Enoch, here's a simple little experiment to test evolution.
Hypothesis: If evolution is true, the fossil record should match the geological strata (eg. older fossils in older strata)
Experiment: Dig up thousands of fossils from around the world in different strata. See if older strata contain more recently evolved species (eg. there should only be mammals in newer strata).
Repeat.
Was that so hard?
Well that's a Formal Logical Fallacy: Affirming The Consequent....
If P then Q.
Q.
Therefore P.
The logical fallacy is that P doesn't necessarily follow from Q.
1. IF Evolution is true: Then Insert any "Darwinian Grab-Bag" Ad Hoc Observations (Fossils/Homology/Genetic Variation et al)
2. We observe (Ad Hoc Observation)
3. Therefore, Evolution is true.
1) If I had just eaten a whole pizza, I would feel very full;
2) I feel very full;
3.) Therefore: I have just eaten a whole pizza.
Couldn't I have eaten a 20 ounce Ribeye with Fries?
In comment 12143350 Enoch2021 said:
[] bullshit bullshit lots of words that means nothing bullshit bullshit staunch belief that noah's ark actually happened bullshit bullshit garbage trash garbage lots of words no substance misquoting people who completely disagree with what he's saying and taking their words out of context to prove a point
[/quote]
You are a fucking moron. By extension, I feel like a moron for being the only person to continue knocking down your sandcastles of bullshit. Listen, I know you've been breaking a mental sweat jumping through mental hoops and acting like a brainwashed fool, but try to follow along...
1) nice job ignoring the entire point of my first point. Einstein's theories on gravity/relativity are something you claimed were science in your previous post, because you can run an experiment on them.
Once I point out that the experiments were conducted on a smaller scale and not applicable to a planetary scale without extrapolating the results, now its not science? again, semantics - you can call it whatever the fuck you want, but if its properly explaining the mechanisms by which nature works, it's science. What you're essentially trying to say is that it's science on a small scale because it's observable, but we cannot call it science on a larger, planetary scale, because we can't just make a fucking planet and test it's gravitational pull.
2) you can keep clinging to a dictionary definition, but it's already been explained to you that just because that is the common definition of science (one that's literally used to teach middle schoolers), there are situations in which it isn't applicable - such as parts of astronomy.
3) Natural selection has been replicated in instances where a population group has been isolated from another population group, then developed different characteristics over periods of time. this has already been observed.
And guess what, that's taking a MICRO level observation and applying/extrapolating it to a MACRO level. The same way the experiments with clocks in airplanes has been extrapolated to a larger level.
Also, yeah, I'm an econ major who had to sit through a ton of microeconomics and macroeconomics courses, so I'm pretty familiar with the difference between the two of them, dumbass.
4) Again, you cherry pick bullshit to try and make a point. The conference you referenced, which occurred in the 1980s, was a question of whether microevolution and macroevolution were separate entities.
Let's take a closer look at Lewin: First of all, what he's saying is that there isn't macroevolution - but in the way biologists use the term, not the way idiots like creationists do. In the actual scientific community, contending that macroevolution doesn't exist DOESNT' mean that it's not possible; it means that evolution occurs at a different scale with no boundary between the two. Macroevolution in biology = evolution of organisms at a higher taxonomic level.
Anyway, since you quoted Lewin, let's finish up his thought...
Code:
The changes within a population have been termed microevolution, and they can indeed be accepted as a consequence of shifting gene frequences [sic]. Changes above the species level - involving the origin of new species and the establishment of higher taxonomic patterns - are known as macroevolution. The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No. What is not so clear, however, is whether microevolution is totally decoupled from macroevolution. The two can more probably be seen as a continuum with a notable overlap.
By the way, Dr. Ayala, who was namedropped in your Lewin quote? He vehemently denies ever making his "generous admission".
In fact, let's see what Lewin himself thinks about creationism vs evolution, and what your FELLOW CREATIONISTS BRO think of Lewin (considering you cherry picked an argument previously to prove a point from an article that doesn't even SAY evolution didn't exist, though you implied that...)
Code:
In his capacity as Research News Editor of Science magazine, Roger Lewin again attacks creation science in his May 17, 1985, article "Evidence for Scientific Creationism?" (Lewin 1985) ...This 1985 article by Roger Lewin erroneously portrays to the scientific community that creation science is devoid of published material in the eminent scientific journals of the world.
Lewin literally ended that article saying that he wanted to do his part in providing ammunition "for those who directly confront the creationists."
Yup, that's right. The guy you fucking quoted literally wrote an article a few years later saying that creationism has absolutely no scientific basis. And this is the fucking guy you think backs up your statements?
And let's take a look at the conference you cited...
Code:
To creationists on the outside, the debate was evidence that high-end macroevolution - not just the microevolution of finch beaksize or of insect immunity to pesticides - was suffering a theoretical crisis. to the scientists at te table however, the issue was a contest between technical disciplines. "It was centered around the question of whether there is a separate science of macroevolution" says paleontologist David Raup... Could biology study evolution at any levels apart from genes in the population? The immediate fallout of the conference was a protest over a Science magazine headline, "Evolutionary Theory Under Fire". Letters to Science complained that the report was was "advocacy" for the nongeneticists, or "fossil sealots" The protests made two points: The New Synthesis had never been a single, rigid theory; and both gradualism and sudden leaps had been part of the original Darwinism, so what as the controversy? Yet the public relations damage was done. Two Illinois biologists noted wryly, "We are sure the creationists will be delighted to have an opportunity to cite Science in apparent support of their cause"
The fucking people at the conference you quoted immediately lamented that morons like you would try and cite Science as a way to fight against evolution, and the guy you quoted is starkly anti-creationism
Stop cherry picking shit out. The rest of your post is trash also. Your peanut/turtle analogy is trash and doesn't warrant an explanation.
IF ANYONE GOOGLE SEARCHES ANYONE YOU CITE, YOU FIND THEY ALL DO NOT SUPPORT CREATIONISM!
Taken together, all the analyses performed in this study strongly suggest that the fossilized reptile skin in BHI-102B [the lizard fossil] is not a simple impression, mineralized replacement or an amorphous organic carbon film, but contains a partial remnant of the living organisms original chemistry, in this case derived from proteinaceous skin.
Edwards, N.P. et al., Infrared mapping resolves soft tissue preservation in 50 million year-old reptile skin, Proceedings of the Royal Society B. 278(1722):320918, 2011.
"What we found was unusual, because it was still soft and still transparent and still flexible," Mary Schweitzer PhD
"but test after test indicated that the spherical structures were indeed red blood cells from a 67-million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex." ---- Scientific American, October 2012
Of Particular Note was the 150 Million Year Old squid ink (Dr. Phil Wilby Paleontologist).....
"It's fossilized so beautifully well that you can actually still write with it. It still looks as if it is modern squid ink."
"We felt that drawing the animal with it would be the ultimate self-portrait."
"I can dissect them as if they are living animals. You can even tell whether it was a fast or slow swimmer, by looking at all the muscle fibres."
"Many of the fossils at the new site are better preserved than their quarry counterparts, the researchers report. The new fossils reveal the internal organs of several different arthropods, the most common type of animal in both the new and old Burgess Shale locations. Retinas, corneas, neural tissue, guts and even a possible heart and liver were found."
Live Science, New Burgess Shale 'Mother Lode' of Amazingly Preserved Fossils Discovered in Canada
I've got about 80 or so more.
How old are those Dino's again...80-550 Million!! lol
"Young-earth creationists also see Schweitzers work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzers work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzers research was powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bibles account of a recent creation."
This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. Shes horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. They treat you really bad, she says. They twist your words and they manipulate your data.
The scientific community at large doesn't seem to believe
"Young-earth creationists also see Schweitzers work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzers work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzers research was powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bibles account of a recent creation."
This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. Shes horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. They treat you really bad, she says. They twist your words and they manipulate your data.
A renowned scientist like Enoch would never do that.
[quote]a dictionary definition, but it's already been explained to you that just because that is the common definition of science (one that's literally used to teach middle schoolers)
And you still can't understand it.
Quote:
Let's take a closer look at Lewin: First of all, what he's saying is that there isn't macroevolution - but in the way biologists use the term, not the way idiots like creationists do. In the actual scientific community, contending that macroevolution doesn't exist DOESNT' mean that it's not possible; it means that evolution occurs at a different scale with no boundary between the two. Macroevolution in biology = evolution of organisms at a higher taxonomic level.
You're in dreamland.
Read this slowly...
"In a review of Defending Evolution (Alters and Alters, 2001), a book highly recommended by such eminent evolutionists as Ernst Mayr and Stephen J. Gould ... [and] Eugenie C. Scott, Morris (2001) concludes that their defense of Darwinism fails because...it focuses almost exclusively on defending micro-evolution (what creationists call adaptive variation), whereas it is only macroevolution that creationists reject in the first place. Essentially only three pages of the book (pp. 117119) are devoted to defending macroevolution, and the concluding sentence of this section simply complains that it is unreasonable to expect observational evidence of macroevolution, since this does not follow the normal procedures used in historical science research. That is true of course, but then why call it science? (p. 1)
Morris, H., How not to defend evolution. Back to Genesis 153:1, pg 1, September 2001
Can you please proffer a "Mechanism" for Macro-evolution please...? Should we wait?
Let's start off by you explaining the "evolution" of Prokaryotes to Eukaryotes (Single Celled Organisms) with Transcription and Translation (Before you jump all incoherently into Multi-Celled Organisms) ?
Quote:
The guy you fucking quoted literally wrote an article a few years later saying that creationism has absolutely no scientific basis. And this is the fucking guy you think backs up your statements?
Yes and...lol? I didn't quote him for his beliefs/Faith, I quoted him for his expertise on Macro to Micro. 99% of the time, I use atheists/evolutionists for support (Hostile Witnesses are the Best). Don't really care what he "BELIEVES" only what he can "PROVE". Savvy?
Quote:
IF ANYONE GOOGLE SEARCHES ANYONE YOU CITE, YOU FIND THEY ALL DO NOT SUPPORT CREATIONISM!
EXACTLY, ain't it KOOL?
Thanks for Illustrating using a Hammer to put out a c4 Fire
"Young-earth creationists also see Schweitzers work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzers work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzers research was powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bibles account of a recent creation."
This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. Shes horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. They treat you really bad, she says. They twist your words and they manipulate your data.
A renowned scientist like Enoch would never do that.
And.....? Does she like Blue-Berry Pie also.
Did those "Creationists" manipulate these...
Maybe if she stopped "clinging" to the Fairytale "Millions of Years" that a 2nd grader would laugh @ people might be more receptive, eh?
is married to the idiotic idea that the earth is only thousands of years old and not billions, the need to draw such a distinction between micro and macro becomes imperative to the cause.
Is his complete lack of self-awareness. His theory of creation is "God said let there be light.". Of course, he doesn't attempt to apply any of his pseudo-scientific standards to the fucking fairy tale he has embraced as "science".
His preferred theory doesn't pass the giggle test of sane society, but he seems to have plenty of time to try and cast doubt upon the methodology, evidence and conclusions of legitimate scientists (you know, the ones he believes are the work of the devil).
RE: RE: RE: And now this tool quotes Mary Schweitzer?
"Young-earth creationists also see Schweitzers work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzers work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzers research was powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bibles account of a recent creation."
This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. Shes horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. They treat you really bad, she says. They twist your words and they manipulate your data.
A renowned scientist like Enoch would never do that.
And.....? Does she like Blue-Berry Pie also.
Did those "Creationists" manipulate these...
Maybe if she stopped "clinging" to the Fairytale "Millions of Years" that a 2nd grader would laugh @ people might be more receptive, eh?
regards
Agreed that the optimum audience for creationism is 2nd graders.
That these young earth creationists embrace - how a book, whose contents were selected by men largely to support a political and social system in the 2nd century AD became the foundational document for leading a life 2,000 years later is an embarrassment to progress.
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics only applies to closed
Really simple guys that others laugh at and we're being mean by laughing at him...it because he's actually an adult, who has the mental capacity of a child and a petulant idiotic child at that. Not sure which is actually sadder.
And someone actually let this guy carry a firearm in the military? I'm surprised that he didn't accidentally off himself with how challenged he seems to be.
RE: I'm not sure if I'm sad because Enoch seems like one of those
Really simple guys that others laugh at and we're being mean by laughing at him...it because he's actually an adult, who has the mental capacity of a child and a petulant idiotic child at that. Not sure which is actually sadder.
And someone actually let this guy carry a firearm in the military? I'm surprised that he didn't accidentally off himself with how challenged he seems to be.
Why would you believe he was in the military? He's full of shit on everything else he posts.
Is what Stephan Hawking and Neil DeGrasse Tyson do science, in your world view? They don't do experiments, either, for the most part. Hard to experiment on a galaxy 100 million light years away, where you are seeing what went on 100 million years ago.
Oh, I forgot, the earth is only 7,000 years old, so that's only an illusion God created to fool cosmologists.
Or do you have another theory on that? (Can't wait.)
for a Sandy Hook denier who in turn if you scratch deep enough is probably a Holacaust denier. This fucking emperor has no clothes and the whole world sees it except for him. Let him crawl back under the rock Spock found him under
Enoch2021 27 March 2014
Quote:
.
Patiently waiting for Spock to arise and resurrect himself.
I've heard that takes a couple days.
"Fuckin' force that shit."
Jesus (Matthew 19:4)
"Fuckin' force that shit."
Jesus (Matthew 19:4)
Interesting gene pool.
Experiment: Analyze genomes of multiple species and compare.
When you find that chimps and human genomes are more alike than humans and dogs, find other species and repeat.
Wow, this is really hard to think of experiments that fit even enoch's limited thinking abilities.
Quote:
Except experiments are not needed to hypothesis test.
That damn little inconvenience
Non Sequitur (Fallacy).
"Scientists then test hypotheses by conducting experiments".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
It's tantamount to saying: Except Hydrogen is not needed to form H2O.
that damn little inconvenience
regards
Wiki is now acceptable?
Funny.
This is from your 6:21 PM on 2/17...
Rob is right; senility is a motherfucker.
Quote:
Smokey, this isn't Nam, this is resurrection - there are rules.
Spock can now walk on water in his home town of Buffalo. See other thread recently started.
Link, thread title?
Link - ( New Window )
Hypothesis: If evolution is true, the fossil record should match the geological strata (eg. older fossils in older strata)
Experiment: Dig up thousands of fossils from around the world in different strata. See if older strata contain more recently evolved species (eg. there should only be mammals in newer strata).
Repeat.
Was that so hard?
Well that's a Formal Logical Fallacy: Affirming The Consequent....
If P then Q.
Q.
Therefore P.
The logical fallacy is that P doesn't necessarily follow from Q.
1. IF Evolution is true: Then Insert any "Darwinian Grab-Bag" Ad Hoc Observations (Fossils/Homology/Genetic Variation et al)
2. We observe (Ad Hoc Observation)
3. Therefore, Evolution is true.
1) If I had just eaten a whole pizza, I would feel very full;
2) I feel very full;
3.) Therefore: I have just eaten a whole pizza.
Couldn't I have eaten a 20 ounce Ribeye with Fries?
regards
[] bullshit bullshit lots of words that means nothing bullshit bullshit staunch belief that noah's ark actually happened bullshit bullshit garbage trash garbage lots of words no substance misquoting people who completely disagree with what he's saying and taking their words out of context to prove a point
[/quote]
You are a fucking moron. By extension, I feel like a moron for being the only person to continue knocking down your sandcastles of bullshit. Listen, I know you've been breaking a mental sweat jumping through mental hoops and acting like a brainwashed fool, but try to follow along...
1) nice job ignoring the entire point of my first point. Einstein's theories on gravity/relativity are something you claimed were science in your previous post, because you can run an experiment on them.
Once I point out that the experiments were conducted on a smaller scale and not applicable to a planetary scale without extrapolating the results, now its not science? again, semantics - you can call it whatever the fuck you want, but if its properly explaining the mechanisms by which nature works, it's science. What you're essentially trying to say is that it's science on a small scale because it's observable, but we cannot call it science on a larger, planetary scale, because we can't just make a fucking planet and test it's gravitational pull.
2) you can keep clinging to a dictionary definition, but it's already been explained to you that just because that is the common definition of science (one that's literally used to teach middle schoolers), there are situations in which it isn't applicable - such as parts of astronomy.
3) Natural selection has been replicated in instances where a population group has been isolated from another population group, then developed different characteristics over periods of time. this has already been observed.
And guess what, that's taking a MICRO level observation and applying/extrapolating it to a MACRO level. The same way the experiments with clocks in airplanes has been extrapolated to a larger level.
Also, yeah, I'm an econ major who had to sit through a ton of microeconomics and macroeconomics courses, so I'm pretty familiar with the difference between the two of them, dumbass.
4) Again, you cherry pick bullshit to try and make a point. The conference you referenced, which occurred in the 1980s, was a question of whether microevolution and macroevolution were separate entities.
Let's take a closer look at Lewin: First of all, what he's saying is that there isn't macroevolution - but in the way biologists use the term, not the way idiots like creationists do. In the actual scientific community, contending that macroevolution doesn't exist DOESNT' mean that it's not possible; it means that evolution occurs at a different scale with no boundary between the two. Macroevolution in biology = evolution of organisms at a higher taxonomic level.
Anyway, since you quoted Lewin, let's finish up his thought...
By the way, Dr. Ayala, who was namedropped in your Lewin quote? He vehemently denies ever making his "generous admission".
In fact, let's see what Lewin himself thinks about creationism vs evolution, and what your FELLOW CREATIONISTS BRO think of Lewin (considering you cherry picked an argument previously to prove a point from an article that doesn't even SAY evolution didn't exist, though you implied that...)
Lewin literally ended that article saying that he wanted to do his part in providing ammunition "for those who directly confront the creationists."
Yup, that's right. The guy you fucking quoted literally wrote an article a few years later saying that creationism has absolutely no scientific basis. And this is the fucking guy you think backs up your statements?
And let's take a look at the conference you cited...
The fucking people at the conference you quoted immediately lamented that morons like you would try and cite Science as a way to fight against evolution, and the guy you quoted is starkly anti-creationism
Stop cherry picking shit out. The rest of your post is trash also. Your peanut/turtle analogy is trash and doesn't warrant an explanation.
IF ANYONE GOOGLE SEARCHES ANYONE YOU CITE, YOU FIND THEY ALL DO NOT SUPPORT CREATIONISM!
Yes, these...
Taken together, all the analyses performed in this study strongly suggest that the fossilized reptile skin in BHI-102B [the lizard fossil] is not a simple impression, mineralized replacement or an amorphous organic carbon film, but contains a partial remnant of the living organisms original chemistry, in this case derived from proteinaceous skin.
Edwards, N.P. et al., Infrared mapping resolves soft tissue preservation in 50 million year-old reptile skin, Proceedings of the Royal Society B. 278(1722):320918, 2011.
"What we found was unusual, because it was still soft and still transparent and still flexible," Mary Schweitzer PhD
"but test after test indicated that the spherical structures were indeed red blood cells from a 67-million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex." ---- Scientific American, October 2012
Of Particular Note was the 150 Million Year Old squid ink (Dr. Phil Wilby Paleontologist).....
"It's fossilized so beautifully well that you can actually still write with it. It still looks as if it is modern squid ink."
"We felt that drawing the animal with it would be the ultimate self-portrait."
"I can dissect them as if they are living animals. You can even tell whether it was a fast or slow swimmer, by looking at all the muscle fibres."
"Many of the fossils at the new site are better preserved than their quarry counterparts, the researchers report. The new fossils reveal the internal organs of several different arthropods, the most common type of animal in both the new and old Burgess Shale locations. Retinas, corneas, neural tissue, guts and even a possible heart and liver were found."
Live Science, New Burgess Shale 'Mother Lode' of Amazingly Preserved Fossils Discovered in Canada
I've got about 80 or so more.
How old are those Dino's again...80-550 Million!! lol
I gotta bridge for sale...you interested?
regards
Thanks Wuphat and CTC!
This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. Shes horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. They treat you really bad, she says. They twist your words and they manipulate your data.
This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. Shes horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. They treat you really bad, she says. They twist your words and they manipulate your data.
Just grab a snippet!
Was it getting to you that the thread wasn't about you anymore?
[quote]a dictionary definition, but it's already been explained to you that just because that is the common definition of science (one that's literally used to teach middle schoolers)
And you still can't understand it.
You're in dreamland.
Read this slowly...
"In a review of Defending Evolution (Alters and Alters, 2001), a book highly recommended by such eminent evolutionists as Ernst Mayr and Stephen J. Gould ... [and] Eugenie C. Scott, Morris (2001) concludes that their defense of Darwinism fails because...it focuses almost exclusively on defending micro-evolution (what creationists call adaptive variation), whereas it is only macroevolution that creationists reject in the first place. Essentially only three pages of the book (pp. 117119) are devoted to defending macroevolution, and the concluding sentence of this section simply complains that it is unreasonable to expect observational evidence of macroevolution, since this does not follow the normal procedures used in historical science research. That is true of course, but then why call it science? (p. 1)
Morris, H., How not to defend evolution. Back to Genesis 153:1, pg 1, September 2001
Can you please proffer a "Mechanism" for Macro-evolution please...? Should we wait?
Let's start off by you explaining the "evolution" of Prokaryotes to Eukaryotes (Single Celled Organisms) with Transcription and Translation (Before you jump all incoherently into Multi-Celled Organisms) ?
Yes and...lol? I didn't quote him for his beliefs/Faith, I quoted him for his expertise on Macro to Micro. 99% of the time, I use atheists/evolutionists for support (Hostile Witnesses are the Best). Don't really care what he "BELIEVES" only what he can "PROVE". Savvy?
EXACTLY, ain't it KOOL?
Thanks for Illustrating using a Hammer to put out a c4 Fire
regards
The scientific community that understands what they fuck they're doing just call it all evolution.
Because it's all the same mechanisms.
Quote:
"Young-earth creationists also see Schweitzers work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzers work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzers research was powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bibles account of a recent creation."
This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. Shes horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. They treat you really bad, she says. They twist your words and they manipulate your data.
A renowned scientist like Enoch would never do that.
And.....? Does she like Blue-Berry Pie also.
Did those "Creationists" manipulate these...
Maybe if she stopped "clinging" to the Fairytale "Millions of Years" that a 2nd grader would laugh @ people might be more receptive, eh?
regards
Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
His preferred theory doesn't pass the giggle test of sane society, but he seems to have plenty of time to try and cast doubt upon the methodology, evidence and conclusions of legitimate scientists (you know, the ones he believes are the work of the devil).
Quote:
In comment 12143940 Chris in Philly said:
Quote:
"Young-earth creationists also see Schweitzers work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzers work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzers research was powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bibles account of a recent creation."
This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. Shes horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. They treat you really bad, she says. They twist your words and they manipulate your data.
A renowned scientist like Enoch would never do that.
And.....? Does she like Blue-Berry Pie also.
Did those "Creationists" manipulate these...
Maybe if she stopped "clinging" to the Fairytale "Millions of Years" that a 2nd grader would laugh @ people might be more receptive, eh?
regards
The scientific community that understands what they fuck they're doing just call it all evolution.
Because it's all the same mechanisms.
Time is a mechanism, eh? Is that your final answer? Can you put some in a Jar and Paint it Red for us?
Let me ask you, does Entropy, speaking to 2LOT (2nd Law of Thermodynamics), Increase or Decrease with TIME?
So you're saying the change in Allele Frequency can turn Bacteria into Giraffes? Please, the floor is yours....?
regards
The Earth is not a closed system.
I at least hope that Spock is giving up the balloon knot to Enoch for all the time he has spent here...
Quote:
what cdesign proponentsists call micro and macro evolution is time.
The scientific community that understands what they fuck they're doing just call it all evolution.
Because it's all the same mechanisms.
Time is a mechanism, eh? Is that your final answer? Can you put some in a Jar and Paint it Red for us?
Let me ask you, does Entropy, speaking to 2LOT (2nd Law of Thermodynamics), Increase or Decrease with TIME?
So you're saying the change in Allele Frequency can turn Bacteria into Giraffes? Please, the floor is yours....?
regards
And someone actually let this guy carry a firearm in the military? I'm surprised that he didn't accidentally off himself with how challenged he seems to be.
And someone actually let this guy carry a firearm in the military? I'm surprised that he didn't accidentally off himself with how challenged he seems to be.
Why would you believe he was in the military? He's full of shit on everything else he posts.
Oh, I forgot, the earth is only 7,000 years old, so that's only an illusion God created to fool cosmologists.
Or do you have another theory on that? (Can't wait.)
Get rid of this toilet stain already.
And no names needed right? We all know who IM referring to.
Best part is that he's probably feeling like some sort of martyr. Like Jesus. Only more of an unoriginal clown.