Posted on 12/21/2005 6:22:46 AM PST by truthfinder9
It's simply fact in most cases - for example, the statement "Most Creationists are liars" isn't an insult, it's a simple fact. Seems to upset people though.
As soon as they stop using degenerating terms for design scientists.
"Darwin is not a religious figure"
I would venture to say he certainly is to some - many on these threads.
Try reading it again. Studies show they aren't related, which is what the post said. What are you reading?
The 12-step meeting is down the hall, cowboy.
Notice that the scientists are NEVER actual trained paleontologists; just an smalll assortment of chemists and physicists on the periphery of the fields necessary to understand evolution.
There's good scholarship: "I'll believe the review of some non-scientist because it happens to agree with what I think."
No wonder evolution is dying.
LOL, this after the evolutionists greatest court victory this century? How dare you rain upon their parade? Did you not read the judge's decision "GOD" is NOT allowed in man's evolution, I mean science class.
"Darwin Fundie" isn't "name-calling," it's a definition:
People who believe, a priori, that Darwinian evolution is true and will rationalize any science to prove it, rather than finding empirical evidence to do so.
Correct. I read Origin quite a few years ago, and am now reading "Voyage of The Beagle".
Most people who accuse Darwin of evolutionary misdeeds don't even realize he died about 80 years before Watson and Crick did their work.
And Darwin was certainly not alone in his naturalist philosophies, Lamarck had done alot of work along very similar veins.
Check this out :-)
http://www.gatech.edu/news-room/release.php?id=801
Chemists and physisicts actually know what they're doing.
Paleontologists just make conjectures about what they dig up.
If a chemist tells me that, based on the evidence, evolution could not have occurred, I find that somewhat compelling. If a paleontologist tells me that archeopteryx had colorful plumage, I am unconvinced.
Its a simple choice for parents now, sending kids to public schools will guarantee Darwin Fundamentalist indoctrination. Disagree in public schools? Fail the course.
If you want to avoid this, home schooling or private schools are the only way to go.
Methinks the recent ruling out of Harrisburg will help make this situation clear. Public Schools preach Darwinism....its the parents choice whether to send kids there or not.
Some may thing the PA ruling was bad, I think it was good. It created a clear and concise choice for parents. Leftists may be rejoicing, but it could signal big-time trouble for public schools. The last laugh may be had by private schools or homeschoolers.
The author of this article doesn't believe in ID.
Creation Scientist says Intelligent Design Has No Place in Public School Science Curriculum
"As currently formulated, Intelligent Design is not science," says Dr. Fazale Rana, internationally respected biochemist and one of the world's leading experts in origin of life research.
This guy wants to push his own theory that complex things like people are built by God and that complex things like gods occur naturally without a designer.
I usually agree and often admire your posts, but you lost me with this one.
The author simply uses the identical technique which is mother's milk in every pro-evolution article or critique I've ever read.
Why hold one side to a higher standard and totally ignore the contents?
If man evolved from apes, why are apes still here? Wouldn't they all be man?
The great scientists a few centuries back SWORE the earth was flat.
Around the same time, scientists SWORE that bleeding people cured them from all sorts of diseases and that little invisible things called germs was a crock of garbage.
I do believe we adapt, but that in itself is the beauty of ID. The creation with the ability to adapt, evolve, etc...
Please cite these fictional studies.
Like I've said, unless you're being deliberately deceptive, is that you've misunderstood studies showing that:
1) Humans aren't descended from Neanderthals, something long believed in the scientific community anyway and not a shock or surprise
2) Humans have not interbred at all with Neanderthals
...as meaning there's no relation between Humans and Neanderthals. In fact we had a common ancestor, but quite a long time ago, in the 500,000-700,000 year range.
http://www.archaeology.org/online/news/dna.html
Darwin Fundi
I like it.
But the screechers here won't.
Ok, maybe the book is wrong. Aren't screechers related to "Howlers"?
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.