Anti-Science Texas Wingnuts
Eduardo Limpballs
at one of the pretty faces reading the news.
It's hard reporting on this story if you don't grasp science.
Down in Texas, the State Board of Education adopted new science curriculum
standards last March, continuing their attack on the teaching of evolution.
http://www.statesman.com/search/content/region/legislature/stories/03/28/0328sboe.html
Payback is a BITCH when you don't believe in "Evolution".
Some of these Texas whackos don't believe the moon reflects the sun.
Hmm. I suppose I missed my chance to sell Anti-Flu Crucifixes, Guaranteed to
Ward off the Swine Flu Evil Eye Foul Witchcraft.
Are people in Kansas safe from the virus since, in Kansas, evolution is
merely a theory? Which brings up the question, which intelligence designed
this new swine flu virus?
Mitchell Holman
news:76hLl.17345$8_3....@flpi147.ffdc.sbc.com:
If there were any justice Creationists would be
prohibited from getting any vaccinations or antibiotics
that are a direct result from the evolution they claim
is a "myth".
Clairbear
news:Xns9C009E06F8C77...@216.196.97.130:
Mitch
Now that is not a nice way to deal with others. Creationism or intelligent
design is not a direct assault on evolution, except in the mind of those
who cannot except any thing but evolution. An open mind is the best policy
in this debate. Intelligent design is a theory and so is evolution.. Being
theories niether is the absolute answer.The spontaneous generation of life
that strict evolutionists believe in has yet to be duplicated even though
scientists have been trying to create life for over 50 years with out
anything approaching success.
Gandalf Grey
"Clairbear" <cl...@Verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9C00AD077...@198.186.192.136...
Yes it is.
except in the mind of those
> who cannot except any thing but evolution. An open mind is the best policy
> in this debate. Intelligent design is a theory
Intelligent design is NOT a scientific theory.
Clairbear
news:XIednRAhxLYBmmPU...@giganews.com:
>
> "Clairbear" <cl...@Verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns9C00AD077...@198.186.192.136...
>> Mitchell Holman <noemai...@comcast.net> wrote in
>> news:Xns9C009E06F8C77...@216.196.97.130:
>>
>>> "Eduardo Limpballs" <Gigr...@us.net> wrote in
>>> news:76hLl.17345$8_3....@flpi147.ffdc.sbc.com:
>>>
>>>> My favorite is, "Have you ever even looked at a science
>>>> textbook?!?!" aimed at one of the pretty faces reading the news.
>>>> It's hard reporting on this story if you don't grasp science.
>>>>
>>>> Down in Texas, the State Board of Education adopted new science
>>>> curriculum standards last March, continuing their attack on the
>>>> teaching of evolution.
>>>>
>>>>
http://www.statesman.com/search/content/region/legislature/stories/0
>>>> 3/2 8/0328sboe.html
>>>>
>>>> Payback is a BITCH when you don't believe in "Evolution".
>>>>
>>>> Some of these Texas whackos don't believe the moon reflects the
>>>> sun.
>>>>
>>>> Hmm. I suppose I missed my chance to sell Anti-Flu Crucifixes,
>>>> Guaranteed to Ward off the Swine Flu Evil Eye Foul Witchcraft.
>>>>
>>>> Are people in Kansas safe from the virus since, in Kansas,
>>>> evolution is merely a theory? Which brings up the question, which
>>>> intelligence designed this new swine flu virus?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If there were any justice Creationists would be
>>> prohibited from getting any vaccinations or antibiotics
>>> that are a direct result from the evolution they claim
>>> is a "myth".
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Mitch
>> Now that is not a nice way to deal with others. Creationism or
>> intelligent design is not a direct assault on evolution,
>
> Yes it is.
>
> except in the mind of those
>> who cannot except any thing but evolution. An open mind is the best
>> policy in this debate. Intelligent design is a theory
>
> Intelligent design is NOT a scientific theory.
>
>
>
None the less it is a theory just like evolution is a theory not I never
used the word scientific
I noticed you could not refute or even the attempt to the resyt so you
simply deleted it
So Here it is to remind you
Gandalf Grey
"Clairbear" <cl...@Verizon.net> wrote in message
It's not a theory and it's not a scientific theory. Intelligent design is a
far right Christo-fascist attack on science thinly and poorly disguised as a
scientific theory.
Baron_Mind
>
> "Gandalf Grey" <vali...@gmail.com> wrote in..
>>
>> "Clairbear" <cl...@Verizon.net> wrote in..
>>
>>> Mitchell Holman <noemai...@comcast.net> wrote in..
----
>>>> If there were any justice Creationists would be
>>>> prohibited from getting any vaccinations or antibiotics
>>>> that are a direct result from the evolution they claim
>>>> is a "myth".
>>>
>>> intelligent design is not a direct assault on evolution,
>>
>> Yes it is.
>>
>>> except in the mind of those
>>> who cannot except any thing but evolution. An open mind is the best
>>> policy in this debate. Intelligent design is a theory
>>
>> Intelligent design is NOT a scientific theory.
>
> None the less it is a theory
Nope. "Intelligent design" doesn't even meet the criteria
for a testable hypothesis, as all it requires is belief..
--And no critical thinking..
Clairbear
@news.motzarella.org:
Pay careful attention little man, as we all know how short the attention
span of a child like you is
the�o�ry Show Spelled Pronunciation [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Show IPA
-noun, plural -ries.
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of
explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to
well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of
actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to
one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or
methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method
of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.
I noticed you STILL could not refute or even the attempt to the resyt so
you
simply deleted it
So Here it is to remind you
Being theories niether is the absolute answer.The spontaneous
generation of life that strict evolutionists believe in has yet to be
duplicated even though scientists have been trying to create life for
over 50 years with out anything approaching success.
So tell us in the absence of a Creator how did Life begin?
Clairbear
Subject: Re: Anti-Science Texas Wingnuts
From: Clairbear <cl...@Verizon.net>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.usa
Baron_Mind <baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote in news:gtl1m2$8sl$2
@news.motzarella.org:
> Clairbear wrote:
>>
>> "Gandalf Grey" <vali...@gmail.com> wrote in..
>>>
>>> "Clairbear" <cl...@Verizon.net> wrote in..
>>>
>>>> Mitchell Holman <noemai...@comcast.net> wrote in..
> ----
>>>>> If there were any justice Creationists would be
>>>>> prohibited from getting any vaccinations or antibiotics
>>>>> that are a direct result from the evolution they claim
>>>>> is a "myth".
>>>>
>>>> Now that is not a nice way to deal with others. Creationism or
>>>> intelligent design is not a direct assault on evolution,
>>>
>>> Yes it is.
>>>
>>>> except in the mind of those
>>>> who cannot except any thing but evolution. An open mind is the best
>>>> policy in this debate. Intelligent design is a theory
>>>
>>> Intelligent design is NOT a scientific theory.
>>
>> None the less it is a theory
>
> Nope. "Intelligent design" doesn't even meet the criteria
> for a testable hypothesis, as all it requires is belief..
>
> --And no critical thinking..
Pay careful attention little man, as we all know how short the attention
span of a child like you is
the�o�ry Show Spelled Pronunciation [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Show IPA
-noun, plural -ries.
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of
explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to
well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of
actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to
one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or
methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method
of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.
I noticed you STILL could not refute or even the attempt to the resyt so
you
simply deleted it
So Here it is to remind you
Being theories niether is the absolute answer.The spontaneous
generation of life that strict evolutionists believe in has yet to be
duplicated even though scientists have been trying to create life for
over 50 years with out anything approaching success.
Gandalf Grey
"Clairbear" <cl...@Verizon.net> wrote in message
Snip creationist bullshit.
Evolution is not about the beginning of life and your lame attempts to try
to bog down the discussion in creationistic fantasies is not going to fly.
Evolution is about how life evolved and intelligent design is not even a
theory, just a christofascist attack on science pretending to be a
scientific theory.
Neolibertarian
"Gandalf Grey" <vali...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Intelligent design is NOT a scientific theory.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > None the less it is a theory just like evolution is a theory
>
> It's not a theory and it's not a scientific theory. Intelligent design is a
> far right Christo-fascist attack on science thinly and poorly disguised as a
> scientific theory.
You wouldn't know, either way. Obviously.
But that's not what's vitally important here.
A) A majority of students aren't learning mathematics.
B) A majority of students aren't learning American History.
C) A majority of students can't calculate annual interest rates.
D) A majority of students can't express themselves with the written word.
E) A majority of students can't identify logical fallacies.
These prevalent conditions have persisted enough generations now, that
even a plurality of teachers are incompetent in these vital skills.
That's what's vitally important.
--
Neolibertarian
"Global Warming: It ain't the heat, it's the stupidity."
Kevin Cunningham
> Mitchell Holman <noemailple...@comcast.net> wrote innews:Xns9C009E06F8C77...@216.196.97.130:
>
>
>
> > "Eduardo Limpballs" <Gigran...@us.net> wrote in
Yyyeeeessssss, suuuurrreeee.......
For instance keep an open mind a gravity. There is the possiblity,
nay a strong possibility, that Poland is the sole reason we can hang
onto this spinning ball. If it is a spinning ball. There is strong
evidence, nay a strong possibility, that the flat earth people are
correct!
What the above poster can't do is give us one scientific organization
that opposed evolution. Geez, scientists have been working on this
one since the 1880's, and there is no real opposition to evolution.
I don't believe in evolution, it's just like gravity. It's real, it
works.
Gary DeWaay
cl...@Verizon.net Clairbear says...
> None the less it is a theory just like evolution is a theory not I never
> used the word scientific
> I noticed you could not refute or even the attempt to the resyt so you
> simply deleted it
> So Here it is to remind you
> Being theories niether is the absolute answer.The spontaneous
> generation of life that strict evolutionists believe in has yet to be
> duplicated even though scientists have been trying to create life for
> over 50 years with out anything approaching success.
>
>
They spent longer than that trying to fly. Does that mean flying was
impossible?
--
--
I'm beginning to think "Conservative" is a type of birth defect, in
which the person is born without a normal sense of hypocrisy.
- Leftie blog poster
Kevin Cunningham
> "Gandalf Grey" <valino...@gmail.com> wrote innews:XIednRAhxLYBmmPU...@giganews.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Clairbear" <cl...@Verizon.net> wrote in message
> >news:Xns9C00AD077...@198.186.192.136...
> >>news:Xns9C009E06F8C77...@216.196.97.130:
>
> >>> "Eduardo Limpballs" <Gigran...@us.net> wrote in
Name one factual experiment that any evolution opponent ever performed
that gave the results that showed that there was no evolution.
You anti-evolution creeps couldn't even cite evidence from nature.
All your attempts have been thrown back in your face.
Face it, at best you are just an ignorant patsy. At worst, you and
the core people of the anti-evolutionary group just want to score a
lot of money from the ignorant.
Clairbear
So the dictionary defintion of a word is creationist BS Asking about the
origin of life on this planet is creationist BS
More than likely YOU cannot answer a simple question th origin of life
which gave rise to evolution
Or ist it that you are afraid to think about the answer or perhaps to
ingnorant to do so! There are none so blind as thos who will not see
So enjoy your darkness.
As for me I can believe in evolution as theory, intelligent design as a
theory and creation from as matter faith with out it being a tremendous
conflict. I have no real problem with any of these as the are all a
belief system of sorts. Life evolves and if it had some intelligence
behind it then checks and balances of nature would make sense. It was
all created at some point whether by some natural process or a Creator
I was not there at that time niether were you so who's to you are right
or I am right or niether of us are 100% right. Is there a God or are we
just the universe attempting to understand itself? I kind like the idea
that we cannot know 100% It leaves room to believe for those who need a
faith to drive there life
But since you just can't see any point in the human need to believe in
some thing I guess you really have nothing more to do other than waste
my time
BUH BYE little man
Gandalf Grey
"Neolibertarian" <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:OyoLl.28462$yr3....@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
> In article <G9ydnRD18axelGPU...@giganews.com>,
> "Gandalf Grey" <vali...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> Intelligent design is NOT a scientific theory.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > None the less it is a theory just like evolution is a theory
>>
>> It's not a theory and it's not a scientific theory. Intelligent design
>> is a
>> far right Christo-fascist attack on science thinly and poorly disguised
>> as a
>> scientific theory.
>
> You wouldn't know, either way. Obviously.
You're a moron. Obviously.
Clairbear
news:MPG.2467d344e...@news.midco.net:
> In article <Xns9C00AF1D2...@198.186.192.136>,
> cl...@Verizon.net Clairbear says...
>
>
>> None the less it is a theory just like evolution is a theory not I
>> never used the word scientific
>> I noticed you could not refute or even the attempt to the resyt so
>> you
>> simply deleted it
>> So Here it is to remind you
>> Being theories niether is the absolute answer.The spontaneous
>> generation of life that strict evolutionists believe in has yet to be
>> duplicated even though scientists have been trying to create life for
>> over 50 years with out anything approaching success.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> They spent longer than that trying to fly. Does that mean flying was
> impossible?
>
>
>
>
>
Man ahs always marvelled at the birds in flight. the secret of flight has
alaways been there, but the power to do it was never there until we had a
propulsion system da vinci had the right Ideas but no propulsion if only he
had an internal combustion engine. But man has had flight for a long time
the chinese had kites and it is debatable as to when light than air baloon
were first used, Modern scientists have the unprovable theories of the
origin of life and the technology to do it
Baron_Mind
>
> Baron_Mind was again amused by the knee-jerk reactions of:
>>
>> Clairbear <cl...@Verizon.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> "Gandalf Grey" wrote in..
>>>>
>>>> "Clairbear" <cl...@Verizon.net> wrote in..
>>>>
>>>>> Mitchell Holman <noemai...@comcast.net> wrote in..
>>>>>> If there were any justice Creationists would be
>>>>>> prohibited from getting any vaccinations or antibiotics
>>>>>> that are a direct result from the evolution they claim
>>>>>> is a "myth".
>>>>>
>>>>> Now that is not a nice way to deal with others. Creationism or
>>>>> intelligent design is not a direct assault on evolution,
>>>>
>>>> Yes it is.
>>>>
>>>>> except in the mind of those
>>>>> who cannot except any thing but evolution. An open mind is the best
>>>>> policy in this debate. Intelligent design is a theory
>>>>
>>>> Intelligent design is NOT a scientific theory.
>>>
>>> None the less it is a theory
>>
>> Nope. "Intelligent design" doesn't even meet the criteria
>> for a testable hypothesis, as all it requires is belief..
>>
>> --And no critical thinking..
>
> Pay careful attention little man
Correction: I'm 6'5" and have a degree in science..
> as we all know how short the attention span of a child
> like you is
I see, so you're going to fall back upon a 'negative claim'
in your counter-argument, then try and 'redefine' the
scientific methodologies that I'm trained in to somehow
substantiate your fallacy arguments..
Let's see how that works out for you..
> the�o�ry Show Spelled Pronunciation [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]
> Show IPA -noun, plural -ries.
> 1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of
> explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
*>chucking<* I see you're merely regurgitating what
you've read about science that suites your beliefs..
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-difference-between-a-theory-and-a-hypothesis.htm
What is the Difference between a Theory and a Hypothesis?
"A hypothesis attempts to answer questions by putting forth
a plausible explanation that has yet to be rigorously tested.
A theory, on the other hand, has already undergone extensive
testing by various scientists and is generally accepted as
being an accurate explanation of an observation. This doesn�t
mean the theory is correct; only that current testing has not
yet been able to disprove it, and the evidence as it is understood,
appears to support it.
A theory will often start out as a hypothesis -- an educated guess
to explain observable phenomenon. The scientist will attempt to poke
holes in his or her hypothesis. If it survives the applied
methodologies of science, it begins to take on the significance
of a theory to the scientist. The next step is to present the findings
to the scientific community for further, independent testing. The more
a hypothesis is tested and holds up, the better accepted it becomes as
a theory."
> 2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast
> to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters
> of actual fact.
Nope, wrong again..
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm
A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses
that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid
as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories
can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support
a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good
explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say
it's an accepted hypothesis."
> 3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like,
> belonging to one subject: number theory.
Barely applicable to "intelligent design"..
http://physics.suite101.com/article.cfm/theory_vs__hypothesis_vs__law
Theory vs. Hypothesis vs. Law
Unraveling the Confusion of Important Terminology
----------------------------------------------------------------
"The definition of the word "theory" in the context of science
is sometimes hotly argued by non-scientists"
----------------------------------------------------------------
"The origin of this confusion has it's roots in the history of
the development of science. When we speak of early, classical
physics, we talk about laws, Newton's laws of motion for instance,
the ideas have the weight of veracity. After all, the word "law"
has a serious and strictly defined meaning in our culture. Back
when Newton declared his laws, he believed them to be absolute
descriptions of how the universe worked. At the time, they were
irrefutable. We now know that his laws are in fact approximations,
rules that work when describing motion on the macroscopic scale but
which break at the quantum scale.
Since that time, science has gotten warier about describing anything
as being absolute. Science, and physics in particular, is a tool to
root out the true nature of reality. It can describe only what it
observes which may or may not be true in every case. In order to say
if something is absolutely true, every single possible case of a
particular phenomena must be observed. In a universe as vast as ours,
that's completely impractical. Science can say if something is probably
true all the time if observations of a phenomena are the same in many
cases. This tiny bit of waffling bothers many people who are not
familiar with the inner workings of science. Shouldn't something be
always true if it is true at all? Science just can't commit all the
way to absolute - otherwise it wouldn't be science, it would be faith."
Read more: "Theory vs. Hypothesis vs. Law: Unraveling the Confusion of
Important Terminology" -
http://physics.suite101.com/article.cfm/theory_vs__hypothesis_vs__law#ixzz0EUQwUyRl&A
> 4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or
> methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
Music theory, as well as "number theory" have concrete examples
that "intelligent design" does not yet have..
Trust me on that, I'm familiar with both, little girl..
That's leaves this to describe your "intelligent design"
which you would prove to be an unsuitable example of, so far..
> 6. contemplation or speculation.
> 7. guess or conjecture.
Okay, so you were saying, before your futile attempt to
'redefine' the terms (eg "move the goalposts")?..
> I noticed you STILL could not refute or even the attempt
> to the resyt so you simply delete
Okay, after I translated that from 'gibberish', I simply
deleted your unprovable claim rather than embarrass you..
I'm feeling generous today, so don't push your luck, m'kay?
> Being theories niether is the absolute answer.
What I said was, your "intelligent design theory" isn't
even a testable hypothesis, and doesn't even qualify to
be called a "theory"..
Now, what was your next 'faith-based' answer?
> The spontaneous generation of life that strict evolutionists
I've yet to meet such a "strict evolutionist" and consider that
your simply making up a 'straw man' argument to easily knock over
because your comprehension of "evolution", much less science
in general, seems to disqualify your remarks as fallacy logic..
Example follows..
> The spontaneous generation of life that strict evolutionists
> believe in has yet to be duplicated even though scientists
> have been trying to create life for over 50 years with out
> anything approaching success
*>LOL!<* Nice goal post move, though I doubt you could
prove *ANY* of the specific details involved with your
counter-argument. Suffice to say, very little effort has
seriously been devoted to "create life", as you've claimed.
I know of several experimental efforts towards proving that
the formation of various basic amino/organic compounds that
are the basic building blocks of "life" could possibly have
taken place on this planet several billions of years ago..
But as you're childishly attempting to rationalize it,
no, that's not what has been taking place in the scientific
community over the past 50 years, as you've falsely claimed..
Next?
> So tell us in the absence of a Creator how did Life begin?
I do not pretend to know, nor do I rationalize some
very piss-poor religious ideologies to compensate for
your continued ambitious ignorance..
--But, I'm certain that you're not 'intelligently designed'..
Dave Fritzinger
> Mitchell Holman <noemailple...@comcast.net> wrote innews:Xns9C009E06F8C77...@216.196.97.130:
>
>
>
>
>
Nope, ID is not a scientific theory. Indeed, it isn't even a
hypothesis. ID makes no predictions, and cannot be falsified. After
all, in ID, if you see something that is unexpected, the answer is
*always* "that is how the intelligent designer designed it".
Therefore, by definition, it cannot be a theory, nor can it be
science. Meanwhile, there is a vast amount of evidence that supports
the *fact* of evolution, including the twin-nested hierarchy of
genetics and morphology, the fossil evidence, biogeography, etc. And,
there is not a bit of evidence that in any way, shape, or form
falsifies the fact of evolution. The *theory* of evolution is the
mechanisms of how evolution occurs. That is what Darwin described in
his books, and what scientists study now.
[snip]
Bugman
"Clairbear" <cl...@Verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9C00B2221...@198.186.192.136...
I'm working on a Zebra in the garage right now. I'll let you know how it
comes out.
Mitchell Holman
198.186.192.136:
Evolution does not depend on reproducable events
to be proven. Adaptive mutation HAS been observed and
proven. Further it is quantifiable and refineable.
Where has "intelligent design" demonstrated that?
Scientists Make Molecules That Evolve And Compete
ScienceDaily (Apr. 30, 2009) � A group of scientists at
The Scripps Research Institute has set up the microscopic
equivalent of the Galapagos Islands�an artificial ecosystem
inside a test tube where molecules evolve to exploit distinct
ecological niches, similar to the finches that Charles Darwin
famously described in "The Origin of Species" 150 years ago.
As described in an article published in the journal Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), the work demonstrates
some of the classic principles of evolution. For instance, research
shows that when different species directly compete for the same
finite resource, only the fittest will survive.
The work also demonstrates how, when given a variety of resources,
the different species will evolve to become increasingly specialized,
each filling different niches within their common ecosystem.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090429140849.htm
Mitchell Holman
news:Xns9C00B2221...@198.186.192.136:
There is nothing "coherent" about ID. "God Did It" makes
no more sense than Pandora's box or Zues throwing lightning
bolts or Neptune causing hurricanes.
Or should those "theories" be taught in public school
as well?
topset72
A good example but there is no such thing as gravity. Ask Einstein.
Newton (Einstein's Hero) also new this. Newton couldn't completely
figure out what gravity was and used the gravity concept because it
fit all his purposes although he knew it was flawed.
topset72
http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node60.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity
Eduardo Limpballs
"Mitchell Holman" <noemai...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9C00C12F23C9F...@216.196.97.130...
"Clair Clay" is a sick dick.
Clairbear
news:gtl7t6$u1f$1...@news.motzarella.org:
>> the�o�ry Show Spelled Pronunciation [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]
>> Show IPA -noun, plural -ries.
>> 1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of
>> explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of
>> relativity.
>
> *>chucking<* I see you're merely regurgitating what
> you've read about science that suites your beliefs..
>
> http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-difference-between-a-theory-and-a-
h
> ypothesis.htm
>
> What is the Difference between a Theory and a Hypothesis?
>
> "A hypothesis attempts to answer questions by putting forth
> a plausible explanation that has yet to be rigorously tested.
> A theory, on the other hand, has already undergone extensive
> testing by various scientists and is generally accepted as
> being an accurate explanation of an observation. This doesn�t
Do just one thing watch ben Stien's Expelled It really show the
scientific prejudices and hypocrasy
But the why would someone of your ilk ever be expected to understand any
thing
You mention "faith based answer" Actully where is any thing of faith in
any posts here The fact that I find merit in both sides of the argument
and you persist in trying to shout down anything that does not fit you
narrow little construct show you to be the one who lacks any real
knowledge of the subject
Clairbear
It is still just a theory Mitch. There are species in this world that
defy the concept of survival of the fittest which is at the base of
Darwin's work. Species do change over time, that is true. But much of
nature shows signs of a master plan call it what you will but there are
elements of a design to nature.
Clairbear
Read ALL of the definitions, Mitch.
Evolution is theory and intelligent design is theory I American
education they teach evolution, but God forbid you even mention(even if
they do not support it) that some people believe another theory. and
that academic will never find another job. Greek mythology is taught in
American schools, religion is not. Creationism is not taught. Really
trhough what real threat is a theory like intelligent design anyhow.
Most school kids can't comprehnd that or evolution. the American
education system sucks these days anyhow.
Clairbear
@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com:
That coming from a guy who calls himself "LIMPBALLS"
dude you are a complete simpleton with no thing of merit to say
BUH BYE LOSER<PLONK>
Gandalf Grey
"Clairbear" <cl...@Verizon.net> wrote in message
>> The Scripps Research Institute has set up the microscopic
>> inside a test tube where molecules evolve to exploit distinct
>> ecological niches, similar to the finches that Charles Darwin
>> famously described in "The Origin of Species" 150 years ago.
>>
>> As described in an article published in the journal Proceedings
>> of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), the work demonstrates
>> some of the classic principles of evolution. For instance, research
>> shows that when different species directly compete for the same
>> finite resource, only the fittest will survive.
>>
>> The work also demonstrates how, when given a variety of resources,
>> the different species will evolve to become increasingly specialized,
>> each filling different niches within their common ecosystem.
>>
>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090429140849.htm
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> It is still just a theory Mitch. There are species in this world that
> defy the concept of survival of the fittest which is at the base of
> Darwin's work. Species do change over time, that is true. But much of
> nature shows signs of a master plan call it what you will but there are
> elements of a design to nature.
Crap. Unscientific speculation at best. And name one species that defies
the concept of survival of the fittest.
Gandalf Grey
"Clairbear" <cl...@Verizon.net> wrote in message
Wrong. Evolution is a scientific theory. Intelligent design is a
christofascist wet dream masquerading as theory.
Gandalf Grey
"Clairbear" <cl...@Verizon.net> wrote in message
Well, whatever he calls himself, he seems to have you nailed to a T.
W Spilman
"Clairbear" <cl...@Verizon.net> wrote in message
Amino acids splashing onto hot rocks. Not that big of a deal.
Use your religion to explain why you are here, not how you
got here, it won't work.
WS
Dave Fritzinger
> Mitchell Holman <noemailple...@comcast.net> wrote innews:Xns9C00C12F23C9F...@216.196.97.130:> >> Baron_Mind <baron.von.m...@gmail.com> wrote in news:gtl1m2$8sl$2
> >> @news.motzarella.org:
>
> >>> Clairbear wrote:
>
> >>>> "Gandalf Grey" <valino...@gmail.com> wrote in..
>
> >>>>> "Clairbear" <cl...@Verizon.net> wrote in..
>
> >>>>>> Mitchell Holman <noemailple...@comcast.net> wrote in..
Why, in science, only the definition of a *scientific* theory should
count. And, ID doesn't pass. It makes no predictions, and cannot be
falsified. It is not a theory. It is only a cheap, pseudoscientific
clothing for creationism.
> Evolution is theory and intelligent design is theory
By the scientific definition (which is the one that counts, since we
are talking science here), ID is not a theory. Indeed, ID isn't even a
scientific hypothesis. It makes no predictions, and cannot be tested.
ID is not science, and should not be taught in a science class.
>I American
> education they teach evolution, but God forbid you even mention(even if
> they do not support it) that some people believe another theory. and
> that academic will never find another job. Greek mythology is taught in
> American schools, religion is not. Creationism is not taught. Really
> trhough what real threat is a theory like intelligent design anyhow.
> Most school kids can't comprehnd that or evolution. the American
> education system sucks these days anyhow.
Fine, teach ID in a comparative religion class, or teach creationism
in a *history of* science class. But, neither is science, and neither
should be taught as science.
BTW, a good part of the reason why our science education sucks is
because kooks such as you want to dilute the science that is taught.
It will teach our youth to flip burgers, but not to work in the
increasingly technical workplace that will be coming.
Dave Fritzinger
> Mitchell Holman <noemailple...@comcast.net> wrote innews:Xns9C00BF3602A89...@216.196.97.130:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Clairbear <cl...@Verizon.net> wrote in news:Xns9C00AF1D21C0Fclairbear@
> > 198.186.192.136:
>
> >>news:XIednRAhxLYBmmPU...@giganews.com:
>
> >>> "Clairbear" <cl...@Verizon.net> wrote in message
> >>>news:Xns9C00AD077...@198.186.192.136...
> >>>>news:Xns9C009E06F8C77...@216.196.97.130:
>
> >>>>> "Eduardo Limpballs" <Gigran...@us.net> wrote in
Which species are those, and how do they do so?
> Species do change over time, that is true. But much of
> nature shows signs of a master plan call it what you will but there are
> elements of a design to nature.
What are these "elements of design". Explain them.
Mitchell Holman
198.186.192.136:
Wrong.
Evolution is no more a "theory" than gravity or
heliocentrism. Evolution is a proven fact. The
above article is merely the latest proof of that.
> There are species in this world that
> defy the concept of survival of the fittest which is at the base of
> Darwin's work.
Proof?
> Species do change over time, that is true.
Evolution in action, true enough.
Question: Drug-resistent strains of TB are either a
product of evolution or your "Creator" designing them.
Which is it?
Stop Drug-Resistant TB Before It�s Too Late
February 26, 2008
Decades of tuberculosis control efforts could be reversed
by rising drug resistance. Especially lethal strains are
spreading with alarming rapidity, and no country is safe.
That�s the disturbing message from the World Health
Organization, who today released their fourth and largest
global survey of drug resistance in tuberculosis, a
respiratory disease that kills more than 1.5 million people
each year.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/02/who-stop-drug-r/
> But much of
> nature shows signs of a master plan call it what you will but there are
> elements of a design to nature.
There is no "master plan" and there is no "master".
The amorphous agglomeration of fatty tissues, hot air, and hubris better known as Rush Limbaugh
> "Gandalf Grey" <valino...@gmail.com> wrote innews:XIednRAhxLYBmmPU...@giganews.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Clairbear" <cl...@Verizon.net> wrote in message
> >news:Xns9C00AD077...@198.186.192.136...
> >>news:Xns9C009E06F8C77...@216.196.97.130:
>
> >>> "Eduardo Limpballs" <Gigran...@us.net> wrote in
Good point. The theory of evolution doesn't hang from from that
point, though. The theory that life arose from inorganic matter is
separate from the theory of evolution.
Mitchell Holman
198.186.192.136:
Evolution is a proven fact.
> and intelligent design is theory
ID is religious dogma.
> I American
> education they teach evolution, but God forbid you even mention(even if
> they do not support it) that some people believe another theory.
Science is about facts, not religious dogma.
> and
> that academic will never find another job. Greek mythology is taught in
> American schools, religion is not. Creationism is not taught. Really
> trhough what real threat is a theory like intelligent design anyhow.
> Most school kids can't comprehnd that or evolution. the American
> education system sucks these days anyhow.
American education would do better without science
classes being "dumbed down" to appease religious bigots
and their crackpot "theories".
What's next? Teaching astrology in astronomy classes?
Teaching holocaust denial in history classes? "Children
should hear both sides and make up their own minds", right?
stfranc...@yahoo.com
> "Eduardo Limpballs" <Gigran...@us.net> wrote in news:JRqLl.28471$yr3.25826
> @nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Mitchell Holman" <noemailple...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >news:Xns9C00C12F23C9F...@216.196.97.130...
> >> Clairbear <cl...@Verizon.net> wrote in
> >>news:Xns9C00B2221...@198.186.192.136:
>
> >>> @news.motzarella.org:
>
> >>>> Clairbear wrote:
>
> >>>>> "Gandalf Grey" <valino...@gmail.com> wrote in..
>
> >>>>>> "Clairbear" <cl...@Verizon.net> wrote in..
>
> >>>>>>> Mitchell Holman <noemailple...@comcast.net> wrote in..
YOU ARE A JESUS FUCKER NO ONE CARES WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY
Baron_Mind
>
> Baron_Mind excoriated the deliberate dumbassery exhibited by:
>>
>> Clairbear <cl...@Verizon.net> wrote:
>>>
---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed
"The general media response to the film has been largely unfavorable.
It received an 8% meta-score from Rotten Tomatoes. Multiple reviews,
including those of USA Today and Scientific American, have described
the film as propaganda."
(See:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ben-steins-expelled-review-michael-shermer
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed--Ben Stein Launches a
Science-free Attack on Darwin)
"The Chicago Tribune's rating was "1 star (poor)," while
the New York Times described it as "a conspiracy-theory
rant masquerading as investigative inquiry" and "an unprincipled
propaganda piece that insults believers and nonbelievers alike."
(See: http://movies.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/movies/18expe.html
One of the sleaziest documentaries to arrive in a very long
time, �Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed� is a conspiracy-
theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry.)
> It really show the scientific prejudices and hypocrasy
Speaking of "scientific prejudices and hypocrasy", you appear
to have some, in full bloom, I might add.. *>chuckling<*
> But the why would someone of your ilk ever be expected to
> understand any thing
Oh indeed, why would anyone expect someone who has actually
studied the scientific methodologies and basic ideas for
constructing a testable set of conjectures into a formal
hypothesis to be able to understand "any thing" about
science and the details regarding the evolutionary
development of life on the planet Earth..
> You mention "faith based answer"
I said, to be precise..
"Intelligent design" doesn't even meet the criteria for
a testable hypothesis, as all it requires is belief.."
> Actully where is any thing of faith in any posts here
Would you please translate that from "gibberish" for me?
> The fact that I find merit in both sides of the argument
Yet, you've attempted to drown out any opposition to
your beliefs, as if you were afraid of something..
Example follows..
> and you persist in trying to shout down anything that
> does not fit you narrow little construct show
> you to be the one who lacks any real knowledge of the
> subject
You're projecting now, Clairbear..
Here, read it again..
"Intelligent design" doesn't even meet the criteria for
a testable hypothesis, as all it requires is belief.."
It quite simply is a pseudo-scientific dialogue intended
to deceive a gullible audience into suspending disbelief
about the formal study of biological evolution and fails
to deliver anything remotely resembling science..
--See subject header for details..
com...@webtv.net
google both terms....evolution would mean, a mouse morphing into a horse
eventauly, while adaptation woud ean a horse having toes that eventaully
morphed into a hoof.... there is no evidence of any species turning into
another species..none. zero...nadda...a cow stays a cow..a man has
always been a man...
genetic testing has proved most of the skulls that wer claimed to be
missing links were just extinct apes or pig bones formed together by
crooks to look lie a human skull...
" HERE COMES WOLVERINE = X-MEN 4 "
com...@webtv.net
scientific theory..
com...@webtv.net
and the ape have no genetic link. THAT is why all these states are
changing what they teach about mans history.
the left wingers are scrambling,panicking, to come up with another
scam...we have heard "man comes from primordial slime" and " man may
have come from a hobbit"..in the past two years since the discovery.
Jeffrey Turner
It's the only movie that describes its audience in the title.
--Jeff
--
The comfort of the wealthy has always
depended upon an abundant supply of
the poor. --Voltaire
u-farad
> Correction: I'm 6'5" and have a degree in science..
Mr, Wizard is quaking in his loafers...
Dave Fritzinger
More evidence that nothing intelligent ever comes from a webtv
poster...
Neolibertarian
"Gandalf Grey" <vali...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Neolibertarian" <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:OyoLl.28462$yr3....@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
> > In article <G9ydnRD18axelGPU...@giganews.com>,
> > "Gandalf Grey" <vali...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >> Intelligent design is NOT a scientific theory.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > None the less it is a theory just like evolution is a theory
> >>
> >> It's not a theory and it's not a scientific theory. Intelligent design
> >> is a
> >> far right Christo-fascist attack on science thinly and poorly disguised
> >> as a
> >> scientific theory.
> >
> > You wouldn't know, either way. Obviously.
>
> You're a moron. Obviously.
Of course. I'm posting to Usenet, after all.
And yet, you're the one stuck arguing non-issues that aren't relevant to
your own schools or children--while your local schools are churning out
young adults who can't spell, can't write complete sentences, and can't
calculate the interest on their own credit cards.
These uneducated young adults with worthless diplomas are, for the most
part, still proud they voted for the "black guy," without having the
slightest idea of what his policies are, nor, in fact, anything about
the duties of the president.
That way lies tyranny.
--
Neolibertarian
"Global Warming: It ain't the heat, it's the stupidity."
Clairbear
news:49fe4b70$0$1100$f76...@unlimited.newshosting.com:
Nice eavasion answer
boy ask question and you libs go nuts
Clairbear
Gee you point out a falw in the system and you liberals go absolutely
bonkers
A litte quote from the movie expelled for you
Big Science in this area of biology has lost its way,� says Stein.
�Scientists are supposed to be allowed to follow the evidence wherever
it may lead, no matter what the implications are. Freedom of inquiry has
been greatly compromised, and this is not only anti-American, it�s anti-
science. Its anti-the whole concept of learning.�
Clairbear
better known as Rush Limbaugh" <goof...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1de776c5-9b71-4d8b...@d19g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
> On May 3, 2:12�pm, Clairbear <cl...@Verizon.net> wrote:
>> "Gandalf Grey" <valino...@gmail.com> wrote
>> innews:XIednRAhxLYBmmPUnZ2dnUV
> Z_g6...@giganews.com:
It all had to start somewhere
tHe_PC_JeLLy BeAn!!
>
> These uneducated young adults with worthless diplomas are, for the most
> part, still proud they voted for the "black guy," without having the
> slightest idea of what his policies are, nor, in fact, anything about
> the duties of the president.
And who said racism was dead and buried in " libertarian "circles?
LOL!
Kevin Cunningham
> Mitchell Holman <noemailple...@comcast.net> wrote innews:Xns9C00C12F23C9F...@216.196.97.130:> >> Baron_Mind <baron.von.m...@gmail.com> wrote in news:gtl1m2$8sl$2
> >> @news.motzarella.org:
>
> >>> Clairbear wrote:
>
> >>>> "Gandalf Grey" <valino...@gmail.com> wrote in..
>
> >>>>> "Clairbear" <cl...@Verizon.net> wrote in..
>
> >>>>>> Mitchell Holman <noemailple...@comcast.net> wrote in..
There is no rational alternative theory to the fact of evolution.
None. There are political theories and various frauds like ID and
they should be taught in poly. sci. and law classes. But not in
science.
You haven't come up with an alternative for evolution. E-mail us when
you do. Oh, by the way, talk is cheap, I'm talking about an
alternative for evolution that you can prove. With experiments. Just
like the ones that go on daily that show that evolution works. And
show a heck of a lot of other things too.
Kevin Cunningham
> Mitchell Holman <noemailple...@comcast.net> wrote innews:Xns9C00D68E354E9...@216.196.97.130:> >> Mitchell Holman <noemailple...@comcast.net> wrote in
> >>news:Xns9C00BF3602A89...@216.196.97.130:
>
> >>> Clairbear <cl...@Verizon.net> wrote in
>
> news:Xns9C00AF1D21C0Fclairbear@
>
> >>> 198.186.192.136:
>
> >>>>news:XIednRAhxLYBmmPU...@giganews.com:
>
> >>>>> "Clairbear" <cl...@Verizon.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:Xns9C00AD077...@198.186.192.136...
> >>>>>>news:Xns9C009E06F8C77...@216.196.97.130:
>
> >>>>>>> "Eduardo Limpballs" <Gigran...@us.net> wrote in
Wow, a person I don't know in an unknown movie. That really changes
the world.
Were is the proof for ID? Got any? E-mail us when you get some.
Mitchell Holman
198.186.192.136:
> Mitchell Holman <noemai...@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:Xns9C00D68E354E9...@216.196.97.130:
>
>> Clairbear <cl...@Verizon.net> wrote in news:Xns9C00DA89C24FAclairbear@
>> 198.186.192.136:
>>
>>
<crickets>
>>
>>
>>> Species do change over time, that is true.
>>
>>
>> Evolution in action, true enough.
>>
>> Question: Drug-resistent strains of TB are either a
>> product of evolution or your "Creator" designing them.
>> Which is it?
>>
<crickets>
>>
>>
>> Stop Drug-Resistant TB Before It�s Too Late
>> February 26, 2008
>>
>> Decades of tuberculosis control efforts could be reversed
>> by rising drug resistance. Especially lethal strains are
>> spreading with alarming rapidity, and no country is safe.
>> That�s the disturbing message from the World Health
>> Organization, who today released their fourth and largest
>> global survey of drug resistance in tuberculosis, a
>> respiratory disease that kills more than 1.5 million people
>> each year.
>> http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/02/who-stop-drug-r/
>>
>>
>>
<crickets>
>>
>>
>>
>>> But much of
>>> nature shows signs of a master plan call it what you will but there
> are
>>> elements of a design to nature.
>>
>>
>> There is no "master plan" and there is no "master".
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Gee you point out a falw in the system and you liberals go absolutely
> bonkers
>
You raise several issues above and then ignore
every response to them.
Seems you don't know very much about this topic.
> A litte quote from the movie expelled for you
> Big Science in this area of biology has lost its way,� says Stein.
> �Scientists are supposed to be allowed to follow the evidence wherever
> it may lead, no matter what the implications are. Freedom of inquiry
has
> been greatly compromised, and this is not only anti-American, it�s
anti-
> science. Its anti-the whole concept of learning.�
You depend on a failed political speechwriter to
tell you about science?
No wonder you are not posting this to the talk.origins
group. Those guys would eat you alive.......
Baron_Mind
> Gee you point out a falw in the system and you
> liberals go absolutely bonkers
Well, let's just say we're not as "humor-impaired" as you are..
> A litte quote from the movie expelled for you
Your cite of Ben Stein's movie, "Expelled" has been debunked..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed
"The general media response to the film has been largely unfavorable.
It received an 8% meta-score from Rotten Tomatoes. Multiple reviews,
including those of USA Today and Scientific American, have described
the film as propaganda."
(See:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ben-steins-expelled-review-michael-shermer
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed--Ben Stein Launches a
Science-free Attack on Darwin)
"The Chicago Tribune's rating was "1 star (poor)," while
the New York Times described it as "a conspiracy-theory
rant masquerading as investigative inquiry" and "an unprincipled
propaganda piece that insults believers and nonbelievers alike."
(See: http://movies.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/movies/18expe.html
One of the sleaziest documentaries to arrive in a very long
time, �Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed� is a conspiracy-
theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry.)
Intelligent design doesn't even meet the criteria for
a testable hypothesis, as all it requires is belief..
It quite simply is a pseudo-scientific dialogue intended
Dave Heil
> "Clairbear" <cl...@Verizon.net> wrote in message
>> "Gandalf Grey" <vali...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:XIednRAhxLYBmmPU...@giganews.com:
>>
>>> "Clairbear" <cl...@Verizon.net> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns9C00AD077...@198.186.192.136...
>>>>
>>>>> "Eduardo Limpballs" <Gigr...@us.net> wrote in
> far right Christo-fascist attack on science thinly and poorly disguised as a
> scientific theory.
People who believe in God, don't have a particular political view. Some
believers think that the Bible should be taken literally. Others see
some of the Old Testament accounts as metaphorical.
Intelligent design/creationism is not an attack on anyone. Darwin's
theory is still a theory. If it is correct, it has no real impact on my
beliefs that God created Earth and everything on the Earth. Who is to
say just how he chose to do it?
Dave Heil
Gandalf Grey
"Dave Heil Hitler" <k8...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:jUELl.2324$%_2....@newsfe04.iad...
People who believe in God aren't the pushers of the Intelligent Design scam.
The pushers of ID are radical right wing Christofascists
>
> Intelligent design/creationism is not an attack on anyone.
Intelligent Design/creationism are direct attacks on science.
Jeffrey Turner
>
> A litte quote from the movie expelled for you
> �Scientists are supposed to be allowed to follow the evidence wherever
> science. Its anti-the whole concept of learning.�
ID isn't even "little science." It's not science at all. Scientists
predicted and explained "irreducible complexity" long before Behe came
along. Ben Stein isn't a scientist and should stick to game shows. The
irony of Creationists accusing someone else of being "anti-learning" is
rich.
liber...@yahoo.com
> Mitchell Holman <noemailple...@comcast.net> wrote innews:Xns9C009E06F8C77...@216.196.97.130:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Eduardo Limpballs" <Gigran...@us.net> wrote in
> >news:76hLl.17345$8_3....@flpi147.ffdc.sbc.com:
>
> >> My favorite is, "Have you ever even looked at a science textbook?!?!"
> >> aimed at one of the pretty faces reading the news.
> >> It's hard reporting on this story if you don't grasp science.
>
> >> Down in Texas, the State Board of Education adopted new science
> >> curriculum standards last March, continuing their attack on the
> >> teaching of evolution.
>
> >>http://www.statesman.com/search/content/region/legislature/stories/03/2
> >> 8/0328sboe.html
>
> >> Payback is a BITCH when you don't believe in "Evolution".
>
> >> Some of these Texas whackos don't believe the moon reflects the sun.
>
> >> Hmm. I suppose I missed my chance to sell Anti-Flu Crucifixes,
> >> Guaranteed to Ward off the Swine Flu Evil Eye Foul Witchcraft.
>
> >> Are people in Kansas safe from the virus since, in Kansas, evolution
> >> is merely a theory? Which brings up the question, which intelligence
> >> designed this new swine flu virus?
>
> > If there were any justice Creationists would be
> > prohibited from getting any vaccinations or antibiotics
> > that are a direct result from the evolution they claim
> > is a "myth".
>
> Mitch
> Now that is not a nice way to deal with others. Creationism or intelligent
> who cannot except any thing but evolution. An open mind is the best policy
> theories niether is the absolute answer.The spontaneous generation of life
> that strict evolutionists believe in has yet to be duplicated even though
> scientists have been trying to create life for over 50 years with out
>
> - Show quoted text -
Duh???? You want the Ptolemaic system taught as an acceptable
alternative to Copnerican/Newtonian astrophysics?
What a stupid justification you make. You take the medical treatments
coming from Creationism, I'll stick with those coming from incomplete
evolution-based biological theory.
liber...@yahoo.com
> "Gandalf Grey" <valino...@gmail.com> wrote innews:XIednRAhxLYBmmPU...@giganews.com:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Clairbear" <cl...@Verizon.net> wrote in message
> >news:Xns9C00AD077...@198.186.192.136...
> >>news:Xns9C009E06F8C77...@216.196.97.130:
>
> >>> "Eduardo Limpballs" <Gigran...@us.net> wrote in
> >>>news:76hLl.17345$8_3....@flpi147.ffdc.sbc.com:
>
> >>>> My favorite is, "Have you ever even looked at a science
> >>>> textbook?!?!" aimed at one of the pretty faces reading the news.
> >>>> It's hard reporting on this story if you don't grasp science.
>
> >>>> Down in Texas, the State Board of Education adopted new science
> >>>> curriculum standards last March, continuing their attack on the
> >>>> teaching of evolution.
>
> http://www.statesman.com/search/content/region/legislature/stories/0
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>> Payback is a BITCH when you don't believe in "Evolution".
>
> >>>> Some of these Texas whackos don't believe the moon reflects the
> >>>> sun.
>
> >>>> Hmm. I suppose I missed my chance to sell Anti-Flu Crucifixes,
> >>>> Guaranteed to Ward off the Swine Flu Evil Eye Foul Witchcraft.
>
> >>>> Are people in Kansas safe from the virus since, in Kansas,
> >>>> evolution is merely a theory? Which brings up the question, which
> >>>> intelligence designed this new swine flu virus?
>
> >>> If there were any justice Creationists would be
> >>> prohibited from getting any vaccinations or antibiotics
> >>> that are a direct result from the evolution they claim
> >>> is a "myth".
>
> >> Mitch
> >> Now that is not a nice way to deal with others. Creationism or
> >> intelligent design is not a direct assault on evolution,
>
>
> > except in the mind of those
> >> who cannot except any thing but evolution. An open mind is the best
> >> policy in this debate. Intelligent design is a theory
>
>
> used the word scientific
> I noticed you could not refute or even the attempt to the resyt so you
> simply deleted it
> So Here it is to remind you
> generation of life that strict evolutionists believe in has yet to be
> duplicated even though scientists have been trying to create life for
> over 50 years with out anything approaching success.- Hide quoted text -
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Actually ***YOU*** fail to understand the word "theory" when used in a
scientific explantion. It doesn't not mean a guess, a "maybe," a
"might be." It means a model (or process), derived from observable
facts, and offers explanations for those observable facts and makes
predictions that can be show to be either accurate (supporting the
model as a description of nature) or wrong (showing the model does
not correctly describe nature).
Evolution began as a hypothesis (Darwin) and started becoming a theory
based on the discoveries of Mendel. This turned the concept into
something with a mathematical component. DNA and information theory
solidified the concept as a theory and has been yielding predictions
borne out by experients and observation.
Creationism offers nothing except an argument that biology can not be
understood.
Understand?
liber...@yahoo.com
> "Gandalf Grey" <valino...@gmail.com> wrote innews:G9ydnRD18axelGPU...@giganews.com:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Clairbear" <cl...@Verizon.net> wrote in message
> > design is a far right Christo-fascist attack on science thinly and
> > poorly disguised as a scientific theory.
>
> From: Clairbear <cl...@Verizon.net>
> Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.usa
>
> @news.motzarella.org:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Clairbear wrote:
>
> >> "Gandalf Grey" <valino...@gmail.com> wrote in..
>
> >>> "Clairbear" <cl...@Verizon.net> wrote in..
>
> >>>> Mitchell Holman <noemailple...@comcast.net> wrote in..
> > ----
> >>>>> prohibited from getting any vaccinations or antibiotics
> >>>>> that are a direct result from the evolution they claim
> >>>>> is a "myth".
>
> >>>> intelligent design is not a direct assault on evolution,
>
> >>> Yes it is.
>
> >>>> except in the mind of those
> >>>> who cannot except any thing but evolution. An open mind is the best
> >>>> policy in this debate. Intelligent design is a theory
>
> >>> Intelligent design is NOT a scientific theory.
>
> >> None the less it is a theory
>
> > for a testable hypothesis, as all it requires is belief..
>
>
> Pay careful attention little man, as we all know how short the attention
> span of a child like you is
> the·o·ry Show Spelled Pronunciation [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Show IPA
> -noun, plural -ries.
> 1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of
> explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
> well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of
> actual fact.
> 3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to
> one subject: number theory.
> 4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or
> methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
> 5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method
> of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
> 6. contemplation or speculation.
> 7. guess or conjecture.
>
> you
> simply deleted it
> So Here it is to remind you
> Being theories niether is the absolute answer.The spontaneous
> generation of life that strict evolutionists believe in has yet to be
> duplicated even though scientists have been trying to create life for
>
> So tell us in the absence of a Creator how did Life begin?
Chemical reactions.
Certain cell components form today by simple chemical processes that
reoccur naturally.
One reason we haven't created life is our model ---living cells--- are
the result of 3.7 billion
years of evolution. If we find life on Europa, we may realize how life
began here.
What created your hypothesized "creator"?
Clairbear
>> A litte quote from the movie expelled for you
>> Big Science in this area of biology has lost its way,� says Stein.
>> �Scientists are supposed to be allowed to follow the evidence wherever
>> it may lead, no matter what the implications are. Freedom of inquiry
> has
>> been greatly compromised, and this is not only anti-American, it�s
> anti-
>> science. Its anti-the whole concept of learning.�
>
>
>
> You depend on a failed political speechwriter to
> tell you about science?
>
So mitch Why is it you libs always call those with who you disagree as
"failed" this or "failed" that
Just because they do not agree with you does make them a failure
Clairbear
news:gtmsrt$7n0$1...@news.motzarella.org:
> Clairbear <cl...@Verizon.net> wrote in...
>
>> Gee you point out a flaw in the system and you
>> liberals go absolutely bonkers
>
> Well, let's just say we're not as "humor-impaired" as you are..
You would not know it from your lack of humor when it comes to any
disagreement with pinhead ideologs like you. the whole debate is a joke
as you libs not only lack a sense of humot but you also lack any semblence
of tolerance.
>> A litte quote from the movie expelled for you
>
> Your cite of Ben Stein's movie, "Expelled" has been debunked..
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed
>
> "The general media response to the film has been largely unfavorable.
> It received an 8% meta-score from Rotten Tomatoes. Multiple reviews,
> including those of USA Today and Scientific American, have described
> the film as propaganda."
>
> (See:
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ben-steins-expelled-re
> view-michael-shermer
> Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed--Ben Stein Launches a
> Science-free Attack on Darwin)
>
> "The Chicago Tribune's rating was "1 star (poor)," while
> the New York Times described it as "a conspiracy-theory
> rant masquerading as investigative inquiry" and "an unprincipled
> propaganda piece that insults believers and nonbelievers alike."
>
> (See: http://movies.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/movies/18expe.html
> One of the sleaziest documentaries to arrive in a very long
> time, �Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed� is a conspiracy-
> theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry.)
>
> Intelligent design doesn't even meet the criteria for
> a testable hypothesis, as all it requires is belief..
>
> It quite simply is a pseudo-scientific dialogue intended
> to deceive a gullible audience into suspending disbelief
> about the formal study of biological evolution and fails
> to deliver anything remotely resembling "science"..
>
> --See subject header for details..
>
So liberal media does not like the movie Hardly a solid debunk of any thing
Fact is academia tries to suppress even the mention of intelligent design
What are they afraid of? If it is "pseudo-scientific" then they should just
ignor it.
Clairbear
news:tdadnUM5iKBSvmLU...@posted.localnet:
> Clairbear wrote:
>>
>> A litte quote from the movie expelled for you
>> Big Science in this area of biology has lost its way,� says Stein.
>> �Scientists are supposed to be allowed to follow the evidence
>> wherever it may lead, no matter what the implications are. Freedom of
>> inquiry has been greatly compromised, and this is not only
>> anti-American, it�s anti- science. Its anti-the whole concept of
>> learning.�
>
> ID isn't even "little science." It's not science at all. Scientists
> predicted and explained "irreducible complexity" long before Behe came
> along. Ben Stein isn't a scientist and should stick to game shows.
> The irony of Creationists accusing someone else of being
> "anti-learning" is rich.
>
> --Jeff
>
Simple truth is any theories of origin of species are just that, It comes
down to science making the result agree with their theories and not
theories coming out of the results of scientific study.
I am not saying itelligent design is a valid theory but it and well as
darwinism are just theories niether is gospel.
Darwinists say man came from te ape them why do they have different
numbers of chromsomes. And where did the platypus come from, it got fur and
lactates like a mammal, lays eggs like a bird or reptile and whats with
those poison spikes. the theory of evolution only takes us so far.
Evolution is a series mutations that survived to reproduce. Intelligent
design merely suggest the possibilty that evolution was guided in some way,
maybe it was a diety maybe it was ancient scientist from another world
ID is an attempt to reconcile religious belief and scientic theory.
Creation and evolution are necessarily mutually exclusive even Darwin knew
that
Clairbear
news:jUELl.2324$%_2....@newsfe04.iad:
That's the point stated better than my words. Creationism and evolution
are not mutually exclusive except to a closed mind
Bert Hyman
<Gigr...@us.net> wrote:
> Down in Texas, the State Board of Education adopted new science
> curriculum standards last March, continuing their attack on the
> teaching of evolution.
You want politicians in charge of educating your children?
You'll just have to take whatever crap they come up with, won't you?
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com
neoconis_ignoramus
> Dave Heil <k...@frontiernet.net> wrote innews:jUELl.2324$%_2....@newsfe04.iad:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Gandalf Grey wrote:
> >> "Clairbear" <cl...@Verizon.net> wrote in message
> >>news:Xns9C00AF1D2...@198.186.192.136...
> >>>news:XIednRAhxLYBmmPU...@giganews.com:
>
> >>>> "Clairbear" <cl...@Verizon.net> wrote in message
> >>>>news:Xns9C00AD077...@198.186.192.136...
> >>>>>news:Xns9C009E06F8C77...@216.196.97.130:
>
> >>>>>> "Eduardo Limpballs" <Gigran...@us.net> wrote in
>
> - Show quoted text -
Pretty simple really, Evolution should be taught in a science class as
it is a scientific theory, creationism / ID should be taught in an
optional relgious class as it is a religious theory. That way, people
won't confuse the two as being competing theories, which they clearly
are not. Unless you're a deluded kook who thinks they are.
Alberto Gonzalez
news:Xns9C01AB742...@198.186.192.136:
Answering a question with a question. Talk about failure.
Clairbear
news:09704138-9e14-4b0c...@s28g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
> On May 3, 5:12�pm, Clairbear <cl...@Verizon.net> wrote:
>> "Gandalf Grey" <valino...@gmail.com> wrote
>> innews:XIednRAhxLYBmmPUnZ2dnUV
> Z_g6...@giganews.com:
Creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive read Genesis all it
says is "God Created" it says nothing about how it says nothing about
understanding or not understanding biology. Much of the research of
evolution has been made to fit the theory and not the other way round.
Do you know who originated the theory of intelligent deisgn? None othe
than Plato Not the modern church but a 4th century BC greek
philosopherAs Plato tells it, the beautiful orderliness of the universe
is not only the manifestation of Intellect; it is also the model for
rational souls to understand and to emulate. Such understanding and
emulation restores those souls to their original state of excellence, a
state that was lost in their embodiment.
Clairbear
news:2a53719d-5afe-4cd0...@o30g2000vbc.googlegroups.com:
> On May 3, 5:32�pm, Clairbear <cl...@Verizon.net> wrote:
>> "Gandalf Grey" <valino...@gmail.com> wrote
>> innews:G9ydnRD18axelGPUnZ2dnUV
> Z_jy...@giganews.com:
>> the�o�ry � Show Spelled Pronunciation [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] �Sh
So why can't they recreate it in the lab. Truth is a best their theories
are a SWAG( Scientific Wild Ass Guess) They should just admit they can
no more prove it than I can prove to you or any other atheist the
existance of GOD
> One reason we haven't created life is our model ---living cells--- are
> the result of 3.7 billion
> years of evolution. If we find life on Europa, we may realize how life
> began here.
Wonderful theory if they could just prove it without shaping the science
to fit the theory
> What created your hypothesized "creator"?
That is one that I have always wondered about
If as many believe God created the world how did he originate I guess if
I ever see him I shall have to ask
>
>
Clairbear
news:Xns9C01B28BB3D7Bto...@85.214.105.209:
Or rhetoric with rhetoric
Bert Byfield
>> evolution are not mutually exclusive except to a closed mind-
> Pretty simple really, Evolution should be taught in a science
> class as it is a scientific theory, creationism / ID should be
> taught in an optional relgious class as it is a religious theory.
Evolution should be taught in an optional "quaint ideas of the
godless" class.
> That way, people won't confuse the two as being competing
> theories, which they clearly are not. Unless you're a deluded
> kook who thinks they are.
I'll bet you think you are being tolerant, right? It's just that anyone
without your world view is insane, right?
Clairbear
news:59f91379-7e2c-4051...@j18g2000prm.googlegroups.com:
> On May 4, 2:18�pm, Clairbear <cl...@Verizon.net> wrote:
>> Dave Heil <k...@frontiernet.net> wrote
>> innews:jUELl.2324$%_2.2316@newsfe0
>> > �Other
> s
>> > see some of the Old Testament accounts as metaphorical.
>>
>> > Intelligent design/creationism is not an attack on anyone.
>> > �Darwin's theory is still a theory. �If it is correct, it has no
>> > real impact on my beliefs that God created Earth and everything on
>> > the Earth. �Who i
> s
>> > to say just how he chose to do it?
>>
>> > Dave Heil
>>
>> That's the point stated better than my words. Creationism and
>> evolution are not mutually exclusive except to a closed mind- Hide
>> quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Pretty simple really, Evolution should be taught in a science class as
> it is a scientific theory, creationism / ID should be taught in an
> optional relgious class as it is a religious theory. That way, people
> won't confuse the two as being competing theories, which they clearly
> are not. Unless you're a deluded kook who thinks they are.
>
Frankly the Drawinists want to treat them as such. The theories just
represent points of view. Maybe ID could be taught in a philosophy
class as the idea originated in 6th century BC greece in Plato's Timaeus
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-timaeus/
neoconis_ignoramus
No, again it's simple. Evolution is a scientific theory, ID /
Creationism is a religious theory. Nothing to do with tolerance or
lack thereof.
Mitchell Holman
198.186.192.136:
Ben Stein was a speechwriter for Richard Nixon,
the most failed president in US history.
Now back to the question you deleted because
you could not answer it. Is the drug-resistant
strain of TB that is killing millions a product
of evolution or "Intelligent Design"?
Mitchell Holman
198.186.192.136:
"GodDidIt" has been applied to everything not fully
understood, from weather to earthquakes to the Plague
to cosmology. The more we learn, the more the GodDidIt
rationale shrinks.
Now answer the question you deleted. Is the drug-
resistant strain of TB that is killing millions a
Kurt Nicklas
> Clairbear <cl...@Verizon.net> wrote innews:Xns9C00B2221...@198.186.192.136:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Baron_Mind <baron.von.m...@gmail.com> wrote in news:gtl1m2$8sl$2
> > @news.motzarella.org:
>
> >> Clairbear wrote:
>
> >>> "Gandalf Grey" <valino...@gmail.com> wrote in..
>
> >>>> "Clairbear" <cl...@Verizon.net> wrote in..
>
> >>>>> Mitchell Holman <noemailple...@comcast.net> wrote in..
> >> ----
> >>>>>> prohibited from getting any vaccinations or antibiotics
> >>>>>> that are a direct result from the evolution they claim
> >>>>>> is a "myth".
>
> >>>>> intelligent design is not a direct assault on evolution,
>
> >>>> Yes it is.
>
> >>>>> except in the mind of those
> >>>>> who cannot except any thing but evolution. An open mind is the
> >>>>> best policy in this debate. Intelligent design is a theory
>
> >>>> Intelligent design is NOT a scientific theory.
>
> >>> None the less it is a theory
>
> >> for a testable hypothesis, as all it requires is belief..
>
> >> --And no critical thinking..
>
> > Pay careful attention little man, as we all know how short the
> > attention span of a child like you is
> > IPA -noun, plural -ries.
> > 1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of
> > explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
>
There is nothing "coherent" about saying "it simply
happened",Hollowman.
---------------------------------------
Modern Leftist: Someone who disapproved of Bush firing his own
U.S attorneys but approved when Pres. Teleprompter fired the
head of GM.
Kurt Nicklas
> Clairbear <cl...@Verizon.net> wrote in news:Xns9C01B2A797F87clairbear@
> 198.186.192.136:
>
>
>
>
>
> >news:09704138-9e14-4b0c...@s28g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> On May 3, 5:12 pm, Clairbear <cl...@Verizon.net> wrote:
> >>> "Gandalf Grey" <valino...@gmail.com> wrote
> >>> innews:XIednRAhxLYBmmPUnZ2dnUV
Every hear of phlogiston, Hollowman?
-----------------------------
"OK, I'll."
----- Michell Holoman at his most coherent. 3/17/09
Clairbear
> Clairbear <cl...@Verizon.net> wrote in news:Xns9C01AB742BBC2clairbear@
> 198.186.192.136:
>
>> Mitchell Holman <noemai...@comcast.net> wrote in
>> news:Xns9C014D0ABF0D6...@216.196.97.130:
>>
>>>> A litte quote from the movie expelled for you
>>>> Big Science in this area of biology has lost its way,� says Stein.
>>>> �Scientists are supposed to be allowed to follow the evidence
>>>> wherever it may lead, no matter what the implications are. Freedom
>>>> of inquiry
>>> has
>>>> been greatly compromised, and this is not only anti-American, it�s
>>> anti-
>>>> science. Its anti-the whole concept of learning.�
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You depend on a failed political speechwriter to
>>> tell you about science?
>>>
>>
>>
>> So mitch Why is it you libs always call those with who you disagree
>> as "failed" this or "failed" that
>> Just because they do not agree with you does make them a failure
>>
>
>
> Ben Stein was a speechwriter for Richard Nixon,
> the most failed president in US history.
So the opening of China and the ending of VietNam were failures Nixon was
later revered as a senior statesman in later years and every living
president attended his funeral hardly a failure He was brought down by the
hubris that led to Watergate Tou want to talk about failure what about the
peanut farmerone term and beat by a movie actor whos political career had
been written off for dead as a result of his total mishandling of the
hostage afair
> Now back to the question you deleted because
> you could not answer it. Is the drug-resistant
> strain of TB that is killing millions a product
> of evolution or "Intelligent Design"?
>
>
>
>
>
Actually drug resistant bacilli are easy to explain Some strains are
resistant because of innapropriate aplication of drugs ie wrong dosage
failure to complete the therapy and some of the stronger bacilli survive
and adapt. Has less to do will with evolution and more to due with natural
resistance to drugs becoming stronger due to bad application of the drug
therapy. Same way super starains of STP have mutated. If it were evolution
it would have become a different disease
As to intelligent design it was not dreamt up by modern relion it was
originate in 6th centurty Greece by Plato. "As Plato tells it, the
beautiful orderliness of the universe is not only the manifestation of
Intellect; it is also the model for rational souls to understand and to
emulate. Such understanding and emulation restores those souls to their
original state of excellence, a state that was lost in their embodiment."
Clairbear
> Clairbear <cl...@Verizon.net> wrote in news:Xns9C01B2A797F87clairbear@
> 198.186.192.136:
>
>> liber...@yahoo.com wrote in
>> news:09704138-9e14-4b0c-9b38-8e6a489930a4
Ok so now you lost it I think you need to take a break from the interent
You are starting to babble incoherently like old JOE B
> Now answer the question you deleted. Is the drug-
> resistant strain of TB that is killing millions a
> product of evolution or "Intelligent Design"?
>
Adaptation to drugs takes place all the time it is little thing called
mutation. Most like as a result of poorly applied drug therapy
Mitchell Holman
news:Xns9C01BFB34...@198.186.192.136:
Evolution is a fact, ID is religious babble.
>> Now answer the question you deleted. Is the drug-
>> resistant strain of TB that is killing millions a
>> product of evolution or "Intelligent Design"?
>>
> Adaptation to drugs takes place all the time it is little thing called
> mutation.
ev�o�lu�tion
Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from
generation to generation by such processes as mutation, <------
natural selection, and genetic drift.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolution
sid9
"Clairbear" <cl...@Verizon.net> wrote in message
Creationism is a replacement for "Intelligent
Design" when that religious con job failed.
What are they going to call it next?
Moral majority, neither moral nor a majority
Christian conservatives? Code word for anti-civil
rights activists.
Falwell
Robertson
Dobson.....
Their ideas rejected by mainstream America...yet
the sores they left still fester in America.
4976 Dead, 109 since 1/20/09
In order to pretend that he DOES know why it happened, Knickers has to
believe that a universe over 13 billion light years in diameter, with
over 5 x 10^24 stars in five trillion galaxies was all just put there
6,000 years ago so some goat herders would know it was time to take
their herds down off the hills.
Clairbear
news:bbCdnfrZ36oi5mLU...@giganews.com:
>
> "Clairbear" <cl...@Verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns9C01B60CC...@198.186.192.136...
>> neoconis_ignoramus <bella...@verizon.net>
>> wrote in
>> news:59f91379-7e2c-4051-aa3f-8b4b223af155
You reall got to lay off the drugs they are inducing paranoia
There is no con job
You spew hate and the project it on others
You are babbling like our new VP
Dave Fritzinger
> liberalh...@yahoo.com wrote innews:2a53719d-5afe-4cd0...@o30g2000vbc.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> > On May 3, 5:32 pm, Clairbear <cl...@Verizon.net> wrote:
> >> "Gandalf Grey" <valino...@gmail.com> wrote
> >> innews:G9ydnRD18axelGPUnZ2dnUV
Of course, you are wrong. Scientific theories are based on actual
data, and are an explanation of that data. Yes, the theories change,
as the data changes. However, certain theories have so much support
that it is almost impossible to believe that they are wrong. For
example, Newtonian physics. It is wrong. However, it is a very good
approximation of the correct theory (relativity) under the
circumstances we usually see. Evolution is another case of a theory
that has so much supporting data that it is very difficult to imagine
that it is incorrect. However, even if it proves to be correct, like
Newtonian physics, it would still be the explanation under the
normally observed circumstances.
BTW, if you are saying that scientific theories are SWAG, perhaps you
should stop using all the inventions made using those theories. Such
as modern medicine, that computer you use to spew your writings on the
internet, etc.
>
> > One reason we haven't created life is our model ---living cells--- are
> > the result of 3.7 billion
> > years of evolution. If we find life on Europa, we may realize how life
> > began here.
>
> Wonderful theory if they could just prove it without shaping the science
> to fit the theory> What created your hypothesized "creator"?
No one is doing what you accuse. What we do is shape the theories to
better fit the reality.
[snip]
Dave Fritzinger
You are wrong, yet again. Scientific theories are explanations of the
data. In order to be termed a theory (which is as good as it gets in
science), the original hypothesis has to have been tested, and shown
to be correct. Moreover, it must make predictions, that can be tested.
Creationism/ID fails both tests. Creationism is a peculiar version of
Christianity/Islam/Hinduism, while ID is a pseudoscientific disguise
for creationism, to try to give it a mantle of respectability.
Clairbear
Plato actually was the one who first postulated the idea of intelligent
design in the 6th century BC
Evolution as postulated by darwin is a theory
But then you never have been good at anything other than posting some
good pics in ABPM reason is not you strong suit
>>> Now answer the question you deleted. Is the drug-
>>> resistant strain of TB that is killing millions a
>>> product of evolution or "Intelligent Design"?
>>>
>> Adaptation to drugs takes place all the time it is little thing
called
>> mutation.
>
>
> ev�o�lu�tion
> Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from
> generation to generation by such processes as mutation, <------
> natural selection, and genetic drift.
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolution
>
>
You asked about resistant bacteria and the do mutate but as for
Evolution of multicellar species Explain where the Platypus came from
anf if we are decened from apes why can't humans bee crossbred with apes
and why doe humans and apes have different number of chromosomes and how
eaxaclty did one species ever evolve from another.
Maybe there is a God maybe not, maybe He created the world maybe not,
maybe he design all of nature maybe not.
It really does not matter which theory you believe none has been proved
conclusively
>
>
Dave Fritzinger
> Mitchell Holman <noemailple...@comcast.net> wrote innews:Xns9C01B00DD719E...@216.196.97.130:> >> Mitchell Holman <noemailple...@comcast.net> wrote in
You really shouldn't speak about science, as you continue to make a
fool of yourself. Those modifications that allow bacteria to become
resistant to antibiotics are called mutations, which alter the
function of certain proteins. The modified proteins are able to
somehow block the action of the antibiotic, or in some cases (e.g.
penicillin) actually digest the antibiotic. And, your use of the word
evolution is also wrong (But, you probably knew that), in that the
name of the disease doesn't have to change. Nor do the symptoms.
>
> As to intelligent design it was not dreamt up by modern relion it was
> originate in 6th centurty Greece by Plato. "As Plato tells it, the
> beautiful orderliness of the universe is not only the manifestation of
> Intellect; it is also the model for rational souls to understand and to
> emulate. Such understanding and emulation restores those souls to their
> original state of excellence, a state that was lost in their embodiment."http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-timaeus/
OK, perhaps we should talk about "modern" ID, as promulgated by the
Discovery Institute, and classical ID. Both are wrong, in that no
evidence favoring ID has been shown, and ID cannot be a scientific
theory, as it makes no predictions, and is not testable.
sid9
"Clairbear" <cl...@Verizon.net> wrote in message
This issue has been worked over on these pages
over and over again.
The anti-science administration is gone.
The Falwells, etc have lost any credibility they
had.
They have lost most of their followers and have
been instrumental partners in wrecking the
Republican party.
No.
I don't do drugs
It's still a con job to slip religion into the
science class
Yes, I hate ignorance and the propagation of
ignorance.
Biden speaks the truth...unfortunately, it's not
PC.
Bert Byfield
Once again proving the rule that atheists are inherently rude.
> Scientific theories are explanations of
> the data. In order to be termed a theory (which is as good as it
> gets in science),
No, there are LAWS.
> the original hypothesis has to have been tested,
> and shown to be correct.
How do you test and prove that man descended from apes?
> Moreover, it must make predictions, that can be tested.
What does evolution predict that can be tested?
> Creationism/ID fails both tests.
As does evolution.
> Creationism is a
> peculiar version of Christianity/Islam/Hinduism,
An attempt, however mystical, to get to the core of things.
> while ID is a pseudoscientific disguise for creationism,
There you go again, getting rude. ID is a theory. It stands on its
own merits and does not have a particular religion behind it.
> to try to give it a mantle of respectability.
What's respectable about having descended from apes?
Clairbear
news:qPmdnT5Hguq6E2LU...@giganews.com:
I get now your a comedian. A bit delusional but none the less a big
joke.
Dave Fritzinger
> > You are wrong, yet again.
>
> Once again proving the rule that atheists are inherently rude.
evolutionary biologists are very religious. Look up Kenneth Miller and
Francis Collins.
>
> > Scientific theories are explanations of
> > the data. In order to be termed a theory (which is as good as it
> > gets in science),
>
> No, there are LAWS.
You are wrong. A law does not explain the facts, which a theory does.
For example, there are laws of gravitation, which allow one to predict
orbital mechanics, etc. However, we still do not understand *how*
gravity works.
>
> > the original hypothesis has to have been tested,
> > and shown to be correct.
>
> How do you test and prove that man descended from apes?
You don't prove things in science. What you do is provide evidence.
For example, man is very similar in morphology to the great apes
(indeed, under most classification schemes, man is a member of the ape
family). Additionally, genetic studies show that human DNA sequences
are very close to those of the great apes (closest to the
chimpanzees). Indeed, human DNA and chimp DNA are >98% identical, and
many human proteins are nearly identical to the same protein from
chimps. Not only that, but man and chimp chromosomes display almost
complete synteny, the order of the genes on the chromosomes.
Additionally, we share many of the same mutations. One of the most
famous is the set of genes for vitamin C synthesis. Only the African
apes and the guinea pig, among mammals, are unable to synthesize
vitamin C. However, the mutations that knocked out the genes are
different for guinea pigs and for the great apes, including humans.
And, all the great apes have exactly the same mutation. The above is
really strong evidence that humans and the great apes share a recent,
common ancestor.
>
> > Moreover, it must make predictions, that can be tested.
>
> What does evolution predict that can be tested?
It predicted that fossil intermediates would be found between humans
and apes. They were. It predicted that intermediates would be found
between mammals and reptiles. They were found. It predicted that, the
closer two organisms are in morphology, the more related their DNA
sequences would be. That has been found to be true.
Now, what predictions has creationism made that have been shown to be
true...
>
> > Creationism/ID fails both tests.
>
> As does evolution.
As I explained above, you are wrong.
I have made an effort to explain things to you. Why don't you do the
same?
>
> > Creationism is a
> > peculiar version of Christianity/Islam/Hinduism,
>
> An attempt, however mystical, to get to the core of things.
That sentence doesn't even make sense.
>
> > while ID is a pseudoscientific disguise for creationism,
>
> There you go again, getting rude. ID is a theory. It stands on its
> own merits and does not have a particular religion behind it.
As I and others have described, that is wrong. It doesn't stand on any
scientific merits, as it is not science. It makes no testable
predictions, and cannot be falsified.
>
> > to try to give it a mantle of respectability.
>
> What's respectable about having descended from apes?
The truth. And, you have just revealed why you don't "believe" in
evolution. You don't like the idea that you may be related to an ape,
or any other organism. However, the evidence is overwhelming that you
are. If I were you, I would get used to it.
Neolibertarian
"tHe_PC_JeLLy BeAn!!" <". tHe_PC_JeLLy BeAn!!> wrote:
> "Neolibertarian" <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:D_uLl.16010$pr6....@flpi149.ffdc.sbc.com...
>
> >
> > These uneducated young adults with worthless diplomas are, for the most
> > part, still proud they voted for the "black guy," without having the
> > slightest idea of what his policies are, nor, in fact, anything about
> > the duties of the president.
>
> And who said racism was dead and buried in " libertarian "circles?
>
> LOL!
Tee hee.
But seriously, what's most abysmally stupid about your response is the
fact that...well, this's Usenet, for crying out loud.
You don't know my race, whitey.
And what would it matter?--since I'm more than the product of my genes
and upbringing, anyway.
And you, my determinist friend, don't have anything but false excuses to
fall back upon.
You voted for the "black guy" without knowing anything relevant about
him, too.
It was "historic." A "historic" vote, a "historic" candidate, a
"historic" campaign, and must be a "historical" presidency.
And your "participation" in that history began and ended in that voting
booth. A few minutes worth of work, and you're all done.
--
Neolibertarian
"Global Warming: It ain't the heat, it's the stupidity."
Gary DeWaay
cl...@Verizon.net Clairbear says...
> Gary DeWaay <dewaay2...@sio.midco.net> wrote in
> news:MPG.2467d344e...@news.midco.net:
>
> > In article <Xns9C00AF1D2...@198.186.192.136>,
> > cl...@Verizon.net Clairbear says...
> >
> >
> >> None the less it is a theory just like evolution is a theory not I
> >> never used the word scientific
> >> I noticed you could not refute or even the attempt to the resyt so
> >> you
> >> simply deleted it
> >> So Here it is to remind you
> >> Being theories niether is the absolute answer.The spontaneous
> >> generation of life that strict evolutionists believe in has yet to be
> >> duplicated even though scientists have been trying to create life for
> >> over 50 years with out anything approaching success.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > They spent longer than that trying to fly. Does that mean flying was
> > impossible?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> Man ahs always marvelled at the birds in flight. the secret of flight has
> alaways been there, but the power to do it was never there until we had a
> propulsion system da vinci had the right Ideas but no propulsion if only he
> had an internal combustion engine. But man has had flight for a long time
> the chinese had kites and it is debatable as to when light than air baloon
> were first used, Modern scientists have the unprovable theories of the
> origin of life and the technology to do it
Thank you for agreeing with me that just because we don't have the
technology to "create life" at present, it doesn't mean it is
impossible.
>
--
--
I'm beginning to think "Conservative" is a type of birth defect, in
which the person is born without a normal sense of hypocrisy.
- Leftie blog poster
Bert Byfield
Atheists are inherently rude.
>> Once again proving the rule that atheists are inherently rude.
> You don't know that I am an atheist. Indeed, many excellent
> evolutionary biologists are very religious. Look up Kenneth Miller
> and Francis Collins.
Whatever. That doesn't make you a believer.
>>> Scientific theories are explanations of
>>> the data. In order to be termed a theory (which is as good as
>>> it gets in science),
>> No, there are LAWS.
> You are wrong. A law does not explain the facts, which a theory
> does. For example, there are laws of gravitation, which allow one
> to predict orbital mechanics, etc. However, we still do not
> understand *how* gravity works.
Smug and insulting. The description of an atheist. Like a blind man,
furiously denying the existence of sunsets.
>>> the original hypothesis has to have been tested,
>>> and shown to be correct.
>> How do you test and prove that man descended from apes?
> You don't prove things in science.
So you are full of shit, then. I suspected that.
> What you do is provide evidence.
With weasel words?
> For example, man is very similar in morphology to the
> great apes (indeed, under most classification schemes, man is a
> member of the ape family). Additionally, genetic studies show that
> human DNA sequences are very close to those of the great apes
> (closest to the chimpanzees). Indeed, human DNA and chimp DNA are
Blah blah blah. A wordstorm does not constitute evidence. It just
attempts to snow under the opposition.
>>> Moreover, it must make predictions, that can be tested.
>> What does evolution predict that can be tested?
> It predicted that fossil intermediates would be found between
> humans and apes. They were.
You know this stuff is extremely sketchy, and depends on a lot of
FAITH on the part of the evolutionist to see these mysterious links.
> It predicted that intermediates would
> be found between mammals and reptiles. They were found.
They were discovered, like reading tea leaves.
> It
> predicted that, the closer two organisms are in morphology, the
> more related their DNA sequences would be. That has been found to
> be true.
Smoke and mirrors.
> Now, what predictions has creationism made that have been shown to
> be true...
>> > Creationism/ID fails both tests.
>> As does evolution.
> As I explained above, you are wrong.
As I explained above, you are addicted to saying stuff like this just
to be contrary. I guess you hate your parents or something.
> I have made an effort to explain things to you. Why don't you do
> the same?
I don't have a lot of time for talking to fools.
>>> Creationism is a
>>> peculiar version of Christianity/Islam/Hinduism,
>> An attempt, however mystical, to get to the core of things.
> That sentence doesn't even make sense.
Not to you.
>>> while ID is a pseudoscientific disguise for creationism,
>> There you go again, getting rude. ID is a theory. It stands on
>> its own merits and does not have a particular religion behind it.
> As I and others have described, that is wrong.
Your main argument is always "you are wrong." This is not very
scientific.
> It doesn't stand on
> any scientific merits, as it is not science. It makes no testable
> predictions, and cannot be falsified.
>>> to try to give it a mantle of respectability.
>> What's respectable about having descended from apes?
> The truth.
So you like evolution because it is the truth, and because it is the
truth you believe it to be true, and you think this is logical...
> And, you have just revealed why you don't "believe" in
> evolution. You don't like the idea that you may be related to an
> ape, or any other organism.
You have ignored, or just missed, my stating that evolution is the
idea that we have DESCENDED from apes. That wasn't an accident.
> However, the evidence is overwhelming
> that you are. If I were you, I would get used to it.
Smug and rude. It's all you got. Plus an unquestioning FAITH in your
belief system, which is just as faith based as that of any religious
nut.
Gary DeWaay
cl...@Verizon.net Clairbear says...
Apes and humans decended from common ancestors, we didn't decend from
apes.
> and why doe humans and apes have different number of chromosomes and how
> eaxaclty did one species ever evolve from another.
You seem to have access to the internet as you are posting on Usenet...
it has information on it.
Like this:
"Humans did not evolve from modern apes, but humans and modern apes
shared a common ancestor, a species that no longer exists. Because we
share a recent common ancestor with chimpanzees and gorillas, we have
many anatomical, genetic, biochemical, and even behavioral similarities
with these African great apes. We are less similar to the Asian apes
orangutans and gibbons and even less similar to monkeys, because we
share common ancestors with these groups in the more distant past.
"Evolution is a branching or splitting process in which populations
split off from one another and gradually become different. As the two
groups become isolated from each other, they stop sharing genes, and
eventually genetic differences increase until members of the groups can
no longer interbreed. At this point, they have become separate species.
Through time, these two species might give rise to new species, and so
on through millennia."
In other words, the "ape-like" animals that eventually gave rise to
humans split up into several branches, all of which evolved in different
directions. Some of those lines became extinct; others survived. One of
the surviving groups includes you and me (and in theory P.E. teachers,
although one wonders). Other survivors include the various species of
monkeys and apes we find today.
> Maybe there is a God maybe not, maybe He created the world maybe not,
> maybe he design all of nature maybe not.
> It really does not matter which theory you believe none has been proved
> conclusively
Only if you purposely choose to remain ignorant. Evolution is a proven
fact. If any god had a hand in it (or anything at all) is unprovable...
well unless of course a god appears and proves it himself.
I am not holding my breath.
tHe_PC_JeLLy BeAn!!
Here's a Kleenex.
Go wipe yourself off, fruitcake.
Baron_Mind
>
> Baron_Mind was amused by the self-righteous twaddle ofL
>>
>> Clairbear <cl...@Verizon.net> whined on:
>>>
>>> Gee you point out a falw in the system and you liberals
>>> go absolutely bonkers
>>
>> Well, let's just say we're not as "humor-impaired" as you are..
>
> You would not know it
Yes, I would, and falsely claiming something that you
couldn't even know is but another example of your religious
beliefs writing yet another check your 'intelligent design'
can't begin to cancel..
But, let's see what other kinds of 'false witness' you've got..
> from your lack of humor when it comes to any disagreement
> with pinhead ideologs like you.
You meant, "ideologues", I'm certain, which is not what I am..
> the whole debate is a joke
Indeed.. That's the first time you've gotten anything
correct about this entire sham argument you're making
a fool of yourself, in a public forum, with..
> as you libs not only lack a sense of humot
*>LOL!<*
> but you also lack any semblence of tolerance.
Nope, that would again be yourself..
I note that you've again chosen to ignore the following cites..
>>> A litte quote from the movie expelled for you
>>
>> Your cite of Ben Stein's movie, "Expelled" has been debunked..
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed
>>
>> "The general media response to the film has been largely unfavorable.
>> It received an 8% meta-score from Rotten Tomatoes. Multiple reviews,
>> including those of USA Today and Scientific American, have described
>> the film as propaganda."
>>
>> (See: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ben-steins-expelled-review-michael-shermer
>> Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed--Ben Stein Launches a
>> Science-free Attack on Darwin)
>>
>> "The Chicago Tribune's rating was "1 star (poor)," while
>> the New York Times described it as "a conspiracy-theory
>> rant masquerading as investigative inquiry" and "an unprincipled
>> propaganda piece that insults believers and nonbelievers alike."
>>
>> (See: http://movies.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/movies/18expe.html
>> One of the sleaziest documentaries to arrive in a very long
>> time, �Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed� is a conspiracy-
>> theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry.)
>>
>> Intelligent design doesn't even meet the criteria for
>> a testable hypothesis, as all it requires is belief..
>>
>> It quite simply is a pseudo-scientific dialogue intended
>> to deceive a gullible audience into suspending disbelief
>> about the formal study of biological evolution and fails
>> to deliver anything remotely resembling "science"..
>>
>> --See subject header for details..
>
> So liberal media does not like the movie
Well, it's not like it's an actual "scientific theory"..
Personally, I think "propaganda" might be a little too harsh,
as what you're espousing is but pseudo-scientific twaddle,
of no merit to the discussion of evolution and intelligent
design..
> Hardly a solid debunk of any thing
So, you're completely ignoring anything that disputes the
veracity of your fallacy arguments? How surprising..
> Fact is academia tries to suppress even the mention
> of intelligent design
Prove it, using formal logic and critical reasoning..
I dare ya's.. *>chuckling<*
> What are they afraid of?
They aren't.. You're only appealing to belief..
> If it is "pseudo-scientific"
There is no "if" to it..
--And will not be dignified with any debate of that fact..
Matt Silberstein
<nick...@bellsouth.net> in
<d6fefd90-d7f0-474b...@n8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
wrote:
I have. Any idea why the idea was dropped?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
Brian E. Clark
@n8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, nick...@bellsouth.net
says...
Phlogistin was a substance in an early theory of heat
transfer, a theory that scientists themselves discredited.
Your criticism seems to be science is flawed because it
*can* alter its theories in the face of new evidences --
unlike literalist religion. Is absolute, timeless certainty
preferable, even if it comes at the cost of ignoring
reality?
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
Dave Heil
> "Dave Heil Hitler" <k8...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
> news:jUELl.2324$%_2....@newsfe04.iad...
>> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>>> "Clairbear" <cl...@Verizon.net> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns9C00AF1D2...@198.186.192.136...
>>>> "Gandalf Grey" <vali...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>> news:XIednRAhxLYBmmPU...@giganews.com:
>>>>
>>>>> "Clairbear" <cl...@Verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:Xns9C00AD077...@198.186.192.136...
>>>>>> news:Xns9C009E06F8C77...@216.196.97.130:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Eduardo Limpballs" <Gigr...@us.net> wrote in
>>> is a far right Christo-fascist attack on science thinly and poorly
>>> disguised as a scientific theory.
>> People who believe in God, don't have a particular political view.
>
> The pushers of ID are radical right wing Christofascists
I don't recognize that particular group. I think you've made it up.
>> Intelligent design/creationism is not an attack on anyone.
>
> Intelligent Design/creationism are direct attacks on science.
That is simply nonsense.
Dave Heil