Re: Evolution Deniers


"Raymond Griffith" <tiffirgrReverse@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:BFC4F8DA.3002%tiffirgrReverse@xxxxxxxxxx
> On 12/13/05 4:12 PM, in article dnndav$qu3$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "al"
> <almond@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >
> > <jrsp8s@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:FVFnf.37141$tV6.23247@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>
> >> <sheldon@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >> news:1134504052.326012.88750@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>
> >>> CreateThis wrote:
> >>>> sheldon@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >>>>
> My advice, if you care to hear it, is to start learning about the natural
> world. If you are upset about the Theory of Evolution, learn about the TOE
> -- what it says and why it says it -- from their own sources. The sources
> you will get on this subject from Pathlights, Answers in Genesis, and any
> other Creationist source will be perverted and distorted.
>
> Scientists are very well able to discuss what they believe and why they
> believe it. We do not need our enemies to speak for us.
>
> Regards,
>
> Raymond E. Griffith

Hi again Raymond
You seem put out by the fact that I think modern science is crap.
I would like to remind you that I have every right to think this and some
very good reasons for arriving at this conclusion.
One of the complaints proffered by the evolution scrotes and (whatever
female scrotes are) is that they claim that some reasons for rejecting
evolution are unscientific. As I have said to Dana, this is totally a
illogical and unscientific statement.
Scientists are very good at collecting data. What they are not good at is
interpreting said data.
One of the posts in the thread about viral gene transfer laid out some
perfectly good evidence and the accompanying data and then, at the end said
something like "The sudden appearance is due to missing data and all that
went before will be found".
This is pure speculation but, however, is destined become consensus opinion.
Most of the science of evolution is based on this consensus opinion. It's
pure crap.
Let me, if I may, give another example.
An article some time ago in Sci Am. and also in New Sci. was about "Dinosaur
Cove" where there is a large cache of dino' bones. One specimen was said to
be good evidence of evolution in action as it lived in Antarctica and had
evolved large eyes to enable it to forage for food during the long dark
arctic winter.
What they omit to mention is that many *nocturnal* animals have large eyes
and that bone caches are usually the result of a catastrophe. The animal
could quite easily have been from Australia and been swept to its present
position by a large tsunami.
This is one of the worst examples of cherry picking that I have seen. And
I'm sure it's been written up as another first for evolution.
So you see, much of science is unscientific and evidence does not have to
have the stamp of science on it to be valid.
The fact that someone has made a statement and omitted to use the correct
terms does not invalidate it.

Science fails to give credence witness testimony for reasons that support
science to the exclusion of all the uninitiated.
And so on............
al
>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Comprehending Steven J.
    ... Your claim that Romans talks about modern evolution is one. ... The writers of the Bible had no idea about that evidence, and I don't expect them to have anticipated it. ... Ray, I've explained many times why natural evolution means nothing of the sort. ... The writers of the Bible knew nothing about science, the scientific method, or how life works. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions)
    ... It is the definition of science as it ... ID offers no testable hypothesis and no supporting evidence. ... If it can be shown that evolution *cannot* ... Not to the IDers, perhaps, but they do matter to scientists. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Time for your weekly dose of creationism lack of evidence straw poll
    ... However if you are going to examine that evidence ... > Creationists love science, they are NOT anti-science. ... Evolution is a religious belief, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Does similarity indicate descent to have occurred?
    ... ...and for unkown reasons, this Grand Mastermind created a perfect ... evidence, fingerprints, confession, and videotape. ... We know the stasis is the predominant signal from the fossil record. ... not "against" evolution, per se. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Activist judge declares that Intelligent Design is not science
    ... Phillip Johnson is known as the father of intelligent design. ... The idea in its current form appeared in the 1980s, and Johnson adopted and developed it after Darwinian evolution came up short, in his view, in explaining how all organisms, including humans, came into being. ... In this interview, hear why he feels that such evidence is "somewhere between weak and nonexistent," why he feels intelligent design is a testable science, and why he thought the Dover trial was a train wreck waiting to happen. ...
    (alt.politics)