RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (17) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: VMartin's cosmology, where he will not be off-topic< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2007,12:29   

As almost everyone here must know by now, I have been trying with spectacular lack of success to get VMartin to answer two simple questions:

1) do you believe common descent is correct?

2) how old is the earth?

I even rephrased the second question as a multiple choice question, and he still refuses to answer either question.

Now, I've seen several creationists repeatedly refuse to answer these questions, and I have my own hunch as to why VM won't answer them, but VM has finally made a claim as to WHY he won't answer them:

Quote
We are here not at a geological forum and we are not here even on a geological thread. That's why your question is off-topic. I will never answer your off-topic questions at these threads.


Okay, evidently he won't answer these questions if he thinks they're off-topic. So here's a thread devoted ENTIRELY to him and these questions. These questions are totally on-topic here.

So then, *ahem*.

To repeat, V:

1) do you believe common descent is correct?

2) the Earth is:

a) 4.5 billion years old
b) around 12,000 years old
c) around 6,000 years old
d) probably a couple million years old
e) none of the above.

Since I have now fulfilled Martin's standards of relevancy, I'm sure he'll answer now.

--------------
"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

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2007,13:49   

What makes you think VMartin will be more likely to answer your questions here?

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2007,13:51   

But the new dodge may be funnier.  I have popcorn.

--------------
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

   
slpage



Posts: 349
Joined: June 2004

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2007,13:53   

So, is VMartin really an eastern european, or is he someone else pretending to be?

I refer to his on-again-off-again typed broken english.  I understand that such things happen in spoken language, but I have a hard time accepting that you can exhibit 'broken english' when you type... sometimes...

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2007,14:23   

Quote (blipey @ Sep. 06 2007,13:51)
But the new dodge may be funnier. ?I have popcorn.

That's the right attitude.

--------------
"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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2007,14:30   

Quote (slpage @ Sep. 06 2007,13:53)
So, is VMartin really an eastern european, or is he someone else pretending to be?

I refer to his on-again-off-again typed broken english. ?I understand that such things happen in spoken language, but I have a hard time accepting that you can exhibit 'broken english' when you type... sometimes...

I had my suspicions at first, too, but there seems to be solid evidence that he's Slovakian. He wrote a passage of Czech (I don't think it was Slovak) that convinced David Marjanovic of his authenticity.

I suspect that VM first started studying English rather recently, so sometimes his English kind of goes in and out. I gather that in that part of Europe people haven't been studying English for very long.

--------------
"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

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2007,15:03   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 06 2007,14:30)
Quote (slpage @ Sep. 06 2007,13:53)
So, is VMartin really an eastern european, or is he someone else pretending to be?

I refer to his on-again-off-again typed broken english. ?I understand that such things happen in spoken language, but I have a hard time accepting that you can exhibit 'broken english' when you type... sometimes...

I had my suspicions at first, too, but there seems to be solid evidence that he's Slovakian. He wrote a passage of Czech (I don't think it was Slovak) that convinced David Marjanovic of his authenticity.

I suspect that VM first started studying English rather recently, so sometimes his English kind of goes in and out. I gather that in that part of Europe people haven't been studying English for very long.

Yah. Marjanovic is a pharyngulist who doesn't know how to tell apart Russian and Czech. I don't know how you came to the idea that he was able to determine my nationality.

Marjanovic is also a "knowledgeable evolutionist" as doctor Myers calls all his sycophants. Neverthenless he knows nothing about color perception. He has never heard about red-green perception canals and so he ?invented ad hoc brand new theory after 5 minutes of thinking: green = white - red. Everybody can check his "arguments" at One blog a day where we (John Davison predominanly) made fools of pharyngulists.

As to your stupid question I wrote that no new mammalian Order has aroused since Eocene.

If you were more clever you might have deduce that I at least presume the Earth is older than the time of beginning of Eocene. Go to Wikipedia for time scaling of Eocene.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2007,15:12   

Martin. How lovely to have you join us!

 
Quote

If you were more clever you might have deduce that I at least presume the Earth is older than the time of beginning of Eocene. Go to Wikipedia for time scaling of Eocene.


And if you were less of a coward you would simply *tell* us how old you think the world is.

Anyway, Wikipedia says the Eocene ran from around 33.9 to 55.8 million years ago. Is 55.8 million years the most you'll concede for the age of the earth? Or are you willing to crank it all the way back to 4.5 billion?

 
Quote

As to your stupid question I wrote that no new mammalian Order has aroused since Eocene.


('arisen', not 'aroused'. check the meaning of the latter, V.)

Be more explicit, Martin, does that mean you reject common descent for humans or no?

BTW, why is it a stupid question? Seems a *lot* of creationists get very hot and bothered about those very questions.

?
Quote
Everybody can check his "arguments" at One blog a day where we (John Davison predominanly) made fools of pharyngulists.


The pinnacle of Martin's scientific career, right there.

BTW, Martin, you're not in the best position to be accusing others of being sycophants.

--------------
"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

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2007,15:16   

Re "He has never heard about red-green perception canals and so he ?invented ad hoc brand new theory after 5 minutes of thinking: green = white - red."

That agrees with what I remember learning in school on that subject. Which means it isn't ad hoc.

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2007,15:24   

Henry,

maybe you were in the same school that Marjanovic attended.
As far as I remember he was at school only 12 years. It means the guy finished his education at secondary school. No wonder he became darwinian scientist at Pharyngula.

Check the basic rules about adding and subtraction of colors. These rules are very important in printing plants. Or ask some artist.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2007,15:29   

Martin? Please? Back on topic?

Do you reject common descent for humans or not?

Earth / 4.5 billion -- yes/no?

Answer the questions please and you can get back to Davison.

--------------
"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: Sep. 06 2007,16:16   

Damn!!!  Can we please keep just one stinking thread on topic!

I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH VMARTIN!!!!

Information that is not relevant to the thread should not be allowed on!

So, what was this thread about?

Oh yeah, carry on VMARTIN, I want to know all about artists and the color wheel--unless those artists never went to university.

PLEASE, LET'S KEEP TO THE SPIRIT OF THE OPENING POST AND TALK ABOUT ARTISTS!

cripes, darwiniacs have the attention span of a two year old (who also never started college)...damn.

--------------
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

   
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2007,16:18   

Quote (slpage @ Sep. 06 2007,12:53)
So, is VMartin really an eastern european, or is he someone else pretending to be?

I refer to his on-again-off-again typed broken english. ?I understand that such things happen in spoken language, but I have a hard time accepting that you can exhibit 'broken english' when you type... sometimes...

His IP, when he graced my blog with his presence, originated in Slovakia.

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2007,16:24   

Vmartin:
Quote
no new mammalian Order has aroused since Eocene.

That'll surprise the heck out of my girlfriend...

Or maybe Vmartin would rather be Eocene and not heard.

  
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2007,16:25   

With Vmartin's Anglo-linguistic facility, he'll probably finally be forced to admit, felicitously, that "Common decency is, indeed, correct."

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2007,17:20   

Quote (Steviepinhead @ Sep. 06 2007,17:24)
Vmartin:
?
Quote
no new mammalian Order has aroused since Eocene.

That'll surprise the heck out of my girlfriend...

That is downright obseocene.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2007,22:14   

V,
Re "Check the basic rules about adding and subtraction of colors. These rules are very important in printing plants. Or ask some artist."

Ah. You're talking about mixing pigments. I was thinking about mixing frequencies of light.

Henry

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2007,23:05   

Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 07 2007,06:14)
V,
Re "Check the basic rules about adding and subtraction of colors. These rules are very important in printing plants. Or ask some artist."

Ah. You're talking about mixing pigments. I was thinking about mixing frequencies of light.

Henry

Autodidacts hate being corrected.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2007,00:13   

Quote (Kristine @ Sep. 06 2007,16:18)
 
Quote (slpage @ Sep. 06 2007,12:53)
So, is VMartin really an eastern european, or is he someone else pretending to be?

I refer to his on-again-off-again typed broken english. ?I understand that such things happen in spoken language, but I have a hard time accepting that you can exhibit 'broken english' when you type... sometimes...

His IP, when he graced my blog with his presence, originated in Slovakia.

Hi Kristine.

There is some good habit here makinkg psychonalysis for gratis. I have passed out here two psycholalysis - the one ?from Arden and the second from Alan Fox. Btw. both guys pursue me with their monomaniacal questions whatever I wrote. Arden even created this thread to give vent his urge.

Alan even logged at ISCID where his annoying question disturbs our discussions there.

But both of them are perfect  psychoanalysts.


And now me:

I think your surrealism compensate your liking in darwinism. You as an poet feel more clearly than many folks here that this teaching is not correct answer to problems of evolution. Your psyche revolt. Thats why your psyche seek compensation in surrealism.

More cultivated thoughts about the problem of surrealism and biology can be find in the book of professor ?Adolf Portmann "Biologie und Geist".

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2007,02:51   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 06 2007,15:29)
Martin? Please? Back on topic?

Do you reject common descent for humans or not?

Earth / 4.5 billion -- yes/no?

Answer the questions please and you can get back to Davison.

VMartin, 2 simple questions. Answer them you coward!

--------------
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

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2007,04:22   

Quote
Alan even logged at ISCID where his annoying question disturbs our discussions there.


Disturb your discussions?
What discussions?
Surely you jest!

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2007,08:54   

Oh boy. Martin thinks because he's a 'man' he can patronize Kristine. This should have lots of potential.

Maaaaaaartiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnn..... oh Maaaaaaartiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnn..... answer our questions!!!!!!

Quote
There is some good habit here makinkg psychonalysis for gratis. I have passed out here two psycholalysis - the one ?from Arden and the second from Alan Fox. Btw. both guys pursue me with their monomaniacal questions whatever I wrote. Arden even created this thread to give vent his urge.


Martin, you can make me quit asking you by giving clear answers. Whine all you want, but if you stick around here babbling about ladybirds and toadstools but dodging questions, I'll continue to ask you over and over. If you don't like this situation, you're more than welcome to go away and hide under Davison's skirts. But remember, it'll be waiting for you when you get back.

--------------
"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

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2007,10:43   

Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 06 2007,23:13)
?  
Quote (Kristine @ Sep. 06 2007,16:18)
? ? ?
Quote (slpage @ Sep. 06 2007,12:53)
So, is VMartin really an eastern european, or is he someone else pretending to be?

I refer to his on-again-off-again typed broken english. ?I understand that such things happen in spoken language, but I have a hard time accepting that you can exhibit 'broken english' when you type... sometimes...

His IP, when he graced my blog with his presence, originated in Slovakia.

Hi Kristine.

There is some good habit here makinkg psychonalysis for gratis. I have passed out here two psycholalysis - the one ?from Arden and the second from Alan Fox. Btw. both guys pursue me with their monomaniacal questions whatever I wrote. Arden even created this thread to give vent his urge.

Alan even logged at ISCID where his annoying question disturbs our discussions there.

But both of them are perfect ?psychoanalysts.


And now me:

I think your surrealism compensate your liking in darwinism. You as an poet feel more clearly than many folks here that this teaching is not correct answer to problems of evolution. Your psyche revolt. Thats why your psyche seek compensation in surrealism.

More cultivated thoughts about the problem of surrealism and biology can be find in the book of professor ?Adolf Portmann "Biologie und Geist".

My "psyche seek compensation in surrealism" because I am flower of the orient, can love Darwinism longtime, everyone. :D

VMartin, as a philosophy surrealism is a crock. As an attitude and an aesthetic (which it was never intended to be), it gives a certain playfulness to life, like Cocteau films and punning over the heads of clueless twits. Hint. Lighten up.

Get out of your closet with that psychoanalysis and those pigments and live a little, or you?ll continue to play the straight man in Alan?s and Arden?s comedy routine.

*Braces for predictable protestation re misunderstanding of meaning of "straight"*

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2007,10:44   

Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 07 2007,04:13)
There is some good habit here makinkg psychonalysis for gratis.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you aren't qualified to do that, are you?

Judging by your efforts I would say you've never studied psychology in your life, since they are the worst kind of cod psychological nonsense favoured by simpering morons who try to act all cool and intellectual.

Coincidence? I think not.

--------------
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.

   
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2007,10:47   

Quote (k.e @ Sep. 06 2007,23:05)
? ? ?
Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 07 2007,06:14)
V,
Re "Check the basic rules about adding and subtraction of colors. These rules are very important in printing plants. Or ask some artist."

Ah. You're talking about mixing pigments. I was thinking about mixing frequencies of light.

Henry

Autodidacts hate being corrected.


Pigments? Autodidacts?

Do you mean that removing red frequency from the light spectrum will cause that the light entering the eye should be perceived as green?

Do you think that spectum colors violet, blue, yellow, orange and green (without red) should be perceived in their totality as green?

Have you ever heard about Hering's red-green channel
or you are again explaing the complicated problem of color perception ad hoc using only your phantasy?
(But no wonder, because you often use your phantasy as the only scientific method for explaining of evolutionary processes too.)

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2007,10:53   

Welcome back, Martin, got answers for us?

--------------
"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

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2007,11:15   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 07 2007,10:53)
Welcome back, Martin, got answers for us?

Perhaps he won't answer because he takes a very wide stance on the issue.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2007,11:35   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Sep. 07 2007,19:15)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 07 2007,10:53)
Welcome back, Martin, got answers for us?

Perhaps he won't answer because he takes a very wide stance on the issue.

You are a cruel, cruel man.

Although I noticed you didn't mention shopping bags.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2007,12:17   

Quote
*Braces for predictable protestation re misunderstanding of meaning of "straight"*


Well, as I had to google "wide stance" to find out about alternative uses of shopping bags, I guess I don't need to protest.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2007,12:27   

I was looking over portions of this and the previous thread, and I began to wonder, "How old does VMartin think the earth is? Does he accept common descent?"

It appears that nobody has thought to ask him.

Hey, VMartin, why is everybody beating around the bush on such simple questions?

How old do you think the earth is? I've heard and accept the figure 4.5 billion years, with 13.7 billion years the current best estimate of the age of the universe (based on WMAP data and a number of assumptions).

Do you accept common descent? I do.

Just wondering. Thanks,

R-Bill

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2007,12:28   

I'm sorry, I lost my train of thought.

Is this thread for VMartin or Paul Nelson?

Something about not answering questions...

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2007,12:37   

Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 07 2007,09:47)
?
Quote (k.e @ Sep. 06 2007,23:05)
 
Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 07 2007,06:14)
V,
Re "Check the basic rules about adding and subtraction of colors. These rules are very important in printing plants. Or ask some artist."

Ah. You're talking about mixing pigments. I was thinking about mixing frequencies of light.

Henry

Autodidacts hate being corrected.


Pigments? Autodidacts?

Do you mean that removing red frequency from the light spectrum will cause that the light entering the eye should be perceived as green?

Do you think that spectum colors violet, blue, yellow, orange and green (without red) should be perceived in their totality as green?

Have you ever heard about Hering's red-green channel
or you are again explaing the complicated problem of color perception ad hoc using only your phantasy?
(But no wonder, because you often use your phantasy as the only scientific method for explaining of evolutionary processes too.)

*Brainfahrt* You know, Vman, lets start with an appetizer. How old are you?

Then add how many more years it would take for you to be as old as the earth, however old you think it to be.

Do want answers this time! K start now. Bai.

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2007,14:33   

Why HARD the questions so here?  Very mad the mind of me go to lengths to answer simple the posed thoughts here.

Too HARD understand the wants of Darwinists.

How olde the earth not ever been to me askedd, this why I never any answer to you.

I always simply to answer you, but you clearly no ask of me these things.

--------------
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

   
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2007,16:05   

Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 07 2007,10:47)
Do you mean that removing red frequency from the light spectrum will cause that the light entering the eye should be perceived as green?

Yes. When talking about mixing of light frequencies:

White light = red + yellow + blue.

Green = yellow + blue.

Remove red from white, what's left?

Oh, and to avoid being totally off topic - how old is the Earth?

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2007,16:27   

Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 07 2007,20:05)
Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 07 2007,10:47)
Do you mean that removing red frequency from the light spectrum will cause that the light entering the eye should be perceived as green?

Yes. When talking about mixing of light frequencies:

White light = red + yellow + blue.

Green = yellow + blue.

Remove red from white, what's left?

Oh, and to avoid being totally off topic - how old is the Earth?

Errr....I thought the primary colours of light were red green and blue. Yellow is a derivative of blue and green, isn't it?

[EDIT] This guy thinks I'm half right at least.

--------------
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.

   
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2007,16:40   

Well, what I recall from school was primary = blue, yellow, red. So which three colors correspond to having only one of our three types of color sense cells reacting to it at one time?

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2007,16:53   

Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 07 2007,20:40)
Well, what I recall from school was primary = blue, yellow, red.

Ah, they are the primary colours in terms of paint, apparently because blue is roughly comparative with cyan and red with magenta.

I learnt in secondary school the primary colours of light are red green and blue, and that they are the primary derivatives of white.

--------------
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.

   
Nerull



Posts: 317
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2007,19:19   

Paint and light have diffrent sets of primary colors. In light it is Red, Green, Blue. Computers use these three colors for everything too.

In astronomy we use red, green, and blue filters in separate exposures to produce a color image, because our CCDs don't have dedicated color pixels, unlike the CCDs in most digital cameras. This makes the CCD more sensitive, which we consider more important than easy color photos.

--------------
To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

   
Bob O'H



Posts: 2132
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2007,01:41   

Quote
Oh, and to avoid being totally off topic - how old is the Earth?

And when's its birthday?

Bob

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2007,15:11   

Re "And when's its birthday?"

Just imagine all the complications that'd be involved in trying to actually answer that... :p

Henry

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2007,17:58   

I guess a larger question is why are YEC's so reticent to stand behind their claims of a young earth?

Why the "don't ask, don't tell?"

I've seen this behavior for decades and it's the same over and over.

Where's the conviction?

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2007,06:26   

Gosh, I was just wondering how old the earth is, and whether common ancestry is true. Should I ask VMartin for his thoughts on these matters? He's always been an upfront guy.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2007,10:14   

Yeah.  I've always been curious about that too.  I don't think anyone has ever told me the truth about that.  It's a good thing that VMartin is here to do just that: tell the truth.

--------------
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

   
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2007,11:42   

Before adressing nonsenses about the color perception (Why "knowledgeable evolutionists" do not read more about the complicated problem of the perception of colors and always try to defend completely nonsense green = white - red?) some words on topic.

According Buffon <<Histoire de la Terre>> from the midst 18 century the Earth was 75.000 years old. Charles Lyell in 1830 estimated the time of rocks to 230 millions years. Helmholtz and Kelvin estimated 100 millions years of the Earth as exaggerated.

I don't know if the nowadays estimation 5,4 mrd years is the final one and no other changes are possible.

But preliminary scientific dating of Cambrian explosion or mammalian "radiation" in Eocene is something I take for granted.

Because Darwin himself didn't suppose the Earth to be 5,4 mrd years old the question of the exact age of the Earth has no relation to mechanisms that govern evolution of life.

What I disagree is the neodarwinian explanation of evolution of organisms. On my view natural selection play no role in it.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2007,11:59   

There's a progress, Martin but you're still not answering the question about common descent, which is separate from natural selection (we already knew you deny it).
And among all the estimations of the age of the Earth you provided, which one do you think is the most accurate?

BTW, the current estimation is 4.5 billion years, not 5.4.

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2007,12:21   

Common descent is a complicated problem considering saltationism as a process of evolution. If a reptile hatched a bird there is no ancestor in common view, you know.

Btw. John Davison considered possibility that there were as many independent ancestors in Mammalia as there are mammalian Orders. There might have been many creation.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
Nerull



Posts: 317
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2007,12:22   

Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 10 2007,11:42)
Before adressing nonsenses about the color perception (Why "knowledgeable evolutionists" do not read more about the complicated problem of the perception of colors and always try to defend completely nonsense green = white - red?) some words on topic.

According Buffon <<Histoire de la Terre>> from the midst 18 century the Earth was 75.000 years old. Charles Lyell in 1830 estimated the time of rocks to 230 millions years. Helmholtz and Kelvin estimated 100 millions years of the Earth as exaggerated.

I don't know if the nowadays estimation 5,4 mrd years is the final one and no other changes are possible.

But preliminary scientific dating of Cambrian explosion or mammalian "radiation" in Eocene is something I take for granted.

Because Darwin himself didn't suppose the Earth to be 5,4 mrd years old the question of the exact age of the Earth has no relation to mechanisms that govern evolution of life.

What I disagree is the neodarwinian explanation of evolution of organisms. On my view natural selection play no role in it.

Actually, white - red is a light blueish color.

Hey VMartin, that monitor your using, do you know how it creates those "complex colors"? By combining red, green, and blue.

Ever used a digital camera? Know how it perceives those "complex colors"? By using pixels sensitive to red, green, and blue and combining them.

Know how all color images on a PC store that complex color data? As red, green, and blue channels. They are combined when the image is displayed.

--------------
To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2007,12:27   

Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 10 2007,12:21)
Common descent is a complicated problem considering saltationism as a process of evolution. If a reptile hatched a bird there is no ancestor in common view, you know.

Btw. John Davison considered possibility that there were as many independent ancestors in Mammalia as there are mammalian Orders. There might have been many creation.

Martin, it's amazing how many things you can say 'in response' to a question without actually answering it. I'd love to see you in a grad school program if only to have you do this in response to your Masters Orals, or whatever the Slovakian equivalent is. I'm also dazzled by your ability to invoke Davison no matter what the subject is.

Anyway, let's get back on topic:

1) Do you believe common descent for humans and other primates is correct? True, or wicked Darwinist lie?

2) what figure for the age of the earth do you find most plausible?

--------------
"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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2007,13:16   

Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 10 2007,12:21)
There might have been

Oh?
"Results 1 - 10 of about 951,000 for "There might have been".
According to google, there are almost a million hits for the exact phrase "there might have been".

Apparently there might have been almost a million things?

At least?

The point is, you gotta narrow it down y'know?

Fer'instance:

"There might have been a billion earths, each one with only one animal, and they all merged and there was 1 earth and a billion animals. And that."

No? Yet you say

 
Quote
There might have been many creation

Might there of? How illuminating! Well worth the price of entrance.

VMartin, 3 questions.

1: How old is the earth (and whens it's birthday?)
2: Do you believe common descent for humans and other primates is correct?
3: What do you do for a day job? B'coz I hope it's something well paid and satisfying as you're achieving bugger all here.

And an extra one for bonus points, before I hit submit...

Can you tell me a few hundred words about this "many creation" you mention? I presume you mean something like there was not just a single instance of creation, but many instances, in fact no species now extant could be here without a direct intervention by the "intelligent designer"

Can you do that VMartin? Only, no changing the subject if you give it a go. Stick to the topic  :p

--------------
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

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2007,13:42   

Quote (Nerull @ Sep. 10 2007,12:22)
 
Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 10 2007,11:42)
Before adressing nonsenses about the color perception (Why "knowledgeable evolutionists" do not read more about the complicated problem of the perception of colors and always try to defend completely nonsense green = white - red?) some words on topic.

According Buffon <<Histoire de la Terre>> from the midst 18 century the Earth was 75.000 years old. Charles Lyell in 1830 estimated the time of rocks to 230 millions years. Helmholtz and Kelvin estimated 100 millions years of the Earth as exaggerated.

I don't know if the nowadays estimation 5,4 mrd years is the final one and no other changes are possible.

But preliminary scientific dating of Cambrian explosion or mammalian "radiation" in Eocene is something I take for granted.

Because Darwin himself didn't suppose the Earth to be 5,4 mrd years old the question of the exact age of the Earth has no relation to mechanisms that govern evolution of life.

What I disagree is the neodarwinian explanation of evolution of organisms. On my view natural selection play no role in it.

Actually, white - red is a light blueish color.

Hey VMartin, that monitor your using, do you know how it creates those "complex colors"? By combining red, green, and blue.

Ever used a digital camera? Know how it perceives those "complex colors"? By using pixels sensitive to red, green, and blue and combining them.

Know how all color images on a PC store that complex color data? As red, green, and blue channels. They are combined when the image is displayed.

If you place grey piece of paper to red backgound you will see the margin of the paper as green or bluegreen (Woodworth, Schlosberg 1959). You will see the opponent color. Obviously you see a color the spectrum frequency of which is not entering your eye.

Do you ever heard about Hering red-green channel? Do you ever heard about Opponent Process Colour Theory?

I am speaking about color perception which is much more complicated process as your mixing of simple colors in camera or printed journal.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2007,14:00   

Thank God VMartin answered the simple question, "How old do you think the Earth is?"  Look, I'll just point it out here:

Quote
Before adressing nonsenses about the color perception (Why "knowledgeable evolutionists" do not read more about the complicated problem of the perception of colors and always try to defend completely nonsense green = white - red?) some words on topic.

Uh, hmmm.  Must be in the next paragraph

According Buffon <<Histoire de la Terre>> from the midst 18 century the Earth was 75.000 years old. Charles Lyell in 1830 estimated the time of rocks to 230 millions years. Helmholtz and Kelvin estimated 100 millions years of the Earth as exaggerated.

Nope, sorry.  The next one is the money paragraph

I don't know if the nowadays estimation 5,4 mrd years is the final one and no other changes are possible.

uh.....

But preliminary scientific dating of Cambrian explosion or mammalian "radiation" in Eocene is something I take for granted.

Teh stupid, it burns

Because Darwin himself didn't suppose the Earth to be 5,4 mrd years old the question of the exact age of the Earth has no relation to mechanisms that govern evolution of life.

What I disagree is the neodarwinian explanation of evolution of organisms. On my view natural selection play no role in it.


I would like to apologize for the previous statement implying that there was an answer in the previous load of crap.

Come on, VMartin, if you're just going to be jaw-droppingly stupid, leave.  If you're going to stay, please be funny or interesting--wheichever floats your boat.

--------------
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

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2007,16:29   

Blipey, you're unaccountably omitting this vtardian gem:

Quote
If a reptile hatched a bird there is no ancestor in common view, you know.


It's made all the better by the fact that V fails to give us any hint as to what it has to do with anything.

--------------
"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

  
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2007,18:10   

Arden:
Quote
Masters Orals, or whatever the Slovakian equivalent is

Ah, that would be the Blovius Juris, often translated from the Slovlatinskien as "verbose legalese," but which might more accurately be rendered as "orally fixated."  

This critical step in the Slovlatinskien educational system is abbreviated B.J., though that would not be a good reason to conflate Veemeron with a downtrodden worker of the red*-light district.

_
*Realizing that Vm has difficulty parsing color descriptors, let's just say that this is the color of the substance most often inserted into lipstick tubes.  At least, outside of Lower Slovlatinskia...

  
hereoisreal



Posts: 745
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2007,19:46   

V:

If you place grey piece of paper to red backgound you will see the margin of the paper as green or bluegreen (Woodworth, Schlosberg 1959). You will see the opponent color. Obviously you see a color the spectrum frequency of which is not entering your eye.

Do you ever heard about Hering red-green channel? Do you ever heard about Opponent Process Colour Theory?

I am speaking about color perception which is much more complicated process as your mixing of simple colors in camera or printed journal.

******************************************

V, 'color perception' is a miracle in it's self... sorta like watching a live event on TV or a good movie re-run.  Also you can just close your eyes and fantasize or dream......4 choices.

1. Reality
2. Memory
3. Imagination
4. Dream (sleeping)

Zero

--------------
360  miracles and more at:
http://www.hereoisreal.com/....eal.com

Great news. God’s wife is pregnant! (Rev. 12:5)

It's not over till the fat lady sings! (Isa. 54:1 & Zec 9:9)

   
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2007,19:49   

Quote (hereoisreal @ Sep. 11 2007,23:46)
V:

If you place grey piece of paper to red backgound you will see the margin of the paper as green or bluegreen (Woodworth, Schlosberg 1959). You will see the opponent color. Obviously you see a color the spectrum frequency of which is not entering your eye.

Do you ever heard about Hering red-green channel? Do you ever heard about Opponent Process Colour Theory?

I am speaking about color perception which is much more complicated process as your mixing of simple colors in camera or printed journal.

******************************************

V, 'color perception' is a miracle in it's self... sorta like watching a live event on TV or a good movie re-run.  Also you can just close your eyes and fantasize or dream......4 choices.

1. Reality
2. Memory
3. Imagination
4. Dream (sleeping)

Zero

I thought zero was....well I'm not sure, but I didn't think (s)he was coming back.

I'm equally unsure what the hell that was about.

--------------
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.

   
hereoisreal



Posts: 745
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2007,20:46   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 11 2007,19:49)
I'm equally unsure what the hell that was about.

Think about it Ian.  Without # 1, you can't see
the other 3.

How light reaches you and me is much more
complex than how the super bowl reaches our
living rooms.  It might have been designed.

Zero

--------------
360  miracles and more at:
http://www.hereoisreal.com/....eal.com

Great news. God’s wife is pregnant! (Rev. 12:5)

It's not over till the fat lady sings! (Isa. 54:1 & Zec 9:9)

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2007,21:05   

Quote (hereoisreal @ Sep. 11 2007,20:46)
 
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 11 2007,19:49)
I'm equally unsure what the hell that was about.

Think about it Ian.  Without # 1, you can't see
the other 3.

How light reaches you and me is much more
complex than how the super bowl reaches our
living rooms.  It might have been designed.

Zero

What, the Superbowl? Of course that was designed...

--------------
"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

  
hereoisreal



Posts: 745
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2007,21:17   

The following is story # 123 on my web site
at hereoisreal.com

SUPER BOWL
         One morning about five or six years ago, on a Superbowl Sunday, I had to go to the bathroom.  I had this terrible, terrible diarrhea - one of the worst that I had ever had - and I was thinking to myself, "Wow, this is a Super Bowl Sunday - I'll remember this one!"  I had in mind a huge toilet bowl.  I walked out of the bathroom and out into the yard to pick up the Sunday paper.  When I opened it up there was just one big picture on the front of the paper - a huge toilet bowl.

Zero

--------------
360  miracles and more at:
http://www.hereoisreal.com/....eal.com

Great news. God’s wife is pregnant! (Rev. 12:5)

It's not over till the fat lady sings! (Isa. 54:1 & Zec 9:9)

   
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2007,22:41   

HIR

Are you saying god...er the designer imagined the universe before he found a facsimile of his thoughts on a lawn and only found it memorable because he had "diarrhea".

Somehow I had in mind something more intelligent

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
hereoisreal



Posts: 745
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2007,04:28   

k e, no, I'm saying nothing can be seen without light.

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

That's 'God' with a capital G.

Zero

--------------
360  miracles and more at:
http://www.hereoisreal.com/....eal.com

Great news. God’s wife is pregnant! (Rev. 12:5)

It's not over till the fat lady sings! (Isa. 54:1 & Zec 9:9)

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2007,05:04   

Quote (hereoisreal @ Sep. 12 2007,04:28)
k e, no, I'm saying nothing can be seen without light.

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

That's 'God' with a capital G.

Zero

no, it didn't.

--------------
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

  
hereoisreal



Posts: 745
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2007,05:37   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 12 2007,05:04)
Quote (hereoisreal @ Sep. 12 2007,04:28)
k e, no, I'm saying nothing can be seen without light.

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

That's 'God' with a capital G.

Zero

no, it didn't.

No, what didn't what?

Zero

--------------
360  miracles and more at:
http://www.hereoisreal.com/....eal.com

Great news. God’s wife is pregnant! (Rev. 12:5)

It's not over till the fat lady sings! (Isa. 54:1 & Zec 9:9)

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2007,05:39   

Quote (hereoisreal @ Sep. 12 2007,05:37)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 12 2007,05:04)
Quote (hereoisreal @ Sep. 12 2007,04:28)
k e, no, I'm saying nothing can be seen without light.

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

That's 'God' with a capital G.

Zero

no, it didn't.

No, what didn't what?

Zero

"And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

No, it didn't.

You might think it did, but that cuts no ice with me.

--------------
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

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2007,05:59   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 12 2007,13:39)
Quote (hereoisreal @ Sep. 12 2007,05:37)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 12 2007,05:04)
 
Quote (hereoisreal @ Sep. 12 2007,04:28)
k e, no, I'm saying nothing can be seen without light.

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

That's 'God' with a capital G.

Zero

no, it didn't.

No, what didn't what?

Zero

"And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

No, it didn't.

You might think it did, but that cuts no ice with me.

Yeah HIR while you now have our undivided tard-tention
You can clear up a few things for me.

1. Those womanly waters g-boy saw his face in....who created those? There is nothing in Genesis saying who created them.

Is that anything to do with the gender of the writers of Genesis? That they were all male and water is feminine?
You can bet if females wrote Genesis, water and the moon would have been created before anything else. Men would have been created to look after goats. All the prior mythologies were from goddess based agrarian cultures, those creation myths involve birth of a different nature. It was only when the semetic cattle herding warrior cults of the levant introduced a suitable god that supported polygamy,rape and pillage as a way of life that we are blessed with its end product the Bible.

2.
How could the writers make the simple mistake that god did everything in the dark? Or was the dark a semiotic reference to before dawn and therefore the void was a claustrophobic nightmare, an existential dilemma.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2007,09:11   

Quote (hereoisreal @ Sep. 12 2007,04:28)
k e, no, I'm saying nothing can be seen without light.

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

That's 'God' with a capital G.

I was thinking more along the lines of 'gOd' with a capital "O".

--------------
"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

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2007,10:16   

HAR HAR, CAPITAL NULL

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2007,10:50   

Quote (hereoisreal @ Sep. 12 2007,00:46)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 11 2007,19:49)
I'm equally unsure what the hell that was about.

How light reaches you and me is much more
complex than how the super bowl reaches our
living rooms.  It might have been designed.

Zero

Yes. It also might have been created when some pirates stole gods treasure and needed some way of examining it.

Or when an elephant fell onto the eternal light switch or....

Absolutely anything is possible zero, without evidence, why is your concept better than my one? At least mine has pirates.

--------------
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.

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2007,10:54   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 12 2007,10:50)
Quote (hereoisreal @ Sep. 12 2007,00:46)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 11 2007,19:49)
I'm equally unsure what the hell that was about.

How light reaches you and me is much more
complex than how the super bowl reaches our
living rooms.  It might have been designed.

Zero

Yes. It also might have been created when some pirates stole gods treasure and needed some way of examining it.

Or when an elephant fell onto the eternal light switch or....

Absolutely anything is possible zero, without evidence, why is your concept better than my one? At least mine has pirates.

Mine has ponies.

--------------
"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: Sep. 12 2007,11:06   

Is this worth a new thread?  I mean, I'm really just trying to find out HOW OLD THE F*#@ING EARTH IS!!!

SOMEONE,  ANYONE (VMartin) JUST TELL ME!

--------------
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

   
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2007,11:53   

Quote (blipey @ Sep. 12 2007,11:06)
Is this worth a new thread?  I mean, I'm really just trying to find out HOW OLD THE F*#@ING EARTH IS!!!

SOMEONE,  ANYONE (VMartin) JUST TELL ME!

Oh, if thats all you need, FTK has the answer... anywhere between 6,000 and 6 billion years old.  

HTH :)

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2007,11:57   

Quote (hereoisreal @ Sep. 11 2007,21:17)
The following is story # 123 on my web site
at hereoisreal.com

SUPER BOWL
         One morning about five or six years ago, on a Superbowl Sunday, I had to go to the bathroom.  I had this terrible, terrible diarrhea - one of the worst that I had ever had - and I was thinking to myself, "Wow, this is a Super Bowl Sunday - I'll remember this one!"  I had in mind a huge toilet bowl.  I walked out of the bathroom and out into the yard to pick up the Sunday paper.  When I opened it up there was just one big picture on the front of the paper - a huge toilet bowl.

Zero

Your story clearly this idicates that your god thinks you are a stupid piece of shit that should be flushed away immediately.

HTH, and Have a Nice day.

And so as it is written, so shall it be.

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2007,13:07   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 12 2007,14:54)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 12 2007,10:50)
 
Quote (hereoisreal @ Sep. 12 2007,00:46)
 
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 11 2007,19:49)
I'm equally unsure what the hell that was about.

How light reaches you and me is much more
complex than how the super bowl reaches our
living rooms.  It might have been designed.

Zero

Yes. It also might have been created when some pirates stole gods treasure and needed some way of examining it.

Or when an elephant fell onto the eternal light switch or....

Absolutely anything is possible zero, without evidence, why is your concept better than my one? At least mine has pirates.

Mine has ponies.

Pirates RULE.



--------------
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.

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2007,13:47   

Bite me. Ponies rock. :angry:



--------------
"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

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2007,15:04   

Quote (blipey @ Sep. 12 2007,10:06)
Is this worth a new thread?  I mean, I'm really just trying to find out HOW OLD THE F*#@ING EARTH IS!!!

SOMEONE,  ANYONE (VMartin) JUST TELL ME!

I think we need the radioactive half-life of VMartin's nonanswer...that would give us a clue. :p

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2007,15:12   

I don't think the half-life of Retardium has been reliably measured yet.

Maybe Vroomie could be enticed to volunteer a sample?

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2007,15:51   

Quote (Steviepinhead @ Sep. 12 2007,15:12)
I don't think the half-life of Retardium has been reliably measured yet.

Maybe Vroomie could be enticed to volunteer a sample?

Well, it's got to be less than 3,000 years, right?

--------------
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

   
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 13 2007,00:07   

There was a selectionist here who pursued me here and at Pharyngula. The  selectionist claimed that I am Davison. The poor selectionist made his weird conclusion analyzing of dating my and John posts at Brainstorm.

No wonder that studying of dating of evolutionary processes the poor selectionist came to the conclusion that there must have been a common descent.

Wasn't he Steviepinhead?

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 13 2007,07:42   

Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 13 2007,04:07)
There was a selectionist here who pursued me here and at Pharyngula. The  selectionist claimed that I am Davison. The poor selectionist made his weird conclusion analyzing of dating my and John posts at Brainstorm.

No wonder that studying of dating of evolutionary processes the poor selectionist came to the conclusion that there must have been a common descent.

Wasn't he Steviepinhead?

Be fair, you do pretty much repeat what JAD says without adding anything of your own.

I mean, you're willing to tell us what JAD says about things, but when asked yourself you turn into a coward and just run away and shout insults. It's pathetic really.

--------------
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.

   
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 13 2007,08:33   


Ah, that takes me back. Captain Pugwash and his innocent adventures with seaman Staines and Master Bates...

Happy days!

I must be suffering from false memory syndrome.

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 13 2007,08:52   

Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 13 2007,00:07)
There was a selectionist here who pursued me here and at Pharyngula. The  selectionist claimed that I am Davison. The poor selectionist made his weird conclusion analyzing of dating my and John posts at Brainstorm.

No wonder that studying of dating of evolutionary processes the poor selectionist came to the conclusion that there must have been a common descent.

Wasn't he Steviepinhead?

HOW OLD IS THE BLEEPING, GOD#%&*@!, F(@#^$* EARTH,YOU RETARD?

(Considerately all in caps because of your obvious blindness)

--------------
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

   
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 13 2007,09:24   

Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 13 2007,16:33)

Ah, that takes me back. Captain Pugwash and his innocent adventures with seaman Staines and Master Bates...

Happy days!

I must be suffering from false memory syndrome.

Cripes that stuff was camp. Almost as bad as Round the Horne which amongst others featured the old English folk singer Rambling Syd Rumpo.

Edit: Just checked link to urban myth on Pugwash.... false memory indeed.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 13 2007,10:27   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 13 2007,07:42)
Be fair, you do pretty much repeat what JAD says without adding anything of your own.

I mean, you're willing to tell us what JAD says about things, but when asked yourself you turn into a coward and just run away and shout insults. It's pathetic really.

C'mon V.

How old is the earth?

If Ian's correct (and he's got plenty of evidence), then you're just posting for a banned commenter which is in itself a bannable offense.

I would encourage you to say something original.  For instance, you might tell us how old you believe the earth to be, and do it without simply quoting or paraphrasing DAJ.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 13 2007,11:45   

Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 12 2007,23:07)
There was a selectionist here who pursued me here and at Pharyngula. The  selectionist claimed that I am Davison. The poor selectionist made his weird conclusion analyzing of dating my and John posts at Brainstorm.

No wonder that studying of dating of evolutionary processes the poor selectionist came to the conclusion that there must have been a common descent.

Wasn't he Steviepinhead?

That was how long ago? Almost a year? Let that = x.

x + y = z (age of the earth)

Plug in x and z and solve for y, VMartini. Or be a weenie.

I think the sun will go supernova before you answer.

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 13 2007,12:03   

Hey, Martin, now that you're back, are you ready to answer those two simple questions? I'm sure you are!

a) how old do you think the Earth is?
b) do you believe common descent between apes and humans is true?

No Davison quotes, please.

--------------
"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

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 13 2007,12:20   

I thought that the age of the Earth is 5,4 billion years. But somebody corrected me it is only 4,5 billion years.

Anyway if you have some kind of darwininian credo about the age of the Earth and about about Natural selection , let me know. I see it is very important for you to know how old exactly the Earth is.

Quote

HOW OLD IS THE BLEEPING, GOD#%&*@!, F(@#^$* EARTH,YOU RETARD?



The mental got seizure.
It is recommended  to avoid reading books like "Selfish gene" and "Extended phenotype". Hot tea, walk in counryside without darwinian friends. Avoid thinking to "Natural selection" seeing various colors of insects.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 13 2007,13:18   

Quote
I thought that the age of the Earth is 5,4 billion years. But somebody corrected me it is only 4,5 billion years.


Well, why didn't you just say so in the first place. I suspect people were badgering you because the major opponents to evolution are Young Earth creationists who claim the Earth is 6.000 years old (sometimes 10,000). This eliminates you from that group.

I just wonder if your objection to TOE is religious. I did hear that there has been a revival of "fundamentalist" Catholicism in the wake of the emergence of Eastern Europe from the dominance of the former USSR. Your abhorrence of communism seems to tally here.

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 13 2007,14:39   

Spectacular!

Let it be known throughout the world that VMartin thinks the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.

--------------
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

   
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 13 2007,15:16   

Vmareenie, you poor wiitle thing.

Have you been "pursued" by the bad old "selectionists" (which side of the Civil War were they on, anyway?)?

Gosh, and here I don't even recall getting up out of my chair (well, except for potty breaks).

To feel "pursued" by such as me, you must not be very swift.

Ah, but then, we knew that already.

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 13 2007,15:51   

Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 13 2007,11:20)
I thought that the age of the Earth is 5,4 billion years. But somebody corrected me it is only 4,5 billion years.

Anyway if you have some kind of darwininian credo about the age of the Earth and about about Natural selection , let me know. I see it is very important for you to know how old exactly the Earth is.
Quote

HOW OLD IS THE BLEEPING, GOD#%&*@!, F(@#^$* EARTH,YOU RETARD?

The mental got seizure.
It is recommended  to avoid reading books like "Selfish gene" and "Extended phenotype". Hot tea, walk in counryside without darwinian friends. Avoid thinking to "Natural selection" seeing various colors of insects.

Just wondering - how has cavorting with your Darwinian “friends” here and at LIMPSID or whatever it’s called, and playing Look-I-have-ID (pun!;) to Pharyngula’s keg party, and banging on my door as you did previously (only to tell me you would “run away at every chance” even though I ultimately had to kick you off my blog) not affected you at all? Hm? Do you sip tea with any nonDarwinian companions? I mean, do you have any friends? Or are you like those right-wing fundy “anti-porn” activists who watch a lot of porn “but it’s okay because we watch it in twos—NEVER ALONE!” Just wondering. ;)

Also—may I rework your surrealist remarks into song lyrics to be set to music? “The mental got seizure” is priceless! (Kind of like “Baby got back.”) :)

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 13 2007,16:04   

Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 13 2007,12:20)
I thought that the age of the Earth is 5,4 billion years. But somebody corrected me it is only 4,5 billion years.

Anyway if you have some kind of darwininian credo about the age of the Earth and about about Natural selection , let me know. I see it is very important for you to know how old exactly the Earth is.

 
Quote

HOW OLD IS THE BLEEPING, GOD#%&*@!, F(@#^$* EARTH,YOU RETARD?



The mental got seizure.
It is recommended  to avoid reading books like "Selfish gene" and "Extended phenotype". Hot tea, walk in counryside without darwinian friends. Avoid thinking to "Natural selection" seeing various colors of insects.

Splendid, Martin. Now we're getting somewhere. And it only took 2 months to get you to say that!

BUT: We're only halfway there. You ignored the other question.

*ahem*

Martin:

Do you believe that the idea of common descent between man and primates is true?

Not what Davison thinks, not some irrelevant insult about 'Darwininian phantasys', what YOU think.

Go.

--------------
"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

  
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 13 2007,16:41   

With the "Go" part of that, certainly all of us would agree...

Sort of along the same lines, what did ana ever do to get everybody to ban her, anyway?

Hint: maybe it was her vivid, neon coloration, which certainly could never have been selected...

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 13 2007,18:35   

Quote (k.e @ Sep. 12 2007,05:59)
How could the writers make the simple mistake that god did everything in the dark? Or was the dark a semiotic reference to before dawn and therefore the void was a claustrophobic nightmare, an existential dilemma.

Like being stuck in a waiting room with a horny member of a different sexual persuasion? (read that gay for all you straight folks and vice-versa pc and all y'know)

For ever?

--------------
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

   
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 13 2007,19:46   

Quote (BWE @ Sep. 14 2007,02:35)
Quote (k.e @ Sep. 12 2007,05:59)
How could the writers make the simple mistake that god did everything in the dark? Or was the dark a semiotic reference to before dawn and therefore the void was a claustrophobic nightmare, an existential dilemma.

Like being stuck in a waiting room with a horny member of a different sexual persuasion? (read that gay for all you straight folks and vice-versa pc and all y'know)

For ever?

Sounds more like hell, unless you dreamt it  :)

Do you have an uncontrollable desire to shave your legs?

Are you saying the male writers of Genesis were homo erotic?

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2007,14:52   

There was a time when we had a colourless common ancestor. But "natural selection" gave us different coloration. Those who had not such coloration didn't survive. "Struggle for life" you know. We are "aposematics". We are now perfectly adapted to our "niches".


1

2

3
4

5


Enjoy the power of "natural selection"!

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2007,15:14   

Are you saying you're a ladybird beetle, VMartin?  Or an albino?

--------------
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

   
Nerull



Posts: 317
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2007,15:24   

VMartin is very afraid of giving his own opinions on anything. The reason is JAD.

Much like VMartin is JADs only friend, JAD is VMartins only friend - but he's not completely braindead. He knows how JAD is. He knows that if he gives an opinion JAD doesn't like, he will throw him in with everyone else he hates. Then he will be all alone.

--------------
To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2007,16:20   

I just found a photo of Vmartin and JAD.  Anyone care to use the EF to determine which is which?



--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2007,17:12   

Marty, no one cares about your damn ladybugs. It's off topic anyway, and I thought you didn't like to get off topic.

Answer the question, Marty:

Do you believe that common descent between apes and humans is true?

Not some burbling from Davison, not some ESL snarl about 'Darwininian orthodoxy'. What YOU believe.

--------------
"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

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2007,17:45   

I didn't descent from no beetle!
:p

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2007,23:11   

Quote

Answer the question, Marty:

Do you believe that common descent between apes and humans is true?


I have answered many of your questions. It's your turn now. Some simple questions:


1) Are ladybirds aposematic?

2) What was the coloration of the ladybirds ancestor? Was it dull, cryptic or bright, aposematic?

If you think it is off topic here answer it at "coloration of fungi". Reading all nonsensses from "knowledgeable evolutionists" at this thread I am afraid nothing is off topic anymore.

 
Quote

Marty, no one cares about your damn ladybugs.


Yo are wrong as usually. Darwinists continue in research of poisonous qualities of ladybirds (1994):


The defensive mechanisms which protect ladybird beetles (Coccinellidae) against predators are reviewed. Besides behavioural mechanisms, such as thanatosis and reflex bleeding, chemical defence mechanisms are playing a prevalent role.


http://www.springerlink.com/content/q466422173wh8457/

But birds did not read the darwinian article and knew nothing of "chemical defence" of ladybirds. Birds still eat ladybirds like other beetles. They are not even scared by "reflex bleeding".

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2007,23:26   

No, seriously, Marty, no one here gives a fuck about your ladybugs. Quit changing the subject, you sillyass coward.

I will repeat:

Do you believe that common descent between apes and humans is true?

C'mon, Marty, you can do it! Davison won't punish you!

PS: It would also be nice to get your reply to this message.

--------------
"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

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2007,00:20   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 14 2007,23:26)
No, seriously, Marty, no one here gives a fuck about your ladybugs. Quit changing the subject, you sillyass coward.

I will repeat:

Do you believe that common descent between apes and humans is true?

C'mon, Marty, you can do it! Davison won't punish you!

PS: It would also be nice to get your reply to this message.

First you. No one cares of your f... apes you stupidos singleton.

1) Are ladybirds aposematic?

2) What was the coloration of the ladybirds ancestor? Was it dull, cryptic or bright, aposematic?


Mentioning  John Davison - he made a perfect fool of you at Brainstorm:

http://www.iscid.org/ubb....70;p=62

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2007,02:37   

Martin

Why not repost on the appropriate thread?

Others

Before engaging this topic with Martin, you may wish to review this EvC thread and judge whether it is worth the effort.

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2007,09:15   

Oh, I think we knew going in it wasn't really the best use of time.  But as I've said before, the situation is somewhat mitigated by getting crackpots on record as crackpots.  That turns out to be useful from time to time.

Really, VMartin, you don't even have to answer the very simple question that my 6 year old nephew could form an answer to.  You just have to tell me WHY YOU WON'T ANSWER IT.

That may be as entertaining as anything else you could possibly do.

Just so you feel good:

1.  I'm an actor, so I may not be the best authority on aposematism, but I'll go with yeah, they are.  Most ladybird beetles are very brightly colored.  I would guess that this is beneficial because a large percentage of the other really brightly colored things in the world are poisonous.

2.  I have no idea what the color of their ancestors was.  And really, your question makes no sense as "aposematic" is not a color scheme, nor does the term necessarily refer to color.

See how easy that was.  Now, this is VERY IMPORTANT.  Don't take this as an excuse to continue off-topic with beetles.  I answered your questions in my own words (as I often tell Creationists to do themselves) to show you the value of doing such.

So, PLEASE ANSWER YOUR OWN ON-TOPIC QUESTION:

Do you believe in the common ancestory of apes and humans?

(Try not to be a dodging dolt anymore--it puts you in rather unsavory company.)

--------------
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

   
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2007,09:23   

Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 15 2007,02:37)
Martin

Why not repost on the appropriate thread?

Others

Before engaging this topic with Martin, you may wish to review this EvC thread and judge whether it is worth the effort.

Alan, it is ridiculous. I quoted Heikertinger who disputed with E. Wasmann many years ago about supposedly mimicry coloration. The first was anti-selectionist, the second one selectionist. They were brilliant scientists and their dispute was followed by many European scientists. I quoted some Heikertinger opinions about the issue.

No one here have those knowledges of the mentioned men (including me).  It is utterly ridiculous to suppose that "knowledgeable evolutionists" here are able to follow the discussion or make judgment "it is worth the effort". You are funny, really.

You are also unable discuss anything about mimicry and  you only instruct me to go to another thread. Which thread?
With this stupid advice you make your useless and annoying entries at Brainstorm.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2007,10:14   

Martin, why are you afraid to answer that question about common descent?

--------------
"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

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2007,10:17   

It was my understanding that this thread concerned VMartin's notions of the age of the earth, and the reality of common descent. Posts vis coloration seem wildly off topic.

VMartin, given that you acknowledge an ancient earth (4.5 billion years), I was wondering if you accept common descent. More narrowly, do you believe that other extant great apes and human beings share a common ancestor?

I certainly do. What are your thoughts on this crucially important matter? Just asking.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2007,11:21   

Quote
You are also unable discuss anything about mimicry


Make a case for what you think is a better explanation for the observations and there may be something to discuss. So far, all we have had are variations on the theme of "This (insert appropriate example of mushrooms, slugs, ladybirds etc) is a problem for Darwinism.

You have to produce something  for discussion if you really want a discussion to take place.

(Hint: You could start with "this is a problem because (insert reason) and a better explanation is (insert hypothesis) because (cite evidence).)

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2007,14:25   

Alan Fox:

Quote

So far, all we have had are variations on the theme of "This (insert appropriate example of mushrooms, slugs, ladybirds etc) is a problem for Darwinism.


It's not my fault that above mentioned facts are problem for darwinism. Many scientists considered it same way. I quoted them.

But I can adress it elsewhere, you suggested me a thread about mimicry. Is there a thread on mimicry here at AtBC?

As to common ancestor of man and ape: I am surprised that people here are unable to address evolution of coloration of ladybirds, mushrooms etc... but they are obviously able to address such complicated problems as evolution of human speech, etc...

Why do you want to discuss the most compliacted phenomenon of the evolution (the evolution of man), when you cannot address simple evolutionary problems like coloration of insects or fungi? Unbelievable.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2007,14:32   

Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 15 2007,15:25)
As to common ancestor of man and ape: I am surprised that people here are unable to address evolution of coloration of ladybirds, mushrooms etc... but they are obviously able to address such complicated problems as evolution of human speech, etc...

Why do you want to discuss the most compliacted phenomenon of the evolution (the evolution of man), when you cannot address simple evolutionary problems like coloration of insects or fungi? Unbelievable.

Actually, we are asking you to address the question. And surely these are among the most central questions in this domain, which is why we ask.

Do you believe in common ancestry? And, more narrowly, do you believe that extant apes and human beings share a common ancestor?

Just askin' VMartin. Not that complicated, and surely you have a response independent of whether we are able to address the question convincingly.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2007,16:28   

Quote
As to common ancestor of man and ape: I am surprised that people here are unable to address evolution of coloration of ladybirds, mushrooms etc... but they are obviously able to address such complicated problems as evolution of human speech, etc...

Why do you want to discuss the most compliacted phenomenon of the evolution (the evolution of man), when you cannot address simple evolutionary problems like coloration of insects or fungi? Unbelievable.


Bravo, Martin. Two paragraphs of babbling and STILL no answer.

I will ask again:

do YOU believe that common ancestry between humans and primates is true?

No irrelevant snarls about 'Darwinists': do YOU believe it's true?

All we're asking for is ONE word:

a) Yes

or

b) No.

Real simple, V.

I'm noticing a problem you have, Marty: you seem to really hate Darwinism, but you have no alternate explanations.

--------------
"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: Sep. 15 2007,16:52   

VMartin said:

Quote
As to common ancestor of man and ape: I am surprised that people here are unable to address evolution of coloration of ladybirds, mushrooms etc... but they are obviously able to address such complicated problems as evolution of human speech, etc...


Uh, VMartin, as long as you are wildly, insanely, goofily off topic, could you at least argue coherently?

If you start a sentence with "As to common ancestor of man and ape..."

LISTEN CLOSELY HERE

the second part of your sentence should have something to do with the common ancestor of man and ape.

You, perhaps accidentally(?), finished your sentence with mushrooms.  Just saying....

Now, how about finishing the sentence with something that makes sense?  Or do we have to wait another two months for you to say anything coherent?

--------------
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

   
Patrick Caldon



Posts: 68
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2007,10:44   

Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 15 2007,00:20)
1) Are ladybirds aposematic?

2) What was the coloration of the ladybirds ancestor? Was it dull, cryptic or bright, aposematic?

Hi VM,

I vaguely remember pointing out to you the following:  there is a difference between the statements "I do not know the answer to X" and "X is false".

I recall you agreeing.

In any event, I have no fricking idea why ladybugs have different colors.  If you want to put 10-100 million dollars/euros/whatever towards a crack team of entymologists to work it all out, I'm sure someone can set up a big aviary and work out how to breed ladybugs, and sequence a hella-lotta ladybug genome and work out exactly, and come up with a reasonable answer for you, and provide employment for a few PI's and a great many grad students.

I'm reluctant to come up with the x million myself, because:

- I don't have it;
- if I did I know you'd immediately just ask why the yellow-bellied glider had a yellow belly, whereas the sugar glider doesn't; and
- there's many more useful charitable causes (even of a evolutionary nature) that the cash could be spent on, for instance in research into disease, or endangered species preservation, and indeed many grant bodies seem to share my biases.

So VM, given that you can't tell us whether man and ape has a common ancestor, can you at least answer this question (and save you, and me, and a bunch of charities several million dollars in the investigation of the Petaurus genus ...)

- Why do yellow bellied gliders have a yellow belly and sugar gliders do not?

Given that no-one has to my knowledge answered this question you would be providing a great contribution (on the level of a couple of Nature publications) if you could tell us the answer.

Or alternatively:

- Explain the coloration of ladybugs.  

Again, this is millions of dollars of salaries and taxpayer expenditure which you can apparently click you fingers at.

I also recall a discussion about swans, and vaguely recall saying something along the above lines (i.e. no-one seems to have got a big grant for bazillions to study swan coloration) ... why are black swans black and white swans white?

Why are zebra stripey and horses not stripey?

Given your theory is so powerful, perhaps you could answer one of these questions without having a team of grad students wear themselves out over answering it?

Or maybe you could tell us whether humans and apes have a common ancestor.  As it happens someone has bothered to study this question from a "Darwinian" perspective.  Teams of graduate students have fought (and probably died) to give you an answer from the "Darwinian" point of view, unlike gliders, ladybugs, zebras and swans, where funding is a bit trickier.

If you could therefore explain human-ape ancestry from a VMartin point-of-view, and explain how the millions spent on human-ape evolution (and not spent on ladybug, marsupial glider, zebra/horse, and swan) have been wasted, you would do us all a great service, as our society will then not go on to waste millions of dollars and years of researcher-time on ladybugs etc.

So how about it VM?  Now we've sequences a human and a chimp (unlike swans, ladybugs, zebra/horse and gliders - but if you want to fund this study I'm sure we can find you someone ...), what's your theory's view on human-ape ancestry?

It's not a hard question, and there's a lot of funding and research effort in this area (unlike just about every other species on the planet ... )  so an answer would be peachy.

How about it VM?  Do humans and apes have a common ancestor?  Why or why not?

  
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 555
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 17 2007,06:31   

Quote
Why do you want to discuss the most compliacted phenomenon of the evolution (the evolution of man), when you cannot address simple evolutionary problems like coloration of insects or fungi? Unbelievable.

What is your evidence that the evolution of man is "the most complicated phenomenon of the evolution"?  In what units do you measure the complicatedness of evolutionary phenomena?

And what is your theory, anyway?  Am I oversimplifying your/JAD's piddlings when I summarize them as "god made species evolve, then he/she/it died"?

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,15:24   

Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Sep. 17 2007,05:31)
 
Quote
Why do you want to discuss the most compliacted phenomenon of the evolution (the evolution of man), when you cannot address simple evolutionary problems like coloration of insects or fungi? Unbelievable.

What is your evidence that the evolution of man is "the most complicated phenomenon of the evolution"?  In what units do you measure the complicatedness of evolutionary phenomena?

And what is your theory, anyway?  Am I oversimplifying your/JAD's piddlings when I summarize them as "god made species evolve, then he/she/it died"?

My theory is, God faked His own death because He was being sued. Again! :D

Just like before! (You didn't know God was sued over ID, did you? Case is still pending. Too bad Judge Jones can't preside.)


--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,10:03   

Jesus doesn't except sin? Except it from what, I wonder?  :p

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,10:06   

Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 19 2007,10:03)
Jesus doesn't except sin? Except it from what, I wonder?  :p

Henry, don't be a moran.  ;)

--------------
"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

  
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,16:15   

Arden, have I got a maroon moraine for you!

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,16:16   

Quote (Steviepinhead @ Sep. 19 2007,16:15)
Arden, have I got a maroon moraine for you!

"E is for ecceptance -- the feeling I always got at Moe's."

--------------
"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

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,11:59   

Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Sep. 17 2007,06:31)
     
Quote
Why do you want to discuss the most compliacted phenomenon of the evolution (the evolution of man), when you cannot address simple evolutionary problems like coloration of insects or fungi? Unbelievable.

What is your evidence that the evolution of man is "the most complicated phenomenon of the evolution"?  In what units do you measure the complicatedness of evolutionary phenomena?

And what is your theory, anyway?  Am I oversimplifying your/JAD's piddlings when I summarize them as "god made species evolve, then he/she/it died"?

I wouldn't be surprised if the evolution of man would be very simple in your eyes. Natural selection is so powerful (you have only to believe in it, that's all.)

Anyway if you are unable coherently discuss the coloration of animals you are probably an expert on coloration of human races. It is much more easier for you I suppose.

So:

What was the coloration of a common ancestor of human races?

What is the advantage and meaning of yellow, reddish and black skin? Should we apply darwinian mantras and consider black skin to be "cryptic"? And people with reddish or yellow skin to "aposematics"? Hehe.

But I am pretty sure you have no answer to evolution of coloration of skin of human races. All of you here are lost to explain coloration of insects...  no wonder you are also lost as to coloration of human races.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,13:31   

Dark skin (lots of melanin) folks, prior to the last few several hundred years of exploration, colonialism, trade, and technology, lived in low latitudes with lots of sunlight, where protection from skin cancer would have been the primary selection pressure.

Lighter-skinned folk, prior to etc., lived in higher latitudes, with less incident insolation, where dark skin would not only not confer an advantage, but would tend to inhibit the formation of Vitamin D.

(I'm hoping you know what Vitamin D is, and why its absence might be a problem.)

Folks with medium tones (Mediterraneans, Asians, Native Americans) tended to live in intermediate latitudes.

The Inuit (and some people pursuing similar lifestyles in far north Asia) lived so far north that they were exposed to sunlight reflected off snow and ice for much of the year.  (You may never have spent a sunny, or even cloudy, day on a glacier absent eye and skin sun protection, given that you apparently live in some basement in Lower Trogdylvania.  If so, I wouldn't recommend the experiment: sunburned tongues, inner nostrils, roofs of mouths, and eyeballs isn't too healthy.  Eh, on the other hand, go ahead, give it a whirl, Mr. aposematics--it's no skin off my nose.) They were, again, somewhat darker-toned.

Are you beginning to see a fairly simple relationship between latitude, sun exposure, and degree of melanin in the skin, Vmaroon?

Eh, probably not.  Anyone else could've googled up a latitude/skin tone chart in about 30 seconds, before so blatantly exposing their ignorance.

And, humor-deafness.

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,13:59   

Excellent! Do you have any ideas about coloration of ladybirds too? For instance that black ones live in high latitudes to warm themselves? And red ones live in low latitudes near shores to protect themselves in sun-sets?

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,14:12   

Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 20 2007,13:59)
Excellent! Do you have any ideas about coloration of ladybirds too? For instance that black ones live in high latitudes to warm themselves? And red ones live in low latitudes near shores to protect themselves in sun-sets?

Martin, do you believe that common descent between humans and apes is true?

Don't be afraid, little guy. You can do it!

--------------
"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

  
Nerull



Posts: 317
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,15:12   

Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 20 2007,13:59)
Excellent! Do you have any ideas about coloration of ladybirds too? For instance that black ones live in high latitudes to warm themselves? And red ones live in low latitudes near shores to protect themselves in sun-sets?

Because, obviously, its not possible that different animals could have evolved coloration differently or for different reasons.

VMartin, were you always this thick? Did you need training? Does JAD help with that? Beating you with plank until you lose enough brain cells to suit him?

--------------
To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

   
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,21:11   

Vmushroom, I shouldn't really be interdicting Arden's efforts to get you to answer one simple question honestly and directly--though arguably the longer you take and the more you dance around, the more of a dishonest buffoon you look--but here's another real softball for you to swing at:

Why are some animals big and some animals small.

Pick some otherwise similar animals, just to make it easy on yourself (no admissions of common descent required): like puddy tats and lions (about 1:10) or river dolphins and killer whales or velociraptors and T-Rexes.

Just pick one and wade into it.  No neurons required.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,23:07   

Quote
Because, obviously, its not possible that different animals could have evolved coloration differently or for different reasons.


Right - it wouldn't be efficient for the chemical(s) that cause the color to also be doing other things at the same time.

Henry

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,15:19   

Ready to share your opinion of common descent between apes and humans, Martin? It won't be off topic, here.

EDIT:

Whoops, he's already buggered off:

Quote
25 guests, 15 Public Members and 1 Anonymous Members   [ View Complete List ]
>Arden Chatfield >factician >dheddle >Gunthernacus >Thought Provoker >Cyril Ponnamperuma's Foot >J. G. Cox >Albatrossity2 >MrsPeng >Erasmus, FCD >oldmanintheskydidntdoit >Reciprocating Bill >jeannot >keiths >Occam's Toothbrush


--------------
"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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,15:43   

steviepinhead

I kind of wonder about caddisflies (trichoptera)  Hydroptilids are 3-7 mm.  the limnephilid Hydatophylax argus is > 250 mm.

surely that is proof of design.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,23:58   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 25 2007,15:43)
steviepinhead

I kind of wonder about caddisflies (trichoptera)  Hydroptilids are 3-7 mm.  the limnephilid Hydatophylax argus is > 250 mm.

surely that is proof of design.

Trichoptera caddisfly? What a perfect mimicry! Or are they poisonous? Surely they were not designed.



And all of these guys survived "natural selection" because they are perfectly "adapted". Predators have no chance to eradicate them as species.



--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,09:51   

Quote

Trichoptera caddisfly? What a perfect mimicry! Or are they poisonous? Surely they were not designed.


So could you lay out your explanation of why caddisflies are colored the way they are, Martin?

And while you're at it, we're STILL waiting for your verdict on common descent between apes and humans.

C'mon, big fella! Don't be so afraid! Davison wants you to make a good impression here!

--------------
"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

  
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,16:58   

Nobody claims--and certainly no one with even a smattering of knowledge about biology and the ToE--that any organism is "perfectly" adapted.

Maroon.  Explain that coloration, Vmaroonie.  Start by looking in a mirror.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,17:06   

mimicry of what?

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,17:02   

Do you spend a lot of time standing in the vicinity of old Dodge Caravans, Vmaroonie?

And are you shy?

Otherwise, I'm having a hard time coming up with an evolutionary explanation of that maroon tint you bear...

Shall we mark that one down as an example of the PEH?  Or as a yet-unresolved mystery of the TeH?

What's your take, sweetie?

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2007,20:42   

Am I the only one who thinks that this ESL troll at Panda's Thumb is very likely our VMartin with too much time on his hands?:

Quote
Reffering to someone’s commment on this page about a crime happened in the past : evolution did not happen in the past - there is no evidence for it in the fossils record. I was brain washed with evolution in high school; had to memorize stages of the horse evolution and human embrion develpoment : so called recapitulation theory. The last discredited as fraud commited by German “scientist” Heckel. To my surprise in my daughter’s biology textbook they are still there after 30 years.Not much had changed in the “scientific” mind of the evolutionary society. Reading evolutionists’s works who use “science” of “maybe” or “perhaps” for support, one can not resist an impression that they are very similar to medieval monks’ disputations as to how many devils would fit on a tip of a pin.Problem I have is: evolutionism cost a taxpayer a lot of money that can be used in much better way. A.


or,

Quote
I believe all you guys have accepted new religion .What I see a problem as a taxpayer is that when you start to bend you data to accommodate your beliefs, damage can be done to people who are sick for instance: remember so called “vestigial organs”? There were many removed indiscriminately and unnecessary and vestigial organs turned out to be not so vestigial after all….


Quote
You bias is appaling, you mind is as opened as tiny little hole in camera obscura. Read the quotation of Lewontin i supplied above, again. Saying that ,he spat in your evolutionary face and you wiped it out and saying : it is raining. It is not that I refused to listen to you evolutionary argument ,it is because you can not provide any argument to support your religious zeal ,that is why you kept abusing me all the way. Why , you evolutionnists have to attack the Bible or creationists to support your claims ,anyway ?. Did I said I was a creationinst ? I asked some questions after doing some internet research being high school educated and taken my biology classes seriously.I can thank God that I did not allowed myself to be as completely brainwashed as you are. I had a discussion with another “pundits” of your denomination who had an internet site with a message “ The Bible can not be taken literally therefore I am an evolutionist”. I was abused in similar manner afer asking similar questions and finally he said he had to go back to school. I think he was a teacher.Poor high school kids. Finally it is not me who came here with a lie, it is you and your like zelots who have been pertpetrated the lie ever since. The problem is, soome people take evolution the lie seriously.I can name two after Heckael : Hitler and Stalin. You are smart enough to go on Google and find soom emore about the two.


I see only two hints that this ISN'T Marty: (1) I have a hard time seeing Marty having a daughter (heaven forfend), and (2) he never mentions Davison. Other than that, it sounds EXACTLY like him.

--------------
"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

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2007,20:47   

Quote (Nerull @ Sep. 20 2007,16:12)
VMartin, were you always this thick? Did you need training? Does JAD help with that? Beating you with plank until you lose enough brain cells to suit him?

reminds me of the great line from The Long Kiss Goodnight, which had a lot of great lines:

Charlie: Were you always this stupid, or did you take lessons?
Mitch Henessey: (Indignantly) I Took Lessons!

   
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2007,00:07   

Quote

I see only two hints that this ISN'T Marty: (1) I have a hard time seeing Marty having a daughter (heaven forfend), and (2) he never mentions Davison. Other than that, it sounds EXACTLY like him.


It's sounds like me, but it's not me. Something like similarity, mimicry, you know. Darwinian simpletons to deceive is so easy. Hu: natural selection, darwinism: it must be Martin! The same the last time I was banned here: an moron comparing time postings at ISCIS and here came to conclusion me to be John. Do you remember?



Btw. Im am glad that only darwinists are allowed by natural selection to gave children, especially daughters.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2007,08:29   

The important thing to know is whose children are getting gaved?  This is what people want!  Sure Darwinists gave children to those poor saps who only had 14 welfare tickets, but where did they come from?

--------------
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

   
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2007,15:30   

Erasmus about professor Zdenek Neubauer at the thread
"Evolution of the horse":

   
Quote

If it was worth a damn, in 2007, it would be translated.  This is not a monk growing peas here.


I don't know.  I suppose that it took more than 40 years
(1926 vs 1969) Leo Berg's Nomogenesis had been available in English. Oddly enough his theory influenced also linguistic.

"The impact of Czech and Russian biology on the linguistic thought of the Prague Linguistic Circle"


Jakobson constantly refers to Berg when he strives to fight the Neo-grammarian principle of strict causality, and puts forward his own anti-darwinism. For instance, in 1927, in his Remarks on the phonological evolution of Russian, he explicitely opposes Darwin's conception of evolution by divergence to Berg's conception of evolution by convergence of non related species on the same territory.
etc...

http://www2.unil.ch/slav/ling/recherche/biblio/99Impact.html

The work of the founder of orthogenesis Theodor Eimer has not been translated into English at all - as far as I know. The same for the work of the anti-selectionist Franz Heikertinger about mimicry - nothing has been translated into English. The same for Adolf Portmann etc...


So your opinion that all important works are available in English is not correct. (Even some very interesting novels and works from Fyodor Dostoevsky has not been translated into English yet.)

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2007,15:53   

Well, Vicky, you better get cracking on those translations.  You have a conspiracy to overthrow.

Interesting how you neglect my questions about your view of the source of heredity.  the german school had to fight particulate inheritance because it was the empirical finding that destroyed their theory.  in 40 years one may forget that sort of thing.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2007,16:29   

Marty, you're off topic for this thread.

The question: do you believe that common descent between humans and apes is true?

--------------
"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

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2007,16:38   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 31 2007,15:53)
Well, Vicky, you better get cracking on those translations.  You have a conspiracy to overthrow.

Interesting how you neglect my questions about your view of the source of heredity.  the german school had to fight particulate inheritance because it was the empirical finding that destroyed their theory.  in 40 years one may forget that sort of thing.

It's not conspiracy what John Davison (and I) are trying to overthrow. It's ignorance. Heredity is not the issue now. German school wasn't destroyed by "empirical facts". It wasn't destroyed at all (except in darwinian heads). Their arguments were simply "forgotten" and declared as "outdated" afterwards. But only darwinists pretend victory by neglecting all arguments, puzzles and ideas on evolution that "German school" collected and showed up. The period of anti-darwinian "German school" is very long - and it is only you who dismissed all their researches ad hoc.

I am afraid you are not aware that "German school" is not limited to Germany, because it influenced many Univesties across Europe. Because you dont't probably know anything about it, you dismiss it as a whole.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2007,16:41   

Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 31 2007,16:38)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 31 2007,15:53)
Well, Vicky, you better get cracking on those translations.  You have a conspiracy to overthrow.

Interesting how you neglect my questions about your view of the source of heredity.  the german school had to fight particulate inheritance because it was the empirical finding that destroyed their theory.  in 40 years one may forget that sort of thing.

It's not conspiracy what John Davison (and I) are trying to overthrow. It's ignorance. Heredity is not the issue now. German school wasn't destroyed by "empirical facts". It wasn't destroyed at all (except in darwinian heads). Their arguments were simply "forgotten" and declared as "outdated" afterwards. But only darwinists pretend victory by neglecting all arguments, puzzles and ideas on evolution that "German school" collected and showed up. The period of anti-darwinian "German school" is very long - and it is only you who dismissed all their researches ad hoc.

I am afraid you are not aware that "German school" is not limited to Germany, because it influenced many Univesties across Europe. Because you dont't probably know anything about it, you dismiss it as a whole.

Okay, Marty, complete this sentence:

"German school have prove that the Darwinismus is wrong. Instead, what is the true is _"

Fill in the blank.

--------------
"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

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2007,16:41   

Should this thread be called VMartin's mental illness?

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2007,16:42   

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Oct. 31 2007,16:41)
Should this thread be called VMartin's mental illness?

"VMartin's pathology" seems snappier.

--------------
"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

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2007,17:04   

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Oct. 31 2007,16:41)
Should this thread be called VMartin's mental illness?

If there is anyone ill here it is you and your "darwinian" friends who believe in "natural selection". I am trying to help you, open your sleepy ignorant eyes.

It's free of charge.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2007,17:10   

Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 31 2007,17:04)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Oct. 31 2007,16:41)
Should this thread be called VMartin's mental illness?

If there is anyone ill here it is you and your "darwinian" friends who believe in "natural selection". I am trying to help you, open your sleepy ignorant eyes.

It's free of charge.

No, what you're doing is advertising your mental illness.  That's why I seldom venture into your threads, it's sad to see people suffer, no matter how stupid they are.

Fuck off.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2007,17:12   

Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 31 2007,17:04)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Oct. 31 2007,16:41)
Should this thread be called VMartin's mental illness?

If there is anyone ill here it is you and your "darwinian" friends who believe in "natural selection". I am trying to help you, open your sleepy ignorant eyes.

It's free of charge.

Okay, help us right now: is common descent true?

--------------
"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

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2007,01:49   

Christopher

Quote

No, what you're doing is advertising your mental illness.  That's why I seldom venture into your threads, it's sad to see people suffer, no matter how stupid they are.

Fuck off.


So why are you responding? Any problems at your work?  
Have your boss reproved you not to annoy your collegaues with endless lectures about "natural selection" and "evolution in action"? So you are relaxing here (fuck off etc...), yes?

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2007,08:29   

Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 01 2007,01:49)
Christopher

 
Quote

No, what you're doing is advertising your mental illness.  That's why I seldom venture into your threads, it's sad to see people suffer, no matter how stupid they are.

Fuck off.


So why are you responding? Any problems at your work?  
Have your boss reproved you not to annoy your collegaues with endless lectures about "natural selection" and "evolution in action"? So you are relaxing here (fuck off etc...), yes?

Martin, since you think you're here to 'help us', start now: do you believe common descent between apes and humans is correct?

I think that's about all you could possibly contribute, since you've admitted you have nothing positive to offer biology, and have no idea what the cause of variation in nature is.

--------------
"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

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2007,15:33   

Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 01 2007,01:49)
Christopher

 
Quote

No, what you're doing is advertising your mental illness.  That's why I seldom venture into your threads, it's sad to see people suffer, no matter how stupid they are.

Fuck off.


So why are you responding? Any problems at your work?  
Have your boss reproved you not to annoy your collegaues with endless lectures about "natural selection" and "evolution in action"? So you are relaxing here (fuck off etc...), yes?

Vtard, pay close attention.  You can try and evangelize me and "my" Darwin buddies all you want, but keep in mind I don't lay awake at night thinking one minute about Darwin, biology, science or evolution.  These are interesting subjects for a discussion with educated minds over coffee from time to time, but not something I give two seconds thought about in an ordinary day.  

I just love seeing people like you exposed as the lying fools that you are.  Period.

I love seeing fundy religious nut cases (such as yourself) lose.  That's all.  

Yeah maybe it's not nice, oh well.  I just have a thing for watching lying, x-tian bastards get theirs whether in federal court or the public eye, I love a good public humiliation of fundy retards who want to shove their IDiotic notions down everyone else's throats while attempting to pollute our children's minds with their evil religion.  

Period :-)

So carry on your evangelizing while I make some more popcorn.  You're a one man tard fest and for that I say thank you!

Chris!

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2007,12:43   

I've shifted meta-discussion to the Bathroom Wall thread.

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

    
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2007,00:50   

Erasmus arguments why aposematic insects haven't peopled the Earth detering all their predators with their "protective" coloration and "poisonous" qualities:

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....;st=240

 
Quote

...lions aren't protected by noxious chemicals and have no predators.  why don't they people the whole earth?  blue whales?  brown tree snakes?  grizzly bears?  bahhh.




Maybe lions are too lazy to support neodarwinian idea of proliferation of the strogest. They almost oversleep all day doing nothing. They are not so vivid as rats and mice that are far better example of "struggle for life".

Medieval kings put the lion on their coat of arms. They considered him to be the  king of animals. It's a pity nobody could instruct them at those dark times about population genetic. Neodarwinian would have had a rat on his coat of arms. Rats are best adapted to various niches and win "struggle for life" everywhere. Lion couldn't survive a day in the sewage conduit.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2007,02:07   

You're babbling, Marty. AND off-topic.

If you go back to the first message on this thread, the questions are:

1) do you believe common descent is correct?
2) how old is the earth?

You answered the second. Since being 'on-topic' is so important for you, answer the first now:

do you believe common descent between apes and humans is true?

Bet you're still afraid to answer.

--------------
"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

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 30 2007,05:08   

The thread about aposematism has been closed. Anyway according to my "cosmology" coloration of animals presents only some kind of species self-representation. Especially so called "warning coloration" of insects do not give them often any survival advantage. I am discussing the problem of wasps coloration at EvC forum, so if you would like to know more about  my arguments go there. (I dare say there is really discussion at EvC, no one uses denigration there instead arguments (idiot, Croatian old teacher,  etc...) except one person, who's access has been suspended because of it.)  

Of course I am ready to discuss any insect aposematism here ( also butterflies etc...). But because the topic and my person seems to be not wellcome here I would not start it again. Unless somebody ask me and admin would allow it.

Thank you.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 30 2007,09:52   

Marty, why don't you just lay out your theory instead?  It shouldn't be that hard, right?  You've got one, right? That would make Lou and everyone else happy, no?

Your 'discussions' are nothing more than hand-waving and question begging.

I for one would love a thread where we could actually talk about your ideas instead of how wrong you (in simple ignorant error) believe the ideas of others to be.  

But I think the reason why we don't is that you don't have any ideas.  None, except some magical cosmic notion of progress and just enough sense to fall on your own sword.  It is entertaining to watch you fake the English-as-a-second-language gambit then drop the ball and you use some american slang.  love it.  mean it.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 30 2007,14:03   

Reading the book "Evolutionary biology" by Jaroslav Flegr Charles Uni Prague, Department of Parasitology,  I hit on the name and quotation of some thoughts of professor John Davison.  Flegr has written that precursors of sexual cells migrate into gonads from different places. It means that sexual cells in different groups of Vertebrata are non-homologous (page 240).

John Davison's Manifesto and his ""Evolution as self limiting process" are listed in the Literature of this 500 hundered pages book published by Academy of Science of Czech republic.

http://www.natur.cuni.cz/~flegr/book_evbiol.php

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
Richard Simons



Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 30 2007,22:59   

VMartin - I thought you were going to tell us your theory.

--------------
All sweeping statements are wrong.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 30 2007,23:28   

Quote (Richard Simons @ Nov. 30 2007,22:59)
VMartin - I thought you were going to tell us your theory.

I absolutely guarantee you that will not happen.

--------------
"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

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2007,11:11   

LOU at the thread "Evolution of the horse"

Quote

Until then, talking to you will sadly remain much like talking to that computer - circles and circles without end or hope of substance but minus the fun.


I suppose it is only neodarwinian theories which we are discussing here.

But I think there is a created world which has it's own rules. Those rules inevitable directed evolution towards man. It is old concept of great men of the Rennaissance (like Giordano Bruno) who used for it the expression anima mundi . The same notion is vivid in Orthodox Russian and Greek church under the name Sophia .
These theories cannot be proved/disproved with limited  
scope of the science.

The theory discussed here is neodarwinism. We can use limited knowledes of science to discuss it if it is true or not. So keep the topic please:  is neodarwinism valid explanation of the secret of evolution?

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2007,11:15   

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 14 2007,11:11)
LOU at the thread "Evolution of the horse"

Quote

Until then, talking to you will sadly remain much like talking to that computer - circles and circles without end or hope of substance but minus the fun.


I suppose it is only neodarwinian theories which we are discussing here.

But I think there is a created world which has it's own rules. Those rules inevitable directed evolution towards man. It is old concept of great men of the Rennaissance (like Giordano Bruno) who used for it the expression anima mundi . The same notion is vivid in Orthodox Russian and Greek church under the name Sophia .
These theories cannot be proved/disproved with limited  
scope of the science.

The theory discussed here is neodarwinism. We can use limited knowledes of science to discuss it if it is true or not. So keep the topic please:  is neodarwinism valid explanation of the secret of evolution?

Keep to the topic?

Go back to page 1, Marty. Here is the 'topic'. You never answered question one. Care to try now?

--------------
"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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2007,11:18   

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 14 2007,11:11)
Those rules inevitable directed evolution towards man.

What rules?
Who made them?
How are they directing evolution?
Why are they directing evolution towards "man".

How can you say that evolution is over when real scientists are saying the opposite?
http://www.newscientist.com/article....te.html
   
Quote
Human evolution is speeding up. Around 40,000 years ago our genes began to evolve much faster. By 5000 years ago they were evolving 30 to 40 times faster than ever before and it seems highly likely that we continue to evolve at this super speed today.

Our population explosion and rapidly changing lifestyles seem to be the drivers of this acceleration, the discovery of which contradicts the widely held notion that our technological and medical advances have removed most of the selection pressures acting upon us.

This stunning insight into humanity's development comes from a wide-ranging study of human gene variants gathered by the international HapMap project. Investigators led by John Hawks of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, studied 3.9 million simple differences in DNA called single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs, pronounced "snips") from 270 individuals, including people of Han Chinese, Japanese, Yoruban and northern European extraction.

More here
The data was from a wide-ranging study of human gene variants. The data is there. It's not agreeing with you.

Game over VMartin.

--------------
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

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2007,11:36   

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 14 2007,12:11)
I suppose it is only neodarwinian theories which we are discussing here.


No, Marty.  We'd like to discuss your theory.  Which part of that is too difficult for you to understand?  You are not only permitted, but you are encouraged to discuss your theory.  Can you not read the thread title?

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 14 2007,12:11)
But I think there is a created world which has it's own rules.


Ok, very good.  We've got a start here, because you are freaking finally saying something more than "Darwin Sucks -Dohn A. Javison".

Now, you've asserted that the created world in your theory has some rules.  Could you please enumerate them, elaborate on the ones that might be unclear, and provide some evidence that these rules exist?  Then we can move on to more complicated things.


Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 14 2007,12:11)
Those rules inevitable directed evolution towards man.


No, no, no.  You've skipped a few steps.  Go back to my previous comment.  Please tell us what rules you believe exist, and provide some evidence of that.


Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 14 2007,12:11)
It is old concept of great men of the Rennaissance (like Giordano Bruno) who used for it the expression anima mundi . The same notion is vivid in Orthodox Russian and Greek church under the name Sophia .
These theories cannot be proved/disproved with limited  
scope of the science.


I'm sure you'll be happy to elucidate the relevance of these statements.  After all, Rennaissance [sic] men also held to the concept of predicting the future by smoking weed and drinking a bowl of cow piss (or whatever).  That also has little to do with how man came to be (biologically speaking).

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 14 2007,12:11)
The theory discussed here is neodarwinism. We can use limited knowledes of science to discuss it if it is true or not. So keep the topic please:  is neodarwinism valid explanation of the secret of evolution?


No, no, no.  Again, read the title of this thread.  This thread is about "VMartin's Cosmology".  So keep to the topic please.

Stop evading and give us some specifics of your kick-ass scientific theory that will overthrow the very foundations of modern biology.

Edited by Lou FCD on Dec. 14 2007,12:40

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2007,11:37   

theyoungmanphilosophe

 
Quote

What rules?
Who made them?
How are they directing evolution?
Why are they directing evolution towards "man".


And towards the Highest. Spiritual forces. Beyond scope of the science. Would you like to use science to explain
supernatural?

The evolution is over. We have discussed it already. No new mammalian Order last 30 millions years (except Pinnipedia). Diversification of mammals is decreasing. See research of fossils in John Day fossil Beds done also by neodarwian scientist Gingerich.


The period of 39 to 20 million years ago (John Day Formation) seems to harbor the greatest diversity in
known fossils of families and genera. Current diversity
of families and genera of the basin assessment
area does not match that of this time period,
and would even be far less if only current-day
mid- and large-bodied mammals (to match those
taxa more likely to persist and be discovered in
the fossil record) of sagebrush-steppe communities
were considered.


http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/gtr_410/pg069-79.pdf

It agrees with John Davison's quotation of Robert Broom who also claimed that mammalin evolution is over.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2007,11:52   

LOU

Quote

After all, Rennaissance [sic] men also held to the concept of predicting the future by smoking weed and drinking a bowl of cow piss (or whatever).  That also has little to do with how man came to be.


Do you mean Copernikus, Kepler and Bruno? That's a brand new theory. You should introduce it refuting Frances Yates conception of theories of those men. She as a prominent historian studied philosophy of those men all her life.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2007,11:56   

I think it's time to euthanize this thread.

--------------
"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

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2007,12:07   

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 14 2007,12:52)
LOU

 
Quote

After all, Rennaissance [sic] men also held to the concept of predicting the future by smoking weed and drinking a bowl of cow piss (or whatever).  That also has little to do with how man came to be.


Do you mean Copernikus, Kepler and Bruno? That's a brand new theory. You should introduce it refuting Frances Yates conception of theories of those men. She as a prominent historian studied philosophy of those men all her life.

It was more of a general statement, V.  The point was that the idea that a given concept is valid just because Rennaissance [sic] men believed it is a rather silly invocation of an appeal to authority.

Now, back to your theory...

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2007,13:56   

Quote

It was more of a general statement, V.  The point was that the idea that a given concept is valid just because Rennaissance [sic] men believed it is a rather silly invocation of an appeal to authority.

Now, back to your theory...



Why don't you splash this thread away? You are the master. Go ahead darling.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2007,14:06   

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 14 2007,13:56)
Quote

It was more of a general statement, V.  The point was that the idea that a given concept is valid just because Rennaissance [sic] men believed it is a rather silly invocation of an appeal to authority.

Now, back to your theory...



Why don't you splash this thread away? You are the master. Go ahead darling.

Uf, we'd much rather hear your alternative to the Darwinismus. I hope your interest in telling us will arouse.

--------------
"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

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2007,14:12   

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 14 2007,14:56)
Why don't you splash this thread away? You are the master. Go ahead darling.

The theory, V.  Get to the theory.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2007,14:31   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 14 2007,14:12)
Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 14 2007,14:56)
Why don't you splash this thread away? You are the master. Go ahead darling.

The theory, V.  Get to the theory.

6 pages and he is still unable to answer those two questions.  I think they are probably too sciency even for him.

Maybe you could give Martin something easier to answer, like count your nose or maybe what primary colors make the color green?  Or how many IDiots does it take to come up with a testable theory.

I'm just trying to be helpful and again, 6 pages and he's still incapable of answering two simple questions suggests the questions are over his head.  No sense in calling a dope a dope over and over.  

So in all fairness, give him some questions his intellect can withstand.  Start with "count your nose" and see if he can get that one right.  And don't ANYONE help him.  That defeats the purpose.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2007,14:32   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 14 2007,14:12)
Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 14 2007,14:56)
Why don't you splash this thread away? You are the master. Go ahead darling.

The theory, V.  Get to the theory.

And then you will splash it away. You are the Lord of atheistic keys here.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2007,14:37   

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 14 2007,14:32)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 14 2007,14:12)
 
Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 14 2007,14:56)
Why don't you splash this thread away? You are the master. Go ahead darling.

The theory, V.  Get to the theory.

And then you will splash it away. You are the Lord of atheistic keys here.

What religion are you, Marty?

Are you one of those religions that says that common descent is false?

C'mon Marty. The alternative to the atheist Darwinismus please be giving to us now.

--------------
"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

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2007,14:42   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 14 2007,15:12)
The theory, V.  Get to the theory.


--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2007,16:09   

The thread about aposematism has been closed by  new administrator LOU who likes only topic backing up neodarwinian points of view (contrary to the administration rules of more liberal Elsberry).

The problem of bright coloration of catterpilars was a puzzle for Darwin (obviously not for LOU). As far as I know Darwin insisted on natural selection even if in this case it doesn't work. He said somethig like " I will believe in Natural selection even if in this case (bright coloration of caterpillars) it is not valid explanation of the phenomena". (According antidarwinian evolutionist Heikertiner.)
I cannot find out his letters about the topic which Darwin discussed with Wallace and Bates. Why is this one  unavailable - and especially the one with his credo about natural selection as the source of bright coloration of caterpillars?

http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwinletters/calendar/entry-5415.html

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2007,16:21   

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 14 2007,16:09)
The thread about aposematism has been closed by  new administrator LOU who likes only topic backing up neodarwinian points of view (contrary to the administration rules of more liberal Elsberry).

The problem of bright coloration of catterpilars was a puzzle for Darwin (obviously not for LOU). As far as I know Darwin insisted on natural selection even if in this case it doesn't work. He said somethig like " I will believe in Natural selection even if in this case (bright coloration of caterpillars) it is not valid explanation of the phenomena". (According antidarwinian evolutionist Heikertiner.)
I cannot find out his letters about the topic which Darwin discussed with Wallace and Bates. Why is this one  unavailable - and especially the one with his credo about natural selection as the source of bright coloration of caterpillars?

http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwinletters/calendar/entry-5415.html

See page one, Marty. That's not what this thread is for.

You really are obsessed with caterpillars. You need to get out more.

--------------
"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

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2007,16:21   

is vmartin herezeroisreal's sock puppet? neither seems capable of answering a simple question and neither is able to make any sense.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2007,16:24   

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 14 2007,17:09)
The thread about aposematism has been closed by  new administrator LOU who likes only topic backing up neodarwinian points of view (contrary to the administration rules of more liberal Elsberry).

The problem of bright coloration of catterpilars was a puzzle for Darwin (obviously not for LOU). As far as I know Darwin insisted on natural selection even if in this case it doesn't work. He said somethig like " I will believe in Natural selection even if in this case (bright coloration of caterpillars) it is not valid explanation of the phenomena". (According antidarwinian evolutionist Heikertiner.)
I cannot find out his letters about the topic which Darwin discussed with Wallace and Bates. Why is this one  unavailable - and especially the one with his credo about natural selection as the source of bright coloration of caterpillars?

http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwinletters/calendar/entry-5415.html

So we're back to "Darwin Sucks"?

V, I've practically been BEGGING you to advance a hypothesis, ANY hypothesis, and support it to replace modern evolutionary theory.

You have repeatedly and exclusively declined in favor of "Darwin Sucks".

To accuse me of censoring your theory when you refuse to advance one is disingenuous and rather infantile.

Please take this opportunity to advance your replacement hypothesis and attempt to support it.  If you can do that, you may very well have the paradigm shifting theory that the Intelligent Design movement has been craving since its stillbirth from creationism.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2007,16:35   

The point is not my hypothesis. It cannot be proved or disproved. I have already written down about it.

The point is that neodarwinian view is wrong on my opinion. That's my "cosmology". I have introduced many arguments why it is wrong. I would like to discuss it. If my arguments are wrong I would like to know why.

Thank you.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2007,16:38   

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 14 2007,16:35)
The point is not my hypothesis. It cannot be proved or disproved. I have already written down about it.

The point is that neodarwinian view is wrong on my opinion. That's my "cosmology". I have introduced many arguments why it is wrong. I would like to discuss it. If my arguments are wrong I would like to know why.

Thank you.

Your 'cosmology' is that something other people think is wrong?

Wow, that's pathetic.

So, if the Darwinismus is wrong, what's the real cause of variation in nature? Could you splash us an answer?

Uh, you DO believe that there is variation in nature, right?

--------------
"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

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2007,16:41   

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 14 2007,17:35)
The point is not my hypothesis. It cannot be proved or disproved. I have already written down about it.

The point is that neodarwinian view is wrong on my opinion. That's my "cosmology". I have introduced many arguments why it is wrong. I would like to discuss it. If my arguments are wrong I would like to know why.

Thank you.

Fair enough.  So your "Cosmology" consists of "modern evolutionary theory is wrong and science should just stop"?

Is that correct?  If the correct or accurate evaluation of the universe around us cannot be proven or disproven, then what would be the point of science?

To extend this thought, why do you consider it important to fight against science, if it's fruitless and pointless anyway?

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2007,17:08   

Quote
vmartin/here0isreal said
The point is not my hypothesis. It cannot be proved or disproved.


But it can be laughed at and quite frankly that's all you're good for.

Dude, what kind of a turd hangs out at a science blog and says shit like "darwin is wrong" all day long when darwin is proven right in science labs accross this country every stinking day.

Have you no life?  Is posting here some kind of weird S&M thing for you?

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2007,17:15   

Try and imagine little Marty teaching a 10-week biology class back in Slovakia.

Week one: Why the Darwinismus is wrong.
Week two: Why the Darwinismus is wrong.
Week three: Why the Darwinismus is wrong.
Week four: Why the Darwinismus is wrong.
Week five: Why the Darwinismus is wrong.
Week six: Why the Darwinismus is wrong.

Around week 6 the students notice that all the readings are at least 70 years old, start to get restless, and say "Okay, we understand, the Darwinismus is wrong. But, uh, what's RIGHT? What IS the explanation for the stuff the Darwinismus tries to explain?"

Marty answers: "The point is not my hypothesis. It cannot be proved or disproved. I have already written down about it."

The students get real confused at this. "What's the point here, Mister Martin?"

Marty answers: "The point is that neodarwinian view is wrong on my opinion. That's my cosmology. I have introduced many arguments why it is wrong. I would like to discuss it. If my arguments are wrong I would like to know why."

Most of the remaining students drop the class in week 7.

--------------
"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

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2007,17:25   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 14 2007,17:15)
Try and imagine little Marty teaching a 10-week biology class back in Slovakia.

Week one: Why the Darwinismus is wrong.
Week two: Why the Darwinismus is wrong.
Week three: Why the Darwinismus is wrong.
Week four: Why the Darwinismus is wrong.
Week five: Why the Darwinismus is wrong.
Week six: Why the Darwinismus is wrong.

Around week 6 the students notice that all the readings are at least 70 years old, start to get restless, and say "Okay, we understand, the Darwinismus is wrong. But, uh, what's RIGHT? What IS the explanation for the stuff the Darwinismus tries to explain?"

Marty answers: "The point is not my hypothesis. It cannot be proved or disproved. I have already written down about it."

The students get real confused at this. "What's the point here, Mister Martin?"

Marty answers: "The point is that neodarwinian view is wrong on my opinion. That's my cosmology. I have introduced many arguments why it is wrong. I would like to discuss it. If my arguments are wrong I would like to know why."

Most of the remaining students drop the class in week 7.

I thought Week 7 was the class where he'd have a guest lecturer,  JAD who would speak on "Why the Darwinismus is wrong."

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2007,19:46   

Week 7 he cancels the class and starts an entirely new one.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2007,02:51   

Mr Christopher

 
Quote

But it can be laughed at and quite frankly that's all you're good for.


Reading your sad posts is not so enjoying experience.

 
Quote

Dude, what kind of a turd hangs out at a science blog and says shit like "darwin is wrong" all day long when darwin is proven right in science labs accross this country every stinking day.


Darwinism and science are two separate things Dude.
They have nothing common Dude.

 
Quote

Have you no life?  Is posting here some kind of weird S&M thing for you?


Did you notice you had sent much more posts than me? You know math, science.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
Steverino



Posts: 411
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2007,09:21   

"dude"

You are typical of Creationist/IDiots.  You point to something, a gap, and then back it up with dubious articles and viewpoints from the fringe.  Most of which has been debunked.....and then you cling to it.

What you and your side lack is it's own theory.  It's own evidence that can stand all by itself without clinging to perceived gaps.

You have nothing to offer.  Nothing.

If there was ANYTHING behind your position, then why aren't scientists jumping in doing research.  After all, we all want to be famous, make a name for ourselves....go down in history for our accomplishments.

Why???...because it's all BULlSHIT.

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2007,11:46   

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 15 2007,02:51)
Darwinism and science are two separate things

Funny coming from a person who won't even tell us what he thinks valid science IS, uff hehe.

--------------
"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

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2007,19:44   

Quote
A tard moaned,
Darwinism and science are two separate things Dude.
They have nothing common Dude.


Remove evolution ("darwinism" for you) from biology and what have you got left, tard?  Do tell.


Well....



We're waiting...




--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 26 2007,14:08   

Erasmus at Evolution of the horse:

 
Quote

It may be that supernatural intervention is required for, say, my little boy to grow teeth or his balls to drop.  


And what explanation do you have for the last? I will bet you have nothing. Doctor Myers summarized all explanation of evolution of it in one of his articles. The most curious - and most popular - is that sperm need lower temperature. But maybe sperms only adapted to lower temperature in testicles and darwinians misjudged cause and effect as usually.

The phenomenon of descent of testiclesis is characteristic for males of higher mammalian orders and there is no darwinian explanation of it (and never will be I dare say).

All temperature cause babbling is nonsense considering fact that no such cooling device developed in birds, which have temperature 42 Celsius.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 26 2007,15:31   

What?

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Assassinator



Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 26 2007,16:36   

Meeh he just says darwinismus can't explain balls, well here Marty. Too bad you have to purchase the full article, but it's a start.

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 26 2007,23:40   

Quote (Assassinator @ Dec. 26 2007,16:36)
Meeh he just says darwinismus can't explain balls, well here Marty. Too bad you have to purchase the full article, but it's a start.

I don't have to purchase it. It is full of darwinian nonsenses as well as doctor Myers' article is.


In the light of these findings we discuss some current hypotheses regarding the origin and evolution of the scrotum. We find that these are all incomplete in so far as it is not the presence of the scrotum in various mammal groups that requires explaining.


They don't know how to explain it more than 100 years. They use newspeak "incomplete" instead.


We suggest that the scrotum may have evolved before the origin of mammals, in concert with the evolution of endothermy in the mammalian lineage, and that the scrotum has been lost in many groups because descensus in many respects is a costly process that will be lost in mammal lineages as soon as an alternative solution to the problem of the temperature sensitivity of spermatogenesis is available.


This temperature sensitivity is obviously a bullshit considering birds having temperature 42 Celsius and having no such "cooling" problems..

(Btw. I've noticed you are unable to discuss here any issue on your own. You just send a link like Erasmus about ant mimicry. You don't underestand what you are sending. The poor Mr_Christoper doesn't even have the slightest idea that descent of testicles exists.)

All darwinian nonsenses about descending of testicles are summarised here at Pharyngula (also your article and for free):

http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/descent_of_the_testicle/

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
Hawk



Posts: 3
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2007,02:16   

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 26 2007,23:40)
This temperature sensitivity is obviously a bullshit considering birds having temperature 42 Celsius and having no such "cooling" problems..

i must point out the obvious even though i am a new user and say that birds are completely different from humans
i must also say that science has it's flaws, some scientists are biased and will claim things and change work answers, science has not discovered everything and probably never will but there is quite a bit of proof against creationism, although science may not know everything, like, for example how the testicles developed and evolved, but have faith (i must point out, to protect myself from later attack that this is not the christian type of faith) that one day it will find out

Religion thrives on gaps
when science cannot explain something, theists are eager to say therefore it must have been god
i believe that the god theory is simply a device used by people who cannot explain something and therefore believe it to have been done by some supernatural force

--------------
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case.
Charles Darwin
Vox populi, vox Dei

  
Assassinator



Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2007,05:40   

Quote
I don't have to purchase it. It is full of darwinian nonsenses as well as doctor Myers' article is.

You know how we call that Martin? We call that biased.
As Hawk says, birds are far different from mammals. Where did you get schooled in biology again Martin?

PS: Hawk, a PS2 is outdated, we all demand a PS3 now :p

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2007,10:02   

Assasinator, you are such an amusing darwinian troll. The article states:

       
Quote

A plausible, though at present untestable, scenario is that in the course of the evolution of mammalian endothermy, core body temperatures eventually reached levels at which spermatogenesis was disrupted.


You see there word "untestable", don't you? It's a pure neodarwinian story , nothing else. Btw. regarding  birds. Do you really mean that if their "spermatogenesis" had been disrupted they would have evolved also external testicles or what? Eagles with aeorodynamical balls or what? Otherwise they would die out.

I suppose that mammals and birds have common ancestors where endodermy should have led to descent of testicles (at least according the article you have sent but didn't bothered to read it's abstract). I didn't know that for birds there has been different evolution of spermatogenesis as for mammals and no descent of testicles were needed even at 42 grad Celsius. Maybe mammals should have asked birds how to solve the curious problem without external testicles.

I would say that adaptation of sperms to higher temperature would be a right solution (as is the case of birds having much more higher temperature than mammals). But of course to believe current explaination of descent of testicles you have to be a darwinist.

Did you know that retina must be also cooled in order to work properly? Yet I have never heard about external eyes or "descent of retina" from the eye sockets.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
Assassinator



Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2007,10:06   

I never claimed it was a fact, I just responded to you saying "darwinismus" can't come up with an explanation: you were wrong, they're working on it.
Quote
(at least according the article you have sent but didn't bothered to read)

How the hell can you say that when you haven't read it? Do you know how we call that? It's called biased.
Quote
Did you know that retina must be also cooled in order to work properly? Yet I have never heard about external eyes or "descent of retina" from the eye sockets.

Here some information about the evolution of retinal structures http://www.pigeon.psy.tufts.edu/avc/husband/avc4eye.htm
Not that I think you will read any of of, nor understand any of it.

And the question is still open, where did you study biology? Or are you studying it at the minute?

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2007,10:23   

Quote

I never claimed it was a fact, I just responded to you saying "darwinismus" can't come up with an explanation: you were wrong, they're working on it.


Yeaah, they are working on it more than 100 years with the same result - it is "probably" due to cooling of sperms. They will go on working in such "untestable" ideas till the end of the world. But they are wrong, because descending of testicles has meaning beyond any neodarwinian paradigma. They never cannot solve it using neodarwinian way of thinking.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
Steverino



Posts: 411
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2007,12:32   

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 27 2007,10:23)
Quote

I never claimed it was a fact, I just responded to you saying "darwinismus" can't come up with an explanation: you were wrong, they're working on it.


Yeaah, they are working on it more than 100 years with the same result - it is "probably" due to cooling of sperms. They will go on working in such "untestable" ideas till the end of the world. But they are wrong, because descending of testicles has meaning beyond any neodarwinian paradigma. They never cannot solve it using neodarwinian way of thinking.

And what is your theory, backed by the tested, repeatable evidence?

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

   
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2007,14:08   

Quote
But they are wrong, because descending of testicles has meaning beyond any neodarwinian paradigma.


Well, you've got my attention, now. Please do tell, Martin. The meaning of descending testicles is...

  
Steverino



Posts: 411
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2007,14:22   

Alan,

Off topic...you need to optimize your catnap image...its downloading almost 500k

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

   
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2007,14:36   

Quote (Alan Fox @ Dec. 27 2007,14:08)
   
Quote
But they are wrong, because descending of testicles has meaning beyond any neodarwinian paradigma.


Well, you've got my attention, now. Please do tell, Martin. The meaning of descending testicles is...

You know, some outdated theory no one cares anymore. Something like German mysticism. Polarity of mammalian bodies, two centres. Head and reproduction organs on the opposite side of the body. Centre of individuality and centre of species proliferation as opposing principles which are now displayed. Maybe not worth of mentioning for you.

But this time darwinists have not better stance with the cooling sperms bullshits.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
Assassinator



Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2007,15:20   

I'll ask again Martin: where did you have your biology education? Where did you get educated in the evolutional theory and Darwinism? Where did you get science training?

  
Annyday



Posts: 583
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2007,15:24   

Until you put forth and defend an actual idea in at least minimal detail, nobody is going to take anything you say seriously, VMartin. Every position you take seems engineered so you don't have to actually make any claims. It makes responding to anything you say a lost cause.

For instance, many evolutionary mechanisms about both testicles and sex organs in general are fairly well demonstrated. If someone were actually trying to present a case for anything about testicles they might explain known cases in detail as a jumping-off point. It's simply not worth doing with you.

However, if you want to keep people from seriously sitting down to explain anything to you, you've done a good job! Congratulations.

--------------
"ALL eight of the "nature" miracles of Jesus could have been accomplished via the electroweak quantum tunneling mechanism. For example, walking on water could be accomplished by directing a neutrino beam created just below Jesus' feet downward." - Frank Tipler, ISCID fellow

  
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2007,23:03   

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 27 2007,14:36)
 
Quote (Alan Fox @ Dec. 27 2007,14:08)
       
Quote
But they are wrong, because descending of testicles has meaning beyond any neodarwinian paradigma.


Well, you've got my attention, now. Please do tell, Martin. The meaning of descending testicles is...

You know, some outdated theory no one cares anymore. Something like German mysticism. Polarity of mammalian bodies, two centres. Head and reproduction organs on the opposite side of the body. Centre of individuality and centre of species proliferation as opposing principles which are now displayed. Maybe not worth of mentioning for you.

But this time darwinists have not better stance with the cooling sperms bullshits.

Yes! Yes! I see it now!

Polarity of bodies! Head and reproduction organs on opposite sides! That's why testicles are outside the body. Just like ovaries.... Wait. Hmm.

Dammit! It was clear there for a second. Lessee...center of individuality...opposing principles...wave both hands about vigorously...talk out of both ends of the body....

Nope, I've lost the thread. Can you explain it again, V?

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2007,23:12   

Quote (Assassinator @ Dec. 27 2007,15:20)
I'll ask again Martin: where did you have your biology education? Where did you get educated in the evolutional theory and Darwinism? Where did you get science training?

Also, Marty, do you get to apply your 'knowledge' of biology at your bank job?

--------------
"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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2007,23:14   

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 27 2007,14:36)
You know, some outdated theory no one cares anymore. Something like German mysticism. Polarity of mammalian bodies, two centres. Head and reproduction organs on the opposite side of the body. Centre of individuality and centre of species proliferation as opposing principles which are now displayed. Maybe not worth of mentioning for you.

Dunno. Doesn't sound simple and nice to me, Marty.

--------------
"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

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 28 2007,00:16   

Annyday

     
Quote

For instance, many evolutionary mechanisms about both testicles and sex organs in general are fairly well demonstrated. If someone were actually trying to present a case for anything about testicles they might explain known cases in detail as a jumping-off point. It's simply not worth doing with you.


Fairly well demonstrated? Really? I am not angry with you that you believe blindly in your neodarwinian fantasies.Perhaps you haven't read what I quoted about the problem from darwinian sources. Because you are obviously discussing issues without following the whole discussion - just for you (important words in bold):


A plausible, though at present untestable, scenario is that in the course of the evolution of mammalian endothermy, core body temperatures eventually reached levels at which spermatogenesis was disrupted.


Do you see there "untestable"?


ancestral proto-mammal had probably evolved a scrotum as a solution to its fertility requirements, and really, probably the best answer to why we have this odd scrotal arrangement is that that is the way great-great-greatn-grandpa did it.


Do you see there "probably" mentioned twice or should I change the font?


The most likely explanation is that there is something in the function of the testis that is optimized...This seems reasonable...


And it seems reasonable also to assume that presenting untestable hypothesis is evidence of "fairly well demonstrated mechanism" for you.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
Assassinator



Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 28 2007,05:33   

Did you notice that it's just ONE article (wich I quikly looked up just to give an example to you) from an entire research topic? Just one? How do you know there isn't more hmm? You know how we call that, that's called biased.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 28 2007,05:41   

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 28 2007,00:16)
Annyday

     
Quote

For instance, many evolutionary mechanisms about both testicles and sex organs in general are fairly well demonstrated. If someone were actually trying to present a case for anything about testicles they might explain known cases in detail as a jumping-off point. It's simply not worth doing with you.


Fairly well demonstrated? Really? I am not angry with you that you believe blindly in your neodarwinian fantasies.Perhaps you haven't read what I quoted about the problem from darwinian sources. Because you are obviously discussing issues without following the whole discussion - just for you (important words in bold):


A plausible, though at present untestable, scenario is that in the course of the evolution of mammalian endothermy, core body temperatures eventually reached levels at which spermatogenesis was disrupted.


Do you see there "untestable"?


ancestral proto-mammal had probably evolved a scrotum as a solution to its fertility requirements, and really, probably the best answer to why we have this odd scrotal arrangement is that that is the way great-great-greatn-grandpa did it.


Do you see there "probably" mentioned twice or should I change the font?


The most likely explanation is that there is something in the function of the testis that is optimized...This seems reasonable...


And it seems reasonable also to assume that presenting untestable hypothesis is evidence of "fairly well demonstrated mechanism" for you.

As opposed to *nothing* which is what you appear to be offering. Don't you get it yet VMartin? A educated guess is always better then "well, god did it", or in your case "                       " did it. Do I need to change the font to make it clearer?

--------------
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

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 28 2007,06:52   

Quote (Assassinator @ Dec. 28 2007,05:33)
Did you notice that it's just ONE article (wich I quikly looked up just to give an example to you) from an entire research topic? Just one? How do you know there isn't more hmm? You know how we call that, that's called biased.

In fact I suppose there is no more of them. I had addressed the problem before you joined the party here, you know. And doctor Myers addressed the "research" in June 2004.  

The topic is tricky, no one can say anything meaningful. So neodarwinists rather avoid discussing and exploring it.
The "function" of the phenomenon is missing.  

http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/descent_of_the_testicle/

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 28 2007,07:00   

youngadolescentbabling
Quote

As opposed to *nothing* which is what you appear to be offering. Don't you get it yet VMartin? A educated guess is always better then "well, god did it", or in your case "                       " did it. Do I need to change the font to make it clearer?


Your posts - as usually - do not bring anything to the ongoing discussion about descent of testicles. You can shake your hands with Arden whose dictionary is reduced to "and what is the explanation of it?".
You are the same medical case: "God did it not that's all I can tell you guys".

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 28 2007,07:05   

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 28 2007,07:00)
youngadolescentbabling
 
Quote

As opposed to *nothing* which is what you appear to be offering. Don't you get it yet VMartin? A educated guess is always better then "well, god did it", or in your case "                       " did it. Do I need to change the font to make it clearer?


Your posts - as usually - do not bring anything to the ongoing discussion about descent of testicles. You can shake your hands with Arden whose dictionary is reduced to "and what is the explanation of it?".
You are the same medical case: "God did it not that's all I can tell you guys".

Do you have any positive evidence for your position?

--------------
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: Dec. 28 2007,07:07   

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 26 2007,14:08)
The phenomenon of descent of testiclesis is characteristic for males of higher mammalian orders and there is no darwinian explanation of it (and never will be I dare say).

I accept for the sake of argument that there will never be any darwinian explanation for phenomenon of descent of testiclesis  (and never will be I dare say).

What is your non-darwinian explanation please?

--------------
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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 28 2007,07:08   

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 28 2007,07:00)
youngadolescentbabling
 
Quote

As opposed to *nothing* which is what you appear to be offering. Don't you get it yet VMartin? A educated guess is always better then "well, god did it", or in your case "                       " did it. Do I need to change the font to make it clearer?


Your posts - as usually - do not bring anything to the ongoing discussion about descent of testicles. You can shake your hands with Arden whose dictionary is reduced to "and what is the explanation of it?".
You are the same medical case: "God did it not that's all I can tell you guys".

Marty's argument is much more sophisticated, tho: "the Darwinismus is bad".

--------------
"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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 28 2007,07:10   

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 28 2007,06:52)
Quote (Assassinator @ Dec. 28 2007,05:33)
Did you notice that it's just ONE article (wich I quikly looked up just to give an example to you) from an entire research topic? Just one? How do you know there isn't more hmm? You know how we call that, that's called biased.

In fact I suppose there is no more of them. I had addressed the problem before you joined the party here, you know. And doctor Myers addressed the "research" in June 2004.  

The topic is tricky, no one can say anything meaningful. So neodarwinists rather avoid discussing and exploring it.

Why do you avoid discussing your alternative to the Darwinismus?

--------------
"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

  
Assassinator



Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 28 2007,07:16   

Quote
In fact I suppose there is no more of them.

And how, Martin, on EARTH do you know that?

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 28 2007,16:54   

Quote (Assassinator @ Dec. 28 2007,07:16)
 
Quote
In fact I suppose there is no more of them.

And how, Martin, on EARTH do you know that?


I suppose doctor Myers who runs Pharyngula would have mentioned them in 2004 if they exist and brought up something new. Don't you think so?

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 28 2007,18:53   

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 28 2007,16:54)
Quote (Assassinator @ Dec. 28 2007,07:16)
 
Quote
In fact I suppose there is no more of them.

And how, Martin, on EARTH do you know that?


I suppose doctor Myers who runs Pharyngula would have mentioned them in 2004 if they exist and brought up something new. Don't you think so?

Martin, do you use your degrees in bilology in your job at the bank?

--------------
"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

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 01 2008,11:03   

Alan Fox at Evolution of the thorse:

 
Quote

Your assertion led me to google and I came across this. It seems someone is testing the idea that undescended testicles result in sterility in the Florida panther. There is lots more on sperm viability and temperature control of the testes.

It seems to me differential temperatures and sperm viability are measurable, and a resultant hypothesis, (sperm survives better at a slightly lower temperature than normal internal body temperature in mammals) is quite testable


Your article states:
 
Quote

Semen quality and endocrine and reproductive functions have been shown to be adversely affected in some inbred lines of several species, including mice, cats, 2 lion subspecies and cheetahs (Wildt 1994). Comparative reproductive analyses of seminal traits in five feline species, revealed that Florida panther males display some of the poorest seminal quality traits ever recorded for any felid species or subspecies (Barone et al., 1994). Total motile sperm per ejaculate in the Florida panther is 18-38 times lower than in other puma subspecies, 30-270 times lower than in other felids and 30 times lower than in the cheetah. Although cougars and other large felids tend to produce high proportions of morphologically abnormal sperm, the Florida panther has a significantly greater frequency of malformed spermatozoa (average 93.5% per ejaculate) than any other subspecies; particularly noteworthy was a 42% incidence of acrosomal defects, a trait that renders sperm deficient in fertilization potential (Barone et al., 1994). Seventy-five percent of the sperm exhibit severe deformity and are classified as having primary abnormalities (Roelke 1990). Compared to Felis concolor from Texas, Colorado, Latin America, and North American zoos, the Florida panther has lower testicular and semen volumes, poorer sperm progressive motility, and more morphologically abnormal sperm, including a higher incidence of acrosomal defects and abnormal mitochondrial sheaths (Barone, et al. 1994).


Somehow I couldn't find there anything about descended testicles, could you? Yet 93,5 % of malformed spermatazoa obviously do not affect fitness of Florida panther. Much ado about nothing.

I don't know if you have followed the entire discussion here about the issue. The problem is that birds having temperature 42 grad Celsius do not have descended testicles.

And lower temperature of sperms in descended testicles might be the result of descent, adaptation to lower temperature, not the cause of it. This mistake of reasoning is common amongst neodarwinists
(and behavorial ecologists especially).

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 01 2008,11:52   

Quote
I don't know if you have followed the entire discussion here about the issue. The problem is that birds having temperature 42 grad Celsius do not have descended testicles.


I was responding to your claim:
Quote
As you can see in "VMartin comsology" scientists admit that explanation of descent of testicles is untestable.


My point is that undescended testes in mammals reduce fertility, and that hypothesis has been tested, so is not "untestable".

I was tempted to speculate about sex determination in crocodilians being temperature dependent, and that maybe the line via dinosaurs through to birds resulted in different problems and solutions to sperm stability, but, being a layman, I am not qualified to comment. I suspect research has been done, and if not, there is no reason why it could not be done.

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 01 2008,12:27   

Alan,

this is again the extract from the scientific article which we have already discussed here :

   
Quote

A plausible, though at present untestable , scenario is that in the course of the evolution of mammalian endothermy, core body temperatures eventually reached levels at which spermatogenesis was disrupted