Over the years as I participated on other forums the argument for free speech has arisen again and again. most people say they want to have free speech but what they really want, is the right to say what they want, how they want. that is not free speech but anarchy and speech without responsibility.
On this forum, there is a freedom to say what you would like, you can disagree with each other or the administration but there IS NO FREEDOM for the MANNER or HOW you say it.
All posts must be in line with the rules and constructed to present your views and opinions in a manner that is constructive and not destructive. The administration retains the right to great liberty when editing posts which fall outside of common sense and freedom of speech with responsibility
YOU ARE NOT CHILDREN do not act like it and you will be fine.
This forum is for the Glory of God, please keep that in mind as you post your opinions.
On this forum wikipedia is not accepted as credible
On this forum the Bible is accepted as a credible source and is considered truthful in all areas it touches upon.
People are free to reference other religion’s religious writings but at no time expect them to be accepted as equal to the Bible, infallible, true, or anything else that is attributed to the Bible.
As we all know there are many many Bible translations out there, so for this forum very few will be accepted as credible or authoritative. We reserve the right to limit the use of Bibles here as too many false ones are in circulation and cause confusion, doubt and spread false teachings that do not belong in the church.
Those translations that are accepted are: KJV, NASB, NIV (others on special permission)
This site comes from the Biblical perspective alone, alternatives are viewed as false and deceptions.
Copyright Policy: https://theologyarchaeology.wordpress.com/2013/08/04/a-question-of-copyright/
2 thoughts on “Rules”
for future reference, this comment section is reserved for talking about the rules.
please make the attempt to find the appropriate page to place your comments and leave these pages for comments on the content contained on them
Email as just sent to Jon Baker of Age of Rocks and a couple of copy recipients by Ashley Haworth-Roberts (me): “The online behaviour/misbehaviour of YEC David Tee or Theology/Archaeology.
http://ageofrocks.org/2015/06/19/dear-ken-ham-about-those-kangaroo-fossils/comment-page-1/#comment-2735 (interesting discussion)
My latest post here just now awaits moderation due to the links. It reads as follows:
“Tee is making arguments on his own blogs that he has NOT tried to deploy HERE including ones linked to a fossil find in (aimed at a different ie anti-evolution and pro-Flood audience presumably): https://theologyarchaeology.wordpress.com/2015/07/07/of-gravity-and-fossils/
To be frank, I do not really understand what point(s) Tee is trying to make (could there be a typo or is he simply not being sufficiently clear for my brain to grasp):
“My mind was brought back to fossils because of the article over at age of rocks
as they were arguing about the absence of a kangaroo fossil between where the ark landed and Australia proves that the flood did not take place. Well here is evidence that it did take place because those animals do not populate America today and none in recent history, i.e. 5,000 years ago and forward. You can dismiss the 12 million year date as that is read into the evidence for evolutionary purposes. That time frame is moot.
The fact that volcanic ash is at that site is more evidence for the biblical flood for we know that volcanic action was present when the flood took place. If we are to take the logic from the people at age of rocks seriously, then we must conclude that evolution is not true because we find no transition from these animals found in Nebraska anywhere in America nor in migration to their modern counterparts or their current homes. There is nothing to support their argument against the flood for they will defend their theory stating that fossilization is rare and that absence does not disqualify their process from existence or reality. Something they are attacking Ken Ham for using in defense of the flood.”
The rest of this post is the usual accusatory simplistic propaganda routinely deployed by YECs who seek to use their ‘science’ as an evangelistic and apologetics tool/weapon.
And this fundamentalist ideologue is claiming (‘behind your back’ since he does not inform readers here of his parallel propaganda posts) that he is winning/has won the argument here since all Baker’s “best arguments fail” (he has IGNORED mine incidentally):
Tee’s argument appears to be ‘scientists know nothing therefore Noah’s Flood is the truth and anybody who disagrees is wrong because I say so and I have the truth’.
Tee’s strategy – which contradicts the more reasonable assumptions of AiG (really!) that kangaroo-like creatures must have been on any recent ark during a worldwide flood disaster – seems to be to obfuscate and say ‘we know nothing and we weren’t there and the Bible doesn’t provide enough detail – and Bill Nye’s argument must still be rubbish even if I don’t agree with Ken Ham, whose alleged argument Jon has addressed though of course Jon’s best arguments all ‘fail’ because he ‘lacks knowledge”.
PS I see however that Jon has discovered the earlier Tee blog, dated 6 July, on his own. I tried to comment flagging the various issues posted here that Tee has so far failed to deal with properly, but I had technical problems and was unable to do so. I have read the four posts by Baker and Tee – I would say that Tee’s comments do not demonstrate that “evolution does not exist”. People think scientific hypotheses are ‘unreality’ yet his own musings, inspired by the Bible only it would seem, are ‘not’ (even though his strategy is to claim that we can learn nothing about the recent past that is not found in the Bible). These people are anti-science.”
Tee/TheologyArchaeology – another YEC floundering on a pro-science website. And then claiming in his own blog that his opponent ‘lost’ the argument because “even his best arguments fail because he lacks knowledge of the details”. I would say that Jon’s arguments convince me more than David’s do.
The words ‘liar’, ‘fool’ and ‘bigot’ come to my mind.
I have attempted to send this to Tee as well but don’t have an email address. So have tried to forward the text to this page on his weblog: