John Harshman wrote: > All-seeing-I wrote: >> On Nov 6, 9:54 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote: >>> All-seeing-I wrote: >>>> It seems evolutionists just can't make up their minds exactly what we >>>> have evolved from! >>>> NOW we find that Homo erectus may not be evolved from Homo habilis >>>> I give up! >>>> ""Their co-existence makes it unlikely that Homo erectus evolved from >>>> Homo habilis," said Meave Leakey, one of the lead authors of the >>>> paper. >>>> "The fact that they stayed separate as individual species for a long >>>> time suggests that they had their own ecological niche, thus avoiding >>>> direct competition." >>>> http://rawstory.com/news/afp/New_fossil_finds_challenge_mankind__0808...
>>>> -- >>>> They will evolve as soon as they get their story straight says... >>> You should give up. You have no point, and your complete ignorance of >>> science makes it impossible for you to make one.
>>> Now, if this article isn't garbling what Leakey said, she's just plain >>> wrong. To make sense of her claim that coexistence of H. erectus and H. >>> habilis makes it unlikely that the former evolved from the latter, it >>> would require us to view evolution as a linear progression from form to >>> form. That's a Lamarckian view, not a Darwinian one. Darwin understood, >>> as we do today, that species diverge. One population of H. habilis could >>> have changed gradually to H. erectus while another remained similar to >>> its habiline ancestors. Leakey's (supposed) quote is a version of "if we >>> came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?", and as such is highly >>> suspicious coming from anyone other than a creationist. I know that >>> hominid paleontologists are often a century or more behind other >>> paleontologists in their methodology and understanding, but that's >>> pushing it.
>> So there are different theories and it is a matter of which one we >> choose to believe?
> I can't imagine how you managed to get that from what I wrote. Some > theories are clearly false. Some theories are clearly true. And some > theories are not clearly either. We can choose based on evidence, not > merely personal taste as you seem to think.
>> That sounds like choosing a religion JH
> I agree that what you said is, but it isn't anything like what I said. > It does raise an interesting question, though. Why do you, personally, > choose your religion over other religions?
Where's Lenny Flank's pizza boy when you need him?
> > > NOW we find that Homo erectus may not be evolved from Homo habilis
> > > I give up!
> > No you don't. You're totally dependent on this group. You'll never give > > up.
> > > ""Their co-existence makes it unlikely that Homo erectus evolved from > > > Homo habilis," said Meave Leakey, one of the lead authors of the > > > paper.
> > > "The fact that they stayed separate as individual species for a long > > > time suggests that they had their own ecological niche, thus avoiding > > > direct competition."
> > > -- > > > They will evolve as soon as they get their story straight says...
> > > The All Seeing I
> > So what's bothering you is that you have uncovered evidence that science > > changes over time.
> This is a bit more then "changing over time" dear.
> > Nothing gets by you, does it? You're a sharp one all right. Such is the > > nature of science.
> Nothing gets by "The All Seeing I". I am all seeing.
> > You seem to imply that these changes are arbitrary or whimsical. > > Such is not the case and we all know you know that despite your games.
> The article says what it says. How is THAT my game?
> > Religious beliefs, by comparison, are unchanging. Religious beliefs do not > > respond to evidence from the natural world as they are interpretations of > > what goes on in the supernatural. People line up behind the > > interpretations > > they like and support.
> Which just so happens to be why evolution has support
> > Since those interpretations can not be tested in the > > natural world they need not change because they cannot be challenged. What > > changes is the membership of those who adhere to them. New religions > > evolve > > to fill new niches in societies. This makes sense because religious belief > > is a behavior and behaviors can evolve. It's all about the "Godulike". > > One's > > as good as the next if it scratches the itch well enough.
> This could apply to religion. But not to God. God has remained the > same. Religion is what evolves.
> Ridiculous. Different religions espouse different gods.
> > Have your beliefs about the supernatural changed (dare I say evolved?) > > over > > your lifetime or have they always been the same? Maybe just greater > > complexity since you were a child? (if complexity can evolve, that is)
> My belief in God is the same. My belief in religion has faltered for > the obvious reasons. I chose NOT to toss the baby out with the bath > water.
> > Your problem is a simple one: your supernatural beliefs clash with the > > evidence from the natural world.
> Of course. But how is that a problem? The supernatural will never be > explained with natural science.
> Which is why science never employs "Godidit". Kinda leaves you creationists > out in the cold, don't it?
> > You appear to think that by posting in this newsgroup you can change the > > nature of science. Fat chance. What's really happening is that since you > > interpret the world through the lens of a belief system, you think > > everybody > > does.
> And your belief system is?
> My bumper sticker says, "I don't know and neither do you."
> > Science, to you, is just a flawed belief system and you think you can > > blow it wide open.
> Blow it wide open? Umm NO. Expose it for what it is? Yes.
> Whatever.
> Science is an interpretation. The interpretation can be flawed because > mankind is flawed.
> Because science does not rely upon authority, it can be improved upon, even > by flawed humans.
> > You're striving to convince people to see the world > > through your lens. Sorry, I'm just not prepared to abandon rational > > thought > > based upon empirical evidence of the natural world in favour of > > supernatural, un-testable, un-challengable beliefs just because I fear my > > own mortality.
> I never once asked anyone to do such a thing. But I do seek an honest > intercourse on the subject. Do you have a problem with honesty?
> None. But I don't think you know what honesty is.
> >That's really what it's all about: you're a child awake in > > the dark afraid to die and you want there to be something more. So ... you > > make it up and feel better! Your bumper sticker reads, "Just because it's > > made up doesn't mean it isn't real".
> > Oh well, it sucks to be you.
> In case you had not heard, people that believe in God also believe in > an after life that is better then this one. Now why would we be afraid > to die? heh... you are so amusing at times.
> It's your fear of death that seduces you into wishing for an after life. > Tell us about it. Give us some empirical data on it. Are there toilets in > heaven? You haven't a clue do you? Doesn't matter anyway. Whatever you offer > is just stuff you make up and there's no way we can check up on it, is > there? Pure fantasy.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
There are other forms of data that are equally as viable. Someone dies, they have a NDE and return to tell us. For all practical purposes that is an "eye witness account". But that is not good enough for the "Doubting Thomas'" of the world. They will only accept a single tiny form of evidence and ignore the rest.
> All-seeing-I wrote: > > On Nov 6, 9:54 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote: > >> All-seeing-I wrote: > >>> It seems evolutionists just can't make up their minds exactly what we > >>> have evolved from! > >>> NOW we find that Homo erectus may not be evolved from Homo habilis > >>> I give up! > >>> ""Their co-existence makes it unlikely that Homo erectus evolved from > >>> Homo habilis," said Meave Leakey, one of the lead authors of the > >>> paper. > >>> "The fact that they stayed separate as individual species for a long > >>> time suggests that they had their own ecological niche, thus avoiding > >>> direct competition." > >>>http://rawstory.com/news/afp/New_fossil_finds_challenge_mankind__0808... > >>> -- > >>> They will evolve as soon as they get their story straight says... > >> You should give up. You have no point, and your complete ignorance of > >> science makes it impossible for you to make one.
> >> Now, if this article isn't garbling what Leakey said, she's just plain > >> wrong. To make sense of her claim that coexistence of H. erectus and H. > >> habilis makes it unlikely that the former evolved from the latter, it > >> would require us to view evolution as a linear progression from form to > >> form. That's a Lamarckian view, not a Darwinian one. Darwin understood, > >> as we do today, that species diverge. One population of H. habilis could > >> have changed gradually to H. erectus while another remained similar to > >> its habiline ancestors. Leakey's (supposed) quote is a version of "if we > >> came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?", and as such is highly > >> suspicious coming from anyone other than a creationist. I know that > >> hominid paleontologists are often a century or more behind other > >> paleontologists in their methodology and understanding, but that's > >> pushing it. > > So there are different theories and it is a matter of which one we > > choose to believe?
> I can't imagine how you managed to get that from what I wrote. Some > theories are clearly false. Some theories are clearly true. And some > theories are not clearly either. We can choose based on evidence, not > merely personal taste as you seem to think.
> > That sounds like choosing a religion JH
> I agree that what you said is, but it isn't anything like what I said. > It does raise an interesting question, though. Why do you, personally, > choose your religion over other religions?
I do not belong to a religion.
However, I do make every effort to follow the teachings of Jesus..
All-seeing-I wrote: > On Nov 6, 9:43 pm, "R Brown" <bro...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> "All-seeing-I" <ap...@email.com> wrote in message
<snip>
>> It's your fear of death that seduces you into wishing for an after life. >> Tell us about it. Give us some empirical data on it. Are there toilets in >> heaven? You haven't a clue do you? Doesn't matter anyway. Whatever you offer >> is just stuff you make up and there's no way we can check up on it, is >> there? Pure fantasy.
> There are other forms of data that are equally as viable. Someone > dies, they have a NDE and return to tell us. For all practical > purposes that is an "eye witness account". But that is not good enough > for the "Doubting Thomas'" of the world. They will only accept a > single tiny form of evidence and ignore the rest.
Two points:
1) When someone has actually died, they cannot have a near death experience. I'm fairly sure that that's part of the definition.
2) NDEs are brought about when the flow of oxygen to the brain is impeded, as when someone's heart stops beating, or if someone who is *not* dying is on, say, a centrifuge undergoing high g's. (You can google that if you're interested.) If the flow of oxygen to the brain is impeded, it cannot possibly be functioning "normally". How then can one's perceptions while in that state possibly be trusted?
On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 20:16:11 -0400, Nashton <n...@na.ca> enriched this
group when s/he wrote: >Ye Old One wrote: >> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:01:41 -0400, Nashton <n...@na.ca> enriched this >> group when s/he wrote:
>>> What does this have anything to do with the truth that ASI is "hiding" >>>from you?
>> One thing you never get from Mudbrain is the truth.
>When will you be a MAN and explain how all drugs are derived from the >ToE you imbecile?
Why do you keep repeating the same lie?
My guess is abject stupidity.
-- Bob.
Bozone (n.): The substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright ideas from penetrating. Your bozone layer, unfortunately, shows little sign of breaking down in the near future.
On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 20:17:21 -0400, Nashton <n...@na.ca> enriched this
group when s/he wrote: >Ye Old One wrote: >> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:05:41 -0400, Nashton <n...@na.ca> enriched this >> group when s/he wrote:
>>> Does my stupidity have no limits?
>Your stupidity, the one that was behind your assertion that all modern >drugs are derived from the ToE is iconic, to say the least, monumental >in real terms.
Again the same lie from you. Why?
>> Post corrected at no charge.
-- Bob.
Everyone is entitled to be stupid but you're abusing the privilege.
On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 17:07:24 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Nov 6, 6:16 pm, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote: >> Ye Old One wrote: >> > On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:01:41 -0400, Nashton <n...@na.ca> enriched this >> > group when s/he wrote:
>> >> What does this have anything to do with the truth that ASI is "hiding" >> >>from you?
>> > One thing you never get from Mudbrain is the truth.
>> When will you be a MAN and explain how all drugs are derived from the >> ToE you imbecile?
>That is not a man, that is an ape.
We are all apes Mudbrain, even you.
-- Bob.
When D-G made Madman out of clay he forgot to magic the brain. I think that explains everything.
> Ye Old One wrote: > > On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:05:41 -0400, Nashton <n...@na.ca> enriched this > > group when s/he wrote:
> >> Does my stupidity have no limits?
> Your stupidity, the one that was behind your assertion that all modern > drugs are derived from the ToE is iconic, to say the least, monumental > in real terms.
So, genius, perhaps you can answer the question: Got any examples of a Cambrian Mammal? Or perhaps you can explain why there are no modern human remains found in the same strata as H. Hablis or H. erectus? All Stinking Idiot (AKA, Mr. Cambrian Mammal = Trilobite) seems to have problems with both questions. Perhaps you can help him out, and show everyone how stupid "evolutionists" are?
> > Have you addressed my point? I will repeat it for you:
> > They will never talk about this glaring hole in their superstitious creation > > theory, never.
> > .
> If you want to discuss this or any other point, create your own thread. > This thread was started by ASI and you have failed to address any of his > points.
Who started this thread is irrelevent. Your infantile excuse for evading the question is noted.
And "failed to address any on his (Mr. Cambrian Mammal = Trilobites's) points is also irrelevent, since he was addressing another claim.
On Nov 7, 6:44 am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 20:18:46 -0400, Nashton <n...@na.ca> enriched this
> group when s/he wrote: > >Ye Old One wrote:
> >> So low you can ignore it.
> >OTOH, ignoring your profound stupidity, the one that was behind your > >assertion that the ToE is behind every modern drug, is a very difficult > >task.
> Third repeat of the same lie in one day. Are you going for a lying > record?
> > > NOW we find that Homo erectus may not be evolved from Homo habilis
> > > I give up!
> > No you don't. You're totally dependent on this group. You'll never give up.
> > > ""Their co-existence makes it unlikely that Homo erectus evolved from > > > Homo habilis," said Meave Leakey, one of the lead authors of the > > > paper.
> > > "The fact that they stayed separate as individual species for a long > > > time suggests that they had their own ecological niche, thus avoiding > > > direct competition."
> > > -- > > > They will evolve as soon as they get their story straight says...
> > > The All Seeing I
> > So what's bothering you is that you have uncovered evidence that science > > changes over time.
> This is a bit more then "changing over time" dear.
So, scientists should ignore new data?
> > Nothing gets by you, does it? You're a sharp one all right. Such is the > > nature of science.
> Nothing gets by "The All Seeing I". I am all seeing.
Where were you looking when you said "Trilobite", when asked to cite at least one example of a Cambrian Mammal?
> > You seem to imply that these changes are arbitrary or whimsical. > > Such is not the case and we all know you know that despite your games.
> The article says what it says. How is THAT my game?
You willful misrepresentation of what the article presented.
> > Religious beliefs, by comparison, are unchanging. Religious beliefs do not > > respond to evidence from the natural world as they are interpretations of > > what goes on in the supernatural. People line up behind the interpretations > > they like and support.
> Which just so happens to be why evolution has support
You mean people with brains support eolution because they like supporting ideas that have supporting evidence. That sound reasonable to me. Why does it give you problems?
> > Since those interpretations can not be tested in the > > natural world they need not change because they cannot be challenged. What > > changes is the membership of those who adhere to them. New religions evolve > > to fill new niches in societies. This makes sense because religious belief > > is a behavior and behaviors can evolve. It's all about the "Godulike". One's > > as good as the next if it scratches the itch well enough.
> This could apply to religion. But not to God. God has remained the > same. Religion is what evolves.
1) His comments was about religions, twit. 2) If you aske ten people to discribe God, you will end up with ten different "Gods".
> > Have your beliefs about the supernatural changed (dare I say evolved?) over > > your lifetime or have they always been the same? Maybe just greater > > complexity since you were a child? (if complexity can evolve, that is)
> My belief in God is the same. My belief in religion has faltered for > the obvious reasons. I chose NOT to toss the baby out with the bath > water.
Just the brain part, apparently.
> > Your problem is a simple one: your supernatural beliefs clash with the > > evidence from the natural world.
> Of course. But how is that a problem? The supernatural will never be > explained with natural science.
Then why are you claiming the supernatural explains nature?
> > You appear to think that by posting in this newsgroup you can change the > > nature of science. Fat chance. What's really happening is that since you > > interpret the world through the lens of a belief system, you think everybody > > does.
> And your belief system is?
It probably has something to do with ths thing called "reality".
> > Science, to you, is just a flawed belief system and you think you can > > blow it wide open.
> Blow it wide open? Umm NO. Expose it for what it is? Yes.
You have no idea what science is, and the only thing you've exposed so far is you ignorance and arrogance.
> Science is an interpretation. The interpretation can be flawed because > mankind is flawed.
And yet, it works.
> > You're striving to convince people to see the world > > through your lens. Sorry, I'm just not prepared to abandon rational thought > > based upon empirical evidence of the natural world in favour of > > supernatural, un-testable, un-challengable beliefs just because I fear my > > own mortality.
> I never once asked anyone to do such a thing. But I do seek an honest > intercourse on the subject. Do you have a problem with honesty?
If you sought honest (ahem) "intercourse" on the subject, you'd check you over inflated ego at the door..
> >That's really what it's all about: you're a child awake in > > the dark afraid to die and you want there to be something more. So ... you > > make it up and feel better! Your bumper sticker reads, "Just because it's > > made up doesn't mean it isn't real".
> > Oh well, it sucks to be you.
> In case you had not heard, people that believe in God also believe in > an after life that is better then this one. Now why would we be afraid > to die? heh... you are so amusing at times.
Not as ammusing as "Cambrian mammal = tilobite". though.
> > > > NOW we find that Homo erectus may not be evolved from Homo habilis
> > > > I give up!
> > > No you don't. You're totally dependent on this group. You'll never give > > > up.
> > > > ""Their co-existence makes it unlikely that Homo erectus evolved from > > > > Homo habilis," said Meave Leakey, one of the lead authors of the > > > > paper.
> > > > "The fact that they stayed separate as individual species for a long > > > > time suggests that they had their own ecological niche, thus avoiding > > > > direct competition."
> > > > -- > > > > They will evolve as soon as they get their story straight says...
> > > > The All Seeing I
> > > So what's bothering you is that you have uncovered evidence that science > > > changes over time.
> > This is a bit more then "changing over time" dear.
> > > Nothing gets by you, does it? You're a sharp one all right. Such is the > > > nature of science.
> > Nothing gets by "The All Seeing I". I am all seeing.
> > > You seem to imply that these changes are arbitrary or whimsical. > > > Such is not the case and we all know you know that despite your games.
> > The article says what it says. How is THAT my game?
> > > Religious beliefs, by comparison, are unchanging. Religious beliefs do not > > > respond to evidence from the natural world as they are interpretations of > > > what goes on in the supernatural. People line up behind the > > > interpretations > > > they like and support.
> > Which just so happens to be why evolution has support
> > > Since those interpretations can not be tested in the > > > natural world they need not change because they cannot be challenged. What > > > changes is the membership of those who adhere to them. New religions > > > evolve > > > to fill new niches in societies. This makes sense because religious belief > > > is a behavior and behaviors can evolve. It's all about the "Godulike". > > > One's > > > as good as the next if it scratches the itch well enough.
> > This could apply to religion. But not to God. God has remained the > > same. Religion is what evolves.
> > Ridiculous. Different religions espouse different gods.
> > > Have your beliefs about the supernatural changed (dare I say evolved?) > > > over > > > your lifetime or have they always been the same? Maybe just greater > > > complexity since you were a child? (if complexity can evolve, that is)
> > My belief in God is the same. My belief in religion has faltered for > > the obvious reasons. I chose NOT to toss the baby out with the bath > > water.
> > > Your problem is a simple one: your supernatural beliefs clash with the > > > evidence from the natural world.
> > Of course. But how is that a problem? The supernatural will never be > > explained with natural science.
> > Which is why science never employs "Godidit". Kinda leaves you creationists > > out in the cold, don't it?
> > > You appear to think that by posting in this newsgroup you can change the > > > nature of science. Fat chance. What's really happening is that since you > > > interpret the world through the lens of a belief system, you think > > > everybody > > > does.
> > And your belief system is?
> > My bumper sticker says, "I don't know and neither do you."
> > > Science, to you, is just a flawed belief system and you think you can > > > blow it wide open.
> > Blow it wide open? Umm NO. Expose it for what it is? Yes.
> > Whatever.
> > Science is an interpretation. The interpretation can be flawed because > > mankind is flawed.
> > Because science does not rely upon authority, it can be improved upon, even > > by flawed humans.
> > > You're striving to convince people to see the world > > > through your lens. Sorry, I'm just not prepared to abandon rational > > > thought > > > based upon empirical evidence of the natural world in favour of > > > supernatural, un-testable, un-challengable beliefs just because I fear my > > > own mortality.
> > I never once asked anyone to do such a thing. But I do seek an honest > > intercourse on the subject. Do you have a problem with honesty?
> > None. But I don't think you know what honesty is.
> > >That's really what it's all about: you're a child awake in > > > the dark afraid to die and you want there to be something more. So ... you > > > make it up and feel better! Your bumper sticker reads, "Just because it's > > > made up doesn't mean it isn't real".
> > > Oh well, it sucks to be you.
> > In case you had not heard, people that believe in God also believe in > > an after life that is better then this one. Now why would we be afraid > > to die? heh... you are so amusing at times.
> > It's your fear of death that seduces you into wishing for an after life. > > Tell us about it. Give us some empirical data on it. Are there toilets in > > heaven? You haven't a clue do you? Doesn't matter anyway. Whatever you offer > > is just stuff you make up and there's no way we can check up on it, is > > there? Pure fantasy.- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
> There are other forms of data that are equally as viable. Someone > dies, they have a NDE and return to tell us.
And that is not simply the result of a brain starved of O2? Evidence?
> For all practical > purposes that is an "eye witness account".
Yes, an account of a brain starving for O2.
> But that is not good enough > for the "Doubting Thomas'" of the world. They will only accept a > single tiny form of evidence and ignore the rest.
No, NDE's are not ignored, they are studied. But there is noting in the NDE experiences that truely support an afterlife. After all, not everyone experiences a NDE under the same conditions.
> Which is rather self limiting.
When you go beyond certain limits, you leave rationality behind. Apparently, lack of rationality is not a problem for lunatics, such as you.
> On Nov 6, 9:54 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > All-seeing-I wrote: > > > It seems evolutionists just can't make up their minds exactly what we > > > have evolved from!
> > > NOW we find that Homo erectus may not be evolved from Homo habilis
> > > I give up!
> > > ""Their co-existence makes it unlikely that Homo erectus evolved from > > > Homo habilis," said Meave Leakey, one of the lead authors of the > > > paper.
> > > "The fact that they stayed separate as individual species for a long > > > time suggests that they had their own ecological niche, thus avoiding > > > direct competition."
> > > -- > > > They will evolve as soon as they get their story straight says...
> > You should give up. You have no point, and your complete ignorance of > > science makes it impossible for you to make one.
> > Now, if this article isn't garbling what Leakey said, she's just plain > > wrong. To make sense of her claim that coexistence of H. erectus and H. > > habilis makes it unlikely that the former evolved from the latter, it > > would require us to view evolution as a linear progression from form to > > form. That's a Lamarckian view, not a Darwinian one. Darwin understood, > > as we do today, that species diverge. One population of H. habilis could > > have changed gradually to H. erectus while another remained similar to > > its habiline ancestors. Leakey's (supposed) quote is a version of "if we > > came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?", and as such is highly > > suspicious coming from anyone other than a creationist. I know that > > hominid paleontologists are often a century or more behind other > > paleontologists in their methodology and understanding, but that's > > pushing it.- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
> So there are different theories and it is a matter of which one we > choose to believe?
The one with the best supporting evidence, and if there is not enough to support one over the other, they are both looked at as competing or unsettled. And, BTW, accepting a theory is not a "belief", asshole.
> That sounds like choosing a religion JH
Creationist dishonest tactic #2: Attempt to protray science as just another "belief" system in order to make science "just another religion".
> On Nov 6, 9:34 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > All-seeing-I wrote: > > > On Nov 6, 9:54 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote: > > >> All-seeing-I wrote: > > >>> It seems evolutionists just can't make up their minds exactly what we > > >>> have evolved from! > > >>> NOW we find that Homo erectus may not be evolved from Homo habilis > > >>> I give up! > > >>> ""Their co-existence makes it unlikely that Homo erectus evolved from > > >>> Homo habilis," said Meave Leakey, one of the lead authors of the > > >>> paper. > > >>> "The fact that they stayed separate as individual species for a long > > >>> time suggests that they had their own ecological niche, thus avoiding > > >>> direct competition." > > >>>http://rawstory.com/news/afp/New_fossil_finds_challenge_mankind__0808... > > >>> -- > > >>> They will evolve as soon as they get their story straight says... > > >> You should give up. You have no point, and your complete ignorance of > > >> science makes it impossible for you to make one.
> > >> Now, if this article isn't garbling what Leakey said, she's just plain > > >> wrong. To make sense of her claim that coexistence of H. erectus and H. > > >> habilis makes it unlikely that the former evolved from the latter, it > > >> would require us to view evolution as a linear progression from form to > > >> form. That's a Lamarckian view, not a Darwinian one. Darwin understood, > > >> as we do today, that species diverge. One population of H. habilis could > > >> have changed gradually to H. erectus while another remained similar to > > >> its habiline ancestors. Leakey's (supposed) quote is a version of "if we > > >> came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?", and as such is highly > > >> suspicious coming from anyone other than a creationist. I know that > > >> hominid paleontologists are often a century or more behind other > > >> paleontologists in their methodology and understanding, but that's > > >> pushing it. > > > So there are different theories and it is a matter of which one we > > > choose to believe?
> > I can't imagine how you managed to get that from what I wrote. Some > > theories are clearly false. Some theories are clearly true. And some > > theories are not clearly either. We can choose based on evidence, not > > merely personal taste as you seem to think.
> > > That sounds like choosing a religion JH
> > I agree that what you said is, but it isn't anything like what I said. > > It does raise an interesting question, though. Why do you, personally, > > choose your religion over other religions?
> I do not belong to a religion.
> However, I do make every effort to follow the teachings of Jesus.
Then why are you a egotistical troll? Jesus tought humility. Yet you are an arrogant schmuck Mr. "All Seeing I", and an ignorant one at that. You need to make more of an "effort", Mr. Cambrian Mammal = Trilobite.
All-seeing-I wrote: > On Nov 6, 9:34 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote: >> All-seeing-I wrote: >>> On Nov 6, 9:54 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote: >>>> All-seeing-I wrote: >>>>> It seems evolutionists just can't make up their minds exactly what we >>>>> have evolved from! >>>>> NOW we find that Homo erectus may not be evolved from Homo habilis >>>>> I give up! >>>>> ""Their co-existence makes it unlikely that Homo erectus evolved from >>>>> Homo habilis," said Meave Leakey, one of the lead authors of the >>>>> paper. >>>>> "The fact that they stayed separate as individual species for a long >>>>> time suggests that they had their own ecological niche, thus avoiding >>>>> direct competition." >>>>> http://rawstory.com/news/afp/New_fossil_finds_challenge_mankind__0808... >>>>> -- >>>>> They will evolve as soon as they get their story straight says... >>>> You should give up. You have no point, and your complete ignorance of >>>> science makes it impossible for you to make one. >>>> Now, if this article isn't garbling what Leakey said, she's just plain >>>> wrong. To make sense of her claim that coexistence of H. erectus and H. >>>> habilis makes it unlikely that the former evolved from the latter, it >>>> would require us to view evolution as a linear progression from form to >>>> form. That's a Lamarckian view, not a Darwinian one. Darwin understood, >>>> as we do today, that species diverge. One population of H. habilis could >>>> have changed gradually to H. erectus while another remained similar to >>>> its habiline ancestors. Leakey's (supposed) quote is a version of "if we >>>> came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?", and as such is highly >>>> suspicious coming from anyone other than a creationist. I know that >>>> hominid paleontologists are often a century or more behind other >>>> paleontologists in their methodology and understanding, but that's >>>> pushing it. >>> So there are different theories and it is a matter of which one we >>> choose to believe? >> I can't imagine how you managed to get that from what I wrote. Some >> theories are clearly false. Some theories are clearly true. And some >> theories are not clearly either. We can choose based on evidence, not >> merely personal taste as you seem to think.
>>> That sounds like choosing a religion JH >> I agree that what you said is, but it isn't anything like what I said. >> It does raise an interesting question, though. Why do you, personally, >> choose your religion over other religions?
> I do not belong to a religion.
> However, I do make every effort to follow the teachings of Jesus..
Why? How do you know the teachings of Jesus should be followed?
> > > NOW we find that Homo erectus may not be evolved from Homo habilis
> > > I give up!
> > No you don't. You're totally dependent on this group. You'll never give > > up.
> > > ""Their co-existence makes it unlikely that Homo erectus evolved from > > > Homo habilis," said Meave Leakey, one of the lead authors of the > > > paper.
> > > "The fact that they stayed separate as individual species for a long > > > time suggests that they had their own ecological niche, thus avoiding > > > direct competition."
> > > -- > > > They will evolve as soon as they get their story straight says...
> > > The All Seeing I
> > So what's bothering you is that you have uncovered evidence that science > > changes over time.
> This is a bit more then "changing over time" dear.
> > Nothing gets by you, does it? You're a sharp one all right. Such is the > > nature of science.
> Nothing gets by "The All Seeing I". I am all seeing.
> > You seem to imply that these changes are arbitrary or whimsical. > > Such is not the case and we all know you know that despite your games.
> The article says what it says. How is THAT my game?
> > Religious beliefs, by comparison, are unchanging. Religious beliefs do > > not > > respond to evidence from the natural world as they are interpretations > > of > > what goes on in the supernatural. People line up behind the > > interpretations > > they like and support.
> Which just so happens to be why evolution has support
> > Since those interpretations can not be tested in the > > natural world they need not change because they cannot be challenged. > > What > > changes is the membership of those who adhere to them. New religions > > evolve > > to fill new niches in societies. This makes sense because religious > > belief > > is a behavior and behaviors can evolve. It's all about the "Godulike". > > One's > > as good as the next if it scratches the itch well enough.
> This could apply to religion. But not to God. God has remained the > same. Religion is what evolves.
> Ridiculous. Different religions espouse different gods.
> > Have your beliefs about the supernatural changed (dare I say evolved?) > > over > > your lifetime or have they always been the same? Maybe just greater > > complexity since you were a child? (if complexity can evolve, that is)
> My belief in God is the same. My belief in religion has faltered for > the obvious reasons. I chose NOT to toss the baby out with the bath > water.
> > Your problem is a simple one: your supernatural beliefs clash with the > > evidence from the natural world.
> Of course. But how is that a problem? The supernatural will never be > explained with natural science.
> Which is why science never employs "Godidit". Kinda leaves you > creationists > out in the cold, don't it?
> > You appear to think that by posting in this newsgroup you can change the > > nature of science. Fat chance. What's really happening is that since you > > interpret the world through the lens of a belief system, you think > > everybody > > does.
> And your belief system is?
> My bumper sticker says, "I don't know and neither do you."
> > Science, to you, is just a flawed belief system and you think you can > > blow it wide open.
> Blow it wide open? Umm NO. Expose it for what it is? Yes.
> Whatever.
> Science is an interpretation. The interpretation can be flawed because > mankind is flawed.
> Because science does not rely upon authority, it can be improved upon, > even > by flawed humans.
> > You're striving to convince people to see the world > > through your lens. Sorry, I'm just not prepared to abandon rational > > thought > > based upon empirical evidence of the natural world in favour of > > supernatural, un-testable, un-challengable beliefs just because I fear > > my > > own mortality.
> I never once asked anyone to do such a thing. But I do seek an honest > intercourse on the subject. Do you have a problem with honesty?
> None. But I don't think you know what honesty is.
> >That's really what it's all about: you're a child awake in > > the dark afraid to die and you want there to be something more. So ... > > you > > make it up and feel better! Your bumper sticker reads, "Just because > > it's > > made up doesn't mean it isn't real".
> > Oh well, it sucks to be you.
> In case you had not heard, people that believe in God also believe in > an after life that is better then this one. Now why would we be afraid > to die? heh... you are so amusing at times.
> It's your fear of death that seduces you into wishing for an after life. > Tell us about it. Give us some empirical data on it. Are there toilets in > heaven? You haven't a clue do you? Doesn't matter anyway. Whatever you > offer > is just stuff you make up and there's no way we can check up on it, is > there? Pure fantasy.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
There are other forms of data that are equally as viable. Someone dies, they have a NDE and return to tell us. For all practical purposes that is an "eye witness account". But that is not good enough for the "Doubting Thomas'" of the world. They will only accept a single tiny form of evidence and ignore the rest.
Talk is cheap. How about some physical evidence? Are there toilets in heaven? I ask because I love to ride my motorcycle on long trips to see the sights, chat with other bikers, stop for a burger and a beer, and have a pee. Toilets are important when you've got a bladder the size of a walnut and a prostate the size of a coconut. So, are there toilets in heaven?
Which is rather self limiting.
Imagination is a wonderful thing. You can make up anything you want. God does whatever you imagine him/her/it to do. Can you show me anything your imagined God can actually do for you that you can't do for yourself? Reality is a rather bitter pill. Be like Neo and swallow the red one.
> I am reminded of the old Soviets who were absolutely sure that, in the > US, somewhere, somebody had to be making decisions regarding the > annual production of goulashes here . . .
Why would the soviets be interested in how much hungarian soup we produced?
-- Dick #1349 "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~Benjamin Franklin
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com email: dic...@gmail.com
> On Nov 6, 9:34 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > All-seeing-I wrote: > > > On Nov 6, 9:54 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote: > > >> All-seeing-I wrote: > > >>> It seems evolutionists just can't make up their minds exactly what we > > >>> have evolved from! > > >>> NOW we find that Homo erectus may not be evolved from Homo habilis > > >>> I give up! > > >>> ""Their co-existence makes it unlikely that Homo erectus evolved from > > >>> Homo habilis," said Meave Leakey, one of the lead authors of the > > >>> paper. > > >>> "The fact that they stayed separate as individual species for a long > > >>> time suggests that they had their own ecological niche, thus avoiding > > >>> direct competition." > > >>>http://rawstory.com/news/afp/New_fossil_finds_challenge_mankind__0808... > > >>> -- > > >>> They will evolve as soon as they get their story straight says... > > >> You should give up. You have no point, and your complete ignorance of > > >> science makes it impossible for you to make one.
> > >> Now, if this article isn't garbling what Leakey said, she's just plain > > >> wrong. To make sense of her claim that coexistence of H. erectus and H. > > >> habilis makes it unlikely that the former evolved from the latter, it > > >> would require us to view evolution as a linear progression from form to > > >> form. That's a Lamarckian view, not a Darwinian one. Darwin understood, > > >> as we do today, that species diverge. One population of H. habilis could > > >> have changed gradually to H. erectus while another remained similar to > > >> its habiline ancestors. Leakey's (supposed) quote is a version of "if we > > >> came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?", and as such is highly > > >> suspicious coming from anyone other than a creationist. I know that > > >> hominid paleontologists are often a century or more behind other > > >> paleontologists in their methodology and understanding, but that's > > >> pushing it. > > > So there are different theories and it is a matter of which one we > > > choose to believe?
> > I can't imagine how you managed to get that from what I wrote. Some > > theories are clearly false. Some theories are clearly true. And some > > theories are not clearly either. We can choose based on evidence, not > > merely personal taste as you seem to think.
> > > That sounds like choosing a religion JH
> > I agree that what you said is, but it isn't anything like what I said. > > It does raise an interesting question, though. Why do you, personally, > > choose your religion over other religions?
> I do not belong to a religion.
> However, I do make every effort to follow the teachings of Jesus..
Nobody will take you, eh?
Actually read the supposed teachings of Yesuah-bar-Myriam and then try harder.
>On Nov 7, 6:44 am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote: >> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 20:18:46 -0400, Nashton <n...@na.ca> enriched this
>> group when s/he wrote: >> >Ye Old One wrote:
>> >> So low you can ignore it.
>> >OTOH, ignoring your profound stupidity, the one that was behind your >> >assertion that the ToE is behind every modern drug, is a very difficult >> >task.
>> Third repeat of the same lie in one day. Are you going for a lying >> record?
>"Lies" are all they have, and they know it.
>Boikat
True. And it is also good evidence of just how bad their reading ability is.
-- Bob.
Theists think all gods but theirs are false. Atheists simply don't make an exception for the last one.
>On Nov 6, 9:34 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote: >> All-seeing-I wrote: >> > On Nov 6, 9:54 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote: >> >> All-seeing-I wrote: >> >>> It seems evolutionists just can't make up their minds exactly what we >> >>> have evolved from! >> >>> NOW we find that Homo erectus may not be evolved from Homo habilis >> >>> I give up! >> >>> ""Their co-existence makes it unlikely that Homo erectus evolved from >> >>> Homo habilis," said Meave Leakey, one of the lead authors of the >> >>> paper. >> >>> "The fact that they stayed separate as individual species for a long >> >>> time suggests that they had their own ecological niche, thus avoiding >> >>> direct competition." >> >>>http://rawstory.com/news/afp/New_fossil_finds_challenge_mankind__0808... >> >>> -- >> >>> They will evolve as soon as they get their story straight says... >> >> You should give up. You have no point, and your complete ignorance of >> >> science makes it impossible for you to make one.
>> >> Now, if this article isn't garbling what Leakey said, she's just plain >> >> wrong. To make sense of her claim that coexistence of H. erectus and H. >> >> habilis makes it unlikely that the former evolved from the latter, it >> >> would require us to view evolution as a linear progression from form to >> >> form. That's a Lamarckian view, not a Darwinian one. Darwin understood, >> >> as we do today, that species diverge. One population of H. habilis could >> >> have changed gradually to H. erectus while another remained similar to >> >> its habiline ancestors. Leakey's (supposed) quote is a version of "if we >> >> came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?", and as such is highly >> >> suspicious coming from anyone other than a creationist. I know that >> >> hominid paleontologists are often a century or more behind other >> >> paleontologists in their methodology and understanding, but that's >> >> pushing it. >> > So there are different theories and it is a matter of which one we >> > choose to believe?
>> I can't imagine how you managed to get that from what I wrote. Some >> theories are clearly false. Some theories are clearly true. And some >> theories are not clearly either. We can choose based on evidence, not >> merely personal taste as you seem to think.
>> > That sounds like choosing a religion JH
>> I agree that what you said is, but it isn't anything like what I said. >> It does raise an interesting question, though. Why do you, personally, >> choose your religion over other religions?
>I do not belong to a religion.
I doubt anyone would have you.
>However, I do make every effort to follow the teachings of Jesus..
Liar!
-- Bob.
When D-G made Madman out of clay he forgot to magic the brain. I think that explains everything.
>> > > NOW we find that Homo erectus may not be evolved from Homo habilis
>> > > I give up!
>> > No you don't. You're totally dependent on this group. You'll never give >> > up.
>> > > ""Their co-existence makes it unlikely that Homo erectus evolved from >> > > Homo habilis," said Meave Leakey, one of the lead authors of the >> > > paper.
>> > > "The fact that they stayed separate as individual species for a long >> > > time suggests that they had their own ecological niche, thus avoiding >> > > direct competition."
>> > > -- >> > > They will evolve as soon as they get their story straight says...
>> > > The All Seeing I
>> > So what's bothering you is that you have uncovered evidence that science >> > changes over time.
>> This is a bit more then "changing over time" dear.
>> > Nothing gets by you, does it? You're a sharp one all right. Such is the >> > nature of science.
>> Nothing gets by "The All Seeing I". I am all seeing.
>> > You seem to imply that these changes are arbitrary or whimsical. >> > Such is not the case and we all know you know that despite your games.
>> The article says what it says. How is THAT my game?
>> > Religious beliefs, by comparison, are unchanging. Religious beliefs do not >> > respond to evidence from the natural world as they are interpretations of >> > what goes on in the supernatural. People line up behind the >> > interpretations >> > they like and support.
>> Which just so happens to be why evolution has support
>> > Since those interpretations can not be tested in the >> > natural world they need not change because they cannot be challenged. What >> > changes is the membership of those who adhere to them. New religions >> > evolve >> > to fill new niches in societies. This makes sense because religious belief >> > is a behavior and behaviors can evolve. It's all about the "Godulike". >> > One's >> > as good as the next if it scratches the itch well enough.
>> This could apply to religion. But not to God. God has remained the >> same. Religion is what evolves.
>> Ridiculous. Different religions espouse different gods.
>> > Have your beliefs about the supernatural changed (dare I say evolved?) >> > over >> > your lifetime or have they always been the same? Maybe just greater >> > complexity since you were a child? (if complexity can evolve, that is)
>> My belief in God is the same. My belief in religion has faltered for >> the obvious reasons. I chose NOT to toss the baby out with the bath >> water.
>> > Your problem is a simple one: your supernatural beliefs clash with the >> > evidence from the natural world.
>> Of course. But how is that a problem? The supernatural will never be >> explained with natural science.
>> Which is why science never employs "Godidit". Kinda leaves you creationists >> out in the cold, don't it?
>> > You appear to think that by posting in this newsgroup you can change the >> > nature of science. Fat chance. What's really happening is that since you >> > interpret the world through the lens of a belief system, you think >> > everybody >> > does.
>> And your belief system is?
>> My bumper sticker says, "I don't know and neither do you."
>> > Science, to you, is just a flawed belief system and you think you can >> > blow it wide open.
>> Blow it wide open? Umm NO. Expose it for what it is? Yes.
>> Whatever.
>> Science is an interpretation. The interpretation can be flawed because >> mankind is flawed.
>> Because science does not rely upon authority, it can be improved upon, even >> by flawed humans.
>> > You're striving to convince people to see the world >> > through your lens. Sorry, I'm just not prepared to abandon rational >> > thought >> > based upon empirical evidence of the natural world in favour of >> > supernatural, un-testable, un-challengable beliefs just because I fear my >> > own mortality.
>> I never once asked anyone to do such a thing. But I do seek an honest >> intercourse on the subject. Do you have a problem with honesty?
>> None. But I don't think you know what honesty is.
>> >That's really what it's all about: you're a child awake in >> > the dark afraid to die and you want there to be something more. So ... you >> > make it up and feel better! Your bumper sticker reads, "Just because it's >> > made up doesn't mean it isn't real".
>> > Oh well, it sucks to be you.
>> In case you had not heard, people that believe in God also believe in >> an after life that is better then this one. Now why would we be afraid >> to die? heh... you are so amusing at times.
>> It's your fear of death that seduces you into wishing for an after life. >> Tell us about it. Give us some empirical data on it. Are there toilets in >> heaven? You haven't a clue do you? Doesn't matter anyway. Whatever you offer >> is just stuff you make up and there's no way we can check up on it, is >> there? Pure fantasy.- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -
>There are other forms of data that are equally as viable. Someone >dies, they have a NDE and return to tell us.
People do not return from the dead. The "N" in NDE has a very important meaning you moron.
> For all practical >purposes that is an "eye witness account". But that is not good enough >for the "Doubting Thomas'" of the world.
Wrong, Science has looked at NDE and explained it.
>They will only accept a >single tiny form of evidence and ignore the rest.
>Which is rather self limiting.
Nope.
-- Bob.
Everyone is entitled to be stupid but you're abusing the privilege.
>On Nov 6, 9:34 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote: >> All-seeing-I wrote: >> > On Nov 6, 9:54 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote: >> >> All-seeing-I wrote: >> >>> It seems evolutionists just can't make up their minds exactly what we >> >>> have evolved from! >> >>> NOW we find that Homo erectus may not be evolved from Homo habilis >> >>> I give up! >> >>> ""Their co-existence makes it unlikely that Homo erectus evolved from >> >>> Homo habilis," said Meave Leakey, one of the lead authors of the >> >>> paper. >> >>> "The fact that they stayed separate as individual species for a long >> >>> time suggests that they had their own ecological niche, thus avoiding >> >>> direct competition." >> >>>http://rawstory.com/news/afp/New_fossil_finds_challenge_mankind__0808... >> >>> -- >> >>> They will evolve as soon as they get their story straight says... >> >> You should give up. You have no point, and your complete ignorance of >> >> science makes it impossible for you to make one.
>> >> Now, if this article isn't garbling what Leakey said, she's just plain >> >> wrong. To make sense of her claim that coexistence of H. erectus and H. >> >> habilis makes it unlikely that the former evolved from the latter, it >> >> would require us to view evolution as a linear progression from form to >> >> form. That's a Lamarckian view, not a Darwinian one. Darwin understood, >> >> as we do today, that species diverge. One population of H. habilis could >> >> have changed gradually to H. erectus while another remained similar to >> >> its habiline ancestors. Leakey's (supposed) quote is a version of "if we >> >> came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?", and as such is highly >> >> suspicious coming from anyone other than a creationist. I know that >> >> hominid paleontologists are often a century or more behind other >> >> paleontologists in their methodology and understanding, but that's >> >> pushing it. >> > So there are different theories and it is a matter of which one we >> > choose to believe?
>> I can't imagine how you managed to get that from what I wrote. Some >> theories are clearly false. Some theories are clearly true. And some >> theories are not clearly either. We can choose based on evidence, not >> merely personal taste as you seem to think.
>> > That sounds like choosing a religion JH
>> I agree that what you said is, but it isn't anything like what I said. >> It does raise an interesting question, though. Why do you, personally, >> choose your religion over other religions?
>I do not belong to a religion.
You're an atheist?
>However, I do make every effort to follow the teachings of Jesus..
<ap...@email.com> wrote: >On Nov 6, 9:34 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote: >> All-seeing-I wrote: >> > On Nov 6, 9:54 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote: >> >> All-seeing-I wrote: >> >>> It seems evolutionists just can't make up their minds exactly what we >> >>> have evolved from! >> >>> NOW we find that Homo erectus may not be evolved from Homo habilis >> >>> I give up! >> >>> ""Their co-existence makes it unlikely that Homo erectus evolved from >> >>> Homo habilis," said Meave Leakey, one of the lead authors of the >> >>> paper. >> >>> "The fact that they stayed separate as individual species for a long >> >>> time suggests that they had their own ecological niche, thus avoiding >> >>> direct competition." >> >>>http://rawstory.com/news/afp/New_fossil_finds_challenge_mankind__0808... >> >>> -- >> >>> They will evolve as soon as they get their story straight says... >> >> You should give up. You have no point, and your complete ignorance of >> >> science makes it impossible for you to make one.
>> >> Now, if this article isn't garbling what Leakey said, she's just plain >> >> wrong. To make sense of her claim that coexistence of H. erectus and H. >> >> habilis makes it unlikely that the former evolved from the latter, it >> >> would require us to view evolution as a linear progression from form to >> >> form. That's a Lamarckian view, not a Darwinian one. Darwin understood, >> >> as we do today, that species diverge. One population of H. habilis could >> >> have changed gradually to H. erectus while another remained similar to >> >> its habiline ancestors. Leakey's (supposed) quote is a version of "if we >> >> came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?", and as such is highly >> >> suspicious coming from anyone other than a creationist. I know that >> >> hominid paleontologists are often a century or more behind other >> >> paleontologists in their methodology and understanding, but that's >> >> pushing it. >> > So there are different theories and it is a matter of which one we >> > choose to believe?
>> I can't imagine how you managed to get that from what I wrote. Some >> theories are clearly false. Some theories are clearly true. And some >> theories are not clearly either. We can choose based on evidence, not >> merely personal taste as you seem to think.
>> > That sounds like choosing a religion JH
>> I agree that what you said is, but it isn't anything like what I said. >> It does raise an interesting question, though. Why do you, personally, >> choose your religion over other religions?
>I do not belong to a religion.
Apparently, you do not know the meaning of the word.
Religion, a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe --from freedictionary.com
>However, I do make every effort to follow the teachings of Jesus..
|
