Re: A stronger will than mine.

5121 Student 09 (
29 Apr 1994 00:21:43 -0400

>>I came to this newsgroup with an open mind. I have learned a
>>great deal, but what I am really interested in is some reasonable
>>description of human evolution. I can certainly understand why
>>no one is willing to put forth their own such description - because
>>they will be met not with reasonable discussion, but by passionate
>In a pervious post I outlined the characteristics of pseudoscience
>advocates. The above post follows the profile I offered almost
>to the letter. The author is now essentially stating that the
>reason no hard evidence exists to support the aquatic ape is that
>there is some kind of censorship of young, unestablished scientists
>by older ones. Now, to some extent this is true,

Excuse me? This is true!
Well, then, my first question is how do I become an _established_
scientist? By accepting the dominant paradigm?

Also, please note I made no mention of the AAT in this post.
It seems you _accidentally_ deleted my last line so let me
repeat it here:

I have little faith in any product of such an environment.

>Having now raised the charge of censorship, this AAT proponent
>has now joined the ranks of those who found Velikofsky, Eric
>Von Dannikan and Scientific Creationism compelling alternatives
>to conventional science.

Having now admitted to censorship, this proponent of...
oh, wait, what is he a proponent of again?...
oh, right, he believes whatever the dominant paradigm book says today.
Where can I get my copy?

At least now I know why this guy has never actually posted
his explanation of how man evolved. Just the tireless mantra:
read Pete Wheeler, read Pete Wheeler. Come on Mr. Nicholls,
an original thought never killed anyone, just a few carreers.

>I hate to say I told you so, but ...

Yea, you told me and every other person who doesn't share your
narrow minded views to shut-up.

Sorry, no dice.

David Greene