A Case for a creator

You say this as if you're talking about the people here, but you go on to give an example from a textbook. Are you saying that people here are making misrepresentations? Have you so soon forgotten your The lies behind the Miller experiment thread where after weeks of cajoling you still failed to post anything from your textbook about the Miller experiment? You had the opportunity to make this case, and you chose not to. How can you in good conscience enter a new thread and proceed as if your failure in the other thread had never happened? So far you haven't been able to supply evidence for even one case of textbook error. Go back to your old thread and so do now for the Miller Experiment.By the way, scientists would agree with you about the sorry state of textbooks. A famous instance is when Richard Feynmann reviewed some science textbooks for the state of California, and he found them uniformly dismal. As people told you in the other thread, if you find some actual problems in textbooks we'll be the first to agree with you that it's very sad. But the problem stems more from that those who understand science go off and do science, while those who don't understand science write textbooks. Public school science textbooks are for the most part not written by scientists but by laypeople.--Percy

I'm greatly confused by your approach. Wasn't it clear to you from the The lies behind the Miller experiment thread that you should support your assertions with evidence? We questioned this point from you over and over again, and you never provided any support. If you're going to repeat this assertion in this thread then you should support it with evidence. Either post an image of the page or type the text from that page in or make this the last time you ever make this assertion. Who twisted the facts? People here? Articles you read? What? Please follow the Forum Guidelines and support your assertions.--Percy

Hi Charles,I initially had the same visceral reaction as you, but I think JF may have been trying to distance himself a bit from the other thread. I think he garbled it a bit (note the confusion of the two consecutive verbs separated only by the parenthetic clause), so I thought that perhaps he didn't quite end up saying what he intended. I agree that it sounds like he's trying to rewrite the history of the other thread, but that may not have been his intent: Regardless, in the other thread Jesus Freak was incredibly frustrating in repeating charges of misrepresentation about the Miller experiment in his textbook, and he said over and over and over again that he was going to present this information to us (usually next Thursday), but he never did. He was very cavalier about the time invested by others at trying to address his points, often missing the point of many of the responses. I believe he spent some time in Boot Camp. I hope we don't see a repetition of this behavior.--Percy