Evolutionists saying categorically wrong things

[JohnR7]

I noticed the other thread, so I thought we should have equal time here. Has anyone noticed how often the evos change their theory. At times it is like the soup of the day or the flavor of the week, because in a few days it will be a all new theory. For example (people always ask for examples) For a long time they use to talk about the tree of life. But now they are saying evolution is not a tree, it is a bush. I guess they were wrong in saying it was a tree. But somehow the "bush of life" does not have the same ring of truth to it.

 

[Nooj]

This is petty John. A bush is a more accurate representation of what the taxanomy of life looks like. The tree can still be used, but the bush is a better way of graphically showing it.

If this is all you can dig up on evolutionists, then that's saying a lot for our side.

 

[JohnR7]

If this is all you can dig up on evolutionists,

This is just an example or a illustration to represent the point I am making. Everything about the theory is categorically wrong and a misrepresentation of the truth. So we do not have to confine ourselves to one little tiny part of it.

This is just another example of evolutionists being guilty of the very thing they accuse others of. Actually the only way we would know they were "categorically" wrong is they tell on themselves in the way they try to accuse the creationists.

 

[Dannager]

I'm not aware of any evolutionists using anything other than the currently accepted theory of evolution in these discussions. Examples would be nice. Quotations from this board would be nicer.

 

[Jet Black]

I noticed the other thread, so I thought we should have equal time here. Has anyone noticed how often the evos change their theory. At times it is like the soup of the day or the flavor of the week, because in a few days it will be a all new theory. For example (people always ask for examples) For a long time they use to talk about the tree of life. But now they are saying evolution is not a tree, it is a bush. I guess they were wrong in saying it was a tree. But somehow the "bush of life" does not have the same ring of truth to it.

First of all, there is quite a difference between the point I was making in my thread, and the point you are trying to make here. catgegorically wrong referred to things that were trivially wrong, such as Shinbits' claim that there were bears in Australia, or TexasSky's assertation that Tiktaalik was an overgrown tadpole and there was only one fossil etc. Your thread here looks more at the development of science, and yes, evolution has become more refined, but this does not mean that the earliest model was categorically wrong. to make my point, here is an essay by Asimov

The Relativity of Wrong

So in this context, Evolutionists are not guilty of the same thing that I was accusing (some) creationists of.

 

[Athene]

John, science is not rigid and inflexible, it's growing and out there in the world are loads of scientists working away, discovering new info which slightly changes what we know of the world and how we view it. I guess you can't really comprehend this because in creationism all scientific info is squashed and squeazed and twisted to fit into a YEC mold, and you don't understand that in the scientific world things don't work like that . . .

 

[JohnR7]

So in this context, Evolutionists are not guilty of the same thing that I was accusing (some) creationists of.

It seems to me that right and wrong are fuzzy concepts, and I will devote this essay to an explanation of why I think so.

What are you accusing them of: "fuzzy logic"? I just got a new rice cooker for my wife. It works off of "fuzzy logic" and it does a pretty good job of cooking the rice because of the way it is able to adjust itself. It does a esp. good job of cooking sweet rice. I do not understand fuzzy logic, but everyone liked the rice it produced.

 

[JohnR7]

I guess you can't really comprehend this because in creationism all scientific info is squashed and squeazed and twisted to fit into a YEC mold, and you don't understand that in the scientific world things don't work like that . . .

We are not YEC we are GAP. Most creationists are OEC. They believe a day in the Bible represents a age in science. GAP's try to bridge the gap between YEC's and OEC's. We believe in the old world that old earth creationists believe in, and we believe in the new earth that the YEC's believe in.

 

[Jet Black]

err, John, your reply indicated that you have not understood what I have said. I know you have learning difficulties, but this is a bit annoying.

 

[Nathan Poe]

This is just an example or a illustration to represent the point I am making. Everything about the theory is categorically wrong and a misrepresentation of the truth. So we do not have to confine ourselves to one little tiny part of it.

This is just another example of evolutionists being guilty of the very thing they accuse others of. Actually the only way we would know they were "categorically" wrong is they tell on themselves in the way they try to accuse the creationists.

And there goes another Irony Meter.

Considering that this OP was ripped off-- ahem, excuse me, "inspired by" the Creationists say categorically wrong things thread, and that all Johnny here has done is parrot a claim back without a shred of evidence, is it any wonder I go through so many Irony Meters?

My kingdom for an original Creationist idea -- even a bad one at this point would be refreshing, as long as it was original.

 

[JohnR7]

all Johnny here has done is parrot a claim back without a shred of evidence, is it any wonder I go through so many Irony Meters?

The irony is that everytime you try to accuse me you are really only telling on yourself. It is good in that I would not know that you did not have a "shred of evidence", if you had not told me that you do not have any evidence. Yes indeed, the irony meter does indeed seem to be going off a lot lately over the evoes accusing others of the very thing that they are guilty of.

 

[Dannager]

I'm not seeing anything actually being discussed here. There was a point to this thread, right?

 

[JohnR7]

I'm not seeing anything actually being discussed here. There was a point to this thread, right?

The point is as long as we have the other thread, then we are going to have this one also. To be consistant with the title, then we should be talking about how evos are "categorically" wrong.

 

[Dannager]

The point is as long as we have the other thread, then we are going to have this one also. To be consistant with the title, then we should be talking about how evos are "categorically" wrong.

How are evolutionists categorically wrong, then? You haven't even brought an issue to the table! Your one complaint is that the theory appears (to you) to keep changing. That's isn't being categorically wrong even if it was true. That's altering a theory to be more in line with the current data. Science operates under the precept that we're going to be wrong until we're right. You can throw it at evolutionists' feet all you want, but we're going to pick it up and pin it to our lab coats.

 

[Norseman]

This is just an example or a illustration to represent the point I am making.

And it is a horrible, horrible illustration. Not only it is inconsequential (bush, tree? What a huge difference! Evolution is false!), useless (evolutionary theory allows some things to be incorrect. The present theory is based on upon present data, but if new data were introduced, the theory can and will change to accomadate it, or with a big enough set of new data, will be discarded and replaced for something which better explains the current evidence and predicts new evidence), but it's hypocritical as well. You've got OEC, YEC, dad, Hovind, and all sorts of other crazy and deep differences in creationism, unlike this tree-bush thing you keep bringing up.

 

[Garnett]

And it is a horrible, horrible illustration. Not only it is inconsequential (bush, tree? What a huge difference! Evolution is false!), useless (evolutionary theory allows some things to be incorrect. The present theory is based on upon present data, but if new data were introduced, the theory can and will change to accomadate it, or with a big enough set of new data, will be discarded and replaced for something which better explains the current evidence and predicts new evidence), but it's hypocritical as well. You've got OEC, YEC, dad, Hovind, and all sorts of other crazy and deep differences in creationism, unlike this tree-bush thing you keep bringing up.

Well said. ToE may have its date lines redrawn or slightly amended when there is a new discovery, but Creationists are flattening out all mountains, changing the laws of physics, and rewriting gometric probabilty almost on a daily basis, whenever someone highlights another hole in their theory!

 

[jamesrwright3]

Well said. ToE may have its date lines redrawn or slightly amended when there is a new discovery, but Creationists are flattening out all mountains, changing the laws of physics, and rewriting gometric probabilty almost on a daily basis, whenever someone highlights another hole in their theory!

What you said is categorically wrong. How ironic

 

[Dannager]

What you said it categorically wrong.

I'm sorry, this doesn't appear to be a properly structured sentence. I think the word you were looking for was "is", not "it". I also think that you probably intended to back this up with some evidence, but forgot to do so at the last minute. You may want to go back and fix those things, along with your improper capitalization of the "i" in "ironic".

 

[jamesrwright3]

I'm sorry, this doesn't appear to be a properly structured sentence. I think the word you were looking for was "is", not "it". I also think that you probably intended to back this up with some evidence, but forgot to do so at the last minute. You may want to go back and fix those things, along with your improper capitalization of the "i" in "ironic".

Thanks for proofreading my posts. You are a great American. I didn't need to supply any evidence. The post above it speaks for itself. Clearly rubbish.

 

[SLP]

This is just an example or a illustration to represent the point I am making. Everything about the theory is categorically wrong and a misrepresentation of the truth. So we do not have to confine ourselves to one little tiny part of it.

Categorically wrong?

Cool.

This should be easy - provide one example of how the theory is categorically wrong.

This is just another example of evolutionists being guilty of the very thing they accuse others of. Actually the only way we would know they were "categorically" wrong is they tell on themselves in the way they try to accuse the creationists.

I cannot decipher that.