Ah, Jeanie, still fighting the shadows.

And the really funny part is that I look at evidence.

message #256691
Love that passive aggressive attitude.

You do know that the difference between buying a car and buying reality, is that there is only one reality, don't you?

As I said, you have "bought" information from other people without a qualm, because it fits your comfort zone. It seems your only criteria for judging the validity of a claim is whether or not it makes you comfortable.

So when it comes to knowldege being difficult we should choose ignorance, because it is comfortable. Better get rid of advanced maths too.

And you accused me of not having an open mind.

So you define "open mind" as someone who is willing to blindly and without question (that would mean debate) take your word for the truth, but you won't return the favor?

Ah, yes, the old "different interpretation dodge - another way to avoid the issue rather than get uncomfortable confronting it, because those "other interpretations" are never revealed nor is the way they explain the evidence ever discussed.

In science, the basic "interpretation" is based on there being a single objective reality. The alternative is an interpretation based on no single objective reality, but one for everyone, just subjective reality, where we all can just make up our mind/s -- is this your position? Should that position be taught in science class? (what would you teach?)

In science, the basic "interpretation" is based on the objective evidence we observe\experience\witness truly representing that reality. The alternative interpretation is to suppose that evidence is false, and full of lies -- is this your position? Should that position be taught in science class?

In science, the basic "interpretation" is based on the need to test our concepts against the evidence of reality to weed out falsehood and fantasy. The alternative is to suppose that we don't need to test concepts to weed out falsehood and fantasy, and a lie is as good as the truth -- is this your position? Should it be taught in school?

In science, the basic "interpretation" is based on all invalidated concepts being false and no longer relevant to understanding reality. The alternative is to suppose that we need to consider every theory that has ever been proposed as still possibly as true as any other regardless of the evidence -- is this your position? Should it be taught in school?

If you don't interpret the evidence as truth what are you left with?

Ah. No proof necessary, no validity required, subjective it is. Doesn't matter if it is a false concept, for all you need is faith. Yes "Vir-jeanie-a," the world is flat and Santa Clause is real, you can fly to never-never land, and all you need to do to return to kansas is click your heels.

Message #256696

Well you got one name right that time, and another half right. Just like when you only look at half the evidence and ignore the evidence that contradicts you ...

Well I thought you knew SOME biology, but if you don't know the answer to this hoary old PRATT (point refuted a thousand times) .... even AiG knows better.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

Of course your cousins all died when you were born eh? Will your brother's children die when yours are born?

The theories imply no such thing, for the same reason that the previous PRATT is wrong.

Are you less evolved than your brother? What if he goes around the world and you stay here?

Do you I wonder why?

And yet all your answers, all your sturm und drang, is about how you are uncomfortable with evolution and comfortable with your concepts based on faith and that you use no other test for validity than how you feel about the concepts, and any evidence that says otherwise is just lies.

Unfortunately for you, reality does care how you feel, nor is it influenced in any way by what you believe.

And elephants could fly. Now, instead of playing make-beleive, with spurious ad hoc off the cuff wishful thinking fantasy, how about dealing with reality first.

Let me invert two sentences of yours:

In other words, you don't know squat about hominid evolution, but you aren't afraid of pretending that you do.

Not really. The complete find can be seen here:

http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=22

As you can see, some parts are missing, some from one side and some from the other, but what you do not see is any "reconstruction" of the fossil itself. Now it is also fairly obvious to any logical person that you can take a fossil like this, and mirror parts to create a valid image of what the other side would be like. We can do this with the left thighbone (complete to the knee) and the right shin bone (from the knee down part of the shin) to see what the knee joint would be like. This was done with lucy's pelvis, which you can see on this site:
http://www.modernhumanorigins.net/lucy.html
Can you point out any errors in this method?

Scientists can also do this between fossils to build up an overall composite concept, but nobody (except some creationists) call these composites and mirrored parts "lucy" nor do they confuse them with the actual fossil AL 288-1

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/do74lu.html
Again, the fossil is 40% complete, but with mirror images we can assemble 70% of what the skeleton likely looked like whole, but no scientist pretends that one is the other.

You can also see on this site
http://www.anthro4n6.net/lucy/
How this composite pelvis and leg can be compared to chimp and human, and that it clearly shows intermediate development.

Perhaps you can enlighten us with an alternate interpretation of these fossils.

Not that it matters (evolution does not depend on belief, even from Darwin), but just for fun, perhaps you will share the evidence of this, rather than just make unsubstantiated assertions. I'd like to keep an open mind on it, but somehow just taking your word is not enough for me.

And you accuse me of not having an open mind.

Actually I like to find the truth and test it, not just take any old poorly thought out half vast (at best) concept on face value. And I am curious: how does 2+2=4 depend on my faith, beliefs concerning death, and my personal views of god/s? Does having a certain belief about death mean it is okay to think the earth is flat? Or do you just need an open mind to believe that?

Enjoy.

ps -- thank you for deciding NOT to be a science teacher.