Posted on 04/21/2005 4:34:42 AM PDT by gobucks
Well, we've descended now into personal attacks.
I would make comments here about how you must have used up all your arguments, but I would be guilty of the same.
I guess we've gone as far as we can.
This, sir, is a violation of the right to speak freely IN the public arena.
Not subject to interpretation. Stated outright.
You may feel hurt by what I said about it, but it was merely an observation based on your own behavior.
I agree that we have gone as far as we can.
I do not deny you the right to speak freely about your belief system that includes your faith in the miracles of evolution, but you want me, and those who agree with me about the inerrancy of Scripture, to keep silent.
Think about what that means, before you make that statement to anyone else in the future.
Oh, get a grip.
I'm not proposing some censorship board to tell you what you're allowed to say.
I'm strongly suggesting that you damage the cause of conservatism by pushing anti-evolutionism. I don't appreciate that my political efforts are undermined by such silliness.
Don't you understand that abortion (and the judgeship's that can end Roe) is a much bigger priority?
Do you really not understand that point? Or are you ignoring it just to keep up this discussion?
Your own words, narby. Keep my 'religious interpretations' out of the public arena.
It's a good thing the Founding Fathers didn't agree with you.
Whether Darwin is racist or not is completly irrelevant to the issue of evolution. Darwin may have written the original book, but the understanding and study of evolution has progressed many orders of magnitude beyond him.
I'm sure you're protective of the essay you're writing on the subject, and don't want to be told that it's completly irrelevant. But, sorry, it is.
And now you believe my opinion carries the weight of law that happens to be in violation of the First Amendment.
Please.
You really want me to take you seriously?
We've had several posts here completly devoid of the discussion of Genesis and evolution.
I'll assume I've carried all those points and you have nothing else to add that actually pertain to the subject of this thread.
Because you've proven that you only want to read and accept that with which you already agree.
It's what we in the field of education call "unteachable."
Checked in the mirror lately?
And that's still not on the subject of the thread.
Checkmate.
LOL! And this is.
OK. This is my final post to you.
Evolution is not scientifically possible as it is currently being taught.
Evolution is being taught as fact when it is not fact at all, but guesswork and deductions based on a pre-set bias.
Darwin was a racist, but that's not what makes his theory wrong.
"In the beginning GOD created the heavens and the earth." Genesis 1: 1
There.
Bye, narb.
Should be.....And this is??
Bet I never get a straight answer from sir narby, though...........hasn't given me one yet.........
Are you really that dense as to be unable to comprehend the significance of the accused's version of the event when determining guilt? Are you aware that many crimes are solved by confession? Can you understand how it relates to the discussion as to whether forensics is enough to send someone to death?
????????
I'm still incredulous that anyone claiming either conservatism or Christianity would make such an obscene statement to try to shut down free speech.
"but it is quite telling when evolutionary arguments have an underlying ID bias - and the evolutionists either cannot see it or deny it."
Agreed.
Jim Rob, did ownership of FR pass to Labyrinthos sometime in the near past?
Then how is it that evolution is, since it is filled with supernatural events?
Consider the evolution of the Indo-European language family. This has been accepted by all linguists for something like 50 yerars longer than biogical evolution.
The reasons for accepting the theory are basically that there are similar words with similar meanings in all the various branches, and various rules that connect the sounds of one to those of another. See, eg here or here.
The interesting thing is that this was done entirely by people, but in most cases there is no record of what was happening. Somehow, a single language, over the course of a few thousand years, split into things as different as English, Russian, French, Hindi, Albanian, Farsi, Armenian, Greek, and so forth, and at every step along the way, there was a coherent language
This is rather like animals gradually changing, while at every step still being perfectly functional
< ID/crreationism mode> Yeah, right, I can just imagine 1/2 Armenian, 1/2 English.
Or, I studied Russian in school, and I can tell you it's not like English!
< />
Clearly, the evolution of PIE cannot be reproduced in a lab, or directly observed (there are ancient written records in a few of the languages, but the written record is totally missing before about 3000 years ago, and is very recent for many of the languages).
Should we alloow this to be taught in schools? Why or why not?
Ok
This is rather like animals gradually changing, while at every step still being perfectly functional
Like microevolution
< ID/crreationism mode> Yeah, right, I can just imagine 1/2 Armenian, 1/2 English.
Language is not Irreducibly complex. If you speak English you can still speak Armenian.
Clearly, the evolution of PIE cannot be reproduced in a lab, or directly observed . . .Should we alloow this to be taught in schools? Why or why not?
In a science class in a public high school? A more interesting question is why is it not?
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.