Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Designed to deceive: Creation can't hold up to rigors of science
CONTRA COSTA TIMES ^ | 12 February 2006 | John Glennon

Posted on 02/12/2006 10:32:27 AM PST by PatrickHenry

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,261-1,2801,281-1,3001,301-1,320 ... 2,421-2,439 next last
To: AndrewC
Good grief....you really have NO idea at all what you are saying!

You picked something which was not only completely irrelevant to the claimed, by you, ad hominem, but that which did not uphold your claim in the first place. And now, you are making things even worse. LOL

1,281 posted on 02/15/2006 12:57:34 AM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1274 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
Yes, I know, I really shouldn't do that. He LIVES for attention.

Good night.......it's been "interesting". :-)

1,282 posted on 02/15/2006 12:59:57 AM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1278 | View Replies]

To: nopardons

Stick around here and you'll see that the current hyper-posting creato-troll is only slightly more deranged in his rejection of reality than many internet promoters of creationism. Witness the number of FR creationist regulars who have patted him on the back in the thread, and the almost total absence of creationists attempting to stem his tidal-wave of nonsense. Surely there are at least some sensible creationists who find him an ambarassment. You'd think so, but apparently not. His witless laughing at his own feeble non-jokes *guffaw*, and delusional declarations of victory every time he sets up a straw man are entertaining at first but soon pall. Reading the whole thread would be an education for anyone rational who thinks there might be something to creationism, but probably not the kind of education that most creationists would like us to get.


1,283 posted on 02/15/2006 1:00:41 AM PST by Thatcherite (More abrasive blackguard than SeaLion or ModernMan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1279 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
By your assertion I guess we are down to the meaning of is and are, whatever nopardons.

No, actually he isn't.
Well my assertion stands on its own against yours, that is it.

You make this assertion against mine and then you ask a question, but give no corresponding answer to the question as it applies to your assertion. Then you make a conclusion based upon that.

nopardons, it appears to me you already have all the answers you want, the conclusions too, they all fit neatly for you. You may try to change this sometime if you wish.

Your conclusions, as your perceptions, as your questions

are wrong.. DOH!!

Wolf
1,284 posted on 02/15/2006 1:03:54 AM PST by RunningWolf (Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1251 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
I think that there are some parts of creationism that are true. Does that make me sensible partial creationist?

If so, then chalk me up as finding his posts and theories idiotic and objectionable.

BTW, I also find parts of evolution theory to be false. But since we all have appendixes, which do nothing, I can only assume that they once had a purpose, but through evolution, they no longer do.

And now, good night...................

1,285 posted on 02/15/2006 1:08:53 AM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1283 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
What about the appendix? It has no purpose now, yet all humans are still born with one. Is THAT evolution or purposeful selective breeding?

I'll start with this first, because the latest information says it has something to do with the immune system. You might check your facts. It does serve a purpose. Not knowing what that is completely doesn't make it vestigial. That's the problem with scientists canonizing untruths as facts until they figure out what the truth is.

Second, This is a US political forum in which I give not one hoot what Europeans do with regard to corn. If you are confused by "corn" you have more issues than I can tell you how to deal with. I don't believe that to be the case. It largely resembles picking knits. Average people understand what corn is. And as I noted before, that is primarily why I use it - because they know what it is. It's called clarity. They also know what dogs are rather than some two to five word latin mess. Dog, we all understand. Simplicity. If I say a dog producing a dog, people get it. That level of clarity also disallows you from getting away with saying that a dog produced a non-dog because your label of "species" infers that to be the case. It isn't. You started with and ended with a dog. Your goal is to show macroevolution. Dog making dog is micro. Micro and macro are inequalities meaning you got work to do. Evidently, ya'll don't want to fess up to that or do the work or offer proof. Too bad. Not being mean, just not being hoodwinked.

1,286 posted on 02/15/2006 1:09:59 AM PST by Havoc (Evolutionists and Democrats: "We aren't getting our message out" (coincidence?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1272 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

What a crock of convoluted nonsense.


1,287 posted on 02/15/2006 1:13:24 AM PST by Havoc (Evolutionists and Democrats: "We aren't getting our message out" (coincidence?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1277 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
You picked something which was not only completely irrelevant to the claimed, by you, ad hominem, but that which did not uphold your claim in the first place.

You are delusional! I picked an example of Ad Hominem in a discussion of Ad Hominem. You can hardly get more relevant than that. The example showed that name-calling was Ad Hominem. It is an example found on numerous sites. And finally, Ad hominem in the abusive form will abuse someone. That is why it is called abusive Ad Hominem.(although some ad hominem is not abusive but you can guess why post 1188 is missing.)

1,288 posted on 02/15/2006 1:16:17 AM PST by AndrewC (Darwinian logic -- It is just-so if it is just-so)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1281 | View Replies]

To: andysandmikesmom
First off, there is poor Mamzelle, and his/her wild imaginings that there is really no group of pro-evolution people on FR...that in fact, those who support evolution can only number 2 or so posters, who obviously operate under many different screennames, and just spend the whole day posting to each other all the time...you know, Mamzelle has tried to float this delusional idea on other threads, I suppose trying to drum up support for this weird notion(and of course, his/her effort is a complete failure)...but, rest assured, he/she will keep trying to push this notion, you work with what little you have got...

Of all the posts that I wrote last night, the one I signed AndysAndMikesMom was the most fun. I write most of the creationist posts too, deliberately making them as stupid as possible (though I think people may be starting to notice the deliberate idiocy and suspect something), because that way its easier for me with my limited intellect to dispose of those arguments under my assorted evo personas. I'm not any of the posters with 2 M's though. They are all Slim Shady, who is an FR crevo debate fanatic, and he also ghosts Ichneumons postings. Dr Dre (whose PhD is from Harvard in physical chemistry) helps with some of the other evo responses; all the evo posters beginning with 'R' and 'V' are him.

1,289 posted on 02/15/2006 1:18:20 AM PST by Thatcherite (More abrasive blackguard than SeaLion or ModernMan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1021 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
I think that there are some parts of creationism that are true. Does that make me sensible partial creationist?

Numerous sensible people think that parts of creationism are true. I imagine the Pope does for example, yet the RC church is not in conflict with science. The creationism referred to on these threads has a more particular meaning, which is the rejection of science (particularly biology, but often also atomic physics, geology, paleontology, anthropology, archeology, astronomy, cosmology, genetics etc) because the findings of those sciences are at variance with one's religious beliefs.

1,290 posted on 02/15/2006 1:24:31 AM PST by Thatcherite (More abrasive blackguard than SeaLion or ModernMan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1285 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

Again, hogwash. Creationism in no way rejects science. Christians don't reject science. This is just a lie repeated endlessly as a scare tactic. It's propaganda hoping to be bought as truth. Christians and non christians have a serious problem with Evolution. And Evolution isn't science, it's ideology.. hence the need to lie about "creationist" goals to destroy science. Pure lies.

The thing that scares you is that your ideology might not recieve public funding anymore and that it may possibly force people to do actual science. No more gravy train. And wouldn't it be aweful if science was held to standards that required results. How aweful. Moaning and gnashing of teeth to be sure. The boogie man will get you.. booo.


1,291 posted on 02/15/2006 1:33:29 AM PST by Havoc (Evolutionists and Democrats: "We aren't getting our message out" (coincidence?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1290 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf
I just wrote you a rather thorough answer, but have deleted it. It is both more or less against FR's rules and bad form, to write what I did; though it WAS all correct.

Instead, I ask that you read but two old thread: "WA-MART HOSTS APPRECIATION PICNIC FOR WALTER REED PATIENTS" and "DEMOCRAT UNDERGROUND THREAD on putting a ceiling on what a person can make a year." Both of these threads are from 2004.

BTW, he agrees completely with the DUers, that there should be a cap on what anyone and everyone is allowed to earn.

If this reply still doesn't satisfy you, I'll write you the facts, that I am laoth to do on this thread, in private. Or, you can always go read ALL of his postings.

Good night...................

1,292 posted on 02/15/2006 1:34:58 AM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1284 | View Replies]

To: Havoc
Again, hogwash. Creationism in no way rejects science. Christians don't reject science. This is just a lie repeated endlessly as a scare tactic. It's propaganda hoping to be bought as truth. Christians and non christians have a serious problem with Evolution. And Evolution isn't science, it's ideology.. hence the need to lie about "creationist" goals to destroy science. Pure lies.

Just to confirm that you don't reject science, and it is just evolution that you reject, which of the following mainstream findings of non-evolutionary science do you endorse?

The thing that scares you is that your ideology might not recieve public funding anymore and that it may possibly force people to do actual science. No more gravy train. And wouldn't it be aweful if science was held to standards that required results. How aweful. Moaning and gnashing of teeth to be sure. The boogie man will get you.. booo.

As I don't make my living out of science in any way shape or form your question has no application to my circumstances.

1,293 posted on 02/15/2006 1:41:54 AM PST by Thatcherite (More abrasive blackguard than SeaLion or ModernMan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1291 | View Replies]

To: Havoc
I forgot one more:


1,294 posted on 02/15/2006 1:45:14 AM PST by Thatcherite (More abrasive blackguard than SeaLion or ModernMan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1291 | View Replies]

To: fabian
It is commonsense that our complex bodies have to have a designer.

It's common sense that you were born from your parents replication. Only an idiot would think that biological complexity indicates a designer. Who designed your designer?

1,295 posted on 02/15/2006 1:51:14 AM PST by shuckmaster (An oak tree is an acorns way of making more acorns)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1198 | View Replies]

To: Havoc
one type of creature endlessly spawning different types of creatures. That is exactly what evolution requires. You just want to take exception over how long it might take or how blatent it is.

While it's very often impossible to make any sense out of your posts, I"ll take a shot at this one. (At least you weren't madly laughing your head off while posting it.)

Allow me to point out how utterly moronic your concept of "kinds" and "dogs having dogs." Do you then realize that the brand of evolution you accept (so-called "microevolution") actually far outpaces and is far more fantastic that what evolution actually "does?"

That is, in your little head, the "dog kind" (whatever that may be) somehow produced everything from dingos to wolves to poodles to hyenas, etc. In 6000 years, give or take. The irony here is that you accept evolution on a much faster and grander scale than science does.

And while we're talking, could you please define this "micro-evolution" you so readily accept? I'm curious as to when nature (or God) knows when to hit the button to stop it from becoming a so-called "macro" event.
1,296 posted on 02/15/2006 1:52:23 AM PST by whattajoke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1266 | View Replies]

To: Californiajones
I'm not "lying".

Oh? What do 'you' call it when you fabricate statements that are not true and present them as truth?

1,297 posted on 02/15/2006 1:53:16 AM PST by shuckmaster (An oak tree is an acorns way of making more acorns)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1237 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

Ah, evolutionist dogma. Not science. Thought you were going to tell us all that we're trying to wreck science - you know, a mover of our economy, etc. You're interested in trying to play a shell game to say one thing when you're really trying to protect dogma by lying. I would say, if the science is accurate, you have nothing to fear, if it's not, then you should fear for your dogma, not science. lol. Kinda thought science was self correcting anyway.. isn't that the refrain?

As for whether you yourself make money from science, I didn't infer it. I merely posited there'd likely be no more free rides and that ideologues might actually have to work for a living producing real science instead of wasting taxpayer money on fairytales.


1,298 posted on 02/15/2006 1:54:24 AM PST by Havoc (Evolutionists and Democrats: "We aren't getting our message out" (coincidence?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1293 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

Thanks for your concern, but since you've been hostile and semi-pathological on previous threads, you'll understand why I don't take your sincerity at face value?<<

But you still come here at the slightest provocation.

You are a brilliant man. That is obvious. But you are perfectly willing to waste your time on these threads. I'm not that concerned for you. I hope you can take care of that yourself.

Just remember when you said something incredibly stupid, you retreated to the mods. You are not that boisterious icon that you imagine yourself to be.

You're just a man. Like everyone else. You have not a clue what a species is. But you are willing to harague a poster if they don't know what a dog is.

That is why evolution is a crappy theory.

Crappy defintions, crappy theory.

Got any GOOD applications?

Didn't think so.

DK.




1,299 posted on 02/15/2006 1:58:17 AM PST by Dark Knight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1170 | View Replies]

To: Havoc

vending those slurpees sure seems to have made you a crank.


1,300 posted on 02/15/2006 2:00:17 AM PST by King Prout (many accuse me of being overly literal... this would not be a problem if many were not under-precise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1038 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,261-1,2801,281-1,3001,301-1,320 ... 2,421-2,439 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
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

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