ACLU Batting For Communism… Again
Posted by: Emperor Misha I in Communist Swine, Lefty America-Haters2:49 am
In other news: Man gets bit after kicking Rottweiler (link thanks to Sir Christopher).
HAVANA (AP) - Cuban librarians on Friday criticized attempts by the Miami-Dade County school board to ban a children’s book that presents a positive depiction of life on the communist-run island.
Cuban librarians can unceremoniously go fuck themselves. We have enough domestic morons in love with the most murderous ideology in the history of mankind, we don’t need the input from foreigners.
“It’s outrageous the Miami school libraries would prohibit the presence of the book ‘Vamos a Cuba’ because it shows the truth about how our children live,” librarian Margarita Bellas Vilarino told the state newspaper Juventud Rebelde.
Ms. Vilarino then went on to protest the banning in school libraries of “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” as yet another example of the U.S. suppressing the “truth”.
Bellas, of the Cuban Association of Librarians, and Abel Ponce, of the Jose Marti National Library in Havana, told Juventud Rebelde that government-run libraries island-wide were protesting the Florida book ban.
And we could then all go on to laughing about a bunch of lying, murdering socialist swine trying to promote their lies in this country, if it wasn’t for the fact that the Usual Suspects of a certain domestic communist organization immediately went to bat for revisionism and genocide:
The American Civil Liberties Union argued in a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Miami last week that a June 14 decision to ban the book violated students’ rights and that the books were removed without due process.
This would be the same ACLU that will trip over their own miniscule dicks to file suit whenever anybody, anywhere, dares suggest in a public school that the main problem with the religious cult of Darwinism is that it has no scientific evidence backing it up. Darwinism is, to this day, one of the happy religions that won’t make the ACLU start carping about the mythical “wall of separation between church and state”, probably because the only thing separating Darwinism from Scientology is that Darwinists have yet to file for tax-exempt status.
If you as much as mention to your students that Darwinism is a theory, an undeniable fact, you’ll have the ACLU conducting a witch hunt on you before you finish the sentence, but if you suggest that Cuba is a Worker’s Paradise filled with happy, fulfilled, well-fed citizens with no desire to live anywhere else… Well, that’s just dandy, according to the ACLU, and it should be allowed to be a part of the curriculum in every school in the nation. Fairy tales disguised as “education” are just fine with the ACLU as long as they’re the right kind of fairy tales.
A U.S. federal judge ruled Tuesday that the Miami-Dade school district must keep the book on library shelves pending a July 21 court hearing.
Right next to Walter Duranty’s Pulitzer Prize-winning reports about the wonders of Stalin’s Ukraine.
The book, “Vamos a Cuba,” and its English language version “A Visit to Cuba,” by Alta Schreier, is intended for students ages 5 to 7. It shows images of smiling children wearing uniforms of Cuba’s communist youth group and a carnival celebrating the 1959 revolution.
A parent who said he had been a political prisoner in Cuba complained in April about the book’s depiction of life under communist rule, and the Miami-Dade school district agreed to ban it, saying it was inappropriate for young readers because of inaccuracies and omissions about life on the island.
What? Next they’ll argue that the Nazi propaganda movie “Der Ewige Jude” isn’t really an accurate portrayal of Judaism. No wonder the ACLU is upset.
President Fidel Castro said in 1998 that there was no official prohibition of any books on the island, only a lack of funds to buy them.
Well, if the dictator presiding over the gulags of Cuba says so, then it must be true.
Challenging that, Cuban dissidents began lending books from their own private collections, dubbing them “independent libraries” and they have been largely tolerated by the government.
“Largely tolerated” meaning “enjoy your stay in a concentration camp.”
It’s a good thing that we have the ACLU defending that sort of thing. Right along with NAMBLA members’ rights to rape little boys.
Entries (RSS)
Thus demonstrating that banning the Castroite propaganda wasn’t such a bad idea. Commie dickwits.
July 1st, 2006 at 4:06 amYa forgot to say ‘first’….
July 1st, 2006 at 5:16 amMischa:
Mischa, I am surprised! For all your faults, the one thing I didn’t have you pegged as was a creationist. I thought you were more sensible than that.
Let me explain a couple of things to you. Evolution, defined as a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations, is a fact. Not a “Theory”, not a “Hypothesis” but an absolute, concrete, inviolable, fact of biology. There is still some debate over the finer points of precisely how such changes are effected. For example, the late Stephen J. Gould was a high profile proponent of what’s become known as “Punctuated Equilibrium”, the theory that populations evolve in fits and starts in sudden response to accumulated environmental pressures. Other biologists feel the reverse is true, that populations evolve more evenly and incrementally. So there is some debate in scientific circles over the nature of the mechanisms which guide evolution. The fact of evolution itself, however, is beyond dispute. One of my favourite science writers, Douglas J. Futuyama, states it thusly:
Darwinists are not “cultists”. They are simply people who refuse to deny the bleeding obvious.
The evidence supporting Darwinian evolution can be wheeled out and measured by the metric ton. The evidence for Biblical creation, a facile and bloodthirsty agglomeration of fantastical myths concocted by deranged agrarian goatherders several thousand years ago, is entirely non-existent. It’s people like you who are really lowering America’s intellectual prestige in the eyes of the world.
July 1st, 2006 at 6:35 am[…] The ACLU is fighting for Communism. Again. Posted by Ian S. in […]
July 1st, 2006 at 6:59 amI beg to differ. A “Cult” as I understand it demands that it’s members adhere to strict guidelines of what is to be belived and what is not. Most Darwinian folks such as your self tow that party line and absolutly refuse to consider other avenues…evolution is the Holy Grail for an Atheist.
Unfourtantly, in that “refusal to deny the bleeding obvious” Darwinist have also for the vast majority of the population condemened the rights of others to belive as they so choose.
As EVIDENCE of this FACT I submit to you the folowing:
- Athesist’s endless law suits to erase any reference to god or religion form the public forum.
- The ACLU’s tireless campaign and flawed argument that there exsists a mysterious “separation of Church and State.”
“American’s united for separation of church and state” also suing over and over and over again at the least little percieved encroachment of thier so called rights to erase religion from the public forum…so who is the cult again here?
Pointing out the endless assult on religion by people of your caliber is futile…
While I am agnostic and probably a rare breed in this environment on the Rott I seem to get along quite well with the rest of this community, because I keep my feelings concerning evolution and religion on a civil level unlike you who just called 99% of the posters on here followers of a “facile bloodthirsty agglomeration of fantastical mythes concoted by dreganed goat hearders..”
Troll…
July 1st, 2006 at 7:29 amMuzzy the idiot-boy says,
But then he says right after,
So, if there is still debate on HOW its done, I guess its still a theory. In order to have a scientific law, you have to be able to do a series of experiments and get the same results repeatedly. Like with gravity, or the gas laws.
Until you can show how all life started from some muck in a pool, all you have is a theory. I mean concrete physical proof, not a theory as to how it would work.
We are dealing in FACTS here, and the fact is, we don’t have much of a clue as to how we got here. Just a bunch of wild ideas.
July 1st, 2006 at 8:10 amOkay, asshole - prove it. Show us the species that changed itself into a completely different species. We’ll wait.
Oh, and don’t bother offering up any bloviating from the bullshit site talkorigins.org. We want facts, not a bunch of bullshit goalpost-moving, mkay?
This oughta be good. Pass the popcorn… (pulls out copy of War and Peace)
July 1st, 2006 at 8:16 amFirstly, that is a very broad definition of a ‘cult’. By that definition Roman Catholicism is a ‘cult’ and any definition of a cult which can’t be used to distinguish between David Koresh and the Pope isn’t much of a definition, IMO. I prefer the dictionary definition of ‘Cult’ which is:
Clearly Darwinism is not a cult by that definition, not least because it contains no supernatural elements.
None of the available physical evidence suggests the existence of any “other avenues”. Least of all Biblical creationism which stands in direct contradiction to said evidence. You want us to consider other avenues? Just give us some hard physical evidence to substantiate them.
Bullshit. Creationists are perfectly free to believe in whatever facile nonsense they want; Biblical creation, the Loch Ness Monster, the Tooth Fairy, whatever. If they want to teach their kids that God created the world ten thousand years ago (with the light from distant stars already in transit towards the earth), and that the whole of humanity descended from two people created from dirt in a garden who were kicked out for eating forbidden apples on the advice of a talking snake, then they can go right ahead. I just don’t want them teaching my kids that crap!
As an aside, it should be made perfectly clear that those of us not yet blinded by religious metaphysics are well aware that “Intelligent Design Theory” is little more than a trojan horse by which to smuggle Biblical creation myths into science classes.
So long as the Creationists keep their religious superstitions to their damn selves, out of the political arena and out of the classroom, I will be happy.
Again, bullshit! Just because people object when Christians try to subsidise the promulgation of their religion with money from the public purse doesn’t mean they’re being repressed.
What part of “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of Religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” is unclear to you? You want to live in a country where the Church is wedded to the state, go live in Iran.
Incidentally, what the hell does any of this have to do with evolution?
Yes, in response to a post by Mischa who compared Darwinian’s to Scientologists. Fuck civility. Mischa sure as fuck ain’t civil so I don’t see why I should be.
July 1st, 2006 at 8:18 amThis is the first problem with our society: Fuckheads like Muffy are allowed to breed.
For that matter, you squirrel-felching fucknugget, what the hell does any of this have to do with the ACLU - THE ORIGINAL TOPIC OF THE POST, SHITHEAD?!?!?!?!
July 1st, 2006 at 8:27 amGod I love this blog. What a great post. *F* the ACLU and anyone that supports their socialist-lite agendas.
July 1st, 2006 at 8:29 amDeathKnight wrote:
let me try again. We know for a fact that populations change over time. This change in populations is called Evolution. That this happens is a fact.
However, the precise mechanisms by which evolution occurs are, to only a small extent, theoretical. By this I mean that there are some evolutionists who think evolution happens one way and other evolutionists who think evolution happens in a slightly different way. But, and this is the important bit, none of them dispute the fact of evolution!
Evolution doesn’t say anything about how life began. It explains how life developed but makes no predictions about how organic matter first arose from the primordial ooze. In spite of what you may have heard from your preacher or your favourite talk radio personality, questions such as yours simply fall outside the rubric of evolution and always have.
Spatula wrote:
You’re asking me to prove something that isn’t evolution. Evolution doesn’t predict that species change into other species. Just that species diverge and become more variegated in response to environmental pressures. For example, take the story of the Peppered Moth. In the 19th century Manchester was populated by white moths with little black speckles. There were also a few moths which were completely black. Now, the white moths flourished because their colour allowed them to rest on the white barks of nearby trees without being seen by birds.
However, during the Industrial Revolution these trees were covered in soot and turned black. This meant that the white moths lost their ability to camouflage themselves and their numbers reduced drastically. The black moths, by contrast, suddenly had millions of new hiding places, and they flourished.
Now, what does this mean on the genetic level? Well, if you remember, Evolution is defined as a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations. A more technical and concise way of putting this is that Evolution denotes ‘A change in the frequency of an allele within a gene pool’. An allele is simply a piece of genetic code.
In the example of the peppered moths, the allele for white wings nearly died out during the industrial revolution because nearly all the moths who carried that allele were picked off by the birds. However, the allele for black wings became more prevalent as those moths with black wings were less easy to spot against the sooty trees.
The change in allele frequency in the peppered moth population is perhaps the simplest and best documented example of evolution we have. Moreover, there is no way to explain the change in allele frequency without admitting the truth of evolution.
I’ll cite from talk origins as much as I damn well please thank-you-so-very-fucking-much. You don’t get to summarily dismiss sites just because you don’t like them.
July 1st, 2006 at 8:51 amThats what I love about liberals… that un yielding dedication to protecting others rights…err well as long as the other side AGREES with them that is…
Oh yes Muzzy…lets teach our kids things like the proper use of contraceptives and ooops if theres a little accident its OK to go get an abortion..after all pre martial sex is ok…lets teach em that it’s OK to be gay and spread deadly viruses…but DONT YOU DEAR teach them things like “Tho shall not Steal…Murder…etc” Good forbid there is any thing taught from the bible like ..ohn you know taking responsibity for ones actions..honor…truth..
Hell while we’re at it…Lets not give a child the CHOICE to choose as he belives…nope we’ll have none of that…we’ll just churn out a bunch of little heathens that couldn’t give a shit about anything other then “whats in it for me”….I hear phrases like the one just dribbled from muzzy’s chin and I think of those Kids in Pink Floyd’s “The Wall” marching in lock step …right into a meat grinder..
Or better yet…lets put an Athesist in the White house…hell it’s eve-o-lution man…survival of the fittest…well golly gee I have the most Nukes.. Im the fittest so…those pesky fanantic religious Muslims ..CLICK.
None of it is unclear.. especially the 2ND part. And again…please find me the mysterious phrase “separation of church and state” as it is found in the U.S. Consitution. Guess what sparky it isnt there…Convientaly, as in any Athesist’s pyschobabble about that two part phrase, what’s absent is the fact that the FOUNDING FATHERS who wrote it were RELGIOUS and Deeply FATIHFULL men…and you dare presume that the founding fathers meant NO RELIGON in the public forum??…that my dear Muzzy is called revising the facts to fit your little agenda…
Well golly gee Muffy..Muzzy…whatever..Guess what? I do LIVE in the Middle EAST…is Q8 close enough to Iran?…right now looking out my window I am 25 short miles from Iran….been here almost 4 years now working to support the troops in the WOT and trying to protect your rights to bash everything that is decent with a country founded on basic RELGIOUS principles…(yes, yes, I know you haven’t bashed anything yet..but it’s coming…Ya see…I got your number my friend…you moon bats are a dime a dozen and your as perdictable as the sun, the moon, and the tides…) what have YOU done lately to help your country?
And as parting note…you better bring some fire power to the match tangling with the like of Misha and Lord Spatualla…as my grandad used to tell me…”Boy your barking up da’ wrong damn tree..” Just some “freindly advice”….
July 1st, 2006 at 9:45 am“What part of “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of Religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” is unclear to you? You want to live in a country where the Church is wedded to the state, go live in Iran.”
What part of this do YOU not understand, Muzzy? I don’t see any riders or provisions along the lines of “unless someone else is offended by it,” or “except when someone else thinks religion is bunk.”
Do you know what an “established religion” is? An established religion is a faith in partnership with the state. In a state with an established religion you must be a member of that faith in order to enjoy full political and in some cases economic rights. At the time of the American Revolution Great Britain was a state that had an established religion. In order to qualify for the right to vote, hold office either elective or appointed, or take a commission in the armed forces as an officer, you HAD to be a member of the Anglican Church or of a set of very narrowly defined “dissenter” Protestant sects. If you were a Roman Catholic, you could not vote, hold office, or take a commission.
The purpose of the First Amendment was to prohibit the United States Government from requiring a specific religious adherence as a precondition of citizenship. It states emphatically that there can be nothing like the Corporation and Test Acts of Great Britain written into American Law. But it doesn’t stop there; it continues to recognize specifically and emphatically the right of the individual to excercise his or her religious beliefs, again without any provisos or restrictions. There are no exceptions in this amendment that place conditions on freedom of religion, nothing along the lines of “except for public school teachers in the execution of their duties,” or “unless the person is a Catholic nominated to the Supreme Court.” There are such exceptions in other amendments, for example the Thirteenth: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” Had there been any restrictions of religious freedom in mind, they would have been included.
So how does this square with the current lawsuit instigated by Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the West Virginia American Civil Liberties Union to remove a portrait of Jesus from a hallway in a West Virginia high school? How has the First Amendment been violated by an entirely passive display of a religious icon? According to the Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United “This is pretty clear constitutional law. Public schools cannot promote specific religious ideas.” Why not? I can see the immediate response (based on Muzzy’s point above in comment #8 concerning Christians desiring the “promulgation of their religion with money from the public purse”) that taxpayer dollars should not have been spent to purchase the portrait. Fine. I will offer to buy the portrait from my own purse and donate it to the school. Does that solve the problem? No? I think I can hear someone reving up an argument that because the school was built with taxpayer money, it cannot be used to excercize religion. By that argument, I would violate the Constitution when I jump in the truck and drive down a public road (built with taxpayer money) to go to Church (or Mosque or Synagogue or Buddhist Temple or…), even moreso if I had one of those little silver fish thingies displayed on the tailgate, openly using a taxpayer-funded community resource to display my religious belief.
Okay, that was a facetious example, but I do want to make the point that the Constitution is quite specific in recognizing the natural right of freedom of religion and very specific in protecting that freedom from State interference.
July 1st, 2006 at 10:48 amThe Peppered Moth is an example of adaptation, not evolution. The black-winged moths are not a new species, as they can interbreed with the speckled-wing moths. I don’t have a problem with evolution, it’s just that the Peppered Moth is not a good example of it.
How about this? Both evolution and creation are true: God made man in his own image, but God is in fact four feet tall and covered with light brown fur. (As Larry the Cable Guy says, “Lord, I apologize for that one.)
July 1st, 2006 at 11:04 amACLU Fights To Keep Communist Propaganda In School Library…
Hat tip: Danegerus
July 1st, 2006 at 11:27 amThe American Civil Liberties Union asked a federal judge to stop the Miami-Dade County school district from removing a series of children’s books from its libraries, including a volume about Cuba which depicts smiling kids …
I want a copy of Vamos a Cuba for my kids. I can put it with the rest of the comic books. Is it available in Spanish? Wouldn’t want it to lose any of its original flavor.
Seriously, if life is so great in Cuba, why is it that when kids grow up they risk life and limb to come here instead? Do they cover that in the book? … Lucy, you got some ’splainin to do…
July 1st, 2006 at 11:42 amthese people are starving for attention
July 1st, 2006 at 11:46 amWell! That pretty much says it all, doesn’t it? In Islamic countries Islam is the government. That is how they are supposed to exercise their religion. Obviously, here is a religion that we can’t have the free expression of, therefore.
The fundamentalist Muslims don’t see secular governments as legitimate, period (Saddam Hussein was not overly religious - but I guess one thing they do observe and respect is ruthlessness and violence!)
Read this article: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060629.wxblog29/BNStory/National/home?pageRequested=all&print=true .
Note the attitude of these Canadian women toward the Canadian government. Perhaps we should amend the Constitution to only allow only peaceful, nonpolitical expression of religion. Although that is implied, it would be nice not to leave any wiggle room for future creative interpretation by irresponsible courts.
July 1st, 2006 at 12:00 pmCiSSnarl5.7 - Don’t you love it when you get a chickenhawkesque retort like ‘go live in Iran’ and you are able to smack it out of the sky with a satisfying thud, like you did? Beauty.
Muzzie - You must not want to effect any change in people’s opinions on this issue, just browbeat and pontificate about your own. Because being mock-surprised, insulting and worst of all -CONDESCENDING - in a big way on someone elses’ site is SUCH a great icebreaker to get people to listen. And right from that first sentence…wow. Aren’t you the clever one. (mock-impressed right backatchya.)
Misha put it plainly from his first sentence:
AFTER - that’s the key word. You get what you set yourself up for. I don’t always agree with every post, but no one here can EVER whine that the Emperor won’t entertain an opinion contrary to his own. (Might be some stomping around and furniture thrown, but it’ll be ‘entertained’ - lol!) In all seriousness, though, that’s one of the single best things about this site.
But you walk yourself right into a door if you don’t have your facts in a row, respected sources to back them up, and if you start out as if you know it all already. Then you become something to swat around out of sheer boredom. Ever seen a killer whale play with a harbor seal before it eats it? Yeah, like that.
People here are entrenched in their views on this issue to varying degrees. Some are more open to debate than others (depends on each issue) but I give them all the credit they each are due, because reading here will expose you to both the pro and con of any argument, if for no other reason than to be able to actively, and accurately, refute it. Still it’s something I don’t see such a willingness for on too many ‘other’ sites. And hey, they even encourage trolls visiting here, but (and this is key) smart ones who know enough not to crap on the carpet.
Be any way you want. You get back exactly what you put out there. Be sure to note who eschewed the civility in whatever dialogues you may have first, however.
So, comparing Darwinian’s to Scientologists is as much an insult as a “facile bloodthirsty agglomeration of fantastical myths concocted by dreganed goat-herders.”??? (very Misha-like turn of phrase btw,;-) just couldn’t not touch up the spelling nor could I locate ‘dreganed’ in the dictionary - definition please, anyone? )I did not realize that - no mock surprise here. That reaction was interesting.
July 1st, 2006 at 12:10 pmPssst….Um Beth his original post has most of it spelled correctly…I was the one that screwed up typing his words in my rebuttal, and not looking for typos…
Keyboarding is not my forte…1,000 apologies.
Snarl
July 1st, 2006 at 12:22 pmHey, wasn’t picking on you or him for spelling, CiSSnarl, I just fix ‘em if there’s more than a couple. It’s all good (and heaven knows, my spelling isn’t always up to par either). I still want to know what ‘dreganed’ is? Love new words….
July 1st, 2006 at 12:49 pmAwww, Muttfucker’s having a tantrum……..I have engaged in several civil conversations with Darwinist’s over the years. It seems we agreed the one gaping hole on the theory of evolution is the initiation of a new species, one incapable of interbreding with it’s predecessors. What is often confused with this is mutation, the simple, small but necessary adaptation of a creature to it’s environment, enhancing it’s ability to survive and proliferate. As usual, the God hating mantra abounds. I was into Scientology at one time. I left.
July 1st, 2006 at 12:50 pmAnd if this freak has a problem with this site, why does he keep coming back? Muzzy, you are great for laughs, but you sure as hell won’t change anybody, and nobody here is afraid of you……….so go ahead and play your silly assed games, calling names and such. The one delightful thought I do have…..I one day expect to have to fight those such as you, with guns in a civil war here….and I’m looking forward to it……asshole! Fuck off and die, punk!
Totally off subject here, but I found this little bit from the “other” Carter brother. I forgot all about Billy. What do you suppose he does these days, besides counting Arabs? He may have been a better presidential choice in retrospect …
July 1st, 2006 at 12:50 pmAh. Found it. ‘Deranged’. Got it. LOL
July 1st, 2006 at 12:52 pmHeh, heh, heh. The article implies that “Vamos a Cuba” means “A Visit to Cuba” in Spanish. Actually, the Spanish version of the book, Vamos a Cuba,” means “Let’s go to Cuba.”
Let’s.
July 1st, 2006 at 1:08 pmEither evolution provides the answers or its just a theory. We have single cell organisims in a hole in the ground, how do you create something as complex as the human body from a single cell organisim?
Also, take into account that our planet just happens to be sitting in one of the few places that life has a chance to exist. Farther in and its too hot, farther out and its too cold. Drop Sol farther into the galaxy and conditions are harsher. Way too much to leave to chance.
July 1st, 2006 at 1:12 pmCiSSnarl5.7 wrote:
Would you take that attitude with someone who pushed to teach your kids geocentrism? Because that’s how wrong Creationists are. The overwhelming preponderence of evidence favours evolution. People who deny it in spite of this evidence are simply wrong. It’s just that simple. Creationists can ignore or warp the evidence to fit their antediluvian myths, or they can wise up and stop making their countrymen look like buffoons.
Can you really not differentiate between moral questions and questions of objective fact? There’s plenty of room for debate on the subject of, say, teaching abstinence in schools. There’s no room for debate on the subject of evolution. The requisite facts simply don’t exist.
Just out of interest, what would be so bad about having an atheist President? And as an aside it’s worth mentioning that, judging by the general tenor of the posts on this site, a President who vower to nuke Mecca would probably get a lot of votes from this site’s regulars, atheist or not.
Then surely you’re aware of the danger of entangling the Church and the State.
July 1st, 2006 at 1:20 pmOh, for the record, last time I went to Church was 1997 and I don’t listen to talk radio.
July 1st, 2006 at 1:22 pmBack to the original topic, they wanted to pull a commie propaganda book from the shelves, and the ACLU maggots spewed forth to protect THEIR religion, communism. At the same time, where’s the same fervor about freedom of speech withthe NJ Dhimmicrats wanting to ban Ann Coulter’s book? The kool-aid swilling lefties in this country are only interested in free speech that is in lockstep with their agenda, like Muzzo the clown and his off-the-wall- rant about eeevvoooluuution, another icon of the left, along with their sacred cow, abortion. Simply put, the Anti-Christian Litigation Union wants to defend one of their icons, communism. Kwongdzu, you’re right on the money. If Cuba really is the worker’s paradise it claims to be, then where are all of the throngs of people clamoring to get in? That’s right, it’s the other way around, silly me!
See, Cuba is another example of a state religion, communism! If you’re not a party elite, you’re little more than a piece of trash on the sidewalk!
July 1st, 2006 at 1:38 pmFascinating stuff, Deathknyte, so many simple things. Just the type of stable star we have in our sun….an axial inclination of some twenty-three degrees, just enough to generate season but not enough to fry or freeze life en masse…..Even so far as an oversized moon, based on the size of it’s primary, being here to generate tides..to create beaches..a necessary function of sea life to adapt to the harsher land. I don’t know how life began either, nobody does. Science does not know and religion can only suggest. As for me I’m open to suggestions, divine intervention and evolution of a sort? I do see evolutionists dodging unanswerable questions, claiming it’s off the subject. All they can do is attack other possibilities, never supply a concrete answer of their own. What I oppose is the God haters out there, all the while denying their hatred. Generally by hiding behind numbers, in our case the vast majority of this nation being Christians. So claiming we can’t be persecuted. So am I to infer that if Christians we a minority they couldn’t be persecuted? It’s bullshit but that’s what you hear. Not that I give a shit what lefties think…I don’t. In Kalifornia here, one thought I do snicker about is knowing the vast, and I mean almost a hundred per cent of Mexican immigrants here are very, very staunchly Roman Catholic, have no use whatsover for liberals, jotos or abortion. So it’s a fight between social benefits and religion. But they have been and are being singled out and persecuted when possible…while providing access to other faiths is labled tolerance. You can see grade schoolers here in Kalifornia being taught about Islam…but you just try to teach them anything about Christianity. “Now let’s see, today is Muslim class, so for show and tell we will behead Johnny…” The ACLU, created by that neurotic communist Roger Baldwin……..his followers still live in a dream world…..of playing people off against each other while they move in to pick up the pieces…….well, many of us old bulls are wise to that shit. We sit quietly and watch, looking after our family, our friends; being a survivalist, I have a large amount of everything, including ammo, sitting about. So while these fucking liberals look to the government, as they did in Nuh Awlins…..I will be sitting quietly at home with my stuff, my friends….and our guns………something about Fuck You said the Little Red Hen… The left breeds contempt for the law, a dangerous parh. We have prop eighty-six coming up in November, to raise cigarette taxes again over two bucks a pack to allegedly help defray the costs of hospital emergency services. I laughed my ass off, but expect it to pass. To raise money? More money will be spent on detection and enforcemnt against the smugglers and bootleggers gearing up for a bonanza. As for me? I know nothing, see nothing and hear nothing. Al Capone would have loved it. And yes, I have contempt for such laws. More so for those passing them. I do smoke, roll my own from my own supply of tobacco..have for years…..got ten gallons of prime ‘baccy curing in the garage, truly a fine bouquet……..you do not have to break a law to get around it. But hey, that’s Kalifornia…….although here in the Central Valley it’s far more conservative. But a fascinating study, to be sure…..
July 1st, 2006 at 1:42 pmWith all of the “He said, she said” evolutionary stuff aside, (That’s why I almost NEVER argue evolution/creationism here. It’s a no-win situation, either way.), why the fuck should I, as a US TAX PAYER, be forced to pay for Uncle Fidel’s Communist propaganda to be taught in a UNITED STATES CLASSROOM?!
If Fidel wants to foot the bill for the school, teachers, buses and every other thing that a school system entails, then sure, let his porcine excrement-filled books be shown to US kids— ALONG WITH the appropriate TRUTHFUL books about the REAL Successes of Marxism throughout the 20th century.) Until then, let Uncle Fidel and his Ass Crack Lickers Union™ take their books and shove directly up their asses and give 3/4 of the WhoreyWood elites concussions in the process.
F.E.T.E.
July 1st, 2006 at 2:06 pmUchuck the Tuchuck
I have no real problems with anything you wrote in post 13. However, bear in mind that I quoted the establishment clause in response to the following comment by CiSSnarl5.7
The word “mysterious” clearly implies that CiSSnarl5.7 believes there to be no constitutional basis for keeping Church and State separate. Obviously the establishment clause provides such a basis. While you are correct that it exists only to pre-emptively bar the gangplank to theocracy, and was not intended to abridge religious freedom, its existence certainly renders the motivation of separation advocates far from “mysterious”.
Now, I don’t necessarily think the ACLU should cause a scene every time someone nails up a picture of Jesus in a public school. It quickly gets old, for one thing. However, their broader mission, to keep the Church and State separate, is one for which there is ample constitutional justification. That was my point.
Other than that, thanks for your input. It was a very informative post.
Beth A.
Actually, my point was that marrying religion to the state is generally a very bad idea. That CiSSnarl5.7 lives in Kuwait doesn’t really change this. Obviously, the consequences are more dire if the religion in question is Islam, but the fact that we may be entering a cold war with a nation governed by lunatics infatuated with the metaphysics of martyrdom, and who grows dewey-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, is a direct consequence of failure to enforce the boundaries between Church and State. While a Christian theocracy wouldn’t be anywhere near as hellish as an Islamic one, I still don’t think it would be very pleasant.
Civility has never been a prerequisite for posting here. And I’ve seen far too many people temerarious* enough to question Mischa’s posts be unceremoniously told to go fuck themselves to waste my time being nice.
I completely agree. Credit where it’s due, Mischa never censors dissenting opinions. But he may well call you a fuckwit and a traitor for having them. Way I figured, since I was going to get abuse anyway, I might as well not bother bowing and scraping to curry favour. That way we can get down to brass tacks and say what we really mean right away.
Oh totally. Still, we’re all big boys and girls here and it’s quite unlikely that any of the regulars give two hoots about what some arrogant non-entity like me has to say about anything
Apologies for spelling, first off. I don’t proofread as often as is sometimes necessary.
Secondly, knowing quite a bit about the vicious physical intimidation, emotional harassment, and overzealous litigousness of the Scientologists, I consider the insults to be more or less equal. Your mileage obviously varies and I won’t dispute your interpretation. These things are subjective, after all. It should, however, be noted for the record that “Scientologist” carries with it not only connotations of credulousness but also of violence and flagrant dishonesty. As such, I was quite peeved by the comparison.
* - This is a completely gratis obscure word for your collection
July 1st, 2006 at 2:22 pmWell, I won’t argue either Creationism or evolution.
I will, however, argue that a book that preaches the wonders of the communist “utopia” of Cuba shouldn’t be allowed in public (read TAX-supported)schools and libraries.
If Cuba is so wonderful why do so many cubans come to America how ever they can?
OH BTW, Muzzy, not a real good choice for a handle here, a few of us use that as a swear word.
Duty, Honor, Country
July 1st, 2006 at 2:32 pm(in THAT order)
Rowane
Really? Ouch! Oh well, too late now. And at least it saves you guys the trouble of insulting me
July 1st, 2006 at 2:41 pmYes. I remember that fairy tale. It was then “proven” by transporting dark moths into the countryside, placing them on bark (nevermind that the moth never, in real life, sat on bark but rather on the underside of branches) and then taking pictures of them. Sometimes they had to literally glue dead moths to the trees to get pictures.
Quite hysterically funny, actually. Of course, if you call that “proof”, then you can prove anything.
Now, as to your whole argument, let’s set down a few ground rules here: I’m talking about Darwinism, Origin of the Species, common ancestry and speciation by random natural selection when I’m talking about fairy tales. To “prove” that it isn’t one, you speak of microevolution, something that I wouldn’t in my wildest dreams dispute since that, UNLIKE DARWINISM, is directly observable.
Take Darwin’s finches, for instance. Nobody in their right mind is disputing that the thirteen species of finch he discovered have varying beak lengths according to the circumstances they live under. Of course, the longer beaks shorten as well when circumstances change and they’re still finches. There are also still only 13 different variants of them. We’re still waiting for a single finch to change into a giraffe or, for that matter, a Scientologist.
Take bacteriae. Nobody’s disputing that random mutations are responsible for the fact that some of them are now resistant to antibiotics. That, too, is microevolution. But they’re still bacteriae, just as their ancestors of hundreds of millions of years ago remained bacteriae.
The utter and completely unproven hogwash that is Darwinism is nothing but a wild extrapolation from what we see in microevolution with absolutely NO evidence offered to substantiate it, other than “and then something MAGICAL happened!”
THAT’S why Darwinism is nothing more than a cult, a bunch of wild-eyed Scientologists believing in whatever they’ve decided to believe in.
Nothing wrong with that. I, too, believe in something that cannot be proven or, at the very least, hasn’t been proven. It only becomes a problem when the starry-eyed cultists decide that their belief in everything being the result of the Great Arkleseizure is “science.”
If you want to call your myths “science”, then kindly offer some real, indisputable proof. Until then, you’re no better and no worse than somebody who believes in the Easter Bunny.
July 1st, 2006 at 2:51 pmIt’s a matter of faith. Despite a multi-cultural family background, I don’t know enough about all the other religion’s of the world to speak to their beliefs; but people of Christian faith overwhelmingly favor creationism. (Even your own use of the word ‘favor’ imparts that it is a choice to be made.) Persons who would deny THIS in spite of the evidence are simply wrong. THIS is just that simple.
Evolutionists can grind their teeth and continue to rail against faith by insistently pointing to what facts they have, but they DON’T have all the dots connected, (or even all the dots!), and therefore cannot with certainty conclude that their way is THE only way.
Which leads to:
July 1st, 2006 at 2:57 pm‘Wise up or make their country men look like buffoons’, huh? First, point me to a country that has no creationism in their thinking at all - maybe it’s me but I haven’t heard of one. I’m not talking the party line either. I mean none believed in by it’s citizenry at all, please.
Second, how others think is not a reflection on you. If you believe it is, you are waaaayy too worried about other’s opinions; and about things you cannot control. If the response to that is to attempt to wrest some control over other people’s thoughts…hmmm. Sounds a little like the MSM ….;-)
Geocentrism is, unlike intelligent design, disproven.
Next!
Then why are Darwiniacs so reluctant to provide any? Unless, of course, you’re still talking about adaptation, which no sane human being has a problem with.
Next!
Buffoons such as Max Planck, Isaac Newton, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Francis Bacon, Michael Faraday, Gregor Mendel, Louis Pasteur, Kelvin, Albert Einstein and Wolfgang Pauli.
Flattery will get you nowhere with me, you know.
Listen, Muzzy, you can stamp your little feet and threaten to hold your breath as much as you like, but “it’s true because I SAY it is!” won’t help you around here. Offer proof that Darwin was right or be forever known as a believer in Xenu and the Thetans, the Giant Flatulent Raccoon or, equally improbable, Darwin.
July 1st, 2006 at 3:16 pmThanks for the freebe ‘obscure word’ which wasn’t, but that I’ll have to think of a suitable definition for. ;-)(thought it might be a variation on ‘draconian’ or some such.)
For one who comes across initially as an arrogant um, person, I appreciate the civility of your response.
And I have no ‘mileage’ on the Scientology/Darwinism comparison issue. I really didn’t realize that Scientology had such a dark side. Weird, yes. Dark was and still is news to me. Ah well, more stuff to look up.
July 1st, 2006 at 3:31 pmMuzzy says….
But earlier he said….
Can you say “conflicted” boys and girls?
Can’t have it both ways there Muzzy..now can you?
As for the rest of your reply…*SNIP* Long winded retorts and mindless prose does not an argument make…Read the constitution… In the first hundred words tell me what you find? Multiple references to a supreme being or I belive the term used is Creator….no?
And then sit there and tell me that the founding fathers “establishment clause” is demanding a “separation of church and state” that you claim it to be?
Incidentaly…the concept of “wall of separation between church and state” was actually advanced by…Thomas Jefferson..so again the Left and by Proxy Muzzy must be AWFULLY conflicted ..because on one hand he’s thier hero for “building that wall” The other a Demon…because he owned slaves…How very Un PC?!?!
Mmmmm I know…maaaaaybe the founders of that document were just “conflicted” like so many of you Liberals…??
July 1st, 2006 at 3:38 pmArrogance is borne of fear, Beth, in my humble experience. The notion of somehow either my way or the highway cuts little weight in life, much less a debate. Agree or be somehow deficient. I have nooo problems with being called names. Been there many times…….aside from that, I have a life and other tasks remain compelling. I cannot spend all my spare time doing homework, seeking data to bolster an argument. Besides, it simply isn’t necessary. I found the comparison of Darwinism to Scientology more than a bit interesting, considering past experiences. Perhaps another time………
July 1st, 2006 at 3:44 pmIt’s almost Midnight here so I will bid all a good night…
And Oh BTW… Muzzy …”Lighten up Francis” would be a good piece of advice…
Because of ANY on this board…I would of been the one to possibly of sided with you in this debate…seeing as I am agnostic..and cannot reconcile what you call “physicall evidence” with what many relgions say is the way things came about..never have been even as a young kid going to church every sunday and involved in the church in my teenage years quite extensivly…
But I consider these folks in here friends of a sort..and when you go off half cocked with wet powder on THIS Blog…and insult them…Chances are …You’re going to end up in the room ALONE..with a lot of lions licking thier chops…and no chair in which to tame the beasts…food for thought.
July 1st, 2006 at 4:01 pmNight all!
Rats! Late again.
As always the Darwinians simply say that evolution is a fact but never show the mechanism by which new genetic material, or more correctly the genetic code comprised of proteins in very specific locations (loci), is successfully created. It must be created somehow because it did not exist in the parent organism. No new genetic information, no new species, no?
Evolutionists are not even close to defining the mechanism whereby this information makes it’s way into existent DNA within a cell. Other than a virus, no other means of transport is known outside a laboratory environment.
On such theory did emerge a while back known as the “Hopeful Monster Theory.” But ut was suspiciously similar to creationism in that sudden changes just appeared and some of them were successful. Over eons these would work out in a slow cooker evolution model.
This is why evolutionists insist that the age of the earth must be billions upon billions of years, even though it flies in the face of about 40 measures of the earth’s age that peg it at less than 100,000 years.
Information science is what is giving the evolutionists heartburn. There is just too much information in a single gene (remember the loci? - very specific locations for only certain types of physical characteristics that are dictated by proteins and enzymes) for chance or random manipulations to create it. Couple that with the millions of species, most of which are extinct, and you do not come up with a model of simple life forms somehow mutating into complex ones. Rather, the model indicates that an incredible number of species suddenly appeared and then disappeared in very short order.
The fossil record shows this, the geological strata show this (forget the 13 or so geological epochs, no more then four or five are ever found together and rarely are they in chronological order) and the Flood Theory (where the earth’s crust is catastrophically destroyed) is the only theory that accounts for this.
Okay, so we are illogical in your view. That doesn’t other me at all. I have studied physics and genetics and none of the so called evolutionary “science” makes sense in view of recent advances in microbiology and information science.
July 1st, 2006 at 4:22 pmOh, and there’s a point I should make. Personally, I don’t see how it can be anything but obvious from my writings, but it seems to get misunderstood a lot whenever the subject turns to Darwin/ID/G-d/The Flying Spaghetti Monster, so I’ll make it clear before it happens in this thread as well:
When I point out that Darwinism has not a shred of proof in support of it and that it, like any other religion, relies instead entirely upon extrapolation and a giant leap of faith, I am most emphatically NOT suggesting that my personal belief in G-d as the Creator of all things is, therefore, proven right.
We may both be wrong or, indeed, right. Darwinism and common ancestry may one day be proven true (although I doubt it since 170 years of looking for the evidence hasn’t produced ANY), in which case I’ll just have to conclude that evolution is another of G-d’s creations.
I have never, and I WILL never argue in the face of scientific, observable evidence, and I have as much (or, rather, as little) evidence of G-d’s existence as the Darwiniacs have of Darwin’s fanciful fairy tale.
The difference is that I accept the fact that my faith is just that: Faith.
July 1st, 2006 at 4:23 pmGee, we go through this every six months or so it seems.
*yawn*
Can’t we get a troll with some original material???
Maybe an ad in the Times. (Only kidding)
July 1st, 2006 at 4:30 pm“The difference is that I accept the fact that my faith is just that: Faith.”
Well said. I am a Christian and I see Darwin’s theory as not being unreasonable. As I believe God to be omnipotent, there is no reason I’ve been shown to prove that He couldn’t use any method He wished to obtain the results He wants. Magic, evolution, Creation over a period of seven days or seven trillion years. All His choice, using all of them or methods we cannot even imagine, also His choice.
July 1st, 2006 at 4:56 pmMischa:
This is a big misrepresentation. Peppered moths sit on the underside of branches and on the trunks. Moreover, enough sat on the trunks to provide a constant source of nourishment for local birds. Hence, when pollution from the nearby industrial town of Manchester covered the trees in black soot, enough white moths were spotted and devoured to radically alter the frequency of the allele for white wings in the peppered moth population. Evolution.
Peppered moths rest on branches approximately 31.9% of the time. They rest on trunk/branch joins approximately 42.6% of the time. The rest of the time they rest on the trunks. cite
[Hmmmm. Wonder what happened to the link? (snicker) -The Management™]Bernard Kettlewell, whose investigations provide the basis for much of what we know about the peppered moths made this explicitly clear in his book ‘Heredity’ published in 1955. It’s not a secret and doesn’t debunk anything.
Yes, because they were illustrations of differential camouflage, and nothing more. It’s a hell of a lot easier to show a significant disparity in the camouflage of black and white moths on sooty trees if you place them side by side. The pictures aren’t meant to prove that peppered moths rest on tree trunks because we already know through observation that they do.
I already assumed as much.
I appreciate that you acknowledge this. A surprisingly large number of people don’t. As I’ll explain in a moment, an acknowledgement of the basic mechanisms of microevolution is all that’s really necessary to understand the inevitability of macroevolution.
You’ll be waiting for some time. Evolution does not predict that a finch could ever change into a giraffe, or a mosquito into a German shepherd. This is a popular misrepresentation of evolution. It is based on a misunderstanding of the concept of ‘Speciation’. Speciation is one of the core predictions of macroevolution and denotes the divergence of a sub-population of a species into a new species in its own right. Thanks to the ceaseless efforts of disingenuous Creationist propagandists, many people believe Speciation is a kind of magical process by which goldfish could change into Komodo dragons in a puff of smoke. A goldfish may, through innumerable years of microevolution catalysed by convergent environmental pressures, change into a fish which can no longer reasonably be called a goldfish, but it’ll never change into a lizard.
In fact, speciation is a commonly observed phenomenon. Check out this page for examples.
[(snicker) -TM™]For ease of reference I’ll quote one.This is speciation. One of the characteristics of speciation in plants is that the new species is unable to breed with the one from which it came. Now, imagine similar divergences taking place in millions of different species of thousands of millions of years and ask yourself “Is macroevolution really so implausible?”
No. What actually happens is that microevolution happens, then more microevolution happens on top of that, and then yet more microevolution happens on top of that. Lather, rinse, and repeat for several million years until the organism at the end of the chain is so different from the one at the beginning that you can’t put them in the same species anymore. Sometimes, you don’t even need to wait that long. In the case of the Evening Primrose, the divergence happened very quickly (relatively speaking). The source I linked to above contains myriad examples of speciation in insects which, under controlled conditions, can be made to occur in a fairly short period of time.
Intelligent Design is a pseudo-scientific joke. Ironically, the ID’ers act far more like the phantom Darwinists of your imagination than the scientists you so happily excoriate. Intelligent Design basically states that since life is far too complex to have arisen naturally, at some point a creator must have intervened (in other words “something MAGICAL happened”). Unfortunately for them, all the examples they use to substantiate their arguments were roundly debunked by evolutionists about five minutes after they were made. If you want, I can go through the tedious process of debunking their claims individually, but that’ll entail far more work than I’m prepared to do at the moment and, if you don’t mind, I’ll just point you in the direction of this FAQ on the subject.
Oh, and try telling this dude that geocentrism has been disproven.
There are literally tons of evidence in the form of fossils.
Umm, are you saying Albert Einstein was a Creationist? Can I have a cite for that? As for Isaac Newton, well, he believed in numerology as well. Nobody’s perfect.
July 1st, 2006 at 5:17 pmOkay, once again im late to the fight but ill say my peace anyways. And i hope im not repeating something that was alread said.
Muzzy, unless you or me or someone else has been alive on this planet for, oh lets say 3 billion or so years, than no one has real proof, that they saw with their own eyes, recorded it for others to see as well and brought back some evidence that covered a few hundred million years. Its still a theory on what happened on Earth. On how life got here and evolved and changed over eons of time.
Muzzy, do you have such concrete proof on you? Scientists can say this and that and add all the numbers they want up to equal whatever they want to prove, but you know as well as i do that lots of times science was wrong about something when suddenly something unexpected popped up. And guess who got egg on their faces. Yea, those oh so correct and smart HUMAN scientists. HUMANS, as you and i , are NOT infallible and all knowing and seeing. We have fossils of dinosaurs and we like to say that they looked like this and their skin was this color and this is how they lived but where we humans there to actually see it and record it? NO.
I do believe in some form of change that all living things go threw but i will not be around for thousands or millions of years to see it. So its all a theory, cause we truly dont not know the hows,whats and whys. Unless someone can invent a time machine, we humans will never know the entire truth of what happened eons past.
July 1st, 2006 at 5:22 pmThis, however, does. Note that it was published in 2002 and not by the perpetrator of the rigged experiment either. But if you prefer to live in 1955, by all means. The music was better then, I’m certainly not arguing that.
Besides, it doesn’t prove anything. The moth was still a moth.
I’m well aware of speciation and what it is. I’m also aware of the fact that without evidence of one kind of animal becoming, however gradually you want it to be, another one, the whole “common ancestry” fairy tale falls flat on its face. To this date, no such evidence has been found.
Oh, and I’m also aware of the usual defense from
ScientologistsDarwinists: “Somehow, all of the failed mutations and intermediaries failed to fossilize.”Must be some wicked randomly created gene making it impossible for Darwinists to find actual evidence for their fantasies.
I know it won’t, which begs the question: Where DID the lizard come from?
Imagine a primrose changing into a different kind of primrose over and over again and then suddenly, hey presto, turning into a palm tree?
Sorry, but I just can’t suspend my disbelief that much.
And, all along, no evidence of any of this going on manages to fossilize, whereas just about everything else under the sun does.
Sure. It’s possible. So is Xenu nuking a few billion Thetans and making their souls reside in my anus.
True. Like during the Cambrian explosion where a whole slew of species suddenly appeared over a period of 5 to 10 million years with no evidence of origins or ancestry, after which the totally random, absolutely not connected with intelligence in any way process of mutation and natural selection took a 150 million year long break while everybody stayed the same.
You make it all sound so — how shall I put it? — counterintuitive?
Indeed, as anybody who has studied cell biology and biochemistry will be happy to confirm.
By all means. Not that I’m really interested. What I am interested in is the actual scientific evidence that has been eluding Darwiniacs for 170 years in spite of their best efforts at looking for it.
Then show me some. Also, please show me evidence of the myriad of failed mutations that must, logically, exist if we’re to accept an explanation based on completely random mutation. Show me the three-legged fish, the winged slugs and the “light sensitive pits” that allegedly came before eyes.
Oh, and before you show me a picture of a fossilized ape next to a fossilized Neanderthal and tell me how the similarities (number of limbs, eyes etc.) “prove” that one is a descendant of the other, allow me to point out that me having the same number of appendages as Haley Joel Osment isn’t proof that I’m his daddy.
I am saying that Albert Einstein believed in G-d, a G-d, and is known to have stated that his work was an attempt to figure out the mind of “the Old One.” Whether he was a Creationist or not I don’t know and, at any rate, it’s beside the point. He most certainly wasn’t an atheist, and I would think it somewhat counter-intuitive to assume that he’d be “filling in the gaps” of science with an Intelligence and looking for proof of said Intelligence without him at least believing in some sort of Intelligent Design.
But hey, maybe I am misinterpreting Albert. How about the rest of the “buffoons?”
July 1st, 2006 at 6:07 pmI have yet to hear the answer…just a lot of pretty words all gussied up nice. Same horse, different rider….so once again…when does micro evolution, read environmental mutations, become macro? As in a species change? One incapable of interbreeding.
July 1st, 2006 at 6:14 pmMuzzy (#3) says: “Let me explain a couple of things to you. Evolution, defined as a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations, is a fact. Not a “Theory”, not a “Hypothesis” but an absolute, concrete, inviolable, fact of biology.“…
Well I personally don’t have any problem with most of this since most of what explains most the Darwinian explanation of what we see in the physical world in ourselves and the flora and fauna around us…
The same physics and chemistry that dictates how our computers work, how our televisions work are also the tools that are used for the Darwinian explanation of life…
Yet I don’t think the Darwinian explanation is a full enough, a scientifically tight enough explanation to be considered a full fledged fact yet…
Those unexplainable gaps (there’s a whole of them too!) in the Darwinian explanation still need work, lots and lots of work…
July 1st, 2006 at 6:17 pmUh, yes it does, shithead. That’s a basic tenet of evolution - man evolving from apes and all that. ‘Course, you can’t prove that, either, so then you Darwinist bastards try to move the goalposts and change the definition of “theory”, among other things.
Pull the other one, why don’tcha?
You really think so, assmunch?
Go ahead and try it here and see what happens. Something tells me you don’t know whom you’re dealing with, fuckface.
July 1st, 2006 at 7:09 pmMmmmm …. peppered moths ….
July 1st, 2006 at 7:28 pmAgain, when does a species change? For without that proof……evolution as anything but environmental changes within a species is DOA. It’s promoter know this very well and go to great lengths to avoid it. If it is indeed true, then where is the proof? Where and what is the line that must be crossed before a species can no longer reproduce with it’sown kind? How is it crossed, and how would that single individual reproduce? And with whom? As usual, this debate raging in different circles seems without an answer at this time. But a series of environmental changes within a species is nothing new. Collectively nothing more than a collection of environmental mutations. As it sits the argument cannot be proven, only postulated. Many have tried.
July 1st, 2006 at 8:07 pmMuzzy,
The first step is always admitting that you are in denial. Let’s face it, you belong to the Church of Orthodox Darwinism. At least Francis Crick in “Life Itself” as quoted by Michael Denton in “Evolution a Theory in Crisis” was willing to concede that:
“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.” (Don’t bother telling me Crick thinks life came from outer space, that’s beside the point.)
An excerpt of Dr. Denton’s Book, page 268, Adler & Alder Publishing
There is much more to the cell than the “mere” origin of the protein synthetic apparatus. In fact, the protein synthetic mechanism cannot function in isolation but only in conjunction with other complex subsystems of the cell.
“Without a cell membrane the components of the protein synthetic apparatus could not be held together. The integrity of the cell membrane, however, depends on the existence of a protein synthetic apparatus capable of synthesizing the protein components of the membrane and the enzymes required for the synthesis of its fat components. However, the protein synthetic apparatus consists of a number of different components and can only function if these are held together by a membrane: two seemingly unbreakable interdependent systems. To continue, the protein synthetic apparatus also requires energy. The provision of energy depends on the coherent activity of a number of specific proteins capable of synthesizing the energy-rich phosphate compounds – proteins which are themselves manufactured by the protein synthetic apparatus. A further couple of interdependent cycles! As we have seen, the information for the specification of all the protein components of the cell, including those of the protein synthetic apparatus, is stored in the DNA. However, the extraction of this information is dependent on the protein synthetic apparatus – yet again another set of interdependent cycles.”
The chances of a 200 amino acid chain forming from a puddle of muck has been (assuming it is composed of all right handed or left handed molecules) calculated at 1in 1 to the -40,000 (that’s .1 followed by 40,000 zeros). That number children is equal to zero. Even if the muck formed an amino acid chain there would be no cell for it to inhabit so what’s the point? Seems to me that it takes a buttload of faith to believe in a number that small.
And before Muzzy starts the usual, the earth is so old mantra, be aware that carbon dating is only good for about 5 to 6 half-lifes. That means if one knew the exact makeup and carbon load of the atmosphere 32,000 years age (the greatest age carbon dating could be useful for) we still would have no idea exactly how old the earth is.
Seems to me it takes almost more faith to believe in the Orthodox Church of Darwinism than Creation. Evolution is not a scientific theory as one can’t observe it, or repeat results. As Misha said, you can run around and stamp your little feet and repeat over and over it’s a fact, it’s a fact but that won’t make it true. Might want to rethink things as not all the people here are victims of the public skoolz system.
/rant
July 1st, 2006 at 9:24 pm*See what I get for working?*
Too late to join the fray, besides the rest of the pack seems to have the issue well in hand.
Just some additional edification here, sorry to hijack the thread for a bit:
The actual term “Wall of Separation” was a included in a letter from Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Community in response to a letter from them congratulating him on his election to the presidency. Jefferson unlike his predecessors (Washington and Adams, specifically) had not called for national days of fasting and thanksgiving and felt compelled to explain his rationale behind this in his short note, clearly explaing his belief that religious matters were the province of man and his beliefs and beyond the reach of government.
By all other measure Jefferson was as deeply religious as any other prior president, regularly attending religious services and regularly using referents to G_d or a Creator in official correspondence during his tenure.
Whence then, the hijacking of the establishment clause one asks?
Flash forward to 1947, Everson v. Board of Education (Ewing Township, NJ). Justice Hugo Black with nefarious motiviations, seized on Jefferson’s letter. Black cleverly “cherry-picked” that phrase out of context, reversing it’s original intent as written, and turned it into his majority opinion.
Black wrote the majority opinion overturning the suit involving the use of public school buses transporting children to parochial schools. The phrase “wall of separation” particularly suited Black’s motivation to shut the door on his personal dislike of the growing influence of the Catholic Church, instilled by his earlier membership in the KKK.
Surprised, no? A metaphorical statement in an otherwise obscure letter was thus used to pervert the Establishment Clause literally 180 degrees away from it’s intent. Jefferson wrote the letter containing the phrase 14 years after the Bill of Rights was offered by Congress and subsequently ratified by the states. Yet our ACLU and leftist friends offer up this short phrase taken out of context as an absolute interpretation of an EXACTLY worded and INTENDED constitutional amendment.
Here we are nearly 60 years later with the atheists espousing a metaphoric statement as a constitutionally established principle.
We now return you to our original programming.
Oh Sorry I lied, Muzzy since you surrendered the civility, GO FUCK YOURSELF !!!!!
July 1st, 2006 at 9:33 pmSpats, removing a cited source is pretty piss poor etiquette.
Just sayin’.
July 1st, 2006 at 9:41 pmSo is hijacking a thread, but I note that seems to have been overlooked.
July 1st, 2006 at 10:11 pmYeah well, quit snipping links, starting right now.
If he wants to quote the Church of Darwin, he’s entitled to do so.
I, on the other hand, am not required to take them seriously.
July 1st, 2006 at 10:14 pmAh yes Cuba that Magical place….
That is until you see a few of the photos here .
But wait there is more it clloks like CNN forgot to report abou this gitmo
July 1st, 2006 at 11:45 pmWhat was Black’s political affiliation? We were watching a History Channel show today (The Presidents). It is pretty well done, and I want to get a copy. Well, it got to Ulysses S. Grant and reconstruction, and they started talking about the KKK. One historian remarked that the KKK was just the terrorist branch of the Democratic party. My 16-year-old grinned and said, ” Well, they didn’t teach us THAT at school!” I’ll bet not!
July 2nd, 2006 at 2:00 amI’m just quickly posting to resubmit t he links Lord Spatula edited out. For what little it’s worth I’m not in the least bit bothered. After my entrance I’m not really in a position to complain about netiquette violations.
Anyway, the first one was about Peppered Moths and the second one was Observed instances of speciation.
It’s too early here for anything long-winded. I’ll respond to my critics later today. Y’all just keep waiting on the edges of your seats.
[I’ve fixed your original and re-instated the links. — Emp. M.]
July 2nd, 2006 at 2:12 amGive it up, Muzzy. His Rottieness has a blind spot here, and it’s not worth the hassle to try dealing with it. They’ve got the idea that Evolution is synonymous with the ACLU, Communism, and all the rest of it. Nobody’s perfect.
July 2nd, 2006 at 3:21 amKwong, get a copy of the politically incorrect guide to American History. Its got quite a few eye openers. The history channel’s presidents show glossed over Wilson, calling him a great president. They didn’t mention how he sold out Germany to Britan and france in order to get his leauge of nations. They took him for a ride and in the process laid the seeds for WWII.
July 2nd, 2006 at 6:20 amAhhhhhhh, socialist love!
Aint it sweet?
July 2nd, 2006 at 8:25 amHmm… Kinda like ELF and PETA today?
July 2nd, 2006 at 8:28 amHoly SHIT! The History Channel® actually took a non-biased, historically-correct shot at the Dhimmicrat Party and their buddies in the KKK?!!!
*Faints*
Next thing you know, they’ll be doing stories on Uncle Fidel’s REAL gulags and the starving masses willing to risk their lives, riding leaking inner tubes across 90 miles of shark-infested waters, to reach the Imperialist BusHilter Jackbooted United States of Amerika™.
July 2nd, 2006 at 11:32 amYou’re using a bit of a broad brush here, my friend, but I suppose that turnabout IS fair play
I wouldn’t say that they’re synonymous unless we’re talking about the militant wing of Darwinism, in which case I have to say that there’s more than a fair bit of overlap. Just ask any professor at any University who’s ever had the nerve to question Darwinism in any shape, form or fashion. Talk about real McCarthyism in action!
Anyway, snarky comments aside, I don’t really have a problem with anybody believing in Darwinism, any more than I have a problem with people believing in the Easter Bunny, G-d, Buddha or The Coming of the Great White Handkerchief.
What I DO have a problem with is people claiming that their particular belief is “science” in spite of being utterly unable to offer up actual, you know, proof.
Trust me, I’d have a real problem with anybody claiming that they had scientific proof of the existence of G-d too. Unless they then proceeded to produce it, of course, in which case I’d be truly amazed, to say the very least.
July 2nd, 2006 at 12:51 pmStargazer,
I don’t and I’m going to go out on a limb here and bet the Emperor does not lump the evolutionists with the ACLU and the
DemocraticCommunist party. Evolution does not even qualify as scientific. It’s junk pawned off as a scientific theory. That’s what I and others like me object too. It’s easy to disprove Evolution but that does not automatically prove the existence of god and nowhere have I argued that.Rather than teach evolution in the schools I would prefer they teach the children how to think critically. Teach them the first and second laws of thermodynamics and how they can apply those principles to understanding why evolution has more problems that a Kerry presidential run. There is no fossil record, on intermediate species, no geologic support, in short there is noting but whishes to support evolution yet it is taught as fact because the teachers are unable to think critically for themselves.
Muzzy, Stop parroting a bunch of people who “wish” evolution to be true. If evolution is true then they can be as morally relativistic as they want without feeling guilty. Moral relativism and multiculturalism go hand in hand and that’s what this argument is really about.
July 2nd, 2006 at 1:01 pmYou won your bet
Well said, Azygos, I can’t think of anything to add.
July 3rd, 2006 at 12:00 pmMentioning Darwin is a good way to get a metric buttload of comments.
July 3rd, 2006 at 7:06 pmI have a few things to say about this, which amounts to a wad of text too massive to put directly here, and most importantly a solution for handling this controversy.
The evidence for evolution is extensive, but complex (though less so than quantum mechanics). Biologists accept it practically universally. It does not violate the procedural norms of science any more than geology or astronomy do. The laws of thermodynamics do not contradict it (honestly, do you think the physicists would have missed that if it did?)
But if you don’t want to try to understand it, no amount of explanation is going to help. This one piece of the scientific puzzle generates massive resistance from people who would never think of questioning a physicist’s honor for supporting quantum mechanics, even though they have even less of a clue how it works than they do with evolution. It’s just easier for some to indulge in wild conspiracy theories than to admit that humans are not special.
July 4th, 2006 at 2:31 amQuantum mechanics is the same as evolution, a wild assed guess as to what is happening.
Who said anything about humans being special? I can think of alot of humans that are about the level of vermin.
July 4th, 2006 at 6:51 am