Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Those Defensive Darwinists
The Seattle Times ^ | 11/21/05 | Jonathon Witt

Posted on 11/22/2005 12:44:07 PM PST by Michael_Michaelangelo

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 701-722 next last
To: kimosabe31
Darwinism has long ago been shown to be pure mythology.

Please, only one "theory" mentions a supernatural being. It sure aint' Natural Selection. It is the so called "Designer" who will remain unnamed.

Can someone please show me some fossils that support ID? Will someone please show me any type of physical evidence that ID is correct. (Evidence that Natural Selection is incorrect does not explicitly support ID. Just because "A" is wrong does not mean "B" is correct.)

101 posted on 11/22/2005 3:37:31 PM PST by GreenOgre (mohammed is the false prophet of a false god.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
The post is linked to the Seattle Times Editorials / Opinion section and gives the author information (that you posted) at the bottom of the article…

Who is guilty of this ‘dishonesty’ that you claim?

102 posted on 11/22/2005 3:44:51 PM PST by Heartlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: proxy_user; doc30; PatrickHenry; RogueIsland
"Could it be that the 'junk DNA' found in the genome is actually meta-DNA that can 'think' and design useful, instead of random, mutations?

No. From a prior post of mine:

Also be prepared to point out that contrary to bone-headed (and unsupported) claims that "it probably never was 'junk'", the fact remains that even though rare cases have been found of specific pieces of "junk DNA" (i.e. non-coding DNA) having some use, only an idiot would leap from that to the conclusion that "it probably never was 'junk'" on the whole, because a) the vast majority of "junk DNA" is non-conserved (e.g. "Comparative genomics has revealed that approximately 5% of the mammalian genome is under purifying selection.", leaving 95% of the genome "inconsequential" from a survival standpoint), a clear indication that it is, indeed, not used in the genome, among many other lines of general evidence supporting the same conclusion (is your correspondent ignorant of these, or just dishonest?), and b) specific tests of "junk DNA" have shown that if it's used at all, the use is extremely rare or subtle, because giant whacking swatches of it can be removed entirely without any kind of obvious harm to the animal.

For example: Megabase deletions of gene deserts result in viable mice. In short, the researchers snipped over 2.3 *million* basepairs of apparently "junk DNA" out of mouse DNA, then produced offspring mice which were entirely missing that DNA. The resulting mice were normal in all respects. As a press release states:

"In these studies, we were looking particularly for sequences that might not be essential," said Eddy Rubin, Director of the JGI, where the work was conducted. "Nonetheless we were surprised, given the magnitude of the information being deleted from the genome, by the complete lack of impact noted. From our results, it would seem that some non-coding sequences may indeed have minimal if any function."

A total of 2.3 million letters of DNA code from the 2.7-billion-base-pair mouse genome were deleted. To do this, embryonic cells were genetically engineered to contain the newly compact mouse genome. Mice were subsequently generated from these stem cells. The research team then compared the resulting mice with the abridged genome to mice with the full-length version. A variety of features were analysed, ranging from viability, growth and longevity to numerous other biochemical and molecular features. Despite the researchers' efforts to detect differences in the mice with the abridged genome, none were found.

Another specific piece of evidence is that the genome of the fugu fish (as well as other fish in the blowfish family) is remarkably "clean" compared to that of other fish (or other vertebrates), even other fish which are rather closely related. It's *missing* most of the DNA that other fish (and vertebrates) have that are collectively known as "junk DNA", and as a result has a genome that is nearly "pure" genes (i.e. coding regions) stripped of most non-coding regions. And the fugu gets along just *fine* without them. How and why its genome got "streamlined" by "cleaning house" of most of its "junk DNA" is a fascinating question which is being looked into, but the fact remains that if this "junk DNA" is all that critical and "actually" used for something after all, on the whole, then how does the fugu do so swimmingly (sorry, bad pun) without it at all?

So I repeat -- there are very good reasons, based on testing and on the evidence, that "junk DNA" on the whole really is "junk". And that doesn't change even if a *few* specific non-coding regions end up being involved in gene expression or whatnot. Finding a few discarded items of value in the city dump doesn't magically change the whole thing into a mountain of pearls.

Another example was in an editorial I read recently:
"Even the most hard-core junkologists admit that a significant portion of human DNA is probably dispensable. For instance, Ohno, now semi-retired from City of Hope, points out several reported cases of people born with millions of bases missing from their X chromosome. And yet, these people lead perfectly healthy lives, an indication that the lost bases probably add nothing to human life."
That said, however, there has been a trend to rename such DNA to something other than "junk", since that is a somewhat misleading term, given how active some of it is, and the role it often plays in evolutionary novelty. Instead some have suggested the "genomic scrapyard" or some similar more evocative term.

A complicating factor is that evolution is adept at making use of, and building upon, things that start out as "random junk". For example, from Perspective: transposable elements, parasitic DNA, and genome evolution: "Of particular interest are transposable element traits that early evolve neutrally at the host level but at a later stage of evolution are co-opted for new host functions."

Furthermore, it's clear that the noncoding DNA has not been "designed" as such, because the evolutionary origins of most kinds of noncoding DNA are understood, and their evolutionary histories can be traced through cross-species genome comparisons. For example: A detailed look at 7 million years of genome evolution in a 439 kb contiguous sequence at the barley Hv-eIF4E locus: recombination, rearrangements and repeats .

Going to the core of your question, however, there *are* features in the genome which actually assist in increasing the efficiency of mutational improvements in the genome, but they hardly rise to the level of "thinking" or "designing", they just do things like raise mutation rates in response to environmental stress (e.g. times when the species might need to genetically adapt or die), or keeping redundant or obsolete copies of genes around as grist for the mill of recombination. All these methods of boosting the effectiveness of evolution are themselves well within the realm of features that could themselves have evolved, they don't look at all "designed" or "preplanned" or "irreducibly complex" or whatever.

103 posted on 11/22/2005 4:03:19 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: aft_lizard
You are taking the most extreme version of Nazism and applying it to this discussion, which is wrong.

Wow. You are the one that did that, not me. I am trying to show you why it was wrong for you to do it. Evolution is science, not socialism. You have been trying - repeatedly - to equate the pursuit of truth in science education with the most oppressive regime in history.

This is a conservative forum. You are not going to find many people here that like being called "nazi"; you ARE going to find many people here who actually know what one is. Call somebody a nazi, and you should expect some grief. I have been much kinder in this conversation than I have in others where I have been called a nazi.

Would you like me to call you a christo-nazi? Do you think that it is appropriate? Do you think that it is accurate? How would you react?

104 posted on 11/22/2005 4:08:32 PM PST by wyattearp (The best weapon to have in a gunfight is a shotgun - preferably from ambush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Owl_Eagle; Jersey Republican Biker Chick; Coyoteman
I read these ID vs. Darwin threads from top to bottom, but what I really want to know is, when do I get to have sex with an ape?

Sorry, there are some things even an ape won't do.

105 posted on 11/22/2005 4:15:43 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
You leave my wife outta this!

What is someone with a screen name like "Elsie" doing with a wife? Or vice versa?

106 posted on 11/22/2005 4:16:14 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Baby Driver
Ever Notice how these howling Darwinist "defenders", are so *very* *anti*-Darwinist is their personal and social policies? In fact, these "Darwinists", are by Darwinian theory...*Devolutionary* in they things they do, and what they praise, ans seek to foster..a culture of decivilizing narciscism and sexual dead enderism.

Ever notice how the anti-evolutionists have nothing to add to these discussions in the way of evidence or research, but are very fond of spewing long bigoted tirades against people who actually understand science?

107 posted on 11/22/2005 4:17:55 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Cicero; TN4Liberty
To put things in perspective, the argument is not whether General Evolution or Intelligent Design offers a better explanation for the way things are. The argument is whether ANY THEORY OTHER THAN DARWINISM will be permitted to make even a token appearance in our public schools.

If you can *name* another scientific theory of the diversity of life, feel free to provide a curriculum for it.

Until then, stop whining. "ID" does not even rise to the level of a scientific hypothesis, much less a scientific theory. It's merely a propaganda campaign.

In other words, Darwinists want a permanent monopoly, and no dissention permitted.

Paranoid much? Feel free to dissent all you like. And we'll feel free to point out how your dissent is ignorant and fallacious.

They wouldn't even sit still for an agreement that the science teacher, almost certainly a Darwinist himself, could mention to the kids if he really felt like it that there was a stupid book in the library by some kook, if they really wanted to take the trouble to go look at it and risk getting a D in the course.

...because the "mention" was scripted to be deeply dishonest, the "stupid book" grossly misrepresented the facts on nearly every page, and the people pushing the "mention" were revealed time and time again to be pushing not science, but their religion.

So stop lying about the actual events, please. You're sounding like yet another grossly dishonest anti-evolutionist, and we have *more* than enough of those already.

If Darwin's theory is so blindingly and permanently obvious, why not allow some discussion about it?

Go ahead and discuss it all you like. Just stop lying about it, and stop trying to dishonestly push religion into schools in a Trojan Horse with "science" scribbled on the side, when it isn't.

Are we clear now?

All we ask is that the AECreationists and "IDers" STOP LYING, stop lying about their beliefs being actual science, and stop trying to get their lies taught to school students. I would think that wouldn't be too much to ask, but apparently it is, because it sure makes them screech like little girls.

108 posted on 11/22/2005 4:25:41 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: kimosabe31
Darwinism has long ago been shown to be pure mythology. It's only supporters are the phoney profs that use it as a vehicle for dumbing down the naive student population and applying for federal grants, AND gullible followers.

Do even *you* believe this goofy twaddle?

For frick's sake, go to a LIBRARY or something and educate yourself before you try again.

And thank you *so* much for giving lurkers more evidence for the common stereotype of conservatives as gradeschool dropouts...

109 posted on 11/22/2005 4:29:24 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: 2nsdammit
1. The first name calling on this thread occurred in post 3. And it wasn't the proponents of evolutionary theory who did it.

Please see my post 23 where I point out that it started in the article. If you want to call names, knock yourself out. I just hoped to facilitate some dialog into the discussion. Ain't gonna happen I s'pose.

110 posted on 11/22/2005 4:30:43 PM PST by TN4Liberty (American... conservative... southern.... It doesn't get any better than this.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: wyattearp
"Name one."

Read the article.

111 posted on 11/22/2005 4:33:57 PM PST by editor-surveyor (Atheist and Fool are synonyms; Evolution is where fools hide from the sunrise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Michael_Michaelangelo

Jonathon Witt

Jonathon Witt, 'A Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute'.

So now the Discovery Institute is devoting it's resources to attacking evolution instead of providing 'evidence' of ID. Sounds like a desperate creationist tactic to me. Sounds like they realize their dream of redefining 'science' and getting ID accepted as the umbrella governing 'scientific' theory of everything, isn't going too well.

Time to get ready for their next effort, 'Intelligent Evolution', which is basically a retreat since it doesn't encompass all of science. But they will sell a lot of book and get a lot of donations.

112 posted on 11/22/2005 4:36:02 PM PST by ml1954 (NOT the disruptive troll seen frequently on CREVO threads)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic; Conservativehomeschoolmama
[asked of Conservativehomeschoolmama:] Evidence? Perhaps a quote from one of Hitler's writings?

<Crickets chirping>

You'll be waiting a *looong* time, Doc -- "mama" is just another AECreationist liar, making things up and posting them without any regard for the truth, or even any clear notion of how truth is actually determined.

Speaking of truth:

Furthermore, Hitler did indeed lean on *God* as support for his "ethnic cleansing":

"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.."
-- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
Hitler's own handwritten notes, drawing an outline of his philosophy:

Hitler divided his study into five sections:

1. The Bible
2. The Aryan
3. His Works
4. The Jew
5. His Work
Under the first section, "The Bible -- Monumental History of Mankind", he lists these topics (among others): "2 human types-- Workers and drones-- Builders and destroyers", "Race Law", "First people's history (based on) the race law-- Eternal course of History".

So it seems that Hitler was actually basing his racial view of mankind on *Biblical* foundations.

Nazi SS belt buckle, with motto "Gott mit uns [God is with us]":

Nazi propaganda paper:

The headline reads, "Declaration of the Higher Clergy/So spoke Jesus Christ". The caption under the cartoon of the marching Hitler Youth reads, "We youth step happily forward facing the sun... With our faith we drive the devil from the land."

Oops!
113 posted on 11/22/2005 4:36:39 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

The Neo-Darwinist Tool-Kit

A
Ignorance & Lies
B
Stupidity & Lunacy
C
Topic Switches
D
Cluelessness & Misc.
1 ID is creationism Quote a Bible passage and show it is wrong (pi) God? Which god (insert FSM or Greek god) [Quote any Darwinist website as though it’s superior because it supports Darwinism]
2 That's a allegoric story and evolution is not! Jonathan Wells is a Moonie You're trying to destroy science You're no Christian!
3 Mutations are not random Science-hater Crusades Spam thread with drawings of transitional fossils
4 You obviously don’t understand science You have no proof Christianity is a form of communism Forget your meds?
5 Problems with the Bible ID is liberalism Religion causes immorality Look at how many scientists name Steve believe in evolution
6 Quote mining! He is a charlatan Liar for the Lord That is very unchristian
7 It's not even a theory! You’re a creationist therefore you are stupid Abiogenesis has ‘nothing’ to do with evolution You drank the cool-aid
8 You’re stupid - I am superior - here is why… Were you there? No dinosaurs on Noah’s ark Fundamentalist!
9 If you believe in ID you believe space aliens created us Macro-evolution is only a creationist term Hitler was a creationist You want to establish a theocracy
10 Supernatural is not observed Galileo Slavery in the Bible Is a snowflake designed?
11 There was not a Cambrian explosion I pity you Morton’s demon That’s not peer-reviewed
12 Spam thread again with drawings of transitional fossils and call the poster an idiot [Quote a Jack Chick comic and claim guilt by association] Who designed the designer? Luddite!
13 Everything is a transitional Insert idiotic Placemarker Inquisition Bad design is proof ID is false and shows the beauty of evolution

Or you can listen to some of these while playing ‘The Game’ (or simply listen by going to the panda gallery).

114 posted on 11/22/2005 4:38:10 PM PST by Heartlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Conservativehomeschoolmama

Hitler worshiped Darwin....

Hitler was a creationist, not an evolutionist. He thought the Aryan race was created as the superior race. He didn't think Aryans and Jews had a common ancestor, as the ToE does.

115 posted on 11/22/2005 4:39:47 PM PST by ml1954 (NOT the disruptive troll seen frequently on CREVO threads)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander

Derivative.


116 posted on 11/22/2005 4:39:56 PM PST by Right Wing Professor (There are twenty-four hours in a day...That's science -- Bill O'Reilly)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
All we ask is that the AECreationists and "IDers" STOP LYING, stop lying about their beliefs being actual science, and stop trying to get their lies taught to school students.

Good example. If someone disagrees with you, they are a liar. Nice!

117 posted on 11/22/2005 4:40:50 PM PST by TN4Liberty (American... conservative... southern.... It doesn't get any better than this.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: GreenOgre
Will someone please show me any type of physical evidence that ID is correct. (Evidence that Natural Selection is incorrect does not explicitly support ID. Just because "A" is wrong does not mean "B" is correct.)

Ogre, no one is asking you darwinists to believe anything. All the ID folks are asking is for "equal time". Get it. Move over and quite blocking the aisle. Intelligent Design has every bit as much or more credibility than has darwinism. Are you (darwinist groupies)so insecure in your beliefs that you feel threatened by competing views?

118 posted on 11/22/2005 4:41:17 PM PST by kimosabe31
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Michael_Michaelangelo

from an interview:
Church of the Nazarene
Rev. Ron Moeller, Pastor

"There isn't very much interest here in intelligent design, because we think the most important thing is saving souls for our Lord Jesus. It doesn't matter if people believe in evolution as a way of understanding the flowers and meadows and animals of God's creation. People come to Christ sometimes by the Bible, but just as often by personal experiences of the Holy Spirit and are born again, sometimes by family or friends, sometimes, I hope, by their pastor. Intelligent design doesn't help at all, because it has no foundation in the Bible.

"It has come up a few times in our Adult Study classes, but the 'specified complexity' and stuff didn't attract much interest. Someone asked, "What does this have to do with the Bible?"

The Presiding Bishop said that "ID opens the door to pantheism and every kind of New Age cults. And it does not mention Christ or the soul, so it is not Christian, and doesn't seem to be good science."

"It [Intelligent design] is probably like one of these cults that come along every few years, like New Age. Maybe it will become its own church, like Scientology or Christian Science. I think in two or three years we will hear very little from them."


119 posted on 11/22/2005 4:41:39 PM PST by thomaswest (Just Curious)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GLDNGUN; Coyoteman
Well, since Hitler simply beieved what Darwin wrote about the races

Evidence? Feel free to quote from Hitler even *mentioning* Darwin. We'll wait.

If Hitler was on my side, I'd throw a fit every time somebody brought it up, too.

See my prior post. Hitler was on your side. Feel free to throw a fit.

To correct your earlier comment:

Well, since Hitler simply beieved what the Bible wrote about the races and put his belief into action it's an important historical lesson.
I am now starting my stopwatch to see how fast it takes GLDGUN to decide that instead of being "an important historical lesson", it suddenly "doesn't mean anything" once he finds the shoe is actually on his own foot.
120 posted on 11/22/2005 4:43:05 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

I thought maybe I should come up with some original ideas – but than I thought, ‘Look at how many people have already done that’ ; )


121 posted on 11/22/2005 4:43:05 PM PST by Heartlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander

LOL, fabulous!


122 posted on 11/22/2005 4:46:07 PM PST by TN4Liberty (American... conservative... southern.... It doesn't get any better than this.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Derivative.

Yes, but it has some good points.

123 posted on 11/22/2005 4:46:31 PM PST by PatrickHenry (Expect no response if you're a troll, lunatic, retard, or incurable ignoramus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: TN4Liberty
[All we ask is that the AECreationists and "IDers" STOP LYING, stop lying about their beliefs being actual science, and stop trying to get their lies taught to school students.]

Good example. If someone disagrees with you, they are a liar. Nice!

You have big problems with reading comprehension, don't you?

No, feel free to disagree with me all you like. I even said so explicitly. What I *do* insist upon, however, is that the AECreationists stop lying their faces off every time they open their mouths.

Here are just a few examples -- out of thousands -- of AECreationist gross dishonesty and truth-twisting propaganda, which you have my permission to repost at any time, since you claim to be a crusader against lies and bullying (from a past post of mine):

Take for example the way that creationst Kent "Dr. Dino" Hovind declares that radiocarbon dating produced wildly different dates for the skin and bones of the same mammoth specimen, in order to attempt to raise questions about the accuracy of radiocarbon dating.

THIS. IS. A. LIE.

Hovind's *own* citation which he gives in "support" of this his false claim -- which is the scientific paper which is the original report on the specimens in question -- states quite clearly that they were DIFFERENT specimens taken from DIFFERENT locations.

When challenged on this point, Hovind gave specimen ID numbers which he claimed were for the samples in question (which, again, Hovind claimed were from the same individual mammoth), and looking up those IDs in the primary literature shows that not only were they indeed NOT from the same mammoth, one of them WASN'T EVEN FROM A MAMMOTH AT ALL (it was from a rhino). Nonetheless, creationist Hovind has never retracted his false claims about the evidence itself.

Freeper Havoc (a creationist) repeated Hovind's lie here on FreeRepublic.

When I pointed out that even Hovind's own citation contradicts Hovind's version, and showed him documentation of that, Havoc mumbled a reply ("you haven't displayed a falsehood, you just make these assertions") and failed to retract the false claim he had repeated from Hovind.

HAVOC THEN REPOSTED THE SAME FALSE CLAIM SHORTLY THEREAFTER ON ANOTHER THREAD.

Summary of the ability of the two creationists (Hovind and Havoc) to present information they *know* is false, and to *fail* to retract when reminded of their falsehoods, is presented here, along with links to all appropriate documentation.

(Quick aside -- Fester, do you condone this behavior of your fellow creationists? Yes or no? Is lying for the "cause" of creationism acceptable to you?)

This sort of behavior, unfortunately, is *typical* of creationists. Here, want dozens of more examples of their distortions? A few more for the road? Another? Still more, perhaps? How about even more? Ooh, here are some good examples. And there's lots more where that came from, like this and this and this and lots more here and *tons* here and countless more here and yet more here, a goodie... Wait, there's more over here, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., *ETC.*, etc., etc., etc., . How about 300 more creationist misrepresentations? Not enough, you say? Well then visit Creationist Lies and Blunders. And at least half of these are outright lies, repeatedly used long after their dishonesty has been exposed (the rest are merely creationist stupidity, *still* knowingly used after the errors have been explained, which is yet *another* form of creationist dishonesty).

For a very recent example, here's something from this week on http://www.pandasthumb.org/ (my highlighting in red):

William Dembski [a darling of the "ID"/creationist movement -- Ich.] finally managed to find the transcript of Shallit’s testimony. Since I’ve been correct on predicting his behavior all the way along so far, I’ve taken another stab at it at Dispatches from the Culture Wars.

Update: Holy cow, I missed this the first time. Yesterday I asked the rhetorical question, would Dembski continue to embarrass himself in this situation regarding Shallit’s testimony? Well, we have our answer. Not only is he continuing to embarrass himself, he’s digging the hole even deeper. He’s now compounding his dishonesty with an attempt to erase the past. He has now deleted all three of his previous posts where he made the false claim that Shallit had been pulled from testifying by the ACLU because his deposition was an “embarrassment” and a “liability” to their case, even after one of those posts got almost 100 comments in reply to it. There’s no word so far on whether he will change his name to Winston Smith.

This really is dishonest behavior, there’s no two ways about it. Clearly, Dembski’s world is one in which he thinks he can rewrite history and no one will notice. I’m dying to hear how his toadies will defend this behavior. It’s not defensible on its own, so they can only attempt to distract attention away from it with a tu quoque argument or pointing fingers at others. So let’s hear what they have to say. Salvador? O’Brien? DonaldM? Let’s hear you defend this dishonest and Orwellian behavior. And tell us again how it’s evolution that undermines ethics and morality while you’re at it.

Update #2: Oh, here’s Dembski’s latest on the subject, in a comment responding to being asked what happened to the previous posts on the subject:

The previous postings were a bit of street theater. I now have what I needed. As for responding to Shallit and his criticisms, I have been and continue to do so through a series of technical articles under the rubric “The Mathematical Foundations of Intelligent Design” — you can find these articles at www.designinference.com. The most important of these is titled “Searching Large Spaces.” Shallit has indicated to me that he does not intend to engage that body of work: http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archive….

A bit of street theater? Okay, let me see if I understand this. Dembski engaged in a bit of “street theater” - meaning “told a lie” - to get a copy of the transcript that he could have gotten two months ago because it’s been publicly available all along? And now instead of admitting to the lie, he’s just erasing the evidence of it? Okay, let’s call a spade a spade here. Dembski is a lying scumbag with no regard for the truth whatsoever. Period. Just when you think he’s hit rock bottom, Dembski begins to tunnel.

Furthermore, I catch IDers/creationists lying on a regular basis on almost every "crevo" thread here on FreeRepublic. Usually they're just cribbing from this extensive list of hundreds of persistent AECreationist dishonesties and distortions, but often they come up with new ones, including libeling via false accusations, misrepresenting what people have written, posting their false presumptions about science as if they were established fact, etc.

I have many hundreds of examples from my own personal experience with them.

124 posted on 11/22/2005 4:46:47 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: kimosabe31; GreenOgre
[Will someone please show me any type of physical evidence that ID is correct. (Evidence that Natural Selection is incorrect does not explicitly support ID. Just because "A" is wrong does not mean "B" is correct.)]

Ogre, no one is asking you darwinists to believe anything. All the ID folks are asking is for "equal time". Get it.

You'll get "equal time" when you have "equal evidence". Get *THAT*?

Move over and quite blocking the aisle.

Stop whining that you have nothing to actually present.

Intelligent Design has every bit as much or more credibility than has darwinism.

ROFL!!!!!!

125 posted on 11/22/2005 4:48:12 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
Furthermore, I catch IDers/creationists lying on a regular basis on almost every "crevo" thread here on FreeRepublic.

Wow, and you call others paranoid! You are keeping files on people? No thanks, I'll play elsewhere. Have a good night.

126 posted on 11/22/2005 4:48:48 PM PST by TN4Liberty (American... conservative... southern.... It doesn't get any better than this.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: RogueIsland; Michael_Michaelangelo; aft_lizard; aimhigh; Steve_Seattle; TN4Liberty; ...
[Moreover, a growing list of some 450 Ph.D. scientists...]

Wow, 450 whole scientists are skeptical. Turn out the lights on the theory and go home! < /sarcasm >

I refer you to project Steve.

That alone makes the anti-evolution creationists' list of "skeptical scientists" look pretty foolish, but *this* one *really* blows their agenda out of the water:

The "Clergy Letter Project": An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science

"Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible – the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark – convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.

"We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.

[As of 22 November 2005, there are 9,975 signatures collected to date]

Click the links that follow to see the alphabetical lists of clergy members who have endorsed this letter

A to E  - F to J - K to O - P to S - T to Z

Listing by States

But hey, I guess MM and his science-hating friends know better than ~10,000 Christian clergy, eh?

...or are they all part of the "vast Darwinian conspiracy" too, who are likewise "professional propagandists that are assigned to twist" things in the anti-evolution creationists' paranoid world?

127 posted on 11/22/2005 4:48:58 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Yes, but it has some good points.

I assume this parody/satire/derivative wasn't unexpected. I assumed someone was going to do this. However, I noticed the unoriginal imitation wasn't named a 'Troll Kit'.

128 posted on 11/22/2005 4:51:38 PM PST by ml1954 (NOT the disruptive troll seen frequently on CREVO threads)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.


129 posted on 11/22/2005 4:51:42 PM PST by Liberal Classic (No better friend, no worse enemy. Semper Fi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

Nope.

What i often see among "strict" evolutionists
is blnkered and dogmatic persecution of
any ideas that conflict with their
"comfy chair" pholsophy that they bluster
with arrogant pompsity about..like the
ones who mocked and svorned and persecuted
with the "evidence" "that everybody knows"
like the way they did to Gallileo...

Protecting their lofty perches, and grand
titles and stipends, with braggadocio and
the fanatacism as virulent as any whilng
dervish...only to have the inexorable grind
of the Wheel of Fate slowly grind their lies
away...Who are you?


130 posted on 11/22/2005 4:55:52 PM PST by Baby Driver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: TN4Liberty
"Wow, and you call others paranoid! You are keeping files on people? No thanks, I'll play elsewhere. Have a good night."

You have captured the essence of Ichy. Search Ichy out in the whole forum. What you'll find is that he is a one trick pony. He is an evo propagandist with no other purpose here, and all he ever does is post boiler plate text; never has any evo posted evidence to support his claims Re: evolution. That is of course no surprise, since there is no evidence, but that hasn't stopped any of their troll tricks here.

131 posted on 11/22/2005 4:57:49 PM PST by editor-surveyor (Atheist and Fool are synonyms; Evolution is where fools hide from the sunrise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
B4, and then B11.
132 posted on 11/22/2005 4:57:56 PM PST by Right Wing Professor (There are twenty-four hours in a day...That's science -- Bill O'Reilly)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: aft_lizard; Ichneumon; wyattearp; Coyoteman; RadioAstronomer
PZ Myers is just one guy, and he shouldn't be considered representative of all biologists, much less everyone who believes in evolution. He has unfortunately become an accidental online spokesman for evolutionists, not because he is an effective communicator (he isn't) or has accomplished anything worthwile in science (he hasn't) but because he is a raving far-left moonbat who got linked by all the other lefty blogs. Frankly speaking, he's an idiot who is as ignorant as his creationist opponents, and should be as much an embarassment to evolutionists as Fred Phelps is to Christians. There are plenty of right-of-center evolutionary biologists such as Matt Ridley and Leda Cosmides, as well as conservative figures such as Charles Krauthammer, John Derbyshire and George F. Will who are more representative of the spectrum beliefs. As for Myers, when I read his Pharyngula blog (as well as Cosmic Variance), I am reminded of something which Heinlein once wrote to John W. Campbell:

For a long time I have from time to time felt exasperated with you that you should be so able to so completely to insulate your thinking in nonscientific fields from you excellent command of the scientific method in science fields. So far as I have observed you, you would no more think of going off half-cocked, with insufficient and unverified data, with respect to a matter of science that you would stroll down Broadway in your underwear. But when it comes to matters outside your specialities you are consistently and brilliantly stupid. You come out with some of the gaddamndest flat-footed opinions with respect to matters which you haven't studied and have had no experience, basing your opinions on casual gossip, newspaper storeis, unrelated individual data out of matrix, armchair extrapolation, and plain misinformation--unsuspected because you haven't attempted to verify it.

133 posted on 11/22/2005 4:59:48 PM PST by RightWingAtheist (Free the Crevo Three!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

I'll bet that i can come up with a list of
scientists that support Evolution as the
complete and only explanation for the ascent
of Man, who have scratched their butts in
public, that dwarfs all the lists put
together...and it would have the same
relevence as the list of "Steves".


134 posted on 11/22/2005 5:00:13 PM PST by Baby Driver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
all he ever does is post boiler plate text; never has any evo posted evidence to support his claims Re: evolution

BWAHAHAHA!

If you jam your index fiingers any further into your ears, they'll meet in the center of your head.

135 posted on 11/22/2005 5:01:06 PM PST by Right Wing Professor ((and it's not if there's anything between his eardrums, anyway))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

You are correct and credit goes where credit is due…

Imitation is also a form of design.

136 posted on 11/22/2005 5:05:07 PM PST by Heartlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
Perhaps you missed my previous post where I quoted a avid evo-athieist:

"To see evolutionary measures and tribal morality being applied rigorously to the affairs of a great modern nation, we must turn again to Germany of 1942. We see Hitler devoutly convinced that evolution produces the only real basis for a national policy.

"The German Fuhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practices of Germany conform to the theory of evolution." -

Sir Arthur Keith, Evolution And Ethics (1947), p. 28

137 posted on 11/22/2005 5:07:10 PM PST by GLDNGUN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
Baby Driver Since Nov 22, 2005

4...3...2...

138 posted on 11/22/2005 5:08:27 PM PST by RightWingAtheist (Free the Crevo Three!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

Comment #139 Removed by Moderator

To: Ichneumon

If you believe that all clergy actually BELIEVE and preach the word of God, you are sadly mistaken. I prefer to place my faith in the unshakable word of God than to a bunch of educated idiots.


140 posted on 11/22/2005 5:11:06 PM PST by vpintheak (Liberal = The antithesis of Freedom and Patriotism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
Until then stop whining. Are we clear now?

Indeed, you are very clear. Darwinists want a total monopoly and don't want to permit anyone hear about anything else. Exactly the point I was making.

141 posted on 11/22/2005 5:12:27 PM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
Added to: The List-O-Links:

NEW The "Clergy Letter Project". 10,000 clergymen endorse evolution.

142 posted on 11/22/2005 5:13:41 PM PST by PatrickHenry (Expect no response if you're a troll, lunatic, retard, or incurable ignoramus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander; Right Wing Professor; TN4Liberty; Liberal Classic; PatrickHenry
Thank you for providing a handy list of useful rebuttals for the times when the AECreationists exhibit "Ignorance & Lies", "Stupidity & Lunacy", "Topic Switches", or "Cluelessness & Misc."

For example, when the AECreationists indulge in the common habit of dishonestly using outdated, out-of-context or doctored quotes in order to dishonestly pretend that some expert agrees with them, it will be *much* handier to simply refer them to "A6!" instead of having to tediously point out their dishonesty.

Similarly, when an AECreationist tries the dishonest "Topic Switch" ploy by trying to discredit evolutionary biology pointing out that there are many gaps in abiogenesis research, it is much easier to respond "C7!" than it is to, yet again, try to explain to them that these are independent fields of study, and that one in no way depends upon the other.

And so on.

But your "Tool Kit" is only preliminary and leaves out many forms of AECreationist ignorance, fallacies, lies, lunacy, tangents, cluelessness, etc. Perhaps you could save yourself more work and simply refer people to this catalog of AECreationist flawed claims instead:

Index to Creationist Claims

edited by Mark Isaak
Copyright © 2005
[Last update: 19 Aug 2005]

Introduction

CA: Philosophy and Theology

CB: Biology

CC: Paleontology

CD: Geology

CE: Astronomy and Cosmology

CF: Physics and Mathematics

CG: Miscellaneous Anti-Evolution

CH: Biblical Creationism

CI: Intelligent Design

CJ: Other Creationism

Authors

143 posted on 11/22/2005 5:20:03 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Michael_Michaelangelo
Modern evolutionary theory has grave weaknesses, the most grave being its inability to account for the creative, transformative role of intelligence in the development of life forms. Intelligent design dares honestly to confront this compelling and vital evidence. Because Darwinism has no credible response based in science, its supporters resort to ad hominem attacks.

Darwinists have become an embarrassment to thinking people.

144 posted on 11/22/2005 5:23:42 PM PST by JCEccles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
OOOOOH, Ichny dumped the big nuke on 'em.

That's a lot of reading. But, most likely, none of 'em will read a word of it, let alone check out the links. (We don't need no stinking data, whadda you think we are, scientists?)

145 posted on 11/22/2005 5:26:20 PM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Cicero; Michael_Michaelangelo; Baby Driver; PatrickHenry
[Until then stop whining. [HUGE AMOUNT OF DISCUSSION BETWEEN THESE TWO SENTENCES DISHONESTLY CLIPPED BY CICERO WITHOUT "..." MARKER] Are we clear now?]

Indeed, you are very clear. Darwinists want a total monopoly and don't want to permit anyone hear about anything else. Exactly the point I was making.

An AECreationist tells another falsehood about someone, so what else is new?

The astute reader is invited to go back and read my post, and see for himself just how laughably bad Cicero's misrepresentation of my position is -- *and* note how much he snipped out between the two sentences of mine he quoted, including:

"Go ahead and discuss it all you like. Just stop lying about it, and stop trying to dishonestly push religion into schools in a Trojan Horse with "science" scribbled on the side, when it isn't."
Whether his gross distortion of what I actually wrote is due to his gross dishonesty, or a reading comprehension so poor that it would embarrass a gradeschooler, is left as an exercise for the reader.

In any case, this sort of thing is unfortunately extremely common when having discussions with AECreationists. I invite lurkers to ponder the reason why.

146 posted on 11/22/2005 5:28:35 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: JCEccles
Darwinists have become an embarrassment to thinking people.

The anti-science movement is an embarrassment to conservatism and Republicanism.

147 posted on 11/22/2005 5:33:11 PM PST by Liberal Classic (No better friend, no worse enemy. Semper Fi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: JCEccles
Modern evolutionary theory has grave weaknesses, the most grave being its inability to account for the creative, transformative role of intelligence in the development of life forms.

Evolutionary theory has no such "inability". The problem is that IDers have been unable to provide any evidence for their presumption.

Intelligent design dares honestly to confront this compelling and vital evidence.

IDers keep alluding to this "compelling and vital evidence", but keep "forgetting" to show it to anyone, even when asked repeatedly.

Because Darwinism has no credible response based in science,

...other than the very to-the-point and very credible response that if the IDers want to be taken seriously *as* science, they're going to have to follow the "rules" of science. To date, IDers have failed to do so, they just want to bitch and moan about how "unfair" and "exclusive" the methods and practices of science are, and try to force their stuff into science classrooms and science journals *without* actually having to bother with that pesky "evidence and research" stuff.

its supporters resort to ad hominem attacks.

IDers call it "ad hominem attacks" when people point out the truth about the IDers behavior, and point out the vast number of times that IDers have been caught lying, engaging in dishonest propaganda, trying to rewrite history, committing perjury, and other behavior that makes them very much like Michael Moore.

Darwinists have become an embarrassment to thinking people.

"ID" has become such an embarrassment that even ~10,000 Christian clergy have endorsed evolutionary biology and stated that ID has no place being taught as science.

Deal with it, and stop making further misrepresentations about science, scientists, and the facts of the issue.

148 posted on 11/22/2005 5:35:25 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

Comment #149 Removed by Moderator

To: JQA12345

Hey, that's right! I've seen evolutionists hang ten creationist partisans who were just walking down the street in retaliation for every one evo that was killed. It's the 3rd Reich all over again!

You were an eyewitness to this?

150 posted on 11/22/2005 5:37:01 PM PST by ml1954 (NOT the disruptive troll seen frequently on CREVO threads)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 701-722 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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