-Marc- > Okay, I'll take that. Let me rephrase my question: Jim, care > to back *any* of this up with any actual facts?
I already wrote, then deleted, a response to this, deciding that Jim can take care of himself. But I've decided not to let good sense stand in the way, so I'll ask anyway: Exactly what do you think he is suppose to back up with "actual facts" (as opposed to the other kind, I guess)? Seems to me Jim's statements fell into three categories: 1. Tautologies ("Obviously there's little historic evidence to substantiate supposedly 'prehistoric' events) 2. Observations ("Scientists are free to indulge their fancy [...] For many science devotees, one basic premise is that nothing supernatural exists [...] Of course the bible simply assumes that readers have implicit faith in the existence of God") 3. Viewpoints ("In science to acknowledge the existence or act of God is an awful heresy [...] Therefore the science nazis have to invent ways to discount biblical history") I cannot understand how any of the above three are amenable to support by "actual facts". #1 is definition-based; it *establishes* the verbal framework for factual discussion. #2 is about as "factual" as you can get, saying "Here is what I saw". #3 is obviously opinion, although since Jim expressed them in terms of #1 and #2, I don't understand your complaint. Are you upset that he did not quote from Hawkings or Crick? Perhas you were referring to Jim's final paragraph, which I found quite interesting: "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 ancestor." Did you want him to cross-reference some fourth-year botany texts to establish his words? I doubt any such texts would refer to their subject matter as "singularly unproductive". Does that mean it's therefore wrong, since the textbooks fail to make that observation? I'm serious here. I really cannot figure out what you found so offensive in Jim's posts. I thought it was brilliant, as usual. But then, I've long admired Jim and his writing, so perhaps I'm biased. Stephen ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ==^================================================================ This email was sent to: email@example.com EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================