Posted on 09/26/2005 5:44:09 AM PDT by DARCPRYNCE
Charles Darwin, the 19th century geologist who wrote the treatise 'The Origin of Species, by means of Natural Selection' defined evolution as "descent with modification". Darwin hypothesized that all forms of life descended from a common ancestor, branching out over time into various unique life forms, due primarily to a process called natural selection.
However, the fossil record shows that all of the major animal groups (phyla) appeared fully formed about 540 million years ago, and virtually no transitional life forms have been discovered which suggest that they evolved from earlier forms. This sudden eruption of multiple, complex organisms is often referred to as the Cambrian Explosion, and even Darwin knew about the lack of evidence in the fossil record to support his theory a century and a half ago.
(Excerpt) Read more at chronwatch.com ...
Wolf
thank you...I think our thoughts can sometimes get in the way of clear observations.
That’s a whole boatload of assumptions there, Professor, all of them wrong (if by johnny-come-lately you mean lately come to this blog, then that’s not an assumption because it’s a matter of record; otherwise you’re wrong on that too). I wasn’t aware that, here in Freeper-Town, proper deference to members of the old-line families was commanded of those who live over on the other side of the tracks.
You’ve propounded quite the templet there, Professor, and it seems, in your mind at least, anyone, who disputes anything you say, or who says something to your disliking, has to fit that templet. Another Liberal gig! (thank you Rush, for proposing and explaining this hypothesis)
This is not the first time Scientists have hit me with this templet, and I’ve put it off to a distemper occasioned by frustration. I can understand that. We all fall prey from time to time. But I’m getting a little tired of it. Instead of attacking what I say, you impugn my motives and then attack those. Another Liberal gig.
“Three hundred years ago we were hanging witches in this country. I'm sorry, but a significant number of your co-religionists seem to have moved not a bit from the mind set that permitted those horrors.”
Guilt by association. Still boogieing in the Liberal mode. Will you be suggesting next that I am a member of the former slave-holding class?
“With the massive assumption of federal control of education at the behest of the current President, a little judicial oversight of school districts scarcely seems worth worrying about. In any case, this battle was lost when the 14th amendment was passed. The US Bill of Rights is now binding on the states. You can't go back 150 years to the aftermath of the civil war, any more than you can go back 300 years to theocracy.”
A little judicial oversight of school districts scarcely seems worth worrying about until said oversight steps on your toes; then you’ll be howling like a banshee. Federal control of education isn’t just Bush’s idea. It dates back to the Carter Administration when Carter proposed an education department and got it past Congress. Even prior to that, the peoples resources (mistakenly called federal funds) were being sent to the states (that was the excuse for creating a Secretarial level Ed. Dpt.), but the creation of the federal education department was a sign of the shape of things to come. If you’re genuinely Right Wing, then you know that federal control, not mere ‘oversight,’ whatever that term means, follows close on the heels of ‘federal’ money. Since you’re apparently not willing to concede this fact in the present context, presumably because of my lack of trustworthiness, then I find myself again ‘lecturing’ you on the obvious.
I’m well aware of the implications of the 14th Amendment (and more than a little amused at the quandary of the judiciary in their desperate desire to see the 1st Article made binding on the states, and the 2nd Article not made binding). Notwithstanding, I cannot essay to identify any article which places education under the authority of the federal government, since the articles of the Bill of Rights “altogether respect personal liberty.”
I would prefer that government have nothing to do with education, wishing to bar government authority from asserting any control over the minds of the people, because I do not trust government to discern the true from the false, or to honestly report on it when it does. If we just absolutely must have government involved in education, then let it be at the local level, so when an error in policy or educational practice occurs, the whole nation does not suffer from the error. But that raises complications, since fragmented sovereignty makes control of the people enormously more difficult. That’s why Marxist/socialists favor highly centralized government. What’s your excuse?
I don’t trust you either, Professor, any more than you trust me. So what do we do? Stand around and take potshots at each other’s motives? Break off contact altogether? Or do we discuss the issues? Some of them are pretty darned interesting. I think it’s more than a little important to go back to the future 229 years to a society that had a better grip on government by the consent of the governed than any other I know.
So, here’s to the once and future Republic. May we sing praises to its resurrection as we mourn its passing.
Your 301
I can see it now: the Professor awakes in a cold sweat from a nightmare of pine-tar torches, pitchforks, and hemp ropes, and of being pursued by rubes who want to teach their kids that the earth is flat, and who will encourage them to marry their first cousins. That more resembles the behavior and the understanding of a Liberal, than someone who purports to be ‘Right Wing.’
When you get within a few parsecs of practising what you preach, we can resume this discussion. Until then, if I want to listen to cant and hypocrisy, I'll turn on CSPAN.
Turn on CSPAN.
With a sniff, you dismiss a whole people as ‘the mob’ like Marie Antoinette dismissing a Paris rabble with a “Let them eat cake.” Then when I tease you about your superiorist attitude, you respond with a string of Liberal schtick. And, you have the nerve to accuse me of cant and hypocrisy. Look to the beam in your own eye, Professor.
You’re right, our discussions are at an end.
We have more in common than you might think,to god a thousand years is but a twinkle of the eye?
We have more in common than you might think,to god a thousand years is but a twinkle of the eye.
Yes, I agree. But I had enough of the evolution thing the other night:). I only go on those kind of threads for entertainment purposes when I feel bored. I think to debate where we came from is a "religion" in itself to people on both sides of the debate. Now I did have a Grandma who looked like some kind of missing link (bald-headed and big bushy moustache), but that's all I will say:).
At leas you can remember back to when you signed up on FR. But remembering back to the 1930s seems to be beyond your reach.
“At leas you can remember back to when you signed up on FR. But remembering back to the 1930s seems to be beyond your reach.”
DonÂ’t be so dramatic.
You would have us all believe that thousands of school district patrons from each of thousands of school districts scattered across the several states of the Union, intend to suddenly reverse three hundred years of American church/state tradition, and demand that a cardinal be installed as the Secretary of Defense, or an archbishop as Secretary of State, or perhaps a rabbi be named as Secretary of Education. And all this as a matter of Constitutional privilege. You expect anyone to take this kind of extravagant polemics seriously?
Moreover, do you think you can achieve influence over school district patrons, or engender any warm regard from them, by accusing them of marrying their cousins, or that they are demanding flat-earth science be taught? Figure the more abuse you heap on them, the more theyÂ’ll find you irresistibly adorable?
My apologies for the tardiness of my response.
LOL,I would never ever speak of my, work worn, apalachian grandma in those terms.Maybe you were makin a funny? i'd make a funny to her face. Yes, I know it is very hard to consider, if our perception of beauty is ingrained ,or divine?
LOL,I would never ever speak of my, work worn, apalachian grandma in those terms.Maybe you were makin a funny? i'd make a funny to her face. Yes, I know it is very hard to consider, if our perception of beauty is ingrained ,or divine?
It's true. She looked like a pro wrestler. We always show her picture to any prospective fiances of my siblings.
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.