Posted on 11/21/2008 9:27:32 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
You have very well articulated my position on this issue. Thanks.
a bit rude of you.
...or are you projecting again?
That’s ad-hominem.
Where do you disagree with the claims in the article? And on what factual grounds?
MSNBC’s Rice study is contradicted by the Skeptic, Discovery, and Nature.
Excuse me- I misrepresented your position. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you believe that, in of itself, HIV is harmless, so, therefore, homosexual sex, no matter how promiscuous, does not cause AIDS.
Isn’t dumb-luck amazing!
"In 2005, a landmark study found that certain very similar human and chimpanzee genes differ in sequence by an average of 4.4 percent.2 Evolutionary scientists believe that the percentage of shared gene sequences between chimps and people supports the hypothesis that they have a common biological ancestor."
Uh, if we didn't have some different genes, we would still be living in the trees ...
This is what I believe, and this is what I want to see happen (and I don’t want to argue about it any further on a Creation thread):
“It is widely believed by the general public that a retrovirus called HIV causes the group of diseases called AIDS. Many biochemical scientists now question this hypothesis. We propose that a thorough reappraisal of the existing evidence for and against this hypothesis be conducted by a suitable independent group. We further propose that critical epidemiological studies be devised and undertaken.”
—The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis
Selected quotes from scientists who doubt the HIV/AIDS hypothesis:
http://www.rethinkingaids.com/quotes/aidsquotes.htm
I had read a year or two ago that schentists learned that DNA was actually a program within a program, kinda like this article states it. It’s almost like a three dimensional computer code. In fact, it IS like a three dimensional computer code.
I am reminded of what one scientist said in an article in Scientific American back in the early 1990’s regarding his DNA reasearch:
“The more we know about it, the more it looks like someone designed it.”
Contradicted? Hardly. They asked different questions of different groups.
Amazing that you make common cause with atheists when their “only smart people are scientists and most scientists are atheists like us” propaganda seems to serve your purpose.
What is your purpose? To make sure that scientists are rejected from the fold of conservatism? To ensure that only the unlettered and unlearned are embraced as “real” conservatives?
If you want to cede all educated people who reject the notion of a six thousand year old earth forever to the Democrats, just keep doing what you are doing.
Fine, fine. You are correct that this is off-topic. We can leave it to the readers of this thread to decide what your position boils down to.
You don't have faith?
Great article!
I note that unlike evolutionists, Creation Scientists did their research well, with well-documented sources and research that confirm the article, unlike the random storytelling and juggling of unintelligible jargon like the evolutionists!
If only the Commie public schools and universities would figure it out, and give (at least) equal funding to the thousands of brilliant creation scientists that have been biting their tongues in fear of the Darwiniac establishment! Think of the advances in scientific knowledge that could be made, if only the Creator was properly acknowledged!
They did research? Scientific research? Blasphemy!
Correct. Populations evolve.
allmendream: “Evolution need not entail a species level change.”
Hence my request that you be a bit more specific in your definition of evolution.
ZULU: “Evolution is the devlopment of new species from a previously existing species over a period of time through genetic changes induced by environmental factors.”
This statement is still overwhelmingly vague. I am not expecting a thesis here but could you answer my questions? Do you believe that all life on this planet is derived from one original living cell/organism? Is all life trending toward diversity?
Just as a side note, do you think science can explain “consciousness”? If not, do you think conciousness exists and has always existed?
I use mostly-atheists to disprove mostly-atheists all the time.
Or, at a very minimum, what we need is a separation between the Temple of Darwin and state.
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.