Posted on 01/23/2005 1:11:01 AM PST by rdb3
"The point is, an evolutionist has no rational or logical basis for morality."
The biology of a broken toe has no basis for morality either. What's your point?
There are far more non-scientists that are homosexual than scientists. Those in art, english literature, sociology,
building fake museums etc. are more prone to being light in the loafers than any scientist.
Those who repeatedly post ad hominen attacks that have no relationship to the debate are also prone to be homosexual.
The point is, an evolutionist has no rational or logical basis for morality.
No, the point is that morality and the cold facts of how the natural universe works are completely unrelated.
Just out of curiosity, is it ok for me to believe in germ theory? Or does that make me a baby killer?
Logic doesn't trump data, anyway.
Evolution is a fact.
Please, show how my logic performs as you state.
Because you were suggesting that since there are still mechanisms within evolution that need to be resolved, the entire theory is debunked. So I was pointing out that all theories undergo the same constant modifications and improvements, that is how science works. Your DNA mouse/man thing is just pointing at one of those holes (assuming your example happened). Why not point out the same thing from other theories?
Au contraire, I was pointing out that "Find a human skeleton in the same strata as dino bones and you would falsify evolution." was a false statement. I demonstrated that by giving an example in the real world. And my example is true.
Tell that to Nicole Simpson.
Tell that to the guys who use the TOE to come up with a new Flu vaccine every year or new antiboitics or Pesticides thus saving thousands to millions of lives.
What great advances for mankind has creationism ever made?
If it were up to you guys, we wouldn't even have lightning rods on houses.
That was illogic trumping data.
Tell that to the guys who use the TOE to come up with a new Flu vaccine every year or new antiboitics or Pesticides thus saving thousands to millions of lives.
Nobody ever USED the theory of evolution for anything, other perhaps than trying to rationalize failed lifestyles to themselves or to formulate "isms".
But the really big question for evolutionists is this:
With GreenBay out of the playoffs, i.e. without being able to root for the Packers, who're you backing to win the superbowl this year?
Hey Long Cut, over here, More "Fun with the Fundies"
8^)
Considering how obsessively you're posting about gays, I can only guess that you're enormously disappointed that there's not a team named the Rug Munchers.
Yeah sure, Chemist and Biologist are the dregs of society. I am sure the parents of the guys who came up with this years flu vaccine are really disappointed in them.
But here is where you were suppose to list the benefits of studying creationism. I take it by your lack of response you can't think of any.
But the really big question for evolutionists is this: With GreenBay out of the playoffs, i.e. without being able to root for the Packers, who're you backing to win the superbowl this year?
I can see I can scratch off humor as something creationist learn.
How's about this one?
Odd, I don't recall Darwin commenting on the mechanisms of DNA replication, nor on the probabilities of accurate replication in the absense of obvious selection.
I'm kind of curious about what ID says about this. Since replication errors occur, and this fact is not in dispute, how does ID explain long sequences replicated without error.
It would seem to me that there are several possibilities: the sequence has a yet unknown function that is being selected; the sequence is at the extreme end of a bell curve distribution of preserved sequences; it's a miracle.
I'm curious. Is there a nice curve published somewhere of preserved sequence lengths?
|
Time was, ADULTS posted to these threads.
Now, we get an unending parade of the SAME people from previous threads who, having had everything from the definition of the word "theory" to vast quantities of evidence shown to them, nonetheless begin each thread with the same arguments which have been previously debunked.
Not to mention the single-post bombtossers.
Creationists by and large are the most dishonest people inhabiting the Right. They are naught but a drag on, and an albatross around, conservatism. No other group, even the HTT's in my opinion, comes close.
If you're new to the CrEvo threads, look for posts by Ichneumon and Dimensio, plus Vade Retro and Physicist. They are truly informative, and devastating to their opponents in all cases. I've never seen Ichneumon refuted to any appreciable degree.
Check out PatrickHenry's homepage for the infamous "list o links".
Thanks for the plug. A few years ago, I actually posted the list in new threads. But it became repetitive, and so I quit. Now it resides -- and grows almost every week -- at my homepage. If I were to post the thing it would fill about seven screens, so that's out of the question. But the links are grouped by subject, as well as I can do it, so it's not too difficult to navigate.
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.