people can
> achieve great things while suffering seemingly debilitating
> conditions", since the "Claim" or article makes no mention or claim
> that Darwin didn't achieve "great things". That Darwin is claimed to
> have researched and wrote several major books seems to be a "self
> directed" red herring, since researching and writing books does not
> make them "great things", nor is the fact that he was chronically ill
> while he did so in any way, a response to the "Claim" or "supporting"
> article.
>
> The FAQ author seems not capable of recognizing an ad hominem,
> consistently uses red herrings and faulty reasoning rather than
> address the claim. Or he assumes that Creationists use this argument
> to conclude that "Darwin was wrong", which of course he did.
>
> Was there an ad hom *anywhere* in this FAQ or the "Claim"?
Mark
Glenn
> On Dec 15, 7:16 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > It appear to me that in the recent thread "OT: Public service
> > announcement- Ad Hominem" that two basic issues concerning ad homs
> > were not resolved; whether ad homs have to be explicit...
>
> Since it was my thread and since I was arguing this point with you,
> I'll clarify that my own view is that if I insult someone, and the
> audience decides that this means the person's argument is therefore
> invalid, there is an Ad Hominem fallacy, but it was commited by the
> audience, not by me.
That sure makes it easy for you to get out of all ad homs. How long
will you refuse to accept the reality of implied meanings?
>
> > ...and whether an
> > ad hom included in an argument that does address an opponents argument
> > be considered ad hom.
>
> I'm guessing you meant to type "doesn't" in this bit.
>
Either way would make no difference. Are you attempting to correct my
grammar?
Depends on whether there was a clear implication. There wasn't, or at
least the FAQ did not identify where or how.
Glenn
> On 2007-12-16, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > It appear to me that in the recent thread "OT: Public service
> > announcement- Ad Hominem" that two basic issues concerning ad homs
> > were not resolved; whether ad homs have to be explicit and whether an
> > ad hom included in an argument that does address an opponents argument
> > be considered ad hom. Of course, I was the only one who disagreed on
> > either and both.
>
> Probably because you are frequently wrong, and always disagreeable.
>
>
Nic
How can more ad hom be off topic in this thread? Lighten up.
Inez
> On Dec 15, 8:30 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 15, 7:16 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > It appear to me that in the recent thread "OT: Public service
> > > announcement- Ad Hominem" that two basic issues concerning ad homs
> > > were not resolved; whether ad homs have to be explicit...
>
> > Since it was my thread and since I was arguing this point with you,
> > I'll clarify that my own view is that if I insult someone, and the
> > audience decides that this means the person's argument is therefore
> > invalid, there is an Ad Hominem fallacy, but it was commited by the
> > audience, not by me.
>
> That sure makes it easy for you to get out of all ad homs.
No it doesn't. It only allows me to "get out of" all ad homs that are
"implicit" as you call them, although it doesn't allow me to "get out
of" taking blame for an insult.
> How long
> will you refuse to accept the reality of implied meanings?
>
I accept the reality of implied meaning. What I don't accept is that
you have to take blame for logical fallacies you didn't actually
commit.
> > > ...and whether an
> > > ad hom included in an argument that does address an opponents argument
> > > be considered ad hom.
>
> > I'm guessing you meant to type "doesn't" in this bit.
>
> Either way would make no difference. Are you attempting to correct my
> grammar?
I was trying to clarify what you wrote, oh touchy one.
> > > > I submit that the "Claim" is an accurate enough representation of the
> > > referenced article. However, neither the "Claim" or the article is ad
> > > hominem.
>
> > Well gosh, that flies in the face of your earlier definition of Ad
> > Hominem, doesn't it?
>
> Depends on whether there was a clear implication. There wasn't, or at
> least the FAQ did not identify where or how.-
How do you judge the clarity of implication? Subjectively? An
implicate-O-meter?
Glenn
Well whats your take on this talkorigins faq?
Inez
The claim, as written, is not an Ad Hominem fallacy, since it doesn't
make any claims about Darwin's health problems invalidating the ToE.
But I can certainly see why the author might wish to head off any Ad
Hominem fallacies a person hearing the claim my commit in their own
mind.
*Hemidactylus*
of a recent nym-shifting poster here. That's not to say I will agree
with everything you say here. But your agreeableness is acknowledged.
And I myself have pondered Darwin's anxiety over murdering God, with
an arcane reference to Nietzsche's parable of the madman. But that's
only due to my own nonbelieving biases. Darwin was at best a wishy-
washy agnostic. He was hardly a madman, frequent trips to quack water
cure practices fo his tragic health afflictions beside the point. He
was ill, but its a matter of speculation why. Stress couldn't have
helped much, even if it was Chagas.
But Darwin's arguments are separable from Darwin. Threads about ad
homs and genetic fallacies should drive that point home.
er...@swva.net
> On Dec 15, 7:52 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 15, 8:30 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 15, 7:16 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > > It appear to me that in the recent thread "OT: Public service
> > > > announcement- Ad Hominem" that two basic issues concerning ad homs
> > > > were not resolved; whether ad homs have to be explicit...
>
> > > Since it was my thread and since I was arguing this point with you,
> > > I'll clarify that my own view is that if I insult someone, and the
> > > audience decides that this means the person's argument is therefore
> > > invalid, there is an Ad Hominem fallacy, but it was commited by the
> > > audience, not by me.
>
> > That sure makes it easy for you to get out of all ad homs.
>
> No it doesn't. It only allows me to "get out of" all ad homs that are
> "implicit" as you call them, although it doesn't allow me to "get out
> of" taking blame for an insult.
>
> > How long
> > will you refuse to accept the reality of implied meanings?
>
> I accept the reality of implied meaning. What I don't accept is that
> you have to take blame for logical fallacies you didn't actually
> commit.
If you spend a lot of time conjecturing about someone's purported
mental illness *hoping your audience will subconsciously reject his
theories, then you can be blamed for an ad hominem fallacy, since that
is the means by which the audience came to the conclusion you wanted.
You can't prop an anvil above a door and then say the victim committed
suicide when he entered the room.
(snip)
Eric Root
Glenn
were ad hom. The only reason you are claiming that it wasn't is to
disagree with my claim that ad homs can be implicit, and attacks on
the person can be ad homs even when other arguments exist that address
the issue or argument. I don't see much of an argument, interestingly
your apologetic actually supports my position.
In your own mind, Inez. It's a common claim among evolutionists that
"creationists think so and so", especially about such subjects as
Darwin: "Interestingly all or nearly all of the actual Ad Hominem
fallacies I've seen on this board are commited by creationists,
usually some form of "Darwinism led to Hitler/communism/soggy
cornflakes, therefore Darwinism is factually incorrect."
That's translatable into: "All creationists create the ad hom fallacy
that because Darwin was sick, evolution is false." "Nearly all" and
"on this board" aren't disqualifiers, Inez. Had the claim been new,
perhaps. But as I said, it is a common evolutionist claim. It's why
Isaak created the FAQ. And your claim implies that you have been on
t.o. long enough to make a responsible observation of creationists and
evolutionists concerning the subject.
Glenn
OP of the previous thread quite well. That is why she rejects the
argument. "Implicit" conclusions are a two-edged sword respective of
ad homs.
Glenn
You misunderstand, yet your words held the obvious.
Andre Lieven
No, that was your words that, as always with you, hold the *odious*.
Reading your stuff shows one clear point: You're NUTS. Because your
statements and claims are 100% NUTS.
( Thats not ad hom, as your *being* nuts is derived from your
persistant
purveying of totally nutty arguments and fictions. )
Andre
Inez
Well, I say he's incorrect.
> He responded as if it were ad hom. The only reason you are claiming that it > wasn't is to disagree with my claim that ad homs can be implicit, and attacks on
> the person can be ad homs even when other arguments exist that address
> the issue or argument.
In fact, I actually hold this position, so I'm claiming that it wasn't
because that's what I believe.
> I don't see much of an argument, interestingly
> your apologetic actually supports my position.
>
I don't see how, since your position is the opposite.
Inez
To my way of thinking both you and Glenn are too attached to the label
"Ad Hominem," as if something can't be bad unless you can stick that
label on it.
Of course it's bad to prop an anvil over a door. It's also not nice
to insult someone. I'm not now nor have I ever argued that just doing
the insult part of an ad hominem was laudable, all I'm saying is that
the person who actually draws the fallacious conclusion is the person
who commited the fallacy.
Glenn
Glenn
Then you have your head in the sand here as well as in your other
thread about what you "see" on t.o.
What you believe is irrelevant without support, unless you are simply
relating an unsupported opinion.
The point is that most would take it as ad hom. I've heard it a
million times: "Creationists have no argument", "Creationists are
dishonest", "Creationists arguments are ad homs". Evolutionists will
take the claim as an effort to disprove Darwin.
>
> > I don't see much of an argument, interestingly
> > your apologetic actually supports my position.
>
> I don't see how, since your position is the opposite.
>
Not the opposite. Your claim above that the audience can infer
connections, "committing ad homs in their minds". I claim that ad homs
can be implicit. Now you might have meant that I could think in my
mind that frogs fly because you insulted the cookiemonster (as in your
*any* fallacies), but I'm pretty sure most evolutionists minds would
assume the more specific charge of ad hominem concerning Darwin's
illnesses and evolution being wrong. It needn't be *explicit*, nor all
contained in one sentence or statement, nor removed from being ad hom
because other arguments are made addressing the actual opponents
argument.
Robert Carnegie
> It appear to me that in the recent thread "OT: Public service
> announcement- Ad Hominem" that two basic issues concerning ad homs
> were not resolved; whether ad homs have to be explicit and whether an
> ad hom included in an argument that does address an opponents argument
> be considered ad hom. Of course, I was the only one who disagreed on
> either and both. So I will provide a subject for the first here, and
> look forward to seeing responses.
>
> Under the heading "CA130 Ad Hominem" in "Index to Creationist Claims"http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
> is "CA131. Darwin suffered from psychoneurosis."http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA131.html
>
> The second response to the "Creationists claim" appears to be reacting
> as if the "Claim" is an ad hominem:
> "The theory of evolution is based on evidence, not on the authority of
> Darwin. Aspects of Darwin's life are of historical interest, but they
> have no relevance to science."
>
> The "Claim": "Charles Darwin became chronically ill shortly after
> returning from his voyage on the Beagle, making him an invalid for
> much of his life. His symptoms -- depression, vomiting, palpitations,
> etc. -- match no organic illness and appear to be psychogenic
> (originating in his mind). The cause of this illness could be anxiety
> that his theory was wrong or guilt from rejecting God."
>
> Is the FAQ author claiming that the alleged claim an ad hom? But
> regardless, is the alleged claim ad hom, and did the FAQ author
> address the "argument"?
It means that "As an argument in support of creationism, this is ad
hominem." And therefore not cogent.
I think that most creationists would claim that the currency of the
United States of America is called the dollar. Many other people
would agree. But, without checking the index exhaustively, I don't
see how that bears upon creationism. It does say "God Help Us" on
money, though, doesn't it? Nevertheless, the Index is not meant to be
a collection of /everything/ that some creationists have claimed to be
true, and the dollar probably need not be mentioned.
Glenn
Is every single thing an argument in support of creationism?
>
> I think that most creationists would claim that the currency of the
> United States of America is called the dollar. Many other people
> would agree. But, without checking the index exhaustively, I don't
> see how that bears upon creationism. It does say "God Help Us" on
> money, though, doesn't it? Nevertheless, the Index is not meant to be
> a collection of /everything/ that some creationists have claimed to be
> true, and the dollar probably need not be mentioned.
>
Well we are free to disagree when implied meanings are an issue. The
point is that ad homs can be implied, which Inez denies.
And the claim that "simply insulting" someone is taken incorrectly as
ad hom, can indeed be seen as ad hom.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/jargon/jargonfile_a.html
"(np) [FAQ] 1. An argument which relies upon denigrating the opponent
and then asserting or implying that such an unworthy arguer could not
have a valid argument."
Glenn
> On Dec 15, 10:54 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:> On Dec 15, 8:45 pm, Mark VandeWettering <wetter...@attbi.com> wrote:> On 2007-12-16, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > > It appear to me that in the recent thread "OT: Public service
> > > > announcement- Ad Hominem" that two basic issues concerning ad homs
> > > > were not resolved; whether ad homs have to be explicit and whether an
> > > > ad hom included in an argument that does address an opponents argument
> > > > be considered ad hom. Of course, I was the only one who disagreed on
> > > > either and both.
>
> > > Probably because you are frequently wrong, and always disagreeable.
>
> > Tha tha tha thats it folks.
>
> I must say you were agreeable when it came to the obnoxious behavior
> of a recent nym-shifting poster here. That's not to say I will agree
> with everything you say here. But your agreeableness is acknowledged.
Irrelevant to the subject.
>
> And I myself have pondered Darwin's anxiety over murdering God, with
> an arcane reference to Nietzsche's parable of the madman. But that's
> only due to my own nonbelieving biases. Darwin was at best a wishy-
> washy agnostic. He was hardly a madman, frequent trips to quack water
> cure practices fo his tragic health afflictions beside the point. He
> was ill, but its a matter of speculation why. Stress couldn't have
> helped much, even if it was Chagas.
I agree that it is speculative. But the intent of the FAQ was not to
address that.
>
> But Darwin's arguments are separable from Darwin. Threads about ad
> homs and genetic fallacies should drive that point home.
Irrelevant to the subject.
chris thompson
Out of curiousity, do you find an implicit ad hominem in the first
paper cited? I mean this one:
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=112
The second, which you avoided, is clearly an ad hominem attack, isn't
it?
My take on your last point, FWIW, is that simply insulting someone can
indeed be mistaken for an ad hom, and it might be an implied ad hom,
but if it is just an insult, the insulter is not responsible for the
mistaken impression of the insultee.
Chris
Glenn
wrote:
The point is that Isaak thought it was an implied ad hom. But no, I
don't think it was. Implicitly or explicitly, ad hom must refer in
some way to argument, like "Creationists argue with ad homs" or "so
his argument is wrong". The claim does not imply that Darwin's
argument was wrong, nor does the first article's conclusion, that
illness can affect work and conclusions. Nothing there to suggest that
Darwin's conclusions were *wrong*.
Isaak apparently is guided by guilt by association, that the article
was published by the ICR, and/or that Bergman, the author, is a
creationist; "all creationists commit ad homs", or "all creationists
think Darwin was wrong because he was ill". If Isaak had information
that placed what Bergman has said at other times in context, he may
have had a valid charge, but he didn't.
>
> The second, which you avoided, is clearly an ad hominem attack, isn't
> it?
I didn't "avoid" it, I explained the reason why I excluded it from
consideration. Either both were ad hominems, or there would be an
added complication to the inadequacies of Isaak's FAQ, guilt by
association. But the claim as stated was not ad hominem; it explicitly
provided the subject and conclusion, that and why Darwin may have been
ill.
>
> My take on your last point, FWIW, is that simply insulting someone can
> indeed be mistaken for an ad hom, and it might be an implied ad hom,
> but if it is just an insult, the insulter is not responsible for the
> mistaken impression of the insultee.
>
Well, a "simple insult" in my book is always an ad hom. However,
illness is not a simple insult, and to be the element in an ad hom,
the implication that argument is wrong must be more obvious than say
"You are a liar" when replying to an opponent's argument.
>
>
> >http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/jargon/jargonfile_a.html
> > "(np) [FAQ] 1. An argument which relies upon denigrating the opponent
> > and then asserting or implying that such an unworthy arguer could not
> > have a valid argument."- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
chris thompson
Well, actually there is. The entire raison d'etre for ICR is to show
Darwin was wrong. If they publish *anything* it's because they think
it contradicts evolution.
Now don't get me wrong. They have every right to do that, and in fact
I have to say that just because they're anti-evolution does not make
everything they publish incorrect. *That* would be an ad hom. But
just as everything published by the NCSE is anti-creation (unless
they've broadened their horizons), everything published by ICR is anti-
evolution. That's their mandate, and both groups are certainly allowed
to do it. I LOVE the First Amendment.
> Isaak apparently is guided by guilt by association, that the article
> was published by the ICR, and/or that Bergman, the author, is a
> creationist; "all creationists commit ad homs", or "all creationists
> think Darwin was wrong because he was ill". If Isaak had information
> that placed what Bergman has said at other times in context, he may
> have had a valid charge, but he didn't.
Now this is where it gets interesting, I think. Nowhere does Isaak say
those things; the ad hom is implied and seen by you, and perhaps some
others.
>
>
> > The second, which you avoided, is clearly an ad hominem attack, isn't
> > it?
>
> I didn't "avoid" it, I explained the reason why I excluded it from
> consideration.
I apologize for using a loaded term. You DID avoid it, but I did not
mean to imply you didn't have a reasonable justification for doing so.
People driving down the road avoid potholes all the time and there's
nothing wrong with that either.
> Either both were ad hominems, or there would be an
> added complication to the inadequacies of Isaak's FAQ, guilt by
> association.
I am not sure there's an all or nothing in play here. Isaak could be
mistaken about one but not the other, mistaken about both, or correct
about both. They're independent articles, one published by ICR and the
other by AIG, and by different authors.
> But the claim as stated was not ad hominem; it explicitly
> provided the subject and conclusion, that and why Darwin may have been
> ill.
The clear implication is that Darwin's work suffered from his mental
illness. If the work had been published in a journal whose mission
was different- say, the Journal of Historical Pathology- I would be
more likely to agree with you. But it was published in a journal with
an extensive track record of attacks on Darwin. I think the weight of
evidence shows that it's reasonable to assign that interpretation to
their paper.
Again, don't get me wrong. If it could be shown that Darwin was
mentally ill, it COULD have an effect on the interpretation of his
work. It might be reexamined in a new light. It would not be the first
time that someone's work was checked down because of that. But then
again, no one is burning their van Goghs because he was loony.
> > My take on your last point, FWIW, is that simply insulting someone can
> > indeed be mistaken for an ad hom, and it might be an implied ad hom,
> > but if it is just an insult, the insulter is not responsible for the
> > mistaken impression of the insultee.
>
> Well, a "simple insult" in my book is always an ad hom.
I meant simple as in "unattached to the argument". And I surely
disagree with that. I I walk down the street and someone bumps into me
and I respond with, "You jerk", that's an insult, not an ad hom.
> However,
> illness is not a simple insult, and to be the element in an ad hom,
> the implication that argument is wrong must be more obvious than say
> "You are a liar" when replying to an opponent's argument.
This seems to directly contradict what you wrote immediately above- is
it that my meaning was unclear? (It may well have been.)
Chris
Glenn
Andre Lieven
retardness:
Utterly wrong, but at least, in that, you are 100% consistant.
One can thus conclude, logicaly, from your lengthy record of idiocy,
that, at the very least, you are an idiot.
> snip
You misspelled " Fled what destroyed my idiot claims again ".
So, you are an idiot, a coward, a liar, and likely a few more Bad
Things.
Your mother must be so proud.
Andre
Robert Carnegie
Someone recently laid Romans 1:20 on me, i.e. that everything /is/ an
argument in support of creationism - actually it was my apostate
Noachian. In that case I chose not to press the contrary point.
What I mean is "When you see this claim presented as an explicit or
implied argument in support of creationism, it is ad hominem."
There is not much interest otherwise in the illness of someone who
died over 100 years ago, unless you think you've caught or inherited
the same thing.
For instance there was a recent claim that what FDR (President
Roosevelt) had was not polio, but perhaps that doesn't matter very
much, although it might weaken popular enthusiasm for getting rid of
that dreadful disease from the world, even o!now.
Glenn
>
Einstein has been awol for some time now, and it is still unsuprising
to see someone mention that at one time he had amitted to a great
blunder.
Whether you think there is not much interest is irrelevant to an
implicit claim. It does seem convenient to claim that an argument is
in support of creationism so that you can then conclude that it is ad
hominem, but I fail to see reference to support of creationism in the
particular argument or claim. Even were it true that a subject had
little or no interest to you or anyone, does not place it in bed with
ad hom.
Robert Carnegie
No. It is a matter of how it is used on the occasion. A kitchen
knife used in the kitchen is not "an offensive weapon" in law. If it
is used in a street fight, however, it is. But a roll of toilet-paper
is not an offensive weapon in any context. The Index to Creationist
Claims is a catalogue of the creationist arsenal, and the
creationist's fascination with the life history of their great enemy
(e.g. allegation of witchcraft) is not innocent, but vicious. And
irrelevant to the argument.
chris thompson
Ah Glenn, allow me to congratulate you on your extremely artful snips.
Unfortunately, the following lines of my post are still right there on
Google:
"Now don't get me wrong. They have every right to do that, and in fact
I have to say that just because they're anti-evolution does not make
everything they publish incorrect. *That* would be an ad hom."
On top of that, if you go to the ICR FAQ, you see this right up near
the top:
*****BEGIN ICR MATERIAL*****
Why ICR?
Because American society -- especially our educational system -- is
dominated by evolutionary humanism.
Because the harmful consequences of evolutionary thinking on families
and society (abortion, promiscuity, drug abuse, homosexuality, and
many others) are evident all around us even infiltrating our churches
and seminaries.
Because this rebellion against God and His laws stems from unbelieving
scientists and educators undermining the foundational truth of
creation.
What is ICR's purpose?
The purpose of ICR is to serve as an education, research, and
communications media institution specializing in the study and
promotion of scientific creationism, Biblical creationism, and related
fields.
*****END ICR MATERIAL*****
Are they attacking themselves with ad hominems?
Chris
Tiny Bulcher
> On top of that, if you go to the ICR FAQ, you see this right up near
> the top:
>
> *****BEGIN ICR MATERIAL*****
> Why ICR?
>
> Because American society -- especially our educational system -- is
> dominated by evolutionary humanism.
>
> Because the harmful consequences of evolutionary thinking on families
> and society (abortion, promiscuity, drug abuse, homosexuality, and
> many others) are evident all around us even infiltrating our churches
> and seminaries.
I don't suppose anyone can find any evidence of these wickednesses being
practised in America before 1859, can they?
TomS
<iMSdnWTfmc8...@bt.com>, Tiny Bulcher stated..."
There is one major evil that is not openly encouraged in America
today that was in 1859.
Aside from that -
Given that there is so little acceptance of evolution in America, one
can wonder where they think this wickedness is coming from.
Perhaps we can assign it to some truly pervasive factors in American
life - sports, for example?
--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings
Glenn
creationists this, creationists that, being a creationist. I've heard
evolutionists make all sorts of wierd unscientific claims,
speculations and claims about "creationists" in general; should I
assume or regard them as being in the "evolutionist's arsenal"?
It seems you are saying that this FAQ example is not an ad hom fallacy
because there is truth to it. And it's true that not everyone defines
ad hom in a way that makes an argument against the arguer a fallacy.
Doesn't that work both ways? Or have you decided beforehand that
Darwin's illness could not have affected "science" (as Isaak
characterizes")? No amount of reasoning and evidence could convince
anyone a relationship could be made? There have been evolutionists
here that have admitted that what some of what Darwin wrote is wrong,
and the reasons he was wrong about some things is not necessarily only
scientific "mistakes". Would you deny that a person's mental state can
affect his outlook, their work and conclusions?
richardal...@googlemail.com
<snipped> Would you deny that a person's mental state can
> affect his outlook, their work and conclusions?
I suggest that you consider this in the light of your own behaviour.
RF
Glenn
richardal...@googlemail.com
No Glenn. I'd hate to imagine what is going on in the incoherent sewer
of your mind.
RF
Glenn
see other peoples problems than it is to see your own. Your own
behavior contradicts your claim.
richardal...@googlemail.com
I don't "desire to insult" you, Glenn. I insult you because your
behaviour on this forum is dishonest, arrogant, infantile and
ignorant.
I don't think it irrational to detest someone who is blatantly
dishonest and crows about their moral superiority.
RF
Andre Lieven
I completely agree. Gless clearly does not understand, or wish to
understand, that his actions carry consequences. His activity here is
a record of his operational life values, and those are pretty scummy.
Ergo, I cannot grant his unsupported claims any credibility. It
appears
that this is not a minority view.
Andre
Robert Carnegie
Everyone's work is liable to be coloured by their personal baggage.
But Darwin's work ceased to be exclusively his when he published - or
befeore he published, if you figure in "Spooky" Wallace. Anyway, it
became public property, and not one man's judgments. I suppose that
the interpretation of primary evidence remained his own - until his
field work was replicated and built on.
hhya...@gmail.com
Hey, if you admit that your mental state has been affecting your
outlook, work and conclusion, shouldn't you seek psychatric help fast.
For all you know, some amount of cure could have make you a friend of
evolution and human.
Glenn
> On Dec 18, 5:54 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 18, 10:35 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:> On Dec 18, 5:32 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 18, 10:20 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:> On Dec 18, 5:16 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > > > <snipped> Would you deny that a person's mental state can
>
> > > > > > affect his outlook, their work and conclusions?
>
> > > > > I suggest that you consider this in the light of your own behaviour.
>
> > > > I try to. It's easier to imagine other's problems though, eh Richard.
>
> > > No Glenn. I'd hate to imagine what is going on in the incoherent sewer
> > > of your mind.
>
> > So the desire to insult me calls you to irrationality. It is easier to
> > see other peoples problems than it is to see your own. Your own
> > behavior contradicts your claim.
>
> I don't "desire to insult" you, Glenn. I insult you because your
> behaviour on this forum is dishonest, arrogant, infantile and
> ignorant.
So you don't want to insult me, but you do. And you'd "hate to
imagine" what goes on in my mind, but you do.
You're beginning to sound like a loon and not just stupid, Richard.
Seems you have a following of same as well.
Don't think that you are insulting me, consider that you are insulting
yourself when you make all these claims
yet don't make one whit of effort in supporting them even when
challenged to do so.
You see, there is a difference between us. When I attack and accuse
you of something, it is almost alway in direct context to an ongoing
event.
For example, the last time was when I challenged your claim about the
DI "acknowledging" that ID isn't scientific. Your behavior
in that thread called for "insult".
When you attack, it is like in this thread. No support, just like an
delinquent lashing out using whatever words he can think of. And it
should show
that you have some problem with me other than belief in your insults.
>
> I don't think it irrational to detest someone who is blatantly
> dishonest and crows about their moral superiority.
>
Really, Richard. Don't you think that "blatant" behavior and "crowing"
would be easy to document? Or can't you be bothered to back up what
you say.
Glenn
The thread in general and the exchanges between us are wandering off
topic as well. I may have to be satisfied with your recognition that
ad homs can be implicit, and that work can be "coloured" by illness.
But it seems to me that you are stretching what can be interpreted as
implication too far concerning the FAQ "Claim" and referenced article.
I asked another recently about what constituted Darwin's "work". You
may pick and choose as you like, or just call it "evolution" and be
done with it.
richardal...@googlemail.com
Let's see:
In this thread you mischaracterise the nature of the "ad hominem"
fallacy and insist on your incorrect version. That's arrogance and
ignorance all in one.
There's your silly habit of posting snippets from scientific papers
and press releases imagining that they represent some sort of problem
for evolutionary theory. That's ignorance.
Then there's your habit of misrepresenting what your critics are
saying. That's dishonesty.
There's also your habit of snipping the awkward parts of the posts to
which you are responding. That's more dishonesty.
RF
Glenn
Yes, let's see what you regard as "back up".
> In this thread you mischaracterise the nature of the "ad hominem"
> fallacy and insist on your incorrect version. That's arrogance and
> ignorance all in one.
You haven't participated at all in either of the recent ad hom
threads, so there is no way of knowing what you think the "nature" of
ad hom is, or if you are right.
But it appears that *you* insist on mine being incorrect, without
backing it up. A bald ass claim is not a reasoned argument or
evidence, Richard.
And even were I wrong would not mean that I am either excessivly
arrogant or ignorant.
This is what I've noticed about you for some time, you go on and on
and on without providing anything but unsupported claims, as if you
should be believed as an authority. Between us, Richard, you are by
far the more arrogant one, as well as being the one who crows about
moral superiority. Claims that you "despise" dishonesty, an apparent
desire to expose dishonesty and willingness to go to quite extreme and
bizarre lengths to do so shows you to be quite arrogant. "You imagine"
and "snipping awkward parts" below are examples of this bizarre
behavior, especially when they are in response to an apparent
acceptance to a challenge to provide evidence of your claims.
>
> There's your silly habit of posting snippets from scientific papers
> and press releases imagining that they represent some sort of problem
> for evolutionary theory. That's ignorance.
Sweet! You imagine I imagine, so that is evidence of *my* ignorance?
>
> Then there's your habit of misrepresenting what your critics are
> saying. That's dishonesty.
You aren't doing too well in your "backing up" what you say attempt. I
believe my understanding of the "nature" of ad hom is mainstream, an
argument that tries to discredit the arguer instead of the argument
itself. My intent in this thread was partly to determine who would
agree that ad homs can be implicit. Perhaps this is what you meant by
my being wrong and therefore arrogant and ignorant, yet some posters
agree with me in this respect. So if you are wrong in your first
"let's see" claim, then you would be forced by your own measure to
have misrepresented what I said about ad hom, and dishonest. But
without knowing that you might think ad hom means a hot dog with sauce
or something else, it is impossible to determine whether you honestly
think you are right or not. You would, however.
>
> There's also your habit of snipping the awkward parts of the posts to
> which you are responding. That's more dishonesty.
>
Loon. I'm responding to this, so you would conclude this isn't
"awkward"? How nice for you to be able to use as evidence your
assumption that anything I snip is "awkward" to to come to a
conclusion that I am dishonest. There are many reasons for snipping,
and it is a common practice. Pretending this is evidence of dishonesty
is quite childish and dishonest. Awk! Awk! Goes the loonie bird.
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Dec 19, 1:46 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > Let's see:
>
> Yes, let's see what you regard as "back up".
>
>
> In this thread you mischaracterise the nature of the "ad hominem"
> > fallacy and insist on your incorrect version. That's arrogance and
> > ignorance all in one.
>
> You haven't participated at all in either of the recent ad hom
> threads, so there is no way of knowing what you think the "nature" of
> ad hom is, or if you are right.
I can read.
You simply insist that your incorrect definition of "ad hom" is
correct.
> But it appears that *you* insist on mine being incorrect, without
> backing it up. A bald ass claim is not a reasoned argument or
> evidence, Richard.
> And even were I wrong would not mean that I am either excessivly
> arrogant or ignorant.
Ignorant because you don't know what the logical fallacy of "ad
hominem" is, and arrogant because you refuse to accept that you are
wrong.
> This is what I've noticed about you for some time, you go on and on
> and on without providing anything but unsupported claims, as if you
> should be believed as an authority.
So what unsupported claims have I made?
I claim that creationist sources are systematically dishonest, and
have posted the evidence on which I base this claim many times. No
creationists has bothered to address the evidence.
> Between us, Richard, you are by
> far the more arrogant one, as well as being the one who crows about
> moral superiority.
I'm not claiming any moral superiority. Creationists do so on a
regular basis.
> Claims that you "despise" dishonesty, an apparent
> desire to expose dishonesty and willingness to go to quite extreme and
> bizarre lengths to do so shows you to be quite arrogant.
So why not address the evidence?
> "You imagine"
> and "snipping awkward parts" below are examples of this bizarre
> behavior, especially when they are in response to an apparent
> acceptance to a challenge to provide evidence of your claims.
>
>
> > There's your silly habit of posting snippets from scientific papers
> > and press releases imagining that they represent some sort of problem
> > for evolutionary theory. That's ignorance.
>
> Sweet! You imagine I imagine, so that is evidence of *my* ignorance?
Well why do you post them in that case?
In most cases they are unremarkable snippets of papers which pose no
problems at all for any aspect of evolutionary theory. I presume that
you don't post them because you think they support evolutionary
theory.
>
> > Then there's your habit of misrepresenting what your critics are
> > saying. That's dishonesty.
>
> You aren't doing too well in your "backing up" what you say attempt.
You are doing exactly that in this post.
> I
> believe my understanding of the "nature" of ad hom is mainstream,
Well, you haven't bothered to find out what the "mainstream"
definition of the term is in that case.
> an
> argument that tries to discredit the arguer instead of the argument
> itself. My intent in this thread was partly to determine who would
> agree that ad homs can be implicit. Perhaps this is what you meant by
> my being wrong and therefore arrogant and ignorant, yet some posters
> agree with me in this respect. So if you are wrong in your first
> "let's see" claim, then you would be forced by your own measure to
> have misrepresented what I said about ad hom, and dishonest. But
> without knowing that you might think ad hom means a hot dog with sauce
> or something else, it is impossible to determine whether you honestly
> think you are right or not. You would, however.
The meaning of an "ad hominem" argument is perfectly clear. Your posts
are simply an attempt to obfusticate and confuse.
>
> > There's also your habit of snipping the awkward parts of the posts to
> > which you are responding. That's more dishonesty.
>
> Loon. I'm responding to this, so you would conclude this isn't
> "awkward"?
There are numerous other posts in which you *have* snipped the awkward
parts!
I doubt that even you would be so blatant as to snip the part in which
I give your habit of snipping as evidence for dishonesty!
> How nice for you to be able to use as evidence your
> assumption that anything I snip is "awkward" to to come to a
> conclusion that I am dishonest. There are many reasons for snipping,
> and it is a common practice.
So what?
> Pretending this is evidence of dishonesty
> is quite childish and dishonest. Awk! Awk! Goes the loonie bird.
It is dishonest when it is used to evade awkward questions and then
pretend that they have never been asked.
RF
Glenn
> On Dec 19, 10:02 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 19, 1:46 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > > Let's see:
>
> > Yes, let's see what you regard as "back up".
>
> > In this thread you mischaracterise the nature of the "ad hominem"
> > > fallacy and insist on your incorrect version. That's arrogance and
> > > ignorance all in one.
>
> > You haven't participated at all in either of the recent ad hom
> > threads, so there is no way of knowing what you think the "nature" of
> > ad hom is, or if you are right.
>
> I can read.
> You simply insist that your incorrect definition of "ad hom" is
> correct.
Nah, I've argued several issues related to ad homs. Your
characterization of "simply insisting" is quite dishonest, and can be
applied to anyone who holds his position.
>
> > But it appears that *you* insist on mine being incorrect, without
> > backing it up. A bald ass claim is not a reasoned argument or
> > evidence, Richard.
> > And even were I wrong would not mean that I am either excessivly
> > arrogant or ignorant.
>
> Ignorant because you don't know what the logical fallacy of "ad
> hominem" is, and arrogant because you refuse to accept that you are
> wrong.
Nothing but the same claim rephrased, loon.
>
> > This is what I've noticed about you for some time, you go on and on
> > and on without providing anything but unsupported claims, as if you
> > should be believed as an authority.
>
> So what unsupported claims have I made?
I have already referred you to your last, which I challenged. The DI
never "acknowledged" in any way shape or form that ID is not
scientific, AFAIK. And you sure as hell didn't support your claim that
they had. Your argument was shown to be totally unreasonable and
contradictory evidence was provided against you. You kept "insisting"
you were right, and although I may have missed it, you never
retracted. If you didn't, that's dishonesty. That wasn't something
like proving someone "imagines" something, or that something is
"awkward".
>
> I claim that creationist sources are systematically dishonest, and
> have posted the evidence on which I base this claim many times. No
> creationists has bothered to address the evidence.
There is evidence here that you are dishonest, or ignorant, or stupid,
or a combo of all three, at least. I asked you for evidence, you said
"Let's see..." and you have only provided more of the same outlandish
and unsupported claims.
>
> > Between us, Richard, you are by
> > far the more arrogant one, as well as being the one who crows about
> > moral superiority.
>
> I'm not claiming any moral superiority. Creationists do so on a
> regular basis.
I just made a case, based on your own behavior, and documented, that
you do.
Nice addition of another claim, and a generalization at that, by the
way.
>
> > Claims that you "despise" dishonesty, an apparent
> > desire to expose dishonesty and willingness to go to quite extreme and
> > bizarre lengths to do so shows you to be quite arrogant.
>
> So why not address the evidence?
What evidence, you loony toon? You have no evidence, not even any
reasoning to make an inference, about your claims against me.
>
> > "You imagine"
> > and "snipping awkward parts" below are examples of this bizarre
> > behavior, especially when they are in response to an apparent
> > acceptance to a challenge to provide evidence of your claims.
>
> > > There's your silly habit of posting snippets from scientific papers
> > > and press releases imagining that they represent some sort of problem
> > > for evolutionary theory. That's ignorance.
>
> > Sweet! You imagine I imagine, so that is evidence of *my* ignorance?
>
> Well why do you post them in that case?
Asking me isn't evidence, idiot.
>
> In most cases they are unremarkable snippets of papers which pose no
> problems at all for any aspect of evolutionary theory. I presume that
> you don't post them because you think they support evolutionary
> theory.
>
What you presume isn't evidence, idiot.
>
> > > Then there's your habit of misrepresenting what your critics are
> > > saying. That's dishonesty.
>
> > You aren't doing too well in your "backing up" what you say attempt.
>
> You are doing exactly that in this post.
Are you sure you aren't a juvenile, 15 or 16 or so?
A one line claim isn't evidence, idiot.
>
> > I
> > believe my understanding of the "nature" of ad hom is mainstream,
>
> Well, you haven't bothered to find out what the "mainstream"
> definition of the term is in that case.
I think I have. I cited Wiki in the previous thread.
>
> > an
> > argument that tries to discredit the arguer instead of the argument
> > itself. My intent in this thread was partly to determine who would
> > agree that ad homs can be implicit. Perhaps this is what you meant by
> > my being wrong and therefore arrogant and ignorant, yet some posters
> > agree with me in this respect. So if you are wrong in your first
> > "let's see" claim, then you would be forced by your own measure to
> > have misrepresented what I said about ad hom, and dishonest. But
> > without knowing that you might think ad hom means a hot dog with sauce
> > or something else, it is impossible to determine whether you honestly
> > think you are right or not. You would, however.
>
> The meaning of an "ad hominem" argument is perfectly clear. Your posts
> are simply an attempt to obfusticate and confuse.
>
All through this waste of bandwidth, you have elected not to provide
your own understanding of ad hom, or make any specific claim as to
what is "correct".
Empty claims, over and over, and over, and over and over and over
again. Your only victory here is to waste my time.
>
> > > There's also your habit of snipping the awkward parts of the posts to
> > > which you are responding. That's more dishonesty.
>
> > Loon. I'm responding to this, so you would conclude this isn't
> > "awkward"?
>
> There are numerous other posts in which you *have* snipped the awkward
> parts!
> I doubt that even you would be so blatant as to snip the part in which
> I give your habit of snipping as evidence for dishonesty!
You really are serious. You really do think that simply repeating a
claim over and over, using exclamation points, shouting and such, will
strengthen your claim.
Idiot, you need to show that I snip things that are "awkward". If you
really were a scientist who was disciplined in the scientific method,
you wouldn't be arguing this way. Over and over again, the same old
bullshit.
>
> > How nice for you to be able to use as evidence your
> > assumption that anything I snip is "awkward" to to come to a
> > conclusion that I am dishonest. There are many reasons for snipping,
> > and it is a common practice.
>
> So what?
You really don't know, do you. It makes your claim just a little more
difficult to support.
>
> > Pretending this is evidence of dishonesty
> > is quite childish and dishonest. Awk! Awk! Goes the loonie bird.
>
> It is dishonest when it is used to evade awkward questions and then
> pretend that they have never been asked.
>
You don't get to say whether they are awkward to me, Richard. You
simply make and repeat your claims over and over and over...
I'm not terribly interested in spending useless time on a childish
loon, Richard.
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Dec 19, 3:19 pm, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 19, 10:02 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 19, 1:46 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > > > Let's see:
>
> > > Yes, let's see what you regard as "back up".
>
> > > In this thread you mischaracterise the nature of the "ad hominem"
> > > > fallacy and insist on your incorrect version. That's arrogance and
> > > > ignorance all in one.
>
> > > You haven't participated at all in either of the recent ad hom
> > > threads, so there is no way of knowing what you think the "nature" of
> > > ad hom is, or if you are right.
>
> > I can read.
> > You simply insist that your incorrect definition of "ad hom" is
> > correct.
>
> Nah, I've argued several issues related to ad homs. Your
> characterization of "simply insisting" is quite dishonest, and can be
> applied to anyone who holds his position.
>
Anyone can check the facts simply by reading your posts on this
thread, Glenn.
You have evaded, ignored and snipped without marking contrary
arguments.
>
>
> > > But it appears that *you* insist on mine being incorrect, without
> > > backing it up. A bald ass claim is not a reasoned argument or
> > > evidence, Richard.
> > > And even were I wrong would not mean that I am either excessivly
> > > arrogant or ignorant.
>
> > Ignorant because you don't know what the logical fallacy of "ad
> > hominem" is, and arrogant because you refuse to accept that you are
> > wrong.
>
> Nothing but the same claim rephrased, loon.
Which doesn't change the facts, and which anyone can check simply by
looking back up the thread.
>
>
>
> > > This is what I've noticed about you for some time, you go on and on
> > > and on without providing anything but unsupported claims, as if you
> > > should be believed as an authority.
>
> > So what unsupported claims have I made?
>
> I have already referred you to your last, which I challenged. The DI
> never "acknowledged" in any way shape or form that ID is not
> scientific, AFAIK.
So why did Philip Johnson say that there is no scientific theory of
ID.
Why did the DI *drop* the use of the word "scientific" from their
definition of ID "theory".
> And you sure as hell didn't support your claim that
> they had. Your argument was shown to be totally unreasonable and
> contradictory evidence was provided against you.
You have provided no contradictory evidence. As ever, all you produce
is unfounded assertions and illogical arguments which miss the point.
> You kept "insisting"
> you were right, and although I may have missed it, you never
> retracted.
You've provided no reason to retract anything I have writen.
> If you didn't, that's dishonesty. That wasn't something
> like proving someone "imagines" something, or that something is
> "awkward".
This isn't a public meeting, Glenn, where you can shout your opponents
down, misrepresent them and accuse them of things they haven't said.
Anyone can check back what you and I have actually written, and can
see that you are making more empty assertions which are not supported
by any evidence.
>
> > I claim that creationist sources are systematically dishonest, and
> > have posted the evidence on which I base this claim many times. No
> > creationists has bothered to address the evidence.
>
> There is evidence here that you are dishonest, or ignorant, or stupid,
> or a combo of all three, at least. I asked you for evidence, you said
> "Let's see..." and you have only provided more of the same outlandish
> and unsupported claims.
So you won't address the evidence I have posted on numerous occasions
for dishonesty in creationist sources.
All you are doing is making unsupported assertions against me. This is
of course typical behaviour on your part, as is amply demonstrated
simply by reading your posts on this thread.
>
>
>
> > > Between us, Richard, you are by
> > > far the more arrogant one, as well as being the one who crows about
> > > moral superiority.
>
> > I'm not claiming any moral superiority. Creationists do so on a
> > regular basis.
>
> I just made a case, based on your own behavior, and documented, that
> you do.
I have never made any claim of moral superiority.
> Nice addition of another claim, and a generalization at that, by the
> way.
>
Saying that I have never made a claim of moral superiority is not a
generalisation.
>
>
> > > Claims that you "despise" dishonesty, an apparent
> > > desire to expose dishonesty and willingness to go to quite extreme and
> > > bizarre lengths to do so shows you to be quite arrogant.
>
> > So why not address the evidence?
>
> What evidence, you loony toon? You have no evidence, not even any
> reasoning to make an inference, about your claims against me.
I've posted the evidence on numerous occasions. No creationist has
ever made any attempt to address the evidence.
As evidence against you, it's here on this thread as well as on
numerous others.
>
>
>
> > > "You imagine"
> > > and "snipping awkward parts" below are examples of this bizarre
> > > behavior, especially when they are in response to an apparent
> > > acceptance to a challenge to provide evidence of your claims.
>
> > > > There's your silly habit of posting snippets from scientific papers
> > > > and press releases imagining that they represent some sort of problem
> > > > for evolutionary theory. That's ignorance.
>
> > > Sweet! You imagine I imagine, so that is evidence of *my* ignorance?
>
> > Well why do you post them in that case?
>
> Asking me isn't evidence, idiot.
I'm not offering it as evidence, though your evasion of the question
is more evidence of you evasion of awkward questions.
If you don't post these snippets because you think that they are
evidence against evolutionary theory, why do you post them?
>
> > In most cases they are unremarkable snippets of papers which pose no
> > problems at all for any aspect of evolutionary theory. I presume that
> > you don't post them because you think they support evolutionary
> > theory.
>
> What you presume isn't evidence, idiot.
>
It's rather glaringly obvious now that you are evading an awkward
question, Glenn.
>
>
> > > > Then there's your habit of misrepresenting what your critics are
> > > > saying. That's dishonesty.
>
> > > You aren't doing too well in your "backing up" what you say attempt.
>
> > You are doing exactly that in this post.
>
> Are you sure you aren't a juvenile, 15 or 16 or so?
> A one line claim isn't evidence, idiot.
You've stated that I claim moral superiority.
I have never done so.
> > > I
> > > believe my understanding of the "nature" of ad hom is mainstream,
>
> > Well, you haven't bothered to find out what the "mainstream"
> > definition of the term is in that case.
>
> I think I have. I cited Wiki in the previous thread.
..and several posters pointed out that you were misapplying the term
in the context of that definition.
>
>
>
> > > an
> > > argument that tries to discredit the arguer instead of the argument
> > > itself. My intent in this thread was partly to determine who would
> > > agree that ad homs can be implicit. Perhaps this is what you meant by
> > > my being wrong and therefore arrogant and ignorant, yet some posters
> > > agree with me in this respect. So if you are wrong in your first
> > > "let's see" claim, then you would be forced by your own measure to
> > > have misrepresented what I said about ad hom, and dishonest. But
> > > without knowing that you might think ad hom means a hot dog with sauce
> > > or something else, it is impossible to determine whether you honestly
> > > think you are right or not. You would, however.
>
> > The meaning of an "ad hominem" argument is perfectly clear. Your posts
> > are simply an attempt to obfusticate and confuse.
>
> All through this waste of bandwidth, you have elected not to provide
> your own understanding of ad hom, or make any specific claim as to
> what is "correct".
> Empty claims, over and over, and over, and over and over and over
> again. Your only victory here is to waste my time.
>
Another pathetically transparent attempt to obfusticate and evade,
Glenn.
>
>
> > > > There's also your habit of snipping the awkward parts of the posts to
> > > > which you are responding. That's more dishonesty.
>
> > > Loon. I'm responding to this, so you would conclude this isn't
> > > "awkward"?
>
> > There are numerous other posts in which you *have* snipped the awkward
> > parts!
> > I doubt that even you would be so blatant as to snip the part in which
> > I give your habit of snipping as evidence for dishonesty!
>
> You really are serious. You really do think that simply repeating a
> claim over and over, using exclamation points, shouting and such, will
> strengthen your claim.
> Idiot, you need to show that I snip things that are "awkward". If you
> really were a scientist who was disciplined in the scientific method,
> you wouldn't be arguing this way. Over and over again, the same old
> bullshit.
>
Here is a post by Mark VandeWettering
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/271d2450a775ebca/7609ab24bf70c5e4#7609ab24bf70c5e4
> It appear to me that in the recent thread "OT: Public service
> announcement- Ad Hominem" that two basic issues concerning ad homs
> were not resolved; whether ad homs have to be explicit and whether an
> ad hom included in an argument that does address an opponents argument
> be considered ad hom. Of course, I was the only one who disagreed on
> either and both.
Probably because you are frequently wrong, and always disagreeable.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> So I will provide a subject for the first here, and
> look forward to seeing responses.
> Under the heading "CA130 Ad Hominem" in "Index to Creationist Claims"
> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
> is "CA131. Darwin suffered from psychoneurosis."
> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA131.html
> The second response to the "Creationists claim" appears to be reacting
> as if the "Claim" is an ad hominem:
> "The theory of evolution is based on evidence, not on the authority of
> Darwin. Aspects of Darwin's life are of historical interest, but they
> have no relevance to science."
> The "Claim": "Charles Darwin became chronically ill shortly after
> returning from his voyage on the Beagle, making him an invalid for
> much of his life. His symptoms -- depression, vomiting, palpitations,
> etc. -- match no organic illness and appear to be psychogenic
> (originating in his mind). The cause of this illness could be anxiety
> that his theory was wrong or guilt from rejecting God."
> Is the FAQ author claiming that the alleged claim an ad hom?
Did you see him claim that? I went to the page and read it. Did you?
> But regardless, is the alleged claim ad hom, and did the FAQ author
> address the "argument"?
> I read through one reference to the "Claim"
> http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=112
> and not the second, for if the first is not ad hom or is not what is
> actually addressed by the "Response[s]", would complicate the issues,
> to perhaps include the fallacy of guilt by association.
> I submit that the "Claim" is an accurate enough representation of the
> referenced article.
Perhaps overly speculative in its conclusions, but fair enough.
> However, neither the "Claim" or the article is ad hominem. The "Claim"
> makes no conclusions about theory being wrong or being "relevant to
> science".
True enough. But I don't think the page says it was ad hominem.
> It proposes possible reasons for Darwins
> illnesses. In any event, the 2nd "Response" seems to be a red herring
> at best, not responding to the actual "Claim", nor any claim made in
> the first referenced article.
Nevertheless, it is true.
> Darwin's illness, whatever it was,
> seemed clearly to affect at least some of his "work and conclusions";
Hold on right there. I don't think that's clear at all. Certainly
nothing in the creationist claim supports this conclusion. Would you
like to tell us what evidence you have to support this conclusion?
> whether he was "right" or not in his conclusions concerning some
> things.
> Response 1 seems to be little more than a war of references to
> literature that is described in the Response itself as much
> controversy in the past over different proposed diagnoses (and same
> references are included in the Creationist article as well), except
> that it implies some reason to respond to the *"Claim"* as if some
> part of the claim included at least an intimation that Darwin was
> "psychotic": "Even if Darwin's illness was an anxiety disorder, such a
> disorder has nothing to do with being psychotic." It doesn't, and the
> title doesn't.
> The referenced article is titled "Was Charles Darwin psychotic? A
> study of his mental health",
Uh... you can write those two sentences, one after another, and not
feel
the least little twinge of dishonesty?
> but the author does not in the article claim that he was psychotic.
Sorry, I forgot to whom I was addressing myself.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> I would hope that psychoneurosis is not confused as being the same as
> psychotic: "The diagnosis of the cause of his mental and physical
> problems includes a variety of debilitating conditions, but
> agoraphobia with the addition of psychoneurosis is most probably
> correct." Did the FAQ author address the "Claim", or is this another
> red herring.
> The third "Response" seems off topic completely,"Some people can
> achieve great things while suffering seemingly debilitating
> conditions", since the "Claim" or article makes no mention or claim
> that Darwin didn't achieve "great things". That Darwin is claimed to
> have researched and wrote several major books seems to be a "self
> directed" red herring, since researching and writing books does not
> make them "great things", nor is the fact that he was chronically ill
> while he did so in any way, a response to the "Claim" or "supporting"
> article.
> The FAQ author seems not capable of recognizing an ad hominem,
> consistently uses red herrings and faulty reasoning rather than
> address the claim. Or he assumes that Creationists use this argument
> to conclude that "Darwin was wrong", which of course he did.
> Was there an ad hom *anywhere* in this FAQ or the "Claim"?
Mark
Here is your response:
"Tha tha tha thats it folks."
I call this "snipping awkward questions", Glenn.
What do you call it?
>
>
> > > How nice for you to be able to use as evidence your
> > > assumption that anything I snip is "awkward" to to come to a
> > > conclusion that I am dishonest. There are many reasons for snipping,
> > > and it is a common practice.
>
> > So what?
>
> You really don't know, do you. It makes your claim just a little more
> difficult to support.
>
Anyone can read the posts on this very thread to see you snipping
awkward questions. The one I've posted above is by no means the only
instance.
> > > Pretending this is evidence of dishonesty
> > > is quite childish and dishonest. Awk! Awk! Goes the loonie bird.
>
> > It is dishonest when it is used to evade awkward questions and then
> > pretend that they have never been asked.
>
> You don't get to say whether they are awkward to me, Richard. You
> simply make and repeat your claims over and over and over...
So how about addressing the questions Mark VandeWettering posted?
> I'm not terribly interested in spending useless time on a childish
> loon, Richard.
As I may have remarked on several occasions previously, why do you
think that anyone gives a flying fuck what you think?
RF
Robert Carnegie
I think you may come to regret writing your reply in this offended
tone, considering the impression that other readers will receive.
LT
> On Dec 16, 9:59 am, er...@swva.net wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 15, 11:14 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 15, 7:52 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 15, 8:30 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Dec 15, 7:16 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > It appear to me that in the recent thread "OT: Public service
> > > > > > announcement- Ad Hominem" that two basic issues concerning ad homs
>
> > > > > Since it was my thread and since I was arguing this point with you,
> > > > > I'll clarify that my own view is that if I insult someone, and the
> > > > > audience decides that this means the person's argument is therefore
> > > > > invalid, there is an Ad Hominem fallacy, but it was commited by the
> > > > > audience, not by me.
>
> > > > That sure makes it easy for you to get out of all ad homs.
>
> > > No it doesn't. It only allows me to "get out of" all ad homs that are
> > > "implicit" as you call them, although it doesn't allow me to "get out
> > > of" taking blame for an insult.
>
> > > > How long
> > > > will you refuse to accept the reality of implied meanings?
>
> > > I accept the reality of implied meaning. What I don't accept is that
> > > you have to take blame for logical fallacies you didn't actually
> > > commit.
>
> > If you spend a lot of time conjecturing about someone's purported
> > mental illness *hoping your audience will subconsciously reject his
> > theories, then you can be blamed for an ad hominem fallacy, since that
> > is the means by which the audience came to the conclusion you wanted.
> > You can't prop an anvil above a door and then say the victim committed
> > suicide when he entered the room.
>
> > (snip)
>
> > Eric Root
>
> To my way of thinking both you and Glenn are too attached to the label
> "Ad Hominem," as if something can't be bad unless you can stick that
> label on it.
>
> Of course it's bad to prop an anvil over a door. It's also not nice
> to insult someone. I'm not now nor have I ever argued that just doing
> the insult part of an ad hominem was laudable, all I'm saying is that
> the person who actually draws the fallacious conclusion is the person
> who commited the fallacy.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Inez, you're right. If I insult someone in response to an argument
they make, that's just an ad hominem. Any logical fallacy from that
point is indeed the fault of the audience. If the insult was made by
me, and then I concluded implicitly or explicitly, based on that
insult, that his argument is wrong, then I'm guilty of the fallacy.
It's a perfectly simple thing to me. I'm not sure why Glenn's arguing
with you about it, really.
LT
Glenn
future.
Let me know as soon as I regret something.
Glenn
Glenn
>
> > On Dec 19, 3:19 pm, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 19, 10:02 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 19, 1:46 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > Let's see:
>
> > > > Yes, let's see what you regard as "back up".
>
> > > > In this thread you mischaracterise the nature of the "ad hominem"
> > > > > fallacy and insist on your incorrect version. That's arrogance and
> > > > > ignorance all in one.
>
> > > > You haven't participated at all in either of the recent ad hom
> > > > threads, so there is no way of knowing what you think the "nature" of
> > > > ad hom is, or if you are right.
>
> > > I can read.
> > > You simply insist that your incorrect definition of "ad hom" is
> > > correct.
>
> > Nah, I've argued several issues related to ad homs. Your
> > characterization of "simply insisting" is quite dishonest, and can be
> > applied to anyone who holds his position.
>
> Anyone can check the facts simply by reading your posts on this
> thread, Glenn.
> You have evaded, ignored and snipped without marking contrary
> arguments.
>
used varies. Evasion is not a "fact" anyone can "simply check". It is
an inference that some can make, on evidence ranging from absolutely
none to convincing.
Oh, but I surely did. I provided a *fact* that within the article you
cited as evidence, ID *was* characterized as scientific. Not an
unfounded assertion. And the argument that it is common to not place
"scientific" in front of "theory" when referring to a scientific
theory (not an unfounded assertion or illogical argument) should have
gone a long way in making you reconsider whether your claim was bogus.
Your argument weighs heavily on coincidence, and it appears you still
maintain that claim. You sir are either an outright liar or so stupid
that you don't realize the meaning of what you write.
>
> > You kept "insisting"
> > you were right, and although I may have missed it, you never
> > retracted.
>
> You've provided no reason to retract anything I have writen.
>
> > If you didn't, that's dishonesty. That wasn't something
> > like proving someone "imagines" something, or that something is
> > "awkward".
>
> This isn't a public meeting, Glenn, where you can shout your opponents
> down, misrepresent them and accuse them of things they haven't said.
> Anyone can check back what you and I have actually written, and can
> see that you are making more empty assertions which are not supported
> by any evidence.
>
Just more empty claims, Richard. Yes, I am aware of the existence of
archives.
>
> > > I claim that creationist sources are systematically dishonest, and
> > > have posted the evidence on which I base this claim many times. No
> > > creationists has bothered to address the evidence.
>
> > There is evidence here that you are dishonest, or ignorant, or stupid,
> > or a combo of all three, at least. I asked you for evidence, you said
> > "Let's see..." and you have only provided more of the same outlandish
> > and unsupported claims.
>
> So you won't address the evidence I have posted on numerous occasions
> for dishonesty in creationist sources.
> All you are doing is making unsupported assertions against me. This is
> of course typical behaviour on your part, as is amply demonstrated
> simply by reading your posts on this thread.
>
Actually I accuse you in context to specific events, such as now, and
support my assertions in real time. And that can be seen in this post.
I don't see where addressing your claims of "dishonesty in creationist
sources" is relevant to your charges against me. But you do wander off
topic at times, if it can be seen that you stay on topic at all, that
is.
>
> > > > Between us, Richard, you are by
> > > > far the more arrogant one, as well as being the one who crows about
> > > > moral superiority.
>
> > > I'm not claiming any moral superiority. Creationists do so on a
> > > regular basis.
>
> > I just made a case, based on your own behavior, and documented, that
> > you do.
>
> I have never made any claim of moral superiority.
Using your own definition of "crow" as it applies to me, you sure
have.
>
> > Nice addition of another claim, and a generalization at that, by the
> > way.
>
> Saying that I have never made a claim of moral superiority is not a
> generalisation.
>
No, but claiming "creationists do" is. Nice try. Or did you just
conveniently miss it because of your stupidity?
>
> > > > Claims that you "despise" dishonesty, an apparent
> > > > desire to expose dishonesty and willingness to go to quite extreme and
> > > > bizarre lengths to do so shows you to be quite arrogant.
>
> > > So why not address the evidence?
>
> > What evidence, you loony toon? You have no evidence, not even any
> > reasoning to make an inference, about your claims against me.
>
> I've posted the evidence on numerous occasions. No creationist has
> ever made any attempt to address the evidence.
> As evidence against you, it's here on this thread as well as on
> numerous others.
>
So you say.
>
> > > > "You imagine"
> > > > and "snipping awkward parts" below are examples of this bizarre
> > > > behavior, especially when they are in response to an apparent
> > > > acceptance to a challenge to provide evidence of your claims.
>
> > > > > There's your silly habit of posting snippets from scientific papers
> > > > > and press releases imagining that they represent some sort of problem
> > > > > for evolutionary theory. That's ignorance.
>
> > > > Sweet! You imagine I imagine, so that is evidence of *my* ignorance?
>
> > > Well why do you post them in that case?
>
> > Asking me isn't evidence, idiot.
>
> I'm not offering it as evidence, though your evasion of the question
> is more evidence of you evasion of awkward questions.
This is a sample of what you just claimed is evidence available in
this thread of my guilt, I suppose.
What you consider evidence should be illuminating to everyone reading.
I'm still waiting for you to provide some evidence.
>
> If you don't post these snippets because you think that they are
> evidence against evolutionary theory, why do you post them?
>
Still waiting for evidence, Richard. This ain't.
>
> > > In most cases they are unremarkable snippets of papers which pose no
> > > problems at all for any aspect of evolutionary theory. I presume that
> > > you don't post them because you think they support evolutionary
> > > theory.
>
> > What you presume isn't evidence, idiot.
>
> It's rather glaringly obvious now that you are evading an awkward
> question, Glenn.
>
It could be obvious to you that Santa is also the Easter Bunny as
well.
>
> > > > > Then there's your habit of misrepresenting what your critics are
> > > > > saying. That's dishonesty.
>
> > > > You aren't doing too well in your "backing up" what you say attempt.
>
> > > You are doing exactly that in this post.
>
> > Are you sure you aren't a juvenile, 15 or 16 or so?
> > A one line claim isn't evidence, idiot.
>
> You've stated that I claim moral superiority.
> I have never done so.
>
You do on occasion provide your reasons for insulting other's, as if
you were morally superior. Those claims are not support or evidence
that you are, but you apparently think there is some reason. You hate
dishonesty, and X is dishonest (so you claim), so that is why you
fight X. That equates to "crowing" "I am better than you."
> > > > I
> > > > believe my understanding of the "nature" of ad hom is mainstream,
>
> > > Well, you haven't bothered to find out what the "mainstream"
> > > definition of the term is in that case.
>
> > I think I have. I cited Wiki in the previous thread.
>
> ..and several posters pointed out that you were misapplying the term
> in the context of that definition.
>
So you admit that I did "bother to find out". Richard, what "several
posters" point out is not evidence that I did misapply the term. It
doesn't evidence that WIKIs definition is correct or mainstream, or
that "mainstream" is correct or even relevant on talk.origins. You're
quite illogical.
>
> > > > an
> > > > argument that tries to discredit the arguer instead of the argument
> > > > itself. My intent in this thread was partly to determine who would
> > > > agree that ad homs can be implicit. Perhaps this is what you meant by
> > > > my being wrong and therefore arrogant and ignorant, yet some posters
> > > > agree with me in this respect. So if you are wrong in your first
> > > > "let's see" claim, then you would be forced by your own measure to
> > > > have misrepresented what I said about ad hom, and dishonest. But
> > > > without knowing that you might think ad hom means a hot dog with sauce
> > > > or something else, it is impossible to determine whether you honestly
> > > > think you are right or not. You would, however.
>
> > > The meaning of an "ad hominem" argument is perfectly clear. Your posts
> > > are simply an attempt to obfusticate and confuse.
>
> > All through this waste of bandwidth, you have elected not to provide
> > your own understanding of ad hom, or make any specific claim as to
> > what is "correct".
> > Empty claims, over and over, and over, and over and over and over
> > again. Your only victory here is to waste my time.
>
> Another pathetically transparent attempt to obfusticate and evade,
> Glenn.
>
You're loony.
>
> > > > > There's also your habit of snipping the awkward parts of the posts to
> > > > > which you are responding. That's more dishonesty.
>
> > > > Loon. I'm responding to this, so you would conclude this isn't
> > > > "awkward"?
>
> > > There are numerous other posts in which you *have* snipped the awkward
> > > parts!
> > > I doubt that even you would be so blatant as to snip the part in which
> > > I give your habit of snipping as evidence for dishonesty!
>
> > You really are serious. You really do think that simply repeating a
> > claim over and over, using exclamation points, shouting and such, will
> > strengthen your claim.
> > Idiot, you need to show that I snip things that are "awkward". If you
> > really were a scientist who was disciplined in the scientific method,
> > you wouldn't be arguing this way. Over and over again, the same old
> > bullshit.
>
> Here is a post by Mark VandeWetteringhttp://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/271d245...
No, you seem to have forgotten that you should be addressing my
challenge of supplying evidence of your claims against me of
dishonesty etal.
Your dishonest misrepresentation of what I responded to. Like you
said, anyone can look up the post. You cited it above.
But most anyone should be able to see the problem here in your own
words. You claim I snipped "awkward questions", yet claim that I
responded to those questions. Yes, Richard. You quoted Mark's post,
then said I responded: "Here is your response". This is another hard
evidence example, Richard. I don't make empty accusations without
evidence as you claim. What I responded to was "Probably because you
are frequently wrong, and always disagreeable." and snipped the rest
of Mark's post. You are quite and regularly dishonest, Richard.
>
> > > > How nice for you to be able to use as evidence your
> > > > assumption that anything I snip is "awkward" to to come to a
> > > > conclusion that I am dishonest. There are many reasons for snipping,
> > > > and it is a common practice.
>
> > > So what?
>
> > You really don't know, do you. It makes your claim just a little more
> > difficult to support.
>
> Anyone can read the posts on this very thread to see you snipping
> awkward questions. The one I've posted above is by no means the only
> instance.
Anyone, huh. Everyone in the whole big scary world, huh. You are truly
a loon. Richard, what you or some other loons may think would be
awkward to me is not necessarily a view shared by me. As I said before
now, and it will soon be "over and over and over" again if I continue
to respond to your "over and over and over" again empty bullshit, the
onus is on you to *evidence* your claim that I snip and do not respond
to what is "awkward" to me. Now personally I think that would be a
*tall* order, a hard row to hoe, but then you appeared willing to
accept the challenge. So far you've kept me amused enough to continue
to prod you into making yourself look foolish and stupid.
>
> > > > Pretending this is evidence of dishonesty
> > > > is quite childish and dishonest. Awk! Awk! Goes the loonie bird.
>
> > > It is dishonest when it is used to evade awkward questions and then
> > > pretend that they have never been asked.
>
> > You don't get to say whether they are awkward to me, Richard. You
> > simply make and repeat your claims over and over and over...
>
> So how about addressing the questions Mark VandeWettering posted?
A question isn't evidence of your claims, Richard.
>
> > I'm not terribly interested in spending useless time on a childish
> > loon, Richard.
>
> As I may have remarked on several occasions previously, why do you
> think that anyone gives a flying fuck what you think?
>
Innuendo isn't evidence of your claims, Richard.
Can't you get any more sneaky than this?
richardal...@googlemail.com
>
>
> Your dishonest misrepresentation of what I responded to.
Oh dear, Glenn.
Let's get this straight:
Here is Mark VandeWettering's post:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/706b44b506fe1aea
Anyone can read it in full to see which questions you have snipped and
evaded. It's a long post, so I won't post it in full.
Here is your response *IN FULL*
"Tha tha tha thats it folks."
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/6aa91deaf2ca689d
What is dishonest about that, Glenn? I have posted you entire
response, have not edited it in any way, and provided a link to both
your post and the post to which it was "responding".
You are not preaching to a bunch of ignorant creationists here whom
you can distract with unfounded assertions of dishonesty. You are
shown to be dishonest by your own words and your own posting history
which anyone can confirm simply by checking back up the thread.
Pathetic.
RF
Glenn
> On Dec 20, 3:56 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:nst me.
>
>
>
> > Your dishonest misrepresentation of what I responded to.
>
> Oh dear, Glenn.
> Let's get this straight:
I already have. You however seem to have a problem with seeing
yourself exposed. But I'll have another go at it:
> Here is Mark VandeWettering's post:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/706b44b506fe1aea
> Anyone can read it in full to see which questions you have snipped and
> evaded. It's a long post, so I won't post it in full.
But you did, or enough of it to create the appearance that I responded
to the parts I snipped. I'll inlcude a pasted portion of your post
below as evidence to show this to be fact.
>
> Here is your response *IN FULL*
Yep, that is all I said.
>
> "Tha tha tha thats it folks."http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/6aa91deaf2ca689d
>
> What is dishonest about that, Glenn? I have posted you entire
> response, have not edited it in any way, and provided a link to both
> your post and the post to which it was "responding".
I have already told you in the post you are replying to above, and in
another post I made just after the first. You dishonestly
misrepresented *what I responded to*.
You don't even address that claim here; instead you appear to think it
meant that I either think Mark's post is hidden from view or that I am
denying what I said.
Yes, anyone *can* see what I responded to and what I snipped. But
readers may, if they don't take the time to look and analyze what is
being said carefully, assume that I responded to the part of Mark's
post that you included in your claim of what I responded to.
>
> You are not preaching to a bunch of ignorant creationists here whom
> you can distract with unfounded assertions of dishonesty. You are
> shown to be dishonest by your own words and your own posting history
> which anyone can confirm simply by checking back up the thread.
>
> Pathetic.
>
Quite pathetic, Richard. Here's the relevant part of your post:
**********************
[...]
> The FAQ author seems not capable of recognizing an ad hominem,
> consistently uses red herrings and faulty reasoning rather than
> address the claim. Or he assumes that Creationists use this argument
> to conclude that "Darwin was wrong", which of course he did.
> Was there an ad hom *anywhere* in this FAQ or the "Claim"?
Mark
Here is your response:
"Tha tha tha thats it folks."
I call this "snipping awkward questions", Glenn.
What do you call it?
************************
Again, I call that deliberate, dishonest misrepresentation of what I
responded to. What I *responded to* was:
"Probably because you are frequently wrong, and always disagreeable."
And as I have already said, anyone can look this up. It's fact, unlike
your supposed "evidence" or "support" which is mostly from your own
imagination, or a rephrased repeat of your own claims.
Again, idiot, this and other stupid things you pull are quite obvious,
dishonest, and you don't bother trying to back your claims up. The
example of your "DI acknowledged" claim is recent and also an
excellent example, which is why I included it in this current waste of
my time with you. You had and have *no* evidence, read *evidence*,
whatsoever for that claim. You certainly show the desire to make it
stick by illogically linking one event to another. You show yourself
to be dishonest. You said I had no contradictory evidence, yet you are
aware that I posted a quote of the same article you used as evidence,
that did refer to ID as a scientific theory. That *is* evidence,
Richard. Unlike your unsupportable imaginings. You wanted the DI to be
seen as admitting that ID isn't scientific, and you want to make me
appear as being dishonest. But you're just full of hot air, a pitiful
example of someone who who likes to make it known that "hates
dishonesty". You're dishonest and your arguments are illogical and
unsupported. You're a *loon*.
richardal...@googlemail.com
You didn't respond to the many points he made and the questions he
asked you.
>
> Again, idiot, this and other stupid things you pull are quite obvious,
> dishonest, and you don't bother trying to back your claims up.
Glenn, you are so transparently wrong that I doubt that even the
creationists are persuaded!
>The
> example of your "DI acknowledged" claim is recent and also an
> excellent example, which is why I included it in this current waste of
> my time with you. You had and have *no* evidence, read *evidence*,
> whatsoever for that claim.
So why has Philip Johnson conceded that there is no scientific theory
of ID, and why did the DI remove the word "scientific" from their
definition if ID "theory"?
> You certainly show the desire to make it
> stick by illogically linking one event to another.
So what's your explanation for the evidence?
Your "explanation" that scientific theories don't in general include
the word "scientific" won't wash, because it does not explain why the
word was removed.
> You show yourself
> to be dishonest. You said I had no contradictory evidence, yet you are
> aware that I posted a quote of the same article you used as evidence,
> that did refer to ID as a scientific theory.
The quote you posted was from an earlier date, when the word
"scientific" was still included!
> That *is* evidence,
> Richard.
Quite so. And now the word has been removed. It's the *only* change to
the definition.
> Unlike your unsupportable imaginings. You wanted the DI to be
> seen as admitting that ID isn't scientific,
I don't need to. There's a court ruling to that effect. If you don't
like it, take it up with the courts.
> and you want to make me
> appear as being dishonest.
You appear dishonest regardless of what I do, Glenn. That's because
you *are* dishonest. I'm not making you dishonest, you chose to be
dishonest.
> But you're just full of hot air, a pitiful
> example of someone who who likes to make it known that "hates
> dishonesty". You're dishonest and your arguments are illogical and
> unsupported. You're a *loon*.
So why not address the numerous instance of misrepresentation,
distortion and outright falsehood I identify on creationist web
sites?
That's evidence.
Of course, I know that you won't because, as you have demonstrated so
amply, you are moral and intellectual coward.
Just a typical, shoddy little creationist.
RF
Glenn
I do not deny snipping parts of posts at times, but that isn't an
indicator of dishonesty or misrepresentation.
>
> > Again, idiot, this and other stupid things you pull are quite obvious,
> > dishonest, and you don't bother trying to back your claims up.
>
> Glenn, you are so transparently wrong that I doubt that even the
> creationists are persuaded!
The *evidence*, hard facts, are here in this very thread, that I am
right about you.
>
> >The
> > example of your "DI acknowledged" claim is recent and also an
> > excellent example, which is why I included it in this current waste of
> > my time with you. You had and have *no* evidence, read *evidence*,
> > whatsoever for that claim.
>
> So why has Philip Johnson conceded that there is no scientific theory
> of ID, and why did the DI remove the word "scientific" from their
> definition if ID "theory"?
There is a good chance that you really believe this question
constitutes "evidence". You do repeat yourself over and over. Maybe
you think that if you make a claim often enough, someone will believe
it. I'm still waiting for *evidence*, Richard. Your imagining that
"removal" of a word has some meaning, especially some confession of
the DI, is not in any way a *reason* to claim that the "DI
acknowledges that ID is not a scientific theory". You are a *loon*,
Richard.
>
> > You certainly show the desire to make it
> > stick by illogically linking one event to another.
>
> So what's your explanation for the evidence?
> Your "explanation" that scientific theories don't in general include
> the word "scientific" won't wash, because it does not explain why the
> word was removed.
Richard, there *is no* evidence in the revised article not including
the word "scientific" in one place and including it in another. That
you can not find another explanation is *not evidence* either, except
in this case of your loonyness.
>
> > You show yourself
> > to be dishonest. You said I had no contradictory evidence, yet you are
> > aware that I posted a quote of the same article you used as evidence,
> > that did refer to ID as a scientific theory.
>
> The quote you posted was from an earlier date, when the word
> "scientific" was still included!
Goody. I have no reason to argue or try to rationalize with you any
further on this issue, Richard. You have nothing here on the DI, and
were you not completely bonkers you would have realized it long ago
and admitted to a serious mistake in judgement, by making the claim in
the first place.
>
> > That *is* evidence,
> > Richard.
>
> Quite so. And now the word has been removed. It's the *only* change to
> the definition.
No, the word "scientific", that your "quite so" appears to
acknowledge, has not been removed. It exists in the article, and is
"quite so" evidence that the DI regards ID as scientific. Where the
word existed in another section of the article in a previous version
and is now absent, is *not* evidence of anything.
>
> > Unlike your unsupportable imaginings. You wanted the DI to be
> > seen as admitting that ID isn't scientific,
>
> I don't need to. There's a court ruling to that effect. If you don't
> like it, take it up with the courts.
You are really one dishonest bugger. No court has ruled that the DI
has admitted ID isn't scientific. Your juvenile rhetoric is hilarious
at times, though.
>
> > and you want to make me
> > appear as being dishonest.
>
> You appear dishonest regardless of what I do, Glenn. That's because
> you *are* dishonest. I'm not making you dishonest, you chose to be
> dishonest.
Well that is what you are supposed to be showing, Richard. It has
turned out so far to be glaring indictments into your own character.
>
> > But you're just full of hot air, a pitiful
> > example of someone who who likes to make it known that "hates
> > dishonesty". You're dishonest and your arguments are illogical and
> > unsupported. You're a *loon*.
>
> So why not address the numerous instance of misrepresentation,
> distortion and outright falsehood I identify on creationist web
> sites?
>
> That's evidence.
Now you would like to change the subject. The subjects I have chosen
have done nicely to show your misrepresentation, distortion and lies,
however.
Richard, even if half of the rest of the world were creationists and
all misrepresenting, lying loons, that would not get you off the hook
of being one yourself.
Your "addressings" are evidence, but of what is irrelevant here. It
would definitely *not* be evidence of your claims against me.
Dishonest people often can't help themselves, and it appears right
here to be an example of that with respect to your behavior. I've been
asking for evidence from you in these exchanges between you and I in
this thread, and have repeatedly reminded you that your responses have
not included evidence. Now you pop up and say "that's evidence". Yes,
but evidence of anything relative to your claims against me? Not at
all.
>
> Of course, I know that you won't because, as you have demonstrated so
> amply, you are moral and intellectual coward.
This is just one more of your many devious methods to discredit me,
with absolutely no evidence, and faulty reasoning to boot. I won't
allow the subject to be subverted by you. You made certain claims
against me. "insults", which you can not show to be true, and your
attempts have included the very behaviors that you accuse me of.
Staying on the specific topic at hand does not mean that I am a
coward. To make the claim that you just did actually does demonstrate
that you are dishonest, or very stupid, or both. You have no reason to
claim that you "know" I won't; the claim is just a childish attempt to
illicit some response for some reason. You've done about everything
but throw in the kitchen sink, *and* provide evidence for your claims
against me, or for the DI having "acknowledged" ID isn't scientific,
or that snipping is "evading", or that posting an article is
"imagining", or... and on and on and on.
>
> Just a typical, shoddy little creationist.
>
You are such a child, Richard.
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Dec 21, 3:08 pm, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> is argument
> > > > to conclude that "Darwin was wrong", which of course he did.
> > > > Was there an ad hom *anywhere* in this FAQ or the "Claim"?
>
> > > Mark
> > > Here is your response:
> > > "Tha tha tha thats it folks."
>
> > > I call this "snipping awkward questions", Glenn.
> > > What do you call it?
> > > ************************
>
> > > Again, I call that deliberate, dishonest misrepresentation of what I
> > > responded to. What I *responded to* was:
>
> > > "Probably because you are frequently wrong, and always disagreeable."
>
> > > And as I have already said, anyone can look this up. It's fact, unlike
> > > your supposed "evidence" or "support" which is mostly from your own
> > > imagination, or a rephrased repeat of your own claims.
>
> > You didn't respond to the many points he made and the questions he
> > asked you.
>
> I'm still waiting for some evidence of your claims against me, idiot.
> I do not deny snipping parts of posts at times, but that isn't an
> indicator of dishonesty or misrepresentation.
>
It is when you then claim to have addressed the issues raised there.
>
>
> > > Again, idiot, this and other stupid things you pull are quite obvious,
> > > dishonest, and you don't bother trying to back your claims up.
>
> > Glenn, you are so transparently wrong that I doubt that even the
> > creationists are persuaded!
>
> The *evidence*, hard facts, are here in this very thread, that I am
> right about you.
>
I doubt that anyone other than you thinks so.
>
>
> > >The
> > > example of your "DI acknowledged" claim is recent and also an
> > > excellent example, which is why I included it in this current waste of
> > > my time with you. You had and have *no* evidence, read *evidence*,
> > > whatsoever for that claim.
>
> > So why has Philip Johnson conceded that there is no scientific theory
> > of ID, and why did the DI remove the word "scientific" from their
> > definition if ID "theory"?
>
> There is a good chance that you really believe this question
> constitutes "evidence". You do repeat yourself over and over. Maybe
> you think that if you make a claim often enough, someone will believe
> it. I'm still waiting for *evidence*, Richard. Your imagining that
> "removal" of a word has some meaning, especially some confession of
> the DI, is not in any way a *reason* to claim that the "DI
> acknowledges that ID is not a scientific theory". You are a *loon*,
> Richard.
Evasion of question noted.
Why is this, Glenn?
Don't you have anything to offer other than empty rhetoric?
>
>
>
> > > You certainly show the desire to make it
> > > stick by illogically linking one event to another.
>
> > So what's your explanation for the evidence?
> > Your "explanation" that scientific theories don't in general include
> > the word "scientific" won't wash, because it does not explain why the
> > word was removed.
>
> Richard, there *is no* evidence in the revised article not including
> the word "scientific" in one place and including it in another. That
> you can not find another explanation is *not evidence* either, except
> in this case of your loonyness.
>
However, the fact that you are unable to offer any alternative
explanation is rather revealing, isn't it?
>
>
> > > You show yourself
> > > to be dishonest. You said I had no contradictory evidence, yet you are
> > > aware that I posted a quote of the same article you used as evidence,
> > > that did refer to ID as a scientific theory.
>
> > The quote you posted was from an earlier date, when the word
> > "scientific" was still included!
>
> Goody. I have no reason to argue or try to rationalize with you any
> further on this issue, Richard. You have nothing here on the DI, and
> were you not completely bonkers you would have realized it long ago
> and admitted to a serious mistake in judgement, by making the claim in
> the first place.
>
Further evasion noted.
Do you think that resorting to silly insults when you have no answer
to a question works when anyone who wishes to can read the thread is
an effective form of argument?
>
>
> > > That *is* evidence,
> > > Richard.
>
> > Quite so. And now the word has been removed. It's the *only* change to
> > the definition.
>
> No, the word "scientific", that your "quite so" appears to
> acknowledge, has not been removed. It exists in the article, and is
> "quite so" evidence that the DI regards ID as scientific. Where the
> word existed in another section of the article in a previous version
> and is now absent, is *not* evidence of anything.
>
It has been removed from the definition.
Why do you think that is, Glenn?
Or is the word "think" an insult in your little world?
>
>
> > > Unlike your unsupportable imaginings. You wanted the DI to be
> > > seen as admitting that ID isn't scientific,
>
> > I don't need to. There's a court ruling to that effect. If you don't
> > like it, take it up with the courts.
>
> You are really one dishonest bugger. No court has ruled that the DI
> has admitted ID isn't scientific. Your juvenile rhetoric is hilarious
> at times, though.
The courts have ruled that ID is not science, and Michael Behe, one of
the most prominent proponents of ID conceded under oath that ID has no
more claim to scientific status than does astrology.
>
>
>
> > > and you want to make me
> > > appear as being dishonest.
>
> > You appear dishonest regardless of what I do, Glenn. That's because
> > you *are* dishonest. I'm not making you dishonest, you chose to be
> > dishonest.
>
> Well that is what you are supposed to be showing, Richard. It has
> turned out so far to be glaring indictments into your own character.
I doubt that anyone other than you thinks so, Glenn.
>
>
>
> > > But you're just full of hot air, a pitiful
> > > example of someone who who likes to make it known that "hates
> > > dishonesty". You're dishonest and your arguments are illogical and
> > > unsupported. You're a *loon*.
>
> > So why not address the numerous instance of misrepresentation,
> > distortion and outright falsehood I identify on creationist web
> > sites?
>
> > That's evidence.
>
> Now you would like to change the subject. The subjects I have chosen
> have done nicely to show your misrepresentation, distortion and lies,
> however.
> Richard, even if half of the rest of the world were creationists and
> all misrepresenting, lying loons, that would not get you off the hook
> of being one yourself.
> Your "addressings" are evidence, but of what is irrelevant here. It
> would definitely *not* be evidence of your claims against me.
> Dishonest people often can't help themselves, and it appears right
> here to be an example of that with respect to your behavior. I've been
> asking for evidence from you in these exchanges between you and I in
> this thread, and have repeatedly reminded you that your responses have
> not included evidence. Now you pop up and say "that's evidence". Yes,
> but evidence of anything relative to your claims against me? Not at
> all.
>
Further evasion noted.
>
>
> > Of course, I know that you won't because, as you have demonstrated so
> > amply, you are moral and intellectual coward.
>
> This is just one more of your many devious methods to discredit me,
> with absolutely no evidence, and faulty reasoning to boot. I won't
> allow the subject to be subverted by you. You made certain claims
> against me. "insults", which you can not show to be true, and your
> attempts have included the very behaviors that you accuse me of.
> Staying on the specific topic at hand does not mean that I am a
> coward. To make the claim that you just did actually does demonstrate
> that you are dishonest, or very stupid, or both. You have no reason to
> claim that you "know" I won't; the claim is just a childish attempt to
> illicit some response for some reason. You've done about everything
> but throw in the kitchen sink, *and* provide evidence for your claims
> against me, or for the DI having "acknowledged" ID isn't scientific,
> or that snipping is "evading", or that posting an article is
> "imagining", or... and on and on and on.
>
> > Just a typical, shoddy little creationist.
>
> You are such a child, Richard.
Further evasion noted.
RF
hhya...@gmail.com
We don't even have to analyze the whole episode of your argument with
Richard..
By being a creationist, you have put yourself in the position of
"selling" yourself to fictitious character "ID"; that is, you never
allow yourself to be convinced of truth but embraced the concept
anyway, as if there are scientific basis?
This is really dishonest, since you are propagating the falsehood
repeatedly.
While you are at "evidence", what evidence you accept in solid sense
(need not experienced) in concluding an ID?
Or are you going to run or avoid?
Just throw it out and we here can accept valid reasons and basis.
Afterall, we are more honest and sensible than you.
Glenn
> On Dec 21, 11:02 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 21, 3:08 pm, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > is argument
> > > > > to conclude that "Darwin was wrong", which of course he did.
> > > > > Was there an ad hom *anywhere* in this FAQ or the "Claim"?
>
> > > > Mark
> > > > Here is your response:
> > > > "Tha tha tha thats it folks."
>
> > > > I call this "snipping awkward questions", Glenn.
> > > > What do you call it?
> > > > ************************
>
> > > > Again, I call that deliberate, dishonest misrepresentation of what I
> > > > responded to. What I *responded to* was:
>
> > > > "Probably because you are frequently wrong, and always disagreeable."
>
> > > > And as I have already said, anyone can look this up. It's fact, unlike
> > > > your supposed "evidence" or "support" which is mostly from your own
> > > > imagination, or a rephrased repeat of your own claims.
>
> > > You didn't respond to the many points he made and the questions he
> > > asked you.
>
> > I'm still waiting for some evidence of your claims against me, idiot.
> > I do not deny snipping parts of posts at times, but that isn't an
> > indicator of dishonesty or misrepresentation.
>
> It is when you then claim to have addressed the issues raised there.
>
haven't. You have tried to create the impression that I did, placing
my response at the end of your copy and paste of Mark's post and now
with this claim. That's quite dishonest behavior, Richard. And there
is more of the same below.
>
snip
> > > >The
> > > > example of your "DI acknowledged" claim is recent and also an
> > > > excellent example, which is why I included it in this current waste of
> > > > my time with you. You had and have *no* evidence, read *evidence*,
> > > > whatsoever for that claim.
>
> > > So why has Philip Johnson conceded that there is no scientific theory
> > > of ID, and why did the DI remove the word "scientific" from their
> > > definition if ID "theory"?
>
> > There is a good chance that you really believe this question
> > constitutes "evidence". You do repeat yourself over and over. Maybe
> > you think that if you make a claim often enough, someone will believe
> > it. I'm still waiting for *evidence*, Richard. Your imagining that
> > "removal" of a word has some meaning, especially some confession of
> > the DI, is not in any way a *reason* to claim that the "DI
> > acknowledges that ID is not a scientific theory". You are a *loon*,
> > Richard.
>
> Evasion of question noted.
> Why is this, Glenn?
> Don't you have anything to offer other than empty rhetoric?
>
are in response to a challenge. But as you wish. Even had Philip
Johnson "conceded" that ID is not scientific (which I have not seen
him do), does not support your claim that "the DI" has acknowledged
that ID is not scientific. Looking up recent articles on Johnson finds
this from 7Apr2007:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/defense-id.html
"Q: Is intelligent design a science? Johnson: I think so."
Your questioning why the DI article would have edited a word from an
article does not constitute evidence either, that the DI acknowledged
that ID isn't scientific.
Surely you aren't so dense not to realize this. I can only conclude
that you are intentionally attempting to obfuscate, misdirect,
misrepresent and deceive.
>
> > > > You certainly show the desire to make it
> > > > stick by illogically linking one event to another.
>
> > > So what's your explanation for the evidence?
> > > Your "explanation" that scientific theories don't in general include
> > > the word "scientific" won't wash, because it does not explain why the
> > > word was removed.
>
> > Richard, there *is no* evidence in the revised article not including
> > the word "scientific" in one place and including it in another. That
> > you can not find another explanation is *not evidence* either, except
> > in this case of your loonyness.
>
> However, the fact that you are unable to offer any alternative
> explanation is rather revealing, isn't it?
>
I never said that I was unable to offer any alternative explanation,
Richard. That you would claim that I am unable is rather revealing.
And that you claim I haven't is an outright lie. I've already
explained that it is common not to put "scientific" in front of
"theory" when referring to a scientific theory, or a theory that
proponents regard as scientific. And I've quoted from that same
article where "the DI" *does* identify ID as scientific. I've told you
that there could be many reasons why the article was edited and why
the word was dropped. Your argument is stupid, illogical, unreasoned,
dishonest and deceptive.
>
snip
>
> > > > Unlike your unsupportable imaginings. You wanted the DI to be
> > > > seen as admitting that ID isn't scientific,
>
> > > I don't need to. There's a court ruling to that effect. If you don't
> > > like it, take it up with the courts.
>
> > You are really one dishonest bugger. No court has ruled that the DI
> > has admitted ID isn't scientific. Your juvenile rhetoric is hilarious
> > at times, though.
>
> The courts have ruled that ID is not science, and Michael Behe, one of
> the most prominent proponents of ID conceded under oath that ID has no
> more claim to scientific status than does astrology.
>
Which could likely lead a reader to assume that Behe is admitting that
astrology isn't scientific, so ID isn't either. That's dishonest,
deceptive, misrepresentation, Richard. But above that, your whole
response is dishonest. I said that no court has ruled that "the DI has
admitted ID isn't scientific". Even assuming your claim that "the
courts" have ruled that "ID is not science", is not evidence that the
DI has "ruled" such, or that the DI has "admitted" or "acknowledged"
that ID isn't science.
In addition, Behe is not "the DI", so whether he has or has not
"admitted" or "acknowledged" anything does not evidence that *the DI*
has done the same.
>
snip the rest of your silly but hilarious "evasion noted" juvenile
antics.
You really don't get it. You're a fool, Richard. A real court jester.
My personal recent favorite is in the "Kenneth Miller's Interview with
NOVA Options" thread where you made the claim that the DI
"acknowledged" ID was not scientific, and you used a quote from my
first link I offered in response to that claim http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php
where the word "scientific" was omitted, and ended up claiming "This
is what is called "an unfounded assertion".
HILARIOUS!
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d890833e48b7c795
Yet in that DI article is also found:
"...working on the scientific theory known as intelligent design."
"...the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic.."
"Peer-Reviewed and Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting ID"
"...such as the scientific theory of intelligent design."
"The scientific theory of intelligent design holds that certain..."
"...discussing the scientific theory of design in the classroom."
HILARIOUS! But your accusations regarding my response, "Tha tha that's
all Folks" to Mark's remark in this thread "More Ad Hom"is also quite
funny, running a close second.
richardal...@googlemail.com
I was pointing out that you have a habit of snipping awkward questions
from posts, and gave this as an example of your doing so.
>You have tried to create the impression that I did, placing
> my response at the end of your copy and paste of Mark's post and now
> with this claim. That's quite dishonest behavior, Richard. And there
> is more of the same below.
All I posted was Mark's post and your response. You snipped his post
and made an infantile response.
No, I said *conceded*.
Do you understand what "conceded" means?
>
> Your questioning why the DI article would have edited a word from an
> article does not constitute evidence either, that the DI acknowledged
> that ID isn't scientific.
Well, what is your explanation?
>
> Surely you aren't so dense not to realize this. I can only conclude
> that you are intentionally attempting to obfuscate, misdirect,
> misrepresent and deceive.
Oh, I'll leave that to you, Glenn. You are providing an excellent
example now.
Why do *you* think that the DI removed the word "scientific" from
their definition of their "theory"?
>
> > > > > You certainly show the desire to make it
> > > > > stick by illogically linking one event to another.
>
> > > > So what's your explanation for the evidence?
> > > > Your "explanation" that scientific theories don't in general include
> > > > the word "scientific" won't wash, because it does not explain why the
> > > > word was removed.
>
> > > Richard, there *is no* evidence in the revised article not including
> > > the word "scientific" in one place and including it in another. That
> > > you can not find another explanation is *not evidence* either, except
> > > in this case of your loonyness.
>
> > However, the fact that you are unable to offer any alternative
> > explanation is rather revealing, isn't it?
>
> I never said that I was unable to offer any alternative explanation,
> Richard.
I never said you did! I merely pointed out that you haven't.
> That you would claim that I am unable is rather revealing.
> And that you claim I haven't is an outright lie. I've already
> explained that it is common not to put "scientific" in front of
> "theory" when referring to a scientific theory, or a theory that
> proponents regard as scientific. And I've quoted from that same
> article where "the DI" *does* identify ID as scientific. I've told you
> that there could be many reasons why the article was edited and why
> the word was dropped. Your argument is stupid, illogical, unreasoned,
> dishonest and deceptive.
That doesn't explain why the word was removed.
>
>
>
> snip
>
> > > > > Unlike your unsupportable imaginings. You wanted the DI to be
> > > > > seen as admitting that ID isn't scientific,
>
> > > > I don't need to. There's a court ruling to that effect. If you don't
> > > > like it, take it up with the courts.
>
> > > You are really one dishonest bugger. No court has ruled that the DI
> > > has admitted ID isn't scientific. Your juvenile rhetoric is hilarious
> > > at times, though.
>
> > The courts have ruled that ID is not science, and Michael Behe, one of
> > the most prominent proponents of ID conceded under oath that ID has no
> > more claim to scientific status than does astrology.
>
> Which could likely lead a reader to assume that Behe is admitting that
> astrology isn't scientific, so ID isn't either.
Do *you* think that astrology is scientific?
> That's dishonest,
> deceptive, misrepresentation, Richard.
Well, the judge in the case thought that it meant that ID is not
science. Do you think that Judge Jones is dishonest?
> But above that, your whole
> response is dishonest. I said that no court has ruled that "the DI has
> admitted ID isn't scientific".
No, but Behe conceded that it is not scientific when he equated its
status to that of astrology. Do you understand what the word "concede"
means?
> Even assuming your claim that "the
> courts" have ruled that "ID is not science", is not evidence that the
> DI has "ruled" such, or that the DI has "admitted" or "acknowledged"
> that ID isn't science.
Do you understand what the word "concede" means?
> In addition, Behe is not "the DI", so whether he has or has not
> "admitted" or "acknowledged" anything does not evidence that *the DI*
> has done the same.
However, he was the representative of the DI in the Dover trial, and
is both a fellow of the DI and one of IDs leading proponents.
>
> snip the rest of your silly but hilarious "evasion noted" juvenile
> antics.
>
> You really don't get it. You're a fool, Richard. A real court jester.
> My personal recent favorite is in the "Kenneth Miller's Interview with
> NOVA Options" thread where you made the claim that the DI
> "acknowledged" ID was not scientific, and you used a quote from my
> first link I offered in response to that claimhttp://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php
> where the word "scientific" was omitted, and ended up claiming "This
> is what is called "an unfounded assertion".
> HILARIOUS!
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d890833e48b7c795
>
> Yet in that DI article is also found:
>
> "...working on the scientific theory known as intelligent design."
> "...the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic.."
> "Peer-Reviewed and Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting ID"
> "...such as the scientific theory of intelligent design."
> "The scientific theory of intelligent design holds that certain..."
> "...discussing the scientific theory of design in the classroom."
So what?
You still have not given a reason why they should have removed the
word "scientific" from their definition.
Oh, and by the way: this is not a forum on which you can win arguments
by shouting down or ridiculing your opponents. Trying to do so in your
posts merely makes you look rather desperate, evasive and dishonest.
Still, why should I care? The more you post, the more you expose the
intellectual and moral vacuum of creationism. So keep digging.
>
> HILARIOUS! But your accusations regarding my response, "Tha tha that's
> all Folks" to Mark's remark in this thread "More Ad Hom"is also quite
> funny, running a close second.
So why did you not respond to the perfectly valid questions Mark
asked?
This from the person accusing others of childishness!
RF
Mark VandeWettering
In the trial, clearly the prosecution was trying to show that Behe, despite
his claimed reputation as a biologist, perhaps isn't the greatest judge of
what is and is not science. His answer clearly shows that he isn't, because
by his measure, astrology would have to be classified as a science.
This does not show that ID isn't science, but certainly it casts appropriate
doubt upon Behe's ability to discern what is and is not. The court obviously
discounted his testimony claiming that ID was science, and made their ruling
on the basis of other testimony in the case.
> But above that, your whole response is dishonest. I said that no
> court has ruled that "the DI has admitted ID isn't scientific". Even
> assuming your claim that "the courts" have ruled that "ID is not
> science", is not evidence that the DI has "ruled" such, or that the DI
> has "admitted" or "acknowledged" that ID isn't science.
Well, certainly the courts have found that ID is not science. Behe
claimed that ID is science, but only using a relaxed definition of science
that means you'd have to include astrology as science. This is an implicit
admission that by the _ordinary_ definition of science, that ID is not
science. It is true, as you will no doubt whine below that Behe does not
speak for the DI. I'll grant you that point as valid, although it does
not really address why the DI might delete the word "scientific" from their
material as they apparently have.
Glenn, you are frequently wrong, and always disagreeable.
Mark