LGF

more options

  

Advertisement

Nature's 18 Science Questions

Science | Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 9:46:35 am PDT

Science journal Nature asked both presidential candidates to answer 18 questions about science and science education (different from the questions asked in Sciencedebate 2008). John McCain declined the invitation but Barack Obama responded: US election: Questioning the candidates.

Since McCain (for whatever reason) didn’t participate, Nature included his public statements on the issues under discussion.

Do you believe that evolution by means of natural selection is a sufficient explanation for the variety and complexity of life on Earth? Should intelligent design, or some derivative thereof, be taught in science class in public schools?

Obama: I believe in evolution, and I support the strong consensus of the scientific community that evolution is scientifically validated. I do not believe it is helpful to our students to cloud discussions of science with non-scientific theories like intelligent design that are not subject to experimental scrutiny.

McCain said last year, in a Republican primary debate: “I believe in evolution. But I also believe, when I hike the Grand Canyon and see it at sunset, that the hand of God is there also.” In 2005, he told the Arizona Daily Star that he thought “all points of view” should be available to students studying the origins of humanity. But the next year a Colorado paper reported him saying that such viewpoints should not be taught in science class.

Advertisement

313 comments

  • Comments are open and unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs.
  • Obscene, abusive, silly, or annoying remarks may be deleted, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their views by Little Green Footballs.
  • Posts that contain phone numbers, street addresses, email addresses or other personal information will also be deleted, as will posts that consist only of a variation on the word, "First!"
  • Comments that advocate violence will be cause for immediate banning with no appeal.
  • Disagreement and debate are welcome, but insults and abuse are not, and may cause your account to be blocked.
  • REMEMBER: posting comments at LGF is a privilege, not a right. Abuse that privilege, and your account will be blocked.

Hide comments | Jump to bottom

1 Sharmuta  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 9:49:16am

0bama lies so much- how am I supposed to believe him on this issue?

2 galloping granny  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 9:51:51am

It would seem to me to be only fair to either use both candidates past public statements or to use only answers that they have specifically given for this article. This seems disingenuous and contrived to me.

3 EIDE_Interface  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 9:51:57am

I have to say that I agree with Obama on this on. ID is religious bunk and that's that.

4 Celtic Templar  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 9:52:59am

So neither believe in ID ... Good.

Now we need to check to see if they believe our rights are endowed by our Creator and are unalienable.

5 itellu3times  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 9:57:04am

"I believe in evolution" is not a good response.

I glanced at the article, don't think "Obama" answered any of the questions directly.

Neither campaign cares about technology.

Or the economy.

Or, in general, issues.

Wot an election.

6 galloping granny  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 9:57:50am

re: #3 EIDE_Interface

I have to say that I agree with Obama on this on. ID is religious bunk and that's that.

I don't think it is a matter at all of which individual you agree with. To my mind, the article presents a distorted and prejudicial point of view of both candidates by using only John McCain's past statements and only Obama's (known for flip flopping) statements tailored specifically to this article.

7 galloping granny  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 9:59:00am

re: #5 itellu3times

"I believe in evolution" is not a good response.

I glanced at the article, don't think "Obama" answered any of the questions directly.

Neither campaign cares about technology.

Or the economy.

Or, in general, issues.

Wot an election.

I don't think that is necessarily the truth. It is my understanding that McCain is pretty prominent in the Senate committee that oversees technology development.

8 Spar Kling  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 9:59:03am

Do you believe that evolution by means of natural selection is a sufficient explanation for the variety and complexity of life on Earth?

Yes, and that's why when I'm president, I'm going to reduce funding for scientific research in this area! :-)

Somebody just published a study that dinosaurs won out over competitors related to crocodiles *not* by natural selection, but luck! So it's going to be survival of the luckiest instead.

[Link: www.sciencedaily.com...]

Maybe Darwinist should pass some legislation to stop this line of inquiry (and panspermia while they're at it)!

Disclaimer: The statements above do not constitute an endorsement or advocacy of teaching any religion in science classes.

- sk

9 Shug  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 9:59:28am
Obama: I believe in evolution

My positions on most topics are constantly evolving to fit the polls

10 JCM  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:00:12am

re: #8 Spar Kling

Do you believe that evolution by means of natural selection is a sufficient explanation for the variety and complexity of life on Earth?

Yes, and that's why when I'm president, I'm going to reduce funding for scientific research in this area! :-)

Somebody just published a study that dinosaurs won out over competitors related to crocodiles *not* by natural selection, but luck! So it's going to be survival of the luckiest instead.

[Link: www.sciencedaily.com...]

Maybe Darwinist should pass some legislation to stop this line of inquiry (and panspermia while they're at it)!

Disclaimer: The statements above do not constitute an endorsement or advocacy of teaching any religion in science classes.

- sk

Everyone knows....
Dinosaurs had more lobbyists!
/

11 Celtic Templar  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:00:34am

re: #9 Shug

My positions on most topics are constantly evolving to fit the polls

And are most certainly are not designed intelligently?

12 abolitionist  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:02:14am
13 Shug  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:02:59am

Charles Darwin is here

Stand Up Chuck , Let em see ya

14 Charles  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:04:16am

re: #8 Spar Kling

Do you believe that evolution by means of natural selection is a sufficient explanation for the variety and complexity of life on Earth?

Evolution by natural selection is the scientific explanation for a huge body of evidence that has been challenged, tested, and debated for 150 years.

Whether that's "sufficient" for you is a different question.

15 WitchDoctor  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:04:52am

So... according to current LGF meme... I have to vote for BHO now?

16 Spar Kling  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:05:18am

re: #4 Celtic Templar

So neither believe in ID ... Good.

Now we need to check to see if they believe our rights are endowed by our Creator and are unalienable.

Good point. Without a Creator, there are no inalienable rights. In that case, all rights are either asserted by force, or granted by or revoked by a political body (implied force).

-sk

17 EIDE_Interface  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:06:58am

I challenge anyone to justify how ID is not religious belief. It has no supporting theory.

18 yma o hyd  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:08:06am

re: #12 abolitionist

Related: US election: Questioning the candidates, part two - Alexandra Witze

Just note that in is answers B0 speaks again as if he's already POTUS: 'I will direct my Secretary for Energy ...', just to quote an example.

Why doesn't the McCain campaign take him up on this insufferable arrogance? B0 isn't elected yet - and, God willing, won't ever be!

19 itellu3times  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:09:05am

re: #7 galloping granny

I don't think that is necessarily the truth. It is my understanding that McCain is pretty prominent in the Senate committee that oversees technology development.

So then tell me, what technology issue does McCain even mention?

I know Obambi mentions high bandwidth Internet for the masses now and then, which is George Gilder's old holy grail - and a fat lot of nonsense IMHO.

They both give a quick nod to wind and solar and maybe nuke power, which is sort of technology. Neither spends more than a sentence or two on the topic.

Both talk about high-efficiency cars, built by American workers. Only, wtf are they really talking about, hybrid Escalades?

Obama talked about spending $150b on medical technology or epidemiology or something vaguely like that. I have no idea if there is anything behind that but hot air.

Obambi quietly talks about shutting down NASA. Both say something or other about stem cells.

None of these are front-line issues.

McCain has some history of involvement with telecom and technology and trade, but the campaigns are just not focusing on anything like that.

20 geata  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:11:27am

Just note that in is answers B0 speaks again as if he's already POTUS: 'I will direct my Secretary for Energy ...', just to quote an example.

This bothered me too, at first. But I've heard both candidates do it, and I think it's pretty common. I do agree it's arrogant, though.

21 EIDE_Interface  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:12:06am

re: #15 WitchDoctor

So... according to current LGF meme... I have to vote for BHO now?

So if Obama says the sky is blue, you will disagree for the sake of disagreeing?

22 Thanos  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:13:49am

I like McCain's answers. In other classes creation does come up and it's perfectly ok to have differing views of creation presented in philosophy and religion classes in public schools. (e.g. Comparative World Religions, etc.) There's not a disjunct in not wanting it in science class however since that is the realm of the empirical.

23 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:13:59am

re: #15 WitchDoctor

So... according to current LGF meme... I have to vote for BHO now?

What the fuck do you mean by that? Nither LGF nor the posters here have anything against a belief in creation. What a lot of us do have a probelm with is theaching ANY FORM of creation in the classroom as some sort of science.

Do you read the post around here, or just jump in with assinine statements?

24 Celtic Templar  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:14:16am

re: #15 WitchDoctor

So... according to current LGF meme... I have to vote for BHO now?

Where did you get that from?

Looks like both don't want ID in schools. McCain thinks students should learn about it, I assume as all other philosophies, junk science, etc. I don't think he endorsed the belief, correct me if I'm seeing it wrong.

25 Throbert McGee  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:14:50am

Good for BHO that he was willing to bluntly disparage Intelligent Design™.

But looking at it purely from a political standpoint, I though it was dumb of him not to endorse the basic reasonableness of "theistic evolution," as McCain did, rather than couching his response in entirely secular terms. (Since far more voters would support "Evolution with some vague acknowledgment of God" than "Evolution without God.")

26 Shug  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:14:54am

re: #15 WitchDoctor

I found one of those Mindless Followers mentioned by Bostom

27 dennisw  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:15:41am

Intelligent design via annunaki. That's what I'm thinking might be the case. And evolution exists too along with intelligent design by God. They are not mutually exclusive. I see the hand of God in nature, same as John McCain says he sees it in the Grand Canyon at sunset. It's pretty cold and unfeeling not to

28 EIDE_Interface  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:17:02am

Sometimes I look at the sunset and see the face of god. But I wouldn't want to impose that belief on others.

29 Thanos  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:18:46am

re: #15 WitchDoctor

So... according to current LGF meme... I have to vote for BHO now?

Please state the meme you mention in concise terms.

30 Sharmuta  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:19:18am

Sorry- I think 0bama would be willing to toss evolution under the bus if he thought it would get him elected, so his answers mean nothing to me. He stands for nothing- all he cares about is his acquisition of power. Anything that gets in the way of that is at risk of the bus treatment.

31 Celtic Templar  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:19:36am

re: #28 EIDE_Interface

Sometimes I look at the sunset and see the face of god. But I wouldn't want to impose that belief on others.

Serious question, what president has IMPOSED a religious belief? Even with Supreme Court noms? Are there examples of an imposition or even some duplicitous attempt to get religion in?

Most of what I've seen in the past few decades is the opposite - removal of this or that, after the fact (e.g. symbols on flags, 10 commandments, etc.)

32 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:19:44am

re: #29 Thanos

Please state the meme you mention in concise terms.

He/she/it/undead appears to have already run away after making his/her/it's/undeadable's statement.

33 gunjam  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:22:10am

re: #15 WitchDoctor

So... according to current LGF meme... I have to vote for BHO now?

Good point.

It remains an unpleasant truth -- continually dodged in this forum -- that an obsessive devotion to Darwinian evolution puts one (in ideological terms) squarely in the company of virtually every major despot (Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao Tse-Tung) of the 20th Century.

But we are apparently to believe that this is just a "coincidence."

34 Occasional Reader  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:22:23am

Good day, mes damns et mes sewers.

Does anyone have a good link for how many whoppers Obama told us last night?

35 cliffster  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:22:50am

I wonder how Obama's answer changes if he's asked the same thing while sitting in a pew of a Baptist church in Alabama?

36 EIDE_Interface  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:23:40am

re: #33 gunjam

Good point.

It remains an unpleasant truth -- continually dodged in this forum -- that an obsessive devotion to Darwinian evolution puts one (in ideological terms) squarely in the company of virtually every major despot (Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao Tse-Tung) of the 20th Century.

But we are apparently to believe that this is just a "coincidence."

Logical fallacy. Just because A and B agree about C doesn't mean that B supports A. Learn some basic logic first.

37 Occasional Reader  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:23:47am

re: #29 Thanos

Please state the meme you mention in concise terms.

That's the problem with this generation; its all "meme meme meme".

38 Thanos  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:23:58am

re: #27 dennisw

Sorry, but you are off base with the last statement. As an atheist I still have an enduring sense of wonder at the universe and all of it's beautiful contents.

Last night we turned on the whole house fan, which creates a small vortex at the bottom of the steps. I stared at the vortex for over an hour watching intently as all the shedded dog fur from Kasey swirled about until it formed a near perfect sphere that whirled around in the vortex. It was entrancing and wonderful to watch the disparate bits of dog fluff coalesce into a miniature planetoid.

39 Typicalwhitey  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:24:14am

Realwest are you on this thread?

40 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:25:33am

re: #36 EIDE_Interface

Logical fallacy. Just because A and B agree about C doesn't mean that B supports A. Learn some basic logic first.

Hitler believed in god. If gunjam believes in god, does that make him a Nazi?

41 Wishing  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:25:38am

re: #39 Typicalwhitey

RW said he got a virus (?) in an email and had to leave.....

42 Thanos  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:25:53am

re: #33 gunjam

Yes, and science leads to killing people Ben Stein Jr.

/// aren't you tired of that ridiculous circular argument/straw man yet?

43 Typicalwhitey  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:26:19am

If I post my letter would you guys critique it for me?

44 Occasional Reader  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:26:37am

re: #33 gunjam

It remains an unpleasant truth -- continually dodged in this forum -- that an obsessive devotion to Darwinian evolution puts one (in ideological terms) squarely in the company of virtually every major despot (Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao Tse-Tung) of the 20th Century.

That's. Just. Stupid.

45 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:27:13am

re: #42 Thanos

Yes, and science leads to killing people Ben Stein Jr.

/// aren't you tired of that ridiculous circular argument/straw man yet?

No he's/she's not. Because they are not capable of critical thinking, just being stinking critical.

46 Occasional Reader  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:27:31am

re: #40 Walter L. Newton

Hitler believed in god. If gunjam believes in god, does that make him a Nazi?

Hitler liked dogs. I like dogs. Oh noes!

47 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:28:44am

re: #46 Occasional Reader

Hitler liked dogs. I like dogs. Oh noes!

You Jew-hating, goose-stepping, gas-pushing, blond, zombie Nazi.

/

48 EIDE_Interface  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:28:52am

re: #40 Walter L. Newton

Hitler believed in god. If gunjam believes in god, does that make him a Nazi?

Well both Hitler and myself believed that the Tiger tank was a great weapon. Am I a Nazi?

49 cliffster  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:30:00am

re: #33 gunjam

Good point.

It remains an unpleasant truth -- continually dodged in this forum -- that an obsessive devotion to Darwinian evolution puts one (in ideological terms) squarely in the company of virtually every major despot (Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao Tse-Tung) of the 20th Century.

But we are apparently to believe that this is just a "coincidence."

Give me a bit to figure out who the absolute worst person in the entire world is, so I base all my beliefs on the opposite of what they believe.

50 geata  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:30:07am

re: #48 EIDE_Interface

Well both Hitler and myself believed that the Tiger tank was a great weapon. Am I a Nazi?

Um. Yes.

51 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:30:29am

And you notice that gunjam and witchdoctor just drop in and shit these posts and then leave. Not even capable of discussing thier point.

But next time they drive by post, they'll claim that no one ever wants to address thier issues.

Assholes.

52 Shug  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:31:13am

Nothing is better than eternal happiness.
Drinking a beer is better than nothing.
Therefore, drinking a beer is better than eternal happiness

53 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:31:25am

re: #48 EIDE_Interface

Well both Hitler and myself believed that the Tiger tank was a great weapon. Am I a Nazi?

I hope you understand I was being scarcastic? Yes, no?

54 Moe Katz  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:31:50am

re: #33 gunjam

Good point.

It remains an unpleasant truth -- continually dodged in this forum -- that an obsessive devotion to Darwinian evolution puts one (in ideological terms) squarely in the company of virtually every major despot (Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao Tse-Tung) of the 20th Century.

But we are apparently to believe that this is just a "coincidence."

Not at all. It's clearly God's plan!

55 David IV of Georgia  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:32:05am
re: #36 EIDE_Interface

re: #33 gunjam

Good point.

It remains an unpleasant truth -- continually dodged in this forum -- that an obsessive devotion to Darwinian evolution puts one (in ideological terms) squarely in the company of virtually every major despot (Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao Tse-Tung) of the 20th Century.

But we are apparently to believe that this is just a "coincidence."

Logical fallacy. Just because A and B agree about C doesn't mean that B supports A. Learn some basic logic first.

This is the same fallacy Kilgore Trout often makes when he is trying to disparage Christianity by noting similar traditions and themes in pagan and gnostic religions. Similarity does not necessitate equivalence or common roots.

56 Occasional Reader  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:33:18am

re: #55 David IV of Georgia

in pagan and gnostic religions

I'm about to cook up some lunch in my gno-stic frying pan.

57 Occasional Reader  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:33:30am

Later.

58 Slumbering Behemoth  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:33:55am

re: #51 Walter L. Newton

And you notice that gunjam and witchdoctor just drop in and shit these posts and then leave.

Those types tend to come back and try to sneak in comments long after the thread is dead.

59 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:33:56am

re: #56 Occasional Reader

I'm about to cook up some lunch in my gno-stic frying pan.

What are you having?

60 Noam Sayin'  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:34:08am

Charles if it's okay with you I'm going to take off for a while and spend the day with my friend and his dogs.

61 EIDE_Interface  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:34:12am

re: #55 David IV of Georgia

This is the same fallacy Kilgore Trout often makes when he is trying to disparage Christianity by noting similar traditions and themes in pagan and gnostic religions. Similarity does not necessitate equivalence or common roots.

What we need is less logical fallacies and more deep examination of the issues. Too much "gotcha" stuff going on here.

62 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:36:18am

re: #60 Noam Sayin'

Charles if it's okay with you I'm going to take off for a while and spend the day with my friend and his dogs.

Can you wait until noon when the second shift comes on?

63 David IV of Georgia  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:36:43am

re: #56 Occasional Reader

I'm about to cook up some lunch in my gno-stic frying pan.

What about your γνω - στι κος frying pan?

64 Archimedes  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:37:54am

Hate to say it, but Nature is a left wing publication.

65 gunjam  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:38:38am

re: #36 EIDE_Interface

Logical fallacy. Just because A and B agree about C doesn't mean that B supports A. Learn some basic logic first.

What is the logical fallacy?

It is simply an observable fact: That lgf evolutionist devotees are ideologically in the company (on that one issue, at least) with the famous despots of the 20th Century.

Don't try to weasel out of that objective facts with phony appeals to logic.

I did not say you were fans or admirers of these despots, let alone guilty of their crimes against humanity.

I simply said -- and will continue to say -- that on this VERY important issue of origins, Thanos, you and Stalin and Castro share an important tenant of your world view in common.

That, of course, does not make you a commie or a Nazi, and I didn't say it did, so, perhaps YOU should review your logic book?

66 Charles  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:38:55am

By the way, neither Charles Darwin nor the theory of evolution are mentioned in Hitler's Mein Kampf. Not even once. There's no evidence at all that the theory of natural selection influenced Hitler or the Nazis.

67 EIDE_Interface  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:39:23am

re: #65 gunjam

Oh you are so asking to be banned.

68 taxfreekiller[deleted]  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:40:03am
69 Archimedes  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:41:52am

re: #66 Charles

By the way, neither Charles Darwin nor the theory of evolution are mentioned in Hitler's Mein Kampf. Not even once. There's no evidence at all that the theory of natural selection influenced Hitler or the Nazis.

Hitler was influenced most strongly by the philosopher Schopenhauer, who was big in Germany in his day. He carried around a copy of his book
Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung (The World as Will and Representation).

If you think about it that's what the Nazis were about. They believed they could will things to be the way the wanted.

70 EIDE_Interface  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:42:28am

re: #69 Archimedes

Hitler was influenced most strongly by the philosopher Schopenhauer, who was big in Germany in his day. He carried around a copy of his book
Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung (The World as Will and Representation).

If you think about it that's what the Nazis were about. They believed they could will things to be the way the wanted.

Well natural selection killed the Nazi regime!

71 Thanos  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:42:29am

re: #65 gunjam

You just want someone to start comparing religion to those despots, so you can put on your martyr cloak and leave in your late model huffmobile. I know what you are doing, you are very transparent.

I refuse to pick on religion, I think it's mostly a good thing. Now what exact worldview do I share with Stalin please since you seem to be able to read my mind?

72 rightside  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:42:42am

re: #61 EIDE_Interface

What we need is less logical fallacies and more deep examination of the issues. Too much "gotcha" stuff going on here.

I personally do not need any more depth on examination of the issues. Bottom line is, I will vote for McCain over bho. I do not trust barry to protect this country from the jihadists. I believe he will take the billy jeff stance, and make it a criminal case. McCain will take it to our enemies.

I understand why you bring that up, but I don't think too many here need convincing to vote for their candidate.

Until we flush all the bastards from congress and start anew, we (those who produce) will continue to have to bail out those who make poor decisions, and that includes congress, as well as the citizens.

73 geata  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:42:45am

re: #67 EIDE_Interface

Oh you are so asking to be banned.

For what? I'm not entirely sure what he's trying to prove, but it is a statement of fact.

74 EIDE_Interface  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:43:53am

re: #73 geata

For what? I'm not entirely sure what he's trying to prove, but it is a statement of fact.

What is? That if you believe in evolution you are with Hitler and Pol Pot? Why should we tolerate such a person?

75 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:44:37am

re: #65 gunjam

What is the logical fallacy?

It is simply an observable fact: That lgf thiest (like gunjam) are ideologically in the company (on that one issue, belief in God at least) with the famous anti-semite, Hitler.

Don't try to weasel out of that objective facts with phony appeals to logic.

I did not say gunjam was a fan or admirer of Hitler, let alone guilty of their crimes against humanity.

I simply said -- and will continue to say -- that on this VERY important issue of God, gunjam, you and Hitler share an important tenant of your world view in common.

That, of course, does not make you a a Nazi, and I didn't say it did, so, perhaps YOU should review your logic book?

76 Slumbering Behemoth  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:45:22am

re: #65 gunjam

I could use that same type of faulty logic to claim that LGF creationist devotees (on that one issue at least) are ideologically in the same company as islamist fundamentalists, and I'd be just as wrong.

77 JamesWI  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:45:42am

re: #65 gunjam

What is the logical fallacy?

It is simply an observable fact: That lgf evolutionist devotees are ideologically in the company (on that one issue, at least) with the famous despots of the 20th Century.

Don't try to weasel out of that objective facts with phony appeals to logic.

I did not say you were fans or admirers of these despots, let alone guilty of their crimes against humanity.

I simply said -- and will continue to say -- that on this VERY important issue of origins, Thanos, you and Stalin and Castro share an important tenant of your world view in common.

That, of course, does not make you a commie or a Nazi, and I didn't say it did, so, perhaps YOU should review your logic book?

I guess I should be concerned, because Stalin and Castro also believe that drinking water and breathing are essential to life. I'm guessing they also believe in gravity. Oh no, I share so many things in common with the despots!

78 gunjam  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:46:07am

re: #44 Occasional Reader

That's. Just. Stupid.

No.

In the matter of agreement on evolution: It is an indisputable fact.

And no more stupid than the fact that -- as has often been frequently pointed out in this forum - that both Christians and Muslims believe in creationism.

I admit that i agree with Muslims on creationism. That does not make me a Jihadist -- or even a jihadist-sympathizer. (And, of course, I am not.)

Are you evolutionists even willing to ADMIT the obvious? That you and Lenin are in agreement on the matter of evolution. (And that does NOT make you a Bolshevist-sympathizer, either.)re: #64 Archimedes

Somehow, you all want to wiggle out of even FACING this "unpleasant truth."

79 EIDE_Interface  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:46:15am

re: #77 JamesWI

Off to the gallows.

80 EIDE_Interface  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:46:40am

gunjam - you've just been reported.

81 sattv4u2  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:46:54am

re: #74 EIDE_Interface

What is? That if you believe in evolution you are with Hitler and Pol Pot? Why should we tolerate such a person?

I guess by your logic the fact that I am white coupled with the fact that David Duke is whote must make me a racist and therefore should be banned from LGF

82 gunjam  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:47:07am

re: #75 Walter L. Newton

It is simply an observable fact: That lgf thiest (like gunjam) are ideologically in the company (on that one issue, belief in God at least) with the famous anti-semite, Hitler.

So, Hitler was a creationist?

You have jumped the shark.

83 Charles  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:47:11am

re: #64 Archimedes

Hate to say it, but Nature is a left wing publication.

Yeah, it does lean left. But they seem to have been fair with their quotes from McCain.

Some of Obama's answers are duplicates of the ones he gave to Sciencedebate 2008.

84 sattv4u2  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:47:25am

re: #77 JamesWI

GMTA ,, (see my #81)

85 geata  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:47:40am

re: #74 EIDE_Interface

What is? That if you believe in evolution you are with Hitler and Pol Pot? Why should we tolerate such a person?

He said that people who believe strongly in evolution share that part of their ideology with Hitler. He never said you were *with* Hitler.

Hitler was also a vegetarian (as I recall), and that doesn't mean all my vegetarian friends are fascists (though a few might be).

86 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:48:31am

re: #77 JamesWI

I guess I should be concerned, because Stalin and Castro also believe that drinking water and breathing are essential to life. I'm guessing they also believe in gravity. Oh no, I share so many things in common with the despots!

It's a strawman position. It proves nothing. And when gunjam says "That, of course, does not make you a commie or a Nazi, and I didn't say it did... ," he proves the point that he is saying NOTHING, since his own words say that his points proves NOTHING.

87 EIDE_Interface  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:48:43am

re: #85 geata

He said that people who believe strongly in evolution share that part of their ideology with Hitler. He never said you were *with* Hitler.

Hitler was also a vegetarian (as I recall), and that doesn't mean all my vegetarian friends are fascists (though a few might be).

Oh come on. He is trying to propagate the meme that Evolutionists = Hitlerites. No amount of trying to nuance it back.

88 gunjam  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:49:04am

re: #80 EIDE_Interface

gunjam - you've just been reported.

A lesson from the late General Douglas MacArthur: "Never tattle."

It isn't manly.

89 Thanos  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:49:19am

re: #78 gunjam

It's still a logical fallacy, Stalin and party were directly opposed to science.
[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

Just as the Discovery Institute is.

90 ErnieG  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:49:20am

re: #37 Occasional Reader

That's the problem with this generation; its all "meme meme meme".

After all, a meme is a terrible thing to waste.

91 Sharmuta  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:49:27am

re: #82 gunjam

hitler was opposed to state atheism.

92 EIDE_Interface  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:50:04am

re: #91 Sharmuta

hitler was opposed to state atheism.

Now I don't know who I'm with! Thanks Sharmuta for messing with my mind.

93 taxfreekiller[deleted]  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:50:06am
94 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:50:13am

re: #85 geata

He said that people who believe strongly in evolution share that part of their ideology with Hitler. He never said you were *with* Hitler.

Hitler was also a vegetarian (as I recall), and that doesn't mean all my vegetarian friends are fascists (though a few might be).

Then the bottom line is his point PROVES NOR MEANS NOTHING. Except to stir the pot (and make himself sound stupid).

95 EIDE_Interface  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:51:05am

re: #94 Walter L. Newton

Then the bottom line is his point PROVES NOR MEANS NOTHING. Except to stir the pot (and make himself sound stupid).

He's stirring the Pol Pot, no pun intended...

96 geata  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:51:39am

re: #87 EIDE_Interface

Oh come on. He is trying to propagate the meme that Evolutionists = Hitlerites. No amount of trying to nuance it back.

I think you're reading a little too much into what he said, though I might be wrong. It's amazing how this debate touches people's nerves. I'm undecided so I get to irk both sides (and, at the same time, find both sides annoying). Why can't we all just get along?

97 Cap'n DOC  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:52:20am

re: #19 itellu3times

Is there some reason why they should?

98 Abdullah al-Libi  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:52:37am

BOR-RING

I really don't give a good dump what either candidate thinks about evolution or some contrived evolution v religion argument.

The only thing that matters to me on this debate is which candidate is going to put the smack-down on the type of creeps whose opinion on the evolution matter is "Allah created the world and al-Q'u'r'a'n, and you had better believe it or else."

99 EIDE_Interface  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:53:18am

re: #96 geata

I think you're reading a little too much into what he said, though I might be wrong. It's amazing how this debate touches people's nerves. I'm undecided so I get to irk both sides (and, at the same time, find both sides annoying). Why can't we all just get along?

Sorry but you are trying to defend the evil troll. Down ding.

100 Wishing  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:53:45am

I think we are all allowed here to state our opinions without getting hammered. Gunjam is pointing out a fact. So...no biggee in my book, and certainly no reason to *report* him.

101 Sharmuta  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:54:16am

re: #85 geata

He said that people who believe strongly in evolution share that part of their ideology with Hitler. He never said you were *with* Hitler.

Hitler was also a vegetarian (as I recall), and that doesn't mean all my vegetarian friends are fascists (though a few might be).

Hitler never mentions Darwin or evolution in Mein Kapmf. In fact- Darwin was banned in Germany, so unless you have a link to back up your claim that those of us who accept the validity of evolution are agreeing with nazi ideology, STFU.

102 rightside  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:54:19am

re: #98 Abdullah al-Libi

Speaking truth to power!

103 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:54:30am

"Are you evolutionists even willing to ADMIT the obvious? That you and Lenin are in agreement on the matter of evolution. (And that does NOT make you a Bolshevist-sympathizer, either.)"

Okay, I'll agree with you gunjam... Lenin and myself are in agreement on the matter of evolution.

Now, what does that mean? Explain what your point is. Where are you going with this stream of "logic."

(I refuse to use the word logic without the quotes in this case, since it is evident gunjam know nothing about the study of logic and he does not have a facility for critical thinking)

104 debutaunt  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:54:54am

re: #34 Occasional Reader

Good day, mes damns et mes sewers.

Does anyone have a good link for how many whoppers Obama told us last night?

The best comment was that the clothes had no emperor!

105 EIDE_Interface  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:55:09am

GAZE

106 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:55:14am

re: #96 geata

I think you're reading a little too much into what he said, though I might be wrong. It's amazing how this debate touches people's nerves. I'm undecided so I get to irk both sides (and, at the same time, find both sides annoying). Why can't we all just get along?

Then you explain it to us, oh great one.

107 Cap'n DOC  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:56:14am

re: #78 gunjam

I call you on your crap. Creationism is very specific. I am a Christian, therefore I believe in Creationism? I dinged you down cuz your logic sucks.

108 Thanos  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:57:34am

Again, Stalin was anti-science and supported pseudo-science over science. This led to mass starvation. Ignoring science and empircal fact leads to genocide.
LYSENKOISM

109 Sharmuta  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:57:56am

Fascinating! While trying to search for a connection between Lenin and evolution, most of the sites coming up are those belonging to the YEC crowd.

110 EIDE_Interface  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:58:01am

re: #108 Thanos

Again, Stalin was anti-science and supported pseudo-science over science. This led to mass starvation. Ignoring science and empircal fact leads to genocide.
LYSENKOISM

Also I'm waiting for the report that Pol Pot was a real science backer.

111 geata  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:58:13am

re: #106 Walter L. Newton

Then you explain it to us, oh great one.

Ooooh. Sarcasm.

112 Cap'n DOC  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:58:24am

re: #78 gunjam

MOF, I think your gun is permanently jammed.

113 taxfreekiller[deleted]  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:58:51am
114 geata  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:58:56am

Anybody have a video of Obama's bracelet moment?

115 EIDE_Interface  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:59:00am

gunjam and geata, two trolls in a pod. FOAD.

116 Archimedes  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:59:09am

re: #75 Walter L. Newton

What is the logical fallacy?

It is simply an observable fact: That lgf thiest (like gunjam) are ideologically in the company (on that one issue, belief in God at least) with the famous anti-semite, Hitler.

Did Hitler believe in god?

Nazism, it has to be pointed out, was a secular movement. It didn't require belief in god. The Fuhrer was the figure head of the state. Duechland Uber Alles was the rallying cry. It was a form of collectivism which placed race as the most important element (similar to multiculturalism).

I'm an atheist as I think you are.

I don't consider the Darwin point to be important, because what Darwin did was science. He figured out how nature works in a certain area. It was brilliant and we have gained a great deal from it. I mean, I'm sure that the Nazis also applied Newtonian physics in the building of their weaponry to kill people. Does this make Newton bad?

117 Thanos  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:59:23am

re: #114 geata

Anybody have a video of Obama's bracelet moment?

[Link: noblesseoblige.org...]

118 Lynn B.  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:59:43am

Obama clearly didn't write those answers, so they don't count.

/ but actually I'd bet he didn't.

119 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 10:59:59am

re: #111 geata

Ooooh. Sarcasm.

No, not sarcasm, a valid question. Since you seem to have an understanding as to what gunjam is trying to say, and I evidently do not, then could you clarifiy his position for me?

120 EIDE_Interface  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:00:21am

re: #116 Archimedes

Did Hitler believe in god?

Nazism, it has to be pointed out, was a secular movement. It didn't require belief in god. The Fuhrer was the figure head of the state. Duechland Uber Alles was the rallying cry. It was a form of collectivism which placed race as the most important element (similar to multiculturalism).

I'm an atheist as I think you are.

I don't consider the Darwin point to be important, because what Darwin did was science. He figured out how nature works in a certain area. It was brilliant and we have gained a great deal from it. I mean, I'm sure that the Nazis also applied Newtonian physics in the building of their weaponry to kill people. Does this make Newton bad?

Hitler apparently was into paganism. I don't know how much of it was belief or just surface presentations. He definitely believed it would stir up his followers.

121 DistantThunder  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:00:29am

Hey! it's an ID thread. Better than pinching yourself to see if you're still alive!

122 experiencedtraveller  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:00:34am

re: #66 Charles

By the way, neither Charles Darwin nor the theory of evolution are mentioned in Hitler's Mein Kampf. Not even once. There's no evidence at all that the theory of natural selection influenced Hitler or the Nazis.

Well noted. I believe the major influences in Hitler's life were his experiences in the trenches on the western front in WWI and his syphilis.

123 nyc redneck  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:01:22am

reading obama's answer i felt it was so scripted that he probably didn't even write it. someone else consulted a focus group and wrote that.
mccain's words seem honest and heartfelt. only extremists would find fault w/ what he said.

124 EIDE_Interface  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:01:31am

re: #122 experiencedtraveller

Well noted. I believe the major influences in Hitler's life were his experiences in the trenches on the western front in WWI and his syphilis.

And the Jewish guy who said that Hitler was a mediocre artist.

125 EIDE_Interface  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:02:08am

re: #123 nyc redneck

reading obama's answer i felt it was so scripted that he probably didn't even write it. someone else consulted a focus group and wrote that.
mccain's words seem honest and heartfelt. only extremists would find fault w/ what he said.

McCain - honest and real
Obama - pre scripted, phony empty suit

Not ready to lead, now or ever.

126 geata  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:02:11am

re: #115 EIDE_Interface

gunjam and geata, two trolls in a pod. FOAD.

I'm a troll? Disagreeing with you (and, maybe, possibly, bothering you--just a little) makes me a troll?

127 BBEV  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:02:14am

OT. The Obama people are knocking on doors here in NH AGAIN today. How many times and in how many ways do I have to tell these people that there is no way in Hell that I would ever vote for him? I just told them that if they knocked on my door again and wake my wife up (she is very ill ) I'm going to give the something they will not expect. They come by 2 a day every weekend I'm fed up, I have no problem with someone calling me once looking for a donation or knocking on my door once but this is ridiculous.

128 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:02:56am

re: #116 Archimedes

Please, I was simply parrotting back the same level of failed logic to gunjam as he was spouting off to us. My response was not to elicite a discussion on this topic using his point of view. I was just trying to highlight the lack of critical thinking on his part.

129 Cap'n DOC  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:03:09am

re: #119 Walter L. Newton

I'm just curious and have not followed geata's comments (but for that one), but would it have been better if it had been Ahhhh instead of Ooooo?


/I'm with ya so far...

130 EIDE_Interface  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:03:23am

re: #127 BBEV

OT. The Obama people are knocking on doors here in NH AGAIN today. How many times and in how many ways do I have to tell these people that there is no way in Hell that I would ever vote for him? I just told them that if they knocked on my door again and wake my wife up (she is very ill ) I'm going to give the something they will not expect. They come by 2 a day every weekend I'm fed up, I have no problem with someone calling me once looking for a donation or knocking on my door once but this is ridiculous.

Maybe next time show up with a shotgun, say "I thought you were intruders".

131 EIDE_Interface  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:03:39am

re: #126 geata

I'm a troll? Disagreeing with you (and, maybe, possibly, bothering you--just a little) makes me a troll?

GAZE

132 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:04:18am

re: #126 geata

I'm a troll? Disagreeing with you (and, maybe, possibly, bothering you--just a little) makes me a troll?

Yea, since you make statement and do not back them up with an answer. You have be questioned a number of times here and all you can do is come back with some invictive, and advoid the question.

133 gunjam  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:04:37am

re: #103 Walter L. Newton

Now, what does that mean? Explain what your point is. Where are you going with this stream of "logic."

(I refuse to use the word logic without the quotes in this case, since it is evident gunjam know nothing about the study of logic and he does not have a facility for critical thinking)

Thank you: Just that: that Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Nature, and YOU are all in agreement on evolution.

That is all I asked, and you manned up, which I acknowledge and appreciate.

Now, just mediate on that fact.

Now, regarding your tone of dripping sarcasm born of (self-supposed) intellectual superiority....

... that is another matter altogether.

134 EIDE_Interface  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:05:20am

ah, gunjam just stepped into the known pile of shit... AGAIN. how stupid.

135 DistantThunder  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:05:31am

In an nutshell, I believe that God is the designer who used evolution as a tool.

The "who" part is my belief, the "how" part is science.

Belief is for church because it is a faith position, while science can be taught in science class in public school because there are experiments to back it up.

LGF has helped me identify, and qualify my beliefs about faith and science.

Thanks, Charles.

136 BBEV  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:05:52am

re: #130 EIDE_Interface

Maybe next time show up with a shotgun, say "I thought you were intruders".

Ya I thought of ansering the door with my 44 sticking out of my belt but I don't think that would go over well.

137 DistantThunder  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:06:37am

re: #127 BBEV

OT. The Obama people are knocking on doors here in NH AGAIN today. How many times and in how many ways do I have to tell these people that there is no way in Hell that I would ever vote for him? I just told them that if they knocked on my door again and wake my wife up (she is very ill ) I'm going to give the something they will not expect. They come by 2 a day every weekend I'm fed up, I have no problem with someone calling me once looking for a donation or knocking on my door once but this is ridiculous.

How about, "I'd rather die than vote for Obama."

Or is that too much of an invitation? What vultures these democrats are.

138 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:07:24am

re: #133 gunjam

Thank you: Just that: that Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Nature, and YOU are all in agreement on evolution. That is all I asked, and you manned up, which I acknowledge and appreciate.
Now, just mediate on that fact. Now, regarding your tone of dripping sarcasm born of (self-supposed) intellectual superiority....
... that is another matter altogether.

No, now I admitted the correlation. Now, YOU TELL ME WHAT IT MEANS, since you stated the premise. What you are doing is making pronouncements without defending your points.

I manned up, now you stop being so dishonest and answer my question. 9And don't come back and ask me what the question is, you know, the ball is in your court).

139 geata  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:07:51am

re: #132 Walter L. Newton

Yea, since you make statement and do not back them up with an answer. You have be questioned a number of times here and all you can do is come back with some invictive, and advoid the question.

You mean I never answered the question of what gunjam's point was? I don't know. I'm not saying it wasn't dumb, I'm just saying his statement that evolutionists agree with certain distasteful historical figures is a fact. The same way creationists agree with, say, that genius Urban II who up and started a frickin crusade or Leo X who stole from the poor to build fancy churches.

140 Archimedes  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:08:05am

re: #128 Walter L. Newton

Please, I was simply parrotting back the same level of failed logic to gunjam as he was spouting off to us. My response was not to elicite a discussion on this topic using his point of view. I was just trying to highlight the lack of critical thinking on his part.

Sorry, I should probably have stated reading earlier in the thread. :D

141 Archimedes  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:08:18am

re: #140 Archimedes

Sorry, I should probably have stated reading earlier in the thread. :D

stated = started

142 BBev  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:08:32am

re: #137 DistantThunder

How about, "I'd rather die than vote for Obama."

Or is that too much of an invitation? What vultures these democrats are.

And they write everything done as if Obama wins they are going to come and take me away, I have campaigned for many people in my life and I never did anything like this.

143 Thanos  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:08:45am

re: #133 gunjam

And I've already pointed out to you that Stalin was against the biological theory of his day, and like Discovery Institute used pseudo science to attack the facts and scientific method. This led to many of the deaths you mention above, and you have zero comeback.

144 taxfreekiller[deleted]  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:09:43am
145 Cap'n DOC  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:09:59am

re: #133 gunjam

My question to you (not interfering w/ Walter since he can hold his own from my perspective), but WHY? They are all human, and I'll even throw myself on the bus with Walter & all the others aforementioned. What differentiates me (and I'm thinking possibly Walter, although I won't answer for him on that one), from the others is that I have a Moral Compass. They may have been born with one, but chose to ignore it.

146 Archimedes  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:10:01am

re: #143 Thanos

And I've already pointed out to you that Stalin was against the biological theory of his day, and like Discovery Institute used pseudo science to attack the facts and scientific method. This led to many of the deaths you mention above, and you have zero comeback.

This is true. He had some bizarre notions of biology.

147 Throbert McGee  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:11:02am

re: #78 gunjam

And no more stupid than the fact that -- as has often been frequently pointed out in this forum - that both Christians and Muslims believe in creationism.

If you think that accepting the scientific fact of evolution necessarily means embracing metaphysical naturalism (roughly, in this context, the position that we inhabit an atheistic Universe), then it logically follows that everyone who believes in God must embrace some form of creationism.

But as has been pointed out on LGF approximately three quintillion times, many religious people take the position that evolution does not imply a rejection of God's very existence -- but only a rejection of the idea that the diversity of life required God's continual oversight and intervention. (As though God were incapable of designing the Universe to be self-running, self-organizing, and self-complexifying.)

148 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:11:11am

re: #143 Thanos

And I've already pointed out to you that Stalin was against the biological theory of his day, and like Discovery Institute used pseudo science to attack the facts and scientific method. This led to many of the deaths you mention above, and you have zero comeback.

He is not capable of a comeback. See his #133 to me. He is simply a creationist seminar poster who doesn't have the skills or brains to actually discuss the issue, just to drop strawman talking points and then refuse to debate the thread he started.

149 Sharmuta  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:12:22am

Seems to me Lenin just used evolution to promote atheism in the Soviet Union. I'm not finding anything that shows Lenin accepted the validity of evolution- just that it was useful for him to promote his ideology. Does anyone have a link from a non-creationist website that shows Lenin accepted evolution beyond using it to promote communism?

150 Cap'n DOC  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:12:44am

re: #139 geata

Now you go and step in a great big pile along with gunjammed. Are you serious, or the left foot of a pair of socks?

151 geata  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:13:54am

re: #117 Thanos

[Link: noblesseoblige.org...]

152 Thanos  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:15:25am

Goodbye Little Robin Marie

Don't try following me...


Geata, are you Irish by chance? One of those strange Catholic fundies who think the pope is the Antichrist?

153 Cap'n DOC  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:15:44am

re: #149 Sharmuta

Not to be found. You are correct. It was just a tool.

154 geata  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:16:32am

re: #150 Cap'n DOC

Now you go and step in a great big pile along with gunjammed. Are you serious, or the left foot of a pair of socks?

What? I said that both creationist and evolutionist beliefs have been held by distasteful historical figures. I'm trying to unmake gunjam's point, if you will.

155 geata  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:18:23am

re: #152 Thanos

Goodbye Little Robin Marie

Don't try following me...


Geata, are you Irish by chance? One of those strange Catholic fundies who think the pope is the Antichrist?

Non-denominational protestant from Oklahoma who is willing to listen to both sides of this debate, actually.

156 gunjam  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:18:33am

re: #66 Charles


By the way, neither Charles Darwin nor the theory of evolution are mentioned in Hitler's Mein Kampf. Not even once. There's no evidence at all that the theory of natural selection influenced Hitler or the Nazis.

Debatable.

(Though you will, I suspect, reject Wiker's arguments out of hand, because he is -- after all -- a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute.)

157 EIDE_Interface  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:19:03am

geata - if you persist on going down this path, it will only lead to destruction.

158 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:19:19am

re: #154 geata

What? I said that both creationist and evolutionist beliefs have been held by distasteful historical figures. I'm trying to unmake gunjam's point, if you will.

He has already admitted he has no point, so I don't know what it is that you are trying to undo?

The sun is orange, a pumpkin is orange, there for a pumpkin is the same as the sun.

That was the depth of his point. Heavy, huh?

159 EIDE_Interface  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:20:57am

re: #158 Walter L. Newton

He has already admitted he has no point, so I don't know what it is that you are trying to undo?

The sun is orange, a pumpkin is orange, there for a pumpkin is the same as the sun.

That was the depth of his point. Heavy, huh?

Like totally. Pass the bong please.

160 ErnieG  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:21:45am

re: #133 gunjam

Thank you: Just that: that Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Nature, and YOU are all in agreement on evolution.

That is all I asked, and you manned up, which I acknowledge and appreciate.

Now, just mediate on that fact.

Now, regarding your tone of dripping sarcasm born of (self-supposed) intellectual superiority....

... that is another matter altogether.

I did a little googling on the subject of logical fallacies. Wikipedia has an article on Reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy. Gunjam's assertion appears to be a textbook example of this fallacy.

To quote from the Wikipedia article:

Reductio ad Hitlerum, also argumentum ad Hitlerum, or reductio (or argumentum) ad Nazium – dog Latin for "reduction (or argument) to Adolf Hitler (or the Nazis)" – is a modern informal fallacy in logic. It is a variety of both questionable cause and association fallacy. The phrase reductio ad Hitlerum was coined by an academic ethicist, Leo Strauss, in 1953. Engaging in this fallacy is sometimes known as playing the Nazi card.
161 geata  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:22:13am

re: #158 Walter L. Newton

He has already admitted he has no point, so I don't know what it is that you are trying to undo?

The sun is orange, a pumpkin is orange, there for a pumpkin is the same as the sun.

That was the depth of his point. Heavy, huh?

I must have missed that post. If he admitted he had no point, then let's leave it at that. I really don't understand why people get so worked up about this.

162 Thanos  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:22:36am

re: #156 gunjam

Not only is it DI, it's also their infamous method of quote mining, note the ampersands and out of context quotes? Note that the tie to Darwin is implied by stringing sections together that don't fit together. Sharmuta wins this one.

163 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:23:13am

re: #159 EIDE_Interface

Like totally. Pass the bong please.

And gunjam tipped his hand in this reply above...

"(Though you will, I suspect, reject Wiker's arguments out of hand, because he is -- after all -- a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute.)"

Even if you believe in creationism, if you follow the precepts of the DI, your an apostate if you don't see creation the exact same way as they do.

164 Jim D  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:23:47am

re: #156 gunjam

The dishonesty of the DI has be demonstrated many times on this site. Neither Charles nor anyone else here should trust their information or arguments.

165 Cap'n DOC  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:24:00am

re: #139 geata

Pope Leo did not steal from the poor, but rather was extravagantly charitable, for which he was faulted. Not what I'd call a shining pillar, but to say he stole from the poor is a lie.

166 Sharmuta  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:25:02am

re: #162 Thanos

Thanks, Thanos.

167 gunjam  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:25:30am

re: #147 Throbert McGee


But as has been pointed out on LGF approximately three quintillion times, many religious people take the position that evolution does not imply a rejection of God's very existence -- but only a rejection of the idea that the diversity of life required God's continual oversight and intervention. (As though God were incapable of designing the Universe to be self-running, self-organizing, and self-complexifying.)

You are, of course, free to believe as you wish.

However, anyone who A) desires to be logically consistent, and (B) is committed to believing the Bible as written, is logically, morally, and theologically compelled to reject (vertical) evolution on its face.

No one is denying horizontal evolution, better termed adaptation. (This, of course, (unlike Darwinian doctrine) requires no change in species, only in varieties thereof.)

168 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:25:41am

re: #156 gunjam

Debatable.

(Though you will, I suspect, reject Wiker's arguments out of hand, because he is -- after all -- a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute.)

Which is like saying someone is a senior fellow at the KKK. It doesn't really speak of anything but someone who has no critical thinking skills.

169 Charles  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:27:55am

re: #156 gunjam

Debatable.

(Though you will, I suspect, reject Wiker's arguments out of hand, because he is -- after all -- a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute.)

No, it's not debatable. It's a fact. Mein Kampf does not mention Charles Darwin or the theory of evolution through natural selection.

Wiker's retching up the usual Discovery Institute hooey, trying to equate the theory of evolution with the discredited notion of "Social Darwinism," a spin-off idea that Darwin did not endorse and which has nothing to do with evolution.

This is a scare tactic, designed to con gullible people into seeing evolution as inevitably leading to godless atheism and mass murder. The usual bucket of complete crap.

170 geata  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:28:17am

re: #165 Cap'n DOC

Pope Leo did not steal from the poor, but rather was extravagantly charitable, for which he was faulted. Not what I'd call a shining pillar, but to say he stole from the poor is a lie.

A lie? He knew damn well that buying an indulgence wouldn't get you (or your dead relatives) to heaven. Call it extortion or fraud or whatever, but it was clearly dishonest.

171 Thanos  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:28:29am

re: #167 gunjam

Translation: you must believe exactly as I do or you are takfir, apostate, satan.

172 Cap'n DOC  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:28:35am

re: #167 gunjam

Like I said earlier - you're gun is permanently jammed. You got nothin', which is what you started with.

173 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:29:05am

re: #167 gunjam

You are, of course, free to believe as you wish.

However, anyone who A) desires to be logically consistent, and (B) is committed to believing the Bible as written, is logically, morally, and theologically compelled to reject (vertical) evolution on its face.

No one is denying horizontal evolution, better termed adaptation. (This, of course, (unlike Darwinian doctrine) requires no change in species, only in varieties thereof.)

I guess you have missed the point. You know nothing about the science of logic. Why don't you go do a little study on that subject of logic and mabye you will understand that you are misusing the concept. You are not being logical, any more than the psuedo-science that spurts out of the DI.

Honestly, why do you insist on using a method of debating (in this case, logic) when you show no knowledge of using logic.

Why can't you admit to that?

174 Basho  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:30:23am

re: #167 gunjam

However, anyone who A) desires to be logically consistent, and (B) is committed to believing the Bible as written, is logically, morally, and theologically compelled to reject (vertical) evolution on its face.

In other words, nothing can convince him otherwise and responding to him is a waste of time. So just ignore him everyone.

175 Cap'n DOC  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:31:18am

re: #170 geata

And THAT is not what I said. Selling indulgences was not stealing from the poor, although it was not proper that indulgences be sold. What I said was just what I said. Now you take or leave it, but I call you a Liar because he did not steal. MOF, I pointed out he was very charitable - to a fault.

176 gunjam  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:31:25am

re: #158 Walter L. Newton

He has already admitted he has no point, so I don't know what it is that you are trying to undo?

The sun is orange, a pumpkin is orange, there for a pumpkin is the same as the sun.

That was the depth of his point. Heavy, huh?

I do have a point, Mr Intelluctual Superiority, for those with a developed conscience* and a perceptive mind to consider, namely.....

. . . . And just WHY do I (as in YOU) agree with the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Hugo Chavez, and Fidel Castro on such an important issue as origins? Perhaps something is amiss in my own worldview?

*An attribute you may be lacking.

177 hazzyday  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:32:12am

re: #33 gunjam

Good point.

It remains an unpleasant truth -- continually dodged in this forum -- that an obsessive devotion to Darwinian evolution puts one (in ideological terms) squarely in the company of virtually every major despot (Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao Tse-Tung) of the 20th Century.

But we are apparently to believe that this is just a "coincidence."

And with the Pope. And with President Bush. so who is the dodger?

178 RememberSekhmet?  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:32:33am

Oh the Zero has pretty teeth dear
And he shows them pearly white
Just a knife-wit has our Mac dear
And he keeps it out of sight

When the shark bites with his teeth dear
Scarlet billows start to spread
Kevlar gloves though wears our Mac dear
So there's not a trace of red
On the sidewalk Sunday morning
Lies a liberal oozing life
Someone's sneaking 'round the corner
Is the someone Mac the Knife
From a poll done by the river
Zero's numbers dropping down
The cement's just for the weight dear
Bet you Mackies's back in town
George Soros disappeared dear
After drawing out his cash
And Zero spends like a sailor
Did our Zero do something rash?
Poor Gorelick, Jodie Evans
Penny Pritzker, Bernie Dohrn
Oh the line forms on the right now
Now that Mackie's back in town

179 Sharmuta  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:33:23am

re: #176 gunjam

Perhaps something is amiss in my own worldview?

I suggest that would be facts.

180 Thanos  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:33:40am

re: #176 gunjam

Translation: If you don't believe everything as I do you have no concscience. You are a morally corrupt darwinist. I refuse to believe anything else, including the factual.

181 gunjam  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:34:01am

re: #171 Thanos

Translation: you must believe exactly as I do or you are takfir, apostate, satan.

Do you have basic reading comprehension skills? I prefaced my statement of disagreement with the following comment:

You are, of course, free to believe as you wish.

That you inferred what you did says more about you than about what I wrote.

182 Cap'n DOC  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:35:13am

re: #179 Sharmuta

LOL. Wouldn't want facts to get in the way of funky logic would we?

183 gunjam  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:35:37am

re: #180 Thanos

Translation: If you don't believe everything as I do you have no concscience. You are a morally corrupt darwinist. I refuse to believe anything else, including the factual.

Are you a woman? Your arguments are high on emotional hyperbole and low on logical exchange of ideas.

184 Thanos  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:35:42am

re: #181 gunjam

Translation: Yes you are free to believe what you want, but I will call you names, state that you are stalinist, nazi, and have no morals. You are going to burn in hell.

185 Sharmuta  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:36:05am

re: #183 gunjam

Are you a woman? Your arguments are high on emotional hyperbole and low on logical exchange of ideas.

You're a sexist too. Lovely.

186 Basho  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:36:10am

re: #33 gunjam


It remains an unpleasant truth -- continually dodged in this forum -- that an obsessive devotion to Darwinian evolution puts one (in ideological terms) squarely in the company of virtually every major despot (Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao Tse-Tung) of the 20th Century.

Being a closed-minded idiot puts you closer to them.

187 debutaunt  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:36:13am

re: #183 gunjam

Are you a woman? Your arguments are high on emotional hyperbole and low on logical exchange of ideas.

hahahahahahahahhahaaa

188 Sharmuta  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:36:18am

re: #183 gunjam

Are you a woman? Your arguments are high on emotional hyperbole and low on logical exchange of ideas.

Fuck you.

189 Thanos  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:36:27am

re: #183 gunjam

Translation: I can't defeat you logically, so I will continue to use ad hominem.

190 EIDE_Interface  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:36:40am

gunjam - keep stepping into known piles of shit.

191 EIDE_Interface  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:37:07am

re: #188 Sharmuta

Fuck you.

I bet he's the same kind that used sexist smears against Palin while standing up for "women's rights".

192 Thanos  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:37:13am

This is getting kind of fun, keep it coming GJ.

193 Cap'n DOC  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:37:46am

re: #184 Thanos

LOL. When do you cut this one loose to join the rest of the school?

194 doriangrey  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:37:55am

re: #188 Sharmuta

Fuck you.

ROTFLMAO...............Sharmuta, such language from a lady..... Can I buy you a beer for that?

195 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:38:19am

re: #181 gunjam

That you inferred what you did says more about you than about what I wrote.

Boy, and he talks about me being "Mr Intelluctual Superiority." Well, he may be right, because there is no way someone would mistake gunjam for an intelluctual

196 Sharmuta  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:38:32am

re: #194 doriangrey

Mandy wasn't here, so someone had to say it.

197 Lynn B.  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:39:08am

re: #183 gunjam

Are you a woman? Your arguments are high on emotional hyperbole and low on logical exchange of ideas.

You're a real piece of work. And enjoying it too, I'll wager.

198 debutaunt  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:39:11am

re: #196 Sharmuta

Mandy wasn't here, so someone had to say it.

Go ahead - give him his rope!

199 Cap'n DOC  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:39:16am

LOL. That's just crazy Talk, Walter!

200 doriangrey  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:39:26am

re: #196 Sharmuta

Mandy wasn't here, so someone had to say it.

True, but I would have offered to buy her a beer for that too... :)

201 gunjam  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:39:30am

re: #188 Sharmuta

Fuck you.

You are a woman.

You are no lady.

202 EIDE_Interface  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:39:37am

The torches and pitchforks are getting warmed up....

203 legalpad  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:39:39am

re: #176 gunjam

on such an important issue as origins?

Why is that important?

204 Sharmuta  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:40:14am

re: #201 gunjam

You are no gentleman. You are a sexist pig.

205 Cap'n DOC  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:40:46am

re: #203 legalpad

He's here, ain't he?

/I'm picturing slobbering on the keyboard...

206 Lynn B.  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:40:55am

re: #201 gunjam

You are a woman.

You are no lady.

Like you'd know the difference.

207 hazzyday  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:41:08am

re: #101 Sharmuta

Hitler never mentions Darwin or evolution in Mein Kapmf. In fact- Darwin was banned in Germany, so unless you have a link to back up your claim that those of us who accept the validity of evolution are agreeing with nazi ideology, STFU.

Jonah Goldberg works Hitlers eugenics movement as deriving out of Margaret Sanger's works. Planned Parenthood and Hitler had a common eugenics beginning.

208 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:41:26am

re: #189 Thanos

Translation: I can't defeat you logically, so I will continue to use ad hominem.

In over 20 posts, gunjam has NOT ONCE DEBATED ANY ONE OF HIS POINTS.

209 Thanos  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:41:30am

re: #201 gunjam

Translation: I don't like foul language, and don't understand why I draw so much of it. Could my logic be flawed?

210 ErnieG  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:41:55am

Gunjam's assertion that a Christian must necessarily reject evolution is an example of another logical fallacy: the No True Scotsman fallacy.

It goes like this:

"No true Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge!"

"But I know Angus McTavish, who lives in Glasgow, and with my own eyes I have seen him put sugar in his porridge."

"Then your friend Mr McTavish is no' a true Scotsman.

211 Sharmuta  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:41:59am

re: #207 hazzyday

But that's not evolution.

212 Syrah  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:42:35am

Gunjam,

You have crossed the line.

Maybe you might want to consider stepping back and away for a while.

213 gunjam  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:43:52am

re: #191 EIDE_Interface


I bet he's the same kind that used sexist smears against Palin while standing up for "women's rights".

Sorry, but I admire Palin -- and agree with her views on life, guns, and defending out sovereignty.

(Though I would prefer to see a man in her position, i do admit it.)

214 doriangrey  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:43:53am

re: #201 gunjam

You are a woman.

You are no lady.

You wouldn't know a lady even after she kneed your balls up around your chin because you grabbed her ass. Yes you are that narcissistic and self-centered...

215 Cap'n DOC  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:44:05am

re: #207 hazzyday

Eugenics is not evolution. Eugenics is Murder any way you slice it.

216 Sharmuta  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:44:12am

re: #213 gunjam

Sorry, but I admire Palin -- and agree with her views on life, guns, and defending out sovereignty.

(Though I would prefer to see a man in her position, i do admit it.)

YOU ARE A SEXIST PIG!

217 debutaunt  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:44:14am

re: #212 Syrah

Gunjam,

You have crossed the line.

Maybe you might want to consider stepping back and away for a while.

He has his assigned rope and is trying to figure out what to do.

218 gunjam  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:44:20am

re: #204 Sharmuta

You are no gentleman. You are a sexist pig.

I am laughing. Does that make me a happy pig?

219 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:45:06am

re: #212 Syrah

Gunjam,

You have crossed the line. Maybe you might want to consider stepping back and away for a while.

He won't. That would take a level of intellgience, which he lacks. He has dug himslef a hole, he can't get out, so it's much easier for him to make sexist remarks, and try to drag everyone else into the hole with him.

220 gunjam  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:45:24am

re: #216 Sharmuta

YOU ARE A SEXIST PIG!

Let's see. You already said that once.

221 Cap'n DOC  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:45:29am

re: #218 gunjam

Rather sad, but probably true.

222 Jim D  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:45:53am

re: #213 gunjam

Keep it coming man. This is really getting entertaining.

223 Cap'n DOC  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:46:56am

re: #220 gunjam

You musta said something that put your sidearm (geata) off. I wonder what that could have been...

224 Thanos  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:47:36am

This scientist saved more human lives and ended more human suffering than all of the output of the discovery institute ever will.

This scientist saved more human lives and ended more human suffering than all of the output of the discovery institute ever will.

This Empricist saved more human lives and ended more human suffering than all of the output of the discovery institute ever will.

This scientist saved more human lives and ended more human suffering than all of the output of the discovery institute ever will.

Of course I could go on like this for pages and pages and pages of comments, but you get the point right GJ?

225 ErnieG  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:47:55am

re: #222 Jim D

Keep it coming man. This is really getting entertaining.

Like shooting fish in a barrel.

226 Sharmuta  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:48:10am

re: #220 gunjam

Let's see. You already said that once.

And? I'll say it again and again, you sexist pig.

227 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:49:40am

re: #214 doriangrey

You wouldn't know a lady even after she kneed your balls up around your chin because you grabbed her ass. Yes you are that narcissistic and self-centered...

Yes, gunjam is a narcissis. And all this attention, even the negative attention, makes him happy, because he is focusing all our ire toward him. Narcissis live for attention, any kind, good or bad, as long as it's attention.

He points this out himself when he answers in this way Sharmuta - "You are no gentleman. You are a sexist pig." Gunjam - "I am laughing. Does that make me a happy pig?"

He will stoop to even comparing himself to a "pig" because it focuses the attention to him.

228 Thanos  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:51:43am

re: #227 Walter L. Newton

Think it's a her from the icon.

229 Sharmuta  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:52:06am
(Though I would prefer to see a man in her position, i do admit it.)

I hope gunjam realizes this sort of thinking put him in the same bed as liberals like 0bama supporters- if we're to use his "logic", that is.

230 Cap'n DOC  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:54:00am

re: #224 Thanos

But...but - Thanos! Louis Pasteur was a Christian! A Catholic, as a matter of fact.

231 debutaunt  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 12:01:29pm

re: #229 Sharmuta

I hope gunjam realizes this sort of thinking put him in the same bed as liberals like 0bama supporters- if we're to use his "logic", that is.

He has a mental illness that feeds on any attention. Normal people don't crave validation like that.

232 Thanos  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 12:01:58pm

re: #230 Cap'n DOC

Indeed he was, just as Darwin was also a Christian

233 gunjam  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 12:02:29pm

re: #224 Thanos

re: #210 ErnieG


Gunjam's assertion that a Christian must necessarily reject evolution is an example of another logical fallacy: the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Facts are stubborn things. I happen to believe the Genesis account. Not only that, the Bible refers to creation repeatedly.

I cannot LOGICALLY both believe the Bible AND believe in evolution.

That some Christians do believe both, makes them logically inconsistent, it does NOT make them non-Christians, be they Scotsman (true or otherwise) or not.

234 Thanos  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 12:04:41pm

GJ uses the Blue Star Mom flag as an icon, don't think it's a he.re: #233 gunjam

Translation: You are all wrong, I'm exactly right because I believe I'm exactly right and you are exactly wrong. You will burn in hell.

235 Basho  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 12:05:51pm

re: #233 gunjam

re: #210 ErnieG


Facts are stubborn things. I happen to believe the Genesis account. Not only that, the Bible refers to creation repeatedly.

I cannot LOGICALLY both believe the Bible AND believe in evolution.

That some Christians do believe both, makes them logically inconsistent, it does NOT make them non-Christians, be they Scotsman (true or otherwise) or not.

The Bible says in Matthew that Judas throws his money into the temple. In Acts Judas keeps the money and buys a field.

Do you believe that bother happened?

236 doriangrey  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 12:06:28pm

re: #230 Cap'n DOC

But...but - Thanos! Louis Pasteur was a Christian! A Catholic, as a matter of fact.

Ya, because you cant possible be a real Christian and believe in evolution. As a Christian myself I believe that God was the author of all things scientific. I dont for one second believe that he used magic to create the universe. Everything he did was done according to physical laws that he created. Physical laws that scientists are mapping out.

There is no law, rule, commandment or suggestion in the Bible that says men are not allowed to understand how God created the Universe. In fact the Bible says, ask God for wisdom and understanding and he will give it to you. I fully believe in the process of evolution as documented in scientific journals.

The question of why god created is a question of theology and has no place in any science education program. Antiquated beliefs in creationism based on incomplete and misunderstood statements from the bible need to be dropped from any public discourse.

237 Basho  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 12:07:15pm

re: #235 Basho

PIMF. Do you believe both* happened

238 Sharmuta  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 12:07:38pm

re: #234 Thanos

The Blue Stars also welcome fathers.

239 doriangrey  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 12:10:46pm

re: #233 gunjam

re: #210 ErnieG


Facts are stubborn things. I happen to believe the Genesis account. Not only that, the Bible refers to creation repeatedly.

I cannot LOGICALLY both believe the Bible AND believe in evolution.

That some Christians do believe both, makes them logically inconsistent, it does NOT make them non-Christians, be they Scotsman (true or otherwise) or not.

On the contrary, there is nothing in the bible that contradicts evolution, only the preconceived notions of individuals who havent understood what the bible actually has to say on the subject instead insisting on believing fairytale's passed down from one generation to the next as to what the bible does say. You really do need to learn to read the bible for what it says, and not for what you want what it says to mean.

240 Slumbering Behemoth  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 12:11:19pm

re: #227 Walter L. Newton

Yes, gunjam is a narcissis. And all this attention, even the negative attention, makes him happy, because he is focusing all our ire toward him. Narcissis live for attention, any kind, good or bad, as long as it's attention.

He points this out himself when he answers in this way Sharmuta - "You are no gentleman. You are a sexist pig." Gunjam - "I am laughing. Does that make me a happy pig?"

He will stoop to even comparing himself to a "pig" because it focuses the attention to him.

On these here internets, we call them types trolls.

241 yma o hyd  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 12:25:51pm

re: #233 gunjam

re: #210 ErnieG


Facts are stubborn things. I happen to believe the Genesis account. Not only that, the Bible refers to creation repeatedly.

I cannot LOGICALLY both believe the Bible AND believe in evolution.

That some Christians do believe both, makes them logically inconsistent, it does NOT make them non-Christians, be they Scotsman (true or otherwise) or not.

Read this!

It might help towards clearing up your confusion about what 'logically' to 'believe'.

242 gunjam  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 12:29:36pm

Hey, fair notice: I am leaving now.

It has been fun.

Though I have been put in my place, to be sure. ;-)

Perspective: I'd rather be bashed by lgf'ers in this forum than have my throat slit by jihadists any day.

One final note:

God tells Job he made behemoth (read: the dinosaur), and apparently Job had seen such. Job probably lived about 2000 BC.

You can believe evolution if you wish. You can believe the Bible if you wish.

However, once again: You simply cannot be LOGICALLY CONSISTENT while claiming to believe BOTH.

Note: I recognize that many folks of goodwill are logically INCONSISTENT.

243 doriangrey  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 12:34:39pm

re: #242 gunjam

Hey, fair notice: I am leaving now.

It has been fun.

Though I have been put in my place, to be sure. ;-)

Perspective: I'd rather be bashed by lgf'ers in this forum than have my throat slit by jihadists any day.

One final note:

God tells Job he made behemoth (read: the dinosaur), and apparently Job had seen such. Job probably lived about 2000 BC.

You can believe evolution if you wish. You can believe the Bible if you wish.

However, once again: You simply cannot be LOGICALLY CONSISTENT while claiming to believe BOTH.

Note: I recognize that many folks of goodwill are logically INCONSISTENT.

You obviously have absolutely no clue what logic is or how it is applied.

244 Mr Pancakes  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 12:53:34pm

re: #201 gunjam

You are a woman.

You are no lady.

So, upon reading a sexist comment like yours, a lady would have cowered in the corner, or expressed benign discomfort with your statement?

I think not...... Sharmuta cut to the chase and let you have it....... that is the true definition of a lady. I know first hand, my wife is a lady.

245 Devolving One  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 1:53:20pm

Had I been one of the candidates, here is how I would respond - unequivocally, right out of the chute:

I do not believe in Evolution by Natural Selection. For such a mechanism to work, there would first have to be something to select from. The very Laws of Science which scientists are supposed to abide by, demand that matter cannot just pop into existence on its own. To think that Life and Personal Being could come forth from Non-Life, is foolish - to think it happened "randomly" - absurd.

A simple wooden box, fashioned with nails and slats, demands an intelligent designer.

To be sure, Naturalism/Materialism, the idea that all things can be explained by natural processes acting upon material, is the accepted philosophical foundation for Evolution Theory, but order and complexity, arising from disorder, by chance, randomly, has never been observed. Real science confirms the opposite: our world tends toward disorder and chaos.

Evolution by Random Selection should be taught simply as one Model. That another model might suggest that something outside of Nature would be necessary as a First Cause should not hinder it from being taught as a competing Model. A real education would not be afraid to apply the evidence to both Models, simply because the implications are unpalatable for some.

Thank you.

246 Dadmin  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 1:56:49pm

It's easy to see evolution in action today. Witness man's inventions over the years (e.g. - compare today's car models with the Model T Ford). But what won't be taught in schools is that all of the diversity seen in the animal kingdom today can be explained by the process of devolution, given that all of the variability within an animal's genes was present in the original kind. But, that would imply an intelligent designer was necessary to supernaturally create those original kinds. Therefore, the science of devolution gets thrown out with the bathwater.

247 mytralman  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 2:02:56pm

I had a paper in Nature over 30 years ago. It was the best science journal in the world, totally objective. After the global warming mania began, it went left in a big way. Very biased editorials started appearing. They despise Bush for every reason imaginable, and make a big deal out of it.Evolution is fervently protected since to them every thing about man can be explained by it eventually. No science budget is ever big enough. A recent editorial suggested that the worlds leaders ask scientists to set up giant computers to model global warming and then immediately heed their advice on what to do about any changes detected by the programs, effectively enslaving everybody to Hal and his minions. It was nice to read about new things in science every week but recently I've made it a habit to stop giving money, no matter how little, to people who don't have my interests at heart. So I dumped my subscription, just like I did the NYT.

248 Jim D  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 2:15:35pm

re: #245 Devolving One

I wouldn't vote for you.

249 straitcircle  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 2:16:25pm

So we have to vote for Obama now. Obviously he is smarter than McCain, the Il Sen. believing in Evolution as the only cause. And for proof. US citizens want an intelligent president. Further obviously, McCain is not. Well that settles it. Obama for President.

So what came first the chicken or the egg? Also, since the American public is becoming more stupid, does this “evolution” trend illustrate a backward regressiveevolution?


According to science it goes one way – worm (stupid) to man ( intelligent); well to me it looks as if it is going backwards. Doesn’t , make much sense then.

250 LesLein  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 2:23:01pm

Because of European government's control of health care, most new drugs are invented in the U.S. The socialized medicine Obama's policies will lead to will stifle drug innovation.

---------------

New question: According to the scientific consensus, when does life begin?

251 NomadOfNorad  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 2:24:38pm

re: #36 EIDE_Interface

Logical fallacy. Just because A and B agree about C doesn't mean that B supports A. Learn some basic logic first.

"Life is Grand,
Some pianos are Grand,
So life it just a bunch of pianos."
--anonymous

"You can tune a piano, but you can't tuna fish."
--anonymous

252 NomadOfNorad  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 2:28:53pm

re: #251 NomadOfNorad

PIMF!

it = is

253 Mr Pancakes  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 2:29:01pm

re: #251 NomadOfNorad

"You can tune a piano, but you can't tuna fish."
--anonymous

I think that was REO Speedwagon no?

254 Basho  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 2:29:37pm

re: #249 straitcircle


According to science it goes one way – worm (stupid) to man ( intelligent); well to me it looks as if it is going backwards. Doesn’t , make much sense then.

You don't know anything about evolution. And before calling others stupid take a look at the mirror.

255 Basho  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 2:40:57pm

re: #245 Devolving One


I do not believe in Evolution by Natural Selection. For such a mechanism to work, there would first have to be something to select from. The very Laws of Science which scientists are supposed to abide by, demand that matter cannot just pop into existence on its own.


Give me one quote from a scientist that says matter came into existence on its own. It's as nonexistent as IDers explaining how the designer came into existence. Scientists can only turn the clock as far back as the Big Bang.


A simple wooden box, fashioned with nails and slats, demands an intelligent designer.


Do clouds, valleys, mountains, and planets demand a designer? Or do they have natural explanations. Do you even try to scrutinize your thoughts to see if there are any flaws in them?


To be sure, Naturalism/Materialism, the idea that all things can be explained by natural processes acting upon material, is the accepted philosophical foundation for Evolution Theory,

Because everything that is natural can be explained naturally.


but order and complexity, arising from disorder, by chance, randomly, has never been observed. Real science confirms the opposite: our world tends toward disorder and chaos.


You have no idea what the hell you're talking about. You know nothing of chemistry, statistics, or thermodynamics.


Evolution by Random Selection should be taught simply as one Model. That another model might suggest that something outside of Nature would be necessary as a First Cause should not hinder it from being taught as a competing Model. A real education would not be afraid to apply the evidence to both Models, simply because the implications are unpalatable for some.

Thank you.

You can't prove the existence of something outside of nature.

Seriously, IDers, at least try to find flaws in your posts and adjust according.

256 Basho  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 2:45:46pm

re: #242 gunjam

You can believe evolution if you wish. You can believe the Bible if you wish.

However, once again: You simply cannot be LOGICALLY CONSISTENT while claiming to believe BOTH.

Look, I tried making this point to you before but you ignored it: The Bible itself isn't logically consistent. Some things happen one way in one verse, then happens differently in another. If you're a biblical literalists, you yourself are logically inconsistent!

257 spacejesus  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 2:50:08pm

re: #246 Dadmin

It's easy to see evolution in action today. Witness man's inventions over the years (e.g. - compare today's car models with the Model T Ford). But what won't be taught in schools is that all of the diversity seen in the animal kingdom today can be explained by the process of devolution, given that all of the variability within an animal's genes was present in the original kind. But, that would imply an intelligent designer was necessary to supernaturally create those original kinds. Therefore, the science of devolution gets thrown out with the bathwater.

Question 1: What kind of drugs are you on?

Question 2: May I have some?

258 thevoid999  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 3:24:46pm

It has seemed to me that a reasonable compromise on this issue is to offer (require?) theology in public schools. Evolution should be taught in science class, since evolution is a scientific theory build upon a foundation of a theory that is disprovable.

On the other hand, creationism, intelligent design and so on is based on faith that can not be disproved. No matter how you cut it, this is religion. Religion can be taught in theology courses - and as long as any one religion is not preferred it should be acceptable in the public schools. The creation stories of Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, et al are perfectly acceptable to be taught in the context of theology. You could also argue that teaching theology of the major religions would be useful in breaking down barriers.

259 Basho  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 4:33:45pm

re: #258 thevoid999

Meh... let the kids' parents handle the mythology and let the schools teach them real-life skills and facts.

260 eclectic infidel  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 5:35:59pm

re: #183 gunjam

Are you a woman? Your arguments are high on emotional hyperbole and low on logical exchange of ideas.

Oh lookie. A misogynist. You have something in common with the Taliban. Fancy that.

261 wun wabbit wun  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 6:09:42pm

I guess I am overly suspicious but I really doubt Obama himself responded to these questions...one reason, the spelling "progamme" in one of his answers.... I am picturing one of his drones sitting at a desk being handed this project. Obama signs off on it. All a bunch of hooey.

262 Dadmin  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 6:15:59pm

This has been an enjoyable thread. The starring role of protagonist in this morality play goes to “gunjam” (posts: 33(-10), 65(-9), 78(-6), 82(-5), 88(-4), 133(-7), 156(-4), 167(-6), 176(-5), 181(-5), 201(-5), 213(-7), 218(-6), 220(-3), 233(-4), 242(-2)). The principle antagonists are: “EIDE_Interface”, “Walter L. Newton”, “Occasional Reader”, several “biological masses of conflicting signals” and the role of overlord played by our own “Charles.”

Act I opens with gunjam claiming, “It remains an unpleasant truth -- continually dodged in this forum -- that an obsessive devotion to Darwinian evolution puts one (in ideological terms) squarely in the company of virtually every major despot (Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao Tse-Tung) of the 20th Century.”

Not content with merely pointing out the ideological beliefs of former despots, gunjam lets fly an implication zinger: “But we are apparently to believe that this is just a "coincidence."”

Immediately, the logician EIDE_Interface comes forward with, “Logical fallacy. Just because A and B agree about C doesn't mean that B supports A. Learn some basic logic first. Hitler believed in god. If gunjam believes in god, does that make him a Nazi?”

EIDE_Interface claims that gunjam committed a logical fallacy. Really? The logical fallacy imputed to gunjam is the statement, “Therefore, all other believers in evolution believe in despotism.” But, gunjam said no such thing. All he claimed was that if some despots are evolutionists, then it must be true that some evolutionists are despots. These two statements are logically equivalent. But, gunjam said nothing about all other evolutionists believing in despotism. Hinting at something and making categorical statements are two different things. In journalism, it’s called slanting the news.

Next, “Occasional Reader” jumped in with, “That's. Just. Stupid.” To which gunjam replied with, “No. In the matter of agreement on evolution: It is an indisputable fact.” The “indisputable fact” to which gunjam was referring is that “some despots are evolutionists.” What is disputable is what “Occasional Reader” was arguing.

Next, Walter L. Newton picks up on EIDE_Interface’s false claim with, “Hitler believed in god. If gunjam believes in god, does that make him a Nazi?” Clever. Walter L. Newton propagates EIDE_Interface’s false claim and the attack goes viral.

Act II
Our overlord, Charles, postulated, “By the way, neither Charles Darwin nor the theory of evolution are mentioned in Hitler's Mein Kampf. Not even once. There's no evidence at all that the theory of natural selection influenced Hitler or the Nazis.”

To which, gunjam replied, “Debatable.” with a link to a Human Events Article “Darwin and Hitler: In Their Own Words” by Benjamin Wiker. Very understandable, for some. But for others, reasoning that the ‘principles’ espoused by Hitler dovetail beautifully with Darwin’s ‘principles’ in “Descent,” is too great a stretch. Charles wins his argument on a technicality. Hitler didn’t mention the theory of evolution, he merely espoused Darwinism (of which the theory of evolution is its practical application) in his own words.

Act III
Things get personal. Discourse on the subject devolves into vitriolic polemics.

263 jaunte  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 6:21:46pm

re: #262 Dadmin

Hitler absolutely did not 'espouse Darwinism.' Eugenics forms no part of evolutionary theory.

264 gunjam  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 6:25:22pm

re: #262 Dadmin

Truly a witty post!

I take a bow, humbled by your kind analysis.

265 Purple Prose  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 6:26:52pm

I strongly believe the Obama is dangerous in many ways, and I hope that McCain wins the election. That said, the truth is that it is a credit to Obama that he responded to Nature, while it is unfortunate that, for whatever reason, McCain did not. Just because I support McCain does mean that I approve in a kneejerk manner to everything he does or does not do, just as I will give credit to Obama where credit is due. Science-related issues touch upon everything in modern society, and a leader's views on science and technology are important to know.

McCain has gone on record in the past as supporting scientific consensus and the teaching of evolution, without teaching the theology of ID. Why he did not respond to Nature is not clear.

266 leereyno  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 7:45:45pm

The problem with creationists is not what they believe, but why they believe it. Believing anything solely (or primarily) because it is written down in a book is the height of credulousness, especially when solid empirical data exists which contradicts that belief.

I really do think that these people are suffering from mental defects.

Some people are skeptical and cautious about what they choose to believe. They engage their brain cells to examine the evidence before arriving at a conclusion.

Other people, it would seem, simply don't do that. Some are clearly unable to do so because of an innate lack of mental muscle. Others seem simply disinclined, revealing an indifference to the truth that can only be described as a moral failing. Still others are victims of indoctrination. Critical thinking is psychologically painful for them, resulting in cognitive dissonance that they learn to avoid by censoring their own thoughts.

Some who suffer from one or more of these ailments wind up as leftists. Others wind up becoming Scientologists or Moonies or members of some other cult. Still others wind up becoming biblical creationists. This last group is (like leftists) large enough that they can exert pressure on public policy and the politicians who shape it. This is why presidential candidates have to field such ridiculous questions.

267 Throbert McGee  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 8:30:23pm

re: #261 wun wabbit wun

I guess I am overly suspicious but I really doubt Obama himself responded to these questions...one reason, the spelling "progamme" in one of his answers.... I am picturing one of his drones sitting at a desk being handed this project. Obama signs off on it. All a bunch of hooey.

Nature is a British publication, and thus it may have been their editors who changed "program" to "programme." But I think your hunch is otherwise correct.

268 papa_giorgio  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:02:58pm
"Darwinian evolution — whatever its other virtues — does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology."


Dr. Philip S. Skell, Member National Academy of Sciences, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University.


Dissent from Darwin

It is questionable... at the least:

What Do the Fossils Say?
seang200@hotmail.com
“…and this perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.” ~ Darwin ~ [speaking of the fossil record]

Let us jump into the two major models by which we can extrapolate our (humanity’s) origins. Either we evolved, or we were created, period. As Douglas Futuyma stated in his anti-creationist book, Science On Trial, “Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed, or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from preexisting species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence.” Now, for those who say that this is a religious topic, e.g., religious creationism versus non-religious science, this next part is for you.

The religions of the world that say we evolved over a very long period by a slow evolutionary process are the following:

Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Taoism, Shintoism, Sikhism, Jainism, Animism, Spiritism, Occultism, Satanism, Theosophy, Bahaism, Mysticism, Liberal-Judaism, Liberal-Islam, Liberal-Christianity, Unitarianism, Religious Science, Unity, Humanism.

Of course there are differences in the subtleties of these religious belief systems, for example: in Hinduism the earth is balanced on the back of a turtle, who himself is on the back of another – larger – turtle. What we end up with is an infinite progression to an even larger turtle. Nevertheless, the point is, the Hindu believes that all life originally came from the simplest forms, and through millions of years of evolutionary change, we now have arrived at the current phoenix of evolution, man. The only religions that accept the literal, Biblical interpretation of origins are the following: Orthodox Judaism, Orthodox Islam, and Orthodox Christianity.

269 papa_giorgio  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:04:11pm

The Importance of the Fossil Record

Let us begin with the evolutionary view of life, and what the fossil record should show in accordance with the predicted event – which is, life changing over time from the simplest form (i.e., a single celled ameba) to the most complicated forms (i.e., volitional invertebrates, man). In other words, creationists and evolutionist have radically different ideas as to the kinds of life they expect to find as fossils, created or evolved.

Evolutionists should expect to clearly see, and in fact predicted over 120 years earlier, one type of animal or plant changing into another type. The prediction then is that the boundaries between kinds should blur as we look further and further back into time via their fossil history. Better put is this defining explanation by Dr. Henry Morris on the importance of the fossil record:

“The fossil record must provide the critical evidence for or against evolution, since no other scientific evidence can possibly throw light on the actual history of living things. All other evidence is circumstantial…. The time scale of human observation is far too short to permit documentation of real evolutionary change from lower to higher kinds of organisms at the present time. The vital question, therefore, is: ‘Does the record of past ages, now preserved in the form of fossils, show that such changes have occurred?’” (Dr. Morris is a creationist)

Dr. Duane Gish also states the importance of the fossil record:

“Much evidence could be drawn from the fields of cosmology, chemistry, thermodynamics, mathematics, molecular biology, and genetics in an attempt to decide which model offers a more plausible explanation for the origin of living things. In the final analysis, however, what actually did happen can only be decided, scientifically, by an examination of the historical record, that is, the fossil record.” (Dr. Gish is a creationist)

Of course, I would be remiss if I didn’t include some quotes by evolutionists on this same subject, since I just quoted two well-known creation scientists. W. Le Gros Clark, the well-known British evolutionist, has said:

“That evolution actually did occur can only be scientifically established by the discovery of the fossilized remains of representative samples of those intermediate types which have been postulated on the basis of the indirect evidence. In other words, the really crucial evidence for evolution must be provided by the paleontologist whose business it is to study the evidence of the fossil record.”

270 papa_giorgio  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:04:51pm

Pierre Grasse, the most distinguished of all French zoologists, whose knowledge of the living world was said to be encyclopedic, said this:

“Naturalist must remember that the process of evolution is revealed only through fossil forms. A knowledge of paleontology is, therefore, a prerequisite; only paleontology can provide them with the evidence of evolution and reveal its course or mechanisms. Neither the examination of present beings, nor imagination, nor theories can serve as a substitute for paleontological documents. If they ignore them, biologists, the philosophers of nature, indulge in numerous commentaries and can only come up with hypothesis. This is why we constantly have recourse to paleontology, the only true science of evolution…. The true course of evolution is and can only be revealed by paleontology.” Elsewhere he comments: “Thus evolution actually did occur can only be scientifically established by the discovery of the fossilized remains of representative samples of those intermediate types which have been postulated on the basis of the indirect evidence. In other words, the really crucial evidence for evolution must be provided by the paleontologist whose business it is to study the evidence of the fossil record.”

Sir Gavin de Beer, British biologist and of course, evolutionist, said: “The last word on the credibility and course of evolution lies with the paleontologist…” Glenister and Witzke, in their chapter in an anti-creationist book, state: “The fossil record affords an opportunity to choose between evolutionary and creationist models for the origin of the earth and its life forms.”

It would be sensible to assume then, that the fossil record is important, if not crucial, to this debate for the origins of humankind. Thus, the history of life may be traced through an examination of the fossilized remains of past forms of life entombed in the rocks. If life arose from an inanimate world through a mechanistic, naturalistic, evolutionary process and then diversified by a similar process via increasingly complex forms in to the millions of species that have existed and now exist; then the fossils actually found in the rocks should correspond to those predicted on the basis of such a process. On the other hand, if living things came into being by a process of special creation, the broad outlines of which are given in the first two chapters of Genesis, then predictions very different from those based on evolutionary theory should be made concerning the fossil record.

271 papa_giorgio  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:05:02pm

Creation Model
On the basis of the creation model, we would predict an explosive appearance in the fossil record of highly complex forms of life without evidence of ancestral forms. We would predict that all of the major types of life, that is, the basic plant and animal forms, would appear abruptly in the fossil record without evidence of transitional forms linking one basic kind to another. We would thus expect to find fossilized remains, for example, of cats, dogs, bears, elephants, cows, horses, bats, dinosaurs, crocodiles, monkeys, apes, and men without evidence of common ancestors. Each major kind at its earliest appearance in the fossil record would possess, fully developed, all the characteristics that are used to define that particular kind.

Evolution Model
On the basis of the evolution model, we would predict that the most ancient strata in which fossils are found would contain the most primitive forms of life capable of leaving a fossil record. As successively younger strata were searched, we would expect to see gradual transition of these relatively simple forms of life into more and more complex forms of life. As living forms diverged into the millions of species which have existed in the past and which exist today, we would expect to find a transition of one form into another.

We would predict that new types would not appear suddenly in the fossil record possessing all of the characteristics which are used to define that group but would retain characteristics used to define the ancestral group. Dr. Gish says, “There should not be any difficulty in finding transitional forms. Hundreds of transitional forms should fill museum collections. If we find fossils at all, we ought to find transitional forms. As a matter of fact, difficulty in placing a fossil with a distinct category should be the rule rather than the exception.”

272 papa_giorgio  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:05:25pm

What Do the Evolutionists Say?

To better grasp what we are dealing with here, let us first see what some of the bigger names in the evolutionary field of geology and paleontology have to say about the fossil record and the evidence that it portrays. Charles Darwin, the man whose theory is the topic of this discussion, also realized the foundational importance of this matter to the life-blood of his theory, if you will:

“[Since] innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.”

Again, Darwin:

“The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species appear in certain formations has been urged by several paleontologists… as a fatal objection to the belief of the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, that fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection. For the development by this means of a group of forms all of which are (according to the theory) descended from some one progenitor, must have been an extremely slow process; and the progenitors must have lived long before their modified descendants.”

Thomas Huxley, Darwin’s “bulldog,” also realized the importance of this issue when he wrote: “If it could be shown that this fact [gaps between widely distinct groups] had always existed, the fact would be fatal to the doctrine of evolution.”

Absence of transitional forms was a continuing problem for Darwin, as it is for paleontologists today. David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, makes this abundantly clear with this statement:

“He [Darwin] was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn’t look the way he predicted it would, and, as a result, he devoted a long section of his Origin of Species to an attempt to explain and rationalize the differences…. Darwin’s general solution to the incompatibility of fossil evidence and his theory was to say that the fossil record is a very incomplete one…. We are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America [still on display in the Los Angeles Natural History Museum], have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information.” [Archaeopteryx as well]

Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, probably evolution’s leading spokesperson today, has acknowledged: “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.”

273 papa_giorgio  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:05:40pm

Anthropologist Edmund R. Leach told the 1981 Annual Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science: “Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so.” George Gaylord Simpson, perhaps the twentieth century’s foremost paleontologist, said: “This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists. It is true of almost all orders of all classes of animals, both vertebrate and invertebrate.”

Dr. Steven Stanley of the department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, John Hopkins University, says: “The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic [structural] transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid.”

Professor Heribert Nilsson, Director of the Botanical Institute at Lund University, Sweden, declared after forty years of study in this field:

“It may, therefore, be firmly maintained that it is not even possible to make a caricature of evolution out of paleobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that it has been possible to construct new classes and the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of the material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled.”

274 papa_giorgio  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:05:55pm

Gareth J. Nelson, of the American Museum of Natural History: “It is a mistake to believe that even one fossil species or fossil ‘group’ can be demonstrated to have been ancestral to another. The ancestor-descendant relationship may only be assumed to have existed in the absence of evidence indicating otherwise.” Well known British zoologist Mark Ridley declares: “…no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation.”

Moreover, Newsweek reported:

“In the fossil record, missing links are the rule: the story of life is as disjointed as a silent newsreel, in which species succeed one another as abruptly as Balkan prime ministers. The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated.”

Lord Solly Zuckerman, M.A.,M.D.,D.Sc., famous British anatomist concurred: "...if man evolved from an apelike creature he did so without leaving a trace of that evolution in the fossil record." Dr. Derek V. Ager from the Department of Geology, Imperial College, London, at the Proceedings of the Geological Association said: "It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as student...have been debunked."

Personal letter from Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, to L. Sunderland:

"...I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustrations of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly would have included them...Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils...I will lay it on the line - there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.”

Again, Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the prestigious British Museum of Natural History, which houses the world’s largest fossil collection – sixty million specimens – said:

“For almost 20 years I thought I was working on evolution…. But there was not one thing I knew about it…. So for the last few weeks I’ve tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people. Question is: ‘Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that is true?’ [Fossils being included in this question of “Where’s the beef?”] I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all i got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, ‘Yes, I do know one thing -–it ought not to be taught in high school.’ … During the past few years… you have experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith…. Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge.”

275 papa_giorgio  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:06:27pm

So by using quotes and comments by evolutionists themselves on the subject of the fossil record and what evidences it provides, I have shown that as of yet, the evolutionary predictions made about the geological record have not been met. What does the fossil record show? Let us peer into just the first layer and see if this could shed light on the prediction made by the evolutionary model that we should find simpler life forms evolving into more complicated forms and fauna in the upper parts of the geological columns.


The Cambrian “Explosion”

In the Cambrian rocks are found a multitude of highly complex creatures with no ancestors. After vertebrates were found in the Cambrian, Science magazine placed every major animal phylum (group) in the Cambrian rocks. This information comes as a shock to most people for it is not discussed in school or university textbooks. Dr. Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History said, “There is still a tremendous problem with the sudden diversification of multicellular life. There is no question about that. That’s a real phenomenon.” Noted evolutionist Dr. George Gaylord Simpson has called the sudden appearance of many types of complex life forms in the Cambrian rocks (around the entire globe) the “major mystery of the history of life.” He went on to say that two-thirds of evolution was already over by the time we found the fist fossils. Today, some scientists are saying 75 percent of the evolutionary process occurred before the first fossils were deposited.

Dr. David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, and George Gaylord Simpson, the twentieth century’s foremost paleontologist, have both pointed to the fact that two-thirds of evolution was over by the time we found the first fossils. Creationists were saying that to an open-minded person (setting you’re “a priori” presuppositions aside), this would indicate agreement between the creation model and what is found in the fossil record. Eldredge goes on to say:

“Then there was something of an explosion. Beginning about six hundred million years ago and continuing for about ten to fifteen million years [Dr. Gould rates it about five million], the earliest known representatives of the major kinds of animals still populating today’s seas made a rather abrupt appearance. This rather protracted ‘event’ shows up graphically in the rock record…. Creationists have made much of this sudden development of a rich and varied fossil record where, just before, there was none…. Indeed, the sudden appearance of a varied, well-preserved array of fossils, which geologists have used to mark the beginnings of the Cambrian Period does pose a fascinating intellectual challenges.”

276 papa_giorgio  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:06:41pm

Science magazine had evolutionary scientist, Dr. David Woodruff, do a review of the book Macroevolution, Pattern and Process. Dr. Woodruff stated that the fossil record “fails to contain a single example of a significant transition.” Ichthyologist Dr. Donn Rosen, the late curator of fish at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, noted that evolution has been “unable to provide scientific data about the origin, diversity, and similarity of the two-million species that inhabit the earth and the estimated eight million others that once thrived.” Dr. Steven M. Stanley, professor of paleobiology at John Hopkins University, openly admits that “the known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic [gradual] evolution accomplishing a major morphological transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid.”

In the book Darwin’s Enigma, Luther Sunderland interviewed five top paleontologists at leading natural history museums around the world (some of which have been mentioned already), each having significant fossil collections. Those interviewed were Dr. David Pilbeam, former curator of the Peabody Museum of Natural History at Yale, later professor of anthropology at Harvard; Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History; Dr. Niles Eldredge, curator of invertebrate paleontology at the American Museum in New York City; Dr. David M. Raup, curator of Geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago; and Dr. Donald Fisher, state paleontologist at the New York State Natural History Museum. This is what Sunderland said after all the above men were interviewed:

“None of the five museum officials could offer a single example of a transitional series of fossilized organisms that would document the transformation of one basically different type to another.”

So, is the proof of evolution “wanting?” Dr. Eldredge when he confessed about our textbooks in the colleges and universities (and presumably television channels such as the Discovery Channel or The Learning Channel) also confessed to the lack of evidence about the theory of evolution that so permeates our society:

“I admit that an awful lot of [mis]information has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true…. Many statements about prehistoric time, or a presumed fossil record, partake of imaginative narratives.”

277 papa_giorgio  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 11:07:00pm

Is it any wonder then when philosophers and scientists say such things like, “Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grownups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless” ~ Professor Louis Bounoure, Former President of the Biological Society of Strasbourg and Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, later Director of Research at the French National Center of Scientific Research. Or, that “I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution especially the extent to which it's been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has” ~ Malcolm Muggeridge, world famous journalist and philosopher.

These men are only commenting on the lack of any credible evidence that should be there if evolution were true. They are only commenting on the predictions made that are yet to be substantiated. To reject creation a priori and to defend a model that lacks any substance, whatsoever, is itself unscientific. Or, as the senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History puts it, “Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge.”

Dr. Gish remarks that, “Eldredge admits that ‘The Cambrian evolutionary explosion is still shrouded in mystery.’ But creation scientists say, ‘what greater evidence for creation could the rocks give than this abrupt appearance of a great variety of complex creatures without trace of ancestors?’ Thus we see, right from the beginning, on the basis of an evolutionary scenario, the evidence is directly contradictory to predictions based on evolution but is remarkably in accord with predictions based on creation. This [Cambrian] evidence alone I sufficient to establish the fact that evolution has not occurred on the earth.”

To Conclude
When creationists look at evolution through the eyes of mathematical probabilities; the fossil record; information theory and the vast informational content in living things; the laws of thermodynamics, biogenesis and non-contradiction; comparative studies in physiology/anatomy/taxonomy/embryology/ morphology/genetics and biochemistry; and sciences such as anthropology, geology, and biology, they (we) find it hard to believe that anyone who fairly examines this issue could state that evolution is a fact – or even a credible theory. This is why creationists argue that any open-minded individual, scientist or layman, who will objectively evaluate all the evidence, will discover that such evidence comes down heavily on the side of creation.

As I have shown with the crux of the Darwinian theory, the fossil record. Where does the evidence lay?

“Perhaps the most obvious challenge is to demonstrate evolution empirically. There are, arguably, some two to ten million species on Earth. The fossil record shows that most species survive somewhere between three and five million years. In that case, we ought to be seeing small but significant numbers of originations and extinctions every decade. But, of course, we do not see that.” (One of the nation's most eminent biologists, Keith Stewart Thompson, from the article, "Natural Selection and Evolution's Gun," American Scientist, Vol. 85, Nov/Dec 1997, p. 516)

278 Spar Kling  Sun, Sep 28, 2008 12:51:53am

re: #17 EIDE_Interface

I challenge anyone to justify how ID is not religious belief. It has no supporting theory.

I think you meant to assert that ID has no supporting evidence (which is not true).

The answer, in my opinion, is that ID is a premise rather than a theory or a religious belief (which religion?).

As a person with a scientific degree, I would contend that pragmatically, ID is more useful as a premise (until you can come up with the equivalent of the Turing test for proving intelligent causes) than as a theory . . . and is also more useful than neo-Darwinism for scientific advancement. With ID, you assume an intelligent purpose for an organism, organ, or DNA information structure. There's nothing particularly religious about that--just ask the scientists that now advocate Panspermia (See [Link: www.panspermia.org)....]

However, if you promote ID as a theory, then you would have to explain why that intelligence would design things that are obviously meant to kill us such as Y. pestis. And that question moves squarely into Theology, not Science. I oppose teaching religion in Science classes, whether it's some form of Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, or whatnot.

- sk

279 Spar Kling  Sun, Sep 28, 2008 1:06:23am

re: #36 EIDE_Interface

Logical fallacy. Just because A and B agree about C doesn't mean that B supports A. Learn some basic logic first.

True. This is an example of circumstantial evidence. Of itself, it proves nothing. But it can make you very suspicious!

And then, of course there's Fydor Dostoevsky's famous quote from The Grand Inquisitor, "Without God, everything is permissible."

- sk

280 Spar Kling  Sun, Sep 28, 2008 1:51:56am

re: #66 Charles

There's no evidence at all that the theory of natural selection influenced Hitler or the Nazis.

So, why was Hitler so paranoid about "racial and genetic hygiene?" Why did he institute human breeding programs and talk about the übermensch in contrast to "lower humans" or "subhumans?" Why did he snuff out millions of people in concentration camps?

Hitler's book was not a biology book, but he certainly seemed to be very concerned about the genetics of the German people!

- sk

281 Killgore Trout  Sun, Sep 28, 2008 2:37:52am

re: #280 Spar Kling


Genocide and racism existed long before both Darwin and Hitler. In fact, Darwin was detested by the Nazis and his writtings were banned and burned in Nazi Germany. It's a very easily confirmed historical fact. Those who tell you otherwise are lying to you and are counting on you being too stupid or gullible to check.

282 mattThaHatter  Sun, Sep 28, 2008 2:55:52am

re: #61 EIDE_Interface

Exactly! Why can't people see that we're all on the same side; when we divide ourselves and draw lines in the sand, the only people who win are the one's who want to do our society harm as a whole.

Maybe if all of us could just be a little less unbending in our belief that our personal views and positions are what's best for everyone, and learned to accept differences without condemnation, we might just end up with enough time to focus on the real problems.

I'm so tired of hearing about how Hitler was an atheistic Darwinist (he wasn't), and that made him kill people; or about how Richard the "Lionhearted" led a crusade in the name of God, and hence all religion is bad. Wait a minute! Stop the presses! They both had mustaches; EVERYONE TAKE TO THE STREETS AND STRIKE DOWN ALL THOSE WITH UPPER LIPS BEARING FACIAL HAIR! FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT'S HOLY, GET THEM BEFORE THEY GET US!

See how that sounds? So everybody out there, whichever side of this debate you're on, as of right now I am calling for an end to any and all hostilities between the religious and the secular.

If you just saw Expelled, and now you're out gushing to anyone who will listen about how Academia is out to turn your beautiful, God fearing children into blood thirsty, devil worshipping, atheistic junkies, just stop!

If you just got done watching Jesus Camp for the 35th time, and your right now sitting in some pretentious coffee shop and your pretending to listening to some weirdo wearing a beret talk about how unfair capitalism is to the proletariat, while in your head your thinking about how much you hate your Dad for not accepting you for who you really are, and yearning for the day that Barrack will bring about True Democracy, just stop!

Be carefull, as once you stop constantly yapping about your usual rhetoric, you will find yourself with a lot of newly freed up time. For some, this may be a good time to read a book about the actual scientific evidence to date, rather than mindlessly mooning over Kirk Cameron and his intelligently designed banana. Or perhaps if you are one who has been sheltered from the rigors of actual work because that Father you hate so much has allowed you stay in college for 7 years (and yes, he knows you're not a robot; stop with the drunk dialing). This might be a good time to actually SEE a member of the proletariat, or a member of the minority groups you so vehemently defend from the back seat of your limo.

Either way. Stop playing all these gotcha games, and start thinking about what's in the best interest of the coming generations. Of course they need morals. But depriving them of an up to date scientific education just because the idea of evolution makes you squeemish. Otherwise, you might as well just ship your savings over to Red China right now and save them a trip.

283 Jimmah  Sun, Sep 28, 2008 3:01:17am

re: #281 Killgore Trout

From the list of the banned :

6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel).

c) All writings that ridicule, belittle or besmirch the Christian religion and its institution, faith in God, or other things that are holy to the healthy sentiments of the Volk.

So, Hitler inspired not by naturalistic monism, but mystical dualism. Now we really know who to blame. Fill yer pipe, Spar Kling.

284 Charles  Sun, Sep 28, 2008 8:30:05am

re: #277 papa_giorgio

Is it any wonder then when philosophers and scientists say such things like, “Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grownups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless” ~ Professor Louis Bounoure, Former President of the Biological Society of Strasbourg and Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, later Director of Research at the French National Center of Scientific Research.

This is a false quote from a creationist quote mine. Here's the truth about this quote, which is not only distorted and taken out of context, it's attributed to the WRONG PERSON:

[Link: www.talkorigins.org...]

You're just dumping inaccurate quotes from creationist web sites. You people are utterly shameless about doing this.

285 Charles  Sun, Sep 28, 2008 8:43:08am

Wow, "papa_giorgio" really went on a quote-dumping spree here. I'd be willing to bet that at least half of these quotes are wrong, misattributed, or completely made up. I recognize several from past creationist quote-dumping episodes.

This is how creationists hoodwink gullible people, by snowing them with authoritative sounding but false quotes, and spouting scientific-sounding gobbledegook.

286 phatcoder  Sun, Sep 28, 2008 9:08:33am

It's interesting when Christians use science to try to persuade non-Christians that the science is wrong. It would be like a non-Christian trying to use the Bible to prove to Christians that the Bible is wrong. The non-Christian isn't (shouldn't be) more educated in the Bible than Christians and thus is making an uneducated statement to an educated person.

There is a place for the Scientific method and some of it's findings are invaluable. When the influence of Science is used however in an attempt to minimize the influence of scripture, it shows a window into the scientist's/author's/blog poster's soul. He is not using science for any positive purpose; rather, he is attempting to use science to destroy what is sacred.

The problem is, if scientific evidence seemingly contradicts the Bible, well, better look at the scientific processes used, there is human error in there somewhere. Lack of faith being most prevalent which gives way to lawlessness and bitterness.

Evolution is the religion of those who are trying to weaken people's commitment to the law of the Bible. If you feel you have the right to take issue with me for calling the Bible truth, please understand I have the same right to take issue with you for calling Evolution truth. I personally will not support an institution that teaches it. Also, I will not subject my children to it's teachings. Evolution and investing in the study of it is a waste of time, resources, and is tantamount to the government sponsoring atheism.

The Bible holds much more power and influence than does science. Use it instead, you'll be far more effective in your influence.

287 Charles  Sun, Sep 28, 2008 9:18:57am

re: #286 phatcoder

Evolution is the religion of those who are trying to weaken people's commitment to the law of the Bible.

Absolute, unvarnished nonsense. This is a hardcore fundamentalist view, not shared by the majority of Christians, thankfully.

288 Charles  Sun, Sep 28, 2008 11:16:03am

re: #268 papa_giorgio

Dr. Philip S. Skell, Member National Academy of Sciences, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University.

"Darwinian evolution — whatever its other virtues — does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology."

The very first quotation you posted in your dumping spree is misleading. The very next passage in that quote from Philip Skell:

Yet, the marginality of evolutionary biology may be changing. More and more issues in biology, from diverse questions about human nature to the vulnerability of ecosystems, are increasingly seen as reflecting evolutionary events. A spate of popular books on evolution testifies to the development. If we are to fully understand these matters, however, we need to understand the processes of evolution that, ultimately, underlie them.

I'm not going to look up any more of the garbage you dumped all over this thread. It's beyond me what you creationists think you can possibly achieve by parroting lies and misleading quotes.

289 Spar Kling  Sun, Sep 28, 2008 2:04:04pm

re: #281 Killgore Trout

Genocide and racism existed long before both Darwin and Hitler. In fact, Darwin was detested by the Nazis and his writtings were banned and burned in Nazi Germany.
It's a very easily confirmed historical fact. Those who tell you
otherwise are lying to you and are counting on you being too stupid or
gullible to check.

This was because Hitler rejected the idea that humans evolved from apes, not that he didn't believe in animal evolution.

But you still haven't been able to explain why he was so fanatical about "racial and genetic hygiene." why did he establish breeding camps for selected Germans? Why did he consider Jews, Gypsies, and Slavs to be subhuman, little more than animals and then treated them as such (moving them in cattle cars, for example)? Unless you want to deny that the holocaust happened!

Hitler was also a vegetarian, but it would also be incorrect to say that vegetarianism leads to racism or Naziism. Nevertheless, unchecked Darwinism applied to government, human rights, and morality doesn't play out very well.

You're right that racism was rampant before Hitler's time. I believe that the New York zoo kept an African aboriginal in a cage as one of its exhibits.

We condemn his allowing of Mengele to perform medical experiments on "subhuman" concentration camp victims, but many scientists don't seem to have any objections today performing experiments on zygotes and fetuses for the same reason. And cruelty to lab animals in the name of science is still cruelty.

Think about it.

- sk

290 mad doc  Sun, Sep 28, 2008 2:06:57pm

re: #284 Charles

Why do you always quote from "Talk Origins". It is a well known evolutionist propaganda site?

291 Spar Kling  Sun, Sep 28, 2008 2:13:43pm

re: #285 Charles

Wow, "papa_giorgio" really went on a quote-dumping spree here. I'd be willing to bet that at least half of these quotes are wrong,
misattributed, or completely made up. I recognize several from past
creationist quote-dumping episodes.

This is how creationists hoodwink gullible people, by snowing them
with authoritative sounding but false quotes, and spouting
scientific-sounding gobbledegook.

Quotes are nearly always misrepresentations at some level. Yet we all do it. Some quotes taken out of context are worse misrepresentations than others. Often, but not always (I admit), I try to check quotes and their context before using them.

People of all persuasions use quotes as a quick fix to bolster their arguments, not because they're necessarily trying to "hoodwink" anyone, but because they passionately believe in their positions. You're right that people should be careful with their quotes.

And you can quote me on that.

- sk

292 Spar Kling  Sun, Sep 28, 2008 2:25:04pm

re: #283 Jimmah

From the list of the banned :

So, Hitler inspired not by naturalistic monism, but mystical
dualism. Now we really know who to blame. Fill yer pipe, Spar Kling.

You are so right!

We all now know that Hitler was deeply concerned that Christianity needed to be more quickly disseminated in Poland, France, the Soviet Union, and many other countries. Artillery was found to be able to send pamphlets and aid packages deep into oppressed territories. Jews, Gypsies, and Slavs were invited to holiday camps for Bible studies. Dietrich Bonhoffer and many other Christian pastors were invited personally by Hitler to spend time in a camp for advanced theological studies.

What an amazing insight and grasp of history!

- sk

293 Charles  Sun, Sep 28, 2008 2:38:15pm

re: #289 Spar Kling

This was because Hitler rejected the idea that humans evolved from apes, not that he didn't believe in animal evolution.

But you still haven't been able to explain why he was so fanatical about "racial and genetic hygiene." why did he establish breeding camps for selected Germans? Why did he consider Jews, Gypsies, and Slavs to be subhuman, little more than animals and then treated them as such (moving them in cattle cars, for example)? Unless you want to deny that the holocaust happened!

Hitler was also a vegetarian, but it would also be incorrect to say that vegetarianism leads to racism or Naziism. Nevertheless, unchecked Darwinism applied to government, human rights, and morality doesn't play out very well.

You're right that racism was rampant before Hitler's time. I believe that the New York zoo kept an African aboriginal in a cage as one of its exhibits.

You've provided absolutely no evidence for any of your ludicrous assertions. There is no evidence that Hitler or the Third Reich was influenced in any way by Darwin's theory of evolution. None.

No matter how many times you repeat these falsehoods.

294 Basho  Sun, Sep 28, 2008 3:49:08pm

re: #289 Spar Kling

We condemn his allowing of Mengele to perform medical experiments on "subhuman" concentration camp victims, but many scientists don't seem to have any objections today performing experiments on zygotes and fetuses for the same reason. And cruelty to lab animals in the name of science is still cruelty.

Think about it.

- sk

There is no equivalence. Thinking is something you seem to do very little of.

295 Basho  Sun, Sep 28, 2008 3:55:48pm

re: #290 mad doc

Why do you always quote from "Talk Origins". It is a well known evolutionist propaganda site?

And that makes it untrue, how?

296 Spar Kling  Sun, Sep 28, 2008 9:00:56pm

re: #293 Charles

You've provided absolutely no evidence for any of your ludicrous
assertions. There is no evidence that Hitler or the Third Reich was
influenced in any way by Darwin's theory of evolution. None.


No matter how many times you repeat these falsehoods.

Um, which assertions in #289 do you find ludicrous?

Do you deny that Hitler wanted to build a super race? That he had breeding programs for Germans? That he considered Jews, Gypsies, and Slavs subhumans? Have you heard of his idea of the "Aryan race" and that it was in competition with the other races?

- sk

297 Charles  Sun, Sep 28, 2008 9:07:05pm

re: #296 Spar Kling

There is absolutely no evidence that Hitler was influenced by Charles Darwin or the theory of evolution by natural selection. None. Neither Darwin nor evolution are even mentioned in Hitler's Mein Kampf. Not once.

This is a monumental smear job, and a con.

298 mad doc  Mon, Sep 29, 2008 12:38:31am

re: #297 Charles

Mr Johnson, here is a well argued peice on the connection writtten by a scholar: [Link: www.asa3.org...]

299 mad doc  Mon, Sep 29, 2008 12:47:18am

re: #298 mad doc

Sorry, the person that wrote the article is Richard Weikart:[Link: www.csustan.edu...]

300 BaseballMom57  Mon, Sep 29, 2008 5:36:40am

re: #152 Thanos

Hey, hey, hey.... not all Irish are Catholics, ya know! Jus' sayin'.

301 Charles  Mon, Sep 29, 2008 7:56:15am

re: #298 mad doc

Mr Johnson, here is a well argued peice on the connection writtten by a scholar: [Link: www.asa3.org...]

Give me a break. Richard Weikart is a shill for the Dishonesty Institute, his work is laughable, and he has no credibility.

302 Charles  Mon, Sep 29, 2008 7:57:11am

More on Richard Weikart, creationist:

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

303 Charles  Mon, Sep 29, 2008 8:36:59am

Weikart's attempts to link the theory of evolution with Nazism may be popular with creationists, but they have no credibility among historians or scientists.

Nils Roll-Hansen, historian and philosopher of 19th and 20th century biology at University of Oslo, also reviewed the work and was critical of it in a review published by Isis calling it "selective" and containing "insufficient attention to historical change-leaving out political, social, and economic factors as well as the role of new knowledge in genetics-make his overall argument unconvincing."

In addition, Hector Avalos, a professor of Religious Studies, wrote an essay "exposing the historical flaws found in the work of Weikart" and argued "that the defense of genocide, infanticide and "eugenics" by creationists actually has a very venerable and lengthy tradition that precedes Darwin."

Sander Gliboff, professor of History and Philosophy of Science at Indiana University, criticized the work saying "It is dismaying to see such opinions being passed off as results of scholarly research."

Jonathan Judaken, professor of History at University of Memphis, wrote that while it is a "significant study," he "fails to follow the rich nuances of the discourse/practices and institutions that have preoccupied the contemporary generation of intellectual historians, who have paid attention to the continuities and ruptures within systems of thought. So his presentation of racism, for example, reiterates a rationale that does not stand up to the critical scrutiny of intellectual history."

Larry Arnhart, a professor of Political Science at Northern Illinois University wrote "Weikart doesn't actually show any direct connection between Darwin and Hitler. In fact, Weikart has responded to my criticisms by admitting that the title of his book is misleading, since he cannot show any direct link between Darwin's ideas and Hitler's Nazism."

In addition, Robert Richards, historian of Darwin and eugenics at University of Chicago, wrote "It can only be a tendentious and dogmatically driven assessment that would condemn Darwin for the crimes of the Nazis."

304 mad doc  Mon, Sep 29, 2008 1:50:34pm

re: #303 Charles

Quotes from Darwin himself.
Let the readers make up their own mind.

[Link: ministries.tliquest.net...]

305 Charles  Mon, Sep 29, 2008 4:07:30pm

Amazing. You just keep coming back with more of the same slanted, distorted, and completely made-up quotes.

306 mad doc  Mon, Sep 29, 2008 5:31:52pm

re: #305 Charles

This is interesting.
You think the list of quotes I have provided are fabricated.
Tell me Mr Johnson, which quote is made up?

307 Charles  Mon, Sep 29, 2008 5:53:51pm

re: #306 mad doc

This is interesting.
You think the list of quotes I have provided are fabricated.
Tell me Mr Johnson, which quote is made up?

No, thanks. I won't be chasing after any more of your wild geese. I've already exposed many examples of this garbage in this thread, and you just waltz right past, don't even acknowledge the falsehoods, and post some more quotes from creationist sites. Your credibility is nil.

308 Basho  Mon, Sep 29, 2008 7:33:56pm

re: #304 mad doc

Quotes from Darwin himself.
Let the readers make up their own mind.

[Link: ministries.tliquest.net...]

I've noticed that these days those who try to discredit others by branding them racist are oftentimes the most racist people of all.

What strange times we live in...

309 mad doc  Mon, Sep 29, 2008 8:22:00pm

re: #307 Charles

OK I'll make easy for you. Is this quote made up?

"A most important obstacle in civilized countries to an increase in the number of men of a superior class has been strongly insisted on by Mr. Greg and Mr. Galton, namely, the fact that the very poor and reckless, who are often degraded by vice, almost invariably marry early, whilst the careful and frugal, who are generally otherwise virtuous, marry late in life, so that they may be able to support themselves and their children in comfort. . .Those who marry early produce within a given period not only a greater number of generations, but, as shown by Dr. Duncan they produce many more children. Thus the reckless, degraded, and often vicious members of society, tend to increase at a quicker rate than the provident and generally virtuous members. Or as Mr. Greg puts the case: 'The careless, squalid, unaspiring Irishman multiplies like rabbits..."

-from the descent of man by charles darwin

310 mad doc  Mon, Sep 29, 2008 8:31:18pm

Or how about this one?

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes … will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.

-from the descent of man by charles darwin

311 Charles  Mon, Sep 29, 2008 8:33:19pm

Completely shameless. And utterly pathetic.

312 mad doc  Mon, Sep 29, 2008 9:40:25pm

re: #311 Charles

"'The careless, squalid, unaspiring Irishman"
"the negro or Australian and the gorilla"
Why so offended?
You're not Irish, negro or Australian are you Mr Johnson?

313 Charles  Mon, Sep 29, 2008 9:43:12pm

I'm not offended, I'm disgusted at what you tried to pull in this thread. You're not welcome to post here any more.


This entry has been archived.
Comments are closed.

^ back to top ^

log in
Name:
Pass:

Register Forgot Your Password? My Account Re-send Confirmation (To log in, cookies must be enabled in your browser!)

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► LGF Hits

► Slideshows

► Resources

► Never Forget

► Statistics

► Tag Cloud

► Contact

You must have Javascript enabled to use the contact form.
Your email:

Subject:

Message:


Messages may be published in our weblog, unless you request otherwise.
Tech Note:
Using the Contact Form

► News/Opinion

More Partners

Compare Electricity Prices in your area. Texas Electricity is deregulated; you have the right to choose Texas Electric Rates from among many Texas Electric Companies.

Revenge of the son of the blog.


Discover the World's largest E-Book Store! Save big on bestsellers!
Holiday Gift Guide - Save up to 45% on the seasons best!