Skip to comments.
The Dini-gration of Darwinism
AgapePress ^
| April 29, 2003
| Mike S. Adams
Posted on 04/29/2003 10:43:39 AM PDT by Remedy
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280, 281-300, 301-320 ... 1,961-1,975 next last
To: martianagent
Sorry, that should have been posted to patrickhenry.
To: martianagent; PatrickHenry
He won't know it unless you call his attention to it, though ;)
282
posted on
05/01/2003 11:10:14 AM PDT
by
general_re
(Take care of the luxuries and the necessities will take care of themselves.)
To: All
Comment #271 Removed by Moderator In case anyone is wondering, #271 was a post of mine, addressed to Junior. I think it was a comment about his #266. (I assume that providing this minimal information doesn't violate the rules of this website.)
283
posted on
05/01/2003 11:22:39 AM PDT
by
PatrickHenry
(Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
To: martianagent
By your lights, we could also teach them numerology in math class. Oh, I forgot, numerology is verboten according to the Bible and is therefore a pseudoscience. We can't be teaching our kids pseudoscience now, can we?
284
posted on
05/01/2003 11:24:05 AM PDT
by
Junior
(Computers make very fast, very accurate mistakes.)
To: martianagent
You're saying that with all the drugs, sex, and violence which kids have to deal with on a daily basis, the main thing you worry about is kids being exposed to creationism? No. I didn't say anything evem remotely close to that. But what I did say (in post 271) was found to be so horribly offensive that it's been deleted.
285
posted on
05/01/2003 11:26:19 AM PDT
by
PatrickHenry
(Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
To: general_re
Looks like you just did that. This things sounds like something from the Music Man: We got TROUBLE, yes trouble, with a capital T and that rhymes with C and that stands for creationism.
To: Junior
There is no point of view with regard to origin of life that is scientific. Can't be. If you assume matter and the universe are self-existent - never had a beginning - that is not science but a religion called materialism or naturalism. It is just as much an ism as theism.
Question is why would a person want to to think he originated from non-personal matter? Logic tells me he doesn't want to be responsible to a Creator who is personal so he doesn't feel guilty for going against the will of a personal creator. It is not science to believe you had a non-personal origin out of some goofy explosion of stuff and kaboom here you are as a person out of non-personal stuff? WHy believe this because it is not science and there is no evidence for it. There is evidence for devolution - creatures becoming LESS than what they once were but there is no evidence for creatures becoming better than they once were through mutations. Mutations observed by science are ALWAYS harmful to creatures and never helpful. Yet evolutionist keep on believing that there must have been some great and good mutations in the past we just haven't observed.
287
posted on
05/01/2003 11:39:35 AM PDT
by
kkindt
(knightforhire.com)
To: PatrickHenry
That's weird. There's nothing in post 271 that would warrant being pulled. I've still got a copy in MY COMMENTS, and I've gone over it a couple of times to see if there are any hidden code words. There are no insults, no profanity or personal attacks against anyone on the thread.
288
posted on
05/01/2003 11:41:21 AM PDT
by
Junior
(Computers make very fast, very accurate mistakes.)
To: Junior
There are no insults, no profanity or personal attacks against anyone on the thread. I know. That's how it is around here. Whatcha gonna do?
289
posted on
05/01/2003 11:46:20 AM PDT
by
PatrickHenry
(Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
To: kkindt
There is no point of view with regard to origin of life that is scientific. Can't be. If you assume matter and the universe are self-existent - never had a beginning - that is not science but a religion called materialism or naturalism. It is just as much an ism as theism. Huh? The Big Bang (origin of the universe) is perfectly acceptable science. It makes predictions that can be tested (and have been verified) and so it stands up pretty well. As for the coming into existence of the first life, we must first define life. Is it a self-replicating molecule (there are plenty of those). Is it a self-replicating molecule in a particular environment such as a lipid-like bubble as are found in interstellar dust clouds? Are virii living? Or do you consider bacteria to be the simplest living things. As you can see, non-life can shade gradually into that which we consider life; there doesn't seem to be some magic cut-off point with everything on one side being living and everything on the other being non-living.
290
posted on
05/01/2003 11:49:06 AM PDT
by
Junior
(Computers make very fast, very accurate mistakes.)
To: Junior; PatrickHenry
It's awful quiet out there...(sound of crickets)
A little too quiet...
To: kkindt
Question is why would a person want to to think he originated from non-personal matter? Why does it matter? Are you offended that you may have come from some non-human ancestor and ultimately from some self-replicating molecule? That's almost like the noveau riche who will have nothing to do with their more vulgar relatives as they are embarrassed by them.
292
posted on
05/01/2003 11:51:00 AM PDT
by
Junior
(Computers make very fast, very accurate mistakes.)
To: Junior; martianagent
To: Ichneumon
inm ...
The first is that Cadillacs and spaceships are extremely poor and therefore conceptually prejudicial examples of what sort of things might be possible by "natural" processes of any kind.
ma ...
The complexity of a single-celled organism is not comparable to an automobile, or even an automobile factory, but roughly to a city with all of its factories or a nation with all of its cities. A self-aware organism would be vastly more complex than that.
102 posted on 04/28/2003 8:01 AM PDT by martianagent
293
posted on
05/01/2003 11:53:25 AM PDT
by
f.Christian
(( The separation of state and religion means ... ideology // whacks --- NOT God ! ))
To: kkindt
There is no point of view with regard to origin of life that is scientific. Can't be. The theory of evolution deals with how life developed after it began reproducing, not with the origin of life.
If you assume matter and the universe are self-existent - never had a beginning - that is not science but a religion called materialism or naturalism. It is just as much an ism as theism.
The origins of matter and the universe are yet a third question, unrelated to either the origin of life or the theory of evolution.
Question is why would a person want to to think he originated from non-personal matter? Logic tells me he doesn't want to be responsible to a Creator who is personal so he doesn't feel guilty for going against the will of a personal creator.
Why do you assume all people who believe in evolution are atheists?
It is not science to believe you had a non-personal origin out of some goofy explosion of stuff and kaboom here you are as a person out of non-personal stuff? WHy believe this because it is not science and there is no evidence for it.
Again, that's not what the theory of evolution is about.
There is evidence for devolution - creatures becoming LESS than what they once were but there is no evidence for creatures becoming better than they once were through mutations.
Not so. See the links in post #240.
Mutations observed by science are ALWAYS harmful to creatures and never helpful.
Ever hear of bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics?
To: kkindt
Question is why would a person want to to think he originated from non-personal matter? This question shows the essential identity between the Creationists and the Post-Modern-Deconstructionists: projection of one's wants onto scientific questions. In scientific inquiry, one takes what one gets, not what one wants. Asking whether one originated from non-personal matter is a biochemical question (not part of evolutionary theory however). Asking if one wants to think he originated from non-personal matter is question about feelings. The main objection of scientists to the Creationist-Post-Modern-Deconstructionist view of scientific inquiry is that CPMD's place feelings above evidence.
295
posted on
05/01/2003 12:10:41 PM PDT
by
Doctor Stochastic
(Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
To: <1/1,000,000th%
It's awful quiet out there...(sound of crickets) A little too quiet... Careful. Best to lie low. The mods are restless ...
296
posted on
05/01/2003 12:40:57 PM PDT
by
PatrickHenry
(Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
To: <1/1,000,000th%
To: PatrickHenry
Comment #271 Removed by Moderator That is, to all appearances, irrational. Isn't it quoted in it's entirety in #275?
298
posted on
05/01/2003 1:15:56 PM PDT
by
balrog666
(When in doubt, tell the truth. - Mark Twain)
To: balrog666
Isn't it quoted in it's entirety in #275? That's the operative part, and presumably the "offensive" part. But the post contained another paragraph before that. If you want to see it, lemme know. But trust me, it's no big deal.
299
posted on
05/01/2003 1:26:17 PM PDT
by
PatrickHenry
(Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
To: Doctor Stochastic
The athiestic scientist wants us to think that he has no vested interest in their NOT being a personal God to whom he is obligated. But he does. It is not good pretending that science proves there is no personal God - how could it? The evidence for thought behind what we see in the bees, the flowers is so obvious that to NOT believe there is thought behind what we see reveals a prejudice that is NOT scientific but arises from a rebel's heart. Yes, you can "Say" you have come to your "feelings" about their "NOT being a Creator" but those feelings are there because you DO NOT WANT to be responsible to a Creator. IN SCIENCE ONE TAKES WHAT ONE GETS???? SO you think you have come to NOT BELIEVING in a personal Creator through scientific cold pure logic do you? FEELINGS above evidence? I'll say you do. What sins of thought word and deed are you trying to not feel guilty for?
300
posted on
05/01/2003 1:45:17 PM PDT
by
kkindt
(knightforhire.com)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280, 281-300, 301-320 ... 1,961-1,975 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