Posted on 06/23/2007 12:21:46 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Christians pursuaded me that there is no heaven or hell. It's quite a witnessing program, this ID stuff.
Oh, is that a sixth one? You have thousands and thousands to go.
Actually, the term for evolution is "settled" science. But in any event, comparing Crichton's critique of environmental issues where "consensus" consists of 30 or 40 percent of the politicially correct professors, is invalid against the 99+ percentage of scientists who stand by evolution.
The world obviously changes. But when speaking about the "theory of evolution", it is a specific thing. Under the theory, the "universe" cannot evolve unless it can reproduce.
You've been in these discussions for quite a while. I'm surprised at your confusion on very basic evolution theory.
If I were the least bit uncertian about the non-existence of God, I would surely chose your "better safe than sorry" attitude. Unfortunatly, I can't do that.
Somehow I'm not. There are people on FR who fabricate quotations that make author sound like they are saying the opposite of what they have actually said.
It’s going to be a real bummer when you finally realize that your side has been wrong for 150 years. But the blow will be slightly softened by the knowledge that your entire church was been wrong right along with you...as they say, misery loves company.
It’s going to a bummer also when our church has to admit the sun revolves around the earth. As Bluto might say, four hundred years wasted.
==Christians pursuaded me that there is no heaven or hell.
I think you’re confusing Christians with the Beatles.
==It’s going to a bummer also when our church has to admit the sun revolves around the earth.
You’re not too far off the mark. The Church of Darwin is to the study of origins what geocentrism is to astronomy.
Am I supposed to be impressed by your posturing, or may we assume that you are smarter that everyone else who ever lived?
It sound like he a man that beliefs in Darwin and believe he can prove it in a fair fight he has the guts to battle in the arena of ideas....
Intelligent Design advocates accept common descent and a multi-billion year age for the earth.
I haven’t figured out exactly why creationists are in bed with them. I doubt if their offspring will be fertile.
The Church of Darwin only represents a tiny fraction of “everyone else who ever lived.” And seeing how I have managed not to fall for their neo-pagan religion, I guess you could say I just smarter than them.
==It sound like he a man that beliefs in Darwin and believe he can prove it in a fair fight he has the guts to battle in the arena of ideas....
Good, he will lose. But like you, I admire his guts.
narby, tacticalogic asked for posting of definitions of the worlds "evolutionist" and "creationist." The definitions went up, earlier. If you missed that, but have the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, you can look up the definitions for yourself.
In the category of "evolutionism," Darwinian theory was adduced at point 2; this entry provided no further details. That means there is a more general usage for the term, "evolution" (point 1 in the American Heritage Dictionary) than its more specific usage by Darwin (point 2).
Scientists cannot willy-nilly redefine the English language!!! Words have meanings; and evolution had a meaning long before Darwin ever showed up on the scene. Probably Darwin did not abuse this term at all; but possibly some of his followers have been trying to "corner the market" on that word, to bind it exclusively to the meanings associated with Neo-Darwinist theory. Just a conjecture here....
Capice???
Does Paul post on FR? Nah, it must be Ringo.
Yes, you are correct. But promoters of ID don't have the changes in the stars in mind when they talk about "design". It's an attack on the very specific theory of evolution as first proposed by Darwin. I believe that's what we've been talking about, and actually, I think you knew that.
Doesn't appear so. The second definition says it is specific to biology, and that appears to be the context of the discussion, so I'd think that would be the preferred definition within the context it was used.
Doesn't appear so. The second definition says it is specific to biology, and that appears to be the context of the discussion, so I'd think that would be the preferred definition within the context it was used.
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.