he_who_is_nobody
Well-Known Member
benthemiester said:Maybe it is better that you end this and arbitrarily claim victory.
Arbitrarily? The "debate" was "The evidence that whales are the descendents of land animals "¦ beyond reasonable doubt." It appears that ProcInc has covered this in depth, so well in fact, that you have started to shift the discussion from the topic to "the last common ancestor of whales and hippos". In order to argue this point you must accept that whales were once land animals, thus ProcInc obtained what he set out to do making him the victor.
There is nothing arbitrary about that decision.
benthemiester said:We havent even got into the problems with population genetics and low population density, as well as many other finer details that have yet to be spoken of.
Unless those subjects are relevant to the topic at hand (i.e. evidence against whales being descendant from land animals), this would be another example of you straying away from the topic.
One main reason you were unable to bring up those subjects (giving benthemiester the benefit of the doubt) was that you obfuscated about irrelevant subjects (e.g. out dated pictures of whale ancestors, the last common ancestor of hippos and whales, etc"¦). You really need to learn to focus your tact to the topic at hand if you want to bring up all relevant points in a discussion. Otherwise, we end up with something like this, where it seems you still are unable to determine the topic of this "debate".
benthemiester said:I can handle being criticized, and even called names, but one thing that I would hate to have happen to me, is to get caught with my pants down, and have to publicly retract a whole week of bullshit because I was caught lying after stubbornly making up bullshit excuses to make a bullshit point that was logically indefensible from the beginning.
You mean like this?
ProcInc said:ben said:In the book Evolution vs Creationism by Eugenie Scott, Janet Dryer who was the artist who drew these pictures of Pakicetus
Ben, Janet Dreyer (not Dryer) reproduced THIS drawing originally from Gingerich:
That is the accurate drawing, I already covered this:
The inaccurate artwork on the front cover of science was drawn by Karen Klitz
ben said:was praised by Eugenie Scott, director of the NSCE, which writes many lesson plans for teaching children evolution and who also sues any school district who critiques the theory. There was no mention of Dryer trying to dupe anyone. She seems to be praised by an organization of highly awarded scientist. It seems you continue to blame it on the artist in spite of this.
Here we end up with another example of your sheer incompetence. Do your research. You confused Dreyer (who reproduced Gingerich's accurate drawing) with Karen Klitz (who painted the Science cover)
BEN said:Janet Dryer is also a member of the NSCE and a scientist with a PHD in molecular biology as well as an artist. Those stupid people with their PHD's. She probably smokes pot too. lol
Your a funny guy. SImple adorable.
I don't think anything needs to be added to this. I may as well simply stop replying here since you have damaged yourself beyind repair with such a exemplary horrible statement which is now on permanent record. You are probably going to try and write this off later as an example of your "quirky sense of humour that not everyone gets".
But really, you've essentially list everything you had left here.
Moreover, this is just one of your more egregious examples of "being caught with your pants down". In addition, this is something that you still have not acknowledged.