Re: Bible, Evolution, TEism: Ray v. the Mob

On Jun 19, 11:09 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 18, 3:54 pm, Stile4aly <stile4...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<snip>
Why not take the theistic evolution article, Ray? You seemed to have
such fun with it before. I particularly enjoyed it when you called
Philip Rayment a Darwinist.

He is a Fundamentalist and a quasi-TEist.

The man is a hardcore young earth creationist who believes in a
literal flood and the fixity of kinds. A Fundamentalist I will grant
you (pot, kettle) but to say that he holds any shred of theistic
evolution to be correct is false. Where the two of you differ is that
you feel no compunction to refrain from denigrating anyone who doesn't
line up to your own standard of belief in evolution, whereas Philip
believes we're all wrong but not necessarily evil.


I have no time to write the TEist article.

God forbid your paper be delayed another instant, Ray. Is it still on
track for a June 10, 2327 release?


As far as the sock puppet comment, I'm
not suggesting that you're a sock puppet, I'm rather admitting that I
am (in fact, I am several sock puppets at CP). It's rather fun to put
in all these seemingly conservative edits which are completely
ridiculous. I would imagine that probably 1/10 CP users are socks of
one form or another.

Why be a SP at CP if the edit is not true? What is the point?

It's terribly amusing (and in some way incredibly disheartening) that
when an edit is made that represents such an extreme point of view
that it is latched onto as a beacon of objective thought by Schalfly
and his jack booted toadies. However, when a rational person looks at
the edit from outside they realize how crazy it actually sounds. The
CP crew is working hard to try and keep a fairly big tent, but when
the patina of objectivity is worn off the article to expose the
twisted logic and prejudice underneath it loses all credibility. This
is my goal.


These are my only contributions to Conservapedia:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Charles_Darwin

Which is plainly ridiculous, though it looks like several editors
agree with your racism accusation.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Trilemma_of_Jesus_the_Christ

In which you argue by definition and affirm the consequent to get to
your answer.

I claim to own a convertible

A good person would not lie about owning a convertible

A wise person would not mistake the car they own for a convertible

Therefore, if I am wise and good, I own a convertible.

It's a meaningless argument.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

But Jesus made His claims in the N.T.

And? Many people have made many claims in many holy books. Despite
your belief in it the New Testament is not objectively verifiable.

Your analogy is admittedly made up.

My analogy is no different than yours.


Most persons think He was not Divine but a "good and wise teacher."
Article says this is impossible unless He was who He says He was.

And the article is based on a false premise. Moreover, "good" does
not mean sinless and "wise" does not mean infalliable. A good man can
lie and a wise man can be mistaken. I hold that Jesus was certainly a
good and wise man, but I do not hold that he was the Son of God.

.

Loading