Huxter:
>And Steve seems to be working in the self-centered assumption that posting
an
>article or a snippet of an article/book by a Moonie that uses a non-existent
>affiliation to appear more credible is somehow asking questions or worse -
>providing 'evidence' that 'Darwinism' is in error.
>Again, poor Berton must be flabbergasted!
Bertvan:
Huxter's version of an "in depth" discussion of Icons of Evolution seems to
be attacking the religion and credentials of the author. I read this list
mainly for the articles, quotes and links (and snippets), most of which are
provided by Stephen. Actually, I amused by people with quite limited
credentials who speak with such authority on subjects about which they know
only what they have been told by the "experts". Or when they denounce Ph.Ds
with published articles and books as "idiots". Steven doesn't yet have a
degree, but he obviously reads more than most of us on the subject of biology
and evolution. We can disagree with the articles Stephen quotes, but we
would all choose publication as a way of presenting our opinions if possible,
rather than this discussion group.
Huxter:
>As far as your 'liking' to post articles and snippets and discussing them, I
>see that you like posting them much more than discussing them.
>And again, more of your character attacks. Are you reading this Bertvan?
>I do think that if someone - regardless of their 'credentials' -
>brings up a topic, they should be able to discuss it or at least say at the
>outset that they cannot. That is not only common courtesy, but common
sense.
>If you consider that an attempt at intimidation, then I suggest that you
>have are operating under an interesting definition of intimidation.
Bertvan:
First you have to find someone willing to discuss with you. I enjoy
discussions with people with whom I disagree, but whose intelligence and
tolerance I respect. However, anyone whose posts have consist mainly of name
calling might have trouble finding participants for "discussions". I'm sure
everyone is able judge Stepehn's supposed "character attacks" as compared to
those of the average Darwin defender.
Huxter:
>Just out of curiosity - do you consider Wells to be a *true* scientist?
Bertvan:
How do we define a "true scientist? Only those who defend Darwinism? Wells
has some credentials and a published book, in which he offers some
interesting information. We are all free to agree or reject it. "Common
courtesy" would suggest his religion, or lack of religion, is immaterial.
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 30 2000 - 12:06:12 EST