Posted on 05/12/2006 12:13:47 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
In his op-ed "Evolution's bottom line," published in The New York Times (May 12, 2006), Holden Thorp emphasizes the practical applications of evolution, writing, "creationism has no commercial application. Evolution does," and citing several specific examples.
In places where evolution education is undermined, he argues, it isn't only students who will be the poorer for it: "Will Mom or Dad Scientist want to live somewhere where their children are less likely to learn evolution?" He concludes, "Where science gets done is where wealth gets created, so places that decide to put stickers on their textbooks or change the definition of science have decided, perhaps unknowingly, not to go to the innovation party of the future. Maybe that's fine for the grownups who'd rather stay home, but it seems like a raw deal for the 14-year-old girl in Topeka who might have gone on to find a cure for resistant infections if only she had been taught evolution in high school."
Thorp is chairman of the chemistry department at the University of North Carolina.
Even more telling is the continuity of mtDNA in the western US. There is one haplotype which spans 10,000 years, showing migration from southern Alaska to South America and a few other places in the interior. Other haplogroups also span this time period.
I have one from my own research! Note, this is not from some website, quotemined at random. This is from my own research. I have yet to see the creationist websites even begin to address this issue. How would you explain it?
How would you explain a continuity in mtDNA across the time posited for the global flood (2300 BC; see below)?
There should have been a discontinuity at that point, with early populations wiped out and replaced by Noah's line of DNA.
There is absolutely no evidence that this happened. Native American haplogroups continued along just fine, before 2300 BC and after 2300 BC.
The date of the global flood:
2252 BC -- layevangelism.com
2304 BC -- Answers in Genesis (+/- 11 years).
2350 BC -- Morris, H. Biblical Creationism. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1993.
My prayers for them, abortion can screw people up badly.
VERY classy, very tasteful of you to encourage HappyFeet like this.
Cheers!
Well of course! I'm an archaeologist!
For formal affairs I put on my best coveralls and my go-to-town Stetson.
What did you expect, a lack of class?
What a deliciously horrible German name!
Full Disclosure: "Nazgùl, Nazgùl,' said Grishnâkh, shivering and licking his lips, as if the word had a foul taste that he savoured painfully.
All you need to do is juxtapose of photo of Bill Clinton walking out of a church...
Cheers!
Boohoo, who WILL we play with??
Don't ask, or I might have to make some puns.
Cheers!
If these threads go on enough, spawning enough purported Patrick Henry clones, then mayhap RWP can do an analysis of their posts and taglines, analogous to the ancestral DNA parsing which he teaches in some of his classes...
We could then discuss the branchings of the genus Patrickus and (quite possibly) find the true common ancestor.
Full Disclosure: Insert your own 'missing [hypertext]link' joke here.
Cheers!
Here, since you post the same thing in multiple threads, allow me to quote myself, and post the rebuttal in multiple threads:
On the contrary, this happens extremely rarely - that's why it's newsworthy. But you plainly don't understand - fraud being exposed is a very, very good thing for science. This knucklehead was claiming to have evidence that didn't agree with the rest of the evidence previously discovered. He wanted to grab attention by coming up with something that was different from the mainstream, and grab headlines.
That's how science works - checks and balances, consensus, peer review, all in the effort to make sure some fly-by-night attention grabber doesn't pull a fast one. That's what happened here - science working as it is supposed to.
Now go find solid evidence to rebut the other 99.99% of work being done on the human and other genomes today.
I dunno, there's some anecdotal evidence which I am too manifestly lazy to dig up completely.
And you've been irascible enough recently in this thread--and I'm procrastinating on something else too--that I feel like taking my own turn at being a smart-ass.
James Herriot wrote in his autobiographical novel All Creatures Great and Small (or one of its sequels) of a prank pulled by another British Veterinarian involving a German Naturist magazine with 'full frontal nudity on its cover'. He points out that "even in these enlightened times it would raise a few eyebrows, but in 1930's Yorkshire it was positively cataclysmic." (paraphrase mine).
So we do have anecdotal evidence of German nudists in the pre-war period.
As far as Odin worshippers, my knowledge of Germanic / Scandahoovian mythology is somewhat lacking. But I have read that at Hindenburg's State Funeral, as part of a public pronouncement, Hitler said (to the coffin, or the corpse, or whatever): "And now, enter thou upon Valhalla."
No, for once I don't have the ISBN number, but it might have been in the Time-Life series on World War II.
Cheers!
*SNORT* *GUFFAW*
Cheers!
It's a freerepublic. Go for it. Meanwhile, I'm not losing any sleep about the overwhelming presence of jew-hating nudist Odin worshippers, in a country with about 30 million catholics, and about the same of Lutherans.
Bill Clinton wasn't using it as a talking point to promote torturing 6 million jews to death in about as sick a way as you could imagine; Adolf Hitler was.
I heard once--but have not been able to verify--that he deliberately soiled himself and then wrote (more or less) "I crapped my pants and Satan can lick it up."
IF that is true, ... why haven't I seen it referred to in some of these flamewars? ;-)
Cheers!
If that is true, it is then proof that there is such a thing as politicians mouthing or faking Christianity in order to broaden their appeal.
And as you pointed out in response to my smart-ass post, there were a whole bunch of Christians in Germany in the 1930's; so appealing to them would've been important.
This is not necessarily proof, mind you; nor do I claim it is. But it does render legitimate the question: on what grounds do you gain your apparent Certainty that Hitler was in fact a believing Christian?
Cheers!
What CERTAINTY do you have that anyone is a "believing christian"? You don't live inside their brains. Ultimately, you just have to go by history, hints and signs, or take their word for it. It's a more than reasonable guess that Hitler was taught by German Dominican friars for a good deal of his formative years, and it's well-known that he aspired to the priesthood in that order, long before it occured to him what a good hook for the christian population of germany it would be to emphasize his religeous leanings in public. He may have wavered about it--but who hasn't? It's beyond absurd, given what we know of his history, to pretend he had no such leanings. Of course he did. Did he pretend to more piety than he had, in order to villify the jews biblically couched way to a preaching-to-the-choir audience. Of course he did. So what? That doesn't diminish my basic argument about the Catholic church's teachings producing a Germany predisposed to believe hateful things about jews, on account of scripture, basic doctrine, and preachings and laws of the church, it strengthens it. Recall that the Church of Rome was still kidnapping jewish children to be brought up catholic in foreign lands as late as 1857, and still villifying jews in the official publishing organs of the Holy See as late as 1907, or so. Recall that the Holy See did not stop Father Coghlin, here in the US, with his christian radio jew-hating hour, which was fairly contemporary to the Holocaust. Western European civilization has been pumped up with biblically based anti-jewish sentiment for 1400 years. All Hitler did was tap a rich vein.
WHOA, there, horsie!
All I said was that the claim that Hitler was a sincere, devout Christian was in severe doubt.
This is NOT the same as defending (or even happening to be discussing) historical evidence for anti-Semitism within the Catholic Church; let alone trying to parse to decide how much was native to Catholicism, how much was "steeped into" the culture of Europe, or how much those two elements overlapped.
If you want to pursue that discussion, great; but it does not particularly interest me at the moment. Plese look to other posters to continue developing that topic.
Cheers!
Nobody died and put you in charge of my argument. If you can't see the connection between pieces of my argument, I can't force it on you, but let me just suggest, for conjecture's sake, that when I make a chain of argument, the pieces have something to do with each other.
All I said was that the claim that Hitler was a sincere, devout Christian was in severe doubt.
It's in severe doubt in devout christian apologist circles. It is not in severe doubt in historical circles, such as those of the custodians of the USArmy intelligence evaluation.
This is NOT the same as defending (or even happening to be discussing) historical evidence for anti-Semitism within the Catholic Church; let alone trying to parse to decide how much was native to Catholicism, how much was "steeped into" the culture of Europe, or how much those two elements overlapped.
Oh, indeed, how was anti-semitism "steeped into the culture of Europe", other than by the Catholic Church's 1400 years of intense propaganda?
If you want to pursue that discussion, great; but it does not particularly interest me at the moment. Please look to other posters to continue developing that topic.
Hitler, like millions of other Germans, was anti-semitic because he was educated in a famously anti-semitic church, in Germany, as attested to by his sister, friends and teachers, to whom he voiced a desire to become a priest, long before he had any thoughts of "scamming" 50 million germans into helping him mass-murder jews--comic-book incredible as such an assumption is. Like the theories that he was completely cynical in his public preseentations of his own convictions, the theories that he was anti-semitic because he was a nudist, or a vegetarian, or a teutonic savage tree-sprite Odin-ist, or because his mother was impregnated by someone who was hypothetically jewish--are not the way a sane person without an ax to grind would bet. A sane person would bet that the reason the other 10s of millions of christian germans were virulently anti-semitic, is the same reason Hitler was anti-semitic.
Sadly... so true....
No one to play with bump.....
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.