Posted on 04/22/2009 1:11:09 PM PDT by Liberty1970
Over the years I’ve read copiously on the subject of origins. I’ve noticed the media pronouncements on the subject of new fossils and evolutionary theory form a startlingly repetitive pattern. To save the over-worked and increasingly bankrupt news media I’ve undertaken to serve them with a generic news story that can be copy-and-pasted with few modifications and reused as frequently as desired.
New Fossil Discovery Is Transition Form, Provides Proof of Evolution!
University of ________
Scientists say they’ve found a “missing link” in the early evolution of ______ - the skeleton of a ______ that was evolving away from ______ to _______. [Translation: They found something new, therefore it must have evolved by time + chance from something else.]
These _______ features were a new adaptation as the species evolved into ______. [Translation: If we imagine hard enough, anything is possible.]
Experts called it "a fantastic discovery" that fills a crucial gap in the fossil record. [Translation: Give us more $$$ for our Very Important Work.]
The ___ million-year-old creature was not a direct ancestor of today's ______. It's from a different branch. But it does show what an early direct ancestor looked like, said researcher [Translation: The headline is a big fat lie and once again we can’t actually find an actual ancestor of modern life that shows innovative evolutionary change, but please don’t notice that. We think this critter is _close enough_ for propaganda purposes.]
Dr. _______, a biology professor at ______ State University who wasn't involved in the work, welcomed the find. [Translation: Can I use this to get more grant $$$ too?]
"This is a fantastic discovery that fills a critical evolutionary gap (from) when ______ traded _____ for ______ and moved from ______ to ______," she wrote in an e-mail. [Translation: This Really Important Discovery demands more research funding. Hint, hint.]
Not all experts agreed. Professor _____ noted that an older fossil of the same type had been discovered in ______. [Translation: We pick and choose what evidence we like to focus on, and hope for the best.]
But _____, who didn't participate in the paper, called the discovery exciting because it provides direct evidence for what early ________ in the _____-to-______ transition looked like. [Translation: I won’t rock the boat. By the way, give us more $$$.]
Overall, 100% of officially-sanctioned scientists said, the discovery was a tremendous, awesome, spectacular find that overwhelmingly proves that only idiotic, anti-scientific dolts would dare disbelieve in evolutionism, and the public needs to spend lots more tax dollars supporting them and their Very Important Work. [Never mind the complete lack of patents or other real technological application for their work and personal agendas.]
//Your desire to paint those who understand science as somehow less devout than yourself is egotistical and rather pathetic.//
see post #60 projectionist.
Which part is which? I have told you time and time again what a scientific theory is -- you just put your fingers in your ears. I have been crystal clear on the science behind my contentions. Your little tantrum here doesn't change a thing. I know of what I speak -- you do not.
What you are doing is apologetics for evolutionsm.
How can anyone do apologetics for science? That is like saying I am doing apologetics for electricity or chemistry. Science provides the foundation for the very computer you are using to post the messages you are using to undermine it.
It is scientific principles and techniques that provide these facilities to you.
The irony is palpable.
And please not there is no sarcasm -- this is a simple question of people who have knowledge and those who do not.
Let me ask you -- what is your opinion of 2VL vs 3VL? Are gravitons measurable? Do quanta violate time paradigms?
I am sure you can address these simple questions with the same background you use to address other technical questions.
My statements have millions of scientists and billions of data points backing them up. I can describe them and the science behind them.
"I know you are but what am" I may amuse your other friends, but us grown ups just smirk.
And we should be impressed by an MS because...?
Who said you should be impressed? One of your fellow Evos asked for his credentials, so I was kind enough to dig them up for him.
>>Who said you should be impressed? One of your fellow Evos asked for his credentials, so I was kind enough to dig them up for him.
Fair enough. I guess I was expecting someone who is used to be a reference to have quals.
But your honesty, as always, is refreshing.
Well, I can't say as I hardly ever see a press release, unless it's what the media is presenting verbatim. I read a half dozen peer-reviewed science journals on a regular basis, a mix of lay and technical books on origins (leaning more toward the latter in recent years, as the lay books rarely have much novel information in them obviously), email on the CRS mail list, the creation/evolution articles here and in popular media, etc. I also get manuscripts from one scientist that I review and clean up for him based on my wide general knowledge of origins, and may soon be helping with others. And when I get the chance I enjoy researching a topic and writing on it, which usually involves a fair bit of research and reading mostly evolutionary material. I did this a fair bit in the 90's, less so now that I have a family. Someday I hope to get back more into it.
Thanks for the ping!
Your reply only gives weight to what I said in post #60. And now you have shown how quickly you want to go for the jugular.
I am not anti-science, thats more projection from you. I like science. I am against science subject to being hijacked by ideologies such as evolutionism.
Whatever gets you through the night. Your clear lack of understanding of science probably works for you as a sort of "I didn't know" defense.
You stated I am incorrect on issues of factual science. I hereby challenge you to back up your statement.
I have already pointed out where you were wrong on science.
It is pretty easy -- tell me where I am wrong.
Hey A/G!
How is your evening going?
This is actually a pretty minor dustup in the whole thing. Other than one poster, everyone has been pretty polite. I am sure we can take this from a thread to a trend.
Good evening, freedumb2003! My evening is going ok, I hope the same is true for you.
Another distortion/change of topic. Show where in this thread this has happened
>>Show where in this thread this has happened
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2235462/posts?page=60#60
Lets just call it a night. I am not nearly as upset as you are. I think you are in these discussions “to win.” I just want external people to know that there are many of us Conservatives who understand science, can follow its principles, and understand the process by which results are derived.
Sleep well, my friend. And may God guide you to scientific truth.
I am not upset and I am not in 'to win', but certain charges and accusations whether veiled or overt, should be answered.
Yes there are there are many of us Conservatives who understand science, can follow its principles, and understand the process by which results are derived. And many of us/them do not agree with the atheist/evolutionists and their conclusions.
I suspect you start drinking when you start and accelerate as the evening moves into night.
You really get quite ugly.
Why are you so anti-science? And why so vitrolic?
My suggestion is you lay off the sauce. I an sure when you are not so hammered you are a pretty nice person.
v1 is not being ugly nor vitrolic. He is right about the way most evos post and what with your accusations about him drinking while posting, just verifies what he said.
Disagreeing with the conclusions arrived at by scientists because of their ideology and philosophical base, is not being anti-science. Nor are there any *truths* in science. I guess you've missed coyoteman's little list-o-definitions.
"Fact" in science is a pretty fluid term, subject to the latest *scientific findings* and consensus.
Simple questions? You're not fooling anybody.
"I know you are but what am" I may amuse your other friends, but us grown ups just smirk.
"Grown-ups" (adults) would not smirk. That is not adult behavior.
To what end? Considering that truth is word best avoided in science, why would someone want to learn scientific truth when what's *true* today is not likely to be true tomorrow, or next week, or next year.....
The only truth that matters is God's truth. If scientists want to disagree with that, that certainly is their prerogative, but they at least shouldn't go around pretending that what they are purporting is true.
Basically, no matter what a persons qualifications, it's all for naught when it comes to an evo. If the person cited disagrees with the hardline evo position, then no amount of qualifications in the world will ever be good enough to convince them.
You've seen this with the AIDS/HIV connection thing. You'd think Duesberg, of all people, was a total quack because of his position.
You must not be reading what I am.
Disagreeing with the conclusions arrived at by scientists because of their ideology and philosophical base, is not being anti-science. Nor are there any *truths* in science. I guess you've missed coyoteman's little list-o-definitions.
I have been crystal clear that philosophy is one doman and science another. If you wish to be in the philosophical domain, then do not post science topics. Especially if you don't understand science.
"Fact" in science is a pretty fluid term, subject to the latest *scientific findings* and consensus.
There is no such thing as scientific consensus. And science's methodology does not change. The facts lead to where they lead. Sometimes entire sections of science change when new information comes to light. That is what makes science so cool. When science corrects itself, it isn't a "gotcha" for lay-people. It is just science operating normally.
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.