Skip to comments.
Evolution Disclaimer Supported
The Advocate (Baton Rouge) ^
| 12/11/02
| WILL SENTELL
Posted on 12/11/2002 6:28:08 AM PST by A2J
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,001-1,020, 1,021-1,040, 1,041-1,060 ... 7,021-7,032 next last
To: Phaedrus
(The article:) Oller said the state should force publishers to offer alternatives, correct mistakes in textbooks and fill in gaps in science teachings. "We are talking about major falsehoods that should be addressed," he said.Phaedrus: Just simple full-disclosure common sense, nothing more.
Except that what Oller ( ... appearing on behalf of the Louisiana Family Forum, a Christian lobbying group) means by "mistakes" probably aren't mistakes, what he means by "major falsehoods" probably aren't falsehoods, and what he is trying to accomplish in all this is not what he is disclosing.
To: VadeRetro
Merry Christmas, Vade.
To: Phaedrus
Merry Christmas!
To: VadeRetro
Post 210 placemarker!
To: VadeRetro
Evolutionists are so versatile...happy morphing---popping too!!
Main Entry: ver·sa·tile
Pronunciation: 'v&r-s&-t&l, esp British -"tIl
Function: adjective
Etymology: French or Latin; French, from Latin versatilis turning easily, from versare to turn, frequentative of vertere
Date: 1605
1 : changing or fluctuating readily : VARIABLE < a versatile disposition >
2 : embracing a variety of subjects, fields, or skills; also : turning with ease from one thing to another
3 a (1) : capable of turning forward or backward : REVERSIBLE < a versatile toe of a bird > (2) : capable of moving laterally and up and down < versatile antennae > b of an anther : having the filaments attached at or near the middle so as to swing freely
4 : having many uses or applications < versatile building material >
- ver·sa·tile·ly /-t&l-(l)E, -"tIl-lE/ adverb
- ver·sa·tile·ness /-t&l-n&s, -"tIl-n&s/ noun
To: f.Christian
Merry Christmas and Happy dictionary surfing to you!
To: f.Christian
ver·sa·tile·ness Not "versatility?" (Stunned silence.)
To: gore3000
merry keliki maka---houoli maka hiki ho!
E hau'oli kakou i ka nanai e keia wa kamaha'o...
Let us celebrate the Beauty and Grace of this Holiday Season.
To: f.Christian; gore3000; VadeRetro; PatrickHenry; jennyp
A very, Merry Christmas
To: gore3000
Intelligent Design is NOT science, give me a fricking break.
When you can PROVE that god exists, then we will talk about it.
Get a grip Blueman!! ROFLMAO!!
To: Aric2000
There is no, I mean absolutly, no way to argue with Blueman. I wrote page after page of refutations to his silly claims. Scientific refutations of his puesdoscientific claims. Even pages of refutations of his three word "NO IT DOESN'T" posts. The best that can be done is set the evidence forward and let people laugh at his innane ramblings. Anyone listening to these posts go out and read the web pages for his idol BEHE than read the real science that refutes this stupidity. Make up your own mind but please don't just listen to what blueman spouts here.
To: Tribune7
To you and yours as well.
(ALL: Try to convince your family to stay off the roads in the bad weather, even as I work tonight on the more foolhardy, SUV-owning members of mine.)
To: Tribune7
Good News For The Day
‘Do to others as you would have them do to you’ (Luke 6:31)
"The man who killed Yitszhak Rabin said that, "God told him to do it." Most of us would not think much of that man's religion, or his God. When Jesus speaks, and teaches, he sets forth moral principles that recommend themselves as being universally apt."
"Many despise all religion because they have seen its perversions. Many good things are caricatured, but we ought not dismiss the genuine article for that reason. Take music, as an example. There is a cacophony abroad, that passes for music. Much of it gives music a bad name. But let us not reject all music because some of it is of poor quality. The same can be said of poetry. If the only poetry you have ever read was a piece of unsavory doggerel from the school yard, you might think ill of all poetry. But if you have read Keats, Cowper, or Grey you will know how enriching poetry can be."
"Aristotle said that the true character of something , should be judged by the highest that it can become. There is much bad religion, yet before one dismisses it altogether, he should consider religion as taught and lived by Jesus. 'Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself.' There is something utterly right about that principle. It puts high value on every human life. It consecrates humankind; giving to each one of an equal share in guarding its sanctity."
"This is... religion---that we can use and admire."
To: Sentis
To: f.Christian
Sorry this took awhile to respond too christmas functions drew my attention. What do I base my life on? What am I required to base it on? My life doesn't need a base outside of myself to be fullfilled. Even if i didn't base my life on rational thought I would still not need a basis to be complete. You seem to need the support of a mythology to help you overcome life's problems I do not. Your life may not be complete without a savior to fill you with hope. I need no false hope I am complete unto myself. Even if every man woman and child on this earth believed in Christ I would have no need. I do not need the consensus of the community.
I search for rational truth because that is where reality resides. Truth is not subjective, truth is not objective, and Truth is not subject to the varied Mythologies of this Planet many of these mythologies being much older than the one you embrace. Truth is absolute. That is why in the search for an absolute truth you must often throw off the weak beliefs of degenrate religion or even the hard won beliefs gained from personal insight. Truth cares for none of that.
God is not truth God is a crutch for those to weak to cut away the dead limbs, shoot the sick dog, or take that first unaided step into the light of reason.
47 posted on 12/22/2002 3:46 PM PST by Sentis
To: Sentis
I thought so!
48 posted on 12/22/2002 3:50 PM PST by f.Christian
To: f.Christian
Why do I think you cut and pasted those last two posts you made?
To: PatrickHenry
Post-Christmas placemarker.
To: donh
loss of genetic diversity is always bad for a species: -me- Another non-scientific principle: so long as the pressure that caused the specialization prominently exists, the species designed for it will thrive better than the generalist.
Your statement may be true, but it shows the seeds of its own destruction. According to evolution, changes in species are due to their fitting themselves to environmental conditions WHICH ARE CONSTANTLY CHANGING. Thus the species, if evolutionary theory be true, would indeed be harmed by this overspecialization - just as I am saying because change is inevitable and will occur eventually.
Let me note also that you continue to fail to address the problem of how one can get from a bacteria with some 600 genes and some million DNA base pairs to a man with some 30,000 genes and some 3 billion DNA base pairs by destroying genetic information through 'natural selection'.
To: Sentis
There is no, I mean absolutly, no way to argue with Blueman. I wrote page after page of refutations to his silly claims. Correction - you wrote page after page of ATTEMPTED refutations of my posts. The reason you gave up was that you were unable to back up your claims when I challenged you to do so in Post# 988 where I challenged you to give proof of evolutionary transformations and disprove the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum, you were also unable to respond to my challenge in Post# 989 to show how an egg laying animal would become a live bearing one, and you were unable to respond to my challenge in Post# 991 to show detailed proof contradicting Behe's statement in post #984 that the eye spot could not have evolved as Darwin had claimed.
Seems to me that it is I who should be saying that you are disregarding the strong proofs against evolution which have been presented to you and which you are unable to refute.
To: donh
No, it isn't. Anerobic prokariotes have no genetic predisposition for dealing with an oxygenated environment. How did this information for coping with oxygen get carved into the genome of any creature arising from prokariotes?
Ans. It was carved in by an environment gradually changing to oxygenation, by favoring those creatures best able to tolerate oxygen.That is not a scientific proof that prokaryotes descended from archaea. In fact there is no evidence that prokaryotes arose after archaea other than the wishful thinking of evolutionists. In any case the genetic differences between the two make it impossible for one to have descended from the other.
To: donh
Well, I am glad that you at least agree with me that science is continually finding problems with evolutionary theory. It seems to me that if evolution were true science would be resolving problems with evolution instead of finding new ones.-me- Oh, you mean like the way we've settled down in physics and have no more significant problems to resolve? Even for you, this is a pretty feeble tack to take.
No it is not feeble. If evolution were a valid scientific theory then new scientific discoveries should be support evolution instead of disproving it. In fact I challenge you to show any biological discovery found worthy of a Nobel Prize which does not disprove evolutionary theory.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,001-1,020, 1,021-1,040, 1,041-1,060 ... 7,021-7,032 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