Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: jennyp
You are a creationist, are you not? What do you think of fellow creationist gore3000's argument?

How does being a creationist, one who believes God created everything, require me to follow and be involved in every creationists discussion? I happen to discuss what I want to discuss not what others would have me discuss. I did not post anything in relation to 1605 or whatever from gore3000. I didn't come running to jennyp everytime a Darwininian made what I considered a bonehead error and ask jennyp to be involved in the discussion. If it is something I posted I would be required to defend it. It is not my post so I choose not to be involved. Had I commented, I would be involved. Had you asked, innocently with no ulterior motive, I might have answered, but your transparent attempt to pit me against someone else is not to my liking.

On the other hand, your posted nonsense from Shermer involves you directly in the maintenance of that posted position. Any one else who openly admires that position with statements like "Great post. It reminds me of your long-ago example of card-shuffling, where the cards have velcro strips to simulate the way chemical compounds are formed, so that the required sequence pops up after only a few shuffles.", advocates that position and is answerable. However, you do not see me hounding those individuals for a renouncement of that position. I am not into Inquisition.

The argument stands or falls based upon things outside of my opinion of the argument. If you can't argue your points, don't expect me to argue them for you.

1,688 posted on 06/24/2002 1:38:39 AM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1687 | View Replies ]


To: All
Placemarker and Slime-free zone.
1,689 posted on 06/24/2002 3:43:17 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1688 | View Replies ]

To: AndrewC
How does being a creationist, one who believes God created everything, require me to follow and be involved in every creationists discussion? I happen to discuss what I want to discuss not what others would have me discuss. I did not post anything in relation to 1605 or whatever from gore3000. I didn't come running to jennyp everytime a Darwininian made what I considered a bonehead error and ask jennyp to be involved in the discussion. If it is something I posted I would be required to defend it. It is not my post so I choose not to be involved. Had I commented, I would be involved. Had you asked, innocently with no ulterior motive, I might have answered, but your transparent attempt to pit me against someone else is not to my liking.

I'm sorry for the tone that made you so defensive. I was hoping you'd gently mention to your co-creationist that his argument was bad. We evos have all known his arguments were generally bad for some time now, and our respect for you would probably have gone up a notch if you'd come out and point out gore3000's blatant & painfully obvious error and the embarrassing way he doggedly tries to defend it. You do disagree with his "50%" argument, don't you?

But hey, if instead you choose to refuse to comment on gore3000's "50%" argument, then so be it.

o M M o o M o M o o o M o M M o M M M o M o o M o o

1,740 posted on 06/24/2002 2:35:55 PM PDT by jennyp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1688 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson