Posted on 09/09/2007 5:17:43 AM PDT by PurpleMountains
Why is it that I often write about such subjects as Darwinism, liberalism, and the ACLU? It is because American society is engaged in a war between those who believe that there is no such thing as right and wrong – and those who hold more traditional views. Those who believe there is no such thing as right and wrong (whom Bill O’Reilly calls Secular-Progressives or SP’s) believe that the only thing that matters is what feels good, and that their behavior is nobody else’s business.
Although many people do not make the connection, this attitude and the behavior it promotes can be traced to Darwinian theory that we are all just accidental products of random happenings – in a straight line down to the dialectical materialism of Marx, Engels and Lenin – down to the communist and Nazi writings and exploits of Stalin, Mao and Hitler – and down to the ACLU and to modern liberalism.
(Excerpt) Read more at forthegrandchildren.blogspot.com ...
It is being pushed as science (now under the guise of ID)....
Where did you pick up this idiotic nonsense. Who says so, besides you evolutionist crybabies who are so ready to plant the libel of deceipt on anyone who disagrees with you.
Give us PROOF that ID is a dishonest attempt to hide creastionism.
OOOPS!! Sorry. Never mind. You are a scientist and "Proof has no place in science."
Of course we are ‘losing’ (the culture war). It was foretold in the bible that it would happen. We are only called to do what we can as salt (a preservative) and light. Without the truth-speakers, the world would already have slid into the pit.
Well, don't let the door hit you on the way out.
::::Rolls eyes::::
…”proof" is an impossible standard in the real world ….
...science does not deal in "proof .... Their belief doesn't make it a fact, but their evidence for its reality does make it a fact.
An unproven fact??? How can this be????????
I have to go elsewhere to find stimulating conversation among people who have witty and informative things to say. Years ago I used to be able to find that here, but the quality of the membership has gone steadily downhill since then.
Well, I am truly sorry tht we don't live up to you exalted standards and your snoty prissiness, and we lesser folks are perfectly willing for you to take your disgusting arrogance elsewhere at your earliest convenience. And don't let the doorknob hit you in the ass as you leave.
And IDers say, "God demonstrated His power by forming man from the dust of the earth". And it is verified thru His Holy Word.
I believe you hav ID mixed up with creationism.
Try again.
And they do not hesitate to publish a bunch of lying, twisted twaddle to keep the scam going and the cash cow mooing.
Wow. I had no idea. Since it is apparent that you've already conducted a thorough survey of the scientific literature (after all, you wouldn't make an accusation like this if you hadn't), perhaps you can share your knowledge. Can you please list for us the fraudulent scientists by name, and list their fraudulent publications by title?
I'd be particularly interested in which of the journal articles available at the U.S. National Institutes of Health free digital archive of biomedical and life sciences literature is, in your words, "lying, twisted twaddle to keep the scam going and the cash cow mooing."
If you'll just go the link I've provided above and plug the word "evolution" into the search engine, I'm sure it would be a simple task for you to identify which of the 86,732 responsive articles are fraudulent and should be avoided.
Thank you so much for your help.
Legal proof was presented in the Dover trial. Here is one example from the court testimonyy:
In the early part of July, the attorneys received the documents that FTE produced in response to that subpoena. They could not possibly have imagined in advance the bounty they would find in that batch of documents. It turns out that there was not one early draft of Pandas but several, and they had kept copies of all of them. The first was called Creation Biology (1983), followed by Biology and Creation (1986), Biology and Origins (early 1987), and two drafts with the final title Of Pandas and People, both from 1987. The final version was published in 1989, with a revised edition released in 1993. Not only did the early drafts use various cognates of clearly creationist language — creation science, creation, creationist, etc. — rather than “intelligent design,” they also used the very same definitions for both, with only the change in the word being defined. In Biology and Creation (1986), the definition for the term “creation” was:The same definition appears in Biology and Origins (1987). In the first draft from 1987, the one using the final title Of Pandas and People, this definition is repeated verbatim. But in the later draft with this title from 1987, written after the Supreme Court’s Edwards decision had ruled creation science out of public school science classrooms, suddenly there was a change in terminology. Now it read:“Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc.”
“Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc.” SourceThis was truly a “Eureka!” moment for the plaintiff’s team. Here was undeniable proof that Pandas had begun as a creationist textbook and, after the Edwards ruling ruled creationism out of schools, the creationists simply changed their terminology, replacing “creation” with “intelligent design” and giving both terms an identical definition. This provided substantial evidence that intelligent design was simply creationism retrofitted to adapt to modern court rulings and would bode well for the plaintiffs’ case.
Good enough?
I’ll keep that in mind.
In the meantime the lurkers among us will see the mean-spirited attitude for what it is, and I recall you as being one of the biggest offenders.
A large segment of the evolutionist community is made up of a bunch of scared, grant-begging frauds who have cornered the market on a nice sounding theory, shown that it looks kinda logical, and will damned well brook no interference with their claims of having proven it as THE ONLY GAME IN TOWN.And they do not hesitate to publish a bunch of lying, twisted twaddle to keep the scam going and the cash cow mooing.
The opinions I expressed, with which you seem to identify so strongly, are based partially on the type of kneejerk twaddle and the smartass, sarcastic arrogance displayed by would be bigshots like you. I have long since become tired of trying to discuss the issues with people who think they are intellectually several stories above anyone who doesn't buy into their dogmatic faith in the UNPROVEN theory of evolution, and accepot it as the only game in town.
I'm have come to the stage of occasionally voicing an opinion, and if you don't like it -- that's just TS. .
PS: Learn to read, and get back to me onmce you understand what the hell I was writing about.
PS: Learn to read, and get back to me once you understand what the hell I was writing about.
Good enough? Nope -- because it has nothing whatsoever to do with what I was talking about.
Learn to read, and get back to me.
Learn to read, and get back to me.
My post #88 responded to your challenge in post #81,
I provided legal proof, based on a federal district court decision, that ID is a dishonest attempt to hide creationism.Give us PROOF that ID is a dishonest attempt to hide creastionism.
In the book Of Pandas and People the early versions used "creation" and related terms. In the final version these terms were all changed to "intelligent design" and related terms without changing the definitions of those terms.
If this does not show that ID is creationism in disguise I don't know what will.
I don't see any reason to believe in evolution since God in His infallable Word said He created the world in six days. That's the basis for the seven day week; the fall of Adam is the basis for salvation in Jesus Christ; the provision of a man and a woman is the basis for one man-one woman marriage. God said that's how He did it. Only if God gives me another reason revealed in scripture would I consider believing in evolution.
The secular humanism I've seen promulgated by people convinced we were not created has wrought the evils of relativism, nihilism, hopelessness, lack of purpose, etc. I'm glad you're not saying God doesn't exist.
I'll take your remark about a copyright message or email as a joke. Ha ha. I don't think this would happen (but then God has surprised us before. Imagine him creating the nation of the United States in the late 1700s so we would be the future protectors of His modern nation of Israel!).
Your answer was more cordial than I expected. I'm sure we'll talk again.
You said, word for word --
A large segment of the evolutionist community is made up of a bunch of scared, grant-begging frauds who have cornered the market on a nice sounding theory, shown that it looks kinda logical, and will damned well brook no interference with their claims of having proven it as THE ONLY GAME IN TOWN.So tell me, what does that mean other than what it self-evidently says? Is there some kind of super-secret creationist code embedded within your slanderous invective?And they do not hesitate to publish a bunch of lying, twisted twaddle to keep the scam going and the cash cow mooing.
Well, at any rate, I guess it's safe to assume that you are utterly ignorant of the scientific literature, and there is not a chance in hell that you know good science from bad.
In short, no need to deal with you ever again.
A creationist I am. Since I am a creationist I do believe that it took Intelligent Design to create everything. I know, in this day and age that has to be spelled out in order to separate the IDers from the Creationists since there are some IDers who believe that God made something (ID) and that something evolved into man, which is a lie.
I provided legal proof, based on a federal district court decision, that ID is a dishonest attempt to hide creationism.
In the book Of Pandas and People the early versions used "creation" and related terms. In the final version these terms were all changed to "intelligent design" and related terms without changing the definitions of those terms.
One judge, one book, two defendants. And the case decided that the defendants were intellectually dishonest in trying to hide THEIR belief of what Intelligent Design. is. And I agree.
But, I also see that the judge did not say that ALL proponents of ID believe that way: note the bold, underlined words in the quote below from the decision. Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general.
So tell me, what does that mean other than what it self-evidently says?
Nothing -- but I can think up a few more truths about egomaniacs, if you like. Is there some kind of super-secret creationist code embedded within your slanderous invective? And, by the way, truth is never slander. It might be hard on the people who fit the mold, but it is not slander.
Well, at any rate, I guess it's safe to assume that you are utterly ignorant of the scientific literature, and there is not a chance in hell that you know good science from bad.
Some more of your arrogant assumptions BASED ON NOTHING, as usual. Your kind are exactly the types I was talking about. In short, no need to deal with you ever again.
OOOOOOOOOOO, Boy!!!! Now that really tears me up. I don't know how I will survive without you asinine attempts at putting me in my place -- wherever a snot like you thinks that might be.
Thanks for the laughs. See ya 'round the campus, kid.
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.