Darwin: Headed for the Ash-Heap

And Rightlyso...Conservative Book Club ^ | 1-20-2006 | Jeffrey Rubin

[dblshot]

Who said species had to evolve on this planet? I have it on good advise that all species evolved on other planets and were dropped off here in a series of planet stocking visits by the mother ship. In fact we have reason to believe they have visited us again and deposited a newer version of the human species homo erectus. This new species homo brokebackedus has started to spread out from Hollywood to the east but is expected to succome to yet another species, Homo Mormonus, which is breeding much faster and speading westward from Utah. Deny it you want, but I saw the pictures on TV just last week.

[GLDNGUN]

Yes, snappy yet inaccurate quotes are often a better way to win a debate than actual facts.

Oh, I see. So, it's OK for a Darweiner to say "ignore the lack of fossil evidence" on one hand and then turn around and say "here, look at this fossil!"???

How long does it take you to spin that fast? 5 minutes? 10 seconds?

[mc6809e]

The fact is,nothing proves that macroevolution occurs, or ever has occurred. And, at a certain point, the absence of proof, especially where it ought to be abundant, constitutes, if not positive disproof, at least strong reasons for doubt.

So we should doubt the existence of god then.

[muir_redwoods]

"The "caring Father-Creator" expects His children to NOT be of the self deceived. That is the warning Christ gave "Let no man deceive you"!!!!

Ha Darwinism was not nor has it ever been self sufficient, see once Darwinist got themselves a legally accepted, government funded theory, they lost any ability to claim natural selection and survival of the fittest."

Wow, there's certainly no way to argue with that cogent logic. Of course that depends on what you said and what you think it might mean. I certainly have no way to know.

[spintreebob]

The non-Darwin side needs to shed their inferiority complex and takes a martial arts approach of using the force against itself.

Have school students find the holes in ID and other non-Darwin theories. Those students will then study ID critically. They will quickly realize that there are big holes in all theories and (scientifically) we are really clueless about the distant past.

One could use the same standards for theories of our origins as we in IT use for software QA/testing. In QA we measure to a known level of defects and lack of defects in the software based on the amount and type of testing done. If that methodology were applied to any and all theories about our origin, it would quickly be seen that we are clueless.

[orionblamblam]

> So, it's OK for a Darweiner to say "ignore the lack of fossil evidence"...

The only people saying anything of the kind are the Cretinists, out to spread their message of dumbth. Evolutionists *never* even suggest "ignore the lack of evidence;" quite the contrary. Notice all the paleontologists out there digging up even more evidence? Unlike the Cretinists, they're actually *looking*.

[Just mythoughts]

Quite simply darwinism is NOT a self sufficient ideology, although some like to dress it up and call it a science.

Darwinists needed supremes to give them credibility, a house to worship in, which use to be called a schoolhouse, and taxation of the masses to keep the electricity powering the ventilators that makes death look alive.

[muir_redwoods]

"Quite simply darwinism is NOT a self sufficient ideology, although some like to dress it up and call it a science.

Darwinists needed supremes to give them credibility, a house to worship in, which use to be called a schoolhouse, and taxation of the masses to keep the electricity powering the ventilators that makes death look alive."

Nothing, not a thing, you said above is true. Enjoy your delusion.

[GLDNGUN]

The only people saying anything of the kind are the Cretinists

Um, ok. Evidently, you're having trouble following along. I was responding to a post from a supporter of Darwinian Evolution. His quote was:

"For anyone to assume the so-called fossil record can tell us anything on this issue is the ultimate in hubris."

What part of my exchange with him are you having trouble grasping?

[Just mythoughts]

"Nothing, not a thing, you said above is true. Enjoy your delusion."


Oh it is true alright, were it NOT true darwinists would not be wetting their pants every time a Heavenly Creator gets mentioned.

[gomaaa]

Placeholder

[Pittsburg Phil]

"Marx is nowhere near dead enough for me, and Gramsci is as bad, or worse."

Amen, brother. And neo-Darwinism is nothing but Gramsci-ism in scientific drag.

[Screamname]

Thank you! Yeah, the celebs are a blast but I usually make an azz out of myself. My brother says I should take a camera and take pics but I don`t know how I would explain that. Tom Clancy really blew my mind because I just eat up everything that guy writes, I mean the second he publishes something I buy it and just eat it up, and I could hardly say one word to him when he got into my cab. It was like the Messiah getting into my cab and I made a total jackass out of myself and to top it off I got lost driving! It was just unreal, no assistants, no limo, he was just there on Madison ave all by himself totally down to earth. I think he knew I knew who he was and appreciated the fact that I didn`t go nuts as he gave me a good tip. Drew Barrymore on the other hand broke my heart (not intentionally though), my God, talk about love at first sight! lol! She basically mind raped me, wanted to know everything about me then it was all over. I guess I`m just a celebrity nut. I tell you, even though NYC is the liberal celebrity cesspool of the east coast, they really are cool people. The biggest pricks are the ones who are filthy rich and not well known. I had one the other day who I picked up on Central Park east (5th avenue) who decided to pay me a $9.50 fare in dimes and nickels because "You people like change"....If you want to see more of what it is like, read this girls page.

http://newyorkhack.blogspot.com/

[muir_redwoods]

"Oh it is true alright, were it NOT true darwinists would not be wetting their pants every time a Heavenly Creator gets mentioned."

I don't wet my pants but, then again, I don't drink. Once again, you have yet to stumble upon even a single truth. You call evolution an ideology, no, it is a scientific theory, well supported by testable experiments, modern genetics and a century or more of observation. You claim it is supported by our tax dollars(?) yet you turn a blind eye to the tax breaks given to Churches.

Enjoy your old book, when you can prove a syllable of it, write back

[js1138]

Ash placeholder

[joyspring777]

You said:

A scientist is one who uses the scientific method to learn about the world around him. There is no special definition of scientist for any one particular discipline.

I don't struggle with this definition. The problem lies with your associates in your idealogy/religion.

It is they who redefine a scientist, and say they don't have to debate other scientists because they "pontificate" that they are not scientists (despite practice or education credentials) unless they believe in evolution.

This, my friend, is defining away any debate...and is hiding...plain and simple.

[HangnJudge]

Have at it my friends....

There is no question that at least aspects of evolutionary theory are useful
in trying to understand embryology, genetics, and paleolithic evidence

No branch of evolutionary thought or theory has yet to
usefully address the origin of life or
the emergence of "Reason".

Efforts to date are deeply flawed and easy to discount

This is not say that future thought will correct this, but that they
are intrinsically difficult questions.
By resorting to the use of reason in studying the universe
We are bound by the limitations of the process

"Reason" does not lend itself to studying itself
Reason cannot explain reason (circular logic)
Kant's Critique of Pure Reason
Kant himself struggled with this problem
and was forced to accept the presence of "Reason"
in humans as an "A Priori" finding
Useful, present, but unexplainable

Some might say that there is irreducible complexity
to these questions without resorting to an external frame of reference
If by resorting to an external frame of reference (Religion/Philosophy)
to do so is helpful, It should be also treated as useful until more complete data is present

[joyspring777]

Evolutionists are not high minded????

Gimme a break!

[trashcanbred]

Actually I am curious who is it that is against Evolution? The Roman Catholic church doesn't seem to be so I am curious which Christian religious groups are pushing ID and creationism as science.