From: richard@biblewheel.com
Date: Tue Nov 04 2003 - 13:09:07 EST
Walt has exited the conversation having disgraced himself with rantings
about the supposed ravings of those with whom he disagrees. He quit without
successfully arguing a single point against the validity of the phenomenon
presented or its relevance to the general Body of Christ. This is typical of
most people who come against my work on this list, though some have
gracefully ended the conversation when they discovered that their initial
arguments were weak, ignorant, flawed, or when they simply lost interest.
Unfortunately, Walt did not do this. He explicitly stated he did not even
understand the very thing against which he so vehemently argued, and as his
vehemence increased so his rationality decreased. His final argument was
based on the patently absurd Fallacy of Association, as if the superficial
similarity between my work and that of others had anything to do with its
validity.
Meanwhile, Walt ignored each and every point of evidence presented. He never
once answered any points of fact. When I gave specific and highly detailed
answers to his questions, he responded with one broad generality:
>I read the posts and they only demonstrate to me
> your own fascination with your own theory
I suppose George would see this as one of Walt's "cogent responses" to me.
His final error is perhaps the most egregious. I had written to Dr. Nelson
because he had misunderstood my work, thinking it only an effort to "prove
the Bible". This is an extremely common misunderstanding despite the vast
majority of my writings both here and on my site which have nothing to do
with such proof per se. In my efforts to open Dr. Nelson's eyes to the
multifaceted wonder that is the Bible Wheel, I wrote a long and detailed
analogy of a car that obviously designed, but certainly not for the mere
purpose of "proving it was designed." Walt admitted to reading that post,
and shortly thereafter wrote this:
> Both of these made the same claim that you and Vernon do.
> They would prove the Bible was divinely inspired. That,
> my friend, is an absolutely worthless objective when
> speaking to those who already believe it. There is no good
> reason why you should fare any better than the above two
> and probably for the same reasons.
What more need be said?
I think it important to emphasize that I have no animosity with Walt, though
I would have been happier if he had not abruptly ended the conversation.
Personally, I see no problem discussing things with him in the future if he
so desires.
I also want to thank him for blasting my house with such vehement winds and
rains, so all can see what its really made of, and that it remains as strong
as ever, standing firmly upon the Rock of God's everlasting Word. We all
know that if he could have, he would have found a genuine flaw and presented
it with great gusto, so as to be able to destroy this house without
resorting to logical fallacies and name calling. He has done us all a great
service in that regard.
Richard Amiel McGough
Discover the sevenfold symmetric perfection of the Holy Bible at
http://www.BibleWheel.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Walter Hicks" <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
To: <richard@biblewheel.com>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 11:02 PM
Subject: Re: The Iota Subscript
>
>
> richard@biblewheel.com wrote:
>
> >
> > Ok Walt, I will grant (for the sake of argument, though I find it
impossible
> > to believe) that my work may be over your head.
>
> You fail to understand that not all people think alike. You are obviously
quite
> visual and I am not at all. Your work is not "over my head" but your
attitude
> is.
>
> > But if it really is beyond
> > your ability to comprehend, why do try to argue against its relevance?
Is
> > that not the height of arrogant ignorance? How does that differ from the
> > illiterate plumber rejecting Special Relativity? I don't mean to offend,
I'm
> > just following the argument you are presenting. Are you really arguing
> > against the relevance of my work with no comprehension of its true
meaning?
> > What's up with this?
>
> See the following
>
> >
> >
> > > You do everything except explain what
> > > value they add to Christianity. To me
> > > this boarders on more Bible worship.
> > > When I am all done, what has it done
> > > for me in terms of becoming a better
> > > Christian? I really await an answer to that.
> >
> > I have answered and reanswered that question. Take a look at my last
posts
> > to Blake Nelson. It answered a lot of these questions again.
>
> I read the posts and they only demonstrate to me your own fascination
with your
> own theory (I eliminate "toy").
>
> Years ago there was Theomatics with the same type of raving we have from
you and
> Vernon. It came to naught.
>
> Then there was the Bible code, which also came to naught, despite the
raving and
> so called divinely inspired probabilities.
>
> Both of these made the same claim that you and Vernon do. They would prove
the
> Bible was divinely inspired. That, my friend, is an absolutely worthless
> objective when speaking to those who already believe it. There is no good
reason
> why you should fare any better than the above two and probably for the
same
> reasons.
>
> The list you sent to Blake nelson only deepened my conviction that this
has no
> value other than something for you and a few select others to occupy time.
To me
> it is not of value and I am though discussing it.
>
> Best wishes
>
>
> Walt
>
>
> ===================================
> Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
>
> In any consistent theory, there must
> exist true but not provable statements.
> (Godel's Theorem)
>
> You can only find the truth with logic
> If you have already found the truth
> without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
> ===================================
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Nov 04 2003 - 13:21:15 EST