Posted on 07/29/2002 6:35:04 PM PDT by Tribune7
Let me ask you a question. As you read these threads, have you ever seen any of Gore3000's posts proven wrong in any way?
It indicates nothing of the sort. LBB has proven time and again to be incapable of civil discourse. As for the ganging up part, most of us don't even post to him any more, and those that do, such as RightWingNilla, make very cogent points that LBB is ignorant of even the most basic biological knowledge.
Sacrilicious marker.
If I had to guess, I think God would be okay with you finding that kind of funny ;)
Maybe. It's hard to say. Evolution itself can be interpreted in so many ways. How exactly do we define it? I have a feeling many times the proponents of both sides get sidetracked and confused because of the many ways terms are defined by different people (i.e., comparing apples and oranges). Because of the complexity of the issues at hand, many times I take it all in and make personal decisions as to what I believe based upon both sides.
I believe that adaptation and evolution are two different things, as an example. However, many evolutionists believe that adaptation IS evolution, which is incorrect.
Soooo...are you digging here? Did I answer your question in a roundabout way?
How 'bout:
1) Organisms change over time.
2) All organisms share a common ancestor.
The only arguments in biology right now are over the mechanism(s) of evolution, not the reality.
Indirectly.
I've never seen him admit to even the slightest typo, misquote, or flub, let alone any factual error. I just wondered whether you had assessed RightWingNilla's (or VadeRetro's or Patrick Henry's, etc.) posts and his responses yourself and agreed with him every time, or whether, without regard of the facts in evidence or his personal approach to the debate, you were just cheering him on because he's on your "side".
Perhaps it was just a silly question.
I just wondered if you saw it that much different than it appears to most of us. Thanks for playing.
Actually, the idea of having to thank you for your civil replies takes me slightly aback. Perhaps it's an illustration of the current level of discourse on these threads.
They aren't so much holding up as G3K is holding them up in spite of everything and anything. You can do that on the Internet. You just have to be Stone Deaf.
To the examples given already I could add several of my own, but you could have noticed them yourself as long as you've been around. You must be wearing very special rose-colored glasses.
So why the attacks? Debating someone who keeps using easy-to-refute data is the easiest thing in the world. Quietly point out the errors and you end up looking smart and he ends up looking foolish.
Going off topic by calling names and debating semantics, is an indication of an inability to conclusively refute the point in question.
If the data can't be conclusively refuted, just agree to disagree.
I can. It's Holy Warrior Syndrome. The people with whom the Holy Warrior argues are a Satanic Evil Enemy. They must be shown no quarter. Further, any appearance of making a mistake before them is grounds for cognitive dissonance, a troubling anomaly. "HE wouldn't let me be embarrassed before them. There must be a way that this isn't happening."
The way it works out, no error no matter how trivial is ever admitted. Distractions are made. Misunderstandings are pretended. If all else fails, the Holy Warrior falls into glum silence.
Gore3000, Holy Warrior:
Here, I can't get an answer on an obvious goof by gore. (And I never did.)Gore's reptilianly hissy answer. (Surprise! Surprise! Surprise! He calls her dishonest.)
Assuming you like posting the same refutations over and over and over and over as often as Joe Robot likes posting his dumb-dumbisms. See also "medved."
Bravo! It's refreshing to see people say that, isn't it?
Another thing that needs to be said: please don't assume that there is some 'evil' conspiracy out there trying to derail any good science. People have their beliefs, interests, and passions that they bring to the table -- along with some data (recommended) -- and present it the best they can. Those of us less educated in the sciences form opinions and the game goes on. Acting like a "howler"
is detrimental to the flow of communication and the sharing of ideas.
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.