Posted on 01/28/2005 4:28:41 PM PST by metacognative
I said: "Not here. I prefer to fight each battle only once. Those who have been paying attention know exactly what I am talking about."
You said:
>>It means you can't support your allegation.<<
My response:
Blah, blah, blah. It means whatever you want it to mean, apparently. ;^>
IMHO, one "gets past go" by being able to separate that which is a theological issue from that which is a science issue and argue it accordingly.
If one wishes to argue theological issues, then Scriptures, lexicons and ancient manuscripts are the most authoritative sources to make a point.
If one wishes to argue science, then published articles in respected journals are the most authoritative sources to make a point.
Just my two cents...
I really don't understand AG's argument. Do you?
There are many others which showed up in a Google, but this ought to get the discussion back on track.
That means nothing. One can be mistaken or one can be lying. Recently, a guy that signed up in 1999 took my post to task and said it was false and if I had read the previous threads I would know what I was talking about.
Another poster came to my aid and showed that in the previous threads, he had participated in ONE with two meaningless posts while I had posted 136 times on ALL threads.
Bottom line - I take noones word if I believe it to be biased based on his agenda. If he is going to post it, he better be able to back it up or go home.
I think you have mistaken me for someone else.
We've tried. That was a great motivation for my compiling the List-O-Links. It was also why we included in the "Agreement of the Willing" a provision that "agressive amnesia" was abusive.
But the problem continues, for some or all of these reasons:
1. New freepers showing up, unaware that we've all been there before.So it gets heated, sometimes, as the old-timers grow short of patience. Whatcha gonna do?
2. Some regular freepers maliciously persist in posting the same debunked arguments.
3. Some (new or old) who insist that their interpretation of scripture trumps physical evidence.
I believe Darwinite has atomic number 111 in the periodic table.
Very nice post. You pretty much nailed my perspective on this thing too. The threads I enjoy the most are the ones where I disagree with other freepers. That confines most of my comments to threads on animal rights, music downloading and evolution.
But in all three, you just sort of tire of seeing the same arguments over and over and over. For a while I actually started saving my responses as word documents, then every so often I would cut and paste them into a response to someone (prefacing it with a sentence saying I had done as much).
What is really "new" to the debate lately is that the same thing really does seem to be happening to the evolution side of this as happened to Dan Rather. It is a new and exciting twist, and another reason to praise the internet as a way to really disseminate information. I think it is also why Bush won the election. Lies just do not have the legs they used to.
In other words, for me the story here is that the debate (fight) has spilled from the confines of the dark and controlled auditorium out into the broad dailight of the street. Many of the combatants are rather embarrassed by the now obvious puppet strings dangling from their bodies.
I love when this happens, even when I am the one the light of day is cast upon in a not so positive light - albeit it can be more acutely painful then, in the short term.
But that is exactly WHY we will never get past go.
If one wishes to argue theological issues, then Scriptures, lexicons and ancient manuscripts are the most authoritative sources to make a point.
Theological issues may use all resources for argument. God is faith and I do not attempt to argue one way or the other.
Back atcha, ma'am. You're one of the calming forces at FR that keep me from completely going off my rocker.
Ichneumon is notoriously of the same discipline wrt research. However, either of us are just as likely to bury a thread with sources - so we broach such posts cautiously.
But not all Freepers or Lurkers keep such exhaustive archives and asking everyone to post a source may be burdensome. If sources become a "horn of contention" in future discussion, I'll be glad to help if I can.
I can understand how Rob Roy feels. One often gets a dreaded sense of deja vu on the evolution threads -- kind of a "been there, done that already" feeling....
Indeed, as you say, one does not want "to fight the same battles over and again."
No it won't. That was about errors in textbooks. No one denies that there are errors but they are fixed when known. What he proclaime was in reference to evolution only and implied that the science of evolution was nonsense being taught as science.
The reason we get into the same arguments over and over is that the creationists keep posting the same claims over and over again. And when challenged, they claim they don't want to get into the same argument. Well D@mn. If you want to make the same baseless claims over and over, you better darn well expect the same ol' arguments.
No doubt about it, you know what you don't know.
Now here's one to wrap your mind around: You don't know what you don't know. (nor do I) 8^>
Is the "list of links" - or a url to them - always posted when you ping people to science threads? If not, it might be helpful to post a "newcomer's welcome" on your usual ping...
On the list of three causes for revisiting, I only have a recommendation for the third:
However, a big however, it is quite useful to make all such arguments on a theological/philosophy thread. Metaphysical naturalism v. various doctrines of Christianity, etc.
Only thing, only one side considerst them debunked. The other side considers them valid so it will never end.
So it gets heated, sometimes, as the old-timers grow short of patience. Whatcha gonna do?
Even short-timers grow short of patience. I mean how many times on this thread have I heard that "God created the sun on day 4 thus evolution is impossible.
The best one is the "entropy" argument where they post false science and give all these links. Totally bogus but it keeps reappearing.
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.