Posted on 02/12/2006 10:32:27 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Pretty broad generalization which doesn't account for what you don't know about the past. Partial evidence is an incomplete picture. While it is fair to comment on what you do find. Characterizing the past to exclude anything you haven't is rather like finding the first three pages of shogun and stating that's the book.. not much different than the example of the appendix earlier - dogmatizing a falsehood from ignorance of the truth..
Your response is total gibberish.
Is there any chance of actually answering my questions about whether you reject or endorse those sample scientific findings that I posted? You claim that your beef is with evolution and not with science in general. Why the coyness about those non-evolutionary examples then? Now is your opportunity to show that your only argument is with evolution by making it clear that you accept the findings of the physical and earth sciences. Or do you?
Time scale doesn't seem to bother you guys till you need to beg credulity. One of your own here commented on this very thread about how very little time it took in modern times for many of the breeds of dog to appear. Pull the other one and get your story straight.
Ah, so you do reject sciences other than evolution. Scientists had spotted that the creatures in the fossil record are not modern species long before Darwin wrote OoS. That finding is completely separate from any mechanism of evolution. Now, I wonder how much other science you reject? Still waiting for your answers about the rest of the list that I posted.
HAH!
now, was that a Prime, or was that a PRIME?
If that's what you think I do, and it's so awful that you think it an epithet, it must be sad for you that a slurpy vendor is wiping the mat with you. Here's to the superior intellect. Misunderestimation is fun ain't it.
No, it isn't gibberish, it's just shredding your pretense.
You offered that the threat to science has something to do with it being a mover of our economy. Young earth or old earth doesn't have a whit to do with how or whether we produce scientists that can make a better silicon chip.
You're trying to protect ideology, not science. Your questions are the giveaway in that not one of them has a thing to do with technology or other industries - zip. And that is highly relevant to your prior mock concern.
If you want to try to bs people, don't complain when they catch you in the act and expose it.
Give it up.
at this point, I'm merely baiting you into once again falsely asserting that I (and others) have been saying that "corn producing corn is speciation"
what I/we have been saying is "corn, producing mutant strains (not variation, troll: MUTATION), over multiple generations and multiple mutations, produces new species of corn - which is an example of speciation"
but you cheerfully misrepresent this.
go ahead: do it again. prove yet more clearly how deep into the abyss you have sunk. your terminal case of craniorectal impaction is proving vastly amusing to the peanut gallery.
Given my response, the only way you could come to that conclusion is if you view all of science as dogmatized falsehoods. Apparently, you do.
I made no such claim at any time. So your answer is gibberish addressing a claim that I didn't make. Now. One more time. You stated that you don't have any quarrel with science; that your quarrel is only with evolution. So, do you endorse or reject that specific list of scientific findings that I listed?
The preferred language on FR is english, not gibberish. Do you endorse the list of non-evolutionary scientific findings that I posted or reject them? That's a real simple question, yet you seem to have extraordinary difficulty answering it...
Havoc relies too much on "common sense" to answer your question forthrightly.
Why. I got one guy on the evo side telling me that dog breeds proliferated in a relatively short modern time while another one tells me the exact opposite. I got one telling me there's a conspiracy to destroy the sciences when he's selling it on the basis that it will destroy tech advances and his proof is that he's afraid his ideology will go down the toilet as he picked topics of proof that deal not with tech; but, with his ideology (evolution). At the same time he's deriding me for speaking out against canonizing falsehoods from ignorance (something which any decent scientist would have to parot rather than demean)..
On and on. It's a target rich environment. If I took you guys on the road for three days and just let you carry on, you'd do more damage to your own cause than Me, Hovind, Ham,
Missler, etc. combined.
Give it up? Not hardly.
Awe, feeling down are we.
nope. I'm feeling like a highly successful businessman being pestered by welfare-fed semi-retarded anarcho-socialist protesters: Slightly annoyed, slightly amused, mostly disgusted.
You've already made it clear that you reject the pre-Darwinian conclusion that pre-historic species were not the same as modern ones so you reject at least one non-evolutionary scientific finding. What about the others?
Correction, the tech thing was another evo's moonbat theory, yours is that we reject science in general because we might disagree with some findings. To which I'd respond, a little more easily that we don't opt out of flying because it's science anymore than we opt out of the latest detergent. How old the earth is doesn't bother anything but your ideology. And I stand by my prior statement, if it can hold up to serious scrutiny, it has nothing to fear. If it can't, science is self correcting. (good evo answers I get often)
Must have a complex or something going on about your status and all. Inferiority complex?
So, do you reject or endorse those mainstream non-evolutionary scientific findings? In amongst your obfuscation and wriggling you haven't posted a definite answer.
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.