Re: simple question

[Dan White <dwhite () olp net>]

On 03/12/09 18:21 -0600, RandallM wrote:
> If we have "fudged" climate, how much on "evolution" evidence to fit theories?
>
> Possible?

Not just possible - likely. The debate around evolution and creation theories
continues to show just how desperate evolutionists are in forcing their ideas
down our throats. The media is clearly on the side of the evolutionists.
You rarely see a true balanced report between the two theories. It's always
one-sided, focusing on scientific research and discoveries.

The Science Channel stands to benefit financially from this continued
debate. Without federal and private funding of science in all fields
related to evolution, the Science Channel would have a lot of new airtime
to focus on alternative theories such as Creation Science. The fact the
network is not called "The Science and Creation Science Channel" just goes
to show how biased they are.

How can we rely on a theory developed by a naturalist from the 19th
century? Surely we have the benefit of technology today to take a fresh
approach in understanding the big questions of life. In fact, a new forward
has been introduced to "On the Origin of Species" based on updated
understand and knowledge we have today of that text:

http://www.livingwaters.com/

I would also think that this fudging of evidence is systemic through many
areas of research. Someone has a fight in everything. We need question
everything, including such controversial theories as:

Chaos Theory
Ladder Theory
Theoretical Reason
Rational Choice Theory
Game Theory

-- 
Dan White
_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.