Posted on 05/12/2009 7:26:20 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Turning the daggar...
That the bones were in fact demineralized to soften them?
If these 'doubters' had any education they would know how weak the above argument is.
I never said that any bones were soft moron!
I said that there was soft tissue, and that it was soft as discovered. The soft tissue had not been fossilized in any way.
Bones are demineralized to remove soft tissue, a common lab procedure. so what is your point???
I’d be willing to bet you can guess my “natural” response! :)
You were shown that this is an outright mis-representation because the Pope would hardly tell a little child that God has no place in science when she asked about her teeth, moreoever, the Pope would freely admit God created all we know or ever will know, and at the bare minimum evolution IS I.D., something you refuse to admit.
And again, why do you drag a religious argument into a science argument, particuarly when you yourself demand science be pure science...is it as it is with all liberals, "do as I say, not as I do"? Is that the idea?
Do you not have any scruples whatsoever or is it the robotic prattling of a cultist or do you just like to hear yourself talk?
Doing actual experiments IS science.
And ignoring their results, what would you call that?
Answer: A cult.
Edward Peltzer, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute)
As a chemist, the most fascinating issue for me revolves around the origin of life. Before life began, there was no biology, only chemistry – and chemistry is the same for all time. What works (or not) today, worked (or not) back in the beginning. So, our ideas about what happened on Earth prior to the emergence of life are eminently testable in the lab. And what we have seen thus far when the reactions are left unguided as they would be in the natural world is not much. Indeed, the decomposition reactions and competing reactions out distance the synthetic reactions by far. It is only when an intelligent agent (such as a scientist or graduate student) intervenes and “tweaks” the reactions conditions “just right” do we see any progress at all, and even then it is still quite limited and very far from where we need to get. Thus, it is the very chemistry that speaks of a need for something more than just time and chance. And whether that be simply a highly specified set of initial conditions (fine-tuning) or some form of continual guidance until life ultimately emerges is still unknown. But what we do know is the random chemical reactions are both woefully insufficient and are often working against the pathways needed to succeed. For these reasons I have serious doubts about whether the current Darwinian paradigm will ever make additional progress in this area.
Edward Peltzer
Ph.D. Oceanography, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute)
Associate Editor, Marine Chemistry
www.dissentfromdarwin.org
I’d be willing to bet the natural reaction of any research facility to it would be “No thanks. Keep your Roller Derby the hell out of my my lab.”
Nope.
But it does get back to your previous contentions about families seeing for themselves how the debate would unfold in science class.
No, the correct answer is:
back at ya.
If you want to hold everyone somehow “responsible”, then don’t whine when you are.
And back to families...I think this (and just about every thread) illustrates to what length liberals will go to to sabotage the science more than anything else.
Any and every threat to their cult is met with endless lies, projections and so on.
ad infinatum.
Frankly, I think the vast majorities of families would just as soon liberals shut up and sit down for a change.
Personally, I think when they started demanding people not publically say Merry Christmas, etc. etc. etc., the tipping point was reached.
Most Americans don’t like liberal idiots dictating to them what they can and can’t do.
Would that be the NEA, or the liberal professors like Ward Churchhill or both?
Keep it up. You’re providing valuable information about what creationism will bring to the table.
Keep it up. You’re providing valuable information about what creationism will bring to the table.
People not in the grip of a cult already understand.
You see before liberals hijacked science and the education system in general, creationsim flourished nicely. And so did science and education.
I merely expose the behavior of leftists and/or cultists.
So I udnerstand your squirminess.
I merely expose the behavior of leftists and/or cultists.
Okay. Radiometric dating is liberalism.
What else do you have to offer on the subject?
No. I am talking about the evolution doubters that are armed only with the false science they read on the creationists’ websites.
Oh OK. Same thing.
No liberaqlism is exclaiming “the debate is over, it’s settled science, anyone that disagrees is a Bible thumper...”
Sheesh, 10 years?
“I’ll quit using the CREtin label when you …” [excerpt]Just to be clear, there is one Creationist on this site that you won't be calling a ‘CREtin’ if you know whats good for you.
Precisely. Prior to the dominance of evolutionism in science, great leaps and bounds were made, climaxing with the great creation scientists Louis Pasteur, Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, and others like them, who operated in the looming shadow of Darwinism, which hadn't yet acquired the demonically-inspired strength to control science.
The astute student of science will note that practically all engineering and medical advances we enjoy today are built on the pre-1900 science of these giants, before Darwin sank his monstrous claws into the philosophy.
Darwin's separation of God from his once-pure creation of science had far-reaching consequences. The pollution of medicine with Freudian junk concepts of the unconscious mind as a separate entity controlling our minds entered as a result of Darwin. The pollution of physics and chemistry with Eastern mystical philosophies like quantum mechanics, which asserts that existence is subjective and random, entered as a result of Darwin. The Marxist concept of a godless, centrally controlled economy entered as a result of Darwin. And as if stealing the origins of humanity from God wasn't enough, cosmologists invented the "Big Bang" to steal the origin of the whole universe from God.
If modern science, so-engendered by the influence of these man-centered, God-burying concepts, isn't pure evil and blasphemy in its most deceptive form, I don't know what is. It's time that conservatives banded together to stop this nonsense, and restore science to its pre-Darwinian roots!
Do you still beat your wife?
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.