Posted on 10/28/2009 7:34:50 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
see #141 for working link.
Ping to 140. I mentioned you by name but couldnt remember your full name to send it directly to you. Sorry!
Ping to 140. I mentioned you by name but couldnt remember your full name to send it directly to you. Sorry!
I am asking that you simply provide empirical evidence to support your assertions
Answers to my questions please.
[Maybe you can do this all day but I’m about done here.]
“Other peoples opinions presented in the form of quotes are not evidence against the theory of evolution. They are merely opinions, and all people have opinions, which turn out to be false. So lets stick to the facts.”
I gave you two links to scientific studies and published papers, not people’s opinion.
I disagree that the evidence we have of speciation, natural selection etc etc etc can be extrapolated back into the past to say that an animal can jump from being a reptile to being a mammal. You have no empirical evidence to prove that it can yet you continue to assert that speciation IS evolution. This is a case in point of how evolutionist USE these terms to bait and switch and confuse people who don’t know better. Speciation is not evolution!
That is nice that a newspaper article can count for empirical evidence but that my links to two scientific studies and published papers are people’s opinions in quotes (evolutionary scientist’s papers BTW). Just so the ground rules are known to all.
You got it.
Now a days I will usually only answer the evos who are respectful and show a genuine respect for truth and knowledge.
Whose truth? Yours? Without evidence, it is not truth... only supposition.
You 3 (above) may think the creation camp is full of ‘retards’...
Please provide a link to a post where I called anyone a 'retard'.
...you may say (frequently) that we are the ones who are insulting but that is utter hypocrisy.
Bullsh*t. For example:
Morons tend to think someone is trying to make a moron out of them if what they are saying sounds smart. After all, morons are very suspicious of anything that goes over their head....unless of course you are a Temple of Darwin fanatic, in which case you wouldn’t pick up on it, because the crap would smell the same as your normal surroundings.
It would appear that you are the latest FReeper to make the ultimate sacrifice to the Bearded Buddha of Naturalism. You know, it's not too late to reclaim your brain.
I'll be happy to keep going, if you'd like.
You keep making assertion and asking us to prove them not true.
When we make assertions you ask us to prove them. I did! With two published scientific papers and you said they were nothing more that opinions in quotes.
Why do you get to make assertion that we have to prove wrong but when we make assertions we have to prove them right.
Does anyone else see a problem with this?
“I am asking that you simply provide empirical evidence to support your assertions”
“To: BrandtMichaels
What empirical evidence do you have to show otherwise?
133 posted on Thursday, October 29, 2009 2:52:35 PM by Ira_Louvin”
And you are asking us to prove your assertions to be incorrect.
From the Post-Gazette. Is that scientifically peer reviewed?
Nevertheless, from the article.....
“could be”, “apparently”, “We were very puzzled about how to interpret”, “suggests that”, “It could be”, “It could be”, “There’s no real way to know”, “This suggests”, “It could be”, “it appears”
And the best comment from the article..... “Paleontologists always used to search for the common ancestor of all mammals, Wyss said, but it has become obvious that there’s no way of proving what animal might be that ancestor. So now the tendency is to identify creatures such as Hadrocodium as close relatives, he said, and not worry about whether it is a direct ancestor.”
Everyone should read Muller's letter to Stalin with it's nutty plans.
Hello Ira! Can you hear me now?
Everyone but the evos.
LOL! I can see why the links to published paper are only considered opinion. I will have to find something with this level of scientific objectiveness next time!
LOL! I can see why the links to published paper are only considered opinion. I will have to find something with this level of scientific objectiveness next time!
I bet the “majority of Americans” have no clue what evolution is.
Then it's kind of a massive fail on the part of the evos despite their monopoly on the public indoctrination centers which pass for schools these days.
I wonder if Eugenie Scott would take the job of Minister of Education? Young Master Dawkins could write the curriculum.
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.