npeterly people stopped listening to you a long time ago, its the way you go about it. Its the language you use - no-one is prepared to listen to someone who uses the word sect to describe biologists
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Darwinian Sects, Lies and Evolutionists
- Thread starter npetreley
- Start date
I'll do better than that! I'll give you the evidence the evolution way.
Fossil evidence of the tooth fairy.
Artist's conception of the tooth fairy, based on the above fossil.
There you have it. Irrefutable proof of the tooth fairy.
Admittedly, people have tried to discredit this conclusion by claiming this is actually the correct tooth for Lucy, not the tooth fairy.
But we educated scientists know for a fact that, at the very least, the tooth fairy and this tooth share common ancestry. Both of these pictures share certain traits, like colors, and the characters in the URL have similar patterns or exact replicas, such as "http."
Upvote
0
options:
1) I can come off all of this about geochronology, admit that not only was I wrong, but that my source was about as trustworthy as a used car salesman, and offer to avoid making the same mistakes in the future as I have in the past, and have repeated this time.
2) I can play it all off with my version of sarcastic humor, then come back later with more of my unmitigated baloney.....
lets see.. ....
hmmm.....
Better go surfin' for some tooth fairy pictures..
1) I can come off all of this about geochronology, admit that not only was I wrong, but that my source was about as trustworthy as a used car salesman, and offer to avoid making the same mistakes in the future as I have in the past, and have repeated this time.
2) I can play it all off with my version of sarcastic humor, then come back later with more of my unmitigated baloney.....
lets see.. ....
hmmm.....
Better go surfin' for some tooth fairy pictures..
Upvote
0
WinAce
Just an old legend...
- Jun 23, 2002
- 1,077
- 47
- 40
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
I was unaware that horse evolution was ever 'debunked', as you claim, although a significant amount of new data was found that made the old models too simplistic. I'm also surprised that you would compare the use of older textbooks, which aren't actually published by 'evolutionists' but by publishing houses and can't very easily be replaced for every new discovery, to a webpage directly maintained by the advocates of YEC which can be completely corrected to reflect such findings with only a few clicks of a mouse. The fact that AiG does neither, pushing BOTH outdated books and outdated webpages, as well as publishing NEW articles with the same misinformation, clearly shows these 'attacks' are not baseless, but merely reflective of their shoddy research standards.
Just what is wrong with artistic conceptions dictated by anatomical interpretation? If trained paleontologists can look at a known species' skeleton and correctly infer how it looked, why would those methods be inaccurate for unknown animals? If they're such morons, why were the parts of the skeleton they assumed to exist later found?
They looked at the characteristics inherent in a whale, then at the characteristics belonging to other mammals. They assumed the only rational explanation consistent with the data, that the thing could walk AND swim. Then they apparently found the missing parts to confirm the hypothesis, which clearly shows they knew what they were doing!
Little could be further from the truth, Mr. Petreley. Biologists base their conclusions on explanations which make sense, aren't directly contradicted by the data and make testable predictions which we can check. Since a trained paleontologist can accurately tell you a surprising amount of characteristics from a known animal merely by looking at a single feature, such as a skull or rib cage, and this accuracy shoots sky-high with more complete skeletons such as Ambulocetus, we know their methods are accurate unless presented with evidence to the contrary, which so far you've avoided doing.
Paleontological reconstruction in an evolutionary framework falls under all the definitions of good science and, what's more important, is open to reinterpretation as new data comes in, whereas no other hypothesis than common descent with modification can even account for the linear order of the record, much less features that are obviously coopted from previous ones. But I'm guessing you know this and simply keep repeating tired old YEC mantras out of habit.
Carry on. You're doing a vital service to humanity--after all, if I wasn't exposed to such silliness years ago, which prompted me to look at the evidence as opposed to swallowing everything coming from the likes of Hovind and AiG, I might well be a creationist still. Your best 'rebuttals' to transitional fossils leave much to be desired, not to mention the other independent and converging lines of evidence supporting evolution that would make it the only viable hypothesis even in the absence of a fossil record.
Upvote
0
seebs
God Made Me A Skeptic
- Apr 9, 2002
- 31,917
- 1,530
- 20
- Faith
- Seeker
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Speaking of AiG, I sent them a pointer to a detailed rebuttal of the "Chinese Characters" claim, and it's still there. This suggests an argument in bad faith to me; this is stuff on their page which is flat-out wrong, and can be easily verified, and they're not bothering to correct it.
Upvote
0
Well said, WinAce. If AiG corrected all the misinformation at its website there wouldn't be anything left except for Ken Ham's begging letters.
Upvote
0
Nick, you are a model of everything wrong with Christianity. No wonder I lost faith.
Oh, and it's a darn good thing there are apologists like Seebs in here, otherwise I wouldn't even waste my time on these boards.
- Joe
Oh, and it's a darn good thing there are apologists like Seebs in here, otherwise I wouldn't even waste my time on these boards.
- Joe
Upvote
0
Nick, as usual, you hit the nail on the head. I don't have time to hang out here, but the duplicity of the evolutionists is astonishing. It real;ly is incredible the number of hoaxes, overstatements, lies, and errors they continually foist upon society. The more see what they write, the more convinced that for many, evolutionism is a cult.
Upvote
0
Looks like randman has taken up permanent residence in Nick's fantasy world.
To think I used to be convinced that randman really did object to dishonesty, and was merely fooled by the smoke and mirrors of people like Petreley, Gish, Ham & Hovind...
Upvote
0
I don't know if it fits the definition of a cult, but it's definitely a religion. Too bad for us heathens who aren't "saved" by the superior gnosticism of evolutionism. We'll just never know what it's like to be enlightened.
Upvote
0
perhaps there is something approximating to a religious fervour for those of us who have to defend science against creationists - in countries where creationism isn't a problem (practically anywhere but america), there isn't any fervour, evolution is just another scientific theory, like quantum physics, or universal gravitation
Upvote
0
So creationism is a problem, now? Is it interfering with your love life, perhaps? Are you oppressed by creationists? Are they preventing you from having a fulfilling career? If so, perhaps you'll petition to have us sterilized so we can stop infecting the more elite society of intellectuals who are evolutionists. That's one way to solve the problem, and it fits right in with the evolutionist manifesto.
"Creationism is a problem."
Upvote
0
nutcase fundies are the only people who think evolution is a religion - and even then its only in retaliation for the court ruling that creation science doesn't constitute science
Upvote
0
If memory serves me correctly randman uttered something along the lines of evolution might be true, but the behavour of it's proponents lead him to denounce it on a different message board some time ago. So much for caring about the truth. I don't think he's beyond repair though. He seems to have some sort of misguided conception about having to be loyal to the creationist side more than anything.
Choccy
Upvote
0
Similar threads
