Keith Olbermann mocks Texans who believe in Creationism over Evolution

Keith Olbemann, a TV personality for MSBNC, could hardly contain his disdain when it came to sharing the results of a recent University of Texas/Texas Tribune poll asking Texans their views on both Evolution and Creationism.

Mr. Olbermann began his report with the following insult: "A mind is a terrible thing to waste, but if you waste 15 million of them apparently you get Texas."

Keith gleefully continued, "If a University of Texas poll is correct, that is how many Texans, 60% of the population, either belive humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time or are not sure. Oh this much gets worse!" ...

OOOhh, "otherwise you would know how ignorant that statement was. I'm not going to bother to explain it to you, it appears that it would be a waste of my time."

Was your answer to my statement, "I thought evolution is spontaneous as seen in the fossil record."

YOU are the waste of time and ignorant!

However, to be fair to your unlearned mind, I'll spend just a little more time to enlighten you.

Let me go back to a previous answer from you, Your comment about petri (BTW, you misspelled petri) dish experiments with bacteria and with new dog breeds by selective breeding. These are the same false tired old arguments that supposedly prove evolution.

1) What came out of the bacteria experiments? Did the bacteria change to a worm, a bird, a spider? No it was still the same type of bacteria! Salmonella is still Salmonella.

2)Now in the case of dog breeding, (This one is too easy) ALL FOUR LEGGED, BARKING, TAIL WAGGING, DOG BREEDS ARE STILL CALLED DOGS AND their DNA proves they are dogs.

Now to your latest response that my statement, "evolution is spontaneous," is ignorant. Since you believe in evolution, where are all the transitional phases of evolution? NOT ONE HAS EVER BEEN FOUND! All you evolutionists claim the process takes billions and billions of years. So, there should be millions of part monkey part human transitions. Since there are none, evolution must be a quick spontaneous change leaving no evidence.

So, evolution is a false, corrupt science, worshiped by the brain dead faithful.

BUT, if you came from monkeys, this is one argument I won't fight you on.

That's tragicomic: That the earth is only 7-10k years old is about the most anti-intellectual position a person could hold. Such thinking is really indistinguishable from a belief in witch doctors and the like. I've endured my father-in-law going on at length that dinosaur fossils, geology, radio carbon dating, mitochondrial DNA analysis, astrophysics--basically anything at all that points to the earth and the universe being far older than a literal biblical tale could possibly account for--are clever deceptions foisted upon the gullible by Satan. From an empirical point of view, it's readily apparent that he is deceiving himself in a rather comprehensive manner that borders on frickin' crazy. Is it coincidental that he hails from Texas originally? I'm thinking not.

The Bible no where says, hints, or suggests this earth is young. IN fact it 'literally' points to a very OLD earth and an 'age' that WAS prior to this 'human' in the flesh period. There is no one alive in a flesh body that has lived long enough to claim they have gained an empirical stature.

Deception is an equal opportunity affliction and the TOE path has brought US to 'death care' door, after all the 'fittest' do survive.

Ordinarily I would consider Olby the biggest idiot to have ever lived. But, on this one topic, he’s got a point. Creationism is bunk. I love the example of the Glen Rose limestone that the author uses to prove that humans and dinosaurs lived contemporaneously. The Glen Rose limestone has dinosaur tracks. To create a tourist attraction, hucksters long ago chiseled human footprints next to the dinosaur tracks. The proof of this fraud is shown by looking at the footprints in cross section. The limestone was deposited as a soft mud in many fine layers that are visible under a microscope. When a dinosaur (or anything) walks across it, the mud squishes up and deforms the layers, and you can clearly see the deformation of the thin layers in cross section. However, no such deformation is seen in the alleged human footprints. I’ve said this before on FR and I was excoriated by the Christians here, but I’ll say it again: An understanding and acceptance of modern science, including evolutionary biology, is not in conflict with the Christian faith. Literal, fundamentalist readings of the Bible require the faithful to reject not just evolution but many of science’s greatest discoveries. For those of you that believe God and science are in conflict, I suggest you read The Prism and the Rainbow (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2010), written by Joel Martin, an ordained Presbyterian Church elder who happens to be an evolutionary biologist.

I have been to Glen Rose, I guess I missed seeing those flesh human made tracks.

Peter says there are three different heaven/earth ages, and the one that WAS was destroyed. This earth is filled with the evidence that something shook this earth and caused those dino tracks to be frozen in time. And Peter even says there was a flood.

What the so called wise of the modernist period ignore is when were the souls/spirit created. What kind of body was Christ in when He was visible to the disciples yet He was seen going through a wall? Biology is limited because it is bound to material that rots and returns back to the dust/dirt from which it came.

“What came out of the bacteria experiments? Did the bacteria change to a worm, a bird, a spider? No it was still the same type of bacteria! Salmonella is still Salmonella.”

—I’m not sure what experiment involving salmonella you are talking about, but there was an interesting experiment involving e. coli where they developed the ability to utilize citrate - something that e. coli, by definition, cannot do, and therefore is no longer the same type of bacteria. Of course, some will say “but they are still bacteria!”, but that’s like saying that fish to human is not evolution because “they are still animals!”.

“Now in the case of dog breeding, (This one is too easy) ALL FOUR LEGGED, BARKING, TAIL WAGGING, DOG BREEDS ARE STILL CALLED DOGS AND their DNA proves they are dogs.”

— Would Chihuahuas and Great Danes be placed into the same species if they were the only dog breeds in existence? Not a chance. They can’t interbreed and there is more anatomical divergence there than there is between, say, chimps and humans. The only reason they are placed in the same species is because there are so many ‘intermediates’ around that it would be very difficult to draw any lines of speciation, and it would be too arbitrary.

“Now to your latest response that my statement, “evolution is spontaneous,” is ignorant. Since you believe in evolution, where are all the transitional phases of evolution? NOT ONE HAS EVER BEEN FOUND! All you evolutionists claim the process takes billions and billions of years. So, there should be millions of part monkey part human transitions. Since there are none, evolution must be a quick spontaneous change leaving no evidence.”

—Many transitional fossils have been found. I can’t even imagine better transitionals than what we’ve found between, say, fish and amphibians, reptiles and mammals, tetrapods and whales, etc. And I especially can’t imagine a better series of fossils showing human evolution from ape-like creatures. If you can describe a hypothetical transitional fossil that would show evolution from ape-like creatures to man that’s better than what’s already been found, I’d love to hear about it.

"Would Chihuahuas and Great Danes be placed into the same species if they were the only dog breeds in existence? Not a chance. They can’t interbreed and there is more anatomical divergence there than there is between, say, chimps and humans"

You can't be serious. Do you know anything about biology?

It may not be physically possible for Chihuahuas and Great Danes to mate but put the egg & sperm together, they would have offspring, no matter how deformed. Deformed because the huge difference in their parent's in size. NOT because they are different species, as you suggest. I have no first/second hand knowledge of how the Great ChiDane pup might be deformed. In fact what traits of the Great Dane would a breeder want to see in the Chihuahua or the other way around? So, your supposition is ridiculous and foolish.

"Many transitional fossils have been found."

Stop looking at those nice National Geographic drawings for your transitional fossils evidence

"experiment involving e. coli where they developed the ability to utilize citrate - something that e. coli, by definition, cannot do, and therefore is no longer the same type of bacteria"

Lenski’s lab discovered that at generation 31,500, one line of E. coli could utilize citrate (Cit+). As mentioned previously, E. coli are not usually able to utilize citrate (Cit-), and this fact is typically used as diagnostic identification of E. coli. A New Scientist writer proclaims, “A major innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers’ eyes. It’s the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait.”2 However, as we will see, this is a gross overstatement in regards to what actually occurred. Previous research has shown that wild-type E. coli can utilize citrate when oxygen levels are low.6 Under these conditions, citrate is taken into the cell and used in a fermentation pathway. The gene (citT) in E. coli is believed to encode a citrate transporter (a protein which transports citrate into the cell).6 When oxygen levels are high, it is thought that the citrate transporter does not function or is not produced (even though they still possess the enzymes necessary to utilize citrate). Thus, wild-type E. coli already have the ability to transport citrate into the cell and

DID YOU GET THAT? Previous research has shown that wild-type E. coli can utilize citrate when oxygen levels are low.6 Under these conditions, citrate is taken into the cell and used in a fermentation pathway.

YOUR #1 WRONG

#2WRONG

#3 WRONG

Why don't you quite while your behind?

“It may not be physically possible for Chihuahuas and Great Danes to mate but put the egg & sperm together, they would have offspring, no matter how deformed.”

—Are you sure?

“Deformed because the huge difference in their parent’s in size. NOT because they are different species, as you suggest.”

—I’m not suggesting that they are different species - as I don’t know what the definition of ‘species’ should be; I’m merely saying that they WOULD certainly be classified as different species if they were the only two extant dog breeds. There are many lifeforms that ARE classified as different species but which do occassionally interbreed and which are far more anatomically similar than Great Danes and Chihuahuas (e.g zebras and horses, and interestingly - Great Danes and wolves).

“In fact what traits of the Great Dane would a breeder want to see in the Chihuahua or the other way around? So, your supposition is ridiculous and foolish.”

—Breeders rarely look for anything remotely useful - they usually just go for novelty, and I think this would fit the bill. The mere curiosity of such a breed would attract a great deal of attention and be lucrative.

“Stop looking at those nice National Geographic drawings for your transitional fossils evidence”

—I have studied human and other primate bones, and have studied casts of hominid fossils at universities and museums for evidence of transitional fossils.

I’d still like to hear a description of a hypothetical fossil that is a better example of a transitional fossil than what has already been found. It’s completely meaningless to claim that no transitional fossils have been found, if no fossil - even a hypothetical one - could possibly fit the bill.

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.