"I asserted â€” and I repeat â€” that a man has no reason to be ashamed of having an ape for his grandfather. If there were an ancestor whom I should feel shame in recalling it would rather be a man â€” a man of restless and versatile intellect â€” who, not content with an equivocal success in his own sphere of activity, plunges into scientific questions with which he has no real acquaintance, only to obscure them by an aimless rhetoric, and distract the attention of his hearers from the real point at issue by eloquent digressions and skilled appeals to religious prejudice." --- T. H. Huxley's reply to Bishop Wilberforce, as reported by J. R. Green.
I'll wager that you'll never see a monkey or a chimpanzee denying they are kin to me; they've got more sense. In all my life I never knew a wallaby or kangaroo to disagree with Darwin's view and take offence.
Creationists cannot pretend that any rodent would descend so very low as to defend or back their side. No tiger stalks you to explain how Darwin softens up the brain and nor do lions (in the main) they've got more pride.
The works of Gish and Johnson both (so naturalists will take their oath) do not convince the three-toed sloth or slender loris; and self-respecting plankton, I'm informed, have very little time for less developed forms of slime like Henry Morris.
No matter how Kent Hovind prates, close observation demonstrates no members of the ungulates endorse his views. For antelope he's no allure; impala find his works obscure; and wildebeest are too mature (but that's old gnus).
Creationists cannot deceive orang-utans: they're not naive. They hear them out, but don't believe a word they tell 'em. E. coli cannot understand why Behe's books are in demand and wouldn't want to shake his hand with its flagellum.
Amongst the lemurs, not a word in praise of William Dembski's heard; his work's considered quite absurd in Madagascan climates. The howler monkeys' tuneful throngs are not debating in their songs if Bishop Wilberforce belongs among the primates.
But Man, that self-conceited chap this "clever man", this Homo sap. can't find his arse without a map --- pretentious clown! It seems the swelling of his brain has only made him quite insane. Let's climb into the trees again and not come down.
I thought your poem was very well crafted ... your self-declared talent is perhaps not quite as Adequate as you believe it to be.
* sniggers *
Good u-turn, nice denial of reality, scores at least eight on the Hovind scale.
No, you can't write verse, but you don't know that, 'cos you can't write verse. See Kruger and Dunning: Unskilled and Unaware of It; How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments.
But if I ever write "the chimpanzee, up in a tree", or have the gall to pretend that "proseletize" and "dogmatize" rhyme, may my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth and my right hand lose its cunning.
I believe that the word is actually "pastiche", but there you go.
It is grossly ill-mannered, not to say stupid, to take a good piece of verse and turn it into half-baked trash in the plain sight of the author.
It's like the whole creationist movement in miniature. They cannot discover anything themselves, but they can take other people's ideas and twist and distort them until they're stupid and lame and ugly --- and mean the opposite of what was originally said.
Faith cannot exhibit any actual wit or talent, but at least s/he can make an ugly stupid mess of what I've written.
I have checked, and this is not a spoof newspaper like The Onion, and the college really exists. Worse, it's accredited.
â€œI teach that the universe was created in six literal days. We believe that the Genesis account refers to literal 24-hour periods. You wouldnâ€™t have the words morning and evening if it was referring to an indefinite time period,â€ said Professor Billy Wilbanks, chair of the Science Department at Jacksonville College. â€œPeople accept either theory just by their beliefs and what they have been taught â€” we really canâ€™t prove either one.â€
According to Wilbanks, there are just too many holes in the theory of evolution for him to believe it is true.
â€œAt the time of the Big Bang, evolutionists believe there was all this matter out there, where did that matter come from? At the time of the Big Bang, how did the Earth end up getting all of the water and the air and the life-forms? Everything from as simple as bacteria to as complicated as people â€” no life-forms have ever been found anywhere else,â€ Wilbanks said. â€œWe hear that all life-forms are progressing from one life-form to another, but yet in the world we do not have any life-forms that are between forms. The fossil record has never shown anything to be in a transition state, going from this form to that form.â€
Wilbanks thinks that scientists often get caught up in thinking that everything in the world has some type of explanation and that everything can be explained, but he believes that the world shows this assumption to be untrue.
â€œThereâ€™s a lot of questions right now that I canâ€™t answer. What holds the clouds up? If we throw a whole bucket of water in the air, the whole bucket is going to come right back down, but when it rains, all these little raindrops fall,â€ Wilbanks said. â€œThere are still many unanswered things out there. Cell differentiation in human reproduction is something we donâ€™t understand. Back when we are just a small cluster of cells, how do some of our cells know to become blood, brains, muscles, bones or something else. We donâ€™t have an answer for that.â€
Wilbanks believes, and Jacksonville College teaches, that the universe is just too complicated to be a random result of chance.
â€œWhen you consider all of the â€˜randomâ€™ events that have taken place for our benefit; the element we need more than anything else is oxygen â€” thatâ€™s what weâ€™ve got the most of. The compound we need the most is water â€” thatâ€™s what weâ€™ve got the most of. Trees give us oxygen, and we give them carbon dioxide. The odds of any of those taking place is incredibly low, and when you add them all on top of each other, it just makes it all the less likely still,â€ Wilbanks said.
Giraffes Not Dead, Scientists Puzzled : Why is it that evolutionists can't explain the unusual tongue of the European Green Woodpecker? And then there's the giraffe, which should die every time it bends down to get a drink of water, but still lives to drink another day.
He's Got Us There : Evolution doesn't explain where the different species came from ... And also, if evolution was a fact, and true... a person wouldn't need to be a PHD in biology to have it explained to them...
Can't Do Joined-Up Reasoning : Supposedly life evolved from non-living matter, to living matter, to one-celled creatures, to fish, to amphibians, to reptiles, and finally to mammals; so evolutionists can't explain the origin of whales or dolphins (mammals that live in the sea).
Probably Not The Clearest Of Thinkers : Sorry my reply is so long. In the end I fail to see why Intelligent Design is considered pseudo-science. We are currently modifying creatures both plant and animal in ways that evolution can't explain. How could evolution explain genes from Jellyfish ending up in mice? Man created this intelligently designed creature and not evolution.
James Melton, Angry Idiot : Mammoths have been found frozen, preserved perfectly in ice in Northern Siberia and Alaska. Many of these are very large and strong animals, which evolutionists claim should have survived and overcame any obstacles. BUT THEY DIDN'T! What happened? Why did they die out? How can evolution explain this? Evolution CAN'T explain it. Evolution IGNORES it.
"This page is dedicated to those coincidences that evolution can't explain." : Note: I get a lot of letters from evolutionist who do not know what the evolution debate is about. When I say evolution is false, I am referring to Darwinian evolution ... Did you know that all planets in our universe are on the exact same plane with the exception on Pluto. If one single planet's orbit were to across another planet's orbit, the entire planetary system would collapse due to the collisions. How by chance did all the planets end up on the same plane and rotating in their own orbit without crossing another planet's orbit? Pluto is the only exception. Pluto is at a 14 degree angle from the plane. Why? Because Pluto crosses 2 other orbits. If it had been on the same plane it would be on a collision course. Pluto is the signature of the Creator to prove the impossibility of chance.
An Update On What Scientists Believe : Evolution can't explain many things. For example, species don't evolve into other species. Scientists now no longer believe that man evolved from apes or other primates.
Where Do They Get This Stuff From Anyway? : The theory of evolution does not and cannot explain so much about the universe that we know. For instance, when and how did water evolve? How does it happen that gravity can hold us to the Earth, and at the same time allow us to step up without any trouble? How did it happen that the Earth is spinning at the exact rate that keeps us from feeling that movement?
Creationism --- Now With Even More Pseudohistory! : In museums around the world are ancient Chinese maps, many of them maps of the entire world, even detailing the continent of North America, yet charted thousands of years before Columbus. Evolutionists have no explanation for any of this.
When All Else Fails, Lie : Evolution doesn't explain what kinds of species lie between fish and amphibians, amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and birds, birds and mammals, or mammals and autonomous human beings.
"EVOLUTION - the biggest cover-up since ROSWELL" : A problem evolutionists can't explain is symbiosis. When it comes to symbiosis (def. an interaction between two different organisms living in close physical association, usually to the advantage of both parties.) evolutionists go quiet because they can not explain why in the fossil records insects appear at the same time as flowers, which needed them for pollination. such flowers could not propagate even for one season if the insects were not there. The flowers would have died without the insects.
If He Remembers Correctly : If I remember correctly; evolution normally starts in some primordial soup with a creature of some kind crawling from the ocean onto dry land. Evolution doesn't explain where either the soup or the land evolved from.
It shook me like a thunderbolt; it shocked me to the very core. I felt my mind and frame revolt, and fell, half-fainting, to the floor; and there, in prayer and sorrow bent I whispered one word only --- "Kent!"
He told me of a talking snake, of magic fruit on magic trees, how half of science is a fake, and other certain facts like these. Words cannot speak of my surprise to learn that such a man tells lies.
He told me how, disdaining blood before the Fall, the carnivores cropped grass, and of a magic flood, how Noah saved the dinosaurs; he proved, with math, the Earth was youthful; who'd guess he'd ever be untruthful?
Explain this riddle if you will: he spoke of dragons breathing fire and how they live among us still --- is that the action of a liar? --- the kind of person who'd regale the taxman with a fairy tale?
Sin, Hovind said, made God quite vexed in Eden, where the magic trees are, But Genesis was all his text, neglecting "Render unto Caesar". Seems all the Bible Hovind knew was chapter one and chapter two.
That faithful servant of the Lord, that meek, that humble, honest guy, the last man you'd suspect of fraud, was one, I thought, who couldn't lie. But written on the wall, I guess, is "Tekel, Upharsin --- IRS".
One of the poems from my book ... for those of you who like alliteration.
Down With Daniel Dennett!
â€œI find Daniel Dennettâ€™s attempts to quine qualia utterly ridiculous.â€ â€” Anonymous internet poster.
To quantify or qualify quintessence (quasi-physical) or quibble of such quiddities is quirkish, quaint and quizzical. You cannot quine a qualium â€” who queries this quodlibet, unquestioned by the quorums and the queues of the quickwitted, quoth I, is queer and quarrelsome â€” so quell such talk and quit it!
So down with Daniel Dennett! Damn his devilish designs! Thereâ€™s no question that a qualium is not a thing one quines.
You may quote him in quadruple from his quartos (without equal): how quales may be quined must be sequestered in the sequel. So quote me quite unqualified: those quacks who quine their qualia, like that dummy Daniel Dennett, are all damned and doomed to failure. In despite of Daniel Dennett, Iâ€™ll be darned if I can see any way to quine a qualium, qua quale. Q â€¦ ED.
Down with Dr. Daniel Dennett! Damn his dark deceitful mind! The questionâ€™s quite quotidian, and quales canâ€™t be quined.