[Kansas Gov. Kathleen] Sebelius criticizes State Board of Education's move [new science standards]

Kansas City Star via Kansas.com ^ | 12 November 2005 | DAVID KLEPPER

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Why are the evo's such shameless liars?"

"Hint: spending every single day here, from morning to night, calling other FReepers liars, isn't a vacation."

Would that you took your own advice.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"No doubt, I have stated on this thread that I side on the creationist side, especially with the clintonian type of rhetoric coming from the darwin side."

No, you stated that Darwin and evolution in general isn't about the origins of life. You criticized it for not addressing the origins of life. Those are your words. Live with them.

[Dane]

No, you stated that Darwin and evolution in general isn't about the origins of life. You criticized it for not addressing the origins of life. Those are your words. Live with them.

I am living with them and quite proud of it, it is the darwinists who should be ashamed for using the clintonian rhetoric and being "proud" of it.

BTW, get back to me whn darwin comes back from the grave and states on CNN that his book was not about the origins of life.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

That is the second time I've said that since joining FR years ago. Not only that, I was being sarcastic. Care to do a search to see how many hundreds, if not thousands of times Dimensia has called FR members liars?

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

From Wikipedia (The Evo's favorite free encyclopedia)

Chemical evolution

Chemical evolution is a hypothesis which tries to explain how life might possibly develop from non-life (see abiogenesis).

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I am living with them and quite proud of it, it is the darwinists who should be ashamed for using the clintonian rhetoric and being "proud" of it."

So you are proud of saying that Darwin's book was not about the origins of life, then turning around and lying and saying it was? I personally don't take pride in being deceptive. That's just me.

" BTW, get back to me whn darwin comes back from the grave and states on CNN that his book was not about the origins of life."

Why would I need to resurrect Darwin when I can READ his book for myself? Something you obviously never did.

Second time now: Where in The Origin of Species does Darwin use evolution to explain the origins of life? Your saying it does is not evidence; please provide a citation.

[Antonello]

It there is one thing in this world that can get Hilary elected POTUS, it is ID.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"That is the second time I've said that since joining FR years ago. Not only that, I was being sarcastic. "

Sure. Just happened to call us liars a few posts before you attack someone for calling people liars.

"Care to do a search to see how many hundreds, if not thousands of times Dimensia has called FR members liars?"

I never said there was something wrong with calling someone a liar, if it is the truth.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Chemical evolution is a hypothesis which tries to explain how life might possibly develop from non-life (see abiogenesis)."

Thanks for making our case for us. Abiogeneis is not the ToE (biological evolution). The ToE says nothing about the origins of life.

[longshadow]

Festival of the Flatulent, Tractionless ALS style Trolls

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

Okay - so now you're saying Biological Evolution doesn't address the Origin of Life. Gotcha. So - it's the folks who are studying Chemical Evolution that are attempting to address the Origin of Life. I think I have it now.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

All living things evolved from a common ancestor: Origin of life on Earth: Lecture outline No. 18

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

At least they added a caveat:

Almost all of this section is highly conjectural. Read it with this in mind.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

Test: Who said this?

It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are present, which could ever have been present. But if (and Oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

Gone for the day. The golf course calls.

[Dane]

It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are present, which could ever have been present. But if (and Oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.

Darwin or a Darwinite?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Okay - so now you're saying Biological Evolution doesn't address the Origin of Life. Gotcha. "

The ToE doesn't deal with the origins of life.

"So - it's the folks who are studying Chemical Evolution that are attempting to address the Origin of Life. I think I have it now."

Chemical Evolution is a not the phrase normally used, it's abiogenesis.

The term evolution is a broad term used in many areas outside of Darwinian, biological concerns. In fact, Darwin didn't call his theory Evolution, he called called it transmutation. People use the term now for things totally unrelated to the ToE, such as when they talk about the evolution of car designs, or of a certain musical style.

The creationist lie is to deliberately mix the different usages of the term *evolution*. The ToE specifically does NOT deal with life's origins. Abiogenesis is the scientific field that does. No matter how many times a creationist is told this, they continue to lie anyway. That's all they have left.

[balrog666]

Is dane trying to pick a fight?

That's just the way a three-year-old (or a retard) "debates" on FR.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

Darwin said it. He was not talking about the ToE though. It was in a letter to the botanist Joseph Hooker in 1871. He was speculating to a friend about a field of science outside of the ToE. You will find no such quotes in his published works.

Can't you do better than this?

[balrog666]

Hint: spending every single day here, from morning to night, calling other FReepers liars, isn't a vacation.

Ah, but some people like shooting fish in a barrel.