A Riddle
IknowHimDoYou
What does a man do standing up;
a woman do sitting down;
and a dog do on three legs?
Warning: this will require some thinking..
and that may eliminate many posters from evolutionary religions..
.
John W
Nah! That's too easy. There has to be another answer. And if it's the
answer, what about 3-legged dogs, and lesbians?
lol
John W
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
Josh
> A Riddle
>
<snip>
Well lets see it could bve one of two things either going pee or
themselves. Am i right?
JOsh
_AnonCoward
news:IknowHim-250...@pm3-10.kalama.com...
:
: A Riddle
:
: What does a man do standing up;
:
: a woman do sitting down;
:
: and a dog do on three legs?
Ralf:
Shake hands.
: Warning: this will require some thinking..
:
: and that may eliminate many posters from evolutionary
: religions..
Ralf:
Good thing I'm not religious, then.
Ralf
John W
>"IknowHimDoYou" <Ikno...@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
>news:IknowHim-250...@pm3-10.kalama.com...
>:
>: A Riddle
>:
>: What does a man do standing up;
>:
>: a woman do sitting down;
>:
>: and a dog do on three legs?
>
>
>
>Ralf:
>Shake hands.
Good one!
John W
>
>
>
>: Warning: this will require some thinking..
>:
>: and that may eliminate many posters from evolutionary
>: religions..
>
>
>Ralf:
>Good thing I'm not religious, then.
>
>
>Ralf
>
Matt Silberstein
Ikno...@leavingsoon.com (IknowHimDoYou):
Did that really require you to do some thinking? That may suggest
something.
(The joke is so old that the answer will probably not make much
sense to most people. The answer is shake hands. This require a
world where women don't get up and men do.)
Thore Schmechtig
...and thus automatically disqualify you.
UNWRITTEN RULES OF FUNDAMENTALISM
1. "I'm right and you are wrong".
2. Never admit that you are wrong, even if you really are.
3. When you have nothing to say, hurl insults.
4. Regard and portray your own violence, whether physical,
psychological,
or verbal, at all times as defensive
5. Be prepared at all times to lie and bluster, particularly when backed
into a corner in an argument
6. Never accept responsibility for any mess you have personally caused.
7. When you are forced to admit to an error, regard the whole process of
error and correction as part of God's personal plan for you and not as a
something for which you should apologise retract or make amends except
verbally and secretly to God himself
8. Always see yourself and you personal actions as part of God's plans
for
the world. Recognise that even your errors are just part of Gods will
for
the betterment of mankind.
9.Profess humility but avoid the actual experience of it.
10.Refuse to take in information that differs from your own view and
oppose all such information through classification of such information
in
a derogatory and simplistic manner(eg by categorising it as left wing
propaganda)
11.Refuse to accept that truth is not black and white; that reality is
complex and there are shades of grey
12.Refuse to forgive anyone else for anything unless you purport to
forgive on behalf of other people unconnected with you for whom you
don't
have that right anyhow.
Phil W
Answer the phone?
Phil
Michael
<philip_...@whitehead9964.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
Tee hee hee, my dog just uses his mouth and speaks into the receiver, but
of course, he has evolved more than other dog kinds have, his puppies will
probably punctuate the equilibrium and become human beings. Must have
happened before, at least according to the PE high priest Stevie Gould.
--
Michael
People who donšt read newspapers are better off than those
who do because it is better to be uninformed than misinformed.
-- Thomas Jefferson
Steven J.
"Michael" <mike...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:mikeburt-290...@user-2ivel4a.dialup.mindspring.com...
> In article <bl1njf$rs6$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Phil W"
> <philip_...@whitehead9964.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > "IknowHimDoYou" <Ikno...@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
> > news:IknowHim-250...@pm3-10.kalama.com...
> > > A Riddle
> > >
> > > What does a man do standing up;
> > >
> > > a woman do sitting down;
> > >
> > > and a dog do on three legs?
> > >
> > > Warning: this will require some thinking..
> > >
> > > and that may eliminate many posters from evolutionary religions..
> >
> > Answer the phone?
>
>
> Tee hee hee, my dog just uses his mouth and speaks into the receiver, but
> of course, he has evolved more than other dog kinds have, his puppies will
> probably punctuate the equilibrium and become human beings. Must have
> happened before, at least according to the PE high priest Stevie Gould.
>
Stephen J. Gould did not believe that new species -- much less entire higher
taxa -- arose in a single generation. In the second place, his emphasis on
the contingency of evolution -- that no particular adaption or species was
predestined -- implies that he would be more insistent than most
evolutionists on the unrepeatability of particular evolutionary events.
Humans were unlikely to evolve even once; the odds against their evolving
twice, from separate lineages, are incomprehensibly vast.
About that term "unrepeatability," by the way: science requires that
*observations* be repeatable. It is not necessary, for evolutionary theory
to be scientific, that the course of evolution be repeatable, any more than
it is necessary, for an investigation into an airplane crash to be
scientific, for it to be possible to crash the same aircraft in the same
place all over again.
-- Steven J.
Tom
"Michael" <mike...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:mikeburt-290...@user-2ivel4a.dialup.mindspring.com...
> <philip_...@whitehead9964.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > "IknowHimDoYou" <Ikno...@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
> > news:IknowHim-250...@pm3-10.kalama.com...
> > > A Riddle
> > >
> > > What does a man do standing up;
> > >
> > > a woman do sitting down;
> > >
> > > and a dog do on three legs?
> > >
> > > Warning: this will require some thinking..
> > >
> > > and that may eliminate many posters from evolutionary religions..
> >
> > Answer the phone?
>
>
receiver, >but
> of course, he has evolved more than other dog kinds have, his puppies will
> probably punctuate the equilibrium and become human beings. Must have
> happened before, at least according to the PE high priest Stevie Gould.
Tom: Tee hee hee, sounds like your dog has all of the brains in your family.
Adam Marczyk
news:mikeburt-290...@user-2ivel4a.dialup.mindspring.com...
> <philip_...@whitehead9964.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
> Tee hee hee, my dog just uses his mouth and speaks into the receiver, but
> of course, he has evolved more than other dog kinds have, his puppies
> will probably punctuate the equilibrium and become human beings. Must
> have happened before, at least according to the PE high priest Stevie
> Gould.
I bet you're going to feel really embarrassed when you learn what Gould
actually thinks about this.
"Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of
their
own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress
their
rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am--for I have
become a
major target of these practices.
....
We proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium largely to provide a
different
explanation for pervasive trends in the fossil record. Trends, we argued,
cannot be attributed to gradual transformation within lineages, but must
arise
from the differential success of certain kinds of species. A trend, we
argued,
is more like climbing a flight of stairs (punctuation and stasis) than
rolling
up an inclined plane.
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is
infuriating to
be quoted again and again by creationists--whether through design or
stupidity,
I do not know--as admitting that the fossil record includes no
transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species
level, but they are abundant between larger groups.
....Continuing the distortion, several creationists have equated the theory
of punctuated equilibrium with a caricature of the beliefs of Richard
Goldschmidt, a great early geneticist. Goldschmidt argued, in a famous book
published in 1940, that new groups can arise all at once through major
mutations.
He referred to these suddenly transformed creatures as 'hopeful
monsters'....
Goldschmidt's theory still has nothing to do with punctuated equilibrium."
--Stephen Jay Gould, from the essay "Evolution as Fact and Theory", in
_Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes_, p.259-260
Perhaps next time you should not accept creationist claims so uncritically.
Those Christian fundamentalists whose conclusions are dictated by dogma
rather than facts have an unfortunate tendency to distort those facts time
and again when trying to argue against a scientific theory they oppose.
--
"We have loved the stars too fondly | a.a. #2001
to be fearful of the night." | http://www.ebonmusings.org
--Tombstone epitaph of | e-mail: ebonmuse!hotmail.com
two amateur astronomers, | ICQ: 8777843
quoted in Carl Sagan's _Cosmos_ | PGP Key ID: 0x5C66F737
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael
<sjt195...@nts.link.net.INVALID> wrote:
> "Michael" <mike...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:mikeburt-290...@user-2ivel4a.dialup.mindspring.com...
> > In article <bl1njf$rs6$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Phil W"
> > <philip_...@whitehead9964.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > "IknowHimDoYou" <Ikno...@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
> > > news:IknowHim-250...@pm3-10.kalama.com...
> > > > A Riddle
> > > >
> > > > What does a man do standing up;
> > > >
> > > > a woman do sitting down;
> > > >
> > > > and a dog do on three legs?
> > > >
> > > > Warning: this will require some thinking..
> > > >
> > > > and that may eliminate many posters from evolutionary religions..
> > >
> > > Answer the phone?
> >
> >
> > Tee hee hee, my dog just uses his mouth and speaks into the receiver, but
> > of course, he has evolved more than other dog kinds have, his puppies will
> > probably punctuate the equilibrium and become human beings. Must have
> > happened before, at least according to the PE high priest Stevie Gould.
> >
> In the first place, despite the depiction of his views by many creationists,
> Stephen J. Gould did not believe that new species -- much less entire higher
> taxa -- arose in a single generation.
IOW, the fossil record absent the required 'missing links' which
invalidated Darwinism (slow gradual change) then also discredits Stevies
PE theory (faster change, so fast that it left no record behind accocrding
to Gould) as well. Sounds like a bit of doublespeek, but that is not
surprising.
Quoting from the fundie religious evolutoinary site alt.talk.origins,
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html:
The idea that the origin of higher taxa, such as genera (canines versus
felines, for example), requires something special is based on the
misunderstanding of the way in which new phyla (lineages) arise. The two
species that are the origin of canines and felines probably differed very
little from their common ancestral species and each other. But once they
were reproductively isolated from each other, they evolved more and more
differences that they shared but the other lineages didn't. This is true
of all lineages back to the first eukaryotic (nuclear) cell. Even the
changes in the Cambrian explosion are of this kind, although some (eg,
Gould 1989) think that the genomes (gene structures) of these early
animals were not as tightly regulated as modern animals, and therefore had
more freedom to change.
IOW, the common ancestor of canines and felines 'probably differed very
little' according to alt.talk.origin because there is nothing more than
sheer speculation that there is a common ancestor in the first place.
Only some (eg Gould) may think that gene structures were not as tightly
regulated as modern animals (which means that this can't happen today, but
'must have happened in the past' ie higher taxa evolution IS NOT BEING
OBSERVED TODAY) is another sheer speculation which is the basis of PE
theory. So it appears that PE is dependant upon an unknown force which
cause gene structures to be less tightly regulated in the past. Based
upon current observations, this is unlikely and it takes less faith to
believe that like kind have always produced like kind than the faith
required to believe that genetic regulation is different today than
previously anymore that gravity is different today than it was before.
Perhaps Gould believes in the revelation of the Canopy and possible
effects this may have had?
In the second place, his emphasis on
> the contingency of evolution -- that no particular adaption or species was
> predestined -- implies that he would be more insistent than most
> evolutionists on the unrepeatability of particular evolutionary events.
> Humans were unlikely to evolve even once; the odds against their evolving
> twice, from separate lineages, are incomprehensibly vast.
Creationalists would conclude that the odds against evolution theory are
incomprehensibly vast.
>
> About that term "unrepeatability," by the way: science requires that
> *observations* be repeatable. It is not necessary, for evolutionary theory
> to be scientific,
Did I get that right? You said that , quote: It is not necessary, for
evolutionary theory to be scientific ? That is the point that makes it
obvious that evolution theory is metaphysical, not scientific. Thanks for
agreeing with the point.
that the course of evolution be repeatable, any more than
> it is necessary, for an investigation into an airplane crash to be
> scientific, for it to be possible to crash the same aircraft in the same
> place all over again.
Tee hee hee, so if a cause for the crash is found, there is no need to
make changes in the remaining aircraft since it is impossible for another
plane to crash in the same place all over again? Your analogy makes no
sense.
Michael
wrote:
We are looking forward to see what kind of offspring he will have and how
they will punctuate the equilibrium.
Michael
wrote:
> Michael <mike...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:mikeburt-290...@user-2ivel4a.dialup.mindspring.com...
> > In article <bl1njf$rs6$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Phil W"
> > <philip_...@whitehead9964.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > Tee hee hee, my dog just uses his mouth and speaks into the receiver, but
> > of course, he has evolved more than other dog kinds have, his puppies
> > will probably punctuate the equilibrium and become human beings. Must
> > have happened before, at least according to the PE high priest Stevie
> > Gould.
>
> I bet you're going to feel really embarrassed when you learn what Gould
> actually thinks about this.
Tee hee hee, I bet your wrong.
>
> "Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of
> their
> own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress
> their
> rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am--for I have
> become a
> major target of these practices.
It it is too hot in the kitchen, find another job.
>
> ....
>
> We proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium largely to provide a
> different
> explanation for pervasive trends in the fossil record.
IOW, the fossil record DOES NOT support Darwinism, which everyone knows.
Trends, we argued,
> cannot be attributed to gradual transformation within lineages,
IOW, Darwin was wrong, dead wrong.
>but must
> arise
IOW they might have, could have and must have but we don't really know and
can't explain it at all.
> from the differential success of certain kinds of species. A trend, we
> argued,
> is more like climbing a flight of stairs (punctuation and stasis) than
> rolling
> up an inclined plane.
IOW, PE is somewhat closer to Creation theory than Darwinism was, what a
surprise.
>
> Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is
> infuriating to
> be quoted again and again by creationists--whether through design or
> stupidity,
> I do not know--as admitting that the fossil record includes no
> transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species
> level, but they are abundant between larger groups.
Rule one, accuse creationalists of the stupid mantra over and over, helps
limit discussion. IOW TRANSITIONAL FORMS are lacking at the species level
(this is high priest Gould himself speaking) but he must rely upon
speculation that there are between larger groups. IOW, he invalidates
micro-evolution as a mechanism to support the speculation that it can
produce macro-evolution. Gould says that since there is no evidence to
support slow gradual change (Creationalist agree) that the change happened
quickly, just like the invalidated mutated monster theory of Goldschmidt.
The problem for fundie evolutionists is, the same evidence that
invalidated the mutated monster theory, tends to equaliy invalidate PE,
unless, as Gould says based upon sheer speculation, that genetic DNA
control has changed over time, for which there is no evidence.
>
> ....Continuing the distortion, several creationists have equated the theory
> of punctuated equilibrium with a caricature of the beliefs of Richard
> Goldschmidt, a great early geneticist. Goldschmidt argued, in a famous book
> published in 1940, that new groups can arise all at once through major
> mutations.
That was of course the mutated monster theory of evolutoin which was
invalidated by the evidence along with the darwin and neo Darwin
evolutionary theories which leaves us with PE, each discarded theory
bringing evolution closer and closer to Creation theory.l
> He referred to these suddenly transformed creatures as 'hopeful
> monsters'....
> Goldschmidt's theory still has nothing to do with punctuated equilibrium."
Tee hee hee, IOW Gould is desperately trying to find a mechanism to fit a
preconcieved theory, but is failing as did Goldschmidt.
>
> --Stephen Jay Gould, from the essay "Evolution as Fact and Theory", in
> _Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes_, p.259-260
>
> Perhaps next time you should not accept creationist claims so uncritically.
> Those Christian fundamentalists whose conclusions are dictated by dogma
> rather than facts have an unfortunate tendency to distort those facts time
> and again when trying to argue against a scientific theory they oppose
Perhaps next time you should not accept fundie evolutionists religious
claims so uncritically. Those evolution fundamentalists whose conclusions
are dictated by dogma rather than facts have an unfortunate tendency to
distort those facts time
and again when trying to argue against a scientific theory they oppose.
--
Zachriel
<snipped>
> IOW, the fossil record absent the required 'missing links' which
> invalidated Darwinism (slow gradual change) then also discredits Stevies
> PE theory (faster change, so fast that it left no record behind accocrding
> to Gould) as well. Sounds like a bit of doublespeek, but that is not
> surprising.
You have misstated the nature of Punctuated Equilibrium. It does not posit
rapid change, but only the appearance of rapid change in the fossil record.
As usual, you present a strawman and proceed to beat it.
Here is some additional information for those who might be interested:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html
Michael
<an...@zachriel.com> wrote:
> "Michael" <mike...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:mikeburt-011...@user-2inig2c.dialup.mindspring.com...
> <snipped>
>
> > IOW, the fossil record absent the required 'missing links' which
> > invalidated Darwinism (slow gradual change) then also discredits Stevies
> > PE theory (faster change, so fast that it left no record behind accocrding
> > to Gould) as well. Sounds like a bit of doublespeek, but that is not
> > surprising.
>
> You have misstated the nature of Punctuated Equilibrium. It does not posit
> rapid change, but only the appearance of rapid change in the fossil record.
> As usual, you present a strawman and proceed to beat it.
Tee hee hee, IOW to agree with the fossil record, the theory says that it
appears to be rapid, but it is not contrary to the evidence. If that were
true, there would be no need for PE, and Darwinism, which doesn't agree
with the fossil record would still be the prevailing theory, which it
isn't.
>
> Here is some additional information for those who might be interested:
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html
Been there, nothing new there. PE High Priet Gould sayz: We proposed the
theory of punctuated equilibrium largely to provide a different
explanation for pervasive trends in the fossil record
IOW, Darwinism consisting of slow gradual change is invalidated by the
fossil record. So, the PE high priest Gould posits a new theory, the old
having been rejected and says it really is slow gradual change, but the
evidence says it 'must have been ' fast. And someone calls this science?
David Jensen
<mikeburt-011...@sdn-ap-040dcwashp0272.dialsprint.net>:
>In article <TWBeb.385$Ny6.11...@twister1.starband.net>, "Zachriel"
><an...@zachriel.com> wrote:
>
>> "Michael" <mike...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>> news:mikeburt-011...@user-2inig2c.dialup.mindspring.com...
>> <snipped>
>>
>> > IOW, the fossil record absent the required 'missing links' which
>> > invalidated Darwinism (slow gradual change) then also discredits Stevies
>> > PE theory (faster change, so fast that it left no record behind accocrding
>> > to Gould) as well. Sounds like a bit of doublespeek, but that is not
>> > surprising.
>>
>> You have misstated the nature of Punctuated Equilibrium. It does not posit
>> rapid change, but only the appearance of rapid change in the fossil record.
>> As usual, you present a strawman and proceed to beat it.
>
>Tee hee hee, IOW to agree with the fossil record, the theory says that it
>appears to be rapid, but it is not contrary to the evidence. If that were
>true, there would be no need for PE, and Darwinism, which doesn't agree
>with the fossil record would still be the prevailing theory, which it
>isn't.
Your mistake. PE expands on the theory. It does not replace it.
>> Here is some additional information for those who might be interested:
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html
>
>Been there, nothing new there. PE High Priet Gould sayz: We proposed the
>theory of punctuated equilibrium largely to provide a different
>explanation for pervasive trends in the fossil record
>
>IOW, Darwinism consisting of slow gradual change is invalidated by the
>fossil record.
PE explains why it is not invalidated. Your mistake.
>So, the PE high priest Gould posits a new theory, the old
>having been rejected and says it really is slow gradual change, but the
>evidence says it 'must have been ' fast. And someone calls this science?
No, your false claims about it are not science. The science is science.
Sorry about your reading comprehension problems.
Tom
> In article <TWBeb.385$Ny6.11...@twister1.starband.net>, "Zachriel"
> <an...@zachriel.com> wrote:
>
> > "Michael" <mike...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > news:mikeburt-011...@user-2inig2c.dialup.mindspring.com...
> > <snipped>
> >
> > > IOW, the fossil record absent the required 'missing links' which
> > > invalidated Darwinism (slow gradual change) then also discredits
Stevies
> > > PE theory (faster change, so fast that it left no record behind
accocrding
> > > to Gould) as well. Sounds like a bit of doublespeek, but that is not
> > > surprising.
> >
> > You have misstated the nature of Punctuated Equilibrium. It does not
posit
> > rapid change, but only the appearance of rapid change in the fossil
record.
> > As usual, you present a strawman and proceed to beat it.
>
that it
> appears to be rapid, but it is not contrary to the evidence. If that were
> true, there would be no need for PE, and Darwinism, which doesn't agree
> with the fossil record would still be the prevailing theory, which it
> isn't.
Tom: Tee hee hee, I see that you are changing the posts that others make by
the use of "in other words". No Burt, it isn't "in other words", it is in
the words of the poster. If yuo don't have enough knowledge to challenge the
position taken by a poster please don't be so cowardly as to change the post
into something that you think you can answer.
Tom
how
> they will punctuate the equilibrium.
Tom: Brilliant retort Burt, this must be the height of your accomplishments
:-).
Tom
> In article <Arleb.6858$LI6...@news01.roc.ny>, "Adam Marczyk" <s...@sig.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Michael <mike...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > news:mikeburt-290...@user-2ivel4a.dialup.mindspring.com...
> > > In article <bl1njf$rs6$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Phil W"
> > > <philip_...@whitehead9964.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > Tee hee hee, my dog just uses his mouth and speaks into the receiver,
but
> > > of course, he has evolved more than other dog kinds have, his puppies
> > > will probably punctuate the equilibrium and become human beings.
Must
> > > have happened before, at least according to the PE high priest Stevie
> > > Gould.
> >
> > I bet you're going to feel really embarrassed when you learn what Gould
> > actually thinks about this.
>
Tom: Tee hee hee, he is definitely wrong, you're too stupid to be
embarrassed.
> >
> > "Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of
> > their
> > own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress
> > their
> > rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am--for I have
> > become a
> > major target of these practices.
>
>Burt: It it is too hot in the kitchen, find another job.
Tom: Non sequitur.
> > ....
> >
> > We proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium largely to provide a
> > different
> > explanation for pervasive trends in the fossil record.
>
>Burt: IOW, the fossil record DOES NOT support Darwinism, which everyone
>knows.
Tom: What is Darwinism, Burt? Do you have a definition?
> Trends, we argued,
> > cannot be attributed to gradual transformation within lineages,
>Burt: IOW, Darwin was wrong, dead wrong.
Tom: After "IOW" comes nothing but lies.
>
> >but must
> > arise
>
>Burt: IOW they might have, could have and must have but we don't really
know >and can't explain it at all.
Tom: Another "IOW" and another lie or two.
> > from the differential success of certain kinds of species. A trend, we
> > argued,
> > is more like climbing a flight of stairs (punctuation and stasis) than
> > rolling
> > up an inclined plane.
>
>Burt: IOW, PE is somewhat closer to Creation theory than Darwinism was,
what a
> surprise.
Tom: Another "IOW", another lie. Can't you comment on anything Burt,
without changing the meaning?
> >
> > Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is
> > infuriating to
> > be quoted again and again by creationists--whether through design or
> > stupidity,
> > I do not know--as admitting that the fossil record includes no
> > transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the
species
> > level, but they are abundant between larger groups.
>
>Burt: Rule one, accuse creationalists of the stupid mantra over and over,
helps
> limit discussion. IOW TRANSITIONAL FORMS are lacking at the species level
> (this is high priest Gould himself speaking) but he must rely upon
> speculation that there are between larger groups. IOW, he invalidates
> micro-evolution as a mechanism to support the speculation that it can
> produce macro-evolution. Gould says that since there is no evidence to
> support slow gradual change (Creationalist agree) that the change happened
> quickly, just like the invalidated mutated monster theory of Goldschmidt.
> The problem for fundie evolutionists is, the same evidence that
> invalidated the mutated monster theory, tends to equaliy invalidate PE,
> unless, as Gould says based upon sheer speculation, that genetic DNA
> control has changed over time, for which there is no evidence.
Tom: Another "IOW", another pack of lies.
> > ....Continuing the distortion, several creationists have equated the
theory
> > of punctuated equilibrium with a caricature of the beliefs of Richard
> > Goldschmidt, a great early geneticist. Goldschmidt argued, in a famous
book
> > published in 1940, that new groups can arise all at once through major
> > mutations.
>
>Burt: That was of course the mutated monster theory of evolutoin which was
> invalidated by the evidence along with the darwin and neo Darwin
> evolutionary theories which leaves us with PE, each discarded theory
> bringing evolution closer and closer to Creation theory.l
Tom: Still using that current science, eh Burt?
> > He referred to these suddenly transformed creatures as 'hopeful
> > monsters'....
> > Goldschmidt's theory still has nothing to do with punctuated
equilibrium."
>
>Burt: Tee hee hee, IOW Gould is desperately trying to find a mechanism to
fit a
> preconcieved theory, but is failing as did Goldschmidt.
Tom: Tee hee hee, another lie from Burt, but what else is new?
> > --Stephen Jay Gould, from the essay "Evolution as Fact and Theory", in
> > _Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes_, p.259-260
> >
> > Perhaps next time you should not accept creationist claims so
uncritically.
> > Those Christian fundamentalists whose conclusions are dictated by dogma
> > rather than facts have an unfortunate tendency to distort those facts
time
> > and again when trying to argue against a scientific theory they oppose
>
>Burt: Perhaps next time you should not accept fundie evolutionists
religious
> claims so uncritically. Those evolution fundamentalists whose conclusions
> are dictated by dogma rather than facts have an unfortunate tendency to
> distort those facts time
> and again when trying to argue against a scientific theory they oppose.
Tom: Perhaps next time you can put forth a coherent scientific argument
against the TOE. After all, if a theory is so incorrect as you maintain
there must be several scientific hypotheses in opposition, right Burt?
Michael
da...@dajensen-family.com wrote:
No mistake, Stevie Gould sayz Thus Darwin acknowledged the provisional
nature of natural selection while affirming the fact of evolution.
[fact is Gould's assertion, without evidence]
The fruitful theoretical debate that Darwin initiated has never ceased.
[Gee, Gould admits that Darwin is a theological argument]
From the 1940s through the 1960s, Darwin's own theory of natural selection
did achieve a temporary hegemony that it never enjoyed in his lifetime.
But renewed debate characterizes our decade,
{Gee, evolutionalists dispute Darwin]
and, while no biologists questions the importance of natural selection,
many doubt its ubiquity.
{Gee, Darwin might be wrong]
In particular, many evolutionists argue that substantial amounts of
genetic change may not be subject to natural selection and may spread
through the populations at random. Others are challenging Darwin's linking
of natural selection with gradual, imperceptible change through all
intermediary degrees; they are arguing that most evolutionary events may
occur far more rapidly than Darwin envisioned.
[Gee, Gould admits that Darwin's slow gradual change is wrong, dead wrong]
>
> >So, the PE high priest Gould posits a new theory, the old
> >having been rejected and says it really is slow gradual change, but the
> >evidence says it 'must have been ' fast. And someone calls this science?
>
> No, your false claims about it are not science. The science is science.
> Sorry about your reading comprehension problems.
Tee hee hee, fundie evolutionalists mantra # 255.
Michael
wrote:
That's what IOW means, I merely expressed the same though in other words.
Got it?
Michael
wrote:
Beats the depth of Gould's.
Michael
wrote:
> "Michael" <mike...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:mikeburt-011...@user-uivenfa.dsl.mindspring.com...
> > In article <Arleb.6858$LI6...@news01.roc.ny>, "Adam Marczyk" <s...@sig.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Michael <mike...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > > news:mikeburt-290...@user-2ivel4a.dialup.mindspring.com...
> > > > In article <bl1njf$rs6$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Phil W"
> > > > <philip_...@whitehead9964.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > Tee hee hee, my dog just uses his mouth and speaks into the receiver,
> but
> > > > of course, he has evolved more than other dog kinds have, his puppies
> > > > will probably punctuate the equilibrium and become human beings.
> Must
> > > > have happened before, at least according to the PE high priest Stevie
> > > > Gould.
> > >
> > > I bet you're going to feel really embarrassed when you learn what Gould
> > > actually thinks about this.
> >
> >Burt: Tee hee hee, I bet your wrong.
>
> Tom: Tee hee hee, he is definitely wrong, you're too stupid to be
> embarrassed.
Tee hee hee, fundie evolutionalists mantra #5
>
> > >
> > > "Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of
> > > their
> > > own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress
> > > their
> > > rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am--for I have
> > > become a
> > > major target of these practices.
> >
> >Burt: It it is too hot in the kitchen, find another job.
>
> Tom: Non sequitur.
Tee hee hee, fundie evolutionalists mantra #50
>
> > > ....
> > >
> > > We proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium largely to provide a
> > > different
> > > explanation for pervasive trends in the fossil record.
> >
> >Burt: IOW, the fossil record DOES NOT support Darwinism, which everyone
> >knows.
>
> Tom: What is Darwinism, Burt? Do you have a definition?
Tee hee hee Tom, haven't you ever actually read anything on alt.talkorigins?
>
> > Trends, we argued,
> > > cannot be attributed to gradual transformation within lineages,
>
> >Burt: IOW, Darwin was wrong, dead wrong.
>
> Tom: After "IOW" comes nothing but lies.
Tee hee hee, fundie evolutionalists mantra #92
>
> >
> > >but must
> > > arise
> >
> >Burt: IOW they might have, could have and must have but we don't really
> know >and can't explain it at all.
>
> Tom: Another "IOW" and another lie or two.
Tee hee hee, fundie evolutionalists mantra #92
>
> > > from the differential success of certain kinds of species. A trend, we
> > > argued,
> > > is more like climbing a flight of stairs (punctuation and stasis) than
> > > rolling
> > > up an inclined plane.
> >
> >Burt: IOW, PE is somewhat closer to Creation theory than Darwinism was,
> what a
> > surprise.
>
> Tom: Another "IOW", another lie. Can't you comment on anything Burt,
> without changing the meaning?
Tee hee hee, fundie evolutionalists mantra #92
> > >
> > > Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is
> > > infuriating to
> > > be quoted again and again by creationists--whether through design or
> > > stupidity,
> > > I do not know--as admitting that the fossil record includes no
> > > transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the
> species
> > > level, but they are abundant between larger groups.
> >
> >Burt: Rule one, accuse creationalists of the stupid mantra over and over,
> helps
> > limit discussion. IOW TRANSITIONAL FORMS are lacking at the species level
> > (this is high priest Gould himself speaking) but he must rely upon
> > speculation that there are between larger groups. IOW, he invalidates
> > micro-evolution as a mechanism to support the speculation that it can
> > produce macro-evolution. Gould says that since there is no evidence to
> > support slow gradual change (Creationalist agree) that the change happened
> > quickly, just like the invalidated mutated monster theory of Goldschmidt.
> > The problem for fundie evolutionists is, the same evidence that
> > invalidated the mutated monster theory, tends to equaliy invalidate PE,
> > unless, as Gould says based upon sheer speculation, that genetic DNA
> > control has changed over time, for which there is no evidence.
>
> Tom: Another "IOW", another pack of lies.
Tee hee hee, fundie evolutionalists mantra #92
>
> > > ....Continuing the distortion, several creationists have equated the
> theory
> > > of punctuated equilibrium with a caricature of the beliefs of Richard
> > > Goldschmidt, a great early geneticist. Goldschmidt argued, in a famous
> book
> > > published in 1940, that new groups can arise all at once through major
> > > mutations.
> >
> >Burt: That was of course the mutated monster theory of evolutoin which was
> > invalidated by the evidence along with the darwin and neo Darwin
> > evolutionary theories which leaves us with PE, each discarded theory
> > bringing evolution closer and closer to Creation theory.l
>
> Tom: Still using that current science, eh Burt?
Tee hee hee, fundie evolutionalists mantra #57
> > > He referred to these suddenly transformed creatures as 'hopeful
> > > monsters'....
> > > Goldschmidt's theory still has nothing to do with punctuated
> equilibrium."
> >
> >Burt: Tee hee hee, IOW Gould is desperately trying to find a mechanism to
> fit a
> > preconcieved theory, but is failing as did Goldschmidt.
>
> Tom: Tee hee hee, another lie from Burt, but what else is new?
Tee hee hee, fundie evolutionalists mantra #92
>
> > > --Stephen Jay Gould, from the essay "Evolution as Fact and Theory", in
> > > _Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes_, p.259-260
> > >
> > > Perhaps next time you should not accept creationist claims so
> uncritically.
> > > Those Christian fundamentalists whose conclusions are dictated by dogma
> > > rather than facts have an unfortunate tendency to distort those facts
> time
> > > and again when trying to argue against a scientific theory they oppose
> >
> >Burt: Perhaps next time you should not accept fundie evolutionists
> religious
> > claims so uncritically. Those evolution fundamentalists whose conclusions
> > are dictated by dogma rather than facts have an unfortunate tendency to
> > distort those facts time
> > and again when trying to argue against a scientific theory they oppose.
>
> Tom: Perhaps next time you can put forth a coherent scientific argument
> against the TOE. After all, if a theory is so incorrect as you maintain
> there must be several scientific hypotheses in opposition, right Burt?
Right, like Creation theory.
Adam Marczyk
> In article <Arleb.6858$LI6...@news01.roc.ny>, "Adam Marczyk"
> <s...@sig.com> wrote:
>
>> Michael <mike...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>> news:mikeburt-290...@user-2ivel4a.dialup.mindspring.com...
>>> In article <bl1njf$rs6$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Phil W"
>>> <philip_...@whitehead9964.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> Tee hee hee, my dog just uses his mouth and speaks into the receiver,
>>> but of course, he has evolved more than other dog kinds have, his
>>> puppies will probably punctuate the equilibrium and become human
>>> beings. Must have happened before, at least according to the PE high
>>> priest Stevie Gould.
>>
>> I bet you're going to feel really embarrassed when you learn what Gould
>> actually thinks about this.
>
> Tee hee hee, I bet your wrong.
That appears to be the case. I hadn't realized you were incapable of
feeling shame when caught committing a distortion. I apologize.
>> "Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of
>> their
>> own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress
>> their
>> rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am--for I have
>> become a
>> major target of these practices.
>
> It it is too hot in the kitchen, find another job.
Are you saying that if Gould didn't like being quoted out of context by
creationists, then he should just have never written anything that could
have been quoted out of context?
>> ....
>>
>> We proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium largely to provide a
>> different
>> explanation for pervasive trends in the fossil record.
>
> IOW, the fossil record DOES NOT support Darwinism, which everyone knows.
No, you are wrong. That is why Gould says, below, that fossil transitions
are abundant between larger taxonomic groups. The point of punctuated
equilibrium is that transitions between *species* - what creationists would
call microevolution within a kind - occur rapidly (this means rapidly in
the geologic sense - i.e., one to ten million years or so), as the result
of adaptive radiation (one lineage splitting into many), usually in a small
geographic area and spurred by sudden environmental change; whereas in the
absence of environmental change, species that are well-adapted to their
niche can persist for millions of years without significant evolutionary
change. These are not new ideas; Darwin elucidated most of them back in the
Origin. For quotes, see here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=63db9f%24dta%40fcnews.fc.hp.com&oe=utf-8&output=gplain
> Trends, we argued,
>> cannot be attributed to gradual transformation within lineages,
>
> IOW, Darwin was wrong, dead wrong.
You are the one who is wrong. Darwin recognized that natural selection
could be intermittent in operation, but could cause new species to form
rapidly in times of sudden environmental change. See the above link for
details, especially this quote:
"But I must here remark that I do not suppose the process (natural
selection) ever goes on so regularly as is represented in the diagram,
though in itself made somewhat irregular, nor that it goes on continuously;
it is far more probable that each form remains for long periods unaltered,
and then again undergoes modification."
That is PE and stasis in a nutshell.
>> but must
>> arise
>
> IOW they might have, could have and must have but we don't really know
> and can't explain it at all.
What is your basis for this paraphrase? How many of Gould or Eldredge's
books or papers have you read?
>> from the differential success of certain kinds of species. A trend, we
>> argued,
>> is more like climbing a flight of stairs (punctuation and stasis) than
>> rolling
>> up an inclined plane.
>
> IOW, PE is somewhat closer to Creation theory than Darwinism was, what a
> surprise.
You are dead wrong. Punctuated equilibrium is a mode of evolution in which
species persist with relatively little change when environments remain
unaltered, then undergo geologically rapid adaptive radiation when the
environment changes suddenly. This is not an exclusive alternative to
strict gradualism (which also does occur), but a different mode of
evolution that is operative in different times and places. Neither bears
the slightest resemblance to the absurd fantasies of creationism, in which
new species are believed to pop out of thin air fully formed in blatant
violation of natural law.
>> Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is
>> infuriating to
>> be quoted again and again by creationists--whether through design or
>> stupidity,
>> I do not know--as admitting that the fossil record includes no
>> transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the
>> species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.
>
> Rule one, accuse creationalists of the stupid mantra over and over, helps
> limit discussion. IOW TRANSITIONAL FORMS are lacking at the species
> level (this is high priest Gould himself speaking)
Yes, that is what Gould argues. They are lacking at the *species* level.
That is the type of transition a creationist would call microevolution.
Between larger groups, such as dinosaurs to birds or reptiles to mammals
(or hominids to humans), Gould agrees that transitional forms are abundant.
> but he must rely upon
> speculation that there are between larger groups.
It is not "speculation", it is observation of the actual transitional
fossils, which Dr. Gould spends considerable time and effort discussing in
his books (as does Dr. Eldredge). It is neither their fault nor mine if you
refuse to look at them and then claim they don't exist. In "Evolution as
Fact and Theory", the essay that contains this quote, he discusses
transitional series such as the cynodont therapids, the reptilian ancestors
of mammals that preserve in excellent fine-grained detail the evolution of
the mammalian jaw and ear bones from their reptilian precursors.
> IOW, he invalidates
> micro-evolution as a mechanism to support the speculation that it can
> produce macro-evolution. Gould says that since there is no evidence to
> support slow gradual change (Creationalist agree)
That too is false. You really should take it upon yourself to actually read
some of Gould's own works, rather than relying on creationist distortions
of them. Gould merely believed that PE was the rule and gradualism the
exception; for example, the therapsids discussed above.
> that the change
> happened quickly, just like the invalidated mutated monster theory of
> Goldschmidt. The problem for fundie evolutionists is, the same evidence
> that invalidated the mutated monster theory, tends to equaliy invalidate
> PE, unless, as Gould says based upon sheer speculation, that genetic DNA
> control has changed over time, for which there is no evidence.
This is simply ludicrous. If you think that PE requires anything beyond the
standard understanding of genetics, prove it with citations to the original
work. Otherwise, I demand that you retract this flagrant distortion.
>> ....Continuing the distortion, several creationists have equated the
>> theory of punctuated equilibrium with a caricature of the beliefs of
>> Richard Goldschmidt, a great early geneticist. Goldschmidt argued, in a
>> famous book published in 1940, that new groups can arise all at once
>> through major mutations.
>
> That was of course the mutated monster theory of evolutoin which was
> invalidated by the evidence along with the darwin and neo Darwin
> evolutionary theories which leaves us with PE, each discarded theory
> bringing evolution closer and closer to Creation theory.l
Creationists have been proclaiming that their victory was just around the
corner for about a hundred and fifty years now (see
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/moreandmore.htm), so you'll understand if I
don't put any stock in your uninformed self-congratulation. In reality,
creationism as science is long dead, and it's not coming back. Patting
yourself on the back will not change that.
>> He referred to these suddenly transformed creatures as 'hopeful
>> monsters'....
>> Goldschmidt's theory still has nothing to do with punctuated
>> equilibrium."
>
> Tee hee hee, IOW Gould is desperately trying to find a mechanism to fit a
> preconcieved theory, but is failing as did Goldschmidt.
PE requires no mechanism different than what gradualism requires, merely a
different rate for that mechanism to work at. Since natural selection is
known to operate at different rates depending on the severity of the
selection pressure, this is not a problem.
>> --Stephen Jay Gould, from the essay "Evolution as Fact and Theory", in
>> _Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes_, p.259-260
>>
>> Perhaps next time you should not accept creationist claims so
>> uncritically. Those Christian fundamentalists whose conclusions are
>> dictated by dogma rather than facts have an unfortunate tendency to
>> distort those facts time and again when trying to argue against a
>> scientific theory they oppose
>
> Perhaps next time you should not accept fundie evolutionists religious
> claims so uncritically. Those evolution fundamentalists whose conclusions
> are dictated by dogma rather than facts have an unfortunate tendency to
> distort those facts time
> and again when trying to argue against a scientific theory they oppose.
The difference between us is, evidently, that I know something about the
views I oppose, whereas your only information on Gould comes through
creationist filters. Answer my question: How many books or papers of his
have you read? If it's more than zero, though I'm sure it isn't, then list
them. If it is zero, then why do you feel so confident that your uninformed
boasting captures what he really thought?
Adam Marczyk
For truth's sake, do you not even know that "theoretical" and "theological"
are different words?
> From the 1940s through the 1960s, Darwin's own theory of natural
> selection did achieve a temporary hegemony that it never enjoyed in his
> lifetime. But renewed debate characterizes our decade,
>
> {Gee, evolutionalists dispute Darwin]
>
> and, while no biologists questions the importance of natural selection,
> many doubt its ubiquity.
>
> {Gee, Darwin might be wrong]
>
> In particular, many evolutionists argue that substantial amounts of
> genetic change may not be subject to natural selection and may spread
> through the populations at random. Others are challenging Darwin's
> linking of natural selection with gradual, imperceptible change through
> all intermediary degrees; they are arguing that most evolutionary events
> may occur far more rapidly than Darwin envisioned.
>
> [Gee, Gould admits that Darwin's slow gradual change is wrong, dead
> wrong]
Darwin neither required nor insisted upon slow gradual change (and nor does
Gould claim such a thing *never* occurs). In fact, his original book on
evolution espoused a view very close to modern understanding of PE and
stasis, as I have shown in another post. Since Darwin did not know about
genetics, it is hardly his fault that he did not envision neutral drift.
>>> So, the PE high priest Gould posits a new theory, the old
>>> having been rejected and says it really is slow gradual change, but the
>>> evidence says it 'must have been ' fast. And someone calls this
>>> science?
>>
>> No, your false claims about it are not science. The science is science.
>> Sorry about your reading comprehension problems.
>
> Tee hee hee, fundie evolutionalists mantra # 255.
Are you saying you are frequently told that you do not understand
evolution? Perhaps there's a reason for that.
Tom
words. Got it?
Tom: If there ever was an intellectually bankrupt person, here he is. When
you use your words, you don't get an accurate translation or have you ever
noticed? Or perhaps you can't answer the question as stated and try to
change the meaning of the question into something for which you have an
answer.
Tom
Tom: Tee hee hee, Gould did have a lot of depth in his words. Glad you
noticed this richness expressed by Dr. Gould.
Thomas McDonald
You're not the first creationist to use IOW to alter the meaning of the
previous poster. IOW, to bear false witness.
And here I thought that was one of the big 10 things that creationists
wanted everyone to be taught, willy-nilly. Who'd'a thunk it?
--
Tom McDonald
remove 'nohormel' to reply
<snip sig>
Tom
Tom: Tee hee hee, this is the best that you can do????
> > > > "Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical
bankruptcy of
> > > > their
> > > > own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to
buttress
> > > > their
> > > > rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am--for I
have
> > > > become a
> > > > major target of these practices.
> > >
> > >Burt: It it is too hot in the kitchen, find another job.
> >
> > Tom: Non sequitur.
>Burt: Tee hee hee, fundie evolutionalists mantra #50
Tom: Tee hee hee, Burt, too stupid to understand the implications of my
reply :-).
> > > > We proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium largely to provide
a
> > > > different
> > > > explanation for pervasive trends in the fossil record.
> > >
> > >Burt: IOW, the fossil record DOES NOT support Darwinism, which everyone
> > >knows.
> >
> > Tom: What is Darwinism, Burt? Do you have a definition?
>Burt: Tee hee hee Tom, haven't you ever actually read anything on
alt.talkorigins?
Tom: Tee hee hee, did you by chance mean "talk.origins"?
> > > Trends, we argued,
> > > > cannot be attributed to gradual transformation within lineages,
> >
> > >Burt: IOW, Darwin was wrong, dead wrong.
> >
> > Tom: After "IOW" comes nothing but lies.
>
>Burt: Tee hee hee, fundie evolutionalists mantra #92
Tom: Tee hee hee, Burt, unable to face the truth.
> > > >but must
> > > > arise
> > >
> > >Burt: IOW they might have, could have and must have but we don't really
> > know >and can't explain it at all.
> >
> > Tom: Another "IOW" and another lie or two.
>
>Burt: Tee hee hee, fundie evolutionalists mantra #92
Tom" Tee hee hee, Burt, unable to face the truth.
> > > > from the differential success of certain kinds of species. A trend,
we
> > > > argued,
> > > > is more like climbing a flight of stairs (punctuation and stasis)
than
> > > > rolling
> > > > up an inclined plane.
> > >
> > >Burt: IOW, PE is somewhat closer to Creation theory than Darwinism was,
> > what a
> > > surprise.
> >
> > Tom: Another "IOW", another lie. Can't you comment on anything Burt,
> > without changing the meaning?
>Burt: Tee hee hee, fundie evolutionalists mantra #92
Tom: Tee hee hee, Burt, unable to comment past his inane utterings. Here he
is creationists,the best of your spokesmen. Wow!
>Burt: Tee hee hee, fundie evolutionalists mantra #92
Tom: Tee hee hee, Burt, unable to answer a direct question without
restatement. What a pity.
> > > > ....Continuing the distortion, several creationists have equated the
> > theory
> > > > of punctuated equilibrium with a caricature of the beliefs of
Richard
> > > > Goldschmidt, a great early geneticist. Goldschmidt argued, in a
famous
> > book
> > > > published in 1940, that new groups can arise all at once through
major
> > > > mutations.
> > >
> > >Burt: That was of course the mutated monster theory of evolutoin which
was
> > > invalidated by the evidence along with the darwin and neo Darwin
> > > evolutionary theories which leaves us with PE, each discarded theory
> > > bringing evolution closer and closer to Creation theory.l
> >
> > Tom: Still using that current science, eh Burt?
>Burt: Tee hee hee, fundie evolutionalists mantra #57
Tom: Tee hee hee, here is folks, the best of the creationists spokesmen.
Wow!
> > > > He referred to these suddenly transformed creatures as 'hopeful
> > > > monsters'....
> > > > Goldschmidt's theory still has nothing to do with punctuated
> > equilibrium."
> > >
> > >Burt: Tee hee hee, IOW Gould is desperately trying to find a mechanism
to
> > fit a
> > > preconcieved theory, but is failing as did Goldschmidt.
> >
> > Tom: Tee hee hee, another lie from Burt, but what else is new?
>Burt: Tee hee hee, fundie evolutionalists mantra #92
Tom: Tee hee hee, Burt, unable to face his dishonesty. Is it any wonder that
creationists are known as such great liars.
> > > > --Stephen Jay Gould, from the essay "Evolution as Fact and Theory",
in
> > > > _Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes_, p.259-260
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps next time you should not accept creationist claims so
> > uncritically.
> > > > Those Christian fundamentalists whose conclusions are dictated by
dogma
> > > > rather than facts have an unfortunate tendency to distort those
facts
> > time
> > > > and again when trying to argue against a scientific theory they
oppose
> > >
> > >Burt: Perhaps next time you should not accept fundie evolutionists
> > religious
> > > claims so uncritically. Those evolution fundamentalists whose
conclusions
> > > are dictated by dogma rather than facts have an unfortunate tendency
to
> > > distort those facts time
> > > and again when trying to argue against a scientific theory they
oppose.
> >
> > Tom: Perhaps next time you can put forth a coherent scientific argument
> > against the TOE. After all, if a theory is so incorrect as you maintain
> > there must be several scientific hypotheses in opposition, right Burt?
>
>Burt: Right, like Creation theory.
Tom: Tee hee hee, the ignorant creationist ignores the fact that I asked for
a scientific theory.
David Jensen
No, you did not express the same thought.
Michael
da...@dajensen-family.com wrote:
Tee hee hee, only in the cathedral of your own mind, I am afraid.
Tom
Tom:Tee hee hee, no actually to anyone with intelligence enough to read it.
It is pretty simple Burt, you changed the meaning just like the lair you
are. How does it feel to be a liar for Jeebus, Burt?
HoundDog
{SNIP}
>
> Tee hee hee, only in the cathedral of your own mind, I am afraid.
Hey Mikey,
usin dat "tee hee" phrase agin aint ya, well me and de boys wuz workin
the lab late one night (extra credit if you guess what song inspired
that phrase, hint the holiday it gets played alot during is close at
hand) and dun figured out why yu goes "tee hee" so much.
Our hypothesis is that you are experiencing a "Fundie Orgasm". We
figure since you gets so excited reading something you are prepared to
answer with a standard fundie comeback that you learnt at them
meetins,
y'all has one of dem orgasims and cries out, "te hee" rather than
screaming or groaning like normal folks do. Do you have a smoke after
too?
Like in de OT, dey say "know" when dey mean havin sex, like in
intercourse or like dat 4 letter word, f...
So I got a sayin for yu:
Go know yourself, in the biblical manner.
HD
today's sayin from de bible:
(Deuteronomy 20:10-14)
"As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for
peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all
the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse
to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When
the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town.
But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock,
and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the
LORD your God has given you."
Fun stuff dat LORD of yours be sayin to do when you whup up on a town.
Michael
wrote:
Don't know who Jeebus is, but I'm glad that I am not a liar for the pagan
mother earth evolution goddess.
Tom
pagan
> mother earth evolution goddess.
Tom: Tee hee hee, yep those are the exact words of Homer Simpson who said :
I don't even know who Jeebus is, save me Jeebus. You probably knew this all
along.
Michael
wrote:
No, who is Homer Simpson? Is he a scientist?
Stormin Mormonn
ujb
>
> x-no-archive:yes
> On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 23:53:11 -0500, "Stormin Mormonn"
> <cayo...@hotmail.com.remove> wrote:
>
> >"shake hands"
>
> Wrong! The correct answer is: pee!
>
> John W
>
Shake hands is correct. I'll bet you've been traind to squat so
it takes your answer out... :)
jimmy