Have Fun, start a Creation Science Fair!

BillHoyt said:
Read the site's tripe on David Quammen. Then read this. They'll stoop to anything. Reminds one of some of the posters at JREF.
Click to expand...

Do you have a link to their comments? I can't find them. The excerpts from his lecture are very interesting. Thanks for the link.
 
Last edited:
delphi_ote said:
Do you have a link to their comments? I can't find them. The excerpts from his lecture are very interesting. Thanks for the link.
Click to expand...
Hi, Delphi,

The comments are on the first page of the o.p.'s link, fourth paragraph down.
 
BillHoyt said:
Hi, Delphi,

The comments are on the first page of the o.p.'s link, fourth paragraph down.
Click to expand...

That's the guy that did the National Geographic article?! I have a new hero! His book will be mine at the end of this semester, and I will devour it like the lion on its cover devours its unsuspecting prey.
 
Interestingly, David Quammen trotted out tired old canards that even evolutionists have admitted should no longer be used as evidence for organic evolution. In his article, Mr. Quammen offered up as "proof" of evolution such things as: the so-called Eohippus to Equus horse evolution scenario (which evolutionists haven't used in several decades); embryonic recapitulation (including the idea that human embryos have gill slits--something scientists have known for more than 150 years to be false); Archaeopteryx as the alleged "missing link" between reptiles and birds (which, evolutionary paleontologists admit, is quite impossible, since a fossil of a true bird--Protoavis texensis--has been discovered that precedes Archaeopteryx by 75 million years, according to their timescales); and so on.
Click to expand...

Let's play a game. Count the brazen errors in this quote.

I'll start:

David never mentions gill slits in his article. A complete fabrication.
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0411/feature1/fulltext.html

Horse evolution is damn near perfectly understood. Hyracotherium (a.k.a. Eohippus) is absolutely correctly stated to be an ancestor of the modern horse.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html

Paleontologists do not agree by a long shot about Protoavis texenis.
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/The_Protoavis_controversy
 
While wander through the science section at my local Barnes and Noble I came upon a book that I believe was titled The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science. The blurb on the back touted the book as a counter to the liberal views of science. As a mostly conservative voter, I was more than a little offended by this bit of ignorance masquerading as science.
 
FROM SITE:
Suggested paper topic #8. How to winsomely discuss scientific creationism with humanistic evolutionists
Click to expand...

Charm always carries more weight than facts. Irrefutable winsomness is a powerful scientific tool. I've been known to use it myself when I didn't know spit about a topic.
 
delphi_ote said:
Let's play a game. Count the brazen errors in this quote.

I'll start:

David never mentions gill slits in his article. A complete fabrication.
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0411/feature1/fulltext.html

Horse evolution is damn near perfectly understood. Hyracotherium (a.k.a. Eohippus) is absolutely correctly stated to be an ancestor of the modern horse.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html

Paleontologists do not agree by a long shot about Protoavis texenis.
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/The_Protoavis_controversy
Click to expand...
Complete fabrication? No! These are religious types; God-fearin', all-'murican', flag-awavin', girl-next-door-a-lustin'-in-their-hearts types. Can't be.


That reminds me: does anybody have a good source for the alleged quote from Martin Luther about a lie told in the name of God?
 
creationism.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom