Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Tom, The Dancing Bug
MSNBC ^ | 2 July 2005 | Ruben Bolling

Posted on 07/05/2005 7:07:57 PM PDT by balrog666




TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: adhominem; churchofdarwin; creationism; crevolist; darwin; evolution; fundamentalism; gratuituousabuse; liberalism; news; religion
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-281 next last
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
1 posted on 07/05/2005 7:07:58 PM PDT by balrog666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%; AntiGuv; BMCDA; CobaltBlue; Condorman; Dimensio; Doctor Stochastic; general_re; ...

Ping!


2 posted on 07/05/2005 7:09:43 PM PDT by balrog666 (A myth by any other name is still inane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: balrog666

Looks like you like to fight


3 posted on 07/05/2005 7:11:32 PM PDT by woofie (Neocon spelled backward is Nocoen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: balrog666

AFAIK, few creationists dispute microevolution which is readily observable.


4 posted on 07/05/2005 7:16:15 PM PDT by UncleDick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: balrog666

Taking cover...


5 posted on 07/05/2005 7:18:00 PM PDT by Kirkwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UncleDick

afaik?


6 posted on 07/05/2005 7:19:03 PM PDT by beebuster2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: balrog666

Bubba, I sure hope you have your asbestos underwear on. I'm going to pop some popcorn. This oughta be good.


7 posted on 07/05/2005 7:19:33 PM PDT by Junior (“Even if you are one-in-a-million, there are still 6,000 others just like you.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UncleDick

Right, the cartoon is very exxagerated.


8 posted on 07/05/2005 7:20:23 PM PDT by RightthinkinAmerican (Is the Republican attack machine an assault weapon?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: balrog666

Gosh, I thought the way Leftists fought deadly disases was to declare them Constitutionally propected via the right of privacy.


9 posted on 07/05/2005 7:20:28 PM PDT by Reactionary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UncleDick

But creationists never explain the magic cutoff switch that keeps all those "micro" changes from adding up to a "macro" change.


10 posted on 07/05/2005 7:20:53 PM PDT by Junior (“Even if you are one-in-a-million, there are still 6,000 others just like you.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: balrog666

Oh, I get it. This is some sort of moronic humor from the MSM and you wanted to show us what total asses they are. Thanks, but be careful they don't influence you.


11 posted on 07/05/2005 7:23:01 PM PDT by chickenlips
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Junior

"But creationists never explain the magic cutoff switch that keeps all those "micro" changes from adding up to a "macro" change."

Creationists tend to believe that speciation is not attributable to evolution, so why would creationists be looking for your "magic switch?" You're unintentionally supporting your own little bogeyman there, bubba... aintcha now? LOL.


12 posted on 07/05/2005 7:25:28 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry (Esse Quam Videre)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Junior

( sound of digging ) still looking for a fossil record proving macro-evolution...

cave men were artists, where are the proto-artists?


13 posted on 07/05/2005 7:26:55 PM PDT by WriteOn (Truth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: beebuster2000

As Far As I Know


14 posted on 07/05/2005 7:27:52 PM PDT by UncleDick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

Evolution means "change." Speciation is a change. Therefore speciation is evolution. Define "macro" evolution, so I know we're on the same page.


15 posted on 07/05/2005 7:28:11 PM PDT by Junior (“Even if you are one-in-a-million, there are still 6,000 others just like you.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Junior
"But creationists never explain the magic cutoff switch that keeps all those "micro" changes from adding up to a "macro" change."
And how do you think have we ever gotten to the "creationist" species unless by accumulation of micro-changes? At first everything seems normal (the changes are "micro"), and then - BA-BAM! - a creationist.
16 posted on 07/05/2005 7:28:30 PM PDT by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

Comment #17 Removed by Moderator

To: balrog666

If evolution is a settled scientific fact, then how does one explain the ever-increasing number of untalented, unfunny leftist cartoonists? You'd think those nerds would all die out without leaving progeny.


18 posted on 07/05/2005 7:31:36 PM PDT by RichInOC (The dyslexic fool hath said in his heart, "There is no Dog.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Junior

"Evolution means "change." Speciation is a change. Therefore speciation is evolution."

Oh, please. Therefore a rectangle is a square, by your deductive reasoning. Try harder.


19 posted on 07/05/2005 7:32:47 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry (Esse Quam Videre)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: balrog666

The best evidence for evolution are the creationists, for they have not evolved.


20 posted on 07/05/2005 7:32:55 PM PDT by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: balrog666

21 posted on 07/05/2005 7:33:52 PM PDT by TADSLOS (Right Wing Infidel since 1954)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: balrog666

Not really, as history supports much of the bible. Your username is even childishly provocative.


22 posted on 07/05/2005 7:34:34 PM PDT by RightthinkinAmerican (Is the Republican attack machine an assault weapon?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: RichInOC
If evolution is a settled scientific fact, then how does one explain the ever-increasing number of untalented, unfunny leftist cartoonists? You'd think those nerds would all die out without leaving progeny.

That's a question better left to the women ...

Don't we know they control the ultimate evolution of the human race?

23 posted on 07/05/2005 7:36:05 PM PDT by balrog666 (A myth by any other name is still inane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: RightthinkinAmerican

Oh, and there's the little "missing link" problem for you to explain.


24 posted on 07/05/2005 7:37:12 PM PDT by RightthinkinAmerican (Is the Republican attack machine an assault weapon?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: RightthinkinAmerican
Not really, as history supports much of the bible. Your username is even childishly provocative.

History supports much of most novels, so what?

And your user name isn't? Get a life.

25 posted on 07/05/2005 7:37:49 PM PDT by balrog666 (A myth by any other name is still inane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: RightthinkinAmerican
Oh, and there's the little "missing link" problem for you to explain.

Look in a mirror.

26 posted on 07/05/2005 7:38:31 PM PDT by balrog666 (A myth by any other name is still inane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: balrog666

"And your user name isn't?"

The evolutionary equivalent of "neener neener neener," no doubt. Your sub-genus is showing.


27 posted on 07/05/2005 7:40:25 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry (Esse Quam Videre)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: balrog666

So sad, little childish creep.


28 posted on 07/05/2005 7:41:02 PM PDT by RightthinkinAmerican (Is the Republican attack machine an assault weapon?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

The mirror he''s looking for is his own.


29 posted on 07/05/2005 7:41:44 PM PDT by RightthinkinAmerican (Is the Republican attack machine an assault weapon?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
The evolutionary equivalent of "neener neener neener," no doubt. Your sub-genus [sic] is showing.

Oooh, such intellectual discourse from a recognized genius!

I may swoon!

30 posted on 07/05/2005 7:47:23 PM PDT by balrog666 (A myth by any other name is still inane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: balrog666

"I may swoon!"

Bless her little heart.


31 posted on 07/05/2005 7:48:20 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry (Esse Quam Videre)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: RightthinkinAmerican

Well this thread devolved into childish name-calling faster than I expected.


32 posted on 07/05/2005 7:48:36 PM PDT by Kirkwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Kirkwood

"Well this thread devolved into childish name-calling faster than I expected."

Might it have something to do with a tone that can only be described as bigoted, coming from a poster with "666" in her screen name? Ya think?


33 posted on 07/05/2005 7:52:56 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry (Esse Quam Videre)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: balrog666

Since I discovered that the evolutionists have been lying to me in biology textbooks since I was 10 years old, and fossil records have failed to prove species change, their credibility is virtually zero. Your choice of a ham-fisted cartoon to insult the intellect of those of us who do not swallow this unsubstantiated theory does little to change my mind.


34 posted on 07/05/2005 8:05:22 PM PDT by GenXFreedomFighter (We smirked our way back for a second term!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

Actually, I was thinking of the creationist side. There is no reason to be childish just because you can't make your case with facts.


35 posted on 07/05/2005 8:05:27 PM PDT by Kirkwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: GenXFreedomFighter
Since I discovered that the evolutionists have been lying to me in biology textbooks since I was 10 years old, and fossil records have failed to prove species change, their credibility is virtually zero.

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA!

And this statement tells us what about whom?

36 posted on 07/05/2005 8:12:15 PM PDT by balrog666 (A myth by any other name is still inane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
All right, you want an example? How about this?

I remember this drawing, or one similar to it, which was supposed to convince my young skull full of mush that since embryos of humans, amphibians, dogs, birds, and reptiles kinda sorta looked alike, then they must all be related. This was published in textbooks long after it was proven to be a fake. If it's such ironclad, settled science, then why all the fakery?

That cartoon also tells me a lot about people who want me to believe in evolution based on the evidence to date.

37 posted on 07/05/2005 8:26:50 PM PDT by GenXFreedomFighter (We smirked our way back for a second term!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: woofie
Looks like you like to fight

The creationsists started it.


38 posted on 07/05/2005 8:45:51 PM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Comment #39 Removed by Moderator

To: balrog666

LOL. I love it!


40 posted on 07/05/2005 9:02:50 PM PDT by Clemenza (Where is the Genius of Love?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chickenlips; balrog666
Oh, I get it. This is some sort of moronic humor from the MSM and you wanted to show us what total asses they are.

Actually, it's not moronic at all. I *wish* it were, but it's not. American anti-evolution creationists pose the same dangerous threat to America's lead in the sciences that the anti-evolution Lysenkoists did to Soviet science. When the Lysenkoists replaced an understanding of Darwinian evolution with their own ideology-driven (but factually incorrect) view of biology, millions died as a result.

If the American creationist ever manage to impose their will on research and/or science education in this country, the results would catastrophic to the US as well.

41 posted on 07/05/2005 9:08:05 PM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry; Junior; UncleDick; PatrickHenry
["But creationists never explain the magic cutoff switch that keeps all those "micro" changes from adding up to a "macro" change."]

Creationists tend to believe that speciation is not attributable to evolution, so why would creationists be looking for your "magic switch?" You're unintentionally supporting your own little bogeyman there, bubba... aintcha now? LOL.

You're entirely missing the point. Many creationists frequently claim that "sure, evolution can produce significant amounts of 'microevolution' within a 'kind', (although they never actually define 'kind' in any testable way], but it's incapable of producing 'macroevolutionary' change".

This begs the question, "oh, why not?" If, as the creationists admit, evolution can produce significant amounts of change, then *what* exactly would (allegedly) stop it from accumulating more and more changes over more time until the amount of change is large enough to produce a different "kind" eventually? In other words, creationists argue an (imaginary) dividing line between what they say is *possible* "microevolutionary" change and (impossible) "macroevolutionary" change. Okay, fine -- feel free to define the line, and explain the (imaginary) mechanism that *blocks* "microevolution" from accumulating enough change to result in "macroevolution".

Go ahead, we'll wait...

While you're at it, read my prior post and look at the "fish to elephant" transitional fossil sequence. Feel free to point out the two consecutive fossils which are so different from each other that no creationist would write them off as just "microevolutionary" change. Can't find any? Neither can I. Okay, then, what magical process prevents those several dozen "microevolutionary" steps from occurring one after the other to eventually result in the indisputably *MACRO*evolutionary change of a fish lineage evolving into elephants over 400 million years of accumulated "micro"evolutionary transitions?

42 posted on 07/05/2005 9:18:12 PM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: balrog666

This contributes absolutely nothing to the debate, no matter what you believe. It is every bit as nasty and useless as the crap spewed by the likes of leftists such as Aaron McGruder.

It's not funny, it's not even close to accurate, it's not worth anything. It's just very, very childish taunting. It's nothing but flamebait. And you know it.

Are you normally this way or did a "creationist" say something to you today and you are just venting?


43 posted on 07/05/2005 9:18:16 PM PDT by DameAutour
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightthinkinAmerican; Junior; balrog666
Right, the cartoon is very exxagerated.

Tell that to the millions who died in the Soviet Union when pretty much exactly that happened to the Soviet scientists at the hands of the Lysenkoists.

As the saying goes, those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it.

44 posted on 07/05/2005 9:20:47 PM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry; Junior; balrog666
["Evolution means "change." Speciation is a change. Therefore speciation is evolution."]

Oh, please. Therefore a rectangle is a square, by your deductive reasoning.

No, it isn't. But just for giggles, *do* feel free to try to demonstrate your flawed assertion in a manner which is actually analogous to his point.

Try harder.

He's doing fine -- his definition is entirely correct. You might want to try again, however.

Evolution is change in a population's genepool across generations. Speciation is indeed a change in a population's genepool. Speciation is indeed evolution. Not all evolution results in speciation, of course, but then he didn't claim that it did.

If you actually want to try to dispute this, then you're quite simply incorrect. You might want to go learn something about biology before you attempt to discuss it, and *especially* before you attempt to "refute" it.

Also, is there any reason you dodged this request of his?

Define "macro" evolution, so I know we're on the same page.
Besides the obvious, I mean.

Furethermore, you wrote: Creationists tend to believe that speciation is not attributable to evolution. Okay, I'll bite -- what exactly *do* they attribute it to? Be sure that you explain what exactly you mean by "speciation" in the context of your claim.

45 posted on 07/05/2005 9:29:39 PM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: UncleDick; balrog666; RightthinkinAmerican; chickenlips
AFAIK, few creationists dispute microevolution which is readily observable.

You clearly don't have much experience with creationists.

Whenever the evolution of antibiotic resistance is discusssed on these threads, almost without fail several ardent creationists try to claim that the resistance "must have" somehow been "in" the bacterial genome to start with, because (they assert) it's "impossible" for evolution to produce any new beneficial functionality.

They're dead wrong, and just ignorantly repeating lies told to them by other creationists, but they're absolutely certain that they know more about the subject than the biologists who actually research these things.

46 posted on 07/05/2005 9:30:14 PM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RightthinkinAmerican
Not really, as history supports much of the bible.

History supports much of "Gone With the Wind", too.

Are you alleging that this is therefore sufficient evidence for the complete validity of *every* portion of these books?

And what about the parts which history, geology, physics, etc. actually contradict?

47 posted on 07/05/2005 9:33:01 PM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: RightthinkinAmerican
Oh, and there's the little "missing link" problem for you to explain.

What problem would *that* be, exactly?

Here, educate yourself: Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ.

Fossil Hominids: The Evidence for Human Evolution.

Hominid Species.

Comparison of hominid skulls.

Where exactly is the "missing" transition in the following sequence? It looks pretty complete and gradual to me -- certainly there's no sudden "jump", no discontinuity, no pair between which a creationist would have any trouble dismissing such a small amount of change as "just microevolution", "just variation within a kind":

Figure 1.4.4. Fossil hominid skulls. Some of the figures have been modified for ease of comparison (only left-right mirroring or removal of a jawbone). (Images © 2000 Smithsonian Institution.)

(The above is from 29 Evidences for Macroevolution -- Part 1: The Unique Universal Phylogenetic Tree)

So what do you think is "missing", and where's the "problem"? For bonus points, provide citations to the primary literature which supports your assertions. For really big bonus points, don't say anything that reveals complete ignorance of the field you're attempting to discuss, or which is trivially refuted by facts and/or evidence which has been widely known for more than several decades. Go for it.

48 posted on 07/05/2005 9:47:06 PM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

How come they pulled #39?


49 posted on 07/05/2005 10:42:40 PM PDT by woofie (Neocon spelled backward is Nocoen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: woofie
How come they pulled #39?

Good question. It was a long compilation of the evidence for "macroevolution" which several posters on this thread falsely implied didn't exist. I have posted it on previous threads when appropriate as well, without incident.

50 posted on 07/06/2005 1:21:15 AM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-281 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
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

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