Skip to comments.
Evolving Double Standards
National Review ^
| April 01, 2004
| John West
Posted on 04/01/2004 11:17:06 AM PST by Heartlander
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120, 121-127 next last
To: Junior
I've been checking her replies, and they're all copied and pasted from drdino.com. I'm going to take some time picking a few apart later this evening, if no one else tackles them.
81
posted on
04/04/2004 11:49:33 AM PDT
by
Dimensio
(I gave you LIFE! I -- AAAAAAAAH!)
To: Cowgirl
I'll be taking on the rest of this later tonight, but I was skimming through and found this little absurdity:
1 - This is the evolutionary formula for making a universe:
Nothing + nothing = two elements + time = 92 natural elements + time = all physical laws and a completely structured universe of galaxies, systems, stars, planets, and moons orbiting in perfect balance and order.
2 - This is the evolutionary formula for making life:
Dirt + water + time = living creatures.
Both statements are false. Evolution says NOTHING about the creation of the universe, and it says NOTHING about the origin of the first life forms. That the author makes this claim directly exposes his utter and complete ignorance of the theory of evolution.
I was concerned that I'd have to do a lot of research to debunk the claims that you copied and pasted, but if the scholarship level of the rest of the offerings are on par with the above excerpt, I shouldn't worry at all, as the author is clearly arguing from total ignorance.
82
posted on
04/04/2004 3:20:25 PM PDT
by
Dimensio
(I gave you LIFE! I -- AAAAAAAAH!)
To: Heartlander
How very Bright of you
(assuming you are still a member of the established bright organization that is organized against established religion
)Careful. Your God doesn't like you telling lies. The Brights are organized for no such purpose.
I see no reason why you think I was being sarcastic. The idea of a biology course going through a list of religions to point out the ones that are compatible with evolution is IMO completely inappropriate.
To: Dimensio
Basically she's parrotting. She doesn't understand what she's posting, she just thinks it sounds good.
84
posted on
04/04/2004 6:04:24 PM PDT
by
Junior
(Remember, you are unique, just like everyone else.)
To: Dimensio
You are talking about college text books, I'm talking about grade school text books. If you have a problem with that statement, it's not me. After all, I don't even believe it. This is what is being taught in the grade
schools.
85
posted on
04/04/2004 6:44:10 PM PDT
by
Cowgirl
To: Cowgirl
You are talking about college text books, I'm talking about grade school text books.
No, you're talking about a total strawman depiction of evolution. You clearly understand nothing whatsoever of the subject. All you can do is cut and paste from drdino.com, because you apparently don't have an original thought of your own to offer and you lack the criticial thinking skills to actually debunk any offered evidence.
86
posted on
04/04/2004 8:54:10 PM PDT
by
Dimensio
(I gave you LIFE! I -- AAAAAAAAH!)
To: Dimensio
Here this isn't "cut and paste":
Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise; they became as fools.
Genesis 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Dr. Kent Hovind, Dr. Carl Baugh and other scientists that I have read offer more than enough evidence that evolution
is not true. You can choose to not believe what they say, but why are evolutionists using lies to make their case? I am not confined to drdino.com, but I'm not ashamed to use his material which is offered without a copyright. As for evidence, apparently the evolution theory you know about is so complicated you are unable to explain it.
87
posted on
04/05/2004 12:34:38 PM PDT
by
Cowgirl
To: Cowgirl
I found a lovely
article addressing the bogus and intellectually bankrupt claim that Archaeopteryx was a fraud.
I don't know why you bother to recite Scripture. Christians who accept evolution are clearly not going to be swayed by what they've heard before, and as a non-Christian I'm not going to be swayed by it either (and, by the way, I've seen it before). It's just words from someone else's book of mythology.
Dr. Kent Hovind, Dr. Carl Baugh and other scientists that I have read offer more than enough evidence that evolution is not true.
And yet you've shown absolutely no understanding of the concepts. When Hovid's documented lies are presented to you, you ignore them and hope that they will go away.
You can choose to not believe what they say, but why are evolutionists using lies to make their case?
Why do you claim that they are lies? You don't have the intellect to understand the claims in the first place, so you have no business calling them lies. As for Hovind, he's a
documented liar. I even pointed out that he was outright wrong about the claims that evolution says anything about the origins of the universe or the origins of life. If he's so ignorant (or dishonest) as to make such claims, how can he be trusted on anything else.
As for evidence, apparently the evolution theory you know about is so complicated you are unable to explain it.
In psychological terms, this is called "projection". Your utter ignorance of the theory of evolution does not debunk it.
88
posted on
04/05/2004 1:43:09 PM PDT
by
Dimensio
(I gave you LIFE! I -- AAAAAAAAH!)
To: Junior
Biology, The Dynamics of Life
Glencoe Science
To: general_re
Why would you think it is funny that I am aggravated?
I thought you (of all no label) would be fair minded and instead
('Creationist' label from the beginning)
Bottom line I know you dont agree with what the NCSE is doing
(Again no label)
To: Right Wing Professor
Careful. Your God doesn't like you telling lies. The Brights are organized for no such purpose. You dont believe in any god
Mindlessness is all that is left for you and your beginning this is your god. You accuse me of lies and act as though a higher source does exist by invoking what? Lets look at your belief system:
Think about your own worldview to decide if it is indeed free of supernatural or mystical deities, forces, and entities. Check the wording in the definition and description (above). If you would like more information on the important terms used in the definition, you can go to the FAQs.If you decide that you fit the definition, then you can simply say so and join with us in this extraordinary effort to change the thinking of society--the BRIGHTS MOVEMENT. If successful, these early efforts of ours could have far-reaching effects.
We are forming a constituency of Brights (persons who fit the definition and sign in on this Web site) for social and political action. This constituency of Brights includes many who are members of existing atheist, agnostic, freethought, humanist, rationalist, secularist, or skeptic organizations and many more who are nonreligious and are not associated with any formal group.
Can we Brights impact society's outlook by putting just one new word to popular use? That remains to be seen, but if you are intrigued by the idea, we invite you to explore this Web site and learn more about The BRIGHTs Movement.
Now I asked if you were trying to be sarcastic in post #54
Your blind watchmaker friend and founding member agrees with you
Dick Dawkins writes many books on evolution
What if someone used your same logic in regard to humanism, atheism, nazism, socialism, etc
To: Cowgirl
Uh, did you happen to notice that you went, in one message
to the very next, from claiming (via your cuts and pastes) that
Archaeopteryx isn't transitional between reptiles and birds because it's just a bird, to claiming that it isn't transitional because it's just a reptile with hoaxed feathers?
Remember a transitional form should be difficult to easily classify as either "A" or "B" because it has a mix of features from both groups, and/or because it has features that are intermediate in form between those typical of either group (both things are true of Archaeopteryx). You've illustrated the thoroughly intermediate character of Archaeopteryx beautifully because -- to the extent you are held responsible for your references -- you yourself can't decide whether it's a bird or a dinosaur!
92
posted on
04/06/2004 12:35:48 AM PDT
by
Stultis
To: Cowgirl
From "The Evolution Cruncher" BRIEF HISTORY OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY
Thank You! That was a delicious sample of arrogant and ignorant bilge. Darwin practiced "witchcraft" and never studied science! LOL! I'll be looking for this tome in the used bookstores to add to my collection of creationist, uh, literature. Did the idiot publish it under his real name?
93
posted on
04/06/2004 12:52:48 AM PDT
by
Stultis
To: Dimensio
"Evolution says NOTHING about the creation of the universe, and it says NOTHING about the origin of the first life forms."
For the record, let me state that I am not a Creationist. As an agnostic, I don't believe that evolution and ID necessarily contradict each other (pretty much the Catholic perspective).
However, your statement above avoids what I believe is a valid point regarding education in our schools. Whether those two things are included in the theory of evolution is besides the point - they ARE taught in schools, whether as a part of evolutionary theory or not. I was taught that abiogenesis was the result of a bunch of amino acids that just happened to assemble into proteins, then cells, etc... and I was taught the big bang theory.
Fine, if you don't consider these to belong to the theory of evolution, I won't argue with that. But they ARE taught in schools, and no other perspective is permitted, despite the fact that they are just as faith based as saying "God created the first life forms, and let evolution take it from there".
In all of these evo/creo threads, I -constantly- see the evo side make this claim - that evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis. Okay! Fine! Accepted! But then why is abiogensis also taught in schools, and usually in the chapter right before they start teaching evolution?
Qwinn
94
posted on
04/06/2004 1:12:15 AM PDT
by
Qwinn
To: Heartlander
You dont believe in any god
Mindlessness is all that is left for you and your beginning this is your god. You accuse me of lies and act as though a higher source does exist by invoking what? Lets look at your belief system.Typical Talibunny: his opponents are denied the most fundamental attributes of humanity, because they don't agree with him. If by accident he had been born Islamic, he'd be screaming for Sharia.
Lies are wrong. You don't need to be a fundamentalist to assert that.
As for the Brights; their role is to stand up against the pervasive anti-naturalist agenda in our society. In fact, Heartlander, you are a prime example of why many of us feel the Brights need to exist. If objecting to slander is anti-Christian, what does that say about Christians?
To: Qwinn
But then why is abiogensis also taught in schools, and usually in the chapter right before they start teaching evolution? Good question. At most they should teach that there are many speculative theories about the origin of life, but little hard evidence.
To: Cowgirl
Here this isn't "cut and paste": You wrote Romans and Genesis?
97
posted on
04/06/2004 8:36:45 AM PDT
by
js1138
(In a minute there is time, for decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse. J Forbes Kerry)
To: Junior
It may be turtles all the way down, but each turtle moves in its own proper epicycle.
98
posted on
04/06/2004 8:39:11 AM PDT
by
Doctor Stochastic
(Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
To: js1138
No, I typed it myself:)
99
posted on
04/06/2004 10:23:22 AM PDT
by
Cowgirl
To: Dimensio
You are resorting to name calling just because you can't make your own case.
100
posted on
04/06/2004 10:26:07 AM PDT
by
Cowgirl
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120, 121-127 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson