So, one of my replies to a poorly worded argument has elicited a response. Instead of pointing out my obvious (?), misunderstandings, the poster insinuates hostility http://mysteryjourney.wordpress.com/2013/06/10/hostility/ , and to my reply to the original post here: http://mysteryjourney.wordpress.com/2013/06/09/religion-and-or-is-it-versus-science/ a claim of missing the point, and a poke at my writing style.
Well, the first thing I have noticed from creationist apologists everywhere, is that when you don’t really have a good argument, resort to TONE, or an insinuated inability to “get the point”. The only response I can think of to that accusation is firstly, I am a LONG way from being hostile, nor have I indicated any hostility in any way. Perhaps I was a tad ornery to one blog poster, certainly NOT this guy, as can be seen clearly in my blog post titled Cruising the Blogosphere. To be clear, where I was ornery was with the blog post:
http://theologyarchaeology.wordpress.com/2013/06/09/what-science-cannot-do/ This particular post was so outrageous and so wrong, that yes, I was a tad hostile in my reply. …but NOT the post here, note this is the same link in my 1st paragraph above, the second one:
At least I don’t see hostility there, what I see is a matter of fact approach that apparently makes SOMEONE uncomfortable. How about instead of complaining about tone, or indicating hostility where none exists, or accusing someone of missing the point without actually clarifying the point, you should try…oh I don’t know, CLARIFYING the point.
This authors writing style, for me, is like a meandering ride through the countryside, with random bits of this and that thrown together to somehow make a point later on in the paragraph, somewhat wistfully, as if there is some great underlying meaning that only an enlightened one can understand. Maybe that is a misinterpretation as well, I am certainly able and willing to concede a difference in writing styles. Anyway what I have done is try to pry out these points, and offer my own as a rebuttal.
The author also goes on to insinuate that no attempt was made at meaningful engagement. Indeed what is an attempt at a meaningful engagement, if not a clear rebuttal to ones argument?
Let me make one thing clear, I am no stranger to making mistakes, in fact I pride myself at being able to admit when I am wrong, when the facts would indicate it. I patiently await the opportunity to do so. If I misunderstood what I was reading, please show me the err of my ways. I have been back, and read the post again, a couple of times, more slowly, trying to see where I could have gotten the wrong impression, but I am still of the opinion, that what I saw the first time, is still in there.