Evolutionists quietly tried to insert another forgery into
Nat Geographic calling it 'Archaeoraptor'. Instantly
Creation Scientists sprang into action and debunked
this as 'even worse of a forgery than Peppered Moths'.
The evolution community was forced to retract again.
Evolutionists quietly tried to insert another forgery into
Nat Geographic calling it 'Archaeoraptor'. Instantly
Creation Scientists sprang into action and debunked
this as 'even worse of a forgery than Peppered Moths'.
The evolution community was forced to retract again.
On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 02:29:13 -0700 (PDT), BroilJAB wrote:
>Evolutionists quietly tried to insert another forgery into
>Nat Geographic calling it 'Archaeoraptor'. Instantly
>Creation Scientists sprang into action and debunked
>this as 'even worse of a forgery than Peppered Moths'.
>The evolution community was forced to retract again.
Apparently old news:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeoraptor "Archaeoraptor" is the generic name informally assigned in 1999 to a
fossil from China in an article published in National Geographic
magazine.
But it serves as a reminder that the scientific "consensus" has a
history of faking data.
Don't scientists encourage the perception that they want "just the
facts ma'am," and that are above all the petty motivations (such as
wealth, power, and fame) that drive lesser beings?
Are Mythical creatures
Of less Beauty than Chimera
-- "Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less
remote from the- truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong.
Thomas Jefferson
Creationists like Liarboi Broiljab demand that facts be rejected whenever those facts conflict with their faith.
Evolution, as with other sciences, demands that one's
faith be revised when it conflicts with the facts.
Which do YOU do?
-- "Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less
remote from the- truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong.
Thomas Jefferson
>Well, yes, but "Darwinian evolution" is "our nationwide anvil".
...on which Creationists are regularly hammered?
> And
>"natural selection" is what "a troll enunciates".
Sounds like "backspace", a regular (troll?) over in
talk.origins who's quite fond of "enunciating" to
meaninglessness his take on the terminology of science,
*especially* NS.
>Neither of those are quite as good as Bill's but they're both just as
>relevant to the "debate".
Sems so... and Bill's was indeed excellent.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> writes:
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 08:39:25 -0400, the following appeared
> in sci.skeptic, posted by "Jesse F. Hughes"
> <je...@phiwumbda.org>:
>>Well, yes, but "Darwinian evolution" is "our nationwide anvil".
> ...on which Creationists are regularly hammered?
Well, I was thinking of it in terms of a dead weight that slows
progress, but it was an ambiguous anagram I admit.
Mind you, I am not opposed to Darwin's theory. This was strictly a
little game to see what we could get from the anagrams. I'm sure others
can do better than I did.
>> And
>>"natural selection" is what "a troll enunciates".
> Sounds like "backspace", a regular (troll?) over in
> talk.origins who's quite fond of "enunciating" to
> meaninglessness his take on the terminology of science,
> *especially* NS.
I wouldn't know. I don't read the group.
>>Neither of those are quite as good as Bill's but they're both just as
>>relevant to the "debate".
> Sems so... and Bill's was indeed excellent.
-- Jesse F. Hughes
"What I represent is the unknowable future--the power of change. In
that sense I'm a force of Nature, a force of the Universe, a living
emodiment of change itself." --James Harris and his sense of humility
> On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 02:29:13 -0700 (PDT), BroilJAB wrote:
> >Evolutionists quietly tried to insert another forgery into
> >Nat Geographic calling it 'Archaeoraptor'. Instantly
> >Creation Scientists sprang into action and debunked
> >this as 'even worse of a forgery than Peppered Moths'.
> >The evolution community was forced to retract again.
> Apparently old news:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeoraptor > "Archaeoraptor" is the generic name informally assigned in 1999 to a
> fossil from China in an article published in National Geographic
> magazine.
> But it serves as a reminder that the scientific "consensus" has a
> history of faking data.
> Don't scientists encourage the perception that they want "just the
> facts ma'am," and that are above all the petty motivations (such as
> wealth, power, and fame) that drive lesser beings?
> If you're going to lie, lie big.
Creationists certainly follow that advice!
-- "Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less
remote from the- truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong.
Thomas Jefferson
On Oct 28, 2:29 am, BroilJAB <DesignDen...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> Evolutionists quietly tried to insert another forgery into
> Nat Geographic calling it 'Archaeoraptor'. Instantly
> Creation Scientists sprang into action and debunked
> this as 'even worse of a forgery than Peppered Moths'.
> The evolution community was forced to retract again.
I'm bored, so I'll give this one a shot.
Even though you (are roll-playing that you) don't even understand the
spins, less the facts behind them, here goes:
A real 70myo fossil is discovered; a feathery lizard with prototypical
wings.
To make a name for themselves, the promoting scientists claim it's a
"missing link" between lizards and archeopteryx. They get their names
in the papers.
The critter is NOT a basal type on the archeopteryx-bird branch of the
tree of life. But that doesn't mean it's not a real fossil of a real
critter, that lived and died, 70myo, with both lizard and bird
features.
The theory of evolution explicitly states that the tree of life is
messy, with lots of false starts and dead branches. Finding yet more
versions of critters, even if they were not "missing links", only
confirms evolution.
Next, the "peppered moths" are probably the ones that turned black
during the industrial revolution, as the trees they cling to turned
black with soot.
Demagogues will try to say that evolutionists say that "when animal
change colors, they become new species." They then point out the black
peppered moths are still the same species (just like black and white
dogs are the same species). This is a strawman argument, because
evolutionists do not say that.
Okay, boredom fit over. Please haul out some _original_ detail, such
as digs with complex layer horizons, or how squids' eyes work BETTER
than human eyes (with the blood vessels BELOW the nerve cells)...
Bill Taylor <wfc.tay...@gmail.com> writes:
> Anagram time again!
It's always anagram time on alt.anagrams! (f/ups set)
> ** CREATION SCIENCE = CORE ANTI-SCIENCE **
Creation science = See nice narcotic?
Cocaine, in secret
Phil
-- Regarding TSA regulations:
How are four small bottles of liquid different from one large bottle?
Because four bottles can hold the components of a binary liquid explosive,
whereas one big bottle can't. -- camperdave responding to MacAndrew on /.
