Posted on 07/10/2006 9:22:13 AM PDT by RushCrush
Since most people don't believe in it?
Are you guys the same person or reading from the same playbook?
I'm glad I missed the blue parts. I knew there were some around, but I didn't spend much time there.
First they made fun of her (look at the lump in her neck he he he ha ha ha)
THEN they attacked her for being a mean person (oh look she said mean things about the widows who are rejoicing in their husband's deaths)
NOW they are attempting to find an excuse to marginalizer her (look the computer program conclusivly proves she use the same english letters that other people are using)
Never mind the fact that the accuser is a hack for Moveon.borg or that he has started his own .borg web group. OR THAT HE IS TRYING TO FORCE THE SALE OF HIS SOFTWARE so he can be the arbiter of good writing (left-good, right -bad)
This is a text book example of left wing goebles speak.
House On Fire!!!
The press love all this attention - even if it is negative attention.
Remember a house is just a non-news house unless it is burning!
Probably one of the best days that little rag has had since the Christmas Sales.
I wish that weren't tru, but it looks like Fundamentalist ignorance has penetrated the Conservative ranks.
The Liberals don't need to undermine conservatives -- we are doing it to ourselves. In the desire to make God in our image (and in doing so, limit Him severely), we essentially cut ourselves off from participating in almost all Life Science professions -- Medicine, Biology, Geneology. Thus, the Left corners that market as well (they already have Law sewn up). Most scientists understand TToE.
The damage we do is not just willful ignorance -- it is and wil have very delitorious long-range effects.
That is why some of us try to help people understand TToE -- because we have the world to lose.
While you are at it, why don't you attack Astronomy? It is also flies in the face of Genesis.
Re-read their posts (#28 and #29). 'Syncro' made a slight 'twist' to the wording (I missed it when I first read it)...
The choices are not limited to the false dichotomy of evolutionary theory or creationism. We can also simply admit that we don't know how life arose on earth. There is strong evidence against both evolutionary theory as well as young-earth creationism. Certainly God could have created the natural order of plants and animals in either way, or in a way that we don't know about. We can also say with certainty that Creation was caused by God and he upholds it in its being.
We can also rule out blind, materialistic evolution with certainty.
It's probably not of interest to you that Christian beliefs regarding the origin of life have been very diverse since the beginning of the Church. St. Augustine could have been considered an evolutionist. Notice St. Thomas' recapitulation of St. Augustine's position regarding the origin of plant life, for example.
Whether it was fitting that the production of plants should take place on the third day?But concerning the production of plants, Augustine's opinion differs from that of others. For other commentators, in accordance with the surface meaning of the text, consider that the plants were produced in act in their various species on this third day; whereas Augustine (Gen. ad lit. v, 5; viii, 3) says that the earth is said to have then produced plants and trees in their causes, that is, it received then the power to produce them. He supports this view by the authority of Scripture, for it is said (Genesis 2:4,5): "These are the generations of the heaven and the earth, when they were created, in the day that . . . God made the heaven and the earth, and every plant of the field before it sprung up in the earth, and every herb of the ground before it grew." Therefore, the production of plants in their causes, within the earth, took place before they sprang up from the earth's surface.
Other than well-known frauds (which were rooted out by science itself), please summarize evidence against TToE.
LOL
True. They could be gay commies.
The kooks who hate Ann Coulter so much make her look like a pussycat, with their over-the-top rantings. She seems to have a very profound effect on weak men, insecure women, and various others clowns. Dare to defend her, and you are a right-wing Nazi, a lesbian, or a "hate-monger." Classic projection, I'd say. :)
Aside from every "well-known fraud" that was presented to me as incontrovertible evidence of evolution in high school (Haeckel's embryology, artists' imaginary depictions of evolution, peppered moths, finch beak variation, the Miller-Urey (sp?) experiment, Archaeopteryx), there is that minor problem with the fossil record, in that it doesn't show a continuum of transitional forms, as Darwin predicted it would. Rather, despite the discovery of millions of fossils since Darwin's death, the fossil record demonstrates stasis in species, without exception.
You can believe in Darwin's theory if you like. But don't bother selling it to me. I had twelve years of the nonsense, and that was enough for me.
Sorry, the rest of us choose to face the challenge of understanding the cosmos. If you prefer to cut and run, give my regards to Cindy.
Ah, the fallacy of category error (the real fallacy of category error, not your use of that term as a buzzword).
Obviously, the fact that each individual creature (and thus its remains) belongs to some particular species and no other has no bearing on the question of evolution across generations.
I'm not a fundamentalist, in fact I'm not very religious at all. I'm an engineer by training and I love science. I don't believe in creationism, but I don't believe in Darwinism either. There have been too many holes poked in his theory, it no longer holds water.
Those who deny that large, credible holes have been blown in Darwin's theories are the ones who appear to exhibiting a form of religious zealotry.
Those who deny that large, credible holes have been blown in Darwin's theories are the ones who appear to exhibiting a form of religious zealotry.
Please show me a credible scientific publication that uses rigorous scientific methods and evidence that "blows holes" in TToE. I am dying to know what alternative scientific theories there are to it.
"Those who deny that large, credible holes have been blown in Darwin's theories are the ones who appear to exhibiting a form of religious zealotry."
LOL What form of religious zealotry would that be? I'm going to hang with freedumb2003 and play some ping pong. When you can get your evidence together and post the large holes in Darwin, I'll be waiting. I'm an engineer too, so I am sure I can translate the techno talk into something understandable. And, if possible, please post an alternate theory. I am wide open to alternate ideas, but no one seems to have any.
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.