Bless you!
Categories:
No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/416.
15 Comments
Leave a comment
About this Entry
This page contains a single entry by Nick Matzke published on August 7, 2007 8:37 PM.
Explore Evolution: The Discovery Institute’s winsome creationist textbook was the previous entry in this blog.
New Fossils and Our Understanding of Human Evolution is the next entry in this blog.
Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.
Categories
- Assault on Science (362)
- Bathroom Wall (13)
- Book Reviews (51)
- Conferences (19)
- Darwin's Finches (1)
- Designoids (8)
- Education and Legal (40)
- Eugenics (1)
- Evolution (378)
- Expelled (68)
- Flyers/Pamphlets (3)
- Humor (130)
- ID/Creationism (39)
- Icons (1)
- Journal Club (28)
- Legal Issues (113)
- Manufactroversy (8)
- Medicine and Evolution (19)
- Metatalk (80)
- MustRead (5)
- News Roundup (20)
- Prebiotic Chemistry (3)
- Question of the Day (6)
- Question of the Moment
- Quote of the Day (14)
- Religion and Politics (9)
- Research News (45)
- Resources for Biologists (15)
- Shoptalk (25)
- Slightly Off Topic (22)
- Steve Steve (64)
- Sticky (1)
- Their Own Words (18)
- Theological Issues with Intelligent Design (9)
- War on Science (26)
- What motivates creationism (19)
Oh the cute! I’m going into insulin shock now.
Lollerskates.
:) Just like real parents.…don’t let the baby interrupt a good bite to eat :)
That’s quite possibly the cutest thing I’ve ever seen.
Pandas don’t even look like real animals. They look like big teddy bears. Something about their shape, their ears, the patterns around their eyes - they look like someone made a creature from a fairytale real! They’re almost-sickeningly cute!
Sweet.
After the play ends, check out the educational video at the right end of the preview bar that appears. It stars a panda named Steve.
Pandas may look chubby, but remember, after they got off the ark, they walked all the way from Turkey to China.
Not half as impressive as the sloths that made it back to South America.
Oh, that’s nothing: Think of the trek of the lowly platypus, with webbed feet, and sensitive snout, no less. Or the spiny echidna.
The Sexy Panda video is totally hillarious!!!!!
I used to think that, but then a creationist explained to me that humans brought the animals to Australia and thereabouts after the flood. You know, from 6 to 9 of the 10 most deadly snakes (the web lets you pick from those four numbers), funnel-web spiders, and not a single cow, donkey, horse, sheep, or other useful agricultural animal.
I’m not sure what he thought about the brains of aborigines.
But then again, is that any worse than Behe’s claim that humans are the telos of design, yet were thoughtfully supplied with malaria and mosquito vectors for malaria by that same designer (IOW, where’s the evidence of intelligence, either for the designer or for Behe?)?
At least they’re all interesting, albeit in a pathological sort of way.
Glen D http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Glen: How do you know what a putative designer’s intentions would be? IAMFI.
The claimed evidence for intelligence is that a non-intelligent process is not able to produce either human or malarial parasite - empirical observation and mathematical calculation is offered in support of that. So how about rather than engaging in philosophical vagaries about the aims of the designer, you respond to the observations and maths, which are the realm of science?
Where, exactly, is mathematical calculation presented concerning support for IDC?
Some of the related videos are hilarious. Check out the “Panda Sneeze Revealed.”
Unlike a bus driver and his pretensions to know philosophy and science, I do what any scientist does, I look at actual designers and their results.
I’m sorry that such an obvious tactic surpasses your level of understanding, as well as the understandings of Behe and Dembski.
Glen D http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Update