Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
06-09-2003, 12:53 PM | #21 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: US east coast. And www.theroyalforums.com
Posts: 2,829
|
Creationism must be true because your pastor can tell you about it, but in order to believe in evolution, you have to be able to read.
|
06-09-2003, 01:58 PM | #22 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Long Beach, California
Posts: 1,127
|
Quote:
Upon reading that, I almost wish that I couldn't read. |
|
06-09-2003, 02:08 PM | #23 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: San Narcisco, RRR
Posts: 527
|
Quote:
KC |
|
06-09-2003, 02:43 PM | #24 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: the dark side of Mars
Posts: 1,309
|
Re: WOW, Is That Dumb!!
Quote:
ANYTHING regarding creationism and the bible. ANYTHING. |
|
06-09-2003, 04:25 PM | #25 | |
Regular Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Southern Maine, USA
Posts: 220
|
Quote:
|
|
06-09-2003, 05:17 PM | #26 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: East Coast. Australia.
Posts: 5,455
|
This one isn't so blatant as many others, but it's my favourite.
"Fifteen years ago molecular biologists working under Dr Morris Goodman at Michigan University decided to test this hypothesis. They took the alpha haemoglobin DNA of two reptiles -- a snake and a crocodile -- which are said by Darwinists to be closely related, and the haemoglobin DNA of a bird, in this case a farmyard chicken. They found that the two animals who had _least_ DNA sequences in common were the two reptiles, the snake and the crocodile. They had only around 5% of DNA sequences in common -- only one twentieth of their haemoglobin DNA. The two creatures whose DNA was closest were the crocodile and the chicken, where there were 17.5% of sequences in common -- nearly one fifth. The actual DNA similarities were the _reverse_ of that predicted by neo-Darwinism." This one shows that creationists don't have to be blithering idiots to get things spectacularly stupidly wrong. These folk are accurately interpreting molecular phylogeny results, but through their abysmal knowledge of basic high school biology, have failed to remember that crocodiles are SUPPOSED to be closer to birds than to other "reptiles". This is my favourite example of a terrible creationist mistake, because it shows that even those who SOUND like they know what they're saying, have probably never even looked at a basic phylogenetic tree in their lives, and have no buisiness at all going anywhere near real biological science. |
06-09-2003, 05:20 PM | #27 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Just another hick from the sticks.
Posts: 1,108
|
Quote:
What do these people smoke? doov |
|
06-09-2003, 05:26 PM | #28 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Just another hick from the sticks.
Posts: 1,108
|
I think my all-time favorite is one from the venerable Henry Morris: "If the data fails to agree with my interpretation of Scripture, then the data is flawed."
doov |
06-09-2003, 07:33 PM | #29 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: British Columbia
Posts: 1,027
|
From Jack Chick's "Big Daddy" (his emphasis),
"Even if there were 'vestigial' organs, isn't losing something the opposite of evolution?" |
06-09-2003, 07:58 PM | #30 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 4,215
|
Quote:
Also, from the esteemed "Dr": The Grand Canyon couldn't been carved by the Colorado River but instead was the result of the "Flood". |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|