Skip to comments.
Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll (69% of Americans Want alternate theories allowed in class)
WorldnetDaily.Com ^
| 03/07/2006
Posted on 03/07/2006 2:34:37 PM PST by SirLinksalot
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 801-820, 821-840, 841-860 ... 941-953 next last
To: darbymcgill
You don't think anagrams is a suitable game for children?
821
posted on
03/09/2006 11:31:38 AM PST
by
js1138
To: Sir Francis Dashwood
"The theory of evolution implies that all organisms arose from descent from a common ancestory." "Yes, the DNA molecule...
No. The ToE deals with the first living organism that was prone to replication errors and selection.
BTW, no one claims that DNA would have been the first replicator.
For example, how the first organism with DNA came to exist is not part of the theory of evolution.
"I love it when the evolutionist zealots contradict themselves...
This is not a contradiction. The study of common descent at the levels we currently are able to do so does not rely on knowledge of the very first organism. It is very easy to study how humans and chimps have a common ancestor or how hippos and whales have a common ancestor without being concerned with how the first proto-life originated.
822
posted on
03/09/2006 11:32:11 AM PST
by
b_sharp
(Come visit my new home page.)
To: darbymcgill
823
posted on
03/09/2006 11:32:16 AM PST
by
js1138
To: darbymcgill
What is nasty about "nicest"?
824
posted on
03/09/2006 11:36:57 AM PST
by
Thatcherite
(I'm Pat Henry, I'm the real Pat Henry, All the other Pat Henry's are just imitators...)
To: js1138
You don't think anagrams is a suitable game for children?
cute..........;)
825
posted on
03/09/2006 11:42:07 AM PST
by
darbymcgill
(FRevolution: The science of mutating concepts and definitions while tap dancing)
To: Thatcherite
826
posted on
03/09/2006 11:42:45 AM PST
by
darbymcgill
(FRevolution: The science of mutating concepts and definitions while tap dancing)
To: Elsie
"Then how would we know it mutated or not?? If it was corrected it doesn't matter if it mutated. If it isn't corrected then we have the mutation to tell us it mutated.
We have observed plants that have mutated and then been corrected in the next generation.
We observe that some areas of the DNA sequence suffer/show evidence of fewer mutations than others.
827
posted on
03/09/2006 11:49:25 AM PST
by
b_sharp
(Come visit my new home page.)
To: darbymcgill
" I'm enjoying myself immensely guys, keep em comin.... and remember.. "it ain't nothin til you call it"
Your retreat and inability to answer any of my questions is duly noted. Now begins your breakdown, where you pretend to have won. :)
828
posted on
03/09/2006 11:51:51 AM PST
by
CarolinaGuitarman
("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
To: CarolinaGuitarman
Now begins your breakdown, where you pretend to have won. :)
If you would actually read my posts I wouldn't have to repeat myself so often and you would already know that I ceded victory to your side many posts ago. It would be inconsistent and I suppose somewhat "scientific" of me to now do otherwise wouldn't it..??
Your retreat and inability to answer any of my questions is duly noted.
If your "scientific" definition of "keep em comin" is "retreat", then it's no wonder I've risked posting spam to you several times in this thread...
I'll answer your questions when you've met my challenge...
829
posted on
03/09/2006 12:12:02 PM PST
by
darbymcgill
(FRevolution: The science of mutating concepts and definitions while tap dancing)
To: darbymcgill
"If you would actually read my posts I wouldn't have to repeat myself so often and you would already know that I ceded victory to your side many posts ago. It would be inconsistent and I suppose somewhat "scientific" of me to now do otherwise wouldn't it..??"
I don't recall any prior concession on your part, but I'll accept it now.
" I'll answer your questions when you've met my challenge..."
??
830
posted on
03/09/2006 12:16:27 PM PST
by
CarolinaGuitarman
("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
To: Buggman
Either something is wrong with your definition of "observed as a fact," or the theory of evolution is hereby disproven by your own criteria. Moving on. You should move on. Evolution is a fact. The definition of evolution is change. Change or evolution is observed by everyone everyday. It is fact, whether that change is in society, species, or any thing else. You are changed from your mother and father. This change is observed as a fact, you are not the same clones. Science observes this fact gives evidence for the fact and gives a explanation of the fact (reproduction). You are significantly changed from your ancestors. ID creation, the origin of man and all such faith and belief of mans beginning is unknown. They cannot be observed as a fact. Science neither can observe or explain a unknown. ID creation, the origin of man and all such faith and belief of mans beginning is unknown and is argued by philosophy. Do you claim that by faith and belief you know the origin of man. You saw it, witnessed it, and observed it as a fact of mans beginning, if so inform science so they can observe the same fact.
831
posted on
03/09/2006 12:24:54 PM PST
by
jec41
(Screaming Eagle)
To: jec41
Two questions, ID is supposed to be evolution, with a side assumption that God planed it this way right? Then why do all the pro IDer think evolution is BS. If you don't believe that evolution is an accurate theory, then you can't believe in ID. Wheres the flaw in that logic.
Also to creationists, how do you explain that there have been many different species of humans, many being alive at the same time? These humans couldn't mate with regular humans, which means they are undoubtably a different species (the very definition of species).
To: CarolinaGuitarman
??
I rest my case....
833
posted on
03/09/2006 12:44:00 PM PST
by
darbymcgill
(FRevolution: The science of mutating concepts and definitions while tap dancing)
To: darbymcgill
" I rest my case...."
You have issued no challenge that wasn't answered.
834
posted on
03/09/2006 12:47:14 PM PST
by
CarolinaGuitarman
("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
To: RHINO369
Two questions, ID is supposed to be evolution, with a side assumption that God planed it this way right? Then why do
all the pro IDer think evolution is BS. If you don't believe that evolution is an accurate theory, then you can't believe in ID. Wheres the flaw in that logic. Also to creationists, how do you explain that there have been many different species of humans, many being alive at the same time? These humans couldn't mate with regular humans, which means they are undoubtably a different species (the very definition of species).
Maybe its because their opinion and faulty logic is the BS?
835
posted on
03/09/2006 12:58:58 PM PST
by
jec41
(Screaming Eagle)
To: CarolinaGuitarman
You have issued no challenge that wasn't answered.
There you go with that definition thing again... Arm waving may define "answered" by your definition but certainly not mine...
836
posted on
03/09/2006 12:59:27 PM PST
by
darbymcgill
(FRevolution: The science of mutating concepts and definitions while tap dancing)
To: jec41
Evolution is a fact. Right then and there, you proved that you are a evolutionary religionist expounding a dogma, not a scientist.
837
posted on
03/09/2006 1:20:00 PM PST
by
Buggman
(L'chaim b'Yeshua HaMashiach!)
To: darbymcgill
" There you go with that definition thing again... Arm waving may define "answered""
I arm-waved nothing away. You're the one who is arm-waving away MY questions, which show your *challenge* to be a logical fallacy. Your *challenge* was no challenge at all.
Absence of evidence is not evidence. Unless you're desperate.
838
posted on
03/09/2006 1:25:54 PM PST
by
CarolinaGuitarman
("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
To: darbymcgill
// There you go with that definition thing again... Arm waving may define "answered" definition but certainly not mine//
Nor for the rest of the world bump, only in the context of evo cultists does this hold true, LOLOL
W.
839
posted on
03/09/2006 1:28:09 PM PST
by
RunningWolf
(Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
To: Buggman
Right then and there, you proved that you are a evolutionary religionist expounding a dogma, not a scientist Evolutionary religionist expounding a dogma would be of theology (faith and belief) and is more in your ability. If you want to believe that you are a clone ( because change or evolution does not occur as a fact to you) thats alright by me. Just don't make too many clones. Mankind is already restricted enough.
840
posted on
03/09/2006 1:43:47 PM PST
by
jec41
(Screaming Eagle)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 801-820, 821-840, 841-860 ... 941-953 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