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 ... 841-860, 861-880, 881-900 ... 2,001-2,015 next last
To: Dimensio
hey, thanks for posting
this a while back on this thread - I missed on the first go around. nifty.
861
posted on
09/21/2006 3:02:11 PM PDT
by
King Prout
(many complain I am overly literal... this would not be a problem if fewer people were under-precise)
To: andysandmikesmom
well, I kinda like meatcleavers, but rapiers and knitting-needles also serve :)
862
posted on
09/21/2006 3:04:14 PM PDT
by
King Prout
(many complain I am overly literal... this would not be a problem if fewer people were under-precise)
To: ml1954
And I agree completely with you...of course, I have heard some say, that evidence merely shores up their faith, that they would have faith anyway...I dont agree with that myself...
The very essence of faith, means that no evidence is required...not ever...
To: Warrior of Justice
O.K., then you tell what "Origin of the Species" is more closely tied to:
1. The Big-Bang, OR
2. Creationism/Intelligent Design.
It is tied to neither.
- Also, be honest and forthright, do most evolutionist believe in God and Creation/Intelligent design OR in some atheistic world-view?
All surveys show that the majority of those who accept the theory of evolution are theists, not atheists. This is apparent because the percentage of the population that accepts the theory of evolution as valid science is more that twice the percentage of the population that are atheists.
Also, explain why msot evolutionists believe in the Big-Bang or some other atheistic world-view.
Your question assumes that the Big Bang is an "atheistic world-view". It is not, thus your question is meaningless.
864
posted on
09/21/2006 3:21:37 PM PDT
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: King Prout
Well, meat cleavers are more manly...
To: Warrior of Justice
- If you'll go through the links I've provided you'll find them, I found them there.
That your claim that carbon dating was used to produce an age of 'millions of years" is repeated in a website that you have referenced does not make the claim correct. It means only that the website is presenting false information.
866
posted on
09/21/2006 3:22:48 PM PDT
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: Warrior of Justice
- Went to the link...it's a mish-mash of Liberal and ateistic hokem.
Please support this claim with evidence.
Geocities claims that Hovind "lied" because he said The Bible is Infallible and Inerrant are subjective at best, at outright flapdoodle at worst.
Incorrect. Over 300 lies are presented. You have apparently not actually viewed the reference.
Our Founding Fathers believed in Creator God.
This neither falsifies the theory of evolution nor shows that Kent Hovind has not lied.
All but 2 of our Founding Fathers were church-going Christians, 25% were ORDAINED MINISTERS of a Protestant Christian Church.
This statement has no relevance to the current discussion.
Many SCIENTISTS believe in Creationism, Intelligent Design, God, even in Biblical Christianity.
I have asked you to provide evidence to support this claim. I should also note that even if this claim is true, it would not demonstrate that the theory of evolution is false, nor would it demostrate that Kent Hovind has not lied.
So your and geocities "claim" that Hovind "lied" are absurd and trite on their face 100%.
You have not refuted a single documented entry in the list. Your claim that the accusations against Hovind are "trite" is totally unsupported. Insulting me and making vague claims about references that I provide does not refute the ample evidence that Kent Hovind is dishonest.
- And are you saying that the Mainstream school of evolution MYTH are believers in God and Creation/Intelligent design?
You have not demonstrated that the theory of evolution is "MYTH", thus your question is based upon a false premise. Moreover, not all who believe in a God believe that Intelligent Design is science. You are making a false equivocation.
867
posted on
09/21/2006 3:29:31 PM PDT
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: Warrior of Justice
Many SCIENTISTS are also CHRISTIANS or Theists! Issac Newton, Johannes Keppler, Currie (sic)...even Einstein believed in a "Higher Power". None of them ever signed anything like the statements that the anti-evolution activist groups require. None of them gave the Bible veto power over observations of natural phenomena. Some were Christian, some were Jewish, nowadays there are scientists of practically every religious persuasion, and also atheists.
Your whole premise is flawed and says NOTHING to the FACTS that MANY SCIENTISTS;
1. Do NOT believe in Evolution NOR the Big-Bang.
2. ARE Creation Scientists/Intelligent Design supporters and pioneers
Your list of activist organizations did not demonstrate your claim. What I claimed was that anyone who would sign statements like the ones I posted is no longer doing science; you have not contested hat either.
- The Atheistic/Socialistic world-view that Evolution and it's "evil twin" the big-bang are "true" is NOT by any means proven, NOR is it even accepted by entire hosts of Scientists.
Biology and cosmology have nothing to do with each other. The debate between the Big Bang and Steady State camps had no impact whatsoever on biology.
Further there is nothing atheist about either theory, or any theory for that matter.
Beyond that, there is nothing socialistic about either one, and it is a gross insult to imply that FReepers are socialists because they agree with normal science. Please retract this slander.
NOR is it even accepted by entire hosts of Scientists.
Evolution is accepted by at least 99.7% of biologists, paleontologists and other experts on life and its history, and by over 95% of all scientists.
- The main reason that the "grandfathers" of the Evolution/Big-Bang MYTH didn't believe in Creationism/Intelligent Design were MORAL reasons, i.e. they did NOT want to be ACCOUNTABLE to that "Higher Power"/GOD.
Please retract and apologize for this disgusting slander.
868
posted on
09/21/2006 3:32:45 PM PDT
by
Virginia-American
(What do you call an honest creationist? An evolutionist.)
To: Warrior of Justice; js1138
...the over 330 prophecies about The Messiah's 1st Advent Jesus Christ FULFILLED ALL OF THEM...His name was Emmanuel?!
869
posted on
09/21/2006 3:34:28 PM PDT
by
Virginia-American
(What do you call an honest creationist? An evolutionist.)
To: King Prout; andysandmikesmom
in a civil forum, a rapier is as effective as a meat-cleaver, not so?I'd say it's as effective in any forum. Think of the possibilities: in Parliament, it's against the rules to call an MP a liar, so Winston Churchill said his opponent was practicing "terminological inexactitude".
Although meat cleavers have their place....
870
posted on
09/21/2006 3:49:39 PM PDT
by
Virginia-American
(What do you call an honest creationist? An evolutionist.)
To: Virginia-American
His name was Emmanuel?! p>I wasn't aware that Jesus was actually descended from David.
871
posted on
09/21/2006 3:51:49 PM PDT
by
js1138
(The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
To: Virginia-American
Oh, I love it..a polite way to call someone a liar...someone is practicing 'terminological inexactitude'....quite brilliant...
To: andysandmikesmom
I sure wouldn't want to debate Churchill!
873
posted on
09/21/2006 3:54:27 PM PDT
by
Virginia-American
(What do you call an honest creationist? An evolutionist.)
To: Virginia-American
Indeed...in this case, the tongue would be mightier than the sword...
To: Alamo-Girl; DaveLoneRanger
There is a new player among us.
Among you, more specifically.
Several on our side of the aisle find it difficult to believe this new poster is exactly what he appears to be.
I suspect this questionable and nominally creationist entity is in reality a particularly sarcastic pro-evolution* agent posting an ongoing parody of creationist apologetics.
*(or, quite possibly, simply an anti-christian DU-type/infiltrator -a real example of what so many creationistic FReepers falsely accuse conservative pro-evolution FReepers of being- though the proper spelling seems to argue against it being a DUmmy...)
The problem, of course, is that -even if this is so- the REAL creationists are not calling the poster in question on any of the inaccuracies that we know THEY KNOW are inaccuracies.
No matter how you slice it, this entity's unimpeded performance is casting a baleful glare all across the creationist coalition's rule of Omerta and groupthink solidarity.
That's an effect you might wish to consider as the interminable Luddite War drags on.
875
posted on
09/21/2006 4:20:33 PM PDT
by
King Prout
(many complain I am overly literal... this would not be a problem if fewer people were under-precise)
To: js1138
You can't prove that miracles never happened, because miracles, by definition, don't follow physical laws. What I was taught, growing up, was that miracles were physically possible. What makes the events miracles weren't that they happened, but that they happened at the right time to be useful.
OTOH, the cantor who taught me that, was talking about the Ten Plagues and Flight out of Egypt. I'm not sure how he handled the Flood.
876
posted on
09/21/2006 4:40:28 PM PDT
by
Celtjew Libertarian
("Don't take life so seriously. You'll never get out of it alive." -- Bugs Bunny)
To: King Prout; Warrior of Justice; DaveLoneRanger
A genuine defining hallmark to a cult follower in this godless region of darwinism is this bizarrely exaggerated and distorted perception on their authority when there is plenty of countervailing history and evidence.
IOW just because you say it does not make it so as you seem to believe, except for the few sycophant's/useful idiots that follow you guys over here from darwincentral.
Wolf
To: Celtjew Libertarian
The Flood is a piece of cake compared to the missing DNA evidence of a mass near extinction.
878
posted on
09/21/2006 4:43:09 PM PDT
by
js1138
(The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
To: All
it never fails to make an impression, how certain cheerleaders cannot seem to resist the urge to cast their criticism in personal slurs.
879
posted on
09/21/2006 4:54:44 PM PDT
by
King Prout
(many complain I am overly literal... this would not be a problem if fewer people were under-precise)
To: js1138
The Flood is a piece of cake compared to the missing DNA evidence of a mass near extinction. From what I understand, there was a near-mass extinction, only about 75,000 years ago (if you go with the Toba super-volcano eruption being the cause) and with several thousand humans surviving.
It would not surprise me if the story of Noah and similar stories to that in almost every mythology is an long-remembered account of that disaster. Considering the massive geologic dislocation and the impact on the weather, it would have seemed that the whole world was suffering a great disaster. Indeed, their entire world was, most likely blotted out.
880
posted on
09/21/2006 4:54:45 PM PDT
by
Celtjew Libertarian
("Don't take life so seriously. You'll never get out of it alive." -- Bugs Bunny)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 841-860, 861-880, 881-900 ... 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson