Skip to comments.
Conclusions From Uncounted Creation/Evolution Debates
PatrickHenry
| 10 June 2006
| PatrickHenry (vanity)
Posted on 06/10/2006 4:33:28 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 241-253 next last
Would it be inappropriate if I said: "Everyone be nice"?
To: VadeRetro; Junior; longshadow; RadioAstronomer; Doctor Stochastic; js1138; Shryke; RightWhale; ...
2
posted on
06/10/2006 4:34:39 PM PDT
by
PatrickHenry
(Unresponsive to trolls, lunatics, fanatics, retards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
To: PatrickHenry
I believe a combination of both.
3
posted on
06/10/2006 4:38:04 PM PDT
by
cripplecreek
(Never a minigun handy when you need one.)
To: PatrickHenry
As we have seen on another thread:
You are overstating the obvious.
And that is, at best, barely sufficient.
And, yes, we need to all be nice just in case we get moved to the Religion Forum.
4
posted on
06/10/2006 4:47:55 PM PDT
by
balrog666
(There is no freedom like knowledge, no slavery like ignorance. - Ali ibn Ali-Talib)
To: PatrickHenry
Would it be inappropriate if I said: "Everyone be nice"?I say that often. Sometimes it helps :-).
Have a good weekend!
5
posted on
06/10/2006 4:53:29 PM PDT
by
Tax-chick
(I am a daughter of God, a child of the King, a holy fire burning with His love.)
To: PatrickHenry
I like your second 2. better than your first 2.
Good post though. Should carry us through the rest of the weekend anyway.
6
posted on
06/10/2006 4:53:49 PM PDT
by
Coyoteman
(Stupidity is the only universal capital crime; the sentence is death--Heinlein)
To: PatrickHenry
Creationism is a religious doctrine.
That's a pretty stout limb you wandered onto :). Your other points are spot on as well.
7
posted on
06/10/2006 4:54:30 PM PDT
by
ml1954
(NOT the BANNED disruptive troll who was seen frequently on CREVO threads.)
To: balrog666
You are overstating the obvious.Yeah, but I wanted to get it all in one place. Doesn't matter how active the thread gets. It's more of an archive of information than a debate.
8
posted on
06/10/2006 4:55:00 PM PDT
by
PatrickHenry
(Unresponsive to trolls, lunatics, fanatics, retards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
To: All
I've been informed that the second and third of my major points are each number 2. I'll try to get by the embarrassment.
9
posted on
06/10/2006 4:59:37 PM PDT
by
PatrickHenry
(Unresponsive to trolls, lunatics, fanatics, retards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
Comment #10 Removed by Moderator
To: cripplecreek
"I believe a combination of both."
Me too. It didn't happen in seven days. Sorry. Not beleiving in the seven day theory doesn't mean I'm going to hell. It just means that my God is such a good scientist that none of the authors of the bible could possibly comprehend the message they were trying to write. I skip over the things man tried to wrongly comprehend though and say, if there is no God, where the heck did it come from? I have no problem with a Big Bang theory, especially since the way the bible explains it, the Big Bang would have been a colossal Bang that had about 5 billion years all wrapped into seven days. But, what happened a couple of days before the big bang? Everything was null and void, and without form? Ok, what was it made of? Who made that? I can beleive in God without beleiving that the people who interpreted the the bible knew what the heck God was giving them. No, "God did it" doesn't work for me. I beleive God did it, but I want to know how. And to do that, I use the scientific method. Which gives us just about every piece of technology we have today.
11
posted on
06/10/2006 5:02:31 PM PDT
by
SaveUS
To: PatrickHenry
Those 154 are the totality of biologists who are evolution skeptics. Did you get that? The actual comparison is 46,600 biologists who accept evolution and a mere 154 who are "skeptical." A lot of this bears repeating, but this part in particular.
12
posted on
06/10/2006 5:03:05 PM PDT
by
freedumb2003
(Bipartisanship is when the Stupid Party and the Evil Party agree to do something that is both stupid)
To: aequoanimo
Darwinism is a cult based on faith and belief. Yes, like Newtonism and Pastuerism and other studies that rely on a theorerical underpinning.
I mean, everything is a belief and all beliefs are equal, right?
13
posted on
06/10/2006 5:05:27 PM PDT
by
freedumb2003
(Bipartisanship is when the Stupid Party and the Evil Party agree to do something that is both stupid)
To: PatrickHenry
The actual comparison is 46,600 biologists who accept evolution and a mere 154 who are "skeptical." But you have no proof, monkey-boy! </Luddite_mode>
(Thank God for the SBR!)
14
posted on
06/10/2006 5:06:03 PM PDT
by
VadeRetro
(Faster than a speeding building; able to leap tall bullets at a single bound!)
To: PatrickHenry
Well said.
However I would like to see the very mistaken claim that Darwinism (whatever that happens to be) is separate from the science of evolution and is nothing more than a religion, addressed.
Although the many who describe Darwinism as a religion attempt to separate this imaginary philosophical position from the sciences it is quite apparent that they have a decidedly anti-science lean. It would be helpful to enumerate the many tactics used in the attempts to divorce the (many) evolutionary sciences which contribute to the SToE from 'True(TM)' science.
15
posted on
06/10/2006 5:07:10 PM PDT
by
b_sharp
To: PatrickHenry
I've been informed that the second and third of my major points are each number 2. I'll try to get by the embarrassment. People with dyscountia should use the <ol> HTML feature.
16
posted on
06/10/2006 5:08:03 PM PDT
by
VadeRetro
(Faster than a speeding building; able to leap tall bullets at a single bound!)
To: SaveUS
The big bang is a good place to start. There was a formless void and then there was light.
17
posted on
06/10/2006 5:11:10 PM PDT
by
cripplecreek
(Never a minigun handy when you need one.)
To: VadeRetro
Thank God for the SBR!In a fit of weekend caprice, this thread may get moved to breaking news.
18
posted on
06/10/2006 5:11:28 PM PDT
by
PatrickHenry
(Unresponsive to trolls, lunatics, fanatics, retards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
To: b_sharp
Although the many who describe Darwinism as a religion attempt to separate this imaginary philosophical position from the sciences it is quite apparent that they have a decidedly anti-science lean. If evolution is a religion, what are geology, biology, zoology and all the other sciences? Denominations?
No wonder inter-departmental battles are so nasty!
19
posted on
06/10/2006 5:11:31 PM PDT
by
Coyoteman
(Stupidity is the only universal capital crime; the sentence is death--Heinlein)
To: b_sharp
It would be helpful to enumerate the many tactics used in the attempts to divorce the (many) evolutionary sciences which contribute to the SToE from 'True(TM)' science. I guess that's a good topic for another vanity thread.
20
posted on
06/10/2006 5:13:54 PM PDT
by
PatrickHenry
(Unresponsive to trolls, lunatics, fanatics, retards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 241-253 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