And the prize for the most offensive and twisted analogy of 2004 goes to...

The BBQ Pit
41

I, too, would be hacked off to no end if I were backward and intellectually challenged.

Sorry. That straight line was sitting around and no one was using it. I hate to see a wasted straight line.

Actually, for a theory posited in 1859 when the author (and the rest of the world) was unaware of the reality of genetics, it has stood the test of time quite well, later embracing genetics (which only strengthened its position), and either embracing (and being strengthened by) or defeating every single scientific challenge it has faced in 145 years.
It is not “politically incorrect” to challenge the Theory of Natural Selection, rather it is, currently, scientifically incorrect to suggest that it is in error until such time as someone presents a legitimate alternative (which, as noted, no one in 145 years of trying has succeeded in doing). Instead, we get religious mythology covered with “equal time” arguments or we get demonstrations of the failure of imagination in god-of-the-gaps logic errors such as Intelligent Design.

Personally, I think that the theories of flight are all flawed constructions and that we should be teaching the principles of overcoming Static Gravity in our courses on aeronautical engineering. Equal time for alternative theories, right?

42

That’s The Mouse and the Motorcycle.

43

The Mouse and the Motorcycle

44

Umm…I believe it’s called “The Mouse and the Motorcycle.”

:smack::confused:

45

Beverly Cleary rawks!

46

I know what the book is about-what we want is the frickin’ title, dammit!

47

Ah. It’s a 1960’s-style rodentcycle.

48

At one point, I was proud of my home state of Missouri for having the good sense to elect a dead man instead of John Ashcroft. Unfortunately; between this and my hometown of Poplar Bluff successfully petitioning for a visit from G.Dub during the last campaign, I think something’s gone horribly wrong.

49

[QUOTE=LastCall]

B) I DO believe in science and chemistry. To say that evolution is as completely provable as observable chemical reactions is crazy. Even if you think I am completely wrong, surely you can’t think that something as complex as the origin of life is as simple and provable as bases and acids. You are just trying to belittle me.

[QUOTE]
I think you are confusing the “origin of life” with evolution. Evolution is about what happened once life existed; i.e., it started out simply and got more complex over time. There is hard evidence of this based on chemistry, physics, and geology. Denying the fossil record is as plain stupid as denying that the world is round.

On the other hand, if you think that God provided the initial “spark” or “push” that created life, and that God created a system of physical laws and initial conditions, then you’ll probably find yourself in compamy with some scientists.

50

Why? He’s not using it anymore!

And, on review, what Dan said.

51

from the ever popular us vs. them

Well, actually the “us vs them” characterization is entirely appropriate. Bond and most of the NAACP are long time Democrats. And the Republican party has long been a haven for former segregationist Democrats who were no longer welcome in the party.

**not to mention the fact the idea itself is a moronic one). **

No. You completely missed the point. Jeff Davis committed treason against the US. Plain and simple.

**Their idea of a pristine environment is a parking lot before the lines are painted in (Paging: Chrissie Hynde) **

Probably not. Hynde’s song was the intro to the Limbaugh show - you’ve got to be a dittohead. Bond was probably referencing Joanie Mitchell’s “They paved paradise and put up a parking lot”

**I had no idea 12 million people were exterminated en masse while the stars and bars flew over southern statehouses). **

The stars and bars have long been used by segregationists and other white supremacists as a symbol to represent their causes. Also, the Nazis studied US segregation laws as part of the process of developing anti Jewish legislation.

Their idea of compassion is to ask the guest at the millionaire’s banquet if they want an extra helping or a second dessert. (So this is just a rant aimed at carb counting millionaires?) They’ve tried to patch the leaky economy and every other domestic problem with duct tape and plastic sheets. (Tom Ridge was in the Homeland Security, not Treasury). They’ve written a new constitution for Iraq and ignored the Constitution here at home

Are you being deliberately obtuse, or are metaphor and figures of speech completely lost on you?

**They draw their most rabid supporters from the Taliban-wing of American politics. (Call the dog pound! There are millions of Islamic lunatics foaming at the mouth) **

This can’t be the first time you’ve heard US fundamentalists compared to the Taliban. To point out the obvious, various fundamentalists have repeatedly asserted that the US is a Christian country, and that they aim to establish a godly nation.

Overall, your post was quite fucking clueless.

52

Last Call

The thing is that the debate over what is taught in schools should be decided by the top people in the fields and by educators.

The top people in Astrophysics tell us the facts of astrophysics and educators decide what a HS student needs to learn about it and what a non-astrophysics major college student needs to know on the subject.

The same applies to every field of study including biology and evolution.

If creation science or intelligent design have gone through the rigorous peer review that evolution has gone through and came out non-debunked then it is up to educators to decide how much is to be taught to students and at with grade level they need to learn that.

But creation science and intelligent design hasn’t done that.
Oh and are you a evolutionary biologist or a educator? And guess what? reading a book about the ‘holes in evolution’ and skimming a version of The Origin of the Species that was edited by some Christian hack that was bent on making it seem wrong does not make you a person who has studied both sides. WE don’t have to do that. We have scientest who can decide what are the facts in any given filed and we have professional educators who decide when and how much to teach in school.

What we don’t need are people who are not the tops in a particular field and not educators deciding what is to be taught in schools.

**
Rebekkah**

Don’t email Last Call for the info that shows the holes in evolution.

If Last Call is so certain, let him/her put that info in to the Great Debates forum and let him stand up for his ‘facts’ there.

53

I guess his staff was too busy rounding up shills on privatizing Social Security to run spell check.

54

LastCall, I know you are gone, but I must point out that evolution, when taught properly, does not purport to asnwer how life came to be. The fact of evolutiuon is that species die out, and new ones, which were not there before, take their place. The theory of evolution attempts to explain the mechanism by which evolution occurs. (Apologies to SentientMeat.)

55

Skopo,

I share your pain.

It is depressing to think how much the beliefs of State Representative Cynthia Davis of Missouri have in with common the 9/11 hijackers:

  • fundamental religious convictions
  • distrust of science and new ideas
  • refusal to debate politely.

Lastcall,

The only people who doubt the evidence for evolution are fundamentalist religious types who confuse evolution with abiogenesis.

56

Right THERE. That’s where you went off into the weeds. :slight_smile:
'cuz the fundies basically ain’t gonna ever understand some things. They’re more comfortable with a *different * view of reality.

57

I would state that as “the fact of evolution is that species change, sometimes replacing their parent species and sometimes co-existing with them.” Otherwise you leave yourself open to “Why are there still cockroaches, then?! Huh?!” type questions.

58

I’m not quite sure what you mean. I didn’t say that *all * species change. But the simple fact of the matter is that well over 90% of all species that ever existed are now extinct. The fossil record clearly shows that species come into existence that were not there before. Cockroaches have not been around since life began. At some point in our past there were no cockroaches. Now there are cockroaches. The odds are pretty good that at some point in the future there will be no cockroaches. We may be long gone, and perhaps cockroaches will remain static until the end of time, but I am not sure how the existence of cockroaches invalidates my statement. I deliberately did not refer to “parent” species as part of the fact of evolution, for that concept should properly be placed under the theory of evolution.

59

I’m just saying that you leave yourself open to those kind of (what they think of as) gotcha questions the way you phrased it. A species doesn’t have to go extinct to engender a new species. It only needs to have a population isolated within a slightly different environment for a couple million years.

60

Not to carve too fine a point on it but I am deliberately not suggesting that new species are caused by the extinction of old ones, only that old ones die and new ones arise. That is the fact of evolution. The theory of evolution (as I understand it) would be the vehicle that attempts to explain how that happens.