Posted on 12/13/2004 7:42:25 AM PST by Gritty
Harsh Flames? Maybe amonug the newbies but us old timers have gotten a bit used to one another. We've seen the error of our ways (communication styles) and have lightened up a bit....
Indeed. If you (1) are in search of something that shows you have values (2) will put you in agreement with the majority of the electorate and (3) doesn't in principle offend minorities, women, homosexuals or any other part of your 'core' constituency, what better philosophy to embrace than creationism? To say nothing of the long and glorious history of creationism among the Dems - after all, the most famous American creationist of all time was four time Dem. nominee for President!
I'd say they're a natural pairing, like bacon and eggs.
"Personally, I'll take the evidence the world presents."
You mean that every phylum came into the fossil record fully formed with no intermediaries?
You can't get there from here.
(Famous line in a joke)
"However, if you drive REALLY ast, and hit that ramp just right, a lot of us agree that your momentum will probably carry you on over...."
(Simplified "E" explanation for a LOT of things.)
You can't get there from here.
(Famous line in a joke)
"However, if you drive REALLY fast, and hit that ramp just right, a lot of us agree that your momentum will probably carry you on over...."
(Simplified "E" explanation for a LOT of things.)
Tackled IS the right word.
And the mag is not biased at all!
> doesn't in principle offend minorities, women, homosexuals or any other part of your 'core' constituency, what better philosophy to embrace than creationism?
Well, keep in mind that Creationism is the perfect tool for the racist wing of the Dem party. Rather than stressing a Darwinian goal of striving to be the best, they can focus more on a "You were Created that way." Remember, the most rabid racists of the past century were Creationists.
A philosophy based on Darwinian evolution can lead to excellence, as the best prosper (i.e. Darwinism = capitalism and entepreneurship), while Creationism leads to full blown Fascism and Communism (i.e. you were Created the way you are, and efforts to change that are affronts to God).
Posting the same thing twice doesn't make it any less illucid.
"Skeptic" regularly has both sides of the Creationism debate, with dialogues that continue over several issues. I suggest you pick up a copy, and read it before you burn it.
This is a moving of the goal-posts. When arguing for evolution, the goal-posts are likelihood, but when discussing the arguments against evolution (like irreducible complexity) the goal-posts are a proven impossibility based on purely imagined sequences, no matter how improbable.
Creationists are not allowed to state possibilities that may not be entirely likely, but evolutionists are. Therefore, evolution is true and creationism is false.
Curses, you've found our secret. If you laugh at it, it suddenly becomes false.
Do you actually have anything to offer these discussions besides your ignorance-fueled ridicule?
Ok, I now get to steal a point...
Just as a film of a trotting horse gives incontrovertible evidence of motion, so the fossil record gives evidence of Evolution.
The film does not have an infinite number of "intermediaries" between the static frames of the horse. But viewed from beginning to end, said film showing individual poses of the horse is evidence enough that it was indeed "moving".
I love that analogy.
Elsie's a great poster. Typical creationist. Need more of them like the Democratic party needs more gay marriage people.
"What advances do you predict ID will produce? In fact, can you name one single medical or biological leap that we might achieve via ID?"
ID has us searching for meaning and function in all parts of the cell, rather than relegating those parts we don't understand to vestigal status.
Sure. Here's one: "Evolutionists will prove beyond any doubt the earth was formed billions of years ago."
Since it is clearly intended to debunk the heavily pro-Darwin bias we live with now, I wouldn't expect it to be unbiased. The more relevant question is: Are they correct?
Ah, like studying the appendix. Or male nipple. Can you cite some of the clinical research conducted so far?
Evolutionists say that it only takes a couple of virile new individuals to start a whole new line of creatures.
Biologists say that when a creatures population gets very small, they'll probably go extinct due to small size of gene pool.
Who is a poor, uninformed sap suppossed to believe?
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.