Storming the Beaches of Norman

Evolution News & Views ^ | October 3, 2009 | Jonathan Wells, Ph.D.

[count-your-change]

How much garbage, error and fraud has passed peer review and been published? More than a little bit! So Ardi will generate reams of peer reviewed and published papers until its been squeezed dry and then the next “find” will have to be made.
As broad shouldered as Ardi is depicted, she can only carry so many career building Darwinists.

[tpanther]

Many of the same assertions with ‘Lucy’ just trickled down to ‘Ardi’.

I guess liberals are into recycling beyond the environment.

[Admin Moderator]

Debate is fine and encouraged, these are not in religion so they aren’t protected from debate. However, knock off the profanity.

[count-your-change]

I’m looking forward to the Ardi extravaganza next Sunday. It should be interesting to see how many bones Ardi grows, since Eve only got a rib.

The Darwinists really ARE into recycling.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Filo]

Your side has been ordered not to debate because our side virtually ALWAYS WINS.

Nobody has been ordered to do anything.

Evolutionists have just realized that creationists are simply too stupid to debate.

It's that simple.

[Filo]

Frankly, science doesn't belong to anyone.

Absolutely true. But science is defined by a set of rules and processes.

Creationists don't abide by those so they deliberately set themselves outside of science.

And that is the whole point: They and their philosophy are too stupid to participate.

[GodGunsGuts]

I have often noticed that the cranially challenged, and those less-than-honest people who find themselves on the losing side of a debate, tend to label what the can’t understand, or can’t overcome, as being “stupid.” Which category to you suppose your fellow Darwin-drones fall under, Filo?

[Filo]

people who find themselves on the losing side of a debate, tend to label what the can’t understand, or can’t overcome, as being “stupid.”

True, but then sometimes people really are stupid, no? This is one of those cases. Creationists have no evidence, no support, no honesty and no ability to integrate data. All they have is their dogma and an unrelenting desire for that to be correct.

Creative as I am I can't think of a single better word than "stupid" to describe that.

[Mudtiger]

“There is more than adequate theory and evidence to support said theory to back up naturalistic explanations for the origins of genetic codes. “

Can you point me to this evidence? Thanks.

[Filo]

Can you point me to this evidence? Thanks.

Sorry no. You're going to have to do your own research. I'm not going to go plugging through dozens of textbooks, some of which I don't even have anymore, seeking proof for ya.

On the bright side you'll probably learn something, unless you're a creationist in which case that's not likely.

[tpanther]

Not the point, the point is you’re in desperate need of an extractionist.

[Filo]

Not the point, the point is you’re in desperate need of an extractionist.

And yet I'm the one who is right here and you're the one with your head firmly planted.

So, again, I'm going with "you're wrong."

[tpanther]

Yup, you’re right here, actually doing a better job than I could undermining yourself...keep up the good work!

[tpanther]

It’s embarassing, but since liberals have no shame, the usual suspects will come back on here with comments like “welllllll...errrrrrr...the scientists themselves don’t believe this twaddle...” or

“there’s really not a whole lot of articles about this, so I don’t know why everyone’s getting worked up over this”...

fascinating stuff!

[Filo]

Yup, you’re right here, actually doing a better job than I could undermining yourself...keep up the good work!

I'll keep up for sure, but I'm not undermining anything. I'm just poking fun at stupid people. Those on that side are hopeless anyway so there's no real need to try and help them along. The rest are laughing with me.

That because, of course, the evolutionists position is truely laughable.

[tpanther]

Can you point me to this evidence? Thanks.

You didn't get the memo...?

Liberals are only required to demand evidence. They can never be bothered with anything else. Most certainly not actually providing it.

[tpanther]

That because, of course, the evolutionists position is truely laughable.

I couldn't agree with you more Filo...perhaps there's some hope for you after all! ;)

LOL!

[Mudtiger]

“Sorry no. You’re going to have to do your own research. I’m not going to go plugging through dozens of textbooks, some of which I don’t even have anymore, seeking proof for ya.”

Can you give me some key words? Which evidence do you recall as being the most compelling that there is an adequate naturalistic explanation for the origin of DNA?

[count-your-change]

As the article in #13 points out and Filo agrees, debate is only allowable if the Darwinists can control the terms of the debate.
You may argue science so long as the Darwinists can define science, you may use references from their approved list, but that is somehow proper since they are “scientific”:

“Not at all. There is no problem with allowing only scientific evidence and thought and with ignoring the prattling of the uneducated.”

The Darwinists will tell everyone what “scientific evidence” is and how they may use it and think about it too!
No wonder it's such a shock for them to find out otherwise.