Comments for Lambda Delta: Tony Sidaway's blog

Comment on How to spot a hidden religious agenda by arc

arc — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 23:17:24 +0000

Man, I could imagine writing a book using many of those phrases, and I’m no creationist. In particular, asserting that evolution is blind and random is a helpful counter to the widespread misapprehension that evolution is all about triumphant progress towards greater things (the phrase to watch out for here is “next stage in human evolution”)

And “astonishingly complex molecular machines” seems a good description of cells to me, particularly as many people don’t seem to have a good grasp of how complex they actually are. Not that I think I do, either, but the little I do know certainly screams ‘astonishingly complex’ to me.

(I can see the point about taking the ‘machines’ metaphor too seriously and thinking it implies a designer, but I think you’ll find historically machine metaphors has mostly been used to push the notion that the system so described is comprehensible in terms of simple interactions of fundamental parts, i.e. traditionally calling some natural system a machine is more a denial of some *élan vital* than the assertion of the existence of a Designer).

Comment on Examining a creationist argument on the fossil record by Sirius

Sirius — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 01:13:12 +0000

It’s called irony, Tony.

;] but I suspect you knew that

-Sirius

Comment on When faith kills: part 2, Ava Worthington, Oregon by Judy Ann Ferguson

Judy Ann Ferguson — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 19:47:08 +0000

Re the Worthington case – how did felony manslaughter get reduced to the mother’s acquittal and the father’s misdeamenor charge with 60 days jaul and 5 years probation. It appears as if the 1999 law by the Oregon legislature did nothing to further the protection of children. It also appears that the jury believed the paternal grandmother over the medical examiner, the autopsy report and autopsy pictures. Were there “faither healers” on the jury? Were there those that believe in the “laying on of hands” on the jury, or is just ignorance in those types of communities that seem to be more prelevant in states like Oregon and Utah? This jury clearly did not follow the laws the legislature put in place in 1999. How did this happen? This is very upsetting and I fail to find a “reasonable reason”, if there is such a thing, to why grown adults would stand around and watch a helpless fifteen-month ol baby gasp for air and then die? I believe, but of course cannot prove, that the paternal grandmother was not entirely truthful, which was evident by her body language, her facial expressions and movements with her hands to her face when she answered questions about Ava’s appearance on her last day of life. A child cannot go from “strong and chubby” to emaciated with ribs showing and obstructed airways, in just a few hours. Please address this , as there are many more of us out here. Thanks

Comment on Examining a creationist argument on the fossil record by Tony Sidaway

Tony Sidaway — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 02:05:45 +0000

Sirius seems to live on the glow of our contempt.

Comment on Examining a creationist argument on the fossil record by Sirius

Sirius — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 01:54:22 +0000

Tony [and you are still unworthy of that name, btw]:

You seem to have side-stepped something.

So how did you explain polystrates again? Are you admitting that occasionally catastrophic events occur which form multiple thick layers which are erroneously interpreted as representing several long ages but we know they weren’t because the polystrates stick through them vertically? Doesn’t that cast doubt on the basic assumption of rock layers as long ages?

Forknowledge:

You’re still a lovable hack. Everyone has their niche.

Eyedunno:

Answered your bilge over on my site. Didn’t want to interrupt your gloating and preening session, but I thought you should know.

-Sirius Knott

PS You guys warm the cockles of my heart. And… you make it easy.

Comment on Examining a creationist argument on the fossil record by Tony Sidaway

Tony Sidaway — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 01:10:50 +0000

Actually my innocent intention had been to illustrate the paucity of creationist apologetics, but it soon became apparent that I had picked a poor example.

Sirius Knott isn’t just a creationist, he is probably the kind of person from whose irrational behavior anyone would cringe, so if one debunks his arguments it doesn’t count for much because nobody would take him seriously.

Comment on Examining a creationist argument on the fossil record by Eyedunno

Eyedunno — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 00:51:20 +0000

This guy is hilarious. I happened upon that page a week or so ago, and was just dumbfounded at the idea that the claims he makes might be convincing to some people. O_o

Almost everything he says is either flat wrong or subtly dishonest (e.g., in his implications that science is somehow oblivious to or is outright covering up geological unconformities).

I took shots at most of his points, and in his reply to me, he said:
“Before I respond, compassion compells me to inquire whether you’re quite serious and whether you would not prefer in any way to ammend your response to something more cogent and indicative of sapience and with rather less uninspired drivel and ad hominem?

Sweetly,
Sirius Knott”

When I challenged him to find one example of ad hominem, he responded, “You’ll note that my accusation of ad hominem was only one part of my protest of your awful screed.”

Cuz you know, “[not] cogent”, “[not] indicitive of sapience”, and “[full of] uninspired drivel” were valuable, specific counterpoints that were totally worth responding to. :P

Comment on Getting an error fixed on the main page of Conservapedia by Tony Sidaway

Tony Sidaway — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 05:19:16 +0000

If true, that’s rather alarming. I don’t recall the edit in detail, but there was nothing at all objectionable or nasty about it.

Comment on Getting an error fixed on the main page of Conservapedia by Nutty Roux

Nutty Roux — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 05:08:23 +0000

Oh Tony. In case you were wondering how things turn out for dissenters you might get a kick out of your final edit on Conservapedia no longer existing. Someone oversighted it, or permanently removed it from the database. So much for Trusworthy and so much for even feigning tolerance of even reasonably presented suggestions.

Comment on Infanticide by Tony Sidaway

Tony Sidaway — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 22:05:15 +0000

The unproven notion that most women who kill their children one month after giving birth may be in the right minds doesn’t explain why a disproportionately high number of women kill their babies. It’s hardly an opportunistic crime.