Posted on 11/30/2004 3:53:55 PM PST by shubi
There are two parts to creationism. Evolution, specifically common descent, tells us how life came to where it is, but it does not say why. If the question is whether evolution disproves the basic underlying theme of Genesis, that God created the world and the life in it, the answer is no. Evolution cannot say exactly why common descent chose the paths that it did.
If the question is whether evolution contradicts a literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis as an exact historical account, then it does. This is the main, and for the most part only, point of conflict between those who believe in evolution and creationists.
(Excerpt) Read more at talkorigins.org ...
Am I the only one here whose Irony Meter just blew up after reading the above statement?
He's accusing "ThinkPlease" of being "intellectually incapable of forming a cogent argument" while HE's the guy who cribbed HIS argument from someone else, WITHOUT GIVING ATTRIBUTION for it.
Now THAT sounds suspiciously like someone who is "incapable of forming make a cogent argument" of their own.
But he only SAID he didn't READ it first. So prove he did, Mr. Smartypants!
Keep beating the drum of "plagiarizing". It is pointless, it isn't true, it doesn't address the issue.. hmmm seems like the classical evolutionist debate technique.
To me it is not that you copy from some creationist crapsite. That has always been obvious. Your whole thought pattern is drenched with that horrible cult.
What is so sad, is that you use ruthless debate tactics against science, tactics that if any other Christian would approach them, you roundly criticize and squeal like a stuck pig when they do.
How do you like some of your own medicine?
God doesn't need a moronic defense for His Word. Read the Bible for what it really says, or you will start to slip into darkness of the soul that is irreparable.
LOL
It is impossible that everything you have said is true. Your denials and admissions are incompatible. You have denied reading the statements and admitted borrowing them.
Sometimes known as the "Wyle E. Coyote" Syndrome..... in which the cartoon character doesn't actually fall into the the bottom of the canyon unless they look down.
Yeah. I think that's where they're getting their approach to these debates.
On further review, I think Roadie's main trick is to go from 60 to 0 in 0 seconds right on the very, very edge of the precipice. He probably never gets out on thin air. Wile E. has a problem stopping that fast, etc.
[emphasis added]Plagiarism includes, but is not limited to, failure to indicate the source with quotation marks or footnotes where appropriate if any of the following are reproduced in the work submitted by a student:
- A phrase, written or musical.
- A graphic element.
- A proof.
- Specific language.
- An idea derived from the work, published or unpublished, of another person.
source: http://www.cmu.edu/policies/documents/Cheating.html
The reader will note that a specific claim of "ownership" of material that is in fact attributable to another is NOT necessary for plagiarism to have taken place. The mere submission of the material in the absence of the appropriate attribution is sufficient.
Nicely done!
No doubt someone will now show up to accuse PH of claiming the cartoon as his own......
.... of course, to do so, one would have to ignore the artist's SIGNATURE on the cartoon itself, thus denoting attribution.
;-)
That's a tough definition. I don't think many of us credit our non-original ideas. I don't even remember where I first read most of the stuff I know.
Am I mistaken, or has the exact post in question been made before on FR? I have a distinct visual memory of a post made a year or so ago that was several paragraphs long, mostly a quotation, but had an odd sentence or two added in.
Images are something of a sore point on the internet. Particularly when altered. Life will suck when the image police get control of the internet.
I was already searching for Wile E. Coyote pics, so the timing was fortuitous. I couldn't find one with him running on air without realizing it.
An excellent question. It looked strangely familiar to me, which is why I initiated a Google search which led to the discovery of the referenced URL.
As far as having been used on FR before, I can't be sure; if it had, it should show up in a google search. It didn't on the phrase that I searched last night, but it might on others.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.