Early Humanoid female:
Modern Human female:
Posted on 09/29/2005 7:32:43 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
"and it doesn't give fellas like you any pretence for arrogating an extra 50 I.Q. points to yourself over anybody that disagrees with you.
"
Oh, I'd never do that. I.Q. has never been much of an indicator of reasoning ability or correctness of thinking. There are some very bright folks out there, most much smarter than me, who are abject nut cases when it comes to scientific theories.
But what I really had in mind was "Squid pro quo." That's okay, what you're using is better.
Let's see...that ape is holding a smoking pipe and has his hand out asking for something. I'd say he was a liberal, but everyone knows that apes can't think.
I think I'll just be safe and give him the banana. Those apes are strong as heck!
Don't be dissin' my granpappy, now!
Do you really mean to give him so much props?
check out his columns...he's a left wing loser. Anti-war, anti-Bush...not exactly to fine qualities on a conservative forum.
You did it again! Took me almost 10 hours to get that thing out of my head yesterday. (mutter, mutter, grumble, grumble, lawyers, mutter, grumble)
BTW, all this political debate is about evolution, but my understanding is that Intelligent Design was a concept developed for astrophisics. They were considering why the universe came trogether with just the right mix of forces, particles, etc. to hold it all together and permit everything, including life ultimately, to exist.
Had the universe taken slight turns in different directions, it would never have formed in the way we experience it. The proponents were not pushing religion just asking questions. They immediately met with resistance by scientists who were upset the theory might introduce some First Principle or God behind everything.
This is the real stomping ground for ID, not evolution. Although I know there are some weaknesses in evolutionary theory, I believe evoilution takes place. The question is whether this is a ll random chance or are things "designed" in some way for some reason, to reach the results we see.
As much as scientists fight to "prove" randomness they simply are nowhere near unraveling the workings of nature enough to answer these questions. Indeed, almost all avenues of deep scientific research reach a fuzzy dead end at this point.
Examples are quantum theory, the inside of a black hole, the universe before the big bang, etc. At a certain point scientists become "religious" in tone. We can never know what happens inside a black hole, or before the big bang, and so there is/was nothing there and it doesn't matter, and this unknowability begins to sound like religious, not scientific mystery. Science admits it can't see beyond that veil, says we never will be able to, and then ignorantly says it doesn't matter.
The belief by a scientist that nothing preceded the big bang is at least as "silly" as any religious notion.
Early Humanoid female:
Modern Human female:
Nice design, there is a free lunch after all.
Of course since the Dover School Board has no ID requirement in it's curriculum the article is rather off point but it was amuzing.
That should rad amusing and by that I mean it's funny to see the lenghts some folks will go to misrepresent the issue. In fact, hilarious.
Sheesh, rad should be read. Put your glasses on dumdum.
As a Univ Cincy alum, I take exception....last year we were Conference USA.
And CUSA basketball could play with anyone. And did....Louisville make the Final Four.
And CUSA football last year would have taken Michigan State.
So...let's be careful with our sports comparisons.
The last person to tell me something funny wasn't funny because the politics was wrong was a member of the Women's Studies Faculty.
She's still single, BTW. Want her email address? :=)
no thanks.
see this thread for reference:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1493046/posts
Ann Coulter: Never Compliment a Democrat
Best selling author and conservative pundit Ann Coulter told Alan Colmes on the "Hannity and Colmes" show on Fox News last night that she meant it when she wrote in her book "How to Talk to a Liberal - If You Must," now out in paperback, that the rules for talking to a liberal forbid complimenting or showing graciousness to, or flattering a Democrat.
I was just going to say, check the expiration date on your street-cred. The last time I heard 'rad', the Beatles were in the Top 40.
hah!
How did your thread end up in "Chat"? That's the burial ground of this website.
You're confusing Intelligent Design with the so-called Strong Anthropic Principle, which isn't taken seriously by the overwhelming majority of scientists either.
Many creationists don't seem to grasp that as much as they fervently believe in The Creation, it cannot be called scientific. I think what Jesus said about rendering to Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God that which is God's should apply here.
For the same reason, they're shooting themselves in the foot with the Intelligent Design theory by insisting that the Designer was God. This is what people in, for example, the Church of Christ profess when they say they don't even accept "Theistic Evolution."
As I understand it, and I'm sure I'll be vehemently corrected here if I'm mistaken, this hypothetical intelligent designer is an unknown entity. Thus the designer(s) could've been from any extraterrestrial civilization extant at the time.
Somebody must have complained that others of Mr. Argento's columns are Politically Incorrect.
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.