RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (25) < 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... >   
  Topic: FTK Research Thread, let's clear this up once and for all< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,11:29   

Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,11:00)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 23 2007,10:03)
I wouldn't mind hearing about those creationists who made predictions then found them to be true as well, if you have time.

Ian,

Start with this link.  I believe the index will take you to predictions.  I don't have the time or the patience to discuss this issue with you because irregardless of what I point out, you will reject it without even reading or considering it thoroughly.  You're mind is already set.

Let me guess: Answers in Genesis has all kinds of good evidence, too, if only we have eyes to see. Right?

FtK, you don't see how lazy and dishonest this looks?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,11:32   

Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,11:00)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 23 2007,10:03)
I wouldn't mind hearing about those creationists who made predictions then found them to be true as well, if you have time.

Ian,

Start with this link.  I believe the index will take you to predictions.  I don't have the time or the patience to discuss this issue with you because irregardless of what I point out, you will reject it without even reading or considering it thoroughly.  You're mind is already set.

Gotta go...kids are hollering.

Can't find any.

I find some predictions that it says that evolution makes, and then asserts that they are not true, and I find some predictions of something called hydroplate theory, which I believe is something to do with the flood. Other than that I find no evidence for any predictions, which I find...odd, since they claim predictions have to be made.

Maybe I'm just not looking.

Oh, and by the way, I do not like how you assume that I will instantly dismiss everything without looking, my name is NOT Behe. If someone can produce a good case for ANYTHING then I will listen. I listen to the cases of people who's ideas are diametrically opposed to mine a lot, it's called discussion, but in order to consider these points of view I do require evidence, for which I have seen none even remotely presented for any biblical literalism.

If you showed me a model for the flood that not only expects one or two things that could exist even without the flood, AND deals with how Noah et al weren't boiled alive, or even how the ancient Egyptians, Assyrians and various others somehow didnt have their civilisations damaged by being totally wiped out I might regard them as being something other than a ridiculous notion dreamed up by people who are afraid of the slightest possibility they could be wrong.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,11:53   

Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,11:00)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 23 2007,10:03)
I wouldn't mind hearing about those creationists who made predictions then found them to be true as well, if you have time.

Ian,

Start with this link.  I believe the index will take you to predictions.  I don't have the time or the patience to discuss this issue with you because irregardless of what I point out, you will reject it without even reading or considering it thoroughly.  You're mind is already set.

Gotta go...kids are hollering.

That Walt Brown cooks up some elaborate, goofy shit.  

But Wesley's question was, "FtK, do you assert that no transitional fossil sequences exist? This is a simple yes-or-no question."

You don't have to immerse yourself in research materials to discover what you already believe.  

Just check a box:

- Yes. I believe that transitional fossil sequences exist.
- No. I don't believe that transitional fossil sequences exist.

Your scramble to research the question is really an admission:

- I really don't know whether they exist or not.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,12:18   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ June 23 2007,11:53)
Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,11:00)
 
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 23 2007,10:03)
I wouldn't mind hearing about those creationists who made predictions then found them to be true as well, if you have time.

Ian,

Start with this link.  I believe the index will take you to predictions.  I don't have the time or the patience to discuss this issue with you because irregardless of what I point out, you will reject it without even reading or considering it thoroughly.  You're mind is already set.

Gotta go...kids are hollering.

That Walt Brown cooks up some elaborate, goofy shit.  

But Wesley's question was, "FtK, do you assert that no transitional fossil sequences exist? This is a simple yes-or-no question."

You don't have to immerse yourself in research materials to discover what you already believe.  

Just check a box:

- Yes. I believe that transitional fossil sequences exist.
- No. I don't believe that transitional fossil sequences exist.

Your scramble to research the question is really an admission:

- I really don't know whether they exist or not.

My guess would be that FTK doesn't want to believe in transitional fossils, yet she knows this admission wouldn't fly here, so she's either (a) trying to find some satisfyingly pseudoscientific article to cover some claim like "I still don't think their existence is proven one way or the other", or (b) creating a smoke screen of delaying in hopes that we'll get bored and quit asking her this question.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,13:01   

From the site FTK linked to
http://www.creationscience.com
 
Quote
PREDICTION 1:   Beneath major mountains are large volumes of pooled salt water.50 (Recent discoveries support this prediction, first made in 1980. Salt water appears to be about 10 miles below the Tibetan Plateau, which is bounded on the south by the largest mountain range on earth.)51

 
Quote
PREDICTION 2:   Salty water will be found within cracks in granite, 5-10 miles below the earth’s surface (where surface water should not be able to penetrate).

 
Quote
PREDICTION 3:   The crystalline rock under Gibraltar, the Bosporus and Dardanelles, and the Golden Gate bridge will be found to be eroded into a V-shaped notch. (This prediction concerning the Bosporus and Dardanelles, first published in 1995, was confirmed in 1998.)63

 
Quote
PREDICTION 4:    The Global Positioning System (GPS) measures plate velocities with ever increasing accuracy as data accumulates and equipment improves. Because the earth’s crust is shifting toward equilibrium, today’s plate velocities will be found to be very gradually decreasing.

 
Quote
PREDICTION 5:   Fracture zones and axial and flank rifts will always be along lines of high magnetic intensity.

 
Quote
PREDICTION 6:   The magnetic intensity above hydrothermal vents slowly increases because the rock below, fractured since the flood a few thousand years ago, is cooling.

 
Quote
PREDICTION 7:   A 10-mile-thick granite layer (a hydroplate) will be found a few miles under the western Pacific floor.

 
Quote
PREDICTION 8:   Fossils of land animals, not just shallow-water plant fossils, will be found in and near trenches.

 
Quote
PREDICTION 9:   Precise measurements of the center of the western Pacific floor will show it is rising relative to the center of the earth, because plates are still shifting.

yada yada
 
Quote
PREDICTION 20:   Bubbles in rock ice will be found to contain less air and much more carbon dioxide than normally in ice bubbles formed today.

 
Quote
PREDICTION 21:   Dirt and organic particles in rock ice will closely resemble those in the overlying muck.

 
Quote
PREDICTION 22:   One should not find marine fossils, layered strata, oil, coal seams, or limestone directly beneath undisturbed rock ice or frozen mammoth carcasses.146

 
Quote
PREDICTION 23:   Blind radiocarbon dating of different parts of the same mammoth will continue to give radiocarbon ages that differ by more than statistical variations would reasonably permit. [Page 89 describes blind testing.] Contamination by groundwater will be most easily seen if the samples came from widely separated parts of the mammoth’s body with different water-absorbing characteristics.

...
 
Quote
PREDICTION 39:   Bones or other organic remains that contain enough carbon and are believed by evolutionists to be older than 100,000 years will be shown to be relatively young in blind radiocarbon tests. This prediction, first published in the 6th Edition (1995), p. 157, has now been confirmed.11 (Blind tests are explained on page 89.)

yawn. But 41 is a doozy!
 
Quote
PREDICTION 41:   Bacteria will be found on Mars. Their DNA will be similar to, but not identical with, Earth’s bacteria. Furthermore, isotopes of the carbon in Mars’ methane will show the carbon’s biological origin.


Anyway, this is the same website that brought us
[/URL]
So thanks for that chuckle already!

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,13:24   

Quote
You're mind is already set.


Did FTK ever bother to look up the definition of projection?

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,13:26   

Quote
I would say that it is damn hard to believe that we can say "transitionals" should not be questioned, unless you are talking about small changes within certain body types.


holy crap.

is she a baraminologist too???

she seems to be regressing.

fascinating.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
deejay



Posts: 113
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,15:12   

Quote (Ichthyic @ June 23 2007,13:24)
 
Quote
You're mind is already set.


Did FTK ever bother to look up the definition of projection?

or possessive pronouns for that matter?

  
Henry J



Posts: 5139
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,15:48   

Re "unless you are talking about small changes within certain body types."

Funny, I thought that's what the word "transitional" meant.

Also: of course the transitional status of any given sample should be questioned, and they have been. (to the extent that some claimed transitionals have been thrown out.)

--------

Ian,
Re "or even how the ancient Egyptians, Assyrians and various others somehow didnt have their civilisations damaged by being totally wiped out"

Picky, picky, picky... :p

--------

oldman...,
How many of those PREDICTIONs would be inconsistent with current understanding of the relevant subjects?

(And should I ask whether they presented actual logic about how their "model" implied that those things should be found?)

Henry

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,17:01   

Quote (Henry J @ June 23 2007,15:48)
Ian,
Re "or even how the ancient Egyptians, Assyrians and various others somehow didnt have their civilisations damaged by being totally wiped out"

Picky, picky, picky... :p

Oh, I know, I should just take it on faith, right?

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,17:27   

Quote
Let me guess: Answers in Genesis has all kinds of good evidence, too, if only we have eyes to see. Right?


AIG has some interesting information to consider just like other creationists and evolutionists.  I'm not sure what you mean by “if only we have eyes to see”.  If you’re referring to having to be a bible believing Christian to see, I have no idea if that is a problem or not.  I’m not big on AIG due to the fact that sometimes I think they are a bit mean and close minded to some things.  In fact, I don’t think any one particular theory is “fact” or much better than the others.  I think the facts probably lie somewhere in the middle.  

     
Quote
FtK, you don't see how lazy and dishonest this looks?
 

Well, sweetie, I’ve tried to explain that I’ve been reading a lot on this subject and wanted to be more explicit with my response, but everyone is so terribly impatient and said that I didn’t need to take so much time.  I still plan to write something up for my blog, but I’m really enjoying just taking my time and reading about a lot of this stuff again.  It’s terribly interesting.

Ian, Oldman listed some of the predictions for you, and I assure you that Walt’s theory offers everything that you had questions about, but it’s quite indepth and if for no other reason than just for kicks, you should consider reading the book.  The entire thing is on line, but the book makes it easier to page back and forth between different topics.  One doesn’t have to agree everything that Brown puts forth, but he certainly makes you think before blindly accepting the conclusions of the ToE.  

     
Quote
If you showed me a model for the flood that not only expects one or two things that could exist even without the flood, AND deals with how Noah et al weren't boiled alive, or even how the ancient Egyptians, Assyrians and various others somehow didnt have their civilisations damaged by being totally wiped out I might regard them as being something other than a ridiculous notion dreamed up by people who are afraid of the slightest possibility they could be wrong.


As far as being “boiled alive in the flood”, I did call Brown about that once, and he spent quite a bit of time explaining “supercritical water” to me and the experiments he‘s done in regard to SCW.  I took a lot of notes at the time, but I have no clue where they are now.  Here’s a link that touches on the topic.  

As far as ancient Egyptians, Assyrians, etc., I did consider that issue as well and I remember looking into the “problem” and wrote something about it at KCFS eons ago, but again...lost in memory.  I’ll try to find the link if I get the time.  

I’m not a Brown groupie as slpage would have everyone believe.  It’s just that the man is the closest I’ve come to someone who is interested primarily in the science rather than the political shit that goes on in this debate.  He keeps to himself, posts his entire book on-line so people have full access without having to give money to “charlatans”, and he doesn’t spend any time pounding the pavement trying to do away with materialism.  He’s been working 20 years on the scientific issues in this debate, and he’s very interesting to talk to.  I've questioned him several times, and he's always been patient and polite.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,17:52   

Quote
I’m not big on AIG due to the fact that sometimes I think they are a bit mean and close minded to some things.


LOL

damn, you're funny.

you just don't know it.

here, let me help you:

what you just said there, if said by anybody with wit who understood the usage of satire, would be an example of using extreme understatement as satire.

here's another example:

I'm a little shy about liking Fred Phelps because of the mild anti-homosexual positions he takes rarely.



--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,18:10   

Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,17:27)
As far as ancient Egyptians, Assyrians, etc., I did consider that issue as well and I remember looking into the “problem” and wrote something about it at KCFS eons ago, but again...lost in memory.  I’ll try to find the link if I get the time.

Now, I don't know if it's just a brit thing, or even just a me thing, but seeing "problem" written in quotes makes it look like you DON'T think the fact these civilisations continued despite being totally underwater and also dead is a problem for the flood.

Even if the rest of it were explainable, the fact that these people didn't die shows clearly the flood could not have covered the earth.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,18:12   

   
Quote
You don't have to immerse yourself in research materials to discover what you already believe.  

Just check a box:

- Yes. I believe that transitional fossil sequences exist.
- No. I don't believe that transitional fossil sequences exist.


Yes, I believe that transitional fossils do exist at the micro level.  I don't believe that "all fossils are transitionals" as many evolutionists claim.  I don't believe that fossil series can explain how vital organs evolved from one body type to another.  Also, there are soooo many other things to consider in regard to macroevolution.  Just one such example of *many* would be animal instincts, which I believe to be something that defies evolution.

For example, a newborn kangaroo is barely a half inch long and weighs less than a gram, but despite the fact that he lacks the function of his eyes, ear, and hind legs, he immediately makes his way from his mother's womb, across her abdomen and attaches to a nipple inside her pouch.  That's like a newborn baby crawling the length of a football field and finding it's mother's breast in less than three minutes.  How the hell do you explain how this came about through intermediates in situations such as this?  Natural selection seems like such a far fetched explanation for surviving through these incredibly complex situations in which intermediates would have to evolve through.

Yes, I know, I suffer from personal incredulity.  Sigh...nonetheless, at this point in time, I do not believe that we have the empirical evidence to claim that macroevolution is a fact.  It’s based on historical inference and A LOT of speculation.  It seems that it is okay to base ideas on speculation as long as it is in regard to the ToE, but creationist theories are expected to be backed with solid empirical evidence to even be considered.  In my mind, it certainly seems that these common descent stories are every bit as mystical as anything I've ever read in Genesis.

   
Quote
Your scramble to research the question is really an admission:

- I really don't know whether they exist or not.


No, actually it means that I like to read about this stuff, and since I have three new books on these topics, I thought I’d take some time to do so.   But, in a sense, you are correct because, IMHO, I don’t think that any of us really know for sure if transitionals exist which can support common descent to the extent to which scientists claim they can.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,18:13   

Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,18:12)
Natural selection seems like such a far fetched explanation for surviving through these incredibly complex situations in which intermediates would have to evolve through.

THIS is why everyone thinks you are talking bollocks. You cannot say that "seems" is a valid argument.

Incidentally, I don't know what the evidence is for quantum mechanics, so does it therefore not exist?

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,18:16   

Quote
Yes, I believe that transitional fossils do exist at the micro level.


this is nonsensical gibberish.  even you should be able to figure THAT out.

 
Quote
For example, a newborn kangaroo is barely a half inch long and weighs less than a gram, but despite the fact that he lacks the function of his eyes, ear, and hind legs, he immediately makes his way from his mother's womb, across her abdomen and attaches to a nipple inside her pouch.  That's like a newborn baby crawling the length of a football field and finding it's mother's breast in less than three minutes.  How the hell do you explain how this came about through intermediates in situations such as this?


kangaroos got bigger.

how's that?

here's another "amazing" thing for you to chew on:

how did horses manage to lose four toes and end up running on one...

*hint* we already know the answer to that.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,18:24   

Icky,

You're right, I'm dense.  I don't get your point.  

It's not that I don't think AIG makes some very good points in regard to the scientific issues in this debate.  It's just that they seem to think it's their way or the highway and everyone else is simply and utterly wrong and going to hell.  That reminds me of the attitude that the "scientific community" (ie. NCSE) takes in regard to these issues - excluding the part about hell of course ;).

I'm just saying that I believe the bottom line is that these questions will have to be solved by what we can gather from the empirical science - not what we infer based on blind faith or ridiculous speculation.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,18:28   

Quote
You're right, I'm dense.  I don't get your point.  


you completely lack a sense of irony.  It's quite remarkable, but not uncommon in creation supporters.

we actually have a thread on a tangent to the issue, regarding sense of humor you might want to gander at.

though it's quite likely you won't get the point of that thread, either.

oh well.

Quote
I'm just saying that I believe the bottom line in these issues will have to be what we can gather from the empirical science - not what we infer based on blind faith or ridiculous speculation.


assuredly for example, you don't see the slightest irony in your statement here.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,18:28   

I don't know, Icky...I think there is a big difference between losing a few toes and the joey example.  And, of course, we all know that there are endless examples such as that one.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,18:35   

Quote
.I think there is a big difference between losing a few toes and the joey example


why?

with the roos all you are doing is moving the teat farther away from the birth canal.

with equines, you are entirely changing the structure of the leg and foot. Have you ever even looked at the current equine series to see the changes?  pretty damn drastic.  and yes, there are LOTS of examples of even more drastic changes.  surely you don't think the start of the equine series is equivalent to the finish?

shorter version:

do you think a 2 foot wallaby and a 5 foot red roo look very different from each other?

do you think short-legged horse with 5 toes would strike you as odd?

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,18:51   

Quote (Ichthyic @ June 23 2007,18:35)

Quote
do you think a 2 foot wallaby and a 5 foot red roo look very different from each other?


Relatively speaking, wouldn't the two examples be somewhat similiar?  I'd expect the baby wallaby would be smaller than a joey.  But, maybe not.  Also, we're talking instincts, not changes in structure.  I don't think I'd find it particularly odd for a joey to carry on a mutation that changed the structure of it's leg, for example.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,18:53   

Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,18:28)
I don't know, Icky...I think there is a big difference between losing a few toes and the joey example.  And, of course, we all know that there are endless examples such as that one.

But what reason do you have to think that?


Oh, and please adress my post, I know I disappeared, but my computer went very strange, and I had to restart it.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,19:00   

Quote
I don't think I'd find it particularly odd for a joey to carry on a mutation that changed the structure of it's leg, for example.


so behavior and morphology are quantitatively different in your mind?

somehow a very minor change in behavior, like crawling a tiny bit farther, it a harder thing for evolution to produce than the loss of a couple of toes, the extreme lengthening of metacarpal bones, etc?

you have some mighty odd notions there, kiddo.

 
Quote
I'd expect the baby wallaby would be smaller than a joey.


nope, they aren't (significantly), when first born.  and not surprisingly, it's completely irrelevant to the relative distance each type of joey has to crawl for its first meal.

what I was trying to get you to see what that the physical differences between a wallaby and one of the larger roos is mostly just a matter of size, while the changes between modern equines and their ancestors is gigantic.

what you find incredulous, IOW, is far more easily explained by a simple shift in the size of roos than the differences betwen modern equines and their acestors is, and yet, we have a very good series of fossils tracking the changes between modern and ancestral horses.

which of course leads back to why we find your statement so odd, and ask the same question:

why would you find the increasing travel distance of roo joeys to be more incredible than the change between modern and ancestral equines?

my guess would be that SOMEONE stuck that particular notion in your head.

care to share?

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,19:06   

sigh...Ian, which "post" do you want me to address?  Are you refering to one comment specifically, or I'm I supposed to go back and answer everything?  Sheesh..I don't have all evening to sit here.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,19:08   

Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,19:06)
sigh...Ian, which "post" do you want me to address?  Are you refering to one comment specifically, or I'm I supposed to go back and answer everything?  Sheesh..I don't have all evening to sit here.

The one you ignored, where I mention quantum mechanics. You know, the last post I made, the one where, I would assume, most people would look first. Incidentally, why did you sigh? I only asked you once, and I did it in a way that would make Lenny Flank explode if he tried to be that polite, so why react like I'd be spamming you every three seconds demanding a reply? Unless you want the lurkers to think we're harrassing you, building on a martyr complex which I honestly don't see at all, not one little bit.

I don't have all evening either, in fact it's already 1 in the morning over here, so don't be alarmed if I don't sob for you and your hardships with running out of time.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,19:10   

careful Ian, next you'll be hearing her rendition of "Don't Cry for Me Argentina"

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,19:12   

Quote (Ichthyic @ June 23 2007,19:10)
careful Ian, next you'll be hearing her rendition of "Don't Cry for Me Argentina"

Hah, I've had someone on a forum I used to be on who was a FAR better martyr complex than FtK (which I'm not at all implying you have FtK, no siree, not one jot. You wont hear ME saying you have some need to be harshly done by because it feeds both your own psychosis and also your feeling that you are right and we're not only wrong but mean)

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,19:14   

[quote=Ichthyic,June 23 2007,19:00][/quote]
 
Quote
so behavior and morphology are quantitatively different in your mind?


Well, yeah, I think there are some things that would be much more difficult to explain in regard to common descent than other things.

 
Quote
somehow a very minor change in behavior, like crawling a tiny bit farther, it a harder thing for evolution to produce than the loss of a couple of toes, the extreme lengthening of metacarpal bones, etc?


I don't know if it's so much the "crawling a little farther" that is the biggest obstacle to explain.  It's the initial way that the *instinct* started to evolve that puzzles me.  From the beginning, how did this instinct come to be?  

 
Quote
you have some mighty odd notions there, kiddo.


"Kiddo"?  Didn't I read somewhere that you're 43...only one year older than me?  Maybe I have you confused with someone else.  Not that I particularly mind being called kiddo ;) .

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,19:15   

see, FTK, Ian understands satire.

hmm, I wonder if teaching someone to recognize and appreciate irony and satire is like trying to teach science to a creationist?

meh, a thought for another thread...

sorry, go ahead Ian.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,19:18   

Quote (Ichthyic @ June 23 2007,19:15)
see, FTK, Ian understands satire.

hmm, I wonder if teaching someone to recognize and appreciate irony and satire is like trying to teach science to a creationist?

meh, a thought for another thread...

sorry, go ahead Ian.

Well I've been brought up with satire. Satire from Private Eye, from shows such as HAve I Got News For You etc. I learnt it from an early age, and I'm glad, because it sure as hell helps liven up some of the most dry, boring subjects for my degree.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
  748 replies since June 10 2007,02:04 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (25) < 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]