Posted on 03/29/2006 7:53:52 PM PST by SampleMan
ID makes no "predictions" not already covered by evolution, and indeed ID adds an unnecessary extra component -- a designer. If the same features can come about without a designer, why does one need to introduce it except to placate one's own emotional desires.
And yet, the pattern stands.
If the intent is not to wear down the opposition, why then continue to post very similarly-toned articles, from the ID standpoint?
And yet, the pattern stands.
If the intent is not to wear down the opposition, why then continue to post very similarly-toned articles, from the ID standpoint?
Oops, sorry, double post....
Sure it is.
A primary source does not have to be actually written in the person's hand. A newspaper account or a person's secondhand recollection of an event--as long as it is contemporary--is a primary source.
That is basic historiography.
Certainly, the record of someone's private secretary taking dictation for correspondence or other communication qualifies. The only case in which these would not be considered primary sources is if they are proven forgeries. They are not.
I find that a curious post, not yours, the one you answered. I think it was just bait.
As homosexuality has a negative effect on reproduction, I find it a stretch to explain it through selective process. A trait that so strongly prohibits reproduction should be absolutely nonexistant in natural selection. How does it get passed on?
In short, homosexuality is not only a sin, it is hard to explain with evolutionary science beyond, "It exists, therefore it is."
It is a whole lot like the process of teenage rebellion -- some degree of rebellion is found to be part of becoming a responsible adult, and throwing off the fantasies of childhood. Yet sometimes that growth process goes a wee tad too fast, it turns into bitter over-rebellion rather than maturing into responsibleness.
Just like young men cut down shirts to show naked biceps, or young women cut down shirts to show naked midriffs, on the intellectual and spiritual side too, there are things a person changing from youth to adult does to show off his or her naked intellectual strength, or to make bare their fierce "spirit" of individuality, or being the equal or better of every other adult.
Some part of the nature of grass is to grow too fast, and we humans, coming after (creation-wise) that too-fast grass are also in ways too quick to leap to growth opportunities -- and by such intemperance and folly cross from growth to rebellion. While a Darwinist throws off all the fantasies of youth -- for sure! He or she grasps another, even greater fantasy, and bites hard down into it -- the fantasy that there is no G-d, no active G-d in this great garden of life and existence.
Yes! We need to get this important information about the true nature of the Earth's interior into our schools to counteract what the Godless Geologists are teaching our children!
His secretary wrote that these are Hitler's communications. Absent evidence to the contrary, it must be assumed they are legitimate. Nothing is needed to "back them up." How does one "back up" the communications records of an historical figure? Unless the exact correspondence or communication can be found by the receiver, that is a near impossible task in any situation. Given that criteria, almost nothing purported to be said by Hitler can be unqualified documentation as everything is a "secondhand account" unless it was actually written in Hitler's hand. But, Like Winston Churchill, Hitler dictated almost everything to a secretary. The secretary's records serve as the primary sources.
Borman's records are evidence in themselves.
Welcome to the world of historical documentary evidence.
"Certainly, the record of someone's private secretary taking dictation for correspondence or other communication qualifies."
But that isn't what this is.
That is precisely what they are.
I assume by your screen name that you are a guitar player. What do you play?
Its a relief to hear that you are just a kook. I thought that you were one of those missionary-atheist, biologists who spend their time attacking religion. That worried me because it gives ID proponents so much ammunition as it pertains to personal vendettas affecting objectivity. On the outside chance that it was an attempt at humor, I must warn you that humor has not been appreciated on the subject since 1859. This is well documented. I have flame marks to prove it. Good luck with your vulcanistic endeavors.
You're not a scientist, are you? Maybe you should follow your own logic.
Christians of varying affiliations take varying amounts from the OT. Some Prebyterians, for example, think the extreme penalties dictated in the OT to be meted out on homosexuals, adulterers and even recalcitrant children should still be valid. One highly respected FReeper a while back used the example of the Midianites to indicate the fate of what will happen to proselytizing atheists like Dawkins. (To be fair to her, she did not propose that Christians themselves inflict that punishment.)
What do you mean by "a Christian nation"? I'm not trying to play word games with you; the difference is extremely vital. Is America a Christian nation in the sense that it was founded primarily by and on Christian principles? Yes. Is it Christian in the sense that the vast majority of the citizens are true biblical Christians -- that is, followers of Christ? I would venture to say no, based upon the fruit manifested in the nation.
Few if any of the founders were Biblical Christians in the sense you mean. Phillips, citing Rodney Stark, claims that no more than 15-20% of the population of the Colonies in 1776 regularly attended Church.
I'm still waiting for proof that one species can become an entirely different species.
I'm beginning to think that evolution is based on blind faith.
You have been provided reams and reams and reams of examples that this happens, in this thread, and other threads with a similar subject. Fossil evidence, DNA evidence, observed evidence (in so-called "micro" fashion) all show it happening. Since you obviously choose to ignore this, it's apparent that you never will be satisfied.
You did not answer the question, and are probably confusing subspecies with species. With evolution, you would have to go across the species line - variations within the species, aka subspecies, does not prove evolution.
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.