Posts by hooberus

H. Sapiens came from "early fish" the same way that modern "fish" came from "early humans." How's that to confuse the issue? The phrase "came from" is not a sufficient point to get hung up on. Popular science articles will usually contain such simplifications. So do you or do you not understand what "came from" means in this context?

This is what I meant when I said "came from fish". Its a sketch of a "simplified family tree" from the 1968 Smithsonian book "The Evidence of Evolution". (I was unable to transfer a scan from the actual better imaged page to here from microsoft "word" - perhaps someone knows how.). Anyway the book is essentailly the same as below:

Compare this with the recent:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/1999/nov/04/fossils.uknews

"Humans are vertebrates, as are rabbits, eagles and frogs, and as such we are all evolved from fish,"

(The above pictures depicted ancient fish would of course also be the ancestor to the modern fish as well).

87

How many ATHEISTS don't believe that they came from FISH?

by hooberus in

how many atheists are there who don't believe that they came from fish ?.

the outspoken ones that i have come into contact with always seem to (when pressed anyway) advocate such a thing.

many of them surely even put something like it on their car, such as:.

hooberus

"My appologies for referencing Origin. You referenced Descent Of Man, and I was thrown by the way you cited it, given the following quote was attributed in the same manner to (prominent evolutionist) which I take it is not the title of a book.

Anyway, Hooberus, open your copy of Descent to chapter six and read the portion preceding and subsequent to your quote where Darwin describes his thoughts on the lineage issue, noting particularly the multifaceted nature of such a lineage. It is clear as day to any reader that Darwin was not implying any kind of straight line succession, and it's not accurate to portray it that way. I would state to readers of this book that he did have many erroneous notions about the differences of human races, so don't even bother with the subtle racism of 1871. Darwin was wrong about several things...so were most people in 1871."

I simply quoted from Descent in order to show that Darwin taught that ancient monkeys were in fact in mans actual ancestral lineage. Any one can see my quote on page one and then compare it with the following:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/darwin/descent/dom09.htm

"In the class of mammals the steps are not difficult to conceive which led from the ancient Monotremata to the ancient Marsupials; and from these to the early progenitors of the placental mammals. We may thus ascend to the Lemuridae; and the interval is not very wide from these to the Simiadae. The Simiadae then branched off into two great stems, the New World and Old World monkeys; and from the latter, at a remote period, Man, the wonder and glory of the Universe, proceeded. Thus we have given to man a pedigree of prodigious length, but not, it may be said, of noble quality."

As for myself, I will spend no more time on your assertions against me on the issue of this quote.

87

How many ATHEISTS don't believe that they came from FISH?

by hooberus in

how many atheists are there who don't believe that they came from fish ?.

the outspoken ones that i have come into contact with always seem to (when pressed anyway) advocate such a thing.

many of them surely even put something like it on their car, such as:.

hooberus

Hooberus, Please provide the page reference and bibiliography for your Origin quote, along with the preceding and subsequent line. You don't have the book, do you?

Given that I never quoted from "Origin" [of species?] I see no need to provide any documentation from it.

Note also that a news blurb from 1999 is not an illuminating source if you are looking for technical information.

I wasn't quoting it for "technical information" but rather to document a basic point. Anyway, are you claiming that they were wrong when they said: "Humans are vertebrates, as are rabbits, eagles and frogs, and as such we are all evolved from fish," ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/1999/nov/04/fossils.uknews ) ? If so, then is the Florida Museum of Natural History also wrong when they said: "Humans and other land animals ultimately descend from bony fish." ( http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/sharks/InNews/fingers2007.html ) ?

If you don't have or have not read Origin, you are engaging in quote mining.

Interesting, since I never quoted from Origin at all.

In other words, were this an essay, and were I your teacher, I would give you an F because your point is based on no research or understanding of the material quoted.

And what would your grade be, given that you (without any documentation to support your assertions) accused me of "dishonest" misrepresentation of quoted sources, and demanded that also I provide references from a book that I never quoted from, to begin with?

Other main points will be responded to shortly.

87

How many ATHEISTS don't believe that they came from FISH?

by hooberus in

how many atheists are there who don't believe that they came from fish ?.

the outspoken ones that i have come into contact with always seem to (when pressed anyway) advocate such a thing.

many of them surely even put something like it on their car, such as:.

hooberus

Atheism is not the same as evolutionary theory. Your OP is flawed.

You can be an atheist w/o subscribing to evolution.

You can believe in evolution and still be a theist.

False dichotomy. No need to dignify the OP with an answer

.

Where does the OP (original post) claim these things?

87

How many ATHEISTS don't believe that they came from FISH?

by hooberus in

how many atheists are there who don't believe that they came from fish ?.

the outspoken ones that i have come into contact with always seem to (when pressed anyway) advocate such a thing.

many of them surely even put something like it on their car, such as:.

hooberus

hooberus: "If you are going to claim that anyone has been dishonestly mis-represented then perhaps you should document it."

"No, YOU should, as the one making the assertion and providing the quotation. If you take a quotation, context unknown, from an author, also unknown, then YOU need to supply the documentation.

Your author could have been a Victorian armchair scientist, for all I know. BTW, the WTS adores Victorian armchair scientists -- they're completely out of date (and therefore generally unknown), had never done any actual science (also convenient), sound authoritative, and dubs are too braindead to check it out.

Sorry, that kind of thing doesn't fly here."

I have backed up my specific assertions on evolutionary teachings with documentation from a recent science article in the Guardian , with the quote coming from an evolutionary scientsist. I even provided a link to the entire interview: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/1999/nov/04/fossils.uknews

I also quoted from prominent evolutionists Charles Darwin and George Gaylord Simpson [if you don't know who he is try doing a little research]. A reference was provided in Darwins case and the quote from Simpson was relatively lengtly and plain.

87

How many ATHEISTS don't believe that they came from FISH?

by hooberus in

how many atheists are there who don't believe that they came from fish ?.

the outspoken ones that i have come into contact with always seem to (when pressed anyway) advocate such a thing.

many of them surely even put something like it on their car, such as:.

hooberus

"I can never quite put my finger on it with creationists. I feel like the hurdle to accurately describe an opponents position is a minimum in any meaningful debate. I mean, we could be arguing Keynesian vs. Austrian school economics as it relates to mortgage backed securities dirivitives (more fun than a quote-em-up, for sure) here and I'd be saying the same thing. Educate yourself about the subject matter if you want to be taken seriously. Furthermore, when you post clips of supposedly damning text it doesn't impress anyone who is actually familiar with the author, and anyone should be ashamed of such a dishonest style of rhetoric. I say good day sir! hahaha"

If you are going to claim that anyone has been dishonestly mis-represented then perhaps you should document it.

11

WHAT TYPE(S) OF GRASS(ES) DID NOAH TAKE ON BOARD?

by badboy in

jw
friends

i understand that rice and sorghum are related to grass, so how many types did noah take on board?.

hooberus

"John Woodmorappe wasted seven years of his life hiding in denial and writing fantasy.
For example, he claims:
* Noah trained each of the animals to crap in a bucket on command in order to make the crap removal process as efficient as possible."
I have the book and I don't believe that he used the word "each" (as in all) for any such training. Furthermore, his reasoning did not depend on any of them using this, any way. Here is his response on this specific issue: "Misleading. I did mention such training as a POSSIBILITY, but in no sense did Ark waste management depend upon this. I emphasized such things as sloped floors, slatted floors, behind-animal gutters, etc., as the keys to efficient waste disposal. None of these things required the prior training of animals in any way, nor even necessarily handling of the waste by the crew."
For the rest see: http://www.rae.org/pagesix.htm

87

How many ATHEISTS don't believe that they came from FISH?

by hooberus in

how many atheists are there who don't believe that they came from fish ?.

the outspoken ones that i have come into contact with always seem to (when pressed anyway) advocate such a thing.

many of them surely even put something like it on their car, such as:.

hooberus

"You know for a fact that when creationist speak in disdain of man "coming" from a monkey they mean chimps and spider and the like. I've had these discussions with many of your spec."

Ive never promoted, nor read that specifically from any of the major creationist organizations. Anyway as Simpson said:

"In fact, that earlier ancestor would certainly be called an ape or monkey in popular speech by anyone who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are defined by popular usage, man's ancestors were apes or monkeys (or successively both)." George Gaylord Simpson (prominent evolutionist)

87

How many ATHEISTS don't believe that they came from FISH?

by hooberus in

how many atheists are there who don't believe that they came from fish ?.

the outspoken ones that i have come into contact with always seem to (when pressed anyway) advocate such a thing.

many of them surely even put something like it on their car, such as:.

hooberus

Now back to the fish thing.