off_world_beings wrote: > --- In [email protected], Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Lay off the egg nog! >> >> > > STRAWMAN ATTACK ! , STRAWMAN ATTACK ! > :-) > > Either that or the Jim Beam. Maybe you should go have holiday drinks with your schools physic department dean. :D > <<You still haven't answered my question as to what > >> you teach at college. >> >> > > Graphic Design > Very useful field if taught correctly. Unfortunately it wasn't 10 years ago when I worked with colleges where graphic design profs were afraid of computers and didn't have any idea what PhotoShop or Illustrator was other than their students asking for courses in them. > <<Real scientists know that we've only scratched > >> the surface of knowledge and have a long way to go. >> >> > > That is why I only go by research published in resepected peer- > reviewed scientific journals, not personal scientists opinions. > You can't form an opinion yourself? > Bhairitu...are you actually saying that the experienced scientists > who have worked in the field for decades and believe in creationism > and a 6,000 year old earth are right? Your argument is absurd. > No, I'm speaking in reference to TM research. I did not really follow all the ramble that went on here but basically discussing your statement regarding "peer reviewed science." I especially do not trust much of medical science since I have studied alternative approaches and find much of allopathic research IS skewed to favor the pharmaceutical companies. Occasionally a western medicine study comes out that validates centuries of knowledge from ayurveda which wouldn't still be around if it wasn't true.
> You are missing the point, due to a poorly developed rational > ability. You STILL refuse to say that the 21st century will be about > research published in resepected peer-reviewed scientific journals, > instead you want to avoid stating that because you, like Ted > Haggard , George Bush, the Taliban and the 15th century Catholic > church want to ignore science and apply your own anti-science > fundamentalist approach. > Hardly. Anyone who knows me personally would tell you I'm "very technical" and often lose them on what I'm talking about. You might notice that on certain topics here I probably put people to sleep because I go too deep technically. :) Neither do I think that many of the folks on FFL you named believe in any way "creationism." I don't even think the resident "righties" believe in it. What I'm saying is totally the opposite. Science still isn't up to speed because of the way they teach scientists conditioning them to think only a certain way. Only the rebels break away. > You people are so weak and afraid to state such a simple thing. > > It has nothing to do with TM, but you are SOOOOOOooooooo AFRAID to > say this simple thing: "The 21st century will be about research > published in resepected peer-reviewed scientific journals" > Sounds a bit jingoistic to me. > These are typical traits of an anti-science fundamentalists such as > Rush Limbaugh, Jerry Falwell, Ted Haggard, George Bush, Osama Bin > Laden, Billy Graham, Fox News, The Pope, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Rielly > and... Curt, Turq, Lurk, Vaj, Sal, Larry, Shemp, Peter, Boo, > Bhairitu, and others. > > PREDICTION: Their next move will be to try to prove their point with > a peer-reviewed study, after insisting such thing are not valid ! > Lol !....what a bunch of jokers. > > The 21st century will be about research published in resepected peer- > reviewed scientific journals. > Get used to it. > Scientists have certainly done their share of fucking up the world with some Frankensteinian ideas. To blindly follow scientists is not a good idea, Igor. :D :D :D
