RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

    
  Topic: Another question for FTK,, ...since Wes is too polite< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 14 2007,22:19   

I figured if this had its own thread it'd be less likely to be overlooked:

FtK, do you deny that transitional fossil sequences exist?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 14 2007,23:02   

I don't think she's actually ignored this one.  I believe she's said she was mulling over a response to Wes's question; now this could be another question, but I got the impression in was this one.

Not ignoring, but not answering either.  It takes a while to google enough bullshit to confidently state that transitional fossils don't exist.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: June 15 2007,05:10   

I'm not what the delay could be about. I mean, if you already have denied the bleeding obvious, it's not like further effort is going to make that better. FtK can confirm that she really meant what she appeared to be saying, or she can produce some version of "never mind"; neither requires much in the way of deliberation to get to.

Those who have been around me since about 1994 would be sure to know what follows a, "No, no transitional fossil sequences exist" assertion.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 15 2007,07:25   

Oh, good grief.  The reason why I haven't responded yet is because I've had more than enough experience in these bizarro world forums to know that as soon as I respond, there will be endless darts thrown at my post that I will want to address.  

I don't have time this week....busy at work & I'm planning a 70th birthday party for my mother-in-law and expecting about 80 people at my home this weekend.  Needless to say, it takes some serious time to prepare for that many people.

Short answer Wes...No, I don't deny that transitional fossils exist.   Good 'nuf?  If not, you'll have to wait until next week for me to expand on that thought.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 15 2007,07:53   

Quote
It always amazes me that some people are so awed by these “transitionals”. Here too we have varying interpretations of these creatures, yet mainstream science only allows consideration of one interpretation. Their interpretation may be absolutely correct, but then again, it may not. Our students are never allowed to consider views that conflict with these supposed whale transitionals, feathered dinosaurs, and other “transitionals“.

Humes certainly doesn’t mention the lengths that somes scientists have gone to in order to produce a “transitional”. Hoaxes abound, and recently even the famous paleontologist, Richard Leaky, has tampered with fossils to make them appear more like transitionals.

I also find it interesting that scientists are so enamored with these supposed “transitionals”, yet to this day we have no empirical evidence of macroevolutionary changes occurring in nature. Consider the evolutionary changes that would have had to occur in order to explain different body types and the evolution of vital organs.

Link
   
Quote
I guess I still just wonder why we insist that this is a transitional versus merely an adaptation within the ape species.

Link
   
Quote
Although Darwin expected to find many examples of these gradual, unbroken sequences of transitional fossils, they haven’t been found. So, instead of acknowledging that this is indeed a very real problem for the ToE, advocates of the theory came up with additional theories like Punctuated Equilibrium.

Link
   
Quote
And then, of course, there is that dratted problem with all those missing links...
But, we must not question the evolutionary “fact” that birds evolved from dinos...

Link
"whats" "with" "all" "the" "scare" "quotes" "ftk" "?"

FTK, I don't understand how one the one hand you say you accept "transitional" fossils and yet can still say "we have no empirical evidence of macroevolutionary changes occurring in nature." Both statements cannot be true.
What do you think the transitional fossils are exactly, if not evidence of macro evolutionary changes? Evidence of the designers whims maybe?

EDIT: How can you say "No, I don't deny that transitional fossils exist" and "Our students are never allowed to consider views that conflict with these supposed whale transitionals, feathered dinosaurs, and other “transitionals“." and keep a straight face? You've just said you accept they are transitional fossils (otherwise you'd have just said "nah, they are fossils alright, but transitionals? never") so are you saying even though you accept they are transitional we should teach students otherwise?
You never cease to amaze me FTK.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 15 2007,07:58   

Quote (Ftk @ June 15 2007,07:25)
Oh, good grief.  The reason why I haven't responded yet is because I've had more than enough experience in these bizarro world forums to know that as soon as I respond, there will be endless darts thrown at my post that I will want to address.  

I don't have time this week....busy at work & I'm planning a 70th birthday party for my mother-in-law and expecting about 80 people at my home this weekend.  Needless to say, it takes some serious time to prepare for that many people.

Short answer Wes...No, I don't deny that transitional fossils exist.   Good 'nuf?  If not, you'll have to wait until next week for me to expand on that thought.

I believe Bipley asked you a question 10 months ago that you've still not addressed (and yet promised to address "I'll get back to you"). So forgive me if I treat your excuses as just that, excuses, and simply take the evidence at face value (i.e that "I'll get back to you" means "I can't address this so I'll ignore it and hope it goes away")

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 15 2007,09:16   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 15 2007,07:53)
   
Quote
It always amazes me that some people are so awed by these “transitionals”. Here too we have varying interpretations of these creatures, yet mainstream science only allows consideration of one interpretation. Their interpretation may be absolutely correct, but then again, it may not. Our students are never allowed to consider views that conflict with these supposed whale transitionals, feathered dinosaurs, and other “transitionals“.

Humes certainly doesn’t mention the lengths that somes scientists have gone to in order to produce a “transitional”. Hoaxes abound, and recently even the famous paleontologist, Richard Leaky, has tampered with fossils to make them appear more like transitionals.

I also find it interesting that scientists are so enamored with these supposed “transitionals”, yet to this day we have no empirical evidence of macroevolutionary changes occurring in nature. Consider the evolutionary changes that would have had to occur in order to explain different body types and the evolution of vital organs.

Link
         
Quote
I guess I still just wonder why we insist that this is a transitional versus merely an adaptation within the ape species.

Link
         
Quote
Although Darwin expected to find many examples of these gradual, unbroken sequences of transitional fossils, they haven’t been found. So, instead of acknowledging that this is indeed a very real problem for the ToE, advocates of the theory came up with additional theories like Punctuated Equilibrium.

Link
         
Quote
And then, of course, there is that dratted problem with all those missing links...
But, we must not question the evolutionary “fact” that birds evolved from dinos...

Link
"whats" "with" "all" "the" "scare" "quotes" "ftk" "?"

FTK, I don't understand how one the one hand you say you accept "transitional" fossils and yet can still say "we have no empirical evidence of macroevolutionary changes occurring in nature." Both statements cannot be true.
What do you think the transitional fossils are exactly, if not evidence of macro evolutionary changes? Evidence of the designers whims maybe?

EDIT: How can you say "No, I don't deny that transitional fossils exist" and "Our students are never allowed to consider views that conflict with these supposed whale transitionals, feathered dinosaurs, and other “transitionals“." and keep a straight face? You've just said you accept they are transitional fossils (otherwise you'd have just said "nah, they are fossils alright, but transitionals? never") so are you saying even though you accept they are transitional we should teach students otherwise?
You never cease to amaze me FTK.

Well, I guess that all depends on your definition of "transitional". :p   It also depends on how many just so stories you're going to have to tell in order to get your students to believe that what you're telling them is a "fact".

You might also note in the first quote you mentioned that I wrote:
   
Quote
Their interpretation may be absolutely correct, but then again, it may not.


I stand by that statement in regard to most of the issues in this debate.  The various interpretations of the "facts" should be allowed to be considered by everyone -- not hid under the rug due the fear of the "scientific community" of their precious theory being questioned.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
don_quixote



Posts: 110
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 15 2007,09:30   

Quote
It also depends on how many just so stories you're going to have to tell in order to get your students to believe that what you're telling them is a "fact".

Gah! I'll be picking irony-meter shrapnel out of me for the next week!

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 15 2007,09:34   

Quote (Ftk @ June 15 2007,09:16)
Well, I guess that all depends on your definition of "transitional". :p   It also depends on how many just so stories you're going to have to tell in order to get your students to believe that what you're telling them is a "fact".

You might also note in the first quote you mentioned that I wrote:
   
Quote
Their interpretation may be absolutely correct, but then again, it may not.


I stand by that statement in regard to most of the issues in this debate.  The various interpretations of the "facts" should be allowed to be considered by everyone -- not hid under the rug due the fear of the "scientific community" of their precious theory being questioned.

Logically your next step would be to define "transitional". Please do so.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 15 2007,10:42   

Quote
You might also note in the first quote you mentioned that I wrote:
 
Quote
Their interpretation may be absolutely correct, but then again, it may not.


You may now also take the time to note that I am 5'8"...or a completely different height that is not 5'8".  I'll stand by that (of course, when I'm standing I'm 5'10", or another height).  It's part of the open-height regime, keep your options many.

Quote
Well, I guess that all depends on your definition of "transitional".


Have you googled enough bullshit to make sense of your "I believe transitionals exist but they aren't really transitionals" stance?  Seriously, this might be one of the stupidest things you've ever said.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 15 2007,10:43   

Have you actually read Kipling? How about "The Butterfly Who Stamped"?

You keep using that phrase. *Cue Inigo*

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 15 2007,10:54   

Quote (BWE @ June 15 2007,10:43)
Have you actually read Kipling? How about "The Butterfly Who Stamped"?

You keep using that phrase. *Cue Inigo*

"You keep-a sayin' that word. I don't think it means what-a you think it means"




Of course, FtK thinks that's;


"absolutely, totally, and in all other ways inconceivable!"

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 15 2007,10:56   

Quote (blipey @ June 15 2007,10:42)
Have you googled enough bullshit to make sense of your "I believe transitionals exist but they aren't really transitionals" stance?  Seriously, this might be one of the stupidest things you've ever said.

That's a contest that we don't even want to get into...

She has a couple of other threads to pick up as well. But from her recent message, it appears that we will have to wait until next week for her to post about why her explanation of the evolution of the Antarctic icefish is different from that of a theistic evolutionist (whom she abhors), and what specific examples of "speculation" she can point to in her new biology textbook. Unfortunately I won't be around next week to listen to those explanations, since I will be camping in northern Wyoming by that time. But it is possible that I won't miss anything; I'd actually predict that she will ignore those hanging questions in the other two threads devoted to her verbal grapplings with logic and reality.

But I'd love to be wrong about that prediction!

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 15 2007,11:07   

Have fun camping!  Wyoming is lovely this time of year.  My dad lives in Buffalo and likes it a ton, even the winters.  Of course, he moved there from Alaska so we know he's a bit touched.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 15 2007,11:12   

As regards te stupidity of Ftk's statement about transitionals.  It may not be the absolute stupidest things she's said (my sample size is smaller than others), but it is the kind of things that I will never understand.  Joe G does it with almost every sentence he types.

She managed to completely contradict herself without finishing a perfectly good sentence.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 15 2007,13:14   

Quote
Oh, good grief.


yeah, you tell 'em Charline Brown!

wait, let me move those goalposts for ya...

Quote
That's a contest that we don't even want to get into...


or DO we...

I think it's getting closed to, if not past, time for just such a thread.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
  15 replies since June 14 2007,22:19 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

    


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]