Posted on 03/13/2002 4:47:26 AM PST by JediGirl
Ps and Qs, everybody! AndrewC, God's Little Nitpicker, is watching you!
From the lil ole Ad Hominem maker VadeRetro.
Logic try it sometime.
I drink wine, too.
If you carefully look at the original post Vade wrote that initiated the misreprestation chain, you'll see why it attracted my attention. I'm sorry you got in the line of fire, but your post was a big misrepresentation of what was meant.
If you believe in God...that is called creation--design(evolution)...
If you don't believe in God...that is called atheism--evolution!
Only a crazy person can believe in both!
Maybe you are an agnostic---don't know and you got the bats--ghosts flying in the attic--belfry!
If you think God knows what He is doing that is called creation.
If you think man-god morphed--that is evolution!
Lame "God"---lame "religion"!
Ah! You want too much for the nature of my hint-dropping. You're too used to being mystical. Even I didn't get your typically veiled and murky point. Can you help yourself?
Tribune7 needed help getting off of the "Dino = reptile / Reptiles don't have teats" thing. The evolutionary logic is more complicated, but he didn't have his evo hat on. I had to clutter his radar a bit to get him out of the rut. There are facts to consider which he simply was leaving out. Yes, the clues were selective. It's a game.
I won't leave him beguiled forever. Besides, I laid it out much straighter for No-Kin and anyone else reading the thread. There is still no response.
Consider your smoke-and-mirrors. Do you intend the confusion you sow to be temporary or permanent?
Thought you knew. It started with gore and I offer it here and there now and then when I get challenged on the "predictive framework" thing.
Ah, but I forget to whom I am talking.
Maybe because for someone to use your deductive reasoning you must provide them all of the relevant logical statements. I do not see T. Rex let alone dinosaur mentioned in the statements.
What is that line of evolutionary reasoning? You may use any of the following and anything else you wish:
1) Reptiles have no mammary glands.
2) Mammals have mammary glands.
3) Mammals arose from a line of reptiles.
4) Birds arose from a line of reptiles.
5) Birds have no mammary glands.
It is relevant only if evolutionary logic is logical.
Did you ever see a car with astro turf...you!
Never heard of a cannibal that doesn't eat meat--flesh too...maybe fasting? Switch-eater??
The evolutionary logic is the challenge here. That is the game.
The challenge to me from time-to-time is to cite an example of how evolution provides a framework for prediction. Now, I might have asked how evolutionists, not creationists, came to suspect Piltdown Man was a fraud or Nebraska Man was a misinterpretation. Evolution says there are things that should not be found.
But gore3000, lawerying AndrewCesquely on the shortcomings of the fossil record, said something to the effect that "for all evo science knows, there were mammary glands on dinosaurs."
Now, nobody actually thinks there were mamms on a dino. It's clearly not enough just to get the right answer. How do you know there weren't? Show your work. Thus was born the dino-mammary quiz.
You have to guess what evolution says on the subject.
Trib7 seemed to come close, but I noticed his answer was very, very different from mine. His technique was sort of ad hoc. In particular, he not only wasn't using evolution, he wasn't using ID either.
He reasoned, "T. rex is a big reptile. Lizards don't have mammaries. End story."
Well, OK. You can predict reptiles will be reptiles. But what if T. rex isn't just a big lizard? In fact, it isn't. T. rex itself was warm-blooded IIRC. If we don't know this for sure, its faster-running raptorian near-relatives had to have been.
Anyway, it's fair to point out to Trib7 that he isn't considering enough facts. And for sure, he isn't duplicating the evo logic, a thing I have very much come to wonder about regarding your side of things.
It occurred to me that he has no likelihood of replicating the evo logic without more facts. I gave him a few, but not enough to give the game away. I gave No-Kin a few more because its getting later and I want somebody from the other side to get the thing.
Originally, I actually wanted gore to get it when I first asked him. Then I could immediately ask, "Does your system do that?" Maybe that's what he was afraid of.
Hey, I'm with the Darwinists on this one. Dinosaurs with jugs? As you say, it's contrary to evolution (I'm not certain of your reasoning, but I can go with it). It would also seem odd from a creationist point of view. We don't see humans laying eggs, do we?
I would like to proceed without your assistance. I'm pleased to have you as a fellow creationist, but I'm not delighted with your style of argument. You don't score anywhere near the points you imagine you're scoring.
Yet another hint: What is that tree structure with which evolutionists seem so obsessed?
From the creationist's viewpoint, it is the full, glorious array of God's handiwork on Earth. Now then, I'm supposed to operate in the evolutionist's mode here ... let me see ... that tree is your model -- perhaps forced in a few places, perhaps not -- of the allegedly gradual development of all species, gently morphing from one micro mutation to another, until in the fullness of time, such changes seamlessly become macro evolution, "guided" only by the blind, random forces of nature, somehow rising from the slime, diverging from the apes, and culminating in our own intelligent, self-aware species. That's the story, and I'm capable of stating it.
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.