Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Neaderthals At It Again
Conservative Battleline Online ^ | January 11, 2006 | Donald Devine

Posted on 01/11/2006 8:42:47 PM PST by TheClintons-STILLAnti-American

Neanderthals At It Again

H.L. Mencken’s final report from the famous Scopes trial in Dayton Tennessee comes roaring down to us after 80 years as sharply edged as ever:

"Let no one mistake [the trial] for comedy, farcical though it may be in all its details.  It serves notice on the country that Neanderthal man is organizing in these forlorn backwaters of the land, led by a fanatic, rid of sense and devoid of conscience.  Tennessee, challenging him too timorously and too late, now sees its courts converted into camp meetings and its Bill of Rights made a mock of by sworn officers of the law.  There are other states that had better look to their arsenals before the Hun is at their gates."

Could he have foreseen the recent Pennsylvania case contesting evolution in terms Scopes would find unchanged from how Clarence Darrow argued for him way back then? Mencken anticipated even more in an earlier Nation column: “No principle is at stake at Dayton save the principle that school teachers, like plumbers, should stick to the job that is set before them, and not go roving around the house, breaking windows, raiding the cellar, and demoralizing children.” The continuity in both of his observations on human nature was that the Neanderthals were in charge of the law and that none of those involved had the sense to stick to what they actually knew when scientific and intellectual matters were at hand.

The more recent decision was issued by a U.S. District Court Judge with the impressive moniker of John E. Jones III in a case from the equally inconspicuous Dover, PA. Judge Jones the Third could have avoided making a fool of himself by either declaring the case moot—the school board that required a statement in their biology textbook book claiming evolution was only a theory rather than a fact and that “intelligent design” was an alternative explanation to Charles Darwin’s, had been defeated in the prior election—or even ruled that the board decision was biased by religious prejudice. But the new school board had already announced it would appeal only if it lost the case so The Third knew he would not be reviewed by higher court authority and was presented with a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to demonstrate upon a world stage his intellectual and scientific superiority to the boobs.

The distinguished member of the Schuylkill County Bar, educated to the highest levels as a Bachelor of Arts at Dickinson College and, comfortably again, at its School of Law let hubris unleash his pen and decided not a mere case of law but chose to define biology, science and rationality itself, Constitutionally, legally, once and for all, for all time. All he proved, and that rather conclusively, is we have learned absolutely nothing over these fourscore years.

What gives Batchelor Jones his superior powers? He admits he must deal with “complex if not obtuse” matters but claims that “after a six-week trial that spanned 21 days…no other tribunal in the United States is in a better position than are we to traipse into this controversial area.” No kidding, he did say traipse and it all came to him over the span of an incredible six weeks! After all, his scientific expertise prior to the Federal court was as The Honorable Chairman of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board and before that as Solicitor of the great metropolis of Pottstown, PA, surely ranking favorably with the pallid scientific background of Mencken’s memorable Dr. Crabbes.

The 21-day wonder’s first target was the comparatively easy subject of biology. He acknowledged that some serious scientists had found problems with evolution citing gaps in the record and life-forms that did not seem to evolve from lower bodies. But “Just because scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not mean that they cannot and will not be able to explain them tomorrow.” Certainly, this is true but, while Judge Jones thinks this disposes of the case, his is just as clearly a belief based upon faith rather than upon the empirical science he claims is the only standard for an idea’s worth. While any scientific theory deserves the liberality of this assumption, it is clearly based on cosmology rather than empirical observation.

In evaluating the alternative intelligent design theory favored by the first school board, however, the Judge uses a more fundamentalist standard. “Intelligent design is a religious view,” he declares, “a mere re-labeling of creationism and not a scientific theory. It is an extension of the Fundamentalists’ view that one must either accept the literal interpretation of Genesis or else believe in the godless system of evolution.” This is in spite of the fact that even most Christians do not view Genesis literally in every regard and that its largest denomination, the Catholic Church, accepts evolution as a likely part of the explanation rather than either/or. Even the consensus of evolutionary science has devised the cosmological idea of the Big Bang as part of its explanation, which bang by definition is itself not evolutionary but an abrupt bang.

Judge Jones does not hit full stride until he defines science itself. “Science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena,” opining that the scientific revolution was explicitly about the rejection of “revelation” in favor of empirical evidence. This certainly would have been a revelation to the devout Isaac Newton, the--or one of the--men normally recognized as the leader of that revolution, or to Brahe, Copernicus, Kepler, Liebniz, Napier or most of the rest of the pioneers. But the Judge moves bravely on: “science has been a discipline in which testability rather than any ecclesiastical authority or philosophical coherence has been the measure of a scientific idea’s worth,” a discipline that avoids any search for “meaning” or “purpose,” although he does mention the need for logic as a “tool” of science and for “ground rules,” although he limits these by claiming “the essential ground rules” are those that “limit science to testable, natural explanations.”

The Judge’s admirers are correct to note he has given a “clear definition of science” and even that his is “a passionate peon to science.” Yet, to anyone even vaguely familiar with philosophy of science, it obviously is a most particular definition of science, one called logical positivism, one that was the dominant view in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and is still the majority view of the establishment institutions like the National Academy of Science relied upon so much by Judge Jones, which in his case plays the role of the Holy Office experts against Galileo (who also was a devout believer). But this particular definition has been seriously challenged and not only by religionists. Take the philosopher Sir Karl Popper, who was not religious and not a believer in God. One could have instead referenced Albert Einstein but he did believe in God. Popper wrote his Logic of Scientific Discovery in mid 20th Century to critique positivism from a strictly logical point of view.

The key to understanding the Judge’s partisan approach to science is his use of “testability.” Popper was the first to rigorously argue that science does not test theories but attempts to falsify theories. Testing to prove theories is logically impossible for a reason the Judge inadvertently acknowledged. New evidence can always falsify a theory but can never confirm one since new evidence can always overturn the earlier findings. No theory is ever proven but is always open to dispute. Logically, this must include evolution. Otherwise, it truly is a religious belief. The Judge is also on shaky ground in claiming that science is limited to natural causes to explain natural phenomena. Even he recognized the need for logic, which even positivists like A.J. Ayer, recognized was not material but analytic. More importantly, Popper claimed that all science rests on cosmology which defines the point of view, the motivation, the methodology and the types of problems scientists find worthy of study and are not material themselves.

Popper may be wrong but the Judge does not seem aware there is a controversy. The cosmology or cosmologies that structure science are not testable--logic is not, mathematics is not, the scientific method is not. These need to be internally consistent but they cannot be tested empirically. Big Bang is itself one of these propositions. Interestingly, Big Bang was fiercely rejected by the leading evolutionists of the 1960s for the same reason intelligent design is today. Such a belief can leave a place for God outside the theory as the cause of the bang. But Big Bang proved irresistible to scientists as part of a more rational explanation and most evolutionists rely upon it today.

Again, in the 1970s, it became increasingly impossible to ignore the scientific evidence that the fittest did not always survive. The fossil record showed innumerable species that died out that seemed more fit than those that survived. Besides “survival of the fittest” sounded too much like Hitler. So evolutionists were forced to recognize outside catastrophic events such as meteors that overruled evolution and killed off normally superior species. Yet, again, if some events outside evolution as Darwin used the term were recognized the fear from some scientists was that there was room for the unwashed to introduce God as an outside creative event.

The big secret is that no one follows pure Darwinian evolution today except the ignorant who have no idea what scientists actually believe. Both Big Bang (interesting capitalization) and catastrophism would be heresy to Darwin and were violently rejected by his followers when these concepts were first introduced. They are a normal part of biology today and are taught in most textbooks. Intelligent design may be more of the same in the future. Who knows? What is clear is that the keepers of the scientific tablets will continue to reject any additions to the dogma that seem to weaken its myths—especially for those for whom Darwinian evolution has become a metaphysic--and the Judge Jones of the world will continue to follow convention and the mob and assist them. But reality has a way of intruding and establishments are not always successful, especially over the long run.

What is most interesting is that the roles in the earlier and current controversies have been almost completely reversed. Like Tennessee, Pennsylvania passed a law requiring adherence to the current orthodoxy, creationism in the twenties but evolution today. It is important to note that the earlier Dover school board was trying to skirt a state law that forced the orthodox view and that when popular emotion was whipped up by the orthodoxy the mob threw out the intelligent designers, not the evolutionists as earlier in Tennessee. In both cases, the popular theory was made into law and forced upon a minority that held an alternative view. In both cases, the law is made the ass, manipulated to favor the majority public position over the minority one.

As in the past, the more rational position will probably prevail over the longer term. What is certain is that intelligent design is not simply a religious dogma, as it is supported by non-religionists—in fact, we printed such a defense here by William Daley (http:\\acuf.org/issue45/051005med)--and several of these appeared before Judge Jones even though he chose to ignore them. As far as the minority is concerned, there is more than one way to skin a cat. If convinced of the merits of the case, one way forward for intelligent designers is for local school boards to offer philosophy of science courses to discuss the cosmological issues as a way to circumvent the heavy hand of the state and the courts One thing is sure. Mencken would be unsurprised that human nature had not changed. Only the Hun has changed sides. The fanatics devoid of sense, the Neanderthals, and the sworn officers of the law are still abusing the Bill of Rights, only now they are being led by a Federal judge.

Donald Devine, the editor, taught philosophy of science at the University of Maryland for 14 years and is a professor of Western Civilization at Bellevue University.


Email the Editor



TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: activistjudges; americantaliban; bigbang; charlesdarwin; clarencedarrow; cosmology; crevolist; enlightenment; evolution; intelligentdesign; jesusfreaks; judgejohnjonesiii; religiousbigotry; scienceandreligion; scopestrial; snakehandlers; usdistrictcourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-72 next last
To: Fred Nerks

One word, guy. Kooks.


21 posted on 01/11/2006 9:22:41 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: TheClintons-STILLAnti-American
What a pile of steaming dung. Anybody interested in what Judge Jones actually said should read his decision.

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District et. al.

22 posted on 01/11/2006 9:30:04 PM PST by MRMEAN (Corruptisima republica plurimae leges. -- Tacitus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

" Interestingly, Big Bang was fiercely rejected by the leading evolutionists of the 1960s for the same reason intelligent design is today.

...and he certainly knows nothing about this history of science! "

Nice catch, Right Wing Professor, that one was a whopper.

Biologists weighing in on the big bang with theoretical Physicists. I see them duking it out at Starbucks all the time.


23 posted on 01/11/2006 9:32:26 PM PST by beaver fever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: wfallen
Tom Wolfe says Darwinism is dead

Well, Thank God for Tom Wolfe!

( Er, Who's Tom Wolfe? )

24 posted on 01/11/2006 9:37:34 PM PST by dread78645 (Sorry Mr. Franklin, We couldn't keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks
One more problem for the Big Bang: Recently-discovered galaxy clusters reveal too much complex structure to be as “young” as Big Bang speculations would require.

So what would such a "complex structure" require?

... Gravitational forces could not have generated such a cluster of galaxies in such an astronomically short time.

Fascinating. And how astronomically long of a time would be required?

Also fascinating is the parts of the press release they "forgot" to quote (or at least link to):

The VLT data measured the redshift of this cluster as 1.4, indicating a distance of 9,000 million light-years, 500 million light years farther out than the previous record holding cluster.

This means that the present cluster must have formed when the Universe was less than one third of its present age. The Universe is now believed to be 13,700 million years old.

"We are quite surprised to see that a fully-fledged structure like this could exist at such an early epoch," says Christopher Mullis. "We see an entire network of stars and galaxies in place, just a few thousand million years after the Big Bang".

"We seem to have underestimated how quickly the early Universe matured into its present-day state," adds Piero Rosati of ESO, another member of the team. "The Universe did grow up fast!"

So the previous record-holder was 8,500Mya, and this one is measured at 9,000Mya. Roughly a six percent increase.

Stop the lab experiments!
Empirical science is a fraud!

</sarc>

25 posted on 01/11/2006 10:09:44 PM PST by dread78645 (Sorry Mr. Franklin, We couldn't keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: MRMEAN
Anybody interested in what Judge Jones actually said should read his decision.

Don't be foolish, nobody on the ID side is actually interested in what he wrote.

"Most people would sooner die than think; and frequently, they do so."
-- Bertrand Russell

26 posted on 01/11/2006 10:17:47 PM PST by dread78645 (Sorry Mr. Franklin, We couldn't keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
The effects of nearby supernovae on the biosphere have been the object of intensive study be geologists in recent years, in the attempt to account for abrupt changes in the history of life on this planet. Cf. D. Russel and W. Tucker, “Supernovae and the Extinction of the Dinosaurs,” Nature 229 (Feb. 19, 1971), pp. 553-554. Sudden extinctions were followed by the appearance of new species, quite different from those preceding them in the stratigraphic record. In a relatively brief interval whole genera were annihilated, giving way to new creatures of radically different aspect, having little in common with the forms they replaced. See N. D. Newell, “Revolutions in the History of Life,” Geological Society of America Special Papers 89, pp. 68-91; Cf. S. J. Gould and N. Eldredge, “Punctuated equilibria: the tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered,” Paleobiology 1977, Vol. III, pp. 115-151. Thus over the past two or three decades many geologists and paleontologists have found themselves increasingly drawn to the view that the observed abrupt changes in the biosphere, such as that which marked the end of the Mesozoic and is thought to have brought with it the extinction of the dinosaurs, among other animal groups, could best be explained by the exposure of the then living organisms to massive doses of radiation coming from a nearby supernova. The radiation would annihilate many species, especially those whose representatives, whether because of their large size or for other reasons, were unable to shield themselves from the powerful rays; at the same time new organisms would be created through mutations or “macro-evolution.” See Velikovsky’s comments in “The Pitfalls of Radiocarbon Dating,” Pensée IV (1973), p. 13: “. . . in the catastrophe of the Deluge, which I ascribe to Saturn exploding as a nova, the cosmic rays must have been very abundant to cause massive mutations among all species of life. . . .” Animals would suffer much more severely than plants—on plants the principle effect would be mutagenic. See K. D. Terry and W. H. Tucker, “Biologic Effects of Supernovae,” Science 159 (1968), pp. 421-423.].

http://www.knowledge.co.uk/velikovsky/earth.htm

Care to help me make a list of all the 'kooks' - throughout history who have been proven by time to be genius? Until recently electromagnetism was also a 'kook' theory, the Sun was SUPPOSED to be an electrically inert body...the clockwork Universe 'hung together' through magnetism and nothing but nothing dared to interfere with the rotation of the 'heavenly spheres' - yet it did, something did and quite severely. Recently. Within historical times.

Pity we can't ask the people who left us this evidence what it might have been that killed the creatures they depicted here:

Image hosted by Photobucket.com

27 posted on 01/11/2006 10:19:57 PM PST by Fred Nerks (Read THE LIFE OF MUHAMMAD free pdf download - link on My Page)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: dread78645

The First Crisis in Cosmology Conference
By Tim Ventura | Published 08/30/2005 | Research | Rating:

Tim Ventura
The Linus Torvalds of Antigravity ... Since the birth of American Antigravity in 2002, Tim has been featured on a multitude of television networks, such as Nippon TV and the BBC, as well as extensively covered in print by sources as diverse as Wired Magazine and Jane's Defense Weekly.

View all articles by Tim Ventura The Big Bang was wrong
by Hilton Radcliffe [mailto:ratcliffe@iafrica.com]

Introduction: In May 2004, a group of about 30 concerned scientists published an open letter to the global scientific community in New Scientist in which they protested the stranglehold of Big Bang theory on cosmological research and funding. The letter was placed on the Internet and rapidly attracted wide attention. It currently has about 300 signatories representing scientists and researchers of disparate backgrounds, and has led to a loose association now known as the Alternative Cosmology Group. This writer was one of the early signatories to the letter, and holding the view that the Big Bang explanation of the Universe is scientifically untenable, patently illogical, and without any solid observational support whatsoever, became involved in the organisation of an international forum where we could share ideas and plan our way forward. That idea became a reality with the staging of the First Crisis in Cosmology Conference (CCC-1) in the lovely, medieval walled village of Moncao, far northern Portugal, over 3 days in June of this year.

Big Bang theory depends critically on three first principles: that the Universe is holistically and systematically expanding as per the Friedmann model; that General Relativity correctly describes gravitation; and that Milne’s Cosmological Principle, which declares that the Universe at some arbitrary “large scale” is isotropic and homogeneous, is true. The falsification of any one of these principles would lead to the catastrophic failure of the theory. We saw at the conference that all three can be successfully challenged on the basis of empirical science...

http://www.americanantigravity.com/articles/209/1/The-First-Crisis-in-Cosmology-Conference

NO ONE HAS THE LAST WORD IN SCIENCE.


28 posted on 01/11/2006 10:29:55 PM PST by Fred Nerks (Read THE LIFE OF MUHAMMAD free pdf download - link on My Page)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks; RadioAstronomer
NO ONE HAS THE LAST WORD IN SCIENCE.

Never said anyone did. (and your subject shift is noted).

Anyhow, on to the Wide World of Wanna-be science:

Tim Ventura
The Linus Torvalds of Antigravity ... Since the birth of American Antigravity in 2002 ...

Anti gravity? This isn't the "Hutchinson Effect" is it? ... By Jove, it is!
For those playing at home, a Canadian, John Hutchinson ran 1,600Mva through a set of Tesla coils and lifted a frog off a plate. A whole flock of folks that claim it's a demonstration of telekinesis, or psychokinesis, or UFO propulsion, or anti-gravity depending on the individual's cognitive handicap.

But let's continue:

Introduction: In May 2004, a group of about 30 concerned scientists published an open letter to the global scientific community in New Scientist in which they protested the stranglehold of Big Bang theory on cosmological research and funding. The letter was placed on the Internet and rapidly attracted wide attention. It currently has about 300 signatories representing scientists and researchers of disparate backgrounds, and has led to a loose association now known as the Alternative Cosmology Group. This writer was one of the early signatories to the letter, and holding the view that the Big Bang explanation of the Universe is scientifically untenable, patently illogical, and without any solid observational support whatsoever, became involved in the organisation of an international forum where we could share ideas and plan our way forward. That idea became a reality with the staging of the First Crisis in Cosmology Conference (CCC-1) in the lovely, medieval walled village of Moncao, far northern Portugal, over 3 days in June of this year.

Oh how exciting! Alternative Astronomers having an Alternative Cosmology Conference in Moncao.


Alternative cosmologies

A while back Scott Hughes pointed me to the web page of the Alternative Cosmology Group. (Scott, what did I ever do to you?) These are folks who don't really believe in the Big Bang model. The Big Bang is simply the idea that we live in a universe which is nearly homogeneous and isotropic, and has been expanding from a hot, dense state for the last several billion years. Evidence for this model is overwhelming, starting with the fundamental successes of the Hubble Law (distance proportional to velocity for nearby galaxies), the existence of the cosmic microwave background radiation (a relic from the early hot state), and the primordial abundance of light elements (a signature of nucleosynthesis when the universe was about a minute old). More recently, specific models within the Big Bang framework have scored fantastic empirical successes at explaining anisotropies in the microwave background, the characteristics of large-scale structures, the age of the universe, and so on. And patient experts continue to slap down various proposed alternatives. Still, there are doubters. Remind you of any other famously successful scientific theories?

It's fun to go through the introductory paragraph of the Alternative Cosmology Group web site, searching for true statements. Fun, but not especially rewarding.

The Alternative Cosmology Group (ACG) was initiated with the Open Letter on Cosmology written to the scientific community and published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004.

Hey, that one's true! The ACG was initiated with that letter. As far as I know, anyway. (It's all downhill from here.)

The letter points to the fundamental problems of the Big Bang theory, and to the unjustified limiting of cosmological funding to work within the Big Bang framework.

No, it doesn't, since the problems are not fundamental, and the limiting is perfectly justified. We're short of funding as it is; why spend money on theories that have been disproven?

The epicyclic character of the theory, piling ad-hoc hypothesis upon hypothesis, its incompleteness and the appearance of a singularity in the big bang universe beginning require consideration of alternatives.

No, they don't. Various hypotheses may or may not be ad-hoc, but they are simply required to fit the data. We should certainly be looking for ways to go beyond the currently favored version of the Big Bang model by reducing the number of hypotheses, and tying up some of the loose ends, but any such theory will simply be an improved version of the model. You won't replace the fact that the universe is expanding from an initial hot, dense state.

This has become particularly necessary with the increasing number of observations that contradict the theory's predictions. No, it hasn't, since there are no such observations.

Big Bang cosmology has been in a crisis since the early 90's when the Cold Dark Matter model began to fail.

No, it hasn't. The most restrictive possible version of the "Cold Dark Matter Model," in which there was a critical density of matter particles, was indeed in trouble by the early 90's. Those troubles were resolved in 1998 when it was discovered that the universe is accelerating, implying the existence of dark energy. The "Standard CDM" model was swiftly replaced by the "Lambda-CDM" model (Lambda standing for the cosmological constant), and problems with structure formation and the age of the universe were resolved in one fell swoop. The Big Bang model itself, of course, was never in trouble at all. (A persistent error on the part of critics is to confuse particular scenarios within the Big Bang framework with the framework itself.)

Fifteen years later, this crisis has worsened, despite the addition of dark energy.

No, it hasn't. To the extent that it ever existed, it has gone away. Dark energy, like it or not, keeps being verified by new and independent measurements.


-- more at Preposterous Universe - Alternative cosmologies

29 posted on 01/12/2006 12:28:32 AM PST by dread78645 (Sorry Mr. Franklin, We couldn't keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

Comment #30 Removed by Moderator

To: TheClintons-STILLAnti-American

Yep, Gravity is just a theory.
http://www.re-discovery.org/gravity_1.html

If you know enough science to show the errors in this account, then you might be worth replying to. Show us your answers.


31 posted on 01/12/2006 12:46:04 AM PST by thomaswest (just curious)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vik
Tom Wolfe is an excellent author.

Oh, I agree and I'm familiar with his books.

32 posted on 01/12/2006 1:15:14 AM PST by dread78645 (< / sarcasm > tags are for wussies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks

Fred, Fred,

All data must be verifiable or else it isn't valid data.

Additionally, I must remind you that all science is basically hypothesis, hypothesis, hypothesis.

Those wanting truths in the laboratory are sent to the church down the street.

Science can produce high probabilities, but absolute truths are the realm of theology and philosophy. Such truths are more a produce of agreed upon definitions than verified hypothesis - hence the difference between the laboratory and the church.

As the job descriptions are different, so are the lab and the church.


33 posted on 01/12/2006 2:34:52 AM PST by GladesGuru (In a society predicated upon Liberty, it is essential to examine principle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza; Junior
Thanks for the ping, but the evo list has had quite a few threads like this, so I'll let this one pass.
34 posted on 01/12/2006 3:21:21 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: TheClintons-STILLAnti-American

Well let's watch this little school to see the results. This little school is the perfect test case it is observable and testable. There is no shadow of a doubt that any part of the results can be blame on GOD.


35 posted on 01/12/2006 3:40:25 AM PST by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks

"And if it was based on hard scientific data then it wouldn't be a THEORY, would it?"

Yes, it would. Theory is the highest level a scientific idea can achieve. There is nothing higher. That's why it's the theory of gravity, germ theory, theory of evolution, and so on.


36 posted on 01/12/2006 5:17:13 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: TheClintons-STILLAnti-American

Oh. I thought this was gonna be about the Dems at Alito's confirmation hearing.


37 posted on 01/12/2006 5:18:44 AM PST by mewzilla (Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist. John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wfallen

"Exactly what "hard scientific data" shows that the first cell was formed from simple chemicals?"

How many times are you going to keep insisting that evolution has anything to do with the origins of life? When are you EVER going to reply to the numerous responses to your posts? What are you afraid of?


38 posted on 01/12/2006 5:19:16 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks

And if it was based on hard scientific data then it wouldn't be a THEORY, would it? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

This is the common misconception which destroys your defense of creationism. You would do well to learn what the real meaning of scientific theory is, you weaken your own argument with statements like that one.


39 posted on 01/12/2006 6:23:28 AM PST by RipSawyer (Acceptance of irrational thinking is expanding exponentiallly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks
"Pity we can't ask the people who left us this evidence what it might have been that killed the creatures they depicted here:"

Image hosted by Photobucket.com

Reminds me on of my early drawings. But my arrows looked better.

Pity we can't ask the artists in question what they got in mind. Maybe this:
40 posted on 01/12/2006 6:36:27 AM PST by MHalblaub (Tell me in four more years (No, I did not vote for Kerry))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-72 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson