Darwin's Finch

tgamble: Jesus H. Christ! I can't imagine anyone packing more idiocy into one post. You must convince him to come to II! Who knows? With a bit of endurance this one could outdo Eternal himself.

StrongMan

LOL!!

WOW! I haven't laughed that hard in years. Authority on the theory...lol

code

[ April 23, 2002: Message edited by: jcgr81 ]</p>

tgamble

I sent him an email with the reply (the formatting there is none existent!). If he actually responds I'll invite him to come here and explain to us hethan scum why evolution is a false religion.

lpetrich

A big mass of stupidity.

Nothing that has not been going on for all of recorded history. In fact, we resist many natural disasters much better than we used to. For example, lightning does not damage or destroy as many buildings as it used to, thanx to that heathen Benjamin Franklin, who invented the lightning rod as a result of his static-electricity researches and his famous kite experiment, and not by reading the Bible.

Although cancer is depressingly common, that is because many other diseases have been at least partially conquered. The biggest success has been with a disease that once caused greatly-feared epidemics: smallpox. It nowadays lives only in certain laboratories. And was smallpox conquered by reading the Bible? The Bible has a lot to be desired in medicine...

(stuff on how dogs don't produce kittens, cows don't produce lambs, etc. ...)

However, dogs have puppies that are somewhat different from them, cows have calves that are somewhat different from them, etc., and that's all that is needed for evolution to happen. There are no "kind" barriers.

Furthermore, if birds and fish are each separately-created "natural kinds", then that implies that a large amount of evolution has happened.

However, cooling can produce order; freezing water will produce ice, which has more order in it than liquid water, which in turn has more order in it than water vapor.

Neither. But here's a reasonable scenario. The first organisms were asexual, multiplying by dividing. But some of them worked out how to insert some of their genetic material into other organisms, and this was expanded upon to produce conjugation -- two organisms exchanging many of their genes.

This was modified into meiosis and cell fusion; the organism would exist in two phases, a diploid and a haploid phase. The diploid would become a haploid phase by meiosis (adding an extra division stage), and the haploid would become a diploid by two cells fusing.

One way to get genetic variety and thus to avoid excessive inbreeding is to block the fusion of cells whose surface proteins are too much alike, thus inducing the evolution of surface-protein types -- and some protists have several of these, sometimes interpreted as several sexes.

But having two of them is the simplest system, and if the diploid cells start forming multicelled organisms, there is an incentive for the fusing cells to start becoming bulky, so they will have more food to make a big diploid organism. However, that slows them down, and if only one type becomes bulky, while the other type stays small, then the bulky type can easily get very bulky, and the still small type can be allowed to get very fast.

Thus, two sexes, complete with egg and sperm cells, emerge.

The answer appears to be that this fish had had lungs. There is a reason for evolving lungs when living in water: it helps get the fish extra air when the water loses oxygen as a result of containing decaying material, as swamp water often does. Furthermore, there is some evidence that the ancestor of land vertebrates had evolved legs from their side fins while still in the water -- it is necessary to crawl through all the dead tree limbs and such in a swamp. Thus making it a real-life "Darwin Fish".

Tigermilk

Aye caramba.

I was re-reading Louis' post there, trying to understand what the hell he was talking about, when it hit me. He seems to think that 30,000 - 40,000 years is the ONLY date that is produced by carbon dating something!

I know you realised this already Gooch's Dad, but I am simply staggered. Is there any other interpretation that can be made of his words? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

katerina

Joe Nobody

You were a bit harsh in tone, but spot on accurate both in your theology and in your identification of the probs with the OP's remarks.

Notice that he was getting flack from Christians and non-Christians alike and that he returned scorn not only to you but to other Christians.

The kiddo has got a lot of things mixed up in his head...I feel sorry for him. I know that you see that ilk at this board on occasion, and it's like some kind of pathology (shifting all blame for behavior on others, including 'not being in his Bible enough lately'). Not to excuse him, or anything, but try to pick out the frustration in his post as well...I think that Christians find a double standard in the principle of humility vs. righteous anger and can't always figger out how this applies in real life or in message boards--how to remain humble without looking like a wuss, and the desire to not look like a wuss gets justified by references to righteous anger.

It's the same head-beating-against-the-wall frustration that you all get when a creationist simply refuses to accept facts, do study, drink.

Thread was most likely closed because 1. you went right to the line (but within the bounds) of calling out the OP'er and then 2. after the warning the OP'er continued the rant/flaming/insulting. So the thread was closed because of the OP'er--it was going to turn into a flame-fest.

Maybe Louis had a problem with the parsing. Dunno--you probably only half know.

Fact is, though, you were refreshingly accurate. You sounded like Jesus himself.

katerina

I am going to add to this the following:

If you had not identified yourself as a non-believer, you would not have been accused of 'talking down' to him.

There was absolutely nothing, I repeat nothing in your post that objectively speaking (if that can exist) could be construed as scornful or hierarchical or ad hominem attack (and ask the sexy Scientiae if you don't think I know what I am talking about; I study rhetoric for a living.)

So I am sorry that you had to come up against the mistrust of the board admin.

Prolly had his hackles up because this was his den and home and he was protecting it. And I bet if you called him on that, he would agree.

I mean, hey, first thing that Pangloss did when I came over here was to insult me on my first post. People get protective. Louis just didn't know you.

{spacing}

[ April 23, 2002: Message edited by: katerina ]</p>

Joe Nobody

He didn't send what I wanted. I specifically asked him for the specific/s of where I violated rule number 1 (the flaming, harassing, insulting, belittling rule).

This is the email he sent me:

As you can see, no specifics. I received the old "overall tone" line and the ambiguous "these and others" line. I honestly think he was just over-protective and upset when I called him on his post that told everyone to be civil. He also quoted the wrong rule in the email IIRC. Rule one is the one he was claiming I broke I think. Rule number 7 as well but that is for calling into question the decision of a staff member openly. I really really dislike that rule but its not my board. Its like a concentration camp rule or something but I won't totally judge it prematurely as I know not why it is in place. Maybe it has a legitimate reason for being there.


Personally, I went back and read his words three times. I can't understand his claim. I actually misinterpreted his claim with my first response. I have no clue what "flaw" he was attempting to point out?

Hi Katerina.

I want to reread my post now that it is a day later but I can't access the forum. The site doesn't work for me. Anyone else having the same problems or have I been banned?
I won't contest your "spot on accurate" remark But by "harsh in tone" if you mean concise and cutting then I think you are correct. The post was supposed to cut. It was a correction of redguard333's clear bad behavior. By harsh I take it you mean I was too severe? Is that what you mean? If not please clarify by picking one from the list below:

1 : having a coarse uneven surface that is rough or unpleasant to the touch
2 a : causing a disagreeable or painful sensory reaction : IRRITATING b : physically discomforting : PAINFUL
3 : unduly exacting : SEVERE
4 : lacking in aesthetic appeal or refinement : CRUDE
from m-w.com

I may get the same frustration and others do here as well as is evidenced in this thread but I don't lash out when it happens (I'm not saying I have NEVER lashed out before). I am sympathetic for two reasons: (1) I can understand his frustration and (2) I know the fundamentalist mindset but I also understand its hard not to flame in return when a person is telling you something extremely unbelievable (e.g. the moon does not exist or the universe and earth are 6,000 y) and gets angry and starts name-calling when you don't believe them. That is why I called into question the moderators comments in there without knowing it was against board policy to do so.

Thank you very much

I'll take your word on it. Plus I am the one who wrote it and I know I was not scornful, insulting, etc.

That is not very fair. Are moderators supposed to officiate with fairness or is bias against non-baptists allowed by default over there? I honestly don't remember claiming to be a non-believer there. Wasn't my post pretty neutral? Hopefully I will be able to access it again soon to reread it. Unless by "non-believer" you mean non-baptist or non-fundamentalist? If so I think comments in my post would certianly rule those out. Of course the "your God" part can be construed as a denial of the Christian God redguard333 believes in.

Thanks for you comments.

Hey, so is that place running still? Is it just down or did I get banned (for no reason)?

Joe Nobody

Gooch's dad

It is still running, Joe. You might have been banned.

Which is probably where I'll end up, if I keep going there. For example, when asked by 'seebs' what piece of evidence he would consider compelling, 'unworthyone' replied:

Just f-ing amazing.

And yeah, Tigermilk, that is the only interpretation that I could come up with for Louis' nonsense about the 30k years and carbon dating. The guy simply does not have a degree in chemistry at any level. He hasn't even taken a basic chemistry class if he doesn't understand the concept of 'half life'. If he did, he flunked it.

pangloss

Wow. I am so flattered that the Gynne Joynte's own KATERINA allowed me to get under her skin!

My, um... 'insult' was premised on your outstanding performance on the Gynne Joynte board.

Post worthless crap, get pegged as a worthless crap poster. Go to another forum, your first post being worthless crap, see what you get.

But I am so, so terribly sorry that you took offense.

Poor baby...


<img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" />