Let the Bullshit Begin
27 September 2005 by BobJust a follow-up to Ron’s post about the ID crap. You can read about the specifics of the trial here and here. I guess the first witness was a biologist from Brown University, Kenneth Miller:
“There is no controversy within science over the core proposition of evolutionary theory,” he [Miller] added. On the other hand, Miller said, “intelligent design is not a testable theory in any sense and as such it is not accepted by the scientific community.” During his cross-examination of Miller, Robert Muise, another attorney for the law center, repeatedly asked whether he questioned the completeness of Darwin’s theory. “Would you agree that Darwin’s theory is not the absolute truth?” Muise said. “We don’t regard any scientific theory as the absolute truth,” Miller responded.
I really hope the Thomas More Law Center (compliments of Domino’s Pizza) has better arguments than that. Oh, wait, that’s right — they don’t.
27 September 2005, on 3:20 pm
“Would you agree that Darwin’s theory is not the absolute truth?”
Even if the IDiots completely tear down the FACT of evolution, it does not make their belief any more likely.
Also - why do IDiots continue to bring up Charles Fucking Darwin??? Do they not understand science has moved a bit forward in the past 150 years? I guess not, as they hold onto primitive religious beliefs, using politicians and not academia to advance their “science”. When we talk about medicine, we don’t invoke Hippocrates. When we discuss laws of physics we don’t refer to them as “Archimedian”, do we?
IDiots: forever after that Straw Man…
28 September 2005, on 12:56 am
Rockstar is right on. Religious fanatics are accustomed to the idea that a Big Idea, once set down in stone, is inviolate. Any modification destroys it. Science of course, including Darwinian evolution, rejects this silly argument from authority. Darwin was a genius, but he was limited by the knowledge of his day regarding physics and geology. He believed, for example, that the sun was a burning chunk of charcoal and couldn’t be more than a few million years old. Of course he couldn’t have anticipated fusion. But true science changes constantly in reaction to new discoveries. That is its strength. Religion’s greatest weakness is that it can’t react to new findings. To do so would be to admit it was previously wrong, and consequently, is fallible now and in the future. Ignorants IDers would rather cling to stupidity than reexamine their views.
28 September 2005, on 8:22 am
That’s what I love about science - learning something new all the time. ID/Creation “science” has one canard: Goddidit.
28 September 2005, on 8:48 am
Evolution does not impart human characteristics equally to all humans at once. There will always be some who will have evolved more and some less than others.
After considering all the rhetoric and data on evolution and intelligent design, I have come to the conclusion that those of us who have difficulty with evolution(Darwinism) and believe in intelligent design, just haven’t evolved enough.
28 September 2005, on 12:06 pm
Hey, ID is just a change in the gene pool of a population, right?
29 September 2005, on 4:06 am
“Would you agree that Darwin’s theory is not the absolute truth?” If it is absolute truth, then why is it still a theory? The absolute truth is, there is not one shred of evidence for the proof of evolution. Do you ever wonder why no one has found the ‘missing link’? Or fossils of ‘transitional species’? Because they don’t exist! If they did, they would be all over the place!
God uses the simple to confound the wise…
I will be praying for you guys until next time!
Yours in Christ,
tim
29 September 2005, on 4:22 am
The whole scientific argument about the nature and the universe is getting ridicules! Look at the following site, I don’t know if I should get mad or just laugh these dumb-asses off… the ONION
29 September 2005, on 9:53 am
The absolute truth is, there is not one shred of evidence for the proof of evolution. Do you ever wonder why no one has found the ‘missing link’? Or fossils of ‘transitional species’? Because they don’t exist! If they did, they would be all over the place!
I think I completely understand Rockstar’s attitude toward creationists…
29 September 2005, on 10:13 am
Wow Tim, you are fucking ignorant…
…If it is absolute truth, then why is it still a theory…
Again, for all the ID/Creationist idiots out there, in layman’s terms:
Evolution = the change in the gene pool of a population over time. This has been been observed many times over. Therfore, evolution is a fact. The “theory” part comes into play when discussing HOW it happened.
So, by making this statement:
The absolute truth is, there is not one shred of evidence for the proof of evolution
You show you are either uneducated or lying. I’ll hope you’re just ignorant.
Do you ever wonder why no one has found the ‘missing link’? Or fossils of ‘transitional species’?…If they did, they would be all over the place!
No, they wouldn’t. Science predicts this.
Now for my arguments.
1. ID is not science, as it starts with an assumption and can not be falsified. Anything can be explained with “Goddidit”, therefore it explains nothing.
2. I think Jesus was an axe wielding homosexual serial killer. You can’t prove me wrong, so I’m right. (See how silly this sounds when we turn it around on you?)
3. Why don’t you believe the Norse, Greek, or Native American creation stories? When can tell yourself why you dismiss the other tales, you’ll understand why we dismiss yours.
Thanks for playing.
29 September 2005, on 3:40 pm
I, personally, like to think that the universe was sneezed into existence by the Great Green Arkleseizure. It’s as valid a claim as any xian creationism.
29 September 2005, on 6:37 pm
Wow Tim, you are fucking ignorant…
I think I completely understand Rockstar’s attitude toward creationists…
29 September 2005, on 11:15 pm
It wouldn’t piss me off so bad if they weren’t so damn dishonest. Seriously, how can you go about constantly breaking one of your own commandments so? I think I’m going to go troll the xian blogs with my theory that Jesus was an axe wielding homo…
1 October 2005, on 9:05 pm
uh, morne, Onion = satire.
5 October 2005, on 8:56 am
Tim, if your looking for the missiing link, do this experiment. Take off all your cloths and look in the mirror. What you see is the missing link!
5 October 2005, on 9:08 am
At the risk of seeming defensive, I am obliged to acknowledge that many people, some very well educated, prefer creationism or intelligent design as an explanation for the origin of life on earth. According to a poll conducted a few years ago, 23% of Americans reject the idea of human evolution and a third more are uncertain. This pattern is unlikely to change radically in the coming years.
Of course, anything is possible if you believe in miracles. Perhaps God did create all organisms including human beings, in finished form, in one stroke, and maybe it all happened several thousand years ago, instead of 3.5 billion years ago by random mutation and natural selection. But lets be honest with ourselves, if that’s true, He also salted the earth with false evidence in such endless and exquisite detail, and so thoroughly from pole to pole, as to make us conclude that the process took 3.5 billions of years. My recollection is that Scripture tells us He would no do that. The Prime Mover of the Old Testament is variously loving, magisterial denying, thunderously angry and mysterious but never tricky.
5 October 2005, on 9:25 am
Tony:
…many people, some very well educated, prefer creationism or intelligent design as an explanation for the origin of life on earth…
No disrespect meant here, and forgive me if I’m misinterpreting you. Evolution makes no predictions on how life originated. That said, I think a very high number of people of all cultures and education would say a god/gods created life, especially those whose education did not include cosmology and abiogenesis.
It’s a very common tactic of the ID/Creationist when arguing with an educated human being - swaying the conversation from the origin of species to the origin of life.
I just don’t want you to get trapped in your words by one of those assholes; semantics is all they have for evidence.
5 October 2005, on 9:45 am
…I am obliged to acknowledge that many people, some very well educated, prefer creationism or intelligent design as an explanation for the origin of life on earth. According to a poll conducted a few years ago, 23% of Americans reject the idea of human evolution and a third more are uncertain.
I’m not sure if this is a comment on the inadequacies of evolution or the intelligence of the American public.
6 October 2005, on 12:43 am
Bob: It is a comment on the gullibility of Americans. Your quoting me out of context.
6 October 2005, on 9:09 am
Rockstar: Evolution speaks of the origin of the species but implicit is the idea that it is evolution all the way. Remember even the universe evolves.
6 October 2005, on 2:16 pm
Evolution speaks of the origin of the species but implicit is the idea that it is evolution all the way
Ok man, forgive the semantics, but you said human evolution. Again, evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. Absolutely nothing. You’d be discussing abiogenesis or the like with that regard. Like I said, it’s a big Creationist tactic to change the subject. Try “debating” one of those morons some time.
…Remember even the universe evolves…
Totally different subject, and I do assure you friend I need no education in the subject. I know you’re one of the good guys, that’s why it concerned me.
7 October 2005, on 4:03 pm
Rockstar: In view of our recent findings of prions, and the construction of the 1918 bird flu virus, we may need to re-evaluate how we identify something as living. Are prions alive, are viruses alive. If you can chemically seperate all the components of the Mosaic virus and then put them together and paint the resulting mixture on a tobacco leaf, and get infection does this constitute being alive?
What I’m saying is that everything evolves and you can’t start at the beginning of what we consider living organisms. Mutation and natural selection do not have to refer to biological entities. Do they?
7 October 2005, on 4:46 pm
I understand what you’re saying. My point is the theory of evolution makes no predictions relative to the origin of life. It is concerned only with the origin of species. If you would like to discuss what is considered alive or not, fine, but it’s got nothing to do w/ evolutionary theory.
8 October 2005, on 12:10 am
Rockstar: I think we are debating to distinct entities. Apparently, your espousing “The Theory Of Evolution” while I’m thinking of evolution in general. That the theory of evolution is a fact I’m sure of, but I can still speculate that it is a general mechanism in all of nature and the cosmos. Perhaps I shouldn’t be so conservative maybe general evolution is a fact, since it is amply demonstrated in the world at large. Nothing escapes mutation and natural selection!
8 October 2005, on 8:12 am
“If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe.” Carl Sagan
6 December 2005, on 7:06 am
You want to read a ranting, foaming at the mouth Atheist?
..CHECK THIS WEB SITE OUT……..THIS GUY ROCKS!!!
http://thewaronfaith.com/wtf_faith_healing.htm
17 January 2006, on 8:46 pm
aaahhh, ignorance is(was) bliss,
religon and science..both fuel the most boring forums and threads on the web, and both stop people from discovering the truth which they couldnt handle anyway!
stop thinking so hard, you will make your brain itchy.
18 January 2006, on 1:36 am
And what “truth” is that, “bog or god?”
Anyone who suggests people shouldn’t think so much must have a really fascinating take on the world. People shouldn’t read so much, either, right?