Summations Only

Didn't Dave Barry do the same thing in the early 1980's. Plagiarist! Chuck should give you a good talking to! --Percy

Hi Buz,Despite not being the topic of this thread, the term "primordial soup" has now appeared in 29 messages, not counting this one. Instead of the topic, attention has now turned to explaining that "primordial soup" is only one hypothesis, and not a very current one, about conditions on Earth when life began. This is what happens when you participate in threads, and it is why you are not permitted to participate in the science forums.The list said "slime by a cosmic accident", not "primordial soup". Evolution does not hold that we "all evolved from slime by a cosmic accident." The Bible does state that we were created from the dust of the ground. Your list is wrong, at best providing a caricature, while our list is correct. Can we move on?--Percy

Being delusional means sensing or seeing things apparent to no one else.If you're not delusional then you'll recognize that Point 9 did not mention "primordial soup", which you're confused about anyway, and having recognized this you'll allow the discussion to move forward by addressing Point 8, which is covered in Message 208.--Percy

Here's the way I think an informed Christian and believer in creationism should respond: But I doubt we'll see anything like this.This list about foolish atheists is perceived in different ways by the two groups. It is ha-ha funny to Christians because they believe the foolishness it describes is true, and it is very sad to atheists because they know Christians believe it is true.The list about foolish Christians is also perceived differently by the two groups. It is very sad to atheists because it is true. And it is cognitively dissonant to Christians because though it is true it is not presented in a Christian context where it would make sense.--Percy

Really? You don't recall arguing over and over that Point 10 about atheists blaming God for the ills of the world was correct?You're not aware that you're still arguing that Point 9 about evolving from slime by cosmic accident is correct? You've misinterpreted simple English again. I was talking about the list about foolish Christians that was written by atheists, as was clear by the paragraph beginning with, "The list about foolish Christians..." It was written from an atheist perspective, so of course it was not presented in a Christian context, and since no one with their wits about them could ever make such a foolish misinterpretation I'm sure you'll now explain that you didn't mean what you plainly said but will instead claim that you meant something else, and that when people point out how disingenuous you're being you'll claim that EvC is biased against creationists and that creationists never make misinterpretations and that's it's all part of the evolutionist master plan to discredit creationism.Anyway, if you've changed your mind and have now adopted the position that the criticisms of the factual misstatements in the list about foolish atheists miss the point because it was parody, then there's no need for further discussion. But otherwise I think its time to move on to Point 8, covered in Message 208.--Percy

I guess you don't remember what you said earlier in the thread. For instance, here you complain that I falsely characterized you as arguing over and over that Point 10 about atheists blaming God for the ills of the world was correct: So you don't recall quoting me saying this? And do you also not recall objecting to this in Message 62, Message 78 and Message 87, and finally culminating in this in Message 142? I can't help you out of the rest of your confusion, for example, about the atheist list about foolish Christians. No one can, because each attempt only introduces more things for you to become confused about.Why don't you just demonstrate how wrong I am about how you make it impossible for threads to focus on their topics by moving on to the next point, Point 8, last covered in Message 208. This marks my fourth attempt to get you to refocus on the topic.--Percy

I critisized Chuck for posting the list and called out Point 10 specifically. You quoted this and objected repeatedly. If you weren't objecting to what you quoted then don't blame other people for misunderstanding, particularly given your tortured rationale.You're doing what I said you would do, denying any confusion and avoiding the topic. It cannot help but cause wonder at your true interest in this thread. Your pattern has become to debate so atrociously that you start drawing criticism, and then to complain about how unfairly you're being treated.Buz, what you've written in this thread is there for all to see. The best way to convince everyone that you're not hopelessly confused is to begin posting cogently, accurately, and most of all, on topic.Do you have anything to say about the topic? Maybe about Point 8, last covered in Message 208.--Percy

I'm a participant in this thread, not a moderator, but this is just Coffee House after all. It seems to me that Buzsaw already set the pattern with all his accusations, but other moderators can make up their own minds.I don't understand Buz. Most people when they're driving down the highway and everyone is blinking their headlights at them get the idea that their headlights are out, but Buz instead concludes that the problem is with everyone else.And the way he supports other creationists, it reminds of the way supporters of the more gaffe-prone Republican candidates supported their man no matter what he said.--Percy

Perhaps you can describe for us how much you enjoyed reading Buz where he accused me of blaming Christians for writing the list of Top Ten Signs You're a Foolish Christian.Threads in which Buz participates always draw many responses because obvious errors tend to draw a lot of attention, and then the corrections drag on because Buz misunderstands most of what he reads. You are young, grasshopper, and still have not learned to research before typing. Click on my name and look at my list of Fav Forums. Coffee House is 2nd on the list. We responded because we assumed you thought it was true, and its many errors explains why it drew so much attention. But if you only posted it because you thought it was funny then just say so - we thought you believed it.--Percy

Of course evolution and abiogenesis are related. Science believes that life, which is subject to evolution, had a non-biologic but natural origin, otherwise called abiogenesis. Saying abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution would be like saying trees have nothing to do with lumber.But they're not the same thing. Abiogenesis is a non-biologic origin of life, while evolution is change in that life over time through a process of random mutation and natural selection. We know quite a bit about evolution, and very little about abiogenesis.As I pointed out earlier in the thread, a significant portion of creationists also separate the origin of life from evolution. They believe that God created life (holygenesis ) and that after the flood an accelerated form of evolution produced all the species we see today. Understanding that the origin of life and evolution are separate concepts is not unique to science. No one's said anything that would indicate they don't work together. We certainly don't know much about itt, but science sees the development of life from non-life as a gradual and continuous natural process under the conditions of the then-young Earth.No one's trying to pull a shell game on you. We're merely explaining the science. Is there no position so untenable you won't argue for it?--Percy

Maybe, but my own view is that since Buzsaw doesn't know what he means, no one else can know what he means, either. We can point out when what he says makes no sense, but we can never really know what he means because he doesn't know what he means, either.We've all been in the position of arguing for something illogical that made perfect sense to us at the time. Something in our brains accidentally made the "makes sense" light go on. When it comes to his own ideas Buz's "makes sense" light is on all the time, so he never catches himself making an error.--Percy

Chuck's last three posts lapsed into rationality, so it would not be entirely accurate to say that Chuck and Buz were bat-shit crazy, irrational and contradictory in this thread, but I'll say it anyway. Later Buz will post his summary confirming this characterization, and we'll just have to see which Chuck shows up when he posts his.I do think a followup thread in the science forum about why abiogenesis and evolution are separate concepts would be a good idea.--Percy