New Dinosaur Species Found in India

AP ^ | August 13, 2003 | RAMOLA TALWAR BADAM

[AndrewC]

I would almost certainly mention medved in my reply,

And if you were not replying to me you would be in violation of the spirit of debate.

[Aric2000]

Science is Neither conservative nor liberal, it is science, placemarker.

[Doctor Stochastic]

The aims of the Creationists are identical with the aims of the PostModernDectonstructionists. Both are attempting to destroy scientific inquiry as a meas of obtaining knowldge. Both groups claim to have "higher knowldege" obtained by non-scientific means. (So do Scientologists for that matter.) If there is a conflice of observation with "higer knowledge," they repudiate the observations. The is exactly backwards from the scientific method of "saving the phenomena."

[StolarStorm]

"And I consider the opinion that creationists have no right to comment on any thread on a conservative site to be a political opinion that is not conservative. "

Oh, you have the right. I also have the right to be annoyed by it and say so. I don't believe that spewing off about creationism on every science thread is conservative... I find that it is simply disruption.

[Sam Cree]

OK, that makes me feel a little better.

[AndrewC]

Oh, you have the right. I also have the right to be annoyed by it and say so.

Thank you, so to respond to your comment would not be trolling as has been alleged.

[DittoJed2]

I don't mean to argue with you here, but I would like to point out that the theory of evolution is not intended to provide moral standards.

I understand its intent. However, moral deductions can and have been made by evolutionists based upon the theory. If this world has not been designed and we all evolved from molten lava which was created when nothing exploded, then the value of a human life is no greater than that of the value of sewer sludge. There is absolutely NO basis for saying that humans have more value than anything else, nor, if you take Darwin's book itself there is no basis for saying that the races are equal. As a result, you have had Adolf Hitler, a rabid evolutionist, who viewed Norwegians as the purest of pure blood Aryans while blacks were almost pure ape and Jews were pure ape and quite expendable. You have your Kip Kinkle's who deify hatred because there is no basis for morality in the evolutionist world he has been raised in. One of the Columbine kids was wearing a t-shirt on that day that said "natural selection." One of the kids he shot was shot because he was black and considered an inferior polutant of the human race. There are many more examples of how an athiestic-evolutionary point of view has led to absolutely atrocious ideologies which are either acted upon or not. And why not? If evolution is true, then there is no basis for moral law. Period. Oh, folks can get together and say "we don't like murder (can't say it is right or wrong, just that they don't like it) so we are going to agree to punish those who do so." The majority can get together and agree that in their lives, murder is wrong. They can not, however, impose that view on another majority of folks half-way across the world that likes cannibalism. There is absolutely no moral basis in evolutionary theory to say anything is right or wrong, and the fact that evolution has led to a society that does not believe in absolutes of any kind (and believes that absolutely, which is another story altogether) is evidenced by the Hitlers, Stalins, Mussolinis, Maos, Klebold's and Ted Turners of the world.

I mean seriously. How can anyone say Hitler was wrong in a world that evolved by chance? He had a theory of how evolution worked, and being the fittest, he decided to rid the earth of what he considered to be weaker races.

Now, you may say, well the Christians have the Crusades and the Inquisition so its clear that Christianity has brought about some attrocities too. I would say that the Inquisition was not at all based upon Christianity, but more on politics and the desire to protect an institution by the Queen of Spain and her Roman Catholic cohorts. Biblical principles (upon which true Christianity is based) were not utilized during the inquisition, and you can't use guilt by association as a broadbrush to convict Christianity of hate crimes. Second, the Crusades began as a self defense against the rapid advance of the religion of peace, Islam, into Europe. Muslims had been slaughtering Christians. The political powers of the time used the cross as a banner to rally crusaders to go against the Muslims, and the Crusaders prevailed (at least for a time. Now the Muslims are back and are taking over Europe without a whimper). There is nothing in New Testament theology, upon which Christianity is based, that would support killing others for one's faith. Nothing. It can't even be inferred from the New Testament. Rather, just the opposite is taught. So, practicing Christians can't be tagged with that one either.

The evolutionary hypothesis has not happened within a vacuum. You can't teach something and expect for it not to bear ideological fruit that affects everyday life- particularly when you teach it with the fervor that evolution has been taught. Some have drawn some rather heinous conclusions based upon evolutionary thinking. And, unfortunately, they are not at all inconsistent in their conclusions. If there is no God who created us in His image and provided laws for us, then there is no value in life and there is no basis for law, only opinion. What a scary world to live in.

[DittoJed2]

The problem is that high schoolers are taught an unproven hypothesis as fact and evolutionists have never shyed away from using deceptive means to indoctrinate the mind-mushed school kids. It starts in 1st grade, Millions of years ago... and continues to college where creationist kids are ridiculed for believing any alternate theory. It is not a scientific theory, it is a religion which is propagated with every bit the force of a cult. Kids aren't taught how to think, they are told what to think and are given no alternative suggestions for how it could be different. This might be acceptable, except for the fact that we who disagree (which is the majority) are forced to pay for this indoctrination. High school texts may be awful, but they are what is shaping the little scientists of tomorrow and they sure aren't allowing any room for other interpretations of the evidence.

[StolarStorm]

I never said he was. However, calling me an evoloony was off a bit.

I have seen many posts of ALS's, which were pretty trollish though. Others on this board who called him out as one, may have been basing their belief on past history.

[balrog666]

And if you were not replying to me you would be in violation of the spirit of debate.

I see your point although I am sure I fully agree.

[AndrewC]

I never said he was. However, calling me an evoloony was off a bit.

If he did call you an "evoloony" it was by implication. His exact statement was "Just because evolution is an extinct dinosaur doesn't make dinosaurs the exclusive domain of extinct evoloonies.", and you are not extinct.

[Aric2000]

I see, so since Evolution has been used for BAD things, things that it was never meant to be used for, we should get rid of it.

Even if it is the BEST scientific theory to explain the available scientific evidence?

Oh, so you're for gun control as well? I mean they are dangerous, and are used for bad things too, so maybe we ought to outlaw guns? Perhaps we should also outlaw computers, I mean people use computers for immoral purposes, child porn, terrorism etc, perhaps we should get rid of computers as well?

Come on, evolution is NOTHING more then a scientific Theory, if someone makes use of it for some social experimentation, which of course the theory NEVER claims to have ANY answers for, then it is the person that came up with such a felacious idea, that has the responsibility.

Evolution is a theory, a tool, a SCIENTIFIC tool, NOTHING more, it should be and is taught in the science classroom, as it should be. Everyone should understand the theory, so that they will understand how science works.

But to say that evolution somehow is to blame for Hitlers ideas, or the idea of communism etc is ridiculous and shows a very shallow mind.

Conservatives, I thought, believed in PERSONAL responsibilty, I know that I do, so if you ACTUALLY are a conservative, to say that evolution is somehow to blame for such stupidity is hypocritical in the extreme.

Also, to say that the Public school system is somehow responsible for giving children their moral compass is ridiculous. It is the PARENTS responsibility to give that to their children BEFORE they even get into the public school system.

It is the parents responsibility to give their children their moral compass, NOT the public schools, shall I say that again?

If you feel that somehow evolution is going to change the attitude of a child, change their moral compass, etc, then I believe it is the parents failure, NOT the schools.

The schools responsibility is to TEACH children, give them knowledge that they will need in the future, NOTHING more.

It used to be that the schools were for teaching children how to think, but that I am afraid is NO longer true.

Anyway, Science and scientific theories should be taught in school, evolution, astronomy, geology, etc, etc, they should get a small taste of each discipline so that they at least have an inkling of what science is about.

But to say that Evolution will turn these moral little creatures into Amoral monsters is taking the reponsibility away from the parents and laying it at the schools and evolutions feet, when it should be EXACTLY the opposite.

It is the PARENTS responsibility to teach their children to be moral.

Personal responsibility, a conservative tenet that you seem to have forgotten.

[Aric2000]

OK Andrew, now you are getting a bit lawyerly.

Yes, not only was it an implication, it was a direct attack on a poster, if he had meant it as a general statement, then he should have changed the addressee to ALL.

At the same time, it was a trollish statement that added NOTHING to the thread but animosity, and it was bait in the water to start a flamewar.

His history is eminently clear, his continued behavior is beyond defending.

Why you continue to defend such behavior is beyond me.

[DittoJed2]

Among scientists, only 5 percent hold the literal Bible view, 40 percent believe in theistic evolution and a majority, 55 percent, believe in evolution without help from God.

Darwin may have been a theist at the time he write Origin of the Species, but that is highly suspect. He was a seminarian at one point, true, but his inclusion of new species being created at the hand of God in Origins was put in there under intense pressure by the publishers. Darwinian evolution as it is taught and believed today is godless and it was Darwinian evolution that I said 55% of scientists believed in in my post.

As I understand it, and I'm not a Hebrew scholar, but there are several here on FR, the passage in Isaiah that translates to 'the circle of the earth', uses a Hebrew word that means circle or disk. It does not mean sphere. Therefore, to claim the Bible says there is a spherical earth is fallacious.
It is not fallacious. There was no word for "sphere" in ancient Hebrew (and I have had Hebrew as well).

Some Christians, particularly in the early middle ages, did believe in a flat earth. For example, there is the famous sixth century map of Cosmas Indicopleutes which shows a flat earth with four corners.
The church fathers rejected the work of Cosmas Indicopleustes. A flat earth was never held by the church as a whole or even in majority. Washington Irving has been the one to popularize that slur and evolutionists love to harp on that falsehood to this day.

Your accusations of prejudice on my part are ad hominem and unjustified.
I disagree.

What in the sam-hill do you think panspermia is supposed to be saying

That life arrived on earth from elsewhere. it just avoids the question of the origin of life. It does not answer it.
No, teacher. Panspermia teaches that life on earth did not happen by chance but that it came here (in Crick's view) on rocket ships from some other highly intelligent society someplace else. Why would Crick come up with this wild theory? Because he can observe that evolution as taught is not possible on this planet, so he has to invent some other hypothesis whereby on some other planet in his fantasy world life could have evolved and be sent here. Not very scientific, if you ask me. The utter refusal to admit that the earth shows intelligent design and that this design could have even possibly come from God is the epitomy of prejudice and close-minded bigotry and is not worthy of a scientist.

[f.Christian]

1984 speak placemaker !

[AndrewC]

At the same time, it was a trollish statement that added NOTHING to the thread but animosity, and it was bait in the water to start a flamewar.

Your words describe PH's and stolarstorm's posts exactly. And they got a response, 34 and 51 come before 56 unless we use either quantum logic or Archaeopteryx logic.

[StolarStorm]

True. I agree my post didn't add any value, and I shouldn't have bothered. It resulted from frustration at having to read the thousandth creationist rant on a thread that wasn't about evolution or creationism. Still wasn't right of me and I apologize.

[Aric2000]

You should know better then that.

It was ALS's frist post int the thread, and he acted EXACTLY as expected.

Again, you are being VERY lawyerly and actually excusing and defending such behavior should be above you.

Perhaps my good impression of you has been unfounded.

Because to continue to defend a known troller, namecaller and starter of flamewars, by saying we deserved it, is a little insane.

Yeah, and she deserved to be raped because she dressed provocatively, that is EXACTLY what you are saying, and using the same logic, you would aks me to excuse a rapist.

Yes, it is an extreme example, but the same logic applies.

Off to do other things, see you this evening.

[AndrewC]

Still wasn't right of me and I apologize.

Hey, that shows real class.

[AndrewC]

Perhaps my good impression of you has been unfounded.

My opinions and arguments are not fashioned for the desires of other people. I am not in show biz and I do not use Marilyn Monroe logic.

P.S. See StolarStorm's class response.