Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Evolution a theory? That's right

Posted on 01/22/2005 8:47:40 AM PST by JCRoberts

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-96 last
To: cosmicassassin

I've bookmarked that site for future reference. Thanks.


81 posted on 01/28/2005 1:13:00 PM PST by Junior (FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: MikeConservative

All explanations have their problems, but "ID" makes at least as much sense as the now revered "SG*."


82 posted on 01/28/2005 1:33:52 PM PST by cookcounty (I'm an intelligent design ---you can speak for yourself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: MikeConservative
" Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with how nonliving things produce living things.

So it was Spontaneous Generation that started everything off?

And the reason we find it it the chapter on "Evolution" in the biology textbooks is ..............?

83 posted on 01/28/2005 1:40:02 PM PST by cookcounty (I'm an intelligent design ---you can speak for yourself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
"Common descent of all contemporary species is fact. "

All? Even the species that haven't yet been discovered?

84 posted on 01/28/2005 1:43:53 PM PST by cookcounty (I'm an intelligent design ---you can speak for yourself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Junior

Well, there's your mistake. Phil Collins will lead you to the answer, and it ain't evolution.

"He seems to have an invisible touch?"

Those are not just song lyrics, my friend.


85 posted on 01/28/2005 2:44:17 PM PST by JCRoberts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Junior

"Evolution -- as a description of how life began -- is a creationist strawman. Evolution does not cover the origin of life."


Really.

You'd better talk to all your liberal pals in the media, because that's what they think "evolution" means.


86 posted on 01/28/2005 3:21:10 PM PST by rcocean
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: R. Scott; JCRoberts
In Genesis Chapter 2, God zooms in on the creation of man and adds more detail that was not expressed in Genesis Chapter 1.

There are those like you who claim there are contradictions for the same reason. If you guys weren't so intent in criticizing, you might actually benefit from the study of scripture. Studying to criticize the Word of God is as old as Satan.

God said:
Gen 2:16-17
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Satan said:
Gen 3:3-4
3 But of the fruit of the tree which [is] in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

He added to the Word of God, then he changed the Word of God. It is important not to make the same mistake that "evil incarnate" made in the first three chapters of the book.

JC, keep up the faith brother.

87 posted on 01/28/2005 3:44:18 PM PST by bondserv (Sincerity with God is the most powerful instigator for change! † [Check out my profile page])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: rcocean

First off, I don't have any pals in the liberal media. Secondly, learn what the theory actually says instead of relying on the media to explain it to you.


88 posted on 01/28/2005 4:02:40 PM PST by Junior (FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Junior
"Secondly, learn what the theory actually says instead of relying on the media to explain it to you."


Well, I certainly won't depend on you to explain evolution theory.

I get the feeling that -other than attacking those "crazy Creationists" - your understanding of evolution theory is very limited.

But you are very good at tossing out one-liners and foaming at the mouth.

Just like the Liberal MSM.
89 posted on 01/28/2005 5:09:30 PM PST by rcocean
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: bondserv

Genesis 1:27 - So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female he created them. – day 6.
Genesis 2:22 - And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. – after day 7.


90 posted on 01/28/2005 5:10:29 PM PST by R. Scott (Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: rcocean

The Theory of Evolution covers the change in allele frequencies within a population over time. It holds two propositions: descent with modification, and descent from a common ancestor. It does not cover the beginning of life, regardless what you might believe.


91 posted on 01/28/2005 6:08:31 PM PST by Junior (FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: R. Scott
Genesis 1:27 - So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female he created them. – day 6.
Genesis 2:22 - And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. – after day 7.

As I said, Chapter 2 gives more details of events on day 6. It is God saying (so to speak), "OK, that was the overview in Chapter 1, now let us get back to that 6th day so I can tell you a little more detail about what happened."

Recheck the text and you will see. The generations of Adam started with Adam on day 6, when he and Eve were created. Genesis 1 only calls them male and female, it isn't until Genesis 2 that we learn their names, and how Eve came about.

92 posted on 01/28/2005 6:29:26 PM PST by bondserv (Sincerity with God is the most powerful instigator for change! † [Check out my profile page])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

No, Pasteur did not do "quite a bit of work in debunking evolution". All he did was demonstrate that when a container is properly sealed and sterilized, modern bacteria do not re-appear spontaneously overnight. Obviously, this says little or nothing about what might be able to happen on a planet-wide scale over billions of years. However, that doesn't stop creationists from LYING ABOUT IT and declaring flat-out that Pasteur somehow "disproved" evolution. Here's just one example of that creationist lie (from freaking THOUSANDS of examples):


I would think that accepted scientific principle (namely spontaneous generation) is usable wherever it applies. If for instance Newton hadn't thought about the priciple of gravity as it would apply to say, strength training, does that mean that it does not apply there? Would the resistance of a simple barbell pull up, rather than down?

How exactly is the meaning of the word 'Abiogenesis' so different from spontaneous generation? The only difference I see is that the creatures created are more simple, and that there was more time. The nonexistence of living beings created from nonliving matter still applies, unless we throw it out and put something with a different name in its place. Check out this statement made by Pasteur himself. http://guava.phil.lehigh.edu/spon.htm
I also believe Fred Hoyles statements still make sense
http://library.thinkquest.org/27407/creation/chances.htm?tqskip1=1


93 posted on 01/30/2005 10:56:39 AM PST by MikeConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon; Just mythoughts
You seem to have forgotten to include the "because" part... You also failed to say which specific part of his multi-part statement you actually disagree with (and again, why).

Thanks for responding to him Ichneumon, I've been away for a few days. I notice how he didn't address one of your points, nor did he explain what was "donkey dung," and why. Then when presented with scientific evidence, he stormed off... nice job.
94 posted on 01/30/2005 4:05:19 PM PST by Alacarte (There is no knowledge that is not power)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: cookcounty
All? Even the species that haven't yet been discovered?

Good point. All known species. One cannot rule out the possibility that we will discover a species that does not share common descent with all others. Such a species, however, has not been found to my knowledge, and I don't think it is likely that one will be found. But never say never.

95 posted on 01/30/2005 6:58:22 PM PST by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Alacarte

"Thanks for responding to him Ichneumon, I've been away for a few days. I notice how he didn't address one of your points, nor did he explain what was "donkey dung," and why. Then when presented with scientific evidence, he stormed off... nice job."

Preening over a big smelly heap I see.


96 posted on 01/30/2005 9:55:53 PM PST by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-96 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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