Wating for 2smart to answer.

[Guest Bing]

That's quite an (ironically, if you are being honest about your credentials) unscientific guess,

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hmmm ... biology grad working on a doctorate (skipped over the masters program, I guess), teaching at NYU (where most teachers already have doctorates), but taking classes at Cornell ... which is a bazillion miles away from NYU in Ithaca, NY - near Canada (okay, maybe not a bazillion) but much longer than I'd like to commute, especially with a full teaching load and doctorate thesis to work on. What a tangled web we weave ...

[Guest Bing]

As far as # 3, what good has Matthew done for this town?  I am still trying to figure that one out?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My mom made me eat my vegetables - didn't want to, didn't like them - but she did anyway and I am the better for it today.

Matthew made me think - and even if I didn't want the debate, and I even if I didn't like his opinions - because he made me think a little, I submit that I am better for it today.

Now let's dispense with the hypothetical - we ended up with the right result here. But if you don't agree with Matthew, and you don't believe that antithetical opinions and open debate are good for society, then you certainly have the right to disagree with Matthew, disagree with the current interpretation of the Establishment Clause, and lobby as you see fit (within legal constraints) to allow teachers to discuss religion in the classroom.

You probably would not be successful - but your ability to do so is the beauty of America.

Of course, if you refuse to think there's not much anyone can do to help you.

[Guest Cornell Grad Student]

Yeah, you and Behe. A likely story. Is your little explanation going to be on your doctoral thesis? I doubt it. Not if you hope to become a PhD.

Now let me make sure I have this right. When humans reproduce, a sperm enters an egg, and the combination of the two creates a new, single-celled zygote. Because each sperm and each egg are genetically distinct in themselves, and because each parent is carrying certain traits of his own, the odds against ever getting two individuals who are genetically identical (except for identical twins) are astronomical. That's not guesswork. It's an established and proven fact.

When non-sexual species reproduce, are the offspring genetically identical to the parents? If not, all that tells us is that the composition of DNA varies from individual to individual, even in non-sexual species. So what? It doesn't in any way, shape or form suggest that anyone designed it that way.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tom me boy, you can't see the forest for the trees. You acknowledge the astronomical statistics involved in repeating a genetically exact human being, yet you insist that all this mind-boggling genetic engineering is just blind evolution.

Furthermore, if you believe the statistics involved in creating two genetically exact individuals is astronomical, imagine what the statistics would be against all this mind-boggling genetic engineering happening by chance or by accident.

To take the position that all this is just serendipity is just foolish.

[Guest 2smart4u]

What's moronic is turning to God for love and comfort, and then thinking that this same God deliberately fashioned the world so that innocent creatures could suffer. And yet that's exactly what 2dim4words believes. He should refrain from calling other people moronic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"Frank" ?? I think Paul is suffering from Multiple Personality Disorder.

[Guest Guest]

I am still trying to figure that one out?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Or much more likely, trying not to. Quite successfully, it would seem.

[Guest Guest]

I have to point out that this is the second time a mysterious grad student has come in on a white horse to make an appeal to authority in 2Dim's behalf after he found himself hopelessly outclassed:

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=42824

Interesting, eh?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Obviously the same person. Same "two cents worth" style. Same argument from complexity. Same appeal to credentials.

Did you see the post further down the same page where he makes yet another appeal to his credentials (in the form of an insult and excuse for bailing), recommends a few creationist books, and makes an appeal to some unnamed "PhD mathematicians" who supposedly "tried to calculate the odds of macro evolution", and describes their results as "incredibly astronomical"? It's a hoot.

It's little wonder that he feels the need to prop up his arguments and assertions with his claimed credentials. They have not the merit to stand on their own.

[Guest Guest]

Each time you post it just amazes me more and more. If you say it enough times, you think people just might start believing it.  I guess you already forgot about the media circus you brought in behind your son, then the law suits started flying.  I guess you got me on that one.  As far as # 3, what good has Matthew done for this town?  I am still trying to figure that one out?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Let's see, he bitched slapped the teacher who was PREACHING IN CLASS!.

What part don't you understand?

[Guest Guest]

My mom made me eat my vegetables - didn't want to, didn't like them - but she did anyway and I am the better for it today.

Matthew made me think - and even if I didn't want the debate, and I even if I didn't like his opinions - because he made me think a little, I submit that I am better for it today. 

Now let's dispense with the hypothetical - we ended up with the right result here.  But if you don't agree with Matthew, and you don't believe that antithetical opinions and open debate are good for society, then you certainly have the right to disagree with Matthew, disagree with the current interpretation of the Establishment Clause, and lobby as you see fit (within legal constraints) to allow teachers to discuss religion in the classroom. 

You probably would not be successful - but your ability to do so is the beauty of America.

Of course, if you refuse to think there's not much anyone can do to help you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What you should think about are the motives behind the actions.

[Guest Melanie]

Tom me boy, you can't see the forest for the trees. You acknowledge the astronomical statistics involved in repeating a genetically exact human being, yet you insist that all this mind-boggling genetic engineering is just blind evolution.

  Furthermore, if you believe the statistics involved in creating two genetically exact individuals is astronomical, imagine what the statistics would be against all this mind-boggling genetic engineering happening by chance or by accident.

  To take the position that all this is just serendipity is just foolish.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You do realize that most of your colleagues, who already have their PhD's and have been working in the field far longer than you, and are going to decide whether you will ever get a PhD at all, disagree with you. You are aware this took place over many millions of years, which rather changes things from the simplistic view most people have of how it happened. You do know those things. Right?

[Guest 2smart4u]

Let's see, he bitched slapped the teacher who was PREACHING IN CLASS!.

What part don't you understand?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

he "bitched" slapped ?? English a foreign language to you ??

[Guest Guest]

he "bitched" slapped ??  English a foreign language to you ??

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It was a typo, give it a rest.

[Guest Paul]

What you should think about are the motives behind the actions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I know what they are. Paszkiewicz was out of line, Matt knew it and also knew his classmates wouldn't support him, suspected Paszkiewicz would at least minimize what he was doing, and predicted that the administration would stand behind the teacher at the expense of the student if it came down to which person to believe. Because the teacher's behavior had obviously been going on for a long time, firm action that could made to stick was needed. So he recorded the classes.

How many times do you need it explained to you? Or is that not the explanation you want to hear?

You can keep asking all you like. That's the explanation you're going to keep getting, for one simple reason. It's the truth. I know. I lived here when it was happening, and he told me why he was doing it.

[Strife767]

he "bitched" slapped ??  English a foreign language to you ??

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ironic, considering you don't understand how to use punctuation, and made five mistakes in your post ridiculing one mistake.

[Guest DingoDave]

Unbelieveable !!  So, in your world we would all graze for our food alongside dogs and cats and lions and bears. And we would all love each other and never cause any harm to one another. There would also be no disease, no germs to make us sick, no earthquakes, lightning, hurricanes, tornadoes or tidal waves becaause God  certainly wouldn't want to harm us. In your world I suppose there would also be no hunger , poverty or wars. Additionally, we would all have high-paying jobs because certainly God wouldn't want any poor people.

  Your utopian ideas are just bizarre; "Because God didn't create the world according to Paul's design, there must not be a God". You need to see a mental health professional.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No 2dim, you've got it wrong. As usual, you have got everything exactly arse-about backwards!

It's your world which asserts all those things should be, and could have been the normal state of affairs.

How on Earth did you manage to survive childhood?

All I can imagine is that your parents must have kept you on a very short leash.

[Guest Guest]

Again, intellectual laziness on the part of Strife.  Rather than make a case, he suggests reading an entire book or gives a web address.

By the way Strife, still waiting for you to select a "specific" bible prophecy which has been proven to be false with your explanation as to why.  No books or web addresses please.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're the lazy one Red.

Your request is the same as someone going into a library, and then expecting the librarian to read your book to you.

Get off your lazy behind and do some research! You've been handed a reference on a silver platter. Use it, and then respond to it, or stop your whining you lazy Christian!

Here. Start by reading this.

'Prophecies: Imaginary and Unfullfilled', by ex-pastor Farrell Till.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/far...l/prophecy.html

And don't expect me to read it to you, or I'll get reallly cross.

[Autonomous]

Ironic, considering you don't understand how to use punctuation, and made five mistakes in your post ridiculing one mistake.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I saw seven mistakes. Are you counting the two incorrect uses of question marks (only need one) and punctuation (no spaces are needed between the last word and the question mark) as one mistake each?

[Guest 2smart4u]

I saw seven mistakes. Are you counting the two incorrect uses of question marks (only need one) and punctuation (no spaces are needed between the last word and the question mark) as one mistake each?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank You !! I had to laugh out loud reading this silly post this morning.

BTW ..... I used two exclamation points after "Thank You" and I put a space between "You" and the exclamation points when none was required.

[Strife767]

Tom me boy, you can't see the forest for the trees. You acknowledge the astronomical statistics involved in repeating a genetically exact human being,

LOL, okay, now I know you're full of it.

You are sitting there, seriously arguing about the odds of a fully-formed human being spontaneously appearing. Also, you seem to forget that mutations are ubiquitous (thing is that the vast majority of them are neutral, and have no discernable effect), and none of us are "genetically exact" to begin with.

yet you insist that all this mind-boggling genetic engineering is just blind evolution.

Small steps over billions of years. The way it works is quite well understood--were you really the person you claim to be, you'd surely be aware of that.

Furthermore, if you believe the statistics involved in creating two genetically exact individuals is astronomical, imagine what the statistics would be against all this mind-boggling genetic engineering happening by chance or by accident.

  To take the position that all this is just serendipity is just foolish.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, it is foolish, but not for the reason you think. It's foolish that you think evolution is a factor of pure chance, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010.html

Please make yourself aware of the fact that your argument is not new, nor unique, nor unrefuted.

[Strife767]

I saw seven mistakes. Are you counting the two incorrect uses of question marks (only need one) and punctuation (no spaces are needed between the last word and the question mark) as one mistake each?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

2x double question mark

2x extra space between sentence end and punctuation

1x capitalization at the beginning of the sentence

I only glanced, though. What'd I miss?

[Guest DingoDave]

2smart4u wrote:

(2smart4u @ Jul 30 2007, 08:05 PM)

This is easily the most hilarious post I've ever read. Paul really outdid himself on this one (I'm thinking he was swigging Kool-aid while he was typing).

Let me get this straight, if there was a God, he wouldn't want us to eat chicken or hot dogs ? God "hands out" illnesses " ?  If there was a God, he wouldn't let a cat play with a mouse ??

Yes 2dim, according to your own holy book (which you apparently haven’t even bothered to read) God does indeed hand out illnesses, with all the accuracy of a water balloon. In fact he is credited with afflicting entire populations, including men women and children, with terrible congenital or infectious diseases. If you don’t believe me then try these verses on for size.

Exodus 4:11 "Then the LORD said to him, "Who has made man's mouth? Who makes him dumb, or deaf, or seeing, or blind? Is it not I, the LORD?"

Or,

Exodus 12:

[29] At midnight the LORD smote all the first-born in the land of Egypt, from the first-born of Pharaoh who sat on his throne to the first-born of the captive who was in the dungeon, and all the first-born of the cattle.

Or how about,

Leviticus 26:

[15] if you spurn my statutes, and if your soul abhors my ordinances, so that you will not do all my commandments, but break my covenant,

[16] I will do this to you: I will appoint over you sudden terror, consumption, and fever that waste the eyes and cause life to pine away.

[21] "Then if you walk contrary to me, and will not hearken to me, I will bring more plagues upon you, sevenfold as many as your sins.

[22] And I will let loose the wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children, and destroy your cattle, and make you few in number, so that your ways shall become desolate.

[25] And I will bring a sword upon you, that shall execute vengeance for the covenant; and if you gather within your cities I will send pestilence among you, and you shall be delivered into the hand of the enemy.

Or,

Deuteronomy 28:

[21] The LORD will make the pestilence cleave to you until he has consumed you off the land, which you are entering to take possession of it.

[22] The LORD will smite you with consumption, and with fever, inflammation, and fiery heat, and with drought, and with blasting, and with mildew; they shall pursue you until you perish.

[27] The LORD will smite you with the boils of Egypt, and with the ulcers and the scurvy and the itch, of which you cannot be healed.

[28] The LORD will smite you with madness and blindness and confusion of mind;

[29] and you shall grope at noonday, as the blind grope in darkness…

[35] The LORD will smite you on the knees and on the legs with grievous boils of which you cannot be healed, from the sole of your foot to the crown of your head.

[37] And you shall become a horror, a proverb, and a byword, among all the peoples where the LORD will lead you away.

[59] then the LORD will bring on you and your offspring extraordinary afflictions, afflictions severe and lasting, and sicknesses grievous and lasting.

[60] And he will bring upon you again all the diseases of Egypt, which you were afraid of; and they shall cleave to you.

[61] Every sickness also, and every affliction which is not recorded in the book of this law, the LORD will bring upon you, until you are destroyed.

Or,

Deuteronomy 32:

[24] they shall be wasted with hunger, and devoured with burning heat and poisonous pestilence; and I will send the teeth of beasts against them, with venom of crawling things of the dust.

Or,

Num.11:

[33] While the meat was yet between their teeth, before it was consumed, the anger of the LORD was kindled against the people, and the LORD smote the people with a very great plague.

Or,

Num.16:

[46] And Moses said to Aaron, "Take your censer, and put fire therein from off the altar, and lay incense on it, and carry it quickly to the congregation, and make atonement for them; for wrath has gone forth from the LORD, the plague has begun."

[47] So Aaron took it as Moses said, and ran into the midst of the assembly; and behold, the plague had already begun among the people; and he put on the incense, and made atonement for the people.

[48] And he stood between the dead and the living; and the plague was stopped. [49] Now those who died by the plague were fourteen thousand seven hundred, besides those who died in the affair of Korah.

[50] And Aaron returned to Moses at the entrance of the tent of meeting, when the plague was stopped.

Or,

2Sam.24:

[15] So the LORD sent a pestilence upon Israel from the morning until the appointed time; and there died of the people from Dan to Beer-sheba seventy thousand men.

Or,

2Chron.7:

[13] When I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or command the locust to devour the land, or send pestilence among my people,

Or,

2 Chron.21

[14] behold, the LORD will bring a great plague on your people, your children, your wives, and all your possessions,

Or,

Jer.18:

[21] Therefore deliver up their children to famine; give them over to the power of the sword, let their wives become childless and widowed. May their men meet death by pestilence, their youths be slain by the sword in battle

Or,

Jer.24:

[10] And I will send sword, famine, and pestilence upon them, until they shall be utterly destroyed from the land which I gave to them and their fathers."

Or,

Hab.3:

[5] Before him (Yahweh) went pestilence, and plague followed close behind.

Or,

Zech.14:

[12] And this shall be the plague with which the LORD will smite all the peoples that wage war against Jerusalem: their flesh shall rot while they are still on their feet, their eyes shall rot in their sockets, and their tongues shall rot in their mouths.

Will these examples do? Or do you want me to find you more passages that show Yahweh wilfully inflicting, or threatening to inflict, dreadful plagues and diseases on entire populations of people?

There are many more such passages, but I hope these will suffice to prove my point.

Why does it seem that so often the most ardent and vocal Bibliolaters, don’t even know what their ‘holy book’ says about the god they profess to worship and adore?

[Guest Guest]

I know what they are. Paszkiewicz was out of line, Matt knew it and also knew his classmates wouldn't support him, suspected Paszkiewicz would at least minimize what he was doing, and predicted that the administration would stand behind the teacher at the expense of the student if it came down to which person to believe. Because the teacher's behavior had obviously been going on for a long time, firm action that could made to stick was needed. So he recorded the classes.

How many times do you need it explained to you? Or is that not the explanation you want to hear?

You can keep asking all you like. That's the explanation you're going to keep getting, for one simple reason. It's the truth. I know. I lived here when it was happening, and he told me why he was doing it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't believe the explanation.

[Guest Cornell Grad Student]

I was really hoping you'd explain why uniqueness somehow disproves evolution, but oh well. Guess I'll just destroy yet another of your theories.

Of course evolution doesn't explain the uniqueness of fingerprints. It has nothing to do with it. As others have said, it is because of sexual reproduction. Since you don't understand that, I'll explain further.

In sexual reproduction, both parents provide genetic material for the offspring. Therefore, the offspring is identical to neither.

Of course, this isn't a simple cut-and-paste job. My parents are both dark haired. Therefore, you would guess any children they produced would be dark haired as well. You would be correct for the first two, but my youngest brother is blond. This is because my mother carries genes from her father, who was blond and light-skinned. Because of the nature of genetics (I bet I'll have to explain this later) this gene skipped her to surface in her offspring.

Because no one else shares my parents' unique genetic histories, no one else would produce children with identical fingerprints, irises, etc. They are unique precisely because of the randomness inherent in sexual reproduction, yet you are trying to use this uniqueness to prove a lack of randomness. This is why we laugh at you.

Now I see that with this...

..you seem to think that evolution has a way of dumping traits with no survival value. It doesn't, which is why we carry around junk DNA. In fact, if evolution had dumped useless traits that might be an indicator of an intelligent designer.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If (as evolutionists believe) we all evolved from a fish that crawled from the sea, at some point fingerprints had to be "invented". So "blind evolution" just happened to create unique fingerprints by accident ? The evolutionary process was driven by NEED. Certainly there would be no need for unique fingerprints in the evolutionary process. Sounds to me like Intelligent Design.

[Guest Paul]

I don't believe the explanation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You have no basis not to believe the explanation. All your non-acceptance shows are your biases.

[Guest Paul]

If (as evolutionists believe) we all evolved from a fish that crawled from the sea, at some point fingerprints had to be "invented". So "blind evolution" just happened to create unique fingerprints by accident ?  The evolutionary process was driven by NEED. Certainly there would be no need for unique fingerprints in the evolutionary process. Sounds to me like Intelligent Design.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not so. Ridges appear on fingers. They convey an evolutionary advantage, thereby becoming dominant within the population. What makes you think the particular pattern of ridges is going to be the same in any two individuals?

[Strife767]

If (as evolutionists believe) we all evolved from a fish that crawled from the sea, at some point fingerprints had to be "invented".

Okay, now I really don't believe your 'credentials.'

So "blind evolution" just happened to create unique fingerprints by accident ?

The ridges on the fingers were naturally selected as they provided extra friction that was beneficial to our tree-swinging ancestors. Their (near-)uniqueness has to do with the mixing of genes we call sexual reproduction, and with the ubiquitousness of mutations. The thing you fail to notice is that the Theory of Evolution already has adequate explanations for these 'anomalies' (you perceive them as such, at least), and in fact predicts them.

Fact: if human beings were all churned out identically, it would be tremendous proof AGAINST evolution.

The evolutionary process was driven by NEED. Certainly there would be no need for unique fingerprints in the evolutionary process. Sounds to me like Intelligent Design.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, sounds to me like you don't know the least thing about evolution. Evolution does not know or care of trivial 'uniquenesses' like that. Obviously there is no type of 'print' that gives significantly more or less benefit, therefore no specific types really get 'deselected'--that is, not selected and therefore phased out. In the same way, it makes no real difference the slight differences in the number of hairs on one's head, nor the precise angle their fingers curve at when at rest. What matters, in terms of evolution, is that the ridges are there, because their presence or absence is what is of consequence. Minute differences in shape make no difference, therefore they vary freely. The number of limbs DO make a difference, therefore they do not vary so freely.

This is very basic biology, Mr. "Grad Student," biology that any college graduate in the field you purport to 'hail' from would never be caught dead getting as wrong as you have. You should give yourself a fake identity that suits your level of knowledge more next time.