Like this?
I’m guessing that’s not gonna leave a mark.
Nah, I’ve got to cut some lawns and shovel out the driveway and shit. 
CMC fnord!
So SA is saying that he is not finding evidence that he is not lying? Funny that he is smart enough to notice the Alaska republican platform, but deftly marches on over the other evidence.
Oh well, he may ignore it but the fact is that indeed many conservatives officially equate evolution with creationism as an origin theory. Saying otherwise is not true at all and ignoring it does show indeed dishonesty from SA.
(On Edit) and still more evidence of other dopers not being fooled by Sarving’s “efforts”.
Lawyered!
There is also
http://www.conservapedia.com/Creation
http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution
http://www.conservapedia.com/Intelligent_design
Oh, man, you really are as dumb as a bag of hammers, aren’t you?
The part of my post about abortion was in no way a direct reference to you. I can’t remember ever even discussing abortion with you (although it’s possible that i have), nor did i have any idea of what your position on the issue was.
I used the example of the abortion debate as a general example of how i can disagree with someone about an issue and yet still have productive discussions and rational debate with them on the issue, as long as we each accept some ground rules and understand the difference between moral positions and factual assertions.
My comment about your hostility to rational debate and rules of evidence was not about abortion in particular, as anyone with three functioning neurons might have been able to work out. That paragraph represented, quite clearly, a shift from my general example of abortion to talking about you specifically.
As i said, i neither know nor care about your position on abortion. My main point about you was that you’re not worth the effort it takes to try and engage in rational debate, because you simply don’t know how to do it. I’ve manged to avoid engaging with you over recent months, except for an occasional passing observation about your stupidity or your dishonesty, and that’s the policy i’m going to return to, because it’s all you deserve.
Nice one.
To a less supple mind, this appears to be a contradiction between “is” and “is not”. But Starkers mind is not restrained by such mundane restrictions. Its like a Heisenberg dueling scar of the sort prized by young Prussian physicists of long ago, its there when you want it to be, and disappears instantly when you don’t. And in either case, it either was or it wasn’t, and always will be, or always will not be.
This is too many for me. I fold.
Meanwhile, at the [del]legion of doom[/del] Conservative Stupid-Making Machine, The Republicans come out not only as supporters of Climate Change deniers, but as their future enforcers of their anti-science efforts.
http://climateprogress.org/2010/10/08/michael-mann-cuccinelli-sensenbrenner-issa-anti-science/
Yep, dark times are coming thanks to the Republican war on science…
Or it will be comedy gold for generations to come.
Generations? Plural? From your lips to the Ears…
Or to a more supple one, the distinctions made through use of the words “apparently” and “not necessarily” might subtly shade the meaning of the posted quotes, thus making them not quite the contradiction in terms that they may appear to be at eager, fault-finding first glance.
Good plan.
Ah yes, I was expecting him to return and show to all that he was also lying about not caring about this issue anymore…
I’d say it’s safe bet that few people promoting creationism have thought that deeply about it, let alone evolution or abiogenesis, so if they’ve conflated the two it’s not necessary to assume some liberal conspiracy. The simpler explanation is that creationists are dumb.
Well, just to be clear I never said it was a ‘conspiracy’. It’s just that minds that are essentially in agreement tend to think and speak alike and to say and understand things in a similar way. This board, for example, is overwhelmingly liberal and posters here voice their liberal opinions in very similar ways, but that isn’t the result of a conspiracy.
And William F. Buckley, Jr. was a creationist, as have been and are many other extremely intelligent men. It’s dumb to claim that creationists are dumb.
Well, you know, interest ebbs and flows. Plus some allegations demand response lest some poor schlub actually believe them.
What the hell? I posted those exact same quotes and didn’t get a peep out of you.
I wonder if I’m on Starving’s ignore list. Let’s find out.
Woo hoo! Aerosmith should be played during the seventh-inning stretch! Medical marijauna covered by public health plans! Short skirts! More condoms in schools!
That oughta do it.
(Not quite sure what to make of luci’s asertion that my brain isn’t spongy enough.)
Oh. So, the ambiguity is intentional, then? Tsk. Clarity, Starkers, clarity! Stupidity is not redeemed by subtle shades of meaning.
He is not thinking that we forgot that his assertion that conservatives are not confusing the origin issue with evolution was a stinky lie?
I guess he is…
By “stinky lie”, do you mean it wasn’t true, or do you mean it was false? You have to mind these subtle distinctions with Starkers, he is a very nuanced thinker.
Well, he was dumb when it came to life origins.
Unless you’re arguing that creationism is a reasoned intelligent position, in which case I’d just love to see the evidence. To the trivial extent Buckley is relevant to this discussion, I’m inclined to pity him as having spent his formative years trapped in a more primitive era, myself.
Pssst…hey, GIGO, luci said he was gonna fold but he’s still posting. That’s a lie in your book, right? So I trust you’re going to be an equal opportunity lie-accuser and accuse luci of lying now.
Right?
But that’s not what you said, is it?
Which I’m not.
He’s perfectly relevant given your assertion that people who believe in creation are dumb.
Ah, so you admit that these kinds of issues depend more upon one’s experiences in their formative years than they do upon one’s innate intelligence?
In that case I’d say you’re right…now.
But later, the intelligent come to realize that the existence of fact is not subjective, nor related to experiences in their formative years.
And some people fail to do so. Or worse, refuse.