Mike Luckovich

By LuckoDull

December 27, 2006 08:03 AM | Link to this

Just what you’d expect from the Dullard.

How many of you libs, years from now, will point to this cartoon as proof of evolution? It may actually still be all you have.

Check this out for those of you too dull to do any research of your own:

At a United Nations meeting in Paris last week, the Bush Administration told the U.N. World Heritage Committee that it should not add new sites to its list of endangered places based on the theory of man-made global warming.

Why is that?

The Polar Bear Specialist Group of the World Conservation Union estimates the polar bear population in the Arctic at 20,000 to 25,000, and projects a 30 percent decline in that number over the next 45 years. Climatic warming that melts the bears’ sea ice habitat is regarded as the main threat, but pollution and overhunting are other major concerns. On the United States side, only subsistence hunting by native peoples is legal, but there is an illegal market in Asia for gall bile and gall bladders from polar bears and other bears because of their uses in medicine.

Oh, so the AJC doesn’t give the whole story, what else do they leave out?

The sea level has risen more than 120 metres since the peak of the last ice age about 18,000 years ago. The bulk of that occurred before 6,000 years ago. From 3,000 years ago to the start of the 19th century sea level was almost constant, rising at 0.1 to 0.2 mm/yr; since 1900 the level has risen at 1 to 3 mm/yr [1]; since 1992 satellite altimetry from TOPEX/Poseidon indicates a rate of about 3 mm/yr [2].

Would any of you hysterical wailing liberals like to tell me what humans were doing in 1900 that caused “greenhouse gases?”

Uh, nothing?

Just like today?

Does anyone understand things like the Ice Age and the natural heating/ cooling cycles of the Earth, or is that all just too complicated to follow along with?

I guess we are talking about dullards.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By Proud Pinko Liberal

December 27, 2006 08:23 AM | Link to this

Oh crap! Andy’s back. Everyone put your boots on. The sh1t is getting deep again.

By George

December 27, 2006 08:38 AM | Link to this

Oh geez, Andy is loose again. Quick, hide the women and children. Especially the children.

By Huge

December 27, 2006 08:51 AM | Link to this

Lucko,

Great job at combining two of the religious wrong’s favorite topics into one cartoon!

dull dunce,

You should probably just go take a long nap for the rest of the day. Just pretend you’re back in high school and wishing you could go smoke a fat one instead of listening to all of that heretical science mumbo jumbo.

Although, seeing another mindless flat-earth neo-con getting b1tch slapped around all day on this topic will, no doubt, be rather amusing.

Too bad for you that your alter-ego, suck, got tossed into the garbage pile of blog history. His take on this was just hysterical. But I’m pretty sure that in spite of his whining about the death of this blog, RW will be along soon to tell everyone about the “holes” in the fossil record!

On a differnet note - the last of a quickly dying breed is gone - Gerald Ford was a man of class, intellect, courage and dignity. Unlike today’s gutless chickenhawks, he also served this nation during a time of war. In other words he was essentially everything todays “new” gop is not.

My guess is that unfortunately, it will be a very long time before most die-hard republican voters will demand the same characteristics from their party’s leaders…

By NightTrain

December 27, 2006 09:05 AM | Link to this

Once again the Lefties defend their stance with name calling instead of facts.

By @@

December 27, 2006 09:06 AM | Link to this

Damn ml, that fish on the right has a huge nose and a foul mouth. Is that how you see Babs?

Let’s see what she thinks about global warming. From her website:

“Global warming is not speculative. It threatens us enough so that it should be considered a (((national security issue.))) Failing to warn the citizens of a looming weapon of (((mass destruction))) – and that’s what global warming is – in order to protect (((oil company profits))) – fits, for me, the (((definition of treason.”)))

I loved the movie “A Fish Called Wanda”, but right now, I’m laughing at those comments ^^^ made by “A Fish Called Barbara”.

Get out the nets.

By keith

December 27, 2006 09:30 AM | Link to this

Any body that quotes Amy Ridenour has got to be kidding me. Her opionions are bought and paid for by Exxon/Mobile, the tobacco industry, or Jack Abramoff. Of course the oil industry doesn’t want you to believe in global warming. It cuts into their profit margins. Worst yet, they may have to spend more money on Reseach and Development in cleaning up the mess they’ve made or coming of with cleaner forms of energy.

By Brian Curtis

December 27, 2006 09:51 AM | Link to this

Anyone with a PhD in climatology or biology is welcome to debate the validity of global warming or evolutionary mechanisms.

Everybody else just has ignorant opinions of what they WANT to be true. Me, I think I’ll go with the overwhelming majority of qualified scientists who have no serious questions left as to whether these things are occurring.

By N-GA

December 27, 2006 09:53 AM | Link to this

Here is one fact that no one can dispute: If the scientists who believe that mankind contributes significantly to global warming are wrong, then there is nothing to worry about. However, if those who don’t believe that mankind contributes significantly to global warming are wrong (and nothing is done), then future generations will suffer the consequences.

By RW-(the original)

December 27, 2006 10:10 AM | Link to this

Huge,

What does religion have to do with the debate over whether global warming is natural or the fault of man? BTW, “man” is generally defined as US citizens when it comes to International conventions on “global warming.”

There also aren’t holes or gaps in the fossil record. There isn’t one shred of evidence in the fossil record that would prove evolution, you just use the word “holes” or “gaps” to make believe there is an almost complete picture when you really have a blank canvas and no paint.

By Diogenes

December 27, 2006 10:14 AM | Link to this

Excellent cartoon, Mike. It’s sure to anger a few of the religious self-righteous who deny reality, as huge points out. Like huge, I’m eager to read RW’s and Clown Danish’s rants about this cartoon, since their species has not evolved since it climbed down out of the trees and toddled across the veldt 6 million years ago, classic examples of unintelligent design.

Global warming is real, whether caused by the hot air of an excess of Republicans in office or the burning of fossil fuels. Evidence comes from many sources and every country (see the articles in Discover, January 2007, p. 26 and p. 38).

China’s demands for power will only speed up the process. It’s appalling that we have a president who will not support funding for alternative fuel research.

Please read Barbara Gallo’s editorial in yesterday’s AJC about what can be done in Georgia to improve the environment (p. A19). Let’s hope that the rascals we elected have sense enough to follow through on a few of her suggestions.

Well done, Mike.

By HumanisticJones

December 27, 2006 10:18 AM | Link to this

As my work day is about to ramp up precluding my ability to site sources, I do have to agree with LuckoDull on the whole global warming/endangered species issue.

1- I have seen an interview with one of the prominent scientists pushing Global Warming as a grand threat to man-kind. His graph does show a marked increase in the rate of temperature increase over the early Industrial Revolution to the mid-20th century. However, at about the year mark that industries became concerned with what toxins emmisions may have been putting out, the graph drastically levels back out (read: isn’t going up anymore). Despite the 15 year lack of increasing temperature due to human intervention, he soldiers on with his point that, by the rest of the graph, we’re all going to die. Just ignore that data that says maybe we’re doing okay now, just keep giving us money. As my favorite entertainer Penn Jillet said, “Global Warming… B******!”

2- The endangered species act has not had a single notable success in its entire run. The only species that it can try to claim, the Right Whale, isn’t even their doing. By data, its population was on the rise at least 5 years BEFORE the ESA was voted through. 99% of all the species that have ever existed in the 3.5 billion years that they’ve been crawling around on earth have gone extinct, the Permian Extinction saw 90% of all living creatures wiped out by what is believed to be cometary strikes, and… what’s this? Life moves on. Sure, a few species dying off may hiccough the ecosystem, but even faced with near total elemination, life on earth can still soldier on. Once again, Penn Jillet’s designation of this subject as BS is well founded.

As for taking this comic as proof of evolution, something tells me that Pre-permian paper boxes would be more damning to Natural Selection than finding Fossil Rabbits in the Precambrian.

By RW-(the original)

December 27, 2006 10:22 AM | Link to this

Dio,

If you have a science magazine that posits a theory that global warming is caused by talking Republicans, I think you might want to expand your reading list.

By Diogenes

December 27, 2006 10:51 AM | Link to this

RW (the hopeless monster) at 1010:

I know that you cannot read or I would recommend a few articles on the “fossil record”; however, the irrefutable evidence for the interrelatedness of all life is the similarity of all genomes and DNA, which you’d be aware of it if you could read.

By Political Foreskin

December 27, 2006 10:53 AM | Link to this

Cartoon Idea: Aquaman doing standup: “I’m the third fish from the left on the pre-evolutionary chart. I dont actually breathe. Is this mike even grounded? I’m new wave, but EBB tide…. MERMAID!!”

By Diogenes

December 27, 2006 10:54 AM | Link to this

RW (the hapless monster) at 1022,

I thought blaming the Republicans for global warming was funny. You have no sense of humor or you’d understand how nearly the Republicans have talked us to death the past six years.

By One Voice

December 27, 2006 10:59 AM | Link to this

RW,

Once again, I’ll ask you what your scientific credentials are. (Once again I’m sure you won’t answer, simply because you don’t have any.) Really, all you have to do is pick up a freshman-level college biology book to see mountains of evidence for evolution. All you have to do is walk in one natural history museum in any major city. All you have to do is pick up any peer-reviewed scientific journal. But just as you are wrong on almost every single issue you choose to ruminate over, you are wrong on this one as well. You don’t want to believe species evolved so you choose not to, not because of logic and reason, but because of choice. I’m sorry, but that is not how science works. Your insistence on viewing the world according how you want it to be (in academics we call that bias) as opposed to formulating opinions based on rationale, will forever cause you to come to the wrong conclusion. Your opinions here continue to provide us with more evidence of that fact.

By Practicum

December 27, 2006 11:20 AM | Link to this

Republicans are not to blame for global warming. They are to blame for standing in the way of doing anything about it.

By Holy cow

December 27, 2006 11:24 AM | Link to this

I am a Christian who believes evolution is a fact, a process created by God. I believe the Bible is a product of man, written long before the wonders of what went before them and the workings of the natural world were revealed. But that’s just my literal and inerrant opinion.

By You want evidence?

December 27, 2006 11:34 AM | Link to this

The oldest rocks (Pre-Cambrian) have been searched for many years but no undisputed fossils have been found. The Cambrian rocks immediately above, however, contain numerous fully developed complex invertebrates. This sudden appearance of life in the strata has been a major problem for the evolutionists (Fig.1). Minute objects found in Precambrian strata are claimed to be primordial cells. Even if they are there is an enormous gap between such microscopic objects and the complex invertebrates such as the trilobites which suddenly appear perfectly formed in the Cambrian strata above. (B) Despite searching the strata for over 100 years, fossils which would close the gaps between classes and even species have NOT been found, as many evolutionists are now prepared to admit. In proposing their new theory of “punctuated equilibrium”, Drs. Gould and Eldredge accept that these gaps still exist.

By Diogenes

December 27, 2006 11:50 AM | Link to this

Stand-up comic at 1134;

I just took a look at your quotation. That’s funny stuff. When do plan to appear on Jay Leno?

No one in his (or her) right mind would claim that mishmash as “scientific evidence.” You clowns will really stretch to avoid reality, just like G.W. (“Great Wall”) Bush.

By You want evidence?

December 27, 2006 11:57 AM | Link to this

Absolutely no transitional forms either in the fossil record or in modern animal and plant life have been found. All appear fully formed and complete. The fossil record amply supplies us with representation of almost all species of animals and plants but none of the supposed links of plant to animal, fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, or reptile to birds and mammals are represented nor any transitional forms at all. There are essentially the same gaps between all the basic kinds in the fossil record as exists in plant and animal life today. There are literally a host of missing links in the fossil record and the modern world.

By Political Foreskin

December 27, 2006 11:58 AM | Link to this

Evolution is possible, but mitochondrial mutations are a must!

I wonder when we mutated to absorb direct sunlight, oh yeah, we havent.

I wonder when we mutated to absord moisture, oh yeah, we havent…..ew.

When Atilla contracted the inhalation form of Yellow Fever while he was attacking the pope in Rome, Catholicism itself was living it’s own War of the Worlds movie sequel. (I’d rather relive the fall of rome than go see Rocky Balboa).

Now the timing of that alone suggests that when populations intermingled in the earliest days of mankind, most of them died off just with the exchange of diseases. That’s what must have killed off the neanderthals. Any persistent contact with humans must have proved fatal.

Yetis could exist because neanderthals were probably really good at hiding in impossible reaches. Some could have survived, but I dont believe a word of it Yeti lives only to sell magazines. But a fun read, I’ll give you that.

Using dna, and the certainties of random chaos, God has been trimming the herd to something managable so that all the peoples could be immune from each other.

Now, a warning to evolutionics: Thought alone transforms a brain into observable structural growths. If you dont accept christ, your brain forms one way, (and that’s proven), if you think about cartoons, your brain will form another way, (and that’s proven), BUT if you think that God said “Let there be light”, you have a duty to understand the quantum nature of that truth.

Genesis is probably exactly how the universe was created. It implies an observer. God is speaking. He is speaking to us. There must be a predetermined number of souls. There’s been 100 billion so far, like a small galaxy would contain, maybe. He created us, but We created the universe by observing it. Everything is a construct of a human brain. It takes an observer. All of einstein presumes an observer. Every experiment is an observation, even the experiment of looking itself.

Bible Theory is probably correct, but meditation is a must. Pray for Peace. One person can make a difference. One person is everything, dont you see?

By Buy Danish

December 27, 2006 11:59 AM | Link to this

Dio,

For someone who has cats that vote, your commenting on “reality” is quite something to behold.

By Lord Help Us

December 27, 2006 12:03 PM | Link to this

Quick question:

If a 2008 Presidential candidate unequivicolly stated that Evolution is a myth (and professed their belief in creationism/ID)…AND that Global warming is not occurring…

Would he/she have an ice cubes chance in heck of ever getting elected???

By One Voice

December 27, 2006 12:03 PM | Link to this

Idiot Andy,

That’s not evidence at 11:34. That didn’t come from a peer-reviewed scientific journal, but from a biased religious writer whose main purpose is to debunk science in order to advance cult mythology. The strategy used by that foolish man is the same one used by yourself and rw- choose the perspective that you wish to accept and then try your best to defend it and find “reasons” it’s true. Science doesn’t work like that. Science is made up of series of experiments, and if the results can be replicated and substantiated, the scientist accepts the results regardless of what his previous desire or opinion was. The truth is the truth and no matter how hard you try you- Andy, RW, Granny, Dusty, etc.- can’t change it. You just deny it. You’ll have to come up with much better “evidence” than a silly rightwing, fundamentalist cult blog. It’s hilarious you would even attempt to present that garbage as an opposition to what science tells us.

By One Voice

December 27, 2006 12:09 PM | Link to this

Holy cow,

Even though I have never tried to hide my disdain for all religion, including Christianity, from what you said at 11:24, it seems like you are the most reasonable and rational Christian to have entered this blog for a long time.

By You want evidence?

December 27, 2006 12:12 PM | Link to this

It can be noted that natural selection as a driving mechanism for evolution is totally inadequate. Natural selection (along with mutation) is said to have caused organisms to evolve from one basic kind (animals which can reproduce with one another) into another basic kind. This is prohibited genetically since all of the information for the development of an organism has already been encoded in the DNA of its parent. Variation to organisms must remain within its basic kind. For example, genetically, a wide variety of dogs can come to exist, but a dog can never become anything other than a dog. It remains in its kind. It does not have the genetic ability to become anything more. Admitting this, evolutionists have tried to explain that natural selection happened in conjunction with mutations to the genetic code. This could not produce evolution, however, since mutations do not create new genetic potential, they just alter what is already there. Furthermore, mutations are small, random, and harmful alterations to the genetic code. This also makes evolution from mutations impossible. For example, a working wristwatch does not improve but is harmed when its inside parts are randomly altered. Natural selection also contradicts the second law of thermodynamics which states that, left to themselves, all things tend to deteriorate rather than develop, while evolution wants to go in the opposite direction. “Survival of the fittest” demonstrates only how an organism has survived, not how it has evolved.

By Diogenes

December 27, 2006 12:12 PM | Link to this

Stand-up comic at 1157;

Just read that mishmash, also. It’s even funnier than the previous. That is not “scientific evidence” in any shape, form or fashion. It shows a deplorable lack of knowledge and a refusal to read anything less than 120 years old. It astonishes me that anyone can cling so tenaciously to such ignorance.

Jay Leno still might have a place on his show for such comedy. Have your agent give him a call.

By One Voice

December 27, 2006 12:13 PM | Link to this

Hey, Mary… I mean, Granny’s back! Granny, did you notice that ever since you saw George Will use the word “boor” in regard to Jim Webb a couple of weeks ago you have been using the word to no end? Didn’t your middle school English teacher tell you that overuse of a word makes it lose its potency?

By One Voice

December 27, 2006 12:18 PM | Link to this

rw,

You never told us what the biological, chemical, and physical processes were that led to completely formed animals popping into existence from sheer nothingness, in your expert scientific opinion. I’m really interested in that because I’d like to become a rancher and it would really help my bottom line if instead of buying cattle, I could just make them appear magically like you said all animals did.

By You want evidence?

December 27, 2006 12:20 PM | Link to this

Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world. Life is far too complex to have resulted from any chance happening. Even the simplest form of life consists of billions of parts working together and needed for the basic functioning of the organism. These could not have sprung into being at the same time and interrelating together by chance. Life coming from matter would violate the law of biogenesis and the cell principle which state that life must come only from life. Secondly, we find that the first matter could not simply have come into existence from nothing. This is a logical absurdity. Finally, we find that morality in humanity as well as our mental capacity and utter dominance of the physical world make humanity set apart by any reasonable means from the rest of the living world.

By Diogenes

December 27, 2006 12:25 PM | Link to this

Political Foreskin (1158),

Scientists have created religion in the laboratory:

“In two or three 8-hour sessions, with two months in between each session, the volunteers were give either psilocybin [“the active ingredient in hallucinogenic mushrooms”] or Ritalin. Seven hours later, and again months afterwards, they completed questionnaires about their experience. More than 60 percent of the subjects who received psilocybin had what they described as a ‘complete mystical experience.’”

Discover, January 2007, p. 49.

To: Lord help us (1203):

Your point is, of course, that we elected such a president in 2000 and 2004.

By You want evidence?

December 27, 2006 12:34 PM | Link to this

Louis Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation of life. Sir Fred Hoyle and Charles Wickramasinghe stated in their book, Evolution from Space, that “they estimated the probability of forming a single enzyme or protein at random, in a rich ocean of amino acids, was no more than one in 10 to the 20th power.” Next, they calculated the likelihood of forming all of the 2000+ enzymes used in the life forms of earth. This probability was calculated at one in 10 to the 40,000th power. They popularized the following cliché: “belief in the chemical evolution of the first cell from lifeless chemicals is equivalent to believing that a tornado could sweep through a junkyard and form a Boeing 747.”

By Lord Help Us

December 27, 2006 12:37 PM | Link to this

Dio,

No. Even the Shrub knew not to unequivically dispute evolution or global warming.

He has, in fact, made fuzzy statements acknowledging global warming and, as far as I know, never mentioned evolution.

Again, if a 2008 Presidential candidate unequivically stated that Evolution is a myth (and professed their belief in creationism/ID)…AND that Global warming is not occurring…

Would he/she have an ice cubes chance in heck of ever getting elected???

If they wouldn’t stand a chance…ask yourself…’WHY?’

By LMAO

December 27, 2006 12:39 PM | Link to this

Hey Mike! Have you heard? George W Bush??? Worst President EVER. By far.

ANOTHER, non-Bush cartoon. Wow. Are you being paid by the White House? Did Rev Haggard threaten you with black mail?

Or are you just plain crazy?

BTW, I have re-cancelled my subscription to the AJC. This non-Bush bashing is incompetence. I’m appalled.

By What a coincidence

December 27, 2006 12:39 PM | Link to this

A tornado swept through my trailer park in Ellijay one time and turned my single-wide into an L-39 Albatross, which I have since sold for $325,995.

By Cindy

December 27, 2006 12:40 PM | Link to this

Andy’s references would be more creditable if they didn’t come from creationists.

By RW-(the original)

December 27, 2006 12:46 PM | Link to this

OV,

Show me the fossil record that shows a species becoming another species. I remain open to being convinced and was once very much on your side of this argument. The complete lack of any evidence shows me that it’s you that is blindly following a hope and you have no scientific basis other than claiming that you must be right. Besides if we can only discuss things we have formal training in then you’re relegated to discussing blowing ultimate fighters in the gym locker room and nothing else.

By Lord Help Us

December 27, 2006 12:49 PM | Link to this

I stand (partially) corrected. Bush HAS, in fact, broached this subject…

At the White House, where intelligent design has been discussed in a weekly Bible study group, Mr. Bush’s science adviser, John H. Marburger 3rd, sought to play down the president’s remarks as common sense and old news. Mr. Marburger said in a telephone interview that “evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology” and “intelligent design is not a scientific concept.” Mr. Marburger also said that Mr. Bush’s remarks should be interpreted to mean that the president believes that intelligent design should be discussed as part of the “social context” in science classes.

Not exactly a denunciation of evolution…Huh?

Just typical pandering to the gullible religious right…

By One Voice

December 27, 2006 12:53 PM | Link to this

I am still waiting on some real evidence (that’s evidence from something other than a religious cult website).

By Lord Help Us

December 27, 2006 12:54 PM | Link to this

Seems Bush also believes Global Warming is an important issue:

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. I’ve just met with senior members of my administration who are working to develop an effective and science-based approach to addressing the important issues of global climate change. This is an issue that I know is very important to the nations of Europe, which I will be visiting for the first time as President. The earth’s well-being is also an issue important to America. And it’s an issue that should be important to every nation in every part of our world.

Apparently, Bush believes in BOTH Evolution (by endorsing it as part of biology curriculum) AND Global Warming!!

By Diogenes

December 27, 2006 12:55 PM | Link to this

stand up comic (1234):

That’s just as funny as the other stuff you’ve subjected us to. Give up. This stuff is not evidence, This stuff is not science, as One Voice has pointed out several times. This stuff is even ceasing to be good comedy.

As One Voice suggests, get a good college biology 101 text and read a little bit, if you’re literate.

By RW-(the original)

December 27, 2006 12:58 PM | Link to this

LHU,

While you’re at it do you think you’ll see a candidate in 2008 saying that they think organized religion is a dangerous concept that should be disbanded and that abortions should be freely available up to the day of birth with no questions asked?

By RW-(the original)

December 27, 2006 01:01 PM | Link to this

Dio,

Would those articles you can’t bring yourself to recommend tell us more tales of how a few flounders laid eggs that hatched as finches like you tried to tell us the other day?

By You want evidence?

December 27, 2006 01:03 PM | Link to this

“It is almost invariably assumed that animals with bodies composed of a single cell represent the primitive animals from which all others derived. They are commonly supposed to have preceded all other animal types in their appearance. There is not the slightest basis for this assumption.” —*Austin Clark, The New Evolution (1930), p. 235—236.

“The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith.” —*J. W.N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (1933), p. 95.

“With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own (ah-ha-ha-ha-ha): namely, the assumption that what, after long effort could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.” —*Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey, (1957), p. 199.

By Funny you should mention it

December 27, 2006 01:03 PM | Link to this

But I am running for president for in 2008 and will stand by my long-held belief that organized religion is dangerous. And also, that abortion should be legal right up to … how old did you say you were, RW?

By You want evidence?

December 27, 2006 01:08 PM | Link to this

“Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that the theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs.” —*Pierre-Paul Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8.

“To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all.” —*H. Lipson, “A Physicist Looks at Evolution, ” Physics Bulletin 31 (1980), p. 138.

“The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an innocuous natural philosophy, but that it is a serious obstruction to biological research. It obstructs—as has been repeatedly shown—the attainment of consistent results, even from uniform experimental material. For everything must ultimately be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be built up.” —*H. Neilsson, Synthetische Artbildng, 1954, p. 11.

“Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it has been observed to occur . . or can be proved by logical coherent evidence, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.” —*D.M.S. Watson, “Adaptation,” in Nature, Vol. 123, p. 233 (1929).

By One Voice

December 27, 2006 01:08 PM | Link to this

That was a sophisticated comment, rw. Why do you have such a fixation with gay locker room experiences? Maybe it’s because 1) that is your life’s fantasy, and 2) you can’t provide any rationale for your silly notion of animals just popping into existence from nothing. The evidence of Homo habilis, Homo erectus, and all the Australopithecus’ evolution is substantial. I challenge you to find anything halfway as convincing supporting your magic materialization theory.

By Lord Help Us

December 27, 2006 01:11 PM | Link to this

RW-(the obfuscator),

Organized religion is no problem as long as the separation of church and state is respected…

And, NO, a candidate that established a platform ‘promoting’ abortions would not be viable. However, a candidate that respects legal abortions is absolutely viable.

Now, can you answer my question?

By RW-(the original)

December 27, 2006 01:18 PM | Link to this

OV,

I guess the fact that you have no evidence to support your supposed scientific theory causes you to lash out and make up the thoughts of others. Sad, really, how empty your life must be.

As I actually have stated over and over I have no independent theory, only the fossil record which only shows species coming and going, but never transforming into others. Do you subscribe to Dio’s “beautiful monster” theory to explain that?

By One Voice

December 27, 2006 01:19 PM | Link to this

I’m still waiting on some “evidence” that doesn’t come from a David Koresh-style cult.

Speaking of David Koresh, has anyone informed the AJC that Andy has been violating his ban and posting repeatedly asinine comments again?

I guess it’s okay. We all needed a good laugh.

By RW-(the original)

December 27, 2006 01:21 PM | Link to this

LHU,

Do I get to change the parameters of your question the way you did mine? Who’s the obfuscator now dumba$$?

By Andy's Posting!! Andy's Posting!! Waaaaahhh!

December 27, 2006 01:29 PM | Link to this

WTF is Andy?

The last three of the popular twelve hominids have been demonstrated as being modern human beings. Human skulls naturally vary in size and many other characteristics. They often also are misshapen by certain diseases such as rickets, arthritis, Paget’s disease, congenital syphilis, and starvation. Skulls found with diseases or normal human variations could lead one to suppose that certain modern human skulls are something less than human. This has been a great mistake by evolutionists who not only have failed to recognize variance in human skulls but also to make the public aware of it as well. On picture #14, Homo Erectus, number 10, is an actual modern human being and nothing less. One Homo Erectus find, called Peking Man, was based on but one tooth. “Davidson Black…became convinced that it (the one tooth) was a human tooth…He then confidently announced a new genus of man.” ([8], p.78)

By One Voice

December 27, 2006 01:31 PM | Link to this

rw,

Evolution is not “my” theory, and it is one of the most well-supported theories in science. I am also certainly not making up the fact that you stated (on 10/6/6) that you believed animals appeared out of nowhere, what I deemed your “magic materialization theory.” I’ve re-posted that exchange a couple times in the last few days, but if you’d like me to I can post it again to prove that you are lying about your beliefs now that they have been exposed as ridiculous once again.

By You want evidence?

December 27, 2006 01:35 PM | Link to this

Homo erectus cannot be dismissed from the motley ranks of modern man. He had large supraorbital ridges but so have some modern individuals and so, too, Neanderthal man, who had a cranium larger than modern man and a culture. Home erectus had a low skull, yet possessed the cranial capacity of the smaller skulls found among ourselves. And amongst ourselves, cranial size has little or no relationship to average intelligence and competence, or perhaps even to extreme intelligence. More time is now defeating to evolutionary theory; the evolutionists do not yet appreciate that they have crawled out farther and farther on a limb which may suddenly and soon break off at the trunk. For instance, could humans and hominids have lived for millions of years without having reached the Americas, where elephants, camels, horses and other mammals abounded? Would they have waited until 100,000 years ago to descend upon Australia?

By RW-(the original)

December 27, 2006 01:40 PM | Link to this

OV,

I’m sure you’ll spam the board many times with that exchange since you lack the ability to debate or back up any of your thoughts. The response is to a three part multiple choice question with three ridiculous answers. The only one that is backed by any evidence is that of the fossil record which shows various species coming and going, but never evolving into a different one.

I’m out until later, feel free to spam away in my absence. That is once you stop seeing Andys popping up all around you, weirdo.

By One Voice

December 27, 2006 01:53 PM | Link to this

rw,

Yes, it was a three part multiple choice question that also asked you to submit an alternative argument if none of the answers fit your beliefs. But instead of suggesting an alternate theory, you picked one of the ridiculous ones, which at the time you did not know was ridiculous. We can look at that test as my own empirical experiment to see if you are as ignorant as you appear to be, and you helped to support my hypothesis that you are, in fact, very dim-witted.

By RW-(the original)

December 27, 2006 01:55 PM | Link to this

One last thing, here’s a new book coming out that updates Darwin and talks of what a proven science evolution is. They can’t even keep facts straight in the book description, see if you can spot the big lie.

Yet as we approach the bicentennial celebration of Darwin s birth, the world finds itself divided over the truth of evolutionary theory. Consistently endorsed as good science by experts and overwhelmingly accepted as fact by the scientific community, it is not always accepted by the public and our schools continue to be battlegrounds for this conflict. From the Tennessee trial of a biology teacher who dared to teach Darwin s theory to his students in 1925 to Tammy Kitzmiller s 2005 battle to keep intelligent design out of the Dover district schools in Pennsylvania, it s clear that we need to cut through the propaganda to quell the cacophony of raging debate.

I’ll look forward to seeing your answers and setting them straight on my return.

By Lord Help Us

December 27, 2006 01:56 PM | Link to this

RW-(the cut ‘n’ runner),

I attempted to make some sense from your ‘spin.’

My questions were quite straightforward and you obviously are incapable of a reasonable response.

If I had your lack of logic, I’d cut ‘n’ run too…

By One Voice

December 27, 2006 02:20 PM | Link to this

rw,

I do have one correction to make- it wasn’t you who made the Santa analogy a few days ago; it was Granny (although you were a part of the conversation and still feigned ignorance).

I was surprised Granny would make such an egregious slip up, one that identified your neocon brethren as nothing more than naive children and inadvertently admitted that your belief in god is misguided and patently false. She’s really losing her touch, isn’t she? First she lost her nerve; then she lost her skill.

Somewhere out there she’s wondering if she should get a job, if switching to the republican party was the correct thing to do, if she’s wasting her time by going to church, if that itch in her crotch is due to the gardener Jose, and if George Will can give her some new words to expand her vocabulary.

By Buy Danish

December 27, 2006 02:24 PM | Link to this

RW,

Scopes was not a “biology teacher”. He was a math and general science teacher and only taught biology as a substitute teacher.

By Buy Danish

December 27, 2006 02:34 PM | Link to this

Stalker Boy,

My point about Santa Claus was that you are such a despicable creep that you are the sort of person who would find pleasure in ruining a child’s Christmas.

It had nothing to do with believing in God you freaking “boor”.

By getalife

December 27, 2006 02:45 PM | Link to this

Evolution and Global warming combo is good but I like this toon better

By One Voice

December 27, 2006 02:46 PM | Link to this

Granny, did rw give you his rationalizing skills for christmas? Sure sounds like it. You’d have been better off if he gave you a few job applications. Why did you post under that pseudonym the other night? Scared you’d be exposed for what you are?

By Thomas

December 27, 2006 02:48 PM | Link to this

Edukated In Gawja’

Well you can quickly see who here studied in school. It becomes very obvious who actually read their science texts and understands all the grand discoverys in our modern era due to the “Theorys” within’ Science.

Yep — we see a full view of ignorance followed shortly by mis-information to debunk science itself here. The people who would cut their nose from their face if it would help their garbage arguments.

Well ok —

This is for all of you who don’t believe in evolution.

1) Theres no need for you to take any flu shots or antibiotics (which is technology based on the “Theory of Evolution”). You can just leave those extra flu shots and other preventative medicines for us who do believe that that such (evolution based) medicines will actually help. It will be fun for the rest of us as we watch natural selection take it’s course.

2) Oh for that matter why visit a doctor at all, since what a doctor does is pure theoretical science anyways. Just go to your priest, pastor, voodoo shamen, etc, the next time you get sick. I mean a lot of medical and biology science used in our modern medicine is clearly based on evolution theories, and since you don’t believe in it then why bother with a science trained medical doctor at all?

3) Oh and don’t bother with any other science either, You clearly think Theoretical science is unproven, and should be ignored. === You know! Those inventions based on un-proven theoretical things like Gravity, Electricty, Atomic Theory, Photon particles, etc. Yeah just stay away from cars, Airplanes, TVs, Radios, Playstations, I-Pods, etc. After all they are all based on theoretical science and therefore must not really exist!

Yes just leave Science and Technology to the rest of us and we will continue to evolve without you.

Well I mean that is if you don’t believe in Theorys..

Cheers! Thomas

By getalife

December 27, 2006 02:54 PM | Link to this

Oops, wrong toon

By getalife

December 27, 2006 02:58 PM | Link to this

Dang, try this one

By Buy Danish

December 27, 2006 02:59 PM | Link to this

Punk Stalker Boy,

When you were lurking at RWs, what “pseudonym” did you see?

Please share your psycho, err, psychic reality with the rest of us.

By headlines

December 27, 2006 04:31 PM | Link to this

CNN WASHINGTON (AP) — The tally for Hurricane Katrina waste could top $2 billion next year because half of the lucrative government contracts valued at $500,000 or greater for cleanup work are being awarded with little competition.

Federal investigators have already determined the Bush administration squandered $1 billion on fraudulent disaster aid to individuals after the 2005 storm.

Now they are shifting their attention to the multimillion dollar contracts to politically connected firms that critics have long said are a prime area for abuse.

By rushncap

December 27, 2006 04:34 PM | Link to this

I love this board. And, of course, the only thing creationists can muster to their cause is a bunch of irrelevant quotes.

This is actually psychologically amusing. These people (creationists) have minds which are entirely unable to make certain connections, which are simple to most other people. This is, one would assume, a result of their religious training. For instance, they assume that everyone determines what is true the exact same way they do. The way creationists determine what is true is by looking at quotes, usually from the Bible. They have been so conditioned to think that truth is a matter of a correct quote that they cannot comprehend how a human being is able to determine truth without an authoritative quote. So they really believe that they can win an argument if they simply copy-paste enough quotes from scientists. They simply cannot make the logical connection that we do not treat quotes of scientists with the same reverence as they treat their Bible. And when you tell them this, their response is to post MORE quotes. They literally are travelling a straight line and are unable to understand the concept of turning off of it.

By Buy Danish

December 27, 2006 04:48 PM | Link to this

rushncap,

Actually some of us are interested in allowing the weaknesses in Darwin’s theories to be taught along with the Theory of Evolution - which does not require a belief in “Creationism” .

Like this. (You’ll note that the S.F. Gate had to issue a correction because it jumped to the same fallacious, and decidely un-scientific, conclusion as you did.)

By rushncap

December 27, 2006 05:09 PM | Link to this

Honey, every active theory has weaknesses. If there were no weaknesses, there’d be nothing to do research on, would there?

For instance, since I work in physics, I know about physics theories. You know what the single weakest theory in physics is? You guessed it — gravity. It literally has tons of holes. The second weakest? The Standard Model. But guess what, Dusty: we don’t teach the weaknesses until people understand the strenghts. Would you suggest we talk about the scale gap, or the renormalization problems alongside telling high schoolers “mass A is attracted to mass B”? Of course there are problems with evolution. And those who study it know them, I’m sure. But this is not how you introduce the theory. At the level that high schoolers understand, there are no problems with evolution.

By RW-(the original)

December 27, 2006 05:11 PM | Link to this

Thomas the Terminally Boring Talk Engine,

The discussion that goes on constantly around here is about Darwin’s theory of the origins of species. We all agree that things change and adapt so if you want to call that evolution then we all agree with it. Where we disagree is where the “scientists” on this board make the giant leap of faith that those adaptations continue into becoming an entirely different species without a shred of evidence.

Buy Danish,

Scopes also never taught evolution and never spent one minute in jail. The ACLU cooked the whole thing up and Scopes was in on it, yet the new book touting Darwin doesn’t even bother to do the slightest bit of research into that. Or maybe they know how gullible their target readership is and just went with the “monkey trial” of Hollywood fame.

By RW-(the original)

December 27, 2006 05:16 PM | Link to this

Proof of evolution!!! Right in the middle of rushncap’s response Buy Danish evolved into Dusty with a transitional step of Honey.

By rushncap

December 27, 2006 05:24 PM | Link to this

Ah crap. Dusty, Danish… same crap, same capital D. Sigh. Sorry, Muffin… or you’re welcome Muffin, depending on whether you consider being confused for Dusty an insult or a compliment.

By Buy Danish

December 27, 2006 05:26 PM | Link to this

RW,

You are the fastest typist today!

rushncap,

You say “we don’t teach the weaknesses until people understand the strengths”. Can you tell us when and where the weaknesses in the Theory of Evolution are ever taught?

If this was what it was about (waiting until later and keeping one’s evolution virginity as long as possible) we wouldn’t need the ACLU coming in and suing school districts that put stickers on textbooks asking people to (horrors!) have an “open mind” now would we?

By Thomas

December 27, 2006 05:31 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish -

The correction in your link was that the reporter had mis-stated that: “Caldwell was trying to include intelligent design”.

Hmm — well when you get down to it - Caldwell actually was trying to include Intelligent design (just as you currently are here).

You are purporting that schools teach the weaknesses in Darwin’s design. Well they do just that already in the science class as checking and rechecking and confirming the scientific data is a part of scientific evaluation.

So in reality you are still saying you wish a dissenting view to Darwin’s Theory. Correct? - And just what would be a dissenting viewpoint? Have you got another Theory to research that would conclude Darwin’s Theory to be in error? If so you would make scientific history. Maybe even earn a Nobel award for science.

But personally I think we are hearing the same ol’ song and dance from you. “We have nothing to offer as evidence ourselves but we think Darwin’s whole theory is wrong because it hasn’t been proven as a Law just yet”.

I like this part in your link:

Scientists often argue about the detailed processes in evolution — whether new species emerge slowly or rapidly, or whether Darwin’s concept of “natural selection” is the only mechanism for change over time — but they consider evolution itself to be a fact as solid as gravity or the round Earth.

-=-

As to teaching weaknesses in the theory of evolution, Scientific research does just that! It evaluates theories based on provable facts, and shows quite clearly when there is weakness in any theory. Those weaknesses are already being explored by the scientific community and if Darwin’s theory proves incorrect the scientist will clearly point that out and dispose of it.

However - here is the Caldwell argument in a nutshell:

To Caldwell, the dispute is basically over the school district’s refusal to allow teachers to expose students to what he calls a “dissenting scientific viewpoint” over evolution as opposed to the “orthodox scientific viewpoint,” and to provide them with a textbook challenging the standard concepts of evolution.

-=-

Now here’s where all this pseudo science (ID) falls apart. There is no dissenting “Scientific” viewpoint to evolution. There are dissenting

By Buy Danish

December 27, 2006 05:33 PM | Link to this

Oh and rushncap, just in case I didn’t make myself clear-

At what point (if ever)is it okay to teach that one doesn’t have to be a “Creationist” to see the weaknesses in this theory that, according to you, one gets to learn at some distant point as one’s education evolves.

By You want evidence?

December 27, 2006 05:37 PM | Link to this

“Of course there are problems with evolution.”

This would be the understatement of the year. Maybe if evolution first had one shred of proof then it could possibly move on from there to having “problems.”

As it stands now we wait for step 1, some, er, any evidence.

“So they really believe that they can win an argument if they simply copy-paste enough quotes from scientists. They simply cannot make the logical connection that we do not treat quotes of scientists with the same reverence as they treat their Bible.”

O.K. everybody, that was this afternoon, let’s check back and see what it was in the morning-

“By Brian Curtis December 27, 2006 09:51 AM | Link to this Anyone with a PhD in climatology or biology is welcome to debate the validity of global warming or evolutionary mechanisms. Everybody else just has ignorant opinions of what they WANT to be true.”

And then they moved the target again!-

“By One Voice December 27, 2006 12:03 PM | Link to this That’s not evidence at 11:34. That didn’t come from a peer-reviewed scientific journal, but from a biased religious writer whose main purpose is to debunk science in order to advance cult mythology.”

So let’s sort all of this out, we can’t talk to scientists, we can’t talk to preachers, we can’t talk to biologists, nope, the lefties don’t want to hear none of it.

So who, pray tell, can we cite as experts?

Lunatics?

Tell us your approved sources and I’ll go from there, deal?

By rushncap

December 27, 2006 05:43 PM | Link to this

Danish, the weaknesses are taught in upper division biology classes in college, and in grad. school. Guess what: I didn’t know how weak a theory gravity was until I got to either my junior or my senior year in undergrad. But that does not mean “well, gravity’s weak, let’s insert a god here and go home”. Physics does not go for Intelligent Sticking.

And the stickers have nothing at all to do with “open mind”. You know it, I know it, the ACLU, the judges, the people who put them in there know it. So why keep lying? Out of inertia?

By rushncap

December 27, 2006 05:45 PM | Link to this

Answer: at the same point that students learn that gravity has major problems, and just about everyone working on it believes that gravitational theory needs to be completely overhauled. Of course this is not a totally valid comparison: no one in science thinks evolutions needs to be completely overhauled.

By RW-(the original)

December 27, 2006 05:46 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish,

That “don’t teach the weaknesses until they understand the strengths” is flat out indoctrination meaning don’t let them know we’re making this up until we have them brainwashed.

rushncap,

I just took a walk around my neighborhood. Every few feet I picked up a rock or a stick and dropped it. Every single time I dropped it, it fell to the ground, yet every dog, cat, bird, and person I saw was still just a dog, cat, bird, or person.

By Buy Danish

December 27, 2006 05:50 PM | Link to this

Thomas the Talk Engine,

Too wordy to get that all in, huh.

Here is a groundbreaking idea for you -How about “We have theories, but we don’t know all the answers. We’ll teach the theory and also teach the weaknesses in the theory!”

When do I get my prize?

By Thomas

December 27, 2006 05:54 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish -

The stickers didn’t pass the lemon test and therefore were ruled against in a court of law as having promoted a religios viewpoint at taxpayer expense.

this is the best comment I have ever found on the textbook stickers argument, but I doubt your narrow minded opinion will ever understand it.

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/globe.html

By rushncap

December 27, 2006 06:02 PM | Link to this

RW, that’s an exciting story. You should tell your grandkids. I, frankly, don’t care.

By Diogenes

December 27, 2006 06:03 PM | Link to this

RW (the hopeless monster):

In your learned scientific opinion what will become of the Earth when man is extinct?

By Thomas

December 27, 2006 06:05 PM | Link to this

RW -

Let me just ask you this!

Have you ever seen some divine creator create anything either?

Are you familiar with farmers breeding animals and plants to weed out unwanted genetic traits while maintaining wanted genetic traits? are you even aware of how we crossbreed to create new animals.

Genes mutate in all living things. Some mutations survive natural selection. These mutations of genes continue until an animal or plant is changed into another type of animal (or plant). This is evolution. A slow process that can take millions of years before you see dramatic changes in a species.

Oh and did your stick fall to the ground? or did the ground come up and hit it? I mean after all the earth is moving at a few million miles per minute through the universe. grins

Thomas

By Buy Danish

December 27, 2006 06:05 PM | Link to this

RW,

I also think rushncap is doing a great job of demonstrating that there are weaknesses in the theory and that only an elite few get to learn that fact - thus leaving the majority of the population blissfully ignorant and indoctrinated.

For some reason though, if a weak theory involves physics it’s okay to think about it, but if the subject is evolution it is sacrosanct and can never be challenged.

By Diogenes

December 27, 2006 06:05 PM | Link to this

RW (the hapless monster);

In your learned scientific opinion, what became of the dinosaurs?

By rushncap

December 27, 2006 06:09 PM | Link to this

RW, that’s an exciting story. You should tell your grandkids. I, frankly, don’t care.

By RW-(the original)

December 27, 2006 06:15 PM | Link to this

Now we know why Thomas is so wordy, he thinks that article was a comment. Very unbiased source too Thomas, the author of the textbook would be completely fair, wouldn’t he?

By Diogenes

December 27, 2006 06:19 PM | Link to this

RW (the hopeful monster):

Are you really ignorant enough to think that a flounder became a finch as you stated above? What book of Genesis is that quote from?

By rushncap

December 27, 2006 06:20 PM | Link to this

Muffin, you’re either worse at reading that I suspected (which is hard to do), or you’re purposefully misrepresenting what I said. Which is it, darlin’?

By You don't want evidence?

December 27, 2006 06:22 PM | Link to this

From boring Thomas’s link:

“Cooper hit correctly he wrote that “by denigrating evolution, the school board ((((((((appears))))))) to be endorsing the well-known prevailing alternative theory, creationism or variations thereof, even though the sticker does not specifically reference any alternative theories.”

Gosh, what if they were just trying to tell their students that evolution is a theory and they should keep an open mind? Like the sticker said.

Why do you libs need the religious strawman?

Can’t the “super solid indisputable theory” stand on it’s own?

Can it not stand a little scrutiny?

Apparently not.

By Diogenes

December 27, 2006 06:23 PM | Link to this

RW (the brainwashed):

As I understand your hypothesis, you just make the science up as you go, which makes it a lot easier than having to think about it or do any experimentation. That way, you can answer any questions which come up without having to worry about their accuracy. Right?

By You don't want evidence?

December 27, 2006 06:26 PM | Link to this

From boring Thomas’s second post of the evening:

“Have you ever seen some divine creator create anything either?”

You’re standing on it, junior.

Where did YOU come from, fool, some TV show?

By RW-(the original)

December 27, 2006 06:26 PM | Link to this

rushncap,

As pathetic as that comeback was you certainly didn’t need to say it twice.

Thomas,

Generally speaking a cross bred species tends to be sterile and would have an extremely difficult time sustaining itself as a new species, but even if it did we would have evidence in the fossil record showing that.

Dio,

As far as I can tell the Earth was around long before we got here and will probably be here long after we’re gone. As long as Al Gore doesn’t destroy it with some magic climate change machine.

The dinosaurs are extinct Dio, Jurassic Park was a Hollywood production. Ask Thomas, he claims to be a Hollywood mogul while he toils away at his government job.

By RW-(the original)

December 27, 2006 06:30 PM | Link to this

Dio,

The flounder/finch theory is a slightly edited version of punctuated equilibrium presented here by none other than Dio to explain why there are no transitional fossils.

Why are you running away from your words Dio?

By RW-(the original)

December 27, 2006 06:32 PM | Link to this

Dio,

The problem isn’t that I don’t question your idiotic theories, it’s that I do.

As the poster at 6:22 asked, can’t your theory hold up to scrutiny?

By Diogenes

December 27, 2006 06:33 PM | Link to this

Come on, RW (the uninformed), give us a proposition with supporting statements which demonstrate that “creationism” has any validity whatsoever. Henry Potter probably has better grounding in reality than “creationism.” Tell us it “ain’t” so, RW.

By RW-(the original)

December 27, 2006 06:35 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish,

I think rushncap is fantasizing about you, Dusty, Honey, Muffin, Darlin’….

Now you have a stalker and a cyber-lover here, but you can’t tell which is the more unctuous.

By One Voice

December 27, 2006 06:37 PM | Link to this

rw’s story at 5:46 just reveals his narrow-mindedness and inability to understand anything that doesn’t slap him in the face. If he can’t see anything evolve in his 5 minute walk around the block then it must not be possible. Hey nimrod, the whole point of the theory is that it takes hundreds of thousands and millions of years for enough mutations to occur for a completely separate species to develop. Every living organism on earth is evolving; it’s constantly happening. Just because you can’t see it doesn’t mean it’s not happening. It’s amazing how much you don’t understand simply because the truth is too inconvenient for your political beliefs and you choose not to see it.

By Thomas

December 27, 2006 06:39 PM | Link to this

Bah —

As I said before -

Edukated in Gawja’

Later everyone —

The Anti-Evoilution Stickers are removed, and the courts have finalized their case! So if certain people here wish to remain comfortable in their blind ignorance then who am I to argue with their desires to believe that the sun and stars still revolve around the planet earth.

But as for me -

God gave me a brain, so I think I will use it to learn! (with apologies to mis-quoting Copernicus)

laters all -

Thomas

One of my favorite quotes: “Man may have descended from Apes, but Woman obviously descended from Cats”

By RW-(the original)

December 27, 2006 06:41 PM | Link to this

Dio,

Your running buddies here are good at couching their stories in ways that they never have to provide proof, you on the other hand have stated point blank that there is “tons of evidence” that shows species changing into different ones.

So they get to play word games and pretend they know something that they wish to keep secret. YOU, Dio, have said you have the proof and you have no excuse not to show it.

Who’s Henry Potter? I thought you worked in a library. Maybe you meant the flute maker, although I don’t see how that fits the conversation.

By Buy Danish

December 27, 2006 06:42 PM | Link to this

rushncap,

How did I misrepresent what you said?

(Not that that has ever been an impediment to your own posting habits)

By RW-(the original)

December 27, 2006 06:45 PM | Link to this

OV,

Do you realize how illiterate you sound claiming that every minute of every day, every living organism is evolving into a different one, but you can never ever see the slightest change in any of them until they are ready to become the fully sustainable new species.

By One Voice

December 27, 2006 06:46 PM | Link to this

Diogenes,

RW has no alternative theory. I gave him three ridiculous scenarios concerning the origin of species and then asked him to propose another one if none of those suited him (at the time he didn’t realize all three were ludicrous). He picked one of the nonsensical life origins and had no other explanation. Over and over today I have prompted him and his ilk to give me some empirical evidence of his creation myth or anything else, and their response is always that they basically choose not to believe anything supported by experimentation, but would rather believe in silly fabrications because the truth conflicts with those fabrications.

By Buy Danish

December 27, 2006 06:46 PM | Link to this

Creepy Stalker Boy,

Where’s that pseudonym I asked you to find? Oh, and please tell us what I was “hiding” when you find it.

By Thomas

December 27, 2006 06:48 PM | Link to this

Oh and RW —

That is true in some cases like the mule. But that is an extreme crossbreed.

Your obvious ignorance at cross polination of plants to breed new species, and cattle breeding (husbandry) techniques, with the end product quite viable to continue said breed, proves you haven’t a clue and are still in the dark when it comes to science.

Look up the Liger sometime!

Thomas

By Diogenes

December 27, 2006 06:48 PM | Link to this

RW (the demagogue):

Typical demagoguery, RW. I asked you why the dinosaurs went extinct (if indeed they did), but once again you choose to make up the science to suit the moment. Typical demagoguery.

If the earth will be here long after man is gone, will the creatures that remain continue to evolve? Once again you choose to make it up as you go. Typical demagoguery.

Your made up answer to the flounder/finch hypothesis is twisting someone else’s words to fit your need. Typical demagoguery.

RW, quit making up the science and give us a proposition with supporting statements. The better I get to know you, the duller you are.

Bah! Demagoguery! RW, Demagoguery! I don’t think you’ve got the brain to give us a sound debate.

By You don't want evidence?

December 27, 2006 06:50 PM | Link to this

From boring Thomas’s 3rd post of the evening:

“The Anti-Evoilution Stickers are removed, and the courts have finalized their case! So if certain people here wish to remain comfortable in their blind ignorance then who am I to argue with their desires to believe that the sun and stars still revolve around the planet earth.”

The Constitution of the United States first established that slaves had 3/5’s of the rights of a non slave.

Aren’t we all glad that are forefathers weren’t a bunch of Thomas’s happily going along with whatever government says?

By rushncap

December 27, 2006 06:52 PM | Link to this

RW, only you are perverted enough to bring sex into this. You must be very proud of yourself. Too bad no one else is.

Danish — you know very well how you misrepresented my words. However, just so you’d shut your craw for once (a guy can dream, can’t he?): I never stated that we should not challenge evolution. I never stated that we should “indoctrinate” anyone, that’s what churches are for. I never stated that something is OK for physics but not OK for biology. So which is it? Are you just totally dumb, or are you misrepresenting me on purpose?

By One Voice

December 27, 2006 06:52 PM | Link to this

Each organism isn’t evolving into a different animal, idiot. Every organism that is born has some type of mutation inherent in it, and as cells regenerate in your body more mutations arise. This is how cancer grows, dumba$$. But you probably don’t believe in that either, since you can’t see it.

By One Voice

December 27, 2006 06:54 PM | Link to this

That was a sophisticated comment at 12:46, rw. Why do you have such a fixation with gay locker room experiences? Maybe it’s because 1) that is your life’s fantasy, and 2) you can’t provide any rationale for your silly notion of animals just popping into existence from nothing. The evidence of Homo habilis, Homo erectus, and all the Australopithecus’ evolution is substantial. I challenge you to find anything halfway as convincing supporting your magic materialization theory.

By One Voice

December 27, 2006 06:56 PM | Link to this

Evolution is one of the most well-supported theories in science. I am also certainly not making up the fact that you stated (on 10/6/6) that you believed animals appeared out of nowhere, what I deemed your “magic materialization theory.” I’ve re-posted that exchange a couple times in the last few days, but if you’d like me to I can post it again to prove that you are lying about your beliefs now that they have been exposed as ridiculous once again.

By RW-(the original)

December 27, 2006 06:56 PM | Link to this

Dio,

You didn’t ask why the dinosaurs went extinct, you asked what became of them. Can’t you even keep up with your half of the conversation?

By One Voice

December 27, 2006 06:57 PM | Link to this

Granny,

It was “Mary” here at ML’s at the end of the night a couple of days ago.

By One Voice

December 27, 2006 07:00 PM | Link to this

The trap you fell into on 10/6/6 was a three part multiple choice question that also asked you to submit an alternative argument if none of the answers fit your beliefs. But instead of suggesting an alternate theory, you picked one of the ridiculous ones, which at the time you did not know was ridiculous. We can look at that test as my own empirical experiment to see if you are as ignorant as you appear to be, and you helped to support my hypothesis that you are, in fact, very dim-witted.

By Randy

December 27, 2006 07:05 PM | Link to this

Hey Mikey, show me a blowfish and I’ll show you a liberal willing to buy the hot air of global warming.

Now THAT’S inevitable.

By RW-(the original)

December 27, 2006 07:07 PM | Link to this

rushncap,

Where do you see sex in my 6:35 comment? I think we have now identified the pervert and it’s in Chapel Hill.

OV,

Can’t you think of anything new to say? I saw someone like you in a movie once. They kept babbling the same words over and over while Nurse Ratched tried to medicate them.

By One Voice

December 27, 2006 07:13 PM | Link to this

Granny, You were hiding the fact that you were you, an unemployed pompous housekeeper. You knew I’d harp on the fact that you’re a worthless over-opinionated homebody. I’m surprised you came back at all. Why are you and Andy back? Can’t you even cut and run without hypocrisy?

Rw, I’m waiting for you to give me an answer, and although I know I will never receive an intelligent one, I’m digging for some reason, some logic behind your silly rationalizations, but I know by now that will never happen.

By RW-(the original)

December 27, 2006 07:14 PM | Link to this

OV,

Call it whatever you want from 10/6, but it’s still what the fossil record shows and in all your arrogant bluster you have yet to show one shred of credible evidence that any species ever became a different one.

Do you believe we all started out of some mystical interaction, do you buy Dio’s theory of “beautiful monsters”, or Thomas the Talk engine’s theory that evolution is the product of mad scientists.

I’m really starting to understand why throughout literary history there are so many “mad scientist” stories. They were probably eye witness accounts.