Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Evolution Interpreter: Generic Transition Form Fossil Discovery Article
Vanity ^ | 04/22/2009 | Liberty1970

Posted on 04/22/2009 1:11:09 PM PDT by Liberty1970

Over the years I’ve read copiously on the subject of origins. I’ve noticed the media pronouncements on the subject of new fossils and evolutionary theory form a startlingly repetitive pattern. To save the over-worked and increasingly bankrupt news media I’ve undertaken to serve them with a generic news story that can be copy-and-pasted with few modifications and reused as frequently as desired.

New Fossil Discovery Is Transition Form, Provides Proof of Evolution!

University of ________

Scientists say they’ve found a “missing link” in the early evolution of ______ - the skeleton of a ______ that was evolving away from ______ to _______. [Translation: They found something new, therefore it must have evolved by time + chance from something else.]

These _______ features were a new adaptation as the species evolved into ______. [Translation: If we imagine hard enough, anything is possible.]

Experts called it "a fantastic discovery" that fills a crucial gap in the fossil record. [Translation: Give us more $$$ for our Very Important Work.]

The ___ million-year-old creature was not a direct ancestor of today's ______. It's from a different branch. But it does show what an early direct ancestor looked like, said researcher [Translation: The headline is a big fat lie and once again we can’t actually find an actual ancestor of modern life that shows innovative evolutionary change, but please don’t notice that. We think this critter is _close enough_ for propaganda purposes.]

Dr. _______, a biology professor at ______ State University who wasn't involved in the work, welcomed the find. [Translation: Can I use this to get more grant $$$ too?]

"This is a fantastic discovery that fills a critical evolutionary gap (from) when ______ traded _____ for ______ and moved from ______ to ______," she wrote in an e-mail. [Translation: This Really Important Discovery demands more research funding. Hint, hint.]

Not all experts agreed. Professor _____ noted that an older fossil of the same type had been discovered in ______. [Translation: We pick and choose what evidence we like to focus on, and hope for the best.]

But _____, who didn't participate in the paper, called the discovery exciting because it provides direct evidence for what early ________ in the _____-to-______ transition looked like. [Translation: I won’t rock the boat. By the way, give us more $$$.]

Overall, 100% of officially-sanctioned scientists said, the discovery was a tremendous, awesome, spectacular find that overwhelmingly proves that only idiotic, anti-scientific dolts would dare disbelieve in evolutionism, and the public needs to spend lots more tax dollars supporting them and their Very Important Work. [Never mind the complete lack of patents or other real technological application for their work and personal agendas.]


TOPICS: Education; Reference; Religion; Science
KEYWORDS: creation; evolution; followthemoney; fossil; godsgravesglyphs; ibelieve; missinglink; researchpaper; theory; transition
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-95 next last
Seriously, next time you see an article claiming evidence for evolution, and the next time, and the next time, see how it fits this pattern. In the fine print they are forever admitting their dramatic claims are not really a good stratomorphic intermediate, and assuming common ancestry by evolutionary mechanisms is not the same as demonstrating those mechanisms are viable, or that the critter in question was ancestral to any other particular critter (which they generally admit was not in the fine print, as noted above).

And let’s not even get into the failure of the headline-grabbing evolutionists to present with the same energy the critical articles within the evolutionary literature responding to these claims, or the retractions, contrary discoveries, and admissions of error that crop up in the years following each dramatic claim. It’s easy for me to see why people who read the mainstream science journals superficially believe in evolution. But for those who dig deeper, the failure of evolutionary stories to hold up over time is very consistent. It should be no surprise how many anti-evolutionists explain how they became creationists or ID’ers after trying to corroborate some evolutionary claim. Just keep digging folks, that’s all I ask of you…

1 posted on 04/22/2009 1:11:09 PM PDT by Liberty1970
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Liberty1970

Getting your science information from the MSM is kind of like using CNN as your only source in your quest to understand Christianity.


2 posted on 04/22/2009 1:15:51 PM PDT by DevNet (What's past is prologue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liberty1970

Congratulations, you’ve figured it out!!


3 posted on 04/22/2009 1:16:09 PM PDT by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Figured this would be worth pinging you. I’m quite serious about the script-like repetitiveness of evolutionary propaganda on this subject (and the boring consistency of the fine-print admissions). Their news writers must really be in a rut.


4 posted on 04/22/2009 1:16:14 PM PDT by Liberty1970 (Democrats are not in control. God is. And Thank God for that!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liberty1970

5 posted on 04/22/2009 1:17:07 PM PDT by qam1 (There's been a huge party. All plates and the bottles are empty, all that's left is the bill to pay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liberty1970

Filling in the blanks and getting details is just that. And TToE doesn’t need “proof” or “more proof.”

Science is about following the facts. Scientific theories provide a framework for doing that.

If you don’t understand the basics of science, you really should not make threads drawing attention to that fact.

Have a blessed day!


6 posted on 04/22/2009 1:25:56 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Communism comes to America: 1/20/2009. Keep your powder dry, folks. Sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: qam1

OMG that is hilarious!


7 posted on 04/22/2009 1:27:07 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Communism comes to America: 1/20/2009. Keep your powder dry, folks. Sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: metmom; DaveLoneRanger; editor-surveyor; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; MrB; GourmetDan; Fichori; ...

A very funny (and sadly true) post from our very own Liberty1970 :o)


8 posted on 04/22/2009 1:30:06 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Liberty1970

One thing that has bothered me about discoveries from fossils is the level of testing to which these revelations are subject. If all the fossils to date were placed in structures with boundaries the size of the Rose Bowl, how many such structures would be filled? Let’s say 20 were filled. Now if we compress all that organic matter into crude oil, would we have enough to run my truck for a year or a decade? With so little examined evidence in relation to the total population, are the such detailed conclusions statistically responsible? Has suitable mathematical analysis ever been applied to these scientific papers? PhD candidates for psychology and sociology have to hire graduate math majors to evaluate their data so their committees can see the level of support the data provides for their conclusions. I don’t believe such a process is considered by these people.


9 posted on 04/22/2009 1:35:25 PM PDT by Retain Mike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
Science is about following the facts. Scientific theories provide a framework for doing that.

In this case we have a historical theory (common descent by solely natural processes), not observational science, that is inconsistent with scientific evidence that tells us how evolutionary change occurs in nature. We have a lot of data from evolutionary biology and population genetics that clearly demonstrates that life is degrading (as actually observed, even if we restrict ourselves to beneficial mutations) and that significant innovation by chance mutations is out of the question.

10 posted on 04/22/2009 1:38:13 PM PDT by Liberty1970 (Democrats are not in control. God is. And Thank God for that!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Retain Mike
There have been hundreds of millions of fossils, at a raw minimum, that have been evaluated by experts (and billions more that have been observed by amateurs). These include at least 250,000 fossil species (google Dave Raup on the subject for example), most of which correspond to living species. This is not consistent with the evolutionary model - estimates from Ernst Mayr and others are that around 600 billion - 1 trillion species should have existed throughout evolutionary time. So very few fossils should correspond to living species.

There is plenty of evidence for stasis of life forms over time - that is clearly the dominant theme of the fossil record, though evolutionists constantly obscure that fact. And there is good evidence for smale scale diversification and speciation within types of life. But the evidence overall is that of an orchard of multiple unlinked living trees of species, not one single evolutionary tree, or a separate creation of each species.

11 posted on 04/22/2009 1:43:32 PM PDT by Liberty1970 (Democrats are not in control. God is. And Thank God for that!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Liberty1970
In this case we have a historical theory (common descent by solely natural processes), not observational science, that is inconsistent with scientific evidence that tells us how evolutionary change occurs in nature. We have a lot of data from evolutionary biology and population genetics that clearly demonstrates that life is degrading (as actually observed, even if we restrict ourselves to beneficial mutations) and that significant innovation by chance mutations is out of the question.

Repeating talking points is not understanding science. Evolution is a stochastic process. And all science, by definition, is solely natural. The idea of "life is degrading" states a fundamental misunderstanding of the underlying scientific principles and represents complete scientific illiteracy.

12 posted on 04/22/2009 1:43:36 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Communism comes to America: 1/20/2009. Keep your powder dry, folks. Sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

This one doesn’t even rise to one of yours, my Friend.

Have a blessed day!


13 posted on 04/22/2009 1:45:27 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Communism comes to America: 1/20/2009. Keep your powder dry, folks. Sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
The idea of "life is degrading" states a fundamental misunderstanding of the underlying scientific principles and represents complete scientific illiteracy.

So you would regard it as unscientific if someone pointed out your car is rusting? This is the philosophical corner that evolutionism is boxing itself into. Making absurd points to avoid the obvious. It is legitimate to evaluate whether a genome is evolving or devolving informationally, and denying that fact won't change how obvious it is to unbiased people.

14 posted on 04/22/2009 1:46:07 PM PDT by Liberty1970 (Democrats are not in control. God is. And Thank God for that!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
And all science, by definition, is solely natural.

The big error, though, is assuming that the sole source of knowledge is science.
15 posted on 04/22/2009 1:47:49 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
The big error, though, is assuming that the sole source of knowledge is science.

Science is the tool God gave us to understand the natural world. Of course there is more, but that is outside the realm of science.

16 posted on 04/22/2009 1:50:13 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Communism comes to America: 1/20/2009. Keep your powder dry, folks. Sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: DevNet
Getting your science information from the MSM is kind of like using CNN as your only source in your quest to understand Christianity.

Indeed. Only creationists are consistently worse at reporting and interpreting science.

17 posted on 04/22/2009 1:51:27 PM PDT by Caesar Soze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
"And all science, by definition, is solely natural."

Only God is natural. Everything else is a creation.

18 posted on 04/22/2009 1:52:51 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Liberty1970
So you would regard it as unscientific if someone pointed out your car is rusting?

Rust is the result of a chemical process. Rusting is not degrading, it is the result of corrosive elements operating on each other.

Cars are the result of and operate withing a static environment, not a stochastic one.

This is the philosophical corner that evolutionism is boxing itself into. Making absurd points to avoid the obvious. It is legitimate to evaluate whether a genome is evolving or devolving informationally, and denying that fact won't change how obvious it is to unbiased people.

"Obvious" to people who don't understand science. Asking lay people to know the difference between a theory and a scientific theory, for example, is probably going to find most do not know. Uninformed opinions, while frequently amusing, are still uninformed.

IOW: "'cause I think so" isn't really a reasoned nor informed basis for any argument.

19 posted on 04/22/2009 1:54:35 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Communism comes to America: 1/20/2009. Keep your powder dry, folks. Sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
Only God is natural. Everything else is a creation. And God gave us a fabulous Universe that operates by a set of observable, discoverable and documentable rules.

Evolution is just one of the many ways He uses to accomplish His goals. Science is the tool by which we discover and use these rules.

Philosophy, while fun and within its context important, is of no value in this pursuit.

20 posted on 04/22/2009 1:57:26 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Communism comes to America: 1/20/2009. Keep your powder dry, folks. Sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: qam1

lol.. what is the BINGO game where you have to fill in all the blanks instead of just one row?


21 posted on 04/22/2009 2:23:40 PM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: mnehring

Blackout. But no need to call it out or anything. We all “win” creationist bingo when an ICR or creation-safari article gets posted.


22 posted on 04/22/2009 2:35:37 PM PDT by Boxen (There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Liberty1970

Do you ever read the journal articles? Or do you glean all of your scientific knowledge from press releases?


23 posted on 04/22/2009 2:37:38 PM PDT by Boxen (There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
Science is the tool God gave us to understand the natural world.

True, but naturalism isn't, as many think, science.
24 posted on 04/22/2009 2:37:43 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Liberty1970

William Provine, to name one famous atheist:

“Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented.”

“Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly.
1) No gods worth having exist;
2) no life after death exists;
3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists;
4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and
5) human free will is nonexistent. “Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life” 1998 Darwin Day “


25 posted on 04/22/2009 3:17:46 PM PDT by valkyry1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003; Liberty1970
IOW: "'cause I think so" isn't really a reasoned nor informed basis for any argument.

Then why do you use it so much. 

26 posted on 04/22/2009 3:20:53 PM PDT by valkyry1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic ·

 
Gods
Graves
Glyphs
Just adding to the catalog, not sending a general distribution.

To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list.
GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother, and Ernest_at_the_Beach
 

·Dogpile · Archaeologica · ArchaeoBlog · Archaeology · Biblical Archaeology Society ·
· Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google ·
· The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists ·


27 posted on 04/22/2009 3:25:33 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/____________________ Profile updated Monday, January 12, 2009)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

May the blessings you wish upon me be visited upon your own life many times over!

All the best—GGG


28 posted on 04/22/2009 3:53:48 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Boxen; Liberty1970

==Do you ever read the journal articles? Or do you glean all of your scientific knowledge from press releases?

LOL...that’s where most Evos admit to getting their scientific updates. And I can’t say I blame them. The abstracts alone would fill up many phone books every month in just about any scientific discipline. And most of those papers are of the bean counting variety necessitated by the publish or perish mentality. Indeed, these mountains of mostly inconsequential papers that scientists can’t even begin to read is a sure sign that government science is bloated and way overfunded. It’s time to take science out of the hands of the government, and, with the exception of national defense, return it to the free market where it belongs.


29 posted on 04/22/2009 4:18:20 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
That's a "no", isn't it? You don't read the journal actual articles. That explains a lot.

I didn't ask you originally, but thanks for answering anyways.
30 posted on 04/22/2009 4:31:38 PM PDT by Boxen (There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Boxen

“actual journal articles”

I should start laying off the bourbon.


31 posted on 04/22/2009 4:34:01 PM PDT by Boxen (There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Boxen

I read many scientific papers every month. But even if there were a hundred of me, reading full time, day in and day out, we would only reach a tiny fraction of the total number of journal papers published each month. How many science journal papers do you read each month, Box?


32 posted on 04/22/2009 4:36:04 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: valkyry1

>>Then why do you use it so much.

My posts are based on a solid understanding of science. I back up my posts with supporting information and definitions that are accepted throughout the scientific community.


33 posted on 04/22/2009 4:53:16 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Communism comes to America: 1/20/2009. Keep your powder dry, folks. Sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Three or four. I've got a day job, man.

I don't care how many you read so long as you make an attempt to understand the actual journal article instead of some press release put out by Science Daily. Criticizing a press release (as Liberty does in this vanity post) is like criticizing a strawman, as a press release or news article will omit and simplify in order to appeal to a layman audience.

Really, no one expects you to read every scientific paper published every month. That's dumb.

Let's turn the tables here for a sec. Wouldn't you expect me to bone up on Christian doctrine before criticizing Christianity?
34 posted on 04/22/2009 4:55:12 PM PDT by Boxen (There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

And to you and your family as well, my brother in Christ.

The best to you and yours — FD2003

ps: have you ever wondered why my handle is 2003 when I joined in 2002?

Just a brain teaser :)


35 posted on 04/22/2009 4:57:37 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Communism comes to America: 1/20/2009. Keep your powder dry, folks. Sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Boxen

The battle is occurring at all levels, Boxen. And the press releases are not dreamed up by the popular level science rags themselves, they are usually based on summaries and press releases that research institutions put out to draw attention to their own research. Thus, if the press release is wrong, it is usually because the research institution got the import of their own research wrong (which usually means their own scientists got it wrong).


36 posted on 04/22/2009 5:01:58 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Liberty1970

I’m sure writing your generic press release was fun, but it doesn’t really demonstrate anything. All press releases are structured according to a pattern. I read dozens of technology press releases every day, and could whip up a similar sample of the announcement of a new product or an acquisition with no trouble. It doesn’t mean it’s “propaganda” or that there’s nothing behind it—it just means they’re formulaic, like a business letter.


37 posted on 04/22/2009 5:04:47 PM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: valkyry1
William Provine, to name one famous atheis --"Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented."

Do you really want to start that whole concept? We need only find a handful of "famous Christians" who make quotes about all manner if things.

Science is silent on whether there is a God or not. It merely says that is it impossible to put supernaturalism into scientific research.

Even if more scientists are atheists than in the non-scientific population, there are still many scientists who are Christian (or Jewish or other theistic religious followers).

Your desire to paint those who understand science as somehow less devout than yourself is egotistical and rather pathetic.

I have mentioned this before and I do so now: The Catholic Church endorses TToE as God's way to create humans. Are you saying they are all Godless Atheists?

38 posted on 04/22/2009 5:05:56 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Communism comes to America: 1/20/2009. Keep your powder dry, folks. Sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
if the press release is wrong, it is usually because the research institution got the import of their own research wrong (which usually means their own scientists got it wrong).

The scientists don't write the press releases and may not even review them.

39 posted on 04/22/2009 5:07:57 PM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Boxen

==Let’s turn the tables here for a sec. Wouldn’t you expect me to bone up on Christian doctrine before criticizing Christianity?

Speaking of which, after reading a popular-level Creation or ID article/press release, how often do you go to the original papers they are based on and read them in their entirety before commenting?


40 posted on 04/22/2009 5:08:37 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

So you are saying that the research institution doesn’t even check with the scientist to make sure they understand the research they are engaged in before telling the world about it! Do you know that many and perhaps most scientists admit that they learn about the latest research from press releases and articles in the popular press? LOL!!!


41 posted on 04/22/2009 5:12:28 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
*Facepalm*

You just don't get it, do you? If you've read scientific as you say you have, you'd understand that the actual journal article is much, much more chock full of information than any news article. Again, press releases are simplified and information and evidence is omitted. Ergo, criticism of a press release or news article instead of the actual published journal article is criticism of a strawman, as such simplifications and omissions weaken the argument.

Certainly, errors in the scientific process may be unknowingly revealed in a news article. However, how can one be certain that the errors are not the result of some overzealous technical writer who didn't fully understand the material without first reviewing the actual journal article?
42 posted on 04/22/2009 5:16:55 PM PDT by Boxen (There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Whenever I can, actually. Most of the time, though, the articles you post are either unscientific in nature (example: The ICR court case. Incidentally, I spent a good part of last night reading the court papers posted by ICR’s counsel) or based on reinterpreting third-party article without providing original research or evidence (example: Everything by Brian Thomas M.S.*).


43 posted on 04/22/2009 5:25:47 PM PDT by Boxen (There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Boxen
Nothing you have said changes the fact that the battle is fought on MANY levels. If a popular science rag got the import of the original research wrong, that is their problem. If someone writes an article about Marxian economics based on some stupid socialist book that nobody has ever heard of, that should not prevent economists from AEI, Heritage, Hoover, Discovery, or the Mises institute from pointing out the fallacies contained therein. If the original article contains errors, said responses will serve to highlight them, and if need be, the original socialist author can come out of the woodwork and correct the mistakes of the lesser socialist. Same thing applies in the popular science press IMHO.
44 posted on 04/22/2009 5:30:46 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Boxen

Ok, so not always, is that correct?


45 posted on 04/22/2009 5:31:34 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

No, it isn’t. If I plan on posting, I attempt to read the underlying sources first.


46 posted on 04/22/2009 5:34:19 PM PDT by Boxen (There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Boxen

You said you only do that so most of the time...is that correct?


47 posted on 04/22/2009 5:35:35 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Boxen

Or do you read every science paper (from start to finish) that a popular science article is based on without exception?


48 posted on 04/22/2009 5:37:58 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
No, I said most of the time the articles you post do not rely on creation-ID journal-style publications. Again, as an example, any article by Brian Thomas M.S.*, who usually cites an article from a more scientific publication (For example, Nature) and reinterprets the article without providing original evidence or research. Even then, I read the underlying citation. If I don't have time to read it, I usually don't post.
49 posted on 04/22/2009 5:42:54 PM PDT by Boxen (There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Rhetorical nonsense. The only one fighting a battle here is you. It’s still a strawman criticism, and as such, a fallacy.


50 posted on 04/22/2009 5:45:41 PM PDT by Boxen (There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-95 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson