Posted on 11/05/2009 6:15:26 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
In August 2009, retired University of Liverpool marine biologist Donald Williamson officially challenged the standard Darwinian interpretation of caterpillar origins. His paper was fast-tracked to publication by a “high-placed advocate,”[1] but shortly afterward his ideas were rebutted in the very same journal. While this back-and-forth exchange has sparked intense criticism over the submission and review processes that were used, the situation also reveals core problems with broad-scale evolution...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
Ping!
Well, that does it for TToE.
How is Batboy by the way?
You never cease to live up to your screenname, FreeDumb.
In before the “but...but...that really proves the Earth is 6,000 old!”
I spoke to soon...
And you never cease to convince the world that conservatives are a bunch of Luddite idiots who don’t understand the first thing about science.
You are an embarrassment that some of us need to constantly clean up after, like a 5 YO child who learned to cuss.
>>I spoke to soon...<<
LOL! Never underestimate the speed of ignorance. With no thinking necessary, there is no clutch...
Simply rebutted using a scientific maxim ...
Beliefs belong in church.
Simply rebutted using a scientific maxim ...
Beliefs belong in church.
LOL!...it is the Temple of Darwin who are the modern day Luddites. After all, it is your fellow anti-science Temple of Darwin co-religionists who have teamed up with the communist ACLU to prevent students from hearing about the origins debate. It is your evo-fanatical, anti-science, Luddite co-religionists who destroy the careers of scientists who dare to look for design in nature. It is your cowardly, anti-science, Luddite evo-coreligionists who put their tales between their legs every time they are challenged by Creationists or IDers to debate in public or in print. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Get real, FreeDumb!!!
Both sides are basing their worldview on faith. But only one side admits it.
Stop the presses; a hypothesis was refuted via the peer-review process.
Well that proves it that man and dinosaurs co-existed 6,000 years ago.
Seriously GGG this is how real science works.
==Trying to use science to disprove science. LOL
Actually, Creationists and IDers are using science to disprove darwood’s unscientific, rapidly crumbling, evo-religious creation myth.
Really. So you are saying that the scientific method is not based on beliefs or assumptions?
>>LOL!...it is the Temple of Darwin who are the modern day Luddites. <<
Your ignorance does not make others who understand science Luddites.
>>After all, it is your fellow anti-science Temple of Darwin co-religionists who have teamed up with the communist ACLU to prevent students from hearing about the origins debate. <<
If you have a scientific alternative to TToE, bring it. To date, there is none. Sophomoric philosophical musings such as ID do not meet even the low standard.
>>It is your evo-fanatical, anti-science, Luddite co-religionists who destroy the careers of scientists who dare to look for design in nature. It is your cowardly, anti-science, Luddite evo-coreligionists who put their tales between their legs every time they are challenged by Creationists or IDers to debate in public or in print. <<
Repeating a word like “Luddite” without understanding it is, as I said, like a 5 YO who has learned to cuss. If you have an alternative to TToE that explains the billions of datapoints, post it. Your cute little “oh look here, there is a slight variation” (followed, as always, by a complete and purposeful misanalysis of the posited phenomenon) do not cut it.
>>Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Get real, FreeDumb!!!<<
You really need to learn terms before you accuse people of misusing them. As always, your ignorance does not create knowledge.
>>So you are saying that the scientific method is not based on beliefs or assumptions?<<
It is based on a methodology that ensures that information and conclusions are based on reality.
>>Both sides are basing their worldview on faith. But only one side admits it.<<
Philosophy is always the last refuge of the sophomoric. If I were to tell you that The Theory of Gravity is less understood than TToE, I am willing to bet you would say otherwise because you see things fall.
I assume (heh — get it?) that you don’t use medications because they are based on “faith.” Right?
LOL — that is freaking hilarious!
The Darwinism myth is slowly being dismantled. The inadequacies of natural selection, the lack of gradually changing fossils, the complexity of gene regulation, it’s all coming together to drain the warm slimy pool of Darwinism. Batboy? That sounds like a better “reconstruction” than Ardi! Bring out the bones!
The fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument. Often the argument is characterized simply as a personal attack.
1. The personal attack is also often termed an "ad personem argument": the statement or argument at issue is dropped from consideration or is ignored, and the locutor's character or circumstances are used to influence opinion.
2. The fallacy draws its appeal from the technique of "getting personal." The assumption is that what the locutor is saying is entirely or partially dictated by his character or special circumstances and so should be disregarded.
That's right,
My late Army brother (three Bronze Stars out of Vietnam) put it this way: "Assumption is the mother of bleepup."
PS Creationists have a comprehensive, testable explanation for life's origin, whereas the evos have got zip. And in case that has produced a question mark over your FreeDumb head, the Temple of Darwin has no explanation for the origin of life! But they don't call you FreeDumb for nothing, so let me put this in a way that you might,just might, understand:
Creationist: Believes in God.
IDer: Doesn't believe in God.
Why do you support the anti-God people?
Creationist: Believes in God.
IDer: Doesn't believe in God.
Why do you support the anti-God people?
Creationist: Believes in God.
IDer: Doesn't believe in God.
Why do you support the anti-God people?
So it is your contention that science does not assume an orderly Universe that make it possible to make scientific predictions?
False. Even most of the Christian schools DO NOT teach YEC. Why is that?
Agreed. I would only add that that process is RAPIDLY ACCELERATING!
You're joking,right?
All these threads mocking science, and you are ignorant of the most basic premise that true science is built upon?
UNBELIEVABLE!
>>It is you who don’t understand the origin of the word Luddite. Otherwise you would know that it is your fellow jackbooted Temple of Darwin fanatics who are trying to crush the scientific debate over origins. <<
There is no debate. Bring a scientific alternative or shut up.
>>It is you who are the 5 year old—a 5 year old who still needs to have his diapers changed.<<
Says sir smelly-shorts.
>>PS Creationists have a comprehensive, testable explanation for life’s origin, whereas the evos have got zip.<<
No they don’t. Your cartoon says it better than I possibly could. It is you who rely on an active supernatural process to complete your childish and ignorant picture. Thanks for making my point.
>>And in case that has produced a question mark over your FreeDumb head, the Temple of Darwin has no explanation for the origin of life! But they don’t call you FreeDumb for nothing, so let me put this in a way that you might,just might, understand: <<
I named myself and your typical use of my name when you have no argument is amusing.
Repeating yourself and adding insults just tells the world that you have nothing else. And you continue to be an embarrassment to Conservatives. Fortunately for Conservatives everywhere, there are enough of us who understand science to tell the world that ignorant fools like you are tolerated but not admired.
It has been pointed out to you several time that the evolutionary theory does not address the origins of life.
“It is no valid objection that science as yet throws no light on the far higher problem of the essence or origin of life” (Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species. 6th edition, 1882. p. 421
Does Exodus 20:16 not apply to you?
Well, the B_E, don’t just stand there babbling and drooling like a typical darwin-drone...throw down!
>>Batboy? That sounds like a better “reconstruction” than Ardi! Bring out the bones!<<
Batboy is equivalent to the other articles posted by icr. Actually, it (Batboy) has a slightly higher reasonableness factor than the fantasies and purposeful ignorance “published” by icr.
>>Well, the B_E, don’t just stand there babbling and drooling like a typical darwin-drone...throw down!<<
Standard creationist Christianity showing.
Your Momma must have completely ignored you to need this kind of attention.
Are you sure he has a Momma? Maybe the ID created him?
You’re on fire tonight, GGG. Love ya, man.
>>Are you sure he has a Momma? Maybe the ID created him?<<
OMG you are killing me! (LOLOL!)
>>You’re on fire tonight, GGG. Love ya, man.<<
Yes — he is getting killed in every possible area of debate. Self-immolation seems to be his best option.
Life was simple when GGG was a kid. (as follows):
Momma, where do people come from? Momma: God.
Momma, who made the sun? Momma: God
Momma, why is the sun so hot: Momma: God made it hot to keep up warm.
Momma, why is dirt so dirty: Momma: God made you from the dirt.
Careful. Last night GGG was talking about rectal exams and asking several posters to 'get behind him'.
You are the one who is not rising to the challenge, diaper boy. I just told you that your fellow droolers in the Temple of Darwin have no explanation for the origin of life, darwood’s main evo-religious predictions are falling one after the other, not least of which is darwood’s so-called ‘tree of life.’ Indeed, it has gotten so bad for the Temple of Darwin that even the evos are abandoning the HMS Beagle in search of a new God-denying evolutionary ship. I know you will find this hard to believe now, but once you are past the diaper stage, darwood’s evo-religious creation myth will leave you red-faced with embarrassment. Although, given your screenname, I doubt that will happen anytime soon.
Is rae4palin really GodGunsGuts?
>>You are the one who is not rising to the challenge, diaper boy. <<
OMG stop it! stop it! You are making me double over in laughter!
>>I just told you that your fellow droolers in the Temple of Darwin have no explanation for the origin of life,<<
And you just keep ignoring the fact that abiogenesis has nothing to do with TToE. You have been told hundreds, maybe thousands of times, but your ears and eyes and little brain are permanently closed.
>>darwood’s main evo-religious predictions are falling one after the other, not least of which is darwood’s so-called ‘tree of life.’ Indeed, it has gotten so bad for the Temple of Darwin that even the evos are abandoning the HMS Beagle in search of a new God-denying evolutionary ship. <<
Only in your fantasy world. In the real grown-up world where real scientists do real science your little Batboy articles aren’t even acknowledged. And the real world understands that believing in God has nothing to do with using science to understand His Universe.
>>I know you will find this hard to believe now, but once you are past the diaper stage, darwood’s evo-religious creation myth will leave you red-faced with embarrassment. Although, given your screenname, I doubt that will happen anytime soon.<<
Keep repeating yourself in the face of facts. You are such a little boy. And using my screenname as an issue shows just how much of a little boy you are.
What a fool you are. As I said, the only reason I engage you at all is to let the outside world know that you do NOT represent Conservatives and instead are a small example of an outlyer who tries to get attention by screaming like a wittle baby in the grocery store.
Intelligent Conservatives understand science. Foolish little babies do not.
that is correct. Have you looked up the meaning of "orderly" lately?
The universe might appear to be chaos beyond comprehension, but mankind is learning more about it every day; a learning that involves technological advances and looking into theories based on real life observations - while threatening or destroying (ala Copernicus and Galileo) religious beliefs.
Would you really like to return to Inquisition days?
I just told you that your fellow droolers in the Temple of Darwin have no explanation for the origin of life
And I just explained to you that the evolutionary theory does not address the origins of life
“It is no valid objection that science as yet throws no light on the far higher problem of the essence or origin of life” (Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species. 6th edition, 1882. p. 421
repeating the same falsehood over, and over again does not make it true
>>Is rae4palin really GodGunsGuts?<<
Dude! You are one of the funniest posters I have encountered in quite a while.
Some evening when I am “in the slot” we will have to trade barbs. I seem to be a little too steamed to hit that humor continuum tonight.
It is probably because I am a little under the weather.
Your buddies want to debate the truth, while real scientists want to find the truth.
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.