De constructing Darwinism

Once again, ignorance substitutes for asserted credibility.

You should really read a bit more about the paleolithic techniques at cave painting nd petroglyphs from places like Altamira, Chauvet or Lascaux or early PaleoIndian petroglyphs of the US from the Susquehanna, Shoop rock wall, Newspaper Rock or the many others qnd youll be able to see the differences you comment about. Maybe thatll help you better understand your assertion.

That was an absurd expansion of what I said. Which shows how fixed your own mental state is.

I was not arguing for the case for a shorter earth age or dinosaurs and men co-existing, just pointing out the absurdity of the debunking article you posted.

Can you make an argument against the actual point I made or not?

I did, I told you to go and look at paleolithic cave paintings and look at how they were done. Admit it youre just in denial mode . Youre also getting like layman, if ya cant take it up, try snapping back with covert insult about "the mental state of your opponent, implying nascent senility"

WHY NOT JUST LEAVE ME OUT OF IT IF YOU JUST WANT TO POST INANITIES. I at least, posted evidence from real scientists, youre just engged in assertions based on nothing . You havent once considered how obtuse a position you and gunga are occupying by passively accepting that dinosaurs have lived in the 1800's because american Indians have drawn rock cartoons of creatures with antlers that dont look like dinosaurs in the first place, and in the second case, is drawn with help of soaking rains
"EXPLAINING THE OBVIOUS IS OFTEN THE MOST DIFFICULT".

Cripes, you really don't read, or comprehend, anything thing I write do you.


Glass houses might apply here

feel better? I hope so.

No. Formerman is a pure propaganda outlet; expecting him to read or grasp something YOU were to write is like expecting water to flow INTO a fire hydrant.

speaking of propaganda, will you ever take a break from trying to push your ten year old pile of racist Creationist crap about "Live dinosaurs" walking around the US during colonial times. Wheres ANY evidence???
Whenever I confront you its with new data and evidence that science is discovering every new day. Your bunch of "Creation/ID scientists" havent done anything new since coming up with their modified logo back in the early 90's.
Im quite confident of the accuracy of science. Hows it going for you??


_____________________

Qs fr as understanding Leadfoot, Ive had his number since day 1 and hes not changed any tack, nor has he actually read anything that even makes him want to learn even more. His worldview decides what he will accept or deign as fact. Thats not science, thats mythology.

_____________________

You both hould read "The Book That Changed America...How Darwin's Theory of Evolution (sic) Ignited a Nation".

Youd underwtand how your racist thinking permeates through (especially gunga snake). Its an interesting and accessible read . I dont expect either of you to attend becoming Darwin SCholars (or even learned correspondents), but you could better understand how Natural Selection Theory made its way into our nations thinkingfrom 1860 on.

Whenever anyone posts a thread entitled "Deconstructing Darwin" its always done on a basis of fear for thir worldview crashing and burning.
The interesting thing is , science doesnt give a squat what any Thumpwr wants to believe. Many scientists in evolutionary reserach are Christians,Jews , Muslims and many other religions. They are committed practicing members of their sects and have the fight of their consciousness about what path they must take for their moral compasses.

That all goes away at the door of the lab, or the opening of the day into the field.

Some of the most vehement defenders of scientific theory have been many of these religious members, like Ken Miller or Dave Raup, whove each arrived at a personal connection with their need for a belief in a God. Their Christiane Gods are transcendent beings who hive nothing to do with the occurrence or descent of life on earth. Theyve testified in court cases and expanded on their belief systems.

However, NOONE with advanced relevant credentials and experience professes beliefs in an interactive deity who was always (and incompetently) "futzing" with biology chemistry and geology, or has left his (or her) "testimonials in some scrolls and books of campfire stories.
Now gunga may come up with a list of fraudulent "quote mines". These are NOT even qccurate quotes and there are several web pages devoted debunking quote mines that were made by fraudulent (LYING) Creationist clowns.

Yep, its all done in fear, not scientific discourse. If it were scientific, wed have papers published because if theres one thing science does. Its carrying on "point /counterpoint" arguments among peers

You only have to look at this a little bit to realize how stupid it
really is.

You are starting out with apes ten million years ago, in a world of fang and claw with 1000+ lb. carnivores running amok all over the place, and trying to evolve your way towards a more refined creature in modern man.

What's wrong with that?

Like:



I mean, that's on top of the problem of monkeys, apes, or proto-humans being clearly incapable of moving down from trees and starting to live on savannas on a permanent basis. I mean, what's the most major difference between human infants and the young of all prey animals? That's right: the baby deer have the sense to keep quiet until they're old enough to run, full speed. What's gonna happen the first time a gang of 'proto-humans' starts walking around on the savannas and some human infant starts screaming his head off because something displeases him, with 500 and 1000 lb predators walking around all over the place? Can you say "Dinner Bell"??

The problem gets worse when you try to imagine known human behavorial constants interacting with the requirements of having the extremely rare to imaginary beneficial mutation always prevail:

Let's start from about ten million years back and assume we have our ape ancestor, and two platonic ideals towards which this ape ancestor (call him "Oop") can evolve: One is a sort of a composite of Mozart, Beethoven, Thomas Jefferson, Shakespeare, i.e. your archetypal dead white man, and the other platonic ideal, or evolutionary target, is going to be a sort of an "apier" ape, fuzzier, smellier, meaner, bigger Johnson, smaller brain, chews tobacco, drinks, gambles, gets into knife fights...

Further, let's be generous and assume that for every one chance mutation which is beneficial and leads towards the gentleman, you only have 1000 adverse mutations which lead towards the other guy. None of these mutations are going to be instantly fatal or anything like that at all; Darwinism posits change by insensible degree, hence all of these 1000 guys are fully functional.

The assumption which is being made is that these 1000 guys (with the bad mutation) are going to get together and decide something like:



Now, it would be amazing enough if that were ever to happen once; Darwinism, however, requires that this happen EVERY GENERATION from Oop to us. What could possibly be stupider than that?

Did that actually happen?

No, I've never said or written anything about dinosaurs walking around in colonial times either on A2K or anywhere else. Somebody may be smokin too much reefer here...

gunga's been posting stuff that interprets these petroglyphs done by Paleoindians to pre woodland culture populations, as some kind of "factual evidence" that dinosaurs were alive during th priod that the Native artists carved the glyphs.
SO now he wants to divorce himself from that previous belief and admit that. He is relying on a belief that very few of us have been arguing with him so they wouldnt even recognize what hes been posting on the A2K .

1. Hes just been a damn liar for about 10 years on A2K while posing as a commited creationist (for which I commented on several times and accused him of just jacking us around because I didnt think he could be that easily convinced ) or

2 Hes just now realizing that this was probably just only some hyperbole based on his religious worldview on his part and he should severely edit his fraudulent "table of evidence" that the age of the earth and the age of dinosaurs ca be measured in a few thousand years.

Believing in something and then denying that belief fits right in with gungas political bent,

I rest my case about what Ive been saying re:the state of gungas abilities to do abstract scientific reasoning and understand things like EVIDENCE.

RIGHT Here he delivers a passionate(lbeit completely wacky) explanation in a fashion that only gunga could compose and make it sound like he "believed" what he wrote.(If hes just jqcking around I say that he should apply for a role in the upcoming redux of the BEverly Hillbillies where he could convincingly play a country sachem )

We should know, in being honest about evolution and the theory of naturl selection, Darwin made a couple of major blunders in his theory. He really never understood how a "Favorable event" in which a beneficial trait was acquired by an individual and would be "FIXED" by some internal dingus that controlled and passed on this trait. HE never knew anything about genetics or how the math worked.
According to Darwin, a trait would be "Diluted down" by successive generations of breeding so it sorta had to be "Redesigned each or every few generations". Darwin felt there was a "force" that compells the acquisition of traits to be accomplished and therefore to "Be preserved".For some reason we forgive him of that and seem to mis the implications of his "Brilliant Blunder"

He also had an incomplete understanding of things like "endemisms"(geogrphically unique species) or "allopatry" or "convergent or divergent evolution">

YESSIR Darwin missed a lot and messed up a lot of his conclusions. BUT, his basic facts are all correct. Those observations he made and reconstructed from field to "lqb", were some genius.
However, gunga and his crowd have been arguing against Darwin based on stuff that DArwin never ever had an inkling about and theyve missed the obvious.

To me, thats telling. Because a firmer understanding of what Darwin said and what weve derived and furthered in over 150 yrs of research merely confers the overall MECHANISM by which Darwins theory actually works.
AND as Ive said many times before. His theory is evidenced by supportive facts every day and(more importntly), NO FACTS OR EVIDENCE has been found that refute the theory.

Ive said over and over that
"The only way to prove a theory, is to not disprove it" and there are more scientists out there who are trying to tar bricks out of the theory (in order to make it a better theory or find its Achilles tendon)
Really good scientists are out their working their asses off understanding the mechanisms of evolution and an organisms development. WHY???? ,BECAUSE much of these genetic mechanisms of natural selection have , in the last 30 years, been decoded down to the molecular level , and this information is playing a driving role in how things like CANCER and CARDIAC research are coming up with entirely new generations of treatments to most diseases).
In other words, Evolution is very bIG BUSINESS, its not some bunch of religious nutters sitting around trying to debate whether some cartoon of a "Dinosaur" is considered evidence of that dinosaurs existence during the life time of that Indian artist, thus serving as a "model" for his art.

Which is is, formerman?? Am I supposed to have been claiming dinosaurs in colonial times walking around next to Ben Franklin (your previous claim) or just within the span of North America being inhabited by humans? You can't keep switching these claims around and claiming that they are equivalent.

Do you feel better now?

Your ability to pretend that I do not know, understand and accept natural selection is phenomenal. You use that overt lie in your own mind like a universal tool and as justification not to hear what I and others are actually saying and dismiss us as "fraudulent (LYING) Creationist clowns".
It destroys your credibility.

when you enied abiogenesis and then said "I care nothing about evolution becaue its ignoring design", I mase up my min about your intent.
I dont know who you are nor do I really care. What you say here lives with you and is your entire persona as far as I care.
If you flip flop about, Ill just ignore what you say as clowning around.
and not wanting to engage in a knock down.

As far as dates asshole, whether its 6000 years ago or at the time of European settlement, it matters not to me. BOTH CLAIMS ARE FRAUD and without wvidence.
We have DNA and pollen from Paleo indian times. We even have frozen mammut, short faced bear,wolf and ground sloth specimens wherein we can look at derived species.

If your now trying to dance around and make a huge distinction between 10000 years ago nd 500 (when speaking re ancient pwcies), It matters not to me.

PS, the pwtroglyphs at "newspaper rock" one of the "dino evdience ites you dmire" were carved during the period of European colonization.

SOm s hving it both ways, please dont try to feign being insulted. Your a master at deceptive reasoning.

You are nothing but a bullshit artist whose past posts create a nice portrait of a "denier of anything of mainstream science and a groupy of anything fringie",

You are what you post. So if you now deny all your A2K activity about beliving in "the Flood" or "Creationism as a science" maybe I can find som of these old posts and we can examine them objectively

Oral traditions and petroglyphs both say that dinosaurs survived into recent prehistoric times, therer is no reason to think that they survived into colonial times. Putting words into other people's mouths and setting up and knocking down straw-men is not reasonable argument or debate.

See, the assumption you begin with is that
1. These three (Ive included newspper rock so you ont feel Im being inconsistent)petroglyphs sites all represent DINOSAURS. That requires some evidence which youve just glossed over. Why does your stegosaur have have horns an mammal like like frame?
It has a rather cow like face too. no?

Youve just jumped to an easy conclusion (or were fed one by "Answers in Genesis").

2That this is EVIDENCE that the Amerinds were seeing dinosaurs. Cmon



Amrinds occupied thi hemisphere qs eqrly qs 20K yers ago, when were the petroglyphs scribed?


Youve consistently argued that humans and dinosaurs lived together by virtue of the petroglyph "evidence".If you are trying to impugne my credibility with quibble about dates , tell me WHEN do you think these "dinosaurs" lived??
Ill accept any date from whenever humans occupied this hemisphere to last Tuesday.


I think youve got yourself in a bind and are trying a Donald Trump trick to impugne the interrogator by ducking that 100 years to 20000 YRS REALLY MAKES NO DIFFERENCE BECAUSE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FROM ABOUT 25 DIFFERENT DIRECTIONAL SOURCES ALL CONVERGE ON A fact THAT THE DINOSAURS WERE WIPED OUT 65 MILLION YEARS AGO. Even the Vatican Observatory scientists agree on that.So do S Christian and most all (non Evangelical, ACCREDITED ) colleges and Universities biology and geology departments.

Your argument is kinda lame, and you know it.

Ive given you a decent hypothesis based upon a real megafauna that hd similar features as the Mishipihu that you claim is a stegosaur. Mine was a GLYPTODONT, which could hqve lived in the late Pleistocene and PERHAPS humans did interact with these large critters. They had scales (scutes actually), They had too, a clubbed tail and some even had those huge zygomatic arches causing ear protuberances (Not horns but large "side of the face" thingies).
NO, you want to go with stegosaurs,why? Because youre a CREATIONIST who cannot accept anything that science throws at you if it denies SCripture.
Thats not being honest at all.

Ive no data other than a knowledge of what lived hen nd Ive proposed that as an exploitation of a petroglyph "model" based on Pleistocene reality

Heres a glyptodont skull. See the big zygomatic arch that sticks out. This was a varying doodad. Some larger , some waay smaller. Of course, there was the 9 banded armadillo which was also pretty big(as big s a VW beetle they say, Ive never seen one). It had large stiff ears, a cow-like face and a long (but clubless tail unlike the glyptodont)

I think these both make waaay better candidates as petroglyph "models"