Evolutionists saying categorically wrong things

[JohnR7]

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

The theory contradicts itself often. For example, look at horse evolution. Varies drawings and museum exhibit show evolution to take place in a fairly consistant straight line from small to large. However according to talk origins dot com, horse evolution is not consistant and it does NOT take place in a straight line.

There is a lot of stuff being taught as evolutionary theory that evolutionists themselves admit is not true. It does not matter what I do or do not believe. What matters is what you do or do not believe. All I can do is point out the contradictions. Evos then have to admit that there are things being taught as evolutionary theory that simply are not true.

 

[JohnR7]

"I'm rubber and you're glue!

Perhaps you are ready for more advanced material than what you learned in grade school.

Freudian Projection.

• "A defense mechanism in which the individual attributes to other people impulses and traits that he himself has but cannot accept. It is especially likely to occur when the person lacks insight into his own impulses and traits."
• "The externalisation of internal unconscious wishes, desires or emotions on to other people. So, for example, someone who feels subconsciously that they have a powerful latent homosexual drive may not acknowledge this consciously, but it may show in their readiness to suspect others of being homosexual."
• "Attributing one's own undesirable traits to other people or agencies, e.g., an aggressive man accuses other people of being hostile."
• "The individual perceives in others the motive he denies having himself. Thus the cheat is sure that everyone else is dishonest. The would-be adulterer accuses his wife of infidelity."
• "People attribute their own undesirable traits onto others. An individual who unconsciously recognises his or her aggressive tendencies may then see other people acting in an excessively aggressive way."
• "Projection is the opposite defence mechanism to identification. We project our own unpleasant feelings onto someone else and blame them for having thoughts that we really have." http://www.heretical.com/sexsci/bpsychol.html

 

[Split Rock]

The theory contradicts itself often. For example, look at horse evolution. Varies drawings and museum exhibit show evolution to take place in a fairly consistant straight line from small to large. However according to talk origins dot com, horse evolution is not consistant and it does NOT take place in a straight line.

There is a lot of stuff being taught as evolutionary theory that evolutionists themselves admit is not true. It does not matter what I do or do not believe. What matters is what you do or do not believe. All I can do is point out the contradictions. Evos then have to admit that there are things being taught as evolutionary theory that simply are not true.

This is an out-dated view of evolutionary history based on the fact that in the past, there were fewer discovered fossils. In addition, textbooks will often show things in a simplified format. If it is made clear that the lineage being shown is that specific to the modern horse, then I have no problem with it.

Your problem seems to be with textbook authors and publishers, and with museums. If you would like to point out some examples, perhaps we could discuss them.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Ut-oh... John's learned a new word...

Perhaps you are ready for more advanced material than what you learned in grade school.

Perhaps you are as well, Johnny. Nobody's seen it from you yet, but we have faith in you.

Now, it looked like you had a point here, John. What was it again?

 

[Manakin]

John... I'll give you this much. You're certainly entertaining.

Now, granted, we could spend all day chasing each other's tail and saying, "You're projecting," "No, you're projecting." Which would be adorable.

But that doesn't change what I was talking about. Namely that you had seemed to give up even the pretense of rational debate, forsaking that for telling us that whenever an "evolutionist" points out a creationist's lack of evidence he's somehow proclaiming the error of his own ways. Without supporting evidence (and there was none), I really just don't see how it amounts to anything more than, "I'm rubber and you're glue."

<shrug>

eta: Oh, btw. If it's not too much trouble I do believe I'm still waiting for an answer over in that fetish thread of yours.

 

[Ryal Kane]

Everything you own and your very health and life are owed to the fact that Science is ever changing and learning. And yet you have the sheer audacity to criticize that very essence that makes your quality of life possible. The very worst example of biting the hand that feeds you. I guess computers should be run on vacuum tubes and patch cords.

John has adamantly asserted in another thread that computers have nothing to do with science.

This entire thread seems to be nothing but and extended
"I know you are, you said you are, but what am I."
(I think it's our cultural version of rubber/glue)

I responded to a near identical post of yours in another thread John. You ignored it.
Science adapts with new evidence.
But you know that already don't you John?

 

[Esayah]

Hey, can we stop picking on John? I mean, YEC is just as valid as any so-called "science" you- wait a minute...

Okay, so he's wrong about almost everything he's ever said, but come on. It's like beating a retarded puppy.

Is this really what Jesus would want you to do?

 

[jamesrwright3]

John has adamantly asserted in another thread that computers have nothing to do with science.

Well they don't..can you tell me where computers have a place in science

 

[JohnR7]

John has adamantly asserted in another thread that computers have nothing to do with science.

Which one of these men have a degree in science? Michael Dell? Bill Gates? Steve Jobs?

 

[fromdownunder]

Which one of these men have a degree in science? Michael Dell? Bill Gates? Steve Jobs?

Which one of them invented the computer?

Hint - none of them.

Norm

 

[caravelair]

Well they don't..can you tell me where computers have a place in science

how do you think they invented and refined them over the years? ever hear of a program called "computer science"? it's very popular at many universities.

 

[jamesrwright3]

how do you think they invented and refined them over the years? ever hear of a program called "computer science"? it's very popular at many universities.

Is it really? Wow I didn't know that. That sounds like a pretty neat field.

 

[Kripost]

Which one of these men have a degree in science? Michael Dell? Bill Gates? Steve Jobs?

None of them are involved in advancement of computer science as a discipline.

Instead, the people you are looking for are Alan Turing, Alonzo Church, John von Neumann, Edsger Dijkstra and Donald Knuth.

 

[JohnR7]

ever hear of a program called "computer science"? it's very popular at many universities.

They may teach computers at the universitys because that is their job to teach. In fact my sister teaches computers at the university. I can assure you that they are only one step ahead of the students and they know very little about computers.

 

[FSTDT]

To be fair, I once found a guy who was claiming that Bigfoot is evidence of evolution, but those categorically wrong statements are just once in a blue moon. However, they're nothing compared to "APES DON'T SHAVE!" and "HOW CAN BULLS MATE WITH OTHER BULLS! ITS YOUR FUNERAL EVOLUTIONISTS!".

 

[JohnR7]

None of them are involved in advancement of computer science as a discipline.

"Computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes."

 

[Arkanin]

They may teach computers at the universitys because that is their job to teach. In fact my sister teaches computers at the university. I can assure you that they are only one step ahead of the students and they know very little about computers.

No, us computer types actually do know a whole lot about computers. Is there something in particular you would like to know about computers in general? There are people who, if they do not know the answer to your question, could learn it, understand it, and explain it to you.

 

[caravelair]

They may teach computers at the universitys because that is their job to teach. In fact my sister teaches computers at the university. I can assure you that they are only one step ahead of the students and they know very little about computers.

i don't know what university your sister teaches at, but i took a few computer science courses at my university, and i can assure you that my instructors knew plenty, and so did many of the students.

 

[JohnR7]

Is there something in particular you would like to know about computers in general?

You could maybe explain why Dell wants $300 for the video board on my sons computer and you can buy a whole new system for that amount of money. Or something else I wonder about is why did Texas Instrament have a interpolarization problem with their fireboard and just how was the problem corrected when Intel came out with the Pentium 4. If the problem was actually corrected. I wonder because there was never a interpolarization problem with the video capture cards we used before the fireboard came out.

 

[Ioinc]

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.

I could not agree with you more. Any theory that changes over time has got to be totally false... I mean really... what do they take us for... idiots?

Lets take the shape of the earth for instance.

Once... science thought it was flat (fools! All of them!)
Then one of these boneheads decided it was a sphere. This was all fine and good until they decided that it is not a sphere.

These thick idiots did not realize it bulged along the equator

Then... after these idiots randomly changed their theory (with no good reason that I am aware of) to account for this bulge... some other fool launched a satellite. Based on bogus 'science' they decided the southern hemisphere was slightly larger than the northern.

How many times are they planning on changing this theory? Folly so great smacks of genius.

As everybody knows any theory that changes like this can not possibly be wrong.

The Relativity of Wrong