Evolution?

Hespera · May 27, 2009

LightHorseman said:
Do you mean NeBRASKA man?

It is my understanding that Nebraska man was not the subject of a journal article, nor ever particularly widely accepted as a hominid fossil by the scientific community

If a theocreo were to read about exactly what happened regarding "nebraksa man' they'd find that there was nothing there to make fun of, and that would spoil one of their favorites. The joke is on the theocreos of course, because their endless insistance on bringing up, as av did, a grotesquely distorted version and presenting it as somehow significant... it just shows the utter poverty of their pathetic little "case" agains evolution.

Creationism cant never has never will come up with a single piece of actual physical data, so they are reduced to simple minded attempts to snipe.

Id kind of think they'd be embarassed not to be able to do better than come up with some cartoon version of the 'nebraska man" story. Or maybe be embarassed by their inability to ever come up with any actual data. Or their laughingstock status.

Hespera · May 27, 2009

Ectezus said:
By all means AV, keep repeating yourself without addressing the issue that your bone disease fossil theory doesn't actually match reality.
Way to derail the entire thread once again by the way.

- Ectezus

Derailing only happens when there is a team of enablers.

Ectezus · May 27, 2009

Hespera said:
Derailing only happens when there is a team of enablers.

And you ain't helping with your habit of saying "lets all stop guys".
When he says something wrong he gets called on it. Saying the fossils we find are actually just bone diseases... Who knows how gullible creationists are to actually belief that if no one speaks up and shows why it's incorrect.

- Ectezus

MrGoodBytes · May 27, 2009

Ectezus said:
And you ain't helping with your habit of saying "lets all stop guys".
When he says something wrong he gets called on it. Saying the fossils we find are actually just bone diseases... Who knows how gullible creationists are to actually belief that if no one speaks up and shows why it's incorrect.

- Ectezus

Seconded. Also, the OP has already been answered.

AV1611VET · May 27, 2009

Ectezus said:
When he says something wrong he gets called on it.

The only thing you "call me on" is for not thinking like you do.

Neanderthal Man, Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man --- tomato/tomatto, potato/potatto.

I'll gladly --- gladly --- get "called wrong" and show my ignorance of "science" today.

I can assure you --- it doesn't faze me in the least.

Who's been wrong more --- scientists or me?

MrGoodBytes · May 27, 2009

AV1611VET said:
The only thing you "call me on" is for not thinking like you do.

Neanderthal Man, Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man --- tomato/tomatto, potato/potatto.

I'll gladly --- gladly --- get "called wrong" and show my ignorance of "science" today.

I can assure you --- it doesn't faze me in the least.

We gathered as much.

Hespera · May 27, 2009

MrGoodBytes said:
Seconded. Also, the OP has already been answered.

Hm. After seconded is thirderated? i agree; I was wrong.

Hespera · May 27, 2009

AV1611VET said:
The only thing you "call me on" is for not thinking like you do.

Neanderthal Man, Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man --- tomato/tomatto, potato/potatto.

I'll gladly --- gladly --- get "called wrong" and show my ignorance of "science" today.

I can assure you --- it doesn't faze me in the least.

Who's been wrong more --- scientists or me?

Who has been wrong more? For a guy competing against thousands you sure hold up your end.

Even listing Neanderthal, Piltdown and "nebraska man" together is wrong to the extent that its a meaningless / ignorant grouping. Is it deliberate, or do you just not know any better?

In general people who have truth and knowledge on their side dont find a need to spread falsehoods and deliberate distortions / misrepresentations, or take pride in their self confessed ignorance.

here is a word that may apply:

Integrity is consistency of actions, values, methods, measures and principles. Depth and breadth of a value system may also be significant factors.....

AV1611VET · May 27, 2009

Hespera said:
...or take pride in their self confessed ignorance.

Who was it on here that said they can't wait to be found wrong in science, because learning is science's strength?

When you reach the point where you can claim omniscience on a subject, then you can accuse others of being more ignorant.

In other words, who brags more about their ignorance, then calls it a "strength"?

In still other words, I don't care how ignorant you think I am --- look in the mirror.

Cabal · May 27, 2009

AV1611VET said:
Who was it on here that said they can't wait to be found wrong in science, because learning is science's strength?

When you reach the point where you can claim omniscience on a subject, then you can accuse others of being more ignorant.

I think this is self-pwnage, personally, either that or you're claiming omniscience. Either way, hilarity will ensue!

In other words, who brags more about their ignorance, then calls it a "strength"?

In still other words, I don't care how ignorant you think I am --- look in the mirror.

The point is, scientists will IMPROVE ON their ignorance and would hate for it to remain so and will even admit when they make a mistake *gasp*!

When was the last time you ever did that?

Hespera · May 27, 2009

AV1611VET said:
Who was it on here that said they can't wait to be found wrong in science, because learning is science's strength?

When you reach the point where you can claim omniscience on a subject, then you can accuse others of being more ignorant.

In other words, who brags more about their ignorance, then calls it a "strength"?

In still other words, I don't care how ignorant you think I am --- look in the mirror.

You are the one who claims to be tapped into "omniscience".

Does this explain why he who claims to be on the side of Ultimate Truth finds it so necessary to consistently spread falsehoods, distortions, and misrepresentations to prop up his case?

Do you know if psychologists have a term for someone who, in response to any comment or criticism can only think to respond by trying to turn it around on the other person, as you did? Im pretty sure there is some term for it, but chances are its not taken as a compliment.

There may also be terms for people who DO learn from their mistakes, and for those who will not and cannot learn. Which do you think you are?

AV1611VET · May 27, 2009

Cabal said:
The point is, scientists will IMPROVE ON their ignorance...

Improved ignorance is still ignorance.

QV please: 1.

We each have our strengths and weaknesses.

Cabal · May 27, 2009

AV1611VET said:
Improved ignorance is still ignorance.

QV please: 1.

We each have our strengths and weaknesses.

Um...no? By improving on ignorance, I mean correcting errors, reducing the overall amount of ignorance. Improving ignorance in this way results in one not being ignorant anymore about things on was previous ignorant about.

This is generally known as a good thing.

So, are you omniscient, AV? Otherwise, you really shouldn't be making these posts y'know.

And this is, of course, aside from the fact that you have the impossible standard set up where science has to have total omniscience to claim ANYTHING, and you give your faith based on a literal reading of a 4000 year old religious nonscience text a free pass. But then again, fair standards has always been a bit much to ask from you.

AV1611VET · May 27, 2009

Cabal said:
So, are you omniscient, AV? Otherwise, you really shouldn't be making these posts y'know.

Again --- the point I'm making is that you guys have no right to be disgusted with my display of ignorance, when you refuse to admit you're just as ignorant in your fields as well.

Stuff like, "It's confirmed --- I'm a scientist", or bumper stickers with "Scientist on board".

Wow --- is that supposed to impress me?

Did science create this earth --- (okay, skip that question).

Did science bring the walls of Jericho down, or part the Red Sea?

You talk about science extending the lives of people by --- oh --- 2 years on average?

Let's see you extend the lives of people to 969 years --- instead of complaining they lived that long.

Hespera · May 27, 2009

AV1611VET said:
Let's see you extend the lives of people to 969 years --- instead of complaining they lived that long.

See, like i was saying, you rely on constantly misrepresenting, or just making things up.

WHO ever "complained" that "they" lived that long? Why do you just make things up?

Cabal · May 27, 2009

AV1611VET said:
Again --- the point I'm making is that you guys have no right to be disgusted with my display of ignorance, when you refuse to admit you're just as ignorant in your fields as well.

Again - the two types of "ignorance" are not comparable.

Firstly, you're wilfully ignorant, and proud, and do nothing to fix it. Pride is not taken in scientific ignorance, which is circumstantial, not wilful, and everything possible is done to reduce it.

Secondly, we are not just as ignorant in "our fields" - you are making ignorant claims about the SAME FIELD - science. And the level of ignorance you show is mediaeval. You don't accept the taxonomic classification of humans, which was established three centuries ago*! Get with the programme!

*(By a creationist, no less)

Thirdly, erm... that quote you keep QVing is AN ADMISSION OF IGNORANCE. (Not that it renders any of your points here or in that thread cogent in any way...)

Stuff like, "It's confirmed --- I'm a scientist", or bumper stickers with "Scientist on board".

Wow --- is that supposed to impress me?

Probably not. The stacks of contributions scientists has made are usually already impressive enough themselves.

Are sanctimonious religious bumper stickers meant to impress people? What are the odds that your average feller with a preachy bumper sticker will hardly have done anything more significant with his life than buying a preachy bumper sticker?

Did science create this earth --- (okay, skip that question).

Did science bring the walls of Jericho down, or part the Red Sea?

No, we've only healed the blind and helped the lame to walk. Shucks!

You talk about science extending the lives of people by --- oh --- 2 years on average?

30, AV.

Let's see you extend the lives of people to 969 years --- instead of complaining they lived that long.

Noone "complains" about people living long, people "complain" because there's not a shred of evidence to suggest that people ever DID live that long.

And you know something, AV, we'd LOVE to extend peoples' lives that long. You could help, too! You could encourage ignorant schoolboards to NOT undermine science education, because let me tell you one thing - if we DO find a way to increase the human lifespan by a factor of ten, the theory of evolution is definitely going to be involved in its development somewhere along the way.

Don't ask us to walk your dog and then shoot us in the feet.

MrGoodBytes · May 27, 2009

AV1611VET said:
Again --- the point I'm making is that you guys have no right to be disgusted with my display of ignorance, when you refuse to admit you're just as ignorant in your fields as well.

Stuff like, "It's confirmed --- I'm a scientist", or bumper stickers with "Scientist on board".

Wow --- is that supposed to impress me?

Did science create this earth --- (okay, skip that question).

Did science bring the walls of Jericho down, or part the Red Sea?

You talk about science extending the lives of people by --- oh --- 2 years on average?

Try forty or fifty years. The average lifespan of the people in the Western world is now at about 75 to 80 years, compared with 35 to 40 years well into the 17th century. To put it bluntly, chances are you would have died years ago if it wasn't for science.

Let's see you extend the lives of people to 969 years --- instead of complaining they lived that long.

Child's play. Bjorn the Fell-Handed is well over 10.000 years old and still going strong. Let's see your god do that instead of complaining, eh?

Nathan Poe · May 27, 2009

AV1611VET said:
Who was it on here that said they can't wait to be found wrong in science, because learning is science's strength?

Learning first requires admitting error -- try it sometimes.

When you reach the point where you can claim omniscience on a subject, then you can accuse others of being more ignorant.

Are you even going to pretend that makes sense?

I have $500. You have $0.87. Are you saying that I can't say you have less wealth until I have all the money in the world?

In other words, who brags more about their ignorance, then calls it a "strength"?

That would be you, AV -- Ignorance and pride is your trademark combination.

In still other words, I don't care how ignorant you think I am --- look in the mirror.

Ah, but you do care, AV -- you wear it like a badge.

Nathan Poe · May 27, 2009

AV1611VET said:
Again --- the point I'm making is that you guys have no right to be disgusted with my display of ignorance, when you refuse to admit you're just as ignorant in your fields as well.

It's not your display of ignorance -- it's your pride in it.

Stuff like, "It's confirmed --- I'm a scientist", or bumper stickers with "Scientist on board".

Never saw one of those, AV -- Have you, or are you just making stuff up -- as usual?

Wow --- is that supposed to impress me?

I'd expect you to be impressed with yourself.

Did science create this earth --- (okay, skip that question).

Did science bring the walls of Jericho down, or part the Red Sea?

As a matter of fact -- ah, why bother?

You talk about science extending the lives of people by --- oh --- 2 years on average?

Let's see you extend the lives of people to 969 years --- instead of complaining they lived that long.

Let's see you do it, AV -- or at least point out someone who actually did.

LightHorseman · May 27, 2009

AV1611VET said:
Who's been wrong more --- scientists or me?

Per capita?

You.

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Evolution?

Junior Member

Junior Member

Beholder

Seeker for life, probably

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Seeker for life, probably

Junior Member

Junior Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Seeker for life, probably

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency