(February 16, 2014 at 11:03 am)Cal Wrote: Exactly my point. You quote me, highlight some lines, and then interpret it into a completely different and inaccurate message.I highlighted it because I assumed that you didn't realize what you had written and how it could be interpreted. Do note that I did not remove the context of your message, simply emphasized the portion that indicated your double-standard. The context does not change that. If you didn't realize how your words were coming off, well now you know.
Quote:My overall message was directed to the person who was interested in a response.He was interested in a response nearly four years ago. His user page shows that he hasn't logged in since August 16th, 2010. The forum rules (which new registrants are expected to read before posting) urge users to avoid responding to posts older than 30 days. You may have noticed the red message reading "The last post in this thread was made over 30 days ago. Please consider starting a new thread" when you decided to write your reply.
If your intent was to speak with only this person directly, then a private message would have been your best option. If that was not an option for some reason, you could have left out the passive-aggressive "I don't want to be slandered by these immature people" part of your message.
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
-Stephen Jay Gould
-Stephen Jay Gould
