Sometimes in the course of events over at Ray's, certain individuals single themselves out as the most preposterous, absurd, lying pieces of shit, that they must be recognized as such.
This recognition goes out to "Eric." He has no profile (not a problem actually) but claims he has a science degree while not having a clue about the definition of a scientific Theory."
It has been explained to him on several occasion in a precise manner. Then, some one used a definition from Wiki, so while totally ignoring all the definitions he has been given, he says, "Wikipedia is not and should ever used as a standard, with a few keystrokes you or I can edit the information without accountability." He thinks he is slyly sidestepping the question by doing that, but of course he is only fooling himself.
Eric then uses the dictionary definition for the colloquial "Theory." It is hilarious the way he so overtly ignores facts that he does not like.
As I said, he is a liar because there is no way on earth that someone can hold a degree in science ad not know the definition of a Scientific Theory.
I'm going to post the comment he made that proves he is a study in absurdity.
"Eric" said...
Jason said,
You're misleadingly distorting the meaning of the word "theory" on purpose, which definitely invalidates your opinion.
DJ said,
Hello Eric. As you have a degree in a science-related area, then I assume that you are aware of the scientific definition of a theory, namely that one is a "well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the world"(wikipedia).
Eric says:
Wikipedia is not and should ever used as a standard, with a few keystrokes you or I can edit the information without accountability. [He thinks he's being cute by sidestepping the statement]
Funk and Wagnalls New standard Dictionary of the English Language c19261.The act or result of looking into or contemplating any object or group of objects, or any event or series of events; beholding ; viewing; speculation.2.Hence: (1)A mental plan or scheme framed to agree with the observed facts and designed as a rational explanation of them. In this sense, customarily understood to be a scheme of explanation which comes nearer to being a law verifiable by all others on the basis of observation and experiment than does a hypothesis. (2)Mere hypothesis or speculation; hence, an individual view; idea; as, the soldier's theory of duty.3.More specif., a systematic generalization, entertained in the development of some one of the positive sciences, as furnishing the most satisfactory account ofr rational explanation of a series or group of its phenomena; an elaborate and well-sustained working hypothesis designed to embrace temporarily, and to further the continued investigation of some particular science or one of its branches.theorize1.To convince by theorizing. 2.To form or express theories; speculate.
December 16, 2008 4:25 AM
I must tag on a special mention for Shawn, who ignorantly boasts:
"Why bother [studying evolution] If I know something to be a lie, why entertain it further? I would be the fool then, and not the evolutionist. Rather, I will remain in ignorance of the subject and avail my mind on the things of God, which are wholesome and pleasant to the soul. This glorious meat is food for my soul and is the light that leads to salvation. That is the only thing my mind must know.
They will do anything to create the illusion that their silly beliefs are not going up in the smoke of reason.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I also want to give a shout out to Melanie for singling out Steven J. Either she is real real new to Ray's blog or just wants to be spanked.
ReplyDeletePS word ver: faile
And what about that ridiculous CodewordConduit? Where did that guy come from?
ReplyDeleteMust be Kent Hovind on the prison computer....
...or is it?
Doesn't CodewordConduit post here? She is one of the contributors at the side
ReplyDeleteI love how his definition of Theory outright states what he pretends it does not:
ReplyDelete(1)A mental plan or scheme framed to agree with the observed facts and designed as a rational explanation of them. In this sense, customarily understood to be a scheme of explanation which comes nearer to being a law verifiable by all others on the basis of observation and experiment than does a hypothesis.
Shag,
ReplyDeleteYes, even the common defintion of theory state it agrees with observed facts.
MFT,
ReplyDeleteJoke. Come on, you're part of a satirical blog, you should be able to pick up on these things by now!
It is amazing how a couple of people fell for it though. Brilliantly executed Poe.
I think that either that is not "Our" Codeword or she is Poeing!
ReplyDeletePoe! Hah, I can't believe people on this blog fell for CodewordConduit's Poe! That's awesome!
ReplyDeleteIt's an excellent poe, too: completely bonkers, blatently insane, but still believeable [sic].
I have to admit, I almost fell for it before I looked at who wrote the comment.
ReplyDeleteWow, my name's in there!
ReplyDeleteThe third definition Eric gives is just what we told him it was:
"3.More specif., a systematic generalization, entertained in the development of some one of the positive sciences, as furnishing the most satisfactory account ofr rational explanation of a series or group of its phenomena; an elaborate and well-sustained working hypothesis designed to embrace temporarily, and to further the continued investigation of some particular science or one of its branches."
MFT,
ReplyDeleteI mean you are a poe, right?
I mean nobody could actually think the way you do, could they?
Melanie got taken to SCHOOL by Steven J.
ReplyDeleteWithout a bus ride home, even.
Steven J has the patience of a saint!
ReplyDeleteBut he refuses to come over and play in our sand box; I don't like him!
ReplyDeleteExPatt,
ReplyDeleteI think he shuns satire. He seems quite ultra mature, which none of us are. :>
He's on a mission and I don't think he wants to compromise that in any way.
Just the feeling I get.
Did no one else get the impression that Melanie was asking an honest question?
ReplyDeleteI did. She really seemed interested, which is why she asked Steven J.
ReplyDeleteUnless, Steven J is his superhero personna and he lurks here under another guise.
ReplyDeleteFroggie wrote:
ReplyDeleteHe seems quite ultra mature, which none of us are.
I'm trying to think of a sarcastic, self-depricating way to deny my own immaturity while at the same time being immature.
You'd think that'd be easy for me, but apparently not...
Dimensio is rocking this debate, too. I love the new perpsective on "take their dumb clichees and spelling mistakes literally."
ReplyDeleteFor instance:
"Evolution is putrid and unwholesome meat.
"Evolution" is a descriptor for a process of allele frequency change over time and for the scientific theory that incorporates the aforementioned change as a means of explaining the emergence of biodiversity. There is no definition of the word that refers to any form of animal flesh in any state of putrefaction or of any nutritional value."
And also
"Wow this is what is happing now poeple are going to collage
Who is attending an assemblage of diverse fragments in an unexpected juxtaposition?"
I love this robot.
I second theShaggy's recommendation of dimensio.
ReplyDeleteHe's so inspiring. I hadn't noticed the collage comment, but the meat thing was awesome.
"Evolution": tastes like chicken.
Mr Smith. Rabbitpirate. Iago.
ReplyDeleteYou guys should be ashamed of yourselves. Two clicks to my blog.
Two.
I posted again, even stupider than the first one, claiming that evolutionists believe they will evolve invisibility in order to escape the final judgement. Iago has commented in a most derogatory manner.
Actually, that reminds me of a quote:
ReplyDelete"The US evolutionary biologist Joe Staton says that fish have their own distinctive cooked taste because they evolved earliest. Amphibians, which evolved next, were the first creatures to taste like chicken. But the chicken taste really took over with the rise of the dinosaurs, which tasted like chicken on a monumental scale before giving rise to today's birds."
-- from The Irish Independent
Quas'El said:
ReplyDeleteI'm trying to think of a sarcastic, self-depricating way to deny my own immaturity while at the same time being immature.
You'd think that'd be easy for me, but apparently not...
If I were immature, I'd say "cuntsnack" and "tit dirt" and "douche ass" WAY more often than I do.
I'm kind of getting bored on Ray's blog. I put some thought and time into writing comments to spark discussion, but no one ever responds because I don't try to be confrontational there.
ReplyDeleteThe only person to respond to any of my posts recently was Ray himself, which was nice of him. He wished me a Merry Christmas.
Maybe it's just the time-delayed format of Ray's blog. It makes having a discussion difficult. :)
Kaitlynn,
ReplyDeleteSame here. I just can't get serious about it too much so I troll him a bit here and there.
I like to pick on Vera and a couple others.
I have several comments on the "Nothing to Sing About" post in which I was asking them to wite down some of the "Absolute truths," etc but he has not moderated it all day.
Also, he deleted four of my comments in the Charles Darwin Bible Post.
Someone had asked his purpose in all this and I responded that he was trying to create controversy and to annoy non-theists into making comments because it was good for book sales.
Tried it three more times but it never showed up.
"Ziztur said...
I have to wonder why it is that some Christians write books with intentionally misleading titles. This isn't the only one.
The title of this book is a deliberate "gotcha" for people looking for science........"
I said,
"Ray creates controversy and tries to annoy non-theists into commenting. Controversy is what sells the books.
This is a bald faced marketing ploy and dishonest at best.
Ray has shown time and again that he has no understanding of science or Darwin and he has freely admitted it.
Ray considers intellectual dishonesty a proper method for selling his books."
I'm going to give it one more shot.
BBL
Froggie wrote:
ReplyDeleteHe seems quite ultra mature, which none of us are.
What is this 'mature' thing of which you speak? ;)
I think I see a trend.
ReplyDeleteIf I mention anything about Ray's sales of books or his ministry finances- poof.
One thing I've noticed over the years though is that to my knowledge, even the most corrupt of these ministries never go bankrupt. Even Jimmy Swaggart is back on TV and it probably won't be long until Ted Haggard will start up a new church and the fucktards will be throwing money at him.
NM'El,
ReplyDeleteKinda like someone who walks around being far too serious about the whole situation, every time, or something like that, since I dug my hole on that one I hafta make up my own definition of the word.......
Damn, some people really are thick as shit - he included the exact definition of 'theory' that you guys were trying to hammer into his skull.
ReplyDeleteSometimes these Poe-like idiot pawns share a name! Check out the idiocy of our pet pigeon Erik Brewer in this thread at DI: http://dangerousintersection.org/2008/09/22/why-i-am-not-an-atheist/
Mandrellian,
ReplyDeleteThat was a well statedand well thought out post at DI.
I'll be checking back there.
So this Erik Brewer is the Erik from Ray's. Interesting.
He says there are 300 prophesies from the bible that are proven to have come true.
Confirmation bias at it's finest.
I see that after releasing comments three times now, Ray still has not released the Nothing to Sing About comments yet.
ReplyDelete