Posted on 07/31/2007 10:18:52 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Oh, I dunno, maybe by adding a snide editorial comment that contradicts the article?
A reasonable third person (or moderator) might conclude from your pattern of doing this that you do it to foment conflict and disrupt the forum.
Are you evolving into a troll?
==Oh, I dunno, maybe by adding a snide editorial comment that contradicts the article?
It you find the truth to be snide, that’s your problem...deal with it.
==Are you evolving into a troll?
Do you ask yourself that every morning when you first look into the mirror?
How much do you actually know (that is actually true) about either one?
Exactly as much as I know about both of them. How about you?
Then where did all the bones come from? There are far far too many to have all been alive at the same time.
Look at just how think a limestone deposit can be, every shell in it belonged to a critter that needed access to water, and couldn't survive having a few hundred yards of his fellows stacked on top of him!
Only if I forgot to put on my glasses...
It's not so much what you know that worries me, it's how much you know that just plain isn't true.
As to what I know about Scientology, it's quite a bit: So you have questions about Scientology...
I also note in passing that you set a higher standard for Darwin than you do for God. You denigrate Darwin for not formulating an all encompassing theory that explains facts not yet discovered when he originally realized that organisms that are better adapted to their environment were more likely to pass on the traits that made them better adapted. You don't allow others with more data to add to the theory.
Yet God gets to change the rules and write a New Testament...
Ah. So you think everything you know about the widely separate topics of Darwin and Scientology is 100% true.
Remarkable.
No point in attempting to actually, you know, uh, learn something?
They’re changing the details, not the theory.
Creationists have a problem that God demands faith: believing without seeing. We will never be able to prove that evolution is wrong because that would prove that God exists. This would contradict the requirement for faith.
Personally, I believe the world is 6,000 years old. I have faith that we’ll never be able to prove that though.
Maybe the bible is wrong: certainly the billions of fossils that have been found all appear to be dead.
Yes, the creation model. All species existed at the beginning, but most have become extinct due to the changes caused by the judgement of the Earth, and the remaining species slowly, but perfectly adapt to those changes to the extent that the adaptability exists in their DNA. When they run out of geneticly provided adaptability, they become extinct too.
The anti-Darwinist Christians need to know they are affiliated with a blooming idiot!
Everything that is alive is a biological adaptation.
Wrong. You are NOT smarter than a 5th grader!
You continue to embarass yourself with your failure to grasp the significance of the obvious
"Within recorded history, the diversity of large animals has decreased. What makes you think diversity should increase continuously?"
The foundational thesis of darwinism demands it.
You still haven't accepted the fact that your assertion is a lie. Here is Darwin on the subject of rates of evolution:
Species of different genera and classes have not changed at the same rate, or in the same degree. In the oldest tertiary beds a few living shells may still be found in the midst of a multitude of extinct forms. Falconer has given a striking instance of a similar fact, in an existing crocodile associated with many strange and lost mammals and reptiles in the sub-Himalayan deposits. The Silurian Lingula differs but little from the living species of this genus; whereas most of the other Silurian Molluscs and all the Crustaceans have changed greatly. The productions of the land seem to change at a quicker rate than those of the sea, of which a striking instance has lately been observed in Switzerland. There is some reason to believe that organisms, considered high in the scale of nature, change more quickly than those that are low: though there are exceptions to this rule. The amount of organic change, as Pictet has remarked, does not strictly correspond with the succession of our geological formations; so that between each two consecutive formations, the forms of life have seldom changed in exactly the same degree.
Are you simply too stupid to notice?
That statement certainly makes you wrong.
Quantum mechanics has exposed every pre-existing theory in every branch of science to be either insufficient, or just plain wrong. It continues to make itself known at every level in the life sciences, as the transfer of energy in the nucleus of every living cell is shown to have a "resonant frequency" due to facets of quantun mechanics.
Ridiculous!
The purpose of FR is to fix what is wrong with America, and the rampant error and sociological destruction that has flowed out of darwinism is easily 50% of what is killing this country.
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.