frogleg
The problem with evolution, Dave, is that it is just another part of just another religion. Evolution is as absurd, as narrow minded, as ultimately insupportable as the JW tripe I'm lately rid of, and I don't need another religion, be it organised, disorganised, or entropic. The JWs didn't teach me all that much, but a couple of things I did learn was 1. how to spot bullshit and 2. to not sit quietly as its being dispensed. Do yourself a favor and look at the "proponents" of evolution throughout history and see what their agendas were really about. You love to trash Russell and Rutherford(albeit, for very well earned reasons), why don't you apply the same scepticisim to the crackpots that came up with the Evolution wizardry? Or will you be thrown out of some club? Personnaly, I'm not much impressed with a flock of jackoffs that couldn't hack med school and somehow see similarities between chimpanzees and human beings as meaningful. Don't forget, these are the same geniuses that brought us such wonders as phrenology and canals on Mars.
Oh my god. What a load of flame-bait!!
The problem with evolution, Dave, is that it is just another part of just another religion.
Not if you use dictionaries it isn't.
Evolution is as absurd, as narrow minded, as ultimately insupportable as the JW tripe I'm lately rid of, and I don't need another religion, be it organised, disorganised, or entropic.
What do you know about evolution? You make very bold claims; are they just hot air or can you support them?
The JWs didn't teach me all that much, but a couple of things I did learn was 1. how to spot bullshit and 2. to not sit quietly as its being dispensed.
But your critical thinking skills seem in need of development.
Do yourself a favor and look at the "proponents" of evolution throughout history and see what their agendas were really about. You love to trash Russell and Rutherford(albeit, for very well earned reasons), why don't you apply the same scepticisim to the crackpots that came up with the Evolution wizardry? Or will you be thrown out of some club? Personnaly, I'm not much impressed with a flock of jackoffs that couldn't hack med school and somehow see similarities between chimpanzees and human beings as meaningful. Don't forget, these are the same geniuses that brought us such wonders as phrenology and canals on Mars.
You illustrate quite nicely here your absence of knowledge or your complete and utter bias. We see here you attacking the agenda's of "the "proponents" of evolution throughout history". What, you mean the agenda of Darwin, a religious man before and after his publication of Origins (but less so after the death of his children)? Pity your knowledge of evolution doesn't even permit you to contend with ONE fact in your post, despite you lambasting it in a wide and vague fashion and ad hom-ing (in a clueless fashion) anyone with anything to do with it.
I assume as you CAN'T fight the facts (you would if you could), you just spew poison. Seems it is you who have fallen for the empty headed thought-stopping that claims people only believe in evolution if they have an ulterior motive. Your words give me this impression; by all means, feel free to says things that will make me change my mind. Less bluster, more facts please.
Similarly showing your serious need to start thinking or reading, preferably BOTH, we have you characterising the entire scientific establishment (as even in the USA most scientists believe in evolution) as "a flock of jackoffs that couldn't hack med school". You show how unreasoned your argument is by comparing evolutionary theory to phrenology and the canals on Mars.
Let me see, what evidence do we have for phrenology? Ooo... as much as for most religions. None. Was there any at the time? No, not that would be considered evidence by scientists today - although more than enough evidence to start a religion by religionist's standards of evidence!
That it may or may not have been a popular pseudo-science fad (just as there are pseudo-science fads to this day) is not relevant. It never had any reputable evidence behind it.
The idea of canals on Mars was a product of over-active imagination and poor instrumentation being used for observation. To use it to attack all of science shows you have no balance and a rather big fat agenda of your own, be it toward some belief or self-aggrandisement.
Evolution on the other hand had, has and will have more evidence for it, both in the past and now, as it can be seen happening around us. I have no wish to educate someone who is ignorant of those simple facts (as your own words show you to be), so suggest you show exactly how much you know about evolution by pointing out specific problems with it. In your own words; no cut and paste heroics please, we have enough of people C&Ping stuff that uses an arguments they probably can't fully understand as they haven't the background knowledge to assess the argument in a reasonable way and therefore just go for what tickles their ears. Further flame-baiting or vague waffling or wanton C&P will just be laughed at or ignored.
hooberus
Many of them have been rebutted
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/72354/1.ashx
(I replace hooberus's selection of pages or posts within a thread with the first page of the thread. I am sure he would not want to create a false impression of whether something had been successfully rebutted by directing people to parts of the thread that might give this impression when the entire thread is far more illuminating in this regard.)
I can't believe you consider THAT a rebuttal, especially as you bailed on the thread (again). A successful rebuttal is not just replying. A successful rebuttal is showing you are right, which you signally do not do.
You even conceded on that thread that there should have been links from the articles I attacked to the correspondence. AiG, in two separate articles, makes much of what it claims is a sample containing wood. They make no mention what-so-ever in these articles that the identity of the material in the sample is disputed by the very people who analysed it for them; they use part of the analysis but don't mention the part of the analysis that would rubbish the claims they want to make. This is unprofessional, deceptive (even if unintentional) and typical of that website.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/97209/1.ashx
Now this is a hysterical; a petulant whine about how the evil evolutionary establishment silence the clear truth of the ID/Creationist hero. I urge anyone who gives a damn to read this thread as its a delightful illustration of how Creationists would expect plumbers to competently transplant body organs. It also shows the tactics used, either out of cynical intentional deceit or sheer incompetence, by Creationists and ID-ots in defending their beliefs. And YOU think it's a successful rebuttal? Let the reader use discernment and decide exactly how reliable the judgement of someone who would reach that conclusion might be.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/74371/1200785/post.ashx#1200785
Thread: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/74371/1.ashx
Abaddon: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/74371/1200867/post.ashx#1200867
Another instance where your self-deception reaches effulgent heights. People may read the thread, or hooberus's post and my reply to it. Either will clearly show that no successful rebuttal is made and anyone who made this claim was either gambling on no one actually reading the link he'd provided, or a sandwich short of a picnic.
Others as well are more of a demonstration of ignorance on your part rather than "dishonesty" or ; "incompetence" etc. the part of AiG. Take for example your accusations regarding radiocarbon dating (on the thread located at:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/100566/1735328/post.ashx#1735328 )
Your C14 comments beginning with: "Sadly this behaviour continues; . . ." and finishing with: "This is either deliberately misleading or a sign of lack of competence in even the most basic knowledge of radiocarbon dating" regarded the following in the below AiG arcticle:
Oh dear hoberus, now you're being sloppy. First of all this is just idiotic C & Ping. If you had read my post you would be able to say SPECIFICALLY what was in error in it. Instead you simply post the very article I take apart. So, a simple version for your benefit; any ignorance is not on my part. AiG say;
However, the Flood buried large quantities of organic matter containing the common carbon isotope, 12C, so the 14C/12C ratio would rise after the Flood, because 14C is produced from nitrogen, not carbon. These factors mean that early post-Flood wood would look older than it really is and the ‘carbon clock’ is not linear in this period.
As anyone who reads the link to my original post can see, I point out the stunning level of incompetence or deception displayed by someone making the above claim you quote.
- They completely forget that the "large quantities of organic matter containing the common carbon isotope, 12C", would also contain (because it was ORGANIC matter) C14, and that thus there would be no change in "14C/12C ratio".
- The entire article also seems to think that C14 is ONLY produced in the atmosphere (wrong).
- And, as usual, you ignore the fact the Flood DIDN'T happen.
Trotting up and down asking for people to complement you on your trousers when you have none... it's funny.
I have shown that there is ample, reliable biological, radiological, and archaeological evidence indicating a literal interpretation of Genesis and the Flood account are by definition wrong, as trees were growing and Pyramids basking in the Egyptian sun before, during and after the supposed dates of the Flood. There's scads of more 'didn't happen' evidence too, and NO evidence that it DID happen.
Despite having failed to refute this evidence (if you spent as much time trying to refute it as blaming me for you not refuting it you could have a half-decent attempt at refuting it, but no, it's my fault you can't refute it obviously, god's truth has to hide because you're thin skinned apparently), you carry on IGNORING it and making claims BASED ON IT HAPPENING.
This supposed back-up to your claims; http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/RATE_ICC_Baumgardner.pdf simply compounds this error from the abstract onward. It assumes the Flood to be fact throughout, when THERE IS NO PROOF. Is there any surprise this is a Creationist-only, non-peer reviewed paper? No.
And it also, either out of sheer ignorance or the desire to deceive, ignores the fact that the simple explanation for very small amounts of C14 in any sample is C14 is NOT JUST PRODUCED IN THE ATMOSPHERE. I see no reason to illuminate you as to the process, or as to why this would be a variable rather than a constant as regards its effects on fossils, or to tell you whether it is a contaminant or something ingrained in the structure of the fossil, as you obviously don't know, and this further illustrates the point I continually make.
Quite frankly, given the scale of error you show in the above, I won't bother with your vague claim;
Furthermore, what about the errors on your own preferred site (talkorigins) ? Here are some from a "must read" talkorigins arcticle:
.. about these links;
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/15/92593/1564222/post.ashx#1564222
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/15/92593/1566934/post.ashx#1566934 http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/15/92593/1566935/post.ashx#1566935
... until you actually specify what they are. As you notice, I say AiG is a pile of donkey poo AND GIVE EXAMPLES WHY IN DETAIL. Please, with your great knowledge of evolutionary science and biology, say what specific Talk Origins articles are in error and why. Wouldn't want you to be an empty vessel and clashing cymbal now, would we?
