Posted on 07/20/2002 2:08:38 PM PDT by yankeedame
Fantasy pic--post--think genius!
Fantasy pic--post--think whack 'genius'!
Linking a 60K picture adds how much size to FR's online database?
Here's an even tougher quiz, Reep:
You REALLY think they're worried about disk storage when you can buy an 80 GB hard drive at MarketPro shows for $100 or less these days and the entire bible is 4.5 MB?
Think real hard, Reep: when the term "bandwidth" occurs in these discussions, you think they're talking about disk storage, or the time it takes a typical user to DOWNLOAD and/or scroll through material?
Again I say, the two files of mine in question are (combined) a third the size of the one graphic which PH foisted on us and I'd never cry over anybody foisting a 60K graphic on me other than to make a note if it were the same person who was doing crybaby acts when I post one or two 10K files.
I could also mention that after you've loaded something, anybody who wasn't spastic should be able to scroll through three or four pages they didn't want to read in, say, a third to half a second, and JennyP, the prime crybaby in question, is working at a minor-league university which should have high-speed lines...
Isn't that 'zabotitsia'? Just a little nitpicking ;-)
315 posted on 7/22/02 5:48 PM Eastern by BMCDA
Ready to apologize to marcleblanc yet?
Now ask yourself how often Patrick posts the same tired old pictures. What's his maximum re-use of a picture? Three? Four?
I doubt jennyp has documented five percent of the times you've posted that tiny handful of articles to thread after thread after thread. Most people don't mind scrolling past a one-shot long article, even if they don't want to read it. It's when that same long article (full of wild misunderstandings of the idea being "demolished") shows up on thread after thread that it becomes a discourtesy, an imposition, an act of spamming.
Get a clue, dumbass. The images are on someone else's server. The text you spam is on Jim Robinson's server and is downloaded 6,000 times a day. Guess which costs him real money?
No you were not. You were doing two things:
1. Filibuster the thread and fill it with nonsense pictures so that people will not see the evidence presented by the opponents of evolution against your stupid theory.
2. Confuse the issue. As the Bible says - you shall know them by their deeds. The words of the Nazis are meaninglessm just as the words of Clinton and his gang were meaningless. The words of a liar are always meaningless. The actions of the Nazis however are indeed evidence. There is nothing in Christianity to justify the mass murders of Nazism, nothing at all. All humans are children of God in Christianity - no distinctions. There is nothing in Christianity about killing the sick and the lame. On the other hand there is plenty in the degenerate Darwin supporting such views:
With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
Darwin, "The Descent of Man", Chapter V.
" Man scans with scrupulous care the character and pedigree of his horses, cattle, and dogs before he matches them; but when he comes to his own marriage he rarely, or never, takes any such care. He is impelled by nearly the same motives as the lower animals, when they are left to their own free choice, though he is in so far superior to them that he highly values mental charms and virtues. On the other hand he is strongly attracted by mere wealth or rank. Yet he might by selection do something not only for the bodily constitution and frame of his offspring, but for their intellectual and moral qualities. Both sexes ought to refrain from marriage if they are in any marked degree inferior in body or mind; but such hopes are Utopian and will never be even partially realised until the laws of inheritance are thoroughly known. Everyone does good service, who aids towards this end. When the principles of breeding and inheritance are better understood, we shall not hear ignorant members of our legislature rejecting with scorn a plan for ascertaining whether or not consanguineous marriages are injurious to man."
Darwin, Descent of Man, Chapter 21.
"Man, like every other animal, has no doubt advanced to his present high condition through a struggle for existence consequent on his rapid multiplicaiton; and if he is to advance still higher he must remain subject to a severe struggle. Otherwise he would soon sink into indolence, and the more highly gifted men would not be more successful in the battle of life than the less gifted. Hence our natural rate of increase, though leading to many and obvious evils, must not be greatly diminished by any means. There should be open competition for all men; and the most able should not be prevented by laws or customs from succeeding best and rearing the largest number of offspring."
Darwin, Descent of Man, Chapter 21.
"I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit. Remember what risk the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago of being overwhelmed by the Turks, and how ridiculous such an idea now is! The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world."
Darwin to Graham, July 3, 1881.
In man the frontal bone consists of a single piece, but in the embryo, and in children, and in almost all the lower mammals, it consists of two pieces separated by a distinct suture. ~~This suture occasionally persists more or less distinctly in man after maturity; and more frequently in ancient than in recent crania, especially, as Canestrini has observed, in those exhumed from the Drift, and belonging to the brachycephalic type. Here again he comes to the same nclusion as in the analogous case of the malar bones. In this, and other instances presently to be given, the cause of ancient races approaching the lower animals in certain characters more frequently than do the modern races, appears to be, that the latter stand at a somewhat greater distance in the long line of descent from their early semi-human progenitors. Darwin, Descent of Man, Chapter 2.
Mind reading again?
1. Filibuster the thread and fill it with nonsense pictures so that people will not see the evidence presented by the opponents of evolution against your stupid theory.
No, Gore, it's counter-argument. You don't like it (my mind reading act), because you can't counter it.
It's not my theory. It's the best scientific theory we have. If and when a better one comes along, the theory of evolution will be abandoned. Will you then whine that science can't make up its mind?
2. Confuse the issue. As the Bible says - you shall know them by their deeds. The words of the Nazis are meaninglessm just as the words of Clinton and his gang were meaningless. The words of a liar are always meaningless. The actions of the Nazis however are indeed evidence. There is nothing in Christianity to justify the mass murders of Nazism, nothing at all. All humans are children of God in Christianity - no distinctions. There is nothing in Christianity about killing the sick and the lame. On the other hand there is plenty in the degenerate Darwin supporting such views:
Congratulations on confusing the issue. As I posted earlier to Medved, a logical fallacy with a Biblical citation is no more impressive than a logical fallacy without one. All the deeds you ascribe to Darwin's theory were perpetrated by others who merely used his theory as a cloak. They did this much in the same fashion that many have used Christianity as a cloak. Remember "Gott Mit Uns"? Same thing. Remember all the posts about the Inquisition? Same thing. People who will commit evil acts will grab any convenient cover.
We disagree about whether or not the words of a liar have meaning. I believe they do. Perhaps not what the liar intended, but meaning, nonetheless.
Have you learned to count to two?
Have you learned that A + B does not equal 2A when A does not equal B?
Are you aware that a circle is a form of ellipse, exactly as a square is a form of rectangle?
Have you figured out that Malthus being wrong about the food supply increasing arithmetically while the population increases exponentially has nothing to do with the survival of the fittest in the sense that the phrase is used in the theory of evolution?
In short, have you confronted your own mendacity ... using your own definition?
Malthus was as much an economist as Darwin was a scientist, in other words, not at all. The guy was the biggest crackpot around. The icon for chicken little. This idiot who never did any research except like Darwin look into his own prejudices has been proven to be absolutely wrong. With ten times the population as in his time, people are far better fed now than they ever were. He was wrong because like all the leftists, the materialists, the atheists, they do not believe in the God given ability of man to through his God given intellect make better his material existence. It's mind over matter, every time, and history proven that.
In other words it is more significant that they are civilized than "Caucasian". I might also add that Darwin's view that savage peoples were headed toward extinction was reasonably well justified, as a sheer fact, by his own observation. In South America, in Australia, and possibly elsewhere he saw or heard of native people being warred upon, or even hunted down and killed for bounties. By Christians who were by no means evolutionists, I might add.
Darwin, as I have said, was a culture chauvanist on behalf of his own Victorian civilization, but remarkably free (in the context of his time) of racist views. As I have also noted the book you quote from definitively destroyed the (originally creationist) school of thought that the races of man comprise separate species. Darwin argues that man is a single species, highly variable, but with the variations within races greater than those between them.
Darwin's fascination with the small details of human variation, his omnivorous collection of accounts from a wide variety of observers, his practice of rehearsing and examining the strongest arguments both for and against a point before forwarding his own conclusion, and even his morbid concern with the degeneration of the human stock (steming from the fact that he, and many of his children were sickly, which he feared and suspected was the result of his marrying a second cousin); all of these things provide many opportunities for painting a distorted picture of Darwin's considered and general views.
Your quoting mining is a long and continuous lie. It is intellectual masterbation. You care nothing and know nothing of the real person or of his work. I seriously doubt you have every read a single one of his books straight through, or even a biography.
Why are the quotes you guys offer documenting evolutionary racism 50 to 150 years old? If evolution offers such sound grounds for racism, where are the modern evolutionary racists? There are still plenty of racists around, after all, but they all seem to seize upon other justifications, a good many of them choosing one or another of the major religions.
The examples are very rare indeed and I am not quite sure that all the examples given in the link are valid, indeed, many of the studies offer contradictory opinions. The specific example which brought this discussion about was a monkey. I said there was no monkey DNA from millions of years ago. You said maybe. Since it seems you knew better, I call that deception.
The fact remains that for 99.9999% of the fossils found we do not have any DNA and all the verbiage which paleontologists write is total nonsense based on no valid evidence.(see the following post)
As to Neanderthal. The fact that man did not descend from Neanderthal is well established by DNA evidence (that is why evolutionists are trying to pass off homo erectus as man's ancestor nowadays). The evidence is quite solid showing no interbreeding. There have been three samples of Neanderthal DNA found and in all cases the result has been the same - no interbreeding was possible. No descent of homo sapiens from Neanderthals:
Scientists have analysed the DNA of a third Neanderthal in an attempt to shed light on the genetic history of early humans.
The results suggest that, like modern humans, Neanderthals expanded from a relatively small number of individuals.
And there is no evidence to indicate that Neanderthals interbred with modern humans, something that has always been a bone of contention among experts.
The DNA was extracted from remains of a Neanderthal found in Vindija Cave, Croatia.
So far, only two other samples of DNA from Neanderthal bones have been analysed.
One came from fossils found in Feldhofer Cave, western Germany, the other from a Neanderthal child found in Mezmaiskaya Cave in the northern Caucasus.
From: DNA Clues to Neanderthals
A Breed Apart
DNA Tests: Humans Not Descended from Neanderthals
By Kenneth Chang
March 28 ? DNA from the bones of a Neanderthal baby who died 29,000 years ago offers further evidence that Neanderthals are cousins rather than ancestors of modern humans.
From: A breed Apart
The sequence shows 3.48% divergence from the Feldhofer Neanderthal4. Phylogenetic analysis places the two Neanderthals from the Caucasus and western Germany together in a clade that is distinct from modern humans, suggesting that their mtDNA types have not contributed to the modern human mtDNA pool. Comparison with modern populations provides no evidence for the multiregional hypothesis of modern human evolution.
From: Molecular Analysys of Neanderthal DNA
On the second day of the symposium, William Garstka reported that he and a team of molecular biologists from Alabama had extracted DNA from the fossil bones of a 65-million-year-old dinosaur. Although DNA from other studies suggests that DNA older than about a million years cannot yield any useful sequence information, Garstka and his colleagues amplified and sequenced the DNA. compared, it with known DNA from other animals, and found that it was most similar to bird DNA . They concluded that they had found "the first direct genetic evidence to indicate that birds represent the closest living relatives of the dinosaurs". Their conclusion was reported the following week by Constance Holden in Science.
The details of the discovery, however, are revealing. First the dinosaur from which Garstka and his colleagues allegedly recovered the DNA was Triceratops. According to paleontologists there are two main branches in the dinosaur family tree. One branch included the three-horned rhinoceros-like Triceratops which millions of people have seen in museum exhibits and movies. But birds are thought to have evolved from the other branch. So according to evolutionary biologists, Triceratops and modern birds are not closely related, their ancestors having gone thier separate ways almost 250 million years ago.
Even more revealing, however, was that the DNA Garstka and his colleagues found was 100 percent identical to the DNA of living turkeys.. Not 99 percent, not 99.9 percent, but 100 percent. Not even DNA obtained from other birds is 100 percent identical to turkey DNA (the next closest match in their study was 94.5 percent with another species of bird). In other words, the DNA that had supposedly been extracted from the Triceratops bone was not just similar to turkey DNA - it was turkey DNA. Gartska said he and his colleagues considered the possibility that someone had been eating a turkey sandwich nearby, but they were unable to confirm that.
FROM: Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution, page 130, 131.
Just comes to show the professionalism and dedication of paleontologists! And remember, your tax dollars paid for this wonderful discovery!
Yup, I said that and you as usual for evolutionists you did not refute my statement. All you had to do was give a few examples of his experiments. You gave none, because there were none. You folk are all just rhetoric and insults.
As to Darwin's not being a scientist and my not having read a biography of the atheist charlatan, here is a two-fer refuting both your assumptions:
That Darwin's equipment and attitude were different form those of the scientist today is not the issue here. Only in recent years has science reached that stage of self-consciousnees and self-doubt in which it loses faith not only in the perfection of its instrumens but also in the objectivity of the scientist himself. It si not expected of Darwin that he shouldhave been troubled by thoughts of fallibility, relativiety, or indeterminacy; but only that he should have observe the standards of his own time. And it was by those sttandards that he was in arrears. Nineteenth-century science was sufficiently aware of the desirability of precision and standardization to make Darwin's tool chest seem distincly unprofessional. In this, as in other respects, he gives the appearance of an amateur, an amateur even for his own day.
Gertrude Himmelfarb, 'Darwin and the Darwinian Refolution', page 146.
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.