A place for 'I was wrong' admissions/confessions

This is a spin-of, from http://EvC Forum: The Flood- one explanation -->EvC Forum: The Flood- one explanationThis should be a place for self-admissions, not a place to point out the errors of others. I guess the exception would be, if you can link to someone elses self-admission, in another topic.Adminnemooseus[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-19-2003]

In an exchange with Rei I conflated PE absolutely with cladogenesis, after several pages of entrenched debate I saw the light.It turns out that even Gould in his latter years regretted his claim that most morphological change occurs immediately after speciation.A small point, but I made much of it.Mark

I'll start with my most recent one.I argued that a rising sea level has no effect on the atmosphere, therefore had the flood reached 29,000 feet (or whatever level), altitude would still be a problem. D'oh!!!

Let's see, what comes to mind right away... the most recent one that I can think of were when I stated that the majority of modern radioisotope dating is isochron dating (the majority has built in error checking, but is not necessarily isochron; for example, concordia-discordia dating is more common than isochron); I was wrong! Also, I conceded to Quetzal about lethal diseases that can jump across a diverse range of species.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

I got my arse spanked by DNAunion when I claimed DNA was a 'self-replicating molecule.'But I was only kidding when I said I enjoyed Gigli, really.------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

Ok,Three Hail Mary's each and 50 bucks in the indulgence box and you are forgiven.Damn heathens, what are you playing at with this honesty lark?Brian.[This message has been edited by Brian, 12-19-2003]

I guess that I will start on my long list of imperfections and assumptions by assuming that I know how God thinks. You all have probably never gotten the two of us mixed up...(that is, if you believe that I really exist! ) Anyway, please forgive my occasional presumptive arrogance.

Well, by all indications, you're not a butthole.

Okay, I have a confession. I am mathematically challenged. Which, of course, is why I went into ecology... PaulK pointed out in this post that 1 is not a prime number. However, just to take him down a peg, my 13-year-old had already pointed that out to me.

I have made an error myself...I thought 3 out of 5 dentists recommended Trident to people who chew gum when it is 4 out of 5. I am not sure how I will live with the pain

I used to be under the impression that with a sufficiently well structured education system we could make sure that more than 50% of people had above average intelligence.

Much of my excess wordings were due to me not knowing that I may not have had to use a priori arguments in c/e. Seeing Niles Eldredge's THE TRIUMPH OF EVOLUTION AND THE FAILURE OF CREATIONISM WHAT DRIVES EVOLUTION? last sentence on page 89 "In other words, we agree on a lot of things. But there's still a lot of about which we cannot all agree, so work will go on. But it is good, honest work, empirical at base. It is, in short, the very antithesis of the apriori doctrinare ravings of creationists."has changed all that. Something was "against" or violated"" the 'law'. I will not say definitively what E must have meant in the last sentence but under the labeling scheme of Gould I had not only failed to depreciate my own thoughts cross-level effects that I had as a undergraduate Freshman At Cornell but also failed to keep you all informed that I NEVER found a biologist at Cornell even thinking about these things that Gould has tried to pass on to the next generation. I guess my vegtables were Franklins to Gould and this is why he had trouble understanding what thing I was eating. I was just impressed how little the other grad students knew about what Gould was talking about then. But I have forgotten too or likewise. My guess would be then that E was actually not talking about creationists here but instead about randomness and chance that Gould reasoned for his notion of labels. In that time in that stead I was labeled instead.

We appreciate that it takes courage to say something like that Brad.

So is it closer to 25%?

And then there's Lake Wobegon where *all* the children are above average. --Percy