Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Darwin on the Right: Why Christians and conservatives should accept evolution
Scientific American ^ | October 2006 issue | Michael Shermer

Posted on 09/18/2006 1:51:27 PM PDT by PatrickHenry

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 821-840841-860861-880 ... 2,001-2,015 next last
To: PatrickHenry

singling no particular freeper out, I will observe that creationists do not seem particularly interested in pursuing data to be found in canned links posted by Patrick Henry.

it's a shame, but it seems to be a consistent fact of the ongoing Luddite War.


841 posted on 09/21/2006 2:05:18 PM PDT by King Prout (many complain I am overly literal... this would not be a problem if fewer people were under-precise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 837 | View Replies]

To: King Prout

842 posted on 09/21/2006 2:08:37 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 841 | View Replies]

To: King Prout
I will observe that creationists do not seem particularly interested in pursuing data to be found in canned links posted by Patrick Henry.

Apparently so. The first link isn't working today, but no creationist has mentioned it. (The rest of you have already seen that material, so you don't need to revisit those links.)

But I'm not being judgmental. Everything is true. It's wonderful!

843 posted on 09/21/2006 2:09:18 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Science-denial is not conservative. It's reality-denial and it's unhealthy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 841 | View Replies]

To: King Prout; Warrior of Justice
To put it one more way:

There's never been a time when there wasn't a lot of land above water somewhere on the world. We can tell that for sure. There's no other way to interpret things like non-pillow lava, glacial scarring, well-preserved dry-land environments with delicate features such as animal tracks, and so forth. These things happened on land, whether or not they were ever underwater later. Furthermore, many of them--the tracks, raindrop imprints, insect or worm burrows, etc.--record tranquil features of surface life that would have been obliterated during burial in some ultra-violent catastrophe.

There is no place and no time that looks like water, water everywhere. It's not that the picture is totally unchanging. The continents have drifted, collided, separated, collided again, etc. However, there's always been plenty of land sticking up above water.

Thus, we can't find a great global flood anywhere, nor can creationists agree on where it supposedly is. Most of them say that practically the whole geologic column is the great flood, which is sillier than claiming it's in some small stratum somewhere. (If you're saying the flood sediments are the WHOLE thing or even most of it, you have to explain ALL the dry-land features anywhere up and down the column all over the world as somehow having been buried in one and the same flood. However, that's the typical creationist approach.)

844 posted on 09/21/2006 2:14:04 PM PDT by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 834 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
You wretch! I just posted the For Dummies super-fast capsule version of that as my own work, no attribution! I'd have the Grand Master fling you to the tortoises if he listened to me!
845 posted on 09/21/2006 2:15:35 PM PDT by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 837 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
(The rest of you have already seen that material, so you don't need to revisit those links.)

well, I never did more than browse the article on the complete geological column, until now. quite a good article.

846 posted on 09/21/2006 2:17:12 PM PDT by King Prout (many complain I am overly literal... this would not be a problem if fewer people were under-precise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 843 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
That said, you need a currently working version of that first link.

http://evolution.mbdojo.com/flood.html.

847 posted on 09/21/2006 2:19:16 PM PDT by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 837 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
You wretch!

Oh yeah? Well, listen, Mr. I've been saying 2 + 2 = 5 for some time now. It's lucky for you that we're in the religion forum, where your ideas are entirely worthy of respect. But if I ever get you in another forum, just watch out!

848 posted on 09/21/2006 2:19:44 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Science-denial is not conservative. It's reality-denial and it's unhealthy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 845 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
you need a currently working version of that first link.

I have faith in my link.

849 posted on 09/21/2006 2:20:57 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Science-denial is not conservative. It's reality-denial and it's unhealthy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 847 | View Replies]

To: King Prout
Evidentiary cognitive dissonance challenges the faith of some people. Their faith must be weak.
850 posted on 09/21/2006 2:25:19 PM PDT by ml1954 (ID = Case closed....no further inquiry allowed...now move along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 834 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
I have faith in my link.

You're in the right forum.

851 posted on 09/21/2006 2:25:23 PM PDT by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 849 | View Replies]

To: ml1954

you want cognitive dissonance? Amish clothing being sold over the internet is cognitive dissonance.

refusing to examine empirical evidence, and/or refusing to accept what literal mountains of such evidence indicate... that's something besides cognitive dissonance.


852 posted on 09/21/2006 2:30:18 PM PDT by King Prout (many complain I am overly literal... this would not be a problem if fewer people were under-precise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 850 | View Replies]

To: King Prout
Hence the additional descriptor, evidentiary. If something is taken on faith to be true, regardless of any and all contrary evidence, why do those of this faith have a need to attempt to try to find supporting evidence and discount contrary evidence? I don’t get it.
853 posted on 09/21/2006 2:34:50 PM PDT by ml1954 (ID = Case closed....no further inquiry allowed...now move along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 852 | View Replies]

To: ml1954

ah. thank you for clarifying.
yes, that is a puzzlement.


854 posted on 09/21/2006 2:36:53 PM PDT by King Prout (many complain I am overly literal... this would not be a problem if fewer people were under-precise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 853 | View Replies]

To: King Prout

Indeed...when someone has to use all caps, sorry, but I just skim right over it...I refuse to listen to anyone who shouts at me in real life, and I refuse to read anything that is written in so many caps..

The 'low key' response is always much easier to read, and is of course, just much more pleasant...


855 posted on 09/21/2006 2:44:55 PM PDT by andysandmikesmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 835 | View Replies]

To: Warrior of Justice
And what Biblical Historical event can you prove never happened?

You can't prove that miracles never happened, because miracles, by definition, don't follow physical laws.

However, such events as the Flood are physically impossible, and if they happened they left no trace in the soils of the past 10,000 years, and the current genetic diversity was poofed into existence following the flood.

856 posted on 09/21/2006 2:46:19 PM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 828 | View Replies]

To: andysandmikesmom

in a civil forum, a rapier is as effective as a meat-cleaver, not so?


857 posted on 09/21/2006 2:46:49 PM PDT by King Prout (many complain I am overly literal... this would not be a problem if fewer people were under-precise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 855 | View Replies]

To: ml1954

I also do not undertand this as well...to me, the very essence of having 'faith', is that it requires absolutely no evidence of any sort...if one needs evidence, then to me, it simply is not faith...


858 posted on 09/21/2006 2:47:18 PM PDT by andysandmikesmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 853 | View Replies]

To: King Prout

Ah, indeed...and more elegant as well...


859 posted on 09/21/2006 2:48:17 PM PDT by andysandmikesmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 857 | View Replies]

To: andysandmikesmom

I also do not undertand this as well...to me, the very essence of having 'faith', is that it requires absolutely no evidence of any sort...if one needs evidence, then to me, it simply is not faith...

You said it better than I did. I don't understand why the 'faithful' require evidence and are so upset at and need to attack anything which might be contrary evidence. They apprently require evidence of their faith, meaning, by definition, they have no faith.

860 posted on 09/21/2006 2:54:49 PM PDT by ml1954 (ID = Case closed....no further inquiry allowed...now move along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 858 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 821-840841-860861-880 ... 2,001-2,015 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
Religion
Topics · Post Article

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