Creation Science

Somebody's Internet Page ^ | 7th July. 2000 | Adrian Barnett

[dbbeebs]

Did you ever find those Supreme Court references you were crowing about? You know,
when you claimed that the teaching of evolution was required in public schools?

If all the religions in the world were proved to be false, it would not make evolution true.

The idea that proving evolution false makes the mythology of the Bible true is also false. Of course,
you're racking up brownie points from "OurInvisibleBuddy" for each one of your posts, aren't you?

[roughrider]

You have no empirical proof of any transitional forms. The notion of such transitional forms, absent bona fide empirical proof, is unscientific. Not only that, but the entire notion of such a complex explanation for the origin of life as we know it is an extreme violation of Occam's Razor, which states that the simplest explanation for a phenomenon is the most desirable, provided it addresses all of the evidence.

There is nothing in our experience that indicates that anything that was ever "NOT bird" could ever become bird. We do know in our experience that reptiles are NOT birds and birds are NOT reptiles. REALITY is reality, and that is what we should be attempting to understand.

As I have pointed out before, and you have ignored, evolution began as an intellectual construct of a group of Protestant theologians attempting to separate God from natural evil. Erasmus Darwin, Charles Darwin's grandfather, was one of those theologians, and he had a great deal of influence on his grandson, as their surviving letters indicate. You are supporting a theological idea as a scientific theory. See: DAWIN'S GOD: EVOLUTION AND THE PROBLEM OF EVIL by Cornelius G. Hunter. Before you tackle the origins of life itself, you should be familiar with the intellectual origins of your own theory about the origins of life.

[roughrider]

I see you posted this under "Philosophy." I thought evolution was the province of the PHYSICAL SCIENCES.

[dbbeebs]

Evolution is not a scientific theory....

Another incompetent statement. Do you believe that magic rules the earth?

1) Incompetents dramatically overestimate their ability and performance relative to objective criteria and competent peers.
2) Incompetents are unable to recognize competence when they see it - be it their own or others'.
3) Incompetents cannot use information from the performance of others to revise more accurate impressions of their own ability.
4) Incompetents may address their shortcomings by being rendered more competent, thus realizing that they perform poorly.
... By actively avoiding negative personal insight they more strongly embrace their dominant fantasies.
5) Incompetents persevere in their abuse, relishing their rejection. Test of faith! Real stupidity is pumped full of masochism.

[VadeRetro]

There is nothing in our experience that indicates that anything that was ever "NOT bird" could ever become bird. We do know in our experience that reptiles are NOT birds and birds are NOT reptiles. REALITY is reality, and that is what we should be attempting to understand.

I hope this isn't your idea of an answer to the Evidence of Dino-Bird Transition thread already linked in which you can see dinosaurs gradually morphing into birds in the fossil record. Simply echoing the statement to which I posted the link as a rebuttal proves only that you're evidence-proof, gore3000-style. Do I exaggerate? Here's your post 133, to which I was responding:

A bird is a bird. A reptile is a reptile. Nothing that is NOT bird can BE bird, and nothing that is NOT reptile can BE reptile. The fact that the fossil was yet ANOTHER scam is a fact. We will have to wait to see if any "others" are equally specious, but it should surprise no one if they are.

You said, "A bird is a bird; a reptile a reptile." I posted the fossil record evidence of one line of reptiles morphing into modern birds. You said, "A bird is a bird; a reptile a reptile."

We are not having a dialogue of the minds, here. We seem to be one short.

[Lev]

Well according to the greatest expert on Communism, George Orwell, you are wrong. The correct answer for Communists is not 2+2=4 but whatever Communist ideology wants it to be.

Trust me, communists think that 2+2=4. So if you get the same answer, does this mean you are a communist? Or maybe people who bash evolution and atheism because communists held those views need to take Logic 101?

[PatrickHenry]

I'll set up a continuation thread before too long. In case anyone was wondering ...

[Lev]

You still provide me with no answer to how you know your mother loves you. It was not meant to be a penetrating question about your relationship with your mother. Rather, I am asking you to look at how you identify truths in your life?

I and everybody else can see my mother and her actions, hear what she says. Of course her actions I see as evidence of love may be caused by blackmail from CIA but I'd say it's not very likely. Now, what would be the evidence of divine influence?

[Stultis]

There is nothing in our experience that indicates that anything that was ever "NOT bird" could ever become bird. We do know in our experience that reptiles are NOT birds and birds are NOT reptiles. REALITY is reality, and that is what we should be attempting to understand.

Since this is so clear to you, can you tell me which was Archaeopteryx, a bird or a reptile? Some creationists have said it is one and some have said it is the other.

Maybe you could also explain why the proteins and DNA of crocodiles are more similar to those of living birds than to those of other living reptiles?

Evolutionists foolishly believe this is because crocodiles are the last surviving ruling reptiles (archosaurs), a group which also included the thecodonts and their descendents, the dinosaurs and birds, and that crocodiles thereby share a more recent common ancestor with birds than with non-ruling reptiles (lepidosaurs). Please straighten us out and provide the real explanation.

[VadeRetro]

Since this is so clear to you, can you tell me which was Archaeopteryx, a bird or a reptile? Some creationists have said it is one and some have said it is the other.

Good point, worth the risk of harping upon.

A List of Ways the Above is a Bird.

A List of Ways the Above is a Dromaeosaur.

[PatrickHenry]

Notice of Continuation Thread

I respectfully suggest that we all abandon this thread and go to the new one. The new one has a link back to this place, so nothing will get lost. CLICK HERE FOR THREAD TWO

[cracker]

One again, Medved strikes...

[dbbeebs]

Only goes to prove that evolutionists are thugs, not scientists.

More slime, Slimer

[gore3000]

Not unless you will state publicly what you would accept as proof.

Since you do not know what it is, then you obviously cannot give us any. Thanks for showing that evolutionists have no proof for their theories, they do not even know what scientific proof is just like they do not know what the theory of evolution is.

[gore3000]

Lev, does your mother love you? [I hope she does] Can you prove it by any suggested materialist methodology?

Not yet.

Not yet seems to be the favorite answer of evolutionists. Seems more like they believe in evolution than have any scientific proof of it.