Skip to comments.
Evolution study tightens human-chimp connection
EurekAlert (AAAS) ^
| 23 January 2006
| Staff
Posted on 01/23/2006 4:31:58 PM PST by PatrickHenry
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 501-520, 521-540, 541-560 ... 761-777 next last
To: PatrickHenry
This is a fine example of "scientificobabble" which sounds nice on its face, but carries no meaning. Everything is "related" in the sense that it has DNA. We all breathe air, too.
To: TheBrotherhood
522
posted on
01/24/2006 8:41:41 PM PST
by
Coyoteman
(I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
To: TheBrotherhood
You the man! They, the best they can do is accuse you of "lies". The 19th century rationalists. They lost their Marx, their Freud, they're hanging on to their Darwin like a drowning man hangs on to a razor. Desperate and and increasingy frantic these threads have been. We shall see. Fifty years ago the believers in those other two clowns were as sure as themselves as these trolls are today. We shall see. (And I'm no 'creationist', just your garden variety sceptic.)
523
posted on
01/24/2006 8:44:05 PM PST
by
Revolting cat!
("In the end, nothing explains anything.")
To: Coyoteman
That's the same link from yesterday.
I got that link in my Google search too the other day.
To: TheBrotherhood
That's the same link from yesterday. I got that link in my Google search too the other day.
Did you read it?
525
posted on
01/24/2006 8:46:54 PM PST
by
Coyoteman
(I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
To: foghornleghorn
This is a fine example of "scientificobabble" which sounds nice on its face, but carries no meaning. Everything is "related" in the sense that it has DNA. We all breathe air, too. This is a fine example of "creationbabble" which sounds nice on its face, but carries no meaning.
To: Coyoteman
He read enough to cut a small snippet out of context and present it in a totally dishonest fashion.
527
posted on
01/24/2006 9:03:40 PM PST
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: Revolting cat!
They, the best they can do is accuse you of "lies".
He made a demonstratably false claim, and continued to repeat it even after documentation showed that not even professional creationist groups believe the claim. When we call him a liar, we do it because he lied.
They lost their Marx, their Freud
What makes you think that Marx or Freud were ever "ours"?
(And I'm no 'creationist', just your garden variety sceptic.)
Yet here you are, acting as cheerleader for someone who has repeated a known and demonstratable lie. Why are you defending someone who has repeatedly lied?
528
posted on
01/24/2006 9:06:01 PM PST
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: TheBrotherhood
I'll try it tomorrow, if I do not forget. Promise. Been busy lately.
I'm sure that you'll present as much research and evidence to support your claim as you did today, yesterday and the day before. Which is to say that you'll lie again and present nothing whatsoever to substantiate your lies.
529
posted on
01/24/2006 9:06:53 PM PST
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: Revolting cat!
Thanks, Revolting cat!.
You do know the evolutionists' ultimate intent, don't you?
To: Coyoteman
To: TheBrotherhood
You do know the evolutionists' ultimate intent, don't you?
I'm sure that your assessment of our "ultimate intent" is no more factual than your lie about Darwin recanting on his deathbed.
You lied, then lied further to cover it up. Badly. Nothing that you say can ever be trusted.
532
posted on
01/24/2006 9:13:59 PM PST
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: Dimensio
>I'm sure that you'll present as much research and evidence to support your claim as you did today, yesterday and the day before.
I'll try posting those thoughts as they occur to me at the time, but I must warn you that I'm not a scientist.
To: warpcorebreach
But given enough time, anything can happen. Right?...Right?......Right? I work for a large aerospace manufacturer in the Seattle area and am justing waiting for the newest airplane to appear out on the flight line. It is going to be so cool! And Airbus is going to be really behind the eight-ball after that happens!!!!!
534
posted on
01/24/2006 9:15:58 PM PST
by
DennisR
(Look around - God is giving you countless observable clues of His existence!)
To: PatrickHenry
Didn't we just read, within the last two months, that chimps and humans were FARTHER apart genetically than previously thought?
Make up my mind, would ya?
535
posted on
01/24/2006 9:18:19 PM PST
by
FrogMom
To: TheBrotherhood
I'll try posting those thoughts as they occur to me at the time, but I must warn you that I'm not a scientist.
Another dishonest cop-out from you. It doesn't take a background in science to do the two minutes of historical research required to learn that the story of Darwin's recanting of his theory is a total lie. Yet despite numerous references tossed your way, you have shamelessly continued to repeat the lie, going so far as to cut a quote out of context from a creationist site that does not agree with your lie.
Do you really believe yourself to be convincing when you lie so obviously and transparently about an event that anyone can expose as false? Why do you continue to repeat a known lie? Are you really so much of a coward that you can't bear to admit that you were mistaken? Seriously, I want to know: I find it incredibly insulting that you expect me or anyone else here -- on either side of the crevo discussion -- to be so stupid as to believe your lies.
536
posted on
01/24/2006 9:19:29 PM PST
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: FrogMom
Didn't we just read, within the last two months, that chimps and humans were FARTHER apart genetically than previously thought?
But even with that as the case, chimps are still genetically closer to humans than to other ape species. There's no contradiction here.
537
posted on
01/24/2006 9:20:20 PM PST
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: DennisR
But given enough time, anything can happen. Right?...Right?......Right?
No. This is a dishonest creationist strawman of evolution. Only lying creationists claim that evolution makes this claim.
I work for a large aerospace manufacturer in the Seattle area and am justing waiting for the newest airplane to appear out on the flight line.
Why should this happen?
538
posted on
01/24/2006 9:21:20 PM PST
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: Dimensio
Sorry. I'm back.
"I'm sure that your assessment of our "ultimate intent" is no more factual than your lie about Darwin recanting on his deathbed."
An assessment or opinion cannot be a lie since the intent is not decieve, but simply to expression a judgement. Moroever, an opinion does not contradict an already known fact.
To: TheBrotherhood
Where is your "historical evidnce" that Darwin recanted on his deathbed? What references do you have your claim that his "daughter/son" testified that Darwin made such a recanting?
540
posted on
01/24/2006 9:29:33 PM PST
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 501-520, 521-540, 541-560 ... 761-777 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