Posted on 02/22/2007 6:22:34 PM PST by Boxen
Common Spelling | Wakeup's version |
---|---|
Paul Geisert | Paul Giesert |
Wernher von Braun | Werner Von Braun |
Albert Fleischmann | Albert Fleischman |
Austin Clark | Austin Clark (bravo!) |
Arthur E. Wilder-Smith | Arthur Wilder E Smith |
Gerald E. Aardsma | Gerald E Ardsma |
Louis Agassiz | Louis Agassi |
Alexander Arndt | Alexander Ardnt |
si tacuissem: So, out of the eight names you gave in this post, seven were misspelled. You should be embarrassed!
wake-up sleeper: Im not!
Ok cat scans a bit different no biggie, but that doesnt shown an ignorance of anything realy! Your arguements of the petty, now that shows desperation!
:-)
but that doesnt shown an ignorance of anything realy!
If you say so...
Your arguements of the petty, now that shows desperation!
Yep, I get a little bit exasperated reading your posts: The way you show your individuality by unconventional spelling gets annoying.
It gets worse:
A quick Google search indicates that while Barnes does have a Masters degree in physics, and is a retired professor, his doctorate is an Honorary ScD from his undergrad alma mater, a religious college:
Thomas Barnes, formerly affiliated with the Institute for Creation Research, is perhaps best known for the argument that the decay of the Earth's magnetic field is proof of its young age.Barnes, who is an emeritus professor of physics at The University of Texas at El Paso, holds a legitimate M.S. degree in physics from Brown University. However, his Sc.D. degree from Hardin-Simmons University, a Christian school and his undergraduate alma mater (when it was known as Hardin-Simmons College), is merely honorary.
as documented by TalkOrigins.
No PhD, ergo no "doctor."
I certainly hope you're not guilty of dishonest scrutinization!
I do not doubt that there were thousands of scientists who were creationists - especially in times when being creationist was the default position. However, you claim in your post #338:
And I could give you a list of thousands of scientists and historians and archeaologists who use to be eager in disproving the bible and later changed their minds because of what?
Had Francis Bacon been "eager in disproving the bible" and later changed his mind?
Same for the "dozens" you listed - You should have a closer look at them, as you advised in your post #457:
The people from the lists Ive posted noe of them fit the claims?, you need to try again and look a little closer!
... you'd be surprised by the main course...
It's astonishing that someone who mounts up that many factual errors and shows such an ignorance of any thing related to science (wake-up sleeper after being informed about the difference between CAT and MRT: Ok cat scans a bit different no biggie
) on the other hand deems himself qualified to judge a Nobel Prize Committee's decision on a technical issue ...
st: ... you'd be surprised by the main course...
Whipped cream for everybody! (It's all I ever old).
And you are still ducking my original question: How many "intelligent designers" were there, and what is your justification for your answer?If you have so much science at your disposal, you should at least be able to answer that question.
Well you can say what you want but the facts are the facts, and i can tell you one thing what darwin proposed called pangenes, now thats a no evidnce proposal, and someone like steven j gould who repeatedly admitted the same as darwin basicly did, no missing links, etc...etc... over ahundred years later, now thats what I call a no evidence arrogance!
False (as usual).
This is one example of a "missing link" -- what scientists call a transitional. Note its position in the chart which follows (hint--in the upper center):
Site: Koobi Fora (Upper KBS tuff, area 104), Lake Turkana, Kenya (4, 1)
Discovered By: B. Ngeneo, 1975 (1)
Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)
Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7), Homo erectus ergaster (25)
Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)
Cranial Capacity: 850 cc (1, 3, 4)
Information: Tools found in same layer (8, 9). Found with KNM-ER 406 A. boisei (effectively eliminating single species hypothesis) (1)
Interpretation: Adult (based on cranial sutures, molar eruption and dental wear) (1)
See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=33
Source: http://wwwrses.anu.edu.au/environment/eePages/eeDating/HumanEvol_info.html
no ive shown you the errors in carbon dating etc...etc...
If you want we can go through it again!
radio carbon errors www.angelfire.com/mi/carbondating.html
this website will explain to anyone a great deal of the errors in no evidence science like evolution. science is appologetics you might say cause it supports what the bible says!about creation! it fits the bible timleine!
There's always someone envious of it to the point of taking offense to it.
D@mn liberals anyway....
If you want we can go through it again!
radio carbon errors www.angelfire.com/mi/carbondating.html
Your link is bad. Given your ability to spell that's not surprising.
But that's OK. I have reviewed most of those creationist sites dealing with radiocarbon dating and found that they are replete with lies, half truths, and misrepresentations. They are doing apologetics, not science.
I have done a lot of radiocarbon dating, and I can tell the difference between the two. Apparently you can't.
Only a fool would rely on those creationist sites as accurate sources of scientific information.
Where did you get those drawings from the sunday comics, anyone can make something up! and then tell everyone this is how it supposed to be put together, but we know from the past that evolutionists have lied and errored consistantly in this area, those line of supposed bones are nothing but no evidence to the way they are displayed nor confirmed, in other words the picture youve shown is a no evidence made up hypothetical with no evidenceto support its claims.
actually ,fossil discoveries have been shattering the standard beliefs with monotonous regularity. Each in its day was hailed as "scientific proof" that human beings evolved from apelike animals, yet all the canidates once proposed as our evolutionary ancestors have been knocked off the list. this is understood by any credible science.
actually ,fossil discoveries have been shattering the standard beliefs with monotonous regularity. Each in its day was hailed as "scientific proof" that human beings evolved from apelike animals, yet all the canidates once proposed as our evolutionary ancestors have been knocked off the list. this is understood by any credible science.
Your witnessing would be more effective if you paid attention to spelling, grammar, and got at least some of the science right.
Three strikes... ?
Thats zero strikes you haven been able to refute any science I have shown, and i know you cant because, Ive heard all kinds of debates already with people of science and scientists who use to be evolutionists, and the evolutionists are shut down every time. So you need to look into it a little further! Peace!
The link is absolutly accurate and you know it, and it shows your dishonesty!
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.