Posted on 12/18/2004 5:56:30 PM PST by PatrickHenry
Hmm. Must be something else as they started teaching evolution way before the "spike".
Interesting, I've never - ever - heard either of these moronic statements before. Would this be an attempt at humor posing as an argument - in place of any actual argument. I mean, as of yet, I have'nt seen anything from ya'll but general attacks and the same old bait and switch on speciation, etc. One would hope that if you were betting your eternal soul on something, it would be more convincing that the tripe you've presented.
You:
No, the data doesn't track that way. That's 5 years after the spike begins. Care to try something else?
Ah, but the moon-landing program began earlier. The corelation is precise!
This is just nuts. There's plenty of evidence for evolution and none against.
Christianity has no bicker with evidence.
Christianity is a big thing. Creationism is a little thing, and it has a religious horror of the truth.
It's the spin put on it by evolutionists that's at question.
I say the problem is on the creationist side, and here comes evidence for what I'm saying.
Ala "Lucy" - science is good at manufacturing what it can't observe and hiding what it would rather not have observed.
Appeal to falsehood. The truly contemptible thing about Holy Warrior lying is it's incorrigible; the same Holy Warrior idiots will be back with the same bad pennies over and over and over no matter how often their statements are disproven. There's something sad and pathetic about people who feel both entitled and compelled to repeatedly get caught lying in public about matters anyone can check out for himself.
Lucy is now one (the most famous) of several Australopithecus afarensis specimens. Several others are known. Nothing hinges solely on Lucy anymore. For that matter, the hominid series contains a lot more than A. afarensis. For all that, creationists go after Lucy because she was in Life magazine back in the sixties--a psywar target, an icon. It's all a simplistic dungeons and dragons game, or maybe C.O.N.T.R.O.L. versus K.A.O.S.
"Australopithecines, creationist arguments" from Talk Origins.
The "Lucy's Knee Joint" FAQ, A Case Study in Creationists' Willingness to Admit their Errors.
The difference is you believe the earth is 6000 years old.
Yep, I'm aware of the Galileo incident. I merely noted that Rome persecuted him for defying conventional wisdom to show that evolution is not the only bastardization of science that has infiltrated the church to do damage on the basis of lies.
Galileo was right and Rome was wrong. The rest is revisionism to make them look not so bad.
You need to check your history better. Go back and look at when evolution was required to be taught in the classroom. It tracks from that point onward. I know your used to just saying things for the sake of saying them; but, here we tend to require a little more than that.. lol
Too late - I've falsified the Big Bang theory. See, the blades on my lawnmower spin counterclockwise, whereas my toilet swirls clockwise. I'm sure the folks in Stockholm will be contacting me any day now with my flight and hotel information, but don't worry - I'll still remember all of you, the little people, once I'm famous for this...
Don't expect Havoc to defend the Roman Catholic Church. He hates the Roman Catholic Church and will gladly tell you why.
Par for the course.
No, the space program started earlier. And we were behind in the space race from day one. It doesn't bare on morality in any case; so, you may want to re-examin the pretext of your argument.
No, you specifically said that the Galileo incident was about the shape of the earth. In post 291 you said to Junior:
That ain't what science believed on the whole though, was it. In fact it was so pervasive that even the church accepted it. And when they took the position against Galileo, everyone got to wear egg - save for Galileo.You were responding to Junior's post 289, where he was talking only about the shape of the earth. And that was in response to your post 234, where you said: Might I remind you that the whole scientific community used to believe the earth to be flat.
Indeed, it was produced on a Hollywood soundstage using a script written by Arthur C. Clarke.
Accordging to some recent studies of gene distributions in Asians, Ghengis Khan may have set a record for passing on his genes. Somebody back around his time was getting a lot of it all over the place in East and Central Asia. G.K. is the likeliest suspect based upon historical accounts of his appetites, the size of his harem, his travels, etc. What was harmful to practically everyone else's line of descent was great for his own.
An irony-meter exploder from a Southack clone!
What year was that?
Right. The time progressions we can observe are all micro time anyway. Nobody challenges micro time. It is the HYPOTHESIS of macro time which needs to be questioned.
Appeal to truth you mean. The Lucy instance is documented fraud and not just to do with the knee joint. You can say what you like otherwise, it won't erase the fact of that fraud. Period. At the time of the find, the skull was smashed beyond recognition - did'nt stop anyone from making up how she looked intact and passing it on as a fraudulent transitional - just for starters. And it is supportive properly of the point I made. The appeal is to the truth of the fraud. Regardless of any other argument you wish to make.
Christianity is a big thing. Creationism is a little thing, and it has a religious horror of the truth.
Ad hominem
I say the problem is on the creationist side, and here comes evidence for what I'm saying.
addressed and rebuked. As the record stands, it looks as though this guy made the admission and everyone's been backtracking since. Not my problem. I and everyone else I have read has far more problems with Lucy than just the knee and I know of no one making the case on the knee alone, though I would agree it is brought up. The denial now is about as believable as the denials about other frauds. CYA seems to be a whole industry with ya'll. So, I'll leave it at that.
Yep, give or take. Your point is?
I think I stated before that it was not my intention to link the two and tried to clear that up. Did you read the earlier posts or are you just fishing for a stick to beat me with?
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.