From: mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Mike McCants' Debating Skills (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 30 Aug 92 00:39:24 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Comshare, Inc. Austin Development Center

In article <1992Aug28.174200.16651@acuson.com< lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson) writes:
<In article <3660@execu.execu.com< mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants) writes:
<<In article <1992Aug27.171036.12606@acuson.com< lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson) writes:
<
<<<There is a difference between intentionally doing something and doing
<<<something with intent.
<
[My counter-example of a gun-wielding person ignored by Drew.]
<
<<<I can intentionally build a tower without intending you to fall off of it.
<<
<<God could intentionally create an Earth 6000 years ago that has every
<<appearance of being billions of years old.  And put rational men on it
<<to discover His physical laws.  And be so dimwitted as to not forsee
<<that they will be mislead?  Well, He certainly didn't "intend" that, did
<<he?
<
<Is your standard method to garble the discussion whenever you lose on a point?
<The above drivel has nothing to do with the statement it was responding to.

Is that because your response had nothing to do with the statement that
it was responding to?  Could I have been referring back to the original
point?  Your statement about YOU building a tower is completely beside the
point.  The question is:  Can God "intentionally do something" (create
the Earth with the appearance of age) without "the intent" that man
should be deceived?  My point is that "omniscience" would require
that the deception be foreseen.

You have already acknowledged in another post that either:

Evolution is wrong and scientists have been deceived, or

Evolution is right and you are deceived.

So, I appeal to the referee - I claim I have won two points.
Your "intentionally" versus "with intent" is obviously bogus.
And you have accepted our argument that either we or you are deceived.

<<No, of course He didn't intend that.  We can't possibly know His purpose,
<<but it could not be that.  Anything but that.  He is so inscrutable that
<<our poor minds can't even think of a purpose that would be worthy of him.
<<
<<Can you?
<<
<<Does that purpose (if you can think of one) conflict with evolution?
<
<Yes I can and yes it does.
<
<If you think that I will openly enter a discussion on this with someone
<who has shown himself to be interested only in argument, you mush think
<I am even more foolish than you have implied.  (and that would take a
<lot)

Too late.  You have already come close enough to telling me what I
wanted to know about your opinions and your reasons for them.

So, I am no longer interested in those opinions.

There never was an argument since there were never any "facts" in dispute.
The "discussion" was always about your opinions.

<If you want someone to engage you in debate, the least you can do is to
<occasionally stick to the topic.

The topic always was "your opinions".  You gave some opinions and
made a lot of irrelevant statements, but you were quite slow to reveal
the reason why you held your opinions.  (In my opinion.  If a third party
would like to tell me it was crystal clear all along, then, of course,
my excuse is that I never read talk.origins.  Is that a good excuse?
And, by the way, why didn't this third party step in and clarify things?
Were you too amused?  Of course - you killed this thread a week ago.)
So, I had to keep asking questions to get you to reveal your reasons.

You even put in your reply "since you ask"!  I claim another point,
game, set, and match.

In article <1992Aug28.170458.16169@acuson.com> lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson) writes:
>
>The two sides I see (since you ask) are accepting that the geological
>"evidence" pattern is the origin of modern life on earth as opposed to
>accepting that God created life on earth in its current forms.
>
>The implications are significant.  If you take the first, you reject
>  - man created in God's image (literally)
>  - humans are children of God (both old and new testaments)

One who takes the Bible literally cannot accept evolution.

One who accepts evolution cannot take the Bible literally.

I claim that if you had stated this a week ago, no one would have
disagreed with you and there would have been only 1 post and no replies.
This is not controversial and not very interesting.