Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: betty boop

You said he was speaking about the Bible. We pointed out he was speaking about the genome. It’s a trivial mistake (you trusted the wrong source), yet instead of saying, “Oops, I had the context wrong on that,” you continued to say that he was talking about the Bible, then said that he was talking about both simultaneously, and now say that he was talking about God. Duh! Of course he was talking about God, but he was definitely not talking about the Bible!

My question is why you have such a hard time backing down when we point out something you’ve quoted was actually never said or was said in a different context than you gave? We agree truth and what actually happened is important, right, so why is it you have to be dragged kicking and screaming into admitting the facts?


647 posted on 06/14/2007 7:02:48 AM PDT by ahayes ("Impenetrability! That's what I say!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 644 | View Replies ]


To: ahayes; js1138
My question is why you have such a hard time backing down when we point out something you’ve quoted was actually never said or was said in a different context than you gave?

I gather you two would rather discuss me and my shortcomings than the topic at hand. :^)

If you can't "win" on points, then disqualify your opponent.

650 posted on 06/14/2007 9:48:12 AM PDT by betty boop ("Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." -- A. Einstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 647 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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