Dinosaurs or God? Which is more real?

[tas8831]

My God, such rare ignorance.

But is it?

 

[tas8831]

What? Sculpted stones? This is all pure fantasy.

Or perhaps some projection.

'We do it, so them evilutionists MUST do it even more!'

Paluxy Man -- The Creationist Piltdown | National Center for Science Education

 

[tas8831]

It was found to be a hoax by other paleontologists.

Um, no....

"Archaeopteryx lithographica: The Ultimate Fraud"

Basically, about four "examples" of Archeopteryx were found, and each time it resembled the bones of another dinosaur. And there were no feather impressions which should be the case if the thing that fell in the mud had feathers.

And how it is that you can vouch for the accuracy and honesty of your heroes at that creationist propaganda outfit?

I mean, they rely on the shoddy work I referred to earlier - Spetner wrote a book in which he claimed 'directed mutations' were real and random ones were not. And he ignored publications that proved him wrong. In a discussions with biologist Gert Korthof, he admitted that beneficial mutations do occur. Then, when he realized he'd undercut his whole thesis, he tried to take it back.

Too late!

By the way - why were Spetner, Hoyle, and Wickramasingh looking at fossils, anyway? None of them have any relevant training or expertise.

That is why their garbage paper could only make it to print in a photography magazine:

Watkins, R.S.; F. Hoyle et al. Archaeopteryx: A Photographic Study The British Journal of Photography (London) March 8, 1985, Vol.132, p.264-266.

And a whopping 2 pages long! A real barn burner!



Oh - and there are 8 specimens, not 4.

Creationist groups with websites sure lie a lot. And the author of your linked essay is quite a character...

 

[tas8831]

I also got an education that encouraged QUESTIONING ideas. Many of you clearly didn't, because you read it in high school textbooks.

Says the person that thinks collections of ancient middle eastern tall tales are totally 100% true!

 

[tas8831]

I often wonder if people like you actually think or just regurgitate what other people tell you, until it's fixed in your mind.

Spectacular projection.

The ability to do critical thinking is the ability to challenge even your own past teachings if somehow the don't match up.

And you've applied your amazing 'critical thinking' skills to your creationist resources, have you?

A biology text book said "We used to believe in spontaneous generation but (after the findings of people like Pasteur) we now know that no life force exists."

Which biology textbook was that?
Googled the quote, got no returns.

Okay, two quick points. Pasteur's findings only disprove spontaneous generation - not "life force" and claiming to "know" something now is conceited - by showing that a sterilized broth will no longer produce bacteria (except that it will rot given enough time, implying heat-resistant bacteria, but one thing thar won't happen is flies spontaneously generating inside a closed glads container). Two, Pasteur actually found life generating under certain circumstances (I think mainly compost) but suppressed many of these results to defeat his rival Beauchamp and have a scientific monopoly. He also did so because he was a religious fanatic and believed only God can create life. It's all mentioned in The Dream And Lie of Louis Pasteur. Where it's not mentioned? Your high school science textbook. Hmmm, I wonder why that is? Maybe because if people started getting all the facts about their science leaders they might no longer consider them infallible?

The Dream & Lie of Louis Pasteur by R. B. Pearson
[/quote]
Did you read that book, or just get the citation from a creationist website?

Apparently, the author was a crackpot who "propounds the viewpoint that bacteria in the body are a result, not a cause of disease, that vaccinations are harmful or at best, ineffective, and that Pasteur did not realise the consequences of the vaccines he and his followers created".


For someone with such amazing critical thinking skills, you sure seem to get duped by charlatans a lot.

 

[tas8831]

I believe in Lamarck's idea of how plants and animals develop over Darwin (not quite, but I do tend to think evolution is according to need rather than competition), for instance.

Ah, there's that critical thinking in action!
You prefer a falsified hypothesis over an unfalsified theory. Good for you!

Do I have a doctorate in Paleontology? No. But I do think this is a BS degree. Not to be confused with a Bachelor Science degree.

SUPER clever - betting you think 'libtard' is a show-stopper, too, huh?

Credentials are given value by people who consider blindly accepting what they read in formal-looking books to be knowledge. It takes more research to find alternate opinions, especially those suppressed by time and intent.

Well... Unlike you, I've done research. And one has to do research to earn a PhD - didn't you know that? it seems not.

I take that back - creationist diploma mills will sell you a 'doctorate' for a fee and an essay about how great Jesus is.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

At least I've never fallen off a limerick when hit by a drunk driver.
(Long story.)

We may have discussed that story.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Or perhaps some projection.

'We do it, so them evilutionists MUST do it even more!'

Paluxy Man -- The Creationist Piltdown | National Center for Science Education

Sounds like both to me.

Thanks for the link. I enjoyed the article. I'm familiar with these famous tracks. They were recycled--rather the story was--in the late 70's or early 80's. The National Enquirer ran it. I used to have a vopy, but it was lost over the years. I was much more successful at holding onto the Cheryl Tiers photos. If a paper with prestige of the Enquirer gets the story, you know it is legit.

 

[Audie]

Childish op

MAYBE SO, but for childish, howabout positng sush a thing
and then paying exactly no attention to any efforts made
to show how maybe there could be a more mature way to
look at things.

Last time I will make that mistake.

 

[Audie]

Our distant ancestors also found fossils.

Lucretius had a very interesting explanation for them.

Here are some fun hoaxes

Eleven of the greatest scientific hoaxes

 

[Ayjaydee]

MAYBE SO, but for childish, howabout positng sush a thing
and then paying exactly no attention to any efforts made
to show how maybe there could be a more mature way to
look at things.

Last time I will make that mistake.

Childish

 

[dianaiad]

Our distant ancestors also found fossils.

yes. And?

I still think that the world would be a more magical place with dragons in it.

....though I'm, at present, delighted enough with the idea that dinosaurs had feathers.

Please don't forget that I'm a dyed in the wool evolutionist, and have no problems whatsoever in believing in God as well.

Religion is WHY God 'did it,' and science is starting to figure out "how." The two ideas do not interfere with one another.

 

[Audie]

Ah, there's that critical thinking in action!
You prefer a falsified hypothesis over an unfalsified theory. Good for you!

SUPER clever - betting you think 'libtard' is a show-stopper, too, huh?


Well... Unlike you, I've done research. And one has to do research to earn a PhD - didn't you know that? it seems not.

I take that back - creationist diploma mills will sell you a 'doctorate' for a fee and an essay about how great Jesus is.

Mine only asked for 20 dollars and satement
that I felt I had earned