I picked one at random and investigated it. It was not as advertised. I’m willing to see what you have to offer, but I’m not going to get jerked around being sent to wade through thousands of pages looking for what you claim is there.
what I claim is factual and without lying. Whether you decide to follow up to read what I’ve read or not is entirely unimportant to me nor does your refusal to do so should you choose that path negate or nullify any of the facts or anything I’ve said. I’ll not spend my hours spelling every bit of the puzzle out over and over only to have to constantly be bogged down in the most inane arguments when the facts can be discovered just as easily by you asd they were by me. I provided you with headstarts- what you do for here on out isd of no concern to me.
it is apparent from your posts that you adopt the argumentative’ tactics’ of some others on this forum who ignore the truly problematic issues while rummaging the building over looking for spider webs with which to accuse the owner of being an unfit caretaker when the majority of what is accomplished by the caretaker is more than adequate to maintain the building in fine fine shape. In other words- it seems apparentr that you’re willing to ignore the bulk of evidence just for the chance to fine moot points with which to argue- apparently it’s your hope to disuade others from from taking the bulk seriously by pointing out that some moot points aren’t entirel;y 200% spot on.
Stultis said he knew of noone who doubted the model of evolution, I provided enough evidences to show that secular scientists do infact have doubts, you seem bent on trying to undermine just one example by asserting that you’re not 100% satisified that the meeting resulted in scientific doubts about the model of evolution simply because a certain number of eyewitness accounts wasn’t cited by just one of the websites I listed. This is akin to you saying something like “I don’t beleive a rock can be over 10 lbs” and My showing you a rock that is infact over 10 lbs, but you refusing to beleive it because a certain number of people haven’t verified that the rock in question is indeed a rock. IU then state that there is a fella that has examined it in detail, has gone on record, and has put his entire career on the line doing so, yet has indeed done so. You fire back that you know of noone personally who knows tyhis fella, I state that there are folks who know this fella personally and who have given testimony to this, which I then show you, and then you basically calling me a liar because because the folks I show testimony from wrote about the original scientist’s findings after he did the actual annalysis.
You see how that goes? It’s nothign more than petty asrguing just for the sake of arguing, and results in nothing more than avoidance of the central issue of whether the rock is indeed over 10 lbs or not. It’s a merry-go-round ride for kids.
Your assumed doubt asbout the fact that the htree major scientific meetings I mentioned didn’t result in serious doubts about the model of evolution has no credence because of your refusal to investigate the facts further. The findings of the mathemeticians in the Wistar meeting can be found by anyone who isn’t content to just rest in their denial/doubt and refuse to search. Heck- even their methematical equasions can easily be found. I’ve run across them numerous times myself. Heck, even Their comments on the methematical impossibilities of random mutations creating NEW information can be found.
I’m equally confident that the reporters who attended the other meetings (as mentioned by the site I listed) did not lie, did not invent, and did not twist their observations in an effort to falsely report something that didn’t take place, and I’m just as convinced that further digging into the matter will corroberate their accounts of the meetings.
If you would like to sign up to the following site, you can obtain a copy of the 1967 wistar meeting here: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/160/3826/408.pdf
Otherwise, you can find the information about the meeting in places all over the net such as sites like: http://www.icr.org/article/493/
or as thjis site points out
“When I first came across the title of a book, Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, I assumed it was a piece of creationist propaganda. But I could hardly have been more wrong. It was the proceedings of a high-level international conference, where some of the world’s greatest Darwinists and a number of mathematicians met to discuss whether Darwinism made mathematical sense.
The mathematicians present were not merely eminent in their own fields. They were invited because of their specialist knowledge of biology, many of them having done mathematical research related to one of the life sciences. Even so, the conference proceedings make rather sad reading. The two groups seemed unable to find much common ground: instead, they kept restating their opposing points of view.”
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/griffith/Eye_Refutes_Evolution.html
We’re not talking about pro-creation scientists at that wistar meeting, we’re talking about the top scientists in their fields who had doubts and explained why they had doubtsd with their evidences to back up their doubtsd.
But as I said- you can investigate the other meetings further or not- I don’t care which, but what I said about those meetings I stand by.