Summations Only

I'm not surprised that you're anxious to move on because you're not being forthright about my position. No I don't recall arguing over and over that point 10 about atheists blaming God for the ills of the world was correct. Perhaps you'd cite when and how many times I did as you're alleging. I've never argued that anything evolves from slime by cosmic accident. Perhaps you wouldn't mind citing where you think otherwise. Yes, you were talking: It was written by you who said that this:

quote:

---

Here's the way I think an informed Christian and believer in creationism should respond:

---

So you said how you thought..........Then regarding what you thought Christians should say, you said: Again, no; it was written by you, pertaining to what you thought atheists would say. Yes, written by you from an atheist's perspective. I'm now explaining what I did say. I did mean what I plainly said, because you have obfuscated and gerrymandered my message so as to malign, demean and attack me personally. I'm claiming foul, specifying why so. Nice smear job, Percy. I think it's time for you, member (account) Percy, to refrain from personal alignment and to treat me in a fair and balanced manner.

quote:

---

Cheers and jeers do not designate between false and true statements. Likely other members may cheer a lengthy message or list that has some errors in it.

---

One assumes that if you cheer a post you find considerable merit in it. If it is false in it's major points - not just incidental details - one wonders what merit you see in the OP.

quote:

---

Members adverse to Biblical creation quite often cite Biblical data which is either totally erroneous, partially erroneous or not quite right.

---

Pointing out falsehoods is different from making false claims.

quote:

---

The fact is that I and many other Christians know that it was not technically factual. That has been born out in this debate, subsequent to when I cheered it. That is not to say we should throw the baby out with the bath water.

---

"Not technically factual" is seriously understating the issue, is it not ? Even "obvious falsehoods" would be better.

quote:

---

All atheists do not know Christians (perse) believe it is true. Some may know of some Christians who believe it is true. Some may think some Christians believe it is true. Some may know that some Christians consider it to be true in a broad sense. Any who have been aware of what I've debated over time regarding the bolt & nut specifics of primordial soup, abiogenesis and evolution know that I am aware that there is a difference between the three terms.

---

And you should also know that abiogenesis is a serious scientific proposal, with active and productive research going on - and circumstantial evidence that suggests that it is the most likely explanation of the origin of life on Earth.More importantly you should know that atheists don't feel demeaned simply by the suggestion that the first humans were create by God (even from dirt)

quote:

---

Pertaining to the list about foolish Christians, I rarely sense a "very sad" attitude in atheist's messages debating foolish Christians. More often I sense glee, mean spiritedness and sometimes hate.

---

ANd there's plenty of that in the list, too. Probably the reason that you cheered it.
(Although I will note yet again that you take truthful criticism as "mean spirited" while feeling free to make false attacks on others).

quote:

---

Yours and Subbie's posts are classic examples of what drags on threads with substanceless messages

---

If you make a claim that is - on the face of it - obviously false - then asking you to support it is reasonable and productive. Which is more than you managed to do in that little subthread. And it is obviously not just the question of topic that is at issue, since you jeered Subbies earlier message, posted before Admin intervened, while continuing to argue the point yourself.

quote:

---

This has been going on for years. Imo, it's high time to place the blame where it belongs. That's not saying that I'm squeaky clean. It's saying that I shouldn't get blamed for what others do most of in the long threads which I debate in.

---

By which you mean that people should not ask you to support your claims, because you can't and you feel forced to post substanceless messages in place of a real answer ?Buz, whether you like it or not you are the biggest part of the problem. In this case you couldn't support your claims, yet you blame people asking you to support your claims. In the Exodus thread you continually repeated debunked claims and strongly objected when Admin tried to make the thread more productive by taking a more detailed look at them. In the thermodynamics thread you were posting vague nonsense and refusing to explain it. And let us not forget that you claim that the same deadlocks that you blame others for are a sign of your success !Buz, man up and take responsibility for your own actions.

I'm going to let Percy defend himself but I have to ask you why you say this:

quote:

---

Again, no; it was written by you, pertaining to what you thought atheists would say.

---

The list referred to (quoted in Message 15) was apparently written by Chris Thiefe (it has no byline, but Thiefe claims to have written most of such material that appears on his website, where Percy found it). Do you have any evidence that Percy wrote that list ? If not, then why do you attribute it to him ?

I stand corrected on that one. It was written by someone else. However, Percy fully agreed to it, rendering his take on what the writer of the list was conveying.

quote:

---

I stand corrected on that one. It was written by someone else. However, Percy fully agreed to it, rendering his take on what the writer of the list was conveying.

---

That's not the point. The point is that Percy said it was written by atheists - and Percy is not an atheist. You claimed that it had been written by Percy himself, implicitly accusing Percy of a lie. And now it seems that you had no evidence at all to back up such an accusation. So why say it ? If you can't be bothered to even spend a few minutes checking why not just give Percy the benefit of the doubt ?But the real trouble is not that you did this but that you do much the same thing all the time - and very rarely admit your error. Kudos for doing so this time (although that is, I am afraid, damning with faint praise).Asking you to check your claims isn't unfair Buz, it's part of caring about the truth. Something you should do without being asked, even before your claims are questioned.

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

And you ducked the question once again. Your ass, sir, has been officially handed to you. You claim that abiogenesis is a pre-requisite for evolution, and yet you can not explain how the theory of evolution would change one iota when that pre-requisite is taken away. That means that abiogenesis is not a pre-requisite for evolution, contrary to your claims.

Percy, these are all blatant strawmen. None of them depict me supporting point ten, perse.

Per se: "By itself; without consideration of extraneous factors. "
So sure, if you ignore the context then they don't depict you supporting point 10.
But taking your replies out of context would be dishonest.So, let's be honest and consider the context: You have repeatedly supported point 10. *Emphasis mineEdited by Panda, : No reason given.

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

You know Buz, when you posted that mine and Percy's point's were "taken" about number 10 being nonsense, I almost hit the "Cheer" button because it showed you'd actually taken on board what had been said about the illogic of it.I'm so glad I decided to hold off on that "Cheer" because now all I hear is loud squeaking noises as you frantically backpedal. You now claim you never supported point10, yet the record shows otherwise. So that's a falsehood.You claimed that the primordial soup was a prerequisite to evolution, equating cosmic slime with primordial soup. You then denied having made the prerequisite claim until your own posts were quoted back at you. You attempted to change the definition of prerequisite to one that is news to any other English speaker in a ridiculous attempt to show that you never said the primordial soup was a prior requirement for evolution and now you've ditched the "cosmic" part of cosmic slime.While doing all of this, you've accused everyone else of being trolls, of deliberately misrepresenting your position and of being guilty of stalling the thread. You've thrown unfounded ad hominem attacks at Percy and others and you've continually and blatantly dodged questions asked of you by slinging mud and insults at those who asked the questions. All this is interspersed with posts which say nothing on the subject, but whinge about the posters you are ignoring and their very on-topic questions.I know admin frown on this sort of post, but I'm making it anyway because it's time you were properly called on this. You have engaged in lies, debating in bad faith, misrepresentation of others, self-contradiction, deceitfulness and insults. I've always liked to think that you meant none of this when you did it in other threads, that it was unintentional, but the evidence in this thread alone is enough to tell me that I was sadly mistaken. If anyone thought that giving you the benefit of the doubt was only fair, a quick read of this thread would soon put them right.I rarely accuse someone of telling lies because it implies a deliberate attempt to deceive and I know that the forum guidelines and admin are not in favour of this. However, I see no alternative but to finally call you out on your lies. If Admin requires it, I will provide concrete evidence that you have deliberately lied, in fact I've already supplied it earlier in this thread.My apologies to Admin for this post, but it's about time that Buz was called on his dishonesty in this thread, instead of pussyfooting around the issue. I take no pleasure in saying this about Buz because I do believe that his heart is (usually) in the right place and he does try very hard. If you wish to apply the forum guidelines and suspend me for what I have said, I won't argue with that, but this needed to be said.

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

Hey Buz. I havn't been online much the past few days but am enjoying reading your posts.For such a "silly" list it sure is getting a lot of responses huh Buz?For instance: Yeah Percy and I would think the same applies to atheists or anyone else who feels compelled to respond to this so-called silly and inacurrate list with their reponse being something like this:"Hey guys, this is such a silly rediculous list it isn't even worth responding or giving attention to."Yet, almost 300 messages later it still has lots of steam. Not bad for a "silly and rediculous" list huh?Percy you have 23 posts in this thread alone! I havn't seen you comment in the Coffee House this mamy times since i've been a member here. Wierd for a thread that seems so obviously beneath you and not worth your time (well from your posts atleast it appears that way) and yet, here you are, debating the list with Buz.I like the list, that's why I posted it. It matters not what you or any atheists here say. Debate away Pecry. It just gives the list more credence than it already had.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

You're making the same mistake Buz does when he confuses being stubborn with being right.