Fact is, this theory is under attack (Evolution Revolution Alert)

Baltimoresun.com ^ | 5 Feb 2005 | Arthur Hirsch

[gobucks]

They fail to recognize that the objectivity they claim to relish is filtered through imperfect human vessels.

Wait, I thought we were all born 'good', but that outside environmental forces are the cause of anyone doing 'bad' stuff. You mean to imply that we're imperfect from the very start?

What a novel concept. And to me, quite recognizable.

[Joe Bonforte]

Most die hard evolutionists know that at root, ToE, gives a free pass for all 'immoral' acts, especially sexual ones.

Which makes it a perfect philosophy and/or religion purposely foisted upon the young to further the aims of atheists, Communists and all those set upon destroying America

You forgot contaminating our precious bodily fluids.

[Dimensio]

Evolution is a theory, not a fact. It's fine as a theory, but anything that starts with a premise of "first there was nothing, and now there is everything" is leaving out something critical.

1) Do you know what a "theory" is, in the context of science?

2) Evolution does not have a premise of "first there was nothing, and now there is everything", so what relevance does that statement have with this discussion?

[gobucks]

" There are plenty more, but it would start going very much off the topic of thread. I only went this far because you asked."

And I very much appreciate your willingness to go off topic. Let me ask you this: do you think creative thinking is an inborn trait, or do you think it is something that can be taught?

[D Edmund Joaquin]

lol, which would be funny if not for AIDS

[Dimensio]

2nd Law of Thermodynamics (matter is in a constant state of disinigration and decay- thus our bodies break down and our cars rust).

Another creationist exposes his fundamental ignorance of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, redefining it to suit his whims, rather than sticking to reality.

[Dimensio]

The Bible has been around way longer than Darwin.

What's your point?

[PatrickHenry]

I'm pro-life and think Roe v Wade should get overturned.

Me too, but I don't expect inconvenient things like facts will cause the hard-core creationoids to change their mantra.

[Dimensio]

Remember, gobucks said "atheistic evolutionist". But then, that brings up the question of whether or not he was directing only to atheists who accept evolution, or if he is dishonstly (as many creationists do) asserting that all who accept evolution are atheists...

[jocon307]

Dude, you are way ahead of me!

I took the regents in 1975, by the time my daughter took honors bio at Bayonne HS 5 years ago, I could barely understand the first lesson! I only had a clue because I took bio in college too.

We complain about the state of the schools, but I must say that in science and math the cirriculumn today is much advanced over what I took.

And I always was terrible in math, so you can keep the astronomy, for my kid it was an "easy A", to me it is something I must take on faith. That is to say, I have faith that most astronomers are good people and aren't just making stuff up. I cannot judge it for myself. And no, I can't spell either. But my mother blamed the nuns for that.

[gobucks]

"Well, we can fix that. I'm pro-life and think Roe v Wade should get overturned."

Thank god. We agree. But, I know why I think it should be overturned. But, you ... why?

[xm177e2]

By the way, you believe in God, yes?

What does that have to do with logic? If you can't put biases aside to look at logic, you have no business talking about what science is or is not.

Part of science is accepting results as you find them, not demanding in advance that they conform to some stupid religious crackpottery.

[Dimensio]

Most die hard evolutionists know that at root, ToE, gives a free pass for all 'immoral' acts, especially sexual ones.

No matter how often I see this lie, I am still astounded that so many dishonest creationists think that it's believable. Are they really that stupid, or is it just incurable dishonesty?

[gobucks]

Good find! Thanks!

>

Wow. I love them!

[Joe Bonforte]

Let me ask you this: do you think creative thinking is an inborn trait, or do you think it is something that can be taught?

I think there are many abilities, such as creative thinking, writing, and musical ability to name a few, which require inborn talent but also require the right environment and training to allow them to flower. I don't think you can teach someone to be a writer or musician unless they already have the talent for it.

On creative thinking, the mind needs to be trained by being exposed to many different aspects of the world. That exposure provides the "raw material" used in the creative process. But only a person with inborn creative ability can use that raw material to generate new insights.

[Dimensio]

Wow. I love them!

They do seem aimed toward the truly feeble-minded and gullible. The description of the "six kinds of evolution" (apparently taken from Hovind's lies) is a real howler.

[freespirited]

Therefore, the government ultimately decides how scientists practice 'science', and thus, control the meaning of the word 'science'.

Ooooooooooh. That is really scary. So who exactly has been doing this? Where do they meet and when? Are their meetings secret? Do they publish their proposed meanings of science in the Federal Register for public comment?

'Science', then, is what liberal democrats use to spread godlessness, and to confuse ordinary citizens, who can't afford a private education, and so thereby prevent them from voting Republican.

Science is the reason you are still alive to post this paranoid nonsense on FR.

[gobucks]

You forgot contaminating our precious bodily fluids.

Not again, no, please.... not more quoting of that movie the far left gay movement worships, Dr. Stranglove? Please... no mas...

[pharmamom]

Can I have some of that popcorn, without butter?

[gobucks]

"or if he is dishonstly (as many creationists do) asserting that all who accept evolution are atheists..."

Not all, but most.