Posted on 02/12/2006 10:32:27 AM PST by PatrickHenry
I take responsibility for what I say or write. I consider posting anonymously to be cowardly and inconsistent with taking responsibility for my words. Others may feel differently.
I cannot for the life of me understand why any scientist would hang out at a political internet forum to use superficial discussions of biology or other sciences as a means to participate in a culture war relating to religious beliefs.
Clearly, then you are not a scientist, since you can't understand why a scientist would do what you do.
I'm glad we've settled the point.
For my part, as a conservative, I feel it important to fight for the future of the conservative movement, and to dissuade it from its current course of identification with a narrow and theocratic school of social conservatism.
It is also not appropriate for you to try and obtain or demand personal information from people. You have a strange psychological reason for wanting to advertise yourself, fine. But no one else is required to give specifics on their personal life or such information
I don't demand such unless the person sets themselves up as an authority, or personally challenges my own competence. You have done both on this thread. But you don't have the cojones to stand by your words, chico.
Oddly enough, I was tempted to suggest in my previous post that your activities at the Biophysical Society Annual Meeting might involve broom-pushing. I refrained, not to save your feelings, but because I have nothing against janitors, a valuable occupation and one whose members generally don't pretend to be what they are not.
Nothing more pathetic than someone who puts down the qualifications of others and then, when challenged on his own, hides behind anonymity.
It's called cowardice, an attribute I've noticed in abundance among the creationist trolls on this thread. It goes well with their dishonesty.
rAmen
I also question your logic. I certainly have not challenged your own competence, but still, even if that were so, how would my having graduated from Yale or MIT or being a janitor from Mexico have any bearing on your competence? It makes no sense.
If you are this touchy, I'd suggest maybe it is you that has doubts about your own competence.
Really, would there be any details of my personal history that would indicate I am not an idiot?
You're just dour and angry.
One might even wonder if FRevos are trying to turn over the GOP majority. Wonder why they'd do that? Are they really conservatives, or do they have some other agenda? Given the staggering amount of time evos spend on FR doing nothing but attacking the religious right--it would go to explain a lot.
I'd like to post this remark to him, given that I'm talking about him--but he's one of the Ones Who Must Not Be Spoken To.
Again - got the same thing you started with - ain't speciation. No wonder nobody takes any of you seriously.
Did you read your own article by chance? The part that talks about only four possible instances being on file and why..
If even one verifiable change to something different were documented, they'd be hyping it till the cows came home because it has never been witnessed before. To this point, the article isn't credible. Moreover, the guy can't even define speciation and notes everyone has a different version of what it might mean. No biggie - right. I mean if you can define it so sloppily, then anything might be called "speciation". Pretty handy - especially in a situation where precision is expected. This largely amounts to a scientific community "bait and switch". *chortle*
If you can't define a species and can't therefore accurately define speciation, how do you expect anyone to take any of this seriously. The slop factor is obvious and purposeful IMO. There are some breeds of dog that cannot interbreed with other breeds of dog. They're still dogs.
"Evolutionist "science" no more can explain the origin of life or the species than it can explain what gravity is."
It's not TRYING to explain the origins of life. And what is *the species*?
Whatever disclaimer Darwin put in his book, the INHERENT argument there is that there was no Christian God of the Bible who made man in His own Image.
I invite you to check the dictionary for what the word "inherent' means..
"Whatever disclaimer Darwin put in his book, the INHERENT argument there is that there was no Christian God of the Bible who made man in His own Image."
That's a lie. When you actually READ the book, come back.
"I invite you to check the dictionary for what the word "inherent' means.."
As soon as you actually read The Origin Of Species. :)
Monkeys, lions and Horses have hair. They must have a common ancestor... lol. really. No matter how technical you try to get, your conclusion is less than conclusive.
Now I'm going to get precious.
Look up the word "lie" in the dictionary before you accuse me of doing something I didn't do.
Whoopie, you gonna join the crowd and offer us corn turns to corn stories of speciation too? *laughing uncontrollably*
The post you replied to concerned a technical point in response to the statement:
The mechanism of how an organism deletes a repeat(s) of a DNA segment as described in the paper is irrelevant to the type of mutations found in shared pseudogenes.
When chiding someone over correct titles, don't screw up yourself.
It's The Origin of Species (not Origins).
Darwin's theory inherently debunks the idea that a Christian God created man because of the book of Genesis and the whole New Testament.
Whether Victorian Christians understood that Evolution was at odds with the Bible, I have no idea or interest, really.
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.