As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc. We also oppose the United Nations or any other world government body that may attempt to impose its will or rule over our sovereign nation and sovereign people. We believe in defending our borders, our constitution and our national sovereignty.
As to why my reply post on this thread was “religious” – religion was the original issue of the sidebar to which I was pinged, namely the assertion that "Well, it is either Creation OR Evolution. Can’t be BOTH" from post 69.
The view I hold, which betty boop also holds, is that Creation and Evolution are not mutually exclusive - provided when one says "Evolution" he does not mean to include atheism as part of the theory (which it is not.)
Briefly put, there is nothing in Genesis which says God did not give creatures the ability to adapt.
Moreover, in ordinary English, "evolution" means roughly, gradual change over time.
And with reference to science, Darwin's Theory of Evolution did not address "what is life?" much less the origin of life (abiogenesis/biogenesis) much less theology. His theory was concerned with speciation only.
Even so, there could remain a "bone of contention" between Genesis 1 and Darwin's Theory of Evolution vis-à-vis whether there was a single life form from which all species descended - or whether there were specially created "kinds" which then continued to adapt causing species - or whether the specially created "kinds" were not capable of adaptation (which as far as I know, no one has claimed.)
In that regard, as I recall from a previous discussion with Tortoise, the mathematics debunks the idea of a single life form at the root – there had to be many all at once for a theory of abiogenesis to “get off the ground” even if they were all of the same type.
Also, as I recall from previous discussions with Physicist and Tortoise and PatrickHenry, that the geologic record as a continuum is a presumption which can never be proven because not every creature has left a fossil in the record.
What brought up the subject is the deliberate pinging of the creationist list to one of Blam's threads. Blam posts mostly in the field of archaeology, and tries to keep the dogmatists off his threads. He has been pretty successful.
The use of the creationist ping list on pure science threads really amounts to trolling, just as would be my example of a scientist invading the Religion Forum with multiple and vigorous posts challenging everyone's religious beliefs.
Scientists (those still here) tend to avoid the Religion Forum out of courtesy; would that others were as considerate.
Well said, Alamo-Girl! Atheism is, in my view, either an ersatz religion or a religion substitute. As such, it has no place in a scientific theory.