nc47 wrote:You keep questioning my scientific credentials, and I don't really care. I'm trained to understand (and solve, if applicable) scientific models across physics, geology, chemistry, ecology, neuroscience, endocrinology, and infectious diseases (I might have forgotten some model in a different field). I don't question the sincerity in your claim to be a scientist, but the way you define "science" I sometimes wonder if it amounts to something comparable to basketweaving.
You keep questioning others including DrW. You are even arrogant enough to only want to engage those you think are close to your imagined Intellectual level. I don't care what your credentials are, only what your argument is. by the way what you list above doesn't really answer what formal education you obtained. Not that I am asking.
I have reason to wonder. I have never seen a hard scientist defend linguistics as a science.
Maybe you should get out more. It's not a hard science, but it is a scientific discipline.
http://ling.yale.edu/http://www.thefreedictionary.com/linguisticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LinguisticsYou, on the other hand, are 80% rhetoric and 20% substance (that's relatively impressive; the rest of this board is closer to 99-1).
"You're embarassing yourself."
"You don't understand population genetics."
"That is some crappy apologetics."
That shows you have no confidence in what you say. All the points that you brought up are either not scientific questions, obvious metaphors, or something the Church doesn't teach (as much as you wish it did). Except the Lamanite DNA problem.
Maybe you should stop the hypocrisy
"you are clueless about Mormons and evolution."
"So the way you espouse a fringe, wacky view combined with your melodramatic tone makes you sound foolish."
"As soon as someone who knows something comes in, I'll have a chance to strut my stuff."
