Like I say, blowhard, learn to read. There might actually be a couple of counties in Pa in which you wouldn't even be the oldest kid in a third grade class.
So thats it? thats your best come back? I like the way you whine about others being rude to you , yet your own lack of courtesy is legend.
I suppose. like real life, youll disappear for a few days hoping yor latest bird turds will be lost on the mass of posts..
I looked on the AGI CD o see whether anything from Velikovsky had been used as source material, and , as I expected, the silence was deafening. You might as well start quoting Dr Mike from the Cornesrtone Missions. They seem to be the last vesige of TV Science Evangelism. They, like you, give dates in history and pre history that were flood oriented.
BTW, where are these " vast muck deposits" that you are suggesting as evidence of a flood? Real muck deposits are used in agriculture to grow truck crops like onions and the amount of real mucks are quite lim ited so its good to know where some more are.
Ill wait to be enlightened.
Quote:Like I say, blowhard, learn to read.
Thank you for your courtesy. Ihd to admit that, when I saw Velikovsky"s name being wuoted as "reputable science" I almost choked and quit reading your post for fear I would have a laughing stroke. Vine Deloria, Immanuel Velikovsky,Duane Gish, Kent Hovind, Russ Humphreys, you like to quote all the Nobel Laureates dont you?
Whenever gunga has nothing of value to say(which is all the time) he likes to throw in graphics from one of his "science" textbooks.
No, actually that was an illustration from a well known children's story, with which he made a nonverbal analogy to a blowhard.
No I think he's trying to say that pigs and wolves have evolved into tool making pigs and wolves. It's also plea for cartoon physics as classical physics demands that momentum is conserved. And in this illustration it isn't.
Consequently it might be well used as an ID "cartoon physics" analogy.
Rap
The way I interprest gunga's cartoon is the following:
a. gunga is the big bad wolf.
b. he blows hot air to destroy the little piggies home
c. he's proud of his accomplishment.
d. but little red riding hood got away
Im amazed at the interpretive analyses on gungas cartoon, and his underlying thoughts. Im of the opinion that hes not evolved enough to comprehnd abstract thinking.
As far as his "blowhard" analogy, Ill take ownership of his personal attacks. However, as hes not been able to land a glove , and merely further deepens most of my suspicions concerning his education and comprehension levels, I merely shake my head at his profound ignorance of basic science.
While most all of the arguments posted by others against gungas positions are well- reasoned and crafted from real world data, gunga still alludes to certain human attributes that "must have developed after the flood". Then he posts some really brain-dead positions about loess deposits ( which his writer states are probably "rafted") and "All this "muck soil", and this is all pure nonsense.
Even the inner coastal plain from New York to Florida and most of the world, contains a "beach" which is a sign of a quiescent stable prograding sea front, and most all of the true"muck deposits" are organic rich layers in areas of poor drainage (swamps, lake bottoms, and special periglacial areas) , NOT , as gunga sources say, "evidence for a flood".
My challenge to show us where theres any credible evidence for a worldwide flood still stands unmet. Merely stating incorrect information from a dubious credibility sources doesnt make it so gunga.Try to keep up.
The cartoon says it all.
But I am curious... for those of you that believe the universe is only 6,000 years old... how do you explain our observation of light coming from stars that are tens-of-millions of miles away?
They would, if they could be bothered, just say that the measurement method were flawed.
Most wouldn't answer. The member "real life," for example, will only say that he believes that the earth is thousands of years old as opposed to millions or billions of years old--he won't commit himself to a discrete figure.
I find it interesting that Gunga Din, who started the thread, has disappeared, and has nothing more to add.
Oops . . . i missed a page. Gunga has been back--and his contribution says it all about what he has to offer on the subject.
I thought evolution worked the other way? Didn't things in the sea (whales) evolve first and then land animals? I didn't think a giant dog decided to go swimming and turned into a whale.
The argument about the phytoplankton-grazing whales and the carnivorous ones is silly. There's no reason to think that while this plankton skimming mouth was evolving that they couldn't still eat other things.
USAFHokie80 wrote: I didn't think a giant dog decided to go swimming and turned into a whale.
Nonetheless that's pretty much the evoloser party line.
USAFHokie80 wrote:I thought evolution worked the other way? Didn't things in the sea (whales) evolve first and then land animals? I didn't think a giant dog decided to go swimming and turned into a whale.
Whales aren't fish, they are mammals. Mammals evolved on land. Some land mammals returned to the sea and have become greatly modified over time. There are now extensive transitional fossils tracking whale evolution.
USAFHokie80 wrote:The argument about the phytoplankton-grazing whales and the carnivorous ones is silly. There's no reason to think that while this plankton skimming mouth was evolving that they couldn't still eat other things.
What are you referring to? Did I miss a post on this?
gungasnake wrote:USAFHokie80 wrote: I didn't think a giant dog decided to go swimming and turned into a whale.
Nonetheless that's pretty much the evoloser party line.
At least we've got overwhelming evidence to support our party line. What have you got, irrational fear and a bad attitude... not very impressive.
Yes, you must have missed some posts.
rosborne979 wrote:USAFHokie80 wrote:The argument about the phytoplankton-grazing whales and the carnivorous ones is silly. There's no reason to think that while this plankton skimming mouth was evolving that they couldn't still eat other things.
What are you referring to? Did I miss a post on this?
Oh, I see. You went back to the first post which started with "Goldschmidt was subjected to endless villification, but nobody has ever answered his challenge..."
Well the reason he was subjected to endless villification is because he was apparently completely ignorant of actual evolutionary theory and tried to challenge it using examples and scenario's which were completely bogus because they were innacurate expressions of the theory he didn't understand. When someone challenges something they don't understand by offering analogies which demonstrate their own ignorance, they are often considered to be annoying idiots.
To see an example of these bogus analogies, just keep reading Gunga's original post and you can see first hand the errors in analogy used to make the challenges.
Has anyone mentioned yet that there is an obvious difference in having *no* answer and having a *ridiculous* answer?
Who/what created god? If your contention is that our world is so complex that it couldn't possibly have happened on its own, then it stands to reason that this creator would be too complex to have happened without direction from a higher being.
