Posted on 05/20/2009 12:19:27 PM PDT by Yomin Postelnik
In the latest act of media hyped pseudo-science, aka liberal/conventional science, the discovery of the crushed and flattened fossil of a lemur monkey, that while alive had a shattered left wrist, is being touted as the needed “proof” of Darwinian theory.
For the first time, all scientists interviewed freely admit that the theory of evolution had gaping holes in it. They just claim that all of the answers lie in the packaged, crush fossil that spent the last 20 years hanging on someone’s wall. In other words, they admit that until yesterday, anyone who claimed that there was anything close to conclusive proof of evolutionary was wrong, despite having sold that line for decades. The extent of the absurdity of their new “proof” will be outlined below.
The media, which specializes in hyping the ordinary, went as far as to call this spectacle the possible eighth wonder of the world. These are the same crowd that revels in referring to every new president (regardless of party) as the next possible Lincoln or FDR, every foreign leader the next possible Churchill and every Vice President of the United States…. Well, I guess there are some things that even today’s media cannot hype.
(Excerpt) Read more at americandailyreview.com ...
Conventional science.
Read the report of the lemur by the “scientists” - it contains all exactly as I presented it.
Read the book referenced in the article, and then there are a few more good ones. No need to get into the whole discussion here, but even Stephen J. Gould recognized the lack of transitional fossils. There’s a few difference between decay and transition and Gould recognized Piltdown to rightly be attributed to the former. Even the scientists who presented this lemur admitted that no previous transitional form was conclusive (and that’s being generous).
Your scientific rebuttal is truly astounding. Can I give you a reading list, on both sides, or is it settled “science” in your own mind?
Woe, my apologies. I thought she was a Biden cousin.
No, actually more like global warming, actually. If you want to debate the theory I’m open to it.
heheh - see my last post. We think alike.
Thank you, my FRiend.
Nice - money line.
What about straw lemur?
Can I have a pound of crushed straw lemur?
I actually feel sorry for the little monkey gal - if she knew what she would be used for she wouldn’t appreciate it (though in the end she does show the folly of the evolutionists, so maybe she wouldn’t mind).
Actually, the evolutionist believes that entire sequences of random 1 in 1,000,000,000,000 happenings happened orderly, one after the other, randomly - the equivalent of someone winning a the lotto jackpot every week for 1,000 years out of sheer happenstance (except the odds of the latter are far more probable).
It is amazing. The scientists themselves are saying exactly that. I guess all of their posturing these many decades that evolution was settled science is forgotten. It is nice to hear them admit the truth, but it’s then followed with a brand new (and even more absurd) lie.
Who do you think you are, newbie? Piss off.
Funny how both of you espouse only the bunk they teach in school, parrot lines without any logical defense of same and then call others anti-science.
It is you who is anti-science (in the true sense of the word - as real science is based on understanding and analysis - a process that involves actual thought) and anti-logic, not because of the positions you take, but because of the shallow, cursory knowledge that you present with regard to these topics.
Yet you seek to stifle speech, are on a vigilante and insult those who actually do delve into the issue.
Is anyone here impressed by your tantrums and cheap swipes?
Would you like to debate the scientific merits of both sides? Because I’d rather enjoy that.
Hey, good to hear from you. How’s it going?
You’re a good example of a brain on drugs, or at least on indoctrinated science.
Genius boy - if there were gradual micro changes, would we not have transitional forms, including 1, 2, 3 and 50, 70, etc % humanoids?
Anyway, no need to expose you as a fool. The lemur reports do that quite nicely on their own.
If I’m being a tad rude it’s because you know nothing about the issue, haven’t studied the issue, don’t even know or care to know what the other side - don’t even understand your side, yet you sanctimoniously call us ignorant. And you’re not the only one who can write long paragraphs either - just the only one who fills them with sanctimonious nonsense.
Now maybe I am being too harsh. Just study the topic before pronouncing others ignorant. Your ignorance of the issue is strongly evident from your post.
Wrong
There are lemurs and there are lemur monkeys - they are two distinct classifications used mostly to separate fossils (you’d be somewhat more correct if talking about common species of mammals).
There are significant comparisons between the two because evolution refuses to answer questions that are gaping holes within its theory and a lot of its supporting material is viewed subjectively (with gross assumptions). The two are actually quite similar. We can go into it if you’d like.
A new category costs $53. Either that or a lemur fossil.
Aunt Lemur’s Forum - I like the ring its got to it.
You do realize it’s a major current events piece, right?
Given that fact, you’re sounding quite foolish challenging the forum it’s been posted to.
I agree though, there’s nothing newsworthy about the discovery. That your side has finally admitted that at least until two days ago, evolution was not settled science and that gaping holes existed - that seems a bit more newsworthy.
I just stomped on a mouse btw, so that we can now prove common ancestry with it. I’ll be glad to give it to you if you can get a forum dedicated to it. It’s a real breakthrough.
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.