fallible,
don't know what to tell ya, guy
i know bert (the author of your linked article), we met on several occasions in the '90s, we've been to dinner together, i've been to his home
and we always talked about our favorite two subjects, the book and c&e
we think pretty much alike on most things
we're both creationary guys with the same philosophical underpinnings...we see things through similar glasses
i also know and have dined with and have discussed our favorite subjects with half a dozen guys associated with AIG, and a couple of more over at ICR, and a couple down under at another creationary outfit
most of us think simimlarly on the c&e issues, we speak similarly and we write similar things
you and your evolutionary compadres here do the same...you haven't said a thing that i haven't heard a thousand times from a thousand guys in a thousand different places (on and off the net)
i could readily find some quotable material from others guys that sounds almost identical to what you have said since i came back to the board (and if memory serves, you were here for a short while before i got blocked awhile back)
but i don't find that *awfully* curious, and i'm not accusing you of copying them...you guys have all been to t.o and read thousands of posts on lots of different c&e sites that all say the same stuff
none of us have too many truly original thoughts on either side
i remember laughing years ago when i read an article or a book by futuyma where he said something like "evolution is a fact just like the earth goes around the sun"
i laughed because i had read the same thing years earlier in material written by gould...and i've heard the same thing a thousand times since from a thousand guys in a thousand places
i don't see them giving credit to where they got there stuff
we all sat through university classes and labs...where do we get everything we've got in our heads...mostly from someone else
do we stop and cite those sources every time we utter or write a word
give it a rest, guy
you were intent on doing one thing...making me look like a parrot, or worse a plagiarist so that no one would pay attention to my jazz...so that you could make me look like "another ignorant creationist"
well, carry on with that
and i'm going to carry on offering alternative commentary on the posts, articles, and books that are relevant to the c&e dialogue
i listen to, read, and study both sides...then i do my own thinking, my own speaking, and my own writing
and it doesn't matter if anyone pays attention to my jazz...it's not required reading
we use the same rhetorical devices to argue from different perspectives (as does everyone else in the dialogue on your side or mine)...the difference is that i unashamedly admit it...you guys don't
you guys think you have exclusive rights to the evidence and the rhetoric...you guys thought/think you can just run us over with your highbrow jazz...that ain't happening anymore...we've got our own jazz now :-)
Buying the journals isn't the same thing as buying understanding
i understand fine...i even understand your side (it used to be my side :-)
but here we are; you say i don't understand...and i say you don't understand...does it carry more force or authority because you said it...
well, with those that share your philosophy, sure
somebody's gotta point out the jazz you guys are spouting is as leaky as a broken boat...i'm one of those guys
you say that i exaggerate my case...i say that you way overexaggerate your case (because your case is a non-case)...
it's not *who*'s right that really matters, it's *what*'s right...
my case is not exaggerated at all
...no one in the article apparently believes it refutes evolution. In fact, in Forster's article in the Annals of Human Genetics doesn't indicate that this bodes ill for the theory of evolution.
of course they don't refute evolution...they're believers filled with FAITH...and faithfully dedicated to preserving the paradigm
but the paradigm is not based on solid data
and some of us know how to read critically and sythesize
they did express concern for those using the databases in their *evolutionary* studies
there are thousands of papers out there that have used those data to get or confirm their results
wrong assumptions, wrong data, wrong results
that's not too difficult to grasp, eh
and thousands more papers have cited those papers that used the flawed and faulty data
Rather, there's some cleaning up to do
yeah...yank all those papers out of the lit
ooopps...there goes those *mountains of evidence* for evolution
now tff (or someone else) chimes in and says...
but there are so many other areas of study that contribute to the mountains of evidence that even if we lost the mtDNA clock it wouldn't affect the fact that evolution is a fact
except that they are also based on bogus assumptions and flawed data
the only guys that are "fixing the problem" is our guys, by pointing out the jazz
but that's not going to happen...those papers will remain in the lit...and they will continue to be cited...and the evolutionary camp will continue to build its bogus mountains of evidence on top of broken reeds and swampland
As usual, creationists aren't contributing anything to understanding.
here we are with the you say, i say thing again
you say we contribute nothing
i say yous contribute nothing (to evolutionary understanding)...actually you do contribute **something**...a whole lot of confusion
i say we contribute a lot to pushing that confusion back into the darkness whence it came and whence it belongs
the good news is...we all gonna know the truth someday :-)
