“Yes, this is a good analogy. If you think global …

Comment on GC Votes to Revise SDA Fundamental #6 on Creation by Roger Seheult.

“Yes, this is a good analogy. If you think global warming science is a global conspiracy, and if you think the CRU hack shows this, please see these posts on RealClimate and take up your argument there:”

Actually Brad you don’t even have to believe that there is global warming or not. It’s irrelevant. The fact is is that there was just the sort of thing that you facetiously proposed. A cover-up. It’s there for all to see. Let the reader make up his own mind.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

BTW I read the links you so well included (took you a long time to find just those?) LOL. They make the straw man argument that “There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords”

Never mind the fact that these claims were never made, the type of conspiracy that we’re are referring to is one of excluding from the peer reviewed journals any evidence of the contrary. This, in fact is exactly what happened – again may I direct your attention to the actual emails – something that your links were afraid to do. Unfortunately, these aforementioned “smoking guns” are rarely evident in any sort of conspiracy because the members are willing participants – they truly believe that there science is correct because of all the time that they have invested in it – not too dissimilar to the evolution science that is going around.

Brad – the emails speak for themselves – look at them and tell me with a straight face that they weren’t trying to manipulate the peer review process. Or perhaps the British media that brought this to light were really fundamentalist creationists that hate science. The great thing about this argument is that whether you believe that the earth is getting hotter or colder or neither is irrelevant with respect to what was uncovered at EAU.

That said, I see that you have successfully deterred the conversation onto a point that you can speak about (albeit incorrectly) but have failed to answer my original question:

Which type of evolution?
1) Uniformatarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism)
-Evolution by Creeps
2) Punctuated Equilbrium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium)
-Evoltuion by Jerks

both are pretty mutually exclusive. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould)

I’m still trying to figure out which one made the “stunning record” since the theory keeps changing.

Roger Seheult Also Commented

GC Votes to Revise SDA Fundamental #6 on Creation

“Thanks for telling me you meant literal years. I’m not sure who the joke’s on, but this did make me laugh. If you like, you can add to my mathematical example that I have been working on topology for years, it is my hobby, I’ve talked about and read about it and am writing a book about it. Also, I tell you that I know more about topology than you know about Nantes. Should you believe I have disproved the Poincaré conjecture?”

No, [edit] but I’d probably pretend and at least consider that you knew what you were talking about.


GC Votes to Revise SDA Fundamental #6 on Creation

Roger, please stop deranging the peer review process. How dare you.  (Quote)

You’re kidding right! I’m find it difficult to imagine someone who has published as much as you have to make a statement like that without jest.


GC Votes to Revise SDA Fundamental #6 on Creation
Great, again, show me where Sean Pitman claimed to be an expert. He claims to have at least “some understanding of protein structure.” That is very different from an expert.


Recent Comments by Roger Seheult

Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit
@Ervin Taylor:

I literally have not logged on to this website in years. It looks like the same arguments are going back and forth which means that if you haven’t been able to solve them by now, you aren’t going to convence each other of your points. What is really amazing to me and anyone intersted in the topic, however, is the tone of the comments, which usually reveal the maturity of the writer especially if they include absolutes:

Examples:
“vast majority of scientifically-informed Adventists will thank Dr.Kent ”

“this misnamed web site”

“Dr. Kent has done a masterful job”

These are usually tip-offs to a lot. Also, it makes me wonder that if Sean Pitman is so ill-informed, and he operates on such a mis-leading web site, why does the good Dr. Taylor waste his time coming to this website, reading the material and then commenting on it? In fact I can bet that Dr. Taylor has spent more time on this web site then I have in the last year – and that speaks volumes about what Dr. Taylor really thinks of this website – perhaps the good Dr. Kent as well.


The Metamorphosis of La Sierra University: an eye-witness account
Again, the question is begged: Why would they work so hard to change the university rather than just leave and go where universities already believe the way you do? Dare I say that there lies a larger conspiracy that transcends LSU and that may be going on at your local SDA instituation? Again, why the push over a generation to change a whole university and to denude it of its fundamentals?


Educate Truth’s purpose and goals
Most of the blogs that are critical of this site aren’t interested in what this site is really out to do. They simply want to demonize it ergo Alinsky’s rule of indetify, demonize, and marginalize. Hence their cherry picking from the comments for their own purposes.

Thanks for the recap though.


LSU propaganda
Lydian Belknap:

This is only my opinion and none of anyone on this site.

You said: “The thing that concerns me a great deal at this point is the idea that there is no scientific information to support “Intelligent Design.” At least that is the statement I’ve heard numerous times on this site”

If you want to learn more I think you would really be interested in this man and his videos if you have not already. I get no money for referring him to you. He got me interested in this topic and energized me to do so.

Watch his life story and his videos noted below:

http://walterveith.org/walter-veith-life-story.html
http://amazingdiscoveries.org/webstore/us/100-the-genesis-conflict-series-8-dvd-set.html


Angry Scientists: Publishing on Intelligent Design
It is Academic that is being tautological

Sean using the argument that ID papers are not allowed in by the peer review process because of the conclusions that they draw and Academic is trying to prove him wrong by citing evidence upheld by the very peer review process.

Academic said:
“And I don’t believe that there’s a single paper that refutes the possibility. ”

You are right, academic, there is not one but three I could find in a brief search:

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=qu6VFJQ31RQC&oi=fnd&pg=PA11&dq=evolution+mathematics+disproved&ots=7JID_uqKdU&sig=Ex23MWzncbxeAaZZ9fVmmhZdVVY#v=onepage&q=evolution%20mathematics%20disproved&f=false

http://www.genetics.org/cgi/reprint/47/6/713.pdf

http://www.idnet.com.au/files/pdf/The%20Origin%20of%20Life%20David%20Berlinski.pdf