Are All Responses to CMI Here?

It is no big news to those knowing me that I read other Creationists and therefore also respond to them.

This means some of my articles here are responses to CMI. But not all my responses to CMI or to CMI members are here:

Great Bishop of Geneva! : Defending Papias on Matthew and Authencity of LXX

On Great Bishop of Geneva! since dealing partly with defending Catholic tradition.

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Jonathan Sarfati PhD on Fall and Inquisition

While the subject matter would have fitted here, I priorised the fact that the format is a Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl.

And Carl Wieland was, while admitting the anti-slave-hunting principles of the Bible were not always obeyed by Protestants in US, arguing that nevertheless the Protestants were the comparative good guys in relation to the question, or saying Wilberforce the abolitionist was father of Wilberforce the debater against Huxley, but omitting he was also father of Wilberforce the Catholic convert (and ancestor of one Father Wilberforce who is engaged in anti-abortion fight)on which I wrote a little series commencing here:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Wilberforce, Wilberforce and Wilberforce

Comes on Φιλολoγικά/Philologica because it is historical./HGL

3 commentaires:

  1. And it could perhaps be added that it is very annoying when the CMI team - writers like myself, dealing in prose describing processes or arguments - employ minor clarks to get my notifications on answers to their work treated as minor enquiries.

    I found this exhange somewhat annoying:

    On Facebook:

    Hans-Georg Lundahl
    Actually, I just detected a place where Russell Grigg was using a fraudulent or fraudulently placed illustration too:

    Creation Ministries International
    Hans-Georg Lundahl: Links outside of aren't allowed (our rules on our main Facebook page explain why). You can re-post in fresh thread without the link. As per rule #7, comment hidden.

    Hans-Georg Lundahl
    My article was my argument fleshed out.

    Feel free to just forward it to him.

    I have given him an opportunity to respond.

    [I was then given and used a good method of forwarding.]

    But annoying is one thing. Annoying is taken to the next level when next notification I try to send in by the same method they told me to use, I am told by another minor clerk to use another method for "enquiries".

    It is in fact NOT an enquiry when I basically point out that, yes, it is dishonest by now to use Haeckel's embryological illustration, but CMI had a problem of its own, if using Flammarion's Woodcut in illustrating Ptolemaic worldview, to which the judges of Galileo were, contrary to suggestion by Russell Grigg that Aristotle and Ptolemy has been "accepted as dogma".

    It is of course a good thing that the problem has been fixed, but instead of saying "thanks" and saying "we have fixed it", they fixed it behind my back and allowed my words to stand as an apparently "unfounded accusation".

    This attitude I find annoying.

  2. Here is the link to the CMI article as it is now, saved on WebCite:

    I can only state that the illustration I took by "print screen" was also from same article.

  3. Above, of course, about the latest sharper response to the which is here, while the next one which is here is gentler.

    It was while informing them of this one, that I got a very annoying reply from a minor clerk on their ministry.

    Ministry or not ministry, writers are colleagues as being writers. And their attitude to a colleague is a bad one, so far.