Psychic? Things have changed.
Posted on 07/24/2003 1:55:39 PM PDT by Mr.Atos
I was just lisening to Medved debating Creationism with Athiests on the air. I found it interesting that while Medved argued his side quite effectively from the standpoint of faith, his opponents resorted to condescension and beliitled him with statements like, "when it rains, is that God crying?" I was reminded of the best (at least most amusing)debate that I have ever heard on the subject of Creationism vs Evolution, albeit a fictional setting. It occurred on the show, Friends of all places between the characters Pheobe (The Hippy) and Ross (The Paleontologist). It went like this...
Pheebs: Okay...it's very faint, but I can still sense him in the building...GO INTO THE LIGHT MR. HECKLES!!
Ross: Whoa, whoa, whoa. What, uh, you don't believe in evolution? Pheebs: Nah. Not really. Ross: You don't believe in evolution? Pheebs: I don't know. It's just, ya know, monkeys, Darwin, ya know, it's a, it's a nice story. I just think it's a little too easy.
Ross: Uh, excuse me. Evolution is not for you to buy, Phoebe. Evolution is scientific fact. Like, like, the air we breathe, like gravity... Pheebs: Uh, okay, don't get me started on gravity.
Ross: You uh, you don't believe in gravity? Pheebs: Well, it's not so much that ya know, like I don't *believe* in it, ya know. It's just...I don't know. Lately I get the feeling that I'm not so much being pulled down, as I am being pushed.
Ross: How can you NOT BELIEVE in evolution? Pheebs: [shrugs] I unh-huh...Look at this funky shirt!!
Ross: Well, there ya go. Pheebs: Huh. So now, the REAL question is: who put those fossils there, and why...?
Ross: OPPOSABLE THUMBS!! Without evolution, how do YOU explain OPPOSABLE THUMBS?!? Pheebs: Maybe the overlords needed them to steer their spacecrafts!
Pheebs: Uh-oh! Scary Scientist Man!
Pheebs: Okay, Ross? Could you just open your mind like, *this* much?? Okay? Now wasn't there a time when the brightest minds in the world believed that the Earth was flat? And up until what, like, fifty years ago, you all thought the atom was the smallest thing, until you split it open, and this like, whole mess o' crap came out! Now, are you telling me that you are so unbelievably arrogant that you can't admit that there's a teeny, tiny possibility that you could be wrong about this?!?
Pheebs: I can't believe you caved. Ross: What? Pheebs: You just ABANDONED your whole belief system! I mean, before, I didn't agree with you, but at least I respected you. Ross: But uh.. Pheebs: Yeah...how...how are you gonna go in to work tomorrow? How...how are you gonna face the other science guys? How...how are you gonna face yourself? Oh! [Ross runs away dejected] Pheebs: That was fun. So who's hungry?
Do you need to make this analogy before you can answer my question? Or did you just mean not to answer my question at all?
Totally false. I have strongly stated many times that the only legitimate definition of species is the biological definition - a species is a group of organisms which can reproduce with each other and produce viable, reproducing progeny. I have strongly argued against the subjective definitions of the evolutionists.
First of all creation and destruction are opposites. You do not create anything by destroying-me-
Even that is false.
No, biologically it is true. While your statements may all be correct, they are irrelevant to the discussion which is that the genetic basis of a species is reduced, not increased by natural selection. It also does not deal with the scientific facts that show that breeds which are 'mongrelized' are hardier, live longer and have more defenses against sickness, etc. than the pure breeds. The evidence that selection does not make for an improvement in a species is overwhelming. Here's the reason. Let's say that half of a species got destroyed because it could not genetically deal with cold weather. What would happen next time the environmental conditions turn around? The species would not be able to deal with the warm weather and the 'survivors' would die and with it the species. That is why the greater the genetic pool of a species, the hardier it is. Further, let's remember that all individuals carry two copies of a gene and can, in one and the same individual pass on genes for opposite situations. This makes the species very hardy indeed and is why selection is bad for a species.
Are you referring the fact that in Jewish music, Major is used for atonement and minor for happy? That would seem to be the norm. "Hava Nagila" is very happy.
Most of this is learned responses, but having minor=happy and major=atonement is common.
Psychic? Things have changed.
Hybrid crossbills are less able to survive than either parent species. I posted a link earlier in the thread. The same is true of most wild hybrids. Hybrid vigor is largely a result of human-produced inbreeding. Making inferences from mongrel dogs, where the parent breeds were selected according to the bizarre preferences of human breeders rather than survival in the wild, is fallacious.
The point that selection is bad for a species would work if we selected for species, rather than individuals or genes; and if mutations were not continually occuring. While selection removes variation, mutations create more.
Thanks. It's my Mom's birthday today, actually.
Yup, it comes under:
If the facts don't support the theory, change the facts.
In this case, the theory is that there is no God, that man is just another animal and animals are as good or no better or the same as we are, i.e., man is NOT endowed by his Creator with unalienable rights. IOW, the STATE can be first and foremost in the lives of all people since there IS no God, no higher power than the State.
The FACTS don't support this theory that there is no God.
What to do, what to do....CHANGE THE FACTS!
We know so-called educators and the class of EDUCRATS cook the books to support diversity, collectivism, enviro-Nazism, "limits of growth," and on and on. And yet we are supposed to believe them when they dream up their theories of "evolution" ALSO cooked up to support their leftist theories of man?
In a nutshell, here's the deal: the theory of EVOLUTION is cut from the same whole cloth as Marxism. The movement of communism required "scientific" support, and, viola! The educlass embraced "evoultion" simultaneously to embracing the totalitarian collectivist "total state."
Why Freepers would believe these wacky leftists who have PROVEN that they cook the FACTS to support their liberal intentions is beyond me.
To establish the TOTAL STATE, and to ... destroy Western Civilization and the Judeo-Christian ethic --- which made it possible, the inteligensia MUST establish that there is no God, that man has no inherent rights, and that the STATE is the highest entity. And that it is the STATE to which we owe our allegiance.
161 Posted on 08/26/2001 14:21:21 PDT by gg188
For other Freepers and Lurkers, the latest draft is here.
With regard to endeavoring to cause corrections, the intended targets are "urban legends" - of the type we see now and again on Free Republic.
For instance, there was once a very official looking quote attributed to Janet Reno in a 60 Minutes interview on a particular date which was bogus. The essence of the quote was that the DoJ was intentionally targeting fundamentalist Christians. One of the Freepers here - I believe it might have been Brian Moseley - had the actual 60 minutes tape for that date, watched it thoroughly and came back with the verdict that it never happened. Later, it showed up on various "urban legend" websites as bogus.
IOW, if we research something and find it is false we ought to try to get the website which originally had the bogus information to make the correction.
Hybrid crossbills are less able to survive than either parent species.
You keep going off subject. We are not talking hybrids, we are talking organisms of the same species. Everywhere you look from humans to dogs, to horses, to whatever, the cross-breeds are hardier than the thorough breeds - and so are the Darwin finches cross breeds.
The point that selection is bad for a species would work if we selected for species,
In case you forgot, evolution is about species, not individuals. We have been speaking about evolution and therefore about species. If the species does not survive, the individuals will not survive either. The smaller the genetics basis of the species the more apt it is to be destroyed by new environmental changes. As to mutations, no one has shown a mutation which gave a species a new function, so that is wishful thinking by evolutionists and not scientific fact. Science is about 'is' not 'may be'.
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.