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?
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. :-}
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.
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.
...and, disgustingly, the slander of a dead man's name. No character a--holes.
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.
Yeah, so they claim but them Darwin-worshippers are no Troo ChristiansTM.
I thought I was going to get the trademark on that...
Wouldn't these also be the smelliest parts of the human body?
Isn't odor a part of what attracts one animal to another?
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.
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.
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.
...by removing Him as the cause.
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.
On behalf of the Grand Master, I am,
If you want to try to claim those people are frauds, go right ahead, but few would agree with you.
...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.
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:
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?
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
No scientific theory requires a god. Why single out evolution?
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 were 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. ;-)