You're a bit late on the Jesus turning lead into gold thing - evangelicals have been claiming for some time that God occasionally turns their amalgam fillings into pure gold. Obviously they're all lying, but hey. Google "miraculous gold fillings" and weep.

OMG, Joe's not kidding. I weep.

This nation is nothing but Guatemala with 400 cable channels. The fact that our "leader", who has two Ivy League degrees, espouses a belief in fairy tales is the clearest indication of our collective insanity. There should be open revolt at this point.

Okay, here's a question for you: The proposed changes to the Kansas science teaching standards includes as part of the understanding of "major concepts of biological evolution" this statement:

"Biological evolution postulates an unpredictable and unguided natural process that has no discernable direction or goal. It also assumes that life arose from an unguided natural process." [emphasis added]

By what scientific process, experiment or logic do they know it is unguided? That is a philosophical/religious/metaphysical statement, not scientific. In fact, many of the assumptions of neo-Darwinism are based on metaphysical assumptions that are anything but scientific and cannot be tested or proved by the scientific method. (Dare I say they are based on faith?)

Here's another simple question for you scientific know-it-alls to answer: by what process of scientific reasoning can you explain how something as complex as the blood-clotting process arose in animals? In mammals, it relies on a cascade of 17 distinct chemical reactions that must happen in precisely the right order. How did this arise by unguided acts, and what did animals do in the meantime?

Well, just as I thought. So many lefties are so good at mocking and criticizing, but ask them to engage in just a smidgen of critical thought and they all seem to vanish!

Gene, you're as full of shit as a Christmas turkey.

First of you completely fuck up with the follolwing passage as it is from the Christo-fascists in Kansas who are bitching about what evolution is because the can't say their imaginary Sky-Daddy did it:

"Biological evolution postulates an unpredictable and unguided natural process that has no discernable direction or goal. It also assumes that life arose from an unguided natural process."

Next, you pull out the intelligent design canard of the evolution of the blood-clotting cascade.

Unlike the ID'ists who are a bunch of lazy fucks that have never published any peer-reviewed science on ID because it has no testable hypotheses, scientists don't simply throw up their hands and say "I can imagine how this evolved ergo the Sky Daddy must have did it", they actually work their ass off--sometimes for decades-- to try to figure out plausible explanations based upon evidence.

IF you want to learn a little about how the blood-clotting cascade evolved, here's two words for you--gene duplication. If you want to know a little more get off your lazy ass and go read this or this. If that doesn't satisfy your ignorant ass, perhaps you should go take a graduate level biochemistry class, a little molecular biology and some organic evolution classes instead of buying a load of horshit from religious fanatics masquerading as scientists.

Well, WyldPirate, you simply confirmed my contention. Your hysterical response (in both senses of the word) shows how defensive neo-Darwinists are. You want wild speculation? Read Richard Dawkins or Carl Sagan stating with absolute assurance that life--poof!--just happened to happen in some primordial pool. Evidence of design? No, it's just the appearance of design. Calling Dr. Ockham, calling Dr. Ockham!

How's this for sound scientific, evolutary reasoning from George Wald:

• “One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are, as a result I believe in spontaneous generation. . . . Time is the hero of the plot. . . . What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time, the impossible becomes possible. ... Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. I think a scientist has no choice but to approach the origin of life through a hypothesis of spontaneous generation.” –George Wald

Yes, ignore facts, logic, reason and everything else. Hold firmly to a belief even if all the evidence contradicts it!

Or how about Francis Crick, co-discover of the DNA molecule, living a life of willful blindness with his theory of "directed pan-spermia": “The first living cell must have been transported to earth by a rocketship on a 10,000 year voyage from some other planet outside our solar system.”

Got that? It was aliens! All he has done is moved the problem back one step: Where did life on that planet originate?

Don't talk to me about "science," facts or anything else, Pirate. The worldview of scientific naturalism is predicated on assumptions that themselves cannot stand up to the scientific method. They are, dare I say it, based on faith?

Oh, and I forgot to respond to your specific links. Michael Behe has done a superb job of answering all critics of his question about the blood-clotting cascade. Any he answers with specific scientific facts grounded in molecular biology.

No one has yet answered Behe adequately, although many of the responses are similar to yours, Pirate--hysterical, name-calling tirades full of toxic hatred.

1. Timely
   
2. Strategery
   
3. Webb wins
   
4. Huh?
   
5. Bunnypants in Bagdad
   
6. Outage
   
7. Filthy Lucre Watch
   
8. Playing the numbers
   
9. My letter to Countdown
   
10. Jefferson's Nigerian Scams