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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 1,181-1,188 next last
To: Syncretic
The fossil record is pretty hard on poor old Adam and Eve.

I think MOST of the fossil record is a snapshot of life forms that died in the great flood.

81 posted on 01/31/2006 5:13:27 AM PST by ThomasNast (2350)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | 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. Colleges and universities must compete with religious institutions for grants, donations, and bequests.

Delusional. The vast bulk of university science funding comes from NIH, NSF, DoD and DoE. Churches do not compete for any of this.

College professors are mostly company men, corporate brown-nosers, who will never betray their employers.

Delusional. I'm almost inclined to forward this to my chancellor, who would bust a gut at the idea his faculty are brown-nosers.

The Jewish and Christian religions, by the way, took a hit in the last 150 years, not so much from the Darwinists as from the fossil record. The fossil record is pretty hard on poor old Adam and Eve. But believers have finally absorbed that blow, have regrouped, and are ready to start dealing with the atheists in the colleges.

Delusional. Fossils were known well before Darwin. I've no doubt, however, you're ready to deal with atheists. We saw that with Paul Mirecki.

82 posted on 01/31/2006 5:18:27 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Sweetjustusnow
The two scariest words in the English language? Intelligent Design!

For the devout materialist it would be better if these two words were omitted from the human vocabulary. When applied to a level of organization above and beyond human capacities the implications are too strong. "We won't consider an intelligent designer either directly or indirectly, even if that is where the evidence leads; even if if there truly is an intelligent designer." And so there are a handful of scientists beholden to atheistic science. As long we know their biases, we can understand their explanations. But we should not let their mode of science go unchallenged or allow the federal government to establish that kind of science by law.

83 posted on 01/31/2006 5:24:32 AM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
You've posted succinct responses and a beautiful paper there—spoken by this Conservative, Zoölogist, and nominal Christian.

And Geez—talk about the Liberal "bubble"!

If one gets as far as a "pre-Med" curriculum in college, you'll realize what elegant thinking this was for the late 19th century.

If I have a choice of surgeons—one who doesn't understand Darwin, and one who does—I'll be grabbing the back of my hospital gown with both hands and racing (not walking) to the Darwinist!

84 posted on 01/31/2006 5:33:42 AM PST by Eclectica (Para el inglÚs, prensa 2.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: MedicalMess
They manufacture barriers to objective thinking and problem analysis.

Exactly how is the concept of intelligent design a barrier to objective thinking and problem analysis? Have you known any scientific discoveries to take place apart from intelligence or design?

85 posted on 01/31/2006 5:47:26 AM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Junior; <1/1,000,000th%; balrog666; BMCDA; b_sharp; CarolinaGuitarman; CobaltBlue; Condorman; ...

I won't ping the list for this thread, because the lead article is creationist trash, and I don't deploy the list for trash. But I will ping a few, because things are looking interesting.


86 posted on 01/31/2006 6:25:36 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: NJ_gent
"Their bellies will be roasting in Hell."

--Baghdad Bob

87 posted on 01/31/2006 6:45:36 AM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: mc6809e
Anyone that believes the theory of evolution claims that man came from apes doesn't know the theory enough to criticize it.

I'm quite confident in saying that evolution predicts an ape in the ancestry of humans. If you could use a time machine to follow back modern man's ancestry, it would take you through increasingly (as we see it) apelike creatures until you reached something which you would absolutely have to call an ape. It wouldn't be any modern species exactly, but it would be very close to a chimpanzee.

Furthermore, if you followed back further (say, 30-40 million years), you would reach creatures which were much more primitive and had noticeable tails. They would be monkeys, in other words. Not any particular modern species, but monkeys.

Go back farther yet, to the early Devonian, you will have traced our ancestral line through the only vertebrates around then--fish.

I see your claim all the time. "Evolution says man and apes (and/or monkeys) are descended from a common ancestor. It does not say man is descended from apes."

Evolution says both things. We are not descended from gorillas or even chimpanzees. (However, our last common ancestor with the latter is only about 5-7 million years back. Not only are they our closest relatives, but we are theirs.) It also says that our line is a twig on the ape branch, the apes arose from the monkeys, the monkeys from earlier primate groups, primates from earlier tree-dwelling mammals, etc.

88 posted on 01/31/2006 6:56:09 AM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Siena Dreaming

Correct. *God diddit* is ridiculous but that it all happened for no reason is OK. /Very heavy on the sarcam for those who are clueless


89 posted on 01/31/2006 7:14:08 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Hoplite; Ichneumon
If I printed out #15, not only would it be taller than I am, it would need an elevator and an area code.

The classic signiture of an Ichneumon post. You can recognise it a mile away.

90 posted on 01/31/2006 7:16:38 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: MedicalMess; durasell
A medical person would answer your question as MedicalMess has. But the situation is much simpler. Over 100 years ago Christian Gram developed a staining procedure to see bacteria in infected tissue. And it works, for some. It turns out that most, but not all, bacteria fall into the Gram Positive or Gram Negative category. It really has little to do with being an aerobe or an anaerobe. Quantitatively there are many more Gram negative species than Gram positive ones, and since most bacteria are not pathogenic, disease is only a small part. There is, however, a biochemical basis for the staining reaction, based on the peptidoglycan, peptidoglycan cross-linking and the presence of an outer membrane. I can supply you with some references, if you wish.

But the bottom line is that the Gram positive cell wall reacts to Gram's method by retaining the crystal violet and is dubbed Gram positive - these include some of the nasty bugs MM mentioned. A Gram negative cell releases the crystal violet and stained by the counterstain. A well known example of this is E. coli.

While the original staining procedure was an empirical procedure, the results are based on the biochemistry of the cells.

91 posted on 01/31/2006 7:26:16 AM PST by furball4paws (Awful Offal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Bubbatuck

So what if evolutionists exposed the hoax? It certainly took them long enough. That hoax stood for a long time before it was exposed. And archeoraptor was a hoax too. This argument is only trying to make evolutionists look like the heros out of embarrassment for what their collegues did. It's the same argument every time those two hoaxes are mentioned.


92 posted on 01/31/2006 7:30:23 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Bubbatuck
They still keep mis-representing what a "theory" is.

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 instead of a more commonly known reliable, objective, source like Merriam Webster; which BTW was the definition that I was taught when I got my degree and public state university. None of this "special definiton used only by scientists" stuff just so they can tell the unenlightened that they don't know what they're talking about and that they need to go back to college and get a *real* education.

93 posted on 01/31/2006 7:36:05 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: metmom

No one condones hoaxes and frauds on the evo side. But it takes a scientist to be able to recognize one when it appears. And when it is recognized it is expunged along with the perpetrator.

Most of Creationism is fraudulent. But in that case the perp is applauded and given a front row seat. I suppose that's because if the frauds were shown the door, the auditorium would be empty.


94 posted on 01/31/2006 7:37:36 AM PST by furball4paws (Awful Offal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: MedicalMess

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


95 posted on 01/31/2006 7:40:45 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: TheCrusader
"I don't mind teaching the uncertainties within the theory of evolution,"

'Uncertainties'?? How about fabrications like 'Piltdown Man', do you teach that little bit of Darwinism treachery in class? Or do you mean the 'uncertainties' such as the fact that Darwin himself wrote that unless and until the missing linking fossils and transitional forms are uncovered his theory is dead in the water? I hope you teach this, it's all part of the story of 'evolution'.

Piltdown is taught; at least my graduate level evolution classes discussed it and why the British anthropologists fell for it hook, line and sinker. And also how it was distrusted from the start by most everyone else.

And Darwin did realize his theory relied on fossils that were not available. But that was the 1850s. You really think no fossils have been found since then? What do you think paleontologists have been doing for 150 years? They have a lot more fossils than you will find out about on the creation websites, that's for sure!

Here's one now!

(By the way, note the number: KNM-WT 15000. This is the 15,000th specimen from the West Turkana area of Kenya. There are a lot of other areas producing fossils in Kenya, and a lot of other countries both in Africa and around the world producing fossils. That's a lot of fossils! Folks quoting Darwin about the lack of fossils and transitional forms 150 years ago, and implying that is still true, must be getting all their eduction from the creation websites or something!)



Fossil: KNM-WT 15000

Site: Nariokotome, West Turkana, Kenya (1)

Discovered By: K. Kimeu, 1984 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.6 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal & radiometric data (1, 4)

Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7, 10), Homo erectus ergaster (25)

Gender: Male (based on pelvis, browridge) (1, 8, 9)

Cranial Capacity: 880 (909 as adult) cc (1)

Information: Most complete early hominid skeleton (80 bones and skull) (1, 8)

Interpretation: Hairless and dark pigmented body (based on environment, limb proportions) (7, 8, 9). Juvenile (9-12 based on 2nd molar eruption and unfused growth plates) (1, 3, 4, 7, 8). Juvenile (8 years old based on recent studies on tooth development) (27). Incapable of speech (based on narrowing of spinal canal in thoracic region) (1)

Nickname: Turkana Boy (1), Nariokotome Boy

See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=38

96 posted on 01/31/2006 7:45:40 AM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Sweetjustusnow
Will has nothing but scorn for the lower human life forms who think ID should be mentioned, even if just shyly whispered, in a public school setting.

Misrepresenting facts is not a very good argument. No one is saying public schools can't teach ID. They're saying it shouldn't be taught in a science class, especially biology class.

97 posted on 01/31/2006 7:48:11 AM PST by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary
Geology sciences prove a young earth, and also a great flood, more than a flood, a disaster unimaginable.

Sorry, no such evidence. Try this site:

Problems with a Global Flood, Second Edition, by Mark Isaak

98 posted on 01/31/2006 7:54:13 AM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

" You really think no fossils have been found since then? What do you think paleontologists have been doing for 150 years? They have a lot more fossils than you will find out about on the creation websites, that's for sure!"

This reminds me of a trip I made to Dinosaur National Monument. There they have left many of the fossils in situ so you can see how they are grouped and how and where they died. I got excited and asked the resident bone guy "But, but, what happens if there's something really new and really interesting underneath?" The bone guy just chuckled and said "We have so many fossils in the back room that it would take 1000 years to study them completely. We don't need any more."

(I still think they may be missing something).


99 posted on 01/31/2006 7:57:01 AM PST by furball4paws (Awful Offal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA
Time again for some definitions (from a google search):

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)

Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"

Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information

Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics"

Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"

Model: a simplified framework designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process

Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence)

Observation: any information collected with the senses

Data: factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions

Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact

Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith

Faith: the belief in something for which there is no evidence or logical proof; acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or reason

Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof

Religion: (theistic): "1 the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2 the expression of this in worship. 3 a particular system of faith and worship." Non-Theistic: "The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. Essentially, religion is belief in spiritual beings. As it relates to the world, religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life."

Impression: a vague idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying"

Opinion: a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty.

Based on these, evolution is a theory. CS and ID are beliefs.

[Last revised 1/2/06]

100 posted on 01/31/2006 7:58:55 AM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 1,181-1,188 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