Posted on 04/29/2009 12:01:03 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
“To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.” ...
(Excerpt) Read more at evolutionnews.org ...
Of his student days at Unification Theological Seminary (1976-78), Wells said, "One of the things that Father [Reverend Sun Myung Moon] advised us to do at UTS was to pray to seek God's plan for our lives." He later described that plan: "To defend and articulate Unification theology especially in relation to Darwinian evolution."[25]
Wells stated that his religious doctoral studies at Yale, which were paid for by the Unification Church, [26] focused on the "root of the conflict between Darwinian evolution and Christian doctrine" and encompassed the whole of Christian theology within a focus of Darwinian controversies. He said, "I learned (to my surprise) that biblical chronology played almost no role in the 19th-century controversies, since most theologians had already accepted geological evidence for the age of the earth and re-interpreted the days in Genesis as long periods of time. Instead, the central issue was design."[27]
Wells said that "destroying Darwinism" was his motive for studying Christian theology at Yale and going on to seek his second Ph.D. at Berkeley, studying biology and in particular embryology...
At least he's honest in his intentions.
Paragraph 2 is further evidence that Christians used to get better educations than they do now. Especially since almost all of the work done in the field at the time was done by Christians.
Self Ping for later.
« AAUP Responds on Academic Freedom | Main | When “Junk DNA” Isn’t Junk: Farefine t’a Darwinist Stan’ard Response » Fostils Don’t Lie: Whuffo’ Darwinism Is False
Note: This hyar is Part 3 in a series reviewin’ smart alecky Jeremiah Coyne’s `Whuffo’ Evolushun Is True’. Read Part 1 hyar an’ Part 2 hyar. This heah writin’/whuppin’ was rendered by Cleatus DelRoy, (not Chico Marx, whoevah the hell he was)!
This heah smarty-pants Mistah Coyne goes on t’discuss sevahal “transishunal” fo’ms. “One of our bess examples of an evolushunary transishun,” he writes, is th’ fostil reco’d of whales (now that be on big fish, a keepah), “on account o’ we haf a cron, chrana—a time o’dered series of fostils, perhaps a lineage of ancesto’s an’ dexcendants, showin’ their movement fum lan’ t’water.”
“Th’ sequence begins,” Coyne writes, “wif th’ recently discovahed fostil of a close relative of them whales, a `coon-size animal called In-do-hy-us. Livin’ 48 million years ago, he say In-do-hy-us was… probably mighty dam close t’whut th’ whale ancesto’ looked like.”
In th’ next pareegraph, this fancy pants debbil worchipper Coyne writes, “In-do-hy-us was not th’ ancesto’ of whales, but was almost sartinly its cousin, as inny fool kin plainly see.
But eff’n we hoof it back 4 million mo’e years, t’52 million years ago, we see whut might fine be thet ancesto’. It is a fostil skull fum a wo’f-sized creature called Pak-i-ce-tus (whew, howdy!) which is bit mo’e whalelike than In-do-hy-us.”
On th’ page separeetin’ these two pareegraphs is a figger capshuned “Transishunal fo’ms in th’ evolushun of modern whales,” which shows In-do-hy-us as th’ fest in th’ series an’ Pak-i-ce-tus as th’ second, cuss it all t’ tarnashun. Man, ah coud use a swig.”
Bingo.
Exactly right.
Its hell when the evidence goes against your committed ignorance, isn’t it!
And you don’t even know what a luddite is, apparently.
Good afternoon Mr Specter! I was wondering what your FR handle was.
Try to figure out how long it took when it was under water.
Try to figure out how long it took when it was under water.
You should keep on asking the ones that have never been married; that's your specialty.
We call them evolutionists here, to be polite.
you have NO EVIDENCE.
ZIP ZERO NADA.
Thanks for giving us all the evidence we need.
You can pickup your certificate at the office.
To summarize (if I am understanding correctly):
Evolutionist Claim: We have fossils of a set of ancestors leading from an early land mammal to the modern whale.
Reality: The fossils in question are only related at some level of closeness to a set of hypothesized actual ancestors to the modern whale.
And this is what Jerry Coyne, professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at The University of Chicago, calls “One of our best examples of an evolutionary transition.”
Must have hit a nerve.
Excellent summary, Dan1123!
Must have hit the comic book.
Calumny and invective are not the tools of science.
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.