Pagano's sacrament
John Harshman
hasn't responded to any of the posts he left hanging when he ran aw---
er, left last time. Is that right?
I think he must undergo some ritual purification during his time away,
perhaps a perfect act of contrition that forgives all his old sins and
lets him start over. That's why he can ignore everything before and
insert himself again as if none of his arguments were ever countered.
He's been forgiven; he can ignore all that old baggage, because it
doesn't belong to the new Tony.
Sort of an infinitely applicable mercy rule.
Ray Martinez
John:
You should link what you feel went unanswered.
Ray
Augray
wrote in <1163028202.8...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> :
I've been waiting almost five years for an answer to this:
http://groups.google.ca/group/talk.origins/msg/54165accf04720c2
>Ray
Desertphile
When are you going to share your scientific paper that debunks science?
What's the hold-up? You promised it months ago.
T Pagano
<jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>So, Tony's back, after a couple of weeks off. It seems to me that he
>hasn't responded to any of the posts he left hanging when he ran aw---
>er, left last time. Is that right?
I can't possibly respond to all my detractors. If I leave them with
the last word how can this be a problem?
When I occassionally take the time to review my detractor's posts they
are largely comprised of childish, ad hominem and emotional nonsense.
There are exceptions (like Forrest and one or two others) but they are
rare. Furthermore I don't have to "win" an argument or answer every
objection to achieve my goal. I only set the modest goal of showing
that the positions of my secular-atheist opponents are not nearly as
strong, or unassailable or unimpeachable as they let on to the
unwashed masses.
Finally when I ask my detractors (like Harshman) to link to the best
refutation of my position they either refuse (like Harshman, Thompson,
Flank, and others) or they produce posts that have nothing to do with
my position (like the infamous Sienkiewcz and Dave Horn), or they link
to posts that actually agree with my position (as did DJT in a recent
thread).
>
>I think he must undergo some ritual purification during his time away,
>perhaps a perfect act of contrition that forgives all his old sins and
>lets him start over. That's why he can ignore everything before and
>insert himself again as if none of his arguments were ever countered.
>He's been forgiven; he can ignore all that old baggage, because it
>doesn't belong to the new Tony.
Actually nothing so serious; family and work take its toll on many of
us.
>
>Sort of an infinitely applicable mercy rule.
Point me to one of your recent rebuttals that you believe particularly
strong and I shall endeavor to respond or concede where necessary.
Regards,
T Pagano
John Harshman
> On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 23:04:00 GMT, John Harshman
> <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>>So, Tony's back, after a couple of weeks off. It seems to me that he
>>hasn't responded to any of the posts he left hanging when he ran aw---
>>er, left last time. Is that right?
>
>
> I can't possibly respond to all my detractors. If I leave them with
> the last word how can this be a problem?
Why, there is no problem, as long as you agree that your leaving me with
the last word is an admission that you can't refute my argument.
> When I occassionally take the time to review my detractor's posts they
> are largely comprised of childish, ad hominem and emotional nonsense.
Then you should be able to skewer them easily, rather than running away. No?
> There are exceptions (like Forrest and one or two others) but they are
> rare. Furthermore I don't have to "win" an argument or answer every
> objection to achieve my goal. I only set the modest goal of showing
> that the positions of my secular-atheist opponents are not nearly as
> strong, or unassailable or unimpeachable as they let on to the
> unwashed masses.
As long as you only need to show this to yourself, no problem. If you
think you're showing it to anyone else, you are deluded.
> Finally when I ask my detractors (like Harshman) to link to the best
> refutation of my position they either refuse (like Harshman, Thompson,
> Flank, and others) or they produce posts that have nothing to do with
> my position (like the infamous Sienkiewcz and Dave Horn), or they link
> to posts that actually agree with my position (as did DJT in a recent
> thread).
You will forgive me if I am unwilling to believe any of this without
better evidence than your unsupported word.
>>I think he must undergo some ritual purification during his time away,
>>perhaps a perfect act of contrition that forgives all his old sins and
>>lets him start over. That's why he can ignore everything before and
>>insert himself again as if none of his arguments were ever countered.
>>He's been forgiven; he can ignore all that old baggage, because it
>>doesn't belong to the new Tony.
>
>
> Actually nothing so serious; family and work take its toll on many of
> us.
>
>>Sort of an infinitely applicable mercy rule.
>
>
> Point me to one of your recent rebuttals that you believe particularly
> strong and I shall endeavor to respond or concede where necessary.
I would be unable to do so without considerable effort, and one I don't
care enough to try. I don't remember thread titles or particular posts,
so would have to search the entire tree for posts of mine that follow
posts of yours. You could of course do the same thing, and you may
consider that every time I reply to one of your posts I consider it to
be particularly strong. So pick any of them.
But I find your excuses for failing to reply quite lame, as I suspect do
most people.
Dana Tweedy
"T Pagano" <not....@address.net> wrote in message
news:apagano-c305l2hcst5tj...@4ax.com...
snip
> Finally when I ask my detractors (like Harshman) to link to the best
> refutation of my position they either refuse (like Harshman, Thompson,
> Flank, and others) or they produce posts that have nothing to do with
> my position (like the infamous Sienkiewcz and Dave Horn), or they link
> to posts that actually agree with my position (as did DJT in a recent
> thread).
It's odd then, Tony that the author of the post I linked to show you were
refuted states clearly he does not agree with your position, and his
statements do not agree with your position.
Do you really expect anyone to believe your claims when you make such
outrageous falsehoods?
DJT
BigNate23
I'm new to this conversation, but I'll take a swing at it since this
topic interests me.
I have examined both creation and evolution and have found holes in
both theories. The bible is up to endless interpretation, and there
are gaps in the fossil record, no?
I don't see the big deal here, so I'm hoping someone will enlighten me.
Does this boil down to what our children are taught in schools? Or
does this point to a different debate; the existence of a Creator or
Higher Power?
Thanks,
Free Lunch
>On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 23:04:00 GMT, John Harshman
><jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>>So, Tony's back, after a couple of weeks off. It seems to me that he
>>hasn't responded to any of the posts he left hanging when he ran aw---
>>er, left last time. Is that right?
>
>I can't possibly respond to all my detractors. If I leave them with
>the last word how can this be a problem?
Why don't you give the rest of the world less of a reason to be your
detractors. Learn something. Show some humility. Admit your mistakes.
Perplexed in Peoria
"John Harshman" <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:YNw4h.2926$IR4...@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
> T Pagano wrote:
> > On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 23:04:00 GMT, John Harshman
> > <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>So, Tony's back, after a couple of weeks off. It seems to me that he
> >>hasn't responded to any of the posts he left hanging when he ran aw---
> >>er, left last time. Is that right?
[snip]
> > Point me to one of your recent rebuttals that you believe particularly
> > strong and I shall endeavor to respond or concede where necessary.
>
> I would be unable to do so without considerable effort, and one I don't
> care enough to try. I don't remember thread titles or particular posts,
> so would have to search the entire tree for posts of mine that follow
> posts of yours. You could of course do the same thing, and you may
> consider that every time I reply to one of your posts I consider it to
> be particularly strong. So pick any of them.
Uh, does it seem to anyone else that John is being 'merciful' here?
Ray Martinez
T Pagano wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 23:04:00 GMT, John Harshman
> <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >So, Tony's back, after a couple of weeks off. It seems to me that he
> >hasn't responded to any of the posts he left hanging when he ran aw---
> >er, left last time. Is that right?
>
> I can't possibly respond to all my detractors. If I leave them with
> the last word how can this be a problem?
>
> When I occassionally take the time to review my detractor's posts they
> are largely comprised of childish, ad hominem and emotional nonsense.
Don't feel slighted they do it to me and everyone else who they cannot
refute.
> There are exceptions (like Forrest and one or two others) but they are
> rare.
Forrest has converted - he is rant artist producing topics that *ask*
for a "honest Creationist argument".
Request contains a predetermined answer.
> Furthermore I don't have to "win" an argument or answer every
> objection to achieve my goal. I only set the modest goal of showing
> that the positions of my secular-atheist opponents are not nearly as
> strong, or unassailable or unimpeachable as they let on to the
> unwashed masses.
>
> Finally when I ask my detractors (like Harshman) to link to the best
> refutation of my position they either refuse (like Harshman, Thompson,
> Flank, and others) or they produce posts that have nothing to do with
> my position (like the infamous Sienkiewcz and Dave Horn), or they link
> to posts that actually agree with my position (as did DJT in a recent
> thread).
I asked Harshman to revise the OP and inform everyone as to what he was
talking about. If he had a legit issue he would have included this
information in the first place.
Ray
SNIP...
Nic
BigNate23 wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I'm new to this conversation, but I'll take a swing at it since this
> topic interests me.
That's a good enough reason!
> I have examined both creation and evolution and have found holes in
> both theories. The bible is up to endless interpretation, and there
> are gaps in the fossil record, no?
Ohh, I don't think either side will like that. On the evolutionary
biology side there are holes that can be patched up, that are *worth*
patching up; and on the other side there is terminal disintegration.
> I don't see the big deal here, so I'm hoping someone will enlighten me.
> Does this boil down to what our children are taught in schools? Or
> does this point to a different debate; the existence of a Creator or
> Higher Power?
I don't know. I don't feel like entering Pagano's labyrinthine posting
history.
> Thanks,
Dana Tweedy
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1163043110....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
snip
>> When I occassionally take the time to review my detractor's posts they
>> are largely comprised of childish, ad hominem and emotional nonsense.
>
> Don't feel slighted they do it to me and everyone else who they cannot
> refute.
Is that why you replied to someone tonight with "you are ignorant as they
come"?
>
>
>> There are exceptions (like Forrest and one or two others) but they are
>> rare.
>
> Forrest has converted - he is rant artist producing topics that *ask*
> for a "honest Creationist argument".
He never gets one, though.
>
> Request contains a predetermined answer.
Yes, we've never seen a honest creationist argument.
>
>> Furthermore I don't have to "win" an argument or answer every
>> objection to achieve my goal. I only set the modest goal of showing
>> that the positions of my secular-atheist opponents are not nearly as
>> strong, or unassailable or unimpeachable as they let on to the
>> unwashed masses.
>>
>> Finally when I ask my detractors (like Harshman) to link to the best
>> refutation of my position they either refuse (like Harshman, Thompson,
>> Flank, and others) or they produce posts that have nothing to do with
>> my position (like the infamous Sienkiewcz and Dave Horn), or they link
>> to posts that actually agree with my position (as did DJT in a recent
>> thread).
>
> I asked Harshman to revise the OP and inform everyone as to what he was
> talking about.
And why should John listen to you, Ray?
> If he had a legit issue he would have included this
> information in the first place.
Speaking of "legit issue" Ray, when are you going to grow a pair and discuss
the fossil evidence for human evolution?
DJT
T Pagano
wrote:
It's tough to comment intelligently about Augray's interesting post
absent reading the Nature article he referenced in that post.
Nonetheless I will make an attempt based solely on the information he
offered. The wings of the Cretaceous bird containing the alula and
the wings of the Archaeopteryx both appeared in the fossil record
fully formed with mature wings. Which structure is asserted to be
nascent?
In the material Augray quotes from the Nature article there is no
mention of how or when the wings or the alula emerged. It is simply
observed that some fossil bird found in the Cretaceous strata with a
mature wing contained the alula. Much of the description explains
this mature structure's function in the mature wing not how it
emerged. The Archaeopteryx found earlier in the Jurassic Strata while
missing the alula still appeared suddenly with a fully formed wing.
That the alula in the Cretaceous bird's wings conferred different
flight capabilities is not relevent to the issue of nascency.
Regards,
T Pagano
Dana Tweedy
"BigNate23" <Bign...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1163041645.3...@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Hi All,
>
> I'm new to this conversation, but I'll take a swing at it since this
> topic interests me.
>
> I have examined both creation and evolution and have found holes in
> both theories.
If I may offer a bit of correction here.. Evolution is a scientific theory.
Creationism is not. You are examining two potential explanations, one of
which has been subjected to scientific inquiry, and the other is a religious
creation story. So far we only have one scientific theory that explains
the evidence. There are thousands of religious creation stories, none of
which can be tested or falsified. Please don't think religious and
scientific explanations are equal.
> The bible is up to endless interpretation, and there
> are gaps in the fossil record, no?
There are indeed gaps in the fossil record. However evolutionary theory
does not depend on a complete fossil record. It depends on their being
evidence to support the concept. Besides the fossil evidence, there is
genetic evidence, anatomical evidence, biochemical evidence, molecular
evidence, biogeographical evidence, etc, etc... all of which confirm
evolution.
>
> I don't see the big deal here, so I'm hoping someone will enlighten me.
> Does this boil down to what our children are taught in schools?
What is boils down to is what are we to present in science class? Do we
teach science, or religious beliefs? Creationists want to claim that the
Bible is inerrant, and are upset because the physical evidence doesn't
support that claim. They want schools to either ignore the scientific
evidence against an inerrant Bible, or at the least, pretend that there is a
controversy in science over anything that contradicts the Bible.
> Or
> does this point to a different debate; the existence of a Creator or
> Higher Power?
Science doesn't care if there is, or is not a "creator" or a "higher power"
beyond what's detectable in nature. It only goes by what the evidence
shows. Science does not try to refute a belief in God, nor does it support
one. It leaves questions such as that open for the individual to decide for
him/her self.
DJT
Tom McDonald
Ray Martinez wrote:
> T Pagano wrote:
> > On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 23:04:00 GMT, John Harshman
> > <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> > >So, Tony's back, after a couple of weeks off. It seems to me that he
> > >hasn't responded to any of the posts he left hanging when he ran aw---
> > >er, left last time. Is that right?
> >
> > I can't possibly respond to all my detractors. If I leave them with
> > the last word how can this be a problem?
> >
> > When I occassionally take the time to review my detractor's posts they
> > are largely comprised of childish, ad hominem and emotional nonsense.
>
> Don't feel slighted they do it to me and everyone else who they cannot
> refute.
Thou villainous malmsey-nosed fustilarian!
> > There are exceptions (like Forrest and one or two others) but they are
> > rare.
>
> Forrest has converted - he is rant artist producing topics that *ask*
> for a "honest Creationist argument".
[Thou] foul defacer of God's handiwork.
> Request contains a predetermined answer.
You, minion, are too saucy.
> > Furthermore I don't have to "win" an argument or answer every
> > objection to achieve my goal. I only set the modest goal of showing
> > that the positions of my secular-atheist opponents are not nearly as
> > strong, or unassailable or unimpeachable as they let on to the
> > unwashed masses.
> >
> > Finally when I ask my detractors (like Harshman) to link to the best
> > refutation of my position they either refuse (like Harshman, Thompson,
> > Flank, and others) or they produce posts that have nothing to do with
> > my position (like the infamous Sienkiewcz and Dave Horn), or they link
> > to posts that actually agree with my position (as did DJT in a recent
> > thread).
>
> I asked Harshman to revise the OP and inform everyone as to what he was
> talking about. If he had a legit issue he would have included this
> information in the first place.
[You] speak an infinite deal of nothing.
(Thank God for the handy-dandy Google gadget, the Shakespearean
Insulter!)
BigNate23
<<"Ohh, I don't think either side will like that. On the evolutionary
<<biology side there are holes that can be patched up, that are *worth*
<<patching up; and on the other side there is terminal disintegration.
"
I agree with you on everything except for the terminal disintegration
part. Evolution reaches for measure, and creation reaches for purpose.
Evolution is certainly more concrete than the other, though I feel
that creation is worth thorough examination.
I see posts here requesting an honest argument for creation. I,
therefore, pose this question:
Is it illogical for me to believe in a Creator since I, myself, create?
I create this post on a laptop created by my fellow man, in a google
group created by someone. I create my everyday experiences in the
actions that I take. I create my relationships, in which I can
evaluate myself as a person. I create my beliefs, and my opinions, and
every situation in my life. Is it not natural for man to suggest a
Creator of this world, since man can create so much in his own world?
Evolution is flesh and blood, rock and protein. Creationism is an
attempt to find that which drives flesh and blood. Science puts a
finger on all that is physical, and faith chases after consciousness
and the meaning thereof. The human soul, or human consciousness,
cannot be measured by science, which is why religion and science don't
often mix. When it comes to creation vs. evolution, the REAL question
lies in consciousness or the human soul.
So here it is, "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" Does
thought originate in the grey matter inside of my skull, or is my brain
a resceiver of thought that originates in my soul? Does my brain
generate my thought and intelligence, or is it a receptor of
intellegence?
Let's say, for craps and giggles, that I DO have a soul in which my
thought originates. I must conclude then, that my individual soul is
part of something bigger, like the Human soul. My human consciousness
must then be part of world conciousness, and solar conciousness, and
universal conciousness. My soul creates in order to find myself and
experience who I really am, as did the universoul soul when it exhaled
the Big Bang.
Could it be that the expansion and retraction of our universe is the
inhale and exhale of our Creator?
Wow, thanks for giving me the opportunity to jot. I love you guys.
CreateThis
At it's heart the debate is about whether or not we should have
official religion. Those who favor official religion want us to teach
it in our schools (they assume, of course, that their favorite
religion will be the one taught).
It really has nothing to do with evolution, which is just a convenient
controversial subject taught in schools into which the thin edge of a
religious agenda might be driven (if we aren't careful). There are no
serious arguments against evolution or for any form of creationism,
including Intelligent Design.
All the noise is just a public relations campaign to sow doubt and
mistrust among the scientifically illiterate for political purposes.
All the "scientific arguments" against evolution or for ID are just
trumped up nonsense, although there are plenty of dupes who take them
seriously (just look around here).
CT
Nic
BigNate23 wrote:
> Thanks for the reply, Nic!
>
> <<"Ohh, I don't think either side will like that. On the evolutionary
> <<biology side there are holes that can be patched up, that are *worth*
> <<patching up; and on the other side there is terminal disintegration.
> "
>
> I agree with you on everything except for the terminal disintegration
> part. Evolution reaches for measure, and creation reaches for purpose.
> Evolution is certainly more concrete than the other, though I feel
> that creation is worth thorough examination.
>
> I see posts here requesting an honest argument for creation. I,
> therefore, pose this question:
>
> Is it illogical for me to believe in a Creator since I, myself, create?
> I create this post on a laptop created by my fellow man, in a google
> group created by someone. I create my everyday experiences in the
> actions that I take. I create my relationships, in which I can
> evaluate myself as a person. I create my beliefs, and my opinions, and
> every situation in my life. Is it not natural for man to suggest a
> Creator of this world, since man can create so much in his own world?
That has the form of an argument, but when you look at what "create"
actually means, it all gets a bit vague. For a start, you are breaking
the world down into things, some of which create others. What actually
happens is that some things are shaped by other things, but only
partially. You created your post by arranging letters - you did not
design the font. I wonder whether you accept that *anything* gets the
way it is just by interacting with other things, such that none of the
things deserve to be called creators, or beneficiaries of that thing's
purpose?
I suppose what I'm getting at is whether you make any kind of
secular/religious distinction at all. If you don't, then I'm tempted
to retort "Creator as opposed to what?".
> Evolution is flesh and blood, rock and protein. Creationism is an
> attempt to find that which drives flesh and blood. Science puts a
> finger on all that is physical, and faith chases after consciousness
> and the meaning thereof. The human soul, or human consciousness,
> cannot be measured by science, which is why religion and science don't
> often mix. When it comes to creation vs. evolution, the REAL question
> lies in consciousness or the human soul.
>
> So here it is, "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" Does
> thought originate in the grey matter inside of my skull, or is my brain
> a resceiver of thought that originates in my soul? Does my brain
> generate my thought and intelligence, or is it a receptor of
> intellegence?
You see this as related in some way to teleogical matters? Maybe you
don't. Maybe you bring it up as a separate challenge to naturalistic
explanation. Or maybe you bring it as support for 'more things in
heaven and earth', which I don't think anyone is disputing (at least
the 'earth' bit).
Steven J.
T Pagano wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 23:04:00 GMT, John Harshman
> <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >So, Tony's back, after a couple of weeks off. It seems to me that he
> >hasn't responded to any of the posts he left hanging when he ran aw---
> >er, left last time. Is that right?
>
> I can't possibly respond to all my detractors. If I leave them with
> the last word how can this be a problem?
>
design," or "what do you mean by 'nascent feature,'" it leaves your
interlocutor without an answer. This would not be so bad, if you
simply conceded that you have no answers, but here you are, in this
very thread, acting as though anyone arguing with you should have a
clue what (if anything) you mean by "nascent structure" or "novelty" or
"fully-formed." If you're leaving your detractors with the last word,
you should concede that such requests are meaningless, because you've
never been able to define your terms, and stop making them.
>
> When I occassionally take the time to review my detractor's posts they
> are largely comprised of childish, ad hominem and emotional nonsense.
>
requests for clarification) by the few exceptions.
>
> There are exceptions (like Forrest and one or two others) but they are
> rare. Furthermore I don't have to "win" an argument or answer every
> objection to achieve my goal. I only set the modest goal of showing
> that the positions of my secular-atheist opponents are not nearly as
> strong, or unassailable or unimpeachable as they let on to the
> unwashed masses.
>
modification, or an ancient Earth, or the Big Bang, can be dismissed
only by arguing that science doesn't work (and this is the implication
of your argument that consilience of induction is no reason to suppose
a theory is correct), then the positions of your "secular-atheist
opponents" are about as strong and unassailable as anything gets. Of
course, you do not concede that your arguments against inductions to
"universal-type theories" about "unique unobserved events in the
prehistoric past" must logically apply to all science, or none of it,
but that just shows your own inconsistency.
>
> Finally when I ask my detractors (like Harshman) to link to the best
> refutation of my position they either refuse (like Harshman, Thompson,
> Flank, and others) or they produce posts that have nothing to do with
> my position (like the infamous Sienkiewcz and Dave Horn), or they link
> to posts that actually agree with my position (as did DJT in a recent
> thread).
>
certainly do not agree with your position, and I hardly think that the
post in question supports you.
>
> >I think he must undergo some ritual purification during his time away,
> >perhaps a perfect act of contrition that forgives all his old sins and
> >lets him start over. That's why he can ignore everything before and
> >insert himself again as if none of his arguments were ever countered.
> >He's been forgiven; he can ignore all that old baggage, because it
> >doesn't belong to the new Tony.
>
> Actually nothing so serious; family and work take its toll on many of
> us.
>
>
> >Sort of an infinitely applicable mercy rule.
>
> Point me to one of your recent rebuttals that you believe particularly
> strong and I shall endeavor to respond or concede where necessary.
>
answer it.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
-- Steven J.
Steven J.
"fully-formed" supposed to mean in this context? The wings of
_Archaeopteryx_ don't have the alula (the "bastard wing" characteristic
of modern flying birds, so in that sense it is not "fully-formed." The
bones of the wing, aside from their greater length, are the typical
bones of a nonavian maniraptoran theropod; we don't see the fused and
reduced digits of modern bird wings. Again, the skeletal elements of
the wing are not "fully-formed" if we take the modern bird wing as the
criterion for "fully-formed."
Of course, they are "fully-formed" for _Archaeopteryx_ itself.
_Archaeopteryx_ didn't make a living being a half-way step to some more
"fully-formed" species, any more than any other species ever has; it
had to function in its own world with the equipment it had, a
(slightly, compared to modern birds) modified form of the feathered
arms seen on several other coelurosaurs. Would you expect that a
"transitional form" would have a feathered wing on one side of the
body, and a shorter, down-covered grasping arm on the other? If not,
what might a "half-formed" wing be expected to look like?
>
> In the material Augray quotes from the Nature article there is no
> mention of how or when the wings or the alula emerged. It is simply
> observed that some fossil bird found in the Cretaceous strata with a
> mature wing contained the alula. Much of the description explains
> this mature structure's function in the mature wing not how it
> emerged. The Archaeopteryx found earlier in the Jurassic Strata while
> missing the alula still appeared suddenly with a fully formed wing.
>
> That the alula in the Cretaceous bird's wings conferred different
> flight capabilities is not relevent to the issue of nascency.
>
Is anything relevant to "the issue of nascency" except the fact that
you don't want to believe in it?
Richard Forrest
Ray Martinez wrote:
> T Pagano wrote:
> > On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 23:04:00 GMT, John Harshman
> > <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> > >So, Tony's back, after a couple of weeks off. It seems to me that he
> > >hasn't responded to any of the posts he left hanging when he ran aw---
> > >er, left last time. Is that right?
> >
> > I can't possibly respond to all my detractors. If I leave them with
> > the last word how can this be a problem?
> >
> > When I occassionally take the time to review my detractor's posts they
> > are largely comprised of childish, ad hominem and emotional nonsense.
>
> Don't feel slighted they do it to me and everyone else who they cannot
> refute.
>
>
> > There are exceptions (like Forrest and one or two others) but they are
> > rare.
>
> Forrest has converted - he is rant artist producing topics that *ask*
> for a "honest Creationist argument".
>
> Request contains a predetermined answer.
Emm...no it doesn't. It merely requires an honest answer.
So far the only honest argument presented (and incidentally not by a
creationist) is "My holy book says this, I believe it, that settles
it". As I have pointed out, this is hardly the stuff of science.
Makes you think, doesn't it?
You think that because I dislike dishonesty I must be an atheist. That
tells us rather more about your moral values than mine.
RF
Richard Forrest
The big deal is this: Creationists claim that their religious
convictions are based in science.
I have no argument with anyone who choses to believe that the Bible is
literally true, and that the world was created in six days a few
thousand years ago, any more than I have an argument with someone who
believes that the world is flat, and supported by four giant elephants
standing on the back of an enormous turtle. I'm very confident that
they are wrong, but I can't tell someone what to believe if it's a
matter of faith.
My argument with creationists comes when they pretend that their
convictions are supported by science, and invent terms such as
"Scientific Creationism" and "Intelligent Design" in order to have
their convictions taught as science in science classes. In order to
present their ideas as science, they build arguments on
misrepresentaton, distortion and outright falsehood. I have been
reading creationist literature for over 30 years, and have yet to come
across an honest, informed argument in favour of any creationist
"theory". It is this basic dishonesty to which I object.
To show what I mean, here is my analysis of a number of creationist web
sites detailing their dishonesty:
http://plesiosaur.com/creationism/index.php
RF
John Harshman
> Thanks for the reply, Nic!
>
> <<"Ohh, I don't think either side will like that. On the evolutionary
> <<biology side there are holes that can be patched up, that are *worth*
> <<patching up; and on the other side there is terminal disintegration.
> "
>
> I agree with you on everything except for the terminal disintegration
> part. Evolution reaches for measure, and creation reaches for purpose.
> Evolution is certainly more concrete than the other, though I feel
> that creation is worth thorough examination.
>
> I see posts here requesting an honest argument for creation. I,
> therefore, pose this question:
>
> Is it illogical for me to believe in a Creator since I, myself, create?
> I create this post on a laptop created by my fellow man, in a google
> group created by someone. I create my everyday experiences in the
> actions that I take. I create my relationships, in which I can
> evaluate myself as a person. I create my beliefs, and my opinions, and
> every situation in my life. Is it not natural for man to suggest a
> Creator of this world, since man can create so much in his own world?
You ask two questions. At the top you ask if it's illogical, and at
bottom if it's natural, to believe in a creator. I think it's both
natural and illogical. Natural, because analogies are an obvious way of
thinking. Illogical, because there is no evidence supporting that
particular analogy. You can't go straight from "some entities create
some things" to "one particular entity created all things".
> Evolution is flesh and blood, rock and protein. Creationism is an
> attempt to find that which drives flesh and blood. Science puts a
> finger on all that is physical, and faith chases after consciousness
> and the meaning thereof. The human soul, or human consciousness,
> cannot be measured by science, which is why religion and science don't
> often mix. When it comes to creation vs. evolution, the REAL question
> lies in consciousness or the human soul.
>
> So here it is, "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" Does
> thought originate in the grey matter inside of my skull, or is my brain
> a resceiver of thought that originates in my soul? Does my brain
> generate my thought and intelligence, or is it a receptor of
> intellegence?
>
> Let's say, for craps and giggles, that I DO have a soul in which my
> thought originates. I must conclude then, that my individual soul is
> part of something bigger, like the Human soul.
No, that doesn't follow. It's entirely possible to imagine that your
soul is separate from everything else. You can imagine anything you like.
> My human consciousness
> must then be part of world conciousness, and solar conciousness, and
> universal conciousness. My soul creates in order to find myself and
> experience who I really am, as did the universoul soul when it exhaled
> the Big Bang.
>
> Could it be that the expansion and retraction of our universe is the
> inhale and exhale of our Creator?
No. That would require our creator to be breatlhing. Breathing what?
This is an excellent demonstration that analogy without logic can lead
you into nonsense.
John Harshman
I'm interested in your idea that wings are "mature" in Archaeopteryx and
Allulavis. Does that mean, then, that the wings of modern birds are
post-mature? They are certainly much more highly specialized for flight.
It seems that you are disposing of the very idea of nascent structures
by calling everything you see "fully formed". Archaeopteryx had a "fully
formed" primitive wing. Did Microraptor gui have a fully formed, even
more primitive wing?
Desertphile
> Hi All,
>
> I'm new to this conversation, but I'll take a swing at it since this
> topic interests me.
>
> I have examined both creation and evolution and have found holes in
> both theories. The bible is up to endless interpretation, and there
> are gaps in the fossil record, no?
"Both theories?" There is Creationism, which is not a theory, and there
is evolutionary theory, which is a theory (note that evolution is not a
theory).
As for "holes" in evolutionary theory, please share them with
scientists so that they may correct them.
John Harshman
Even more importantly, Archaeopteryx has no tri-osseal canal, and thus
couldn't have used the same means of powering the upstroke with the
supra-coracoideus as modern birds.
> Of course, they are "fully-formed" for _Archaeopteryx_ itself.
> _Archaeopteryx_ didn't make a living being a half-way step to some more
> "fully-formed" species, any more than any other species ever has; it
> had to function in its own world with the equipment it had, a
> (slightly, compared to modern birds) modified form of the feathered
> arms seen on several other coelurosaurs. Would you expect that a
> "transitional form" would have a feathered wing on one side of the
> body, and a shorter, down-covered grasping arm on the other? If not,
> what might a "half-formed" wing be expected to look like?
Like Sinornithosaurus? Caudipteryx? Microraptor? Pagano can take his pick.
BigNate23
John Harshman wrote:
"No, that doesn't follow. It's entirely possible to imagine that your
soul is separate from everything else. You can imagine anything you
like."
That's my point, John. The holes in life, that science has yet to
answer, leaves those answers entirely up to speculation and
imagination. Until science is able to show one way or another, no idea
can be ruled as nonsense. I wasn't implying in my statement that
consciousness is "literally" breathing, but simply illustrating that
consciousness started the Big Bang to reference itself. Science can
retrace our world back to this primordial mass, but then how would you
go about listing the reasons why it exploded, or all began?
This leads me back to my question. Where does my thought originate,
inside my brain or elsewhere? Sure, you can scan my brain and observe
activity, but so far that's all you can really do. You cannot pinpoint
the origins of my thought. Science cannot effectively measure many
aspects in life, such as this thing called "love." Sure, we can
observe effects of love and see chemical changes within the body, but
how do you go about measuring, weighing, and concluding anything about
love? God and the human soul lie in the same category, where as the
knowledge lies only in the eyes of the beholder.
I do agree with you, John, that faith should never be forced into
anyone's minds or schools, so I therefore understand the importance of
your side in this debate.
However, until science can answer my question as to the origin of my
thought, then science cannot be used as a tool to discredit my claims.
I can believe that my soul (atom) is part of the human soul (molecule),
which is part of the world soul (tissue), which is part of the solar
soul (organ), which is ultimately part of universal consciousness
(body). I think my logic does fit. Thanks again.
John Harshman
> John Harshman wrote:
>
> "No, that doesn't follow. It's entirely possible to imagine that your
> soul is separate from everything else. You can imagine anything you
> like."
You need to learn how to quote. If you're using a web browser or
newsreader program, it should be automatic. If you're in Google Groups,
it's only slightly more complicated.
> That's my point, John. The holes in life, that science has yet to
> answer, leaves those answers entirely up to speculation and
> imagination. Until science is able to show one way or another, no idea
> can be ruled as nonsense. I wasn't implying in my statement that
> consciousness is "literally" breathing, but simply illustrating that
> consciousness started the Big Bang to reference itself. Science can
> retrace our world back to this primordial mass, but then how would you
> go about listing the reasons why it exploded, or all began?
Actually, there are scientific theories that answer this question.
> This leads me back to my question. Where does my thought originate,
> inside my brain or elsewhere? Sure, you can scan my brain and observe
> activity, but so far that's all you can really do. You cannot pinpoint
> the origins of my thought. Science cannot effectively measure many
> aspects in life, such as this thing called "love." Sure, we can
> observe effects of love and see chemical changes within the body, but
> how do you go about measuring, weighing, and concluding anything about
> love? God and the human soul lie in the same category, where as the
> knowledge lies only in the eyes of the beholder.
That's nice, but we have no evidence suggesting that anything other than
your brain is involved in thought, and much evidence that your brain is
responsible. You can always imagine something hiding in any corner we
haven't looked in, but it would be great if that something had some kind
of observable consequences.
> I do agree with you, John, that faith should never be forced into
> anyone's minds or schools, so I therefore understand the importance of
> your side in this debate.
>
> However, until science can answer my question as to the origin of my
> thought, then science cannot be used as a tool to discredit my claims.
> I can believe that my soul (atom) is part of the human soul (molecule),
> which is part of the world soul (tissue), which is part of the solar
> soul (organ), which is ultimately part of universal consciousness
> (body). I think my logic does fit. Thanks again.
There is no logic involved. You want to have that belief, feel free. I
can't say you're wrong. But there is no argument in favor of that belief.
Augray
wrote in <apagano-g125l2lgg9f9k...@4ax.com> :
>On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 19:05:20 -0500, Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca>
>wrote:
>
>>On 8 Nov 2006 15:23:22 -0800, "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com>
>>wrote in <1163028202.8...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> :
>>
>>>
>>>John Harshman wrote:
>>>> So, Tony's back, after a couple of weeks off. It seems to me that he
>>>> hasn't responded to any of the posts he left hanging when he ran aw---
>>>> er, left last time. Is that right?
>>>>
>>>> I think he must undergo some ritual purification during his time away,
>>>> perhaps a perfect act of contrition that forgives all his old sins and
>>>> lets him start over. That's why he can ignore everything before and
>>>> insert himself again as if none of his arguments were ever countered.
>>>> He's been forgiven; he can ignore all that old baggage, because it
>>>> doesn't belong to the new Tony.
>>>>
>>>> Sort of an infinitely applicable mercy rule.
>>>
>>>John:
>>>
>>>You should link what you feel went unanswered.
>>
>>I've been waiting almost five years for an answer to this:
>>http://groups.google.ca/group/talk.origins/msg/54165accf04720c2
>>
>
>It's tough to comment intelligently about Augray's interesting post
>absent reading the Nature article he referenced in that post.
You've had five years to look it up.
>Nonetheless I will make an attempt based solely on the information he
>offered. The wings of the Cretaceous bird containing the alula and
>the wings of the Archaeopteryx both appeared in the fossil record
>fully formed with mature wings. Which structure is asserted to be
>nascent?
The wings of Archaeopteryx.
>In the material Augray quotes from the Nature article there is no
>mention of how or when the wings or the alula emerged. It is simply
>observed that some fossil bird found in the Cretaceous strata with a
>mature wing contained the alula. Much of the description explains
>this mature structure's function in the mature wing not how it
>emerged.
How it emerged is irrelevant as to whether the structure is "nascent"
or "mature".
>The Archaeopteryx found earlier in the Jurassic Strata while
>missing the alula still appeared suddenly with a fully formed wing.
No, it lacked an alula, so by your own definition, it is "nascent".
That, and it lacked several other flight adaptations that modern birds
have. It was *extremely* "nascent"--basically a forelimb covered with
feathers.
>That the alula in the Cretaceous bird's wings conferred different
>flight capabilities is not relevent to the issue of nascency.
I would argue that it *is*, since, as outlined in my original post,
the wings of Archaeopteryx are less capable than those of the
Cretaceous bird (which, by the way, is named Eoalulavis). It is
nascent by your own stated definition.
>Regards,
>T Pagano
BigNate23
Concerning these "nascent structures," the idea would be much easier
to accept if we would outline the process behind it. How would these
structures develop? Do environmental factors effect hormonal change,
which cause germline mutation, which is then passed to offspring?
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not....@address.net>:
>On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 23:04:00 GMT, John Harshman
><jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>>So, Tony's back, after a couple of weeks off. It seems to me that he
>>hasn't responded to any of the posts he left hanging when he ran aw---
>>er, left last time. Is that right?
>
>I can't possibly respond to all my detractors.
Of course not, since your detractors seem to include just
about everyone with any knowledge in the subjects on which
you pontificate.
<snip>
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by "Ray Martinez"
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:
>
>T Pagano wrote:
>> On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 23:04:00 GMT, John Harshman
>> <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>> >So, Tony's back, after a couple of weeks off. It seems to me that he
>> >hasn't responded to any of the posts he left hanging when he ran aw---
>> >er, left last time. Is that right?
>>
>> I can't possibly respond to all my detractors. If I leave them with
>> the last word how can this be a problem?
>>
>> When I occassionally take the time to review my detractor's posts they
>> are largely comprised of childish, ad hominem and emotional nonsense.
>
>Don't feel slighted they do it to me and everyone else who they cannot
>refute.
Refuting you is like trying to nail poisoned Jello to the
wall. You're not interested in adult discussion; when anyone
disagrees with anything you post your replies consist solely
of insults and ad hominem.
>> There are exceptions (like Forrest and one or two others) but they are
>> rare.
>
>Forrest has converted - he is rant artist producing topics that *ask*
>for a "honest Creationist argument".
>
>Request contains a predetermined answer.
Really? How is that? There are so many *dishonest* (or at
least scientifically and/or numerically ignorant)
Creationist arguments seen here that asking for an honest
one seems reasonable.
John Harshman
No. Mutations happen, mostly spontaneously, in the germ line. Some of
them have effects that make their possessor more or less likely to
reproduce than individuals without them. The mutations that increase
expected reproduction become more common in the population. That's
natural selection.
BigNate23
I do stand corrected, in that evolution is a theory and creation is
not, so thank you for your corrections. With that said, I would like
to offer general advice concerning evolution vs creation.
The wings of the Archaeopteryx, although a very interesting subject,
will do little to encourage critical thinking on the part of your
average Creationist. To find that these structures did in fact come
about would further support your ideas, but would do little to convince
a creationist to examine the evidence even within their own bible.
Here we have people refusing to believe your science based on literal
words on the very 1st page of the bible. That's really all there is.
To fight fire with fire, I believe you must present ideas that they are
willing to examine. If one takes the words of the bible literally,
then evolution does exist. Moses was a man of flesh and blood, created
by God, that lived over 800 years. Most of the early men in the bible
had lifespans lasting centuries, but we don't have long-lasting life
now! One can easily conclude that our lifespans have evolved since our
creation. I know this wouldn't exactly make sense from a true
evolutionary perspective, but could fit the definition of gradual
change, suggesting that man has evolved even since his beginning. It
would be hard for a bible literalist to examine this question without
opening their minds a little and looking deeper. One cannot pick and
choose what he believes if he takes every word literally.
Also, what about the Sun not being created until the 4th day? Since
our time (1 year = 1 revolution around the Sun) is guaged by the Sun,
the first three days could have been billions of years, offering plenty
of time for your scientific process to happen. A lot of creationists
believe that it literally all happened in 7 days which would, by just
looking at the bible, be impossible.
All that I'm saying is that when our origin is debated, scientists
should sometimes step away from the scientific model, and mold their
arguments to better fit the other side. Use their sources against
their own argument to open their minds.
T Pagano
<jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>T Pagano wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 23:04:00 GMT, John Harshman
>> <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
snip
>> Point me to one of your recent rebuttals that you believe particularly
>> strong and I shall endeavor to respond or concede where necessary.
>
>I would be unable to do so without considerable effort, and one I don't
>care enough to try. I don't remember thread titles or particular posts,
>so would have to search the entire tree for posts of mine that follow
>posts of yours. You could of course do the same thing, and you may
>consider that every time I reply to one of your posts I consider it to
>be particularly strong. So pick any of them.
>
>But I find your excuses for failing to reply quite lame, as I suspect do
>most people.
I simply don't have the time to read all the replies. Yet simpathetic
to your complaint I offered to reply to any particular "recent" post
of yours which you thought deserved a reply.
You can't very well accuse me of failing to reply while at the same
time failing to point me to the post you believe deserves a reply. You
are like the boy who cries, "wolf."
I'll ask one last time, which recent post of yours deserves a reply? I
will make an effort to reply and concede any good arguments.
Regards,
T Pagano
T Pagano
wrote:
>
>T Pagano wrote:
>> On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 23:04:00 GMT, John Harshman
>> <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>> >So, Tony's back, after a couple of weeks off. It seems to me that he
>> >hasn't responded to any of the posts he left hanging when he ran aw---
>> >er, left last time. Is that right?
>>
>> I can't possibly respond to all my detractors. If I leave them with
>> the last word how can this be a problem?
>>
>> When I occassionally take the time to review my detractor's posts they
>> are largely comprised of childish, ad hominem and emotional nonsense.
>
>Don't feel slighted they do it to me and everyone else who they cannot
>refute.
>
>
>> There are exceptions (like Forrest and one or two others) but they are
>> rare.
>
>Forrest has converted - he is rant artist producing topics that *ask*
>for a "honest Creationist argument".
We all have our quirks....and unfortunately I've been guilty of a rant
or two myself. Nonetheless with regard to ID theory and Irreducibly
Complexity Forrest is literally the only secularist in the forum (as
far as I know) who has offered some relevent criticism. At least
there is some wheat to separate from the chaff.
Regards,
T Pagano
John Harshman
[snip]
> I'll ask one last time, which recent post of yours deserves a reply? I
> will make an effort to reply and concede any good arguments.
They all do. You should have the elementary courtesy to reply to me when
I reply to you. Your habit of skipping out when things get hot, only to
emerge later making the same claims in new threads, annoys everybody.
Why not decide to reply to old posts before starting new arguments?
My time is easily worth as much as your time, and you can search as
easily as I can.
bodrules
Ray Martinez wrote:
> John Harshman wrote:
> > So, Tony's back, after a couple of weeks off. It seems to me that he
> > hasn't responded to any of the posts he left hanging when he ran aw---
> > er, left last time. Is that right?
> >
> > perhaps a perfect act of contrition that forgives all his old sins and
> > lets him start over. That's why he can ignore everything before and
> > insert himself again as if none of his arguments were ever countered.
> > He's been forgiven; he can ignore all that old baggage, because it
> > doesn't belong to the new Tony.
> >
> > Sort of an infinitely applicable mercy rule.
>
> John:
>
> You should link what you feel went unanswered.
>
Hey Ray, how are you feeling after your quite spectacular rant on
another thread, managed to calm down yet - or would it be crass of me
to mention that Barbi Bridges - oops Pastor Scott -was a porn star?
bodrules
Hi John, I've bee nlurking off and on for a year or so at TO and I have
a quick question with regards to bird evolution - well more a matterof
source material really. I don't have access to uni libaries or most
journals, so I'm looking for open source material on bird evolution
from a beginners POV (well I'm a ex-biochemist) I'd be most grateful if
you could provide me with a few links [I know its terrriablt lazy of
me, but I need someone to sort the wheat from the chaff here].
If you ever need anything on databse design or construction, the I'll
gladly reciprocate.
bodrules
Hi John, I've bee nlurking off and on for a year or so at TO and I have
a quick question with regards to bird evolution - well more a matterof
source material really. I don't have access to uni libaries or most
journals, so I'm looking for open source material on bird evolution
from a beginners POV (well I'm a ex-biochemist) I'd be most grateful if
you could provide me with a few links [I know its terrriablt lazy of
me, but I need someone to sort the wheat from the chaff here].
If you ever need anything on databse design or construction, then I'll
gladly reciprocate.
John Harshman
Unfortunately, I don't get my information on this from the web and am
thus a poor person to ask. However, if you're wondering about the really
early evolution of birds, you might want to check out the Dinosauricon.
Nic
I can't visualise what the argument is about here. Pictures on the web
don't help, and neither do long lists of bone names. My question is,
is the digit that is to become the alula free (i.e. not too far
committed to *not* becoming one) in Archaeopteryx? For example, does
it have a claw on it?
Lee Oswald Ving
5u3al2h4rojg10e9k...@4ax.com:
Pagano, dozens of people have offered releavant - and devastating -
criticism to your posts. The reason you, and most especially Martinez,
get rather a large number of heckling replies is transparent lies such as
these. And your habit of ignoring substantial criticisms, then pretending
they didn't happen. Then there's the mercy rule nonsense when you're
backed in a corner. And the pompous, self-important thread mutations.
Why anyone would give you any sort of benefit of the doubt this late in
the game, I have no idea. You had enough rope to hang yourself and your
religious agenda years ago.
Augray
in <1163199211.3...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> :
>I do stand corrected, in that evolution is a theory and creation is
>not, so thank you for your corrections. With that said, I would like
>to offer general advice concerning evolution vs creation.
>
>The wings of the Archaeopteryx, although a very interesting subject,
>will do little to encourage critical thinking on the part of your
>average Creationist. To find that these structures did in fact come
>about would further support your ideas, but would do little to convince
>a creationist to examine the evidence even within their own bible.
>
>Here we have people refusing to believe your science based on literal
>words on the very 1st page of the bible. That's really all there is.
>To fight fire with fire, I believe you must present ideas that they are
>willing to examine. If one takes the words of the bible literally,
>then evolution does exist. Moses was a man of flesh and blood, created
>by God, that lived over 800 years.
Moses didn't live 800 years. Are you perchance thinking of Methuselah?
T Pagano
Harshman only has about a dozen recent posts in reply to mine. In the
time it took to reply here he could have linked to one. One can only
infer that he lacks the confidence in any of those positions and fears
to commit himself.
Harshman is being hammered on a number of fronts. He's even being
hammered by Ford who is anything but a creationist. Harshman
undoubtedly has expertise in some areas; I suggest he stick to what he
knows unless he wants to remain in this semi-punch drunk state.
I'm done here.
Regards,
T Pagano
Lee Jay
> Harshman is being hammered on a number of fronts. He's even being
> hammered by Ford who is anything but a creationist. Harshman
> undoubtedly has expertise in some areas; I suggest he stick to what he
> knows unless he wants to remain in this semi-punch drunk state.
Do you have some kind of disorder like addiction to drugs, dyslexia or
a profound head injury or something?
Lee Jay
Lee Oswald Ving
@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com:
Some odd form of dyslexia, I'd guess.
Every time he claims to have scored some amazing victory (usually before he
'invokes the mercy rule' and runs away) it's always him who has made a
major blunder.
Is anyone even amused by this buffoonery anymore?
Lee Oswald Ving
> He's even being
> hammered by Ford who is anything but a creationist.
Right, right. He's a car, after all.
<snort> Why are you here, Pagano? Masochism?
CreateThis
wf3h
T Pagano wrote:
>
> When I occassionally take the time to review my detractor's posts they
> are largely comprised of childish, ad hominem and emotional nonsense.
says the religious fanatic who routinely characterizes scientists as
atheists.
> There are exceptions (like Forrest and one or two others) but they are
> rare. Furthermore I don't have to "win" an argument or answer every
> objection to achieve my goal. I only set the modest goal of showing
> that the positions of my secular-atheist opponents
res ipsa loquitur...
are not nearly as
> strong, or unassailable or unimpeachable as they let on to the
> unwashed masses.
as opposed to tony who parrots the reactionary party line....
>
Steven J.
T Pagano wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 00:48:10 GMT, John Harshman
> <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >T Pagano wrote:
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >> I'll ask one last time, which recent post of yours deserves a reply? I
> >> will make an effort to reply and concede any good arguments.
>
> >They all do. You should have the elementary courtesy to reply to me when
> >I reply to you. Your habit of skipping out when things get hot, only to
> >emerge later making the same claims in new threads, annoys everybody.
> >Why not decide to reply to old posts before starting new arguments?
> >
> >My time is easily worth as much as your time, and you can search as
> >easily as I can.
>
expensive ones?
And second, as long as we're on the subject of replies, how does one
decide whether a biological structure is "fully-formed" or "nascent?"
>
> Harshman only has about a dozen recent posts in reply to mine. In the
> time it took to reply here he could have linked to one. One can only
> infer that he lacks the confidence in any of those positions and fears
> to commit himself.
>
That is the *only* inference you can draw? I think I begin to see the
problem in your reasoning skills.
Why not draw the inference that he has so much confidence in all his
posts that he does not care which one, recent or old, you choose to
respond to? Why, for that matter, not draw the inference that he
doesn't expect an honest reply from you on any matter, and therefore
sees no reason to go to the trouble of picking out the one post he'd
most like to see an honest reply to?
>
> Harshman is being hammered on a number of fronts. He's even being
> hammered by Ford who is anything but a creationist. Harshman
> undoubtedly has expertise in some areas; I suggest he stick to what he
> knows unless he wants to remain in this semi-punch drunk state.
>
Ford is not a young-earth creationist, but he is definitely a
creationist: he has advocated, as much as you have, a literal Adam and
Eve and literal fall. I have never seen Ford "hammer" anyone; I have
seen him only engage in weasely word games and desperate attempts to
change the subject.
>
> I'm done here.
>
And brave Sir Robin bravely runs away.
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by Lee Oswald Ving
<leeo...@yahoo.com>:
Is the spectacle of a supposedly-educated supposed adult
acting the way TP acts *ever* really amusing?
John Harshman
> T Pagano wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 00:48:10 GMT, John Harshman
>><jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>T Pagano wrote:
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>
>>>>I'll ask one last time, which recent post of yours deserves a reply? I
>>>>will make an effort to reply and concede any good arguments.
>>
>>>They all do. You should have the elementary courtesy to reply to me when
>>>I reply to you. Your habit of skipping out when things get hot, only to
>>>emerge later making the same claims in new threads, annoys everybody.
>>>Why not decide to reply to old posts before starting new arguments?
>>>
>>>My time is easily worth as much as your time, and you can search as
>>>easily as I can.
>>
> First, Tony, do cheap suits actually fold any faster or easier than
> expensive ones?
This is perhaps the most important question for Pagano to answer. The
phrase is usually "all over you like a cheap suit", which refers to its
bad fit and tendency to ride up. Why a cheap suit would fold
particularly well is unclear, and this is characteristic of his tendency
to non sequitur and malapropism.
> And second, as long as we're on the subject of replies, how does one
> decide whether a biological structure is "fully-formed" or "nascent?"
I believe the signs show we are nearing the end of another Pagano
appearance, and he is about to enter the running-away phase.
>>Harshman only has about a dozen recent posts in reply to mine. In the
>>time it took to reply here he could have linked to one. One can only
>>infer that he lacks the confidence in any of those positions and fears
>>to commit himself.
>>
>
> That is the *only* inference you can draw? I think I begin to see the
> problem in your reasoning skills.
>
> Why not draw the inference that he has so much confidence in all his
> posts that he does not care which one, recent or old, you choose to
> respond to? Why, for that matter, not draw the inference that he
> doesn't expect an honest reply from you on any matter, and therefore
> sees no reason to go to the trouble of picking out the one post he'd
> most like to see an honest reply to?
>
>>Harshman is being hammered on a number of fronts. He's even being
>>hammered by Ford who is anything but a creationist. Harshman
>>undoubtedly has expertise in some areas; I suggest he stick to what he
>>knows unless he wants to remain in this semi-punch drunk state.
>>
>
> Ford is not a young-earth creationist, but he is definitely a
> creationist: he has advocated, as much as you have, a literal Adam and
> Eve and literal fall. I have never seen Ford "hammer" anyone; I have
> seen him only engage in weasely word games and desperate attempts to
> change the subject.
Not always. Sometimes he just responds to any attempt at discussion by
thousand-line, imprenetrable regurgitations. Apparently Tony considers
this a form of argument. I invite him to argue about the age of the
earth with Ford.
>>I'm done here.
>
> And brave Sir Robin bravely runs away.
He seems to be a magical combination of Sir Robin and the Black Knight.
Somehow he's able to run away after you've cut off his legs, all the
while accusing you of cowardice.
Greg G.
John Harshman wrote:
> Steven J. wrote:
...
> >
> > And brave Sir Robin bravely runs away.
>
> He seems to be a magical combination of Sir Robin and the Black Knight.
> Somehow he's able to run away after you've cut off his legs, all the
> while accusing you of cowardice.
But the Black Knight is willing to call it a tie. Tony always claims to
have won during his retreat. It's his... um... idiom.
--
Greg G.
The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.
--George Bernard Shaw
Augray
in <1163206639....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> :
[snip]
>Hi John, I've bee nlurking off and on for a year or so at TO and I have
>a quick question with regards to bird evolution - well more a matterof
>source material really. I don't have access to uni libaries or most
>journals, so I'm looking for open source material on bird evolution
>from a beginners POV (well I'm a ex-biochemist) I'd be most grateful if
>you could provide me with a few links [I know its terrriablt lazy of
>me, but I need someone to sort the wheat from the chaff here].
You might find this useful:
Chiappe, L. M., & G. J. Dyke. 2006. The Early Evolutionary History of
Birds. Journal of the Paleontological Society of Korea 22(1):133-151.
Available on-line at
http://cactus.dixie.edu/jharris/Chiappe%26Dyke_bird_evol.pdf
[snip]
Augray
in <1163223028.6...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> :
Yes, it does, but then lots of living birds have a claw on the alular
digit, as did Eoalulavis, the Cretaceous bird in question. Even
chickens have one, although it's vestigial in all modern birds. The
presence of an alula in a fossil can only be determined if the alula
feathers are preserved.
[snip]
Jim Lovejoy
Yep. Young Earth Creationism