Subject: Re: Why outlaw teaching evolution? From: breid@din.com (Bill Reid) Date: 14 Aug 1997 17:31:38 GMT In article <33f2fa3f.55900360@news.digex.net>, medved@access.digex.net (Ted Holden) wrote: >On 13 Aug 1997 14:48:43 GMT, breid@din.com (Bill Reid) wrote: > >>In article <33f1ba57.73941031@news.digex.net>, medved@access.digex.net >>(Ted Holden) wrote: >> >>>Why outlaw teaching evolution? Because it's beastly stupid >>>(see http://access.digex.com/~medved/idolatry.html for >>>details), and having even one enormously stupid doctrine >>>taught in our schools, supposedly as a "fact", is basically >>>a bad idea. It makes it that much easier for the second beastly >>>stupid idea to be adopted by our schools. To paraphrase >>>Everett Dirkson, one beastly stupid idea here, another >>>beastly stupid idea there, and pretty soon you've got a lot >>>of really stupid shit being drummed into the heads of our >>>schoolkids. > >>It's "beastly stupid"? > >It was known even in Darwin's time that the fossil record did not >support gradual change amongst differing kinds of animals and >all further investigation has only confirmed that fact, hence >Darwinism has been abandoned in academic circles. The quasi >official replacement at this point is the Gould/Eldredge Punc-Eek >theory. > >Gould and Eldredge's Punctuated Equilibria is >an attempt to resolve two basic problems, i.e. the lack of >intermediate fossils, and the Haldane dilemma. I have noted that >Punc-eek is a pure pseudoscience since it claims to be validated by a >lack of evidence rather than by evidence, Being somewhat aquainted with Gould's ambience (not personally), I'd guess p.e.'s rather more validated via the larger context of evidence, i.e., the rock record. Not a "pseudoscience" so much as a means of explaining evidence. >it claims that inbreeding is >the most major cause of genetic advancement (you can't get stupider >than that), it requires a perpetual victory of the tiny peripheral >groups over vastly larger herds of animals which is like requiring >Custer to win at Little Big Horn every day for millions of years, and >it also requires an eternal victory of animals adapted to a specific >localized condition over animals which are globally adapted, which >never happens in real life either. I don't know about the genetic stuff--so you can just lie to me outright re that--but the part about adapting to environmental changes always made sense to me. How do you explain evolution? Do you have a better theory? >That's pretty stupid. Is that different now, from "beastly" so? :) ........................................................................... From @ Fri Aug 15 18:36:33 1997 Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.atheism,alt.christnet,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.correct,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.renewing.american.civilization Subject: Re: Why outlaw teaching evolution? From: Al Klein Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 18:36:33 -0400 On Fri, 15 Aug 1997 03:02:05 GMT, medved@access.digex.net (Ted Holden) wrote: >The "rock record" indicates a total lack of the intermediate forms >which any version of evolution via random genetic drift and >selection require. If you mean a half-dog, half-cat . . . no, no one could be that dense. But there ARE intermediate forms in the fossil record, just not as many as you'd like. >Punc-eek claims to both explain and be validated >by this lack of evidence. P-E doesn't claim to be validated - it attempts to explain the dearth of intermediates. >There really is not a dime's worth of >difference between that and Cotten Mather's conception of witchcraft. There really is not a dime's worth of difference between your understanding of science and the fact of witchcraft. Neither exists. >There's no more possibility of falsifying punc-eek There are a few ways. Finding intermediates for all transitions would be one. Of course aleph-one fossils would take up a lot of space. >Evolution by definition means gradualistic change Evolution by definition means change in alele frequency in a population. As I said, there's a lot you don't understand. >Any theory at all would be better; you literally could not do worse. Except to postulate that the Magik Space Pixie(tm) didit, didit, didit. >Evolution requires an essentially infinite number of zero probability >events. Evolution requires an essentially almost infinite number of almost zero probability events. So does being alive. What are the odds that EXACTLY you would be alive NOW? AND be able to speak English? Almost infinity to one? Or infinity to one? So I guess you don't exist. >That's infinitely stupid; So is believing that you, in your exact form, exist. >the odds against anything like >that happening may in fact not only be infinite, but uncountably >infinite, i.e. the cardinality of those odds may in fact be that of >the real numbers rather than merely that of integers. The odds of that happening while you watch it are none to negative. The odds of it happening at all are - well, it HAS been observed, so the probability is 1. Same as your existence. >Any religion, any philosophy, any form of idolatry or devil-worship, >or anything at all would be an improvement. Over observed fact? Believe that you come to usenet via witchcraft, as opposed to via reality? >I personally see the evidence as indicating that life forms used to be >created from time to time and also re-engineered from time to time by >some sort of an intelligent process SIV became HIV thru an intelligent process? You are exactly what you are thru an intelligent process? OK, I do agree - virii ARE a bit more intelligent than you are. --- Al Theists posting off-charter bullshit to alt.atheism will be treated according to the Golden Rule. ........................................................................... From medved@access.digex.net Sat Aug 16 16:14:29 1997 Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.atheism,alt.christnet,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.correct,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.renewing.american.civilization Subject: Re: Why outlaw teaching evolution? From: medved@access.digex.net (Ted Holden) Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 20:14:29 GMT On Fri, 15 Aug 1997 18:36:33 -0400, Al Klein wrote: >>The "rock record" indicates a total lack of the intermediate forms >>which any version of evolution via random genetic drift and >>selection require. >If you mean a half-dog, half-cat . . . no, no one could be that dense. Setting up straw men is a last resort for angry people who don't have a case based on evidence. Some such as Alexander Mebane would start their list of missing intermediates with the case of the cenozoic mammals, in which all of our basic mammal types simply show up one day, fully formed. I prefer the case of homo sapiens, myself. DNA tests have confirmed that we are not descended from neanderthals because their dna was about "halfway between ours and that of a chimpanzee". That leaves nothing resembling a plausible ancestor for homo sapiens on the planet. You'd have to have something between the neanderthal and us, and that creature along with his works would have been found by now if he had existed. >But there ARE intermediate forms in the fossil record, just not as >many as you'd like. Face it, Al: there AREN'T any intermediate fossils. Practically everybody who works with fossils and isn't brain-dead is on record one way or another to that effect. For example: "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of 'seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them ..." David B. Kitts, PhD (Zoology) Head Curator, Dept of Geology, Stoval Museum Evolution, vol 28, Sep 1974, p 467 "The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps; the fossils are missing in all the important places." Francis Hitching The Neck of the Giraffe or Where Darwin Went Wrong Penguin Books, 1982, p.19 "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." Stephen Jay Gould, Prof of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University "Is a new general theory of evolution emerging?" Paleobiology, vol 6, January 1980, p. 127 "...Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils ... I will lay it on the line, there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London As quoted by: L. D. Sunderland Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems 4th edition, Master Books, 1988, p. 89 "We do not have any available fossil group which can categorically be claimed to be the ancestor of any other group. We do not have in the fossil record any specific point of divergence of one life form for another, and generally each of the major life groups has retained its fundamental structural and physiological characteristics throughout its life history and has been conservative in habitat." G. S. Carter, Professor & author Fellow of Corpus Christi College Cambridge, England Structure and Habit in Vertebrate Evolution University of Washington Press, 1967 "The history of most fossil species includes two features inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear ... 2. Sudden Appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'." Stephen Jay Gould, Prof of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University Natural History, 86(5):13, 1977 "But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" (p. 206) "Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory (of evolution)." (p. 292) Charles Robert Darwin The Origin of Species, 1st edition reprint Avenel Books, 1979 "Darwin... was embarrassed by the fossil record... we are now about 120-years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, ... some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." David M. Raup, Curator of Geology Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology" Field Museum of Natural History Vol. 50, No. 1, (Jan, 1979), p. 25 "Now, after over 120 years of the most extensive and painstaking geological exploration of every continent and ocean bottom, the picture is infinitely more vivid and complete than it was in 1859. Formations have been discovered containing hundreds of billions of fossils and our museums are filled with over 100-million fossils of 250,000 different species. The availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track. What is the picture which the fossils have given us? ... The gaps between major groups of organisms have been growing even wide and more undeniable. They can no longer be ignored or rationalized away with appeals to imperfection of the fossil record." Luther D. Sunderland (Creationist) Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 4th edition, Master Books, 1988, p. 9 "My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. ... The fossil material is now so complete that it has been possible to construct new classes, and the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled." Prof N. Heribert Nilsson Lund University, Sweden Famous botanist and evolutionist As quoted in: The Earth Before Man, p. 51 ................................................................................................. See what I mean, Al? Why don't you just come clean and admit to all the people out there that evolutionists have been deluding themselves all along with this thing about fossils? I mean, honesty is the best policy... >>Punc-eek claims to both explain and be validated >>by this lack of evidence. >P-E doesn't claim to be validated - it attempts to explain the dearth >of intermediates. It claims that there were intermediates, and then proceeds to explain why we can never find any, and then claims that the fact that we never do find any is proof positive. That's the same deal as witchcraft, Al. That's your basic definition of a pseudoscience. >>There really is not a dime's worth of >>difference between that and Cotten Mather's conception of witchcraft. >There really is not a dime's worth of difference between your >understanding of science and the fact of witchcraft. Neither exists. Come on, now Al. Trying to compensate for being a loser by being a crybaby will strike most people as one of those ideas which, as Mozart put it, don't really work. Why not opt for the direct solution and simply cease being a loser? Ted Holden http://access.digex.com/~medved/medved.html . . , , ____)/ \(____ _,--''''',-'/( )\`-.`````--._ ,-' ,' | \ _ _ / | `-. `-. ,' / | `._ /\\ //\ _,' | \ `. | | `. `-( ,\\_// )-' .' | | ,' _,----._ |_,----._\ ____`\o'_`o/'____ /_.----._ |_,----._ `. |/' \' `\( \(_)/ )/' `/ `\| ` ` V V ' ' Splifford the bat says: Always remember A mind is a terrible thing to waste; especially on an evolutionist. Just say no to narcotic drugs, alcohol abuse, and corrupt ideological doctrines. ........................................................................... From jfacts@NOSPAMearthlink.net Sun Aug 17 07:36:16 1997 Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.atheism,alt.christnet,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.correct,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.renewing.american.civilization Subject: Re: Why outlaw teaching evolution? From: jfacts@NOSPAMearthlink.net (Del) Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 04:36:16 -0700 Here are the cures for Theodore's brand of bullshit. Creationist lies pulverized: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt.html And this archive of past Holden lies on the subject of evolution that still embarrass even him (quite an achievment): http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/t_origins/teds_intermed.html Don't miss 'em. They are 20 times more entertaining than Theodore's pathetic, warmed-over stupidity. In article <33f602a0.83463183@news.digex.net>, medved@access.digex.net (Ted Holden) wrote: >On Fri, 15 Aug 1997 18:36:33 -0400, Al Klein wrote: > >>>The "rock record" indicates a total lack of the intermediate forms >>>which any version of evolution via random genetic drift and >>>selection require. > >>If you mean a half-dog, half-cat . . . no, no one could be that dense. > >Setting up straw men is a last resort for angry people who don't have >a case based on evidence. Ironic, then, that Theodore proceeds to post a whole string of straw men, isn't it? What a loser. Sheesh. Some such as Alexander Mebane would >start their list of missing intermediates with the case of the >cenozoic mammals, in which all of our basic mammal types simply >show up one day, fully formed. > >I prefer the case of homo sapiens, myself. DNA tests have confirmed >that we are not descended from neanderthals [sic] because their dna was >about "halfway between ours and that of a chimpanzee". That leaves >nothing resembling a plausible ancestor for homo sapiens on the >planet. You'd have to have something between the neanderthal [sic] and us, I think you'd qualify Theodore. >>But there ARE intermediate forms in the fossil record, just not as >>many as you'd like. > >Face it, Al: there AREN'T any intermediate fossils. There are thousands of them, buddy boy. Practically >everybody who works with fossils and isn't brain-dead is on >record one way or another to that effect. For a list of transitionals about 60 pages long go to: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html >"Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means >of 'seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties >for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence >of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate >forms between species and paleontology does not provide them ..." What a lying bone head you are Theodore! Where is the rest of the quote? Post it, Theodore. I dare you, you little weenie! > >"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between >major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even >in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many >cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic >accounts of evolution." > > Stephen Jay Gould, Prof of Geology and > Paleontology, Harvard University > "Is a new general theory of evolution emerging?" > Paleobiology, vol 6, January 1980, p. 127 >"...Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict >when they say there are no transitional fossils Yes, especially when Gould and the American Museum people don't say anything of the kind! [...] > >"The history of most fossil species includes two features inconsistent >with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change >during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking >much the same as when they disappear ... 2. Sudden Appearance. In any >local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady >transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully >formed'." > > Stephen Jay Gould, Prof of Geology and > Paleontology, Harvard University > Natural History, 86(5):13, 1977 > >"But, as by this theory What theory is that Ted? Is there some reason you left that part of the quote out? innumerable transitional forms must have >existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the >crust of the earth?" (p. 206) Did anyone ever tell you what a lying piece of shit you are, Theodore? [...] > >See what I mean, Al? We sure do! You are a dishonest douche bag. Every single quote by a true scientist you offered here - every single one - was taken out of context. And let there be no mistake as to what I mean by "taken out of context." I mean you purposely edited the quotes in order to change the authors actual and intended meaning. Why don't you prove me wrong by supplying the context you left out Theodore? I predict that there is not THE SLIGHTEST chance that you will have the balls to fill in the context of your quotes. This will be the smoking gun of your dishonesty. If you even have the balls to respond to this, which is doubtful, I predict you will try to shift your burden of proof to me - you make the claims and it is always someone elses job to prove your wrong, isn't it Theodore? You're not fooling anyone Theodore. You're not even entertaining anyone. -- E-mail: remove NOSPAM from jfacts@NOSPAMearthlink.net ........................................................................... From medved@access.digex.net Sun Aug 17 09:54:33 1997 Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.atheism,alt.christnet,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.correct,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.renewing.american.civilization Subject: Re: Why outlaw teaching evolution? From: medved@access.digex.net (Ted Holden) Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 13:54:33 GMT On Sun, 17 Aug 1997 04:36:16 -0700, jfacts@NOSPAMearthlink.net (Del) wrote: >Here are the cures for Theodore's brand of bullshit. >Creationist lies pulverized: > >http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt.html > >And this archive of past Holden lies on the subject of >evolution that still embarrass even him (quite an >achievment): > >http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/t_origins/teds_intermed.html > >Don't miss 'em. They are 20 times more entertaining than >Theodore's pathetic, warmed-over stupidity. MacRae even goes so far as to quote the main operative statement in Remine's little page of quotes, i.e. For documentation, I quote only evolutionists. Each of them firmly believes that large-scale phylogeny exists, and their statements to that effect are ubiquitous, if not unavoidable. Yet there can be (and is) a difference between what they believe and what they observe. For the sake of clarity, I try to separate the two and cite the observations... and then proceeds to attempt to show that ReMine is somehow lying in quoting the various authors out of context since they all do, as ReMine notes, believe in evolution despite the evidence. The kindest assumption one could make is that this represents some sort of an inability to deal with simple logic on MacRae's part. For instance, he starts off by noting ReMine's/my use of Gould quotes: One of my standard posts includes a quote from S.J. Gould wrt (the lack of) intermediate forms; the standard tribal reaction of the t.o. crew is to claim that this quote is badly out of context and (what's new) to call me a liar. And then offering another quote from Gould which supposedly shows all nonbelievers who would quote Gould to be liars: "since we proposed punctuated equilibrium to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists - whether through design or stupidity, I do not know - as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level but are abundant between larger groups." (Gould 1983, p. 260). MacRae does not bother to quote me when it isn't suitable to his purposes, and this is obvious here since my reply to this statement has been posted many times and he is assuredly familiar with it. The claim that there are intermediates between "higher taxonomic groups" is a cop-out and a sop to evolutionists AFTER Gould had succeeded in removing the dead hand of Darwinism from the throat of paleontology. The man is trying to have his cake and eat it too. Seeing intermediates between higher groups amounts to an exercise in the use of imagination; it means that, for instance, you can look at a microbe, a fish, and a man, and deduce that the fish is intermediate between the microbe and the man. The other parts of Gould's statements amount to (a) an admission that nowhere on the planet is there any real fossil sequence showing one kind of animal definitely turning into another and (b) an expression of anger that people who he doesn't like would quote him. The problem from the point of view of the evolutionists is that there now exists a sufficient body of this kind of material in the literature that the next judge who has to decide some sort of a major case as to whether evolutionism continues its present free ride in our education system would almost have to make positive efforts not to stumble onto one of the sections of quotes. The page I hope he stumbles onto would be the section of quote pages at: http://206.152.255.5/user/sjackson/cosmos.htm Against this overwhelming array of evidence, the BandarLog of the evolutionist crews of t.o have been reduced to the sort of pathetic reaction one observes on MacRae's page and in Del's rantings, i.e. claiming that all such quotes are always taken out of context and that the full context will always show that evolutionism triumphs in the end despite all odds and all evidence. The psychology behind this drive to label all nonbelievers as liars is examined at: http://www.access.digex.net/~medved/splifaq.htm Again, one has to take Gould and Eldredge and their statements in the context of their assinine theory. They take pains to destroy Darwinism, and then attempt to replace it with something even more stupid, if that's possible. Punc-eek claims to explain the total lack of (real/species-level) intermediates in the fossil record and to be validated BY that lack and, in that sense, punc-eek is a pure pseudoscience just like witchcraft since the claim is validation by a lack of evidence rather than by evidence. It claims that inbreeding is the most major cause of genetic success and advancement, which is patently idiotic. It requires an eternal victory of miniscule groups of animals over vastly larger herds, which is like requiring Custer to win at Little Big Horn every day for millions of years, and it requires an eternal victory of animals specifically adapted to localized conditions over animals which are globally adapted, which never happens in real life either. Within that larger context, one observes how truly pathetic MacRae's attempted use of Gould's little "I hate it when creationists quote me" quote really is. Ted Holden http://access.digex.com/~medved/medved.html . . , , ____)/ \(____ _,--''''',-'/( )\`-.`````--._ ,-' ,' | \ _ _ / | `-. `-. ,' / | `._ /\\ //\ _,' | \ `. | | `. `-( ,\\_// )-' .' | | ,' _,----._ |_,----._\ ____`\o'_`o/'____ /_.----._ |_,----._ `. |/' \' `\( \(_)/ )/' `/ `\| ` ` V V ' ' Splifford the bat says: Always remember A mind is a terrible thing to waste; especially on an evolutionist. Just say no to narcotic drugs, alcohol abuse, and corrupt ideological doctrines. ........................................................................... From jfacts@NOSPAMearthlink.net Mon Aug 18 23:41:32 1997 Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.atheism,alt.christnet,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.correct,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.renewing.american.civilization Subject: Re: Why outlaw teaching evolution? From: jfacts@NOSPAMearthlink.net (Del) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 20:41:32 -0700 In article <33f6f9c4.53712164@news.digex.net>, medved@access.digex.net (Ted Holden) wrote: >On Sun, 17 Aug 1997 04:36:16 -0700, jfacts@NOSPAMearthlink.net (Del) >wrote: > >>Here are the cures for Theodore's brand of bullshit. >>Creationist lies pulverized: >> >>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt.html >> >>And this archive of past Holden lies on the subject of >>evolution that still embarrass even him (quite an >>achievement): >> >>http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/t_origins/teds_intermed.html >> >>Don't miss 'em. They are 20 times more entertaining than >>Theodore's pathetic, warmed-over stupidity. > >MacRae even goes so far as to quote the main operative statement >in Remine's little page of quotes, i.e. > > For documentation, I quote only evolutionists. Each of them > firmly believes that large-scale phylogeny exists, > and their statements to that effect are ubiquitous, if not > unavoidable. Yet there can be (and is) a difference > between what they believe and what they observe. For the sake of > clarity, I try to separate the two and cite the observations... > >and then proceeds to attempt to show that ReMine is somehow lying >in quoting the various authors out of context since they all do, as >ReMine notes, believe in evolution despite the evidence. \ Let's just give a few examples of your dishonest quotes ok? Compare this: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- For more than a century biologists have portrayed the evolution of life as a gradual unfolding ... Today the fossil record ... is forcing us to revise this conventional view (Stanley, 1981, p 3) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- With this Full quote: The word "evolution" means unfolding, and [f]or more than a century biologists have portrayed the evolution of life as a gradual unfolding of new living things from old, the slow molding of animals and plants into entirely different forms. It was this persistent style of change that Darwin described as "The Origin of Species". Today the fossil record - a rich source of information that was long untapped - is forcing us to revise this conventional view of evolution. As it turns out, myriads of species have inhabited the Earth for millions of years without evolving noticeably. On the other hand, evolutionary transitions have been wrought during episodes of rapid change, when new species have quickly budded off from old ones. In short evolution has moved by fits and starts." (Stanley 1981, p. 3-4) --------- Shear dishonesty. Look at another one: Theodore: One must acknowledge that there are many, many gaps in the fossil record. ... there is no reason to think that all or most of these gaps will be bridged. (Ruse, 1984, p 101) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Actual quote: "But one must acknowledge that there are many, many gaps in the fossil record. Moreover, given the high improbability of fossilization, there is no reason to think that all or most of these gaps will be bridged. In short, we will probably reach a limit of fossil evidence for phylogenies, with many things still unknown. Pertinent information will simply have been lost, irretrievably. (Ruse 1984, p. 101) ---- Note the missing phrase: "Moreover, given the high improbability of fossilization" that has been excised right out of the middle of the quote! Probably because leaving it in wouldn't give the desired meaning. And naturally Theodore ignores any dis-confirming statements like: "Again, certain specific items of evolution seem now to have been established, as firmly as any reasonably minded person could demand or wish. The evolution of birds and mammals springs to mind. The fossil record showing the transitions is rock solid." (Ruse 1984, p. 101) "Coming closer to home, the fossil evidence of our own simian ancestry is overwhelming." (Ruse 1984, p. 101) > >The kindest assumption one could make is that this represents some >sort of an inability to deal with simple logic on MacRae's part. For >instance, he starts off by noting ReMine's/my use of Gould quotes: > > One of my standard posts includes a quote from S.J. Gould wrt (the > > lack of) intermediate forms; the standard tribal reaction > of the t.o. crew is to claim that this quote is badly out of > context and (what's new) to call me a liar. > >And then offering another quote from Gould which supposedly shows >all nonbelievers who would quote Gould to be liars: > > "since we proposed punctuated equilibrium to explain trends, it is > infuriating to be quoted again and again by > creationists - whether through design or stupidity, I do not know - > as admitting that the fossil record includes no > transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the > > species level but are abundant between larger > groups." (Gould 1983, p. 260). > >MacRae does not bother to quote me when it isn't suitable to his >purposes, and this is obvious here since my reply to this statement >has been posted many times and he is assuredly familiar with it. Which is no doubt why he didn't post it and indeed - one reason why it was unnecessary to do so. Here, I'll show you why. >The claim that there are intermediates between "higher taxonomic >groups" is a cop-out and a sop to evolutionists AFTER Gould had >succeeded in removing the dead hand of Darwinism from the throat >of paleontology. The man is trying to have his cake and eat it too. You see? This is not an argument, Theodore. It is bald, dishonest assertion. You spout this stuff as if you thought your opinion carried some weight. Even if that fairy tale situation were the reality, it would still be logical fallacy to treat such statements as anything more than unsupported bald assertion. Am I getting through here? I am saying that the statement you say is omitted and should be juxtaposed does not, in any way, counter Gould or address the issues. That is because it isn't an argument - it is a conclusion. Kapech? >Seeing intermediates between higher groups amounts to an exercise >in the use of imagination; it means that, for instance, you can look >at a microbe, a fish, and a man, and deduce that the fish is >intermediate between the microbe and the man. More assertion - this time in the form of a fatuous straw man. Invoking the straw man is hardly surprising since theistic anti- evolutionists cannot muster an argument against evolution without it. It is mandatory - virtually 100% of the time. The above is a straw man, of course, because Theodore cannot offer an example of science making such an absurd claim. The chronic use of the straw man fallacy (which consists of distorting or fabricating a position for one's opponent and then attacking said distortion or fabrication as if it were the opponent's real argument) is quite revealing of the perpetrator - both of his (dis)honesty and his inability to deal with the true positions or arguments on the other side. If one's position is strong, the last thing you would want to do is attack an argument your opponent never made - it is a pure waste of time. The only reason you would go with the straw man tactic is that you occupy the weaker position. The other parts of >Gould's statements amount to (a) an admission that nowhere on the >planet is there any real fossil sequence showing one kind of animal >definitely turning into another and Another bald assertion that also happens to be a lie. (b) an expression of anger that >people who he doesn't like would quote him. Extreme magical thinkers like Theodore frequently exhibit such hubris. The desire for control is so strong that Theodore would deny Gould his absolute right to state his own case. Theodore would object that, he, Theodore knows what Gould's argument really is, better than Gould does himself. There is a positive side to your personal insignificance, Theodore. You will never be important enough to be chronically misquoted by bottom feeders such as yourself. You will never experience what Gould must go through and so you do not now, nor will you ever, understand it. >The problem from the point of view of the evolutionists is that there >now exists a sufficient body of this kind of material in the >literature that the next judge who has to decide some sort of a major >case as to whether evolutionism continues its present free ride in our >education system would almost have to make positive efforts not to >stumble onto one of the sections of quotes. Another tactic of the theistic anti-evolutionist, and a second cousin of the straw man, is pretending you know, and even speak for, the "point of view" of the opposing side. Note also that Theodore has yet to advance an argument. He merely makes claims. Furthermore, the last Supreme court decision on this point post-dated the (mis)quotes Theodore has offered here - thus disproving his conclusion. The page I hope he >stumbles onto would be the section of quote pages at: > > http://206.152.255.5/user/sjackson/cosmos.htm > >Against this overwhelming array of evidence, Apparently you forgot to bring this "overwhelming array of evidence" to the table, Theodore. In fact you forgot to submit any evidence at all. Don't tell me: Your baby sister spilled milk on it at breakfast. Or your dog ate it. the BandarLog of >the evolutionist crews of t.o have been reduced to the sort of >pathetic reaction one observes on MacRae's page and in Del's >rantings, i.e. claiming that all such quotes are always taken out of >context and that the full context will always show that evolutionism >triumphs in the end despite all odds and all evidence. Theodore's refusal to quote the text of my post (while whining about other people doing that to him) regarding my challenge to replace the context of his many (mis)quotes; Theodore's many examples of being caught red handed in possession of quotations that were edited with malice aforethought and with the intention to deceive; and his hubris in insisting he knows what others mean better than they do, all serve as strong evidence that Theodore's attempt at a straw man here fails: It is too close to the truth. > The psychology >behind this drive to label all nonbelievers as liars is examined at: There that's better! For a second I thought you might be slipping. But you have restored my confidence in your mendacious ability to create straw men out of hot air. > http://www.access.digex.net/~medved/splifaq.htm > >Again, one has to take Gould and Eldredge and their statements in >the context of their assinine [sic] theory. This is called a question begging epithet. You know, Theodore, I don't think you have gone more than a sentence without committing a logical fallacy of some kind. Are you campaigning for the presidency of the liars club or something? Hey you don't have to try so hard - no one denies your qualifications for the position. They take pains to destroy >Darwinism, and then attempt to replace it with something even more >stupid, if that's possible. Another lie. Science in general, and Gould and the others that Theodore (mis)quotes in particular consider Darwin's achievements quite remarkable. Modifications to his original theory have been based on new data unavailable to Darwin in his day. Poor Theodore, reduced to pathetically insipid bullshit like this. What sad way to get attention! Punc-eek claims to explain the total lack >of (real/species-level) intermediates in the fossil record and to be >validated BY that lack Considering that species level evolution (speciation) has been witnessed, many times, this non-argument of yours falls a tad short of convincing, don't you think? and, in that sense, punc-eek is a pure >pseudoscience just like witchcraft since the claim is validation by a >lack of evidence rather than by evidence. Another straw man. How boring. Besides distorting what the theory says Theodore conveniently omits the positive predictions PE makes. Furthermore, he ignores the fact that even if every theory of evolution were scrapped tomorrow it wouldn't change THE FACT of evolution, any more than discarding the theory of gravity would cause Theodore to float away to Venus. It claims that inbreeding >is the most major cause of genetic success and advancement, which >is patently idiotic. Ho hum. Another lie/straw man. It requires an eternal victory of miniscule [sic] >groups of animals over vastly larger herds, which is like requiring >Custer to win at Little Big Horn every day for millions of years, Another straw man with a false analogy thrown in for good measure. and >it requires an eternal victory of animals specifically adapted to >localized conditions over animals which are globally adapted, which >never happens in real life either. Same-o. It always cracks me up when someone who knows better what PE says than Theodore does (in other words almost anyone over the age of 8) corrects him, he will tell them they are wrong. His mindless hubris would cause him to tell Gould - the co-author of the theory himself - that he was wrong about what PE actually says. That's just how out of touch and frightened the Theodore's of the world are of science. >Within that larger context, one observes how truly pathetic MacRae's >attempted use of Gould's little "I hate it when creationists quote me" >quote really is. Of course that isn't even close to what Gould actually said. But Theodore is so conditioned to lying about what hated scientists say, misquotation is just a reflex to him. Like a kneejerk. -- E-mail: remove NOSPAM from jfacts@NOSPAMearthlink.net .................................................................... From medved@access.digex.net Tue Aug 19 00:23:37 1997 Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.atheism,alt.christnet,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.correct,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.renewing.american.civilization Subject: Re: Why outlaw teaching evolution? From: medved@access.digex.net (Ted Holden) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 04:23:37 GMT On Mon, 18 Aug 1997 20:41:32 -0700, jfacts@NOSPAMearthlink.net (Del) wrote: > >>MacRae even goes so far as to quote the main operative statement >>in Remine's little page of quotes, i.e. >> >> For documentation, I quote only evolutionists. Each of them >> firmly believes that large-scale phylogeny exists, >> and their statements to that effect are ubiquitous, if not >> unavoidable. Yet there can be (and is) a difference >> between what they believe and what they observe. For the sake of >> clarity, I try to separate the two and cite the observations... >> >>and then proceeds to attempt to show that ReMine is somehow lying >>in quoting the various authors out of context since they all do, as >>ReMine notes, believe in evolution despite the evidence. >\ > >Let's just give a few examples of your dishonest >quotes ok? No, it's not "OK", Al, and in fact I stopped reading at this point. The point to hand is simple enough to comprehend; if you can't deal with it, then you'd better hope you never have to figure out anything complicated. The "full quote" i.e. the rest of the page will, in most cases, as Remine notes up front, indicate that the particular author claims to have reason to believe in evolution(ism) despite the statements which are being quoted. The , which you and MacRae are obviously blind to, is that all of these quotations add up to an indictment of evolutionism DESPITE the rest of the page. It's as if a general was trying to get a picture of what was happening on the front and were to debrief a number of luitenants and sergeants and each one said something like "Well sir, we took a lot of casualties this morning and really got our asses kicked, but overall things are proceeding ok and I'm sure we're gonna win..." The general would be insane to assume anything other than that he had a problem on his hands. THAT is the point which ReMine is making. Ted Holden http://access.digex.com/~medved/medved.html . . , , ____)/ \(____ _,--''''',-'/( )\`-.`````--._ ,-' ,' | \ _ _ / | `-. `-. ,' / | `._ /\\ //\ _,' | \ `. | | `. `-( ,\\_// )-' .' | | ,' _,----._ |_,----._\ ____`\o'_`o/'____ /_.----._ |_,----._ `. |/' \' `\( \(_)/ )/' `/ `\| ` ` V V ' ' Splifford the bat says: Always remember A mind is a terrible thing to waste; especially on an evolutionist. Just say no to narcotic drugs, alcohol abuse, and corrupt ideological doctrines. .................................................................... From jfacts@NOSPAMearthlink.net Tue Aug 19 18:26:37 1997 Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.atheism,alt.christnet,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.correct,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.renewing.american.civilization Subject: Re: Why outlaw teaching evolution? From: jfacts@NOSPAMearthlink.net (Del) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 15:26:37 -0700 In article <33f91d47.2803801@news.digex.net>, medved@access.digex.net (Ted Holden) wrote: >On Mon, 18 Aug 1997 20:41:32 -0700, jfacts@NOSPAMearthlink.net (Del) >wrote: > >> >>>MacRae even goes so far as to quote the main operative statement >>>in Remine's little page of quotes, i.e. >>> >>> For documentation, I quote only evolutionists. Each of them >>> firmly believes that large-scale phylogeny exists, >>> and their statements to that effect are ubiquitous, if not >>> unavoidable. Yet there can be (and is) a difference >>> between what they believe and what they observe. For the sake of >>> clarity, I try to separate the two and cite the observations... >>> >>>and then proceeds to attempt to show that ReMine is somehow lying >>>in quoting the various authors out of context since they all do, as >>>ReMine notes, believe in evolution despite the evidence. >>\ >> >>Let's just give a few examples of your dishonest >>quotes ok? > >No, it's not "OK", Al, and in fact I stopped reading at this point. Hey don't sweat it, Theodore. I can understand why you would not wish to face the same embarrassment for your misquotations all over again. It is enough for me that others are apprised of your past behavior and ethical standards. Therefore I am happy accept your nolo plea. >The point to hand is simple enough to comprehend; And simpler yet to shoot down - which I did. if you can't deal >with it, then you'd better hope you never have to figure out anything >complicated. I dealt with it so effectively you were too shook up to even read it. The evidence is so damning that you would surely refute it if you were able to. People are smart enough to understand your tacit admission: that you are unable refute (or in this case, even face) the smoking gun evidence I provided. The "full quote" i.e. the rest of the page will, in most >cases, as Remine notes up front, indicate that the particular author >claims to have reason to believe in evolution(ism) In "most cases." How nice! So maybe we should just take your word for it instead of actually looking at the passages and deciding for ourselves? Yeah, right, dream on! Even a cursory comparison of the quotes in question demonstrates your claim is bullshit. The fact that you didn't even try to prove what you say here is just more evidence that your claim is BS - as if any more evidence were needed. However I'll give you the benefit of the doubt if you want another chance at refuting the smoking gun evidence. despite the >statements which are being quoted. The , which you and MacRae >are obviously blind to, is that all of these quotations add up to an >indictment of evolutionism DESPITE the rest of the page. Horse crap. Expressing your wishful thinking as though it were established fact might be comforting to your damaged ego, but it is hardly convincing to anyone else. >It's as if a general was trying to get a picture of what was >happening on the front and were to debrief a number of luitenants [sic] and >sergeants and each one said something like "Well sir, we took a lot of >casualties this morning and really got our asses kicked, but overall >things are proceeding ok and I'm sure we're gonna win..." The general >would be insane to assume anything other than that he had a problem >on his hands. LOL! Look at this! Why on earth would you use analogy when a direct examination of the issue is not only possible but indicated?? The answer is obvious: you refuse to address the evidence, and invent this phony analogy instead, because you know you can't refute the evidence. You just aren't man enough to admit it. You're blowing smoke and you know it. So does everyone else. Rule 1 of Modem Creationism: Claim evidence...then quietly disappear -- E-mail: remove NOSPAM from jfacts@NOSPAMearthlink.net .................................................................... From stixREMOVE@ozemail.com.au Wed Aug 20 04:09:29 1997 Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.atheism,alt.christnet,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.correct,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.renewing.american.civilization Subject: Re: Why outlaw teaching evolution? From: stixREMOVE@ozemail.com.au (Stix) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 08:09:29 GMT Ted Holden posted the following to alt.atheism: >On Tue, 19 Aug 1997 15:26:37 -0700, jfacts@NOSPAMearthlink.net (Del) >wrote: > >[...admits he still doesn't understand it...] ROTFLMFAO!! No you dribbling fool!! He just absolutely shitcanned your stupid, lying ass and *demonstrated* to a heap of newsgroups how dishonest you are!! * D * E * M * O * N * S * T * R * A * T * E * D * you pitiful moron, demonstrated. He provided the dishonest misquotes that you spew in your pathetic attempt to discredit evolution, AND provided the full contexual quotes of what was *actually* said. Just who the fuck do you think you're fooling you lying, Velikovskian DICKHEAD??? >That really sad. Hah! What's really sad - albeit extremely amusing - is the pitiful way you try to cling to the non-existent shreds of integrity you only wish you had. You've been publicly exposed as a dishonest liar, Teddles, and your pitiful attempts to ignore the scathing desecration your dishonesty just suffered only serve to further demonstrate what a dishonest, biased, self-serving, piece-of-shit-with-an-anti-evolution-agenda you truly are. Crawl away and hide, you worthless abomination. All you can possibly do to save what's left of your face is disappear into silence. >Splifford the bat says: Talking bats? I guess creationist idiots believe in talking snakes so nothing's really unusual there..... >A mind is a terrible thing to waste; Oh the irony! The bitter-sweet tang of irony! This from a Velikovskian?? It is to laugh...... > especially on an evolutionist. That's it, if you can't defeat it with evidence, attempt to reduce its veracity by falsely claiming it's merely a doctrine of belief rather than an observed phenomenon. You really are pathetic. >Just say no to narcotic drugs, alcohol abuse, and corrupt ideological >doctrines. *Especially* Velikovskian insanity...... Go away Ted, your squirming is embarrassing to watch. Stix *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ "Mysticism is a disease of the mind." *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ .................................................................... From medved@access.digex.net Wed Aug 20 07:17:49 1997 Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.atheism,alt.christnet,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.correct,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.renewing.american.civilization Subject: Re: Why outlaw teaching evolution? From: medved@access.digex.net (Ted Holden) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 11:17:49 GMT On Wed, 20 Aug 1997 08:09:29 GMT, stixREMOVE@ozemail.com.au (Stix) wrote: >No you dribbling fool!! He just absolutely shitcanned your stupid, lying >ass and *demonstrated* to a heap of newsgroups how dishonest you are!! > >* D * E * M * O * N * S * T * R * A * T * E * D * you pitiful moron... [further ranting deleted...] I rest my case. That's what these Bandarlog reps are about in calling the unconvinced "liars". Ted Holden http://access.digex.com/~medved/medved.html . . , , ____)/ \(____ _,--''''',-'/( )\`-.`````--._ ,-' ,' | \ _ _ / | `-. `-. ,' / | `._ /\\ //\ _,' | \ `. | | `. `-( ,\\_// )-' .' | | ,' _,----._ |_,----._\ ____`\o'_`o/'____ /_.----._ |_,----._ `. |/' \' `\( \(_)/ )/' `/ `\| ` ` V V ' ' Splifford the bat says: Always remember A mind is a terrible thing to waste; especially on an evolutionist. Just say no to narcotic drugs, alcohol abuse, and corrupt ideological doctrines. .................................................................... From ahall@remus.cs.uml.edu Wed Aug 20 10:07:40 1997 Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.atheism,alt.christnet,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.correct,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.renewing.american.civilization Subject: Re: Why outlaw teaching evolution? From: Andrew Hall Date: 20 Aug 1997 10:07:40 -0400 >>>>> Ted Holden writes: Ted> On Wed, 20 Aug 1997 08:09:29 GMT, stixREMOVE@ozemail.com.au Ted> (Stix) wrote> >> No you dribbling fool!! He just absolutely shitcanned your >> stupid, lying ass and *demonstrated* to a heap of newsgroups how >> dishonest you are!! >> >> * D * E * M * O * N * S * T * R * A * T * E * D * you pitiful >> moron... Ted> [further ranting deleted...] Ted> I rest my case. That's what these Bandarlog reps are about in Ted> calling the unconvinced "liars". While Mr. Stix's style leaves much to be desired, it is nevertheless a fact that Mr. Del clearly proved your dishonesty. Sad. ah (Now reading Usenet in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh...) .................................................................... From WILKINS@wehi.edu.au Mon Aug 18 23:32:32 1997 Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.atheism,alt.christnet,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.correct,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.renewing.american.civilization Subject: Re: Why outlaw teaching evolution? From: WILKINS@wehi.edu.au (John Wilkins) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 14:32:32 +1100 Followups to talk.origins In article , jfacts@NOSPAMearthlink.net (Del) wrote: | Here are the cures for Theodore's brand of bullshit. | Creationist lies pulverized: | | http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt.html | | And this archive of past Holden lies on the subject of | evolution that still embarrass even him (quite an | achievment): | | http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/t_origins/teds_intermed.html | | Don't miss 'em. They are 20 times more entertaining than | Theodore's pathetic, warmed-over stupidity. | | | In article <33f602a0.83463183@news.digex.net>, medved@access.digex.net | (Ted Holden) wrote: | | >On Fri, 15 Aug 1997 18:36:33 -0400, Al Klein wrote: | > | >>>The "rock record" indicates a total lack of the intermediate forms | >>>which any version of evolution via random genetic drift and | >>>selection require. | > | >>If you mean a half-dog, half-cat . . . no, no one could be that dense. | > | >Setting up straw men is a last resort for angry people who don't have | >a case based on evidence. | | Ironic, then, that Theodore proceeds to post a whole string of | straw men, isn't it? What a loser. Sheesh. | <...> | [...] | > | >See what I mean, Al? | | We sure do! You are a dishonest douche bag. Every | single quote by a true scientist you offered here - | every single one - was taken out of context. And | let there be no mistake as to what I mean by "taken | out of context." I mean you purposely edited the | quotes in order to change the authors actual and | intended meaning. Why don't you prove me wrong | by supplying the context you left out | Theodore? I predict that there is not THE | SLIGHTEST chance that you will have the balls to | fill in the context of your quotes. This will be the | smoking gun of your dishonesty. | | If you even have the balls to respond to this, which | is doubtful, I predict you will try to shift your burden | of proof to me - you make the claims and it is always | someone elses job to prove your wrong, isn't it Theodore? | | You're not fooling anyone Theodore. You're not even | entertaining anyone. It is also unsurprising that Ted no longer posts this egregious tripe (I always wanted to use that phrase) in the talk.origins newsgroup, where it belongs, since this sort of spamming was moderated to four groups. It's certainly brought the signal:noise ratio up in t.o but obviously too much for Ted. It's a pity. Ted is warmly regarded in t.o, like an idiot cousin would be in a generous family... -- John Wilkins, Head of Communication Services, Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Melbourne, Australia It is not enough to succeed. Friends must be seen to have failed. - Capote .................................................................... From @ Mon Aug 18 16:42:14 1997 Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.atheism,alt.christnet,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.correct,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.renewing.american.civilization Subject: Re: Why outlaw teaching evolution? From: Al Klein Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 16:42:14 -0400 On Sat, 16 Aug 1997 20:14:29 GMT, medved@access.digex.net (Ted Holden) wrote: >On Fri, 15 Aug 1997 18:36:33 -0400, Al Klein wrote: > >I prefer the case of homo sapiens, myself. DNA tests have confirmed >that we are not descended from neanderthals because their dna was >about "halfway between ours and that of a chimpanzee". That leaves >nothing resembling a plausible ancestor for homo sapiens on the >planet. You'd have to have something between the neanderthal and >us, and that creature along with his works would have been found >by now if he had existed. No, you're at the wrong point on the tree. Homo habilis, homo erectus, the various austalopithicines are all ancestral to h. s. s. But, if you want an intermediary for each stage, you'd need a fossil for every 25 years or so - that's probably more human fossils than there are fossils. The common ancestor for us and chimps is close to Ramepithecus, give or take 15 m.y. Maybe we'll find him some day. >>But there ARE intermediate forms in the fossil record, just not as >>many as you'd like. >Face it, Al: there AREN'T any intermediate fossils. Practically >everybody who works with fossils and isn't brain-dead is on >record one way or another to that effect. For example: >"Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means >of 'seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties >for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence >of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate >forms between species and paleontology does not provide them ..." There is no "intermediate forms between species". Some "experts" are more expert than others. An intermediary between canis and felis? Ludicrous. >"The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil >gaps; the fossils are missing in all the important places." And in a lot of unimportant places. IOW, there aren't as many as we'd like. Real life bites us again. Only theists have all the answers - scientists don't. >See what I mean, Al? Why don't you just come clean and admit >to all the people out there that evolutionists have been deluding >themselves all along with this thing about fossils? I mean, honesty >is the best policy... OK, I'll give you an intermediary, but 1) you won't like it and 2) you won't live long enough to find out if I'm correct: Yourself. Homo sap sap is intermediary between our ancestors and our descendants. Say, between Homo Habilis and what comes next. >>>Punc-eek claims to both explain and be validated >>>by this lack of evidence. >>P-E doesn't claim to be validated - it attempts to explain the dearth >>of intermediates. >It claims that there were intermediates, and then proceeds to explain >why we can never find any Appy IS one. And Gould isn't an idiot, he knew that before I did. -- Al Real email address: aklein@villagenet.com .................................................................... From cjplace@batnet.nospam.com Wed Aug 13 11:50:24 1997 Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.atheism,alt.christnet,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.correct,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.renewing.american.civilization Subject: Re: Why outlaw teaching evolution? From: cjplace@batnet.nospam.com (Jim Sarbeck) Date: 13 Aug 1997 15:50:24 GMT In article <33f1ba57.73941031@news.digex.net>, medved@access.digex.net (Ted Holden) wrote: : Why outlaw teaching evolution? Because it's beastly stupid : (see http://access.digex.com/~medved/idolatry.html for : details), and having even one enormously stupid doctrine : taught in our schools, supposedly as a "fact", is basically : a bad idea.... Like these currently taught in the U.S. education system: 1. Believe people who society certifies as "experts". 2. Teaching is not worth more than semiskilled labor. 3. It is not important to learn to be a wise consumer. 4. The dollar sign is the symbol of accepted religion. 5. Withholding belief is not an option. others? Regards, Jim Sarbeck *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* .................................................................... From jfacts@NOSPAMearthlink.net Wed Aug 13 12:32:15 1997 Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.atheism,alt.christnet,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.correct,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.renewing.american.civilization Subject: Re: Why outlaw teaching evolution? From: jfacts@NOSPAMearthlink.net (Del) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 09:32:15 -0700 In article <33f1ba57.73941031@news.digex.net>, medved@access.digex.net (Ted Holden) wrote: > To paraphrase >Everett Dirkson, one beastly stupid idea here, another >beastly stupid idea there, and pretty soon you've got a lot >of really stupid shit being drummed into the heads of our >schoolkids. One should not quickly dismiss these words, coming as they do from someone who clearly bears the scars of believing "really stupid shit" to crippling excess. Question to parents: were you disturbed by Ted's above presumption of co-ownership of your children? >Why outlaw teaching evolution? Because it's beastly stupid >(see http://access.digex.com/~medved/idolatry.html for >details), Before you do, folks, visit: http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/t_origins/teds_intermed.html ....and see an amusing compendium of Ted Holden LIES and deceitful misquotation on the subject of evolution. Then ask yourself: why would someone both lie about, and wish to outlaw the teaching of, something simply because he thought it was "beastly stupid"? These are not the actions of someone motivated by a love of truth - as Theodore implies is his impetus. and having even one enormously stupid doctrine >taught in our schools, supposedly as a "fact", is basically >a bad idea. Teaching a bad idea is a bad idea? Thank you for that tautological nothing burger Ted. But as you know evolution is not a doctrine, stupid or otherwise. It is observed fact, brilliant theory, AND the unifying principle of biology - all of which scare the shit out of you (as your considerable energies expended toward censorship amply demonstrate). It makes it that much easier for the second beastly >stupid idea to be adopted by our schools. Ye olde slippery slope fallacy. It might be instructive to point out (though hardly necessary) that this statement begs the question as well - another logical fallacy. There are 120 million pigeons in the United States - 100 million of them are birds, and the rest are people who believe in creation "science." -- E-mail: remove NOSPAM from jfacts@NOSPAMearthlink.net .................................................................... From jerryv@creighton.edu Wed Aug 13 17:03:43 1997 Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.atheism,alt.christnet,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.correct,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.renewing.american.civilization Subject: Re: Why outlaw teaching evolution? From: Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 16:03:43 -0500 Oulaw teaching math because it is beastly stupid shit. Outlaw teaching english because it is beastly stupid shit. After a while or this, schools would teach nothing. You have to provide damn good reasons for not teaching a subject. We will also stop teaching other subjects that you dont like. Please E-Mail us and tell which ones you dont like and those subjects will no longer we taught in schools. On Wed, 13 Aug 1997, Del wrote: > In article <33f1ba57.73941031@news.digex.net>, medved@access.digex.net > (Ted Holden) wrote: > > > To paraphrase > >Everett Dirkson, one beastly stupid idea here, another > >beastly stupid idea there, and pretty soon you've got a lot > >of really stupid shit being drummed into the heads of our > >schoolkids. > > One should not quickly dismiss these words, coming as they do from > someone who clearly bears the scars of believing "really stupid > shit" to crippling excess. > > Question to parents: were you disturbed by Ted's > above presumption of co-ownership of your children? > > >Why outlaw teaching evolution? Because it's beastly stupid > >(see http://access.digex.com/~medved/idolatry.html for > >details), > > Before you do, folks, visit: > > http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/t_origins/teds_intermed.html > > ....and see an amusing compendium of Ted Holden LIES and > deceitful misquotation on the subject of evolution. > > Then ask yourself: why would someone both lie about, > and wish to outlaw the teaching of, something simply > because he thought it was "beastly stupid"? > > These are not the actions of someone motivated by a > love of truth - as Theodore implies is his impetus. > > and having even one enormously stupid doctrine > >taught in our schools, supposedly as a "fact", is basically > >a bad idea. > > Teaching a bad idea is a bad idea? Thank you for that > tautological nothing burger Ted. But as you know > evolution is not a doctrine, stupid or otherwise. It is > observed fact, brilliant theory, AND the unifying > principle of biology - all of which scare the shit out > of you (as your considerable energies expended toward > censorship amply demonstrate). > > It makes it that much easier for the second beastly > >stupid idea to be adopted by our schools. > > Ye olde slippery slope fallacy. It might be > instructive to point out (though hardly necessary) that > this statement begs the question as well - another > logical fallacy. > > > > > There are 120 million pigeons in the United States - > 100 million of them are birds, and the rest are people > who believe in creation "science." > > -- > E-mail: remove NOSPAM from jfacts@NOSPAMearthlink.net > > .................................................................... From jfacts@NOSPAMearthlink.net Wed Aug 13 12:32:15 1997 Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.atheism,alt.christnet,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.correct,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.renewing.american.civilization Subject: Re: Why outlaw teaching evolution? From: jfacts@NOSPAMearthlink.net (Del) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 09:32:15 -0700 In article <33f1ba57.73941031@news.digex.net>, medved@access.digex.net (Ted Holden) wrote: > To paraphrase >Everett Dirkson, one beastly stupid idea here, another >beastly stupid idea there, and pretty soon you've got a lot >of really stupid shit being drummed into the heads of our >schoolkids. One should not quickly dismiss these words, coming as they do from someone who clearly bears the scars of believing "really stupid shit" to crippling excess. Question to parents: were you disturbed by Ted's above presumption of co-ownership of your children? >Why outlaw teaching evolution? Because it's beastly stupid >(see http://access.digex.com/~medved/idolatry.html for >details), Before you do, folks, visit: http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/t_origins/teds_intermed.html ....and see an amusing compendium of Ted Holden LIES and deceitful misquotation on the subject of evolution. Then ask yourself: why would someone both lie about, and wish to outlaw the teaching of, something simply because he thought it was "beastly stupid"? These are not the actions of someone motivated by a love of truth - as Theodore implies is his impetus. and having even one enormously stupid doctrine >taught in our schools, supposedly as a "fact", is basically >a bad idea. Teaching a bad idea is a bad idea? Thank you for that tautological nothing burger Ted. But as you know evolution is not a doctrine, stupid or otherwise. It is observed fact, brilliant theory, AND the unifying principle of biology - all of which scare the shit out of you (as your considerable energies expended toward censorship amply demonstrate). It makes it that much easier for the second beastly >stupid idea to be adopted by our schools. Ye olde slippery slope fallacy. It might be instructive to point out (though hardly necessary) that this statement begs the question as well - another logical fallacy. There are 120 million pigeons in the United States - 100 million of them are birds, and the rest are people who believe in creation "science." -- E-mail: remove NOSPAM from jfacts@NOSPAMearthlink.net .................................................................... From jerryv@creighton.edu Wed Aug 13 17:03:43 1997 Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.atheism,alt.christnet,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.correct,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.renewing.american.civilization Subject: Re: Why outlaw teaching evolution? From: Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 16:03:43 -0500 Oulaw teaching math because it is beastly stupid shit. Outlaw teaching english because it is beastly stupid shit. After a while or this, schools would teach nothing. You have to provide damn good reasons for not teaching a subject. We will also stop teaching other subjects that you dont like. Please E-Mail us and tell which ones you dont like and those subjects will no longer we taught in schools. On Wed, 13 Aug 1997, Del wrote: > In article <33f1ba57.73941031@news.digex.net>, medved@access.digex.net > (Ted Holden) wrote: > > > To paraphrase > >Everett Dirkson, one beastly stupid idea here, another > >beastly stupid idea there, and pretty soon you've got a lot > >of really stupid shit being drummed into the heads of our > >schoolkids. > > One should not quickly dismiss these words, coming as they do from > someone who clearly bears the scars of believing "really stupid > shit" to crippling excess. > > Question to parents: were you disturbed by Ted's > above presumption of co-ownership of your children? > > >Why outlaw teaching evolution? Because it's beastly stupid > >(see http://access.digex.com/~medved/idolatry.html for > >details), > > Before you do, folks, visit: > > http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/t_origins/teds_intermed.html > > ....and see an amusing compendium of Ted Holden LIES and > deceitful misquotation on the subject of evolution. > > Then ask yourself: why would someone both lie about, > and wish to outlaw the teaching of, something simply > because he thought it was "beastly stupid"? > > These are not the actions of someone motivated by a > love of truth - as Theodore implies is his impetus. > > and having even one enormously stupid doctrine > >taught in our schools, supposedly as a "fact", is basically > >a bad idea. > > Teaching a bad idea is a bad idea? Thank you for that > tautological nothing burger Ted. But as you know > evolution is not a doctrine, stupid or otherwise. It is > observed fact, brilliant theory, AND the unifying > principle of biology - all of which scare the shit out > of you (as your considerable energies expended toward > censorship amply demonstrate). > > It makes it that much easier for the second beastly > >stupid idea to be adopted by our schools. > > Ye olde slippery slope fallacy. It might be > instructive to point out (though hardly necessary) that > this statement begs the question as well - another > logical fallacy. > > > > > There are 120 million pigeons in the United States - > 100 million of them are birds, and the rest are people > who believe in creation "science." > > -- > E-mail: remove NOSPAM from jfacts@NOSPAMearthlink.net > > .................................................................... .................................................................... From stixREMOVE@ozemail.com.au Wed Aug 13 23:01:59 1997 Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.atheism,alt.christnet Subject: Re: Why outlaw teaching evolution? From: stixREMOVE@ozemail.com.au (Stix) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 03:01:59 GMT Del posted the following to alt.atheism: (political groups snipped) >Ted - idiot - Holden wrote [re evolution]: > >> To paraphrase >>Everett Dirkson, one beastly stupid idea here, another >>beastly stupid idea there, and pretty soon you've got a lot >>of really stupid shit being drummed into the heads of our >>schoolkids. > >One should not quickly dismiss these words, coming as they do from >someone who clearly bears the scars of believing "really stupid >shit" to crippling excess. BIG time! >There are 120 million pigeons in the United States - >100 million of them are birds, and the rest are people >who believe in creation "science." Heh heh - that's not even the worst of it as far as Ted the babbling idiot Holden goes. He's a Veilokov....Veilkov....Veil.... that idiot who said Venus was once a comet - ist!! Quick! A real live Velio..whateverist! Get a photo! Stix *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ "Mysticism is a disease of the mind." *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ .................................................................... From medved@access.digex.net Thu Aug 14 08:42:55 1997 Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.atheism,alt.christnet Subject: Re: Why outlaw teaching evolution? From: medved@access.digex.net (Ted Holden) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 12:42:55 GMT On Thu, 14 Aug 1997 03:01:59 GMT, stixREMOVE@ozemail.com.au (Stix) wrote: >>One should not quickly dismiss these words, coming as they do from >>someone who clearly bears the scars of believing "really stupid >>shit" to crippling excess. > >BIG time!..... I no longer debate Velikovskian catastrophism with idiots since comprehending the subject requires more reading than idiots can manage. I've put what I have to say on the subject on the www at: http://access.digex.com/~medved/Catastrophism.html and that and all of the linked sites will have to suffice. Ted Holden http://access.digex.com/~medved/medved.html . . , , ____)/ \(____ _,--''''',-'/( )\`-.`````--._ ,-' ,' | \ _ _ / | `-. `-. ,' / | `._ /\\ //\ _,' | \ `. | | `. `-( ,\\_// )-' .' | | ,' _,----._ |_,----._\ ____`\o'_`o/'____ /_.----._ |_,----._ `. |/' \' `\( \(_)/ )/' `/ `\| ` ` V V ' ' Splifford the bat says: Always remember A mind is a terrible thing to waste; especially on an evolutionist. Just say no to narcotic drugs, alcohol abuse, and corrupt ideological doctrines. .................................................................... From stixREMOVE@ozemail.com.au Thu Aug 14 21:19:18 1997 Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.atheism,alt.christnet Subject: Re: Why outlaw teaching evolution? From: stixREMOVE@ozemail.com.au (Stix) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 01:19:18 GMT Ted Holden posted the following to alt.atheism: >Stix wrote: >>>One should not quickly dismiss these words, coming as they do from >>>someone who clearly bears the scars of believing "really stupid >>>shit" to crippling excess. >> >>BIG time!..... > >I no longer debate Velikovskian catastrophism with idiots OH HO HO!! I just loooooove the juxtaposition of the concepts in that sentence! Let's look them again just coz they're so cute: "I no longer debate Velikovskian catastrophism with idiots." ROTFL!! "Did the Earth stand still for you too, darling?" >since comprehending the subject requires ....a fucking good imagination! > more reading than idiots can manage. ....more massaging of reality too. > I've put what I have to say on the subject on the www at: Who cares, poindexter, you're a known moron. Who rattled your cage anyway? I was talking about you, not to you. Stix *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ "Mysticism is a disease of the mind." *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ .................................................................... From @ Fri Aug 15 16:50:59 1997 Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.atheism,alt.christnet Subject: Re: Why outlaw teaching evolution? From: Al Klein Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 16:50:59 -0400 On Thu, 14 Aug 1997 12:42:55 GMT, medved@access.digex.net (Ted Holden) wrote: >I no longer debate Velikovskian catastrophism with idiots since >comprehending the subject requires more reading than idiots can >manage. I've put what I have to say on the subject on the www at: >http://access.digex.com/~medved/Catastrophism.html Oh, goodie - less spam for us. BTW, godboy, sigs are, by long usage, limited to 3 lines. Three as in 1, 2, 3, not by biblical math. --- Al Theists posting off-charter bullshit to alt.atheism will be treated according to the Golden Rule.