To: Havoc
If I may be so bold, It isn't "if" that you don't like. It's the assumptive you don't like. "If" is fine if you like the assumptive. You're a closed minded idealogue - nothing more or less.
You've got a long way to go and like many others, when the trend of a debate is not to your liking, brand them with a name. Means nothing except a way to avoid issues. Using If to define a position on previously tested data is accepted by both philosophy and science, That would suppose that the data or evidence or proof would meet the criteria required by said position either scientific or philosophical. If as a opinion lacking either empirical or logical deduction to presuppose a thought or position is just that, a if. Like if the world was shaped like a pretzel or square its diameter could be known. If God or the ID could build a rock so big they could not lift it. Logical deduction would suggest that both are not possible so at least part of the position is false.
236 posted on
01/14/2006 9:58:47 AM PST by
jec41
(Screaming Eagle)
To: jec41
You've got a long way to go and like many others, when the trend of a debate is not to your liking, brand them with a name. No, I simply chopped through your statement. You stated that you don't like "if" preceding an assumptive - in the case of an assumptive from a source you didn't like. Yet, when "if" precedes an assumptive about carbon dating, etc.. you have no problem with that. I didn't name call. I used proper language and applied it to the situation. You're a close minded idealogue. And your position painted you a hypocrite - which I didn't state before; but will now.
You can handwring as is the usual want of your type; but, I've no use for it.
473 posted on
01/15/2006 12:59:53 AM PST by
Havoc
(President George and King George.. coincidence?)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson