Skip to comments.
Anti-Creationists Backed Into a Corner?
AgapePress ^
| February 24, 2003
| Jim Brown
Posted on 02/24/2003 1:25:18 PM PST by Remedy
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220, 221-240, 241-260 ... 741-756 next last
To: Ichneumon
Try doing more research before you engage in your own "spin" next time.What is this, "friendly" fire? I suggest you do a bit of research yourself.
To: guitar Josh
I have credible arguments, but I just wanted to point out how stupid Darwinism is through ridicule.Too bad you only made yourself look ignorant.
To: edsheppa
g3 ...
(( one of )) the greatest intellectuals on (( the internet )) FR -
"evolution is whatever lie you want it to be" by f.christian.
32 posted on 02/09/2003 7:24 PM PST by gore3000
fC ...
(( ps ... I edited it a 'little' ))
223
posted on
02/25/2003 1:56:51 AM PST
by
f.Christian
(( + God *IS* Truth + love *courage*// LIBERTY *logic* *SANITY*Awakening + ))
To: gore3000
Wrong. It is evolutionists, who claim their theory to be science that need to give proof that random processes do indeed create complex systems. Evolutionists have been claiming this happens for 150 years. Seems to me it is time for them to put up or shut up. Ah, LBB's back, so Con X-Poser will probably disappear for awhile. We've given you plenty of evidence on this and other threads (remember "29 Evidences of Macroevolution?"). I forgot, you don't do links because they might lead you to think.
BTW, creationism doesn't win by default. If you ain't got nothin' you aren't even in the running. We know you're a YEC (you deny it, but your posts betray you). What is your evidence for a young Earth?
224
posted on
02/25/2003 2:23:54 AM PST
by
Junior
(I want my, I want my, I want my chimpanzees)
To: Junior
"How old is the earth?" placemarker.
225
posted on
02/25/2003 2:56:41 AM PST
by
PatrickHenry
(Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas)
To: Ichneumon
Why do you support the lies they've been told for decades.
1) Drawings of man evolving from ape, made from whole cloth, with no fossile evidence to support it.
2) The lie of Lucy, where the supposed knee and hip bones determined upright walking, were found half a mile apart in soil depths that varied over 60 feet. They are NOT from the same creature! And the good doctor will not answer questions on this issue.
3) The difference between adaptation within a species and transition from one species to another are ignored. And the former is extrapolated to predict the later, with no evidence.
4) The definition of species being blatently and unscientifically revised to respond to this shortcoming.
etc.......
226
posted on
02/25/2003 5:37:24 AM PST
by
G Larry
($10K gifts to John Thune before he announces!)
To: Ichneumon
Science is extremely tolerant of criticism -- IN THE RIGHT FORUM. Your statement exhibits unbelievable naivete. Nobody believes except (maybe) some of you unteachable darwinists.
Let me illustrate your naivete:
An equivalent statemen would be "Creationism is extremely tolerant of criticism -- IN THE RIGHT FORUM."
I'm sure the kissers of Charlie's feet would accept that.
As for the rest of your post, it's typical fingers-in-the-ears "IS NOT! IS NOT!" stuff of which you accuse me. Remove the lumberyard from your own eye before you point the finger.
Horse manure -- this only shows that you haven't a clue how the process even works. It's not like there's a sign-up sheet or membership card which can be denied.
Sometimes, yes. Usually the prospect is screened from the process and blocked by close-minded evos such as Dini. If they do change their minds and reject evolution, they are purged from the system.
Support your slur, or retract it. Or leave it lie, so we'll know that you have no interest in defending your reputation.
My reputation needs defending with you like Bush's reputation needs defending with the democrats.
It's hard to tell with you evos-- whether you are just plain ignorant of the information out there or whether you want to see if creationist can find it. I suspect the former because when we present it your view loses. Read it and weep:
When US President Benjamin Franklin wrote "nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes", he should have checked with a scientist. A recurrent ordeal for all is the tribulation that follows the triumph. For the "eureka" moment, when the years spent poring over test tubes come good, is not the end of the road to fame or even professional respect. For first, researchers must bare their methods and results to the scrutiny of their peers. In this way, the prestigious scientific journals decide what gets published and, hence, what breakthroughs we hear about. But a report out this month from a well-respected international collaboration of scientists will reveal that this time-honoured system of peer review, which has existed in some form for at least 200 years, is possibly bunk.
According to Dr Tom Jefferson, from the Cochrane Collaboration Methods Group: "If peer review were a new medicine, it would never get a licence." As he explains: "Peer-review is generally assumed to be an important part of the scientific process and is used to assess and improve the quality of submissions to journals as well as being an important part of the process of deciding what research is funded.
"But we have found little empirical evidence to support the use of peer-review as a mechanism to ensure the quality of research reporting, and there's even more depressing evidence about its value in deciding what should be funded."
Jefferson adds: "Our review focused on biomedical research, but there's no reason to assume that the inefficiency of this system would not pertain across other scientific disciplines." Jefferson's team scrutinised 135 studies, designed to assess the evidence that peer review is an effective method of deciding what should be published.
He said: "We had great difficulty in finding any real hard evidence of the system's effectiveness, which is disappointing, as peer-review is the cornerstone of editorial policies worldwide."
He added: "Scientists compete with each other for space to publish in the most prestigious and most widely read journals, space is allocated by editors, and peer-review plays a big part in the process. Publishing is the key to advancement and research riches. Nobel prizes have hinged on peer review, yet it may be seriously flawed. The problem is compounded because scientists can't agree about how the quality of peer review should be measured."
The complete article
Much of the material shown posted as "responses to critics" on this website was originally submitted to several science journals for consideration for publication. In every case it was turned down. Below I have included the correspondence between the journals and myself. Names of journals and individuals have been omitted. The take-home lesson I have learned is that, while some science journal editors are individually tolerant and will entertain thoughts of publishing challenges to current views, when a group (such as the editorial board) gets together, orthodoxy prevails.
The complete article
See? You guys just can't take criticism and your theory doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
227
posted on
02/25/2003 5:43:31 AM PST
by
Dataman
To: Condorman
You can document this, of course. I have. See my previous post.
228
posted on
02/25/2003 5:45:43 AM PST
by
Dataman
To: gore3000
Evolution is such an old lie that it is in the bible in Jer 2:27. Modern man with his phd's have added a lot to the lie but it's still the same old lie.
To: Dataman
You cited the Guardian as your news source? Why don't you go check the the New York Post or the Weekly World News for some scientific data.
And I'm so glad some random guy thinks that peer reviewed science is bad. I surely read this and weeped. It was more a weeping of laughter than anything else. What kind of evidence is this? It doesn't even prove or disprove anything. Some bitter guy couldn't get his work published (a very impartial source) so he writes about how publishing is stupid anyway. Sounds like something a 10 year old boy would do.
To: Doctor Stochastic
A Larch.
To: Jael
Dr. Hovind has a great creation curriculum.
If I didn't know any better, Jael, I'd think you were just kidding with this idea. If you have kids, and you love them, I would really hope you teach them better things than what Hovind has to offer. I could post a million things showing Hovind to be nothing more than a sensationalist goofball, but I'll spare you with just a few. To whit:
Hovind's "doctorate" is a fake rag from the fake "Patriot University" which used to sell diploma's out of some guys garage. "PU" is apt.
Hovind is a YEC. This may be fine for you, but seeing as how YEC's believe in something that flies in the face of every single discipline of science, I'd hope you'd want better for your kids.
A Hovind quote: "And this New World Order will deplete the earth's population to only a half billion people by May 5, 2000!" 'Nuff said.
To be fair, maybe Hovind's jail time messed with his mind.
To: whattajoke
I could post a million things showing Hovind to be nothing more than a sensationalist goofball ... Someone's saved you the bother: 300 Creationist Lies.
233
posted on
02/25/2003 7:12:02 AM PST
by
PatrickHenry
(Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas)
To: Right Wing Professor
"So you're saying that if I calculated the dynamics of the solar system using Newton's equations of motion, I'd be badly wrong?"
Not _badly_ wrong, but wrong, nevertheless. Newton's theories were based on information available to him at the time. It remained for future scientists do discover additional information.
Newton's laws _appear_ to be correct, but are flawed by his lack of knowlege of relativity.
Just as the writers of the Old Testament did not have enough information to explain cosmology accurately, Newton lacked the information to come up with valid theorems.
We continue to learn....or at least some of us do. Some of us are still stuck in 3000-year-old thinking.
To: Doctor Stochastic
So, why do Creationists only single out evolutionary theory to be disclaimed? You're asking the wrong guy. It wasn't my idea.
To: Dataman
As a reminder, I asked earlier how you would define a "kind", a term apparently critical to the Creation Science curriculum suggested by Remedy (as in plants and animals only reproduce after their own 'kind'). Any answer?
236
posted on
02/25/2003 7:36:09 AM PST
by
atlaw
To: Junior
Creationism, like snake handling, gives conservatives a bad name. No wonder the Left thinks we're a bunch of uneducated bohunks. I must say that I really have come to appreciate this statement as it so aptly captures the Young-Earth-Creationist style of posting. Like the Captain Kirk/f.Christian mental image, it is both amusing and devastatingly accurate.
237
posted on
02/25/2003 7:52:39 AM PST
by
balrog666
(When in doubt, tell the truth. - Mark Twain)
To: MineralMan
Actually, he probably has something he'd like to say. It's just that his messages appear to be meaningless. I keep hoping I can convince him to write a couple of normal sentences in English. Who knows? Maybe he'll manage it and we'll all learn something. I doubt f. is inclined to be meaningful. I suspect he is a liberal disruptor posting what he thinks creationists sound like.
To: atlaw
As a reminder, I asked earlier how you would define a "kind", a term apparently critical to the Creation Science curriculum suggested by Remedy (as in plants and animals only reproduce after their own 'kind'). Any answer? Look, atlaw, there is no definition of "kind" that the evos will accept (I do get to the skeptic sites occasionally). Therefore are you are asking me for a definition which you have rejected before it is given?
However, evolutionists admit the problem and accept the concept of "kind" inasmuch as they admit the lack of transitional fossils. Transitions between what?
239
posted on
02/25/2003 8:32:29 AM PST
by
Dataman
To: F16Fighter
Perhaps British astronomer and mathematician Sir Fred Hoyle (who finds the idea of God creating life distasteful) is more convincing then I when he calculated the odds of producing just the basic enzymes of life by chance are 1 in 1 with 40,000 zeros after it... Does it say if he calculated what the odds of producing a proton were?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220, 221-240, 241-260 ... 741-756 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