Posted on 06/11/2009 12:09:04 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
“Folks, this is one of the most exciting games in Super Bowl history! In case you just tuned in, here’s what’s happening: With only 8 seconds to go, the Buffalo Bills are trailing the New York Giants 20-19, but in the past two minutes Bills quarterback Jim Kelley has moved his team to the Giants’ 29-yard line, setting up kicker Scott Norwood for a field goal attempt. If Norwood makes it, the Buffalo Bills will win 22-20.”
Watched by tens of thousands in Tampa Stadium and millions more on TV, the Buffalo Bills line up for what will probably be their last play.
“OK, there’s the snap, and the kick. The ball is going, going—but it’s drifting wide to the right. Wait a minute! Some Bills players have pulled up the goalpost, and they’re moving it over—just in time! Norwood’s kick sails through the uprights! The Buffalo Bills win Super Bowl Twenty-Five!”
Of course, that’s not what happened in 1991; Norwood missed, and the Giants won. Football is played with rules and referees—and fixed goalposts.
Darwinism, unlike football, has only one rule: survival of the fittest. The fittest are those who survive, and Darwinists are determined to survive at all costs—even if it means moving the goalpost. In the June 2009 issue of Scientific American, Darwinist Steve Mirsky does just that...
(Excerpt) Read more at discovery.org ...
Ping!
Don’t worry, they are going to discover “life” on Mars any day now. All those desperate billions are going to pay off for the evolutionists.
Whenever libtards get caught out they always move the goal posts ... when I talk with my lib friends it’s almost like trying to pick up mercury ....
C’mon!!! I’m a Bills fan - couldn’t you have found a better metaphor than “Wide Right?”
This is no life on Mars because Chuck Norris has already been there.
Thanks for the ping!
No hidden agenda here..
http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf
http://horsesass.org/?p=3859
Exactly.
Ask a pro(had)-abort what the difference between late term abortion and infanticide is, and they’ll try to change the topic to those conservatives trying to impose their morality on everyone and forcing women to have babies.
Chuck Norris happened by accident in a primordial protein soup.
I’m still on medication to try to deal with that... that... game. Every time I hear the words ‘wide right’ my left eye starts twitching.
It was one of the best teams ever on both sides of the ball. Kelly, Talley, Thomas, Bruce Smith, Lofton, Bennett, Conlan, Hull, and more. And yes - Mr. Norwood too.
LOL...Not only can you not hold it in your hands—it can kill you!
You guys are one trick ponies. You can’t answer the arguments, so instead you try to shift the debate and get everyone arguing about hidden agendas and conspiracy theories...LOL!
So true!
(but oh the screams that we’re going to hear)
Excellent analogy!
One trick?
No trick. They watch the sunrise, and expound on how evolutionary it is.
Then you are against full disclosure, eh?
Interesting - I often hear now-a-days that Creationists do accept speciation, and thus giving examples of speciation is arguing against a “straw-man”.
http://creationwiki.org/Speciation
http://www.answersingenesis.org/e-mail/archive/answersweekly/2007/0721.asp
and
http://www.icr.org/article/speciation-animals-ark/
“This evidence indicates that most species had a common ancestor from which similar species have descended. This might appear as evolution, but it is not.”
So most species got here via speciation, but it still not evolution - talk about moving goal posts.
Of course, the objection is that speciation can occur, but new “kinds” can’t form... “kinds” are sometimes described as being genera, or families, or even entire orders, depending on who’s asked and when... I’ve noticed over the years that “kinds” is becoming more analogous to larger and larger taxonomic groups. More moving goal posts - or perhaps faint lines in sand.
Most Creationists consider dogs and wolves and being the same kind, yet is there any definition of “species” out there(and there are plenty to pick from) by which wolves and Chihuahuas would NOT be separate species? They are extremely morphologically different (much more so than, say, chimps and humans are) and cannot interbreed (I doubt, even with fancy lab work; I’d love to see pics of such a creature if anyone has them.)
The article itself doesn't really contain any objections to Steve Mirsky's (valid) proposal. Should we continue to regard the chihuahua as a subspecies of Canis Lupus, even if it seems unlikely that any number of one larger C. Lupus constituents would ever produce offspring with such without some sort of unnatural prodding (flowers and fine wine, of course)?
Instead of producing a valid objection, the author of this article insists on employing an overblown football metaphor and waving his arms around screaming "Goalpost, goalpost!" It seems to me that he hopes that his very incredulity will somehow stand in for an argument.
By the species definition of Darwinists different groups of humans today would be different species.
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.