alt.education

Wide Eyed in Wonder wrote:
>On Feb 24, 1:25 pm, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>
>> >Except that they teach those courses within a science-focus
>> >program...not very diverse.
>>
>> You have a strange idea of diversity. The academic program at Briggs
>> is a good deal more diverse than that taken by a typical single-major
>> undergraduate science student, and yet still has a reputable focus.
>
>Ah, so a program can be diverse while maintaining a single subject
>focus (science or theology)?

It CAN be. Yours wasn't. The school you brag about isn't capable of
diversity.

>> Oh, I like to think I am very discriminating. But not on the basis of
>> race, creed, sex, or any of the other factors usually mentioned.
>
>I notice you didn't say religion.

Ever look up the word "creed", idiot?

>> No, you are wrong for behaving like an ass, as well as for simply
>> being *wrong* most of the time.
>
>"wrong" is a subjective judgment given by one in authority.

No. It is a possible evaluative opinion held by someone capable of
forming an opinion.

>Inaccurate would be an acceptible term, if evidence is given.

Your posts are worse than merely inaccurate, and in most cases, the
evidence is in your own posts, or the posts which you are replying to
with complete and willful misunderstanding.

>> >So, therefore, you have EVIDENCE that my theories on theology are
>> >wrong?
>>
>> They are theories on theology, therefore by definition they are wrong.
>> There is no evidence and can be no evidence, therefore they aren't
>> really "theories" in a scientific sense.
>
>Yet, you have no EVIDENCE that they are not true.

There is no such thing as "evidence" regarding theology. They are
always true to a believer and false to everyone else. And for the
most part utterly meaningless.

>Thus, you (according to above) cannot say I am wrong.

Of course I can. You are wrong because a) you are posting your
nonsense in education newsgroups where it doesn't belong, b) you are
ignoring the fact that your audience does not share your beliefs, and
therefore cannot believe your nonsense c) your arguments are usually
self-contradictory or overly simplistic, so that even someone who does
believe as you do would know that your argument fails if they have
intellectual integrity.

>When I say someone that
>was healed was healed by God (evidence of their healing), you ignore
>the evidence,

There is no evidence.

>> It isn't my job to prove your "theories" wrong, idiot.
>
>However, according to you, without authority you can only prove me
>wrong by evidence.

Wrong. And I won't bother to prove it, thereby providing evidence
that I can do something other that what you say.

>You have no evidence, so (without authority or
>evidence), you shouldn't be saying I am wrong.

Alas, nothing says what I "shouldn't be saying" other than netiquette.

>"idiot," "low opinion," and "attitude" are all subjective terms based
>without evidence.

The evidence is every post that you have ever made, almost 24,000 of
them according to Google. I need not provide any more evidence of
those claims.

But since they are really subjective evaluations, I don't need to
provide evidence at all. I know from the comments of others that my
evaluations are shared. I haven't seen anyone defending you against
them, except yourself.

(Maybe I am guilty of engaging in a battle of wits with an unarmed
man.)

>Indeed, you use the word OPINION as evidence for your conclusion about me.

I use the word "opinion" to express my opinion about you.

lojbab