alt.education

Martin Phipps wrote:
> On Sep 20, 12:13 pm, Danwood wrote:
>> Matt Silberstein wrote:
>>> On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 21:48:21 -0400, Danwood
>>> wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>> So you set yourself up as the ultimate authority on all matters,
>>>> therefore, whoever rejects your "official" ranting is a liar and a
>>>> pretender.
>>>> You "authorities" do not permit independant thought. IOW if
>>>> one does not tow the line, it is he who is brainwashed, not those
>>>> of you who swallow the Darwinist dogma hook, line and sinker withput
>>>> any questioning.
>>> I am disappointed that you have returned and decided to engage in a
>>> personal, rather than substantive, discussion.
>> >
>> Matt, I am not the one who initiated the name calling. Furthermore, I
>> will not respond again to anyone who engages in this. Whatever my faults
>> are I am not a liar.
>>
>> But regarding> scientific authority: of course you can question it . And if you have
>>> evidience to back you up you can win.
>> >
>> I disagree from past experience I have learned that once you question
>> anything about evolution you are automatically cast into the roll of
>> a religious fundy; uneducated and an idiot even with a PhD. This too
>> often incurs abuse, libel and character assination, Until I met some of
>> the evolutionist on this forum I had no strong adverse thoughts
>> regarding evolution,
>> I still don't. But my attitude changed. Most of the evolutionist
>
>
>
> Coming onto and talking about "evolutionists" IS name
> calling. Evolution is a field of scientific inquiry. It is not a
> religion. Period.
>
> So, yes, when you come here and say that you didn't initiate the name
> calling you ARE lying. Through your teeth.
>
Are you claiming that calling someone an evolutionist is "name calling"?
>
> Martin
>