Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 76 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-20-2019 6:32 AM
17 online now:
Heathen, PaulK, Pressie, Tangle (4 members, 13 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Happy Birthday: Percy
Post Volume:
Total: 851,620 Year: 6,657/19,786 Month: 1,198/1,581 Week: 20/393 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Is Radiometric Dating Really that Accurate?
Inactive Member

Message 67 of 114 (37432)
04-21-2003 4:41 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by katareen
04-21-2003 3:44 AM

Re: Qualified agreement
I can understand the propriety of civility; however when one's opponent makes such a remark as (for instance) "the foundation of life is life", how is one to respond except with some much-deserved disdain?

Honestly if creationists want a higher degree of discourse with evolutionists maybe they should get better arguments than "I know I'm right because god sayz so." Can there be any response beyond a little measured disdain in a scientific forum?

The people who genuinely seek knowledge are to be treated with the respect that they deserve for they are the honest seekers of truth. Those, however, on an agenda to misinform draw nothing but sarcasm. I don't really have a problem with this. Although sometimes it's hard to tell between those who are genuinely lacking knowledge and those who are playing dumb. I admit we should do a better job of distinguishing between them.

At any rate, it's not just the evolutionists who are rude. I for one find it really rude of people to assume that just because I don't believe in god or its commandments that I advocate a position of total moral anarchy, have no purpose in life, and deny the dignity of human beings. That's quite a lot to assume from one statement, in my view, and an erroneous one - I've never met such an atheist and I suspect they don't really exist.

Sorry, getting off-topic. I agree that us evo's can get a little terse, but I maintain it's just with the people who deserve it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by katareen, posted 04-21-2003 3:44 AM katareen has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by katareen, posted 01-09-2004 3:06 PM crashfrog has responded

Inactive Member

Message 69 of 114 (77380)
01-09-2004 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by katareen
01-09-2004 3:06 PM

When following your logic, one could say anything to anyone just because. For instance, "I can speak rudely to creationists because they are dumb."

I challenge you to quote where I said anything of the sort. I never advocated being rude to dumb people. I advocated being rude to rude people.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by katareen, posted 01-09-2004 3:06 PM katareen has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by katareen, posted 01-09-2004 9:32 PM crashfrog has responded

Inactive Member

Message 74 of 114 (77468)
01-09-2004 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by katareen
01-09-2004 9:32 PM

merely that "one could" under your logic state anything like that.

How, exactly? How do you get from "rude to the rude" to "rude to the dumb?" That's what I don't understand. "Rude to the rude" doesn't justify "rude to the dumb."

I see no evidence in your statement that implies that you believe they are.

So then why do you think my logic applies to the exact situation that I said it didn't apply to?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by katareen, posted 01-09-2004 9:32 PM katareen has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019