[Nazaroo]

Inflated claims of evolutionists growing in frequency and intensity

see also: Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience
In recent times, despite their being little consensus on how evolution allegedly occurred according to the various theories of evolution, evolutionists have tried to convince the public of the supposed validity of the evolutionary position by increasing and frequently using the term "overwhelming evidence" or similar terms in relation to the alleged existence of evidence that supports their position.[1] For example, prominent atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins claimed in an interview with journalist Bill Moyers that there is "massive evidence" for the theory of evolution.[2]
Within the evolutionary science community and the creation science community, Richard Dawkins has faced charges of engaging in pseudoscience and also has faced charges of committing elementary errors.[3][4]

1. ↑ http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs...chool-year.asp
2. ↑ http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/tr...t349_full.html
3. ↑ http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/send-clowns-–-richard-dawkins-obliges
4. ↑ http://creation.com/the-greatest-hoax-on-earth/main.php

[Alate_One]

Inflated claims of Creationists growing in frequency and intensity. Naz is a case in point.

Creationism:Still crazy after all these years

[Paulos]

Originally Posted by Nazaroo

In recent times, despite their being little consensus on how evolution allegedly occurred according to the various theories of evolution, evolutionists have tried to convince the public of the supposed validity of the evolutionary position by increasing and frequently using the term "overwhelming evidence" or similar terms in relation to the alleged existence of evidence that supports their position.

In recent times, despite their being little consensus on how creation allegedly occurred according to the various theories of creationism, creationists have tried to convince the public of the supposed validity of the creationist position by increasing and frequently using the term "overwhelming evidence" or similar terms in relation to the alleged existence of evidence that supports their position.

Even you have stated that you "don't interpret Genesis 1 as a historical text", meaning that you have your own theory of creationism that differs widely from theories held by most other creationists.

[Nazaroo]

Originally Posted by Alate_One

Inflated claims of Creationists growing in frequency and intensity. Naz is a case in point.

Who's the retarded old woman,
talking to a bunch of Evo Sheeple
about YEC strawmen?

Is she a physicist? ...No?

She's a what? ...an anthropologist a "PhD" in special Ed?


...So do you have any real scientists we can talk to?

...no?

Do you actually know any real scientists?



5:50:
"There are examples of catastrophic geography:
The Grand Canyon is not one of them."

Who is this genius? [/sarcasm]

[Alate_One]

Originally Posted by Nazaroo

Who's the retarded old woman,
talking to a bunch of Evo Sheeple
about YEC strawmen?

Is she a physicist? ...No?

And why on earth would we want a physicist when discussing biology?

I don't ask a chemist to fix my car.

She's a what? ...an anthropologist a "PhD" in special Ed?

She still knows more biology than you.

...So do you have any real scientists we can talk to?

Do you actually know any real scientists?

I am one, moron. I've done plenty of gene cloning and manipulation, which is a heck of a lot closer to evolution than physics. Plus I work at a university around many PhDs in a variety of sciences. I know several National Academy of Science members as well (One was on my committee).

But really, why attack the messenger? What about her message? Do you have any coherent response to it?

5:50:
"There are examples of catastrophic geography:
The Grand Canyon is not one of them."

Who is this genius? [/sarcasm]

She's right.

You don't get rock tilted at an angle, eroded and then with more rock on top, with successive layers of erosion followed by deposition, with footprints in some of the layers in a single catastrophic flood event.

[Nazaroo]

Originally Posted by Alate_One

And why on earth would we want a physicist when discussing biology?

Why on earth would we want a biologist when discussing geology?

Get a grip, numbnuts.

But really, why attack the messenger? What about her message? Do you have any coherent response to it?

She's right.

You don't get rock tilted at an angle, eroded and then with more rock on top, with successive layers of erosion followed by deposition, with footprints in some of the layers in a single catastrophic flood event.

She's wrong.

The event of the EROSION of the Grand Canyon has nothing whatever to do with the pre-existing bedrock which was eroded.

Its a separate event.

You can point to the pretty layers, metamorphic distortions, and fault lines all you want.

But what is required in the study of a physical event
is the analysis of the physical processes that caused it.

Rock was eroded. For all intents and purposes of erosion, all rock is similar. The relative softness of the rock determines the rate of erosion,
combined with the type and severity of the eroding forces and processes.

Your diagram is pure horse-piss.


=================================

Your PhD anthropologist is just a moron.

And by the way, all her degrees are just phoney gifts and B.S. honorary nonsense,
fawning and worshipping of a stupid woman
who happens to be the most 'politically correct' target for all such trash.

All she really has is an MS from 1974. Since 1980 she's been promoting Evolution and raising money, by blowing politicians.

For running around the country promoting "Evolution" B.S.,

Here's what she got:

Scott has been awarded honorary degrees by McGill University in 2003,[12][13] by Ohio State University in 2005[ and in 2006 by Mount Holyoke College and her alma mater the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee. In 2007 she was awarded an honorary degree by Rutgers University. In 2008 she was awarded an honorary degree by University of New Mexico.

Nothing here was for any legitimate scientific research or discovery,
nor has she contributed anything at all to science.

This was all because she spent 20 years selling Evolution, backed by wealthy atheists.

Scott has received many awards from academic organizations. In 1999 she was awarded the Bruce Alberts Award by the American Society for Cell Biology. In 2001 she received the Geological Society of America's Public Service Award.[4] She received the 2002 Public Service Award from the National Science Board for "her promotion of public understanding of the importance of science, the scientific method, and science education and the role of evolution in science education".[5][6] In 2002 the American Institute of Biological Sciences awarded her the first Outstanding Service Award.[7] Scott also received the 2002 Margaret Nicholson Distinguished Service Award from the California Science Teachers Association.[8] The National Association of Biology Teachers gave her honorary membership in 2005.[9] In 2006 she was awarded the Anthropology in the Media Award by the American Anthropological Association for "the successful communication of anthropology to the general public through the media".[10] In 2007 Scott and Kenneth R. Miller were jointly awarded the Outstanding Educator’s Award by the Exploratorium Museum.[11]

All of this is worthless tripe,
handed out to those who get in bed with the powerful Atheist Lobby in the USA.

But don't take my word for it that she engages in
nonsensical witchcraft and buggery.

Its a public fact that:

She is also a member of Sigma Xi.

Sigma Xi ΣΞ Founded 1886
Cornell University

[Nazaroo]

Dr. Scott's Worldview

Worldview

Scott was initially brought up in Christian Science by her mother and grandmother, but later switched to a Congregational church under the influence of her sister; she describes her background as liberal Protestant. Scott is now a secular humanist and describes herself as a nontheist. In 2003, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that "Scott describes herself as atheist but does not discount the importance of spirituality."


Yes. thats right.

This whore was raised from birth in the Cult of Mary Baker Eddy and the "Christian Scientist" nonsense.

For those who don't know what Christian Science is,
its a cult spin-off from the Golden Dawn and Aleister Crowley,
a private club for rich white idiots started in England,
during the peak of the Religious Crisis brought on by the
simultaneous publication of Malthus, Marx, Darwin,
and the infamous Revised Version of the Bible.

These fools actually believed that you could hypnotize yourself
out of cancer, and even levitate.
They thought that Jesus was a mesmerist.




From that obscene cult background, its no wonder she opted for secular humanism as a backlash.

So when we say "scientist", we really mean "ex-Christian-Scientist",
confused whore of the great unwashed perverts who run the Freemasons and other cults for the uber-rich morons who own the world banks.

This preened and programmed mouthpiece for secular humanism was culled from wealthy privileged stock.

So listen up when the "oppressed' Rich White Chick
tells us how the world really is.

Why don't you see Black women born in poverty getting 20 'honorary degrees' for promoting Evolution?

Because the Uber-rich aren't interested in sleeping with them,
or at least aren't willing to pay much more than a few hundred dollars,
for a discrete one-night stand.

Remember the one awesome constant in all this:
As long as you're born rich, you retain all privileges.
It doesn't matter what cult you join,
what philosophy you take on,
what creepy losers you slum with,
as long as you keep connected to Daddy Warbucks.






Because nobody can do SLEAZE with quite the same style
as the uber-rich:

[Nazaroo]

Lets take a closer look at this Great Whore of Radical Feminist Secular Humanist Abortions:

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Originally Posted by Nazaroo

...So do you have any real scientists we can talk to?

She has a PhD and is the executive director of the National Center for Science Education, and you sell speakers.

[Cruciform]

Originally Posted by Nazaroo

Inflated claims of evolutionists growing in frequency and intensity

Odd that you equate "evolutionists" almost exclusively with radical atheists like Dawkins. Why not engage with evolutionists like the following:

K. Miller, Perspectives On An Evolving Creation (Eerdmans, 2003)



Kenneth Miller, Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God & Evolution (HarperCollins, 1999)



K. Miller, ONLY A THEORY: Evolution & the Battle for America's Soul (Viking, 2008)



F. Ayala, DARWIN'S GIFT: To Science & Religion (Joseph Henry Press, 2007)



F. Ayala, Darwin & Intelligent Design (Fortress Press, 2006)



K. Giberson, WORLDS APART: The Unholy War Between Religion & Science (Beacon Hill Press, 1993)



T. Peters & M. Hewlett, Can You believe In God & Evolution? A Guide for the Perplexed (Abingdon Press, 2006)

Each of these works affirming evolution is written by a committed Christian believer. None of them makes the irrational philosophical leaps of logic resorted to by atheists like Richard Dawkins. You would do well to familiarize yourself with this material.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+