Creationists

[UltimateReality]

This is not an ad hominem attack, you moron. He is not attacking your person in an attempt to discredit your argument, which is what an ad hominem is. In insult is not an ad hominem, by itself.

Daws unfairly characterized my argument as "BULLSHIT".

Smear Tactic:

A smear tactic is an unfair characterization either of the opponent or the opponent’s position or argument. Smearing the opponent causes an ad hominem fallacy.

Fallacies*[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

Also, claiming one's argument is BULLSHIT is akin to calling one a liar. Will the real moron please stand up?

"To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the ignorant."

You're a buffoon! Almost nothing you just wrote is true. Calling someone's argument bullshit is not calling someone a liar at all. That is an illogical and unnecessary conclusion. Stop being a little bitch. He "unfairly" characterized your argument as bullshit... According to who? You? That's an entirely subjective determination. You don't like it, so you bitch about it and call it "unfair" Too fucking bad. Further, a smear tactic is not an ad hominem fallacy. This isn't a political campaign. You are being very overdramatic. We don't have to sit here and listen to your bullshit arguments over and over again. If you weren't such a dick head yourself, maybe people would take you more seriously. Before you go off calling this an ad hominem and crying to ywc... It isn't. I'm not saying that your arguments are bad because your a dickhead. I'm saying your arguments are bad AND you're a dickhead.

Thanks for proving my point with your Ad Hominem attack above. Looks like Daws baby tantrums are rubbing off on you. And I think it is evident for all to see now who is really full of poo poo. It figures you would claim superiority over the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

By the way, you have NEVER provided a sound, logical rebuttal to the argument, so you are forced to resort to petty attacks since that is all you have.

 

[UltimateReality]

This is not an ad hominem attack, you moron. He is not attacking your person in an attempt to discredit your argument, which is what an ad hominem is. In insult is not an ad hominem, by itself.

Daws unfairly characterized my argument as "BULLSHIT".

Smear Tactic:

A smear tactic is an unfair characterization either of the opponent or the opponent’s position or argument. Smearing the opponent causes an ad hominem fallacy.

Fallacies*[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

Also, claiming one's argument is BULLSHIT is akin to calling one a liar. Will the real moron please stand up?

"To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the ignorant."

the facts are not a smear. though they are often times painful. fact: you are a liar.

Really? No. Really??? You can't respond to the argument with a logical rebuttal, so you too, like NewPottypants, are left with nothing more than name calling. You're the tool. Go back to school.

 

[HUGGY]

The only "Ultimate Reality" and "faith" anyone needs is in your self.

 

[UltimateReality]

The only "Ultimate Reality" and "faith" anyone needs is in your self.

Ah, the lie of the narcissistic evolutionist. Funny how it always ends the same... on the ugly side of humanity.

 

[UltimateReality]

A little clarification for the dumbfounded atheists (you know who you are) on what specified complexity actually means....

The video above features a short excerpt from a debate between well-known atheist philosopher A.C. Grayling (famous for conveniently "forgetting" having debated William Lane Craig) and Christian philosopher Peter S. Williams. Their subject: the fine-tuning of the universe's initial conditions to support complex life, bearing on the case for intelligent design. Williams articulates the argument from specified complexity, using the analogy of an ATM bank machine. A bank pin number is a very specific combination of four digits (some banks allow more), and there is a total of ten digits (0-9) on an ATM keypad. There is thus only one four-digit combination out of a total of 10,000 (10^4) combinatorial possibilities that will allow the money to be retrieved from the machine. Since ATM machines typically allow only three attempts before denying access to one's bank account, it is vastly more probable than not that the machine will not be cracked by chance. This is analogous to the kind of specified complexity that is of interest to ID theorists.

Grayling's response to Williams' analogy is to point out that his own existence is immensely improbable, since it depends on very specific and improbable meetings of people down through the centuries (it also depends on, among other things, the fusion of specific gametes, specific recombination events and environmental factors). In making this argument, however, Grayling betrays his own misunderstanding of the concept of specified complexity. Chance can account for a myriad of very improbable phenomena. For example, any given sequence of 100 rolls of a fair die is, for all practical purposes, equally improbable at 1 in 6^100. This is why improbability on its own does not necessarily warrant a design inference. Rather, there are two criteria that have to be met to justify such an inference -- improbability (factoring in the pertinent probabilistic resources) and specification. In other words, in addition to being immensely improbable, the phenomenon in question must also conform to some independently given pattern. For example, in the ATM analogy, the independently given pattern is the specific pin number needed to obtain money from the bank account. To take a biological example, the independently given pattern associated with proteins is the specific arrangement of amino acid subunits necessary to cause a protein to collapse into a stable and functional fold. Or, in the field of cosmology, the independently given pattern associated with the finely tuned constants and physical laws is the specific combination of values necessary for a bio-habitable universe.

British Atheist Philosopher A.C. Grayling Is Confused About Intelligent Design - Evolution News & Views

 

[LittleNipper]

With God we have complexity and direction. Without God everything desolves into a discussion surrounding cow patties. Think about it.

 

[newpolitics]

Daws unfairly characterized my argument as "BULLSHIT".

Smear Tactic:

A smear tactic is an unfair characterization either of the opponent or the opponent’s position or argument. Smearing the opponent causes an ad hominem fallacy.

Fallacies*[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

Also, claiming one's argument is BULLSHIT is akin to calling one a liar. Will the real moron please stand up?

"To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the ignorant."

You're a buffoon! Almost nothing you just wrote is true. Calling someone's argument bullshit is not calling someone a liar at all. That is an illogical and unnecessary conclusion. Stop being a little bitch. He "unfairly" characterized your argument as bullshit... According to who? You? That's an entirely subjective determination. You don't like it, so you bitch about it and call it "unfair" Too fucking bad. Further, a smear tactic is not an ad hominem fallacy. This isn't a political campaign. You are being very overdramatic. We don't have to sit here and listen to your bullshit arguments over and over again. If you weren't such a dick head yourself, maybe people would take you more seriously. Before you go off calling this an ad hominem and crying to ywc... It isn't. I'm not saying that your arguments are bad because your a dickhead. I'm saying your arguments are bad AND you're a dickhead.

Thanks for proving my point with your Ad Hominem attack above. Looks like Daws baby tantrums are rubbing off on you. And I think it is evident for all to see now who is really full of poo poo. It figures you would claim superiority over the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

By the way, you have NEVER provided a sound, logical rebuttal to the argument, so you are forced to resort to petty attacks since that is all you have.

Thanks for proving my prediction true by calling my personal attacks "ad hominem" debate fallacies. You don't what that is. I'm not saying your arguments are wrong because your an idiot. I have proven your arguments do not stand on their own. I am simply saying... You're an idiot for your inability to respond to or concede salient points, and for other reasons that have NOTHING to do with your crappy arguments, but how you handle yourself here. You are a DICKHEAD for your immature tactics, entirely independent of your arguments. This is not an ad hominem unless I am trying to discredit your arguments, which I am not. I am not saying you're arguments are wrong because you are a dickhead. I am not even currently debating you, so this is an impossibility. Get it? Good. What you do is, act like an asshole, and then when people call you on it, you cry "ad hominem!"

 

[HUGGY]

I ask nothing of my fellow human beings to have faith in themselves. Can the other side claim as completely an unselfish demand? As in all things human..follow the money.

 

[UltimateReality]

You're a buffoon! Almost nothing you just wrote is true. Calling someone's argument bullshit is not calling someone a liar at all. That is an illogical and unnecessary conclusion. Stop being a little bitch. He "unfairly" characterized your argument as bullshit... According to who? You? That's an entirely subjective determination. You don't like it, so you bitch about it and call it "unfair" Too fucking bad. Further, a smear tactic is not an ad hominem fallacy. This isn't a political campaign. You are being very overdramatic. We don't have to sit here and listen to your bullshit arguments over and over again. If you weren't such a dick head yourself, maybe people would take you more seriously. Before you go off calling this an ad hominem and crying to ywc... It isn't. I'm not saying that your arguments are bad because your a dickhead. I'm saying your arguments are bad AND you're a dickhead.

Thanks for proving my point with your Ad Hominem attack above. Looks like Daws baby tantrums are rubbing off on you. And I think it is evident for all to see now who is really full of poo poo. It figures you would claim superiority over the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

By the way, you have NEVER provided a sound, logical rebuttal to the argument, so you are forced to resort to petty attacks since that is all you have.

...I have proven your arguments do not stand on their own.

Ha, ha, ha, only in your dreams, my friend, only in your dreams.

And by the way, how would you describe your behavior here? You are not in a position to be talking about someone's maturity.

 

[newpolitics]

Thanks for proving my point with your Ad Hominem attack above. Looks like Daws baby tantrums are rubbing off on you. And I think it is evident for all to see now who is really full of poo poo. It figures you would claim superiority over the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

By the way, you have NEVER provided a sound, logical rebuttal to the argument, so you are forced to resort to petty attacks since that is all you have.

...I have proven your arguments do not stand on their own.

Ha, ha, ha, only in your dreams, my friend, only in your dreams.

And by the way, how would you describe your behavior here? You are not in a position to be talking about someone's maturity.

Actually, this is happening, in reality: your arguments have been refuted. right now. you're arguments fail and have failed, repeatedly and on a massive scale. thats right, an massive scale. The sooner you accept this, the sooner you can stop resisting and get on with your life. And here you are trying to talk about someones maturity. oh the irony. You live in alternate reality. The fact that you even have to declare that I am not in a position to talk about maturity speaks to your level of maturity.

 

[daws101]

Daws unfairly characterized my argument as "BULLSHIT".

Smear Tactic:

A smear tactic is an unfair characterization either of the opponent or the opponent’s position or argument. Smearing the opponent causes an ad hominem fallacy.

Fallacies*[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

Also, claiming one's argument is BULLSHIT is akin to calling one a liar. Will the real moron please stand up?

"To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the ignorant."

the facts are not a smear. though they are often times painful. fact: you are a liar.

Really? No. Really??? You can't respond to the argument with a logical rebuttal, so you too, like NewPottypants, are left with nothing more than name calling. You're the tool. Go back to school.

that is a logical rebuttal, you have no credible argument to make only a repeat performance of same pseudoscience you've been spewing for the last 1000 pages.

 

[daws101]

You're a buffoon! Almost nothing you just wrote is true. Calling someone's argument bullshit is not calling someone a liar at all. That is an illogical and unnecessary conclusion. Stop being a little bitch. He "unfairly" characterized your argument as bullshit... According to who? You? That's an entirely subjective determination. You don't like it, so you bitch about it and call it "unfair" Too fucking bad. Further, a smear tactic is not an ad hominem fallacy. This isn't a political campaign. You are being very overdramatic. We don't have to sit here and listen to your bullshit arguments over and over again. If you weren't such a dick head yourself, maybe people would take you more seriously. Before you go off calling this an ad hominem and crying to ywc... It isn't. I'm not saying that your arguments are bad because your a dickhead. I'm saying your arguments are bad AND you're a dickhead.

Thanks for proving my point with your Ad Hominem attack above. Looks like Daws baby tantrums are rubbing off on you. And I think it is evident for all to see now who is really full of poo poo. It figures you would claim superiority over the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

By the way, you have NEVER provided a sound, logical rebuttal to the argument, so you are forced to resort to petty attacks since that is all you have.

Thanks for proving my prediction true by calling my personal attacks "ad hominem" debate fallacies. You don't what that is. I'm not saying your arguments are wrong because your an idiot. I have proven your arguments do not stand on their own. I am simply saying... You're an idiot for your inability to respond to or concede salient points, and for other reasons that have NOTHING to do with your crappy arguments, but how you handle yourself here. You are a DICKHEAD for your immature tactics, entirely independent of your arguments. This is not an ad hominem unless I am trying to discredit your arguments, which I am not. I am not saying you're arguments are wrong because you are a dickhead. I am not even currently debating you, so this is an impossibility. Get it? Good. What you do is, act like an asshole, and then when people call you on it, you cry "ad hominem!"

bravo bump!

 

[UltimateReality]

...I have proven your arguments do not stand on their own.

Ha, ha, ha, only in your dreams, my friend, only in your dreams.

And by the way, how would you describe your behavior here? You are not in a position to be talking about someone's maturity.

Actually, this is happening, in reality: your arguments have been refuted. right now. you're arguments fail and have failed, repeatedly and on a massive scale. thats right, an massive scale. The sooner you accept this, the sooner you can stop resisting and get on with your life. And here you are trying to talk about someones maturity. oh the irony. You live in alternate reality. The fact that you even have to declare that I am not in a position to talk about maturity speaks to your level of maturity.

The fact that you say my declaration about you not being in a position to talk about maturity speaks about my level of maturity just solidifies the evidence for your total lack of maturity. All your non-existent rebuttals have been proven wrong on an infinite scale. The sooner you accept this, the sooner you can go about changing your life and start dealing with your inner guilt and shame, which is the reason you are here clamoring for acceptance in the first place.

 

[Hollie]

A little clarification for the dumbfounded atheists (you know who you are) on what specified complexity actually means....

The video above features a short excerpt from a debate between well-known atheist philosopher A.C. Grayling (famous for conveniently "forgetting" having debated William Lane Craig)

How typical. Firstly, William Lane Craig is among the more notoriously ineffectual and brain-dead of the fundie xtian crowd.

Secondly, it is as pointless now as it was 1,000 pages ago to spam the thread with the silly slogans lifted from Stephen Meyer who stole them from William Dembski.

The goofy fundie websites you copy and paste from have long ago been dismissed as nothing more than front organizations for fundie Christian apologetics.

Do something valuable with your free time. Send an email to Ann Gauger. Have her phony-up another video of phony charlatans in phony labs doing phony "research".

What a bunch of bumpkins.

 

[newpolitics]

Ha, ha, ha, only in your dreams, my friend, only in your dreams.

And by the way, how would you describe your behavior here? You are not in a position to be talking about someone's maturity.

Actually, this is happening, in reality: your arguments have been refuted. right now. you're arguments fail and have failed, repeatedly and on a massive scale. thats right, an massive scale. The sooner you accept this, the sooner you can stop resisting and get on with your life. And here you are trying to talk about someones maturity. oh the irony. You live in alternate reality. The fact that you even have to declare that I am not in a position to talk about maturity speaks to your level of maturity.

The fact that you say my declaration about you not being in a position to talk about maturity speaks about my level of maturity just solidifies the evidence for your total lack of maturity. All your non-existent rebuttals have been proven wrong on an infinite scale. The sooner you accept this, the sooner you can go about changing your life and start dealing with your inner guilt and shame, which is the reason you are here clamoring for acceptance in the first place.

Okay boo-boo. Whatever makes you feel better.

 

[daws101]

Ha, ha, ha, only in your dreams, my friend, only in your dreams.

And by the way, how would you describe your behavior here? You are not in a position to be talking about someone's maturity.

Actually, this is happening, in reality: your arguments have been refuted. right now. you're arguments fail and have failed, repeatedly and on a massive scale. thats right, an massive scale. The sooner you accept this, the sooner you can stop resisting and get on with your life. And here you are trying to talk about someones maturity. oh the irony. You live in alternate reality. The fact that you even have to declare that I am not in a position to talk about maturity speaks to your level of maturity.

The fact that you say my declaration about you not being in a position to talk about maturity speaks about my level of maturity just solidifies the evidence for your total lack of maturity. All your non-existent rebuttals have been proven wrong on an infinite scale. The sooner you accept this, the sooner you can go about changing your life and start dealing with your inner guilt and shame, which is the reason you are here clamoring for acceptance in the first place.

speaking of ad hominem.. and the age old guilt and shame ploy.

 

[Youwerecreated]

For those of you just joining us, this is your most basic Ad Hominem attack. You notice there is no educated rebuttal, only a claim the argument is "bullshit" only an inferred basis to the "bullshit" claim of "because I say so."

This is not an ad hominem attack, you moron. He is not attacking your person in an attempt to discredit your argument, which is what an ad hominem is. In insult is not an ad hominem, by itself.

Watch your thoughts; they become words.
Watch your words; they become actions.
Watch your actions; they become habits.
Watch your habits; they become character.
Watch your character; it becomes your destiny. - Frank Outlaw

 

[Hollie]

For those of you just joining us, this is your most basic Ad Hominem attack. You notice there is no educated rebuttal, only a claim the argument is "bullshit" only an inferred basis to the "bullshit" claim of "because I say so."

This is not an ad hominem attack, you moron. He is not attacking your person in an attempt to discredit your argument, which is what an ad hominem is. In insult is not an ad hominem, by itself.

Watch your thoughts; they become words.
Watch your words; they become actions.
Watch your actions; they become habits.
Watch your habits; they become character.
Watch your character; it becomes your destiny. - Frank Outlaw

Watch your fears, superstitions and pathologies; they become your gawds.

-Frank Outlaw (redux)

 

[Youwerecreated]

This is not an ad hominem attack, you moron. He is not attacking your person in an attempt to discredit your argument, which is what an ad hominem is. In insult is not an ad hominem, by itself.

Watch your thoughts; they become words.
Watch your words; they become actions.
Watch your actions; they become habits.
Watch your habits; they become character.
Watch your character; it becomes your destiny. - Frank Outlaw

Watch your fears, superstitions and pathologies; they become your gawds.

-Frank Outlaw (redux)

Paranoia only brings harm Hollie.

 

[daws101]

For those of you just joining us, this is your most basic Ad Hominem attack. You notice there is no educated rebuttal, only a claim the argument is "bullshit" only an inferred basis to the "bullshit" claim of "because I say so."

This is not an ad hominem attack, you moron. He is not attacking your person in an attempt to discredit your argument, which is what an ad hominem is. In insult is not an ad hominem, by itself.

Watch your thoughts; they become words.
Watch your words; they become actions.
Watch your actions; they become habits.
Watch your habits; they become character.
Watch your character; it becomes your destiny. - Frank Outlaw

frank outlaw? you gotta be fuckin' kiddin'.