Believing in EVOLUTION leads to slavery, Naziism, and ABORTION.

[Richard Steele]

I couldn't make this shit up if I tried, fellow DUers;
this is a GENUINE LTTE to my local paper this week.
All the bold type and alot of the punctuation are MINE.
(I really, REALLY had to throw in some commas, quotes and semicolons
just to be able to PARSE this badly-written mishmash of errors and lies.)
ORIGINAL text at:
http://www.herald-sun.com/opinion/hsletters/


Evolution isn't science

Evolution is a theory, not fact,
and cannot satisfactorily explain the origin of life,
our world, nor any data-derived experiments.
Here are just a few salient points,
to clear up what "intelligent design" is,
and, simultaneously, to refute the uneducated, biased vitriol
some writers have for even touching the "sacred idol" of evolution.

Laws of thermodynamics.
First is the 'law of conservation':
Matter or energy may change form, but can be neither created nor destroyed.
Second is the 'law of entropy':
Energy and matter go to disorder or entropy.
So much for the evolutionist point of view
of 'simple to complex' or an 'increase in order'!

Also, the theory of evolution cannot explain the formation of rock,
nor that fossils are found in abundance on every continent,
and are found only in sedimentary rocks.

Evolution relies on hiddenness and hoaxes.
No evidence has ever been found of man evolving
gradually in stages from simpler life --
apes to intermediary to man.
The so-called "findings" of these intermediary ape-men
were replicas made to appear more man-like.
All the famous finds were hoaxes.
These include Neanderthal man, Piltdown man, and Nebraska man.

Finally, evolution is racist.
Charles Darwin, in "The Descent of Man"
puts the Caucasian as 'higher' than the Negro.
This type thinking, which devalues man,
has led to slavery, Nazism, Communism and abortion.
Evolution is not good science and that intelligent design should be presented at the very least as an alternative.

STANLEY LEWIS
DURHAM
January 11, 2006

All the punctuation in the world couldn't twist that last sentence into shape,
so I left it as I found it.
I think I sprained something in my brain trying to diagram it.

THIS is the face of "Intelligent Design" folks!
THIS is what the ID supporters consider to be a SMACKDOWN
of we "Evil liberals" who choose to USE the intelligence that G*D gave us.



Edited Cuz it is "A genuine LTTE", not "AN genuine LTTE"...
add that to the fact that I actually mentioned "diagramming a sentence",
and it's a pretty safe bet that My HS English teacher is laughing right now!

[uppityperson]

1. "the theory of evolution cannot explain the formation of rock"!

"nor that fossils are found in abundance on every continent,
and are found only in sedimentary rocks."


My favorite section. I love it.

[Richard Steele]

6. I know, it's a friggin hoot, innit?

I guess Steven Hawking is a big fake as well,
because his theories DO NOT explain why
Britney Spears sold millions of CDs?

[sakabatou]

42. LOL

:rofl:

[lvx35]

13. Actually, it can

Or rather the broader interpretation of thermodynamic stability can be applied to evolution, or the stability of bio-chemical replicators that probably started life as we know it. I was doing some study on this, I'm glad to be reminded, I forgot about that.

Man, if only these guys could understand how beautiful reality IS they wouldn't need to go to war with it! :)

[Crunchy Frog]

21. Only music theory can explain the origin of rock.

The idiot doesn't even know his different scientific disciplines.

[Richard Steele]

32. I think it's actually "Military Theory" that explains ROCK.

African-Americans laid the foundations...

And us white folks beheld the foundations,
and LO, they were good.

And since we outnumbered the folks who BUILT
those foundations, and we had all the best GUNS...

Dick Clark is a millionaire today!

[Swamp Rat]

38. Even a French 6th chord?

:D

The dissonance emanating from the idiot in question makes Old World monkeys seem brilliant by comparison.

[sakabatou]

43. Isn' the origin of rock based in african rhythm roots?

Or am I confusing it with Jazz?

[Crunchy Frog]

62. I think so.

I think they both are. This can't be scientifically proven with absolute certainty though, so I think it was really God who created both of them.

Anyway, if rock and jazz are descended from African rhythm roots, than why does rhythmic African music still exist?

[sakabatou]

75. Because the muses said so

[XanaDUer]

51. Lol!

Maybe his theory explains how he got rocks in his head?

[leftofthedial]

81. un fucking believable

evolution also does not explain gravity

but it just might explain why these people breed with their sisters and cousins

[WindRavenX]

2. yeah, because rocks are alive

Man, I want what that guy is smoking. That's some powerful drugs.

(rocks. Dear lord. ROCKS)

[Rabrrrrrr]

4. Well, we all know that if evolution is true, then EVERYTHING must

have evolved to make the theory a fact; therefore, rocks must have evolved as well. But they haven't, so therefore evolution is patently false. And, in fact, with my amazing Intelligent Design science credentials, I can even prove that unevolved rocks not only prove that evolution is false, but that the sun stopped in its tracks for 6 hours and that dinosaurs were alive in Jesus' time and that America was founded by God Himself and is His Chosen Nation, led by His Chosen, and UNEVOLVED, Leader.

[Coexist]

57. Save the poor fetal pebbles that are being destroyed

to make the lives of their parent rocks more "convenient".

[Crunchy Frog]

64. Somebody's trying to destroy Pebbles?

What kind of sick, liberal, secularist bastard would do such a thing?

[Coexist]

66. we need to be the voice of the voiceless pebbles.

[Rabrrrrrr]

3. ID proponents are ignorant, fear-based, hatefilled gasbag shitfuckers

who aren't worth the water in the spit that should be directed at them in perpetuity.

This is just a standard, normal example of the kind of ignorant clueless faux-Christian asswipe brainwashed neanderthal fuck who desperately needs to ensure that everyone gets the same mind fucking that these fuckwit half-brained imbeciles get from their asshole greedy hatefilled preachers.

Fuck 'em.

What we should have the schools do is proclaim a disclaimer in science classes that shows this uneducated sound-bite regurgitating piece of shit's letter and then says "There is another line of thought out there about where people come from, but as you can see from this typical example, the people who believe are mind-numbingly ignorant and deserve to spend the rest of their lives living in the squalor of their own ignorance".

[uppityperson]

7. wow. Tell us how you really feel about them.

:rofl:

[mike_c]

9. don't hold back-- share your anger with the group....

:rofl: :toast:

[Richard Steele]

11. Grandpa Steele had a saying which summed it up well.

Where you say:
"who aren't worth the water in the spit that should be directed at them in perpetuity"...
He used to say "That fool ain't worth the powder to blow him up with."

And that was his signal that he wasn't gonna waste any more time
discussing the opinions being expressed by the FOOL of the moment.

I just thought of that because there was an "Old Coot-Isms" thread
in the Lounge the other day.

[ptolle]

5. talkorigins

I'd recommend a quick visit to talkorigins.org. You'll find a lot of help there.Also Pharyngula which is now found at http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/
But know that regardless of what you say the original writer will remain convinced that their faith-based biology, geology, and paleontology is the "truth".ID advocates depend heavily upon the pervading science illiteracy in this country and unfortunately it's a reliable ally.You might break through to one or two people in the readership and I encourage you to make the attempt. This must be confronted.

[PatrioticLeftie]

8. If you ever

want to debunk BS, just ask the BSer to provide evidence for their claims (In this case, I'm sure the result will be hilarious).

[Nutmegger]

10. What? Who said this? Robertson???

[Richard Steele]

15. WORSE! Robertson, I would recognize, and give a wide berth.

The person who wrote that, and was PROUD to sign their name to it,
lives in my town. And passes as human!

Odds are, I have probably passed him on the sidewalk,
and never even realized that he was comepletely bugfuck INSANE.

That is what is so disturbing to me:
THEY walk among us!

[Craig3410]

78. God help him if you ever run into Mike Mills.

He of Bahama, NC.

:evilgrin:

[JDPriestly]

12. Just watched Inherit the Wind with Spencer Tracy

That's the best film of all time. One thing is certain, the fundamentalists have not evolved a bit since the Scopes trial. Inherit the Wind needs to make a comeback. I recommend that all DUers see that film. We are fighting the same battle that Clarence Darrow did way back then.

[Charlie Brown]

17. and that film was released in 1960

It amazes me that in 2006 people still pretend the world is 6,000 years old.

[funflower]

48. And the case was argued in the 1920's!

:eyes:

[Sydnie]

19. I would love it if more fundies found themselves in Brady's position

Of wanting to make a speech and no one would listen.

I agree, it is a great film and everyone should see it. (quite a departure for Gene Kelly but one of his best roles, imho.)


"I won't be alone. Because you will be there."

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

14. I think it is sad if that was the best they could do. Wow. Nothing

logically relevant within the entire piece. A complete absurdity. I'm laughing at how proposterous most of it was. I mean, is that really the best arguments they have? LOL I mean, they faked the fossils now to look like humans? Decades before there was even a cultural war on the issue? LOL

My my, they are some sick people.

[Richard Steele]

18. Yes, "neanderthal man" was a hoax! LOL!

And DARWIN never explained ROCKS!

What more proof could anyone need?
:wtf: :rofl: :wtf: :rofl: :wtf: :rofl:

[madeline_con]

24. And no one's captured Big Foot, the "missing link". eom

[Richard Steele]

27. Yes indeed, our so-called "scientists" have never captured a Sasqwatch.

So why do we "evil liberals" keep refusing
to belive that the Earth is FLAT, MOTIONLESS,
and that the SUN revolves around it?

Are we just insane, or do we really love having all that
butt-sex with SATAN so much?

[koopie57]

72. Sasqwatch

sounds a lot like our president.

[mikelewis]

16. We are higher than the negro..

how else could you explain a theory like this? It would have to be drugs.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

86. oh yes, that was my favorite

If DNA research shows we evolved in Africa, then caucasians are technically mutants.

I threw that at a freeper once. my first score. :)

[Crunchy Frog]

20. I reject the germ theory of disease.

It can't explain the origin of rocks either.

Really, those are amazingly tired, old talking points. Anybody who would read that and believe it is already hopelessly beyond the reach of rational discourse. He's not even adopting the newer, more sophisticated sounding arguements of the contemporary IDers. This shit was old thirty years ago.

Neanderthal man is hardly a hoax, as I believe there are hundreds of their skeletons that have been found, along with their tools and artifacts. The other two "finds" are hoaxes, but are only famous among the creationist mouth-breathers, having achieved some sort of mythical status among them. I guess that means that any belief system is automatically invalidated if there has ever been a hoax perpetrated in its name. Ummm, there have never been any hoaxes perpetrated by Christianity have there?

And evolutionary biology is responsible for slavery? I guess slavery didn't exist prior to the publication of Darwin's theory. And Darwin must have been the only 19th Century white man to "put Caucasions as 'higher' than Negroes". It's not like there were any white, Christian, Southern slave owners who did the same, to a far greater degree than Darwin ever did.

Well, dealing with arguements and people like this is like banging your head against a brick wall, and about as productive. I guess these people can be happy in the knowledge that they are destroying the scientific and technological base that have made our country a superpower, and when we're all indentured servants to the Chinese, they'll have the world that they've earned.

[Dhalgren]

29. You know, maybe I have just blocked it out, but I don't recall

Darwin addressing racial hierarchy, at all. I believe that that idiocy was left to a man that I can't remember his name, but he was a rival and opponent of Darwin. I am getting old, but the guy was a Harvard professor and ruined his career trying to disprove Darwin's findings and theories. Anyway, does anyone know of any place where Darwin "ranks" human beings, racially?

[madeline_con]

40. Agassiz, bio here:

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/agassiz.html

[Dhalgren]

88. Yes! Agassiz! Thank you!

[Crunchy Frog]

52. I have to confess

Although I posess a nice hardcover copy of Origin of Species, I never have gotten around to reading it.:cry: And now it's all packed away, and I can't get at it at present.:cry: I don't even have a copy of the other book. Current circumstances being what they are, I find I have an intense need to escape into fantasy, and not so much the serious stuff. I do believe the above poster is right that he didn't even address human evolution at all in his first book.

It's actually my understanding that Darwin himself spoke out against racism, or at least advocated on behalf of non-white people that he saw being victimized by whites. I believe that he was one of the more enlightened people of his time and place regarding racial issues. I was just trying to make the point that, even with that, he was still a man of his time and had attitudes that reflect that. I think you would have a hard time finding a white male of that era who didn't harbor at least a few attitudes that we would consider racist today, even if they were very enlightened in the context of their own times.

Dammit! I need to just bite the bullet and read the book. I'll just buy myself a fresh copy. It will at least piss the fundies off.:evilgrin:

[janx]

67. Read it!

He doesn't address humans in Origin, but it is well worth the read. Parts of it are funny, too. Here's a question he asks in the first part, a chapter called Variation under Domestication:

"Who can believe that animals closely resembling the Italian greyhound, the bloodhoud, the bull-dog, or Blenheim spaniel, &c.--so unlike all wild Canidae--ever existed freely in a state of nature?"

The language is accessible to most people, and that's part of what set off such a firestorm when the book was first published--almost anyone could read it.

Barnes & Noble is currently selling the first edition of Origin. Look for it in the B&N Classics section.

[Craig3410]

79. I think he didn't address evolution because...

at the time it was released, coming out and stating that humans evolved from apes would have caused him to be drawn and quartered in the nearest public square.

He went through that in his later books, though.

[man4allcats]

22. I will ignore most of this LTTE as not worth refuting, but

it must be understood that the second law of thermodynamics, often cited by Ph.D. level biochemist turned preacher Dr. Duane Gish and other Creation Science and Intelligent Design ideologues, does not, as they would have us believe, nullify evolution. On the contrary, it is one of the organizing principles of the theory. The second law states that in a closed system, entropy or disorder increases. How then, the creationists ask, can such a highly ordered system as a living being arise out of ever increasing disorder? The answer is that earth is not now nor has it ever been a closed system. It is, in fact, open to the energy of our solar system's sun, and that energy was the initial driving force that made it possible for otherwise disordered atoms and molecules to begin to enter into more stabilized, ordered states of matter, i.e., a decrease in entropy. Decreased entropy means greater order and complexity. In short, we are here in large part because the earth was and is an open system receiving energy from the sun. But don't take my word for it. Check it out at Creationism's Dud.

[Richard Steele]

25. Just like an Evil commie Liberal to go draggin FACTS and LOGIC into this!

:yourock:

[man4allcats]

30. Well I thank you for those kind words, Sir!

I love it, really!!! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Take care! :hi:

[Richard Steele]

33. Huh huh...you called me 'Sir', with a capital 'S'.... huh huh.,,

Fess up: you are TOTALLY a "The Magistrate" fan,
just like I am.

[man4allcats]

34. Ha ha!

Yes, you are absolutely right! In fact, I sometimes think The Magistrate may be The Almighty!

[Richard Steele]

37. Naw, he ain't HIM...but I kinda suspect he has HIM on speed-dial! nm

[man4allcats]

39. Ha! No argument there! n/t

[Crunchy Frog]

54. Their version of the second law of thermodynamics

would actually prohibit the formation of snowflakes and other crystaline structures out of liquid or gas. It's a total violation of their version for atoms or molecules that are floating around randomly to spontaneously assemble themselves into those extremely ordered and complex structures. I mean, don't snowflakes look designed to you?

Actually, their version of the law should prohibit the spontaneous formation of molecules period. Molecules are more highly ordered structures than individual atoms, and some molecules that are non-biological in origin are extraordinarily complex; a buckyball for example. How do they explain the origin of snowflakes and buckyballs without divine intervention.

I tried bringing that question up with a freeper here once, but his response to my post got deleted before I could read it.:cry:

[janx]

58. True! And the beauty of Darwin's discoveries is that

what we perceive of as "order" does indeed come out of chaos, of chance.

[madeline_con]

23. I think this idiot's LTTE is for comic relief. n/t

[alittlelark]

26. Darwin NEVER mentions 'MAN' in 'Origin of the Species'

He only states that his theory has yet to be applied to MAN - and he is not sure if it can be - he was a religious man.

This statement -
(snip)>Finally, evolution is racist.
Charles Darwin, in "The Descent of Man"
puts the Caucasian as 'higher' than the Negro.
This type thinking, which devalues man,
has led to slavery, Nazism, Communism and abortion.
Evolution is not good science and that intelligent design should be presented at the very least as an alternative.


Is complete BS.

[Charlie Brown]

28. "Descent of Man" was published after Origin of Species

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Descent_of_Man,_and_Selection_in_Relation_to_Sex

"We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man itself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed."

But Darwin felt that these urges towards helping the "weak members" was part of our evolved instinct of sympathy, and concluded that "nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature."

(snip) Darwin concluded that the visual differences between races were not adaptive to any significant degree, and were more likely simply caused by sexual selection—different standards of beauty and mating amongst different people—and that all of humankind was one single species. (snip)

[file83]

31. Evolution is a FACT - not just a theory. Don't let anyone tell you...

...otherwise. We see evolution going on all around us and throughout recent and longterm history. Anyone who tells you otherwise is very misinformed or lying.

To say Evolution is a theory, not a fact, is like saying Gravity is a theory, not a fact. Sure, there is a theory of Gravity and Evolution, but they are so empirically backed up and fundamental theories so rock solid that they are considered FACTS. Now that doesn't mean we aren't learning more details and <b>expanding</b> our knowledge of both topics anymore - we are. But the groundwork to both theories are so throughly established that they are considered a "fact of the matter".

[Charlie Brown]

35. this was the same crap the "evolution opponents" were blathering in KS

Oh, boy, do I wish this was a joke story.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1407422,00.html

In a crowded high school auditorium, biology teachers, mathematicians, a veterinarian, and a high school student made passionate speeches on the need for cold, scientific detachment, and the damage that would be done to the state's reputation and biotechnology industry if Kansas became known as a haven for creationists. They were countered by John James, who warned that the teaching of evolution led to nihilism, and to the gates of Auschwitz. "Are we producing little Kansas Nazis?" he asked. But the largest applause of the evening was reserved for a silver-haired gentleman in a navy blue blazer. "I have a question: if man comes from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? Why do you waste time teaching something in science class that is not scientific?" he thundered.

[Crunchy Frog]

60. If my ancestors were Norwegians

than why are there still Norwegians in the world? If you continue to insist on their existence, then it means you want to turn our children into Nazis.

[janx]

63. Crunchy!

:rofl:

[Crunchy Frog]

65. Hey janx!

I haven't seen you in awhile. How's it goin'?:hi:

[janx]

68. You haven't seen me because I moved to New Mexico!

:hi:

[Crunchy Frog]

70. Yeah, I saw that in your profile.

How do you like it there?

I'm not around (Colorado) because I moved (temporarily) to New York state to go to school. Then the school turned out to be so crappy that it makes Front Range look like Oxford University in comparison, so now I'm going to have to find a different school here.x(

[janx]

71. Check your PM--I'll send you a note. n/t

[Craig3410]

82. Everything evolved from bacteria and other monocellular organisms...

Why are there still monocellular organisms?

God, some people are idiots.

[Warren DeMontague]

36. Yep. "Intelligent Design" is for dipshits who have ZERO understanding

of science. :hi:

[obxhead]

41. It's funny how they point to so much "evidence"....

as if the one good book that has been rewritten, too many times to be counted, is "undeniable evidence"...

[leeroysphitz]

44. Matter/energy may change form, but can't created or destroyed

Why is he Misquoting one "unproven scientific theory" in order to disprove another "unproven scientific theory" ? Is he delusional? Obviously since he is a christian. It is pointless and silly. It's like me saying that the book of Revelations is wrong because the book of Matthew said so (oh WAIT ALL those silly half baked 10th hand accounts contradict each other, nevermind...)

I love to hear Christians trying to use science or logic or their brains. It's like Dick Cheney trying to describe Jungle combat...

[Crunchy Frog]

61. No, he's just using the designated talking point.

He could no more come up with that idea on his own than Bush could be a war hero. He's been spoonfed every single line in that letter from the official creationist talking points, and he's not even doing a very good job of it.

[sakabatou]

45. So... which way did this guy lose brain cells?

[The Revolution]

46. In the words of MC Hawking...

Creationists always try to use the second law,
to disprove evolution, but their theory has a flaw.
The second law is quite precise about where it applies,
only in a closed system must the entropy count rise.
The earth's not a closed system' it's powered by the sun,
so fuck the damn creationists, Doomsday get my gun!

[Beware the Beast Man]

47. This guy doesn't know Darwin from Dr. Seuss.

He is referring to SOCIAL Darwinism in his last paragraph, which is racist, sexist, and classist, yet has absolutely nothing to do with Darwin's work. Ironic, considering that some of this guy's heroes are probably "social Darwinists".

[janx]

55. He's never read Darwin in his life.

That much is clear.

[opihimoimoi]

49. The guy is confirmation to the notion ManKind is a Mistake

An ABBERATION.....

[bowens43]

50. The face of "Intelligent Design"?

We need to make this the face of every conservative whether they believe in ID or not. We need to make nut jobs like this represent the Republican party in the eyes of the average American.

[DistressedAmerican]

53. I Can Say As Someone That Has Spent A Lot Of Time Studying It,

his assessment of hominid palentology could not be more innacurate. There is one known example of the hoaxes he is referring to, that was Piltdown man which was debunked many decades ago. No one uses piltdown man to argue evolution. There is nothing to suggest that even one of the other famous fossils were faked. Nothing.

BTW - I teach a lecture in one of my classes adressing exactly this issue, hoaxes. If we want to talk about hoaxes how about the Cardiff Giant, A "fossilized giant from the days of Goliath" that was passed off as real for many years and who many christians paid good money to view. Too bad for them is was a sculpture comissioned by the land owner, burried and "accidentally" found while workers we digging a well exactally where he told them to put it. There really IS a fool born every second.

There IS an etremely well developed line of hominid fossils connecting us to our ape ancestors. How dare this fucking crackpot assert this obvious lie? Fuck him and his lack complete ignorance.

Why would they publish this factually absurd diatribe anyway?

I hate ignorant religious bigots.



www.stephenjaygould.org/ ctrl/news/file015.html

Here's a nice summary that this bigot will never bother to read. I'll trust Stephen J. Gould over this asshat any day:

www.stephenjaygould.org/ ctrl/news/file015.html

Up From The Apes: Remarkable New Evidence Is Filling In The Story Of How We Became Human
BY MICHAEL D. LEMONICK AND ANDREA DORFMAN
Despite the protests of creationists and their intellectual allies, and such efforts as the Kansas school board's vote last week to expunge evolution from the school curriculum, science has long taught that human beings are just another kind of animal, but most of the time this seems like a technicality. It's not just the obvious differences—language, civilization, technology—that set us apart. Even basic biology suggests that humanity has special status. Virtually every other type of animal comes in multiple varieties: dozens of species of monkeys, antelopes, whales and hawks walk, swim or fly the earth, to say nothing of beetles, whose hundreds of thousands of species inspired biologist J.B.S. Haldane's famous quip that God must have had "an inordinate fondness" for them. Even our closest kin, the great apes, fall into four species, divided into several subspecies.


But there's now only one species of human on the planet, and in the simplified view of evolution most of us have, that's all there has ever been. A few million years ago, most of us think, the half-ape known as Lucy appeared in Africa; eventually she begat a less apelike creature, who evolved in turn into something even more humanlike. Finally, after a few more begettings, Homo sapiens appeared. Except for that odd side branch known as the Neanderthals, the path from proto-apes to modern humans is commonly seen as a succession of new and improved species taking the place of worn-out evolutionary clunkers.

It's a satisfying, if slightly chauvinistic tale, but experts in human evolution have known for years that it is dead wrong. The evolution of a successful animal species almost always involves trial and error, false starts and failed experiments. "Humans are no exception to this," says anthropologist Ian Tattersall of the American Museum of Natural History in New York City, "no matter what we like to think."

True, we're descended from a creature that split off from the apes millions of years ago. But subsequent events were hardly a steady march from primitivism to perfection. Human evolution more nearly resembled an elimination tournament. At just about any given moment in prehistory, our family tree included several species of hominids—erect, upright-walking primates. All were competitors in an evolutionary struggle from which only one would ultimately emerge. Then came yet another flowering of species that would compete for survival. Neanderthals simply represented the most recent version of that contest. And while we'd find it bizarre to share our world with another human species, the fact that we've been alone since the Neanderthals vanished some 30,000 years ago is an evolutionary aberration.

[janx]

59. The Cardiff Giant?!

:rofl:

I'm surprised the Cardiff Giant isn't a part of their religion today! :rofl:

I'd love to take your class--it sounds fascinating.

[supernova]

56. Dicksteele, I can't believe you're still reading The Herald

I stopped reading that rag in high school.

Though I do admit it sometimes provides great entertainment value. Like today. :-)

[janx]

69. How did people who want to quash scientific study

ever become centered in one of the mainstream American political parties?

And how can any reasonable Republican stay a Republican knowing that that is indeed the case?!

[JitterbugPerfume]

73. I have a book for him to read

<warning> it has some big words in it

"The Complete Idiots Guide To HUMAN PREHISTORY


really---it is a good book

[stepnw1f]

74. I Have a Remedy for their Mental Illness...

Very high ledge...
Gravity...
their faith...

[spanone]

76. This idiot is a worse case scenario for 'Intelligent' design.

[Craig3410]

77. Mike Mills is a mega-Freeper.

LIBRULS!

IF DEYS WINS,WE ALLS LOOSES!?!!1

Good lord.

[kevinbgoode]

80. As usual, the wingnut publishes only HALF the information

for example, the examinations of comparisons of the races wasn't based on evolutionary theory, but rather evolutionary theory attempting to substantiate "christian" belief in racial superiority. This is exactly the way intelligent design advocates want it - to make scientific research only valid if it supports their interpretation of "biblical" principles.

[Maestro]

83. I don't pretend to extremely erudite, but

I don't understand anything that was written. I know those are English words but they make no sense. There is no evidence that we evolved from apes? WTF? I guess all these finds in Africa and the subsequent findings of man traveling out of Africa heading towards Indonesia and Australia is just made up as well. BTW, I really don't think scientists say that we evolved from apes. We have a common ape-like ancestor. And what does he say, now?! Neanderthal man is a hoax?! Oh brother. This guy is loony. The July 2002 copy of Scientific American has a great article refuting 15 of the most common creationist's arguments. It even addresses this guy's attempt at discussing the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

[depakid]

84. Guess this idiot never studied thermodynamics

so of course, he wouldn't have the first clue about dissipative systems- or self-organized complexity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilya_Prigogine

(That's too much to expect NC fundie- even a relatively educated one).

[Maru Kitteh]

85. Nebraska man is no hoax!

We should send him over to kick this guys ass, that'll show him.

[Richard Steele]

87. Bwahahaha!!!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: