| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
07 Mar 2006 11:59:09 PM |
| Object: |
Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll |
The people have spoken. When will the politicians and the courts ever
listen?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49153
Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll
Whopping 69 percent of Americans want alternate theories in classroom
A new poll shows 69 percent of Americans believe public school
teachers should present both the evidence for and against Darwinian
evolution.
The Zogby International survey indicated only 21 percent think biology
teachers should teach only Darwin's theory of evolution and the scientific
evidence that supports it.
A majority of Americans from every sub-group were at least twice as
likely to prefer this approach to science education, the Zogby study showed.
About 88 percent of Americans 18-29 years old were in support, along
with 73 percent of Republicans and 74 percent of independent voters.
Others who strongly support teaching the strengths and weaknesses of
evolutionary theory include African-Americans (69 percent), 35-54 year-olds
(70 percent) and Democrats (60 percent).
Casey Luskin, program officer for public policy and legal affairs with
Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture said while his group
does not favor mandating the teaching of intelligent design, "we do think it
is constitutional for teachers to discuss it precisely because the theory is
based upon scientific evidence not religious premises."
The Seattle-based Discovery Institute is the leading promoter of the
theory of Intelligent Design, which has been at the center of challenges in
federal court over the teaching of evolution in public school classes.
Advocates say it draws on recent discoveries in physics, biochemistry and
related disciplines that indicate some features of the natural world are
best explained as the product of an intelligent cause rather than an
undirected process such as natural selection.
"The public strongly agrees that students should be permitted to learn
about such evidence," Luskin said.
The Discovery Institute noted Americans also support students learning
about evidence for intelligent design alongside evolution in biology class -
77 percent.
Just over half - 51 percent - agree strongly with that. Only 19
percent disagree.
--
" The truth shall set you free "
.
|
|
| User: "Arizona Bushwhacker" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll |
08 Mar 2006 01:05:12 AM |
|
|
Intelligent Design removes the question "How"
from the science classroom and replaces it
with the question "Who". The "Who", of course
has already been pre-determined by the people
who invented the Intelligent Design theory.
And any further looking into the question
"How" that may interferer with teaching "Who"
will quickly become a major No-no.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Leif Erikson" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll |
08 Mar 2006 01:16:43 AM |
|
|
Arizona Bushwhacker wrote:
Intelligent Design removes the question "How"
from the science classroom and replaces it
with the question "Who".
Excellent phrasing! That's exactly right, and it says
in a few words precisely what's wrong with "ID" as a
scientific theory. It's not a theory at all.
The "Who", of course
has already been pre-determined by the people
who invented the Intelligent Design theory.
Right again. Thanks for the superb post.
And any further looking into the question
"How" that may interferer with teaching "Who"
will quickly become a major No-no.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "magilla" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll |
08 Mar 2006 09:53:59 AM |
|
|
J Young wrote:
A new poll shows 69 percent of Americans believe public school
teachers should present both the evidence for and against Darwinian
evolution.
snip
Know what? __I__ am in favor of teaching the evidence against
evolution, and I teach college biology classes.
As soon as you point it out to me- in the form of peer-review
publications, please.
Chris
PS: Mr. Young: You invited me to discuss aspects of evolutionary
biology with you, shortly after you posted an article from WorldNet. I
proposed we discuss the existence of vestigial structures, since that
article explicitly stated they didn't exist. I have offered to discuss
this topic with you three times, and you haven't answered. Why is that?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll |
08 Mar 2006 04:21:10 PM |
|
|
"magilla" <chris.linthompson@gmail.com> wrote
Know what? __I__ am in favor of teaching the evidence against
evolution, and I teach college biology classes.
As soon as you point it out to me- in the form of peer-review
publications, please.
That's called the argument from authority.
There are endless amounts of creationist literature, but it doesn't pass
peer review.
However if you look for material denying the evolution of human behaviour,
you'll find plenty. There's a powerful lobby against the right-wing politics
that naturally go with evolutionary psychology. So that material passes peer
review.
Steven Rose, Stephen Gould, and Richard Lewontin all held senior university
appointments, and were all creationists, though they wouldn't have used the
term, when it came to the human brain and its operation.
--
Buy my book 12 Common Atheist Arguments (refuted)
$1.25 download or $6.90 paper, available www.lulu.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "magilla" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll |
09 Mar 2006 08:56:53 AM |
|
|
Malcolm wrote:
"magilla" <chris.linthompson@gmail.com> wrote
Know what? __I__ am in favor of teaching the evidence against
evolution, and I teach college biology classes.
As soon as you point it out to me- in the form of peer-review
publications, please.
That's called the argument from authority.
The argument from authority is a logical fallacy only when the person
or people cited are not legitimate experts in the field. For example,
creationists often use quotes from engineers or chemists to try and
refute evolution. Those people have no expertise in the field of
evolutionary biology. If you cited a legitimate piece from a
paleontologist, that would be another matter.
So in fact, what you need to guard against should be called the
"argument from misplaced authority". The reason peer-review is so
effective is that the people reviewing the articles are the recognized
experts in their particular field.
There are endless amounts of creationist literature, but it doesn't pass
peer review.
Well, that's because it isn't science.
However if you look for material denying the evolution of human behaviour,
you'll find plenty. There's a powerful lobby against the right-wing politics
that naturally go with evolutionary psychology. So that material passes peer
review.
Whatever message you're trying to get across here didn't make it. But
it's obvious you're trying to claim that there's some political bias in
the review of articles about ther evolution of human behavior. I invite
you to post a link to the website that has scans of the rejection
slips.
Steven Rose, Stephen Gould, and Richard Lewontin all held senior university
appointments, and were all creationists, though they wouldn't have used the
term, when it came to the human brain and its operation.
I've read enough of Gould, and I've met Lewontin, and I think I can
safely say that neither of those two were creationists in any way,
shape or form.
--
Buy my book 12 Common Atheist Arguments (refuted)
$1.25 download or $6.90 paper, available www. .com
Oh- I see now. It's all about the spam!
Chris
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll |
09 Mar 2006 06:02:15 PM |
|
|
"magilla" <chris.linthompson@gmail.com> wrote
That's called the argument from authority.
The argument from authority is a logical fallacy only when the person
or people cited are not legitimate experts in the field. For example,
creationists often use quotes from engineers or chemists to try and
refute evolution. Those people have no expertise in the field of
evolutionary biology. If you cited a legitimate piece from a
paleontologist, that would be another matter.
So in fact, what you need to guard against should be called the
"argument from misplaced authority". The reason peer-review is so
effective is that the people reviewing the articles are the recognized
experts in their particular field.
That's another fallacy.
You are right that arguments from misplaced authority ("it is physically
impossible for a bumblebee to fly because I read it in Titbits") are worse
than arguments from authority ("random events cannot occur because Einstein
said so" ).
We should take what Einstein said on the subject of physics very seriously.
And I am also using the argument from authority here - I know that the
consensus is that random events do occur, but I don't really understand the
evidence or the arguments involved.
Ultimately, however, if you can only argue from authority, you don't
yourself have an argument. If the opponent says "yes, authority says that,
but authority happens to be wrong" then you have no option but to withdraw.
That's not to say you must concede - the opponent could be, probably is,
wrong, but you yourself are no competent to argue.
Where the argument from authority is legitimate is where both sides admit
that they themselves are not competent, but the dispute is what the
authority says. So if someone says "scientists believe that astrology really
works" it is perfectly reasonable to point out that hardly any do.
Whatever message you're trying to get across here didn't make it. But
it's obvious you're trying to claim that there's some political bias in
the review of articles about ther evolution of human behavior. I invite
you to post a link to the website that has scans of the rejection
slips.
You're trying to claim there is no political bias in the review of articles
about human behaviour? Don't you think that takes some swallowing?
Steven Rose, Stephen Gould, and Richard Lewontin all held senior
university
appointments, and were all creationists, though they wouldn't have used
the
term, when it came to the human brain and its operation.
I've read enough of Gould, and I've met Lewontin, and I think I can
safely say that neither of those two were creationists in any way,
shape or form.
No. They'd hate the use of the term.
However this doesn't make what I said untrue. Left wing trendies are
perfectly happy to argue for evolution when Biblical literalist's cherished
beliefs are being disproved. But what happens when we move from the
evolution of the body to the evolution of behaviour, and suddenly the
evolutionary biologists start saying things they don't want to hear?
Suddenly they find all sorts of gaps and weaknesses in the biologists'
theories, just like the creationists.
--
Buy my book 12 Common Atheist Arguments (refuted)
$1.25 download or $6.90 paper, available www.lulu.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "bowman" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll |
09 Mar 2006 09:23:10 PM |
|
|
magilla wrote:
I've read enough of Gould, and I've met Lewontin, and I think I can
safely say that neither of those two were creationists in any way,
shape or form.
Even Maynard Smith said that while Gould was a complete idiot, at least he
was not a creationist...
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Is evolution right-wing? This will surprise Republicans |
09 Mar 2006 01:16:30 PM |
|
|
Malcolm wrote:
"magilla" <chris.linthompson@gmail.com> wrote
Know what? __I__ am in favor of teaching the evidence against
evolution, and I teach college biology classes.
As soon as you point it out to me- in the form of peer-review
publications, please.
That's called the argument from authority.
There are endless amounts of creationist literature, but it doesn't pass
peer review.
However if you look for material denying the evolution of human behaviour,
you'll find plenty. There's a powerful lobby against the right-wing politics
that naturally go with evolutionary psychology. So that material passes peer
review.
What right wing politics "goes naturally" with evolution? And why then
the right wing screams so loudly against Darwin and "Darwinism" ?
Are you on the same boat with David Ford, Ray Ambrosini and others who
spam a.a with their endless "Darwin=Hitler" screeds ?
Steven Rose, Stephen Gould, and Richard Lewontin all held senior university
appointments, and were all creationists, though they wouldn't have used the
term, when it came to the human brain and its operation.
--
Buy my book 12 Common Atheist Arguments (refuted)
$1.25 download or $6.90 paper, available www.lulu.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm" |
|
| Title: Re: Is evolution right-wing? This will surprise Republicans |
10 Mar 2006 01:46:33 PM |
|
|
<wonderful@Phreaker.net> wrote
What right wing politics "goes naturally" with evolution? And why then
the right wing screams so loudly against Darwin and "Darwinism" ?
You've got a point.
We tend to lump Nazis, libertarians, and bible bashers together as the
"right wing" despite the fact that none of these groups really have much in
common with each other.
The Nazis made heavy use of evolutionary theory in their propaganda.
Libertarians tend to be sympathetic to the ideas of competition. Hence
people like Gould opposed the evolution of behaviour, but no the evolution
of the body.
However bible bashers dislike evolutionary theory, point taken.
--
Buy my book 12 Common Atheist Arguments (refuted)
$1.25 download or $6.90 paper, available www.lulu.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is evolution right-wing? This will surprise Republicans |
11 Mar 2006 10:51:35 PM |
|
|
Malcolm wrote:
<wonderful@Phreaker.net> wrote
What right wing politics "goes naturally" with evolution? And why then
the right wing screams so loudly against Darwin and "Darwinism" ?
You've got a point.
We
Who are "we"?
tend to lump Nazis, libertarians, and bible bashers together
As the old joke goes: Ant, mouse and elephant went together...
as the
"right wing"
The right wing, in the US of A, is the religious right. The
libertarians get 0,3% of vote and the skinheads get , at best, several
dozens of them to march.
despite the fact that none of these groups really have much in
common with each other.
The Nazis made heavy use of evolutionary theory in their propaganda.
The Nazis also believed in hollow earth, ice universe, astrology,
reincarnation and Atlantis. To paint them as some sort of "darwinist
scientists" is laughable lie of David Ford and his ilk.
Libertarians tend to be sympathetic to the ideas of competition.
Libertarians base their ideology on "inalienable rights of man",
something that is found in the US Constitution, not in nature and not
in the Bible.
Hence
people like Gould opposed the evolution of behaviour, but no the evolution
of the body.
However bible bashers dislike evolutionary theory, point taken.
--
Buy my book 12 Common Atheist Arguments (refuted)
$1.25 download or $6.90 paper, available www.lulu.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "VoiceOfReason" |
|
| Title: Re: Is evolution right-wing? This will surprise Republicans |
10 Mar 2006 12:54:13 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
"magilla" <chris.linthompson@gmail.com> wrote
Know what? __I__ am in favor of teaching the evidence against
evolution, and I teach college biology classes.
As soon as you point it out to me- in the form of peer-review
publications, please.
That's called the argument from authority.
There are endless amounts of creationist literature, but it doesn't pass
peer review.
However if you look for material denying the evolution of human behaviour,
you'll find plenty. There's a powerful lobby against the right-wing politics
that naturally go with evolutionary psychology. So that material passes peer
review.
What right wing politics "goes naturally" with evolution? And why then
the right wing screams so loudly against Darwin and "Darwinism" ?
That's part of the stupidity of Shrub's politics. The fundies will
mostly vote republican whether or not the politicians pay lip service
to them. So it'd be better to drop the God-squad rhetoric and instead
try to keep the rest of the party in one piece.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Curly Surmudgeon" |
|
| Title: Re: Is evolution right-wing? This will surprise Republicans |
09 Mar 2006 10:49:04 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 11:16:30 -0800, wonderful wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
"magilla" <chris.linthompson@gmail.com> wrote
Know what? __I__ am in favor of teaching the evidence against
evolution, and I teach college biology classes.
As soon as you point it out to me- in the form of peer-review
publications, please.
That's called the argument from authority.
There are endless amounts of creationist literature, but it doesn't pass
peer review.
However if you look for material denying the evolution of human behaviour,
you'll find plenty. There's a powerful lobby against the right-wing politics
that naturally go with evolutionary psychology. So that material passes peer
review.
What right wing politics "goes naturally" with evolution? And why then
the right wing screams so loudly against Darwin and "Darwinism" ?
What amuses me is that the wacko-religionists on the extreme right think
the flick "Brokeback Mountain" is worthy of attack then think that it's ok
for Cheney to shoot a load in the face of his partner.
Are you on the same boat with David Ford, Ray Ambrosini and others who
spam a.a with their endless "Darwin=Hitler" screeds ?
-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.curlysurmudgeon.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fooj" |
|
| Title: Re: Is evolution right-wing? This will surprise Republicans |
10 Mar 2006 10:07:35 AM |
|
|
Because there is nothing there. Cheney is a stroking out clawd.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hugo S. Cunningham" |
|
| Title: Re: Is evolution right-wing? This will surprise Republicans |
10 Mar 2006 02:07:26 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 20:49:04 -0800, Curly Surmudgeon
<curly@curlysurmudgeon.com> wrote:
[...]
What amuses me is that the wacko-religionists on the extreme right think
the flick "Brokeback Mountain" is worthy of attack
I despise the Religious Right as much as you do. Nevertheless,
fairness requires me to note the more intelligent ones have kept
relatively quiet about "Brokeback Mountain." It is not that they have
become more sympathetic to gays; instead they recognized that their
previous denunciations of films served as free publicity.
If they could persuade Islamo-fascists to start bombing theatres,
however, then many of our hypocritical and cowardly media would start
kissing their backsides.
--Hugo S. Cunningham
then think that it's ok
for Cheney to shoot a load in the face of his partner.
[...]
--Hugo S. Cunningham
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bonnie Bitch" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll |
08 Mar 2006 04:53:15 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 8 Mar 2006 22:21:10 +0000 (UTC), the faaaaabulous supreme
deity Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, Ruler of the heavens and host of fab
parties, opened the heavens and shone his light upon the wisdom of
"Malcolm" <regniztar@btinternet.com>
"magilla" <chris.linthompson@gmail.com> wrote
Know what? __I__ am in favor of teaching the evidence against
evolution, and I teach college biology classes.
As soon as you point it out to me- in the form of peer-review
publications, please.
That's called the argument from authority.
Nah, that only shows your ignorance of what peer-reviewed science is
all about, not to mention your gross miscomprehension of argumentum ad
veracundiam.
Anyone can take any peer-reviewed, published scientific study and run
it themselves, and thereby observe the results for themselves, with
their own two eyes.
There are endless amounts of creationist literature, but it doesn't pass
peer review.
That's because it's bereft of science. There's no science to examine.
<flush wilted word salad>
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "LC" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll |
08 Mar 2006 10:28:00 AM |
|
|
"magilla" <chris.linthompson@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1141833239.183915.251400@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
J Young wrote:
A new poll shows 69 percent of Americans believe public school
teachers should present both the evidence for and against Darwinian
evolution.
snip
Know what? __I__ am in favor of teaching the evidence against
evolution, and I teach college biology classes.
As soon as you point it out to me- in the form of peer-review
publications, please.
Chris
PS: Mr. Young: You invited me to discuss aspects of evolutionary
biology with you, shortly after you posted an article from WorldNet. I
proposed we discuss the existence of vestigial structures, since that
article explicitly stated they didn't exist. I have offered to discuss
this topic with you three times, and you haven't answered. Why is that?
I'll spell it out slowly, so "J" might comprehend:
Because he's a T-R-O-L-L and a C-O-W-A-R-D.
LC~ Let alone a proven intellectual flyweight.
"Notice how NO ONE, not even his closest buddies, buy into his
dillusions; with the exception of some fools who know they can NEVER
defeat J Young in an intelligent debate."
From: (J Young), all talk, no walk.
Message-ID: <1106495982.766431.208640@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.188.117.7
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "JV" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll |
08 Mar 2006 08:00:41 AM |
|
|
J Young wrote:
The people have spoken. When will the politicians and the courts ever
listen?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49153
Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll
Whopping 69 percent of Americans want alternate theories in classroom
A new poll shows 69 percent of Americans believe public school
teachers should present both the evidence for and against Darwinian
evolution.
What evidence against evolution theory?
I heard people pointing out gaps in the theory and I have no problem
with teaching kids that there is more to be discovered and explained.
But I do not know about scientific evidence against evolution theory,
can someone give me some examples?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Leif Erikson" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll |
08 Mar 2006 12:43:05 AM |
|
|
J Young wrote:
The people have spoken. When will the politicians and the courts ever
listen?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49153
Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll
Whopping 69 percent of Americans want alternate theories in classroom
Not impressive. The overwhelming majority of Americans
think McDonald's is good food, too.
There *are* no alternatives to theories of natural
selection. "Creation science" isn't a theory at all;
it's purely religious dogma.
.
|
|
|
| User: "bam" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll |
08 Mar 2006 07:29:03 AM |
|
|
"Leif Erikson" <pipes@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message
news:Z1vPf.1545$sL2.1427@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
J Young wrote:
The people have spoken. When will the politicians and the courts ever
listen?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49153
Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll
Whopping 69 percent of Americans want alternate theories in
classroom
Not impressive. The overwhelming majority of Americans think McDonald's
is good food, too.
There *are* no alternatives to theories of natural selection. "Creation
science" isn't a theory at all; it's purely religious dogma.
Natural selection is early 19th century laissez faire economics applied to
the biological world. Credit for the evolution theory would probably be
better attributed to Malthus than Darwin.
Regarding creation science, Isaac Newton disagrees with you.
BAM
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll |
08 Mar 2006 10:13:34 AM |
|
|
"bam" <mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net>
"Leif Erikson" <pipes@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message
news:Z1vPf.1545$sL2.1427@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
J Young wrote:
The people have spoken. When will the politicians and the courts ever
listen?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49153
Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll
Whopping 69 percent of Americans want alternate theories in
classroom
Not impressive. The overwhelming majority of Americans think McDonald's
is good food, too.
There *are* no alternatives to theories of natural selection. "Creation
science" isn't a theory at all; it's purely religious dogma.
Natural selection is early 19th century laissez faire economics applied to
the biological world. Credit for the evolution theory would probably be
better attributed to Malthus than Darwin.
Regarding creation science, Isaac Newton disagrees with you.
Newton also disagrees with him -- and me -- regarding the creation of gold
by chemical means.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "bam" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll |
08 Mar 2006 02:04:40 PM |
|
|
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote
Newton also disagrees with him -- and me -- regarding the creation of gold
by chemical means.
Ahhh I get it. So except for things like ohh..gravity and inertia and
momentum, for example, Newton was a fool that should be summarily discarded
and discredited. Who are you assholes?
What did Newton say about alchemy that you disagree with? Please provide
quotes. Here are mine:
"This most beautiful System of the Sun, Planets and Comets, could only
proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being."
Principia Mathematica
BAM
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll |
08 Mar 2006 02:30:26 PM |
|
|
"bam" <mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net>
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote
Newton also disagrees with him -- and me -- regarding the creation of gold
by chemical means.
Ahhh I get it. So except for things like ohh..gravity and inertia and
momentum, for example, Newton was a fool that should be summarily discarded
and discredited.
Hey, if you're going to bring up Newton's credentials as a seminal evolutionary
biologist, I'll bring him up as a proto-chemist. Deal?
Who are you assholes?
I don't know about the other assholes, but me, I'm the ***** who
clearly knows both science and the history of science far better than you
do.
What did Newton say about alchemy that you disagree with?
His strange omissions as regards Pauling electronegativities, first
ionization potentials, Gibb's free energies of reaction, chirality,
metathesis, and platinum group ligand-mediated catalysis.
Please provide quotes. Here are mine:
"This most beautiful System of the Sun, Planets and Comets, could only
proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being."
Principia Mathematica
Was that before or after the section in which he discusses Ambulocetus?
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Westley" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll |
08 Mar 2006 07:09:54 PM |
|
|
"bam" <mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> writes:
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote
Newton also disagrees with him -- and me -- regarding the creation of gold
by chemical means.
Ahhh I get it. So except for things like ohh..gravity and inertia and
momentum, for example, Newton was a fool that should be summarily discarded
and discredited. Who are you assholes?
No, idiot. Argument from authority is invalid.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll |
08 Mar 2006 04:49:39 PM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and "bam"
<mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> posting the following on Wed, 8 Mar
2006 15:04:40 -0500 iin alt.atheism?
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote
Newton also disagrees with him -- and me -- regarding the creation of gold
by chemical means.
Ahhh I get it. So except for things like ohh..gravity and inertia and
momentum, for example, Newton was a fool that should be summarily discarded
and discredited. Who are you assholes?
No, just that his being a genius in certain fields did not make him
all-knowing. He was an absolute master of math and basic physics. But
his other beliefs were odd, at best.
What did Newton say about alchemy that you disagree with? Please provide
quotes. Here are mine:
"This most beautiful System of the Sun, Planets and Comets, could only
proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being."
Principia Mathematica
That's an unfounded allegation. Does he go on to offer proof?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/newton/alchemy.html
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "bam" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll |
08 Mar 2006 07:01:26 PM |
|
|
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:amnu02dilikbjqd883hjvp00o40jshu1r8@4ax.com...
What's so funny about peace, love and "bam"
<mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> posting the following on Wed, 8 Mar
2006 15:04:40 -0500 iin alt.atheism?
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote
Newton also disagrees with him -- and me -- regarding the creation of
gold
by chemical means.
Ahhh I get it. So except for things like ohh..gravity and inertia and
momentum, for example, Newton was a fool that should be summarily
discarded
and discredited. Who are you assholes?
No, just that his being a genius in certain fields did not make him
all-knowing. He was an absolute master of math and basic physics. But
his other beliefs were odd, at best.
Of course, you know his other beliefs, ay?
What did Newton say about alchemy that you disagree with? Please provide
quotes. Here are mine:
"This most beautiful System of the Sun, Planets and Comets, could only
proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful
being."
Principia Mathematica
That's an unfounded allegation. Does he go on to offer proof?
Evolution is an unfounded allegation.
BAM
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll |
08 Mar 2006 07:49:39 PM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and "bam"
<mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> posting the following on Wed, 8 Mar
2006 20:01:26 -0500 iin alt.atheism?
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:amnu02dilikbjqd883hjvp00o40jshu1r8@4ax.com...
No, just that his being a genius in certain fields did not make him
all-knowing. He was an absolute master of math and basic physics. But
his other beliefs were odd, at best.
Of course, you know his other beliefs, ay?
Well, I have read his writings on alchemy, and the evils of bathing in
his letters. Most astronomers learn about Newton along with the other
early greats.
"This most beautiful System of the Sun, Planets and Comets, could only
proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful
being."
Principia Mathematica
That's an unfounded allegation. Does he go on to offer proof?
Evolution is an unfounded allegation.
No, because we have evidence that is put up for public scrutiny. You
are free to subscribe to the biology journals and respond to every
single article published on evolution. You can even submit your own
articles for peer review.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Leif Erikson" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll |
08 Mar 2006 08:33:18 PM |
|
|
bam wrote:
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:amnu02dilikbjqd883hjvp00o40jshu1r8@4ax.com...
What's so funny about peace, love and "bam"
<mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> posting the following on Wed, 8 Mar
2006 15:04:40 -0500 iin alt.atheism?
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote
Newton also disagrees with him -- and me -- regarding the creation of
gold
by chemical means.
Ahhh I get it. So except for things like ohh..gravity and inertia and
momentum, for example, Newton was a fool that should be summarily
discarded
and discredited. Who are you assholes?
No, just that his being a genius in certain fields did not make him
all-knowing. He was an absolute master of math and basic physics. But
his other beliefs were odd, at best.
Of course, you know his other beliefs, ay?
As a matter of fact, we do have some information on them.
What did Newton say about alchemy that you disagree with? Please provide
quotes. Here are mine:
"This most beautiful System of the Sun, Planets and Comets, could only
proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful
being."
Principia Mathematica
That's an unfounded allegation. Does he go on to offer proof?
Evolution is an unfounded allegation.
Evolution is a fact. Darwin's theory of natural
selection is a particular theory to explain evolution.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Slippery Slope" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll |
08 Mar 2006 03:02:10 PM |
|
|
bam wrote:
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote
Newton also disagrees with him -- and me -- regarding the creation of gold
by chemical means.
Ahhh I get it. So except for things like ohh..gravity and inertia and
momentum, for example, Newton was a fool that should be summarily discarded
and discredited. Who are you assholes?
What did Newton say about alchemy that you disagree with? Please provide
quotes. Here are mine:
"This most beautiful System of the Sun, Planets and Comets, could only
proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being."
Principia Mathematica
That's nice. It *still* isn't "creation science",
though; it's merely standard UNscientific belief in *a*
creator.
Do YOU think alchemy is legitimate science, nitwit?
William Shockley won the Nobel Prize for physics (1/3
of it) in 1956, and is credited with being the "father"
of the transistor. He subsequently advanced a
scientifically UNFOUNDED theory of racial differences
in intelligence, despite having zero background in
genetics or any sort of physiology. Do you, nitwit,
believe that being a genius in one area makes one an
authority on everything? You stupid fuckwit.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll |
08 Mar 2006 03:11:07 PM |
|
|
In article <mDHPf.8604$S25.7588@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net> Slippery Slope <s.e.maizlisch@hertzburg.eduu> writes:
bam wrote:
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote
Newton also disagrees with him -- and me -- regarding the creation of gold
by chemical means.
Ahhh I get it. So except for things like ohh..gravity and inertia and
momentum, for example, Newton was a fool that should be summarily discarded
and discredited. Who are you assholes?
What did Newton say about alchemy that you disagree with? Please provide
quotes. Here are mine:
"This most beautiful System of the Sun, Planets and Comets, could only
proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being."
Principia Mathematica
That's nice. It *still* isn't "creation science",
though; it's merely standard UNscientific belief in *a*
creator.
Do YOU think alchemy is legitimate science, nitwit?
William Shockley won the Nobel Prize for physics (1/3
of it) in 1956, and is credited with being the "father"
of the transistor. He subsequently advanced a
scientifically UNFOUNDED theory of racial differences
in intelligence, despite having zero background in
genetics or any sort of physiology. Do you, nitwit,
believe that being a genius in one area makes one an
authority on everything? You stupid fuckwit.
Hey, c'mon. Shockley has as much proof of his zany
ideas as two-time Nobel laureate Linus Pauling had
for his vitamin C silliness. (didya ever read Pauling's
letter to Feynman, advising something like 60 grams
of ascorbic acid a day for Feynman's cancer?)
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Westley" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll |
08 Mar 2006 09:22:12 AM |
|
|
"bam" <mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> writes:
"Leif Erikson" <pipes@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message
news:Z1vPf.1545$sL2.1427@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
J Young wrote:
The people have spoken. When will the politicians and the courts ever
listen?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49153
Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll
Whopping 69 percent of Americans want alternate theories in
classroom
Not impressive. The overwhelming majority of Americans think McDonald's
is good food, too.
There *are* no alternatives to theories of natural selection. "Creation
science" isn't a theory at all; it's purely religious dogma.
Natural selection is early 19th century laissez faire economics applied to
the biological world. Credit for the evolution theory would probably be
better attributed to Malthus than Darwin.
Regarding creation science, Isaac Newton disagrees with you.
Newton was also an alchemist. Want to bring that back into
the classroom, moron? Hey, turning lead into gold would
really help the economy, so why not?
---
Merlyn LeRoy
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
