Evolutionists punish scientists that dare to differ

[BobRyan]

AFter UTEOTW says "Lets see what HIS BOSS SAYS"

Bob said --
"Is this guy (Jonathan Coddington) "really" Sternberg's "boss"!!??

Originally posted by UTEOTW:

Before you jump all over me, you better go back to your original source and correct them

The article never calls Coddington "the boss" or the employee of Sternberg - but you did.

But you never let a good fact get in the way of an argument, do you?

Bob said
"HERE IS a salient point in the article easy enough to address. DID this happen - yes or no?

Does UTEOTW show ANY interest, intent, to LOOK at this evidence for the primary claim made in the article?"

You know - the ID paper...

peer reviewed AND published....

With BOTH the author AND the editor attacked...

You know - THE POINT of the post!!

(IN UTEOTW's endless efforts to misdirect, obfuscate and "pretend not to understand" each argument made... I am wondering if this one will finally be addressed.)

UTEOTW
Well, the title of your thread was about his punishment. Being mad, your "salient point" in your own words, has nothing to do with being punished. And I did address it.

Huh?? You call these attacks on the author, AND on the editor "NON punishment"????

Care to -- present some actual logic??

UTEOTW
By pointing out that in y opinion they had a right to be upset by the publishing of a non-scientific paper in a science journal.

Pure propaganda - not fact or logic!

I am asking for fact and logic - get it.

I could just as well say that ALL evolutionism's articles published in that journal are bogus since they are BY DEFINITION - NOT science.

(As even Karl Poper admitted).

Please try to show some thought, logic and reason in your posts instead of pure propaganda!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

UTEOTW
I then support my assertion by pointing out that ID has not testible, predictive, falsifiable theory. It is not science.

Wrong "again" - you merely ASSERTED it - you did not SHOW anything!

Get it? Yet?

You can not claim that spouting atheist evolutionist "assertions" alone is SHOWING anything at all when it comes to real objective science!

Why is this concept so hard for you??

And as I point out - the attacks you make on ID (WITHOUT even READING the facts published AND peer reviewed) apply only to the myths, blunders and exposed flaws of evolutionism.

(EXPOSED EVEN by your own atheist evolutionist icons!!)

"#1. These failings can only apply to the myth we know today as the religion of evolutionism. Hardly worthy to even be called "junk-science".

#2. ID is NOT by definition "not science" -- it would be like saying that there CAN BE no way to KNOW if a painting was made by accident NO test, NO ability to DETERMINE intelligence has made it."

Yet evolutionism has BEEN SHOWN by your OWN atheist Evolutionist ICONS to be "lamentable" and "stories easy enough to TELL but NOT SCIENCE"!!

I am sure you are pretty confused by that fact - at this point so let me REPEAT POST what I have been showing you for a while now.

The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however, reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.” “Evolution’s Erratic Pace,” Natural History 86 (May 1977): p. 14. [Emphasis added - ed.]

"I admit that an awful lot of that [imaginary stories] has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs [in the American Museum of Natural History] is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable ..."
Niles Eldredge, as quoted in Luther D Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 4th ed. 1988, pg 78.

"The uniform continuous transformation of Hyracotherium (Eohippus) into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature."— *G.G. Simpson, Life of the Past (1953), p. 119.

So what is the truth about Archaeopteryx? Perhaps the late Colin Patterson, while serving as senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, summed it up best when he stated that Archaeopteryx has simply become a patsy for wishful thinking. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no:

There is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favored by natural selection. But such stories are not a part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test (as quoted in Sunderland, 1988, p. 102).

NOW substitute in ID for Achaeopteryx and you have what atheist evolutionists "Believe" about ID

What is foggy and unlcear to UTEOTW will become VERY APPARENT to him when ID is inserted...

So what is the truth about ID? Perhaps the late Colin Patterson, while serving as senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, summed it up best when he stated that ID has simply become a patsy for wishful thinking. Is ID true? Perhaps yes, perhaps no:

There is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of ID showing design, and to find reasons why design is necessary. But such stories are not a part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test (as quoted in Sunderland, 1988, p. 102).

Get it --- yet????

When will you allow yourself to embrace objective thought and critical thinking instead of always following slavishly behind the dogmatist of evolutionism UTEOTW?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Question for Christians.

When the Bible says that "God's invisible attributes are MADE KNOWN through that which He has made" (Romans 1) -- IS IT saying that In nature we can SEE the "Intelligent" work of God??

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

"The dogmatists priesthood of evolutionism said that simply THINKING that God is intelligent, designs something OR SHOWS that He has a hand in anything (as the Bible states) is not worth looking at NO MATTER WHAT THE EVIDENCE!

UTEOTW posts his own point here - IN AGREEMENT!"

I AGREE the "no one" here has YET posted ANYTHING about "ID" the "shows" where they have ANYTHING "testable" or "falsifiable" or "predictive" to OFFER. Theirs is NOT "science." THEY have NOTHING scientific "to offer." "If" they DO, then WHY have NEITHER of "you" yet posted for "us" what their "theory" IS? THEY HAVE NONE!

"The point of the POST is that this is clearly and obviously an attack on scientists "that DIFFER" WITHOUT even reading their papers or admitting to the peer review process!"

I HAVE read "part" of the "paper" AT LEAST. Have "you" read ANY of "it?"

Here is a GOOD critique.

http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000430.html

I can SAFELY "bet" that you WILL NOT "read" it.

"The article never calls Coddington "the boss" or the employee of Sternberg - but you did."

You SEEM to have "missed" the WORD "supervisor" IN there.

"You know - THE POINT of the post!!"

The "original" point from the "article" was ABOUT all the "stuff" taken AWAY. WHICH was "shown" to not be accurate. So "now" you "say" that IT WAS the "criticism" which is SO BAD. I WOULD assert that harsh CRITICISM is NOT "unusual" in such CIRCLES.

"Pure propaganda - not fact or logic!"

It is FACT that "ID" is not SCIENCE. If "you" disagree, THEN "post" the testable, falsifiable, predictive theory. I "won't" HOLD my BREATH.

And THEN MORE of your LYING quotes. "Let's" SHOW this WITH the FULL Simpson "quote."

The evolution of the horse family included, indeed, certain trends, but none of these was undeviating or orthogenetic. The uniform, continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature. Increases in size, for instance, did not occur at all during the first third of the whole history of the family. Then it occurred quite irregularly, at different rates and to different degrees in a number of different lines of descent. Even after a trend toward larger size had started it was reversed in several groups of horses which became smaller instead of larger. As already briefly noted, the famous “gradual reduction of the side toes” also is something that never happened. There was no reduction for the 15 or 20 million years of the history. There was relatively rapid reduction from four front toes to three (the hind foot already had only three toes). Many horses simply retained the new sort of foot without further change. In one group there was later another relatively rapid change of foot mechanism involving some reduction in size of the side toes, which, however, remained functional. Thereafter most horses retained this type of foot without essential change. In just one group, again, another relatively rapid change eliminated functional side toes, after which their descendants simply retained the new sort of foot. (Fig. 39)

In the history of the horse family there is no known trend that affected the whole family. Moreover, in any one of the numerous different lines of descent there is no known trend that continued uniformly in the same direction and at the same rate throughout. Trends do not really have to act that way: there are not really orthogenetic.

The evolution of the horse family, Equidae, is now no better known than that of numerous other groups of organisms, but it is still a classic example of evolution in action, and a very instructive example when correctly presented…

Seems strange that he would go on for a few paragraphs talking about trends and changes during horse evolution when you claim that he says it never happened.

But you never let context get in the way of a good quote.

It is because your allegiance to your incorrect interpretation has so blinded you that you are willing to sink to any measure in an attempt to prop up your beliefs. And if you cannot do it honestly such a quote shows that you are not beneath advocating your position dishonestly. Your tactics serve as a shining example of what is wrong with YE. You have been given the full quote more times than should have even been necessary. But you still insist on lying about what Simpson is saying. I personally find such to be a disgrace, especially when supposedly done in the name of God. God does not need lies for support.