Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[creat] Re: Breaking News in Avian Evolution! Ripped from Today's Science Headl

Expand Messages
  • bingy020
    ... skkin ... cloud ... He he he. I do get it. You are just trying to get under the typical creationists skin. It doesn t get under mine, but it *is* annoying
    Message 1 of 229 , Jul 1, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In creationism@yahoogroups.com, "seekeththee" <seekeththee@...>
      wrote:
      >
      > --- In creationism@yahoogroups.com, "bingy020" <bingy020@> wrote:
      >
      > > If birds ARE reptiles as you keep imagining you get under my
      skkin
      > > about, then there is no such thing as evolution. Evolution is
      > CHANGE.
      > > Birds evolved FROM reptiles. THAT is evolution. See the
      > difference?
      > > No? Too bad. You let your emotions and hate for creationists
      cloud
      > > your mind and make false erroneous judgements.
      >
      > Its you that is in a rush to judgment.
      >
      > Birds are reptiles like humans are primates.
      >
      > You just don't get it.
      >

      He he he. I do get it. You are just trying to get under the typical
      creationists skin. It doesn't get under mine, but it *is* annoying
      and childish.

      You are now saying "Hmans are Primates" not Humans are Apes". This is
      another poor tactic of yours to make yourself right in your own eyes.
      OTOH, I can agree with that because it is correct. But apes are apes,
      and humans humans. Both evoled from a common ancestor.

      http://sayer.lab.nig.ac.jp/~silver/taxonomy.html

      "Hominidae (great apes and human)
      subfamily Ponginae
      Pongo
      Pongo pygmaeus (orangutan)
      Pongo pygmaeus abelii [it may be a distinct
      species]
      Pongo pygmaeus pygmaeus
      Pongo pygmaeus wurmbii
      subfamily Homininae
      Gorilla
      Gorilla gorilla (gorilla)
      Gorilla gorilla beringei [it may be a
      distinct species]
      Gorilla gorilla gorilla
      Gorilla gorilla graueri [it may be a
      subspecies of Gorilla gorilla beringei]
      Pan
      Pan paniscus (pygmy chimpanzee; bonobo)
      Pan troglodytes (chimpanzee) [subspecies
      classification are in need of revision]
      Pan troglodytes troglodytes
      Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii
      Pan troglodytes verus
      Homo
      Homo sapiens (human)"


      >
      > > Fossils are great. But again the only things one can actually
      hard-
      > > physical-realistically get from them is that they once existed,
      > and
      > > now do not, and from one layer to the next they are different.
      >
      >
      > And you can do radiometric dating. You can analyze not only the
      > chronological location in layers, but you can analyze their
      > geographic location. You can compare the diversity in each layer to
      > the other layers. You can look at the differences and quanify their
      > change from layer to layer. You can construct cladograms from them
      > to test hypotheses on morphological data predicted with fossils
      that
      > are undiscovered. You can compare molecular data of present
      organims
      > to those of the past based on morphological, chronological, and
      > geographical differences. . Based on they type of strata they are
      > found in, and the position of the fossils, you can determine how
      > they died. You can get a rough idea of what the ecosystem was like
      > in the past.
      >

      Of course!

      > If you don't want to be called a creationist, then quit using their
      > stupid arguments.

      What stupid arguments? The dating shows evidence of when the fossils
      formed. The layers also show when they lived and died. How? Some
      still argue against the meteor strike, which layer is above the
      fosils of the last known dinosaurs, some 65 MYA.

      What's to argue against real data like that?

      But the conclusions from the data again that are real (by real I mean
      tangible, as in the carbon and radiometric dating, as well as the
      obvious findings of fossils and geological strata) are, they once
      existed, now they don't. Different creatures lived in different
      environments. They died from certain types of disasters. And the
      different layes show different creatures. I agree with you and the
      scientific data. Those are tangible evidence. Those things are as
      certain as death and taxes.

      The *theoretical* logical conclusions are that the newer creatures
      must have evolved from the older ones. This is what stands because
      there is no other conclusion one can make that is resonable enough to
      refute it or that fits the data gathered thus far.

      What is wrong with that?

      What **is** your problem?

      Robert.
    • John Tillman
      ... From: Thomas Covenant Subject: [creat] Re: Oxen used in building of Pyramids - Expert on everything refuses to learn. To:
      Message 229 of 229 , Jul 23, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        --- On Wed, 7/23/08, Thomas Covenant <averylinden@...> wrote:
        From: Thomas Covenant <averylinden@...>
        Subject: [creat] Re: Oxen used in building of Pyramids - "Expert on everything" refuses to learn.
        To: creationism@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Wednesday, July 23, 2008, 9:18 AM











        --- In creationism@ yahoogroups. com, "bingy020" <bingy020@.. .> wrote:

        >

        > --- In creationism@ yahoogroups. com, "Thomas Covenant"

        > <averylinden@ > wrote:

        > >

        > > --- In creationism@ yahoogroups. com, "bingy020" <bingy020@> wrote:

        > > >

        > > > --- In creationism@ yahoogroups. com, "Thomas Covenant"

        > > > <averylinden@ > wrote:

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > ...like plywood and cement. ;-)

        > > >

        > >

        > > So now you admit that none of the sources you originally quoted

        > > actually support your original claim that oxen were used to build

        > the

        > > Great Pyramid?

        > >

        > > You say "it is not unreasonable to concludd that this is the way

        it

        > > was done all that time", but provide no evidence other

        than "there

        > > are many things we do now that has [sic] not changed for many

        > > thousands of years". Could you please provide some examples of

        > such

        > > things? After all, many things are done now that were not done

        > 1000

        > > years ago (powered flight, internal combustion engined vehicles,

        > > etc). Without evidence from the timeperiod in question, there is

        > no

        > > reason to assume that such things were commonly used then. Lots

        of

        > > things change in 1000 years, not the least of which is technology.

        > >

        >

        > I am confused. Why is it that I am confronted as being ignorant of

        > things, and yet when I say something that I think you might already

        > know, since you attack me with knowledge of the subject as if you

        > knew ALL about it, you ask for evidence as if you *don't* know what

        I

        > am saying?

        >



        We ask for further clarification because what you cite is not clear.

        Rather than just single weblinks, quote from them to provide your

        evidence -- I don't have the time or desire to search through

        multiple webpages to find a single sentence that might (or might not)

        justify your claims. Don't expect me (or anyone else) to do YOUR

        homework.



        > I don't even get that kind of stuff from my peers.

        >



        Perhaps your peers are too lenient?



        > Carpentry:

        >

        > http://dougukan. jp/archive/ eng/B-2e. html

        > http://www.warrenbu ilders.com/ history_of_ carpentry. htm

        > http://www.woodenca rpentry.com/ history/

        > http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Plane_(tool)

        >

        > "Hand planes are ancient, originating thousands of years ago. Early

        > planes were made from wood with a rectangular slot or mortise cut

        > across the center of the body. The cutting blade or iron was held

        in

        > place with a wooden wedge. The wedge was tapped into the mortise

        and

        > adjusted with a small mallet, a piece of scrap wood or with the

        heel

        > of the users hand. Planes of this type have been found in

        excavations

        > of old sites as well as drawings of woodworking from medieval

        Europe

        > and Asia. Roman planes found at Pompeii are largely similar to

        planes

        > in use today."

        >



        And exactly WHAT does this have to do with the discussion?



        > Farming:

        >

        > http://www.historyl ink101.com/ lessons/farm- city/story- of-farming. htm

        >



        ???



        >

        > Cold cuts:

        >

        > http://www.suffolks alami.co. uk/salami. html

        > History Channel's "Modern Marvels"

        >



        ???



        > Oh, the processes may have improved *some*, but they have basically

        > remained the same.

        >



        But that's the POINT -- in the case of the claim of oxen usage at the

        pyramids, it's obvious that humans have used various means to move

        large stones far into antiquity. But the PROCESSES have changed, and

        that change is measurable and easily identified through time.



        In this case, while large stones have been moved using oxen, there is

        no indication anywhere that I've seen that such a technique was used

        at the time the Great Pyramid was built.



        > > All you have done here is verify John's position. At least you

        did

        > > it without insults and personal attacks. I guess that can be

        > > considered "progress".

        > >

        >

        > And all you have done is verified *my* position, that no matter

        what

        > the real experts say, you will take your good buddy's side.

        >



        No, Robert. It's got nothing to do with "taking sides". It's got to

        do with adjusting your understanding to match reality.



        > John is wrong to a certain degree.



        And, if you had read for comprehension, I said as much.



        > Egyptologists and the evidence

        > shows that they used oxen to drag the stones as well as human

        power.



        No doubt -- and I agree with you. It's not that such things were

        used, but the TIMING of such usage.



        > Whether it was eventually or all along is a matter of research. but

        > logic and reasonoing dictates that they weren't stupid. They must

        > have used them all along.



        No, that is NOT necessarily a reasonable assumption. Humans of 2000

        years ago were most likely just as intelligent and capable as humans

        are today (I agree with this "logic and reasoning"). But that

        doesn't mean the Romans were using motorized horseless chariots all

        along. Technology (and the knowledge that is used to develop it) is

        a gradual, building process full of fits and starts, advances and

        losses. You seem to think that 1000 years is a short time for human

        technology, based on the advances of the last 100 years. However,

        without the ability to easily store and pass on knowledge (i.e.,

        widespread literacy and a global economy), technological advances

        were far slower to emerge and spread. Oxen were used by the

        Egyptians for a long time to plow fields before the necessary

        harnesses and technology were developed to allow them to pull heavy

        stones.



        > AAMOF, one site said that the technological

        > capabilities seems to have *waned* over the millenia.

        >



        Cite? (see, this is the type of example that would have been PERFECT

        for a quotation from such a website, but you for some reason think

        that I have to do YOUR homework)



        > And I am sure you well know that there are *many* things that

        people

        > do today that hasn't changed for thousands of years.

        >



        Like what? And remember, we're not just talking about the general

        process, but the technologies involved.



        > You are trying to be slick with your verbeage and sleight-of-hand

        > sarcasm (quotations around the word progress).

        >



        No, I'm trying to be precise and accurate -- which means a little

        more "verbeage [sic]" than you apparently are used to. You may not

        like it, but when your posts consist of ridicule, insults and

        personal attacks, don't be surprised when others get annoyed with it

        and return the favor.



        > This whole thing with you all is getting quite stupid and boring.

        >



        And the reason would be? Perhaps if you would LISTEN and LEARN,

        rather than getting all huffy at the thought that you might be wrong,

        you wouldn't find it so "stupid and boring".



        > As usual, I provide evidence, and the replies fly in the face of

        the

        > evidence.

        >



        You've provided citations, but no direct quotes. That means I have

        to search through the sites (sometimes several pages of text) to find

        a single line or two that MIGHT justify your claims. But as it's

        turned out, when I do go to those sites, I find that they more often

        than not CONTRADICT your claims -- or at the very least, provide no

        support or evidence for them.



        > On the other hand, you might all just be giving me the runaround,

        > imagining you have a pigeon. And I came to have some honest

        > intelligent discussions. I guess I can't get it here...

        >



        And you've gotten it. But since you got pissy and offended because

        we challenged you to support your claims, and then provided evidence

        and citations that showed you were wrong (and went to the trouble to

        write extensive posts explaining why you were wrong), it makes going

        back to being civil and reasonable difficult.



        To be honest, your insults, attacks and ad hominems simply make me

        cringe -- they are childish and boorish, at best. Rather than

        attacking people for "trying to be slick with your verbeage and

        sleight-of-hand sarcasm", perhaps you could take a step back and

        realize that I was not using extensive verbiage to confuse or

        confound you, but to provide accuracy and precision in my responses,

        so that they would NOT be misunderstood. Of course, that assumes

        that you actually want to learn and get answers to your questions.



        > Hope you are all having a good laugh at my expense.

        >



        It's more frustration and annoyance. You seem like a reasonably

        intelligent person, Robert. But your attitude and arrogance

        overwhelms any semblance of respect or desire to learn. One can be

        very smart, and still be an uneducated ignoramous. Asking questions

        is a good start at correcting your ignorance, but if you refuse to

        listen to the answers and mock those who provide them, then don't

        expect them to continue being polite in return.



        BTW -- being called "ignorant" is NOT an insult in my book (unless it

        is intentional ignorance). It's simply pointing out areas where

        knowledge is lacking, and it can be fixed.



        Thomas



        John:

        The development of improved tack for draft & riding animals has played an under-rated role in technological & economic history.  For instance, the Industrial Revolution might not have occurred when it did without the introduction into Europe perhaps eight centuries earlier of the horse collar.

        Science historian Needham observed that probably beginning in the 920s (1000 AD at the latest), the use of horses for plowing became increasingly widespread in Europe by the 12th
        century (more in England than Germany, however).  Horses work roughly fifty percent faster than oxen.  Using horses
        (& a slightly improved plow), peasants could produce surpluses, providing goods to trade at crossroads markets, which spots developed into towns.  Food surpluses & towns meant that some peasants could give up farming & make goods for sale full time.  A proliferation of
        such products meant others could live purely by buying & selling.  So the horse collar played a pivotal role in ending the feudal system & launching a European middle class.


        In a 1910 experiment, French cavalry officer Lefebvre des Noëttes compared
        the ancient throat-and-girth harness to the also old trace
        breast-harness, then finally the advanced form of collar
        harness developed in early medieval times.   He
        found that two horses (aided by effective traction) using the
        throat-and-girth harness were limited to pulling about 1100 lbs.   However, a single horse with a more efficient collar harness could draw a weight of about 1.5 tons, almost three times as much.

        Technology that seems trivial to us took centuries to develop & had enormous effects.  I don't know what aspect of my discussion of the evolution of ox harness in ancient Egypt you found mistaken, but when looking at archaeol0gical artifacts, carvings, paintings & historical documents from the whole period 3000 to 1000 BC (pre-Bronze Age to pre-Iron Age), it's clear to me that no evidence at all exists for the use of oxen at even later pyramid sites & none before 1600 BC for any use of oxen even in quarries, to haul small slabs of stone not suitable for most pyramidal construction.  The necessary harness may have developed by 1900 BC, but Robert presented no evidence to that effect, let alone 2600 BC.His references by unnamed "Egyptologists" to oxen in quarries didn't specify a date, & as I showed, what is known of tack c. 2600 BC indicates oxen not only weren't used at the Great Pyramid, but couldn't have been used then even in quarries, & certainly
        not for huge limestone blocks.  Harness then was as primitive & rudimentary as could possible be, barely adequate to pull a light wooden plow.






























        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.