Posted on 05/06/2009 3:36:34 PM PDT by BlueStateBlues
Chris Matthews used a gotcha question about evolution to ambush a GOPer off his game yesterday, and gloated about it today. Now here's a way conservative reporters can get prominent Dem. leaders and other liberals to cross a line, hem and haw, or look stupid: "Sir or Madam, are you an ape? Are you a great ape? Answer this question directly, yes or no."
Comparing Darwinism to gravity is (simply another) failed liberal tactic.
Testable, verifiable, repeatable nonsense does not science make either. The so-called “peers” doing the so-called “verifying” are fellow brain-washed darwin-cultists.
Edward Peltzer, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute)
As a chemist, the most fascinating issue for me revolves around the origin of life. Before life began, there was no biology, only chemistry – and chemistry is the same for all time. What works (or not) today, worked (or not) back in the beginning. So, our ideas about what happened on Earth prior to the emergence of life are eminently testable in the lab. And what we have seen thus far when the reactions are left unguided as they would be in the natural world is not much. Indeed, the decomposition reactions and competing reactions out distance the synthetic reactions by far. It is only when an intelligent agent (such as a scientist or graduate student) intervenes and “tweaks” the reactions conditions “just right” do we see any progress at all, and even then it is still quite limited and very far from where we need to get. Thus, it is the very chemistry that speaks of a need for something more than just time and chance. And whether that be simply a highly specified set of initial conditions (fine-tuning) or some form of continual guidance until life ultimately emerges is still unknown. But what we do know is the random chemical reactions are both woefully insufficient and are often working against the pathways needed to succeed. For these reasons I have serious doubts about whether the current Darwinian paradigm will ever make additional progress in this area.
Edward Peltzer
Ph.D. Oceanography, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute)
Associate Editor, Marine Chemistry
Posted by Robert Crowther on September 2, 2008 3:16 PM |
dissentfromdarwin.org
There’s a better variation on this, that can be drawn from the movie Gettysburg (or The Killer Angels, if you’d prefer).
There’s a scene that takes place the night before the third day where General Pickett and his brigade commanders are sitting around a campfire debating the merits of Darwin. One of them (Kemper, I think) makes a point that while they might all be willing to admit (or accuse the others) of being descended from apes, would any of them accuse General Lee of being descended from an ape?
So the variation goes like this:
“Do you believe that you are descended from an ape?”
“Yes”
“Do you believe that I am descended from an ape?”
“Yes”
“Do you believe that President Obama is descended from an ape?”
...
bump
Another debunked liberal tactic, when someone doesn’t march with the Hissy-fit Matthew’s of the world, well then they’ve gotta be a conspiracy theorist?
Sorry, but you’re on FR, you should know better. Liberalism doesn’t work here.
But supposing the premise (short of conspiracy) were true, wasn’t this the view of oh I dunno, near 100% of scientists of a flat earth until they knew better?
To the contrary, the “theory” is merely evolving and eventually it’ll go away.
The truth sets us free like that, scientifically and other- wise.
You should pay dissentfromdarwin.org a visit! The growing list of scientists and their observations are enlightening!
Besides, any “theory” that now sees any and all dissent, criticism or even mere questions, as a “religious attack on science” never really had a snowball’s chance anyway.
Suppose you answer, are you a great ape?
Equating the Theory of Evolution with liberalism, however, is the sign of a keen intellect, so much sharper than all those “evo-atheist” professors? Got it.
That's not an entirely accurate assessment. I am a magnificent ape.
Ummmm....do you only pay attention to the “evidence” when it comes to evolution and ignore the mountains of evidence all around you otherwise?
Here’s a clue...the title of this thread should help you understand. At least a little.
Your evolution friends aren’t anything but atheists, flaming liberals, closet liberals or confused.
Put down the liberal professor kool-aid.
Evolution is the liberal position. Period. More conservatives understand this than not.
Clealry:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/03/americans_overwhelmingly_suppo.html
Headline: “Americans Overwhelmingly Support Teaching Scientific Challenges to Darwinian Evolution, Zogby Poll Shows” From March 2006.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=719
**********************************************************
Free Republic Poll on Evolution
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1706571/posts?page=63#63
**********************************************************
Creationism makes a comeback in US
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1856224/posts
***********************************************************
Teaching creation and evolution in schools
Solid research reveals American beliefs
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i2/teaching.asp
************************************************************
Survey Finds Support Is Strong For Teaching 2 Origin Theories
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B07E4D9143BF932A25750C0A9669C8B63
************************************************************
Public Divided on Origins of Life
http://people-press.org/report/254/religion-a-strength-and-weakness-for-both-parties
************************************************************
Americans Believe in Jesus, Poll Says (creation poll results included)
http://derekgulbranson.com/2005/01/17/americans-believe-in-jesus/
Before you come back with the “consensus or polls isn’t science” liberal argument, neither is a bunch of liberal professors/scientists dictating to everyone else what science is or isn’t.
LOL...
I should have put my post to KenH in quotations, meant for the Hissy-Fit.
I seriously doubt the man, (or marginal ape, as it were) knows what evolution actually is!
Except that PF hasn't been on FR for very long.....
Trolls don't get it, you know...
Hey, noob. Welcome to FR.
Comparing creationists to *9-11 "Truthers"* already?
Enjoy your (short) stay.
Interesting, is it not, the silence from the evos about this kind of *scientific research*?
Evos like natural selection.....
Except when it’s applied to them.
No organism knows what evolution is from individual experience. They only know life or death, success in breeding or failure.
The individual elements of a painting don't know what the overall image is. They can only be darker or lighter in certain frequencies.
All of our problems of perception have to do with scale. The unending enormities of the Universe, and the limitless grandeur of time beyond the human span, make knowing true relationships a matter of having inadequate comprehensional skills and abilities.
Possibly it's true that you won't see the big picture by looking through a microscope. But you also won't see it if you don't open your eyes.
OK, got it. (this will serve as a reply to #126 also)
"I answered the question. I am not an ape, and I agree with Pope Benedict on evolution."
“I answered the question. I am not an ape,...”
Proving the Hissy Fit has no idea what he’s talking about.
“I seriously doubt the man, (or marginal ape, as it were) knows what evolution actually is!”
No organism knows what evolution is from individual experience. They only know life or death, success in breeding or failure.
The individual elements of a painting don’t know what the overall image is. They can only be darker or lighter in certain frequencies.
All of our problems of perception have to do with scale. The unending enormities of the Universe, and the limitless grandeur of time beyond the human span, make knowing true relationships a matter of having inadequate comprehensional skills and abilities.
Possibly it’s true that you won’t see the big picture by looking through a microscope. But you also won’t see it if you don’t open your eyes.
Brilliant, which begs the quetion, why do liberals always exclaim 100% of the time it’s “settled science”, anyone that disagrees with them is anti-science, (not even getting into what gives them the idea they and they alone have all the keys to science as no one else) and that any and every criticism of evolution is attacked as relgious assualts on science?
Unless of course what you’re saying somehow doesn’t apply to liberals?
OR has everything to do with God and nothing to do with science?
Ann’s a gem.
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.