Evolutionists make unreal arguments
mc...@sunset.net
have failed to make a case. After awhile, I've noticed on these
newsgroups, evolutionists will repeat the same arguments even though
they had been refuted already several times over.
In the case of Dawkins, the reason would be that he is an atheist. An
as such he will continue to regurgitate failed arguments even after
they had been smitten time and time again.
Another evolutionist admits to wanting to make creationists look bad
on purpose. Why should this be done? If creationism is wrong then let
the proponents of creationism prove themselves wrong. Nobody has to
make creationists look bad on purpose.
Evolutionists defend themselves to the death, even if it means making
their opponents look bad. Evolutionists will repeat bad arguments
because there is not other argument to take it's place.
This line of argumentation is akin to a parent defending his child even
though the child was clearly guilty of wrong. In this case right and
wrong isn't essential to the arguments being made, but a clear
emotional reason instead.
In one personal case an evolutionist argued with me claiming that I was
wrong in stating that there is a geology textbook with a Earnest
Haeckel chart therein. When the evidence was brought forth the man
continued in the same line of thinking telling me that it was a
physical geology textbook and therefore does not qualify. Even though
logic tells us, through the use of venn circles, that a geology texts
is a geology texts no matter what type of geology text it was. It
wasn't a history text. It was a geology text.
artoa...@gmail.com
m...@sunset.net je napisal:
> Sometimes I wonder as to why evolutionists keep arguing even after they
> have failed to make a case. After awhile, I've noticed on these
> newsgroups, evolutionists will repeat the same arguments even though
> they had been refuted already several times over.
>
> In the case of Dawkins, the reason would be that he is an atheist. An
> as such he will continue to regurgitate failed arguments even after
> they had been smitten time and time again.
>
> Another evolutionist admits to wanting to make creationists look bad
> on purpose. Why should this be done? If creationism is wrong then let
> the proponents of creationism prove themselves wrong. Nobody has to
> make creationists look bad on purpose.
>
> Evolutionists defend themselves to the death, even if it means making
> their opponents look bad. Evolutionists will repeat bad arguments
> because there is not other argument to take it's place.
>
> This line of argumentation is akin to a parent defending his child even
> though the child was clearly guilty of wrong. In this case right and
> wrong isn't essential to the arguments being made, but a clear
> emotional reason instead.
Almost true! Just replace evolutionists with creationists, and there
you have it!
mc...@sunset.net
On Jan 24, 12:29 pm, "artoart...@gmail.com" <artoart...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> you have it!- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
It didn't work because nobody saw an ape skeleton turn into a human
being.
JM
Dana Tweedy
<mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:mccoy-116966995...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> Sometimes I wonder as to why evolutionists keep arguing even after they
> have failed to make a case.
Your fantasy life is breaking through again.
>After awhile, I've noticed on these
> newsgroups, evolutionists will repeat the same arguments even though
> they had been refuted already several times over.
Such as?
>
> In the case of Dawkins, the reason would be that he is an atheist. An
> as such he will continue to regurgitate failed arguments even after
> they had been smitten time and time again.
When has Dawkins ever been "smitten"?
>
> Another evolutionist admits to wanting to make creationists look bad
> on purpose.
That's hardly necessary. Creationists look bad enough on their own.
> Why should this be done? If creationism is wrong then let
> the proponents of creationism prove themselves wrong.
Already been done.
>Nobody has to
> make creationists look bad on purpose.
True, but they continue to do so.
>
> Evolutionists defend themselves to the death, even if it means making
> their opponents look bad.
Again, not really necessary.
> Evolutionists will repeat bad arguments
> because there is not other argument to take it's place.
What "bad arguments" do you mean?
>
> This line of argumentation is akin to a parent defending his child even
> though the child was clearly guilty of wrong. In this case right and
> wrong isn't essential to the arguments being made, but a clear
> emotional reason instead.
You seem to be talking about yourself. Why do you try to say that
"evolutionists" do this?
>
> In one personal case an evolutionist argued with me claiming that I was
> wrong in stating that there is a geology textbook with a Earnest
> Haeckel chart therein.
Actually, the case was that you made an unlikely assertion, and was asked
for a reference. You failed to provide that reference. Another person
came up with a book on historical geology that contained a embryo diagram,
based on, but not drawn by Haeckel.
> When the evidence was brought forth the man
> continued in the same line of thinking telling me that it was a
> physical geology textbook and therefore does not qualify.
Again, the book was HISTORICAL geology, not "physical".
> Even though
> logic tells us, through the use of venn circles,
You don't understand logic, or how to apply logic to the real world. A
"venn circle" is just a tool, not evidence of anything.
> that a geology texts
> is a geology texts no matter what type of geology text it was.
The point was that you never provided the reference yourself, and that the
"chart" was not by Haeckel. Embryology is generally not relevant to
geology, although a historical geology text might include a mention of
embryology to discuss the evidence for evolution.
> It
> wasn't a history text. It was a geology text.
It doesn't matter. The point was that you were asked to provide a refence,
and you you did not. That there was a book that vaugely met your claim is
irrelevant.
DJT
Desertphile
> Sometimes I wonder as to why evolutionists keep arguing even after they
Dana Tweedy
<mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:mccoy-116967104...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
snip
> It didn't work because nobody saw an ape skeleton turn into a human
> being.
That would be creationism. Evolution is when populations of living
orgainsms change over generations due to mutation and selection. That has
been seen. Also, humans are apes, so any human skeleton is an ape
skeleton.
DJT
mc...@sunset.net
creationists a political opportunists, evangelical activists,
ifnoramuses, breakers of rules, etc. So then the arguments are made up.
Fiction.
JM
Greg G.
On Jan 24, 3:19 pm, m...@sunset.net wrote:
> Sometimes I wonder as to why evolutionists keep arguing even after they
> have failed to make a case. After awhile, I've noticed on these
> newsgroups, evolutionists will repeat the same arguments even though
> they had been refuted already several times over.
>
> In the case of Dawkins, the reason would be that he is an atheist. An
> as such he will continue to regurgitate failed arguments even after
> they had been smitten time and time again.
>
> Another evolutionist admits to wanting to make creationists look bad
> on purpose. Why should this be done? If creationism is wrong then let
> the proponents of creationism prove themselves wrong. Nobody has to
> make creationists look bad on purpose.
No need to do that. Here we have a creationist complaining about
evolutionists using failed arguments, then backing it up with a failed
argument.
>
> Evolutionists defend themselves to the death, even if it means making
> their opponents look bad. Evolutionists will repeat bad arguments
> because there is not other argument to take it's place.
Even AiG had to post a web page showing the poor arguments that
creationists continue to use. Even their suggestions for improvements
to the arguments were wrong.
>
> This line of argumentation is akin to a parent defending his child even
> though the child was clearly guilty of wrong. In this case right and
> wrong isn't essential to the arguments being made, but a clear
> emotional reason instead.
Did you copy and replace creationist with evolutionist in someone's
rant about creationists?
>
> In one personal case an evolutionist argued with me claiming that I was
> wrong in stating that there is a geology textbook with a Earnest
> Haeckel chart therein. When the evidence was brought forth the man
> continued in the same line of thinking telling me that it was a
> physical geology textbook and therefore does not qualify. Even though
> logic tells us, through the use of venn circles, that a geology texts
> is a geology texts no matter what type of geology text it was. It
> wasn't a history text. It was a geology text.
Wait a minute. IIRC, it was a book on the _history_ of geology.
Venn diagrams would show that a book about the history of pornography
would not necessarily be in the porn circle. You are refuted again.
That wasn't an eclipse. It was a power drain from my solar powered
irony meter.
--
Greg G.
It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no
God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
--Thomas Jefferson
Kermit
On Jan 24, 12:19 pm, m...@sunset.net wrote:
> Sometimes I wonder as to why evolutionists keep arguing even after they
> have failed to make a case. After awhile, I've noticed on these
> newsgroups, evolutionists will repeat the same arguments even though
> they had been refuted already several times over.
>
Ummm... holding your hands over your ears while singing loudly actually
doesn't constitute a refutation.
Here are some of the classes of evidence supporting the fact of
evolution, and the testable model which explains it - NS + sexual
selection + drift acting on a pool of inheritable variability:
Nested hierarchy of morphology.
Nested hierarchy of genetics.
The fact that they match.
The fossil record, and its chronological stratification.
Fossil ecosystems corresponding to plate tectonics, significant climate
change, magnetic striping, etc.
Vestigial structures and behaviors and molecules.
Most telling of all, the fact that all of these paint the same picture
- they are *converging classes of data.
> In the case of Dawkins, the reason would be that he is an atheist. An
> as such he will continue to regurgitate failed arguments even after
> they had been smitten time and time again.
Please provide evidence that this is typical of atheists, and that this
has anything to do with evolutionary science.
>
> Another evolutionist admits to wanting to make creationists look bad
> on purpose. Why should this be done? If creationism is wrong then let
> the proponents of creationism prove themselves wrong. Nobody has to
> make creationists look bad on purpose.
This is true. You folks manage that spectacularly all by yourselves. On
that note, BTW, I wish to congratulate you on your own mind-boggling
contributions.
>
> Evolutionists defend themselves to the death,
Most people who love truth will continue saying truthful things as long
as they live, yes.
> even if it means making
> their opponents look bad.
Sometimes any comment would be superfluous.
> Evolutionists will repeat bad arguments
> because there is not other argument to take it's place.
"Tell us again about the short-snouted gibbons, Daddy!"
>
> This line of argumentation is akin to a parent defending his child even
> though the child was clearly guilty of wrong. In this case right and
> wrong isn't essential to the arguments being made, but a clear
> emotional reason instead.
Actually, your denial of reality is more akin to someone fighting for
his life. Do you really think you will live forever only if you ignore
the evidence of your senses?
>
> In one personal case an evolutionist argued with me claiming that I was
> wrong in stating that there is a geology textbook with a Earnest
> Haeckel chart therein. When the evidence was brought forth the man
> continued in the same line of thinking telling me that it was a
> physical geology textbook and therefore does not qualify. Even though
> logic tells us, through the use of venn circles, that a geology texts
> is a geology texts no matter what type of geology text it was. It
> wasn't a history text. It was a geology text.
Haeckel's ideas were never widespread outside of Germany and maybe
England, and quickly lost favor. Is the best you can do a minor
sidenote from over a century ago? What about the actual evidence?
Kermit
Rich Townsend
However, the best Creationists don't need help from the Evilutionists to portray
themselves as crooks and thieves; why, just a few days ago, a Creationist from
Florida gone done proven it all by himself!
Joe Cummings
This is hugely interesting.
Is McCoy saying that there actually was a claim that dead
skeletons could turn into human beings?
Where was this claim made?
The only similar claim that my researches have been able to
find is by someone called Ezekiel. (Was that his name?)
He claimed something to the effect that"Them bones, Them
bones, them dry bones, them bones them bones them dry bones, them
bones them bones gonna live again."
But surely he was a creationist?
Have fun,
Joe Cummings
mc...@sunset.net
On Jan 24, 12:44 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@comcast.net> wrote:
> <m...@sunset.net> wrote in messagenews:mccoy-116967104...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> snip
>
> > It didn't work because nobody saw an ape skeleton turn into a human
> > being.That would be creationism. Evolution is when populations of living
> orgainsms change over generations due to mutation and selection.
That's not the classic definition of evolution.
That has
> been seen. Also, humans are apes,
No they are not. You are relying on the 96-98% claim of genetic
similarity supposedly propped up by propagandists in the 70's and 80's
. But not discussed is the fact that the human genome hadn't even been
mapped. The completion came around the year 2000. And the chimp hadn't
even been mapped yet while Time magazine said a few months ago "why
wait" meaning, why not treat speculative claims to relatedness before
the facts come in. Your facts are phoney Dana.
JM
Shadowin
On Jan 24, 3:48 pm, "Desertphile" <desertphi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 24, 1:19 pm, m...@sunset.net wrote:
>
> > Sometimes I wonder as to why evolutionists keep arguing even after theyWhat the fuck is an "evolutionists?"
Apparently, an evolutionist is a person who accepts a scientific theory
as science, and who rejects pseudoscience.
Shadowin
www.shadowin.com
mc...@sunset.net
On Jan 24, 12:55 pm, Rich Townsend <r...@barVOIDtol.udel.edu> wrote:
> m...@sunset.net wrote:
> > Note also that evolutionists even had admitted to trying to portray
> > creationists a political opportunists, evangelical activists,
> > ifnoramuses, breakers of rules, etc. So then the arguments are made up.
> > Fiction.
>
> > JMHowever, the best Creationists don't need help from the Evilutionists to portray
> themselves as crooks and thieves; why, just a few days ago, a Creationist from
> Florida gone done proven it all by himself!
You mean from the law that supposedly authorizes the IRS to collect
taxes from the general 50 states of America, a law you cannot prove
exists.
JM
Lee Jay
> have failed to make a case. After awhile, I've noticed on these
> newsgroups, evolutionists will repeat the same arguments even though
> they had been refuted already several times over.
You should talk. Just replace "evolutionists" with "creationists" and
"several" with "thousands of" and you're there.
> Another evolutionist admits to wanting to make creationists look bad
> on purpose. Why should this be done? If creationism is wrong then let
> the proponents of creationism prove themselves wrong. Nobody has to
> make creationists look bad on purpose.
"Nobody has to make creationists look bad on purpose." Truer words
were never spoken. They take care of that on their own, with you
leading the way.
The whole bunch of creationists I've met and conversed with share a sad
trait - they're horribly dishonest, and they don't even know it.
They're so brainwashed into believe the distortions they've been fed
all their lives that they can't even recognize when they are being
dishonest. It's a very sad trait and one I'll strive to prevent in my
own son.
Lee Jay
mc...@sunset.net
On Jan 24, 12:54 pm, "Kermit" <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 24, 12:19 pm, m...@sunset.net wrote:
>
> > Sometimes I wonder as to why evolutionists keep arguing even after they
> > have failed to make a case. After awhile, I've noticed on these
> > newsgroups, evolutionists will repeat the same arguments even though
> > they had been refuted already several times over.Ummm... holding your hands over your ears while singing loudly actually
> doesn't constitute a refutation.
>
> Here are some of the classes of evidence supporting the fact of
> evolution, and the testable model which explains it - NS + sexual
> selection + drift acting on a pool of inheritable variability:
> Nested hierarchy of morphology.
Doesn't sound like evolution. Nested hints at cladistics.
> Nested hierarchy of genetics.
Same here.
> The fact that they match.
> The fossil record, and its chronological stratification.
Which is why a normal bird is found below archeopteryx strata. Real
proof there.
Which is why there are huge trees penetrating large homogenous strata
proving that strata can be deposited in rapid manner.
Which is why supposed index fossils have been found amongst the living,
making one wonder as to how the fossil vanished from the fossil record
(as it was supposed to be extinct), yet reappeared only to be living.
Which truly explains huge graveyards of fossils found all over the
world (as if deposited by a huge flood), which evolutionists claim was
the result of animals seeking water from a source, which is why diverse
creatures are found altogether. Of course if I were a smart alligator I
would eat an animal for hydration rather than to sit next to it by a
pond of water.
> Fossil ecosystems corresponding to plate tectonics, significant climate
> change, magnetic striping, etc.
These have no bearing on evolution.
> Vestigial structures and behaviors and molecules.
Vestigial structures are the supposed disuse of organs. Not the
evolution of them. You cannot use this argument again. Considered it
refuted.
> Most telling of all, the fact that all of these paint the same picture
> - they are *converging classes of data.
Listing a bunch of false and disprove arguments doesn't help.
JM
>
> > In the case of Dawkins, the reason would be that he is an atheist. An
> > as such he will continue to regurgitate failed arguments even after
> > they had been smitten time and time again.Please provide evidence that this is typical of atheists, and that this
> has anything to do with evolutionary science.
>
>
>
> > Another evolutionist admits to wanting to make creationists look bad
> > on purpose. Why should this be done? If creationism is wrong then let
> > the proponents of creationism prove themselves wrong. Nobody has to
> > make creationists look bad on purpose.This is true. You folks manage that spectacularly all by yourselves. On
> that note, BTW, I wish to congratulate you on your own mind-boggling
> contributions.
>
>
>
> > Evolutionists defend themselves to the death,Most people who love truth will continue saying truthful things as long
> as they live, yes.
>
> > even if it means making
> > their opponents look bad.Sometimes any comment would be superfluous.
>
> > Evolutionists will repeat bad arguments
> > because there is not other argument to take it's place."Tell us again about the short-snouted gibbons, Daddy!"
>
>
>
> > This line of argumentation is akin to a parent defending his child even
> > though the child was clearly guilty of wrong. In this case right and
> > wrong isn't essential to the arguments being made, but a clear
> > emotional reason instead.Actually, your denial of reality is more akin to someone fighting for
> his life. Do you really think you will live forever only if you ignore
> the evidence of your senses?
>
>
>
> > In one personal case an evolutionist argued with me claiming that I was
> > wrong in stating that there is a geology textbook with a Earnest
> > Haeckel chart therein. When the evidence was brought forth the man
> > continued in the same line of thinking telling me that it was a
> > physical geology textbook and therefore does not qualify. Even though
> > logic tells us, through the use of venn circles, that a geology texts
> > is a geology texts no matter what type of geology text it was. It
> > wasn't a history text. It was a geology text.Haeckel's ideas were never widespread outside of Germany and maybe
mc...@sunset.net
On Jan 24, 12:59 pm, Joe Cummings <joecummi...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
You don't get my point. The point is that you can look at an ape
skeleton and it doesn't do anything except sit there. You can't
experiment with it. All you can do is say, "boy, I observe less slope
on that forehead,so that proves that it evolved into a man in
subsequent generations." Of course that is pure speculation. You
could also look at some tree bark and not the similar color to that of
some moths and speculate that tree bark turned into moths.
JM
>
> Where was this claim made?
>
> The only similar claim that my researches have been able to
> find is by someone called Ezekiel. (Was that his name?)
>
> He claimed something to the effect that"Them bones, Them
> bones, them dry bones, them bones them bones them dry bones, them
> bones them bones gonna live again."
>
> But surely he was a creationist?
>
> Have fun,
>
> Joe Cummings- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
Lee Oswald Ving
news:mccoy-116967251...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com:
McWelsher, you are a real piece of business. I'd hate to be your landlord,
or anyone else you owe money.
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from
whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States,
and without regard to any census or enumeration."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Const
itution
Inez
On Jan 24, 12:19 pm, m...@sunset.net wrote:
This is mildly amusing, but not as fun as logos. You should stick with
your silly flood story stuff, it has much greater comic potential.
Greg G.
On Jan 24, 4:01 pm, m...@sunset.net wrote:
> On Jan 24, 12:55 pm, Rich Townsend <r...@barVOIDtol.udel.edu> wrote:
>
> > m...@sunset.net wrote:
> > > Note also that evolutionists even had admitted to trying to portray
> > > creationists a political opportunists, evangelical activists,
> > > ifnoramuses, breakers of rules, etc. So then the arguments are made up.
> > > Fiction.
>
> > > JMHowever, the best Creationists don't need help from the Evilutionists to portray
> > themselves as crooks and thieves; why, just a few days ago, a Creationist from
> > Florida gone done proven it all by himself!You mean from the law that supposedly authorizes the IRS to collect
> taxes from the general 50 states of America, a law you cannot prove
> exists.
No, the law that says an employer must withhold taxes from an employees
pay and cannot get around it by calling them a missionary.
--
Greg G.
I'd probably be famous now if I wasn't such a good waitress.
--Jane Siberry
>
> JM
Greg G.
On Jan 24, 3:59 pm, m...@sunset.net wrote:
> On Jan 24, 12:44 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > <m...@sunset.net> wrote in messagenews:mccoy-116967104...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > snip
>
> > > It didn't work because nobody saw an ape skeleton turn into a human
> > > being.That would be creationism. Evolution is when populations of living
> > orgainsms change over generations due to mutation and selection.
>That's not the classic definition of evolution.
Good point. Let's define evolution as gorilla skeletons turning into
humans.
>
> That has
>
> > been seen. Also, humans are apes,No they are not. You are relying on the 96-98% claim of genetic
> similarity supposedly propped up by propagandists in the 70's and 80's
> . But not discussed is the fact that the human genome hadn't even been
> mapped. The completion came around the year 2000. And the chimp hadn't
> even been mapped yet while Time magazine said a few months ago "why
> wait" meaning, why not treat speculative claims to relatedness before
> the facts come in. Your facts are phoney Dana.
There are several ways to measure genetic similarity. The mapping of
the genome confirmed the experiments of the 70's and 80's.
--
Greg G.
In a nation ruled by swine, all pigs are upward mobile.
--Hunter S. Thompson
ouroboros rex
<mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:mccoy-116966995...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> Sometimes I wonder as to why evolutionists keep arguing even after they
> have failed to make a case.
roflmao
Ken Denny
> When has Dawkins ever been "smitten"?
Didn't you see that South Park episode?
ouroboros rex
<mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:mccoy-116967300...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
lol What a complete dupe you are.
Tiny Bulcher
> On Jan 24, 3:19 pm, m...@sunset.net wrote:
>> Sometimes I wonder as to why evolutionists keep arguing even after
>> they have failed to make a case. After awhile, I've noticed on these
>> newsgroups, evolutionists will repeat the same arguments even though
>> they had been refuted already several times over.
>>
>> In the case of Dawkins, the reason would be that he is an atheist.
>> An as such he will continue to regurgitate failed arguments even
>> after they had been smitten time and time again.
>>
>> Another evolutionist admits to wanting to make creationists look bad
>> on purpose. Why should this be done? If creationism is wrong then
>> let the proponents of creationism prove themselves wrong. Nobody has
>> to make creationists look bad on purpose.
Makes you wonder why McCoy does ...
>
> No need to do that. Here we have a creationist complaining about
> evolutionists using failed arguments, then backing it up with a failed
> argument.
I tell you, next case like Dover comes up, all the science has to do is put
McCoy and Martinez on the stand, say "These are Creationists", let 'em rip,
and the case falls over right there.
--
Tiny
John Bode
On Jan 24, 2:59 pm, m...@sunset.net wrote:
> On Jan 24, 12:44 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > <m...@sunset.net> wrote in messagenews:mccoy-116967104...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > snip
>
> > > It didn't work because nobody saw an ape skeleton turn into a human
> > > being.
?? parse error
I swear, you're making less and less sense as time goes on.
> > That would be creationism. Evolution is when populations of living
> > orgainsms change over generations due to mutation and selection.
> That's not the classic definition of evolution.
Maybe not, but it is the *correct* definition of evolution.
>
> > That has been seen. Also, humans are apes,
> No they are not. You are relying on the 96-98% claim of genetic
> similarity supposedly propped up by propagandists in the 70's and 80's
> . But not discussed is the fact that the human genome hadn't even been
> mapped. The completion came around the year 2000. And the chimp hadn't
> even been mapped yet while Time magazine said a few months ago "why
> wait" meaning, why not treat speculative claims to relatedness before
> the facts come in. Your facts are phoney Dana.
>
I know I've pointed this out to you at least twice, and one of those
times was just a few weeks ago.
The genetic similarity figures from the '70s and '80s were based on DNA
hybridization tests, which do *not* rely on gene mapping; they're
purely chemical, measuring the bond strength between two individual
strands of DNA from different species. It compares base pairs
*directly*, whether they're part of a gene or not.
How many times do you have to be corrected on this? Why do you
*refuse* to acknowledge this fact?
And *why* does Google Groups' new interface suck *even more* than the
old one?
Pip R. Lagenta
<redd...@comcast.net> wrote:
[snip]
>
>When has Dawkins ever been "smitten"?
When I first saw Lalla Ward on "Dr. Who", *I* was seriously "smitten"!
I suspect that the same may have been true of Richard Dawkins.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lalla_Ward>
>
--
內躬偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,
Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta
�虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌
-- Pip R. Lagenta
President for Life
International Organization Of People Named Pip R. Lagenta
(If your name is Pip R. Lagenta, ask about our dues!)
<http://home.comcast.net/~galentripp/pip.html>
(For Email: I'm at home, not work.)
John Bode
On Jan 24, 3:01 pm, m...@sunset.net wrote:
> On Jan 24, 12:55 pm, Rich Townsend <r...@barVOIDtol.udel.edu> wrote:
>
> > m...@sunset.net wrote:
> > > Note also that evolutionists even had admitted to trying to portray
> > > creationists a political opportunists, evangelical activists,
> > > ifnoramuses, breakers of rules, etc. So then the arguments are made up.
> > > Fiction.
>
> > > JMHowever, the best Creationists don't need help from the Evilutionists to portray
> > themselves as crooks and thieves; why, just a few days ago, a Creationist from
> > Florida gone done proven it all by himself!You mean from the law that supposedly authorizes the IRS to collect
> taxes from the general 50 states of America, a law you cannot prove
> exists.
>
> JM
It's Title 26 of the United States Code, you twit.
Peter Barber
On Jan 25, 7:19 am, m...@sunset.net wrote:
> Sometimes I wonder as to why evolutionists keep arguing even after they
Can anyone smell smoke? I think there's...
> have failed to make a case.
BANG!!
McCoy, you owe my local sub-station an apology.
A.Carlson
<desert...@hotmail.com> wrote:
A scientist (or any scientifically minded person) who, as any
mainstream scientist would, accepts as fact that which is both readily
apparent and well supported by the evidence, up to and including the
Theory of Evolution (warts and all)!
Greg G.
On Jan 24, 4:10 pm, m...@sunset.net wrote:
> On Jan 24, 12:54 pm, "Kermit" <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 24, 12:19 pm, m...@sunset.net wrote:
>
> > > Sometimes I wonder as to why evolutionists keep arguing even after they
> > > have failed to make a case. After awhile, I've noticed on these
> > > newsgroups, evolutionists will repeat the same arguments even though
> > > they had been refuted already several times over.Ummm... holding your hands over your ears while singing loudly actually
> > doesn't constitute a refutation.
>
> > Here are some of the classes of evidence supporting the fact of
> > evolution, and the testable model which explains it - NS + sexual
> > selection + drift acting on a pool of inheritable variability:
> > Nested hierarchy of morphology.
>Doesn't sound like evolution.
> Nested hints at cladistics.
If there weren't nested morpholgy, evolution would be falsified.
However, the evidence supports evolution.
>
> > Nested hierarchy of genetics.
> Same here.
Exactly what is necessary to show evolution happened.
>
> > The fact that they match.
> > The fossil record, and its chronological stratification.
> Which is why a normal bird is found below archeopteryx strata.
> Real
> proof there.
No there were primitive birds below Archeopteryx. Placental mammals
came from marsupials, but marsupials are still around. If birds came
from Archeopteryx ancestors, it doesn't mean all other descendants die.
>
> Which is why there are huge trees penetrating large homogenous strata
> proving that strata can be deposited in rapid manner.
There is a petrified forest in the New Mexico desert. What was once a
forest could just as easily turn into a lake as a desert. Then you
would have a petrified tree stump penetrating several strata. BTW, they
don't have huge trees penetrating several strata, just stumps like the
petrified forest in New Mexico.
>
> Which is why supposed index fossils have been found amongst the living,
Name one index fossil that has been found amongst the living. I'm not
even talking about the humor of a fossil being alive. Just name one
fossil species that has been used as an index fossil that has been
found not to be extinct.
> making one wonder as to how the fossil vanished from the fossil record
> (as it was supposed to be extinct), yet reappeared only to be living.
That is an indication of the rarity of fossilization and discovery of
fossils. An entire family can go for 70 million years without the
discovery of a fossilization event.
>
> Which truly explains huge graveyards of fossils found all over the
> world (as if deposited by a huge flood),
There are some that appear to be deposited by local flooding, but none
that give the slightest appearance of being deposited by a global
flood.
> which evolutionists claim was
> the result of animals seeking water from a source, which is why diverse
> creatures are found altogether.
There is one in Madagascar where there are several groupings of fossils
over a vast area. The fossils show signs of predation from all size
animals including insects and the teeth of land carnivores. The
graveyards are found in different strata in the same locales. This
indicates processes that continue to this day and disproves that a
global flood had anything to do with it.
> Of course if I were a smart alligator I
You aren't smart enough to be an alligator. Even alligators aren't
creationists.
> would eat an animal for hydration rather than to sit next to it by a
> pond of water.
Even dumb alligators know that the best way to catch an animal is by
sneaking up on them underwater when they approach the water. Capturing
prey on land requires the ability to catch up to the animal. Short legs
are a disadvantage.
>
> > Fossil ecosystems corresponding to plate tectonics, significant climate
> > change, magnetic striping, etc.
> These have no bearing on evolution.
Those establish an age of the earth that is fatal to creationism and
supports the time frames that agree with evolutionary theory.
>
> > Vestigial structures and behaviors and molecules.
>Vestigial structures are the supposed disuse of organs. Not the
> evolution of them. You cannot use this argument again. Considered it
> refuted.
Evolution works in both directions. A feature that is no longer
beneficial is not maintained by natural selection. It is no wonder you
don't accept evolution. Your knowledge of it is at the Sunday school
level.
>
> > Most telling of all, the fact that all of these paint the same picture
> > - they are *converging classes of data.
> Listing a bunch of false and disprove arguments doesn't help.
As you have proven with your examples.
Listing evidence doesn't help the purposely ignorant person, either.
BTW, I messed up the suggestion before. You have to hold the Ctrl and
the Shift keys, then click End, to highlight the text below the cursor.
Then you can click Delete or Backspace.
--
Greg G.
I went to all that work to get him out of his shell, and he really was
a spineless mollusc!
--Dame Enid Aurelia
Ye Old One
when s/he wrote:
You mean the law that is upheld by every court in every state?
--
Bob.
Dana Tweedy
<mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:mccoy-116967236...@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> On Jan 24, 12:44 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> <m...@sunset.net> wrote in
>> messagenews:mccoy-116967104...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> snip
>>
>> > It didn't work because nobody saw an ape skeleton turn into a human
>> > being.That would be creationism. Evolution is when populations of
>> > living
>> orgainsms change over generations due to mutation and selection.
>
> That's not the classic definition of evolution.
It's the definition that scientists use.
>
> That has
>> been seen. Also, humans are apes,
>
> No they are not.
Yes, they are. By any rational classification scheme, humans are apes.
>You are relying on the 96-98% claim of genetic
> similarity supposedly propped up by propagandists in the 70's and 80's
> .
No, I'm "relying" on the genetic, anatomical, and behavioral evidence, plus
the fact that even the creationist Carl von Linne classified humans as apes.
> But not discussed is the fact that the human genome hadn't even been
> mapped.
As has been explained to you many times before, one does not need to map the
genome to be able to determine genetic similarity. The technique used in
the 70's used DNA hybridization. Later techniques confirmed this.
>The completion came around the year 2000. And the chimp hadn't
> even been mapped yet while Time magazine said a few months ago "why
> wait" meaning, why not treat speculative claims to relatedness before
> the facts come in.
The fact remains that DNA similarity between humans and chimps is over 98%.
The techniques used to determine that are not as important as the evidence
itself.
>Your facts are phoney Dana.
Alas, you don't have the ability to judge that. The truth is that my
"facts" are correct, and you can't refute that.
DJT
Ye Old One
when s/he wrote:
>
>
>On Jan 24, 12:54 pm, "Kermit" <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 24, 12:19 pm, m...@sunset.net wrote:
>>
>> > Sometimes I wonder as to why evolutionists keep arguing even after they
>> > have failed to make a case. After awhile, I've noticed on these
>> > newsgroups, evolutionists will repeat the same arguments even though
>> > they had been refuted already several times over.Ummm... holding your hands over your ears while singing loudly actually
>> doesn't constitute a refutation.
>>
>> Here are some of the classes of evidence supporting the fact of
>> evolution, and the testable model which explains it - NS + sexual
>> selection + drift acting on a pool of inheritable variability:
>> Nested hierarchy of morphology.
>
>Doesn't sound like evolution. Nested hints at cladistics.
>
>> Nested hierarchy of genetics.
>
>Same here.
>
>> The fact that they match.
>> The fossil record, and its chronological stratification.
>
>Which is why a normal bird is found below archeopteryx strata. Real
>proof there.
Can you find one case like that McClueless? No? Thought not.
>
>Which is why there are huge trees penetrating large homogenous strata
>proving that strata can be deposited in rapid manner.
Trees grow in soil. Long lived trees have soil levels that will
naturally rise around them.
>
>Which is why supposed index fossils have been found amongst the living,
>making one wonder as to how the fossil vanished from the fossil record
>(as it was supposed to be extinct), yet reappeared only to be living.
Care to find an example of that McClueless? No? Thought not.
>
>Which truly explains huge graveyards of fossils found all over the
>world (as if deposited by a huge flood), which evolutionists claim was
>the result of animals seeking water from a source, which is why diverse
>creatures are found altogether.
Sure, there are some groups of fossils that are clearly the victims of
floods. But the flood events happened millions of years apart.
> Of course if I were a smart alligator I
>would eat an animal for hydration rather than to sit next to it by a
>pond of water.
You really do like to demonstrate your stupidity McClueless.
>
>> Fossil ecosystems corresponding to plate tectonics, significant climate
>> change, magnetic striping, etc.
>
>These have no bearing on evolution.
Yes, they do McClueless.
>
>
>> Vestigial structures and behaviors and molecules.
>
>Vestigial structures are the supposed disuse of organs. Not the
>evolution of them. You cannot use this argument again. Considered it
>refuted.
Oh McClueless, you brain power totally undewhelmes us.
>
>
>> Most telling of all, the fact that all of these paint the same picture
>> - they are *converging classes of data.
>
>
>Listing a bunch of false and disprove arguments doesn't help.
We know that McCleless - so why do you keep using them over and over
again?
>
>JM
>
[snip very large sig and report as abuse.]
--
Bob.
Dana Tweedy
<mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:mccoy-116967320...@13g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
snip
>>
>> Is McCoy saying that there actually was a claim that dead
>> skeletons could turn into human beings?
>
> You don't get my point.
Perhaps because you were incoherent.
> The point is that you can look at an ape
> skeleton and it doesn't do anything except sit there.
However, if you are skilled in comparitive anatomy, you can tell a great
deal from an ape's skeleton.
>You can't
> experiment with it.
Why not?
> All you can do is say, "boy, I observe less slope
> on that forehead,so that proves that it evolved into a man in
> subsequent generations."
That might be what you would say, but not a trained anatomist.
> Of course that is pure speculation.
If you were going by one skeleton, perhaps. But if you have several, and
they are spread over a number of years, you can then see trends.
> You
> could also look at some tree bark and not the similar color to that of
> some moths and speculate that tree bark turned into moths.
Again, you are describing creationism.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
<mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:mccoy-11696716...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
> Note also that evolutionists even had admitted to trying to portray
> creationists a political opportunists,
Whenever they are, of course. Note that creationists can't win by using
science, so they must use political pressure on school boards, and
legislatures.
> evangelical activists,
Which, of course they are.
> ifnoramuses,
primary evidence above.
> breakers of rules, etc.
Which they are.
> So then the arguments are made up.
> Fiction.
Yes, creationist arguments are made up, and are fictional. Glad you can
recognize that.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
<mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:mccoy-116967251...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
The US tax code does exist, and you have been shown it several times. Why
do you continue to deny it?
DJT
Dana Tweedy
<mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:mccoy-116967300...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
snipping
>> Here are some of the classes of evidence supporting the fact of
>> evolution, and the testable model which explains it - NS + sexual
>> selection + drift acting on a pool of inheritable variability:
>> Nested hierarchy of morphology.
>
> Doesn't sound like evolution. Nested hints at cladistics.
Demonstrating you don't understand evolution, or cladistics (or even what
"cladistics" means)
>
>> Nested hierarchy of genetics.
>
> Same here.
Indeed.
>
>> The fact that they match.
>> The fossil record, and its chronological stratification.
>
> Which is why a normal bird is found below archeopteryx strata. Real
> proof there.
What "normal bird" is found below archeopteryx? I am certian you don't
have a reliable citation of any such thing.
>
> Which is why there are huge trees penetrating large homogenous strata
> proving that strata can be deposited in rapid manner.
Do you know what the word "homogenous" means? If you do, you've answered
your own question.
>
> Which is why supposed index fossils have been found amongst the living,
> making one wonder as to how the fossil vanished from the fossil record
> (as it was supposed to be extinct), yet reappeared only to be living.
There haven't been. If you are talking about the ceolacanth, you should be
aware that:
1. Ceolacanth was never used as an index fossil
2. the modern species of Celocanths are not the same as fossil ones.
Not that facts will make any difference to your claims.
>
> Which truly explains huge graveyards of fossils found all over the
> world (as if deposited by a huge flood),
"huge fossil graveyards" are not common, and are not "found all over the
world", nor are they dated to the same era. Moreover, localized floods
can cause fossil grave yards (as well as geologic traps, such as the LaBrea
tar pits).
> which evolutionists claim was
> the result of animals seeking water from a source,
Some of them were. Others were the result of seasonal flooding, or the
above mentioned geological traps.
> which is why diverse
> creatures are found altogether.
Yet we don't ever find modern animals in paleozoic strata. We don't ever
find human remains alongside dinosaur (non avian ones that is). No large
mammal fossils are ever found with large dinosaurs of similar size.
> Of course if I were a smart alligator I
> would eat an animal for hydration rather than to sit next to it by a
> pond of water.
You don't have the intelligence of a common alligator, much less a smart
one.
>
>
>> Fossil ecosystems corresponding to plate tectonics, significant climate
>> change, magnetic striping, etc.
>
> These have no bearing on evolution.
Of course they do, you are just ignoring the evidence.
>
>
>> Vestigial structures and behaviors and molecules.
>
> Vestigial structures are the supposed disuse of organs.
No, change in use.
> Not the
> evolution of them.
Evolution is change.
> You cannot use this argument again. Considered it
> refuted.
Why should anyone consider it "refuted" when you haven't even managed to
understand the argument, much less refute it?
>
>
>> Most telling of all, the fact that all of these paint the same picture
>> - they are *converging classes of data.
>
>
> Listing a bunch of false and disprove arguments doesn't help.
Then why do you keep doing it? Kermit's arguments are all pertinent and
correct. Yours are the ones that are false and disproven.
snipping what was ignored
DJT
Snidely F Whiplash
| > not worth repeating..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone else reminded of that carnival game called
"Whack-A-Mole"? They just keep popping up and you
try to pound them all down... You rarely win because
they just pop up somewhere else faster than you can
pound them.
That's what he should be called: McWhackamole...
(damn that looks like a name for a dip)
Regards.
A.Carlson
This is also what did in cult leader Tony Alamo, another interesting
piece of work.
He had a western outfitting store (among other clothing and business
interests) in Nashville, where he sold high priced clothing to country
western stars. He made the same claim about his sales staff, which
also, come to think of it, netted him prison time as well.
Of course Tony Alamo had his clothes made by child ?slave? labor in
the U.S. from any of a number of sweatshops filled by children from
his cult. This sure did reduce his bottom line and contributed to his
own personal financial well being if not the kids or members of his
cult. Most of his 'church' businesses were also staffed by
'volunteers' who 'donated' their wages to the church (IE Alamo)
He was married to one Susan Alamo who would ritualistically die on
Fridays and rise again on Sundays and who was the focus of the group's
attention. Well, Susan got cancer and this was seen by them as a test
from God. They held prayer vigils, but to no avail. She eventually
succumbed to cancer, which they then saw as being a *real* test from
God.
They then held round-the-clock prayer vigils around her body,
believing that God will bring her back to life! Of course this didn't
work and it was during this time that Tony shifted the focus of the
group from Susan towards vitriolic anti-Catholicism.
He eventually married a former Swedish model (his sixth wife! - he
would go on to have at least eight) who claimed that he beat and
drugged her and tried to force her into having unnecessary plastic
surgery to make her look more like his dead wife Susan!
In addition to felony child abuse associated with him directing harsh
physical punishment of children who got out of line (or whose parents
did), he was also legally pursued by the authorities on a number of
issues including tax evasion.
By all accounts, Tony Alamo makes Kent Hovind look like a piker! Now
that he is out of prison, Tony is still at it, as obnoxious as ever.
So there's hope in the future for Dr. Dino after all.
CreateThis
>Sometimes I wonder as to why evolutionists keep arguing even after they
>have failed to make a case.
You're thinking of yourself again. You mix yourself up with your
"opponents" regularly. Maybe you should have that checked...
>After awhile, I've noticed on these
>newsgroups, evolutionists will repeat the same arguments even though
>they had been refuted already several times over.
Nope, you again.
> In the case of Dawkins, the reason would be that he is an atheist.
The reason for your incessant lying is Dawkins' lack of religious
belief? And all this time I thought it was your sick "religion".
>An
>as such he will continue to regurgitate failed arguments even after
>they had been smitten time and time again.
Things don't get "smitten" in real life, McNutso. That's the Bible in
Your Head talking again.
>Another evolutionist admits to wanting to make creationists look bad
>on purpose. Why should this be done? If creationism is wrong then let
>the proponents of creationism prove themselves wrong. Nobody has to
>make creationists look bad on purpose.
You're absolutely right about this. Creationists make themselves look
plenty bad all by themselves. You're one of our best examples of
that. But it's still fun to poke you, and you must enjoy it too since
you keep coming back for more. <poke> You're welcome.
>Evolutionists defend themselves to the death,
Against what? The transparent falsehoods and nonsense of creationism?
Your transparent lies? Everybody isn't as gullible as you seem to
think.
>even if it means making
>their opponents look bad.
Again, evolutionists don't need to do that - creationists do it
themselves.
>Evolutionists will repeat bad arguments
>because there is not other argument to take it's place.
The facts don't change. The shifting arguments of creationism are
signs of its rampant dishonesty. You're its poster child.
>This line of argumentation is akin to a parent defending his child even
>though the child was clearly guilty of wrong. In this case right and
>wrong isn't essential to the arguments being made, but a clear
>emotional reason instead.
>
>In one personal case an evolutionist argued with me claiming that I was
>wrong in stating that there is a geology textbook with a Earnest
>Haeckel chart therein. When the evidence was brought forth the man
>continued in the same line of thinking telling me that it was a
>physical geology textbook and therefore does not qualify. Even though
>logic tells us, through the use of venn circles, that a geology texts
>is a geology texts no matter what type of geology text it was. It
>wasn't a history text. It was a geology text.
I don't know anything about this, but we all know from experience that
you're an habitual liar, especially about your posting history. So
chances are this is all lies too.
Well, nothing new here - pretty much the same old dishonesty from you,
McLiar. Do your fellow congregationists know how corrupt you are in
the name of your "faith"? Do you think they'd approve?
CT
skyeyes
> > Which is why there are huge trees penetrating large homogenous strata
> > proving that strata can be deposited in rapid manner.There is a petrified forest in the New Mexico desert. What was once a
> forest could just as easily turn into a lake as a desert. Then you
> would have a petrified tree stump penetrating several strata. BTW, they
> don't have huge trees penetrating several strata, just stumps like the
> petrified forest in New Mexico.
<Clears throat> Er, the Petrified Forest is here in Arizona, kiddo.
We're not letting New Mexico have it no matter how cute they are or how
nicely they ask.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes at dakotacom dot net
Craig Franck
> "Dana Tweedy" wrote:
> >That has
>> been seen. Also, humans are apes,
>
> No they are not. You are relying on the 96-98% claim of genetic
> similarity supposedly propped up by propagandists in the 70's and 80's
That's not really correct. Humans were known to be a kind
of ape prior to the modern science of genetics. All genetic
evidence since then is consistent with this fact.
> . But not discussed is the fact that the human genome hadn't even been
> mapped. The completion came around the year 2000. And the chimp hadn't
> even been mapped yet while Time magazine said a few months ago "why
> wait" meaning, why not treat speculative claims to relatedness before
> the facts come in. Your facts are phoney Dana.
The problem is, from a scientific POV, if we are not apes,
what are we? Some *other* kind of mammal? Space aliens?
You have to at least understand an argument before you try
to refute it. It is not a "speculative claim" if there is no other
rational explanation.
It's reasonable to reach a conclusion by process of elimination,
particularly in biology. It's not like some exotic form of matter
is going to show up that we are instances of.
--
Craig Franck
craig....@verizon.net
Cortland, NY
Mark VandeWettering
> Sometimes I wonder as to why evolutionists keep arguing even after they
> have failed to make a case. After awhile, I've noticed on these
> newsgroups, evolutionists will repeat the same arguments even though
> they had been refuted already several times over.
Uh, have you got something in your eye... oh. Yeah. A 4x4.
> In the case of Dawkins, the reason would be that he is an atheist. An
> as such he will continue to regurgitate failed arguments even after
> they had been smitten time and time again.
>
> Another evolutionist admits to wanting to make creationists look bad
> on purpose.
Luckily, it's not very difficult.
> Why should this be done? If creationism is wrong then let
> the proponents of creationism prove themselves wrong. Nobody has to
> make creationists look bad on purpose.
I agree.
> Evolutionists defend themselves to the death, even if it means making
> their opponents look bad. Evolutionists will repeat bad arguments
> because there is not other argument to take it's place.
>
> This line of argumentation is akin to a parent defending his child even
> though the child was clearly guilty of wrong. In this case right and
> wrong isn't essential to the arguments being made, but a clear
> emotional reason instead.
>
> In one personal case an evolutionist argued with me claiming that I was
> wrong in stating that there is a geology textbook with a Earnest
> Haeckel chart therein. When the evidence was brought forth the man
> continued in the same line of thinking telling me that it was a
> physical geology textbook and therefore does not qualify. Even though
> logic tells us, through the use of venn circles, that a geology texts
> is a geology texts no matter what type of geology text it was. It
> wasn't a history text. It was a geology text.
Bored.
Mark
Augray
<1169676531....@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> :
>On Jan 24, 4:10 pm, m...@sunset.net wrote:
>> On Jan 24, 12:54 pm, "Kermit" <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
>> > The fact that they match.
>> > The fossil record, and its chronological stratification.
>
>> Which is why a normal bird is found below archeopteryx strata.
>> Real
>> proof there.
>
>No there were primitive birds below Archeopteryx.
There are no known birds, primitive or otherwise, below Archaeopteryx.
[snip]
Augray
<mccoy-116967300...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> :
>
>
>On Jan 24, 12:54 pm, "Kermit" <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 24, 12:19 pm, m...@sunset.net wrote:
>>
>> > Sometimes I wonder as to why evolutionists keep arguing even after they
>> > have failed to make a case. After awhile, I've noticed on these
>> > newsgroups, evolutionists will repeat the same arguments even though
>> > they had been refuted already several times over.Ummm... holding your hands over your ears while singing loudly actually
>> doesn't constitute a refutation.
>>
>> Here are some of the classes of evidence supporting the fact of
>> evolution, and the testable model which explains it - NS + sexual
>> selection + drift acting on a pool of inheritable variability:
>> Nested hierarchy of morphology.
>
>Doesn't sound like evolution. Nested hints at cladistics.
>
>> Nested hierarchy of genetics.
>
>Same here.
>
>> The fact that they match.
>> The fossil record, and its chronological stratification.
>
>Which is why a normal bird is found below archeopteryx strata. Real
>proof there.
Absolutely false. You've never been able to back up that claim, even
though I've asked you repeatedly to do so. It's false, and I'll show
you how it's false once you grow the courage to produce a citation.
You complain above that "evolutionists will repeat the same arguments
even though they had been refuted already several times over" but that
doesn't stop you from doing the thing that you criticize evolutionists
for. Your statement in
news:mccoy-11695804...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com that
"evolutionists admit that evolution is a faith" has already been
falsified, yet you're still dragging it out.
You're a hypocrite.
[snip]
Diz...@bfe.com
>It didn't work because nobody saw an ape skeleton turn into a human being.
and
>You could also look at some tree bark and not the similar color to that of some moths and speculate that tree bark turned into moths.
I have to take my hat off to McCoy. These statements show real comedy
talent. My mind boggles at the thought and effort needed to come up
with something this off the wall dumb. A master troll at work. This
guy is really funny. Somehow he keeps topping himself; never dull,
usually creative awe inspiring stupidity. I applaud!
Diz
wf3h
mc...@sunset.net wrote:
> Sometimes I wonder as to why evolutionists keep arguing even after they
> have failed to make a case.
who says they haven't made a case?
Oh...religious fanatics....
After awhile, I've noticed on these
> newsgroups, evolutionists will repeat the same arguments even though
> they had been refuted already several times over.
wow...the irony...is that like the creationist argument that 'if man
evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?'
> >
> Another evolutionist admits to wanting to make creationists look bad
> on purpose. Why should this be done? If creationism is wrong then let
> the proponents of creationism prove themselves wrong. Nobody has to
> make creationists look bad on purpose.
well that's true. creationists need no help in looking bad.
incidentally, bad and wrong ideologies exist in spite of the fact
they're wrong. just look at islamist terrorist ideology...
maximum maypo
news:pYCdnShvmutveSrY...@comcast.com:
when I logged on this evening, there were 47 responses to
McWhackAMole's original post...of those 47, yours is the
only one that contains a useful suggestion ;^D
--
max
Ye Old One
when s/he wrote:
>It didn't work because nobody saw an ape skeleton turn into a human
>being.
An ape skeleton cannot "turn" into anything.
However, the fossil record clearly shows the evolution of modern apes,
including man, from our primitive ancestors. a process that has taken
about 20 million years so far.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
when s/he wrote:
>Sometimes I wonder as to why evolutionists keep arguing even after they
>have failed to make a case.
They don't, their case is already well made and accepted.
>After awhile, I've noticed on these
>newsgroups, evolutionists will repeat the same arguments even though
>they had been refuted already several times over.
No McClueless, that describes YOUR tactics very well.
>
> In the case of Dawkins, the reason would be that he is an atheist. An
>as such he will continue to regurgitate failed arguments even after
>they had been smitten time and time again.
I've yet to see him regurgitate any failed arguments. Would you care
to name one?
>
>Another evolutionist admits to wanting to make creationists look bad
>on purpose.
Who? Cite?
>Why should this be done?
Can't think why - you do such a good job of making creationists look
bad you don't need any help or encouragement.
>If creationism is wrong then let
>the proponents of creationism prove themselves wrong. Nobody has to
>make creationists look bad on purpose.
And boy do you prove that point.
>
>Evolutionists defend themselves to the death, even if it means making
>their opponents look bad. Evolutionists will repeat bad arguments
>because there is not other argument to take it's place.
I think there is a little transference in your argument there
McClueless.
>
>This line of argumentation is akin to a parent defending his child even
>though the child was clearly guilty of wrong. In this case right and
>wrong isn't essential to the arguments being made, but a clear
>emotional reason instead.
Or like your defense of Ron 'The Con' Wyatt and his swindling little
games.
>
>In one personal case an evolutionist argued with me claiming that I was
>wrong in stating that there is a geology textbook with a Earnest
>Haeckel chart therein.
Correct. I've search three libraries now, and the indexes of a number
of on-line sources, and I cannot find a book that lists the chart.
> When the evidence was brought forth the man
>continued in the same line of thinking telling me that it was a
>physical geology textbook and therefore does not qualify.
Pardon? "Evidence brought forth"? Can't have come from you then
McClueless, you never bring forth any evidence unless it is a pack of
lies.
>Even though
>logic tells us, through the use of venn circles, that a geology texts
>is a geology texts no matter what type of geology text it was. It
>wasn't a history text. It was a geology text.
Title, author, publisher?
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
when s/he wrote:
>
>
>On Jan 24, 12:44 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> <m...@sunset.net> wrote in messagenews:mccoy-116967104...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> snip
>>
>> > It didn't work because nobody saw an ape skeleton turn into a human
>> > being.That would be creationism. Evolution is when populations of living
>> orgainsms change over generations due to mutation and selection.
>
>That's not the classic definition of evolution.
It is the correct one today.
>
> That has
>> been seen. Also, humans are apes,
>
>No they are not.
Yes we are.
> You are relying on the 96-98% claim of genetic
>similarity supposedly propped up by propagandists in the 70's and 80's
No, nothing to do with that whatsoever.
>. But not discussed is the fact that the human genome hadn't even been
>mapped. The completion came around the year 2000.
And proved to be even closer that the first estimate.
> And the chimp hadn't
>even been mapped yet while Time magazine said a few months ago "why
>wait" meaning, why not treat speculative claims to relatedness before
>the facts come in. Your facts are phoney Dana.
No McClueless, you just don't even bother to use facts.
>
>
>JM
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
when s/he wrote:
>You don't get my point. The point is that you can look at an ape
>skeleton and it doesn't do anything except sit there. You can't
>experiment with it.
Yes you can, there are a lot of experiments that can be done with it.
>All you can do is say, "boy, I observe less slope
>on that forehead,so that proves that it evolved into a man in
>subsequent generations."
That is done by comparing many fossils together, yes.
> Of course that is pure speculation.
No, it is comparative physiology and anatomy.
> You
>could also look at some tree bark and not the similar color to that of
>some moths and speculate that tree bark turned into moths.
Sometimes you get even more stupid that usual McClueless.
>
>JM
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
when s/he wrote:
>Note also that evolutionists even had admitted to trying to portray
>creationists a political opportunists, evangelical activists,
>ifnoramuses, breakers of rules, etc. So then the arguments are made up.
>Fiction.
>
>JM
Well, we know you are a creationist. We also know you are an
ignoramus, a breaker of rules, a supporter of criminal activities and
a very poor loser.
Face it McClueless, you are a very sorry specimen whatever way we look
at you.
--
Bob.
Ross Langerak
"Desertphile" <desert...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169671707.9...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 24, 1:19 pm, m...@sunset.net wrote:
> > Sometimes I wonder as to why evolutionists keep arguing even after they
>
>
accept evolution as the best explanation for the evidence?
mel turner
news:k0vfr2tc0h6844dsf...@4ax.com...
You should get him to do his Jackson's Chameleon routine.
cheers
Ross Langerak
<mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:mccoy-116966995...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> Sometimes I wonder as to why evolutionists keep arguing even after they
> newsgroups, evolutionists will repeat the same arguments even though
> they had been refuted already several times over.
Can you please give us an example of an argument supporting evolution that
has been refuted.
> In the case of Dawkins, the reason would be that he is an atheist. An
> as such he will continue to regurgitate failed arguments even after
> they had been smitten time and time again.
Once again you've erroneously equated evolution with atheism. In another
thread in this newsgroup, (three messages down in my list) we are informed
that 40% of the US population accepts evolution. Now, 89% of the US
population is Christian of one denomination or another. Even if the
remaining 11% - which must include all other religions, not just atheists -
were all evolutionists, that means at least 29% of the US population are
both Christians and evolutionists. How bad do you have to be at math to
think that evolutionists are atheists?
I am quite certain that you have been informed of this error on your part
before. So I can't help but wonder if perhaps you have a learning
disability that is keeping you from retaining this knowledge. If that is
the case, perhaps we can locate a teacher who knows how to deal with your
particular disability.
> Another evolutionist admits to wanting to make creationists look bad
> on purpose. Why should this be done? If creationism is wrong then let
> the proponents of creationism prove themselves wrong. Nobody has to
> make creationists look bad on purpose.
The motivation of any particular evolutionist is irrelevant. The validity
of any theory in science is determined entirely by how well it fits the
evidence, and evolution is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence. You
can make personal attacks against any evolutionists you want, but it doesn't
change the evidence.
> Evolutionists defend themselves to the death, even if it means making
> their opponents look bad. Evolutionists will repeat bad arguments
> because there is not other argument to take it's place.
Creationists make themselves look bad by repeatedly making the same
mistakes, ignoring the evidence, and ignoring criticism. Can you give us an
example of a bad argument by an evolutionist?
> This line of argumentation is akin to a parent defending his child even
> though the child was clearly guilty of wrong. In this case right and
> wrong isn't essential to the arguments being made, but a clear
> emotional reason instead.
>
> In one personal case an evolutionist argued with me claiming that I was
> wrong in stating that there is a geology textbook with a Earnest
> Haeckel chart therein. When the evidence was brought forth the man
> continued in the same line of thinking telling me that it was a
> physical geology textbook and therefore does not qualify. Even though
> logic tells us, through the use of venn circles, that a geology texts
> is a geology texts no matter what type of geology text it was. It
> wasn't a history text. It was a geology text.
Again, even if this were true, it would be irrelevant. The validity of any
theory in science is determined entirely by how well it fits the evidence,
and evolution is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence.
bullpup
<mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:mccoy-116966995...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> Sometimes I wonder as to why evolutionists keep arguing even after they
> have failed to make a case. After awhile, I've noticed on these
> newsgroups, evolutionists will repeat the same arguments even though
> they had been refuted already several times over.
When did that ever happen?
>
> In the case of Dawkins, the reason would be that he is an atheist. An
> as such he will continue to regurgitate failed arguments even after
> they had been smitten time and time again.
Same as above, when did that ever happen?
>
> Another evolutionist admits to wanting to make creationists look bad
> on purpose. Why should this be done? If creationism is wrong then let
> the proponents of creationism prove themselves wrong. Nobody has to
> make creationists look bad on purpose.
The last sentence is 100% correct sir! But then again, a busted clock is
right twice a day, unless it's a digital watch.
>
> Evolutionists defend themselves to the death, even if it means making
> their opponents look bad. Evolutionists will repeat bad arguments
> because there is not other argument to take it's place.
The 'opponents" make themselves look bad. BTW, what are these "bad
arguments" that "evolutionists" put forward?
>
> This line of argumentation is akin to a parent defending his child even
> though the child was clearly guilty of wrong. In this case right and
> wrong isn't essential to the arguments being made, but a clear
> emotional reason instead.
Huh?
>
> In one personal case an evolutionist argued with me claiming that I was
> wrong in stating that there is a geology textbook with a Earnest
> Haeckel chart therein. When the evidence was brought forth the man
> continued in the same line of thinking telling me that it was a
> physical geology textbook and therefore does not qualify. Even though
> logic tells us, through the use of venn circles, that a geology texts
> is a geology texts no matter what type of geology text it was. It
> wasn't a history text. It was a geology text.
>
Gee, I don't suppose you have the balls to cite the message so that everyone
can see the full context of that thread?
Boikat
--
"Boikat, you are the dung beetle of T.O.
No need to say who is the dung"
- Phillip Brown-
bullpup
<mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:mccoy-116967104...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
<snip>
>
> It didn't work because nobody saw an ape skeleton turn into a human
> being.
See, you don' need no steenkeen evolutionists to make you look stoopeed!
Boikat
rmcbane
>
<snip>
> And *why* does Google Groups' new interface suck *even more* than the
> old one?
>
It was created by an "intelligent(?)" designer rather than allowed to
evolve.
--
Richard McBane
bullpup
<mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:mccoy-11696716...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
> Note also that evolutionists even had admitted to trying to portray
> creationists a political opportunists,
Since they cannot win in the lab, they have to resort to politics in the
hopes of getting toady politicians to cram religion into the public science
classes.
> evangelical activists,
Since creationism is religiously motivated, your point is.....?
> ifnoramuses,
As far as actual science goes, creationists *are* ignoramuses.
> breakers of rules,
They sure do not follow the rules of science (the scientific method)
> etc. So then the arguments are made up.
> Fiction.
That is creationism in a nut-shell. Have you "converted"?
Boikat
Bobby Bryant
mc...@sunset.net writes:
> Sometimes I wonder as to why evolutionists keep arguing even after
> they have failed to make a case. After awhile, I've noticed on these
> newsgroups, evolutionists will repeat the same arguments even though
> they had been refuted already several times over.
And you have lots and lots of examples of this, right?
--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada
Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
A.Carlson
<Clip>
>> >It didn't work because nobody saw an ape skeleton turn into a human
>> >being.
>>
>> >JM This is hugely interesting.
>>
>> Is McCoy saying that there actually was a claim that dead
>> skeletons could turn into human beings?
>
>You don't get my point.
Then don't be so obtuse or act so retarded!
>The point is that you can look at an ape
>skeleton and it doesn't do anything except sit there.
More like 'lie there' but then it is the gathering of evidence and
then comparing that to other evidence where science really gets going
here. It doesn't happen on its own and certainly not in that vacuum
between your ears.
>You can't experiment with it.
BULLSHIT!
>All you can do is say, "boy, I observe less slope
>on that forehead,
Well, I guess that shows yet again how ignorant you are on at least
three accounts. 1) That is not all I would say; 2) That is not the
only observation I can make concerning the skeleton itself; and 3) I
would not be limited to only this one line of evidence, comparative
anatomy.
I could make any number of observations relating to what bones exist
and then compare and contrast these bones with those of the same
species to determine various ranges and ratios.
I could then call upon an extensive database of even just skeletal
information of other related species (based on any number of criteria)
and then compare and contrast between species where commonality
exists.
Seeing that nested hierarchies do indeed exist throughout nature, it
would be ignorant of us to just dismiss this fact out of hand as well
or to ignore the implications, particularly how it relates this
skeleton to Homo sapiens on a number of different levels and not just
based on comparing skeletons
Of course it would be hard to miss the number of obvious homologies
that exist not only among closely related species like the great apes
(including ourselves) but also right down the line. Vestigial
structure would come in to play somewhere here as well.
Based on these observations I could then solicit further studies (or
reference existing studies made by others) to help me determine
whether the types of interrelationships that are observed throughout
nature can be observed here.
If I am lucky, I may be able to extract genetic information in the
form of chromosomes or DNA, depending how old the sample is. With
this additional information I can again continue to compare and
contrast, particularly with what appear to be relates species.
Of course I should already be aware of where this skeleton came from
and, assuming that it came from the wild (I should know this in any
case) I could add this to the database of overall species distribution
and compare and contrast this information as well.
With the great apes, including Homo sapiens, there have already been
behavioral studies done that indicate that comparing behavior between
species is more a matter of degrees than differences. It would be
silly of us to just ignore this.
Of course I could go on and on but you're going to just up and ignore
anything I say here and repeat this same old lie of yours here
tomorrow without addressing any of the points being made!
>so that proves that it evolved into a man in
>subsequent generations."
Yes, the evidence is rather extensive even if I left out the fossil
evidence that shows, among other things, differing collections of
flora and fauna over different geological epochs and eras, a
progression of fossils that clearly indicates and supports both
descent through modification and common descent, and is further backed
up by a number of different complimentary dating techniques.
>Of course that is pure speculation.
Of course! It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with a plethora
of data pointing directly to this in a number of different ways that
has been collected for centuries now.
>You
>could also look at some tree bark and not the similar color to that of
>some moths and speculate that tree bark turned into moths.
I suppose if they were as stupid as you they might actually choose to
come to that completely baseless conclusion if they thought it would
help bolster their own cherished religious mythologies. And if they
repeated it enough times they might even convince themselves that they
were convincing others no matter how many times they were corrected on
their gross and blatantly obvious errors.
By the way, when are you going to get around to giving an honest
critique of the changes going on over at Wyatt Ministries and what
this really means concerning Wyatt's credibility or lack thereof?
Josh Hayes
@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com:
> In one personal case an evolutionist argued with me claiming that I was
> wrong in stating that there is a geology textbook with a Earnest
> Haeckel chart therein.
Maybe it's because of the importance of being Ernst.
-JAH
Sorry, Oscar
John Wilkins
There's always somebody ready to Haeckel.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Perplexed in Peoria
"Josh Hayes" <jos...@spamblarg.net> wrote in message news:Xns98C2E3CED74...@216.168.3.44...
That was Wilde.
A.Carlson
>Note also that evolutionists even had admitted to trying to portray
TRYING !?!?! We've damned well proved it time and again! In court
even!
>creationists a political opportunists,
When they were not able to accomplish spreading their lies through
legitimate scientific channels due to their complete lack of credible
evidence they then resorted to marshaling the ignorant masses (seen
the polls lately?) to create back channels so they could attempt to
corrupt the scientific process in order to falsely represent their
lies as though they were backed by legitimate science. Millions of
dollars of taxpayer money have been wasted in this blatantly
unconstitutional process. Even Bush appointed judges weren't buying
it!
>evangelical activists,
Yes, various evangelical leaders have been in league with this them in
this dishonest and disreputable attempt of theirs.
>ifnoramuses,
Is there any doubt? We even have one clown here who, no matter how
many times we try and tell him, still believes that:
1) Humans evolved from monkeys (we share a common ancestor)
2) Scientists were somehow 'tricked' into believing in evolution
because of Piltdown man (even according to these same
scientists, it played a minor role at best and there was and
still is a number of good lines of evidence that actually
*were* used in defense of the ToE)
3) There are only one or two lines of evidence that are used to
support the ToE and boy are they weak! (not only does he
still not recognize this for a blatantly obvious strawman, I
don't think he gets what a strawman really is. Either that
or he's a liar who just doesn't give a damn. Of course he
chooses to just ignore the many lines of evidence that
are repeatedly shown to him)
4) He actually thinks that dowsing can be incorporated into
what is being passed off as a legitimate survey (Really!)
>breakers of rules, etc.
You mean like 'Dr.' Dino, the guy who is not only in prison now for
refusing to pay income taxes (duly authorized by congress and
specifically allowed by the constitution) but whose phony doctorate
came from a diploma mill?
Was Duane Gish playing by the 'rules' of science when he lied about
bullfrog proteins?
How about "Dr." Baugh's phony doctorate or his equally phony Paluxy
River 'human' tracks?
>So then the arguments are made up.
Yup! Never met a Creationist with an honest one, at least one that
could stand up to scrutiny.
>Fiction.
More like delusional!
Iain
On Jan 24, 8:19 pm, m...@sunset.net wrote:
> Sometimes I wonder as to why evolutionists keep arguing even after they
> have failed to make a case. After awhile, I've noticed on these
> newsgroups, evolutionists will repeat the same arguments
They repeat the same counterarguments because the same flawed arguments
continue to arise from Creationists.
> even though
> they had been refuted already several times over.
What has been refuted?
> In the case of Dawkins, the reason would be that he is an atheist.
> An as such he will continue to regurgitate failed arguments even after
> they had been smitten time and time again.
>
> Another evolutionist admits to wanting to make creationists look bad
> on purpose. Why should this be done? If creationism is wrong then let
> the proponents of creationism prove themselves wrong. Nobody has to
> make creationists look bad on purpose.
>
> Evolutionists defend themselves to the death, even if it means making
> their opponents look bad. Evolutionists will repeat bad arguments
> because there is not other argument to take it's place.
>
> This line of argumentation is akin to a parent defending his child even
> though the child was clearly guilty of wrong. In this case right and
> wrong isn't essential to the arguments being made, but a clear
> emotional reason instead.
>
> In one personal case an evolutionist argued with me claiming that I was
> wrong in stating that there is a geology textbook with a Earnest
> Haeckel chart therein.
What's wrong with Haeckel and why is he relevant to anything?
~Iain
Iain
mc...@sunset.net wrote:
> On Jan 24, 12:59 pm, Joe Cummings <joecummi...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> > On 24 Jan 2007 12:37:26 -0800, m...@sunset.net wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >On Jan 24, 12:29 pm, "artoart...@gmail.com" <artoart...@gmail.com>
> > >wrote:
> > >> m...@sunset.net je napisal:
> >
> > >> > Sometimes I wonder as to why evolutionists keep arguing even after they
> > >> > have failed to make a case. After awhile, I've noticed on these
> > >> > newsgroups, evolutionists will repeat the same arguments even though
> > >> > they had been refuted already several times over.
> >
> > >> > In the case of Dawkins, the reason would be that he is an atheist. An
> > >> > as such he will continue to regurgitate failed arguments even after
> > >> > they had been smitten time and time again.
> >
> > >> > Another evolutionist admits to wanting to make creationists look bad
> > >> > on purpose. Why should this be done? If creationism is wrong then let
> > >> > the proponents of creationism prove themselves wrong. Nobody has to
> > >> > make creationists look bad on purpose.
> >
> > >> > Evolutionists defend themselves to the death, even if it means making
> > >> > their opponents look bad. Evolutionists will repeat bad arguments
> > >> > because there is not other argument to take it's place.
> >
> > >> > This line of argumentation is akin to a parent defending his child even
> > >> > though the child was clearly guilty of wrong. In this case right and
> > >> > wrong isn't essential to the arguments being made, but a clear
> > >> > emotional reason instead.
> > >> >[snip]Almost true! Just replace evolutionists with creationists, and there
> > >> you have it!- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
> >
> > >It didn't work because nobody saw an ape skeleton turn into a human
> > >being.
> >
> > >JM This is hugely interesting.
> >
> > Is McCoy saying that there actually was a claim that dead
> > skeletons could turn into human beings?
>
> You don't get my point. The point is that you can look at an ape
> skeleton and it doesn't do anything except sit there. You can't
> experiment with it.
Right, but a sequence of thousands of ape skeletons, alongside
information on their locations in geological time and geographical
space, provides a good deal more evidence.
It's like you're complaining you can't get a story from a single frame
of motion picture.
~Iain
Shane
I wish I'd said that.
A.Carlson
wrote:
>
>
>On Jan 24, 8:19 pm, m...@sunset.net wrote:
>> Sometimes I wonder as to why evolutionists keep arguing even after they
>> have failed to make a case. After awhile, I've noticed on these
>> newsgroups, evolutionists will repeat the same arguments
>
>They repeat the same counterarguments because the same flawed arguments
>continue to arise from Creationists.
McClueless is of course projecting here.
>> even though
>> they had been refuted already several times over.
>
>What has been refuted?
>
>> In the case of Dawkins, the reason would be that he is an atheist.
>> An as such he will continue to regurgitate failed arguments even after
>> they had been smitten time and time again.
>>
>> Another evolutionist admits to wanting to make creationists look bad
>> on purpose. Why should this be done? If creationism is wrong then let
>> the proponents of creationism prove themselves wrong. Nobody has to
>> make creationists look bad on purpose.
>>
>> Evolutionists defend themselves to the death, even if it means making
>> their opponents look bad. Evolutionists will repeat bad arguments
>> because there is not other argument to take it's place.
>>
>> This line of argumentation is akin to a parent defending his child even
>> though the child was clearly guilty of wrong. In this case right and
>> wrong isn't essential to the arguments being made, but a clear
>> emotional reason instead.
>>
>> In one personal case an evolutionist argued with me claiming that I was
>> wrong in stating that there is a geology textbook with a Earnest
>> Haeckel chart therein.
>
>What's wrong with Haeckel and why is he relevant to anything?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/haeckel.html
Haeckel's drawing were less than accurate by today's standards and
probably even downright fraudulent or falsified and were used in
support of a now universally held to be bogus concept only loosely
related to the ToE, namely the biogenetic law: Ontogeny recapitulates
phylogeny. IOW, it is a good start for a strawman argument against
the ToE.
Of course this is one of McClueless' many convoluted lies that he has
been both corrected on and challenged on a number of times. He
continues to ignore the following:
1) What was represented in the charts in question was the striking
similarities between various vertebrate embryos in the earliest stages
of development. Although Haeckel may have taken certain liberties
that by today's standards would be inexcusable (and not too welcome in
his day either) to make this particular valid point, the striking
similarities are still there.
McClueless has this bizarre idea that by attacking Haeckel's poor
representation of this fact, that this fact will somehow go away and
that the similarities and what they represent would no longer be
there.
2) Related to this same issue is the existence of a structure in
vertebrate embryos, including human embryos, that have been referred
to in the past as either 'gill slits' or 'pharyngeal arches'. Of
course they do not develop into gills in humans (they do in some other
vertebrates), but parts of the neck and jaw.
Creationists like McClueless would like others to believe that the
structure therefore is not there since we obviously don't have gills.
Of course even photos of early vertebrate embryos, including human
embryos, show this very structure.
Concerning the above two points, I have challenged McClueless on
several occasions in the past, asking him whether or not he would be
able to distinguish between pictures of various vertebrate embryos in
the early stages of development that clearly show such structures to
see if he could tell the difference between species that ultimately
turn out quite differently. So far he has refused the challenge or at
least refused to reply to it, which is pretty much par for the course
for him concerning almost every on-point rebuttal of his inanities.
3) Of course Haeckel's long ago refuted biogenetic law came after the
case for the ToE was first made and even if it was later used at least
for a while as part of the evidence for evolution it was certainly not
the only evidence used for evolution and not the most significant
either.
Much of the evidence put forth in support of evolution not only
remains robust but has improved with age as more relevant data was
collected. Additional very strong lines of evidence have been
developed as well. McClueless chooses to ignore all of this and
continually tries to imply that this one long ago refuted piece of
evidence somehow played a key role in the acceptance of evolution. He
makes a similar bogus claim concerning Piltdown man.
4) Related to the above point, even those who may have accepted these
few lines of evidence that are now recognized as being bogus still had
these other strong lines of evidence to rely on and often didn't even
give the now bogus evidence much weight to begin with.
McClueless simply chooses to ignore this point, preferring his own lie
that they were fooled by Piltdown man or the biogenetic law, even
ignoring these scientists own words. Of course where would a modern
day Creationist be if he couldn't rephrase and reframe everything to
his liking?
Haeckel's charts and the Piltdown man fraud were certainly black eyes
for science but they were not really as damaging to the science of
evolution as dishonest Creationist try and make them out to be.
John Wilkins
> On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 06:28:55 GMT, Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
>
> > "Josh Hayes" <jos...@spamblarg.net> wrote...
> >> mc...@sunset.net wrote in news:mccoy-1169669956.955275.110410
> >> @a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com:
> >>
> >>> In one personal case an evolutionist argued with me claiming that I was
> >>> wrong in stating that there is a geology textbook with a Earnest
> >>> Haeckel chart therein.
> >>
> >> Maybe it's because of the importance of being Ernst.
> >>
> >> -JAH
> >>
> >> Sorry, Oscar
> >
> > That was Wilde.
>
> I wish I'd said that.
You will, Shane, you will.
Iain
On Jan 24, 9:10 pm, m...@sunset.net wrote:
>
> Which is why supposed index fossils have been found amongst the living,
> making one wonder as to how the fossil vanished from the fossil record
> (as it was supposed to be extinct), yet reappeared only to be living.
What are you talking about? So what if a fossil of a species thought to
be extinct isn't?
~Iain
Rolf
<mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:mccoy-116966995...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> Sometimes I wonder as to why evolutionists keep arguing even after they
> have failed to make a case. After awhile, I've noticed on these
> they had been refuted already several times over.
>
An exercise like you are referring to is, and you ought to know that better
than most - fits exactly with what all creationists are doing, all the time.
They keep coming back for a beating time and time again. Haexkels embryos,
2LOT, no intermediate speceis, 6000 yeras old Earth, Noah's flood, life is
too complex.... C14 dating giving false dating of fossils. complete the list
on your own.
> In the case of Dawkins, the reason would be that he is an atheist. An
> as such he will continue to regurgitate failed arguments even after
> they had been smitten time and time again.
>
Why bother with Dawkins? I can't see he matters one way or the other WRT
the ToE. Dont' you get tired being obsessed with Dawkins? I haven't ever
read Dawkins, dont even think I ever will.
> Another evolutionist admits to wanting to make creationists look bad
> on purpose. Why should this be done? If creationism is wrong then let
> the proponents of creationism prove themselves wrong. Nobody has to
> make creationists look bad on purpose.
>
How silly of him, you are perfectly capable of making yourselves look - not
only bad - but stupid, all the time.
> Evolutionists defend themselves to the death, even if it means making
> their opponents look bad. Evolutionists will repeat bad arguments
> because there is not other argument to take it's place.
>
> This line of argumentation is akin to a parent defending his child even
> though the child was clearly guilty of wrong. In this case right and
> wrong isn't essential to the arguments being made, but a clear
> emotional reason instead.
>
> In one personal case an evolutionist argued with me claiming that I was
> wrong in stating that there is a geology textbook with a Earnest
> Haeckel chart therein. When the evidence was brought forth the man
> continued in the same line of thinking telling me that it was a
> physical geology textbook and therefore does not qualify. Even though
> logic tells us, through the use of venn circles, that a geology texts
> is a geology texts no matter what type of geology text it was. It
> wasn't a history text. It was a geology text.
>
So what? A questionable argument may be made by anybody, creationist or
'evolutionist', but what's the point? No one is perfect, probably not even
you. Ever thought about that?
Rolf
Rolf
<mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:mccoy-116967104...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> On Jan 24, 12:29 pm, "artoart...@gmail.com" <artoart...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > m...@sunset.net je napisal:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
they
> > > have failed to make a case. After awhile, I've noticed on these
> > > newsgroups, evolutionists will repeat the same arguments even though
> > > they had been refuted already several times over.
> >
An
> > > as such he will continue to regurgitate failed arguments even after
> > > they had been smitten time and time again.
> >
> > > on purpose. Why should this be done? If creationism is wrong then
let
> > > the proponents of creationism prove themselves wrong. Nobody has to
> > > make creationists look bad on purpose.
> >
> > > their opponents look bad. Evolutionists will repeat bad arguments
> > > because there is not other argument to take it's place.
> >
> > > This line of argumentation is akin to a parent defending his child
even
> > > though the child was clearly guilty of wrong. In this case right and
> > > wrong isn't essential to the arguments being made, but a clear
> > > emotional reason instead.
there
> > you have it!- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
>
> It didn't work because nobody saw an ape skeleton turn into a human
> being.
>
Who else would be capable of making such a silly statement. Are you really
brainless? Why an ape skeleton; why not a dinosaur coprolite?
Rolf
> JM
>
Rolf
<mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:mccoy-116967236...@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> On Jan 24, 12:44 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > <m...@sunset.net> wrote in
messagenews:mccoy-116967104...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > snip
> >
living
> > orgainsms change over generations due to mutation and selection.
>
> That's not the classic definition of evolution.
>
As a classicist, could you please oblige by telling me the classic
definition ef evolution?
For fifty years, I have been living under the delusion that it is random
mutations and natural selection, aka RM&NS, as so often have been used both
on ARN and other places. it might however be added that the ToE today may
be s bit more complex, without having abandoned wjat I aleways have held as
th classical definition. But alas, I am waiting for you to enlighten me.
Rolf
> That has
> > been seen. Also, humans are apes,
>
> No they are not. You are relying on the 96-98% claim of genetic
> similarity supposedly propped up by propagandists in the 70's and 80's
> . But not discussed is the fact that the human genome hadn't even been
> mapped.
Your ignorance shines.
Alan Wilson and Marie-Claire King showed that chimp and man are all but 99%
identical. (Marie-Claire King and A.C. Wilson, 'Evolution at two levels in
humans and chimpanzees, Science, 188: 107-16, 1975.)
In an interview on BBC radio Oct.14, 1998, Jared Diamond, professor of
Physiology at UCLA said '98.4 of our DNA base sequences are identical to
those ofour closest relatives, namely the common chimpanzee and the pgny
chimpanzee.'
Actually, the work leading to the current standing of knowledge of the close
relationship between the grat apes and humans - and simultaneously also the
realization that the time of divergence was, not 20 million years ago as
previously thought, but much more recent. I believe it is more like
something between 4 to 6 million. Uncomfortably close for creationists.
And of course, we now know that humans are apes, as different from chimps as
chimps are from gorillas.
Rolf
The completion came around the year 2000. And the chimp hadn't
> even been mapped yet while Time magazine said a few months ago "why
> wait" meaning, why not treat speculative claims to relatedness before
> the facts come in. Your facts are phoney Dana.
>
>
> JM
>
> so any human skeleton is an ape
> > skeleton.
> >
> > DJT
>
Rolf
<mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:mccoy-116967320...@13g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> On Jan 24, 12:59 pm, Joe Cummings <joecummi...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> > On 24 Jan 2007 12:37:26 -0800, m...@sunset.net wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >JM This is hugely interesting.
> >
> > Is McCoy saying that there actually was a claim that dead
> > skeletons could turn into human beings?
>
> You don't get my point. The point is that you can look at an ape
> skeleton and it doesn't do anything except sit there. You can't
> on that forehead,so that proves that it evolved into a man in
> subsequent generations." Of course that is pure speculation. You
> could also look at some tree bark and not the similar color to that of
> some moths and speculate that tree bark turned into moths.
>
>
>
> >
> > Where was this claim made?
> >
> > The only similar claim that my researches have been able to
> > find is by someone called Ezekiel. (Was that his name?)
> >
> > He claimed something to the effect that"Them bones, Them
> > bones, them dry bones, them bones them bones them dry bones, them
> > bones them bones gonna live again."
> >
> > But surely he was a creationist?
> >
> > Have fun,
> >
> > Joe Cummings- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
>
The more I read of you, the less sense you make.
We don't need to look at any skeletons or fossils: We compare gentic
difference. If the difference is 1%, then it is 1%, get it? Genetic
difference doesn't translate into morphological difference - you simply
cannot tell from morphology how close or far removed species are. Get it?
Rolf
Rolf
<mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:mccoy-11696716...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
> Note also that evolutionists even had admitted to trying to portray
> ifnoramuses, breakers of rules, etc.
Admitted? if I didn't know better, I'd say you are joking. But yes,
'evolutionists' have properly pointed out the wide array of erratic,
incoherent and silly et cetera behaviour displayed by creationists. So
what's the beef?
Rolf
> So then the arguments are made up.
> Fiction.
>
> JM
>
er...@swva.net
> On Jan 24, 12:55 pm, Rich Townsend <r...@barVOIDtol.udel.edu> wrote:
>
> > m...@sunset.net wrote:
> > > Note also that evolutionists even had admitted to trying to portray
> > > creationists a political opportunists, evangelical activists,
> > > Fiction.
>
> > > JMHowever, the best Creationists don't need help from the Evilutionists to portray
> > themselves as crooks and thieves; why, just a few days ago, a Creationist from
> > Florida gone done proven it all by himself!You mean from the law that supposedly authorizes the IRS to collect
> taxes from the general 50 states of America, a law you cannot prove
> exists.
>
> JM
THe IRS did not collect or attempt to collect taxes from any state;
they attempted to collect them from Kent Hovind, who is a private
citizen and a businessman. No state was taxed.
Eric Root
Ye Old One
Wilkins) enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>Josh Hayes <jos...@spamblarg.net> wrote:
>
>> mc...@sunset.net wrote in news:mccoy-1169669956.955275.110410
>> @a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > In one personal case an evolutionist argued with me claiming that I was
>> > wrong in stating that there is a geology textbook with a Earnest
>> > Haeckel chart therein.
>>
>> Maybe it's because of the importance of being Ernst.
>>
>> -JAH
>>
>> Sorry, Oscar
>
>There's always somebody ready to Haeckel.
Who is charting the progress?
--
Bob.
Chris Morris
<mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:mccoy-116967104...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
See there you go with the Fallacies again you could not refute your way out
of a paper bag. Come to think of it you could not find your ass with both
hands and a road map either.
Chris Morris
<mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
>
>
> On Jan 24, 12:44 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> <m...@sunset.net> wrote in
>> messagenews:mccoy-116967104...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> snip
>>
>> > living
>> orgainsms change over generations due to mutation and selection.
>
> That's not the classic definition of evolution.
Yeah it is just without all the Scientific terms.
> That has
>> been seen. Also, humans are apes,
>
> No they are not. You are relying on the 96-98% claim of genetic
> similarity supposedly propped up by propagandists in the 70's and 80's
> . But not discussed is the fact that the human genome hadn't even been
> mapped. The completion came around the year 2000. And the chimp hadn't
> even been mapped yet while Time magazine said a few months ago "why
> wait" meaning, why not treat speculative claims to relatedness before
> the facts come in. Your facts are phoney Dana.
We are Great Apes we just have less visable hair, well some of us do
anyways. My Uncle was a classic Great Ape very hairy.
Joe Cummings
>
>
>On Jan 24, 12:59 pm, Joe Cummings <joecummi...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>> On 24 Jan 2007 12:37:26 -0800, m...@sunset.net wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Jan 24, 12:29 pm, "artoart...@gmail.com" <artoart...@gmail.com>
>> >wrote:
>> >> m...@sunset.net je napisal:
>>
>> >> > Sometimes I wonder as to why evolutionists keep arguing even after they
>> >> > have failed to make a case. After awhile, I've noticed on these
>> >> > newsgroups, evolutionists will repeat the same arguments even though
>> >> > they had been refuted already several times over.
>>
>> >> > In the case of Dawkins, the reason would be that he is an atheist. An
>> >> > as such he will continue to regurgitate failed arguments even after
>> >> > they had been smitten time and time again.
>>
>> >> > Another evolutionist admits to wanting to make creationists look bad
>> >> > on purpose. Why should this be done? If creationism is wrong then let
>> >> > the proponents of creationism prove themselves wrong. Nobody has to
>> >> > make creationists look bad on purpose.
>>
>> >> > Evolutionists defend themselves to the death, even if it means making
>> >> > their opponents look bad. Evolutionists will repeat bad arguments
>> >> > because there is not other argument to take it's place.
>>
>> >> > This line of argumentation is akin to a parent defending his child even
>> >> > though the child was clearly guilty of wrong. In this case right and
>> >> > wrong isn't essential to the arguments being made, but a clear
>> >> > emotional reason instead.
>> >> >[snip]Almost true! Just replace evolutionists with creationists, and there
>> >> you have it!- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
>>
>> >It didn't work because nobody saw an ape skeleton turn into a human
>> >being.
>>
>> >JM This is hugely interesting.
>>
>> Is McCoy saying that there actually was a claim that dead
>> skeletons could turn into human beings?
>
>You don't get my point. The point is that you can look at an ape
>skeleton and it doesn't do anything except sit there. You can't
>experiment with it. All you can do is say, "boy, I observe less slope
>on that forehead,so that proves that it evolved into a man in
>subsequent generations." Of course that is pure speculation. You
>could also look at some tree bark and not the similar color to that of
>some moths and speculate that tree bark turned into moths.
>
>JM
I love the bit about the tree bark turning into moths.
But McCoy is more knowledgeable than he admits to himself.
Let's get him to pause and give himself a headache by trying
to think carefully about what he's said.
He talks about an "ape skeleton." We have to assume that if he
goes into a room with just two objects, a bicycle and an ape skeleton,
he would recognise the ape skeleton for what it is.
However, if there was just the ape skeleton in the room, would
he recognise it as an ape skeleton? How?
What knowledge does McCoy have to be able to say "It's an ape
skeleton?" Has he been told, or has he seen other ape skeletons which
he sees are similar to this one?
Was he conscious of
a. the similarities between ape skeletons, and
b. the differences between them?
For McCoy, just to be told "That is an ape skeleton," is
enough, evidently.
For the majority of humankind, the existence of a number of
ape skeletons would invite making comparisons, and trying to find if
they are the same species or not.
This goes way above McCoy's head. That's why he'll never
understand the ways of science. They are a closed book to him, unlike
the Bible, upon which he relies for just about everything;
If he ever collected stamps, or some other similar improving
activity, he would realise that the differences are as important as
the similarities.
Have fun,
Joe Cummings
Augray
in <vj4gr2lpg4b7emf59...@4ax.com> :
>On 24 Jan 2007 12:37:26 -0800, mc...@sunset.net enriched this group
>when s/he wrote:
>
>>It didn't work because nobody saw an ape skeleton turn into a human
>>being.
>
>An ape skeleton cannot "turn" into anything.
Dust? 8)
>However, the fossil record clearly shows the evolution of modern apes,
>including man, from our primitive ancestors. a process that has taken
>about 20 million years so far.
Frank J
On Jan 24, 3:19 pm, m...@sunset.net wrote:
> Sometimes I wonder as to why evolutionists keep arguing even after they
> have failed to make a case.
They only "fail to make a case" to anti-evolution activists like you.
And actually we can't even be sure that, privately, you admit that they
are right. Al we know is the case you try to make to others, and how it
probably drives most lurkers closer to evolution. Unless that's your
real intent.
> After awhile, I've noticed on these
> newsgroups, evolutionists will repeat the same arguments even though
> they had been refuted already several times over.
No. That's the anti-evolutionists who do that. You people won't even
address the *real* potential falsifiers, such as those in Douglas
Theobald's article. Because you know that you can't.
>
> In the case of Dawkins, the reason would be that he is an atheist. An
> as such he will continue to regurgitate failed arguments even after
> they had been smitten time and time again.
Dawkins is not afraid to debate his atheism with other *evolutionists*
either. Unlike anti-evolution activists who pathethically try to cover
up their diffrences for the sake of the big tent.
>
> Another evolutionist admits to wanting to make creationists look bad
> on purpose. Why should this be done?
My problem is that too many "evolutionists" make creationists look
*good* by assuming that they honestly believe what they peddle. When
there is increasing evidence that creationists - the professionals and
"obssessed amateurs", if not the rank-and-file that are truly misled by
their gurus - are dishonest.
> If creationism is wrong then let
> the proponents of creationism prove themselves wrong. Nobody has to
> make creationists look bad on purpose.
Uh. Proponents of the *mutually contradictory* creationist positions
used to prove each other wrong, before they discovered the
"pseudoscience code of silence." Now, we (some of at least - hear that
fellow "Darwinists"???) have to remind people that creationists are not
some oppressed minority trying to give some promising new science a
fair hearing, but a bunch of scam artists covering up the flaws and
irreconcilable differences among their varied pseudoscientific
positions.
>
> Evolutionists defend themselves to the death, even if it means making
> their opponents look bad. Evolutionists will repeat bad arguments
> because there is not other argument to take it's place.
As you proceed to repeat the same PRATT in the same post!
>
> This line of argumentation is akin to a parent defending his child even
> though the child was clearly guilty of wrong. In this case right and
> wrong isn't essential to the arguments being made, but a clear
> emotional reason instead.
Uh huh. And anti-evolutionists do what instead?
>
> In one personal case an evolutionist argued with me claiming that I was
> wrong in stating that there is a geology textbook with a Earnest
> Haeckel chart therein. When the evidence was brought forth the man
> continued in the same line of thinking telling me that it was a
> physical geology textbook and therefore does not qualify. Even though
> logic tells us, through the use of venn circles, that a geology texts
> is a geology texts no matter what type of geology text it was. It
> wasn't a history text. It was a geology text.
Can anyone decipher that last paragraph?
Is this another "meds" issue?
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 02:16:38 GMT, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote
>in <vj4gr2lpg4b7emf59...@4ax.com> :
>
>>On 24 Jan 2007 12:37:26 -0800, mc...@sunset.net enriched this group
>>when s/he wrote:
>>
>>>It didn't work because nobody saw an ape skeleton turn into a human
>>>being.
>>
>>An ape skeleton cannot "turn" into anything.
>
>Dust? 8)
I could come to dislike you if you do things like that too often :)
--
Bob.
Gerry Murphy
<mc...@sunset.net>, the black, sucking vortex of ignorance, who would have
to borrow heavily, mortgaging all he owns, just to achieve
intellectual and moral bankruptcy, subtracted from the sum of human
knowledge when he wrote in message
news:mccoy-116967251...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> On Jan 24, 12:55 pm, Rich Townsend <r...@barVOIDtol.udel.edu> wrote:
> > m...@sunset.net wrote:
> > > Note also that evolutionists even had admitted to trying to portray
> > > creationists a political opportunists, evangelical activists,
> > > ifnoramuses, breakers of rules, etc. So then the arguments are made
up.
> > > Fiction.
> >
> > > JMHowever, the best Creationists don't need help from the
Evilutionists to portray
> > themselves as crooks and thieves; why, just a few days ago, a
Creationist from
> > Florida gone done proven it all by himself!
>
> You mean from the law that supposedly authorizes the IRS to collect
> taxes from the general 50 states of America, a law you cannot prove
> exists.
If we plug the phrase, "...a law you cannot prove exists." into our
automatic McGibberish to English translator we get, "...a law YOU cannot
prove TO ME exists, because I'm too poorly educated to understand and anyway
I'm not listening to you <covers ears with hands and jumps up and down> and
LALALALA LALALALA."
So anyhow, McLaughingstock,
As long as I'm here I thought I'd mention that it's now day 218 of the
McPiltdown Death March.
We're still waiting on that citation to back up your claim that Piltdown man
made it into millions of textbooks in support of evolution.
You're an endless source of amusement, McLaughingstock, carry on.
<We now return you to the McLaughingstock Non-stop Comedy Revue>
raven1
>Sometimes I wonder as to why evolutionists keep arguing even after they
>have failed to make a case.
<boggle>
I have honestly never encountered anyone in real life so utterly
devoid of either self-awareness or a sense of irony.
</boggle>
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
maximum maypo
news:KaqdnZlsIpCC8yTY...@comcast.com:
><mc...@sunset.net>, the black, sucking vortex of ignorance, who would
>have to borrow heavily, mortgaging all he owns, just to achieve
>intellectual and moral bankruptcy, subtracted from the sum of human
>knowledge when he wrote in message
> news:mccoy-116967251...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
that's a well configured newsreader you have there, fella :^D
><We now return you to the McLaughingstock Non-stop Comedy Revue>
you've misspelled "McWhackAMole"...just thought you'd like to know
--
max