Posted on 12/04/2007 9:20:17 PM PST by Kurt Evans
Liberal moderator Chris Matthews, in a "surely no one actually believes the first verse of the Bible" tone, asked, "I'm curious. Is there anybody on the stage that does not believe in evolution?" While the news reported three, after a round of calls, the forth, Duncan Hunter (not Ron Paul), was among those who stood for Creation...
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Fred gets closer and closer … Go Fred!
Since the Liberals are so sure that mankind evolved from something into what we are today, why are they so dead set against the world going thru its evolution?
Is the script that the only changes permitted are those in the Dim playbook?
I didn't.
They did.
Talk about blind faith. Life just ramdomly pops outta nothing for no reason. Not a lick of proof. Yet they doggedly insult anyone that does not goosestep to Darwins folly!
Or throw in some -snips- or something.
I wonder if people really want change? If you want another Atnie; vote Fred in.
If you want the real conservative; vote Duncan in.
Please go to Glen Beck Thread regarding the Border Patrol and you will see down the page of Mr. Becks first guest and who he listed as is concerned.
Think hard before you vote.
Governor Huckabee says humans are unique creations of God:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/1934882/posts
Honest science defends Hunter and Huckabee:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1934898/posts
America’s identity is rooted in the Creator:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1934903/posts
“Don’t wanna be the post czar, but how about at least starting the article from the beginning.”
In hindsight a little context probably would have been appropriate. Mea culpa.
Fred/Duncan thats the ticket.
Nevertheless, and that notwithstanding, in the context of the cited article, is it that "creation" falls to the way-side respecting evolution?
How is it that evolution & creationism are not both concurrently true despite their apparent condradictoryness?
I'm quite frankly baffled how one trumps the other.
I'm baffled that the science that is the foundation for evolution is a de facto argument for refutation of the first verse in Genesis.
Sincerely,
Your everlasting adversary
(RayGun)
P.S. (what does anybody need to use P.S. for anymor except for those actually writin on paper?) Nevertheless, I'll be frank with you: these are "fighting words" (mark your position well).
It is my sincere prayer that the argument as presented can be percieved as being a "slippery-slope" (and amendments to it can be amde). Which fallacy is it that proclaims a "slippery-slope" when doesn't exist?
With all due respect, sir, the first statement of the article cited is not being allowed to stand unchallenged.
Furthermore, I'm unable to devote appropriate attention necesary for refutation post-finalExam date (15 Dec). Your consideraration in this matter is most expressely appreciated.
Sincerely,
(Raygun-Dude, man (but NOT DudeMan))
Fred cannot win a general election.
Oh, and he’s not all that great either. Go Hunter!
“While the news reported three, after a round of calls, the fourth, Duncan Hunter (not Ron Paul), was among those who stood for Creation...”
For the record, Congressman Paul has apparently said he doesn’t accept Darwinism either:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=42n42J-gB_Y
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.