Posted on 05/06/2005 10:47:50 PM PDT by Jeff Gordon
What the hell does "allele" mean? It ain't a legal word, that's for sure. It sounds Biblical, like Galilee. Ya, I know, I could google it. I would rather YOU just help me with it.
Heh, true, I didn't, sorry - my bad. I should have.
Whether you care to acknowledge it or not is of little concern in my day to day trudge through Universe Grapefruit.
It's a good thing you know when you're beaten.
Good point. I also had to google Monsanto, and you're absolutely right. Intelligent design by humans is a fact.
> Ignorant?
Yes. Anyone who thinks that Darwinism had Stalin's ear is an ignorant boob.
My point was not Master Race, Nazism. My point was simply that if we follow the evolution theory to the letter, then undoubtedly there is one race which evolved first, making it the oldest and therefore the most evolved.
I personally do not believe in evolution as it is put forward by Darwin. I believe that each planet naturally evolves a dominant land and water species. The top of the food chain, as it were. On this planet, that would be Ape/Monkey and Shark.
Humans, I believe, did not originate on this planet. We as a species are not evolving, we are adapting. We adapt to the proximity of the sun, the natural forces of gravity, weather, etc. This is the reason we grow taller with every generation. Our bodies adapt to the native viruses and bio-hazards. We create new models of transport, we change the course of rivers, etc. We are changing this planet to fit our needs. If we were native to this blue gem, we would have no need for adaptation and would revert to the snail's pace of evolution. Instead, we are adapting with each generation.
My theory is based on anecdotal evidence, a firm understanding of human colonization tactics, biblical teachings, historical folklore and a little bit of faith, faith in what I believe. My theory cannot be proven false. Neither can evolution. But I choose to believe that I am not the most intelligent being in the universe, while scientists proclaim to be. Teach evolution as a theory, an idea that many people ascribe to, but DO NOT omit other theories. To do so would stifle our children's ability to look at the world and see truths that we have missed. (sorry so long)
The so-called "scientists" who promote the notion that man is a product of billions of years of evolutionary change are themselves shameless, self-appointed arbiters of a philosophy. Couched in terms to make them appear "scientific," they have thrown a suffocating mantle of ignorance upon the process of education. Whatever it is that drives them it is not truth. Bestowing the name "scientist" upon those who are incapable of dustinguishing between reasonable conjecture and fact is par for the course where their priests and cheerleaders are concerned. Fortunately a good many folks tire of being played for fools.
Actually, what I tend to find is that they're just deliberately ignorant because they're scared of challenges to their beliefs.
See? I can make sweeping generalizations, too.
The hoax is circling the drain.
Who is it that's afraid of having their beliefs challenged in this case? A handful of self-appointed philosophers who clothe themselseves under the garb of "science." Dogmatists staunch in their faith and blind in their zeal, not unlike Spanish Inquisition types. Let them have their philosophy and teach it, but don't expect the rest of the world to swallow it as "science."
You know, I was going to argue this, but what's the point? So I'll tell you this: I agree with everything you say, as long as you promise to never tell anyone else about it again.
Yawn.
Do you have anything specific to say, or are we going to leave it at "BLARGH HUAGH MODERN SCIENCE IS JUST PHILOSOPHY AND I HAVE MEMORIZED MY THESAURUS"
Not at this time. Certainly not to your satisfaction.
My point is that the word "scientist" is used too loosely in the article above. One does not need a thesaurus to understand and point out the difference between reasonable conjecture and undeniable fact. Those who are incapable of making this distinction should divest themselves of the name "scientist." If not, we should do it for them.
Denial! That whole of "evolution as fact" crowd is one awash in denial. Deny likelihoods, probability. Deny any other explanations. Deny that it is a belief system.
Stalin may have outlawed the label -- he applied the whole of Darwinian ideas. Just as you later-day Darwinians now do. The world is not safe for Darwin unless all alternative theories are brutally repressed and outlawed. Sounds like communism to me.
Since you cannot determine likelihoods without knowing all the variables, I believe it is the anti-Es who are deluding themselves that "evolution is impossible." No working biologist or geneticist denies the reality of evolution; the only things in dispute are the mechanisms by which it occurs. But hey, keep deluding yourself that it's all a Satanic conspiracy miraculously kept from the public by the tens of thousands of people who work in the biological sciences.
Do you have an alternate "theory?" Does it have any positive evidence (observation, testing)? Can you use it to make predictions? Until you do, you don't even have a dog in this hunt. Please note (this is for the lurkers because I know you won't understand it), creationism is not the default hypothesis. If evolution were overturned tomorrow, creationism would not automatically be accepted. However, I have yet to see any evidence put forth by the anti-E crowd to support an alternative to evolution -- and arguments from astonishment (i.e., I cannot figure out how this could evolved, so, golly gee it had to be zapped into existence by God) do not count as evidence.
No, they didn't. I got out fast and only returned to acknowledge your boorishness and stupidity.
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.