Freethought & Rationalism Archive

theyeti · 02-20-2003, 03:36 PM

Oh, maybe five minutes. Those bits of "art" were just copy and pasted from where I had posted them elsewhere.

At least I haven't been actively debating Ed. For a year!

theyeti

Ed · 02-20-2003, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theyeti
This is now the ONE YEAR ANNIVERSARY of this thread!!!

WHOOHOOO!

CONGRATULATIONS!!

Yeaayyy! Yeaayyy! The longest running thread in the history of E/C!

��
��

Ed, get a life.

theyeti

Thank ya, .....thank ya, .....thank ya very much. :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

Edvis has left the building!

Ed · 02-25-2003, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Darwin's Terrier
As the late great Bill Hicks might have said: So forgive him. After this many pages, a little exasperation might just creep in, might it not...?

So all the fossils that do exist, that have been found, and which do offer connections between 'major groups' somehow don't count... all that matters is that there are still gaps?

What fossils?

Quote:

DT: Here's your logic, Ed:

Here's animal A and E. There's a gap between them.

But here's fossil C with characteristics of A and E.

But wait! There's gaps between A and C, and between C and E!

Oh, but here's fossil B, which has indeed got characters in common with A and C.

But wait! There's a gap between A and B! "I win!" says Ed.

Once more, for the hard-of-thinking: gaps do not matter. The evidence we do not have does not matter (though we continue to look for more). What matters is the pattern produced by every single piece of evidence we so far do have.

Patrick can provide references for some such evidence at the drop of a graptolite, I'm sure. And I have given you plenty on hominids and early tetrapods.

Round and round and round Ed goes / When this'll stop, nobody knows....

TTFN, DT

The problem is that there is no Fossil C.

Doubting Didymus · 02-25-2003, 08:10 PM

Whats wrong with Panderichthys?

Oolon Colluphid · 02-26-2003, 12:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus
Whats wrong with Panderichthys?

<Struggles to find anything wrong with it... >
Um, it's a bugger to spell?

DT

Jack the Bodiless · 02-26-2003, 06:32 AM

WHERE is there "no fossil C"?

Humans and apes? Nope, there's a "fossil C".

Whales and land mammals? Nope, no unbridged gap there either.

Mammals and reptiles? Nope.

Reptiles and birds? Nope.

Amphibians and fish? Nope.

This is a pattern I'm already familiar with on the GRD "Ed thread". A bald assertion with no basis in fact: in common parlance, a "lie".

If you had even bothered to ATTEMPT to identify a SPECIFIC gap... but no, that would be terribly dangerous, and you know it. Those evilutionists might have that gap plugged. Safer to resort to a vague, unspecific, and above all portable lie.

"There is a gap between A and E in the fossil record, and no fossil C between them, but I'm not saying where. This gap exists wherever I want it to exist, and I reserve the right to pretend at any time that any specified example of such a gap is NOT the one I was referring to".

Ed · 03-03-2003, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rimstalker
To find the answer to this, you'll have to dig through the archives to find another too-damn-long thread called "First Cause Does Not Prove God," by myself.

And don't even try to keep track of all that thread's misbegotten progeny.

Essentially, I posted a challenge to see if any theist could show how the first cause argument can prove the existence of (a) god(s). The idea is that all the first cause argument proves is the existence of a first cause. Ed posted some laughable tripe about "diversities within unities" and "aspects of personality" which were promptly decimated like the shoddy parodies of logic they were, but Ed is a tenacious little dude and wouldn't let go of his pet argument, and wound up making a whole bunch of other BS claims to support it.

Evidence where my arguments were "decimated"?

Quote:

Rim: Of note, he started arguing flood geology. Soon, the flood discussion took up so much of the thread space, that the original thread was closed and a new thread opened here to discuss the flood stuff. But Ed's idiocy works in branching, looping cycles, and we eventually ended up back at already covered topics. Debating with Ed is rather like being locked in a tour bus moving through a city of illogical buildings built on sparse and misinterpreted evidence.

Well, there you have it. I have studied Ed for a while, and I have come to the conclusion that Ed is not an idiotic human, but rather a very sophisticated "bot," an AI designed to respond to arguments with stocked typical apologetics. It's merely guesswork right now, but I think it's a strong hypothesis. Whatever the truth, the Ed thread phenomena is a crime against the moderation of this Board that I feel I wil never be able to apologize enough for.

Why is it a crime against the moderation of this board? Are you suggesting censorship? That is an absurd assertion.

Doubting Didymus · 03-03-2003, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ed

Why is it a crime against the moderation of this board? Are you suggesting censorship? That is an absurd assertion. [/B]

Its a JOKE, ed. He's talking about the poor sods that have to keep up with the thread. Suckers.

Duvenoy · 03-03-2003, 09:46 PM

Alas, I seem to be addicted to this insane thread, although I�m mostly a spectator, these days. Alas, it becomes more hide-bound as time passes.

So, I think I�ll throw a chunk of fresh meat out and see if it gets bitten. The beauty of the theory of Evolution is that it is never static. As new data comes to light, the Theory adapts to accept it, often after long study and heated discussion.

http://www.nature.com/nsu/000127/000127-8.html

Quote:

With their new information on skull and jaw features, Scanlon and Lee were able to make an extensive skeletal comparison between the madtsoiids and other fossil and living snakes. Their analysis clearly shows that the madtsoiids most closely resemble the more primitive snakes from the early Cretaceous than they do any living snakes. Because all these primitive snakes are fairly sizable and none shows any adaptation to burrowing, Scanlon and Lee conclude that the 'small and subterranean' theories of snake origins must be incorrect. These theories arose because the most primitive of living snakes are indeed small burrowers.

It�s unfortunate that good snake fossils are so difficult to come by. Serpents, particularly venomous, are arguably among the most �highly� evolved of modern fauna, predators beyond compare. I�d die a happy man to know the whole story.

doov

Ed · 03-06-2003, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus
Oh? I thought it was creationists that had a penchant for arbitrarily classifying ancestral hominids as Homo sapiens?

Homo habilis, anyone?

(P. S., could someone who knows ed better than me tell me if he is being serious? That is, does he really think that Lpetrich cant tell the difference between a human and an australopithecus, or should I take this joke at face value?)

Yours in professional confusion, Didymus

Hello DD. No, Lp actually said that there is no real difference between apes and humans.

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

02-20-2003, 03:36 PM	#701
theyeti Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Denver, CO, USA Posts: 9,747	Oh, maybe five minutes. Those bits of "art" were just copy and pasted from where I had posted them elsewhere. At least I haven't been actively debating Ed. For a year! theyeti

02-25-2003, 08:10 PM	#704
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	Whats wrong with Panderichthys?

02-26-2003, 06:32 AM	#706
Jack the Bodiless Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: UK Posts: 5,815	WHERE is there "no fossil C"? Humans and apes? Nope, there's a "fossil C". Whales and land mammals? Nope, no unbridged gap there either. Mammals and reptiles? Nope. Reptiles and birds? Nope. Amphibians and fish? Nope. This is a pattern I'm already familiar with on the GRD "Ed thread". A bald assertion with no basis in fact: in common parlance, a "lie". If you had even bothered to ATTEMPT to identify a SPECIFIC gap... but no, that would be terribly dangerous, and you know it. Those evilutionists might have that gap plugged. Safer to resort to a vague, unspecific, and above all portable lie. "There is a gap between A and E in the fossil record, and no fossil C between them, but I'm not saying where. This gap exists wherever I want it to exist, and I reserve the right to pretend at any time that any specified example of such a gap is NOT the one I was referring to".

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.