Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Darwin's theory

1…7071737576…88

Comments

  • #2162
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    SaveOurLyric wrote: »
    Those events seem to have written them into history. The Christian story has always loved its martyrs.

    Still though, the evidence that that non biblical evidence was shredded.....
    ... shredded metaphorically speaking ... you guys are such literalists!!!!:)


  • #2163
    SaveOurLyric
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭SaveOurLyric


    J C wrote: »
    They are neither ... and again you are trolling and abusive in making such unfounded prejudicial personal remarks ... and that the objective truth.

    I'm not a mod ... nor am I modding ... I'm just reaching objective conclusions based on your post.

    It is neither personal nor prejudicial.

    Personal relates to an individual not a group.
    It is a question, therefore no conclusion has been drawn, and so not prejudicial.


  • #2164
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    SaveOurLyric wrote: »
    How many atheists, considering the topic, end up thinking creationism is a correct explanation ?
    I don't know.


  • #2165
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    SaveOurLyric wrote: »
    It is neither personal nor prejudicial.

    Personal relates to an individual not a group.
    It is a question, therefore no conclusion has been drawn, and so not prejudicial.
    Personal relates to a person holding a particular belief ... and your question was rhetorical.
    Please stick to attacking Creationist ideas, by all means ... and leave unfounded comments about their person out of it.


  • #2166
    kingchess
    Registered Users Posts: 795 ✭✭✭kingchess


    SaveOurLyric wrote: »
    How many atheists, considering the topic, end up thinking creationism is a correct explanation ?

    I would say that no atheist would even give it the time of day,All the science is against it and an atheist would have no interest in twisting the facts so that some old book will not look totally redundant,:rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • #2167
    SaveOurLyric
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭SaveOurLyric


    J C wrote: »
    Personal relates to a person holding a particular belief ... and your question was rhetorical.
    Please stick to attacking Creationist ideas, by all means ... and leave comments about their person out of it.

    Again, the question isnt personal. It is about the group of creationists as a whole. Nevertheless, the question seems to trouble you.


  • #2168
    SaveOurLyric
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭SaveOurLyric


    J C wrote: »
    ... shredded metaphorically speaking ... you guys are such literalists!!!!:)

    Shredded was taken as metaphorical. But you dont provide any source for your statement.


  • #2169
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    J C wrote: »
    Shredding of evidence tends to destroy evidence ... and I don't make up evidence that no longer exists.:)
    So how in the name of bollockology do you know the suppression of Christianity was suppressed if there's no source on earth available to show it happened?


  • #2170
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    SaveOurLyric wrote: »
    Again, the question isnt personal. It is about the group of creationists as a whole. Nevertheless, the question seems to trouble you.
    Your comments are now moving from personal name-calling to sectarian name-calling.
    One is bad and the other is worse ... and they're both unfounded


  • #2171
    SaveOurLyric
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭SaveOurLyric


    J C wrote: »
    Please stick to attacking Creationist ideas, by all means ... and leave unfounded comments about their person out of it.

    The mental state of those promoting the ideas is valid to question. If the state in unsound, then the ideas are worthless, and debating them pointless.


  • Advertisement
  • #2172
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    So how in the name of bollockology do you know the suppression of Christianity was suppressed if it was supressed?
    The Roman State wasn't very subtle about it ... they Proscribed Christianity and publicly executed Christians.


  • #2173
    SaveOurLyric
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭SaveOurLyric


    J C wrote: »
    Your comments are now moving from personal name-calling to sectarian name-calling.
    One is bad and the other is worse ... and they're both unfounded

    They always referred to the group, despite your repeated effort to paint them thus. And it is not sectarian to refer to a group. That is now a personal accusation at me.


  • #2174
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    SaveOurLyric wrote: »
    The mental state of those promoting the ideas is valid to question. If the state in unsound, then the ideas are worthless, and debating them pointless.
    Those whom people would destroy ... they first declare to be mad ... a very sinister activity.

    It's quite reprehensible to call somebody who is objectively sane ... mad.

    Such an unfounded ad hominem is a form of bullying.


  • #2175
    housetypeb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,192 ✭✭✭housetypeb


    J c is getting excited now-he must be close to coming, a few more posts should do it.


  • #2176
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    SaveOurLyric wrote: »
    They always referred to the group, despite your repeated effort to paint them thus. And it is not sectarian to refer to a group. That is now a personal accusation at me.
    Sectarianism is a group directed form of name-calling.


  • #2177
    SaveOurLyric
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭SaveOurLyric


    J C wrote: »
    Those whom people would destroy ... they first declare to be mad ... a very sinister activity.

    It's quite reprehensible to call somebody who is objectively sane ... mad.

    Such an unfounded ad hominem is a form of bullying.

    It would be reprehensible. But I am not saying so. I am asking if they are objectively sane.

    Its not ad hominem...... is a question about the group. Substituting 'ad hominem for 'personal' doesnt change the point.


  • #2178
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    housetypeb wrote: »
    J c is getting excited now-he must be close to coming, a few more posts should do it.
    Do you get sexual gratification from being abused and called names?
    I certainly don't !!!:(


  • #2179
    SaveOurLyric
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭SaveOurLyric


    J C wrote: »
    Sectarianism is a group directed form of name-calling.

    No it isnt.

    It is prejudice, discrimination, hatred, or exploitation of a group.

    I am simply asking a question about that group.


  • #2180
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    SaveOurLyric wrote: »
    It would be reprehensible. But I am not saying so. I am asking if they are objectively sane.

    Its not ad hominem...... is a question about the group. Substituting 'ad hominem for 'personal' doesnt change the point.
    If I asked whether all Atheists are insane it would be a clear (and unfounded) slur on Atheists that adds nothing to the debate on their ideas. I wouldn't dream of doing so as it would clearly be untrue.
    The same also holds, when somebody asks whether any other group, including Creationists, are insane.


  • #2181
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    SaveOurLyric wrote: »
    No it isnt.

    It is prejudice, discrimination, hatred, or exploitation of a group.

    I am simply asking a question about that group.
    Labelling a group of people as insane ... could indeed result in prejudice and discrimination against such a group.
    It would be prima face evidence of prejudice and an intention to discriminate against persons belonging to that group


  • Advertisement
  • #2182
    kingchess
    Registered Users Posts: 795 ✭✭✭kingchess


    J C wrote: »
    Those whom people would destroy ... they first declare to be mad ... a very sinister activity.

    It's quite reprehensible to call somebody who is objectively sane ... mad.

    Such an unfounded ad hominem is a form of bullying.

    I suppose you could always turn the other cheek?:D


  • #2183
    Mad4simmental
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,580 ✭✭✭Mad4simmental


    ...


  • #2184
    SaveOurLyric
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭SaveOurLyric


    J C wrote: »
    If I ask whether all Atheists are insane it is a clear (and unfounded) slur on Atheists that adds nothing to the debate.
    It is not a slur. And does add to the debate. It examines the foundation of their ability to debate in the first place.


  • #2185
    Frank Bullitt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,740 ✭✭✭✭Frank Bullitt


    A very simple play by JC now, he doesn't like the idea of his beliefs or his position in this argument being exposed, so he will inadvertently resort to saying that what you are saying is offensive, or mean, or that you are labeling people a certain way.

    It shows that his argument is losing steam and is being shown as the farce that it is.

    Labelling a group insane isn't prejudice or discriminatory, in this case is a very accurate description. Although I would have gone more with delusional.


  • #2186
    SaveOurLyric
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭SaveOurLyric


    J C wrote: »
    Labelling a group of people as insane ... could indeed result in prejudice and discrimination against such a group.

    A question is not labelling.


  • #2187
    SaveOurLyric
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭SaveOurLyric


    Gintonious wrote: »
    Although I would have gone more with delusional.

    The word delusional was indeed in my original post. It suits jc's case more though to focus on the stronger 'insane'. People cant protest to take as much offence at being 'delusional'.


  • #2188
    SaveOurLyric
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭SaveOurLyric


    J C wrote: »
    I don't know.

    Its the real test though isnt it : how many people approaching the question without bias reach the creationist conclusion ?


  • #2189
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    kingchess wrote: »
    I suppose you could always turn the other cheek?:D
    I am.:D

    But this doesn't stop me protesting such unfounded demeaning comments being directed against me.


  • #2190
    housetypeb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,192 ✭✭✭housetypeb


    J C wrote: »
    I am.:D

    But this doesn't stop me protesting such unfounded demeaning comments being directed against me.

    So you turn the other cheek-but still protest? Logic has no meaning to you.


  • Advertisement
  • #2191
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Gintonious wrote: »
    A very simple play by JC now, he doesn't like the idea of his beliefs or his position in this argument being exposed, so he will inadvertently resort to saying that what you are saying is offensive, or mean, or that you are labeling people a certain way.
    I have answered all questions posed to me, in so far as time has permitted.
    You're the guys who haven't effectivley addressed my posting about the basis for ID ... despite a number of half-starts and failed attempts.

    ... and ye are also the guys now trying to derail the thread by attacking the person of Creationists with unfounded accusations of insanity rather than addressing their ideas as they relate to Darwinism.
    Gintonious wrote: »
    It shows that his argument is losing steam and is being shown as the farce that it is.

    Labelling a group insane isn't prejudice or discriminatory, in this case is a very accurate description. Although I would have gone more with delusional.
    Ye are the guys with all the invalid arguments ... and now ye have lowered yourselves and your arguments to the level unfounded name-calling.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement