I weary of evolutionist platitudes. Your statement is plain and simply false. If it were true, the article that started this thread would not have been posted. As it is, evolutionists are intolerant of criticism directed toward them or their precious fairy story.
BTW, self-correcting implies error. If evo were truly self-correcting, it would adjust the theory rather than blackball the critic.
that's what peer review and the scientific method is predicated upon. mistakes are made over the millenia, then they are corrected with better science.
Another stale platitude. The peer review process is as clean and pure and the Justice Department's investigation of itself under Janet Reno. "Peer" has been restricted to those friendly to the evolutionist propaganda. That makes it just a bit too circular for it to be taken seriously. Any more lukewarm platitudes?
show me where religion does that, and i'll have my shoes for dessert.
I hope you aren't wearing your hip boots. I can't speak for religion but I can speak for Christianity. First you need to understand that the truth does not need to be corrected. Only falsehoods need to be corrected. Christianity, therefore, could not be self-correcting. It is noted that sometimes interpretations can be incorrect. Not only was the Reformation evidence of man's willingness to clean his own house but the Catholic counter-reformation also testifies to that fact.
You can eat one boot now and save the other for lunch tomorrow.
You didn't give him enough time to get his hip boots on before you made your claim to speak for Christianity.
I weary of evolutionist platitudes.
And I weary of your simply declaring your "is not!" responses without actually bothering to support them. Oh look, here you go again:
Your statement is plain and simply false.
Uh huh... Nice try, but stamping your feet doesn't prove your case.
If it were true, the article that started this thread would not have been posted.
That's a mighty strange "reasoning" process you've got there, son. "Because someone posted an article to FreeRepublic, science is provably non-introspective!"
Needs work.
As it is, evolutionists are intolerant of criticism directed toward them or their precious fairy story.
Are you really this off-base, or are you just trolling? Science is extremely tolerant of criticism -- IN THE RIGHT FORUM. School classrooms are not the proper place to have that debate. It's not like this is a hard concept, do try to keep up and stop shouting "Eureka!" over the most mundane things.
BTW, self-correcting implies error. If evo were truly self-correcting, it would adjust the theory rather than blackball the critic.
It does adjust the theory, quite often -- and then creationists gibber and dance and giggle, "ha ha, evolution is so screwed up they have to keep fixing it!". You've seen the posts as often as I have, don't deny it.
Critics are not blackballed. The current article, as you would well know if you were as smart as you like to believe you are, is another issue entirely. Anyone who wants to criticize any aspect of evolution is entirely welcome to do so in the peer-reviewed journals which such criticisms are not only allowed, they're welcome. Again, though, school classrooms are *not* the proper place for such arguments, for a variety of reasons (most of which the creationists understand full well, which is why they're trying to force their way into there).
If you can document either of your silly assertions, now would be a great time to do so -- or retract them, if you're honorable enough to do so.
[that's what peer review and the scientific method is predicated upon. mistakes are made over the millenia, then they are corrected with better science.]
Another stale platitude.
Another empty snide remark.
The peer review process is as clean and pure and the Justice Department's investigation of itself under Janet Reno.
So you say, without a shred of support. Typical.
"Peer" has been restricted to those friendly to the evolutionist propaganda.
Horse manure -- this only shows that you haven't a clue how the process even works. It's not like there's a sign-up sheet or membership card which can be denied.
Support your slur, or retract it. Or leave it lie, so we'll know that you have no interest in defending your reputation.
First you need to understand that the truth does not need to be corrected. Only falsehoods need to be corrected. Christianity, therefore, could not be self-correcting.
Wow, speaking of "stale platitudes"...
You can document this, of course. Produce a paper rejected by a peer-reviewed journal because it supported creationism.