Jan 312007

The New Scientist had an article titled ” Review 2006: Evolution in action” last month. To be accurate, it should have been titled — ” Review 2006: Illusion in action” .

Darwinists are masters at misdirection i.e., they are professional magicians. The only difference between Darwinists and Las Vegas Lounge illusionists is that the Vegas performers acknowledge that their magic is through Sleight of hand; but the Darwinists will insist their magic is by some unseen force.

STUDYING evolution is a lot like studying tigers. You know your subject is there by the traces it leaves, but you don’t often see it in the flesh.

Now that is an understatement of the year. In truth, you don’t see it at all.

This year, though, evolutionary biologists were treated to not one but several glimpses of evolution in action right before their eyes.

Here comes the misdirection. Continue reading »

Jan 292007

Eric Pianka and John Reid delight in the annihilation billions of humans. If such a large number of humans died, there would be a lot of corpses around. Not to worry, another Darwinist by the name of Beth Conklin has some words about converting corpses into food sources. Here is a delicious comment from Beth:

We assume that cannibalism is always an aggressive, barbaric and degrading act”But that is a serious over-simplification, one that has kept us from realizing that cannibalism can have positive meanings.

Beth was author of the book Compassionate Cannibalism.

And if it happens that the death of some many humans reduces one’s opportunity to find a partner, no problem, Peter Singer suggest humans have intimate relations with animals. However, such behavior could be problematic. Consider the account of Darwinist who followed Singer’s advice Man dies after sex with horse.

San Francisco – A man died of internal injuries from sex with a stallion at a ranch used by a bestiality ring, police in the northwestern United States state of Washington said on Monday.

The man suffered fatal trauma while being sodomised by a stallion at a stud farm that catered to men who wanted sex with animals, Enumclaw Police Commander Eric Sortland told AFP.

Jan 262007

Question: What do you call a person who hypothesizes an unseen intelligent being and searches outer space for confirming material evidence?

Answer: A scientist.

Question: What do you call a person who hypothesizes an unseen intelligent being and searches inner space for confirming material evidence?

Answer: A religious nut.

Jan 202007


Common descent is the idea that two populations or species share a common ancestral species, and are both descended from that ancestor by normal processes of replication. This is a fairly commonplace notion. The theory of common descent states that all species (on Earth, at least) share common ancestors, back to a single common ancestor of all life.

The mechanisms that produce diversity from common ancestors are those of the Theory of Evolution.

Is above definition correct?

Anyone bother to give Common design definition so we can start debate?  Preferably by one who opposes the concept.

Jan 122007

Daron, and FYI for others,

I’ve traced the filter problem to a link that you had in your post. The link points to the ARN article cached through google, titled “Evidence for Intelligent Design from Biochemistry” . I am still not sure if it was the raw ip addy that cause the problem or was it the whole link. In any case, it might be something to keep in mind when we post with links. Here are a couple of things to try to avoid in your links. Continue reading »

Jan 102007

“Darwin’s primary interest [was] the modification of living forms under the selective influence of the environment”. Magnificent as his grasp of this aspect of biology is, it is counterbalanced by a curious lack of interest in the nature of the organism itself”. It is difficult to find in Darwin any really deep recognition of the life of the organism as a functioning whole which must be coordinated interiorly before it can function exteriorly.” Loren Eisely

Craig Holdrege over at The Nature Institute has a very interesting point: Continue reading »

Jan 102007

“We’ve heard that a million monkeys at a million keyboards could produce the complete works of Shakespeare; now, thanks to the Internet, we know that is not true.” Prof. Robert Wilensky

Jan 092007

A great article from the UK supporting ID.

Buggs, who holds a DPhil in plant ecology and evolution from the University of Oxford and sits on the scientific panel of Truth in Science,

Finally, Randerson claims that ID is “pure religion”. In fact, ID is a logical inference, based on data gathered from the natural world, and hence it is firmly in the realm of science. It does not rely upon the Bible, the Qur’an, or any religious authority or tradition – only on scientific evidence. When a religious person advocates teaching ID in science without identification of the designer, there is no dishonesty or “Trojan horse”, just realism about the limitations of the scientific method. If certain Darwinists also had the intellectual honesty to distinguish between science and their religious beliefs, the public understanding of science would be much enhanced.