Creation evangelist derides evolution as ‘dumbest’ theory [Kent Hovind Alert!]

University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Post ^ | 17 December 2005 | Kayla Bunge

[Coyoteman]

Here's one for you and your evo-cultist pals:

Where will evolution lead us; that is, make a scientific prediction based on your supposed 'law' of evolution.

That is a tough one because much of evolution has been in reaction to climate change or other major catastrophies.

To predict where evolution is going would require predicting a lot of things, including climate, technology, solar radiation, etc.

It is possible that some parts of the evolutionary response have been reduced by technology--clothes, medicines, and a lot of other things reduce the need to alter the body to changing conditions; technology fills in now more than at any time in the past.

Antibiotics reduce the selection pressure of diseases on humans; but antibiotics also increase the selection pressure on the little bad guys. Not easy to predict how this will evolve. I am an optimist, and think that technology will keep ahead of most things, but a meteor or comet and all bets are off. Technology is very fragile. How long will you last when the power goes out?

By the way, evolution is a science, not a cult. Also, it would be more polite to say evolution, not "evo" unless you are intending to be deliberately insulting.

[He Rides A White Horse]

A drug resistant strain of tuberculosis is still tuberculosis.

[js1138]

Even your faith has limits.

[andysandmikesmom]

Post 1376 and its cartoon reminded me of something I have wanted to ask for some time, but did not ask, for fear of really sounding dumb...but here goes anyway...I figure, maybe someone can at least give me some answers, or point me in the correct direction, whether my thinking is faulty or not...

I take note that on many of the different evo threads, often there is talk about evolution being used in trying to create vaccines for the coming years flu...and this cartoon reminded me of the ability of organisms that cause disease, to become resistant to currently used drugs, and thus showing a need for new drugs...Might this same train of thought be used to investigate cancers that become drug resistant?

I ask, because I mentioned somewhere on this thread earlier, that my older boy died as a result of complications from leukemia...the drug which was used initially to put him into his first remission, and subsequently used to get him into his second remission, is found to be heart toxic after the second remission and cannot be used anymore for any further chemo treatments..there are other drugs that can be substituted, but they are not as effective, as the particular cell line which is cancerous has now become drug resistant to those chemo drugs...

The docs told us, that drug resistance is one of the primary reasons why cancers return...the chemo drugs work on only certain cells within the cancerous cell line, but the other cancerous cells have become drug resistant and thus multiply, ,and grow unchecked...

My question is, does anyone think that the problem of cancerous cell lines becoming drug resistant and thus resulting in the death of the person with the cancer, will ever be solved by applications of evolution...

Sorry in advance if this question sounds silly or stupid, but after having watched my own son die because of a drug resistant cancer, my firm wish is that someone finds a cure for drug resistant cancers...

[Baraonda]

On this thread alone I've read of f.christian and at least another poster who was banned. I'm sure there ar others.

And then there is that list I once saw of banned creationists/IDers. It was posted somewhere.

[js1138]

A drug resistant strain of tuberculosis is still tuberculosis.

Evolution is just change. It is never dramatic, except in Hollywood movies.

[Baraonda]

I don't.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"On this thread alone I've read of f.christian and at least another poster who was banned. I'm sure there ar others.

And then there is that list I once saw of banned creationists/IDers. It was posted somewhere."

How did any of us *get them* banned though? If someone makes a vile statement, how did we force the to do so?

[Coyoteman]

And then there is that list I once saw of banned creationists/IDers. It was posted somewhere.

Others may have better records and memories, but the ones I have seen banned went ballistic and started foaming at the mouth (figuratively). Something in their posts offended the moderators enough that they exited stage left--racism, personal attacks, etc.

Junior keeps a list of banned crevo (both sides) so he will certainly know more.

[Hacksaw]

Name one person we have had banned.

DittoJed.

[Ichneumon]

The vast majority of textbook photos of insects are almost certainly staged.

TV appearances too, probably.

I belong to a butterfly-watcher's group, and through the grapevine last Fall we received a request from the Austin branch for Spicebush butterfly caterpillars that they needed for some kind of video shoot.

It turned out that my wife and I had the only Spicebush caterpillars at the time, in our backyard on the Camphor tree. So we gathered some up, and found a few more by walking the neighborhood and checking out the trees, and FedEx'ed them to Austin.

Later we got word (and some "thank you" gifts) from the film crew. It turns out they were filming a segment for "Buggin' with Ruud", a TV series on the "Animal Planet" cable channel (which itself is a spin-off from the Discovery Channel).

I'll bet you large odds that when the show featuring our caterpillars airs (early in 2006, they say) it won't show Ruud pulling them out of a FedEx box to show them. Instead, I'm sure it'll show him walking through some woods somewhere, then "finding" the caterpillars on a wild tree. Cue cameraman for zooming closeup, as Ruud begins to describe their more interesting features...

There's nothing wrong with "staging" insect photos or video, as long as it doesn't misrepresent what actually occurs in nature, because "natural" insects are usually just too damned hard to find or catch at exactly the right stage, position, or activity for whatever it is you might be needing to show, at the time you're able to film it.

And contrary to the mock horror of the creationists, there's nothing wrong with gluing a couple of moths to a piece of bark in order to get a good sharp well-lighted photo in a book, to illustrate the different levels of camouflage against each other. In nature, the lighting, position, timing, visibility, movement, availability, etc. is usually sub-optimal. Heck, I've got thousands of failed in-the-field photos to attest to that. If you have to "pose" your subjects, so be it, as long as it doesn't misrepresent the natural state of things. And the Peppered Moth photos don't.

In case anyone was wondering, the reason that Spicebush caterpillars are popular subjects of photos and videos is because they have evolved coloration and shape which makes them look like little snakes, a great example of protective mimickry. Even the "snake's eyes" are just fake bits of coloration on the thorax -- the caterpillar's actual head and eyes are tucked under at the bottom of the photo, barely visible.

[js1138]

On this thread alone I've read of f.christian and at least another poster who was banned. I'm sure there ar others.

No one is banned from FreeRepublic except by management. The owner of the website is an evangelical Christian.

f.Christian was personally banned by Jim Robinson. Several other creationists on the list were banned after picking fights with JimRob.

[bobhoskins]

Evolution is just change. It is never dramatic, except in Hollywood movies.

Such as this movie.

[He Rides A White Horse]

Do you pass your suntan to you children?

The answer is the same, and it is consistant......a drug resistant form of tuberculosis is still tuberculosis. It hasn't evolved into a completely different organism.

Culture it, test it, observe it if you don't believe me.

[Ichneumon]

Pinging you to my "staged insect photos" post, just before this one...

[Baraonda]

OK.

I saw the name f.christian being mentioned on this thread. That is why I mentioned him. I don't know who caused the ban.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

Yes you do, you said earlier,

"In another time, another age, its adherents used to be burned at the stake or given the rope. Nowadays, fortunately for the spineless darwinists, they're hiding behind a screen monitor. But I do believe that history will, and shall, repeat itself. The anti-Christs can hide, but can't run away from the stake."

Deny you said this.

[bobdsmith]

Well if a pig suddenly sprouts wings it hasn't evolved into a new organism. It's still a pig, but with wings.

[js1138]

All the people who have been banned have offended the moderators in some way. The site owner and all known moderators are Christians, many of them creationists.

You have to be pretty belligerant to get banned while supporting creationism.

[Senator Bedfellow]

DJ pulled her own trigger.

OPUS-Dittojed2