Newfound Dinosaur a Transitional Creature

Las Vegas Sun (AP) ^ | May 04, 2005 | Malcolm Ritter

[MeanWestTexan]

Caught in the act of evolution, the odd-looking, feathered dinosaur was becoming more vegetarian, moving away from its meat-eating ancestors.

It had the built-for-speed legs of meat-eaters, but was developing the bigger belly of plant-eaters. It had already lost the serrated teeth needed for tearing flesh. Those were replaced with the smaller, duller vegetarian variety.

[VadeRetro]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6948092/

“Intelligent design is a religious doctrine,” said Wayne Carley, executive director of the National Association of Biology Teachers. “There is no research to support it, and it is clearly religious in that it posits a higher being.” http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6948092/

I suggest you explain, Liar.

[Dimensio]

Exactly. How embarrassing is it for you blind-faith Darwinists to have the executive director of the National Association of Biology Teachers, no less, admitting that to teach evolution is to teach a religion? Hahahaha

And in typical creationist fashion, when it is pointed out that your information is completely and totally wrong and that you are parroting blatant dishonesty, pretend that the refutation doesn't exist and continue to taunt. The executive director of the National Association of Biology Teachers did not say that to teach evolution is to teach religion. Now that you have had the error of the 'quote' that you presented pointed out, you are nothing but a shameless liar for repeating the claim.

Congratulations Matchett-PI. You've gone from "possibly woefully ignorant" to "shameless liar". Do you believe that your blatant dishonesty is justified simply because of the cause that you are championing?

[PatrickHenry]

Creation science is to science what toilet-bathing is to hygene.

[VadeRetro]

No! It's cool because there's this ellipsis thing in front of "is a religious doctrine!" So this guy Carley ACTUALLY SAID ALL THE WORDS QUOTED at one time or another.

[MeanWestTexan]

No, I was referring to the 1st time, not the second.

So, no, you are still incorrect.

[Dimensio]

Actually, it looks like the "teaching evolution is" part didn't come from Carley's words at all. In other words, Matchett-PI didn't just quote seperate parts of Carley out of context, he falsely attributed words that Carley never said. That's on par with the idiot I dealt with yesterday who "proved" that Darwin advocated eugenics by quoting Abraham Lincoln from the Lincoln Douglas debate and attributing it to Darwin. Except at least that idiot actually acknowledged his error (after a bit of stubborn grandstanding). Matchett-PI has yet to do so, and instead has reiterated his original dishonest claim.

[PatrickHenry]

Not the first time this individual has been exposed:
here (post 466)
here (post 474)
here (post 486)

[PatrickHenry]

Informed by the dishonorable tactics of the creationoids, I have searched the Good Book and cobbled together a "quote" in the same manner as that used by creation "scientists." What follows is every bit as "authentic" as the bogus quotes we've been given. Every word is, after all, more or less, from Scripture:

"Verily I say unto you ... it came to pass that ... both the daughters of Lot were with child by their father ... go and do thou likewise."

[VadeRetro]

You know, I just assumed he had some quote for that somewhere. I'm still overestimating creationist scholarship. It's lower than whale dung at the bottom of the ocean, but somehow here and there I still give it too much credit.

[Matchett-PI]

Elsie: "Ok, I'll bite. Just how many 'mutants' have humans 'created' that came about from -- response to situational pressures?"

VadeRetro: "Gee, that would be easily dismissable as another example of ID, wouldn't it? After all, every experiment just proves ID. Then consider that nothing is science unless it's replicable in an experiment. Therefore, we've already got the whole experiment thing Catch-22ed if you're impressed by such semantic monkeyshines."

Hahahaha - Read it and weep:

"I lobbied the NABT board of directors to make the change because of both my respect for science and my respect for the philosophy of humanism that draws so strongly upon it. To explain requires me to reflect a bit upon both religion and science.

Therefore, I agreed with the two theologians http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth02.html who asked NABT to take the words "impersonal" and "unsupervised" from its statement on evolution. NABT was making a philosophical statement outside of what science can tell us. Plantinga and Smith wrote:

[I]t is extremely hard to see how an empirical science, such as biology, could address such a theological question as whether a process like evolution is or isn't directed by God.... How could an empirical inquiry possibly show that God was not guiding and directing evolution?

And they were right. If we are to say to postmodernist attackers of science that they should not confuse science with positions or philosophies derived from science, then we must be consistent and not equate science with materialist philosophy.

Now we get down to the nitty-gritty of science and religion, and why I lobbied to take the words "impersonal" and "unsupervised" Out of the NABT statement.

Consider: If to test something scientifically requires the ability to hold constant certain effects, this means that omnipotent powers cannot be used as part of scientific explanations.

....if science is limited by methodological materialism because of our inability to control an omnipotent power's interference in nature, both "God did it" and "God didn't do it" fail as scientific statements.

Properly understood, the principle of methodological materialism requires neutrality towards God; we cannot say, wearing our scientist hats, whether God does or does not act.

I could say, speaking from the perspective of my personal philosophy, that matter and energy and their interactions (materialism) are not only sufficient to understand the natural world (methodological materialism) but in fact, I believe there is nothing beyond matter and energy.

This is the philosophy of materialism, which I, and probably most humanists, hold to.

I intentionally added "I believe" when I spoke of my personal philosophy, which is entirely proper.

"I believe," however, is not a phrase that belongs in science. ..."

Science and Religion, Methodology and Humanism
by Eugenie C. Scott
[In May 1998 Dr Eugenie C Scott, NCSE'S Executive Director, was awarded the American Humanist Association's 1998 "Isaac Asimov Science Award". What follows is excerpted from her acceptance speech. Ed.]
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/391_science_and_religion_methodol_5_1_1998.asp

*

Leading Darwinist philosopher Michael Ruse:

"I allow - I insist - that, from its very birth, evolutionism has been used for more than mere science.

In this wise, it is often appropriate to speak of evolution as a form of religion, meaning a faith system with a moral message that makes sense of life's ultimate meaning.

You have only to look at the writings of a nineteenth-century figure like Herbert Spencer to see that this is true.

Or a twentieth-century figure like Julian Huxley (brother of Aldous Huxley the novelist). This second evolutionist even went so far as to write a book entitle Religion without Revelation!

There is all sorts of stuff about evolution being the key to the mysteries of existence and that kind of thing. Moreover, this brand of secular proselytizing is going on into the twenty-first century.

Look at Harvard entomologist and sociobiologist Edward O. Wilson's recent best-seller Consilience.

I should say that it is by no means the case that evolution-as-religion is anti-Christian.

Sometimes it is. The English biologist Richard Dawkins (author of the Selfish Gene) is a fiery atheist, speaking of Christians as afflicted by an "unconscionable flabbiness of the intellect."

Sometimes it is not. The French, Jesuit, paleontologist-priest Teilhard de Chardin thought that evolution leads up to the "Omega point," something he identified with Jesus Christ. .." - Michael Ruse

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationEvolutionDesign/message/8517

[VadeRetro]

So where in there do you explain how and why you're allowed to lie?

[Matchett-PI]

"So where in there do you explain how and why .."

Your habit of changing a subject that panics you (because you can't logically refute it), only fools others who are easily distracted (those incapable of critical thought because their emotional immaturity renders them UNABLE to face reality/truth).

[Dimensio]

Why do you keep dodging the issue? You posted a blatant lie. Why do you refuse to own up to this? Why do you absolutely insist that you are in the right even though it is painfully obvious that you are a liar?

[Matchett-PI]

"Not the first time this individual has been exposed:
here (post 466) here (post 474) here (post 486)" - PatrickHenry

Hahahaha!! In your *et dreams:

Re: Post 466: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1310267/posts?page=475#475

Re: Post 474: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1310267/posts?page=472#472

Re: Post 486: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1310267/posts?page=488#488

[Matchett-PI]

"Why do you keep dodging the issue? You posted a blatant lie. Why do you refuse to own up to this? Why do you absolutely insist that you are in the right even though it is painfully obvious that you are a liar?"

See #652. It also applies to you.

[VadeRetro]

You absolutely utterly flat-out lied about what Carley thinks and says. Do you think no one can see? You insult the intelligence of the lurkers with this silly dance.

You're a liar.

[VadeRetro]

That you open your mouth and sound babbles out every time we catch you lying doesn't help your case. Especially since you always show up with the same bad pennies on another thread.

[PatrickHenry]

Imagine the endgame: the serial liar ends up in what he expects to be heaven, but he swiftly realizes he's in the deepest pit of hell. Confused, he looks up at his cloven-hoofed master for an explanation. But the devil only laughs. And laughs. And laughs ...

[js1138]

Science does rest on supposutions. The primary supposition of science is that phenomena are regular. Events can be studied to find predictable behavior and reproducible.

Another supposition of historial sciences is that the present is the key to the past. We got here by the operation of natural laws that remain constant over time.

These suppositions are in lieu of the competing supposition, that we were born fully formed from the head of Zeus.

[Matchett-PI]

"...it is painfully obvious that you are a liar." ~ Dimensio

"You insult the intelligence of the lurkers with this silly dance. You're a liar." ~ VadeRetro

"..the serial liar ends up in what he expects to be heaven and .." ~ Patrick Henry

Well I think I've given you all enough time - and rope to hang yourselves, now. Hahahaha

Stop pretending you and your crowd haven't seen that quote before.

I won't call you liars - I'd rather be charitable and once again attribute your problem to the *cognitive dissonance from which you appear to be suffering (*the mental confusion that results in holding totally opposite beliefs and attitudes simultaeously).

To: VadeRetro; Junior; longshadow; RadioAstronomer; Doctor Stochastic; js1138; Shryke; RightWhale; ...

EvolutionPing A pro-evolution science list with over 230 names. See list's description at my homepage. FReepmail to be added/dropped.

16 posted on 02/10/2005 10:14:03 PM EST by PatrickHenry

22 posted on 02/10/2005 10:24:52 PM EST by PatrickHenry

62 posted on 02/11/2005 9:00:01 AM EST by VadeRetro

84 posted on 02/11/2005 12:49:35 PM EST by VadeRetro

87 posted on 02/11/2005 1:52:51 PM EST by Dimensio

91 posted on 02/11/2005 2:47:16 PM EST by Dimensio

92 posted on 02/11/2005 2:48:14 PM EST by Dimensio

98 posted on 02/11/2005 3:05:47 PM EST by Dimensio

100 posted on 02/11/2005 3:24:19 PM EST by PatrickHenry

112 posted on 02/11/2005 4:22:56 PM EST by VadeRetro

113 posted on 02/11/2005 7:09:49 PM EST by Dimensio

118 posted on 02/14/2005 10:22:24 AM EST by Dimensio

121 posted on 02/14/2005 11:15:01 AM EST by VadeRetro

123 posted on 02/14/2005 11:31:25 AM EST by VadeRetro

132 posted on 02/14/2005 1:27:12 PM EST by Dimensio

136 posted on 02/14/2005 4:29:47 PM EST by Dimensio

138 posted on 02/14/2005 11:26:22 PM EST by Dimensio

150 posted on 02/15/2005 11:44:34 AM EST by Dimensio

202 posted on 02/16/2005 12:04:04 AM EST by Dimensio

et.al, ad nauseum

The above is the tip-of the iceberg of the other Blind-faith Darwinist's who didn't have one single objection to that quote back when they were posting in this thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1340765/posts?page=1#1