Posted on 08/01/2005 10:58:13 AM PDT by wallcrawlr
This is all very interesting sociolgy. And I mean that sincerely. But, again, at best you are showing a correlation, not causation with evolution being the causal element. Further, even if all the evolutionists pass without leaving offspring, two things are certain: one, evolution will still be true, and two, some of the more enterprising, inquisitive, scientific and intelligent offspring of those who are left will rediscover it.
So again I say by implication you are a follower of Hitler because you are a Christian, and Hitler embraced Christianity.
All I get from your link is a blank page.
I'll assume you are talking about the list of approx. 400 signers to DI's statement of doubt.
The statement I read, if the same one as those on the list signed, did not say they accepted ID or creation. What it did say was that they had doubts about a mechanism of evolution to account for all the complexity in life. It does not rule out any other evolutionary mechanism, nor does it reject evolution. In fact the way it is worded many scientists who despise ID would sign it.
I suggest you read the statement and not just try to flaunt the list.
Using a larger list of random authorities to counter a charge of using the appeal to authority fallacy simply extends the charge, not refute it. If you want to use authority correctly, remove all the names that do not work in evolution related fields. Then compare it to the rest of the authorities in evolution related fields. Probably in the range of 100s of thousands of scientists.
You guys are all so intent on proving that we all came from the same two people, then you should've no problem marrying your kids to those of other races, just to prove your faith in your "creationist" theory.
"Creation also implies Providence. It is this which doctrinaire Darwinists reject."
Naturally. Because there's no scientific evidence for it.
Chemistry - its very complicated.
Just look at how stars can form, how rivers are formed, etc
Thank you for your comments.
Further, if all you know about Islam is that it is "religion that inspires its young to murder the innocent" then you are more of a damned ignorant, bigoted fool than I took you for. Try reading a real history book for once.
As for how most Christian would feel about having their faith compared to Islam? I don't know. How would you feel if someone held the pig-ignorant bigoted views about your religion that you feel for others. Given Jim Jones' Kool-Aid cult, the Branch Davidians in Waco, the Inquisition, the 30 Years War, pogroms, witch burnings and Martin Luther's writings on the Jews, one could come to the conclusion that Christianity, especially of the Protestant kind is the religion of insane, bloodthirsty murders, and suicides.
My grandchildren are mixed race. You were saying?
I could interpret your comments as assuming that a lot of folks here are racist, and I just don't find that to be true whether we're talking about creation freepers or evolution freepers.
I think conservatives are the truly accepting people in America who want actually to evaluation folks on the content of the character and not on the color of their skin.
I'm sorry, I can't agree with that.
Darwin did not deny divine creation. He was unsure of how life started.
If you check other threads you will find posts by both creationists and 'evos' that claim Darwin was a Christian throughout his life.
It's one of the reasons he was so funny.
Marx did admire Darwin. Darwin did not know Marx. Any relationship you perceive in this was one way. Any link between Marx and Darwin, whether true or not, has no bearing on either the validity of evolution nor on the development of the theory of evolution. It does not change the views or the practices of the scientists involved in any evolutionary field.
I really have no idea why you insist on making the link and then try to convince us it matters.
well said
Darwinists(like Dawkins) don't reject Providence because of the lack of scientific evidence: they reject it dogmatically, asserting that no such evidence could exist.
Yeah, so? Haven't you ever seen a polite refusal before? What did Darwin say that has you all worked up? He graciously declined the "honor," and he also said, in effect, that he didn't know beans about economics.
Is that the extent of your "evidence" for a Darwin-Marx connection?
Some might well do so out a sense of dogma, but the majority reject it because it isn't scientific.
Thank you.
Yes, but can it be verified by more than one source?
Narby, Narby, Narby....
You may have to quit playing with your E friends: you are starting to act as bad as some of them.
Kinda like the bumper sticker:
Makes me want to add to it:
I don't smaoke, so the odds are I'll vote more often than you.
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.