|
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,315
Master Elite Member
|
It's also interesting to see that you also find cutting and pasting from people's websites indiscriminately to be acceptable science, even when the pictures are of fishing lures and not real organisms, even when mistakes have been made with identifying species, even when the modern organisms are not actually the same as the fossilised ones and the comparisons have simply been made by looking at pictures.
I don't racall Bex stating that acceptable science consists of such. As I recall, a total of 3 alleged mistakes were found in a very large book. Would you apply a double-standard, or shall we pitch all references which contain 3 mistakes? Darwin's books contain more than three. Talkdeceptions is a complete joke even without such a strict standard. Wiki contains more mistakes than one can count, although it'd be possible if the thing were frozen and a large enough team took on the assignment. No one who did this would be published in a scientific journal; they'd be laughed out of the building. Not because they're a creationist, but because their work in no way approaches rigorous scientific standards. Which of your own posts here would qualify to be published in a scientific journal?
Dark Matter + Dark Energy = Dark Truth"We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution." - Judge Jones Kitzmiller case http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Falsify.cfm"To Compel A Man To Furnish Funds For The Propagation Of Ideas He Disbelieves And Abhors Is Sinful And Tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson "And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
|
|
