Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Biology 101: Dissecting Today's Textbooks (teach your kids how to spot Evo-religion in textbooks!)
Answers Magazine ^ | Roger Patterson

Posted on 08/05/2009 11:15:25 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300301-320 next last
To: goodusername
he certainly knows what he’s talking about, but this was a philosophical article written for a philosophical journal.

So then, in your view, Ernst Mayr doesn't know what he's talking about. But you do, of course.

261 posted on 08/08/2009 12:19:35 AM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode (<<== Click here to learn about Evolution!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
That he published his ides in a philosophical journal seems an irrelevancy unless you are asserting Evolution is philosophy free.

It's interesting how evolutionists make numerous philosophical assertions, and when you address these with a philosophy article or argument, they dismiss it as 'just philosophy'. Darwinism is science, you see. No philosophy comes out of the mouth of a Darwinian, even when he's talking philosophy.

262 posted on 08/08/2009 12:37:01 AM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode (<<== Click here to learn about Evolution!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode

Quite so. But Darwinism is all the beans and sauce with a bit science pork tossed in to justify the the name on the label.

And it is the philosophy of Darwinism that many creationists find objectionable more than the science, however faulty that is. Overturn the science and the philosophy would remain.


263 posted on 08/08/2009 5:54:09 AM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode

“So then, in your view, Ernst Mayr doesn’t know what he’s talking about. But you do, of course.”

—You should read the post you’re responding to more closely. Mayr does know what he’s talking about, and (as long as he used “intelligent design” in the way I’m pretty sure he did) I’m in complete agreement with him. It’s you that apparently doesn’t think that the leading Darwinist scientist today Francis Collins, and the co-founder of Darwinism A. R. Wallace, and the first and leading Darwinist of 19th century America Asa Gray (who Darwin called his “best advocate”) and the many tens of thousands of Darwinists who believe in intelligent design today, don’t know what they’re talking about. But of course, you do.


264 posted on 08/08/2009 8:06:33 AM PDT by goodusername
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: goodusername; count-your-change
Mayr does know what he’s talking about, and (as long as he used “intelligent design” in the way I’m pretty sure he did) I’m in complete agreement with him

So now you are saying that Darwinism is incompatible with intelligent design. Previously you said "Darwinism doesn’t... exclude intelligent design". Maybe you don't know what you're talking about.

265 posted on 08/08/2009 8:16:24 AM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode (<<== Click here to learn about Evolution!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode
Then the obvious question for “goodusername” is, How did Mayr use ““intelligent design” in the way I’m pretty sure he did”?
266 posted on 08/08/2009 9:46:06 AM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
What manner of "rule" did you take that to be?

A typical liberal rule that you observe things in others while ignoring the same things in yourself. Bizarre because you suffer 10 if not 100 fold from the same issues you think you see in others...be it indoctrination, moving goal posts, etc.

Are you that self-absorbed that you really don't know, or are you back to boring people to death with irrelevant and stupid questions?

267 posted on 08/08/2009 10:07:45 AM PDT by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for g!ood men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: tpanther
A typical liberal rule that you observe things in others while ignoring the same things in yourself.

Like your poo-slinging?

268 posted on 08/08/2009 11:03:49 AM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode

ID is compatible with Darwinism. In fact ID’er Behe called Darwin’s theory “elegant” and insisted that it should be taught in schools. All the ID groups believe that man and ape had common ancesters and evolved over billions of years from simple compounds.


269 posted on 08/08/2009 11:09:42 AM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode; count-your-change

“So now you are saying that Darwinism is incompatible with intelligent design. Previously you said “Darwinism doesn’t... exclude intelligent design”. Maybe you don’t know what you’re talking about.”

—I guess I need to back up a bit. In the 90’s, some people – predominately a group called the Discovery Institute - began calling an idea that said that nature was intelligently designed but not in such a way that allowed for common descent via Darwinian evolution with the unfortunate name “Intelligent Design” or “ID” (sometimes capitalized and sometimes not. It really should be since it’s only an idea that “involves” intelligent design. Thus today we have the situation where someone like Francis Collins arguably now happens to be simultaneously the leading Darwinist scientist – the leading advocate of intelligent design – and the leading opponent of Intelligent Design. Better yet a different term should be used altogether.)

Thus when I used the phrase “intelligent design” I was merely referring to the idea that the universe and its laws have an intelligent Creator and purpose. Mayr, OTOH, was pretty obviously using the phrase as those in the “ID Movement” use it (I also completely missed before that he put “so-called” before “intelligent design” in the article last time I read it, which makes it even clearer that he was using it as a recently invented term, and not just as a generic phrase.)


270 posted on 08/08/2009 11:32:27 AM PDT by goodusername
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
That would be an obvious question if I hadn’t explained it to him in a previous post . But I don’t blame you one bit for thinking I hadn’t from the way he responded.
271 posted on 08/08/2009 11:37:56 AM PDT by goodusername
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: goodusername
I guess I need to back up a bit. In the 90’s, some people – predominately a group called the Discovery Institute - began calling an idea that said that nature was intelligently designed but not in such a way that allowed for common descent via Darwinian evolution with the unfortunate name “Intelligent Design” or “ID” (sometimes capitalized and sometimes not.

ID always allowed for common descent. If they didn't, it would be creationism.

272 posted on 08/08/2009 11:41:32 AM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

“ID always allowed for common descent. If they didn’t, it would be creationism.”

—Some in the ID movement do believe in common descent (e.g. Behe), that’s why I added “via Darwinian evolution”.


273 posted on 08/08/2009 12:04:12 PM PDT by goodusername
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

To: goodusername
I may have bad eyes but I still do not find Mayr’s comment on intelligent design, either in your posts or the materials linked.
274 posted on 08/08/2009 1:19:35 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

Here’s the link:
http://www.aps-pub.com/proceedings/1454/409.pdf

Near the end of page 490:
He presented some fifty or sixty biological phenomena easily explained by natural selection, but quite impervious to any explanation under special creation, and equally inexplicable to so-called intelligent design.


275 posted on 08/08/2009 1:38:43 PM PDT by goodusername
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: goodusername
I'm going quite blind! Thanks.

It does seem rather clear what Mayr thought of the idea of intelligent design: rejection. which would certainly fit his other comments.

276 posted on 08/08/2009 2:19:34 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

...and only in the liberal world is pointing out poo flinging...poo slinging.


277 posted on 08/08/2009 7:05:11 PM PDT by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for g!ood men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: tpanther
...and only in the liberal world is pointing out poo flinging...poo slinging.

You have stated several times that we can't handle your poo-slinging. Only in the TP world can one brag about being the better poo-slinger and then three posts later claim he is not a poo-slinger.

Only in TP land is calling someone a monkey-boy not considered poo-slinging.

278 posted on 08/08/2009 7:09:52 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater; YHAOS; CottShop
You have stated several times that we can't handle your poo-slinging. Only in the TP world can one brag about being the better poo-slinger and then three posts later claim he is not a poo-slinger.

Only in TP land is calling someone a monkey-boy not considered poo-slinging.

I've already explained to you that pointing out the poo flinging isn't poo flinging...

and Bucky is obviously behaving like a juvenile...i.e. a boy and he's a self-professed great ape, so should I have called him poo-flinging ape-boy? orangutan-boy? chimp-boy?

It's so hard to keep up with you evo-libs like Chrissy Fit Matthews and how you demand everyone be defined: "humans are nothing more than great apes"...it's like nailing jello to a wall.

I find it interesting that you liberals demand evolution be rammed down throats...well everyone's but your own, I see. And when you're held to your very own beliefs...being nothing more than a fancy great ape...you whine and cry...you know....like a little ape-boy, when you get called exactly what you damn-well DEMAND to be understood to be!

So buck-up already! If you don't want to be called a great ape, then quit demanding to be called one already! In other words, being a Darwinist has consequences Sherlock!

Now that you've had this explained to you more than once, it would not therefore be poo flinging to rightly point out that you're a dullard and slow learner, as this is now (and has been) simply point in fact.

And if you persist, I think the majority of folks will rightly realize you're a whiney, poo-flinging, monkey/ape/chimp/orangutan/take your pick of any great apes-boy, mo-ron.

279 posted on 08/08/2009 8:24:24 PM PDT by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for g!ood men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: tpanther

Wow. And I just congratulated you on allowing as Catholics were Christians. But you last post makes me wonder if you are a Christian!


280 posted on 08/08/2009 8:29:09 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300301-320 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson