Re: Evolution Deniers


"Richard Forrest" <richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1134668133.736937.9840@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> al wrote:
> > "Mark VandeWettering" <wettering@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:slrndq0gve.10gv.wettering@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > On 2005-12-14, al <almond@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Raymond Griffith" <tiffirgrReverse@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > > news:BFC4F8DA.3002%tiffirgrReverse@xxxxxxxxxx
> > > >> On 12/13/05 4:12 PM, in article dnndav$qu3$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
"al"
> > > >> <almond@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> >
> > > >> > <jrsp8s@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > >> > news:FVFnf.37141$tV6.23247@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> <sheldon@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > >> >> news:1134504052.326012.88750@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>> CreateThis wrote:
> > > >> >>>> sheldon@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > >> >>>>
> > > >> My advice, if you care to hear it, is to start learning about the
> > natural
> > > >> world. If you are upset about the Theory of Evolution, learn about
the
> > TOE
> > > >> -- what it says and why it says it -- from their own sources. The
> > sources
> > > >> you will get on this subject from Pathlights, Answers in Genesis,
and
> > any
> > > >> other Creationist source will be perverted and distorted.
> > > >>
> > > >> Scientists are very well able to discuss what they believe and why
they
> > > >> believe it. We do not need our enemies to speak for us.
> > > >>
> > > >> Regards,
> > > >>
> > > >> Raymond E. Griffith
> > > >
> > > > Hi again Raymond
> > >
> > > > You seem put out by the fact that I think modern science is crap.
> > >
> > > It's kind of like watching a three legged dog limp across the street.
> > >
> > > > I would like to remind you that I have every right to think this and
> > some
> > > > very good reasons for arriving at this conclusion.
> > >
> > > You have every right to have ignorant, irrational opinions, true.
> > >
> > > > One of the complaints proffered by the evolution scrotes and
(whatever
> > > > female scrotes are) is that they claim that some reasons for
rejecting
> > > > evolution are unscientific. As I have said to Dana, this is totally
a
> > > > illogical and unscientific statement.
> > >
> > > Uh. No. It isn't.
> > >
> > > > Scientists are very good at collecting data. What they are not good
at
> > is
> > > > interpreting said data.
> > >
> > > No, actually scientists are good at that too. It's because the
scientific
> > > method is inherently adversarial, and irrelevencies and bias are
> > eventually
> > > burned away through discussion, experimentation, and the collection of
> > > evidence.
> > >
> > > > One of the posts in the thread about viral gene transfer laid out
some
> > > > perfectly good evidence and the accompanying data and then, at the
end
> > said
> > > > something like "The sudden appearance is due to missing data and all
> > that
> > > > went before will be found".
> > >
> > > Provide a citation. I'll bet you a jelly donut it doesn't say that.
> > >
> > > > This is pure speculation but, however, is destined become consensus
> > opinion.
> > > > Most of the science of evolution is based on this consensus opinion.
> > It's
> > > > pure crap.
> > >
> > > It might be convincing if you showed that the concensus opinion was,
well,
> > > _wrong_ in some way.
> > >
> > > > Let me, if I may, give another example.
> > > > An article some time ago in Sci Am. and also in New Sci. was about
> > "Dinosaur
> > > > Cove" where there is a large cache of dino' bones. One specimen was
said
> > to
> > > > be good evidence of evolution in action as it lived in Antarctica
and
> > had
> > > > evolved large eyes to enable it to forage for food during the long
dark
> > > > arctic winter.
> > > > What they omit to mention is that many *nocturnal* animals have
large
> > eyes
> > > > and that bone caches are usually the result of a catastrophe. The
animal
> > > > could quite easily have been from Australia and been swept to its
> > present
> > > > position by a large tsunami.
> > >
> > > Uh, did you really think about what you said? Scientists said that
> > > large eyes were an adaptation to the long polar winters. You
seemingly
> > > are saying "no, they could just have been nocturnal". The thing is,
> > > that _is precisely what scientists are saying_: that the dinosaurs
were
> > > adapted for the nocturnal environment that dominates the polar regions
> > > for half the year.
> > >
> > > Additionally, I'd like to see some other instance of a localized
> > collection
> > > of bodies being swept hundreds of miles across open seas by a tsunami.
> > Given
> > > that tsunamis are all but undetectable in the open ocean, it seems
that
> > there
> > > ability to transport anything is, well, fantasy.
> > >
> > > > This is one of the worst examples of cherry picking that I have
seen.
> > And
> > > > I'm sure it's been written up as another first for evolution.
> > >
> > > Well, given that your crititicism of it consisted of one agreement and
one
> > > complete absurdity, perhaps you should withhold your own skepticism.
> > >
> > > > So you see, much of science is unscientific and evidence does not
have
> > to
> > > > have the stamp of science on it to be valid.
> > >
> > > You have yet to show any evidence or reasoning to show that is true.
> > >
> > > > The fact that someone has made a statement and omitted to use the
> > correct
> > > > terms does not invalidate it.
> > >
> > > No. But, as you showed with your tsunami example, merely being able
to
> > > string words together does not actually invalidate scientific
reasoning
> > > either.
> > >
> > > > Science fails to give credence witness testimony for reasons that
> > support
> > > > science to the exclusion of all the uninitiated.
> > > > And so on............
> > >
> > > Feel left out?
> > >
> > > Mark
> >
> > Hi Mark
> > Being already nocturnal is not the same as eyes adapting to polar
> > conditions. Or is that too subtle for you?
>
> Evidently too subtle for you.
> South of the antarctic circle, it is permanently dark for several
> months each year.
> That's why eyes adapted to the rather temparate polar conditions of the
> time are adapted for nocturnal vision.
>
>
>
> > Who said that the bodies were swept across hundreds of miles of seas?
Not
> > me.
> > You see, the Antarctic continent was joined to Australia at the time and
> > being swept north south by water is not impossible.
> > I suggest you do a search with "Asteroid Tsunami" and all will be
revealed.
> > al
>
> And I suggest you do some research on the nature of tsunami deposits.
>
> RF
Are you saying that a large influx of water (100 ft tsunami) into say a
valley cannot cause a bone cache?
al


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Evolution Deniers
    ... >>> perfectly good evidence and the accompanying data and then, ... >>> Most of the science of evolution is based on this consensus opinion. ... >>> evolved large eyes to enable it to forage for food during the long dark ... >> of bodies being swept hundreds of miles across open seas by a tsunami. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Super-size our Tsunami Threat for the West Coast
    ... 80-foot waves blasted Indonesia, scientists now say ... Scientists studying the Indian Ocean tsunami have discovered startling ... major quake off the coast of Washington and Oregon. ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Super-size our Tsunami Threat for the West Coast
    ... 80-foot waves blasted Indonesia, scientists now say ... Scientists studying the Indian Ocean tsunami have discovered startling ... major quake off the coast of Washington and Oregon. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Evolution Deniers
    ... >>> Being already nocturnal is not the same as eyes adapting to polar ... >> And I suggest you do some research on the nature of tsunami deposits. ... > valley cannot cause a bone cache? ... Are you saying that paleontologists couldn't tell if a particular bone ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolution Deniers
    ... >>> Being already nocturnal is not the same as eyes adapting to polar ... >> And I suggest you do some research on the nature of tsunami deposits. ...
    (talk.origins)