1. There is another side to the case. Certainly Islamic Fundamentalist behavior demonstrates that these specimens of mankind have not evolved from whatever their beginning.

Bob Rogan at 2:08PM on May 4th 2007

2. How on earth is evolution the most rudimentary science? Let me teach you a little bit about science. A scientific theory requires replication before it is considered a scientific fact. Unless you can show me an ape giving birth to a human being or giving birth to any other higher species, Darwinism can never become a scientific fact. Every so-called evidence of evolution is simply someone's interpretation of data. Scientist misinterpret data everyday. That's why I heard yesterday that eggs were good and we should not worry about the cholesterol because saturated fat is the real culprit after hearing the opposite for years. That's why the five day forecast is so often wrong. So-called scientists, however, want to claim steadfastly that we came from monkeys becasue I can't go back in time and prove otherwise. I can, however, tell five days from now if the forecast was wrong, which is why we hear "chances" of rain rather than "It will definitely rain." If it is true that moths or butterflies change from white to black over a couple of generations to adjust to the pollution in the air, does that mean that humans came from monkeys? Here's another question question from a caveman, how come the monkeys that we see today did not evolve with the rest of the monkeys in order to adapt? How come the other lower life forms did not adapt? I have a lot of other questions about Darwinism. My refusal to follow "scientists" blindly makes me an independent thinker, and I will gladly reside in my independent thinker cave until someone can convince me that Darwinism is correct.

uakujuo at 2:38PM on May 4th 2007

3. I think that this is a case where you should let the facts speak for themselves.
Seems that you are begging the trancendentalists to respond to your reason with their reason.

What the hell's the matter with you man??? You are 'setting 'em up' for them to knock down!! Don't you know that?

Don't you know that you are dealing with the glibbest of the glib and they WILL beat your ass with one 'semantic' hand tied behind their back.

You are sending memes out there which can be shot down with one crooked smile and a shrug... do they even have to say it..."See how unreasonable they are?"

All your logical, rational, 'scientific', reason cards can and will be countered with one worn old card... but it is a trump card. REASON

"How can our 'reason cards' be defeated by their 'reason' card?" you ask, "That's not scientific!!"

Well, it's simple, 'Pledge allegience' Mary and Joe 'Sixpack' are scared of science... and they don't use the word 'reason' as being 'scientific' and 'logical'... that's for uppity college 'perfessers.'

The right understand the masses... and they use the word 'reason' in it's other sense... in the sense of compromise.

You can use all the logic, rationality, and science you like and still be completely unreasonable... 'cos you come across as uncompromising.

You lefty persuaders should know this already... what... are you retarded?

Are you trying to shoot yourself in the 'left' foot?

pboyfloyd at 3:28PM on May 4th 2007

4. @ uakujuo(comment #2)
You say, " A scientific theory requires replication before it is considered a scientific fact."

Ouch, you got us on a technicality. But you got all I.D.ers on that same technicality too. Any argument, by I.D.ers that begin..."Modern Science has shown that the Big Bang Theory...." or some such, is by your definition an unscientific argument.

You can't have it both ways. There's no replication of the Big Bang Theory.

You can't use the Big Bang Theory as a 'scientific club' in one argument then turn around and say that the Big Bang Theory is not replicable, therefore not scientific, just when you feel like it.

So, shut up already!!

pboyfloyd at 3:49PM on May 4th 2007

5. @ uakujuo (comment #2)

You say, "Scientist misinterpret data everyday."
How can you know this to be true? Are you there, with the 'scientist' every single day?

Ladies and gentlemen, that was the Ken Hamm defense.

Similarly, it was common knowledge that Apollo rode his 'sun chariot' across the sky every day... but now those tricky scientists have come up with a 'just so' story that says this is simply 'bollocks.'

Name one scientist that has been to the Sun.

So, squat away, in your 'Cave of Independence', uakujuo, while Apollo rides the skies.

Also, what you are trying to dismiss, "Science says that our common ancestor is apes." is not the same thing as, "Science says that apes and humans have a common ancestor."

You are simply proving that if you don't want to believe something, you'll change it to something unbelievable.

pboyfloyd at 5:46PM on May 4th 2007

6. Did anyone ask the Democratic candidates the same question? I wonder how they would have responded. Then you immediately put it on President Bush as if he had answered the question the same way the three candidates had. I quote: "The President of the United States of America is supposed to be the leader of the free world. This is embarrassing.

How can we ask anyone to follow us if our leader is a complete dolt who doesn't even understand rudimentary science? I know what you're thinking. But let's focus on the candidates for now."

Christ, you manage to bash Bush even when it is not about Bush. More of the same Bush is Evil, Bush is Satin, Bush is an idiot. You all sound like a broken record. And I will say that President Bush is the President of the United States, something none of you will ever achieve or even come close to achieving.

Michael Tefft at 7:13PM on May 4th 2007

7. @ Michael Tefft (comment #6)

Not sure who's side you're on here. I couldn't stop laughing when you said, "How can we ask anyone to follow us if our leader is a complete dolt who doesn't even understand rudimentary science? I know what you're thinking."

I'm not sure if you are an 'unconscious' comedian or what?

...but sometimes... when I look at my family... I think... if I was a Bushie, I could just go ahead and put food on them...

Ahh... what'ya'gonna'do?... I'm a reality-based person.

pboyfloyd at 12:04AM on May 5th 2007

8. Ok peoples,

The moths and butterflys changing thing has been disproven. Creation has NEVA been disproven. There were only moments where they thought they had them creationists foiled. There is totally no no no no no no no no no no...............................................................................................................................................................no evidence to evo being true. And technically evolution is still considered a theory in the scientific community wheras things like the earth being round and the theory of gravity have been proven and are now considered facts.

Michelle

Michelle at 1:19AM on May 5th 2007

9. @ michelle (comment #8)

Okay, you said, "There is totally no no no no no no no no no no...............................................................................................................................................................no evidence to evo being true."

Well, Michelle, there is that geological column. AND, there is that genetics thingy. AND there are ALL those fossils.

There is also spectroscopy which shows how the Sun is not some magical god-thingy and is degrading and producing heavier elements etc.etc.etc.

What I am saying is that there is science... which you seem to discount off-hand, like that...

Medicine... which you can poo-poo all you like.. you 'spiritual being' you...right up until you get sick... then you are quite happy to go along with the scientific notion that you are, in fact, a mammal... and you can be sliced and diced to get the 'owwie' out, or they can give you some meds to relieve the pain or what not.

What's the matter with you people ... stick to 'I love God, and God loves me.' ..... mmmkay? Be a 'faith'-based person all you want...

... but when reality comes knocking... and it always does... don't expect help from God... expect help from reality-based people.

pboyfloyd at 2:02AM on May 5th 2007

10. Ok, pboyfloyd,

Pray tell me what geological column. I am open minded, tell me what ya think. To boot, tell me what "genetics thingy". Im on the edge of my seat. Will be falling off soon if no one helps me. Hurry, tell me. My chair is so high off the ground and certain death will follow if no one tells me. And pboy, there has been more evidence proven in science supporting the Bible than again' it. Actually, I donno of any again' it.

Michelle

Michelle at 10:36AM on May 5th 2007

11. Let’s turn the fate of this country over to 'Egg-heads'. They will pronounce the logical truth of all "Moral Equivalences", and us "We'uns" will live in the "foo-foo" land of intellectual certainty and national anarchy (All behaviors will be determined to be “morally equivalent" to all others, thus we do not have to govern or react to anything).

Bob Rogan at 2:23PM on May 5th 2007

12. You can't have it both ways. There's no replication of the Big Bang Theory.
>>>

That's why it's called a theory, stupid.

Thomas J Gassett at 4:11PM on May 5th 2007

13. Three cavemen, as oppossed to a woman whose only claim to fame is being publicly humiliated by her husband? I'll take the cavemen over the victim anytime.

Thomas J Gassett at 4:13PM on May 5th 2007

14. @ michelle (comment #10)

You said, "Pray tell me what geological column. I am open minded, tell me what ya think. To boot, tell me what "genetics thingy"."

There are plenty of sites on the 'net for you to browse(just type in 'geological column'... you can find plenty reality-based ones...which explain it in a reasonable(logical, rational) manner...

and tons of faith-based ones, some of which deny it entirely and some of which try to explain it away in a more reasonable(conciliatory) manner.

Genetics... same thing.. there are easy sites which go over the explanation of why your eyes are the colour that they are... to more in depth explanations of why all life on Earth is related etc... you know, reality-based stuff... stuff doctors can use to help people. There's probably some faith-based stuff denying the whole thing. There'll be a range of this kinda thing too, no doubt.

Have you just recently been introduced to western society, michelle? If so, you have a lot of catching up to do.

If not then you are simply being disingenuous.

pboyfloyd at 5:06PM on May 5th 2007

15. @ Thomas J Gassette(comment #12)

You quoted me saying, 'You can't have it both ways. There's no replication of the Big Bang Theory.'

To which you retorted, "That's why it's called a theory, stupid."

I was pointing out that a scientific argument is sound because it is based on scientific principles, or it is not a good argument.

We can agree on that???

Well, here comes the weird part, Dinesh D'Souza uses the Big Bang Theory as an argument against Hitchens here...

Dinesh D'Souza says,"Modern science has discovered that the universe, far from existing eternally, had a beginning. Not only matter but space and time itself came into existence around 15 billion years ago in the fiery burst that scientists term the Big Bang."

He goes on to 'slay' Hitchens using the Big Bang Theory as his 'club'....

But Mr. D'Souza MUST know that that theory is...'just a theory' as you put it... so it doesn't make sense to try to say that Hitchen's is wrong because scientists are 'taking a wild stab at a guess about how the universe started.'

Seems that Mr. D'Souza is quite happy to applaud 'modern science' as long as he is using it to disparage his witty, drunken friend's notions.

pboyfloyd at 5:28PM on May 5th 2007