Skip to comments.
Dispute over evolution goes on trial in U.S. court
Baltimore Sun ^
| September 26, 2005
| Arthur Hirsch
Posted on 09/26/2005 1:53:21 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240, 241-260, 261-280 ... 401-404 next last
To: Thatcherite
My position is there is not physical evidence to prove evolution - hence the term "theory" continuing to be used.
241
posted on
09/26/2005 12:03:38 PM PDT
by
mlc9852
To: mlc9852
So when you said "My mind is closed to evolution", you meant what exactly?
What physical evidence would convince you of the truth of evolution, if it were proffered?
242
posted on
09/26/2005 12:05:02 PM PDT
by
Thatcherite
(Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
To: mlc9852
hence the term "theory" continuing to be used.... and those memory problems of yours have struck again.
243
posted on
09/26/2005 12:05:58 PM PDT
by
Thatcherite
(Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
To: Thatcherite
Anything that would make it certain humans descended from apes - the "missing link". Complete fossilized skeleton would work.
244
posted on
09/26/2005 12:08:11 PM PDT
by
mlc9852
To: Thatcherite
I remember you - that's enough.
245
posted on
09/26/2005 12:08:40 PM PDT
by
mlc9852
To: mlc9852
My position is there is not physical evidence to prove evolution - hence the term "theory" continuing to be used. I know that we've discussed the difference between a scientific theory and the vernacular use of the word "theory". Why do you continue to take this tack when you already know the difference?
To: mlc9852
Get over yourself. The world will go on long after you are gone.
Nice way of dodging the fact that you made it abundantly clear that you didn't look at a single one of the arguments that you dismissed out of hand.
247
posted on
09/26/2005 12:11:27 PM PDT
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: mlc9852
Anything that would make it certain humans descended from apes - the "missing link". Complete fossilized skeleton would work.The DNA retroviral evidence is more crushing than any fossil sequence could ever be (though we have an excellent sequence of fossil hominids back to our recent ancestors that I am sure you have been posted). On what basis do you reject the retroviral evidence? I've asked this question before and you never address it.
248
posted on
09/26/2005 12:12:02 PM PDT
by
Thatcherite
(Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
To: Thatcherite
Please explain how retroviral evidence demonstrates we descended from apes.
249
posted on
09/26/2005 12:15:26 PM PDT
by
mlc9852
To: Thatcherite
Get a life.Now, how can you argue with that??
Typical ad hominem creationistic rebuttal.
250
posted on
09/26/2005 12:26:01 PM PDT
by
JasonSC
To: mlc9852
The retroviral evidence has been explained to you before. You've already rejected it; why?
251
posted on
09/26/2005 12:30:21 PM PDT
by
Thatcherite
(Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
To: furball4paws; VadeRetro
So, I guess you've never heard of Renew-a-Virgin? Just dip them in it and they're as good as new! Guys ... at least get the name right.
![](http://www.sweetpotatoqueens.com/spq/miva/graphics/00000001/revirginator.jpg)
You'd be surprised how well this sells.
252
posted on
09/26/2005 12:36:44 PM PDT
by
Gumlegs
To: Thatcherite
I don't disagree that DNA of different animals is close to humans. I just don't believe that proves we descended from apes. If you can show me how it proves it, I'll gladly listen. But if you're going to say we have similar DNA to a mouse or pig (which of course we do) and that proves we descended from apes, well, I'm not buying it.
253
posted on
09/26/2005 12:38:54 PM PDT
by
mlc9852
To: mlc9852
Those that claim now that they do not share a common ancestor with other apes are the same that were claiming that the earth is the center of the universe. It's human "we are so special!" arrogance.
To: mlc9852
I don't disagree that DNA of different animals is close to humans. I just don't believe that proves we descended from apes. If you can show me how it proves it, I'll gladly listen. But if you're going to say we have similar DNA to a mouse or pig (which of course we do) and that proves we descended from apes, well, I'm not buying it. The comparison of the human and chimpanzee genomes shows more than just a percentage similarity in content. It also shows certain identical genetic flaws and harmful mutations that indicate a common ancestry. By the way, the existence of shared flaws of this type was predicted by the ToE long before the data of the genomes was available. That this new data tested and confirmed the prediction should be of some significance.
To: Vive ut Vivas
No - actually it's what the Bible says.
256
posted on
09/26/2005 12:48:53 PM PDT
by
mlc9852
To: Antonello
So it would predict we DO have the same Creator, right?
257
posted on
09/26/2005 12:49:21 PM PDT
by
mlc9852
To: Cincinatus' Wife
ID proponents say scientists can look at life forms and identify the work of a controlling "intelligence,"What tests do they have to determine "design"? What empirical evidence do they have?
258
posted on
09/26/2005 12:49:47 PM PDT
by
JasonSC
To: mlc9852
Is that supposed to mean something to me?
To: Vive ut Vivas
Not if you don't believe in the Bible it isn't.
260
posted on
09/26/2005 12:53:34 PM PDT
by
mlc9852
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240, 241-260, 261-280 ... 401-404 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