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 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 161-175 next last
Comment #61 Removed by Moderator
To: postmodernism_kills
Before you can legitimately claim anything in the "Five Failed Predictions", you have to first explain and demonstrate how dead chemicals became the first living organism in violation of elementary biological law, ie-that life comes from life, and not from non-life. Evolution does not begin until life has already begun; thus the theory of evolution does not address the ultimate origin of life, nor does it need to. Life's origin is an interesting problem, to be sure, but the theory of evolution does not require its solution.
The simple fact is that "evolution" is not empirical science at all, failing to meet any criteria for empirical science, but is in reality a "religion" of pure conjecture based in blind faith.
I see that you are new to these threads. This point of yours has been addressed countless times. For example:
The Scientific Case for the Theory of Common Descent with Gradual Modification.
Is Evolution Science?
62
posted on
04/09/2003 1:54:43 PM PDT
by
PatrickHenry
(Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
To: postmodernism_kills
pmk ...
based in blind faith.
fC ...
based in blind hate // ignorance (( wanks )) .
63
posted on
04/09/2003 3:16:57 PM PDT
by
f.Christian
(( who you gonna call ... 1 800 orc // evo bstr ))
Comment #64 Removed by Moderator
Comment #65 Removed by Moderator
To: postmodernism_kills
Wanks is an English word for playing with him self ... going mad // blind !
66
posted on
04/09/2003 3:24:33 PM PDT
by
f.Christian
(( who you gonna call ... 1 800 orc // evo bstr ))
To: postmodernism_kills
Sorry, but there is no reason for me to continue with such an intellectually dishonest illogic such as those copouts. I agree. A person of your intellectual standing should not engage in discourse with me.
67
posted on
04/09/2003 4:38:41 PM PDT
by
PatrickHenry
(Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
To: PatrickHenry
You've gotta admit, it's much easier to beat the stuffing out of a version of evolution that you get to invent. Don't rob people of their needed crutches...
"How about a little fire, strawman?"
68
posted on
04/09/2003 6:39:42 PM PDT
by
general_re
(If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, riddle them with bullets.)
To: exnavy
Someday, when you stand before God, you will know the truth. Acceptance of a literal interpretation of Genesis is not a prerequisite for salvation.
69
posted on
04/10/2003 2:12:07 AM PDT
by
Junior
(Computers make very fast, very accurate mistakes.)
To: Junior
Thanks for clearing that up.
70
posted on
04/10/2003 2:17:37 AM PDT
by
exnavy
To: postmodernism_kills; PatrickHenry
That's a copout and intellectually dishonest at best. You cannot have "evilution" unless you first have "life", and for the "time" element of gradualism to be advanced one has to begin in the beginning, but I'm glad you agree that "evolution" is mere conjecture. The Theory of Evolution no more needs to account for the origin of life than Meterology needs to account for the origin of water. Both work regardless of the actual mechanism of origin. Or, to put it another way, the Theory of Evolution is not contingent upon the mechanism by which life originated; it works regardless of what the actual mechanism is.
To: longshadow
Copout!
</flaming idiot mode>
72
posted on
04/10/2003 11:47:32 AM PDT
by
PatrickHenry
(Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
To: longshadow
This sounds like a vacuum ...
more like an intellectual black out -- coma -- epilepsy !
The Theory of Evolution no more needs to account for the origin of life than Meterology needs to account for the origin of water.
Meterologist weather reporting and forecasting w/o knowledge of the earth revolving on an axis around the sun ... swamp gas (( evolution ))!
Both work regardless of the actual mechanism of origin.
Assteroids work too -- uncharterable // nonsense ... babble // gas science !
the Theory of Evolution is not contingent upon the mechanism by which life originated; it works regardless of what the actual mechanism is.
Evo mythology
73
posted on
04/10/2003 2:01:59 PM PDT
by
f.Christian
(( who you gonna call ... 1 800 orc // evo bstr ))
To: Junior
Acceptance of a literal interpretation of Genesis is not a prerequisite for salvation.Starting that nonsense again? We already now that you in particular and most of your friends are atheists. Your statement is an absolute lie specifically designed to lead people out of their religion.
74
posted on
04/10/2003 9:13:48 PM PDT
by
gore3000
To: postmodernism_kills
You cannot have "evilution" unless you first have "life", Very true. If life was made by God, then evolution is totally ludicrous. Evolution is an atheistic/materialist philosophy specifically designed to attack religion. That is why the evolutionists fight so hard and insult so much, it is their faith that is being attacked. As their posts show, they know beans about science.
75
posted on
04/10/2003 9:17:50 PM PDT
by
gore3000
To: PatrickHenry
Copout!Yup, all you do is copout. I answered your questions, and now you ignore the answers. You are not here to discuss anything, just to insult.
76
posted on
04/10/2003 9:19:18 PM PDT
by
gore3000
To: gore3000
To borrow a phrase from your book: You are a liar and a slimer. You are not the arbiter of who is, or is not a good Christian. Your consistently-inaccurate statements on religion and science and the errant conclusions you draw from your faulty premeses are clearly indicative to lurkers of the reasons most rational people ignore you.
77
posted on
04/11/2003 4:10:06 AM PDT
by
Junior
(Computers make very fast, very accurate mistakes.)
To: Junior
You are not the arbiter of who is, or is not a good Christian. No, I am not the arbiter, you are. Your own words, your constant attacks on Christians show your atheism. Your lack of belief in anything Christian shows you to be a total phony. We have been through this before and you have shown very well that you prefer Darwin to Christ.
78
posted on
04/11/2003 4:13:12 AM PDT
by
gore3000
To: gore3000
You are an idiot. Attacks on creationism do not equate to attacks on Christians. That you cannot tell the difference between the two indicates a complete lack of mature reasoning abilities. Either grow up and get a clue or be relegated to the virtual ignore list of everyone who can perceive such differences.
79
posted on
04/11/2003 4:16:45 AM PDT
by
Junior
(Computers make very fast, very accurate mistakes.)
To: Junior
Attacks on creationism do not equate to attacks on Christians. Ah, but that's precisely what he has been claiming. Over and over, he says that Christianity is creationism. Were that even remotely true, Christianity would be the most foolish and discredited religion on earth. Fortunately, that is not the case; but he is the most foolish and discredited poster in these threads.
80
posted on
04/11/2003 4:28:23 AM PDT
by
PatrickHenry
(Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 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