In a message dated 10/29/2000 5:35:49 PM Eastern Standard Time,
sejones@iinet.net.au writes:
<<
>HX>Or maybe Steve will not post snippets of books he doesn't have either
SJ>Sorry to disappoint Huxter but I will continue to post what *I* think is
>interesting in the creation/evolution - ID/Darwinism debate, whether
>Huxter likes it or not!
[...]
HX>Cute, but that was not the point. *You* post things that you might find
>interesting but are admittedly unable to discuss in depth.
It depends what Huxter means "in depth". I am a layman, and so is every
scientists outside his/her field, including Huxter. I post things that are
out
of my "depth" in order to *learn* from scientists like Huxter.
If Huxter wants a *really* "in depth" scientific discussions he should try
elsewhere.
======================================
It would seem so. Of course, if you *really* just wanted to learn, it would
be a simpler task to actually ASK a question here or there; ask for an
explanation of some concept/issue, rather than throw out an article or bits
of an article without commentary. When that is done, it looks more like
propaganda than inquisitiveness!
=====================================
HX>It doesn't matter whether or not I or anyone else likes it.
That's what *I* said!
HX>But it should matter to the
>participants that you are in effect acting as an ad-man, and not much else.
Actually "the participants" of this List have (with a few exceptions)
appreciated my posting excerpts of scientific articles. Even Chris Cogan the
other day said he liked them.
Huxter seems to be working on the self-centred assumption that this List
exists for him and because he already knows something, other people do
not need to know it.
=====================================
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!
But of course, that is not what I am working under. I am more interested to
see *IF* the one posting an article or snippet understands the material
enough to know whether or not it does in fact support their position. I see
this frequently in creationism circles. Observe the site of one 'Richard
Deem' ("Evidence for God from Science"). His site is packed (literally) with
abstracts, articles, and snippets, all of course supposed to show some
weakness in evolution. But he can't defend the bulk of what he presents,
either. Better to throw a few hundred citations out there and claim that
they support creation - easier to 'impress' the lay folk with quantity than
quality. I know this is so because I have called him on one article that
still is on his site in its more or less original form, despite the fact that
I pointed out his deceptive quotation and error of omission style more than 2
years ago.
Observe your antics on the mtDNA molecular clock snippet you posted. Your
only commentary was some vague opinion about it being more in line with
biblical timeframes, and when I asked a few specific questions, I am told you
are a layman and cannot address it! Yet you were able to conclude that it
supported the 'biblical timeframes' despite being a layman. So, which is it?
==============================================
SJ>Most " snippets of books" that I post, I do have the books. But in the
case
>of Well's new book, "Icons of Evolution", there is no way I could have it
>yet in Australia, and I made it clear I got the excerpt from another List>>
[...]
HX>So why post 'snippets' then?
See above: 1) I *like* to (and others have said they like it too); 2) I
*learn*
by discussing "snippets" scientific books and articles, especially those
that
are outside my current "depth" as a layman.
BTW Huxter might have the qualifications and occupation of a scientist but
IMHO he does not have the *attitude* of a true scientist.
==========================================
And how would you know, being a layman and all? I wasn't aware that there
was a certain *attitude* that *true* scientists were supposed to have.
Perhaps you can tell me where I can learn about this *attitude*? Can I learn
about it by reading Phil Johnson and Jon Wells?
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?
=============================================
A true scientist in my book is someone like Feynman who urged his
graduating students to not use their superior scientific knowledge to try to
intimidate laypeople:
[...]
========================================
I would appreciate it if you could show where I have tried to intimidate
anyone. 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.
Just out of curiosity - do you consider Wells to be a *true* scientist?
>>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 30 2000 - 07:13:50 EST