Posted on 02/26/2002 10:50:54 AM PST by dead
Well if not directly called parasite, the outcome is the same.
The center for bioethical reform
Not a primary source but references are listed.
UNITED STATES
Number of abortions per year: 1.37 Million (1996)
Number of abortions per day: Approximately 3,700
His article had nothing to do with creationism. Some FReepers go crazy when they come across a thread that might have anything to do with evolution. Then they try to hijack those threads and turn them into crevo debate threads.
Go away. If you don't want to actually discuss the material on the thread, don't come to it, and then leave some intellectual droppings behind before wandering off to another thread. Add something interesting, criticize the thread based on its content, but don't just mouth a party line "evolution equals bad, me no think there evidence for evolution," it's obnoxious.
Maybe I should go onto all the religious threads I can find, and post things like "The religion has more holes than a dozen doughnuts and, not surprisingly, a biased, evangelical news source rambles on like Christianity is fact. No, Christianity is a lame theory without sufficient historical evidence that contradicts scientific observation throughout human history." Or maybe I shouldn't. Because it would be obnoxious.
That is truly a challenging question, but I feel we must assume that it happened sometime prior to "Roe vs Wade", as humanity has rapidly gone to the dogs since then. Judging from observation of the retreat of humanity from a fully evolved human, back to early beginnings, seems to be pointing more toward jackasses with opposing thumbs, than to ape like critters.
01: Site that debunks virtually all of creationism's fallacies. Excellent resource.
02: Creation "Science" Debunked.
03: Creationi sm and Pseudo Science. Familiar cartoon then lots of links.
04: The SKEPTIC annotated bibliography. Amazingly great meta-site!
05: The Evidence for Human Evolution. For the "no evidence" crowd.
06: Massi ve mega-site with thousands of links on evolution, creationism, young earth, etc..
07: Another amazing site full of links debunking creationism.
08: Creationism and Pseudo Science. Great cartoon!
09: Glenn R. Morton's site about creationism's fallacies. Another jennyp contribution.
11: Is Evolution Science?. Successful PREDICTIONS of evolution (Moonman62).
12: Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution. On point and well-written.
13: Frequently Asked But Never Answered Questions. A creationist nightmare!
14: DARWIN, FULL TEXT OF HIS WRITINGS. The original ee-voe-lou-shunist.
The foregoing was just a tiny sample. So that everyone will have access to the accumulated "Creationism vs. Evolution" threads which have previously appeared on FreeRepublic, plus links to hundreds of sites with a vast amount of information on this topic, here's Junior's massive work, available for all to review: The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource [ver 15].
When man engineer the dog.....Our Golden Retriever was a line derived from the wolf, due to selective breeding. There really isn't much wolf in him.
What I said about God's imprint upon man being what distinguishes man from the rest of the animal kingdom has nothing to do with differentiation within a species (canine or otherwise). The failure to see man as created by God in His image, and the failure to recognize that this is what separates man from the rest of the animals, results, ultimately, in man being considered to be just another animal. The consequence of that is that men will then act like animals....which unfortunately are the stories that dominate the front pages of our newspapers.
I agree. Apparantly that was a cataclysmic event that would have killed off- what?- most of "humanity" at that point. The ones that survived an event of that magnitude would have been a)just plain lucky and b)"the sharpest knives in the drawer".
It would be the genetic jump they're looking for simply by loading the gene pool from the deep end- so to speak. It would favor those groups and individuals who were not only brighter but able to apply their wit toward their immediate well being (and possibly also put darwinistic pressure on planning for the future).
Evolution in and of itself is a faith system. The most knowledgeable (and honest) evolutionists will admit that there are too many gaps in evolutionary theory, and "leaps of faith" are necessary to hold it together. Many of the so-called "proofs" of evolution are simply interpretations of evidence based on preconceptions (i.e., "bias"). Evolution isn't true science, because it cannot be subjected to the scientific principle (experimentation, and arriving at predictable results). In this sense it's a pseudo-science.
In "Sphere," author Michael Crichton wrote, "...What we call 'science' actually consists of a rather arbitrary conception of the universe..." And Leo Tolstoy once wrote, "According to science, you are a randomly united lump of something." That's neither a very satisfying answer, nor is it correct.
Since you have been on FR for a whole day, I will give you some advice. Take the time to actually read what someone posts before spouting off. My comments are directed at the extreme lameness of this troll post. I did not comment on the merits of the theory of evolution.
However, your post is not without purpose. You have succeeded in helping me make my point. Your cute "me no think" retort is a perfect example of the level of discourse these types of threads generate. Argument for argument's sake is petty and childish.
If I can translate this, "The guys who could talk, picked up all the chicks."
I can see that this would lead to an explosion of individuals with increasingly modern speech. (Ooo baby, your eyes look like twin pools of liquid silver in the moonlight...)
That pretty much sums it up.
No, because it would be wrong. Christianity is not a theory, it is a belief. Or are you equating theory and belief?
Got any more stupid, smart-aleck remarks to make?
The first condition I understand, but what special skill would enable one to survive an unplanned catastrophe? Unless it was something like the dumb ones heard the rumblings and went to investigate and the smart ones left for high ground.
Food and shelter would not have been a problem. Think of all of the coconuts on the ground and the gratis lean-tos available for the occupancy. Well, maybe with all the spare time given the free food and shelter, the proto-humans would have had mucho time on their hands. In order to keep the inevitable fights due to boredom in check, the hootenanny would have been invented. With all the hooten-and-hollerin going on more food on the hoof would have been attracted and the cycle would build on itself. Thus small change by small change the proto-human would turn into the civilized beast he is today.
You forgot to cite your source for this statement.....Also, define "God." The Islamic suicide bomber says he believes in God too, but I think the question is either debatable, or the god he believes in is really Satan.
Seriously, I think you've missed my point. I don't expect you to accept the notion of God. I'm not trying to convince anyone (just as you've failed to convince me that Darwinism, neo-Darwinism, post-neo-Darwinism, are to accepted as THE explanation of the origin of species). The question put at the head of this thread was "When did humans become human?" I'm looking at the basic question, and I'm looking at it philosphically.
Science doesn't even have a compelling definitiion of "human," let alone being able to pinpoint when precursors of "humans" crossed the line to become "human." Science falls back on definitions that depend on things like "being biped," or using tools, or organizing into social units, or having an opposing thumb. But other animal groups can qualify under those kind of definitions.
My point is that when it comes to defining what distinguishes human beings from the rest of the animal kingdom, science neither has the ability, nor the definitional bases, to attempt an answer. And if, indeed, mankind was created especially by a Creator, and he placed something of his own essence within human beings, then we are foolish to attempt to define man by any other terms. The scientist says, "Well, the proposition of 'God' cannot be proved or disproved by science, so we cannot consider such a question." Fair enough. But every definition that secular, humanistic science tries to place on man has been inadequate. According to science, we're really no better than the dog, or the cat, or even the mold on your bread. That's a rather stark understanding of man's place in the scheme of things. Not only does it undermine the whole idea of the uniqueness of man, but it undermines the whole concept of values. Left to science alone, man is on a road that leads only to despair, because other than trying to define systems and processes, science answers no questions of significance such as "What is man? Why is man here? And what is man's purpose?"
I take it you are an expert on this or have some supporting evidence. Or is it just an opinion?
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.