Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And if you ever by chance pass by a large building with books in it (call libraries)
Anderson, E.J., 1971, Discriminant function analysis of variations among populations of the brachiopod Gypidula coeymanensis; Geol. Soc. Amer.; Abs. Prog., v.3, no.1, p. 14-15
Arkell, W.J., Kummel, B. & Wright, C.W., 1957, Mesozoic Ammonoidea; p. L80-L465 of Moore, R.C., ed., Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, pt. L (Molluusca 4, Ammonoidea), p. L1-L490
Bird, S.O., 1971, On interpolative open nomenclature; Syst. Zool., v. 20, p. 469.
Brinkmann, 1929, Statistischbiostratigraphische Untersuchungen an mitteljurassischen Ammoniten uber Artbegriff und Stammesenwicklung; Gesell. Wiss, Gottingen, Abh., math.-phys. Kl., n. ser., v. 13, no. 3, p. 1-249
Brouwer, A., 1967, General Paleontology, Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago; 216 p.
Crusafont-Pairo, M. & Regaunt, S., 1970, The nomenclature of intermediate forms; Syst. Zool., v. 199, p. 254-257
Cuffey, R.J., 1967, Bryozoan Tabulipora carbonaria in Wreford Megacyclothem (Lower Permian) of Kansas; Univ. Kan. Paleont. Contrib., Bryoz. art. 1, p. 1-96.
Easton, W.H., 1960, Invertebrate Paleontology; Harper, N.Y.; 701 p.
Erben, H.K., 1966, Uber den Ursprung der Ammonoidea; Biol. Rev., v. 41, p. 641-658
Gimbrede, L. de A., 1962, Evolution of the Cretaceous foraminifer Kyphopyxa christneri (Carsey); Jour. Paleont., v. 36, 1121-1123
Klapper, G. & Zeigler, W., 1967, Evolutionary development of the Icriodus latericrescens group (Conodonta) in the Devonian of Europe and North America; Palaeontographica, ser. A, v. 127, p. 68-83
Miller, A.K., Furnish, W.M, & Schindewolf, O.H., 1957 Paleozoic Ammonodoidea; p. L11-L79 of Moore, R.C., ed., Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, pt. L (Molluusca 4, Ammonoidea), p. L1-L490
Newell, N.D., 1942, Late Paleozoic Pelecypods-Pectinacea; Kan. Geol. Surv., (publ.) v. 10, pt. 2, p. 1-115
Olson, E.C., 1965, The Evolution of Life; Mentor, N.Y., 302 p.
Raup, D.M. & Stanley, S.M., 1971, Principles of Paleontology; Frreeman, San Francisco; 388 p.
Scott, A.J. & Collinson, C., 1959, Intraspecific variability in conodonts - Palmatolepis glabra Ulrich & Bassler; Jour. Paleont., v. 33, p. 550-565
Simpson, G.G., 1953, The Major Features of Evolution; Columbia Univ. Press, N.Y.; 434 p.
Teichert, C., 1964, Nautiloidea-Discordia; p. K320-342 of Moore, R.C., ed., Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, pt. K (Mollusca 3, Nautiloidea), p. K1-K519
Van Morkhoven, F.P.C.M., 1962, Post-Paleozoic Ostracoda; Elsevier, Amsterdam; 204 p.
Williams, A., 1951, Llandoovery brachiopods from Wales with special reference to the Llandovery district; Geol. Soc. Lond., Quart. Jour., v. 107, p. 85-136
Williams, A., 1953, North American and European stropheodontids - their morphology and systematics; Geol. Soc. Amer., Mem. 56, p. 1-67
Quote:
Furthermore, many modern evolutionists agree with the following assessment, because the fossil record does more to disprove evolution than it does prove it:
Most is a weasel word to disguise a lack of substantiation. Who are these many "modern evolutionist" and what are their findings?
I'll let you be with your "opinions", because, quite frankly, this topic is way over your head, as was my rather clear "dig" that zoomed right past, without touching a hair ... ??? The part about you being a Museum, and my response that I have never been a "Museum" ... it's true, I've never been a Museum ... I have been TO Museums, but never been one myself.
This may be a case of attention deficit ... I don't know ... but it is an example (and I'm not making fun or beating you up here) of lack of attention to detail, and subtlety, which doesn't bode well for analyzing complex matters.
I feel so sorry that the world you live in is so small.
The facts are right in front of you...SO LOOK! Open your eyes.
Intelligent Design is the creation of some half-brained southern-Christian loons from the 1980's as a substitute for teaching creationism. There is nothing scientific or impirical about it. Just by a bunch of religion pushers down South...I didn't know what the hell "intelligent design" was until I put the news on about 5 years ago, and some losers from Kanas were pushing it on their kids.
An answer that a divine being is the cause for everything, so Ancient Sumeria. I mean even the Ancient Greeks understood the world was comprised of atoms...and year was 500 BCE.
You've resorted to name calling...which is the trademark of someone whose run out of ideas. You've refuted all the unrefutable evidence put in front of you, rather than in a scientific manner, in a childish manner, saying, "not, uh." You've produced no credible evidence to support your own theory, rather you just refused to accept such simple things as the thumb and genetics.
Subtly, well if that's not the pot calling the kettle black, then I don't know what the hell is. There's not slight of hand magic here with dealing with evolution. It's as simple as pouring water into a glass (something you would be unable to do without that thumb). It is you who ignored facts, it is you who has passed up resaon and an honest debate, it is you who has relegated the beauty of life on this planet to a man pointing his finger and willing it into exisitence. It is you and your know-nothing counterparts who will set this nation back 500 years if you were give an ounce of a chance.
The world and this nation are moving into the 21st century, new things are being learned and discovered everyday. Will you like to join us?
Btw none of this has anything to with the Constitution of this nation, which is what I wanted to debate.
GuyNTexas, whover foisted those quotes on off you (because I very much doubt that you just so happened to come across the same quotes posted ad nauseum at AnswersInGenesis and other misinformation centrals) did so with the intent to deceive. If you believe the drivel you've posted, you've been had.
And then of course you have to go and cite Gould, a man who contributed more to the sum of humanity's knowledge in a year than you will in your life. That's more than dishonest, that's dishonorable.
Gould hated the dishonest practice of quote-mining, of creationists twisting his words to buttress a standpoint he vehemently disagreed with.
Or, in his own words:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Jay Gould, scientist
Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am—for I have become a major target of these practices.
<snip>
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.
And for those who like their quotes in context, here's the entire article.
"Gravity or Physics?" What are you on about? Physics is a branch of science that concerns itself with, among other things, gravity. Your arrogance is misplaced.
No, that's not true .. I just pointed out that "relativity" was not an argument presented by Newton, as was the direct inference you made. Not arrogance, just a fact ... which you could have just acknowledged by saying "sorry, I meant gravity" rather than refusing to be wrong or mistaken, and going through these mental gyrations about how physics and relativity are related.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
Same thing with Darwin. Darwin was wrong about a lot of the particulars. He had no genetics, no modern dating techniques, no DNA - he didn't even know for sure whether acquired characteristics could be inherited.
Darwin is not a prophet and his words are not scripture. His basic idea still holds - speciation though inheritance of selected traits.
Look, you can shuck and duck all you want. Darwin's main theory of extremely slow evolution through natural selection and genetic mutation is just preposterous (as it turns out) proven by the lack of evidence showing such slow genetic transitions within the fossil records that should be available in ample quantities. In fact, the fossil records that we do have show the exact opposite. The standard findings of any particular species seems to appear out of nowhere ... hang around for a Million or more years with only slight variations, only to disappear as mysteriously as they appeared.
All modern science has been able to prove is that we are all made of the same stuff ... while tremendous similarities exist between primates and humans, there are similar connections to a vast array of other things too ... things like bananas and trees and roses and pigs .. and mice. We could not possibly be the evolutionary result of a banana or a rose, yet genetic similarities exist because they exist between all things.
Put another way, DNA is the software program for life ... extremely complex, and not fully understood. The DNA code that creates a Banana shares 30% of the same code used to create a human being, with the other 70% making up the differences. This gap narrows significantly between primates and humans, which one need not decode the DNA to ascertain, as simple observation will do the trick. As the old saying goes, the difference between a horse and a donkey is about the same as an ape and a monkey. At the same time, there is very little difference between a Giant Red Wood tree and a scotch pine tree from purely a genetic code standpoint ... yet standing side by side, the differences are dramatic. So the bottom line in this is that you could have two software programs developed for a computer ... neither of which were related in any way whatsoever ... yet programmed in the same language ... destined to run on the same computer ... utilizing similar design structure .. but sharing no other common lineage other than the code itself, and the rules which govern how that code is executed.
We know that modern humans coexisted and interacted with different species that are said to be the roots of human ancestry. But there is no evidence that they were the product of one evolving from another. Moreover, the inability to cross bread in a natural manner through "interactions" between these "related" species precludes the possibility of exchanged DNA between them, that would have created an offset of the two species, which could explain the similarities and commonalities found within the DNA code. There is no explanation for the origination of the two similar species, at least no evidence showing the gradual transition of them from one to another (evolution), as is the Darwinian model of evolution. Yet the idea that these two species are simply two separate and distinct species as the evidence would suggest is wholly rejected because it doesn't fit the theory. So who here is being dogmatic?
Without evidence of such transformation, the theory is unsupported, and the evolution of not one single species of anything to something else has ever been traced. Only similarities of the DNA code has been observed .. which is also observed between vegetables and mammals, proving nothing other than we share the code of life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
Wrong. Whether two species of primate form two distinct evolutionary branches or whether one predates the other really isn't a big deal at all. Sure, some paleontologists will undoubtedly have long arguments over it, but it's not a counterargument against evolution at all.
You still owe an explanation as to why it's "devastating".
With the absence of evidence to the contrary, the issue is self evident if one is not predisposed to a set outcome ... i.e. evolution at all costs, regardless of the obvious lack of evidence. This is scientific dogma, not true science. True science doesn't attempt to make evidence fit a predetermined theory (which is more and more the new scientific method today, read: anthropogenic global warming fraud), but allows evidence to determine the most plausible theory. Darwinian evolutionists ignore contradiction and claim the theory to be soundly proven, which is the furthest thing from the truth.
That one's alleged ancestors have been found to coexist with it's evolutionary product should demand a re-evaluation of the theory, but as you do here, it is dismissed as unimportant. I'm not sure how to best argue a point that should be clear ... other than say that there is no plausible explanation for the coexistence of these predecessors with their "evolved" modern counterparts without explaining why the predecessors maintained their unique traits ... or ... why did they NOT evolve, and if there is this terminally slow process of evolution, where are the gap holders? Did they just mysteriously disappear? Why does this long line of primates still exist in their fundamental forms today with little to no variation, while the transition species not exist?
Perhaps this line of thought employs more common sense than you are comfortable in dealing with, as you find rationalizing every other conceivable explanation or possibility more attractive. This, I tell you is a demonstration of your attachment to a predetermined answer, as opposed to the truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
Wow, that's actually a pretty fair understanding of a possible speciation event. I'm impressed.
See, this is where you are supposed to come up with a counter-argument, instead of saying "This is just not so" and invent motives for people who formulated the theory. Island genetics is well-known phenomenon and has been observed in nature in any number of instances.
No doubt you'd find this impressive, because it's so wildly speculative and implausible as to defy basic logic. The "Island Theory" must first rely on how a species could be "isolated" from the theoretical factors that precipitated and facilitated the evolutionary transitions ... factors that in and of themselves have not been proven or reasonably defined. Put more simply, it's a theory based on a bunch of unsupported guesses that have no evidentiary foundation at all.
It's a great leap from "Island genetics" to the "Island Theory" which tries to explain the lack of evolution, rather than the adaptation to environment .. both change and resistance to change calling upon the same factors. It's a similar leap to which the pseudo-scientists fraudsters are attempting to make with the "global warming causes both warming and cooling" argument. Whatever fits the theory, bada-bing bada-boom. Heads I win, Tails you lose. Short on logic and critical reason, but whatever it might lack in those areas, it makes up for in shear convenience.
Did that answer your question?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
Are you aware of, say, Tiktaalik? A nice transition between fish and tetrapod. Please don't disappoint me by saying that it just adds two gaps rather than filling one, because that argument is tiresome.
God forbid! Look, a Tikaalik is an example of a creature that shares features of a fish and a tetrapod, and nothing more earth shattering than that. And I'm sorry if you find this "tiresome" but there is is most definitely gaps on both sides, as well as no defined link to any other creature, past or present. Again, there lacks a transition, and does more to disprove Darwin than it does anything else. Where is it's ancestor .. where is it's evolved link species? Ooops ... can't find them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
In scinece, theory as as good as it gets. And there's tons of evidence. Every time new biological knowledge is uncovered, it fits. Sequencing genomes could have shattered ToE, yet it just ended up confirming what we thought. Sure, some minor adjustments took place in the way we arranged species, but the theory holds. Have you stopped to consider why all the major primates have the gene for vitamin C synthesis broken in the exact same way?
No, the real issue is that the theory is tweaked slightly or dramatically as necessary to incorporate the discovery of new evidence to make the evidence fit. This is what science has become ... an effort to prove a predetermined assumption, with contradictory evidence dismissed, ignored, and even purposely manipulated or hidden, while highlighting the evidence that appears to support that theory, however weak.
Furthermore, the advancement in genome sequencing and subsequent discoveries offers no additional support to Darwinian theory. It confirms only the genetic links between all things, which would be a reasonable assumption given that all things are constructed (or organized) by the same mechanism of action. But this is already well established in particle physics, as everything is made up of exactly the same stuff. At the sub-atomic level everything is made up of the same energy particles organized in different configurations and vibrating at different frequencies, or so quantum physics tells us.
In fact, this science is what evolutionists will eventually have to surrender to, just as ancient cultures eventually had to conclude that sacrificing virgins to the Sun God had no effect on the movement of heavenly bodies in space. Darwinism is as crass as that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
Do you have an alternate explanation for endogenous retroviruses?
I thought you'd NEVER ASK. Viruses, be they retroviruses or not tend to mutate in an "uncomplimentary" manner ... i.e. downward, or detrimental mutations which just so happens to be the exact opposite of evolution, more applicable to devolving. This is well known in virology, and there are extremely rare cases of upward virus mutation, as one would expect in a world of evolution.
Even viruses that strengthen themselves (appearing to be evolving) actually shorten their own lifespan frequently by killing the host and or making themselves more vulnerable ... a very self defeating, and therefore not an evolving scenario at all. The very same thing can be witnessed with genetic mutation .. which by and large also reflects a downward turn ... i.e. not evolution ... just change, and most often not for the better.
The premise behind "evolution" in the Darwinian model supposes an advancement in species through genetic transition and natural selection, yet most of the measured changes in genes, viruses, etc show the opposite action.
Thanks from bringing that up ... I might have overlooked this important piece of evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
Wrong. Pure physics.
Because the stupid people behind the Intelligent Design movement published their intentions. And why is it they fight for ID not in universities, but on local school boards? Wouldn't the biological departments be the place where new scientific insights came from?
Evolution proves no such thing. Evolution and deism is perfectly able to coexist.
First, at the university level, there is no room for dissenting viewpoint, and most especially with any topic that is popularly promoted for various reasons, scientific or otherwise. We have a very clear view of the modern mainstream scientific process to study right now .. global warming. There is no room for debate. The science is settled. Man made CO2 drives the climate. End of discussion. Even though the compelling evidence of a Million years of climate history data doesn't agree, the AGW crowd nevertheless declares universal and unanimous agreement .. while simultaneously dismissing contrary opinion (which they claim doesn't exist) and treating such dissenters as Galileo was treated when he dared question the flatness of the earth. The mainstream scientific community today possesses about as much integrity as the United States Congress ... which to simplify the math for you equals ZERO.
We have 160+ years of evolution dogma masquerading as science, with facts be damned. Furthermore, creationism isn't the "New Science". That would be Darwinian Evolution which isn't much older than the automobile.
And what of this Darwinian evolution .. what makes this such a popular theory to promote? I'll tell you flat out. It is the marginalization of the human species which purports us to be nothing but random occurrences of nature ... just glorified monkeys who really hold no special place in the greater scheme of things. It dovetails nicely in all the other highly promoted ideas of human beings being a cancer to mother earth, spewing CO2 and consuming her resources ... damaging the environment .. and displacing other creatures who have equal standing and should be protected from human infestation.
And this anti-human theory has been used many times to justify it's anti-human agendas ... Hitler called upon Darwin's survival of the fittest model in his idea of a master race. Slave holders used it to justify classifying other humans as sub-human species ... Eugenists have long used Darwinian theory for their nefarious purposes, and are often at the center of evolution promotion ... it would seem more difficult to de-humanize divinely created beings than it is to dismiss evolved monkeys.
Yes indeed, there is a method to the madness ... and you should be congratulated for achieving such an advanced degree of understanding just how little there is to differentiate you from a monkey who learned how to talk. What you say is gibberish nonsense, but you can speak well enough to regurgitate the bovine excrement you are fed about who and what you really are by those that would discount value as well as your place in the world.
Maybe we've actually discovered right here the first real piece of evidence supporting evolution? That some of us are more closely related to monkeys that others.
Maybe the next Darwin chart will include the new species .. Homo-Stupendus -Ignoramus
Wait ... no, even this shows the human species devolving.
And another example is the devolving human species which calls themselves Americans. Never in our history have we had such a ridiculously ignorant populous. ... Homo-Americanus-Selfdestructus
Last edited by GuyNTexas; 04-01-2010 at 05:43 PM..
No, that's not true .. I just pointed out that "relativity" was not an argument presented by Newton, as was the direct inference you made. Not arrogance, just a fact ... which you could have just acknowledged by saying "sorry, I meant gravity" rather than refusing to be wrong or mistaken, and going through these mental gyrations about how physics and relativity are related.
Forget it, you can't handle it.
Quote:
Darwin's main theory of extremely slow evolution through natural selection and genetic mutation is just preposterous (as it turns out) proven by the lack of evidence showing such slow genetic transitions within the fossil records that should be available in ample quantities. In fact, the fossil records that we do have show the exact opposite. The standard findings of any particular species seems to appear out of nowhere ... hang around for a Million or more years with only slight variations, only to disappear as mysteriously as they appeared.
You cited Gould, yet you seem unaware of punctuated equilibrium. Surprised I am not.
Quote:
Again, there lacks a transition, and does more to disprove Darwin than it does anything else. Where is it's ancestor .. where is it's evolved link species? Ooops ... can't find them.
This is getting predictable. Each intermediate opens two new gaps, eh?
Quote:
No, the real issue is that the theory is tweaked slightly or dramatically as necessary to incorporate the discovery of new evidence to make the evidence fit.
That is what science does with new information. What do you do with new information? (The Newton/Einstein example was intended to demonstrate this concept, but I don't have the energy to dumb it down further.)
Quote:
Viruses, be they retroviruses or not tend to mutate in an "uncomplimentary" manner ... i.e. downward, or detrimental mutations which just so happens to be the exact opposite of evolution, more applicable to devolving.
It's pretty clear you don't know what an endogenous retrovirus is.
And I think that does it for me. You may proceed to defend your cherry-picked quotes, I think I shall make my exit here. It's a beautiful day.
You cited Gould, yet you seem unaware of punctuated equilibrium. Surprised I am not.
This is getting predictable. Each intermediate opens two new gaps, eh?
That is what science does with new information. What do you do with new information? (The Newton/Einstein example was intended to demonstrate this concept, but I don't have the energy to dumb it down further.)
It's pretty clear you don't know what an endogenous retrovirus is.
And I think that does it for me. You may proceed to defend your cherry-picked quotes, I think I shall make my exit here. It's a beautiful day.
Convenient and selective.
Your Newton/Einstein example was very clear. And I'd also like to point out that Einstein's theory is under pressure now. Particle physics has demonstrated faster than light movements, which are impossible according to Einstein.
What's my point? Darwin, as I said in the beginning, is a Hack, and his evolution theory holds water only in the eyes of those who prove the nonexistence of evolution by such backward thinking.
I feel so sorry that the world you live in is so small.
The facts are right in front of you...SO LOOK! Open your eyes.
Intelligent Design is the creation of some half-brained southern-Christian loons from the 1980's as a substitute for teaching creationism. There is nothing scientific or impirical about it. Just by a bunch of religion pushers down South...I didn't know what the hell "intelligent design" was until I put the news on about 5 years ago, and some losers from Kanas were pushing it on their kids.
An answer that a divine being is the cause for everything, so Ancient Sumeria. I mean even the Ancient Greeks understood the world was comprised of atoms...and year was 500 BCE.
You've resorted to name calling...which is the trademark of someone whose run out of ideas. You've refuted all the unrefutable evidence put in front of you, rather than in a scientific manner, in a childish manner, saying, "not, uh." You've produced no credible evidence to support your own theory, rather you just refused to accept such simple things as the thumb and genetics.
Subtly, well if that's not the pot calling the kettle black, then I don't know what the hell is. There's not slight of hand magic here with dealing with evolution. It's as simple as pouring water into a glass (something you would be unable to do without that thumb). It is you who ignored facts, it is you who has passed up resaon and an honest debate, it is you who has relegated the beauty of life on this planet to a man pointing his finger and willing it into exisitence. It is you and your know-nothing counterparts who will set this nation back 500 years if you were give an ounce of a chance.
The world and this nation are moving into the 21st century, new things are being learned and discovered everyday. Will you like to join us?
Btw none of this has anything to with the Constitution of this nation, which is what I wanted to debate.
Oh yes ... you began the debate by claiming that references to the "Creator" and to "God given rights" didn't mean that the drafters actually meant it ... you wanted everyone to believe that any reference to a Creator didn't imply the obvious .. that the founding fathers didn't believe in creation.
Now you hear this .. you don't know what I believe ... I've only told you what I don't believe, which is the rubbish dreamed up by Darwin, and promoted for the past 150+ years without a shred of evidence found that even Darwin declared would have to be there if his theory be true.
I already told you that my position was NOT some guy floating in the clouds with a white beard that pointed his finger and poof ! But you keep repeating this as if I had.
It's not surprising since you are such a one trick pony, as demonstrated by the repeated focus on a bloody thumb which you somehow feel single handedly ends the debate. Apparently the scores of anthropologists who have been searching for evidence to support Darwin for the last century and a half were as ignorant as you claim I am, for the proof was OBVIOUSLY there all along, and they really didn't need to spend lifetimes digging through centuries of dirt.
As a follow up to clarify the connections and lack thereof here, whether we're talking the US Constitution or Evolution. The analysis of which is predicated upon one's paradigm .. which all too often prevents people from accepting anything that doesn't fit their "paradigm"
To the leftist liberal who has been indoctrinated in the fear and hatred of firearms, the second amendment really doesn't say what it actually says. Forget how clear the language is ... it just doesn't mean what it says.
Very similar to the founding father's reference to a "Creator" ... which upon face value and common sense would clearly settle any questions about whether they believed there was such a thing as a "Creator". Forget common sense .."I believe the founding fathers didn't believe in God", and nothing you say or nothing they said will change my mind.
The moment the human mind embraces any idea as the absolute truth, almost no evidence, no amount of compelling argument can break through the wall.
Another prime example of this is an indisputable fact that almost NO ONE WILL ACCEPT ... the smallpox vaccine. Anytime anyone criticizes vaccines, you can almost count on the response "If it wasn't for smallpox vaccines, that horrible disease would still be killing people". It's the shining star .. the champion of modern medicine. But it's a total lie. Totally, positively, scientifically proven lie. The smallpox vaccine was first developed using puss scraped from a cows utter, and administered to people by creating an open wound and applying the puss. And this was the exact same method used for over 100 years, and the dramatic decline of smallpox over that time period was all the proof necessary to declare smallpox vaccine a miracle.
One problem ... modern science has identified and understands that this puss from the cow was in fact "cowpox" ... an entirely different virus than that of smallpox. And via the mechanisms for which vaccine technology is understood to confer protection, this "cowpox" vaccine COULD NOT HAVE POSSIBLY worked. IMPOSSIBLE. This vaccine never prevented a single case of smallpox, and certainly couldn't have eradicated the disease. But to 95% of the population alive today, from average joes to medical doctors, the old mantra of smallpox vaccine victory is just as much an absolute truth and as alive as it ever was.
Most people, and I suspect several here will jump up and down screaming LIE LIE LIE ... because EVERYBODY KNOWS smallpox vaccine eradicated smallpox.
And this is how myths, void of facts and evidence remain the gospel truth, in spite of the evidence that proves otherwise.
Such is the case with Darwin, and such is the case with Obama. It doesn't matter what Obama does, it only matters what Obama says.
Oh yes ... you began the debate by claiming that references to the "Creator" and to "God given rights" didn't mean that the drafters actually meant it ... you wanted everyone to believe that any reference to a Creator didn't imply the obvious .. that the founding fathers didn't believe in creation.
Now you hear this .. you don't know what I believe ... I've only told you what I don't believe, which is the rubbish dreamed up by Darwin, and promoted for the past 150+ years without a shred of evidence found that even Darwin declared would have to be there if his theory be true.
I already told you that my position was NOT some guy floating in the clouds with a white beard that pointed his finger and poof ! But you keep repeating this as if I had.
It's not surprising since you are such a one trick pony, as demonstrated by the repeated focus on a bloody thumb which you somehow feel single handedly ends the debate. Apparently the scores of anthropologists who have been searching for evidence to support Darwin for the last century and a half were as ignorant as you claim I am, for the proof was OBVIOUSLY there all along, and they really didn't need to spend lifetimes digging through centuries of dirt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
As a follow up to clarify the connections and lack thereof here, whether we're talking the US Constitution or Evolution. The analysis of which is predicated upon one's paradigm .. which all too often prevents people from accepting anything that doesn't fit their "paradigm"
To the leftist liberal who has been indoctrinated in the fear and hatred of firearms, the second amendment really doesn't say what it actually says. Forget how clear the language is ... it just doesn't mean what it says.
Very similar to the founding father's reference to a "Creator" ... which upon face value and common sense would clearly settle any questions about whether they believed there was such a thing as a "Creator". Forget common sense .."I believe the founding fathers didn't believe in God", and nothing you say or nothing they said will change my mind.
The moment the human mind embraces any idea as the absolute truth, almost no evidence, no amount of compelling argument can break through the wall.
Another prime example of this is an indisputable fact that almost NO ONE WILL ACCEPT ... the smallpox vaccine. Anytime anyone criticizes vaccines, you can almost count on the response "If it wasn't for smallpox vaccines, that horrible disease would still be killing people". It's the shining star .. the champion of modern medicine. But it's a total lie. Totally, positively, scientifically proven lie. The smallpox vaccine was first developed using puss scraped from a cows utter, and administered to people by creating an open wound and applying the puss. And this was the exact same method used for over 100 years, and the dramatic decline of smallpox over that time period was all the proof necessary to declare smallpox vaccine a miracle.
One problem ... modern science has identified and understands that this puss from the cow was in fact "cowpox" ... an entirely different virus than that of smallpox. And via the mechanisms for which vaccine technology is understood to confer protection, this "cowpox" vaccine COULD NOT HAVE POSSIBLY worked. IMPOSSIBLE. This vaccine never prevented a single case of smallpox, and certainly couldn't have eradicated the disease. But to 95% of the population alive today, from average joes to medical doctors, the old mantra of smallpox vaccine victory is just as much an absolute truth and as alive as it ever was.
Most people, and I suspect several here will jump up and down screaming LIE LIE LIE ... because EVERYBODY KNOWS smallpox vaccine eradicated smallpox.
And this is how myths, void of facts and evidence remain the gospel truth, in spite of the evidence that proves otherwise.
Such is the case with Darwin, and such is the case with Obama. It doesn't matter what Obama does, it only matters what Obama says.
I love how you end with what your real problem is...Obama.
Evolution is not a liberal thing, its a human thing. But see you do make it about politics and religion which removes any and all credence to intelligent design. There is not impirical proof for it and you certainly haven't provided any. And what you have provided is totally bogus, picked and chosen to said credible, but you guys are used to doing that down in Texas.
What else would our founders believe in other than Creationism. Darwin wasn't even born when the Revolutionary War was fought. His treatise wouldn't be published until the 1850's, nearly 75 years after the Dec of Independence.
There is NO mention to God in any form in the Constitution. Whatever they believed personally was not going to effect the creation of this nation. They were too enlightented for that. Becasue this nation wasn't about them as individuals it was about the 100,000,000s people who would come after, and they would have liked it to last so long.
Darwin then as today was vilified by people because the seeming idea of evolution so contradicted their religious beliefs that they wouldn't hear it...as we can see that's the same case even 150 years later. Religious ferocity trumping any sense of common logic. It's still alive and kicking.
It doesn't take a scientist to explain evolution, I'm not, none of the other dozen people on this forum calling you out on your stupidity are, but it's such a simple concept that it clearly shoots right over your head.
The information has been presented time and time again to you, by myself and others, what you do with it is up to you, but ignoring makes you look dumber and dumber.
The nice thing about being human is you can learn and grow as an individual. I guess the Texas educational system doesn't care so much about that. They just need to teach the basics...we're a good Christian nation, Intelligent design (creationism) and how to load a gun. Don't think the rest of us know what the Tex brd of Ed jsut did....writing Thomas Jefferson outta history books to make room for more Conservative ideas. IMHO, it's disgusting.
Open you're eyes to the borders out side of Texas. I know Texas is big and all, but the world is so much bigger and frankly better.
end of discussion, and end of the thread, close it down.
"There have been occasional reports and rumors of humanzees throughout history. St. Peter Damian, in his 11th century De bono religiosi status et variorum animantium tropologia, tells of a Count Gulielmus whose pet ape became his wife's lover. One day the ape became "mad with jealousy" on seeing the count lying with his wife and it fatally attacked him. Damian claims he was told about this incident by Pope Alexander II and shown a creature named "Maimo", which was supposed to be the offspring of the countess and the ape."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Quote-mining? Really?
