amazing
All-seeing-I
Many of you are SO ecstatic; Even near orgasm, that I have finally
been shown wrong for once.
This does not mean I have been wrong in the past.
As long as there is more then a single explanation for man's origins
all you have is a theory.
Get over it.
Boikat
> Many of you are SO ecstatic; Even near orgasm, that I have finally
> been shown wrong for once.
More than once, Mr. Cambrian Mammal. In fact most of your claims have
been shown to be wrong. What is astounding is that you had a
momentary laps of personality, and for a fleeting moment had enough
backbone to admit it.
>
> This does not mean I have been wrong in the past.
Cambrian mammal = trilobite? Does that ring a bell?
Kent Hovind was a great scientist who made many great discoveries. Do
tell.
Hitler's understanding of the ToE was made maifest in WWI. Hitler was
a time traveler?
War's have been fought because science dispelled some aspect of some
religious belief. And do not give me any of that "culture war" crap.
BTW, who fired the first shot, the "evil" evolutionists,all swagged
out in their camouflaged lab coats, or the fanatical religious
zealots?
Need more examples?
And no, you've not defended any of these, or the long list of other
idiotic, and *wrong* claims you've made.
>
> As long as there is more then a single explanation for man's origins
> all you have is a theory.
The important thing to note, is that only one theory has any
supporting evidence, so that's the one that counts. That would be the
theory of evolution.
>
> Get over it.
Grow up, sissy-boy.
Boikat
IAAH
Here is a little clue for you - what you have
offered in place of the ToE does not rise to the
level of a theory. What you have offered requires
first that people say, in their minds, "First, let
us ignore the evidence that we have..."
That is a bad thing.
In fact, you have barely proposed anything worthy
of being called an hypothesis.
If you can imagine an alternative that you like,
in place of the ToE, that does NOT mean that your
imaginings have equal legitimacy. In fact, from
what you've been spewing forth, it's almost
certain that what you say does NOT have such
legitimacy.
>
> Get over it.
Yes, you certainly should.
--
"I do not pretend to be able to prove that there
is no God. I equally cannot
prove that Satan is a fiction. The Christian god
may exist; so may the gods of
Olympus, or of ancient Egypt, or of Babylon. But
no one of these hypotheses is
more probable than any other: they lie outside the
region of even probable
knowledge, and therefore there is no reason to
consider any of them."
-Bertrand Russell
Dan Listermann
"All-seeing-I" <ap...@email.com> wrote in message
news:902c341b-eb1b-4962...@l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
.
Dana Tweedy
> Many of you are SO ecstatic; Even near orgasm, that I have finally
> been shown wrong for once.
You've been shown wrong hundreds of times. It's actually fairly common
occurance.
>
> This does not mean I have been wrong in the past.
It's that you've been shown wrong in the past that means you were wrong in
the past. That you are wrong again has nothing to do with it.
>
> As long as there is more then a single explanation for man's origins
> all you have is a theory.
A scientific theory is all that's needed. Other explanations are of little
use, as they can't be tested.
>
> Get over it.
It's you, who appears can't get over the fact that evolution is the best
explanation for the evidence
DJt
bpuharic
which theory?
atomic theory?
germ theory of disease?
quantum theory?
heliocentric theory?
because we have all of these...in addition to the theory of evolution
and you haven't said what this 'more than 1 theory' crap is...
fairy tales? myths? old wives' tales? creationism?
Greg G.
> Many of you are SO ecstatic; Even near orgasm, that I have finally
> been shown wrong for once.
You have been shown to be wrong thousands of times. It is just unusual
for you to admit it.
>
> This does not mean I have been wrong in the past.
No, it has nothing at all to do with all the times you were wrong in
the past.
>
> As long as there is more then a single explanation for man's origins
> all you have is a theory.
But there is only a single explanation that is supported by the
evidence.
>
> Get over it.
The evidence means something. Get used to it.
All-Seeing-I
Who gets to decide what is "best"?
All-Seeing-I
All you have is an interpretation of the evidence; Which is only going
to be as reliable as man is; Which is not saying much.
Boikat
People with brains that knows how to use them, which appears to
exclude you, m'kay?
Boikat
Dan Listermann
"All-Seeing-I" <allse...@usa.com> wrote in message
news:13ad4d17-7cc1-4c0f...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
All you have is an interpretation of the scriptures; Which is only going
to be as reliable as man is; Which is not saying much.
.
bpuharic
>Who gets to decide what is "best"?\
well, when science is involved, it's science
if it's creationism involved then the brothers grimm, dr seuss or
madame blavatsky.
Dan Listermann
Anybody who can show better, gets to say what is not best. Key word "show."
.
Dana Tweedy
Those doing the studying. If you can come up with a better explanation,
that fits the evidence, go for it. Maybe you can convince someone that your
explanation is better. From what I've seen so far, that's not very
likely.
DJT
heekster
If you want anyone to take you seriously, you will need to lose this
nihilist imbecility.
bpuharic
one awaits information from the creationist regarding alternatives.
does he think klaatu is going to interpret evidence for us?
Will in New Haven
I do. Now shut up and go away.
--
Will in New Haven
John McKendry
> Many of you are SO ecstatic; Even near orgasm, that I have finally been
> shown wrong for once.
>
No, you misunderstand. The delight is not in the fact that you have
been shown wrong; heck, that happens all the time. The delight is in
the fact that you recognized and acknowledged it. And the sad part
is that you don't understand that you did something good for once.
By our standards, you can be proud of yourself. It takes real courage
to say "I was wrong".
> This does not mean I have been wrong in the past.
>
We've all been wrong in the past. This is all tied up with your
idea that scientists should be ashamed when they change their minds.
people on this group have tried to tell you, over and over, that
scientists only make progress by admitting their mistakes, by modifying
their beliefs in the face of new evidence. What you did is nothing
to be ashamed of.
> As long as there is more then a single explanation for man's origins all
> you have is a theory.
>
This is a whole long argument that starts with pointing out that
a "theory" in science is not the same as an "unsupported wild-ass
guess". I don't feel like starting down that road.
> Get over it.
It's truly sad that you are ashamed of admitting a mistake. You
have it wired up backwards.
John
Boikat
As least the scientific interpretaion *has* evidence. What do you
have? "Ancient texts" that contain myths? Sorry, the vast majority
of claims in those "ancient texts" were once believed to be "fact',
but were shown to be wrong, like the claims of a world wide gobe
covering flood. No evidence = non-event.
> Which is only going
> to be as reliable as man is; Which is not saying much.
It's better than swallowing fairy tales and other myths, hook, line
and sinker, as "fact".
Boikat
Will in New Haven
All you have is the writings of humans thousands of years ago.
Writings in which they claimed to know who and what the creator is and
what the creator wants us to do. Writings in profound disagreement
with one another. Writings which, in many cases where they talk about
history are erroneous. Writings which have huge gaffes in the field of
natural science. Writings which encouraged genocide in their time and
encourage hatred and hostility today.
They were created by fallible humans without the benefit of the hard-
won knowledge we now enjoy. I will take the interpretations of science
over the babble of tribal shamans.
Dana Tweedy
snip
>> The evidence means something. Get used to it.
>
> All you have is an interpretation of the evidence; Which is only going
> to be as reliable as man is; Which is not saying much.
All anyone has is an interpretation of evidence. Science provides one that
can be tested, and is open to anyone. That's why science is a much better
way of interpreting the evidence than any other means.
Your own method, which appears to be simply assuming what you want, and
ignoring anything that contradicts it, seems particularly useless.
DJT
Greg G.
Interpretations of real evidence can be tested. For example, there
were fossils of a fish with a certain type jaw and fossils of an
amphibian with a similar jaw, dated about 40 million years after the
fish fossils. Scientists figured that a transitional fossil might be
found if they could find fossil-bearing rock of an intermediate age
from a shoreline. There are some rocks that fit the bill in
Pennsylvania but its covered by houses and roads so it couldn't be
searched. Then they read that geologists dated some rocks to that age
in north Canada.
Now if creationism was correct, they should have been just as likely
to find fossils of seals, otters, snakes, birds, newts, frogs, and
crocodiles, if not dinosaurs. If they did find any such fossils, they
would be rich and famous for overturning evolution. Instead, they
found Tiktaalik, a fish with legs, just like evolution predicted.
All-Seeing-I
> "All-Seeing-I" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in message
Exactly. Now. Who gets to decide which one is right.
All-Seeing-I
Would you know this before or after you slit your wrist and set
yourself on fire?
All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
Who gets to judge which is right and which is wrong.
All-Seeing-I
are you are not doing the same?
You observe something, make up an idea about what you are observing
and then do some tests.
All of which is based inferring. Which is the same as 'assuming'.
Then you claim only you are correct while ignoring everything else.
I see very little difference.
So it boils down to which do you choose to believe. And. Who gets to
decide which is right and which is wrong.
Greg G.
The reality-based person.
bpuharic
you keep your myths
we'll keep science
adios.
Boikat
Those with brains. Sorry, you have demonstrated that you are not
qualified.
Boikat
Boikat
The ones with the brains and knows hoe to use them. That leave you
out.
Boikat
Boikat
What a loving, Christian thing to say. Oh, that's right. You deny
being a "Christian". I guess that leaves "Rectumist".
Boikat
Ron O
> Many of you are SO ecstatic; Even near orgasm, that I have finally
> been shown wrong for once.
>
>
> all you have is a theory.
>
The saddest thing is you wish that you had "just a theory." If you
did you would actually have something that you could support.
Ron Okimoto
Dana Tweedy
> On Nov 28, 7:54 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> All-Seeing-I wrote:
>>
>> snip
>>
>>>> The evidence means something. Get used to it.
>>
>>> All you have is an interpretation of the evidence; Which is only
>>> going to be as reliable as man is; Which is not saying much.
>>
>> All anyone has is an interpretation of evidence. Science provides
>> one that can be tested, and is open to anyone. That's why science is
>> a much better way of interpreting the evidence than any other means.
>>
>> Your own method, which appears to be simply assuming what you want,
>> and ignoring anything that contradicts it, seems particularly
>> useless.
>>
>> DJT
>
> are you are not doing the same?
No, as I've pointed out above, I'm using science, which provides an
objective way of determining which explanation is more likely correct.
>
>
> You observe something, make up an idea about what you are observing
> and then do some tests.
Yes, and the tests indicate if the idea holds water. If it doesn't the
idea is either discarded, or revised.
>
> All of which is based inferring. Which is the same as 'assuming'.
No, inferring is quite different from assuming. If you really think they
are the same, I can see where you are going wrong.
>
> Then you claim only you are correct while ignoring everything else.
Again, that's not what I'm doing. I conclude that the explanation that is
best is the one that most closely fits the evidence. Other ideas must be
evaluated in the same way. If an idea can't be evaluated, it can be safely
discarded.
>
>
> I see very little difference.
That's due to your error above, apparently. You don't understand the
difference between something inferred from the evidence, and something
assumed for personal reasons. When you can't grasp that difference, it
would be very difficult to see the difference between science, and personal
bias.
>
> So it boils down to which do you choose to believe. And. Who gets to
> decide which is right and which is wrong.
Actually, it boils down to what you will accept. If you are willing to let
logic and evidence determine what you will accept, then you can use science,
and be better for it. If you will only accept what you want to believe,
you don't have any basis for letting reality guide your choices. Science
will be useless to you, which seems to be the case with you.
Science allows an objective choice between who is right, and who is wrong.
Your own beliefs do not. That's why you are lost.
DJT
Eric Root
> Many of you are SO ecstatic; Even near orgasm, that I have finally
> been shown wrong for once.
>
> This does not mean I have been wrong in the past.
>
However, you have been wrong in the past, over and over again. Every
time you've posted, and we've replied, we've shown you to be wrong.
Your failure to legitimately rebut has left you the loser every time.
> As long as there is more then a single explanation for man's origins
> all you have is a theory.
>
> Get over it.
Nope, doesn't work that way. The idea that all explanations are
equally likely is just nuts.
Eric Root
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>On Nov 28, 7:54 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> All-Seeing-I wrote:
>>
>> snip
>>
>> >> The evidence means something. Get used to it.
>>
>> > All you have is an interpretation of the evidence; Which is only going
>> > to be as reliable as man is; Which is not saying much.
>>
>> All anyone has is an interpretation of evidence. Science provides one that
>> can be tested, and is open to anyone. That's why science is a much better
>> way of interpreting the evidence than any other means.
>>
>> Your own method, which appears to be simply assuming what you want, and
>> ignoring anything that contradicts it, seems particularly useless.
>>
>> DJT
>
>are you are not doing the same?
>
>
>You observe something, make up an idea about what you are observing
>and then do some tests.
'other than that, mrs lincoln, how did you like the play?
do some tests?? gee...rarely have creationists played such a weak
hand. he disparages tests because creationism, based on myth and
magic, has no use for evidence.
>
>All of which is based inferring. Which is the same as 'assuming'.
>
>Then you claim only you are correct while ignoring everything else.
>
>
>I see very little difference.
tests? gee. with this logic, we'd still be doing aristotle for
physics.
>
>So it boils down to which do you choose to believe. And. Who gets to
>decide which is right and which is wrong.
and what the evidence tells us is right...
and wrong. creationism is wrong
John Harshman
> Many of you are SO ecstatic; Even near orgasm, that I have finally
> been shown wrong for once.
What do you mean "for once"?
> This does not mean I have been wrong in the past.
Nor does it mean you haven't. And in fact you have almost always been wrong.
> As long as there is more then a single explanation for man's origins
> all you have is a theory.
What is that alternative explanation? Does it fit the data better than
the standard one?
> Get over it.
No need to. There really is no alternative that makes sense.
raven1
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>Many of you are SO ecstatic; Even near orgasm, that I have finally
>been shown wrong for once.
I can't recall a single post of yours in which you haven't been
egregiously wrong on at least one (usually several) points.
>This does not mean I have been wrong in the past.
Yet you have, repeatedly, on every topic you try to discuss. Care to
discuss Cambrian mammals again?
>As long as there is more then a single explanation for man's origins
There is only one that holds up to scientific scrutiny. Guess which
one.
>all you have is a theory.
Of course it is. A theory is a data-based descriptive model that makes
predictions, and is testable and falsifiable; it's not an educated
guess, an opinion, or an hypothesis. You've had this explained to you
multiple times. Are you really incapable of learning anything?
>Get over it.
Get a basic education.
raven1
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>On Nov 28, 7:27 pm, "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 28, 7:59 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Many of you are SO ecstatic; Even near orgasm, that I have finally
>> > been shown wrong for once.
>>
>> You have been shown to be wrong thousands of times. It is just unusual
>> for you to admit it.
>>
>>
>>
>> > This does not mean I have been wrong in the past.
>>
>> No, it has nothing at all to do with all the times you were wrong in
>> the past.
>>
>>
>>
>> > As long as there is more then a single explanation for man's origins
>> > all you have is a theory.
>>
>> But there is only a single explanation that is supported by the
>> evidence.
>>
>>
>>
>> > Get over it.
>>
>> The evidence means something. Get used to it.
>
>All you have is an interpretation of the evidence; Which is only going
>to be as reliable as man is; Which is not saying much.
Nihilism is such an unproductive outlook.
raven1
Wrong question. The correct question is "which one is supported by the
evidence?".
Dan Listermann
"All-Seeing-I" <allse...@usa.com> wrote in message
news:8e74dfbe-a3f7-4f5f...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Maybe the bronze age goater herders that seem to impress you.
.
Friar Broccoli
> Many of you are SO ecstatic; Even near orgasm, that I have finally
> been shown wrong for once.
.
> This does not mean I have been wrong in the past.
>
> As long as there is more then a single explanation for man's origins
> all you have is a theory.
>
> Get over it.
Pride is the cardinal of the seven deadly sins,
the source from which the others spring.
Stuart
> Many of you are SO ecstatic; Even near orgasm,
You flatter yourself.
that I have finally
> been shown wrong for once.
>
For once?
An you wonder why YOO keeps dogging you?
Stuart
Mike Dworetsky
> Many of you are SO ecstatic; Even near orgasm, that I have finally
> been shown wrong for once.
Once???
>
> This does not mean I have been wrong in the past.
>
It may not mean it, but it is usually a very good bet that a Madman Adman
All-Seeing-I post will contain massive errors, misunderstandings, and wild
imaginings without foundation. So in general if I see one of your posts, I
automatically know it will probably be wrong. Very high probability.
> As long as there is more then a single explanation for man's origins
> all you have is a theory.
If you think theory means "wild-assed guess" and not as good as "God
performs miracles", I invite you to test the *theory* of gravity by stepping
off the top of a ten-storey building. God will undoubtedly perform a
miracle, allowing you to float gently and safely to the ground.
Oh. No parachutes or hang-glider wings allowed. We want to see a real
miracle.
>
> Get over it.
Get over what?
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Ye Old One
>
>Many of you are SO ecstatic; Even near orgasm, that I have finally
>been shown wrong for once.
What do you mean "for once"?
You have been proven wrong so many times I've lost count.
In fact, have you ever been proven right on anything?
>
>This does not mean I have been wrong in the past.
>
>As long as there is more then a single explanation for man's origins
>all you have is a theory.
Look up the meaning of a scientific theory.
>
>Get over it.
row up.
--
Bob.
When D-G made Madman out of clay he forgot to magic the brain. I think
that explains everything.
Ye Old One
>On Nov 28, 7:27 pm, "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 28, 7:59 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Many of you are SO ecstatic; Even near orgasm, that I have finally
>> > been shown wrong for once.
>>
>> You have been shown to be wrong thousands of times. It is just unusual
>> for you to admit it.
>>
>>
>>
>> > This does not mean I have been wrong in the past.
>>
>> No, it has nothing at all to do with all the times you were wrong in
>> the past.
>>
>>
>>
>> > As long as there is more then a single explanation for man's origins
>> > all you have is a theory.
>>
>> But there is only a single explanation that is supported by the
>> evidence.
>>
>>
>>
>> > Get over it.
>>
>> The evidence means something. Get used to it.
>
>All you have is an interpretation of the evidence; Which is only going
>to be as reliable as man is; Which is not saying much.
Do not judge man, as a whole, by yourself.
--
Bob.
Everyone is entitled to be stupid but you're abusing the privilege.
Ye Old One
<allse...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Nov 28, 7:26 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> All-seeing-I wrote:
>> > Many of you are SO ecstatic; Even near orgasm, that I have finally
>> > been shown wrong for once.
>>
>> You've been shown wrong hundreds of times. It's actually fairly common
>> occurance.
>>
>>
>>
>> > This does not mean I have been wrong in the past.
>>
>> It's that you've been shown wrong in the past that means you were wrong in
>> the past. That you are wrong again has nothing to do with it.
>>
>>
>>
>> > As long as there is more then a single explanation for man's origins
>> > all you have is a theory.
>>
>> A scientific theory is all that's needed. Other explanations are of little
>> use, as they can't be tested.
>>
>>
>>
>> > Get over it.
>>
>> It's you, who appears can't get over the fact that evolution is the best
>> explanation for the evidence
>>
>> DJt
>
>Who gets to decide what is "best"?
Reality.
Science builds a model of reality which must explain, through
scientific theory, how things work. As new discoveries are mad this
model (theory) does one of two things, it either explains the new
data or it fails. Sure, the model is constantly being tweaked but that
doesn't make it any less right.
Religion built a model, it failed to explain anything without recourse
to the cries of "goddidit". It therefore failed from the outset.
You are backing a horse that not only lost the race, it didn't even
get out of the stables.
--
Bob.
You have not been charged for this lesson - learn from it rather than
continuing to make a fool of yourself.
Bruce Stephens
> Many of you are SO ecstatic; Even near orgasm, that I have finally
> been shown wrong for once.
>
> This does not mean I have been wrong in the past.
>
> As long as there is more then a single explanation for man's origins
> all you have is a theory.
>
> Get over it.
If you permit aliens, magic, etc., then you can always produce
alternative explanations. The question's how good those explanations
are. So far, the evolution is the best.
Burkhard
> On Nov 28, 7:26 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > All-seeing-I wrote:
> > > been shown wrong for once.
>
> > occurance.
>
>
> > the past. That you are wrong again has nothing to do with it.
>
> > > all you have is a theory.
>
> > use, as they can't be tested.
>
> > > Get over it.
>
> > It's you, who appears can't get over the fact that evolution is the best
> > explanation for the evidence
>
> > DJt
>
> Who gets to decide what is "best"?
Nature, ultimately. The best theory, relative to a set of
observations, is the one that explains more of the data than its
competitor theories, and/or uses fewer ad hoc assumptions to deal with
inconsistent data, postulates the fewest possible entities, and
creates the largest number of new solvable research questions that
guide further research.
chris thompson
> Many of you are SO ecstatic; Even near orgasm, that I have finally
> been shown wrong for once.
>
>
> all you have is a theory.
>
But your reasoning is almost always as follows: since evolutionary
theory hasn't gotten everything right, it must be wrong about
everything.
<creak> "OW!"
<creak> "OW!"
<creak> "OW!"
<BANG!!!>
(Sound of Madman being hoist on his own petard)
Chris
Burkhard
<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> On Nov 28, 8:41 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 28, 7:26 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Many of you are SO ecstatic; Even near orgasm, that I have finally
> > > > been shown wrong for once.
>
> > > occurance.
>
>
> > > the past. That you are wrong again has nothing to do with it.
>
> > > > all you have is a theory.
>
> > > use, as they can't be tested.
>
> > > > Get over it.
>
> > > It's you, who appears can't get over the fact that evolution is the best
> > > explanation for the evidence
>
> > > DJt
>
> > Who gets to decide what is "best"?
>
Just as long as you remember that that's only while I'm away on
sabbatical!
Burkhard
> On Nov 28, 7:54 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > All-Seeing-I wrote:
>
> > snip
>
> > >> The evidence means something. Get used to it.
>
> > > All you have is an interpretation of the evidence; Which is only going
> > > to be as reliable as man is; Which is not saying much.
>
> > All anyone has is an interpretation of evidence. Science provides one that
> > can be tested, and is open to anyone. That's why science is a much better
> > way of interpreting the evidence than any other means.
>
> > Your own method, which appears to be simply assuming what you want, and
> > ignoring anything that contradicts it, seems particularly useless.
>
> > DJT
>
> are you are not doing the same?
>
> You observe something, make up an idea about what you are observing
> and then do some tests.
>
> All of which is based inferring. Which is the same as 'assuming'.
Quite on the contrary, The opposite, as a matter of fact. If you did
neither observation nor testing, that would be assuming
>
> Then you claim only you are correct while ignoring everything else.
>
Not if this "everything else" was also observed and tested.
> I see very little difference.
>
yes, blindness does this to you
> So it boils down to which do you choose to believe.
No, it boils down to: whhich explanation fits the observations better
and withstaands teh testing
>And. Who gets to
> decide which is right and which is wrong.
Nature - if you are wrong, your tests will tell
Eric Root
> Many of you are SO ecstatic; Even near orgasm, that I have finally
> been shown wrong for once.
>
Boy, you are clueless. We are ecstatic that you _admitted_ being
wrong. You are actually shown wrong every time you start a thread.
Showing you to be wrong is getting boring, it's so common.
(snip wrong stuff)
Eric Root
All-Seeing-I
wrote:
Harshman was the first to make the claim that i say: "since
evolutionary theory hasn't gotten everything right, it must be wrong
about everything.
Like good little Borg in their collective, everyone starts making the
same claim.
But here is the truth:
Science can be wrong about part of a theory yet still be right about
the rest of it.
Science can even be right about some theories yet wrong about others.
You guys can be SO dumb at times.
All-Seeing-I
See. You already believe your fantasy. Now you make the data fit it.
Boikat
Your delusions are getting worse.
Boikat
Boikat
> On Nov 29, 6:57 am, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > ''On Nov 28, 7:59 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > > Many of you are SO ecstatic; Even near orgasm, that I have finally
> > > been shown wrong for once.
>
> > > This does not mean I have been wrong in the past.
>
> > > As long as there is more then a single explanation for man's origins
> > > all you have is a theory.
>
> > > Get over it.
>
> > But your reasoning is almost always as follows: since evolutionary
> > theory hasn't gotten everything right, it must be wrong about
> > everything.
>
> > <creak> "OW!"
> > <creak> "OW!"
> > <creak> "OW!"
>
> > <BANG!!!>
>
> > (Sound of Madman being hoist on his own petard)
>
> > Chris
>
> Harshman was the first to make the claim that i say: "since
> evolutionary theory hasn't gotten everything right, it must be wrong
> about everything.
You've made statements that clearly implied that claim.
>
> Like good little Borg in their collective, everyone starts making the
> same claim.
>
> But here is the truth:
>
> Science can be wrong about part of a theory yet still be right about
> the rest of it.
Yet you keep posting your idiotic "X disproves exolution" idiocies
every day.
>
> Science can even be right about some theories yet wrong about others.
Yes, and when science is wrong, it iscards the falsified theory. You
see that as a weakness of science.
>
> You guys can be SO dumb at times.
Not as willfully ignorant, self deluded, or stupid as you, however.
Boikat
>
> - Show quoted text -
Friar Broccoli
Will in New Haven
> On Nov 28, 7:49 pm, Will in New Haven
>
>
>
> <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 28, 8:41 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 28, 7:26 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
> > > > All-seeing-I wrote:
> > > > > Many of you are SO ecstatic; Even near orgasm, that I have finally
> > > > > been shown wrong for once.
>
> > > > occurance.
>
>
> > > > the past. That you are wrong again has nothing to do with it.
>
> > > > > all you have is a theory.
>
> > > > use, as they can't be tested.
>
> > > > > Get over it.
>
> > > > It's you, who appears can't get over the fact that evolution is the best
> > > > explanation for the evidence
>
> > > > DJt
>
> > > Who gets to decide what is "best"?
>
> > I do. Now shut up and go away.
>
> > Will in New Haven
>
> yourself on fire?
I make a couple of friendly suggestions of ways you could improve your
act and this is how you reward me. Anyway, I decided that evolution is
the best explanation and you asked who could decide and I did.
You have to understand why you get so much attention on here, don't
you? It isn't that you are good at this stuff, it is that the others
are so BAD. Your competitors are Ray, Spinny and Pig and you are
interesting only by comparison.
Will in New Haven
> On Nov 28, 7:53 pm, Will in New Haven
>
>
>
> <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 28, 8:40 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 28, 7:27 pm, "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 28, 7:59 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Many of you are SO ecstatic; Even near orgasm, that I have finally
> > > > > been shown wrong for once.
>
> > > > for you to admit it.
>
>
> > > > the past.
>
> > > > > As long as there is more then a single explanation for man's origins
> > > > > all you have is a theory.
>
> > > > evidence.
>
> > > > > Get over it.
>
>
> > > All you have is an interpretation of the evidence; Which is only going
> > > to be as reliable as man is; Which is not saying much.
>
> > Writings in which they claimed to know who and what the creator is and
> > what the creator wants us to do. Writings in profound disagreement
> > with one another. Writings which, in many cases where they talk about
> > history are erroneous. Writings which have huge gaffes in the field of
> > natural science. Writings which encouraged genocide in their time and
> > encourage hatred and hostility today.
>
> > They were created by fallible humans without the benefit of the hard-
> > won knowledge we now enjoy. I will take the interpretations of science
> > over the babble of tribal shamans.
>
> > --
> > Will in New Haven- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
I do. You don't.
Will in New Haven
> On Nov 28, 8:31 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 28, 7:49 pm, Will in New Haven
>
> > <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 28, 8:41 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 28, 7:26 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Many of you are SO ecstatic; Even near orgasm, that I have finally
> > > > > > been shown wrong for once.
>
> > > > > occurance.
>
>
> > > > > the past. That you are wrong again has nothing to do with it.
>
> > > > > > all you have is a theory.
>
> > > > > use, as they can't be tested.
>
> > > > > > Get over it.
>
> > > > > It's you, who appears can't get over the fact that evolution is the best
> > > > > explanation for the evidence
>
> > > > > DJt
>
> > > > Who gets to decide what is "best"?
>
> > > I do. Now shut up and go away.
>
> > > Will in New Haven
>
>
> What a loving, Christian thing to say. Oh, that's right. You deny
> being a "Christian". I guess that leaves "Rectumist".
Let's be fair. He did not _start_ that sort of thing with me. I have
been telling him to kill himself for over a year, much good it has
done. On the whole, he has taken it in the spirit it was given.
When he is equally unpleasant to those who have not taunted him in
that manner it is probably a case of not remembering who has said
what. He is, after all, astonishingly stupid.
Kermit
> On Nov 28, 7:26 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > All-seeing-I wrote:
> > > Many of you are SO ecstatic; Even near orgasm, that I have finally
> > > been shown wrong for once.
>
> > You've been shown wrong hundreds of times. It's actually fairly common
> > occurance.
>
> > > This does not mean I have been wrong in the past.
>
> > It's that you've been shown wrong in the past that means you were wrong in
> > the past. That you are wrong again has nothing to do with it.
>
> > > As long as there is more then a single explanation for man's origins
> > > all you have is a theory.
>
> > A scientific theory is all that's needed. Other explanations are of little
> > use, as they can't be tested.
>
> > > Get over it.
>
> > It's you, who appears can't get over the fact that evolution is the best
> > explanation for the evidence
>
> > DJt
>
> Who gets to decide what is "best"?
Anybody who acknowledges reality.
Kermit
Kermit
> On Nov 28, 7:27 pm, "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 28, 7:59 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > > Many of you are SO ecstatic; Even near orgasm, that I have finally
> > > been shown wrong for once.
>
> > for you to admit it.
>
>
> > the past.
>
> > > As long as there is more then a single explanation for man's origins
> > > all you have is a theory.
>
> > evidence.
>
> > > Get over it.
>
> > The evidence means something. Get used to it.
>
> All you have is an interpretation of the evidence; Which is only going
> to be as reliable as man is;
When all the evidence is considered, there is only one interpretation
that fits most of it. You seem oblivious to most of the data, and get
most of the rest wrong. Given the data, there is only one theory (or
set of closely related theories) that fits the data and is testable.
(I assume you are not talking about the germ theory of communicable
disease and such.)
Of *course people are fallible; that why scientific evidence must be
verifiable and the theories testable. That is why your fantastic
claims are bogus - they fit no data and are not testable.
Religious myths are not science, because their interpretation is so
open ended we can - and do - end up with dozens of conflicting models
derived from them. They are Rorschach ink blots; no interpretation is
wrong, and no interpretation fits anything outside of the patient's
head.
Your monomaniacal fantasies are not, unfortunately, uncommon, but
neither are they healthy or true. Such claims as yours will
occasionally spawn apostles, but if you want followers, you have come
to the wrong place. Try
talk.minion.wannabees
> Which is not saying much.
True. All it is saying is:
Hubble Space Telescope
Probes to Mars
Apollo Moon missions
Reattaching severed limbs
Managing wetlands and nature preserves
Yearly flu vaccines
Wiping out smallpox
Working on wiping out polio - sabotaged so far by religious anti-
science activists
Beginning to treat genetic diseases with gene therapy
Tracing human migrations
Restoring old art
Sequencing genomes of hundreds, soon to be many thousands of species
Accurately forecasting weather days in advance
Reducing deaths from infections after injuries, surgery, and
childbirth
Ending pain during major operations
Providing power to hundreds of millions (billions?) of homes
Developing new garden plants (blue roses!)
Developing new crops
Treating diabetes
Correcting many otherwise fatal congenital errors
Computers
Computer networks
GPS devices
Cell phones
...bored now
Anti-science activism *kills *people. It's evil.
Kermit
Kermit
> On Nov 28, 7:53 pm, Will in New Haven
>
>
>
> <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 28, 8:40 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 28, 7:27 pm, "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 28, 7:59 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Many of you are SO ecstatic; Even near orgasm, that I have finally
> > > > > been shown wrong for once.
>
> > > > You have been shown to be wrong thousands of times. It is just unusual
> > > > for you to admit it.
>
> > > > > This does not mean I have been wrong in the past.
>
> > > > No, it has nothing at all to do with all the times you were wrong in
> > > > the past.
>
> > > > > As long as there is more then a single explanation for man's origins
> > > > > all you have is a theory.
>
> > > > But there is only a single explanation that is supported by the
> > > > evidence.
>
> > > > > Get over it.
>
> > > > The evidence means something. Get used to it.
>
> > > All you have is an interpretation of the evidence; Which is only going
>
> > All you have is the writings of humans thousands of years ago.
> > Writings in which they claimed to know who and what the creator is and
> > what the creator wants us to do. Writings in profound disagreement
> > with one another. Writings which, in many cases where they talk about
> > history are erroneous. Writings which have huge gaffes in the field of
> > natural science. Writings which encouraged genocide in their time and
> > encourage hatred and hostility today.
>
> > They were created by fallible humans without the benefit of the hard-
> > won knowledge we now enjoy. I will take the interpretations of science
> > over the babble of tribal shamans.
>
> > --
> > Will in New Haven- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Who gets to judge which is right and which is wrong.
That's a different issue than the nature of the world.
In any event, each of us, individually, *always decide what is right
from wrong. Think Mommy and Daddy always know right from wrong? It's
*your choice to accept their say-so.
Think your interpretation of your cherry-picked scriptures are right,
and not the church down the road? Claiming that you just "listen to
the word of God" is your way of saying you don't want to examine these
issues too closely.
The Southern Baptists who raised me admitted (most of 'em) that
slavery is wrong, but their great grandparents were slavers - that's
why the Southern Baptist Convention was *founded. Did God change his
mind, or did the great-grandchildren come to different ethical
conclusions than their grandparents did?
Whatever creed, tribe, person, book you accept as a moral authority,
it's still your decision. If you can't articulate why X is the right
or wrong thing to do, you just haven't straightened it out in your
head. Saying "God wants it that way; beats me why" doesn't explain
anything, especially when millions of people say "Uh-uh, He wants it
the other way."
But none of that has anything to do with the nature of reality.
Kermit
Dana Tweedy
> On Nov 29, 6:57 am, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> ''On Nov 28, 7:59 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Many of you are SO ecstatic; Even near orgasm, that I have finally
>>> been shown wrong for once.
>>
>>> This does not mean I have been wrong in the past.
>>
>>> As long as there is more then a single explanation for man's origins
>>> all you have is a theory.
>>
>>> Get over it.
>>
>> But your reasoning is almost always as follows: since evolutionary
>> theory hasn't gotten everything right, it must be wrong about
>> everything.
>>
>> <creak> "OW!"
>> <creak> "OW!"
>> <creak> "OW!"
>>
>> <BANG!!!>
>>
>> (Sound of Madman being hoist on his own petard)
>>
>> Chris
>
> Harshman was the first to make the claim that i say: "since
> evolutionary theory hasn't gotten everything right, it must be wrong
> about everything.
Which he was right about. You do make that claim, if not in so many words.
>
> Like good little Borg in their collective, everyone starts making the
> same claim.
>
> But here is the truth:
>
> Science can be wrong about part of a theory yet still be right about
> the rest of it.
In which case your talk about human perception being flawed is pointless.
There's no reason to think that evolution is wrong, but everything else is
right.
>
> Science can even be right about some theories yet wrong about others.
Yep, but you haven't shown any reason to believe that evolution is wrong.
>
> You guys can be SO dumb at times.
Yet you seem to be dumb all the time.
DJT
Burkhard
limitations of human perception per se, then indeed _all_ of science is
affected. Equally, you stated on several occasions that a) the fact that
knowledge is revised is indicative a theory is wrong b) that inferences
drawn from data is evidence theories are wrong.
Both apply to all scientific theories. You never offered reasons other
than these generalities, and hence, to the extend that you disbelief the
ToE, you ought for consistency sake doubt disbelieve of science, but
all of human knowledge.
Kermit
In what way? Please provide an example in which evidence is being
distorted. Sane people do not classify as fantasy any model which
successfully makes predictions (e.g. tiktaalik, archeopteryx) and fits
all the data.
Kermit
TomS
<01df5e7b-6136-400b...@f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Kermit
stated..."
>
>On Nov 28, 5:40=A0pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 28, 7:27=A0pm, "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Nov 28, 7:59=A0pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > Many of you are SO ecstatic; Even near orgasm, that I have finally
>> > > been shown wrong for once.
>>
>> > You have been shown to be wrong thousands of times. It is just unusual
>> > for you to admit it.
>>
>> > > This does not mean I have been wrong in the past.
>>
>> > No, it has nothing at all to do with all the times you were wrong in
>> > the past.
>>
>> > > As long as there is more then a single explanation for man's origins
>> > > all you have is a theory.
>>
>> > But there is only a single explanation that is supported by the
>> > evidence.
>>
>> > > Get over it.
>>
>> > The evidence means something. Get used to it.
>>
>> All you have is an interpretation of the evidence; Which is only going
>> to be as reliable as man is;
>
>When all the evidence is considered, there is only one interpretation
>that fits most of it. You seem oblivious to most of the data, and get
>most of the rest wrong. Given the data, there is only one theory (or
>set of closely related theories) that fits the data and is testable.
>(I assume you are not talking about the germ theory of communicable
>disease and such.)
Actually, the only "alternative theories" are quite extreme: A
variation of Omphalism (that the creator/designers made things with
all the appearances as if common descent with modification over many
millions of years happened); A massive coincidence or "pure chance"
that things turned out as they did; "That's the way that the
creator/designers wanted it, and who are we to ask why". If one
wants to dignify those with the label "theory". And that's not
even asking for testability or caring enough to make an attempt to
fit the data.
>
>Of *course people are fallible; that why scientific evidence must be
>verifiable and the theories testable. That is why your fantastic
>claims are bogus - they fit no data and are not testable.
>
>Religious myths are not science, because their interpretation is so
>open ended we can - and do - end up with dozens of conflicting models
>derived from them. They are Rorschach ink blots; no interpretation is
>wrong, and no interpretation fits anything outside of the patient's
>head.
>
>Your monomaniacal fantasies are not, unfortunately, uncommon, but
>neither are they healthy or true. Such claims as yours will
>occasionally spawn apostles, but if you want followers, you have come
>to the wrong place. Try
>talk.minion.wannabees
When the creationists realize that there is nothing at all to back
up the criticism of evolution, and realizes that there is no
alternative explanation for the complexities of the world of life,
much less any evidence or reason supporting an alternative ...
then the creationists show that they realize this by the acts of
desperation of throwing out so much of our knowledge. It is a
confession of the poverty of creationism to be forced to, and to
be willing to, discard so much of value.
--
---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
heekster
That does not happen. The model is made to fit the data.
Always.
Desertphile
> Many of you are SO ecstatic; Even near orgasm, that I have finally
> been shown wrong for once.
Have you ever been correct? Even once?
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Ye Old One
<allse...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Nov 29, 6:57 am, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>> ''On Nov 28, 7:59 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Many of you are SO ecstatic; Even near orgasm, that I have finally
>> > been shown wrong for once.
>>
>> > This does not mean I have been wrong in the past.
>>
>> > As long as there is more then a single explanation for man's origins
>> > all you have is a theory.
>>
>> > Get over it.
>>
>> But your reasoning is almost always as follows: since evolutionary
>> theory hasn't gotten everything right, it must be wrong about
>> everything.
>>
>> <creak> "OW!"
>> <creak> "OW!"
>> <creak> "OW!"
>>
>> <BANG!!!>
>>
>> (Sound of Madman being hoist on his own petard)
>>
>> Chris
>
>Harshman was the first to make the claim that i say: "since
>evolutionary theory hasn't gotten everything right, it must be wrong
>about everything.
That does seem to be your view.
>
>Like good little Borg in their collective, everyone starts making the
>same claim.
Silly plonker!
>
>But here is the truth:
>
>Science can be wrong about part of a theory yet still be right about
>the rest of it.
It can also be right about it but you will still play the stupid card.
>
>Science can even be right about some theories yet wrong about others.
>
>You guys can be SO dumb at times.
Cries Mudbrain at his fellow cretinists.
--
Bob.
When D-G made Madman out of clay he forgot to magic the brain. I think
that explains everything.
Ye Old One
<allse...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Another post, another lie.
--
Bob.
The truth is like ice water, it shocks you when it hits you, but no
one's ever died from it. Do yourself a favour and try it sometime.
gregwrld
Which of the many things he's been
wrong about is he admitting to this
time? Platypus? The odds of evo?
He's wrong so often it's hard to keep
up with it.
That's why I appreciate YOO's list.
He should keep one for Tony and
Ray-ray, too.
gregwrld
heekster
<eli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 28, 7:59 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>> Many of you are SO ecstatic; Even near orgasm, that I have finally
>> been shown wrong for once.
>
> .
>
>> This does not mean I have been wrong in the past.
>>
>> As long as there is more then a single explanation for man's origins
>> all you have is a theory.
>>
>> Get over it.
>
>Pride is the cardinal of the seven deadly sins,
>the source from which the others spring.
If petulance was a religion with a college of Cardinals, ASI would be
its pope.
I wonder if he is capable of lightening up. His attempts at humor
seem to ooze petulance.
Desertphile
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
> As long as there is more then a single explanation for man's origins
> all you have is a theory.
Dear adman. Please, if you would, state (i.e., write here)
something that is true. Anything. I think you are incapable of
doing so: please show that I am wrong. Just write *ANYTHING* that
is true--- about any subject.
Thank you in advance.
Desertphile
<boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Nov 28, 6:59 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
(CUTS)
> > As long as there is more then a single explanation for man's origins
> > all you have is a theory.
> The important thing to note, is that only one theory has any
> supporting evidence, so that's the one that counts. That would be the
> theory of evolution.
I love that "all you have is a theory" part: Creationists would
gleefully kill for a theory of Creationism; a few would happily
die for one; a tiny few would give everything they own for one.
What we see here is adman's hate-filled resentment of scientists
and science--- the very science that keeps him fed, safe, and
comfortable. As Ingersoll noted, ingratitude is the blackest of
sins.
Desertphile
<redd...@bresnan.net> wrote:
> All-seeing-I wrote:
> > Many of you are SO ecstatic; Even near orgasm, that I have finally
> > been shown wrong for once.
> You've been shown wrong hundreds of times. It's actually fairly common
> occurance.
This is a serious query: has adman ever been shown to be right
about anything?
Desertphile
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
> On Nov 28, 7:26 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
> > All-seeing-I wrote:
> > > Many of you are SO ecstatic; Even near orgasm, that I have finally
> > > been shown wrong for once.
> >
> > You've been shown wrong hundreds of times. It's actually fairly common
> > occurance.
> >
> >
> >
> > > This does not mean I have been wrong in the past.
> >
> > It's that you've been shown wrong in the past that means you were wrong in
> > the past. That you are wrong again has nothing to do with it.
> > > As long as there is more then a single explanation for man's origins
> > > all you have is a theory.
> > A scientific theory is all that's needed. Other explanations are of little
> > use, as they can't be tested.
> > > Get over it.
> > It's you, who appears can't get over the fact that evolution is the best
> > explanation for the evidence
> Who gets to decide what is "best"?
Reality, shit-for-brains.
Desertphile
> > All-seeing-I wrote:
Prove him wrong: produce an alternative to evolutionary theory
that explains evolution. Be the first on the planet to do so,
idiot.
John Harshman
Nor have you explained how one would make the data fit the standard
explanation, if it didn't already.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by All-seeing-I
<ap...@email.com>:
>Many of you are SO ecstatic; Even near orgasm, that I have finally
>been shown wrong for once.
You have been shown to be wrong with nearly every post
you've made. The fact that you refuse to accept this doesn't
change it.
>This does not mean I have been wrong in the past.
No, being wrong in the past (see above) means that you've
been wrong in the past.
>As long as there is more then a single explanation for man's origins
>all you have is a theory.
If all we have is a theory (a tested and unrefuted
explanation for all the known data, which makes testable
predictions, none of which have been demonstrated to be
wrong), that's great. What do you have, aside from written
assertions from long-dead people who provided no evidence
for those assertions?
>Get over it.
No need to "get over" success.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
You never defined what evidence is acceptable.
John Harshman
> You never defined what evidence is acceptable.
What evidence were you referring to when you said there was more than a
single explanation? Start wit that. If your theory fits that evidence,
we can move on to more.
Free Lunch
<allse...@usa.com> wrote in talk.origins:
How pathetic that you have to retreat to that old bit of dishonesty.
Admit that you have no evidence and shut up.
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>On Nov 28, 9:40 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> All-seeing-I wrote:
>> > Many of you are SO ecstatic; Even near orgasm, that I have finally
>> > been shown wrong for once.
>>
>> What do you mean "for once"?
>>
>> > This does not mean I have been wrong in the past.
>>
>> Nor does it mean you haven't. And in fact you have almost always been wrong.
>>
>> > As long as there is more then a single explanation for man's origins
>> > all you have is a theory.
>>
>> What is that alternative explanation? Does it fit the data better than
>> the standard one?
>>
>> > Get over it.
>>
>> No need to. There really is no alternative that makes sense.
>
>See. You already believe your fantasy. Now you make the data fit it.
except you keep saying the data doesn't support evolution.
seems to me if the biologists were lying their data would leave no
unanswered questions...
kind of like creationism which DOES make up all answers
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>Harshman was the first to make the claim that i say: "since
>evolutionary theory hasn't gotten everything right, it must be wrong
>about everything.
>
that IS your argument. i've made the same conclusion about you. and
this is why
bpuharic
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>What evidence were you referring to when you said there was more than a
>single explanation? Start wit that. If your theory fits that evidence,
>we can move on to more.
i have never seen him address this. apparently it's standard
creation-speak for an idea he holds he can't explain.
All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
You asked for an alternate explanation but you never said what was
acceptable as evidence to show the explanation.
Dana Tweedy
> Nor have you explained how one would make the data fit the standard
>>>> explanation, if it didn't already.
>>> You never defined what evidence is acceptable.
>>
>> What evidence were you referring to when you said there was more
>> than a single explanation? Start wit that. If your theory fits that
>> evidence, we can move on to more.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> You asked for an alternate explanation but you never said what was
> acceptable as evidence to show the explanation.
Evidence that can be observed, and tested by anyone. If you have an
alternative explanation, it must match the evidence. Evidence that no one
else can see isn't very useful.
DJT
John Harshman
> You asked for an alternate explanation but you never said what was
> acceptable as evidence to show the explanation.
Let's start with the explanation. The challenge for you is to explain
the data I use to show evolution in some other sensible way. Remember
the DNA data I posted for you? Explain that.
Cory Albrecht
>
> Many of you are SO ecstatic; Even near orgasm, that I have finally
> been shown wrong for once.
The only "once" about it is you admitting it this time.
> This does not mean I have been wrong in the past.
No, but the fact that we have shown you to be wrong before does mean
that you have been wrong in the past. You merely ignore you own errors.
> As long as there is more then a single explanation for man's origins
> all you have is a theory.
>
> Get over it.
Get over the fact that you clearly don't understand how science works.
and what a theory is, as indicated by your "all you have is a theory"
remark.
Eric Root
> >> ''On Nov 28, 7:59 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Many of you are SO ecstatic; Even near orgasm, that I have finally
> >>> been shown wrong for once.
> >>> all you have is a theory.
> >>> Get over it.
> >> theory hasn't gotten everything right, it must be wrong about
> >> everything.
>
> >> <creak> "OW!"
> >> <creak> "OW!"
>
> >> <BANG!!!>
>
> >> (Sound of Madman being hoist on his own petard)
>
> >> Chris
>
> > evolutionary theory hasn't gotten everything right, it must be wrong
> > about everything.
>
> > same claim.
>
>
> > Science can be wrong about part of a theory yet still be right about
> > the rest of it.
>
>
> > You guys can be SO dumb at times.
>
> limitations of human perception per se, then indeed _all_ of science is
> affected. Equally, you stated on several occasions that a) the fact that
> knowledge is revised is indicative a theory is wrong b) that inferences
> drawn from data is evidence theories are wrong.
>
> Both apply to all scientific theories. You never offered reasons other
> than these generalities, and hence, to the extend that you disbelief the
> � ToE, you ought for consistency sake doubt disbelieve �of science, but
> all of human knowledge.
But suggesting that he ought to be consistent is one of the elitist
smarty-pants things he is rebelling against.
Eric Root
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
>>As long as there is more then a single explanation for man's origins
>>all you have is a theory.
>If all we have is a theory (a tested and unrefuted
>explanation for all the known data, which makes testable
>predictions, none of which have been demonstrated to be
>wrong), that's great. What do you have, aside from written
>assertions from long-dead people who provided no evidence
>for those assertions?
[Crickets...]
Boikat
wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 16:59:02 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
>
> <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> > As long as there is more then a single explanation for man's origins
> > all you have is a theory.
>
> Dear adman. Please, if you would, state (i.e., write here)
> something that is true. Anything. I think you are incapable of
> doing so: please show that I am wrong. Just write *ANYTHING* that
> is true--- about any subject.
>
> Thank you in advance.
Apparently, that is beyond his capability.
Boikat
Caranx latus
Try giving him a 24-hour time limit. He seems to like that.
Desertphile
It has been five days, and he still has not been able to meet the
challenge.
Kilmir
> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 18:18:29 -0800 (PST), Boikat
>
>
>
> <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 29, 11:55 am, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
> > wrote:
> > > On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 16:59:02 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
>
> > > <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> > > > As long as there is more then a single explanation for man's origins
> > > > all you have is a theory.
>
> > > Dear adman. Please, if you would, state (i.e., write here)
> > > something that is true. Anything. I think you are incapable of
> > > doing so: please show that I am wrong. Just write *ANYTHING* that
> > > is true--- about any subject.
>
> > > Thank you in advance.
> > Apparently, that is beyond his capability.
>
> It has been five days, and he still has not been able to meet the
> challenge.
Seems like we got our answer then.
Now the question becomes if he's a pathological liar or a compulsive
one.