On 5/9/2011 7:45 PM, nemesis wrote:
> Patrick Elliott<sel### [at] npgcablecom>  wrote:
>> On 5/9/2011 9:10 AM, Darren New wrote:
>>> http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2240#comic
>>>
>>> Funny how that works for creationists too.
>>>
>> Except that creationists tend to skip step 3, and just go around
>> claiming they have some "new and never heard" thing that proves their
>> points. You know, as in, "old, tried multiple times, and yet they are
>> somehow oblivious to how many other people use the same assertions".
>
> I think that's the 1000th time you say something along those lines in this
> forum.  This week alone.  What would be of atheists if there were non-believers,
> huh?  My guess is that they'd be pebble collectors, obsessively scrutinizing
> every cranny and nook after more shiny pebbles.
>
Gee.. Cranky much? And, no, this forum is not the only place I hang out 
at. The one that I hang out at more is one where I *see* these sorts of, 
"I am sure you haven't heard this argument before!", people show up to 
drop nonsense assertions about everything from 9/11 truthers, to 
creationism, depending on just which subject happens to be under 
discussion at the time. An obscure post on the subject of conspiracy 
theories is hardly the same as a 5 page article on the formation of 
dendrites (or some such), and the underlying evolution of the genome to 
produce those, but its precisely the sort of place you get some moron 
showing up to proclaim that their dog never gave birth to a cat, so 
somehow the entire article is worthless nonsense. And that is just when 
the topic is biology, not, "Why are we still fighting some of these 
wars?", which sometimes the blogger posts.

On that one, I think he is missing the point BTW. He calls it a war on 
an idea. Its not, its a war on a method, one that has been used, 
successfully, against clinics, less successfully against animal labs, 
and which people will keep using, and others ignoring, as long as the 
apparent goal is something they agree with, even to the point where they 
refuse to call it the same thing. You can't fight an idea. But you can't 
pretend that people don't use the method, and ignore that its in use, 
and who supports it either.

So, being a subject I am familiar with, I should not state the obvious, 
with relation to someone else's comment on the subject in question?

Oh, and I hate fishing.

Post a reply to this message