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 ... 561-580, 581-600, 601-620 ... 761-777 next last
To: CarolinaGuitarman; TheBrotherhood
You are taking an ambiguous source, extrapolating a conversion against all the OTHER evidence, and closing your eyes to truth. How pathetic.
That's because he doesn't want to admit that he was mistaken. Creationists find it far more honourable to lie than to admit error.
581
posted on
01/25/2006 12:19:13 PM PST
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: RunningWolf
>Lady Hope may have reawakend Darwin's long dormant faith when no one else had.
So true, RunningWolf. So true.
Darwin didn't become an atheist until he was in his forties. So, as it so often happens, man will go back to truth and repent of his sins. I believe he DID repent and disavowed his so-called theory of evolution. The witness, Lady Hope, makes it more believable considering that he did so (recant) in his last hours of his death. It's a theory of mine that Darwin recanted because in his mind he knew he had nothing to lose and much to gain. Whether the recant and conversion was sincere, we may never know. But one thing is for certain - he did recant, repent and come back to Jesus.
To: longshadow
" And he subsequently recanted his recantation: "Eppur si muove!" (and yet, it moves!) From his deathbed, no less!"
Lady Hope says she was there too, so it must be true. :)
583
posted on
01/25/2006 12:19:55 PM PST
by
CarolinaGuitarman
("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
To: longshadow
And he subsequently recanted his recantationYou can't recant a recantation.
584
posted on
01/25/2006 12:22:24 PM PST
by
PatrickHenry
(Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
To: TheBrotherhood
"The witness, Lady Hope, makes it more believable considering that he did so (recant) in his last hours of his death."
By all accounts, if the encounter happened at all, it was in October 1881. He didn't die for another 6 months. His children and wife were all present, as was his doctor. No Lady Hope. HER OWN account never says it was at his deathbed.
Your story is getting more and more illogical. And dishonest.
585
posted on
01/25/2006 12:23:05 PM PST
by
CarolinaGuitarman
("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
To: Dimensio
>You have provided no other links.
My other links are dispersed between this thread and other crevo threads and most of the authoritative articles they lead to lean toward a recant.
To: CarolinaGuitarman
By all accounts, if the encounter happened at all, it was in October 1881. He didn't die for another 6 months. His children and wife were all present, as was his doctor. No Lady Hope. HER OWN account never says it was at his deathbed. Your story is getting more and more illogical. And dishonest.
Please Don't Feed the Trolls.
Thank you.
587
posted on
01/25/2006 12:24:39 PM PST
by
longshadow
(FReeper #405, entering his ninth year of ignoring nitwits, nutcases, and recycled newbies)
To: TheBrotherhood
So Darwin's recanting has gone from "historical fact" to "theory of yours", based solely upon your own personal extrapolation from a personal account that may or may not be reliable that does not state that Darwin actually recanted his theory.
So when you said that Darwin's recanting of his theory was "historical fact", you were lying. When you said "Darwin, according to his daughter/son, repented and asked forgiveness foe his frauds perpetrated on humanity.", you were lying, because his "daughter/son" never said any such thing.
Thanks for again confirming that you are a shameless liar.
588
posted on
01/25/2006 12:25:34 PM PST
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: Dimensio
Thanks for again confirming that you are a shameless liar. ....and, ergo, a troll.
589
posted on
01/25/2006 12:26:42 PM PST
by
longshadow
(FReeper #405, entering his ninth year of ignoring nitwits, nutcases, and recycled newbies)
To: TheBrotherhood
As I understood it, the article leans more towards a recant by Darwin than an unknown. So you can't find a shred of positive evidence anywhere for what you called a "historical fact." By now, you have to realize everyone reading this thread can see this.
Why can't you just say, "I was wrong about Darwin's deathbed recantation being a historical fact?" The only question left is that of what is the matter with you that you can't admit to what everyone but everyone can see.
590
posted on
01/25/2006 12:27:03 PM PST
by
VadeRetro
(Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
To: longshadow
>"Eppur si muove!" (and yet, it moves!) From his deathbed, no less!
The utterance "Eppur si muove la terra!" was uttered upon leaving his audience with the then Pope, as I recall reading.
To: TheBrotherhood
My other links
You provided no other links, much less links that supported your false claim, you shameless liar.
You did parrot one link that someone else had provided. And you lied about what the article in the link concluded and what the article was.
592
posted on
01/25/2006 12:28:51 PM PST
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: Dimensio; CarolinaGuitarman; TheBrotherhood
Creationists find it far more honourable to lie than to admit error. I used to ask, "Why can't a creationist be a man?" but it turned out too many of them really weren't men.
593
posted on
01/25/2006 12:29:11 PM PST
by
VadeRetro
(Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
To: CarolinaGuitarman
>>" And he subsequently recanted his recantation: "Eppur si muove!" (and yet, it moves!) From his deathbed, no less!"
>Lady Hope says she was there too, so it must be true. :)
I know you're joking, but that sounds foolish.
To: PatrickHenry
Nice try genius, intimating, by slipping the word evolution into the title, that this study confirms the Theory of evolution. It merely states a biological closeness between species.
What it doesn't do is explain the origin of life on this planet, or the minute biochemical process of mutation and natural selection that according to you and your zealot ilk prove that the Theory of evolution is actually the Law of evolution.
As to why you have based your entire pathetic, souless, anti-religious, anti-American life on biological and social Darwinism is beyond me. You need to take a long quiet sabbatical in the country and contemplate your navel!
595
posted on
01/25/2006 12:30:26 PM PST
by
Doc Savage
("Here's a quarter. Take it. Go downtown and hire some rat to chew that thing off your face!")
To: PatrickHenry
596
posted on
01/25/2006 12:32:47 PM PST
by
longshadow
(FReeper #405, entering his ninth year of ignoring nitwits, nutcases, and recycled newbies)
To: PatrickHenry
>You can't recant a recantation.
Yes, you can negate what you previously negated.
An anology is an offer by an offeror to an offeree and the offeree making a counter offer to the offeror. The offeror can then accept or make a counter-counter offer.
To: TheBrotherhood
"I know you're joking, but that sounds foolish."
How is it more foolish than you claiming now that the *recantation* took place at Darwin's deathbed, when by ALL accounts the only time she could have met him was in 1881? We KNOW who was at his deathbed; his family and the doctor. Lady Hope most definitely was NOT there.
598
posted on
01/25/2006 12:33:45 PM PST
by
CarolinaGuitarman
("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
To: PatrickHenry
I used to think I could recant a recantation, but I've recanted.
599
posted on
01/25/2006 12:34:28 PM PST
by
VadeRetro
(Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
To: CarolinaGuitarman
>Your story is getting more and more illogical. And dishonest.
You evolutionists are convoluted. You first ask for links that elucidate and further elaborate on my points, and when I do you resort to personal attacks. Can't we just stay on topic?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 561-580, 581-600, 601-620 ... 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