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.]
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!!!
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.*).
Ok, so not always, is that correct?
No, it isn’t. If I plan on posting, I attempt to read the underlying sources first.
You said you only do that so most of the time...is that correct?
Or do you read every science paper (from start to finish) that a popular science article is based on without exception?
Rhetorical nonsense. The only one fighting a battle here is you. It’s still a strawman criticism, and as such, a fallacy.
Ack. I must be getting tired. I misread your sentence. And the answer is yes, I try to read every article associated with a popular science article. Often I will read the larger ones piecemeal. If an article refers to an article as a secondary or otherwise briefly cites, I will only read the parts I need to.
That’s very thorough of you. For my part, I post Creation/ID papers and articles from a variety of sites on a regular basis. I post from these sites because they have shown me time and again that they are worthy of my trust. And speaking of Brian Thomas, he has an M.S. in Biotechnology, and taught science at the college level for a number of years. I have yet to run into a single Evo who can point to where he mischaracterized the claims of Evo scientsts. Where the Evos disagree with him (and every creation scientist for that matter) is when he reinterprets the data to show why creation/ID is the better inference.
“That’s very thorough of you.”
Thanks.
“Brian Thomas, he has an M.S. in Biotechnology”
Source? I’ve been looking for his credentials for a while.
Brian Thomas earned his Master of Science in Biotechnology from Stephen F. Austin State University, TX, in December of 1999. He taught Principles of Biology I and II, and General Chemistry I at Navarro College in Waxahachie, TX from 2003-2005. He also taught Undergraduate Biology, Chemistry, Microbiology and Anatomy Lab at Dallas Baptist University from 2005-2008. Here is his thesis paper:
I was hoping more for some kind of online corroboration. Frankly, you’d think the ICR would post his credentials. Unfortunately, your link isn’t loading.
Brian Thomas, Science Writer for the Institute for Creation Research, will address these issues and more. Brian (M.S. Biotechnology) has taught science at the university level and is a co-founder of the Center for Christian Apologetics.
http://www.answers101.org/conference.html
That one works well enough. Thanks.
No, I'm not saying that. Besides, you're changing the subject. You asserted that the press release being wrong meant the actual scientists got it wrong. I'm saying that's an unwarranted assertion.
Your posts are a mixture of bald assertion, projection, attributing motives to people then passing judgment on those (strawmen), appealing to authority, all layered in with condescension, sarcasm and various tricks to derail/change the topic. Maybe in your perception that passes for a solid science understanding.
What you are doing is apologetics for evolutionsm.
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.