skeptictimes errorson the following page

[tkster]

Uh, I did look before I made my post. I even refreshed the page.

I did it again, and still I see the claim in question: 45% of Scientists don't accept Darwinian Evolution

Yes, that is true based on 1995 and 2002 stats by the NY Times. Sorry, but 45% of Scientists DON'T accept Darwinian Evolution.

take care,
tk (http://www.skeptictimes.com/)

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Yes, that is true based on 1995 and 2002 stats by the NY Times. Sorry, but 45% of Scientists DON'T accept Darwinian Evolution.

take care,
tk (http://www.skeptictimes.com/)

So you lied when you said: "Actually if you looked you wouldn't see them anymore."

Why haven't you disputed the opening post? Jet Black presented his case that you misrepresented the study in question. You have done nothing but first lie and now remain in denial. Show us the facts as Jet Black as done.

 

[tkster]

So you lied when you said: "Actually if you looked you wouldn't see them anymore."

Why haven't you disputed the opening post? Jet Black presented his case that you misrepresented the study in question. You have done nothing but first lie and now remain in denial. Show us the facts as Jet Black as done.

No, did you look? Does it not say 45% don't accept Darwinian evolution? Of course, there ya' go.

take care,
tk (http://www.skeptictimes.com/)

 

[pureone]

You've lied on almost every thread you've been on, TKster. You lied when you said "you can't lie on DVD" in another thread (I pointed out a few of hovinds lies), and now you are lying now.

 

[pureone]

All evolution is Darwinian, not Lamarkian.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

No, did you look? Does it not say 45% don't accept Darwinian evolution? Of course, there ya' go.

take care,
tk (http://www.skeptictimes.com/)

Why do you persist in lying?

It still says the same thing (after refreshing the page at the time of this post):

Argument One: Evolution is universally accepted by scientists.​

This is a lie. According to the New York Times, 45% of American scientists don't accept Darwinian Evolution.​

​

If Jet Black's opening post is incorrect, then show us the facts as he has done, or else admit your "mistake" and change it (or of course you can be like Hovind and pretend like it doesn't exist and lose all credibility).​

 

[Arikay]

tkster, can you give us specific source of your data?

 

[Jet Black]

No, did you look? Does it not say 45% don't accept Darwinian evolution? Of course, there ya' go.

take care,
tk (http://www.skeptictimes.com/)

no, it does not say that 45% do not accept dawinian evolution. it says that about 5% believe in a literal creation, 50% believe in theistic evolution (which includes darwinian evolution) and 45% believe in non theistic evolution. can you actually provide a reference for your allegation?

 

[Arikay]

It works as long as you lie about the definition of evolution, and we know tkster is unwilling to change that lie even after being told multiple times, so it appears this lie wont change either.

So much for that claim of being a skeptic and trying to find acurate information.


On a side note, has anyone seen his article on theistic evolutionists?
Its page it titled "morons" and goes on to judge the faith of other christians, so I don't expect to see any honesty coming out of him, but maybe he will surprise us.

 

[Jet Black]

On a side note, has anyone seen his article on theistic evolutionists?
Its page it titled "morons" and goes on to judge the faith of other christians, so I don't expect to see any honesty coming out of him, but maybe he will surprise us.

clearky an informed skeptic judgement. heh. I was reading through the newsletters and so on, the whole writing style is atrocious. I was intending to turn this thread into a thread of errors, but the whole thing is just so dire that it is easier for people to look for themselves.

 

[USincognito]

Can I post a short message in giant letters to get my point acoss? I'm sorry if it bugs anyone but...

Will you all stop quoting his typed in "sig line" spam?

All you're doing is giving him, hoaxster trying to make creationists look bad, or the read deal, free publicity.

 

[Jet Black]

Can I post a short message in giant letters to get my point acoss? I'm sorry if it bugs anyone but...

Will you all stop quoting his typed in "sig line" spam?

All you're doing is giving him, hoaxster trying to make creationists look bad, or the read deal, free publicity.

it needs to be bigger, and in red and bold:

Will you all stop quoting his typed in "sig line" spam?

 

[pureone]

No, I want to show it to all my other athiest friends at Infidelguy.com so they rush the site. if enough of us log on at once, we can crash it!

 

[Data]

Still hasn't fixed his logo.

I think that sets the standard for his entire website, really

 

[Logic]

your using his bandwidth, you thief!

 

[Sopharos]

 

[USincognito]

Still hasn't fixed his logo.

I think that sets the standard for his entire website, really

I can think of two letters that are missing from that logo.

 

[Logic]

I can think of two letters that are missing from that logo.

 

[Arikay]

A question to tk (if he ever comes back to this page):
Who is, Joshua?

 

[Jet Black]

I can think of two letters that are missing from that logo.

I think so too, bu I am not sure he really wants to relate his site to carbon based fire deposits.