Posted on 03/15/2009 6:23:02 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
The most vocal proponents of rational thought have left or have been culled - there is an unpublished fatwa against those who dare to take issue with any inaccuracies or errors posted by those attacking Darwin or his theory.
Ultimately, it's irrelevant. If the only way a viewpoint can survive is through the use of force to quash dissent, it's days are numbered.
==Then how come it is still going strong and getting stronger?
Is that why there are all these articles being published by evolutionists with titles like “Darwin must die so evolution can live” or “Darwin was wrong” etc, etc, etc?
Ah, then 150 years later, it's been totally discredited. Good to know. I thought they still taught in school along with crop circles.
Pray for America
“Well done. This is exactly where Hitler and the Nazis began their cult of breeding a Super Aryan Race.”
So finish the analogy....I’ll get you started:
If you believe in evolution you are just like _______
Fine, no argument, what about the ideology of "racism", meaning the national obsession with a wacky Russian Communist invented idea which did not exist 100 years ago? To this observer it appears to be stronger than Darwinism.
No Fester, the theory of evolution is not sound. Not one shred of support for it exists in the evidence.
Not as extreme, as say the "bug-zapper" thread in which many Guiliani supporters were removed.
At the same time, I agree that there seem to be many...scientifically untutored posters on many of the evo threads. And they do seem to get away with more rudeness than some of the others.
Cheers!
Then evolution is a dead idea, since it can only be upheld by force.
==Source?
I can’t find the exact quote at the moment, but you might want to start here.
http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/germany/sp001630/peter.html
Of course he goes on to say that to only refer to Darwin is to dismiss the extreme mass of evolutionary information we have collected over the decades. Similar to how you always refer to Darwin and totally dismiss all the modern achievements.
or “Darwin was wrong” etc, etc, etc?
A little excerpt to show again how you distort:
------------------------------------------------------
Evolutionary theory, though, is a bit different. It's such a dangerously wonderful and far-reaching view of life that some people find it unacceptable, despite the vast body of supporting evidence. As applied to our own species, Homo sapiens, it can seem more threatening still. Many fundamentalist Christians and ultra-orthodox Jews take alarm at the thought that human descent from earlier primates contradicts a strict reading of the Book of Genesis. Their discomfort is paralleled by Islamic creationists such as Harun Yahya, author of a recent volume titled The Evolution Deceit, who points to the six-day creation story in the Koran as literal truth and calls the theory of evolution "nothing but a deception imposed on us by the dominators of the world system."
“My name is Barry Arrington. I am an attorney in Denver, Colorado specializing in complex litigation and constitutional law. My passion is defending constitutional liberties, especially those guaranteed by the First Amendment.”
This fish is out of the water, and unless you tell me he’s grown legs, I’m not thinking he’s hardly capable of discrediting 150 years of peer-reviewed science. He’s a lawyer, for crying out loud!
He certainly is capable of arguing, as you are, with information that is not credible, just for the sake of argument.
Why don’t you ever post articles from actual scientists that publish actual peer-reviewed scientific papers? There are some out there, you know, but this isn’t one of them.
Not a single shred.
The whole thing is a cartoon in your mind.
It's hard to believe you are this strikingly ignorant, or more likely, deliberately blind.
There is no point in laying out to you why evolution is not only plausible, but overwhelmingly certain.
You won't entertain it. It would be wasted electrons. It certainly would be a waste of time.
If you had said that evolution is debateable, and some of the evidence evolutionists use is in question, then you'd be worthy of debate.
But for you to say that there isn't a shred of evidence for evolution takes you completely out of the argument.
This is good, too:
“Materialistic ideology has subverted the study of biological and cosmological origins so that the actual content of these sciences has become corrupted. The problem, therefore, is not merely that science is being used illegitimately to promote a materialistic worldview, but that this worldview is actively undermining scientific inquiry, leading to incorrect and unsupported conclusions about biological and cosmological origins. At the same time, intelligent design (ID) offers a promising scientific alternative to materialistic theories of biological and cosmological evolution — an alternative that is finding increasing theoretical and empirical support. Hence, ID needs to be vigorously developed as a scientific, intellectual, and cultural project.”
In other words......ID is being made up as it goes along.
I’m a creationist. You’re an evolutionist, I guess.
Without arguing that point - do you think there is a danger in someone who embraces evolutionary theory to, as a result, have racist tendencies?
For example, if you believed whites were inferior because they tended to have a higher percentage of body fat. Or that blacks were inferior because their average brain mass was smaller. Or that Asians were the preferred race because their average IQ is higher.
If that were the case, would it or would it not make sense to encourage the reproduction of races with preferred traits, and to discourage the reproduction of races with “bad traits?”
Additionally, what about people with “genetic defects?” I use quotes because there is a variety of opinion as to what genetic defects are. For example, if you are committed to an evolutionary world view, does it make sense to allow people with diabetes to reproduce? How about people with cerebral palsy?
Anyone of an evolutionary mindset is welcome to respond. I am not implying that you are racist or a eugenicist. I am asking, do you see a danger with the possible results of an evolutionary world view? How can we prevent racism or eugenic ideas from being implemented in a world where evolution is accepted as correct?
So you are simultaneously denying "might makes right" while supporting "survival of the fittest."
Interesting potential conflicts there :-)
And -- if you *do* subscribe to this view, when do you foresee the loss of the Marxist/Gramscian stranglehold on academia?
Cheers!
Please detail for us at least one detailed model by which rreducibly complex biochemical models have evolved via natural selection.
At the heart of evolution is the idea that populations are continually splitting into multiple sub-populations due to mutation and natural selection (as well as genetic drift, population isolation factors, etc.) These various sub-populations then compete directly and indirectly against one another. The fit survive, the less fit are exterminated.
The racism of virtually all evolutionists prior to WWII is well documented, as is their straightforward logic supporting their racism. As many of the posts above this show, modern evolutionists really hate this topic, but they can't deny the historical and logical facts.
This is where Stephen Gould found the problem. There is no evidence to support that idea. The real evidence shows a diminishing number of species, and diminishing diversity from one end to the other, and each species as an island unto itself, without the millions of transitional forms that would be expected for each, had they developed through evolution.
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.