| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
Posted on 04/04/2002 10:05:32 AM PST by Heartlander
As a scientist, I am always intrigued by facts...which appear woefully absent from your posts concerning distance measurements to various celestial objects. Would you please enlighten us mere mortals with some facts to back up your assertions? Many people have taken the time to provide you with facts. Since you feels "turn about" is so important, then here's your opportunity. Show us how we are wrong.
Those who have met me know quite well I am not a hoax. I am, however, a card-carrying, certified (or certifiable, your choice), geologist with a degree from a real university.
Not at all. I was making the point that other people have been paranoid as well.
I was not being accusational only being the observer. If you did something inadvertently and innocently, you would probably not be aware of doing that something. The observation was of these statements
I never expressed my suspicions in any open thread. Or to you or "cornelis" privately. This is very interesting.
Everything depends on the integrity of the people with whom we communicate. It's important to know who is trustworthy and who is not. You've been very helpful, perhaps more than you know.
When you're done with Terrirgal, could you talk to medved and/or Halton Arp?
I don't think you realize how much I know about the incident. And the participants. I'm not interested in discussing the freepmail system, which functions just fine as far as I can tell. I'm not interested in discussing any aspects of this any further. I'm confident that I understand the situation.
But you don't know the history. What was it VR said once about myopic looks at specks on a white wall? Anyway, a fact-finding mission is not a betrayal of confidence. Rather, it was PH who was guilty of such a betrayal and other rude behaviors.
Truth of the matter is that even the simplest species in the evolutionary tree are still around. There is absolutely no reason why the evolutionists are not able to show common descent from existing species. The only reason they cannot do that is because there is no common descent. The three simplest forms of living organisms - the archaea, the prokaryotic bacteria and the eukaryotic bacteria did not descend from one another and there are no intermediate species to show how such a thing might have happened. There are likewise no intermediate species between the major families and orders of nature.
(tallhappy voice:)
You do not know what you are talking about. (Sorry!)
Just for clarification, in case anyone is following this, I have no complaints about the freepmail system.
I don't think you realize how much I know about the incident.
I understand perfectly well. That's why a statement such as "...This is very interesting." is completely disingenuous, and the reason I'm explaining to Andrew that he's been led off track.
The fact is that you have made light of AndrewC's suspicions of double identities as something rather irrational when you have held far more far-fetched suspicions yourself. A case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Please feel free not to discuss this further. My initial comments were directed at AndrewC when you jumped in.
Again, you make a point of not understanding.
No you make a point of giving rhetoric instead of evidence. I want to know what proof (meaning facts, evidence, not bs) that dinosaurs did not have mammary glands. We have proof that fish do not have them, we have proof that birds do not have them, we have proof that reptiles do not have them. I want to see the same proof that dinosaurs did not have them. I do not want a long discourse on the meaning of "is" or "alone". I do not want a lot of rhetoric or sophistry. I want facts, nice solid facts and you do not have them and will never have them. You have been going on with your excuses and your rhetoric for half a dozen posts. There is no proof, there are no facts, except a phony theory that spews garbage instead of giving evidence for its statements.
No and I never claimed to have that information. Thus the specks on the wall are ink stains covering everything. The fact is those two statements have far more in common than pakicetus and whales.
A population speciates. That creates a new fork in the tree of life. When it happens, this is not a big deal, just a speciation.
Later on, each of the paths from the fork has created new sub-forks of its own. The fork itself has become a genus-level split. Later yet, we might say the fork is at the family level, because the descendant populations are that different now.
You're saying that you can prove the fork never happened, using the lack of living intermediates between the things at the tips of the branches on fork A and fork B. But there was never a middle fork, so the middle fork has no descendants. The commonalities the creatures at the branch tips have are with some lost ancestor.
Okay.
That's not evolution, that's not even speciation. A human in Los Angeles cannot breed with a human in New York City, but that does not mean that they are different species. You make up such nonsense because you know your theory cannot give proof of a species ever transforming itself into a new, more complex organism.
Now that you're back to saying what you called me a liar for saying you said, let me remind you that you flunked the challenge last month. Give up yet? (BTW, you could / should have read the answer already.)
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.