Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Mathematician's View of Evolution
The Mathematical Intelligencer ^ | Granville Sewell

Posted on 09/20/2006 9:51:34 AM PDT by SirLinksalot

A Mathematician's View of Evolution

Granville Sewell

Mathematics Dept.

University of Texas El Paso

The Mathematical Intelligencer 22, no. 4 (2000), pp5-7

Copyright held by Springer Verlag, NY, LLC

In 1996, Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe published a book entitled "Darwin's Black Box" [Free Press], whose central theme is that every living cell is loaded with features and biochemical processes which are "irreducibly complex"--that is, they require the existence of numerous complex components, each essential for function. Thus, these features and processes cannot be explained by gradual Darwinian improvements, because until all the components are in place, these assemblages are completely useless, and thus provide no selective advantage. Behe spends over 100 pages describing some of these irreducibly complex biochemical systems in detail, then summarizes the results of an exhaustive search of the biochemical literature for Darwinian explanations. He concludes that while biochemistry texts often pay lip-service to the idea that natural selection of random mutations can explain everything in the cell, such claims are pure "bluster", because "there is no publication in the scientific literature that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred."

When Dr. Behe was at the University of Texas El Paso in May of 1997 to give an invited talk, I told him that I thought he would find more support for his ideas in mathematics, physics and computer science departments than in his own field. I know a good many mathematicians, physicists and computer scientists who, like me, are appalled that Darwin's explanation for the development of life is so widely accepted in the life sciences. Few of them ever speak out or write on this issue, however--perhaps because they feel the question is simply out of their domain. However, I believe there are two central arguments against Darwinism, and both seem to be most readily appreciated by those in the more mathematical sciences.

1. The cornerstone of Darwinism is the idea that major (complex) improvements can be built up through many minor improvements; that the new organs and new systems of organs which gave rise to new orders, classes and phyla developed gradually, through many very minor improvements. We should first note that the fossil record does not support this idea, for example, Harvard paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson ["The History of Life," in Volume I of "Evolution after Darwin," University of Chicago Press, 1960] writes:

"It is a feature of the known fossil record that most taxa appear abruptly. They are not, as a rule, led up to by a sequence of almost imperceptibly changing forerunners such as Darwin believed should be usual in evolution...This phenomenon becomes more universal and more intense as the hierarchy of categories is ascended. Gaps among known species are sporadic and often small. Gaps among known orders, classes and phyla are systematic and almost always large. These peculiarities of the record pose one of the most important theoretical problems in the whole history of life: Is the sudden appearance of higher categories a phenomenon of evolution or of the record only, due to sampling bias and other inadequacies?"

An April, 1982, Life Magazine article (excerpted from Francis Hitching's book, "The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong") contains the following report:

"When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there...'Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life', writes David M. Raup, a curator of Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History, 'what geologists of Darwin's time and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the fossil sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence, then abruptly disappear.' These are not negligible gaps. They are periods, in all the major evolutionary transitions, when immense physiological changes had to take place."

Even among biologists, the idea that new organs, and thus higher categories, could develop gradually through tiny improvements has often been challenged. How could the "survival of the fittest" guide the development of new organs through their initial useless stages, during which they obviously present no selective advantage? (This is often referred to as the "problem of novelties".) Or guide the development of entire new systems, such as nervous, circulatory, digestive, respiratory and reproductive systems, which would require the simultaneous development of several new interdependent organs, none of which is useful, or provides any selective advantage, by itself? French biologist Jean Rostand, for example, wrote ["A Biologist's View," Wm. Heinemann Ltd. 1956]:

"It does not seem strictly impossible that mutations should have introduced into the animal kingdom the differences which exist between one species and the next...hence it is very tempting to lay also at their door the differences between classes, families and orders, and, in short, the whole of evolution. But it is obvious that such an extrapolation involves the gratuitous attribution to the mutations of the past of a magnitude and power of innovation much greater than is shown by those of today."

Behe's book is primarily a challenge to this cornerstone of Darwinism at the microscopic level. Although we may not be familiar with the complex biochemical systems discussed in this book, I believe mathematicians are well qualified to appreciate the general ideas involved. And although an analogy is only an analogy, perhaps the best way to understand Behe's argument is by comparing the development of the genetic code of life with the development of a computer program. Suppose an engineer attempts to design a structural analysis computer program, writing it in a machine language that is totally unknown to him. He simply types out random characters at his keyboard, and periodically runs tests on the program to recognize and select out chance improvements when they occur. The improvements are permanently incorporated into the program while the other changes are discarded. If our engineer continues this process of random changes and testing for a long enough time, could he eventually develop a sophisticated structural analysis program? (Of course, when intelligent humans decide what constitutes an "improvement", this is really artificial selection, so the analogy is far too generous.)

If a billion engineers were to type at the rate of one random character per second, there is virtually no chance that any one of them would, given the 4.5 billion year age of the Earth to work on it, accidentally duplicate a given 20-character improvement. Thus our engineer cannot count on making any major improvements through chance alone. But could he not perhaps make progress through the accumulation of very small improvements? The Darwinist would presumably say, yes, but to anyone who has had minimal programming experience this idea is equally implausible.

Major improvements to a computer program often require the addition or modification of hundreds of interdependent lines, no one of which makes any sense, or results in any improvement, when added by itself. Even the smallest improvements usually require adding several new lines. It is conceivable that a programmer unable to look ahead more than 5 or 6 characters at a time might be able to make some very slight improvements to a computer program, but it is inconceivable that he could design anything sophisticated without the ability to plan far ahead and to guide his changes toward that plan.

If archeologists of some future society were to unearth the many versions of my PDE solver, PDE2D , which I have produced over the last 20 years, they would certainly note a steady increase in complexity over time, and they would see many obvious similarities between each new version and the previous one. In the beginning it was only able to solve a single linear, steady-state, 2D equation in a polygonal region. Since then, PDE2D has developed many new abilities: it now solves nonlinear problems, time-dependent and eigenvalue problems, systems of simultaneous equations, and it now handles general curved 2D regions.

Over the years, many new types of graphical output capabilities have evolved, and in 1991 it developed an interactive preprocessor, and more recently PDE2D has adapted to 3D and 1D problems. An archeologist attempting to explain the evolution of this computer program in terms of many tiny improvements might be puzzled to find that each of these major advances (new classes or phyla??) appeared suddenly in new versions; for example, the ability to solve 3D problems first appeared in version 4.0. Less major improvements (new families or orders??) appeared suddenly in new subversions, for example, the ability to solve 3D problems with periodic boundary conditions first appeared in version 5.6. In fact, the record of PDE2D's development would be similar to the fossil record, with large gaps where major new features appeared, and smaller gaps where minor ones appeared. That is because the multitude of intermediate programs between versions or subversions which the archeologist might expect to find never existed, because-- for example--none of the changes I made for edition 4.0 made any sense, or provided PDE2D any advantage whatever in solving 3D problems (or anything else) until hundreds of lines had been added.

Whether at the microscopic or macroscopic level, major, complex, evolutionary advances, involving new features (as opposed to minor, quantitative changes such as an increase in the length of the giraffe's neck*, or the darkening of the wings of a moth, which clearly could occur gradually) also involve the addition of many interrelated and interdependent pieces. These complex advances, like those made to computer programs, are not always "irreducibly complex"--sometimes there are intermediate useful stages. But just as major improvements to a computer program cannot be made 5 or 6 characters at a time, certainly no major evolutionary advance is reducible to a chain of tiny improvements, each small enough to be bridged by a single random mutation.

2. The other point is very simple, but also seems to be appreciated only by more mathematically-oriented people. It is that to attribute the development of life on Earth to natural selection is to assign to it--and to it alone, of all known natural "forces"--the ability to violate the second law of thermodynamics and to cause order to arise from disorder. It is often argued that since the Earth is not a closed system--it receives energy from the Sun, for example-- the second law is not applicable in this case. It is true that order can increase locally, if the local increase is compensated by a decrease elsewhere, ie, an open system can be taken to a less probable state by importing order from outside. For example, we could transport a truckload of encyclopedias and computers to the moon, thereby increasing the order on the moon, without violating the second law. But the second law of thermodynamics--at least the underlying principle behind this law--simply says that natural forces do not cause extremely improbable things to happen**, and it is absurd to argue that because the Earth receives energy from the Sun, this principle was not violated here when the original rearrangement of atoms into encyclopedias and computers occurred.

The biologist studies the details of natural history, and when he looks at the similarities between two species of butterflies, he is understandably reluctant to attribute the small differences to the supernatural. But the mathematician or physicist is likely to take the broader view. I imagine visiting the Earth when it was young and returning now to find highways with automobiles on them, airports with jet airplanes, and tall buildings full of complicated equipment, such as televisions, telephones and computers. Then I imagine the construction of a gigantic computer model which starts with the initial conditions on Earth 4 billion years ago and tries to simulate the effects that the four known forces of physics (the gravitational, electromagnetic and strong and weak nuclear forces) would have on every atom and every subatomic particle on our planet (perhaps using random number generators to model quantum uncertainties!). If we ran such a simulation out to the present day, would it predict that the basic forces of Nature would reorganize the basic particles of Nature into libraries full of encyclopedias, science texts and novels, nuclear power plants, aircraft carriers with supersonic jets parked on deck, and computers connected to laser printers, CRTs and keyboards? If we graphically displayed the positions of the atoms at the end of the simulation, would we find that cars and trucks had formed, or that supercomputers had arisen? Certainly we would not, and I do not believe that adding sunlight to the model would help much. Clearly something extremely improbable has happened here on our planet, with the origin and development of life, and especially with the development of human consciousness and creativity.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

footnotes

*Ironically, W.E.Loennig's article "The Evolution of the Long-necked Giraffe," has since convinced me that even this feature could not, and did not, arise gradually.

**An unfortunate choice of words, for which I was severely chastised. I should have said, the underlying principle behind the second law is that natural forces do not do macroscopically describable things which are extremely improbable from the microscopic point of view. See "A Second Look at the Second Law," for a more thorough treatment of this point.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Granville Sewell completed his PhD at Purdue University. He has subsequently been employed by (in chronological order) Universidad Simon Bolivar (Caracas), Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Purdue University, IMSL (Houston), The University of Texas Center for High Performance Computing (Austin), and the University of Texas El Paso; he spent Fall 1999 at Universidad Nacional de Tucuman in Argentina on a Fulbright grant. He has written three books on numerical analysis.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: crevolist; darwin; darwinsblackbox; evolution; godsgravesglyphs; granvillesewell; id; idjunkscience; idscam; intelligentdesign; irreduciblycomplex; mathematician; michaelbehe
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350 ... 651-696 next last
To: UndauntedR

Submission to the expressed will of God is always better. Whatever your plans or mine may be, God's just have to be better.


251 posted on 09/22/2006 9:04:50 AM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: UndauntedR

FSM???????


252 posted on 09/22/2006 9:07:15 AM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: sittnick
The fossil record, even from 3,000 years ago is far from complete,

I suggest you find a subject you know something about, and argue that. Your posts are inane in the extreme. For one, there really aren't fossils from 3kya -- there are intact and nearly intact human and animal remains. To pretend that we don't know anything about what large mammals were alive within the recent realm of recorded history suggests you're talking out of your ass. Equines weren't rare 3kya, and we know a heck of a lot about their development from a huge variety of sources. Those include skeletons, yokes, bits, chariots, written records, artistic depictions, saddles, and probably about a thousand other kinds of sources I'm forgetting to include. Horses were domesticated in just that part of the world where we do have excellent historical information. If you still think that anatomically modern horses evolved 2mya, you're just being deliberately obtuse.

The root of the peanut is edible, while the fruit of other legumes are edible.

Huh? Peanut roots aren't edible. The edible part of the peanut is the fruit (which does grow underground). If you want to try to eat peanut roots, you can try to prove me wrong, but I doubt they taste very good. In any event, edibility has nothing to do with the plant and everything to do with human digestion.

Peas are green and grow in soft pods. Peanuts are light brown and grow in harder shells.

I'm sorry, do you have a point? Is your time best served by explaining to me that peas are, in fact, green? Or are you still insisting that peanuts are meat?

253 posted on 09/22/2006 9:14:17 AM PDT by Alter Kaker ("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
The usual gang of stubborn damn fools, liberals and "progressives" and other atheists or non-lineal thinkers

You have yet to demonstrate that all who accept the theory of evolution are members of the above categories.

endlessly repeating their mantras of praise of an idjit like Darwin and his crackpot theories,

You have yet to demonstrate that Charles Darwin was an "idjit", not have you demonstrated that his theories are "crackpot". Insulting people will not demonstrate that your assertions are correct.

acked by the utterly corrupt (and taxpayer funded thanks to the usual gang, etc.), gummint edjumakashun establishment,

Please provide evidence to support this claim.

and by "scientific" community convinced that that its members are gods and that God is not (they hope, they hope, they hope),

Please provide evidence to support your claim that members of the scientific community believe themselves to be "gods". Your claim that they "believe that God is not" is demonstratably false, as there exist theist scientists who accept the theory of evolution.

those self-imagined simians who prefer to worship themselves and to ignore the word of God, thereby freeing themselves to do what they damn well please to do regardless of consequences to others and to practice a faux pragmatism released from the bounds imposed by their Creator (whether they acknowledge Him or not).

Your insults and false claims about scientists does not falsify the theory of evolution.

ou can post continued inquiries for the refutation of the Darwinian frankly ridiculous until the cows come home but the most you will get from me is the somewhat disingenuous suggestion that I can accept (for you and others of similar delusion) that you imagine yourselves descended from monkeys, apes, gorillas, chimpanzees, primordial soup suddenly energized by lightning, alien space invaders of limited imagination (most likely as to Darwinists) or from granite rock piles or prehistoric salamanders and to concede that you and your ilk may be right (but only for you and your ilk).

So you admit, then, that you are willfully falsely misrepresenting what I believe and also that you will utterly refuse to provide evidence for your unsubstantiated claimse. If you refuse to provide any reason to show that your assertions are credible and willfully misrepresent the positions of others, why then should anyone believe what you say?

If you find this separation of you from us as to origins to be somehow irrational, remember that I do not actually believe that you and your soulmates are actually descended from baboons or whatever regardless of objective evidence, but if I did believe that, it would be at least competitive with Darwinian delusions in terms of believability.

This does not justify your beligerant refusal to support your claims with evidence, nor does it excuse your insults and misrepresentations.

These delusions of yours, when quarantined or properly ridiculed or even examined, are as harmless as the dopey nephew in the movie Arsenic and Old Lace who keeps on charging up the stairs and blowing his trumpet as though he were Teddy Roosevelt at San Juan Hill.

Please provide evidence that I am delusional. If you cannot, I can only conclude that you are making unwarranted personal attacks against my person.

Oh, and asserting that Darwinism is true does not make it so.

I have never claimed othewise. You are attacking a strawman.

You get Darwin and his tax-funded religion of pseudo-science which needs defense at all costs lest anyone have the opportunity in taxpayer funded brain laundries to consider the obvious alternative that God created the universe, you, me and everything else in it and did so without the assistance of Darwin or or of apes (except in the creation of other apes).

The theory of evolution is not a religion, and it is not honest to claim that it is.

Your long-worded post provides makes a number of personal attacks, but thus far you have provided absolutely no evidence to support your claims. It fact, you have even admitted that you will not provide evidence to support your claims. Based upon the energy that you have expended specifically to refuse to support your unsubstantiated assertions, it seems highly likely that your purpose is to willfully spread falsehoods, such as your continued efforts to falsely equate acceptance of the theory of evolution as valid science with atheism. Your behaviour is clearly irrational and it is not honest. If you are an example of your faith, then I must confess that I have far too much integrity and ethical concerns to allow myself to become as dishonest as your faith apparently requires of its adherents.
254 posted on 09/22/2006 9:18:55 AM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

Irrational Placemarker


255 posted on 09/22/2006 9:32:23 AM PDT by Jaguarbhzrd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

Dimensio, how dare you assault a creationist with relentless logic, reason, evidence, and demands for honesty?!


256 posted on 09/22/2006 9:37:51 AM PDT by Quark2005 ("Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs." -Matthew 7:6)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk; Dimensio
I don't put much store in what the "scientific" community has to say. Many have their own agenda. Are kids overweight? Our scientific community says it's due to soda pop. Is global warming happening? Data dating back 50 years (out of a 6 billion year history) confirms this to be so and the scientific community attribute the cause to pollutants. Is the fetus alive? Well, yes and no. It all depends on what the mother says. How scientific is that?

The "scientific community" can't agree on some of the simple things and they want to tell me how the earth was created? Please. It was the scientific community more than the Church that tried to prove Galileo's theory the earth revolved around the sun was wrong. I wouldn't put my faith in the scientific community.
257 posted on 09/22/2006 9:40:05 AM PDT by HarleyD ("Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures" Luke 24:45)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American
Taxonomical categories describe species, but do not tell us whether one came from another. ( whales could have theoretically developed from fish without leaving the water leaving the water, while the other mammals happened to get their systems independent of what was going on with the whales.)

This hypothesis (about whales) is disproved by genetic analysis: cetaceans are clearly most closely related to artiodactyls (cattle, deer, hippo, giraffe, etc). In fact, there is a clade called the cetartiodactyls that covers these exactly.


The hypothesis may appear unlikely, but is by no means "disproved." It may simply mean that even more genetic variations happened in the water before the modern whale came along. Observing similarity in genes is not proof that one came from another, no more than finding certain elements in disparate creatures means ones comes from another. You might say that these are long odds, and indeed they are, but all of these mutations would require extremely long odds. No harm in making them longer.
258 posted on 09/22/2006 9:41:52 AM PDT by sittnick (There is no salvation in politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American
"not random" isn't the same as "(IE, designed or something)"

I think I said that.

OTOH, just because scientists haven't come up with a change agent other than random genetic mutation, doesn't mean that's the answer.

259 posted on 09/22/2006 9:50:36 AM PDT by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
I don't put much store in what the "scientific" community has to say. Many have their own agenda.

Even if this is true, an 'agenda' does not falsify scientific data.

Are kids overweight? Our scientific community says it's due to soda pop.

I was not aware that the recent increase in child obesity has been attributed to one single cause. Do you have a reference?

Our scientific community says it's due to soda pop. Is global warming happening? Data dating back 50 years (out of a 6 billion year history) confirms this to be so and the scientific community attribute the cause to pollutants.

Some scientists believe that the trend is the result of pollutants. Others believe that the current trend is part of a normal cycle. Research continues into investigating the cause, thogh that average global temperatures are rising is not disputed.

Is the fetus alive? Well, yes and no. It all depends on what the mother says.

"What the mother says" is not used as scientific justification for the life of a fetus. The ambiguity is based upon defining when a human "life" begins, which is not a scientific question. It is indisputable that the cells of a developing fetus, and the zygote before that, are 'alive'. The dispute over the point at which the collection of living cells is a 'living human' -- whether it is at the moment of conception or the moment of birth -- is a philosophical question, not a scientific one.

The "scientific community" can't agree on some of the simple things and they want to tell me how the earth was created?

There is little dispute as to the means by which the earth came to exist, though that subject is not related to the theory of evolution.

It was the scientific community more than the Church that tried to prove Galileo's theory the earth revolved around the sun was wrong. I

Please provide references to support this claim.

I wouldn't put my faith in the scientific community.

This does not falsify the extensive research and uncovered data in support of the theory of evolution.
260 posted on 09/22/2006 9:50:52 AM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker
OTOH, just because scientists haven't come up with a change agent other than random genetic mutation, doesn't mean that's the answer.

Do you have evidence for a different mechanism?
261 posted on 09/22/2006 9:51:23 AM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk

Wow what a mature post!


262 posted on 09/22/2006 9:56:27 AM PDT by JeffAtlanta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
No.

You might want to check out The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, an oldie but goodie. Today's orthodoxy will likely be tomorrow's . . . . Well, you know how kind we are to past theories like catastrophism.

263 posted on 09/22/2006 9:58:17 AM PDT by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
To pretend that we don't know anything about what large mammals were alive within the recent realm of recorded history suggests you're talking out of your ass.

I simply stated that we do not know all of the species that were around 3,000 years ago. Knowing some, knowing lots, and knowing all are different things. Lets see, "begging the question", "post hoc ergo propter hoc" and now at least the second "straw man". Trying to hit for the cycle on logical fallacies?

Huh? Peanut roots aren't edible. The edible part of the peanut is the fruit (which does grow underground).

Of course, you just answered your own earlier question about how peanuts are different from [other] legumes. The fruit grows underground! And of course peanuts are nutritionally regarded as meat.

In any event, edibility has nothing to do with the plant and everything to do with human digestion.

The reason that something is or isn't edible by humans is because there has to be something different in the object consumed. So of course it says lots about how peas and peanuts are different.
264 posted on 09/22/2006 10:00:30 AM PDT by sittnick (There is no salvation in politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio; HarleyD
The dispute over the point at which the collection of living cells is a 'living human' -- whether it is at the moment of conception or the moment of birth -- is a philosophical question, not a scientific one.

It's a legal question that should, IMO, be decided by legislative bodies.

265 posted on 09/22/2006 10:01:48 AM PDT by Virginia-American (What do you call an honest creationist? An evolutionist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio; wolfcreek
D: You have yet to "demonstrate" your capacity to read. Neither Christianity nor Catholicism owes ANYTHING WHATSOEVER by way of argument to Darwinian delusion or other gummint godless religions. Western civilization is NOT based on Darwin come lately. Darwinianism is NOT the standard. It is the obviously irrational challenge to the Judaeo-Christian basis and standard of Western civilization.

One minor concession to your expressed need for evidence. If you don't believe that this Darwinian delusion is the uniform forced curriculum of gummint skewels [in spite of your citation of a pseudo-scientific apologia for Darwinism/attack on Ann Coulter which includes one of many fedcourt decisions (this time from Kansas) cramming Darwinian delusion down the throats of school kids with taxpayer dollars courtesy of the ACLU (law firm of the secular humanists and other materialists and atheists)]. As Coulter wisely observes, the public schools are the madrassas of the radical left.

If there are drivers who think they can drive safely with blood alcohol of 0.40 in urban areas on 70 MPH interstate highways that does not prove that they can. If there are "scientists" who believe in Darwinian delusion, that they are simians and that they believe in God, this proves nothing but rank confusion and that science has abandoned the search for truth in its quest for tax-subsidized hegemony over people who know better than they.

My assertions are credible: Look at Ann. No excessiely furry body. No bananas in hand or mouth. No public rib scratching. One fine looking human female with no outward appearances of apeness or chimapnzeeness or atheism or other form of liberalism. Presto: Ann is, ummmm, magnificently human and monkeys are not. "People" who think otherwise are, ummmmm, at best questionable. If y'all want to believe that y'all are really apes or baboons, hey, enjoy!!!!

The Bible is per se credible. So is the Teaching Magisterium. Darwin is not.

Simian wannabes are not worthy of respect. Their theories are not worthy of respect. The ones who want to split the difference by claiming to be "theists" while also claiming to be descended from monkeys, apes, gorillas, baboons, chimpanzees are saying that they believe in God but reject His word favoring Darwin's delusions instead. Hmmmmm....schizophrenia, anyone?????

BTW, I did not invent the term "descended from..." in this context. If Darwinian obsessives actually were "descended from" other simians as they hallucinate, the term would accurately describe their regression.

I absolutely do not care whether you believe what I say. I concede absolutely nothing to you much less that I am willfully misrepresenting anything much less falsely (wouldn't a false misrepresentation actually be a true representation????....never mind). The suggestion, rather, is that if you are a simian wannabe, you can feel free to be a simian wannabe, for all that I care. My religion is the truth whether you happen to like it or not. You are free in America and in the Catholic dogma as to free will to adopt whatever fantasies turn you on (and to take the consequences of your choices). Far be it from me to interfere with your choice of monkeys as ancestors. OTOH, don't expect me to be impressed.

The theory of evolution and its promoters need no help in thoroughly discrediting evolution. It is a self-executing discreditation and always has been. Go entertain yourself in your little laboratory. Who knows, maybe you will impress you.

I have not "admitted" anything. I have proclaimed Darwinian delusion not to rise to a level deserving respect or evidence in opposition. The burden of proof lies exclusively on the delusionists who are simian wannabes to prove their ancestry lies among the monkeys.

BTW, if you believe that man has an immortal soul, describe how it "evolved" from the mortal soul of apes. Or do you believe that apes have immortal souls????

Simian ancestors or the Truth of Christ???? Ummmmm, the Truth of Christ every time.

As to your last paragraph: "God is dead!"---Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead!"---God! Also: "Darwin is dead!"---God

266 posted on 09/22/2006 10:10:17 AM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
[Ann is...] One fine looking human female with no outward appearances of apeness or chimapnzeeness or atheism or other form of liberalism. Presto: Ann is, ummmm, magnificently human and monkeys are not. "People" who think otherwise are, ummmmm, at best questionable. If y'all want to believe that y'all are really apes or baboons, hey, enjoy!!!!

Look at the bones. Look at the genetics. You'll see how closely related primates really are. You are doing pure apologetics, not science.


(And feed that girl a milkshake and a couple of cheeseburgers!)

267 posted on 09/22/2006 10:15:59 AM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: JeffAtlanta
Thanks!

If you liked that one, you are going to love #247 and #266.

Ummmmm, maturity is not consistent with acceptance of the desperately godless Darwinian BS.

268 posted on 09/22/2006 10:16:58 AM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk

I love your language! Although my Niceness Filter prevents me from indulging in the same sort of vehemently vivid invective, I feel good about having you do it on my behalf.

Vlad stood up this morning!


269 posted on 09/22/2006 10:23:31 AM PDT by Tax-chick (Please pray for Vlad's four top incisors to arrive real soon!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Ann's bones resemble a baboon's bones????? Her face, hair and flesh do not. I knew her much elder brother John several decades ago. Now those two resemble one another. Facial features. Height. Bright. Ability to speak (with admirable sarcasm!). Can drive cars. Would not, on a bet, push buttons in sequence for bananas or swing through the trees or scratch ribs in public or imitate apescreech. I have not met Ann's parents but I am betting that they much more resemble Ann and John than they do baboons or liberals or atheists.

Hey, just to show the kind of guy I am, I CAN AGREE that Annie needs burgers and shakes but she STILL won't look like a baboon or whatever.

I am doing truth. Darwinians are doing science fiction. They scare their apelets and keep them in line with flicks like Planet of the People.

270 posted on 09/22/2006 10:24:42 AM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

Delighted to be of assistance to the wife of my brother Knight. Go Vlad! Go, Vlad! Wait until he hears that he is being accused of simian ancestry by the usual gang of malefactors!


271 posted on 09/22/2006 10:26:25 AM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk

He would spit.

Well, he might do that after eating, anyway, but once in a while, he seems to be making a Statement ...


272 posted on 09/22/2006 10:29:01 AM PDT by Tax-chick (Please pray for Vlad's four top incisors to arrive real soon!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
Ann's bones resemble a baboon's bones?????

I said primate. That is a much broader class them just baboons.

Ever study bones? I have. Once you learn the human cranium you can look at a monkey cranium and all the bones are the same; somewhat different shape and size, but if you know the bones you can recognize each of them. Same for the postcranials. Genetics is even more definitive.

I am doing truth. Darwinians are doing science fiction.

I am citing verifiable data. If you don't believe it you can go to a museum or take an osteology class and see for yourself. That is the way science works.

I leave it to the lurkers to determine who is doing science fiction.

273 posted on 09/22/2006 10:31:04 AM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
Thanks for the ping BlackElk

You can count on at least one of the delusionals to relentlessly insist you have not substantiated any claims reject all proof you bring thereof, twist your words with each reply of his, never directly address anything you have said, and himself be so squirrelly and slippery that it is hard to determine just what if anything he has ever said or believes in except that he will somehow get to his declaration that nothing you say is worth anything and end with rejection of you as a person in as many words. That is the demented message said yet once again for most likely the thousandth time, it is so predictable.

You are accused of being belligerent dishonest and irrational by one who wears those descriptions like its painted on to him..

These is a hatred that seeps out BlackElk, and it is plain to see by all of a rational and objective mind. It comes from the rabid idolater's from the cult of darwinism, IOW the godless religion of liberals.

Well you do have a lot of powerful words there BlackElk and the Darwinists will do everything they can to make it go away.

When 'Wolf is gone for calling it as it is, hopefully BlackElk will be around to bring some balance.

Take Care,

W.
274 posted on 09/22/2006 10:35:32 AM PDT by RunningWolf (2-1 Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
I am doing truth. Darwinians are doing science fiction.

So, exactly what is "fictional" about 'Darwinian' science? Are you capable of being more specific, or are you just going to continue to throw about haphazard libel about science (and scientifically literate people) in general (and in turn, completely play into the negative stereotype liberals have about conservatives)?

You're good at jumping up and down and making a lot of noise, here, but you haven't offered any arguments of real substance - only ad hominems and appeals to consequence.

275 posted on 09/22/2006 10:39:25 AM PDT by Quark2005 ("Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs." -Matthew 7:6)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk; Dimensio; Ichneumon
Dimensio hits you with specifics in 220. You "rebut" with paragraphs of unsubstantiated risible spew in 247.

For more discussion of where Ann Coulter's antievolution screed misses the mark, note this post. What will you spew in answer to that?

276 posted on 09/22/2006 10:39:49 AM PDT by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]

To: Quark2005
Coulter is not an authority ....

You're too verbose.

277 posted on 09/22/2006 10:47:38 AM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: FreedomProtector; Alamo-Girl; hosepipe; Quix; ConservativeDude; Quark2005
3) Materialist presuppositions result in conclusions which are contradictory to the world. The Materialist cannot be consistent to the logic of their presuppositions, because the materialist lives in a reality which was made by something external to matter...God. This being so, Materialist is in a place of tension.

4) Materialists build up walls of protection to shield themselves from the point of tension. The materialist then erects barriers, even if completely irrational or improbable, to try to deal w/ the contradiction of how he observes the world.

Deeply perceptive insights, Freedom protector! H. von Doderer and R. Musil, et al., have given a name to this sort of thing: second reality. They are re-constructions of the world of first reality -- into which each of us is born -- by a mind that rejects vital sectors of that reality -- e.g., human nature as a given, the universality of the human condition, the order and purposefuness of nature, the existence of God, objective morality, the sanctity of life and the human person, etc. -- driving them into "oblivion." The rejection of the order of first reality is for the purpose of allowing man to construct for himself a "reality" more according to his own wishes, goals, and desires. Second realities, therefore, are ideological, not realist, in form.

Still no man can evade the essential constitution of things, no matter how hard he may try to remain blind to them. Still people will try, and the results are readily visible to us in the form of various political, social, and scientific "movements."

One of the most famous second realities was the one constructed by Karl Marx. It is completely out of whack with human nature and the natural order, and so sooner or later has failed to deliver on its promises everywhere it has been tried.

I think at the root of a whole lot of present-day sociopolitical movements you will find a second reality: e.g., gay rights, global warming, the feminist movement, secular humanism, to name a few. Furthermore I think the populist version of neoDarwinism is premised on a second reality.

Anyhoot, FWIW. Thank you so much for your excellent essay/post, FreedomProtector!

278 posted on 09/22/2006 10:49:51 AM PDT by betty boop (Beautiful are the things we see...Much the most beautiful those we do not comprehend. -- N. Steensen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada "Gentlemen's Club"

I have to say that the first time I encountered the phrase "Gentlemen's Club" it was attached to a building trimmed with flaming violet neon lights. We don't often get freepers who share their interest in S&M in public.

279 posted on 09/22/2006 11:22:46 AM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio; Virginia-American
Even if this is true, an 'agenda' does not falsify scientific data.

I was not aware that the recent increase in child obesity has been attributed to one single cause. Do you have a reference?

The ambiguity is based upon defining when a human "life" begins, which is not a scientific question.

There is little dispute as to the means by which the earth came to exist, though that subject is not related to the theory of evolution.

Please provide references to support this claim [about Galileo].

This does not falsify the extensive research and uncovered data in support of the theory of evolution.


280 posted on 09/22/2006 11:26:24 AM PDT by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; Quark2005; wolfcreek; RunningWolf; Dimensio; Tax-chick; TonyRo76; ...
To both of you and any other Darwinian delusionists, I will suggest that you take Running Wolf's #274 as my answer. The day will not dawn when tax-fed Darwinian bullies are going to move me a skinny little millimeter toward joining in their delusion that humans are "descended from" apes or whatever. Take Darwin and place him and his idjit theories where the sun shineth not.

And, Godless is, among other things, Ann Coulter's cogent explanation of the hilarious fantasy that is Darwinianism, to you, Bub.

Wanna drag race with Annie for position on the (gulp) New York Times best-seller list???? You'll lose. On such a list of National Review, Human Events or the American Spectator, you'll lose a lot worse.

BTW, right now, FR is doing a poll on whether Intelligent Design or Creationism should be taught in public skewels alongside Darwinism. I had to vote yes but only because abolition of the hideously expensive gummint brain laundries was not an option. OTOH, a very strong majority voted yes. What does Darwinian delusion or environmentalwhackoism or paleopantywaistism or other heresies have to do with CONSERVATISM????? You are aware that this is a CONSERVATIVE website and not an atheist or agnostic or liberal or "progressive" or gummint edjumakashunist or Darwinian website, right??????

To all who make of Darwinian delusion an understandably irrational pseudo-religion, science, like everything else, was created by God. Any "science" which purports to refutes the word of God is a rejection of His truth and therefore not part of a search for truth. If science is not a search for truth, then it is not science. If you want to believe that whatever passes for Nancy Pelosi's "brain" is made of Ricotta cheese, it would be an awful insult to lasagna but feel free. America, it's a free country to some extent. If you want to believe that Darwin was capable of simultaneously employing three brain cells, feel free. America, it's ..... If you believe that human beings are "descended from" apes or earthworms or pterodactyls or natural rock formations or 1929 Model A Ford 2-seaters with rumble seats or Pee Wee Herman or George McGovern or Howard the "Aaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrgh" Dean (I think those three are "primates" and that they almost certainly are simian wannabes, or whomever or whatever, feel free but do not expect respect for such fairy tales from people who know better. If it comforts you to imagine you are "descended from" beasts of any sort, presto and abracadabra! You are a beast! Feel better????? America, it's a great country!

Now, run along and leave the people (You know, Adam and Eve's progeny and their progeny and.... NOT Bonzo's or Mighty Joe Young's progeny, if any) who have Biblical dominion over you beasts alone.

281 posted on 09/22/2006 11:30:57 AM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk

I read through the entire tread but, can't find where I posted. Got any idea?


This argument is facinating but, I really don't have an opinion worth expressing except that it is much *easier* to believe God created everything and leave it at that. If taking the *easy* path is the way you choose to see it, power to ya.


282 posted on 09/22/2006 11:34:35 AM PDT by wolfcreek (You can spit in our tacos and you can rape our dogs but, you can't take away our freedom!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
The day will not dawn when tax-fed Darwinian bullies are going to move me a skinny little millimeter toward joining in their delusion that humans are "descended from" apes or whatever.

We'll just have to learn to live with the disappointment, I guess.

283 posted on 09/22/2006 11:41:43 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
There are very few people who will say, “Well, I guess I was wrong on that one"

True enough. I can provide examples of scientsts saying that. Can you provide examples of theologians or clergy saying it?

284 posted on 09/22/2006 11:43:31 AM PDT by Virginia-American (What do you call an honest creationist? An evolutionist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American
Can you provide examples of theologians or clergy saying it?

I believe the Curch recently apologised to Galileo. Still waiting on Bruno.

285 posted on 09/22/2006 11:44:58 AM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
Take Darwin and place him and his idjit theories where the sun shineth not.

You have yet to demonstrate that the theory of evolution is false. Your claims are presumptious.

And, Godless is, among other things, Ann Coulter's cogent explanation of the hilarious fantasy that is Darwinianism, to you, Bub.

As has been demonstrated, Ann Coulter employs blatant falsehoods in her attacks on the theory of evolution. That you choose to ignore this fact does not negate the reality that her arguments against the theory are not valid.

Wanna drag race with Annie for position on the (gulp) New York Times best-seller list???? You'll lose. On such a list of National Review, Human Events or the American Spectator, you'll lose a lot worse.


The popularity of Ann Coulter's book does not make her invalid arguments any less invalid. You are appealing to a logical fallacy.

Any "science" which purports to refutes the word of God is a rejection of His truth and therefore not part of a search for truth.

If you have decided already that you will reject any aspect of reality that contradicts your religious beliefs, then there is no further purpose for discussion. You have already made it clear that you are arrogant enough to believe that you know God's word better than any other, thus you have demonstrated that you are wholly irrational.
286 posted on 09/22/2006 11:46:43 AM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: js1138

Yeah, they did. But they didn't say "I was wrong" (like Einstein did wrt the Cosmological Constant, where ironically, he may actually have been right), they said "those guys 300 years ago were wrong". Rather like "mistakes were made"


287 posted on 09/22/2006 11:49:23 AM PDT by Virginia-American (What do you call an honest creationist? An evolutionist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies]

To: Quark2005
I don't give a damn what Iran's homicidal maniac president (or general population) "think" (assuming that they think) about Dubya, the USA or conservatism or Catholicism or Chriostianity generally. Likewise Ugo Chavez. Likewise, Jacques "Light Fingers" Chirac. Likewise, the New York Times. Likewise, the National Education Association. Likewise, C-Span's Commies in the Morning aka Washington Journal. Likewise Noam Chomsky. Likewise Charles Darwin and his posthumous Monicas. Likewise other liberals/leftists/"progressives" whose "stereotypes" conservatives are proud to be and righfully so. OOOOOH, that Elk is just sooooooo, ummmm, ummmmm, anti-intellectual!!!!! Sooooooo politically incorrect!!!!! Liberals posing as conservatives are sooooooo embarassed!

I have no interest in worrying for my country or my conservatism about human respect (the Catholic term for what the world misthinks) and every interest in having the world become appropriately worried about what America and conservatives think. We have the weapons. They don't.

I practiced law for decades. You did not if you imagine that "science" can be libeled much less that it has been.

What is fictional about Darwinian "science?" Ummmm, everything! If you imagine yourself descended from apes or other simians to be linked later (how many centuries and government funds later???? Never mind!) or that darwinism is truth, then you are a Darwinian Church Lady.

Also "scientifically literate people" is another discredited tautology. First, you are forgetting your claim to be mere trousered apes. I am still waiting for the darwinian answer to whether there is an immortal human soul and, if so, whether it too "evolved" from whatever sould the apes had to immortal.

It only seems to you darwinians that I am jumping up and down because you are not used to being rightfully disrespected or subjected to dissent from darwinian "orthodoxy" protected as you are by federal courts which establish your false religion and force taxpayers who know better to pay for it. You are used to grandiosely setting the terms of the debate and I refuse to play along. You are used to playing establishmentarian and demanding that your critics bear the burden of proof and I refuse to play along. You are pissed. That is only natural but it does not buttress your fantasies as fact.

Go back to your laboratory and genuflect before your beakers and test tubes. I guess it's better than nuthin'.

288 posted on 09/22/2006 11:52:12 AM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
The ambiguity is based upon defining when a human "life" begins, which is not a scientific question.

Nonsense. The genome is human. The cells are alive. Hence a living human being at that stage of human beinghood. The science is clear on that, you just don't like the science.

289 posted on 09/22/2006 11:52:15 AM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American

Well there you go. Even when scientists admit they're wrong, they're wrong. It's much safer to have opinions that can't be wrong.


290 posted on 09/22/2006 11:53:11 AM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

No further purpose for discussion? Promise or threat? Please make it promise.


291 posted on 09/22/2006 11:54:04 AM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Nonsense. The genome is human.

Is every cell that is alive and has a human genome a human?

292 posted on 09/22/2006 11:56:05 AM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

"Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club" Tagline Placemarker
293 posted on 09/22/2006 11:56:56 AM PDT by ml1954 (ID = Case closed....no further inquiry allowed...now move along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: js1138; ninenot
Well, if I thought you were capable of such powerful arguments in service to your darwinist fantasies, I would have, I would have, I would have..... Oh, that's right, I would have ignored you and you would have deserved it.

Besides, ninenot coined the term. Take it up with him.

294 posted on 09/22/2006 11:57:32 AM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
Wouldn’t you say that is being a bit naïve?

No. Data stands or fails as valid based upon its correspondence to reality, not because of any agenda posessed by those who report the data.
,br> No one is necessarily accusing all scientists of falsifying data, even though some have. But how many scientists are “true” scientists, people who objectively seek out answers?

If you have evidence of bias leading to false conclusions regarding the theory of evolution, then please present it. Mere speculation, however, is not evidence against a scientific theory.

I doubt that if someone was trying to prove the rainforest deforestization was leading to global warming, and they found evidence to the contrary, that they would publish the data.

This would not preclude another without such an agenda of publishing data.

I’m skeptical given today’s environment that they would wish to contradiction to their agenda. There are very few people who will say, “Well, I guess I was wrong on that one.”

If this were true, there would be no further advances in science.

What constitute the “scientific community”?

The subset of the general population who is educated sufficiently in a scientific field to be employed in a position that requires such knowledge.

You say that evolution is correct based upon your scientists. I probably counter with other scientists that would say they believe in created design

Please cite the relevant scientific research that lends credibility to claims of "created design".

Perhaps I’ve broad brushed this a bit but not unreasonably so. It really becomes who you wish to believe.


The nature of scientific inquiry is that the methods are openly known. It is possible to investigate the research that has led to scientific conclusions to determine whether or not a claim is justified. While it is true that there exist individuals who wish to change the definition of science to one that would truly be based upon "who you wish to believe", such individuals have gained little headway outside of the state of Kansas.

It’s a matter of faith-in scientific models and premises.

Scientific models can be tested and reviewed, and in fact much face such testing and review to be accepted as valid. This is not "faith".

Nonsense. The same medical profession that goes in to operate on a fetus at 20 weeks is the same group that will think nothing of killing it.

You are speaking of medical ethics, not science. Science is not a method for defining ethics.

The “ambiguity” is simply a political cover. There certainly is no shortage of people looking for “scientific” funding of embryonic stem cell research money now is there? It’s simply a cop out to say no one knows when life begins.

How do you define a "human life"?

Don’t you think that would be a very important scientific question to answer before we go destroying it?

What factors would need to be observed to conclude that a collection of cells is a "human life"?

Evolution and the earth creation are interrelated.

Incorrect. The mechanisms of the process of evolution do not depend in any way on the means by which the planet on which the process occurs came to exist. If you disagree, then please explain how the mechanisms of evolution would change between a planet that formed through unguided processes and a planet that was built by interstellar contractors.

There is no different in saying the earth was created by intelligence design than to say man was created by intelligence design.

You are again incorrect. Demonstrating that the Earth were "intelligently designed" would not automatically demonstrate that humans or any other organism was initially "intelligently designed".

If there was “little dispute” we wouldn’t be wasting a lot of bandwidth, paper and media attention on this.

I should have clarified my comment. I meant to say that there is little dispute within the field of cosmology, from where the current models for planetary formation originate. (I will also note that I use the plural "models" not because there exist competing explanations, but because there are different means by which a planet can form).

Why?

You have made a specific claim. It is reasonable to expect that you will provide evidence to support it.

1) Galileo was going against hundreds of years of scientific beliefs. 2) Most scientists (if not all) were members of the Catholic Church. 3) No one came to the aid of Galileo. It reasonable to deduce that either the scientists of the day either supported the Church or they were abject cowards being afraid to advance science in the name of saving their own skins. Doesn’t this come back to our discussion about scientists being bias?

Is it not also possible that there were not a large number of individuals who had conducted the same research that Galileo had conducted?

If this is true, then man destroying us either through global warming or blowing ourselves up will be simply another step in the world's evolution.

Planets do not evolve.

Either one must be a good thing.

There is no rational basis for your conclusion.
295 posted on 09/22/2006 12:04:01 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Actually, that reminds me. Lincoln is about as good a proof of Darwinian fantasies as ever existed. Even Marx, as a correspondent for the London Times, upon observing the awkward Lincoln at a White House social function, said that he resembled nothing so much as an orangutan. If we dig him up and check out the DNA, even Lincoln will probably prove to have had human ancestors.

You and I are never going to be described as "we." By we, do you mean people or simian wannabes? In any way that I disappoint you, yes, you will have to learn to live with that disappointment because you sure as Lincoln's permanent address aren't going to change my mind.

296 posted on 09/22/2006 12:04:26 PM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 283 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk

It is a statement. You have made it clear that you believe yourself omniscient. Your position is irrational, and demonstrates that you are delusional.


297 posted on 09/22/2006 12:04:55 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Nonsense. The genome is human. The cells are alive. Hence a living human being at that stage of human beinghood. The science is clear on that, you just don't like the science.

Your statement is presumptious, as I was not offering my opinion on the subjcet.
298 posted on 09/22/2006 12:06:21 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: wolfcreek; RunningWolf

I looked back too and I suspect that I meant to ping Running Wolf in an earlier post and then confused wolfcreek with Running Wolf and then thought I should ping both not realizing the original error. My error. Sorry to have unnecessarily pinged you.


299 posted on 09/22/2006 12:11:22 PM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
To both of you and any other Darwinian delusionists, I will suggest that you take Running Wolf's #274 as my answer.

Good to see the two of you are teaming up. Very apt.

The day will not dawn when tax-fed Darwinian bullies are going to move me a skinny little millimeter toward joining in their delusion that humans are "descended from" apes or whatever. Take Darwin and place him and his idjit theories where the sun shineth not.

That doesn't seem to be the trend set by every recent court decision and election pertaining to this matter in recent history. (Hint: think Dover.) Rational science has the raving lunacy of theocratic fanatics in part to thank for this, as well as the fact that all modern biological and paleontological science supports evolution.

And, Godless is, among other things, Ann Coulter's cogent explanation of the hilarious fantasy that is Darwinianism, to you, Bub.

You honestly think Ann Coulter singlehandedly was able to raise 'valid' points that somehow 'eluded' the minds of scientists all over the world who dedicate their lives and educations to this research? Please. Ann Coulter is about as 'cogent' as Kent Hovind on this matter.

Wanna drag race with Annie for position on the (gulp) New York Times best-seller list???? You'll lose. On such a list of National Review, Human Events or the American Spectator, you'll lose a lot worse.

Irrelevant. Facts are not right or wrong based on their popularity. I think you already know that, though.

BTW, right now, FR is doing a poll on whether Intelligent Design or Creationism should be taught in public skewels alongside Darwinism. I had to vote yes but only because abolition of the hideously expensive gummint brain laundries was not an option. OTOH, a very strong majority voted yes.

I have no problem with creationism being taught along side of evolution. Then, biology teachers could give creationism the public skewering it deserves. You do realize that this is what someone educated in biology would do in this situation, don't you? Still want them taught 'side by side'?

What does Darwinian delusion or environmentalwhackoism or paleopantywaistism or other heresies have to do with CONSERVATISM?????

What does creationism and scientific ignorance have to do with conservatism? This perceived connection is driving sensible people away from the Republican Party in droves. Statements such as yours above are typical of the scientific ignorance people (wrongly) associate with Republicans.

You are aware that this is a CONSERVATIVE website and not an atheist or agnostic or liberal or "progressive" or gummint edjumakashunist or Darwinian website, right??????

That's what I hear. That's why I support hard scientific facts, not this PC dreck called "creationism" and "intelligent design".

To all who make of Darwinian delusion an understandably irrational pseudo-religion, science, like everything else, was created by God. Any "science" which purports to refutes the word of God is a rejection of His truth and therefore not part of a search for truth. If science is not a search for truth, then it is not science.

Rejecting any theory because it doesn't support a conclusion that you wish for is not science, it is apologetics. That's exactly what you appear to do.

If you want to believe that whatever passes for Nancy Pelosi's "brain" is made of Ricotta cheese, it would be an awful insult to lasagna but feel free. America, it's a free country to some extent.

Oookayyy...

If you want to believe that Darwin was capable of simultaneously employing three brain cells, feel free.

Darwin established a biological paradigm shift that has withstood a century and a half of scrupulous investigation, notwithstanding sultry, substanceless attacks by unqualified fundamentalist antagonists. If he did that with only three brain cells, it beckons the question of what contributions you've made to science...

If you believe that human beings are "descended from" apes or earthworms or pterodactyls or natural rock formations or 1929 Model A Ford 2-seaters with rumble seats or Pee Wee Herman or George McGovern or Howard the "Aaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrgh" Dean (I think those three are "primates" and that they almost certainly are simian wannabes, or whomever or whatever, feel free but do not expect respect for such fairy tales from people who know better.

I think you've quite 'cogently' demonstrated through your recent posting history that you don't know better.

If it comforts you to imagine you are "descended from" beasts of any sort, presto and abracadabra! You are a beast! Feel better????? America, it's a great country!

I don't find it comforting at all. If the fact that we descended from apelike ancestors was so 'comforting', it wouldn't cause so much consternation among folk like yourself. I'm sorry science has no respect for your feelings. I prefer to learn the facts and find my way to deal with them, rather than pervert facts to fit my comfort zone. (That I leave to the leftists...)

Now, run along and leave the people (You know, Adam and Eve's progeny and their progeny and.... NOT Bonzo's or Mighty Joe Young's progeny, if any) who have Biblical dominion over you beasts alone.

Unbelievable. Ironically, you scorn the philosophy (science) that has given us dominion over much of nature, as God commanded us.

300 posted on 09/22/2006 12:14:39 PM PDT by Quark2005 ("Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs." -Matthew 7:6)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350 ... 651-696 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson