Today’s column discusses a new twist on the old creationist-evolutionist debate.

First of all Ed, my comment was not in response to anything you said - although it’s very telling that you imagined it was. 

I still am trying to understand why you have decided I am “irritating as hell” because I honestly don’t know what I have ever done to deserve that, or the lovely little appelation you gave me several months back - something along the lines of a miserable excuse for a human being or something like that.  Lovely little piece of engaging intellectual discourse, that.  Sorry if you disagree with my points of view or stated opinions.  Actually, no I’m not sorry.  I have my opinions and points of view; you have yours.  Apparently you’re unable to deal with the fact that they do not align.  And so you retreat into name calling and sniping. 

From my vantage point, the most irritating thing is your inability to engage in anything resembling reasoned discourse when anyone challenges any statement you make.  Facts are an inconvenient thing sometimes, aren’t they?

By the way, my wife says you should not feel sorry for her at all.

Evolution…creationism…ZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Hey, calm down Bill. My Scalia comments are working better than necessary.

I said, “nice comments”. I meant it literally. You and Roger had good comments.

I don’t know what the F-150 has to do with anything. The F-150 is a very popular truck with both blue and white collar types. Not so much these days, but only because times are changing re the gas “crisis”, not because trucks are otherwise out of favor.  That comment was strangely meaningless - what stereotype ?

Jim Webb tried to carry a gun into a federal building and he is NRA and he is liberal. So what stereotype is that ?

The point is since when does having an NRA sticker have anything to do with a stereotype.

Sorry I jibe you so much Bill. You are irritating as hell, I feel immensely sorry for your wife, but I go overboard at times.  Scalia is a great man (sounds of gagging reflex).

Your comments truely were “nice” but your stereotype is totally imaginary unless you have more to work with than the “victim mentality”. F-150 and NRA is not a stereotype.

You know I hate it when you conservatives see yourselves as “victims”. Give me a huge break. Victims only in your hyperactive imaginations.  Perpetrators is more like it.

Am I calming or just riling the waters again ? Oh well…

I love the neat little cubby-hole boxes you guys have put Roger and me into. 

Here, I’ll give you another data point to further reinforce your stereotype: I drive an F-150 and yes, it has NRA stickers on it.

R. Smith has something nice to say about evolution ? Maybe there is a god.

Nice comments by both proto-homogenous anthropomorphic blogger prototypes.

Questions were probably just rhetorical so the answers are not literal either:

what prompted the mutations? - chance. In today’s T-D, Tasmanian Devils (not a reference to Satanist demon worship)facing some awful AIDS-like disease. (diseases evolve and mutate too, you know) This disease has not (yet) mutated to jump over to humans.

Why did some creatures evolve into birds and some not? - Because if they had not done so, we could not name it Bird Theatre and it would gone without a name. (or was it Byrd) (someone misspelled bird)

Every creature seeks a niche. Birds claim the sky and my windshield whereas lounge lizards inhabit karaoke bars, Shockhoe Bottom, and political conventions. Each has a niche wherein it reigns supreme and is fully adapted to outcompete the rest.

Why did some evolve into flightless creatures who were intelligent enough to create flight and is that natural or an aberration or is it natural? - I thought I was bad with the runon sentences.

If airline fares get any higher the notion we are smart enough to create flight shall become moot.

What will I have for lunch today…Chinese or Mexican? - I was going to make some silly wiseass crack about soulfood minus the soul, but that’s just plain impolite and uncouth and uncalled for. I’m sure whatever you have for lunch will be both delicious and nutritious and all shall approve.

Evolution does not apply to Canadians. They have their own set of natural laws very similar to evolution but not the same thing. They possess an unusual natural form of air conditioning known as cold weather which we higher evolved creatures crave.

Caption for that picture..

“Hey…check out this place! Let’s evolve into humans, invent the internal combustion engine and destroy it!“

Question. Since one quasi fish-amphibian creature is obviously on land while the other is only half way on land, does the first creature have claim to the entire planet? And how does this affect casino gambing on indian reservations?

And why aren’t creationists called evolution deniers?

Personally, I think evolution, while much more logical than creationism or ID, is still a long ways from solving anything. Evolution is basically a series of genetic mutations over millions of years but, what prompted the mutations? Why did some creatures evolve into birds and some not? Why did some evolve into flightless creatures who were intelligent enough to create flight and is that natural or an aberration or is it natural? What will I have for lunch today…Chinese or Mexican?

All important questions that can be dealt with by applying sppech restrictions.

Open debate…Canadian style.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jun/08060902.html

Coming soon to your home town courtesy of the worlds most evolved thinkers.

Well I have a B.S. in Biology and studied evolution as well as vertebrate and invertebrate anatomy, so it should be no suprise what my take on the debate is.  I didn’t come from no damn monkey!  No sirree - I came from some proto-hominid. 

I have known several creationists - in fact, a neighbor of mine in my previous neighborhood who I played tennis with every Sunday morning was anti-evolution.  He is a nice guy, it’s just that occasionally Jesus will enter the conversation (and I don’t mean hay-soos, the Mexican lawncare worker). 

I have met other creationists who were a little nutty.  I guess it’s easier and perhaps more comforting to believe that there is this great, loving, supreme being that went “poof” and created all of this stuff not that long ago, because he loves us all and gave us the Earth and all its animals for us to do with as we see fit, rather than try to wrap your brain around a geological time scale of billions of years (difficult to even comprehend such huge periods of time) and contemplate the possibility that if the chemistry and conditions had not been just right, all of this might never have existed. 

And of course, we know this to be true because there’s this book of books that says so.  It’s god’s word - because it says it is.

There also is a deep suspicion of science in general and scientists - I think it’s mainly because (A) people don’t understand it and (ii) lots of stupid movies portray scientists as nutty, crazed, mad, evil, whatever.  Many creationists seem to think that evolutionary biologists are out to disprove the existence of god (excuse me, <ahem> “God”).  The notion of observation, collection of empirical data, analysis, hypothesis, testing, more observation, modification of hypothesis, testing, more data collection, etc. - i.e., the scientific method, somehow escapes them.

Those fishlike creatures do bear an uncanny resemblance to my in-laws. Scientific proof of evolution, or lack of it, as the case may be.

It cheeses me the way uneducated non-scientists try to argue science, as if they have just as much credential as the educated layman, who at least took a few biology courses and knows Darwin is neither the name of a local pub nor a rock band. (town in Australia ?)

Sure, sure, maybe Bart is correct that teaching healthy skepticism might not be the end of the world as we know it, but you really must look at it from the other perspective.

Let’s say some influential person decided that an angry Moon Goddess was responsible for global warming, and that only devotional offerings of peanut butter on Ritz crackers would calm and appease the angry God.

Now, let’s suppose they want to teach this theory in the schools starting in kindergarten, all because no one can “prove” that global warming even exists, much less has an identifiable cause or cure. Moon Goddess is an “alternative” explanation.

Isn’t anyone afraid the world will then be overrun with looneytunes tossing around sticky crackers insisting centuries of knowledge and advancement no longer make any sense ?

This is how creationism looks to an evolutionist. Are the evolutionists really hidebound and inflexible or just plain incredulous. 

Why do conservative causes take up the banner of the peanut butter on Ritz crusade crowd ? For one simple reason.

Conservative evangelicals are one important chink in the conservative political apparatus, and any favor bestowed on them likely to be repaid at voting time. If you can’t give them the high ethical standards of the moral majority, you can at least offer up creationism taught in the schools.

No tastier tidbit can be found than peanut butter on Ritz.

Post Your Comments: