Once again from Luke Randall
If you want to check papers I have written do go to PubMed web site and do a literature search on Randall and Woodward or just Randall L P.
The fact that you doubt my honesty speaks volumes about where you are coming from, and it is pointless to communicate with someone who doubts one's integrity from the start. Such doubt means you have made a supposition about me not based on evidence but on your own pre-conceived ideas, and this is not good in the realms of Science. Such mistrust of others only engenders others to feel the same way about you.
I am afraid I did not have the time to read all your E-mail, but in the little I did manage to read it came across to me that you do mistrust anyone who does not share your opinions in the realm of evolution, which would suggest you are either an absolute genius or just someone with a high opinion on themselves and a closed mind. Perhaps you are a genius, I await to hear of you winning a Nobel prize. As I don't think I am any competition for you I will bow out of your kind offer to try and win a Nobel prize for myself.
And my reply...
>If you want to check papers I have written do go to PubMed web site and do a literature search on Randall and Woodward or just Randall L P.
I meant "you" collectively, (since you all profess a scientific validity of creationism). And I meant that if you would profess such a thing, and claim scientific evidence for that, you should post that for peer-review. Not that I don't respect your efforts away from this topic where they do involve science, but antibiotic resistance is evidence of evolution, not creation. As I said before, there is no evidence that indicates creation, certainly not Biblical creation.
>The fact that you doubt my honesty speaks volumes about where you are coming from, and it is pointless to communicate with someone who doubts one's integrity from the start.
So I realized when Joe Baker said he was being lied to by his school teachers, and then when he went to court as if he was being lied to by the school system, and when he quotes Hovind, who says that Satan is behind evolution. I doubt very much that any teacher was lying as that implies deliberate intent. Even if the information was faulty, I doubt it was intended to be so. But that's what he said. I stepped forward to announce that it was not his teachers who were lying to him, it was Kent Hovind and the AiG. I further insisted that I could prove this, but none of you want to hear that, or have my arguments known on your message board. You started labeling liars first. And it is impossible to communicate with someone who admits they cannot be reasoned with.
>Such doubt means you have made a supposition about me not based on evidence but on your own pre-conceived ideas, and this is not good in the realms of Science. Such mistrust of others only engenders others to feel the same way about you.
Then you really should speak to Kyle and Craig, because their assertions of my alleged religion were baseless, and according to Joe's guidance and Kent Hovind's tripe, then Craig's ideas were pre-conceived and completely in error. In every case, you're accusing me of something either that we're both guilty of, or that you are guilty and I am not. Watch this pattern continue throughout your post.
>I am afraid I did not have the time to read all your E-mail, but in the little I did manage to read it came across to me that you do mistrust anyone who does not share your opinions in the realm of evolution,
Excuse me, I'll try not to exceed your attention span this time. But didn't you just now mention something about preconceived notions and assumptions without evidence? You know, just before you made this pre-determined assumption about what I wrote without having bothered to read it first? You do know I'm posting all of our discourse to Talk.Origins as well as to a dedicated web page as soon as I can put it all together, right? Do you really think this kind of hypocrisy will go unnoticed by anyone who reads it?
Now let me ask you this: If a man posts what he claims to be scientific data, and more than that, scientific data that purports to represent "truth" in its deepest sense, but that man refuses to correct any error revealed on that site, then is he an honest man? If he claims scientific data, should he refuse to allow public discussion of that data? Would it be honest to refuse such inquiry? If he takes a few isolated words from an opponent's life's work, and strings them together in a deliberately misleading way so as to contradict everything else that man has ever said, is that an honest thing to do? And when each of these errors in behavior are pointed out, and he refuses to improve any of them, is that honest? If he refuses to defend his position to his critics and peers, because he thinks what is really true is less important than what he can make people believe, then is he an honest man?
I know you won't answer these questions, and we both know why you won't, don't we? For the same reason you won't acknowledge any transitional species, not even ambulocetus, nor will you correct your stupid allegations of "evolution is a religion" or "Theory being taught as fact" or your misrepresentation of Nobel laureates in [some of] their own words. Refusing any of this is evidence that you are not an honest man.
>which would suggest you are either an absolute genius or just someone with a high opinion on themselves and a closed mind.
You know there's no such thing as an absolute genius. On a good day, I'm barely Mensa material. And by your many times repeated refusal to allow in-depth and proper discussion of this topic as requested, as well as your hiding my challenges from your board lest you be forced to address them, you're revealing your closed mind.
I would like to continue some communication with you about all of this, in a civil manner if that's possible, but according to everything I know about you, that isn't possible, is it? You're doing with me just what it appears you always have done, and just as I said.
As I said on your guestbook, and in my letter to Dr. Leakey, I am not arguing for the truth of evolution, I seek to expose dogmatism as the self-deceptive stumbling block to free thought that it is. You're the ones with the closed minds. Joe admitted it on your site when he said he couldn't separate science from religion. An open mind is one that can think objectively, not one that must assume a priori conclusion. I don't have a particular position that must prevail. All I'm arguing for objectivity over dogmatism, hence I can be honest, and even change my mind, as I've had to before when the evidence demands it. Stop trying to project your religious faith, prejudice, distrust, and all your other liabilities onto me. They are and have always been yours. I never have and never will share them.
You will not correct anything you already know to be in error, and you will not engage me publicly because you know I'll only expose more of them, conclusively for all to see, just as I said I would. The reason you'll always lose written debates (if you ever dare have one) is not because I'm smarter than you, or anything like that. The reason is simply that your position is wrong, and any opportunity to validate your claims will reveal that. In truth, I don't even think you believe what you claim. As year after year, more evidence consistently compiles onto an already overwhelming preponderance of evidence that you are an evolving ape [Hominid] whether you want to "believe" that or not. And whether its Sahalanthropus a year ago, or Homo georgicus a few months ago, or the 4 million year-old Australopithecus anemensus yesterday, you'll ever remain with fingers in your ears and a fork in your tongue in defense of a "truth" with no truth in it.
Check out this link,
and notice that one of the sources for this new information is the Leakey foundation, one of the "top Nobel scientists" in your list of maligned quotes.
>Perhaps you are a genius, I await to hear of you winning a Nobel prize. As I don't think I am any competition for you I will bow out of your kind offer to try and win a Nobel prize for myself.
Nice to know you read my posts before you censored them from public view. As for my Nobel, it will be a few years at least, and the chances are slim, but I like to think that it might happen.