Wikipedia is a Atheist controlled slander site. Anyone with a computer can contribute, like yourself, and write lies about Creationists and IDists.
Maybe you can tells us, who wrote the "article" on Dr. Scott, what is this persons name?
Was it Charles Darwin, Richard Dawkins, Bozo412, or Britney Spears?
Hooded knowledge is illegitimate.
I included Wiki information because it agreed with everything else I found on him on the web, all in one nice concentrated little spot. Easy for quoting.
Is any of the information
wrong, Ray, or did you just want to dismiss it as usual? All I see is the typical Ray throwing around the word "Atheist" at everyone who doesn't completely agree with
Ray, as if it were some sort of insult. You're like McCarthy and Communists, except funnier because you aren't in a position of authority.
Dr. Scott was a Stanford Ph.D. He also earned three Ph.D. minors; Psychology, Comparative Religion and Geography. The latter accomplishment was by oral exam. He is the only person to obtain a Ph.D. minor in Geography by oral exam having never taken a class on the subject at Stanford.
His Masters degree was in Argicultural Geography which is a Geology-based degree. Dr. Scott was the eminent Bible scholar in the world. He, of course, refuted the Theory of Evolution, which explains your "televangelist" slander and the slander of your fellow Atheists in the news media. Televangelists do not have Ph.D.s from Stanford.
Jared Diamond is considered a scientist and he is probably the most respected pro-evolution author in the world today. His degree is in Geography.
I don't care about a pro-evolution author, Ray. Pro-evolution authors don't contribute to research - they write about what others have done. If evolution rested on the opinions of Jared Diamond, I'd dismiss it as handily as your televangelist buddy.
Dr. Scott does not have a degree in any field surrounding evolution, and has never practiced science of any kind - he's a televangelist minister, Ray, nothing more. Now, he may be a
crazy televangelist who buys his own press, I'm not entirely sure - but he's certainly no authority on evolution.
Now, despite my severe doubts as to the quality of Dr. Scott's opinions regarding evolution, you still haven't provided us with his
argument. Appeals to Authority and Ad Hominems are logical fallacies, so despite my misgivings, I;m more than willing to give Dr. Scott's words and thoughts a fair shake. In fact, I'm
eager to hear the argument you claim falsifies evolution. We're waiting, Ray.
Of course the level of anger and slander seen in your post against Dr. Scott is in dierct ratio equal to the degree that you perceive him to be a threat to your theory.
This is not me angry or hostile, Ray. This is me
laughing most heartily at your
insane ravings and televangelist muse. I don't perceive him, or
you as a threat to anything other than the pocketbooks of the gullible - and fortunately Dr. Scott is now deceased, so he won't be scamming grandmothers out of their money any time in the near future.
Dr. Scott, of course, like Dr. Velikovsky, were the two greatest scholars of all time. Evolution has no real scholars since scholars are bound to tell the truth.
Ray
Mmmm hmm. So, since you've still refused to provide your actual argument that destroys evolution, you agree that you implicitly concede that you have
nothing, and your tirades are nothing more than the sad rantings of a crazed zealot.
Either you're too much of a coward to have your argument examined in public, or you simply don't
have one, Ray.
When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a
painful inconvenience.
™ Version 4.2
