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 ... 841-860, 861-880, 881-900 ... 1,541 next last
To: Elsie
861
posted on
03/01/2006 7:09:02 AM PST
by
Junior
(Identical fecal matter, alternate diurnal period)
To: Elsie
That doesn't change the fact that HE was just ONE man! And evidently a happy one at that.
862
posted on
03/01/2006 7:09:36 AM PST
by
Junior
(Identical fecal matter, alternate diurnal period)
To: Elsie
Are you discounting the loads of immigrants that have arrived since then?
863
posted on
03/01/2006 7:11:12 AM PST
by
Junior
(Identical fecal matter, alternate diurnal period)
To: Elsie
And a poor movie, unfortunately. Mogambo (remake of Red Dust) was a much better of that type.
864
posted on
03/01/2006 7:31:56 AM PST
by
Doctor Stochastic
(Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
To: P-Marlowe
First of all, you weren't there. So? No one but O.J. saw him whack his wife and her friend, but the evidence was sufficient to convince quite a few people.
Second of all you obviously don't believe in miracles.
How do you know what I believe in? It's awefully presumptious of you, isn't it?
Do you deny that Jesus was born of a virgin as that was a physical impossibility. Do you deny that Jesus walked on water? That too was a physical impossibility. Do you deny that Jesus healed a man born blind by putting spit and dirt in his eyes? That too was a physical impossiblity. Do you believe that Jesus turned water into wine? Did Jesus calm the storm by the word of his mouth?
There is no evidence one way or another that these situations actually occurred. Indeed, it's pretty evident that lots of folks were performing such miracles in the Mediterranean at the same time. And, note, the "miracles" you mention are not of the type to leave any lasting physical evidence, UNLIKE A WORLD-WIDE FLOOD.
There is no evidence other than the testimony of the evangelists that any of these miracles occurred.
Exactly. Historians typically reject any classical claim for which there is no third-party reference. For example, one of the reasons we accept the existence of Julius Caesar is because, not only did he leave us some of his writings, he was mentioned by numerous contemporaries (including his enemies) in their writings. For the same reason, the Sumerian list of their earliest kings is taken with a grain of salt because there is no third-party reference to them.
Do you deny the resurrection? Can a man who was crucified get up from his tomb after three days and then ascend into heaven? Another physical impossibility for which we have no evidence other than the testimony of the evangelists.
Well, because there is no Roman record of Jesus, his execution, and subsequent disappearance -- and Romans kept records of everything -- one would be required to take the story with a grain of salt, if one were being intellectually honest.
From our viewpoint the flood was obviously a physical impossibility. You can't pull the oceans up from their bed and spread them over the earth, can you? That is a physical impossibility, isn't it?
Not an impossibility, but the lack of evidence for such an event is very indicative the entire account is fictitious. Would you believe it if someone claimed he moved a mountain overnight from point A to point B if there was no corroborating evidence?
Yet Jesus and Peter both attested to the fact of its occurrence.
Nope. A writer claimed they both attested to it. There is a difference, though you refuse to see it.
So am I going to believe You or my "lying" eyes? Well, since the only physical evidence I have is the words on the page of the Bible that it either occurred or didn't occur, I suppose I'll have to believe my "lying" eyes. I wasn't there. You weren't there. Jesus was. He is my eyewitness.
Once again, you are attributing to a book facts not in evidence. You have no evidence it is the Word of God, or even that it was divinely-inspired. You CHOOSE to believe that way. One does not need "to be there" to decipher events from readily-apparent clues. Cops and doctors do it all the time. What you are engaging in is a form of special pleading.
Now who are you going to believe? You're lying eyes, or Jesus Christ, the Creator and sustainer of all things?
I'm going to believe the evidence. Period. You can put your faith in hearsay if you'd like; that's your right. But understand why other people will not and why quoting from the Bible to reinforce your point is counter-productive in most cases.
865
posted on
03/01/2006 7:32:09 AM PST
by
Junior
(Identical fecal matter, alternate diurnal period)
To: BeHoldAPaleHorse
Gobbledegook.
A process as "important" to the foundation of life as Evos believe Evolution to be should not only be easily demonstrated in a third grade class room by its chemical formula as it works upon DNA, but should be reducible to a simple formula.
Sorry, but since Evos push how pervasive and important EvoThink to be, then, like the simplicity of water, Evolution should be easily observable, demonstrable, and reducible to easily understood formula
But it's complexity and unobservability and dependence upon time for its creative processes to work (time by itself is not a creative process in nature)) belie its lie.
it is up to Evos to make the genius of EvoThink very very plain, because Evos believe Evolution to be one of the building blocks of life.
The best I've done on FR so far is to get one Evo to admit it is a chemical DNA process.
That's a start. But some Evo needs to step up to the plate and really PROVE their contentions with mathematical formula. The lack of one, the "vast complexity" of what should be an easily observable force of nature, causes this old time Aristotelean thinker to not laugh at Evos (as the derisive comments against me from Evos here on FR betray EvoThink's irrational and religious basis) but to feel very very sorry that they have been so deceived by their vaulted view of man's knowledge and anti God bias.
866
posted on
03/01/2006 7:34:47 AM PST
by
Californiajones
("The apprehension of beauty is the cure for apathy" - Thomas Aquinas)
To: AmishDude
Close, but not quite accurate. Werner Heisenberg did re-invent matrix multiplication (from combinations of Fourier series), but Max Born did show him the matrix theory quite early in the game. Matrix theory wasn't that well know to physicists (or anyone else) in the early 1920s.
867
posted on
03/01/2006 7:36:41 AM PST
by
Doctor Stochastic
(Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
To: BeHoldAPaleHorse
Police dogs may be an exception in somc cases.
868
posted on
03/01/2006 7:37:32 AM PST
by
Doctor Stochastic
(Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
To: VadeRetro
James Hutton adumbrated Lyell.
869
posted on
03/01/2006 7:38:31 AM PST
by
Doctor Stochastic
(Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
To: Mamzelle
Wow! Show me those 70K year old trees! Show me a 2000 year old Bible, or better yet a 6000 year old original manuscript.
870
posted on
03/01/2006 7:43:41 AM PST
by
js1138
To: Mamzelle
No one mentioned "70k year trees."
Dendrochronology has been used to calibrate radiocarbon dating for items a few thousand years old or younger. Of course you knew that, but you were shooting for hyperbole, which is the hallmark of creationists who know they have nothing else. And, if you'd actually done ANY research on
ice cores, you'd have learned they they go back more than three-quarters of a million years, and have also been used to calibrate radiometric dating.
But hey, I've learned to expect invincible ignorance from you.
871
posted on
03/01/2006 7:49:24 AM PST
by
Junior
(Identical fecal matter, alternate diurnal period)
To: Mamzelle; Elsie
872
posted on
03/01/2006 7:50:09 AM PST
by
Junior
(Identical fecal matter, alternate diurnal period)
To: Elsie
Or "misunderstood" or "poorly copied"...You're learning.
873
posted on
03/01/2006 7:52:04 AM PST
by
Thatcherite
(More abrasive blackguard than SeaLion or ModernMan)
To: Californiajones
"A process as "important" to the foundation of life as Evos believe Evolution to be should not only be easily demonstrated in a third grade class room by its chemical formula as it works upon DNA, but should be reducible to a simple formula."
Horse manure. You're complete ignorance of how science works shines through your every post. I'll repeat: NO theory in science is summed up completely in one formula.
" That's a start. But some Evo needs to step up to the plate and really PROVE their contentions with mathematical formula."
Look up population genetics.
874
posted on
03/01/2006 7:52:27 AM PST
by
CarolinaGuitarman
("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
To: js1138
True.
My theory is they know they're wrong seven ways from Sunday, but they cannot bring themselves to throw off their old paradigm and adopt a new one because so much of what makes them "them" is wrapped up in the old paradigm.
"Know the truth and the truth shall set you free." Kinda ironic, isn't it?
875
posted on
03/01/2006 7:53:19 AM PST
by
Junior
(Identical fecal matter, alternate diurnal period)
To: Elsie
I'll bet the Indians sure didn't expect THAT when them 3 boats first landed, just over 500 years ago!!So earth's 7 billion came from another continent? Elsie, why don't you just think one of your arguments through once in a while. You've had the idiotic flaw in that one pointed out before.
876
posted on
03/01/2006 7:54:36 AM PST
by
Thatcherite
(More abrasive blackguard than SeaLion or ModernMan)
To: CarolinaGuitarman
That should be your not you're.
877
posted on
03/01/2006 7:55:32 AM PST
by
CarolinaGuitarman
("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
To: Junior; Elsie
I don't think Elsie minds.
To: Doctor Stochastic
He lent him an umbrella?
879
posted on
03/01/2006 8:08:57 AM PST
by
VadeRetro
(Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
To: Elsie
I just tossed it together over lunch and it needs a lot of work to be really useful. Is that all you got out of that? The reason that it needs more work is that it is giving much higher numbers than are reasonable. The reason for this is because it allows for women to have children every year from age 13 to 55, there is no infant mortality, no childhood disease, etc. Work needs to be done on it to REDUCE the population, not increase it.
880
posted on
03/01/2006 8:13:10 AM PST
by
wyattearp
(The best weapon to have in a gunfight is a shotgun - preferably from ambush.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 841-860, 861-880, 881-900 ... 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