[Fyron]

BM:

Well, I see why Fyron is repeating himself so much. People won't see what is right in from of their faces if it doesn't meet their pre-conceived notions.

I know what you are trying to do, and it is not going to work.

The 'few sad cases' listed on that site are just what that one author is aware of. There is much, much more if you want to do some research. So in fact scientists DO assert things and punish people for questioning their assertions instead of accepting authority from on high. Science in the 'real world' is just like religion. I keep putting the evidence in front of your face and you keep refusing to acknowledge it. You are doing exactly what you accuse the 'religious' types of doing. Rejecting anything that doesn't fit your pre-conceived notions. As I said, there is far less difference between the so-called 'scientific' world view and the religious one than you or most people want to believe. And you are demonstrating it right here and now.

No, not at all. You are simply not understanding what I have posted. Your Posts about "scientists DO assert things and punish people for questioning their assertions instead of accepting authority from on high" are wrong, and I see no need to repeat myself again as to why.

That page on scientific censorship is so steeped in biased propaganda and half-truths that I fail to see how you can actually believe what it says (unless, of course, you are only looking for other people with your not-quite-correct beliefs in an attempt to prove that you are not wrong). It has very little value, and I am sorry for you if you were duped into purchasing the book it advertises.

The page on shattering Darwin's theory of evolution does nothing to shatter his theory. Almost none of the quotes actually have any good scientific backing. It hurts your case more than helps it.

How do you assert that 'Evolution is not wrong.' when there is no proof that it is right? You keep saying that religion makes arbitrary assertions and then assert that science must be right even if it didn't have the evidence before and doesn't have it now. Huh? An honest 'scientist' would admit that we have no idea how life came to be how it is. Do you see the difference between asserting something is right because it's 'science' and 'not religion' versus simply admitting there is no certainty?

The theory of evolution does NOT say anything about how life came to be. It says that today, blah blah blah. It makes absolutley no mention on the origins of life. The two issues are wholely unrelated. Darwin (and Lamark et all) did not mention the origins of life in their theories, and the currently accepted theory of evolution does not either.

I have constantly said that there is no certainty to the theory of evolution. I never once said that "it is right because it is science". That is you placing words in my mouth. That, or not understanding what I posted. Or maybe seeing what you want me to have posted and going from there, instead of what I actually posted.

And again, the theory of evolution is not a representative sample of science in general. Using it as such is wholely wrong.

Any true scientist, in my view, will acknowledge the provisional nature of scientific knowledge and not treat it like dogma.

I'll have to investigate but I suspect that we're talking about a few exeptions that don't alter the big picture.

If only I could have said it in such a simple fashion, BM would not have gone off on such an unfounded tangent. Oh well.