Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Hollow funny......Re: Liars....was: Suddenly suddenly!

Expand Messages
  • gabevee
    ... How beguiling that Laurie believes Gould s rejection of slow steady evolution is equivalent to rejecting evolution as a whole, while Gould himself was
    Message 1 of 639 , Dec 8, 2012
      --- In creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com, "Laurie Appleton" <lappleto@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: dinohunter72
      > To: creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2012 7:17 AM
      > Subject: [creation_evolution_debate] Hollow funny......Re: Liars....was: Suddenly suddenly!
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > > LA> What makes your comment so pathetic is shown by that decade
      > > of debates!
      > >
      > > 'The impact of the debates can best be gauged by the
      > > concern shown by the evolutionists. A letter to the editor
      > > of BIOSCIENCE is indicative.'
      > >
      > > "Why do creationists seem to be the consistent
      > > winners in public debates with evolutionists? . . .
      > > We biologists are our own worst enemies in the
      > > creationist-evolutionist controversies."
      > >
      > > "We must no longer duck this and other issues
      > > related to biology and human affairs, and when we do
      > > face them we must think clearly and express ourselves
      > > accordingly. We may still not be consistent winners in
      > > the creationist- evolutionist debates, but let the
      > > losses that occur be attributable to other than lapses
      > > in professional standards.
      > >
      > > ("Evolution/Creation Debate," Bioscience, Vol.30, January 1980, p. 4)
      > >
      > > LA> See that?
      > >
      > > 1. Another evolutionist admits that the creationists seem to be
      > > the consistent winner in public debates with evolutionists!
      > >
      > > 2. Evolutionists have been "ducking this and other issues
      > > related to biology and human affairs"!
      > >
      > > 3. Evolutionists have shown that they do not think clearly and
      > > express themselves accordingly!
      > >
      > > 4. Evolutionary bioligists have been their own worst enemies in
      > > the creationist-evolutionist controversies. In other words their
      > > arguments fell to pieces when it came to the test!
      > >
      > > 5. Even when, or if the evolutionists do rectify all their
      > > faults, they may still NOT be consistent winners anyway!
      > >
      > > 6. The losses that have occurred were probably attributable to
      > > lapses in professional standards.
      > >
      > > In your case fault #6 seems to fit you particularly well,
      > > although you are guilty of all anyway!
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Laurie.
      > >
      > > "From my earliest training as a scientist, I was very strongly brainwashed
      > > to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate
      > > creation. That notion has had to be painfully shed.
      > > (Chandra Wickramasinghe, noted astronomer and ex-atheist Buddhist, 1981)
      > >
      > >
      >
      > DINOHUNTER: Then why do you duck and dodge when asked to give scientific evidence about what you claim?
      >
      >
      >
      > LA> I do not do that. The problem is that you seem to have been "brainwashed" instead of educated and are quite unable to distinguish between fact and fiction. Even evolutionist, Prof. A.J. Gould, realised that he had been BEGUILED as a student. i.e.;
      > ======================================================
      >
      > I well remember how the synthetic theory beguiled me
      > with its unifying power when I was a graduate student in
      > the mid-1960's. Since then I have been watching it slowly
      > unravel as a universal description of evolution.
      >
      > The molecular assault came first, followed quickly by renewed
      > attention to unorthodox theories of speciation and by
      > challenges at the level of macroevolution itself.
      >
      > I have been reluctant to admit it - since beguiling is
      > often forever - but if Mayr's characterization of the
      > synthetic theory is accurate, then that theory, as a
      > general proposition, is effectively dead, despite its
      > persistence as textbook orthodoxy.
      >
      > (Gould S.J., "Is a new and general theory of evolution
      > emerging?", Paleobiology, vol. 6(1), January 1980, p120)
      > =======================================================
      >
      >
      > LA> Hopefully your own "beguiling" will NOT be forever eh?
      >
      >
      >


      How "beguiling" that Laurie believes Gould's rejection of slow steady evolution is equivalent to rejecting evolution as a whole, while Gould himself was promoting punctuated equilibrium evolution.

      What's beguiling is how Laurie cannot see past his own blind ignorance.

      GV
    • Robert Stewart
      ________________________________ From: Dave Oldridge To: creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 8:56 AM
      Message 639 of 639 , Dec 12, 2012

        From: Dave Oldridge <doldridg@...>
        To: creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 8:56 AM
        Subject: RE: [creation_evolution_debate] persisting despite clear findings of error....was: Liars..
         
         
         
        From: creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com [mailto:creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Laurie Appleton
        Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2012 11:14 AM
        To: creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [creation_evolution_debate] persisting despite clear findings of error....was: Liars..
         



         
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: PIASAN@...
        Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 3:26 AM
        Subject: [creation_evolution_debate] persisting despite clear findings of error....was: Liars..
         
         
        LA> The "bad thing" is to persist in an idea in SPITE of the clear scientific findings that repudiate that idea.  It them becomes a vehicle to promote error, confusion and  falsehoods.
         
         
        Pi:
        That applies to all of the current creation "science" models of which I'm aware including:
         
        1)  Barry Setterfield's c-decay.
        2)  Dr. Russell Humphreys' white holes.
        3)  Dr. Jason Lisle's anisotropic synchrony
        4)  Dr. Larry Vardiman's vapor canopy.
        5)  Dr. John Baumgardner's runaway subduction.
        6)  Dr. Walt Brown's hydroplates.
         
        Among these models are some (such as c-decay) that even the creationist ministries say should not be used; others (such as white holes and the vapor canopy) that even the author admits will not work; and several (such as vapor canopy, runaway subduction, and hydroplates) that, if true, would sterilize the planet.  (I can think of little that would more effectively refute a scientific model than the fact it would destroy all life on Earth.).
         
        Laurie claims to want creation "science" taught in public schools, yet he has never proposed a single current creation "science" model that should be presented in public schools ..... let attempt a defense of such model in this forum. 
         
         
        LA> Nothing alters the fact that  various evolutionists have admitted at various times and in various ways that the Creation scientists regularly "routed" their evolutionary opponents in that decade of all those hundreds of open, public  debates on the scientific questions!  For example a noted evolutionary Biologist wrote the following;
         
        And nothing alters the fact that you, Laurie, nor any other creationist has been able to provide a shred of scientific evidence for any of your major YEC claims.  This proves that, if those debates were really won by creationist debaters, then it must have been by guile, not by scientific evidence, since that has proved (right here) to be non-existent. Where is the creationist SCIENTIFIC evidence for a young universe, young earth or geologically recent global flood? CAN they supply anything other than lies about the actual scientific data or its meaning, or rhetorical excuses why they don’t have to?  So far they are batting zero and then arguing balls and strikes with the umpire!
         
         
        --
         
        Dave Oldridge
        Robert--Remember all that I am a Old Earth Creationist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11
         
         
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.