View Single Post
Old 02-24-2009, 01:24 AM   #45
SkinWalker's Avatar
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
Or you're just dismissing them because they show your sources to be the frauds they are.
I'm dismissing your "sources" because they're irrelevant and show nothing. They're red herrings and have nothing to do with the topic at hand. If you truly believe the blog articles and news bits you've linked "show [my] sources to be ... frauds," then there really isn't anything more we can discuss.

And I hate to break it to you, but San Fran is more the lunatic city.
What has this comment to do with anything? Are you actually reading the same thread the rest of us are? Wow.

Then you'll admit at least on of your sources is being sued.
Uh... no. You haven't shown where a single one of the individuals I cited were named in a lawsuit. Nor would a lawsuit be relevant to our discussion unless it was directly related to their study. Perhaps I overlooked something... could you please look back at the posts I created and under the "references" headings, which individual(s) are named in which lawsuits?

Actually the way the politically correct groups are it could be classified as a hate crime.
Nope. Wrong again. I have freedom of speech. I can criticize (and even insult) any religion I chose.

You know that's the same kind of garbage the Nazis used to justify their treatment of Russians, Jewish People, etc. That they were somehow less intelligent subhuman. I notice scary parallels to what I learned in my World War II history class to what you've been saying.
The data are what they are... and just because one doesn't like data doesn't mean you can simply dismiss it out of hand. Doing so would make you an ideologue. What you're creating is an ad hominem argument and a straw man -instead of dealing with the premises of the claim, you're mis-characterizing the argument into something that is aligned with an idea you think most people will find repulsive or disagreeable and, thus, an idea you won't have to process. Unfortunately, in a rational discourse, argumentation doesn't work that way. If you want to refute the claim, you'll either have to educate yourself (the citations are probably accessible via your local library) or simply accept that they might be true.

No you're advocating discrimination and your own statements prove it, because they don't require the same thing for Muslim students for whom creationism is also taught, face the facts you just shot your own argument to pieces.
No problem, simply insert Muslim school into my comment. My argument stands. Your weak attempt to counter it holds water like a fish net -there are few (perhaps none at all) Muslim high schools or universities in the United States attempting to get their creationist poppycock accepted in real institutions of academia. Perhaps they recognize creationist nonsense for what it is: stupid.

Seriously, I find it interesting that Liberals (in general) tend to be advocates of free speech blah, blah, blah...
I wouldn't know. I'm not a "liberal." If anything, I'm a conservative since fiscal and resource conservation are things that concern me, but like I said: I detest politics to begin with. Whenever someone starts making political proclamations, their brains open up and all sense of reason and rational thought is lost to personal ideology.

SkinWalker, don't try to lecture to someone that actually had to take their CITI Certification to actually conduct research, because you clearly don't know what you're talking about and the track records of intellectual dishonesty.
Yawn... Yes, suffice it to say your an "expert..."

Read a A Case for Faith and A Case for Christ and btw Jesus did exist.
I've no idea what your talking about... but, hey, you're the research expert. Is the underline tag a citation style of APA or MLA? Or something else entirely... ? And you're right, Jesus does exist. He cut my grass just the other day and his wife sells tamales on the weekends in my neighborhood. A real nice guy... doesn't speak much English though.

It takes just as much faith to believe God doesn't exist as to believe he does,
Eh.. not so much, no. I'm at least open to the possibility that a god or gods exist. All I need is sufficient evidence or good reason. How about you? Are you open to the possibility that not only is there no god, but that your particular god doesn't exist?

You sure aren't showing it, all I've seen from you is arrogance that you know what's best garbage when you don't.
Oh, I'm very sorry. I don't mean to give that impression. I'm actually not that bright. I git a lot readin' dun, but I've never been very good at choosing good garbage from bad. I urge everyone to never take my word for anything I say and to question it all! The last thing I would wish for is anyone to take anything I say as gospel truth without first looking further into whatever claim or opinion I'm asserting.

But you don't even give me the courtesy of inquiry. Hell, you don't give yourself the courtesy of inquiry given the duplicated "sources" that you so vociferously stated were not duplicated! Come on guy! I'm not asking you to give up your beliefs or your politics! I'd be disappointed and hurt if you did. And I have more respect for you than to expect you to do so.

One of the reasons I come off so harshly is that sometimes it takes a harsh word to jumpstart someone's thinking. If I put you on the defensive, suddenly you have to look critically at your positions... and you shouldn't be afraid to do this! Yeah, I'm arrogant. I can admit that. But I'm also willing to admit when I'm wrong -but only if I truly am. What you have before you is several decades of constantly revised positions which have continually refined themselves. Had you met me on the net in 1996, you wouldn't believe I was the same person -my beliefs and critical thought was that unrefined. I was about your age, actually.

Or perhaps they believe that we are all God's children and therefore we should help one another, not everyone is just thinking about themselves all the time.
I hope that's true. I'm willing to go with that explanation for now. Look! We have some common ground!

The fact they are being sued for persecuting Christians specifically isn't good enough for you? Do you need it to be the KKK style of cross burning before religious persecution becomes apparent?
Ah-ah... there you go again with the straw man. While the civil suit may be initiated by those that perceive it as a persecution against Christians, the reality is that this is a learning institution charged with educating its students with knowledge and scientific fact, not the superstitions and mythology of religions. There is no tradition of scientists and science educators picketing or suing churches to get science installed in the Sunday school classroom... why should it be tolerated the other way around. If Christians are able to get their mythology accepted as "truth" and taught as "science," where would the line be drawn? Would not the Zuni with their concept of creation vis a vis the Corn Goddess have to also be taught? What of Muslim ideas of "science?" The education institutions of the United States that are refusing to accept high school credits where creationism is taught are upholding patriotic, American values by not establishing any one religion over another. By not creating a state-sponsored religion. Moreover, students are free to gain acceptance via their SAT scores -if I understand the issue correctly (and its been a while since I reviewed it), SAT scores still take priority in university acceptance.

Have you noticed that none of the suits against the universities have favored the plaintiffs?


How does a congressional report sound?
It doesn't satisfy the question I asked. You're creating a red herring ... please, one thing at a time. I'm more than willing to look over that 29 page report that doesn't appear to have any punitive judgment (from what I've read so far, kudos are due for the Smithsonian for not tolerating superstition in a place of real science), but first you'll have to address the question that was actually asked: where are the punitive damages awarded by the courts in one of these civil suits you keep bringing up?

Considering your statements as research fact is the same type of garbage that scientists used to claim that some of my ancestors weren't as intelligent just due to the color of their skin, I would think that it is more likely than your "research" being accurate.
This is a complete and utter straw man. An ignorant and under-educated one to boot. Sorry... I'll spend no more time on such nonsense.

Explains why you are pulling stuff straight out of the DNC handbook.
I don't know what this handbook is. Can you link to it or is it in a library? I don't follow (can someone shed light on this?).

If you've been paying attention to my other debates I've flat out stated that the media is corrupt and mostly made up of far left ideaologues. In case you've noticed your sources are the universities that are being accused of blatent discrimination.
People get "accused" of stuff all the time. Usually by nuts with a "mission" but that's beside the point. To end this post, I'll just recap:

I posted hard, empirical data. You posted "no its all biased, dude!"

I posted citations to the individuals who conducted studies. You posted, "they're all getting sued, man!"

What you haven't posted are rebuttals to the empirical data (hint: I'm willing to email a couple of these to you in PDF form if you'd only ask. "But you gotta ask me nicely" [/Col. Jessup]). You also haven't cited legal decisions from the civil courts which show damages awarded or that the plaintiffs even had a favorable outcome.

Garfield, please don't take me the wrong way. I sense you getting worked up and it might benefit you to pause a bit before responding. Thinking some is good to. Like I said, I'm not expecting you to change you mind or your beliefs. But I'd like to think that there exists some common ground out there that we could stand upon and engage in rational discourse. We can't do that if you toss fallacious argument after fallacious argument into the fray.

Recommended reading:

A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: