Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Anthropologist resigns in 'dating disaster'
Worlnetdaily ^ | February 19, 2005 | unattributed

Posted on 02/19/2005 7:36:30 AM PST by Woodworker

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 781-800801-820821-840841-843 next last
To: Thatcherite

It ain't the MEMORY of it, but the DETAILS of it.


It's the DETAILS we are disputing, so it would be paramount to have them displayed accurately; don't you think?


821 posted on 03/01/2005 9:01:59 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 820 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
It is your behavior that is at issue though, not mine.

No; not quite right.


It is your INTERPRETATION of my behavior that is at issue.

822 posted on 03/01/2005 9:03:19 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 820 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
"Use your abilities of deductive reasoning or -- if you are so educated -- your professional legal training to tell me whether or not my code is as efficiently designed as possible."

Once finished, I can tell you if the code works.

Relating computer language coding to the coding contained in DNA - who cares if it is the 'most efficient' as long as it works.

823 posted on 03/01/2005 10:06:45 AM PST by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 764 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
Would YOU let these claims slide by?

They seem pretty objective to me.

824 posted on 03/01/2005 10:10:28 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 819 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
Would YOU let these claims slide by?

I wouldn't, but you appear to be letting the claims about your behavior in this thread slide by, so I guess that you would.

825 posted on 03/01/2005 11:35:05 AM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 819 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

Slide?

I think not.


If you do not wish to reiterate them, it's your choice.


(Wilful choice at that...)


826 posted on 03/02/2005 8:35:24 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 825 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody

Watch it!

You'll make him go ballistic again.....


827 posted on 03/02/2005 8:36:14 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 823 | View Replies]

To: Elsie; Dimensio
OK, I'll reiterate them, despite your manifest failure to attempt to seriously defend yourself against the similar accusations in this thread.

Here is a question that I asked Elsie...

And here is her reply

All well and good, I was looking forward to hearing the arguments that had persuaded a rational person in possession of the evidence to reject ToE... but what I got was stuff like this, and this.

Here is an example of wilful misinterpretation by Elsie later in that thread. One of several if for anyone who has the stamnina to re-read Elsie's contributations in that thread.

Morton's Demon decided to go into "best to ignore" mode here, once the apparent contradiction had been removed in painful detail, as one would to an 8 year-old.

I decided that Elsie's only desire was to wear me down, and Elsie then attempted to justify her behavior by pulling some kind of quasi-legal get out. I pointed out the fatuity of that and Elsie stopped posting.

BTW I note that the late-lamented JudyWillow was posting in that thread with the usual homosexuality jibes. Elsie even joined in. I wonder why male freepers like JudyWillow who are obsessed with homosexuality post under female handles? Can't be the obvious explanation, can it?

828 posted on 03/03/2005 1:41:51 AM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 826 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
 Here is an example of wilful misinterpretation by Elsie later in that thread. One of several if for anyone who has the stamnina to re-read Elsie's contributations in that thread.
 
YOU call it wilful - why?  Because I do not come to same conclusion as you?   Is there only ONE 'interpretation': the E one?

To: Thatcherite
Yup; I know it. 
 I know it don't seem right.
 
Just LOOK at what you just posted:

Mutations which would have been neutral or harmful in the old environment may be beneficial in the new one. When most creatures are well adapted to their current environment most mutations will be harmful or neutral and very few will be beneficial. A change in environment changes the proportion of beneficial mutations because now the organsisms are not so well adapted to their new environment and it is more likely that any given mutation will improve them for their new environment than previously.

In just TWO sentences you switch from harmful to good.  How can this BE????

You guys CANNOT have it both ways!

 

823 posted on 01/15/2005 6:04:56 AM CST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)


To: Elsie
In just TWO sentences you switch from harmful to good. How can this BE????

You see so many of these false dichotomies. I get the impression that you are busy looking for holes or contradictions in evolutionary arguments before you've properly understood them. Understand them first, then try to spot the flaws.

Please read very carefully what I wrote, and think about it some more, not in terms of trying to pick holes, but in terms of trying to genuinely understand the argument. If you can't work it out in the next day or so ask me again, and I'll explain. I believe that you are clever enough to work out what I mean for yourself without me having to drag you through ever painful minute stage in the argument.

Hint: Read the entire sentences which you have highlighted portions of. The highlighted portions are contradictory it is true, but the context removes the contradiction.

825 posted on 01/15/2005 8:18:01 AM CST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 823 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
 
Sorry, but to ME your 'context' does NOT remove contraditons, only enhances them.
 
 
It's not that I do not wish to 'defend' myself from your accusations; I've chosen NOT to baited by your name calling tacticts as it contributes nothing.
 


 
I wonder why male freepers like JudyWillow who are obsessed with homosexuality post under female handles? Can't be the obvious explanation, can it?
Yet, here you malign me and another fellow, trying to assign a certain 'obvious' trait.

829 posted on 03/03/2005 4:50:48 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 828 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
Sorry, but to ME your 'context' does NOT remove contraditons, only enhances them. It's not that I do not wish to 'defend' myself from your accusations; I've chosen NOT to baited by your name calling tacticts as it contributes nothing.

Failure to defend yourself noted. I guess you don't have any answers that make sense.

Yet, here you malign me and another fellow, trying to assign a certain 'obvious' trait.

I am sorry Elsie, how was I maligning you there?

830 posted on 03/03/2005 5:55:50 AM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 829 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

That screen name of yours.


Anything to do with MARGARET Thatcher; strong woman of England a few years ago?


831 posted on 03/03/2005 7:29:50 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 830 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
Anything to do with MARGARET Thatcher; strong woman of England a few years ago?

Yes, I admire her political philosophy greatly. I am not sure of the relevance of your question though.

832 posted on 03/03/2005 8:16:58 AM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 831 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

Elsie, it is very clear from the context of his first post that he was speaking of 'harmful' and 'beneficial' as being relative regarding an organism's environment, which means that the same mutation could be either harmful or beneficial depending on the circumstances around it. You are either a liar or incredibly stupid for not figuring this out.


833 posted on 03/03/2005 8:32:49 AM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 829 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

only two from which to choose?

my, how you E types like to define the playing field!


834 posted on 03/03/2005 9:20:40 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 833 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

What?

It's not OBVIOUS?


835 posted on 03/03/2005 9:21:33 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 832 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
What? It's not OBVIOUS?

No, it isn't.

836 posted on 03/03/2005 9:24:57 AM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 835 | View Replies]

To: Elsie; Dimensio
only two from which to choose? my, how you E types like to define the playing field!

Be our guest if you want to suggest another possibility. In fact I'm prepared to discount "liar", because of your willingness to repeat in this thread the full details of posts that make you look so ridiculous. I don't see why a liar would do that.

837 posted on 03/03/2005 9:28:03 AM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 834 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
Thatcherite is allowing for the possibility that you have a psychological disorder that prevents you from seeing reality as it is. I am not so charitable. The position has been explained very clearly, and yet you insist that there is a contradiction where there is none. You are either a liar for claiming that there is one, or you are a complete and utter moron for failing to comprehend such a simple concept after so many detailed explanations.

The same mutation can be harmful or beneficial depending upon the circumstances surrounding it.
838 posted on 03/03/2005 9:38:56 AM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 834 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
Can't be the obvious explanation, can it?

from 828

839 posted on 03/04/2005 5:55:51 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 836 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio; All
I am not so charitable.

Dang!

Ya coulda FOOLED me!

840 posted on 03/04/2005 5:58:50 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 838 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 781-800801-820821-840841-843 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson