By: Fredric Rice To: Bill Wolff Re: Misquoting. MG+gt; You are a coward who quoted Dr. Sag

Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

By: Fredric Rice To: Bill Wolff Re: Misquoting... MG> You are a coward who quoted Dr. Sagan out of context and now MG> return over and over to try and protect your crdulity. It won't MG> work. You are a iar. Martin's summation is accurate on all points. BW> Look Martin, you dummy. I have not taken Carl Sagan out of context. HP> Of course you did, the evidence has been provided, and you're debunked. bw> Of course I didn't Hector. Sure ya did, Billy, sure ya did. As I recall, you admitted to reading a religious tract and typeing it all up then later expressing bewilderment at how quoting out of context is a deliberate lie. Honestly, Bill. You really should just gracefully admit to the mistake and promise not to do it again. bw> It's just because you look at things as a one eyed bigot. As opposed to a Creationist with both eyes closed? Such as yourself? bw> "The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a bw> Great Designer; perhaps some species are destroyed when the bw> Designer becomes dissatisfied with them, and new experiments That's not the quote that you first offered. You offered a quote wherein Sagan "candidly admits" that the "fossil record is not inconsistant with a designer." After your _lie_ was pointed out to the rest of the participants, _then_ you had to adopt the full story. The reason is because you had typed-in unthinking your master's religious tract and you didn't _know_ what Sagan actually said until it was pointed out to you. Seriously, Bill, you shoud drop the pretence and just admit that you made a mistake. ~*~ the most rationalistic skeptic, the most wicked and profane and vile, will all one day bow their knees and proclaim that He is the Lord of all! - Johnny Mckinney bw> two totally different messages together to make it appear I replied bw> to something that I really didn't? No that was Fredric dated in my bw> files as (09 Nov 93) wasn't it? But you went along with it. Why you bw> both are nothing more than just slimy, whining, little lying bigots. Then the two of us together have two eyes to see. You appear to have both eyes closed due to religious blinders, Bill. Have you made any decisions as to the viability of quoteing religious tracts as opposed to what scientists actually say? Or did you utterly fail to learn a lesson from your embarrassment? HP> ROFL! Science (and, like it or not, evolutionary theory is a HP> scientific theory, not a Billy Wolff assertion) doesn't deal in HP> "proof," it deals in evidence. The fossil record shows that HP> life changed over time, which just happens to be what HP> evolutionary theory attempts to explain -- life changing over HP> time. Quite correct on all points. bw> And when Carl Sagan provides two possibilities on how life got bw> started. You like all one eyed bigots only saw one possibility. The origin(s) of life have nothing to do with evolution, Bill. This has been rubbed into your fundy face now for at least three years. Are you seriously that incapable of learning by rote or is there some religious conviction of yours keeping you from accepting the fact? BW> Carl Sagan didn't claim that evolution BW> had positively had taken place! Obviously not. He wouldn't make the same claim about the Sun shining on the previous morning, either, as positivly having taken place. The advent of determinism is pretty much religated to the religious. HP> Of course not -- science isn't about proof, it's about HP> evidence. Your further attempt to disguise the fact that Sagan HP> says natural selection is the best explanation of the facts in HP> the fossil record shows you, again, to be a liar. bw> You're wrong again Hector. Just because there is a best explanation bw> out there doesn't mean it is the only one. But because you are a bw> stupid bigot, you can't see past this point. Can you Mr. Hector? There are currently no other rational explanations for the observed fact of speciation other than contemporary evolutionary models. As to origins, the best theories of abiogenesis also have no contending scientific theories. Doubt it? Provide some rational alternatives. What's that? You say you can't? Now why am I not surprised? >HP> Bald-faced lie. You were originally invited here because you >HP> claimed that you could convince anyone of the existence of god >HP> in ten minutes in the DR_DEBUG echo, remember? I forgot about you having done that. Thanks for the reminder. Your ten minutes is up, Bill. ~*~ You mean... fundy's are HUMAN??? I thought they were part of some government funded genetic experiment to test the limits of stupidity.. - Drew Webber BW> Carl admits that the fossil record does not prove evolution. BW> And finally Hector has just accepted this fact. DW> So? The theory of gravity will never be proven either. Do you DW> disbelieve in it as well? bw> That's comparing apples to oranges. No it's not. Both gravitation and evolution are immutable facts not subject to opinion or debate. You have seen many instances of directly observed speciation. Are you going to claim that the biologists are lying, Bill? DW> Proof is for mathematics and liquor, dipshit. We're interested DW> in evidence. bw> Well I disagree. Your religious beliefs are not germain to the fact that evidence is what constitutes the fact of evolution. DW> Do you have evidence that supports a better theory than the DW> theory of evolution? bw> No not really. Sure you do, Bill. You have a strong Catholic indoctrination from which to base your religious beliefs upon. What do you think is the cause for observed speciation? Magic? Gods? Goddesses? Fairies? Pixies? What? If you can't accept the truth, what lie _will_ you accept? ~*~ They sat down in the kitchen, where the morons started pulling out bibles, books, pamphlets, and other assorted implements of destruction. - Kelsey Bjarnason BW> Look Martin, you dummy. I have not taken Carl Sagan out of BW> context. Carl admits that the fossil record does not prove BW> evolution. FR> Look, Creationist... bw> Your first mistake. Between you and I. There are no definite bw> creationist! But you just never get it, do you? "Quack," Bill said, matter of duckly. When someone acts like a Creationist, talks like a Creationist, reasons like a Creationist, and quotes Creationist propaganda, what are the critical of mind and rational of conduct supposed to conclude, Creationist? FR> ... do you know _any_ biologist who claims that the fossil FR> record "proves" the fact of evolution? bw> Your second mistake. A matter of fact I do know of a biologist who bw> knows other scientists who feels there is no room for doubt. bw> bw> As John R. Durant (biologist) had once said: "Many scientists bw> succumb to the temptation to be dogmatic, . . . . over and over bw> again the question of the origin of the species has been bw> presented as if it were finally settled. Nothing could be bw> further from the truth. . . . But the tendency to be dogmatic bw> persists, and it does no service to the cause of science." Further quoting out of context is probably an additional embarrassment. In any event, I asked you if you know of any biologist who claims that the fossil record proves the fact of evolution. Drag your head out, Bill, and read the question again. Dno't keep using your religious blinders to interpret everything someone says and then answer questions you would rather answer. FR> Or do you admit that Sagan then goes on to show how the fossil FR> record is exactly as predicted by contemporary evolutional FR> theories? bw> Yeah I give you that one. Are you admitting that you lied by ommission of your out of context quote? bw> But you foolishly believes he closes all of the other doors. How typical of a Creationist. You are attempting to tell me what I believe and what I don't believe rather than ask me what I believe and don't believe. "Quack" would be easier to type, Bill. In actual fact I do not believe that Sagan 'closes doors' anywhere. Sagan properly points out that the fossil record would be indicitive of a bumberfuck of a creator; he doesn't discount the possibility of deities. Quite simply, Sagan points out that the fact of evolution doesn't even attempt to address deity beliefs. bw> He did not! Your attempt to employ a red herring has failed. bw> He left them open you moron! How like a Creationist. Tell someone what they believe rather than accept the fact that he doesn't and then ascribe to him your characterization to fit your concoction. Further denials that you're not a Creationist would be silly. bw> And if you had read the Scientific American back in Oct 94, bw> you could see this. But no, you only look at a small piece bw> of the picture. Don't you Mr. Blind Zealot? ROTFL! Hey, calm down, Bill. I don't mind Creationists so long as you keep your religious superstitions out of the public schools. There's no need to adopt a confrontational attitude just because you find yourself incapable of presenting a rational argument for your religious beliefs. FR> Lastly, do you have a better explanation for observed FR> speciation and the fossil record? If so, divulge it. bw> What do you think I have been doing you dumb zealot? You have been spouting the Creationist party line. And failing badly, sure. bw> Evolutionary theory is filled with so many holes that there bw> are zillions of unanswered questions that remains. Isn't it amazing how you appear to be unwilling to mention any of them. (Rhetorical question.) Isn't it amazing that I asked you to present alternative, rational descriptions and instead you try to attack evolution. How utterly like a Creationist. ~*~ "Will do Satan's work for food." - David Rice FR> Lastly, do you have a better explanation for observed FR> speciation and the fossil record? If so, divulge it. bw> And yet blind zealots like you could careless. I seem to be the one asking you for alternatives. You seem to be the one trying to attack evolution rather than provide alternatives. Now who's being blind here? bw> As far as you're concern, it's written in stone! bw> Which is another trait of a blind zealot. ROTFL! Once again the Creationist tells his betters what they believe and don't believe. Rather than concoct characterizations, why don't you _ask_ what I believe and don't believe? MG> Now, go ahead and try to teach me something MG> about genetics, either Mendelian or molecular. bw> Why? That's your department. My department is trying to train bw> morons like you to try some common sense once in awhile. FR> You'll need to divest yourself of your Catholic beliefs first, Bill. bw> Strike three! As I denounced my Catholic faith about 20 years ago bw> (and I hadn't been to church in about 30 years). But you didn't divest yourself of the teachings of Creationist Catholicism. ~*~ I have no need to read a science fiction novel. - Johnny Mckinney Well. It's Bill back for further education and embarrassment. HP> Carl goes on to say that it would have to be an idiotic "great HP> designer" and that there's a better explanation -- natural HP> selection -- that matches the facts better. Quite true. bw> Oh really? So what is a idiotic "great designer" anyway? One bw> who can produce life from nonliving matter? ROTFL! Once again you confuse the origin(s) of life with the origins of species. FR> The reason why you're having a hard time searching for a FR> rational argument to use against Hector is because he's right. bw> Nope Yep. Hector is right, Carl Sagan is right, biologists are right... in fact, only the few disenfranchized religious zealot populacfe among us actually think that the fact of evolution detracts from their occultism. The fact that you can't contrive a single aspect of evolution theory which detracts from the fact of evolution is highly indicitive of the fact that the theories which describe evolution are correct. bw> It's because Hector is a bumbling fool and bw> can't reach outside of his own bigotry. Like the Creationist, when the hurtful truth presents itself, attack the hurtful heathen who dares present it. FR> You can't explain atrophied evolutionary apendages and FR> cast-offs in light of an intelligent creator. bw> Sure you can. You just can't see it because you're just a dimwit. Once again you make claims and yet refuse to be specific. bw> Pretend for a second that your just your basic 6 year old. I'll make the assumption you mean "you're just a basic six-year-old." bw> And I warn you not to put that paperclip into the wall socket. bw> You being a moron, just don't understand how a paperclip could bw> cause any harm. But to us more intelligent folks. We totally bw> understand your stupidity. Your Creationist rhetoric tied-up in personal attack is not even a close analog to the fact of evolution being evidence in the atrophied evolutionary appendages both molecular and organic. The uses for much of the cast-off coden sequences within DNA and RNA are well known and have been experimented upon to the point where coden sequences which have been turned off through natual selection have been experimentally turned on in laboratory animals. In sutu such 'reversions' are called genetic variations or 'mutations' when in fact the coden sequences are historic cast-offs. You want to believe that the uses of atriophied evolutionary appendages are not known. That is merely your Creationist education speaking. Just because you are ignorant of something doesn't mean that your betters are. FR> Such a creator would by rights of evidence need to be a FR> bumbeling idiot. bw> Really Fredric? Sure. Don't take my word for it or the word of your preacher(s.) Do the research and testing for yourself. Examine the fossil record for yourself, either as typed-up in nice white clean pages for you or by visiting a cut in the field for yourself. bw> Yet at the same time this bumbling idiot(s) would happen bw> to have more advanced technology or wisdom than our own. No it wouldn't. Our technology instigates speciation events far faster than are historically described in the fossil record. More to the point, our strains provide tailor-made uses rather than hit-and-miss. Additionally, your bumbeling idiots would have to be made by something were said bumbeling idiots to exist. Claiming that a bumbeling idiot isn't needed to create the bumbeling idiots who created the fossil record is an exercise in Creationist denial, I'll point out -- just to poison that well you're bound to dip into. bw> But to a more advanced intelligent being(s) than our own. That's an incomplete sentence. bw> We're the bumbling idiots! Certainly Creationists are. However, the biological sciences of contemporary times are vastly superior to that of evolution. bw> But you just don't get it? Do you Mr. Fredric the moron? The Creationist is once again at a loss for a valid argument, I see. ~*~ "The study of theology, as it stands in the Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authority; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion." - Thomas Paine FR> What the fossil record and the atrophied evolutionary trash in FR> evbery cell of every living thing, flora and fawna, shows FR> exactly what's predicted by all evolutionary theories. bw> And it also shows that either by design or by accident, that things bw> were played around with until the desired effect was made by the bw> many improvements and revisions. Which is something us human beings bw> can totally relate to. As we call it progress. Here we are in agreement. FR> And Sagan points that out clearly -- unless you try to turn him FR> into a Creationist stooge. bw> No he does not Fredric. He openly admits of the possibilities. You attempted to make him state that there was something wrong with the fossil record. BW> You just don't get it, do you? For over a hundred years, BW> people have been using the fossil record as proof as for BW> evidence of evolution... FR> It would appear as though you would like the observed FR> speciations to disappear. Additionally, the fossil record FR> indicates conclusivly that evolution has taken place and FR> continues to take place. bw> Yeah evolution had taken place all right. But was driven by what bw> force is what is totally up in the air. No it's not, Creationist. Natural selection is the single best explanation for the mechanics which drive evolution. At least you're finally admitting that evolution takes place now. HP> "as proof as for evidence of evolution?" How'd that "proof" HP> part get stuck in there? Sagan does, indeed, state that the HP> fossil record is evidence of evolution... bw> Proof got in there because that is all the evolutionists have as far bw> as proof goes. But I don't buy it as being proof and I am glad you bw> don't see it as such either. FR> You're an idiot. (Imagine my surprise.) Hector correctly FR> indicates that the fossil record is evidence that evolution has FR> taken place in the past. bw> And you're a dimwit who thinks like a moron and routinely misses the bw> blind side of the barn. I have no problems of evolution per se. I bw> have a problem with who, what, or why though. And while you wish to igonre natural selection you still can't concoct a rational explanation. Imagine. FR> No one claims that evidence constitutes proof. Proof is valid FR> only in mathematics. bw> I'll take proof any day over evidence. And my buddy Einstein used bw> mathematics to backup his theories. Did he not? You're going to find that deriving proof of an egg shell will occupy yourself for several life times. Science is predicated upon evidence and the concoction of models used to describe and explain that evidence. FR> The overwhelming evidence, however, indicates that evolution is FR> simply not debateable. It would be about as silly as debating FR> whether geometry exists. bw> Your stupidity is not even debatable. Which means that you are at a loss for a rational argument. HP> ... You attempted, by quoting him out of context, to make it HP> seem otherwise. FR> Hector's right. And over the years few people still bother to FR> keep a copy of your claim. bw> You're wrong Fredric. Few ever kept a copy and I have been posting bw> copies for all those who wants one. Even not so bright Martin. You have been posting the versions which came after you excluded Sagan's text describing how such a creator would have to be a bumbeling idiot incapable of being happy with its creations. Obviously you can't post the original. bw> No you dumb moron! Carl Sagan didn't claim that evolution had bw> positively had taken place! FR> He, as do all biologists and paleontologists qualified to speak FR> on the subject, point out that the fossil record is FR> overwhelming evidence that evolution has taken place in the FR> past. Sagan approached scientific certainty exactly equal to FR> the certainty that gravity exists. bw> You and I are speaking about two different evolutions. You are trying to redefine evolution. ~*~ I believe that baptism is a good thing, with a little soap. - Robert Curry bw> You are trying like hell to take Carl bw> Sagan out of context you dumb baster. FR> Calm down, Bill. You're getting your players mixed up. You did FR> that -- good grief, at least 4 years ago, as I recall. bw> ROTFL! Get real Fredric. The middle of 93 wasn't 4 years ago. You bw> always seem to get your facts wrong, don't you Mr. Rice? No wonder bw> you have trouble with facts and claim it's just for mathematics. bw> That is because you have trouble with even the most basic bw> mathematics. Isn't that so Fredric? Interesting. I didn't archive or otherwise makde note of the date you first presented your out-of-context quote attempting to make Sagan into a Creationist and so you feel as though you may attack the man rather than address the issue of said quote. bw> Face the truth for once you stupid moron! FR> Attack the man when his truth hurts you. Really. bw> Nope your wrong as usual. My wrong what? When you get angry you have the odd knack of loosing your English skills, Bill. bw> I am a attacking a zealot who's beliefs bw> are built upon his own stupid dogma. I have asked you a hundred questions and for some reason you always elect not to respond to them. (Actually I know why you can't.) 1) Tell me what you think I believe 2) Tell me what you think is wrong with those beliefs 3) Offer a better explanation for those faults Stop attacking the man and start addressing the issues, Creationist. bw> But only morons such like yourself can't bw> see the difference. An IQ tester if you will. I just had my Wechsler I.Q. tested. Would you care to compare the results with yours? ~*~ WHEN YOU DIE, YOU'RE GOING TO HELL, AND ARE GOING TO PERMANENTLY SUFFER DOWN THERE. AND I'LL BE LAUGHING AT ALL THE ATHEIST BASTARDS IN THIS ECHO, WHEN I'M UP IN HEAVEN. - Christopher Calabrese --- * Origin: Creationist: Why yes, Rome _was_ built in a day. (1:102/890.666) FR> Wake up, Creationist fundy. bw> bw> Wake up moron. You mislabel someone again. But that is what bw> one eyed bigots do best. Isn't it Mr. Moron Rice? ROTFL! FR> It's a good thing I shook your cage and then jumped FR> out of reach. The animals have found new and interesting things FR> to do with their excrement. That's cute. I'll have to save that. bw> Damn it Fredric! Every time I give you an opportunity to show some bw> intelligence. You always take the backwards compatibility of using bw> your stupid old animal instincts. Damn Fredric! I was wrong! You're bw> living proof of the existence of the missing link. What a find! Does bw> your knuckles drag the ground when you try to walk too? I can assure you that my knuckles have ample clearance. I am curious, however, when you might consider discovering the opposable thumb. You could doubtless acquire greater velocity and thus further reach in your excrement flinging were you to curve the palm of your hand inward a bit. FR> I find it _vastly_ interesting how upset you get when someone FR> calls you a Creationist. bw> It's because I find the numbers of one eyed bigots a disturbing bw> number and its screwing up life for the rest of mankind. Interesting. You imagine youself awash with people who don't share your religious beliefs and blame them for all of societies' woes, do you? How like a Creationist if that is, indeed, your posistion. In any event, we have seen in your previous positings that your methods are indistinguishable from those Creationists who have the decorum to admit to their beliefs. bw> As it shows that natural selection has an upward battle bw> against the ever present mutation factor always being applied. Didn't you previously stipulate that natural selection wasn't known? Didn't you claim that you were confused as to the mechanics of evolution? If you can recall, I wonder how you manage to correct the conflict between what you have previously claimed and what you now state. bw> Don't feel sad though. As someday you are going to die and your bw> organic matter will be recycled in all probability. And then you'll bw> get another chance. Are you of the opinion that I (or anyone else) would somehow notice? FR> And yet you still have trouble accepting the immutable fact of FR> evolution... bw> There you go using the word "fact" when just about 10 minutes ago bw> you said that evolution was only just "evidence." This has been explained to you dozens of times. The observed fact of speciation evidences evolution as does the fact of the fossil record. There are several theories which attempt to describe the observed fact; among the best models we have are Punk Eek and what's commonly known as the New Synthesis. You know all this. Why are you feigning ignorance? bw> And you said facts were only for mathematics. You are employing the interpretations your religion demands of all of its followers. I said that proof is for mathematics and vodka. Proof, not facts. Evidence is what properly concludes the immutable fact of evolution. bw> Don't you see how much you lie Fredric? bw> You can't even tell the same story just 10 minutes later. Do you want me to back up three messages and post the fact that I said proof is for mathematics? You are mistaken and yet, like any Creationist, you further entrench your occultism by advancing upon your mistake, unwilling to admit to it. In the event you do wish to have your face rubbed into it again, I shall save those messages until such time as you either ask to see the specific quote or admit that you were mistaken. bw> ROTFL! And you somehow believe I am just trying bw> to be cute when I call you a moron. ROTFL! And you think you're not a Creationist when I call you a Creationist. FR> ... and you still refuse to admit that you quoted Carl Sagan FR> out of context so many decades ago. bw> Gee just about 10 minutes ago, it was just 4 years ago. bw> And now it's up to decades ago. Wake up, Creationist! That's a literary device specifically designed to smack the Creationist on the head to get him moving again. Since you can't debate the issues, I thoughtfully provided another chance for you to display your Creationist methodologies of attacking the man. bw> If a guy like me is ever found out to be mistaken. That's an incomplete sentence. bw> I come clean and will freely admit my faults. That's disjointed yet understandable. It has yet to be seen whether you can admit to yourself of your own mistakes leave alone whether you will admit to them in public once you do. bw> You on the other hand just keeps telling larger and larger bw> lies. And nowadays, yours have become whoppers. ROTFL! Do you still deny trying to make Sagan into a Creationist? FR> Really I'm just baiting you to get you to mouth off without FR> thinking again. It's nothing personal, you understand. And it works every time, in fact. It's like setting a bit of cheese on a trap and going to bed, firm in the knowledge that in the morning there'll be breakfast. ~*~ And the blood & sap of endangered species splattered on the fenders. - David Rice --- * Origin: Creationist: Why yes, Rome _was_ built in a day. (1:102/890.666)


E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank