|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: questions evolutionists can't or won't answer | |||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Wow. I have read some doosies in my time, but this one is a mind-bender. Perhaps you could provide some references for this, degreed?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
JP posted his opener verbatim on the Baptist Board, got some replies, and engaged in his usual rhetoric. Here is my last response there, dated 6/17, as yet unanswered:
quote: Science does take time. But as you just admitted, creation had been the reigning paradigm since well before the ToE. Regardless of your personal distaste for and inexperience in the sciences, the ToE is, in fact, scientific and it has in its support data from numerous fields of science. These repeated charges of the ToE not being science and such smack of desperation and an ignorance of the available data.
quote: Now THAT is a non-sequitur. Please produce documentation that abiogenesis is the pillar of the ToE that you seem to be making out to be. If this one tangential issue is inaccessible to the normal routes of investigation, I fail to see any logic or rationale in proclaiming that the ToE is therefore not scientific. A dearth of physical evidence means simply that any given hypothesis will benefit from only a small amount of evidence. Your ‘conclusion’, therefore, is quite unwarranted.
quote: No, they show that you have latched onto an area of research for which there is very little physical evidence and have proclaimed it the most important such area, and that if none of the handful of lurkers or participants on this discussion board can answer the ‘questions’ to your satisfaction — and I doubt you would accept any answer as valid regardless of the source or the amount of documentation — that, therefore, evolution must be wrong/unscientific/etc.
quote: What do you mean chromosomal fusion could be objectively tested? Again, it appears that you believe that chromosomal fusion was the linchpin of the descent of humanity from an ape-like ancestral stock. While such a line of reasoning might seem to have merit to the underinformed, in reality, it is a non-starter.For example, the chromosome numbers in the Primate superfamily Cercopithecoidea vary from 2n=46 and 2n=72 (Primate Anatomy, An Introduction, 2nd Ed. 2000.) This guenon (C. mona) has 2n=66.
http://www.primate.wisc.edu/pin/images/img4697.gif This one (C. mitis) has 2n=72.
http://www.primate.wisc.edu/pin/images/img4284.gif Should we conclude: 1. That chromosomal fusions/splittings/rearrangements are paramount in the microevolution of these guenons?2. That if we cannot objectively test whether or not such events can explain the descent of these guenons from an ancestral stock that they were independently created? 2a. If yes to #2, how then can any karyotypic evidence be used as evidence of any type of descent?
quote: What does that have to do with Baraminology’s inability to apply criteria in an unbiased and arbitrary manner? These are supposed to be the ‘rising/shining stars’ of creation science. ReMine and Wise were consulted and/or used as references in these papers. I am confident that the more we learn about genome evolution, the more descent will be indicated. My confidence is being borne out on nearly a daily basis. Yours first needs to be filtered through the lenses of creationists who discard and wildly extrapolate what evidence there is to fit their preconceived notions.
quote: You failed to grasp the significance of the results I cited. It is not a question of mice evolving into mice — it is an issue of the testing of the methodology employed examining hypotheses of descent. The methods employed in molecular phylogenetic analyses were used on a known geneaology of inbred mouse strains to see whether or not these methods would reproduce the known relationships. Pretty straightforward.I am saying that when a methodology works on knowns, that it is standard procedure to then be confident that the conclusions based on these methods, when applied to unknowns, is valid. That is how science — and even, I would hope, engineering — works. Or do you, in designing software, have to continually re-invent the various methods of writing software? quote: Please then explain how one would test a methodology on a ‘known’ set of evolutionarily related non-intraKind creatures to your satisfaction. All I see here is the common creationist tactic of setting up no-win situations for the ToE. Were I to cite a study in which a methodology had been tested on, say, whales and hippos, doubtless the authors would be accused of circular reasoning and the whole issue hand-waved out of existence. There is simply no way to meet the ever-changing, arbitrary, biased ‘demands’ of the non-scientifically oriented ideologue.
quote: The pelvis is discussed a bit. What do you suggest a long bone associated with a pelvis be called?
quote: What is this ‘genetic engineering’ all about? There are plenty of genetic conditions that result in the formation of stunted limbs (or no limbs at all). Meromelia is a condition in humans that results in limb malformations. Caudal dysgenesis results in the absence of the coccyx and in some cases the sacrum in humans. It is no real surprise that such anomalies exist. In the case of terrestial bipeds, these conditions are of course non-adaptive. So, yes, there is evidence that limbs or parts of limbs can be un-developed.
quote: I wasn’t aware that1. Brittanica is the ultimate authority on scientific terminology 2.That shellfish, spiders, and insects have femurs (they have exoskeletons). 3. that a femur is a limb or appendage Looking into point 2 above should make it clear what I think of my point 1. I prefer to use ‘definitions’ that are relevant to the discussion at hand and that are produced in the proper context. From Kardong’s Vertebrates, 2nd Ed., 1998. In the section on the basic parts of the appendicular skeleton:The limb region closest to the body is the stylopodium, with a single element: humerus of the upper arm, femur of the thigh. A few pages later, there is some detail on the anatomy of living and fossil tetrapods and bony fish. On p. 314, Fig. 9.13 has drawings of the limb (fin) structure of some living sarcopterygians. In particular, the Neoceratodus fin/limb structure has a femur explicitly indicated. It is a single bone that connects the pelvic fin to the pelvic girdle (with a ball and socket joint, no less). I would dare say that such an arrangement — the presence of a femur in this fin/limb assemblage — has nothing to do with a leg. Of course, you should have paid more attention to your preferred Britannica definition (emphasis mine): FEMUR: limb or appendage of an animal, used to support the body, provide locomotion, and, in modified form, assist in capturing and eating prey (as in certain shellfish, spiders, and insects). In four-limbed vertebrates all four appendages are commonly called legs, but in bipedal animals, including humans, only the posterior or lower two are so called. quote: Duplicate what? What would we perform this fusion in? I was unaware that the ape-like ancestor from which humans and apes descended had been identified, much less that it is still alive and available for us to perform chromosomal fusion experiments on (please re-read the demolition of this premise above).
quote: It is but a small aspect, and it is certainly not used in the way that you seem to be implying. See my example of the guenons above. Are you going to claim that these Old world monkeys cannot possibly be related via descent because of the difference in chromosome number?
quote: I have good reason to believe, based on the observations of obviously closely related species, that such a fusion was not pivotal nor did it cause any speciation event in the human historical lineage.I, of course, would like to see some experiments that verify NREH in multicellular eukaryotes - and NOT anecdotes, phenotypic plasticity extrapolations, etc. quote: I believe that you do not understand how scientific experimentation — especially in the realm of evolutionary biology — is undertaken. From my previous readings of creationists, were someone to undertake the very experiments you now seem to want, and recreate the evolution of some species in a lab, I have absolutely no doubt at all that you would simply declare the results to be supportive not of evolution but of Intelligent Design. It is a no-win situation for the evolutionist, a win-win for the creationist. What you apparently see — or at least want others to see — as some sort of ‘objective test’ of evolution is nothing more than a rhetorical ploy. As I can see little coming form continuing exchanges in this thread, and also due to the fact that I have additional responsibilities at my job, I doubt that I will be able to respond in any sort of depth on this forum in the foreseeable future. ******************************************************************* In Helen’s response, she wrote that chromosome number is no big deal. I replied to her: And I suggest that you hook up with John Paul and the two of you decide which side of your mouths the creationism angle is going to be argued from. You see, he says that chromosome numbers are a big deal, you say they are not. It is easy to ‘win’ an argument when you argue both sides of the same coin, no?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
John Paul - is this the same guy that posts as JAFC on the No Answers in Genesis board? Named Joe Gallien?
Anyway, I invite anyone to read the linked thread. Also, this one:
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=36;t=000111;p=4 It is almost funny to see how the creationist tries to change topics, focuses on minutia, gerts away with posting insults by the libel-spewing 'administrators', and of course, gets totally embarrassed and doesn't even realize it at every turn. Joe Gallien simply does not understand the topics he brings up - it was hilarious to see him claim that his 'language links' supported ReMine's contention regarding 1667 fixed beneficial mutations - the links DID NOT EVEN MENTION genes or mutations at all! The usual creationist mindless extrapolation at work... Here is my last post to that thread, the one in which the administrators at BB (read: biased ignorant censors)called me a liar, and totally removed:****************************************************** quote: Behe’s personal incredulity is evidence of nothing but the fact that the answers he demands have not been found yet or have not been investigated yet — indeed, Behe has done ZERO research on the areas he claims to have evidence for design in. quote: That is not evidence either, that is emotional pleading. quote: So inference is OK for the creationist but taboo for the evolutionist? quote: Ok, I guess I don’t know ‘what I am debating against.’ Please set me straight. As for biases in interpretation, I have two questions for you: 1. Do you believe that mutations are heritable?2. 2. Do you believe that the patterns of such heritable mutations can be used to infer relatedness? quote: As I have mentioned several times, look at the sequence data. Does it pinpoint exactly which changes were ‘necessary’ to produce a ‘great transformation’? No, not yet anyway.But it is good evidence, whether you accept it or not. As an analogy, we can think of it this way. The DNA evidence is like a blood trail leading from a crime scene. It leads all the way to a suspect’s door. We knock on the door, but no one answers. The creationist would have us believe that, therefore, someone else did it. I also suggest you learn a bit more about phylogenetic analyses before dumping it all in the lap of ‘bias’. ************************************************** The censors over there are doing their damndest to make ignorant zealots like Joe Gallienb look like he actually knows something, but they can only do this by censoring opposing views. Joe Gallien's primary response to anything presented to him is that he doesn't personally aqgree with/accept it, so it cannot be legitimate. Also, Joe Gallien can't seem to tell the difference between fixed differences and all differences. Oh well, he's a creationist. What can one say?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
Here's another one that the BB censors hacked to death to save poor Joe:
*************************************************************
quote: Not impressive. The creationist engages in self-aggrandizement for no reason whatsoever. quote: I submit that you do not understand the scientific method if that is what you believe. quote: So what? The point was that it did occur and that we cannot replicate it. Just as we cannot replicate the ‘grand sweep’ of evolution in a lab (which, as I already demonstrated, would be futile) does not mean that it did not happen, especially when there is a great deal of circumstantial evidence for it. quote: No, but his reasoning seems to be commonplace. Indeed, you have alluded to the same sentiment that Wysong spelled out. quote: It is generally accepted practice that you cite your source. You cut and pasted the above copyrighted material from the young earth creationist ministry Answers in Genesis, form a propaganda piece by Sarfati. See http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/magnetochiral.aspBy the way, I have never heard of Kerkut, and he is not cited in any of the evolutionary texts I have. quote: Then we could at least analyze what intervention was necessary. Your assumption is that intervention is necessary. Wysong redux. Of course you cannot recreate the Creation, can you? quote: They already do. Properly educated individuals have been fighting for some time to keep the forces of religious conservatism from inflicting their right-wing propaganda upon students in the classroom. quote: You can copy my writing style all you want to, and you will still be incorrect. The theory of evolution tells us that creatures with similar morphology will have similar DNA sequences throughout their genomes? Please tell me where I can read this for myself. The DNA that controls of influences morphology will obviously be related to morphology, but there is no rationale to assume that creatures with similar morphology would have similar synapomorphic changes in their genes that encode proteins having nothing to do with morphology. It Is not the ToE that needs to be rewritten, it is the creationist’s understanding of it that needs improvement. quote: I did not misrepresent you at all. In fact, I did not even refer to you in the above, rather it was rhetorical. Your repeated baseless accusations are noted. quote: Emphasis mine. What do you consider ‘strong’ ? Is 50% homology strong? Why would you assume that humans and non-human primates would have been created with ‘similar blood types’? And, again, you continue to demonstrate your ignorance of the actual data and how phylogeneitc inferences are made. It is NOT mere similarity. quote: Then I submit that you do not, in fact, know what a synapomorphy is, nor what the implications of sequence analyses are. quote: You do? Please share the evidence that allowed you to know this fact. Also please provide the documentation that demonstates that the patterns of synapomorphy seen in primates is due to design, rather than to heritable mutations. quote: Right. Unless, of course, we are talking about the methods used 9in evolutionary biology. quote: Ifcould Do you think that, say, guenons and orangutans have ‘similar blood types’? If so, please cite your sources, and explain what you mean by ‘similar’. Also note that in the link I provided, the bulk of the data is in noncoding regions, which have minimal if any effect on the expressed protein. quote: Most likely they are neutral. As you should know, neutral mutations can become fixed in a population at the rate at which they occur in an individual. That you are implying that mere coincidence can account for the observed patterns is indicative to me that, again, you simply have seen no actual data. quote: Your contrived counterexamples notwithstanding, you have yet to demonstrate by any stretch of the imagination that applying the tested methods of molecular phylogentics to unknowns is unwarranted. quote: That is false and a completely unwarranted and inflammatory charge. Again, the only logical conclusion is that you are ignorant of the data. quote: You can say it all you want. What is your rationale for coming to this conclusion, other than the attempt to restrict the abilities and imagination of the Creator? quote: Wrong yet again. The prediction was that DNA sequence data would reflect evolutionary hypotheses of descent, were evolution correct, premised in part on mundane realities — mutations happen and get passed on. That the prediction has been and continues to be fulfilled (granted, with difficulties the further back in time we go, as should be expected) is support for evolution, not evidence of confusion and such. quote: I do not mean alleged at all. You disagree for purely personal reasons. I suggest that you take it up with the proper authorities. quote: Yet another insult that snuck by the censor. Noted. quote: You do realize that big whales come from whale embryos? This attempted dodge would be funny if it were not such a clear sign of desperation. You implied that the Designer would be efficient — same shape, same blood proteins, that sort of thing. So here we have an embryo of a creature that, as an adult, has no recognizable hind limbs, yet in this early stage of development, has them. Is that an efficient Design? Or will this fall under the ‘we cannot know the mind of the Designer’ escape?As for gill slits, the term itself is a misnomer, but the fact of the matter is that yes, human embryos possess the same primordia that in fish produce gills. It is called the pharyngeal (or branchial) apparatus. quote: Whale embryos grow up into adult whales. I can understand why you would want to try to restrict the discussion, however, to do so is to ignore important aspects. Why are you so desperately trying to divorce the embryo from the adult? quote: If we follow form your premise, then it certainly is a valid extrapolation.
quote: Are you implying that C. mitis and C. mona might really be the same species? What IS obvious is that the interspecies chromosome number is at best a tangential issue. But I am satisfied that you have stopped claiming erroneously that evolutionists use it as evidence of evolution. quote: Oh, sure it is. But not in a logical or scientific manner. quote: Ah — the sound of goal posts moving. I did not say or imply it did. That mutations occur and can be passed on is (one of) the foundational premise(s) underlying the reliability of molecular phylogenetic methods. These methods indicate that common ancestry is a valid concept. Even your Behe accepts common descent. The creationist will always be able to rush back to those points in time for which the evidence is most scarce and find safe haven. quote: I must have missed this. I saw some nitpicking and tangential analogies, but hardly any such demonstration. Whether or not you realize — or will admit — it, you are insisting that methods are basically one time events, that each time one addresses an issue, they should start with the assumption that the methods of examination are not to be trusted. This is absurd. quote: I admit that I find it hard to understand either Creationism or ID (which is really creationism disguised). If creationism is not a scientific dead end, please tell us all:At what point does one posit Divine Intervention in one’s research? What happens when one discovers a natural explanation for what had previously been ascribed to Divine Intervention? quote: Yes, Grin Again, you can copy my writing style all you want to, and you will still be wrong. Observations are part of the scientific method, but they are not tests. I hope that you can understand that. I asked for your objective tests that show humans were specially Created. It is clear that you have none, yet demand such objective tests from the opposition. quote: Interesting — I was under the impression that the ‘message’ was the protein that gets encoded and such quote: Please do. And I will dig through my files to find the posts form the last time you tried to claim this. quote: It is evident from your posts on this forum. quote: Gee — who would have thunk it? A creationist drawing creation-friendly impressions?Dr.Scott L. Page
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Diatribe - another word I frequently use ... quote: I understand that you have a tendency to write the names of your opponants in lower case letters, as some sort of insult. How clever. Of course, the creationist will always claim to have the upper hand in any discussion - observe the bizarre antics of Karl Crawford, or Fred Williams, or Walter ReMine, or Helen Fryman, etc. etc. Always claim victory, no matter what. Your own words are your worst enemy. that you cannot or will not see that is evident, JAFC...
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: I'm confused - you gave me my lunch? You are a waiter or something? I think the phrase you are looking for is that you ate my lunch. But the bottom line is that you are convinced that you really 'won' over there. And I am still confused. What is this victory? Is it that I did not know that spiders have limb segments called femurs? If that is your great victory, you can have it. It is irrelevant to the debate and tangential. You got me. Wow. However, it is obvious to all that your love of minutia is your only mechanism to claim victory, for you totally blew it on the substantive issue. I was especially tickled by your claim that the fact that whale embryos have limb buds is irrelevant because you were talkign about adult whales.That clearly demonstrates your shallow debate skill and even shallower grasp of the material. What do you think a limb bud does? Why would a creature with no hind limbs as an adult have a limb bud as an embryo? Shitty design? No design? Or is this one of those "oh well, thats the Designer for ya!" moments? I was also entertained by your convoluted mental gymnastics in which you tried so hard to 'explain' via analogy that tested methodologies cannot be used on unknowns. That was a hoot. On this episode of Joe Gallien, Creationist Physician: Doctor: I'm afraid you have cancer. Patient: Oh... Are you going to start me on chemotherapy? Doctor: Well, there are many therapies that have been used successfully on patients with your type of cancer, but there is no reason to suspect that they would work on you. You see, that would be extrapolating aknown to an unknown, and that just isn't how science works.... Yeah.... You gave me my lunch all right... Freudian slip?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
I am also enjoying your continued flailing here:
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_to... plunk!plunk! plunk! (sound of more conditions and criteria being added) |
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: The oddest coincidence - I just read a post to JAFC that mentions the eating of lunch and having one's head handed to them, and John Paul has been writing about handing me my lunch... [Fixed close quote. --Admin] [This message has been edited by Admin, 07-29-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: You did? I must have missed all that. Funny though - JAFC went on a tear at NAIG a few weeks back claiming that I misrepresented everyone...
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by singularity:
[B] quote: Hmmm... I was quoting someone else there. That quadrillion years bit is a hoot!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: I'm hurt. All this time, I thought we were pals! I even feel bad that you get spanked so hard on BB so often. Well, not really.... But I really am curious as to what you think you served me my lunch on...
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: The incompetent rarely know it, often are even boastful, study finds By Erica GoodeNEW YORK TIMES NEWS SERVICE January 18, 2000 Thomas Jefferson's assertion that "he who knows best knows how little he knows" now has some scientific support. According to a Cornell University study, most incompetent people do not know that they are incompetent. On the contrary. People who do things badly usually are supremely confident of their abilities -- more confident, in fact, than people who do things well, according to the findings of Dr. David A. Dunning, a psychology professor. One reason that the ignorant tend to be the blissfully self-assured is that the skills required for competence often are the same skills necessary to recognize competence, said Dunning, whose research was conducted with the assistance of a graduate student, Justin Kruger. The incompetent, therefore, suffer doubly, the researchers suggested in a paper appearing in the December issue of Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. "Not only do they reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the ability to realize it," wrote Dunning and Kruger, now an assistant professor at the University of Illinois. This deficiency in "self-monitoring skills," the researchers said, helps explain the tendency of the humor-impaired to persist in telling jokes that are not funny, of day traders to repeatedly jump into the market -- and repeatedly lose out -- and of the politically clueless to continue holding forth at dinner parties on the fine points of campaign strategy. Some college students, Dunning said, evince a similar blindness: after doing badly on a test, they spend hours in his office explaining why the answers he suggests for the test questions are wrong. In a series of studies, Kruger and Dunning tested their theory of incompetence. They found that subjects who scored in the lowest quartile on tests of logic, English grammar and humor also were the most likely to "grossly overestimate" how well they had performed. In all three tests, subjects' ratings of their ability were positively linked to their actual scores. But the lowest-ranked participants showed much greater distortions in their self-estimates. Asked to evaluate their performance on the test of logical reasoning, for example, subjects who scored in the 12th percentile guessed that they had scored in the 62nd percentile and deemed their overall skill at logical reasoning to be at the 68th percentile. Similarly, subjects who scored at the 10th percentile on the grammar test ranked themselves at the 67th percentile in the ability to "identify grammatically correct standard English" and estimated their test scores to be at the 61st percentile. On the humor test, in which participants were asked to rate jokes according to their funniness (subjects' ratings were matched against those of an "expert" panel of professional comedians), low-scoring subjects also were more likely to have an inflated perception of their skill. But because humor is idiosyncratically defined, the researchers said, the results were less conclusive. Unlike their unskilled counterparts, the most able subjects in the study, Kruger and Dunning found, were likely to underestimate their own competence. The researchers attributed this to the fact that, in the absence of information about how others were doing, highly competent subjects assumed that others wereperforming as well as they were -- a phenomenon psychologists term the "false consensus effect." When high-scoring subjects were asked to "grade" the grammar tests of their peers, however, they quickly revised their evaluations of their own performance. In contrast, the self-assessments of those who scored badly themselves were unaffected by the experience of grading others; some subjects even further inflated their estimates of their own abilities. "Incompetent individuals were less able to recognize competence in others," the researchers concluded. In a final experiment, Dunning and Kruger set out to discover whether training would help modify the exaggerated self-perceptions of incapable subjects. In fact, a short training session in logical reasoning did improve the ability of low-scoring subjects to assess their performance, they found. The research meshes neatly with other work indicating that overconfidence is common; studies have found, for example, that the vast majority of people rate themselves as "above average" on a wide array of abilities -- though such an abundance of talent would be impossible in statistical terms. And thisoverestimation, studies indicate, is more likely for tasks that are difficult than for those that are easy. Such studies are not without critics. Dr. David Funder, a psychology professor at the University of California Riverside, for example, said he suspected that most lay people had only a vague idea of the meaning of "average" in statistical terms. "I'm not sure the average person thinks of 'average' or 'percentile' in quite that literal a sense," Funder said, "so 'above average' might mean to them 'pretty good,' or 'OK,' or 'doing all right.' And if, in fact, people mean something subjective when they use the word, then it's really hard to evaluate whetherthey're right or wrong using the statistical criterion." But Dunning said his research and other studies indicated that there were many reasons why people would tend to overestimate their competency, and not be aware of it. In some cases, Dunning pointed out, an awareness of one's own inability is inevitable: "In a golf game, when your ball is heading into the woods, you know you're incompetent," he said. But in other situations, feedback is absent, or at least more ambiguous; even a humorless joke, for example, is likely to be met with polite laughter. And, faced with incompetence, social norms prevent most people from blurting out, "You stink!" -- truthful though this assessment may be. All of which inspired in Dunning and his co-author, in presenting their research to the public, a certain degree of nervousness. "This article may contain faulty logic, methodological errors or poor communication," they cautioned in their journal report. "Let us assure our readers that to the extent this article is imperfect, it is not a sin we have committed knowingly."
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Oh, I know. I used to present it on a regular basis on the old OCW board, primarily for the benefit of Fred Williams. In the usual fashion, he ignored it...
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
Well, Joe's 48 suspension is up. I am still wondering what it was he thought he fed me my lunch on at the Baptist Board. I suspect that since he caanot simply say what it was that he, like all creationists do at some point, declaring victory in the hopes that he can score points with those even less knowledgible. And, of course, make himself feel better.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
No taunts intended, rather, just a documentable observation. It is true that Joe has repeatedly claimed to have "handed me my lunch" or something similar in the previously linked Baptist Board threads. It is also true that I have repeatedly asked him to explain/point out what is was that he supposedly did this on. Ity is also true that in response to each request, if not ignored, he has simply reiterated his claims.
A rational logical conclusion is that he is simply posturing. Reading the threads in question, the only point that I concede to Joe Gallien is the issue of insects having 'femurs'. That issue, as any reader caqn see by reading the threads, is completely irrelevant to the issue we had been discussing (whether or not whales have vestigial limbs). Of relevance is the fact that Joe Gallien simply blew off important issues, such as the fact that whale embryos have hind limb buds by saying that he was referring to adult whales. There are similar examples in the threads in question. Again, it was not my intent to sound taunting, just an expression of my observations.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024