Scientists Back Off of Ardi Claims (Evos give climate-hoaxers a run for their money...LOL!)

ICR News ^ | December 4, 2009 | Brian Thomas, M.S.

[tacticalogic]

Is my not holding the same religious beliefs as you interfering with your free exercise of religion in any way?

[CottShop]

[[Is my not holding the same religious beliefs as you interfering with your free exercise of religion in any way?]]

Stil lgonna avoid hte challenge and twist htis around eh? Listen, if you’re not up to showign everyone why God’s word can’t be trusted as beign His word, I understand- Again, you can beleive whatever you like, but when you try to play both sides of the fence- expect to be called to the carpet to answer to your claims- You have called into quesiton the fact that God’s word in your mind isn’t infat His actual word- I asked yuo to back it up- Many people beleive there is a God- but not many beleive IN God, and those that simply beleive there is a God, call into quesiton whether God’s word is actually His word-

Is my askign you to back your claim up that God’s word isn’t actually His word making you uncomfortable after you claiemd that you could ‘easily show that my beleif is wrong’?

[tacticalogic]

Stil lgonna avoid hte challenge and twist htis around eh?

Unless you can present an argument that it's relevant to your right to free exercise of religion, I'm going to decline your invitation to a pissing match. Go start a fight with somebody else.

[CottShop]

[[Is my not holding the same religious beliefs as you interfering with your free exercise of religion in any way?]]

you’re still not goign to address those verses I listed, are you? Still not goign to commit to one camp or the other huh? The door to finding out that God’s word is infact His word is still open by God’s own invitation- all you have to do is walk through

[CottShop]

[[Unless you can present an argument that it’s relevant to your right to free exercise of religion, I’m going to decline your invitation to a pissing match. Go start a fight with somebody else.]]

LOL- you accuse me of not understanding the bible, then I ask you to back you accusation up- and you run away claimign you’re not ‘goign to get into a pissing match’? Buddy- you started the pissing match, but when I peed over a higher stump- you took off a-runnin by trying to make this about how I suppsoedly htink the issue is now about some suppsoed infringement on my right to freely express my religious beleifs? lol- you’re funny- I have seen htis much spin since John Kerry- Mr. Flip-Flop Waffler ran for office

[tacticalogic]

how I suppsoedly htink the issue is now about some suppsoed infringement on my right to freely express my religious beleifs

If it's not about your free exercise of religion, then it's off topic in this forum. If you want to discuss purely religous issues, there is a forum for that, but this is not it. I believe that's perfectly in line with Jim Robinson's comments on the issue.

[CottShop]

[[If it’s not about your free exercise of religion, then it’s off topic in this forum. If you want to discuss purely religous issues, there is a forum for that, but this is not it. I believe that’s perfectly in line with Jim Robinson’s comments on the issue.]]

LOL- still gonna run away with tail tucked between your legs after biting at the backsides of Christians whiel htey weren’t looking eh? & Bzzzzt- Jim has not stated that religious discussions have to takep lace only in the religious forums- and this thread’s topic isn’t about attacks on religious freedoms- it’s about scientists backign off ardi claims- Cripes- it appears al lyou can do is sneak aroudn and nip at Christians whgile hteir backs are turned, then run away when they cal lyou to the carpet to back up your accusations- you sir are the one who began the discussion abotu God’s word, and made the claism that I ‘don’t understand the ideas behind scriptures’, and now you’re gonna just hit and run? Typical- I never for a minute expected you would present a valid argument after making spurious and unsupported accusations- per usual.

you sir turn htis into a religious discussion and hten run away when your claims are confronted by claiming we ‘can’t discuss religious issues’ in public forums? LOL- Whatever- keep spinning- keep running- you know full well many threads on FR discuss religious issues front and center- and hwen religious discussions have to be relegated to back room discussions, let me know- till then, I’ll discuss and defend my religious beliefs against false accusations out in the open when htose accusatiosn are made out i nthe open- last I looked, we’re stil lfree to discuss religion in public, and I’m pretty sure Jim would agree to that

[tacticalogic]

you sir turn htis into a religious discussion

I commented on the unreliability of your use of peoples religion beliefs as a test of their political persuasion. Period. You tried to turn it into a religious discussion and I won't follow you, and you're all bent out of shape about it.

[YHAOS]

Now, you put out “The Thomas Paine of 1789.”

OK

What about the Thomas Paine “of 1789”? What does that mean? How does that relate to your accusation of Cott that he possesses “an ignorance of the disparity of religious beliefs among the Founders, and an ignorance of political significance they placed on those beliefs”? During your dispute with Cott, you raised Paine’s The Age of Reason, which was predictable, since Age is nothing more than a bitter attack on The Bible and Judeo-Christian faith. But, you then went on to unaccountably reference “the Founders.” What’s up with that? Are you suggesting that the Paine of 1793 somehow had an influence on the American Revolutionary Act of 1776, in an indefinable time warp of quirky retroactivity?

Now you introduce a third “point in time”; “the Paine of 1789,” claiming my desire was to “pin it down” to the man at a point in time. You’re not that dense. But, you clearly are that devious. The issue was the stark contrast of the religious philosophy of Paine in 1776 and of that same Paine of 1793 (don’t try to deny it – people were watching when you introduced the two conflicting themes). The “points in time” are irrelevant, other than as reference points highlighting the two contrasting philosophies of Paine. You can’t deal with the contradictions of Paine or the reason for their existence. So, all you’re left with is:

Babble.

Flickering thought fragments, searching desperately for cohesiveness.

But, if that’s the best you can do, then that’s the best you can do.

[tacticalogic]

I offerred no praise of Paines writings. I presented them as evidence that specific religious beliefs are not a reliable indicator of political persuasion.

[YHAOS]

"I offerred no praise of Paines writings."

I don't recall suggesting that you praised Paine's writings, even though you did introduce them in support of your point. More evasiveness: "refuting" a point not offered. Brilliant!

But, If that's the best you can do, then that's the best you can do.

[tacticalogic]

My mistake. I misread "raised" as "praised".

Is there some reason you don't think that's not appropriate evidence?

[YHAOS]

”Is there some reason you don't think that's not appropriate evidence?”

What is not appropriate evidence of what? (the starkly contradictory writings of Paine as exemplified by Common Sense and The Age of Reason I presume, and some elements of your disagreement with Cott I, likewise, presume)

I’ve already given you the reasons why I think your evidence inappropriate (see post #607). Don’t make me repeat myself. Likewise, I’ve raised related issues you’ve avoided (see #607 and #629).

”My mistake. I misread "raised" as "praised".”

Very well. My apologies for construing your error to be insincerity.

[tacticalogic]

Paines’s writings made is religious beliefs well known, so I have some confidence they were well known to the other Founders at the time of the formation of the republic. The delegates of the convention saw no reason to try and make them a litmus test. I think that was a well considered decision, see no reason not to do likewise. Whatever his religious beliefs were, or his reasons for holding them does not detract from his contribution to or participation in that event, or pollute his political convictions.

[CottShop]

[[I commented on the unreliability of your use of peoples religion beliefs as a test of their political persuasion. Period.]]

no- you put words in my mouth that I never said- which I addressed in my response to your false accusations- so I won’t go over that again- however, that’s not all you delved into

[[You tried to turn it into a religious discussion and I won’t follow you, and you’re all bent out of shape about it.]]

Mmmm- No spanky- YOU made claims that were untrue, and I asked you to back them up- you refused- per usual, and are now tryign to turn this around by feinging innocent. You also brought up the issue that there are ‘many interpretations, and you accused me of not understandign hte difference between the ideas behind scripture, and the wording- which I’ve asked you several times to back up.

You folsk are all alike- You make spurious claims, then run away when asked to back your claims up, and when confronted with the evidence which refutes your claims- and while running, you throw a couple of parting insults and insinuations that iot’s ‘al lthe fault of the Christians or creationists’ for ‘not understanding scriptures, mot understanding science, and tryign to ‘turn the discussions into religious ones’

As I said before, and wil lstate once again, so that peopel aren’t confused by your double standars and false claims, when you call into quesiton the tennants of Cghristianity, and make claism that are supported biblically, then expect to be caleld to the carpet for it- making those false claims, then hiding behind more false claims, doesn’t help your cause one bit- it simpyl hsows that all you’re willign to do is get as many jabs in against Christians- TRUE Christians as you can, then run away when the fire is put to your feet.

[tacticalogic]

no- you put words in my mouth that I never said-

You posted those words, and I responded to them.

[CottShop]

[[You posted those words, and I responded to them. ]]

Keep spinnign and evading- i NEVER said that only liberals doubt God’s word, or that you cabn always tell a person’s political pursuasion every time by how they reveal themselves relgiously concernign hte bible- Those were YOUR words- NOT mine- You put words in my mouth, and I corrected your false allegations several times now, and again here (which you’ll no doubt promptly ignore, because it defeats your one argument that you’ve decided to cling to after makign more false accusations and false claims, and evading requests to back up those claims), but you’re still insisting on putting words in my mouth and continuing hte false accusation-

for someone that ‘doesn’t want a fight’ you sure make a lot of false accusations- then run away when confronted complaining about the situation being ‘turned into a fight’. This is precisely why I don’t engage you most of hte time- because al lyou do is hit and run- while spinning spinning spinning (and Buck thinks that’s brilliant?- If that’s both your ideas of a badge of honor, well then it’s a pretty sad attempt at brilliance)

[tacticalogic]

Keep spinnign and evading- i NEVER said that only liberals doubt God’s word,

From your post at 563, the claim I responded to originally:

"only liberals beleive that you can’t beleive the bible because supposedly, the ‘bible was written by fallible man alone."

[CottShop]

I DID however explain to you after that post that a person isn’t automatically a liberal for doubting God’s word,- I’ve made this clear several times now- which you conveniently ignored in order to keep the argument focussed on a mistake in wording- I have told you several times now that that is not what I meant, yet you continue on insisting I must have

[CottShop]

We’ll clear htis up right now- You are correct inthat I originally did get careless i nthe statement by saying ‘only liberals’- it hsoudl have read ‘liberals’ without hte ‘only’- I have explained to you in following posts that I didn’t mean ‘only liberals’ doubt God’s word, and I’ve never suggested that in my time here on FR- it was a mistake in wording- however, the issue first beign discussed was that you made false allegation that the bible couldn’t be trusted because it suppsoedly was riddled with errors, and I challenged you on that issue to back up your claim- which you ignored- focussing instead on a mistake in wording, and hten turnign the issue from one abotu your false claim to one about our founding fathers and their political persuaisions. I couldn’t for the life of me figure out why the issue suddenly changed fro myour allegation about hte bible to one of someone’s political persuaision, and you’ve still not addressed you origninal accusations about God’s word. If focussing on a mistake in wording, instead of addressing your claims is al lit takes for a self-congratualatory pat on the back for you- then knock yerself out- however, the issue stil lremains that you’re calling into question God’s word, and then runnign from it when asked to back your claims up- and htis sir is hte issue I’ve been tryign to focus on sicne you first brought it up- then you turn aroudn and accuse me of ‘tryign to start a fight’?