Posted on 09/09/2007 5:17:43 AM PDT by PurpleMountains
Adolf Darwin is your master not mine...and those theories are there as long as there are confused people who believe them...so many have rotted away over the millenia.
ME: Without going into a million things that have already been shown dozens of times, let me recommend that you spend some time going through the Evolution/Creation/Intelligent Design threads on this board.
YOU: Wait a minute. This is an internet discussion board. A principally political one at that. To my knowledge, no one here receives a grant to post their opinion, and the opinions posted here can't remotely be considered "publications.
Would you mind telling me just what in the hell that has to do with my quote to which you seem to be replying? Where have I ever said that anyone posting on this board is receiving any grants? And, where does it say anything about "publications"?
YOU: Your comment that “[a] large segment of the evolutionist community is made up of a bunch of scared, grant-begging frauds . . . and they do not hesitate to publish a bunch of lying, twisted twaddle to keep the scam going,” is quite obviously directed at working scientists who receive grants for their research and publish their results in scientific journals.
Not all of them. Only those who are frauds and liars; and/or who are afraid to admit that they don't have an exclusive on "science" where creation, evolution, and intelligence (including the ID theories) are concerned.
Those who attempt to lump together most, if not all, opposition to their exclusivity -- which is, of course, in itself a rather flagrant lie. And, who fight tooth and nail to keep any word of opposition or alternate theories out of the science classroom, which just happens to be almost the only place where evolution is being taught. What the hell are they afraid of?
YOU:The NIH digital archive that I linked in post 87 is a mother-load of scientific publications by grant-receiving scientists. If there is evidentiary support for your assertion, it will be found there, not here.
HAHAHAHAHA You have got to be joking. That's like saying that the place to find evidence of OJ's innocence will be found in his autobiography.
ME: It should clearly illustrate to you the almolst hysterical lengths that a large segment of the evolution crowd will go to deny any chance that any other alternatives might exist to explain, partially explain, or assist in explaining the phenomona of of life and the changes therein.
YOU: I have no idea what you are talking about here.
You sure don't. If you did, you wouldn't insist on "replying" to issues I have never brought up.
YOU:No one is stopping you (or can stop you) from posting on this board any "other alternatives [that] might exist to explain, partially explain, or assist in explaining the phenomona of life and the changes therein."
That's a perfect example of what I just said. I have never said, nor even hinted, anywhere that anyone was stopping me, or attempting to stop me, or anyone else from "...posting on this board any "other alternatives [that] might exist to explain, partially explain, or assist in explaining the phenomona of life and the changes therein".
YOU:Indeed, this board is particularly friendly to evolutionary alternatives (and often quite hostile to evolution supporters), and a great many folks post their alternative views at considerable length.
Another example: When did I ever say that the board was hostile to such postings?
YOU:Now back on topic. In light of your apparent opinion that proponents of evolutionary alternatives are victimized by evolution supporters, this seems to be a stellar opportunity for you to seize the initiative and post the evidentiary support for your particular alternative view.
When did I say anything about my "particular alternative view", or voice a desire to post it? And that is not, and hasnt been, a topic to get back to.
Maybe you had better either change your brand or consume less of it.
First you say -- Would you mind telling me just what in the hell that has to do with my quote to which you seem to be replying? Where have I ever said that anyone posting on this board is receiving any grants? And, where does it say anything about "publications"?
All right, Turret Gunner, since you've apparently become hopelessly lost in your own efforts to dodge the question on the table, let's review.
You made the original assertion in post 79 that--
A large segment of the evolutionist community is made up of a bunch of scared, grant-begging frauds who have cornered the market on a nice sounding theory, shown that it looks kinda logical, and will damned well brook no interference with their claims of having proven it as THE ONLY GAME IN TOWN.And they do not hesitate to publish a bunch of lying, twisted twaddle to keep the scam going and the cash cow mooing.
In response to this remarkable comment, I asked the following in post 87--
Since it is apparent that you've already conducted a thorough survey of the scientific literature (after all, you wouldn't make an accusation like this if you hadn't), perhaps you can share your knowledge. Can you please list for us the fraudulent scientists by name, and list their fraudulent publications by title?I'd be particularly interested in which of the journal articles available at the U.S. National Institutes of Health free digital archive of biomedical and life sciences literature are, in your words, "lying, twisted twaddle to keep the scam going and the cash cow mooing."
If you'll just go to the link I've provided above and plug the word "evolution" into the search engine, I'm sure it would be a simple task for you to identify which of the 86,732 responsive articles are fraudulent and should be avoided.
You have since assiduously avoided identifying any scientist whom you claim to be "a grant-begging fraud," and assiduously avoided identifying any scientific publication (from the NIH archive or otherwise) that you claim to be "lying, twisted twaddle to keep the scam going and the cash cow mooing."
So I repeated my request in post 107, where I stated --
You have the chance here to prove once and for all that “[a] large segment of the evolutionist community is made up of a bunch of scared, grant-begging frauds . . . and they do not hesitate to publish a bunch of lying, twisted twaddle to keep the scam going.”
In response, your post 110 read precisely as follows--
RE: # 107You have the chance here to prove once and for all that “[a] large segment of the evolutionist community is made up of a bunch of scared, grant-begging frauds . . . and they do not hesitate to publish a bunch of lying, twisted twaddle to keep the scam going.”
Without going into a million things that have already been shown dozens of times, let me recommend that you spend some time going through the Evolution/Creation/Intelligent Design threads on this board. It should clearly illustrate to you the almolst hysterical lengths that a large segment of the evolution crown will go to deny any chance that any other alternatives might exist to explain, partially explain, or assist in explaining the phenomona of of life and the changes therein.
Obviously, in direct response to my request for proof of your original assertion that “[a] large segment of the evolutionist community is made up of a bunch of scared, grant-begging frauds . . . and they do not hesitate to publish a bunch of lying, twisted twaddle to keep the scam going," you directed me to review the evo/crevo threads on this board.
And just as obviously, the comments on this internet discussion board are not "publications" by "grant-begging" scientists who are, in your words, looking to keep "the cash cow mooing."
In short, I asked for proof supporting your original assertion, and you provided a perfect non-sequitur.
Hence, my comment in post 120--
Wait a minute. This is an internet discussion board. A principally political one at that. To my knowledge, no one here receives a grant to post their opinion, and the opinions posted here can't remotely be considered "publications."
I do hope that explains "just what in the hell" my comment has to do with yours.
I also stated in post 120--
Your comment that “[a] large segment of the evolutionist community is made up of a bunch of scared, grant-begging frauds . . . and they do not hesitate to publish a bunch of lying, twisted twaddle to keep the scam going,” is quite obviously directed at working scientists who receive grants for their research and publish their results in scientific journals.
You responded-- "Not all of them."
Well, right. According to you (and according to the very comment by you that is under discussion), “a large segment" of them.
You also state-- "Only those who are frauds and liars . . ."
And that, Turret Gunner, is precisely who I am asking you to identify -- the "frauds and liars" who "publish a bunch of lying, twisted twaddle to keep the scam going and the cash cow mooing."
Hence, I also stated in post 120
The NIH digital archive that I linked in post 87 is a mother-load of scientific publications by grant-receiving scientists. If there is evidentiary support for your assertion, it will be found there, not here.
This comment of mine elicited your most peculiar response to date --
HAHAHAHAHA You have got to be joking. That's like saying that the place to find evidence of OJ's innocence will be found in his autobiography.
Actually, Turret Gunner, the place for you to look for "lying, twisted twaddle" that has been "published" by "a bunch of scared, grant-begging frauds" is (hold on to your hat) an archive of scientific publications by grant-receiving scientists. Frankly, I don't know where else you would look.
You have been dodging, weaving, and desperately trying to change the subject, but the question remains -- Can you please list by name the scientists who are "grant-begging frauds," and list by title their "publications" that are "lying, twisted twaddle"?
All you need to do is actually visit that NIH archive you've been avoiding, scan the articles, and list the fraudulent ones by title and author. In fact, I'll make it even easier. Here is a link to a list of articles in the NIH archive that discuss evolution. Have at it.
“You may not like this, but science is defined by its method. Change the method and it is no longer science.”
“Some things stay the same, even in this relativistic age.”
I disagree. What was considered “science” has changed over time. It can change again and probably will.
You need to learn to “adapt”, or you may be “naturally selected” for extinction. :-)
Not one-tenth the trouble you have reading and understanding what I write -- and about what I write.
YOU: First you say -- Would you mind telling me just what in the hell that has to do with my quote to which you seem to be replying? Where have I ever said that anyone posting on this board is receiving any grants? And, where does it say anything about "publications"?
All right, Turret Gunner, since you've apparently become hopelessly lost in your own efforts to dodge the question on the table, let's review.
You can stop lying now -- I have not dodged a damned thing. You just have not been able to understand enough of what I have posted to ask an intelligent question ABOUT WHAT I HAVE CONTENDED, AND ABOUT WHOM.
YOU:You made the original assertion in post 79 that--
A large segment of the evolutionist community is made up of a bunch of scared, grant-begging frauds who have cornered the market on a nice sounding theory, shown that it looks kinda logical, and will damned well brook no interference with their claims of having proven it as THE ONLY GAME IN TOWN.
And they do not hesitate to publish a bunch of lying, twisted twaddle to keep the scam going and the cash cow mooing.
In response to this remarkable comment, I asked the following in post 87-- Since it is apparent that you've already conducted a thorough survey of the scientific literature (after all, you wouldn't make an accusation like this if you hadn't), perhaps you can share your knowledge.
What leads you to that conclusion? I said nothing to lesd you to believe that. Quit making assumptions based on you THINK I said. YOU:Can you please list for us the fraudulent scientists by name, and list their fraudulent publications by title?
Again, I said nothing about individual scientists of about any publications. I'd be particularly interested in which of the journal articles available at the U.S. National Institutes of Health free digital archive of biomedical and life sciences literature are, in your words, "lying, twisted twaddle to keep the scam going and the cash cow mooing."
Where did I ever post that I had read any publications saying any such thing? If you'll just go to the link I've provided above and plug the word "evolution" into the search engine, I'm sure it would be a simple task for you to identify which of the 86,732 responsive articles are fraudulent and should be avoided.
Why should I? I have not in any way discussed publications -- nor do I intend to, unless I so wish. What I said has nothing to do with your precious “publications.“ You have since assiduously avoided identifying any scientist whom you claim to be "a grant-begging fraud," and assiduously avoided identifying any scientific publication (from the NIH archive or otherwise) that you claim to be "lying, twisted twaddle to keep the scam going and the cash cow mooing."
Please read this very carefully, and see if you can understand what it says>I spoke of “A large segment of the evolutionist community is made up of a bunch of scared, grant-begging frauds who have cornered the market on a nice sounding theory, shown that it looks kinda logical, and will damned well brook no interference with their claims of having proven it as THE ONLY GAME IN TOWN. “
And they do not hesitate to publish a bunch of lying, twisted twaddle to keep the scam going and the cash cow mooing.
Now you show me where I singled out scientists, mentioned any publications, or even denied the theory of evolutin itself. And have made such a fuss over what you THINK I sid, I challenge you to say that ALL in the elolutionist community, scientists and laymen laymen alike, are kindly souls and honest as the day is born. Come on, you challenged me to show proof of things I never said -- I challenge you to prove that my statement is entirely false.
So I repeated my request in post 107, where I stated -- You have the chance here to prove once and for all that “[a] large segment of the evolutionist community is made up of a bunch of scared, grant-begging frauds . . . and they do not hesitate to publish a bunch of lying, twisted twaddle to keep the scam going.”
In response, your post 110 read precisely as follows--
RE: # 107
You have the chance here to prove once and for all that “[a] large segment of the evolutionist community is made up of a bunch of scared, grant-begging frauds . . . and they do not hesitate to publish a bunch of lying, twisted twaddle to keep the scam going.” Without going into a million things that have already been shown dozens of times, let me recommend that you spend some time going through the Evolution/Creation/Intelligent Design threads on this board. It should clearly illustrate to you the almost hysterical lengths that a large segment of the evolution crowd will go to deny any chance that any other alternatives might exist to explain, partially explain, or assist in explaining the phenomona of of life and the changes therein.
Obviously, in direct response to my request for proof of your original assertion that “[a] large segment of the evolutionist community is made up of a bunch of scared, grant-begging frauds . . . and they do not hesitate to publish a bunch of lying, twisted twaddle to keep the scam going," you directed me to review the evo/crevo threads on this board.
And just as obviously, the comments on this internet discussion board are not "publications" by "grant-begging" scientists who are, in your words, looking to keep "the cash cow mooing."
Why do you persist with this crap about "publications" by "grant-begging" scientists, when I have never mentioned anything about such publications -- or any other publications, for that matter? The only reason I can think of is that I used the word “publish“. If that is so, then you have just shown your ignorance of the fact that it DOES NOT always refer to publications such as essays, reports, magaziners, newspapers, etc.
Def: Publish: - 1. To make publicly known; announce., proclaim, divulge, or promulgate. 2. To issue(a printed work, etc,) to the public, as for sale.
Webster’s New World Dictionary
Where does the first definition say that something must be in writing to be published?
In short, I asked for proof supporting your original assertion, and you provided a perfect non-sequitur. Hence, my comment in post 120-- Wait a minute. This is an internet discussion board. A principally political one at that. To my knowledge, no one here receives a grant to post their opinion, and the opinions posted here can't remotely be considered "publications." I do hope that explains "just what in the hell" my comment has to do with yours. I also stated in post 120-- Your comment that “[a] large segment of the evolutionist community is made up of a bunch of scared, grant-begging frauds . . . and they do not hesitate to publish a bunch of lying, twisted twaddle to keep the scam going,” is quite obviously directed at working scientists who receive grants for their research and publish their results in scientific journals. You responded-- "Not all of them." Well, right. According to you (and according to the very comment by you that is under discussion), “a large segment" of them. You also state-- "Only those who are frauds and liars . . ." And that, Turret Gunner, is precisely who I am asking you to identify -- the "frauds and liars" who "publish a bunch of lying, twisted twaddle to keep the scam going and the cash cow mooing." Hence, I also stated in post 120 The NIH digital archive that I linked in post 87 is a mother-load of scientific publications by grant-receiving scientists. If there is evidentiary support for your assertion, it will be found there, not here. This comment of mine elicited your most peculiar response to date -- HAHAHAHAHA You have got to be joking. That's like saying that the place to find evidence of OJ's innocence will be found in his autobiography. Actually, Turret Gunner, the place for you to look for "lying, twisted twaddle" that has been "published" by "a bunch of scared, grant-begging frauds" is (hold on to your hat) an archive of scientific publications by grant-receiving scientists. Frankly, I don't know where else you would look. You have been dodging, weaving, and desperately trying to change the subject ….
That’s a damned lie, because you have never gotten around to discussing or even recognizing “the subject” of wht I actually said.
Learn to read and get back to me.
Nice final dodge. “I never said what I said, and even if I did, what I said didn’t mean what I said.”
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.