News-Record.com

Gimme a break.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Rahrah, with your intellectual curiosity have you ever seriously studied intelligent design? It really is more than just something we gun-and-Bible-clingers cling to.

Intelligent design requires faith, yes, but no less faith than evolution does. Neither viewpoint can be proven by the scientific method, since we cannot reproduce the origins of the universe! Evolution just SEEMS more scientific because it excludes God, and many modern scientists believe God and science are polar opposites. Scientists of past centuries often believed they were merely discovering the principles their Creator put into place at the beginning.

Just as Creation can be twisted into a belief that women are inferior, evolution can be twisted to horrible ends. In the twentieth century, evolution gave us the eugenics movement which included Planned Parenthood's efforts to sterilize and abort blacks and Hitler's slaughter of Jews, homosexuals, and gypsies.

Could not the people of both camps simply respectfully disagree and coexist in an academic environment? This civil behavior is impossible when only one viewpoint is permitted. If you are a professor, you must worship evolution and global warming or be burned as a heretic. (OK, they just fire you now, but the heretic burning is coming.)

"no missing links between any species been discovered" -
http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/ - "In 2006, a team of scientists unveiled the discovery of Tiktaalik roseae, a fossil fish unearthed in the Canadian Arctic that changed the way we think about the orgins of life on land."

and

http://www.expelledexposed.com

"Welcome to Expelled Exposed, a detailed look at the Ben Stein movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. We'll show you why this movie is not a documentary at all, but anti-science propaganda aimed at creating the appearance of controversy where there is none."

I fail to see why evolution and God cannot work together. I believe God created the universe and is alive and well. How it was done and how long it took is irrelevant to me.

jwg,

This is very interesting, but hardly definitive proof that man evolved from a fish. "changed the way we think about the origins of life on land." is not the missing link. As was stated earlier, science has nothing that "proves" the theory of evolution. At this point, to believe in evolution requires "faith".

I fall into the same camp as Carol Dunn. Who's to say that if evolution is proven as a fact, that it was "God's" way? Intelligent Design and Science can co-exist, at least in an open mind.

"This is despite the fact that there is a large and growing group of accredited people, with Ph.D.s, who conclude that new scientific evidence points to the theory of Intelligent Design."

First of all, the above is false. While it may be what Gary WANTS to believe, but as they song in Porgy and Bess goes, "It ain't necessarily so".

INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT SCIENCE....IT IS PURELY BASED ON FAIRY TALE RATIONALE. I'm not calling the bible a book of fairy tales, I AM calling the rationale for Intelligent Design a FAIRY TALE.

It is senseless to add link after link on this, as those who cling to this "Intelligent Design" model still think the world is less than 10,000 years old! You can't reason with that kind of lunacy.

I'm heading off to church later, but I can assure you, my fellow church members DO NOT believe in the crap this letter writer proffers---they have brains.

"I fail to see why evolution and God cannot work together. I believe God created the universe and is alive and well. How it was done and how long it took is irrelevant to me."

Well put Carol! I believe the same. I view this as a matter of faith rather than science. It has a place in school, but that place is in Religion or maybe Philosophy classes, not Science classes.

If scientific research indicates our galaxy evolved from some sort of "big bang", that should be taught. The question of how the mass was created to begin with, and how life started is another matter. To my knowledge, science hasn't a clue and science classes do not touch on that. Again, notions regarding that question have a place in school, but science class should be limited to matters that can be scientifically researched and potentially proven or disproven.

Though I am not a religious person, and I won't be heading off to church this morning, I did head off to see "Expelled." It was a powerful film that seeks to have any the Darwinists tell us how life began. None could. Mr. Dawkins, the Al Gore of Darwinism, actually said that the first living cell could have been transported here by "higher being" from another galaxy! And this man spends his life trashing people of faith!

"Expelled" tells us more of the "evolution" of the closed Fascist, then Progressive, ann now the truly damaged mind. Hitler, of course, was the most famous Darwinist, who wanted to rid of world of all of us "less perfect" than him. The film exposes the "Berlin Wall mentality" of so many of our Universities who tell us their mission to have forum for "free and open" discussion of ideas, then fire, or deny tenure to anyone who even uses the term "Intelligent Design!"

If you truly believe the liberals, or Liberal-Conservatives have any interest in "free and open" discussions on any issue, please go to see "Expelled:No Intelligence Allowed."

I'm with Carol and Kornbluth.

Evolution is a fact.

Why it started? A question of philosophy and religion.

Why I don't get liberals! No one, not Ben Stein who made the film, or most of those who propose and open discussion on ID question evolution. Let me try one more time. THE FILM WAS TO SEE IF ANY OF THE DARWINISTS COULD TELL US HOW LIFE BEGAN. NONE COULD! That has nothing at all to do with evolution. Where did that first living cell, from we've all evolved come from. No one can tell us, and no one has been able to create a living cell!

jwg,

http://www.harunyahya.com/new_releases/news/tiktaalik_roseae.php

"Neither viewpoint can be proven by the scientific method, since we cannot reproduce the origins of the universe!"

2 problems here:

1. Evolution does not deal with the origins of life or the universe. It deals with change between species

2. Science does NOT prove. The scientific method seeks not to DISPROVE. The whole point of the scientific method is to look for holes in your hypothesis. Find one? Change it or scrap it. Don't find any? Publish it, and let others try to tear it down. Nothing still? Then it is probably close to truth, but STILL FALSIFIABLE. Falsifiability is what makes Science work. Intelligent Design is not falsifiable, therefore is not science.

"Evolution just SEEMS more scientific because it excludes God, and many modern scientists believe God and science are polar opposites."

No, it seems more scientific because it has the entirety of evidence from the fields of archaelogy, paleontology, biology, physics, chemistry, and more to back it up. Intelligent Design... has a movie by a B-rate economist?

" Scientists of past centuries often believed they were merely discovering the principles their Creator put into place at the beginning."

True, but what relevance does this have today? Until the past 400 years or so, the Church taught the world was flat (even though the Greeks disproved that 2500 years ago). They lived in a highly religious time, it is no surprise they were religious.

"Just as Creation can be twisted into a belief that women are inferior, evolution can be twisted to horrible ends. In the twentieth century, evolution gave us the eugenics movement which included Planned Parenthood's efforts to sterilize and abort blacks and Hitler's slaughter of Jews, homosexuals, and gypsies."

Evolution did not give us these things. Horrible people and happenings created Hitler, Eugenics was created by Conservative "Social Darwinists" (which has nothing to do with evolution), Planned Parenthood spends a TINY portion on abortion. Most of it is on prevention and medical services.

http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/hitler-eugenics

"Could not the people of both camps simply respectfully disagree and coexist in an academic environment? This civil behavior is impossible when only one viewpoint is permitted."

No, it cannot happen with ID. Why? We tried that a decade ago, found it to have no academic merit and tossed it out with all the other failed hypotheses. The only thing ID has going for it is a movement by the scientific illiterate who want to force it into academia. We will be happen to look at any new evidence it, or any other hypothesis provides, but for now, it does not have any and so is rightly ridiculed.

If you are a professor, you must worship evolution and global warming or be burned as a heretic. (OK, they just fire you now, but the heretic burning is coming.)

http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/background/dissenters

The only liars and expellers here are the makers of the movie and their so-called academics. This page, and the others on the site, debunk EVERYTHING, you and the movie have said.

Slaan, you are correct that science only disproves. I misspoke. But I maintain that any theory of origins cannot be disproven or experimentally reproduced, so any idea about origins requires some faith. I prefer faith in a loving God who has a plan rather than faith in a space alien, a blob of goo, or whatever else one may trust.

Also, if abortion is such a tiny piece of Planned Parenthood's pie, why do they scream like banshees every time anyone tries to offer alternatives to their services? Why do they despise the abstinence movement? Perhaps they fear a loss of revenue from "procedures" (that's what they prefer to call abortions) if schoolkids actually stop copulating like animals.

Nobody's proven how life originated. That's the correct. I believe it was the Big Guy in the Sky, but anyway.

I despise the abstinence movement because it's a failure. It requires that we don't provide teens with all the information. It's admirable that a small percentage of teens pledge abstain until marriage and that some succeed. Not everybody views pre-marital sex as immoral or wrong though. Is there any moral, non-religious argument against pre-marital sex? I don't know of one. If parents want kids to be abstinent, they need to preach that at home. The education system is supposed to be about preparing the kids for the world not sheltering them from all possible harm.

You want to reduce abortions, you've got to reduce unwanted pregnancy. The approach needs to be two-fold. Promote abstinence, after all, it is the only 100% effective way to prevent pregnancy and STD's. But educate kids anyway about safe sex practices. Tell them that if they're gonna do it that they have to use a condom. Get girls on the pill. Don't treat sex like a taboo. Almost everybody does it eventually.

Gary Marschall said: "Richard Dawkins is a leading atheistic proponent of evolution. Knowing that science dictates that life cannot come from non-life, he has faith in the theory that, get this, aliens from outer space have “seeded” the earth with life."

Wait - what? If Richard Dawkins believes that aliens seeded the earth with life, does that not therefore make him a believer of ID? Ohhh, wait - does Marschall mean the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Well, in that case, may you be touched by his noodly appendage, Mr Marschall!

"Also, if abortion is such a tiny piece of Planned Parenthood's pie, why do they scream like banshees every time anyone tries to offer alternatives to their services?"

The same people who lock arms outside a Plannned Parenthood clinic to protest abortion are the SAME people who do not want sex education taught in schools and who do not want access to condoms, pill, etc.

If the "right to lifers" would do something they normally are opposed to
doing--------THINKING, then there would be no demand for abortions. But instead of promoting birth control, these zealots use abortion as their "front" in their war on women. The right wing nutz oppose teaching sex education, and the Bush administration has a "gag" rule in effect on American doctors overseas!

EDUCATION, EDUCATION, EDUCATION! Those three things are the ONLY way to reduce or even eliminate abortions.

The right wing fruitcakes who oppose teaching birth control are the same ones who believe "Intelligent Design" is a science and that the world is not over 10,000 years old. Bottom line here is, ignorance. Oh, and these same people believe a person "decides" to be gay, because God would NEVER make them that way---same way their counterparts 100 years ago thought black people were savages and should be sold as property.

I knew I'd get blasted for questioning the purity and righteousness of Planned Parenthood. I got what I expected--anyone who believes kids are intelligent enough to learn self-respect and abstinence is ignorant. Enlightenened people believe kids are animals who will just do it anyway and must therefore be taught, in excruciating detail, how to do it "safely." Problem is, there is no condom for the heart and soul.

As for LC's low opinion of pro-lifers, I'd just like to point out that the people who pray for an end to the slaughter don't make money off those poor women. The abortion industry, on the other hand, has a vested financial interest in seeing to it that abortion continues to be safe, legal, and profitable.

Rahrah, there are non-religious reasons to oppose unmarried teenage sex. Boys give "love" in order to get sex. Girls give sex in order to get love. The girl comes out empty in this bargain, because the boy gets real sex and she gets pretend "love."

My dream is a generation of girls who will say to boys--"No, I'm not cheap. I expect a relationship, not a few sweaty minutes in a back seat. Finish school, get a job, and get a place to live, then we'll talk about it."

Idealism is fun mamaboilermaker.

I'm more for practical solutions. When it comes to abortion, I fall more on the pro-choice end of the spectrum. But, I don't think abortion should be an easy thing to do and it shouldn't be taken lightly. I'm all for reducing the number of abortions to a number as low as we can get it. Practically though, I just don't see how teaching kids abstinence-only is working.

If people, not just kids and not just unmarried folks, want to have sex, we can't stop them. And both you and I know that they aren't always wanting a baby and that if a pregnancy occurs there's a good chance they'll want an abortion. Doesn't it make more sense to make sure they understand that the pill is more than 99% effective? And that a properly used condom is almost as effective at reducing unwanted pregnancy and this abortion?

I guess it comes down to which is more important to you--pre-marital sex or sex without 'real' love OR preventing abortions (and as a anti-abortionist would say, 'the murder of millions of Americans.')

Idealism is not fun, but it is necessary. Ideals give us goals to aim for--we won't necessarily get there, but if we don't aim at all, we won't hit anything. Kids who are taught self respect will hopefully guard themselves against people who want to use them. Girls with self respect won't let anyone call them a "ho" or treat them like one. Boys with self respect won't measure their worth by how many times they "score" in a weekend. Abstinence is about waiting for someone who respects you, because anyone else just is not worth it.

The pill is 0% effective at preventing broken hearts and STDs.

That's fine.

Self-respect is good. It's also something that should be taught at home. I didn't learn it freshmen health class, that's for sure when any time anybody asked about condoms, they were ignored. I didn't really learn anything useful in freshmen health for that matter....

Sex shouldn't be taboo. Kid's need open discussion about sex and sex issues. That's what will get them closer to self-respect...not saying. "Don't ask. Shut up. It's bad. Don't do it. Your genitals will rot."

"If the right to lifers would do something they normally are opposed to
doing--------THINKING, then there would be no demand for abortions. But instead of promoting birth control, these zealots use abortion as their "front" in their war on women."

We have a keeper!! Added to the voluminous archive of stupid quotes.

This quote states that 'right to lifers' are zealots and at war on women. Did it ever occur that MANY women are against abortion? Does that mean women who are against abortion are zealots and abortion is their "front" in their war with themselves???

Thank you for the keeper, it will be duly archived right along with this keeper as they are related:

“Dan is ready to tell you how a fetus has the potential to become a human being!”
Posted by THE LIBERAL CONSERVATIVE | June 15, 2007 7:04 PM

Oh, Dan, you're silly. Didn't you know that anti-abortion women hate themselves?

I have to laugh. I'm far too busy raising my kids to start a war against myself.

Danny's narcissism aside, where's the beef?
All rant, no solutions.

Why do you not support birth control?

Why do you bury your head in the sand, ignoring any possible way to lower or eliminate the practice? Oh that's right because all those "women" leaders in the Catholic Church told you to. What? No female Priests? No female Cardinals? No female Pope?

This isn't about abortion, this is about CONTROL.

Danny probably thinks the crime of rape is about sex too.

Sorry, don't let me interrupt you from your 14th century rituals. LOL!

Note to Danny:
Do you even know what the definition of a narcissist is? Get back to your archives, now. Hurrry along.

YOU ARE IMPORTANT!
YOU KEEP RECORDS ON PEOPLE! NOT JUST ANYONE COULD DO SUCH A 'BRAVE' THING LIKE THAT.
YOU SHOW THOSE BAD GUYS WHO'S THE BOSS!
THEY WON'T PICK ON YOU, BECAUSE YOU HAVE YOUR "ARCHIVES"! LOL!

You really should be studied by some psychiatrists at a research hospital. Seems you and Reverend Wright have quite a bit in common----explains your obsession with him.
Oh, quick! Get back to your archives.
You are IMPORTANT!

heh, heh, heh, it worked. Thanks again for the quote, it is a masterpiece, one of the best.

As to evolution---it is really hard to believe that some people SEE and still do not believe.

"Intelligent Design" is but another wrapper on the same tired argument by those who feel their religion is threatened by scientific fact. They feel "THEIR" God is so dumb he could never have utilized something complicated, such as evolution.

We settled that with the Scopes/Monkey trial many years ago. Guess the brain dead of today, have no clue about that either.

Nope. This argument is not about science, but about having ones beliefs challenged. It is about deciding whether God is great and omnipresent, or whether he/she is a real idiot and can't do the hard stuff. Obviously, some think God MUST have their help to do it right, and they MUST defend God as he/she is incapable of doing anything in a way they can't understand.

As my friend Jeff would say, "You know, it's not against the law to be stupid".

Carol Dunn, you got it right, but the uneducated must still cling to 'story time'.

**********************************
OFF SUBJECT, BUT IMPORTANT:

BE SURE AND VOTE TOMORROW IF YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY. NO ROOM FOR BITCHING HERE IF YOU DON'T VOTE!

God Bless America---please!

I'll help you start a war against yourself ms. boilermaker.

You can count on me. ;)

"these zealots use abortion as their "front" in their war on women"...

Dan, notice how the feminized men try to align themselves with the girls and make allies of women by 'standing up' for their 'right' to murder children?... But mention how islam treats women and you are not only a zealot, but a.....(drum roll)....that's right, you are a RACIST and intolerant of others' religion for pointing out that muslims can stone their women to death without fear of reprisal and chop off the hands of children who get caught stealing a piece of bread to eat.

I guess muslim women have to get knocked up, move to the US, and decide to murder her child before she can count on the support of our feminized men.
********“****************************************
"Dan is ready to tell you how a fetus has the potential to become a human being!"

LMAO!!!

Neo, my post worked much better than expected. I pointed out a really stupid Demon Deacon quote, done that many times, which in essence said that women who oppose abortion are zealots and at war with themselves.

Good luck in your war with yourself mamaboilermaker btw :)

I expected a response of course, but this one exceeded my expectations. It came complete with an awesome rant with lots of CAPS, references to rape, and even the 14th century!! What a classic vein popping rant, I can see the sweat coming off the brow with rage.

Demon Deacon has generously given me so many classics of late that I'm too busy to sync the keepers on my office and laptop computers at the same time.

If I'm at war with myself, what's my exit strategy? How will I know when I've succeeded? I'm so confused!

mamaboilermaker, your exit strategy is to properly raise your children, teach them to be responsible adults, enjoy your efforts in watching them grow, watch them eventually become parents and hence you a proud grandma!!

Then you get to spoil those grandchildren and send them home afterwards!

Meanwhile try not to stay at war with yourself as Demon Deacon assumes, and enjoy life. I enjoy every day with my kids. God bless you for your wisdom and wit, God bless your children and please keep blogging here.