The evolving Darwin debate

WorldNetDaily ^ | March 24, 2002 | Julie Foster

[oldcats]

There you go on your "rastifari" kick again...Did you get burned in a deal or something...got oregeno instead of what you thought you were getting?
Why pick them out so often, why not pick on the Moonies or Jehova Witnesses sometime?
Oldcats

[oldcats]

He's over on the other thread, playing a god...judging who is a Christian and who isn't.
Oldcats

[Quila]

I don't think Geroria gassed the retarded, but involuntary sterilization was practiced is most western countries, including the socialist paradise of Sweden.

Anyway, not long ago I watched an umpteen-tape collection on Hitler, and it showed we were his inspiration for what finally became the Final Solution. Using Darwin's concepts WAY out of context.

Great series. It's British-made, and very biased against Hitler rather than just being a history. But the biased comments are so obvious against the actual facts mentioned that you can easily ignore them and just get the history.

[Quila]

Why pick them out so often, why not pick on the Moonies or Jehova Witnesses sometime

Oooh, ooooh (raises hand), I'll take Jehova's Witnesses, they're FUN! My mother-in-law was one for a while and actively trying to convert me. The research I did to be able to respond to her -- wow! People believe this stuff? Do they give them something special in the water?

[oldcats]

We still do involuntary sterilization, but we call it The Pill
I realize that this is way off topic, but lets look at your statement....
1. The pill is NOT sterilization. Except in rare cases, when a woman stops taking the pill, she is capable of concieving again...that is hardly being sterile.
2.involutary.....How many women in the U.S. are forced to take the pill?
You see, that statement was not on reactioanry, but completley wrong.
Oldcats

[medved]

Political and social problems have nothing to do with the validity of a theory...

True, but given the fact that this particular theory (evolution) has been repeatedly disproven and has no validity, the fact that it has pathological political and social consequences has to be considered in determining whether or not public funds should be used to support it.

[oldcats]

Quila.
Thanx for the first good chuckle of the day...
I too find them humurous. Not that I am knocking anyones "beliefs"..after all everyone has the right to believe as they wish, but...
I wish they would stop coming to my door when I am trying to sleep. Just leave your propaganda in the mailbox and move along please.
Oldcats

[js1138]

Using Darwin's concepts WAY out of context.

I have no problem criticising individual scientists for moral and intellectual failings -- even if they were just voicing the spirit of their time.

But saying that an idea was hijacked to justify evil deeds is not an argument against the idea. Atomic bombs do not invalidate physics, even if detonated in New York.

I suspect that eugenics will be back in another form. Rather than sterilizing or gassing the unfit, we will be "treating patients". GATACA is not that far fetched.

[js1138]

How many women in the U.S. are forced to take the pill?

Any retarded female who wishes to live at public expense, in a shelterd home or institution.

[js1138]

The pill is NOT sterilization. Except in rare cases, when a woman stops taking the pill, she is capable of concieving again...that is hardly being sterile.

But if you don't stop taking it, it has the same effect. The Pill is certainly less offensive than surgical sterilization, but eugenics is nevertheless still being practiced.

[Virginia-American]

Sure, and I think that makes my point that theories do not become laws, but instead that theories explain laws

We're in agrement, I thought this was a particularly well-known example of the difference between laws and theories.

[Quila]

has been repeatedly disproven and has no validity

I'm still waiting to see this. You know there's going to be a Nobel Prize and tons of fame and fortune for the person who can take down evolution scientifically.

[Quila]

GATACA is not that far fetched.

Not at all. We can already see the beginnings with the woman who had in vitro fertilization, and they picked the embryo that was missing a certain hereditary disease. In trying to beat the odds, insurance companies in England are already using your genetic profile against you to raise your rates.

[oldcats]

Odd..I have a cousin that is mentally challanged...lives in public housing (she does have a part time job, so you can't call her a "slacker" or "leech") and she is not forced to take any pills...meds or otherwise.
Oldcats

[js1138]

I suppose it depends on the individual and the local program. I have worked in one of these systems, and I can assure that no one ever publically acknowledge forcing anyone to take medication. But it is often made a condition of living in a home.

Personal question: Does your cousin have any children?

[oldcats]

No she does yet....she hasn't found the right guy yet. But she does plan on it, and she has my blessing. I know that will ruffle a few feathers here,
So your statement of forced pills was a bit of an overstatement.
Oldcats

[Virginia-American]

Has anyone ever shown that anything is actually 'irreducibly complex'?

Yes, that is what ID shows - systems that are irreducibly complex

Actually, I was asking for examples, especially of the method of proof.

[js1138]

Retardation is not an all or nothing condition. I know that some individuals are required to take birth control pills.

Just as an aside, I spent nearly seven years in Protective Services, "supervising" parents accused of neglect. A high proportion of these parents were mildly retarded. I spent a lot of time trying to convince judges and others that children were better off with their natural parents, even if the parents needed help with things most of us consider ordinary.

[medved]

has been repeatedly disproven and has no validity

I'm still waiting to see this. You know there's going to be a Nobel Prize and tons of fame and fortune for the person who can take down evolution scientifically.

It's been done repeatedly. The problem is that there is, in reality, no such thing as "proving" something; there is only such a thing as proving something to somebody's satisfaction. If the audience is too stupid or too brainwashed to deal with the proof, then the proof did not fly. Certain segments of American academia with their "peer-reviewed" journals are a closed loop, and I do not anticipate proving anything to them anytime soon. Under those circumstances, proving the case against evolutionism to judges, juries, and voters will have to suffice.

[Virginia-American]

Certain segments of American academia with their "peer-reviewed" journals are a closed loop, and I do not anticipate proving anything to them anytime soon.

A little evidence would help here.