I went to the 'Journal of Creation' looking for graphs and data and all I found was rhetoric.
May be it was a slow day at the old Lab Bench?
The bunsen inoperable?
They really ought to try using one of these:
.....rather than one of these:
Posted on 05/11/2009 1:40:29 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
--snip--
It was at about this point that I put up my hand and called out ‘Excuse me … ’
Students did not usually ask questions in such a large and intimidating gathering.
‘Yes’, the lecturer looked my way.
‘Excuse me, but I was just wondering what evidence there is for this particular animal that you are describing? Have any examples of these been found in the oceans, or have they found any fossils of them?’
She hesitated and removed the slide from the screen.
‘Well, no’, she said. ‘We don’t have any fossils. This is a hypothetical example. It is an animal that must have existed.’...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
Ping!
Yeah, this is believable...
I can invent an equally plausible classroom situation where the creationists slinks off as well.
And may you have a blessed day, my Brother in Christ!
great title.
Um, okay. So are you trying to imply that the author of this article "invented" this scenario? If so, why would you believe that to be the case?
A hypothetical animal postulated on real evidence is still on infinitely more firm ground than any scenario based on the unquestioned faith in stories from an ancient book.
It sounds too much like a "bouncy" -- formulaic and not very plausible. It is the creationist version of the DU "I was in line behind this Repuke and he said 'obama sucks' and then I told him 'he is the greatest president ever' and he just stammered and left while everyone applauded.
Yeah, I think it was invented to aggrandize the OP.
Well, you are certainly free to think that. And I'm free to think you're a twit. :)
If these changes were to be successful, the other cells would have to become specialized in complementary functions, and the changes would have to happen at the same time. And all the cells would have to connect together into a structure so the organism would survive as a whole, even though none of its component cells could then survive alone.
Anyone who says such a thing has never taken an evolutionary biology course, since it misconstrues the stochastic nature of evolution.
If you lie on one item, everything else is very suspect.
Well, you either know science or you don't.
I do. You, OTOH...?
So if someone espouses a theory you disagree with, that person is lying? I see. So I get to call anyone who espouses a theory I disagree with a liar, huh?
Then you're a liar.
No if someone says something that is total nonsense and claims to have taken classes in that subject is a liar. It is like an astronomer saying that stars are points of light God placed in the sky for us to enjoy.
Then you're a liar.
I see it took you no time at all to drop to crass insults.
Evolution is a theory, based on the known fact that adaptation within a type of creature occurs. (I hesitate to use the word "species" because the definition of that word seems to depend on who is using it.) The theory of evolution has taken that fact and assumed that such changes would eventually result in other types of creatures
You've embraced that theory for your own reasons. That doesn't mean you "know science" while those who disagree with that theory do not.
If you knew science you would be able to see all the scientific holes in the OP.
And you seem to have a problem with understanding the difference between a Scientific Theory and "just a theory."
I can help you understand this difference, if you are open to understanding.
A cursory reading of the article clearly shows the writer was discussing an idea, not stating a fact. For someone who claims to be knowledgeable, it's amazing you missed that. (But then, maybe you didn't and just prefer to twist things so that you can justify calling someone a liar.)
I see it took you no time at all to drop to crass insults.
If what you call a "crass insult" is wrong, then why did you crassly insult the writer of this article? Or is it only wrong for someone else to do but not for you?
You're proving my theories about evols to be correct with every post. ;)
The OP says they took biology courses, then states something that makes zero scientific sense. It is like saying, "well yes, I took astronomy but we all know that astrology is what guides our lives."
Every statement of the OP, especially the supposed reaction of the instructor to the supposed "gotcha" statement reeks of 100% mendacity.
Even a Junior High Science Instructor of minimal knowledge would have made it clear the point of the slides and not slunk down as the OP said. And the .0001-baked "theories" (really just repeated nonsense with zero scientific weight) demonstrate the OP has never taken a biology class in his/her life.
I think the OP is lying. Period. That is not an insult and I have backed it up.
Your calling me a liar for formulating my fact-based opinion is pretty much the playbook for people who don't understand science.
The article does not come off as far fetched. Its not like the evolutionists have not invented hypothetical creatures or declared certain creatures to be ‘transitionals’ to give their beliefs more legitimacy only to have to withdraw them later.
Anything to advance the religion of evolutionism eh freedumb?
the writer seems rather pleased with him/herself, pointing out that a hypothetical organism is in fact a hypothetical organism.
i still don’t understand how this anecdote does anything to advance ‘creation science’ nor how it shows that evolution is not the process on which all life as we know it has formed.
i wonder, did brian thomas attend this lecture too?
forgot to add the M.S.* oops
I went to the 'Journal of Creation' looking for graphs and data and all I found was rhetoric.
May be it was a slow day at the old Lab Bench?
The bunsen inoperable?
They really ought to try using one of these:
.....rather than one of these:
Again, there is no such thing as a "transitional" in the way people who don't understand science present it. It is like "kind." The fact that science has mechanisms in place to ensure proper interpretation of facts (none of which have ever undermined TToE) is a strength, not a weakness.
Anything to advance the religion of evolutionism eh freedumb?
200 years of hard science with billions of data points and millions of people who do understand science, along with chemists, physicists, astronomers, biologists and geologists doesn't need my advancement against a recent and tiny cadre of lay people who don't understand the subjects they are attacking.
The “uh, oh” stammer is right out of the DU “bouncy” tale template.
It is like those silly Ben Stein commercials where he somehow trumps the teacher by asking about abiogenesis and that gets him sent to the principal’s office rather than the simple “abiogenesis is not a precursor to TToE” answer than any science teacher would give.
the purpose of the entire article is to grandstand the author, making him/her to be the hero and the lecturer the heel. there is no science and no debate in it. news?
‘this just in, tas walker just pwned a scientist in front of a class... more at 11”
You may wonder how the Darwin-drones get to this place? Like all mantra chanting Darwin-drones, they have to make the ULTIMATE SACRIFICE to the Bearded Buddha of Naturalism before their mantras can be firmly stuck on stupid:
>>the purpose of the entire article is to grandstand the author, making him/her to be the hero and the lecturer the heel. there is no science and no debate in it. news?
‘this just in, tas walker just pwned a scientist in front of a class... more at 11”
There is a lot of misinformation and outright nonsense that people might think is science. That is its danger, not the “it is so easy to trip up people who understand science” which is just, as you say, grandstanding and, as I say, a flat out lie.
You shall, as always, be in my prayers to God and His Son Christ, who died for our sins and for The Truth tonight!
Ummmmm “postulated on real evidence”?
Ummmm that’s exactly the point, it’s postulated on no such thing, not even close!
Anyone who says such a thing has never taken an evolutionary biology course, since it misconstrues the stochastic nature of evolution.
translation:
A person who hasn’t been brainwashed in the cult of evolution is scientifically politically incorrect.
“No if someone says something that is total nonsense and claims to have taken classes in that subject is a liar. It is like an astronomer saying that stars are points of light God placed in the sky for us to enjoy.”
Yeah...Einstein sure was a chuckle-head.
translation: A person who hasn’t been brainwashed in the cult of evolution is scientifically politically incorrect.
Translation: I don't understand science enough to make an argument so I will throw meaningless platitudes in the hopes someone thinks I look cool.
Einstein was not an astronomer nor did he say that the stars were lights put in the sky for us to enjoy.
Einstein extended the understanding of science, basing it on known facts and vigorously applying the scientific method. He did not reverse the understanding of science by mixing it with theology.
You’ve embraced that theory for your own reasons. That doesn’t mean you “know science” while those who disagree with that theory do not.
In the liberal world, evolution and science are interchangable terms. They use evolution as a club to bash God. In their world, science is a means to rebel and evolution is the instrument.
Normal people, without multiple God hang-ups, are capable of recognizing the differences.
Warning is right, the drive-by troller projecting his way through life.
It is like saying, “well yes, I took astronomy but we all know that astrology is what guides our lives.”
Actually it’s not even close to anything like that at all, that’s the mind of a cultist trying to make others believe his own delusions is what that is dumb...
it’s amazing but I’ve literally posted dozens of times the dissentfromdarwin.org observations and none of them are anti-science, indeed these ARE scientists that work at and/or graduated from MIT, Princeton, Johns Hopkins, etc. etc. etc.
Nothing religious in the observations, but they dare to question your cult and they get smeared for it.
Your delusions are too vast to penetrate.
my advancement against a recent and tiny cadre of lay people who don’t understand the subjects they are attacking.
If you think continuing to lie while projecting about others lying is making an argument, you’re wrong.
Yesterday you were wrong, today you were wrong and the chance that you’ll be wrong tomorrow is 100%.
dissentfromdarwin.org
>>the purpose of the entire article is to grandstand the author, making him/her to be the hero and the lecturer the heel. there is no science and no debate in it. news?
‘this just in, tas walker just pwned a scientist in front of a class... more at 11”
There is a lot of misinformation and outright nonsense that people might think is science. That is its danger, not the “it is so easy to trip up people who understand science” which is just, as you say, grandstanding and, as I say, a flat out lie.
For you clowns always demanding evidence you missed giving this author a free pass on demanding of evidence...
oh wait...a fellow cultist...why of course!
But Einstein said things that were nonsensical.
try sticking to your original argument and not move goalposts.
Focus, I know it’s a novel idea to a lib.
>>If you think continuing to lie while projecting about others lying is making an argument, you’re wrong.
Look — I have been very patient. Your silly and childish ad hominem are getting old — you make yourself look very, very stupid and I almost like you too much to really allow you to continue to do that.
>>Yesterday you were wrong, today you were wrong and the chance that you’ll be wrong tomorrow is 100%.
Yes, hundreds years of science and virtually all scientific advances in biology, medicine, geology and anthropology back me up.
And you have...? What, your unproven, unprovable assertions? Name ONE invention that came from creationism. ONE scientific advance.
Talk about wrong.
Just because you don’t understand something, that doesn’t make it wrong. That make you... well, you finish the sentence.
>>>But Einstein said things that were nonsensical.
try sticking to your original argument and not move goalposts.
Focus, I know it’s a novel idea to a lib.<<
You must have spent a long,long childhood hiding behind your mommies apron strings screaming Nya Nya. I am probably a much stronger Conservative than you were. I believe in facts, not theology as a basis for understanding.
I made a statement and it is YOU who moved the goalposts. Reread — this time for content.
I bid you and your mommy good night. Have a blessed night and may Christ watch over you and yours.
“Translation: I don’t understand science enough to make an argument so I will throw meaningless platitudes in the hopes someone thinks I look cool.”
Projection is no way to go through life ‘dumb.
You lied. You said silly cadre of lay people, and if anyone’s been patient it’s FR putting up with you closet liberals.
dissentfromdarwin.org
It’s painfully obvious to anyone if anyone is looking silly, that wouyld be you.
But of course it would actually require reading the scientists observations about your cult to understand they are not “lay-people”!
One thing that’s “come from” creationism is moral application of science in general. Science applied without morals leads to people like Dr. Mengele to do experiments on helpless people.
What stands out with you is you have a strongly held belief they you know and are a purveyor science and anyone who’s thoughts displease you does not, or more likely this is a crutch you lean on to dismiss them.
However you hardly come off as such with the arguments/analogies you use, the way you paint with a broad brush, and your compulsion to get personal with the insults right away as examples of both are found on this very thread. All you have are darwin central talking points to thowout.
You equate believing evolutionism with accepting science, when theres millions of people who do understand science (me being one of them) with chemists, physicists, astronomers, biologists, paleoanthropologists, geologists who no longer buy into the fantasy.
There you go with the personal insults again.
Thanks for the ping!
The closet libs on here are capable of only projections, strawmen, and the like.
Everyone knows it but them.
For this reason alone they stick out like sore thumbs.
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.