Antievolution.org - Antievolution.org Discussion Board -Topic::UnReasonable Kansans thread

Posted: July 21 2008,23:48

That's got to be a Poe. She can't be serious.

Quote

"If the above individuals were found fossilized, who knows how they would be interpreted. "

They would be interpreted as modern human skeletons. Just because you do not know how to recognise a modern human doesn't mean everyone is as ignorant. If one were found in the Jurassic no one would consider it transitional, they would look for reasons for it to be there e.g. burial in older strata.

What were those slackers doing, fancy not sending a rocket to the moon! They were surviving, breeding, fighting, huddling in shelters praying to the Thunder God to spare them and the Hunter God to provide food. Pretty much what every one did until we discovered science.

Quote

"No, that’s not what I’m saying. I realize that you know much, much, much more than I do on this topic. I’m just saying that when I look at the fossils that Darwinists claim are transitionals and listen to their explanations as to why they believe them to be so, their stories often sound mighty ridiculous when you consider the whole evolutionary paradigm. "

Yes that is what you're saying - you just said it again. What is ridiculous is someone proudly vaunting their ignorance as a virtue and dismissing everything she doesn't understand because she doesn't like the answer.

If you don't understand gravity then you can't explain the movements of planets and any explanation will sound ridiculous. If you don't know how sediments can determine paleoenvironments then any geological history is going to sound like fiction.

--------------
The organized fossils ... and their localities also, may be understood by all, even the most illiterate. William Smith, Strata. 1816

Chayanov

Posts: 289
Joined: Dec. 2007

Posted: July 22 2008,00:07

So much nonsense to wade through. You could lay the skeleton of the world's tallest man next to the skeleton for the world's shortest adult male, next to the skeleton for an adult male Paranthropus boisei, and it would be easy to see that one of these things is not like the others.

I notice there were a lot of photos displaying the range of variation in modern Homo sapiens, a photo of early Homo skulls (for which there is legitimate controversy, but not of the sort you're peddling), but strangely, no photographs showing, say, an Australopithecus africanus skull next to that of a Neanderthal. Wonder why? Too many obvious differences to be accounted for?

You could never display a skull for an anatomically modern human next to that of Sahelanthropus tchadensis and triumphantly say, "See! They're the same kind!" People would laugh at you more than they do now.

--------------
Help! Marxist literary critics are following me!

Chayanov

Posts: 289
Joined: Dec. 2007

Posted: July 22 2008,00:16

Quote (Chayanov @ July 22 2008,00:07)

So much nonsense to wade through. You could lay the skeleton of the world's tallest man next to the skeleton for the world's shortest adult male, next to the skeleton for an adult male Paranthropus boisei, and it would be easy to see that one of these things is not like the others.

I notice there were a lot of photos displaying the range of variation in modern Homo sapiens, a photo of early Homo skulls (for which there is legitimate controversy, but not of the sort you're peddling), but strangely, no photographs showing, say, an Australopithecus africanus skull next to that of a Neanderthal. Wonder why? Too many obvious differences to be accounted for?

You could never display a skull for an anatomically modern human next to that of Sahelanthropus tchadensis and triumphantly say, "See! They're the same kind!" People would laugh at you more than they do now.

For that matter, add the skull of an adult male chimpanzee to the mix. You've got this notion of either an ape or a human, but what if there are a mix of traits -- say, the pelvis shows it walked upright like a human, but it has longer arms in proportion to the legs like an ape? I know, more questions that are pointless to ask.

In my Human Origins class I love to lay all the skulls out on the table (I have a half-dozen casts so far) and point out the differences and similarities, and how the morphology of those skulls have changed over time. Even to pick up a mandible and ask what you can learn about that individual just by looking at the teeth. And then to have the students pick up the skulls and turn them around and look them over -- far more entertaining and instructional than looking at random photographs.

--------------
Help! Marxist literary critics are following me!

Rilke's Granddaughter

Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

Posted: July 22 2008,01:08

Quote (Ftk @ July 21 2008,23:18)

Quote

Well, you certainly shouldn’t take my word for it, and I can assure you that no one here does. I’m just providing you with my POV.

Your POV is based specifically on IGNORANCE. You have just admitted that.

A POV based on ignorance is worthless, therefore your POV is worthless. Are you entitled to your opinion? Of course. Is your opinion of any value to anyone who knows anything about this topic? Not at all.

Every now and then I take a break from actual lab work - y'know, actual science - that stuff that you know nothing about? I come to creationist sites to see if any creationist has been able to produce either

a) a rational argument

b) an understanding of the actual facts

I've never found one.

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: July 22 2008,01:20

Quote (Rilke's Granddaughter @ July 21 2008,23:08)

Quote (Ftk @ July 21 2008,23:18)

Quote

Well, you certainly shouldn’t take my word for it, and I can assure you that no one here does. I’m just providing you with my POV.

Your POV is based specifically on IGNORANCE. You have just admitted that.

A POV based on ignorance is worthless, therefore your POV is worthless. Are you entitled to your opinion? Of course. Is your opinion of any value to anyone who knows anything about this topic? Not at all.

Every now and then I take a break from actual lab work - y'know, actual science - that stuff that you know nothing about? I come to creationist sites to see if any creationist has been able to produce either

a) a rational argument

b) an understanding of the actual facts

I've never found one.

RG, welcome back, where ya been?

You've missed more rich, creamy tard than you can possibly imagine. I hope being off doing science was an adequate substitute.

--------------
"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

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: July 22 2008,02:48

FTK

Quote

What was it that all of a sudden “evolved” in humans that enabled our ancestors to create instant civilizations approx. 8,000 years ago?

FTK, maybe this PM I sent you some time ago might help?

Quote

Sorry, I guess I'm just not seeing where in the information you've provided anything that refutes my claim that we saw a huge advancement including the written word and massive amounts of architecture starting at around 7,000bc.

That's because there is no refutation to your claim, nor was there intended to be. Obviously at some point in history all the threads would come together (obviously that is in hindsight as we're here!). But my point is so what, what is it you are using this "fact" in support of exactly? We know civilization happened, here we are!You can pick a figure of 7000 years if you like. Personally I'd put the figure slightly further away, maybe 10000, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture#Ancient_origins

Quote

Developed independently by geographically distant populations, systematic agriculture first appeared in Southwest Asia in the Fertile Crescent, particularly in modern-day Iraq and Syria/Israel. Around 9500 BC, proto-farmers began to select and cultivate food plants with desired characteristics.

Once you know that you'll be eating tomorrow thoughts can turn to more abstract things. Like reading and writing.

Quote

You can rest peacefully knowing that your wiki links provide you with information to support the "fact" that humans have been talking and socializing for 100,000 years, I'm just saying that the evidence points to a massive explosion of human development at 7,000bc.

1: Why did you put "fact" in "quotes".
2: You say "socializing for 100,000 years" but had fact in quotes earlier. Did you therefore mean that 100,000 years was also a "fact" (I.E under dispute but mockingly called a face)?
3: The 7000 years bc figure is to be taken how?
a) The 100,000 years mentioned earlier existed?
b) The 100,000 years mentioned earlier did not exist, as indicated by the use of the "quotes" around "fact".

If b) Then obviously you are referring to the creation event, as you see it and the earth (and the universe) is no older then that.

If in fact you meant a) as above, then I find it odd how you can argue using a "fact" you disbelieve (i.e that the earth is
at least 100,000 years old), to support your ultimate position.

If I've gotten something wrong, please correct me. You only shield however is not to be too specific when replying.

Quote

Why so hateful towards me? I'm not lying about anything, I'm just providing my understanding and viewpoint on these topics. I'm not a teacher, so you can relax as I won't have any influence on poor innocent kids who ask questions that evolutionists can't answer.

You think this is hate? You come here. To this board.
This must be the Christian martyr complex at work. The more you feel hated the more you feel that you are spreading the meme that infests you. You want to feel hated, don't make me laugh. Most people here don't rise to it. I don't hate you, I feel sorry for you. So many interesting books you ain't gonna read because they don't support your worldview from the off.

Quote

I'm not lying about anything

When you tell other people that there is evidence for a 6000 year old earth, don't you even cringe slightly?

Quote

I'm just providing my understanding and viewpoint on these topics

Recently it was shown that your gut instinct (Behe is right) overrides any fancy book learning.

Quote

I'm not a teacher, so you can relax as I won't have any influence on poor innocent kids

You name belies your claim For The Kids (duh!)

Quote

who ask questions that evolutionists can't answer

Don't make me laugh. Why don't you
a) Asking a question
B) Try reading the answer. There are some very clever people here who, for some reason, will take the time to answer your questions. Try it.
And FTK, if the "poor innocent kids" who "ask questions that evolutionists can't answer" can understand the issues and data around the problematic points of "evilution" then good luck to them. It's like implying that 10 year olds will find problems with a mathematicians proof. Sure, it'll happen once a generation but what kind of stupidity is it to claim that children
a) are asking questions that the scientists here could not answer.
b) would be able to understand the answers without so much simplification that it would render it pointless (i.e they are not going to understand it piecemeal and then go out and do research)
?
and then after all that pick holes in papers like

Quote

ittle attention has been given to the non-homeodomain portions of the HOX proteins. To investigate the evolution of the HOXA13 protein and to identify conserved residues in the N-terminal region of the protein with potential functional significance, N-terminal Hoxa13 coding sequences were PCR-amplified from fish, amphibian, reptile, chicken, and marsupial and eutherian mammal genomic DNA. Compared with fish HOXA13, the mammalian protein has increased in size by 35% primarily owing to the accumulation of alanine repeats and flanking segments rich in proline, glycine, or serine within the first 215 amino acids. Certain residues and amino acid motifs were strongly conserved, and several HOXA13 N-terminal domains were also shared in the paralogous HOXB13 and HOXD13 genes;

Do you understand what that means? Would a 10 year old?
http://www.springerlink.com/content/8xbrx1h4k0fwpv23/
SO what's your point exactly? It's a comfortable claim that children are being suppressed but it's a weak poor claim that shows how little else you have.
So, I asked you some specific questions above. Will you give me straight answers, or use the same old defensive tactic of ignoring 99% of what is said and falling back on the same old canards?

Quote

Oh, btw, I'm not a buddy "boy". I'm a *girl*. You can refer to me as buddy *girl* if you like.

I'll continue to refer to you as the cats mother, if you don't mind.

Quotes are FTK. Remember that FTK? Does that help answer your question? Here's another clue "ICE AGE". Look it up.

Oddly FTK stopped replying after that PM.

--------------
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

Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

Posted: July 22 2008,06:38

Quote (Ftk @ July 22 2008,00:18)

I know that scientists are well aware of the differences in human characteristics of people living today, so the objective would have to be to find fossils in just the “right place” in order to deem them transitionals...

Blah blah blah. Mostly recycled from an old blog post.

But isn't this "looking in the right place" meme new to Ftk? Findings such as Tiktaalik and this must have rattled her more than she cares to admit. She continues:

Quote

Like I said....I’m honestly not sure what it would take for me to consider something a true “transitional”. When I consider the larger problem of taking everything back to that first common ancestral molecule of life, the whole theory just folds for me. It just seems utterly ridiculous to believe that the mechanisms of evolution are capable of producing all of life as we know it. So, even if I were to become convinced of a “transitional” from fish to terapod (which would take a lot of convincing because of the internal evolutionary changes that would have to occur to get that fish from water to land), it wouldn’t mean much to me in the long run because the overall concept of molecule to man seems so horrifically improbable. Yes, incredulity vs. credulity... clash of the worldviews... opposing miraculous assumptions.

In short, Ftk has flatass stated that, in principle, no conceivable empirical finding will dislodge her from her creationist position.

I take her at her word. So much for "I"m interested in science." Or, frankly, logic.

--------------
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

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

Quack

Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

Posted: July 22 2008,06:51

Quote (stevestory @ July 21 2008,21:55)

Quote (afarensis @ July 21 2008,19:42)

Having watched this thread from the beginning, I have no illusions about FTK.

You know who FtK is? She's Ruth-Anne Girolamo

That explains it; she will remain unconvinced until hell freezes over.

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
Robert Byers.

jeffox

Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007

Posted: July 22 2008,06:55

FTK makes yet another argument from ignorance:

Quote

No, that’s not what I’m saying. I realize that you know much, much, much more than I do on this topic. I’m just saying that when I look at the fossils that Darwinists claim are transitionals and listen to their explanations as to why they believe them to be so, their stories often sound mighty ridiculous when you consider the whole evolutionary paradigm.

Sound familiar? :) :) :)

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: July 22 2008,08:08

FTK

Quote

I’m just saying that when I look at the fossils that Darwinists claim are transitionals and listen to their explanations as to why they believe them to be so, their stories often sound mighty ridiculous when you consider the whole evolutionary paradigm.

Here FTK appears to be admitting that the explanations are reasonable in and of themselves, presumably this is why FTK has not actually pointed out any errors in those explanations. Much like many creationists like FTK accept microevolution. They can't dispute it and so put on a charade of acceptance.

Follow the evidence where it leads? Except if you are FTK that is.

Yet it's only when the "whole evolutionary paradigm" is considered that FTK cannot accept it.

It's like saying that yes, pennies exist but I refuse to believe they add up into pounds.

FTK, point out an error or give a better interpretation in a transitional mentioned already in this thread or just admit that you are rejecting the evidence because it conflicts with your beliefs and for no other reason (certainly not because you can find fault with the evidence).

--------------
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

Ftk

Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: July 22 2008,09:31

Chayanov wrote:

Quote

In my Human Origins class I love to lay all the skulls out on the table (I have a half-dozen casts so far) and point out the differences and similarities, and how the morphology of those skulls have changed over time. Even to pick up a mandible and ask what you can learn about that individual just by looking at the teeth. And then to have the students pick up the skulls and turn them around and look them over -- far more entertaining and instructional than looking at random photographs.

Sounds like a very cool class. Beats the heck out of looking at pictures like this...

...and trying to figure out what it is that renders it the jaw of a transitional.

Perhaps you can help me out.

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

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: July 22 2008,09:47

Quote (Ftk @ July 22 2008,09:31)

Perhaps you can help me out.

No matter what evidence is put to you you will always reject it.

Behe and your "gut", remember that? You had evidence laid spoon fed to you that Behe was wrong, you were totally unable to dispute it and yet you still "went with your gut".

The religion that infects your mind blinds you to all evidence that might put your belief (in a book mortal men wrote) into peril.

Tell me FTK.

What would a transitional fossil have to look like before you accepted it as such?

Do you know? If not, on what basis are you rejecting the fossils you've been shown already as not transitional?

--------------
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

carlsonjok

Posts: 3326
Joined: May 2006

Posted: July 22 2008,09:52

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 22 2008,09:47)

What would a transitional fossil have to look like before you accepted it as such?

Do you know? If not, on what basis are you rejecting the fossils you've been shown already as not transitional?

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: July 22 2008,10:46

Quote (Ftk @ July 22 2008,09:31)

trying to figure out what it is that renders it the jaw of a transitional.

Perhaps you can help me out.

FTK,
It seems unchristian of you to put somebody to all that trouble when you already know there are no such things as transitional fossils due to your superior knowledge.

FTK, if there are no transitional fossils why are you wasting peoples time asking for such explanations when you are incapable and unwilling to believe them in any case?

Is this what Jesus would do? Ask anyway, despite knowing that you would discard the answer no matter what it was?

Pathetic.

--------------
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

Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

Posted: July 22 2008,11:07

A piece on Yohannes Haile-Selassie broadcast on WCPN in Cleveland in 2006.

ETA: Here is Selassie discussing his research in 2005 at the Cleveland Museum of Natural History. I was present at this talk. Some of the issues discussed have since been clarified by further fieldwork, as indicated in the article linked above.

--------------
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

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

Quidam

Posts: 229
Joined: Mar. 2008

Posted: July 22 2008,11:38

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 22 2008,07:08)

It's like saying that yes, pennies exist but I refuse to believe they add up into pounds.

In fairness it's a bit more than that. It's more like saying "I can see why corn is more expensive in winter, but that cannot explain the US economy and the price of oil."

Frankly when I'm playing an interactive computer game I find it difficult to believe that I'm playing against a collection of transistors, yet I know it to be true. Creationism is like saying "I can see how you can use a transistor as a switch, but it's ridiculous to suggest that throwing miilions of them in a box will create a virtual reality or send messages around the world.

--------------
The organized fossils ... and their localities also, may be understood by all, even the most illiterate. William Smith, Strata. 1816

Assassinator

Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

Posted: July 22 2008,12:50

Quote (Ftk @ July 22 2008,09:31)

Beats the heck out of looking at pictures like this...

...and trying to figure out what it is that renders it the jaw of a transitional.

Perhaps you can help me out.

[Devil's Advocate] To be honest, that looks like a question worth answering. Because when I'm honest, I do not understand the anthropological methodes very well as well (I only had Moleculair Biology, and just for a year) and I am amazed about how you guys do that. [/Devil's Advocate]

Wolfhound

Posts: 468
Joined: June 2008

Posted: July 22 2008,14:25

Quote (Ftk @ July 21 2008,23:18)

When I consider the larger problem of taking everything back to that first common ancestral molecule of life, the whole theory just folds for me. It just seems utterly ridiculous to believe that the mechanisms of evolution are capable of producing all of life as we know it.

And yet you find the notion of a magic man in the sky poofing everything into existance to be totally plausible.

The mind boggles... ???

--------------
I've found my personality to be an effective form of birth control.

Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

Posted: July 22 2008,14:29

Quote (Ftk @ July 22 2008,15:21)

Bill linked to the finder of the fossil, so I'm assuming that the dude gives a full explanation as to why this is a transitional. I won't have time to listen to it until later tonight unfortunately.

When you do, just bear in mind that his presentation (particularly the lengthy presentation from 2005) was intended to describe his fieldwork and findings to a general, interested audience, not convince a creationist who has her eyes clenched tightly shut, her fingers in her ears and is chanting "la la la la la nothing can convince me that these are transitional hominids la la la la la."

--------------
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

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

Ftk

Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: July 22 2008,14:32

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 22 2008,14:29)

Quote (Ftk @ July 22 2008,15:21)

Bill linked to the finder of the fossil, so I'm assuming that the dude gives a full explanation as to why this is a transitional. I won't have time to listen to it until later tonight unfortunately.

When you do, just bear in mind that his presentation (particularly the lengthy presentation from 2005) was intended to report and describe his field work and findings to a general, interested audience, not convince a creationist who has her eyes clenched tightly shut, her fingers in her ears and is chanting "la la la la la nothing can convince me that these are transitional hominids la la la la la."

WILL DO BILLY BOY!!!!

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

Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

Posted: July 22 2008,14:45

Quote (Ftk @ July 22 2008,15:32)

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 22 2008,14:29)

Quote (Ftk @ July 22 2008,15:21)

Bill linked to the finder of the fossil, so I'm assuming that the dude gives a full explanation as to why this is a transitional. I won't have time to listen to it until later tonight unfortunately.

When you do, just bear in mind that his presentation (particularly the lengthy presentation from 2005) was intended to report and describe his field work and findings to a general, interested audience, not convince a creationist who has her eyes clenched tightly shut, her fingers in her ears and is chanting "la la la la la nothing can convince me that these are transitional hominids la la la la la."

WILL DO BILLY BOY!!!!

No need to shout.

To be more specific, like most real research in the field Selassie's takes no note whatsoever of creationist pseudo-questions such as "are there really any transitional fossils? Is common descent true?"

As reflected in the article I reproduced (and to which you have yet to respond vis "common design" versus common descent), the reality of radiating patterns of descent is the framework from which this research is organized, a framework that intimately guided years of arduous fieldwork and continues to organize further theorizing and suggest questions that require further empirical investigation. Your original thesis was that "common design" can enable similar research and findings, but you've yet to describe how.

--------------
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

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

Richardthughes

Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: July 22 2008,14:46

And make sure to take your bibul and highlight areas that conflict with his story.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: July 22 2008,15:28

Quote (Ftk @ July 22 2008,14:32)

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 22 2008,14:29)

Quote (Ftk @ July 22 2008,15:21)

Bill linked to the finder of the fossil, so I'm assuming that the dude gives a full explanation as to why this is a transitional. I won't have time to listen to it until later tonight unfortunately.

When you do, just bear in mind that his presentation (particularly the lengthy presentation from 2005) was intended to report and describe his field work and findings to a general, interested audience, not convince a creationist who has her eyes clenched tightly shut, her fingers in her ears and is chanting "la la la la la nothing can convince me that these are transitional hominids la la la la la."

WILL DO BILLY BOY!!!!

When you are done, don't forget to write up how it's all impossible anyway because the earth could be 6000 years old and therefore anything that requires time scales longer then it takes many stalagmites to form is patently untrue.

/FTK
There's nothing there about lucky random blobs to what we see about us today, some other stuff about how you want to steal my children because I don't believe in fossils that serves as a welcome distraction because I'm getting pzoned on the actual discussion about fossils, and anyway Behe said it so it can't be so and Behe is always right, Davescot used a new word today, I don't know what it means but I do know DaveScot kicks trained biologists butt and has never been wrong and invented computers and the internet and everything
/FTK

So, after you've caught up on recent developments what with your new education perhaps you'd like to talk about Walt's jellyfish and whether his, and the "standard", explanation for a particular specific group of them is plausible or not. And them once it has been decided which one is more plausible, if one of us continues to believe that the less plausible one is in fact right then we can discuss that too. And maybe work out what's going on?

Perhaps the evidence will lead us to the truth of the matter, or at least as much truth can can be derived from the physical evidence left to us.

Lucky random blob is unbelievable, yet oldmanintheskydoingit is somehow supposed to persuade me? As being the more likely option of the two thus presented? As it was written it a old book that's how it happened, before anyone really had a clue? Not a new book, an
old book. And the older the book, the truer, right FTK?

--------------
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

Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

Posted: July 22 2008,15:53

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 22 2008,16:28)

When you are done, don't forget to write up how it's all impossible anyway because the earth could be 6000 years old and therefore anything that requires time scales longer then it takes many stalagmites to form is patently untrue.

Hmm... that IS a problem. The interval being investigated by Selassie (3.8 to 3.5 mya) is already fifty times the entire history of a 6,000 year earth.

--------------
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

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

JohnW

Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

Posted: July 22 2008,16:49

I look forward to FTK losing interest in biology and taking her "personal incredulity trumps intellect, education and data" approach on to pastures new. The day she meets quantum mechanics, relativity and astronomy is going to be very, very special.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"... Â The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: July 22 2008,16:52

Quote (JohnW @ July 22 2008,14:49)

I look forward to FTK losing interest in biology and taking her "personal incredulity trumps intellect, education and data" approach on to pastures new. The day she meets quantum mechanics, relativity and astronomy is going to be very, very special.

She's already come out against the Oort Cloud, hasn't she?

--------------
"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

JohnW

Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

Posted: July 22 2008,17:00

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 22 2008,14:52)

Quote (JohnW @ July 22 2008,14:49)

I look forward to FTK losing interest in biology and taking her "personal incredulity trumps intellect, education and data" approach on to pastures new. The day she meets quantum mechanics, relativity and astronomy is going to be very, very special.

She's already come out against the Oort Cloud, hasn't she?

Oh yeah, how could I forget? As a Waltophile, she's come out against pretty much all of physical science.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"... Â The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

Lou FCD

Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: July 22 2008,18:16

Leave the kids out of this discussion.

Quote

untitled, by shoehorn99

--------------
â€œWhy do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linkyâ€œ. ~ Steve Story, Legend

Richardthughes

Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: July 22 2008,18:33

Crown of thorns needed, isle nine:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-293024

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006