Talking some sense into randman

This is a thread intended to fork off the argument that has developed in the "evolutionary chain" thread. I'm posting it in the coffee house since it is intended to be a conversation between members and about members.In any case, randman has recently been calling evolutionary biologist lairs and fakes again. He continually derides the ToE without ever positing credible sources or evidence for his position.Recently he implied that we have not "ever examined" our belief in the ToE. And went on to further imply that if we did we would dispute it as he does.I would like to ask randman to defend his own personal beliefs here. I would like him to specifically defend these following sites, since he seems to like them so much:Page not found - Nexus Magazine
flash3
The page you requested cannot be found!I especially like this link:http://s8int.com/dino1.htmlRandman has a habit of embracing pseudo-scientific garbage like this, then taking a piss all over real science. So how about it randman, put your money with your mouth is, defend Michael Cremo, the Ica Stone, etc.I bet you will learn something.I bet I can show you that your beliefs are the ones based on a pack of lies, deceptions, and exaggerations.This message has been edited by Yaro, 11-16-2005 08:47 AM

moved from the other thread. oh.my.god.stop, please. it's not even funny anymore. wanna see another innacurate drawing that's still in textbooks? you're lucking i couldn't find eucharius rosslin, the father of modern obstetrics. he thought babies were fully formed adult humans in miniature, even in the sperm. but here's one by another famous man of science, and a much better artist to boot:leonardo da vinci. i quite like the one in the lower left. look at those proportions. i want to note also that leonardo actually dissected people, includion pregnant women -- eucharius did not.why does this still appear in textbooks, along with haeckel and eucharius? the same reason this drawing still appears in astronomy textbooks:it's part of the history of the science. history. haeckel's drawings aren't taught as part of modern science. in fact, i can't remember ever studying them as fact. they were on the recommended reading list once in an ART class though.does ontogeny recapitulate phylogeny? sometimes.

quote:

---

The theory of recapitulation, also called the biogenetic law or "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny", is a hypothesis in biology first espoused in 1866 by the German zoologist Ernst Haeckel, a contemporary of Charles Darwin, which has been discredited in its absolute form, although recognised as being partly accurate.

​

Ontogeny and Phylogeny - Wikipedia

---

h. neanderthalensis were a sister and competing species for h. sapiens. they are not sub-human, they are every bit as human as we were at the time, if not more so. recent studies have apparently shown that they developed tools and clothing long before h. sapiens did.they haven't been depicted like apes for over 100 years. but were they stocky and barrel-chested, and robustly built? yes, they were. if you think that makes them "ape-like" that's your problem.

---

אָרַח

So this thread is acceptable here? You can start whole threads dedicated to bashing me, a critic of evolution, and that's OK?Moreover, I say nothing worse about evolutionists than evolutionists here say about creationists or anyone that criticizes their models, and at least I offer examples to back up what I am talking about rather than the evos who just question "motives" which cannot be proven one or the other.This message has been edited by randman, 11-16-2005 06:17 PM

Statements like this are why I accuse some evos of lying. It's been pointed out, coupled with actual photos at times, where evos have depicted Neanderthals as excessively ape-like, especially until 10 or so years ago, and yet we see false statements like the one above.If it was the first time, I would chalk it up to ignorance, but why repeat something which has shown to be a lie.The simple fact is Neanderthals are still depicted as excessively ape-like. I just logged onto my daughter's educational site for her public school, and we watched the claims of what she called monkey-man. The sketch of the Neanderthal skull was grossly erroneous, and the impression she had was that Neanderthal was very much subhuman and ape-like.I showed a more recent reconstruction of a Neanderthal girl, and she said "there girls in my school that look like that."It was eye-opening. The lies of the evo community were exposed.I say "lies" because the evo community resists so hard any teaching of the controversy which would enable such deceptions to be corrected, and then evos pretend, well, it's just textbooks, etc....My point is it is evo textbooks funded with our tax dollars, and it's wrong to teach false data as factual.

yes. you tend to beat the same dead horse across multipl threads, well into the off-topic arena. no, randman. we're talking about evidence, and the difference between pseudoscience and the real thing. you use the same examples over, and over, and over, long after they've been refuted, with evidence.examples aren't enough. and listing the same tired arguments without any support doesn't make a very good point.

---

אָרַח

be still my bleeding heart..The fact that you refuse to adress things when asked straight out, use faulty reasoning, along with using useless and outdated information, then go on to misrepresent science, couldn't have anything to do with it?I mean using s8int.com as evidence for anything, when the author is wrong about most if not all of what he posts..

Yes. Not only acceptable but needed.Your posts have consistently used a series of tactics that many not be obvious to the casual lurker. Those tactics are to bring up unrelatd and trivial issues, then dismiss the volumes of refutaion only to return to the allegation as though it had not been completely refuted; to misrepresent what other posters say; to change goals and even the rules of a thread and to play musical definitions when cornered. Oh yeah, and to simply wander off and spam some other thread with the same old crap once again.You are allowed to continue posting at EvC only because your messages are so illustrative of the tactics used by Creationists that they serve to help show the total bankruptcy of the Creationist/ID position.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

randman, In exactly the same way you lie when you say you have responded to all my points!MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 11-16-2005 06:43 PM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

coupled with actual photos? you have photos of a neanderthal now? yaro posted you some drawings and reconstructions. which ones look like apes to you? randman, we have the same exact problem with you. if you made the argument once, ok. but it's worn out now. why keep repeating something that has been shown to be a lie? oh, good, a site. why not link to it? no, this has been really eye opening. you're complaining about drawings -- some look too apelike, some look too human. don't you see the double standard here? and haven't you ever once noticed that humans look a lot like apes in some ways? most of us recognize that many of these errors were corrected 100 years ago. nobody's holding up pildown as factual -- yet the creationists continue to use it in their arguments. science is all about peer-review and retesting. controversy is fine.but it's the creationists who can't seem to let go of the same old tired arguments. they don't allow themselves to be corrected, let alone anything else.seriously. the horse died 150 years ago. you can stop beating it now.

---

אָרַח

ah, my favourite fish.

---

אָרַח

it's got to be purposeful. you don't miss two great big connect-the-dots pictures. i mean, maybe he thought i was being childish or derisive. but the argument is a prime example of the fault in his reasoning.how does a creationist who insists that every invidividual example of something is created in isolation, and that relations are only illusionary play "connect the dots?" i really want to know.because, surely 90% of the data is missing.

---

אָרַח

PaulK has this thing of accusing me of lying often in debates. He doesn't seem to know the difference between the possibility of one being mistaken and lying. Is your next personal attack thread going to be PaulK so as to be fair and balanced?

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

I don't think it was Yaro's intention to make this a bashing thread.Unfortunately you have a bad habit of taking threads off-topic. It seemed to me that Yaro started this thread to provide a place for discussing your objections without taking other threads off-topic.Maybe this thread shouldn't be in the coffee room. Perhaps one of the science forums would be better. And maybe you don't like the title. If you can suggest a better title, and location, maybe we can move this thread. Or you can open a Proposed New Topic where you choose the title, just as a place to discuss your issues.

---

Of course it is. Randman is a guerrilla fighter. He hits and runs. He won't - and can't - do open battle.He's really a bright guy. The sad part is that he's so blinded by his hatred of science that he doesn't use his intelligence in a constructive way. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

fox news this is not.besides, that's not even the same thing. randman is accusing the reputable sources as being liars, without making any kind of actual case, and then opting for the "pseudoscience" interpretation -- giants and ufos and the loch ness monster.this would be like me saying to you, "the apostle paul is a lying fraud. look what timecube.com has to say about it."

---

אָרַח