Skip to comments.
Churches urged to back evolution
British Broadcasting Corporation ^
| 20 February 2006
| Paul Rincon
Posted on 02/20/2006 5:33:50 AM PST by ToryHeartland
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,281-1,300, 1,301-1,320, 1,321-1,340 ... 2,341 next last
To: Dimensio; darbymcgill
(Dimensio)
Except that he wasn't making an argument.Clearly he was making an argument, if A, then B, to wit:
"Every time you call me a liar, you are calling God a liar"
In fact, it is no different than the argument made here, many, many times, by evolution advocates, and to paraphrase:
"If you attack evolution, you attack all science."
Funny though, I don't recall anyone on my side calling any of you liars. I simply see them defeat it with reason.
To: donh
Lacking any vestigial sense of humor, evos are being selected out for type...
To: editor-surveyor
Someday you'll figure out what a scientist is. Keep scratching your head in the mean time. Make a lucid argument, or bug off.
1,303
posted on
02/21/2006 4:00:20 PM PST
by
donh
To: Mamzelle
Lacking any vestigial sense of humor, evos are being selected out for type... Make a lucid argument, or bug off. What a pair of bluffers.
1,304
posted on
02/21/2006 4:02:31 PM PST
by
donh
To: donh; Mamzelle
Well here is a list of 500 Doctoral Scientists
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1582524/posts
Over 500 doctoral scientists have now signed a statement publicly expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution.
The statement reads: We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.
The list of 514 signatories includes member scientists from the prestigious US and Russian National Academy of Sciences. Signers include 154 biologists, the largest single scientific discipline represented on the list, as well as 76 chemists and 63 physicists. Signers hold doctorates in biological sciences, physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, computer science, and related disciplines. Many are professors or researchers at major universities and research institutions such as MIT, The Smithsonian, Cambridge University, UCLA, UC Berkeley, Princeton, the University of Pennsylvania, the Ohio State University, the University of Georgia, and the University of Washington.
Wolf
1,305
posted on
02/21/2006 4:02:58 PM PST
by
RunningWolf
(Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
To: RunningWolf
"I mean by your direct statements/or inferences, you have been into the minds of/and speak for (at minimum) Darwin, Hitler, Stalin, Popper and several more."
No, I have just read what they wrote/said. It's called research, something you never do. It's called reading comprehension, something you lack. It's called honesty, something you wouldn't understand. That's why you latch onto the silliest arguments anti-evos make here, and support the most blatant *misspeakers*. You're a cheerleader for stupidity and a mascot for dunces.
As for the scientists, I don't *speak* for them, they speak for themselves, And they overwhelmingly support evolution.
To: PresbyRev; Elsie; Gamecock; Alex Murphy; Dr. Eckleburg; RnMomof7; Matchett-PI; ...
Make of it what you will.So what you are saying is that Jesus may or may not have really existed (most likely he was nothing but a reconstitutited fairy tale) but that when you do the sacraments you encounter the "risen Christ" (whatever that is)? Correct?
Since you obviously don't believe that the Bible is true in any literal sense, how is it that you supposedly encounter this "risen Christ" person "in the Word". You even capitalized "Word" as if it were some kind of holy reference. By "Word" you obviously don't mean that book of fables, the Bible, do you? What "Word" are you referencing?
I am confused. In essense it appears to me that you chalk Jesus up to being some metaphoric figure, yet you are supposedly a minister of the Christian Gospel. Does your congregation know your "feelings" on this?
BTW, where is the GRPL when you need them?
To: donh
re: bug off)))
Just who among the evopansies can enforce this edict? Keep in mind, you just posted this to two conversationalists who you could ignore if you liked.
To: RunningWolf
Well here is a list of 500 Doctoral Scientists I remember this post. Do please, gentle readers, go look at that old thread and see it examined rather more carefully than wolfie apparently did.
1,309
posted on
02/21/2006 4:08:22 PM PST
by
donh
To: Mamzelle
Just who among the evopansies can enforce this edict? Keep in mind, you just posted this to two conversationalists who you could ignore if you liked. Evopansies? What are you, 6 years old? Do you have any more arguments, or are you just going to rest your case an namecalling now?
1,310
posted on
02/21/2006 4:11:14 PM PST
by
donh
To: CarolinaGuitarman
No, I have read what they wrote also.
And to the rest of your post.
Its all crap, just like the images you put up. A reflection of you.., jerk.
Wolf
1,311
posted on
02/21/2006 4:11:59 PM PST
by
RunningWolf
(Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
To: darbymcgill
My first try at a link didn't work.
1,312
posted on
02/21/2006 4:15:43 PM PST
by
js1138
(Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
To: donh
Well what do you say about these people?
Other prominent signatories include U.S. National Academy of Sciences member Philip Skell; American Association for the Advancement of Science Fellow Lyle Jensen; evolutionary biologist and textbook author Stanley Salthe; Smithsonian Institution evolutionary biologist and a researcher at the National Institutes of Healths National Center for Biotechnology Information Richard von Sternberg; Editor of Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum --the oldest still published biology journal in the world-- Giuseppe Sermonti; and Russian Academy of Natural Sciences embryologist Lev Beloussov.
Wolf
1,313
posted on
02/21/2006 4:17:44 PM PST
by
RunningWolf
(Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
To: darbymcgill
Well, Dimensio was clearly implying the first definition when he said "argument."
To: RunningWolf
"No, I have read what they wrote also."
Then you would know what I wrote about them was correct. :)
" Its all crap, just like the images you put up. A reflection of you.., jerk."
Your character always shines through everything you write. You're a real people person. This site would truly not be the same without you here. :)
To: donh
"Do you have any more arguments, or are you just going to rest your case an namecalling now?"
You act like this is a departure.
To: editor-surveyor
"The question is, would you want your child taught that 1+1=3 because God said so?" No, the real question is why do so many fools attribute to God things that he has not said? - Your question is a Strawman.
It is not a strawman. It is an analogy asking the question of whether the person being addressed has such blind faith that he/she would want their children being taught something patently incorrect.
But I will say I was a little quick off the draw. I should have said ..1+1=3 because an interpretation of the Bible said so.
No one "knows" what God said, although many (myself included) believe the Bible is His Word -- just highly allegorical in many places.
I stand adjusted.
1,317
posted on
02/21/2006 4:25:40 PM PST
by
freedumb2003
(American troops cannot be defeated. American Politicians can.)
To: CarolinaGuitarman; donh
Do you have any more arguments, or are you just going to rest your case an namecalling now?
You act like this is a departure.
I'd call it the standard mode of operation.
1,318
posted on
02/21/2006 4:29:22 PM PST
by
ml1954
(NOT the disruptive troll seen frequently on CREVO threads)
To: darbymcgill
If I were to defend Bill Clinton by saying to you that he "did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinski"... would you agree that the statement was an assertion offered as evidence of truth?? we can agree to yes, I presume...
To which you reply that I was a liar...
And to which I respond... If you're calling me a liar then you're calling Bill Clinton a liar... again a statement of assertion as evidence of truth?? we can agree that he said what he said, can't we? presumed yes????
The problem is that you are making the connection between calling you a liar and calling Bill Clinton a liar based upon the dispute of the truthfulness of one specific statement. The poster in question, however, offered no such qualifiers. He was not referring to any specific statement on his part as a repitition of a statement from God. His statement was an assertion that any accusations of dishonesty on his part made for any reason, under any context and in response to any statement, was tantamount to calling God a liar. This only holds true if pnsn is claiming to be God or if pnsn is claiming that absolutely everything that he states is directly, without error, from God.
1,319
posted on
02/21/2006 4:34:30 PM PST
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: RunningWolf
Well what do you say about these people? C'mon wolfie, how many times do we have to go through this? The statement being supported is that purely random selection cannot easily account for everything we can presently observe about evolutionary theory--which is now true, and always has been true, ever since it was conceded by Darwin, and is also true about every other natural science theory. Since the dawn of micro-biology, many mechanisms, other than random selection, to produce genetic changes have been discovered. The fact is, that most of these signatories would not, if asked, (and some were, and that includes Behe, under oath) claim that evolutionary theory isn't the basic operating procedure by which species are produced--they claim, like most scientists who are on top of things biological, that the story is far from complete, as yet.
You're making a mountain out of a gopher hole. But there's nothing new about that, is there?
1,320
posted on
02/21/2006 4:36:35 PM PST
by
donh
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,281-1,300, 1,301-1,320, 1,321-1,340 ... 2,341 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