Hi Zilch,

1. You just restated many of the things I said from your own flipside P.O.V. What you said is a given in the context of the argument.

2. See my other postings for hoaxes; for starters, you can find the Eohippus display almost everywhere. The Homonid display, complete with fakes, can be found in many books and museums. I’ll bet there is one in your locale.

3.No I’m not wondering;

4.I’ve studied passionately for years but have no degree.

5. Are you trying to recuscitate a fossil in that picture?

Eric

I’ve studied passionately for years

Studied what, Daltonboy?  Propaganda from AIG or DI, etc., are not biology sources.  Given that your missives spout that content nearly verbatim, I’m guessing that’s where you’re getting your information.

decrepitoldfool,

I’m not afraid of any sources; I study both “sides” if you will. A fossil is a fossil is a fossil. You forget that belief in God is O.K. with any and either scenario from a “where did this all come from” point of view. And from a Biblical point of view both origins theories will square with literal 6-day, gap theory, or day-age rendering of scripture. Your point of view is the one that mutually excludes one of the two main ideas on origins, not mine. My faith can be in any theory if it’s in God. Your brand of faith will permit only one. You have everything to lose, I have nothing.

Now...go back to spewing your own brand of verbatim garbage. decrepitoldfool, you sound like any other Evobot I’ve ever contended with. Go tell Swordsbane it’s probably midnight.

Eric

Daltonboy, you have made it clear that you are not open to debate. Any evidence corroborating the claims of genuine scientists (in other words, evolutionists) gets dismissed with a wave of the hand by you. Why? It seems that you simply don’t want to believe in the veracity of such claims. There’s no use arguing with someone like you. Have a nice day.

Now, now I can come up with better arguments for evolution. I just get so tired of making the same points over and and over. How does ID explaine the evolution process that we see happening around us? Every day germs evolve into drug resistant strains,
we can breed cats and dogs to have certain traits. I get tired of hearing that I am unwilling to understand the real facts with out being shown any facts.

Daltonboy has spouted all the major canards and fallacies, including now one of the common variations of Pascal’s wager.  Since he’s read all sides of the issue and is an accomplished scholar of scientific literature on evolution, there’s no point arguing with him.  Our puny intellects are clearly no match for his. 

Congratulations, DB - you’ve gone from newcomer to “ignored” in record time. You’re exceptionally boring and I’m done with you.

Since he’s read all sides of the issue and is an accomplished scholar of scientific literature on evolution, there’s no point arguing with him.

I’ve developed a sneaking suspicion that those who feel the need to repeatedly or forcefully allude to their having “studied up” on the issues or “looked carefully at both sides” have in fact done no such thing.

Hi all,

If you want to bow out early, go ahead.  decrepitoldfool, I can see why your done; you got nothin’!

Timmeh, that is not evolution and I agree that those things happen every day. It does nothing for your argument. It doesn’t explain everything; in fact in the big scheme it doesn’t explain much. It’s a huge extrapolation. It is a leap of faith. I hope you meant you have better arguments than the ones you just gave. Look up “evolution” in Webster’s and read definition #5, then tell me your still all about dogs, cats and germs.

The only one so far that has said anything that makes any sense is Swordsbane. You guys should not cripple his brilliance with your vaccuous comments. He is like Lebron James; he carries the whole team.

You guys always end everything with personal attacks. I do happen to agree with most evolutionists on alot of things. Most of you fear giving in a bit because you think you’ll have to swallow the whole elephant (Jeez, did I leave myself open to Sadie Jane making a pithy quip about elephants?!).

God Bless You All,

Eric

I’m sorry, but I’m too busy laughing at Daltonboy to bother trying to engage him. We’ve been over all his arguments before. They were wrong then and they continue to be wrong now.

daltonbutt: 4.I’ve studied passionately for years but have no degree.

There’s an old saying, 1 year of experience, ten times, does not equal ten years of experience.

Call us when you graduate from 4th grade....

As “The only one so far that has said anything that makes any sense” I think you might want to actually refute my arguments.  You said you’d heard all these arguments before, so you should already have something prepared.  Let’s hear your practiced refutation of my refutation.  In the high-class parlance of the street “Bring it, bitch.”

Eric: all religious people are liars?

Maybe not all of them knowingly but, are you a liar only if you know you are or can you also be a liar if you peddle lies unknowingly?

In my mind the theory of evolution has enormous insurmountable problems

And you have PhDs in which relevant disciplines?

As we well know, new ideas have a habit of shattering the status quo.

Yeah - you see status quos (or is that stati quo?) being shattered every single day ... and only on Fox News, where facts are fickle and facts are few but we’re doing our best to scam you too.

Zilch: Where does your knowledge of evolution come from, pray tell?

Probably some old version of The Goat Herders’ Guide to the Galaxy or from his Petulant Priest or the other Parasite Pastor who studied Creationism at Liberty University.

Eric: you sound like any other Evobot I’ve ever contended with

Irony just writes itself, don’t it?

Daltonboy, I know you’ve intimated you’ve looked at all the evidence but have you seen Ken Miller’s video on YouTube?
It’s rather long at 1:57:10 but it’s very informative; it’s obvious you’re smart enough to understand what he talks about and you’ve convinced me you have a genuine desire to study both sides.
I’m sure you know that Ken Miller is a Professor of Biology and has a PhD. He is also a Christian and is able to reconcile Evolution with his Faith – just like you?
If you haven’t seen him he’s quite entertaining.

So a germ evolving to be drug resistant, in order to survive in a host that contained once toxic chemicals, isn’t evolution? You won’t look at the man induced evolution of cats and dogs, so I’ll go a differnt road. Take a look at man himself and how our sepicies has turned out. The “whites” tend to be from places like Scandinavia and England. Places that have cloudy cooler weather. “Blacks” from places like northern Africa, LOTS of sun so the skin needs to protect it’s self. Native americans brown-red skin, from America, sunny hot summer months and colder dark winters. The list goes on for every “race” out there. So the question is, did man evolve to what he is now, or does the tower of bable explain it?

And another train wreck I observed from the sidelines

For all his grandstanding, Eric/whatshisname hasn’t made much more of a case than “neener-neener-neener”. It is obvious that he’s not interested in an honest debate. His basic assertion that creationist views are an equally valid explanation for the descent of species as the scientific theory of evolution is risible and a claim that has to be shown rather than presumed.

The one point worth addressing briefly is the issue of dishonesty (the irony is killing me). It’s a stunning claim and my hopes of him pointing out examples in the research literature were dashed. It doesn’t detract from the science if populist publications and museums lag behind modern views.

Back to lurking mode…

One last try.  Eric say:

1. You just restated many of the things I said from your own flipside P.O.V. What you said is a given in the context of the argument.

Say what?  I asked you for evidence for specific claims you made, viz:

In my mind the theory of evolution has enormous insurmountable problems, too, and I observe that many evolutionists aren’t being honest about it.

and:

There are a vast number of people that believe evolution primarily because it takes God out of the equation.

Do you have evidence for these assertions or not?

2. See my other postings for hoaxes; for starters, you can find the Eohippus display almost everywhere. The Homonid display, complete with fakes, can be found in many books and museums. I’ll bet there is one in your locale.

I haven’t been in the Naturhistorisches Museum here in Vienna for a long time, and I don’t remember whether or not there are displays of homonid and horse evolution.  Here and here are two Austrian websites with some information about the evolution of horses, which probably more or less reflect the official Austrian position vis à vis horse evolution (in German- sorry).  No hoaxes as far as I can tell.  I suspect your beef with horse evolution is the standard fundie objection that there is not a linear geneology from Eohippus through Merychippus to Pliohippus to Equus.  I’ve got news for you: paleontologists have known this for a long time.  Elwed might be correct that there are still populist publications kicking around that present an oversimplified picture, but they must be few and far between- I haven’t been able to find any.  Or do you have a counterexample for us?  Of course, I mean something published in the last forty years or so.

Same goes for the homonids- show us the hoaxes.  And puleeze don’t resuscitate poor old Piltdown Man- he’s been out of the running for more than fifty years.

3.No I’m not wondering;

Gotcha.

4.I’ve studied passionately for years but have no degree.

Nothing wrong with that- degree holders have no monopoly on the truth- but if you call us “evobots” for explaining science, you can expect to be asked how it is that you know better than we do.

5. Are you trying to recuscitate a fossil in that picture?

No, I’m communing musically with Neptune on bull kelp.

DaltonBoy.
Evidence against Argument ‘A’ is not necessarily evidence in support of Argument ‘B’, as there may be Argument ‘C’.

e.g. A: 2+2=5
B: I say 2+2=3
A: I have 2 stones, and to these I add 2 more stones. We can both see that there are more than 3 stones. Ergo I must be right.

What is your evidence that Creationism is correct?  Also I thought that the current ‘official creationist’ dogma was 1 day is 1 day, and you can add up all the numbers in the bible and get 4004BC.

Will someone please explain the kangaroos- I do keep asking.

Hi all,

Thanks for jumping in, all.

KPatrickGlover; daltonbutt ? Are you kidding ?

Swordsbane; I can hear Lebron say, “bring it, bitch!”.

Luckyjohn19; You’re wrong about where my knowledge of evolution came from. It came from Charles Darwin, Stephen J. Gould, etc. I agree with alot of things that they observe. It would be my pleasure to look at that video on Youtube, long or not. Thanks for the info and thanks (seriously) for the spelling correction. I have no fear of the truth unless someone tells me a that piece of clothing makes me look fat.

Timmeh; I hear what your saying but still have trouble with that extrapolation.

elwedriddsche; You mean error doesn’t detract from science if that error doesn’t disagree with your views.

Zilch; Don’t call me a “fundie” and I won’t call you an “evobot”. Thanks for being good-natured about the “resuscitating a fossil” thing. Good luck with that Neptune calling. And thanks for being the only person to grant that degree holders don’t corner the market.

Last_Hussar; kooky bait and switch. Good luck with that. Yes, the 1 day thing is official Creationist dogma. That doesn’t mean every Creationist believes it. The original Hebrew allows for a much (!) wider interpretation.

Finally, if being a hard-core evolutionist means being a consummate, punitive name-caller, count me out.

Eric

Last_Hussar; kooky bait and switch.

I’m sorry. You come on here, tell us we are all a bunch of pillocks, then avoid answering questions. So what was the bait and switch? Asking for your alternative to the masses of evidence?

We are refering to science that no ID’er has been able to refute to a reasonable standard.  The difference is while the details of evolution may have unknownsa or disputes, the broad picture is solidly agreed. Very little has changed with the general thrust of the big picture over the last 150 years. You admit your self that religeon doesn’t actually have a unified position.

Yes, the 1 day thing is official Creationist dogma. That doesn’t mean every Creationist believes it.

See, evolutionist don’t disagree on evolution.  My point was even if you came up with killer evidence (and not the -what is frankly- rubbish rehashes you have already used) about evolution, you have not advanced anything to support your alternative.

Finally, if being a hard-core evolutionist means being a consummate, punitive name-caller, count me out.

It’s nothing to do with being an evolutionist. It’s about trying to debate with someone who ignores what doesn’t fit with his own ideology.

Kangaroos?

LH, we all have yet to see a creationist touch upon your kangaroo query. The only possible conclusion is that the cute little buggers don’t actually exist--they’ve been planted by Satan as a means of testing the faithful. 

cute little buggers

Perhaps LJ can disabuse you of the notion that they are either cute or little. Giant violent rats would be a better description.  I got chatting to an Aussie ex policeman once. He was posted in an outback town, where they used to shoot on sight any entering the town, before they seriously assaulted someone. Satanic indeed!

Still the Kangaroo question remains.

Giant violent rats would be a better description.

Oh, I wouldn’t say that.

Oh, I wouldn’t say that.

Yeah, I know; baby anythings look cute.
The Red Kangaroo is not something you want to upset. The toenails on his hind feet can do serious damage.
This little video is of a mildly pissed-off, small in comparison to the the Big Red, Eastern Grey kangaroo.
There is no way I’d get that close to the fuckers.

Now that we’ve finally gotten to the kangaroo portion of this program- when I first came to Vienna you could buy t-shirts with a crossed-out kangaroo that said: “no kangaroos in Austria”.  This was a feeble joke about the fact that people, especially Americans, sometimes confuse Austria with Australia.  In fact, my daughter Rosi attended a semester of highschool in SF last year, and had to explain over and over again that Austria was not Australia.  As a result, she picked up the nickname “kangaroo”.  Not only that, but at least twice I’ve gotten mail in Vienna from America, after a month or two, via Sydney.

In any case, twenty years ago there really were no kangaroos in Austria.  Now, even though the public zoo in Schönbrunn still doesn’t have any, there are private parks that have them, and one even caused some excitement by escaping last year.

So maybe the answer to the Noah’s Ark Kangaroo Question is, that kangaroos came to Australia from Austria in the last twenty years, on Qantas, and what you Aussies had before that were just overgrown jackrabbits.  That’s as logical as the Biblical version…

Good story, Zilch.

The name “Australia” is derived from the Latin Australis, meaning “of the South”. Legends of an “unknown land of the south” (terra australis incognita) dating back to Roman times were commonplace in mediæval geography, but were based on no actual knowledge of the continent.

And Austria, etymologically, is completely unrelated.

Zilch; I’m not an expert on marsupials but I reckon that little thing on the road, near the snow, is a well-fed Wallaby.
“In general, a wallaby is smaller and has a stockier build than a kangaroo”

Swordsbane; I can hear Lebron say, “bring it, bitch!”.

I’m sorry.  I’m afraid I didn’t make myself clear.  When I asked for you to explain your evidence and refute my arguments, what I was really asking you to do was.... well… explain your evidence and refute my arguments.

I can help you if you don’t know what the word ‘evidence’ means.  I know some creationists have trouble with terms like that.  You don’t seem to want to fully associate yourself with creationism, so I just assumed you knew what it meant.