Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8960 total)
146 online now:
DrJones*, PaulK (2 members, 144 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,836 Year: 1,584/23,288 Month: 1,584/1,851 Week: 224/484 Day: 0/42 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Oh Good - Bart is back
derwood
Member (Idle past 265 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 1 of 51 (30853)
01-31-2003 12:21 PM



Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by peter borger, posted 02-01-2003 1:50 AM derwood has responded

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 265 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 2 of 51 (30854)
01-31-2003 12:27 PM


In the now closed thread, Bart writes:

"Evolutionist and Professor G.A. Kerkut stated in his book 'Implications of Evolution', concerning the horse series:"

Now, is this the book that Kerkut wrote in 1960?

You may want to read this:

http://www.soton.ac.uk/~gk/scifi/evolves.htm

"1. When I wrote "The Implications of Evolution" in 1960, I firmly believed in Evolution but thought that the missing pieces were being glossed over and that students should see the points that required further research.

(see my www entry Implications of evolution under "Evolutionary chat by Gerald").

Advances have been made over the intervening 40 years and we now know a lot more. "

Emphasis mine.

The reader should wonder why the creationist feels the need to quote such out of date sources?

I know, of course, but does the reader?

Of course, there is this from Kerkut's web site:

http://www.soton.ac.uk/~gk/scifi/evol.htm

"The best evidence for Evolution comes from the way that new species are still evolving after geographical isolation. The next best evidence is the 99% similarity of the DNA genome in, for example, Man and Chimpanzees. "

Huh... Imagine that. I wonder when creationists will begin quoting that?

[This message has been edited by SLPx, 01-31-2003]


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Adminnemooseus, posted 01-31-2003 12:36 PM derwood has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3912
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 3 of 51 (30856)
01-31-2003 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by derwood
01-31-2003 12:27 PM


quote:
In the now closed thread, Bart writes:

You may be referring to something else, but the topic cited in message 1 is still open (not a closed thread).

Adminnemooseus

------------------
{mnmoose@lakenet.com}


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by derwood, posted 01-31-2003 12:27 PM derwood has not yet responded

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 6054 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 4 of 51 (30941)
02-01-2003 1:50 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by derwood
01-31-2003 12:21 PM


I see, Page is already involved in another personal attack. What else is new.

However, since we are all Panomo's let's have a look at your brilliant analysis concerning your utmost evidence of common descent:

http://www2.norwich.edu/spage/alignmentgam.htm

I have a couple of remarks and questions about your analysis:

Let start here:

1) Did you notice the sudden transition between Tob and Cap. Could you please indicate what it means according to you?

Best wishes,
Peter


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by derwood, posted 01-31-2003 12:21 PM derwood has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Adminnemooseus, posted 02-01-2003 2:03 AM peter borger has responded
 Message 9 by derwood, posted 02-02-2003 2:28 PM peter borger has not yet responded
 Message 14 by wj, posted 02-14-2003 12:27 AM peter borger has not yet responded
 Message 26 by wj, posted 02-19-2003 9:24 PM peter borger has responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3912
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 5 of 51 (30943)
02-01-2003 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by peter borger
02-01-2003 1:50 AM


quote:
I see, Page is already involved in another personal attack. What else is new.

Peter, in SLPx's defense, my impression is that he has been doing a pretty good job of reigning in his temper. Please back off.

Believe me, I am giving SLPx's postings extra attention, to monitor his behavior.

This message is NOT a behavior warning - just a plea for peace.

Thank you,

Adminnemooseus

------------------
{mnmoose@lakenet.com}

[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 02-01-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by peter borger, posted 02-01-2003 1:50 AM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by peter borger, posted 02-01-2003 2:17 AM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 6054 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 6 of 51 (30944)
02-01-2003 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Adminnemooseus
02-01-2003 2:03 AM


Dear Admin,

As promissed 6 months ago, I registered to bring down evolutionism. Not Page. I didn't even know Page. But, since he is the authority in the field I have to attack his visions. It is nothing personally, though. I wished Page understood that, it would definitely improve the discussions.

Best wishes,
Peter


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Adminnemooseus, posted 02-01-2003 2:03 AM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by nator, posted 02-02-2003 10:15 AM peter borger has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 559 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 7 of 51 (31039)
02-02-2003 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by peter borger
02-01-2003 2:17 AM


So, it would seem to me that the way to "bring down evolution (ism)" (whatever "evolutionism" is) would be to publish some work in the professional literature.

Why should we bother listening to what you have to say until you have produced some good peer-reviewed publications?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by peter borger, posted 02-01-2003 2:17 AM peter borger has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by derwood, posted 02-02-2003 2:22 PM nator has not yet responded

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 265 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 8 of 51 (31053)
02-02-2003 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by nator
02-02-2003 10:15 AM


quote:

Schraf:

So, it would seem to me that the way to "bring down evolution (ism)" (whatever "evolutionism" is) would be to publish some work in the professional literature.
Why should we bother listening to what you have to say until you have produced some good peer-reviewed publications?


Indeed. Instead, we have denials of counter-evidence, refusals to accept refutations, etc.

All part and parcel of the creationist bag-o-tricks.

It is interesting, however, that the creationist so often sees the pointing out flawed 'debate' techniques, such as using 40 year old opinions of an individual that has altered them since, as a "personal attack."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by nator, posted 02-02-2003 10:15 AM nator has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by peter borger, posted 02-13-2003 8:09 PM derwood has responded

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 265 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 9 of 51 (31055)
02-02-2003 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by peter borger
02-01-2003 1:50 AM


quote:

Borger:
1) Did you notice the sudden transition between Tob and Cap. Could you please indicate what it means according to you?

Ignoring for now the fact that creationist Borger is posting inflammatory and irrelevant nonsense as well as setting up Strawmen, I have a simple reply.

Apparently, Borger did not bother to find out what Tob and Cap are.

Tob is Trachypithecus obscurus. T. obscurus is an Old World primate. That is, it lives in africa (and asia).

Cap is Cebus apella. C. apella is a New World primate, that is, it lives in South America.

Biogeographical, fossil, and molecular data indicate that New and Old world primates diverged some 40 million years ago.

Is a split of 40 million years sufficient to explain the "sudden transition" to you?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by peter borger, posted 02-01-2003 1:50 AM peter borger has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by wj, posted 02-02-2003 10:40 PM derwood has responded

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 51 (31090)
02-02-2003 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by derwood
02-02-2003 2:28 PM


Page, why are you in denial that the TOE has been disproved and the GUToB reigns supreme? Don't you keep up with the latest scientific publications?

If evolutionism was true, why would evolutionists put Tob and Cap on top of each other, as if they were related? The mpg explains all. etc. etc.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by derwood, posted 02-02-2003 2:28 PM derwood has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by derwood, posted 02-03-2003 8:56 AM wj has not yet responded

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 265 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 11 of 51 (31118)
02-03-2003 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by wj
02-02-2003 10:40 PM


Your precognitive skills are impressive....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by wj, posted 02-02-2003 10:40 PM wj has not yet responded

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 265 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 12 of 51 (32031)
02-12-2003 8:37 AM


Chirp chirp...

Must be that genetic redundancy and the creatons....


Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by peter borger, posted 02-14-2003 11:20 AM derwood has responded

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 6054 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 13 of 51 (32168)
02-13-2003 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by derwood
02-02-2003 2:22 PM


Page,

In response to:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Schraf:
So, it would seem to me that the way to "bring down evolution (ism)" (whatever "evolutionism" is) would be to publish some work in the professional literature.
Why should we bother listening to what you have to say until you have produced some good peer-reviewed publications?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Page says: Indeed. Instead, we have denials of counter-evidence, refusals to accept refutations, etc.

All part and parcel of the creationist bag-o-tricks.

PB: Yeah, you would like to peer review my papers that question your methods, isn't it?

Best wishes, and keep up the appearance,
Peter


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by derwood, posted 02-02-2003 2:22 PM derwood has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by derwood, posted 02-14-2003 10:43 AM peter borger has not yet responded

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 51 (32191)
02-14-2003 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by peter borger
02-01-2003 1:50 AM


quote:
However, since we are all Panomo's let's have a look at your brilliant analysis concerning your utmost evidence of common descent:

http://www2.norwich.edu/spage/alignmentgam.htm

I have a couple of remarks and questions about your analysis:

Let start here:

1) Did you notice the sudden transition between Tob and Cap. Could you please indicate what it means according to you?


Now I think it's PB's turn to offer an alternative explanation based on his gutob.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by peter borger, posted 02-01-2003 1:50 AM peter borger has not yet responded

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 265 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 15 of 51 (32231)
02-14-2003 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by peter borger
02-13-2003 8:09 PM


quote:

PB: Yeah, you would like to peer review my papers that question your methods, isn't it?

How could I 'review' what does not exist?

www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=13&t=19&m=9#9 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=13&t=19&m=9#9">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=13&t=19&m=9#9

What I can review is your naivete and ignorance based overconfidence.

I give that an A+.

[This message has been edited by SLPx, 02-14-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by peter borger, posted 02-13-2003 8:09 PM peter borger 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 © 2020