1/26/2007
environmentalists and the Global Warming Scare
At TWA, we’re having a discussion in comments about the environmentalists and Global warming, and as usual, I refer to the scientists at the Institute for Creation Research. I am naturally ridiculed, as leftists start with their wailing using some communist’s words about Christianity being the opiate of the people, and that ICR’s PHDs can’t be considered scientists because they utter the word “God” and quote the Bible.
Romans 12:2And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God. - King James Version
How little people recall of history. I referred in three separate posts, back in 2004 when I first started blogging, to an article written by Joseph Wolverton II, called “the Founders and the Classics“. In part, Wolverton discusses the magnitude of what they learned; and the intensity of their studies, what was stressed that learned at a very young age, including the Bible, at the Ivy League Schools so many of them attended.
Alexander Hamilton’s alma mater, King’s College (now Columbia), had similarly stringent prerequisites for prospective students. Applicants were required to “give a rational account of the Greek and Latin grammars, read three orations of Cicero and three books of Virgil’s Aeneid, and translate the first 10 chapters of John from Greek into Latin.”
Can you imagine? Columbia University, in the 1700’s, taught the Bible.
Our founders’ curriculum was stunning in comparison to what students today carry in terms of a workload in the classroom, but let me point out a couple of things. First, the founders supported the use of the Bible in public schools as a text book.
The great enemy of the salvation of man, in my opinion, never invented a more effectual means of extirpating [extinguishing] Christianity from the world than by persuading mankind that it was improper to read the Bible at schools. [T]he Bible, when not read in schools, is seldom read in any subsequent period of life. . . . [It] should be read in our schools in preference to all other books from its containing the greatest portion of that kind of knowledge which is calculated to produce private and public temporal happiness.
Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration of Independence
[Why] should not the Bible regain the place it once held as a school book? Its morals are pure, its examples captivating and noble. The reverence for the Sacred Book that is thus early impressed lasts long; and probably if not impressed in infancy, never takes firm hold of the mind.[56]
Fisher Ames, Author of the House Language for the First Amendment
Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited…. What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be. I have examined all [religions]… and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more of my little philosophy than all the libraries I have seen.
John Adams
[T]he Bible…. [is] a book containing the history of all men and of all nations and… [is] a necessary part of a polite education.
Henry Laurens, President of the Continental Congress; U.S. Diplomat; Selected as Delegate to the Constitutional Convention
The Bible itself [is] the common inheritance, not merely of Christendom, but of the world.
Joseph Story, U.S. Supreme Court Justice; Father of American Jurisprudence
To a man of liberal education, the study of history is not only useful, and important, but altogether indispensable, and with regard to the history contained in the Bible . . . “it is not so much praiseworthy to be acquainted with as it is shameful to be ignorant of it.”
John Quincy Adams
And secondly, they themselves studied the bible and could translate it back and forth between the original texts and English and back again, and in different tenses. The Bible, in fact, was used as a text book in public schools until the 60’s, and about 10 years later, in 1973, the American Psychiatric Association took homosexuality off its list of emotional disorders. And it wasn’t because of newly discovered science to the contrary, it was because of lobbying gay activists.
Leftists, unfortunately, are not interested at all in facts or history, they’re just interested in their attacks on us as though that’s going to force us to shut up. We should send them some polish so they can shine up their jackboots.
This environmental bs began with the scare over nuclear weapons around the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis. In 1962, we were probably the closest ever to nuclear war between the superpowers, but a year later, the US and Soviet Union signed the Limited Test Ban prohibiting all nuclear tests in the atmosphere and oceans. This could be the first international law ever passed that prohibited environmental pollution.
During the ’60’s, the fusing of the civil rights and peace movements with environmental activism took place; it wasn’t just a ‘revolution’ because the Beatles sang about it. Victor Scheffer points out that there is a natural affinity between peace and civil rights activists and the environmental movement, because both movements appeal to people with strong egalitarian sympathies.
e·gal·i·tar·i·an /ɪˌgælɪˈtɛəriən/ Pronunciation[i-gal-i-tair-ee-uhn] –adjective
1. asserting, resulting from, or characterized by belief in the equality of all people, esp. in political, economic, or social life.
In other words, the egalitarians believe in artificially ‘evening’ the playing field through taxation ande other means in order to promote what George Soros would call an “open society”. We’ve seen what these ideas promote in other countries; Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and although they’ve miserably failed elsewhere, it doesn’t seem to stop these people from pushing this onto those who they think they can control and rule over. We conservatives, on the other hand, believe in equality in terms of hard work; if you put in your time, you’ll get the reward; unlike communism which takes the incentive for hard work away because you never see the fruits of your labor.
It drifted from ‘conservation’ to ‘environmentalism’: First, in the late 60’s and early 70’s, peace and civil rights movements and the second in the late 80’s and it continues into the present. Militant environmental lobbying groups including Greenpeace, the Environmental Defense Fund, and the Natural Resources Defense Council, were born in the 60’s, and old line conservation groups like the Sierra Club, the National Wildlife Foundation and the Audubon Society fell in line with the radicalization. During the 70’s, environmentalists began to voice their interest in other issues when environmental issues waned.
The activism inspired by the real possibility of a nuclear holoaust served as the training ground for what we see now; the apocalyptic environmentalists who scream that the sky is falling with this crap over global warming.
“The politicization of science; the revolving doors between government agencies in charge of environmental affairs and environmental advocacy groups; the symbiotic relationship among activists, the press, and politicians, all of whom thrive on a crisis atmosphere; the massive propaganda campaigns involving public schools, church organizations and civic clubs, the call for massive government intervention and international control–all were policies and strategies developed and refined first by antinuclear and peace activists.
For instance, New Left peace activism and environmentalism were combined in the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). The UCS emerged from a one-day research strike and teach-in at MIT in March 1969. During the MIT strike, faculty and students discussed the atomic bomb, the Vietnam War, and the world food crisis. The UCS’s founding ‘faculty document’ called on scientists and engineers to ‘devise means for turning research applications away from the present overemphasis on military technolgoy towards the solution of pressing environmental and social problems’.”
EcoScam, The False Prophets of Ecological Apocalypse, by Ronald Bailey, pages 34 and 35.
It just goes to show that what’s happening today is just an extension of what has been at work for a long time in engineering and science; which my dad, who is an MIT-educated engineer, is fully aware.
Hell, Michael Moore is a self-proclaimed GREEN activist, and he put together Fahrenheit 9/11, the shlockumentary about the Iraq war.
The “Greenhouse effect” is actually a misnomer; greenhouses keep warm by preventing outside breezes from cooling the air inside them, not by trapping and reradiating heat.
Ecoscam, page 143.
“Attempting to predict the behavior of the earth’s climate, some climatologists have created complicated computer models, called General Circulation Models (CCMs). Today, the leading climate models calculate that doubling carbon dioxide to 600 parts per million should increase average global temperatures between 1.5C and 4.5C degrees (2.2f and 8.1F degrees). Note that the higher figure is very close to the values calculated by Arrhenius a century earlier. However, recent projections made by German and British GGMs lowered predicted global warming to only 1.8 to 3.4 (1 to 1.9C) degrees.
The models are far from perfect-they must be ‘tuned’ in order to achieve global warming.
Ecoscam, page 145.
So there’s plenty of evidence from a lot of scientists that question the theory of global warming, and the impact it would make if we would stop contributing the evil ‘greenhouse gases’ they’re screaming about. It’s not only the ICR scientists, but it’s all scientists who are interested in science, and who aren’t being paid government grant money to skew results so they can get more government money. We’ve moved over into a time when people who know the right people or who do the right thing are rewarded with amazing sums of money and cars, and government-paid vacations. We have entered the time when honesty in politics is something that we don’t even expect. And unfortunately, we’ve also entered a time when the word ‘progressive’ in terms of taxes and other things, is commonplace, even though some of us know that communism and socialism can’t be sold by their brand names yet. Progressive is synonymous with socialism and/or communism. And please, don’t correct me, because as Marx and Engels pointed out, socialism is a predecessor to communism; that’s the plan. And what’s also the plan is that the democrats would work alongside them to accomplish their goals.
X Posted at The Wide Awakes
Thanks to:
The Pink Flamingo
The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns
Woman Honor Thyself
Stuck On Stupid
The Hill Chronicles
Phastidio
Dumb Ox Daily News
Right Voices
The Amboy Times
The World According to Carl
High Desert Wanderer
Renaissance Blogger
January 26th, 2007 at 9:34 am
Non Parlo inglese.L’argomento, se non fosse ridicolo, non varrebbe parlarne, ma purtroppo la gente ne parla ovunque tu vada.E’ l’eterna soggezione a chi è comunista, e quindi è “moralmente ” superiore a te, che pervade tante brave persone. E allora è meglio documentarsi e sapere rispondere quando la pazzia (e la violenza! Queste persone diffondono ANSIE!).
Così mi documento, così La ringrazio di cuore per la sua esposizione.
E’ interessante cosa scrive l’interessante rivista “Il Domenicale” http://www.ildomenicale.it al riguardo, quasi ogni settimana.
Un milione di auguri. Prego per Lei, Cao
January 26th, 2007 at 11:02 am
Non parlo l’italiano, anche se il gancio sente le persone quando parla in quella lingua attraente. Per ringraziare il di pregare per mie, forse dovrei metterlo sul mio elenco di preghiera, anche. So non bene la tela di luogo che indica a, e fa non ha presentato abbastanza italiano per capire di significa. Se partirebbe più nei commenti qui, non deve essere in inglese, potrei avere un DI capire migliore, se è in grado di non, posso annullare. Sono un lotto il quel modo di picky. E sì, queste persone estendono dell’ansietà, e sì, sono in sensato. Le persone ciò me dicono.
Gli evviva, Cao.
January 26th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Brilliant read Cao!..I never knew this: Columbia University, in the 1700’s, taught the Bible…wow thanks.
January 26th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Actually, all of the Ivy League schools did then. When people today claim that the founders were ’secularists’, they have absolutely no recollection of history, and haven’t read the letters and documents that they left us. It’s a shame; but it’s one of the reasons our kids don’t learn about real history anymore; otherwise the culture of death, euthanasia, planned parenthood and forced theft (socialism and redistribution of wealth) wouldn’t make sense.
January 26th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
You remark with what I take to be surprise that “Columbia University, in the 1700’s, taught the bible.” Well, I hate to rain on your parade, but the bible is still required reading for all undergraduates in the liberal arts college at Columbia. All students must take two year-long courses on masterpieces of western literature and philosophy. Reading from Jewish and Christian scripture is assigned in both courses, in addition to reading from the Greek and Roman classics, the Koran, and most major writers in the western canon through the twentieth century, even postmodernists who would have rather disliked being canonized. Beyond this, all students are required to take courses in non-western culture, as well.
I’m an alum of Columbia, class of ‘05. I take it you didn’t look into what’s currently studied at Columbia, or that you aren’t much an expert on the nature of Ivy League education. You simply made an assumption, based on ignorant belief, rather than on fact, on truth.
It is to encourage a search for truth, and not ignorance, that most schools like Columbia don’t teach the Bible alone, but in connection with other religious, philosophical, and scientific texts. The leaps we have made in understanding our own world through empiricism and rationalism have been immense since the time of the US founders. To deny the importance of the empiricist-rationalist tradition is to seek ignorance. Unfortunately, this is what it seems most fundamentalists/extremists on the political right want– a new dark age, based on dogma, not on truth.
January 26th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
PS: Denying evidence of global warming is perfect evidence of encouraging ignorance. Are you people high school drop-outs? Did you not even make it to community college?
-the dissenting Ivy Leaguer
January 26th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
I am certain that it’s being taught as more of a ’superstition’, lol..bully for you.
I’m certain that it isn’t along these same lines, however. How many students are fluent in both Greek and Latin?
global warming is a sham, and it’s pretty well recognized as one except in leftist circles. I’m sorry that you disagree, but please do away with the sanctimonious platitudes.
Of course I’m educated, but I haven’t been indoctrinated into the leftists ideology that supports euthanasia, the killing of innocents, and supports Darwin’s Origin of the Species, Preservation of favored races in the struggle for life. Although I’ve taken note as to how lefties feel about race; and it’s amusing when they point the finger at us while putting pictures of white guys in blackface on their websites, and support affirmative action as though the races are not biologically equal.
January 27th, 2007 at 12:45 am
It’s “The origin of species” not “Origin of the Species”
You’re not educated enough to stop conflating “species” and “races” and equivocating natural selection with bigotry.
oh, get Ready:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/01/23/climate.report.ap/index.html
January 27th, 2007 at 6:17 am
No, it’s The Origin of Species, Preservation of Favored Races In The Struggle For Life. That’s the entire title of his work.
You haven’t read your Marx or Engels, it’s the communist ideology and that of Hitler that merges the terms race with species; read their writings!
ENGELS: NATIVE BLACKS DUMBER THAN AN EIGHT-YEAR-OLD
That’s funny; the writers of the manifesto were racists. But only if you read what they wrote; lol, which the optimistic egalatiarians are not bright enough to do, I guess. Either that or they’re really not interested in knowing about the ideology they represent.
Engels was indeed a socialist/racist just like Hitler, Stalin and the rest.
Congratulations, your ridiculing me is a direct suggestion from Engels, you’re doing a good job of identifying yourself on the extreme left hand side of the aisle.
Engels and Marx numerous times made mention of the fact that black people are ‘inferior’, it is part of why Hitler had an ethnic cleansing program; it was why he was trying to create a ‘master race’. His euthanasia program of murdering people in mental hospitals, deformed infants and others was all about creating the perfect Aryan race, didn’t you learn that in school? In fact, the lady who started Planned Parenthhood, Margaret Sanger, a selfdescribed communist, was all about focusing sterilization and abortion on poor black people, and she was warmly praised by Hitler for her energetic championship of eugenics. And the American eugenicists were very racist. They wanted to reduce the black population and they shared Hitler’s view that Jews were genetically inferior — opposing moves to allow into the USA Jews fleeing from Hitler. So if Hitler’s eugenics and racial theories were loathsome, it should be acknowledged that his vigorous supporters in the matter at that time were Leftists and feminists, rather than conservatives.
Emily Taft Douglas, Margaret Sanger; Pioneer of the Future, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, N.Y., 1970, p. 192.
But this shouldn’t surprise anyone, the KKK was a leftwing part of the democratic party. Interesting how all of this is popping up on the left hand side of the sphere.
Where’d you learn the linguistics skill, Chomsky?
Glad to know you’re such an admirer of Darwin and the rest of his band of 18th century weirdos. What’s amazing is someone who would subscribe to an 18th century myth; and label all others who don’t, ‘uneducated’. Do you believe the world is flat, too, or are you picking and choosing what you to believe to fall in lines with your despot heroes who were evolutionists too (Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, etc.)?
January 27th, 2007 at 11:32 am
Again, if people miss-interpret ‘Darwinism’ (which is poor form given the state of NDE) into Eugenics (which I am not saying anyone has) its still an appeal to consequences. You keep doing it, I keep point it out, so the question now becomes are you stupid or dishonest? Evolution is an observed fact. Think of all the bad things that have been done in ‘God’s name’. Does this disprove religion? NO.
“What’s amazing is someone who would subscribe to an 18th century myth”
Let’s look at this statement. First, you subscribe to a 2000 year old myth, christianity. And its your right to do so. Second, calling in Darwinism is a creationist straw man. No one says Newtonism or Einsteinism, Use Evolution or Neo Darwin Evolution (NDE) if you must. The theory has bloomed from RM + NS in the light of genetics, etc. You paint a dishonest picture and hypocritically subscribe to a far less substantiated, tested and current viewpoint.
January 27th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
I am saying that the all-great theory of Evolution which you are so adamant is scientific, has born some of the worst atrocities of our time, based in part on the removal of God, and its racist roots which are written right into its title. Are you daft? So what you’re saying is regardless as to the bad consequences of the theory of evolution, it’s still a good theory? No it’s not, it’s a theory that STILL, after all these years, doesn’t make any sense, and the evidence that Darwin was hoping we’d find in terms of fossils and the like, are still not available and we still don’t have a genuine Piltdown man.
That’s not an appeal to consequences, those are plain and simple facts. But…call that whatever you want if it makes you feel better, you’re making me laugh.
Now, now, don’t keep following Engels ridicule suggestion, talk to me like a person with some intelligence or I’m going to shut you down. An appeal to consequences, was already disproven here, even though I don’t speak Chomsky. So until you can stop talking down to me I’m going to ignore that ridiculous rule; I don’t have to follow your rules. However, you’re leaving comments on my websites, and you have to follow mine. Is that clear?
I’m speaking fact, you’re speaking feelings and you still have no science to back up your claims about global warming or anything else we’ve discussed.
Evolution is not an observed fact. There is no scientific documentation that shows that a man can turn into a donkey; they each have their own genetic code and it doesn’t morph into other organisms. Mutations do not add to the complexity of genetic code, they delete it. Mutations like in the example of the four-winged fruit fly, did not improve the fruit fly, that mutation hindered its ability to fly. In humans, mutations cause birth defects; again a decrease in complexity. There is no scientific evidence that mutations would ever cause something as beautiful an complete as the design of the eye, for example.
What would you call a child with Down’s syndrome? Is that an improvement or not? That is an example of a mutation, and children with Downs have one fewer chromosome than the rest of us. Again, no increase in complexity, if the theory of evolution actually worked in the real world outside of mythology.
Nature is interdependent. You can’t show me that one thing morphed from one thing to another, but I can show you that bees work to open flowers, that the very interdependence of nature takes the wind out of the evolution myth. The food chain in the ocean is a good example.
Hard sciences do little to support the idea that random mutations are the cause of the constructed progression of life forms from simple to complex.
What science is good at doing is dating fossils at the date they’re “supposed” to be at, sometimes making evolutionary study a type of circular reasoning. In other words, if one finds a primitive form in strata that cannot be reliably dated with an independent method, the rock is dated according to the fossil type! This is very risky business, and not very scientific.
Worse yet is the oft-demonstrated tendency of staunch evolutionists to reject finds that do not fit into the “proper” sequence, as this example shows:
Geologist Virginia Steen-McIntyre and other members of a U.S. Geological Survey team obtained an age of about 250,000 years for the sites implement-bearing layers. This challenged not only standard views of New World anthropology but also the whole standard picture of human origins. Humans capable of making the kind of tools found at Hueyatlaco are not thought to have come into existence until around 100,000 years ago in Africa.
Virginia Steen-McIntyre experienced difficulty in getting her dating study on Hueyatlaco published. “The problem as I see it is much bigger than Hueyatlaco,” she wrote to Estella Leopold, associate editor of Quaternary Research. “It concerns the manipulation of scientific thought through the suppression of ‘Enigmatic Data,’ data that challenges the prevailing mode of thinking. Hueyatlaco certainly does that! Not being an anthropologist, I didn’t realize the full significance of our dates back in 1973, nor how deeply woven into our thought the current theory of human evolution has become. Our work at Hueyatlaco has been rejected by most archaeologists because it contradicts that theory, period.” (Source: Forbidden Archeology )
Darwinists have their own god already…it’s the god of “random mutation” and “punctuated equilibrium,” which are just fancy ways of saying “nature.”
So the question is, what is nature? Is there any purpose behind it? Is it random, or is there an ‘order’ to it?
And why, contrary to what we usually witness in other scientific pursuits (entropy and degradation), does biology tend toward complexity?
Christianity is not a myth; it’s a belief system. The great flood and the young age of the earth can be proven with scientific calculations, as I said before, such as the amount of particles floating in space and the amount of silt on the surface of the moon, which scientists were surprised by when they discovered it. Or the what was found in Cambrian rock formations. Evolution is a myth; not a belief system. Many of the claims in the Bible, including the flood and the young earth can be proven by science, while evolution cannot.
So even though they made a big deal out of ‘discoveries’ like the skull of Piltdown man, the fact is, that it was a manufactured skull from an orangutan and a human, carefully dyed so both pieces matched. The four-winged fruitflies were mutant and not able to survive. The peppered moth doesn’t even sit on tree trunks; they were placed there for a photo op. The Fortes Finch beaks didn’t ‘improve’, they ‘evolved’ by staying the same. Great logic on that one. Vestigial organs actually DO have a purpose. And so on. If there was so much scientific evidence, why do they use the same old has-been examples of what they’re talking about in textbooks to prop the myth?
That’s why I’m calling it a myth, the examples of ’science’ have all been disproven.
Biology increases with complexity, mutations decrease it. That’s pretty much the end of the story, but I can give you more examples if you like.
January 27th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Conflation. “Good” can be “correct” or “moral”. Evolution is a good theory: It is the prevailing origins theory and is supported by observation and experimentation. With regards to morality, it is neutral, like any other scientific theory. We do not ascribe morality to natural processes. Is gravity good or evil? Do you see what I’m getting at.
Next you conflate “Darwinism” with “Atheism”, which you then equivocate with “immorality”. There are many theistic evolutionists, so your bifurcation is falsified.
http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/religion_science_collaboration.htm
“Evolution is not an observed fact”
New species have arisen in historical times. For example:
A new species of mosquito, the molestus form isolated in London’s Underground, has speciated from Culex pipiens (Byrne and Nichols 1999; Nuttall 1998).
Helacyton gartleri is the HeLa cell culture, which evolved from a human cervical carcinoma in 1951. The culture grows indefinitely and has become widespread (Van Valen and Maiorana 1991).
A similar event appears to have happened with dogs relatively recently. Sticker’s sarcoma, or canine transmissible venerial tumor, is caused by an organism genetically independent from its hosts but derived from a wolf or dog tumor (Zimmer 2006; Murgia et al. 2006).
Several new species of plants have arisen via polyploidy (when the chromosome count multiplies by two or more) (de Wet 1971). One example is Primula kewensis (Newton and Pellew 1929).
Incipient speciation, where two subspecies interbreed rarely or with only little success, is common. Here are just a few examples:
Rhagoletis pomonella, the apple maggot fly, is undergoing sympatric speciation. Its native host in North America is Hawthorn (Crataegus spp.), but in the mid-1800s, a new population formed on introduced domestic apples (Malus pumila). The two races are kept partially isolated by natural selection (Filchak et al. 2000).
The mosquito Anopheles gambiae shows incipient speciation between its populations in northwestern and southeastern Africa (Fanello et al. 2003; Lehmann et al. 2003).
Silverside fish show incipient speciation between marine and estuarine populations (Beheregaray and Sunnucks 2001).
Ring species show the process of speciation in action. In ring species, the species is distributed more or less in a line, such as around the base of a mountain range. Each population is able to breed with its neighboring population, but the populations at the two ends are not able to interbreed. (In a true ring species, those two end populations are adjacent to each other, completing the ring.) Examples of ring species are
the salamander Ensatina, with seven different subspecies on the west coast of the United States. They form a ring around California’s central valley. At the south end, adjacent subspecies klauberi and eschscholtzi do not interbreed (Brown n.d.; Wake 1997).
greenish warblers (Phylloscopus trochiloides), around the Himalayas. Their behavioral and genetic characteristics change gradually, starting from central Siberia, extending around the Himalayas, and back again, so two forms of the songbird coexist but do not interbreed in that part of their range (Irwin et al. 2001; Whitehouse 2001; Irwin et al. 2005).
the deer mouse (Peromyces maniculatus), with over fifty subspecies in North America.
many species of birds, including Parus major and P. minor, Halcyon chloris, Zosterops, Lalage, Pernis, the Larus argentatus group, and Phylloscopus trochiloides (Mayr 1942, 182-183).
the American bee Hoplitis (Alcidamea) producta (Mayr 1963, 510).
the subterranean mole rat, Spalax ehrenbergi (Nevo 1999).
Evidence of speciation occurs in the form of organisms that exist only in environments that did not exist a few hundreds or thousands of years ago. For example:
In several Canadian lakes, which originated in the last 10,000 years following the last ice age, stickleback fish have diversified into separate species for shallow and deep water (Schilthuizen 2001, 146-151).
Cichlids in Lake Malawi and Lake Victoria have diversified into hundreds of species. Parts of Lake Malawi which originated in the nineteenth century have species indigenous to those parts (Schilthuizen 2001, 166-176).
A Mimulus species adapted for soils high in copper exists only on the tailings of a copper mine that did not exist before 1859 (Macnair 1989).
There is further evidence that speciation can be caused by infection with a symbiont. A Wolbachia bacterium infects and causes postmating reproductive isolation between the wasps Nasonia vitripennis and N. giraulti (Bordenstein and Werren 1997).
Some young-earth creationists claim that speciation is essential to explain Noah’s ark. The ark was not roomy enough to carry and care for all species, so speciation is invoked to explain how the much fewer “kinds” aboard the ark became the diversity we see today. Also, some species have special needs that could not have been met during the flood (e.g., fish requiring fresh water). Creationists assume that they evolved from other, more tolerant organisms since the Flood. (Woodmorappe 1996)
your claims are ALL debumked here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
Its a shame that these decade old canards are still perpetuated by the unwitting.
“Biology increases with complexity” this makes no sense. Does Physics increase with entropy? Does Art increase with colour?
How can you explain ERVs? Or the amazing congruence between the phylogenetic and morphological trees? Don’t bother cut and pasting creationist screeds, THEY’VE ALL BEEN DEBUNKED, MANY TIMES OVER.
January 27th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
It’s an ancient theory which can’t be proven with facts, but it’s being taught in our schools with not even a mention that there’s another point of view. You are not pointing me to facts and science, you are stating an opinion. I have given you illustrations - very simplistics ones–of why the theory is a myth, you have given me hyperbole and ridicule. Not a very compelling argument.
It is very totalitarian of the Teacher’s unions, to continuing using examples that have been disproven, but befitting the ideology they’re attempting to promulgate.
Thanks for the entertainment.
January 27th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
What’s your feelings on censorship, Cao?
January 27th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
It woudl appear that Cao has tried to block Rich’s IP adress.
SHAME ON HER.
She sasys we should teach other points of view in schools. She is mistaken, science is not chosen by popular opinion but by the scientific method.
“It is very totalitarian..”, Cao, to silence opinions you don’t agree with. Look within, or is your ‘truth’ SO fragile?
January 27th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
Poor Cao! She starts by quoting a book by a source who\’s actually changes his mind since and then she gets worse from there! When she says \”It’s an ancient theory which can’t be proven with facts, but it’s being taught in our schools with not even a mention that there’s another point of view.\” It makes me smile. Think of churche;, the dogma is older, and there ARE no other points of view.
January 27th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
It doesn’t make sense that you’d refute the evidence in the book on the basis of Bailey’s turnaround. It doesn’t negate the veracity of the evidence as much as you’re trying to make it so. Bailey may have publicly made a turnaround, but I have to question what motivated him to do that considering all the evidence in the book. And it’s not only that book that I’ve quoted, Karl.
Poor Karl, using semantics and linguistics and Engel’s ridicule suggestion to insult me!
January 27th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
No, none of Bailey’s old writings are current or correct. You seem to think ’structuring an argument’ is ‘using semantics’ - the only semantics has been your equivocation, which is a misrepresentation based on two meanings of a word.
Have you found *any* argument not yet refuted at talkorigins? And censorship is reprehensible, especially when done covertly.
January 27th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
His turnaround on global warming does not say that the book is riddled with inaccurate information, and why are you focusing on my using it when I have quoted a plethora of other sources?
Your assumption is not logical. It’s like saying ‘because your daughter stayed out past 11, your wife is a *****.’ One conclusion does not logically lead to the other. If Bailey renounced his first position on global warming, I’d like to know what motivated him to do it. Secondly, his book is very well-documented and is not just mere opinion. So I’d like to know specifically what is it in the book, what quote, that you take issue with. Fair enough?
January 27th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
Do you censor, Cao?
You keep evading the question.
January 27th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
What question? If I tire of someone who doesn’t abide by my rules of engagement, yes, they are shown the door. And if someone is harrassing me for days on end with endless diatribes of nonsensical leftist ********, yes, they are shown the door.
If people don’t offer me respect for my beliefs and do the internet version of the Columbia University shouting down of the minutemen, I don’t have to tolerate it.
People who don’t agree to disagree and keep things friendly are no longer offered the privilege of commenting.
No, I don’t ‘censor’, I deliver consequences to inappropriate behavior. And it is ME who decides, not YOU.
January 27th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
“Do you censor, Cao?”
do you ban, delete, amend?
January 27th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
I do a much watered down version of what Beth does. And she doesn’t tolerate as much as I do. Yes, at some point, I have been known to ban people. I don’t often delete, but sometimes I do ‘amend’. Does that answer your question?
January 27th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
So you do censor, despite you trying to redifine censor.
It’ customary to say you’ve banned or if you’ve amended someones posts or edit your own - like you just did. You might be percieved as more honest.
January 27th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
I always edit my posts and comments.
It’s customary for whom to say I’ve banned or amended someone’s post or edit my own? It’s not customary on any blogs I’m aware of, people have actually suggested that if someone acts like a complete *******, edit their comments, or change their name, and have some fun with it. Leftists, you see, have no sense of humor.
The Wide Awakes is comprised -if you take the hosts at WAR Radio included - probably over 50 blogs, I’ve never heard of making an announcement for the sake of leftists who are acting like ********.
You get what you deserve, I make no apologies for it, if you get on my last nerve.
You see leftists are trying constantly to dictate to us what to do, how to behave, what to say, and what to believe. It doesn’t wash here. Doesn’t fly.
January 27th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
I make the rules, and I enforce them in the space that I pay for, and that is my ultimate right. So if you don’t like it, don’t let the door hit ya where the Good Lord split ya.
January 27th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
And I will amend any offensive name someone calls himself to whatever I see fit.
January 27th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
Well, its your blog, your rules obviously. I think it makes you look insular and dishonest, though. Moreover, it hands the Moral Highground to ‘Rich’.
January 27th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
Well you’re entitled to your opinion. And as the owner of the blogs, I am entitled to mine.
Sorry that you feel that way, but, to each his own, and
I absolutely don’t see a case for Rich to have obtained the moral high ground after stalking me in comments and then sending me a rather immature email of complaint. what I see is someone who doesn’t respect someone who HAS morals.
I didn’t ‘run out of lies’, I ran out of patience with an insolent child.
I guess ‘fundie’ is the new buzz word for ‘fundamentalist Christian’. And I’m supposed to take this abuse on the space that I pay for? I don’t think so.
January 27th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
Actually, you\’ve:
(1) Published a private communication presumably without his permission, which is odious.
(2) Offered him no \’right of reply\’ which is equally reprehensible.
January 28th, 2007 at 12:08 am
LOL — Jay and Alana — you have both rightfully earned the beloved CAO Award
January 28th, 2007 at 5:22 am
I dont know what you mean, about’private communication’,it was an email. And in email, as everyone knows, there is no right to privacy.
Email Etiquette #6:
Don’t write anything you wouldn’t say in public.
Anyone can easily forward your message, even accidentally. This could leave you in an embarrassing position if you divulge personal or confidential information. If you don’t want to potentially share something you write, consider using the telephone.
#9:
Nasty e-mails should also be avoided.
These messages have their own term: flame. Flame e-mail is an insulting message designed to cause pain, as when someone “gets burned.”
My email policy is also published on my ‘about page’:
And also on the “about page’:
So, on top of being what I would call annoying trolls, you are liars. But it’s just like the rest of the things you’re all complaining about; disingenuous at best. Again, if you have a particular issue with a particular quote, I am glad to look at it, but you don’t have to ridicule me, call me names, and accuse me of ridiculous and idiotic things, if you really expect me to hear you out, unless you’re really determined to play out of the Marx and Engels playbook. If you’re that determined to act like complete nincompoops, then I can play that silly game and shut you down from further commenting.
NOBODY should have to put up with this kind of **** from anyone. I don’t tolerate it in my house, from my children, or anyone else, why should I put up with it HERE?
I don’t have to offer you ****! Get that through your empty noggins. I could just shut down comments totally like Glen Reynolds, Michelle Malkin, and numerous others do. If you abuse the privilege, (and it IS a privilege), that privilege will be revoked. Whether or not you agree with it, I don’t care, I already know you have this yearning to shut me up, and use all manner of underhanded methods to get there, including your sophisticated Chomsky-esque linquistics which are relatively easy to unravel. I made my points, you people struggle like weaklings to refute them, and you act like a bunch of schoolgirls instead of grownups, thinking there should be no consequences to inappropriate, disrespectful, sick insulting behavior. You need some psychiatric help.
So it would seem our friend “Rich” has crossed over several little ‘rules’ of etiquette which include harrassing me with incessant leftist **** on Global warming and other issues that were not related to the original posts, and when I gave him a warning he ignored it (The Rules of Engagement at the Wide Awakes and the Rules of Engagement I and II here, not to mention what’ in the about me page), and when I banned him, he cried like a girl and sent his minions to do it in his stead. Very poor form. And then his minions took up the chalis, and accused me of other ********.
Sorry, your information is recorded here and I can ban you for your destructive insulting harrassing behavior, too. So if you don’t know how to behave, that’s not my problem, but be forewarned: I don’t have to tolerate it, and I will deliver consequences to that behavior.
This is all about provokation, not about an idea exchange. And “For every action there is a reaction…” it’s Newton’s Third Law. You know Sir Isaac Newton, don’t you? He was another “fundie”.
Newton’s work actually stemmed from his consuming interest in the book of Daniel.
James 3:17But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. - King James Version
January 28th, 2007 at 6:17 am
Wow. Draconian. There is no ‘right to privacy’, but its pretty bad form, or perhaps my moral bar is just a little higher. To be fair, you do have it on your comments page, but its still bad form, as is banning people on the sly.Also, the right to reply remark still stands. Those that hide from open dialogue seldom seem to ne on the right side.
I see someone posted as Karl Popper before - unless he’s posting from the grave. You would do well to read “The Open Society and Its Enemies.”
For the record, I believe global warming is a fact, as does president bush and every environmental agency I’ve seen. It would appear that you are the minority position, which is fine, but you seem lacking in expert credible support.
“Sorry, your information is recorded here and I can ban you for your destructive insulting harrassing behavior, too”
Destructive and insulting is arbitrary, and your threats only speak to your character and the strength or lack thereoff of your argument and your morality.
A.
January 28th, 2007 at 6:21 am
Enough with your insults, take it or leave it, like it or lump it, it’s all the same to me.
What’s funny to me is your windbag elitism; your consistently trying to position yourselves over me, with statements like ‘Rich has the moral high ground’, and the attempt at characterizing the detailed groundwork I’ve laid down for civility, decorum and manners as ‘draconian’. Who the hell are you to tell me what to do in my own space?
Since when is someone who resorts to ad hominem when he doesn’t get his way the one who has the ‘moral high ground’? This is more the behavior of petulant and spoiled children.
Am I supposed to take that “draconian” comment as another insult? Actually, Draco was lauded for his impartiality, so thank you for the compliment, I never said I was a ‘progressive’, lol…
so puhleez. Spare me the hyperbole and windmills…and a lot more cheap wine.
January 28th, 2007 at 6:58 am
“Who the hell are you to tell me what to do in my own space” - ooh, let me play! erm, “Who the hell are AMERICA to tell NORTH KOREA what to do in THEIR own space”. See, doesn’t really work like that with respect to morality. Can parents brand their kids? They are after all THEIR own kids.
“Since when is someone who resorts to ad hominem …petulant and spoiled children.”
That’s one ironic paragraph. Name callers should be called names, eh!
Also; “What’s funny to me is your windbag elitism” - does that make you a “spoiled child?”
“qoute mining” is where you only give selective facts or partial context:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/draconian
January 28th, 2007 at 7:11 am
Ok, I am deleting your harrassing comments now. Have a nice life.
January 28th, 2007 at 7:21 am
I just exposed your hypocrisy, which is every evident: Throwing around “ad hominem” whilst doing it is priceless. Does that make YOU a “spoiled child”?
Again, based on your argument, parents should be free to brand THEIR kids.
It would see you are intellectually dishonest, and would not fair well in a public forum.
January 28th, 2007 at 7:30 am
blah blah blah, boo-hoo-hoo, bang your spoon on your high chair! I can’t believe you’re not going to stop with this nonsense.
GROW UP!
January 28th, 2007 at 7:33 am
“blah blah blah, boo-hoo-hoo, bang your spoon on your high chair!” is that Ad hominem, Cao?
January 28th, 2007 at 7:35 am
“blah blah blah, boo-hoo-hoo, bang your spoon on your high chair” - is that ad hominem, Cao?
January 28th, 2007 at 7:36 am
No, it’s not ad hominem, it’s pointing out your immature childish behavior. You are a provacateur and have received precisely what you deserve in response. Remember Sir Isaac Newton’s Law #3.
I have the phone number of a good shrink, although shrinks may be of little help:
Another example of leftist authoritarianism creeping into science.
You are, you realize, a prime example of leftist authoritarianism, don’t you? You think you have the right to tell me what to do in my own space.
I reject that assumption/assertion. I will not have anyone dictating to me what to do, what to put in print, how to respond, how to react, or anything else. You are not the boss of me.
Proverbs 13:24He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes. - King James Version
January 28th, 2007 at 7:37 am
\”blah blah blah, boo-hoo-hoo, bang your spoon on your high chair\” - is that ad hominem, Cao?
January 28th, 2007 at 7:39 am
It figures you have the number of a \’shrink\’. Good luck with that.
is \”You are, you realize, a prime example of leftist authoritarianism, don’t you\” Ad hominen, Cao?
January 28th, 2007 at 7:41 am
It’s called tough love, lol.
January 28th, 2007 at 7:41 am
\”blah blah blah, boo-hoo-hoo, bang your spoon on your high chair!\”
then
\”You are not the boss of me.\”
Delicious!
January 28th, 2007 at 7:44 am
Proverbs 23:13-1413Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. 14Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell. - King James Version
Unfortunate it appears that you need to learn some important life lessons.
January 28th, 2007 at 7:48 am
Please don\’t have kids. for their sakes.
January 28th, 2007 at 7:49 am
Proverbs 29:15The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame. - King James Version
January 28th, 2007 at 7:49 am
I already have two grown sons who show a lot more respect for people than you do. So it’s too late, lol…I may have grandchildren soon.
January 28th, 2007 at 7:50 am
Ephesians 6:4And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. - King James Version
January 28th, 2007 at 7:51 am
Do you stone **** in the public square togther?
January 28th, 2007 at 7:52 am
Psalms 94:12Blessed is the man whom thou chastenest, O LORD, and teachest him out of thy law; - King James Version
Proverbs 1:7The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction. - King James Version
Proverbs 6:23For the commandment is a lamp; and the law is light; and reproofs of instruction are the way of life: - King James Version
Proverbs 12:1Whoso loveth instruction loveth knowledge: but he that hateth reproof is brutish. - King James Version
Proverbs 13:1A wise son heareth his father's instruction: but a scorner heareth not rebuke. - King James Version
Proverbs 15:5A fool despiseth his father's instruction: but he that regardeth reproof is prudent. - King James Version
Isaiah 38:16O Lord, by these things men live, and in all these things is the life of my spirit: so wilt thou recover me, and make me to live. - King James Version
Hebrews 12:9Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? - King James Version
January 28th, 2007 at 7:56 am
You have Christianity confused with Islam, my dear fellow.
It’s Islamists who still stone people to death as prescribed by the quran. You need to study the old and new testaments and realize that the old testament laws - many of which call for the sacrifice of animals - no longer apply, since we are no longer in the age of ‘law’, we’re now in the age of ‘grace’.
Islamists today are merely following what Mohammed instructed:
“O Prophet! Make war against the unbelievers [all non-Muslims] and the hypocrites and be merciless against them. Their home is hell, an evil refuge indeed.” (Koran, 9:73)
“When you meet the unbelievers in jihad [holy war], chop off their heads. And when you have brought them low, bind your prisoners rigorously. Then set them free or take ransom from them until the war is ended.” (Koran, 47:4)
“The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and his messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be to be killed or crucified, or to have their hands and feet chopped off on opposite sides, or to be expelled out of the land. Such will be their humiliation in the world, and in the next world they will face an awful horror.” (Koran, 5:33-34)
“When we decide to destroy a population, we send a definite order to them who have the good things in life and yet sin. So that Allah’s word is proven true against them, then we destroy them utterly.” (Koran, 17:16-17)
“In order that Allah may separate the pure from the impure, put all the impure ones [all non-Muslims] one on top of another in a heap and cast them into hell. They will have been the ones to have lost.” (Koran, 8:37)
“How many were the populations we utterly destroyed because of their sins, setting up in their place other peoples.” (Koran, 21:11)
“Remember Allah inspired the angels: I am with you. Give firmness to the believers. I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: you smite them above their necks and smite all their fingertips off of them.” (Koran, 8:12)
But explaining it you is rather like talking to a rock.
January 28th, 2007 at 8:06 am
You should pay attention to your leftist friends when they said at moveon.org that liberals need to **** more.
yay! Leave it to leftists to be concerned with ‘breeding’. Again, along the lines of creating that perfect Aryan race; only in this case, they’re talking about decreasing the numbers of conservatives by outbreeding them. Curious!
yay again!
yay!
Actually, it’s the correct version of history.
That’s right, we **** every night, freely and openly, and we enjoy every delicious moment with one person that we’re committed to. We don’t have to worry about AIDS and all that other ****; we don’t even have to bother with condoms because these relationships are based on fidelity, trust, and love. We believe that the time honored institution of marriage is for the creation of children, and so we get busy!
oh I like the trend just as it is.
hopefully, that will in fact be what happens.
This article was noted in the Wall Street Journal’s “best of the web” on December 29, 2004
January 28th, 2007 at 10:35 am
So you quote proverbs, which is old testament.. So it no longer applies. Insightful.
January 28th, 2007 at 11:08 am
The ‘law’ stuff doesn’t apply, such as sacrificing animals. The common sense stuff (which you would have no clue about) still applies. For example:
Leviticus 19:18Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD. - King James Version
The Golden Rule.
Or, the famous 23rd Psalm.
Psalms 231A Psalm of David. The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want. 2He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters. 3He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake. 4Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. 5Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over. 6Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever. - King James Version
January 28th, 2007 at 11:36 am
Turns out common sense isn\’t so common - it\’s subjective. One might think living your life according to a two thousand year old factually errant book might not make \’common sense\’.
January 28th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
What a good moral relativist you are. Sorry, I don’t accept your insults, so why do you keep wasting your time?
You could use the lesson ‘do unto others as you would have them to unto you.’
That is a universal rule among most religions; as a matter of fact, people think that all religions go by that rule. Unfortunately, the people we are at war with don’t have that concept in their holy book, which is just as old.
Not everything is ’subjective’ in the real world. It is wrong to do some things…like what you’re doing. It is not wrong to defend yourself like I am doing, although I’m not being as nasty to you as you are to me. I love you, even with your faults and your bad manners. I would hope that some day you would learn to treat people better who disagree with you.
You’re picking and choosing–and trying to insult me along the way, you strike me the type that makes himself feel better by hurting other people. How sad for you.
January 28th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
whist you of course have divine morality on your side.
Original sin - how can that be moral?
Ruling by fear - how can that be moral?
facilitating bigotry - how can that be moral?
The sad fact is that if you\’d been born in a muslim country, you\’d be a muslim today.
January 28th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
What you just wrote there, if I’m not mistaken, is a bunch of incomprehensible nonsense. Are you getting tired of being the troll today?
The sad fact is-I wasn’t born in a muslim country. I was born in a judeo-christian country which has the Ten Commandments posted in monuments and other forms in and around our courthouses in spite of people like you trying to convolute the establishment clause by leaving out ‘and freedom to express thereof’. Trying to create the US into another Soviet Union where it’s illegal to study religion until they’re 18, heh?
I don’t understand why you bring up “original sin, ruling by fear, or facilitating bigotry”. You’re the bigot, as far as I can see. You’re a Christian hater, just like Hitler and his lot. You’re the one who is harrassing me; on my turf, in the space that I pay for after you’ve been clearly told what the rules are, and that you must stop. You use fear and intimidation as your weapon, and I don’t know what the hell you’re talking about when you refer to original sin, in your world, there is no sin, you don’t recognize God or hell, so why do you beat me up with your goofy meaningless godless belief system? If you’re an example of how people believe who are godless, then I thank God I have my Christ, forgiveness, and heaven.
Maybe I would be a Christian and live as a dhimmi in a muslim country, how do you know what I would be? What do you know about me at all? Absolutely nothing. Who are you to pass judgement on me? Nobody!!!!
You are a nobody, trying to make yourself big and superior to me by crapping on my belief system, and pissing in my coke, all in the little comments section of this little blog. I feel sorry for you more than anything else. You’re pretty pathetic.
I can’t talk sense to you, you seem to be immune to common sense, so where do we go now.
Yes, it’s me who actually has the moral high road, you don’t have morality at all, which shows in your lack of manners, lack of respect towards others, particularly those who disagree with you, and no respect for authority or rules.
I’m going to take a harder line with you now, because I honestly have a life and better things to do with my time than to entertain a troll who could give a **** about me and who gets off on abusing and hurting people.
January 28th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
oooh here’s a good one, from the Discovery Institute, Richard Buggs, entitled “Intelligent Design is a Science, Not a Faith”
Science has turned lots of corners since Darwin, and many of them have thrown up data quite unpredicted by his theory. Who, on Darwinian premises, would have expected that the patterns of distribution and abundance of species in tropical rainforests could be modelled without taking local adaptation into account? Or that whenever we sequence a new genome we find unique genes, unlike any found in other species? Or that bacteria gain pathogenicity (the ability to cause disease) by losing genes?
But, whatever the limitations of Darwinism, isn’t the intelligent design alternative an “intellectual dead end”? No. If true, ID is a profound insight into the natural world and a motivator to scientific inquiry. The pioneers of modern science, who were convinced that nature is designed, consequently held that it could be understood by human intellects. This confidence helped to drive the scientific revolution. More recently, proponents of ID predicted that some “junk” DNA must have a function well before this view became mainstream among Darwinists.
But, according to Randerson, ID is not a science because “there is no evidence that could in principle disprove ID”. Remind me, what is claimed of Darwinism? If, as an explanation for organised complexity, Darwinism had a more convincing evidential basis, then many of us would give up on ID.
Finally, Randerson claims that ID is “pure religion”. In fact, ID is a logical inference, based on data gathered from the natural world, and hence it is firmly in the realm of science. It does not rely upon the Bible, the Qur’an, or any religious authority or tradition - only on scientific evidence. When a religious person advocates teaching ID in science without identification of the designer, there is no dishonesty or “Trojan horse”, just realism about the limitations of the scientific method. If certain Darwinists also had the intellectual honesty to distinguish between science and their religious beliefs, the public understanding of science would be much enhanced.
He is precisely right; it is Darwinists who must distinguish between science and their religious beliefs. As we can see clearly in you’re haranguing me within comments on two different blogs, you think your religion is superior to mine, while I am willing to allow you yours as long as you don’t inflict yours on me. I haven’t been ‘witnessing to you’, or ‘forcing you to convert’, but with your approach, it would appear you’re doing that with me. Ahh, the hypocrisy of the moral relativist leftist!
Kindness and thoughtfullness are two concepts which you ought to think about incorporating into your exchanges with people. It would improve the reception you get.
January 28th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
Well, you seem to recognize you\’d likely be a Muslim nos if you were born in a Muslim country.
I wouldn\’t.
Regarding ID:
“Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.”
- William Dembski, Senior Fellow, Discovery Institute. Not religious at all..
January 28th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
No, I didn’t say that I would be a muslim, I said I would be a dhimmi. If you don’t know what that is, Mr. Know-it-all, look it up.
That quote is merely an opinion from another person who subscribes to your Darwin inspired godless religion, giving no facts to back it up. On the other hand, the writer at Discovery clearly shows us on the basis of science why REAL SCIENTISTS not fake ones paid by the government to skew models for predetermined results, have abandoned the antiquated myth of Evolution; because it doesn’t fit with what we know today about biology or genetics.
Specifics: The patterns of distribution and abundance of species in tropical rainforests can be modelled without taking local adaptation into account. Or that whenever we sequence a new genome we find unique genes, unlike any found in other species. Or that bacteria gain pathogenicity (the ability to cause disease) by losing genes.
Again, mutation causes a loss of genetic information; not an increase. Darwin’s theory held to the premise that mutation can increase complexity, which it obviously doesn’t. Mutation cannot cause a donkey to become a giraffe, no matter how many millions of years you wait for it to happen and change the surrounding environment. A dog is a dog, a wolf is a wolf, a fox is a fox, and they all have their own genetic code.
It’s pretty simple, and just because you know I believe in God, you put down what is fact and is well known, and cannot be disputed. Why is that? Why do you want so badly to hold onto something that has been disproven?
The answer is that it might introduce the G word somewhere in your vocabulary.
If you take the lovely simplicity of beauty of simple things like the vascular structure under a miscroscope, I don’t see how you can think that this was a haphazard happenstance born of mutation.
Biology shows us that mutations delete genetic code, yet some of the most simple systems are intricate machines. How can you explain a one-celled organism, mutating from one animal to another if you have even a rudimentary understanding of genetics? There is nothing that can explain how we have all these interdependent forms of life. The relationships in themselves discount the theory. One would have to come before another. And if that happened, then how can you explain how everything is linked through interdependence?
January 28th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Here’s another:
Intelligent design makes sense, complexity of life not accidental
Not long ago, President Bush got some folks upset when he suggested teaching intelligent design alongside the theory of evolution in our educational institutions. Academics nationwide are aghast at what they say is a mixing of science and religion.
They forecast the decline of science into a medieval morass.
But this is really not a problem. The whole controversy can be settled by the ordinary house cat.
All one has to do is take any ordinary cat as a model and make a copy. This will prove or disprove evolutionary theory.
But you have to start from scratch. No Frankenstein kitties allowed or spare paws from the pound. But you can go to the store and buy whatever you want — flour, lumber, electric motors, asphalt shingles — whatever. But just go ahead and try to make a cat from scratch.
Now, I don’t want to hear any excuses from you. It really can’t be that hard to make a cat. The world is full of them. People are giving them away in the newspapers every day.
And note that I am not asking you to create a cat — simply to copy one from scratch. Cloning, in that it takes biological material from an existing cat, is not legal in this contest.
Copying is pretty simple. Someone has already done all the engineering and design work, and tested it. It already works. You just have to copy what they already did.
People in Taiwan are making fake Rolexes every day.
In Russia, people are churning out copies of DVDs faster than you can say Blockbuster.
Copying must not be that hard.
Now it must be fair to say that no one in the world has copied a cat yet. You will be the first. I also must add, to be fair, that no one has ever copied a single living thing, again, from scratch. But don’t let that bother you.
After all, evolutionists say it all happened by accident. So if you try to do it on purpose, with a living cat as a model, it should be quite a breeze.
Okay. You have had some time now and may have discovered that it is not so easy to copy a cat. By now you have probably determined that, in fact, the smartest scientists in the world would love to copy a cat and just can’t. It is too hard.
Now, it takes far less time to copy than it does to create, and far less thought, too. For instance, you can copy the sheet music of Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony on a copy machine in a few minutes, and never even know about inverted Cmaj7 chords.
But we can’t even copy the cat.
Our best scientists can’t even copy a potato. This is embarrassing.
So, on the cat scale for intelligence, we are in the basement. Not only can we not create a cat, we can’t even copy it.
If a little hairy creature is so advanced that we cannot copy it deliberately, it could not have arisen by accident.
Despite this obvious fact, evolutionary theory argues that it was created by a series of fortunate mutations. Now that is a funny phrase. “Fortunate mutation” is an oxymoron. No one I know wishes for a mutation.
Mutations are not fortunate, but inevitably bad, and go by names like “cancer” and “birth defect.” Mutations are not good, no matter what the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles or Spider-Man may say.
Evolutionary theory is based on the faith belief that millions of such fortunate mutations have occurred, sequentially. This is statistically impossible. It makes Darwin’s theory more of a religious belief than science.
If there are truly scientists who believe Darwin’s theory, then perhaps they could prove their faith by volunteering to become genetic mutants.
I am not holding my breath for any to volunteer.
This is a tacit admission that there is an intelligence in the universe far in advance of us. This is just common sense. To ignore the obvious is not good science, and to preclude research or a scientific theory because we don’t like the conclusion is worse.
Intelligent design does not require the espousing of any religious belief. It only recognizes the obvious — that the incredible complexity of biological life is not accidental, but instead shows evidence of intelligent design.
All intelligent design proponents ask is that it be examined on a scientific basis, just as we do now with its competitor, Darwin’s theory of evolution.
Kerby Rials is an alumnus of the MSU School of Journalism (1978).
January 28th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
Now that’s simple enough for even you to understand, I think.
January 28th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
\”Biology shows us that mutations delete genetic code\” - no they mutate it. Hence the term \”mutation\”. They can delete, add (usually copy) or change.
\”Again, mutation causes a loss of genetic information; not an increase\”
Citations, and could you mathematically define \’information\’ for me? Thanks.
I think you\’d be a fundamental Muslim. You parents would \’raise you right\’ with the \’holy book\’ and you\’d just be a slightly different version of the current you.
\”whenever we sequence a new genome we find unique genes\” LOL! of course, or we\’d keep getting the same animal. If you like genetics, look up ERVs, a marvelous proof for common ancestry.
January 28th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
I love your cat straw man argument. You seem to be claiming that because we can\’t make a cat from scratch, evolution must be false? That\’s a great non-sequitur. Evolutions power is independent of our ability to replicate it.
Why aren\’t all people clones of each other? RM + NS. We are all mutants in the sence that RM has shaped us.
Think how bacteria survive by mutating resistances to medicine. Good for bacteria, but bad for us.
January 28th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
It’s not a strawman, everything’s a strawman to a leftist who can’t come up with a coherent response. You remind me of meathead.
January 28th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
If today’s science teachers ever share with their students that Darwin himself acknowledged “the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe … as the result of blind chance or necessity”…I think I would laugh. Yes, Darwin actually said that.
As Ogre said before, the entire reason for the theory of evolution was to relieve people of the responsibility of a relationship with God. The whole evolution idea grew out of a desire to escape the concept of an infinite Intelligence, a Creator. And without a creator, that makes them all powerful, like you are. The people who belong to the Evolutionist cult who want to prove the theory, no matter how farfetched and self-serving, find some “evidence” that they can wedge into their theory. And that’s how the darwinists do it.
Just like the in the case of the finch beaks, where they said ‘this is a case for evolution; nothing changed’. Now how does nothing changing prove evolution? It’s just like the circular thinking of global cooling proves global warming. It makes no sense, but people are somehow dimwhitted enough to swallow it. You don’t question it, because if you did, you might come up with a different conclusion, and we certainly can’t have that, now can we?
Charles Darwin admitted the difficulty and absolute absurdity in accepting the belief/idea of evolution -
“To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amount of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree….the belief that an organ as perfect as the eye could have been formed by natural selection is more than enough to stagger anyone.”
Charles Darwin also made the following comical statement in the first edition of his “Origin of Species”, but was hastily deleted from all subsequent editions -
“I see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their habitats, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.”
George Gallup, the famous statistician, said,
“I could prove God statistically; take the human body alone; the chance that all the functions of the individual would just happen, is a statistical monstrosity.”
Sir Fred Hoyle, highly respected British physicist and astronomer made the following damaging statement to the idea of evolution -
“The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it… It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of Evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence.”
Albert Einstein said,
“Everyone who is seriously interested in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe—a spirit vastly superior to man, and one in the face of which our modest powers must feel humble.”
Larry Hatfield. “Educators Against Darwin”. Science Digest Special, Winter, pp. 94-96 -
“Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest growing controversial minorities… Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science.”
Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, Physiologist. Atomic Energy Commission. As quoted in: Evolution and the Emperor’s New Clothes, 3D Enterprises Limited, title page -
“Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the GREATEST HOAX ever.”
evoluSHAM.com
January 28th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Why the creation myth is not a myth - (everystudent.com)
evidence for God and intelligent design
It’s possible that we humans make things so complicated that we fail to recognize the obvious. For example, take a look at the Mount Rushmore photo displayed here. Now ask yourself, how many years would it take for these figures to appear on the side of this mountain by chance? Millions of years? Billions of years? Given one hundred trillion years, could these figures eventually form on the side of the mountain?
Is your answer “no”? If so, why is it “no”? Why couldn’t these faces appear on the side of a mountain, given so much time? Isn’t that how WE got here? After billions of years of chance, didn’t we eventually, gradually come to be how we are now? Isn’t that the theory that you’ve been taught to believe as fact?
How do we know that Mount Rushmore got here by intelligent design?
Let’s go back to our mountain. We know that skilled artists and sculptors worked to create the faces on Mount Rushmore. But could such a thing come about by chance? Well, if the earth is as old as scientists tell us, then the mountains in the world are quite ancient. Do we see any mountains in the world where complex and recognizable images have formed on them? Does Mount McKinley have faces like Mount Rushmore on it, for example, that formed over time through erosion, wind, and rain? Or does the Matterhorn, for example, have an image of a giraffe on it that came about through natural forces, time, and chance?
You might be thinking, “This is silly. How could an image of a giraffe appear on the side of the Matterhorn by chance? Even given infinite time, wind, rain, and erosion?” Well, it IS silly. It’s silly to think that something so complex, something so obviously designed, could come about by mere chance, no matter how much time was allotted.
Mount Rushmore’s creation: not myth but intelligent design
When we look at Mount Rushmore, we know that a mind or minds were used in designing and executing the images we see there. Prior to the faces being formed there, Mount Rushmore was a “victim” of chance, wind, rain, time, erosion. The result? Nothing that we would consider as complex, intelligent design. Then the faces were carved on the side of the mountain. It was then that mere chance was overthrown…by intentional design and order.
Now consider the men themselves: Washington, Jefferson, Roosevelt, Lincoln. Were the actual men more complex or less complex than the faces on the side of Mount Rushmore? They were MUCH more complex. George Washington led our nation as president. Could his face on the side of Mount Rushmore do that? Abraham Lincoln gave the Gettysburg Address. Could his Mount Rushmore likeness do that? Could Jefferson’s stone face pen the Declaration of Independence? Obviously, the men themselves are much more complex than their mountainside counterparts.
Your creation: not myth but intelligent design by God
So if the faces could not appear on Mount Rushmore by chance no matter how much time was given, then would it not be true that the men themselves could not appear by chance no matter how much time was given?
What about you? Apply the Mount Rushmore test of intelligent design to yourself. Are you more complex than a carved image on the side of a mountain? Do you think you really came about by chance? You with your highly complex DNA? You who is the only you that has ever been? What kind of artist would it take to make someone as incredible as a human being? Is chance that artist? Don’t be silly.
January 28th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
“A little science estranges a man from God, a little more brings him back.” Francis Bacon 1561-1626
January 28th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
You might be thinking, “This is silly. How could an image of a giraffe appear on the side of the Matterhorn by chance? Even given infinite time, wind, rain, and erosion?”
Actually, I\’d expect to see several of them under that criteria.
Nature can and has done many wonderfull things. I find the oklo nuclear reactor amazing. But its not designed. Complexity DOES NOT equal design.
\”what kind of artist\” is begging the question. I believe I came about by common ancestory, just like the vast majority of the scientific community believes.
January 28th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
You can\’t teach an old dogma new tricks.\” - Dorothy Parker
January 28th, 2007 at 3:44 pm