The tone of voice and vocabulary of a speaker reflect …

Comment on Why those who hate the Bible love blind-faith Christians by Wesley Kime.

The tone of voice and vocabulary of a speaker reflect the speaker’s image, not necessarily the validity of the message, and are the determining factors for awards by both the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Academic Peer Reviews, not infrequently in mutual consultation, a little known fact.

For our in-house peer review, the following pretty representative aliquots of recent EduTru drag-and-drops, certifiably [sic], are submitted.

Tone of voice and vocabulary for Evidence-free Faith: “repetitive,” “ceaseless,” “monotonous,” “continual,” “ad nauseum.” “irrational,” “dude,” “liar.” “Blasphemy,’ “heresy.” “cyberbully,” “persecutor,” “bigot,” “arrogant,” “preying on our students,” “insult slinger,” “libeler,” “slanderer.” “criminal theft of private creative property,” “unchristian,” “unloving” “abuser”; “dude,” “more than heresy and blasphemy. It is ANTI-SCRIPTURE, ANTI-CHRISTIANITY, and ANTI-SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISM.” “Dude, this is total, utter, complete, unadulterated HOGWASH.” “Baloney!” “step off your imaginary pedestal and come back down to earth,” “really tired of this Satanic crusade,” “nothing but trash talk from a street gutter.” committed the unforgivable sin (against the Holy Spirit) [and worse:] Un-peer reviewed. “Dude.” “Hell-o-o-o-o!” “war of attrition,” “Hell-o-o-o-o-o-o!” [sic, sic, sic]

Tone of voice and vocabulary for Evidence conjoined to Faith: “I’ve said many times you’re mistaken”, “you forget,” “you’re forgetting,” “you seem to forget,” “as I already explained,” “I read the same article,” “really bothers me,” “the real argument here is in regard to your notion,” “I’m sorry, but you seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth,” “I don’t care if people agree or disagree with me”; “hope this helps,” “erosion rates do vary.” [sic etc.]

Recent Comments by Wesley Kime

Brilliant and Beautiful, but Wrong
Brilliant, beautiful, and so right! Speaking of your presentation at LLU recently. Great to see you and your family (especially my namesake, Wes. God bless! WK

Complex Organisms are Degenerating – Rapidly
@Bob Helm: Dr. Sanford is very familiar to most of us. He was invited to speak at LLU several years ago and I and a great many were privileged to hear him.

Evolution from Space?
Hats off yet again to Sean for pursuing this topic as a scientist should, no nonsense, and in it’s proper setting — as a revival of one of the ancient ideas recently upgraded as a desperate alternative to the increasingly compelling intelligent design data. I had occasion to review panspermia a few years ago and as is my wont I found it more amusing than scientific. If you would like what was intended to be a satirical response to panspermia and other related curiosities you could check out:
Meantime, Sean’s article is of far more cogent worth.

The Sabbath and the Covenants (Old vs. New)
As he has done on this site many times, Sean in his line-by-line-item response to C. White (not EG or EB) has, to my mind, clearly enunciated the issue and resolution.

When all the hermeneutics, quoting, and arguing and inordinately judgmental riposte are over, it comes down, as I understand it, to two things: 1) Whether the 7th day Sabbath (whether enunciated in the famous 10 commandments or otherwise) is still valid, and 2) Does the grace obtained by the vicarious sacrifice by the shedding of Christ’s blood or other divine process too deep for us to understand in this life, cover every sin automatically and without ado, altogether passively on our part, or is it only on condition that we first totally and deeply accept it? Other details always hassled forever are distractions.

I accept that I must accept it, wholly, actively, even with agony, with my whole being.

Nobel Prize Winner “Blinded by Belief”: Retracts 2016 Paper on RNA Self-Replication
The confession that Szostak made is boggling! If anybody has been on a “journey”, Szostak has! And this analysis by Sean of that journey and its implications is truly awesome. It should be published widely… I’m surprised nobody has commented on it yet. No comment could do it justice.

I’m reduced to being simply curious. Was there talk of rescinding Szostak’s Nobel? I propose another Nobel category: a prize for most honest scientist, and Szostak would be the first winner. Few other scientists would be eligible, particularly among evolutionary scientists, who collectively seem to have suffered a blindness mutation. He should be TIME’s Man of the Year.