Skip to comments.
Utah House kills evolution bill
Fort Wayne Journal Gazette ^
| 28 February 2006
| JENNIFER DOBNER
Posted on 02/28/2006 4:05:45 AM PST by PatrickHenry
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300, 301-320, 321-340 ... 1,541 next last
To: Elsie
You keep posting that chart, without attribution, as if it helped your argument somehow.
That chart is from The Fossil Record: Evolution or "Scientific Creation" by Clifford A. Cuffey. It is on part 5 of a multipart article.
The beginning of the article is here.
It effectively demolishes the entire creationist argument. Excellent reading!
301
posted on
02/28/2006 11:18:01 AM PST
by
Coyoteman
(I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
To: redrock
Unfortunatly (had to look in one more time before I left)...it's NOT a debate. Those who believe in Evolution have their minds as closed as those who don't. I've seen several people come to these threads and change their mind. This is not a total waste of time.
More important, it's a demonstration to whatever conservative political lurkers we have that they'd best not climb in bed and promote creationism. Because there are genuine conservatives around here who will not tolerate such foolishness. And conservatives who do such things will be defeated by a combination of outraged political moderates, lefties, and educated conservatives.
Rick Santorum once talked up ID, but he's recoiled from it. Both Bush brothers, same thing. Rush Limbaugh won't touch the subject. Even Fred Barnes on Fox News, who's obviously a Christian and once implied something positive about ID won't touch the subject now.
I think we're succeeding in preventing a real screwup by the Republican party. I hope so anyway.
Evolution is the new "third rail" in American politics.
[that's not a bad tagline]
302
posted on
02/28/2006 11:18:02 AM PST
by
narby
(Evolution is the new "third rail" in American politics)
To: ahayes
You're making the faulty assumption that those are descended in a line from the first to the last. Argue with Ichemonuen (sp?)
HE'S the one that posted this thing before, letting folks ASSUME that they all linked together.
303
posted on
02/28/2006 11:19:31 AM PST
by
Elsie
(Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
To: AmishDude; js1138; CarolinaGuitarman
Um-m, y'know about that math being the queen **and servant** thingy?
I use math, don't worship it.
Oh, and at least when I come from, you don't get a degree in bio without calc. Useful, in its place.
To: pby
BTW, there are several empirical proofs for the Bible...How much more empirical proof do you want above and beyond an eyewitness account? Proof of a global flood? I have yet to see any, and my own research contradicts it.
305
posted on
02/28/2006 11:20:46 AM PST
by
Coyoteman
(I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
To: PatrickHenry
Scripture spam placemarker.What!?
No SPAM tag for the MORMON stuff??
Interesting.........
306
posted on
02/28/2006 11:21:08 AM PST
by
Elsie
(Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
To: PatrickHenry
Very Interesting.........
307
posted on
02/28/2006 11:21:28 AM PST
by
Elsie
(Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
To: Lurking Libertarian
You can be a Jew, and still believe in Christ for your salvation!
308
posted on
02/28/2006 11:23:16 AM PST
by
Elsie
(Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
To: From many - one.
309
posted on
02/28/2006 11:23:50 AM PST
by
Elsie
(Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
To: js1138
The Bible says that it is inspired (God-breathed) by God and that It does not have any origin in the will of man. Thus, it is a first-hand eyewitness account.
Do you have empirical evidence to refute this?
Is it "scientific" to make such conclusions?
310
posted on
02/28/2006 11:24:27 AM PST
by
pby
To: Right Wing Professor
That's probably what is plugging it up: Pencils!!
311
posted on
02/28/2006 11:24:30 AM PST
by
Elsie
(Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
To: pby
Do you have empirical evidence that it is not eyewitness testimony? There is pretty good empirical evidence that Mark's gospel is not eyewitness testimony, in that he is confused about the geography of Palestine.
To: Elsie
That's probably what is plugging it up: Pencils!!(Insert joke about constipated mathematician here)
To: Elsie
314
posted on
02/28/2006 11:26:17 AM PST
by
balrog666
(Irrational beliefs inspire irrational acts.)
To: pby
Is it scientific to conclude that God is an unreliable eyewitness? Well... if HE doesn't speak DIRECTLY to YOU, then yopu have to rely on others for input.
Who knows, they may have faulty memory, or have an agenda, or an ax to grind, or be mentally off or (Heaven forbid!) a liar.
315
posted on
02/28/2006 11:27:12 AM PST
by
Elsie
(Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
To: Quark2005
I've noticed it wasn't one of MY replies....
316
posted on
02/28/2006 11:27:47 AM PST
by
Elsie
(Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
To: From many - one.
His ol' lady had just died. He was just 'being consouled'. Poor fellow.....
317
posted on
02/28/2006 11:28:54 AM PST
by
Elsie
(Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
To: js1138
The function of these threads is to demonstrate that FReepers are not dimwits. And Bode Miller is proof that he wasn't taking 'performance enhancing' drugs!
318
posted on
02/28/2006 11:29:48 AM PST
by
Elsie
(Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
To: Coyoteman
I'll stick this on it for future posting. Thanks!
319
posted on
02/28/2006 11:31:28 AM PST
by
Elsie
(Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
To: pby
I have no interest in discussing religion. I only get into religious discussions when people say things that are demonstrably untrue.
For example I have no evidence proving the Biblical flood did not happen. It is false, however, to assert that there is physical evidence for such an event.
If your faith requires physical evidence for support, I would expect you to be frequently and continuously disappointed.
Science can only deal with things that can be observed, or with regular, recurring phenomena. It can only base its picture of history on evidence that can be found and on extrapolating processes that can currently be observed.
320
posted on
02/28/2006 11:32:02 AM PST
by
js1138
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300, 301-320, 321-340 ... 1,541 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson