Posted on 05/26/2007 1:49:34 PM PDT by Eurotwit
Read post 1224 on this thread and follow the link back to the original thread.
Does no one think it rude to ask an American in Iraq which side they are on? Suppose someone says this to your kid.
We would be able to see the same thing over at WA, but the WAckos think they are being all sneaky doing their anti-FReeping on a closed thread.
Yep. It’s called “Salt River” or something like that. If you use their search function, you can see that anti-FReeper WAcko “X” was last active two minutes ago. But then you use the search to find their posts and the last post it will let you see was four hours ago.
What are you talking about? The existence of God is self-evident; as is the truth that he made you, and endowed you with every right you possess.
And if you want to join, you have to wait for the banned anti-FReeper WAckos to make you a member. It seems that there are membership standards that you must have in order to be an anti-FReeper WAcko. You will notice that NOWHERE on their site do they describe themselves as conservatives, which may be the only honest thing most of them are doing.
Self evident is not scientifically evident. Self evident also does not imply one religious teaching over another. Also, self evident is a synonym for faith.
Again, that self-evident truth is the bedrock of American liberty.
I'm sure there are some old earth creationists, but they don't seem to be as interested in arguing, probably because they accept most of the evidence that evolutionists do but take on faith that these events happened by some sort of serial creation. Young earth creationists absolutely reject all of the evidence.
You have evidence that the earth's magnetic field strength increased during the polarity fluctuations?
It appears to have remained at the same level for quite a bit of geological time. It sometimes drops suddenly before recovering, and sometimes these drops are followed by a reversal. It's generally accepted that the magnetic field is driven by a geodynamo and thus will not decay for quite some time.
You seriously cannot make the analogy between SETI and evolution?
No, you said that they were analogous, I said they were not.
Therefore, one cannot assume that an ordered signal from outspace automatically has an intelligent cause when at the same time, more complex minimal life on earth came from purely natural causes.
I was with you until this point. As I said before, evolution is a process in which complexity is built by descent with modification and natural selection among various phenotypes. Can you propose a mechanical method of generating a complex electromagnetic signal by iterative modification of a simpler signal with some sort of selection? I can't think of one.
Therefore, if evolution is true, no scientist can turn around and tell me that organized signals from outer space are necessarily an indication of intelligent life, since for life forms, we believe otherwise.
Again, as I said, we would assume initially a signal had a nonbiological source and rule out these possibilities first, and even then many people (such as myself) would remain skeptical.
I think you are placing too much importance on SETI and misreading the general attitude towards it. I tend to think it's an exercise in futility.
Let me ask you this, at a minimum, what complexity existed in the first life-form that Darwin says we all came from?
Well, Darwin didn't suppose much about it since he didn't even know what DNA was. He had a "warm pond" hypothesis, but realized science hadn't reached the point where he could actually make any progress in determining that.
Did this first life form possess any DNA?
Where are you drawing the line calling it "life"? A lot depends on how you define that.
The last common ancestor contained DNA.
What capabilities/functions did this first life form possess?
Depends on when you happened to look at it. Initially probably copying RNA, probably then synthesizing peptides, later DNA, much later synthesizing lipids. Since we weren't there, we don't know the details.
Please spare me the abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution.
It doesn't, but I'm willing to humor you because abiogenesis interests me. :-D
It has everything to do with evolution, because non-creation based evolution depends entirely upon this event first occurring.
Once again, we're talking about two different things. Evolution postulates the existence of an initial organism and then explains what happens from there on out. Before the first organism we have chemistry that eventually becomes chemistry with selection and at some point the evolution of early lifeforms.
Do not forget that some evolutionists do think that there is a God who started the ball rolling.
don-o isn’t banned. He posted today.
Thanks! :-)
Tony Snow only had his account and posts deleted because he became White House Press Secretary. Prior to that, he posted quite often as a talk radio host.
So you're full of it.
Full of what? Someone in politics didn’t want to be associated with FR. His posts were wiped clean, along with google and Wayback. That’s a lot of trouble just to take a political appointment.
What makes you think a candidate for president would want to be associated with FR?
Personally, I have liked being on FR. I don’t get upset when someone says I’m stupid, or someone tells me to go play in traffic. That’s just part of discussing controversial topics on the internet.
But I’m surprised at what is deemed acceptable and what isn’t. Apparently insulting Americans serving in Iraq is now acceptable.
don oh
he was a vitriolic atheist.
Personally I would hate to see you go play in traffic... you might damage someone's expensive car.
Are you really that obtuse? Has it occurred to you that there may have been other reasons for this that had nothing to do with Tony Snow and everything to do with the White House?
I think you make my point. Private individuals and anonymous people find this site useful for news and opinion, but no politician having a good chance of winning would publicly accept an endorsement from FR.
But none of this is relevant to the point I wish to make, which is there has been a change of priorities over the years. Specifically, the military is no longer a priority, veterans are no longer given leeway to speak their minds, FReepers are allowed to post contempt for Americans serving in Iraq if they defend the wrong Republican.
And there is an underlying implication that Hillary Clinton would make a better president than some of the front running Republicans.
Maybe Jim could shed some light on this, but my guess would be that the White House would not want an appointee offering opinions in a manner that could be misconstrued. But, if you are so concerned about the public perception of FR, maybe YOU should leave.
But none of this is relevant to the point I wish to make, which is there has been a change of priorities over the years. Specifically, the military is no longer a priority, veterans are no longer given leeway to speak their minds, FReepers are allowed to post contempt for Americans serving in Iraq if they defend the wrong Republican.
YOU are the only one who seems to have this misconception.
And there is an underlying implication that Hillary Clinton would make a better president than some of the front running Republicans.
Is that a new way of saying that we have to nominate Roody or we're stuck with Hitlery?
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.