Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Stultis

I got it from another discussion I was in on this issue.

And we all knew that if he doesn't believe in Darwinism, he isn't a *real* scientist, doesn't really understand evolution, is damaged goods, etc etc etc...


79 posted on 06/22/2006 2:48:28 PM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies ]


To: GourmetDan
And we all knew that if he doesn't believe in Darwinism, he isn't a *real* scientist, doesn't really understand evolution, is damaged goods, etc etc etc...

I'd be willing to bet that not one in a hundred of these signers could provide, in their own words, a coherent three sentence outline of evolution.

I bet you can't either.

I've been participating in these threads for nearly five years and have not seen an evolution critic post an acceptable description of how evolution works.

83 posted on 06/22/2006 2:55:22 PM PDT by js1138 (Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies ]

To: GourmetDan
And we all knew that if he doesn't believe in Darwinism, he isn't a *real* scientist

No. Not at all. The problem is that, his standing as a scientist completely aside, he doesn't know what "Darwinism" actually is. He thinks (or pretends to think) that natural selection is the ONLY mechanism that evolutionists accept or consider. That's just plain silly. Then he hypes it all up like he was challenge some GREAT, IMPOSING DOGMA in even suggesting otherwise. Like I say, DRAMA QUEEN.

85 posted on 06/22/2006 2:58:34 PM PDT by Stultis (I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies ]

To: GourmetDan
I got it from another discussion I was in on this issue.

Inadequate answer. But you are correct. He (John Sanford) is a young-earther. If you read the testimony here it's clear, however, that this is primarily for religious reasons. (Why else, except BIBLICAL LITERALISM, would he readily allow that the earth might be less than 10,000 years old, but give a flat "no" to the suggestion that it might be less than 5,000? His lower limit is obviously based on the literalistic, Usher-type Genesis chronology.)

Q. First of all, do you have a personal opinion as to what the age of the world is?

A. I do have a personal opinion.

Q. And what is that personal opinion specifically as to the age? And I'm interested only in the age, not an explanation.

A. I believe that I was wrong in my previous belief that it's 4.5 billion years old and that it's much younger.

Q. How old is the earth, in your opinion?

A. I cannot intelligently say how old it is except it's much younger than I think widely believed.

Q. Give me your best estimate.

A. Less than 100,000 years old.

Q. Less than 10,000?

A. Conceivably.

Q. Conceivably less than 10,000?

A. Yes.

Q. Conceivably less than 5,000?

A. No.

Q. So it's somewhere between 5 and 10,000 years of age?

A. Between 5 and 100,000. But I would like to--

Q. No, I'm asking the questions.

A. Okay. You ask the questions.


104 posted on 06/22/2006 3:15:08 PM PDT by Stultis (I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson