Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Camaban · 07-31-2002, 05:59 AM

Quote:

B.A.,B.Ed.,Dip.T.,Grad.Dip.R.Ed.,Dip.L.Ed. )

*takes a shot*

Bachelors, Bachelor of Education, Diploma of Theology, Graduate Diploma of Religious Education, Diploma -something- (anyone know what the L stands for?) education.

I'm pretty sure I'm right, but could be wrong.

nonetheless, if it's anything like the Australian system, he doesn't have anything more powerful than a Bachelors (Diplomas aren't given by Uni's here. I'm currently doing my Diploma in IT to get INTO uni, as an example)

Oolon Colluphid · 07-31-2002, 06:28 AM

My my, Mr Foard, what a lovely site you have! I�m especially impressed with the <a href="http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/oldsite/number9/Darwin9.htm" target="_blank">Variations on an Ape Theme</a> bit.

Is the �William Howells� you quote at the beginning the W W Howells who wrote Getting Here: The Story of Human Evolution (1997)? If so, it�s an odd thing for him to say -- his book is a textbook on human evolution. Howells <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/jscott.html" target="_blank">has been misrepresented by creationists before</a>, so perhaps you could give us the context of this quote please.

You start with a bunch of whiffle-waffle and rhetoric about Darwin. You do realise, I take it, that palaeoanthropologists really don�t give a stuff what Darwin did or didn�t say? Nor do I. There's been 150 years of further research since then. None of which refutes evolution; all of which strengthens it.

You waffle about Inherit the Wind. It�s irrelevant.

You waffle about �Nebraska Man�. It�s irrelevant. Notice anyone except creationists even mentioning it?

You waffle about �Piltdown Man�. It�s irrelevant. Notice anyone except creationists even mentioning it?

You dismiss �Java Man�. Perhaps, given your in-depth knowledge, you�d like to comment on KNM-ER 3733 and KNM-WT 15000? You do know what a foramen magnum, zygomatic arch and cranial keeling are, for instance?

You say (and not being able to copy from your site is a bugger, btw) that:

Quote:

The entire �science of paleoanthropology is in such a state of perpetual upheaval that every few years (or months) some stunning new �discovery� completely upsets the previous notions of human ancestry [...] The entire anthropological system is in a state of continual profound disarray.

So because new finds cause revisions, nothing palaeoanthropologists say can be trusted? This is blatant cobblers. All scienctific discoveries result in �ooh, I didn�t realise it was quite like that�, and a bit of revision to our understanding takes place. It would be weird if it were otherwise. Would you have them instead hold fast to their �trees� in face of contrary evidence? And anyway, get with the programme. Relationships are all worked out by cladistic analysis nowadays.

Do please provide evidence -- a fossil or two would be good, preferably with reference to the original papers, not National Geographic -- that actually refutes evolution. Not changes the apparent course of one bit of it -- something that means evolution is actually wrong. Out with it.

Particular �trees� may change, but not the overall scheme. What we�ve got is more and more fossils that fill in the detail of human evolution in general. Perhaps you�d care to explain, via creation, why there were so many bipedal apes dotted around Lake Turkana?

You dismiss DNA evidence with a �it�s too good a fit� (implying fakery). Perhaps then you�d care to explain the presence of telomeres and centromeres in the middle of human chromosome 2? See <a href="http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html" target="_blank">here</a> for further details (and <a href="http://helios.bto.ed.ac.uk/bto/glossary/" target="_blank">here</a> to find out what telomeres and centromeres are).

I�ll stop there for now, and see if you return before tackling any more.

TTFN, Oolon

[ July 31, 2002: Message edited by: Oolon Colluphid ]

Stephen T-B · 07-31-2002, 07:58 AM

Not being a scientist I am unable to contribute usefully to this discussion, but may I be allowed to make an observation?
(Well, I will anyway...)
JFoard sounds to be an intelligent, well-informed person with objections to the evolutionary process which are of a higher quality that those we generally see.
But this is what really REALLY gets me the reasons he disputes a theory which was devised in response to observations for which there was no empirically-valid explanation is because he adheres to a primitive creation myth.
He clearly isn�t troubled by the fact that it �answers� everything in just a few Biblical verses composed at a time when the sum of human knowledge about the Earth and the Universe could be expressed in a few Biblical verses.
Does he not understand WHY we have developed the theories which attempt to account for the real Earth and the real Universe? Can he not get to grips with the vast chasm in our knowledge which people have been attempting to fill ever since the Genesis / Aristotelian model was shown by simple observation to be untrue?
If Genesis had been of the slightest use in answering the questions which were starting to be asked as long ago as the 15th century, would we not all, in 2002, be Creationists?
JFoard picks holes in evolution not because he wants science to advance and answer tricky questions more satisfactorily than it can at present; he asks them in the hope that he can stop science in its tracks and obliterate the knowledge we have acquired so that it might be replaced by religious doctrine and a reversion to the ignorance and superstitions which prevailed alongside it.

gravitybow · 07-31-2002, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Oolon muses:
My my, Mr Foard, what a lovely site you have! I’m especially impressed with the Variations on an Ape Theme bit.

Well then, Oolon, here's another impressive bit at <a href="http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/oldsite/Number7/Dinosaurs.htm" target="_blank">Dinosaurs and the Flood of Noah</a> on his site:

Quote:

JFoard writes:
For an example of how far evolutionists will go to ignore the evidence of creatures dying in a massive flood, it was reported in National Geographic, January, 1993 that paleontologists had excavated about 80 Centrosaurus fossils at Dinosaur Provincial Park in Alberta Canada. Here is the description of the find given by Philip Currie: "‘it looks like a catastrophe,' says Currie. 'We think a herd was trying to cross a river in flood. These animals weren't too bright.'"

Well, we have a herd of animals running into a flood. The authors continue their reconstruction of the event: �[6]"'All that meat drew carnivores. We've found a lot of shed teeth and bones with tooth marks. Also, a lot of the bones were broken. Others were pushed-probably trampled-into the mud.'"

So now we have another herd of animals that arrives at the scene and they rush headlong into the same flood to have dinner, subsequently drowning along with their intended victims! Not just a few, but "a catastrophe." Many of them were trampled and their bones were broken! Evidently, at least according to the evolutionists, they really couldn’t have been too bright, and they must have been ravenously hungry.

JFoard, do you need a remedial English class? How could you get the sense of what the Rick Gore article said so wrong? Here is the passage as it appears in the January 1993 National Geographic issue:

Quote:

"Like most dinosaurs, a tyrannosaur was always losing its teeth when it fed, and always growing new ones," says Currie.

We are headed for what must have been a tyrannosaur banquet - a bed where Currie and colleagues have excavated about 80 Triceratops-like animals called Centrosaurus.

"It looks like a catastrophe," says Currie. We think a herd was trying to cross a river in flood. These animals weren't too bright.

"All that meat drew carnivores. We've found a lot of shed teeth and bones with tooth marks. Also, a lot of the bones were broken. Others were pushed - probably trampled - into the mud."

Many of the tooth marks were those of tyrannosaurs. But scavenging was probably not the favorite feeding style of Tyrannosaurus rex, the 45-foot-long therapod nicknamed T-rex by paleontologists.

Dude, after reading this passage, where does it say that the bone bed also includes tyrannosaur bones?
Where does it say a second herd arrived at the scene?
Where does it say that a second herd pursued its prey into rising floodwaters?
Where does it say that the tyrannasaurs " subsequently drown[ed] along with their intended victims"?
Where does it say that T-rex had broken bones and was trampled?
Where does it say that T-rex wasn't too bright?

You have inexcusably created your evolutionist's scenario from imaginings not supported by the source text. The plain meaning of Currie's explanation is that a herd of Centrosaurus was caught in a flood of some sort, and after the waters subsided, T-rex arrived at the muddy banquet and pigged out!

Just how far will you go to ignore the plain text before you?

[ July 31, 2002: Message edited by: gravitybow ]

gravitybow · 07-31-2002, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Albion:
Lick Dr Wells? Yuck. He's under discussion on the Dembski/Mike Gene thread, though.

I don't know about Wells, but after a week without a post from JFoard, I believe I know his flavor. He tries to write like escargot, but everyone knows it's just snail.

Camaban · 07-31-2002, 02:57 PM

Quote:

He actually defends the "Lady Hope" lie about Darwin converting and recanting on his death bed! That's only one example of the dishonesty you'll find there...

You've really got to wonder what their point is when they say this, anyway.

Albion · 07-31-2002, 03:35 PM

Maybe their point is that they're more used to appeals to authority than to evidence and they assume science works that way too.

Or maybe it's just to show that Darwin couldn't be trusted to keep his story straight so let's ignore everything he said.

Or maybe that since evolution = atheism (well-known fact, that), Darwin formulated evolution for atheistic reasons and if he could be shown to convert, evolution goes away along with the atheism.

Or maybe it's just wishful thinking.

pangloss · 08-01-2002, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by gallo:
Dr. Page,

I am hurt beyond words. In you list of qualifications (H.S.D., A.S., B.S., PhD., BMF, MMs, Esq.) you failed to claim your D.Cre.Sci.Ed. degree from By Bayou U. As I recall, you "earned" your doctorate from BBU before your PhD. And just think. In the evolution/creationism debate, which degree is more meaningful - a legit degree from an accredited university, or a bogus degree in an unrelated field?

dr_gallo, H.S.D., A.A., B.S., B.A., M.S., M.A., D.Cre.Sci.Ed., D.MPhys.Ed. (the last two, in the tradition of great "creation scientists" such as Kent Hovind, Carl Baugh, and Don Patton, are self conferred).

My sincerest apologies, Dr.Gallo. I used an old signature file in which my intent was to appear humble.

Sincerely,

SL Page, H.S.D., A.S., B.S., D.Cre.Sci.Ed, PhD., BMF, MMs, KOR, BMOC, Esq.

pangloss · 08-01-2002, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Oolon Colluphid:
You dismiss DNA evidence with a ‘it’s too good a fit’ (implying fakery).

How about that?

Terll you what, Mr.Foard - I did my graduate research on the molecular phylogeny of primates. I will be glad to discuss the evidence with you. However, when I see things like your implication of fakery, it tells me one thing loud and clear:

You have never seen any such data.

lpetrich · 08-01-2002, 08:41 AM

Pangloss, I wonder what you found. I'm consumed with curiosity.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-31-2002, 07:58 AM	#33
Stephen T-B Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Leeds, UK Posts: 5,878	Not being a scientist I am unable to contribute usefully to this discussion, but may I be allowed to make an observation? (Well, I will anyway...) JFoard sounds to be an intelligent, well-informed person with objections to the evolutionary process which are of a higher quality that those we generally see. But this is what really REALLY gets me the reasons he disputes a theory which was devised in response to observations for which there was no empirically-valid explanation is because he adheres to a primitive creation myth. He clearly isn�t troubled by the fact that it �answers� everything in just a few Biblical verses composed at a time when the sum of human knowledge about the Earth and the Universe could be expressed in a few Biblical verses. Does he not understand WHY we have developed the theories which attempt to account for the real Earth and the real Universe? Can he not get to grips with the vast chasm in our knowledge which people have been attempting to fill ever since the Genesis / Aristotelian model was shown by simple observation to be untrue? If Genesis had been of the slightest use in answering the questions which were starting to be asked as long ago as the 15th century, would we not all, in 2002, be Creationists? JFoard picks holes in evolution not because he wants science to advance and answer tricky questions more satisfactorily than it can at present; he asks them in the hope that he can stop science in its tracks and obliterate the knowledge we have acquired so that it might be replaced by religious doctrine and a reversion to the ignorance and superstitions which prevailed alongside it.

07-31-2002, 03:35 PM	#37
Albion Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: US east coast. And www.theroyalforums.com Posts: 2,829	Maybe their point is that they're more used to appeals to authority than to evidence and they assume science works that way too. Or maybe it's just to show that Darwin couldn't be trusted to keep his story straight so let's ignore everything he said. Or maybe that since evolution = atheism (well-known fact, that), Darwin formulated evolution for atheistic reasons and if he could be shown to convert, evolution goes away along with the atheism. Or maybe it's just wishful thinking.

08-01-2002, 08:41 AM	#40
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	Pangloss, I wonder what you found. I'm consumed with curiosity.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.