Nick Matzke is a dodo
Nick Matzke is a former Public Information Project Director of the National Center for Science Education and was an advisor to the plaintiffs in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case. In a recent post on Panda's Thumb, he wrote,
Sheeeesh
To a first approximation, if evangelicals become OK with evolution, then the evolution fight will be over and the evolutionists will have won, in the Western world, at least.
Sheeeesh
posted by Larry Fafarman | 11/21/2010 12:55:00 PM
12 Comments:
What's wrong with that statement?
The thing is there is no creation-evolution controversy within the scientific community. The controversy is between science and basically the fundamentalist christian community.
Saying that over and over again does not make it true, doofus.
You are right Larry. What makes it true is that it IS true.
If it were in fact true, bozo, then my statement that saying it over and over again does not make it true would be meaningless.
No Larry actually you are right. Repeating something doesn't make it true. My statement is true because 99.99% of the world's scientists accept evolution.
Agreed. Whether or not something is true is completely independent of how often someone affirms or denies it.
gary said...
>>>>>> My statement is true because 99.99% of the world's scientists accept evolution. <<<<<
Now I know that you are really full of shit.
Anonymous said...
>>>>>> Agreed. Whether or not something is true is completely independent of how often someone affirms or denies it. <<<<<<
Then what was the point of the statement, "The thing is there is no creation-evolution controversy within the scientific community"?
The point? The point is that scientists do not dispute evolution, only religionists. Likewise historians do not dispute the Holocaust, only anti-semitic cranks.
What does that have to do with Anonymous's statement, bozo?
>>>Then what was the point of the statement, "The thing is there is no creation-evolution controversy within the scientific community"?<<<
How the fuck should I know? Ask gary, he's the one that said it. At a guess, he was jumping to the conclusion that you were actually claiming that there was something wrong with Nick's statement. However, since you have refused to say what exactly is wrong (if anything) with Nick's statement and you have censored all my attempts at guessing, it is unclear whether he guessed correctly.
>>>What does that have to do with Anonymous's statement, bozo?<<<
Why the fuck should it have anything to do with my statement, moron? You for some unexplained reason asked me what gary's point was, and he responded. Funny how you refuse to explain your own points, yet demand that people explain other people's points. We're not fucking mind readers, jackass.
Bozo, this whole discussion has been pointless. The fact is that Nick Matzke made a very stupid comment, and all I did was point it out.
Post a Comment
<< Home