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.
Verysincere, if you want to see Astrid's MO in operation, check out this part of the previous "what proof would you need" thread. She quotes a wiki entry that falsely attributes content to Dawkins' "The Ancestor's Tale".
On page 93 (at the bottom) I correct her.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7608403-93/
On page 94, I continue to correct her, finally directing her to Google books so she can read the pages in question, post screen caps of those pages and a photo of myself, holding my copy of the book, standing next to Dawkins himself.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7608403-94/
Her response?
"Dear the work is quoted..."The Ancestor's Tale""
"That is because the book is quoted. I am not the idiot here...."The Ancestor's Tale" tells it all."
"GO BUY THE BOOK"
And then she quotes the bogus Wiki material one more time.
Verysincere, if you want to see Astrid's MO in operation, check out this part of the previous "what proof would you need" thread. She quotes a wiki entry that falsely attributes content to Dawkins' "The Ancestor's Tale".
On page 93 (at the bottom) I correct her.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7608403-93/
Darls, I don't need Dawkins and you still haven't contacted them to change the content, You have a reason to lie. Wiki do not.
You also haven't even bothered to challenge the reseach I did post to demonstrate Lucy was just an ape and not in the human line at all, provided it so happens, by your own evolutionary researchers.
All you can do now is side wind and ridicule, Too bad you cannot actually defend your mess of contradictions. Ha Ha
On page 94, I continue to correct her, finally directing her to Google books so she can read the pages in question, post screen caps of those pages and a photo of myself, holding my copy of the book, standing next to Dawkins himself.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7608403-94/
You did not correct my research at all. What USingonito did was ignore it and continue woffling on his merry way with his little straw that makes no difference at all to my assertions.
Her response?
"Dear the work is quoted..."The Ancestor's Tale""
"That is because the book is quoted. I am not the idiot here...."The Ancestor's Tale" tells it all."
"GO BUY THE BOOK"
And then she quotes the bogus Wiki material one more time.
I'll repeat, I do not need Dawkins. You are so desperate, and I have broken you up so bad, that you can now only play this desperate tune.
?
What verse exactly do you see as unsupported by evidence?
1) Certainly the Big Bang Theory of 1940AD finally supported a beginning as claimed for 3362 years by the Bible.
2) ...and the Plant Kindom did suddenly establish itself with an Act-of-God we call abiogenesis.
3) There statement about "all the waters under heaven being gathered together into one place" has now been supported with the theory of a Pangea-like tectonic movement.
etc etc etc
I put her on Ignore after the upteenth time she claimed that "bird-like" footprints prior to the Jurassic period equalled "modern birds" existing before their dinosaur ancestors. It's a waste of time trying to discuss anything with her.
All modern science, not just evolutionary biology, is based on the scientific method. The scientific method involves continual questioning and theories are always subject to falsification. Yes, insight often comes through continual testing and falsification. (I have no idea where you got the idea that TOE is exempt from such falsification.)
I am glad you agree. To disagree with the obvious is just a demonstration of hiding ones head in the sand by denial. If you actually do still have a reasoning mind then you can understand much so called 'information' is based on the interpretation of data and the credibility of the data produced.
As to your confidence that you have found devastating flaws in the Theory of Evolution which will overturn 150+ years of scientific inquiry, by all means publish your "manifesto" and win the Nobel Prize. (I'm quite serious. If your ideas are superior, they will survive the scrutiny of peer-review.)
The peer review and publication process is contolled by shmooks that do doubt would expect and demand a higher level of substantiation than ay evolutionist themselves can provide, so I would not waste my time.
BTW I have never seen a Noble prize awarded for any theory, not even an evolutionary one.
One of the best ways to go down in history as a giant of science is to overturn long-held theories. (Despite the "conspiracy theories" of many anti-evolution ranters, the scientific community worldwide reveres those who upset the status quo, revolutionize scientific thinking, and provoke major revisions of textbooks.) After centuries of Newtonian physics, Einstein shocked the world and (with the help of scientists who created experiments to test his theories) convinced physicists of the astounding limitations of Newton's ideas. Politics, ideologies, and other real or imagined human tendencies to preserve the dogmas of the status quo have again and again crumbled as the processes of the scientific method eventually exposed flaws and improved our understanding of the universe.
So if you are certain that you have uncovered "fatal flaws" in the Theory of Evolution, by all means enlighten the world with your analysis by publishing a comprehensive review of TOE.
The fatal flaws in evolutionary theory have always been hand waved away with more ridiculous and non plausible scenarios. Why would I expect anything to change now?
Impress us all and someday we can all recount how we watched you change the landscape of modern biology. And don't complain that the system is rigged against you or that everybody else is blind and biased to the "real truth" (which only you and a disenfranchised minority of anti-evolution crusaders have figured out and embraced.) Einstein was a lowly patent clerk who couldn't find even an adjunct-faculty undergraduate teaching post. Yet, a short article on his theory of relativity instantly catapulted him into the stratosphere of advanced physics. If your work has exceptional merit, the world will take notice.
I do not need to do waste my time publishing papers to falsify any of your silly scenarios. Your own evolutionary researchers are crackers at it, and do it very well themselves.
Meanwhile, you need to learn some of the fundamentals of science in general and biology in particular. It only takes a few seconds of reading your protestations to determine that you aren't going to be granted tenure as part of any biological sciences faculty at a leading accredited university (or at least, not anytime soon). That's not a smug put-down. It is simply reality and I'm showing you the courtesy of trying to help you.
Dear, you cannot refute an unfalsifiable scenario and none of you have done so as yet.
You can no more falsify my interpretation of erectus the ape than I can falsify your scenario of primitive half wit erectus nursing and carrying a dependent new born. They are theories and are both unfalsifiable. Evos may and have accepted the ridiculous many times. However I have to say that you lot have crossed the line with the new erectus female pelvis and the ensuing stories and I think on this one it is falsifiable by evoking good old observation and a little common sense.
Half wits cannot nurture dependent babies and we observe that today. Highly sexually dimorphic primitive beings, and all that it implies also means they could not nurture a dependent neonate. This is research from your very own. A baby is is either not fully dependent and can cling to mum or it cannot and there is nothing in the middle at the time of birth and the ensuing few hours. Hence the obvious suggests that erectus still had a full fur coat and the young still must have clinged to their mother as apes do today.
That is a theory based on observation. Common sense has absolutely no place in evolutionary thinking and nether has observation, it appears.
It comes down to plausibility, and my interpretation of evolutionary research is much more plausible than yours. It is that simple.
Sometimes one of the lowest-achieving students in a class visits the professor's office to argue that his/her wrong answer on an exam question should qualify as an "equally true" alternative answer deserving of full credit. (They may even strain, contort, and twist some perceived flaw in the minutiae of the topic in order to declare the right answer inferior to their incorrect answer.) Sadly, far too many anti-evolution campaigners go far beyond that vain and pathetic strategy on a regular basis and not only contest concepts which they don't even understand, they presume that they are somehow intellectually superior to everyone else in the classroom (as well as the analogue of the entire departmental faculty) and should be teaching the courses and rewriting the textbooks. Does that position sound at all familiar to you?
The position that resembles your scenario best is your very own researchers. After more than 150 years they are no closer to resolving the how, when, where or why of evolution. That strikes me as a pathetic and vain attempt to support the impossible. Your past shoving of rubbish down creationists throats that is now falsified and recanted by your own demonstrates this well.
If you are correct and everyone else is wrong, the best scholars and scientists will affirm your brilliance and confirm your qualifications and the superiority of your ideas. Your mastery of the field will be confirmed by your performance, not by mere posturing. Think about it.
Oh honey, your incredibly well credentialled researchers are the very fools that propose this rubbish prior to the falsification in the first place, therefore your point is mute.
Fortunately for me I am not as gullible as you appear to be.
Does that explain why so many people find your posts so convincing?
BTW I have never seen a Noble prize awarded for any theory
Mr Strawberry,
The best entertainment for me at present is simplistic replies such as yours that in no way address my interpretations but rather suggest that smart butt comments are all that you have to challenge me with.
Based on this fact. I have already won.
BTW I have never seen a Noble prize awarded for any theory, not even an evolutionary one.
Good catch. I tend to ignore posts where the poster is unable to properly format the quote tags.Now that one is definitely going on my office door!
...
Creationist interpretations cannot possibly be worse that the mess of contradictions and falsifications evolutionists provide. That is also simple, yet unfathomable to the evolutionary scrambled and inculcated mind.
It was a serious question. If your posts are full of the fruits of your canny avoidance of gullibility then they should impress other people as being refreshingly free of fallacy, logical flaws, falsehoods and error. One of the drawbacks, however, of being duped, is not noticing when it is happening. This is why feedback from the wider community is important, particularly from people who know more you do about the subject you have developed an opinion on. I just wondered if the feedback you'd received to your posts had confirmed your high opinion of your own opinions. That is to say, do people generally think you are talking sense or nonsense?
Good catch. I tend to ignore posts where the poster is unable to properly format the quote tags.
On the subject of Nobel prizes:
"To see the integral role of evolution in biomedical research, consider Nobel Prizes, a good indicator of the most important breakthroughs in biology. Reviewing the last 50 years of Nobel Prizes in medicine or physiology, I asked, "Is training in evolutionary biology necessary for a thorough understanding of the award-winning discoveries and work resulting from each breakthrough?" By my criteria, understanding of evolution is necessary in 47 of 50 cases. From vaccines, viral cancer genes, and nerve cell communication to drug trials, and genes controlling cholesterol and heart disease, evolutionary insights are crucial."
Evolution is a Winner for Breakthroughs and Prizes | NCSE
How cells divide is based on an observed demonstration and actually has nothing to do with supporting evolution which is speculation and straw grabbing ignoring and excusing that which does not align eg homoplasy and convergent evolution, deletions and insertions, all based on a reconcieved assumption. I am not an IDer.
What a Nobel Prize is or is not has absolutely nothing to do with the point I made on the ape erectus.
I am taking on one point in erectus and you flatly refuse to speak to it.
Astridhere, what contributions have creationist interpretations made to biomedical research?
Good catch. I tend to ignore posts where the poster is unable to properly format the quote tags.
On the subject of Nobel prizes:
"To see the integral role of evolution in biomedical research, consider Nobel Prizes, a good indicator of the most important breakthroughs in biology. Reviewing the last 50 years of Nobel Prizes in medicine or physiology, I asked, "Is training in evolutionary biology necessary for a thorough understanding of the award-winning discoveries and work resulting from each breakthrough?" By my criteria, understanding of evolution is necessary in 47 of 50 cases. From vaccines, viral cancer genes, and nerve cell communication to drug trials, and genes controlling cholesterol and heart disease, evolutionary insights are crucial."
Evolution is a Winner for Breakthroughs and Prizes | NCSE
Astridhere, what contributions have creationist interpretations made to biomedical research?
...constant woffling...
At the very least my interpretations cannot possibly worse than what you lot have to offer.
None, it would seem.
Carry on without me.
So are you going to tell us what your interpretations are? This is at least the 10th time I have seen someone ask you what a creationist/your interpretation is, you haven't delivered, please do it will help many people understand where you are coming from.
Erectus is a non human ape and not becoming human at all. Therefore there are no intermediates which supports my creationist view.
What language would like this in, seeing as you have been unable to get your head around it thus far, regardless of my speaking to it numerous times.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?