24 comments on The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design
Download this torrentThe following user said thanks to the torrent uploader:
jwhitt62 from 
2.Posted by sjc1963 on Jul 04 2008 at 02:55
Another reason why the IDiots lost is that their primary proponent, Dr. Behe, for ID was caught, under other, lying and had to admit that he made up all of his findings. Honesty is not a creationist virture.
4.Posted by badmintoninsect on Jul 04 2008 at 07:05
don't believe the lies"
dawkins for pope!
5.Posted by kpuz on Jul 05 2008 at 00:02
come on guys, lets read (hear) the book before we start telling Wells he's a *****....
6.Posted by sjc1963 on Jul 05 2008 at 00:17
Its ****. A perversion of legitimate science. All creationsts are intellectually dishonest. To them the best lie is a half truth made to look like a full truth.
The address I had posted above refutes every single argument against evolutuion.
7.Posted by Tramp78 on Jul 05 2008 at 07:06
One of the chapters in this book is "Darwin's attack on Christianity"
My question is why discuss that if your goal is to present a scientific justification for ID? If Darwin was an attack on Christianity (which is isn't), what difference does that make? Does that make ID right? Are we supposed to assume that ID isn't an attack on Christianity? Maybe the Intelligent Designer in ID is Zeus? Wouldn't that be an attack on Christianity? After all, the ID folks are keen to not specify which D is the D in ID. Just seems to be another religious attack on Evolution.
8.Posted by sjc1963 on Jul 05 2008 at 10:44
Darwin said, "I see no good reasons why the views given in this volume should shock the religious sensibilities of anyone." -- Charles Darwin, The Origin Of Species, 1869.
He was a devout Christian until the day he died. As I had said, all creationists are intellectually dishonest.
Dr. Behe, a major IDiot proponent was recently caught in a lie under oath about his evidence and had to admit that he made it up.
9.Posted by memyselfi on Jul 06 2008 at 06:35
talk about intellectual dishonesty...
The site only counters with assertions, and it fails to make the critical distinction between micro and macro evolution. Creationists do believe that nature evolves, they just don't believe it explains how everything began. This is a crucial distinction.
Science can only "know" what it can measure; and it can only "know" as well as it can measure; and there's no way to be sure how well that is. Over a particular period of time, others observe the same measured result (or not). These observations can be applied in the short term. We might even believe they are being applied profitably. But we can never be sure. Consequently, science has no basis upon which to make value judgments.
Science, itself, is nothing more than a tool for disciplined observation. Science, itself, proves nothing -- it only describes what "is" as well as it is capable of measuring what "is." Nothing more.
10.Posted by sjc1963 on Jul 06 2008 at 10:53
It is still better than saying "GODDIDIT!!!!" which truly doesn't answer anything at all. Evolution was never about how life got started and never claimed to be. Plus the site is much more than assertions. Much more. Science is the best way we have of finding real answers in the real world. Religion is nothing more than wishful thinking.
BTW, the way that creationists misuse the terms micro and macro evolution is like saying that you can't measure a mile using a yardstick....
The site goes into great detail about these terms as well. You just didn't bother reading it.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html
11.Posted by sjc1963 on Jul 06 2008 at 11:29
As I've statement many times before. Creationists don't even know what evolution is, they just argue against it based solely on their own ignorance and superstition. memyselfi just demostrated this fact.
12.Posted by jwhitt62 on Jul 06 2008 at 23:41
Apparently none of you have seen "Expelled", the documentary hosted by Ben Stein. When that film comes out on DVD, I'll upload it. My "opinion" is the "closed-mindedness" exists on the left.
13.Posted by sjc1963 on Jul 07 2008 at 00:08
That "documentary" is a bunch of lies as well. Like everything else from creationists it doesn't tell the whole truth. As I had said, creationists are ALL intellectually dishonest.
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2008/US/301_expelled_producers_accused_of__4_9_2008.asp
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/bombs.cfm
http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/2008/04/expelled_now_with_added_antise.php
http://richarddawkins.net/article,2394,Lying-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins
15.Posted by urizen9 on Jul 22 2008 at 13:49
I was going to take a look at this solely because "politically incorrect" was in the title. Thanks to the comments I realized it was just another mind abortion by the G crowd. Why don`t they go away? They deserve no polite attention because they are incapable to give any. They ruined 2000 years of history with ecclesiastic nonsense. They trying to return to their "golden" years.
16.Posted by Rhysesmum on Aug 19 2008 at 12:27
"Its creature from the Id, captain....(coff) creatures...from the ID"
http://www.mininova.org/tor/1164346
18.Posted by Fraydenz on Oct 06 2008 at 06:09
Thanks all for the comments, I also saw "politically incorrect" and wanted to dl before realizing it was just another ID ad.
19.Posted by Fraydenz on Oct 06 2008 at 06:12
Gah - now I have to wonder if all the other "politically incorrect" audiobooks posted here are a bunch of religious nonsense as well...
20.Posted by fakebeliever on Nov 23 2008 at 19:47
I was almost fooled into downloading this as well. Sneaky SOB's. "Politically Incorrect" has just become a euphemism for "we're saying stuff that isn't supported by the facts and is total B.S., so since it's rightly criticized, well golly it must be 'politically incorrect'." It's the same logic that tells an idiot that getting slapped by a woman after calling her the 'B' word is proof that she is the 'B' word. The term "Politically Correct" has become misappropriated as a way for lying sacks to take a dump all over common sense, logic, thoughtful reasoning and cogent analysis without any seeming consequences. Cause, gee, it's so "politically incorrect".
21.Posted by Millen187 on Mar 25 2009 at 08:16
LOL...all you have to do is read the torrent description. This book may be hilarious actually. Any thinking person should get a laugh out of the idea that the description says they are trying to draw a comparison between the ACLU for Darwin vs. ACLU for ID for teaching it in school. ID is NOT science. It's BULL****.
22.Posted by one001 on Jul 15 2009 at 07:45
I tend to read comments before I download anything and find myself wondering why there is so much passion being shown against anything which dares to challenge people to do a bit of thinking for themselves. It is one thing to rail against a great harmful untruth and it is another to cry foul each time someone asks you to look at a few facts and make up your own mind. It’s a neat trick to try to confuse Creationism with Intelligent Design (entirely different) and then attacking Creationism but it doesn’t cut the logic mustard nor does pointing people to some supportive websites. Dozens exist which support all theories. For goodness sake, think for yourselves and if you are so convinced that only you have it right and all those well credentialed scientists who disagree with evolution have it wrong then you should not be afraid to take a look. It is only a waste of your time if you continue with vitriol in ignorance
23.Posted by Dionysius477 on Aug 24 2009 at 22:59
sjc1963 "(Darwin) was a devout Christian until the day he died."
Actually that is not true. Darwin lost his faith permanently when his 10 year old daughter, Anne, died. Creationists say that he renounced atheism on his death bed but that was not documented either. (Incidentally, this is why Dawkins plans on having audio recordings of his last moments as proof that he didn't accept Jesus at the last moment.) Darwin did plan on going into the clergy before he got the spot on the HMS Beagle, but it was more because he didn't want to be a MD as his father wanted and going into the clergy would allow him to pursue naturalism, without being too weird for the high society his family traveled in.
And one001, ever think that people make comments after they have already looked into what ID has to offer, and realize ID is complete garbage? ID is creationism in sheep's clothing, and therefore has not place in science class. Philosophy or religion class, yes, but not a chance in the subject of science. You can disagree with evolution, but there has to be some kind of evidence. ID tries to prove evolution is wrong, but that does not mean that ID is automatically correct.
24.Posted by one001 on Oct 09 2009 at 09:49
Interesting and revealing comments Dionysius477. For me the jury is still out which is why I read these things. My problem is that both Evolution and ID teach exactly the same thing regarding evolution, ie, micro-evolution. Does this mean ID also teaches science? (Problem #1) It's the differences I struggle with like life coming from non-life which science has already proven to be mathematically impossible. (Problem #2) Then there is the cosmic evolutionary Big Bang which started it all. You know where nothing exploded for no reason, totally uncaused into a space which wasn't there and we suddenly have everything. If you check your dictionary you'll find this is called 'creation'. (Problem #3) You may prefer the idea that a very dense something pre-existed all this which somehow exploded but this begs the questions and points to 'eternity' which is yet another unscientific concept (Problem #4) So far both look like belief systems to me so the jury is still out.
Log in or register an account if you want to add a comment.
1.Posted by sjc1963 on Jul 04 2008 at 02:49
Balony. This site refutes any and all creationist claims against evolution.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/