"Sherbear" at Amazon.com

[pangloss]

Well, well, well...
"Sherbear" ("Sherry from Florida") has written a "response" to my review of Socrates/Sarfati's little propaganda pamphlet. This person is so incredibly stupid I can hardly stand it - and this is not a case of using the word as slangish banter - I really mean stupid...
Of course, this is the "moderator" that posted about a dozen times insisting that some creationist ego-puffer had used the word "prejudice" properly, when it was obvious (and pointed out by me :) ) that she had not...

Oh well...
It is amazing what lengths evolutionary propagandists will stretch to try to cast a shadow of suspicion. As their castles in the air come crumbling down around their feet, they vainly attempt to maintain scientific credibility by concocting illusions of error where none exist.

Here, "Sherbear" is referring to a single sentence in my review:

"Actually, it is called DNA-DNA hybridization."

Socrates/Sarfati had tried to make a big deal out of this on PropWeb, and it was when I produced documentation showing him to be the undereducated pontificatoer we all know himn to be, I was banned. Now, of course, they will say that they do not ban anyone, and I am 'lying.' I don't know what else you would call it when I can read the board no problem, but every time I try to sign in, no matter what time of day, I get a "server busy" message. A bit too much to be a coincidence, seeing as how that has been going on for over a month now...

Anyway...

Usually, the public is intelligent enough to dismiss such tripe, recognizing the propagandist's blathering as merely projections of their own inadequacy.

Speaking of projection...

However, sometimes it is necessary to point out these fabrications, casting the light of truth on the shadows to watch the rats run back into their holes.

Jonathan Marks, Department of Sociology and Anthropology at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, wrote the article "DNA hybridization in the apes -- Technical issues" which is easy to find via a Google search. In this article, Marks not only uses the term "DNA hybridization" in the title, he repeats it four more times in the text, citing Sibley and Ahlquist's work.

And? Why doesn't "Sherbear" exppain the relevance of this?

I know - because that dunderhead doesn't know any better.

Also, considering the style of her popsts at PropWeb, this little 'rebuttal' looks suspiciously like it was not written by her...



Furthermore, DNA hybridization, not DNA-DNA hybridization, was used as a satisfactory alternative by the authors of the original paper: Sibley, Charles G. and Ahlquist, Jon E. DNA hybridization evidence of hominoid phylogeny: Evidence from an expanded data set. Journal of Molecular Evolution 26:99-121, 1987, something even the most ignorant propagandist would have recognized by reading the footnotes in Dr. Sarfati's book.

Yes, and in the response to Sarfati at PropWeb, where, coincidentally, he brought up the same thing, I had posted (now deleted, of course) the abstract from that paper wherein the authors specifically use the term "DNA-DNA hybridization", as well as several other citations supporting my contention.

In the end, of course, trying to defend Sarfati on that minor issue in reality demonstreates the creationists desperation to appear knowledgible - it totally distracts from the major issues I brought up in my review, such as the shallowness of Sarfati's borrowed-from-equally-clueless-Batten section on DNA similarity and his child-like handling of Haldane's models.

But, nitpicking hero defense - if indeed "Sherbear" even wrote it (too many big words for her puny intellect, in my opinion) - is the best the undereducated, gullible cretin can muster...

[pangloss]

Bump in the hopes that any PropWeb lurkers will see their foolish leaders in action...

[Duvenoy]

I am another rat that's abandoned the foundering ark of Tweb.

Reasons? It's all but impossible to get a decent discussion without attacks and insults from the Soc twins, et al. It seems that they are more interested in smiting the heathen than having a conversation. Now, I am literate enough, and nasty enough, that I can get truly vicious -- Sarfati couldn't compete -- but I regard that as covering up a lack of confidence in the argument. So, I don't do it (except sometimes when highly pissed).

I will be kind and just say that I find the moderation rather strange. While I have not hassled with the mods, except for a couple of deleted posts that I thought pretty mild, I must say that I've seen a fair amount of favoritism.

The long and short of it is that you can never be sure that the rules won't 'change', or be re-interperted all of a sudden.

Too bad, really. There were some folks I liked, there.

doov

[Godot]

I remember reading your intial post over there before they deleted it Pangloss. What probably got them so pissed at you was the general tone of confrontation in that post, not to mention that you were really rubbing their golden calf's nose in it.

I know I should have posted this in the other thread detailing this debacle, but I did manage to check out their "period of heavy moderation" sticky when you were censured, and it just so happened that the defined time period for said moderation had ended like a day or two before you posted your rebuttal.
What a shining example of christian morals and ethics TWeb is. :rolleyes:

[RufusAtticus]

One thing that I have observed from my time on BB, CF, TW, II etc. is that Fundamentalist Christians have a hard time acting professionally. I'm not sure though if their religion is the culpret. I suspect that it has to do with how they were raised, iow without class.

[keyser_soze]

Originally posted by Godot
I remember reading your intial post over there before they deleted it Pangloss. What probably got them so pissed at you was the general tone of confrontation in that post, not to mention that you were really rubbing their golden calf's nose in it.

I know I should have posted this in the other thread detailing this debacle, but I did manage to check out their "period of heavy moderation" sticky when you were censured, and it just so happened that the defined time period for said moderation had ended like a day or two before you posted your rebuttal.
What a shining example of christian morals and ethics TWeb is. :rolleyes:

And people are surprised by this? I mean, any place that would put sarfarti on a pedestal and have everyone bow down to his arguments(which are seriously packed with insult and ad homs....)--you expected decent behaviour from them?

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by keyser_soze
And people are surprised by this? I mean, any place that would put sarfarti on a pedestal and have everyone bow down to his arguments(which are seriously packed with insult and ad homs....)--you expected decent behaviour from them?

At least BaptistBoard's Golden Calf, Helen "Mrs. C-decay" Setterfield, isn't prone to abuse anything other than logic and evidence.

[Cretinist]

I think it's a waste of time arguing with Christians on their own, moderated turf. Idiots like Sarfati get to spew all the bullshit they like, and are protected from getting treated like they treat others.

Most creationists don't have the balls to take it to places like talk.origins, where people can basically say anything they want to. Safarti should be treated like the ignorant jackass that he is, but that won't happen at TWeb.

[Godot]

Originally posted by keyser_soze
And people are surprised by this? I mean, any place that would put sarfarti on a pedestal and have everyone bow down to his arguments(which are seriously packed with insult and ad homs....)--you expected decent behaviour from them? Not remotely (I may be an idealist, but I'm not an idiot). But it should be expected of them to follow their own rules. If they're going to shift the goalposts, at least hide all evidence of the act.
Enforcing a bullshit rule after it's proscribed period of duration has elapsed is beyond negligent. It would have been really easy to modify the original date limitations of the rule and then delete the "offending" post. That this was not the case only goes to show the kind of censorship that can reasonably be expected in a theocratic environment.

[pangloss]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
At least BaptistBoard's Golden Calf, Helen "Mrs. C-decay" Setterfield, isn't prone to abuse anything other than logic and evidence.

The BB admin is not much different than PropWebs - a bit less vocal, perhaps, but that is about it.
I remember after one of BB's retoolings - but before their submission to admin rule - after they had posted this spiel about civility and baiting and all this, St.Helen starts a thread with the title "Evolution is garbage". Being the instigator I am, I started a post titled "Creationism is garbage."
Anyone care to guess what happened to it, while St.Helen's remained untouched?

[RufusAtticus]

I found it interesting that earlier this year Helen Setterfield took a month off, and BB closed their Creationism forum while she was away. I suspect that she handles all the administration for that forum.

[pangloss]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
I found it interesting that earlier this year Helen Setterfield took a month off, and BB closed their Creationism forum while she was away. I suspect that she handles all the administration for that forum.

I'm shocked - and after all those months of denial!

Of ocurse, you will never see Helen on a forum at which she does not have some modicum of control.

[Daisy]

That forum is closed for the time being - Mrs. Setterfield has rheumatoid arthritis.

[Duvenoy]

Originally posted by Daisy
That forum is closed for the time being - Mrs. Setterfield has rheumatoid arthritis.

Damn! Rheumatoid is tough. Wishing her all luck.

doov

[Calzaer]

I'll be expecting her to pray it away within the week. Surely God wouldn't abandon such a faithful servant to that kind of pain without even an appeal.

[pangloss]

Originally posted by Daisy
That forum is closed for the time being - Mrs. Setterfield has rheumatoid arthritis.

Must be she has sin in her life and God is punishing her...

That or she is the latest victim of The Fall.....

:p

[pangloss]

As of this morning, Amazon.com has put neither my updated original review nor my response to Sherry from Florida at Sarfati's pamphlet page.

It has been over a week.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Originally posted by Duvenoy
Damn! Rheumatoid is tough. Wishing her all luck.
Doov, as usual you are far more charitable than I. I don’t wish pain in general on anyone... but I sure do wish them the sort of pain that prevents them typing inane antiscience effluent when no response is allowed to it.

Oolon

[Duvenoy]

Originally posted by Oolon Colluphid
Doov, as usual you are far more charitable than I. I don’t wish pain in general on anyone... but I sure do wish them the sort of pain that prevents them typing inane antiscience effluent when no response is allowed to it.

Oolon

I well understand (I've lurked around Helen's baliwick a bit. Whoo-boy!). But I have osteo in both hands and my spine. I wouldn't wish it on anybody (almost :D). Rheumatoid is worse.

But I got to agree, she's hell on wheels, she is. Perhaps the rest and some good drugs will mellow her out a bit.

doov

[pangloss]

Acording to her "summary" post, which is locked, she claims that she is gone because her 'speakiing schedule' is too hectic and her retarded son can sneak out of the house...

Then she reveals some profound paranoia about funding.

[Clutch]

The only reason sherbear was able to focus on the utterly trivial point about DNA versus DNA-DNA, is because Pangloss included it in his review.

Of course it is obtuse, and even deliberately obtuse, for Sherbear to concentrate on such trivia to the exclusion of the substantive demolitions of Sarfati's pamphlet. But if it was obviously a trivial point for her to focus on, then it was obviously too trivial a point for Pangloss to bother including.

It smacked of pettiness to me, on Pangloss's part -- a "black glove" sort of thing, a piece of evidence with negligible potential to refute even if accepted, but substantial potential to distract attention from the heaps of other (important) points.

At this point nobody can be surprised at the propensity for professional and semi-professional creationists to evade the telling questions by any means available. So don't offer them such means on a silver platter.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Originally posted by pangloss
As of this morning, Amazon.com has put neither my updated original review nor my response to Sherry from Florida at Sarfati's pamphlet page.

It has been over a week. It took a couple weeks for my dismal review of Matthew Henry's Bible Commentary, but it did get up. Granted most people who have read it, don't think it was "helpful". :D

Strangely, my very supportive review on von Rad's Genesis also doesn't seem to be liked very much. Go figure. ;)

[unregistered_user_1]

Originally posted by pangloss
As of this morning, Amazon.com has put neither my updated original review nor my response to Sherry from Florida at Sarfati's pamphlet page.

It has been over a week.
Just post them here, then maybe?

[pangloss]

Thank you, clutch, for your profound insight.

I have both my updated Sarfati review and my response to Sherbear at home, but for yet more insigfht into the twisted double-standbearing mind of Socrates/Sarfati, I found two of HIS reviews of the work of others. They are most informative...

Ho hum, more unqualified trash from a dead sceptic (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0781233259/ref=cm_cr_dp_2_1/102-4630283-0084159?v=glance&s=books&vi=customer-reviews)

[Clutch]

Originally posted by pangloss
Thank you, clutch, for your profound insight. I did not consider it profound, so I'm surprised that you do. Don't lard a critique with trivia and minutiae; and if you do, don't blame your interlocutors for accepting the invitation to discuss them seems quite straightforward.

[pangloss]

bump due to relevance

[pangloss]

A fantastically butchered (um... edited, they would say...) reply to Sherry from Florida has made it to the Amazon.com review page of Sarfati/Socrates pamphlet...


http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0890512582/qid=1061651385/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/103-7866875-0521407


The update to my original review is also there now, intact as far as I can tell...