Lice offer clues to origin of clothing

USA TODAY ^ | 8/18/2003 | Tim Friend

[demlosers]

Human body lice appear to owe their origin to the invention of clothing, and the types that reside on our bodies appear to have hitchhiked along as modern humans migrated out of Africa about 100,000 years ago.

Mark Stoneking and colleagues at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, made the connection between the origin of clothing and the rise of human body lice by checking so-called molecular clocks found in the cells of all living creatures.

[HalfFull]

Of course, the quintessential insult is to expose a creationist post as a fraud. That's intolerable , and will be met with crude insults, threats and whining

It's one thing to discuss a post and point out an error (if it really exists)....it's entirely another thing to use "the agreement" as an excuse to call another a liar, troll, or worse.

[DittoJed2]

Ichneumon,
Your "agreement" is nothing more than a tool by which to limit the legitimate areas of discussion that one can enter in discussion evolution. Your "signees" have neither followed such an agreement nor the spirit of such an agreement as they have heaped personal attack upon personal attack upon my intellect, upon the intellect of my sources, upon my character, and upon my God. Yet, I am not so ignorant to know that the minute that I would sign such an "agreement", Alamo Girl or someone else would be dragging it out and enforcing it upon me while the "pack" continued their little political games of personal destruction, intimidation, and down-right mean spiritedness. I have been falsely accused. I have been called rather vile names. And I have been mocked for merely presenting a point of view that differs from that which the "pack" deems is acceptable. In comparison, I welcome you to go through all close to 3000 posts which I have been participating and count the number of "personal attacks" which I have made on others in comparison to the times that things have been said about ME and not the evidence at hand. I will NOT sign on to such an agreement because such an agreement is a lie, a farce, and a deception. I will also NOT sign on to such an agreement because I already know how to debate without personally attacking another individual. My screen says "Please: NO profanity, NO Personal attacks, NO Racism or violence in posts." Other than agreeing with scripture and saying that people who close their ears to Scriptural truth are "willfully ignorant", I do not personally attack individuals unless it is as a comeback for an attack on me. Last night, we had some rather light-hearted jabbing back and forth. My tagline this morning is an example of such. But I have not attacked people's intelligence, the intelligence of their sources, the integrity of their sources or any such thing as I can recall. As such, y'all can have your "agreement" because my conscience is clear.

[Right Wing Professor]

It's one thing to discuss a post and point out an error (if it really exists)....it's entirely another thing to use "the agreement" as an excuse to call another a liar, troll, or worse.

DittoJed2 introduced material that seeks to smear evolution with the taint of Nazi-ism, on a scientific thread. That is trolling. It also directly contravenes the agreement, which Dittojed2 has refused to be bound by. DittoJed2 posted quotes that were dishonestly edited to change their apparent meaning. That is lying. It is also forbidden by the agreement.

I find it intensely ironic that posters who assure us that without their particular moral code, society would fall apart, spend so much of their time posting falsehoods, attempting to disrupt discussion, and occasionally issuing threats of violence. I find it telling that the same self-righteous preachers of morality almost to a man find it impossible to endorse an agreement that merely urges its signers to adhere to a minimal standard of mutual civility.

[DittoJed2]

I've been called a troll and worse from the beginning of my posting. Frankly, unless it gets too overboard like it did yesterday (and the moderator agreed) they can "insult" away. I will give as given to me and continue to present the evidence. If they want civil discussion, all they have to do is be civil. My conversation with Aric ended cordially last night because he was speaking cordially. I am not a difficult person to get along with. As a matter of fact, a few years ago when they were having freeper nominations, someone wanted to vote me "Miss Congeniality: for my ability to have an opponent apologize to me and thank me for it!" LOL! Of course, that was due to how I handled the Pray for Bush prayer thread at the time when disruptors would come in and say nasty things about Bush or about the effort here on F.R. But, even in more spirited debates, I've never been one who just flies into hysterics and starts calling people names. I don't have a high boiling point (though I can get angry - calling me names is not likely to do it unless they are really over the top like yesterday). In short, I'm not signin' no stinkin' agreement because I don't need no stinkin' agreement and the stinkin' agreement that now is is never enforced on the right people anyway.

[Aric2000]

Man, we were having such a reasonable discussion last night too.

Oh, well, at least I will be waist deep in a river today, so I won't be listening to you whining all day.

[Aric2000]

And you need to get on a plane and get out here so we can catch some REALLY big fish!!

[whattajoke]

Lice has so many facets. I once wondered why God made cockroaches. I guess he knows better than we do what His reason are. I hate those bugs. Under a microscope some of those little critters look so frightening.

The mind reels... Just curious, you're putting cockroaches under microscopes? What kind of microscope is this?

Oh wait, my fault, I was supposed to take the bait and argue about whether or not and why god made cockroaches. Sorry.

[Right Wing Professor]

I have been falsely accused.

Instance?

Other than agreeing with scripture and saying that people who close their ears to Scriptural truth are "willfully ignorant", I do not personally attack individuals unless it is as a comeback for an attack on me

BWAHAHAHA! If you don't believe in her god you're willfully ignorant, but other than that she'll never personally attack you.

Last night, we had some rather light-hearted jabbing back and forth. My tagline this morning is an example of such.

As she knows very well, and as everyone who's been here more than a month remembers, her current tagline is identical to ALS's tagline before he was banned, and he adopted it as a rather pathetic attempt to get my goat. How someone can expect to tell a big fat whopper like this one on a public forum, and then not get called on it, is beyond me.

BTW, for those of you who missed it, the 'light-hearted jabbing' included an offer to send a 210 pound, ex-black beret to 'spell it out' for me.

But I have not attacked people's intelligence, the intelligence of their sources, the integrity of their sources or any such thing as I can recall.

That's because there is no reasonable way you can attack the integrity of the sources posted in response to you, whereas some the material you've posted can be trivially shown to be fraudulent. You posted an article of helium dating which blatantly misrepresented the data it was based on, retaining only those (anomalous) data which agreed with the thesis of young earth creationism. One of the authors of this paper, which claims the earth is 6000 years old, has in the last 5 years coauthored a paper analyzing the earth's history over the last 150 million years. What kind of integrity is that?

[DittoJed2]

DittoJed2 introduced material that seeks to smear evolution with the taint of Nazi-ism, on a scientific thread. That is trolling. It also directly contravenes the agreement, which Dittojed2 has refused to be bound by. DittoJed2 posted quotes that were dishonestly edited to change their apparent meaning. That is lying. It is also forbidden by the agreement.

Number 1, the Nazis did use evolution as justification. I believe I have been ABUNDANTLY clear on what I was saying here any anyone who has half a brain in their head can read my post and see that I was not calling evolutionists Nazis and backed up my assertions with historical fact. If anyone is misrepresenting here, it is your self dear prof. You are continually misrepresenting and attacking me, but that is par for the course. Number 2, I did not "edit" a single quote to change a single thing. Anyone can go out on the net and find the quotes exactly as they are. I removed footnotes from the quotes but that was it. A couple of attempts have been made to show me the context of a couple of these statements, but I do not see how even in context it changes the quote nor my intention in using them. Again, I have explained until I'm blue in the face why these quotes were used. I am not a "liar" a "troll" or anything else and will not be bullied by such assertions. If you don't like it, then per "the agreement" you can ignore me.

I find it intensely ironic that posters who assure us that without their particular moral code, society would fall apart, spend so much of their time posting falsehoods, attempting to disrupt discussion, and occasionally issuing threats of violence. I find it telling that the same self-righteous preachers of morality almost to a man find it impossible to endorse an agreement that merely urges its signers to adhere to a minimal standard of mutual civility.

First, it isn't my moral code, it is God's and our nation's legal system is based upon it - so apparently me and the founding fathers agree that this moral code keeps society from falling apart. Second, I'm not posting falsehoods. If something was misquoted, it was not by me but by a source on the internet. I posted in good faith but have yet to see where my quotes and the context I used them in are "falsehoods." I predicted they would be treated as such, and I was right. Third, As I posted earlier, I was the one engaged in this conversation and NOBODY is stopping anyone from discussing lice.

Fourth, the "violence" that he is discussing, for those who were not present last night, was when he was accusing goodseedhomeschool of some misdeed (maybe regarding her screename, I can't remember what it was about) and she said he should ask her 6'1" 210 former black beret husband who was sitting next to her. That was it. Nobody threatened to hit, spit on, throw evil looks to, or harm anyone else in any way. This is the agregious threat of "violence" that makes this crowd so scared that they go grabbing the night shift's admin mod to get the post yanked (which it was). But now, that the evidence of what was actually said is gone, the prof. can at will misrepresent Creationists as violent thugs who want to physically hurt people. Shame on you prof.

As for your last sentence: " I find it telling that the same self-righteous preachers of morality almost to a man find it impossible to endorse an agreement that merely urges its signers to adhere to a minimal standard of mutual civility. " I just have to laugh at that one, as I can count on maybe one or two fingers the evolutionists who have not hurled personal attacks my way and sought to belittle me and intimidate me with their apparently mutually agreed upon tactics. I've heard goodseed speak of a conspiracy to silence Christians on this forum, and on this thread I see evidence of it in a small group of evolutionists who will gang up on a creationist, belittling, calling names, bombarding them with a zillion lines of evidence to answer and then belittling them when they use creationist sources to answer them, trying to intimidate them into signing onto a sham agreement, and then misrepresenting and lying on them to lurkers who were not privy to the actual conversations at hand nor have the time to go back through 3000 posts and see what the true story is.

Well, sorry professor. I wasn't raised in Public Schools and am not so dense as to sign onto an agreement that would be used as a weapon against me and one I don't need to begin with because it is my usual habit to post with civility.

[Right Wing Professor]

And you need to get on a plane and get out here so we can catch some REALLY big fish

Wish I could.

[DittoJed2]

On this thread, you personally have called me a troll and a liar. Earlier, in a post that was yanked, I was called a shameless hussy and plagiarist who was lying for Satan. On a previous thread I was accused of comparing evolutionists to Nazis and of calling people on the thread Nazis. On this thread, I've been accused of editing quotes with the intent to lie (I neither edited them nor had any intent to lie). It was also just implied that creationists threaten violence. As I recall the black beret quote, I don't recall her saying that she would send him anywhere but that you should talk to him and he could spell it out for you. It was about as tame of a comment as one could imagine. If you want threats, you should see some of the mail I have had to forward to the secret service as a result of the pray for Bush thread. As for the tagline, apparently he succeeded. I thought it was rather hilarious myself.

How someone can expect to tell a big fat whopper like this one on a public forum, and then not get called on it, is beyond me.
What are you referring to here?

As for the integrity of my sources, you have accused them of "fraudulence" which really means a lot coming from you all who will accuse me of saying things I never said. The author of the helium paper has rebutted several criticisms of his paper and his work can be seen at ICR.org for those who care to read it. As for the Los Alamos creationist who coauthored the paper, I welcome you to email him for his response to your charge. Post his answer here. If he lacks integrity, that is one person and hardly gives you any right to attack all creationists as lacking integrity. Even when discussing Nazis I was very careful to not implicate all evolutionists in the schemes of Hitler, however the rules for me and the rules for you seem to be quite different.

[Aric2000]

And as 369 shows, the whining begins.

Boy, I sure am glad that I won't be around to watch this pathetic display.

[HalfFull]

It's one thing to discuss a post and point out an error (if it really exists)....it's entirely another thing to use "the agreement" as an excuse to call another a liar, troll, or worse. -me

DittoJed2 introduced material that seeks to smear evolution with the taint of Nazi-ism, on a scientific thread. That is trolling.

You know, I read that entire thread. And what i saw was an obvious attempt to twist Jed's words into an accusation of "Jed said that evolutionists are nazi's" . Well that is bunk. Jed was simply pointing out that Hitler used Darwin to justify Hitler's evil agenda. Then Jed used this example to show what can happen when there are no standards of morality other than "survival of the fittest". No where in that thread did Jed call all evolutionists nazis.

You folks took that point, took it out of context, and used the agreement as a reason for name calling of the worse kind. That is why the agreement is a farce. If you think this is fair, I'm glad I'm not taking one of your chemistry classes for grade.

[DittoJed2]

You just couldn't do it could you? Post today without an insult? Well, stay away from the stogeys!

[DittoJed2]

Go catch a fish Yippy.

[HalfFull]

373 was meant for you, prof.

[DittoJed2]

Thank you HalfFull. That's exactly what I was saying, and my only purpose in posting the quote list was in response to Aric's saying that DNA, geology, and the fossil record all point to evolution as the most reasonable source to explain life. I was showing in the words of evolutionists that the record is not quite as solid as they would like it to be. Nothing more, nothing less. For that I'm called a plagiarizer, hussy, & a liar (for Satan) who needs to repent of my sin before I meet my Maker (whom many of them don't even believe in).

[Right Wing Professor]

Number 1, the Nazis did use evolution as justification.

Your thesis went a lot further than that. It was that the amorality of evolution had a cause and effect relationship with the origin of Naziism. That's a smear. Evolution is a scientific theory; it dictates no morality. It was also introduced previously on another thread, rebutted multiple times, and re-introduced on this thread. Squeal all you like; that's trolling. it also continues a long-standing series of trolls by the now banned ALS, and we have abundant evidence you know the 'gentleman', since you've adopted his tagline and post on his Designed Universe forum

So peddle your pathetic prevarications somewhere else. You won't find too many buyers here.

Number 2, I did not "edit" a single quote to change a single thing. Anyone can go out on the net and find the quotes exactly as they are. I removed footnotes from the quotes but that was it.

You are responsible for what you post. If you re-post someone else's lie, without taking reasonable steps to check its integrity, you are as guilty as the original liar. It's called personal responsibility, ma'am.

But now, that the evidence of what was actually said is gone, the prof. can at will misrepresent Creationists as violent thugs who want to physically hurt people. Shame on you prof.

It's quoted in # 257. There was no possible purpose in mentioning the guy's size or military record, in combination with an offer to have him 'spell it out' to me, than as a threat.

I just have to laugh at that one, as I can count on maybe one or two fingers the evolutionists who have not hurled personal attacks my way and sought to belittle me and intimidate me with their apparently mutually agreed upon tactics.

You have not signed on to the agreement, you don't comply with it, and therefore you aren't covered by it. It's an agreement of mutual respect, not unilateral disarmament.

[js1138]

I can't recall people engaging in so many outright personal attacks on my person and character.

Yes, when the Hitler thing comes out, it does change the tone of the thread. I can recall a late and unlamented democrat from Miami spoke about the Republicans who had just won both houses of congress (1994), he said, "I fought against people like you in WWII."

Of course he hadn't actually called anyone a Nazi. The Republicans were just oversensitive.

[goodseedhomeschool (returned)]

LOL Good afternoon Ditto :)
Looks like they are fishing in the wrong hole again.