Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-26-2019 5:58 AM
20 online now:
AZPaul3, Pressie (2 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,794 Year: 9,830/19,786 Month: 2,252/2,119 Week: 288/724 Day: 13/114 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
56
7
89
...
14Next
Author Topic:   evolutionary chain
ringo
Member
Posts: 16677
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 91 of 204 (259961)
11-15-2005 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by randman
11-15-2005 1:12 PM


randman can't do it, Christian
you don't have enough "links" to even show that they are links.

Did you ever hear the expression, "Can't see the forest for the trees"?

You're looking at the spaces between the trees and claiming that there are no trees and therefore there is no forest.


People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by randman, posted 11-15-2005 1:12 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by randman, posted 11-15-2005 1:45 PM ringo has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3071 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 92 of 204 (259965)
11-15-2005 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by ringo
11-15-2005 1:30 PM


Re: randman can't do it, Christian
Ni, I am looking at a massive grassplains and saying the fact there are a few trees on the savannah does not make it a rain forest.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by ringo, posted 11-15-2005 1:30 PM ringo has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by kjsimons, posted 11-15-2005 1:57 PM randman has responded

  
kjsimons
Member
Posts: 667
From: Orlando,FL
Joined: 06-17-2003


Message 93 of 204 (259971)
11-15-2005 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by randman
11-15-2005 1:45 PM


Re: randman can't do it, Christian
There you go, moving the goalposts again. He said "forest" and you come back with "rain forest". The two are not the same! Face it Rantman, you are blind to the facts and he hit the nail on the head with his remark.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by randman, posted 11-15-2005 1:45 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by randman, posted 11-15-2005 5:48 PM kjsimons has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3071 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 94 of 204 (260001)
11-15-2005 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by kjsimons
11-15-2005 1:57 PM


Re: randman can't do it, Christian
OK, I am looking at next to no trees over a vast grassland, and you guys swear there's a forest there because there are isolated trees here and there.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by kjsimons, posted 11-15-2005 1:57 PM kjsimons has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by ringo, posted 11-15-2005 6:16 PM randman has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16677
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 95 of 204 (260006)
11-15-2005 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by randman
11-15-2005 5:48 PM


Re: randman can't do it, Christian
randman writes:

I am looking at next to no trees....

My point - if I have to spell it out for you - is that it doesn't matter how many trees there are. You are only looking at the spaces. You can't see the trees for the spaces, so it's no wonder that you can't see the forest.

To relate it to the topic for Christian: It isn't the missing or broken links that define a chain. It's the links that are commected. Don't look for what's missing. Look for what is there.


People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by randman, posted 11-15-2005 5:48 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by randman, posted 11-15-2005 7:23 PM ringo has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3071 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 96 of 204 (260032)
11-15-2005 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by ringo
11-15-2005 6:16 PM


Re: randman can't do it, Christian
The problem is the connections don't exist. They don't. You talk about not seeing the forest, and it's true, and that's because the forest isn't there.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by ringo, posted 11-15-2005 6:16 PM ringo has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Yaro, posted 11-15-2005 7:27 PM randman has not yet responded
 Message 99 by arachnophilia, posted 11-15-2005 8:51 PM randman has not yet responded
 Message 101 by Thor, posted 11-15-2005 9:02 PM randman has not yet responded

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 4668 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 97 of 204 (260033)
11-15-2005 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by randman
11-15-2005 7:23 PM


Re: randman can't do it, Christian
The problem is the connections don't exist.

Wow! You convinced me!

Pack-up guys, randmans

bare assetion

has just disproved 150 years of science.

Man, thank goodness we don't have to see what we don't want to see. Isn't selective knowledge and willfull ignorance nice?

I think I'm gonna start beliving in the intelligent pusher next.

This message has been edited by Yaro, 11-15-2005 07:27 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by randman, posted 11-15-2005 7:23 PM randman has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by arachnophilia, posted 11-15-2005 8:48 PM Yaro has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 150 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 98 of 204 (260043)
11-15-2005 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Yaro
11-15-2005 7:27 PM


Re: randman can't do it, Christian
I think I'm gonna start beliving in the intelligent pusher next.

no no. gravity is still a myth though -- the earth just sucks.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Yaro, posted 11-15-2005 7:27 PM Yaro has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 150 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 99 of 204 (260044)
11-15-2005 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by randman
11-15-2005 7:23 PM


Re: randman can't do it, Christian
The problem is the connections don't exist.

yeah, well, they don't exist here either.

we evos resort to silly posts because the creationists can't seem to get the kindergarten concepts, let alone the hardcore science that takes a ph.d. and years of research to fully understand. in fact, you guys seem to spend a lot of time saying that stuff doesn't even exist. tell me, have you ever even picked up an evolutionary paleontology book? taken a college level geology or biology class?


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by randman, posted 11-15-2005 7:23 PM randman has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Yaro, posted 11-15-2005 9:35 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded
 Message 110 by nator, posted 11-16-2005 7:26 AM arachnophilia has responded

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 4668 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 100 of 204 (260079)
11-15-2005 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by arachnophilia
11-15-2005 8:51 PM


Re: randman can't do it, Christian
...taken a college level geology or biology class?

Hell, even a descent high-school class (like the one I was lucky to have ) will give you most of this info. But I guess randman wouldn't like that cuz it's high-school, and evolution is a religion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by arachnophilia, posted 11-15-2005 8:51 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by randman, posted 11-15-2005 9:10 PM Yaro has responded

  
Thor
Member (Idle past 4083 days)
Posts: 148
From: Sydney, Australia
Joined: 12-20-2004


Message 101 of 204 (260055)
11-15-2005 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by randman
11-15-2005 7:23 PM


Re: randman can't do it, Christian
The problem is the connections don't exist. They don't. You talk about not seeing the forest, and it's true, and that's because the forest isn't there.

Maybe there isn’t a forest there right in front of our eyes, but we can go and look closer at the ground. There may be evidence to suggest there was a forest there in the past, or maybe there isn’t. You won’t know unless you take a closer look. This makes more sense than saying “I don’t see any forest so it doesn’t exist and never did … whoa is that the time? I’ve gotta go I’m late for church!” This is simply giving up way too easily and discarding any semblance of an enquiring mind.


My Hovercraft is full of eels!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by randman, posted 11-15-2005 7:23 PM randman has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3071 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 102 of 204 (260063)
11-15-2005 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Yaro
11-15-2005 9:35 PM


Re: randman can't do it, Christian
The problem is after taking those classes I decided to look into the data for myself and found most of the "evidence" presented in the class was a lie. That's why a thinking person should question evolution.

I challenge anyone to really examine what they were taught in school and see if the facts they were taught relative to evolution are genuinely true, and especially over time you will see what evos teach as factual change to the point you recognize it's all based on overstatements, hoaxes, lies, and wishful thinking.

Some of the lies are:

Presenting older forms of people, such as Neanderthals as ape-like when they were not.

Using faked drawings to make unproven claims of a phylotypic embryonic stage. Keep in the mind we are not talking of adjustments in theory but the manufacturing of false data and presenting that false data as fact to people in schools. Most students never bother to look into the data for themselves.

Using false claims in depicting the so-called ape to human transition.

Claiming micro-evolution equals macro-evolution.

Lying about the reality of the fossil record, claiming only "gaps" are missing as if the majority of the material is there when that is a gross exagerration, and there are virtually no transitions well-documented between major morphological forms, nor are the vast majority of features for any creature shown in any transition.

Pretty much you name it, and the evos have overstated it. About the strongest evidence they have is genetic, but since it is relatively new, we will see how it holds up over time. It took well over 100 years of denouncing evolutionist's use of faked embryonic drawings before some headway was made there. Maybe the internet can speed that up, but the important thing to remember is the history of using faked pictorials, faked data, and overstatements within the evo camp.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Yaro, posted 11-15-2005 9:35 PM Yaro has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Yaro, posted 11-15-2005 10:51 PM randman has responded
 Message 104 by arachnophilia, posted 11-15-2005 11:43 PM randman has responded
 Message 120 by Lithodid-Man, posted 11-18-2005 8:53 PM randman has responded

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 4668 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 103 of 204 (260095)
11-15-2005 10:51 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by randman
11-15-2005 9:10 PM


Re: randman can't do it, Christian
The problem is after taking those classes I decided to look into the data for myself and found most of the "evidence" presented in the class was a lie. That's why a thinking person should question evolution.

LOL! Somehow I don't think you ever examined anything. No one is lying to you. You want them to be lying so you can fill the gaps with your fancifull ideas about QM and "poofing"

I challenge anyone to really examine what they were taught in school and see if the facts they were taught relative to evolution are genuinely true, and especially over time you will see what evos teach as factual change to the point you recognize it's all based on overstatements, hoaxes, lies, and wishful thinking.

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAH! This from the man who seriously suggests new animals magicaly apear at the whim of an unseen "designer"!

You have failed to show any of the above is true. All you do is dredge up old oudated crap and try and pass it off as modern contraversy. Do you realize how foolish you look?

Presenting older forms of people, such as Neanderthals as ape-like when they were not.

HAHAHHAHAHAHAH!

Note the dates. Your "ape-like" neandertal was circa 1900. As science advances, things change. Are you gonna say computer science is a bunch of crap because early computers looked like an Apple IIe?

Get real.

Using faked drawings to make unproven claims of a phylotypic embryonic stage. Keep in the mind we are not talking of adjustments in theory but the manufacturing of false data and presenting that false data as fact to people in schools. Most students never bother to look into the data for themselves.

Oh shut up about this already. Seriously, be quiet. You sound like a fool.

Those drawings are over 100 years old and if any text book today presents them as accurate its the fault of the damn text book, not scientists. I for one never even heard of Heakle till I started at the EvC.

You creationsts love a bone to pick on, it dosn't even matter how long that bone's been lying around. Got any new tricks up your sleve, cuz I have seen/heard all these before and it's begining to sound like an echo chamber with you.

Using false claims in depicting the so-called ape to human transition.

Another baseles assertion, and if you bring up Nebraska man I ask you agian... you got anything recent to yammer about?

Cuz last site you posted was claiming the ica stones were real and that Aztec Head Binding was proof of giants.

Have you ever botherd to look at the garbage you consider provocative "science"? I mean, Michael Cremo for chrissake!! He ain't even on the same religius plaent as you are.

Claiming micro-evolution equals macro-evolution.

ya ya ya... cry me a river. I'm sorry you don't understand evolution. We have all wasted a great deal of time trying to explain it to you and for your 2200+ post count it doesn't really seem you have learned anything.

Lying about the reality of the fossil record, claiming only "gaps" are missing as if the majority of the material is there when that is a gross exagerration, and there are virtually no transitions well-documented between major morphological forms, nor are the vast majority of features for any creature shown in any transition.

Right, cuz ya know all these scientists spend all this time slaving away earning Ph.d's so they can lie.

Why do you even think it's in their damn interest to lie?.

Boy, you must think your so damn special that the scientific comunity would single you out, and invest all this time, effort, and money just to lie to you. Give me a break.

Don't you have some UFO's to chase?

Pretty much you name it, and the evos have overstated it. About the strongest evidence they have is genetic, but since it is relatively new, we will see how it holds up over time. It took well over 100 years of denouncing evolutionist's use of faked embryonic drawings before some headway was made there. Maybe the internet can speed that up, but the important thing to remember is the history of using faked pictorials, faked data, and overstatements within the evo camp.

Nope, you are being an ass. You are basically calling scientists a bunch of quacks and liers with no justification. And then you come around here and post these pathetic, geocities-style sites, where some numb-nutz who read to much bad sci-fi while on acid, farts out a bunch of nonsense and you expect us to belive it.

Lemme ask you something, HAVE YOU EVER BOTHERED TO EXAMINE THE CRAP YOU BELIVE?

I don't even know why you bother coming on this board, your so damn hardheaded. Talking to you is like a goddam broken record.

Don't bother going to a doctor if you get sick randman, the medical profesion is full of liers, quacks, and hoaxes. After all, they don't even know where the soul is!

Give me a break.

This message has been edited by Yaro, 11-15-2005 10:57 PM

This message has been edited by AdminJar, 11-15-2005 10:46 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by randman, posted 11-15-2005 9:10 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by randman, posted 11-16-2005 1:25 AM Yaro has not yet responded
 Message 107 by randman, posted 11-16-2005 1:32 AM Yaro has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 150 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 104 of 204 (260099)
11-15-2005 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by randman
11-15-2005 9:10 PM


recycled creationist mumbo-jumbo
The problem is after taking those classes I decided to look into the data for myself and found most of the "evidence" presented in the class was a lie.

as a skeptical person, i highly doubt that story. why? because look at the recycled creationist arguments that follow it:

  • "Presenting older forms of people, such as Neanderthals as ape-like when they were not."
  • "Using faked drawings to make unproven claims of a phylotypic embryonic stage."
  • "Using false claims in depicting the so-called ape to human transition."
  • "Claiming micro-evolution equals macro-evolution."
  • "Lying about the reality of the fossil record,"

we've all heard the arguments before, randman. we know where they come from. and it's not "examining the evidence." becauses the people who actually work in the field examine the evidence daily and haven't found these claims to have support.

no, these arguments come from the same old creationist sources we've all read before. they've been refuted dozen upon dozens of times here. the first two, frankly, were out of date 100 years ago.

i think the likely story is that you were handed a pamphlette or two, heard some convincing sermons, and maybe underwent a religious transformation.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by randman, posted 11-15-2005 9:10 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by randman, posted 11-16-2005 1:22 AM arachnophilia has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3071 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 105 of 204 (260113)
11-16-2005 1:22 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by arachnophilia
11-15-2005 11:43 PM


Re: recycled creationist mumbo-jumbo
Actually, every thing I mentioned is true, and even though evos claim to refute them just as they justified Haeckel's forgeries, anyone can look into the data for themselves and see that things like Haeckel's forgeries are real, that Neanderthals were not subhuman and ape-like, etc,...
This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by arachnophilia, posted 11-15-2005 11:43 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by mark24, posted 11-16-2005 7:43 AM randman has responded
 Message 118 by arachnophilia, posted 11-16-2005 6:02 PM randman has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
56
7
89
...
14Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019