Replies

My god man, when will you give it up? You live in a knowledge vacuum, plain and simple. This is not an "ad hominem attack," but rather one of the facts that you creationists supposedly search for...

From the poorly written article:
"And we should do so in an open public forum whenever the opportunity presents itself."

As has been stated here a million times, scientific debate is not meant for public spectacle. Truth be told, it's a tedious, boring exercise detailing minute facts, written out over tens of thousands of pages in hundreds of texts, journals, online resources, museum placards, etc. Get with it. "Debating" a showman like Duane Gish is pure folly. Gould knew this, which is why he discouraged it. Gish would simply spew 35 fallacies allowing minimal time to answer part of one, and declare himself a winner. Again, it's stupid. Anything on the ICR website is easily refuted by an 11th grade honors student in writing, but even Gould couldn't keep up with Gish's sideshow on a stage. It is just a waste of time to do so.

From the poorly written article:
"Recently, I asked Dr. Dini for that proof. He didn’t respond."

And why should he? Do you respond to the junk email you get on a daily basis? Do you hit reply and write, "No thanks, I don't currently have a need to see teenage girls in all their carnal glory, thanks." Believe me, creation garbage is akin to this... pure nonsense that doesn't warrant a response. (So why am I doing it? ; )

From the poorly written article:
"Dini’s silence as well as the silence of other evolutionists speaks volumes about the current status of the discipline of biology."

Yes, "silence." /sarcasm> Let's take a trip to the Library of congress and add up the silence of 150 years of research, books, journals, magazines, texts, tomes, treatises, proposals, and reference materials. Lets put all this "silence" on one side of a scale and gather up the AiG and ICR and their ilk's cute little pocket paperback lie-filled garbage and see. "Silence" indeed.

Do yourself a favor, Remedy, and remove thy head from thine posterior.

wj ...

As has been stated here a million times, scientific debate is not meant for public spectacle. Truth be told, it's a tedious, boring exercise detailing minute facts, written out over tens of thousands of pages in hundreds of texts, journals, online resources, museum placards, etc.

fC ...

classic ... elitisim !

To: f.Christian

fC...

Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives(no govt religion--none) who advocated growth and progress---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality... UNDER GOD---the nature of GOD/man/govt. does not change.

LC...

Now I follow, thank you. Actually, I don't disagree with this at all since I see the left as abandoning the uncertianty of democracy and majority rule (( constitutional // law ))** for the assurance technocracy and expert rule (( dictatorship // tyranny ))**.

152 posted on 9/10/02 12:17 PM Pacific by Liberal Classic

** .. .. .. my additions !

Boshevik monopoly (( experts )) ... social // mind engineers ---

Brainwashing (( God // Truth )) -- Indoctrination (( lies // evolution // atheism )) !

Main Entry: tech·no·crat
Pronunciation: 'tek-n&-"krat
Function: noun
Date: 1932
1 : an adherent of technocracy
2 : a technical expert; especially : one exercising managerial authority

Main Entry: tech·noc·ra·cy
Pronunciation: tek-'nä-kr&-sE
Function: noun
Date: circa 1919
: government by technicians; specifically : management of society by technical experts