Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bobby Jindal and the GOP Don’t Believe in Evolution
US NEWS ^ | 12-4-08 | Farell

Posted on 12/04/2008 7:05:01 PM PST by Wegotsarah.com

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 161-164 next last
To: muawiyah
No, you aren't giving him enough credit. Satan is still the god of this world. "But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." 2 Corinthians 4:3,4 Jesus still has not returned so Satan continues to control this world. He keeps most unsaved men in spiritual darkness, obsessed with the evil within themselves. That's why the world will never find answers of peace, economic prosperity, low crime, etc. because they are owned by "the god of this world", not Jesus Christ. Unless a politician has made an outright and open confession of faith in Jesus Christ and has a long history of doing His will regardless of the consequences to himself or his political career then that politician is influenced by "the god of this world" not Jesus Christ.
101 posted on 12/05/2008 7:32:40 AM PST by deannadurbin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: publius_in_abq
a Sportscenter highlight given to Moses in a vision

Why do you feel the need to dismiss a straightforward reading of Genesis so easily?

I see evidence of variation within a species and so-called ring-species(fruitflies begat fruitflies that can't breed with original fruitflies). But beyond that, I don't see any hard evidence of molecules to man evolution. The fossil record doesn't really support it. Our best scientists biasing conditions orders of magnitude in their favor can't reproduce it, yet I'm expected to believe it happened by random chance?

102 posted on 12/05/2008 7:59:25 AM PST by DrewsDad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: publius_in_abq
Just accept the Genesis account for what it is: a Sportscenter highlight given to Moses in a vision. All the details are simplified and the timing is compressed

Works for me.

God: "Moses, this is how the world was created, speeded up 100 billion times"
(two weeks later) "do you need to see it again?"

Moses: "No thanks, I think I got the gist"

103 posted on 12/05/2008 8:42:55 AM PST by Oztrich Boy (This world is a comedy to those that think, a tragedy to those that feel - Horace Walpole)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: mysterio
Jesus spoke in parables. The Bible is written in allegory.

Do you know why Jesus said He spoke in Parables?

Your logic has its origin in Genesis with this question, "Has God Said?"

104 posted on 12/05/2008 9:04:12 AM PST by itsahoot (We will have world government. Whether by conquest or consent. Looks like that question is answered)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: publius_in_abq

Intelligent Design is not the same as Creationism. It is a thesis, which can be put forward and argued for or against just like any other thesis.

Mostly it relies on statistical probability to demonstrate that a general theory of evolution is improbable because it has astronomically large statistical odds against it.

Some Darwinians have recognized that these are legitimate objections to a general theory of evolution, and have retorted with the theory that there are an infinite number of universes, and ours just happens to be the one where evolution worked. If I may say so, that’s not a very persusasive answer. A thesis, yes, and they are welcome to argue it; but it’s not very persuasive. The problem is that a reasonable thesis has to be capable of disproof, and that one certainly isn’t.

As a Catholic, I agree with you that evolution and divine creation as described in the Bible CAN be compatible. But strict evolutionists won’t allow that, either—or the view that perhaps there IS general evolution, but guided by God. Neither that nor any other view except strict atheist Darwinism is permitted in the public schools and in practice most universities, where contrary arguments are usually answered by refusal of tenure.


105 posted on 12/05/2008 9:05:38 AM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: OldEagle

OK. So where did the something come from? (Whose something was it?) And what/who caused it to go bang?

*****************************
Come on, Eagle-—That a trick question? Everyone knows it it was Barrack ===get with it! LOL


106 posted on 12/05/2008 9:06:47 AM PST by Wegotsarah.com (My amateur blog--www.wegotsarah.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: sonic109
Religion and science are not at odds

Nope, but Christianity and Scientists are.

107 posted on 12/05/2008 9:08:37 AM PST by itsahoot (We will have world government. Whether by conquest or consent. Looks like that question is answered)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: All

FreeRepublic is a strange little world in which a very vocal, fundamentalist fringe gathers along with more traditional conservatives. It is the mirror image of DU with its overrepresentation of far-left, socialist Democrats. It is NOT representative of most Republicans.

The vast majority of Republicans are capable of believing in both God and evolution.


108 posted on 12/05/2008 9:11:02 AM PST by lieutenant columbo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Chairman of the Bard
Excellent point. No reason for “Evolution” and “God” to be mutually exclusive.

Correction: there's no rational reason for it.

Ironically, however, there is a common assumption on both sides of the shouting match: that "evolution" and God are mutually exclusive.

The militant anti-evos are (perhaps) so insecure in their belief in God that they're afraid the theory of evolution endangers God.

The atheist pro-evos are so insecure in their disbelief, that they latch onto anything that seems to bolster their case.

Within that context the anti-evolution position is most difficult to defend, as there is strong evidence supporting the presence of at least some of the processes associated with the Theory of Evolution. Their tacit acceptance of the claims of the scientific method leads anti-evos either into a "God of the Gaps" position, or one of outright rejection of the scientific observations.

On the other side, it's interesting to watch the process whereby any non-evolution theory is a priori rejected as "non-scientific." Thus, the idea of an intelligent designer is rejected outright. Not for any good scientific reason, but rather because the admission that ID is a valid hypothesis admits at least the possibility of God. (Note that genetic engineering is proof that ID can be a valid hypothesis. Verification of a particuar hypothesis is, of course, a separate matter.)

109 posted on 12/05/2008 9:25:15 AM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
So, no, Satan doesn't know the "end" ~ beyond what God tells him, if He feels like it, and I doubt He feels like it much

In fact satan is expressly told the end, but like man he does not know the hour. The book of Revelation tells exactly how Satan winds up, and satan has full knowledge of the Bible. You can have that knowledge too, if you desire.

Till the time of the Gentile be fulfilled.......

110 posted on 12/05/2008 9:32:10 AM PST by itsahoot (We will have world government. Whether by conquest or consent. Looks like that question is answered)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Mr.Grumble
Evolution is a failed theory at this point...

That is false, and nothing more than a creationist talking point. Why don't you let science be the judge of what is, and is not, science, and what has failed? They are qualified in this area, you are not. For that matter, creationists have been declaring the theory of evolution as failed for 150 years. They were wrong then, and they are wrong now. They should just learn to leave science alone.

...anyone who studies both sides of issues like evolution or climate change with a scholarly perspective soon realizes that the entrenched theories do not adequately explain the data.

I studied evolution for six years in graduate school, and included both fossil man and human osteology on my Ph.D. exams. It is the nonsense that creationists keep coming up with that fails to explain the data. Dinosaurs and humans cavorting around together? A 6,000 year old earth? Those religious beliefs, applied to scientific questions, are what do not adequately explain the data.

111 posted on 12/05/2008 9:44:40 AM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
there is strong evidence supporting the presence of at least some of the processes associated with the Theory of Evolution

That was worded carefully. My contention is that I would like to see a clear distinction between what can be scientifically observed and what is extrapolated based on those observations. Teach the theories, but also teach the limits of what is truly known.

112 posted on 12/05/2008 9:49:55 AM PST by DrewsDad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: llandres
It’s just that we want both “theories” to be presented side by side, given equal time. (that’s the best we can hope for)

There are not two scientific theories to present. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory, but the alternative you want presented is not. It is a religious belief. (See my FR home page for definitions of "theory" and other pertinent terms.)

What you are requesting is equal time for your religious belief in science classes, and that has been disallowed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

113 posted on 12/05/2008 9:51:06 AM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: DrewsDad
That was worded carefully. My contention is that I would like to see a clear distinction between what can be scientifically observed and what is extrapolated based on those observations.

Well, yes ... which is pretty much the point. But it cuts both ways.

114 posted on 12/05/2008 10:05:10 AM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Wegotsarah.com

Actually that was a fairly serious question.


115 posted on 12/05/2008 11:39:51 AM PST by OldEagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Wegotsarah.com
How can he equate ancient creation myths with the hard facts of physics and biology?

Funny how the left can conveniently ignore the hard facts of biology when it comes to *choice*, abortion, isn't it?

116 posted on 12/05/2008 11:43:11 AM PST by MozarkDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MozarkDawg

It’s pretty easy to “trap” a pro-choicer.

When does the human life begin?
What? You’re not sure?

Would it be OK if I were hunting and shot at movement in the brush being “not sure” if it were a deer or a human? No?


117 posted on 12/05/2008 11:45:25 AM PST by MrB (The 0bamanation: Marxism, Infanticide, Appeasement, Depression, Thuggery, and Censorship)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: OldEagle

Sorry-didn’t mean to offend or make light—— I’m sure they can’t give you an answer to your original question.


118 posted on 12/05/2008 11:53:33 AM PST by Wegotsarah.com (My amateur blog--www.wegotsarah.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Wegotsarah.com

There is no problem. I knew what you meant. I was just milking it. And I think you are right about the answer, too.


119 posted on 12/05/2008 12:00:25 PM PST by OldEagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: llandres

“”God? Isn’t that the same fella Obama allegedly believes in?””

Well, I recall him saying during the primaries (when trying to prove his “Christianity”) that he “prayed to Jesus every night”. Well, all Christians know that we pray to God the Father (in Jesus’ name, Amen). We pray through Jesus, not TO Jesus.


Must not be the same “God” then.


120 posted on 12/05/2008 3:42:40 PM PST by PaleoBob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 161-164 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson