Re: Invulnerable logic [Was:Re: How Our Brains Ignore Unpleasant

Evopeach wrote:
On Jan 14, 12:11 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 14Jan2008 09:24:17 -0800, Evopeach wrote:
OnJan14, 8:07 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 14Jan2008 05:36:41 -0800, Evopeach wrote:
Let's compare and contrast:
Maybe I'll wait to see if Fred Hoyle was right about the BIRD
archeopterix was a fraud, likeso many other breakthrough finds.
vs.
IN other words I'll examine, reason, and not accept dogma.
Which part of "wait" involves "examine" or "reason"?
Maybe I'll read all the evidence including the opposing views Ostrum,
etc. and conclude it was an extinct bird fully capable of flight.
vs.
IN other words I'll examine, reason, and not accept dogma.
When most people read, they haven't already formed their conclusions.
You're not accepting dogma so much as bringing dogma to the table.
Maybe I won't accept the moving goalpost definitions of a
transitional form.
1) All species are transitional forms by definition.
2) Any two organisms that have any homologous structures incommon
with two species are intermediate between them.
3) Any fossil that lies in strata between two fossils and has any
common homologous structures with them is an intermediate form.
4) Any fossil that has a place in a phylogenic tree between two other
fossil branch points is an intermediate between them regardless of
age considerations.
vs.
IN other words I'll examine, reason, and not accept dogma.
The above is a pretty decent definition of the several aspects of
traditional forms. Deciding ahead of time to discard it, esp. when you
don't provide anything better, is dogmatic.
Because you don't even understand when you're using dogma instead of
reason, you're not going to be able to tell when you're wrong. Until
then, you're just going to have to rely on the rest of us here pointing
out your errors. Don't worry -- we don't mind.
Apparently you drink from that river regularly and that's the reason for
your dimensia being expressed in such stark, bold, unmistakable
characters.
Oh good, we're back to insults. You've now run out of arguments in
operations research, stock options, theology, biblical history,
paleontology, biology, and, of course, evolution.

Perhaps you could put a sticky note on your monitor, reminding you that
when you insult someone (however ineffectively), you've just conceded the
argument. - Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh I've been wrong in the past but never in debates with the mentally
deficient evo cult.

Let me ask you a related question: Logically, there has to be a transitional form between a young human child and a human adult, since every child grows up to become an adult. So what do you consider that transitional form to be? A 13 year old? A 14 year old? A 16 year old?

And what criteria did you use to determine that? Is a 15 year old boy a child? An adult? Or a transitional form between the two?


--
Steven L.
Email: sdlitvin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A question for creationists.
    ... If someone showed you with a fossil which they thought ... was a transitional form, how would *you* decide if it met the ... the chain that represent species that are no longer living if you ... IF evolution is true, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Seeking pictures of pre-amphibians
    ... Last year there was an announcement about a new fossil find; ... Has anyone made a picture of the reconstructed animal? ... the "Darwin fish" of bumper sticker fame, and it would be handy to be ... is no transitional form before *that* one..." ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: The Reasonable Minority
    ... Its in the wrong place in the fossil record, ... living birds have. ...
    (talk.origins)