Posted on 08/04/2005 12:43:01 PM PDT by Crackingham
Don't sweat it. You don't have the prerequisites anyway.
Really? If any bozo can, how come you didn't?
The "theory of gravity" is far more than just "things fall down" or even "all objects attract one another." The theory of gravity (better known as the theory of relativity, which shows you that the observations of time dilation fall far short of proving relativity) states that what we perceive as a gravitational force is really nothing more than objects following the shortest path through a curved spacetime, and that matter causes the curvature of spacetime. Prove that theory, not just some simplified cartoon version by saying "gravity exists."
In a similar vein, it could equally validly be stated that "evolution exists." After all, the variation over time of allele frequencies in organism gene pools has been directly observed in ALL living organisms, and has been observed in organisms studied in labs for that very purpose. Similarly, the formation of new species of organisms has also been observed. The theory of evolution is merely that speciation is a consequence of evolution; that is the statement that has yet to be, and will never be, proven. (Please note that while gravity may be blaringly obvious to you, and evolution is not the situation for SCIENTISTS is exactly as I have described, namely that no scientist doubts that evolution occurs because it has been DIRECTLY OBSERVED. Whether you can directly observe it or not is irrelevant.)
Reiterating bad arguments doesn't help your case. Unfortunately, anti-evos do this a good deal of the time.
When exactly has a creationist EVER shown that a given specimen had been either the product of intentional fraud or that its significance was interpreted incorrectly? All cases I have ever heard of involved another SCIENTIST either exposing a fraud or reinterpreting the significance of a specimen. I have never heard of a creationist doing so. Please enlighten me.
Read my post. It was a pro-evo that made the statistical argument that evolution is correct, not an anti-evo.
ape to man evolution, which is what I am disputing, has never been directly observed, gravity has and still is being observed.
Where did I ever state that a creationist was responsible for exposing a hoax, fraud, or incorrect interpretation. I stated that for every pro-evo that posts an article claiming ape to man evolution is true, a creationist will simply post another article that disputes it. I never said that a creationist was the one that exposed the hoax. If you took any of statements to mean as such, I apologize for the misunderstanding.
"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so". - Adolf Hitler.
Whoa, there.
Hasn't it occurred to you that Hitler was using religion only insofar as it would help advance his agenda?
Your claim that Hitler was a Christian is OFFENSIVE.
Thank God for Christianity: it's had a moderating effect on us, which is why Europe developed culturally, legally, scientifically when the rest of the world didn't.
Christianity is the only religon that, to be frank about it, would have allowed for the development of the scientific method to begin with.
Your use of Hitler to Christianity is analogous to someone smearing various scientific professions by saying Velikhovsky was an astronomer of great renown, and that Dr. Mengele was an ethical medical researcher.
SHAME ON YOU.
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.