MM
Posted on 08/13/2003 9:02:05 PM PDT by nwrep
One more time. Do not address me or include me in your discussion.
Sure I do. As a wise man once said:
And my pointing that out to others does not require me to be anything but a member of this forum. You do not own this place nor do your words in anyway possess the imagined force you seem to think are behind them. You are the hypocrite.Oh wait, that was you, wasn't it?
Please do not include me in your discussion.
I will take this as an admission that you recognized the source of the derogatory comments I quoted in post #478 (albeit with "evolution" edited to read "creationism", all else was verbatim), and have no defense for the way you've been overlooking disgusting posts from "one of your own" (he *has* signed the agreement, by the way) while sniping at far milder words from "evos".
If you can't handle people pointing out (or asking questions about) your own posting behavior, then perhaps you ought to stop making a career out of doing the same yourself.
If you'll stop lawyering, I'll stop pointing out the beam in your own eye.
Frankly, I'd much rather be discussing the actual topic (and I *have*, you'll notice) instead of countering overblown charges of "incivility" every few posts.
And to exaggerate for the sake of making a point, I'd feel a lot more charitable about the motives of some posters if they'd write something like, "friend, in that last post of yours you may have inadvertently skirted one of the rules of the agreement, I know you wouldn't want to give offense" instead of "You've broken your promise, gotcha! I told everyone from the start you varmints couldn't be trusted."
(Ironically, although at least two "anti-evos" have expressed the concern that The Agreement had been crafted by "evos" in order to use as a "weapon" on discussions, the only people on this thread who have been wielding it like a bludgeon have been non-signing "anti-evos"...)
In any case, I will continue to reply to any public messages I think worth commenting upon, including yours. You ask me not to "include" you in "my" discussion... It's not "my" discussion and you "included" yourself by posting here. It's not like I pinged you into it or started talking about you behind your back. If you choose to "include yourself" in a discussion by posting on the thread, your posts remain public comments and are open to comment by others -- including myself.
You're welcome to drop out of the conversation if you can't bear to see my responses, but you can't silence me, no matter how convenient you may find the idea.
Nonetheless, I have no intention of "stalking" you just to annoy you by purposely violating your request that I stop replying to your posts entirely. I'll respect your request enough to make no further replies to any posts of yours earlier than this one, and I won't go out of my way to reply to new posts of yours just because I can.
But I'll make you a deal -- unless I've used any other words you'd like to claim I don't understand, let's both sleep on it tonight and then start with a clean slate tomorrow.
But don't forget that:
- The argument from design is not a theological argument, because we aren't necessarily talking about God. But any rebuttal of the design argument is theological, because it requires us to say "God wouldn't do it this way", and this is not legitimate. [16]
From the Quixotic Message
Regards ;)
1. "Virtuous non-signers" -- (the idea first appeared in post 399, but that's irrelevant):
There are several regulars in our threads who haven't bothered themselves with the agreement at all, who were absent from the drafting thread, who avoided all the quibbles and petty disputes, but who nevertheless conduct themselves as if they were complying posters. That is, their posts are always respectful, never provocative, never spamming, never involved in nit-picking irrelevant trivia, etc. We might consider them "virtuous non-signers."2. And now, "accusatory non-signers" -- a term which nicely defines itself. But to flesh out the concept, let me quote from Ichneumon, who in response to one said (post 482): "If you can't handle people pointing out (or asking questions about) your own posting behavior, then perhaps you ought to stop making a career out of doing the same yourself. ... I'd much rather be discussing the actual topic (and I *have*, you'll notice) instead of countering overblown charges of 'incivility' every few posts."
Well, well, shows the utter hypocrisy of your promise to be civil. Seems the only thing you have been doing is persecuting Christians.
I have warned you twice. This is going to the Admin Moderator. You used abusive language and it was pointed out to you. I requested that you not address me due to that fact. You apparently have difficulty understanding that I have no wish to discuss anything with you. You previously have called me a troll for the mere fact of my defending my position. This is intolerable. Cease.
Trying to get the thread pulled is an ALS tactic. Don't stoop that low.
It seems from your profile that you assume all the sedimentary layers in the Grand Canyon sequence were laid down in one flood event, correct?
I am not sure. I believe a computer model that could recreate a flood sequence that put water 20,000 feet above sea level might help to iron out some of the possible sequences.
I imagine a worldwide flood event that was higher than the tallest mountains would cause crustal deformations and magma incursions, as well as heavy volcanic activity, because of the immense water pressure.
So to answer your question, I think a team of geophysicists and geologists with the finest University, tools and measurement equipment (the reason this hasn't happened yet), we may have some potential answers.
The Grand Canyon is excuse enough for a serious study to be executed, and I believe as more scientists come out of the ID closet, we may see something organized on the scale that would do it scientific justice.
No, it's an evolutionist tactic. Insult until the whole thread becomes a food fight when your stupid theory is being shown to be a fraud. Then blame the Christians and get them banned so that you can tell all the lies you like.
In fact, presuming 20,000 feet of floodwater for which we have no direct evidence doesn't help a bit in explaining the fossilized animal burrows, spider tracks, raindrop imprints, etc. You present no scenario by which it would. Rather, you declare that if we modeled a 20,000-foot high flood with the best brains and supercomputers available the flood scenario would suddenly work. This is a bit like saying that a cold-air balloon would work better than a hot-air balloon if we modeled it with a Cray, if only cold-air balloon technology weren't being conspiratorially denied its fair place.
MM
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.