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.

Comments

1. #401
   On February 16th, 2009 at 9:36 am, chapoutier said:

   I also eagerly await your treatise on how one species that may confound current models is outweighed by the literally thousands and thousands of species that fit quite nicely with current evolutionary theory. If you could, and since you are so keen on focusing on one species at a time, please feel free to start with “aardvark” and call me when you hit “zebra”.

2. #402
   On February 16th, 2009 at 9:37 am, right4life said:

   On February 16th, 2009 at 9:36 am, chapoutier said:

   why don’t you explain the mechanism for evolution first. this should be good…

3. #403
   On February 16th, 2009 at 9:38 am, right4life said:

   outweighed by the literally thousands and thousands of species that fit quite nicely with current evolutionary theory

   and why don’t you list the exact sequence of mutations that led to an eye…in order please.

4. #404
   On February 16th, 2009 at 9:44 am, right4life said:

   On February 16th, 2009 at 9:36 am, chapoutier said:

   oh and chappy, please explain bacterial species to me…since you’re an expert on ‘species’

5. #405
   On February 16th, 2009 at 9:44 am, chapoutier said:

   and why don’t you list the exact sequence of mutations that led to an eye…in order please.

   I know…its so much easier to just say some big dude living beyond the clouds thought of an eye and PRESTO CHANGO! AN EYE!

   Saves you from the nasty proess of actually thinking and proving things.

6. #406
   On February 16th, 2009 at 9:47 am, right4life said:

   I know…its so much easier to just say some big dude living beyond the clouds thought of an eye and PRESTO CHANGO! AN EYE!

   oh ok, then prove it, and list the sequence of mutations in order…

   and explain why the squid is so similar to a human eye…when they are so unrelated…and please don’t say the magic words ‘convergent evolution’

   this should be good…

7. #407
   On February 16th, 2009 at 9:49 am, right4life said:

   Saves you from the nasty proess of actually thinking and proving things.

   and while you’re ‘proving’ things..why don’t you evolve a bacteria into a multi-cellular animal…should be easy…and it would prove evolution beyond a doubt.

   or mix a few chemicals together, and create a new life form!!

   should be easy…right???

   all ya got is words…just words…

8. #408
   On February 16th, 2009 at 9:49 am, englishqueen01 said:

   I also eagerly await your treatise on how one species that may confound current models is outweighed by the literally thousands and thousands of species that fit quite nicely with current evolutionary theory. If you could, and since you are so keen on focusing on one species at a time, please feel free to start with “aardvark” and call me when you hit “zebra”.

   There are gaps in evolutionary theory. Which is why it’s still just a theory. As right4life pointed out, the evolution of the eye is just one example that pure evolutionary theory can’t explain.

   While other Christians will disagree with me, there’s nothing incompatible with Catholicism that says creation didn’t take longer than the seven days as we know them, nor is there anything that’s incompatible with intelligent design – evolutionary theory with a primary mover. There’s no reason to believe God wouldn’t design animals to change and adapt. In fact, the Vatican reiterated that very point of view just recently.

   Which supports parts of evolutionary (intelligent design) theory. And vice versa.

   Also, if I find a watch on the beach, it’s not logical to assume the watch was randomly assembled in the chaos of the ocean and appeared on the beach as a watch. Likewise, it’s not logical to assume we, and the animals, developed as we developed through a series of chaotic events without external influence. There’s too much order and sense in the world, not to mention the amazing power of human reasoning and self-awareness, to make be believe all this was just a happy accident.

   Somewhere, there is a Primary Mover (the watchmaker) who made that watch on the beach. Likewise, nothing cannot create something, so there had to be a primary force that spurred creation.

9. #409
   On February 16th, 2009 at 9:51 am, chapoutier said:

   and please don’t say the magic words ‘convergent evolution’

   Why not? Because you don’t like it?

   Just because there is a long long way between the common ancestor of man and squid does not mean it is not there, and I’ll accept the notion that evolutionary forces can lead to similar (not the same mind you) optimal solutions in different species more than I beilieve in some deity inventing things out of thin air.

10. #410
    On February 16th, 2009 at 9:53 am, chapoutier said:

    all ya got is words…just words…

    Can you please use some of those fancy words to explain how carbon dating coincides with a 6,000 year old earth?

11. #411
    On February 16th, 2009 at 9:58 am, right4life said:

    Why not? Because you don’t like it?

    because its meaningless…like natural selection…the same thing evolved in two radically different lines..SHAZAM, ain’t evolution sumthin???

    laughable.

    , and I’ll accept the notion that evolutionary forces can lead to similar (not the same mind you) optimal solutions in different species more than I beilieve in some deity inventing things out of thin air.

    in other words you have FAITH in your hairygod darwin. can’t see it, can’t explain it, other than IT HAPPENED..PRAISE DARWIN!!!

    you darwiniacs are beyond stupid. claiming to be wise, they have become fools…

12. #412
    On February 16th, 2009 at 10:01 am, right4life said:

    Can you please use some of those fancy words to explain how carbon dating coincides with a 6,000 year old earth?

    here explain this…

    The late Triassic-early Jurassic predates Archaeopteryx, the most primitive bird known, which first appears in the fossil record in the late Jurassic fifty million or more years later. Yet here we have convincing traces of modern shore birds in strata that appears to be very well dated to the late Triassic. The authors point out this connudrum and suggest the strata is wrongly dated. However the dating appears to be, so to speak, rock solid. What’s up with that?

    link

13. #413
    On February 16th, 2009 at 10:04 am, chapoutier said:

    …the same thing evolved in two radically different lines..

    Not exactly. The same thing evolved from a common progenitor (with an eye a photo receptive spot from a common ancestor) because it faced similar challenges and constraints and biology can work in predictable ways when faced with challenges.

    But again, your slavish focus on these absurd “counterpoints” in the face of thousands and thousands of “points” is ridiculous.

    As is my attempting to argue with someone that believes the earth is 6,000 years old.

14. #414
    On February 16th, 2009 at 10:08 am, right4life said:

    Not exactly. The same thing evolved from a common progenitor (with an eye a photo receptive spot from a common ancestor) because it faced similar challenges and constraints and biology can work in predictable ways when faced with challenges.

    another just-so story..yes the bearded god of evolution waved his hairy hand, and shazam it evolved…laughable.

    words just words…

    But again, your slavish focus on these absurd “counterpoints” in the face of thousands and thousands of “points” is ridiculous.

    you don’t have any points…thats the point..you have stories…no facts…

    As is my attempting to argue with someone that believes the earth is 6,000 years old.

    I actually never said that..but explain the atmosphere on titan, and how it could be maintained for all of these billions of years…

    oh and explain the

15. #415
    On February 16th, 2009 at 10:13 am, right4life said:

    biology can work in predictable ways when faced with challenges.

    and tell me what challenges?? why evolve an eye at all?? bacteria does quite well without an eye, correct?? so what were those ‘pressures’ that caused and eye to evolve??

16. #416
    On February 16th, 2009 at 10:25 am, cheapseat said:

    explain why the aborigines of australia bear such a striking resemblance to the indians of india, when any scientist worth the title will tell you australia separated from india millions of years ago and started it’s migration to it’s present location. the snakes didn’t morph, the people didn’t morph, and the whole damn place remained isolated for millenia.

17. #417
    On February 16th, 2009 at 10:30 am, cheapseat said:

    but back to the original thread, how bout that religion of peace and tolerance we are bringing into this country? all our civil libertarians should recognize freedom of religion when they see it. any men facing divorce should immediately convert to islam, and cut the head off their wife, and claim sharia law. i’m sure the aclu will see this as a cause celeb and back you to the hilt.

18. #418
    On February 16th, 2009 at 10:32 am, right4life said:

    i’m sure the aclu will see this as a cause celeb and back you to the hilt.

    the poor muslims are just victims of western christian racism and imperialism…

19. #419
    On February 16th, 2009 at 11:48 am, abstractmind said:

    I’ve been reading most of this thread, but i got to about post 200ish or so, and figured this single-handedly the most energy i’ve seen in a while where one guy (bluesoc) goes in circles round and round while everyone else chases him.

    I thought of about 25 points of counter-argument, but like i said..when i got farther down the postings, i saw it really wouldnt matter. I’d get some illogical dodge i’d have to re-counter all over again, and honestly…arguing with someone who you cant change their mind, and they refuse to accept a basic fact (the guy who killed this poor woman was, in fact Muslim, claimed to BE Muslim, started a Muslim Television station, and then beheaded his wife b/c she was divorcing him, as is allowed in Muslim law…dont know how much clearer that gets…) that in the end, this woman is dead. She was murdered by her estranged husband for the “crime” of trying to leave him.

    For people who are defending this retard…

    We can argue circles around one another about this until neither of us cares to continue. But i think its plain, and easy to see, that this man was motivated to kill his wife. And he did so in the tradition and by the specifically sanctioned machinations of his religion. If that isnt clear, then perhaps a list of examples should be displayed.

    http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/046614.php

    In many countries where the fundamentals of Islam are the law of the land, to behead or stone someone is, by their law and fact, the prescribed method for administering the death penalty. Should you wish to challenge that, go right ahead and waste your time. I got tired of looking at links that justified that point, and a simple google search is all thats required. The Koran lists in over 100 different places that it is acceptable to murder infidels. That doesnt count the verses where its ok to lie to them and to cheat them out of whatever you wish, because…well, they’re infidels. You can spout one bible verse, which was taken horribly out of the context…vs 100+ in the Koran. Not alot of comparison.

    Bottom line: This guy cut his wife’s head off, and did so because of his religious beliefs. You can try and lie to yourself, or someone else, and say that isnt the case, but…deep down, in places you dont talk about at your liberal parties, you know that is exactly what this man did.

    For me… i think George Carlin had it right when he said (and i’m paraphrasing) “We could outlaw religion…but we dont have time for rational decisions.

20. #420
    On February 16th, 2009 at 12:02 pm, garydt said:

    Chap or anyone else who blames Christians on the Spanish Inquisition must realize that most of these murders came from the Pope trying to stamp out the born again types that had risen after Martin Luther arose in protest against the catholic church. Today most of your truely born again Christians come from non-catholics or those who trust the bible over what the catholic church teaches. I am sure there are many devout Christians inside the catholic church but those who persecuted non catholics were not truely born again Christians. Jesus told us we would have to be born again to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Currently I would say the Muslims proudly say they want to control the world and will use any means possible. Yesterday on this site I asked for where are all the moderate muslims condeming the beheading that was the subject of this post. I still have no answer. Again where are all these moderates condeming?

21. #421
    On February 16th, 2009 at 12:15 pm, ArizonaNeanderthal said:

    This one murder did stoke the fires on this site! Now I wonder how the state will handle it-as a murder or something less due to his beliefs. Canada has treated Honor Killings less severely than other murders by muslims, Sikhs and such.

    Can we be far behind? As Muzzie Hassan has been charged with Second Degree Murder he can not receive Death or Life Without Parole.

    The death penalty was returned to the criminal statutes of New York State by Chapter 1 of the Laws of 1995, which took effect on September 1, 1995. The new law expanded the crime of murder in the first degree and provided two penalties for persons convicted of this crime: death and life in prison without the possibility of parole (LWOP).

    So I think he gets 25 to Life with possibility for parole at 15 years.

    What this have to do with Evolution/Creation is beyond me except to say the mohammedans are still in the stone age morally. They like to stone women, makes them feel manly.

22. #422
    On February 16th, 2009 at 12:22 pm, garydt said:

    Yes Arizona, I agree the folks got way off subject on this beheading story. It amuses me on how certain groups justify the beheading because of other groups they hate in their eyes do worse things. Liberal women would be shocked to find out that Islam does not support abortion, or at least I don’t think they do. I am not sure on how NOW would support beheadings here in the USA or not? Any feminist here would want to answer on how they like male dominated behdeadings here?

23. #423
    On February 16th, 2009 at 1:33 pm, granite said:

    All:Most, I should say:

    The links below lead to two excellent articles about the mortal danger that our nation/society/culture/civilization faces from the enemy combination (as David Horowitz put it, the “Unholy Alliance”) of our own domestic socialists/fascists/statists/collectivists/self-hating cowards/opposite worldview-holders, and the foreign Muslim jihadist barbarian savages.

    http://www.azure.org.il/include/print.php?id=485

    http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/02/the-demise-of-the-democratic-nation-state.html

    The longer article is somewhat annoying because sentences do not start with capitals, and there are more than a few typos, omitted words, and wrong words used. But, bear with it; it is worth the read.

24. #424
    On February 16th, 2009 at 2:36 pm, Misscheryl said:

    wow..just wow!!!

25. #425
    On February 16th, 2009 at 2:52 pm, yohannbiimu said:

    Just listening to Rush Limbaugh talking about this. Apparently Muzzammil Hassan’s “Bridges TV” was a Muslim-oriented network that was created to “combat negative stereotypes of Muslims in America.” Something tells me that he sort of killed this mission of his by REMOVING his wife’s head.

    To all of you silly-nillys who question the “inherent violence in Islam,” this is the SOP of Islam. This is what a good Muslim does to follow the “Sunna” (the example of Muhammad). A good Muslim does that. He checks out the Hadith and Koran about how THE prophet would handle any situation, and then he does what Muhammad would have done it.

    Obviously, Muhammad would have decapitated Aasiya under the circumstances that Muzzammil was in, so that’s what he did. He was ONLY being a good Muslim. A back-slidden Muslim would have let her live, and would have simply divorced her. Obviously, “honor” was involved, and she couldn’t couldn’t be allowed to keep breathing anymore.

26. #426
    On February 16th, 2009 at 3:19 pm, tamarah180 said:

    Losing Our Heads at Atlas Shrugged

27. #427
    On February 16th, 2009 at 6:18 pm, Flag2911 said:

    As of 2-16-2009 CNN has not put this story on their web. However, they have tried to smear Phelps at every turn. CNN, like UK, do not want to OFFEND the Muslim! Sad state of affairs.

28. #428
    On February 16th, 2009 at 6:51 pm, yohannbiimu said:

    On February 16th, 2009 at 3:19 pm, tamarah180 said:

    Losing Our Heads at Atlas Shrugged

    All of you silly-nillys who feel like Islam is like every other religion (and deep down, you ACTUALLY feel like it’s better than all other religions), you ought to digest this post, and read the litany of abuse and slaughter perpetrated by GOOD Muslim men who must “defend THEIR honor” by butchering the women in their lives.

    Check back with me when you’re done.

29. #429
    On February 16th, 2009 at 7:00 pm, yohannbiimu said:

    It wouldn’t surprise me if Mr. Hassan asked an Imam at an Islamic website a question about his wife, and the Imam issued a fatwa that he should kill her, which included verses from the Koran and several instances in one of the Hadith that justified doing so.

30. #430
    On February 16th, 2009 at 8:24 pm, Leatherneck said:

    Worshiping a false moon god named allah, and following a mad man named Mohammed, is what this stoy is really about.

    ROPMA!

31. #431
    On February 16th, 2009 at 10:48 pm, yohannbiimu said:

    Just because Muhammad (may fire ants burrow into every inch of his body, and sting his entrails, brain, genitalia, and lungs for all eternity) decapitated people and misbehaved with a few women, and his preachers tell Muslims to follow his example, doesn’t mean that ISLAM is bad, right?

32. #432
    On February 19th, 2009 at 7:27 am, Silkyinfamous said:

    It is absolute insanity. I live in Buffalo and this network has been trying to get acclaim for awhile. They have tried to portray Islam in a positive light; it left the stereotype in place.

33. #433
    On March 6th, 2009 at 10:42 pm, USpace said:

    .
    No matter how many beheadings, stonings, or terrorist attacks there are, we must never fear, resist or mock the precious and ever peaceful Islam. Who are we to say that raping 9 year-olds is immoral? Who are we to say that stoning gays and rape victims to death is evil?

    Who are we to say that killing hundreds of people every month in the name of Allah is the height of evil? That is just their culture and ideology and it MUST be respected. Morality is all relative, we must remember that.

    http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
    .
    absurd thought -
    God of the Universe says
    cut off your wife’s head

    if she dishonors you
    by asking for a divorce

    .
    absurd thought -
    God of the Universe wants
    all planets Islamic

    Earth is one of many
    in process of conversion

    .
    absurd thought -
    God of the Universe wants
    many Taliban planets

    stonings and beheadings
    billions served daily

    .
    absurd thought –
    God of the Universe says
    convert the infidels

    or make them pay a tax
    if they don’t want to die
    .