Posted on 04/05/2006 10:32:31 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Its quite obvious, that you have no idea what I am talking about, and that you have no real intention to make further serious inquiries...so be it...you fail to understand that when studying anything scientific, it is best to understand what the words mean in the 'scientific' context...'willfull ignorance' is a phrase that has been used many times on the various Crevo threads, and you certainly display as such, and seem happy doing so...good luck with that, you will need it...
Yes. Back around 1965, I can remember my High School Biology teacher intoning, "The human body contains hundreds of cells, class! Perhaps over a thousand!"
Science had advanced since my day. Back in 1959, we were taught that the body contained not more than a dozen cells. I don't know where we;d be without creation science.
I think everyone should take note that we are not engaging in name calling here. We are actually commending a creationist for bringing this advanced science to our attention.
That list was based on one I put together from my own research and study, and after some modification I am still the primary one to post it.
Personal insults like this do you no credit.
Are there no evo-freakgirls?
It's a good thing only evolutionists resort to personal insults. Imagine what she'd call you otherwise.
I was not familiar with it so I looked it up. The URL is:
http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/terminology.html
Thanks!
Your post #1291, and the link to the article are appreciated by me...its a very interesting read...I especially like the last paragraph, where it is talked about someone throwing on a white lab coat, and spouting some pseudo-scientific jargon about something or another...this description reminds me of some of the speakers on the 'CreationNetwork' on TV....they try to look all important, and try to actually appear to be somewhat scientifically literate, yet when one breaks down what they are actually saying, all it comes down to is that they are simply attempting to discredit evolution with their word tricks...
Sometimes its actually hard to gauge exactly what they are saying, because every few minutes, the discussion is interrupted by a series of 'testimonials' from their viewers about what a great job they are doing, or a call for people to buy any or all of the various 'tape', 'CDs', 'books', and other materials they have...its more a ploy for getting money, than actually providing any scientific research....but they are adept at throwing out what sound like good scientific terms...
Are you really this stupid? Do you actually believe that there was a time when anyone, anywhere, ever believed that the human body "only has one cell"? Much less in 1859, centuries after the first discovery of the cell?
Clue for the clueless: From the very first moment cells were first discovered, thousands of them were visible in the tiny bit of tissue under that primitive microscope, and their microscopic size was clearly understood. So what kind of moron today would be able to swallow the idiotic notion that anyone back then would ever have been dense enough to say, "hey, I'll bet the human body is only made of one of these microscopic things"...
Oh, wait, you're an anti-evolutionist -- so you're able to believe three transparently idiotic and illogical things before breakfast. Forget I asked.
And to make it clear that Darwin was well aware that bodies are made up of multiple cells:
"We need not here consider how the bodies of some animals first became divided into a series of segments, or how they became divided into right and left sides, with corresponding organs, for such questions are almost beyond investigation. It is, however, probable that some serial structures are the result of cells multiplying by division, entailing the multiplication of the parts developed from such cells."Is being grossly ignorant of science, scientific knowledge, and its history, a *requirement* for being an anti-evolutionist? It sure seems to be.
Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species", 1859
I believe in the one-cell theory. Teach the controversy!
Ovulation versus cretinism
Two different theories exist concerning the origin of children: the theory of sexual reproduction, and the theory of the stork. Many people believe in the theory of sexual reproduction because they have been taught this theory at school.
In reality, however, many of the world's leading scientists are in favour of the theory of the stork. If the theory of sexual reproduction is taught in schools, it must only be taught as a theory and not as the truth. Alternative theories, such as the theory of the stork, must also be taught.
Evidence supporting the theory of the stork includes the following:
1. It is a scientifically established fact that the stork does exist. This can be confirmed by every ornithologist.
2. The alleged human foetal development contains several features that the theory of sexual reproduction is unable to explain.
3. The theory of sexual reproduction implies that a child is approximately nine months old at birth. This is an absurd claim. Everyone knows that a newborn child is newborn.
4. According to the theory of sexual reproduction, children are a result of sexual intercourse. There are, however, several well documented cases where sexual intercourse has not led to the birth of a child.
5. Statistical studies in the Netherlands have indicated a positive correlation between the birth rate and the number of storks. Both are decreasing.
6. The theory of the stork can be investigated by rigorous scientific methods. The only assumption involved is that children are delivered by the stork.
(Original version by Erkki Aalto, Dept. of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Stork Science, University of Helsinki --- English version by Jopi Louko, Institute of Stork Research, University of Alberta)
I really have mixed feelings about enjoying a Tom Tomorrow cartoon. I can only compare it to liking Eric the Viking with Tim Robbins.
1. Meteor craters have not been observed to happen, now or in the past.
2. Meteor craters have never been reproduced in the lab, and are thus not scientific.
3. Thomas Jefferson said: "Gentlemen, I would rather believe that two Yankee professors would lie than believe that stones fall from heaven."
4. The odds against a random rock falling from the sky, striking the earth, and making a crater are astronomical.
5. The second law of thermodynamics prohibits meteor craters.
6. Meteor craters are not mentioned in the bible, nor are "rocks from the sky."
7. Craterism is a product of materialism and a Godless, naturalistic worldview.
8. Belief that rocks can fall from the sky promotes hedonism and amoral, animalistic behavior.
9. Craterism makes no predictions and is untestable; it is therefore not scientific.
10. Craterists can produce micro-craters, but have no evidence of macro-cratering.
11. Aristotle didn't believe in Craterism. Nor did Galileo, Newton, or Einstein.
12. Einstein even said: "God does not play dice!" Are you smarter than Einstein?
13. Scientists are abandoning craterism because they know it is not supported by evidence.
14. Anyone who thinks there are rocks in the sky has rocks in his head.
15. It takes more faith to believe in Craterism than it does to believe in the Tooth Fairy.
16. More and more scientists are turning to "Intelligent Crater" theory (IC). Craterism is a theory in crisis!
Well, now, you have gone and done it...introduced the stork 'theory'...when I was a little girl, my grandmother assured me, that when she had her babies(this was of course, back in the old days, the 1920's and her babies were delivered at home by the visiting doctor), those babies actually were brought into the house, by the doctor in his little black bag...that was her 'little black bag' theory of where babies came from...I used to wonder, did she think I was really stupid enough to swallow that story?
So now, here are three 'theories' of where babies come from...take your pick...they come as a result of a)..sex...b)the stork...c)the doctors little black bag...
I am sure there are many more other various 'theories' as to where babies come from...
You missed the point. I was asked for ONE scientist, and provided 700.
Also, just because THIS news story shows 700 does not mean that it is limited to 700.
I have other news stories besides this one.
Sometimes, though, people don't really like to hear the truth.
Thanks for the article, but I'm just looking for an answer that shows that one species can become an entirely different species.
Maybe we IDers should have our very own dictionary, too.
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.