Skip to comments.
Origin of board decision probed [Dover Evolution trial, 03 Nov]
York Daily Record [Penna] ^
| 03 November 2005
| MICHELLE STARR
Posted on 11/03/2005 11:39:36 AM PST by PatrickHenry
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-119 next last
To: MineralMan
See if they don't sound just like the arguments the creationists post: Spot on.
I'd think they were a parody if they weren't straight from Chick's pen. Most of the anti-evo posters on FR have about the same intellectual horsepower and knowledge as little Susie; IOW, they think, act, and behave like ten year olds.
To: longshadow
Notice, once again, when a post that is very bad news for the anti-Evo's appears on FR, a designated disruptor troll shows up to change the subject. Any barbarian can walk into a lab and defecate on the floor. Yes, it momentarily changes the subject. But there's nothing to debate. Just step around the mess. The cleaning crew will deal with it later on, and in the meanwhile we'll just get on with our work.
62
posted on
11/03/2005 1:38:44 PM PST
by
PatrickHenry
(Reality is a harsh mistress. No rationality, no mercy)
To: balrog666
Oh, a man in a skirt - must be San Francisco.
63
posted on
11/03/2005 1:41:06 PM PST
by
furball4paws
(One of the last Evil Geniuses, or the first of their return.)
To: MineralMan
64
posted on
11/03/2005 1:41:25 PM PST
by
JmyBryan
To: MineralMan
... Jack Chick ...
Here are a couple of them. See if they don't sound just like the arguments the creationists post: Where else would the creatians get their research from ?
Certainly not from the Discovery Institute ...
65
posted on
11/03/2005 1:41:35 PM PST
by
dread78645
(Sorry Mr. Franklin, We couldn't keep it.)
To: PatrickHenry; b_sharp
"Just step around the mess. The cleaning crew will deal with it"
Nice to be needed isn't it?
66
posted on
11/03/2005 1:44:01 PM PST
by
furball4paws
(One of the last Evil Geniuses, or the first of their return.)
To: PatrickHenry
Baksa received a memo dated April 1, 2003, from then-Principal Trudy Peterman that said a board member wanted to give creationism equal time with evolution. And thus Trudy Peterman, in the greatest April Fools' Day prank in human history, set in motion the ID controversy.
67
posted on
11/03/2005 1:47:01 PM PST
by
ValenB4
("Every system is perfectly designed to get the results it gets." - Isaac Asimov)
To: js1138
As a conservative, you should be ashamed for bringing left wing populist lines of argument into this discussion. ;) Is that like enlisting the ACLU to silence dissent?
Is that like Darrow asking for creation and evolution both to be taught?
Is that anything like using tax money to spread the darwinist gospel?
68
posted on
11/03/2005 1:49:24 PM PST
by
Dataman
(" conservatives are retards"- PatrickHenry)
To: Dataman
No. It's not like any of those. I may not like the ACLU, but I judge arguments on their merit, not their source.
Tax money is being spent on education and evolution is the consensus of biology. It's even the accepted position of Behe and Denton, the iconic ID supporters.
69
posted on
11/03/2005 1:53:20 PM PST
by
js1138
(Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
To: Dataman
People reject evolution because they DO know what it is. Har! Not on THESE threads! One dolt last night was mouth-foaming about "people who worship random selection."
70
posted on
11/03/2005 1:55:43 PM PST
by
VadeRetro
(Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
To: MineralMan
My suspicion is that if a nationwide quiz were taken, asking everyone to briefly describe the theory of evolution in a paragraph, less than 10% would be able to do so with any resemblance of accuracy. I suppose you reject Christianity, yet could not accurately describe it in a paragraph.
The very first error almost every creationist makes is in believing that the TOE has anything whatever to do with the origins of the universe or the origins of the first lifeform on this planet. I've seen few who know that the TOE does not address either.
That's a popular way of avoiding the extremely difficult and embarrassing task of having to explain the origin of matter or life. However, the non-existence of God requires a non-theistic explanation of the origin of matter and the origin of life. Or do you want to give God a foot in the door? Your buddies say you can't.
Based on that, I cannot see why anyone should pay any attention to creationism in the first place, since it is not arguing against anything real.
But Mineral, you just disqualified yourself from criticizing creationism because you have demonstrated that you don't understand it. You said:
If those arguing the issue do not understand the theory in the first place, then whatever their argument is has no relevance.
Have you not just discarded your own credibility?
71
posted on
11/03/2005 1:59:01 PM PST
by
Dataman
(" conservatives are retards"- PatrickHenry)
To: furball4paws
"Nice to be needed isn't it?" Yes it is. I keep Darwin Central running.
72
posted on
11/03/2005 2:00:04 PM PST
by
b_sharp
(Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
To: PatrickHenry
...the events simply coincided.Randomly selected?
73
posted on
11/03/2005 2:00:14 PM PST
by
Doctor Stochastic
(Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
To: MineralMan
Why do Chick's "bad guys" appear Semitic?
74
posted on
11/03/2005 2:03:37 PM PST
by
Junior
(From now on, I'll stick to science, and leave the hunting alien mutants to the experts!)
To: Right Wing Professor
Many of those Democrats became Republicans due to Nixon's "Southern Stragegy."
75
posted on
11/03/2005 2:06:12 PM PST
by
Doctor Stochastic
(Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
To: js1138
You might be able to copy something from a web site, but you are not capable of presenting a best case description of evolution in your own words. You might be able to copy something from a web site, but you are not capable of presenting a best case description of evolution in your own words. Oh yes, you are smarter than all the creationists, which is your best argument for evolution to date. Some of you have become bitter over the years and have lost everything in your repertoire except the ad hominem attack. Therefore I must ask you to refrain from addressing me unless you are able to maintain control over your emotions and conduct yourself in a civil manner.
76
posted on
11/03/2005 2:10:41 PM PST
by
Dataman
(" conservatives are retards"- PatrickHenry)
To: Dataman
People reject evolution because they DO know what it is. To say otherwise is to imply that you are smart enough to "get it" but the other 88% is in the dark. Your 88% figure is inaccurate. Roughly 10% of people believe evolution occurred without any involvement from God. Slightly over 50% of Americans acknowledge that evolution occurred, however (depending on how the question is worded).
In any case, what you "believe" and I "believe" and what Joe Average "believes" is irrelevant to science. What you "understand" has much more relevance - try to understand the science behind evolution is before you try to argue against it. There is a lot of science supporting it; I'm more and more amazed by it the more I learn about it. And shy away from creationist websites if you want any accurate info - make sure what you're reading is backed by peer-reviewed literature.
77
posted on
11/03/2005 2:11:48 PM PST
by
Quark2005
(Science aims to elucidate. Pseudoscience aims to obfuscate.)
To: Dataman
I'm just stating objective facts. You do not know and do not understand the science you oppose. I really don't care about sparing your feelings.
78
posted on
11/03/2005 2:15:54 PM PST
by
js1138
(Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
To: Dataman; js1138
Oh yes, you are smarter than all the creationists, which is your best argument for evolution to date. No, he's saying you really DON'T know the theory of evolution. He's not providing a mechanism. The mechanism could be a certain unsuspected class of brain tumor. It could be psychological consequence of religious horror. It could be titanic stupidity.
Of course, it does look funny you don't seem to get ANYTHING right.
79
posted on
11/03/2005 2:19:22 PM PST
by
VadeRetro
(Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
To: VadeRetro
He's not providing a mechanism. The mechanism could be a certain unsuspected class of brain tumor. It could be psychological consequence of religious horror. It could be titanic stupidity. I forgot to mention simple dishonesty.
80
posted on
11/03/2005 2:20:29 PM PST
by
VadeRetro
(Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-119 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson