My review of Dawkins' "Greatest Show on Earth".
Viktor D. Huliganov
blog. The link is http://huliganov.tv/2009/11/22/the-greatest-show-on-earth-too-right/
Please have a read and answer if you like. You are welcome to leave
your replies in the answers over there as well as discussing here, and
I will try and leave them intact as long as they are not overly
insulting! I expect most of you are already registered Wordpressers so
it wouldn't take any fiddling about to write an answer if your want to
over there. That will of course help people find you in your
evolutionist blogs, so it's a game of give and take, as the song says.
Hope that's fair.
Nice to see from the stats that the debate is going strong. I'm a rare
visitor to Usenet these days, but I do a lot on YT and now I started
this blog.
Fond regards to those of you who did battle with me before, especially
Aaron Clausen, John Harshman, John Wilkins, Ernest Major, Richard the
Plesiosaur, Prof Norman, David Day, Jason Harvestdancer and of course
David W. Horn if he's still around at all these days, and his insomnia
hasn't gotten the better of him.
Viktor D. Huliganov (aka Uncle Davey)
John Harshman
creationists it was ever my displeasure to correspond with. And that's
saying a lot. I see that your review is entirely consistent with those
memories.
All-seeing-I
> Viktor D. Huliganov wrote:
> > I have produced a review of Richard Dawkins' latest blockbuster on my
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hey, I saw a few good items of intrest.
1) "a bit predictable and repetitive"
You guys chant the same mantra from the same books over and over.
2) "creationism and evolution, in the end boil down to what you
believe,"
It takes the same kind of faith to believe in either of them as well
3) He begs for money on his web site's main page just like the Talk
Origins web site does.
Free clue:
There is only one truth. And it does not take money to tell it.
"In the begining God created" and we are His Children.
Which is all one really needs to know about man's origins to live a
happy healthy productive life.
How about THAT, JH
Boikat
Irony.
>
> 2) "creationism and evolution, in the end boil down to what you
> believe,"
>
> It takes the same kind of faith to believe in either of them as well
False. acceptance of evolution is n=based upon evidence, belief in
the supernatural, by your own admission, needs no evidence.
>
> 3) He begs for money on his web site's main page just like the Talk
> Origins web site does.
And no creationist site asks for donations to defray operating costs?
Hypocrite.
>
> Free clue:
> There is only one truth. And it does not take money to tell it.
You are truely an ignorant schmuck, aren't you?
>
> "In the begining God created" and we are His Children.
Is that the supenatural god, or the advance genetic manipulating
aliens?
>
> Which is all one really needs to know about man's origins to live a
> happy healthy productive life.
....if you want to remain a dullard and a sheeple.
>
> How about THAT,
You truely are pathetic.
Boikat
Frank J
wrote:
> I have produced a review of Richard Dawkins' latest blockbuster on my
I didn't read the entire review, but this caught my eye:
"Let’s be clear – people who think that they can “prove” evolution are
as misguided as people who think they can “prove” creationism..."
Technically you are correct, "prove" is for math, not science. But you
can make testable statements and either support them or falsify them.
As you probably know, one of your fellow pseudoskeptics*, Michael
Behe, agrees that the evidence supports a 4-billion year history of
life in which humans share common ancestors with other species. Do you
agree, and if not, have you challenged him as you do Dawkins?
*Defined as those who say "I have no dog in the fight" and earn the
reply of "so that explains why you attack the black dog and ignore the
white one."
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
You tell the same lies over and over.
>
>2) "creationism and evolution, in the end boil down to what you
>believe,"
>
>It takes the same kind of faith to believe in either of them as well
It takes no faith to accept evidence. Evolution has evidence. Your
religious doctrine contradicts the evidence.
>3) He begs for money on his web site's main page just like the Talk
>Origins web site does.
>
>Free clue:
>There is only one truth. And it does not take money to tell it.
And you lie about what is true.
>"In the begining God created" and we are His Children.
No evidence supports that claim.
>Which is all one really needs to know about man's origins to live a
>happy healthy productive life.
>
>How about THAT, JH
You are ignorant, corrupt, and foolish and proud that you are all three.
Frank J
Translation: "I have no dog in the fight."
>
> How about THAT, JH- Hide quoted text -
John Harshman
Well, yes. That's because the evidence doesn't go away. It just gets
added to. So naturally the same evidence that was there for evolution in
the last book is still there for the next one. If only you would look at
some of that evidence, nobody would have to repeat it.
> 2) "creationism and evolution, in the end boil down to what you
> believe,"
>
> It takes the same kind of faith to believe in either of them as well
That's what you claim, but that's nonsense. The only faith, if you can
call it that, required to believe evolution is the faith that the world
is comprehensible from empirical observation. Your nihilism is showing
again.
> 3) He begs for money on his web site's main page just like the Talk
> Origins web site does.
Who is "he"?
> Free clue:
> There is only one truth. And it does not take money to tell it.
Of course it does. Don't you pay for web access?
> "In the begining God created" and we are His Children.
>
> Which is all one really needs to know about man's origins to live a
> happy healthy productive life.
>
> How about THAT, JH
I think that's nonsense. How do you know your "one truth" is true? How
does that one truth keep you healthy? Does it cure diphtheria? I can see
how it might make you happy, if ignorance is really bliss. But I'm
afraid I wouldn't be happy unless there were some evidence to convince
me that your claim was true. As for being productive, I don't see the
relevance. You seem to produce only nonsense.
Eric Root
If that is true, then why aren't you happy? Instead, you are a sad,
dishonest trickster who hates smart people, and you show no sign of
trying to fix it.
Eric Root
All-seeing-I
> > Which is all one really needs to know about man's origins to live a
> > happy healthy productive life.
>
> > How about THAT, JH
>
> I think that's nonsense. How do you know your "one truth" is true?
How do you know yours is?
> does that one truth keep you healthy?
religious beliefs are documented to prevent stress by increasing one's
positive outlook that reduces illness
>Does it cure diphtheria?
Why should it
> I can see
> how it might make you happy, if ignorance is really bliss. But I'm
> afraid I wouldn't be happy unless there were some evidence to convince
> me that your claim was true.
The stuff you study is your evidence needed. You just have the wrong
idea of who causes the evidence
> As for being productive, I don't see the
> relevance. You seem to produce only nonsense.- Hide quoted text -
pay attention then
Viktor D. Huliganov
> Viktor D. Huliganov wrote:
> > I have produced a review of Richard Dawkins' latest blockbuster on my
>
> - Pokaż cytowany tekst -
Heh. I'm probably the most honest man you know.
Davey
Viktor D. Huliganov
> On Nov 22, 9:53 am, "Viktor D. Huliganov" <jerzy.jakubow...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I have produced a review of Richard Dawkins' latest blockbuster on my
> > blog. The link ishttp://huliganov.tv/2009/11/22/the-greatest-show-on-earth-too-right/
>
> > Please have a read and answer if you like. You are welcome to leave
> > your replies in the answers over there as well as discussing here, and
> > I will try and leave them intact as long as they are not overly
> > insulting! I expect most of you are already registered Wordpressers so
> > it wouldn't take any fiddling about to write an answer if your want to
> > over there. That will of course help people find you in your
> > evolutionist blogs, so it's a game of give and take, as the song says.
> > Hope that's fair.
>
> > Nice to see from the stats that the debate is going strong. I'm a rare
> > visitor to Usenet these days, but I do a lot on YT and now I started
> > this blog.
>
> > Fond regards to those of you who did battle with me before, especially
> > Aaron Clausen, John Harshman, John Wilkins, Ernest Major, Richard the
> > Plesiosaur, Prof Norman, David Day, Jason Harvestdancer and of course
> > David W. Horn if he's still around at all these days, and his insomnia
> > hasn't gotten the better of him.
>
> > Viktor D. Huliganov (aka Uncle Davey)
>
> I didn't read the entire review, but this caught my eye:
>
> as misguided as people who think they can "prove" creationism..."
>
> Technically you are correct, "prove" is for math, not science. But you
> can make testable statements and either support them or falsify them.
> As you probably know, one of your fellow pseudoskeptics*, Michael
> Behe, agrees that the evidence supports a 4-billion year history of
> life in which humans share common ancestors with other species. Do you
> agree, and if not, have you challenged him as you do Dawkins?
>
> *Defined as those who say "I have no dog in the fight" and earn the
> reply of "so that explains why you attack the black dog and ignore the
>
> - Pokaż cytowany tekst -
I don't want either of Michael Behe's honey nor of his sting, as the
Hebrew saying goes. I read Dawkins because he is held out as someone
that the atheists reckon to be a leading exponent of their views. Some
Christians might say the same of Behe, but I am not so interested in
reading what some Christians are writing, as I usually find that my
faith in Creationism is more affirmed by reading what the hard-line
evolutionists are saying.
Free Lunch
<jerzy.ja...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>> - Poka� cytowany tekst -
>
>I don't want either of Michael Behe's honey nor of his sting, as the
>Hebrew saying goes. I read Dawkins because he is held out as someone
>that the atheists reckon to be a leading exponent of their views. Some
>Christians might say the same of Behe, but I am not so interested in
>reading what some Christians are writing, as I usually find that my
>faith in Creationism is more affirmed by reading what the hard-line
>evolutionists are saying.
>
>
So you have chosen to reject reality.
Eric Root
>
> I don't want either of Michael Behe's honey nor of his sting, as the
> Hebrew saying goes. I read Dawkins because he is held out as someone
> that the atheists reckon to be a leading exponent of their views.
But discussions of atheists are irrelevant to the subject of origins.
> Some
> Christians might say the same of Behe, but I am not so interested in
> reading what some Christians are writing,
His Christianity is irrelevant to the subject of origins, only his
scientific ideas are relevant.
> as I usually find that my
> faith in Creationism is more affirmed by reading what the hard-line
> evolutionists are saying.
That's just screwy. Since creationism has no basis in the real world,
you are just befouling your brain. You'll never achieve knowledge or
wisdom mixing religion and science.
Eric Root
Viktor D. Huliganov
I would have thought that they are extremely relevant to the subject
of origins. The discussion of whether there is a God or not is
intrinsic to whether the world is created or not.
>
> > Some
> > Christians might say the same of Behe, but I am not so interested in
> > reading what some Christians are writing,
>
> His Christianity is irrelevant to the subject of origins, only his
> scientific ideas are relevant.
>
If he has some, then I am quite happy to read them, but the fact is
that I haven't read them. I know his mousetrap argument, but little
more about him than that.
> > as I usually find that my
> > faith in Creationism is more affirmed by reading what the hard-line
> > evolutionists are saying.
>
> That's just screwy. Since creationism has no basis in the real world,
> you are just befouling your brain. You'll never achieve knowledge or
> wisdom mixing religion and science.
>
I think that I am not trying to mix religion and science, even though
according to no less an authority than Russell philosophy is a mix of
science and religion, or at any rate that religion of thought where
they blend.
I am trying to keep in balance two faculties which I seem to myself to
have come equipped with. One is a faculty to think, the other is a
faculty to believe. Happy is he who can forge his worldview involving
both of these and actually most of us do, whether creationist or
evolutionist. The person who really did switch off altogether either
faith or thought would be like a one-eyed man, without the ability to
see binocularly, and therefore would noy have depth vision. A
faithless worldview has no depth, it is a mono vision. So is the
worldview of the blind faith person with no desire to think the way
God made him able to think.
I am reading "Blind Faith" by Ben Elton right now, and it makes
harrowing reading of what happens when believers switch their brains
off.
Davey
Viktor D. Huliganov
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 10:28:58 -0800 (PST), "Viktor D. Huliganov"
No, I have chosen to accept as reality the worldview which is more
consistent with what I see, feel and understand.
Creation answers my questions better than evolution, even your
celebrated FAQ.
Davey
Steven L.
>
> I don't want either of Michael Behe's honey nor of his sting, as the
> Hebrew saying goes. I read Dawkins because he is held out as someone
> that the atheists reckon to be a leading exponent of their views. Some
> Christians might say the same of Behe, but I am not so interested in
> reading what some Christians are writing, as I usually find that my
> faith in Creationism is more affirmed by reading what the hard-line
> evolutionists are saying.
This is the first time I have had a chance to read your arguments.
It seems to me that when creationists, such as yourself, demand "proof"
of the Theory of Evolution, what you're really demanding are direct
eyewitness accounts of the evolution of "kinds" actually taking place.
IOW, unless and until someone invents a time machine and goes back in
time to videotape dinosaurs appearing and mammals appearing, you will
remain unconvinced. It seems like nothing else will satisfy you but a
direct eyewitness account of a new "kind".
If I am right about that, I suggest you learn about other scientific
advances that did not depend on direct eyewitness accounts.
Dalton developed the atomic theory, centuries before anyone actually saw
an atom.
Copernicus and Kepler figured out that the planets revolved around the
Sun, and even what their orbits looked like--even though they couldn't
take a spaceship into outer space and watch the planets circling the Sun.
Science would never have advanced very far, if all it had to work with
was what the human eye could see at the time. All the above theories,
plus the Theory of Evolution, were proved beyond a reasonable doubt by
evidence, developing hypotheses, making predictions, and then checking
if those predictions were true.
BTW: I'm sure you believe that God said, "Let there be light", and God
created the heaven and the earth. Yet what proof is there of that? No
humans yet existed to see it happen.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Cory Albrecht
> On Nov 22, 10:00 am, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>>> Which is all one really needs to know about man's origins to live a
>>> happy healthy productive life.
>>
>>> How about THAT, JH
>>
>> I think that's nonsense. How do you know your "one truth" is true?
>
> How do you know yours is?
>
>> does that one truth keep you healthy?
>
> religious beliefs are documented to prevent stress by increasing one's
> positive outlook that reduces illness
>
>> Does it cure diphtheria?
>
> Why should it
You forgot that you included "healthy" up above? Idiot.
Cory Albrecht
Thanks for admitting that you rely upon argument from incredulity.
Caranx latus
> On 22 Lis, 19:34, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
<snip>
>> So you have chosen to reject reality
>
> No, I have chosen to accept as reality the worldview which is more
> consistent with what I see, feel and understand.
I have too!
> Creation answers my questions better than evolution, even your
> celebrated FAQ.
What questions might those be?
Free Lunch
<jerzy.ja...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
My condolences for your profound ignorance and your willingness to
remain that way.
>Creation answers my questions better than evolution, even your
>celebrated FAQ.
So, you prefer meaningless claims to knowledge. How sad.
Ye Old One
Then you really are a fool.
--
Bob.
Theists think all gods but theirs are false. Atheists simply don't
make an exception for the last one.
Andre Lieven
wrote:
>
> Heh. I'm probably the most *idiotic* man you know.
Your post corrected, no charge.
Andre
Frank J
>
> I don't want either of Michael Behe's honey nor of his sting, as the
> Hebrew saying goes. I read Dawkins because he is held out as someone
> that the atheists reckon to be a leading exponent of their views. Some
> Christians might say the same of Behe, but I am not so interested in
> reading what some Christians are writing, as I usually find that my
> faith in Creationism is more affirmed by reading what the hard-line
> evolutionists are saying.
I didn't say anything about Christians. Behe made specific claims
about "what happened when" that do not mention or require Jesus or
even God. So please leave your emotions aside, and focus on the
claims, not who made them. I'll ask again: Do you agree with Behe's
"old life + common descent" version or not? If not, which of the
mutually contradictory other creationisms do you "have faith in"? And
which, if any do you think are, and are not, supportd by evidence. And
please answer *without* any reference to any problems you might have
with evolution, "Darwinism" or atheists.
Viktor D. Huliganov
>
> - Pokaż cytowany tekst -
It never takes you people long to descend into insults.
Try this one, unanswered by talk.originists for three and a half
years:
quote
You may or may not know it, but the blood plasma of all vertebrates
higher than the jawless fishes is always stable at 9 parts per
thousand
of salt. The body of any animal needs devices to keep this in a
stable
way, especially those animals living in water. Those animals living
in
freshwater, where the salt levels are maybe one third of those of
blood
plasma have a slight problem, but the fishes that live in the sea
have
an immense problem with this, as they need to drink continuously to
osmoregulate and therefore they have advanced mechanisms in their
kidneys which enable this.
There is no missing link here, by the way, no animals that are
between
normal saline and isotonic with the water they live in. It is either
one or the other. And this is a massive gap with absolutely no
explanation by evolution.
In discussion with a noted creationist professor in talk.origins, it
pretty much transpired that if vertebrates evolved as required for
the
theory of evolution to be true, they must have done so in fresh
water,
or at any rate water much fresher than today's seas.
Either the sea used to be at much lower saline levels - which is not
consistent with the view that when the earth was younger the seas
were
like a chemical soup that allowed life to appear in the first place,
and have been getting progressively less salty - or life evolved
beyond
the Agnathans in the rivers. And it seems equally unlikely that
fishes,
the dominant life forms of the sea, evolved in only the tiny 5% of
water that is not sea water, and no competing higher life forms
emerged
in the other 95% which had produced everything up to that point.
Neither version makes any sense. But it makes much more sense out of
the idea that the sea was created unsalty, and became so after the
flood, which was associated with great tectonic upheavals. That is
which freshwater fishes did not die out in the flood.
It also explains why migratory fishes such as the salmon, need to go
to
freshwater to breed. They are a living clue of this. Eels appear, at
face value, to do the reverse, and go all the way to the Sargasso sea
to breed, but in fact they do this in deep water next to subterranean
vents which pump out into the sea exceptionally clean water. They
then
are covered by a leaf-like sheath in which protection they cross the
salt water, and they can shed this when they hit freshwater. They are
freshwater fishes that become saltwater later, over the course of one
lifetime, giving us a living clue that has survived thousands of
years
to today's date as to what happened after the flood, when systems
suddenly appeared that enabled fishes to cope with all the salts that
emerged when the continents suddenly moved in the time of Peleg.
But a fish that has gone into the saltwater system at the full 2.7%
(I
am not talking about the brackish systems like the Baltic pike) can
never go back - the adult eels do not return again from the Sargasso
sea, (In fact the congers are a type of eel that simply decided to
stay
in the marine system for good, and do not bother sending their young
into the river systems, although they also migrate to near freshwater
vents to breed) and they also die in the process, because they have
to
go into a freshwater environment that exists in some places in very
deep water near to these vents. In this, they are like another heroic
migratory fish, the salmon, which swims upstream and dies because it
cannot readjust to the freshwater system.
This is a natural parable of the resurrection body also. The
resurrection body can cope with these old circumstances only briefly.
It is intended to be used by us in an eternity in comparison to which
our earthly life is like a river to an ocean. So our Lord Jesus
Christ
did not remain long after the Resurrection, but went out of this
world
into heaven. Likewise, when He returns with the shout and the final
trumpet call and wakes the dead, and we are changed in the twinkling
of
an eye, as we can read in Thessalonians, we are caught up and meet
the
Lord in the air, together with the dead in Christ who are resurrected
and gathered (it doesn't matter if their earthly atoms were sprinkled
to the four winds) and we are then able to fly and disappear together
with him from this world into Paradise.
As with the migratory fishes, this world was needed to produce the
offspring, for sexual reproduction, for going forth and multiplying,
filling the earth and populating eternity, where people are not
reproducing sexually any more, but are as the angels of heaven, as
our
Lord taught us. The salmon and the eel take to a limited system to
reproduce, but that is not the be-all-and-end-all if their existence.
They are constructed so as to journey in their lives over a vast
ocean.
And we are made to glorify God, and enjoy him forever. Not in this
sinful flesh, but in redeemed resurrection bodies, eternal-oceangoing
bodies, free from carnality and veniality: "when we see Him, we shall
be like Him".
unquote.
Please account for that issue, Mr Non-fool.
Davey
John Harshman
> Heh. I'm probably the most honest man you know.
Fortunately, I don't know you. But your usenet behavior has been abominable.
John Harshman
> On Nov 22, 10:00 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>>> Which is all one really needs to know about man's origins to live a
>>> happy healthy productive life.
>>> How about THAT, JH
>> I think that's nonsense. How do you know your "one truth" is true?
>
> How do you know yours is?
I asked first. Why won't you answer?
>> does that one truth keep you healthy?
>
> religious beliefs are documented to prevent stress by increasing one's
> positive outlook that reduces illness
>
>> Does it cure diphtheria?
>
> Why should it
It seems to me that if it won't cure diphtheria (and other diseases),
then it will only keep you healthy to a very limited extent.
>> I can see
>> how it might make you happy, if ignorance is really bliss. But I'm
>> afraid I wouldn't be happy unless there were some evidence to convince
>> me that your claim was true.
>
> The stuff you study is your evidence needed. You just have the wrong
> idea of who causes the evidence
Sure. Do you have any evidence for that claim?
>> As for being productive, I don't see the
>> relevance. You seem to produce only nonsense.
> pay attention then
I'm paying much more attention to you than you deserve, or than you pay
yourself.
Viktor D. Huliganov
>
> - Pokaż cytowany tekst -
I don't know Behe, and therefore I don't know whether I agree with him
or not, but I did write at length on my views in the past and gave it
the name "Omphalism Lite". If you look up Omphalism Lite then it
probably will show up what version I think is true.
Frank J
Assuming for the sake of argument, that "the world" was created, and
life too, *how many years ago* do you think that the first life on
Earth was created? And do you think our species was created in a
"biological continuum" or did it require its own origin-of-life event?
If the latter, how many years ago was it?
>
> > > Some
> > > Christians might say the same of Behe, but I am not so interested in
> > > reading what some Christians are writing,
>
> > His Christianity is irrelevant to the subject of origins, only his
> > scientific ideas are relevant.
>
> If he has some, then I am quite happy to read them, but the fact is
> that I haven't read them. I know his mousetrap argument, but little
> more about him than that.
If you read "Darwin's Black Box" you would know that he proposed that
an ancetral cell was designed and appeared (either by "creation" or by
"naturalistic" assembly of an existing "design", I don't recall if he
specified which) about 4 billion years ago. His later writings vaguely
suggest that the designer - who may or may not be God and may or may
not be the Creator - might have intervened after the first ancestral
cell appeared.
But like you (so far in this thread) he was careful not to say any
more that could be easily falsified.
>
> > > as I usually find that my
> > > faith in Creationism is more affirmed by reading what the hard-line
> > > evolutionists are saying.
>
> > That's just screwy. Since creationism has no basis in the real world,
> > you are just befouling your brain. You'll never achieve knowledge or
> > wisdom mixing religion and science.
>
> I think that I am not trying to mix religion and science, even though
> according to no less an authority than Russell philosophy is a mix of
> science and religion, or at any rate that religion of thought where
> they blend.
>
> I am trying to keep in balance two faculties which I seem to myself to
> have come equipped with. One is a faculty to think, the other is a
> faculty to believe. Happy is he who can forge his worldview involving
> both of these and actually most of us do, whether creationist or
> evolutionist. The person who really did switch off altogether either
> faith or thought would be like a one-eyed man, without the ability to
> see binocularly, and therefore would noy have depth vision. A
> faithless worldview has no depth, it is a mono vision. So is the
> worldview of the blind faith person with no desire to think the way
> God made him able to think.
>
> I am reading "Blind Faith" by Ben Elton right now, and it makes
> harrowing reading of what happens when believers switch their brains
> off.
>
> Davey- Hide quoted text -
AusShane
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well without even needing to delve too deeply into the evidence here
is a little hypothesis. Have you ever heard of tidal estuaries?? The
saline concentration has a concentration gradient that will easily
allow for a number of different salinities which if species lived
there long enough would allow them to make the transition to the sea
or to fresher water. I dont recall seeing any evidence that life had
to evolve in frsh water - perhaps you could elucidate me??
Ernest Major
<169bf64b-f55a-431e...@1g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
Viktor D. Huliganov <jerzy.ja...@gmail.com> writes>> On Nov 22, 1:28�pm, "Viktor D. Huliganov" <jerzy.jakubow...@gmail.com>
>>
>> > I don't want either of Michael Behe's honey nor of his sting, as the
>> > Hebrew saying goes. I read Dawkins because he is held out as someone
>> > that the atheists reckon to be a leading exponent of their views. Some
>> > Christians might say the same of Behe, but I am not so interested in
>> > reading what some Christians are writing, as I usually find that my
>> > faith in Creationism is more affirmed by reading what the hard-line
>> > evolutionists are saying.
>>
>> I didn't say anything about Christians. Behe made specific claims
>> about "what happened when" that do not mention or require Jesus or
>> even God. So please leave your emotions aside, and focus on the
>> claims, not who made them. I'll ask again: Do you agree with Behe's
>> "old life + common descent" version or not? If not, which of the
>> mutually contradictory other creationisms do you "have faith in"? And
>> which, if any do you think are, and are not, supportd by evidence. And
>> please answer *without* any reference to any problems you might have
>> with evolution, "Darwinism" or atheists.- Ukryj cytowany tekst -
>>
>> - Poka cytowany tekst -
>
>or not, but I did write at length on my views in the past and gave it
>the name "Omphalism Lite". If you look up Omphalism Lite then it
>probably will show up what version I think is true.
>
you not only claim that the world was created with the appearance of
age, but that the Noachian Flood occurred and the evidence was tidied
away (when not making silly suggestions about floating coral reefs and
the like).
--
alias Ernest Major
Ernest Major
<380cf56f-ee63-4537...@t18g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,
With regards to truth-in-advertising you might have mentioned that that
text was posted to a Google Group of your own which has a grand total of
3 messages, two of which were written by you, and one of which is blank.
It seems likely that the a primary reason for it not being answered was
that no-one participating in talk.origins (other than yourself) was
aware that it existed.
You might also have mentioned that you had a lengthy response from
Richard Norman on this topic in November 2005, 6 months before you wrote
the material you've just copied here, at which time you wrote
"(David) James (aka Viktor D. Huliganov) hereby informs Horn that he has
no rebuttal to make on the facts and objective contemporary observations
made in the Professor's worthy article."
See
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.singles/msg/c8e4921aae199873>
--
alias Ernest Major
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>On Nov 22, 10:00 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> > Which is all one really needs to know about man's origins to live a
>> > happy healthy productive life.
>>
>> > How about THAT, JH
>>
>> I think that's nonsense. How do you know your "one truth" is true?
>
>How do you know yours is?
i have no 'truth'
>
>> does that one truth keep you healthy?
>
>religious beliefs are documented to prevent stress by increasing one's
>positive outlook that reduces illness
and they're documented to cause disease by having people sacrifice
goats to appease the disease gods
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>Hey, I saw a few good items of intrest.
>
>
>1) "a bit predictable and repetitive"
>
>You guys chant the same mantra from the same books over and over.
says the guy who thinks 'god did it', for 2000 years, has been the
answer to earthquakes and the weather
>
>2) "creationism and evolution, in the end boil down to what you
>believe,"
>
>It takes the same kind of faith to believe in either of them as well
a cliche. if this were true, when creationsits sacrifice a goat to
appease the disease god, it would have the same effect as a shot of
penicillin does to cure disease
how'd that work out for you guys?
>
>"In the begining God created" and we are His Children.
>
>Which is all one really needs to know about man's origins to live a
>happy healthy productive life.
>
and if you don't believe this, he'll kill you
Ye Old One
>> - Poka? cytowany tekst -
>
>It never takes you people long to descend into insults.
>
>Try this one, unanswered by talk.originists for three and a half
>years:
>
>quote
>
>You may or may not know it, but the blood plasma of all vertebrates
>higher than the jawless fishes is always stable at 9 parts per
>thousand
>of salt. The body of any animal needs devices to keep this in a
>stable
>way, especially those animals living in water. Those animals living
>in
>freshwater, where the salt levels are maybe one third of those of
>blood
>plasma have a slight problem, but the fishes that live in the sea
>have
>an immense problem with this, as they need to drink continuously to
>osmoregulate and therefore they have advanced mechanisms in their
>kidneys which enable this.
>
>There is no missing link here, by the way, no animals that are
>between
>normal saline and isotonic with the water they live in. It is either
>one or the other. And this is a massive gap with absolutely no
>explanation by evolution.
Sorry, what massive gap?
>
>
>In discussion with a noted creationist professor in talk.origins, it
>pretty much transpired that if vertebrates evolved as required for
>the
>theory of evolution to be true, they must have done so in fresh
>water,
>or at any rate water much fresher than today's seas.
Salt levels have only risen very slightly since Precambrian times.
>
>
>Either the sea used to be at much lower saline levels - which is not
>consistent with the view that when the earth was younger the seas
>were
>like a chemical soup that allowed life to appear in the first place,
>and have been getting progressively less salty
Do not confuse the salinity of the sea with what chemicals are in it.
> - or life evolved
>beyond
>the Agnathans in the rivers. And it seems equally unlikely that
>fishes,
>the dominant life forms of the sea, evolved in only the tiny 5% of
>water that is not sea water, and no competing higher life forms
>emerged
>in the other 95% which had produced everything up to that point.
>
>
>Neither version makes any sense. But it makes much more sense out of
>the idea that the sea was created unsalty,
The seas have had 4.2 billion years to become salty, life has only
been out of the sea for 600 million years.
> and became so after the
>flood,
There was not flood.
> which was associated with great tectonic upheavals. That is
>which freshwater fishes did not die out in the flood.
There was no flood.
Sorry? What issue. That was so muddled it was impossible to follow.
State a question, I will try to answer.
>
>Davey
--
Bob.
Read a Spincronic post in the morning and nothing worse will happen to
you for the rest of the day.
bpuharic
>
>I don't want either of Michael Behe's honey nor of his sting, as the
>Hebrew saying goes. I read Dawkins because he is held out as someone
>that the atheists reckon to be a leading exponent of their views.
i'm an atheist. i've never read dawkins.
Some
>Christians might say the same of Behe, but I am not so interested in
>reading what some Christians are writing, as I usually find that my
>faith in Creationism is more affirmed by reading what the hard-line
>evolutionists are saying.
that gullible are you?
>
>
bpuharic
<jerzy.ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>No, I have chosen to accept as reality the worldview which is more
>consistent with what I see, feel and understand.
some folks used to say the same about visions.
both are examples of delusions
>
>Creation answers my questions better than evolution, even your
>celebrated FAQ.
>
IOW you knew what answers you wanted before you asked the questions
bpuharic
<jerzy.ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>Neither version makes any sense. But it makes much more sense out of
>the idea that the sea was created unsalty, and became so after the
>flood, which was associated with great tectonic upheavals. That is
>which freshwater fishes did not die out in the flood.
there was no flood. there was no moses. there was no exodus. much of
the bible never happened
>
>
>
>This is a natural parable of the resurrection body also. The
>resurrection body can cope with these old circumstances only briefly.
>It is intended to be used by us in an eternity in comparison to which
>our earthly life is like a river to an ocean.
there is no resurrection. there is no proof of it, no mechanism. you
have conflated magic with science
evolution is OBSERVED and TESTED
resurrections? risen saviors?
not so much
>
>
>As with the migratory fishes, this world was needed to produce the
>offspring, for sexual reproduction, for going forth and multiplying,
>filling the earth and populating eternity, where people are not
>reproducing sexually any more, but are as the angels of heaven, as
>our
>Lord taught us. The salmon and the eel take to a limited system to
>reproduce, but that is not the be-all-and-end-all if their existence.
>They are constructed so as to journey in their lives over a vast
>ocean.
>And we are made to glorify God, and enjoy him forever. Not in this
>sinful flesh, but in redeemed resurrection bodies, eternal-oceangoing
>bodies, free from carnality and veniality: "when we see Him, we shall
>be like Him".
>
>unquote.
>
>Please account for that issue, Mr Non-fool.
>
>Davey
more scientists have seen evolution happen than disciples saw jesus
rise from the dead
Rolf
That's wher you err; it is not about 'accepting a worldview' - it is about
understanding science.
from what little I know about you, you seem to have more faith in faith than
in facts.
Rolf
Faith moves mountains; continental drift is the evidence.
Rolf
> On 23 Lis, 00:50, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 11:55:51 -0800 (PST), "Viktor D. Huliganov"
>> <jerzy.jakubow...@gmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>>> On 22 Lis, 19:34, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 10:28:58 -0800 (PST), "Viktor D. Huliganov"
>>>> <jerzy.jakubow...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>>
>>>>> On 22 Lis, 16:54, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On Nov 22, 9:53 am, "Viktor D. Huliganov"
>>>>>> <jerzy.jakubow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> I have produced a review of Richard Dawkins' latest blockbuster
>>>>>>> on my
>>>>>>> blog. The link
>>>>>>>
ishttp://huliganov.tv/2009/11/22/the-greatest-show-on-earth-too-right/
>>
> It never takes you people long to descend into insults.
>
Not much of a descent, maybe deserved?
> Try this one, unanswered by talk.originists for three and a half
> years:
>
> quote
> There is no missing link here, by the way, no animals that are
> between
> normal saline and isotonic with the water they live in. It is either
> one or the other. And this is a massive gap with absolutely no
> explanation by evolution.
Silly argument.Wouldn't it be reasonable to asume that all fish/aquatic life
would be adapted to their environment by now? If they were not, they
wouldn't be - neither here nor there. Transitiosn would have to have taken
place a loooong time ago.
>
>
> In discussion with a noted creationist professor in talk.origins, it
> pretty much transpired that if vertebrates evolved as required for
> the
> theory of evolution to be true, they must have done so in fresh
> water,
> or at any rate water much fresher than today's seas.
>
Yes, why not?
[snip]
> It also explains why migratory fishes such as the salmon, need to go
> to
> freshwater to breed. They are a living clue of this. Eels appear, at
> face value, to do the reverse, and go all the way to the Sargasso sea
> to breed, but in fact they do this in deep water next to subterranean
> vents which pump out into the sea exceptionally clean water. They
> then
> are covered by a leaf-like sheath in which protection they cross the
> salt water, and they can shed this when they hit freshwater. They are
> freshwater fishes that become saltwater later, over the course of one
> lifetime, giving us a living clue that has survived thousands of
> years
> to today's date as to what happened after the flood, when systems
> suddenly appeared that enabled fishes to cope with all the salts that
> emerged when the continents suddenly moved in the time of Peleg.
>
Nonsense
> But a fish that has gone into the saltwater system at the full 2.7%
> (I
> am not talking about the brackish systems like the Baltic pike) can
> never go back - the adult eels do not return again from the Sargasso
> sea, (In fact the congers are a type of eel that simply decided to
> stay
> in the marine system for good, and do not bother sending their young
> into the river systems, although they also migrate to near freshwater
> vents to breed) and they also die in the process, because they have
> to
> go into a freshwater environment that exists in some places in very
> deep water near to these vents. In this, they are like another heroic
> migratory fish, the salmon, which swims upstream and dies because it
> cannot readjust to the freshwater system.
>
In lake V�nern, Sweden
http://www.panoramio.com/photo/5192774
we find an indigenous species of salmon. They migrate upstream to breed, so
they have no need for 'readjustment to freshwater". what about that?
Why the heck bring up resurrection?
[snip]
> And we are made to glorify God, and enjoy him forever. Not in this
> sinful flesh, but in redeemed resurrection bodies, eternal-oceangoing
> bodies, free from carnality and veniality: "when we see Him, we shall
> be like Him".
WTF? What's the evidence for that?
What to do with bodies without "carnality", what use would they be? Just a
bag to keep the soul in?
"Resurrection bodies", that is sheer stupidity. No such thing ever.
Flesh and blood have no business in heaven, the "resurrected Christ" existed
in St. Paul's body, as he said 'Christ in me." That's what resurrection is
about. Since Christ is available for anyone to "resurrect", he is not a
body, there are no 'resurrection bodies' available, resurrection is a matter
of spirit, NOT of bodies.
But that's got nothing with science to do. Since you are unable to address a
subject of science and nature without invoking religious faith, you make no
sense.
[snip]
> Please account for that issue, Mr Non-fool.
>
You rather should excuse yourself for the nonsense you write, Mr Fool?
> Davey
Rolf
>
> I don't know Behe, and therefore I don't know whether I agree with him
> or not, but I did write at length on my views in the past and gave it
> the name "Omphalism Lite". If you look up Omphalism Lite then it
> probably will show up what version I think is true.
Who the heck would be interesed in what you think is true?
Walter Bushell
bpuharic <wf...@comcast.net> wrote:
Had to do that to get my SCSI chains to work, several time. MMMM, goat.
--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
Allen
56ff9f...@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 22, 10:00�am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> > Which is all one really needs to know about man's origins to live a
>> > happy healthy productive life.
>>
>> > How about THAT, �JH
>>
>> I think that's nonsense. How do you know your "one truth" is true?
>
> How do you know yours is?
>
>> does that one truth keep you healthy?
>
> religious beliefs are documented to prevent stress by increasing one's
> positive outlook that reduces illness
>
>>Does it cure diphtheria?
>
> Why should it
>
<quote>
At the center of controversy are Congregants of Church of Christ, Scientist,
along with members of other, smaller sects, including the Followers of Christ
Church and the General Assembly and Church of the First Born. All are
staunchly opposed to medical intervention in the case of illness, preferring
instead to depend upon prayer to do the healing. Their devotion to what they
call "God's will" has, according to their critics, led to the deaths of more
than 172 children between 1975 and 1995 � all because their parents refused
to seek medical treatment for their children's illnesses. According to
autopsy reports, many if not most of the children could have been saved
easily with simple antibiotics.
Read more:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,100175,00.html#ixzz0XhD44qRr
http://preview.tinyurl.com/ylh5tw3
</quote>
<quote>
OREGON CITY -- Carl and Raylene Worthington told detectives that they never
considered calling a doctor, even as their 15-month-old daughter deteriorated
and died.
"I don't believe in them," Carl Worthington said of doctors. "I believe in
faith healing."
Raylene Worthington said that her religious beliefs do not encompass medical
care and that she would not have done anything different for her - daughter,
who died at home of pneumonia, a blood infection and other complications.
Read more:
http://www.oregonlive.com/clackamascounty/index.ssf/2009/07/jury_hears_father
_recount_fait.html
http://preview.tinyurl.com/nyx6d3
</quote>
<quote>
rlington, Va.: Mr Turley, Thank you for your piece. I was appalled at how
these parents let their children suffer so horribly and die. I'm curious
about the general use of medicine in these families. Do they shun all forms
of modern medicine, to include preventative medicine and over the counter
drugs? I was curious as to how many of these children might have been born in
a hospital. Are the parents refusing medical care for their children but
accepting it for themselves?
Read more:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/discussion/2009/11/13/DI2009111303161.html
http://preview.tinyurl.com/yza8uy8
</quote>
<quote>
The murder of 16-year-old Canadian teen, Aqsa Parvez, by her Pakistani
immigrant father for her refusal to wear a burka or hijab has shocked and
saddened the nation. As people from all walks of life are mourning her tragic
death, Muslims � particularly their religious leaders � have joined the
chorus of denials that �Islam has nothing to with the death of Aqsa.�
Here is a Muslim riddle. When one criticizes the practice of Muslim women
wearing the burka or hijab, Muslims quickly respond that their religious
symbol or choice is being attacked, but when girls like Aqsa die for refusing
to accept the same religious symbol, Muslims quickly respond by saying their
religion has nothing do with the death.
It is indeed a fact that wearing the burka (not the more liberal hijab) is a
religious duty for Muslim women commanded by Allah. The Quran [24:31]
commands Muslim women to �draw their veils over their bosoms� so as not to
expose their physical assets to unrelated people. Allah says [Quran 33:59]:
�O Prophet! Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers
[Muslims] to draw their cloaks close round them (when they go abroad).�
No Muslim will deny that Allah�s commands in the Quran are non-negotiable and
binding on all Muslims. When someone dies for refusing to comply with those
binding Islamic obligations, it is ridiculous to say the Islamic religion has
nothing to do with that death.
Read more
http://www.islam-watch.org/M.Hussain/Aqsa-Death-for-Refusing-Burka-Muslim-
Denials.htm
http://preview.tinyurl.com/yfadeym
</quote>
Religious beliefs are documented to kill children.
Allen
>> I can see
>> how it might make you happy, if ignorance is really bliss. But I'm
>> afraid I wouldn't be happy unless there were some evidence to convince
>> me that your claim was true.
>
> The stuff you study is your evidence needed. You just have the wrong
> idea of who causes the evidence
>
>> As for being productive, I don't see the
>> relevance. You seem to produce only nonsense.- Hide quoted text -
>
> pay attention then
Desertphile
<lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 11:55:51 -0800 (PST), "Viktor D. Huliganov"
> <jerzy.ja...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
> >No, I have chosen to accept as reality the worldview which is more
> >consistent with what I see, feel and understand.
Even when it's imaginary.
> My condolences for your profound ignorance and your willingness to
> remain that way.
I look over his web page; I then did a Google search on his name.
All I can say is, even at my worse I was never as crazy as this
Huliganov nut.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Mike Lyle
> All-seeing-I wrote:
>> On Nov 22, 10:00 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> Which is all one really needs to know about man's origins to live a
>>>> happy healthy productive life.
>>>> How about THAT, JH
>>> I think that's nonsense. How do you know your "one truth" is true?
>>
>> How do you know yours is?
>
> I asked first. Why won't you answer?
They never answer that one. Which is really disappointing, as it's one
of the very few bits of their world-view which could actually be
interesting.
--
Mike.
bpuharic
wrote:
i was gonna sacrifice a virgin...but what a waste...
bpuharic
<jerzy.ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 22 Lis, 19:45, Eric Root <er...@swva.net> wrote:
>> On Nov 22, 1:28 pm, "Viktor D. Huliganov" <jerzy.jakubow...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> But discussions of atheists are irrelevant to the subject of origins.
>
>I would have thought that they are extremely relevant to the subject
>of origins. The discussion of whether there is a God or not is
>intrinsic to whether the world is created or not.
only to those creationist/pantheists who think god is a force of
nature, like electricity, who causes species to pop out of the aether.
>>
>> > Some
>> > Christians might say the same of Behe, but I am not so interested in
>> > reading what some Christians are writing,
>>
>> His Christianity is irrelevant to the subject of origins, only his
>> scientific ideas are relevant.
>>
>If he has some, then I am quite happy to read them, but the fact is
>that I haven't read them. I know his mousetrap argument, but little
>more about him than that.
he's a tenured prof at my graduate alma mater. he got tenure by
publishing work in biochemistry...nothing on creationism since that's
scientifically useless
none of his peer reviewed work is creationist oriented.
Jack Dominey
<380cf56f-ee63-4537...@t18g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,
"Viktor D. Huliganov" <jerzy.ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>In discussion with a noted creationist professor in talk.origins, it
>pretty much transpired that if vertebrates evolved as required for
>the theory of evolution to be true, they must have done so in fresh
>water, or at any rate water much fresher than today's seas.
>
>Either the sea used to be at much lower saline levels - which is not
>consistent with the view that when the earth was younger the seas
>were like a chemical soup that allowed life to appear in the first place,
>and have been getting progressively less salty -
A quick Google search on history of oceanic salinity shows at least
one researcher, LP Knauth, saying that "Initial salinity of the oceans
was 1.5–2× the modern value"
(Salinity levels, according to Knauth, have undergone episodic
decreases as salt deposits were sequestered in long-lived continental
cratons. "The first great lowering of oceanic salinity probably
occurred in latest Precambrian when enormous amounts of salt and brine
were sequestered in giant Neoproterozoic evaporite basins.")
>or life evolved
>beyond the Agnathans in the rivers. And it seems equally unlikely that
>fishes, the dominant life forms of the sea, evolved in only the tiny 5% of
>water that is not sea water, and no competing higher life forms
>emerged in the other 95% which had produced everything up to that point.
If that's what the evidence indicates - and I am not necessarily
accepting your description of the situation with no citations - then
your "seems unlikely" really doesn't carry much weight, does it?
>Neither version makes any sense.
On the contrary, the idea that basal vertebrates hit on an efficient
circulatory system that allowed for effective haloregulation first,
then diversified later, is quite sensible.
>But it makes much more sense out of
>the idea that the sea was created unsalty, and became so after the
>flood, which was associated with great tectonic upheavals. That is
>which freshwater fishes did not die out in the flood.
So you think it makes *more* sense to say that the ability to live in
saltwater - for both vertebrates and invertebrates, indeed for *every
living thing in the sea* - appeared after Ye Fludde of Noe? You've
created a worse problem than you "solved".
>It also explains why migratory fishes such as the salmon, need to go
>to freshwater to breed. They are a living clue of this. Eels appear, at
>face value, to do the reverse, and go all the way to the Sargasso sea
>to breed, but in fact they do this in deep water next to subterranean
>vents which pump out into the sea exceptionally clean water.
What is your source for this information? The info I found indicates
that the spawning locations are not known. And the subterranean vents
I've heard of pump out anything but "exceptionally clean water" (what
does that mean, anyway? Fresh water?)
They
>then are covered by a leaf-like sheath in which protection they cross the
>salt water, and they can shed this when they hit freshwater. They are
>freshwater fishes that become saltwater later, over the course of one
>lifetime,
So you think the ability to manage saltwater existence - which you
said depends on "advanced mechanisms in their kidneys" for vertebrates
- evolved over the course of one lifetime? Gosh, that's really fast
evolution. Wouldn't most creationists say that such a change requires
a lot of information be added to the genome?
>giving us a living clue that has survived thousands of
>years to today's date as to what happened after the flood, when systems
>suddenly appeared that enabled fishes to cope with all the salts that
>emerged when the continents suddenly moved in the time of Peleg.
Continents suddenly moving, yet! Let us know when you've worked out
the physics of that one. Problems like boiling the oceans tend to
crop up.
<snip>
>
>
<snip of sermon>
--
Usenet: http://xkcd.com/386/
Jack Dominey
jack_dominey (at) email (dot) com
Jack Dominey
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message
><380cf56f-ee63-4537...@t18g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,
>Viktor D. Huliganov <jerzy.ja...@gmail.com> writes
>>Try this one, unanswered by talk.originists for three and a half years:
<snip>
>You might also have mentioned that you had a lengthy response from
>Richard Norman on this topic in November 2005, 6 months before you wrote
>the material you've just copied here, at which time you wrote
>
>"(David) James (aka Viktor D. Huliganov) hereby informs Horn that he has
>no rebuttal to make on the facts and objective contemporary observations
>made in the Professor's worthy article."
>
> See
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/soc.singles/msg/c8e4921aae199873>
Well spotted! Thank you.
What was that you were saying about being honest, "Viktor"?
Frank J
I am very interested in what he thinks the evidence supports, and how
he defends it on its own merits. Someone has to be the first. ;-)
I will google "Omphalism Lite" but if it's anything like the Omphalism
I read about, it's an admission that one has no evidence, and believes
their alternative story in spite of the lack of evidence.
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>Hey, I saw a few good items of intrest.
>
>
>1) "a bit predictable and repetitive"
>
>You guys chant the same mantra from the same books over and over.
>
says the guy who chants 'the bible is literally true' over and
over....
>2) "creationism and evolution, in the end boil down to what you
>believe,"
>
>It takes the same kind of faith to believe in either of them as well
really? you can test creaetionism in a lab?
go ahead, creationist. tell me how you do that. it's trivial in
evolution. in 2000 years, however, creationists haven't told us
anything about nature at all
>
>3) He begs for money on his web site's main page just like the Talk
>Origins web site does.
guess he thinks religious groups never ask for money
>
>
>Free clue:
>There is only one truth. And it does not take money to tell it.
>
>"In the begining God created" and we are His Children.
he created by evolution.
>
>Which is all one really needs to know about man's origins to live a
>happy healthy productive life.
yep. understanding evolution helps one to think clearly
>
>How about THAT, JH
John Stockwell
wrote:
> I have produced a review of Richard Dawkins' latest blockbuster on my
> blog. The link ishttp://huliganov.tv/2009/11/22/the-greatest-show-on-earth-too-right/
>
> Please have a read and answer if you like. You are welcome to leave
> your replies in the answers over there as well as discussing here,
On your blog, you say that you are a physicist, and later
down you say that you also believe in the "Flood". You
can't be very damned knowledgeable about modern science
or a very good physicist if you believe in the Flood.
-John
Richard Clayton
(Disengaging the lurking device...)
"More faith in faith than in facts" is probably the most succinct
statement of creationism I've ever seen.
John Harshman
> On Nov 22, 7:53 am, "Viktor D. Huliganov" <jerzy.jakubow...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> I have produced a review of Richard Dawkins' latest blockbuster on my
>> blog. The link ishttp://huliganov.tv/2009/11/22/the-greatest-show-on-earth-too-right/
>>
>> Please have a read and answer if you like. You are welcome to leave
>> your replies in the answers over there as well as discussing here,
>
> On your blog, you say that you are a physicist, and later
> down you say that you also believe in the "Flood". You
> can't be very damned knowledgeable about modern science
> or a very good physicist if you believe in the Flood.
Ah, but he's also an omphalist. According to him, god carefully cleaned
up all evidence of the flood, making it undetectable by science.
Ernest Major
<22e0c83c-f3d9-4556...@1g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>, John
Stockwell <john.1...@gmail.com> writes
>On Nov 22, 7:53 am, "Viktor D. Huliganov" <jerzy.jakubow...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>> I have produced a review of Richard Dawkins' latest blockbuster on my
>> blog. The link
>>ishttp://huliganov.tv/2009/11/22/the-greatest-show-on-earth-too-right/
>>
>> Please have a read and answer if you like. You are welcome to leave
>> your replies in the answers over there as well as discussing here,
>
>On your blog, you say that you are a physicist, and later
>down you say that you also believe in the "Flood". You
>can't be very damned knowledgeable about modern science
>or a very good physicist if you believe in the Flood.
I don't see where he claims to be a physicist (a link would have come in
handy), but he's an accountant with a language degree.
<UTL:http://groups.google.com/group/free.christians/browse_frm/thread/fde
13ca155bc9bc0/7074bd239fa0daa2?q=accountant+author:Uncle+author:Davey)>
Note that if he was a physicist that would have been the perfect context
in which to make the claim.
<URL:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/9c1b06
6ec8d82e31/9c33e7cbb097e75d?q=degree+author:Uncle+author:Davey>
If you want to be generous perhaps he was claiming to be an amateur and
autodidactic physicist, like I can just about claim to be a botanist,
but in his case Dunning-Kru(e)ger syndrome would seem to apply.
--
alias Ernest Major
Frank J
wrote:
> On 23 Lis, 01:12, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 22, 1:28 pm, "Viktor D. Huliganov" <jerzy.jakubow...@gmail.com>> > > > On Nov 22, 9:53 am, "Viktor D. Huliganov" <jerzy.jakubow...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > I have produced a review of Richard Dawkins' latest blockbuster on my
> > > > > blog. The link ishttp://huliganov.tv/2009/11/22/the-greatest-show-on-earth-too-right/
>
> > > > > Please have a read and answer if you like. You are welcome to leave
> > about "what happened when" that do not mention or require Jesus or
> > even God. So please leave your emotions aside, and focus on the
> > claims, not who made them. I'll ask again: Do you agree with Behe's
> > "old life + common descent" version or not? If not, which of the
> > mutually contradictory other creationisms do you "have faith in"? And
> > which, if any do you think are, and are not, supportd by evidence. And
> > please answer *without* any reference to any problems you might have
>
> > - Pokaż cytowany tekst -
>
> I don't know Behe, and therefore I don't know whether I agree with him
> or not,
Wow, you just admitted being one of the few anti-evolution activists
who hasn't practically memorized Behe's sound bites. Plus I summarized
his views right here, so even you never heard of him you have no
excuse not to at least say whether you agree or not.
For fun I'll google your "Omphalism Lite" but if what you say above is
any indication I don't expect much novel. Most anti-evolution
activists at least try to read as much of the secondary literature as
possible, if only to polish their sound bites, so I guess there's no
point in askling if you ever read the works of anti-evolution authors
like Morris, Gish, Ross, Johnson, Wells, Dembski, etc.
> but I did write at length on my views in the past and gave it
> the name "Omphalism Lite". If you look up Omphalism Lite then it
> probably will show up what version I think is true.-
Desertphile
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> John Stockwell wrote:
> > On Nov 22, 7:53 am, "Viktor D. Huliganov" <jerzy.jakubow...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> I have produced a review of Richard Dawkins' latest blockbuster on my
> >> blog. The link ishttp://huliganov.tv/2009/11/22/the-greatest-show-on-earth-too-right/
> >>
> >> Please have a read and answer if you like. You are welcome to leave
> >> your replies in the answers over there as well as discussing here,
> >
> > On your blog, you say that you are a physicist, and later
> > down you say that you also believe in the "Flood". You
> > can't be very damned knowledgeable about modern science
> > or a very good physicist if you believe in the Flood.
> Ah, but he's also an omphalist.
He seems more anal fixated than belly button fixated....
> According to him, god carefully cleaned
> up all evidence of the flood, making it
> undetectable by science.
The next question is, why did the gods wish to fool us?
Dan Drake
(in article
<9ac90563-ae62-453b...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>):
> On Nov 22, 9:12 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Viktor D. Huliganov wrote:
>>> I have produced a review of Richard Dawkins' latest blockbuster on my
>>> blog. The link
>>> ishttp://huliganov.tv/2009/11/22/the-greatest-show-on-earth-too-right/
>>
>>> Please have a read and answer if you like. You are welcome to leave
>>> your replies in the answers over there as well as discussing here, and
>>> I will try and leave them intact as long as they are not overly
>>> insulting! I expect most of you are already registered Wordpressers so
>>> it wouldn't take any fiddling about to write an answer if your want to
>>> over there. That will of course help people find you in your
>>> evolutionist blogs, so it's a game of give and take, as the song says.
>>> Hope that's fair.
>>
>>> Nice to see from the stats that the debate is going strong. I'm a rare
>>> visitor to Usenet these days, but I do a lot on YT and now I started
>>> this blog.
>>
>>> Fond regards to those of you who did battle with me before, especially
>>> Aaron Clausen, John Harshman, John Wilkins, Ernest Major, Richard the
>>> Plesiosaur, Prof Norman, David Day, Jason Harvestdancer and of course
>>> David W. Horn if he's still around at all these days, and his insomnia
>>> hasn't gotten the better of him.
>>
>>> Viktor D. Huliganov (aka Uncle Davey)
>>
>> I have less than fond memories of you as one of the most dishonest
>> creationists it was ever my displeasure to correspond with. And that's
>> saying a lot. I see that your review is entirely consistent with those
>> memories.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Hey, I saw a few good items of intrest.
>
>
> 1) "a bit predictable and repetitive"
>
> You guys chant the same mantra from the same books over and over.
By golly, every single bleeding time I add 2 and 2, I get 4!! How repetitive
can you get?
NB: Unless I'm adding in base 3 or 4, of course.
>...
> Free clue:
> There is only one truth. And it does not take money to tell it.
Hey, that's very good. Just what Galileo said in fact. You wouldn't be
cribbing from him, would you?
Anyway, there is one truth, for God's word in the Bible (as old GG believed)
and God's truth in the rocks, or in the heavens as the case ay be. Hence, if
you have a reading of the Bible that conflicts with the plain evidence of
senses and reason, you need to think again. A couple of possible readings:
You can read the book of Joshua as an account told in the plain language of
the times, not in terms of discoveries millennia later. (Not original with
me, of course)
You can read Genesis 1 as a hymn of praise, not a science text. (Not
original, I'm sure) In fact, in my utterly inexpert opinion, it's quite a
good hymn of praise; I was noticing just last night, when reading Harold
Bloom's review of Robert Crumb's rendition of Genesis, that, read in this
way, it is just about the only edifying story in that entire bloody book.
>
> "In the begining God created" and we are His Children.
>
> Which is all one really needs to know about man's origins to live a
> happy healthy productive life.
>
> How about THAT, JH
--
Dan Drake
d...@dandrake.com
Viktor D. Huliganov
>
> Fortunately, I don't know you. But your usenet behavior has been abominable.
I'm sure that counts as an ad hominem argument. Besides which, others
on your side behaved worse, and it was overlooked. Not that I'm
excusing myself with that, just showing your side's double standards.
John Wilkins
<e9b6f093-529c-43cb...@x31g2000yqx.googlegroups.com>,
Ad hominem is not a fallacy when
1. It's true, and
2. It is germane to the argument
Viktor D. Huliganov
> On Nov 22, 2:49 pm, "Viktor D. Huliganov" <jerzy.jakubow...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 22 Lis, 19:45, Eric Root <er...@swva.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 22, 1:28 pm, "Viktor D. Huliganov" <jerzy.jakubow...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > I have produced a review of Richard Dawkins' latest blockbuster on my
> > > > > > blog. The link ishttp://huliganov.tv/2009/11/22/the-greatest-show-on-earth-too-right/
>
> > > > > > Please have a read and answer if you like. You are welcome to leave
> > > > > > your replies in the answers over there as well as discussing here, and
> > > > > > I will try and leave them intact as long as they are not overly
> > > > > > insulting! I expect most of you are already registered Wordpressers so
> > > > > > it wouldn't take any fiddling about to write an answer if your want to
> > > > > > over there. That will of course help people find you in your
> > > > > > evolutionist blogs, so it's a game of give and take, as the song says.
> > > > > > Hope that's fair.
>
> > > > > > Nice to see from the stats that the debate is going strong. I'm a rare
> > > > > > visitor to Usenet these days, but I do a lot on YT and now I started
> > > > > > this blog.
>
> > > > > > Fond regards to those of you who did battle with me before, especially
> > > > > > Aaron Clausen, John Harshman, John Wilkins, Ernest Major, Richard the
> > > > > > Plesiosaur, Prof Norman, David Day, Jason Harvestdancer and of course
> > > > > > David W. Horn if he's still around at all these days, and his insomnia
> > > > > > hasn't gotten the better of him.
>
> > > > > > Viktor D. Huliganov (aka Uncle Davey)
>
>
> > > > > "Let's be clear - people who think that they can "prove" evolution are
> > > > > as misguided as people who think they can "prove" creationism..."
>
> > > > > Technically you are correct, "prove" is for math, not science. But you
> > > > > can make testable statements and either support them or falsify them.
> > > > > As you probably know, one of your fellow pseudoskeptics*, Michael
> > > > > Behe, agrees that the evidence supports a 4-billion year history of
> > > > > life in which humans share common ancestors with other species. Do you
> > > > > agree, and if not, have you challenged him as you do Dawkins?
>
> > > > > *Defined as those who say "I have no dog in the fight" and earn the
> > > > > reply of "so that explains why you attack the black dog and ignore the
> > > > > white one."- Ukryj cytowany tekst -
>
> > > > > - Poka¿ cytowany tekst -
>
> > > > I don't want either of Michael Behe's honey nor of his sting, as the
> > > > Hebrew saying goes. I read Dawkins because he is held out as someone
> > > > that the atheists reckon to be a leading exponent of their views.
>
>
> > I would have thought that they are extremely relevant to the subject
> > of origins. The discussion of whether there is a God or not is
> > intrinsic to whether the world is created or not.
>
> life too, *how many years ago* do you think that the first life on
> Earth was created? And do you think our species was created in a
> "biological continuum" or did it require its own origin-of-life event?
> If the latter, how many years ago was it?
>
I personally think that human kind has been around for 70 generations
before Christ and is now coming up to 70 generations after Christ, at
which point it will end.
I think this is a version of events with about one adherent at the
present time.
I think that in the Scripture it gives 14 generations from Christ to
the captivity, 14 from the captivity back to David and 14 from David
back to Abraham. This then stops, but shows the existience of a
certain pattern which we can follow. It must be there for a reason. I
discovered that working forwards from the beginning of Genesis there
are 14 generations to Peleg, which name infers the division of the
world, a reference I believe to the Babel event. The scripture does
not hold, or claim to hold, a complete reference to all generations
between Peleg and Abraham, and this is natural as there was no normal
language at that time, so there are about 5 generations which have
lost information - a very interesting period of earth's history, by
the way, about which there are probably more unanswered questions than
any other - we have basically things like funnel beakers and cave
paintings and that to go on.
Basically this means that Ussher probably assumed too literally that
the generations between Peleg and Abraham were fully recorded in
Genesis, but there simply isn't enough time to get from a Babel
scenario to the world as described in the time of Abraham in that
space of tgime. In addition for this space of time there are divergent
chronologoes in Chronicles and in Genesis, which for those who believe
in inerrancy of Scripture ought to be a clue that the Bible is telling
us that in that area it is not trying to give us a complete account.
14 generations between Adam and Peleg, 14 between Peleg and Abraham,
14 between Abraham and David, 14 between David and the captivity, and
14 between the Captivity and Christ. That's seventy generations.
That's a perfect number. And because Christ is the central figure of
history, he comes in the middle of the generations.
The generation length, which I personally define as the age of a woman
at the birth of her median surviving female child, can be placed at
about 30 years. This means that 70 generations take around 2100 years.
We live in the time where the 70th generation is being born, one of
whom will be Antichrist, and maybe already is, and we also live in a
time where the Gospel has been taken to every tribe, where the Jews
have returned to Israel and where there is continual threat of war
around Israel. We live in a time where we are being faced with
monetary and political union and control to an unprecedented degree,
and where the falling away from true religion has also been
unprecedented. In short, almost all the prophecies that needed to be
fulfilled before the Return of Christ in glory, and the garnering up
and resurrection of those who accepted him in faith, be they alive or
dead. The close of this creation and the unveiling of the new Creation
outside of the restraints of the particular physical laws that have
governed this one. We cannot die or suffer in it, we will know God and
find bliss. We shall sing and fly like angels, dive like orcas and
find wonder and beauty in every everlasting corner of it.
However the generations before Christ were not always 30 years. The
chronologies show that before the Flood the aging process was much
slower. It is possible that oxygen levels were lower and the free
radicals responsible for aging less prominent - even now longevity is
more seen in mountain populations as in the Caucuses, where oxygen is
more scarce. The release of the waters and the process of their
assuaging clearly changed the amount of oxygen available in the
atmosphere. If you separate out hydrogen and oxygen as gases, instead
of water vapour, then the hydrogen will wander off into space as it
cannot be held by gravity. Hence during the assuaging of the Flood the
amount of atmospheric oxygen increased strongly.
The first generations were therefore longer. The median child of a
woman could have been hundreds of years. This means that we cannot say
that these 70 generations lived only over 2100 years. They may have
lived over 4900 years, which is the figure I get if I assume about 300
year generations until Noah's generation (9th), and then that tapering
down to Peleg's. That gives 4900 BC and 2100 AD years for a total of
7000 years of creation.
So I think that life was created some 6900 years ago. Put in place
looking mature and pre-existant, with Adam even having a navel,
although he had no mother, and with radioactive isotopes in igneous
rocks already partly decayed. This was no deception by God, as Adam
knew perfectly well where he came from and always was able to hand
down those facts through his generations, but it was there to enable
mankind to find an alternative to believe if they rejected God. It was
made that way precisely so that we can believe whatever we choose. It
was made that way precisely so that millions of human beings like you
and me can have this debate, whether with each other or in the privacy
of their own minds, and that some might be drawn to believe still in
their creator and their redeemer, even when the world is dragging them
to interpret the things God made in an atheist way, and that in the
exercise of faith they may be separated ought, have their
imperfections and iniquities forgiven and restored, and come to a
knowledge of God in love and be enabled to join with him in a
relationship of children to a father.
That's what it's all about. Be part of it. Believe, and be part of
reality.
>
>
> > > > Some
> > > > Christians might say the same of Behe, but I am not so interested in
> > > > reading what some Christians are writing,
>
> > > His Christianity is irrelevant to the subject of origins, only his
> > > scientific ideas are relevant.
>
> > If he has some, then I am quite happy to read them, but the fact is
> > that I haven't read them. I know his mousetrap argument, but little
> > more about him than that.
>
> If you read "Darwin's Black Box" you would know that he proposed that
> an ancetral cell was designed and appeared (either by "creation" or by
> "naturalistic" assembly of an existing "design", I don't recall if he
> specified which) about 4 billion years ago. His later writings vaguely
> suggest that the designer - who may or may not be God and may or may
> not be the Creator - might have intervened after the first ancestral
> cell appeared.
>
> But like you (so far in this thread) he was careful not to say any
> more that could be easily falsified.
Well, I'd be happy enough to read him but he'll have to get in the
queue.
At face value, though, this idea about the ancestral cell is
arbitrary. It neither has any support in science, nor in the
Revelations of the Prophets. It's just another possible interpretation
of the evidence available.
Davey
Viktor D. Huliganov
> In message
> <380cf56f-ee63-4537-859d-74c8ea834...@t18g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,
> Viktor D. Huliganov <jerzy.jakubow...@gmail.com> writes
>
> >Try this one, unanswered by talk.originists for three and a half years:
>
> text was posted to a Google Group of your own which has a grand total of
> 3 messages, two of which were written by you, and one of which is blank.
>
> It seems likely that the a primary reason for it not being answered was
> that no-one participating in talk.origins (other than yourself) was
> aware that it existed.
>
> You might also have mentioned that you had a lengthy response from
> Richard Norman on this topic in November 2005, 6 months before you wrote
> the material you've just copied here, at which time you wrote
>
> "(David) James (aka Viktor D. Huliganov) hereby informs Horn that he has
> no rebuttal to make on the facts and objective contemporary observations
> made in the Professor's worthy article."
>
> See
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/soc.singles/msg/c8e4921aae199873>
> alias Ernest Major
If this is supposed to be honest, at least quote the whole of what I
said.
U¿ytkownik "Dave" <hor...@gmail.com> napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
news:1117374432.1...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> David James wrote:
> > U¿ytkownik "Bruce" <beck...@alumni.caltech.edu> napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
> > news:7Kfme.1174$4p.468@fed1read03...
> > > "r norman" <rsn_@_comcast.net> wrote in message
> > > news:dibh91tg1eieeuobl...@4ax.com...
> > > > On Sat, 28 May 2005 16:52:15 +0200, "Uncle Davey" <no...@jose.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >R Norman wrote:
> An excellent post in response to James's comments about salinity and
> blood plasma.
> > > Really great post. Thanks for the education.
> > I'd like to nominate it for POTM if nobody already has.
> Seconded.
> > It was comprehensive and understandably written, even if I
> > don't agree with it.
> I don't think James has impressed anyone with his knowledge or biology,
> chemistry, or physiology, so far, so his disagreement strikes me, at
> least, as moot. Perhaps he'll be good enough to write a rebuttal and
> disabuse us of the notion that he disagrees with Professor Norman's
> article on scientific grounds; and not because he must ignore the
> evidence and the article in order to maintain his silly omphalism and
> protect his silly religious beliefs.
James hereby informs Horn that he has no rebuttal to make on the facts
and
objective contemporary observations made in the Professor's worthy
article.
His response will be on the application of these objective
contemporary
observations onto the debate on origins.
James would also like to take this opportunity of expressing his
recognisance to Horn for the seconding of his nomination of the
learned
article in question as "post of the month".
Sincerely,
Uncle Davey
I did right a rebuttal to Professor Norman's article.
I still think it's a fantastic article, but it's one that raises more
questions than it answers as far as kidney evolution is concerned.
David Horn's standard battle template, as shown above, was to put up a
bold front, but when I did make my rebuttal, which was admittedly a
few months later, Horn was unable to offer more than rhetoric to
answer it again.
I still liked him, though. I hope he's still OK.
Davey
Viktor D. Huliganov
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 16:46:47 -0600, Free Lunch
>
> <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> > On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 11:55:51 -0800 (PST), "Viktor D. Huliganov"
> > >No, I have chosen to accept as reality the worldview which is more
> > >consistent with what I see, feel and understand.
>
> Even when it's imaginary.
>
> > My condolences for your profound ignorance and your willingness to
> > remain that way.
>
> I look over his web page; I then did a Google search on his name.
> All I can say is, even at my worse I was never as crazy as this
> Huliganov nut.
Thank you. But don't be so hard on yourself. If you keep looking at my
stuff, it will help you to achieve it.
VDH
Viktor D. Huliganov
> In
> <380cf56f-ee63-4537-859d-74c8ea834...@t18g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,
> "Viktor D. Huliganov" <jerzy.jakubow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >In discussion with a noted creationist professor in talk.origins, it
> >pretty much transpired that if vertebrates evolved as required for
> >the theory of evolution to be true, they must have done so in fresh
> >water, or at any rate water much fresher than today's seas.
>
> >Either the sea used to be at much lower saline levels - which is not
> >consistent with the view that when the earth was younger the seas
> >were like a chemical soup that allowed life to appear in the first place,
> >and have been getting progressively less salty -
>
> A quick Google search on history of oceanic salinity shows at least
> one researcher, LP Knauth, saying that "Initial salinity of the oceans
> was 1.5–2× the modern value"
>
>
> (Salinity levels, according to Knauth, have undergone episodic
> decreases as salt deposits were sequestered in long-lived continental
> cratons. "The first great lowering of oceanic salinity probably
> occurred in latest Precambrian when enormous amounts of salt and brine
> were sequestered in giant Neoproterozoic evaporite basins.")
>
> >or life evolved
> >beyond the Agnathans in the rivers. And it seems equally unlikely that
> >fishes, the dominant life forms of the sea, evolved in only the tiny 5% of
> >water that is not sea water, and no competing higher life forms
> >emerged in the other 95% which had produced everything up to that point.
>
> If that's what the evidence indicates - and I am not necessarily
> accepting your description of the situation with no citations - then
> your "seems unlikely" really doesn't carry much weight, does it?
>
> >Neither version makes any sense.
>
> On the contrary, the idea that basal vertebrates hit on an efficient
> circulatory system that allowed for effective haloregulation first,
> then diversified later, is quite sensible.
It's another possibility.
>
> >But it makes much more sense out of
> >the idea that the sea was created unsalty, and became so after the
> >flood, which was associated with great tectonic upheavals. That is
> >which freshwater fishes did not die out in the flood.
>
> So you think it makes *more* sense to say that the ability to live in
> saltwater - for both vertebrates and invertebrates, indeed for *every
> living thing in the sea* - appeared after Ye Fludde of Noe? You've
> created a worse problem than you "solved".
Why? It also caters for the mass trilobite extinctions. They needed to
be at 9 promilles of slainity, and had no innate genetic code for
quickly developing a kidney.
The lizards on the two Croatian islands, Pod Kopiste and Pod Whatever,
which Dawkins references in his "before our very eyes" chapter pretty
much in the middle of TGSOE, in only fifteen generations had ev-loved
the mechanism to utilise their Harry Caecums for a vegetarian
lifestyle. DO you think they all developed that extra info in fifteen
generations? Is the mutation rate so high? Or was it a switch that
brought on pre-existant dormant info in the gene to play?
Sorry if that sounds Lamarckian. But think about it. I'm not even
going to analyze the Lenski experiments on E coli and citrite. That
may or may not sit right with what I am saying. Lenski's experiment is
one that I still haven't really worked out the full implications of,
but I do like singing Lenski's aria in the original.
>
> >It also explains why migratory fishes such as the salmon, need to go
> >to freshwater to breed. They are a living clue of this. Eels appear, at
> >face value, to do the reverse, and go all the way to the Sargasso sea
> >to breed, but in fact they do this in deep water next to subterranean
> >vents which pump out into the sea exceptionally clean water.
>
> What is your source for this information? The info I found indicates
> that the spawning locations are not known. And the subterranean vents
> I've heard of pump out anything but "exceptionally clean water" (what
> does that mean, anyway? Fresh water?)
I heard that the sea would be more salty if it were not replenished by
less saline water from subterranean aquifers.
>
> They
>
> >then are covered by a leaf-like sheath in which protection they cross the
> >salt water, and they can shed this when they hit freshwater. They are
> >freshwater fishes that become saltwater later, over the course of one
> >lifetime,
>
> So you think the ability to manage saltwater existence - which you
> said depends on "advanced mechanisms in their kidneys" for vertebrates
> - evolved over the course of one lifetime? Gosh, that's really fast
> evolution. Wouldn't most creationists say that such a change requires
> a lot of information be added to the genome?
Unless it was there already. Predestination, remember.
>
> >giving us a living clue that has survived thousands of
> >years to today's date as to what happened after the flood, when systems
> >suddenly appeared that enabled fishes to cope with all the salts that
> >emerged when the continents suddenly moved in the time of Peleg.
>
> Continents suddenly moving, yet! Let us know when you've worked out
> the physics of that one. Problems like boiling the oceans tend to
> crop up.
They will not boil because the amount of water is too large. The
amount of water in the oceans is sufficient to cope with the cooling
of that amount of friction. 2/3 of the planets surface is water. It
will not boil because some of the crust moves around a little bit.
TomS
<261120091951004532%jo...@wilkins.id.au>, John Wilkins stated..."
In particular, if A says that B is behaving badly, that is not a
fallacy. If A says that B is behaving badly and therefore what B
says is false, that is a fallacy.
I can't resist suggesting that using a fallacy is one example of
bad behavior.
--
---Tom S.
the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
the currant jelly.
Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
John Harshman
You're wrong about that.
> Besides which, others
> on your side behaved worse, and it was overlooked. Not that I'm
> excusing myself with that, just showing your side's double standards.
I haven't seen any such behavior from others. And of course you're
excusing yourself. And the whole idea of "your side" as a monolithic
bloc is absurd.
John Harshman
he's despicable. I'm saying his review, considered in isolation, is
consistent with prior evidence that he's despicable.
John Wilkins
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
Ad hominem means, rather literally, to speak of the personal qualities
of someone. It is only a fallacy when that is used to discredit their
argument illicitly. A licit use of ad hominem is to discredit, say, a
witness on the grounds that he was a habitual liar.
So asserting that Davey behaves abominably, which is true, is germane
to this point, that he is supposed to be honest. And it tends to
discredit his argument that evolutionists behave badly, when he himself
does. Evolutionists may indeed behave badly, but his saying so is not
grounds for thinking it to be true.
Jack Dominey
<38d00387-0323-4072...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
"Viktor D. Huliganov" <jerzy.ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 23 Lis, 22:12, Jack Dominey <jack.dominey+...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>> In
>> <380cf56f-ee63-4537-859d-74c8ea834...@t18g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,
>> "Viktor D. Huliganov" <jerzy.jakubow...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>> >But it makes much more sense out of
>> >the idea that the sea was created unsalty, and became so after the
>> >flood, which was associated with great tectonic upheavals. That is
>> >which freshwater fishes did not die out in the flood.
>>
>> So you think it makes *more* sense to say that the ability to live in
>> saltwater - for both vertebrates and invertebrates, indeed for *every
>> living thing in the sea* - appeared after Ye Fludde of Noe? You've
>> created a worse problem than you "solved".
>
>Why?
Instead of trying to explain why vertebrates use a particular
regulation system, you now need to explain the origin of several
different systems in a very short time period.
Not to mention that you now have to explain why the pre-Flood oceans
utterly failed to leave the chemical and isotopic evidence of fresh
water.
>It also caters for the mass trilobite extinctions. They needed to
>be at 9 promilles of slainity, and had no innate genetic code for
>quickly developing a kidney.
And you're digging the hole even deeper. Why could horseshoe crabs
adapt but trilobites couldn't? Why could octopus and squid and
nautulis adapt but ammonites and belemnites and nautilois couldn't?
Not to mention the very basic question of why trilobites aren't mixed
with modern fauna in the fossil record.
>The lizards on the two Croatian islands, Pod Kopiste and Pod Whatever,
>which Dawkins references in his "before our very eyes" chapter pretty
>much in the middle of TGSOE, in only fifteen generations had ev-loved
>the mechanism to utilise their Harry Caecums for a vegetarian
>lifestyle. DO you think they all developed that extra info in fifteen
>generations?
Since you are mentioning this "extra info" you must have some
measurement, yes?
>Is the mutation rate so high? Or was it a switch that
>brought on pre-existant dormant info in the gene to play?
How much mutation was needed? Do you have any idea?
<snip>
>> >It also explains why migratory fishes such as the salmon, need to go
>> >to freshwater to breed. They are a living clue of this. Eels appear, at
>> >face value, to do the reverse, and go all the way to the Sargasso sea
>> >to breed, but in fact they do this in deep water next to subterranean
>> >vents which pump out into the sea exceptionally clean water.
>>
>> What is your source for this information? The info I found indicates
>> that the spawning locations are not known. And the subterranean vents
>> I've heard of pump out anything but "exceptionally clean water" (what
>> does that mean, anyway? Fresh water?)
>
>I heard that the sea would be more salty if it were not replenished by
>less saline water from subterranean aquifers.
Heard where?
<snip>
>> So you think the ability to manage saltwater existence - which you
>> said depends on "advanced mechanisms in their kidneys" for vertebrates
>> - evolved over the course of one lifetime? Gosh, that's really fast
>> evolution. Wouldn't most creationists say that such a change requires
>> a lot of information be added to the genome?
>
>Unless it was there already. Predestination, remember.
>> >giving us a living clue that has survived thousands of
>> >years to today's date as to what happened after the flood, when systems
>> >suddenly appeared that enabled fishes to cope with all the salts that
>> >emerged when the continents suddenly moved in the time of Peleg.
>>
>> Continents suddenly moving, yet! Let us know when you've worked out
>> the physics of that one. Problems like boiling the oceans tend to
>> crop up.
>
>They will not boil because the amount of water is too large. The
>amount of water in the oceans is sufficient to cope with the cooling
>of that amount of friction. 2/3 of the planets surface is water. It
>will not boil because some of the crust moves around a little bit.
Only if you're proposing that the continents move by magic. Otherwise
you've got to have the energy to start and maintain the movement and
in the final analysis that energy is going to show up as heat. You're
moving something like 10^24 grams of continent over thousands of
kilometers. Something like that would crack the crust in a zillion
places - you'd have dozens, maybe scores of places like the Deccan
Traps. Every supervolcano on the planet would blow. It would be
another mass extinction event - something notably missing from the
description of the descendants of Noah.
Viktor D. Huliganov
>
> - Pokaż cytowany tekst -
In any event, I didn't find it a very instructive argument, but if
it's the best you've got, then okay.
Davey
Viktor D. Huliganov
> In article <QsydncOEV8CrCJPWRVn_...@giganews.com>, John Harshman> > > <e9b6f093-529c-43cb-bbe1-05bd1f840...@x31g2000yqx.googlegroups.com>,
>
> - Pokaż cytowany tekst -
In any event, if people always managed to behave well, it would
disprove Christianity, which says we are sinners in need of
forgiveness. If evolution were true, on the other hand, we'd have
evolved out of bad behaviour by now.
Anyway, all I ever expect from atheists is harping on other people's
failures. they know nothing of forgiveness, which is one reason why
many of them seem to end up mentally ill.
Davey
Free Lunch
<jerzy.ja...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>> - Poka� cytowany tekst -
>
>
>In any event, if people always managed to behave well, it would
>disprove Christianity, which says we are sinners in need of
>forgiveness. If evolution were true, on the other hand, we'd have
>evolved out of bad behaviour by now.
Why do you claim that? Are you claiming that bad behaviors are selected
against? Can you provide any scientific literature that shows this?
>Anyway, all I ever expect from atheists is harping on other people's
>failures. they know nothing of forgiveness, which is one reason why
>many of them seem to end up mentally ill.
You seem to be confused about the distinction between scientist and
atheist.
Viktor D. Huliganov
> In
> "Viktor D. Huliganov" <jerzy.jakubow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On 23 Lis, 22:12, Jack Dominey <jack.dominey+...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
> >> In
> >> <380cf56f-ee63-4537-859d-74c8ea834...@t18g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,
> >> "Viktor D. Huliganov" <jerzy.jakubow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >> >But it makes much more sense out of
> >> >the idea that the sea was created unsalty, and became so after the
> >> >flood, which was associated with great tectonic upheavals. That is
> >> >which freshwater fishes did not die out in the flood.
>
> >> So you think it makes *more* sense to say that the ability to live in
> >> saltwater - for both vertebrates and invertebrates, indeed for *every
> >> living thing in the sea* - appeared after Ye Fludde of Noe? You've
> >> created a worse problem than you "solved".
>
> >Why?
>
> Instead of trying to explain why vertebrates use a particular
> regulation system, you now need to explain the origin of several
> different systems in a very short time period.
This is never a problem when we can invoke the supernatural. Your
mission is to explain how your version of events took place without
needing to invoke the supernatural. That is the task the "rationalist"
sets himself. It's not necessarily the task that we set ourselves as
believers, since we explicitly believe in what you see as the
supernatural anyway.
The question really is for evolutionists to reach some kind of
consensus on why it is that the plasma of vertebrates fixed at 9 parts
per thousand of salinity, meaning the necessity to evolve the heavy
load to bear of an osmoregulatory apparatus, and one which clearly
took a different line in the Chondrichthys anyway, as Prof Norman
showed in his fine essay.
Was it that the seas had been 9/1000 and were moving away from that?
Or was it that an organism decided that even though seas were at
27/1000, it had a much better electrolytical balance at 9/1000, and
survived better that way - even though the experience of having a
9/1000 plasma in a 27/1000 environment without a pre-prepared
mechanism for osmoregulation would not, putting it mildly, have been
conducive at all to the survival of that organism.
>
> Not to mention that you now have to explain why the pre-Flood oceans
> utterly failed to leave the chemical and isotopic evidence of fresh
> water.
Where would they leave it?
Where did the pre-aerobic world leave the chemical and isotopic
evidence of a nitrogen based repiratory economy? (And I'd take the
argument that such organisms exist today as not relevant, as the
question is not whether they are here today but how do we know the
whole world had them before the blue-greens?)
On top of that, I still don't get how the first oxygen producing blue
green didn't get killed by its own oxygen, as it is usually fatal to
anaerobes, which science seems to think is all there was at the
outset.
But then we have levels of oxygen going to 35% in the carboniferous,
according to Dawkins. Where does he think this oxygen has gone now?
>
> >It also caters for the mass trilobite extinctions. They needed to
> >be at 9 promilles of slainity, and had no innate genetic code for
> >quickly developing a kidney.
>
> And you're digging the hole even deeper. Why could horseshoe crabs
> adapt but trilobites couldn't? Why could octopus and squid and
> nautulis adapt but ammonites and belemnites and nautilois couldn't?
It's predestination. The animals set to survive were given the ability
to switch into a kidney producing mode at an environmental trigger,
like these lizards on Pod Thingummy.
Why can you tame some animals and not others? Why can some animals
cope with sub-zero temperatures and not others? Similar questions.
As you probably know, 96% percent of marine species are credited to
have died in what is wrongly identified as the Permian-Triassic Event.
>
> Not to mention the very basic question of why trilobites aren't mixed
> with modern fauna in the fossil record.
They were dying en masse, which the modern animals were not doing. The
concentration of trilobite fossils in certain places shows that they
were incapable of dealing with the increasing salinity. They tried to
swim away from it into less salt water. The places where they couldn't
swim away from it is where they died in huge numbers. Other animals
were not involved in that.
>
> >The lizards on the two Croatian islands, Pod Kopiste and Pod Whatever,
> >which Dawkins references in his "before our very eyes" chapter pretty
> >much in the middle of TGSOE, in only fifteen generations had ev-loved
> >the mechanism to utilise their Harry Caecums for a vegetarian
> >lifestyle. DO you think they all developed that extra info in fifteen
> >generations?
>
> Since you are mentioning this "extra info" you must have some
> measurement, yes?
Just going by what Dawkins writes. I didn't measure it.
>
> >Is the mutation rate so high? Or was it a switch that
> >brought on pre-existant dormant info in the gene to play?
>
> How much mutation was needed? Do you have any idea?
Not much, but RD reports it as a big deal.
>
> <snip>
>
> >> >It also explains why migratory fishes such as the salmon, need to go
> >> >to freshwater to breed. They are a living clue of this. Eels appear, at
> >> >face value, to do the reverse, and go all the way to the Sargasso sea
> >> >to breed, but in fact they do this in deep water next to subterranean
> >> >vents which pump out into the sea exceptionally clean water.
>
> >> What is your source for this information? The info I found indicates
> >> that the spawning locations are not known. And the subterranean vents
> >> I've heard of pump out anything but "exceptionally clean water" (what
> >> does that mean, anyway? Fresh water?)
>
> >I heard that the sea would be more salty if it were not replenished by
> >less saline water from subterranean aquifers.
>
> Heard where?
On here somewhere, several years ago. What's the prevailing view these
days?
People were gathered in one place at Babel, so something like a quick
change of Pangea to something like what we have today would have been
less noticeable to them. The continents are floating about on a molten
bed anyway. The heat is already there down there.
> --
> Usenet:http://xkcd.com/386/
> Jack Dominey
> jack_dominey (at) email (dot) com- Ukryj cytowany tekst -
>
> - Pokaż cytowany tekst -
bpuharic
<jerzy.ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>In any event, if people always managed to behave well, it would
>disprove Christianity, which says we are sinners in need of
>forgiveness. If evolution were true, on the other hand, we'd have
>evolved out of bad behaviour by now.
?? where the hell'd that come from? why would we have 'evolved out of
'bad' behavior' when 'bad' is meaningless in evolution?
>
>Anyway, all I ever expect from atheists is harping on other people's
>failures. they know nothing of forgiveness, which is one reason why
>many of them seem to end up mentally ill.
just like all chiristians are child molestors, i suppose.
Ernest Major
<56b72b63-354d-4623...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Viktor D. Huliganov <jerzy.ja...@gmail.com> writes
>On 26 Lis, 16:03, John Wilkins <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>> In article <QsydncOEV8CrCJPWRVn_...@giganews.com>, John Harshman
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> > John Wilkins wrote:
>> > > In article
>> > > <e9b6f093-529c-43cb-bbe1-05bd1f840...@x31g2000yqx.googlegroups.com>,
>> > > Viktor D. Huliganov <jerzy.jakubow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >> On 23 Lis, 01:21, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> > >>> Viktor D. Huliganov wrote:
>> > >>>> On 22 Lis, 16:12, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> > >>>>> Viktor D. Huliganov wrote:
>> > >>>>>> I have produced a review of Richard Dawkins' latest
>> > >>>>>>blockbuster on my
>> > >>>>>> blog. The link
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>ishttp://huliganov.tv/2009/11/22/the-greatest-show-on-earth-too-right/
>> > >>>>>> Please have a read and answer if you like. You are welcome to leave
>> > >>>>>> your replies in the answers over there as well as discussing
>> > >>>>>>here, and
>> > >>>>>> I will try and leave them intact as long as they are not overly
>> > >>>>>> insulting! I expect most of you are already registered
>> > >>>>>>Wordpressers so
>> > >>>>>> it wouldn't take any fiddling about to write an answer if
>> > >>>>>> over there. That will of course help people find you in your
>> > >>>>>> evolutionist blogs, so it's a game of give and take, as the
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>> Nice to see from the stats that the debate is going strong.
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>> this blog.
>> > >>>>>> Fond regards to those of you who did battle with me before,
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>Richard the
>> > >>>>>> Plesiosaur, Prof Norman, David Day, Jason Harvestdancer and
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>> hasn't gotten the better of him.
>> > >>>>>> Viktor D. Huliganov (aka Uncle Davey)
>> > >>>>> I have less than fond memories of you as one of the most dishonest
>> > >>>>> creationists it was ever my displeasure to correspond with.
>> > >>>>>And that's
>> > >>>>> saying a lot. I see that your review is entirely consistent
>> > >>>>> memories.
>> > >>>> Heh. I'm probably the most honest man you know.
>> > >>> Fortunately, I don't know you. But your usenet behavior has been
>> > >>> abominable.
>> > >> I'm sure that counts as an ad hominem argument. Besides which, others
>> > >> on your side behaved worse, and it was overlooked. Not that I'm
>> > >> excusing myself with that, just showing your side's double standards.
>>
>> > > Ad hominem is not a fallacy when
>>
>> > > 1. It's true, and
>> > > 2. It is germane to the argument
>>
>> > It's not ad hominem anyway. I'm not saying his review is wrong because
>> > he's despicable. I'm saying his review, considered in isolation, is
>> > consistent with prior evidence that he's despicable.
>>
>> Ad hominem means, rather literally, to speak of the personal qualities
>> of someone. It is only a fallacy when that is used to discredit their
>> argument illicitly. A licit use of ad hominem is to discredit, say, a
>> witness on the grounds that he was a habitual liar.
>>
>> So asserting that Davey behaves abominably, which is true, is germane
>> to this point, that he is supposed to be honest. And it tends to
>> discredit his argument that evolutionists behave badly, when he himself
>> does. Evolutionists may indeed behave badly, but his saying so is not
>> grounds for thinking it to be true.- Ukryj cytowany tekst -
>>
>
>
>In any event, if people always managed to behave well, it would
>disprove Christianity, which says we are sinners in need of
>forgiveness. If evolution were true, on the other hand, we'd have
>evolved out of bad behaviour by now.
>
>Anyway, all I ever expect from atheists is harping on other people's
>failures. they know nothing of forgiveness, which is one reason why
>many of them seem to end up mentally ill.
>
>Davey
>
forgiveness.
--
alias Ernest Major
bpuharic
<jerzy.ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>This is never a problem when we can invoke the supernatural. Your
>mission is to explain how your version of events took place without
>needing to invoke the supernatural. That is the task the "rationalist"
>sets himself. It's not necessarily the task that we set ourselves as
>believers, since we explicitly believe in what you see as the
>supernatural anyway.
which is fine, except it's useless as an explanation of the natural
world. it has a track record of failure in this regard; its record is
100% failure
>
>The question really is for evolutionists to reach some kind of
>consensus on why it is that the plasma of vertebrates fixed at 9 parts
>per thousand of salinity, meaning the necessity to evolve the heavy
>load to bear of an osmoregulatory apparatus, and one which clearly
>took a different line in the Chondrichthys anyway, as Prof Norman
>showed in his fine essay.
which is irrelevant. such a marginal evaluation of evolution, if it's
not explained, is a matter of research.
the question for creationists is why they continue to be creationists
after having failed, for 2000 years, to tell us ANYTHING about nature
at all.
evolution explains how populations change with time
creationism explains nothing, and creationists seem, remarkably, proud
of that record.
creationists think scientists should have ALL the answers before
creationists have ONE answer.
but creationsits are still looking for that first, elusive, answer.
Burkhard
While this is an interesting change to the normal claim that evolution
cannot explain the emergence of good behaviour, I can't quite see how
this follows either.
Leaving aside the difficulty that the definition of good behaviour in
human societies changes much more rapidly than evolution in such a
slowly reproducing species could cope with, and the additional problem
that an acquired behaviour that is "good" in one context can quickly
become "bad" in another, it would assume that good behaviour is _always_
reproductively advantageous. I would find this difficult to argue.
John Harshman
> In any event, I didn't find it a very instructive argument, but if
> it's the best you've got, then okay.
It wasn't an argument at all. But thanks for providing further examples
of your dishonest behavior.
Now, if you would like to provide any evidence for any of your claims, I
would be glad to offer arguments.
Jack Dominey
<d7c8ffe6-969d-4252...@e23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
"Viktor D. Huliganov" <jerzy.ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 28 Lis, 00:07, Jack Dominey <jack.dominey+...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>> In
>> <38d00387-0323-4072-ab98-05b8fd81b...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
>> "Viktor D. Huliganov" <jerzy.jakubow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On 23 Lis, 22:12, Jack Dominey <jack.dominey+...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>> >> In
>> >> <380cf56f-ee63-4537-859d-74c8ea834...@t18g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> "Viktor D. Huliganov" <jerzy.jakubow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >> >But it makes much more sense out of
>> >> >the idea that the sea was created unsalty, and became so after the
>> >> >flood, which was associated with great tectonic upheavals. That is
>> >> >which freshwater fishes did not die out in the flood.
>>
>> >> So you think it makes *more* sense to say that the ability to live in
>> >> saltwater - for both vertebrates and invertebrates, indeed for *every
>> >> living thing in the sea* - appeared after Ye Fludde of Noe? �You've
>> >> created a worse problem than you "solved".
>>
>> >Why?
>>
>> Instead of trying to explain why vertebrates use a particular
>> regulation system, you now need to explain the origin of several
>> different systems in a very short time period.
>
>
>This is never a problem when we can invoke the supernatural.
Absolutely. When you can balance the equations by inserting a step
that says "and then a miracle occurs", the math always works out!
I tend to forget that you're not actually interested in explaining or
understanding the things you post about.
<snip>
>> Not to mention that you now have to explain why the pre-Flood oceans
>> utterly failed to leave the chemical and isotopic evidence of fresh
>> water.
>
>Where would they leave it?
In the sedimentary record.
>Where did the pre-aerobic world leave the chemical and isotopic
>evidence of a nitrogen based repiratory economy?
Again, it's in the sedimentary record. Before the earliest Banded
Iron Formations you don't see the kinds of minerals that form in the
presence of free oxygen
>(And I'd take the
>argument that such organisms exist today as not relevant, as the
>question is not whether they are here today but how do we know the
>whole world had them before the blue-greens?)
Damn hard for aerobic bacteria (much less eukaryotes) to survive in
the absence of oxygen.
>On top of that, I still don't get how the first oxygen producing blue
>green didn't get killed by its own oxygen, as it is usually fatal to
>anaerobes, which science seems to think is all there was at the
>outset.
As long as the environment can take up the free oxygen faster than the
anaerobes can poop it out, they don't have a problem.
>But then we have levels of oxygen going to 35% in the carboniferous,
>according to Dawkins. Where does he think this oxygen has gone now?
This article could give you some clues:
http://www.pnas.org/content/96/20/10955.long
>> >It also caters for the mass trilobite extinctions. They needed to
>> >be at 9 promilles of slainity, and had no innate genetic code for
>> >quickly developing a kidney.
>>
>> And you're digging the hole even deeper. �Why could horseshoe crabs
>> adapt but trilobites couldn't? �Why could octopus and squid and
>> nautulis adapt but ammonites and belemnites and nautilois couldn't?
>
>It's predestination.
Back to "a miracle occurs here", huh?
>The animals set to survive were given the ability
>to switch into a kidney producing mode at an environmental trigger,
>like these lizards on Pod Thingummy.
>
>Why can you tame some animals and not others? Why can some animals
>cope with sub-zero temperatures and not others? Similar questions.
No, they're not similar at all. You claimed to explain the extinction
of trilobites. My question just highlights that your "explanation"
amounts to nothing but special pleading.
>As you probably know, 96% percent of marine species are credited to
>have died in what is wrongly identified as the Permian-Triassic Event.
Wrongly identified? Really? You think the geologists are so
incompetent that they can't tell the difference between Permian and
Triassic rocks? That the paleontologists are so delusional that they
make up differences in the fossils on either side of the boundary?
>> Not to mention the very basic question of why trilobites aren't mixed
>> with modern fauna in the fossil record.
>
>They were dying en masse, which the modern animals were not doing. The
>concentration of trilobite fossils in certain places shows that they
>were incapable of dealing with the increasing salinity. They tried to
>swim away from it into less salt water. The places where they couldn't
>swim away from it is where they died in huge numbers. Other animals
>were not involved in that.
Wait. You're not saying the modern species had the latent genetic
ability to adapt to salt water, you're saying they were magically
transformed at the instant of the salinity event. A latent genetic
ability to grow gills and breath underwater wouldn't do me any good,
only my offspring, and then only if the ability were expressed, i.e.
if they had gills.
You really shouldn't attempt to explain things like this. You have to
keep multiplying the miracles.
>> >The lizards on the two Croatian islands, Pod Kopiste and Pod Whatever,
>> >which Dawkins references in his "before our very eyes" chapter pretty
>> >much in the middle of TGSOE, in only fifteen generations had ev-loved
>> >the mechanism to utilise their Harry Caecums for a vegetarian
>> >lifestyle. DO you think they all developed that extra info in fifteen
>> >generations?
>>
>> Since you are mentioning this "extra info" you must have some
>> measurement, yes?
>
>Just going by what Dawkins writes. I didn't measure it.
Then to answer your question, sure, why not? The mechanism wasn't
present in the parent population and it's there now.
>> >Is the mutation rate so high? Or was it a switch that
>> >brought on pre-existant dormant info in the gene to play?
>>
>> How much mutation was needed? �Do you have any idea?
>
>Not much, but RD reports it as a big deal.
I don't know much about genetics, but I do know enough to recognize
that your alternatives ("mutation" vs. "switch") are so oversimplified
as to be nonsense. Yes, I do expect that mutation was involved - the
island lizards are genetically distinct from the mainland population.
As to the nature of the mutation(s), I have no information. A single
change in the timing of expression of some genes in the lizards'
embryonic development may be sufficient to account for the resulting
change in their intestines.
>> <snip>
>>
>> >> >It also explains why migratory fishes such as the salmon, need to go
>> >> >to freshwater to breed. They are a living clue of this. Eels appear, at
>> >> >face value, to do the reverse, and go all the way to the Sargasso sea
>> >> >to breed, but in fact they do this in deep water next to subterranean
>> >> >vents which pump out into the sea exceptionally clean water.
>>
>> >> What is your source for this information? �The info I found indicates
>> >> that the spawning locations are not known. �And the subterranean vents
>> >> I've heard of pump out anything but "exceptionally clean water" (what
>> >> does that mean, anyway? �Fresh water?)
>>
>> >I heard that the sea would be more salty if it were not replenished by
>> >less saline water from subterranean aquifers.
>>
>> Heard where?
>
>On here somewhere, several years ago. What's the prevailing view these
>days?
You're dodging. "but in fact they do this in deep water next to
subterranean vents which pump out into the sea exceptionally clean
water."
Do you have any actual facts, or are you just blustering?
You know what happens when a tiny piece of crust moves a few feet,
right? You are talking about an event several orders of magnitude
bigger. Breaking up a supercontinent on human time scales would wrack
the earth - the whole earth, not just little parts - with quakes
bigger than any recorded. The Genesis reference to Peleg somehow
seems to omit the parts about their brick buildings being shattered
all the time and their tents falling down and the constant landslides
and slumps and rivers changing course and the air turning sulfurous
and hot and volcanoes blowing their tops and forests burning and most
of the earth being rendered uninhabitable by plants and animals on
account of the cooling lava everywhere. Oh, and the fact that the
weather was utterly different from year to year, so the droughts and
floods and frosts and heat waves made growing crops impossible. Funny
how they didn't think that stuff was important, huh?
Kent Paul Dolan
> I have produced a review of Richard Dawkins'
> latest blockbuster on my blog.
An invincibly ignorant pissant wrote that review.
Thanks for taking credit for it, buffoon, to save
the reputations of your fellow ignorami.
xanthian.