Scientists are free to indulge their fancy.  Obviously there's little 
historic evidence to substantiate supposedly "prehistoric" events.  For 
many science devotees, one basic premise is that nothing supernatural 
exists.  In  science to acknowledge the existence or act of God is an 
awful heresy.  Of course the bible simply assumes that readers have 
implicit faith in the existence of God.  Therefore the science nazis 
have to invent ways to discount biblical history.

Some of them can do this without being overtly arrogant and patently 
offensive, but many cannot.  As far as I can tell, the "scientists" 
first tactic in arguing this position is to label anyone who doesn't 
agree an ignorant superstitious moron.  While this may satisfy their own 
requirements for determining the winner of an argument, it seldom 
answers the objections of "science dissidents" or "science apostates".  
And of course the scientists in their cliques don't feel obligated to 
respect or cater to morons.  For them, it certainly would be more 
gratifying to feed each other's egos, and pretend that all their 
theories have been "critically reviewed".

When they are learned...

As to some of your other points.

I have long been fascinated by a science discipline referred to as 
"ethnobotany".  This is a narrowly focused study attempting to discern 
the natural origins of domestic plant species.  In fact, it is a 
singularly unproductive study, because it is generally found that the 
existence of domestic strains extends back before historic times.  
Nobody really knows for sure where the ancestors of most modern 
cultivated plants arose.  The studies return results that are strikingly 
similar to the fruits of anthropologists efforts to find a proto-human 

Mij Ebaboc

///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///      ///

This email was sent to:

Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!

Reply via email to