Skip to comments.
White House to honor prominent evolutionist
Orange County Register ^
| May 9, 02
| Gary Robbins
Posted on 05/09/2002 3:18:41 PM PDT by laureldrive
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141-152 next last
To: gcruse
superstitious poltroonery Off point, but I had to point out that I'm swiping this phrase and will use it at the first possible moment. Has a wonderful, Mencken-ish feel to it.
41
posted on
05/09/2002 5:44:33 PM PDT
by
Iota
To: Iota
Blush. Why certainly, and thank you.
42
posted on
05/09/2002 5:47:45 PM PDT
by
gcruse
To: laureldrive
I am quite confident our President is not in any way involved in the selection of these people. He just presents the awards.
This is just another way for the liberals to spit on his Christianity, so to speak!
43
posted on
05/09/2002 5:51:32 PM PDT
by
CyberAnt
To: dpwiener
Exactly.
44
posted on
05/09/2002 6:02:30 PM PDT
by
Bogey78O
To: Born to Conserve
The sad thing is what they are doing to their children. The children's warped scientific knowledge will keep them from participating in science after their parents have taken the creation dogma to the graveJust be aware that some who believe in intelligent design have advanced degrees other have college degrees. I personally majored in chemistry with a minor in biology. (undergrad so I am no authority.) I did learn to question the liberal establishment, such as the media and academia, and public(government) schools; all which promote the THEORY of evolution.
45
posted on
05/09/2002 6:08:00 PM PDT
by
week 71
To: HiTech RedNeck
Without implicitly acknowledging some supra-natural reality, not even "superstition" can be condemned; and truth is no better than lies.So... the real world provides no basis for truth vs. untruth, therefore we must invent a magical "supernatural" realm (where cause & effect are not related) & simply assert that truth lives there?
Ohhhhh kaaaaay.
46
posted on
05/09/2002 6:08:37 PM PDT
by
jennyp
To: Gumlegs
Because there's another head before the baby's that prefers the canal to be smaller ... ? You may have a point there ;-D
47
posted on
05/09/2002 6:17:29 PM PDT
by
BMCDA
To: Ken H
A quick look at Democrat presidential hopefuls pretty much refutes ID and confirms Darwin, IMO. I tend to agree, but then, maybe Shakespeare had it right 400 years ago.
"The strain of man's bred out into baboon and monkey"
(Tim. of Athens I.i)
See this. Strange.
To: BMCDA
Thanks. I think that at the very least you have to admit that it's a plausible hypothesis.
49
posted on
05/09/2002 6:21:19 PM PDT
by
Gumlegs
To: All
50
posted on
05/09/2002 6:21:52 PM PDT
by
Bob J
To: jennyp
Actually Jenny, the creation provides a basis for the knowledge of a creator, though only in a general sense. This has been accepted as "truth" by countless thinking individuals down through the centuries, if not millenia.
Some would call it an unmistakable/undeniable truth.
The modern skeptic, with his/her committment to philosophic naturalism [nature is all there is] is faced with the unfortunate, and ironic dilemma, of having to sustain their belief system by, or on, sheer faith. This, after presumably rejecting faith as an attribute of the less educated masses.
"The LORD confounds the wisdom of the wise".
Brian.
51
posted on
05/09/2002 6:25:20 PM PDT
by
bzrd
To: Gumlegs
Certainly, but on the other hand our um... heads could have become bigger over time so they would better match the wider birth canal.
52
posted on
05/09/2002 6:27:26 PM PDT
by
BMCDA
To: BMCDA
I'm sure that in your case this is merely an abstraction.
53
posted on
05/09/2002 6:30:56 PM PDT
by
Gumlegs
To: PatrickHenry
Placemarker.
To: Seeking the truth
Why hasn't evolution changed the size of the birth canal? Because evolution selects what works. It works well enough in enough cases, the survival rate of the babies and the mothers is high enough. You just don't understand evolution. It is not teleological, it has no 'goal' in mind, certainly not perfection. It just means that what works, is selected. What is fit, is selected. It doesn't have to perfect, painless, or error-free, as long as it functions well enough.
55
posted on
05/09/2002 7:08:55 PM PDT
by
equus
To: equus
You are wrong.
I understand evolution very well.
It is quite simply whatever its adherents want it to be.
However, you are correct in your statement re: the imperfection of evolution theory.
To: equus
Evolution should have changed the birth canal by now one would think. Especially considering the fact that it is closely linked to survival of the mother [many women have died trying to birth a baby that would not fit through the canal] and her ability to pass on genetic information to her offspring.
Why haven't all of the narrow birth canal genes been selected out by now?
Brian.
57
posted on
05/09/2002 7:31:57 PM PDT
by
bzrd
To: bzrd
Once the mother has given birth her genes are irrelevent. Socialization has made sure the child is taken care of well enough withought a mother. But the previous post was right. Evolution simply passes along that which works well enough.
58
posted on
05/09/2002 7:52:47 PM PDT
by
Bogey78O
To: Belial
Of course in those days everyone lived a thousand years. Yeah, right! Of course in those days it may have seemed like a thousand years. A whole lifetime and never going more than twenty miles from home. Doing the same thing, day after day after day. Having your parents pick out your wife, not in terms of someone that would be compatible to you but who would bring political stability or biggest dowry. Yeah it only seemed like a thousand years.
59
posted on
05/09/2002 7:55:52 PM PDT
by
Dave S
To: Bogey78O
I mispoke. Countless pre-natal infants have perished prior to birth as the result of a too narrow birth canal. You would have to presume that many of them were females who carried the allele for the narrow canal themselves.
Simply saying evolution passes along that which works well enough...is well...weak.
Brian
60
posted on
05/09/2002 7:59:37 PM PDT
by
bzrd
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141-152 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