| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 04/29/2006 1:50:06 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Enough noise from this damn thing. |
Posted on 04/27/2006 8:01:57 AM PDT by Tribune7
I’m happy to report that I was in constant correspondence with Ann regarding her chapters on Darwinism — indeed, I take all responsibility for any errors in those chapters. :-)
(Excerpt) Read more at uncommondescent.com ...
Saying you are doing something for one reason when you are really doing it for another is simply dishonest and you can't spin it away.
"The last temptation is the greatest treason - to do the right deed for the wrong reason." - T.S. Eliot.
He described the vehicle as a pick up.
LOL! A pickup in the Midwest! How specific - what a hot lead!
He described what one of the men was wearing.
Of course he did - "The guy was driving a pickup, officer. And I'm pretty sure he was wearing pants and a shirt, and maybe a jacket of some kind."
He said he was beaten with fists, and possibly a metal object.
I apologize for not emphasizing how much more vague his claim was.
He was unsure only about which of two section roads he was beaten on
As I said, he couldn't say where.
and he reported the time
He reported a block of time, not a specific time.
Again, his account was as vague as vague can be.
He was forced to resign after the beating, not before.
Surely a professor knows that such moves are usually preceded by committee meetings, closed-door consultations and all the accoutrements of academic politicking. Mirecki knew what was in the works before it was officially announced - come on now.
Oh, because one 'professor' manufactured a hate crime, any other report of same from any other faculty member forever must be false.
Not necessarily - but wide-eyed naivete is not a policeman's best friend in a criminal investigation.
You're calling Mirecki a liar, but in fact almost everything you wrote above is false. So I guess at least we've identified one liar.
Everything I wrote above was true and accurate, and you've confirmed its accuracy through your lame attempt at excusing his lies.
Saying that your assailant drove a pickup is supposedly to be detailed enough for a police investigation in a community with thousands of pickups? Please, RWP, I didn't evolve from the primordial ooze yesterday.
He was brought up Catholic. He was making fun of Catholicism. I do it too. Deal with it, and stop ranting.
It hardly matters what you claim to be brought up as - it's what you actual profess. And paul Mirecki is certainly not a Catholic or any other variety of Christian.
But he is a liar and a narcissist.
He probably does it to show how creos refuse to argue the evidence over and over. I guess you don't realise how it makes you look.
I venture another reason is for the learning lurkers who aren't familiar with the evidence.
Boy are you lost. I don't post the pictures of the skulls. And, the many of the folks you are debating are actually working scientists -- some of their screennames actually give their professions away.
And I recommended a book of hers to another once...
In future I'll stick to recommending Sowell and Steyn.
(shockingly conservative selections from a non-Christian, huh? :-))
Surprising how many atheists show up on these threads, yet you rarely see them on other threads.
BION, I know a few working scientists. None of them care much about the issue of evo, and none of their work depends on the "belief" in evo.
Science is accountable. Cosmology, archeology, paleontology, antrhopology...none are sciences. All can be interesting, but they create scenarios which at worst are merely replaced with newer and more interesting scenarios. Conjecture. Plausibility.
An archeologist is never wrong the way a simple lab technician can be wrong.
If it can't be wrong, it's not science. If it's not reproducible, accountable, verifiable--then it's speculation. Maybe reasonable speculation--but plausible and reasonable is the A standard for speculation. A+ in conjecture, in the spinning of yarns.
She's got a schtick, and it's proved to be a lucrative one for her. I don't for a minute think she believes everything she says.
Are you speaking from ignorance by accusing all evos of being atheists?
There are a lot of one note posters on this forum.
On PJ's Dummie Funnies there are people who post there who I don't see in the rest of the forum.
On threads about immigration the same thing.
Same with the Duke threads.
It doesn't mean anything besides the fact you have no argument so you must go fishing for one.
You know, the Darwinists sure have a streak of mysogyny going on! Sounds like a lot of romances have gone bad among the beta males.
All the arguments have been stated many times over. You ignore our arguments and we ignore yours. Shows we all have too much time on our hands.
And how would you know? Do all "working scientists" work for the same company, or is it possible different organizations have different requirements on their time?
BION, I know a few working scientists. None of them care much about the issue of evo, and none of their work depends on the "belief" in evo.
Really? And are any of them in the biological sciences? You'll probably answer yes, but without anything to back up your claims we're not going to believe you. BTW, I thought you hated scientists.
Science is accountable. Cosmology, archeology, paleontology, antrhopology...none are sciences. All can be interesting, but they create scenarios which at worst are merely replaced with newer and more interesting scenarios. Conjecture. Plausibility.
They're not sciences? Coyoteman will be upset to hear that. BTW, who appointed you arbiter of what is and is not science? I forgot, it doesn't matter that you have absolutely no understanding of what you speak as long as it sounds good to you.
An archeologist is never wrong the way a simple lab technician can be wrong.
Coyoteman, I'll let you field this one as it's your field of expertise.
If it can't be wrong, it's not science. If it's not reproducible, accountable, verifiable--then it's speculation. Maybe reasonable speculation--but plausible and reasonable is the A standard for speculation. A+ in conjecture, in the spinning of yarns.
All those fields you mentioned do have research that is reproduceable -- maybe not in the way you think, but their findings can be checked and cross-checked. That you cannot conceive of this just shows your woeful lack of learning on the subject.
Do yourself a favor and at least study some of this stuff before spouting off.
"athiest" = "one who does not believe the way I believe"
Atheist - one who denies the existence of God.
Not liking Ann Coulter does not equal mysogyny any more than not liking Jesse Jackson equals racism. You're basically playing a liberal card here since you cannot battle with reason -- you try to shut the opposition up by tarring them with an epithet.
Look, I'll respond to you when you can post without the childish insults.
Who has denied the existence of God? Not taking Genesis literally does not deny the existence of God -- except in the minds of those incapable of more than basic thought processes. And, we of course know that you don't fall in that category, so you can't possibly be saying that all evos are atheists, can you?
There comes a point in communication where literacy ends and illiteracy begins. And staying on the literate side is essential for debate.
That's a childish remark, thrown out to set up a sandbox "No, I don't" "Yes, I do" exchange.
Despite what the writer says, it's hardly conclusive.
That was a huge insult huh?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.