Posted on 08/24/2005 10:47:29 AM PDT by joyspring777
Very true. Evolution seems to be the one topic with which most Freepers do not agree with most conservatives. I urge all Freepers to question anything that the left loves with such vehement (arrogant) passion.
Repost.
I like this post so far...
open minded search for real answers...
That's getting stupid. As long as you're making jokes using fake gods (wait for the oh-so-hilarious post saying that they are offended with my calling them fake) stick with Cthulhu.
Is that statement a theory or an unsupported claim? ID proponents use every bit as much scientific methodology as evo folks do. The gripe is that ID folks use it to question evo conclusions and that gets a lot of evo folks to make very unscientific statements and claims.
I always wondered how Cthulhu would get from the South Pacific to New York.
Hey...I like that...Get thee behind me, Liberal
Here is a thought...evos like evolution because at heart they are liberals...and today's liberals are really socialists.
Socialists like social engineering...Evos like the idea of being able to believe (faith) in a world that was randomly engineered (in their minds), and then social engineer it further using all sorts of manipulations and gyrations without any fear of an Intelligent Designer showing up to confound them...or Eeeayahhh! judge them for their actions.
Hmmm...to your tagline...
If Creation is a cancer on conservatism...
how do we have anything valuable to conserve?
we should just gin up the speed on evolution and not care at all about conserving anything...since we are always evolving to something better.
Are you joking?
I can give you a good round number of articles and findings on intelligent design that have made it through the scientific peer review process:
0
If intelligent design had any scientific validity, scientists would be the first people to support it. ID is nothing more than a political move with no scientific merit whatsoever.
that gets a lot of evo folks to make very unscientific statements and claims
What it really reveals is that all their claims are religious-based to begin with...which is the mushy ground evo lies in...a virtual primordial soup deadend.
Yo...
the statement was made by shoedog, not me. I just believe it.
Ask shoedog for the backup bro!
Nevertheless, when the evos control the Mountain Top, they just "say" you are no longer a scientist when one changes one's position from evo to ID. They disown them!!!!
If you shoot and kill your deserters, you can say there are none!
Here's another. What happens to the "human aura" after death? It's unseen by the human eye, but machines have been able to photograph the energy pattern.
Even a simple leaf has an aura that sticks around for awhile after a piece has been cut off. Imagine a consciousness within that leafs aura. What would happen to it then? What would happen to that conscience energy after it leaves the leaf? Because it's conscience of it's existence, where would it choose it go?
Evolution religion is going the same way as Dan Rathers forgeries, and for the same reason - open discourse on the internet. Nobody controls it anymore and it is driving teh evo's nuts!
It's also pretty funny. He keeps my interest in most of his articles. He has only tackled this debate once that I am aware of. Most of his articles are half this long...
If intelligent design had any scientific validity, scientists would be the first people to support it.
I completely disagree. When the scientific establishment finds a group attacking is holy grail, they would never welcome such attackers!
I was perusing a National Geographic article on Stem Cells. They actually had the audacity to print this statement in the front end of the article (which means they obviously exclude as intellectuals anyone who disagrees with them...there are just a few thousand):
Nat Geog July 2005
Page 7
"Few question the medical promise of embryonic stem cells"
Scores of prominent people question it, but they are not the kingmakers of govt medicine and hold the bureacratic levers of medical power...so they are dismissed as "few".
How convenient of them.
>>I can give you a good round number of articles and findings on intelligent design that have made it through the scientific peer review process:<<
That "peer review process" is starting to look about as credible as the process used to select stories for the NYT.
I say that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the world. To assert that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist requires as much faith as the Flying Spaghetti Monster would conceivably require.
Many of them -- not all -- have chosen to define science in such a way that excludes the supernatural.
The definition of science does exclude the supernatural (which, by definition, is outside the laws of nature).
Remember how fond Secular Humanists were of using the reference of "the rotting corpse of Christianity"
"God is dead" was quite fashionable.
Well, well, well...now how should we describe religious secular humanism now?
We of the biblical faith community would not be so crass.
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.