Skip to comments.
Anthropologist resigns in 'dating disaster'
Worlnetdaily ^
| February 19, 2005
| unattributed
Posted on 02/19/2005 7:36:30 AM PST by Woodworker
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 441-460, 461-480, 481-500 ... 841-843 next last
To: Elsie; LiteKeeper; AndrewC; Havoc; bondserv; Right in Wisconsin; ohioWfan; Alamo-Girl; ...
461
posted on
02/22/2005 6:39:53 AM PST
by
Michael_Michaelangelo
(The best theory is not ipso facto a good theory. Lots of links on my homepage...)
To: Michael_Michaelangelo
Oh, I've read the entire thread. AND all the rebuttals both here and elsewhere. It's become quite plain exactly who is lying outright and who is supporting them.
Not everyone is as gullible as you seem to believe.
462
posted on
02/22/2005 6:42:32 AM PST
by
Long Cut
(The Constitution...the NATOPS of America!)
To: Michael_Michaelangelo
I'm not EX-navy. I'm Active Duty. And yes, I own two cats.
You got something against either of those?
And what possible relevance has it to the subject at hand, which is the absolute dishonesty with which your side approaches this material?
In any case, "changing the subject" and "ad hominem" noted.
463
posted on
02/22/2005 6:45:38 AM PST
by
Long Cut
(The Constitution...the NATOPS of America!)
To: shubi
A lot of it is cognitive dissonance caused by fear. Seems that way.
464
posted on
02/22/2005 6:46:33 AM PST
by
PatrickHenry
(<-- Click on my name. The List-O-Links for evolution threads is at my freeper homepage.)
To: Ichneumon
465
posted on
02/22/2005 6:49:25 AM PST
by
PatrickHenry
(<-- Click on my name. The List-O-Links for evolution threads is at my freeper homepage.)
To: Long Cut
Not everyone is as gullible as you seem to believe.I'm not convinced of that after watching most of the atheists and evolutionists here kiss the feet of a handful of scientists who post here over the past few years; they believe everything they say! To me, that's a very dangerous thing, especially when the whole reason for starting this thread was because a very "respected and published" scientist was caught LYING, CHEATING, and generally being a bad guy. And what of his textbooks that are still in circulation in our major universities and institutions?
Have you noticed that the most vocal scientists here are atheists? Have you noticed that the evo's hang on their every word and run with anything they say? It's sad, really, when one chooses to let someone else do the thinking for them.
466
posted on
02/22/2005 6:52:37 AM PST
by
Michael_Michaelangelo
(The best theory is not ipso facto a good theory. Lots of links on my homepage...)
To: Thatcherite
(Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
Depends on the meaning of 'Biblical Literalist'.
To: Long Cut
You got something against either of those?Not at all. It is a joke that goes back quite some time now between me and a couple of the others. Not a shot at you personally.
468
posted on
02/22/2005 6:57:19 AM PST
by
Michael_Michaelangelo
(The best theory is not ipso facto a good theory. Lots of links on my homepage...)
To: Michael_Michaelangelo
"Have you noticed that the most vocal scientists here are atheists?" A lie, but even if true, it has no bearing on the evidence they present.
"? Have you noticed that the evo's hang on their every word and run with anything they say?"
I've noticed as well that they can back up what they say with evidence, evidence that is not so easily debunked as that which YOU fall before with outstretched arms. I've also noted that, if shown to be in error, they correct the mistakes, unlike the creationists who refuse to do so, and repeat the errors.
"It's sad, really, when one chooses to let someone else do the thinking for them."
Like you with the discredited creationist "scientists" you mark out to so willingly? Like you with the posters who are repeatedly shown to be liars?
What a joke.
469
posted on
02/22/2005 7:00:43 AM PST
by
Long Cut
(The Constitution...the NATOPS of America!)
To: Michael_Michaelangelo
"It is a joke..." Ha ha. I'll be sure to laugh about it when I get to the Middle East this Summer.
470
posted on
02/22/2005 7:03:07 AM PST
by
Long Cut
(The Constitution...the NATOPS of America!)
To: PatrickHenry
Not all those who believe in creation deny carbon dating methods, or believe the world is 10,000 years old.
To: RaceBannon
Blzbba: "Applying the creationoid standard to Christianity means that every digraced pervert priest, every adulterating, money-laundering televangelist, and every action of fringe Christian cults only mean that Christianity is itself a farce.
RB: "Umm, no, Because Christians have a standard to follow, the Bible."
Exactly. The actions of a few do NOT discredit the truth of the religion itself. Similarly, the actions of this German 'scientist' (hardly an appropriate term for him, given his complete disregard to scientific method) do NOT discredit the other proven aspects of evolution.
"The Creationist is one who believes it was God and God alone. Someone who calls himself a Creationist and believes evolution happened across phylum boundries either doesnt understnd or agree with all of evolution or doesnt understnad or agreee with what the Bible teaches."
Or perhaps they don't take the Bible literally? I don't know - I'm not a Creationist.
472
posted on
02/22/2005 7:08:13 AM PST
by
Blzbba
(Don't hate the player - hate the game!)
To: Just mythoughts
(Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous) Depends on the meaning of 'Biblical Literalist'.
And the meaning of 'Conservative'.
And the meaning of 'and'.
That's the thing about sentences. They tend to depend on the meanings of words in them. 8))
473
posted on
02/22/2005 7:31:10 AM PST
by
Thatcherite
(Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
To: Michael_Michaelangelo
Have you noticed that the most vocal scientists here are atheists? No, I haven't.
To: Michael_Michaelangelo
Have you taken the time to study the rebuttals in depth, or are you just an evo groupie?
What rebuttals? I pointed out -- with documentation -- that RaceBannon's "quotes" used to prove that C14 dating is totally unreliable were deceptively misleading at best and outright lies at worst. His "rebuttal" was to repeat the same list of quotes again, without comment.
475
posted on
02/22/2005 7:43:26 AM PST
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: Long Cut
"Have you noticed that the most vocal scientists here are atheists?"
A lie, but even if true, it has no bearing on the evidence they present.
Perhaps he's going by the oft-repeated creationist lie that all who accept evolution are atheists.
476
posted on
02/22/2005 7:45:58 AM PST
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: Michael_Michaelangelo
The very obviously pasted-in "Atheists for Darwin" sign throws the entire credibility of that image into question.
477
posted on
02/22/2005 7:50:02 AM PST
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: Dimensio
"Perhaps he's going by the oft-repeated creationist lie..." Do they have any other lies which are NOT oft-repeated? It seems that "oft-repeated lies" are the entire basis for creationist belief nowadays.
478
posted on
02/22/2005 7:54:08 AM PST
by
Long Cut
(The Constitution...the NATOPS of America!)
To: drt1
Hmmmm... Sounds like an excellent candidate for the Colorado University Ethnic Studies Department Chairmanship. I understand that he's going to be too busy working on Global Warming. If only that idiot Bush would listen to him!!!!!!
To: Long Cut
Do they have any other lies which are NOT oft-repeated?
Every now and then a creationist comes up with a howler that I've never heard before. Sometimes it's simply a lie based upon recent events, such as the claim that "Antony Flew rejected evolution". That wasn't a relevant statement until recently, but as soon as Flew said that he's willing to accept the existence of a god, you should have seen the creationists crawling forth turning that statement into "Flew rejects evolution" (even though the article that they cite actually states flatly that he still accepts evolution).
480
posted on
02/22/2005 8:02:51 AM PST
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 441-460, 461-480, 481-500 ... 841-843 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