Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing

The American Prowler ^ | 11/24/04 | Hunter Baker

[Bandaneira]

The Master of the Universe is in control of world events. There is an intelligently designed plan unfolding right now. All of the pieces of the divine jigsaw puzzle are falling into place.

[Junior]

Because it had feathers and could fly -- like a modern bird. He saying, because of this we cannot learn anything about the development of feathers and flight. Why are you being so dense? It's obvious from the skeleton of the critter that, if it hadn't been for the feathers it would not have been considered a bird.

[Junior]

Look, the FACT is that Archaeopteryx is NO LONGER considered a transition ...

By one paleontologist, whose views are not shared by a majority of paleontologists -- and even then he feels it to be transitional between thecodonts and birds, rather than therapods and birds. That's the FACT.

'Course, you don't even read your own sources, do you?

[VadeRetro]

Then there's the matter of skull 1470 which in 1979 Gish was deriding as a transitional because it was "An ape, just an ape!" But by 1985 it was "A man! Just a modern man!" Source: A Comparison of Creationist Opinions.

I put the wrong link on A Comparison of Creationist Opinions. Funny, the person I was talking to didn't point it out. (NOT!!)

[longshadow]

comparative placemarker

[Bikers4Bush]

What I find so interesting about the nonsense you posted is that you assume a lot about me.

None of which is actually true.

[WildTurkey]

What I find so interesting about the nonsense you posted is that you assume a lot about me. None of which is actually true.

I had assumed that you didn't believe in evolution. Thank you for correcting me.

[go_W_go]

Agnes Moorehead, is that you?

I went to a discussion of Intelligent Design, and an NBA game broke out!

bu-dum-pum (rim shot).

Yeah, it got a little fuzzy there. The only thing I don't understand is, why do some people, who claim not to trust the "liberal media", fully trust the "liberal media" on this one issue? The spin on evolution is amazing, the things that have to be twisted to make it look like a "science" are overwhelmingly false, and they go to so many lengths to "prove" it. As you've no doubt seen. If anyone disagrees with them, they're attacked with venom, much like the "liberals" they accuse of the same...

Oh, well, much like Durwin, they'll ALL be creationists one day...

[jocon307]

"The only thing I don't understand is, why do some people, who claim not to trust the "liberal media", fully trust the "liberal media" on this one issue?"

That's a good point, I never even thought about that before. I think it is largely that people want to be seen as "scientific" and not as "superstitious", plus there is no doubt that evolution is definately treated as a settled fact in the media, and not too many people ever read beyond the mainest of the msm on science stuff.

I was always perfectly happy to believe both in a Creator God and evolution, but what impressed me was the credentials of some of the scientists who DON'T believe in evolution.

But science is important, I was very relieved the susperstitious Indian tribes didn't get to bury Kennewick Man, that was a good example of MSM bias. Imagine if a bunch of Fundamentalist Christians tried to bury some old bones because they didn't want their "creation myth" disturbed, oh the knickers would have been a twist that day.

I too don't understand why these discussions become so unhinged. I guess it's kind of a good sign that people take such arcane subjects so seriously. There, I'll be optimistic for once.

[go_W_go]

"That's a good point, I never even thought about that before."

You know, these are the same people who would be crying "spin machine" (and do!) when these same "liberal" professors and "educators" put a lid on conservative talk in their classrooms and on their campuses. Eviloution (misspelled intentionally) is just that, SPIN! Every scientist that looks at the overall evidence objectively, comes to the same conclusion, there is NO evidence for evolution. And now I see a new thread has begun... Here we go again...

Good to talk to you, hope your holiday was pleasant!

Jeff

[maestro]

WACO, Texas -- At one time, the debate over Darwin's theory existed as a cartoon in the modern imagination. Thanks to popular portrayals of the Scopes Trial, secularists regularly reviewed the happy image of Clarence Darrow goading William Jennings Bryan into agreeing to be examined as an expert witness on the Bible and then taking him apart on the stand.

........wasn't this 'trial' totally/mutually 'fixed' from the get-go...?

The 'GREAT GAME' goes on........

/sarcasm

[bobdsmith]

"very scientist that looks at the overall evidence objectively, comes to the same conclusion, there is NO evidence for evolution"

ho ho ho and I guess you are the one who determines if they looked at it objectively or not!

I'll tell you what I have established from looking at the evidence myself. I have come to the conclusion that evolution is overwhelmingly supported by a wide range of evidence, and has been for some time. Today the question is how it works, rather than the already established fact that it did.