Todays local rag had this letter to the editor. Evidently evolutionists get purdy upset when creationists express their views. Anywho, this man (well it has a masculine name so I'll assume its a man) went after this woman with a lot of venom. I don't want to be presumptive, but I'm guessing someone who is named Esther is not only a bit older but that her faith in the Holy Spirit is pretty sound and she really doesn't give a rats ass what Robert Imawussie has to say. Regardless, I have a few words for Mr. Sissypants. As always, my comments are in Mustang blue.
Esther Fishbaugh’s April 17 letter greatly shows her ignorance to the published scientific literature. I would like to clarify two things she is mistaken about that are widely accepted within the scientific community (of which Ms. Fishbaugh is not, as she is not a scientist, and her comments are completely irrelevant). Are you a scientist Roberta? I don't see "phD" next to your name below. Does this in turn make your comments irrelevant? Yes, yes it does but lets continue anyway as I will enjoy mocking you.
First, the fossil record shows an excellent transition from a “reptile-like” lower jaw to the mammalian jaw and inner-ear. Primitive “mammal-like reptiles” exhibit a jaw made up of multiple bones. Modern mammals have a jaw that is comprised only by the dentary bone. Modern mammals do Bobbie but that isn't the point she made. If you're going to argue and yell loud at least stay on topic. The excellent fossil record shows a reduction in size and migration through time of the other jaw bones, so that they transform into the middle ear bones. This same progression is also documented being recapitulated during the development of mammalian embryos; yes, whether or not she would like to believe it, this even happened to Ms. Fishbaugh when she was in the womb. So now I'm confused. Did we come from monkeys or lizards? Sweet fancy Moses no wonder you liberals think you win arguments. You change the debate right in the middle and don't tell anyone
Lastly, her silly ideas about geology beg dismission. Explanations by flood geologists do not apply to the real world. Why don't they apply "in the real world"? Is this because its contradictory to your belief? This occurs all over the globe but you are quick to dismiss this. In fact, the best indictment of these ludicrous suppositions is the oil industry. They rely on geologic data to drill for oil. They do not use creation-geology or flood-geology to do so. Do they use evolution-geology? No, they use mineral geology. So what is your point here? Reading this drivel is almost a waste of my time. I suggest that Ms. Fishbaugh take her ideas to Exxon-Mobil; I guarantee that the employees there will laugh at her , and show her the door. That's a bold state assmunch. There are a lot of God-fearing geologists that probably would like to here what she has to say. Again, they aren't studying fossils when their drilling for oil.
Creationists should know that every time they purchase jewelry, gasoline, motor oil, anything plastic or metal, or flip on a light switch, that these items/ services were constructed or fueled from raw materials extracted, thanks to real geological exploration. I suggest Ms. Fishbaugh stop driving her car, throw away all her jewelry, or stop using electricity if she doesn’t want to be a hypocrite. Liberal pudknockers should know this too. Afterall, they hate big oil and don't want us to drill anymore. They hate power companies and don't want anymore rivers dammed to generate electricity. They want wind farms as long as they aren't in their neighborhood. Robert, like virtually all liberals, is a wussy. You could call his mom a "whore" and his wife worse and his response would be to sue you for character assassination, unless you are stating facts. He wouldn't defend his family or home if it meant he might have to throw a punch. He'd rather spend tax dollars on the National Endowment for the Arts than on law enforcement then bitches when the cops can't help him. Bobbie Joe, do us a favor and go play on the train tracks with ear protection on. We'll call you when its dinner time.
123 Imawussie Lane
Here's the letter that got Bobbie Joe's panties in a wad. I hate to tell this dude/wuss this but he had better not challenge Esther to a debate on the local access channel. She'd kick his ass. I though about challenging Roberta to a dual in the town square but I'm sure Esther can handle this limp wrist just fine.
“A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.” — Charles Darwin
He got that right. Why do so many of his proponents get it wrong? Both Quinton King (March 31) and Tom Woods (April 1) have missed the “fully stating and balancing the facts” part of the debate. Neither exhibit a good understanding of the creationist position.
Quinton King erroneously asserts that creationists believe the fossil record must be “well-shuffled” but creationists are currently pursuing scientific research on ancient biome models as the most probable reason certain kinds of organism tend to be fossilized together. Distinct biome populations occur today and can be studied, unlike the evolutionary assumption that says a jaw bone morphed into an ear bone when reptiles supposedly evolved into mammals.
Experimentation shows layers are laid down simultaneously in moving water and can deposit many hundreds of layers within a few hours challenging the uniformitarian assumption that layers were laid down singly over millions of years. This means a fossil found in a top layer can actually be older than fossils found in lower layers further downstream. That factual information challenges the geologic timescale but is not widely disseminated. Now why is that?
Likewise, Tom Woods lacks understanding of what a creationist believes about mutational loads. Creationists like scientists everywhere are forming models based on factual data and modifying those models as they gain more information. They are examining the claim that 99 percent of DNA is shared between chimps and humans and finding a flawed study that only counts the human DNA that the chimp DNA matches, regardless of what gene the match is on, and excludes all human DNA that exceeds the DNA of the chimp. This is not fully stating and balancing the facts.