The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

nerin wrote: »

yes jc of course :rolleyes:

dont think i'll ever agree with you on anthing, you're just that sort of guy lol

.....who knows.....some day we might agree......or we might just agree to disagree LOL!!!:D:)

Respectfully

J C

J C

nerin wrote: »

and there is a difference between you and i, my extreme lack of pomposity.

Yes, your "extreme lack of pomposity" is indeed evident!!!:D

For any sins of pomposity on my part I am truly sorry!!!

.....I'm putting on the sackcloth as I write.......now where did I leave those ashes!!!:D

2Scoops

Looks like Ken Ham and AIG are launching their own 'peer-reviewed,' 'scientific' 'journal.' We'll watch this one with interest, as they say...

http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080123/full/451382b.html

wolfsbane

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's not at all usual for scientific meetings or conferences. Those who wish to get the information involved get the published articles, abstracts, or conference proceedings.



"No slander, just a report". Not a bit of analysis, not a bit of criticism - you simply repeated slander. You have clearly indicated that you think the slander is true, and you are the person who first drew it to the attention of others here. Yours are weasel words.

Scofflaw

As JC pointed out, this was not a run-of-the mill meeting, but a special event that would seem to merit audio or video recording.

As to analysis, it was there - on both sides - easily accessed by anyone on the internet. As ALL of those reading my post are on the net, I can't see the problem. If I had referred to some unreported event, I could understand your objection. But it seems like covering smoke to me.

Mims was either telling the truth or lying about several things:
1. What Pianka said about human extermination.
2. What Pianka said about keeping his comments secret.
3. The presence of a video outfit, but its closure following a conversation with Pianka.

Seems to be the sort of things open to test.

But for another take on what Pianka teaches, visit http://www.zo.utexas.edu/courses/bio357/357evaluations.html

Particulary interesting was this from one of his class: see the last entry under Excerpts from Student Evaluations -- Fall 2004
Though I agree that convervation biology is of utmost importance to the world, I do not think that preaching that 90% of the human population should die of ebola is the most effective means of encouraging conservation awareness. I found Pianka to be knowledgable, but spent too much time focusing on his specific research and personal views.

But perhaps am I repeating slanders again?

2Scoops

daithifleming wrote: »

Thats a disgrace.

Well, as the article correctly points out, if you get too strident in your opposition of something like this, creationists will only become further convinced of their paranoid delusions of academic suppression.

I'll be interested in seeing the quality of the 'peer-review' though. As a reviewer myself, I am well aware of the trials they will face finding enough qualified reviewers that share their a priori bias towards creationism.

I suspect that both the same people will have to review the vast majority of the submissions and that they will be frequently reviewing outside their area of expertise.

I'm also predicting that most of the published articles will be cack-handed reviews debunking evil-illusion and there will be a distinct lack of original investigations. Not good for the long-term survival of a scientific journal.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote: »

As JC pointed out, this was not a run-of-the mill meeting, but a special event that would seem to merit audio or video recording.

As to analysis, it was there - on both sides - easily accessed by anyone on the internet. As ALL of those reading my post are on the net, I can't see the problem. If I had referred to some unreported event, I could understand your objection. But it seems like covering smoke to me.

Mims was either telling the truth or lying about several things:
1. What Pianka said about human extermination.
2. What Pianka said about keeping his comments secret.
3. The presence of a video outfit, but its closure following a conversation with Pianka.

Seems to be the sort of things open to test.

But for another take on what Pianka teaches, visit http://www.zo.utexas.edu/courses/bio357/357evaluations.html

Particulary interesting was this from one of his class: see the last entry under Excerpts from Student Evaluations -- Fall 2004
Though I agree that convervation biology is of utmost importance to the world, I do not think that preaching that 90% of the human population should die of ebola is the most effective means of encouraging conservation awareness. I found Pianka to be knowledgable, but spent too much time focusing on his specific research and personal views.

But perhaps am I repeating slanders again?

What, by taking one student evaluation out of 30? Or by picking the one that agrees with Mims? Several other student evaluations also refer to Pianka's Doomsday speech, and it's clear from those that Pianka is talking about a possible Ebola wipeout of 90% of humanity.

So, yes, I think you're repeating, and reinforcing, the original slander, and thereby bearing false witness yourself. You're also trying to insinuate that a deliberate cover-up has occurred, just as Mims did.

Clearly, Dr Pianka is passionate about what the "greatest generation" has done to the planet. It is quite likely that he adds "and maybe that's right" after saying "we could be looking at 90% of the human race being wiped out". That would normally be considered a rhetorical flourish, to bring home the idea that we have made the mess, so, morally, we should suffer the consequences.

I believe such flourishes are quite normal at those unrecorded events called "sermons" - but I have not been moved at any such sermon (and Cavan in the 80's had plenty of them) to report the speaker to the Gardai, to accuse them falsely as desiring the death or punishment of the human race, or to accuse them of "fomenting religious terrorism". Still, I suppose that's because I'm not as "moral" as Mr Mims or yourself.

Scofflaw

robindch

2Scoops wrote: »

As a reviewer myself, I am well aware of the trials they will face finding enough qualified reviewers that share their a priori bias towards creationism.

I think the word "qualified" is the one that stands out in that sentence! Snelling will no doubt use whomever he has to do some kind of theological review on the text he publishes -- remember that theological correctness is what he's after -- but that's likely to be about as far as it goes, review-wise. AiG has theological scribblers aplenty, so he won't lack for reviewers.

2Scoops wrote: »

I suspect that both the same people will have to review the vast majority of the submissions and that they will be frequently reviewing outside their area of expertise.

Well, most of the writers will be writing on topics outside their area of expertise too, so one assumes he's aiming for some kind of bizarre consistency of ignorance?

2Scoops wrote: »

I'm also predicting that most of the published articles will be cack-handed reviews debunking evil-illusion and there will be a distinct lack of original investigations. Not good for the long-term survival of a scientific journal.

As long as Snelling can make it appeal to enough of his readership, the content, the honesty and the originality are immaterial. It is not a scientific journal, except in the cargo-cult sense.

In any case, I believe that this publication is to replace their "TJ", Technical Journal, publication which, according to some page I read recently (AFAIR on AiG), was suffering from annual re-subscription rates of only around 50% -- the average creationist seems unable to stomach much detail for long. Hence the need to rebrand and relaunch.

robindch

Scofflaw wrote: »

What, by taking one student evaluation out of 30? Or by picking the one that agrees with Mims?

Don't forget that various right-wingers have offered money to students to provide "incriminating" recordings of teachers.

Here's an article on a Republican going after professors in UCLA -- the actual offer was made from here. I recall various reports over the last year or two that creationists in the USA were also at it, but can't locate the reports at the moment.

It's quite fascinating to see how the 9th commandment "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour" can become, in the hands of a biblical literalist, so malleable.

J C

2Scoops wrote: »

Looks like Ken Ham and AIG are launching their own 'peer-reviewed,' 'scientific' 'journal.' We'll watch this one with interest, as they say...

http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080123/full/451382b.html

Yet another important 'milestone' in the development of Creation Science.

BTW there has been peer review for quite some time....The Technical Journal....or 'TJ' has fulfilled this role for over 20 years.:cool:

.....and isn't it great to see such avid interest amongst Evolutionists in this development.....who knows, they might even read the peer-reviewed papers....
.....and abandon their unfounded beliefs in the supposed 'amazing generative powers of Pond Slime'...to become Creationists!!!:D:eek:

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote: »

Don't forget that various right-wingers have offered money to students to provide "incriminating" recordings of teachers.

Here's an article on a Republican going after professors in UCLA -- the actual offer was made from here. I recall various reports over the last year or two that creationists in the USA were also at it, but can't locate the reports at the moment.

It's quite fascinating to see how the 9th commandment "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour" can become, in the hands of a biblical literalist, so malleable.

Now Robin, this is the exact type of stuff that is really bothersome to me. You have painted Biblcial literalists as being liers.

NOWHERE in either of the two articles is the Bible, Jesus, God or Christianity used. It is solely the initiative of an ex-student who was bothered by the left leaning bias of the professors at UCLA.

There is no inference to the operators of the Bruin Alumni site as being Christian.

I am really, really ticked and offended. :mad::(

5uspect

Are posts being deleted?

robindch

Brian -- please make sure that you read my posts carefully. At the moment, you don't seem to be and it's causing you unnecessary angst.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

You have painted Biblcial literalists as being liers.

No, I haven't. I said that one specific biblical literalist (wolfsbane, if it's not obvious from the context) is somebody who will ignore the 9th commandment if it suits him to do so. I did not use the plural and I was not referring to all biblical literalists, some -- indeed most, I should hope -- of whom probably take the 9th commandment as seriously as I do. I am not the only person to make this claim about wolfsbane's lack of respect for the 9th.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

NOWHERE in either of the two articles is the Bible, Jesus, God or Christianity used.

I didn't say that any of these things were used.

I was responding to a post by wolfsbane in which he produced a single comment apparently from one of Pianka's students which suggested that Mims may have been accurate (I haven't checked that comment, or the others, but I am assuming that they do not corroborate the one diverging opinion, especially since Pianka himself claims that this is not his position; it is also strange that the student isn't apparently able to spell the word "conservation" after doing a course in ecology). In responding to wolfsbane's point, I have pointed out that being paid to act as informers is something that's openly done in the USA. I have also said that I have seen reports that creationists were paying for students to inform too, but that I can't find these reports.

The implication that I am making is that we should consider the possibility that the one student who claimed that Pianka has said something that he claims that he has not said, is being paid by a creationist organization to make this claim, or that he/she is doing it off his own bat.

Just so you're quite clear -- I am not insinuating that all biblical literalists are dishonest (just that one particular one is), or that christians in general are paying or requesting students or others to behave unethically (just that the distinct possibility exists).

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

who knows, they might even read the peer-reviewed papers....

I, for one, will be reading them.

J C wrote: »

.....and abandon their unfounded beliefs in the supposed 'amazing generative powers of Pond Slime'...to become Creationists!!!:D:eek:

Certainly, IF compelling evidence is provided. The first 'issue' is out already. Colour me underwhelmed.

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote: »

Brian -- please make sure that you read my posts carefully. At the moment, you don't seem to be and it's causing you unnecessary angst.No, I haven't. I said that one specific biblical literalist (wolfsbane, if it's not obvious from the context) is somebody who will ignore the 9th commandment if it suits him to do so. I did not use the plural and I was not referring to all biblical literalists, some -- indeed most, I should hope -- of whom probably take the 9th commandment as seriously as I do. I am not the only person to make this claim about wolfsbane's lack of respect for the 9th.I didn't say that any of these things were used.

I was responding to a post by wolfsbane in which he produced a single comment apparently from one of Pianka's students which suggested that Mims may have been accurate (I haven't checked that comment, or the others, but I am assuming that they do not corroborate the one diverging opinion, especially since Pianka himself claims that this is not his position; it is also strange that the student isn't apparently able to spell the word "conservation" after doing a course in ecology). In responding to wolfsbane's point, I have pointed out that being paid to act as informers is something that's openly done in the USA. I have also said that I have seen reports that creationists were paying for students to inform too, but that I can't find these reports.

The implication that I am making is that we should consider the possibility that the one student who claimed that Pianka has said something that he claims that he has not said, is being paid by a creationist organization to make this claim, or that he/she is doing it off his own bat.

Just so you're quite clear -- I am not insinuating that all biblical literalists are dishonest (just that one particular one is), or that christians in general are paying or requesting students or others to behave unethically (just that the distinct possibility exists).

Robin, in the post that I'm referring to nowhere is Mims, nor wolfsbane mentioned. You are only speaking about the situation with the Bruin Alumni and their wish to expose the left leanings of the teaching staff at UCLA.

You're final statment talks about Biblical Literalists not taking the 9th commandment.

What is one supposed to think? You don't mention the Mims / Pianka situation, only the UCLA / Bruin Alumni Situation, where NO Christianity is mentioned in either link that you give.

The inference is that the Bruin Alumni group are Christians who are paying people to expose the political leanings of UCLA professors.

hairyheretic

I would hazard a guess that is because there is a well established political link between the Republicans and a certain element of Christianity in the US.

I could of course be wrong though.

J C

2Scoops wrote: »

Anyway, even if what he (Mims) said about Pianka were true, what exactly would have been your point??

Could I preface my remarks by emphasising that I DON'T know what was said by Dr Pianka.

Could I also point out that the Evolutionists on this thread, have gone into orgasmic convulsions of self-righteous indignation……as they argued strenuously that the good Dr Pianka and the cause of Evolution was grossly misrepresented and worse in Dr. Mims account of the Texas meeting…….

……..and NOW you ask what would be wrong anyway IF...and I emphasise IF it is true that somebody DID recommended the deliberate culling of 90% of Humanity .......and received a standing ovation from a group of assembled scientists after an expressed desire for the mass murder of nine-tenths of Humanity?

…….so now could I ask YOU what YOU think, would be wrong IF this was true?

Scofflaw

J C wrote: »

Could I emphasise that I DON'T know what was said by Dr Pianka.

Could I also point out that the Evolutionists on this thread, have gone into orgasmic convulsions of self-righteous indignation……as they argued strenuously that the good Dr Pianka and the cause of Evolution was grossly misrepresented and worse in Dr. Mims account of the Texas meeting…….

Just Dr Pianka. We're dealing with the gross slander of one individual here.

J C wrote: »

……..and NOW you ask what would be wrong anyway IF...and I emphasise IF it is true that Dr Pianka DID recommended the deliberate culling of 90% of Humanity .......and received a standing ovation from most of the assembled scientists after an expressed desire for the mass murder of nine-tenths of Humanity?

…….so could I ask YOU what YOU think, would be wrong IF what was said about Dr Pianka was true?

There is no evidence whatsoever, apart from Mims' "testimony", that Pianka has "advocated" any such thing. The description "advocating the death of 90% of humanity", like "fomenting bioterrorism", is clear slander. It is not possible for someone in Pianka's position to express such views publicly without attracting media attention - none of which Pianka attracted until Mims, an ideological opponent of evolution, decided to lie, and Dembski decided to play rat with the lies supplied by his fellow Fellow of the Discovery Institute.

Why would Mims slander Pianka? Because Pianka is a prominent and respected evolutionary scientists and ecologist, and most importantly, an educator. This is a straightforward character assassination, for clear reasons.

There is the possibility that Dr Pianka rhetorically observes that we may deserve such a fate, but I don't have a problem with that. You are welcome to claim you do, but it is a regular part of Christian sermons, as we are all aware.

You don't have a leg to stand on here. Mims and Demski's action are little short of criminal, and yours and wolfsbane's actions in supporting this slander are genuinely quite sickening. Protest all you like.

Scofflaw

J C

Scofflaw wrote: »

You don't have a leg to stand on here. Mims and Demski's action are little short of criminal, and yours and wolfsbane's actions in supporting this slander are genuinely quite sickening. Protest all you like.

Scofflaw

I am NOT supporting anything!!!

Can I point out that I have ALWAYS and REPEATEDLY emphasised that I DON'T know what Dr Pianka said.........

.......I am merely asking 2Scoops to answer his OWN question:-

what would be wrong anyway, "even if what he (Mims) said about Pianka were true?"

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

……..and NOW you ask what would be wrong anyway IF...and I emphasise IF it is true that somebody DID recommended the deliberate culling of 90% of Humanity .......and received a standing ovation from a group of assembled scientists after an expressed desire for the mass murder of nine-tenths of Humanity?

…….so now could I ask YOU what YOU think, would be wrong IF this was true?

I wasn't asking if it would be 'wrong.' I asked what his point is - i.e. how is it relevant to this thread?

Ekancone

2Scoops wrote: »

I wasn't asking if it would be 'wrong.' I asked what his point is - i.e. how is it relevant to this thread?

Evolutionists are evil. Therefore they are wrong... or something.

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

.......I am merely asking 2Scoops to answer his OWN question:-

This is your OWN question, not mine.

J C

2Scoops wrote: »

This is your OWN question, not mine.

OK, here is your EXACT question:-
Anyway, even if what he said about Pianka were true, what exactly would have been your point??

......so what would YOUR answer to such a question be?

BrianCalgary

hairyheretic wrote: »

I would hazard a guess that is because there is a well established political link between the Republicans and a certain element of Christianity in the US.

I could of course be wrong though.

Not necessarily. There are Christians that vote democratic and those tha vote republican.

Just because someone is Republican does not make tham Christian.

They are unrelated. I know many Atheists who vote Republican. So the Bruin Alumni could be atheistic republicans, they could be Mormon rebublicans; the articles cited make absolutely no mention of religious belief, affilaiation or non-belief.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

What, by taking one student evaluation out of 30? Or by picking the one that agrees with Mims? Several other student evaluations also refer to Pianka's Doomsday speech, and it's clear from those that Pianka is talking about a possible Ebola wipeout of 90% of humanity.

Is it clear from the other student evaluations that Pianka is saying this might happen, or that it would be a good thing to happen? Or is it only the one student who specifies and we have to guess about the rest?

So, yes, I think you're repeating, and reinforcing, the original slander, and thereby bearing false witness yourself. You're also trying to insinuate that a deliberate cover-up has occurred, just as Mims did.

I am indeed repeating the original 'slander' - for I want to know if it is true or not. You seem certain it is not, and resentful for any indicators to the contrary. I wonder why.

Clearly, Dr Pianka is passionate about what the "greatest generation" has done to the planet. It is quite likely that he adds "and maybe that's right" after saying "we could be looking at 90% of the human race being wiped out". That would normally be considered a rhetorical flourish, to bring home the idea that we have made the mess, so, morally, we should suffer the consequences.

So now you accept he may have indicated a near extinction of humanity would be a good thing, not for moral wickedness of the individuals, but for their collective abuse of the enviroment. Ah, the wonders of 'scientific' morality.:rolleyes:

I believe such flourishes are quite normal at those unrecorded events called "sermons" - but I have not been moved at any such sermon (and Cavan in the 80's had plenty of them) to report the speaker to the Gardai, to accuse them falsely as desiring the death or punishment of the human race, or to accuse them of "fomenting religious terrorism". Still, I suppose that's because I'm not as "moral" as Mr Mims or yourself.

If you find any of us advocating we cull 90% of humanity - and that was the basis of Demski's report to the State - then it would be your duty to report it.

Don't you think you and Robin are guilty of stark hypocrisy when you accuse me of bearing false witness because I report a public statement, and then go on to accuse one of Pianka's students of being a 'plant'? The fact is, public statements can properly be reported. I wasn't at Pianka's meeting - neither were you. I pointed to the report, and the various responses were there for all to assess. The only slander involved was either by Mims or Pianka.

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

OK, here is your EXACT question:-
Anyway, even if what he said about Pianka were true, what exactly would have been your point??

......so what would YOUR answer to such a question be?

Well, my suspicion is that even if this were true (which it patently is not), Wolfsbane's point was that because a single ecologist takes this point of view, that it somehow discredits evolutionary theory or supports creationism (which it most certainly does not).

My question was somewhat rhetorical and was put to Wolfsbane merely to see if he would be honest or perceptive enough to see his own argument for the ridiculous, illogical nonsense that it is.

wolfsbane

2Scoops wrote: »

Frankly, I would have had more respect for you as a good/moral person if you'd simply acknowledged your mistake. Mims' has no credibility, why do you continue to make excuses? Spreading this kind of garbage is exactly what contributed to this guy getting death threats.

Anyway, even if what he said about Pianka were true, what exactly would have been your point??

I'm reporting the accusations, publically made, and pointing out things that seem to offer support to them. What's your problem? Let it all be examined. Did Pianka say it or not? Was the video camera turned off or not? If so, Why? Did Pianka's student assessment give an accurate picture of Pianka's lectures?

That some fool sent him death threats has no bearing on the truth or otherwise of the issue. Politicians and other leaders get the same when some folk don't like what they say.

But the flashing light from your post must be the last sentence. If Pianka advocated the culling of 90% of humanity and the audience strongly applauded him, my point would be that this is where your evolutionary myth has brought you to. A Brave New World indeed.

I would have hoped you would have been appalled.

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote: »

If Pianka advocated the culling of 90% of humanity and the audience strongly applauded him, my point would be that this is where your evolutionary myth has brought you to. A Brave New World indeed.

I would have hoped you would have been appalled.

Presumably, you mean that this where it has brought Pianka and his audience, since it is not the obvious conclusion to be drawn from evolutionary theory, IMO. As has been pointed out before, science makes no decisions or moral judgments - it's up to people to do that part. Evolutionary theory doesn't 'bring us' anywhere - it merely presents the data that has been collected.

In the hypothetical bizzarro world (not the real one, btw) where a scientist did say such things, I would have been appalled at his opinion. It wouldn't have altered my opinion on evolutionary theory or creationism though. Why, indeed, should it??

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote: »

Is it clear from the other student evaluations that Pianka is saying this might happen, or that it would be a good thing to happen? Or is it only the one student who specifies and we have to guess about the rest?

We have Dr Pianka, and several other witnesses, who say that the speech given by Pianka on this occasion was one he regularly gives. Why not have a look at the text of what he says:

Dr Pianka wrote:

Now let’s consider some other viruses — Ebola zaire has potential. It kills nine out of ten humans. It’s never gotten out of Africa because it is so virulent it kills everybody before they can move. I mean it kills
you within a day or two.

You can only catch Ebola zaire by direct contact with a human who’s
infected. It causes you to bleed. It breaks capillaries and you bleed out
your orifices and if you touch somebody who’s sick with it you get it and
you die, too — nine times out of ten.

Now it is only a matter of time until Ebola zaire evolves and mutates a
little, it will eventually become airborne, and then we might finally see it
spread. And if it does, when it does finally sweep across the world — we’re
going to have a lot of dead people. Every one of you that is lucky enough
to survive gets to bury nine. Think about that. However, I doubt Ebola is
going to be the one that gets us, I think it will be something else.

Did you ever wonder why things like SARS and now the Avian Flu are
continually cropping up? They’re arising because we were dumb enough
to make a perfect epidemiological substrate for an epidemic. We bred our
brains out, and now we’re going to pay for it. The microbes are going to
take over. They’re going to control us again as they have in the past.
Think about that.

Can I imagine a complete idiot mishearing that as "he wants to wipe out humanity!"? Sure - idiots are quite amazing.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I am indeed repeating the original 'slander' - for I want to know if it is true or not. You seem certain it is not, and resentful for any indicators to the contrary. I wonder why.

There are no contrary indicators.

1. We have exactly one "testimony" for Dr Pianka "advocating" the wiping out of humanity.

2. We know that a couple of hundred other people attended the event.

3. Not one of these people, nor any press, corroborate Mims story.

4. We have exactly one testimony for recording equipment having been in use, but switched off for Pianka's speech - Mims' "testimony".

5. No-one has produced, or mentioned seeing, the rest of the "recording".

6. We have exactly no testimony in court from Mims or Dembski.

7. Pianka has never been accused of making such inflammatory statements before, or after, by anyone other than Mims.

So we have a single statement, from an ideological opponent of Dr Pianka, who won't stand over his accusation in court, and who is also the only source for the claim that, unusually, the proceedings were being recorded, and that Dr Pianka asked for the recording equipment to be switched off.

One man's unsupported, uncorroborated, circumstantially unlikely, claim, that he won't stand over on oath.

wolfsbane wrote: »

So now you accept he may have indicated a near extinction of humanity would be a good thing, not for moral wickedness of the individuals, but for their collective abuse of the enviroment. Ah, the wonders of 'scientific' morality.:rolleyes:

Don't even try and take that tone, wolfsbane. If you want to defend toerags and their lies, you get to keep the mud you're smearing yourself with.

wolfsbane wrote: »

If you find any of us advocating we cull 90% of humanity - and that was the basis of Demski's report to the State - then it would be your duty to report it.

It would be my duty to use my common sense, first and foremost. Otherwise, any statement of yours, or any other believer, to the effect that mankind is in any way either responsible for, or deserving of, its various troubles, can be twisted in exactly the same way - and you have made a lot of such statements. Fortunately, I don't think with my hatred.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Don't you think you and Robin are guilty of stark hypocrisy when you accuse me of bearing false witness because I report a public statement, and then go on to accuse one of Pianka's students of being a 'plant'? The fact is, public statements can properly be reported. I wasn't at Pianka's meeting - neither were you. I pointed to the report, and the various responses were there for all to assess. The only slander involved was either by Mims or Pianka.

Slander is not "public statement" - and written down it is libel. You have repeated the slander as truth, and you are now defending the indefensible. You will not find much support, I think, and you deserve none. I regret speaking to you. I think I will cease to do so until I can do so civilly again.

Scofflaw

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

The only problem with this answer is that YOUR ''rhetorical question'
Anyway, even if what he said about Pianka were true, what exactly would have been your point??
encompassed EVERYTHING said about Pianka....including the standing ovation....and so WHATEVER Pianka said was supported by most of the scientists present.....and therefore he WASN'T just a 'single ecologist'.

.....so AGAIN I would ask what would YOUR answer to YOUR question be?
i.e. what point would you make IF...and I emphasise IF what Mims said about Pianka was true??

......the answer SHOULD be so obvious that I wonder WHY you asked such a question in the first place?

I don't see how adding the supportive audience (who were probably a mix of scientists, students and the lay-public, not just scientists) changes the equation, tbh. Even if they all agreed that some virus should kill 90% of humanity (WHICH THEY DIDN'T!!), what relevance does it have to evolutionary science or creationism? Is it a mass action effect?

I honestly don't see where you're going with this hypothetical example. Spell it out for me, please.

Scofflaw

2Scoops wrote: »

I don't see how adding the supportive audience (who were probably a mix of scientists, students and the lay-public, not just scientists)

Clearly that's the case, since they included Mims, the "citizen scientist".

cordially,
Scofflaw