Xixax

rbochnermd

You have caused me to nearly spit out my gum... and spill my water. I'm saving that one to the hard drive for future reference whenever I need a laugh.

dk

Because one moment many evolutionists claim science has nothing to do morals; then the next moment assert moral superiority on the basis of positive science (secularism). I don’t mean you personally lpetrich.

dk

People learn by their mistakes, but intellegent people learn from the mistakes of others. Change is certain not intellegent. So people must learn to deal with change, or to be consumed by change.

Dr Rick

Then reading your posts should be the learning equivalent of a four-year degree for some of us.

Rick

Neruda

what, the UN says that evolution will simply go away if enough people find it morally offensive? lol! You've really lost it now!

man, you relly need to start reading posts better. Did you or did you not notice that I was talking about evolution? If you did notice, then why the hell are you talking about weapons all of a sudden? Where do you get off with this stuff? You have to be a troll, man, because I don't think anyone alive could respond to so many posts in so consistently stupid a manner. (sorry moderators, I'll show myself out for that one. )

Why don't you backtrack a bit, dk, and respond to the things that I've actually written. For one, I noticed that you basically ignored my second-to-last post (you responded to the tail-end of it but not the main body). I want to know what you think about those rock wallabies. Are you avoiding that part for some reason?

Nat

"Where do you get off with this stuff? You have to be a troll, man, because I don't think anyone alive could respond to so many posts in so consistently stupid a manner. (sorry moderators, I'll show myself out for that one. )"

Don't be so hard on yourself - dk was too stupid to realize that Rick was making fun of him and actually responded to one of Rick's purposely garbled thoughts. Funny thing is, Rick's parody of dk made more sense than dk's reply!

Neruda

good point, nat. and speaking of which, that was hilarious rick!

dk

dk: Because a nuclear holocaust would be a catastrophic event in terms of human evolution, and all life forms on earth.
dk: I agreed mutation is an evolutionary vector (causal agent), I merely said mutations melt away in large inbreeding populations, like artic wolves. Clearly the 3 wallabies that escaped from a zoo over 80 years ago were not a large inbreeding population. This only proves human activity unleashes natural forces with moral and ethical implications. Have you read about the domesticated pigs that got loose on the Hawian Islands, became wild and now trash the ecology. Is this proof of evolution?

I didn’t respond because I know how quickly the off topic thread will degenerate. You may want to spin this as some great evolutionary tale, but in fact as the world gets smaller the threat of non-indigenous poses a threat to local ecologies. The threat points to human activity, and poor stewardship, not evolution, .
.
Are you now going to address the motivation for the revisionist history evolutionists spin in public school curriculum?

My point has been that evolutionism poses a greater threat to evolutionary science than creation science. That is what public schools need to address in the curriculum.

[ October 16, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]</p>

lpetrich

That is nevertheless an issue entirely separate from what had happened in the past.

Except that they don't. They are discrete, not continuous. O dk, for someone who idolizes Gregor Mendel as a great scientist, you do not have a clue about what he had discovered.

dk

dk: So evolution has limited application in the present world, that’s been my point all along. What existed 2 million years ago doesn’t exist today.

dk: I have no idea what you’re talking about, mutation as a mechanism is discontinuous, but not inconsistent with Mendel’s work. Mendel’s characteristics were non-blended i.e. passed from generation as individual dominant and recessive genes. Variants no matter how rare are therefore preserved and don’t melt away entirely, but tend to melt away within large inbred populations. I don’t know why you want to argue about nothing, we agree on the particulars.

[ October 16, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]</p>