Search results

No, I said condescension. Are you saying that men of science who challenge evolutionary orthodoxy are not subject to attacks from their peers? Your own comments about ID theorists are a good example, and you're just echoing what many scientific commentators have already said. As for...

Just having a little fun with you there pal. :D

Taos, if it's a "new" tactic, why did you post a 5 year old article?

Muck, as much as I would like to engage you in a debate on this subject, it's rather difficult for me to get past the rudeness and condescension of your post. It seems obvious to me that you've got an axe to grind here, otherwise I would expect to see your normal detached tone. If you want to...

Allegory has nothing to do with it. I gave you an example of figurative language and literal language used in the same paragraph. I also described how someone in another culture would go about understanding it. This is exactly how Bible translators and commentators approach the scriptures.

I implied nothing of the sort. In order to avoid this straw man in the future, let me just say for the record that nothing in the scriptures is as important as the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Now back to the point at hand. I asked you a question, and I'll ask it again, more...

We're not talking about a "pet theory" here, we're talking about one that is sacred to the scientific academy. No one who wishes to remain a scientist in good standing will challenge it directly, because he would then be labeled as a "non-scientist", not because of any flaw in his method but...

The method for doing so is outlined in my post above, and anyone who wishes to do so can do so with only a small bit of effort. To be sure, there are some difficult passages, but Genesis is not one of them. If you can figure out what I am saying in the Pittman TD example, then you can figure out...

In that case, the things you are calling "truths" may not be true at all. If something could possibly be false, I think it's inaccurate to refer to it as a "truth". Better to say that it is merely a supposition and leave it at that. If Genesis was given to Moses by God himself, then it...

Too many to name them all, but here's a partial list for all the guitar junkies out there: Bo Diddley B.B. King Eric Clapton Jimmy Page David Gilmour Stevie Ray Vaughn

Consider the following sentence: "Pittman raced through the Irish defense like a hot knife through butter, and he didn't stop until he was handing the ball to the official in the end zone, just before he was mobbed by his teammates." This seems like an apt description of our last TD in the '06...

It's an interesting point but definitely OT. Maybe a new thread?

Well, I can't make you stay, but I don't know how I can engage you in a discussion if I don't understand what you are saying. Here again is your statement: Factual truth appears to be a sub-set within the general category of truth. Would you agree? Again, could you be more specific about the...

All of them. What...if you can't be an optimist when everyone's 0-0 then when can you?

While you're talking to him, you might ask if he can dig up an old column he wrote in 2004 at the height of the Clarett/ESPiN attack on OSU. The title was "The Worldwide Leader in Shoddiness", and it was a classic. I've never been able to find it online, but luckily I kept the original so now...

I'm almost certain that picture was on the cover of the 2002 Buckeye Sports Bulletin football season preview issue. The headline underneath the picture was "If the 'Shoe Fits". I might even have it still, although finding it would require an extensive search of my basement.

Actually, it seems like the definition of "truth" depends on who you ask. I guess I would say it's the logical form of truth, as in "this statement is true". In other words, the statement accurately conveys that which it asserts. Hmmm....not sure how clear that was. Oh well... Do you mean...

Nuh-Tee! Have a great one!

My my....I go away for a few days and the conversation explodes. Oh well, I'll not belabor the points made because it should be pretty clear by now which side I'm on. I'll only respond to the one post that was responding directly to me, and leave it at that. No, I hadn't forgotten about that...