Something keeps coming up, so I thought I'd post a poll, and we'd see. Hopefully I can phrase this poll in a way that adheres to the forum's policies. If my poll is phrase in a poor way, let me know and I shall correct it.
Tactics Poll
- Thread starter Morat
- Start date
- Status
Well, seeing as how this particular forum is dominated by people that Nick battles with everyday, ie atheists, I don't see how it can really mean anything.
Dominated in the sense of sheer numbers.
Dominated in the sense of sheer numbers.
Upvote
0
I admit, against my better judgment, to voting for the third choice. It must be that petreley's Christian love and compassion are rubbing off on me.
re: sOuljah. What on earth "atheists" have to do with petreley's pre-Enlightenment crusade against reality is beyond me. There are plenty of Christians on the side of empirical science around here, many of whom seem to be just as appalled at petreley's rebarbative machinations as any godless heathen.
re: sOuljah. What on earth "atheists" have to do with petreley's pre-Enlightenment crusade against reality is beyond me. There are plenty of Christians on the side of empirical science around here, many of whom seem to be just as appalled at petreley's rebarbative machinations as any godless heathen.
Upvote
0
In retrospect, I should have added a "He makes his points in a way no different than anyone else. He's worse than some, better than others". Just thought I'd add. 
Upvote
0
I know his tactics aren't effective on me personally, because I know he is all rhetoric and no substance (scientifically speaking).
Unfortunately I suspect the rhetoric is more persuasive to those with less familiarity with the science.
Unfortunately I suspect the rhetoric is more persuasive to those with less familiarity with the science.
Upvote
0
Well, speaking of tactics, Morat, this is an interesting way to deal with the fact that you were publicly humiliated for lying about creationists. When you were caught with your pants down, you couldn't muster the courage to deal with it. So instead you create a poll specifically for little old me in a forum overrun by evolutionists who would love to vote on such things because I've repeatedly undermined their fantasy.
Well, I actually owe you a bit of thanks on this one. I'm actually quite honored to get the attention, and even more honored to see that bottom bar get longer and longer. I hope it keeps increasing. So you evolutionists, get out and vote! Make your voice known!
Upvote
0
Read back through the threads. Morat never lied about anything. You accusing him of it doesn't make it even remotely true. An accusation of dishonesty coming from a Professional creationist, or someone who emulates and borrows their tactics, is a source of irony that will not be lost here.
Oh poor persecuted Nick, he can't borrow garbage claims from his favorite propaganda web-site without having the claims debunked and the author of the propaganda exposed for his own dishonest tactics. Poor, persecuted Nick. Why don't we all just make a pact that whatever Nick does on this forum, no matter what tactics he employs, no matter what, we will all bow down and kiss his feet, and laugh at his sarcastic humor?
Upvote
0
I lied? Really? When? I strive my best for accuracy, and when I've been misled I try to muster the grace to admit it. This isn't more of you trying to rescue AiG for continuing to repeat false claims about Ambulocetus and the geochronology thereof, is it?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Morat, quit persecuting him. According to the pact, he can blatantly accuse anyone he wants to of lying, and we are supposed to kiss his feet and second his emotion. Else, we are persecuting him. I hate to see an innocent lamb like Petreley persecuted just for doing his job as a professional creationist wannabe.
Upvote
0
seebs
God Made Me A Skeptic
- Apr 9, 2002
- 31,914
- 1,529
- 18
- Faith
- Seeker
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I'd have to disagree. I have often been the one person arguing against a *numerically* superior group, and it's not that bad... as long as you're careful to stick to claims you can support, and behave in a respectful manner.
Upvote
0
"It's persecution, I tell you!"
"I do not think that words means what you think it does".
With apologies to The Princess Bride.
"I do not think that words means what you think it does".
With apologies to The Princess Bride.
Upvote
0
Maybe he solicits persecution at any cost to his own integrity, in order to pile up some blessings? Wouldn't that be like embezzlement or something?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
You think he's after Persecution points, as opposed to Loki points?
I guess it depends on how he acts at the end of the day. Was it "Look how reviled I am for telling the truth" or "Look how much I stirred up this time".
I guess it depends on how he acts at the end of the day. Was it "Look how reviled I am for telling the truth" or "Look how much I stirred up this time".
Upvote
0
I repeat:
The word "PELVIS" was never spoken during the entire radio spot. You also imply that this is a lie by Ken Ham because the radio spot aired in 2001, after the bones were found. But Ken Ham said in that radio spot that THE PICTURE IN THE BOOK TO WHICH HE WAS REFERRING was based on a fossil with 50% of the bones missing. He never said that those bones were still missing as of the radio spot. But you didn't even bother to listen to the radio spot to find out. You simply lodged your false accusations, and continue to do so even after having been proven wrong. That makes you far more morally depraved than what you are claiming of others.
Again, you are twisting (lying about) the facts. The URL to which you refer simply states that the reconstruction of Ambulocetus was based on an incomplete fossil. It never says that the bones weren't found AFTER that reconstruction. Unless you can prove that the reconstruction was based on the more complete set of bones, there's no reason for the author to correct anything because what is claimed is perfectly true.
The bottom line:
In trying to discredit creationists, you didn't do the research, you got your facts wrong, you and the site that supposedly exposes Sarfati failed to prove that any of these creationists deliberately intended to deceive anyone, which is what "lie" means.
If you've tried to muster the grace to admit you were wrong, you not only failed miserably at that as well, but compounded your error by launching a poll to cover up for it.
This is the kind of person who hawks evolution, folks.
As for all those who are cheering morat in spite of his blatant errors and misrepresentation of what others have said and done...
Upvote
0
Morat, why don't you admit that Nick/AiG have maintained the minimum standard of honesty (that being "plausible deniability"), so we can get on with the show here... And for Nick's sake, please quit persecuting him.
That is, unless you are planning on hunting down the source of the reconstruction to find out who drew it and what they were working from.. Shouldn't be too hard, if AiG documented the source they borrowed it from.
That is, unless you are planning on hunting down the source of the reconstruction to find out who drew it and what they were working from.. Shouldn't be too hard, if AiG documented the source they borrowed it from.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Why Nick, you are absolutely correct. The radio spot did not repeat the lie that the pelvis was missing, instead choosing to tell the lie that 50% of the fossil was missing.
That is my mistake entirely. They told a lie, and I was completely wrong on which one it was. Sadly, I believed it was a smaller lie (the absence of one bone), as opposed to a larger lie (the omission of roughly 48% of the skeleton). But Jesus was spot on with lies of omission, right?
And the Second Whale of a Tale's lie was, depending on your definition of the word "is", one of deceptive omission (failing to note that the complete fossil verified the original claims), or a complete accident of phrasing that merely conveyed the opposite of the truth.
My mistake entirely. I apologize for being incorrect on the exact nature of the lie involved. Thankfully, it was merely an accident of phrasing. Thankfully, Nick was here to point out exactly what the actual lie was. Three cheers for Nick for doing the research and thoroughly documenting the actual nature of the lies told by Safarti!
That is my mistake entirely. They told a lie, and I was completely wrong on which one it was. Sadly, I believed it was a smaller lie (the absence of one bone), as opposed to a larger lie (the omission of roughly 48% of the skeleton). But Jesus was spot on with lies of omission, right?
And the Second Whale of a Tale's lie was, depending on your definition of the word "is", one of deceptive omission (failing to note that the complete fossil verified the original claims), or a complete accident of phrasing that merely conveyed the opposite of the truth.
My mistake entirely. I apologize for being incorrect on the exact nature of the lie involved. Thankfully, it was merely an accident of phrasing. Thankfully, Nick was here to point out exactly what the actual lie was. Three cheers for Nick for doing the research and thoroughly documenting the actual nature of the lies told by Safarti!
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
