Re: Appeals to Authority of "Scientists" (was Re: Subject: Re: Four items of ...

From: RFaussette@aol.com
Date: Tue Nov 18 2003 - 19:14:27 EST

  • Next message: Chuck Austerberry: "Re: ID and non-random mutations"

    In a message dated 11/18/03 6:45:55 PM Eastern Standard Time,
    bnelson301@yahoo.com writes:
    RFaussette@aol.com wrote:
    > In a message dated 11/18/03 9:28:12 AM Eastern
    > Standard Time,
    > michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk writes:
    > Should racists like Faussette be allowed on this
    > list? I dont think so.
    >
    > Michael
    > Dear Michael,
    > I am not a racist and you owe me an apology, but
    > before you apologize,
    > quote for me the racist comments that I have made.
    >
    > I am not here to outrage you or demonstrate my
    > prejudices. I have quoted
    > scientists but not one of you in all the time I've
    > been here ever
    > intelligently discussed any of the books I have
    > suggested you read.

    Rich, it may come as a shock to you, but not everyone
    has the same opinion of the work of Kevin McDonald and
    others that you have touted on this list as validation
    of your particular theories.

    rich:
    I'm not shocked. You're true to form. I have offered no opinions. I provide
    references for everything I say - mainstream references and I do not draw
    heavily on MacDonald, but no one here has demonstrated a command of any of
    these issues, either from scripture or science.

    Thanks, in part to your constant refrain, I am well
    aware of their work and the critiques of their work
    and find their flawed and lacking in many
    methodological respects, not to mention the massive
    problems I have with drawing theological conclusions
    from such work.

    rich:
    You haven't demonstrated to me a grasp of any of the issues, but you have as
    have others, been opinionated. As for theological issues, MacDonald does
    not relate to the theological issues. He is a scientist, not a religionist.

    I have no desire to debate you about the merits of
    this position because I don't think that it would be
    in any sense useful. You have frequently been less
    than civil in your responses to a host of people on
    this list who have attempted to make detailed
    responses to your assertions.

    rich:
    Only a few days ago one of you offered an apology to me offline for their
    online behavior so perhaps my descent into incivility is simply defensive,
    but please quote my incivility. I was called a racist today. I'm touching a
    nerve but instead of debating me, there is name calling.

    You appear firmly convinced about your particular
    positions and validated by MacDonald, et al, whose
    work I do not find at all validating for many of the
    claims they make much less the theological claims you
    make. (The example you give of Dick educating you re
    the 2900 flood is inapposite to the above statement
    since that does not touch your core theological
    interpretations.)

    rich:
    What knowledge of MacDonald's work have you displayed? When?

    As per usual, I suspect I will not be responding to
    whatever reply you might have.

    rich:
    That's it. It must be infectous. Make a snide remark and withdraw as if
    you've accomplished something.

    __________________________________
    Do you Yahoo!?
    Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
    http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Nov 18 2003 - 19:15:38 EST