Evolution study tightens human-chimp connection

EurekAlert (AAAS) ^ | 23 January 2006 | Staff

[Dimensio]

What it doesn't do is explain the origin of life on this planet

This has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

or the minute biochemical process of mutation and natural selection that according to you and your zealot ilk prove that the Theory of evolution is actually the Law of evolution.

With this statement you demonstrate that you are both fundamentally ignorant of what evolution is and that you are fundamentally ignorant of scientific terminology. Why should anything that you say on the subject be trusted?

As to why you have based your entire pathetic, souless, anti-religious, anti-American life on biological and social Darwinism is beyond me.

And now you're just ranting like a paranoid lunatic. No one here advocates "Social Darwinism". You are a shameless liar to suggest that anyone here is an advocate of it.

[Dimensio]

You first ask for links that elucidate and further elaborate on my points, and when I do you resort to personal attacks.

The one link that you provided demonstrated that your original claims are false, and you proceeded to lie about the conclusions of the article to which you linked. You are rightly being called a liar for it.

[VadeRetro]

My other links are dispersed between this thread and other crevo threads and most of the authoritative articles they lead to lean toward a recant.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! Should I remember you? You could have been double-parked without getting a ticket in all the time you've been on crevo threads. If you had those other links, you'd have produced them by now. Anybody can Google.

More lies! Do you have the wit to know or care you're an embarrassment to everything you claim to stand for here?

[TheBrotherhood]

>So Darwin's recanting has gone from "historical fact" to "theory of yours"

I was just explaining as to the reasons, or what made him recant.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"You evolutionists are convoluted. You first ask for links that elucidate and further elaborate on my points, and when I do you resort to personal attacks. Can't we just stay on topic?"

I am on topic. NOWHERE does it say that Lady Hope was at Darwin's deathbed. Not in Lady Hope's account. Not in any of the links that have been provided. Where do you get that she ever said she was at his deathbed?

[Dimensio]

I was just explaining as to the reasons, or what made him recant.

You have yet to demonstrate that Darwin recanted, you shameless liar. You provided one article whose authors concluded that they could not know whether or not Darwin converted. You have failed to provide any evidence whatsoever to support your inital claim that Darwin recanted. You have also been exposed as a liar on your claim that Darwin's "daughter/son" confirmed his recanting.

I have nothing more to say to you. You're clearly a totally shameless liar who continues to repeat the same obviously false claim even in the face of overwhelming evidence against you. I once thought that nmh was the biggest liar on FR. Clearly I was mistaken; clearly you are an even bigger liar than nmh.

[TheBrotherhood]

Excellent!!!

Bravo!!!

[Virginia-American]

Sorry, I wasn't clear. It was a post 56 in another thread a couple of days ago, not #56 from this thread.

In it I posted the family tree of the primates, with some of the ERV evidence for it.

[TheBrotherhood]

Lady Hope met with Darwin during several days during which Darwin made the recant. He could have recanted at any day or hour of those days.

[TheBrotherhood]

LOL!

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Lady Hope met with Darwin during several days during which Darwin made the recant. He could have recanted at any day or hour of those days."

You just said it was at his deathbed. Now you are weaseling out. Typical.

[Dimensio]

God Almighty Himself could come to Earth and publically state that Darwin did not recant his theory and TheBrotherhood would not only continue to make the claim, but also claim that God's testimony proved it.

[MadManDan]

"Why do you favour teaching non-science alongside science? What rationale is there for such a thing?"

Well, I thought I wrote down my rational for it in my post...

"What do you mean "Christian thought"? The major proponents of ID claim that it is not religious in nature. Or are you referring to "creationism"? If so, why do you think that Christian creationism would necessarily be taught, rather than the creationist story of some other religion? And what has a lack of moral teachings to do with evolution in the first place? I hardly see an alleged lack of moral teaching -- if such a thing is happening -- to be justification for lying to students about the fundamental nature of science."

Well, since this is an English, Christian, Western based society, I just assumed if a Creationist story ought to be taught, it should be the Judeo-Christian one. For the same reason only English should be spoken in schools. A lack of moral teaching doesn't neccesarily have anything to do with evolution, if you knew how to read well you would have seen my validation for teaching ID or Creationism and how it might help with values. I also said that evolution AND ID/Creationism should be taught. That means ID etc. could be taught as philosophy or something else other than science too. I really don't want to be a jerk, but I'm tired of people replying to my posts and saying things where if they actually READ what I wrote, they would get what I was trying to say and it would negate the questions they ask in their reply. For somebody who knows what a "complete and total non-sequitur" you really don't have good comprehension skills.

[TheBrotherhood]

I'm not going to retort to your ad hominem attacks with further ad hominem attacks.

Can't you just stay on topic w/o making personal attacks?

[MadManDan]

No problem, I just noticed that the post was only in reply to me that's all. It just happens a lot on various threads. Oh well. :)

[Dimensio]

Let me know when you're ready to stop lying.

[TheBrotherhood]

>You just said it was at his deathbed.

Darwin illness was a protracted one. During this time he lay in the bed that eventually was his deathbed. The recant took place while Darwin lay in his deathbed. And by that it does not mean that he recanted in his last hours, only that he recanted on a given day during Lady Hope visits while he lay in his deathbed.

I hope this straightens this out.

[Thatcherite]

These things can certainly happen. Lady Hope may have reawakend Darwin's long dormant faith when no one else had.

Yet another demonstration that no creationist is so stupid a shameless and brazen liar that the quivering puppy won't cheerlead for them.

[VadeRetro]

I hope this straightens this out.

Nothing needs straightening out but your chocolate eclair of a spine. A historical fact is the kind of thing easily shown to be true. What you claimed as historical fact is barely possible and by all credible accounts fiction.

Why is it better to be a brazen liar for absolutely all to see than wrong on an obscure and irrelevant point?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Darwin illness was a protracted one. During this time he lay in the bed that eventually was his deathbed."

No, it wasn't. He didn't become bedridden until April. In December 1881, he and his wife were in London for the holidays. The Lady Hope encounter, if it happened at all, would have been in October, two months before any indication of illness. There is no indication of any illness before December 15th. It went away. In February to April, he had more frequent chest pains. Even so, on April 16-17th he was well enough to go for a walk. He died on the 19th, with his family at his side.

"The recant took place while Darwin lay in his deathbed. And by that it does not mean that he recanted in his last hours, only that he recanted on a given day during Lady Hope visits while he lay in his."

You said before the recantation was during the hours before his death. You are digging yourself even deeper into a hole of your own making.