Re: McCoy, is he a troll?
- From: mccoy@xxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 8 Aug 2006 13:01:33 -0700
Dana Tweedy wrote:
<mccoy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1154556819.098225.229650@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
sniping
If these fossils sitting in these varied places actually amounted to
anything we would see them summarized in books.
That would require you to be able to read, and understand those books.
And
yes we do see them in "summarized" in books. Here are a few of such
books
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=br_ss_hs/104-9554925-9867948?platform=gurupa&url=index%3Dblended&keywords=human+evolution
http://tinyurl.com/j43a9
The Complete World of Human Evolution by Chris Stringer and Peter Andrews
Human Evolution: An Illustrated Introduction by Roger Lewin
Smithsonian Intimate Guide to Human Origins by Carl Zimmer
Principles of Human Evolution by Roger Lewin and Robert Foley
Understanding Human Evolution (5th Edition) by Jeffrey K. McKee,
Frank
E. Poirier, and W. Scott McGraw The Human Story: Our Evolution from
Prehistoric Ancestors to Today (Outstanding Science Trade Books for
Students
K-12 (Awards)) by Christopher Sloan, Meave Dr Leakey, and Louise Dr
Leakey
If this is the best evidence you can offer you should cry.
Strangely, I don't feel any need to weep.. You claimed they should be
"summarized in books". I gave you small sample of the books available.
I've been
through the Lewin books and many others that I haven't counted.
You apparenlty can't count to 0.
What's
the use.
to gain some knowlege, so you don't appear to be such a moron.
There is very little evidence for evolution which is why
punctuated equillibrium was invented (the idea that evolution occurs in
giant spurts rather than gradually).
Obviously you don't know anything about PE, either. PE was an attempt to
explain the pattern of fossil evidence we see. PE does not say that
evolution occurs in "giant spurts". It says the rates of evolution are
variable, and the fossil record is an artifact of the pace of evolutionary
change. The evidence for evolution is quite strong, and denying that
evidence by hand waving it away merely shows yourself to be a moron.
Actually PE WAS an attempt to explain the gaps in the fossil evidence,
the pattern to which you vaguely refer to. For instance the infamous
cambrian explosion. An early defender of PE called it the "hopeful
monster mechanism." In case you rashly continue to try to redefine and
assuage the word and meaning of punctuted equillibrium and distort it's
meaning, there are complete works, articles and others out there, even
some written by Gould that clearly indicate the fossil record is highly
deficient and that evolution occurred in spurts. The word "spurt"
actually occurs in the literature. Apparently you have never read ANY
of it. If you push me I'll obtain those books and or articles any maybe
you'll actually learn something about it. Next think you'll be saying
that the whole book was taken out of context. After that, the whole
volume of an author's work was taken out of context.
But as it were all
these supposed specimens are plastic casts.
The plastic casts are made from the originals, so that they are not
damaged
by being examined. Are you really so stupid that you think all the
fossils
are made up? Oh, right, you ARE that stupid.
You can reconstruct skulls and fill in the blanks you want.
I'm talking about the casts made from the real bones. Reconstruction of
missing areas is based on known principles of anatomy.
Reconstruction is fraudulent if the casts do not indicate reconstructed
portions.
Then you
make the casts and the casts don't tell you which parts of the skull
were reconstructed.
All reconstructions clearly show what areas were original, and what is
conjectured.
Not so.
If that evidence were
available even Patterson would have leap on it.
Which "Patterson" are you referring to.
Who do you think?
When you don't reveal your sources, and make wild statements, and often
give
the wrong name for people and events, who knows?
Which Patterson do you think I speak of.
Again, since you are constantly making mistakes, wild and unsupported
statements, not to mention getting events and people wrong, Id rather not
guess.
There are some clues above that tells you what Patterson I'm writing
about. But apparently you can put two and two together.
Are you that ignorant?
Since you can't clearly express yourself, I am forced to wait untill you can
tell me what you are talking about.
Since you don't express much at all and have a wrongful understanding
of science and of dating methods I tend to doubt what you write.
snip
And understood nothing. I doubt you've read any of the scientific
literature regarding the fossils.
Punctuated equillibrium.
A subject you are pitifuly ignorant about. PE is not a theory to explain a
lack of fossils.
But what does that mean?
It means that your claims are false.
Dawkins wants pay-back
against losing that debate against Gish
I doubt that Richard Dawkins cares in the slightest about Duane Gish, or
any
of his claims. Dawkins is a respected, and widely published scientist.
Gish is a loser who writes creationist pap. By the way, when was this
supposed "debate" between Gish and Dawkins? From what I can find,
Richard
Dawkins has never debated Gish in any public event. Would you give the
time and date of this debate? Here is Dawkins own words, denying any
debate:
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/amun_ra/
insomuch he would be the best
man to summarize the evidence that is in this supposed "scientific
literature."
Dawkins has written several books in which the evidence for evolution
features prominently. His most recent book, "The Ancestors Tale" for
example is full of such evidence.
Dawkins is an angry about creationists.
Where was this supposed 'debate' between Gish and Dawkins? Will you admit
there was no such debate?
Since the original point was that the best evidence for evolution is
found to be deficient and that you can read the latest Dawkins book and
not be convinced of evolution I fail to see your point. Moving away
from that issue in order to focus on me rather hints at your
acquiescence to the fact that I am right on this issue, namely that no
current evolutionist actually has the evidence to prove evolution.
Also,what does Dawkins have to be angry about? Creationism has failed as
science. It's failed as a political movement, it's failed in courts. It's
only kept alive by religious fanatics.
Creationism is split into two groups. You have the scientific
creationists who work strickly from science and the Biblical
creationists who use both. Most all creationists are degreed
scientists from accredited universities. There are actually very few
pastors who speak on creationism. Creationism will not be accepted
by the courts, or as a political movement because there is little
interest in it to be fought in the courts or for a political movement.
I do not find wrangling over creationism in the courts or as a
political movement as appealing. People reject creationism not based
on reason but for some emotional reason.
He has every reason to try to
put forth the very best evidence for evolution
Which he has done, on many occasions. That's why he's a repected scientist,
and Gish is a charlatain.
Not so. Eminent scientist Gish is well respected. He is not respected
by you because you do not understand science.
and for that reason I
recommend his books for reading on that. Simply put punctuated
equillibrium refutes your claim and his claim.
No, moron, you know nothing about PE. You are badly misinformed, and are
just flailing away with your own ignorance.
For some more info on the subject, see:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/punctueq.html
I suggest that readers actually read intact whole works written by
punctuated equillibrium advocates. Not distilled propaganda from TO.
snipping
As has been pointed out before, Gish is not a scientist, "eminent" or
otherwise. He's been known to lie, and has not done any real
scientific
work in decades.
Gish is a scientist as pointed out before. He has done scientific
work and you haven't done any.
I've never claimed to be a scientist. Gish and I have done exactly the
same amount of scientific work.
It's amazing how the definitions contort and distort when evolutionists
try to keep creationists out.
No definitions have changed.
Not so. There are more than one definition of evolution out there. And
when YOU use the word evolution you never define it.
You can find many books that claim that
Darwin was geologist.
Darwin did study geology, and published important work on geology.
He read Lyell's work on the Beagle. He wasn't a credentialled
geologist. He wasn't eminent as is Gish who has a degree from
Berkeley.
All he did was read a book by Lyell and that
makes him a geologist?
That, and his continuing study of geology, as well as his publication of
relevant work on the subject.
He wasn't a degreed scientist.
Darwin wrote on embryology (and was wrong) and
he isn't an embrylogists.
Darwin mentioned the work of other scientists who had studied embryology.
No one claims that Darwin was an authority on embryology.
But by virtue of this logic you claim that many valid scientists such
as Gish are not scientists.
Nor a paleontologist.
Darwin was a paleontologist, as the term is now understood. The term wasn't
in use at Darwin's time.
He wasn't degreeded. In fact by your logic all creationists are valid
scientists.
Simply put he was a
nothing who wrote something.
Darwin was a respected scientist, who wrote a scientific theory that
explained the diversity of life. That theory has grown since Darwin's
time, and has cemented his reputation as one the greatest scientists of all
time. Your own buddy Gish is better defined as a "nobody who wrote
something".
Darwin was ignorant concerning genetics. He was ignorant on
embryology. In fact Gish has the advantage point in being a biochemist
with a legitimate degree from Berkely. His education is built up of
info that has arisen since Darwin had died. This is the year 2006 and
Darwin is long dead and Darwin was no credible scientist. All his ideas
were based on his grandfather's work.
But here the definitions distort and
contort permitting Darwin in,
Darwin is "in" because of his body of work, not his degrees.
then when creationists like the eminent
Duane Gish come into the picture the definitions contort and distort
once again inorder to keep him out.
Gish keeps himself 'out' by his refusal to present evidence to support his
claims. He's censored himself.
He's written an entire book in support of his claims.
Scientists do not manipulate the
words, nor distort them. Fair is fair and you keep the words the same.
Duane Gish is a scientist and has a Ph.D (biochemistry) from Berkeley.
Gish may have a legitamate degree, but a degree doesn't make one a
scientist, and certianly does not entitle anyone to respect when one
abandons his training.
Darwin did not have biochemical knowledge.
snip
Yes, Gish has written several books which say things that are not true.
Gish has been caught lying, and yet continues to lie.
That's funny.
Thanks, I try to amuse.
> Everytime you don't like his quotes you call it a "quote
mine".
Because they are mined quotes, taken out of context to distort the meaning.
A real scientist does not use quotations to support a position, he or she
uses facts. Let's see Gish publish facts, not out of context quotes.
But I looked up the quotes and your claim to taking out of context was
proven false. In fact you claimed I was taking out of context when the
entire Patterson speech was online. Then you sheepishly claimed that
the ENTIRE speech was taken out of context.
JM
Which is just an emotional way of saying, "don't use any quotes
against us because it makes us angry."
Using doctored quotes in that manner is dishonest. I don't care for
dishonesty.
snip
No, but a simple statement about Piltdown Man in textbooks certainly is
to be trusted.
Nothing Gish says "is to be trusted".
That's funny.
Thanks again.
Many times Gish has been accused of taking quotes out of
context.
Because he does take quotes out of context.
In one debate he was accused of that and he just happened to
have the entire article with him. At one instance you accused me of
quoting out of context and the entire speech, verbatim, was on line.
The "entire speech" however was not given in the manner you suggested. It
was taken out of context.
Then you claimed that the entire speech was out of context.
It was.
You claim
that Gish is not to betrusted but then your arguments which hinge on
your judgement, which is by the way based primarily on "winning for
evolution", morphs and changes all the time.
My arguments, and my judgement remain the same. You have not been able to
support your claims, and out of context quotations do not lend support to
your assertions.
There's a word that
traditionalists have invented for it. It's called "shifty",
"side-winding", "liar" and whatever.
As good a description of Gish as any.
The word liar doesn't even belong
in your frame of mind and you have stolen it inorder to champion your
form of morphing view of truth.
Why do you feel that the word liar doesn't "even belong in your frame of
mind"? My view of truth has not "morphed" at all. Dishonesty is still
dishonesty. Out of context quotations are dishonest.
Those who's logic morphs all the time
are basically not to be trusted.
As I've said, Gish is not to be trusted.
Neither are those come up with their
own definition of words inorder to obfuscate or make it possible to say
that they believe in "God" when they clearly do not.
Is that why Gish, Ham, Hovind, and other creationists claim to belive in
God, yet show they do not?
sniping
I never claimed that Piltdown never appeared in any textbooks. I would
be
surprised if it didn't appear in a few textbooks from the 20's or 30's.
What you have failed to do is present any actual instances of this
happening. You made a postive claim. It's up to you to back that
claim.
More obfuscation. You know and agree that Gish is telling the truth.
I know that Gish is a known liar, and depending on the word of a known liar
is rather foolish behavior. You claimed that there were textbooks with
Piltdown mentioned. The only evidence you've offered to support this is you
accept Gish's word. Why not find out for yourself?
So Gish is right and even you admit it, indirectly.
Again, the issue here is your false appeal to authority. Gish is not a
reliable source, so if you wish your claim to be accepted, go out and do
some research for yourself. You might actually learn something.
I've checked on Gish's quotes and they stand.
So, it should be very easy for you to give a reference to those textbooks.
Let's hear what you've found out.
All you've done is take a
select few examples where you contend Gish is wrong and then proclaim
him wrong entirely.
It's not just that Gish is wrong, it's that he lies about what he is wrong
about. He knowingly lies about things that have been shown to him to be
wrong. He's an untrustworthy source.
Well, then Darwin was wrong on a great number of
things, so then call him a liar too.
Being wrong does not make one a liar. Darwin admitted any mistakes he
made, and worked to correct his errors. That's why Darwin is a great
scientist, and Gish is a liar.
But you won't per shifty morphing
view of right and wrong and one-sided definition of words.
I don't shift definitions of words, but I do know that words can have more
than one definition. Equivocating is just another sin creationists are
guilty of.
snip
Simply put, they were fooled and as you say it would have been silly
not to put something foolish into a textbook.
Piltdown was not "foolish". It was an elaborate hoax, that seemed, at
the
time to fill a gap in the knowlege of human evolution. As more evidence
accumulated, that piece appeared less and less plausable. Finally it
was
examined closely and found to be a hoax. Scientists are not always
right,
and they can be taken in by a clever hoax. The difference is, as
always,
that when science finds out something is wrong, it's discarded.
Creationists, on the other hand continue to use falsified claims, and
fraudulent claims, long after they have been exposed as such. Your own
hero Gish, for example continued to use the "Bombadier Beetle" claims,
long
after it was shown that his statements about that beetle were false. >
No one disagrees on the essential facts, namely that the explosive
actions of the Bombardier is caused by the chemicals in reaction and
that a chamber exists in the Bombardier that allows it to happen.
What is wrong is Gish's claims about the beetle. The chemicals are not
explosive. Gish was shown that on stage in a debate. He had no answer,
and still continues to repeat that falsehood. See:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html
And
without that chamber it cannot happen. So then what is the argument?
From the above link:
"Duane Gish claimed that hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinones would explode
spontaneously if mixed without a chemical inhibitor, and that the beetle
starts with a mix of all three and adds an anti-inhibitor when he wants the
explosion. [Weber, 1981] In fact, the two do not explode when mixed, as
others have demonstrated. [Dawkins, 1987, p. 86-87] (Schildknecht did
propose a physical inhibitor which kept the mixture from degrading in
undisected beetles; in fact, the degradation he saw was probably simply a
result of exposure to the air.) Gish still used the mistaken scenario after
being corrected by Kofahl in 1978. [Weber, 1981] The same mistake is also
repeated in books by Hitching in 1981, Huse in 1983 and 1993, and twice in a
creationist magazine in 1990 [Anon, 1990a, b]."
snip
There are plenty of men who have studied the evidence and the eminent
scientist Gish is one of them.
Gish is not a scientist, and has not studied the evidence. He has spent
his
career hand waving away the evidence. None of those "eminent scientists"
have ever published any scientific evidence disputing any hominid fossil,
including Piltdown.
How many articles did Tesla publish?
According to this site he has over 150,000 documents
http://www.yurope.com/org/tesla/arhive.htm
Publishing is a hocum means that
you have toward trying to define a creationist out of science.
Publishing is a requirement for being a scientist. Publication of original
research is something that is required of any scientist. Creationists even
attempt to mimic peer review by publishing "tame" journals themselves.
The
shifty definitions keep morphing.
What "definition" do you feel has "morphed"?
First "creationists do not have
legitimate degrees."
Many do not. Those few that do have abandoned their scientific training.
When proven wrong that shifted. Now it's
"creationists do not publish in reputable journals."
Both statements are correct. Creationists often do not have legitamate (or
relevant) degrees, and they don't publish in reputable journals on the
subject of creationism.
When that was
proven wrong that shifted.
When was that "proven wrong"?
Then it became "creationists do not publish
on topics in reputable journals on issues directly related to
creationism."
That's also true.
Three major shifts in a row means that your first
statement wasn't enough to keep the creationist out so you had to find
another one to take it's place.
All three statements are correct.
Which, is an indirect way of admitting
that there is an another hidden, unadmitted motive at work that has
nothing to do with publishing or not publishing.
Without any publications, creationists have no claim to be scientists.
And, by the way,
Intelligent Design advocates have now published in a book (which I do
not own as of yet) a listing of actual published articles in
peer-reviewed science journals on subjects directly related to
supporting ID.
Must be an awfully short book. There are no actual published articles in
peer reviewed journals relating to, or supporting ID.
So then any word you speak other to the contrary is none
other than lying. And so then I expect that the next effort, I
predict, will be in trying to discredit those journals.
How can you "discredit" what doesn't exist?
And if I'm
correct on that that further establishes that hidden agenda and the
four shifty definition changes that I mentioned above. And should I
mention that handle that was invented in order to claim that I am a
troll?
What evidence do you have that anyone "invented" a handle to call you a
troll? Why would anyone need to invent a handle to do so? Anyone can
call you a troll at any time.
snipping more arguments that McMoron lost.
DJT
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: McCoy, is he a troll?
- From: A.Carlson
- Re: McCoy, is he a troll?
- From: Tom McDonald
- Re: McCoy, is he a troll?
- From: Dana Tweedy
- Re: McCoy, is he a troll?
- From: Gerry Murphy
- Re: McCoy, is he a troll?
- Prev by Date: Re: Origin of sex - not why but who and when?
- Next by Date: Re: Darwinism causes people to stop loving each other
- Previous by thread: Re: McCoy, is he a troll?
- Next by thread: Re: McCoy, is he a troll?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
