On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 12:36:25 +0100, Malte Runz
Post by Malte RunzOnce upon a time a long, long time ago, an evolutionist named Ernst Haeckel liked to make up stories. ...
Proving somebody's motive is difficult. Haeckel drew what he saw, and
he thought he saw gill slits in embryos. He was wrong, just as you
were wrong, when you thought you saw the Ark.
Far too often, that's all these morons have when they can neither
address nor acknowledge a point.
Post by Malte Runz... And this story he did tell.
Just look at that strata. Just look at those deposits. Let's say it
accumulated a foot in a million years.
Nope. Those weren't his exact words, but the key is that the results
of his thoughts resulted in what we now know as the geologic time
column. ...
Haeckel had very little to say about the geological column, if
anything at all. You're making him out to be the Godfather of all
things evolutionary, when he was a minor figure, even in his own time.
Didn't we go over this recently? Didn't we agree that whatever Haeckel
drew 150 years ago, it is of no relevance today? Why are you so
obsessed with him?
These morons make mountains out of molehills to try and discredit
science which refutes their nonsense - and it _is_ nonsense which
contradicts well understood, objective reality and describes things
that simply don't or never happened.
They also imagine science is some kind of revelation and expect it to
get things right first time - like they imagine their religion does.
But unlike religion, science is self-correcting as more knowledge is
obtained.
Early researchers like Haeckel didn't have the advantage of Darwin's
other contribution to science, that of confirming or refuting
prediction, which eliminates incorrect explanations with what is left
becomes the correct one.
So they often simply explained what they saw in terms of what was
already known, without actually making sure they were right.
So Haeckel saw what he thought were gill slits as confirmation for his
theory that Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny.
Today, this is called "confirmation bias".
There are slits, but these never had the function of a fish's gills.
And it was scientists who discovered this and corrected the knowledge
base.
Something which no creationist has _ever_ done, and it's part and
parcel of how knowledge advance.
Post by Malte Runz... See, if you look at the great depths of those strata we see great ages.
As a rule of thumb. Rapid sedimentation also happens. No mystery. No
controversy. No world wide flood needed to explain anything.
So, what's wrong with that you ask? Well, if I could show you a picture
of a tree penetrating strata would that destroy those great ages that you so believed in? ...
Jeez... 'Polystrate fossils'. Again? Can't you guys come up with some
new material just once in a while.
Don't ever expect any honesty or intelligence from these morons.
Post by Malte Runz... Not if you're an evolutionist!
The deliberate liar knows there is no such thing, and that it is a
dishonest canard to present objective science as merely an -ism.
Post by Malte Runzhttps://www.pinterest.com/jasonblowers/creation-and-the-malarchy-known-as-evolution/
After 5 seconds I need to give them my email address, and there is no
way that's going to happen. Give me a link to the specific image you
think destroys 300 years of logic and science.
The deliberate liar knows there is no such thing, and that it is a
dishonest canard to present objective science as merely an -ism.
Post by Malte Runz"Well blow me down. I'll still believe in great ages because it's
gotta be true. I'm smart - or at least I try to project it with nervous knees."
The deliberate liar invents motives that aren't there, to attribute
to people who actually understand the real world.
And he's too stupid to understand that because these falsehoods are
amateur-psychologised, they reflect the only personality he knows -
his own.
Post by Malte RunzAre you telling me, that you have never heard or read any rebuttal of
the 'tree trunk argument'?
He only listens to creationists. doesn't understand what they say or
why it's wrong, and repeats his own interpretation as if it were
undisputed fact - hence his ridiculous put-downs which he is so stupid
he doesn't realise they backfire on him.
.