Posted on 05/08/2006 1:17:07 PM PDT by mlc9852
that's funny.....:) People take this much too seriously....
I always did like that tune however.....Makes me want to drink moonshine or roche....
I predict that in a 100 years all those guys WILL be extinct!
Ecclesiastes 1:9
What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.
Has this thread devolved to one about rap music(?)?
That's the million-dollar question, csense.
They exist, and you use them everyday: such thingies as logic, physical laws, consciousness itself.
It's easy to have a cat without a grin, but you have not demonstrated the existence of a grin without a cat.
I'll demonstrate one when one shows up. :^)
BTW, I love this graphic: I have it framed on my home office wall.
Maybe those pink unicorns can explain the motives which drove a lone unarmed man to stare down those four T-72 tanks which we discussed in another topic not long ago. The Masters of the Universe, by their own admission, can't (explain motives, that is - or stare down the tanks either, come to think of it).
Are you saying there's no appreciable difference between a man and a rat?
I don't recall saying there was no appreciable difference between men and rats. I would say there are some appreciable similarities. We would not conduct medical experiments on rats otherwise.
The original question was why someone would risk or sacrifice his life (presumable for some cause). The implication is that risking one's life to help others is a uniquely spiritual behavior, restricted to humans. This is not true.
You need to pay attention - I never used the word fraud. Move away from your script.
If creationists...
Who are these "creationists" you are always rambling about?
but such fudging can usually be detected by statistical analysis (which hasn't happened with Kettlewell
Really. You are becoming a caricature also. Have YOU ever looked into information beyond the womb of the evolution faithful? Kerrelwell was flawed science - plan and simple. (BTW: statistical analysis has nothing to do with the conclusion that Kettlewell showed 'evolution is action')
"The number of moths Kettlewell set on the trees was far above the number that would settle on the trees naturally (he set up a “bird feeder”); thus birds were much more attracted to them than in a natural setting."
-Of Moths and Men by Judith Hooper
"It now turns out, however, that Kettlewell’s experiments may not have even demonstrated natural selection. In the mid-1980s, biologists discovered that peppered moths only rarely rest on tree trunks in the wild. These night-flying moths are now thought to rest during the day beneath small branches high up in the trees, where they can’t be seen. Since Kettlewell released moths during the day onto exposed tree trunks, where the dazed insects froze in place and became easy targets for birds, his results may have had little bearing on what happens under natural conditions."
-Dr. Jonathan Wells (Ph.D. in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California at Berkeley)
"There have been arguments between different biologists about Kettlewell’s experiments. For example they have been criticised because he put the experimental moths low down on tree trunks. When you study them [peppered moths] in detail you realise that a naturally settling moth goes through quite a complex behavioural pattern, as you would expect. It will land on a tree, tend to walk up it, come to branches and either settle under a branch or walk along the branch. It is not then sitting where the photographs were taken, but in a more protected position."
-Professor Laurence Cook, Manchester Metropolitan University
"...Majerus [author of 'Melanism -Evolution in Action'] began to spot flaws in the design of Kettlewell's experiments and the way they had been simplified for schools. Peppered moths do not usually rest during the day on the trunks of trees - where Kettlewell released them in the bird predation experiment - preferring higher branches tucked out of sight. Photos in schoolbooks showing peppered moths resting on tree trunks are staged, sometimes using dead moths. They bear little resemblance to what occurs in nature."
-Steve Connor, "Of moths and men"
"Majerus and other ecologists have carefully examined the details of Kettlewell's work and found them to be lacking. As Majerus explains, to be absolutely certain of exactly how natural selection produced the rise and fall of the carbonaria form, we need better experiments to show that birds (in a natural environment) really do respond to camouflage in the ways we have presumed, that the primary reason the dark moths did better in polluted areas was because of camouflage (and not other factors like behavior), and that migration rates of moths from the surrounding countryside are not so great that they overwhelm the influence of selection in local regions by birds. Until these studies are done, the peppered moth story will be incomplete."
-Ken Miller, Professor of Biology, Brown University
The most important point is, at best, Kettlewell demonstrated Natural Selection and Natural Selection alone is not an example of "Evolution is action" as the evolution faithful hoped. Science should not be based on faith.
"the peppered moth example showed natural selection, but not 'evolution in action'"
-L. Harrison Matthews, a biologist so distinguished he was asked to write the foreword for the 1971 edition of Darwin's Origin of Species
When did I lie about God's work.
Can you prove God exists?
If you can't, there is no such thing as God's work and therefore your comment is yet more nonsense from CarolinaGuitarman. Not to mention I have not lied about anything. Like I said, you are a caricature.
Sure. Like cannibalism, say. When rats do it, however, it is thought to be the result of environmental pressures (e.g., overcrowding). But when humans do it, presumably they do it because they like the taste of human flesh. So to what extent are they "similar?"
Thanks to 11 September, we received a reminder of why men are worth keeping around in our society (thank you Peggy Noonan). Let us note that there were also members of the distaff side whose job it was to run toward danger while the rest of us fled. The attraction of a thrill may have had something to do with why a few of those men and women chose to be policemen or firemen, but I doubt if any male elected to put his life in danger in the happy contemplation that his death would permit his wife or sweetheart the pleasure of extending their sexual favors to some other male.
Value-judgments are at stake here, and value-judgments do not yield easily to mechanistic explanations.
You are not even close - see what happens when you base your 'science' on faith and propaganda?
ID says the origin of some things can not be described solely via Darwinist processes and design seems to be the most likely explanation.
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.