Matzke

Good God, I can't even pay an honest compliment to one atheist/agnostic and whatever the hell Matzke is without people getting all butthurt.

A Pat on the Back for Matzke 2009

There's not much meat in this thread anyway, since general consensus seems to be 'Gee, Nick Matzke is being reasonable on this' with the arguments down to whether or not anyone should care what he thinks.

A Pat on the Back for Matzke 2009

IOW Nick Matzke is engaging in equivocation by saying evidence for evolution is evidence for blind, undirected chemical processes.

Casey Luskin on Kitzmiller & Information 2010

So would you, or Nick, if he agrees with your defence, briefly point out those mechanisms as so clearly implicated in Matzke's and your statements?

Casey Luskin on Kitzmiller & Information 2010

There's not much meat in this thread anyway, since general consensus seems to be 'Gee, Nick Matzke is being reasonable on this' with the arguments down to whether or not anyone should care what he thinks.

A Pat on the Back for Matzke 2009

Nick Matzke is fond of pointing out that Michael Behe's support for common descent is lukewarm.

2010 February - Telic Thoughts 2010

Those subjects had been discussed in Matzke's post and the subsequent comments.

A Pat on the Back for Matzke 2009

Yet when it comes to putting arguments in his own words and rigorously following through a train of thought, Matzke is decidedly less in his element.

Congratulations are in Order 2006

Nick Matzke is making an attempt to answer the questions that Behe criticized Dr. Russell Doolittle for; that, and N. Matzke is doing it through the appropriate channels.

Congratulations are in Order 2006

Well, BenK, as far as Nick Matzke is concerned you are clearly correct.

Demarcation as Politics 2006