|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: DarkStar's Collection of Quotations - Number 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: No, they are very much objective. You can go out and test the same DNA and get the same results. You can measure the same fossils and come up with the same lengths and circumferences. You can test the same rocks and get the same ratios of K/Ar. Nothing subjective involved. The suppositions and opinions are what is being tested, since if macro-evolution is wrong then the predictions made through those theories should not be seen in the objective data. However, these predictions are fulfilled by objective data. Too bad for you.
quote: Actually, as scientists define macroevolution, it has been observed. Anything at or above the level of speciation is considered macroevolution. Since speciation has been observed, macroevolution hs bee observed.
quote: Then show me a quote and we will see just how accurate it is. The quotations pass the following three criteria: 1. The context of the quote must be available online. 2. Any statement must be consistent with collected objective evidence (eg the number of hominid fossils could fit in a shoe box is not consistent with the sheer number of hominid fossils). 3. The quote must come from a person who has acquired a degree within the biological sciences from an accredited university. Care to take up my challenge?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
DarkStar, you may wish to consider some of Loudmouths guidelines.
If you wish, submit DarkStar's Collection of Quotations - Number 2 to the "Proposed New Topics" forum. Keep the opening message trimmed to the essentials. No graphics, no unneeded extra formatting, etc. Any unneeded bulk will prevent topic advancement. You may post a message 2 (or more) if you wish to discuss the content/format of message 1. As was the case with this topic, I ask the other admins to leave the advancement of any such DarkStar topic to me. You are, however, welcome to chip in with suggestions" For whatever it may be worth, the pre-release version of "Number 1" can be found here. Please, no replies to this message at this topic. Adminnemooseus Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to Change in Moderation? or Thread Reopen Requests |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DarkStar Inactive Member |
That was pretty good denise.....if you had copied from one of my books as completely as you copied from my post, you could consider yourself an A-1 plagiarist. However, nothing you wrote changes the fact that the myth of macroevolution is just another childhood fantasy, and most grownups have long since outgrown the need to believe in such ridiculous fairy tales.
The theory of evolution is a viable theory, absent the myth of macroevolution.
Once the myth of macroevolution is included, the viability of the theory of evolution vanishes as it slowly evolves into just another example of an implausible story, nestled amongst the numerous fairytale's of our youth.-----DarkStar
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Message 87, please, DS.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22500 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Hi, DarkStar!
Since just like Fred you're so fond of fairytales, I thought I'd post this copy of Message 11 from a couple years ago. Enjoy! --Percy Randy writes:
So Fred again says that evolution is a fairy tale. Hmm. What are some things we might find in fairy tales? Fairytales often have talking animals like perhaps a talking snake? Does evolution say that a snake could talk? Or is that a claim from Biblical literalists like Fred? How about Sons of God mating with daughters of men to produce giants in the earth? Is that a claim of science or is it found in the Bible? Sounds like a fairytale to me. How about a person changing into something like stone or maybe a pillar of salt? I don’t remember reading about this happening in a science textbook but you find similar themes in many fairytales. How about people living to great ages? Does evolution say that people used to live 6 or even 9 hundred years or is that fairy tale found somewhere else? How about someone surviving in the belly of a whale or was it a great fish? I remember seeing something like that in some Disney movie on a fairytale and reading about Jonah in the Bible but I don’t think you’ll find it in a biology text. How about someone stopping the sun? I don't think any science text says that such a thing could happen but it could happen in a fairytale. How about representatives of all the animals on earth going to one place two by two to get on a boat for a yearlong ride with a 600 year old man and his family and then repopulating the entire earth? That sure sounds like a fairy tale to me. So just try to keep straight who is really pushing the fairytales around here. Of course Fred knows full well that evolution could be falsified. He just can't deal with the facts that evolution has not been falsified and is continually strengthened by new research while young earth creationism has been falsified for about 200 years. What makes it worse for him and other YECs is that the original falsifiers of the young earth myth started out sharing it. However, they were honest scientists and realized that their data didn't fit their myth. YECs have taken a big step backwards in deciding to accept the myth and reject the data. You can look at a thread on another part of the board to see some of Fred's nonsense about the fossil record being trounced. I am surprised he keeps bringing this up since the fossil record so clearly falsifies the flood myth. http://< !--UB EvC Forum: Information -->http://EvC Forum: Information -->EvC Forum: Information< !--UE--> and you can look at the section on dating and ask some questions if you want to see Fred's claims about dating refuted. Randy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DarkStar Inactive Member |
Or I could just point out a few of the fairy tale stories (read that frauds) of the macroevolution myth believers that forced them to backtrack when their fairy tale frauds were exposed for what they were.
You remember, stories like the piltdown man, (that was a good one), and the nebraska man, (almost busted a gut laughing about that one). And lets not forget about lucy, (or is it more appropriate to call her bonzo now?), and I absolutely loved the fairy tale, (read that hoax), depicting feathered dinosaurs. (though I must say that they probably should have used a better brand of glue on that one)ROTFLMAO! Then there is my personal favorite, the infamous peppered moths. That one just goes to show that the macroevolution myth believers have a wonderful imagination. Too bad they have such a disdain for true science. Of course we can never forget the one about the skull that was found in Spain in 1984. It was touted as the oldest known example of man found so far in Eurasia. Unfortunately for the macroevolution myth believing spinmasters, this skull was actually shown to be that of a young donkey. Shades of Pinnochio! Oh, and let's not leave out the beautiful story that was propagated in 1983 where an American anthropologist claimed to have found the collarbone of a prehistoric man, an amazing discovery to be sure, especially when one considers that it actually turned out to be nothing more than the rib bone of a dolphin. Now that is what I call macroevolution science, baby! Kudos to those macroevolution myth believing neo-evo's. Keep the laughs coming. The theory of evolution is a viable theory, absent the myth of macroevolution.
Once the myth of macroevolution is included, the viability of the theory of evolution vanishes as it slowly evolves into just another example of an implausible story, nestled amongst the numerous fairytale's of our youth.-----DarkStar
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4155 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
most of those have been debunked recently in the Apeman truth or fiction thread.
But if you can produce a single scientific textbook or research paper that says NMan was true.... which of course you can't - I'm sure you'll just have to cut and paste some crap from a creation quotemine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
You have made your usual assertions, DS. Now you will, as requested, back them up. If not that, combined with you attitude will win you a suspension again. Enjoy the break.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
You remember, stories like the piltdown man, (that was a good one), and the nebraska man, (almost busted a gut laughing about that one). You mean the frauds evolutionists identified and uncovered? What's funny, is, you'd think creationists and intellectual Don Quixotes like yourself would be the ones to have uncovered these untruths. But, I can't think of a single instance where these frauds and mistakes have been revealed by anybody but evolutionary biologists, wondering why these finds simply didn't fit into the macroevolutionary framework. Certainly you haven't shown evidence of anything but the self-correcting nature of science doing what it's supposed to do. In the meantime, creationists and folks like yourself - whatever you are, I guess - surrounded, as they are, by what they believe to be frauds, can't seem to actually prove any of it. Oh, and message 87, if you please. Or were you retreating from the claim that Darwin was speaking of evolution in his letter to Asa Gray? This message has been edited by crashfrog, 08-19-2004 08:49 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4155 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
well how about this -
Darkstar let's just concentrate on one of your claims - provide a science textbook or peer-reviewed paper that refered to NMan as "fact" (thus proving fraud or mistake on the part of evos). Popular science don't count!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DarkStar Inactive Member |
In an attempt to get back on track, I again offer quote #2 with an edited version of it's accompanying post.
Judging by the responses thus far, I think it can now be concluded that no one is able to refute quote #1 as many neo-evo's have claimed. Though the neo-evo's have thus far been unable to prove that Darwin did not mean what he said, I will at least concede that Darwin believed his own theory, even if he understood how unscientific it was. I think it can also be conceded that Darwin not only believed in the process of macroevolution, but that he saw it as the best explanation for the origin of species. Science has made some tremendous advances since Darwin first proposed the idea of macroevolution so let's move a little further from it's initiation and see what others have had to say regarding the myth of macroevolution.
"It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end no matter which illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected that scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of Darwin's pronouncements and predictions . . Let's cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back."I.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities (1985). Page not found | Star Lake, Wisconsin Despite the expected response of hardcore neo-evo's to defend their belief in the myth of macroevolution with their dying breath, regardless of what may be presented here, I have no doubt that as we progress through the thousands of available quotes, (obviously not all of which will be offered here), the truth shall fully expose macroevolution for what it is, a myth of gigantic proportions. I remain convinced that the truth will be made known to the occasional truly open-minded individuals who pass through EVC and they will go on their way having been made more aware of the enormous fallacies so inherent in the theory of evolution, at least where the myth of macroevolution is concerned. The theory of evolution is by no means dead, but with the inclusion of the myth of macroevolution within that theory, it might as well be. Abandoning true science in favor of a myth in order to support an otherwise viable theory is pure foolishness. The theory of evolution is a viable theory, absent the myth of macroevolution.
Once the myth of macroevolution is included, the viability of the theory of evolution vanishes as it slowly evolves into just another example of an implausible story, nestled amongst the numerous fairytale's of our youth.-----DarkStar
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Next time you are suspended.
You can deal with the N-man request for backup or apologize for getting that wrong. And that is just a start, you have a lot of catching up to do. This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 08-19-2004 09:03 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4155 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
Or I could just point out a few of the fairy tale stories (read that frauds) of the macroevolution myth believers that forced them to backtrack when their fairy tale frauds were exposed for what they were. You remember, stories like the piltdown man, (that was a good one), and the nebraska man, (almost busted a gut laughing about that one). you are clearly claiming fraud - therefore you must supply the name of one peer-reviewed article or one scientific textbook that tried to present Nebraska man as fact.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Judging by the responses thus far, I think it can now be concluded that no one is able to refute quote #1 as many neo-evo's have claimed. Woah woah wait a minute! You still haven't substantiated your claim that Darwin was speaking about evolution in the letter. Since he doesn't say in the letter, that's a point you have to address. As it is, we have nothing but your own assertion that he was referring to evolution in that letter. If you don't care to substantiate your assertion, can we consider it withdrawn?
I remain convinced that the truth will be made known to the occasional truly open-minded individuals who pass through EVC If you refuse to defend or substantiate your assertions, how will that be the case?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DarkStar Inactive Member |
No where in my post do I claim that any of these were "touted" as scientific facts, or placed in science textbooks.
I have attempted to get this thread back on track, which is supposed to be a discussion about why so many evolution scientists make so many condemnatory statements concerning the theory of evolution, and yet seemingly still support the theory. I would appreciate your placing your personal dislike of me on the back burner, cease with the unwarranted threats to suspend me again, and do your part to help keep this thread on the right track. This message has been edited by DarkStar, 08-19-2004 09:27 PM The theory of evolution is a viable theory, absent the myth of macroevolution.
Once the myth of macroevolution is included, the viability of the theory of evolution vanishes as it slowly evolves into just another example of an implausible story, nestled amongst the numerous fairytale's of our youth.-----DarkStar
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024