On Thu, 02 Sep 1999 22:26:20 +0000, mortongr@flash.net wrote:
[...]
>>SJ>>But if OTOH TE/ECs reacted with Christian grace,
>>>>and patiently listened to what I said, calmly pointing out where they
>>>>think I am wrong, then I would have to reconsider my position.
>>GM>Stephen, What do you think we have been trying to do for about 4 years
>>now? You don't ever listen to anything a TE says. Your mind is closed tight as
>>>an oystershell.
>SJ>If Glenn's posts are his idea of reacting with Christian grace, and
>>patiently listening to what I said, calmly pointing out where he thinks I
>>am wrong, then I would hate to see it when he was trying to be nasty!
GM>Stephen, can you answer the question? what do you think people have been
>trying to do over the last four years? Lots of people have tried to point
>out where you are wrong over the past few years.
And I have listened to their arguments, accepted some, rejected others, and
debated the rest.
GM>Everytime you come back
>with a charge like you charged against Loren tonight, saying 'This is just
>theistic naturalism, ie. theism controlled by naturalistic
>categories of thought.'.
Glenn has not grasped that this is in fact a major part of my argument
against TE/EC.
GM>You seem to have only one real response to everything.
That is not true. But the fact that TE/ECs are theists who are "controlled
by naturalistic categories of thought" is a major part of my "response" to
TE/ECs.
GM>Why don't you pay attention to what Loren said about
>information theory?
How does Glenn know that I didn't "pay attention to what Loren said about
>information theory"? I read "what Loren said about information theory" with
interest. It was also copied to the other list I am on and debated there.
Glenn used to criticise me for answering everything. Now he is criticising
me for *not* answering everything!
I had plenty on my plate at the time, and I let most of Loren's comments
pass, except his theistic naturalistic conclusion.
GM>He is after all a person who has studied this in much
>greater detail than you.
I can't follow Glenn's argument here. He is criticising me for not
disagreeing with "what Loren said about information theory" on the
grounds that Loren "is after all a person who has studied this in much
greater detail than you"!
If I *had* disagreed with "what Loren said about information theory",
Glenn would no doubt have criticised me on the same grounds that Loren "is
after all a person who has studied this in much greater detail than you"!
Catch 22!
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to
believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked,
but I'd rather not consider that)." (Dawkins R., "Put Your Money on
Evolution", Review of Johanson D. & Edey M.A,, "Blueprints: Solving the
Mystery of Evolution", in New York Times, April 9, 1989, sec. 7, p34)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------