Creationists

[daws101]

Here come the liars and misreprenters at Panda's Thumb. And once again it is laid bare that the militant atheists at Panda's Thumb have nothing in common with real scientists...

On June 19, the day after Darwin's Doubt was first available for purchase, Nick Matzke published a 9400-word "review" of the book in which it appears that he tried to anticipate many of Stephen Meyer's arguments. Unfortunately, he often either guessed wrong as to what Meyer would say or -- assuming he actually read the book as he claims -- misread many of Meyer's specific claims. As I showed in a previous response to Matzke, Matzke repeatedly misquoted Meyer, at one point claiming he referred to the Cambrian explosion as "instantaneous," when Meyer nowhere makes that claim. Indeed, Matzke faulted Meyer for not recognizing that the Cambrian explosion "was not really 'instantaneous' nor particularly 'sudden.'" Oddly, he also criticized Meyer for not recognizing that the Cambrian explosion "took at least 30 million years" -- despite expert opinion showing it was far shorter.

Since Matzke published his review, The New Yorker reviewed Meyer's book. Gareth Cook, the science writer who wrote the piece, relied heavily on Matzke's critical evaluation, even though Matzke is a graduate student and not an established Cambrian expert. Cook uncritically recycled Matzke's claim that the Cambrian explosion took "many tens of millions of years," even saying that the main problem with Darwin's Doubt is that Meyer failed to recognize this alleged fact.

DebatingDD.jpegSo, was Matzke right about the length of the Cambrian explosion? In fact, Matzke's preemptive -- or hastily written -- review not only misrepresented Meyer's view, it also misrepresented the length and character of the Cambrian explosion as numerous authoritative peer-reviewed scientific sources on the subject clearly show.

Before going on, let's briefly look first at what Meyer actually says. First, Meyer does not equate the Cambrian explosion with the entire radiation -- as most Cambrian experts also do not. By "radiation" here I mean the period of time in which all the new phyla, classes, orders that first arose during the Cambrian apparently did so. Instead, he equates the Cambrian explosion with the most explosive period of the Cambrian radiation (as most Cambrian experts do) in which the vast majority of the higher taxa arose. He asserts specifically that the re-dating of critical Cambrian strata in 1993 established that the strata documenting the first appearance of the majority of the Cambrian phyla and classes took place within a 10 million year period -- a period Meyer does equate with "the explosion of novel Cambrian animal forms." (pp. 71-72) As he describes it, "these studies [i.e., radiometric analyses of zircon crystals in Siberian rocks] also suggested that the explosion of novel Cambrian animal forms" took about 10 million years. (p. 71)

How "Sudden" Was the Cambrian Explosion? Nick Matzke Misreads Stephen Meyer and the Paleontological Literature; <i>New Yorker</i> Recycles Misrepresentation - Evolution News & Views

discovery institute hahahhahahahahahahahahahahah!

 

[Hollie]

The author below has captured the entirety of the Christian fundie ID'iot argunent. The bolded parts (my addition), is the delineation.



Doubting Stephen Meyer's 'Darwin's Doubt' : The New Yorker


We’ve been here before. The intelligent-design movement was born more than two decades ago, in the wreckage of creation science, and the idea is closely associated with the Discovery Institute, the Seattle think tank where Meyer works. The scientific arguments have changed over the years, but intelligent design is probably best understood as the central element of a cunning legal argument. In 1987, the Supreme Court ruled that creation science could not be taught in public schools because it was a poorly disguised version of the Bible, so the engineers of intelligent design improved the disguise: a theory that made room for the Bible without any explicit mention of the book. Advocates were thus able to argue that intelligent design should be taught in public-school biology classes. Their agenda was dealt a serious setback in 2005, when a federal judge declared that intelligent design was religion, not science, and barred it from schools.

Scientific readers will likely find that “Darwin’s Doubt” has an inspired-by-true-events feel: a few elements are recognizable, but the story makes no sense to anyone who was there. The problem for Meyer is that what has come to be called the Cambrian explosion was not, in fact, an explosion. It took place over tens of millions of years—far more time than, for example, it took humans and chimpanzees to go their separate ways. Decades of fossil discovery around the world, combined with new computer-aided analytical techniques, have given scientists a far more complete portrait of the tree of life than Darwin and Walcott had available, making connections between species that they could not see.

It turns out that many of the major gaps that Meyer identifies are the result of his misleading rearrangement of the tree. Nick Matzke, a scientist who blogs at Panda’s Thumb, makes a convincing case that Meyer does not understand the field’s key statistical techniques (among other things). For example, Meyer presents a chart on page thirty-five of “Darwin’s Doubt” that appears to show the sudden appearance of large numbers of major animal groups in the Cambrian: the smoking gun. But if one looks at a family tree based on current science, it looks nothing like Meyer’s, and precisely like what Darwinian theory would predict. “All of this is pretty good evidence for the basic idea that the Cambrian ‘Explosion’ is really the radiation of simple bilaterian worms into more complex worms[which] occurred in many stages, instead of all at once,” Matzke writes.

Meyer goes on to build a grander, more bizarre argument that draws from the intelligent-design well. The genetic machinery of life, he writes, is incapable of grand leaps forward, meaning that any dramatic biological innovation must be the work of the intelligent designer. Yet scientific literature contains many well-documented counterexamples to Meyer’s argument, and the mechanisms by which life’s machinery can change quickly are well known. Whole genes can be duplicated, for example, and the copy can evolve new functions.

Most absurd of all is the book’s stance on knowledge: if something cannot be fully explained by today’s science—and there is plenty about the Cambrian, and the universe, that cannot—then we should assume it is fundamentally beyond explanation, and therefore the work of a supreme deity.

Guess you missed the title of the article in the post above. "New Yorker recycles Matzke's misrepsentation". You miss alot of important stuff, or rather, conveniently ignore any facts that don't support your Darwinist, atheistic worldview.

Actually, you missed the humor of the Disco' tute peddling their bile to the Flat Earth types willing to mouth the bait.

 

[daws101]

Discovery Institute tries to "swift-boat" Judge Jones
October 17th, 2008
Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on email Share on print More Sharing Services
2
by Kevin Padian and Nick Matzke


As predictable as sunup, the Discovery Institute reacted to their drubbing in Federal Court (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Board, 20 December 2005) without the least introspection. One would have thought that after six weeks of testimony by both sides in the public debate (there is, of course, no scientific debate) about evolution and intelligent design, both sides would say, "Okay, we gave it our best shot," and at least have the common decency to read the Court’s decision before spinmeistering.

Instead, the DI immediately tried to "swift-boat" the judge.

Before the electrons on the pdf of the judge's decision were even cool, the DI released the following salvo:
The Dover decision is an attempt by an activist federal judge to stop the spread of a scientific idea and even to prevent criticism of Darwinian evolution through government-imposed censorship rather than open debate, and it won't work," said Dr. John West, Associate Director of the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute, the nation's leading think tank researching the scientific theory known as intelligent design.
In the DI's lexicon, "activist" means someone who says or does things you don't like: the ACLU, the NCSE, Americans United, and … oh. A Republican judge from central Pennsylvania.

Of course, the DI folks aren't activists. They just sit in their think-tank, performing first-class research for the best scientific journals, waiting for the awards and accolades from the scientific and educational communities to come in. (So far, they're still waiting for the awards, and we're still waiting for the research.) Apparently it's not "activist" for the Discovery Institute to send their own "Icons of Evolution" video to the Dover Area School Board (a video that DASB member William Buckingham apparently bullied teachers to watch – twice – and was clearly an inspiration to Buckingham in his various efforts to squelch the teaching of evolution in Dover. Apparently it's not "activist" to send DI staff to Dover to counsel the school board on how to promote ID in science classes.
Discovery Institute tries to "swift-boat" Judge Jones | NCSE

 

[Steven_R]

The author below has captured the entirety of the Christian fundie ID'iot argunent. The bolded parts (my addition), is the delineation.



Doubting Stephen Meyer's 'Darwin's Doubt' : The New Yorker


We’ve been here before. The intelligent-design movement was born more than two decades ago, in the wreckage of creation science, and the idea is closely associated with the Discovery Institute, the Seattle think tank where Meyer works. The scientific arguments have changed over the years, but intelligent design is probably best understood as the central element of a cunning legal argument. In 1987, the Supreme Court ruled that creation science could not be taught in public schools because it was a poorly disguised version of the Bible, so the engineers of intelligent design improved the disguise: a theory that made room for the Bible without any explicit mention of the book. Advocates were thus able to argue that intelligent design should be taught in public-school biology classes. Their agenda was dealt a serious setback in 2005, when a federal judge declared that intelligent design was religion, not science, and barred it from schools.

Scientific readers will likely find that “Darwin’s Doubt” has an inspired-by-true-events feel: a few elements are recognizable, but the story makes no sense to anyone who was there. The problem for Meyer is that what has come to be called the Cambrian explosion was not, in fact, an explosion. It took place over tens of millions of years—far more time than, for example, it took humans and chimpanzees to go their separate ways. Decades of fossil discovery around the world, combined with new computer-aided analytical techniques, have given scientists a far more complete portrait of the tree of life than Darwin and Walcott had available, making connections between species that they could not see.

It turns out that many of the major gaps that Meyer identifies are the result of his misleading rearrangement of the tree. Nick Matzke, a scientist who blogs at Panda’s Thumb, makes a convincing case that Meyer does not understand the field’s key statistical techniques (among other things). For example, Meyer presents a chart on page thirty-five of “Darwin’s Doubt” that appears to show the sudden appearance of large numbers of major animal groups in the Cambrian: the smoking gun. But if one looks at a family tree based on current science, it looks nothing like Meyer’s, and precisely like what Darwinian theory would predict. “All of this is pretty good evidence for the basic idea that the Cambrian ‘Explosion’ is really the radiation of simple bilaterian worms into more complex worms[which] occurred in many stages, instead of all at once,” Matzke writes.

Meyer goes on to build a grander, more bizarre argument that draws from the intelligent-design well. The genetic machinery of life, he writes, is incapable of grand leaps forward, meaning that any dramatic biological innovation must be the work of the intelligent designer. Yet scientific literature contains many well-documented counterexamples to Meyer’s argument, and the mechanisms by which life’s machinery can change quickly are well known. Whole genes can be duplicated, for example, and the copy can evolve new functions.

Most absurd of all is the book’s stance on knowledge: if something cannot be fully explained by today’s science—and there is plenty about the Cambrian, and the universe, that cannot—then we should assume it is fundamentally beyond explanation, and therefore the work of a supreme deity.

Guess you missed the title of the article in the post above. "New Yorker recycles Matzke's misrepsentation". You miss alot of important stuff, or rather, conveniently ignore any facts that don't support your Darwinist, atheistic worldview.

We don't expect the legal community to debate the Sovereign Citizen movement, we don't expect historians to debate Holocaust Deniers, we don't expect political scientists to debate conspiracy theorists, but we expect scientists to debate non-scientists over extremely technical issues and have the science just thrown out whenever the non-scientist disagree with it (at least when they aren't deliberately misleading the ignorant masses over what the evil atheist scientists are lying about) when they bring out "evidence" that first year grad students know is wrong.

 

[PMZ]

It's intelligence 101 to figure out who accepts what's true and who wants what makes them feel good to be true. It's essential to keep them straight.

Truth is what's important.

 

[UltimateReality]

Stupid analogy. REALLY stupid. Are we to believe that you and Meyer see the earth then as no more complex than a barrel full of marbles?

The earth has gone through many violent physical changes as the life forms have struggled to survive. Seas have risen.. Much of the evidense has been washed away or buried deep in the earth. Much if not almost all of the animal life that died was eaten including bones. Fragile life such as humanoid would have been easy prey to almost every kind of hungry predator or scavenger. Another factor is that humans do not bred as frequently or with as much survival success for the offspring as most other animals.

Someday far into the future long after the christians and muslims have destroyed mankind an inteligent being will find a skull and pick it up and shake it. There will be a strange sound coming from within it. Upon further examination the future being will discover marbles within the christian's head. AHHH! the being will excaim! That explains everything!

Stupid response. Really stupid. His analogy was referring to the fossil record, specifically the Cambrian and Pre-Cambrian strata. Your lack of reading comprehension gets the best of you again. The specific Phyla fossils are plentiful, the "inbetweeners" or rainbow of intermediate colors as referred to in the analogy, are no where to be found in the Cambrian strata. And yes, your arguments above were examined in the book and just as easily quickly and easily refuted. You might want to read it.

since the book is speculative fiction and not based on research or evidence or the lack of it ,the author can say anything he wishes.
whether it fits the facts or not.

Most absurd of all is the book’s stance on knowledge: if something cannot be fully explained by today’s science—and there is plenty about the Cambrian, and the universe, that cannot—then we should assume it is fundamentally beyond explanation, and therefore the work of a supreme deity.

This has to be your most asinine post yet. You reveal that you are just as much of a stupid, douche bag as all the others that think they can comment on a book they have never read. I'm seeing a pattern here. It makes it totally understandable how we got to where we are with the current theory because just about everyone preaching Darwinism proves time and again they have no qualms about making crap up, as evidenced by your post above. REALLY PATHETIC.

 

[UltimateReality]

The author below has captured the entirety of the Christian fundie ID'iot argunent. The bolded parts (my addition), is the delineation.



Doubting Stephen Meyer's 'Darwin's Doubt' : The New Yorker


We’ve been here before. The intelligent-design movement was born more than two decades ago, in the wreckage of creation science, and the idea is closely associated with the Discovery Institute, the Seattle think tank where Meyer works. The scientific arguments have changed over the years, but intelligent design is probably best understood as the central element of a cunning legal argument. In 1987, the Supreme Court ruled that creation science could not be taught in public schools because it was a poorly disguised version of the Bible, so the engineers of intelligent design improved the disguise: a theory that made room for the Bible without any explicit mention of the book. Advocates were thus able to argue that intelligent design should be taught in public-school biology classes. Their agenda was dealt a serious setback in 2005, when a federal judge declared that intelligent design was religion, not science, and barred it from schools.

Scientific readers will likely find that “Darwin’s Doubt” has an inspired-by-true-events feel: a few elements are recognizable, but the story makes no sense to anyone who was there. The problem for Meyer is that what has come to be called the Cambrian explosion was not, in fact, an explosion. It took place over tens of millions of years—far more time than, for example, it took humans and chimpanzees to go their separate ways. Decades of fossil discovery around the world, combined with new computer-aided analytical techniques, have given scientists a far more complete portrait of the tree of life than Darwin and Walcott had available, making connections between species that they could not see.

It turns out that many of the major gaps that Meyer identifies are the result of his misleading rearrangement of the tree. Nick Matzke, a scientist who blogs at Panda’s Thumb, makes a convincing case that Meyer does not understand the field’s key statistical techniques (among other things). For example, Meyer presents a chart on page thirty-five of “Darwin’s Doubt” that appears to show the sudden appearance of large numbers of major animal groups in the Cambrian: the smoking gun. But if one looks at a family tree based on current science, it looks nothing like Meyer’s, and precisely like what Darwinian theory would predict. “All of this is pretty good evidence for the basic idea that the Cambrian ‘Explosion’ is really the radiation of simple bilaterian worms into more complex worms[which] occurred in many stages, instead of all at once,” Matzke writes.

Meyer goes on to build a grander, more bizarre argument that draws from the intelligent-design well. The genetic machinery of life, he writes, is incapable of grand leaps forward, meaning that any dramatic biological innovation must be the work of the intelligent designer. Yet scientific literature contains many well-documented counterexamples to Meyer’s argument, and the mechanisms by which life’s machinery can change quickly are well known. Whole genes can be duplicated, for example, and the copy can evolve new functions.

Most absurd of all is the book’s stance on knowledge: if something cannot be fully explained by today’s science—and there is plenty about the Cambrian, and the universe, that cannot—then we should assume it is fundamentally beyond explanation, and therefore the work of a supreme deity.

Guess you missed the title of the article in the post above. "New Yorker recycles Matzke's misrepsentation". You miss alot of important stuff, or rather, conveniently ignore any facts that don't support your Darwinist, atheistic worldview.

We don't expect the legal community to debate the Sovereign Citizen movement, we don't expect historians to debate Holocaust Deniers, we don't expect political scientists to debate conspiracy theorists, but we expect scientists to debate non-scientists over extremely technical issues and have the science just thrown out whenever the non-scientist disagree with it (at least when they aren't deliberately misleading the ignorant masses over what the evil atheist scientists are lying about) when they bring out "evidence" that first year grad students know is wrong.

To be ignorant of one's own ignorance is the malady of the ignorant.

 

[Hollie]

Guess you missed the title of the article in the post above. "New Yorker recycles Matzke's misrepsentation". You miss alot of important stuff, or rather, conveniently ignore any facts that don't support your Darwinist, atheistic worldview.

We don't expect the legal community to debate the Sovereign Citizen movement, we don't expect historians to debate Holocaust Deniers, we don't expect political scientists to debate conspiracy theorists, but we expect scientists to debate non-scientists over extremely technical issues and have the science just thrown out whenever the non-scientist disagree with it (at least when they aren't deliberately misleading the ignorant masses over what the evil atheist scientists are lying about) when they bring out "evidence" that first year grad students know is wrong.

To be ignorant of one's own ignorance is the malady of the ignorant.

The Meyer groupies are so cute when they're wearing those little hats with the propellers on top and reciting their Disco'tute slogans.

 

[daws101]

Stupid response. Really stupid. His analogy was referring to the fossil record, specifically the Cambrian and Pre-Cambrian strata. Your lack of reading comprehension gets the best of you again. The specific Phyla fossils are plentiful, the "inbetweeners" or rainbow of intermediate colors as referred to in the analogy, are no where to be found in the Cambrian strata. And yes, your arguments above were examined in the book and just as easily quickly and easily refuted. You might want to read it.

since the book is speculative fiction and not based on research or evidence or the lack of it ,the author can say anything he wishes.
whether it fits the facts or not.

Most absurd of all is the book’s stance on knowledge: if something cannot be fully explained by today’s science—and there is plenty about the Cambrian, and the universe, that cannot—then we should assume it is fundamentally beyond explanation, and therefore the work of a supreme deity.

This has to be your most asinine post yet. You reveal that you are just as much of a stupid, douche bag as all the others that think they can comment on a book they have never read. I'm seeing a pattern here. It makes it totally understandable how we got to where we are with the current theory because just about everyone preaching Darwinism proves time and again they have no qualms about making crap up, as evidenced by your post above. REALLY PATHETIC.

just bend over and take it like a man!

 

[UltimateReality]

Here is evidence of the open debate and TRUTH at Evolution News. This is contrary to the lies and manipulations of Panda's Scum. Of course none of the usual liars here will bother to read these posts, but that won't stop them from pretending that they know what was written in them.

Guest, Opposing Viewpoint from Dr. Poenie, Associate Professor in Molecular Cell & Developmental Biology, University of Texas at Austin

Douglas Axe, Protein Evolution, and <em>Darwin's Doubt</em>: A Reply - Evolution News & Views

Response here...

Answering Objections to <em>Darwin's Doubt</em> from University of Texas Biologist Martin Poenie - Evolution News & Views

 

[Hollie]

Here is evidence of the open debate and TRUTH at Evolution News. This is contrary to the lies and manipulations of Panda's Scum. Of course none of the usual liars here will bother to read these posts, but that won't stop them from pretending that they know what was written in them.

Guest, Opposing Viewpoint from Dr. Poenie, Associate Professor in Molecular Cell & Developmental Biology, University of Texas at Austin

Douglas Axe, Protein Evolution, and <em>Darwin's Doubt</em>: A Reply - Evolution News & Views

Response here...

Answering Objections to <em>Darwin's Doubt</em> from University of Texas Biologist Martin Poenie - Evolution News & Views

That was actually comical. What a collection of misfits. A hyper-religious loon from the Disco'tute and the ever silly Cornelius Hunter.

 

[Hollie]

Prothero reviews Meyer's Hopeless Monster - The Panda's Thumb

Donald Prothero, paleontologist and author of Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters, has reviewed Meyer’s “Darwin’s Doubt” monstrosity on Amazon. Money quote:

In short, Meyer has shown that his first disastrous book was not a fluke: he is capable of going into any field in which he has no training or research experience and botching it just as badly as he did molecular biology. As I’ve written before, if you are a complete amateur and don’t understand a subject, don’t demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing a book about it and proving your ignorance to everyone else!

 

[daws101]

Here is evidence of the open debate and TRUTH at Evolution News. This is contrary to the lies and manipulations of Panda's Scum. Of course none of the usual liars here will bother to read these posts, but that won't stop them from pretending that they know what was written in them.

Guest, Opposing Viewpoint from Dr. Poenie, Associate Professor in Molecular Cell & Developmental Biology, University of Texas at Austin

Douglas Axe, Protein Evolution, and <em>Darwin's Doubt</em>: A Reply - Evolution News & Views

Response here...

Answering Objections to <em>Darwin's Doubt</em> from University of Texas Biologist Martin Poenie - Evolution News & Views

since it's an Id/ creationist site it's bias and not scientifically balanced ..no matter who they have as guests!

 

[Hollie]

Speaking of nitwits, it was Dougie Axe along with Ann Gauger who used a green screen and a lab background to make phony images of a lab

Why Gauger's green-screened 'lab' is an appropriate target of ridicule - The Panda's Thumb


Douglas Axe and Ann Gauger, both of the BioLogic Institute, have put out a series of videos summarizing some of the content of “Science and Human Origins.” They attempt to undermine the case for common descent, and in particular the descent of humans from non-human ancestors. John Harshman, in comments on my posts on the use of a commercial stock photo of a lab as a background for Ann Gauger’s blather about “… a hidden secret in population genetics and in evolution,” argued that the focus on the green-screening diverts attention from the real issue, which is her mangling of the science (see here for an example). While John is right that setting the record straight on the science is important, it’s also the case that the green-screening is but one aspect of a larger effort on the part of the Disco ‘Tute to erode public confidence in ‘mainstream’ science. And that effort is what underpins the newest strategy of the Disco ‘Tute and its fellow travelers, which is to promote legislation embodying so-called “academic freedom” for public school teachers who want to teach creationism and intelligent design (see here for an overview and here for a Barbara Forrest video on it).

 

[newpolitics]

Guess you missed the title of the article in the post above. "New Yorker recycles Matzke's misrepsentation". You miss alot of important stuff, or rather, conveniently ignore any facts that don't support your Darwinist, atheistic worldview.

We don't expect the legal community to debate the Sovereign Citizen movement, we don't expect historians to debate Holocaust Deniers, we don't expect political scientists to debate conspiracy theorists, but we expect scientists to debate non-scientists over extremely technical issues and have the science just thrown out whenever the non-scientist disagree with it (at least when they aren't deliberately misleading the ignorant masses over what the evil atheist scientists are lying about) when they bring out "evidence" that first year grad students know is wrong.

To be ignorant of one's own ignorance is the malady of the ignorant.

And how do you know that your'e not ignorant?

 

[UltimateReality]

Speaking of nitwits, it was Dougie Axe along with Ann Gauger who used a green screen and a lab background to make phony images of a lab

Why Gauger's green-screened 'lab' is an appropriate target of ridicule - The Panda's Thumb


Douglas Axe and Ann Gauger, both of the BioLogic Institute, have put out a series of videos summarizing some of the content of “Science and Human Origins.” They attempt to undermine the case for common descent, and in particular the descent of humans from non-human ancestors. John Harshman, in comments on my posts on the use of a commercial stock photo of a lab as a background for Ann Gauger’s blather about “… a hidden secret in population genetics and in evolution,” argued that the focus on the green-screening diverts attention from the real issue, which is her mangling of the science (see here for an example). While John is right that setting the record straight on the science is important, it’s also the case that the green-screening is but one aspect of a larger effort on the part of the Disco ‘Tute to erode public confidence in ‘mainstream’ science. And that effort is what underpins the newest strategy of the Disco ‘Tute and its fellow travelers, which is to promote legislation embodying so-called “academic freedom” for public school teachers who want to teach creationism and intelligent design (see here for an overview and here for a Barbara Forrest video on it).

How many times will you regurgitate this ad hominem attack? You're pathetic. Get some new material.

 

[UltimateReality]

Here is evidence of the open debate and TRUTH at Evolution News. This is contrary to the lies and manipulations of Panda's Scum. Of course none of the usual liars here will bother to read these posts, but that won't stop them from pretending that they know what was written in them.

Guest, Opposing Viewpoint from Dr. Poenie, Associate Professor in Molecular Cell & Developmental Biology, University of Texas at Austin

Douglas Axe, Protein Evolution, and <em>Darwin's Doubt</em>: A Reply - Evolution News & Views

Response here...

Answering Objections to <em>Darwin's Doubt</em> from University of Texas Biologist Martin Poenie - Evolution News & Views

That was actually comical. What a collection of misfits. A hyper-religious loon from the Disco'tute and the ever silly Cornelius Hunter.

Like I said, the she-man idiot in this thread won't bother to read the links.

 

[UltimateReality]

We don't expect the legal community to debate the Sovereign Citizen movement, we don't expect historians to debate Holocaust Deniers, we don't expect political scientists to debate conspiracy theorists, but we expect scientists to debate non-scientists over extremely technical issues and have the science just thrown out whenever the non-scientist disagree with it (at least when they aren't deliberately misleading the ignorant masses over what the evil atheist scientists are lying about) when they bring out "evidence" that first year grad students know is wrong.

To be ignorant of one's own ignorance is the malady of the ignorant.

And how do you know that your'e not ignorant?

Because I'm not blinded by hatred from same-sex attraction resulting from child molestation. Unbelievable the militant, bullying gay community is trying to outlaw counseling for children suffering from same sex attraction. Will they just ignore the abuse??

 

[Hollie]

To be ignorant of one's own ignorance is the malady of the ignorant.

And how do you know that your'e not ignorant?

Because I'm not blinded by hatred from same-sex attraction resulting from child molestation. Unbelievable the militant, bullying gay community is trying to outlaw counseling for children suffering from same sex attraction. Will they just ignore the abuse??

You are to be applauded for resolving your same-sex attraction and coming out.

 

[daws101]

To be ignorant of one's own ignorance is the malady of the ignorant.

And how do you know that your'e not ignorant?

Because I'm not blinded by hatred from same-sex attraction resulting from child molestation. Unbelievable the militant, bullying gay community is trying to outlaw counseling for children suffering from same sex attraction. Will they just ignore the abuse??

really? what you've just posted is the most blindly ignorant hate filled steaming pile of shit you've posted to date!