Keep Darwin's 'lies' out of Polish schools: education official

AFP via Yahoo! News ^ | October 14, 2006

[freedumb2003]

Very nice. I will probably use it when I travel later today (I am a frequent traveller).

But I will use it as a theological devotional to speak to my Lord -- not as scientific evidence nor as defense to closing my eyes.

[freedumb2003]

Yeah -- I'll have to try a little harder.

[1000 silverlings]

That's great, I hope you have a good and safe journey.

[freedumb2003]

Thank you.

[RunningWolf]

Hey don't feel left out.

Name calling is all the character has. he cant even go to a Nobel prize thread without starting right off by referring to or about another freeper as 'pantload' or 'pantload being in your head'

This character (and not to insult all good characters) makes a mockery of education and knowledge.

If he and his band of characters think they are an apt representation of the current academia, then I think we can rule out all institutions that bow to the monkey god of darwin as being genuine places of higher knowledge.

What I really want to know is what is the ratio for deleted posts/good standing at the FR? This character must have set the Guinness world record in posts deleted for insult, vulgarity, and obscenity and he is still here.

W

[1000 silverlings]

Poor little guy. Maybe he needs love.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Could you point out some case in history where a living ape was confused for a living human or vise versa? That is to say, where one of these species was in a transitional state? This would help somewhat in substantiating what so far appears to be a "just so story." Or do you have only pictures of bone heads to make your point?

[balrog666]

Usually, your posts are never so substantive as to call me names. ;-) If you're feel left out...

Well, let's just find out where I need to kick first ...

So, are you a Moonie?

[Coyoteman]

Could you point out some case in history where a living ape was confused for a living human or vise versa? That is to say, where one of these species was in a transitional state?

The transitional fossils are all deceased at this point. Sorry.

However, you are a transitional! You are genetically different from your parents, and if you have children you are genetically different from them as well.

But, here is an example of a fossil transitional. Check out the chart for its position (hint--in the upper center):

---

Fossil: KNM-ER 3733

Site: Koobi Fora (Upper KBS tuff, area 104), Lake Turkana, Kenya (4, 1)

Discovered By: B. Ngeneo, 1975 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)

Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7), Homo erectus ergaster (25)

Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)

Cranial Capacity: 850 cc (1, 3, 4)

Information: Tools found in same layer (8, 9). Found with KNM-ER 406 A. boisei (effectively eliminating single species hypothesis) (1)

Interpretation: Adult (based on cranial sutures, molar eruption and dental wear) (1)

See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=33

Source: http://wwwrses.anu.edu.au/environment/eePages/eeDating/HumanEvol_info.html

[Tribune7]

No scientist (nor those of us who understand the fundamentals) believes what you have posited in the way you have said it.

There was a trick in that question. But since you "understand the fundamentals" tell me what it was then tell me what you believe.

[Tribune7]

Dave,

Thank God for our enemies :-)

[Fester Chugabrew]

I was hoping there might be some record, i.e. written account, indicating an ape was once confused for a human, or vise versa; where living humans were literally at a loss as to which species the sample represents. There should be some such creatures living today that have us scratching our heads wondering: "Is it human or is it ape?" But it seems we are able to tell the difference right away and always have. Without such samples the theory of evolution is sorely lacking substantive evidence.

I believe if all the samples you post could be put together into the form they had when they were alive, there would be no problem determining fairly quickly whether they are ape or human.

It simply does not wash that, because there are small changes from generation to generation, these necessarily add up to large changes over a long period of time. Not to say the idea is preposterous or completely unfounded. It just has not been supported by the direct observation of humans or their written records over millennia.

[freedumb2003]

If he and his band of characters think they are an apt representation of the current academia, then I think we can rule out all institutions that bow to the monkey god of darwin as being genuine places of higher knowledge.

As always, the (hilarious) irony of your posts is not lost on anyone but you.

[curiosity]

And I have a question to you. Do you reject then the view "that the universe is a dead purposeless machine ruled by chance"?

Yes, I reject that view. I'd also add that it has absolutely nothing to do with the modern neo-Darwinian theory of evolution.

[curiosity]

I do not mean actual Darwin.

Okay. So do you broadly accept Darwin's theory as the best, empirically-verified scientific explanation for the origin of species and biological diversity?

I mean "Darwinism" as it is being propagated today.

Where is this "Darwinism" of yours being propagated?

Surely this "Darwinism" you speak of cannot be the same thing as the modern neo-Darwinian theory of biological evolution as it is commonly taught in modern biology courses. I have looked at many textbooks on evolutionary biology, and I have yet to see one that claims the universe is a "dead purposeless machine."

[antiRepublicrat]

Nevertheless I trust police forensic science which treats of a narrow line of questioning far more than I trust the typical evolutionist who accepts a tale regarding a 4.5 billion history of unobserved events

Big difference -- scientists have been working on the ToE for over a hundred years, and have not yet been able to show it to be wrong.

ID is not a scientific theory. The only thing scientific about it are individual scientific attacks on the ToE, and they have failed as have all previous attacks by regular scientists (which is why ToE exists today). But a set of scientific attacks on an established theory do not in themselves equal a scientific theory.