Let the record show that Buzz has chosen option 1 (he never responded to Schraf's previous message to him, Message 45), and the first part of option 4. Concerning the second part of option 4, only time will tell.
Uh, pardon, Percy, but I did respond to message 45. Schraf erroneously insinuated that I was arguing that evolution was not falsifiable. My response was that I was not contesting that fact in the form of a question to her which she has failed to answer. I went on to ask her why I should go into that since I was in agreement with her. No answer. Now, a response to the rest of 45 would do the following:
1. Confuse the issue, since I was already in agreement.
2. Take the thread way off in left field
off subject in violation of forum rules.
3. Accomplish nothing for the purpose of the thread for either the proponents or the opponents.
Buz: I love truth and try very carefully not to post unless I am posting true stuff which will stand the test.
Percy: A positive self image is good, but have you ever tried measuring it against the picture reflected back from others? There seems to be a bit of a discrepancy.
In all due respect, Percy, isn't this a disingenuous judgement of me by you? I did not claim to be Mr Perfection, now, did I? Your judgement seems to be that you don't think I love truth as I claim, and I guess I can't help that. I think you have me missjudged. None of us are perfect, now are we? Am I that much more discrepent than the rest here in town, Percy, that you need to come at me like this? My next statement is simply to the effect that I try. Where'd I go wrong here, my friend??
One question you might ask yourself is, "How can I modify my conduct so that the image I project to others is more consistent with my own self image?" For example, the image you project to me is one of rhetorical maneuvering and ignoring key points.
But Percy, again, with all due respect, aren't you convicting me before the evidence has been all in here? I fail to see where anyone has shown the evidence against me to be that imperical. Now I think you will agree that if enough digging is done each and everyone of us will come up somewhat short someplace or tuther. I see that going on now with statements taken outa context so as to make it look as bad as possible for me.
Let me be specific by using Schraf's Message 45 as an example. You said, "Evolution is no more disprovable than the supernatural..." This isn't the first time you've said this, and this isn't the first time it's been refuted.
Can you show where I ever made this point elsewhere, Percy? I think you're mistaken and would like documentaion. I do remember saying that one was no more provable than the other and don't remember that anyone showed conclusively that I was in error in making that statement. I think we would all agree that it would be easier for something to be no more
disprovable than for it to be no more
provable, so to say one is not the same as saying the other, by any means, imo.
You're ignoring the refutation, and as Holmes has characterized in one of his own messages in this thread, sometime down the road you'll pop up with this assertion in some other thread as if you'd proved your point. This isn't the behavior of someone who loves truth.
How many times have I claimed to have
proved my hypotheses or theories, Percy? Precious few, if any. There are specific points I may have proved, like for example, I might have proved by direct quote that so and so said such and such and may have said so elsewhere. We all do things like that. Often different members claim to have refuted someone else's statements or arguments, and I confess to that, if that means anything.
™ Version 4.2