Posted on 10/07/2005 7:48:04 PM PDT by Heartlander
All that crap has been disproved ages ago. You need new material.
Ah, clever - when you don't have the facts on your side, make comparisons to Islamofascists.
Not only is that a bad debating strategy, but in this case, you have it reversed - the Islamofascists are demonstrably creationists, who also want to use ID as a stealth push for their faith.
Riiiigghhhttt... Where "disproved ages ago" means "the creationists franticaly spun it, and you swallowed it like you swallow all their stuff". Look, the Wedge Document speaks for itself, and no amount of counter-propaganda changes that. Learn to think for yourself, instead of parroting talking points without being able to spot the BS.
general_re and chruchillbuff are gone?
Yes I do. If you don't understand why, that's your problem, not mine. It's there to demonstrate how closely the first ancient fossil in that sequence is to an indisputable ape. It's also a valid starting point for cladistic sequencing.
Learn some science before you attempt to critique it.
I call it a Darwinist religious influence.
Of course you do. That's because you don't understand what you're talking about, and since you're not able to come up with any valid objections to something you don't want to have to accept the consequences of, all you can do is spew bizarre conspiracy theories. (Oh wow, I just noticed your screen name -- at least you're *aware* of your mental bias.)
Your god is fricken theoretical monkey.
Science is not a "god", son, although I suppose it might look that way to someone who sees *everything* through a filter of religion. And nothing in that chart is "theoretical", they're all real specimens. Deal with it. Finally, I'm sorry if my having actual evidence for the fact that man is related to apes makes you so angry that you spew invective instead of discuss the issue on its merits. People have evolved big brains, capable of high-level analytical thinking, but not everyone bothers to use them.
General_re has gone on sabbatical for unspecified personal reasons.
If Intelligent Design is a scientific theory, please give some examples of how it explains phenomena as well or better than Natural Selection. If you can't, then it isn't a scientific theory, it's a religious doctrine. Which means the "urban legend" you speak of is true.
Science and religion are on divergent pathways; the inertia of dogma remains behind rooted under these branching limbs until the process comes to resemble a tree along a fence row where both sides are reaching for the same light but will never again be connected at the top.
Unfortunately, yes.
Not really -the problem is where they share the same pathway in contradiction -evolution can say noting as to creation nor can it disprove or deny possibilty of Creator -yet some persist in such denial either ignorantly citing evolution -or in hatred, taking cover behind evolution...
This is really a turf war and in my opinion there are various manifestaions of the underlying issue -those of faith are simply kicking the secular evolutionists back to where they belong...
lol
Not at all, you speak only for yourself.
I spoke metaphorically because it is in metaphor that we become observers.
What too many want is to tear down the fence, never realizing that, to do so, it would ruin the root and both branches might die instead of the one that they want to eliminate.
If you find it a bit depressing, start keeping track of the new people coming into the debate.
I've been adding new crevo warriors to the database daily. I'm up to 388 so far. I don't like bannings on either side. I want the creos to post their inanities; I want the evos to post the evidence. That's the only way the lurkers will see which side has the data to back up its claims and which side has to resort to lies and distortions.
Have faith, brother. Most folks are somewhat rational. They'll see who has the evidence and who has to lie.
Thanks, Junior. I sure hope you're right.
The thought occurs to me that you and your comrades are more running a political campaign here, than defending the integrity of science. Sigh. I suspect this is to do a great disservice to science.
That's a curious impression, BB. Especially considering that ID's advocates do precisely zero scientific research to support ID, and are clearly involved in nothing but public relations, fund-raising, and political efforts to have their view of things inserted into the science curriculum of schools. I think (in my always humble opinion) that it's inaccurate to say that when scientists react to this, and defend the integrity of their work, that it's the scientists who are "running a political campaign." What, in your opinion, is an appropriate description of the actions of the ID supporters?
It's just a preemptive counterattack.
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.