Skip to comments.Darwinist Ideologues Are on the Run
Posted on 01/30/2006 10:27:35 PM PST by Sweetjustusnow
The two scariest words in the English language? Intelligent Design! That phrase tends to produce a nasty rash and night sweats among our elitist class.
Should some impressionable teenager ever hear those words from a public school teacher, we are led to believe, that student may embrace a secular heresy: that some intelligent force or energy, maybe even a god, rather than Darwinian blind chance, has been responsible for the gazillions of magnificently designed life forms that populate our privileged planet.
s/Why does our hear/Why does our hair/
Carl Sagan said it best in Cosmos:
Evolution doesn't require a God, so why create an unnecessary step and include Him?
RE: Human body hair.
Ugh, it looks like this may be the next "frontier" of creationism as a simple google search on "body hair evolution" is clogged up with all sorts of creationist garbage.
Pubic and underarm hair most certainly has something to do with sweat and odor disbursal. Your groin and underarms are the sweatiest places on your body, and also the stinkiest. Some studies suggest the "stink" from your groin is actually a vestigial evolutionary byproduct as well. There's much, much more to this, and I'm sure you'll seek it out.
Paper with worthless words on it makes excellent mulch.
As a FRiendly FYI, Behe accepts common descent and pretty much every tenet of evolution.
Oh, and he also admitted the construct of ID falls apart when studied in the context of science because, as he said, ID is not any more scientific than astrology.
The study was to show the change in population because of an environmental shift. It was a fraud, because the moths don't rest on tree trunks, the primary assertion for the population shift. Yet, it is taught to this day as a case study of natural selection at work in a species.
You terse explanation, though, seems to make some sense. I will take that under advisement.
Apparently not. You're on every one of these threads telling people who believe God is the creator how ignorant they are.
Oh look, *another* lie. No, that is *not* what I do, and if you had any honor, you would retract your viciously false slander.
I have no problem with people who "believe God is the creator". Heck, many of them are evolutionists too.
What I *do* have a problem with is people who post lies about subjects out of gross reckless ignorance, or malice. This is the behavior of most anti-evolutionists. I don't give a crap whether their motivation is a belief in God or not. I *do* care that they are spreading disinformation and lying about science in a way which dumbs down the public. Any belief in God is entirely beside the point. Lie and I'll call you on it, whether you're a Christian or not.
Are we clear now, or are you going to lie about me yet again? I now await your apology for your false slander. But I'm not holding my breath -- I have found that almost without exception, anti-evolutionists have no honor whatsoever, no regard for the truth, no shame when they're exposed telling falsehoods or making false accusations.
Do you ever post to any other subjects?
Yes, as you could have found out in thirty seconds if you weren't too freaking lazy to hit the "In Forum" link on my Freeper homepage. But hey, researching something before saying it is an alien concept for anti-evolutionists, I know -- if you were willing to actually check your beliefs before you spewed them, you wouldn't *stay* anti-evolution for long, because you'd learn enough on the subject to quickly go, "oh, wait, I didn't know what I was talking about..."
I didn't post anything yesterday (the 30th), but the day before that I posted on legal matters and interpretation of the Constitution's commerce clause, the Palestinian/Hamas situation, the danger of monetary aid to Palestinians, the accuracy of the .45 semi-auto, and the legality of felons possessing firearms. And not a single post on evolution.
So, how does it feel to be wrong *again* on a point you could have so easily checked out for yourself?
Or are you just on stand-by to jump into these evo/crevo debates?
See above. And get a clue as to the accuracy of your unchecked presumptions.
Or in a "religious belief and scientific misrepresentation taught as established truth" mislabelled as a "philosophy" class.
My kids had to study Islam in a religion class. So anything is possible. ;)
Do all the links and references that you and others supply to overwhelm those of us who do not accept your position prove that we all originated naturalistically and could not have resulted from creation?
And, since you state that 12 transistional forms have been found are you disagreeing with evolutionist Jeffrey Schwartz of Pitt U when he suggests that the Darwinian model of evolution as continual and gradual adaptation to the environment glosses over gaps in the fossil record by assuming the intervening fossils simply have not been found yet, but argues, they have not been found because they don't exist, since evolution is not necessarily gradual but often sudden, dramatic expressions of change that began on the cellular level because of radical environmental stressors--like extreme heat, cold, or crowding from years earlier? (Recently posted, I think.) Or are we just in for another round of revision of your biology?
" If the theory survives the testing, we can say that it "has not yet been disproven". "
But the issue is when someone comes along and notices that there is a huge explosion of complex fossils in certain strata with no accompanying identifiable transitional forms, the TOE adherents do not see this as evidence which could possibly disprove evolution. Someone came up with the idea of "Punctuated Equlibrium" to get the TOE back on solid ground. But where is the extant data for Punctuated Equlibrium? There is none outside of the fossil record.
This is still a major hole in the fossil evidence and instead of casting doubt on the TOE, as would be reasonably expected, the TOE was amended to include Punctuated Equlibrium even in the absence of any data for Punctuated Equilibrium.
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
Sorry you found problems with the definitions I posted up thread (#100, I think).
I can accept your definition #1 for theory, but not #2. That might be a dictionary definition, but that's not the way scientists tend to use the term "theory." That might fit under the definition I used for "hypothesis."
Elsewhere in your post you mention "tentative theory." That is part of the definition I posted for "hypothesis."
I put some research into those definitions, and tried to limit them more to scientific than lay uses. If you can suggest specific language changes, I would be glad to consider them.
I will never apologize to you for anything. You think you have all the answers and those who disagree are stupid and ignorant.
The great thing is we all shall one day know the truth. Hope you're ready.
Here comes the name-calling.
I stand by my analysis of just how confused someone would have to be to misinterpret Darwin's actual statement in the bizarre manner that TheCrusader did. Or maybe he was just knowingly lying -- it's so hard to tell with the anti-evolutionists' frequent falsehoods. Are they idiots or just liars? That is the eternal conundrum. If pointing out the degree of distortion which was being made is just "name-calling" in your book, then so be it.
(As opposed to making rational arguments)
If you're trying to imply that I *haven't* made a very significant amount of rational arguments on this thread, then you either haven't been paying attention, or I'll add you to the list of folks knowingly making false accusations. Which is it?
"Some studies suggest the "stink" from your groin is actually a vestigial evolutionary byproduct as well."
Really? And all along I thought it was just bacteria.
So now smell is an evolutionary byproduct?
Oh, and why didn't we hear you say "here comes the name-calling" in response to the post which began this thread, since it was the first to throw stones -- at evolutionists?
Why did you only complain when you thought an *anti-evolutionist* was being called names, much later in the thread? Some sort of double-standard? You wouldn't be a *hypocrite*, would you?
Can you visualize what's going to happen to you after I've collected enough primes* on these threads to carry out my coup and take over Darwin central?
There will be some changes, and oh yes, you will rue that post more bitterly than Lev Borisovich Kamenev his unwise attack on Stalin at the 14th Party Congress as you spend the rest of your days in a re-education camp translating Ich's uber-post into Esperanto!
* Damn you! You made me miss #200! Are you working for the PatrickHenry faction?
You obviously learned this paranoid fantasy from some creationist pamphlet, because anyone with any familiarity with actual evolutionary biology (such as myself and countless others) would know that it's laughable nonsense.
But some folks just aren't really happy unless they can feel persecuted.
Colleges and universities must compete with religious institutions for grants, donations, and bequests. When churches are discredited, the schools get more $$$$$$. That's what it's all about.
Wow, you haven't a clue, have you?