Posted on 11/19/2009 3:13:17 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
Children will play.
If that’s the best they can do, it’s more a reflection of their character than your threads.
Let them get their jollies if that’s what does it for them.
It’s also an example of the double standard that evos apply constantly.
If the PhD holder were a creationist, his degree would be meaningless. They’re a dime a dozen these days, you know.
It’s only if the PhD holder is a hardcore evo that the degree means anything.
And there is the standard accusation of projection. Starting with some assertion that the creationists have better argments than the evolutionists do, any critical examination of those arguments is simply answered with accusations that "the evoes do it too". So where's the difference? There's certainly never going to be any critical examination of the arguments on their merits.
And why would the ancestor of humans, or any other creature, not survive along with the differing branches that evolved from it?
Kind of like the answer in the form of a question, *If Americans came from Europeans, then why are there still Europeans?*.
Funny how the evos want to have their cake and eat it to.
You need to give that tired old canard about the Bible teaching that pi=3 a rest. That has been debunked so many times that it’s not funny.
It makes evos look ignorant to keep bringing that up.
http://www.purplemath.com/modules/bibleval.htm
Wow... this is the perfect example of the type of misdirection and obfuscation that’s perpetrated by evo’s on a regular basis.
By the way... I don’t know where the Panda’s thumb came from but, judging from the collective intelligence of the evo-atheist crowd I can guess where the Panda’s thumb has been (was that harsh?)
(disclaimer: this is in no way an attack on a particular individual or any named or un-named freeper that is or has ever been on the freerepublic website. I’m speaking in general about the evo crowd with the exception of a few (and you know who you are) fair-minded evos with whom I happen to disagree but that are perfectly reasonable human beings in every other respect but that have unfortunately been brainwashed by public education and the Discovery Channel and every other piece of evolutionist propaganda the evo’s can throw their way)
Good day sir. I SAID, GOOD DAY!!!
Right on the money. ;)
Here in the explanation of cladistics is part of the problem with these artificial groupings, the cladogram is used to prove the assumption that its construction is based upon:
“What is Cladistics
Lynne M. Clos
.........Derived characters are advanced traits which only appear in some members of the group. Cladistics is based on the assumption that the appearance of derived characters gives clues to evolutionary relationships. In our example, a derived character for some mammals might be loss of the tail, which occurs in the great apes and man. It is assumed that loss of the tail occurred only once, in the common ancestor of apes and man, and that none of us has one because we inherited that trait from our common ancestor. Thus if mammals are separated into groups which do and which don't have a tail, shown by a fork on the evolutionary diagram (cladogram), this represents the point at which a new species evolved which didn't have a tail. Man and the great apes are assumed to have descended from this species (which may or may not remain undiscovered at the present time).”
Say what? The formation of the group is based upon shared evolutionary traits and descent is shown by the grouping?
Speciation events? What speciation events? Solid black lines showing a connection between two other black lines?What is at these intersections?
You started with the inferences about lies and truth.
You also have your "religious" beliefs. In fact, you believe in the man who founded the theory of Evolution; a man who was not a scientist but a "theologian" himself!
I do indeed have my religious beliefs. And you don't know what they are, but think you can tell me anyway.
Your source is woefully inadequate if you want to understand how cladistics is done. It is done with DNA comparisons. A “clade” is a branch that all share the same evolutionary feature (even if they lose it), but cladograms are constructed by DNA analysis.
But of course you wouldn't be expected to know that if you rely on Creationist sources, they misrepresent the science they attempt to debunk out of necessity.
Talk about projecting. Thank you for providing such an excellent example by your own behavior.
That's like evos telling creationists how they think and what they believe.
You’re right. Many people are so identified with their opinions that they’re simply unable to accept any comment that’s not vociferous agreement. It’s boring and exhausting trying to have a discussion with people who can’t discern the difference among evidence, interpretation, fact, opinion, and/or revelation.
It’s like (just because I’m cranky tonight ;-) trying to discuss morality with people who cry, “You can’t tell me what to do!!! You’re a Nazi!!!” every time you evaluate behaviors as wrong or right.
Oh, here it is.
Well, everyone offering interpretations of the unobserved past lacks the most basic information ... that which they would have gained by observing the events as they happened. Everyone also lacks the evidence they would gain by reproducing the events in an experiment.
Why in the world does anyone give a rat’s ass what’s in the keyword section if they aren’t words anyone would search for?
Who was it that stated: "Did you expect they would admit to lying?"
I do indeed have my religious beliefs. And you don't know what they are, but think you can tell me anyway.
You think you know mine; you draw your conclusions about me, I will draw mine about you. But you are the one who wishes to speak on the merits, so I pose this question to you; do you think Darwin was qualified to found the theory of Evolution, a man who was not a scientist but a major on theology?
On the European vs. American question Darwin said it had been demonstrated that Europeans had bigger brains so maybe according to Darwinism Americans are devolved, And I suppose he'd get no argument in Europe.
I said I expected you to be human. Religios beliefs are personal and frequently emotionally held, and people can get hostile toward anything or anyone that contradicts them. I considered the possibility that you might. It's part of the human condtion.
But you are the one who wishes to speak on the merits, so I pose this question to you; do you think Darwin was qualified to found the theory of Evolution, a man who was not a scientist but a major on theology?
Let's start with the premise that he was not a scientist. On what do you base that assesment?
Clos is a Creationist?
It's easy to debate out of a paste buffer.
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.