Posted on 01/28/2005 4:28:41 PM PST by metacognative
Is that a joke?
No, the 6000 figure refers, not to the age of the Earth, but to the lapse of time from the ensoulment of Adam to the present. BTW, the 6000 figure isn't necessarily incompatible with Darwin's theory, even though Darwin expressed no interest whatever in "souls."
Respectfully, you demonstrated no such thing. First of all, I don't recall anyone using population growth as an evidence of evolution.
Secondly, your population growth calculation was fundamentally flawed in many ways. One way that it was flawed is that it totally disregarded population limiting factors. Maybe you felt that these limiting factors were built in to your growth rate factor? If so, that is a huge mistake.
Your posts are cluttered with statements like "I demonstrated" or "I proved" but, respectfully, you have done no such thing.
I dunno, Jeff. When I was a kid, all the dinosaurs in all my books were gray, like modern rhinos and hippos. To me, it doesn't matter a whit whether you make 'em gray, purple with pink dots, or chartreuse, provided there is a footnote nearby that states, "we really don't know what color the dinosaurs were, and from this great distance in time, it is impossible to find out. But we liked these colors...."
Since you have written so extensively on theories, perhaps you should be aware that it is not the inertial theory. It is Newton's First LAW of motion.
I. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.
No. I'm a binary thinker. I suppose one might want to stay 'in' with both camps, but given the fairly implacable hostility between the camps, I would think that's a waste of time.
I'm sorry, Alamo-Girl; but let's just let it pass. WT doesn't know of what he speaks. I guess.
Not with me. She made an offer and I replied "Fair enough" and complied with the terms of her offer. Only after multiple postings and responses after leading me on, she declares her commitment "a joke". That leads to ZERO credibility. Thank you. I was on to your game from your first post.
Integrity, honesty. Sorry if those are foreign concepts. Maybe dishonesty and deception are more familiar. Granted, those are the tools of the anti-evolutionists.
As hard as it is to believe, some of us on the science side of this debate are also Christians and are offended by such a statement.
The debate is difficult but that's no reason to abandon good manners. There are lots of lurkers watching. ;)
You're now speaking for yourself. The biblical literalists here on FR, and elsewhere, clearly state that it's the age of the earth.
BTW, the 6000 figure isn't necessarily incompatible with Darwin's theory, even though Darwin expressed no interest whatever in "souls."
But, stipulating said ensoulment, are we all descendants of Adam, or can souls be laterally transferred? You must be aware human population genetics are incompatible with common ancestry as recent as 6000 years. Aborigines have been in Australia for far more than 6000 years.
We get all sorts of insults to atheists here; probably a new thread about once a week. We killed 100 million people in the last century, you know, and inspired Stalin, Hitler and Michael Jackson.
You learn to ignore most of them, though I do like to taunt some of the worst insulters.
Didn't mean to offend all Christians. I was raised a Christian and Baptized at the age of seven. My comment (probably a little crudely put) was based on my frustration of the "Christians" (in quotes because I do not believe they are true to Christian morals) continually lie and deceive on these threads. My intent was to call them on the sincerity of there Christianity instead of insulting Christianity.
OTOH, I do not consider Christianity particulary superior to some other spiritual concepts and I detest Christians that consider their position "more holy" than others.
Yep, as in "Turn the other cheek"
8^)
That is what "Walking with Dinosaurs" did - there was a segment explaining the fossil evidence before every commercial break. There were many such segments, each covering different aspects of the fossil evidence, so each one was only shown once.
In this particular case, the colors weren't just ones that the liked, a lot of thought was put into them. They may not be correct but they are very informed guesses and were properly disclosed as just that.
Sheesh, WildTurkey! (There you go again.)
OK; if you say so.... (Talk about Hysterical Darwinites Panicking....)
You missed "racist". That one was "offered" to me earlier in this thread.
I understand that you've been tangling with some ridiculous creationist types, and I know how it can get to you, but you shouldn't let that affect your reaction to BB.
You must have missed the part where the two of us engaged in a civil discourse about how to move the debate to a high level, she made an offer and I said "fair enough". After many back and forths, I finally concluded she was not serious in comlying and when I confronted her with my conclusion, she declared:
Not a straigt shooter in my book.
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.