Who Hates Academic Freedom?
- Thread starter 6days
- Start date
Meanwhile, you deny the plain teaching of the Bible, demanding that "six days" and your "billions of years" are compatible. When you've given up one or the other, then you might be able to join a rational debate. :up:
If these assertions are supported with evidence, great.
But in YECism, they are supported only by wishful thinking, lies, and nonsense.
Such an ego. I write "creationism", you write 'where have I done this.'
Still waiting for you evidence-supported mechanism of Kind-diversification AND for an actual definition of A kind.
Perhaps when you finally address this, I can show an example of a false claim. But you generally seem more interested in doing this:
The troll king rants.:doh:
Such a model Christian you are.
"Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.
I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)"
- Todd Wood, PhD., YEC
Meanwhile, you troll and question beg and do not seem to even grasp how it is so.:execute:
Typical.
"Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.
I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)"
- Todd Wood, PhD., YEC
Then why did you imply that assertions were a sign of a weak idea?
Evidence, in fact. Perhaps you've heard of it. Maybe you'd even like to talk about it sometime. :idunno:
:AMR:
Evolutionists hate reading.
Assertion
noun
1. a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason:
a mere assertion; an unwarranted assertion.
"Ideas" may well be premised on assertions; scientific theories are not. Evolution rests on sound scientific theories and principles. YECism rests on 'mere' assertions.
Yes, I would. I have read about a dozen YEC-authored books, and read hundreds of YEC essays and 'scientific' papers, and the only evidence I have seen supports the notion that YECs don't care much for honesty or integrity, and most have very little understanding of the things they pontificate about.
I've read through about 50 of your posts so far and have yet to see anything but name calling, unwarranted condescension, and arrogance. Nothing that counts as evidence. Attacking evolution is not evidence FOR YECism - if so, does that work both ways, or only in your favor?
I read what you wrote. You didn't answer the question. It is true, I hate reading pap and nonsense. Apparently, creationists hate thinking and understanding.
"Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.
I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)"
- Todd Wood, PhD., YEC
Oh - also:
Still waiting for you evidence-supported mechanism of Kind-diversification AND for an actual definition of A kind.
Lets see your "evidence."
How do we get 950+ species of bat-kind from a mere breeding pair on the fake ark in 4500 years?
noguru
Well-known member
Nope. All ideas require assertions.
Nope. Evidence, remember. When you've settled down, perhaps you would like to talk about some. :up:
My, but you do go on, don't you? :chuckle:
Nope. You've asked one sensible question in your time here and I answered it. Meanwhile, I have thousands of evidence-rich posts.
What did I write?
Evolutionists hate reading.
You don't get evidence in return when you ask for a definition. :kook:
You don't.
You get lots of adaptation among the bat kind(s) from a real ark.
Begging the question is a favorite evolutionist tactic. Irrational as anything, that's why they love it.
He must know, before he believes
I think the problem is that he does know, yet rejects.
So you deny evolution, but you support evolution. Got it
Stipe believes that the only "facts" in this world come from the Bible, or more accurately, his ignorant interpretation of the Bible. He's a crazy person
Very true. I remember discussing it the same day we discussed Lamarckism
The OP
This might be so funny that nothing I ever see or hear again will make me laugh. It's the funniest thing I've ever read
Uh, Stipe? "Dung" doesn't start with an "e."
everready
New member
How long did it take you to think that one up? did science make you say that?
everready
Barbarian chuckles:
Uh, Stipe? "Dung" doesn't start with an "e."
It's not the first time someone pointed this out to him.
Humor isn't confined to science. You're a crabby little fellow, aren't you?
Uh, Stipe? "Dung" doesn't start with an "e."
It's not the first time someone pointed this out to him.
Humor isn't confined to science. You're a crabby little fellow, aren't you?
noguru
Well-known member
I think it is envy that he was shortchanged in the intellect department. Another thing for which many YECs seem to have great contempt.
You see science is difficult for them. While dumbed down religion is easy. All they have to do is say "Yes, I believe."