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

Skip to comments.

Do you HATE Evolution? Black Student Throws a Fit in Florida Evolution Class
Cure Socialism ^ | March 22, 2012 | Jonathon Moseley

Posted on 03/22/2012 7:44:32 AM PDT by Moseley

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-322 next last
To: Calvin Locke

I watched the video.
The white guy behind her should have punched her out.
A broken nose or crushed larynx would have calmed her down.
No one should be allowed to behave like that in public without retribution.
The sheeple college students just sit and laughed and filmed.
They should have stopped the behavior.


51 posted on 03/22/2012 9:01:03 AM PDT by 9422WMR (Life is not fair, just deal with it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Moseley

I don’t mean to be cruel but your understanding of the principles of evolution is an ignorant caricature.


52 posted on 03/22/2012 9:01:17 AM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Talisker
"Evolution exists, like the law of gravity."

True.

Evolution was taught thousands of years ago by Genesis and explained by the holy Fathers centuries before Darwin.

53 posted on 03/22/2012 9:08:53 AM PDT by Matchett-PI ("Andrew loved the battle and he knew the stakes." ~ Mark Levin 3/2/12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

I have a good acquaintance type friend from Nigeria. She has
shown me some of the magazines they have down there, in English
no less...it shows many white women who are married to
rich powerful black men....my guess is that the LONG GREEN
(i.e. bucks) that is the most attractive color.


54 posted on 03/22/2012 9:11:46 AM PDT by Getready (Wisdom is more valuable than gold and diamonds, and harder to find.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: qam1
'Whereas Christianity teaches the value and infinite worth of E V E R Y human being in God's eyes,'
Soooo Christian men don't look at looks or other charactericts when choosing a mate? Suuuuurrrrre!!!


Of course, all men, whether they have chosen to accept Christianity or not, are attracted to certain characteristics and features in a potential mate.

However, different men are often attracted to DIFFERENT types of women.

I have seen this clearly: Among all non-religious, non-Christian men, before I became a Christian, my fraternity brothers would enjoy the swimsuit episode of Sports Illustrated when it arrived from the mail man. It was amazingly clear how different guys liked VERY DIFFERENT women.

The women who turned my knees to jello, other frat guys would quickly dismiss as uninteresting, and flip the page. The women whom they were salivating over, meant absolutely nothing to me, and were not attractive to me at all. I could see the objective fact that those women were beautiful. But I felt nothing for those women, no interest or desire whatsoever.

What men are attracted to in a woman is DIFFERENT for different men. That is because God intended and planned for diversity.

But evolution assumes that there is only *ONE* "BEST" type of woman for evolutionary success.

Evolution convinces us that there is only a small circle of *BEST* women and all the rest are INFERIOR losers.

In reality, there are many different types of women, and different types of men interested in them.
55 posted on 03/22/2012 9:15:47 AM PDT by Moseley (http://www.curesocialism.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: xzins

“Evolution’s message to us all is: you’re probably worthless.
God’s message is: “For God so loved the world He gave his only begotten Son...””

Beautiful. Perfect. That goes a long way to help understand the differing behaviors of secular folks and Christians.


56 posted on 03/22/2012 9:19:32 AM PDT by MichaelCorleone (Stop feeding the beast; spend money only with those who support traditional American values.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Moseley

Wow, what a bunch of crock this editorial is.

Presuming to get into the mind of another human being, let alone one you don’t know having an irrational outburst? Talk about your political pandering.

This woman never articulated any of the suppositions this article makes, and is beligerent to everyone around her, including many other black women in the class.

This editorial is worthless. Whether you believe in evolution or not, this editorial is nothing more than political propoganda. Her screaming question of “Tell Me How Evolution Kills Black People” is so rediculous on its fact to try to argue it is because she percieves herself as a loser in lifes lottery because she was born black due to evolution is nonsense.

Someone forgets their meds, and its somehow an example of the evil of this or that... silliness.


57 posted on 03/22/2012 9:20:36 AM PDT by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: N3WBI3

excellent point...it can drive one a bit nuts when
someone trys to “dumb-down” evolutionary scenarios so
that people can “believe” in the “truth” of microbes to
man evolution.
I still don’t know why orders of magnitude more
complex and energy çonsuming “meisois” developed, when mitosis
works so well, and the mitotic organisms are so successful
at survival(sometimes using bits of DNA from plasmids,viruses,
other bacterial fusion.


58 posted on 03/22/2012 9:27:20 AM PDT by Getready (Wisdom is more valuable than gold and diamonds, and harder to find.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Moseley

no, it is really bad to hate anything as Jesus told us to love our enemies! But I know evolution is a sophisticated type of mind control and I stand against it and I would never subject my children to it’s doubt inducing influence! Ever!


59 posted on 03/22/2012 9:28:39 AM PDT by fabian (" And a new day will dawn for those who stand long, and the forests will echo with laughter")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI; Moseley; Alamo-Girl; spirited irish; metmom; YHAOS; exDemMom
"....Darwinists specifically do not believe in evolution, being that they reject its very possibility (i.e., directional change into an intrinsically higher state). Rather, they believe in change, a very different thing. In this regard, they are very much like progressives, who also believe in change, but not genuine progress, since their metaphysic abolishes any absolute standard by which real progress can be measured. ..."

Gagdad Bob's insight bears repeating. Indeed, to me, with this observation he nails the "bottom line" epistemic problem of Darwinist theory.

Darwinism holds that Nature uses natural selection to (blindly as it were) produce "better" or fitter species: Species change; they "progress." But absent an absolute standard or criterion of judgment, how can we speak of progress at all? It seems all we really can speak about is directionless change in directionless Nature....

But if Nature is directionless, then where do all its observable regularities come from?

Thanks so very much for the outstanding link, dear Matchett-PI!

60 posted on 03/22/2012 9:32:31 AM PDT by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

This is a brilliant series of inisights, because evolution only makes “sense” in HINDSIGHT — not as it is (supposedly) happening.

At each point of mutation, if there is no intelligence guiding a process, the mutation does not “KNOW” which direction is “better.”

Therefore, each step is EQUALLY likely to move in ANY direction — even back from where it came.

Without any intelligence to determine that this pathway is BETTER, the process cannot work.

But that is because each step is SMALLER than people realize. Each step is a very TINY baby step, too small in and of itself to have any evolutionary advantage or disadvantage. Only MANY steps cumulatively can produce a more adaptively succesful or unsuccessful specimen.


61 posted on 03/22/2012 9:36:09 AM PDT by Moseley (http://www.curesocialism.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: MCCC

This is excellent and deserves emphasis:

NOTICE THE SUBTITLE OF DARWIN’S BOOK: PRESERVATION OF FAVOURED RACES IN THE STRUGGLE OF LIFE

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Origin_of_Species_title_page.jpg


62 posted on 03/22/2012 9:37:54 AM PDT by Moseley (http://www.curesocialism.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Moseley
If you remember what evolution teaches, it teaches that INDIVIDUALS *MATE* BASED UPON PERCEIVED *SUPERIOR* CHARACTERISTICS for evolution.

kinda killed the rest of anything you had to say after that. it's obvious you have no understanding of the theory of evolution.

63 posted on 03/22/2012 9:41:23 AM PDT by consultant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moseley
What is the point of hating evoution? You might as well hate gravity, or relativity, or quantuum mechanics.

It is true that men tend to pursue women they perceive as attractive. It is equally true that women tend to pursue men they perceive as successful. This was going on long before there was ever a "theory of evolution".

64 posted on 03/22/2012 9:47:46 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moseley

Well she certainly reacted in a manner typical of Creationists when confronted with contrary data!!!

I mean the logical quality of her refutation was just amazing, along with her obvious rationality and supreme command of the nature of the evidence and the conclusions one could draw from it!


65 posted on 03/22/2012 9:49:08 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moseley; Matchett-PI; Alamo-Girl; spirited irish; metmom; YHAOS; exDemMom
... evolution only makes “sense” in HINDSIGHT — not as it is (supposedly) happening.

Excellent insight, Moseley! Indeed, what is it exactly that Darwinist theory actually predicts?

Thank you so very much for your kind words of support!

66 posted on 03/22/2012 10:05:35 AM PDT by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Moseley
DO YOU HATE EVOLUTION, TOO?

For the very same reason that Miss Carr understandably hates evolution, shouldn't we all?

What happens if we find out that somebody convinced her she should hate evolution because Darwin is a white guy?

67 posted on 03/22/2012 10:18:40 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moseley

She won’t lose mates because she’s black, but she will if her normal way of dealing with stuff she doesn’t like is flipping out.

There is a right way to oppose evolution. Not going bonkers is the right way.


68 posted on 03/22/2012 10:24:16 AM PDT by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moseley

Liberals live a lifestyle too decadent and selfish to have many kids if they have them at all

Fewer Liberal Children = fewer Liberal genes = fewer Liberals in the future

Do you love evolution with a passion, yet?


69 posted on 03/22/2012 10:50:16 AM PDT by qam1 (There's been a huge party. All plates and the bottles are empty, all that's left is the bill to pay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; Matchett-PI; Moseley; spirited irish; metmom; YHAOS; exDemMom
Darwinism holds that Nature uses natural selection to (blindly as it were) produce "better" or fitter species: Species change; they "progress." But absent an absolute standard or criterion of judgment, how can we speak of progress at all? It seems all we really can speak about is directionless change in directionless Nature....

But if Nature is directionless, then where do all its observable regularities come from?

SO very true, dearest sister in Christ!

Order does not arise from chaos in an unguided physical system. Period.

But as if required as Lewontin says to disallow a "Divine foot in the door" - some would have us believe that life emerged by random happenstance.

But the math does not support it. Self-organizing complexity and cellular automata have guides to the system. Even in chaos theory, there are initial conditions.

And the word "random" - a mathematical term - does not accurately apply to physical systems because the system is unknown and unknowable. Which is to say we cannot know the full number and types of dimensions or fields/particles which have no direct or indirect measurable effect.

For instance, a series of numbers extracted from the extension of pi may appear random if the observer cannot see the calculation even though those numbers are in fact, highly determined by calculating the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter.

70 posted on 03/22/2012 10:58:23 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: DManA
This whole piece is so stupid I urge you to ask the mods to remove it.

Amen.

71 posted on 03/22/2012 11:10:08 AM PDT by gundog (Help us, Nairobi-Wan Kenobi...you're our only hope.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl

One has to wonder what makes them think they are so valuable?

Different circumstances, and they would be oven bait.

When arguing they are little different than a rock, then they also argue they can be crushed.


72 posted on 03/22/2012 11:29:33 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Pray Continued Victory for our Troops Still in Afghan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; Matchett-PI; Moseley; spirited irish; metmom; YHAOS; exDemMom
But as if required as Lewontin says to disallow a "Divine foot in the door" — some would have us believe that life emerged by random happenstance.

But if life emerged by means of random happenstance, then what can Life possibly mean? Or put yet another way, what value can it have?

Plus there seems to be another difficulty: If everything that exists (including the human mind) is the product of random happenstance, then how can the world be knowable by means of the human mind in the first place? If everything that is, is the result of a random cause, then what is there to know? And by what means can it be known?

It seems to me that Darwinist theory is up to its eyeballs in epistemic difficulties of this nature.

Darwinists seem quite calculating and deliberate in tossing Natural Law theory — which principally holds that there is a deep correspondence between the world of Nature and its comprehensibility by the human mind — out the window. Or to put it another way, NLT proposes that the logic of the world is the same logic utilized by the human mind seeking to understand the world. Without that correspondence, there is nothing to know and no way to know it.

But this problem rarely seems to catch the attention of Darwinists — and other professional atheists. Matter is king; random processes somehow cause matter to create "order" — but it's an order that cannot even be thought about really, since in Darwin's theory there is no (non-random) criterion by which the resulting order itself can be evaluated.

As you say, dearest sister in Christ:

... some [e.g., Lewontin, Dawkins, Pinker, Monod, et al] would have us believe that life emerged by random happenstance.

But the math does not support it. Self-organizing complexity and cellular automata have guides to the system. Even in chaos theory, there are initial conditions.

And the word "random" — a mathematical term — does not accurately apply to physical systems because the system is unknown and unknowable. Which is to say we cannot know the full number and types of dimensions or fields/particles which have no direct or indirect measurable effect.

Amazingly well-said, indeed! I so agree....

Thank you ever so much, dearest sister, for your deeply insightful essay/post!

73 posted on 03/22/2012 11:41:58 AM PDT by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
But if life emerged by means of random happenstance

Evolution = abiogenesis?

74 posted on 03/22/2012 11:45:31 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: SkyDancer
Because a Black woman wouldn’t put up with their nonsense.

I think you nailed it.

Men value having a woman who will put up with our nonsense, and who will give us minimal nonsense in return. A woman who is patient with our limitations and appreciative of what we give. The value of such a woman is greater than rubies, as Proverbs 31:10 explains.

Conversely, a woman who is the opposite of that, who does not put up with our foibles, yet expects us to put up with everything she dishes out, is of negative value. We'd rather do without a woman at all than live with such, as in Proverbs 25 "Better to live on a corner of the roof than share a house with a quarrelsome wife".

A woman who is unwilling to put up with any nonsense should accept that men will not stay with her longer than it takes to unload a deposit of sperm, if even that.

75 posted on 03/22/2012 12:04:47 PM PDT by PapaBear3625 (In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. - George Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
It is true that men tend to pursue women they perceive as attractive. It is equally true that women tend to pursue men they perceive as successful. This was going on long before there was ever a "theory of evolution".

Of course, but in the absence of evolution, it is widely (not universally but widely) understood -- as is true -- that WHICH WOMEN A MAN FINDS ATRACTIVE is a matter of PERSONAL TASTE, so that there can be someone for everyone.

But the theory of evolution changes this to the idea that certain women are BETTER than others, and certain women (as Carr obviously felt) are evolutionary TRASH, to be tossed out with the garbage.

I am attracted to a certain type of woman, in various physical characteristics and personality traits that are *ATYPICAL* of the type of women most other men pursue. Women that other men salivate over, I couldn't care less about. I may acknowledge that, like a well-painted masterpiece painting or an excellent luxury car, a woman is objectively beautiful YET have NO personal interest in or desire for that (admittedly beautiful) woman whatsoever. Moreover, the fact that other men are attracted to a woman means absolutely nothing to me -- couldn't care less.

On the other hand, women who make my socks sweat and make my heart turn into a puddle of jello are typically NOT sought after by most other men, to my total bewilderment. A woman I would kill to get (so to speak), whom to me is the most perfect woman ever to live, other men aren't even trying to get.

If God INTENTIONALLY created many different types of men and women and painstakingly PROVIDED for each person someone "right" for them, then no one is better or worse than anyone else. And God did not forget anyone or leave anyone out. (Of course, we can, I believe, screw up God's plans. If we fail to cure our temper or learn about relationships, if we get fat or cause all kinds of conflict or problems in our lives, the man or woman God intended for us may have significant doubts about the wisdom of being with us. But even though we may screw up God's plans, God planned for everyone to have someone who cares about them.)

But evolution suggests that only one type of woman is superior, and all others are evolutionary trash destined for the junk heap of history. Only one type of woman leads to improvement of the human species, and all others are "BAD" for humanity.


76 posted on 03/22/2012 12:13:06 PM PDT by Moseley (http://www.curesocialism.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Moseley
Perhaps the evolution that YOU were taught by ignorant creationist sources suggests such things.

To those who actually know and understand evolutionary theory - genetic diversity is generally understood to be a healthier trait in a species than there being only one “superior” variation.

Humans are stronger as a species for there being human populations adapted to equatorial climates and there being human populations adapted to polar climates.

There is not just one variation of human skin color that is “GOOD” and all others that are “BAD”.

That is based upon a total lack of understanding of the actual theory. Which is all too typical of creationists.

77 posted on 03/22/2012 12:19:54 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man
She won’t lose mates because she’s black, but she will if her normal way of dealing with stuff she doesn’t like is flipping out. There is a right way to oppose evolution. Not going bonkers is the right way.

Of course. No one can defend as appropriate or reasonable Carr's breakdown in class. Her fit is entirely inappropriate.

But what could possibly make a woman feel so threatened and angry as to behave like that? What about evolution would make a woman feel so de-valued and so hurt as to lash out that way?

Women don't act that way unless they feel VERY hurt and disrespected and threatened and rejected as worthless at a fundamental level.

What is it about hearing that animals choose a mate based upon evolutionary superior characteristics could make a woman so hurt and rejected as to lash out like that? Why would she talk about evolution killing black people?

Secret Agent Man, I've learned enough about women to know that *EVERY* woman will react that way if she feels deeply hurt and deeply rejected for who she is. Try it. Try making a woman you have chosen as the "right" woman for you FEEL as if she is worthless, she is trash, and inferior. ONE THING: Will you let me watch? (Just to see the change in your understanding, not because I want to see a train wreck.)

Every woman alive is capable of behaving that way if she feels deeply threatened and rejected in the core of who she is.
78 posted on 03/22/2012 12:22:49 PM PDT by Moseley (http://www.curesocialism.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Moseley
Do you hate evolution with a passion, yet?

The Theory of Evolution is not something to hate, nor something to love. It is just an observation that:

1) Genetic characteristics get propagated from parent to offspring, and

2) Characteristics that improve the survival of descendents are more likely to be propagated than characteristics that impede survival.

Take the example of the peacock, that the professor was starting to get into when the woman flipped out. On the surface, having a large gaudy tail would not seem to be an asset for survival. It takes bodily energy to grow it, it's heavy, cumbersome, and a general handicap to survival. Yet female peacocks select for it in males.

The fact that it's a handicap to the males is precisely WHY females select for it.

Male peacocks to not participate in the raising of their offspring. They just contribute sperm. It's not important how many survive, as long as at least one does per area. But BECAUSE that silly tail is such a handicap, the ones who do survive are the ones with superior strength, energy, and resistance to parasites. These characteristics get passed on to female as well as male offspring. And the whole point of the game is to produce as many superior female offspring which survive to have their own chicks.

79 posted on 03/22/2012 12:25:28 PM PDT by PapaBear3625 (In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. - George Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
No, that is what evolution teaches.

Now, it may be independently the case that genetic diversity creates a healthy population.

But what evolutionists TEACH is very specifically that animals and individuals SELECT their mate based upon characteristics that are perceived to be SUPERIOR to others. This causes evolutionary characteristics to dominate, and less adaptive characteristics to die out. That is the essence of evolution's process of NATURAL SELECTION.

While it is coincidentally true that genetic diversity provides the opportunity to choose the BETTER over the WORSE candidates, evolution DOES NOT teach that animals or individuals SELECT a mate on the basis of creating genetic diversity.

What evolution teaches to the average woman who already feels disrespected is that other women are BETTER than she is, and will be chosen to IMPROVE the human race by getting rid of her, kicking her to the curb, rejecting her, and eliminating her characteristics from the human race.
80 posted on 03/22/2012 12:37:18 PM PDT by Moseley (http://www.curesocialism.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625
It is also interesting to note that testosterone is an immune suppressant.

Therefore there is no good way for a male to “cheat” by producing lots of testosterone to, for example, grow a magnificent rack of antlers - without an equal and opposite hit on the immune system.

So if a female deer sees those amazing antlers - but the buck looks diseased and sickly - she will take a pass. But if the buck has amazing antlers denoting high testosterone production - AND he has a healthy coat and looks fit as a fiddle - she is going to go for that!

He demonstrated that he had a very healthy immune system - while he was growing an impressive rack of antlers - fueled by testosterone production.

81 posted on 03/22/2012 12:40:45 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625
It is just an observation that: 1) Genetic characteristics get propagated from parent to offspring, and 2) Characteristics that improve the survival of descendents are more likely to be propagated than characteristics that impede survival.

This requires you to assume that mating individuals are attracted to characteristics that are "superior" from an evolutionary perspective, rather than God planned different people to be attracted to different choices as mates. You are assuming that every individual selects a mate based upon the exact same criteria. You are eliminating the possibility that different individuals could have different personal preferences and different tastes and personal desires. You are excluding the possibility that individuals have divergent desires precisely so that everyone will have someone to mate with. Your assumptions lead to the conclusion that EVERYONE wants a select few as the ideal mates, while everyone else is out of luck, or has to settle for less.
82 posted on 03/22/2012 12:43:53 PM PDT by Moseley (http://www.curesocialism.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: DManA

“Peacock is code language for black woman? News to me.

This whole piece is so stupid I urge you to ask the mods to remove it.”
*******************************************************
The linked piece is an incredibly stupid overreach of inference. Remember, ASSUMPTION IS THE MOTHER OF ALL FOUL-UPS. This woman is mentally ill and could have snapped in an Accounting 101 class and started to rage on about “it doesn’t balance”. We shouldn’t read into the situation anymore than is actually in it—a sad bi-polar breakdown.


83 posted on 03/22/2012 12:47:15 PM PDT by House Atreides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Moseley
No, that is what ignorant creationists teach about evolution - it is not at all a precept of evolutionary biology that there is only ONE trait that is “Superior” and all others are “Inferior”.

Some traits are selected for by the environment and/or mate selection - other traits are selected against by the environment and/or mate selection.

Add to that the fact that mate selection tends to be associative - and you find that short people tend to prefer short mates - tall people tend to prefer tall mates - dark haired people tend to prefer dark haired mates, etc, etc, etc.

People tend to mate associatively for incisor length as well - although I have NEVER said to myself “Have you checked out the incisors on THAT babe?”.

So it is not the case that only ONE trait is perceived by potential mates to be superior in all cases.

A short blond male may prefer a short blond female over a tall brunette. I am tall and dark haired and I prefer a tall brunette (in general) to a short blond.

That being the case, how could one say that mate selection determined one female to be superior and the other as a candidate for removal of those characteristics from the human race?

84 posted on 03/22/2012 12:48:06 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Moseley
Doesn't hold up. If it was purely a matter of "personal taste" you'd be able to show that prior to the teaching of ToE, and currently anywhere it isn't taught you would not be able to find any kind of agreement about whether a particular woman was attractive or not.

I'll wager that among the people who profess not to believe in evolution I could show them a picture of Janet Reno and get nearly universl agreement that she is not someone they would describe as an attractive woman.

85 posted on 03/22/2012 12:49:50 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Moseley
This requires you to assume that mating individuals are attracted to characteristics that are "superior" from an evolutionary perspective, rather than God planned different people to be attracted to different choices as mates. You are assuming that every individual selects a mate based upon the exact same criteria.

No I don't.

Being attracted to a particular characteristic in a mate is ITSELF an evolutionarily-significant characteristic, which may tend to be passed to offspring. As long as a characteristic is not fatal, there will be a large diversity of characteristics passed along. Thus some of us are tall, some are short, some are dark haired and some are blond. Some are exceptionally fast. Others are very strong.

There is an advantage to a diversity of characteristics in a population. The environment may favor those who thrive in hot weather at the moment. Next year we may start an Ice Age, and cold-tolerant characteristics may be favored.

Also, keep in mind that whatever one's preference in mates, one can only select from among potential mates WHO HAVE SURVIVED to mating age.

86 posted on 03/22/2012 1:08:30 PM PDT by PapaBear3625 (In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. - George Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625; betty boop
"Men value having a woman who will put up with our nonsense, and who will give us minimal nonsense in return. A woman who is patient with our limitations and appreciative of what we give. ....Conversely, a woman who is the opposite of that, who does not put up with our foibles, yet expects us to put up with everything she dishes out, is of negative value. We'd rather do without a woman at all than live with such..."

To quote the poet Rilke: "a good marriage is one in which each partner appoints the other to be the guardian of his solitude . . ." In other words, a good marriage is one in which each partner enables the other to become truly individual, that is, more reflective of the Divine Essence. And the more truly individual we become, the more we contribute to the redemption of the world.

87 posted on 03/22/2012 1:09:53 PM PDT by Matchett-PI ("Andrew loved the battle and he knew the stakes." ~ Mark Levin 3/2/12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

You’re welcome! I agree. :)


88 posted on 03/22/2012 1:28:13 PM PDT by Matchett-PI ("Andrew loved the battle and he knew the stakes." ~ Mark Levin 3/2/12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic; Alamo-Girl; Matchett-PI; Moseley; spirited irish; metmom; YHAOS; exDemMom
Evolution = abiogenesis?

What kind of question is that? I mean, what's the equal sign doing in there?

You are trying to draw me into an acknowledgement that Darwinist evolution is about the origin of species, not the origin of Life. Okay. I so acknowledge.

But the problem of origin of Life does not go away: If matter is all that there is, then it must — all by itself — in some way account for the origin of Life. For we observe that ours is a living universe, or at least one primed for life.

There is a deep "mystery" of an ersatz religious quality embedded in the notion of abiogenesis, a/k/a biopoiesis: How inorganic matter bootstraps itself into organic (i.e., "living") matter.

I do not see rocks bootstrapping themselves into life forms. So on the basis of direct observation, I assume that inorganic matter has no capability to do this.

No wonder you want to make sure that we do not conflate evolution with abiogenesis!

But again, the problem of the origin of Life does not go away, even if Darwinists aren't interested in the problem. How can they be — when their own presuppositions entertain only "naturalistic" (i.e., materialistic) explanations?

And yet what kind of a science can biology be, if it refuses to ask the most essential question that ostensibly belongs to a science of Life (biology = study of Life): What is Life itself? And how can we answer that question, if we do not know what the origin of Life is?

Thank you for writing, tacticalogic. Long time no see!

89 posted on 03/22/2012 1:38:14 PM PDT by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Moseley

Kind of going off on a tangent here, she was not personally attacked by anyone.

You can’t justify her tantrumm as her being personally offended by the theory of evolution itself. It is not the same as someone that has a relationship with her deliberately trying to hurt her and make her feel worthless. One is a theory that is easily objected to without taking it personally as a pointed attack right at you. The other cannot be taken any other way than that.

It shows irrationality and immaturity not to be able to properly distinguish between the two. In short, you do not react to a professor posing a theory you totally object to, and an intimate person you know deliberately attempting to make you feel like garbage. If she can’t figure that out, she is not a grown up woman, but a child.


90 posted on 03/22/2012 1:53:02 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
But again, the problem of the origin of Life does not go away, even if Darwinists aren't interested in the problem. How can they be — when their own presuppositions entertain only "naturalistic" (i.e., materialistic) explanations?

Do you not understand the difference between atheism, and believing that God created life with the ability to evolve? Many people do, and you insult them every time you post something like that.

91 posted on 03/22/2012 2:33:24 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic; Alamo-Girl; Matchett-PI; Moseley; spirited irish; metmom; YHAOS; exDemMom
Do you not understand the difference between atheism, and believing that God created life with the ability to evolve?

Of course I do, tacticalogic.

I am a very strong proponent of the idea that "God created life with the ability to evolve."

But still there is a problem: If Darwinists want to promote inorganic matter as the magic genie that alone makes life and consciousness possible, then they have to "bump off God" first.

If I "insult you" by stating the obvious, I am very sorry for your pain....

92 posted on 03/22/2012 3:11:45 PM PDT by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

So would you be a “Darwinist” as well - if you accept that life can (and does) evolve?

Is it possible to accept evolution and NOT be a “Darwinist”?

Is it possible to accept evolution through natural selection of genetic variation and NOT be a “Darwinist”?

Are all “Darwinists”, by your definition, also atheists?

You sure seem to think so based upon your previous posts.


93 posted on 03/22/2012 3:26:23 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
"If Darwinists want to promote inorganic matter as the magic genie that alone makes life and consciousness possible, then they have to "bump off God" first."

And there’s the sticker. A totally naturalistic explanation cannot be proposed without “bumping off” God. Either Mankind and the Universe “like Topsy just growed” or it is a product of creation and a Creator.

94 posted on 03/22/2012 3:32:16 PM PDT by YHAOS (you betcha!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
The instructor teaching this class may well have been of the same mind. Assuming by "Dawinists" you mean "philosopical naturalists", there is nothing in evidence to indicate anyone involved in this was.

The premise of the argument presented in the article is everyone should hate "evolution", not philosophical naturalism, and your arguments play directly into that. Being a proponent of evolution, I'd think you'd know better.

95 posted on 03/22/2012 3:33:22 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; tacticalogic; Alamo-Girl; Matchett-PI; Moseley; spirited irish; metmom; YHAOS; ...
Is it possible to accept evolution and NOT be a “Darwinist”?

Absolutely!

Genesis 1 and 2 are very clear that the Creation is ever-created and sustained by the Logos of God, Alpha to Omega. That is to say, the Creation was made to evolve in space and time, from its Beginning (origin) to its End (final consummation).

That is to say: I don't need to be a Darwinist to grasp the idea of "evolution."

To your question — "Are all 'Darwinists', by your definition, also atheists?" — my answer would be: Not necessarily. However, hard-core materialists can probably be reliably placed in that category. Cf.: Dawkins, Lewontin, Pinker, Singer, Monod, et al. (Not to mention their "fan clubs.")

96 posted on 03/22/2012 3:45:00 PM PDT by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic; allmendream; Alamo-Girl; Matchett-PI; Moseley; spirited irish; metmom; YHAOS
The instructor teaching this class may well have been of the same mind. Assuming by "Darwinists" you mean "philosophical naturalists", there is nothing in evidence to indicate anyone involved in this was.

On the contrary, the young lady who objected to what the professor was saying may have been the only person in the room who was not a "philosophical naturalist." I do feel fairly assured that the professor was such, and therefore a Darwinist as well (and thus very likely a materialist; the two just go hand-in-hand, like peanut butter and jelly).

I do not think the young lady's objection was the least bit irrational. It seems she understands the "fundamentals" of Darwinism better than the Darwinists purport to do....

97 posted on 03/22/2012 3:55:54 PM PDT by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
On the contrary, the young lady who objected to what the professor was saying may have been the only person in the room who was not a "philosophical naturalist." I do feel fairly assured that the professor was such, and therefore a Darwinist as well (and thus very likely a materialist; the two just go hand-in-hand, like peanut butter and jelly).

On what evidence? It's also possible somebody convniced her she should hate evolution because Darwin was a white guy.

98 posted on 03/22/2012 4:00:13 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS; tacticalogic; Alamo-Girl; Matchett-PI; Moseley; spirited irish; metmom; exDemMom
A totally naturalistic explanation cannot be proposed without “bumping off” God. Either Mankind and the Universe “like Topsy just growed” or it is a product of creation and a Creator.

Indeed: There is no third causal alternative that I can see.

Perhaps if such folks could be disabused of the widely prevailing notion nowadays that faith and reason, science and philosophy (including theology, the "queen of metaphysics") are necessarily mutually-exclusive, basic intellectual sanity could be restored. They are not mutually-exclusive: This notion posits a false dichotomy. What they are instead, are complementary knowledge domains — which have been mutually assisting one another for some seven millennia by now.

This I suppose would be news to those people who hold human history in so much contempt that evidently they believe the world only started on the day they were born....

99 posted on 03/22/2012 4:09:12 PM PDT by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Moseley; 2Jedismom; 6amgelsmama; AAABEST; aberaussie; AccountantMom; Aggie Mama; agrace; ...

ANOTHER REASON TO HOMESCHOOL

This ping list is for the “other” articles of interest to homeschoolers about education and public school. This can occasionally be a fairly high volume list. Articles pinged to the Another Reason to Homeschool List will be given the keyword of ARTH. (If I remember. If I forget, please feel free to add it yourself)

The main Homeschool Ping List handles the homeschool-specific articles. I hold both the Homeschool Ping List and the Another Reason to Homeschool Ping list. Please freepmail me to let me know if you would like to be added to or removed from either list, or both.

100 posted on 03/22/2012 4:10:44 PM PDT by metmom ( For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-322 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