Scientists find evolution of life

EurekAlert ^ | 10/30/03

[Nataku X]

Let me emphasize to the creationists here.

I do not believe you're uneducated, illiterate, Matrix agents, or whatever. None of my above post has anything to do with you.

I am simply repeating what some others think and believe of the Republican party, and I believe that showing that FR has a diversity of opinions where the crevo issue is concerned will go a long way in defeating stereotypes.

[gore3000]

It is easy....the initiator of insults on any particular thread gets banned for two weeks, then a month, and third offense permanent. Would clear up personal attacks in record time.

Yes, it is that easy - punish the one who incites it instead of the one defending himself.

[AndrewC]

Here is a "license to scoff" by Alan Keyes.

Survival of the fittest?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

© 2001 WorldNetDaily.com

Is the debate over evolution a political question? Surely it is, first of all, a scientific question. And yet, it is a sign of how far we have strayed from our common sense as citizens that the implications of evolutionary theory for our project of self-government are almost never seriously considered. The American nation and our way of life were founded on an articulated and explicit moral premise – one which the doctrine of evolution directly contradicts. We better start thinking about this.

...

But the importance to our political and moral lives of facing the question should be immediately evident to anyone who remembers what it means to be an American, and who hopes to see justice prevail over the rule of tooth and claw.

[bondserv]

JR I will echo what others have said, and say that it is a fact that many natural conservatives are deterred from voting Republican because of a perception of religious intolerance.

Let us be clear. The problem is Jesus Christ, not Christians. Jesus is very intolerant about the truth of our reality, and who has the hope of eternal life with the Creator.

Matt 19:4-5
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

John 14:6
6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

The reason these issues are relevant to this forum and these threads is they go to the foundation of our nations freedoms and justice.

[spunkets]

" You could easily replace the word CREATIONIST with the word CHRISTIAN and your statement would have been just as accurate...You folks have a problem with Jesus Christ, not Creationists. Something our Founding Fathers didn't have a problem with. Conservatives tend to want to conserve the Constitutional Republic, which clear as a bell supports CREATIONISM. From our Declaration of Independence.

Not at all. The fact is that physicist is right. On top of that I'll add that Creationists give Christians a bad rep. See God is logical and does not decieve. There is nothing hidden, it is all open to see and understand. Science has uncovered what was previously unknown. The world is not 6000 y/o.

" Jesus Christ is God, and He supported the STRAIGHTFORWARD reading of Genesis."

We went over that before. He did not endorse your reading of it and your claims regarding what was said.

" You folks have a problem with Jesus Christ, not Creationists."

No. That's just another unfounded Creationist claim.

[AndrewC]

No. That's just another unfounded Creationist claim.

Did God create or not?

[Nataku X]

Anything I say in response will drag this away from the issue of whether crevo threads should be allowed on FR at all.

[AndrewC]

That is not the question, because any thread can end up as a discussion of evolution, the question is how to handle conflict evenly. It is glaringly apparent that Creationists are looked at in a demeaning manner.

[general_re]

The effective challenge to this false understanding of justice requires appeal to the belief that true judgment of rights and wrongs is not based on mere results – not decided by who has the whip hand – but instead rests on principles of justice beyond the reach of human will and circumstance. And yet, the possibility of any such principle is inherently denied by the irrational materialism at the heart of evolutionary theory.

How sad that Dr. Keyes is evidently unable to distinguish between descriptive and prescriptive theories.

[gore3000]

There is a widespread perception, which the D*ms are more than eager to exploit, that the GOP, and conservatives in general, are anti-science.

It is the evolutionists who are anti-science as I have detailed on these threads numerous times. Science is about cause and effect, about predictable and repeatable occurrences. A theory, like evolution, which claims that biological change occurs randomly is perforce anti-science. To this one must add evolutionist's use of such words as 'imagine', 'possibly', 'could be' and 'perhaps' as proof of their theory. This started with Darwin and continues to this day. They call this science and have tried to push this totally unscientific criteria unto the scientific community. So, yes, evolution is anti-science and if you are a friend of science, then you (meaning not just you, but all who believe in truth and the value of true science) should be opposed to evolution.

Further, politics is not just about making oneself the same as the opposition which is what you are advocating, it is about establishing one's views and ideas in the battle for the conscience of the society. Without winning the battle of ideas, the political battles will eventually be lost. The Democrats know this and that is why they try to destroy the basis of conservatism in every way possible. The basis of conservatism is Christianity as almost every conservative will tell you.

Evolution is a theory promoted by atheists, for atheists and to spread and undermine the moral and Christian fabric of the country. It was used in such a way in Germany. It was used by the Communists and is still being used by them in that way. It is used by the atheists in this country, that is why they join hands with evolutionists in the school battles. It is used in the same way by liberals, Democrats and the NEA in those most important battles that try to drive God from the schools.

As to evolution being scientifically true, the use of insults and character assassination by evolutionists at those who give scientific evidence which they cannot refute shows very well that evolution is not science. For those who still wonder what the scientific facts against evolution are they can check out Evidence Disproving Evolution. There are also numerous Amazing Creatures which could never have arisen if evolution were true. There is also tons of Nobel Prize design in DNA which shows evolution to have been impossible. All the above and more are ample reasons for reasonable people to have said Bye, Bye Darwin a long time ago.

[CobaltBlue]

Speaking only for myself, I've had some very worthwhile exchanges with other people who believe in both God and evolution, which have had the effect of both strengthening my faith and opening my mind towards the points of view of other religious people. Especially Alamo-Girl. She's a peach. A fine example to us all.

So, thank you - and the mods - for your patience, tolerance, and long suffering. If you lose your patience and ban the threads, it's your website and it wouldn't be any less valuable to me.

[spunkets]

You're really not looking for truthful answers. You posed the question in order to promote the deception.

[CobaltBlue]

Re: snobbery and lack of tolerance. I do think there could be more tolerance, for sure.

I woke up around 4:30 a.m. Saturday and was reading the thread, and cut and pasted several instances where I thought that statements to gore3000 were unnecessarily sharp. On the other hand, I thought some of gore3000's posts to them were unnecessarily sharp, as well. But I cut him more slack because he was one against several.

I saved the post on Word but didn't post it, figuring it would probably just inflame feelings more.

I admire gore3000 for his indefatigability. It can't be easy to respond to so many people arguing with you all at once. So I don't blame him for feeling beleaguered.

I also know how hard it is sometimes to keep fighting when you are tired, yet know that walking away will be treated as a defeat.

I don't have a solution, only an observation that choice of words can make things better, or make them worse. For all of us.

[AndrewC]

You're really not looking for truthful answers. You posed the question in order to promote the deception.

And what deception is that? You cannot answer a simple question, and now turn to a logical Ad Hominem. I am not the question. "Did God create or not?" is the question. You have started down the road to further Ad Hominem by not answering a simple question.

[VadeRetro]

How sad that Dr. Keyes is evidently unable to distinguish between descriptive and prescriptive theories.

He's a superb speaker and debater with whom I was at first greatly impressed. Voted for him in the WV primary in 2000, in fact. I no longer think he's a very practical man, however. (I forget the details of why, but it was more than just his anti-E article. Some of his other positions.) I'm very glad we got the initially less-flashy W.

[JethroHathAWay]

What about people who say Get off the board! and they don't even know anything about you? Or, I see you and I got my eye on you Jethro! What is that all about; I'd like to know! Thankyou, J Hathaway

[AndrewC]

How sad that Dr. Keyes is evidently unable to distinguish between descriptive and prescriptive theories.

He knows the difference, he stated as much in the first paragraph. Then he argues that ideas sometimes go beyond their intended area and we must be aware of that.

[CobaltBlue]

Hi Jethro - I have no idea why any of this has to be so hard.

There were some people who were very hard to deal with, but they're gone, and I am glad.

The ones who are left are not at all in the same class of abrasiveness.

I vote that we all cut each other more slack. We all share common goals, even if we don't agree with each other 100%, we need to hang together.

[CobaltBlue]

I think "evolution" is a term that carries a lot of baggage, depending on the speaker.

For example, if you define "evolution" as "a belief held by Communists, Nazis, and other people who hate God and want to destroy civilization, by teaching us that our lives have no meaning, God doesn't exist, and we have free reign to do whatever we want without any moral scruples," I'd hate that, too.

That isn't the way I define it.

[JethroHathAWay]

People hide in the shadows, telling other people what to say. They are cowards, looking to get punked.