Darwin on the Right: Why Christians and conservatives should accept evolution

Scientific American ^ | October 2006 issue | Michael Shermer

[Dimensio]

- Right...throw something up in the air and it STAYS. Sky-Lab CRASHING to earth had NOTHING to do with gravity...RIGHT.

I did not say that Skylab's crash was unrelated to gravity. I stated that you misstated the law of gravity. The law of gravity does not state "what comes up must come down". The law of gravity states that the resultant force of gravity between two objects can be calculated by the product of the masses and the gravitational constant of the universe, G, divided by the square of the distances of the center of gravity for the two masses. This equation is known to be an inaccurate model of reality, thus it is not "proven".

[Heartlander]

By the way, it is impolite to make personal attacks, such as calling fellow Freepers "atheists."

Fine… The FR atheists and ACLU Republicans… Oh, I’m sorry I offended you? I can post an atheist creation story if you like…

[Dimensio]

Says you...

Please explain how a radiocarbon test can produce a result of "millions" of years.

[Dimensio]

- You can't see much when your mind is closed.

This does not justify your false claim that you have explained how DNA evidence falsifies the theory of evolution.

[RightWingNilla]

it looks incredibly like a parody, actually.

I have to agree. Hes good!

[Dimensio]

- IF you have ever read anything on evolution at all you'd know that there are varying views on evolution.

You have yet to support your claim with concrete evidence. You are merely repeating the same vague assertion over and over again.

Theistic evoolution being one of many.

Theistic evolution is not a scientific theory. It is merely the belief that the process of evolution is, in some way, the result of divine will. The existence of the belief of theistic evolution does not demonstrate that evolution is false, and it is not rational to conclude as much.

[Dimensio]

- Most children for generations have heard "What goes up must come down" as related to the LAW of Gravity.

Regardless, that is not the actual scientific law of gravity, and it has never been the scientific law of gravity. The law of gravity is well-defined, and it is not "what goes up must come down".

[Dimensio]

It would appear that someone has 'cleaned house'.

[Coyoteman]

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

[RightWingNilla]

You have clearly fabricated those elements of the entry.

This is an eggregious miscarriagement of textitude!

[RightWingNilla]

It would appear that someone has 'cleaned house'.

Yikes. I was up to post #1020 and all of a sudden the thread got a whole lot lighter.

[Religion Moderator]

Some of your posts will be deleted also because you allowed yourselves to be provoked into making it personal. You are oldtimers (relatively speaking) and should know better.

Both of you will get an hour time-out and will be "cookied" for ignoring my warning.

[Heartlander]

Scientific Creation Theory 122134532.765/987

Similarly, the naturalist believes that beneath every natural phenomenon there exists yet another natural phenomenon. If explanation by reference to an endless stack of large turtles is silly, then an explanation by reference to an endless stack of natural phenomena would be equally so. The naturalist's answer for the origin of life, therefore, is some natural phenomenon. (Which one is not particularly relevant.) When you ask them how that natural phenomenon came to be, their response boils down to: "It's natural phenomena all the way down!"
-Pete Chadwell

[presently no screen name]

You have NOT provided me with an apology.

I want an honest apology for the personal attack you waged against me.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Is this thread still in the Religion Forum?

Having your thread hijacked to the Religion Forum is significantly better than having your airplane hijacked to Cuba, cigars notwithstanding.

[Heartlander]

She is out for a little while…