| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"david ford" |
| Date: |
01 Dec 2003 10:21:11 PM |
| Object: |
Re: 1980 Eldredge: "time to reexamine" theory of NS |
On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Lenny Flank wrote:
david ford:
Eldredge, Niles. July 1980. "An Extravagance of Species"
_Natural History_, 47-51. Paragraphs from 48, 50, and 51:
Is this before, or after, Eldredge says that creationists are liars
and poor scholars, and that creation "science" is bankrupt and
dishonest.
I am an old-earth creationist that rejects "creation science," which says
that the earth and universe is about 10,000 years old.
Do you consider me to be a liar? If so, on what basis do you arrive at
that conclusion?
Do you consider me to be a poor scholar? If so, on what basis do you
arrive at that conclusion?
.
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: 1980 Eldredge: "time to reexamine" theory of NS |
03 Dec 2003 10:45:17 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 04:21:11 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Lenny Flank wrote:
david ford:
Eldredge, Niles. July 1980. "An Extravagance of Species"
_Natural History_, 47-51. Paragraphs from 48, 50, and 51:
Is this before, or after, Eldredge says that creationists are liars
and poor scholars, and that creation "science" is bankrupt and
dishonest.
I am an old-earth creationist that rejects "creation science," which says
that the earth and universe is about 10,000 years old.
Do you consider me to be a liar? If so, on what basis do you arrive at
that conclusion?
Do you consider me to be a poor scholar? If so, on what basis do you
arrive at that conclusion?
I don't consider you a liar, David. I considered you willfully ignorant.
--
Aaron Clausen
tao_of_cow/\alberni.net (replace /\ with @)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lenny Flank" |
|
| Title: Re: 1980 Eldredge: "time to reexamine" theory of NS |
03 Dec 2003 10:37:38 AM |
|
|
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0312012322300.21762-100000@linux1.gl.umbc.edu>...
On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Lenny Flank wrote:
david ford:
Eldredge, Niles. July 1980. "An Extravagance of Species"
_Natural History_, 47-51. Paragraphs from 48, 50, and 51:
Is this before, or after, Eldredge says that creationists are liars
and poor scholars, and that creation "science" is bankrupt and
dishonest.
I am an old-earth creationist that rejects "creation science," which says
that the earth and universe is about 10,000 years old.
As someone once said, "a difference is a difference only if it makes a
difference".
Both YEC's and OEC's are equally nutty.
Do you consider me to be a liar?
Yes.
If so, on what basis do you arrive at
that conclusion?
You claim your religious opinions to be "science".
Do you consider me to be a poor scholar?
Yes.
If so, on what basis do you
arrive at that conclusion?
You don't know a prokaryote from a pachyderm, and wouldn't know
evolutionary biology if it reached up and bit you on the *****.
That's the kind of poor scholarship that happens when you get all your
"science" information from creationist religious tracts.
===============================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation Email list:
http://www.groups.yahoo/group/DebunkCreation
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: 1980 Eldredge: "time to reexamine" theory of NS |
01 Dec 2003 11:02:45 PM |
|
|
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Lenny Flank wrote:
david ford:
Eldredge, Niles. July 1980. "An Extravagance of Species"
_Natural History_, 47-51. Paragraphs from 48, 50, and 51:
Is this before, or after, Eldredge says that creationists are liars
and poor scholars, and that creation "science" is bankrupt and
dishonest.
I am an old-earth creationist that rejects "creation science," which says
that the earth and universe is about 10,000 years old.
Do you consider me to be a liar? If so, on what basis do you arrive at
that conclusion?
Do you consider me to be a poor scholar? If so, on what basis do you
arrive at that conclusion?
david, *I* don't consider you a liar, in fact I consider you to be an
honest man in intent, but I do think you show poor scholarship.
You cherrypick quotes without regard to context or the state of debates,
you read only part of the source material without attempting to
sympathetically understand the author's POV, and you seem to think that
a lack of monolithy in the views of scientists in a discipline
indicates, somehow, that the discipline is "in crisis".
And yet, you never seem to respond when folk reply to you, at least not
in any depth or even covering the entirety of how people have taken the
trouble to reply. You never defend these interminable regurgiposts, and
when challenged to back up the implications you are drawing out however
poorly or tacitly, you won't do it.
Now suppose I did the same thing for the Christian religion (or whatever
POV you favour personally). Would you take my opinions thus expressed to
be on a par with the leading theologians or specialists in that domain?
I sure as hell wouldn't expect you to.
So I think I am justified in claiming that your POV over evolution is
bankrupt. I am not claiming that the *theological* doctrine of cretion
is dishonest or bankrupt, but the snide attacks on "Neo-Darwinism"
(which you refuse to define or elaborate) are. Sorry.
--
John Wilkins
DARK IN HERE, ISN'T IT?
wilkins.id.au
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Giwer" |
|
| Title: Re: 1980 Eldredge: "time to reexamine" theory of NS |
02 Dec 2003 10:39:29 PM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Lenny Flank wrote:
david ford:
Eldredge, Niles. July 1980. "An Extravagance of Species"
_Natural History_, 47-51. Paragraphs from 48, 50, and 51:
Is this before, or after, Eldredge says that creationists are liars
and poor scholars, and that creation "science" is bankrupt and
dishonest.
I am an old-earth creationist that rejects "creation science," which says
that the earth and universe is about 10,000 years old.
Do you consider me to be a liar? If so, on what basis do you arrive at
that conclusion?
Do you consider me to be a poor scholar? If so, on what basis do you
arrive at that conclusion?
The problem with young earth, old earth or last tuesdayism is there is no point in time
that anyone can define in useful terms that requires divine intervention. Changing the
time at which it occured does not change the nature of the assertion of intervention.
--
With all the talk of Middle East peace no one seems
to notice no one in Palestine has the power to
negotiate the property rights of the refugees.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2928
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
