Printable Version of Topic
-Antievolution.org Discussion Board
+--Forum: After the Bar Closes...
+---Topic: VMartin's cosmology started by Arden Chatfield
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 06 2007,12:29
As almost everyone here must know by now, I have been trying with spectacular lack of success to get VMartin to answer two simple questions:
1) do you believe common descent is correct?
2) how old is the earth?
I even rephrased the second question as a multiple choice question, and he still refuses to answer either question.
Now, I've seen several creationists repeatedly refuse to answer these questions, and I have my own hunch as to why VM won't answer them, but VM has finally made a claim as to WHY he won't answer them:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- We are here not at a geological forum and we are not here even on a geological thread. That's why your question is off-topic. I will never answer your off-topic questions at these threads. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Okay, evidently he won't answer these questions if he thinks they're off-topic. So here's a thread devoted ENTIRELY to him and these questions. These questions are totally on-topic here.
So then, *ahem*.
To repeat, V:
1) do you believe common descent is correct?
2) the Earth is:
a) 4.5 billion years old b) around 12,000 years old c) around 6,000 years old d) probably a couple million years old e) none of the above.
Since I have now fulfilled Martin's standards of relevancy, I'm sure he'll answer now.
Posted by: jeannot on Sep. 06 2007,13:49
What makes you think VMartin will be more likely to answer your questions here?
Posted by: blipey on Sep. 06 2007,13:51
But the new dodge may be funnier. I have popcorn.
Posted by: slpage on Sep. 06 2007,13:53
So, is VMartin really an eastern european, or is he someone else pretending to be?
I refer to his on-again-off-again typed broken english. I understand that such things happen in spoken language, but I have a hard time accepting that you can exhibit 'broken english' when you type... sometimes...
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 06 2007,14:23
Quote (blipey @ Sep. 06 2007,13:51) | But the new dodge may be funnier. ?I have popcorn. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That's the right attitude.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 06 2007,14:30
Quote (slpage @ Sep. 06 2007,13:53) | So, is VMartin really an eastern european, or is he someone else pretending to be?
I refer to his on-again-off-again typed broken english. ?I understand that such things happen in spoken language, but I have a hard time accepting that you can exhibit 'broken english' when you type... sometimes... ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I had my suspicions at first, too, but there seems to be solid evidence that he's Slovakian. He wrote a passage of Czech (I don't think it was Slovak) that convinced David Marjanovic of his authenticity.
I suspect that VM first started studying English rather recently, so sometimes his English kind of goes in and out. I gather that in that part of Europe people haven't been studying English for very long.
Posted by: VMartin on Sep. 06 2007,15:03
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 06 2007,14:30) | Quote (slpage @ Sep. 06 2007,13:53) | So, is VMartin really an eastern european, or is he someone else pretending to be?
I refer to his on-again-off-again typed broken english. ?I understand that such things happen in spoken language, but I have a hard time accepting that you can exhibit 'broken english' when you type... sometimes... ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I had my suspicions at first, too, but there seems to be solid evidence that he's Slovakian. He wrote a passage of Czech (I don't think it was Slovak) that convinced David Marjanovic of his authenticity.
I suspect that VM first started studying English rather recently, so sometimes his English kind of goes in and out. I gather that in that part of Europe people haven't been studying English for very long. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yah. Marjanovic is a pharyngulist who doesn't know how to tell apart Russian and Czech. I don't know how you came to the idea that he was able to determine my nationality.
Marjanovic is also a "knowledgeable evolutionist" as doctor Myers calls all his sycophants. Neverthenless he knows nothing about color perception. He has never heard about red-green perception canals and so he ?invented ad hoc brand new theory after 5 minutes of thinking: green = white - red. Everybody can check his "arguments" at One blog a day where we (John Davison predominanly) made fools of pharyngulists.
As to your stupid question I wrote that no new mammalian Order has aroused since Eocene.
If you were more clever you might have deduce that I at least presume the Earth is older than the time of beginning of Eocene. Go to Wikipedia for time scaling of Eocene.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 06 2007,15:12
Martin. How lovely to have you join us!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you were more clever you might have deduce that I at least presume the Earth is older than the time of beginning of Eocene. Go to Wikipedia for time scaling of Eocene. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And if you were less of a coward you would simply *tell* us how old you think the world is.
Anyway, Wikipedia says the Eocene ran from around 33.9 to 55.8 million years ago. Is 55.8 million years the most you'll concede for the age of the earth? Or are you willing to crank it all the way back to 4.5 billion?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As to your stupid question I wrote that no new mammalian Order has aroused since Eocene. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
('arisen', not 'aroused'. check the meaning of the latter, V.)
Be more explicit, Martin, does that mean you reject common descent for humans or no?
BTW, why is it a stupid question? Seems a *lot* of creationists get very hot and bothered about those very questions.
?
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Everybody can check his "arguments" at One blog a day where we (John Davison predominanly) made fools of pharyngulists. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The pinnacle of Martin's scientific career, right there.
BTW, Martin, you're not in the best position to be accusing others of being sycophants.
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 06 2007,15:16
Re "He has never heard about red-green perception canals and so he ?invented ad hoc brand new theory after 5 minutes of thinking: green = white - red."
That agrees with what I remember learning in school on that subject. Which means it isn't ad hoc.
Posted by: VMartin on Sep. 06 2007,15:24
Henry,
maybe you were in the same school that Marjanovic attended. As far as I remember he was at school only 12 years. It means the guy finished his education at secondary school. No wonder he became darwinian scientist at Pharyngula.
Check the basic rules about adding and subtraction of colors. These rules are very important in printing plants. Or ask some artist.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 06 2007,15:29
Martin? Please? Back on topic?
Do you reject common descent for humans or not?
Earth / 4.5 billion -- yes/no?
Answer the questions please and you can get back to Davison.
Posted by: blipey on Sep. 06 2007,16:16
Damn!!! Can we please keep just one stinking thread on topic!
I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH VMARTIN!!!!
Information that is not relevant to the thread should not be allowed on!
So, what was this thread about?
Oh yeah, carry on VMARTIN, I want to know all about artists and the color wheel--unless those artists never went to university.
PLEASE, LET'S KEEP TO THE SPIRIT OF THE OPENING POST AND TALK ABOUT ARTISTS!
cripes, darwiniacs have the attention span of a two year old (who also never started college)...damn.
Posted by: Kristine on Sep. 06 2007,16:18
Quote (slpage @ Sep. 06 2007,12:53) | So, is VMartin really an eastern european, or is he someone else pretending to be?
I refer to his on-again-off-again typed broken english. ?I understand that such things happen in spoken language, but I have a hard time accepting that you can exhibit 'broken english' when you type... sometimes... ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
His IP, when he graced my blog with his presence, originated in Slovakia.
Posted by: Steviepinhead on Sep. 06 2007,16:24
Vmartin:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- no new mammalian Order has aroused since Eocene.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That'll surprise the heck out of my girlfriend...
Or maybe Vmartin would rather be Eocene and not heard.
Posted by: Steviepinhead on Sep. 06 2007,16:25
With Vmartin's Anglo-linguistic facility, he'll probably finally be forced to admit, felicitously, that "Common decency is, indeed, correct."
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Sep. 06 2007,17:20
Quote (Steviepinhead @ Sep. 06 2007,17:24) | Vmartin: ?
---------------------QUOTE------------------- no new mammalian Order has aroused since Eocene.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That'll surprise the heck out of my girlfriend... ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That is downright obseocene.
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 06 2007,22:14
V, Re "Check the basic rules about adding and subtraction of colors. These rules are very important in printing plants. Or ask some artist."
Ah. You're talking about mixing pigments. I was thinking about mixing frequencies of light.
Henry
Posted by: k.e on Sep. 06 2007,23:05
Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 07 2007,06:14) | V, Re "Check the basic rules about adding and subtraction of colors. These rules are very important in printing plants. Or ask some artist."
Ah. You're talking about mixing pigments. I was thinking about mixing frequencies of light.
Henry ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Autodidacts hate being corrected.
Posted by: VMartin on Sep. 07 2007,00:13
Quote (Kristine @ Sep. 06 2007,16:18) | Quote (slpage @ Sep. 06 2007,12:53) | So, is VMartin really an eastern european, or is he someone else pretending to be?
I refer to his on-again-off-again typed broken english. ?I understand that such things happen in spoken language, but I have a hard time accepting that you can exhibit 'broken english' when you type... sometimes... ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
His IP, when he graced my blog with his presence, originated in Slovakia. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hi Kristine.
There is some good habit here makinkg psychonalysis for gratis. I have passed out here two psycholalysis - the one ?from Arden and the second from Alan Fox. Btw. both guys pursue me with their monomaniacal questions whatever I wrote. Arden even created this thread to give vent his urge.
Alan even logged at ISCID where his annoying question disturbs our discussions there.
But both of them are perfect psychoanalysts.
And now me:
I think your surrealism compensate your liking in darwinism. You as an poet feel more clearly than many folks here that this teaching is not correct answer to problems of evolution. Your psyche revolt. Thats why your psyche seek compensation in surrealism.
More cultivated thoughts about the problem of surrealism and biology can be find in the book of professor ?Adolf Portmann "Biologie und Geist".
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 07 2007,02:51
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 06 2007,15:29) | Martin? Please? Back on topic?
Do you reject common descent for humans or not?
Earth / 4.5 billion -- yes/no?
Answer the questions please and you can get back to Davison. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
VMartin, 2 simple questions. Answer them you coward!
Posted by: Alan Fox on Sep. 07 2007,04:22
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Alan even logged at ISCID where his annoying question disturbs our discussions there. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Disturb your discussions? What discussions? Surely you jest!
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 07 2007,08:54
Oh boy. Martin thinks because he's a 'man' he can patronize Kristine. This should have lots of potential.
Maaaaaaartiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnn..... oh Maaaaaaartiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnn..... answer our questions!!!!!!
---------------------QUOTE------------------- There is some good habit here makinkg psychonalysis for gratis. I have passed out here two psycholalysis - the one ?from Arden and the second from Alan Fox. Btw. both guys pursue me with their monomaniacal questions whatever I wrote. Arden even created this thread to give vent his urge. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Martin, you can make me quit asking you by giving clear answers. Whine all you want, but if you stick around here babbling about ladybirds and toadstools but dodging questions, I'll continue to ask you over and over. If you don't like this situation, you're more than welcome to go away and hide under Davison's skirts. But remember, it'll be waiting for you when you get back.
Posted by: Kristine on Sep. 07 2007,10:43
Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 06 2007,23:13) | ? Quote (Kristine @ Sep. 06 2007,16:18) | ? ? ? Quote (slpage @ Sep. 06 2007,12:53) | So, is VMartin really an eastern european, or is he someone else pretending to be?
I refer to his on-again-off-again typed broken english. ?I understand that such things happen in spoken language, but I have a hard time accepting that you can exhibit 'broken english' when you type... sometimes... ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
His IP, when he graced my blog with his presence, originated in Slovakia. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hi Kristine.
There is some good habit here makinkg psychonalysis for gratis. I have passed out here two psycholalysis - the one ?from Arden and the second from Alan Fox. Btw. both guys pursue me with their monomaniacal questions whatever I wrote. Arden even created this thread to give vent his urge.
Alan even logged at ISCID where his annoying question disturbs our discussions there.
But both of them are perfect ?psychoanalysts.
And now me:
I think your surrealism compensate your liking in darwinism. You as an poet feel more clearly than many folks here that this teaching is not correct answer to problems of evolution. Your psyche revolt. Thats why your psyche seek compensation in surrealism.
More cultivated thoughts about the problem of surrealism and biology can be find in the book of professor ?Adolf Portmann "Biologie und Geist". ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My "psyche seek compensation in surrealism" because I am flower of the orient, can love Darwinism longtime, everyone.
VMartin, as a philosophy surrealism is a crock. As an attitude and an aesthetic (which it was never intended to be), it gives a certain playfulness to life, like Cocteau films and punning over the heads of clueless twits. Hint. Lighten up.
Get out of your closet with that psychoanalysis and those pigments and live a little, or you?ll continue to play the straight man in Alan?s and Arden?s comedy routine.
*Braces for predictable protestation re misunderstanding of meaning of "straight"*
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on Sep. 07 2007,10:44
Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 07 2007,04:13) | There is some good habit here makinkg psychonalysis for gratis. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you aren't qualified to do that, are you?
Judging by your efforts I would say you've never studied psychology in your life, since they are the worst kind of cod psychological nonsense favoured by simpering morons who try to act all cool and intellectual.
Coincidence? I think not.
Posted by: VMartin on Sep. 07 2007,10:47
Quote (k.e @ Sep. 06 2007,23:05) | ? ? ? Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 07 2007,06:14) | V, Re "Check the basic rules about adding and subtraction of colors. These rules are very important in printing plants. Or ask some artist."
Ah. You're talking about mixing pigments. I was thinking about mixing frequencies of light.
Henry ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Autodidacts hate being corrected. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Pigments? Autodidacts?
Do you mean that removing red frequency from the light spectrum will cause that the light entering the eye should be perceived as green?
Do you think that spectum colors violet, blue, yellow, orange and green (without red) should be perceived in their totality as green?
Have you ever heard about Hering's red-green channel or you are again explaing the complicated problem of color perception ad hoc using only your phantasy? (But no wonder, because you often use your phantasy as the only scientific method for explaining of evolutionary processes too.)
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 07 2007,10:53
Welcome back, Martin, got answers for us?
Posted by: Lou FCD on Sep. 07 2007,11:15
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 07 2007,10:53) | Welcome back, Martin, got answers for us? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Perhaps he won't answer because he takes a very wide stance on the issue.
Posted by: k.e on Sep. 07 2007,11:35
Quote (Lou FCD @ Sep. 07 2007,19:15) | Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 07 2007,10:53) | Welcome back, Martin, got answers for us? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Perhaps he won't answer because he takes a very wide stance on the issue. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You are a cruel, cruel man.
Although I noticed you didn't mention shopping bags.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Sep. 07 2007,12:17
---------------------QUOTE------------------- *Braces for predictable protestation re misunderstanding of meaning of "straight"* ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, as I had to google "wide stance" to find out about alternative uses of shopping bags, I guess I don't need to protest.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Sep. 07 2007,12:27
I was looking over portions of this and the previous thread, and I began to wonder, "How old does VMartin think the earth is? Does he accept common descent?"
It appears that nobody has thought to ask him.
Hey, VMartin, why is everybody beating around the bush on such simple questions?
How old do you think the earth is? I've heard and accept the figure 4.5 billion years, with 13.7 billion years the current best estimate of the age of the universe (based on WMAP data and a number of assumptions).
Do you accept common descent? I do.
Just wondering. Thanks,
R-Bill
Posted by: Doc Bill on Sep. 07 2007,12:28
I'm sorry, I lost my train of thought.
Is this thread for VMartin or Paul Nelson?
Something about not answering questions...
Posted by: Kristine on Sep. 07 2007,12:37
Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 07 2007,09:47) | ? Quote (k.e @ Sep. 06 2007,23:05) | Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 07 2007,06:14) | V, Re "Check the basic rules about adding and subtraction of colors. These rules are very important in printing plants. Or ask some artist."
Ah. You're talking about mixing pigments. I was thinking about mixing frequencies of light.
Henry ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Autodidacts hate being corrected. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Pigments? Autodidacts?
Do you mean that removing red frequency from the light spectrum will cause that the light entering the eye should be perceived as green?
Do you think that spectum colors violet, blue, yellow, orange and green (without red) should be perceived in their totality as green?
Have you ever heard about Hering's red-green channel or you are again explaing the complicated problem of color perception ad hoc using only your phantasy? (But no wonder, because you often use your phantasy as the only scientific method for explaining of evolutionary processes too.) ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
*Brainfahrt* You know, Vman, lets start with an appetizer. How old are you?
Then add how many more years it would take for you to be as old as the earth, however old you think it to be.
Do want answers this time! K start now. Bai.
Posted by: blipey on Sep. 07 2007,14:33
Why HARD the questions so here? Very mad the mind of me go to lengths to answer simple the posed thoughts here.
Too HARD understand the wants of Darwinists.
How olde the earth not ever been to me askedd, this why I never any answer to you.
I always simply to answer you, but you clearly no ask of me these things.
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 07 2007,16:05
Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 07 2007,10:47) | Do you mean that removing red frequency from the light spectrum will cause that the light entering the eye should be perceived as green? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes. When talking about mixing of light frequencies:
White light = red + yellow + blue.
Green = yellow + blue.
Remove red from white, what's left?
Oh, and to avoid being totally off topic - how old is the Earth?
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on Sep. 07 2007,16:27
Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 07 2007,20:05) | Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 07 2007,10:47) | Do you mean that removing red frequency from the light spectrum will cause that the light entering the eye should be perceived as green? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes. When talking about mixing of light frequencies:
White light = red + yellow + blue.
Green = yellow + blue.
Remove red from white, what's left?
Oh, and to avoid being totally off topic - how old is the Earth? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Errr....I thought the primary colours of light were red green and blue. Yellow is a derivative of blue and green, isn't it?
[EDIT] < This guy > thinks I'm half right at least.
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 07 2007,16:40
Well, what I recall from school was primary = blue, yellow, red. So which three colors correspond to having only one of our three types of color sense cells reacting to it at one time?
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on Sep. 07 2007,16:53
Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 07 2007,20:40) | Well, what I recall from school was primary = blue, yellow, red. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ah, they are the primary colours in terms of paint, apparently because blue is roughly comparative with cyan and red with magenta.
I learnt in secondary school the primary colours of light are red green and blue, and that they are the primary derivatives of white.
Posted by: Nerull on Sep. 07 2007,19:19
Paint and light have diffrent sets of primary colors. In light it is Red, Green, Blue. Computers use these three colors for everything too.
In astronomy we use red, green, and blue filters in separate exposures to produce a color image, because our CCDs don't have dedicated color pixels, unlike the CCDs in most digital cameras. This makes the CCD more sensitive, which we consider more important than easy color photos.
Posted by: Bob O'H on Sep. 08 2007,01:41
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Oh, and to avoid being totally off topic - how old is the Earth? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And when's its birthday?
Bob
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 08 2007,15:11
Re "And when's its birthday?"
Just imagine all the complications that'd be involved in trying to actually answer that...
Henry
Posted by: Doc Bill on Sep. 09 2007,17:58
I guess a larger question is why are YEC's so reticent to stand behind their claims of a young earth?
Why the "don't ask, don't tell?"
I've seen this behavior for decades and it's the same over and over.
Where's the conviction?
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Sep. 10 2007,06:26
Gosh, I was just wondering how old the earth is, and whether common ancestry is true. Should I ask VMartin for his thoughts on these matters? He's always been an upfront guy.
Posted by: blipey on Sep. 10 2007,10:14
Yeah. I've always been curious about that too. I don't think anyone has ever told me the truth about that. It's a good thing that VMartin is here to do just that: tell the truth.
Posted by: VMartin on Sep. 10 2007,11:42
Before adressing nonsenses about the color perception (Why "knowledgeable evolutionists" do not read more about the complicated problem of the perception of colors and always try to defend completely nonsense green = white - red?) some words on topic.
According Buffon <<Histoire de la Terre>> from the midst 18 century the Earth was 75.000 years old. Charles Lyell in 1830 estimated the time of rocks to 230 millions years. Helmholtz and Kelvin estimated 100 millions years of the Earth as exaggerated.
I don't know if the nowadays estimation 5,4 mrd years is the final one and no other changes are possible.
But preliminary scientific dating of Cambrian explosion or mammalian "radiation" in Eocene is something I take for granted.
Because Darwin himself didn't suppose the Earth to be 5,4 mrd years old the question of the exact age of the Earth has no relation to mechanisms that govern evolution of life.
What I disagree is the neodarwinian explanation of evolution of organisms. On my view natural selection play no role in it.
Posted by: jeannot on Sep. 10 2007,11:59
There's a progress, Martin but you're still not answering the question about common descent, which is separate from natural selection (we already knew you deny it). And among all the estimations of the age of the Earth you provided, which one do you think is the most accurate?
BTW, the current estimation is 4.5 billion years, not 5.4.
Posted by: VMartin on Sep. 10 2007,12:21
Common descent is a complicated problem considering saltationism as a process of evolution. If a reptile hatched a bird there is no ancestor in common view, you know.
Btw. John Davison considered possibility that there were as many independent ancestors in Mammalia as there are mammalian Orders. There might have been many creation.
Posted by: Nerull on Sep. 10 2007,12:22
Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 10 2007,11:42) | Before adressing nonsenses about the color perception (Why "knowledgeable evolutionists" do not read more about the complicated problem of the perception of colors and always try to defend completely nonsense green = white - red?) some words on topic.
According Buffon <<Histoire de la Terre>> from the midst 18 century the Earth was 75.000 years old. Charles Lyell in 1830 estimated the time of rocks to 230 millions years. Helmholtz and Kelvin estimated 100 millions years of the Earth as exaggerated.
I don't know if the nowadays estimation 5,4 mrd years is the final one and no other changes are possible.
But preliminary scientific dating of Cambrian explosion or mammalian "radiation" in Eocene is something I take for granted.
Because Darwin himself didn't suppose the Earth to be 5,4 mrd years old the question of the exact age of the Earth has no relation to mechanisms that govern evolution of life.
What I disagree is the neodarwinian explanation of evolution of organisms. On my view natural selection play no role in it. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Actually, white - red is a light blueish color.
Hey VMartin, that monitor your using, do you know how it creates those "complex colors"? By combining red, green, and blue.
Ever used a digital camera? Know how it perceives those "complex colors"? By using pixels sensitive to red, green, and blue and combining them.
Know how all color images on a PC store that complex color data? As red, green, and blue channels. They are combined when the image is displayed.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 10 2007,12:27
Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 10 2007,12:21) | Common descent is a complicated problem considering saltationism as a process of evolution. If a reptile hatched a bird there is no ancestor in common view, you know.
Btw. John Davison considered possibility that there were as many independent ancestors in Mammalia as there are mammalian Orders. There might have been many creation. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Martin, it's amazing how many things you can say 'in response' to a question without actually answering it. I'd love to see you in a grad school program if only to have you do this in response to your Masters Orals, or whatever the Slovakian equivalent is. I'm also dazzled by your ability to invoke Davison no matter what the subject is.
Anyway, let's get back on topic:
1) Do you believe common descent for humans and other primates is correct? True, or wicked Darwinist lie?
2) what figure for the age of the earth do you find most plausible?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 10 2007,13:16
Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 10 2007,12:21) | There might have been ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh? < "Results 1 - 10 of about 951,000 for "There might have been". > According to google, there are almost a million hits for the exact phrase "there might have been".
Apparently there might have been almost a million things?
At least?
The point is, you gotta narrow it down y'know?
Fer'instance:
"There might have been a billion earths, each one with only one animal, and they all merged and there was 1 earth and a billion animals. And that."
No? Yet you say
---------------------QUOTE------------------- There might have been many creation ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Might there of? How illuminating! Well worth the price of entrance.
VMartin, 3 questions.
1: How old is the earth (and whens it's birthday?) 2: Do you believe common descent for humans and other primates is correct? 3: What do you do for a day job? B'coz I hope it's something well paid and satisfying as you're achieving bugger all here.
And an extra one for bonus points, before I hit submit...
Can you tell me a few hundred words about this "many creation" you mention? I presume you mean something like there was not just a single instance of creation, but many instances, in fact no species now extant could be here without a direct intervention by the "intelligent designer"
Can you do that VMartin? Only, no changing the subject if you give it a go. Stick to the topic :p
Posted by: VMartin on Sep. 10 2007,13:42
Quote (Nerull @ Sep. 10 2007,12:22) | Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 10 2007,11:42) | Before adressing nonsenses about the color perception (Why "knowledgeable evolutionists" do not read more about the complicated problem of the perception of colors and always try to defend completely nonsense green = white - red?) some words on topic.
According Buffon <<Histoire de la Terre>> from the midst 18 century the Earth was 75.000 years old. Charles Lyell in 1830 estimated the time of rocks to 230 millions years. Helmholtz and Kelvin estimated 100 millions years of the Earth as exaggerated.
I don't know if the nowadays estimation 5,4 mrd years is the final one and no other changes are possible.
But preliminary scientific dating of Cambrian explosion or mammalian "radiation" in Eocene is something I take for granted.
Because Darwin himself didn't suppose the Earth to be 5,4 mrd years old the question of the exact age of the Earth has no relation to mechanisms that govern evolution of life.
What I disagree is the neodarwinian explanation of evolution of organisms. On my view natural selection play no role in it. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Actually, white - red is a light blueish color.
Hey VMartin, that monitor your using, do you know how it creates those "complex colors"? By combining red, green, and blue.
Ever used a digital camera? Know how it perceives those "complex colors"? By using pixels sensitive to red, green, and blue and combining them.
Know how all color images on a PC store that complex color data? As red, green, and blue channels. They are combined when the image is displayed. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you place grey piece of paper to red backgound you will see the margin of the paper as green or bluegreen (Woodworth, Schlosberg 1959). You will see the opponent color. Obviously you see a color the spectrum frequency of which is not entering your eye.
Do you ever heard about Hering red-green channel? Do you ever heard about Opponent Process Colour Theory?
I am speaking about color perception which is much more complicated process as your mixing of simple colors in camera or printed journal.
Posted by: blipey on Sep. 10 2007,14:00
Thank God VMartin answered the simple question, "How old do you think the Earth is?" Look, I'll just point it out here:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Before adressing nonsenses about the color perception (Why "knowledgeable evolutionists" do not read more about the complicated problem of the perception of colors and always try to defend completely nonsense green = white - red?) some words on topic.
Uh, hmmm. Must be in the next paragraph
According Buffon <<Histoire de la Terre>> from the midst 18 century the Earth was 75.000 years old. Charles Lyell in 1830 estimated the time of rocks to 230 millions years. Helmholtz and Kelvin estimated 100 millions years of the Earth as exaggerated.
Nope, sorry. The next one is the money paragraph
I don't know if the nowadays estimation 5,4 mrd years is the final one and no other changes are possible.
uh.....
But preliminary scientific dating of Cambrian explosion or mammalian "radiation" in Eocene is something I take for granted.
Teh stupid, it burns
Because Darwin himself didn't suppose the Earth to be 5,4 mrd years old the question of the exact age of the Earth has no relation to mechanisms that govern evolution of life.
What I disagree is the neodarwinian explanation of evolution of organisms. On my view natural selection play no role in it. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I would like to apologize for the previous statement implying that there was an answer in the previous load of crap.
Come on, VMartin, if you're just going to be jaw-droppingly stupid, leave. If you're going to stay, please be funny or interesting--wheichever floats your boat.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 10 2007,16:29
Blipey, you're unaccountably omitting this vtardian gem:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- If a reptile hatched a bird there is no ancestor in common view, you know. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's made all the better by the fact that V fails to give us any hint as to what it has to do with anything.
Posted by: Steviepinhead on Sep. 11 2007,18:10
Arden:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Masters Orals, or whatever the Slovakian equivalent is ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ah, that would be the Blovius Juris, often translated from the Slovlatinskien as "verbose legalese," but which might more accurately be rendered as "orally fixated."
This critical step in the Slovlatinskien educational system is abbreviated B.J., though that would not be a good reason to conflate Veemeron with a downtrodden worker of the red*-light district.
_ *Realizing that Vm has difficulty parsing color descriptors, let's just say that this is the color of the substance most often inserted into lipstick tubes. At least, outside of Lower Slovlatinskia...
Posted by: hereoisreal on Sep. 11 2007,19:46
V:
If you place grey piece of paper to red backgound you will see the margin of the paper as green or bluegreen (Woodworth, Schlosberg 1959). You will see the opponent color. Obviously you see a color the spectrum frequency of which is not entering your eye.
Do you ever heard about Hering red-green channel? Do you ever heard about Opponent Process Colour Theory?
I am speaking about color perception which is much more complicated process as your mixing of simple colors in camera or printed journal.
******************************************
V, 'color perception' is a miracle in it's self... sorta like watching a live event on TV or a good movie re-run. Also you can just close your eyes and fantasize or dream......4 choices.
1. Reality 2. Memory 3. Imagination 4. Dream (sleeping)
Zero
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on Sep. 11 2007,19:49
Quote (hereoisreal @ Sep. 11 2007,23:46) | V:
If you place grey piece of paper to red backgound you will see the margin of the paper as green or bluegreen (Woodworth, Schlosberg 1959). You will see the opponent color. Obviously you see a color the spectrum frequency of which is not entering your eye.
Do you ever heard about Hering red-green channel? Do you ever heard about Opponent Process Colour Theory?
I am speaking about color perception which is much more complicated process as your mixing of simple colors in camera or printed journal.
******************************************
V, 'color perception' is a miracle in it's self... sorta like watching a live event on TV or a good movie re-run. Also you can just close your eyes and fantasize or dream......4 choices.
1. Reality 2. Memory 3. Imagination 4. Dream (sleeping)
Zero ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I thought zero was....well I'm not sure, but I didn't think (s)he was coming back.
I'm equally unsure what the hell that was about.
Posted by: hereoisreal on Sep. 11 2007,20:46
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 11 2007,19:49) | I'm equally unsure what the hell that was about. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Think about it Ian. Without # 1, you can't see the other 3.
How light reaches you and me is much more complex than how the super bowl reaches our living rooms. It might have been designed.
Zero
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 11 2007,21:05
Quote (hereoisreal @ Sep. 11 2007,20:46) | Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 11 2007,19:49) | I'm equally unsure what the hell that was about. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Think about it Ian. Without # 1, you can't see the other 3.
How light reaches you and me is much more complex than how the super bowl reaches our living rooms. It might have been designed.
Zero ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What, the Superbowl? Of course that was designed...
Posted by: hereoisreal on Sep. 11 2007,21:17
The following is story # 123 on my web site at hereoisreal.com
SUPER BOWL One morning about five or six years ago, on a Superbowl Sunday, I had to go to the bathroom. I had this terrible, terrible diarrhea - one of the worst that I had ever had - and I was thinking to myself, "Wow, this is a Super Bowl Sunday - I'll remember this one!" I had in mind a huge toilet bowl. I walked out of the bathroom and out into the yard to pick up the Sunday paper. When I opened it up there was just one big picture on the front of the paper - a huge toilet bowl.
Zero
Posted by: k.e on Sep. 11 2007,22:41
HIR
Are you saying god...er the designer imagined the universe before he found a facsimile of his thoughts on a lawn and only found it memorable because he had "diarrhea".
Somehow I had in mind something more intelligent
Posted by: hereoisreal on Sep. 12 2007,04:28
k e, no, I'm saying nothing can be seen without light.
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
That's 'God' with a capital G.
Zero
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 12 2007,05:04
Quote (hereoisreal @ Sep. 12 2007,04:28) | k e, no, I'm saying nothing can be seen without light.
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
That's 'God' with a capital G.
Zero ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
no, it didn't.
Posted by: hereoisreal on Sep. 12 2007,05:37
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 12 2007,05:04) | Quote (hereoisreal @ Sep. 12 2007,04:28) | k e, no, I'm saying nothing can be seen without light.
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
That's 'God' with a capital G.
Zero ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
no, it didn't. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No, what didn't what?
Zero
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 12 2007,05:39
Quote (hereoisreal @ Sep. 12 2007,05:37) | Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 12 2007,05:04) | Quote (hereoisreal @ Sep. 12 2007,04:28) | k e, no, I'm saying nothing can be seen without light.
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
That's 'God' with a capital G.
Zero ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
no, it didn't. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No, what didn't what?
Zero ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."
No, it didn't.
You might think it did, but that cuts no ice with me.
Posted by: k.e on Sep. 12 2007,05:59
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 12 2007,13:39) | Quote (hereoisreal @ Sep. 12 2007,05:37) | Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 12 2007,05:04) | Quote (hereoisreal @ Sep. 12 2007,04:28) | k e, no, I'm saying nothing can be seen without light.
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
That's 'God' with a capital G.
Zero ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
no, it didn't. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No, what didn't what?
Zero ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."
No, it didn't.
You might think it did, but that cuts no ice with me. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yeah HIR while you now have our undivided tard-tention You can clear up a few things for me.
1. Those womanly waters g-boy saw his face in....who created those? There is nothing in Genesis saying who created them.
Is that anything to do with the gender of the writers of Genesis? That they were all male and water is feminine? You can bet if females wrote Genesis, water and the moon would have been created before anything else. Men would have been created to look after goats. All the prior mythologies were from goddess based agrarian cultures, those creation myths involve birth of a different nature. It was only when the semetic cattle herding warrior cults of the levant introduced a suitable god that supported polygamy,rape and pillage as a way of life that we are blessed with its end product the Bible.
2. How could the writers make the simple mistake that god did everything in the dark? Or was the dark a semiotic reference to before dawn and therefore the void was a claustrophobic nightmare, an existential dilemma.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 12 2007,09:11
Quote (hereoisreal @ Sep. 12 2007,04:28) | k e, no, I'm saying nothing can be seen without light.
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
That's 'God' with a capital G. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I was thinking more along the lines of 'gOd' with a capital "O".
Posted by: k.e on Sep. 12 2007,10:16
HAR HAR, CAPITAL NULL
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on Sep. 12 2007,10:50
Quote (hereoisreal @ Sep. 12 2007,00:46) | Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 11 2007,19:49) | I'm equally unsure what the hell that was about. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How light reaches you and me is much more complex than how the super bowl reaches our living rooms. It might have been designed.
Zero ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes. It also might have been created when some pirates stole gods treasure and needed some way of examining it.
Or when an elephant fell onto the eternal light switch or....
Absolutely anything is possible zero, without evidence, why is your concept better than my one? At least mine has pirates.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 12 2007,10:54
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 12 2007,10:50) | Quote (hereoisreal @ Sep. 12 2007,00:46) | Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 11 2007,19:49) | I'm equally unsure what the hell that was about. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How light reaches you and me is much more complex than how the super bowl reaches our living rooms. It might have been designed.
Zero ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes. It also might have been created when some pirates stole gods treasure and needed some way of examining it.
Or when an elephant fell onto the eternal light switch or....
Absolutely anything is possible zero, without evidence, why is your concept better than my one? At least mine has pirates. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mine has ponies.
Posted by: blipey on Sep. 12 2007,11:06
Is this worth a new thread? I mean, I'm really just trying to find out HOW OLD THE F*#@ING EARTH IS!!!
SOMEONE, ANYONE (VMartin) JUST TELL ME!
Posted by: J-Dog on Sep. 12 2007,11:53
Quote (blipey @ Sep. 12 2007,11:06) | Is this worth a new thread? I mean, I'm really just trying to find out HOW OLD THE F*#@ING EARTH IS!!!
SOMEONE, ANYONE (VMartin) JUST TELL ME! ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh, if thats all you need, FTK has the answer... anywhere between 6,000 and 6 billion years old.
HTH :)
Posted by: J-Dog on Sep. 12 2007,11:57
Quote (hereoisreal @ Sep. 11 2007,21:17) | The following is story # 123 on my web site at hereoisreal.com
SUPER BOWL One morning about five or six years ago, on a Superbowl Sunday, I had to go to the bathroom. I had this terrible, terrible diarrhea - one of the worst that I had ever had - and I was thinking to myself, "Wow, this is a Super Bowl Sunday - I'll remember this one!" I had in mind a huge toilet bowl. I walked out of the bathroom and out into the yard to pick up the Sunday paper. When I opened it up there was just one big picture on the front of the paper - a huge toilet bowl.
Zero ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your story clearly this idicates that your god thinks you are a stupid piece of shit that should be flushed away immediately.
HTH, and Have a Nice day.
And so as it is written, so shall it be.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on Sep. 12 2007,13:07
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 12 2007,14:54) | Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 12 2007,10:50) | Quote (hereoisreal @ Sep. 12 2007,00:46) | Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 11 2007,19:49) | I'm equally unsure what the hell that was about. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How light reaches you and me is much more complex than how the super bowl reaches our living rooms. It might have been designed.
Zero ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes. It also might have been created when some pirates stole gods treasure and needed some way of examining it.
Or when an elephant fell onto the eternal light switch or....
Absolutely anything is possible zero, without evidence, why is your concept better than my one? At least mine has pirates. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mine has ponies. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Pirates RULE.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 12 2007,13:47
Bite me. Ponies rock.
Posted by: Kristine on Sep. 12 2007,15:04
Quote (blipey @ Sep. 12 2007,10:06) | Is this worth a new thread? I mean, I'm really just trying to find out HOW OLD THE F*#@ING EARTH IS!!!
SOMEONE, ANYONE (VMartin) JUST TELL ME! ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think we need the radioactive half-life of VMartin's nonanswer...that would give us a clue.
Posted by: Steviepinhead on Sep. 12 2007,15:12
I don't think the half-life of Retardium has been reliably measured yet.
Maybe Vroomie could be enticed to volunteer a sample?
Posted by: blipey on Sep. 12 2007,15:51
Quote (Steviepinhead @ Sep. 12 2007,15:12) | I don't think the half-life of Retardium has been reliably measured yet.
Maybe Vroomie could be enticed to volunteer a sample? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, it's got to be less than 3,000 years, right?
Posted by: VMartin on Sep. 13 2007,00:07
There was a selectionist here who pursued me here and at Pharyngula. The selectionist claimed that I am Davison. The poor selectionist made his weird conclusion analyzing of dating my and John posts at Brainstorm.
No wonder that studying of dating of evolutionary processes the poor selectionist came to the conclusion that there must have been a common descent.
Wasn't he Steviepinhead?
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on Sep. 13 2007,07:42
Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 13 2007,04:07) | There was a selectionist here who pursued me here and at Pharyngula. The selectionist claimed that I am Davison. The poor selectionist made his weird conclusion analyzing of dating my and John posts at Brainstorm.
No wonder that studying of dating of evolutionary processes the poor selectionist came to the conclusion that there must have been a common descent.
Wasn't he Steviepinhead? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Be fair, you do pretty much repeat what JAD says without adding anything of your own.
I mean, you're willing to tell us what JAD says about things, but when asked yourself you turn into a coward and just run away and shout insults. It's pathetic really.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Sep. 13 2007,08:33
Ah, that takes me back. Captain Pugwash and his innocent adventures with seaman Staines and Master Bates...
Happy days!
< I must be suffering from false memory syndrome. >
Posted by: blipey on Sep. 13 2007,08:52
Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 13 2007,00:07) | There was a selectionist here who pursued me here and at Pharyngula. The selectionist claimed that I am Davison. The poor selectionist made his weird conclusion analyzing of dating my and John posts at Brainstorm.
No wonder that studying of dating of evolutionary processes the poor selectionist came to the conclusion that there must have been a common descent.
Wasn't he Steviepinhead? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
HOW OLD IS THE BLEEPING, GOD#%&*@!, F(@#^$* EARTH,YOU RETARD?
(Considerately all in caps because of your obvious blindness)
Posted by: k.e on Sep. 13 2007,09:24
Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 13 2007,16:33) | Ah, that takes me back. Captain Pugwash and his innocent adventures with seaman Staines and Master Bates...
Happy days!
< I must be suffering from false memory syndrome. > ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Cripes that stuff was camp. Almost as bad as < Round the Horne > which amongst others featured the old English folk singer Rambling Syd Rumpo.
Edit: Just checked link to urban myth on Pugwash.... false memory indeed.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Sep. 13 2007,10:27
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 13 2007,07:42) | Be fair, you do pretty much repeat what JAD says without adding anything of your own.
I mean, you're willing to tell us what JAD says about things, but when asked yourself you turn into a coward and just run away and shout insults. It's pathetic really. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
C'mon V.
How old is the earth?
If Ian's correct (and he's got plenty of evidence), then you're just posting for a banned commenter which is in itself a bannable offense.
I would encourage you to say something original. For instance, you might tell us how old you believe the earth to be, and do it without simply quoting or paraphrasing DAJ.
Posted by: Kristine on Sep. 13 2007,11:45
Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 12 2007,23:07) | There was a selectionist here who pursued me here and at Pharyngula. The selectionist claimed that I am Davison. The poor selectionist made his weird conclusion analyzing of dating my and John posts at Brainstorm.
No wonder that studying of dating of evolutionary processes the poor selectionist came to the conclusion that there must have been a common descent.
Wasn't he Steviepinhead? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That was how long ago? Almost a year? Let that = x.
x + y = z (age of the earth)
Plug in x and z and solve for y, VMartini. Or be a weenie.
I think the sun will go supernova before you answer.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 13 2007,12:03
Hey, Martin, now that you're back, are you ready to answer those two simple questions? I'm sure you are!
a) how old do you think the Earth is? b) do you believe common descent between apes and humans is true?
No Davison quotes, please.
Posted by: VMartin on Sep. 13 2007,12:20
I thought that the age of the Earth is 5,4 billion years. But somebody corrected me it is only 4,5 billion years.
Anyway if you have some kind of darwininian credo about the age of the Earth and about about Natural selection , let me know. I see it is very important for you to know how old exactly the Earth is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
HOW OLD IS THE BLEEPING, GOD#%&*@!, F(@#^$* EARTH,YOU RETARD?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The mental got seizure. It is recommended to avoid reading books like "Selfish gene" and "Extended phenotype". Hot tea, walk in counryside without darwinian friends. Avoid thinking to "Natural selection" seeing various colors of insects.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Sep. 13 2007,13:18
---------------------QUOTE------------------- I thought that the age of the Earth is 5,4 billion years. But somebody corrected me it is only 4,5 billion years. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, why didn't you just say so in the first place. I suspect people were badgering you because the major opponents to evolution are Young Earth creationists who claim the Earth is 6.000 years old (sometimes 10,000). This eliminates you from that group.
I just wonder if your objection to TOE is religious. I did hear that there has been a revival of "fundamentalist" Catholicism in the wake of the emergence of Eastern Europe from the dominance of the former USSR. Your abhorrence of communism seems to tally here.
Posted by: blipey on Sep. 13 2007,14:39
Spectacular!
Let it be known throughout the world that VMartin thinks the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.
Posted by: Steviepinhead on Sep. 13 2007,15:16
Vmareenie, you poor wiitle thing.
Have you been "pursued" by the bad old "selectionists" (which side of the Civil War were they on, anyway?)?
Gosh, and here I don't even recall getting up out of my chair (well, except for potty breaks).
To feel "pursued" by such as me, you must not be very swift.
Ah, but then, we knew that already.
Posted by: Kristine on Sep. 13 2007,15:51
Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 13 2007,11:20) | I thought that the age of the Earth is 5,4 billion years. But somebody corrected me it is only 4,5 billion years.
Anyway if you have some kind of darwininian credo about the age of the Earth and about about Natural selection , let me know. I see it is very important for you to know how old exactly the Earth is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
HOW OLD IS THE BLEEPING, GOD#%&*@!, F(@#^$* EARTH,YOU RETARD?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The mental got seizure. It is recommended to avoid reading books like "Selfish gene" and "Extended phenotype". Hot tea, walk in counryside without darwinian friends. Avoid thinking to "Natural selection" seeing various colors of insects. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Just wondering - how has cavorting with your Darwinian “friends” here and at LIMPSID or whatever it’s called, and playing Look-I-have-ID (pun! to Pharyngula’s keg party, and banging on my door as you did previously (only to tell me you would “run away at every chance” even though I ultimately had to kick you off my blog) not affected you at all? Hm? Do you sip tea with any nonDarwinian companions? I mean, do you have any friends? Or are you like those right-wing fundy “anti-porn” activists who watch a lot of porn “but it’s okay because we watch it in twos—NEVER ALONE!” Just wondering.
Also—may I rework your surrealist remarks into song lyrics to be set to music? “The mental got seizure” is priceless! (Kind of like “Baby got back.”)
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 13 2007,16:04
Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 13 2007,12:20) | I thought that the age of the Earth is 5,4 billion years. But somebody corrected me it is only 4,5 billion years.
Anyway if you have some kind of darwininian credo about the age of the Earth and about about Natural selection , let me know. I see it is very important for you to know how old exactly the Earth is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
HOW OLD IS THE BLEEPING, GOD#%&*@!, F(@#^$* EARTH,YOU RETARD?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The mental got seizure. It is recommended to avoid reading books like "Selfish gene" and "Extended phenotype". Hot tea, walk in counryside without darwinian friends. Avoid thinking to "Natural selection" seeing various colors of insects. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Splendid, Martin. Now we're getting somewhere. And it only took 2 months to get you to say that!
BUT: We're only halfway there. You ignored the other question.
*ahem*
Martin:
Do you believe that the idea of common descent between man and primates is true?
Not what Davison thinks, not some irrelevant insult about 'Darwininian phantasys', what YOU think.
Go.
Posted by: Steviepinhead on Sep. 13 2007,16:41
With the "Go" part of that, certainly all of us would agree...
Sort of along the same lines, what did ana ever do to get everybody to ban her, anyway?
Hint: maybe it was her vivid, neon coloration, which certainly could never have been selected...
Posted by: BWE on Sep. 13 2007,18:35
Quote (k.e @ Sep. 12 2007,05:59) | How could the writers make the simple mistake that god did everything in the dark? Or was the dark a semiotic reference to before dawn and therefore the void was a claustrophobic nightmare, an existential dilemma. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Like being stuck in a waiting room with a horny member of a different sexual persuasion? (read that gay for all you straight folks and vice-versa pc and all y'know)
For ever?
Posted by: k.e on Sep. 13 2007,19:46
Quote (BWE @ Sep. 14 2007,02:35) | Quote (k.e @ Sep. 12 2007,05:59) | How could the writers make the simple mistake that god did everything in the dark? Or was the dark a semiotic reference to before dawn and therefore the void was a claustrophobic nightmare, an existential dilemma. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Like being stuck in a waiting room with a horny member of a different sexual persuasion? (read that gay for all you straight folks and vice-versa pc and all y'know)
For ever? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sounds more like hell, unless you dreamt it :)
Do you have an uncontrollable desire to shave your legs?
Are you saying the male writers of Genesis were homo erotic?
Posted by: VMartin on Sep. 14 2007,14:52
There was a time when we had a colourless common ancestor. But "natural selection" gave us different coloration. Those who had not such coloration didn't survive. "Struggle for life" you know. We are "aposematics". We are now perfectly adapted to our "niches".
1
2
3 4
5
Enjoy the power of "natural selection"!
Posted by: blipey on Sep. 14 2007,15:14
Are you saying you're a ladybird beetle, VMartin? Or an albino?
Posted by: Nerull on Sep. 14 2007,15:24
VMartin is very afraid of giving his own opinions on anything. The reason is JAD.
Much like VMartin is JADs only friend, JAD is VMartins only friend - but he's not completely braindead. He knows how JAD is. He knows that if he gives an opinion JAD doesn't like, he will throw him in with everyone else he hates. Then he will be all alone.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 14 2007,16:20
I just found a photo of Vmartin and JAD. Anyone care to use the EF to determine which is which?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 14 2007,17:12
Marty, no one cares about your damn ladybugs. It's off topic anyway, and I thought you didn't like to get off topic.
Answer the question, Marty:
Do you believe that common descent between apes and humans is true?
Not some burbling from Davison, not some ESL snarl about 'Darwininian orthodoxy'. What YOU believe.
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 14 2007,17:45
I didn't descent from no beetle!
Posted by: VMartin on Sep. 14 2007,23:11
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Answer the question, Marty:
Do you believe that common descent between apes and humans is true?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have answered many of your questions. It's your turn now. Some simple questions:
1) Are ladybirds aposematic?
2) What was the coloration of the ladybirds ancestor? Was it dull, cryptic or bright, aposematic?
If you think it is off topic here answer it at "coloration of fungi". Reading all nonsensses from "knowledgeable evolutionists" at this thread I am afraid nothing is off topic anymore.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Marty, no one cares about your damn ladybugs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yo are wrong as usually. Darwinists continue in research of poisonous qualities of ladybirds (1994):
The defensive mechanisms which protect ladybird beetles (Coccinellidae) against predators are reviewed. Besides behavioural mechanisms, such as thanatosis and reflex bleeding, chemical defence mechanisms are playing a prevalent role.
< http://www.springerlink.com/content/q466422173wh8457/ >
But birds did not read the darwinian article and knew nothing of "chemical defence" of ladybirds. Birds still eat ladybirds like other beetles. They are not even scared by "reflex bleeding".
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 14 2007,23:26
No, seriously, Marty, no one here gives a fuck about your ladybugs. Quit changing the subject, you sillyass coward.
I will repeat:
Do you believe that common descent between apes and humans is true?
C'mon, Marty, you can do it! Davison won't punish you!
PS: It would also be nice to get your reply to < this > message.
Posted by: VMartin on Sep. 15 2007,00:20
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 14 2007,23:26) | No, seriously, Marty, no one here gives a fuck about your ladybugs. Quit changing the subject, you sillyass coward.
I will repeat:
Do you believe that common descent between apes and humans is true?
C'mon, Marty, you can do it! Davison won't punish you!
PS: It would also be nice to get your reply to < this > message. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
First you. No one cares of your f... apes you stupidos singleton.
1) Are ladybirds aposematic?
2) What was the coloration of the ladybirds ancestor? Was it dull, cryptic or bright, aposematic?
Mentioning John Davison - he made a perfect fool of you at Brainstorm:
< http://www.iscid.org/ubb....70;p=62 >
Posted by: Alan Fox on Sep. 15 2007,02:37
Martin
Why not repost on the appropriate thread?
Others
Before engaging this topic with Martin, you may wish to review < this EvC thread > and judge whether it is worth the effort.
Posted by: blipey on Sep. 15 2007,09:15
Oh, I think we knew going in it wasn't really the best use of time. But as I've said before, the situation is somewhat mitigated by getting crackpots on record as crackpots. That turns out to be useful from time to time.
Really, VMartin, you don't even have to answer the very simple question that my 6 year old nephew could form an answer to. You just have to tell me WHY YOU WON'T ANSWER IT.
That may be as entertaining as anything else you could possibly do.
Just so you feel good:
1. I'm an actor, so I may not be the best authority on aposematism, but I'll go with yeah, they are. Most ladybird beetles are very brightly colored. I would guess that this is beneficial because a large percentage of the other really brightly colored things in the world are poisonous.
2. I have no idea what the color of their ancestors was. And really, your question makes no sense as "aposematic" is not a color scheme, nor does the term necessarily refer to color.
See how easy that was. Now, this is VERY IMPORTANT. Don't take this as an excuse to continue off-topic with beetles. I answered your questions in my own words (as I often tell Creationists to do themselves) to show you the value of doing such.
So, PLEASE ANSWER YOUR OWN ON-TOPIC QUESTION:
Do you believe in the common ancestory of apes and humans?
(Try not to be a dodging dolt anymore--it puts you in rather unsavory company.)
Posted by: VMartin on Sep. 15 2007,09:23
Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 15 2007,02:37) | Martin
Why not repost on the appropriate thread?
Others
Before engaging this topic with Martin, you may wish to review < this EvC thread > and judge whether it is worth the effort. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Alan, it is ridiculous. I quoted Heikertinger who disputed with E. Wasmann many years ago about supposedly mimicry coloration. The first was anti-selectionist, the second one selectionist. They were brilliant scientists and their dispute was followed by many European scientists. I quoted some Heikertinger opinions about the issue.
No one here have those knowledges of the mentioned men (including me). It is utterly ridiculous to suppose that "knowledgeable evolutionists" here are able to follow the discussion or make judgment "it is worth the effort". You are funny, really.
You are also unable discuss anything about mimicry and you only instruct me to go to another thread. Which thread? With this stupid advice you make your useless and annoying entries at Brainstorm.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 15 2007,10:14
Martin, why are you afraid to answer that question about common descent?
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Sep. 15 2007,10:17
It was my understanding that this thread concerned VMartin's notions of the age of the earth, and the reality of common descent. Posts vis coloration seem wildly off topic.
VMartin, given that you acknowledge an ancient earth (4.5 billion years), I was wondering if you accept common descent. More narrowly, do you believe that other extant great apes and human beings share a common ancestor?
I certainly do. What are your thoughts on this crucially important matter? Just asking.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Sep. 15 2007,11:21
---------------------QUOTE------------------- You are also unable discuss anything about mimicry ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Make a case for what you think is a better explanation for the observations and there may be something to discuss. So far, all we have had are variations on the theme of "This (insert appropriate example of mushrooms, slugs, ladybirds etc) is a problem for Darwinism.
You have to produce something for discussion if you really want a discussion to take place.
(Hint: You could start with "this is a problem because (insert reason) and a better explanation is (insert hypothesis) because (cite evidence).)
Posted by: VMartin on Sep. 15 2007,14:25
Alan Fox:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So far, all we have had are variations on the theme of "This (insert appropriate example of mushrooms, slugs, ladybirds etc) is a problem for Darwinism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's not my fault that above mentioned facts are problem for darwinism. Many scientists considered it same way. I quoted them.
But I can adress it elsewhere, you suggested me a thread about mimicry. Is there a thread on mimicry here at AtBC?
As to common ancestor of man and ape: I am surprised that people here are unable to address evolution of coloration of ladybirds, mushrooms etc... but they are obviously able to address such complicated problems as evolution of human speech, etc...
Why do you want to discuss the most compliacted phenomenon of the evolution (the evolution of man), when you cannot address simple evolutionary problems like coloration of insects or fungi? Unbelievable.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Sep. 15 2007,14:32
Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 15 2007,15:25) | As to common ancestor of man and ape: I am surprised that people here are unable to address evolution of coloration of ladybirds, mushrooms etc... but they are obviously able to address such complicated problems as evolution of human speech, etc...
Why do you want to discuss the most compliacted phenomenon of the evolution (the evolution of man), when you cannot address simple evolutionary problems like coloration of insects or fungi? Unbelievable. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Actually, we are asking you to address the question. And surely these are among the most central questions in this domain, which is why we ask.
Do you believe in common ancestry? And, more narrowly, do you believe that extant apes and human beings share a common ancestor?
Just askin' VMartin. Not that complicated, and surely you have a response independent of whether we are able to address the question convincingly.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 15 2007,16:28
---------------------QUOTE------------------- As to common ancestor of man and ape: I am surprised that people here are unable to address evolution of coloration of ladybirds, mushrooms etc... but they are obviously able to address such complicated problems as evolution of human speech, etc...
Why do you want to discuss the most compliacted phenomenon of the evolution (the evolution of man), when you cannot address simple evolutionary problems like coloration of insects or fungi? Unbelievable. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Bravo, Martin. Two paragraphs of babbling and STILL no answer.
I will ask again:
do YOU believe that common ancestry between humans and primates is true?
No irrelevant snarls about 'Darwinists': do YOU believe it's true?
All we're asking for is ONE word:
a) Yes
or
b) No.
Real simple, V.
I'm noticing a problem you have, Marty: you seem to really hate Darwinism, but you have no alternate explanations.
Posted by: blipey on Sep. 15 2007,16:52
VMartin said:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- As to common ancestor of man and ape: I am surprised that people here are unable to address evolution of coloration of ladybirds, mushrooms etc... but they are obviously able to address such complicated problems as evolution of human speech, etc... ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Uh, VMartin, as long as you are wildly, insanely, goofily off topic, could you at least argue coherently?
If you start a sentence with "As to common ancestor of man and ape..."
LISTEN CLOSELY HERE
the second part of your sentence should have something to do with the common ancestor of man and ape.
You, perhaps accidentally(?), finished your sentence with mushrooms. Just saying....
Now, how about finishing the sentence with something that makes sense? Or do we have to wait another two months for you to say anything coherent?
Posted by: Patrick Caldon on Sep. 16 2007,10:44
Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 15 2007,00:20) | 1) Are ladybirds aposematic?
2) What was the coloration of the ladybirds ancestor? Was it dull, cryptic or bright, aposematic? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hi VM,
I vaguely remember pointing out to you the following: there is a difference between the statements "I do not know the answer to X" and "X is false".
I recall you agreeing.
In any event, I have no fricking idea why ladybugs have different colors. If you want to put 10-100 million dollars/euros/whatever towards a crack team of entymologists to work it all out, I'm sure someone can set up a big aviary and work out how to breed ladybugs, and sequence a hella-lotta ladybug genome and work out exactly, and come up with a reasonable answer for you, and provide employment for a few PI's and a great many grad students.
I'm reluctant to come up with the x million myself, because:
- I don't have it; - if I did I know you'd immediately just ask why the yellow-bellied glider had a yellow belly, whereas the sugar glider doesn't; and - there's many more useful charitable causes (even of a evolutionary nature) that the cash could be spent on, for instance in research into disease, or endangered species preservation, and indeed many grant bodies seem to share my biases.
So VM, given that you can't tell us whether man and ape has a common ancestor, can you at least answer this question (and save you, and me, and a bunch of charities several million dollars in the investigation of the Petaurus genus ...)
- Why do yellow bellied gliders have a yellow belly and sugar gliders do not?
Given that no-one has to my knowledge answered this question you would be providing a great contribution (on the level of a couple of Nature publications) if you could tell us the answer.
Or alternatively:
- Explain the coloration of ladybugs.
Again, this is millions of dollars of salaries and taxpayer expenditure which you can apparently click you fingers at.
I also recall a discussion about swans, and vaguely recall saying something along the above lines (i.e. no-one seems to have got a big grant for bazillions to study swan coloration) ... why are black swans black and white swans white?
Why are zebra stripey and horses not stripey?
Given your theory is so powerful, perhaps you could answer one of these questions without having a team of grad students wear themselves out over answering it?
Or maybe you could tell us whether humans and apes have a common ancestor. As it happens someone has bothered to study this question from a "Darwinian" perspective. Teams of graduate students have fought (and probably died) to give you an answer from the "Darwinian" point of view, unlike gliders, ladybugs, zebras and swans, where funding is a bit trickier.
If you could therefore explain human-ape ancestry from a VMartin point-of-view, and explain how the millions spent on human-ape evolution (and not spent on ladybug, marsupial glider, zebra/horse, and swan) have been wasted, you would do us all a great service, as our society will then not go on to waste millions of dollars and years of researcher-time on ladybugs etc.
So how about it VM? Now we've sequences a human and a chimp (unlike swans, ladybugs, zebra/horse and gliders - but if you want to fund this study I'm sure we can find you someone ...), what's your theory's view on human-ape ancestry?
It's not a hard question, and there's a lot of funding and research effort in this area (unlike just about every other species on the planet ... ) so an answer would be peachy.
How about it VM? Do humans and apes have a common ancestor? Why or why not?
Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on Sep. 17 2007,06:31
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Why do you want to discuss the most compliacted phenomenon of the evolution (the evolution of man), when you cannot address simple evolutionary problems like coloration of insects or fungi? Unbelievable. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What is your evidence that the evolution of man is "the most complicated phenomenon of the evolution"? In what units do you measure the complicatedness of evolutionary phenomena?
And what is your theory, anyway? Am I oversimplifying your/JAD's piddlings when I summarize them as "god made species evolve, then he/she/it died"?
Posted by: Kristine on Sep. 18 2007,15:24
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Sep. 17 2007,05:31) |
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Why do you want to discuss the most compliacted phenomenon of the evolution (the evolution of man), when you cannot address simple evolutionary problems like coloration of insects or fungi? Unbelievable. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What is your evidence that the evolution of man is "the most complicated phenomenon of the evolution"? In what units do you measure the complicatedness of evolutionary phenomena?
And what is your theory, anyway? Am I oversimplifying your/JAD's piddlings when I summarize them as "god made species evolve, then he/she/it died"? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My theory is, God faked His own death because He was being sued. < Again >!
< Just like before >! (You didn't know God was sued over ID, did you? Case is still pending. Too bad Judge Jones can't preside.)
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 19 2007,10:03
Jesus doesn't except sin? Except it from what, I wonder?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 19 2007,10:06
Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 19 2007,10:03) | Jesus doesn't except sin? Except it from what, I wonder? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Henry, don't be a moran.
Posted by: Steviepinhead on Sep. 19 2007,16:15
Arden, have I got a maroon moraine for you!
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 19 2007,16:16
Quote (Steviepinhead @ Sep. 19 2007,16:15) | Arden, have I got a maroon moraine for you! ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"E is for ecceptance -- the feeling I always got at Moe's."
Posted by: VMartin on Sep. 20 2007,11:59
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Sep. 17 2007,06:31) |
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Why do you want to discuss the most compliacted phenomenon of the evolution (the evolution of man), when you cannot address simple evolutionary problems like coloration of insects or fungi? Unbelievable. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What is your evidence that the evolution of man is "the most complicated phenomenon of the evolution"? In what units do you measure the complicatedness of evolutionary phenomena?
And what is your theory, anyway? Am I oversimplifying your/JAD's piddlings when I summarize them as "god made species evolve, then he/she/it died"? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I wouldn't be surprised if the evolution of man would be very simple in your eyes. Natural selection is so powerful (you have only to believe in it, that's all.)
Anyway if you are unable coherently discuss the coloration of animals you are probably an expert on coloration of human races. It is much more easier for you I suppose.
So:
What was the coloration of a common ancestor of human races?
What is the advantage and meaning of yellow, reddish and black skin? Should we apply darwinian mantras and consider black skin to be "cryptic"? And people with reddish or yellow skin to "aposematics"? Hehe.
But I am pretty sure you have no answer to evolution of coloration of skin of human races. All of you here are lost to explain coloration of insects... no wonder you are also lost as to coloration of human races.
Posted by: Steviepinhead on Sep. 20 2007,13:31
Dark skin (lots of melanin) folks, prior to the last few several hundred years of exploration, colonialism, trade, and technology, lived in low latitudes with lots of sunlight, where protection from skin cancer would have been the primary selection pressure.
Lighter-skinned folk, prior to etc., lived in higher latitudes, with less incident insolation, where dark skin would not only not confer an advantage, but would tend to inhibit the formation of Vitamin D.
(I'm hoping you know what Vitamin D is, and why its absence might be a problem.)
Folks with medium tones (Mediterraneans, Asians, Native Americans) tended to live in intermediate latitudes.
The Inuit (and some people pursuing similar lifestyles in far north Asia) lived so far north that they were exposed to sunlight reflected off snow and ice for much of the year. (You may never have spent a sunny, or even cloudy, day on a glacier absent eye and skin sun protection, given that you apparently live in some basement in Lower Trogdylvania. If so, I wouldn't recommend the experiment: sunburned tongues, inner nostrils, roofs of mouths, and eyeballs isn't too healthy. Eh, on the other hand, go ahead, give it a whirl, Mr. aposematics--it's no skin off my nose.) They were, again, somewhat darker-toned.
Are you beginning to see a fairly simple relationship between latitude, sun exposure, and degree of melanin in the skin, Vmaroon?
Eh, probably not. Anyone else could've googled up a latitude/skin tone chart in about 30 seconds, before so blatantly exposing their ignorance.
And, humor-deafness.
Posted by: VMartin on Sep. 20 2007,13:59
Excellent! Do you have any ideas about coloration of ladybirds too? For instance that black ones live in high latitudes to warm themselves? And red ones live in low latitudes near shores to protect themselves in sun-sets?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 20 2007,14:12
Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 20 2007,13:59) | Excellent! Do you have any ideas about coloration of ladybirds too? For instance that black ones live in high latitudes to warm themselves? And red ones live in low latitudes near shores to protect themselves in sun-sets? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Martin, do you believe that common descent between humans and apes is true?
Don't be afraid, little guy. You can do it!
Posted by: Nerull on Sep. 20 2007,15:12
Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 20 2007,13:59) | Excellent! Do you have any ideas about coloration of ladybirds too? For instance that black ones live in high latitudes to warm themselves? And red ones live in low latitudes near shores to protect themselves in sun-sets? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Because, obviously, its not possible that different animals could have evolved coloration differently or for different reasons.
VMartin, were you always this thick? Did you need training? Does JAD help with that? Beating you with plank until you lose enough brain cells to suit him?
Posted by: Steviepinhead on Sep. 20 2007,21:11
Vmushroom, I shouldn't really be interdicting Arden's efforts to get you to answer one simple question honestly and directly--though arguably the longer you take and the more you dance around, the more of a dishonest buffoon you look--but here's another real softball for you to swing at:
Why are some animals big and some animals small.
Pick some otherwise similar animals, just to make it easy on yourself (no admissions of common descent required): like puddy tats and lions (about 1:10) or river dolphins and killer whales or velociraptors and T-Rexes.
Just pick one and wade into it. No neurons required.
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 20 2007,23:07
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Because, obviously, its not possible that different animals could have evolved coloration differently or for different reasons. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Right - it wouldn't be efficient for the chemical(s) that cause the color to also be doing other things at the same time.
Henry
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 25 2007,15:19
Ready to share your opinion of common descent between apes and humans, Martin? It won't be off topic, here.
EDIT:
Whoops, he's already buggered off:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- 25 guests, 15 Public Members and 1 Anonymous Members [ View Complete List ] >Arden Chatfield >factician >dheddle >Gunthernacus >Thought Provoker >Cyril Ponnamperuma's Foot >J. G. Cox >Albatrossity2 >MrsPeng >Erasmus, FCD >oldmanintheskydidntdoit >Reciprocating Bill >jeannot >keiths >Occam's Toothbrush ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 25 2007,15:43
steviepinhead
I kind of wonder about caddisflies (trichoptera) Hydroptilids are 3-7 mm. the limnephilid Hydatophylax argus is > 250 mm.
surely that is proof of design.
Posted by: VMartin on Sep. 25 2007,23:58
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 25 2007,15:43) | steviepinhead
I kind of wonder about caddisflies (trichoptera) Hydroptilids are 3-7 mm. the limnephilid Hydatophylax argus is > 250 mm.
surely that is proof of design. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Trichoptera caddisfly? What a perfect mimicry! Or are they poisonous? Surely they were not designed.
And all of these guys survived "natural selection" because they are perfectly "adapted". Predators have no chance to eradicate them as species.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 26 2007,09:51
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Trichoptera caddisfly? What a perfect mimicry! Or are they poisonous? Surely they were not designed. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So could you lay out your explanation of why caddisflies are colored the way they are, Martin?
And while you're at it, we're STILL waiting for your verdict on common descent between apes and humans.
C'mon, big fella! Don't be so afraid! Davison wants you to make a good impression here!
Posted by: Steviepinhead on Sep. 26 2007,16:58
Nobody claims--and certainly no one with even a smattering of knowledge about biology and the ToE--that any organism is "perfectly" adapted.
Maroon. Explain that coloration, Vmaroonie. Start by looking in a mirror.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 26 2007,17:06
mimicry of what?
Posted by: Steviepinhead on Oct. 02 2007,17:02
Do you spend a lot of time standing in the vicinity of old Dodge Caravans, Vmaroonie?
And are you shy?
Otherwise, I'm having a hard time coming up with an evolutionary explanation of that maroon tint you bear...
Shall we mark that one down as an example of the PEH? Or as a yet-unresolved mystery of the TeH?
What's your take, sweetie?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Oct. 14 2007,20:42
Am I the only one who thinks that < this > ESL troll at Panda's Thumb is very likely our VMartin with too much time on his hands?:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Reffering to someone’s commment on this page about a crime happened in the past : evolution did not happen in the past - there is no evidence for it in the fossils record. I was brain washed with evolution in high school; had to memorize stages of the horse evolution and human embrion develpoment : so called recapitulation theory. The last discredited as fraud commited by German “scientist” Heckel. To my surprise in my daughter’s biology textbook they are still there after 30 years.Not much had changed in the “scientific” mind of the evolutionary society. Reading evolutionists’s works who use “science” of “maybe” or “perhaps” for support, one can not resist an impression that they are very similar to medieval monks’ disputations as to how many devils would fit on a tip of a pin.Problem I have is: evolutionism cost a taxpayer a lot of money that can be used in much better way. A. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
or,
---------------------QUOTE------------------- I believe all you guys have accepted new religion .What I see a problem as a taxpayer is that when you start to bend you data to accommodate your beliefs, damage can be done to people who are sick for instance: remember so called “vestigial organs”? There were many removed indiscriminately and unnecessary and vestigial organs turned out to be not so vestigial after all…. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------QUOTE------------------- You bias is appaling, you mind is as opened as tiny little hole in camera obscura. Read the quotation of Lewontin i supplied above, again. Saying that ,he spat in your evolutionary face and you wiped it out and saying : it is raining. It is not that I refused to listen to you evolutionary argument ,it is because you can not provide any argument to support your religious zeal ,that is why you kept abusing me all the way. Why , you evolutionnists have to attack the Bible or creationists to support your claims ,anyway ?. Did I said I was a creationinst ? I asked some questions after doing some internet research being high school educated and taken my biology classes seriously.I can thank God that I did not allowed myself to be as completely brainwashed as you are. I had a discussion with another “pundits” of your denomination who had an internet site with a message “ The Bible can not be taken literally therefore I am an evolutionist”. I was abused in similar manner afer asking similar questions and finally he said he had to go back to school. I think he was a teacher.Poor high school kids. Finally it is not me who came here with a lie, it is you and your like zelots who have been pertpetrated the lie ever since. The problem is, soome people take evolution the lie seriously.I can name two after Heckael : Hitler and Stalin. You are smart enough to go on Google and find soom emore about the two. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I see only two hints that this ISN'T Marty: (1) I have a hard time seeing Marty having a daughter (heaven forfend), and (2) he never mentions Davison. Other than that, it sounds EXACTLY like him.
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 14 2007,20:47
Quote (Nerull @ Sep. 20 2007,16:12) | VMartin, were you always this thick? Did you need training? Does JAD help with that? Beating you with plank until you lose enough brain cells to suit him? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
reminds me of the great line from The Long Kiss Goodnight, which had a lot of great lines:
Charlie: Were you always this stupid, or did you take lessons? Mitch Henessey: (Indignantly) I Took Lessons!
Posted by: VMartin on Oct. 15 2007,00:07
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I see only two hints that this ISN'T Marty: (1) I have a hard time seeing Marty having a daughter (heaven forfend), and (2) he never mentions Davison. Other than that, it sounds EXACTLY like him.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's sounds like me, but it's not me. Something like similarity, mimicry, you know. Darwinian simpletons to deceive is so easy. Hu: natural selection, darwinism: it must be Martin! The same the last time I was banned here: an moron comparing time postings at ISCIS and here came to conclusion me to be John. Do you remember?
Btw. Im am glad that only darwinists are allowed by natural selection to gave children, especially daughters.
Posted by: blipey on Oct. 15 2007,08:29
The important thing to know is whose children are getting gaved? This is what people want! Sure Darwinists gave children to those poor saps who only had 14 welfare tickets, but where did they come from?
Posted by: VMartin on Oct. 31 2007,15:30
Erasmus about professor Zdenek Neubauer at the thread "Evolution of the horse":
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If it was worth a damn, in 2007, it would be translated. This is not a monk growing peas here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don't know. I suppose that it took more than 40 years (1926 vs 1969) Leo Berg's Nomogenesis had been available in English. Oddly enough his theory influenced also linguistic.
"The impact of Czech and Russian biology on the linguistic thought of the Prague Linguistic Circle"
Jakobson constantly refers to Berg when he strives to fight the Neo-grammarian principle of strict causality, and puts forward his own anti-darwinism. For instance, in 1927, in his Remarks on the phonological evolution of Russian, he explicitely opposes Darwin's conception of evolution by divergence to Berg's conception of evolution by convergence of non related species on the same territory. etc...
< http://www2.unil.ch/slav/ling/recherche/biblio/99Impact.html >
The work of the founder of orthogenesis Theodor Eimer has not been translated into English at all - as far as I know. The same for the work of the anti-selectionist Franz Heikertinger about mimicry - nothing has been translated into English. The same for Adolf Portmann etc...
So your opinion that all important works are available in English is not correct. (Even some very interesting novels and works from Fyodor Dostoevsky has not been translated into English yet.)
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 31 2007,15:53
Well, Vicky, you better get cracking on those translations. You have a conspiracy to overthrow.
Interesting how you neglect my questions about your view of the source of heredity. the german school had to fight particulate inheritance because it was the empirical finding that destroyed their theory. in 40 years one may forget that sort of thing.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Oct. 31 2007,16:29
Marty, you're off topic for this thread.
The question: do you believe that common descent between humans and apes is true?
Posted by: VMartin on Oct. 31 2007,16:38
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 31 2007,15:53) | Well, Vicky, you better get cracking on those translations. You have a conspiracy to overthrow.
Interesting how you neglect my questions about your view of the source of heredity. the german school had to fight particulate inheritance because it was the empirical finding that destroyed their theory. in 40 years one may forget that sort of thing. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's not conspiracy what John Davison (and I) are trying to overthrow. It's ignorance. Heredity is not the issue now. German school wasn't destroyed by "empirical facts". It wasn't destroyed at all (except in darwinian heads). Their arguments were simply "forgotten" and declared as "outdated" afterwards. But only darwinists pretend victory by neglecting all arguments, puzzles and ideas on evolution that "German school" collected and showed up. The period of anti-darwinian "German school" is very long - and it is only you who dismissed all their researches ad hoc.
I am afraid you are not aware that "German school" is not limited to Germany, because it influenced many Univesties across Europe. Because you dont't probably know anything about it, you dismiss it as a whole.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Oct. 31 2007,16:41
Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 31 2007,16:38) | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|