> 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
"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.
/// 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!