Skip to comments.
Rebutting Darwinists: (Survey shows 2/3 of Scientists Believe in God)
Worldnetdaily.com ^
| 04/15/2006
| Ted Byfield
Posted on 04/15/2006 11:44:16 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 721-727 next last
To: SirLinksalot
The single cell shows such extraordinary complexity that to suggest it came about by sheer accident Name me one person who has suggested that it came about by sheer accident.
2
posted on
04/15/2006 11:49:30 AM PDT
by
Izzy Dunne
(Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
To: SirLinksalot
Now to voting. All those against the evolution raise your tails and throw a coconut at the vote counter.
3
posted on
04/15/2006 11:50:28 AM PDT
by
GSlob
To: Izzy Dunne
Name me one person who has suggested that it came about by sheer accident.
So, you're saying that random mutation is not an accident ?
To: SirLinksalot
Reasonable article. But expect to get flamed when the evo's catch up!
5
posted on
04/15/2006 11:53:04 AM PDT
by
guitarist
To: SirLinksalot
ACK. Where to begin?
1. For the millionth time, there's nothing atheistic about evolution, nor is there anything necessarily evolutionary about atheism. I believe in God, I am a religious man, and creationism is still bunk. This guy's claim that 10% of National Academy of Science members are creationists is lunacy.
2. Two readers called my attention to a discovery last week on an Arctic island of something which may be the fossil remains of the mysteriously missing "transitional species." Or then maybe it isn't transitional. Maybe it's a hitherto undetected species on its own.
All species are by definition transitional. What would a transitional species that isn't a species look like?
If Darwin was right, and the change from one species to another through natural selection occurred constantly in millions of instances over millions of years, then the fossil record should be teaming with transitional species. It isn't.
Incorrect.
The single cell shows such extraordinary complexity that to suggest it came about by sheer accident taxes credulity.
Correct. Fortunately, evolution doesn't suggest it came about by sheer accident.
. The Boston Globe reports that Harvard has begun an expensive project to discover how life emerged from the chemical soup of early earth. In the 150 years since Darwin, says the Globe, "scientists cannot explain how the process began."
Abiogenesis isn't evolution.
6
posted on
04/15/2006 11:55:07 AM PDT
by
Alter Kaker
("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
To: guitarist; PatrickHenry; CarolinaGuitarman; jennyp
7
posted on
04/15/2006 11:55:18 AM PDT
by
freedumb2003
(Don't call them "Illegal Aliens." Call them what they are: CRIMINAL INVADERS!)
To: SirLinksalot
I got it from a National Post (newspaper) article published two years ago, which said that 90 percent of the members of the National Academy of Science "consider themselves atheists." LOL!
To: SirLinksalot
So, you're saying that random mutation is not an accident ?Mutation isn't necessarily random and it is only one component of evolution. Selection is as deliberate and as non-accidental as anything can be.
9
posted on
04/15/2006 11:56:57 AM PDT
by
Alter Kaker
("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
To: SirLinksalot
"I think that evidence will accumulate to suggest that much of the genetic variation leading to the evolution of life on earth was not random, but was generated by biochemical processes that exhibit intelligent behavior." That sounds like Robert Shapiro
10
posted on
04/15/2006 11:56:58 AM PDT
by
js1138
(~()):~)>)
To: SirLinksalot; jennyp
But the very exuberance with which such a discovery is announced argues the I.D. case. If Darwin was right, and the change from one species to another through natural selection occurred constantly in millions of instances over millions of years, then the fossil record should be teaming with transitional species. It isn't. That's why even one possibility, after many years of searching, becomes front-page news. Obviously, the author doesn't know what a "transitional species" is, much less how to identify it.
All species are transitional. There is nothing here that "bolsters" the ID case and the number of scientists that believe in God is irrelevant to the number who understand TToE.
11
posted on
04/15/2006 11:57:56 AM PDT
by
freedumb2003
(Don't call them "Illegal Aliens." Call them what they are: CRIMINAL INVADERS!)
To: Alter Kaker
Selection is as deliberate and as non-accidental as anything can be.
Selection is a verb. Someone or something makes the selection. That's how I understand it. if it isn't someone, then something has to do it. What is that something ?
To: SirLinksalot
To me this could all be settled by asking God himself.
13
posted on
04/15/2006 11:58:28 AM PDT
by
Screamname
(By God, pray for me, someone help me please! Hillary is my Senator! HELP MEEE!)
To: SirLinksalot
Since if you're not an atheist, you allow for the possibility of a Mind or Intelligence behind nature, this puts 10 percent in the I.D. camp.Astounding leap of logic.
14
posted on
04/15/2006 11:59:01 AM PDT
by
Dog Gone
To: SirLinksalot
Selection is a verb. Someone or something makes the selection. That's how I understand it. if it isn't someone, then something has to do it. What is that something ? The environment makes the selection.
Did any of you CRIDers pass science in High School? I don't debate deep theology, since I am not that familiar with it. Why do you CRIDers persist in debating Natural Science when you don't bother to learn it?
15
posted on
04/15/2006 12:02:20 PM PDT
by
freedumb2003
(Don't call them "Illegal Aliens." Call them what they are: CRIMINAL INVADERS!)
To: PatrickHenry
16
posted on
04/15/2006 12:03:14 PM PDT
by
Junior
(Identical fecal matter, alternate diurnal period)
To: SirLinksalot
Selection is a verb.LOL! Clearly you failed grammar. "Selection" is a noun. "Select" is a verb.
Someone or something makes the selection. That's how I understand it.
Correct. Selection can be performed by the environment (hairless polar bears freeze), by the opposite sex (ugly polar bears don't get to make little polar bears), etc.
17
posted on
04/15/2006 12:03:47 PM PDT
by
Alter Kaker
("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
To: SirLinksalot
Accepting evolution and believing in God are not mutually exclusive.
18
posted on
04/15/2006 12:04:06 PM PDT
by
Junior
(Identical fecal matter, alternate diurnal period)
To: Dog Gone; SirLinksalot
Since if you're not an atheist, you allow for the possibility of a Mind or Intelligence behind nature, this puts 10 percent in the I.D. camp. Astounding leap of logic.
A leap of faith, not logic. How a Mind or Intelligence plays in the universal Scheme of Things is as individual as the observer. Forcing Deists (and the like) into the ID camp is like saying those who believe in Law And Order (the concept, not the show) must believe in the Death Penalty for Jaywalking.
19
posted on
04/15/2006 12:05:17 PM PDT
by
freedumb2003
(Don't call them "Illegal Aliens." Call them what they are: CRIMINAL INVADERS!)
To: SirLinksalot
It's par for the course that "established" scientists hate it when new theories are proposed. They have invested their careers in the old theories.
Then gradually, the new theories start to attract new proponents, who have less at stake in the old theories and are willing to consider new ones.
Younger scientists come into the pool, and they are more open to new ideas as the brain-dead old geezers--scientists, administrators, foundations grants directors--retire or die off.
Thomas Kuhn made a persuasive argument for this process, in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
20
posted on
04/15/2006 12:05:29 PM PDT
by
Cicero
(Marcus Tullius)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 721-727 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