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.]
lol.. what is the BINGO game where you have to fill in all the blanks instead of just one row?
Blackout. But no need to call it out or anything. We all “win” creationist bingo when an ICR or creation-safari article gets posted.
Do you ever read the journal articles? Or do you glean all of your scientific knowledge from press releases?
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 “
Then why do you use it so much.
|
|
|||
Gods |
Just adding to the catalog, not sending a general distribution. |
||
|
· Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google · · The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · |
|||
May the blessings you wish upon me be visited upon your own life many times over!
All the best—GGG
==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.
“actual journal articles”
I should start laying off the bourbon.
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?
>>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.
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 :)
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).
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.
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?
The scientists don't write the press releases and may not even review them.
==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?
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.