Posted by MondoHebe [198.81.26.45 - cache-ntc-ab08.proxy.aol.com] on 22 March 2004 at 23.43.58 ZuluTime:

Science of any sort is impossible without precision, attention to detail, and logic, can we all at least agree on that? Taking that as given, let’s address these posts with logic in mind. David Jay Jordan (hereafter DJJ) writes:
     “I don't usually answer your type of questions, but your new to science, so allow me to respond in .... (...)”
     I feel like George Carlin (“The following sentence is full of things that piss me off”). Why bother this time? Why announce that you rarely bother? Trying to establish some kind of pompous credibility? Why do you ASSUME that I am new to science? How arrogant and presumptive! And then we’re back to pompous with “…allow me to…”
     Mondo (me) wrote: “Why do most fundies have crappy grammar and/or spelling skills? Look up punctuation, pal. It'll make us all happier.”
     DJJ answered: “Why because I am a science graduate and loved exactness and not double speak. I was not into word games nor manipulation but loved real life and so became a missionary for 30 years on the field as an independant missionary. With real people you learbn to speak from the heart and forget doting I's and crossing t's. If you want a perfect grammar, read what intimidated false scientists write or read what compromising religionists write”

OK, where to start? You ignore rules of grammar and punctuation because you are a science graduate and love exactness, and apparently grammar is doublespeak. What could possibly lend itself to exactness more than precise grammar and punctuation? This isn’t a question of semantics or nitpicking, it gets into the very definition and processes of good science! Dictionary.com defines EXACT as:
     1. Strictly and completely in accord with fact; not deviating from truth or reality: an exact account; an exact replica; your exact words.
     2. Characterized by accurate measurements or inferences with small margins of error; not approximate: an exact figure; an exact science.
     3. Characterized by strict adherence to standards or rules: an exact speaker.
     It further defines PRECISE as:
     1. Clearly expressed or delineated; definite: The victim gave a precise description of the suspect.
     2. Exact, (My G-d! Imagine that!) as in performance, execution, or amount; accurate or correct: a precise measurement; a precise instrument.
     3. Strictly distinguished from others; very: at that precise moment.
     4. Distinct and correct in sound or meaning: precise pronunciation; precise prose.
     5. Conforming strictly to rule or proper form: “The setting up of this Maypole was a lamentable spectacle to the precise separatists that lived at New Plymouth” (Thomas Morton).
     So, how could a lover of science, and one is supposedly well-educated in it, not equate precision with exactness, or argue that it isn’t necessary in science? What’s more, and worse, is that you have not answered the question! I ask why you don’t use good grammar, spelling, or punctuation, and you tell me of your credentials as a MISSIONARY? You further assume that I am new to science, yet you have not thought to EXPERIMENT or TEST YOUR HYPOTHESES (O great disciple of science) by ASKING me any question as to MY qualifications. You see, DJJ, qualifications are qualities, abilities, or accomplishments that makes a person suitable for a particular position or task. I point this out because I don’t think you understand the word. I think this because when asked why you use poor English, you tell me about your missionary work. I was a paperboy for 3 years. This does not qualify me to be a chef. See how they ARE NOT RELATED?
     And what’s this about “real people?” Am I a figment of your imagination? I'm left to assume (please notice I admit assumptions) that what you term to be real people fit into some category or series of categories that you approve of. I haven’t been told the requirements to join this/these group(s), so your assertion becomes all the more meaningless.
     Finally (from that one post), you say perfect grammar can be found from what “intimidated false scientists write or read what compromising religionists write.” Well, huh? Even their biggest detractors would not call, for example, Jimmy Swaggart, Billy Graham, or Pat Robertson ‘compromising religionists’. I’ve read their materials. They use proper grammar, spelling, and punctuation. Though I tend to disagree with them, they also try to use logic inasmuch as a conclusion follows a premise. In short, DJJ, You don’t make sense. Two plus two does not equal Thursday. I can’t agree or disagree with you if I can’t understand what you’re trying to say, or the steps you took to arrive there, and I don’t think it’s arrogant of me to declare I have the intelligence to at least FOLLOW any intelligent argument or proposition.

-----------------------------------------
     Ok. Next I wrote: “Why bother with the disclaimer since you continue in the next sentence to claim you agree with all of this?”
     DJJ answered: “Why because not all Christians or Creationists know the science that backs up what their heart and gut tells them and so leave some of that expertise to others. Straight forward and simple. SEE http://www.geocities.com/davidjayjordan/CreationversusEvolution.html”
     First of all, straightforward is one word. Next, I can only notice yet again that my question has no relationship to your answer. You have made an assertion, not answered the question.
     Next, I wrote: “Are you trying to avoid blame, or are you trying to avoid credit? Say - as long as you’re looking shit up, look up the word "PROPAGANDA."
     DJJ answered: “Please don;t use the word shit or feces on any of your comments to my repostings. Have some class or you won;t get answers or progress in the physical or spiritual. Say something meaningful with respect in science and you will get an answer, if not then you are not worthy of a response, and means you know NO science. Thanks”
     This is the only quasi-valid point I think you have made in any of your return posts. I think it’s sad that folks tend to resort to pointing out the use of profanity rather than answering the points made using profanity, but point granted. Profanity will be omitted for the remainder. However, would you please explain to me how my use of the word ‘shit’ leads you to conclude that I don’t know science? Once again, the two points are UNRELATED. Your style and process of argument are highly unscientific, and would seem to belie your claims of great formal education in science. In other words, you do not write or seem to think in a scientific manner. Can you see where this would leave unbiased readers to conclude you are either foolish or untruthful?
     ----------------------------------------------
     In my next post, Mondo (me again) asked why fundies always attack Darwin, when his work is so old and much augmented (that means ‘added to,’ DJJ). My point being that all evolutionary thinkers agree that Darwin was incorrect on much, but served as the basis for much valuable additional research. You cannot attack evolution by attacking Darwin any more than you can attack physics by slighting Ptolemy, or attack Christianity by pointing out errors of St. Thomas Aquinas. Valuable pioneers all, but out of date and augmented since their times. DJJ’s answer?
     “Surely you jest. Darwin gave people an excuse not to believe the established fact so they could get into theory and into a religion of luck and chance for progression. Logic and math and physics as well as biology shows proof of DESIGN and not luck and chance. SEE http://www.geocities.com/davidjayjordan/MathematicsMysteries.html. So if you don;t know math and physics, don;t talk about them in this thread. Study first and ask good questions and you'll get good answers and put together the easy to comprehend mystery of life. But do use science, or math or something and not science fiction writings. Thanks”
     Let us begin. Who actually says ‘surely you jest’? That’s right up there with ‘Lo and behold’ for antiquated pompous-speak. Using such phrases will prejudice readers against you in almost any case. I asked why creationists engage in a style of debate I find ridiculous. DJJ did not defend the validity of that debate style, he merely REPEATED it! What could be more futile or illogical? Consider this analogy – As a Jew (Yes, I capitalized it, Gremlin. Bite me.), I often have Christians try to convert me. I explain to them that I do not accept the New Testament as the word of G-d, otherwise I would BE a Christian. Make sense? Yet they still quote from the book in their efforts to convince me. If we have already established that I personally believe that book to be a manmade fiction, why would further quoting from it suddenly convince me it was not? If I think a movie was terrible, repeated viewing will not convince me otherwise, nor will repeated helpings of food I did not enjoy convince me it was delicious. Why then would DJJ’s repetition of an argument I have already found fault with convince me it was correct. His challenge was to demonstrate to me that this STYLE of debate was acceptable, and chose not to do so. To this absurdity, I pose another question: “Why do so many Christians feel the need to preach to the choir?” The people who already agree with you ALREADY AGREE WITH YOU! If others have rejected your arguments, why would repetition of those arguments cause their acceptance? Is it any wonder that so many mass conversion in Christian history required force? They don’t seem to accomplish much without it.
     Next, DJJ once again states I don’t know any math or physics. Never mind that he has not OFFERED any in support of his argument. He merely notes the existence of these academic disciplines (without demonstrating his own proficiencies in them) and tells the readers that I have not studied them. Based on what? I point out again that my own credentials have not been established or asked for.

In response to a post by Damien, DJJ says: “Please make specific statements that I can respond to and do make them shorter than the one above Thanks. Use science if possible. And do realize true religion talks about the invisable spirit world that true scientists realize exists. The visable light spectrum is only 1/70th of the EMF.”

     DJJ has already failed in several instances to RESPOND to specific statements. Why would he start now, though he requests them? Additionally, Damien MADE specific statements. It is an old logical fallacy to attack the speaker rather than respond to the points. Next, DJJ makes note of a scientific fact that is on no way related to anything anyone has spoken of or asked about. Why? Suppose I was to note at this point that the Earth has seven continents or that the square of the hypotenuse of a right triangle is equal to the sum of the square of the two adjacent sides. Both are true facts, but pertain to nothing yet written. They are extraneous to the argument. Is DJJ trying to finally establish that he apparently has at least one scientific factoid at his command? I see no other purpose, and would certainly hate to ASSUME anything.

Finally, I would like to note the following:

1 – Though they have never been asked about, here are my credentials. I am a college graduate with a BA in History, Science minor. I am completing at this time my Masters in Education, and am currently employed as a middle school teacher. This does not make me a scientist, but I have had to study science in more detail than most regular folks in order to obtain my degrees. I think this gives me a good working knowledge of the basic sciences, and at least certainly qualifies me to ask the very elementary questions I have asked.

2 – I want to stress that at no point has DJJ actually ANSWERED a single question posed by me or any other as of this posting. Had he done so, I might have been able to respectfully agree or disagree with him. As he is, he risks engendering pity or contempt.

3 – I also want to stress that any post on any topic by any person is lessened if grammar, punctuation and spelling are not correct. It makes the writer seem lazy, disrespectful to the reader, and undereducated.

4 – Prior to posting anything anywhere, I always run it through a spellchecker and then proofread it. I would urge DJJ to assume this habit, so he can use his no doubt valuable (damn me! An assumption!) time defending his substance, not his style.

5 – Readers might note that I have failed to correct DJJ’s copious errors when I spell-checked this post. Perhaps he will notice the differences in presentation and see which at least LOOKS better. If I have missed any errors of my own, accept my apologies, and assurance that they were at least LOOKED for prior to posting.