Posted on 04/15/2005 6:39:50 AM PDT by doc30
I heartily agree.
Very impressive.
This should obviously be taught in public schools.
Teach the controversy!
Thanks. Very imformative post.
A creationist on one of these threads proposed that Noah and his family ate the dinosaurs after the Flood. They were on the Ark, but Noah decided to barbecue them after the Flood.
Oh, and before humans were kicked out of the Garden of Eden, T-Rex was a herbivore.
Killjoy
bttt for later
"It's always funny listening to creationists try to explain Archaeopteryx. The reason it's so funny is that half of them declare it to be "obviously" just a bird -- and the other half declare it to be "obviously" just a reptile."
Huh? I've never heard anyone say the Archaeopteryx was a reptile.
But I do, however, find it hilarious when Darwinists try to explain evolution, because half say it's a gradual change over time(Like in “Origin of Species”), and half say whole phyla somehow evolved overnight(Punctuated Equilibrium)! It’s hilarious how a “theory” that’s been “proven correct” with soooo many “facts” can have two completely different—and mutually exclusive—definitions!
That’s a real knee-slapper!
So, you don't see that gliding squirrels are a species in between regular squirrels and what will eventually be true flying squirrels?
Apparently, that belief was not as widespread as many had thought, or perhaps this particular scientist was out of the loop as far as the party line goes. He did say he was stunned.
"What part of D.Sc. in mathematics and B.S. in applied mathematics did you not understand?
Considering evolution is nothing if not a grand study in the mathematics of probability, I think he's eminently qualified to comment on the mathematical probabilities involved in various evolutionary just-so stories biologists bandy about."
No, you see, like all liberals, if you're not apart of the club, you're not entitiled to criticize them.
Freepers who uncovered the forged CBS docs weren't journalists, they're pajama wearing amateurs who aren't to be taken seriously!
Darwinists--like all liberals--know they can't win in an honest contest of ideas so they come up with their own brand of entrance qualifications to keeps us peons out of their way.
"This is cool. Now remind me, how many separate times did flight evolve? Insects, one. Pterosaurs, that's two. Birds, that's three. Bats (mammals), oh darn, thats' four now. I think I'm missing one, but let's say four."
Not only that, but how many species from different genera and phyla have eyes? Millions? And they all "evolved" within a 5 million year window! That's some fast evolution!
"A creationist on one of these threads proposed that Noah and his family ate the dinosaurs after the Flood."
Well they were poultry weren't they?
I think the duckbills might be pretty tasty. And the ceratopsoids would probably taste a lot like beef.
I wonder if he believes in phlogiston.
The sauropod Astrodon was officially named Maryland's state dinosaur.
"What I do mind is when they try to use religious beliefs to "explain away" science."
Exactly, science like archeology. I really hate it when Darwinists use their religion to try and explain away the fossil record which contains no transitional fossils (And no, just because you a have jpg that says they're TF, doesn't make it so. No TF have EVER been found.) or any evidence at all of evolution.
Or science like biology which has proven--since the days of Pasteur--that spontaneous generation DOESN'T EXIST!
Or the science of physics which has proven through the laws of thermodynamics that things go from order to chaos, not chaos to order. Which is why when you've exposed to massive amount or mutagens you don't turn into the Hulk or any ubermensch--you die.
Science has shown that evolution is a fraud, but you religious wackos just won't let it go.
I'm finishing a Ph.D. in applied mathematics. I'm a little offended you think I must know nothing about everything aside from mathematics.
I made no such statement, nor is that what I think.
There are mathematicians in our department who study evolution.
Good -- then they won't say things on the subject as stupid as McIntosh's.
Look, you're missing my point... If McIntosh's statements on biology (or any other field) were accurate and insightful, I wouldn't care if he was a janitor by profession.
*However*, when bvw/frgoff wave around a quote from someone, *and* puff up their chests about how we should be impressed by the guy's credentials and (by implication fall down in awe and accept the Obvious Truth Of The Expert's Utterance), it's certainly appropriate to point out that a degree in *mathematics* doesn't necessarily make one an Authority(tm) on biology -- especially in a case like this, where it's obvious (due to his goofy and false claims) that the guy in question really *doesn't* know squat about biology. And this is even moreso the case when it's clear that they couldn't find a specialist in the *actual* field in question, they had to go far afield to unearth someone clueless enough to agree with them.
Mathematicians *can* know biology, of course -- but *this* one doesn't. Nor does a mathematics degree *necessarily* make someone an expert/authority on biology or any other field (not even their own, since there are plenty of incompetents who have managed to get a degree). That's why "argument by authority" is a fallacy in the first place -- "authorities" often aren't, and even true "authorities" can still screw up on any given point.
Finally, even if the guy's degree(s) *had* been in biology, even *that* wouldn't make the guy's claim any more valid or immune to scrutiny. Creationists seem to rely heavily on "authority" (which is probably why they like to "quote-mine" so much), but they utterly miss the point -- what matters in science is not *who* says something, but *what* they say, and whether it matches the evidence and can pass verification/falsification tests. Creationists invoke "argument by authority" just about all the time, without realizing how irrelevant it is, or how science is actually conducted and how scientific points are actually resolved. I suspect the reason is that the creationists themselves don't have the knowledge necessary to properly critique a claim themselves (if they did, they wouldn't remain creationists for long) -- so they're reduced to just choosing which "experts" they want to believe, no matter how lopsided the argument may actually be.
By the way, what is it that you do exactly, and how does knowing nothing outside your specialty qualify you to evaluate this research so quickly?
See above. The thing that qualifies me to "evaluate this research" is that I *do* know quite a bit about evolutionary biology. And note that unlike bvw/frgoff, I am *not* trying to substitute alleged "credentials" for actually being able to make a case that doesn't fall apart at the first glance.
Indeed. He's tried to measure it as it moves through the aether during combustion.
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.