Darwinist
- Started
- Last post
- 592 Responses
- flagellum0
heh, you're a sharp one there, pavlov. Here, go learn more about your alleged mammals who went back to live in the sea:
http://www.ideacenter.org/conten…
scroll down a bit.
- DrHuxtable0
This may have been the link I saw earlier, but I am not positive. Anyway, the papers I looked through did not exactly support ID or attempt to prove evolution. They pretty much stated something along the lines of: this does not fit in with what we believed was the case before. Maybe I don't get it, but I am sure that science progresses in this manner. No?
Your apparent knowledge of ID, and the complexities of science you seem to understand must be consuming. You must spend a lot of your free time researching the subject since your field is graphic design? I'll try and look through some of these again if I can find some time. My lab looks at things on a macro level, and not related to ID at all, really.
Again though, I want to ask: If ID is so obvious, why is there such a fight for legislation to force it to be in school curriculum? Other theorie currently accepted did not seem to have this problem.
- flagellum0
DrHuxtable, if you want to learn about why it's such a passionate issue relating to it being taught in schools, read any number of articles here:
The bottom line is because there are people in the scientific community who are uncomfortable with the implications of ID - it has implications to some higher intelligence. And many people embrace Darwinism so passionately and reject ID because they like that fact that Darwinism has Atheistic implications. It's fits better with their world view. They have launched a campaign to convince the world that ID is trying to infuse religion into the science education. Propaganda that dodges the science.
- DrHuxtable0
Hi JazX
Go Bucks
Now back to your regularly scheduled NT time-wasting-mudslinging.
- DrHuxtable0
Do you think humans are so important that "Something" decided to create an entire universe (most of which we can't even abuse) just for little-old-us?
- mrdobolina0
So you work in "apologetics" (a word I never even knew existed until a few minutes ago), your name is/was discipler, you are a born-again christian, you believe in an intelligent designer wholeheartedly, no question about it and we are to believe that you have no religious bend to your arguments?
- ********0
Hi JazX
Go Bucks
Now back to your regularly scheduled NT time-wasting-mudslin ging.
DrHuxtable
(Jan 6 06, 09:30)hahaha, yep, loves them Bucks.
*flicks a mud bomb at Theo and Dr. Hux
- mrdobolina0
dude, rudy hux is coming for you, watch yer back.
she has a razor blade under her tongue.
- ********0
Rudy is the hot now isn't she. A perfect example of the evolution of a young kiddie into a pretty black beauty.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhh
- DrHuxtable0
Shit. All my sweaters are razorproof.
Jaz ... what do you think you can design in a three-banger with older hot Rudy and Rayven?
- ********0
Jaz ... what do you think you can design in a three-banger with older hot Rudy and Rayven?
DrHuxtable
(Jan 6 06, 09:54)*gets down on hands and knees and prays to whatever entity or force created the Universe
- mrdobolina0
Dudes, I am going to be a little late to the Atheist Materialism bake sale this weekend. But dont worry my gay husband still made Rice Krispy Squares.
- ********0
does he go to Leather Bars, mrdobolina? cause you know if he does, you might hate me and stuff
- mrdobolina0
he prefers pleather bars.
- ********0
Some Quality Debunking, and fun read here:
- flagellum0
Why P.Z. Meyers of Pharyngula has no credibility in this debate:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/200…
http://www.uncommondescent.com/i…
http://www.evolutionnews.org/200…
http://www.evolutionnews.org/200…
- ********0
A Quote:
"Dawkins' critique of religion rests on three points. First, because different faiths make very different claims about the world, they cannot all be true; and none of the claims (such as the bodily assumption of Mary into heaven) can be scientifically verified. Second, the choice among faiths is not based on rational consideration: the vast majority of people simply practice the religion of their parents. This is especially galling to Dawkins, who sees the easy indoctrination of children as a product of natural selection favouring the rapid spread of information between generations. Finally, Dawkins considers religions to be vehicles of evil because they facilitate the labelling of people as either 'us' or 'them', fostering xenophobia and its attendant horrors — Northern Ireland and the Middle East come to mind.
These views are summarized in a wonderfully passionate essay, "Time To Stand Up", written shortly after 11 September, 2001. One excerpt: "To label people as death-deserving enemies because of disagreements about real-world politics is bad enough. To do the same for disagreements about a delusional world inhabited by archangels, demons, and imaginary friends is ludicrously tragic."
- flagellum0
on limb development:
- ********0
pleather bars? figures. they say that's what Atheists wear to sleep!
:O
- flagellum0
Telling email correspondence between Phil Johnson and Richard Dawkins, initiated by Dawkins: