two distinctive revelations from Evos this year already, firstly that dinosaurs and birds DO NOT share a common ancestry, Bible students of course knew that already and this latest confession that an entire subspecies in now absolutely Simian. you shall note the significant evidence on which their stupendous claim was based, a jaw bone and a few teeth! Ramapithecus, Australopithecus and Piltdown man also spring to mind. Is there no bounds these scoundrels and purveys of postulation shall go on which to establish their mythology. please note that this was a rhetorical question.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie two distinctive revelations from Evos this year already, firstly that dinosaurs and birds DO NOT share a common ancestry, Bible students of course knew that already and this latest confession that an entire subspecies in now absolutely Simian. you shall note the significant evidence on which their stupendous claim was based, a jaw bone and a few tee ...[text shortened]... ase note that this was a rhetorical question.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8318643.stm
Do you have anything meaningful to say or are you just spouting hot air as usual?
I remember i while back when, duecer i think, pasted a list of JW views on certain subjects that had constantly changed over the years. Your reply was something like
'That's the beauty of JW's views, they change to meet the available evidence'
Are paleantologists and evolutionary scientists not allowed to change with the available evidence also? Or is that something only the JW's can do?
Originally posted by robbie carrobie two distinctive revelations from Evos this year already, firstly that dinosaurs and birds DO NOT share a common ancestry, Bible students of course knew that already and this latest confession that an entire subspecies in now absolutely Simian. you shall note the significant evidence on which their stupendous claim was based, a jaw bone and a few tee ...[text shortened]... ase note that this was a rhetorical question.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8318643.stm
Do you believe everything in this article?
(Beware: This is a trick question!)
Originally posted by Proper Knob Do you have anything meaningful to say or are you just spouting hot air as usual?
I remember i while back when, duecer i think, pasted a list of JW views on certain subjects that had constantly changed over the years. Your reply was something like
'That's the beauty of JW's views, they change to meet the available evidence'
Are paleantolo ...[text shortened]... owed to change with the available evidence also? Or is that something only the JW's can do?
ohhh, right back at me Noobster, actually i thought that the hypothesis was so firmly established as to be incontrovertible, well well, just goes to show.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie ohhh, right back at me Noobster, actually i thought that the hypothesis was so firmly established as to be incontrovertible, well well, just goes to show.
'Evolution is a fact, the mechanisms by which it happens though are still being theorised'
A quote from an evolutionary biologist, can't remember whom, but i like it.
Do you believe that no organisms in the enitre history of life on this planet have ever changed or evolved?
Originally posted by FabianFnas Does this mean that you do believe in the article,
or you don't believe in the article?
Or are you just afraid to answer yes or no?
Have you even read it in full?
twice!, this means that for a belief to be 'plausible', it must be founded on a substantiating reason. i have never trusted the B.B.C entirely, but for different reasons.
Originally posted by Proper Knob 'Evolution is a fact, the mechanisms by which it happens though are still being theorised'
A quote from an evolutionary biologist, can't remember whom, but i like it.
Do you believe that no organisms in the enitre history of life on this planet have ever changed or evolved?
no so fast there Noobster, i have merely brought one or two anomalies of the hypothesis which may or may not have escaped the theologians notice. you will notice that i never intended to discuss it in my original text, stating that it was a rhetorical question.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie no so fast there Noobster, i have merely brought one or two anomalies of the hypothesis which may or may not have escaped the theologians notice. you will notice that i never intended to discuss it in my original text, stating that it was a rhetorical question.
What's the anamoly?
The fossil was examined by some experts and they have concluded it's not from our evolutionary lineage.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie twice!, this means that for a belief to be 'plausible', it must be founded on a substantiating reason. i have never trusted the B.B.C entirely, but for different reasons.
Okay, you have read it twice. But you don't believe in the article in full. Have I understood you correctly?
Originally posted by robbie carrobie no so fast there Noobster, i have merely brought one or two anomalies of the hypothesis which may or may not have escaped the theologians notice. you will notice that i never intended to discuss it in my original text, stating that it was a rhetorical question.
I try to remember that science is explicitly about falsification; religion tends to be about non-falsifiable dogma. Whenever some scientific hypothesis/theory turns out to have been falsified (which I am not so sure is the case here), some religionists somehow seem to think that is a victory.
Originally posted by vistesd Whenever something like this is posted—
I try to remember that science is explicitly about falsification; religion tends to be about non-falsifiable dogma. Whenever some scientific hypothesis/theory turns out to have been falsified (which I am not so sure is the case here), some religionists somehow seem to think that is a victory.
Originally posted by vistesd Whenever something like this is posted—
I try to remember that science is explicitly about falsification; religion tends to be about non-falsifiable dogma. Whenever some scientific hypothesis/theory turns out to have been falsified (which I am not so sure is the case here), some religionists somehow seem to think that is a victory.
it is strange that you fail to make the distinction between the evolutionary hypothesis and science, thus by beginning with a premise or should i say an assumption, your evaluation is doomed from the beginning. The whole tenure of the argument, is not the validity of evolution, nor of the Bible and making a comparison, but of whether evolution is scientific. can it be subject to falsification? is it subject to the scientific model?
evolutionists goof again
24 Oct '09 15:382 edits
Back to Top