Re: Response #1 to Anti-CED member's criticisms of my Dan 9:24-27 position
- --- In anti-CED@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Curtis" <tom_kbel@h...> wrote:
> Alright, I'm confused. Is he debating me? Or isn't he? It seemswhat Jones really wants is to be able to say that he has refuted my
position, without being required to actually quote it. The one thing
he does not want is for my position to be fully, and openly presented
on CEDesign, for if it were he would be left looking pretty foolish.
So he agrees to a debate (so that he can say he did), then immediately
terminates it without having cross posted two of my posts made prior
to that termination. That way he doesn't actually have to have a full
and open debate. Odd, isn't it. All that boasting about naturalists
being unwilling to debate the issue, but as soon as someone does, it
is Jones who has to terminate is as soon as possible. Odd also how he
claims that he has nothing to fear from the naturalist position, but
consistently refuses to cross post it in full; and in his "response",
consistently removes context to distort my claims.
>I would like to see a full and open debate between you and Steve
> Tom Curtis
Jones, in a neutral forum. Do you think he would accept such a debate
if we invited him nicely?
- Dan wrote:> I would like to see a full and open debate between you and Steve
> Jones, in a neutral forum. Do youthink he would accept such a debate
> if we invited himnicely?I think the ignominious way in which he forfeited the current debate already answers that question. Even the prospect of having the case against his position cogently stated on his own forum was to much for him. Of course, if anyone else would like to set up such a debate, I would be happy to participate.Tom