Posted on 12/11/2009 8:50:14 PM PST by Phileleutherus Franciscus
[[he got zotted for disagreeing with the hardcore creationists]]
That’s a bunch of bull- there are quite a number of folks who dissagree with so called ‘hardcore creationists’ and they have been here a long time and have not been banned, nor will they- the only reason someone gets zotted is because of a posting history that is nasty and insulting or they continually antagonize the owners or mods after being warned many times not to
They generally have good reason to be.
There can be a thread about an archaeological find and some wise ass on the first or second post always whines, “How can this be? The Earth is only 6,000yo.”. Blah, blah, blah.
Gee, really? "Always"? Way to help your credibility there.
Actually, I took a look just now at the threads that resulted when I did a forum search for "fossil" in the title, and I didn't find a single sarcastic "the Earth is only 6000 old" remark, but I found *PLENTY* of threads where the *anti*"evos" were the ones who threw the first Stone of Snottiness(tm) -- often in the thread title itself (example: "Best ever find of soft tissue (muscle and blood) in a fossil (evos claim it is 18 mya!!!)").
Instead of intellectual debate there is only potshots and snide remarks.
Yeah, I get pretty tired of the anti-evo tactics too.
If you think there's no "intellectual debate" on those threads, check out my profile for examples to the contrary.
Good riddance. Go find a humanist forum where you can agree with everyone all day long.
So... Conservative people with Pistolshot's viewpoint really *aren't* welcome here? You do realize you just helped support his assessment?
[[So... Conservative people with Pistolshot’s viewpoint really *aren’t* welcome here?]]
LOL- way to spin spin spin- per usual- That wasn’t what he was sayign at all- he was saying since the fella obviously can’t tolorate other people’s opinions, and since he’s hell bent on not returning anyways, then a humanist forum, where peopel will agree with him all day long, woudl be more up his alley sicne he obviously can’t tolorate other people’s opinions here
[[ “the Earth is only 6000 old” remark, but I found *PLENTY* of threads where the *anti*”evos” were the ones who threw the first Stone of Snottiness(tm) ]]
BS- you obviously did NOT look too hard- a simpel search for GGG’s posts will put your silyl claim to rest immediately-
[[If you think there’s no “intellectual debate” on those threads, check out my profile for examples to the contrary.]]
Psssst- I’m well familiar with your threads, and you sir can’t play the innocent victim here- nor clai mthat your posts were just ‘intellectual debate’ devoid of snottiness on your part- You aren’t fooling anyone-
If you can equate disallowed rejoinders within Jim Robinson's private virtual livingroom with the oppression of evil totalitarian governments then perhaps you didn't need to be here after all.
I also have a couple of thoughts that don't always tack to the prevailing wind but, to continue the metaphor, I have no need to rent sails and stop the voyage over inconsequential differences.
WOW.
Hmmmmm . . . .
I do not believe in a 6,000 year young earth.
I am a fierce Pentecostal Fundamentalist Christian.
Some of the evolutionists folks are every bit as rabidly hostile, narrow, rigid, clueless as some of the hyper-Creationist 6,000 year old earth folks are.
And, personally, if I were to choose an error . . . I would prefer the Creationist one vs one from hell.
In an era when the literal devil is using every trick in the book to undermine and shred Scripture, Christianity and our culture based on such . . . it’s understandable that some folks think FIERCE SUPPORT OF SCRIPTURE IS A HIGH PERIORITY—A HIGHER PRIORITY than a LOT of other things.
Nevertheless, A RELATIONSHIP WITH JESUS THE CHRIST IS THE PRIORITY—NOT EVEN THE TRUTHFUL PHILOSOPHICAL SYSTEM BUILT ON HIST TEACHINGS is AS high a priority.
I hate seeing conservatives fracture and get at each other’s throats over lesser priorities . . . only the enemy wins.
However, the enemy is insidious in his infiltrations and distractions from our core values and core priorities. And this contentious era is going to get worse in terms of such conflicts.
May God have mercy on all who trust Him and support His values and priorities.
INDEED.
FAR TOOOOOO TRUE.
Seems like . . . hypocrisy runs in that family of thinkers.
That’s a bunch of bull-
Feel free to prove me wrong -- tell me what he *did* get zotted for then after ten years here. All I know is that a) he says that's the reason he was banned, and b) nothing else in his recent posting history is a violation of normal decorum here, except for the several threads of the last two days (now yanked) where he was spanking the "anti-evos" for their fallacious arguments and false claims.
And gosh, what a coincidence, several other "evos" on those contentious threads were banned/suspended at the same time (wacka after six years here, IronKros after seven years here, Buck W. after nine years here, etc.). Nothing but a mere coincidence, is it CottShop?
And yet... Can you name a single "anti-evo" who was zotted in this most recent purge, even though tempers on *both* sides flared and the "anti-evos" were hardly acting like angels? It appears that strongly arguing the "anti-evo" side is considered no vice, and strongly arguing the "evo" side is considered no virtue.
there are quite a number of folks who disagree with so called ‘hardcore creationists’ and they have been here a long time and have not been banned, nor will they-
Sure, a few are kept around as token punching bags these days. But unless you're using some special form of "anti-evo logic", you'll note that your non sequitur fails to actually support your assertion: The fact that a number of "evos" remain does not, in fact, provide supporting evidence for your claim that Pistolshot being zotted for clashing with the anti-evos is "a bunch of bull".
the only reason someone gets zotted is because of a posting history that is nasty and insulting or they continually antagonize the owners or mods after being warned many times not to
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. PatrickHenry, the keeper of the Evolution Ping List, was zotted after not even having posted at ALL for a few months. Just out of the blue, "zot". Several other prominent "evos" were just flushed from time to time for no obvious reason, often after several days of posting nothing in any way objectionable.
And, often quite explicitly, it has been made clear that arguing for evolutionary biology or pointing out the flaws in arguments given for various kinds of "anti-evo" is, in itself, considered as "continually antagonize the owners or mods". How many examples would you like me to cite where those positions are described as being "anti-Christian", "Marxist", "unAmerican", "unconservative", and so on?
Like, say, this thread today? http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2405876/posts
Which, coincidentally, is the same day several "pro-evo" long-time posters, including Pistolshot, got zotted? Just a coincidence, CottShop? So you say it's "a bunch of bull" still?
Don't try to tell me there's a level playing field here and the only consideration for zotting is whether someone is being a major jerk regardless of their "side". That used to be true several years ago when I posted far more frequently. It's not the case now. Some sides of the debate are more equal than others when it comes to being given slack for rude behavior or kept on a shorter leash.
Look, it's Jim's site and he can run it any way he wants. I'm not even complaining. But don't try to tell me that what I say is "a bunch of bull" when I dare to observe the way things are.
Psssst- I’m well familiar with your threads, and you sir can’t play the innocent victim here-
I must have missed the part where I claimed to be either "innocent" or a "victim". Perhaps you could point it out to me.
All I did was dispute the claim that such threads were devoid of intellectual debate.
I'm curious as to how you could bizarrely read a claim of "innocent victimhood" into that. Please explain.
nor clai mthat your posts were just ‘intellectual debate’ devoid of snottiness on your part-
Where the heck did you fantasize I claimed *that*?
Sure, I can get snotty. I'm damned good at it, actually. But I try very hard not to a) be the first to cast the first snot (i.e. I strive to respond in kind as much as possible), and b) document and justify exactly *why* someone deserves the return fire I'm giving them after they've made the mistake of being the first one to get snotty when coming unarmed to a battle of wits.
You aren’t fooling anyone-
Apparently I'm fooling you, which doesn't seem that hard, since you keep "seeing" things in my posts that I didn't actually put there. Damn, I'm good, what with all those "secret" messages I keep inserting into my posts.
And while we're at it, are you seriously going to point fingers at *me* for alleged violations of decorum, when your own posts are so frequently so vitriolic I feel as if I should wipe the flying spittle from my laptop screen after reading several of your posts? I mean, come on!
Oh, the drama.
BS- you obviously did NOT look too hard- a simpel search for GGG’s posts will put your silyl claim to rest immediately-
Oookay....
I guess you missed the fact that the link I gave, wherein an "anti-evo" was the first to get snotty IN THE THREAD TITLE he started, actually *was* one of GGG's gems...
Nice try! Here's a crowbar to get that foot out of your mouth.
Think longer, post slower, and the quality of your posts will inevitably improve, CottShop.
Sure.
You got a prob'em wit' dat? (8^D)
“Circular Firing Squad”.
Focus people, please.
Other FReepers are not the problem.
It is not like fighting over global warming where there are big financial and policy implications over the theory. Nobody is going to raise taxes or energy prices over Creation Science.
Can somebody ping me when it's my time to go?
-PJ
“Science is the quest for knowledge.”
Not the way it’s been practiced by Darwinists or by global warming fanatics.
With them, the science is settled.
Science, true science, requires extreme humility. It requires a recognition that new findings might at any time undermine the foundation of cherished theories and formulas and worldviews. It leaves the door open to new ideas, even though the ideas may be unsettling. It does not proclaim theory as fact, and it is never quick to declare observations as facts. The practitioner of true science understands that observations can sometimes be misleading.
In short, the science is never settled. On anything. Ever. Humility is required in the practice and teaching of science. Unfortunately, humility is a commodity sorely lacking among those who are declared to be experts in any field. Setting someone up as an expert on a subject elevates that person to an almost godlike position. The rest of society awaits the expert’s proclamations. Can such treatment promote humility in that person? Will it not instead promote the exact opposite? It is a rare person indeed who, recognized as an expert, is willing to admit openly that the whole edifice of his beliefs is like a house of cards. One card pulled from a lower level could cause the whole structure to collapse.
It is a rare person who, recognized as an expert, would be willing to start all of his discourses with a disclaimer, “Please remember that anything I say is based upon theories that I believe today to be true. However, at any time in the future, it is possible that these theories will be proven to be incorrect, and therefore any opinions expressed by me are necessarily contingent upon the stability of those theories.”
And, for those who cling to the expert’s opinions, will they not be disinclined to hear any contrary opinions? Won’t they instead vilify those who contradict the expert?
Instead of a quest for knowledge, science has become a tool for certain groups to get their way in policy decisions. For global warming, it is Copenhagen. For Darwinism, it is the promotion of a worldview that says that no God is needed. That all can be explained without Divine intervention. It marginalizes faith and promotes a darkness of the soul that causes despair. And dissenters are treated shamefully.
It requires a quest for the correct answer which overwhelms possib le embarassment at having the answer wrong in light of new data. Even more, it requires an emotional detachment from theory or hypothesis, an ability to let the data reveal the answer--or lack of one--without prejudice, only an attempt to determine if the explanation of a phenomenon is correct.
This, of course, becomes increasingly difficult to achieve as soon as one's theory catapults one to prominence, unless one has the guts (and good fortune) to be the first to step up with new data and say "I/we got it wrong."
One must never lose sight of the fact that knowing what something is not, what process did not cause a specific result, what factors were inconsequential, can be equally or even more valuable than knowing specifically what did.
As Edison might have said, "we know what doesn't work", and that advances knowledge as well.
As for me, the more I learn, the less I know, for each answer only raises more questions.
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.