Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 6:31 am
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 1:03 am
Funny -- I didn't have you begged as one of the folks who would lose perspective and go on a purge. But I guess the argument cuts deep here. If it's too much for you, I'm content to let it go. My point has never been to be unkind to you, and the only issue I have is with the
monkey-to-man theory, which, as you already know, is a proven fraud. So I guess we'll see if your appeal for censure goes anywhere...
I suspect not.
Example of the abuse is underlined.
Hmmm...well, Scott, that's not an example of abuse: it's an example of something you said earlier.
You already admitted, a few posts back, that science now opts for the Common Ancestor Theory, and that you now do too. Well, you can't possibly do that without abandoning the ape-to-man theory...because they're two different and contradictory theories. One says humans evolved from apes, and the other says they had a common ancestor, and in the best versions of that theory, that "ancestor" had to be long before any apes, probably back in the primordial ooze. Meanwhile, you say you have already read about the Piltdown Fraud and the Nebraska Fraud and the Java Fraud...how many frauds do you need to see before you realize that the whole theory was a fraud?
So you MUST know that, if, indeed, you understand the Common Ancestor Theory. Logically, there's no other way it can be. That's not slander, it's logic.
Now, Scott, you need to discern the difference between somebody
challenging what you may believe versus somebody
insulting you. Just as
ad hominem comments are not arguments, so too denying somebody's opinions has nothing at all to do with denying his value as a person or his right to choose his beliefs. The two are completely different matters.
I have no insults to direct at you.
Now, it doesn't really matter whether or not you choose to believe the ape-to-man theory is dead; it is, whatever you wish to believe. So you are perfectly free to continue to believe in it, if that's what you're bound and determined to do. It may be verifiably wrong, and contrary to all historical facts, and even, as in this case, a fraud admitted by science itself; but nobody's stopping you from believing things that aren't true.
But that doesn't mean we have to agree that they are true. And it doesn't mean we are enemies if we disagree, does it?
To challenge somebody's beliefs philosophically is actually to give them a compliment. That compliment is that their beliefs present some challenge worthy of being addressed. It's only when challenging tips over into petty insults, character assassination, slander and so forth that we can talk about "abuse." And none of this have I done to you, as both you and anyone else can see.