| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"david ford" |
| Date: |
15 Dec 2006 08:21:12 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Okay ID and Creationism is true |
Darkwing wrote:
Cause' Archaeopteryx is a fake.
Okay evolution and Atheism is true.
'Cause Piltdown is a fake.
So ID'ers apparently are working hard on
lying. What would their god say about that??
So Darwinianity folks apparently are working hard on lying.
What would their god say about that??
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Convert to secular humanism and you, too, can worship mankind/
humankind/ humanity, of which you yourself happen to be a part. Or
better yet, worship the _very best_ part of humanity-- yourself:
in
the terms deist, theist, and atheist
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1139329016.368142.172510%40g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
godlessness in trouble: science, 'frauds' trigger decline in atheism
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-38r8v3F5qkkv1U1%40individual.net
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ119.html#wp1365100
.
|
|
| User: "ouroboros rex" |
|
| Title: Re: Okay ID and Creationism is true |
15 Dec 2006 09:56:24 AM |
|
|
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-1166192472.083120.14550@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
Darkwing wrote:
Cause' Archaeopteryx is a fake.
Okay evolution and Atheism is true.
'Cause Piltdown is a fake.
lol
So ID'ers apparently are working hard on
lying. What would their god say about that??
So Darwinianity folks apparently are working hard on lying.
What would their god say about that??
Show us the creationist who will stand up and state that the latest
fossil-bashers are wrong, as 'evolutionists' did with Piltdown, rattlehead.
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Okay ID and Creationism is true |
15 Dec 2006 01:34:34 PM |
|
|
ouroboros rex wrote:
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-1166192472.083120.14550@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
Darkwing wrote:
Cause' Archaeopteryx is a fake.
Okay evolution and Atheism is true.
'Cause Piltdown is a fake.
lol
Okay evolution and Atheism is true.
'Cause Ford was a fraudster.
Ford caught in fraud!
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-37eet3F5ecn1tU1%40individual.net
So ID'ers apparently are working hard on
lying. What would their god say about that??
So Darwinianity folks apparently are working hard on lying.
What would their god say about that??
Show us the creationist who will stand up and state that the latest
fossil-bashers are wrong, as 'evolutionists' did with Piltdown, rattlehead.
Remind me, "the latest fossil-bashers are wrong" about what?
Anthropologist Loren Eiseley concerning Piltdown. Cited in
http://corior.blogspot.com/2006/02/part-8-what-creation-book-says-about.html#t224
I'm looking at this Eiseley in Fix (1984), 13, which is where the
author of that website article apparently got the Eiseley. In looking
at the Fix bibliography, the Eiseley is highly-probably originally in
McKern, Thomas, ed. 1966. _Readings in Physical Anthropology_ (NJ:
Prentice-Hall).
The amount of subjective speculation indulged in for
years over the Piltdown "fossil," and to which many
leading authorities contributed, can now be viewed
historically as a remarkable case history in self-
deception. It should serve as an everlasting warning
to science that it is not the theologian alone who
may exhibit irrational bias or give allegiance to
theories with only the most tenuous basis in fact.
That scientists in the early years of a new discipline
should have been easily deceived is not nearly so
embarrassing as the rapidity with which they
embraced the specimen solely because it fell in with
preconceived wishes and could be used to support
all manner of convenient hypotheses. The
enormous bibliography in several languages which
grew up around the skull is an ample indication,
also, of how much breath can be expended
fruitlessly upon ambiguous or dubious materials.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Okay ID and Creationism is true |
04 Jan 2007 10:21:21 PM |
|
|
ID Faking,
Myself and great majority of people in this world fail to understand
what bearing has the origin of life and that of human has on us........
We live as human, using human effort to create things, making better
future, taking care of families, live a meaningful short life,
etc........... who care where did human come from....... for those who
like to say human come from god.......pls tell it to your parents (and
a lot of those have abandon their parents because of this??)......then
I would suggest that new born would be thrown out of the house to let
god take care of him.........right?
We know the universe is so huge, with no boundaries and
edge.......different solar has their own life/law of nature....and
there are billions of those system.......just like alien in the movie
and they be killed by our oxygen atmosphere simply because the O2 is
toxic to them (They may breath acid instead.....).
We should never try to search for the origin of life.......waste of
time and precious resources because we can't turn back to history and
change it............
And for those who believe in god, let them have wings and sit on top of
the cloud singing praise to their god and together they look down upon
we humen.........(they are so naive to want to be in such position and
had never thought of their Jesus was not allowed to stay
alive..........son of god...........?)
So all you god-believing disguised IDer, what do you say about my
comments........
You can not fool people all the time...............especially when all
the Indians in North and South America were killed by all the
Christians.......especially when you killed all the non-believers
during Crusade........... want more evidence>>>>>>>
Yap
david ford wrote:
Darkwing wrote:
Cause' Archaeopteryx is a fake.
Okay evolution and Atheism is true.
'Cause Piltdown is a fake.
So ID'ers apparently are working hard on
lying. What would their god say about that??
So Darwinianity folks apparently are working hard on lying.
What would their god say about that??
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Convert to secular humanism and you, too, can worship mankind/
humankind/ humanity, of which you yourself happen to be a part. Or
better yet, worship the _very best_ part of humanity-- yourself:
in
the terms deist, theist, and atheist
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1139329016.368142.172510%40g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
godlessness in trouble: science, 'frauds' trigger decline in atheism
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-38r8v3F5qkkv1U1%40individual.net
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ119.html#wp1365100
.
|
|
|
| User: "Luminoso" |
|
| Title: Re: Okay ID and Creationism is true |
11 Jan 2007 12:15:27 PM |
|
|
On 4 Jan 2007 20:21:21 -0800, wrote:
ID Faking,
Myself and great majority of people in this world fail to understand
what bearing has the origin of life and that of human has on us........
It's a GREAT thing to argue and kill over ! :-)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Casanova" |
|
| Title: Re: Okay ID and Creationism is true |
15 Dec 2006 05:25:09 PM |
|
|
On 15 Dec 2006 06:21:12 -0800, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu>:
Darkwing wrote:
Cause' Archaeopteryx is a fake.
Okay evolution and Atheism is true.
'Cause Piltdown is a fake.
Tell the group, David, what the most recent reference in a
scientific venue to Piltdown as a real fossil might be, and
when it was debunked, and what group did the debunking.
<snip>
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Casanova" |
|
| Title: Re: Okay ID and Creationism is true |
18 Dec 2006 03:10:22 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 18:25:09 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>:
On 15 Dec 2006 06:21:12 -0800, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu>:
Darkwing wrote:
Cause' Archaeopteryx is a fake.
Okay evolution and Atheism is true.
'Cause Piltdown is a fake.
Tell the group, David, what the most recent reference in a
scientific venue to Piltdown as a real fossil might be, and
when it was debunked, and what group did the debunking.
[crickets chirping]
<snip>
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Okay ID and Creationism is true |
22 Dec 2006 09:02:53 PM |
|
|
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 18:25:09 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>:
On 15 Dec 2006 06:21:12 -0800, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu>:
Darkwing wrote:
Cause' Archaeopteryx is a fake.
Okay evolution and Atheism is true.
'Cause Piltdown is a fake.
Tell the group, David, what the most recent reference in a
scientific venue to Piltdown as a real fossil might be, and
when it was debunked, and what group did the debunking.
I dunno, x 3.
[crickets chirping]
That's what they're good at.
Acoustic Engineers and Bird Alarm Calls
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.10A.B3.9912112245430.200386-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
<snip>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Casanova" |
|
| Title: Re: Okay ID and Creationism is true |
23 Dec 2006 05:04:36 PM |
|
|
On 22 Dec 2006 19:02:53 -0800, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu>:
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 18:25:09 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>:
On 15 Dec 2006 06:21:12 -0800, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu>:
Darkwing wrote:
Cause' Archaeopteryx is a fake.
Okay evolution and Atheism is true.
'Cause Piltdown is a fake.
Tell the group, David, what the most recent reference in a
scientific venue to Piltdown as a real fossil might be, and
when it was debunked, and what group did the debunking.
I dunno, x 3.
Then stop referring to Piltdown as if you had the faintest
idea what you're talking about.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Okay ID and Creationism is true |
24 Dec 2006 06:46:44 AM |
|
|
Bob Casanova wrote:
On 22 Dec 2006 19:02:53 -0800, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu>:
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 18:25:09 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>:
On 15 Dec 2006 06:21:12 -0800, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu>:
Darkwing wrote:
Cause' Archaeopteryx is a fake.
Okay evolution and Atheism is true.
'Cause Piltdown is a fake.
Tell the group, David, what the most recent reference in a
scientific venue to Piltdown as a real fossil might be, and
when it was debunked, and what group did the debunking.
I dunno, x 3.
Then stop referring to Piltdown as if you had the faintest
idea what you're talking about.
OK.
Anthropologist Loren Eiseley concerning Piltdown. Cited in
http://corior.blogspot.com/2006/02/part-8-what-creation-book-says-about.html#t224
I'm looking at this Eiseley in Fix (1984), 13, which is where the
author of that website article apparently got the Eiseley. In looking
at the Fix bibliography, the Eiseley is highly-probably originally in
McKern, Thomas, ed. 1966. _Readings in Physical Anthropology_ (NJ:
Prentice-Hall).
The amount of subjective speculation indulged in for
years over the Piltdown "fossil," and to which many
leading authorities contributed, can now be viewed
historically as a remarkable case history in self-
deception. It should serve as an everlasting warning
to science that it is not the theologian alone who
may exhibit irrational bias or give allegiance to
theories with only the most tenuous basis in fact.
That scientists in the early years of a new discipline
should have been easily deceived is not nearly so
embarrassing as the rapidity with which they
embraced the specimen solely because it fell in with
preconceived wishes and could be used to support
all manner of convenient hypotheses. The
enormous bibliography in several languages which
grew up around the skull is an ample indication,
also, of how much breath can be expended
fruitlessly upon ambiguous or dubious materials.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Luminoso" |
|
| Title: Re: Okay ID and Creationism is true |
31 Dec 2006 10:07:49 PM |
|
|
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
Bob Casanova wrote:
On 22 Dec 2006 19:02:53 -0800, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu>:
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 18:25:09 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>:
On 15 Dec 2006 06:21:12 -0800, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu>:
Darkwing wrote:
Cause' Archaeopteryx is a fake.
Okay evolution and Atheism is true.
'Cause Piltdown is a fake.
Tell the group, David, what the most recent reference in a
scientific venue to Piltdown as a real fossil might be, and
when it was debunked, and what group did the debunking.
I dunno, x 3.
Then stop referring to Piltdown as if you had the faintest
idea what you're talking about.
OK.
Anthropologist Loren Eiseley concerning Piltdown. Cited in
http://corior.blogspot.com/2006/02/part-8-what-creation-book-says-about.html#t224
I'm looking at this Eiseley in Fix (1984), 13, which is where the
author of that website article apparently got the Eiseley. In looking
at the Fix bibliography, the Eiseley is highly-probably originally in
McKern, Thomas, ed. 1966. _Readings in Physical Anthropology_ (NJ:
Prentice-Hall).
The amount of subjective speculation indulged in for
years over the Piltdown "fossil," and to which many
leading authorities contributed, can now be viewed
historically as a remarkable case history in self-
deception. It should serve as an everlasting warning
to science that it is not the theologian alone who
may exhibit irrational bias or give allegiance to
theories with only the most tenuous basis in fact.
That scientists in the early years of a new discipline
should have been easily deceived is not nearly so
embarrassing as the rapidity with which they
embraced the specimen solely because it fell in with
preconceived wishes and could be used to support
all manner of convenient hypotheses. The
enormous bibliography in several languages which
grew up around the skull is an ample indication,
also, of how much breath can be expended
fruitlessly upon ambiguous or dubious materials.
If it were a religion, Piltdown would have become
dogma, 'revealed truth' never to be questioned.
Science, on the other hand, dares question its
'truths' - and thus refines and improves itself
over time.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Okay ID and Creationism is true |
24 Dec 2006 10:06:02 PM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
Bob Casanova wrote:
Then stop referring to Piltdown as if you had the faintest
idea what you're talking about.
Can I talk about fraudulent embryo depictions?
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
From: "david ford" <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu>
Newsgroups:
talk.origins,alt.atheism,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism
Subject: identity of last textbook with Haeckel's faked embryo
drawings?
Date: 20 Sep 2006 08:51:21 -0700
Lines: 36
Message-ID:
<dford3-1158767481.614496.106130@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
Ghod wrote in "Re: Coulter takes on Darwinianity":
[snips]
Also from http://mediamatters.org/items/200607070010:
What was the last textbook to use Haeckel's fraudulent embryo drawings?
And when was that textbook published?
June 2006
Ann Coulter's "Flatulent Raccoon Theory"
by Robert Savillo of Media Matters for America
http://mediamatters.org/items/200607070010
* On the drawings and theories of Ernst Haeckel,
omits a century of scientific criticism while falsely
suggesting that textbooks still use Haeckel.
==
Additionally, Coulter continues to discuss Haeckel's
drawings as if they are still being used today. Also
on Page 240, Coulter claims that:
Fully five years later [after Richardson's 1997
study], the New York Times reported that biology
textbooks were still running Haeckel's doctored
drawings. The Times specifically singled out the
third edition of _Molecular Biology of the Cell_, 'the
bedrock of the field,' as one of the culprits.
Coulter fails to inform the reader that the very same
Times article, printed April 8, 2001, also mentions
that the authors of _Molecular Biology of the Cell_
planned to correct the error in a subsequent edition.
1983 Bruce Alberts; Haeckel's fraudulent embryo depictions; 1956
Goldschmidt
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-38m3vrF5o7bk2U1%40individual.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Casanova" |
|
| Title: Re: Okay ID and Creationism is true |
25 Dec 2006 05:01:46 PM |
|
|
On 24 Dec 2006 20:06:02 -0800, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu>:
david ford wrote:
Bob Casanova wrote:
Then stop referring to Piltdown as if you had the faintest
idea what you're talking about.
Can I talk about fraudulent embryo depictions?
Talk about anything you want. Just don't expect reference to
a 50-year-old text, whose authors stated they knew it was
incorrect and planned to correct it in the following
edition, to provide support for your position.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
From: "david ford" <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu>
Newsgroups:
talk.origins,alt.atheism,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism
Subject: identity of last textbook with Haeckel's faked embryo
drawings?
Date: 20 Sep 2006 08:51:21 -0700
Lines: 36
Message-ID:
<dford3-1158767481.614496.106130@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
Ghod wrote in "Re: Coulter takes on Darwinianity":
[snips]
Also from http://mediamatters.org/items/200607070010:
What was the last textbook to use Haeckel's fraudulent embryo drawings?
And when was that textbook published?
June 2006
Ann Coulter's "Flatulent Raccoon Theory"
by Robert Savillo of Media Matters for America
http://mediamatters.org/items/200607070010
* On the drawings and theories of Ernst Haeckel,
omits a century of scientific criticism while falsely
suggesting that textbooks still use Haeckel.
==
Additionally, Coulter continues to discuss Haeckel's
drawings as if they are still being used today. Also
on Page 240, Coulter claims that:
Fully five years later [after Richardson's 1997
study], the New York Times reported that biology
textbooks were still running Haeckel's doctored
drawings. The Times specifically singled out the
third edition of _Molecular Biology of the Cell_, 'the
bedrock of the field,' as one of the culprits.
Coulter fails to inform the reader that the very same
Times article, printed April 8, 2001, also mentions
that the authors of _Molecular Biology of the Cell_
planned to correct the error in a subsequent edition.
1983 Bruce Alberts; Haeckel's fraudulent embryo depictions; 1956
Goldschmidt
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-38m3vrF5o7bk2U1%40individual.net
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
