Posted on 10/11/2002 9:02:01 PM PDT by gore3000
The point is that paleontology is not a science, it is absolute garbage. They change their assertions more often than the wind in Chicago. One day they indubitably , positively assert that one species descended from another and then the next day they assert that no, it descended from some other species just as indubitably, positively, etc. and anyone that does not believe them in a moron and should keep their trap shut. It is like the Communists, do not dare to repeat what they said yesterday or you will be shot.
I would say, rather, that "The exposure of your capacity for self-delusion has reached record levels."
But that record just keeps going up.
Why don't you do something useful. Instead of dredging up old arguments from an old thread that have nothing to do with the subject at hand, namely evolution, answer the question I posed about the Thewissen study eliminating the Mesonychus and placing the Pakicetus, the alleged whale ancestor, far away from the Hippo, which DNA studies show as kissing cousin to the whale. Keep in mind it was no amateur wannabe that was so fooled by the Mesonychus but the world's Darwinian expert on whale evolution. The question is --- Where do you place the Pakicetus in relation to the whale and hippo? The problem for you would be the DNA evidence.
Of course there are a lot of ifs. I myself said that the vast majority of mutations will disappear. Your position is that evolution is impossible. Given 6,000,000 years to evolve from the point where man and chimp diverged, you have to claim not merely that most mutations will disappear, but that virtually all mutuations will disappear.
Sounds good to me!
Not my balliwick; ask Vade. Why don't you do something useful. Like offer an alternative theory for a change? You know, a theory? Supported by positive evidence, explaining the existing observations, and that makes unique predictions of future observations?
It's certainly more productive than deliberate obtuseness and snide sideline commentary. After all, if we're going to cast evolution aside, we'll need something useful to replace it.
Nearly forgot, the issue at hand was gore3000's inexplicable quarrel with two of Junior's statements. Particularly relevant to the exploration of this phenomenon are his prior displays of cognitive dissonance, evasion, denial of evidence, selective amnesia, and general megalomania-- what has been colorfully coined: "Holy Warrior Syndrome"
I am doing something useful. I am pointing out the ridiculous nature of your Darwininian nonsense. Not your balliwick[sic], but you sure tap-dance alot on the subject. I have offered different opinions. They are expressed by James Shapiro among others. But your B.S. folks don't spend one second on the data before calling it names. It is not snide to ask the question where do you place the Pakicetus? It is snide to bring in ellipses etc. You have no answer I take it. That is because the bones are hollow.
That is because he, as you, did not/could not answer a straight forward question. This question arises because Darwinians put whale evolution embodied in the sequence from mesonychus to Flipper as evidence of Darwinian correctness and prediction. The "evidence" has been pretty well demolished. Now back up the claims of Darwinians or admit they are wrong.
Do you even deny that Eohippus got larger and became the horse?
Absolutely. The eohippus was dead long before there was a horse. But I'm not talking about the horse nor the eohippus. I am talking about where the Pakicetus fits into the DNA tree. Are you willing to answer the question?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.