[geocentrism] FW: Re: Climate change
- From: "Robert Bennett" <robert.bennett@xxxxxxx>
- To: "Geocentrism" <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 23:44:31 -0400
Martin,
The review shows how a purely rational and logical approach to evolution's
claims can be effective without a hint of Bible-thumping.
The same elitist posturing (dare I say - as bold as Brass?) is used in other
dialogs. In cosmology and astronomy and geology Net fora,
similar pretentious positions are presented by bloviating howler monkeys(
memorable analogy by Milton).
The link to Milton's Alt Sci article on speciation was particularly
notable, for exposing the claims of new species as being based on a moving
target - a variable definition of species.
I did research once for Kolbe Center on the same topic. Milton found two
definitions of species; I found biologists use up to six... with 2
subspecies alternatives.
An attempt to put a type of salmon under Endangered Species Act protection
took ten years to implement. Why? Not finding biologists that could agree
on what species meant, the government could not apply the law! Similar to
the confusion Milton documents.
BTW: Milton notes that the Galapagos finches are separate species by
behavior(the Great Dane/Chihuahua choice), but are artificially/forcibly
fertile. You had noted once that the finches were only reproductive on
contiguous islands.... Another example of the flexible species definition?
Brass is typical of the talk origins group - promoting new species discovery
by fiat, using technical terminology to ambiguate the general reader.
Fortunately there are a few professionals, like Milton and Creation Safari,
that can dispel the verbal smoke screen of bio-doublespeak.
Another forum in this genre is the Bad Astronomy group, which is well-named.
Most of their astronomical interpretations are just that - bad. If they
smell the slightest whiff of religious inference, they rave and rant about
the purity of physical science. Yet they all worship at the feet of their
idol Albert E.
Another MS site that separates math from any foundation in reality and thus
from any support for the natural sciences is mathpages.com, often cited by
relativity dupes to support that theory of contradictions. A collection of
disproofs for its various positions is gradually being accumulated by yours
truly. ( the anti-math-pages.com site ??)
Robert
SInce there's been a lot of static about Paul Deema's approach to
things, perhaps we should all take a good look at the material on
this web page:
http://www.grahamhancock.com/library/review001_brass.php
..........
I'd be interested to hear everyone's take on this exchange,
particularly Paul's.
Martin
Other related posts:
