Feeding Frenzy

[Guest Guest]

That someone raised to think for oneself would take their side against Mr. Paskiewicz seems to upset more of his defenders, then those who defend the Separation of Church and State are over their Right to Believe in God.

Time after time it is made clear that one has a right to belief anything one wants, but one does not have a right to use a government position, to try to preach their beliefs on others.  Because they felt that having in the U.S.A. Freedom of Religion, our founding fathers carefully worded the Constitution to keep the government from endorsing any religion over another.

What gets me is the constancy of illogical posts made for Free Speech.  In defending Mr. Paskiewicz right to say anything at all in his classroom, they forget that while we all have a right to voice our beliefs, the courts have place limits on where speaking out is not allow.  The classic example is yelling "Fire!" in a theater.  They can't see how talking about one beliefs in the class room by an teacher, could have a negative effect on students who need to attend the class to fulfil legal requirements for a High School Diploma.

No matter how many holes, one finds in their arguments, they keep coming back and use the same Logical Fallacies, time after time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Fear characterizes the mode of thought Mr. P represents. He and his followers cannot abide other opinions because they are insecure in their own. They seek certainty, but they don't have it, so they proclaim it against all the evidence. Deep down, they know better, but they'll never admit it, even to themselves. It's truly a threat in any society, certainly in a democratic society. I'm not trying to be mean about this, but it is an illogical and often irrational way of thinking that is disfunctional, meeting more than enough criteria to be called a mental disorder.

[Guest Bd. of Ed. Member]

So under your contention, every word out of the teacher's mouth, at all times, is "government-speak". There can never be a moment when he speaking from the heart, offering a personal opinion, or just having a casual conversation with a student.

  What if a student asks the teacher who he likes in the Super Bowl .  Is the teachers response a "government answer" ??

  If the teachers wife has just given birth (and the students are aware of the fact) and he's asked by a student if the baby will be baptized, will he be promoting christianity by saying yes ?? There cannot be such a rigid mentality so as to forbid all conversations outside of the lesson plan.  The loony left appears to want exactly that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You present an argument that will cause many to sit back and re-think their objections to this teachers actions. I think I would caution the teacher in the future to avoid these types of conversations and simply move on.

[Bryan]

ElneClare, on Dec 24 2006, 12:22 PM,wrote:

That someone raised to think for oneself would take their side against Mr. Paskiewicz seems to upset more of his defenders, then those who defend the Separation of Church and State are over their Right to Believe in God.

May there never be a conflict between those rights.

Time after time it is made clear that one has a right to belie[ve] anything one wants, but one does not have a right to use a government position, to try to preach their beliefs on others.

Agreed. It is a reasonable employment policy (including government agencies) to prohibit proselytizing--but it should never be against the law. Those who are claiming that the teacher broke the law seem a bit unhinged on that point.

The portions of the transcripts I've seen so far (particularly the Sept 14 transcript) do not appear to me to constitute proselytization. It is appropriate for the LaClairs to complain about anything they wish, however, including an emphasis on religious talk, but that doesn't necessarily mean that proselytizing took place. It's up to the school board to make that determination and set policy. It's up to the local voter (not me, in this case) to encourage or discourage the actions of the school board.

Because they felt that having in the U.S.A. Freedom of Religion, our founding fathers carefully worded the Constitution to keep the government from endorsing any religion over another.

What gets me is the constancy of illogical posts made for Free Speech. In defending Mr. Paskiewicz right to say anything at all in his classroom, they forget that while we all have a right to voice our beliefs, the courts have place limits on where speaking out is not allow. The classic example is yelling "Fire!" in a theater. They can't see how talking about one beliefs in the class room by an teacher, could have a negative effect on students who need to attend the class to fulfil legal requirements for a High School Diploma.

Yelling "Fire!" in a theater falls under the "clear and present danger" test. Good luck establishing that legal principle against Paszkiewicz's actions. Just a hint: Bribe the judges with an offer they can't refuse if you want to win that one.

http://www.journalism.wisc.edu/~drechsel/j...gs/Briefing.pdf

No matter how many holes, one finds in their arguments, they keep coming back and use the same Logical Fallacies, time after time.

What would you call the fallacy of using the wrong legal justification for forbidding the teacher's actions in this case?

Some how I have a feeling many of these posters would tell a victim of Bullying on the playground, to "Be a Man" and "Learn to live with it." Never realizing the long term effects to the victim, that later in life may affect their mental health and adding to the cost of medical care in this country.

Uh, you're not saying that LaClair is a bullying victim, are you? Exactly what type of victim is he? His right of _______ has been abridged?

Some of the worst posts I read are listed under Guest and neither side can take the high ground when it comes to the attacks made by anonymous posts. Why I can understand not wanting to take the time to fill in the name or sign in every time one posts, one can also expect to have others discount one's views for doing so.

Fair enough. I've posted a couple of times as "Guest" by failing to log in. I've noticed that Paul LaClair has had that happen at least once as well.

OTOH, I wasn't attacking others so much as making arguments.

[oneellama]

You present an argument that will cause many to sit back and re-think their objections to this teachers actions. I think I would caution the teacher in the future to avoid these types of conversations and simply move on.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Outrageous! Unbelievable! To the contrary, I think his argument is astoundingly weak, and got massively weaker with each post on this thread. From any logical point of view, he opened the door with his last statement to being checkmated on his own argument.

I am distressed and dismayed at your response. Where do YOU think the teacher's comments fall, on a spectrum from simply "mentioning you're going to have your son baptized" through a multi-day, full-class-period, proselytizing effort? How aware were YOU that students have known about these goings on for years, and some have alleged he has been repeatedly warned about it, including written warnings? How can you possibly lend support to a post that compares the Establishment Clause to discussing a Super Bowl game??? Can it possibly be true that you are really a board of education member??? Can it be you do not recognize that an argument based on saying you can't "forbid all conversations outside the lesson plan" is light-years away from what transpired in that classroom???

I have tried on this blog to be a vote for patience and rational thinking, and I have been unsettled by the confrontational aspects of many of the posts. I reserved opinion on whether Mr. LaClair should file a First Amendment lawsuit, assuming that the Board would be reading the arguments presented here and elsewhere, and recognize the seriousness of the allegations and the importance of a reasoned response. But if your post is a reflection of the thinking of the Board, forget patience. As far as I'm concerned, Mr. LaClair should file the papers tomorrow. You are an embarassment to your office! And if the community majority is of the same mind and does not condemn your level of inanity, then -- that's EXACTLY why we have the Establishment Clause, EXACTLY why we have the courts, and EXACTLY why I would give Mr. LaClair my full support in calling you, the teacher, and the rest of the administration to account.

[Guest Guest]

You present an argument that will cause many to sit back and re-think their objections to this teachers actions. I think I would caution the teacher in the future to avoid these types of conversations and simply move on.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

An argument that will cause many to sit back and re-think their objections? Anyone who re-thinks based on those so called 'arguments' doesn't have enough brain energy to power a ten watt bulb! The arguments made by 2smart4u are making me ill, not giving me something to think about. What kind of argument is comparing what just happened to who will win the Superbowl?!? It's preposterous! I'm literally feeling sick at the thought that someone on the board of educationwould be so blind as to listen to what that person has to say. Huh, maybe he is 'too smart for you' if he has you believing him. Start thinking before you act, it can do wonders.

[Bryan]

oneellama, on Dec 25 2006, 08:42 PM, wrote:

Outrageous! Unbelievable! To the contrary, I think his argument is astoundingly weak, and got massively weaker with each post on this thread.

You're going to leave your opinion as a stand-in for the reasoning behind the opinion?

From any logical point of view, he opened the door with his last statement to being checkmated on his own argument.

How would the statement about the "loony left" open the door to a checkmate of the argument, specifically?

I am distressed and dismayed at your response. Where do YOU think the teacher's comments fall, on a spectrum from simply "mentioning you're going to have your son baptized" through a multi-day, full-class-period, proselytizing effort? How aware were YOU that students have known about these goings on for years, and some have alleged he has been repeatedly warned about it, including written warnings?

We're going to judge the case on hearsay?

What's the source of the allegations regarding written warnings?

How can you possibly lend support to a post that compares the Establishment Clause to discussing a Super Bowl game???

Huh? Get serious. The post did not compare those two things.

Can it possibly be true that you are really a board of education member??? Can it be you do not recognize that an argument based on saying you can't "forbid all conversations outside the lesson plan" is light-years away from what transpired in that classroom???

Is it? Review this post by a helpful person posting as "Guest."

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...pic=3316&st=20#

I have tried on this blog to be a vote for patience and rational thinking, and I have been unsettled by the confrontational aspects of many of the posts. I reserved opinion on whether Mr. LaClair should file a First Amendment lawsuit, assuming that the Board would be reading the arguments presented here and elsewhere, and recognize the seriousness of the allegations and the importance of a reasoned response. But if your post is a reflection of the thinking of the Board, forget patience. As far as I'm concerned, Mr. LaClair should file the papers tomorrow. You are an embarassment to your office! And if the community majority is of the same mind and does not condemn your level of inanity, then -- that's EXACTLY why we have the Establishment Clause, EXACTLY why we have the courts, and EXACTLY why I would give Mr. LaClair my full support in calling you, the teacher, and the rest of the administration to account.

Just a moment ago, you were making the ridiculous statement that 2smart's post compared casual conversation to the Establishment Clause.

Take some time to regain your perspective.

[Guest Patriot]

Outrageous!  Unbelievable!  To the contrary, I think his argument is astoundingly weak, and got massively weaker with each post on this thread.  From any logical point of view, he opened the door with his last statement to being checkmated on his own argument.

I am distressed and dismayed at your response.  Where do YOU think the teacher's comments fall, on a spectrum from simply "mentioning you're going to have your son baptized" through a multi-day, full-class-period, proselytizing effort?  How aware were YOU that students have known about these goings on for years, and some have alleged he has been repeatedly warned about it, including written warnings?  How can you possibly lend support to a post that compares the Establishment Clause to discussing a Super Bowl game???  Can it possibly be true that you are really a board of education member???  Can it be you do not recognize that an argument based on saying you can't "forbid all conversations outside the lesson plan" is light-years away from what transpired in that classroom???

I have tried on this blog to be a vote for patience and rational thinking, and I have been unsettled by the confrontational aspects of many of the posts.  I reserved opinion on whether Mr. LaClair should file a First Amendment lawsuit, assuming that the Board would be reading the arguments presented here and elsewhere, and recognize the seriousness of the allegations and the importance of a reasoned response.  But if your post is a reflection of the thinking of the Board, forget patience.  As far as I'm concerned, Mr. LaClair should file the papers tomorrow.  You are an embarassment to your office!  And if the community majority is of the same mind and does not condemn your level of inanity, then -- that's EXACTLY why we have the Establishment Clause, EXACTLY why we have the courts, and EXACTLY why I would give Mr. LaClair my full support in calling you, the teacher, and the rest of the administration to account.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dear oneeelama, have you ever tried decaf ??

[Guest Guest]

Outrageous!  Unbelievable!  To the contrary, I think his argument is astoundingly weak, and got massively weaker with each post on this thread.  From any logical point of view, he opened the door with his last statement to being checkmated on his own argument.

I am distressed and dismayed at your response.  Where do YOU think the teacher's comments fall, on a spectrum from simply "mentioning you're going to have your son baptized" through a multi-day, full-class-period, proselytizing effort?  How aware were YOU that students have known about these goings on for years, and some have alleged he has been repeatedly warned about it, including written warnings?  How can you possibly lend support to a post that compares the Establishment Clause to discussing a Super Bowl game???  Can it possibly be true that you are really a board of education member???  Can it be you do not recognize that an argument based on saying you can't "forbid all conversations outside the lesson plan" is light-years away from what transpired in that classroom???

I have tried on this blog to be a vote for patience and rational thinking, and I have been unsettled by the confrontational aspects of many of the posts.  I reserved opinion on whether Mr. LaClair should file a First Amendment lawsuit, assuming that the Board would be reading the arguments presented here and elsewhere, and recognize the seriousness of the allegations and the importance of a reasoned response.  But if your post is a reflection of the thinking of the Board, forget patience.  As far as I'm concerned, Mr. LaClair should file the papers tomorrow.  You are an embarassment to your office!  And if the community majority is of the same mind and does not condemn your level of inanity, then -- that's EXACTLY why we have the Establishment Clause, EXACTLY why we have the courts, and EXACTLY why I would give Mr. LaClair my full support in calling you, the teacher, and the rest of the administration to account.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree fully. It is time that someone stood up for what is right instead of letting all of these imbiciles make brainless remarks. I don't know how much you can do on these blogs, but I'm glad that you've decided to take a more offensive stance on this issue. Your posts show that you know what is going on, instead of just racketing off on a rant about cough-the Superbowl-cough. Empty minds like 2smart4u need to be shown that nobody can get away with these kind of ignorant remarks, no matter what their religious beliefs. And if a BOARD MEMBER feels the same way as that . . .no comment . . . then it only enforces the message that something needs to be done. More power to you oneellama.

[Guest Thomas Ram]

You present an argument that will cause many to sit back and re-think their objections to this teachers actions. I think I would caution the teacher in the future to avoid these types of conversations and simply move on.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

what a disgrace....and from a Board member. "2smart 4u" is a joke, it's like arguing with a 7 year old - tiresome is a huge understatement. BUT WAIT, despite dozens of cogent and powerful arguments destroying "2smart4u" and his absolute refusal to, oh i don't know, LEARN - a BD member supports him on the weakest of grounds. Shame on the Bd of Ed, shame on "2smart4u" and shame on Kearny for sitting on its hands - disgraceful, embarrassing and worst of all - unrepentant (irony noted). Hey "2smart", just for laughs, how old is the planet? Were dinosaurs on Noah's ark? seriously, what do you think? I've seen you post that there is "absolutely no evidence to support evolution" - so answer these simple questions. -TOM

[Guest Guest]

what a disgrace....and from a Board member.  "2smart 4u" is a joke, it's like arguing with a 7 year old - tiresome is a huge understatement.  BUT WAIT, despite dozens of cogent and powerful arguments destroying "2smart4u" and his absolute refusal to, oh i don't know, LEARN -  a BD member supports him on the weakest of grounds.  Shame on the Bd of Ed, shame on "2smart4u" and shame on Kearny for sitting on its hands - disgraceful, embarrassing and worst of all - unrepentant (irony noted).  Hey "2smart", just for laughs, how old is the planet? Were dinosaurs on Noah's ark? seriously, what do you think?  I've seen you post that there is "absolutely no evidence to support evolution" - so answer these simple questions. -TOM

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If this was truly posted by a board member, he or she has an obligation to self-identify.

[Guest 2smart4u]

what a disgrace....and from a Board member.  "2smart 4u" is a joke, it's like arguing with a 7 year old - tiresome is a huge understatement.  BUT WAIT, despite dozens of cogent and powerful arguments destroying "2smart4u" and his absolute refusal to, oh i don't know, LEARN -  a BD member supports him on the weakest of grounds.  Shame on the Bd of Ed, shame on "2smart4u" and shame on Kearny for sitting on its hands - disgraceful, embarrassing and worst of all - unrepentant (irony noted).  Hey "2smart", just for laughs, how old is the planet? Were dinosaurs on Noah's ark? seriously, what do you think?  I've seen you post that there is "absolutely no evidence to support evolution" - so answer these simple questions. -TOM

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There's a common thread that runs through all the loony left, God hating, Darwiniacs. They believe they have this superior intellect and they look down their hooked noses at anyone who professes a belief in God as being less intelligent.

Thomas Ram certainly upholds this philosophy of pseudo superiority. One can almost feel his outrage, his umbrage at someone with a different opinion. There certainly is a "feeding frenzy" among the Darwiniacs, they're all out of the woodwork and they can taste blood. But the people of Kearny are smarter than the looney left think, they won't get down in the gutter with you. So take your venom back to Texas or wherever else you live your pathetic lives. Sorry Charlie.

[Calybos]

There's a common thread that runs through all the loony left, God hating, Darwiniacs. They believe they have this superior intellect and they look down their hooked noses at anyone who professes a belief in God as being less intelligent.

There's another common thread among the "loony left Darwiniacs"... all the evidence is on our side, not yours. I guess reality really DOES have a liberal bias, huh?

[Guest A. V. Blom]

There's a common thread that runs through all the loony left, God hating, Darwiniacs. They believe they have this superior intellect and they look down their hooked noses at anyone who professes a belief in God as being less intelligent.

Statistics actually DO imply that Christians are less intelligent, but that aside:

It is mainly upon people like YOU most atheists look down. And that, my ironically-named man, is completely justified, given their evidence, and the lack of yours.

Thomas Ram certainly upholds this philosophy of pseudo superiority. One can almost feel his outrage, his umbrage at someone with a different opinion.

Not so much at the opinion, but at the need to express it in a classroom.

There certainly is a "feeding frenzy" among the Darwiniacs,

I see you've learned a new insult, besides 'Kool-Aid'. How cute.

they're all out of the woodwork and they can taste blood.

Because people like you exposed yourself as irrational, bigoted idiots.

But the people of Kearny are smarter than the looney left think,

As far as online varieties go, that's mainly thanks to Paul and Strife. Patriot and yourself, on the other hand, easily drag it down again.

they won't get down in the gutter with you. So take your venom back to Texas or wherever else you live your pathetic lives. Sorry Charlie.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You ARE already in the deepest and darkness of intellectual gutters. Please, cherish your delusions of intellectual adequacy. Just don't think anyone else is fooled by them.

[Guest Guest]

There's a common thread that runs through all the loony left, God hating, Darwiniacs. They believe they have this superior intellect and they look down their hooked noses at anyone who professes a belief in God as being less intelligent.

.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hooked noses? WHO are you, really?

Mel Gibson?

Why don't you say what you really mean and stop being such a CHICKENSH*T?

[Guest Guest]

There's a common thread that runs through all the loony left, God hating, Darwiniacs. They believe they have this superior intellect and they look down their hooked noses at anyone who professes a belief in God as being less intelligent.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You give yourself far too much credit to think yourself a peer of other ordinary thoughtful and intelligent religious folk. You are looked down upon not because you are among them, but because you are not fit to claim that honor. It is not only atheists who recognize for what it is the willful ignorance that you and and a few others are espousing.

[Guest Tom Ram]

There's a common thread that runs through all the loony left, God hating, Darwiniacs. They believe they have this superior intellect and they look down their hooked noses at anyone who professes a belief in God as being less intelligent.

Thomas Ram certainly upholds this philosophy of pseudo superiority. One can almost feel his outrage, his umbrage at someone with a different opinion.  There certainly is a "feeding frenzy" among the Darwiniacs, they're all out of the woodwork and they can taste blood.  But the people of Kearny are smarter than the looney left think, they won't get down in the gutter with you. So take your venom back to Texas or wherever else you live your pathetic lives. Sorry Charlie.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

OK, i'll go first. Then you go, OK?

The earth is about 4.5 billion years old. The universe is about 13 billion years old. Dinosaurs never lived with humans and therefore they were not on Noah's Ark - we do not need to quibble about a worldwide flood and the fact that ALL life supposedly got on board. anyway, how old is your earth? Did dinosaurs live with man in your world?

Incidentally, i do not have a hooked nose nor a belief that believing in a "god" is per se idiotic. What is idiotic is a literal belief in the writings of superstitious men living 2000 years ago based on events that happened decades and centuries before. Virgin birth? walking on water? rising from the dead? creating the entire world in 7 days? Please!!! how on earth can you truly believe these things. We can't even re-tell Watergate accurately and we got tapes!!! I bet if you were born in Gaza you'd fervently believe in Islam - point is you happen to personify the prehistoric human frailty (which all of us have) of needing to explain your existence - which is why we have religion in the first place - we are damned with cognitive abilities. can't you see that religion is a human creation to comfort us? Try my friend, try to reflect on why you believe the things you do. If you alone espoused these religious beliefs, you'd be locked up - but if 100 million people believe, it must be true. c'mon back with maybe a substantive response. I do like "darwiniacs", though.

[Guest Guest]

There's another common thread among the "loony left Darwiniacs"... all the evidence is on our side, not yours. I guess reality really DOES have a liberal bias, huh?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ha ha, nice quote. I couldn't have put it better myself.

[Strife767]

Incidentally, i do not have a hooked nose nor a belief that believing in a "god" is per se idiotic.  What is idiotic is a literal belief in the writings of superstitious men living 2000 years ago based on events that happened decades and centuries before.  Virgin birth? walking on water? rising from the dead? creating the entire world in 7 days?  Please!!! how on earth can you truly believe these things.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank you! My faith in humanity just went up a notch.

[Guest 2smart4u]

OK, i'll go first.  Then you go, OK?

The earth is about 4.5 billion years old.  The universe is about 13 billion years old.  Dinosaurs never lived with humans and therefore they were not on Noah's Ark - we do not need to quibble about a worldwide flood and the fact that ALL life supposedly got on board. anyway, how old is your earth? Did dinosaurs live with man in your world? 

Incidentally, i do not have a hooked nose nor a belief that believing in a "god" is per se idiotic.  What is idiotic is a literal belief in the writings of superstitious men living 2000 years ago based on events that happened decades and centuries before.  Virgin birth? walking on water? rising from the dead? creating the entire world in 7 days?  Please!!! how on earth can you truly believe these things.  We can't even re-tell Watergate accurately and we got tapes!!! I bet if you were born in Gaza you'd fervently believe in Islam - point is you happen to personify the prehistoric human frailty (which all of us have) of needing to explain your existence - which is why we have religion in the first place - we are damned with cognitive abilities.  can't you see that religion is a human creation to comfort us? Try my friend, try to reflect on why you believe the things you do.  If you alone espoused these religious beliefs, you'd be locked up - but if 100 million people believe, it must be true.  c'mon back with maybe a substantive response.  I do like "darwiniacs", though.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You may be surprised to know I agree with most of what you say, right up to explaining our existence, which I can't. But I do believe we're too complicated an organism to have evolved from a worm crawling out of the ocean. Just take the individuality of DNA for example. Genetic scientists can't even begin to explain how that could have evolved through random selection. How did the eye evolve from a sightless organism. You can take random selection only so far.

I also believe God and evolution are not mutually exclusive, there has to be a greater power at play here than simply random selection.

[Calybos]

Ha ha, nice quote.  I couldn't have put it better myself.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's not mine, it's from Stephen Colbert.

[Strife767]

You may be surprised to know I agree with most of what you say, right up to explaining our existence, which I can't.  But I do believe we're too complicated an organism to have evolved from a worm crawling out of the ocean.

Fallacy of argument from incredulity.

Just take the individuality of DNA for example. Genetic scientists can't even begin to explain how that could have evolved through random selection.

Ahem...why would they try to explain that? The accepted mechanism of evolution is not "random selection" (that's not even a scientific term); it's natural selection. And natural selection is the exact opposite of "random." Fallacy of the strawman argument.

How did the eye evolve from a sightless organism.

Even Answers in Genesis knows not to attempt this ridiculous line of argument.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921_1.html

You can take random selection only so far.

Strawman again. Natural selection is anything but random.

I also believe God and evolution are not mutually exclusive,

At least you're right about one thing.

there has to be a greater power at play here than simply random selection.

And natural selection fits the bill, and the evidence, quite nicely.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Guest A. V. Blom]

You may be surprised to know I agree with most of what you say, right up to explaining our existence, which I can't.  But I do believe we're too complicated an organism to have evolved from a worm crawling out of the ocean. Just take the individuality of DNA for example. Genetic scientists can't even begin to explain how that could have evolved through random selection.

...have you ever tried to ask one of them?

How did the eye evolve from a sightless organism. You can take random selection only so far.

Except that selection isn't random. Concession accepted.

I also believe God and evolution are not mutually exclusive,  there has to be a greater power at play here than simply random selection.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Perhaps you should learn about about 'natural selection' (not 'random selection') before you type anything else. Until then, I'm afraid this board is 2smart4u

[Guest Paul]

You may be surprised to know I agree with most of what you say, right up to explaining our existence, which I can't.  But I do believe we're too complicated an organism to have evolved from a worm crawling out of the ocean. Just take the individuality of DNA for example. Genetic scientists can't even begin to explain how that could have evolved through random selection. How did the eye evolve from a sightless organism. You can take random selection only so far.

    I also believe God and evolution are not mutually exclusive,  there has to be a greater power at play here than simply random selection.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Fair enough. Good post.

Now just consider the following. You don't have to argue the point.

You're saying a human being can't be the product of evolution because a human being is too complex. But then how do you explain the existence of God, which would have to be the most complicated entity of all (if God can even be called an entity)? Moreover, if you haven't read evolutionary theory in detail from its proponents and practitioners, may there's more to the story than you realize.

You may not be convinced, but the scientific community is, and what is more, evolutionary theory is being applied with real-world benefits. You may use those applications one day, and more likely you already have. Just think about it, and if you really want to understand this issue, read up on it.

Thanks again for a good post.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Fallacy of argument from incredulity.

Ahem...why would they try to explain that? The accepted mechanism of evolution is not "random selection" (that's not even a scientific term); it's natural selection. And natural selection is the exact opposite of "random." Fallacy of the strawman argument.

Even Answers in Genesis knows not to attempt this ridiculous line of argument.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921_1.html

Strawman again. Natural selection is anything but random.

At least you're right about one thing.

And natural selection fits the bill, and the evidence, quite nicely.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your smugness is laughable. Only a diehard Darwiniac would think that the eye was the result of an evolutionary accident, that there was no intelligence involved in the process. The individuality of DNA, finger prints, irises, etc. , no intelligent design anywhere, right ??

[Guest 2smart4u]

Fair enough. Good post.

Now just consider the following. You don't have to argue the point.

You're saying a human being can't be the product of evolution because a human being is too complex. But then how do you explain the existence of God, which would have to be the most complicated entity of all (if God can even be called an entity)? Moreover, if you haven't read evolutionary theory in detail from its proponents and practitioners, may there's more to the story than you realize.

You may not be convinced, but the scientific community is, and what is more, evolutionary theory is being applied with real-world benefits. You may use those applications one day, and more likely you already have. Just think about it, and if you really want to understand this issue, read up on it.

Thanks again for a good post.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"If you really want to understand this issue" ?? I love your smug, condescending attitude. Here's a news flash, the "scientific community" is also made up of many prominent intelligent design proponents.

"How do I explain the existence of God" ?? Is that your retort to "a human being is too complex to have evolved" ??

The "scientific community" is full of atheistic Darwiniacs and I've read some of their rediculous papers.

If you're an atheist, I think it's safe to say you won't write an article supporting intelligent design. Even you should be smart enough to understand that.

The Darwiniacs cannot explain how an eye evolved (among other things). For an eye to have evolved, there had to be a clear understanding of the finished product, there's too many complex components to have occured by happenstance.

Your refusal to acknowledge this fact simply shows up the hollowness of your argument.