How do I answer this?
TheBicyclingGuitarist
Blog:
How does a single mutation to a single allele in a dinosaur�s gene get
selected for its flying advantage when the first ratchet or barbule
has not yet even formed because it is waiting for its next rare
beneficial mutation to come along to continue the building of a wing?
It seems the guy got this from uncommon descent or someplace similar.
It is quite like asking what good is half an eye when of course any
detection of light at all even from simple skin patches confers some
advantage over those in total darkness (like creationists).
I know there are fossils in the rocks and in the genes of living
species that show the dinosaur to bird transition. I know feathers may
have been for other purposes before flight such as insulation. I know
this question is loaded with bias the way it is phrased. Still, does
anyone here have any suggestions on answering this question or should
I just wing it lol?
Bob T.
Perhaps you should do some research into the various kinds of gliding
animals - flying squirrels, etc. None of them are examples of the
"vey first" mutation towards flight, but there are some good examples
of animals that gain advantage by, er, not falling as fast. Hmm...
come to think of it, check out how cats slow their falls by spreading
their bodies flat to increase air resistance.
- Bob T.
TheBicyclingGuitarist
the question is about the evolution of feathers and wings in the
transition from dinosaurs to birds. The clown I'm debating does not
accept macroevolution. I'm not sure where he's getting the questions
he's posing, but it sounds like a script from the Discovery Institute
based on the level of ignorance, bias and dishonesty involved. Maybe
he's intelligent enough to be thinking these up all by himself, but
his blinders of faith keep him from seeing how obviously the evidence
points to macroevolution happening.
He also is very obsessed with emphasizing the random factors in
proposed mechanisms for evolution, and seems to think that if any part
of a mechanism involves chance then that mechanism must logically (to
him) result only in chaos all the time. Typical fundie all or nothing
black or white and WRONG viewpoint. Still many people read that blog
I'm posting to, and I'd appreciate some input here on how best to
answer him to help protect American schoolchildren from being dumbed
down.
Yes I know Dover and earlier cases have sided with reason, so far. But
if the public is better educated, then there might not be as many
stupid cases tying up the courts in the future. And if the public
ISN'T educated, we could end up in another dark ages.
Frank J
I'm sure others will provide answers, but I'd like to add my usual
warning. Any answers will only give him more opportunities to distort
evolution and promote incredulity. And even if it doesn't it will keep
the focus on evolution instead of on *his* alternate "theory" and
whatever weaknesses it has (which you know are fatal). So please ask
your own questions. Start with the basics - e.g. (1) How many years
ago did life first appear on earth? (2) Do you agree with Behe that
humans share common ancestors with other species?
If he answers (it may take several tries), make sure it's to the right
questions. If he gives the age of the *earth* (as most who don't
simply evade the question curiously do) point out his poor reading
comprehension. Then you may want to proceed to more detailed questions
about his "theory," and how he tests it. Make sure that none of the
answers rely on "weaknesses" of evolution or add irrelevant comments
like "well 'Darwinism' doesn't have an answer for that either."
chris thompson
Ask him why not all feathers today have barbules and ratchets- down,
in particular.
Chris
Karel
When a allele mutates, doen�t it become a different allele?
What is the "flying advantage" of the new allele supposed to be?
Couldn�t the new allele have a non-flight relateed advantage also? Or
at least be neutral with no flight in sight. Neutral mutations can
spread too and may suddenly show adaptiveness when flight/gliding
comes along.
Does the "questioner" suppose that each barbule requires a separate
mutation?
Wings don�t need building, just some changes in an existing (fore)
limb.
Regards,
Karel
Frank J
<Ch...@TheBicyclingGuitarist.net> wrote:
Time for my demographics speech again.
Other than to have fun, or to alert any lurkers to the games they
play, there's no reason to attempt to reason with such people. Whether
he honestly believes what he is saying or just wants to save the
"masses" that he thinks can't handle the truth, anyone who has
invested that much into spreading incredulity of evolution is unlikely
to admit that you are right.
From various sources, ~25% of adult Americans are beyond hope (will
not concede evolution under any circumstances), and a small % of them
are anti-science activists. But another ~20% has been sold on various
anti-evolution sound bites and seem to hold those positions only
because they lack the time or interest to learn correct their
misconceptions. Another ~20 says "I guess evolution is true but it's
still fair to teach both sides." The latter 2 groups are the ones to
target, and they need to know not just how evolution differs from a
common caricature, but also how anti-evolution activists operate - how
150 years of cherry picking data, defining terms to suit the argument,
quote mining and other tricks of pseudoscience has produced only a
hopeless mess of mutually-contradictory, easily falsified
alternatives, and an increasing determination to keep the focus away
from their "theory" and on promoting unreasonable doubt of evolution.
Bob T.
<Ch...@TheBicyclingGuitarist.net> wrote:
> Well gee, yes I could do research into flying squirrels and such, but
> the question is about the evolution of feathers and wings in the
> transition from dinosaurs to birds. The clown I'm debating does not
> accept macroevolution. I'm not sure where he's getting the questions
> he's posing, but it sounds like a script from the Discovery Institute
> based on the level of ignorance, bias and dishonesty involved. Maybe
> he's intelligent enough to be thinking these up all by himself, but
> his blinders of faith keep him from seeing how obviously the evidence
> points to macroevolution happening.
When he asks you a detailed question about something that occurred a
hundred million years ago, it sounds more like a "gotcha" than a real
question. The point about gliding animals is that we can see right
here in the world today examples of intermediates between falling and
flying. An animal only needs to be slightly better at "not falling"
to have a survival advantage, especially if that animal lives in
trees.
>
> He also is very obsessed with emphasizing the random factors in
> proposed mechanisms for evolution, and seems to think that if any part
> of a mechanism involves chance then that mechanism must logically (to
> him) result only in chaos all the time.
There are many things in this world that involve events that are
random at the individual level and predictable in large numbers. Take
radioactive decay, for example - it is impossible to predict when any
particular atom will decay, but the percentage that will decay over
any given period is predictable with great accuracy.
Evolution acts like a sieve. If you pour a random mixture of rocks,
pebbles, and sand through a sieve, it is no longer a random mixture.
Each generation, the environment acts like a sieve to living species.
The mutations themselves are random, but the reproduction of those
mutations in succeeding generations is not random at all.
- Bob T.
Dakota
> The following is from an ongoing discussion at A Different Kind of
> Blog:
>
> How does a single mutation to a single allele in a dinosaurοΏ½s gene get
> selected for its flying advantage when the first ratchet or barbule
> has not yet even formed because it is waiting for its next rare
> beneficial mutation to come along to continue the building of a wing?
>
> It seems the guy got this from uncommon descent or someplace similar.
> It is quite like asking what good is half an eye when of course any
> detection of light at all even from simple skin patches confers some
> advantage over those in total darkness (like creationists).
>
> I know there are fossils in the rocks and in the genes of living
> species that show the dinosaur to bird transition. I know feathers may
> have been for other purposes before flight such as insulation. I know
> this question is loaded with bias the way it is phrased. Still, does
> anyone here have any suggestions on answering this question or should
> I just wing it lol?
The problem with that argument is that it assumes without basis that the
mutation was selected for its flying advantage. This is clearly a straw
man.
Evolutionary selection only requires that a mutation be advantageous in the
organism's environment at the time. Or, at the very least, not a
disadvantage in that environment. Natural selection is not directed toward
a future ideal organism. Successful mutations must demonstrate their merit
by allowing the organism to better compete in the organism's environment.
In Climbing Mount Improbable, Dawkins refers to a study that found some
primitive winglike insect apendages actually hindered the aerodynamics of
the insects. Examination of the data collected during the study
demonstrated that the apendage was useful as a sort of solar collector
helping to regulate the insects' temperature. That possibility had not been
considered in the study's design but was an unintended consequence. The
mutation was likely selected for its thermal advantage. As the apendage
grew as a result of successive selection on that basis, it happened to
become aerodynamically advantageous and that proved to be more useful to
the insects survival.
TheBicyclingGuitarist
> On Dec 26, 1:04�pm, TheBicyclingGuitarist
>
> <Ch...@TheBicyclingGuitarist.net> wrote:
>
> > Yes I know Dover and earlier cases have sided with reason, so far. But
> > if the public is better educated, then there might not be as many
> > stupid cases tying up the courts in the future. And if the public
> > ISN'T educated, we could end up in another dark ages.
>
> Time for my demographics speech again.
>
> Other than to have fun, or to alert any lurkers to the games they
> play, there's no reason to attempt to reason with such people. Whether
> he honestly believes what he is saying or just wants to save the
> "masses" that he thinks can't handle the truth, anyone who has
> invested that much into spreading incredulity of evolution is unlikely
> to admit that you are right.
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'm not trying to convince him. Based on his questions, he seems to
have a closed mind to truth. The answers I provide are for the
visitors or lurkers in that blog especially those who are sincerely
trying to learn the truth about this subject.
Synapseaxion claims that the evidence supports his viewpoint as much
as it does mine, that it is all a matter of interpretation. He claims
that since random chance is part of the mechanism of evolution, then
whether or not evolutionists admit it that *really* means evolution
predicts chaos all the time instead of the order we perceive. He
dismisses the evidence of nested hierarchies by saying that
intelliigence is known to create in nested hierarchies. He has not
answered my questions about why the fossil record and genetic evidence
clearly show macroevolution happens. He seems to think the evidence of
the world shows "intelligent design" when of course there is plenty of
bad designing that shows life adapting and making do with what it has
to work with from its genetic legacy.
Mike Painter
> The following is from an ongoing discussion at A Different Kind of
> Blog:
>
> selected for its flying advantage when the first ratchet or barbule
> has not yet even formed because it is waiting for its next rare
> beneficial mutation to come along to continue the building of a wing?
>
> It seems the guy got this from uncommon descent or someplace similar.
> It is quite like asking what good is half an eye when of course any
> detection of light at all even from simple skin patches confers some
> advantage over those in total darkness (like creationists).
>
> I know there are fossils in the rocks and in the genes of living
> species that show the dinosaur to bird transition. I know feathers may
> have been for other purposes before flight such as insulation. I know
> this question is loaded with bias the way it is phrased. Still, does
> anyone here have any suggestions on answering this question or should
> I just wing it lol?
There is no way to answer that individual other than with what you are
saying about the eye.
Something is better than nothing.
Actual flight probably developed long after or long before feathers came
along.
Bats don't need feathers.
Maybe the main reason why we have a lot of larger birds is that down is
lighter than wool.
Keep to what science knows and there may be a few people reading the
exchange that will start to think and that is fatal to most fundamentalists.
Steven J.
<Ch...@TheBicyclingGuitarist.net> wrote:
> The following is from an ongoing discussion at A Different Kind of
> Blog:
>
> How does a single mutation to a single allele in a dinosaur�s gene get
> selected for its flying advantage when the first ratchet or barbule
> has not yet even formed because it is waiting for its next rare
> beneficial mutation to come along to continue the building of a wing?
>
gets selected for some other advantage. In the case of feathers,
quite possibly the original advantage was display: the individual with
a proto-feather-shaft looked bigger, spikier, maybe even sexier.
Further selection may have favored insulation value, as vanes became
more numerous.
Forelimbs that could be rotated in the patterns of flapping flight
seem to have turned up well before actual wings; I cannot say what the
advantage of such a thing might have been, but again, presumably it
was not, originally, flight. Rather, plumaceous feathers and flapping
flight were modifications of structures that had originally evolved
for some other purpose.
>
> It seems the guy got this from uncommon descent or someplace similar.
> It is quite like asking what good is half an eye when of course any
> detection of light at all even from simple skin patches confers some
> advantage over those in total darkness (like creationists).
>
> I know there are fossils in the rocks and in the genes of living
> species that show the dinosaur to bird transition. I know feathers may
> have been for other purposes before flight such as insulation. I know
> this question is loaded with bias the way it is phrased. Still, does
> anyone here have any suggestions on answering this question or should
> I just wing it lol?
-- Steven J.
bobsyo...@yahoo.com
"TheBicyclingGuitarist" <Ch...@TheBicyclingGuitarist.net> wrote in message
news:efd5274b-af58-45cf...@z10g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> The following is from an ongoing discussion at A Different Kind of
> Blog:
>
> selected for its flying advantage when the first ratchet or barbule
> has not yet even formed because it is waiting for its next rare
> beneficial mutation to come along to continue the building of a wing?
>
> It seems the guy got this from uncommon descent or someplace similar.
> It is quite like asking what good is half an eye when of course any
> detection of light at all even from simple skin patches confers some
> advantage over those in total darkness (like creationists).
>
> I know there are fossils in the rocks and in the genes of living
> species that show the dinosaur to bird transition. I know feathers may
> have been for other purposes before flight such as insulation. I know
> this question is loaded with bias the way it is phrased. Still, does
> anyone here have any suggestions on answering this question or should
> I just wing it lol?
You could wing it, considering the fact that ALL creationist claims and
complaints are just invented.
Or you could tell the truth - even though that never means anything to them.
Or you can tell them the truth, that they know shit about evolution.
Or you can tell the truth - that no mutations, as he describes them, happen.
There is no mutation that "gets selected".
There is no mutation that "get selected" for flying unless the mutation
happens in an already existing "flying" species.
Mutations are not rare. (even beneficial ones).
NO land animals, that have nothing similar to already existing "wings", ever
uses a mutation that "plans to become wings" at some unknown future time.
All-seeing-I
<bobsyoung...@yahoo.com>
> There is no mutation that "get selected" for flying unless the mutation
> happens in an already existing "flying" species.
This one kinda shoots down the "birds are really Dino's" thingy
> NO land animals, that have nothing similar to already existing "wings", ever
> uses a mutation that "plans to become wings" �at some unknown future time.
This one kinda shoots down the "birds are really Dino's" thingy too.
'What a tattered web evolution weaves when first it decides to
decieve' eh?
Shouldn't you BoZo's make your minds up exactly /what/ evolution can
and cannot do before the theory is foisted as truth?
Caranx latus
> On Dec 26, 2:46 pm, "PepsiFr...@teranews.com"
> <bobsyoung...@yahoo.com>
>
>
>> There is no mutation that "get selected" for flying unless the mutation
>> happens in an already existing "flying" species.
>
> This one kinda shoots down the "birds are really Dino's" thingy
Man, you'll latch onto anything passing by, won't you? Have you
absolutely no shame?
>> NO land animals, that have nothing similar to already existing "wings", ever
>> uses a mutation that "plans to become wings" at some unknown future time.
>
> This one kinda shoots down the "birds are really Dino's" thingy too.
>
> 'What a tattered web evolution weaves when first it decides to
> decieve' eh?
>
> Shouldn't you BoZo's make your minds up exactly /what/ evolution can
> and cannot do before the theory is foisted as truth?
(Still looking for the Sumerian text supporting in vitro fertilization,
[M]adape. The poem that you quoted from, written in 2001, doesn't cut it.)
Dan Listermann
"Frank J" <fc...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ced4517e-cb3f-47dc...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 26, 12:01 pm, TheBicyclingGuitarist
> <Ch...@TheBicyclingGuitarist.net> wrote:
>> The following is from an ongoing discussion at A Different Kind of
>> Blog:
>>
Theists think that their "theory" is the default position and has to be
disproven. Show them that "God" is only a theory.
.
Dan Listermann
"All-seeing-I" <ap...@email.com> wrote in message
news:3fe7d2b6-1e57-4c96...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
Nice distortions.
.
heekster
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>On Dec 26, 2:46�pm, "PepsiFr...@teranews.com"
><bobsyoung...@yahoo.com>
>
>
>> There is no mutation that "get selected" for flying unless the mutation
>> happens in an already existing "flying" species.
>
>This one kinda shoots down the "birds are really Dino's" thingy
Uh, no. You failed to show any connection what soever.
>
>> NO land animals, that have nothing similar to already existing "wings", ever
>> uses a mutation that "plans to become wings" �at some unknown future time.
>
>This one kinda shoots down the "birds are really Dino's" thingy too.
>
Uh, no. You failed to show any connection what soever.
>'What a tattered web evolution weaves when first it decides to
>decieve' eh?
>
You lie, and you're still an idiot.
>Shouldn't you BoZo's make your minds up exactly /what/ evolution can
>and cannot do before the theory is foisted as truth?
Shouldn't you get an education, since you obviously understand neither
evolution, nor the concept of truth?
TomS
<905d$4b369858$4a53bf9f$29...@FUSE.NET>, Dan Listermann stated..."
I don't think your last sentence is a good idea.
For one thing, creationism does not rise to the standards of a theory.
It does not even attempt to offer an explanation for "why this and not
that". Rather than offering an alternative to evolution, it rests
content with claiming that something is wrong with evolution, and
avoids discussing whether the same "fault" applies to creationism.
--
---Tom S.
the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
the currant jelly.
Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
All-seeing-I
Do your own research evo-freak.
I gave you plenty of web sites to start your quest.
Ye Old One
Nope, it is up to you.
>
>I gave you plenty of web sites to start your quest.
Did you? Strange how none really support your claim.
--
Bob.
When D-G made Madman out of clay he forgot to magic the brain. I think
that explains everything.
Caranx latus
As I thought, [M]adape. You've got *nothing*. No support for your
contention that the Sumerians were involved with in vitro fertilization.
And. You. Know it. You believe it for absolutely no rational reason
whatsoever.
> I gave you plenty of web sites to start your quest.
I looked at them. You have apparently accepted a poem written in 2001 as
a record of events in Sumerian times. Another was a steaming pile of
horse-puckey, and obviously so.
Andre Lieven
Their sky pixie is NOT "a theory". It remains an unsupported and
asserted hypothesis.
Theories have factual support. Sky pixies don't.
Andre
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bullshit. Use the key words within the web sites. Do youir own work.
All-seeing-I
> A correction:
>
>
>
>
>
> Dan Listermann wrote:
Yet you cannot show, with evidence, that the myraid of ancidotal
evidence for God is wrong. You cannot even show the preponderence of
evidence is in error either.
All you can do is make foolish assertions.
Well, foolish assertions call for evidence too.
Got any?
No. All you can do is parrot atheist cliches`
Boikat
You cannot show they are factual, either.
>
> All you can do is make foolish assertions.
Projection.
>
> Well, foolish assertions call for evidence too.
>
> Got any?
>
> No. All you can do is parrot atheist cliches`
As opposed to cretinoid cliches?
At least, when it comes to science, evidence means something.
Boikat
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
You have demonstrated that you are untrustworthy. Why would anyone
believe any claim you make?
Boikat
"Bullshit" is right. The only sites that contains "Sumerians" and "In
vitro fertilization" are yourT.O. NG posts and bullshit "Woo-Woo"
sites. Nothing from any credible sources.
Boikat
Caranx latus
> On Dec 26, 6:19 pm, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
<snip>
>>>> (Still looking for the Sumerian text supporting in vitro fertilization,
>>>> [M]adape. The poem that you quoted from, written in 2001, doesn't cut it.)
>>> Do your own research evo-freak.
>> As I thought, [M]adape. You've got *nothing*. No support for your
>> contention that the Sumerians were involved with in vitro fertilization.
>> And. You. Know it. You believe it for absolutely no rational reason
>> whatsoever.
>>
>>> I gave you plenty of web sites to start your quest.
>> I looked at them. You have apparently accepted a poem written in 2001 as
>> a record of events in Sumerian times. Another was a steaming pile of
>> horse-puckey, and obviously so.
>
> Bullshit. Use the key words within the web sites. Do youir own work.
Is this how you'd like to be answered the next time that *you* ask for
evidence? Consider that carefully.
The problem withs a poem written in 2001 being used as authoritative
regarding Sumerian history are obvious. In another post, I dealt with a
few of the horse-puckiest problems with one of the other web pages. I'll
hunt that post down for you if you like so you can respond to my
criticisms like the adult that you're supposed to be.
Dan Listermann
evidence for God is right. You cannot even show the preponderance of
evidence is true either.
"God" is just a theory.
.
Dan Listermann
"Andre Lieven" <andre...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:418b9915-8a77-443d...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>A correction:
>
> Dan Listermann wrote:
>> "Frank J" <fc...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:ced4517e-cb3f-47dc...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>> > On Dec 26, 12:01 pm, TheBicyclingGuitarist
>> > <Ch...@TheBicyclingGuitarist.net> wrote:
>> >> The following is from an ongoing discussion at A Different Kind of
>> >> Blog:
>> >>
concept of hypothesis to a creationist? They like to call evolution "just a
theory." "God" is "just a theory."
.
Dan Listermann
"Ye Old One" <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote in message
news:cu8dj5h2rbrh3lelf...@4ax.com...
know, ah.
.
R. Baldwin
news:905d$4b369858$4a53bf9f$29...@FUSE.NET:
>
[snip]
>
> Theists think that their "theory" is the default position and has to
> be disproven.
Some theists may think this. Others clearly do not.
> Show them that "God" is only a theory.
>
Just how could one possibly go about that?
Dan Listermann
"R. Baldwin" <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9CEDB6B0E...@216.168.3.30...
might be, as they like to make fun of evolution.
.
Andre Lieven
<Laughs>
http://www.freethoughtdebater.com/tenbiblecontradictions.htm
In any case, until you western talibani come up with ANY actual
evidence FOR your claims (2,000 years and NOTHING so far...),
we have NOTHING to refute...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
> You cannot even show the preponderence of
> evidence is in error either.
<Laughs> You morons have NO evidence.
> All you can do is make foolish assertions.
<Massive Loon Projection>
> Well, foolish assertions call for evidence too.
So, where's yours ?
> Got any?
Cited above...
> No. All you can do is parrot atheist cliches`
<Massive Loon Projection>
Seek competent mental health care now.
Andre
heekster
You are really pathetic. I'm sure that my telling you this will have
no impact at all, but your arrogant lying is beyond belief, beyond
sanity.
Andre Lieven
I refuse to cater to any of their willful ignorances.
Evolution IS a scientific theory. "god" is asserted nonsense.
Andre
Dan Listermann
No argument here!
.
TheBicyclingGuitarist
<Ch...@TheBicyclingGuitarist.net> wrote:
> The following is from an ongoing discussion at A Different Kind of
> Blog:
>
Well Synapseaxion, by declaring your belief that the earth is only
about six thousand years old, you demonstrate that your denial of the
fact of evolution isn�t your only personal problem. You are basically
in denial of all of modern science, basically everything we�ve learned
since the time the Bible was written.
You do know that book was written by and for Bronze Age goatherders
who had the knowledge of science and world view of that time and
place, right? The Bible clearly teaches the earth is flat, yet you say
you don�t believe that.
Put yourself in my place if you can for a minute. Imagine you are
having this debate with somebody who insists the earth is flat. You
know better. You know there are tons of evidence of many different
types that clearly show the earth is an oblate spheroid, yet this guy
claims that his interpretation of the evidence is just as valid as
yours.
You show him photographs taken from space. You point out the
calculations of Eratosthenes. No go. The guy is adamant. He asks
questions like how do the laws of chemistry and physics produce an
earth that isn�t flat? This is EXACTLY the situation I am in with you,
Synapseaxion, which makes any further debate pointless.
You have a closed mind to truth. You claim I have filters on. Sure, I
concede that, but mine don�t completely block what is real the way
yours apparently do. Sure you may have studied this subject longer
than I can imagine. It�s obvious your sources are biased and full of
distortion and misinformation. Sure you may have debated Ph.D.s about
this subject. Any village idiot can do that. It doesn�t mean they know
squat about the subject being discussed.
You sir are an idiot, a very polite, very persistent idiot, but
basically retarded when it comes to being in touch with what is real.
You are not alone. There are millions of Americans just like you. Most
of them haven�t really taken the time to check this subject out for
themselves. Most of them are taking the word of people they think they
should be able to trust to tell them the truth, their pastors, so-
called Christian web sites that are full of distortions and out and
out lies, etc.
I call BULLSHIT on your posts. You are so stupidly wrong that it is a
complete waste of time for me to answer any more of your moronic
questions. Sure science doesn�t have all the answers, and probably
never will. Creationism or intelligent design as it is presented now
has nothing to offer in its place that is of any use to anyone. Just
saying Goddidit is NOT an alternative explanation of any use. Since
that explains everything, but makes no attempt to explain how or why,
it explains NOTHING.
If science were redefined to creationist standards, astrology would be
given just as much authority as astronomy. Science got us to the MOON,
and made it possible for you to be reading this on your computer
screen. Creationism as an idea has produced NOTHING in 2000 years. It
has a long history of failure.
Again I call BULLSHIT on your posts Synapseaxion, and I challenge
anyone who doesn�t agree with me to check the evidence for themselves.
And now folks, it is even easier to prove that Synapseaxion is full of
shit and his opinion is worse than useless on any scientific matters,
because he has come out of the closet and admitted he believes the
world is only six thousand years old! To be so ignorant of the
overwhelming evidence for macroevolution is one thing, but to
seriously entertain the idea of the earth only being a few thousand
years old�wow�that is just beyond retarded.
Now perhaps as some creationists have desperately tried to claim, God
used pieces of an old planet to make this one, or otherwise created it
with the illusion of age, the illusion of evolution, etc. even if it
never happened that way. If so, if God himself planted all this fake
evidence clearly intended to mislead, confuse and deceive those who
sincerely seek truth, then God help us indeed to have such a God as
our creator.
Anyway, again Synapse, because it bears repeating: I call BULLSHIT on
your posts, BULLSHIT on your claims, and I challenge anyone who
doesn�t agree with me to check the evidence for yourselves. Google is
your friend. If you really do have an open mind to truth and love
honesty and integrity, you will get really pissed off when you see all
the lies of the so-called Christian creationist web sites. I know it
offends me.
Anyway, Synapseaxion, BULLSHIT! Keep your ridiculous fairy-tale
fantasy that is not supported by the evidence of the world. Believe
what you want. On this subject at least, I have tons of physical
evidence of many different types that anyone can check for themselves
to see how obvious the truth is in this case.
TBG
Friar Broccoli
<Ch...@TheBicyclingGuitarist.net> wrote:
> On Dec 26, 9:01�am, TheBicyclingGuitarist<Ch...@TheBicyclingGuitarist.net> wrote:
> > The following is from an ongoing discussion at A Different Kind of
> > Blog:
>
> OKAY HERE IS MY LAST WORD ON THIS TO THAT FUNDIE NUTJOB
> Well Synapseaxion, by declaring your belief that the earth is only
> about six thousand years old, you demonstrate that your denial of the
> fact of evolution isn�t your only personal problem. You are basically
> in denial of all of modern science, basically everything we�ve learned
> since the time the Bible was written.
You might add here:
If the earth is 6,000 years old:
Can you explain how light reaches earth from other galaxies the
nearest
of witch (Andromeda) is 2,000,000 light years away?
Can you explain how coal mines ("Coal Mountain" south-east corner of
British Columbia Canada) are found at the tops of mountains?
Can you explain why we find the fossils (some on mountain tops) of
more than 10,000 species of trilobite - but NONE are living today
- or have ever been found with crab fossils?
And for bonus points:
How did the Lemurs get back to Madagascar after Noah's flood?
In the following you are (in my view) basically venting semi-coherent
rage. Fundamentalists love that. To be effective you need to
present clear direct arguments.
Mike Painter
> On Dec 26, 11:01 am, TheBicyclingGuitarist
> <Ch...@TheBicyclingGuitarist.net> wrote:
>> The following is from an ongoing discussion at A Different Kind of
>> Blog:
>>
>> get selected for its flying advantage when the first ratchet or
>> barbule has not yet even formed because it is waiting for its next
>> rare beneficial mutation to come along to continue the building of a
>> wing?
>>
> gets selected for some other advantage. In the case of feathers,
> quite possibly the original advantage was display: the individual with
> a proto-feather-shaft looked bigger, spikier, maybe even sexier.
> Further selection may have favored insulation value, as vanes became
> more numerous.
>
> Forelimbs that could be rotated in the patterns of flapping flight
> seem to have turned up well before actual wings; I cannot say what the
> advantage of such a thing might have been, but again, presumably it
> was not, originally, flight. Rather, plumaceous feathers and flapping
> flight were modifications of structures that had originally evolved
> for some other purpose.
Sex is always a good guess.
Thurisaz the Einherjer
regarding the topic (experts please correct me if I'm wrong):
If that claim refers to a mutation that does no good... well if it doesn't
do bad either why should it NOT spread among the population?
A mutation that by itself is neutral, only becoming advantageous in
combination with other, later mutations, would not be selected for OR
AGAINST in any manner.
--
Romans 2:24 revised:
"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you
cretinists, as it is written on aig."
My personal judgment of monotheism: http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
Thurisaz the Einherjer
idiot I am!!!"...
All-seeing-I
>
> In any case, until you western talibani come up with ANY actual
> evidence FOR your claims (2,000 years and NOTHING so far...),
> we have NOTHING to refute...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
>
> > You cannot even show the preponderence of
> > evidence is in error either.
>
> <Laughs> You morons have NO evidence.
>
> > All you can do is make foolish assertions.
>
> <Massive Loon Projection>
>
> > Well, foolish assertions call for evidence too.
>
> So, where's yours ?
>
> > Got any?
>
> Cited above...
>
> > No. All you can do is parrot atheist cliches`
>
> <Massive Loon Projection>
>
> Seek competent mental health care now.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Got any independent links, or just more atheistic pandering?
Ye Old One
Or, like most creationists, you have to learn not to read.
--
Bob.
What if you're in hell, and you're mad at someone, where do you tell
them to go?
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Clearly your memory is faulty. Evidence for biblical lies and errors
has been posted many times.
>
>All you can do is make foolish assertions.
>
>Well, foolish assertions call for evidence too.
Do you have any to back up any of your foolish claims? Stupid claims
like:-
Science causes disease.
That 3.5% actually means 25%...
That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited
some facet of some religion...
To have a "higher education" than most posters to this news group...
To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of
rock...
That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me
laugh]
And that he has "created genes" and not evolved ape genes...
That linguists have traced all the world's languages to the Middle
East region and back to around the same time as the bible claims Noah
and his sons rebuilt mankind.
That talk.origin's moderator was a troll.
That cigarettes do not cause cancer.
That the [Dropa] stone is real, the troglodytes exist, the graves are
there, many books have been written on the subject...
How about backing up just a few of those with real evidence Mudbrain?
>Got any?
>
>No. All you can do is parrot atheist cliches`
All you can do is parrot abject stupidity.
All-Seeing-I
You have to read the various translations of the tablets.
Frank J
> "Frank J" <f...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> news:ced4517e-cb3f-47dc...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 26, 12:01 pm, TheBicyclingGuitarist
> > <Ch...@TheBicyclingGuitarist.net> wrote:
> >> The following is from an ongoing discussion at A Different Kind of
> >> Blog:
>
Theists? I consider myself a theist, and I do not consider God to be a
theory in either the scientific or colloquial definition. I consider
evolution the "default" position because the evidence keeps converging
on it, and the proposed alternatives keep degenerating into hoplessly
confused and vague nonexplanations. The onus is on deniers to not just
"disprove" (falsify) it, but support their own equivalent explanation
on its own merits. If all they want to say id "Goddidit" we're back to
evolution.
The people I refer to (professional and wannabe anti-evolution
activists) may call themselves theists, but they keep confining their
god to the gaps. And many seem to be quite aware that they are
breaking the Commandment about bearing false witness.
Frank J
> "Andre Lieven" <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
>
> news:418b9915-8a77-443d...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> >A correction:
>
> > Dan Listermann wrote:
terminology, but these people who regularly post on boards *know* that
they are pulling a bait-and-switch to fool the audience. GThey know
the definitions, and they know the science well enough to know what to
emphasize and what to leave out.
What might work on some creationists-on-the-street - although we have
to temporily play along with the bait-and-switch to to it - is to say
that *creationism* (not God) is "only a theory" too. And several
*mutually contradictory* theories at that. Then put them on the
defensive by having them explain why the other versions of creationism
are just as wrong as "Darwinism."
Dan Listermann
"All-Seeing-I" <allse...@usa.com> wrote in message
news:e1a0a661-2186-48f6...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
.
Frank J
<Ch...@TheBicyclingGuitarist.net> wrote:
> On Dec 26, 10:27�am, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 26, 1:04�pm, TheBicyclingGuitarist
>
> > <Ch...@TheBicyclingGuitarist.net> wrote:
>
> > > Yes I know Dover and earlier cases have sided with reason, so far. But
> > > if the public is better educated, then there might not be as many
> > > stupid cases tying up the courts in the future. And if the public
> > > ISN'T educated, we could end up in another dark ages.
>
> > Time for my demographics speech again.
>
> > Other than to have fun, or to alert any lurkers to the games they
> > play, there's no reason to attempt to reason with such people. Whether
> > he honestly believes what he is saying or just wants to save the
> > "masses" that he thinks can't handle the truth, anyone who has
> > invested that much into spreading incredulity of evolution is unlikely
> > to admit that you are right.
> >.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> have a closed mind to truth. The answers I provide are for the
> visitors or lurkers in that blog especially those who are sincerely
> trying to learn the truth about this subject.
>
> Synapseaxion claims that the evidence supports his viewpoint as much
> as it does mine, that it is all a matter of interpretation. He claims
> that since random chance is part of the mechanism of evolution, then
> whether or not evolutionists admit it that *really* means evolution
> predicts chaos all the time instead of the order we perceive. He
> dismisses the evidence of nested hierarchies by saying that
> intelliigence is known to create in nested hierarchies. He has not
> answered my questions about why the fossil record and genetic evidence
> clearly show macroevolution happens. He seems to think the evidence of
> the world shows "intelligent design" when of course there is plenty of
> bad designing that shows life adapting and making do with what it has
> to work with from its genetic legacy.
What is his position? Does he have any ideas, even tentative ones, as
to *when* and *where* those "designs" were inserted in biological
systems? Does he agree with Behe that all current life on Earth is
descended from "designed" cells that lived ~4 billion years ago? Note
that Behe does not think that "macroevolution" happens either. Rather
he thinks that a very "non-evolutionary" but nevertheless
"biologically continuous" process occurs "somewhere and at some time."
Behe knows better than to speculate where, when and how (gotta serve
the big tent you know), but one thing he proposed is that the genetic
material was in ancesral cells but "turned off." He was not clear
whether that required any designer "intervention" after the "first
ancestral cell". Maybe Synapseaxion might elaborate.
Dan Listermann
> On Dec 26, 6:12 pm, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>> "Frank J" <f...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:ced4517e-cb3f-47dc...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Dec 26, 12:01 pm, TheBicyclingGuitarist
>> > <Ch...@TheBicyclingGuitarist.net> wrote:
>> >> The following is from an ongoing discussion at A Different Kind of
>> >> Blog:
>>
>
> Theists? I consider myself a theist, and I do not consider God to be a
> theory in either the scientific or colloquial definition. I consider
> evolution the "default" position because the evidence keeps converging
> on it, and the proposed alternatives keep degenerating into hoplessly
> confused and vague nonexplanations. The onus is on deniers to not just
> "disprove" (falsify) it, but support their own equivalent explanation
> on its own merits. If all they want to say id "Goddidit" we're back to
> evolution.
>
> The people I refer to (professional and wannabe anti-evolution
> activists) may call themselves theists, but they keep confining their
> god to the gaps. And many seem to be quite aware that they are
> breaking the Commandment about bearing false witness.
>
and feel no responsibility to defend that position, demanding "proof" of
anyone who might question it. Actually the belief in deities is only an
unsupported hypothesis - or "theory" in common terms. Theists need to be
made aware of this fact.
.
Frank J
<Ch...@TheBicyclingGuitarist.net> wrote:
> > The following is from an ongoing discussion at A Different Kind of
> > Blog:
>
> OKAY HERE IS MY LAST WORD ON THIS TO THAT FUNDIE NUTJOB
> Well Synapseaxion, by declaring your belief that the earth is only
> about six thousand years old
Dis he state that clearly, or are you just assuming it?
Unfortunately I think that your "last word" gives him the last word.
el cid
<Ch...@TheBicyclingGuitarist.net> wrote:
> The following is from an ongoing discussion at A Different Kind of
> Blog:
>
> selected for its flying advantage when the first ratchet or barbule
> has not yet even formed because it is waiting for its next rare
> beneficial mutation to come along to continue the building of a wing?
>
> It seems the guy got this from uncommon descent or someplace similar.
> It is quite like asking what good is half an eye when of course any
> detection of light at all even from simple skin patches confers some
> advantage over those in total darkness (like creationists).
>
> I know there are fossils in the rocks and in the genes of living
> species that show the dinosaur to bird transition. I know feathers may
> have been for other purposes before flight such as insulation. I know
> this question is loaded with bias the way it is phrased. Still, does
> anyone here have any suggestions on answering this question or should
> I just wing it lol?
So to repeat the question, it's basically taking the adaption
scheme of something like Dawkin's METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL and
asking how do you select for the first couple letters of the
solution when there's no advantage?
Recall that Dawkins has shown that with strong selection you can
produce METHINKS IT IS A WEASEL very quickly. There have been
criticisms of his example and to paraphrase the criticism from
your question, why would one select for a partial solution that
is not yet providing an adaptive advantage?
This is actually a reasonable question. If evolution only worked
by adaption it would represent a huge problem. However, as many
point out from time to time (sometimes against fans of Dawkins)
adaption is probably a small part of evolution in the natural
history of life.
To play with these ideas some, I just wrote a variant of a
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL program in perl with a few
differences from the example programs I've seen.
I use the same target answer and start from a random string
of the same length. The main difference is that I put in a
minimum matching threshold for selection to work. In other
words, you don't get to invoke selection until you already
have part of the solution in hand. I also don't "fix" correct
parts of the string but allow them to mutate at the same
rate as incorrect letters in the production of child strings
from the parent string.
The code works like this.
Start with a string 28 letters long (26 characters plus
space for the allowed alphabet).
Spawn a new generation of children from the parent string.
I used a mutation rate of 10% per character meaning that for
each position in the array of characters, there was a 10%
chance I would replaced the starting character with a new
random one. I used a population size of 1000.
If one of the offspring has more than a minimal number of
positions correct, it becomes the parent for the next
generation and all new sequences start to mutate from
from that current best solution.
If none of the child sequences is better than the minimal
best solution, I pick a random child sequence as the
parent for the next generation. Here's a simulation
where I required a minimal best match of at least 9
of 28 characters. For aesthetic reasons, I print lower
case for mismatches and uppercase for matches.
A very important lesson is that evolution is very
fast at first, when it's mostly drift. Selection
is, by comparison, slow. But note that fast means
moving "far" from where it started but not in any
particular direction. Adaption is about going in
a particular direction. Of course, that is with
respect to my simulation so one can argue about
its relevance to the real world. In 100 simulations,
the average time to a solution was 86 generations,
the minimum was 12 generations and the max was 326.
I'll post the perl if anyone cares.
Starting string is "SHI LIAS L SMIEI I SIMSAAHI "
Starting score is 3 "shi liaS l smiei i simsaAhi "
1 Best child 7 "shi I iS l ssi mIi simsEAhi "
2 Best child 6 "shi laaS l smi L iEsimeaAhkk"
3 Best child 7 "shw liaS l smi L iisAmWhAhk "
4 Best child 6 "shi liaS I milk s meaAhk "
5 Best child 7 "shi liKS l nilw i meaASk "
6 Best child 6 "shi siaSit sIilkIi e eaAhw "
7 Best child 5 "shi sk S litmilkIi aemekAhE "
8 Best child 5 "ihi si S l tmi h e ae eaAhk "
9 Best child 4 "i i si m l mili w a meaAhE "
10 Best child 6 "i inIk m I tliliIti imlaAhk "
11 Best child 5 "a i seim latlSli wis eeEAhE "
12 Best child 5 "a e skim l tli L wieiieEAhk "
13 Best child 5 "aai t it l liliIm aiieEAhk "
14 Best child 5 "a TwtkiS l tlili m aiietAhE "
15 Best child 7 "aEeweNilwlTtlk isK ai etAhk "
16 Best child 8 "a Teekie lTtIil K i eaAhl "
17 Best child 7 "a eeekie lTali K as eaASl "
18 Best child 8 "a eeeki lTtlik IK iA eaAhE "
19 Best child 5 "aEee kitilTtlis eK ai ea Sih"
20 Best child 6 "k ee kit lTilis eK iA eElhl "
21 Best child 7 "k e kit lT IisLeK ai ea l "
22 Best child 6 "k aeIiet lTilis sKEas ea tl "
23 Best child 8 "M e mat lTili IK ai kE tl "
24 Best child 8 "kE e Naa lTili eK mi kE tl "
25 Best child 8 "kE eIiat lTilis eK ai eEAtl "
26 Best child 8 "Ml e iat lTiIi mK ai eE tlk"
27 Best child 8 "kE eIiKh lTilis eK ai E tlk"
28 Best child 7 "kl e iKhlITiIes eK ai eE tak"
29 Best child 8 "klaH iahllT ee eK i eE tlk"
30 Best child 9 "Ml e iKhllT nl eK i eE elk"
31 Best child 12 "Ml sIiKhllT nt LeK i eEAelk"
32 Best child 14 "Mn sIiKSllT It LeK i eEAelk"
33 Best child 16 "Mn sIiKS lT IS LeK i eEAels"
34 Best child 18 "Mn sIiKS lT IS LeKE i eEASls"
35 Best child 20 "ME sIiKS lT IS LIKE i eEASlk"
36 Best child 21 "ME sIiKS lT IS LIKE i eEASEk"
37 Best child 22 "METlIiKS lT IS LIKE eEASEk"
38 Best child 23 "METlIiKS IT IS LIKE s eEASEk"
39 Best child 24 "METHIiKS IT IS LIKE s eEASEk"
40 Best child 25 "METHIiKS IT IS LIKE s WEASEk"
41 Best child 25 "METHIiKS IT IS LIKE s WEASEk"
42 Best child 26 "METHINKS IT IS LIKE s WEASEk"
43 Best child 26 "METHINKS IT IS LIKE s WEASEk"
44 Best child 27 "METHINKS IT IS LIKE s WEASEL"
45 Best child 28 "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL"
Caranx latus
This is really typical of you. You offer non-advice when you know you've
got nothing to offer. So where do I find the translation done by the guy
that was on PCP and LSD simultaneously?
TomS
<hh7vho$720$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Caranx latus stated..."
I am shocked.
ASI actually relies on *translations*?
Here I was assuming that such an authority was working with the
originals.
How am I ever to recover from my shattered trust in humanity?
--
---Tom S.
the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
the currant jelly.
Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
Caranx latus
> "On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 10:47:05 -0500, in article
> <hh7vho$720$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Caranx latus stated..."
>> All-Seeing-I wrote:
<snip>
>>>> The problem withs a poem written in 2001 being used as authoritative
>>>> regarding Sumerian history are obvious. In another post, I dealt with a
>>>> few of the horse-puckiest problems with one of the other web pages. I'll
>>>> hunt that post down for you if you like so you can respond to my
>>>> criticisms like the adult that you're supposed to be.
>>> You have to read the various translations of the tablets.
>> This is really typical of you. You offer non-advice when you know you've
>> got nothing to offer. So where do I find the translation done by the guy
>> that was on PCP and LSD simultaneously?
>>
>
> I am shocked.
>
> ASI actually relies on *translations*?
I suggest "interpretations" rather than "translations", though I doubt
that [M]adape appreciates the difference. He doesn't actually seem to
have read any of the original source material.
> Here I was assuming that such an authority was working with the
> originals.
One would have thought so, but that doesn't appear to be the case.
> How am I ever to recover from my shattered trust in humanity?
You'll survive.
TheBicyclingGuitarist
> to temporily play along with the bait-and-switch to to it - is to say
> that *creationism* (not God) is "only a theory" too. And several
> *mutually contradictory* theories at that. Then put them on the
> defensive by having them explain why the other versions of creationism
>
> - Show quoted text -
I just came up with an analogy, might not be original to me, that the
intellectual contortions creationists must use to account for the data
while still holding on to their mistaken interpretation of Genesis are
similar to what model builders of the solar system had to go through
when trying to construct models that used the earth as the center,
epicycles on top of epicycles.etc. What I've heard from more than one
fundie wacko nutjob lately is that God created the earth only six
thousand years ago BUT used parts that were billions of years old.
WTF? Now back in the days of Galileo we didn't know as much as we do
now and the means of dissemination information were much slower and
less accessible to most of the public. Today the situation is
different, which makes Synapseaxion even stupider than the church
officials back in the day of a similar situation..
Dude in the blog is angry that I said he came out of the closet about
believing the young earth, and that I didn't even mention he had
clearly said that God may have used parts that are six billion years
old. Okay, so I correct myself here. Does that really make him look
any smarter? To me, it is even MORE stupid and shows creationists are
at least beginning to have inklings that there IS evidence for an old
earth and for evolution that DOES need to be shoehorned into their
incredibly outdated view of things.
**********************************************************************************************************
<em>The following is the relevant paragraph of mine cut and paste from
A DIfferent Kind of Blog:</em>
Talk about twisted, in order to account for the evidence and still
believe God did his thing six thousand years you have to imagine God
using parts that are billions of years old. WTF? That is beyond
insane.
To me that seems like insane contortions of logic to try to account
for the evidence. I am reminded of the similar contortions astronomers
went through trying to build models of the solar system that accounted
for the orbits of the other planets when earth was assumed to be the
center of the model. This was when an INTERPRETATION OF PARTS OF THE
BIBLE, JUST LIKE THE SITUATION HERE, was taken literally and assumed
to be true in spite of the evidence rather than because of it. It was
even the position of most Christians AND the official dogma of their
church to preach that the sun goes around the earth (points to a page:
��it says right). Of course they were wrong, and so are you, and
you�re even MORE stupid than those who denied the correct model of the
solar system because in this day and age, with the amount of knowledge
we have and the technology you have available to access it, ignorance
is no excuse. Pigheaded stupidity is more like it!
TomS
<28e7ab65-94c0-4c59...@a6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
TheBicyclingGuitarist stated..."
[...snip...]
>I just came up with an analogy, might not be original to me, that the
>intellectual contortions creationists must use to account for the data
>while still holding on to their mistaken interpretation of Genesis are
>similar to what model builders of the solar system had to go through
>when trying to construct models that used the earth as the center,
>epicycles on top of epicycles.etc. What I've heard from more than one
>fundie wacko nutjob lately is that God created the earth only six
>thousand years ago BUT used parts that were billions of years old.
>WTF? Now back in the days of Galileo we didn't know as much as we do
>now and the means of dissemination information were much slower and
>less accessible to most of the public. Today the situation is
>different, which makes Synapseaxion even stupider than the church
>officials back in the day of a similar situation..
A hundred years ago, you would have found very few conservative
Christians who held to a less-than-10,000-year-old earth. Two of
the popular explanations were:
* The "days" of Genesis 1 referred to long stretches of time.
* There is a "gap" of a long period of time between "in the
beginning" and the six days of creation.
"Young Earth Creationism" became popular with the publication by
Henry M. Morris and John C. Whitcomb of "The Genesis Flood" in
1961.
All-Seeing-I
> 2 � � � Best child � � �6 � � � "shi laaS l smi L iEsimeaAhkk"
> 3 � � � Best child � � �7 � � � "shw liaS l smi L iisAmWhAhk "
> 4 � � � Best child � � �6 � � � "shi liaS I �milk s � meaAhk "
> 5 � � � Best child � � �7 � � � "shi liKS l �nilw i � meaASk "
> 6 � � � Best child � � �6 � � � "shi siaSit sIilkIi �e eaAhw "
> 7 � � � Best child � � �5 � � � "shi sk S litmilkIi aemekAhE "
> 8 � � � Best child � � �5 � � � "ihi si S l tmi h e ae eaAhk "
> 9 � � � Best child � � �4 � � � "i i si m l �mili w a meaAhE "
> 10 � � �Best child � � �6 � � � "i inIk m I tliliIti imlaAhk "
> 11 � � �Best child � � �5 � � � "a i seim latlSli wis eeEAhE "
> 12 � � �Best child � � �5 � � � "a e skim l tli L wieiieEAhk "
> 13 � � �Best child � � �5 � � � "aai t it l �liliIm aiieEAhk "
> 14 � � �Best child � � �5 � � � "a TwtkiS l tlili m aiietAhE "
> 15 � � �Best child � � �7 � � � "aEeweNilwlTtlk isK ai etAhk "
> 16 � � �Best child � � �8 � � � "a Teekie lTtIil �K �i eaAhl "
> 17 � � �Best child � � �7 � � � "a eeekie lTali � K as eaASl "
> 18 � � �Best child � � �8 � � � "a eeeki �lTtlik IK iA eaAhE "
> 19 � � �Best child � � �5 � � � "aEee kitilTtlis eK ai ea Sih"
> 20 � � �Best child � � �6 � � � "k ee kit lTilis eK iA eElhl "
> 21 � � �Best child � � �7 � � � "k �e kit lT IisLeK ai ea �l "
> 22 � � �Best child � � �6 � � � "k aeIiet lTilis sKEas ea tl "
> 23 � � �Best child � � �8 � � � "M �e mat lTili �IK ai kE tl "
> 24 � � �Best child � � �8 � � � "kE e Naa lTili �eK mi kE tl "
> 25 � � �Best child � � �8 � � � "kE eIiat lTilis eK ai eEAtl "
> 26 � � �Best child � � �8 � � � "Ml e iat lTiIi �mK ai eE tlk"
> 27 � � �Best child � � �8 � � � "kE eIiKh lTilis eK ai �E tlk"
> 28 � � �Best child � � �7 � � � "kl e iKhlITiIes eK ai eE tak"
> 29 � � �Best child � � �8 � � � "klaH iahllT ee �eK �i eE tlk"
> 30 � � �Best child � � �9 � � � "Ml e iKhllT nl �eK �i eE elk"
> 31 � � �Best child � � �12 � � �"Ml sIiKhllT nt LeK �i eEAelk"
> 32 � � �Best child � � �14 � � �"Mn sIiKSllT It LeK �i eEAelk"
> 33 � � �Best child � � �16 � � �"Mn sIiKS lT IS LeK �i eEAels"
> 34 � � �Best child � � �18 � � �"Mn sIiKS lT IS LeKE i eEASls"
> 35 � � �Best child � � �20 � � �"ME sIiKS lT IS LIKE i eEASlk"
> 36 � � �Best child � � �21 � � �"ME sIiKS lT IS LIKE i eEASEk"
> 37 � � �Best child � � �22 � � �"METlIiKS lT IS LIKE � eEASEk"
> 38 � � �Best child � � �23 � � �"METlIiKS IT IS LIKE s eEASEk"
> 39 � � �Best child � � �24 � � �"METHIiKS IT IS LIKE s eEASEk"
> 40 � � �Best child � � �25 � � �"METHIiKS IT IS LIKE s WEASEk"
> 41 � � �Best child � � �25 � � �"METHIiKS IT IS LIKE s WEASEk"
> 42 � � �Best child � � �26 � � �"METHINKS IT IS LIKE s WEASEk"
> 43 � � �Best child � � �26 � � �"METHINKS IT IS LIKE s WEASEk"
> 44 � � �Best child � � �27 � � �"METHINKS IT IS LIKE s WEASEL"
> 45 � � �Best child � � �28 � � �"METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL"- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Cool.
But a computer program is not as unpredictable as nature.
Mike Painter
>
> Got any independent links, or just more atheistic pandering?
You deny them and all of science if you don't agree.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp might be up your
alley.
By decree, they do not practice science but even they are not as stupid as
you and have been backing down from a number of claims over the last few
years.
Your views are now farther along the normal curve.
Frank J
> "Frank J" <f...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> news:cde120ec-3fbc-42ed...@p23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Dec 26, 6:12 pm, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
> >> "Frank J" <f...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> >>news:ced4517e-cb3f-47dc...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Dec 26, 12:01 pm, TheBicyclingGuitarist
> >> > <Ch...@TheBicyclingGuitarist.net> wrote:
> >> >> The following is from an ongoing discussion at A Different Kind of
> >> >> Blog:
>
> unsupported hypothesis - or "theory" in common terms. �Theists need to be
> made aware of this fact.
It's actually not even a hypothesis, if only because it's simply not
falsifiable. Many theists are aware and accepting of that. But those
that are are usually "evolutionists" too. So if you're more interested
in making *theists* admit that God is "only a hypothesis" that in
making *anti-evolutionists* admit that their alternate origins model
is "only a hypothesis", I have already given you more than what you
asked for.
Louann Miller
@drn.newsguy.com:
> "Young Earth Creationism" became popular with the publication by
> Henry M. Morris and John C. Whitcomb of "The Genesis Flood" in
> 1961.
One of the best ways to stop being a biblical literalist is to study the
history and makeup of the Bible. (A lot of literalists are against
seminaries for that exact reason.) I suspect that studying the history of
Morris et al is an equally good way to stop being a Young-Earther.
TomS
<B6-dneLtTIwCWaXW...@giganews.com>, Louann Miller stated..."
I find studying the history of an idea is often enlightening.
When one finds that the early interpreters of the Bible were not
much in the way of literalists, it tends to deflate the preferred
status of literalism.
Somebody or other recently published a study of the history of the
idea of species ... among other things, it tells us that it is a
gross anachronism to have the Bible tell us anything about species,
for example, their origins or their fixity.
john wilkins
> Somebody or other recently published a study of the history of the
> idea of species ... among other things, it tells us that it is a
> gross anachronism to have the Bible tell us anything about species,
> for example, their origins or their fixity.
Did you get your copy yet?
Frank J
> TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote in news:271950949.00006166.043.0001
That could be good or bad depending on where they go from there. 30-40
years ago they probably either became OECs or reluctant TEs. Nowadays
most probably just sell out to the "don't ask, don't tell" ID scam.
R. Baldwin
news:2759d$4b3763c8$4a53bf9f$14...@FUSE.NET:
>
> "Frank J" <fc...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:cde120ec-3fbc-42ed-b94d-585b30c561c3
@p23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com.
> ..
>> On Dec 26, 6:12 pm, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>>> "Frank J" <f...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:ced4517e-cb3f-47dc-ab55-
13549d...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.co
>>> m...
Default position? Proof? Hypothesis? No, I think you are mistaken in
what theists believe, probably due to unfortunate interactions with a
subgroup of theists.
Belief in a deity is a faith proposition, not a hypothesis, and
certainly not a theory. It is in no way subject to either proof or
disproof. You either choose to believe or not to believe. I tell you
this as a theist.
Dan Listermann
"R. Baldwin" <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9CEFE0169...@216.168.3.30...
Lets talk about "faith." A workable definition of "faith" is: the belief in
something without evidence or reason. Consider this. This definition
works, word for word, for "superstition."
.
R. Baldwin
>
> "R. Baldwin" <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns9CEFE0169...@216.168.3.30...
>> "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote in
>> news:2759d$4b3763c8$4a53bf9f$14...@FUSE.NET:
>>
>>>
[snip]
>>>>
>>> Again, theists think that the existence of deities is the default
>>> position and feel no responsibility to defend that position,
>>> demanding "proof" of anyone who might question it. Actually the
>>> belief in deities is only an unsupported hypothesis - or "theory" in
>>> common terms. Theists need to be made aware of this fact.
>>>
>>>
>>> .
>>>
>>
>> Default position? Proof? Hypothesis? No, I think you are mistaken in
>> what theists believe, probably due to unfortunate interactions with a
>> subgroup of theists.
>>
>> Belief in a deity is a faith proposition, not a hypothesis, and
>> certainly not a theory. It is in no way subject to either proof or
>> disproof. You either choose to believe or not to believe. I tell you
>> this as a theist.
>>
> OK, the belief in deities is just a WAG.
>
> Lets talk about "faith." A workable definition of "faith" is: the
> belief in something without evidence or reason. Consider this. This
> definition works, word for word, for "superstition."
>
Yes, you are absolutely right. Personally, I have no problem with this.
Dan Listermann
"R. Baldwin" <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote in message
is exactly the same for both, would obviously deeply imply that they are one
in the same?
.
R. Baldwin
Not particularly. The English language has mant examples of this.
Dan Listermann
"R. Baldwin" <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote in message
If you are happy seeing "faith" easily equated with "superstition," so am
I - probably more so.
.
R. Baldwin
At Christmas dinner, my son referred to my granddaughter's teething ring
as a "chew toy". We all thought this was hilarious, since chew toys are
of course only for dogs.
But, if it pleases you to discover that religious faith and superstition
both involve belief in something without evidence or reason, I am happy
for you. I can tell you my own personal experience is that faith and
superstitiion are not equally fulfilling. For example, I think most
engineers have some degree of belief in Murphy's Law (a superstition),
but it offers little in the way of psychological or emotional reward
beyond being able to say "I told you so." Many people of faith do find
reward in their religion, and are therefore quite content to practice it
even in the full knowledge that it is not based on scientific
observation.