Posted on 10/30/2009 9:23:15 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Supporters of Darwin’s theory continue to distinguish themselves on America’s college campuses—not for their reason and logic, but for their incredible ill manners and an almost pathological inability to engage in civil discussion. Last week, a factually-challenged attack on intelligent design was published in The Nevada Sagebrush, the student newspaper at the University of Nevada, Reno. Nothing new in that; I see ill-informed articles on intelligent design all the time. But after my colleague Rob Crowther posted a short comment suggesting that readers might actually want to hear from intelligent design proponents themselves (imagine that!), the Darwinist thought-police came out in force. One writer who is so courageous that he hides behind the pseudonym “bobxxxx” fulminated:
Robert Crowther… and the rest of the theocratic morons of the Dishonesty Institute are traitors who want to destroy America’s science education. If it was up to me they would be put in prison for treason. They are enemies of America, no better than terrorists, and they should be treated like terrorists.
Traitors? Terrorists? Enemies of America? ID proponents should be “put in prison” for freely expressing their views?!! Perhaps the University of Nevada should consider requiring its students to take a course on the First Amendment. It's pretty obvious that some of them don't understand the value of free speech.
When another person had the temerity to observe on the newspaper's website that “anti-Intelligent Design advocates often post nasty, name calling, ignorant, and often just plain slanderous comments on websites but the ID support[er]s rarely respond in kind,” he provoked a denunciation from someone calling himself “Jumbalaya,” who opined:
In the early 1940s, many of the German militants occupying France were known to be real polite as well. But you know what…?
THEY WERE STILL NAZIS!
Good manners don’t excuse ID supporters for the filth they’re pushing to the public.
This is not free speech; it’s an attempt to suppress free speech by demonizing and intimidating others so they will be afraid to speak up. I have a suggestion for the Darwinist purveyors of such hate speech: If you really want to identify the opponents of a free society, try looking in the mirror.
Ping!
The left, like their “father”, is not very creative.
They continuously try to use the “Nazi” comparison to silence their opposition.
The good hting is that whenever these rabid evos spout hteir icnessant hatemonguering diatribes which lack even a modicum of intellectual honesty, they reveal just how much trouble their hypothesis of evolution really is- As one person said, when they run out of ligitimate ammo- they must resort to htrowing spitwads- the funny hting though is that they don’t realize the damage they are actually doing to their cause- let them hang themselves- they’ve certainly aquired enough rope to do so with.
Darwinism is a religion to those people. They don’t agree with anything that goes against their dogma, whether it is Creationism, Epigenetics, and Convergence.
So the ID tale fails to get heard and fails in the science world because of some college kids?
Always an excuse...pointing fingers elsewhere...
NAZIS!!!
So what are the flaws in the original piece the author describes as “factually challenged”. This whole article is nothing more than a red herring. Typical creationist dishonesty.
Instead, the author then uses comments from others made to the article to show how the "Darwinist thought-police came out in force". And these "Darwinists" are known members of your church of Darwin? If I were a cynical person, I'd guess that the author posted those inane comments himself so that he'd have something to meet his copy deadline (like Democrats do what they accuse others of, in this case write outrageous comments to show what vitriol the your opponents have).
Where are the author's responses in his name, not some non de plume, at the newpaper's site?
At least your out of ammo comment did remind me that I need to stock up. So I guess your response did serve some purpose.
Wish him a swift recovery, and walk away. It’s hopeless.
“Darwinist thought-police came out in force. One writer who is so courageous that he hides behind the pseudonym “bobxxxx” fulminated:
Robert Crowther… and the rest of the theocratic morons of the Dishonesty Institute are traitors who want to destroy America’s science education. If it was up to me they would be put in prison for treason. They are enemies of America, no better than terrorists, and they should be treated like terrorists.
Traitors? Terrorists? Enemies of America? ID proponents should be “put in prison” for freely expressing their views?!! Perhaps the University of Nevada should consider requiring its students to take a course on the First Amendment. It’s pretty obvious that some of them don’t understand the value of free speech”.
The exact same liberals are here on FR with their Christian taliban coments.
And notice the endless liberal projections?
You’ll get stupid liberals talking about the intolerance of Christians ignoring their own behavior, and you’re right cottshop, that’s all they have at this point.
It’s clear that squahing the debate and kicking all dissent out of the public schools isn’t going to be enough, now you need to be locked up because you’re a terrorist!
Cults do this to people. Pretty creepy.
You can just see them pining away for the day when a leader like Obama puts them in charge of their own reeducation camp.
Nor will the new work do anything to diminish the standing of Darwin himself. When it came to gravitation and the laws of motion, Isaac Newton didn't see the whole picture either, but he remains one of science's giants. In the same way, Darwin's ideas will prove influential for decades to come.
are you exempt from Exodus 20:16?
Is New Scientist saying that Darwin was wrong about his main prediction—namely, his so-called “tree of life”—or not?
“If I were a cynical person, I’d guess that the author posted those inane comments himself so that he’d have something to meet his copy deadline (like Democrats do what they accuse others of, in this case write outrageous comments to show what vitriol the your opponents have).”
Riiiiight, so why are you posing as an evolutionist and attacking GGG’s site, when in reality you’re just another creationist bible thumper drumming up business as it were?
Sheesh...this tactic was tried recently...to assert creationists need to make up hateful attacks just to demonize their opponents, when we have all kinds of evidence of evo behaviour right here on full display for all to see with the “Christian taliban” comments and other lunacy...
well it’s as absurd now as it was when it was laughed off of FR the last time!
Excellent reply, tpanther!
Your posting that cover is deliberately misleading, and that has been pointed out to you several times. Are you exempt from Exodus 20: 16?
You didn’t answer my question. Did New Scientists publish a cover story about how Darwin was wrong about his main prediction (the so-called “tree of life”) or not?
Are you denying the advances made by scientist in the more than 150 years since Charles Darwin Published On the Origin of Species?
Newton made some mistakes regarding his theory of gravity, does that invalidate the entire theory?
Your Posting that cover is deliberately misleading, it is not in context with the article. And you know that.
Are you exempt from Exdoud 20:16?
Wow, you sure know how to dance around a question, don’t you.
First you were challenged to make good on your claim that there is slam-dunk scientific evidence both in the lab and in the wild that macro-evolution is true. EPIC FAIL.
Then you were asked whether or not New Scientist ran a cover story on how Darwin was wrong about his main prediction (his so-called “tree of life”). Again, EPIC FAILURE on your part.
I think it is safe to say that you are transitioning from ignorance to evasion and dishonesty.
I have provided the evidence you requested, however you are choosing to ignore it
Your post of that cover was deliberately misleading and the text from the article proves that.
Does Exodus 20:16 not apply to you?
It's this..... Did New Scientists publish a cover story about how Darwin was wrong about his main prediction (the so-called “tree of life”) or not?
Your *Creationist Rhetor-O-Matic* has nothing to compare to what you're doing in trying to avoid answering the question.
“Yes he made some mistakes. He lived in the middle of the 19th Century, and, obviously, we know a lot more now than he knew. In particular, he got genetics all wrong. Nobody in the 19th Century knew much about genetics, and so naturally Darwin got that wrong. But given that, it's remarkable how much he got right."~ Richard Dawkins
Are you denying the advances made by scientist in the more than 150 years since Charles Darwin Published On the Origin of Species?
Newton made some mistakes regarding his theory of gravity; does that invalidate the entire theory?
Your Posting that cover is deliberately misleading, it is not in context with the article. And you know that
Are you exempt from Exodus 20:16?
All he has shown so far is avoidance, deception, misdirection, and name-calling. But when the facts do not support you that is all that you have
Ask and ye shall receive.
I didn’t see a yes or no anywhere.
There was no answer, just strawmen about Exodus and other pussyfooting about answering the question.
“Yes he made some mistakes. He lived in the middle of the 19th Century, and, obviously, we know a lot more now than he knew. In particular, he got genetics all wrong. Nobody in the 19th Century knew much about genetics, and so naturally Darwin got that wrong. But given that, it's remarkable how much he got right."~ Richard Dawkins
these were follow up questions that GGG ignored because they showed the fallacy of his question.
Are you denying the advances made by scientist in the more than 150 years since Charles Darwin Published On the Origin of Species?
Newton made some mistakes regarding his theory of gravity; does that invalidate the entire theory?
And this was to point out his blatant dishonesty in posting that cover.
Your Posting that cover is deliberately misleading, it is not in context with the article. And you know that
And this question is asking GGG to explain why he feels he is exempt from God’s own commandment
Are you exempt from Exodus 20:16?
Sorry to disappoint you but no strawman here, remember just because you say something that does not change the facts
” If it was up to me..”
Ah yes, If, if only he were ladling out the dumplings.....
On far less firm ground, however, is your rank speculation that the assaults launched against Crowther and another poster were instigated by themselves or other Creationists. Unless you can offer substantial and affirmative support for an otherwise unsupported allegation, you’ve put yourself in danger of being in breach of that very same Exodus 20:16 which you so enthusiastically hurl at others. This is, of course, of little import to you if you hold Exodus 20:16 to personally be of no account.
The American College campus is being held in the grip of an intellectual reign of terror (that is the thesis of West’s post) and it is Conservatives and Conservative Christians who are its target. Do you deny this?
Thanks for the ping!
Thanks for the ping!
“The left, like their “father”, is not very creative. They continuously try to use the “Nazi” comparison to silence their opposition.”
True. (John 8:44) You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
I was simply pointing out GGG’s blatant dishonesty in posting that cover.
Forgive me, but I think you’re doing rather a bit more than that. In fairness to you, I must observe that GGG seems not at all eager to address the focus of West’s post, any more than you. Instead, you seem as eager as he to continue a running battle over the ever changing details of the Darwinian ToE. You’ve displayed no inclination to pull any of the battle’s participants (they all know who they are) back to the subject of the post upon which this thread is anchored. In the process you rise in defense of par4 and his unsupported allegation that the posts trashing Christians were planted by other Christians, perhaps even West and Crowther themselves. Even though he confesses complete ignorance (“please clue me in” - #8) as to the point of West’s article, you seem to choose to not enlighten par4, but rather to lend credence to his unsupported allegations, which are couched in terms so as to give their author plausible deniability should he have need.
Your complaint with GGG seems to be that you find his criticisms of some of Darwin’s conclusions to be ahistorical in the light of 150 years of scientific progress made since he (Darwin) first formed those conclusions. So ahistorical, in fact, that you regard GGG’s use of them to be a violation of God’s commandment not to bear false witness. How egregious, then, must you find the violations of that same commandment, when your colleagues use the misdeeds of the Crusades, some 900 years ago, to browbeat modern-day Christians in this forum? Or, the Salem witch hunts of some four centuries ago? Perhaps you’ve happily indulged in that same behavior, yourself (at this point, I honestly don’t recall if you have or have not).
tpanther seems to be the only one who has tried to stay on topic. His reward has been to be ignored.
He wanted to know the point of the post, and I explained the wider context as I see it. I am comfortable with a wide latitude of discussion on these threads, so long as we are discussing the origins debate. I draw the line when various evos try to sidetrack the overall subject to completely unrelated issues, such as what causes AIDS, etc.
Well, just let me say then, that you are more generous with your antagonists than would be my inclination. Some of your criticisms are ahistorical, but nonetheless seem to serve a point. The wildly visceral reaction you illicit from your critics as a consequence of your criticisms of Darwinian ideas, serves as a striking contrast to their own ahistorical indulgences when they berate Christians for the Crusades. Either they are ignorant of their own contradictions, being content to simply repeat plausible ideas they lift from atheistic sites, or they are painfully aware of the weakness of their own arguments and hope to cover up that weakness by shouting.
Your complaint with GGG seems to be that you find his criticisms of some of Darwin’s conclusions to be ahistorical in the light of 150 years of scientific progress made since he (Darwin) first formed those conclusions. So ahistorical, in fact, that you regard GGG’s use of them to be a violation of God’s commandment not to bear false witness. How egregious, then, must you find the violations of that same commandment, when your colleagues use the misdeeds of the Crusades, some 900 years ago, to browbeat modern-day Christians in this forum? Or, the Salem witch hunts of some four centuries ago? Perhaps you’ve happily indulged in that same behavior, yourself (at this point, I honestly don’t recall if you have or have not).
tpanther seems to be the only one who has tried to stay on topic. His reward has been to be ignored.
Thanks YHAOS. That's because liberals would rather ignore their position and behaviour. That is when they're not projecting it on their opponents.
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.