DaveScot says,
Larry, why do Darwinists insist on calling ID creationism?I don't know. Why don't you ask a Darwinist?
If you want to ask me why I call your creed Intelligent Design Creationism then feel free to come on over here and ask. I don't ban IDiots. In fact, most science bloggers don't ban IDiots because the IDiots supply much of the comic relief on science blogs.
You’ll need to answer on your own blog because you’re no longer welcome on this one.
15 comments :
If that kind of tame comment warrants a ban in the world DaveScot and his daisy-like constitution, then the vitriol we pour over his quaint little blog outside of his jurisdiction must make him cry himself to sleep at night.
Oh, dear! And meanwhile they think it's funny to overdub the decision of a respected judge with fart noises when they disagree with him.
Keep up the good work, Dr. Moran!
Larry, I am so terribly sorry that you received this crushing news.
I myself was banned from Uncommon Descent recently for pointing out some of DaveTard's idiotic comments.
Of course, you'll find no bigger crybaby than DaveTard. Why, just today he burst into tears after watching some kids deny the holy spirit on YouTube -- and DaveTard claims to be an agnostic!!!!!
Why, DaveTard must have the emotional strength of a four year old. He is truly a pathetic lying sack of shite.
Heh. No doubt, you've seen PZ's comment.
I'm curious. Been observing the weirdness that is UD a little while, now. Have you any idea how many comments you made before being banned?
So am I to understand it was one comment? (Didn't see fishyfred's prior to posting...)
Hee hee. Consider my hat doffed, Doctor.
That's actually pretty rare. Usually they delete all trace of you.
But then DaveTard would have to delete his pithy comment.
Welcome to the club, Larry.
You can tell a lot about a person by the people who ban them. You're my new hero Larry!
Posting on UD strikes me like posting on stormfront, trying to convince them that their racism is ill-advised, or walking into a mob bar and trying to convince the goodfellas to give up crime. These people are interesting subjects of sociological observation, and their bad deeds need to be thwarted, but interacting with them is a confusion of levels, like trying to cure a bacterial infection by arguing with the bacteria.
So that's the thanks you get for trying to wake up the brain dead over there at Uncommonly Demented.
Those IDiots are such hypocrites. You may be better off without them but they sure lost a chance to learn something. As usual.
Bah, forget the flotsam and jetsam of the blogosphere on Uncommon Descent. Your blog is way cooler, for one simple reason: I've posted a comment on it! :)
Not much seasonal goodwill there. Hey ho: they're just pissed that our white haired bearded man with the answers to life did a much more recent personal appearance than theirs. And we've got the proofs of his good book. They'll get over it. Or maybe not: they are funny with a gob on. If the creation had gone on a bit longer maybe He'd have given them a sense of humour.
ID is a rhetorical movement. Major doctrines (framing the issue) include that ID is not creationism (error of classification) and that IDiots are "scientists". It behooves us at every available opportunity to identify ID as creationism and its practitioners as pseudoscientists.
It reminds me of when a Christian banned an atheist from a blog awhile back because the atheist kept calling God the "invisible cosmic daddy." The Christian took offense, even though the description was very correct and even biblically supported.
HAHAHA its marvelous to watch these CREATIONISTS and IDiots! They are their own worst enemies.
I posted a few times over there before they moderated me out.
I called them on their appeal to the many US state constitutions that refer to divine authority. I said that I was there for the scientific arguments for ID and, where were they? Instead, they seem intent on asserting that the USA is a Christian fundamentalist nation in which ID should be accepted state/public school dogma.
There were some flickers of interest when I averred that IDers would do better to defer the critique of evolution until they could assert positive evidence for ID, for example by showing that genetic information was already present in macromolecules spewed out by the big bang. Someone even said that was unlikely considering the temperatures and other conditions prevailing at that time.
But I think the final straw was when I critiqued a claim that it is untrue that ID makes no predictions, when it clearly predicts that evolution will be proved wrong. Talk about ridiculous!?
Tom
Post a Comment