Comments on: Pennsylvania Joins the League of Idiots

By: Coca Bogdan - IQ Improve

Coca Bogdan - IQ Improve — Sat, 27 Nov 2004 22:51:29 +0000

Hehehe, what's ever, I am gona be out! I am gona going to sleep!

By: Mark J

Mark J — Wed, 24 Nov 2004 07:25:49 +0000

For someone who doesn't care, you sure do have some strong feelings on the matter.

Kidding... kidding...

By: Dean's World

Dean's World — Wed, 24 Nov 2004 06:42:03 +0000

Final Post on ID, Evolution, Etc.
I'm pretty much done with the evolution discussion, but those of you craving more may want to go read Steven Taylor's piece.

I wouldn't have linked i...

By: James

James — Sat, 20 Nov 2004 05:26:23 +0000

You know, I read all of these postings and I have to say. I don't care what any of you think, and if you think what you think matters you are all wrong. Granted i have an opinion on this matter, but why would I waste my time trying to convince someone who doesn't want to be convinced. Ya'll just get off on one upping each other and have yet to change anyone's mind. Creationism nor macro-evolution can be proven. Noone was there to observe them so they can neither one be science. If you want to to have"faith" in either on of them, fine, do that. In the end we'll see who's right. Evolution-hey your were right and now your dead and you can't appreciate being right. Or you were wrong and your whole life was a waste becasue you didn't find Jesus. Great. Creation-hey you were right.Wow it's a good thing you accepted Jesus now you can go to Heaven. Or, you are wrong, but hey you lived your life like there was light at the end of the tunnel and died happy. I guess it's a win-win for you. So go ahead and argue. You people need a life. Seriously. NO ONE CARES.

By: brunilda

brunilda — Wed, 17 Nov 2004 04:05:29 +0000

Good posting SOL, I am following this with much interest. I don't want to make science impervious to criticism. That is ridiculous - and bad science. ID is just not a scientific alternative. This is not about evolution being "right". As I said before, I hope it's not so we can move beyond. But faith-based ID has no place in a science class, because its beliefs are not derived through a scientific methodology (which has been explicitly coded to decide what counts as science and what doesn't). How does ID help you understand mutation and the fact that organisms evolve to meet environmental challenges, once you find them on Earth (regardless of how they came to be there in the first place)? Not to mention the applications derived from our understanding that organisms change and that they are today different from what they were before (when either God created them or they appear): can ID helps us in that realm. I think ID is an epistemological black box. I don't see what conclusions, predictions or further research can entertaining ID help you with. That's why I oppose its being taught in a science class, but I am perfectly fine with its being taught in a religion class. Cheers, great comments from y'all

By: LJD

LJD — Mon, 15 Nov 2004 12:34:17 +0000

Once again putting words in my mouth..
I said YOUR blather on the subject is old, NOT the subject is old. Staying on subject with your blogs is not a violation of your First Amendment. it is simple common courtesy.

Kissing you ass is an impossibilty, considering it is plastered to your chair, and your head is firmly stuck up in it.

By: SOL

SOL — Mon, 15 Nov 2004 08:13:32 +0000

"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."
--Theodosius Dobzhansky

"A true scientist would say that nothing in biology makes sense except in
the light of evidence."
--Jonathan Wells, "Icons of Evolution"

It would be interesting to take local, state and national polls of high-school and college/university students studying evolution, asking two questions:

In this class: a) is evolution taught as fact or theory? b) do you have the academic freedom to critique evolution?

Regarding University of Massachussetts professor Lynn Margulis, Michael Behe writes in "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution" (1996): "At one of her many public talks she asks the molecular biologists in the audience to name a single, unambiguous example of the formation of a new species by the accumulation of mutations. Her challenge goes unmet." (Behe, p. 26).

In the years since Margulis first asked the question, can biologists _now_ name a single, unambiguous example of the formation of a new species by the acculumulation of mutations?

For a research project, students should be asked:

In the scientific literature, can you find one example of an evolutionary process or mechanism which can be seen to create new functional information at the genetic level? Can you find one reference for any study that has shown that duplicated genes acquired different functions during an experiment or series of experiments?

For further information:

"Teaching Evolution--Is There a Better Way?" by Ian Taylor http://www.creationmoments.com/resources/printable_article.asp?art_id=26

"Teaching Origins in Public Schools" by David N. Menton http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/teach.htm

Darwinism: Science or Naturalistic Philosophy?
Phillip Johnson -- William Provine
Debate at Stanford University (April 30, 1994)
http://www.arn.org/docs/guides/stan_gd1.htm

"Cool Things About Being an Evolutionist" http://www.nwcreation.net/topten.html

If science is a search for truth, no scientific theory should be allowed to freeze into dogma, immune from critical examination and evaluation.

By: brunilda

brunilda — Sun, 14 Nov 2004 22:37:56 +0000

Ha ha, OK, point taken. First amendment ;-))

By: Anjin-San

Anjin-San — Sun, 14 Nov 2004 22:09:45 +0000

Wow the thread police are out in force... maybe the teacher will give you guys a gold star :)

By: brunilda

brunilda — Sun, 14 Nov 2004 22:01:08 +0000

Yeah, let's stick to the subject. Let's not bring up the war in Iraq too or this is going to be an infinite discussion.
Maybe some proponents of ID would like to comment on how/whether the following specious reasoning applies to their case: http://www.adamsmith.org/logicalfallacies/000622.php
Looking forward to hear more debate ON THE ISSUES (and not on goats ;-))
PS: BTW, why is the US the only country who is putting this issue up for debate? What do people in other countries believe?

By: Anjin-San

Anjin-San — Sun, 14 Nov 2004 18:48:57 +0000

I doubt if the families of the American servicemen in Iraq feel the subject is old.

BTW LJD, kindly kiss my ass. If you don't like my posts, ignore them.

By: LJD

LJD — Sun, 14 Nov 2004 13:59:20 +0000

Try to stick to the subject. Your blather on Iraq is beyond OLD.

By: Anjin-San

Anjin-San — Sun, 14 Nov 2004 08:42:04 +0000

It is dissapointing to me that so many of the people of faith in this country who are so worked up about this subject seem to be so silent while thousands of devout people of faith in Iraq are slaughtered in a war WE started.

By: brunilda

brunilda — Sat, 13 Nov 2004 20:04:19 +0000

What does that mean?? Are you suggesting I have something against religious belief itself?? Well, I am a Catholic, and so is my wife, albeit we are Catholics that are very disappointed at the Catholic Church.
Or what exactly are you suggesting? Where is my goat tied? Please make your points.
And stop misspelling my name. I was very patient with that, but I enjoin you now to begin reading carefully.
You have forgone all argument in favor of ad hominem attacks. It is a shame.

By: libs4lunch

libs4lunch — Sat, 13 Nov 2004 19:49:31 +0000

Looks like I know where Brunhilda's goat is tied. Now I got it.