Skip to comments.
Charles Darwin Knew: Science and Freedom
BreakPoint with Charles Colson
| 1 Mar 04
| Charles Colson
Posted on 03/01/2004 1:02:07 PM PST by Mr. Silverback
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 761-780, 781-800, 801-820 ... 961-974 next last
To: VadeRetro
"So RightWingNilla, you think you are the spokes-model for all of science." Not necessary to his statement and not claimed by him. Do you know any other tricks? RighWingNilla made this comment: "Scientists do not debate the validity of evolution" - he was trying to speak for all scientists. No tricks.
VadeRetro, you are losing it big time.
To: VadeRetro
ThinkPlease notes that all of the supposed controversies are from chapters in Icons of Evolution. Confronted with facts, you obfuscate. Now you are lying again. In that message ThinkPlease FIRST admits I am correct.
VadeRetro, you are making a fool out of yourself.
To: VadeRetro
Gould is proposing bookburning? You can point to where he does that, I suppose? Now you are lying again. Did I claim Gould was doing anything - no!
To: VadeRetro
I could go on, but I'll stop with your 163 and quote from the last reply to you: I am sure you can.
You made an illogical silly statement and you are trying to cover it up by attacking me. Very childish. The lying makes you look really bad.
To: VadeRetro
VadeRetro: "Random" and "directed" are not opposites. (from message #624) [I copied that from 769, I didn't check the source.]
I agree, they aren't opposites. As I said, "directed" and "un-directed" are opposites.
785
posted on
03/04/2004 4:16:58 PM PST
by
PatrickHenry
(A compassionate evolutionist.)
To: Last Visible Dog
A later snippet of that conversation:
#188 and its reply.
At 206, you actually deny challenging RightWingNilla's point in the first place (that evolution is not controversial among biologists). Didn't want the burden of proof.
Brazen.
786
posted on
03/04/2004 4:17:18 PM PST
by
VadeRetro
(Does anybody believe this clown?)
To: PatrickHenry
I agree, they aren't opposites. As I said, "directed" and "un-directed" are opposites. But LastVisibleKerry can agree with you while disagreeing with me.
787
posted on
03/04/2004 4:18:34 PM PST
by
VadeRetro
(Does anybody believe this clown?)
To: VadeRetro
If he's right on the money, please explain how I'm not. Unbelievable!
You are thick as the proverbial brick
This is why you are NOT on the money:
VadeRetro: "Random" and "directed" are not opposites. (from message #624)
To: Last Visible Dog
I come form a philosophical background so I believe all certitude is overrated. So, you are certain all certitude is overrated.
And people wonder why philosophy isn't taken seriously anymore...
789
posted on
03/04/2004 4:18:56 PM PST
by
Ronzo
(GOD alone is enough.)
To: Last Visible Dog
Still brazening, I see.
790
posted on
03/04/2004 4:19:20 PM PST
by
VadeRetro
(Does anybody believe this clown?)
To: VadeRetro
But LastVisibleKerry can agree with you while disagreeing with me. How original. Did you think that Kerry comment up all by yourself?
To: Last Visible Dog
Know something? I'm not going to let you cover yourself by getting the thread pulled. How's about I just put you on "ignore" for a while so the little monument you've built for yourself here can stand a while longer.
792
posted on
03/04/2004 4:22:07 PM PST
by
VadeRetro
(Does anybody believe this clown?)
To: VadeRetro
What part of "was part of the response" don't you understand, Dumbo? That comment does not even make sense. You are turning very irrational.
To: Lurking Libertarian
What definition is that? That's not at all what the theory of evolution says. Really. So you think forces other than happenstance direct evolution? What are these forces? If you think I am wrong, simply state the forces other than happenstance that direct evolution.
To: Last Visible Dog
So you think forces other than happenstance direct evolution? What are these forces? If you think I am wrong, simply state the forces other than happenstance that direct evolution.The laws of physics and chemistry.
To: Last Visible Dog
Because a lack of direction does not imply that there is no bias towards the end result. For example, a river isn't directed, but geologists can predict how it will look like in 100 years based on the soil content, landscape, etc... the river is undirected and yet not random.
796
posted on
03/04/2004 4:33:00 PM PST
by
Nataku X
(<a href="http://www.michaelmoore.com">Miserable Failure</a>)
To: PatrickHenry
I agree, they aren't opposites. Nice of you to try and help get your little buddy out of his hole but now you have dug a hole for yourself - this was your said earlier:
PatrickHenry: I assume that "directed" means the result of deliberate action of some kind of conscious "director." I suggest that the opposite of "directed" is un-directed. A process that is un-directed may be chaotic, or random (I suppose there's a mathematician's distinction), or it may be determined (that is: the result of natural law). A determined process is not at all the same as one which is directed. Thus endeth my two cents worth of commentary.
One more time:
PatrickHenry: "the opposite of "directed" is un-directed. A process that is un-directed may be chaotic, or random "
So Pat, are you now claiming your earlier statement was wrong or is the one you just made wrong?
To: Last Visible Dog
this was your said earlier: Make that:
this is what you said earlier:
To: VadeRetro
Know something? I'm not going to let you cover yourself by getting the thread pulled. How's about I just put you on "ignore" for a while so the little monument you've built for yourself here can stand a while longer. You made a false statement. You then continued to insult other people. I rubbed your nose in it a few times. You are now pissed and flailing about illogically. This moment is ALL YOURS.
800?
800
posted on
03/04/2004 4:40:55 PM PST
by
PatrickHenry
(A compassionate evolutionist.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 761-780, 781-800, 801-820 ... 961-974 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