Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New Film Investigates Crushing of Dissent from Darwinian Orthodoxy
LifeSiteNews.com ^ | August 30, 2007 | Hilary White

Posted on 08/31/2007 3:21:59 AM PDT by monomaniac

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101 next last
To: From many - one.

You would have to ask webboy that.


61 posted on 08/31/2007 11:31:24 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Sorry, hit the wrong “post reply” button.


62 posted on 08/31/2007 11:35:01 AM PDT by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: webboy45

What’s an “evolution professor”?


63 posted on 08/31/2007 11:36:22 AM PDT by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Boxen

“Which is interesting because ID has absolutely nothing to do with god or religion.”

LMAO


64 posted on 08/31/2007 11:38:42 AM PDT by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: From many - one.
What’s an “evolution professor”?

A graduate intern?

65 posted on 08/31/2007 11:40:52 AM PDT by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: webboy45

“My daughter’s evolution professor...”

I would imagine in that context, his phrase could be compared to on like, “...brought to you by the ‘magic’ of television.” Now I’m pretty sure there’s no magic involved in TV, just as I’m pretty sure there’s no magic involved in evolutionary theory.


66 posted on 08/31/2007 11:43:58 AM PDT by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: metmom
“There’s no room for scientists like Newton, Galileo, Copernicus, etc in today’s ‘scientific’ community.”

There’s plenty of room, but you don’t honestly think those fellows are end all and be all of science, do you? If any of them experienced anything as common as radio or photography, they would have run screaming from the room begging mercy from god. Times, it seems, change.

67 posted on 08/31/2007 11:52:22 AM PDT by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: stormer

“to on like”

??? I really must learn to read these things before I hit the gas. Delete “on like”.


68 posted on 08/31/2007 11:56:10 AM PDT by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Diplomat

Evolution and ID are competing theories for how living creatures change over time.

Evolution believes it is random chance that determines the next step.
ID believes it is a deliberate mechanism that chooses the next step.

Time and more study will reveal which is the superior theory.

Why do evolutionists act like ID is a threat if it is just creationism in disguise?


69 posted on 08/31/2007 12:22:26 PM PDT by Erik Latranyi (The Democratic Party will not exist in a few years....we are watching history unfold before us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi
Why do evolutionists act like ID is a threat if it is just creationism in disguise?

In its modern iteration ID was created after the U.S. Supreme Court removed creation "science" from the classrooms.

ID is designed to fool people and to push a particular view of religion while pretending to be science. As such, it is a lie from start to finish.

70 posted on 08/31/2007 12:34:57 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Altura Ct.

“How can this be? Isn’t science our God?”

These threads are fascinating. Strict Creationists are intellectually dishonest, in my opinion, by failing to state that Evolutionists are simply going to hell

Strict Evolutionists are intellectually dishonest by thinking they can reason away someone’s faith with enough data.

As for me, I don’t see why there can’t be room theologically, and scientifically for the presence of both God and science, but then again, some might say that’s just being wishy-washy.

It’s idiocy to deny that they can and do coexist.


71 posted on 08/31/2007 12:40:16 PM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Boxen
“Which is interesting because ID has absolutely nothing to do with god or religion.”

You’re right. However, to Darwinians, it brings it a step closer to that possibility and to them that is frightening.

72 posted on 08/31/2007 12:48:30 PM PDT by elephantlips
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Boxen
I am 100% with you here. You can reject the theory, but as it is stated it does allow for ANY intelligent designer. I am happy to allow for aliens from Ork having a hand in design because the alternative is “scientific” jihad.

Expelled: The Movie
73 posted on 08/31/2007 12:49:07 PM PDT by Leonard210 (Tagline? We don't need no stinkin' tagliine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

I didn’t know he got banned, we never saw eye to eye but there never was any out and out rudeness from him.


74 posted on 08/31/2007 12:50:40 PM PDT by mdmathis6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Then who is the intelligent designer?

Alfie?
75 posted on 08/31/2007 12:55:06 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

“The evidence is nonexistent to creationists because they absolutely refuse to see it—for religious reasons. Evolutionary scientists have no problem seeing the huge amount of evidence that is out there, with more coming each year.”

To see what? It’s still a “theory” and will remain ever so. If this evidence you site were all that convincing it would be scientific fact which it most decidedly isn’t! So, while Darwinists want Christians to get off their high horses about an unprovable God. (Their words) Darwinists should get off their high horse about an unprovable theory.


76 posted on 08/31/2007 12:57:40 PM PDT by elephantlips
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Shryke; Non-Sequitur; Boxen
Just because someone can't tell who set the fire doesn't mean that arson can never be detected. Who set it and his motives for doing so aren't required for the task of detecting the arson. This doesn't mean that all cases of arson can be detected or that something that looks like arson may not actually be just a natural occurrence or a case of arson made to look like a natural occurrence.
77 posted on 08/31/2007 1:06:26 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: mdmathis6

It’s not enough not to be rude. He had organized an evolution ping list that eventually had approximately 400 members.

He had also begun to participate in a science website called “Dawin Central”

Only a few of us who accept evolutionary theory are allowed to post here, and, so far as I am aware, only one is left who posts with any frequency.


78 posted on 08/31/2007 1:08:57 PM PDT by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: aruanan; Shryke; Boxen
Just because someone can't tell who set the fire doesn't mean that arson can never be detected. Who set it and his motives for doing so aren't required for the task of detecting the arson. This doesn't mean that all cases of arson can be detected or that something that looks like arson may not actually be just a natural occurrence or a case of arson made to look like a natural occurrence.

To use your analogy, the difference between Science and Intelligent Design is that the scientist does want to know who set the fire while apparently you would have us believe that the ID proponent couldn't care less.

79 posted on 08/31/2007 1:10:48 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: elephantlips
To see what? It’s still a “theory” and will remain ever so. If this evidence you site were all that convincing it would be scientific fact which it most decidedly isn’t! So, while Darwinists want Christians to get off their high horses about an unprovable God. (Their words) Darwinists should get off their high horse about an unprovable theory.

Your use of the terms "prove," scientific fact," and "theory" are incorrect. Scientists do not use them in the manner you are suggesting.

I have a long list of definitions on my FR homepage, but in brief:

No theory is ever proved in science, so calling the theory of evolution an "unproved theory" says more about your understanding of science than about the theory of evolution.

"Scientific facts" are explained by theories. Science works with both facts and theories. Facts by themselves lack context and meaning; a usable theory helps to explain those facts. A good theory explains existing and newly discovered facts, and also allows predictions to be made. The theory of evolution is one of the best supported theories in science.

80 posted on 08/31/2007 1:15:57 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson