Skip to comments.
Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll (69% of Americans Want alternate theories allowed in class)
WorldnetDaily.Com ^
| 03/07/2006
Posted on 03/07/2006 2:34:37 PM PST by SirLinksalot
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 681-700, 701-720, 721-740 ... 941-953 next last
To: CarolinaGuitarman
You want ID to be considered scientific before it makes any scientific, testable claims.
[I do]??? where did I post anything even close to that?
Just because there is no evidence for ID now doesn't mean there ever (never?) will be
We are somewhat in agreement here... I'm sure you would agree that just because we haven't found any evidence, doesn't mean there is none.
You want science to change its rules and allow ID in before it makes any testable claims.
I do???? (to avoid spam goto [I do])
701
posted on
03/08/2006 4:22:35 PM PST
by
darbymcgill
(FRevolution: The science of mutating concepts and definitions while tap dancing)
To: darbymcgill
Argument from ignorance--2, anti-evolutionist creationists--0.
702
posted on
03/08/2006 4:22:53 PM PST
by
ahayes
To: darbymcgill
The statement "there is no evidence of X" implicitly means "currently no evidence has been found for X", not "there is and will never be any evidence of X"
To: SirLinksalot; All
Interesting that the youngest people polled seemed to be the strongest supporters of teaching more than evolution.
They also tend to be the most pro-life in those polls.
Personally, I lean toward evolution after years in the creationist camp, but I still favor a debate on this and feel that the scientific evidence needs to be presented on both sides.
704
posted on
03/08/2006 4:34:52 PM PST
by
rwfromkansas
(http://xanga.com/rwfromkansas)
To: bobdsmith
The statement "there is no evidence of X" implicitly means "currently no evidence has been found for X", not "there is and will never be any evidence of X"
I agree that one might easily "infer" from the statement that none has been found over none exists, but without further clarification, only the author knows what was implied.
705
posted on
03/08/2006 4:36:17 PM PST
by
darbymcgill
(FRevolution: The science of mutating concepts and definitions while tap dancing)
To: Elsie
To: ahayes
Those who control the meaning of words, by definition, define the arguement....
707
posted on
03/08/2006 4:40:25 PM PST
by
darbymcgill
(FRevolution: The science of mutating concepts and definitions while tap dancing)
To: Ichneumon
Posted by
Sir Francis Dashwood to
manwiththehandsOn News/Activism ^ 03/08/2006 2:24:11 AM PST · 440 of 707 ^
How do you feel about teaching the idea that life may have originated from outer space?
They already do... the Big Bang theory... another immaculate conception...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 402 | View Replies
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEXT...
To: rwfromkansas
Interesting that the youngest people polled seemed to be the strongest supporters of teaching more than evolution. They also tend to be the most pro-life in those polls. And how do they rank in educational attainments?
709
posted on
03/08/2006 5:27:17 PM PST
by
balrog666
(Come and see my new profile! Now with corrected spelling!)
To: SampleMan
Is it really rational scientific thought process to begin the conversation by proclaiming the other party "false"?
I am not declaring all of the other party "false". I am simply making reference to known, often repeated, falsehoods as told by creationists.
710
posted on
03/08/2006 5:28:46 PM PST
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: Barney Gumble
it's not good to leave out a belief that is held by 1/2 of the population.
The percentage of the US population that believes a proposition has no bearing on that proposition's scientific validity.
711
posted on
03/08/2006 5:31:10 PM PST
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: Dimensio
You are not being politically correct. You should say differently truthful.
712
posted on
03/08/2006 5:32:15 PM PST
by
js1138
To: balrog666
The people in the age group are at least 18.
713
posted on
03/08/2006 5:38:48 PM PST
by
rwfromkansas
(http://xanga.com/rwfromkansas)
To: Hill of Tara
The evolutionists have no more proof human life evolved from other Terran life than those who would say humans came from outer space...
In fact, evolutionists have to admit human life came from outer space... the Big Bang theory... just another immaculate conception...
see #708...
To: Sir Francis Dashwood
In fact, evolutionists have to admit human life came from outer space... the Big Bang theory.
You are mistaken regarding the scope of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is not in any way related to the Big Bang theory. Falsifying one would have no implications for the other.
715
posted on
03/08/2006 5:45:14 PM PST
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: Dr. Eckleburg
Hey, where have you been. I thought you found out you were wrong about the rapture and were gone and I was wrong about post mil and I was left.
To: rwfromkansas
Oh, you mean young whippersnappers with no knowledge of the real world. BFD.
717
posted on
03/08/2006 5:49:49 PM PST
by
balrog666
(Come and see my new profile! Now with corrected spelling!)
To: Dimensio
The theory of evolution is not in any way related to the Big Bang theory.The origin of species is rooted in the idea of a singularity: the mechanics of the DNA molecule. All species of Terran life has it.
Like the singularity of the Big Bang theory, these two are categorically inseparable as immaculate conceptions. It only takes a mere application of logic.
The evolutionists have no more proof human life evolved from other Terran life than those who would say humans came from extraterrestrials...
To: Sir Francis Dashwood
The evolutionists have no more proof human life evolved from other Terran life than those who would say humans came from extraterrestrials... Proof, no. Science does not deal in proof (try some good Irish whiskey).
Evidence though? Actually there is a lot of evidence showing evolution from earlier forms.
But I wouldn't want to bet the rent money on extraterrestrials.
719
posted on
03/08/2006 5:58:44 PM PST
by
Coyoteman
(I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
To: Sir Francis Dashwood
The origin of species is rooted in the idea of a singularity: the mechanics of the DNA molecule. All species of Terran life has it.
This is true, however once past that singularity, nothing has relevance to the theory of evolution. For example, how the first organism with DNA came to exist is not part of the theory of evolution.
Like the singularity of the Big Bang theory, these two are categorically inseparable as immaculate conceptions. It only takes a mere application of logic.
I am afraid that you are mistaken. The theory of evolution implies that all organisms arose from descent from a common ancestory. Beyond that, it can imply nothing more. It does not imply that all matter in the universe originated from a "singularity".
720
posted on
03/08/2006 5:59:03 PM PST
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 681-700, 701-720, 721-740 ... 941-953 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