Since the Oozer Zealots don’t read or think, typing any more, is pointless. Maybe a picture will sum the whole thing up.
Now- The numbers might change a little by the year 3005 — we’ll never know…. But if you don’t accept the basic premise of this graph, you are either hopelessly stupid or hopelessly egotistical. You may pick one or both. But you certainly are no scientist.
’nuff said.
RE: Jack’s post March 28, 2005 05:56 PM
I want people to know me 🙁
Who is Jack, really?
PS – Is there something subliminal you’re not telling us? Are you pretending to be someone else?
I gotta admit, watching you stir up the people who worship Darwin is even funnier than those Canadians stirring up the global warming industry. Nice work, Paul.
For the record: I agree that evolution is currently our best, most workable theory. However, I also think it’s about as close to the truth as pre-Einsteinian physics. We don’t even know the parts we don’t know, to paraphrase the great philosopher Donald Rumsfeld.
Who is Jack, really?
I think this “Jack” is really….
Kaiser Soze.
There. I said it.
Pro evolution posters have said “evolution is a fact” and that no “sane scientist” would not believe in evolution. If evolution were indeed considered to be a fact we would not have the many quotes in publications by evolutionary scientists who offer the various theories of evolution (and doubts about)?
What we know through the study of genomes shows that the information for change must already be there and is not determined by environment and selectivity (such as thinking about why the giraffe has a long neck).
There are literally thousands of sane scientists who believe in intelligent design. Anyone denying this has simply not tried to find out.
We have all been exposed to the teaching of evolution over periods of years. We know the theory of evolution. How many of those who reject
intelligent design have spent as much time examining it as they did evolution? Not to say that everyone would be convinced but that they could at least argue about a subject they knew something about.
RE: areaman’s post (March 28, 2005 06:24 PM)
Kaiser Soze.
There. I said it.
Heh. I actually had my sights a little higher – perhaps even inspired.
“Is God trying to trick us? Did something happen during the Flood to cause smaller creatures to be buried first, the opposite of expected results? What exactly is going on here?”
Okay, just a hypothesis, but larger animals generally have legs and can run faster, and run to higher ground. So just guessing, maybe the larger animals got to higher ground, and weren’t caught up in the waters where the silt and other stuff was burying all those smaller things. Then they got covered up by the water, and rotted away, leaving very little behind to get buried.
Anybody But Michael:
I just noticed your post earlier in this thread. Why are you using that name? Are you making fun of me? Are you trying to imply that I am some kind of stupid Thumper?
Michael:
Are you really so stupid that I have to explain this to you?
RE: Just Me’s post (March 28, 2005 07:15 PM)
Okay, just a hypothesis, but larger animals generally have legs and can run faster, and run to higher ground. So just guessing, maybe the larger animals got to higher ground, and weren’t caught up in the waters where the silt and other stuff was burying all those smaller things. Then they got covered up by the water, and rotted away, leaving very little behind to get buried.
You mean like, for example, humans running from a tsunami of historical proportions?
Anybody But Michael:
Up yours!
Michael:
Yo Mama!
Paul writes: For about he 1.6 millionth time. I don’t have a better theory! In fact I’ve said on multiple occasions that the present ones are the best we have.
…For some value of 1.6 million…
Anyway, this is the first time since I started hassling him about it that Paul has actually answered the questions I put to him in the last three threads on the topic. (You won’t find any of my previous posts of the questions, because he deleted them all rather than answer them. I don’t understand why he felt the need to do that. I posted the questions on my [shared] weblog, for reference purposes.)
Ye ghods, what a wanker Paul is… I have to agree with PZ Myers above. The graph he produced for this post was just astonishing in its degree of whackery. He’s finally been badgered into admitting that he accepts that the modern synthesis theory of evolution is the best scientific explanation for the origin of life— he has no other theory he prefers over it.
He just likes whining about how much it sucks. And he likes transmitting the bogus claims and arguments of creationist anti-science nutjobs. And he especially likes calling all the people he’s castigating for accepting evolutionary theories about the origin of life by the name “oozers”— even while he will, when pushed, finally admit that he’s an “oozer” himself.
A wanker of high degree, I say.
Anybody But Michael:
I am soooo stimulated by an intellectual debate like this.
Michael:
You stupid Thumper. You wouldn’t recognize a real debate if it kicked you in the ass!
Anybody But Michael:
As I pointed out long ago, Paul put this thread in the Humor category, and YOU ARE A JOKE you stupid Oozer. You are going to hell!!
Paul:
OK, we are spamming your comment thread. Feel free to delete. But this was SUPPOSED to be humerous, right?
RE: Michael and Anybody But Michael’s post (March 28, 2005 07:41 PM)
…But this was SUPPOSED to be humerous, right?
Au contraire. Death match, best two out of three falls for the world title. “Evolving Ooze” vs “Creative Thumpers”. Winner’s dogma reigns the mount with subsequent extinction of loser’s folly into the abyss. The sands of time will purge all evidence of this clash of titans until it’s uncovered anew by a bunch of confused spelunkers seeking a new “truth”. And then we’ll have the rematch.
Pro evolution posters have said “evolution is a fact” and that no “sane scientist” would not believe in evolution. If evolution were indeed considered to be a fact we would not have the many quotes in publications by evolutionary scientists who offer the various theories of evolution (and doubts about)?
What we know through the study of genomes shows that the information for change must already be there and is not determined by environment and selectivity (such as thinking about why the giraffe has a long neck).
bobvcs, instead of regurgitating the same old lies and canards, why not try to educate yourself on the issue? I recommend Talk.Origins for an obvious novice like yourself. While you’re at it, you might want to brush up on the entire methodology of science, of which you’re clearly wistfully ignorant. Some factual basis might give your comments that extra ZING.
Anonymous Drivel:
ROFLMAOL.
Thanks.
bobvs: Read Dawkins’ The Blind Watchmaker. Also, please let us know how Intelligent Design is more than just an unsupported hypothesis.
AD:
heh. I was thinking 42!
I’m all for debate– And I don’t even shy away from name calling…
But when “yo momma” actually becomes the most intellectual comment in the last few hours, I think it’s time to say good-night.