Skip to comments.
The Five Failed Predictions of Creationism
Crevo thread: Professor Dumped Over Evolution Beliefs ^
| 24 March 2003
| PatrickHenry
Posted on 04/01/2003 8:12:41 AM PST by PatrickHenry
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 161-175 next last
To: PatrickHenry
Over-the-hump placemarker.
101
posted on
04/14/2003 1:54:45 PM PDT
by
Junior
(Computers make very fast, very accurate mistakes.)
Comment #102 Removed by Moderator
To: Junior
Ah, my little vanity thread has past the 100 mark. Now to keep things lively: Creationism is bunk!
103
posted on
04/14/2003 2:00:19 PM PDT
by
PatrickHenry
(Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
To: PatrickHenry
past = passed
104
posted on
04/14/2003 2:01:09 PM PDT
by
PatrickHenry
(Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
Comment #105 Removed by Moderator
To: postmodernism_kills
Really----then explain how dead chemical became living organisms. You are showing your ignorance of evolution. The theory of evolution does not cover biogenesis but only deals with extent organisms. You probably already know this, but couldn't resist tossing up a hoary strawman.
106
posted on
04/14/2003 2:14:18 PM PDT
by
Junior
(Computers make very fast, very accurate mistakes.)
To: postmodernism_kills
Jesus spoke of Lazarus and the rich man as real people, too. We still understand him to be using a parable.
107
posted on
04/14/2003 2:15:26 PM PDT
by
Junior
(Computers make very fast, very accurate mistakes.)
Comment #108 Removed by Moderator
To: postmodernism_kills
evolution says life evolved from rocks Please cite one -- just one -- authority on evolution who makes this claim. And please, spare yourself the bother of giving us some creationism website as your source.
109
posted on
04/14/2003 2:24:58 PM PDT
by
PatrickHenry
(Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
Comment #110 Removed by Moderator
To: postmodernism_kills
Evolution
does not say life evolved from rocks. It says
nothing on the matter of the origin of life. At all. Period. You might wish it to, but
it doesn't. Evolution does say that all life descended from a common ancestor. Maybe that's where you are becoming confused, though I'm at a loss to understand how any person with even a passing hint of rationality could confuse "common ancestor" with "rock."
BTW, none of the half dozen or so theories competing in the field of biogenesis mention life coming from rocks. The Bible says man was formed from clay. Maybe that's where you heard this.
111
posted on
04/14/2003 2:27:49 PM PDT
by
Junior
(Computers make very fast, very accurate mistakes.)
Comment #112 Removed by Moderator
Comment #113 Removed by Moderator
Comment #114 Removed by Moderator
To: Junior
Evolution does not say life evolved from rocks. It says nothing on the matter of the origin of life. At all. Period. You might wish it to, but it doesn't. Darwin said no more than this: "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."
Source: The Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin. (Chapter 14, last paragraph.)
115
posted on
04/14/2003 3:06:59 PM PDT
by
PatrickHenry
(Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
To: All
...this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity... -Darwin
Not so fixed, really. Newton's 'law' of gravity was revised by Einstein, who shocked the Scientific Community of his time with the notion that gravity, most likely, was some sort of 'warpage' in the Space-Time Continuum. Scientists don't know what causes gravity...and are ALWAYS changing their story, history shows. Meanwhile, the Bible remains a stable constant. Every skeptic who has stepped forward so far with 'scientific' refutation has been discredited by science itself; particularly Archaeology. This doesn't seem to stop the flow of fresh skeptics, however...another phenomenon prophecied in Scripture with remarkable precision.
"God is dead", said Neitzche (who spent his latter years in raving insanity). In due course, however, Neitzche was dead. If I were a betting man, I think I'd have to bet on Scripture. It's just too infallible.
116
posted on
04/14/2003 3:54:39 PM PDT
by
O Neill
(Beware the singer who dangs the brums of war...)
To: postmodernism_kills
I have the latest edition of Scientific American. Which article would that be?
117
posted on
04/14/2003 4:35:50 PM PDT
by
Junior
(Computers make very fast, very accurate mistakes.)
To: Junior
118
posted on
04/14/2003 4:46:08 PM PDT
by
PatrickHenry
(Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
To: PatrickHenry
In defense of our esteemed colleague, he did say the article appeared in Scienticif American, which may be an entirely different publication altogether.
119
posted on
04/14/2003 4:50:53 PM PDT
by
Junior
(Computers make very fast, very accurate mistakes.)
To: Junior
I attack the views held by some Christians As usual you answer my questions with insults. The reason you do that is that you know quite well that evolution is atheism and that you hold Darwin higher than Christ. Again I ask you the question:
What part of Christianity do you believe in? What part of the Bible do you agree with?
You refuse to answer because you know that evolution = atheism and you wish to deceive good Christians into your atheist ideology - just like Darwin did.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 161-175 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson