I've just noticed that the evos on EvC don't have a lot of time for your remarks. I'm wondering if you are thinking that it will be different here.
What can they do? Their best bet is to keep quite and not expose the weakness of their arguments.
You define it. You define what Darwin meant.
If you're writing it then you need to put the quote in the proper context. Then we will both see what was meant. Do you think I have The Origin of Species memorised?
Speaking of context, why don't you go back to where I originally wrote it and explain why anyone should give a rat's Dr. Adequate?
Besides, don't you have priests to help you interpret him?
It the archaic form of your religion - not mine!
You evidently haven't been taking any notice of Dr. Adequate's comments. This is a silly fantasy in your head.
If your going to mimic the creature, get it right. It was invariably "you just made that up in your own head" until he started getting lazy and randomly omitting words. Maybe it he had it on a hotkey and accidentally deleted it - I don't know.
You could probably save time too, with hotkeys for "you're just arguing from incredulity", the "evolution isn't abiogenesis" spiel, and the other stuff you're required to say however many time a day.
A theory is an explanation which fits the facts. We can see that there is a geological column which contains fossils which are sorted. The theory of evolution explains how this is possible. Tell me how creationism explains it. I also suggest you cease this silly circular reasoning claim. If you think that decades of scientists have been tripped up by such a simple (non)mistake then you're living in the fantasy in your head.
No no no. Earlier you said the column was evidence for evolution. Now you see that this isn't the case. You're making good progress.
How people get tripped up is simple: In school, everyone's taught Darwin was inspired by the finches and came up with this brilliant theory. And then ooooh! The fossil record showed it was true. Wow! Everyone's taught this as a child, well before they're taught (if ever they are) about circular reasoning. Do you think your "official" scientists somehow didn't get this very same treatment?
Things were so bad that the Soviet Union banned genetics.
The perspective can be obtained from the context.
This is a silly fantasy in your head.
Keep it up there, boycott bait.
More unsubstantiated assertions. I thought they trained you better than this at EvC. A couple of ways we know that the earth is very old are radiometric dating and astronomical data. First you need to invalidate those. Secondly you need to tell me what exactly your creationist evidence is which is better.
I wasn't trained there, unlike someone I choose not to mention.
Ain't no need to invalidate them first. You're supposed to be sick of folks knocking holes in evolutionism. You want evidence
for creationism, remember? Or is this flip-flopping just some new evolutionist tactic you're learning?
Let's start slow. A little
science. Just pointing to
3. Comets disintegrate too quickly.
According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about five billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of less than 10,000 years.4 Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical “Oort cloud” well beyond the orbit of Pluto, (b) improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars often knock comets into the solar system, and (c) other improbable interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds of comets observed.5 So far, none of these assumptions has been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations. Lately, there has been much talk of the “Kuiper Belt,” a disc of supposed comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit of Pluto. Some asteroid-sized bodies of ice exist in that location, but they do not solve the evolutionists’ problem, since according to evolutionary theory, the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud to supply it.
The Oort cloud has never been observed. The only evidence for it is Dr. Adequate's kind - you have to imagine it in your own head. This is also called blind faith, in case you're thinking evolutionists are somehow exempt.
But don't worry - they've been working on this. They've done lots of calculations to show that if it's out there it'll solve everything. They even calculated an "exchange program" so comets can alternate back & forth between Oort cloud & Kuiper belt. Every new Kuiper belt discovery raises their hopes, and sparks another round of calculations & headlines. This doesn't mean squat as far as observing the cloud goes, but it keeps them content.
And a little history. I know you're conditioned to consider historic knowledge inferior, but have you ever asked just how much you're dismissing? How many accounts are there of the flood? I'd say
too many to read!
[quote]And the #1 way? They're "out of order". There's plenty of documented cases where fossils were reassigned or dates were rejected with no other justification.
Cite one then.
" For instance, the 330,000-year-old skeleton found at Galley Hill, near London, in 1888, was discovered in undisturbed strata, and anthropologist Sir Arthur Keith concluded that ‘there was no possibility of denying the authenticity of the discovery without doing an injury to truth’12 – yet the standard opinion today is that it must have been buried recently."
I expect you'll have a comment on the author's name.
Since I know you won't rest without consulting
Talk Deceptions"Galley Hill Man: this was a modern-looking skeleton discovered in 1888 in old deposits. Even last century, many thought it was a modern human, and this was confirmed in 1948 when it was fluorine dated (Trinkaus and Shipman 1992)."
For 60 years this gets called an "intrusive burial" just because it wasn't found where they thought it should be. Then it's dated by flourine, when the soil conditions in the area are, if I may say it, "less than ideal" to obtain accurate results. I won't even argue over that. I know your faith requires any evolutionist date to be convenient until proven disposable "beyond a reasonable doubt".
But they still have
no indication that the burial was intrusive.
There's plenty of evidence, but if you've already determined anyone presenting such evidence is telling lies, what's the point?
That's got to be one of the most obvious dodges I've ever seen.
What do you expect? You can't expect me to waste my time if you tell me it's a waste.
You've also said all creationist websites are full of lies. (I've actually reviewed at least a dozen such accusations and found them without merit. So I have a dim view of these accusers.)
Which website would you like me to check? I've been to a few and they're riddled with inaccuracies. But if you can name one that isn't I'll be glad to look at it, it would certainly make a change.
