RationalWiki:What is going on at ASK?/April 2009
April 2009[edit]
|
|
6 |
PJR accuses Dinsdale of constructing a straw man. In other news, Evolutionists think people in the past were less intelligent, natural selection is all of evolution, and Hitler was an orthodox Evolutionist. |
|
|
3 |
This cannot end well. Update Page deleted, but some content still remains. |
|
|
5 |
PJR decides that taking the Bible literally[1] is parody[2]. |
|
|
12 |
We don't expect a massive, catastrophic flood to lay down a nice, neat layer of sediment. We expect it to lay down multiple nice, neat layers, in exactly the way that floods don't. |
|
|
5 |
Sure, Phil. Because MOAR QUOTES is always the best way to be convincing when you're talking science. |
|
|
3 |
If you ignore the fact that my assertion was false and the rest of my argument has no factual support, I'm totally right. |
|
|
11 |
Evolution doesn't say anything about morality, but destroys it anyway, allowing, nay encouraging, murder and all sorts of awful things. Which is why scientists (atheists all!) have been well known for going on rampages of rape and murder since Darwin's day. |
|
|
7 |
Crystal skulls might be proven fakes, but Bradley really wants to believe! |
|
|
5 |
MOAR HITLER!!!! We can trust this Keith guy, after all he was right about Piltdown Man, wasn't he? |
|
|
4 |
Bradley attempts to support Noah's Ark by citing...Neanderthals!? |
|
|
3 |
PJR has reached the 9th dan of creationism, quote mining on the fly. |
|
|
5 |
The Information Circus continues, as PJR tells us evolutionary biologists avoid the subject because "they're not information specialists. Ironically, PJR embraces the subject for exactly the same reason. |
|
|
4 |
Here come the catchphrases! Bradley channels his inner Schlafly (and still doesn't understand burden of proof). |
|
|
3 |
Awesome, Phil! Does this mean now you'll stop bitching about how evolution hasn't been directly observed? |
|
|
3 |
Cripes, do you guys ever get tired of trying to push Phil into backing up his arguments? |
|
|
6 |
Even CPalmer has questions about information. |
|
|
5 |
Sure, I run a site devoted to Biblical Inerrancy. But it's not my job to define it or anything! |
|
|
5 |
And now, class, we will observe the evolution of the man made of straw. |
|
|
8 |
Can you imagine Andy ever saying anything like this? PJR may not be perfect, but this is still a quantum leap up from Schlafly style debating... |
|
|
19 |
Attention! Attention! Ken DeMyer would like to register his disapproval! Update What are you waiting for, you slugs! Your superior commands you to remove this immediately and have the offender flogged! |
|
|
2 |
I already said it was obvious as 2+2=4, what the hell else do you want? |
|
|
4 |
Did CP sysop AddisonDM introduce deliberate mistakes into the Conservapedian userbox? Philip hopes not! |
|
|
7 |
Wait, what? Documents dating back to Adam? So Noah happened to have these already-ancient documents on his person when he boarded the ark? WTF? |
|
|
4 |
Did you know buildings are very good at running away, and people who can fashion gold know nothing of shovels? It's a fact! |
|
|
13 |
PJR: "I'm not the one who claims to read the Bible literally..." O RLY? |
|
|
6 |
Biblical literalism: The world's biggest game of Simon Says. |
|
|
15 |
PJR deals with Biblical contradictions. Question: "All of Cain's descendants perished in the Flood. Why does the Bible say some of his descendants are still alive today?" PJR's answer: "They were Cain's descendants." |
|
|
-4 |
|
|
5 |
"For one thing, creationists do not say that there are "no beneficial mutations". Somebody forgot to give this guy the memo when the official Creationist position changed in response to scientific evidence. |
|
|
9 |
He's gone and said it. The whole point of "evolutionism" is to oppose God by not testing for supernatural explanations. Just like all other science. They're not anti-science, though. |
|
|
-1 |
This scholarly contribution merits a block with threats of longer |
|
|
7 |
I can't get my way, and haven't backed up my argument, therefore we should lock the page and refer it to an anonymous group for arbitration. But we're not like CP! |
|
|
8 |
ASK's latest tempest in a teapot. |
|
|
4 |
PJR opens the floodgates, so to speak, suggesting that the world spent a year (give or take) with massive displacements of the crust itself, titanic crushing waters that scoured the very earth itself, and rain on an inconceivable scale, and somehow in the midst of this incredible carnage a hand-made, unmanageably huge wooden vessel with an untrained, skeleton crew and stuffed to the gills with animals and provisions, somehow managed to survive intact. Very realistic, of course. |
|
|
13 |
Ken, er, "Ruylopez" give us a sneak peak at future operations! Books! Videos! Public engagements! Skewer the scared cow! |
|
|
7 |
LowKey: Hinduism isn't the oldest religion, because of course there's only one religion that's antediluvian in origin. |
|
|
8 |
PJR, who knows more about information theory than anyone, teaches us that because you can use a book as an analogy for genetics, genetics can only work like a book. |
|
|
4 |
Philip's Rules of Logic: First, assume I am right... |
|
|
4 |
BradleyF demonstrates he doesn't understand burden of proof, at great length. |
|
|
6 |
If someone of questionable reliability told you a magic man was making a bunch of wild, unrealistic promises that a four-year-old would blush at, and you bought into it, is that faith based on evidence or believing in Santa Claus? |
|
|
9 |
My goodness, what will PJR do when confronted with someone who's not cowed by his use of "information" as a scare word? Let's watch. |
|
|
5 |
PJR says, "fiction masquerading as truth always offends me." But you...your whole site...great flood...information...NGAH! |
|
|
2 |
I refute your refutations of refutations! Yeah? Well, I refute your refutations of refutations of refutations! Well, then, I refute your refutations of refutations of refutations! Moar to come, as this discussion gets waaaaaaaaay out of hand! |
|
|
8 |
Per leading Creationists I don't use terms that can be understood and refuted (and often are), but instead terms that don't have a fixed meaning, so I can change them to dodge whatever rebuttal comes my way. |
|
|
8 |
No rainbows before the Flood? That would be ridiculous. Yes indeed, it sure would. |
|
|
12 |
AddisonDM on ASchlafly's SES application: "frankly, it's not as ridiculous a project as RW likes to claim." Laugh track in 3... 2... |
|
|
3 |
Since koalas aren't really "bears", then maybe they didn't come from a proto-bear baramin. Didn't I tell you we were making this sh*t up as we went? |
|
|
4 |
How does all this baramin stuff work? Well sh*t man, we're just making it up as we go. |
|
|
11 |
Anti-science at aSK, courtesy of PJR: ID is a scientific theory, and Dawkins doesn't like it for religious reasons. ID doesn't get a chance because scientists disagree with it for religious reasons. The "Wedge Strategy" doesn't prove ID is religious. "Global Flood" points fossils toward ID. I propose aSK be "anti-Science Knowledge." |
|
|
-16 |
People will miss out on art, television, agriculture, biology, philosophy, entertainment and more. |
|
|
14 |
Criticizing an idea you don't understand is a bad thing. Therefore, PJR will stop talking about evolution aaaaany time now. |
|
|
5 |
Pointing you at material supporting ID is not my department, even though that's sorta the point of the whole wiki. |
|
|
15 |
Welcome to Bizarro World, where an organism adapting to better survive in a hostile environment, and in the process becoming less able to compete with other varieties in their enviroments, is evidence against evolution. |
|
|
5 |
Fall down gets his first block at aSK. Update: In LowKey's evaluation, only one of these edits is vandalism; the other one is "sensible." |