What part of SCIENCE is SO hard for you knuckle dragging Christians to understand?
--EvoDude(I get it!)
Posted on 10/17/2008 7:59:18 AM PDT by Soliton
Three antievolutionists have been appointed to a six-member committee to review the draft set of Texas state science standards, and defenders of the integrity of science education in the Lone Star state are livid. "The committee was chosen by 12 of the 15 members of the board of education, with each panel member receiving the support of two board members," as the Dallas Morning News (October 16, 2008) explains. Six members of the board "aligned with social conservative groups" chose Stephen C. Meyer, the director of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, Ralph Seelke, a biology professor at the University of Wiconsin, Superior, and Charles Garner, a chemistry professor at Baylor University.
Meyer, Seelke, and Garner are all signatories of the Discovery Institute-sponsored "Dissent from Darwinism" statement. Meyer and Seelke are also coauthors of Explore Evolution: The Arguments For and Against Neo-Darwinism (Hill House, 2008), which, like Of Pandas and People, is a supplementary textbook that is intended to instill scientifically unwarranted doubts about evolution. A recent review by biologist John Timmer summarized, "But the book doesn't only promote stupidity, it demands it. In every way except its use of the actual term, this is a creationist book." Garner reportedly told the Houston Press (December 14, 2000) that he "criticizes evolutionary theory in class."
Meyer and Seelke also testified in the 2005 "kangaroo court" hearings held by three antievolutionist members of the Kansas state board of education, in which a parade of antievolutionist witnesses expressed their support for the so-called minority report version of the state science standards (written with the aid of a local "intelligent design" organization), complained of repression by a dogmatic evolutionary establishment, and claimed to have detected atheism lurking "between the lines" of the standards..
(Excerpt) Read more at ncseweb.org ...
It enbiggens the English LanguageEmbiggens.
That's the ugliness of godless liberalism, no value system, no moral compass...just so much circular arguing, as metmom pointed out nailing jello to a wall.Never responsible for a thing. If there was a central value system it would have to be political correctness.
Always hypocrtically holding others to the rules they can't possibly abide by, endless strawmen, projections, lying, and smearing the character of decent Americans.And a deep seated hatred for God, Christians, capitalism and America.
Rush is right: "I don't want to compromise with them, I want to defeat them". Set them on the couch to see what makes them tick later, because they're dangerous, destructive and unreasonable and NEVER compromise themselves.
That’s the glory of English: No L’Académie française to judge what words are to be permitted. Without a learned body to lay down a hard dividing line between approved and unapproved, you have a lot of new words (There’s ever a word for them -neologism- for them) circulating around that people just thought up. And anybody can do it, and does (Shaksper did it a lot). It enbiggens the English Language
Alas, while (to the best of my recollection) I did invent “fictoid” a short while ago (in that I just thought it up), I was not original
In fact it you google it, you find 7080 entries.
Yup, no strict dogmatic approach to English!
If you evos would only approach the cult of evolution with such an open mind!
I am honestly not aware of any scientific challenge to the theory of evolution.
Yes, usually products of socialized cult programming “honestly” are blissfully unaware!
Scientists have indeed challenged your cult. Non-creationist scientists, or not, it really doesn’t matter though. It’s PLAINLY evident with the chimps and vegetation link! I mean how COULD you possibly see it’s ever been challenged when your idea of challenge is such a silly notion as that!!!??? It’s comical! More results of failed NEA schools!
Just always call any real challenge at all an “Inquisition” and *bingo*...you could proabably go to your grave convinced you were in the right!
I bet Castro will die like Arafat died, convinced he is the best thing that ever happened to his people too.
Embiggens.
You are correct. But for some reason Spellcheck did not list that as an alternative.
How about knocking off the rants and just tell me what scientific challenge you see to the theory of evolution.
Successfully? Never.
Believe now, proof later.
No, you made an unsubstantiated guess about how long it might have taken once.
"And since mutations allegedly occur randomly, your 8.6 year figure is pretty much meaningless. Multiple projects could be expected to have such a random mutation occur in one of them in a fraction of that time."
[crickets]
Empirical verification for thee, but not for me. They've demonstrated their hypocrisy dozens (hundreds?) of times in this thread alone.
‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,’ it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.’
Obama came to my neighborhood and my son and I were outside tossing the football, and all of a sudden he showed up, and there went our football tossing for a while. And, you know, neighbors were outside asking him questions, and I didn't think they were asking him tough enough questions, so I thought, you know, I'll go over there. You know, I've always wanted to ask one of these guys a question and really corner them and get them to answer a question of--for once instead of tap dancing around it.No indication that he knocked on anyone's door, and a clear statement that he didn't knock on Joe's. Now you're trying to pretend that being in the neighborhood meant that Obama had somehow metaphorically knocked on his door. Why aren't you man (or woman, whatever) enough to admit that you said something that wasn't true?
I find it disturbing when people cast you as a liberal or conservative not by what views you hold but by what lies you're willing to go along with.
The one thing you can count on with Allmendream is that his slaven devotion to the Temple of Darwin means he will almost always be wrong with respect to the evidence he cites, not to mention his conclusions:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Flaws_in_Richard_Lenski_Study
Science in secret. Kinda like the Global Warming cultists refusing to release their source code.
The highly improbable occurrence of four Cit+ variants from the 32,000th generation in the Second Experiment suggests an origin from undetected, pre-existing Cit+ variants.
I thought this smelled like the Alexis Carrel fiasco.
Hey, thanks for the info!
Obama apologist alert.
Because I think when you jump into the middle of a converstion I'm having with someone else to answer a question I asked them, you assume the responsibility for understanding and remembering what the question is.
Sure looks like it, never get an evo to admit it though.
Again:
"And since mutations allegedly occur randomly, your 8.6 year figure is pretty much meaningless. Multiple projects could be expected to have such a random mutation occur in one of them in a fraction of that time."
alm: The entire experiment took twelve years to get to generation 44,000 of twelve experimental populations. Citrate plus e.coli evolved in one of those twelve populations around generation 31,500. By thawing generation 20,000 from that population Dr. Lenski can replicate his results and re-evolve citrate plus e.coli.
31.5/44 = 0.716 * 12 years = 8.6 years (an approximation)
So the spectacular results of Dr. Lenski, which he has replicated, took about 9 years I would guess. Two to three years to check the results, replicate them, and write a paper which will probably win him the Nobel prize one day.
ald: Yes, there is no way to tell how long such evolutionary processes would take.
That's exactly what makes evolution so unfeasible to so many. Here you have this carefully controlled experiment produced ONE mutation in 31,500 generations in ONE of twelve cultures. And evolutionists expect people to believe that mutations that produce enough change to produce completely different species can and do occur in the wild under uncontrolled conditions where survival is chancy, at best?
If a population of humans produced mutations at that rate, presuming 15 years for every generation, 31,500 generations would take 472,500 years for that one mutation to appear, not to mention that the individual who carried that mutation would have to survive to reproduce, that that particular mutation would have to be passed on and the offspring survive well enough to spread it through enough of the population for it to become widespread enough that it would not die out due to inbreeding from too small a initial population size.
Not to mention that it would have to be a mutation that would be not harmful or even neutral but one that would actually produce some recognizable, beneficial change.
Great faith indeed.
“...spectacular results...”
“...Nobel prize one day...”
Cheerleading.
What part of SCIENCE is SO hard for you knuckle dragging Christians to understand?
--EvoDude(I get it!)
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.