RationalWiki:What is going on at ASK?/July 2009

-2

PJR: "Project Steve demonstrated that evolutionists are happy to use an argument ad populum to disprove a non-existent argument ad populum by opponents of evolution!" Really, Phil? These don't exist?

3

"Evolution is not controversial", "Sorry, but you're in denial", "No, Philip, it is you in denial", "no I aint!", "Surely then creationism is controversial"...... "Damn you evilutionists!"

0

Jokes aside, this is a smear job, beginning to end, worthy of Ken. Stay classy, PJR.

1

CMI said it, I believe it, that settles it.

3

Intellectual honesty at work.

-3

PJR, for some reason, has to ask why it is correct to refer to fundamentalists as being against gay marriage.

0

The evidence is here! The evidence is...uh...oh, you wanted convincing evidence, didn't you?

-2

Almost there, Philip. Let's see, if uniformitarian science is "anti-biblical", and Christians who aren't YEC nutters are (mis)reading the Bible, how long before people who don't agree with you stop being real Christians?

-3

The circular definition goes round and round. Everybody sing!

1

PJR in his own words: "I question [radiometric dating methods] because they're questionable! And because they contradict the biblical account."

-3

PJR: Uniformitarianism is a pile of bunk, except, of course, when it is used to argue for God's existence, at which point it becomes uncontroversial and any questioning of it becomes totally speculative.

-4

Ken reaches a new level of idiocy, admitting that he can't even tell if the organization the "noted Swedish geneticist" Nils Heribert Nilsson was "director" of even existed.

11

PJR almost goes Jack Chick: Ancient Chinese astronomy was based upon the teachings of the Jesuits. Really good time-travelers, those Jesuits, being able to influence astronomy 3,000-plus years before their order was made...

-6

PJR, ignoring everything Darwin said about natural selection, is trying to make a point with matches.

-5

Ken: "Ace, please do not expect me to reply to your ravings. It was no surprise that you did not show one single example of me engaging in deception/lying." No surprise, certainly, given that the "ravings" were a complaint that Ken deep-burns the examples...

-1

PJR: Science depends on monotheism, therefore Greek science never went anywhere. Obviously Callippus and Euclid were just spinning their wheels on the fast road to hELL...

4

PJR has his own take on what constitutes "reasoned argument": When a columnist writes a satiric column in favor of gay marriage, that's unreasoned mud-slinging. When Paul Cameron puts out pamphlets alleging that gays are all child-molesters who intentionally spread AIDS, well, that's reasoned argument.

-5

Oh my goodness Phil, no one is going to read all this.

0

Ruylopez/Conservative/Newton/Ken can stop Gentlemenning ANY time he wants to. He just does it to take the edge off, right?

-3

I don't understand Haldane's Dilemma all that well. I admit I don't understand Haldane's Dilemma all that well. Therefore, I can criticize your understanding of Haldane's Dilemma.

-3

Ken: If you're a true believer and you say being gay is A-OK, the Holy Spirit will tap you on the shoulder.

2

PJR: Creationists don't deliberately conceal things to dupe scientists; they deliberately don't reveal things so as not to prejudice scientists.