Wating for 2smart to answer.

[Guest Guest]

he "bitched" slapped ??  English a foreign language to you ??

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The first sentence uses quotation marks incorrectly-should be around the entire quote. The second sentence should begin with 'is' or some other appropriate word.

[Autonomous]

ARRGH! That last post was me.

[Autonomous]

Thank You !!  I had to laugh out loud reading this silly post this morning.

    BTW .....  I used two exclamation points after "Thank You" and I put a space between "You" and the exclamation points when none was required.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You must be a masochist. It is freaking me out a little. There are more mistakes than the ones you listed. However, I only pointed out the ones in your other post because you were making the post to mock someone else's typo. Yet here you are cheerfully using incorrect English. Respect the language.

[Autonomous]

If (as evolutionists believe) we all evolved from a fish that crawled from the sea, at some point fingerprints had to be "invented". So "blind evolution" just happened to create unique fingerprints by accident ?  The evolutionary process was driven by NEED. Certainly there would be no need for unique fingerprints in the evolutionary process. Sounds to me like Intelligent Design.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why do you suppose the technical term for fingerprints is friction ridges? As for uniqueness, we've already been over that. Everyone has unique DNA.

[Autonomous]

  The evolutionary process was driven by NEED.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

All the proof we need that you are not what you say you are.

[Guest Tom]

I don't believe the explanation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

OK, that's your right, but why don't you believe it? You've been hammering this kid for many months, making statements that have been proved to be false, and now you post this. You and Paul keep having this argument and he keeps saying you're just a mean-spirited, nasty person who doesn't like what happened, so you're throwing any mud you think you can find at Matthew, even if you have to make it yourself. Why isn't your non-belief explained by your anger and your biases on the issues involved?

Paul's explanation was:

QUOTE(Paul @ Aug 4 2007, 09:30 AM)

I know what they are. Paszkiewicz was out of line, Matt knew it and also knew his classmates wouldn't support him, suspected Paszkiewicz would at least minimize what he was doing, and predicted that the administration would stand behind the teacher at the expense of the student if it came down to which person to believe. Because the teacher's behavior had obviously been going on for a long time, firm action that could made to stick was needed. So he recorded the classes.

How many times do you need it explained to you? Or is that not the explanation you want to hear?

You can keep asking all you like. That's the explanation you're going to keep getting, for one simple reason. It's the truth. I know. I lived here when it was happening, and he told me why he was doing it.

_____

OK, so you don't believe it. Why not?

1. Is there some internal inconsistency in it? I don't see one, but if you think there is, please point it out and explain.

2. Is the explanation inconsistent with other known facts? I'm not aware of any, but if that's your argument, please explain.

3. Is the explanation incredible on its face, that is, is it so far outside normal human behavior as to be unworthy of belief? I don't see that either. I do see that you don't share Paul and Matthew's values, so I can understand that you wouldn't have done what Matthew did, but that doesn't mean that they wouldn't do it or that their reasons aren't as they have described them. But if that's your claim, that the explanation is incredible on its face, please explain.

4. Did Matthew's predictions prove to be false? If they had, you would undoubtedly have jumped all over him, but every one of them proved to be true, so what reason do we have not to believe him?

5. Or is your non-belief best explained by your own views and opinions of the case and the issues involved? That's how it looks from here, so unless you can provide a reason for not believing the explanation, most people who look honestly and objectively at this will probably side with the LaClairs and conclude that their critics are off base in some way, which is essentially what has happened. Why shouldn't intelligent people draw that conclusion?

[Guest Guest]

If (as evolutionists believe) we all evolved from a fish that crawled from the sea, at some point fingerprints had to be "invented". So "blind evolution" just happened to create unique fingerprints by accident ?  The evolutionary process was driven by NEED. Certainly there would be no need for unique fingerprints in the evolutionary process. Sounds to me like Intelligent Design.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Fingerprints themselves beg for an explanation, but their uniqueness does not. How can you have earned a degree in evolutionary biology and still make that argument?

And God would want us all to have unique fingerprints because . . .

[Guest DingoDave]

Cornell Grad Student wrote:

If (as evolutionists believe) we all evolved from a fish that crawled from the sea...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, 'evolutionists' don't believe that we all evolved from a fish that "crawled from the sea". It is believed that the first amphibious tetropods were freshwater species which lived in shallow streams, and which had evolved from freshwater sarcopterygian (lobe finned) fishes and their descendents, the freshwater Rhipidistian fishes.

You claim to be working on a doctorate in evolutionary biology?

Good luck with your doctoral thesis, because you're going to need all the luck you can get!

[Guest Guest]

You must be a masochist. It is freaking me out a little. There are more mistakes than the ones you listed. However, I only pointed out the ones in your other post because you were making the post to mock someone else's typo. Yet here you are cheerfully using incorrect English. Respect the language.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What is it with you and typing errors ? First you're counting them in one post and then "freaking out" over them in another. Could be a sign of a bigger problem.

[billydee4]

Fingerprints themselves beg for an explanation, but their uniqueness does not. How can you have earned a degree in evolutionary biology and still make that argument?

And God would want us all to have unique fingerprints because . . .

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wouldn't it be a better sign of Intelligent Design if all fingerprints were identical?

[Autonomous]

And God would want us all to have unique fingerprints because . . .

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

...he wants each of us to feel like a special little butterfly.

[Guest Cornell Grad Student]

Fingerprints themselves beg for an explanation, but their uniqueness does not. How can you have earned a degree in evolutionary biology and still make that argument?

And God would want us all to have unique fingerprints because . . .

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you refuse to learn, then I can't help you. If you choose to believe everything about us is the result of blind evolution only, that's ok with me.

[Guest Patriot]

You must be a masochist. It is freaking me out a little. There are more mistakes than the ones you listed. However, I only pointed out the ones in your other post because you were making the post to mock someone else's typo. Yet here you are cheerfully using incorrect English. Respect the language.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Typos freak you out ?? You must have been a hell of a soldier.

[Bern]

If you refuse to learn, then I can't help you. If you choose to believe everything about us is the result of blind evolution only, that's ok with me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You certainly know how to not answer a question.

Since you stated you're teaching at NYU, why don't you give us your name? You associated yourself with the NYU teaching staff and therefore should share your beliefs openly with your peers at NYU.

[Guest Paul]

If you refuse to learn, then I can't help you. If you choose to believe everything about us is the result of blind evolution only, that's ok with me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Whoa, chum. Learn what? You're not teaching anythiing, and as far as I can tell people without degrees in evolutionary biology have slam-dunked a guy who claims to have one. Frankly, I'm skeptical about your credentials, and if you do have the degree you claim to have my advice to you is to go into another field promptly because you're clearly not suited to evolutionary biology. Why would you want to spend your life in a discipline whose fundamental premises you reject?

[Strife767]

If you refuse to learn, then I can't help you.

You've proven to have a very lacking understanding of evolution and science in general. I doubt you have anything to teach the people correcting you.

If you choose to believe everything about us is the result of blind evolution only, that's ok with me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Fine, as long as you stop pretending evolution is a function of pure chance, and spreading that lie.

[Strife767]

What is it with you and typing errors ?  First you're counting them in one post and then "freaking out" over them in another.

Not over them; over the fact that someone would be so tremendously stupid as to make a bunch of grammatical mistakes (which are not typos) while attempting to ridicule one person for a single typographical error. Pay attention.

Could be a sign of a bigger problem.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Work on your reading comprehension before you start trying to diagnose others.

[Guest Cornell Grad Student]

Okay, now I really don't believe your 'credentials.'

The ridges on the fingers were naturally selected as they provided extra friction that was beneficial to our tree-swinging ancestors. Their (near-)uniqueness has to do with the mixing of genes we call sexual reproduction, and with the ubiquitousness of mutations. The thing you fail to notice is that the Theory of Evolution already has adequate explanations for these 'anomalies' (you perceive them as such, at least), and in fact predicts them.

Fact: if human beings were all churned out identically, it would be tremendous proof AGAINST evolution.

Actually, sounds to me like you don't know the least thing about evolution. Evolution does not know or care of trivial 'uniquenesses' like that. Obviously there is no type of 'print' that gives significantly more or less benefit, therefore no specific types really get 'deselected'--that is, not selected and therefore phased out. In the same way, it makes no real difference the slight differences in the number of hairs on one's head, nor the precise angle their fingers curve at when at rest. What matters, in terms of evolution, is that the ridges are there, because their presence or absence is what is of consequence. Minute differences in shape make no difference, therefore they vary freely. The number of limbs DO make a difference, therefore they do not vary so freely.

This is very basic biology, Mr. "Grad Student," biology that any college graduate in the field you purport to 'hail' from would never be caught dead getting as wrong as you have. You should give yourself a fake identity that suits your level of knowledge more next time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"Evolution does not know or care of trivial uniquenesses like that" ??? This ignorant statement tells me you should stick to what you know best, comic books.

[Guest 2smart4u]

You've proven to have a very lacking understanding of evolution and science in general. I doubt you have anything to teach the people correcting you.

Fine, as long as you stop pretending evolution is a function of pure chance, and spreading that lie.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Make up your mind, pure chance or Intelligent Design.

[Autonomous]

What is it with you and typing errors ?  First you're counting them in one post and then "freaking out" over them in another.  Could be a sign of a bigger problem.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Typos freak you out ?? You must have been a hell of a soldier.

2Dim fans have horrible reading comprehension-well, they'd have to, wouldn't they?

Here's what I said:

You must be a masochist. It is freaking me out a little. There are more mistakes than the ones you listed. However, I only pointed out the ones in your other post because you were making the post to mock someone else's typo. Yet here you are cheerfully using incorrect English. Respect the language.

Clearly, anyone with an actual functioning brain should be able to tell that it is 2Dim's masochism that I am speaking of.

[Guest DingoDave]

What is it with you and typing errors ?  First you're counting them in one post and then "freaking out" over them in another.  Could be a sign of a bigger problem.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The moral of the story was that, 'people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones'.

[Autonomous]

Make up your mind, pure chance or Intelligent Design.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

False dichotomy, doofus.

[Strife767]

Make up your mind, pure chance or Intelligent Design.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

False dichotomy. Evolution is neither of those, goofball.

[Strife767]

"Evolution does not know or care of trivial uniquenesses like that" ???

Yes. A "trivial uniqueness" (I'm pretty sure that's not the scientific term, lol) is something that varies, but in a way that has no significant effect, and so isn't 'paid attention to' by natural selection. Did you cut that biology class?

This ignorant statement tells me you should stick to what you know best, comic books.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, that's not an ignorant statement--using the old, failed "astronomical odds" argument, now that's an ignorant statement.

Of course, the ad hominem and plain avoidance of my points just makes it more clear you either aren't what you say you are, or you're Behe part 2.

[an American in Texas]

Make up your mind, pure chance or Intelligent Design.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nobody who thinks pure chance drives evolution should express an opinion about it. Better to stay quiet and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Get thee to a library, 2ignorant4U! You might start with Ken Miller's Finding Darwin's God.

Leigh