Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-15-2019 2:08 PM
35 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: lopezeast0211, Theodoric
Post Volume:
Total: 856,788 Year: 11,824/19,786 Month: 1,605/2,641 Week: 114/708 Day: 48/66 Hour: 2/9


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consecution
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15200
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 69 of 300 (239698)
09-01-2005 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by randman
09-01-2005 3:05 PM


Re: complete evo hypocrisy
So you knew perfectly well that Pakicetus is real example of a transitional and that the reasons you gave for laughing at it were invalid.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by randman, posted 09-01-2005 3:05 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by randman, posted 09-01-2005 5:00 PM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15200
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 73 of 300 (239728)
09-01-2005 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by randman
09-01-2005 5:00 PM


Re: complete evo hypocrisy

Off topic. This is not a debate thread. Please do not reply to this message

Here's another fact for you to chew on. Biologists had already worked out that whales were descended from ungulates BEFORE Pakicetus was found. Molecular biologists had already worked out that whales were descended from artiodactyls - and that was confirmed by the fossil evidence.

Pakicetus has an ear structure ONLY found in cetaceans. It's teeth are similar to those of fossil whales (and teeth are pretty distinctive among the mammals). And that's just the example features listed on the website you referred to.

So the evidence isn't being overstated. Because of the crucila fact that the whale-like features are showing up in the right time in the right group of mammals to be the ancestors of modern whales.

Te fact is that you were laughing at the idea that Pakicetus was a whale ancestor BECAUSE IT HAD THE FEATURES EXPECTED OF A WHALE ANCESTOR> That's not a rational objection - and if you knew it wasnt' valid as your earlier post suggested it isn't even honest.

This message has been edited by AdminJar, 09-01-2005 04:55 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by randman, posted 09-01-2005 5:00 PM randman has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15200
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 87 of 300 (240513)
09-05-2005 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by arachnophilia
09-05-2005 7:33 AM


Re: Omnivorous ban
www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=14&t=988&m=271#273 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=14&t=988&m=271#273">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=14&t=988&m=271#273

Omnivorous directed some (not undeserved) abuse against Faith. And, by my reading, asked to be banned.

This message has been edited by PaulK, 09-05-2005 07:40 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by arachnophilia, posted 09-05-2005 7:33 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by arachnophilia, posted 09-05-2005 7:52 AM PaulK has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15200
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 122 of 300 (242046)
09-10-2005 4:08 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Ben!
09-09-2005 10:07 PM


Re: Another path to a correct hypothesis?
quote:

But what does it matter? If Faith wants to use her time to try find find a theory that matches evidence to Biblical stories, why so many people get angry and yell? Let her do it! If she succeeds, great for her! If she does not, then you can all say "told you so."

THe problem is that she DOESN'T succeed and resorts to double standards and dishonesty.

She claims that she rejects standard geological explanatiosn because they don't make sense, but has no problems proposing "explanations" that are pure raving insanity.

Contrary evidence must NOT be considered allegedly because it is "begging the question"

Cosnidering other explanations for evidence is also ruled out on the same false grounds.

IF her methods are so good then why does she need to rely on blatant double-standards and obvious lies to shut down any reasonable examination ?

Faith can appear to be reasonable at times and that is a good reason to produce scientific evidence to refute her. If only to expose the fact that she ISN'T reasonable. But you have to recognise that she doesn;t stop at the point where her ideas are shown up as unreasonable - she keeps on going.T


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Ben!, posted 09-09-2005 10:07 PM Ben! has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019