Michelle Malkin » Tom Hanks questions Prop. 8 supporters’ patriotism

Tom Hanks questions Prop. 8 supporters’ patriotism

By Michelle Malkin • January 16, 2009 12:02 PM

We were considered fascists for questioning theirs, but it’s patriotic for them to question ours.

Per Hot Air headlines, Hollywood lib Tom Hanks tars Prop. 8 supporters as “un-American.” As opposed to all of those patriots gathering black lists and compiling maps of people who exercised their right to vote and dared to express political opinions in opposition to Tinseltown orthodoxy…

Tom Hanks, Executive Producer for HBO’s controversial polygamist series “Big Love,” made his feelings toward the Mormon Church’s involvement in California’s Prop 8 (which prohibits gay marriage) very clear at the show’s premiere party on Wednesday night.

“The truth is this takes place in Utah, the truth is these people are some bizarre offshoot of the Mormon Church, and the truth is a lot of Mormons gave a lot of money to the church to make Prop-8 happen,” he told Tarts. “There are a lot of people who feel that is un-American and I am one of them. I do not like to see any discrimination codified on any piece of paper, any of the 50 states in America, but here’s what happens now. A little bit of light can be shed and people can see who’s responsible and that can motivate the next go around of our self correcting constitution and hopefully we can move forward instead of backwards. So lets have faith in not only the American, but Californian constitutional process.”

(link)

Posted in: Proposition 8

Printer Friendly

comments (520)

trackbacks (11)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL

Comments

« Older Comments

Newer Comments »

#594180

On January 17th, 2009 at 4:23 pm, Kevin K. said:

“Science always has seemed to me to be more of a how than a why.”

Maybe I should have said “what” instead of “how”, but I was thinking of discovered laws, such as gravity or thermodynamics, rather than a straight description of events.

The latter part [of what I quoted above] is RELIGION, not SCIENCE. It is empirically untestable given the less than concrete definition of this “intelligence.”

Yes, that’s true. But I think that pure evolution to include a why factor (which usually seems to be “because”) is trying to make a religion out of science. (Not unlike some of the Al Gore style of the “global warming” debate.)

The Baha’i Faith teaches that science and religion are complementary. I think that I have encountered similar thought in some Jewish and Christian writings, although certainly not all, but they could be minority views. (No, I don’t think that I can find those examples again, sorry.) Our understanding may not see the relationship, but no one here is willing to state that all scientific knowledge has been found – I hope!
#594181

On January 17th, 2009 at 4:25 pm, zeroangel said:

In advance, sorry for the very long post. I do hope some of you will read it all.

Kevin:

Yes, thank you. I apologize for neglecting to mention that you (in addition to Chap) understand me as evidenced by #376.

I would like to take this opportunity to stress that we are all Americans. There is religious freedom here, in addition to the freedom to be a non-believer. That is part of what makes our country great.

I think it would be a basic truism to state that everyone of us here (well most) are on the same side of the fence in regards to religious freedom and secularism. It is often said that American culture is only 200 years old. This is not true; it is several thousand years old. It draws on our history of British culture, western culture, Greco-Roman values, Judeo-Christian values, and even perhaps all the way back to ancient philosophies born in ancient Egypt.

Our (very obvious) enemies in today’s world are the forces of unreason and fundamentalism; particularly Muslim fundamentalism, an offshoot of the same “god” of which we are speaking, Yahweh.

As an atheist, I find it somewhat strange how some very devout people cannot make the correlation between the tyrant of the Old Testament and the somewhat kind and loving “god” of the New?

Does it not occur to these people that if the Bible were literally true that would mean that “god” is not infallible? That he somehow learned from his mistakes and had to rectify them? That at some point in the distant past he felt it OK that a woman should marry her rapist (Deuteronomy 22:28); that at one point he found it nessecery to kill all people on Earth (the flood); that he saw nothing immoral about killing the first born child of every Egyptian (doubtless many of whom were innocent children); that at some point he thought it nessecery to redeem past ills and send Jesus to save us all many years after he set out upon his great experiemnt?

It is these things that make me cringe at the notion that the Jews; Muslims; or even Christians have it right. This God sounds terrible in my mind, and the things I have mentioend are just a handful of which I could never wrap my head around in Sunday school.

If this sentiment offends anyone, well what can I say? I am merely being honest. It is a bit of irony to demand that atheists (like me) that hold these views keep them to themselves and “respect” this version of “god” which I find deproable. One might say it is equally deplorable for me make something of the same disrespect, but then where is the cutoff? I proudly fought Muslim extremeists in Iraq. Those people that (no doubt) held views to be even more extreme and disgusting. Some conservatives here might applaud me for fighting against people that would kill for their disgusting beliefs in Allah. However, some of the same people might chastise me for saying, “actually I find your ‘god’ nearly as bad as thiers.” Thankfully, we won’t kill one another over this. Again, one of the great things about America.

Conservatives need to start getting used to the fact that not all conservatives are Christian. Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, and many others alienate a great many of us that otherwise share many aspects of their worldview.

Finally:

Ah, I think one can. Science always has seemed to me to be more of a how than a why. Religion, in this context, the why.

One CAN say it in Sunday school, or perhaps philosophy class. One cannot say it in science class. It is simply unscientific to suggest a means or a cause that cannot be tested for empirically. How could one test for the exsistence of such intelligence without “circular reasoning?” It can’t be done, this is why “Intelligent Design” is religion, not science.
#594182

On January 17th, 2009 at 4:28 pm, zeroangel said:

Yes, that’s true. But I think that pure evolution to include a why factor (which usually seems to be “because”) is trying to make a religion out of science. (Not unlike some of the Al Gore style of the “global warming” debate.)

I would say this is a common misunderstanding of evolution. It is no more religious than stating, “The Earth is not the center of the universe.” All it does it blow literal “creation myths” out of the water. It does, however, leave room for metaphorical interpretations.
#594211

On January 17th, 2009 at 5:00 pm, right4life said:

On January 16th, 2009 at 11:30 pm, chapoutier said:

Another quotable quote from right4life. What the hell do you think they mean by evolution?

they throw the word ‘evolution’ in almost every article dealing with this….as its an afterthought…a bow to the hairygod of evolution. even when their evidence calls evolution into question….as anyone can plainly see. you cannot explain what I posted in an evolutionary framework.

With common ancestry we should have many common characteristics…which we do. It does not mean we are 100% genetically identical or else we would be the same freaking species you half-wit. Take your 4th grade intellect and your creationist pamphlet understanding and go…well anywhere else.

in other words you don’t know, you stupid piece of trash.
#594223

On January 17th, 2009 at 5:06 pm, right4life said:

evolution is nothing more than an atheist fairy tale. they cannot duplicate it in the lab, they cannot describe the mutations necessary to explain how anything like an eye evolved, and they cannot see it in the fossil record.

in other words, all the evolutionist has is FAITH that it happened…

and if any disagree, they are sued, silenced and harassed, by the brown-shirted fascist darwiniacs…as Sternberg found out.

and as Coyne admits evolution is USELESS in science…its nothing more than a just-so story…

To some extent these excesses are not Mindell’s fault, for, if truth be told, evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasn’t evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of `like begets like’. Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties. Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on evolution at all.

link

and its useless in medicine too…

It is curious that Charles Darwin, perhaps medicine’s most famous dropout, provided the impetus for a subject that figures so rarely in medical education. Indeed, even the iconic textbook example of evolution-antibiotic resistance-is rarely described as “evolution” in relevant papers published in medical journals [1].

link

the evolutionists have made science into atheism…their religion, thats why they are so intolerant of any other views…they cannot debate, all the can do is belittle those who dare disagree with the IMAMS of evolution…
#594227

On January 17th, 2009 at 5:12 pm, Kevin K. said:

zeroangel (#393)

Good post, and thank you.

As an atheist, I find it somewhat strange how some very devout people cannot make the correlation between the tyrant of the Old Testament and the somewhat kind and loving “god” of the New?

I think that different aspects of God’s infinite nature were being shown to fit the times. In a small example, how a first sergeant has to be really firm when he comes to a new unit and then he can be more relaxed. Some Jewish scholars believe that Old Testament behavior was God’s showing His love towards the Jews–by shaping them into a people who could last through a long diaspora, for example.

This God sounds terrible in my mind, and the things I have mentioned are just a handful of which I could never wrap my head around in Sunday school.

Yes, I see what you mean. I don’t have an answer to that, although I might have an idea of where to look; if I do find something, I’ll share it with you. This will be done in a spirit of “you may like this” rather than “now you have to agree with me”. As you said, “[t]here is religious freedom here, in addition to the freedom to be a non-believer. That is part of what makes our country great.”

(About your #394, we may well be in agreement, but I didn’t write well in what you’re commenting on.)
#594229

On January 17th, 2009 at 5:13 pm, Mookie said:

Don’t feed the troll.
#594231

On January 17th, 2009 at 5:14 pm, right4life said:

here’s the other part of the theory of evolution that the darwiniacs don’t want to talk about…the inherent racism in evolution….since of course the races evolved differently, some have to be more fit, than others..right?

“Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.” Stephen Jay Gould,
‘Ontogeny and Phylogeny’, Belknap-Harvard Press, pp. 27-128

darwin was a racist, and many of his followers have been even to this day with Watson…

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.” (Darwin, Charles R. [English naturalist and founder of the modern theory of evolution], “The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex,” [1871], John Murray: London, Second Edition, 1922, reprint, pp.241-242).

and of course Darwin and evolution gave us the ‘wonders’ of eugenics…which gave Sanger her inspiration for murdering babies of color with planned parenthood…and the nazi gas chambers..

A direct line runs from Darwin, through the founder of the eugenics movement-Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton-to the extermination camps of Nazi Europe.” (Brookes, Martin.,”Ripe old age,” Review of “Of Flies, Mice and Men,” by Francois Jacob, Harvard University Press, 1999. New Scientist, Vol. 161, No. 2171, 30 January 1999, p.41).
#594233

On January 17th, 2009 at 5:15 pm, right4life said:

On January 17th, 2009 at 5:13 pm, Mookie said:
Don’t feed the troll.

thats why I usually ignore tools (oops trolls) like you…
#594238

On January 17th, 2009 at 5:17 pm, b-cat said:

On January 17th, 2009 at 5:14 pm, right4life said:
here’s the other part of the theory of evolution that the darwiniacs don’t want to talk about…the inherent racism in evolution….since of course the races evolved differently, some have to be more fit, than others..right?

The racial philosophy of Hitler came from Darwinism.
#594240

On January 17th, 2009 at 5:21 pm, chapoutier said:

You truly are retarded. Coyne isn’t saying evolution isn’t fact. He is saying that evolution has no commercial benefits, that we can’t really use our knowledge of evolution in a practical commercial way.

The appendix is pretty useless to us too. But that does not mean it does not exist. Actually, the appendix is an example of evolution. An organ that was useful to our ancestors to process their particular diets, but now has become obsolete. However, ironically enough we still have them because it is actually larger appedices that tend to stay healthy.
#594241

On January 17th, 2009 at 5:21 pm, right4life said:

The racial philosophy of Hitler came from Darwinism.

very true! and it continues to this day with Watson…the co-discoverer of DNA

Fury at DNA pioneer’s theory: Africans are less intelligent than Westerners

Celebrated scientist attacked for race comments: “All our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really”

By Cahal Milmo
Wednesday, 17 October 2007

One of the world’s most eminent scientists was embroiled in an extraordinary row last night after he claimed that black people were less intelligent than white people and the idea that “equal powers of reason” were shared across racial groups was a delusion.

link
#594244

On January 17th, 2009 at 5:22 pm, Mookie said:

thats why I usually ignore tools (oops trolls) like you…

Oh boy, now THAT is a knee-slapper! You’re such a precious little thing.
#594245

On January 17th, 2009 at 5:23 pm, zeroangel said:

…enter right4life.

I would hope that my thoughtful and honest post does not get drowned out.

Everything he/she asserts is false. Evolution has been demonstrated in a lab but right4life will no doubt point out the “subjective” notion of what a “species” is. That does not change the following point:

How does one NOT walk a mile one step at a time?

There are countless examples of the evolution of an eye all the way from photo-sensitive tissue to eyespots, to the most complex structures.

The fossil record is just so full of examples (see #278 for a brief cutout) that the question is not “where are the missing links?” but “where does each piece in the puzzle fit?”

Furthermore, right4life has it backwards (as did Ann coulter in ‘Godless’) it is not that the evidence supports evolution, but evolution is supported by evidence.

I could go on, but I won’t.

I challenge you, right4life, to give us your account of what happened. Please state for us exactly what your “theory” is.

At what point in history did “god” create life and what types of life did “he” create? Does he regularly “create” new life? If so, by what mechanism? I tire of your throwing stones at a theory you do not understand. Do tell us, what is your “scientific” theory? Please spell it out for us. I have little doubt you will not on the grounds that you will not allow your “theory” to be subject to similar scrutiny.

Kevin:

I appreciate your post and I am content to let it stand where it is. Thank you for engaging me. I do want to say one last thing, and this is for not only you, but everyone here:

Wouldn’t it be fair to say that a “god” that used evolution as the mechanism is far, far more complex, “intelligent”, an incredible “pre-planner” than the ‘god’ of brinze-age myths?

Take care!
#594247

On January 17th, 2009 at 5:23 pm, Mookie said:

Hey Chap, I think you might be onto something. This guy protests just a little too much.
#594248

On January 17th, 2009 at 5:24 pm, right4life said:

On January 17th, 2009 at 5:21 pm, chapoutier said:
You truly are retarded.

but I manage to make you look stupid with ease…so what does that say about you??? hmmmmmm???

too funny that you would bring up the appendix…its a great example of ‘evolutionary thinking’ from theobold….

It seems that this latest study is just adding to our knowledge of the functions of the appendix. And what is the response from the Darwinists? In the words of Brandeis University biochemistry professor Douglas Theobald, “It makes evolutionary sense.” Oh really?

Dr. Theobald happens to have authored the notorious TalkOrigins’ “29+ Evidences for Macroevolution” where he claims that the appendix is a “vestige of our herbivorous ancestry” whose lack of a robust function provides evidence for macroevolution (he admits that the appendix may have “a function of some sort” but contends this is a vestige of its once-important function). But now that we’ve found robust function for the appendix, Dr. Theobald claims, “It makes evolutionary sense.”

link<

to you darwiniacs, no matter what the data says, evolution is the answer …laughable.
#594255

On January 17th, 2009 at 5:27 pm, right4life said:

I would hope that my thoughtful and honest post does not get drowned out.

you mean delusional. as others have come to realize, talking to you is a waste of time.

Furthermore, right4life has it backwards (as did Ann coulter in ‘Godless’) it is not that the evidence supports evolution, but evolution is supported by evidence.

laughable. give us your evidence then. show us all the transitions in the fossil record….oops you can’t…show us how you evolve a bacteria into a multicellular animal in the lab….ooops you can’t….give us the exact mutations in order that gave us an eye….ooops you cannot.’

all you have is FAITH that given enough time, a bottom-up design process will work somehow…that unrelated parts can just all of a sudden start working together to form extremely complex functions…but you do not operate in an evolutionary mode…you do your work, and your life from an INTELLIGENT DESIGN perspective…because you know that without effort, and INTELLIGENCE…things would tend to disorder…

try devolution, which is consistent with the second law…instead of evolution…
#594262

On January 17th, 2009 at 5:36 pm, right4life said:

There are countless examples of the evolution of an eye all the way from photo-sensitive tissue to eyespots, to the most complex structures.

really?? then give me the sequence of mutations…you cannot, nor can you explain why a squid’s eye is like a human’s other than saying ‘convergent evolution’….which means somehow the same set of mutations happened in two very unrelated lines….just think of the odds of that happening…

The fossil record is just so full of examples (see #278 for a brief cutout) that the question is not “where are the missing links?” but “where does each piece in the puzzle fit?”

just lauhgable..too bad you didn’t tell gould and eldrige before they came up with punctuated equilibrium…and why did they come up with that?? lack of transitions in the fossil record….

and why did this scientist just propose this theory????

Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity. The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin’s original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution. The cases in point include the origin of complex RNA molecules and protein folds; major groups of viruses; archaea and bacteria, and the principal lineages within each of these prokaryotic domains; eukaryotic supergroups; and animal phyla. In each of these pivotal nexuses in life’s history, the principal “types” seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate “grades” or intermediate forms between different types are detectable. Usually, this pattern is attributed to cladogenesis compressed in time, combined with the inevitable erosion of the phylogenetic signal.

link

its PAINFULLY obvious you are nothing more than a parrot, parroting darwinian talking points.

bet you’re a democRAT too!
#594263

On January 17th, 2009 at 5:36 pm, huggybear said:

On January 16th, 2009 at 11:01 pm, BigAnge said:

I thought placing it in the other orifice was the “painful” thing, Mooks. Sorry for setting the record straight, no pun intended.

On January 17th, 2009 at 9:51 am, Mookie said:

Since you keep digging yourself in even deeper, please allow me to give you a shovel. I’m a straight woman, not a gay man, as you seem to think.

Best Comment Ever.

This thread is really something else…
#594268

On January 17th, 2009 at 5:41 pm, chapoutier said:

At what point in history did “god” create life and what types of life did “he” create? Does he regularly “create” new life? If so, by what mechanism? I tire of your throwing stones at a theory you do not understand. Do tell us, what is your “scientific” theory? Please spell it out for us. I have little doubt you will not on the grounds that you will not allow your “theory” to be subject to similar scrutiny.

I am still waiting for a simple explanation of carbon dating from the good Professor Right4lie. Guessing that won’t be forthcoming anytime soon.
#594271

On January 17th, 2009 at 5:42 pm, chapoutier said:

Professor Right4lie.

Ooops. I meant Right4life.

Actually, wait. I’ll think I’ll just let it stand.
#594274

On January 17th, 2009 at 5:45 pm, right4life said:

I’m still waiting for any signs of intelligence from you chap…but you are good for a laugh or two…I do enjoy seeing you run from your comments on the appendix…too funny!

why don’t you go prove your little theory of evolution? throw a few chemicals together, and zap it with lightening…like frankenstein!!!

I am starting to feel sorry for you though…such stupidity has to hurt…

and I’m waiting for you to comment on the RACISM of DARWIN and his theory, and his followers…

oh I know…you’ll say ‘I DON’T KNOW’

it seems to be the story of your life..
#594277

On January 17th, 2009 at 5:46 pm, right4life said:

are you sure you’re a lawyer chap? you sure are slow for a lawyer…I have a niece thats a lawyer…pray to your hairygod you never meet her in court…she’d skin you alive!!!
#594287

On January 17th, 2009 at 5:56 pm, Mookie said:

Apparently Charles Darwin was a proponent of capitalization and punctuation.
#594298

On January 17th, 2009 at 6:08 pm, chapoutier said:

Actually, Mookie, I think right4life herself is actually proof of God. Surely a creature so patently stupid could not have come of natural selection.

It must be the product of a forgiving God. Or one with a wicked sense of humor.
#594299

On January 17th, 2009 at 6:11 pm, right4life said:

darwiniacs and democRATs…you know what they say…birds of a feather HERD together (moo)
#594369

On January 17th, 2009 at 8:34 pm, Omu said:

and I’m waiting for you to comment on the RACISM of DARWIN and his theory, and his followers…

What are you talking about? Darwin did not invent the idea of those deemed the fittest being superior humans. The idea existed in Plato’s Republic, which is more than 2,000 years old. So blaming Darwin for it is absurd.

And, in any case, even if the theory of evolution did cause Hitler to kill millions of Jews, or did inspire racism, that does not make it any less true. The fact you are clinging to this point (after having your ass totally and completely whopped by chapoutier) is further evidence that you really understand very little about anything and that you just hide behind your silly talking points for propaganda, brain washing organisations like Answers In Genesis.
#594382

On January 17th, 2009 at 8:56 pm, chapoutier said:

OMU!!!!

We thought you had been banned!!!
#594406

On January 17th, 2009 at 9:26 pm, Kevin K. said:

zeroangel said: (#405)

Wouldn’t it be fair to say that a “god” that used evolution as the mechanism is far, far more complex, “intelligent”, an incredible “pre-planner” than the ‘god’ of brinze-age myths?

Except for the capitalization and quote marks, my belief about this topic precisely! God set up the whole evolutionary mechanism.

And for the believers, what a kindness to us, His creatures, to give us something so complicated and challenging to explore and figure out.

Sorry, zeroangel, I got carried away. Not enough coffee or something.

Thanks to you and chapoutier for a good discussion (limited by the medium) on a hard topic. I think I have a little more insight into what I’ll call a “thinking atheist”. (I hope my term doesn’t offend: I don’t mean to. If anyone else has used it before, I’m not aware of it.)
#594414

On January 17th, 2009 at 9:41 pm, right4life said:

So blaming Darwin for it is absurd.

of course not!! we can’t blame your hairygod…he is just, perfect and holy!!

amazing…

And, in any case, even if the theory of evolution did cause Hitler to kill millions of Jews, or did inspire racism, that does not make it any less true

yeah whats a few million dead people, compared to the new darwiniac age of enlightment…they are just collateral damage

(after having your ass totally and completely whopped by chapoutier)

oh so in addition to being a nazi, you’re a delusional wacko! but everyone already knew that…

and none of you darwiniacs could dispute what I said….you supposed ’scientists’ too funny..all you could do is parrot darwiniac talking points. oh well stupid is as stupid does!!

brain washing organisations like Answers In Genesis.

actually I didn’t quote them in this thread…but this is the typical darwiniac response…denigrate, dismiss, and silence those they disagree with…like the good little brown-shirted fascists you darwinaics are!!!

moron.
#594416

On January 17th, 2009 at 9:43 pm, right4life said:

and of course none of you wacko libs who care so much for people of color are concerned about the racism inherent in evolution..

but hey you’re in the image of your god…sick, twisted, racist, and evil.
#594421

On January 17th, 2009 at 9:50 pm, chapoutier said:

the racism inherent in evolution..

Before the orderlies come around with your meds and tuck you in for beddie time, can you explain to me how it is possible to anthropomorphize a natural procees? Saying natural selection or evolution is racist is like saying tornadoes hate Kansans.
#594422

On January 17th, 2009 at 9:53 pm, right4life said:

Saying natural selection or evolution is racist is like saying tornadoes hate Kansans.

can you get any more stupid?? I mean seriously. I’ve already posted the proof. hell, even professional evolutionists know it…when are you gonna get a clue??? about anything?

idiot.
#594424

On January 17th, 2009 at 9:55 pm, right4life said:

and whats even funnier is you think you’ve ‘refuted’ me because YOU say so…no links, no support, just the words of the great chap!!

truly you are a legend in your own mind…
#594426

On January 17th, 2009 at 9:58 pm, right4life said:

here’s a typical darwiniac answer to something like the tuatara:

‘uhhh it evolved, because evolution is true’ duhhhh.
#594430

On January 17th, 2009 at 10:01 pm, Sidana said:

Trop:

You cannot be married if it is Man/man, woman/woman. I don’t care what “law” or group says it is.

You may have some relationship, but it will never been marriage, and the relationship that you have can never go anywhere, hence the idea it is “damned”-stopped up. Unable to flourish and procreate.

It is not marriage. No matter how much you yell, scream and cry at us, it never will be.
#594438

On January 17th, 2009 at 10:23 pm, chapoutier said:

Don’t be mad at me, right4life…remember you convinced me! (See post 416) I am now a creationist! I am looking forward to you inviting me to your Bible Study so I can start meeting all my other new Creationist buddies!

Praise Allah!

Oh wait…wrong one. My bad.

Praise Jesus!
#594440

On January 17th, 2009 at 10:24 pm, right4life said:

with every post you prove that stupid is as stupid does!

you’re a lawyer?? shouldn’t you be chasing amublances now?
#594441

On January 17th, 2009 at 10:30 pm, chapoutier said:

n a study of New Zealand’s “living dinosaur” the tuatara, evolutionary biologist, and ancient DNA expert, Professor David Lambert and his team from the Allan Wilson Centre for Molecular Ecology and Evolution recovered DNA sequences from the bones of ancient tuatara, which are up to 8000 years old. They found that, although tuatara have remained largely physically unchanged over very long periods of evolution, they are evolving – at a DNA level – faster than any other animal yet examined. The research will be published in the March issue of Trends in Genetics.

“What we found is that the tuatara has the highest molecular evolutionary rate that anyone has measured,” Professor Lambert says.

The rate of evolution for Adélie penguins, which Professor Lambert and his team have studied in the Antarctic for many years, is slightly slower than that of the tuatara. The tuatara rate is significantly faster than for animals including the cave bear, lion, ox and horse.

“Of course we would have expected that the tuatara, which does everything slowly – they grow slowly, reproduce slowly and have a very slow metabolism – would have evolved slowly. In fact, at the DNA level, they evolve extremely quickly, which supports a hypothesis proposed by the evolutionary biologist Allan Wilson, who suggested that the rate of molecular evolution was uncoupled from the rate of morphological evolution.”

It is unsurprising a simpleton would have a simple understanding (or rather misunderstanding) of the actual concept of evolution.

Don’t cloud your pretty little head with grown up concepts like actual complex science and biology, right4life.
#594442

On January 17th, 2009 at 10:32 pm, chapoutier said:

you’re a lawyer?? shouldn’t you be chasing amublances now?

Only bad lawyers, like your niece I am sure, have to chase ambulances and go to court. I make much more money sitting in my comfy office writing contracts.
#594443

On January 17th, 2009 at 10:33 pm, right4life said:

It is unsurprising a simpleton would have a simple understanding (or rather misunderstanding) of the actual concept of evolution.

BWAHAHAHAAH oh you have to use MY links….

and then you’re too stupid to understand that with all the MOLECULAR EVOLUTION…it does NOT translate to changes in morphology (look it up) in other words micro does not add up to macro…duhhhhhhh idiot.

They found that, although tuatara have remained largely physically unchanged over very long periods of evolution,

idiots like you probably think changes in hair color is evolution…

laughable. post some more, this is too good!!
#594448

On January 17th, 2009 at 10:35 pm, right4life said:

Only bad lawyers, like your niece I am sure, have to chase ambulances and go to court. I make much more money sitting in my comfy office writing contracts.

I don’t know much about law, but just by talking to you, its rather obvious the kind of lawyer you are!! I bet you drool like pavlov’s dogs when you hear an ambulance siren!!
#594449

On January 17th, 2009 at 10:35 pm, chapoutier said:

and then you’re too stupid to understand that with all the MOLECULAR EVOLUTION…it does NOT translate to changes in morphology (look it up) in other words micro does not add up to macro…duhhhhhhh idiot.

So you do or do not believe in molecular evolution?
#594450

On January 17th, 2009 at 10:36 pm, chapoutier said:

I don’t know much about law, but just by talking to you, its rather obvious the kind of lawyer you are!! I bet you drool like pavlov’s dogs when you hear an ambulance siren!!

Yes. It is clear you do not know much about the law, or lawyers, or much of anything else. I will agree with that,
#594452

On January 17th, 2009 at 10:40 pm, right4life said:

So you do or do not believe in molecular evolution?

all creationists and IDers believe in ‘micro’ evolution..another thing you didn’t know…

its obvious you don’t even understand what you STOLE from me!!

the evolutionary biologist Allan Wilson, who suggested that the rate of molecular evolution was uncoupled from the rate of morphological evolution

this is another way of saying ‘micro does not add up to macro’ in other words if mutations…ie molecular ‘evolution’ do not produce new body types (morphology) and functions..then the synthesis (look it up) is wrong.

and if mutations do not produce new body types…what does?? hmmmm???
#594455

On January 17th, 2009 at 10:42 pm, right4life said:

Yes. It is clear you do not know much about the law, or lawyers, or much of anything else.

but I figured you out in a NY minute…*smirk*
#594456

On January 17th, 2009 at 10:42 pm, chapoutier said:

it does NOT translate to changes in morphology (look it up) in other words micro does not add up to macro…duhhhhhhh idiot.

Exactly dumbass. Which is why the fact that the tuatara may evolve quickly on a molecular (micro) level has little to do with the absence of evolution on the morphological (macro) and thus does absolutely nothing to prove your little creationist fantasy.
#594457

On January 17th, 2009 at 10:44 pm, right4life said:

Exactly dumbass. Which is why the fact that the tuatara may evolve quickly on a molecular (micro) level has little to do with the absence of evolution on the morphological (macro) and thus does absolutely nothing to prove your little creationist fantasy.

amazing stupidity. so how do you get new body types if ‘micro’ doesn’t add up to macro??? hmmmm??? too funny!!!

you have no idea how idiotic your statment is…I’ve met some dumb darwiniacs, but you take the cake!!

you take the devolution booby prize!
#594459

On January 17th, 2009 at 10:45 pm, right4life said:

it does NOT translate to changes in morphology (look it up) in other words micro does not add up to macro…duhhhhhhh idiot.

Exactly dumbass

I know you’ll never believe it…but you just agreed with me…and denied the synthesis!

thanks!
#594460

On January 17th, 2009 at 10:50 pm, chapoutier said:

all creationists and IDers believe in ‘micro’ evolution..another thing you didn’t know…

Why? why should there be micro evolution and not macro evolution?

Let me guess… creationists, faced with the overwhelming empirical and scientifically verifiable evidence of micro evolution were forced to concede that it could exist for fear of looking absolutely unhinged from reality. So they said “sure…evolution exists on a MICRO level…but Baby Jesus would never allow it to occur on a MARCO level.”

this is another way of saying ‘micro does not add up to macro’ in other words if mutations…ie molecular ‘evolution’ do not produce new body types (morphology) and functions..then the synthesis (look it up) is wrong.

No. Let me spell this out for you. It is saying that evolution on a micro (DNA) changes are UNCOULPED (you know the word he used, meaning separated or independent) from macro (morphological) changes. One does not necessarily have anything to do with the other. They are concurrent but separate streams of evolution.

God. Do you even know how to read?
#594461

On January 17th, 2009 at 10:50 pm, right4life said:

where’d ya go chappy?? maybe if you repent in sackcloth and ashes your dark hairygod will forgive you!!
#594463

On January 17th, 2009 at 10:52 pm, chapoutier said:

In fact, at the DNA level, they evolve extremely quickly, which supports a hypothesis proposed by the evolutionary biologist Allan Wilson, who suggested that the rate of molecular evolution was uncoupled from the rate of morphological evolution.”

Read this over and over and over again until you actually understand what is being said.

I’ll make sure to check back in a couple weeks. It should take at least that long, I figure.
#594464

On January 17th, 2009 at 10:54 pm, right4life said:

Why? why should there be micro evolution and not macro evolution?

idiot, the synthesis, says MICRO adds up to MACRO…the tuatara proves it wrong….and if micro does NOT add up to MACRO…then what is the MECHANISM?? hmmmmm?? duhhhhhhhh

you need to evolve some brains, obviously.

moron, genetics was around before evolution tried to incorporate it into evolution via the synthesis in the late 1940s…duhhhh

so what is the mechanism??? hmmmmm??? if its not mutations, then what jacka**

No. Let me spell this out for you. It is saying that evolution on a micro (DNA) changes are UNCOULPED (you know the word he used, meaning separated or independent) from macro (morphological) changes. One does not necessarily have anything to do with the other. They are concurrent but separate streams of evolution.

then again a** what is the MECHANISM??? hmmmmm??

thanks again for the laughs…your stupidity is astounding even for a darwiniac!
#594465

On January 17th, 2009 at 10:55 pm, right4life said:

let me guess, you’re lamarckian!! too funny!
#594466

On January 17th, 2009 at 11:00 pm, chapoutier said:

idiot, the synthesis, says MICRO adds up to MACRO…the tuatara proves it wrong….and if micro does NOT add up to MACRO…then what is the MECHANISM?? hmmmmm?? duhhhhhhhh

You absolutely do not understand what is being said. that is not what the scientists are saying at all.

then again a** what is the MECHANISM??? hmmmmm??

The mechanism is evolution, as they clearly said. Evolution at the micro level is different from evolution at the macro level.

Hey…what about that carbon dating paper I’ve been waiting on? Just asking, since I am sure you can explain how we can positively date things as being 50,000 years old when the earth is actually 6,000.
#594467

On January 17th, 2009 at 11:04 pm, right4life said:

You absolutely do not understand what is being said. that is not what the scientists are saying at all.

I obviously do. do you really know what the definition of evolution is??? obviously not….ever heard of the synthesis, of mayr??? duhhhh

The mechanism is evolution, as they clearly said. Evolution at the micro level is different from evolution at the macro level.

I was right!!! you could get more idiotic!! thanks for the posts!! evolution is not a ‘mechanism’ duhhh……so animals just ‘change’ SHAZAM!!! do you think a lizard lays an egg and out jumps a dog???

Bwahahahahhahahaahhaa

you can’t be for real!!
#594468

On January 17th, 2009 at 11:05 pm, chapoutier said:

so animals just ‘change’ SHAZAM!!! do you think a lizard lays an egg and out jumps a dog???

No. but I am definitely sure a woman does not just jump from a rib.
#594469

On January 17th, 2009 at 11:07 pm, chapoutier said:

Still looking for you to teach me about carbon dating….

I really want to learn from you! Think of me as your Creationist protogee!

I am your “Grasshopper”!
#594471

On January 17th, 2009 at 11:10 pm, right4life said:

No. but I am definitely sure a woman does not just jump from a rib.

I’m definately sure you’re the stupidest darwiniac I’ve ever met. you don’t even understand the theory to which you slavishly follow.

you accept it because its part of your atheistic faith…the alternative is unthinkable to you. whats amusing is people like you think christians are unthinking and blindly following their faith, when it is you who are blind, and easily led, as you have proven.

look up the synthesis, and lamarckianism…and let me know.
#594472

On January 17th, 2009 at 11:14 pm, chapoutier said:

Master,

You did not answer my question. When the unwashed hoardes of atheists come and ask me:

1) How do you explain carbon dating; and

2) How was Eve created from Adam’s rib

what do I say beyond:

1) carbon dating is a trick God plays to test the faithful; and
2) God can do anything?

Please right4life-san…your humble supplicant needs answers.
#594588

On January 18th, 2009 at 10:00 am, right4life said:

hey chappy-girl, still think evolution is the mechanism for evolution??

do you think a car is the mechanism for a car??

how about a house is the mechanism for a house??

I’m waiting for more words of wisdom from you today! I can always use a few laughs!!

I know you have a deep well of stupidity to draw from…this should be good *smirk*
#594606

On January 18th, 2009 at 10:51 am, zeroangel said:

Unbelievable!

This is still going on?

Chap:

I recommend that we not try to explain evolution anymore, it’s pointless.

Instead I suggest we attempt to discover what right4life’s “theory” is.

How about it, right4life? I asked you earlier and I’d like an answer.

Please spell out exactly what your theory is.

Do you think dinosaurs and humans existed on the earth at the same time as the creationist museum suggests? Do you think “god” created a host of plants, animals and humans, in some form many years ago and they have since “evolved” on a “micro” level?

What exactly is your hypothesis?
#594608

On January 18th, 2009 at 11:00 am, right4life said:

hey less-than-zero…what do YOU think the mechanism of evolution is?? do yo even know??

and why don’t YOU explain the tuatara?? hmmmmm???

tell me how you think new features just come about…do you think evolution is like THE FORCE???

you darwiniacs are laughable…and that are not embaressed by your idiot girl-friend chap is laughable!!!

darwinaic drones…
#594610

On January 18th, 2009 at 11:02 am, right4life said:

whats even funnier is that I, a creationist, understand your theory of evolution better than you darwiniacs!!

too funny!!

I guess to be a darwiniac all you have to do is bend over 5 times a day for darwin!!
#594611

On January 18th, 2009 at 11:03 am, zeroangel said:

We’ve answered your questions a million times already. You don’t understand the answers.

So you aren’t going to tell us your “theory” are you?

I thought not. I can only assume you are afraid to let your ideas be subject to the same scrutiny as you subject to evolution.

An intellectual coward, I am not surprised.
#594614

On January 18th, 2009 at 11:10 am, right4life said:

On January 18th, 2009 at 11:03 am, zeroangel said:
We’ve answered your questions a million times already. You don’t understand the answers.

you’re a lying piece of trash…but hey you’re a darwiniac, so lying for DARWIN is what you do!!

already told you jacka**

explain the tuatara, why didn’t the micro add up to the macro??? hmmmmm???

moron.
#594616

On January 18th, 2009 at 11:12 am, right4life said:

why don’t you have any problem with the RACISM in evolution hmmmmm???

how many races are there??

did the races evolve differently?

is one race more ‘fit’ than another??
#594619

On January 18th, 2009 at 11:16 am, right4life said:

and whats that mechanism for evolution again…you think its evolution too, don’t ya???
#594620

On January 18th, 2009 at 11:16 am, zeroangel said:

Chap already explained it to you, you train wreck.

Again, what is your “theory?”

When did “god” create humans and animals in their current form? Several thousand years ago? A million? Did the dinosaurs exist as the same time as humans?

What is your evidence?

Honestly, I tire of entertaining your nonsense and honestly trying to help you understand what you are talking about.

I am now content to expose you as the coward you are.

What is YOUR theory?

PS: This bears repeating:

Saying natural selection or evolution is racist is like saying tornadoes hate Kansans.

I literally LOL’ed when I read that.
#594623

On January 18th, 2009 at 11:19 am, right4life said:

On January 18th, 2009 at 11:16 am, zeroangel said:
Chap already explained it to you, you train wreck.

alright!! so you DO think ‘evolution is the mechanism for evolution’ too funny!!

do you think a car is the mechanism for a car???

I’ve already told you my theory, moron, I’m a creationist!!

can’t answer my questions.hmmmm?? no surprise!!

you’re approaching chap in the stupidity department…you don’t even know what your FAITH..er theory of evolution consists of!!

laughable idiots!!
#594626

On January 18th, 2009 at 11:21 am, right4life said:

Saying natural selection or evolution is racist is like saying tornadoes hate Kansans.
I literally LOL’ed when I read that.

yeah bet you drooled too…this bears repeating…

“Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.” Stephen Jay Gould,
‘Ontogeny and Phylogeny’, Belknap-Harvard Press, pp. 27-128

duhhh gould knew it…why don’t you stupid morons get a clue!!

laughable!! keep posting, you have no idea how amusing you are!!
#594628

On January 18th, 2009 at 11:22 am, zeroangel said:

Ah! Finally, an answer!

So, a creationist; I am supposing that means that you believe “god” created all plants and animals in their current forms at some time in the distant past.

Please tell us, what timeframe do you think this creation happened; around how many thousands or millions of years ago? Do you believe any changes in plants and animals have occurred?

Do you think humans and dinosaurs lived on the earth at the same time?
#594631

On January 18th, 2009 at 11:23 am, Oh-nO said:

Who is Tom Hanks, why should I care what he thinks, what is un-American about voting for or contributing to something you believe in, and why have the two of you been feeding each other your hate for this long? Tom Hanks’ opinion or your arguing doesn’t change the truth and it appears as though someone can’t handle the truth, to take a line from the misguided industry.
#594635

On January 18th, 2009 at 11:25 am, right4life said:

you finally figured out I’m a creationist??? duhhhhhh took you long enough….

explain the tuatara…

what is the mechanism for evolution?

how many races are there?

is one race more fit than another?

can’t answer, can you?? too funny!!

to illustrate evolution, explain a bottom-up design process that you use in your everyday life….as opposed to a top-down process…do you even know the difference???
#594640

On January 18th, 2009 at 11:29 am, right4life said:

you darwiniacs answers have been meaningless tautologies (look it up)….

it evolved because evolution is true…

natural selection is true because if its fit it survives…how do we know its fit??? it survives…

duhhhhhh.
#594645

On January 18th, 2009 at 11:32 am, zeroangel said:

On-nO:

You are right. Take care.
#594647

On January 18th, 2009 at 11:33 am, right4life said:

I think he was talking about you there less-than-zero…
#594649

On January 18th, 2009 at 11:34 am, right4life said:

truth is evolution is nothing more than a racist atheist creation fairy tale.

truth hurts!
#594765

On January 18th, 2009 at 1:06 pm, Oh-nO said:

Truth, just because one doesn’t believe in the Word of God that it is now no longer the truth. Fear of what is to come is the motivation to change the truth. Therefore one will believe they won’t have to face the truth, it is called denial.
#594798

On January 18th, 2009 at 1:31 pm, zeroangel said:

Oh-nO:

Appears right4life was correct, you were talking about me.

In any case: denial is the refusal to accept that its entirely likely that after you die is exactly like before you were born; lights out, end of story, and there is absolutely zero evidence to suggest otherwise.

Atheists are not the ones in fear my friend.
#594811

On January 18th, 2009 at 1:43 pm, right4life said:

Atheists are not the ones in fear my friend.

HELL…booo!!

then christians lose nothing…but on the other hand….
#594812

On January 18th, 2009 at 1:44 pm, Trollman said:

No big loss, I was never a fan of Tom Hanks anyway.

What broke my heart was when my childhood hero openly endorsed Obama (Spider-Man, I’m looking at you).
#594819

On January 18th, 2009 at 1:50 pm, zeroangel said:

Pascal’s wager again? Oh for goodness sake! Just how short is your memory?

I’m done. Have a nice day.
#594945

On January 18th, 2009 at 5:39 pm, right4life said:

If there is anyone who has even the slightest understanding of evolution, (definately not chap or zero obviously ) then here are some more technical issues you may wish to explore…

Nachman’s U paradox
Haldane’s Dilemma
Mutational meltdown
Conserved and Ultra conserved elements of the human genome
#594997

On January 18th, 2009 at 6:51 pm, Omu said:

right4life, even one of the oldest Christian churches, the Catholic Church (with over 1 billion followers all over the world) accepts evolution as being a fact. Are you going to tell me Roman Catholics are worshipping Darwin in lieu of Jesus? Because that seems to be the logic you are drawing here.

The theory of evolution is perhaps the greatest achievement of mankind in that it explains to us where we came from. It’s extraordinarily enlightening and the fact that people like you are slowly and deliberately taking over more and more school boards in an attempt to undermine what is actual, empirical science is disgusting. Grow up!
#595023

On January 18th, 2009 at 7:09 pm, Omu said:

If there is anyone who has even the slightest understanding of evolution, (definately not chap or zero obviously ) then here are some more technical issues you may wish to explore…

Nachman’s U paradox
Haldane’s Dilemma
Mutational meltdown
Conserved and Ultra conserved elements of the human genome

I don’t know why you keep asking questions as if you’ll ever accept any answer that doesn’t allow you to believe in intelligent design. Evolution has been proven time and time again and yet you continue to deny it’s veracity. It’s obvious that you’re not looking and the evidence and rationally deducing the best possible theory from it, you’re (and the rest of the Creationist movement) just looking at the evidence and thinking how best you can warp and twist it to awkwardly make it fit with your delusional and antiquated leftover from humanity’s infancy (namely, a belief in a god). No matter if all the evidence in the world supported evolution (and it actually does, at the moment) you would never accept it as true. Thus is the nature of your irrationality.
#595076

On January 18th, 2009 at 7:58 pm, right4life said:

right4life, even one of the oldest Christian churches, the Catholic Church (with over 1 billion followers all over the world) accepts evolution as being a fact.

they accept THEISTIC evolution…thats not evolution as taught in schools…sorry…no surprise you wouldn’t know the details…

The theory of evolution is perhaps the greatest achievement of mankind

talking about worshipping darwin.. this is delusional..as I have documented, evolution is useless in science, and in medicine. get a clue.

preditable and lame. typical darwiniac.
#595078

On January 18th, 2009 at 8:00 pm, right4life said:

I don’t know why you keep asking questions as if you’ll ever accept any answer that doesn’t allow you to believe in intelligent design.

You have never heard of those things I posted before I posted them. and you think you are ’scientific’ and ’smart’ because you worship darwin.

laughable.

No matter if all the evidence in the world supported evolution (and it actually does, at the moment)

you are unable to defend your theory against all the points I have raised, as are the other darwiniacs…I doubt you even know the mechanism for evoluiton…what is it btw??? do you know???

laughable.
#595105

On January 18th, 2009 at 8:50 pm, MtsEdge said:

I have been following this thread with interest, and have declined to jump in, but Omu, I feel your comments deserve a response.

The theory of evolution is perhaps the greatest achievement of mankind

Then why has the theory of evolution only presented itself within the last century? Surely the idea that life “evolved” from nothing into something would have occurred to other great minds throughout history. After all, fossils have existed for thousands of years. The so-called “evidence” for evolution has always been available.

the Catholic Church (with over 1 billion followers all over the world) accepts evolution as being a fact

It’s interesting that you are using a church’s doctrine to prop up your beliefs. Kind of like having your cake and eating it, too, since you say you have no belief in God (unless you need to prove He doesn’t exist). BTW, I do not claim to be familiar with the Catholic Church’s teachings in this area, since I am not Catholic, but I do not believe that God needed any help in creating all species. While He may have allowed species to adapt naturally to stimuli in their environments, that is not the same as changing from one entirely different species into another. Again, God needs no help in creating anything.
#595108

On January 18th, 2009 at 8:51 pm, right4life said:

and I didn’t even get to some of the REALLY hard problems for evolution

1) life itself
2) ‘evolution’ of the sexes

number 1 is so hard that darwiniacs have ruled it out of their theory…and the ASSume life…but of course to be logically consistant, you have to explain how life began..

Next to life itself, the origin of complex cells is one of the most fundamental, and intractable, problems in evolutionary biology. Progress in this area relies heavily on an understanding of the relationships between present-day organisms, yet despite tremendous advances over the last half-century scientists remain firmly divided on how to best classify cellular life.

2. John M. Archibald, “The Eocyte Hypothesis and the Origin of Eukaryotic Cells,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, Published online before print December 17, 2008, doi: 10.1073/pnas.0811118106.

that is very telling…

as far as 2, evolution of the sexes, why evolve sexes at all when bacteria reproduce very nicely without it? and isn’t it ‘convenient’ that male and female evolved about the same time, throughout a wide variety of organisms??? evolving one without the other would be useless…its very smart of ‘evolution’ to know it needed both

you darwiniac have no answers for this, or the other things I have posted…just the typical

uh it evolved because evolution is true… duhhhhhh
#595112

On January 18th, 2009 at 8:59 pm, MtsEdge said:

r4l, you sound like you know what you are talking about. I have learned some things from reading your posts…I don’t need to be convinced that God created the universe from nothing, created all life that inhabits the earth, and created man from the dust of the ground. These are very basic truths that I have learned from an early age and which no one has ever been able to disprove. Applying God’s Word means I will always get the truth, which will always be borne out by the evidence.
#595118

On January 18th, 2009 at 9:10 pm, MtsEdge said:

r4l, I didn’t really finish my thought…I was trying to say that your posts w/links are very helpful in illuminating all the evidence that exists for creation…and highlighting all the gaps that exist in the theory of evolution. I have always believed in the truth of creation, but it is helpful to have many sources of additional information that underscore it.
#595120

On January 18th, 2009 at 9:14 pm, right4life said:

On January 18th, 2009 at 8:59 pm, MtsEdge said:
r4l, you sound like you know what you are talking about. I have learned some things from reading your posts

thank you!

There are some good sites out there to keep with things..

evolutionnews.org
trueorigins.org (although they seem to have stopped updating the site)
creationsafaris.com/crevnews
http://www.uncommondescent.com (fairy technical)
#595132

On January 18th, 2009 at 9:42 pm, MtsEdge said:

On January 18th, 2009 at 9:14 pm, right4life said:

Thanks. Keep up the fight!!
#595153

On January 18th, 2009 at 10:29 pm, zeroangel said:

MtsEdge:

Then why has the theory of evolution only presented itself within the last century?

It hasn’t:

http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/evolutio.htm

I implore you to try and better understand evolution and the evidence. Rest assured, right4life and his ilk are lying and twisting the facts. Do you honestly believe that scientists the world over actually are willfully propagating a lie based on some kind of hatred of religion?

This idea is so beyond that pale that it’s just plain ridiculous.

Please refer to my post #278. The plain facts outright contradict the idea that all species were created at one time. “Creationism” is patently and obviously false.

Either evolution occurred (and perhaps “god” used it as the method) or “god” made it look like evolution occurred. I, for one, don’t think that if a “god” existed he would be a trickster.
#595238

On January 19th, 2009 at 8:41 am, right4life said:

Rest assured, right4life and his ilk are lying and twisting the facts

you’re the liar. you cannot answer anything I have posted…all you can do is repeat the mantra ‘it evolved’ .

Please refer to my post #278. The plain facts outright contradict the idea that all species were created at one time.

ever hear of the cambrian explosion?? explain that. oh and the bible does NOT say all species were created at the same time…you are trying to confuse ’species’ and ‘kind’. are lions and tigers different species? try to answer this if you can

Do you honestly believe that scientists the world over actually are willfully propagating a lie based on some kind of hatred of religion?

uhhh but didn’t you call behe a ‘TRAITOR’???? wasn’t that you? why would you call him that?? hmmm?? and we see what you darwiniacs do to those who disagree, their careers are endangered or ended.

you see evolution because its what you WANT to see, because the alternative is unthinkable to you.

go ahead and explain how the sexes evolved….this should be good.

you cannot, as you have no answer for anything else I have posted, and you still haven’t even told us what the mechanism for evolution is.

laughable.
#595241

On January 19th, 2009 at 8:45 am, right4life said:

oh you didn’t call behe a ‘traitor’ rather:

On January 16th, 2009 at 4:44 pm, zeroangel said:
…save Behe, who is a sellout and a piss poor philosopher.

a sellout?? because he dares question your hairygod darwin??

this is clearly not ’science’ you have proven that evolution is your faith. and like any good darwiniac IMAM, those who commit apostasy are ’sellouts’…and we’ve seen whats happened to people like sternberg and gonzales who question the dark hairygod of evolution….
#595362

On January 19th, 2009 at 11:11 am, MtsEdge said:

It hasn’t:

http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/evolutio.htm

Zero, I wasn’t aware of the early origins (pardon the pun) of evolution theory…but since the Greeks were polytheists, doesn’t that lend itself to the same possibility, that

that scientists the world over actually are willfully propagating a lie based on some kind of hatred of ~~religion~~

God

It’s not religion that is hated, nor is it Catholicism, or any particular denomination of thought, so much as a hatred towards God.
#595376

On January 19th, 2009 at 11:18 am, right4life said:

It’s not religion that is hated, nor is it Catholicism, or any particular denomination of thought, so much as a hatred towards God.

good point…

“Darwin developed an evolutionary theory based on chance variation and natural selection imposed by an external environment: a rigidly materialistic (and basically atheistic) version of evolution,” (- Stephen Jay Gould, Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History 33 (W.W. Norton 1977).)

Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.”

Provine, William B. [Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University], “, “Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life”, Abstract of Will Provine’s 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address.