A \"solid 90% probability\"? How does he work that out?
I can pull statistics out of my arse too. 40% of people know I can.
8/1/2006 4:20:34 PM
Whereas if he asks you to quote from the proper revealed by god inerrant scripture this brings a solid 147.226%
probability you have a genuine bible babbler on your hands.
8/1/2006 4:35:38 PM
This has to at least qualify as a Pot and Kettle Award nominee. The Bible Babblers insist that there is scientific data to back up their claims of young earth, creationism, et. al., but I have yet to see any of it that is not based on Genesis. Other than twisting and convoluting evidence for evolution to try to have it prove their fairy tale, they have nothing.
8/1/2006 5:22:46 PM
This is some of the most polished Mirror Award material I've ever seen -- as one would expect from a site called \"Evolution Fairytale Forum.\" If that gets taken by some other post, perhaps this one could be given a \"Rubber and Glue\" Award, considering its obviously puerile \"logic.\"
It's pretty early yet to give out awards, being just the first of the month -- but remember, it's still an honor just to be nominated!
8/1/2006 5:26:22 PM
evo-babbler? is this a new term? Can I find it in proper scientific literature ?
Just so everyone is clear on the rules, no using evidence that supports your hypothesis. Bible is still ok (but only KJV)
8/1/2006 5:57:41 PM
How to spot a Bible-babbler.
3) He claims you are taking quotes from the Bible out of context. An all time classic! 95.6493% probability!
2) Asks for proof (ie Bible verse) when faced with proof. This brings a solid 100.0% probability you have a genuine Bible-babbler on your hands.
1) And the number one sure sign - cites the Bible at every opportunity (relevance to current topic optional). You will be fortunate to find 1 scholarly comment in the bible out of every comment present. If done just once, it registers in at an impressive 99.9% accuracy! If they list more than one bible verse in the same post, you have a dead-ringer at 246.72354%!!!?!?!!!!
Once again, swapping words produces interesting results.
8/1/2006 6:32:56 PM
Haha, I got banned from that forum for pointing out to the mod that his rules were tyrannical and not condusive to honest debate. The rules basically boil down to, \"Any time someone calls a Creationist on their shit, they will be labelled an 'evo-babbler' and banned from the forum.\"
The entire purpose of his forum seems to be a manifestation of Fred's own self-congratulatory superiority complex. He gives himself the highest power as mod, makes rules that more or less prevent the evolution side from engaging in any sort of legitimate debate, and then gleefully bans anyone who questions his logic.
Too bad I can't post there anymore, since I wanted to ask him how he can rectify saying that evolution was the doctrine of Hitler and Stalin's massacres, then turn around and say that evolution is believed exclusively by liberals, therefore it is political rather than scientific. Though I'm sure his response would be that Hitler and Stalin were liberals.
8/1/2006 6:57:47 PM
oh ye gods. Is there a Club Fred where this guy and Phelpsy get together?
8/1/2006 8:09:26 PM
Because we all know that quoting proper scientific literature is just wrong.
8/1/2006 8:50:16 PM
The stupid! It burns!
8/1/2006 8:54:21 PM
And what does all of this signify?
BTW Do you know how you can tell a creationist babbler?
Every time you confront him with actual verifiable research they'll give you crap like this.
8/1/2006 8:59:10 PM
Top ways to know you are talking to Fred:
3. Doesn't know what constitutes proper context.
2. Doesn't know what constitutes proper scientific literature.
1. Cites articles from DrDino.com.
8/1/2006 9:31:21 PM
Napoleon the Clown
Aaaawwwww, how cute!
8/1/2006 9:46:14 PM
And remember folks, \"If it quotes scripture, it's a Fundy. If it craps in its paw and flings poo at you, it's a monkey.\" Not a lot of difference, so look sharp - and they both have a tendency to bite.
8/1/2006 11:48:14 PM
73% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
8/2/2006 12:24:17 AM
I think the funniest part is number 5.
5) Fond of strawman arguments. This is actually prevalent among evolutionists who do not worship at the Talk.Origins alter, so you only have a 50% chance he/she is a genuine evo-babbler. Look for other symptoms to confirm the evo-babbler diagnosis. However, if the evo-babbler erected the strawman by putting words into your mouth, the disease has metastasized to stage 3 and you have an 85% probability the individual has been infected with evo-babble-itis!
8/2/2006 1:16:21 AM
Also note that the list talks about circular reasoning. An example of this from his site, him in a debate.
Perhaps the greatest evidence for creation is the creation itself.
8/2/2006 1:20:29 AM
You are the suckest person on Earth! 103% true!
8/2/2006 2:31:03 AM
3) So, even if you are quoting them out of context, you can say he's wrong.
2) You can ignore scientific literature and yank stuff out of your ass.
1) You can ignore anything from this site and all content without having to do any research!
8/2/2006 4:40:27 AM
Yeah, how dare they try to bring facts into what you clearly think is a crap-fest!
8/2/2006 5:11:30 AM
This simply has to be a troll!
8/2/2006 7:10:34 AM
So, to sum up: \"evo-babblers\" don't like quote mining, do like scientific evidence, and cite articles from a reasonable source? How terribly reasonable!
8/2/2006 12:52:37 PM
Fred williams is a complete moron.
8/2/2006 5:07:45 PM
\"You say that as though it's a bad thing\" award?
8/2/2006 11:34:30 PM
Isn't anyone else thinking that this entire site is a parody?
Because it would certainly put my mind at rest! This must be some kinda troll!
8/4/2006 6:29:46 PM