Posted on 09/27/2006 9:56:09 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
Do you believe the Pentagon was bombed by the US Government, the WTC towers imploded with bombs, and that the moon were landings faked too?
If you really thought so, you wouldn't edit it to make it appear to be asking something it isn't.
I gather you are an expert in liars. I can't understand that since you believe in the lie of evolution. I believe that takes away your expertism in liars.
And that the earth is flat, and the sun revolves around the earth.... etc.
Why do people get so worked up about this stuff? There is no conflict between belief in God, and evolution. None.
I am not trying to pick a fight but do you really have knowledge of the fossil history of the mudskipper?
I've raised questions about at least one of his conclusions on this thread, but will re-interate for your benefit.
If Darwinism (TToE) is indeed "first and foremost a weapon against religion" then the logical conclusion is that the author(s) of the theory intentionally constructed it for that purpose. If that is the case, then he's implicitly accusing the author(s) of the theory of intentionally construting a fraudulent theory with the specific intent of destroying religion. He's further accusing the vast majority of the scientific community of either being unable to recognize a fraudulent theory when they see one or being complicit in the deception. I seriously question the basis upon which he is able to meke this determination, and find nothing in the article to support such a conclusion.
You are right - I totally misread your question - my bad. I retract (figuratively) my previous comment.
Your position: I just questioned what where he got his degree from has to do with what motivated him to pursue it.
If he got his degrees from a "Moonie" University you might have an argument but he went to UC and UC granted him the Ph.D. so one of the best schools in the country declared that he understood the subject matter and excelled to the point of being granted a Ph.D.
BTW: the topic of this sub-thread is "Evo's dismiss Well's work based on what they think are his motives"
Wells himself has never attributed his pursuit of biology as being divinely inspired, with the objective of using it to refute TToE?
That is not a logical conclusion.
Using you logic:
The Beatles intentionally told Mason to kill people because Mason said (paraphrased) "first and foremost the Beatles' records told us to kill"
How something is used has no direct connection to how it was made.
Why are you directing that comment to me?
You brought up the subject of intentionality by discussing the definition of "lie" -- a false statement, knowingly made for some purpose.
The statement that evolution is anti-religious is a false statement. If you care to discuss this, kindly answer my questions -- posed several times -- on how evolution's relationship to religion is different from that of other sciences that have findings in conflict with a literal reading of the bible. Why is mathematics not anti-science for differing with the Bible on the value of Pi? Why is physics not anti-science for its estimate of the age of the universe? Why is it not anti-science to say the earth moves?
Sorry, the "fat lady" hasn't sung yet.
Because you appear certain that any assumptions about his motives are unfounded and/or erroneous.
In other words, "if you do not agree with my position you are a) a goon, and b) incapable of thinking for yourself."
The air is dripping with arrogance here.
That statement does not make senses. I was not speaking of "intentionality" - I could care less about intention - somebody claimed the Wells piece contained lies and I asked them to point out the lies and reminded them of the definition of lie.
Intention has nothing to do with whether or not a statement is a lie.
Sorry, Billy Jeff doesn't blush - he becomes red in the face from anger though.
It has nothing to do with arrogance. It's about education and those who's minds are hermetically sealed shut operating on low battery power.
And yes, those who subscribe to creationism are incapable of really thinking about the reality of the history of the planet and the universe.
"However, this is not true if one holds to the literal inerrancy of the Bible.:
Please explain what inerrancy of the Bible.
I don't believe in tenure or seniority. Someone who has been a member one hour may add more value than someone here five years.
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.