Posted on 06/22/2003 5:29:39 PM PDT by Aric2000
I think it's just another 3 days in the penalty box. The banned accounts are less ambiguous. "This account has been banned."
Pig rasslin'. You jus' gits dirty and the pig likes it.
If you want respect, you need to agree to two things that every prominent paleontologist and scientist know, including your heroes like Gould, Dawkins, Eldridge, Crick, Provine. They are:
1. The fossil record is a major problem for Darwinists. It doesn't show what Darwin predicted. You especially have to acknowledge the hugh problem of the Cambrian Explosion. Sure, you can try to explain away the problem. We expect you to. But to come on here, or anywhere else and say the fossil record supports evolution is to discredit yourself immediately, as not even your experts claim such a thing.
2. Acknowledge that the lack of transitional creatures in nature is also a problem, as Darwin himself recognized. Again, you can try to explain it, as Gould has with the concept of Punctuated Equilibrium, but you must recognize it is a problem for you. Otherwise, again, you lose all credibility and sound like Sidney Blumenthal on the Clintons.
Now, I believe those are the only two hard and fast rules that can immediately destroy your credibility. However, if you really want to earn our respect, don't try to convince us with silly nonsense such as peppered moths, finch beaks, dog breeding (what was Charles thinking?), fruitfly experiments, and, especially, that dinosaur to bird nonsense. The apparent speciation (in a very limited sense) of the finches at the Galapagos is fair, although I don't think it takes you far, though it is a fascinating piece of nature at work.
OK. I think I've told how NOT to look like a fool right off the bat. Oh, and comparing human and chimp DNA really does nothing for me, as you cannot explain how it happened. But, whatever.
I have to leave for a couple of weeks, but will look you up when I get back. I am sorry if I tweaked too hard, as I really don't want to make any of this personal. My sincere apologies, Vade, as we agree on so much. Take care and I'll holler at you when I get back.
Syllables: un-prec-e-dent-ed
Part of Speech adjective
Pronunciation uhn preh sih dehn tihd
Definition 1. having no precedent; never before observed or experienced.
Related Words prodigious , original , phenomenal , novel , miraculous
I set a bad tone, back in 580, so I can't complain there.
... you need to agree to two things that every prominent paleontologist and scientist know, including your heroes like Gould, Dawkins, Eldridge, Crick, Provine. They are:
1. The fossil record is a major problem for Darwinists. It doesn't show what Darwin predicted. You especially have to acknowledge the hugh problem of the Cambrian Explosion. Sure, you can try to explain away the problem. We expect you to. But to come on here, or anywhere else and say the fossil record supports evolution is to discredit yourself immediately, as not even your experts claim such a thing.However, I correctly pointed out in 580 that you were begging the "no-evidence" question, and your response to the prosecution coming in and dumping a big pile of evidence on the table: the bones, the forensic lab reports, the eyewitness accounts, is to appeal to the "known lack of evidence." You simply continue to beg the question.
As to the Cambrian, when Alamo-Girl posted an actual paper (by the prestigious un-Discovery Institute ("Trying to wish the established body of human learning away since about 1992") on why this is supposed to be such a problem, I read it and explained why I was not impressed. My words, although links to other publications are made therein.
BTW, when claiming that "there's no evidence," disallowing anything from established science sources as opposed to an FR poster's own words is rather silly. If all I had were my own words, that would be evidence that there's no evidence. That I can point you to large bodies of knowledge in paleontogy, molecular biology, etc. which completely undermine your claim is actually rather bad for you.
2. Acknowledge that the lack of transitional creatures in nature is also a problem, as Darwin himself recognized. Again, you can try to explain it, as Gould has with the concept of Punctuated Equilibrium, but you must recognize it is a problem for you. Otherwise, again, you lose all credibility and sound like Sidney Blumenthal on the Clintons.A real familiarity with Gould's writings will show that he does not help or support you in any way. You are familiar with collections of snippets no bigger than three sentences together and most of those are studded with ellipses. Dishonest creationist quote-mine science. Basically, everything you think you know is wrong.
And you are begging the question, still/again. Post 580 has photographs, articles, a pile of evidence. You dismiss by saying I first have to acknowledge the lack of evidence before you will deign to look at the evidence.
... and, especially, that dinosaur to bird nonsense.
But the evidence keeps coming in. There are all those specimens that have some features of reptiles and some of modern birds. You have not explained why there's nothing to explain, there. Evolution sees the question and answers it. Creation science closes its eyes and says, "I see nothing to explain." It's the same trick over and over on the questions I posted in 704 to ALS. You don't learn anything new by denying there's anything out there that needs explaining.
I have to leave for a couple of weeks, but will look you up when I get back. I am sorry if I tweaked too hard, as I really don't want to make any of this personal. My sincere apologies, Vade, as we agree on so much. Take care and I'll holler at you when I get back.
Nothing personal meant here, either. See you when you're back!
That was the theory of genetics favored by Stalin. Any biologist who disagreed was imprisoned or executed. I wasn't aware that conservatives favored Stalin's scientific theories.
You know, if this was supposed to be a mystery movie and all this obvious evidence kept piling up and being ignored by the characters, the movie-goers would be demanding their money back after the first ten minutes and would probably string up the director after the credits rolled.
I once worked for a state agency in a job that required me to transport delinquent girls to court hearings, foster homes, etc. I guarantee that any individual or institution can eliminate false claims of abuse by taking a few obvious precautions, such as recording departure and arrival times, leaving doors to offices open, etc.
I cannot understand why an institution that has had repeated problems with abuse does not have procedures in place that would eliminate the opportunities.
"Hi, how are you?" "Pass the salt!" "What time is it?" "Hey, little girl, you want some candy?" are counted as separate speeches?
... as the audience throws popcorn at the screen.
Therefore, creationism is true.
QED
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.