Skip to comments.
Darwin on the Right: Why Christians and conservatives should accept evolution
Scientific American ^
| October 2006 issue
| Michael Shermer
Posted on 09/18/2006 1:51:27 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 681-700, 701-720, 721-740 ... 2,001-2,015 next last
To: Celtjew Libertarian
Was mlc#### the random YELLER?
701
posted on
09/20/2006 2:58:20 PM PDT
by
stands2reason
(ANAGRAM for the day: Socialist twaddle == Tact is disallowed)
To: King Prout
After that post, I clicked on your name was suprised I didn't see the dreaded blue screen....
702
posted on
09/20/2006 3:01:17 PM PDT
by
stands2reason
(ANAGRAM for the day: Socialist twaddle == Tact is disallowed)
To: Elsie
Now if this same personage, who does things in an instant; how LONG would it take Him to CREATE all that we find around us??? First off, your examples are from the Christian Bible, which I don't believe in.
Secondly, all your examples are of healing that which exists, not creating that which had not.
703
posted on
09/20/2006 3:03:30 PM PDT
by
Celtjew Libertarian
("Don't take life so seriously. You'll never get out of it alive." -- Bugs Bunny)
To: stands2reason
I'm somewhat surprised by my survival, as well.
*shrugs*
704
posted on
09/20/2006 3:05:07 PM PDT
by
King Prout
(many complain I am overly literal... this would not be a problem if fewer people were under-precise)
To: presently no screen name
Accept the fact that the Bible isn't written directly by God, otherwise it would be "In the beginning I created the heavens and the earth."
You shouldn't claim it is when it's obvious it is not.
705
posted on
09/20/2006 3:09:59 PM PDT
by
stands2reason
(ANAGRAM for the day: Socialist twaddle == Tact is disallowed)
To: atlaw
How odd. And I truly had not seen your reply. Great minds. 8>)
706
posted on
09/20/2006 3:12:21 PM PDT
by
Celtjew Libertarian
("Don't take life so seriously. You'll never get out of it alive." -- Bugs Bunny)
To: Warrior of Justice
If God wrote the Bible, why did He talk about Himself in the third person?
Moses wrote Genesis, and your faith is that he was inspired by God.
Only the commandments given to Moses on Mt Sinai were claimed to be actually written by God.
Do you claim that God gave Moses Genesis on tablets?
707
posted on
09/20/2006 3:12:35 PM PDT
by
stands2reason
(ANAGRAM for the day: Socialist twaddle == Tact is disallowed)
To: PatrickHenry
1. Evolution fits well with good theology.
2. Creationism is bad theology.
3. Evolution explains original sin and the Christian model of human nature.
4. Evolution explains family values.
5. Evolution accounts for specific Christian moral precepts.
6. Evolution explains conservative free-market economics.
Oddly enough, nowhere on this list is the statement "Evolution constitutes irrefutable empiric scientific truth." Wonder why.
708
posted on
09/20/2006 3:15:22 PM PDT
by
Old_Mil
(http://www.constitutionparty.com/)
To: Quark2005
Sounds like a reasonable hypothesis that wants for some corroborating evidence so as to become a theory.
Did mlc RANDOMLY shout?
Did mlc commonly misconstrue the words of evos?
If you can find a mention of mlc quitting drinking in 76, that'd seal the deal for me.
709
posted on
09/20/2006 3:15:41 PM PDT
by
stands2reason
(ANAGRAM for the day: Socialist twaddle == Tact is disallowed)
To: presently no screen name
Two different subjects, as you are well aware.
I am well aware. You applied two different standards to two different subjects, and you offered no explanation as to why.
It was not contradictory but it suits your purpose to state otherwise.
That you refuse to explain how your double-standard is not a contradiction leads me to believe that you have no actual explanation.
You will have to carry on without me.
Why? Are you unable to support the numerous unsubstantiated and often false claims that you have made thus far?
710
posted on
09/20/2006 3:16:31 PM PDT
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: Religion Moderator; Admin Moderator
When you folks reach a decision about how to handle the problems we've been discussing, will you let us know? Or will we have to figure it out by the way the science threads are handled?
The least amount of work on your part would be, as I've suggested, to leave the science threads in the news forum, where they rightly belong, and when necessary to admonish disruptive posters to stay off a thread -- regardless of what might be a disruptor's motives. Ditto if the reverse should happen on the religion forum.
For an example of a news thread that involves evolution, you might take a brief look at this:
[Michigan Gov. Candidate] DeVos says he wants intelligent design taught in science classes. This is typical of why the science threads are "news" and shouldn't be banned, or shunted off into a marginal forum.
711
posted on
09/20/2006 3:17:15 PM PDT
by
PatrickHenry
(Science-denial is not conservative. It's reality-denial and it's unhealthy.)
To: Old_Mil
Oddly enough, nowhere on this list is the statement "Evolution constitutes irrefutable empiric scientific truth." Wonder why.Possibly because science doesn't prove statements of TRVTH.
Evolution is, however, as well established as the earth orbiting the sun.
712
posted on
09/20/2006 3:17:17 PM PDT
by
js1138
(The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
To: Old_Mil
Oddly enough, nowhere on this list is the statement "Evolution constitutes irrefutable empiric scientific truth." Wonder why. Because the article was about evolution's relationship with theology and politics; not about it's relationship with science.
713
posted on
09/20/2006 3:17:24 PM PDT
by
Celtjew Libertarian
("Don't take life so seriously. You'll never get out of it alive." -- Bugs Bunny)
To: Old_Mil
Oddly enough, nowhere on this list is the statement "Evolution constitutes irrefutable empiric scientific truth." Wonder why.
It is obvious. Absolutely no scientific claim can be said to constitute "irrefutable empiric scientific truth". Only an individual who has never studied science would not know this.
714
posted on
09/20/2006 3:18:16 PM PDT
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: dread78645
715
posted on
09/20/2006 3:19:49 PM PDT
by
stands2reason
(ANAGRAM for the day: Socialist twaddle == Tact is disallowed)
To: Dimensio
It is obvious. Absolutely no scientific claim can be said to constitute "irrefutable empiric scientific truth". Only an individual who has never studied science would not know this.
Then the obvious conclusion is that most evolutionists have never studied science, because the vast majority certainly act in this way.
716
posted on
09/20/2006 3:20:44 PM PDT
by
Old_Mil
(http://www.constitutionparty.com/)
To: presently no screen name; Celtjew Libertarian
Are you suggesting you know better than a Jew when it comes to the OT...
LOL
717
posted on
09/20/2006 3:21:46 PM PDT
by
stands2reason
(ANAGRAM for the day: Socialist twaddle == Tact is disallowed)
To: Old_Mil
Then the obvious conclusion is that most evolutionists have never studied science, because the vast majority certainly act in this way.
Please provide a reference to support this claim.
718
posted on
09/20/2006 3:22:12 PM PDT
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: Dimensio
719
posted on
09/20/2006 3:29:17 PM PDT
by
King Prout
(many complain I am overly literal... this would not be a problem if fewer people were under-precise)
To: Old_Mil
Then the obvious conclusion is that most evolutionists have never studied science, because the vast majority certainly act in this way. Give an example. Bear in mind that critics of evolution like Behe and Dembski's webmaster (if not Dembski himself) accept common descent as a fact. Common descent is as much a fact as the earth orbiting the sun.
All of the bits and pieces of evolution are facts -- a couple dozen varieties of mutation and DNA change, differential reproductive success, ERVs. There is no phenomenon required for evolution that has not been observed. Evolution has been observed in detail in the laboratory in reproducible experiments.
720
posted on
09/20/2006 3:31:38 PM PDT
by
js1138
(The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 681-700, 701-720, 721-740 ... 2,001-2,015 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