Replies

The University of Chicago professor (two of my previous posts have links) asserted that he had "launched" a new species of fruit fly. It doesn't take a close reading at all to find out that nothing of the sort had happened, but the scientist when on to say, "It's happened...at least it'll happen any second now! All indications are go!" This is a scientist? I'm supposed to take this ridiculous braggart seriously? And I refused to do so--I also refused to forget about it. If he says "any moment now!", why not check back to see if that moment has occurred? That was well over a year ago. When people pointed out--"There is no fly"--they were greeted with hoots of "Superstition."

But, there was no fly.

These are not scientists as much as they are priests. They don't present a reasonable theory, they insist I ascribe to it lest I be "ignorant".

I don't know how life began, and I don't credit these erstwhile Darwin-thumpers who claim to know, either. I have beliefs--but I don't call people "superstitious" or "ignorant" who don't happen to agree.

If this is science, it should be demonstrable and accountable--anything else is theorizing. Theorizing is OK--it's truth-seeking, but it's not truth itself.

You didn't answer my question. Who is trying to prove that no gods exist?

I don't know how life began, and I don't credit these erstwhile Darwin-thumpers who claim to know, either

There you go again ...

The University of Chicago professor (two of my previous posts have links) asserted that he had "launched" a new species of fruit fly. It doesn't take a close reading at all to find out that nothing of the sort had happened, but the scientist when on to say, "It's happened...at least it'll happen any second now! All indications are go!" This is a scientist? I'm supposed to take this ridiculous braggart seriously? And I refused to do so--I also refused to forget about it. If he says "any moment now!", why not check back to see if that moment has occurred? That was well over a year ago. When people pointed out--"There is no fly"--they were greeted with hoots of "Superstition."

Just one question: Are you truly under the impression that this is an accurate summary of that article, and the subsequent discussion? Because if so, you're vastly mistaken.

Or are you just lying about it?

Either way, your misrepresentation bears little resemblance to the reality.

Hmm, come to think of it, the same could be said for most of your posts on this thread.

These are not scientists as much as they are priests. They don't present a reasonable theory, they insist I ascribe to it lest I be "ignorant".

Whatever you say, hon. You believe whatever helps you deal with those pesky "facts" thingies.

I don't know how life began, and I don't credit these erstwhile Darwin-thumpers who claim to know, either.

Obviously.

I have beliefs--but I don't call people "superstitious" or "ignorant" who don't happen to agree.

Neither do I. I call people ignorant when they *are* ignorant -- when they have little or no knowledge of a field, but insist on pontificating on it anyway and using their misconceptions (and often outright fantasies) in order to get snotty with people who *do* have such knowledge. When someone spews multiple inanities which are in direct opposition to the *facts*, they're being ignorant. And for some reason the more ignorant someone is on a particular topic, the more belligerently arrogant they seem to be about it -- perhaps as a defense mechanism. Instead, they would be well advised to have some humility -- especially when they have so *very* much to be humble about.