“Dontchaknow? If a Creationist or ID scientist is denied tenure, then everythign they have ever said, or ever wil lsay must therefore be a lie? Silly you- Someone who isn’t awarded tenure can NEVEr EVER under any circumstances present truth apparently- (although those makign that silly claim show hte weakness of hteir position- but are just too blind to see it apparently- Attack the messenger- attack their credentials, and insist that unless they are mainstream- that htey couldn’t possibly have anythign of scientific value ot present- Gee- what a powerful coutner-argument put forth by some on htis thread- but it’s typical anti-Christian/creation tactics- throwing spitwads because they’re out of ammo)”
—Here I thought I might be the victim of the most grievous misreadings and non sequiturs - but that may be the most bizarre tortuous twisting of a post I’ve seen – ever. I’m actually jealous.
“attack their credentials”
—Examining the credentials of someone going for tenure; imagine that. What’s next – examining the resume of someone applying for a job? That’s just not right!
[[Examining the credentials of someone going for tenure; imagine that. What’s next – examining the resume of someone applying for a job? That’s just not right]]
Imagine- examining the statements about ID INSTEAD of obsessing over someone’s position- Imagine, arguing hte ISSUES presented isntead of ignoring htem- Imagine, Discussing whether was was actually said was right or wrong based on the ISSUES instead of arguing about whether he was given tenure or not- Imagine, staying focussed instead of diverting attention away from the facts of hte case with silly accusations about hte person himself- Golly- Whoda thunk arguments are based o nthe ISSUES being discussed aboiut the evidnece of ID instead of someone’s character? What a concept!