Posted on 06/22/2006 1:28:41 PM PDT by Tim Long
Well, just as I have been contending all evening on this silly thread about so many....you are like so many others.
YOU DON'T KNOW HOW TO READ THE TEXT!
You do not even it seems to know why I posted to you the first time anymore.
Go away, you are worthless and weak.
Excellent news
You must have missed my previous post about evaluating all the pet theories that anyone can come up with.
"...everything they can to prevent anyone from seriously evaluating" the Pixie Theory of gravity? The shaman's theory of infertility? The witch doctor's theory of smallpox?
Yes, indeed, you are right. There is a bias in aeronautical engineering departments and at Boeing against the theory that angels keep airplanes aloft. There is a bias toward aerodynamics.
In medical schools, there is a bias toward using X-rays and blood analyses, rather than using psychics and exorcists. I suspect you may have benefited from this bias. If you are honest.
Is there a reason why you are upset about this?
You're correct, I was about to make the same comment myself after reading what he wrote, but then I saw that you beat me to it.
Whatever other competence this guy may or may not have in the field of science, he's clearly completely clueless when it comes to evolutionary biology (which, frankly, has been my experience with every single anti-evolutionist to date).
He writes:
Modern Darwinism is built on what I will be calling “The Primary Axiom”. The Primary Axiom is that man is merely the product of random mutations plus natural selection. Within our society’s academia, the Primary Axiom is universally taught, and almost universally accepted. It is the constantly mouthed mantra, repeated endlessly on every college campus. It is very difficult to find any professor on any college campus who would even consider (or should I say – dare) to question the Primary Axiom….This is, in short, completely idiotic. Anyone who actually has the slightest familiarity with evolutionary biology knows that not only does evolutionary biology encompass more than just "random mutations plus natural selection". For pete's sake, as even Darwin himself wrote in the 1872 edition of On the Origin of Species:
"As my conclusions have lately been much misrepresented, and it has been stated that I attribute the modification of species exclusively to natural selection, I may be permitted to remark that in the first edition of this work, and subsequently, I placed in a most conspicuous position—namely at the close of the Introduction—the following words: "I am convinced that natural selection has been the main but not the exclusive means of modification." This has been of no avail. Great is the power of steady misrepresentation."Apparently Sanford is 134 years behind in his reading on this subject. This does not inspire confidence in his ability to add anything of value to this subject, if he's so ignorant as to think that evolutionary biology involves only mutations and natural selection...
He additionally parrots the usual mantra of the more ignorant anti-evolutionists when he claims that no one would "dare" question the axioms of evolutionary biology. This is utter idiocy -- anyone who bothers to actually read the science journals relating to evolutionary biology knows full well that it gets questioned all the time. That's the very nature of scientific research, and even the most basic tenets of evolutionary biology -- and everything else in science -- gets questioned, tested, challenged, and otherwise beat on all the damned time.
So I repeat -- on this subject, at least, Sanford is an idiot. But then, that seems a requirement for anti-evolutionists. I have yet to meet one in my 30+ years of involvement in this subject who didn't reveal his incompetence on this subject in very short order. And yes, that includes Dembski, as well as Coulter's recent pack of falsehoods on the subject.
Ha, something I can give you more enlightenment on.
Actually, there was an article in one of today's local Boston papers.
It seems that Congress girlie man Barney Fank's political action team has been disrupting the Wikipedia profile of a contender in November's election.
Also it seems that nobody ever heard of the guy, but Frank's spokesperson felt compelled to issue a denial anyhow.
I have the article right here, but I cannot find it on line for you right now. I'll look again later. Sometimes that stuff pops up on line after a day or so.
Pretty funny stuff actually, but Barney Frank in Congress, that I do not find amusing.
I think it is time for you to take a break. Your personal insults are getting a little weak and ragged.
Doctoral degrees in what? Ph. D's in Business, Management, History, English, Finance, any language, IT, Computer Science, Arts, Humanities, Education, Basket Weaving, etc. do not count as valid opinion's on evolution.
Not that I've seen. Perhaps you could attempt to support your allegation.
How much? I can't know because I can't trust the people doing the research.
Paranoia is a treatable condition.
The tactics (I see) supporting Evolution in Universities are the exact same tactics I see supporting Liberal Social policies. Ridicule, denial of funding and tenure, name-calling.
I see -- and exactly how which universities have you attended and had personal experience of the way they "support Evolution"?
I PROMISE, I want to know the truth. One of my pet peeves with the Right is when we ignore facts that we find uncomfortable or defend politicians doing the indefensible because they have an R by their name. I don't want to be one of those people.
That's an excellent start.
If Evolution is right, I want to believe it.
Well, there are vast and overwhelming mountains of evidence along multiple independently cross-confirming lines that it is.
Onelifetogive: but the fact that no other explanation is permitted to even be considered.
The point is that you went from 0 to demonize in 4.5 microseconds. This would illustrate the whole "no other explanation considered" thing.
On crevo threads I have read so often of "the evolutionist, Nazi, Marxist, communist, humanist, secularist, 'anti-Christian' conspiracy to fluoridate the water supply and destroy all morality". Are you aware of this plot?
I'm not aware or interested.
Maybe, but if you wind up dead by relying on prayer or exorcism rather than antibiotics, that is your choice. But if you rely on prayer and the Theory of Eating Grasshoppers and your child dies, you will go to prison. And deservedly so. Rejecting the accepted modern science of medicine is not acceptable in any church I know of (note that Christian Scientists have gone to jail). And not accepted under the law. What church-belief do you hold to that chooses to withhold established and effective treatments to a child or loved one? Which church-belief do you take as gospel to challenge X-rays or MRI? Do you actually know what an X-ray is?
Just how do you plan to separate out all "the non-approved" theories? Do you want your doctor to be a graduate of the Moonies Medical School or the Church of the Universal Triumphant?
I think your post is dishonest. I think that you rely on modern science as much as the rest of us.
But science is a whole. You can't say, "this part I like, this part I reject". Science describes the world as we find it, like it or not.
I think Ann did far more damage to her reputation as a researcher than she did to the theory of evolution.
Well, that lets the creationists out.
I have yet to see any creationists on these threads with a really solid grounding in the evolutionary sciences. Generally they seem to despise those sciences, and make the most basic of errors on simple facts and definitions. Most seem to get their talking points from creationist websites, and what they try to pass off as science is generally ludicrous.
Clay, at least, contains real atoms. Aluminium, silicon, oxygen, hydrogen, usually bits of iron, magnesium, and other elements. The God Hypothesis is about 'pure spirit' and misses out on the lowly atoms of reality.
]
You totally and completely missed the point of my post.
I do rely on modern science.
Non sequitur alert, non sequitur alert
You just compared comparative techniques of medical treatment and diagnosis to evolution. By "comparative", I mean that an X-Ray generates a picture of a bone that is compared to a known standard. The same holds true with the MRI. Modern medicine is largely based on comparative experiments on humans and animals which track evidence impirically and develop charts and trends. Evolution is not permitted to be compared to anything without garnering snide tin foil hat comments. Hence my comment that when discussing evolution the scientific method is often discarded by people who would normally apply it to just about everything else.
Except for the science that you are told to disregard by your church?
Your bias against evolution leads you to post falsely about science and evolution.
Upset?
All of your responses have to do with the lunacy of the theories competing with evolution. I have not pushed a competing theory. I am troubled by the historical (and current) tactics and dishonesty of the defenders of evolution. There is NO requirement that there be a competing theory. I question evolution because its supporters are fighting so hard to keep it from being questioned.
Wrong. Every finding is studied "comparitively" and against established standards.
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.