A little rant for desdamona

desdemona, Is this the true face of Christianity?Let's be clear about this, des. I have called you a liar, & shown WHY you are lying. I have shown you to be a hypocrite & shown WHY you are a hypocrite. Given you clearly disagree, wouldn't the sensible thing be to show my why you are not, through reasoned argument? Simply saying "am not" is simply childish, & is in fact suggestive that you can't defend yourself. Is it the Christian way that you are allowed to lie & be a hypocrite & pretend you aren't? Somehow I don't think that's what you are supposed to do at all. Isn't the Christian thing to do to 'fess up to your mistakes?And once again, des, I haven't called you names. I've pointed out that you have met the standards by which you have made a liar of yourself, & also a hypocrite. You could always retract your comments & replace them with something truthful & consistent, is that too much too ask?The name calling is all yours, mate. Translated into Christian fundamentalism;"You have presented legitimate scientific evidence, I am, however, to unschooled scientifically to understand the multiplicative value of corroborative evidence, & how it supports a legitimate scientific theory, which shows it now to be tested beyond reasonable doubt (10^300:1 passes as "beyond reasonable doubt" in anyones lexicon, except fundies, of course). In fact, I don't have a scooby as to what you showed me, so I have to resort to denial, & I certainly don't feel compelled to explain why I reject your evidence, & let's face it, I don't have a reason to reject it other than that it contradicts what I want to be true. Moreover, explaining why will force me to admit all of the above, so an unsupported, unreasoned, illogical, "no-it-isn't" denial will have to suffice." That's why I supported my argument with science. How can you claim to not have a problem with science when you simply hand wave it away without any comment when it doesn't suit you? Nope, I am most definately not the one purveying untruths. You are the one saying you've seen what you believe when you haven't. Support this comment by showing how I am saying something that I know to be untrue, or do the Christian thing & retract. I have supported EVERYTHING I have said about you, you have descended into name calling. But I do follow the rules. I know what logic is, & I know what an inductively derived hypothesis is & when it can subsequently be deductively tested, using the aforemtioned rules of logic, no less. You however, clearly do NOT. You wouldn't reject the study I cited because you didn't witness the "experiments", yet accept the rest of science despite not witnessing the "experiments" if it were otherwise.How can you claim to be following the rules when you break them yourself? Outstanding! You couldn't make it up, des, you really couldn't. You really do think there's one set of rules for your beliefs & another one for the rest of us, don't you.Unlike you, des, I'm not going to descend into childish name calling. You have, however, not told the truth. Nor have you retracted or explained yourself when this was pointed out. This makes you a liar. You are also utterly inconsistent as regards the standards others must attain relative to your own, this makes you a hypocrite. You have had ample opportunity to correct yourself. You have condemned yourself on both counts, & I have supplied reasoned argument as to why you are these things. You have called me both, & supplied absolutely no reasoning as to why.You should be ashamed.Mark[This message has been edited by mark24, 04-25-2004]

---

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

The true face of Christianity again? Are you & des a double act?

I suspect we've seen the last of des, she has some shame after all.