asyncritus' question time

asyncritus arguments against evolution

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Ironclad, Onyx8

Re: asyncritus' question time

#421  Postby MrFungus420 » May 05, 2012 5:14 am

asyncritus wrote:
aiki wrote:First post on this forum, I hope I'm doing it right ;) I've been reading this thread with interest. Satellite tracking studies on migrating Bar-tailed Godwits do show that the birds make some epic non-stop flights. From this page: http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.as ... 6KYK8jvfpw

'The last leg of E7's journey is the most extraordinary, entailing a non-stop flight of more than eight days and a distance of 7,200 miles, the equivalent of making a roundtrip flight between New York and San Francisco, and then flying back again to San Francisco without ever touching down.

Since they are land birds, godwits like E7 can't stop to eat or drink while flying over open-ocean. The constant flight speeds at which E7 was tracked by satellite indicate that she did not stop on land.' (my bold)

This, like other migratory journeys, doesn't present any problems for evolutionary theory, as already explained by others.


Welcome to the forum. aiki.

You're going to have a very hard time - because you've brought up some facts. The assembled multitude doesn't like those and prefers the unsupported speculation parading under the name of evolution.

I note that your second post does the same thing. Keep doing this, but watch your back.


ROFLMAO!!!!!!!

Well, I think we now have some inkling of part of your problem. You have a problem understanding the written word.

Here's a clue: Aiki was not agreeing with you, he was refuting you.

And, by your own admission, he was doing so with facts.
Atheism alone is no more a religion than health is a disease. One may as well argue over which brand of car pedestrians drive.
- AronRa
MrFungus420
 
Posts: 3914

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: asyncritus' question time

#422  Postby Paul » May 05, 2012 12:49 pm

Saw this about cuckoo migration on tv this morning (for anyone interested in facts).

Tagged cuckoos complete migration and return to the UK

"From Ibizia the Congo to the Norfolk Broads"
User avatar
Paul
 
Posts: 4046
Age: 56
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: asyncritus' question time

#423  Postby Darkchilde » May 07, 2012 11:54 am


!
MODNOTE
Asyncritus, in this post of yours, you are deliberately misrepresenting another member of this forum. This is not permitted under our rules, to which you agreed when you signed up for this forum. The rules can be found here: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/announcements/membership-agreement-t76.html, and I suggest that you read them carefully.

Since you have previously exhibited disruptive behaviour in this forum, I am giving you a warning. Please be advised that if this behaviour continues, more sanctions such as warnings and suspensions may follow.

Please do not comment on moderation in this thread. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to PM me or another moderator for this section of the forum, or alternatively, start a thread in the Feedback section of the forum.
User avatar
Darkchilde
RS Donator
 
Posts: 8947
Age: 45
Female

Country: Greece
Greece (gr)
Print view this post

Re: asyncritus' question time

#424  Postby Spearthrower » May 07, 2012 12:41 pm

You have equally completely failed to account for the way in which ANY instinct AROSE. All this bleating about the earth's magnetic field and shifting continents is more utter failure to account for HOW THE BEHAVIOURAL INSTINCT AROSE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Why should a fish swim 3000 miles only to die? Why didn't it stay right where it was? How did that piece of behaviour originate?

Why should a swallow fly 7,800 miles to arrive on the same date at the same place every year? Isn't a flight like that a perfect recipe for extinction? And what does evolution have to say for the way that behaviour originated?

Shall I tell you? It doesn't. It can't. It has no hope of doing so.


What i love best about this nonsensical handwaving is that Asyncritus would have us believe the a supreme intellect is the source for them!

On the one hand, Async will wax lyrical about the failings, as he sees them, of evolution to account for the absurdities of instinctive behaviour.

And the very next moment, he'll be claiming they're proof of Divine Intent, of the Omniscient kind.

Forget having your cake and eating it.... this method seems to involve engaging in coprophagia too!
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods.
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 18055
Age: 38
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: asyncritus' question time

#425  Postby asyncritus » May 07, 2012 5:06 pm

Paul wrote:Saw this about cuckoo migration on tv this morning (for anyone interested in facts).

Tagged cuckoos complete migration and return to the UK

"From Ibizia the Congo to the Norfolk Broads"


Nice one Paul.

Any idea how the information/instinct entered the genome and/or how the behaviour arose?
asyncritus
 
Name: Arthur Johnson
Posts: 114

Country: UK
Barbados (bb)
Print view this post

Re: asyncritus' question time

#426  Postby asyncritus » May 07, 2012 5:21 pm

Spearthrower wrote:
You have equally completely failed to account for the way in which ANY instinct AROSE. All this bleating about the earth's magnetic field and shifting continents is more utter failure to account for HOW THE BEHAVIOURAL INSTINCT AROSE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Why should a fish swim 3000 miles only to die? Why didn't it stay right where it was? How did that piece of behaviour originate?

Why should a swallow fly 7,800 miles to arrive on the same date at the same place every year? Isn't a flight like that a perfect recipe for extinction? And what does evolution have to say for the way that behaviour originated?

Shall I tell you? It doesn't. It can't. It has no hope of doing so.


What i love best about this nonsensical handwaving is that Asyncritus would have us believe the a supreme intellect is the source for them!

On the one hand, Async will wax lyrical about the failings, as he sees them, of evolution to account for the absurdities of instinctive behaviour.

And the very next moment, he'll be claiming they're proof of Divine Intent, of the Omniscient kind.

Forget having your cake and eating it.... this method seems to involve engaging in coprophagia too!


Now can we have an answer to either or both of the 2 questions?

You've been handwaving for the longest time now, and I wait for your answers.

You say 'absurdities of instinctive behaviour'. I'm still waiting for some explanation of the origin of the absurdities of

a. The swallows' magnificent journey

b. The godwit's (nice name, that) epic two-way trans-Pacific journey

c. The eels' migration.

And of course, how the behaviour entered the genome.

Please begin your statements with something like:

The XYZ behaviour in the (name of organism) originated thus...

The XYZ behaviour in the (name of organism) entered the genome thus...

If you can see your way to doing this, it will assist me considerably in evaluating the quality of your evidence/whatever.

I have been away for a few days, and if in the meantime you have produced the required answers, then forgive my missing them, and link me directly, as I haven't yet had the time to read through the updated pages.

If on the other hand you have been handwaving and producing generally irrelevant posts such as the one quoted, then please regard the above questions as outstanding and awaiting your response.
asyncritus
 
Name: Arthur Johnson
Posts: 114

Country: UK
Barbados (bb)
Print view this post

Re: asyncritus' question time

#427  Postby Thomas Eshuis » May 07, 2012 5:40 pm

asyncritus wrote:
Paul wrote:Saw this about cuckoo migration on tv this morning (for anyone interested in facts).

Tagged cuckoos complete migration and return to the UK

"From Ibizia the Congo to the Norfolk Broads"


Nice one Paul.

Any idea how the information/instinct entered the genome and/or how the behaviour arose?

Indeed, any refutations to the explanations provided yet? :naughty:
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 14623
Age: 25
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: asyncritus' question time

#428  Postby Thomas Eshuis » May 07, 2012 5:49 pm

asyncritus wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
You have equally completely failed to account for the way in which ANY instinct AROSE. All this bleating about the earth's magnetic field and shifting continents is more utter failure to account for HOW THE BEHAVIOURAL INSTINCT AROSE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Why should a fish swim 3000 miles only to die? Why didn't it stay right where it was? How did that piece of behaviour originate?

Why should a swallow fly 7,800 miles to arrive on the same date at the same place every year? Isn't a flight like that a perfect recipe for extinction? And what does evolution have to say for the way that behaviour originated?

Shall I tell you? It doesn't. It can't. It has no hope of doing so.


What i love best about this nonsensical handwaving is that Asyncritus would have us believe the a supreme intellect is the source for them!

On the one hand, Async will wax lyrical about the failings, as he sees them, of evolution to account for the absurdities of instinctive behaviour.

And the very next moment, he'll be claiming they're proof of Divine Intent, of the Omniscient kind.

Forget having your cake and eating it.... this method seems to involve engaging in coprophagia too!


Now can we I have an answer to either or both of the 2 questions?

FIFY
You already had them, what we're waiting for is you actually addressing the explanation, instead of ignoring it or dismiss it out of hand.

asyncritus wrote:YouI've been handwaving for the longest time now, and I wait for your answers.

Again, FIFY, you're the only one who's continually hand-waving or even outright ignoring answers, explanations and challenges. The more you repeat it, the more ridiculous your disingenuous and hypocritical requests become.


asyncritus wrote:You I say 'absurdities of instinctive behaviour'. I'm still waiting for some explanation of the origin of the absurdities of

a. The swallows' magnificent journey

b. The godwit's (nice name, that) epic two-way trans-Pacific journey

c. The eels' migration.

And of course, how the behaviour entered the genome.

Yes, we're al too aware of your ignorance and incredulity, neither of which are arguments, let alone valid arguments against evolution.

asyncritus wrote:Please begin your statements with something like:

Nope, you still don't get to dictate how someone formulates their response, no matter how much you'd like to.
As long as his explanation is valid and in accord with the facts it does not matter how he formulates it.

asyncritus wrote:The XYZ behaviour in the (name of organism) originated thus...

The XYZ behaviour in the (name of organism) entered the genome thus...

If you can see your way to doing this, it will assist me considerably in evaluating the quality of your evidence/whatever.

It clearly doesn't since These kind of explanations have been provided to you and your dismissed them out of hand!.

asyncritus wrote:I have been away for a few days, and if in the meantime you have produced the required answers,

Nonsense, he produced them before you went away.
asyncritus wrote:then forgive my missing them,

We won't since you've been ignoring and hand waving his answers since the start of this thread.
asyncritus wrote:and link me directly, as I haven't yet had the time to read through the updated pages.

Why? You'll just dismiss them out of hand anyway.

asyncritus wrote:If on the other hand you have been handwaving and producing generally irrelevant posts such as the one quoted, then please regard the above questions as outstanding and awaiting your response.

Still haven't found a mirror yet have you? :yuk:
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 14623
Age: 25
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: asyncritus' question time

#429  Postby Oldskeptic » May 07, 2012 6:06 pm

asyncritus wrote:
Paul wrote:Saw this about cuckoo migration on tv this morning (for anyone interested in facts).

Tagged cuckoos complete migration and return to the UK

"From Ibizia the Congo to the Norfolk Broads"


Nice one Paul.

Any idea how the information/instinct entered the genome and/or how the behaviour arose?


Natural selection.
There is nothing so absurd that some philosopher will not say it - Cicero.

Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead - Stephen Hawking
User avatar
Oldskeptic
 
Posts: 4215
Age: 57
Male

Print view this post

Re: asyncritus' question time

#430  Postby Oldskeptic » May 07, 2012 6:27 pm

I find it very interesting to contemplate from an evolutionary stance why certain creatures are the way they are and do the things they do. I find it utterly uninteresting to contemplate why a god would do this.
There is nothing so absurd that some philosopher will not say it - Cicero.

Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead - Stephen Hawking
User avatar
Oldskeptic
 
Posts: 4215
Age: 57
Male

Print view this post

Re: asyncritus' question time

#431  Postby Acetone » May 07, 2012 8:48 pm

asyncritus wrote:
Paul wrote:Saw this about cuckoo migration on tv this morning (for anyone interested in facts).

Tagged cuckoos complete migration and return to the UK

"From Ibizia the Congo to the Norfolk Broads"


Nice one Paul.

Any idea how the information/instinct entered the genome and/or how the behaviour arose?

A perfect example of new behaviours being introduced to a population is the apple maggot fly. (actually this in my mind is a perfect candidate to exemplify evolution).

I'm kinda busy atm but if you want I can post papers regarding apple maggot fly evolution when later on.
Acetone
 
Posts: 3214
Age: 25
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: asyncritus' question time

#432  Postby Spearthrower » May 07, 2012 9:38 pm

asyncritus wrote:
Now can we have an answer to either or both of the 2 questions?

You've been handwaving for the longest time now, and I wait for your answers.


Can you stop lying through your teeth?

I've answered all your questions in depth. If you ignore them, you don't get to pretend that no one has answered.

I will await your response, but if I see you pulling this shit anymore, I will report it.


asyncritus wrote:You say 'absurdities of instinctive behaviour'. I'm still waiting for some explanation of the origin of the absurdities of


Reading comprehension: I said 'Async will wax lyrical about the failings, as he sees them, of evolution to account for the absurdities of instinctive behaviour.'

Now, that clearly indicates that it's you who's appealing to these absurdities. I've given you an explanation that's pretty mundane, so I hardly find the phenomenon an 'absurdity'.

If you stopped jumping around trolling people and actually focused on what's being said, you might actually manage to follow a conversation.


Incidentally, this was a pointed destruction of your ramblings.

You claim these migratory events are absurd, damaging, ridiculous, insensible.... and then you blithely invoke your favoured Celestial Dictator as the explanation. Something doesn't add up there - but apparently you can't see it.



asyncritus wrote:a. The swallows' magnificent journey

b. The godwit's (nice name, that) epic two-way trans-Pacific journey

c. The eels' migration.



I've given you a clear explanation already.

If you don't comprehend my explanation, feel free to ask further questions - note that simply repeating the question again like a broken record will earn you only further criticism of your poor behaviour.


asyncritus wrote:And of course, how the behaviour entered the genome.


Blatant trolling.

I have explicitly answered this question at least 5 times; and I have explained why this is a stupid question indicative of not having even a shallow grasp of comprehension.

You may note a pattern here. The first time I actually answer your question with substance and application of facts. Once you start parrotting, I start focusing on your behaviour and why it is you can't address substance.

If you want to talk about the topic - feel free to actually get round to responding to my earlier posts. Simply ignoring them so you can regurgitate the same questions is not acceptable.



asyncritus wrote:Please begin your statements with something like:

The XYZ behaviour in the (name of organism) originated thus...

The XYZ behaviour in the (name of organism) entered the genome thus...



Sorry, I don't jump through hoops - particularly not for someone who's shown zero interest in the topic. 3 years you've known about the bee experiments showing that behaviour is linked to gene expression. Have you followed this up? Have you fuck. You're not interested in the topic, just in whacking your god off in public.


asyncritus wrote:If you can see your way to doing this, it will assist me considerably in evaluating the quality of your evidence/whatever.


If it's of that much interest, you could of course just go back a few pages and actually address my responses.



asyncritus wrote:I have been away for a few days, and if in the meantime you have produced the required answers, then forgive my missing them, and link me directly, as I haven't yet had the time to read through the updated pages.


My ability to click the page number buttons is not in any way superior to yours: stop trying to get people to jump for you and go and read the posts you skipped over before.



asyncritus wrote:If on the other hand you have been handwaving and producing generally irrelevant posts such as the one quoted, then please regard the above questions as outstanding and awaiting your response.


Try reading the numerous posts I've made that directly answer your questions.

If you don't want to read those posts, that's fine. You can remain ignorant of the answers to your questions. No skin off my nose.

However, please desist from pretending that your questions remain unanswered. This is provably an outright lie, and I shan't continue accepting this type of slimy dialogue from you - if you want me to go back through the posts, I will do so with a report to the mods showing the number of times you've ignored these direct responses.

This deception is over, Async. You either address the topic matter, or you slink off back to whatever Creationist site it is that you dredge up this sewerage from and crow about your victory over the Evillusionists.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods.
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 18055
Age: 38
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: asyncritus' question time

#433  Postby Spearthrower » May 07, 2012 9:47 pm

asyncritus wrote:
Paul wrote:Saw this about cuckoo migration on tv this morning (for anyone interested in facts).

Tagged cuckoos complete migration and return to the UK

"From Ibizia the Congo to the Norfolk Broads"


Nice one Paul.

Any idea how the information/instinct entered the genome and/or how the behaviour arose?



See the last umpteen times that this was answered: mutations and natural selection.

Now, that's just a label, and there's a whole lot of complexity inside... but as you don't appear capable of even processing this, what's the point in going further?

I've informed you already: this is the only answer you are going to get. If you don't like it, then you need to challenge it, not ignore it.

Are you going to challenge it? Are you going to bring your knowledge of genetics to bear to disprove mutations and natural selection?

The fact is that you know you're not in any kind of position to make such criticisms - you don't have the basic required knowledge. It's fine. It really is. Just get over this absurd desire to pretend to strangers on the internet that you actually do have a clue. It's just a waste of your life, and shameful, to be frank.

We can all learn, Async. There are numerous topics here where I shut up and read. When I don't understand, I ask for an explanation, I don't use my ignorance of the topic to criticise it.

You should try it - what have you got to lose? Internet cred? Do you really think you've got any?

How about just trying to put all that bullshit aside and engaging transparently here, without all this pretense and foolishness? The reason you don't accept evolution is simply because you don't understand it... and sitting here rehearsing your prejudices ain't going to change that. Asking people to help you understand is the only way this is ever going to become a useful interaction.

Try to look past all the ego for a moment, eh?
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods.
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 18055
Age: 38
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: asyncritus' question time

#434  Postby patient zero » May 07, 2012 9:50 pm

Spearthrower wrote:However, please desist from pretending that your questions remain unanswered. This is provably an outright lie, and I shan't continue accepting this type of slimy dialogue from you - if you want me to go back through the posts, I will do so with a report to the mods showing the number of times you've ignored these direct responses.

:popcorn:
Now to wait and see what the trap will catch.
Calilasseia wrote:...WHY DO PROFESSIONAL PROPAGANDISTS FOR CREATIONISM HAVE TO LIE FOR THEIR DOCTRINE?
patient zero
 
Posts: 429
Age: 43
Male

Print view this post

Re: asyncritus' question time

#435  Postby halucigenia » May 09, 2012 1:07 pm

asyncritus wrote:Please begin your statements with something like:

The XYZ behaviour in the (name of organism) originated thus...

The XYZ behaviour in the (name of organism) entered the genome thus...

If you can see your way to doing this, it will assist me considerably in evaluating the quality of your evidence/whatever.

Async, no one here is going to fall for your loaded questions. :roll:

The correct answer to your "questions" has already been given several times :-

Firstly, behaviour did not originate before entering into the genome - this is your strawman.
You are still conflating instinctual behaviour with learned behaviour.
No one except your own strawman augments proposes that learned behaviour becomes instinctual behaviour. Instinctual behaviour is by definition not learned behaviour. Therefore it does not have to miraculously enter the genome thusly, as it has to do if you own scenario of actual miraculous creation of instincts were required.
Organisms have always had instinctual behaviours, they are simply reactions to the environment, one of the age old qualifying attributes of the definition of living things is the ability to react to their environment. Instinctual behaviour is genetic and like any genetic trait is modifiable by mutation, natural selection and genetic drift. Thus, from the very beginning of life organisms have had the ability to adapt their behaviours to the environmental conditions in which they find themselves. So at no point does behaviour have to originate and then enter the genome.

That is the answer to your "questions".

Of course it is entirely possible to speculate and provide evidence for how specific instinctual behaviours like the ones you example have developed through time with changing environmental pressures, which is what others have been trying to do, but until you recognise the above as an possible answer to your “questions” I can see that you are never going to understand these explanations.

Now, it would be good of you to actually acknowledge this as a possible answer and provide any rational arguments to it (not that I will be holding my breath).
User avatar
halucigenia
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 1152

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: asyncritus' question time

#436  Postby Mister Agenda » May 22, 2012 6:58 pm

asyncritus wrote:
It depresses me to realise that someone of your undoubted intelligence cannot get to grips with the simple fact that Lamarckism is rampaging unchecked in your (and their) expositions.

If the leptocephali of eel A successfully migrated say 500 miles to the north of the Sargasso, grew up some where and then returned to Sargasso ( floating at 3000 feet depth in an ocean current of some kind) and then died, then THEY COULD NOT PASS THAT ACQUIRED INFORMATION DOWN TO THEIR OWN OFFSPRING who would then have to start from scratch all over again. Why? Because the adults are all as dead as dodos. And because as we all should know, acquired information CANNOT be inherited. PERIOD.

The glass eels of the next generation could go no further than the 500 miles, if that - because they cannot receive any guidance from their dead parents.

So a 3000 mile northward migration, with a return a few years later is inexplicable on any grounds which are not polluted by our Chevalier.


Looking ahead, it seems you have had some trouble processing the replies made to this assertion, so I will try to make mine short and simple:

Eels are not perfectly homongenous. Some will travel a little farher, some a little less. If their spawning zone is getting farther away, the members of any given generation of eel that travels farther (without overshooting) will have more reproductive success than eels that travel less far. No Lamarkianism required, just plain old natural selection. More surviving larvae from the ones that made it to the spawning area. less from the ones that didn't.
User avatar
Mister Agenda
 
Posts: 543
Age: 52
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: asyncritus' question time

#437  Postby Rumraket » May 22, 2012 7:17 pm

Mister Agenda wrote:
asyncritus wrote:
It depresses me to realise that someone of your undoubted intelligence cannot get to grips with the simple fact that Lamarckism is rampaging unchecked in your (and their) expositions.

If the leptocephali of eel A successfully migrated say 500 miles to the north of the Sargasso, grew up some where and then returned to Sargasso ( floating at 3000 feet depth in an ocean current of some kind) and then died, then THEY COULD NOT PASS THAT ACQUIRED INFORMATION DOWN TO THEIR OWN OFFSPRING who would then have to start from scratch all over again. Why? Because the adults are all as dead as dodos. And because as we all should know, acquired information CANNOT be inherited. PERIOD.

The glass eels of the next generation could go no further than the 500 miles, if that - because they cannot receive any guidance from their dead parents.

So a 3000 mile northward migration, with a return a few years later is inexplicable on any grounds which are not polluted by our Chevalier.


Looking ahead, it seems you have had some trouble processing the replies made to this assertion, so I will try to make mine short and simple:

Eels are not perfectly homongenous. Some will travel a little farher, some a little less. If their spawning zone is getting farther away, the members of any given generation of eel that travels farther (without overshooting) will have more reproductive success than eels that travel less far. No Lamarkianism required, just plain old natural selection. More surviving larvae from the ones that made it to the spawning area. less from the ones that didn't.

Yes. One wonders why so simple a concept can give the man so much trouble. Of course, since asyncritus doesn't actually have any arguments for why this won't work(he certainly haven't offered any) all he does offer is denial, caricatures and fake mockery("You're kidding right?" etc. etc.)

As I experienced earlier, even children were finding his methods transparent. :roll:
"When inventing a god, the most important thing is to claim it is invisible, inaudible and imperceptible in every way. Otherwise, people will become skeptical when it appears to no one, is silent and does nothing." - Anonymous
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 9431
Age: 33
Male

Denmark (dk)
Print view this post

Re: asyncritus' question time

#438  Postby Onyx8 » May 23, 2012 2:01 am

He made a comment earlier regarding the swallows that they return "infallibly" to the same place. They don't of course, some 'return' to other places, and some 'return' to places that don't allow them to reproduce for whatever reason, predation or lack of food or whatever, and thus die out, and still others do not return at all, so their lines die out. The ones that do return to somewhere they can breed are the ones that survive and the ones that Asyncritus gets to talk about doing things 'infallibly'.
The problem with fantasies is you can't really insist that everyone else believes in yours, the other problem with fantasies is that most believers of fantasies eventually get around to doing exactly that.
User avatar
Onyx8
Moderator
 
Posts: 13472
Age: 58
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: asyncritus' question time

#439  Postby Oldskeptic » May 23, 2012 3:41 am

Onyx8 wrote:He made a comment earlier regarding the swallows that they return "infallibly" to the same place. They don't of course, some 'return' to other places, and some 'return' to places that don't allow them to reproduce for whatever reason, predation or lack of food or whatever, and thus die out, and still others do not return at all, so their lines die out. The ones that do return to somewhere they can breed are the ones that survive and the ones that Asyncritus gets to talk about doing things 'infallibly'.


Yep! All the swallows that no longer return to Capistrano all return on the same day. Go figure.
There is nothing so absurd that some philosopher will not say it - Cicero.

Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead - Stephen Hawking
User avatar
Oldskeptic
 
Posts: 4215
Age: 57
Male

Print view this post

Previous

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 2 guests