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.
Yet, it is very human. Or very ape-like, I guess, since I'm talking to a Darwinist.
You double, I double ... oh the quantum entanglements ...
When the creationists raise the phony issue of Piltdown Man, or Nebraska Man, or Peppered Moths, or Haeckel's Embryos, none of which amounts to anything anyway, we have been given the all-time slam-dunk response -- Pandas!
It's a documented case of the creationist vermin deliberately cooking up a fraudulent book that they knew was unConstitutional in government school science classes, and trying to pass it off to ignorant school boards as a "science" text. Cold busted! Documented in court! Dirt-bag fraud! They're like Dan Rather and his bogus memo. And it's not ancient history; it's now!
ID isn’t science!
For those who care.
COLD BUSTED! Indeed!
You have done well; the Grand Master will be very pleased with this keen insight.
The essential point: the so-called "frauds" touted by the anti-Evos (Piltdown, Peppered Moths, etc.) were, in most cases, neither frauds, nor were they perpetrated for the purpose of advancing the Theory of Evolution (Piltdown IIRC, contradicted it!), whilst the post-Edwards modification of Pandas was a deliberate FRAUD perpetrated by anti-Evos for the express purpose of getting a religious-based anti-Evo concept into the public school classroom, which Edwards had already deemed to be violative of the constitution.
The Grand Master may well award you that lavender trim mauve sash, which you have been coveting for so long, to wear with your formal uniform at Official DarwinCentral™ events, in honor of this major contribution to the organizations' efforts.
It would indeed look handsome, along with my recently-awarded crimson condor feather, but as I grow older and wiser, I am less concerned with such matters. It is sufficient that the Grand Master allows me to stand beside him -- at his right side -- during our formal functions.
But can you tell if Mascheroni's constant is rational?
...and 3) Creationists are so busy labeling *everything* in evolutionary biology as "fraud" (e.g. Wells has made his career doing that) that they'd look really silly if they suddenly issued a press release saying, "oh, wait, never mind those other accusations, we finally found a *real* example of fraud, come look!"
They're like the boy who cried "wolf".
You don't sound too steady and rational yourself when you say stuff like that.
and the blinders and strictures upon the curious intellect that Darwinism demands have stiffled many life-saving and life enhancing innovations, and delayed discoveries by generations.
Gee, really? Like what? Be specific. Or are you just ranting as usual?
I surely can't.....
Questioning is not lying.
I didn't say it was. Learn to freaking read.
Why is questioning your biology mis-guided?
I didn't say it was. Work on your reading comprehension.
Are you really that perfect?
I never claimed I was. Get your Mommy to help you with the big words.
["Science does not deal in "proof"]
So, you are not really interested in origins, correct?
So, you managed to completely misread my sentence -- I hear "Hooked on Phonics" can help you improve your reading comprehension.
["Define "resulted from creation"]
Originating with a Creator. Actually, I believe it is either/or for any Bible student. Law of the excluded middle. For your side, Lewontin said you cannot allow a divine foot in the door.
Lewontin's an idiot. The *majority* of American evolutionists are Christians, so clearly most evolutionists have no problem at all "allowing a divine foot in the door". Sorry if that makes your head explode. Reality can be *so* inconvenient for creationist conspiracy theories.
For my side the genesis of "yom" is "warm" meaning a day, period. For anyone that has to try to marry the two he will face multiple difficulties.
If you say so.
["No, I'm not, because I understand what he's saying, unlike yourself."]
Insult aside, I was referring to his statement that no transistional forms exist. You say they do.
And so does he (Schwartz). See post #631.
["Stop grasping at every new hypothesis in the desperate hope that it "overturns" everything..."]
You presume too much. I am certainly not desperate.
Yeah, sure you're not.
Surely you are not saying that your doctrine is fully matured and not subject to change.
Of course not, but that's irrelevant to the points I was making in the post to which you are responding. The creationist habit of frantically leaping upon every new paper which even remotely appears to challenge any aspect of evolutionary biology is a clear sign of both desperation, and ignorance of the incremental nature of science.
I should add we already have ANOTHER slam-dunk repsonse to all the bogus Piltdown fraud type allegations, also courtesy of Dover: the mendacity of the defendants!
Finally, although Buckingham, Bonsell, and other defense witnesses denied the reports in the news media and contradicted the great weight of the evidence about what transpired at the June 2004 Board meetings, the record reflects that these witnesses either testified inconsistently, or lied outright under oath on several occasions, and are accordingly not credible on these points. P. 105
Additionally, there is the matter of the lying under oath that took place regarding one (or was it two?) defendants assertion that he didn't know the source of the funds used to pay for purchasing the copies of Pandas procured for Dover, when, in fact, the defendant personally passed the plate at his own church, and then wrote a check for that sum and gave it to his father, who then ordered the books!
The direct interrogation of the witness on this point by the judge at the trial is something to behold. Quite stunning, in fact. The witness completely contradicted his testimony given at deposition under oath.
Congratulations, you're delusional.
Do I believe in absolute truths? Absolutely.
So do I. Absolute truth is that which matches reality. Now was that so hard?
Again, the Darwinisits described don't believe in absolute truths, only "usefulness".
Again, you are exhibiting your poor reading comprehension.
Wrong. Science pursues (1) what scientists are interested in and (2) that which is funded or that which they can sneak into the research time (or fund themselves).
Funding/government agencies may fund that which they think is useful (and may expect results), but I have yet to meet a scientist pursuing some nebulous "truth."
The ones I have met are usually trying to "just figger something out."
I have heard "Oops, gotta go. Bye!" more times that I can count.
I can imagine what they are really thinking: "Lemme alone, I almost got it here! Another year should do it!"
I suspect both "truth" and "usefulness" are by-products of the inquisitive mind.
It would be a real feather to stick in your cap. You could call it Mascheroni.
You deserve Avocado's number. You should wait on each thread until it comes by and grab it (it'll be along real soon now).
I won't wait up.
A blast from the past:
[Ichneumon:] But no, I'm not going to compose a personal reply from scratch every time someone repeats a fallacy for the 200th time, when there are perfectly good FAQ filesAnd this one:[Gore3000:] Goodbye loser. More excuses from a lame evolutionist. You do not even understand your stupid theory, you cannot even argue for it and give facts in favor of it. All you can do is make up nice sounding names for links that prove nothing at all. If you and your lame friends have any facts to disprove my statements - post them here. You do know how to cut and paste do you not? Or are you too lame for that also?
[Lurking Libertarian:] Lurkers, please note: evidence of transitional forms was posted back at post # 1169[Gore3000:] No, that is not evidence at all. Links are not evidence. Unnamed skulls are not evidence. If you have evidence, post it here. If you cannot bother cutting and pasting it so that we all can see it and discuss it then it is not worth anyone's bother.
The evolutionists are always 'linking' because they hope no one will look at the nonsense they are linking to and believe that their claims. Put your evidence here for all to see.
ARRRRRGGGGggggghhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!
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.