Posted on 03/13/2002 4:47:26 AM PST by JediGirl
One prediction of evolution: Birds will never be born with mammary glands or three earbones, or differentiated dentition. Another prediction of evolution: Frogs will never develop feathers.
This all has to do with Vade's query to gore3000 on whether he can explain why paleontologists are sure T. Rex did not have boobs. It all has to do with the framework provided by evolutionary theory -- this framework allows us to categorically predict that some things will never happen, and other things will.
That could be considered as he tried to hide the tryst by having Uriah sleep with his own wife. A case can be made that the purpose changed when Uriah did not respond as desired. In any case, the deed was judged by David himself
2Sa 12:5 And David's anger was greatly kindled against the man; and he said to Nathan,
[As] the LORD liveth, the man that hath done this [thing] shall surely die:
2Sa 12:6 And he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing,
and because he had no pity.
2Sa 12:7 And Nathan said to David, Thou [art] the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel,
I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
2Sa 12:8 And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom,
and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if [that had been] too little,
I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.
2Sa 12:9 Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight?
thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife [to be] thy wife,
and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.
2Sa 12:10 Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house;
because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife.
|
OK, point for you on the head. Thank you! I didn't know that.
That ability apparently comes from the practiced art of misrepresentation.
You're projecting.
Seriously, if you listen to the other side at all, you should acquire a familiarity with their thinking and arguments. It's true; any E regular on these threads could pose undetectably as a C.
But the C side has a religious horror of E logic. They cannot put the hat on. (Perhaps they'd go to Hell if they did.)
Yes, I'm the one proclaiming teeth posing as full creatures, a replica posing as the real thing, Mesonychus posing as a whale etc. etc
There is no religious horror to posing the true Darwinian logic evidenced in Kipling's Just So stories, it is just not rational to do so.
You don't have to recapitulate the whole year's lawyerly accomplishments. (". . . Then, five threads later, I noticed that an alleged picture of a skull was a picture of a replica of a skull!") This isn't your annual review.
There is no religious horror to posing the true Darwinian logic evidenced in Kipling's Just So stories, it is just not rational to do so.
There's no way to excuse what's going on as a mere rejection of an argument. The situation would not have the stated asymmetry if you were correct.
You see, here's the problem. I pointed out "mistakes", they are really not VadeRetro's "mistakes". You did not make a chart based upon teeth, nor did you make a replica of a skull, nor even first allege that Mesonychus was the "father" of whales, those things were done by others. It becomes inexcusable of the antagonist, when having been shown by a messenger the shortcomings of those objects, that the messenger is then derided by him. Ad Hominems, however subtle, when used against logic, show lack of logic.
I'm sure you mean the interpretation of the fossil record. No doubt some finds are more ambiguous than others. But I take it you're not calling into question the overall interpretation, right?
Your statement is false. I do not assert that. What I do assert is that molecular evidence is much more reliable and believable than suitably arranged bones, especially when many molecular tests come to the same conclusion(s) and the bones are incomplete. And clocks are not a factor in these specific things, 2 + 2 = 4 no matter what time it is.
Charlatan? Did Darwin habitually quote people out of context? Did he lie (ie try to deceive, as opposed to merely being mistaken?) Did he call other people liars and frauds? Did he make up evidence?
This habitual name calling tells me that you know you're wrong.
None of these is a sin, or even much of a mistake. The Mesonychus hypothesis is now largely abandoned, yes. An honest blind alley. Science makes progress.
It becomes inexcusable of the antagonist, when having been shown by a messenger the shortcomings of those objects, that the messenger is then derided by him.
It's all in the context. Pointing out that a picture is a picture of a replica of a skull and not the original skull does not make, say, faunal succession and the evidence for same go away. Even pointing out that all the Brontosaurus reconstructions in the world had the wrong name and the wrong head for 90 years does not accomplish this. (Not yours, I know. Bet you're jealous.)
And so much of your stuff just sort of vanishes when you try to examine it. Nothing inside.
Take your attacks upon guessing tooth size from animal size. Gore attacked the conclusion that Obduron insignis was a platypus that retained teeth in its adult life.
(All there is of it were teeth identical to a baby platypus tooth, except it's much too big to be the modern version. Later, however, specimens of 5-mya-younger Obduron dickinsoni turned up, supporting the earlier ideas about insignis. Gore could have learned this just by reading further.)
What inference are we supposed to make when we find a part from a modern animal, but it's in very old sediments and it's way too big? Is this a conspiracy to defraud the public? How so?
Gingerich makes a chart of tooth size in Pelycodus/Notharctus, assuming a correlation with animal size. You scream foul.
All distraction. Like just now, when the question is,
Why can so incredibly few of your C-side buddies don an evolutionist hat even temporarily to consider a question?
After all, they're always purporting to do so, getting it wrong, and announcing that evolution is refuted.
You didn't hang your hat on it.
You evidently presume people can't read. This question is first addressed to me in the post this is answering. I started this particular interchange by pointing out what you again demonstrate. Misrepresentation. If you are asking the question now instead of pointing out your misrepresentation, I have already answered it by my comment to the religious horror canard.
I finding myself thinking this about gore's posts and occasionally saying as much. I generally hope that people can read and do click links and do examine statements logically.
This question is first addressed to me in the post this is answering.
Yes, but as you point out . . .
I started this particular interchange by pointing out what you again demonstrate. Misrepresentation.
You started this interchange replying to a post in which I wonder why Cs cannot put on an E hat. You wish to derail any further examination of this question. I don't wonder.
This is not a mere canard. It's a clinical symptom. It's really very puzzling. Some of these people have been arguing against evolution for a long time, yet they cannot reason the simplest thing in an evolutionary framework. They can't get the hat on.
Examine all you wish. The point I made has been fully supported, some Darwinians are practiced purveyors of misrepresentation. That particular quirk was all that I addressed. As for why people do not put themselves in the position of these Darwinians, I supposed that it was the flimsiness of the locale.
God created a world that looks like something's happening when we look at it. Man's theories still belong to man and they will continue to be imperfect, but hopefully steadily improve.
Of course. If evolution is true then an event forbidden by evolution could not occur. But whether macro-evolution occurs or not is what we are considering. If there were T-Rex eggs, I would pretty much figure on no mammaries regardless of evolutionary theory.
Those aren't predictions. Those are observations. Birds don't have mammaries. Frogs don't have feathers.
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.