Re: new creationist museum in dallas

[i_am_i]

Oh brother.

(Insert troll picture here.)

And...
Your point is?

Okay. My point is that you come across as a fool, sir, a complete waste of anyone's time, you are just one more annoying panhead that shows up on forums like this one from time to time, and you are not to be taken seriously in the least.

You have absolutely nothing to contribute, nor is it your intention to contribute. You're a bore, a dim-bulb with a festering little mind and a distorted sense of self. You're a type, a cliche, one of those bits of human detritus that washes up on the shores of internet discussion forums like noisome globs of toxic goo that the tide will eventually pull back into the vast sea of mediocrity whence you came.  

Now do you get my point, sweetheart?

[Ned]

With regard to the point about me not answering questions, this appears to be the only one I have been asked on this thread;

Well you are obviously pretty ignorant about natural selection and geology. Would you care to demonstrate your world beating knowledge  

Seeing as I am unsure how to distil my "world beating knowledge" into one post, I believe it is probably best that I step away from the forum at this point in time. This is an excellent forum and there is little point in getting people bogged down in these circular arguments.

Regards
Ned

P.S. The last post by i_am_i is one of the best I've seen on any message board. I am literally crying with laughter.

[Davin]

[...]I believe it is probably best that I step away from the forum at this point in time.

Yes, I think that might be a good idea.

[pinkocommie]

Looks like i_am_i wins the internet for scaring off the troll.  

[i_am_i]

Looks like i_am_i wins the internet for scaring off the troll.  

Please, call me J.

[Squid]

Seeing as I am unsure how to distil my "world beating knowledge" into one post...

There's this wonderful illustrative device called "examples".  With examples we are able to communicate our ideas and knowledge.  In this instance you could provide an example where you believe evolutionary theory is "liberal propaganda" and how creationist explanations better explain the natural phenomenon in question.  It's really not hard or difficult and if you're not willing to discuss thing on a discussion forum then this would beg the question as to why you were here in the first place?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Always a bridesmaid, never a bride ... <sigh>

[Ned]

Seeing as I am unsure how to distil my "world beating knowledge" into one post...

There's this wonderful illustrative device called "examples".  With examples we are able to communicate our ideas and knowledge.  In this instance you could provide an example where you believe evolutionary theory is "liberal propaganda" and how creationist explanations better explain the natural phenomenon in question.  It's really not hard or difficult and if you're not willing to discuss thing on a discussion forum then this would beg the question as to why you were here in the first place?

Well, here are  a few problems with evolutionary theory;
No explanation as to how the universe originated
How could living creatures come from non-life?
No solid fossil evidence for the theory of evolution position exists
No one was around to see the evolution of organisms. No one was around to see God create the earth and humankind.
Evolutionary scientists employ extremely implausible "just so stories" to support their position

Remember also that the Theory of Relativity, which was also once considered correct, has now been discredited because it is based around the idea that the sun is a solid mass (which we now know to be untrue).

[Tank]

Well, here are  a few problems with evolutionary theory;
No explanation as to how the universe originated

The Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with how the universe originated, see Cosmogony

How could living creatures come from non-life

The Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with how the replicating molecules originated, see Abiogenesis

No solid fossil evidence for the theory of evolution position exists

See Evolution and the Fossil record

No one was around to see the evolution of organisms.

See Evolution in action.

No one was around to see God create the earth and humankind.

Agreed.

Evolutionary scientists employ extremely implausible "just so stories" to support their position

Examples or FAIL!

Remember also that the Theory of Relativity, which was also once considered correct, has now been discredited because it is based around the idea that the sun is a solid mass (which we now know to be untrue).

Citation from a reputable source or FAIL!

Ned, you really really are way out of you depth here.

[Ned]

Evolutionary scientists employ extremely implausible "just so stories" to support their position

Examples or FAIL!

There are many. Here is just one example;
A well known example of a "just so story" is when Darwin, in his Origin of the Species, wrote a chapter entitled "Difficulties on Theory" in which he stated:
“    "In North America the black bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale."[

Remember also that the Theory of Relativity, which was also once considered correct, has now been discredited because it is based around the idea that the sun is a solid mass (which we now know to be untrue).

Citation from a reputable source or FAIL!

TomThumb on this forum a few days ago.

[TheJackel]

God Created Trollism.. How else does one Phish mindless biters of flashing light?

[Tank]

Evolutionary scientists employ extremely implausible "just so stories" to support their position

Examples or FAIL!

There are many. Here is just one example;
A well known example of a "just so story" is when Darwin, in his Origin of the Species, wrote a chapter entitled "Difficulties on Theory" in which he stated:
“    "In North America the black bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale."

Quote mining  

I will now give two or three instances of diversified and of changed habits in the individuals of the same species. When either case occurs, it would be easy for natural selection to fit the animal, by some modification of its structure, for its changed habits, or exclusively for one of its several different habits. But it is difficult to tell, and immaterial for us, whether habits generally change first and structure afterwards; or whether slight modifications of structure lead to changed habits; both probably often change almost simultaneously. Of cases of changed habits it will suffice merely to allude to that of the many British insects which now feed on exotic plants, or exclusively on artificial substances. Of diversified habits innumerable instances could be given: I have often watched a tyrant flycatcher (Saurophagus sulphuratus) in South America, hovering over one spot and then proceeding to another, like a kestrel, and at other times standing stationary on the margin of water, and then dashing like a kingfisher at a fish. In our own country the larger titmouse (Parus major) may be seen climbing branches, almost like a creeper; it often, like a shrike, kills small birds by blows on the head; and I have many times seen and heard it hammering the seeds of the yew on a branch, and thus breaking them like a nuthatch. In North America the black bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.

As we sometimes see individuals of a species following habits widely different from those both of their own species and of the other species of the same genus, we might expect, on my theory, that such individuals would occasionally have given rise to new species, having anomalous habits, and with their structure either slightly or considerably modified from that of their proper type. And such instances do occur in nature. Can a more striking instance of adaptation be given than that of a woodpecker for climbing trees and for seizing insects in the chinks of the bark? Yet in North America there are woodpeckers which feed largely on fruit, and others with elongated wings which chase insects on the wing; and on the plains of La Plata, where not a tree grows, there is a woodpecker, which in every essential part of its organisation, even in its colouring, in the harsh tone of its voice, and undulatory flight, told me plainly of its close blood-relationship to our common species; yet it is a woodpecker which never climbs a tree!

Read the whole thing, it makes sense then. Quotation from here http://darwin.thefreelibrary.com/The-Or ... pecies/6-1

Remember also that the Theory of Relativity, which was also once considered correct, has now been discredited because it is based around the idea that the sun is a solid mass (which we now know to be untrue).

Citation from a reputable source or FAIL!

TomThumb on this forum a few days ago.

Where?

And no comments on the links provided? No. Am I surprised? No. Ned, please try harder I'm not even raising a sweat here.

[Ned]

And no comments on the links provided? No. Am I surprised? No. Ned, please try harder I'm not even raising a sweat here.

Why should I take seriously citations from the liberal biased Wikipedia, and the forum of that bozo Richard Dawkins?

[Tank]

And no comments on the links provided? No. Am I surprised? No. Ned, please try harder I'm not even raising a sweat here.

Why should I take seriously citations from the liberal biased Wikipedia, and the forum of that bozo Richard Dawkins?

Because you are patently ignorant and wiki is a good place to start to counter the ignorance you suffer from. Sorry if this comes across as a little rude but you do lack knowledge in the areas you spout on about. If you bothered to read the links at RDF then you will notice they contain root links to core resources. The route to the information is simply there to be navigated, but it would be beyond your desire to learn wouldn't it? You know it all already so why bother to put any effort in. I see you again failed to follow up the link to the fossil record. And you've been quote mining and you can't be bothered to post the link to Tom Thumb's dumb arse refutation of the theory of special relativity.

I agree Dawkins is a Bozo, in fact my opinion of the man is lower than a slugs arse. However my opinion of him does not detract from his capability as an evolutionary biologist, nor the quality of some of the resources available via his site.

Ned

1/10 must try harder.[/list]

[Ned]

And no comments on the links provided? No. Am I surprised? No. Ned, please try harder I'm not even raising a sweat here.

Why should I take seriously citations from the liberal biased Wikipedia, and the forum of that bozo Richard Dawkins?

Because you are patently ignorant and wiki is a good place to start to counter the ignorance you suffer from. Sorry if this comes across as a little rude but you do lack knowledge in the areas you spout on about. If you bothered to read the links at RDF then you will notice they contain root links to core resources. The route to the information is simply there to be navigated, but it would be beyond your desire to learn wouldn't it? You know it all already so why bother to put any effort in. I see you again failed to follow up the link to the fossil record. And you've been quote mining and you can't be bothered to post the link to Tom Thumb's dumb arse refutation of the theory of special relativity.

I agree Dawkins is a Bozo, in fact my opinion of the man is lower than a slugs arse. However my opinion of him does not detract from his capability as an evolutionary biologist, nor the quality of some of the resources available via his site.

Ned

1/10 must try harder.[/list]

I did follow the links to the fossil record, and found them to be little more than tedious word-sludge.