[Vision2020] NSA's accrediting agency is not recognized in Texas

g. crabtree jampot at roadrunner.com
Sat Dec 22 09:15:56 PST 2007

I never cease to be amazed at what silly throw away post will set the laying 
hens to squawking. My point was that a modicum of skepticism for scientists 
was as appropriate as it would be for some Christian apologists. (It should 
go without saying that secular philosophers and their enormous egos should 
be viewed skeptically 24/7.)

On a separate note, could some conservative out there in the wings PLEASE 
chime in and "call me on the cr*p" I continually throw out. For the rest of 
the readers to be deprived of the pearls of truth and knowledge that are Mr. 
Campbell's contributions to this forum is cruel and doubtless detrimental to 
the over-all health of the community. For the sake of all that is good and 
righteous, someone MUST set me straight so we may once again know the 
splendor and glory that is *Him*. Sadly, I am totally  inadequate to such a 
Herculean task.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joe Campbell" <joekc at adelphia.net>
To: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 6:39 PM
Subject: [Vision2020] NSA's accrediting agency is not recognized in Texas

> Crabtree's comments and links are misleading. He notes 10 links. Suppose
> there were 100 instances in which scientists fudged data. Should we 
> conclude
> that ALL scientists fudge data or that SOME do?
> I could come up with countless instances in which Pastors have made things
> up in order to convince their followers -- for nothing more than economic
> gain. Does that mean that ALL religion is hogwash? That all Pastors are 
> out for
> nothing other than selfish financial gain? That Christianity is built upon 
> a
> thrown of lies? Of course not.
> On the whole, science offers the best model of objective knowledge that we
> have. It is not perfect and scientists are not perfect. But to think that 
> scientists who endorse evolution theory are biased -- or, more to the 
> point, to
> think that Crabtree's 10 links support this claim -- is absurd.
> If Crabtree was trying to establish the claim that scientists are biased 
> on the
> basis of his 10 links, then he is guilty of the fallacy of small sample. I 
> would
> say the same for anyone who tried to make a similar claim about religion
> based on 10 links -- which is easy enough to do. The history of science is
> extensive and glorious. The case for evolution theory is great, also, 
> which is
> why the number of biologists working in the area who reject it can be 
> counted
> on one hand. It would take a billion examples to prove Crabtree's point, 
> and I
> don't see that coming any time soon.
> I'd contribute to this forum a bit more if I found ONE conservative who 
> was
> willing to call Crabtree on the crap that he continually throws out.
> --
> Joe Campbell
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================

More information about the Vision2020 mailing list