[...]
>>BH>I spent a great deal of time and effort trying to show you
>>that your either intelligent design or chance argument
>>was faulty. When you finally became aware of this what
>>did you do? Rather than admit your error you tried to
>>blame me for putting words in your mouth.
>
>>SJ>No. You did switch arguments mid-stream from Natural-Supernatural
>>to Chance-Intelligent Design.
>
>BH>NO, Steve, this is just plain false. I've already back-tracked
>>through the thread in question to show clearly that you were the one
>>who introduced chance vs. intelligent design. Now, will you finally
>>admit that it was your argument and that its been refuted? I'm
>>really embarrassed for you Steve.
>
SJ:===
>I would gladly "admit" it if it really was my "argument" and that it
>had "been refuted".
>
>I don't know why *you* are "really embarrassed" for *me*. Even if I
>was wrong (which I'm not), it's nothing to be "embarrassed" about.
>
One should not be embarrassed about being wrong. Refusing to admit
to making an argument that the record clearly shows you did make
and then trying to switch the blame to someone else is something
which should be embarrassing. That you are not embarrassed by this
is truly amazing.
[...]
>BH>No, I really don't want to go into the specifics of my views on
>>progressive creation.
>
SJ:===
>Well then how can we asssess your claim that "A year or so ago" you
>were "a progressive creationist with views very much like" mine?
>
I guess we can't, shucks.
>BH>My main reasons for switching views were:
>>
>>1) I learned the difference between the science of evolution and
>>evolutionism.
>>
>>2) I found out that almost everything I knew about evolution was
>>wrong. Some of what I'm learning now makes sense to me.
>>
>>3) I like the theology. Sorry, I don't mean to shock people ;-).
>>
>>4) I think the actions of many creationists are doing great harm
>to the church and I want to oppose those as best I am able.
>>
>>There's probably more but this will do for now.
>
SJ:===
>Hmmm. Thanks for being so frank. I now understand why your posts are
>so antagonistic towards "creationists"! :-)
Antagonistic only towards certain creationists.
SJ:==========
>It appears you have been
>convinced by the non-theists on "talk.origins" of the error of your
>"progressive creationist" ways and now see yourself as a guardian of
>"the church", with a mission to "oppose" those "creationists" who you
>now believe "are doing great harm to" it?
>
This is a lie. Try to do better.
SJ:=====
>Perhaps you would be kind enough to state what exactly is that "great
>harm" that "creationists" (including progressive creationists") are
>doing to "the church"?
>
This applies to certain individuals and certainly not all creationists,
1) Causing internal strife within the church by distorting (either
deliberately or out of ignorance) the science of evolution.
2) Causing non-believers to turn away from the church in disgust due to
public mis-representations and blatant lies.
========================
Brian Harper | "I can't take my guesses back
Associate Professor | That I based on almost facts
Applied Mechanics | That ain't necessarily so"
Ohio State University | -- Willie Nelson
========================