If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(City Pages)   Ray Comfort isn't just a moran, he's also a lazy, plagiarizing moran   (blogs.citypages.com) divider line 380
    More: Asinine, Ray Comfort, Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, University of Minnesota, historical documents, University of Sheffield, treatise, fundamentalists  
•       •       •

26020 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Dec 2009 at 2:27 PM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



380 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-12-14 05:25:46 PM
abb3w: This presumes someone has the capacity for the level of reasoning required. I'm not convinced he's that smart. And, if you're going to end up with some Scriptural Inerrant, I'd prefer an Evangelical Christian to a Randite.

Isn't there considerable overlap between the two today, even if Rand didn't exactly like religion.
 
2009-12-14 05:25:52 PM
abb3w: Can sometimes be helpful, though.

Oh, yeah, it's just that it's the same "everyone let's define nature" we've been over a thousand times.

Guess I get snippy after getting called young grasshopper for the umpteenth time by someone who admits they don't even read, and has no idea of my relative age. We can't all have a Sagan-like patience and composure.
 
2009-12-14 05:26:03 PM
gshepnyc: greentea1985: Ant: MajorShake: As an aside, wouldn't bananas being changed by humans imply an intelligent designer?

Yes, humans.

If you haven't seen the Ray Comfort video, he makes the absurd argument that because a banana tastes good, has a wrapper, fits into our hand, etc. that it was designed by God specifically for our consumption.

You could make a similar argument about corn, except we know that corn has been bred for generations to be a good food source, just like bananas.

The fascinating thing about the banana argument is that it can only be made by someone who know absolutely nothing about his opposition's argument. You have to know nothing whatsoever about the history of the banana or the basics of evolution and the interdependence of organisms that evolve together in the same environment. Is it really evidence of supernatural intervention that an animal evolves to eat the food sources around him?

Anyone who simply does not bother to learn anything about his opponents reasoning is a fool. Period.


But that's the fun of being religious about it. I could just say that God worked his influence through man and his Creation to produce the banana. It even takes God a little while to perfect and tweak His creations.

Then if you came back and told me there was no evidence of that. Then I could just say God works in mysterious ways.

Then if argue why God didn't just make the banana perfect to begin with, I'd tell you that his Creation is perfect at all times and ever-changing with His will, or something.

It's a really easy way to argue. I think I can counter any argument with a nonsensical statement about God.
 
2009-12-14 05:27:49 PM
Infinite Monkey: abb3w: Can sometimes be helpful, though.

Oh, yeah, it's just that it's the same "everyone let's define nature" we've been over a thousand times.

Guess I get snippy after getting called young grasshopper for the umpteenth time by someone who admits they don't even read, and has no idea of my relative age. We can't all have a Sagan-like patience and composure.


I hear smoking a lot of pot helps.

//Don't smoke. NTTAWWT
 
2009-12-14 05:30:38 PM
Bevets: So, to be clear, you would not have a problem with Comfort using the timeline as long as he cited the original author?

As I explained in my article, which you obviously read, having quoted from it, this is a form of "The Too-Perfect Paraphrase" plagiarism.


The writer properly cites a source, but neglects to put in quotation marks text that has been copied word-for-word, or close to it. Although attributing the basic ideas to the source, the writer is falsely claiming original presentation and interpretation of the information.


http://www.plagiarism.org/plag_article_types_of_plagiarism.html

Dance and sashay all you want, Comfort plagiarized. Period the end.
 
2009-12-14 05:30:59 PM
dj42: gshepnyc: greentea1985: Ant: MajorShake: As an aside, wouldn't bananas being changed by humans imply an intelligent designer?

Yes, humans.

If you haven't seen the Ray Comfort video, he makes the absurd argument that because a banana tastes good, has a wrapper, fits into our hand, etc. that it was designed by God specifically for our consumption.

You could make a similar argument about corn, except we know that corn has been bred for generations to be a good food source, just like bananas.

The fascinating thing about the banana argument is that it can only be made by someone who know absolutely nothing about his opposition's argument. You have to know nothing whatsoever about the history of the banana or the basics of evolution and the interdependence of organisms that evolve together in the same environment. Is it really evidence of supernatural intervention that an animal evolves to eat the food sources around him?

Anyone who simply does not bother to learn anything about his opponents reasoning is a fool. Period.

But that's the fun of being religious about it. I could just say that God worked his influence through man and his Creation to produce the banana. It even takes God a little while to perfect and tweak His creations.

Then if you came back and told me there was no evidence of that. Then I could just say God works in mysterious ways.

Then if argue why God didn't just make the banana perfect to begin with, I'd tell you that his Creation is perfect at all times and ever-changing with His will, or something.

It's a really easy way to argue. I think I can counter any argument with a nonsensical statement about God.


Seems to me that if you want an argument to be that easy then you don't really want an argument. You want to reaffirm your own beliefs lest the fear that you may be wrong keep you up at night. I mean, what's the point otherwise unless it's to win total mindless retards and damaged, lonely, mentally ill people who will obey... I just answered my own question.

Also, I think he does it as an incantation against the gay demons that keep telling him to touch Kirk Cameron's butt, frankly.
 
2009-12-14 05:32:50 PM
abb3w: I drunk what: do you concur?

I'd use a cloture relation rather than addition, but it's in the neighborhood of what I consider "nature" to refer to.

Infinite Monkey: Also, feedback is not required by anyone but you.

Can sometimes be helpful, though.

FloydA: I used to think so. I no longer do.

So, who else is behind it besides Mr. Sdrawkcab himself?

Dr. Mojo PhD: Having a few desirable traits also doesn't make you a good person.

True. And there are better people. On the other hand, given his apparent intellectual limits and our civilizations' current technological level in sociology and psychology, I'm not sure how much better he could be.

gshepnyc: With all due respect it is my personal belief that if you are willing and even eager to abdicate your own mind in favor of superstitious group-think, to trade reason for wishful thinking, and that if you subscribe to the idea of gods and immortal supreme beings thereby automatically reducing your own humanity and that of your fellow human beings - to say nothing of the rest of mortal nature - to second class subjects then yes, yes that does make you a bad person.

This presumes someone has the capacity for the level of reasoning required. I'm not convinced he's that smart. And, if you're going to end up with some Scriptural Inerrant, I'd prefer an Evangelical Christian to a Randite.


I'll take the Randites given that false dichotomy. At least they deal with people and don't feel the need to envision humanity kneeling before some all-powerful being which I find intensely creepy and more than a little treacherously repulsive.
 
2009-12-14 05:33:08 PM
meat0918: I hear smoking a lot of pot helps.

Now, see, if Comfort had advanced marijuana as an argument for the existence of God, that would have made more sense. An easy-to-grow plant containing a chemical which seems perfectly tailored to make humans happy? And munch on bananas? One would think that a creationist would consider that a slam dunk argument.

But of course, that's not going to happen. It's de debbil's weed.
 
2009-12-14 05:35:20 PM
Infinite Monkey: But of course, that's not going to happen. It's de debbil's weed.

I once performed a textual examination of the Book of Mormon to confirm that the consumption of marjiuana was ordained by God for two LDS Missionaries who came visiting.

Always fun to keep them on their toes.
 
2009-12-14 05:39:05 PM
My only problem with misspelling masturbation is that it really devalues its importance to all of us. Some things are sacred.

Really.

/fap
 
2009-12-14 05:39:22 PM
gshepnyc: I'll take the Randites given that false dichotomy. At least they deal with people and don't feel the need to envision humanity kneeling before some all-powerful being which I find intensely creepy and more than a little treacherously repulsive.

Well, no, but they do envision humanity kneeling before their all-powerful selves, which is just as creepy.
 
2009-12-14 05:47:47 PM
Infinite Monkey: gshepnyc: I'll take the Randites given that false dichotomy. At least they deal with people and don't feel the need to envision humanity kneeling before some all-powerful being which I find intensely creepy and more than a little treacherously repulsive.

Well, no, but they do envision humanity kneeling before their all-powerful selves, which is just as creepy.


From the little bit I know about Rand (I read the three main novels) that isn't really correct. I think they have a "lead, follow or get out of the way" mentality which really isn't all that shocking - or overbearing. The big point in Atlas Shrugged was I will never live for the sake of any man nor ask any man to live for the sake of mine. That goes both ways and seems to preclude the kneeling you mention.

There are plenty of substantive critiques to Rand's thoughts but even as casual reader I can say that a lot of the critics don't seem to have read what she actually wrote.
 
2009-12-14 05:49:24 PM
abb3w: I'd use a cloture relation rather than addition, but it's in the neighborhood of what I consider "nature" to refer to.

we're not looking for neighborhoods here, we're looking for Mer.Web. quality. So if you feel the need to modify, add, delete or expand. please have at it.

and remember this is the one we will use for all these pleasant little discussions
 
2009-12-14 05:49:47 PM
meat0918: Isn't there considerable overlap between the two today, even if Rand didn't exactly like religion.

There is a dissociatively psychotic political alliance between the two groups, but not quite "overlap" so far as I've noticed.

gshepnyc: I'll take the Randites given that false dichotomy.

Sorry; Randites are like social darwinists, only with less concern for the children.

gshepnyc: At least they deal with people

No, they deal with a strawman concept of people... if that.
 
2009-12-14 05:51:19 PM
gshepnyc

The big point in Atlas Shrugged was I will never live for the sake of any man nor ask any man to live for the sake of mine.

Yeah, how could anyone possibly interpret that as putting the 'self' above all else...
 
2009-12-14 05:57:34 PM
Baby Diego: gshepnyc

The big point in Atlas Shrugged was I will never live for the sake of any man nor ask any man to live for the sake of mine.

Yeah, how could anyone possibly interpret that as putting the 'self' above all else...


Wow. You still ignore the second part of the quote so as not to interfere with your righteous indignation. If you think self-interest means subjugating other people rather than treating them fairly and honestly (because they are also meant to behave according to self-interest) then you have a pretty foul image of "self."
 
2009-12-14 05:59:24 PM
Wow I learned me some banana stuff today
 
2009-12-14 05:59:24 PM
gshepnyc: Wow. You still ignore the second part of the quote so as not to interfere with your righteous indignation

Do you live as a hermit?
 
2009-12-14 06:02:14 PM
img.photobucket.com

The crocoduck does not exist, therefore Comfort cannot be guilty of plagiarism.

/Have I got that right, creationists?
 
2009-12-14 06:02:36 PM
noblewolf: Wow I learned me some banana stuff today

Tomorrow: Peanut Butter (new window)
 
2009-12-14 06:03:25 PM
abb3w: meat0918: Isn't there considerable overlap between the two today, even if Rand didn't exactly like religion.

There is a dissociatively psychotic political alliance between the two groups, but not quite "overlap" so far as I've noticed.

gshepnyc: I'll take the Randites given that false dichotomy.

Sorry; Randites are like social darwinists, only with less concern for the children.

gshepnyc: At least they deal with people

No, they deal with a strawman concept of people... if that.


Strawmen? Well, literary characters tend to be that, though it's a shoehorning of the term to make it apply. Hero, princess, mother, rogue, etc. Meh. Her characters are not meant to be real people anymore than Jean Valjean or Don Quixote is a real person. They are meant illuminate aspects of humanity as per the story the author wants to tell and if you find yourself in agreement with some of what they stand for, fine.

I have very little concern for the children, myself.
 
2009-12-14 06:07:55 PM
ninjakirby: gshepnyc: Wow. You still ignore the second part of the quote so as not to interfere with your righteous indignation

Do you live as a hermit?


Back off, sparky. I've seen all the cut & paste objections to Rand a thousand times and the hermit one is hardly new. My point is not to make a case for Rand's whole philosophy as much as it is to point out that her kneejerk critics cherry pick to make sure they can be suitably full of harumph.

It's the criticism of a case laid out in a novel so ignoring some of the words in order to be pissy about others is sloppy.
 
2009-12-14 06:08:28 PM
Mr. Coffee Nerves:

Considering the "Kosher Salt vs. Christian Salt" lunatics



Seriously, first I had heard of such an idiotic thing. Just when you think it couldn't get any dumber.
 
2009-12-14 06:08:47 PM
gshepnyc: abb3w: meat0918: Isn't there considerable overlap between the two today, even if Rand didn't exactly like religion.

There is a dissociatively psychotic political alliance between the two groups, but not quite "overlap" so far as I've noticed.

gshepnyc: I'll take the Randites given that false dichotomy.

Sorry; Randites are like social darwinists, only with less concern for the children.

gshepnyc: At least they deal with people

No, they deal with a strawman concept of people... if that.

Strawmen? Well, literary characters tend to be that, though it's a shoehorning of the term to make it apply. Hero, princess, mother, rogue, etc. Meh. Her characters are not meant to be real people anymore than Jean Valjean or Don Quixote is a real person. They are meant illuminate aspects of humanity as per the story the author wants to tell and if you find yourself in agreement with some of what they stand for, fine.

I have very little concern for the children, myself.


I think the problem is people read a book of fiction, and the draw far to much from it, and then try to live their lives as if they were characters from that world.
 
2009-12-14 06:09:02 PM
Hat tip here to University of Minnesota biologist PZ Meyers, who writes on his Pharyngula blog, "The one glitch, it seems to me, is that Comfort purportedly made no profit from his effort, and Guffey lost no income from use of an essay he gave away, so I'm not sure what kind of recompense he could get for the theft."

ninjakirby:

*ahem*

The segment "Timeline of Darwin's Life" is lifted nearly verbatim from the cited document, the only changes being the deletion of a few dates.


Bevets:

Is there anything on the cited timeline that could not be found in 1000 other places?

Bevets:


So...

1872 Publishes The Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals.

should be changed to:

1872 The Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals was published

or Comfort has stolen Guffey's intellectual property?


Dr. Mojo PhD:

Oh look, now Bevets doesn't understand the clear difference between something being cited in an article or forum post about Ray Comfort's plagiarism, and Ray Comfort citing something himself.

ninjakirby:

As I explained in my article, which you obviously read, having quoted from it, this is a form of "The Too-Perfect Paraphrase" plagiarism.

The writer properly cites a source, but neglects to put in quotation marks text that has been copied word-for-word, or close to it. Although attributing the basic ideas to the source, the writer is falsely claiming original presentation and interpretation of the information.


I have not found Comfort's essay online. I do not know how the source was cited, but if it was cited incorrectly I happily concede the point.

Maybe its JUST me, but it seems petty to be concerned about the copyright for a timeline -- has anyone sued over a timeline copyright before? The level of scholarship could be produced by an average 3rd grader (and 3rd graders typically do not copyright their scholarship), but if he decides to sue Comfort, Guffey can put me down for $10 toward his legal expenses.
 
2009-12-14 06:11:04 PM
meat0918: noblewolf: Wow I learned me some banana stuff today

Tomorrow: Peanut Butter (new window)


Awe Crap.. My noggin just exploded.
 
2009-12-14 06:12:17 PM
gshepnyc: ninjakirby: gshepnyc: Wow. You still ignore the second part of the quote so as not to interfere with your righteous indignation

Do you live as a hermit?

Back off, sparky. I've seen all the cut & paste objections to Rand a thousand times and the hermit one is hardly new. My point is not to make a case for Rand's whole philosophy as much as it is to point out that her kneejerk critics cherry pick to make sure they can be suitably full of harumph.

It's the criticism of a case laid out in a novel so ignoring some of the words in order to be pissy about others is sloppy.


I think that in rejecting Marx's view of the world, she went to far in embracing greed. Marx seems to conveniently wish it away, while Rand takes it to the extreme.

Both forget that we are creatures that cooperate to achieve goals that alone we cannot achieve, yet we elevate certain individuals above the rest.
 
2009-12-14 06:13:03 PM
Renart: The crocoduck does not exist, therefore Comfort cannot be guilty of plagiarism.

/Have I got that right, creationists?


almost, even IF the crocoduck did exist, could it hold a banana?

seriouslulz.com
 
2009-12-14 06:14:08 PM
gshepnyc

It's in the vein of eating cake and having it too. A bizarre belief that all individuals can act primarily in self-interest and some how, some way, the self-interest of one will not interfere with the self-interest of another.

Yet if you're going to respect another person's self-interest then you may find yourself submitting to their self-interest. In this respect Randian logic is half-baked, at best.
 
2009-12-14 06:15:05 PM
meat0918: gshepnyc: abb3w: meat0918: Isn't there considerable overlap between the two today, even if Rand didn't exactly like religion.

There is a dissociatively psychotic political alliance between the two groups, but not quite "overlap" so far as I've noticed.

gshepnyc: I'll take the Randites given that false dichotomy.

Sorry; Randites are like social darwinists, only with less concern for the children.

gshepnyc: At least they deal with people

No, they deal with a strawman concept of people... if that.

Strawmen? Well, literary characters tend to be that, though it's a shoehorning of the term to make it apply. Hero, princess, mother, rogue, etc. Meh. Her characters are not meant to be real people anymore than Jean Valjean or Don Quixote is a real person. They are meant illuminate aspects of humanity as per the story the author wants to tell and if you find yourself in agreement with some of what they stand for, fine.

I have very little concern for the children, myself.

I think the problem is people read a book of fiction, and the draw far to much from it, and then try to live their lives as if they were characters from that world.


Happens with all major literature. Christ, isn't there a Jedi Church in the UK? Sure it might be a joke - now. Wait 50 or 60 years and see.

I just like books enough to be cranky when it seems people base a critique on a partial understanding - one that leads me to believe they didn't read it, didn't read it all or just rely on what other people tell them to think.

I feel the same way about people who pick apart Dan Brown not having read him. I read him. I earned my right to decry that trash. But a certain sort of not-completely-formed person seems to think they can base a social/political position on disagreeing with an author they don't seem to have read. In other words, the rabid Anti-Randites are every bit as bad as the Randites only more oblique.
 
2009-12-14 06:16:19 PM
Bevets: have not found Comfort's essay online. I do not know how the source was cited, but if it was cited incorrectly I happily concede the point.

Maybe its JUST me, but it seems petty to be concerned about the copyright for a timeline -- has anyone sued over a timeline copyright before? The level of scholarship could be produced by an average 3rd grader (and 3rd graders typically do not copyright their scholarship), but if he decides to sue Comfort, Guffey can put me down for $10 toward his legal expenses.


Well, bully for you for speaking so stridently in support of a position about which you just admitted your complete ignorance.

Here's the link with side-by-side: Link (new window)

FYI....It's not a "timeline" at all, but a short biography. And its plagiarized, pretty clearly so.
 
2009-12-14 06:17:20 PM
gshepnyc: Wait 50 or 60 years and see.

it will be an old joke?
 
2009-12-14 06:20:12 PM
Not sure now who first brought up Rand but in having replied so much I fear I threadjacked and will therefore pass on continuing with it. I made the point as much as I care to make it plus she gets enough threads of her own.

Much rather get back to the creation loons.
 
2009-12-14 06:21:56 PM
I drunk what: Renart: The crocoduck does not exist, therefore Comfort cannot be guilty of plagiarism.

/Have I got that right, creationists?

almost, even IF the crocoduck did exist, could it hold a banana?


Frowns on your shenanigans.

news.nationalgeographic.com Link
 
2009-12-14 06:22:26 PM
I drunk what: gshepnyc: Wait 50 or 60 years and see.

it will be an old joke?


Don't you get the sense that at some early point Scientology was a joke on someone? So think twice if you assume goofy sci-fi concepts can't become a religion.
 
2009-12-14 06:23:30 PM
Bevets: have not found Comfort's essay online. I do not know how the source was cited, but if it was cited incorrectly I happily concede the point.

Maybe its JUST me, but it seems petty to be concerned about the copyright for a timeline -- has anyone sued over a timeline copyright before? The level of scholarship could be produced by an average 3rd grader (and 3rd graders typically do not copyright their scholarship), but if he decides to sue Comfort, Guffey can put me down for $10 toward his legal expenses.

GodIsDead:

Here's the link with side-by-side: Link


Thanks. Do you happen to know if the author of the article obtained permission from both Guffey and Comfort?
 
2009-12-14 06:25:04 PM
gshepnyc: I just like books enough to be cranky when it seems people base a critique on a partial understanding - one that leads me to believe they didn't read it, didn't read it all or just rely on what other people tell them to think.

interesting

would you care to take a guess at what one of the top problems with religion is?

/add a pinch of bias and what do you have?
 
2009-12-14 06:27:06 PM
Bevets: Bevets: have not found Comfort's essay online. I do not know how the source was cited, but if it was cited incorrectly I happily concede the point.

Maybe its JUST me, but it seems petty to be concerned about the copyright for a timeline -- has anyone sued over a timeline copyright before? The level of scholarship could be produced by an average 3rd grader (and 3rd graders typically do not copyright their scholarship), but if he decides to sue Comfort, Guffey can put me down for $10 toward his legal expenses.

GodIsDead:

Here's the link with side-by-side: Link

Thanks. Do you happen to know if the author of the article obtained permission from both Guffey and Comfort?


It's a citation, and they properly attributed the passages as such.

You don't need permission to cite someone last I checked. You just need to properly cite them as the source.
 
2009-12-14 06:27:34 PM
Bevets: Bevets: have not found Comfort's essay online. I do not know how the source was cited, but if it was cited incorrectly I happily concede the point.

Maybe its JUST me, but it seems petty to be concerned about the copyright for a timeline -- has anyone sued over a timeline copyright before? The level of scholarship could be produced by an average 3rd grader (and 3rd graders typically do not copyright their scholarship), but if he decides to sue Comfort, Guffey can put me down for $10 toward his legal expenses.

GodIsDead:

Here's the link with side-by-side: Link

Thanks. Do you happen to know if the author of the article obtained permission from both Guffey and Comfort?


t3.gstatic.com
 
2009-12-14 06:28:28 PM
Bevets

I have not found Comfort's essay online. I do not know how the source was cited, but if it was cited incorrectly I happily concede the point.

What, you can't type words into Google?

Bonus - Ray's original copy is abridged and leaves out numerous chapters. So much for 'getting the truth out' or whatever the fark they were saying...
 
2009-12-14 06:29:00 PM
gshepnyc: Strawmen? Well, literary characters tend to be that, though it's a shoehorning of the term to make it apply. Hero, princess, mother, rogue, etc.

The problem is, the strawman aspect seems not limited to her fiction, but extends to her non-fiction; EG.
 
2009-12-14 06:29:55 PM
The Icelander: OlafTheBent: Isn't plagarism a sin?

Maybe it's a "minor" sin... like masterbation.

He did it for Jesus so that makes it okay.


That's what I tell myself whenever I masturbate, and it's worked out pretty well for me.

/jesus and I do the double dutch rudder all the time.
 
2009-12-14 06:30:52 PM
gshepnyc: Don't you get the sense that at some early point Scientology was a joke on someone?

i'm sure it was

and I agree with you. NEVER under-estimate the power of Stupid.

but you can't fool all of the people all of the time

shall we take a quit vote on who believes Scientology is a legit religion?

do you think it would help if we showed them all the facts, accounts, documents, history, etc...?
 
2009-12-14 06:32:28 PM
Bevets

Thanks. Do you happen to know if the author of the article obtained permission from both Guffey and Comfort?

Ah, the card has been played. You want to create confusion regarding 'plagiarism' versus 'copyright infringement'. And likely wallow in the water you've made murky to show how it's all irrelevant because others have quoted it (see: fair use) versus ripped it off for use in a publication without quotation marks.

Ray's work has a little (1) after the timeline, which isn't supposed to mean "btw, large amounts of this were copypasta'd", but rather "btw, this section used this source for research material."
 
2009-12-14 06:38:54 PM
I drunk what: gshepnyc: I just like books enough to be cranky when it seems people base a critique on a partial understanding - one that leads me to believe they didn't read it, didn't read it all or just rely on what other people tell them to think.

interesting

would you care to take a guess at what one of the top problems with religion is?

/add a pinch of bias and what do you have?


My problem with religion is the inclusion of any supernatural concept in the discourse that leads to or informs policy that then affects people who do not themselves believe in that supernatural concept. So, please let me know if that is a misconception on my part and I will cede the point.

Religionists flatter themselves that their opponents have only a partial understanding of their religion. First, I've read the bible cover to cover. I know what it says. I've read as much or more Christian literature than the average Christian - lit ranging from Billy Graham to CS Lewis to St. Francis. I hold myself to the same standard I mentioned earlier. Religion is simply not as sublime and complicated as its proponents want to pretend. So, no partial understanding unless you want to call the very fact of unbelief a partial understanding in which case I must beg to differ.

My position is simple. Life is for the living, the world is for the living, no part of it and no part of my fellow mortal beings' lives is, in my eyes, mortgaged to the will and needs of any immortal beings or creatures who do not need this earth, water and air to survive.

God is not important to me even if he does exist. People are important to me and I do not let a god insinuate himself into my estimations of life and other people.
 
2009-12-14 06:40:52 PM
Bevets: I have not found Comfort's essay online. I do not know how the source was cited, but if it was cited incorrectly I happily concede the point.

The introduction Comfort opens the book with is plagiarized from Guffey in a different and more technical manner. The language used is only slightly modified (dumbed down, to be specific), with many details cut out. No attribution to Guffey is made in the slightest.

The plagiarism of the Timeline, which follows the introduction, was produced by the The Natural History Museum of London, is a different matter, which again, is explained in my article.

None of the material in the pamphlet is original. None of it is cited appropriately. The introduction is lifted from Guffey. The timeline is lifted from the NHML.

Comfort did the equivalent of editing other peoples work and trying to pass it off as his own. It's intellectually vacuous. It's plagiarism. It's possibly illegal.

It's Creationism.
 
2009-12-14 06:41:51 PM
I drunk what: gshepnyc: Don't you get the sense that at some early point Scientology was a joke on someone?

i'm sure it was

and I agree with you. NEVER under-estimate the power of Stupid.

but you can't fool all of the people all of the time

shall we take a quit vote on who believes Scientology is a legit religion?

do you think it would help if we showed them all the facts, accounts, documents, history, etc...?


Well the great abracadabra of "legit religion" is that as long as someone (2 people?) says it is, it is. It's a losing argument. You can only argue in favor of a world-view that does not bow to a particular religion's dogma or tenets or to those of supenaturalism in general or even to those of any group-think.
 
2009-12-14 06:42:44 PM
abb3w: gshepnyc: Strawmen?

The problem is, the strawman aspect seems not limited to her fiction, but extends to her non-fiction; EG.


For what it's worth, my objections to Randian Objectivism primarily pertain to her incomplete (and incorrect) grasp of human psychology.

Her entire philosopical underpinnings rely on the (false) assumption that humans are capable of truly rational, objective thought. The problem is that we are not. There is always some irrationality, be it fear, hope, desire, or any other emotion.

Her other false assumption in psychology is that human interact directly with the universe. We do not. We interact through a sensory model of the the universe. This model is an intervening layer and can be fooled quite easily.

As for Guffey he can sue Comfort for a Cease and Desist order and destruction of the work already printed.

And as for Intelligent Design, it is a patent fallacy. If there was a Designer, He should be sued for incompetance. The biggest argument against Intelligent Design is that the Universe is not intelligently designed.

/Just my 2 cents
 
2009-12-14 06:44:28 PM
This guy thinks just like Ray Comfort...



img697.imageshack.us

i19.photobucket.com

/hot like Florida wasn't
 
2009-12-14 06:46:47 PM
Actually, it's worse than I said - the first few pages rip off two sources, one is cited, the other is not.

So, Ray Comfort gets even less credit than I gave him before.
 
Displayed 50 of 380 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report