Yet another defete for evolution
All-seeing-I
× It is a furbearing mammal.
× It lays eggs, yet suckles its young.
× It has a ducklike bill, which has built within it a heat sensitive
worm finding radar.
× Its tail is flat like a beaver's, yet furry.
× It has webbed feet in front, clawed feet in the rear.
× The reproductive systems are uniquely different from the rest of the
animal world, but mostly mammalian in nature.
× The only other known monotreme, or egg-laying mammal is echidna or
spiny anteater. Except for the fact that it lays eggs, it is about as
different as you can get from the platypus.
Nothing in the fossil record gives us a clue about the origin of this
animal, which is an outrage to evolutionists. This animal does very
well in its natural environment in spite of its unusual features. To
look at it, it would appear that this animal was pieced together from
a variety of completely different animals.
All-seeing-I
Dana Tweedy
> � It is a fur�bearing mammal.
Most mammals are.
>
> � It lays eggs, yet suckles its young.
As most likely did the first mammals.
>
> � It has a duck�like bill, which has built within it a heat sensitive
> worm finding radar.
However ducks don't have a bill that is "heat sensitive", or has "worm
finding radar". For that matter, the platypus doesn't either. The
platypus' bill senses electromagnetic currents, and is not "heat sensitive"
or "radar".
>
> � Its tail is flat like a beaver's, yet furry.
Yes....
>
> � It has webbed feet in front, clawed feet in the rear.
Not exactly unusual for mammals....
>
> � The reproductive systems are uniquely different from the rest of the
> animal world, but mostly mammalian in nature.
Yes.... it's a mammal that retained a primitive reproductive system...
>
> � The only other known monotreme, or egg-laying mammal is echidna or
> spiny anteater. Except for the fact that it lays eggs, it is about as
> different as you can get from the platypus.
The echidna is also a mammal, and shares many other mammilian features with
the platypus.
>
> Nothing in the fossil record gives us a clue about the origin of this
> animal,
False. There are fossil platypuses, and there is a rather large fossil
record of early mammals.
>which is an outrage to evolutionists.
False. Lack of fossil record for a particular animal is not an "outrage",
but just a puzzle.
>This animal does very
> well in its natural environment in spite of its unusual features.
As do all living species. If it didn't, it wouldn't survive.
>To
> look at it, it would appear that this animal was pieced together from
> a variety of completely different animals.
Yet it's not. It evovled from other animals like it.
Did you have some point to make?
DJT
Tim DeLaney
I'm not sure what your point is. It's not as though
unusual adaptations are unknown. Do you suppose that
somewhat unusual adaptations are a refutation of ToE?
Tim
Caranx latus
See
<http://www.springerlink.com/content/j528128pt8546711/fulltext.pdf>
for information on the evolution of the monotremes.
See
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotreme#Fossil_monotremes>
for information about what is available from the fossil record.
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
heh... as long as science has not arrived at a final truth, everything
is a refutation of the ToE.
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>heh... as long as science has not arrived at a final truth, everything
>is a refutation of the ToE.
and atomic theory and germ theory and heliocentrism...
in fact, every argument the religoius fanatic makes against evolution
can be made against chemistry and phyics
which proves evolution is as scientific as those sciences
and creationism? 2000 years of failure
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>
>Nothing in the fossil record gives us a clue about the origin of this
>animal, which is an outrage to evolutionists. This animal does very
>well in its natural environment in spite of its unusual features. To
>look at it, it would appear that this animal was pieced together from
>a variety of completely different animals.
ROFLMAO!! the creationist forgets a simple fact:
if evolution were a lie there would be no unanswered questions (as is
the case with the creationist lie).
evolutionists would find it easy to make up an evolutionary history
for everything.
creationists lie all the time. that's why they think their view of the
universe...ridiculous and magic based though it is, is real
Ron O
Your source is out of date and and the argument is bogus as usual.
Google Platypus fossils. Here is one example of what you will get.
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080121/full/news.2008.517.html
Just think about what it means when we conclude that mammals evolved
from reptile like animals. Have you ever heard of the mammal like
reptiles such as dimetrodon. Monotremes tell us that modified sweat
glands evolved into mammary glands before "mammals" gave up laying
eggs like their reptile ancestors. Monotremes are mammals that lay
eggs. What does that tell you? You developed from an amniote egg.
Your egg just didn't have a shell and never left the body. Monotremes
have amniote eggs and so do reptiles. If humans didn't evolve from an
amniote common ancestor, why do we need to have amniote eggs?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amniote
Ron Okimoto
Ron Okimoto
Klaus Hellnick
>
> × It is a furbearing mammal.
In a broad sense.
>
> × It lays eggs, yet suckles its young.
True. It is a primitive trait.
>
> × It has a ducklike bill, which has built within it a heat sensitive
> worm finding radar.
False. The flattened snout is totally unlike a duck's bill in detail and
very much like an echidna's. There is also nothing like RADAR.
>
> × Its tail is flat like a beaver's, yet furry.
Many aquatic or semiaquatic animals have flattened tails. Look up
convergent evolution.
>
> × It has webbed feet in front, clawed feet in the rear.
All it's feet are clawed and webbed. The only really special feature is
the venom glands on the hind feet.
>
> × The reproductive systems are uniquely different from the rest of the
> animal world, but mostly mammalian in nature.
Apparently mostly a primitive trait.
>
> × The only other known monotreme, or egg-laying mammal is echidna or
> spiny anteater. Except for the fact that it lays eggs, it is about as
> different as you can get from the platypus.
Except it is also fur bearing, suckles its young, and has a snout
similar to a platypus, except narrow, instead of broad.
>
> Nothing in the fossil record gives us a clue about the origin of this
> animal, which is an outrage to evolutionists. This animal does very
> well in its natural environment in spite of its unusual features. To
> look at it, it would appear that this animal was pieced together from
> a variety of completely different animals.
Only to the woefully ignorant and unobservant.
>
Dan Listermann
"All-seeing-I" <ap...@email.com> wrote in message
news:3edc2e1a-6649-4429...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Nonsense, you seem to only be able to think like a religion. "Final truth"
has nothing to do with any real concept of science, only religion.
.
Eric Root
says you
Boikat
> × It is a furbearing mammal.
So?
>
> × It lays eggs, yet suckles its young.
Many early mammals also laied eggs and suckled the young.
>
> × It has a ducklike bill, which has built within it a heat sensitive
> worm finding radar.
The "bill" only superficially *looks* like a bill, and it is not a
"heat sensitive radar". What good is a heat sensative radar on an
animal that eats feshwater, cold blooded invertibrates? (Hint:
Invertebrates, being ectothermic, would not be detectable by "heat
sensors, dumbass.)
>
> × Its tail is flat like a beaver's, yet furry.
Astounding! Not.
> × It has webbed feet in front, clawed feet in the rear.
The hind feet are also webbed, and the front feet also have claws.
>
> × The reproductive systems are uniquely different from the rest of the
> animal world, but mostly mammalian in nature.
So what?
>
> × The only other known monotreme, or egg-laying mammal is echidna or
> spiny anteater. Except for the fact that it lays eggs, it is about as
> different as you can get from the platypus.
So is an aardvark. So? (No, aardvarks do not lay eggs)
>
> Nothing in the fossil record gives us a clue about the origin of this
> animal, which is an outrage to evolutionists.
How is it an "outrage"? Who says? Are there any paleontologists in
the house? Are you outraged?
> This animal does very
> well in its natural environment in spite of its unusual features.
It seems that those "unusual features" are adaptations to it's
environment, so why do you say "in spite of"?
> To
> look at it, it would appear that this animal was pieced together from
> a variety of completely different animals.
Were did you cut-n-paste this from? A fifth grader's web page?
Boikat
Greg G.
Evolution would predict that mammals came from egg-laying animals. It
would be silly to think that all the characteristics of mammals
evolved all at once. Monotremes and marsupials split off at one time,
then placentals split from marsupials later. It seems that monotremes
were outcompeted by placentals, but the platypus could take advantage
of the aquatic niche where their competition was marsupials which
would have trouble adapting to water, given their reproductive system.
The fossil evidence shows that monotremes were widespread before the
rise of placentals. There are monotreme fossils from 123 million years
ago. There have been platypus teeth found in Argentina from more than
60 million years ago.
The monotremes we have today are as far removed from our last common
ancestor as we are.
All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
If science is not trying to find a final truth then why does it bother
to continue it's search?
Don't you pride science on it's continuing efforts and revisions of
data as new discoveries are found?
According to you, the answer is: "No", science is not trying to arrive
at a final truth.
Greg G.
Science also hasn't reconciled gravity with quantum mechanics. Why
don't you refute gravity by leaping a tall building in a single bound?
We'll even give you a headstart from the top.
Boikat
Nihalism is such an empty philosophical point of view.
Boikat
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>
>If science is not trying to find a final truth then why does it bother
>to continue it's search?
because this type of thinking...'searches for final truths' is
meaningless to normal people
scientists want to know how nature works
AGAIN AND AGAIN you show you don't know shit about
science....absolutely nothing.
>
>Don't you pride science on it's continuing efforts and revisions of
>data as new discoveries are found?
actually...yes. science learns.
>
>According to you, the answer is: "No", science is not trying to arrive
>at a final truth.
and that is correct
Boikat
Damn, your stupid. If a scietit is researching "X", he trying to
understand "X", he no searching for "final truth".
>
> Don't you pride science on it's continuing efforts and revisions of
> data as new discoveries are found?
But that has nothing to do with your "final truth" fantasy bullshit.
>
> According to you, the answer is: "No", science is not trying to arrive
> at a final truth.
No, just "truth", as in how does 'X" happen.?
You're "final truth", "ultimate truth", whatever you want to call it,
is irrelevant to science. Get over it and grow up.
Boikat
Dana Tweedy
Science never arrives at a "final truth", nor does it try to. Nothing
you've posted has refuted evolution. What is your point in posting facts
about the platypus?
DJT
Dana Tweedy
>
> If science is not trying to find a final truth then why does it bother
> to continue it's search?
Science is looking for useful explanations, not "final truth". Finding
"final truth" would be fatal to science, as there wouldn't be any more room
for finding things out.
>
> Don't you pride science on it's continuing efforts and revisions of
> data as new discoveries are found?
>
Yes, because the more revisions, the closer one comes to useful
explanations. Final truth means one can know nothing more.
> According to you, the answer is: "No", science is not trying to arrive
> at a final truth.
Correct. Science is not trying to arrive at any kind of "final truth".
That's what religion does. That's why science is of much more utility when
it comes to finding out about the way things work.
DJT
heekster
Gee, good thing you didn't oversimplify...
All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
There is nothing to refute regarding evolution.
All that is necessary is to show there are other explanations for
man's origins that are equally as likely. Or show the evidence for
evolution could have other explainations.
Then you will claim "Evolution is the Best" explanation. But none of
you will say who gets to decide which explanation is best.
Without knowing the absolute truth, any of the explanations have an
equal chance at being true, Therefore to suggest you have the best
explaination is subjective at best and dishonest at worst.
Dan Listermann
"All-Seeing-I" <allse...@usa.com> wrote in message
news:acac439b-0a2b-4581...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
This might expalin much of your behavior. Science searches for truth
knowing that thee is no "final," ever. Every truth science discovers opens
a whole can of questions that go on forever. Religion " knows" its "final
truth," or so it thinks.
"Don't you pride science on it's continuing efforts and revisions of
data as new discoveries are found?"
Very definatly. What "continuing efforts and revisions" has religion made
lately?
"According to you, the answer is: "No", science is not trying to arrive
at a final truth."
Your so-called "final truth" is nothing morre than a projection of
religion's behavior on to science. Science seeks truth in a never ending
search.
.
Steven L.
>
> × It is a furbearing mammal.
>
> × It lays eggs, yet suckles its young.
>
> × It has a ducklike bill, which has built within it a heat sensitive
> worm finding radar.
>
> × Its tail is flat like a beaver's, yet furry.
>
> × It has webbed feet in front, clawed feet in the rear.
>
> × The reproductive systems are uniquely different from the rest of the
> animal world, but mostly mammalian in nature.
>
> × The only other known monotreme, or egg-laying mammal is echidna or
> spiny anteater. Except for the fact that it lays eggs, it is about as
> different as you can get from the platypus.
>
> Nothing in the fossil record gives us a clue about the origin of this
> animal, which is an outrage to evolutionists.
The origin of the platypus is in the FAQ of the talk.origins archive.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/platypus.html
Notice: Today, all monotremes and almost all marsupials are all found
in Australia.
How can creationism explain this?
A separate creation for just these types of animals, taking place only
on one continent that's 10,000 miles away from the Middle East? Or were
they created in the Middle East, and all of them just happened to
migrate to just one continent that's 10,000 miles away and nowhere else?
The fossil record suggests that platypuses (platypi?) and anteaters
(which are also monotremes) share a common ancestry.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Will in New Haven
You wish. The ToE is such a threat to your fragile faith that you must
be very close to being an atheist.
--
Will in New Haven
Will in New Haven
I already said that I get to decide.
>
> Without knowing the absolute truth, any of the explanations have an
> equal chance at being true,
What a huge logical fallacy. Why don't you take remedial thinking.
Therefore to suggest you have the best
> explaination is subjective at best and dishonest at worst.
You wish.
Dana Tweedy
snip
>>> heh... as long as science has not arrived at a final truth,
>>> everything is a refutation of the ToE.
>>
>> Science never arrives at a "final truth", nor does it try to. Nothing
>> you've posted has refuted evolution. What is your point in posting
>> facts about the platypus?
>>
>> DJT- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> There is nothing to refute regarding evolution.
then why did you write above "everything is a refutation of the ToE"?
Evolution is a scientific theory. If you wish to refute it, you need to
find some evidence that contradicts the theory. So far nothing you've
presented does that.
>
> All that is necessary is to show there are other explanations for
> man's origins that are equally as likely. Or show the evidence for
> evolution could have other explainations.
No. There are thousands of other explanations, but they are not "equally
likely". That's nihilism. There may be other explanations for the
evidence, but none of those are testable, falsifiable, or make predictions.
That means they aren't scientific.
If you want to dispute evolution, you need to present a better scientific
explanation. Merely mentioning other potential explanations is nowhere
near good enough.
>
> Then you will claim "Evolution is the Best" explanation. But none of
> you will say who gets to decide which explanation is best.
Actually, I've already answered that, and several others have as well. The
ones who decide which explanation is best, is those who have actually
studied the explanations. That would be the scientists who spend their
lives studying the evidence.
>
> Without knowing the absolute truth, any of the explanations have an
> equal chance at being true, Therefore to suggest you have the best
> explaination is subjective at best and dishonest at worst.
Again, science is not interested in "absolute truth" because such can never
be known. There may be many explanations, but if they don't fit the
evidence, and they can't be tested, they can safely be excluded from
consideration. The best explanation is not subjective, and I did not make
such a suggestion. You are the one who is suggesting that acceptance of
explanations is a subjective process.
Science is a way of making such decisions objective. That is undoubtedly
why you don't like science. It doesn't give you the answer you want to
hear.
DJt
Tim Norfolk
> � It is a fur�bearing mammal.
>
> � It lays eggs, yet suckles its young.
>
> � It has a duck�like bill, which has built within it a heat sensitive
> worm finding radar.
>
> � Its tail is flat like a beaver's, yet furry.
>
> � It has webbed feet in front, clawed feet in the rear.
>
> � The reproductive systems are uniquely different from the rest of the
> animal world, but mostly mammalian in nature.
>
> � The only other known monotreme, or egg-laying mammal is echidna or
> spiny anteater. Except for the fact that it lays eggs, it is about as
> different as you can get from the platypus.
>
> Nothing in the fossil record gives us a clue about the origin of this
> animal, which is an outrage to evolutionists. This animal does very
> well in its natural environment in spite of its unusual features. To
> look at it, it would appear that this animal was pieced together from
> a variety of completely different animals.
Isn't 'defete' what happens when the circus leaves town?
Boikat
Everyone's waiting...
<snip the rest, making popcorn, mixing some iced tea, awaiting ASS-I
(diot's) presentation of the equally valid interpretation of the
evidence.>
I do hope it's not a long wait, and I do hope it's nothing asinine,
like claiming "goddidit!", since there is not evidence to support that
claim, or that "aliens" tweaked our DNA, which also lacks any
evidence. This should be fun, if the little turd has anything to
present that's equally supported as the mainstream interpretaion of
the evidence.
I hope my popcorn doesn't get cold...
Boikat
Tim Norfolk
<snip>
>
> Without knowing the absolute truth, any of the explanations have an
> equal chance at being true
<snip>
I love playing poker aginst people who think this.
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>There is nothing to refute regarding evolution.
true. one can not refute facts
>
>All that is necessary is to show there are other explanations for
>man's origins that are equally as likely. Or show the evidence for
>evolution could have other explainations.
well, then, have at it. you guys have been wrong for 2000 years. when
you think you'll get started?
>
>Then you will claim "Evolution is the Best" explanation. But none of
>you will say who gets to decide which explanation is best.
science does.
>
>Without knowing the absolute truth, any of the explanations have an
>equal chance at being true, Therefore to suggest you have the best
>explaination is subjective at best and dishonest at worst.
?? what does 'absolute truth' have to do with science?
what is the 'absolute truth' of an acid base reaction? nuclear
fission?
your statement makes no sense and, as such, is very creationist
>
Mark Evans
I don't. They usually have lost all their money before they come to
the table.
mark evans
William Morse
>
> × It is a furbearing mammal.
>
> × It lays eggs, yet suckles its young.
>
> × It has a ducklike bill, which has built within it a heat sensitive
> worm finding radar.
>
> × Its tail is flat like a beaver's, yet furry.
>
> × It has webbed feet in front, clawed feet in the rear.
>
> × The reproductive systems are uniquely different from the rest of the
> animal world, but mostly mammalian in nature.
>
> × The only other known monotreme, or egg-laying mammal is echidna or
> spiny anteater. Except for the fact that it lays eggs, it is about as
> different as you can get from the platypus.
>
> Nothing in the fossil record gives us a clue about the origin of this
> animal, which is an outrage to evolutionists. This animal does very
> well in its natural environment in spite of its unusual features. To
> look at it, it would appear that this animal was pieced together from
> a variety of completely different animals.
>
Use defeat, deduct, defense, and detail in a single sentence.
The answer. of course, is:
Defeat of deduct went over defense before detail :-)
John Harshman
>
> × It is a furbearing mammal.
>
> × It lays eggs, yet suckles its young.
>
> × It has a ducklike bill, which has built within it a heat sensitive
> worm finding radar.
>
> × Its tail is flat like a beaver's, yet furry.
>
> × It has webbed feet in front, clawed feet in the rear.
>
> × The reproductive systems are uniquely different from the rest of the
> animal world, but mostly mammalian in nature.
>
> × The only other known monotreme, or egg-laying mammal is echidna or
> spiny anteater. Except for the fact that it lays eggs, it is about as
> different as you can get from the platypus.
>
> Nothing in the fossil record gives us a clue about the origin of this
> animal, which is an outrage to evolutionists. This animal does very
> well in its natural environment in spite of its unusual features. To
> look at it, it would appear that this animal was pieced together from
> a variety of completely different animals.
>
example, that at least some of the unique characters you mention have
evolved within platypodes. More importantly, others of the odd
characters you mention are primitive features of synapsids, or of amniotes.
Why is this a problem for evolution?
raven1
>On Nov 28, 6:37 pm, Tim DeLaney <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Nov 28, 7:23 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > × It is a furbearing mammal.
>>
>> > × It lays eggs, yet suckles its young.
>>
>> > × It has a ducklike bill, which has built within it a heat sensitive
>> > worm finding radar.
>>
>> > × Its tail is flat like a beaver's, yet furry.
>>
>> > × It has webbed feet in front, clawed feet in the rear.
>>
>> > × The reproductive systems are uniquely different from the rest of the
>> > animal world, but mostly mammalian in nature.
>>
>> > × The only other known monotreme, or egg-laying mammal is echidna or
>> > spiny anteater. Except for the fact that it lays eggs, it is about as
>> > different as you can get from the platypus.
>>
>> > Nothing in the fossil record gives us a clue about the origin of this
>> > animal, which is an outrage to evolutionists. This animal does very
>> > well in its natural environment in spite of its unusual features. To
>> > look at it, it would appear that this animal was pieced together from
>> > a variety of completely different animals.
>>
>> I'm not sure what your point is. It's not as though
>> unusual adaptations are unknown. Do you suppose that
>> somewhat unusual adaptations are a refutation of ToE?
>>
>> Tim- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>heh... as long as science has not arrived at a final truth, everything
>is a refutation of the ToE.
And we're back at "we don't know everything, therefore we know
nothing".
raven1
You haven't done either.
>Then you will claim "Evolution is the Best" explanation. But none of
>you will say who gets to decide which explanation is best.
>
>Without knowing the absolute truth, any of the explanations have an
>equal chance at being true,
And we're right back at square one of nihilism, a useless place to be.
>Therefore to suggest you have the best
>explaination is subjective at best and dishonest at worst.
The idea that all explanations have an equal chance of being correct
is so patently idiotic that it doesn't even merit refuting.
Dan Listermann
On Nov 28, 7:27 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
Without knowing the absolute truth, any of the explanations have an
equal chance at being true,
Big honking fallacy.
.
Baron Bodissey
>
> All that is necessary is to show there are other explanations for
> man's origins that are equally as likely.
True, but you don't have those explanations.
> Or show the evidence for
> evolution could have other explainations.
True, but you haven't shown that evidence.
>
> Then you will claim "Evolution is the Best" explanation. But none of
> you will say who gets to decide which explanation is best.
The best explanation is the one that accounts for the most
observations. Since the theory of evolution does just that, it is
obviously the best explanation. Since it is science, scientists get to
decide.
>
> Without knowing the absolute truth, any of the explanations have an
> equal chance at being true,
No, that's ridiculous. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is another
explanation. Does it, in your opinion, have "an equal chance of being
true"? We could make up stories all day long about how the Universe
came to be -- indeed, just about every different culture on Earth has
a *different creation story. Are they are true? How do we choose the
best one? The best one is the one that matches the evidence. The
theory of evolution is the only explanation that matches all of the
facts.
Therefore to suggest you have the best
> explaination is subjective at best and dishonest at worst.
No. It is the opposite of subjective. It matches the facts; that is
the definition of objective.
You obviously have a problem with the idea of provisional knowledge.
Since there is nothing but provisional knowledge I'm afraid you are
doomed to a frustrated and futile life.
Baron Bodissey
Back off, man, I’m a scientist!
– Ghostbusters
Jim
> If science is not trying to find a final truth then why does it bother
> to continue it's search?
>
> Don't you pride science on it's continuing efforts and revisions of
> data as new discoveries are found?
>
> According to you, the answer is: "No", science is not trying to arrive
> at a final truth.
That is in part because scientists tend to the view that a final truth
is not knowable. See, we could only arrive at a final truth if we
knew everything. Most scientists understand that knowing everything
is impossible. However, we can attain better and better
approximations of how the universe works, and to most scientists the
goal of simply improving our understanding is reason enough to devote
a lifetime to the quest.
Actually, since the number of possible explanations always exceeds the
data available to distinguish the 'right' one, searching for a 'final
truth' is fool's game - the absolute best we can hope for is a
provisional understanding of the universe that is not contradicted by
any known facts. Those who seek a 'final truth' are really seeking
some magic 8-ball that contains all the answers, right or wrong -
indeed, your own stance on evolution and various other issues is
compelling evidence that for some of these seekers the actual truth
value of the 'final truth' answer is irrelevant as long as that answer
fills some other (usually psychological) need. It takes great
courage to accept that one's life work may be invalid, that one may be
dead wrong, yet continue to explore anyhow. It takes very little
courage to believe that one has all the significant answers, that one
cannot be wrong, and sit back and snipe at those who are actually
trying to improve our understanding.
The more I think of it, the more I think it must really, really suck
to be you.
hersheyh
> On Nov 28, 7:27 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > All-seeing-I wrote:
> > > On Nov 28, 6:37 pm, Tim DeLaney <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >> On Nov 28, 7:23 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > heh... as long as science has not arrived at a final truth, everything
> > > is a refutation of the ToE.
There is no "final truth" in science. Only provisional truths that
are more and more congruent with the way that the material world
actually works. Those provisional truths are more useful (precisely
because they are more and more congruent with the way the material
world works) than all the "final truths" your philosophies divorced
from empirical reality can come up with.
>
> > Science never arrives at a "final truth", nor does it try to. Nothing
> > you've posted has refuted evolution. What is your point in posting facts
> > about the platypus?
>
> > DJT- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> There is nothing to refute regarding evolution.
>
> All that is necessary is to show there are other explanations for
> man's origins that are equally as likely.
No. You have show that there are other explanations that are as
consistent with observations of empirical reality but are *also*
empirically testable. Supernatural "explanations" (really non-
explanations indistinguishable from ignorance) can be invented that
are consistent with empirical reality, but they tend not be be
empirically testable (by definition of 'supernatural').
> Or show the evidence for
> evolution could have other explainations.
Only empirically testable explanations would meet the criteria of
being scientific as opposed to religious belief.
> Then you will claim "Evolution is the Best" explanation. But none of
> you will say who gets to decide which explanation is best.
In science, the explanation(s) that are most consistent with the
available evidence *and* are empirically testable are the current
"best" explanation. But without the need or desire that those
explanations be "absoute truth", they can be replaced if a different
explanation becomes the testable explanation most consistent with the
available evidence. If they were "absolute truth", they could not,
even in principle, be changed in the face of new evidence and would
not be science. [That is not to deny that some explanations are so
consistent with the evidence that it is impossible to even conceive of
their being discarded any time soon.]
> Without knowing the absolute truth, any of the explanations have an
> equal chance at being true,
What an absurd claim! If I flip an honest coin and tell you that it
did not land heads, would you claim that it was equally likely that it
1) landed tails, 2) landed on its edge, 3) remained suspended in
midair, or 4) God changed the coin at the last moment into a whale?
> Therefore to suggest you have the best
> explaination is subjective at best and dishonest at worst.
To claim to have the best testable explanation consistent with the
currently available evidence is neither subjective nor dishonest.
Dan Listermann
"hersheyh" <hers...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:60ef9f23-5543-4a86...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
4) God changed the coin at the last moment into a whale?
Perhaps not, but there was that bowl of petunias.
.
Mike Dworetsky
> On Nov 28, 6:37 pm, Tim DeLaney <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Nov 28, 7:23 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> × It lays eggs, yet suckles its young.
>>
>>> × It has a ducklike bill, which has built within it a heat
>>> sensitive worm finding radar.
>>
>>> × Its tail is flat like a beaver's, yet furry.
>>
>>> × It has webbed feet in front, clawed feet in the rear.
>>
>>> × The reproductive systems are uniquely different from the rest of
>>> the animal world, but mostly mammalian in nature.
>>
>>> × The only other known monotreme, or egg-laying mammal is echidna or
>>> spiny anteater. Except for the fact that it lays eggs, it is about
>>> as different as you can get from the platypus.
>>
>>> Nothing in the fossil record gives us a clue about the origin of
>>> this animal, which is an outrage to evolutionists. This animal does
>>> very well in its natural environment in spite of its unusual
>>> features. To look at it, it would appear that this animal was
>>> pieced together from a variety of completely different animals.
>>
>> I'm not sure what your point is. It's not as though
>> unusual adaptations are unknown. Do you suppose that
>> somewhat unusual adaptations are a refutation of ToE?
>>
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> is a refutation of the ToE.
Ah, nililism. "You don't know everything, therefore you know nothing."
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Burkhard
> On Nov 28, 7:06 pm, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "All-seeing-I" <ap...@email.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:3edc2e1a-6649-4429...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> > has nothing to do with any real concept of science, only religion.
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> to continue it's search?
>
Because we can get better and better theories, though never a "final"
one
Your argumnt i like saying that because we can't be "perfectly happy",
we should not take out the stone in our shoes that hurts like hell.
> Don't you pride science on it's continuing efforts and revisions of
> data as new discoveries are found?
>
Indeed. And having such a thing as the "final truth" would end this
process.
> According to you, the answer is: "No", science is not trying to arrive
> at a final truth.
non sequitur. It is possible to aim for better and improved theories
without while knowing that we will never get a final truth. "Final
truth" plays a role, if at all, as a "regulatory ideal", but without
much of a role in scientific practice.
Mike Dworetsky
/nililism/nihilism/
Sapient Fridge
<wdNOSP...@verizon.net> writes
Groan...
--
sapient_...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Kill: http://mail-abuse.com http://au.sorbs.net http://spamhaus.org
Sapient Fridge
<cdb9eea1-5596-4786...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> writes
>
>
>� It is a fur�bearing mammal.
>
>� It lays eggs, yet suckles its young.
>
>� It has a duck�like bill, which has built within it a heat sensitive
>worm finding radar.
>
>� Its tail is flat like a beaver's, yet furry.
>
>� It has webbed feet in front, clawed feet in the rear.
>
>� The reproductive systems are uniquely different from the rest of the
>animal world, but mostly mammalian in nature.
>
>� The only other known monotreme, or egg-laying mammal is echidna or
>spiny anteater. Except for the fact that it lays eggs, it is about as
>different as you can get from the platypus.
>
>Nothing in the fossil record gives us a clue about the origin of this
>animal, which is an outrage to evolutionists.
Apparently this book covers the ancestry, I haven't read it though so I
can't comment further on it:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Riversleigh-Animals-Ancient-Rainforests-Australia/dp/0730103145
There aren't many fossils but that's lack of information not something
which does any damage at all to the ToE, I've no idea why you think it's
an "outrage" to evolutionists. In fact the platypus is very strong
evidence *for* evolution, see below.
>This animal does very
>well in its natural environment in spite of its unusual features.
Exactly what you expect from evolution, animals adapt to their
environments.
> To
>look at it, it would appear that this animal was pieced together from
>a variety of completely different animals.
Actually the platypus is a great example of what creationists claim
doesn't exist, it's ancestors branched off from the transitional form
between reptiles and mammals. The theory is that Australia split off
from the other continents *before* placental mammals evolved and so none
of them reached there (other than bats, for the obvious reason).
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/platypus.html
So what you see in the platypus is a branch of the mammal tree *before*
placentals evolved, and mammals were all either egg laying or
marsupials.
Why do you think this is evidence against evolution?
I would say it's actually a bigger problem for creationists as they need
to explain why most of the marsupials and all the monotremes ended up in
Australia and nowhere else in the world, and how did they get there from
Mount Ararat?
VoiceOfReason
>
> × It lays eggs, yet suckles its young.
>
> × It has a ducklike bill, which has built within it a heat sensitive
> worm finding radar.
>
> × Its tail is flat like a beaver's, yet furry.
>
> × It has webbed feet in front, clawed feet in the rear.
>
> × The reproductive systems are uniquely different from the rest of the
> animal world, but mostly mammalian in nature.
>
> × The only other known monotreme, or egg-laying mammal is echidna or
> spiny anteater. Except for the fact that it lays eggs, it is about as
> different as you can get from the platypus.
>
> Nothing in the fossil record gives us a clue about the origin of this
> well in its natural environment in spite of its unusual features. To
> look at it, it would appear that this animal was pieced together from
> a variety of completely different animals.
Yet another "defete" [sic] for your elementary education.
John Wilkins
<04e51348-fc10-486d...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
VoiceOfReason <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote:
I give his defete definger.
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>
>× It is a furbearing mammal.
>
>× It lays eggs, yet suckles its young.
>
>× It has a ducklike bill, which has built within it a heat sensitive
>worm finding radar.
>
>× Its tail is flat like a beaver's, yet furry.
>
>× It has webbed feet in front, clawed feet in the rear.
>
>× The reproductive systems are uniquely different from the rest of the
>animal world, but mostly mammalian in nature.
>
>× The only other known monotreme, or egg-laying mammal is echidna or
>spiny anteater.
Which covers a number of species in three genera.
> Except for the fact that it lays eggs, it is about as
>different as you can get from the platypus.
Is it?
>
>Nothing in the fossil record gives us a clue about the origin of this
>animal,
Wrong, as usual.
> which is an outrage to evolutionists.
No, you are the outrage.
> This animal does very
>well in its natural environment in spite of its unusual features. To
>look at it, it would appear that this animal was pieced together from
>a variety of completely different animals.
And yet it isn't. It evolved.
--
Bob.
You have not been charged for this lesson - learn from it rather than
continuing to make a fool of yourself.
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Nov 28, 6:37 pm, Tim DeLaney <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Nov 28, 7:23 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > × It is a furbearing mammal.
>>
>> > × It lays eggs, yet suckles its young.
>>
>> > × It has a ducklike bill, which has built within it a heat sensitive
>> > worm finding radar.
>>
>> > × Its tail is flat like a beaver's, yet furry.
>>
>> > × It has webbed feet in front, clawed feet in the rear.
>>
>> > × The reproductive systems are uniquely different from the rest of the
>> > animal world, but mostly mammalian in nature.
>>
>> > × The only other known monotreme, or egg-laying mammal is echidna or
>> > spiny anteater. Except for the fact that it lays eggs, it is about as
>> > different as you can get from the platypus.
>>
>> > Nothing in the fossil record gives us a clue about the origin of this
>> > animal, which is an outrage to evolutionists. This animal does very
>> > well in its natural environment in spite of its unusual features. To
>> > look at it, it would appear that this animal was pieced together from
>> > a variety of completely different animals.
>>
>> I'm not sure what your point is. It's not as though
>> unusual adaptations are unknown. Do you suppose that
>> somewhat unusual adaptations are a refutation of ToE?
>>
>> Tim- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>heh... as long as science has not arrived at a final truth, everything
>is a refutation of the ToE.
Wrong. You keep finding more and more evidence FOR evolution.
--
Bob.
Everyone is entitled to be stupid but you're abusing the privilege.
Ye Old One
<allse...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Nov 28, 7:06 pm, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>> "All-seeing-I" <ap...@email.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:3edc2e1a-6649-4429...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>> Nonsense, you seem to only be able to think like a religion. "Final truth"
>> has nothing to do with any real concept of science, only religion.
>>
>> .- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>If science is not trying to find a final truth then why does it bother
>to continue it's search?
Knowledge. You should try getting some.
>
>Don't you pride science on it's continuing efforts and revisions of
>data as new discoveries are found?
Yes.
>
>According to you, the answer is: "No", science is not trying to arrive
>at a final truth.
We know that you would not recognize truth if it bit you on the bum.
--
Bob.
When D-G made Madman out of clay he forgot to magic the brain. I think
that explains everything.
Ye Old One
<allse...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Nov 28, 7:27 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> All-seeing-I wrote:
>> Science never arrives at a "final truth", nor does it try to. Nothing
>> you've posted has refuted evolution. What is your point in posting facts
>> about the platypus?
>>
>> DJT- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>There is nothing to refute regarding evolution.
Nothing has so far been found to refute it. Many have tried, all have
failed.
>
>All that is necessary is to show there are other explanations for
>man's origins that are equally as likely.
Then try and find one.
>Or show the evidence for
>evolution could have other explainations.
No, that would not be enough.
>
>Then you will claim "Evolution is the Best" explanation. But none of
>you will say who gets to decide which explanation is best.
Well you certainly don't.
>
>Without knowing the absolute truth, any of the explanations have an
>equal chance at being true,
No. The ToE has a far better chance than anything you come up with
because it explains ALL the evidence.
>Therefore to suggest you have the best
>explaination is subjective at best and dishonest at worst.
>
The only dishonesty is yours.
--
Bob.
The truth is like ice water, it shocks you when it hits you, but no
one's ever died from it. Do yourself a favour and try it sometime.
All-Seeing-I
> In article
> <04e51348-fc10-486d-ac03-090bf5273...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
The evolutionist finds it so easy to lie to themselves.
All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
/lieslieslieslies/
All-Seeing-I
heh.. that is like running a race with no finish line.
> Your argumnt i like saying that because we can't be "perfectly happy",
> we should not take out the stone in our shoes that hurts like hell.
I am convinced being an evolutionist takes a 'special' outlook on
life. Kinda like a disability handicap
>
> > Don't you pride science on it's continuing efforts and revisions of
> > data as new discoveries are found?
>
> Indeed. And having such a thing as the "final truth" would end this
> process.
yeah...
> > According to you, the answer is: "No", science is not trying to arrive
> > at a final truth.
>
> non sequitur. It is possible to aim for better and improved theories
> without while knowing that we will never get a final truth. "Final
> truth" plays a role, if at all, as a "regulatory ideal", but without
> much of a role in scientific practice.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bullcrap.
A final truth would put an end to a lot of sciency jobs eh?
Kermit
Projection, thy name is Madman.
Hi, Maddy! Why do you think it would be a special problem for
evolutionary scientists to point to a small branch on the bush of life
which retained some primitive features and also evolved new ones? If
you had been paying attention - and we all know you haven't - you
would know that this is typical, and what we would expect of the
theory.
An example of a problem might have been, say, mammals with proper
feathers. Egg-laying is not, since all early mammals or their
immediate ancestors did that. Feathers evolved later, among the
theropod dinosaurs, the ancestors of the birds.
Milk evolved in the mammalian line, and birds with milk would be very
difficult to explain for the theory of common descent. Have any
examples?
Egg laying was common to the ancestors of all reptiles, birds, and
mammals. Not a problem, see? A bird with teeth would be surprising,
but not problematic. In fact, chickens with a certain mutation will,
while still embryos, produce (very poorly fitting) teeth. Hard to
explain *without evolutionary theory. The tooth gene exists in the
chicken, but is turned off. If a simple mutation turns it back on, the
teeth grow. I suppose you could claim that it's simply a "grow teeth"
mutation, but that rather blows out of the water any Creationist claim
that mutations can't produce new structures (new information).
http://everything2.com/title/scarce+as+hen%2527s+teeth
As far as calling scientists "outraged" at an unanswered question,
that's so cute <squeal!>. Unanswered questions are what gives
scientists purpose in life. It will be a sad day (but perhaps
inevitable) when all scientific questions are answered. It may never
come, however, and certainly not in the lifetime of anyone now alive.
It's *Creationists, remember, who claim to have all the answers.
Scientists only have *some of the answers, but theirs get results.
Kermit
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>I am convinced being an evolutionist takes a 'special' outlook on
>life. Kinda like a disability handicap
it's a science thing. you wouldn't understand. you're a religious
fanatic...
>A final truth would put an end to a lot of sciency jobs eh?
yeah. but i'm not worried. you guys have said a final truth was around
for thousands of years
so far...nothing. not a whisper
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>The evolutionist finds it so easy to lie to themselves.
and the creationist lies to himself and others
Kermit
How so? Not only are you a metaphysical nihilist ("as long as science
has not arrived at a final truth, everything is a refutation"), but
you are also an epistemological nihilist. Or have you now started
accepting verifiable physical evidence as more reliable than your own
interpretations of cherry-picked myths?
Nihilism,
▸ noun: complete denial of all established authority and institutions
▸ noun: the delusion that things (or everything, including the self)
do not exist; a sense that everything is unreal
Tell us again about the *real reality, the one that the rest of us do
not have the special perceptions to see.
kermit
Nomen Publicus
> On Nov 29, 5:31�am, John Wilkins <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>> In article
>> <04e51348-fc10-486d-ac03-090bf5273...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>> > On Nov 28, 7:23�pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > � It lays eggs, yet suckles its young.
>>
>> > > worm finding radar.
>>
>> > > � Its tail is flat like a beaver's, yet furry.
>>
>> > > � It has webbed feet in front, clawed feet in the rear.
>>
>> > > � The reproductive systems are uniquely different from the rest of the
>> > > animal world, but mostly mammalian in nature.
>>
>> > > � The only other known monotreme, or egg-laying mammal is echidna or
>> > > spiny anteater. Except for the fact that it lays eggs, it is about as
>> > > different as you can get from the platypus.
>>
>> > > Nothing in the fossil record gives us a clue about the origin of this
>> > > animal, which is an outrage to evolutionists. This animal does very
>> > > well in its natural environment in spite of its unusual features. To
>> > > look at it, it would appear that this animal was pieced together from
>> > > a variety of completely different animals.
>>
>> > Yet another "defete" [sic] for your elementary education.
>>
>> I give his defete definger.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> The evolutionist finds it so easy to lie to themselves.
>
If the explaination fits the known facts, where is the lie?
--
Take from the church the miraculous, the supernatural, the incomprehensible,
the unreasonable, the impossible, the unknowable, the absurd, and nothing
but a vacuum remains. -- Robert G. Ingersoll
Nomen Publicus
> On Nov 29, 2:47�am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> On Nov 29, 1:17�am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Nov 28, 7:06�pm, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > "All-seeing-I" <ap...@email.com> wrote in message
>>
>> > >news:3edc2e1a-6649-4429...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>> > > On Nov 28, 6:37 pm, Tim DeLaney <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Nov 28, 7:23 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > > > > � It lays eggs, yet suckles its young.
>>
Don't see religious jobs going away despite the claim of having all the
answers.
--
Remember, Jesus would rather constantly shame gays than let orphans
have a family. -- Steven Colbert
Dan Listermann
yeah...
"Bullcrap.
LOL! You need to join a religion.
.
Boikat
Projection.
Boikat
Frank J
Defete jumps over defense, lands on his head and gets an all-bloody-
nose.
SeppoP
<snip>
>
> The evolutionist finds it so easy to lie to themselves.
>
Says the clown who believes in talking snakes.
-- sp
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Creationism is based on ignorance and dishonesty, it breeds from
ignorance and dishonesty, and it breeds ignorance and dishonesty.
Spreading ignorance and dishonesty is the lifeblood an sustenance of the
creationists. Wallowing in ignorance and dishonesty is the natural
lifestyle of creationists.
Mike Lyle
> � It is a fur�bearing mammal.
You forgot to quote the source you pasted this platypus thing in from,
or give the date. I found it on a site where it had been copied
second-hand from "Revolution Against Evolution"* in January 2002; but
it doesn't give a date for the original (I use the term "original" in a
loose sense, of course). Can you fill in the full reference, please? I
have a feeling that the misconceptions listed go back more than seven or
eight years.
*They publish a disclaimer, asking the world not to confuse them with
the Raelians! They're strongly opposed to the idea that life was brought
to earth from outer space.
--
Mike.
Desertphile
> Subject: Yet another defete for evolution
Defete (v): "To shoot oneself in the head, then claim victory."
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
heekster
That is a false analogy, and you know it is. It has already been
explained to you why.
>
>> Your argumnt i like saying that because we can't be "perfectly happy",
>> we should not take out the stone in our shoes that hurts like hell.
>
Another incorrect analogy.
>I am convinced being an evolutionist takes a 'special' outlook on
>life. Kinda like a disability handicap
>
We defer to your personal experience on living life with a mental
disability. Unfortunately for you, understanding evolution is the
antithesis of what you said it was.
>>
>> > Don't you pride science on it's continuing efforts and revisions of
>> > data as new discoveries are found?
>>
>> Indeed. And having such a thing as the "final truth" would end this
>> process.
>
>yeah...
>
>> > According to you, the answer is: "No", science is not trying to arrive
>> > at a final truth.
>>
>> �non sequitur. It is possible to aim for �better and improved theories
>> without while knowing that we will never get a final truth. "Final
>> truth" plays a role, if at all, as a "regulatory ideal", but without
>> much of a role in scientific practice.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Bullcrap.
>
No, just because you do not understand it, doesn't mean that it is
bullcrap. It means that your knowledge is wanting, and it illuminates
one of the many deficiencies in your education.
>A final truth would put an end to a lot of sciency jobs eh?
No, there is no such thing as "a final truth" in science; it exists
only as a metaphysical construct.
William Thomson postulated an imbecility similar to yours at the end
of the 19th century, to wit, "Heavier-than-air flying machines are
impossible."
What you exhibit, is a monstrous ignorance that is so incredibly
rooted, that I doubt you retain the ability to learn.
heekster
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>On Nov 28, 7:27�pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> All-seeing-I wrote:
>> Science never arrives at a "final truth", nor does it try to. � Nothing
>> you've posted has refuted evolution. �What is your point in posting facts
>> about the platypus?
>>
>> DJT- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>There is nothing to refute regarding evolution.
>
>All that is necessary is to show there are other explanations for
>man's origins that are equally as likely. Or show the evidence for
>evolution could have other explainations.
>
>Then you will claim "Evolution is the Best" explanation. But none of
>you will say who gets to decide which explanation is best.
>
>Without knowing the absolute truth, any of the explanations have an
>equal chance at being true, Therefore to suggest you have the best
>explaination is subjective at best and dishonest at worst.
>
ToE is just too tough for you to understand. Your comfort zone is
within the realm of fantasy. You embrace simplistic frauds and
buncombes, because they are easy to accept. They require no thought.
Understanding the ToE requires work, which you seem unwilling or
unable to do.
heekster
>? noun: complete denial of all established authority and institutions
>? noun: the delusion that things (or everything, including the self)
>do not exist; a sense that everything is unreal
>
>Tell us again about the *real reality, the one that the rest of us do
>not have the special perceptions to see.
>
>kermit
i suspect that his assholiness in in full troll, today, based on the
types of answers that he is providing.
Boikat
> Nothing-Peering-Asshole wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> > The evolutionist finds it so easy to lie to themselves.
>
> Says the clown who believes in talking snakes.
It's not just snakes. ASS-I(diot) has claimed that at one time, *ALL*
animals could speak human languages. Why? Because Josephus (the
Roman historian) said so, and why whould he lie? Not to mention
parrots, and other birds that mimmic human speach, and of course
there's the "talking dogs" that make sounds that sound like words..
No, no. it's true, I'm not kidding you. That's what he claimed and how
he supported that claim. Really. Seriously.
Boikat
Ye Old One
>The creationist finds it so easy to lie to themselves.
Text corrected.
Ye Old One
<allse...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
It is not a race.
>
>
>> Your argumnt i like saying that because we can't be "perfectly happy",
>> we should not take out the stone in our shoes that hurts like hell.
>
>I am convinced being an evolutionist takes a 'special' outlook on
>life. Kinda like removing a disability handicap
Text corrected.
>
>>
>> > Don't you pride science on it's continuing efforts and revisions of
>> > data as new discoveries are found?
>>
>> Indeed. And having such a thing as the "final truth" would end this
>> process.
>
>yeah...
>
>> > According to you, the answer is: "No", science is not trying to arrive
>> > at a final truth.
>>
>> non sequitur. It is possible to aim for better and improved theories
>> without while knowing that we will never get a final truth. "Final
>> truth" plays a role, if at all, as a "regulatory ideal", but without
>> much of a role in scientific practice.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Bullcrap.
You are an expert on dishing that out.
>
>A final truth would put an end to a lot of sciency jobs eh?
It would. But it isn't going to happen for a very long time.
Now, about Kent 'Bogus Degree' Hovind and his scientific discoveries.
You know, you could write to him and ask him. Though don't tell him
what you believe in as you are nuts even by his standards.
Ye Old One
<allse...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Is all we get from you Mudbrain. Why is that?
--
Bob.
People may not always remember exactly what you said, but they will
always remember just how bright you made them feel.
Burkhard
> >> we should not take out the stone in our shoes that hurts like hell.
>
> Another incorrect analogy.
>
Hrmmh, I rather liked it - is that friendly fire? ;o)
Mike Dworetsky
Oh dear. Squeak-squeak-squeak-squeak. You want some oil? Or a piece or
cheese?
Let's watch and see if others reply and agree with (a) me, or (b) you. Your
posting history and numerous comments are essentially nihilist. There is no
escape from that.
Mike Dworetsky
Why would they be opposed to that? Raelians get to wear great jumpsuits on
stage--especially the women. Surely that is a definite attraction for their
sect.
All-Seeing-I
>
> As far as calling scientists "outraged" at an unanswered question,
> that's so cute <squeal!>. Unanswered questions are what gives
> scientists purpose in life. It will be a sad day (but perhaps
> inevitable) when all scientific questions are answered. It may never
> come, however, and certainly not in the lifetime of anyone now alive.
> It's *Creationists, remember, who claim to have all the answers.
> Scientists only have *some of the answers, but theirs get results.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
You can ignore the final truth of God. You can even run from it during
your short life on earth. But you cannot hide from it forever.
All-Seeing-I
It is a lie. Science can be wrong about some parts of evolution
without the entire theory being wrong.
You are just too dumb to see that.
You want all of nothing.
heekster
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
<snippage>
>> >> > If science is not trying to find a final truth then why does it bother
>> >> > to continue it's search?
>>
>> >> Because we can get better and better theories, though never a "final"
>> >> one
>>
>> >heh.. �that is like running a race with no finish line.
>>
>> That is a false analogy, and you know it is. �It has already been
>> explained to you why.
>>
>> >> Your argument is like saying that because we can't be "perfectly happy",
>> >> we should not take out the stone in our shoes that hurts like hell.
>>
>> Another incorrect analogy.
>>
>
>Hrmmh, I rather liked it - is that friendly fire? ;o)
The analogy was in response to this answer to the question above:
>> >> Because we can get better and better theories, though never a "final"
>> >> one
the analogy
>> >> Your argument is like saying that because we can't be "perfectly happy",
>> >> we should not take out the stone in our shoes that hurts like hell.
Please explain why you like it. It looks completely irrelevant.
<even more snippage>
Kleuskes & Moos
OOoooooOOOhhh...
The ultimate theistic rethoric. You'll ALL go to HELL...
Sheess... I'm frightened....
Burkhard
> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 09:41:41 -0800 (PST), Burkhard
>
Well, scientists don't bother about "absolute truth", they solve the
problems in front of them. If we waited for 'absolute truth", we would
not make any progress whatsoever. Instead of course, scientists are
quite happy to improve our knowledge in small ways, step by step.
So my analogy replaced "absolute truth" with "perfect happiness" as a
reductio ad absurdum. His approach, when applied to practical
reasoning, would mean that we never even tried to remove life's small
obstacles (the stone in the shoe) simply because "perfect happiness"
is forever outside our grasp - an obviously stupid approach to
life.
Free Lunch
<allse...@usa.com> wrote in talk.origins:
You, on the other hand, can be wrong about every single part of science
without ever being right.
>You are just too dumb to see that.
You are just too proud to admit that you teach nonsense.
>You want all of nothing.
You want us to be taken in by your proud ignorance.
What religion demands that you be an ignorant fool who lies to everyone
about science? Tell me the name of your sect that requires its members
to be ignorant and foolish.
Free Lunch
<allse...@usa.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>On Nov 29, 8:33�am, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Where is this 'final truth'? Why do you keep alluding to it but fail to
provide any support at all to your claims? It's almost as if you are
making things up and know that you have nothing but your own imagination
to rely on.
Boikat
> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 11:06:07 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
His "final truth", which used to be "The Ultimate Truth", whinging is
just the lastest of his escapeism psychological defence mechanisms.
It's his "fall back" possition when cornered with irrefutable facts,
along with his "limited perception" nhilism defense mechanism.
Besides, he wouldn't now the "final ultimate truth" if it smacked him
in the face like a frozen flounder. Besides, frankly, I doubt there is
anything that could be considered a "final, ultimate truth". "Truth
of what?"
Boikat
heekster
The "better and better theories" above, which I concur with.
>So my analogy replaced "absolute truth" with "perfect happiness" as a
>reductio ad absurdum. His approach, when applied to practical
>reasoning, would mean that we never even tried to remove life's small
>obstacles (the stone in the shoe) simply because "perfect happiness"
>is forever outside our grasp - an obviously stupid approach to
>life.
I agree, that's why I think it is irrelevant. He is using that
example to counter the "better and better theories", and it doesn't
make sense to do that.
Perhaps I should pour myself a drink.
Ye Old One
>You can ignore the final truth of God. You can even run from it during
>your short life on earth. But you cannot hide from it forever.
Gods are the invention of primitive man.
Nobody with a measurable IQ would fear any god.
Burkhard
Indeed, have a drink! Not "he", me - that was my analogy, copyrighted an
all! (hence my question on friendly fire)
;O)
Dana Tweedy
snip
>> Oh dear. Squeak-squeak-squeak-squeak. You want some oil? Or a piece
>> or cheese?
>>
>> Let's watch and see if others reply and agree with (a) me, or (b)
>> you. Your posting history and numerous comments are essentially
>> nihilist. There is no escape from that.
>>
>> --
>> Mike Dworetsky
>>
>> (Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> It is a lie. Science can be wrong about some parts of evolution
> without the entire theory being wrong.
In which case, your assertions about human perspective, and perception would
be pointless. You haven't attacked parts of evolutionary theory as wrong,
you've asserted that all of science may be wrong because not everything is
known. That is nihilism.
>
> You are just too dumb to see that.
If part of evolution were wrong, you'd be able to show why it's wrong, not
just make assertions about "perception".
>
> You want all of nothing.
You apparently want things both ways. You want the technical advances
science has made, without having to accept that science doesn't agree with
your own beliefs.
DJT
heekster
wrote:
I went back and reread it, and yes, I was confused.
By mixing up the attributions, I took your analogy out of context.
and that was why it didn't make sense.
But I'm feeling much better now, thank you.
;^)
Mike Lyle
> Mike Lyle wrote:
>>
>> You forgot to quote the source you pasted this platypus thing in
>> from, or give the date. I found it on a site where it had been copied
>> second-hand from "Revolution Against Evolution"* in January 2002;
>> *They publish a disclaimer, asking the world not to confuse them with
>> the Raelians! They're strongly opposed to the idea that life was
>> brought to earth from outer space.
>
> Why would they be opposed to that? Raelians get to wear great
> jumpsuits on stage--especially the women. Surely that is a definite
> attraction for their sect.
Good point. But the attractions of the uniform seem to be outweighed by
the unacceptability of the implications for the nature of God. Under
"Raelian Disclaimer" at their site
http://www.rae.org/
their opposition is adamant:
"The Raelians claim to be creationists, but not in the Biblical sense.
Instead they believe that life was imported from outer space by aliens.
Their god is a UFO driver. Our group, Revolution Against Evolution, is
made up of traditional Biblical Christians who believe in a supernatural
creator God, and his son Jesus Christ. We in no way believe that this
Christ was a space alien. We do suspect, however, that the god the
Raelians serve and believe in is a counterfeit, either of their own
imagination, or demonic in nature. Our creator God of the Bible is not a
super-technological god; He is a supernatural God."
The poor things hadn't realised how careless we can all be when entering
URLs and search terms.
--
Mike.
Cory Albrecht
>
>
> × It is a furbearing mammal.
>
> × It lays eggs, yet suckles its young.
Oh, BTW, a platypus doesn't actually "suckle" it's young, as a platypus
has no nipples.
Cory Albrecht
>
>
> × It is a furbearing mammal.
>
> × It lays eggs, yet suckles its young.
>
> worm finding radar.
>
> × Its tail is flat like a beaver's, yet furry.
>
> × It has webbed feet in front, clawed feet in the rear.
>
> × The reproductive systems are uniquely different from the rest of the
> animal world, but mostly mammalian in nature.
>
> × The only other known monotreme, or egg-laying mammal is echidna or
> spiny anteater. Except for the fact that it lays eggs, it is about as
> different as you can get from the platypus.
>
> Nothing in the fossil record gives us a clue about the origin of this
> animal, which is an outrage to evolutionists. This animal does very
Are an ignorant fool, or list a liar?
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotreme#Fossil_monotremes>
Hatunen
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>
>× It is a furbearing mammal.
>
>× It lays eggs, yet suckles its young.
>
>× It has a ducklike bill, which has built within it a heat sensitive
>worm finding radar.
>
>× Its tail is flat like a beaver's, yet furry.
>
>× It has webbed feet in front, clawed feet in the rear.
>
>× The reproductive systems are uniquely different from the rest of the
>animal world, but mostly mammalian in nature.
>
>× The only other known monotreme, or egg-laying mammal is echidna or
>spiny anteater. Except for the fact that it lays eggs, it is about as
>different as you can get from the platypus.
>
>Nothing in the fossil record gives us a clue about the origin of this
>animal, which is an outrage to evolutionists.
Yep. One sees evolutionists walking down the streets mumbling,
"damn playpus" over and over again.
>This animal does very
>well in its natural environment in spite of its unusual features.
That's what evolution does.
>To
>look at it, it would appear that this animal was pieced together from
>a variety of completely different animals.
Current evolutionary thoughts summarized at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platypus
--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Cory Albrecht
>>>> On Nov 28, 7:23 pm, All-seeing-I<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> × It is a furbearing mammal.
>>
>>>>> × It lays eggs, yet suckles its young.
>>
>>>>> × It has a ducklike bill, which has built within it a heat
>>>>> sensitive worm finding radar.
>>
>>>>> × Its tail is flat like a beaver's, yet furry.
>>
>>>>> × It has webbed feet in front, clawed feet in the rear.
>>
>>>>> × The reproductive systems are uniquely different from the rest of
>>>>> the animal world, but mostly mammalian in nature.
>>
>>>>> × The only other known monotreme, or egg-laying mammal is echidna or
>>>>> spiny anteater. Except for the fact that it lays eggs, it is about
>>>>> as different as you can get from the platypus.
>>
>>>>> Nothing in the fossil record gives us a clue about the origin of
>>>>> very well in its natural environment in spite of its unusual
>>>>> pieced together from a variety of completely different animals.
>>
>>>> unusual adaptations are unknown. Do you suppose that
>>>> somewhat unusual adaptations are a refutation of ToE?
>>
>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>> is a refutation of the ToE.
>>
>> you've posted has refuted evolution. What is your point in posting facts
>> about the platypus?
>>
>> DJT- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>
> All that is necessary is to show there are other explanations for
> man's origins that are equally as likely. Or show the evidence for
> evolution could have other explainations.
So what? Nebulous other explanations does no diminish the power of a
theory has is backed up by the evidence and has made many predictions
which have come true.
Those other explanations will only be as equally likely when they have
the same overwhelming amount of evidence that evolutionary theory does.
>
> Then you will claim "Evolution is the Best" explanation. But none of
> you will say who gets to decide which explanation is best.
Actually, people do say what (not who) gets to decide - the evidence.
>
> Without knowing the absolute truth, any of the explanations have an
> equal chance at being true,
You are horribly deficient at logical thinking, aren't you? How the heck
can an "explanation" that has no evidence to back it up be the equal of
a theory that has mountains of evidence?
> Therefore to suggest you have the best
> explaination is subjective at best and dishonest at worst.
Evidence is not subjective, and the dishonesty here is of those like you
who ignore the evidence.
All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
Where did I claim anyone was going to hell?
bpuharic
>
>
>You can ignore the final truth of God. You can even run from it during
>your short life on earth. But you cannot hide from it forever.
if only you knew what god's truth was...
Dana Tweedy
snip
> You can ignore the final truth of God. You can even run from it during
> your short life on earth. But you cannot hide from it forever.
Now you are implying that you know the "final truth". Why should Kermit,
or anyone else believe you?
DJT
Pandeism Fish
> × It is a furbearing mammal.
>
> × It lays eggs, yet suckles its young.
>
> × It has a ducklike bill, which has built within it a heat sensitive
> worm finding radar.
>
> × Its tail is flat like a beaver's, yet furry.
>
> × It has webbed feet in front, clawed feet in the rear.
>
> × The reproductive systems are uniquely different from the rest of the
> animal world, but mostly mammalian in nature.
>
> × The only other known monotreme, or egg-laying mammal is echidna or
> spiny anteater. Except for the fact that it lays eggs, it is about as
> different as you can get from the platypus.
>
> Nothing in the fossil record gives us a clue about the origin of this
> animal, which is an outrage to evolutionists. This animal does very
> well in its natural environment in spite of its unusual features. To
> look at it, it would appear that this animal was pieced together from
> a variety of completely different animals.
Why is there no mention of so unusual a creature as the platypus in
the Bible?