> Uncle Davey wrote:
>
> >
> >>Uncle Davey wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >>>news:5vernaAU2L9$EwZp@meden.demon.co.uk...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>In article <vv95u3s8369b1d@corp.supernews.com>, Michael Clark
> >>>><biteme@spammer.com> writes
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>Good point. It's quite peculiar why they act this way.
Nonetheless,
> >>>
> >>>we
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>press on because there is work to do, lies to live, and fellowship
to
> >>>>>
> >>>>>have.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>JG
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Lies to live, eh Jason.
> >>>>
> >>>>It is been brought to my attention downthread that Mr. Gastrich didn't
> >>>>actually write this.
> >>>>
> >>>>I expect better of non-creationists.
> >>>>--
> >>>>alias Ernest Major
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I have to admit I don't expect it, which is why I checked, but thank
you
> >
> > at
> >
> >>>any rate for your integrity.
> >>>
> >>>Uncle Davey
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>Davey,
> >>
> >>In talk.origin, it is exceedingly uncommon for this sort of
> >>thing to happen from the evolution side. It's the kind of thing
> >>that, if done in one's professional life, torpedoes scientific
> >>and academic careers. All manner of mistakes and errors can be
> >>forgiven (if acknowledged); falsifying data cannot.
> >>
> >>We're far more used to creationists doing this, and it's one of
> >>the reasons we get so hot about out-of-context quotations. If
> >>one changes the meaning of another's written words for the
> >>purpose of making the writer seem a fool, or to support positions
> >>s/he in fact doesn't support (or to oppose positions s/he in fact
> >>supports) (making a straw man), it sidetracks the conversation,
> >>and indicates bad faith. Plus, of course, it's false witness.
> >>
> >>It may be the caliber of some of the creationists who show up in
> >>t.o. Many of them seem pretty wet behind the ears, and actually
> >>think that their Sunday-school creationism, along with a few
> >>zingers from AIG or ICR or other such, are all that's needed to
> >>bring the whole rotten structure of evolution tumbling down.
> >>When it starts getting clear that they haven't got the grounding
> >>needed to slay the evolution 'Goliath', some (unable to admit
> >>they might be misled by those who told them evolution had no
> >>evidence) resort to childish behavior. Sometimes that even
> >>includes attribution of things to their opponents that we never said.
> >>
> >>So I'm surprised that Mr. Clark appears to have done that. I
> >>feel the same disdain for that behavior when it comes from our
> >>side as I do when it comes from yours. Michael was wrong, and I
> >>hope he apologizes.
> >>
> >>Tom McDonald
> >>
> >
> >
> > Let's keep both sides intellectually honest. I know that
misunderstandings
> > can develop when we are using faith as well as evidential knowledge to
> > understand the world, but I for one have sought not to stoop to this
sort of
> > thing, and I don't believe there is any need for it.
> >
> > If a Christian does a stunt like that, then their faith is very weak,
that's
> > all I can say.
>
>
>
>
> You mean like "Dr" Gastrich with his out-of-context regurgiquotes . . .?
No. Not like that. These men said these things, but Jason never said what
was attributed to him by Michael "Pinocchio" Clark.
Thank you for showing you don't register the moral difference.
Jason's quotes were really made by people who, like the Ray Liotta character
in "Good Old Boys" were grown men, they musta known what they were sayin'.
Woh, I got a great bit of oboe just then, my right ear's still buzzing.
> I have no issues with admitting I was wrong on only one
> > archaeopteryx fossil and on the moondust argument, although at Church
when I
> > raised it, the pastor quoted no less a mind than Isaac asimov had quoted
> > that he expected the first moon landing to fall into the dust
>
> Your pastor is an uneducated dolt, then.
You can be sure Asimov didn't say that?
He musta known what he meant.
>
>
>
> , so obviously
> > at some time there was an issue worth discussing, and probably the
presence
> > of creationists helped those guys revise their calculations.
>
> Uh, Davey, the "issue" was resolved even before the first manned landing
> on the moon almost 40 years ago . . . back when "creationists" were
> unknown to all but small southern trailer parks.
>
> Do at least TRY and keep up, would you . . . ?
>
Do you think I'm here to _amuse_ you?
Huh? Huh? Huh?
Uncle Davey
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 |
| 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 |
| 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 |
| 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 |
|