Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The evolving Darwin debate
WorldNetDaily ^ | March 24, 2002 | Julie Foster

Posted on 03/24/2002 7:03:09 PM PST by scripter

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 961-964 next last
Comment #201 Removed by Moderator

To: xzins
What's wrong with the notion that a more advanced civilization has "seeded" this planet?

The problem is that you are just transferring the question of abiogenesis from earth to some unknown planet. You are not resolving the serious scientific problems with such a theory at all. Also such an assumption is not science. Science deals with what can be tested, such an assumption is untestable.

202 posted on 03/27/2002 4:47:23 PM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
Clealrly these people are insane ;o)

No, those educators are not insane, they are just very arrogant, very accomplished liars. They do not care about the truth, they do not care about education - that is why kids keep getting dumber every year, all they care about is their agenda, their atheistic agenda.

203 posted on 03/27/2002 4:52:29 PM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Stultis
That's pretty much why I do it. Same goes for some of the drug warriors.
204 posted on 03/27/2002 4:54:38 PM PST by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: Goldhammer
Fantastic! Sometimes fiction can say a lot more than dry scientific facts.
205 posted on 03/27/2002 5:17:15 PM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Stultis
ad hominem.
206 posted on 03/27/2002 5:30:03 PM PST by sayfer bullets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: sayfer bullets
Duh!
207 posted on 03/27/2002 5:33:22 PM PST by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Gordon
What is the probability that God exists?
Upon what data do you base your response?
What experiments has been done to verify your data?

1. 100%.
2. Life on earth.
3. The proven impossibility of abiogenesis.

208 posted on 03/27/2002 5:36:34 PM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: medved
" the likelihood of any new kind of animal arising, with new kinds of organs, a new basic plan for existence etc. is a high-order infinitessimal, i.e. you are talking about a zero-probability event.

Now, it might be one thing to believe that one or two such events had ever occurred in the history of the world, "

The evolutionists cannot even prove that one such event has ever occurred, let alone the millions of times which totally new organisms have been created.

209 posted on 03/27/2002 5:45:37 PM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Stultis
Your whole long tirades are just an excuse for not giving any proof for the theory of evolution. You sound like Clinton, attacking everyone because of his own misdeeds, trying to belittle those who have done great things because your side has done nothing at all.
210 posted on 03/27/2002 5:52:56 PM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American
This crap is getting offensive;

The evolutionists have no problem attacking and defaming our beliefs, but when someone attacks them in the same manner they get indignant. Here is what I was responding to:

If Jesus were here now He would say:
"Render unto science that which is science."
"Render unto mythology that which is mythology."

The above is extremely offensive to Christians and was totally uncalled for.

211 posted on 03/27/2002 6:02:03 PM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
In describing a dry, two paragraph discussion of Boyle's Law and the Kinetic Theory of Gases as a "long tirade," you grant me unearned credit for rhetorical flourish.

Thanks!

212 posted on 03/27/2002 6:04:50 PM PST by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: Quila
If overwhelming scientific (not religious pseudoscience) disproofs existed, evolution theory would have fallen and the disprover would be a very famous and probably rich person. This is the way science works.

The way science works is that it proves its propositions. There is absolutely no proof for the theory of evolution but there is tons of proof for all other scientific theories. Half of what Darwin said in his books, on what he based his theory has been disproven by real science. The evolutionists never enter into discussion as to what the science is of their atheistic/materialistic philosophy because there is none.

213 posted on 03/27/2002 6:09:37 PM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: js1138
"So Darwin was not PC? "Social Darwinism" was quite a fad up until WWII. But does the misuse of an idea make it invalid?"

You are absolutely wrong. Social Darwinism was not the misuse of Darwinian theory, it was putting Darwinian theory into action:

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
Darwin, "The Descent of Man", Chapter V.

That's your boy speaking, not social darwinists, not creationists, but your man himself, the immoral, the racist, the mysogenist Charles Darwin. And all the quotes given to you are not just a peripheral part of his theory but an essential part of his theory.

214 posted on 03/27/2002 6:17:45 PM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
The evolutionists cannot even prove that one such event has ever occurred, let alone the millions of times which totally new organisms have been created.

The point is, that a non-idiot could potentially belive that one or two such events in the whole history of the world might have occurred but that, normally, i.e. when there is no quasi-religious reason for it, when a person starts to believe that an essentially endless series of such events has happened, you're looking at a much bigger problem.

In that case, the person is basically saying "Hey, you know, modern mathematics and probability theory and all that stuff is a bunch of BS, and I don't buy it.

215 posted on 03/27/2002 6:24:45 PM PST by medved
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
You sound like Clinton, attacking everyone because of his own misdeeds, trying to belittle those who have done great things because your side has done nothing at all.

In what way was my pointing out your confusion of the Law of Gravity with the non-existant Theory of Gravity an "attack" on you (as distinct from an attack on your claim)? How was pointing out that Mendel's ratios are not only not "proven", but are not even factually true of numerous real world cases Clintonesque? How was my very politely demuring from your absurd implication that "relativity" tells us all we need to know about "atomic bombs" ad hominem?

For Gosh sakes, on that last point I even resisted pointing out to you that relativity theory deals with macroscopic phenomena, says nothing (directly) about nuclear interactions, and has little if anything to do with actually building "atom bombs".

Let us assume that I genuinely wanted to attack your claim that "gravity" is a "proved theory". Is there any possible way I could do that which would not cause you to squeal like a Palestinian caught with an explosive belt that you had been subjected to unfair personal attack?

216 posted on 03/27/2002 6:29:06 PM PST by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: Quila
It is easy to make predictions after the fact. The truth of the matter is that the fossil record does not prove evolution. It does not prove graudal descent. It shows that species arise and go away pretty much the way they started. However, the most interesting thing about the fossil record is that totally in contradiction of evolutionary theory practically all the species (except dinosaurs) found in the evolutionary record, are still found alive and well on earth. So much for natural selection.
217 posted on 03/27/2002 6:29:27 PM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Quila
Let's not go ad hominem, or we could have a field day with most of the Bible's characters.

Guess it is an insult to quote what the man said? Guess it is an insult to quote parts of the theory you so dearly defend? It is not an insult to call OJ Simpson a murderer. It is not an insult to call Clinton a pervert. It is a statement of fact. You may not like my calling Darwin by those names, however they are accurate and I have given proof of their truth.

It is also quite interesting that you equate an attack on Darwin as an attack on the Bible. It proves very well the truth of the article here. It proves very well what Christians have been saying here - evolution is an atheistic/materialistic philosophy, not science. Darwinism is your religion.

218 posted on 03/27/2002 6:35:18 PM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: sayfer bullets
ad hominem.

You were responding to post 201, which is no longer available. It must have been bad enough to yank...

219 posted on 03/27/2002 6:35:51 PM PST by scripter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: js1138
But saying that an idea was hijacked to justify evil deeds is not an argument against the idea.

Evolution was not hijacked by evil doers. Darwinism is the soul of Nazism and there is a direct connection to it through Darwin's big atheistic buddy Haeckel. Also, it was Darwin's other great buddy, the atheist Huxley who coined the term "amoral" as a defense of the immorality in Darwinian theory. Also see my post #214 for more proof of the perversity of Darwinism.

BTW - name one instance of the Sermon on the Mount being misused by evil doers (or the Ten Commandments).

220 posted on 03/27/2002 6:44:49 PM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 961-964 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson