Evolution and Genesis

[SoonerCoug]

God's greatest hoax:

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by tooblue

I don't profess a literal belief in Genesis ... and neither does Indy or Tex by the way.

I have seen a statement by Indy, but I have not yet seen such a statement by Tex. Perhaps I missed it. Do you have a link?

[creekster]

Originally Posted by tooblue

From the get go I was never afforded credibility as even an alternate voice, therefore I have no credibility to lose. That is a failing of this forum. I suppose you could argue credibility is earned but of course that could be construed to mean I must some how purchase it -does it have a price, in this forum I think it does.

I tried to stay true to the point of view I espoused unpopular as it is. I see value in thoroughly fleshing it out, in asking questions from the context of the creationist perspective. I attempted to stand on side with those posters that most here on this message board deride. I empathize with them and do not understand the vitriol.

Please take this in the spriti intended. I have known your board persona for a while now and I usually find myself on the same side of issues, particularly in this forum. Indeed, it is for this very reason that I think you are completely wrong when you say you had no credibility to lose. I gave you complete credibility and took your comments at face value. You have earned credibility with me. I am also not sure what vitriol you are talking about. I am happy to discuss this with anyone, and I think I can do so reasonably. You chose to pursue this position as an intellectual exercise and that's ok with me. But why you feel that you have no credibility or that you must now leave I don't understand whatsoever.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Chapel-Hill-Coug

Your philosophy doesn't anger me at all (I know plenty of postmodernists, though none quite as hard core of a deconstructionist as you, which is fine). It's your tactics. You could have been honest and made one post up front, and then let the debate about science move along on its terms. The discussion revolved around evidence, not around the philosophy of knowledge. Yes, I came late, but waded through the discussion, found you asking for evidence, I spend valuable time on a post about the evidence, and then you curiously do an about face and say that you knew it all along and that you basically take the same position on evolution that others here do. I'm upset that I wasted valuable time engaging in a debate that really wasn't a debate. It was more like a trolling session. All you end up doing in the end is deconstructing every post that you respond to, all the while disguising your posts as attempts to engage in a scientific debate. Maybe it would do you some good to take a stand when appropriate. You talk like you don't even trust yourself. Somewhere you should take a stand. Just admit to yourself that the earth really does revolve around the sun. I mean that's an easy place to start right? Just tell yourself "Dammit, the earth really does revolve around the sun and that's just the way it is"...it will do you some good. ;-)

In the heat of the debate I was willing to do my best to represent the position I had taken, whether it was truly representative of how I feel was irrelevant and I do not consider it dishonest to have not stated up front that I was advocate and not true believer.

I sincerely know about the evidence you cited, it is a subject that has fascinated me for a long time. If you had access to my sketch books from years ago you would find drawings of archeoptrix through out. I can seriously remember the jubilation I felt when I first happened upon that information.

I am sorry for your wasted time and my unwillingness to contiue as advocate for that side of the debate. I reiterate that I firmly believe that side of the debate has merit.

Yes, as you have discovered I am hard core postmodernist touched with the hint of marxism.

[SeattleUte]

Postmodernism is "unadulterated bullshit."

"But don't the postmodernists claim only to be 'playing games'? Isn't it the whole point of their philosophy that anything goes, there is no absolute truth, anything written has the same status as anything else, no point of view is privileged? Given their own standards of relative truth, isn't it rather unfair to take them to task for fooling around with word-games, and playing little jokes on readers? Perhaps, but one is then left wondering why their writings are so stupefyingly boring. Shouldn't games at least be entertaining, not po-faced, solemn and pretentious?"

--Richard Dawkins

http://richarddawkins.net/article,824,n,n

Dawkins says that postmodernists are "intellectual imposters with nothing to say." I read on FAIR boards that postmodernism has a strong attraction among "Mormon intellectuals." I'd say postmodernism is the last refuge of those who fear and loath empiricism.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

Please don't take the arguments personally.

Of course not. No one's ever said anything to me that I might take personally.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

I have seen a statement by Indy, but I have not yet seen such a statement by Tex. Perhaps I missed it. Do you have a link?

See:

Originally Posted by Tex

I am not a literalist. I generally agree with Indy Coug's "crude outline."

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

I am not a literalist. I generally agree with Indy Coug's "crude outline."

Oh that is just classic. Instead of showing some balls and making your own stand, you hide behind Indy's stance but will full equivocation ("generally agree", "crude outline") so that you have your standard wiggle room and plausible deniability. Nicely done.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Oh that is just classic. Instead of showing some balls and making your own stand, you hide behind Indy's stance but will full equivocation ("generally agree", "crude outline") so that you have your standard wiggle room and plausible deniability. Nicely done.

"Crude outline" were his words, not mine. As to the "generally agree": feel free to ask me further questions, if you've got "the balls."

Otherwise, shut up.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

"Crude outline" were his words, not mine. As to the "generally agree": feel free to ask me further questions, if you've got "the balls."

Otherwise, shut up.

"feel free to ask further questions"? Hilarious.

You just can't bring yourself to take a definitive stand, can you?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

"feel free to ask further questions"? Hilarious.

You just can't bring yourself to take a definitive stand, can you?

Indy's post generally describes my beliefs about the creation. I'm not going to publish a book about it ... if there's something you want to know, ask. Otherwise, stop your whining.