To: gobucks
Is it just me, or do these two comments of yours placed together create a kind of dissonance?
No. I referred to "dishonest creationists". If I thought that creationists were by definition dishonest, I would have simply said "creationists", because "dishonest creationists" would have been redundant. I wished to make a distinction between the group of all creationists and a subset of that group who happen to be dishonest.
That you are trying to turn my distinction into a generalization only further demonstrates your own fundamental dishonesty.
135 posted on
02/05/2005 2:15:20 PM PST by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: Dimensio
No. I referred to "dishonest creationists"
You referred to an 'incurable dishonesty'.
As if folks who believe that Christ rose from the dead are diseased. Maybe I misunderstood your metaphor?
174 posted on
02/05/2005 3:09:33 PM PST by
gobucks
(http://oncampus.richmond.edu/academics/classics/students/Ribeiro/laocoon.htm)
To: Dimensio
No. I referred to "dishonest creationists". If I thought that creationists were by definition dishonest, I would have simply said "creationists", because "dishonest creationists" would have been redundant. I wished to make a distinction between the group of all creationists and a subset of that group who happen to be dishonest. That you are trying to turn my distinction into a generalization only further demonstrates your own fundamental dishonesty.
Well said.
Of course, it begs the question of why the anti-science posters on the crevo threads fall into the latter category. My guess is that your ordinary run-of-the-mill creationist couldn't care less about defeating that imaginary evil-science bugaboo.
225 posted on
02/05/2005 5:04:21 PM PST by
balrog666
(A myth by any other name is still inane.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson