Horvath v. Greene Debate: Concluding or beginning?
- Gabor, you wrote to the Creationism list, in relevant part:
> Todd if you and your comradeGabor, I thought you were. At least to the extent of signing that
> Robert do not stop that third
> person style. . .I will simply
> ignore your posts completely.
reasonable, straightforward and fair statement of your positions on the
fundamentals we have been discussing.
I've been addressing both you and the list. Your problem, Gabor, is not
with the third person style; its with your position. Nice exit strategy
though. I didn't even notice any thanks from you when I started trying
to talk more directly to you!
Gabor, you also wrote, in relevant part:
> You (are) confused regardingGabor, that's your ipse dixit. You falsely claimed that what I wrote
> concepts and terms misconstruing
> what is said by your opponents.
about your position was "utterly false" and that I didn't have the
"faintest idea" of what your position was.
You, Gabor, while even noting that God does not like your false ways in
that matter, have yet to correct it.
The record shows quite clearly, as evidenced, in part, by that
reasonable, straightforward and fair statement you have been asked to
sign, that I have been "factually" accurate in representing your
position on the fundamentals under discussion.
And you surely understand and appreciate that my "Goliath of GRAS",
which you continue to try and insult, is quite appropriately a valid
logical statement of the issue facing the "young-earth,
creation-science" movement and similar sorts; though you try to make
like you don't think we can know whether anything is more than a few
thousand years old and, to date, refuse to actually formalize your
discussion with Todd on that issue.
Before ignoring any posts, Gabor, your obligation is to start cleaning
up some of the mess you have made. There is still time, and the
obligation, as a matter of fact, is on you to do so.
Gabor, you propose in writing to Todd:
> If you change your evo styleGabor, are you trying to trick us again with your wordplay?
> I am more than happy to continue.
Or, or you really going to engage Todd and his affirmative on the age
Looks to me like you've tried to trick us again, but you are welcome to
convince us otherwise by actually putting together a formal discussion
with Todd on the evidence issue.
Gabor, why do I wonder but you are up to your trickery again?
Because you condition your willingness to discuss your pet ipse dixit
theories on having an opponent that does not speak "evo style".
Anyone who speaks of things being more than a few thousand years old is,
I assume, going to be accused by you of "speaking evo style".
RIght? If so, you've already decided not to discuss your pet age
The age issue is, for purposes of discussion, quite independent of the
evolution or origins issue. Gabor, you've been consistently confounding
Why don't you, Gabor, just get back to the fundamental issue involving
what the real world says about age, and whether you have any real world
argument to rebut Todd's affirmative?
Hey, I think Todd is susceptible to agreeing not to discuss biological,
macro-evolution while discussing the age issue with you.
Gabor, if he slips and tries to work it into your age discussion, just
call a point of order and we'll let the moderators decide what to do
So, Gabor, have you already worked out your new reasons for not
formalizing your discussion with Todd on the evidence of age issue, or
Gabor, got a reasonable, straightforward answer for us?