Posted on 10/06/2002 8:16:21 AM PDT by hispanarepublicana
He says in the future he'll try and be more "circumspect" around creationists, but he at least, doesn't call them liars.
I realize Patterson's letter, Darwin's Enigma and Kitcher's comments are challenging your worldview. There's nothing I can do about that. I also realize, and have previously commented on just this, that reading your many posts on the subject that you do not give credit, not even the slightest, to someone who challenges your worldview, even in the smallest way.
I posted the letter but you don't want to recognize it for what it is. You deny, you indirectly deny spin exists in a political situation mentioned by one of your own.
If it's so obvious, it shouldn't be hard for you to explain it, right?
It is so obvious, so damning, so damaging to your worldview that you don't want to admit it! You refuse. You obfuscate. You try to turn it around.
I am not going to continue this little battle - it's a waste of time. I have work to do. Plus, the wife is on a retreat and I have two boys age 2 and 6 to pick up and take care of for 3 days. I invite you to stop by, we'll BBQ, have pizza and do other guy stuff all weekend. Sorry gals.
Hmmmmmmmmmmm.
Now I know what the joke is.
And the proof of the last sentence is???????
....readily apparent to anyone who looks at the evidence with an open mind. Sorry, Gore3000, my policy is not to try to argue with nuts or fanatics. The statement that atheists cannot be physicians placed you in that category, along with f.Christian. Have a nice life.
In a sense. There are lots of interesting areas in real science for which you can't easily get funding. Universities will tend to avoid hiring in those areas. Now if you consider that 99% of us consider creationism to be a fringe religious movement and not a science, you can imagine that it would be doubly impossible for a creationist bioloigst to get hired.
Both birds and flowers have pigmentation, but the molecular structures and biosyntheses of these pigments are very different. Why would a designer do that? Why use a completely different mechanism for making a red pigment in two unrelated organisms? After all, the result - a red color - is the same.
In many ways, Intelligent Design is a misnomer. If you consider the biome as a designed entity, there's massive duplication and waste. Why did the designer reinvent the wheel, many many times over?
The question is not so much "Why continue it?" as "Why start it?" You jump in to save the meaningfulness of one Colin Patterson quote from a list that included Frances Hitching cited as an archaeologist, the ancient "secular creationist" Heribert Nilsson, the odious John Woodmorappe (exposed here, here, and here), "evolutionist" Michael Denton (really!), Tom Kemp, and how many more misrepresentations?
You and Pietro both, putting your blinders on. How many lies to we have to catch? What's the bet that Ready2go does anything except post the whole list again on some other thread, complete with Hitching, Nilsson, Woodmorappe, "evolutionist" Denton, and all?
What's the excuse for this selective attention span?
It's either that or a severe lack of comprehension and reading skills, maybe a combination.
Sorry to break ranks a little, but it doesn't look to me like that's the case. You had said that the letter itself showed that these scientists were saying to themselves things that they wouldn't say to the general public, and the general was reasonably asking specifically what it was you were referring to.
But if I might venture to answer that question myself, I do think it's highly significant that they would intimate that the fossil record provides an unreliable support for the theory of evolution. You certainly wouldn't get that impression from talking to VadeRetro, that's for sure. And it's also, as I see it, not the impression that the general public receives at all from the scientific establishment.
I find it inconsistent that whenever a critic of Darwin is not in the field of biology, that person is pilloried as a moron having no relevance to the discussion. However, Darwininians always crow loudly whenever the slightest hint of imagined support for Darwin's musing comes forth in a field far removed from biology. I give the example of the oscillator, ersatz radio receiver.
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.