For evolutionists that are supercilious the James Webb is making you look absurd.

They are now considering (I read in science articles) that the universe is twice it’s age and dark matter doesn’t exist. They may come to agree on that but i guess that’s up in the air right now.There are also examples of other things they used to accept scientifically but now they would accept as a false view such as evolution by natural selection on it’s own as one example rather than by the other mechanism of mutations and other factors. Another example is that they used to believe the mesonychid ungulates were whale-ancestors, but they later changed it to artiodactyls. They used to believe and accept ORP. (I even remember in the past at this forum atheists listing ORP as one of the strongest reasons they accepted evolution but now science rejects ORP).( ORP = ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny)Where am I going with all this? It all leads to an insuperable disiunctivum syllogismus. (disjunctive syllogism)That syllogism is this;You either accept that SCIENCE accepted these false things proving science as your all-powerful hero contains falsehood, OR you admit that they shouldn’t have been considered to be science to begin with because they are philosophical naturalism which is why they fail as science where operational science does not fail.If you you reject the former then the latter, if you reject the latter then the former for those are the only two possibilities.Furthermore, you also have to CONCEDE that for the past decades those that rejected a 14 billion year old universe and rejected dark matter and rejected other areas of “science”, would have been considered science-deniers despite having the true position of the null hypothesis.Logically there are two observations you now are FORCED to intellectually acknowledge or you commit intellectual suicide;1. A person can ACCEPT historical science and be deemed scientific even they believe in FALSE things, as they only accept them because the scientific mainstream argues they pass as science. (as these failures PROVE deductively)
And;
2. You can REJECT certain things the scientific mainstream put forward and be called a science-denying religionist, yet it is provable that you still believe TRUE things despite them believing false things pertaining to those failures. (because if ORP was false and I rejected it, then that proves I believed a true thing in believing it false, and if the universe is not 14 byo, then if that is now scientifically false, then I believed a TRUE thing when I believed it wasn’t that old. etc…)This proves science can contain falsity, and a position outside of mainstream science can contain truth.Note the operative word being, “proves”, because we now know science has accepted many things that are starting to look false or have been proven false, and that people that don’t accept mainstream science in terms of historical theory, have accepted things that are true. PROVABLY. (for obtuse people, this is not an argument, it is a FACT you cannot change)so did the propaganda that we are irrational religionists, prove true in this matter and were you proven superior?(before any of you grow a brain and state, “but you also argue for a 6000 year old universe which is also false!” in fact I do not, and have not since probably the noughts and I don’t know if such a universe is somehow possible or not, I just take no position on that and claim nothing about it. Please quote specifically what I have said and make sure it is up to date before putting words in my mouth. I also accept ALL operational science because methodological naturalism is tested with operational science and therefore proven, but with historical science it is an assumption that can’t be tested, which is why historical science always produces failures where operational science does not.)For example with operational science can you ever remember it being wrong about discoveries once discovered? Exotic air. Have they yet found an example of a rat that lived on despite being sealed in a dome? No? What about lift? Have they yet to find a plane on a runway that is in perfect working order and is the correct design, that just won’t fly despite it being identical to all other planes with viable wings? What about downforce? Have they shown yet how a bus can corner faster than a formula one car even if it is just a standard bus? What about diodes? Were we wrong and they turn out to not work after all? Have they changed their minds about phones yet, and phones turn out to not work nor modems? What about fire, does it turn out that sometimes the cause of fire instead produces water? What about the boiling point of water?As for design I can’t think of one thing that has changed since Paley. oh yes there is one thing but it didn’t disprove design it just proved it smarter with an example of reductio ad absurdum. BIOMIMETICS. The field of engineering that plagiarises God’s designs from organisms because they are so much smarter than ours. But as for finding an example of a lifeform that didn’t contain the features of design such as information, specified complexity, contingency planning? NOPE. Still haven’t found one. It’s just the same as exotic air, fire, forces..design just doesn’t need to change since it is clearly factual.But the transitionals change so often you need to renew your paleontology textbooks every three years! Lol!Still want to argue gill slits? (it wouldn’t surprise me, because guess who the true religionist is? You guessed it, that guy in the mirror pretending to Himself he is superior to Christians that believe their bible for real)Not really. You just buy into your own arrogance, but wait long enough and your theories make you look stupid all on their own. James Webb is doing better damage to the propaganda that you are superior scientists, than I could ever do. All it has done is make the mainstream scientists look like turkeys and will continue to do so. Turkeys for believing historical "science" has any validity.Just admit it, abiogenesis, evolution, a natural formation of the universe, are all just your faith and belief in nature as materialists. But don't believe me, instead just wait on the James Webb, because this telescope is the best creationist I have ever encounterd. One picture beats a thousand mikey-words!ROFL

Of course if you were never supercilious nor played the propaganda game, then obviously this doesn't apply to you. But those with humility seem pretty rare.

I think it's pretty clear.YOU REPRESENT FALSITY as a group of evolutionists that have preached superior science for decades yet have now been revealed as the emperor with no pants because even though you name creationists, "science deniers", you now ALSO deny the same "science" we do, which implies your propaganda against creationists is codswallop.You think semantics are more important than truth, because you will accept false things just so long as they qualify as, "science".But an honest person seeking the truth, that is objective and has a scientific attitude, will put truth first even if it means rejecting what the mainstreams says should be classed as science.Remember, I AM NOT ARGUING anything, I am just stating historical facts, that you as people here used to VOCIFEROUSLY argue things such as ORP were one of the best reasons to accept evolution yet ORP is now rejected by science.That means I was correct to reject it by stating that branchial folds were never gill slits. (LOL!)That proves you were willing to believe a false thing so why should we treat you seriously when as creationists we can't think of one thing we would have to revise?Some might try and offer up some sophistry in response to that by somehow twisting it around to make it seem like I am saying, "dogma is a better way" but for those with an IQ over 50 they will know that I am not saying anything like that whatsoever, I am simply saying that truly solid, provable science facts from operational science, tend not to change in their core truth.You may revise some technology for AC but that won't mean alternate current is somehow wrong. You may revise or elaborate causes for lift or downforce but you won't find a correct wing that doesn't produce it.The strength of true science is the ability to test it at any moment because you can test the assumption of methodological naturalism AND the theory, at the same time.You can do neither with beliefs like evolution and abiogenesis.Like it or not, this is a GARGANTUAN intellectual difference, even if you play it down deflare punctum, via the rhetoricus machinam. (the rhetorical device of playing down an immensely significant insight)If you stick to true testable science, you pretty much don't go wrong. But had I listened to you I would have ended up believing many false things just to please your semantics.Those semantics are designed to give evolution the APPEARANCE OF SCIENTIFIC LEGITIMACY.Because then you can appeal to almighty science, and point to it's success and power and brilliance. But if that briliance and success and authority is in fact NOT found in evolution then you know that you have NOTHING, because if evolution has to stand on it's own, then it collapses as feeble.The only way you can deviously, "win" for want of a better term, is to pretend it has the same scientific rigour as lift or downforce or exotic air.Well, reality just isn't being revealed to match up. The James Webb isn't revealing correctness and now they are even thinking of getting shot of 14by of age and dark matter.But didn't we say previously that you had already changed the age of things many times before? Each time you proclaim the new age as though it is a scientific fact when such ages are pulled out of your bumhole. Do you think adding a decimal will make it scientific sounding enough?Just admit it, the scientists just don't have a clue what they are talking about when it comes to the history of the universe as is being revealed before our eyes, and they never did.Like it or not, that is what you look like now.It was always creation. You're just learning it the hard way through slowly being abased.Go and read the past threads, declaring ORP as one of the best reasons to accept evolution. If that was one of the best reasons, I guess that's one less reason to accept evolution, right? But you would never reject it because it is more of a religion than a science for passionate atheists like this group contains herein. How could you ever reject it without looking a monumental TURKEY for arguing that your materialism was intellectually justified?"Think about it." - Fascist dude, from, "Falling Down.""Don't hate me trinity!" - Backstabber from, "The Matrix".

I just wonder if evolutionists that read this are really getting the point.On things you have argued true that now you would be forced to agree are not backed by the mainstream any more, that would mean our arguments as creationists were scientifically correct, for those of us that looked into the science of it and offered a scientific explanation that didn't depend on the evolution story. (I don't imply argumentum ad logicam, I am aware of that error)So think about it. Back in the day when you argued ORP (embryos trace an evolutionary history in the womb) ---(hard to type it without laughing, really)I would have argued AS THE CREATIONIST CREATARD RELIGIONIST, that in fact the branchial folds are there for reasons of embryological development by showing they are splitting so as to develop different features (correct science). I then would have said that the, "tail" was in fact just the developmental beginning of that section where the spin would protrude initially given the tip of the spine/coccyx would represent the end of an oblong object.For other issues such as neanderthal, I would have argued again from correct science (which doesn't depend on evolution-theory) that in fact archaic and gracile features can be found is both archaic and modern man, and that in fact the ILLUSION of archaic -> gracile is in fact representative of a superficial depiction of ape-to-man that didn't really exist except as artwork wishing to portray a neat line from ape to man.Studies of pithecines by a relevant expert in that area I watched through his seminar also shown that pithecines were also equally disparate according to a computer model for traits meaning they were just their own odd group that were not between ape and men.For years and years we have argued neanderthal is as good as the same species he is so close, but you guys started depicting him as an ape and only now are you seemingly coming towards agreement.sorry but it seems artwork is more prevalent in evolution theory than anything else, especially if you look at the absurd art they use to depict the story of scales somehow birthing feathers. (that one gets my chuckle muscle every time!) Talk about not making sense, scales don't even have follicles! At least make it believable by starting with hairs!!! ROFL!!!!If you CARE about PROOF, you have to admit that this flies in the fact of the stereotypical propaganda that a creationist is just some uninformed wally that just hasn't read up on evolution theory so he is yet to accept it.You in fact did believe these things and argued them science.There are other errors you have argued too such as arguing from silence without a proper use of the modus tollens through absentia ad expectata testimonio where in fact you employ the denial of the antecedent thus;"if X was found with P it was contemporaneous with P."
"If it was not found with P it wasn't contemporaneous." (incorrect!!!)And;
"we fill find function if it's there.
If we don't find a function it's not there so must be a vrus" (INCORRECT, formal error of denying the antecedent!)In fact this one is plain OBTUSE, because it assumes human beings are omniscient and that therefore if there isn't a designer reason we immediately find, then it isn't possible there is one. (Inane)Do you know how often your "science" commits this error and continues to commit it with things such as ERVs and a lack of fossil material found? Even AFTER they find organisms "earlier" than they argued their existence and even AFTER they find function for the question-begged terminology, "retro-virus", they still insist their argument from silence is some sort of valid way to perform science by the mistake of appealing to the majority of that silence. (a fundamental logical error. See ATM fallacy)

I wrote more about arguing from silence in this post, which has a diagram showing the problem. A New Look at the Fossil Record