Coffee House Musings on Creationist Topic Proposals

Is that any way to refer to a friend?

When it quacks like a duck ...

Please be advised that your unhinged rants are very entertaining. They do make me chuckle. Keep 'em coming!

Reality has that effect on religious liars.Do you care to dispute anything I said?

Like I said, a willfully stupid lying evil creationist.And a massive asshole. Which is the same thing as a creationist.

In the fullness of time ...

Since we are friends, I was going to invite you to my birthday party in August, but now I'm having second thoughts ...

Craft your lies carefully, Altar Boy. You will be eating them soon enough.

From one of many sources all saying the same thing (this from Whale Flukes - Enchanted Learning -- item of particular interest in bold):

quote

---

• A whale's tail is composed of two lobes, each of which is called a fluke. There is a notch, a v-shaped indentation where the flukes (or lobes) of a whale's tail meet.
• Flukes move up and down to propel the whale through the water. (This is unlike fish tails which move left and right.)
  
• Flukes have no bones in them. They are made of muscles and dense fibrous tissue.
  
• The arteries that supply the flukes with blood are surrounded by veins to maintain the whale's temperature.

---

That "dense fibrous tissue" is also called "connective tissue". The vertebrae of the spine end before getting to the flukes, so they are not directly attached to the spine.Whales' vestigial pelvic bones are located well forward of the flukes, by a foot or more in porpoises and proportionally farther forward in larger cetaceans. The hind legs of the ancestral species would have attached to the pelvis, since that is what hind legs do, after all. Hence it is no surprise that, when vestigial limb buds are expressed in rare individuals, those limb buds appear where the hind limbs used to be, the same distance forward of the flukes as the pelvic bones. 
Your "How did the two hind-legs of a land animal evolve into the tail of a whale?" is therefore complete and utterly stupid bullshit nonsense.Given its gross ignorance and stupidity, we are within our rights to request where you had gotten the nonsense from? Which creationist source?And also, given that creationists will lie about everything and anything they can, consider that all your creationist sources are lying to you!Even you cannot trust a single word a creationist tells you, just as we know full well that we cannot trust any creationist claim.

No, that's not it.Unlike you, I have a functioning brain. I know you have no experience in this, but a functioning brain wants to exercise itself, to think about things, to work things out, and to figure how to communicate with others.Of course, I already knew that you are too willfully stupid of a self-admitted mid-grade idiot (you report having an IQ around 10) to be able to understand what I had written. Pearls cast before you, swine. But I figured: "However, others may find this discussion interesting or even useful."

And you completely ignore the topic of my reply to your false statement (Message 359): Furthermore, my Message 370 to which you failed to respond developed a sound case for my assessment that your statement is completely false. Something that you could never do for your false statement.The reason for that is that we know what we are talking about, whereas you creationists have absolutely no clue. Because we know what we are talking about, we can work with those ideas and explain them and defend them. You creationists can do none of that, because you do not know what you are talking about.In about 35 years of trying to discuss with creationists, I cannot think of even a single creationist who could even try to begin to support or defend or even explain his own position -- notable exception was Merle on CompuServe, the only honest creationist I can remember, but he left creationism within a year out of disgust for it.For example, there are the questions that I asked you in Message 304: And my assessment of that was: Try answering those questions. Demonstrate that you can keep up.Of course I expect nothing of you except more bullshit. You are very severely underpowered and outgunned. Basically, you're trying to fight against gunboats with a punt in 10 fathom water (a punt is a small river boat that you propel with a pole shoved against the river bottom; a 16-foot pole would be useless in 60 feet of water (somebody with more patience please explain that to Dredge since he won't get it) ). Return to drydock for upgrades (ie, learn something!).

Edited by dwise1, : Added to the last paragraph

I think you and Dredge are both thinking about things and working things out, but unlike you he isn't interested in figuring out how best to communicate. More importantly, he has different goals from you. Your goals are to exchange information, increase your understanding, and hone the arguments for your point of view.Dredge's goals are pretty much the opposite, plus he is operating under some constraints. He doesn't understand evolution or even science in general, so even if he were so inclined he isn't able to carry on a technical conversation. His goals are to frustrate, display his contempt, and to make the same persistent unsupported claims over and over while ignoring almost all refutations. Some of the illogic he often displays is innate, some is just part of his strategy to frustrate.Put succinctly, Dredge's goals are to stymie constructive discussion. It pleases him when people become frustrated while attempting to constructively engage with him because it means he is achieving his goals.--Percy

In other words, he's a troll and we carry on feeding him.

Well, sure, he's a troll, but what I wonder is why? Most people think they're doing the right thing, so if we assume he's just a normal person then he thinks his behavior is fine. It's not impossible that he actually has a screw loose, but let's ignore that possibility for the time being.The only reason for his behavior that makes sense to me is that he thinks we're mostly atheists and so deserve to be treated this way. That he's able to draw other people out into bad behavior of one form or another probably reinforces this belief.Even after all these years I'm still puzzled that appeals to the better angels of our nature almost never work with very devout people who are behaving badly. That religion, particularly Christianity which is underpinned by Christ's teachings, should be a guide to how to behave toward one's fellow man seems a foreign concept to many of them. It's almost as if their thought process is, "You're arguing with me, a believer in Christ, and therefore deserve whatever abuse I want to dish out." They use religion as a license for bad behavior.--Percy

Some "why?" questions do not need answers.