Intelligent Design experiment recretated

[Rolf]

When the designer decided to create flying creatures, he, like any other
designer, had to make some experiments.

A similar experiment is described here

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111017214919.htm

Rolf

PS. If your designer is God, don't bother with it. You already know it all
and are unteachable.
If your designer is not God, what is it? (Hint: learn some science.)

[Glenn]

"Rolf" <rolf.a...@tele2.no> wrote in message
news:j7j5u8$59d$1...@news.albasani.net...

It is it, and that is it. Are you bunkin with Sadovnik?

[Kalkidas]

On 10/17/2011 11:22 PM, Rolf wrote:
> When the designer decided to create flying creatures, he, like any other
> designer, had to make some experiments.
>
> A similar experiment is described here
>
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111017214919.htm
>
> Rolf

I particularly like the statement "Using robot models could play a
useful role in studying the origins of flight, particularly since fossil
evidence is so limited, the researchers noted."

In other words, we don't have any real evidence of how flight supposedly
"evolved", so we're doing the only thing we can: we're modelling flight
using intelligent design while still pretending that it "evolved".

[Robert Camp]

"Limited" = none? Was there a paper somewhere that I missed?

RLC

[Randy C]

How does using "intelligent design" to study something imply that the
thing being studied isn't a natural phenomenon?

When people use intelligently designed computers to make predictions
about the weather, is the weather suddenly the result of intelligent
design?

[Burkhard]

Every time you board an airplane, you rely on the designer to have
correctly modelled the "accidental" collusion of birds with the
engine in a simulation. That it is a designed simulation of an
"accidental" event does not in any way diminish the correctness of the
analysis - so far at least, our planes stay in the air.

If your computer crashes because you accidentally typed some bad
commands, the person in the call centre will try to replicate the
event as part of the diagnostic - that this time, you are directed to
carry out certain steps for what was originally an accidental event
does not make the diagnosis invalid.

If you accidentally dropped your key and want to find where it is
dropping a similar shaped object is a good search strategy - athe the
second time round, you intentionally drop the object rather than
accidentally does not matter

If we investigate a suspicious fire and all we have is a door with a
significant burn pattern, we try to recreate that pattern modelling
both an intentionally planned and an accidental fire - that the
"replication of an accidental fire" is now a planned (designed) action
itself, does not in anyway diminish the relevance and of the test and
the probative value of the results, and is therefore standard
procedure in forensic labs around the world. (Ted S. Ferry: Modern
accident investigation and analysis p.146)

[Schenck]

I agree that the statement is interesting, but its interesting because
it's so terrible wrong. We have a large range of fossils showing
various stages in the evolution of flight in vertebrates. Bats might
have a bit of a spotty record, but certainly the birdline evidence is
great.

[r norman]

Schenk's criticism of Kalkidas is quite justified, but not exactly for
the reason cited. We do not have good answers on the most important
question about the origin of bird flight: tree-down vs. ground-up? It
is quite possible that the robot in question might have been designed
based on Ken Dial's work with the Chukar Partridge establishing
important evidence for the group-up hypothesis: wings make ground
running easier especially up gradients.

ScienceDaily, as with most popular science magazines and scientific
press releases, is not always a good way of seeing just what the basis
or significance of a research program is. In this case I am too lazy
to investigate the original published research described, but it seems
likely that Dial's work was an inspiration.

[Earle Jones]

In article <j7j5u8$59d$1...@news.albasani.net>,

"Rolf" <rolf.a...@tele2.no> wrote:

> When the designer decided to create flying creatures, he, like any other
> designer, had to make some experiments.

*
Omniscient beings do not need to do experiments.

earle
*

[Steven L.]

"Randy C" <randy...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ea19cbfb-6e3e-4696...@v1g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:

Bad argument.

They use computers to create *simulations* of a natural phenomenon--the
weather. And they try hard to accurately model the actual dynamics of
the weather.

The robot in this article wasn't intended as a simulacrum of any actual
species or family of species, but as an experiment in robot design.

Its relevance to the natural history of flying creatures on Earth is
dubious. Coincidental at best. About as valuable as trying to
understand how birds fly by constructing a hang glider.




-- Steven L.

[Frank J]

On Oct 18, 2:22 am, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:
> When the designer decided to create flying creatures, he, like any other
> designer, had to make some experiments.
>
> A similar experiment is described here
>
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111017214919.htm
>
> Rolf
>
> PS. If your designer is God, don't bother with it. You already know it all
> and are unteachable.

Ken Miller freely admits that the designer is God, and is very willing
to consider any testable explanation of what He did, when and how. So
far all he has seen concludes evolution, so he's fine with that.

> If your designer is not God, what is it? (Hint: learn some science.)

Michael Behe admits *wanting* to believe that the designer (the one he
claims to have caught red handed) is God, but insists that he's
unsure. And he *has* learned plenty of science. Enough to misrepresent
evolution effectively to nonscientists while forcing his critics (e.g.
Miller) to counter with arguments that are too technical for most
nonscientists to follow. So the net effect is that Behe's misleading
sound bites usually "stick" and the refutations don't.

[Steven L.]

"Frank J" <fc...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:8da2dfaf-4b36-487b...@a12g2000vbz.googlegroups.com:

> On Oct 18, 2:22 am, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:
> > When the designer decided to create flying creatures, he, like any other
> > designer, had to make some experiments.
> >
> > A similar experiment is described here
> >
> > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111017214919.htm
> >
> > Rolf
> >
> > PS. If your designer is God, don't bother with it. You already know it all
> > and are unteachable.
>
> Ken Miller freely admits that the designer is God, and is very willing
> to consider any testable explanation of what He did, when and how. So
> far all he has seen concludes evolution, so he's fine with that.

That's because Ken Miller said that he is willing to accept that *Man*
wasn't the purposeful creation of God, rather just some highly
intelligent species capable of accepting God's teachings. Miller has to
accept that, because he knows of all the random forcing functions in the
environment, from meteorites to continental drift.

To Miller, God wouldn't have minded giving the Ten Commandments to
dromeaeosaurs instead of to hairless apes.

But that's really pulling Christianity back a ways. It's practically a
new replacement myth for Genesis.

> Michael Behe admits *wanting* to believe that the designer (the one he
> claims to have caught red handed) is God, but insists that he's
> unsure. And he *has* learned plenty of science. Enough to misrepresent
> evolution effectively to nonscientists while forcing his critics (e.g.
> Miller) to counter with arguments that are too technical for most
> nonscientists to follow. So the net effect is that Behe's misleading
> sound bites usually "stick" and the refutations don't.

Most non-scientists don't really care about the technical arguments
anyway. What they do care about in their hearts is metaphysical: Where
does God fit into all this? And isn't "natural selection" a euphemism
for savagery?

If they had a satisfactory answer to those questions from men like Ken
Miller and Francis Collins and Karl Giberson and Francisco Ayala, they
wouldn't be so susceptible to Behe's "God of the gaps" theories.

If I was going to defend the ToE before an audience of religious
Christians, I would briefly recap the scientific evidence and cut right
to the chase:
What about religion?



-- Steven L.

[Harry K]

On Oct 18, 7:44 am, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> On 10/17/2011 11:22 PM, Rolf wrote:
>
> > When the designer decided to create flying creatures, he, like any other
> > designer, had to make some experiments.
>
> > A similar experiment is described here
>
> >http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111017214919.htm
>
> > Rolf
>
> I particularly like the statement "Using robot models could play a
> useful role in studying the origins of flight, particularly since fossil
> evidence is so limited, the researchers noted."

I replace the part you so cunningly snipped:

>>PS. If your designer is God, don't bother with it. You already know it all
and are unteachable.
If your designer is not God, what is it? (Hint: learn some science.)


>

> In other words, we don't have any real evidence of how flight supposedly
> "evolved", so we're doing the only thing we can: we're modelling flight
> using intelligent design while still pretending that it "evolved".

Thanks for confirming his obsrvation about "being unteachable".

Harry K

[HaShem Rules]

On Oct 18, 2:22 am, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:

> When the designer decided to create flying creatures, he, like any other
> designer, had to make some experiments.

There was no expirementing with them....

>
> A similar experiment is described here
>
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111017214919.htm

The legions of HaShem seeded the Earth, with life from their home
planets.
From the bottom of the ocean to the highest flying birds.....

Everything that lives upon the, once barren Earth, was seeded.
NO LIVING THING just 'popped', into
existence....

>
> Rolf
>
> PS. If your designer is God, don't bother with it. You already know it all
> and are unteachable.
> If your designer is not God, what is it? (Hint: learn some science.)

I would like to share "my know it all, and knowing HaShem" with
you....

The designer is the Omnipotent/Almighty God. Not the generic Supreme/
Omniscient, Mighty, false God, Gods, of ALL religions....


~>
We are 99.8% Neanderthal genome! How the hell did that happen?

[Boikat]

On Oct 19, 1:06 pm, HaShem Rules <01910infin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 18, 2:22 am, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:
>
> > When the designer decided to create flying creatures, he, like any other
> > designer, had to make some experiments.
>
> There was no expirementing with them....
>
>
>
> > A similar experiment is described here
>
> >http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111017214919.htm
>
> The legions of HaShem seeded the Earth, with life from their home
> planets.

Oh look! The Mother Ship drom Woo-Woo planet has landed!

> From the bottom of the ocean to the highest flying birds.....
>
> Everything that lives upon the, once barren Earth,  was seeded.
> NO LIVING THING just 'popped', into
> existence....

Only religious fanatics believe that. The ToE proposes
diversification through imperfect genetic replication and differential
reproductive success and natural selection through time.

>
>
>
> > Rolf
>
> > PS. If your designer is God, don't bother with it. You already know it all
> > and are unteachable.
> > If your designer is not God, what is it? (Hint: learn some science.)
>
> I would like to share "my know it all, and knowing HaShem" with
> you....

Then you should look for a news group of web site that specializes in
fantasies and science fiction.

>
> The designer is the Omnipotent/Almighty God. Not the generic Supreme/
> Omniscient, Mighty, false God, Gods, of  ALL  religions....

Evidence?

>
> ~>
> We are 99.8% Neanderthal genome! How the hell did that happen?

Again, you demonstrate thet you are completely ignmorant of the whol
genetics thing.

Boikat

[Rolf]

That is an argument that can be made, but is it possible to believe in an
omniscience like that? Can't we reject that out of hand simply by looking
around us: What omniscient 'being' with some self-respect would be
responsible for a madhouse like planet Earth?

The other planets, fine, just like they should be, but this one? I woudn't
let anyone know if I had made it!

Rolf

> earle
> *

[HaShem Rules]

Is the reality of Islam and Judaism a fantasy....?
Is their origin science fiction...?

Genesis 16, Islam...
Genesis 17, Judaism....

>
>
>
> > The designer is the Omnipotent/Almighty God. Not the generic Supreme/
> > Omniscient, Mighty, false God, Gods, of  ALL  religions....
>
> Evidence?

"I am the Almighty God. and there is none else!" (HaShem)

You find another Almighty God and show it me....

All Mighty, Supreme Being, Omniscient angel, Lucifer, in the
guise of Allah, doesn't count. Neither does any other Omniscient,
'creator' god....

>
> > ~>
> > We are 99.8% Neanderthal genome! How the hell did that happen?
>
> Again, you demonstrate thet you are completely ignmorant of the whol
> genetics thing.

How about the people in the wilderness that Cain thought would kill
him?
Who the hell do you think they were?

HINT....
The Neanderthal ended up in Northern Israel, 60.000 years ago.....
Never got any smarter nor prettier, until "Cain lay with his wife".
And borne the first Modern HOMO Sapien. The Cro-Magnon.
>
> Boikat

There is a hiearchy at play on the Earth.....
Islam, Judaism and crop markings, are a part of it.....

[HaShem Rules]

On Oct 19, 5:28 pm, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:
> Earle Jones wrote:

> > In article <j7j5u8$59...@news.albasani.net>,

> >  "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:
>
> >> When the designer decided to create flying creatures, he, like any
> >> other designer, had to make some experiments.
>
> > *
> > Omniscient beings do not need to do experiments.
>
> That is an argument that can be made, but is it possible to believe in an
> omniscience like that? Can't we reject that out of hand simply by looking
> around us: What omniscient 'being' with some self-respect would be
> responsible for a madhouse like planet Earth?

They seeded it, after HaShem made the oceans and an atmosphere....

Where do you think the Dinosaurs came from? Another planet....

>
> The other planets, fine, just like they should be, but this one? I woudn't
> let anyone know if I had made it!

It formed, not to remain barren. He wanted to have His son born to
a virgin He would make. He chose the barren earth.....
>
> Rolf
>
>
>
> > earle
> > *- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Harry K]

> Islam, Judaism and crop markings, are a part of it.....- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

YOu are good for belly laughs, that I will give you.

Harry K

[Harry K]

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

And took 4.5 billion years to do it according to the scientific
records. Very incompetent god that one.

Harry K

[Earle Jones]

In article <j7nfd1$uqm$1...@news.albasani.net>,

*
Can't argue with that!

earle
*

[Earle Jones]

In article
<b3cc1561-6265-4f7a...@p14g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,

*
"Incompetent" ain't the word for it, Harry!

George Carlin had it right:

"But I want you to know, I want you to know something, this is
sincere, I want you to know, when it comes to believing in god -- I
really tried. I really, really tried. I tried to believe that
there is a god who created each one of us in his own image and
likeness, loves us very much and keeps a close eye on things. I
really tried to believe that, but I gotta tell you, the longer you
live, the more you look around, the more you realize -- something
is FUCKED-UP. Something is WRONG here. War, disease, death,
destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption and
the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is NOT good
work. If this is the best god can do, I am NOT impressed. Results
like these do not belong on the resume of a supreme being. This is
the kind of shit you'd expect from an office temp with a bad
attitude. And just between you and me, in any decently run
universe, this guy would have been out on his all-powerful ass a
long time ago."

--George Carlin

earle
*

[Earle Jones]

In article
<8693fcbc-fb4b-4d1d...@x20g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,

*
No shit??

earle
*

[Earle Jones]

In article
<46da686d-418e-48a9...@n13g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,

*
If there are no other gods, why does the first commandment say:

"Thou shall have no other gods before me."

If there were no other gods, this would be ridiculous.

earle
*

[jillery]

Do you think you would have done any better?

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 14:14:07 -0400, jillery wrote
(in article <k6p0a7dvemluqa2uu...@4ax.com>):

Well, for one thing I'd have kept a few lightening bolts in reserve so that I
could properly smite the likes of Ray-ray and Pags. Ain't nothing like
vaporizing a Liar for Jesus or two to let the others know that that kinda
stuff ain't gonna be tolerated.

--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

[AGWFacts]

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 08:22:43 +0200, "Rolf" <rolf.a...@tele2.no>

wrote:

> When the designer decided to create flying creatures, he, like any other

"He?" Gods have penises?

> designer, had to make some experiments.
>

> A similar experiment is described here
>
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111017214919.htm
>

> Rolf
>
> PS. If your designer is God, don't bother with it. You already know it all
> and are unteachable.
> If your designer is not God, what is it? (Hint: learn some science.)

Now they should put the robot in the freezer and see if the wings
keep it warmer. :-)


--
TRUTH NEEDS ALLIES!
http://epa.gov/climatechange/
The government that governs least governs best.

[AGWFacts]

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 07:44:54 -0700, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:

> On 10/17/2011 11:22 PM, Rolf wrote:
> > When the designer decided to create flying creatures, he, like any other
> > designer, had to make some experiments.
> >
> > A similar experiment is described here
> >
> > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111017214919.htm
> >
> > Rolf

> I particularly like the statement "Using robot models could play a
> useful role in studying the origins of flight, particularly since fossil
> evidence is so limited, the researchers noted."

Your death cult's gurus were convicted of raping children, murder,
kidnapping, and robbing people; they were sent to prison for those
crimes.

> In other words, we don't have any real evidence of how flight supposedly
> evolved,

There are over 30,000 peer reviewed scince papers on the subject
that shows how flight evolved, independantly, at least five times.

> so we're doing the only thing we can: we're modelling flight
> using intelligent design while still pretending that it evolved.

So, if flight did not evolve, why do things fly?

[HaShem Rules]

On Oct 19, 2:25 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> On Oct 19, 1:06 pm, HaShem Rules <01910infin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 18, 2:22 am, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:
>
> > > When the designer decided to create flying creatures, he, like any other
> > > designer, had to make some experiments.
>
> > There was no expirementing with them....
>
> > > A similar experiment is described here
>
> > >http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111017214919.htm
>
> > The legions of HaShem seeded the Earth, with life from their home
> > planets.
>
> Oh look! The Mother Ship drom Woo-Woo planet has landed!

It won't land. It's 1500 cubic miles, in size. Measured in "the
Apocalypse". OOOOOOooooooo

>
> > From the bottom of the ocean to the highest flying birds.....
>
> > Everything that lives upon the, once barren Earth, was seeded.
> > NO LIVING THING just 'popped', into
> > existence....
>
> Only religious fanatics believe that.

I'm not religious! I respect and am, in awe, at the Creator beyond
the stars. His reason and motive for making the natural creation.
To have a son born into flesh. To a virgin He would make....

You see, the Almighty is a non corporeal, psyche....

He's all about technology, genetics, and psychology...
No worship need apply....

> The ToE proposes diversification through imperfect genetic
> replication and differential reproductive success and natural
> selection through time.

There were no genetics on a barren planet.....
It's appearence certainly isn't random....

>
> > > Rolf
>
> > > PS. If your designer is God, don't bother with it. You already know it all
> > > and are unteachable.
> > > If your designer is not God, what is it? (Hint: learn some science.)
>
> > I would like to share "my know it all, and knowing HaShem" with
> > you....
>
> Then you should look for a news group of web site that specializes in
> fantasies and science fiction.

You're ignorant of reality.....

>
>
>
> > The designer is the Omnipotent/Almighty God. Not the generic Supreme/
> > Omniscient, Mighty, false God, Gods, of ALL religions....
>
> Evidence?

“I am the Almighty God. And there is none else.” (HaShem)

Try to find one. (All Mighty Allah doesn't work)

Islam and Judaism exist, don’t they......? Well they have an
origin too....

Genesis 16, Islam....
<Isaiah 14:12. Meet the angel in Genesis 16>....

Genesis 17, Judaism. Meet the Almighty...
<jewishvirtuallibrary.org> The only place you meet
the Almighty HaShem. Not just the generic God of
all false religions...

>
>
>
> > ~>
> > We are 99.8% Neanderthal genome! How the hell did that happen?
>
Again, you demonstrate thet you are completely ignmorant of the whol
genetics thing.

(I learned my lesson with spelling. I did exactly the same thing.
And Pete Charest wrote in a reply; “Hey Twonky. What’s this?”

I said; "I couldn't find my glasses". My entire reply was misspelled..
Geeeeezzzz.....

That was years ago on “alt.paranormal.crop-circles”.....

Now I always compose a reply in an app, with a spell checker....
I don't know why Google doesn't provide one....

Anyway....
I am not ignorant of genetics. You are....

buzzintechnology.com/2010/05/neanderthal-genome-sequenced-we-are-all-a-
bit-of-caveman
Neanderthal Genome Sequenced: We Are All a Bit of Caveman ...

A major challenge in sequencing the Neanderthal genome is the risk of
contamination from moder human as the genomes of Neanderthal and
modern human are ~99.8% identical.

(end)

"moder?"

"A 'bit' of a cave man?"

The Neanderthal weren't "cavemen/women". They were humans
with low, stagnant intelligence. Never got any smarter....

They were afraid of the dark, and huddled together in groups
at night....
>
> Boikat

HaShem Rules....

The world should recognize Him. Call on His name. And He
will reply....

<the spell checker got a work out>

[HaShem Rules]

On Oct 19, 5:28 pm, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:

> Earle Jones wrote:
> > In article <j7j5u8$59...@news.albasani.net>,

> >  "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:
>
> >> When the designer decided to create flying creatures, he, like any
> >> other designer, had to make some experiments.
>
> > *
> > Omniscient beings do not need to do experiments.
>
> That is an argument that can be made, but is it possible to believe in an
> omniscience like that? Can't we reject that out of hand simply by looking
> around us:

-What omniscient 'being' with some self-respect would be
-responsible for a madhouse like planet Earth?

Lucifer.....

>
> The other planets, fine, just like they should be, but this one? I woudn't
> let anyone know if I had made it!
>
> Rolf
>
>
>
> > earle

[HaShem Rules]

You know, there is only ONE Omnipotent/Almighty God....
All the rest are, at best, Omniscient/Mighty Gods.........

Like Allah says; "Am I not all Mighty?" Yes you are.....
But you are NOT Almighty......

Having ONE Almighty God, does away with all organized religions.
Including Judaism and Christianity....

He told the children of Israel: "I didn't want your worship, nor
sacrifices.
It is you who desired those things. I just wanted to stay with you and
be
your friend." He's my/our friend. No worship need apply.......

Just recognition that He IS, the Creator God. Who wants to be our
friend.

He is beyond the stars. Pure, noncorporeal, psyche.......
We see Him, in an entirely different, 'light'.....

He records our psyche. Upon death, he puts it into a new body. And
"Judgement Day"...

[pnyikos]

On Oct 20, 1:39 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 14:14:07 -0400, jillery wrote

> (in article <k6p0a7dvemluqa2uukk7i13vr3ds2a1...@4ax.com>):

> > On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 08:41:56 -0700 (PDT), Harry K
> > <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Oct 20, 8:25 am, HaShem Rules <01910infin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Oct 19, 5:28 pm, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:
>
> >>>> Earle Jones wrote:
> >>>>> In article <j7j5u8$59...@news.albasani.net>,
> >>>>>  "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> When the designer decided to create flying creatures, he, like any
> >>>>>> other designer, had to make some experiments.
>
> >>>>> *
> >>>>> Omniscient beings do not need to do experiments.
>
> >>>> That is an argument that can be made, but is it possible to believe in an
> >>>> omniscience like that?

"omniscient" is a straw man in the context of Usenet newsgroups where
atheists and agnostics outnumber all the rest. Let's just talk about
something capable of producing our highly flawed universe -- or even
our highly flawed biota.

Jillery, of all people, said it best:

[...]

> > Do you think you would have done any better?

I don't think any product of evolution in this little universe of ours
could have done anywhere near as well. It would take an almost
infinite universe just to produce a being intelligent and powerful
enough to design a universe like ours, much less create it.

> Well, for one thing I'd have kept a few lightening bolts in reserve so that I
> could properly smite the likes of Ray-ray and Pags. Ain't nothing like
> vaporizing a Liar for Jesus or two to let the others know that that kinda
> stuff ain't gonna be tolerated.

Look who was talking on another thread about me putting people on
lists: J.J. "Rip van Winkle" O'Shea, who is starting a list of his
own:

LIARS FOR JESUS

Ray Martinez Tony Pagano

[anyone else?]

I'm not going along with this one. The list is all yours, J.J.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Oct 27, 7:59 pm, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 07:44:54 -0700, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> > On 10/17/2011 11:22 PM, Rolf wrote:
> > > When the designer decided to create flying creatures, he, like any other
> > > designer, had to make some experiments.
>
> > > A similar experiment is described here
>
> > >http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111017214919.htm
>
> > > Rolf
> > I particularly like the statement "Using robot models could play a
> > useful role in studying the origins of flight, particularly since fossil
> > evidence is so limited, the researchers noted."
>
> Your death cult's gurus were convicted of raping children, murder,
> kidnapping, and robbing people; they were sent to prison for those
> crimes.

What gurus of what cult? Very few Roman Catholic priests fit the
concept of "guru." Also only a tiny fraction of a percent of priests
fit the above description.

Besides, a murdering, kidnapping, robbing etc. guru is an oxymoron.

> > In other words, we don't have any real evidence of how flight supposedly
> > evolved,
>
> There are over 30,000 peer reviewed scince papers on the subject
> that shows how flight evolved, independantly, at least five times.

Not "how" flight evolved. "that" flight evolved.

We still have precious little idea of what proto-bats might have
looked like. This is one of my long-term interests, and I still have
not seen a really fleshed-out scenario of how it could have happened
in classical "natural selection" terms. See the following blog and my
contributions at the end:

http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2011/03/visualising_protobats.php

By the way, I know about bats, birds, pterosaurs, and insects. Are
you suggesting flight evolved at least twice independently in
insects? The hypothesis that flight evolved separately twice among
bats (megachiropterans and microchiropterans) is pretty much dead.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
nyikos @ math.sc.edu

[Harry K]

> Do you think you would have done any better?- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

One doesn't have to be able to "do any better" to recognize
incompetence.

Harry K

[jillery]

Perhaps, but such criticisms from people unwilling and/or unable to
give it a go themselves aren't very authoritative. After all, anybody
can ignorantly snipe from the sidelines. ISTM in order to make an
objective judgment of incompetence, one needs an understanding of what
it takes to do that which appears to be done incompetently. ISTM
try-it-yourself is an effective way to get such an understanding,
hence my question. I'm sure there are other ways. Since you seem to
disdain the hands-on approach, on what do you base your authority in
the art and science of planet-making?

[Harry K]

On Nov 7, 11:59 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Nov 2011 20:51:07 -0800 (PST), Harry K
>
>
>
>
>

> the art and science of planet-making?- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

??? so you suggest I turn into a god? Seems to be the drift of that
asinine post.

Harry K

[jillery]

Why get emotional so soon? More accurate to say it's your reply
that's asinine, and dishonest to boot. Where do I suggest that you
turn into a god? Is it because you assume only gods can know how to
build planets? If so, you argue against your prior statement, that
there are ways to recognize their incompentence. I ask you again,
which way did you use?

[Harry K]

> which way did you use?- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

So you just troll on...and on...

bye.

Harry K

[jillery]

Your loss.

[jillery]

What is a troll but someone who makes baseless, unsubstantiated
assertions, and then spews epithets and runs away the minute someone
challenges him on it?

[jillery]

So what was your point in replying to a weeks old post? Talk about
projecting!

[pnyikos]

> One doesn't have to be able to "do any better" to recognize
> incompetence.

...said the tyro to the chess champion who lost to Deep Thought. :-)

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Nov 9, 3:36 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Nov 2011 07:47:02 -0800 (PST), Harry K
>
>
>
>
>
> <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 9, 7:00 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 8 Nov 2011 12:59:45 -0800 (PST), Harry K
>
> >> <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Nov 7, 11:59 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, 7 Nov 2011 20:51:07 -0800 (PST), Harry K
>
> >> >> <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >On Oct 20, 10:14 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 08:41:56 -0700 (PDT), Harry K
>
> >> >> >> <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >On Oct 20, 8:25 am, HaShem Rules <01910infin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On Oct 19, 5:28 pm, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> > Earle Jones wrote:
> >> >> >> >> > > In article <j7j5u8$59...@news.albasani.net>,
> >> >> >> >> > >  "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> > >> When the designer decided to create flying creatures, he, like any
> >> >> >> >> > >> other designer, had to make some experiments.

[...]

> >> >> >> >And took 4.5 billion years to do it according to the scientific
> >> >> >> >records.  Very incompetent god that one.
>
> >> >> >> Do you think you would have done any better?

Well put, as I've already noted.

> >> >> >One doesn't have to be able to "do any better" to recognize
> >> >> >incompetence.
>
> >> >> >Harry K
>
> >> >> Perhaps, but such criticisms from people unwilling and/or unable to
> >> >> give it a go themselves aren't very authoritative.  After all, anybody
> >> >> can ignorantly snipe from the sidelines.  ISTM in order to make an
> >> >> objective judgment of incompetence, one needs an understanding of what
> >> >> it takes to do that which appears to be done incompetently.  ISTM
> >> >> try-it-yourself is an effective way to get such an understanding,
> >> >> hence my question.  I'm sure there are other ways.  Since you seem to
> >> >> disdain the hands-on approach, on what do you base your authority in
> >> >> the art and science of planet-making?

Jillery shows admirable restraint here. [S]he isn't all bad, not by a
long shot.

> >> >??? so you suggest I turn into a god?  Seems to be the drift of that
> >> >asinine post.
>
> >> >Harry K
>
> >> Why get emotional so soon?  More accurate to say it's your reply
> >> that's asinine, and dishonest to boot.  Where do I suggest that you
> >> turn into a god?  Is it because you assume only gods can know how to
> >> build planets?  If so, you argue against your prior statement, that
> >> there are ways to recognize their incompentence.  I ask you again,
> >> which way did you use?

> >So you just troll on...and on...

If anyone is trolling here, it is Harry K.

So this is *at best* the pot calling the kettle black. And if Harry
K. does not know about the dark side of "jillery" [see below], it's a
case of a man in a glass house throwing stones.

> >bye.
>
> >Harry K
>
> What is a troll but someone who makes baseless, unsubstantiated
> assertions, and then spews epithets and runs away the minute someone
> challenges him on it?

Indeed, what is a jillery who makes baseless, unsubstantiated
assertions accusing me of trolling, then runs away with an insincere
"waiting for you to post something on-topic" [or words to that effect]
parting shot when shown to be wrong?

Go on, jillery, deny you ever did such a thing--and then do a repeat
performance as soon as I post documentation.

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

Why do I feel the need to look for a "kick me" sign on my back?

Found it!