Siteadmin, Check users, Administrators
12,071
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 84:
Line 84: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Essay:Evolution Is More Vulnerable than Ever (view source)
Revision as of 23:02, April 18, 2008
, 23:02, April 18, 2008→Conclusion
It also explains the continued funding of various projects seeking to gather evidence in ''support'' of the evolutionary paradigm. Some of these projects, like Project [[SETI]], are complete wastes of time. Others, like the Hadron Supercollider, stand a remote chance of finding something useful, but are not likely to find anything that is, as lawyers like to say, dispositive. Happily, some other projects, like [[NASA]]'s ongoing program of robotic deep-space exploration, hold great promise to yield a wealth of data—but these data are likely to militate for creation and ''not'' for the evolutionary paradigm.
It also explains the continued funding of various projects seeking to gather evidence in ''support'' of the evolutionary paradigm. Some of these projects, like Project [[SETI]], are complete wastes of time. Others, like the Hadron Supercollider, stand a remote chance of finding something useful, but are not likely to find anything that is, as lawyers like to say, dispositive. Happily, some other projects, like [[NASA]]'s ongoing program of robotic deep-space exploration, hold great promise to yield a wealth of data—but these data are likely to militate for creation and ''not'' for the evolutionary paradigm.
== Postscript ==
About five minutes ago, a certain user, who shall remain nameless, read an earlier version of this essay in which I suggested the following:{{cquote|It [might] actually [be] an antediluvian laboratory [[chimera]] and hence an [[out-of-place artifact]] of a society already known to have been inordinately cruel.}}
After perusing some of the actual, as opposed to the widely touted, evidence about ''Tiktaalik'', I abandoned that interpretation in favor of the simpler one that ''Tiktaalik'' is still a fish, with lobate pectoral and pelvic fins. But evidently this other user couldn't wait to make a snarky remark, in which he called me{{cquote|the only human being on earth more willing to believe a transitional form is genetically engineered by an unrecorded era of human history, than the scientific evidence at his fingertips.}}
And as though that weren't sarcastic enough, he went on to say:{{cquote|But don't stop now, kids, he's about to tell you about the miraculously spinning 1,000,000 year old batteries that... curiously... no real scientist has ever seen!}}
I suppose that a "real scientist" is an acceptor of the evolutionary paradigm. Well, don't ''you'' stop now, script kiddies, because this user, had he not gotten himself blocked, was probably about to tell you about the 74% of the mass of the [[universe]] being composed of [[dark matter]]. I ask you: who is the better scientist? Me? Or someone who propounds such an obvious fudge?
It gets better:{{cquote|But wait! He has a source! ...the National Enquirer.}}
Oh, I have sources, all right--and I invite anyone to [[Out-of-place artifact|read the article]] and consult them. You will find that ''The National Enquirer'' is not one of them.
All of which goes to prove my point: the evolutionary paradigm is more vulnerable than ever, and that is why its supporters now stoop to such gutter tactics as I have just documented above.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 19:02, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
== References ==
== References ==
{{reflist|2}}
{{reflist|2}}