The All-Around Crank Index!
First, stepping up to plate, we have the esteemed creation scientist Dr. GodGunsGuts! Let's hear it for Dr. Guts!
Dr. Humphreys made three specific scientific predictions with respect to the magnetic fields of three planets in our solar system, and all three of them were validated by satellite data. He based these predictions on the biblical notion that our solar system is roughly 6,000 years old. Do you suppose he just got lucky?
A meager +5 for citing a bogus (non-peer-reviewed) source,
Off-site rebuttals (post 16)
+5 for more unpublished nonsense
Actually, it's devout scientists falsifying Darwin's unscientific fairytale. But don't worry, the epigeneticists are busy falsifying Darwin too. It won't be long before Darwin's fairytale is taken out with the trash, and the evos are forced to come up with a new God-denying theory to take its place. It will probably come in the form of a neo-Lamarckian resurgence, led by the field of epigenetics. (post 17)
Whoa, a good one! +10 for suggesting the coordinated agenda of a 'God-denying theory', and +15 for predicting "it won't be long" before Darwin's theory is dead! (Where have I heard that before...)
Then we have a +5 for more out-of-context nonsense with the "soft dinosaur tissue" pics (post 19)
Gravitational time dilation. (post 22)
+5 more for this hilarious gem, as physicists spit out their coffee laughing. (+5 more for repeating it post 34)
That's 50 points for the esteemed Dr. Guts - but not to be outdone, the peanut gallery chimes in! Can their combined might dethrone GGG from supreme crankhood? Let's see:
Ignoring the 1 post hit-and-run shots, we have jimmyray, weighing in with this:
There a several indicator of a young earth, e.g deacaying moon orbit, decaying magnetic field of earth, increasing salinity of the oceans, etc. (post 33)
That's 3-oft-cited and misunderstood crank talking points in one sentence! But, he hasn't been corrected, and we all make mistakes, so +3 points for him.
but, in the same post, we get
How do you expect to prove that? If it were, and God stretched out the heavens as the scripture says, we would expect every star we observe to display a doppler shift away from us. Guess what we observe? Instead, 'scientist' imagine the ever expanding balloon theory...
That's a +10 for debunking the 'pop science' analogy of the "expanding balloon theory"! We're off on a roll!
Then, in post 39, jimmyray sets up a false dichotomy by suggesting you either believe in a literal reading of Genesis or you're an atheist! +5!
On a roll, jimmray gets to this one:
I will be happy to explain to you how it can be apparently so far away, and still be only 6000 years old, when you explain the wave-particle duality of light, how gravity works, and how you know the speed of light has been constant since the beginning, whenever you think it is.
+10 for suggesting that are partial ignorance implies total ignorance! Way to go, jimmy! Finally, we have
I was once a believer in the evo worldview, and it granted me license alright. But when I bcame a man, and actually investigated the so-called proofs (Horse fossil series, dark moths, "lucy", et al), and found they were frauds, I threw the baby out with it's bathwater. (post 72)
+15 for suggesting 'armchair science' is as good as real science! Yahoo! Also, an honorable mention for getting the intent of the "baby with the bathwater" saying totally backwards.
And, just when you thought it was safe to surf, in comes Nobel Laureate Nathan Zachary with his commentary!
Contrary to the LIE evolutionists continually regurgitate, -that the church is "against science"- the church embraces science, and always has. It is thought that since science is the pursuit of truth, that it will eventually lead to understanding God, as God is truth. (post 76)
+5 for suggesting science has an 'agenda' against the church. Nice!
We Know damn near NOTHING about this earth. We haven't even scratched the surface, so to speak. (that is, the crust of the earth) What we know about the earth amounts to the study of the very first outer skin-like layer of an onion. And there is PLENTY of young earth SCIENCE which easily explains (and carries more proofs) than the THEORIES used to argue old earth. We know so little of this earth, even plate tectonics, which everyone was so sure of in the 70"s, is getting its deserved share of BUNK ing. (post 84)
Here we have (again) the suggestion that partial knowledge=no knowledge (+10) and misuse of the context of "theory" (+5), and then an incorrect statement that plate tectonics is being doubted! (+5).
The rest of NZ's commentary is Biblical, so we gloss over that to get the current scores:
GodGunsGuts +50 jimmyray +43 Nathan Zachary +25
How will it unfold? Will jimmyray make up the close margin? Will NZ make a surprise leap to the lead? Or will another upstart get in the game?
Stay tuned to find out!
(P.S. I really enjoy your posts!)
What was your previous screen name?
You forgot the other reasons to stay tuned, “How long will Cranky last on FR.” “Can you guess Cranky’s former screen name?” “Do you suppose Cranky is just a garden variety socialist, or a disciplined Communist?”
Bathwater = flawed examples of evolution
Baby = belief in evolution at all.
You apparently don't understand the meaning of the phrase. I actually wrote, and you quoted "I threw the baby out with it's bathwater."
FWIW, I have argued the silly balloon example on this very site, and as far as it being "pop science", I prefer the term "non-science", yet it is used today in schools throughout the land to teach impressionable youth that the universe came about via an explosion of nothing.
The only thing missing is an observation made to me when someone saw I saved several “letters to the editor” I had published in various newspapers.......
“Only cranks write in letters to the editor!”
(in my defense several were to correct blatant errors such as a legislator who opposed “Black History Month” on the grounds that it “separated people based upon genetic and chromosomal differences”; couldn't let that one stand.)
Welcome to FR! U R fun.