griffinA said:
Torillian said:
griffinA said:
Torillian said:
He's just so blatantly biased, it hurts to read it. It's like when JohnLucas writes articles. The guy puts a good amount of thought behind it, but it is clear to me that he is working towards a conclusion he wants and putting together evidence to make it so, and not looking at evidence and making a conclusion from there. |
A fun history fact: That's exactly what many detractors said about Darwin's theory of evolution, and look at how wrong they were.
|
The fact that you just compared this guy to Darwin is mind bogling, I honestly took a bit just to think about the implication.
Regardless, if Malstrom ends up right then yipdee doo he can be in textbooks with his "Disruption", but I still won't think he went about his conclusions the correct way. Perhaps I'd say the same if I was around in Darwin's time. Just because someone ends up guessing correctly doesn't mean his conclusions were not biased in the first place.
|
I didn't compare Malstrom to Darwin. All I said is that argument has been used before.
Arguing for a specific conclusion and backing it up with facts is not guessing.
|
and the masses also wanted Barabbas, what's the point?
