Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 92774

"I see no problem with theory (and speculation)."

Nor do I, but when every aspect of a "science" consists solely of theory and speculation; when there is no possible way to test and falsify theory and speculation; when theory and speculation become quasireligious doctrine; when theory and speculation are are enforced by the legislatures and courts; when we are told that our kids cannot understand the natural world unless they are required to base their understanding on theory and speculation; when the true believers in theory and speculation attack as "ignorant" and "unscientific" anyone who dares to question the theory and speculation; then theory and speculation cease to be rational and becomes cultic.

As for artists' drawings becoming evidence, need one mention the infamous Nebraska Man, Hesperopithecus haroldcookii? Why have evolutionists swept it under the carpet rather than openly admit that it was bullshit from the getgo?

For the curious, Nebraska Man was the centerpiece of the preposterous Scopes "Monkey Trial" in 1925, immortalized in the egregiously inaccurate movie, "Inherit The Wind". Ol' Nebby's species, an entire race of early "man", was fleshed out from a single tooth, and the invented creature was used as proof of evolution. The smug, arrogant evolutionists sneered, "See THAT, you blankety-drat creationists? Evolution is a FACT!"

Evolutionists have been strangely silent about this lamentably bad science ever since the single tooth was later discovered to have come from an extinct peccary — a pig.

A pig made monkeys of evolutionists. Not surprisingly, Hollywood did not make a sequel titled, "Disinherit The Windbags".

When you lament that your kids' rooms look like pig sties, remember their predecessors.

At least Southwest Colorado Man had a somewhat more noble ancestry. He was invented from the tooth of a horse. The evolutionists never owned up to that blunder, either.

Did Kettlewell see peppered moths landing on tree trunks and being eaten? No. In fact, he glued them there for his infamous photos. Peppered moths almost never land on tree trunks. They much prefer the underside of leaves where they are not visible to hungry birds. And, Kettlewell did not explain why this mythical "evolution" did not occur in even one of the hundreds of other species of moths and butterflies that inhabit the British Isles and were therefore exposed to exactly the same influences. Lastly, he did NOT elaborate on the fact that the various shadings of peppered moths have existed together for however long they've been around, and that changes in populations of existing species do not constitute evolution.

Why is Ernst Haeckel's "recapitulation theory" ("ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny") still found in textbooks even though it has long since been proven to be a colossal fraud? Ditto the Piltdown Man, another hoax created by a Jesuit priest name Tielhard de Jardin, who was trying to harmonize evolution with Christianity and had to invent his own evidence when nature failed to provide it.

• The Java Ape Man, Pithecanthropus erectus, was constructed from a small piece of the top of a skull, a fragment of a left thigh-bone, and three molar teeth, found over a year and a range of 70 feet in a river bed full of bones of extinct animals. There is no consensus of opinion on its worth.
• Another Pithecanthropus found in Java in 1926 was invented from the kneebone of an extinct elephant;
• Every trace of Peking Man has vanished;
• Etcetera etcetera.

In Origin of Species alone, Darwin used subjunctive-mood expressions such as "Let us assume", "We may well suppose..." etcetera over 800 times. That's a mighty schitteload of assuming and supposing for the so-called "central theory in biology".

DoctorDoom, Where Liberty Dwells 44 Comments [2/20/2013 4:27:12 AM]
Fundie Index: 49
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2
KittyKaboom

"See THAT, you blankety-drat creationists?

That's where I stopped. It's too early to be exposed to that much willful stupidity.

2/20/2013 4:41:28 AM

Filin De Blanc

"For the curious, Nebraska Man was the centerpiece of the preposterous Scopes "Monkey Trial" in 1925"

No. Even the Institute for Creation Research admits this isn't true.

"Ditto the Piltdown Man, another hoax created by a Jesuit priest name Tielhard de Jardin,"

There is no proof that de Jardin was the forger.

Why should we take your objections to evolution seriously when they're based on completely incorrect information?

2/20/2013 4:48:18 AM



Once the scientific community realized the Nebraska Man was a hoax (though probably not a deliberate one), they dismissed it and moved on. And that's why the scientific method is more accurate than the religious method. Because, if they discover something is wrong, they discard it. They don't just put their heads in the sand or interpret any suggestion that they might be incorrect as some sort of personal attack.

2/20/2013 5:05:02 AM



Ach, too many PRATTS in one post.

2/20/2013 5:09:04 AM

Felix Wilde

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC002.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC021.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB601.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB601_1.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910_2.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB701_1.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC001.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC401.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC004.html

Darwin's Origin proposed a hypothesis. This is how thought experiment-type arguments supporting propositions are presented. Many of the ideas he explored with such thought experiments, such as the evolution of the eye and a molecular mechanism for carrying genetic information, have since been demonstrated or proven with means unavailable at the time.

You're welcome, retard.

2/20/2013 5:26:49 AM

fishtank

Oh please kill yourself.

2/20/2013 5:45:51 AM

Sheridan

Disinherit The Windbags

Yes, I've often thought that about creationists, instead of saying volumes of stupid stuff, just say "goddidit"; it won't change our opinion of you at all./*snark

2/20/2013 5:55:17 AM

Felix Wilde

cdouble postists.

2/20/2013 6:01:23 AM

Mister Spak

Saying theory and speculation is like saying hot and cold, or bright and dark, or creation and scientific.

2/20/2013 6:07:43 AM

WWWWolf

> In Origin of Species alone, Darwin used subjunctive-mood expressions such as "Let us assume", "We may well suppose..." etcetera over 800 times. That's a mighty schitteload of assuming and supposing for the so-called "central theory in biology".

At least Darwin was courteous enought to point out his assumptions. This allows others to follow the chain of thoughts and explore what Darwin didn't explore.

You may notice that creationists don't generally point out their assumptions. They just state something just happens to be some way, even when it actually isn't, assume these things to be true and assume that they will never be challenged or studied. There could be errors in there, but apparently finding them is a bad thing.

2/20/2013 6:10:22 AM

farpadokly

Desperate falsehoods and graspings-at-straws, combined with misunderstandings.
What does Nebraska Man show? It shows that when science makes mistakes, they are soon corrected. That's as it should be, because doesn't claim revelation which is right for all time, it changes as new information comes along.


2/20/2013 6:15:54 AM

Doubting Thomas

there is no possible way to test and falsify theory and speculation

There isn't? I thought that's how the scientific method works.

As far as Piltdown Man and other hoaxes, it was the scientific method which exposed them as hoaxes. For example, Piltdown man was taken seriously until further understanding of evolution meant that he just didn't fit in with the theory, and that's when further examination of the skull found that it was a hoax.

2/20/2013 6:31:18 AM

dionysus

You're like a one-man creationist propaganda film. You have almost every single creationist talking point in your post. All you're missing is the polystrate trees, a quote mine of Darwin, and bananas being an atheist's nightmare.

Quick debunk of a few points:

-Nebraska man was the result of an artist, not a scientist and it wasn't accepted in the scientific community.

-Nebraska man was never used as evidence of anything and, in fact, it doesn't fit with the ToE.

-Never heard of Colorado man and when I looked it up I got nothing. I strongly suspect you're making it up.

-Peppered moths do rest on tree trunks. That was confirmed by further research. As for the famous photos, moths don't sit still for pictures and they didn't have digital cameras back then.

-The peppered moths DON'T demonstrate evolution, they demonstrate natural selection. You want something to demonstrate evolution? Try the numerous observed instances of speciation.

-Haeckel's theory was wrong but embryoes do still show elements of their evolutionary past (human embryoes have tails), tehy just don't display their entire evolutionary history as Haeckel thought.

-Piltdown man is the one fraud that you mentioned that ACTUALLY fooled the entire scientific community. Though given that they had no idea what a transition should look like or any way to test the "fossil" it's understandable. YOU try and look for something brand new and see how well you do, asshole.

-There have been entire populations of Homo Erectus found.

-In Origin of Species alone, Darwin used subjunctive-mood expressions such as "Let us assume", "We may well suppose..." etcetera over 800 times

That's called being intellectually honest, dickhead. Scientists don't speak in absolutes, even on the fucking Theory of GRAVITY. Why would Darwin speak in absolutes about a brand new theory with not nearly as much history as the Theory of Gravity?

2/20/2013 7:55:49 AM

Canadiest

Mistakes or frauds you know about because science exposed them. Not the church or some creationist advocate or the press, science revealed all those as inaccurate examples, some of those took just the time it took for a trained expert to finally examine them.

Not the "evolutionists swept it under the carpet" accusation you liars keep pulling.


2/20/2013 8:04:43 AM

Blort

DoctorDoom is one of the most obnoxious cunts I have ever seen on the internet. He gets shot down, time after time, and still thinks he is an intellectual powerhouse. He claims he has an IQ of 162. That is Hawking and Einstein level genius. He often uses the bullshit argument about a tornado in a junk yard assembling a Boeing 747. He understands evolution as much as a tapeworm understands quantum physics. I'd break his jaw if I ever met him.

2/20/2013 8:19:53 AM

J. James

This is rather out of date. The proof of evolution is undeniable and immense. It is not speculation, it is the unifying explanation for countless evolutionary phenomena.

2/20/2013 8:20:38 AM

John

Why have evolutionists swept it under the carpet rather than openly admit that it was bullshit from the getgo?

Some did admit it was bullshit from the get-go. It was found by a layman. It was speculated that it was human. The play-up was done mainly by the popular press. It was identified as a peccary three years later when they found parts from the rest of the animal. In any event, it had nothing to do with the theory of evolution. The ToE neither requires nor precludes human ancestors in Nebraska.

Did Kettlewell see peppered moths landing on tree trunks and being eaten?

He was illustrating protective coloration as a mechanism for natural selection, not offering it as proof of the ToE.

Why is Ernst Haeckel's "recapitulation theory" ("ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny") still found in textbooks

Why is geocentrism still mentioned in astronomy books as a historical aside? Does any post-Darwinian textbook still suggest the "recapitulation theory" is valid?

2/20/2013 8:27:31 AM

CernunnosIsAnIrishDeathMetalBand

When I first heard the pseudoscientific babble at the top ... I assumed it was DoctorDoom without even looking its name.

2/20/2013 8:47:24 AM

Rabbit of Caerbannog

@Blort

Doomie is so hateful and willfully stupid that he's actually become kind of endearing...in a kind of twisted way. He's a self-hating homosexual, a misanthrope who masquerades as a Christian, and the consummate Keyboard Warrior who brags about his (bogus) genius level IQ and the eventual beatdown that he'll give his opponents. You know, any day now. With his constant calls for the extermination of racial and sexual minorities, Doc sounds more like a malfunctioning Dalek than the supervillain whose name he bears. And with an apparent fondness for psychological projection, he hypocritically smears his opponents as narrow minded fools who engage in vacuous arguments and childish insults. That said, the sheer batshittery of his comments makes quoting him too good to pass up.

2/20/2013 8:49:28 AM

Hasan Prishtina

Darwin used subjunctive-mood expressions such as "Let us assume", "We may well suppose..." etcetera over 800 times

Except that "Let us assume" and "We may well suppose" do not contain any words in the subjunctive mood. The verbs after those phrases are in the subjunctive mood. Phrases in the subjunctive mood include:

"It is important that we remember"
"It is vital that we understand"
"It is inevitable that we conclude"

That's not a "shitload of assuming and supposing": that's a dishonest fundie argument aimed at folks who don't have much of a grasp of English grammar. Like DoctorDoom.

2/20/2013 9:02:56 AM

breakerslion

"I know you are, but what am I?" Part 3,452,964.

2/20/2013 9:06:23 AM

Vesus

Life must be really difficult for someone like this. So obsessed with their religion that they must spend half their time opposing science. What a terrible way to live.

2/20/2013 9:22:36 AM

Meeeh

Oh! It's just DoctorDoom not understanding what scientific theory is for the 834686437639869837658936th time!

2/20/2013 9:24:54 AM

freako104

You are either trying to fail evolution and science, lying, so stupid that you slow up the entire race or a troll/poe(but far too stupid for that). Choose wisely abd shut up Doom

2/20/2013 9:50:38 AM

Old Viking

Your knowledge of evolutionary theory is equal to your knowledge of the subjunctive.

2/20/2013 12:42:41 PM
1 2