Posted on 12/06/2009 7:20:24 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
Dec 4, 2009 — The facility with which some evolutionary biologists appeal to almost magical powers of evolution to explain anything and everything is revealed in some recent science articles. Whatever needs explaining is due to evolution – evidence or not. These four examples can be considered representative of the genre...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
So are claiming you’ve never used that word? I’m not worried about getting banned since you’re still around. You certainly can’t be a despicable in real life as you are on these threads. Unless you’re really a liberal troll.
Makes sense to me, since ya’ll spend no time debating the article. It’s absurd and dishonest that you’d even make that comment.
Since you read your bible all the time you’ve read about pearls before swine and answering a fool according to his folly. These principals apply to troll.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Are you one of those disgusting self-important finger-waggers?
Your “arguments” prove you’re not really here for debate.
I understand science and the scientific method. I use those in my discussions. Maybe you just can't keep up.
Attacking science in the name of “defending religious freedom” again?
I will if you will. That looks like the best offer you've got so far.
Oh, how unevolved of you.
Ok. So you are saying the Bible is wrong and so is evolution?
>>Oh, how unevolved of you.<<
LOL! Good cap-note.
I didn't say that but you will not find where I used it as a personal slur on FR.
Why try to debate the article when GGG says it is his strategy NOT to debate, but to hit and run.
“The evolutionary theory does not state that we would ever find a “cat-lizard “ It only explains the fact that a cat and a lizard share a common ancestor at some point in the distant past.”
Then it’s not science. An “explanation” is at best a hypothesis, but more like a fairy tale. You know, there was a fairy at the bottom of the garden named Darwin, and he turned a lizard into a cat.” Nice story, but that’s all it is.
And it’s OK if you want to believe it, and probably no worse than the story of the Old Man in the sky who created everything. At least the second story doesn’t pretend to be science and demand gobs of taxpayers’ money for more storytelling, ... err, research.
See, both stories “explain” where things came from, even though nobody knows, but to be science, they would have to demonstrate how what they claim actually happens by means of a reproducible experiment. Cannot be done.
I do not believe in a God, by the way, nor in any of the so-called “sciences” that deal with things that no one can demonstrate, such environmentalism, evolution, and most of what goes by the name psychology, in the name of which the biggest frauds in history are being put over.
Hank
“GGG admits he’s a fraud & professional troll”
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/9hp52/whats_the_best_scam_youve_ever_pulled/c0ctjz8
Sure.......
Just like when they tried to smear DLR with accusations of the stuff he was supposedly involved with on the internet.
Speaking of dupes, do you really believe EVRYTHING you read on the internet?
Just like the attacking religion in the name of science that goes on.
What’s the matter? Don’t you like the thought that your own tactics are being used against you?
DLR?
David Lee Roth?
I think he broke up Van Halen.
Jim authorized pop psychology to be in News/Activism? Wow, what's next, how women decide between Coach purses?
It's a start. You're beginning to realize that the absurd examples of behavior that evolutionists claim as examples of evolution are just that....pop psychology.
Sure seems **you** do...
Your sickness runs deep and wide CW; I’m glad you are able to find solace in your lies; you certainly have nothing else to cling to.
You mean truths of yours like the earth being stationary, antibiotics are killing people, relativity is bunk, and creationism?
I have read and found the phrase "and God saw that this was good". It means that God used some kind of at least semi-autonomous process, and He needed to check the results. Otherwise he wouldn't need to see. He would KNOW, even before the act of creation.
You seemed to have overlooked the fact that there is empirical evidence that is repeatable and can be falsified to support my assertion and that is what makes it science.
However nice attempt at the straw-man. Might I suggest that you take the time to take a remedial science class so that in the future you might have at least a basic understand of a topic prior to presenting an argument against it.
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.