Professors in Colorado Recieve Death Threats for Teaching Evolution

Originally posted by GLDNGUN

I have a theory of my own concerning giraffes. It goes like this:

EVERY time, and I mean EVERY SINGLE time a female giraffe gives birth, it will be to ANOTHER giraffe. It won't be a deer, a hippo, a zebra, or a leopard, but amazingly another giraffe!

I see what your doing, your making the "Mr. Garrison" argument.


Just because you don't understand how something works, doesn't mean it's not happening.

[edit on 19-7-2007 by Tiloke]

"Every group is prone to become violent, and the amount violent grows with the amount of people affiliated with such groups."

And since everyone is part of some group or another, religious or otherwise, we are all equally dangerous and prone to violence? Right? Therefore, those who want to point fingers at religion and say "they're all bad!" are just as bad, right? Because, they are part of the "anti-religious" group that has a history of violence, right?

That's all warm and cuddly, but we're talking about TODAY. 2007. Right now, Muslim extremists are a much bigger danger to the world than "Christian extremists." Period. There are other groups that are a bigger danger than others at any given time. To ignore or refuse to believe that is to stick one's head in the sand. And that's a prime position to get one's behind kicked.

Originally posted by GLDNGUN
So, this guy wants to junk Darwin's theory as well? Well, that's a good start.

I have a theory of my own concerning giraffes. It goes like this:

EVERY time, and I mean EVERY SINGLE time a female giraffe gives birth, it will be to ANOTHER giraffe. It won't be a deer, a hippo, a zebra, or a leopard, but amazingly another giraffe!

This is based upon the theory that God created man and animals to have offspring "of their own kind". Boy am I glad that "theory" is reinforced EVERY time a human or animal gives birth. Can you imagine what a warped place earth would be if every creature born were some sort of mutation between some undetermined species and some other undetermined species? Man, what a mess that would be!

That is because two animals of the same genetic make up made it. You ever hear of a cross breed? Ever heard of dog breeding? They take two different types of species and create a cross. Yea, so every time a female lab gives birth, it not always going to be another lab if the father wasnt also a lab. Its going to be a mix. If that mix is bred with a lab, the genetic make up will favor lab.

Genetic make up is carried in the egg and sperm of an animal. THAT determines the genetic make up of the offspring, not god. God may determine what sperm cell meets with what egg, if you believe in that kinda fate stuff, but he doesn't go "you will be a lab" or "you will be a pitbull". The parents genetic make up decide that.

Its funny that you mention some sort of mutation. Mutation and crossbreeding are two entirely different things. Crossbreeding an animal is having a pitbull and a german shepard mate to create a new species of dogs. Having a mother give birth to 5 white pups and 1 brown is a result of genetic mutation somewhere along the lines. Whether the animal was the first generation to experience the mutation, or if it was a recessive gene passed down from a previous animal with the mutation.

Originally posted by Tiloke
I see what your doing, your making the "Mr. Garrison" argument.

Hadn't seen that before, but Mr. Garrison's argument does make about as much scientific sense as evolution.

Just because you don't understand how something works, doesn't mean it's not happening.

Do you mean like "creation"?

I don't understand how a log cabin is built, but does that mean they aren't? If I'm walking through the woods and come upon a nice big log cabin, should I assume that it was "built" by "intelligent design" even though I wouldn't know how to build one? Or should I assume that a bunch of trees in the forest fell on each other and landed in such a formation as to make the cabin, and thus NO intelligent design involved?

Originally posted by GLDNGUN
And since everyone is part of some group or another, religious or otherwise, we are all equally dangerous and prone to violence? Right? Therefore, those who want to point fingers at religion and say "they're all bad!" are just as bad, right? Because, they are part of the "anti-religious" group that has a history of violence, right?

everyone is equally as dangerous as the next person as individuals. Some one part of a group saying all religion is evil, is just as dangerous as a group saying all muslims are evil, or all christians are evil. They are all points the finger at some one else, to create a scapegoat. If you are point the finger at a group of people, going "its there fault, lets blame them" you are in the wrong. You blaming them for violence isn't going to change that in 50 years, it will be the same story different group.

That's all warm and cuddly, but we're talking about TODAY. 2007. Right now, Muslim extremists are a much bigger danger to the world than "Christian extremists." Period. There are other groups that are a bigger danger than others at any given time. To ignore or refuse to believe that is to stick one's head in the sand. And that's a prime position to get one's behind kicked.

Let me quote something that was most likely said in the past 100 years.

That's all warm and cuddly, but were talking about TODAY. 1939. Nazi germans are a much bigger danger to the world than "russian communists". Period. There are other groups that are a bigger danger than other at any given time. To ignore of refuse to believe that is to stick one's head in the sand. And that's a prime position to get one's behind kicked.

That's all warm and cuddly, but were talking about TODAY. 1961. Cuban and Russian communists are a much bigger danger to the world than "muslim extremists". Period. blah blah blah.

thats why we helped the communist russians in WW2, and thats why we funded the islamic extremists in the 70-80's and thats why the wars never end. It's not because there is some violent group that one day decided to be violent. Its because some groups decide they want to go around the world stepping on peoples toes, because they have some self righteous mission they have to accomplish. Wars get started because people can't just leave other people alone to have their own opinions.

You want to stop the wars, accept that muslims will do what they want on their land, and you will do what you want on your land. Its not your job, duty or mission, to go across the world to ensure that jewish people have a national homeland for other jews. its not your job, duty, or mission to go to africa and save them from their wicked ways. It's your job, duty, mission to promote peace amoung eachother, not create it. If you think pointing the finger at a group saying "they are the bad guys" is going to promote peace, you have no logical abilities at all.

Thank you! Thank you for the excellent discussion of MICRO evolution. In EVERY example you just gave, what was the offspring?

A DOG.

Thanks again for reinforcing my point. Yes, you can breed all sorts of dogs and get all sorts of wonderful varieties and EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM WILL BE A DOG. Not a cat, not a skunk, not a bear.

That's the beauty of "variation within a species".

Excellent design I would say.

Originally posted by grimreaper797
If you think pointing the finger at a group saying "they are the bad guys" is going to promote peace, you have no logical abilities at all.

So I'm confused here. Are you saying we should have NOT fought the Nazis in WW2?

Im saying pointing the finger at Nazi germany saying "they are the evil ones in this world" is getting us nowhere because its bull. There are no "evil groups" only evil people trying to manipulate weak people. Thats it. Osama bin laden is just another evil person manipulating people through exploitation. What better way to manipulate some one them exploit their understanding of the world around them? They take what they believe in, their core values, and manipulate that person to think something that isn't real.

Hitler could manipulate a person into believing just about anything. He just had that personality to him. He was just an evil person, with leadership qualities, exploiting the weak.

Thats why every religion and every race will have violent extremists.

Originally posted by GLDNGUN

Thank you! Thank you for the excellent discussion of MICRO evolution. In EVERY example you just gave, what was the offspring?

A DOG.

Thanks again for reinforcing my point. Yes, you can breed all sorts of dogs and get all sorts of wonderful varieties and EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM WILL BE A DOG. Not a cat, not a skunk, not a bear.

That's the beauty of "variation within a species".

Excellent design I would say.

Well you won't get much farther apart then maybe zebras and donkeys creating hybrids before complications occur. Animals generally don't have sex with members that far out of their own species because its not part of their urges. Any person who looks at anything other than other human being in a sexual manner displays an obvious mental problem. Its part of our nature to have an urge to produce offspring. Trying to mate with other animals in not in our nature. We don't mate with dogs because it's not part of our physical urge, and physically the offspring would most likely naturally abort, or be so mismatched it never pregnants to begin with.

You can explain your hypothesis through god, choosing not to even read the science side, which is obvious you have decided to do, if you want. But don't come on here, thinking you are going to change anyone mind by regurgitating some popular topic of deabte (giraffe neck)by anti evolution creationist, thinking you are going to change some ones mind, or shed some unique light on the matter.

If you have something original thoughts on the matter, feel free to share them. If you are going to recite an arguement made by a bunch of pro creationist, anti evolution christians you are wasting your time. If I want to find out their arguement, Ill go to their site and read the description. If you want to add something original to the matter, speak up.

You're not making sense. You said: "Hitler could manipulate a person into believing just about anything. He just had that personality to him. He was just an evil person, with leadership qualities, exploiting the weak." Agreed. He manipulated millions into believing in his vision. They were called "Nazis". They intended to spread that vision by force and started to do so in parts of Europe, Asia, and Africa. Since you say Hitler was evil, would not those following his orders be his agents of evil? Can you really not see that the "Nazis" were the "bad guys" in WW2 and needed to be defeated? Just how naive are we going to get here?

If I were one of these Professors, I simply say, "Hey, fellow professors, why don't we take these death-threat letters to a lawyer & have these people charged with Intent to Murder?" Which they were smart enough to do...Apparently a lot smarter than the one who wrote death threats in the first place.

I mean, really...Christians who threaten murder, when the Ten Commandments explicitly tell people not to...What's wrong with this picture?
Sad thing is, these extremists will try to hide behind "Freedom of Religion" as a defense in court...But Freedom of Religion is no excuse for threatening with murder.

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Sometimes I think that Christian extremists are as dangerous as Muslim extremists.

Really, aren't any kind of extremists posing a danger to themselves and/or the society around them? I'm not limiting this question to religions either.

Originally posted by theindependentjournal
And fret not Colorado professors won't be teaching it much longer
, there is a lawsuit coming at the schools for teaching KNOWN LIES which Violtaes Colorado Law.

Actually, if they're teaching it as a theory, then they're not teaching lies, are they?
Besides, fossil evidence on all known species supports evolution as being closer to fact than Creationism does. Evolution has literally tons of evidence to support it, whereas Creationism has only one Book, heavily modified/edited/re-translated again & again for so long that it can't even remain in one set standard; How many versions of the Bible exist today anyway? IMO, it's better to teach something that's consistant with known Natural Laws (which God set into motion) than to teach something that can't even remain consistant with itself (a heavily modified book).

Besides, when God created the universe (& the Earth) there is nothing in Scripture that says that God is not the One who evoked the Laws of the Physical Universe into using evolution as God's tool for creating us...In converse, since God did create the universe, then He's also the One who set forth the Physical Laws that allow us to survive & evolve in the material universe. Couldn't Creationists recognize the fact that the Natural Laws on Earth cause constant change in the environment? To be able to survive in a material world of constant change, evolution sounds like the perfect tool for God to use & ensure the survivability & long-term endurance of humanity. As for me, reason strengthens belief, not denies it.

Originally posted by GLDNGUN
One popular biology textbook used in public schools is "Inquiry Into Life" by Sylvia Mader, published by McGraw-Hill Ryerson. On page 529 are diagrams of giraffes and says "Early giraffes probably had necks of various lengths. Natural selection due to competition led to survival of the longer-necked giraffes and their offspring. Eventually, only long-necked giraffes survived the competition."

Right here you shoot down your own argument that evolution is taught as fact...Read along from your very own quote (we only need to go three words): "Early giraffes probably..."

Originally posted by GLDNGUN
Uh huh. That was a lovely explanation but did nothing to address WHY the whole giraffe story is laughable. Let me repeat myself...

NO fossil evidence has ever been unearthed showing giraffes with shorter necks.

...At least, not found YET...
Time is the enemy in archeology. Not only does it destroy evidence of the past, it hides a lot more than we've been able to reveal. To find every existing fossil would mean literally tearing the whole Earth apart. Science deals with reason & that kind of extremist exploration doesn't sound very reasonable, does it?
I pointed this out in another thread around here somewhere...The entire existing fossil record that forms the basis of the theory of human evolution can all fit in the back of a pickup truck. Certain FACTS have been established based upon the direct study of those remains that have been found, but everything else is THEORY. This is why it's still called the THEORY of evolution.

Originally posted by GLDNGUN
But this can't be true. The government and media wouldn't try to get us to believe in a bunch of lies. Would they?

"Darwinian theory is the creation myth of our culture. It's the officially sponsored, government financed creation myth that the public is supposed to believe in, and that creates the evolutionary scientists as the priesthood...So we have the priesthood of naturalism, which has great cultural authority, and of course has to protect its mystery that gives it that authority--that's why they're so vicious towards critics."

--Phillip Johnson, on the PBS television documentary "In the Beginning: The Creationist Controversy" (May 30-31, 1995)

And here you quoted from only someone's opinion, there are no any actual facts in the statement. A controversy (as stated in the title of the documentary) discusses differing points of view, not establishes any fact.
The real FACT of this whole thread is that somebody issued written death threats at somebody else & is now (apparently) on the run from legal authorities to avoid court-levied charges for that crime.

Originally posted by theindependentjournal
Scientific METHOD means observable and TO KNOW, don't start with yuor tripe thanks.

And how does this deny God? I mean, precisely, how does it deny God to observe & to know what He has wrought?

Contrary to popular religious dogma, engineered by organized religion (which is a conspiracy in itself), evolution supports God & defines how He made us; It does not deny Him.

Originally posted by keeb333
Religion is a scam, orchestrated to contol the populace. There is no credible evidence for any supernatural phenomena, and if there was, it wouldn't be supernatural, now would it?

Well, I'd have to qualify that...It's organized religion that I have a problem with. IMO, science tries to figure out how we got where we are & religion tries to figure out why we are this way. It's the conspiracy inherent in organized religion & even in certain scientific circles that try to mix the two...Usually with the "explosive results" that form the meat of this topic.

I've always thought of God as a teacher, a bringer of Wisdom; To refuse to learn what we can about His Creation would be akin to breaking the Ten Commandments...Otherwise, why would He put us in such a large universe anyway?

Those who kill (or even threaten to kill) in the name of a god that has told them not to, are not people of the same God that I grew up learning about. And I can never claim to know everything about Him either...

Originally posted by grimreaper797
60-70 years ago before israel came into existance, we would be saying the same thing about muslim extremists....

...60-70 years ago, history told us muslims would act in violence not because of their religion but because of their history. You can bet the same goes for christians.

That's because, humans by nature are violent...It's not a fault of religion, but religion gives us a motivation to continue our violent behaviors. I'm normally not a violent person...No, really! I'm not...I've only lifted my hands in violence against another human being twice in my life & those were in self-defense. But just like every other human being on the planet, I can be goaded into violence, if you can manage to "push the right buttons." Some people have different "buttons" than others, but everyone has the capacity for violence within them.

The reason Korn is on the run is because his religious extremism was his button...And the trigger of that button was the mere existence of other human beings that live with reason instead of the same dogma that Korn lives with. Fortunately, the professors' "buttons" are based upon something entirely different from religion, otherwise they would have likely broke down Korn's door & lynched him. But from what I've seen with the links provided, they maintained their reason against the unreasoning hatred expressed by Korn.

It's a fact of history that organized religion is responsible for more oppression, death & destruction than all other reasons for violent behavior...combined. I don't know about you, but I'd like to have some peace on this planet, just for a change of pace...Besides, that's the very message that Jesus taught in his ministry! So, between the threatened professors & Korn, who was displaying a better knowledge of what Jesus taught, hmmmm?

From one of the links posted earlier. The text quoted below was taken from Korn's own website:

More at Source, link on top of this text box:
"I was baptized in a natural spring in the Israeli Galilee outside of the famous mystical city of Safed on 20 June 2000, and now I seek to introduce Jewish people to Jesus Christ, their Messiah whom they don’t yet know."

It sounds to me, if he ever gets tangled up with Judaism extremists, he's going to wind up martyred...They see Jesus as, perhaps God's greatest Prophet, but not as the Messiah. They'll see Korn as much of a threat to their beliefs as Korn believes the scientists to be to his own. Does this kind of extremism sound like something God would want for His children?

Wait, wait a minute...

If you claim not to know how evolution works... then how can you possibly argue against it?


This entire time, you've been blindly backing your side of the argument... WITHOUT ONCE STUDYING THE OPPOSING SIDE?


I think I'm going to laugh myself to sleep tonight.

Originally posted by grimreaper797

Well you won't get much farther apart then maybe zebras and donkeys creating hybrids before complications occur. Animals generally don't have sex with members that far out of their own species because its not part of their urges. Any person who looks at anything other than other human being in a sexual manner displays an obvious mental problem. Its part of our nature to have an urge to produce offspring. Trying to mate with other animals in not in our nature. We don't mate with dogs because it's not part of our physical urge, and physically the offspring would most likely naturally abort, or be so mismatched it never pregnants to begin with.

If you don't stop making my points, the other people on the board are going to think you are creationist "shill". LOL Of course, much of what you say here is true. Just where do you think our "nature" came from? Intelligent design perhaps? Or just a cosmic fluke? Of course, animals of different species can't have offspring. They weren't "designed" to do so. (And what an ugly mess if they did!) Even if you breed a horse with a donkey, you get a sterile mule. There goes that line of evolutionary change.

You can explain your hypothesis through god, choosing not to even read the science side, which is obvious you have decided to do, if you want. But don't come on here, thinking you are going to change anyone mind by regurgitating some popular topic of deabte (giraffe neck)by anti evolution creationist, thinking you are going to change some ones mind, or shed some unique light on the matter.

Uh, if it's such a "popular topic of debate" how come you were so ill prepared as to repeat the mistake of the textbook, even after I explained how the textbook was in error? You were the one asking me if I knew "ANYTHING" about the subject, remember? And now you get to speak on behalf of everyone on the board? I thought you didn't belive in God?!

If you have something original thoughts on the matter, feel free to share them. If you are going to recite an arguement made by a bunch of pro creationist, anti evolution christians you are wasting your time. If I want to find out their arguement, Ill go to their site and read the description. If you want to add something original to the matter, speak up.

Uh, I've said plenty of original things. You may not like them, but that's beside the point. I thought we were in pursuit of the truth, but if I'm not the first one ever to notice the glaring problem evolutionists have with giraffes, I shouldn't bring it up? That's a hilarious standard.

So, in conclusion your argument seems to be: "Evolution isn't true? Show me proof! NO, not THAT proof! I mean proof that hasn't already been proven!"

Man, you really need some sleep.

Originally posted by johnsky
Wait, wait a minute...

If you claim not to know how evolution works... then how can you possibly argue against it?


This entire time, you've been blindly backing your side of the argument... WITHOUT ONCE STUDYING THE OPPOSING SIDE?


I think I'm going to laugh myself to sleep tonight.

Well, laugh in ignorance my friend, because you either KNOW that's not what I said or you have a problem with reading comprehension. Better re-read my previous response. I was talking about creation, not evolution.

In the log cabin analogy, someone "building" it represents "intelligent design". The logs falling into place by chance to form a nice, big log cabin represents evolution.

What are the odds of a bunch of trees forming into a log cabin ALL BY THEMSELVES?

How much more complex is the universe than a log cabin?

Originally posted by GLDNGUN
You're not making sense. You said: "Hitler could manipulate a person into believing just about anything. He just had that personality to him. He was just an evil person, with leadership qualities, exploiting the weak." Agreed. He manipulated millions into believing in his vision. They were called "Nazis". They intended to spread that vision by force and started to do so in parts of Europe, Asia, and Africa. Since you say Hitler was evil, would not those following his orders be his agents of evil? Can you really not see that the "Nazis" were the "bad guys" in WW2 and needed to be defeated? Just how naive are we going to get here?

So now the weak minded are evil? Are you not suppose to tend to the weak, and help them.

www.drbo.org...
4 The weak you have not strengthened, and that which was sick you have not healed, that which was broken you have not bound up, and that which was driven away you have not brought again, neither have you sought that which was lost: but you ruled over them with rigour, and with a high hand. 5 And my sheep were scattered, because there was no shepherd: and they became the prey of all the beasts of the field, and were scattered.

Read that carefully. You are expected to help the weak, not condemn them. You are suppose to guide them, not treat them as evil. It is your choice in the end.

If you're going to quote me, at least do so honestly. Here's what I said:

"You only have to read a few posts on this thread to see that people were taught that evolution is "fact"."

I stand by that statement. Several posters claimed that evolution is a "fact". They were either told that or led to believe that. They didn't just dream that up on their own.

I then said:

"So, you want an example of public school biology class cirriculum trying to "put one over" on students? Okay, here you go...

One popular biology textbook used in public schools is "Inquiry Into Life" by Sylvia Mader, published by McGraw-Hill Ryerson. On page 529 are diagrams of giraffes and says "Early giraffes probably had necks of various lengths. Natural selection due to competition led to survival of the longer-necked giraffes and their offspring. Eventually, only long-necked giraffes survived the competition.""

I also stand by that statement. The word "probably" is used when there is absolutely NO scientific evidence to back it up. Why did they say it then? Because it's what Darwin thought. Based upon what? His guessing. Another classic example of evolutionists circular reasoning - "Evolution must be true, because that's what the 'brilliant' Darwin came up with, and Darwin must have been brilliant because he came up with the theory of evolution!". It would be no different if they had said "giraffes were 'probably' placed here on the earth by aliens..." and have NOTHING to back it up. So, when students read the textbook saying "Early giraffes probably had necks of various lengths" they think "oh, that must be what the scientific evidence suggests, and thus most likely the truth", when in fact the evidence suggests no such thing.

This is but one example. So, stop reading at "probably" if you like, but again I stand by what I actually said:

"an example of public school biology class cirriculum trying to 'put one over' on students".

Some of you are going to be very upset when you find out some of the garbage that was poured into your brains by the public school system just aint so.

Originally posted by grimreaper797

So now the weak minded are evil? Are you not suppose to tend to the weak, and help them.

You called them "weak minded", not I. Are you suggesting that Hitler was the only evil one and every Nazi was just a poor "weak minded" victim of his? I'm sorry, that dog won't hunt, so your statement is flawed to begin with.

Go tell one of Osama's followers that you don't want to hurt him, you just want to help him because he's a weak-minded follower of an evil man. Weak-minded or evil, either way, the result is likely to be the same - you losing your head.

www.drbo.org...
4 The weak you have not strengthened, and that which was sick you have not healed, that which was broken you have not bound up, and that which was driven away you have not brought again, neither have you sought that which was lost: but you ruled over them with rigour, and with a high hand. 5 And my sheep were scattered, because there was no shepherd: and they became the prey of all the beasts of the field, and were scattered.

Read that carefully. You are expected to help the weak, not condemn them. You are suppose to guide them, not treat them as evil. It is your choice in the end.

Nice scripture. So you would like to apply that to a group of people in WW2? Ok, let's do that. Who were the "weak" that needed "strengthened"? Who were the "sick" that needed to be "healed"? Who was "broken" and "driven away" and "lost"? Who were the "sheep" that were "scattered" and "became the prey of all the beasts of the field"? That's a very fitting description of the Jews. The Nazis killed 6 MILLION of them. Are you going to declare that it was really the Nazis that were weak, sick, broken, needing to be strengthened, scattered, and the prey of all the beasts? You can't be serious. It was a little late for the 6 million that were killed, but, yes, defeating Nazism and freeing the remaining Jews was absolutely the right thing to do at the time.

If you can't even see who were the victims were in WW2, I don't know what else to tell you.

Originally posted by GLDNGUN

If you don't stop making my points, the other people on the board are going to think you are creationist "shill". LOL Of course, much of what you say here is true. Just where do you think our "nature" came from? Intelligent design perhaps? Or just a cosmic fluke? Of course, animals of different species can't have offspring. They weren't "designed" to do so. (And what an ugly mess if they did!) Even if you breed a horse with a donkey, you get a sterile mule. There goes that line of evolutionary change.

hmm, except for the fact that your theory can never become anything more then speculation. Evolution has the chance to be proven, yours never will. Thats really the bottom line. You can word it however you like, but ultimately your hypothesis hits an unprovable dead end with no chance of ever being proven. Thats why it is disregarded in science. Evolution will eventually be either proven or disproven in time. Thats why science teaches it. Plain and simple.

Nothing intelligent made nature, because nature itself is just a matter of balance, nothing more. It does what it has to do to keep balance. Pretty simply to me, nothing that needs intelligent design to explain its existance. A physical imbalance that will never be perfectly balanced. It will keep adding until its added to much, then it will subtract till its subtracted to much. Why? Because there is nothing intelligent about it. It doesn't "learn" that it needs to Add X amount to find balance. It just keeps on adding till there is too much, then starts taking it away till its taken away too much. Thats all nature is.

Everytime it happens, everything in nature must adapt. You want to complicate the simple, be my guest.

Uh, if it's such a "popular topic of debate" how come you were so ill prepared as to repeat the mistake of the textbook, even after I explained how the textbook was in error? You were the one asking me if I knew "ANYTHING" about the subject, remember? And now you get to speak on behalf of everyone on the board? I thought you didn't belive in God?!

1. I was stating a popular belief
2. you nitpick quotes just like those sites do, to make it seem as though a guy studying evolution is anti evolution. Truth is he was just anti "giraffes needed long necks to get food" I explained why this was plausible. Recent studies showed that there may have been another plausable reasoning which the guy you quoted agreed with. I ALSO posted that information in my next post. Miss it? He states:
"Darwin was the first to propose that long necks evolved in giraffes because they enabled the animals to eat foliage beyond the reach of shorter browsers. That seemingly sensible explanation has held up for over a century, but it is probably wrong, says Robert Simmons. Simmons, a behavioral ecologist at the Ministry of Environment and Tourism in Windhoek, Namibia, believes giraffes developed long necks not to compete for food but to win mates."

But when looking back, I found your response to that post. You pretty much deflected it with your own little personal theory. Clever but it doesn't change the fact that the guy you quoted saying the giraffe bit is wrong is the same guy that said:
"Many researchers now suggest that the primary function of giraffe neck length is not for reaching leaves on tall trees, but for male combat (“necking”), or for spotting predators, or for shedding heat through increased skin surface area. All of these functions “have been viewed by prominent scientists as a chief reason for the evolution of the long necks” (Gould 56f.). Darwin himself (202) alludes to some of these as alternate possibilities."

So he said "prominent scientists view this as a chief reason for the EVOLUTION OF THE LONG NECKS" hmm...

O and you conveniently left out a part of your quote, so Ill quote it in its entirety:
"“When we look to presumed sources of origin for competing evolutionary explanations of the giraffe’s long neck, we find either nothing at all or only the shortest of speculative conjectures. . . . The giraffe’s neck just wasn’t a big issue for the founders of evolutionary theory—not as a case study for arguing about alternative mechanisms, not for anything much at all. No data from giraffes then existed to support one theory of causes over another, and none exist now” (21)."

Ok, so we missed that part. The whole arguement wasn't really that important to darwin to begin with. And it's not saying "there is no evidence to support evolution of giraffe necks" like you would like everyone to believe. It says " there is no data to support ONE THEORY OVER ANOTHER THEORY, when it comes to the EVOLUTION of the long necks."

Interesting how you tried to twist that by nitpicking at the quote.

Uh, I've said plenty of original things. You may not like them, but that's beside the point. I thought we were in pursuit of the truth, but if I'm not the first one ever to notice the glaring problem evolutionists have with giraffes, I shouldn't bring it up? That's a hilarious standard.

No but you aren't bringing anything new to the table. Its been debated before, and its been put down before. Your arguement is useless because much like the others, you twist word to make it seem like there is no evidence to support evolution when he said there is no evidence to support any one cause over the other. Darwin said food source, Goud said Mating, neither have any conclusive evidence to prove it yet. They have experiments to show it may be a factor, but no hard fact evidence that says "this is the reason", probably due to the fact it may have been a combination of reasons.

So, in conclusion your argument seems to be: "Evolution isn't true? Show me proof! NO, not THAT proof! I mean proof that hasn't already been proven!"

Man, you really need some sleep.

No you showed me an arguement that has already been addressed, but because you came online and read a couple articles, all the sudden you want to debate it with other people who have already ran into people like you before. I have tended to stay away from this topic for close to a year, because nothing is more useless then trying to tell some one that just because a religious authority said "evolution is wrong" doesn't make it a fact. Science is more then speculation, its observation. There are observations that indicate evolution as a cause for changes in nature, as much as you dislike it.

Originally posted by GLDNGUN

Nice scripture. So you would like to apply that to a group of people in WW2? Ok, let's do that. Who were the "weak" that needed "strengthened"? Who were the "sick" that needed to be "healed"? Who was "broken" and "driven away" and "lost"? Who were the "sheep" that were "scattered" and "became the prey of all the beasts of the field"? That's a very fitting description of the Jews. The Nazis killed 6 MILLION of them. Are you going to declare that it was really the Nazis that were weak, sick, broken, needing to be strengthened, scattered, and the prey of all the beasts? You can't be serious. It was a little late for the 6 million that were killed, but, yes, defeating Nazism and freeing the remaining Jews was absolutely the right thing to do at the time.

Maybe it was the Nazis who were evil, the jewish who were weak, and the world was suppose to be the ones who protect. Maybe it was Nazis who were weak, Hitler was evil, and the jews were suppose to be the protectors who failed. But I think the reality is this, it is the world that was evil, the poor who were weak, and there was no one left to be the protectors.

There were no good guys during world war 2. There were the weak, and those who exploited them. Both sides did it. Hitler exploited the poor germans, We exploited hitler and europe through economic means, hitler scape goated the jewish, and the rest of the world exploited the nazis to futher their own ends. During that time, there were only two groups, The weak and the evil. There hasn't been any protectors in a long time, because for a long time, we have forgotten what it means to protect. If we did protect, WW2 would have never happened. But it is greed and selfishness that took us off that path to protect the weak.

My second point, is that scriptures 2 lines preceeding it:
"....that fed themselves: should not the hocks be fed by the shepherds? 3 You ate the milk, and you clothed yourselves with the wool, and you killed that which was fat: but my flock you did not feed."

The poor you did not feed, instead we fed off of them, using them. After world war one instead of trying to make right, we ended up screwing the poor in europe, and thats what allowed hitler to gain his foot hold. We had a war, economy soared, while germany fell to pieces. Nobody cared though, and we left them to deal with the debt they owed france and britian. We left the poor unfed, with a wheel barrel of paper that could hardly buy them bread. They were the weak. The poor were the weak. We were the evil ones, and there was no protectors, because they forgot how to protect long ago.

If you can't even see who were the victims were in WW2, I don't know what else to tell you.

The victims leading to WW2 were the future Nazi's. The victims of WW2 was every poor person, every jewish person, every person who was just another pawn of the wicked. The millions of russian and german soldiers who died in battles like the ones at stalingrad and leningrad. The japanese who died by the bombs we made. All these people were victims. They played no hand, they had no motives, and they hardly knew why they were fighting. They were the poor, the weak, the exploitable people living under the evil people who wished to exploit them.

[edit on 19-7-2007 by grimreaper797]

Originally posted by GLDNGUN
The word "probably" is used when there is absolutely NO scientific evidence to back it up.

My source is Webster's Dictionary; the word:

"probably: adv without much doubt"

In order to remove all doubt, it takes 100% FACTS; To have only some doubt remaining, it takes at least some FACTS. In short, "probably" is a word to use when something is:

"probable: adj likely; to be expected"

You just shot down your own argument again...Simply by not even knowing the meaning of what you most vehmently demean.
I pray that you also remember that "theory" takes some facts, but there's also to be some reasonable speculation expected too.

And still, the only FACTS that are of concern in this thread is that someone issued a death threat against other people & is (apparently) on the run from law enforcement authorities to avoid charges for that crime...And by running from probable ( ) prosecution in court, he merely adds another seperate charge to be brought up in court if he's caught. Everything else, including discussion of "Evolution vs. Creationism" is only serving to derail the thread, except if it's in direct relationship to the criminal activity described in the OP's initial posting.

The main point of the thread seems to be revolving around a religious extremist trying to justify the issuing of death threats on one or more scientists for teaching the theory of evolution...Which such threats run in direct counter to his religion's own Law against killing another human being. If we can't stay on topic, this thread is going to lead to some Posting Members to wind up Warned, Banned, likely closing the thread or even perhaps the deletion of the whole thread.