...They located the Liberal Gene.
Posted on 09/12/2003 6:43:09 PM PDT by gore3000
Glad you like it.
...They located the Liberal Gene.
Interesting that the evolutionists who claim to be scientists cannot discuss a scientific topic but can only hurl lame insults.
Are you trying to indicate it is not "science?"
Are you trying to indicate it is not "science?"
These posts are quite funny. Gore3000 has apperently just lifted a bunch of material off of books, articles, and other literature. Somehow all of this is supposed to make us become creationists.
What is Gore3000's motivation for spending such an enormous amount of time discussing evolution on FR? If his ideas were really as valid as he claims them to be, he would not waste his time on a political forum. He should be conducting research and trying to get his "creation science" published in a scientific journal.
Yes I'm not sure what gore3000's intentions are on these "Nobel Prize" threads; as he didn't care do give us a thesis statement. These three threads are nothing more than a brief overview of various topics in genetics that do not lead to any particular point. For a more thorough understanding I suggest the readers of these threads check out a genetics or molecular biology textbook.
However I will venture a guess as to Gore3000's purpose: He is presenting information on a political forum where many participants don't have a strong background in the material. He's hoping these people will read this and think "Gosh darn, it’s so complex and amazing that it couldn't have happened by anything other than design."
Actually your post is quite funny. It really shows the truth of the dictum that 'none are so blind as those who do not wish to see'. Clearly, scientific truth is to be demeaned and ignored by you because it does not agree with your agenda.
Bringing the truth to a larger audience is always a worthwhile endeavor.
The good thing about him doing this is that once people have a better understanding of genetics then you can understand variance in genes, inheritance, why we taxonomy, biodiversity, etc. Eventually some will understand what the us evilutionist are talking about.
Then again...maybe I shouldn't hold my breath.
Gore (as all of us) can be rational or irrational in these threads, however, I find his posts misleading, every single time.
Before you jump on me Gore, I'll admit that I have never once eliminated the possibility that there was an intelligence behind genetics/evolution. I simply decided along time ago that that belief is untestable. Your continuing "proofs" demonstrating "irreducable complexity" simply demonstrate the current limits of science (as you see it), nothing more.
I reject the name creationist. I am a Christian. Believe it or not Christians are interested in science and some of the greatest scientists on earth, such as Newton and Pasteur, were Christians. That Christians and those who believe in God in general are unfriendly to science is one of the viscious falsehoods spread by evolutionists. As you can see this Christian has no problems with science.
What you need to get and understand is that the above well established scientific facts (and those in parts 1 and 2) disprove both evolution and abiogenesis, the central themes of materialism nowadays. The above systems are totally unexplainable by chance or by any undesigned means.
I don't demean the work done by the researchers listed in your article. You are the blind one, you have the knowledge yet you completely rule out the possibility of evolution and ruthlessly attack those who accept it.
Funny of you to say that and not be able to say in any way how anything I say in the article is misleading.
I'll admit that I have never once eliminated the possibility that there was an intelligence behind genetics/evolution. I simply decided along time ago that that belief is untestable.
Which means that you have decided to follow your prejudices rather than the facts. Does not say much for your theory of evolution does it?
The above clearly shows the necessity of a designer to fashion the above systems. If you disagree though, you are welcome to try to explain how the above systems could have arisen by unguided, undirected, random chance.
Yup, that is exactly what I am trying to do - to lift the veil of ignorance which has been the source of the belief that evolution is science.
You are welcome to try to show how any system above could have arisen through Darwinian gradual evolution. Much smarter people than either of us have tried and failed.
I see you are not interested in facts. I also see that you cannot disprove the above or show how it can be explained by your theory so all you can do is insult. Shows quite well the truth of my tagline. The adherence of many to evolution is due not to adherence to scientific truths, but an adherence to an anti-religious mindset.
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.