User talk:Newton/Archive3

Tabula Rosa[edit]

How's the 'ol legal case going?-αmεσ (!) 21:25, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Just checking in, again. Any news?-αmεσ (!) 16:36, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

Goat[edit]

Would you like to buy a goat, maybe? Very nice goat. --Kels 21:28, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Anyone ever play Final Fantasy XI? <<Goat>> <<You can have this>>-αmεσ (!) 21:32, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Isn't that the massively multi player one? tmtoulouse ^beleaguer 21:34, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

I never played XI, mostly because I don't really care for MMORPGs all that much. I am replaying Final Fantasy VI, though. Go Edgar with chainsaw! --Kels 21:36, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

I have been enjoying the re-releases on gamboy advance of older ones. The last "new" one I played was X2. tmtoulouse ^beleaguer 21:37, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

More Evolutionist tricks[edit]

Fact Checking 101 How Skeptic magazine was Duped by an Environmental Activist Group by Michael Shermer

This is an interesting on how the Satanic hordes attempt to censor:

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-01-17.html

Amusing you'd get all outraged about that, since they were getting outraged that Creationist propaganda was allegedly being forced upon the Grand Canyon staff.... --Gulik 23:58, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Way to game the system, Newton[edit]

Nice work, finding the one place on RW the honest people here won't refute your sorry misquotes. --Gulik 00:01, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

Your comment on Ed's talk page[edit]

I already mentioned this on the "What's going on?" page, but thanks for making an effort against mindless (and undisclosed) copy-pasting on CP. It's possible (and maybe even likely) that you'll get flamed for this on CP, so it's all the more important to give you positive feedback here.

Right now, there are several such cases (not even counting the hundreds of articles copied from government glossaries) on CP, and trust me, we all would LOVE to see them replaced by actual articles. --Sid 17:03, 24 August 2007 (CDT)

While I think quotes are perfectly acceptable, I don't think you should copy and paste and then merely give a footnote to the copied and pasted article. I think we are in agreement on this point obviously. Newton 14:10, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

Wingnuts[edit]

Ah, thanks for cleaning up the extras. I discovered I could breed some sweet chrome wingnuts on my own talk page (must be the nicely aged, um, fertilizer there...), and got all I needed from my first crop! human^{be in} 22:54, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

Ed Poor's a vandal, huh?[edit]

If you need a safe haven to escape TK's wrath, we'll protect you.-αmεσ (!) 22:34, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

You were the best parodist ever !CЯacke®

That would be amazing wouldn't it.... tmtoulouse ^beleaguer 22:59, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

Ha, yeah. Just kidding Newton, I know you're really a true, blue {{wingnut}}. CЯacke® 23:06, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

And so, the Purge begins.... "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Liberal Party?" At least you'll still be able to post here... --Gulik 23:24, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

Atheism Page at CP.[edit]

Jeezus, Newt, it looks like DanH undid all your hard work today on the Atheism page. Kinda sucks, no? PFoster 23:02, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

Also, just a point that's been bothering me. As much as you seem to love citing authority, no matter who it is, and no matter what it actually says, I think trying to say that Francis Bacon proves that there is no atheist is, quite frankly, a stretch. He's a very learned man, no doubt, and influential in philosophy, but things like this are not amenable to proof by authority. Philosophy does not become indisputable fact by authority; it just becomes more influential. Like many creationists, you seem to confuse objective truth and subjective belief.-αmεσ (!) 23:05, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

And Samwell's point was that you were trashing the Bible since you held to Bacon OVER the Bible. CЯacke® 23:09, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

Ken is a representation of a strange form of scholasticism that seems rampant in the fundy circle. It has all the pieces, where the only thing that matters is what "famous" people have said about something and that you learn by comparing their quotes and trying to reconcile together those in your camp while pointing out flaws in the other camp. Ken truly believes that he can disprove evolution through quotes, or disprove atheism through comparative quote mines, he believes this is learning and advancing knowledge. It is a complete abandonment of science, empiricism, rationality, enlightenment, ect. Just as natural science and the enlightenment was a reaction to scholasticism so Ken's argument by comparative authority is the pendulum reaction going the other way. tmtoulouse ^beleaguer 23:14, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

I'm honestly most disappointed in the formal education offered in my home country. I honestly expect better of a college education; this kind of argument should be beaten out of anyone by senior year of high school at the latest, but persisting through college is simply unjustifiable.-αmεσ (!) 23:16, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, this is some of the nuttiest stuff I've seen (well, discounting everything Rob has ever written). Saying "It's true because the Bible says so" is a complete fallacy, but at least that line of reasoning will get you somewhere with Captain Jesuspants and minions, but saying "It's true because British poet Edward Young sort of mentioned it in a poem" is downright retarded. No offense to retards. DickTurpis 00:15, 31 August 2007 (CDT)

You have to understand scholasticism was the way of learning and acquiring knowledge throughout a large period of time in Europe. And it was this time that much of the great apologist works were written. I am, of course, not an expert on it but just as we might look back to someone like Hume or Epicurus for philosophical musing or inspiration people like Ken, or more likely the people that Ken listens to, look to someone like Augustine. Of course it is a perverted form of scholasticism they espouse and those of us that have embraced the post-enlightenment era would never want to go back, its hard to merely chalk it up to an error of reasoning. tmtoulouse ^beleaguer 23:24, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

This, (type of "scholasticism"), is due to the game used by fundamentalists that I like to call "dueling scriptures". I believe most of us are familiar with it, (usenet used to be a great place for watching tournys on DS!), one picks a topic and defends (or refutes) it using only the scriptures, (Bible only, no funny books please). The last one standing (or first one raptured) wins. CЯacke® 23:22, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

"The last one standing (or first one raptured) wins.", ah my daily doszce of lulz! TYVM, human^{be in} 01:25, 31 August 2007 (CDT)

Question about the Double Creation[edit]

Ken, I wrote an e-mail about this to Ed, and while I got a nice reply from Andy explaining his views, I'd like to hear yours. Here's the question as I wrote it to Ed.

“”It seems to us that there are two separate creation stories. First, God creates man and woman together (on day 6), having first built the rest of the world first (Genesis 1). Then God creates man first, then plants and animals, then woman from Adam's rib (exegetical reading of Genesis 2). So either these are two separate creation stories, or they are self-contradictory.

How do you explain this? Ed said he doesn't believe in the literal Bible (being OEC) so he doesn't have a problem with it. Andy says one is figurative; the other is literal. What's your answer? Honestly curious-αmεσ (!) 14:37, 31 August 2007 (CDT)

I likely will not return to or read the RationalWiki website again and so I replied to your inquiry via your Conservapedia user discussion page. In case you are blocked again, I posted the following:

Hahahaha, don't you understand? Most, or all, of us have been permabanned from CP! Why would we expect a reply there? human^{be in} 22:16, 1 September 2007 (CDT)

Re: your Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 question - AmesG, I would suggest reading these in regards to internet sources: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2194 and http://www.tektonics.org/jedp/creationtwo.html#two

Since FF Bruce is a very respected scholar and I did look at various pages of this book and was impressed I would also suggest this resource: Walter C. Kaiser, Peter H. Davids, F. F. Bruce, Manfred T. Brauch. (1996). Hard Sayings of the Bible, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL

Also, here is a resource that I found at a website that refers to written sources: Genesis 1 is the creation of the heavens and the earth, and Genesis 2 is the creation of humans in the Eden. See Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.66-68, Bible Difficulties and Seeming Contradictions p.133-134, 735 Baffling Bible Questions Answered p.21-22, and When Critics Ask p.35 for more info.

Newton 22:04, 1 September 2007 (CDT)

Aww, did TK tell you that you weren't allowed to play with the unbelievers any more? --Kels 22:06, 1 September 2007 (CDT)

ah, running away so quickly? You never did bother to address any evidence on evolution. I mean I know you can't, but it would have been funny to see you try. Well have fun over at the mutual masturbation society. tmtoulouse ^beleaguer 22:07, 1 September 2007 (CDT)

tmtoulouse, I made more than one comment at RationalWiki about your supposed "introvertible evidence" and I suggest reviewing my previous posts. As far as "running away" I see no reason to wrangle with a zealot in regards to his evobabble. Newton 22:26, 1 September 2007 (CDT)

Ha! For future reference "the title of this page is not optimized for google, therefore the content must be wrong" is not a good argument :). You see no reason to because you can't face opposition to your ideas, at CP you can block them and delete them, and when you can't do that you run away tossing in a few non-sequitors and pretending you have made some kind of point. You know, and I know, that you are the one thats afraid and that you are the one that refuses to engage the evidence. Thats all that matters to me. tmtoulouse ^beleaguer 22:32, 1 September 2007 (CDT)

I see no reason to wrangle with a zealot in regards to his evobabble. It's a shame you're not capable for perceiving the irony dripping off of my monitor at this very second. --Gulik 12:23, 2 September 2007 (CDT)

I'm just curious, has Ken ever provided an evidence-based argument for anything, rather than just this pretend-courtoom trying to indict things he doesn't like using comments taken out of context? --Kels 13:26, 2 September 2007 (CDT)

Not that I can recall. Newton, can you remember any time you tried to "prove" Creationism, instead of trying to "disprove" Evolution? --Gulik 12:30, 3 September 2007 (CDT)

Gulik, setting aside the contentious issue of whether origins questions can be proved, I will briefly state that I made a post today that provides evidence for the YEC position in the Conservapedia dinosaur article. I posted the following: "Moreover, biblical creationist assert that since a biblical Flood would be a marine catastrophe, it would be expected that marine fossils would be dominant in the fossil record and this is in fact what we find.[1] I believe if you examine my previous post at Conservapedia regarding the origins issue you will find that I have other post which provide evidence for creationism (hint: look at the Conservapedia articles on Creationism/Great Flood and look for material on the Bible being right and the scientific consensus being in error in regards to the animal kingdom [snakes, lions, and ants]). I would also point out that since the Apostle John states that by Jesus all things came into being (John 1:3) so my contribution to the Conservapedia "Christian apologetics" article regarding the evidence of the resurrection of Christ would also be evidence that corroborates creationism. I would point out that while the Christians have such eminent legal personages as Simon Greenleaf, Lord Darling, John Singleton Copley, Hugo Grotius, and Lord Caldecote taking the position that the resurrection of Christ has a strong legal case and the skeptics are embarrassingly supported by Richard Packham who I believe even fails to recognize that statements against interests are a legitimate exception to the hearsay rule.[2][3][4] I would also point out that I posted at Conservapedia that a Cambridge botanist admitted to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation (E.J.H. Corner) Newton 14:13, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

Newton, I very much doubt that you will find anyone here who is convinced by references to the Bible. Here, we debate scientific questions on scientific grounds alone. That being said, staying in the theological field, I'd like to question your assertion that the Resurrection is by itself evidence for creationism. Could you perhaps elaborate a bit on that position? --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 14:36, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

Cons, I'm sure there's a better reason for an abundance of marine fossils than a global flood. I don't know what, but maybe it has something to do with the oceans that cover something like 70% of the Earth's surface. And use some damn paragraph breaks!--Offeep 14:40, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

- :Furthermore a dead marine animal has a vastly greater chance of getting fossilized when it sinks to the bottom of the deep ocean. On land it's more likely to get eaten.--Bob ^{bing up and down} 14:44, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

AKjeldson, history is a social science. The resurrection of Christ are the biblical flood are historical questions. So you are wrong on that point. Secondly, I merely said the resurrection of Christ corroborated creationism. So you are wrong on the second point as well. 14:41, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

Bye Bye. Perhaps you will see me at RationalWiki again but please don't count on it. Newton 14:43, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

Allow me to elaborate: Here we discuss natural scientific questions on natural scientific grounds, and the question of the origins of the universe is certainly a natural scientific question, not an historical one. Secondly, I see that that is indeed what you said. Then perhaps you could elaborate on why you believe that the Resurrection corroborates creationism - if and when you come back. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 14:48, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

I have to say, however, I dig the bad evolutionist jokes on your page.--Offeep 15:00, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

I have to ask about the assertions. You make the assertion that if there were a flood the fossils should be marine fossils; however, I must ask, shouldn't the fossils be representative of all the species that died? How is that assertion any different than one saying that humans and dinosaurs being in different strata is consistent with ancient dinosaurs? In fact, if there were an unusal flooding season, wouldn't most of the marine animals still survive (since they do live in water, after all)? How can you just "blow off" paleontology which is consistent with all non-YEC scenarios and say that yours is more valid? And furthermore, how does this one piece of data fit in with all the other data? I would be open to other interpretations of the data present, but I either don't understand what you are saying, or don't think it's consistent.

And I've tried to make this point to Phil before: Why does the discovery of real-live coelacanths, previous thought extinct, tell us that dinosaurs are alive today (or were until the flood). The logical deductive argument is (I think):

Some animals that were thought to be extinct have been found.
All dinosaurs are animals.
Therefore, dinosaurs are not extinct.

Which is not valid. And, as an inductive argument, is not good as well beacuse because the dino-himan coexistence is a strong claim. That coelacanths not being extinct is extremely weak in connection to the dinosaurs. (Would sugar cane's existence tell you anything about coffee plants?) Phil has never, ever gotten back to me about that since I discussed in on the dino page, and since I can't interact with him any more (banned, for discussing, trying to understand, just like you're trying to do here, I suppose), I've always been curious. I really would like a good, explanation of that.Sterile^{blah, blah, blah} 16:47, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

And why do we still have coelacanths, but not plesiosaurs? You'd think an air-breathing aquatic life form would be ideally suited to survive a worldwide flood. --Gulik 22:07, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

I commented on your new paragraph in the CP dino article here. Feel free to discuss on the talk page. VirileSterile^{blah, blah, blah} 08:42, 10 September 2007 (CDT)

Hot stuff[edit]

Ken, if you can't stand the heat, please do get out of the kitchen. But I consider your departure nothing short of cowardice. If the only way you can defend your viewpoints is on a site where you can silence them by blockprotecting, please do leave RationalWiki, and in so doing prove that.-αmεσ (!) 15:29, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

Speaking of cowardice. How's it feel to be publicly seen as a coward and a liar, Ken? --Kels 16:49, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

I wrote an essay about you; be flattered.[edit]

Or angry. Check it Essay:Ken DeMyer and Magic the Gathering.-αmεσ (!) 23:45, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

Since the essay was take down, I have removed the link. Sorry for the inconvenience. Researcher 17:24, 19 December 2007 (EST)

Incredibly long header to make people pay attention to what you have to say which isn't (usually) much and even if it were it would probably be spelled wrongly.[edit]

Nice to see you run away from a fight you're going to lose. CЯacke® 22:24, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

A hearsay exception proves the truth of the ressurrection of Christ?[edit]

Ken, I hope you come back to explain that. I'd like to speak with you about it.-αmεσ (!) 10:53, 8 September 2007 (CDT)

I missed this one--what's it about? --Gulik 13:00, 8 September 2007 (CDT)

Welcome to the Rebellion[edit]

Pull up a goat, dude. You had a good run.-αmεσ (!) 15:47, 10 September 2007 (CDT)

Your message to me[edit]

Yo, Conservative.

I noticed you replied on the Speed of Light talk page. Well, in case that you haven't noticed it yet:

I AM BANNED THERE.
I CANNOT REPLY.

So stop pretending that you're actually willing to discuss. If you were, you would've unbanned me so I'd have a chance to reply. I think I actually remember that Webb claim, and I think I remember that it did NOT lead to the result you'd like.

But you know what? I am obviously not wanted on your precious site, so I won't do your homework for you. So I'll just sit here and laugh at your idiocy. If you want more than my mocking comments, unban me. --Sid 18:43, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

How Skeptic magazine was Duped by an Environmental Activist Group by Michael Shermer