Freethought & Rationalism Archive

pseudobug · 04-30-2002, 10:42 PM

I know ya'll are all jonesing for it and he is back--tanned, rested and ready.

<a href="http://pub93.ezboard.com/finsidecarolinafrm7.showMessageRange?topicID=2396. topic&start=1&stop=40" target="_blank">he gets warmed up at the bottom of page 1 and starting page 2</a>

Randman-isms:

Quote:

Fishiop, evolutionism, for many of it's ardent proponents is an alternative religion masquerading as science. That is why you see some react the way they do. What happens is evolution has been taught via an indoctrination process, which creates a cultish mindset.

Quote:

In fact, evolution has been taught using some of the grossest forms of propoganda I have checked out since reading the old Pravda a few years back. That is why you see the utter emotional and non-sensible reaction when any of it's weaknesses as a theory are brought up. It is a shame that it's proponents have put such a box on their minds that reasonable discussion is impossible.

Quote:

I have come to the conclusion that there is something sinister and dangerously wrong with the way evolution is taught, it's methods of indoctrination, and the utter hostility exhibited by anyone daring to question it's basic premises.

Just a few--he's baaaack.

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

Nickle · 04-30-2002, 11:03 PM

I thought PC did a great job. what is his nick over here?

Automaton · 05-01-2002, 12:40 AM

randman, the king of all hypocritical, ignorant, rhetoric-producing liars is back?

Seriously, just replace every time he says "evolution" with "creationism" and it shows you how shallow his rhetoric really is.

Troll Hunter · 05-01-2002, 06:02 AM

Aww, part of me misses the ol' scamp ... I haven't had anything to do here, and I'm bored!!!!!!!

Pantera · 05-01-2002, 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Troll Hunter:
<strong>Aww, part of me misses the ol' scamp ... I haven't had anything to do here, and I'm bored!!!!!!!</strong>

There's always jojo-sa!

MrDarwin · 05-01-2002, 06:43 AM

Just a couple of comments on the "Origins of Phyla" diagrams:

The "Darwinian Predictions" figure is rather odd. Why would it predict that any phyla of multicellular animals would originate so recently, rather than near the origin of multicellular life?

Second, the "origin of phyla--the fossil evidence" figure showing "morphological distance" is extremely misleading. It suggests that all of the phyla are equally distant from each other (if I'm reading it right, although without any units of measurement it's kinda vague). Yet we know that echinoderms and chordates are more closely related--i.e., have a smaller morphological distance from each other--than, say, chordates and arthropods. It's simply wrong.

Third, the phyla that supposedly appear all at exactly the same time in the fossil record, at the base of the Cambrian, simply don't. They appear over a period of several million years.

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

04-30-2002, 11:03 PM	#2
Nickle Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Texas Posts: 385	I thought PC did a great job. what is his nick over here?

05-01-2002, 12:40 AM	#3
Automaton Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 717	randman, the king of all hypocritical, ignorant, rhetoric-producing liars is back? Seriously, just replace every time he says "evolution" with "creationism" and it shows you how shallow his rhetoric really is.

05-01-2002, 06:02 AM	#4
Troll Hunter Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: The vast, bone-riddled pains of the E/C boards. Posts: 21	Aww, part of me misses the ol' scamp ... I haven't had anything to do here, and I'm bored!!!!!!!

05-01-2002, 06:43 AM	#6
MrDarwin Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 4,140	Just a couple of comments on the "Origins of Phyla" diagrams: The "Darwinian Predictions" figure is rather odd. Why would it predict that any phyla of multicellular animals would originate so recently, rather than near the origin of multicellular life? Second, the "origin of phyla--the fossil evidence" figure showing "morphological distance" is extremely misleading. It suggests that all of the phyla are equally distant from each other (if I'm reading it right, although without any units of measurement it's kinda vague). Yet we know that echinoderms and chordates are more closely related--i.e., have a smaller morphological distance from each other--than, say, chordates and arthropods. It's simply wrong. Third, the phyla that supposedly appear all at exactly the same time in the fossil record, at the base of the Cambrian, simply don't. They appear over a period of several million years.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.