“One person does not speak for science”, so that includes you, as one person.
“Millions of practitioners across 200 years with billions of supporting artifacts — how much more “genuine science” do you need?”
Of course that sounds like the old science by consensus and the matter of support is a matter of interpretation or has Ima already been eclipsed? Or has Lucy suddenly grown feet?
How much more genuine science? You mean like finding a tooth
and constructing a whole animal from it? Or declaring the dinosaurs were wiped out by diarrhea? Diarrhea!!!
Just think! A little Pepto-Bismo and wormwood and all those dinosaurs might’ve been saved.
“Or do you also deride physics, chemistry, astronomy and geology? They have less modern support than TToE.”
Please! That sounds like some silliness from Eugenie Scott about Darwinism applying to all of the above. Imagine EVOLUTIONARY electricity or EVOLUTIONARY oxidation and reduction!
“They have less modern support than TToE.”
I think some of the YEC folk are way off the mark at times but this statement raises my respect for them by comparison.
>>By your own statement:
“One person does not speak for science”, so that includes you, as one person.<<
I am reiterating science, not speaking for it.
>>“Millions of practitioners across 200 years with billions of supporting artifacts — how much more “genuine science” do you need?”
Of course that sounds like the old science by consensus and the matter of support is a matter of interpretation or has Ima already been eclipsed? Or has Lucy suddenly grown feet?<<
If you look at the analysis, Ima is NOT the “missing link” since there is no such thing. Real scientists understand this.
>>How much more genuine science? You mean like finding a tooth and constructing a whole animal from it? Or declaring the dinosaurs were wiped out by diarrhea? Diarrhea!!!
Just think! A little Pepto-Bismo and wormwood and all those dinosaurs might’ve been saved.<<
No, just science in general. You know there are billions of artifacts, some partial. some more complete. Your specious concept of reconstructing a dinosaur from just its teeth, while cute, isn’t realistic (although a 6 inch tooth can certainly tell you a lot about the size of the animal that had it).
>>“Or do you also deride physics, chemistry, astronomy and geology? They have less modern support than TToE.”
Please! That sounds like some silliness from Eugenie Scott about Darwinism applying to all of the above. Imagine EVOLUTIONARY electricity or EVOLUTIONARY oxidation and reduction!<<
TToE is a cross-disciplinary science. It certainly uses information from all the life sciences to come to its conclusions. The fact you don’t understand that doesn’t undermine its efficacy.
>>“They have less modern support than TToE.”
I think some of the YEC folk are way off the mark at times but this statement raises my respect for them by comparison.<<
I am not looking for your respect. If you wish to respect people who think the Universe is 6,000 years old because you can’t understand anything else, I won’t try to convince you otherwise. I am making it clear to people that FR is not a Luddite site and than many who are both Conservatives and Christians understand science.
The attempt of many to put fear into people who understand real science because they don’t like its conclusions here will not go unchallenged.