|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 04/12/2006 : 07:13:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Natural Selection ends up being nothing. It is not observed and randomness does not create complex and meaningfull information, ever. So it is nothing. Add in your cartoons and you guys are really rolling...
And you base this statement on what, pray?
THE THERAPSID--MAMMAL TRANSITIONAL SERIES
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
 |
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2006 : 07:28:50 [Permalink]
|
| Yeah, I mean. What are cartoons, compared to wishful thinking and fairytales? |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2006 : 08:40:51 [Permalink]
|
How's this for a worldview. We have this very old book that tells a creation story or two. We believe every single word of that book. The book is true and accurate in every detail. If we allow ourselves to be uncertain about any of it, our faith in its accuracy may be diminished and our certainty that we have cornered the market on absolute truth will come into question. Anything that challenges our narrow and tenaciously held interpretation of the book must be wrong. It's a simple as that.
We love science too. We teach it in our schools. Of course, if any science is at odds with the literal truth as told in our book, it must be wrong.
So we approach any false science this way. We start with what we know is the literal truth. Then we attack any science that does not support our truth. Evolution is our favorite science to attack. We set up institutions like the ICR whose members must sign an oath that states that our ancient book is the truth. We call them scientists. Their job is to prove that we are right. We cull through old scientific journals to find mistakes. We look for great quotes that seem to prove us right. (We are not opposed to taking quotes out of context. We even sell tapes and books on how to argue our points “using their own words against them".) We even found a way to deny such things as transitional fossils by insisting on a perfect lineage with every single gap filled. We redefined what a species is. We said that the universe was created with the appearance of age. We tortured the 2nd law of thermodynamics into supporting our view. We deny the possibility of any mutation that results in a positive effect on a species. And we did all of that without publishing a darn thing in any peer reviewed scientific journal. We have whole school boards believing we are correct. Were good.
“Ever see a cat give birth to a dog?” We love that line. It's a real crowd pleaser. While some poor shlub is trying to simplify and explain a very dense subject to an audience of mostly church dwellers or those who don't have a background in science, we throw zingers. Lots of them. We've got the live debate shtick down. (We do not like to debate in writing.)
We lost a few rounds, but that was a long time ago. Okay, the earth is not flat or the center of the universe. Happy? Our mistake was that we weren't reading the old book correctly. The literal truth was there but we missed it by taking a few passages literally that was not meant to be taken that way. But everything else in the old book is meant to be taken that way. Otherwise it wouldn't be the literal truth, now would it?
So it comes down to this. We know the truth. Anything that does not agree with that truth is wrong. They are just so stories. False religion. It does not matter what you say or how logical your arguments seem to be. Wrong is wrong.
Our worldview is simple. God did it. Anything that even hints at the possibility that God didn't have to do it is wrong. (Even if God might have done it.)
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2006 : 10:13:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
How's this for a worldview. We have this very old book that tells a creation story or two. We believe every single word of that book. The book is true and accurate in every detail. If we allow ourselves to be uncertain about any of it, our faith in its accuracy may be diminished and our certainty that we have cornered the market on absolute truth will come into question. Anything that challenges our narrow and tenaciously held interpretation of the book must be wrong. It's a simple as that.
We love science too. We teach it in our schools. Of course, if any science is at odds with the literal truth as told in our book, it must be wrong.
So we approach any false science this way. We start with what we know is the literal truth. Then we attack any science that does not support our truth. Evolution is our favorite science to attack. We set up institutions like the ICR whose members must sign an oath that states that our ancient book is the truth. We call them scientists. Their job is to prove that we are right. We cull through old scientific journals to find mistakes. We look for great quotes that seem to prove us right. (We are not opposed to taking quotes out of context. We even sell tapes and books on how to argue our points “using their own words against them".) We even found a way to deny such things as transitional fossils by insisting on a perfect lineage with every single gap filled. We redefined what a species is. We said that the universe was created with the appearance of age. We tortured the 2nd law of thermodynamics into supporting our view. We deny the possibility of any mutation that results in a positive effect on a species. And we did all of that without publishing a darn thing in any peer reviewed scientific journal. We have whole school boards believing we are correct. Were good.
“Ever see a cat give birth to a dog?” We love that line. It's a real crowd pleaser. While some poor shlub is trying to simplify and explain a very dense subject to an audience of mostly church dwellers or those who don't have a background in science, we throw zingers. Lots of them. We've got the live debate shtick down. (We do not like to debate in writing.)
We lost a few rounds, but that was a long time ago. Okay, the earth is not flat or the center of the universe. Happy? Our mistake was that we weren't reading the old book correctly. The literal truth was there but we missed it by taking a few passages literally that was not meant to be taken that way. But everything else in the old book is meant to be taken that way. Otherwise it wouldn't be the literal truth, now would it?
So it comes down to this. We know the truth. Anything that does not agree with that truth is wrong. They are just so stories. False religion. It does not matter what you say or how logical your arguments seem to be. Wrong is wrong.
Our worldview is simple. God did it. Anything that even hints at the possibility that God didn't have to do it is wrong. (Even if God might have done it.)
Yep, funny. However, even in your giant over-simplification, it still sounds much more plausible then clamities on mars creating cosmic asteroid shuttle systems that conveyered the building blocks for life back to earth... |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2006 : 10:29:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Siberia
Yeah, I mean. What are cartoons, compared to wishful thinking and fairytales?
Here is what Dr. Colin Patterson, a senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, had to say about evolutionary cartoons:
I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it… Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin's authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils… It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.
Cited in: Sunderland, Luther D., Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems (El Cajon, CA: Master Books, 1988), p. 89.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
| Edited by - Bill scott on 04/12/2006 11:55:42 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2006 : 11:56:39 [Permalink]
|
Those who sought have found,
A fish that swam in the sand.
A Rock of Ages.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2006 : 12:09:10 [Permalink]
|
| 1988, a very good year - not quite twenty years, but close. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2006 : 12:14:05 [Permalink]
|
Hey Bill, you're using one of the favorite methods of the typical dishonest creationist - the old partial quotes or quotes taken out of context. I thought lying was one of the BIG TEN!
quote:
The following quote appears in at least one Creationist book:
"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. . .I will lay it on the line, There is not one such fossil for which one might make a watertight argument."
-- Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History.
This quote is from a letter from Dr. Patterson to creationist Luther D. Sunderland. The next few sentences are:
"... a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test."
So, what Patterson is saying is that perhaps modern birds descended from the species Archaeopteryx, or perhaps they descended from a cousin species. He just doesn't know how to prove which is the case. Therefore, he refuses to make a claim he can't fully back up.
Taken from http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/quote_patterson2.html
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 04/16/2006 : 07:07:44 [Permalink]
|
Still nothing on AiG's site beyond the usual drivvel, but they did put forth a press release. quote:
‘Missing link' claim for fossils debunked by creationist group
Apr 10, 2006
By Doug Waters
Baptist Press
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--Not missing a beat, a leading creation science organization responded quickly to the latest well-publicized “missing link” claim by evolutionary researchers.
This time, The New York Times, USA Today and other media outlets trumpeted the discovery of fossils near the North Pole said to belong to a 375-million-year-old fish. The finding by a team of researchers, led by Neil H. Shurbin of the University of Chicago, initially was reported in Nature magazine April 6.
In a preliminary response -- titled “Gone fishin' for a missing link?” on its website -- Answers in Genesis called attention to the “cautionary words being used about this creature.”
“… [W]hen you read other tentative wording (e.g., the use of the word ‘may' in the headline ‘Fossil may link fish, land animal'), then the find is not as firm as evolutionists would lead you to believe,” Answers in Genesis noted.
The fish, known as “Tiktaalik,” “is a long-sought missing link in the evolution of some fishes from water to a life walking on four limbs on land,” as described by The New York Times. The Times also described the fossils as being “widely seen by scientists as a powerful rebuttal to religious creationists, who hold a literal biblical view on the origins and development of life.”
Interesting, is it not, that someone who has not invested a lot of time studying the fossil should know so much about it.
Also interesting that they soon brought up coalacanth. Really reachin' for it.... 
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 04/16/2006 : 07:33:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
“… [W]hen you read other tentative wording (e.g., the use of the word ‘may' in the headline ‘Fossil may link fish, land animal'), then the find is not as firm as evolutionists would lead you to believe,” Answers in Genesis noted.
Yeah, I guess atheistic scientists (even the religious ones) aren't as sure about their data as AIG is in their bible, right? Or maybe it is just a severe case of intellectual honesty, something YECers are immune from.
AIG is really reaching when the best they can come up with is "Hey they said 'may' which means it may not be true too!". 
YECers are so pathetic, aren't they? You almost want to pat them on the head saying "There, there, it will be okay. You will understand when you grow up", but you don't because you don't want your hand bitten off. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
trogdor
Skeptic Friend
198 Posts |
Posted - 04/16/2006 : 13:04:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
quote:
Natural Selection ends up being nothing. It is not observed and randomness does not create complex and meaningfull information, ever. So it is nothing. Add in your cartoons and you guys are really rolling...
And you base this statement on what, pray?
THE THERAPSID--MAMMAL TRANSITIONAL SERIES
my filth, it's almost like you've posted that before. |
all eyes were on Ford Prefect. some of them were on stalks.
-Douglas Adams |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 04/16/2006 : 15:34:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
Bill said:
quote:
More cartoons I see. A worldview based on nothing and cartoons. Just great.
Yeah, totally unlike a Chick tract.
Oh, and how can something be based on both nothing AND cartoons?
Natural Selection ends up being nothing.
That would mean even the religionist concept of micro-evolution within "kinds" is null-and-void. Then there is no way what so ever to explain the diversity in animals we see today. And you're only one step removed from Flat-Earthers.
quote:
It is not observed
But it is. You're denial to accept that doesn't matter.
quote:
and randomness does not create complex and meaningfull information, ever.
Oh, YES it does. Prior to 1940-ish nylon-digesting enzymes didn't exist in nature. Now it does. The mutation that created it is well documented. You're denial of that fact not withstanding...
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 04/16/2006 : 15:45:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by trogdor
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
quote:
Natural Selection ends up being nothing. It is not observed and randomness does not create complex and meaningfull information, ever. So it is nothing. Add in your cartoons and you guys are really rolling...
And you base this statement on what, pray?
THE THERAPSID--MAMMAL TRANSITIONAL SERIES
my filth, it's almost like you've posted that before.
Well somebody's payin' attention, anyway. 
It's a good link with a lot of info that is the smoking gun in the transition from reptile to mammal.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2006 : 07:04:49 [Permalink]
|
I love it when they whine!I love it when they twist, squirm and thrash like a night-crawler on a fish hook because they can find no way to refute evolution, not even with all of their lies and misreprentations.
I love what the Clown College Institute for Creation Research has to say about Tiktaalik:
quote:
Tiktaalik: Our Ancestor?
Apr 11, 2006
by Frank Sherwin
With the continued invalidation of the corrupt theory of neo-Darwinism in the eyes of many, and school boards nation-wide taking a favorable look at intelligent design, it is not surprising that evolutionists are scrambling to enact damage control. Enter an alleged “missing link” that some are saying reveals one of the greatest chanTiktaalik roseages in the field of zoology.
The New York Times (NYT) reports that the recent discovery of a large scaly creature in Canada is “a predecessor of amphibians, reptiles and dinosaurs, mammals and eventually humans” (Wilford 2006). National Geographic News (NGN) crows that “fossil hunters may have discovered the fish that made humans possible.” (Owen 2006). But before evolutionists start celebrating, they should keep in mind that Tiktaalik roseae is incomplete. Scientists as of yet unable to determine what the hind fins and tail might have looked like. Paleontologist Neil Shubin states, “We've really only begun to sort of crack that spot [the small rocky outcropping 600 miles from the North Pole where Tiktaalik was found]” (AP 2006).
Also noteworthy, is the use of diffident language by the secular reporters and scientists when discussing Tiktaalik. For example, NGN says this creature “may” be a missing link. While the NYT states that changes in this creature “anticipate” the emergence of land animals. One may anticipate leaving the house, but he is still in the house.
And now, you love it, too! |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2006 : 23:23:43 [Permalink]
|
Nice guys. Another half a fossil and a drawing to boot! In genius, explains how the whole entity came to life. Gave himself skin, bones, a heart, a brain, with everything that went with it.
This, this fact of evolutionary science, is there any actually testing and observing of creatures in the transitional stages? Or is it all fully formed creatures? |
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
