 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6845
Location: USA
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 7:37 pm Post subject: Ceasing the tit-for-tat |
 |
|
There have been a ton of posts today, mostly between our new member, Dr. Martin and P123...
So many posts in fact that I doubt anyone - especially those involved in the discussions have had time to adequately review the links and information the good Doctor has provided.
What strikes me as interesting is the insistence that every offering the Doctor has posted has been rejected as insufficient, not worthy, or some other nonsense by.... yeah, P123
So, I wonder, why bother? Scientific evidences, papers, and publications are asked for and then soundly rejected before being adequately reviewed and digested. So why bother?
I challenge our longer standing member to demonstrate a little intellectual honesty and actually consider the information before rejecting it out of hand. Certainly the offered information is contradictory to his evolutionary religious beliefs, but hey, he is a scientist afterall, objectivity should be paramount. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1549
Location: BC
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 10:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh come on. With over a hundred posts in a single afternoon, I don't think even the "good Dr" has had time to think about what he's posting.
One thing he said was:
| Quote: |
I do consider all of the above to be Science related ventures. |
He was referring to geology, physics, and chemistry! They're not just science-related ventures; they're science! I don't think he had time to think this one through.
As for intellectual honesty, every time I've asked the "good Dr" a question, he's completely avoided giving me an answer that has anything at all to do with the question. Perhaps some more thinking could get done if a little less speedy posting was going on.
Oh yeah, and in the time it took me to post this, the "good Dr" made 4 posts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unverified
Booted
Joined: 08 Jan 2007
Posts: 299
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 10:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ana wrote: | Oh come on. With over a hundred posts in a single afternoon, I don't think even the "good Dr" has had time to think about what he's posting.
One thing he said was:
| Quote: |
I do consider all of the above to be Science related ventures. |
He was referring to geology, physics, and chemistry! They're not just science-related ventures; they're science! I don't think he had time to think this one through.
As for intellectual honesty, every time I've asked the "good Dr" a question, he's completely avoided giving me an answer that has anything at all to do with the question. Perhaps some more thinking could get done if a little less speedy posting was going on.
Oh yeah, and in the time it took me to post this, the "good Dr" made 4 posts. |
Whats your point here? You're making ad hoc claims. Whoopee....I'm not impressed here by your argument from outrage here either. At least if you make an ad hoc claim, make it somewhat plausible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1549
Location: BC
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 10:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If you'd slow down and read what I said, I think you might see for yourself what my point is.
Tally: 4 more posts in 2 minutes |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unverified
Booted
Joined: 08 Jan 2007
Posts: 299
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 10:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ana wrote: | If you'd slow down and read what I said, I think you might see for yourself what my point is.
Tally: 4 more posts in 2 minutes |
Your point is to make an argument from outrage appear as a credible argument for something its not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6796
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 10:28 pm Post subject: Re: Ceasing the tit-for-tat |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: |
I challenge our longer standing member to demonstrate a little intellectual honesty and actually consider the information before rejecting it out of hand. Certainly the offered information is contradictory to his evolutionary religious beliefs, but hey, he is a scientist afterall, objectivity should be paramount. |
RevJP, I AM standing up for intellectual honesty and objectivity. That's been my whole theme all along, and it's the reason why I feel it necessary to rebut Dr. Michael's points even though it's 1:30 in the morning where I am.
If you want to question intellectual honesty and objectivity, don't question mine. I'm not a Young Earth Creationist, and I'm not a microbiology Ph.D who asserts that mutations can't add information to a genome. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unverified
Booted
Joined: 08 Jan 2007
Posts: 299
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 10:30 pm Post subject: Re: Ceasing the tit-for-tat |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | RevJP wrote: |
I challenge our longer standing member to demonstrate a little intellectual honesty and actually consider the information before rejecting it out of hand. Certainly the offered information is contradictory to his evolutionary religious beliefs, but hey, he is a scientist afterall, objectivity should be paramount. |
RevJP, I AM standing up for intellectual honesty and objectivity. That's been my whole theme all along, and it's the reason why I feel it necessary to rebut Dr. Michael's points even though it's 1:30 in the morning where I am.
If you want to question intellectual honesty and objectivity, don't question mine. I'm not a Young Earth Creationist, and I'm not a microbiology Ph.D who asserts that mutations can't add information to a genome. |
That quote is entirely nonsense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 5907
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 12:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | | There have been a ton of posts today, mostly between our new member, Dr. Martin and P123... |
Have no doubts, I would have certainly stepped in had I had the time. I've been busy 
Also, I think the tit-for-tat is absolutely hilarious. I'm going to be plenty busy tomorrow as well, I wonder how Dr. Martin will take my refutation of his magazine's authority as a scientific journal, if he even manages to find it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6845
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 9:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think the point was made, clearly. Lots of posts, and lots of refutation of those posts, when one could not have adequately reviewed and considered the information offered in those posts.
Where is the intellectual or scientiifc integrity in dismissing something without giving it adequate consideration? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 5907
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 9:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Please present something the Dr. said which you felt did not receive adequate consideration. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3111
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 9:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | | I'm going to be plenty busy tomorrow as well, I wonder how Dr. Martin will take my refutation of his magazine's authority as a scientific journal, if he even manages to find it. |
It is amazing what one person may consider a refutation and what another would not. 
Kinda sorta like listing hundreds of facts that demonstrate the earth is young, and then having the question asked, 'when are you going to present some evidence?'
It all gets old after a while. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6845
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 9:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Please present something the Dr. said which you felt did not receive adequate consideration. |
Every post from last evening.
Tell me how, anyone reading and posting last night could have reviewed all the information which was posted? I haven't done an actual count, but I do know that in numerous posts, links to 4-5 different things were posted and references to more than a few studies were made.
Simply looking at the time sequences of the posts and the replies one can clearly see that it was impossible for those involved in the discussions to look at, much less, thoroughly review said references. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unverified
Booted
Joined: 08 Jan 2007
Posts: 299
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 9:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Trinity1 wrote: | | FFT wrote: | | I'm going to be plenty busy tomorrow as well, I wonder how Dr. Martin will take my refutation of his magazine's authority as a scientific journal, if he even manages to find it. |
It is amazing what one person may consider a refutation and what another would not.
Kinda sorta like listing hundreds of facts that demonstrate the earth is young, and then having the question asked, 'when are you going to present some evidence?'
It all gets old after a while. |
This is why my objective is to not go through this until we get some specific questions here. I'm not going to play the Evolution dummie game while I'm here. They can keep playing it off as if I don't have any evidential support and don't know what I"m talking about...but until I get some specific concerns other than, "Prove God exists", I'm not going to post a single bit of evidential support. Although I was able to prove that the DNA structure has a grammatical character within it, contrary to P123's claims last night as well (which I'm sure he's going to deny...but its on the "Allow me to introduce myself" thread.) meaning that DNA's structure is orderly, and not a mess, and that this would demonstrate an Intelligent Designer.
Last edited by Unverified on Tue Jan 09, 2007 9:41 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 5907
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 9:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | | Every post from last evening. |
Sure 
Please present one or two, then.
| RevJP wrote: | | Tell me how, anyone reading and posting last night could have reviewed all the information which was posted? |
"Nothing new under the sun," remember? I've seen most of his stuff before. The only new thing I noticed was his accusation that Darwin was a plagiarist, to which I simply think "even if this is true, so what?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6845
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 9:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
The point FFT, stick to the point. You want to argue about that which you were not a part of as if it is something against you personally - why?
Are you refuting the point I have made? If so, then address it as it stands and quit trying to divert attention from the truth of the facts as presented. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
