Posted on 10/05/2009 12:22:31 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Wow, sounds like alot of the enraged cultists here!
Like Satan, the evo-cretins can’t help but lash out because they know the days that their religion gets to masquerade as science are numbered.
LOL! That’s why your merry band of drooling evo-cowards won’t show up to debate Creationists and IDers, because of their superior brain power...LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!
What a bunch of evo-losers!
I recall that. I think she said too, that it is just too complicated for the audience. Sounds like histrionics..ah...history is repeating its self in that excerpt from Nature.
Precisely...I've submitted the question if a peer review article or work was submitted and no one attached their name to it, how would scientists detemine if the work was submitted by an evolutionist or a creationist?
So far no takers...
only crickets.
If evolution "science" were as strong as evos claim it is, they wouldn't need to rely on judges and courts.
How can you argue with such rational and scientific logic?
“facts”? Parroting evo-cultist drivel isn’t fact Filo!
I know you are having a hard time coming to terms with the fact that your evo-religion is easily falsified by science, but the sooner you acknowledge the obvious, the sooner you can get on with what's left of your life.
Remember, the first step in correcting an error is to admit you are wrong. Of course, if the evos fail to do so, Creation and ID scientists will be happy to falsify Darwood's evo-religious creation myth with genuine science :o)
Indeed, when I challenge them with the main thesis of Meyer’s book, they say they don’t have to answer because the Temple of Darwin has instructed them that anything that challenges their creation myth cannot be science by definition...LOL!
Not at all. There is no problem with allowing only scientific evidence and thought and with ignoring the prattling of the uneducated.
There is absolutely no reason to allow for abject stupidity in science (unless that’s what you’re studying.) If that weren’t the case we could then start reconsidering the geocentric nature of the universe, flat Earth theories and other nonsense.
I never understood how telling scurilous lies ever made your point.
But then again...it just re-enforces the fact you HAVE no point in the first place.
If these people seem “uneducated”...
www.dissentfromdarwin.org
Johns Hopkins, Princeton, MIT, then that makes perfect sense in the liberal world:
after all, down is up, up is down.
LOL...but they are not scientists because they have looked at the science and concluded that the evidence is against Darwood’s evo-religious creation myth!
“Analysis and critique of the concept of Natural Selection (and of the Darwinian theory of evolution) in respect to its suitability as part of Modernism's origination myth, as well as of its ability to explain organic evolution.
Finally, then, it is my conclusion that the Darwinian (Synthetic) theory of organic evolution, insofar as it is crucially driven by the concept of natural selection, is not suitable to be a part of Modernism's creation myth. At a time when the world is becoming crowded, it seems little conducive to peace to believe that competition, which is the basis of natural selection, is the source of all good (including ourselves), however well such a belief might fit with our current economic system.
As to its ability to explain the evolution of organisms (as opposed to the evolution of gene systems), it has not, after some 60 years of development, delivered a very convincing mechanism. It cannot explain origins, or the actual presence of forms and behaviors. It can generally explain only the evolution of adaptive differences as results of historical contingency, for only one or two traits at a time. It is limited to historical explanations, as it acknowledges no evolutionary tendencies that are not the result of accident preserved in genetic information. History is the source of everything in this theory, and that is just too simplistic to be plausible in a complex material world. I think it could be said that, were there another theory of organic evolution, the neoDarwinian one, fraught with problems as it is, would have more trouble surviving. As it is, it is the “only game in town”, largely because of the competitive activities of the neoDarwinians themselves.”
In the case of Darwinism “ the narrative story is treated as “history” and this created history is being equated with
science. It certainly qualifies as false knowledge.
LOL! Sorry Filo...Chrissy Fit Matthews is on your side of the aisle.
With his poo flinging comments and attacks about evolution being settled science...you shouldn’t project away your actual strongest argument for evolution!
There’s a reason NO liberal supports creationism.
Spoken like a true liberal.
No Filo, science doesn't belong to judges, and most certainly not activist liberal judges...that's what happens when people think global warming is real science and you should send your carbon credits to algore so he can buy more jet-fuel.
Frankly, science doesn't belong to anyone. And most certainly no one gave the keys of science to you liberal loons, judges or otherwise!
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.