Skip to comments.
Common Creationist Arguments - Pseudoscience
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Creationism/Arguments/Pseudoscience.shtml ^
Posted on 03/13/2002 4:47:26 AM PST by JediGirl
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,821-1,840, 1,841-1,860, 1,861-1,880 ... 2,461-2,474 next last
To: Tribune7
If there were T-Rex eggs, I would pretty much figure on no mammaries regardless of evolutionary theory.Why?
To: edsheppa
I'm sure you mean the interpretation of the fossil record. No doubt some finds are more ambiguous than others. But I take it you're not calling into question the overall interpretation, right? What I'm saying is that the fossil record shouldn't be construed as establishing evolution.
To: VadeRetro
Some of these people have been arguing against evolution for a long time, yet they cannot reason the simplest thing in an evolutionary framework. They can't get the hat on. Okay, I accept the challenge. Suddenly, I'm an evolutionist. I can pretend, for a while, to be a Godless, Satanic, deluded fool. No heaven for me, no hell for you, just the blind, unguided forces of nature, and death is our reward, being only senseless oblivion. Meaningless, all meaningless. I can play the game. Test me, or wise one.
To: Tribune7
They are predictions: Birds will never be born with mammaries and frogs will never have feathers. An observation would say, as you pointed out, that birds do not have mammaries and frogs do not have feathers, which is why I specifically phrased the predictions in the way I did.
To: No-Kin-To-Monkeys
Suddenly, I'm an evolutionist. I can pretend, for a while, to be a Godless, Satanic, deluded fool. No heaven for me, no hell for you, just the blind, unguided forces of nature, and death is our reward, being only senseless oblivion. Meaningless, all meaningless. Many--probably most-- evolutionists believe nothing of the sort. Darwin himself certainly did not believe anything like this; see post #1812.
To: Doctor Stochastic
Good point. One is thinking that egg-laying creatures don't have mammaries when one suddenly realize one has forgotten about the platypus.
To: Lurking Libertarian
Darwin was an atheist at the end and specifically repudiated previous statements declaring he believed in a Creator.
To: Junior
If a bird is ever born with teats that would be a point for you.
To: Lurking Libertarian
Many--probably most-- evolutionists believe nothing of the sort Well, I'm new at this evolution business. It will take me some time to get the dogma clear in my head. It's very difficult to think in random, meaningless evolutionist terms, without the clear guidance of scripture. But I'm going to give it a try.
To: Tribune7
Still, absent evolutionary theory (or another cladistic formulation), why do you believe that egg-layers (in general) are not mammals or vice-versa?
To: Tribune7
Darwin was an atheist at the end and specifically repudiated previous statements declaring he believed in a Creator.Evidence?
To: Tribune7
What I'm saying is that the fossil record shouldn't be construed as establishing evolution.No, but is should be construed to establish some things like the antiquity of life on earth, that early life was single celled, that this persisted for a very long time, that different kinds of creatures have existed at different times, etc. You don't dispute all that, right?
To: AndrewC
The point I made has been fully supported, some Darwinians are practiced purveyors of misrepresentation. None of the examples of which I am aware were in your point. I can think of Piltdown Man and Archaeoraptor. Mesonychus was not a misrepresentation. It's a real fossil animal with a confusingly cetacean-looking skull. Nothing done with teeth or replicas was misrepresented.
How many creationist frauds have littered these threads since they started on FR?
To: No-Kin-To-Monkeys
Test me, or wise one. Three of your buddies have flunked this so far. It comes from a statement that gore3000 made to me, that for all we know, dinosaurs had mammary glands.
ID would indeed be mute on the subject. The Designer must not be second-guessed.
Evolution says no. It doesn't, as gore claimed to understand, "prove" it's impossible for Mrs. T-rex to be zaftig, but there's a line of evolutionary reasoning that it didn't happen.
What is that line of evolutionary reasoning? You may use any of the following and anything else you wish:
1) Reptiles have no mammary glands.
2) Mammals have mammary glands.
3) Mammals arose from a line of reptiles.
4) Birds arose from a line of reptiles.
5) Birds have no mammary glands.
I'm pulling for you, No-Kin. It would be an embarrassment to gore, if that's possible.
To: Tribune7
A bird with boobies would be a bust for evolutionists -- it would falsify evolution. Do you know why it would falsify evolution? This is along the same lines as Vade's query on how we know that T. Rex didn't sport B Cups. If you'd kept abreast of the discussion, you shouldn't be caught like a deer in the headlights -- you should be able to explain why I categorically said that breasts on a bluebird, while titillating, are an impossibility according to evolutionary theory.
To: Tribune7
If there were T-Rex eggs, I would pretty much figure on no mammaries regardless of evolutionary theory. There are platypus eggs. Should a platypus have mammary glands?
Hint: gore3000 says the platypus doesn't fit on the evolutionary tree. He's not the one to ask. It does.
To: No-Kin-To-Monkeys
It's very difficult to think...without the clear guidance of scripture. That about sums up the mentality of the opposition.
To: VadeRetro
They can't get the hat on. If Dataman were still on these threads, there'd be picture after picture by now of people in funny hats.
To: Doctor Stochastic
It's how the scientific/academic thinkers chose to categorize things a long time ago. Mammals are defined, among other things, as being those that carry then nurse their young. This organization, I think, helps us understand the world a little bit better.
To: VadeRetro
None of the examples of which I am aware were in your pointWell, here have another.
To: No-Kin-To-Monkeys
It's very difficult to think...without the clear guidance of scripture. That about sums up the mentality of the opposition.
1857 posted on 3/25/02 1:36 PM Central by Junior
|
That pretty well misrepresents what was written. A specific instance was represented as a general event.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,821-1,840, 1,841-1,860, 1,861-1,880 ... 2,461-2,474 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson