I am curious to know if b o t hawk is a christian bible believer and an inerrantist. I tnhiink I know the answer but I dont want to assume. And if so using sites that have a foregone conclsion of proving the bible accurate using modern western scientific meyhods to prove what you already .made up your mind is true is truly worth your time. Why not just accept the bible on faith and move on like the young earth creationist does? You will nev err r be able to prove the biibles accuracy. It is impossiblle. Such is not the nature of science. Besides real science does not have a religious dog in the fight. If you have any preference at all for how your research turns out you are a. Walking tainted researcher and your findings will never be valid. Sorry to tell you that. Inother words and this is not just for you but for all of us if you care too much one way or the other you must recuse yourself just like a biased judge in a trial might do.
Evolution, Biogeography VS. Experimental archaeology
by Brother of the Hawk 33 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
cantleave
Cofty - great response. You should at least recieve an apology.
-
Chaserious
I don't usually open the threads on the accuracy of evolution since I don't often find them interesting, but when I read the OP's post, it made me think that it just shows that neither creationists or realists have the market cornered on being assholes. Then I went to the thread by *lost* on Noah's flood here. BOTH wrote, in quotations, that *lost* was told in the other thread " You can do all the research you want, just don’t post it here." The only problem is that it does not seem that quotation appears anywhere in the other thread. So it seems all that is left is the OP making up his own mis-quotation from the other thread, angrily responding to his made up/paraphrased quotation, and then taunting another member for having potentially terminal cancer based on a complete lack of understanding of what "survival of the fittest" means from a scientific standpoint. That KO punch is looking a bit like a boomerang punch now, isn't it?
-
tornapart
Well, I'm a believer in God still and I don't view Cofty as a bully at all. Although I don't agree with everything he says he has made some excellent threads and given a lot of food for thought.
I've got to say though I thought the last bit was way below the belt. I think you should apologise for that.
-
FadeToBlack
BOTH said:
BTW everyone reading this thread, not at one time did anyone have the decency to ask me what an experimental archaeologist was, and what my field of study was? All the insults came with the assumption that they knew what it was. WRONG! Again, Bullying
From original thread, I replied:
@BOTH: sorry again. I didn't want to suggest that 'experminental' sounds like unqualified of uncredentialed. If you mean you are a history buff or interested in archeology, that's great. If I had a chance to do it all over again, I would probably choose either archeology or linguistics. Peace. If I told you I was an 'experimental' gynecologist what would you conclude? Perhaps 'experimental' was a bad choice of words and you meant: amateur. Nothing wrong with that.
Could I ask if English is your native language?I think I came pretty close here (other than poor spelling)- doesn't that sound like asking for clarification about what an 'experimental archaeologist' is (nicely)? I don't detect bullying in my response. I'm quite open to alternative discussions of flood story origination.
-
Comatose
It all makes sense now...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_archaeology
It is distinct from uses of primitive technology without any concern for archaeological or historical study. Living history and historical reenactment , which are generally undertaken as a hobby, are the lay person's version of this academic discipline.
So BOTH dresses up like a mountain man we know. Maybe he reenacts biblical accounts.
-
cofty
I forced myself to plough through the article about biogeography at the creationist's website that BOTH linked.
What a load of pseudo scientific bullshit.
Here is just a couple of gems.
Regarding the similarities between marsupial and eutherian species...
Is it really credible that random mutations and environmental conditions on separate continents could have given rise to such similarities?
The writer of this article clearly has not got a clue about evolution. How many examples of convergent evolution complete with evidence of the specific DNA code would it take to convince a creationist that the answer is yes? Notice the word random in italics. The mathematics of mutations are not a mystery. It can be calculated precisely how often a specific mutation will occur depending on the size of the population. Mutations are random but natural selection is not. Creationists always focus on the chance element of mutation and ignore the deterministic element of natural selection.
What we have in the this article is an argument from personal incredulity from an author who is too lazy or dishonest to research the answer to his/her own question.
He/she even asserts that the many species of animal descended from the few "kinds" on Noah's ark within the last few thousand years. As usual there is no attempt at defining a "kind". They insist that " a reptile would never “speciate” into a mammal, for example, nor an ape into a man ".
The irony should not escape anybody who has a basic grasp of the science. Creationists deny the possibility that a hominid that we know shares 98.5% of our DNA could have evolved from a common ancestor over 6 million years but speciation did occur in just a few thousand years at a rate that is simply impossible.
The errors in the article are too many and too foolish to comment on in detail. If BOTH or anybody else wishes to defend any particular point please say so and we can compare creationist speculation with detailed scientific facts and evidence.
BOTH - I find it impossible to believe that you would post such an inflammatory thread and not check back to see what the reaction was. Where are you?
-
besty
cofty - keep holding their feet to te fhe fire!
-
cantleave
I forced myself to plough through the article about biogeography at the creationist's website that BOTH linked.
I could only get through the first couple of paragraphs of the first link before I felt my synapses giving up. Too much stupid for me I'm afraid.
-
QC
bttt