once again, you have FAILED TO ANSWER THE QUESTION. a statement that is patently false has been made, and no explanation has been given. i toe no party line, and will not argue the shortcomings of many of darwins thoughts. i simply do not like seeing obvious falsehoods about ANYONES work. as for those who supposedly said that its darwin or god, i wonder that they had never heard of lemark, or any of the hundreds of others doing theoretical work into inheritance at the time. it was a virtual cottage industry.
i will say this once again, and then i will ignore you. this is a SCIENCE discussion list. you wish a religous debate, join a list designed for religious debate. i can give you a list of those im a part of. youd find my religous beliefs not that far different from yours. but do not dare to presume that you can use religion as ground to attack science, or scientists, or to completely dodge questions by simply attacking the questioner based on your beliefs, and not based on facts. On 4/28/05, thomas malloy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >please, dont refer to my "teachers". i based my statements off my own > >reading of darwins work. only way to interpret or critique someones > >work is to actually read it yourself. in addition, you assume much, > >that i agree with all darwins theories, that i dont speak other > >languages, the form of my education, ect. dont assume, youve made > >enough of an ass out of yourself already. > > > > Richard and I are unwilling to let your misguided ideas go > unchallenged, Leaking. I realize that you don't see it now, but we're > doing you a favor. I call it the education of Leaking. > > As for your education, you said that you'd been to college. You've > picked up the intellectual establishment's Party Line somewhere. > However, you clearly didn't gain an appreciation for the necessity of > capitalization in freshman English. > > As for Charles Darwin. A program aired last evening on Trinity > Broadcasting System, I assume that you missed it. They quoted a > scientist who lived in the late 19 century. He said that, "we believe > Darwin's hypothesis not because it looks tenable, but because the > alternative is a creator, which is unacceptable." If you read > Parksie's column in last week's What's New, you will notice his > attack on Intelligent Design. He points out that the press ignored > the debate that the I D advocates staged, why am I not surprised? > Parksie said it himself."if you believe in an entity (G-d) who > manipulates DNA, you are terminally ignorant." Hum, well we can't > both be right. The program also pointed out that Darwin believed > white people to be superior to everyone else, and man to be > intellectual superior to women. Wow, the feminist intelligencia would > have a hissy fit over both of those ideas. > > -- "Monsieur l'abb�, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write" Voltaire
