Evolutionary establishment tactics

by hooberus 157 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Midget-Sasquatch


    There shouldn't be any bias in scientific journals. I wholeheartedly agree with you on that. Having agendas doesn't have to mean a loss in all objectivity though. The scientific agenda I was thinking about was its trying to explain nature on strictly material processes and phenomena, without calling upon supernatural forces. IDers have a competing agenda to show a need for a supernatural creator.

    Of course new ideas should be allowed an opportunity to make there case. Seeing as how that article didn't even mention relevant evidence for the side of the issue being criticized (just to make the other side appear stronger?), I'd say it did a poor job of being an objective and analytical review. Also the arguments for the ID side didn't include any falsifiable material. It wouldn't be biased to keep that article from being printed until the pertinent changes were made.

  • Shining One
    Shining One

    Hmmmmm, it seems as if the evolutionists are not as altruistic and open-minded as some here would have us believe? Dogmatism is alive and well in 'science' as well as in religion!

  • Shining One
    Shining One

    Hey Hawkaw,
    What is 'proper science'? Oh, I know, its science when, "it has a presupposition that evolution and accidental establishment of life is a mandatory premise"! LOL This bunch of naturalists here are ridiculous in their attempts to prop up their ex-JW belief sustem!

  • Shining One
    Shining One

    You just can't let go of the fear that you have made a big mistake in your beliefs....again, can you Alan? Dogmatic displays are quite common amongst the believers in naturalism. Your pet theory is on the rocks and will be discarded in the rubbish heap of mistaken human reasoning in a few years hence.

  • trevor

    Shining one

    Have you got Hic Ups?

  • tetrapod.sapien
    Your pet theory is on the rocks and will be discarded in the rubbish heap of mistaken human reasoning in a few years hence.


  • Forscher

    Alanf said "Your remarks are extremely stupid and ignore the political reality..."

    As usual, you couldn't resist throwing in a personal insult as a rebuttal. While that may make you feel superior, it weakens your argument far more effectively than anything I or anyone else could possibly do. I am aware of the politics of the government workplace, but that is a poor justification for the unethical actions of Sternberg's colleagues. Your argument still essentially relies on "the ends justifies the means" as its ethical basis. If you ever took a course in ethics, then you know that is a very poor justification for any action.

    You called Sternbergs actions pharasaical and Watchtowerish. I submit to you that the actions of Sternberg's colleagues fit that description far better.

    I think you and your fellows would do alot better if you would refrain from the temptation to personally insult those who disagree with you. It makes it appear that you really don't have a case for your position.


  • ellderwho
    I love reading Terapods ongoing crusade (and it is getting more vociferous each time) against religion (fought on a scientific ticket) - within a few months he's moved from the (paraphrase) 'I'd like to know if God lives - I just want some proof' to the 'its a lie' - read his history I've watched his metamorphosis - quite enlightening.


  • AlanF

    Shining One:

    Your remarks are so funny I can hardly stop lauging. I'm mean, really. You project your personal fantasies on my thinking as if they had any reality at all.

    Truly, Rex, you're a stellar example of what can happen to someone who jumps from the JW frying pan into the Fundy fire. Your attitudes demonstrate why so many intelligent people reject such Fundamentalism -- it's devoid of real intellectual content.


    I didn't say you were stupid -- people are free to come to that conclusion on their own or reject it. I said that your remarks were stupid, and then I proceeded to demonstrate it. And of course, by failing to deal with my arguments, you've just reinforced my demonstration.


  • Forscher

    Alanf said : "I didn't say you were stupid"

    Alanf said ; "Your remarks are extremely stupid"


    When you said that my remarks were stupid, by extension, you were saying that I was stupid. And that was not the only insult you flung at me and Hooberous personally. We dealt with your points. And all you could do in the end was insult us for our trouble. And then you lied when I called you on it as the foregoing quotes showed.

    You charged that Dr. Sternberg's actions in publishing were unethical. We pointed out that and independent government group who investigated his actions came to the conclusion that his actions were NOT unethical. Hooberous provided Links to that proof. You brushed that off and repeated the lies that were circulated by Dr. Sternbergs critics. I challenged you on the ethics behind your justification for the actions of the scientists at the Smithsonian and the Think Tank of evolutionary fanatics who coordinated the smear campain against Dr. Sternberg. Instead of dealing with that challenge, you choose to insult me personally. I think that you are the one on shaky ground here pal, not me.

    As you said, people can indeed draw their conlusions. And if you think that insulting me and Hooberous somehow makes your case strong, go for it pal. I think that you might find folks drawing conclusions about you that you won't like.


Share this