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

Skip to comments.

Darwinist Ideologues Are on the Run
Human Events Online ^ | Jan 31, 2006 | Allan H. Ryskind

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: crevolist; delusionalnutjobs; evolution; idiocy; ignoranceisstrength; intelligentdesign; whataloadoffeces
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300 ... 1,151-1,188 next last
To: ShadowAce

s/Why does our hear/Why does our hair/


201 posted on 01/31/2006 10:18:04 AM PST by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

Carl Sagan said it best in Cosmos:

Evolution doesn't require a God, so why create an unnecessary step and include Him?


202 posted on 01/31/2006 10:18:43 AM PST by frgoff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

203 posted on 01/31/2006 10:21:08 AM PST by Mulch (tm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce; Ichneumon

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.


204 posted on 01/31/2006 10:22:55 AM PST by whattajoke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: Mulch

Paper with worthless words on it makes excellent mulch.


205 posted on 01/31/2006 10:24:22 AM PST by furball4paws (Awful Offal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: 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.


206 posted on 01/31/2006 10:24:52 AM PST by whattajoke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: BMCDA
That most certainly wasn't an experiment and the moths were glued to a tree for illustrative purposes only.

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.

207 posted on 01/31/2006 10:25:25 AM PST by frgoff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke
Thank you for the reply. Actually, I had not heard what the "next "frontier" of creationism" is, as I don't follow a lot of those sites.

You terse explanation, though, seems to make some sense. I will take that under advisement.

208 posted on 01/31/2006 10:28:16 AM PST by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
["We've got better things to do than correct your lies."]

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.

209 posted on 01/31/2006 10:29:55 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: MedicalMess
Please... there is no soul.

I'd be interested in understanding what your definition of "soul" is and then why you don't believe it exists.
210 posted on 01/31/2006 10:30:25 AM PST by Mulch (tm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
They're saying it shouldn't be taught in a science class, especially biology class.

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. ;)

211 posted on 01/31/2006 10:31:39 AM PST by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

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?


212 posted on 01/31/2006 10:32:00 AM PST by DX10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA

" If the theory survives the testing, we can say that it "has not yet been disproven". "

Agreed.

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.


213 posted on 01/31/2006 10:33:02 AM PST by webstersII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA
With respect -- the definition of theory that Coyoteman posted is bogus. It's worse than a "layman definition" -- it's wrong. Theories can be based either on deductive or inductive reasoning. Here's a definition from Answers.com (just the parts that pertain to this discussion)

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.

214 posted on 01/31/2006 10:33:02 AM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

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.


215 posted on 01/31/2006 10:34:02 AM PST by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: ThomasNast
[He said no such thing, but he did say something quite reasonable that someone with brain-damage might have been able to mistake for something that incredibly stupid.]

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?

216 posted on 01/31/2006 10:34:30 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke

"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?


217 posted on 01/31/2006 10:35:37 AM PST by webstersII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: ThomasNast
Here comes the name-calling.

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?

218 posted on 01/31/2006 10:36:10 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke
Can you visualize me shaking my head at you people?

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?


The Conspiracy That Cares

Promoting the Glory of Hoplite Since 2006


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?

219 posted on 01/31/2006 10:37:45 AM PST by Hoplite (But seriously, I'm an evo too.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Syncretic
People should appreciate the evolution theory for what it is: a line of propaganda put out by the colleges that has the aim of discrediting religion.

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?

220 posted on 01/31/2006 10:40:02 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Thanks for the PING)))) E.S.....

But what's up with all the spam..??? is this the new EVO strategy?

Looks like DC sent out a memo....
221 posted on 01/31/2006 10:41:54 AM PST by darbymcgill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852

Lord knows that Ichy and I have our differences but he is one of the few committed ND's that does contribute to threads concerning issues of concern to conservatives. You gotta give the "devil" his due. No offense Ichy. :-}


222 posted on 01/31/2006 10:42:10 AM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: frgoff
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.

Aw geez! I guess you got me there. Every five year old knows that peppered moths never ever rest on the trunk of a tree or any other part of a tree covered with bark.

223 posted on 01/31/2006 10:43:44 AM PST by BMCDA (If the human brain were so simple that we could understand it,we would be so simple that we couldn't)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon; Syncretic
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.

Actually it's the creationists and ID'ers that have created a multi-billion dollar industry separating believers from their money. Dr. Hovind claims to be taking in $24 million a year (the last time I checked) from donations alone.

And you should be aware that most biologists are Christians. I have to assume, Syncretic, that you don't know very many.

224 posted on 01/31/2006 10:44:38 AM PST by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: darbymcgill
But what's up with all the spam..??? is this the new EVO strategy?

Lemme guess... in your world, the mountains of biology books and scientific papers is "spam?" Boy, you guys really have no shame, eh?
225 posted on 01/31/2006 10:47:03 AM PST by whattajoke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
Instead, all they have to offer are lies.

...and, disgustingly, the slander of a dead man's name. No character a--holes.

226 posted on 01/31/2006 10:49:17 AM PST by WildHorseCrash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
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.

We need a thread devoted to working up definitions we can all agree on, and then we can forever link to the final result. What we end up with may be what you already have, or it may get tweaked a bit. It should probably be posted in the smokey backroom or something. I'm mulling it over.

227 posted on 01/31/2006 10:51:29 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%
And you should be aware that most biologists are Christians.

Yeah, so they claim but them Darwin-worshippers are no Troo ChristiansTM.

;-)

228 posted on 01/31/2006 10:53:47 AM PST by BMCDA (If the human brain were so simple that we could understand it,we would be so simple that we couldn't)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: BMCDA

I thought I was going to get the trademark on that...

:o(


229 posted on 01/31/2006 10:55:40 AM PST by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce
Why do we acquire pubic hair only at sexual maturity? Why does our hear grow thickest between the legs and under the arms--the two warmest places on the human body?

Wouldn't these also be the smelliest parts of the human body?

Isn't odor a part of what attracts one animal to another?

230 posted on 01/31/2006 10:56:24 AM PST by Ol' Dan Tucker (Karen Ryan reporting...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: metmom; furball4paws; VOA
People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Indeed, which makes me wonder why the fraudulent creationists keep throwing stones. No one lies as frequently or unashamedly as an anti-evolutionist. Even the liberals have (slightly) better track records.

Studies examine withholding of scientific data among researchers, trainees

Did you actually read that article, or just the hysterical commentary that followed?

Clue for the clueless: It's an article about how data that has commercial value (i.e., for patents, etc.) isn't made publicly available for free, because the researchers want to be able to make a buck on it and not just give it away.

The horror! The horror!

So anti-evolutionists are anti-capitalist now, too, along with just being grossly dishonest and anti-science, eh? Hardly surprising.

231 posted on 01/31/2006 10:57:43 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: webstersII
You've raised some interesting points. I don't lay claim to any expertise on the subject of evolution or ID -- though I've learned some things from these threads. My interest is the philosophy of science and the scientific method, where I do know a few things.

The only thing I "know" about this is that the ToE has not been proven -- it never will be, no more than any other theory can be proven. (Including, I suppose the theory of falsification, which I just cited. :-) ) Of course, we have to go with what we've got -- Occam's razor tells us to make things as simple as possible, without oversimplifying.

What I'm doing essentially is being a "free-rider" on this debate. I'm content to just let the various factions have at it, until someone is declared a winner. Then, I'll probably adjust my thinking accordingly. (Well, maybe I'm paying for my ticket to ride by nagging people about Popper and other philosophers of science.)
232 posted on 01/31/2006 10:58:45 AM PST by USFRIENDINVICTORIA (")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: BMCDA

Nice disinformation article.

The initial charge stands, even though the article tries to dance around it. Exposed bark is key to the study.

I fail to see why this is such a dogfight for evolutionists. There are others studies that are much more solid that clearly demonstrate environmental selection at work. There is obviously something more at work here than just science.

Just drop it already and use the example of smallpox in the New World.


233 posted on 01/31/2006 11:01:30 AM PST by frgoff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce
The reason I connected the TOE and no mention of God and no other scientific theory, is that the TOE directly contradicts the Christian creation story. Relativity, gravity, etc. are merely theories observing how the universe works. The TOE attempts to explain our origins, creation (yes, I know, but the TOE relies on the Big Bang, etc. theories), and tries to discredit the Creator.

This is where I have to shake my head... The theory of evolution doen't "tr[y] to discredit the Creator," it explains the diversity of living things. If that "directly controadicts the Christian creation story," than that means that this story is unrealistic and does not reflect nature and the real world. It isn't that the theory of evolution is making a statement about Christianity, it is making a statement about nature. The fact that the Christian story doesn't coincide with the theory or nature is a problem of the story (or your understanding of that story), not of the theory or nature.

234 posted on 01/31/2006 11:02:01 AM PST by WildHorseCrash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
I will never apologize to you for anything.

Proverbs 16:18

235 posted on 01/31/2006 11:02:36 AM PST by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry; Coyoteman
Good idea. I think it should also be pointed out that science is much more conservative with its definitions than the vernacular and that the definition of "theory" as it is used in science is the original one, since it's only a rather recent phenomenon that nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry "has a theory" or thinks that the ToE is "only a theory".
236 posted on 01/31/2006 11:04:09 AM PST by BMCDA (If the human brain were so simple that we could understand it,we would be so simple that we couldn't)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

generic placemarker


237 posted on 01/31/2006 11:04:19 AM PST by longshadow (FReeper #405, entering his ninth year of ignoring nitwits, nutcases, and recycled newbies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%

;-Þ


238 posted on 01/31/2006 11:04:45 AM PST by BMCDA (If the human brain were so simple that we could understand it,we would be so simple that we couldn't)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: WildHorseCrash
The theory of evolution doen't "tr[y] to discredit the Creator," it explains the diversity of living things.

...by removing Him as the cause.

239 posted on 01/31/2006 11:07:16 AM PST by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
Nast: Here comes the name-calling.

Ichy: ...or I'll add you to the list of folks knowingly making false accusations.

I guess I should restate my position. There has been no name-calling on this thread. No one used the word "idiot".

ichy: Are they idiots or just liars?

No one has been called an ignoramous, a--hole, liar or any other name. Please do not claim that I was making a false accusation...I must've somehow misread those particular posts.

240 posted on 01/31/2006 11:07:37 AM PST by ThomasNast (2350)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: Hoplite
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?

The Grand Master is aware of your feeble fantasies, and he finds them amusing. The thought of you in command of Darwin Central is as ludicrous as putting Cindy Sheehan in charge of the Pentagon.

On behalf of the Grand Master, I am,
PatrickHenry

241 posted on 01/31/2006 11:09:08 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: metmom
That's because some scientists insist on using their own special boys club definition of theory that can't be found anywhere but on FR and wikipedia

Wrong again.

242 posted on 01/31/2006 11:10:38 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Of course, people like John Paul II, and Mother Theresa, and Billy Graham.

If you want to try to claim those people are frauds, go right ahead, but few would agree with you.

243 posted on 01/31/2006 11:11:24 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce
The theory of evolution doen't "tr[y] to discredit the Creator," it explains the diversity of living things.

...by removing Him as the cause.

Just as when you added the last part (above) to my post, it is your view of the theory which gives you problems, not the theory itself.

You are starting with the assumption that there is a God, that his is a creator, that he created, etc., etc. Fine. But that's just your belief. It isn't a fact; it isn't based on any data. It's just your belief. But when you start with that bias, you can't rightly complain when science looks at nature without that bias. The problem with the absence of the bias is you bringing it to the table in the first place.

You can't assume a premise for which there is no evidence, and complain when someone doesn't agree to that assumption. And that's what you're doing here.

244 posted on 01/31/2006 11:17:07 AM PST by WildHorseCrash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce

Actually, there are a number of critters, even today, that sometimes reproduce sexually and sometimes asexually. The most commonly known is the paramecium, a one-celled animal that reproduces normally by fission. Sometimes, however, under crowded conditions, two paramecia get together and exchange genetic material to reproduce.

You can read all about it here:

http://ebiomedia.com/gall/classics/Paramecium/paramecium4.html


245 posted on 01/31/2006 11:20:17 AM PST by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: WildHorseCrash
You are starting with the assumption that there is a God,...

Yes, I am. However, starting with the assumption that there is no God is just as wrong. Is it possible to restate the TOE without either assumption?

246 posted on 01/31/2006 11:21:13 AM PST by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
It's an article about how data that has commercial value (i.e., for patents, etc.) isn't made publicly available for free, because the researchers want to be able to make a buck on it and not just give it away.

And it's backed by the US Constitution.

The Congress shall have Power...

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Art.I Sec.8 Cl.8

247 posted on 01/31/2006 11:21:29 AM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]

To: frgoff
Evolution doesn't require a God, so why create an unnecessary step and include Him

No scientific theory requires a god. Why single out evolution?

248 posted on 01/31/2006 11:22:10 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
No, he isn't, nor are his observations based on any such requirement. Work on your reading comprehension.

My reading comprehension is just fine, thank you. The point is that if we don't know everything about the human body (and we certainly don't) then perhaps the appendix has a function that we don't fully understand. You know, like the other "vestigals" that used to be cited by evolutionists. How does that list compare now as to say 100 years ago? Gee, the list is sure getting short. But don't let that stop you. Why not come up with something really silly like "hey, how about GOOSE BUMPS!"

Quick, why do you get goosebumps when you're cold or scared? Hint: It was functional back when our distant ancesters had fur. It's useless now that we have sparse fuzz on most of our skin.

Well, there we go, right on que. All you've done is repeat the addendix mistake which is a repeat of dozens of other mistakes. So God made all mammals with hair, the ability to get goose bumps. SO?! LOL But you, the wisest of all, KNOWS FOR A FACT that this function is completely useless in humans. Well, you'll have to excuse me if I don't take your word for it. With the evolutionary track record on these sort of things, it would be more logical to assume that you are wrong (again) than correct. So then what is the function of goose bumps in humans? Well, I'm surely not going to make the same mistake of those who claim to know the full extent of all bodily functions; however, I can easily consider at least one possibility. We get goose bumps when we’re cold, frightened, or experiencing other strong emotions. They are not under conscious control. Maybe, must maybe goose bumps are designed as a way of bringing to consciousness various stresses that need attention. In other words, goose bumps may assist in raising our consciousness of a serious situation. Maybe, must maybe, when you get goose bumps, your body is telling you something, and is working as designed.

Of course, if humans didn't get goose bumps, evolutionists would trumpet it as sure sign that evolution works and that that feature was "de-selected". You see, the evolutionists claim victory either way. If humans exhibit similarities to animals, they say "SEE!? EVOLUTION!". When humans don't share a certain trait with animals, they say "SEE!? EVOLUTION!".

Yes, we DO notice. ;-)

249 posted on 01/31/2006 11:22:38 AM PST by GLDNGUN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce

Pslams 54:5


250 posted on 01/31/2006 11:23:10 AM PST by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300 ... 1,151-1,188 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