Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies.
Locked on 04/29/2006 1:50:06 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:

Enough noise from this damn thing.



Skip to comments.

Ann Coulter weighs in on Darwinism
uncommondescent.com ^ | William Dembski

Posted on 04/27/2006 8:01:57 AM PDT by Tribune7

I’m happy to report that I was in constant correspondence with Ann regarding her chapters on Darwinism — indeed, I take all responsibility for any errors in those chapters. :-)

(Excerpt) Read more at uncommondescent.com ...


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: anncoulter; bewarefrevolutionist; coulter; crevolist; darwinism; evolution; godless
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 801-850851-900901-950951-962 next last
To: HappyFeet

Do you have an actual rebuttal to the "long, long post", or did you merely feel a need to comment on its length?


851 posted on 04/28/2006 10:06:57 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 847 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

I have looked over some of it. After the introduction, it opens with some marvelling at the fundamental properties of the universe without actually explaining how this is evidence of anything, and then expresses astonishment that life happens to exist upon a planet that happens to be able to support it, bringing forth a spotlight fallacy and an argument from incredulity in essentially the same point.


852 posted on 04/28/2006 10:11:30 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 821 | View Replies]

Comment #853 Removed by Moderator

To: Dimensio
After reading a bit further, I see an attempt to retrofit a reading of Genesis I with current astronomy and astrophysics, followed by an attempt to discredit the theory of evolution first by calling it an "unproven theory" -- even though all theories are unproven by definition, and never can be proven -- and then falsely claiming that it makes claims regarding the origin of life. That they inaccurately link the origin of life with the theory of evolution strongly suggests that they have not studied biology sufficiently to comment on the subject. There is also a bit of information on the fossil record, completely ignoring the existence of other lines of evidence for evolution (such as genetic evidence across species).

I will look over the document more thorougly tomorrow and comment on the more glaring and obvious errors.
854 posted on 04/28/2006 10:18:13 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 852 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

"You are a real pig. I am reporting you for abuse, you asshole."

Certainly qualifies for one of the most ironic posts of the year.

+++++

Perhaps you don't know who David Irving is.

The "professor" just called me a Neo-Nazi.

Which should qualify as one of the most ironic posts of the year.


855 posted on 04/28/2006 10:18:28 PM PDT by Sam Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 829 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

"Currently reading: American Theocracy, by Kevin Phillips"

Oh, my sides!

LOL


856 posted on 04/28/2006 10:35:52 PM PDT by Sam Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
"Here's Hitler in his own words. He constantly professed to be a Catholic/Christian. Therefore, it's really odd to say he was anti-Christian."

Well, while I've got the book open and the scanner going, here are a few more quotes for you, Professor:

The fact that the Japanese have retained their political philosophy, which is one of the essential reasons for their successes, is due to their having been saved in time from the views of Christianity. Just as in Islam, there is no kind of terrorism in the Japanese State religion, but, on tile contrary, a promise of happiness. This terrorism in religion is the product, to put it briefly, of a Jewish dogma, which Christianity has universalised and whose effect is to sow trouble and confusion in men’s minds. It’s obvious that, in the realm of belief, terrorist teachings have no other object but to distract men from their natural optimism and to develop in them the instinct of cowardice. 

As far as we are concerned, we’ve succeeded in chasing the Jews from our midst and excluding Christianity from our political life. It’s therefore in England and America that one can nowadays observe the effects of such an education upon a people’s conduct. Our measures against decadent art have enabled us to get rid of the smears of the Jews. But these daubs, which we’ve banned, are at present fetching the highest prices in England and America. And nobody amongst the bourgeois over yonder dares to protest. One may well exclaim: “Cowardice, thy name is bourgeoisie!” Although the Jew has seized the levers of control in the Anglo-Saxon world (the press, the cinema, the radio, economic life), and although in the United States he is the entire inspiration of the populace, especially of the negroes, the bourgeois of the two countries, with the rope already round their necks, tremble at the idea of rebelling against him, even timidly.

++++

It is very curious that devout Christians like the British and the Americans should, despite their constant and fervent prayers, receive such a series of hidings from the pagan Japanese! It rather looks as if the real God takes no notice of the prayers offered day and night by the British and the Americans, but reserves His mercies for the heroes of Japan. It is not surprising that this should be so, for the religion of the Japanese is above all a cult of heroism, and its heroes are those who do not hesitate to sacrifice their lives for the glory and safety of their country. The Christians, on the other hand, prefer to honour the Saints, that is to say, a man who succeeds in standing on one leg for years at a time, or one who prefers to lie on a bed of thorns rather than to respond to the smiles of inviting maidens. There is something very unhealthy about Christianity.

Another peculiarity of the Christian faith, as it is taught by the Catholic Church, is that it is a school of pessimism rather than of opti­mism. The Japanese religion, on the contrary, rouses men to enthu­siasm by the promise it holds of the rewards in the Hereafter, while the unfortunate Christian has no prospect before him but the torments of Hell.

Such pessimism has a marked effect. Even a child of three can be made to acquire a terror of mind which will remain with him for the whole of his life. We all know many grown-up people who are nervous in the dark, simply because they had been told in their childhood that a bogey-man, a robber or the like lurked in the shadows.

It is no less difficult to eradicate these childish inhibitions than it is to free the human soul of that haunting terror of Hell which the Catholic Church impresses on it with such vigour during its most tender years.

++++

When one examines the Catholic religion closely, one cannot fail to realise that it is an almost incredibly cunning mixture of hypocrisy and business acumen, which trades with consummate skill on the deeply engrained affection of mankind for the beliefs and superstitions he holds. It is inconceivable that an educated priest should really believe all the nonsense that the Church pours out; a proof there, to my mind, is the fact that the priests themselves always try to confuse the issue on the subject of the swindle of dispensations, and avoid whenever possible any discussion of the subject. 

++++

The preservation of our racial purity can be assured only by an awareness of the racial issues involved; our laws, therefore, must be framed with the sole object of protecting our people not only against Jewish, but also against any and every racial infection.

We must do all we can to foster this racial awareness until it attains the same standard as obtained in Rome in the days of her glory. In those days the Roman protected himself subconsciously against any racial adulteration. The same thing occurred in Greece at the height of her power; according to reports handed down to us, the very market­place itself in Athens shook with laughter when St. Paul spoke there in favour of the Jews. If nowadays we do not find the same splendid pride of race which distinguished the Grecian and Roman eras, it is because in the fourth century these Jewish-Christians systematically destroyed all the monuments of these ancient civilisations. It was they, too, who destroyed the library at Alexandria.

++++

The rapidity with which Mustapha Kemal Ataturk rid himself of his parsons makes one of the most remarkable chapters in history. He hanged thirty-nine of them out of hand, the rest he flung out, and St. Sophia in Constantinople is now a museum!

++++

Here, too, we see a fundamental truth: The parasites, in their avarice, do not realise that they are destroying the very ground which is their foundation. The Church of to-day is nothing more than a hereditary joint stock company for the exploitation of human stupidity.

++++

Only in the Roman Empire and in Spain under Arab domination has culture been a potent factor. Under the latter, the standard of civilisation attained was wholly admirable; to Spain flocked the greatest scientists, thinkers, astronomers and mathematicians of the world, and side by side there flourished a spirit of sweet human tolerance and a sense of the purest chivalry. Then, with the advent of Christianity, came the barbarians. The chivalry of the Castilians has been inherited from the Arabs. Had Charles Martel not been victorious at Poitiers—already, you see, the world had fallen into the hands of the Jews, so gutless a thing was Christianity!—then we should in all probability have. been converted to Mohammedanism, that cult which glorifies heroism, and which opens the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world. Christianity alone prevented them from doing so.

And the very last two sentences in Table Talk:

The Fuehrer concluded, Burgdorff has just given me a paper which deals with the relationship between Communism and Christianity. It is comforting to see how, even in these days, the fatal relationship between the two is daily becoming clearer to the human intelligence.


857 posted on 04/28/2006 11:12:24 PM PDT by Sam Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

"Well, I have previously enjoyed Ann Coulter's earlier works, but now that she has gotten around to writing on a subject I know very well, I'm utterly appalled at what a hugely incompetent job she has done, and how there is absolutely no excuse for it."

Hahahaha.

It hasn't even come out yet.


858 posted on 04/28/2006 11:30:41 PM PDT by Sam Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 845 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American
I've enjoyed her polemics in the past, but if now she's supporting anti-science or pseudo-science,

I'm agreeing with you here. Ann's writing and TV appearances while quite often a bit over the top, have always been quite an inspiration to me. Seeing as how she's deliberately insulting the educated portion of her audience by playing the "conservative equals ignorant" card, I'm now inclined to view her as a disappointing P T Barnum book seller merely huckstering her audience. Hopefully she'll use a portion of her latest book sales to purchase something to eat.

859 posted on 04/28/2006 11:37:25 PM PDT by shuckmaster (An oak tree is an acorns way of making more acorns)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
After all, the Bible is the inspired word of God

Actually it's a varied assortment of dubious translations from a scattered collection of tattered scrolls handed down from various tribes of sandal wearing bronze age goat herders but, don't let that stop you...

860 posted on 04/28/2006 11:43:56 PM PDT by shuckmaster (An oak tree is an acorns way of making more acorns)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: svcw
NO, MY REAL SURPRISE IS THOSE WHO BELIVE THAT JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE A RELIOUGS CONCERVATIVE THAT ONE IS “SCIENCE-ILLITERATE”

That's really not true. There are only a relatively few conservatives who are trying hard to perpetuate the myth that conservatism is synonymous with willful ignorance of basic biology. Apparently Coulter is foolishly believing there are enough of them to keep her book sales up but, I believe she's just jumped off the cliff of credibility.

861 posted on 04/28/2006 11:54:27 PM PDT by shuckmaster (An oak tree is an acorns way of making more acorns)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
Dave, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but some people really *are* intellectually superior to some others. I can understand why the "others" often resent that fact being made clear, though, and try to convince themselves that it's only a matter of "posturing" and not reality.
I fully recognize this. There are people smarter than myself, just as there are those who are smarter than you. It doesn't pain me to admit that. However, there's a difference between people who truly are smarter, and people who try to posture to be smarter. It's the posturing that was at issue. These are debates about the legitimacy of the creationist model versus the evolutionist model. In a debate, you've lost if you're on stage trying to say "But I'm smarter than you."
Ah, yes, the old slur, spewed out when you have no substantive insult, but want to fling one anyway. It's pathetic.
Surely you get enough insults without having to create them? All I said was that I can't be certain frevolutionists are not Democrats. You call this a "slur," an "insult" and "pathetic"? It's interesting to observe your "victimized" psychological reaction to the slightest amount of doubt being cast in the general direction of frevolutionists and political affiliation.
862 posted on 04/29/2006 3:17:47 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger ("You're not going crazy! You're going sane in a crazy world!" - The Tick)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 718 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
Conservative Texan Mom: Likewise, some evos equate the religious to fanatics, and believe that it will lead to ignorance and another dark age.[Post #99]

Ichneumon: No, this is quite incorrect. I don't know of a single Freeper who matches your description, and you do this debate a large disservice with such misrepresentations.[Post #118]

RightWingProfessor: Speaking only for myself, my agenda is protecting science, and biological science in particular, a pursuit on which I've spent most of my working life, from political attacks by religious fundamentalists, who seem to think we're still in the Middle Ages and that the Enlightenment never happened. [from post#45].

863 posted on 04/29/2006 3:17:49 AM PDT by backslacker (Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding Job 38)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Aren't you the asshole who wrote a nice as pie freepmail to me, offering to start a dialog outside the evil world of flame wars, and when I responded in good faith, and at some length, dropped the whole thing?

What is it with you people that you are so personally dishonest that you cannot have a conversation with a normal person?


864 posted on 04/29/2006 4:32:14 AM PDT by js1138 (somewhere, some time ago, something happened, but whatever it was, wasn't evolution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 862 | View Replies]

To: Sam Hill

So basically you are saying that Hitler put on the false face of a believer, promoted Christianity as the foundation of his political actions, and millions of people accepted his rationale.

So you, on the word of a monster criminal, have concluded that Hitler was a hypocrite. What were his millions of followers? What made them so eager to fall in line?


865 posted on 04/29/2006 4:45:54 AM PDT by js1138 (somewhere, some time ago, something happened, but whatever it was, wasn't evolution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 849 | View Replies]

To: Sam Hill

Despite your tagline, I smell a troll.

Nope. I asked a perfectly legitimate question. Were the Nazis atheists? If not, what were they? I think they were all (maybe with a few exceptions) raised as Christians, attended Christian services/ceremonies/rituals, invoked the Christian God and Christian scripture in their everyday and public speech, etc. There is no question Germany before Hitler took power was a solidly Christian country.

And yes, Hitler was an adamant believer in evolution. Much of his theories is based on Darwinism as he understood it.)

Now I not only smell a troll, I hear a troll. I didn't ask that and you are repeating a frequently repeated error and anti-evolution creationist myth that has just as frequently been rebutted and shown to be false. And I generally speaking, don't respond to creationist trolls.

866 posted on 04/29/2006 5:29:24 AM PDT by ml1954 (NOT the disruptive troll seen frequently on CREVO threads.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 816 | View Replies]

To: Sam Hill
"Perhaps you don't know who David Irving is."

I certainly do. And your post was still one of the most ironic posts I have ever read. It's funny as hell reading someone threaten to go to the mods crying abuse while calling someone an A-h%%e. The closest I have seen to that is another poster I have seen who, while calling someone an idiot, was adamant that he was always polite.


You anti-evo's are SO amusing. :)
867 posted on 04/29/2006 5:43:25 AM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 855 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Texan Mom

Adam was not a living being prior to the sixth day and animals also had the breath of life.


868 posted on 04/29/2006 6:35:20 AM PDT by pby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 778 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle; jennyp
If Coyoteman keeps posting the same photo six times a day for five years, it will inevitably lead to Evo-Morph and the photo will change due to random chance.

So you don't know the difference between chimpanzee and humans?

869 posted on 04/29/2006 7:08:45 AM PDT by dread78645 (Evolution. A dying theory since 1859.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 347 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
Give us an actual example, with citation of a statement of specific odds provided in evolutionary biology without support for the odds given. Except that most 'odds' are unknown and lots of TIME is needed.

You stop reading WAY too soon!

For example; what are the ODDS that head A will turn into head B?



Gosh!

NONE are given!

870 posted on 04/29/2006 7:14:19 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 757 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
It happened according to various physical processes which can hardly be described as "by chance". Things don't coalesce gravitationally "by chance", for example.

Now, where was that evidence of God you promised us?

 

 

HMmmm......

871 posted on 04/29/2006 7:16:29 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 767 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever
 
If they lay claim to evolution then they most certainly can claim any other portions of the Bible are false. They are playing with fire.
 
It sure appears that way!!!!

Charles Darwin (1809-1882)

"By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is supported,—and that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become,—that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us,—that the Gospels cannot be proven to have been written simultaneously with the events,—that they differ in many important details, far too important, as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eye witnesses;—by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation. The fact that many fake religions have spread over large portions of the earth like wildfire had some weight with me. But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; I feel sure of this, for I can remember often and often inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans, and manuscripts being discovered at Pompeii or elsewhere, which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct."

( Charles Darwin in his Autobiography of Charles Darwin, Dover Publications, 1992, p. 62. )


Charles Darwin (1809-1882)

"I think that generally (& more & more as I grow older), but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind."

( Quoted from Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1991, p. 636. )


872 posted on 04/29/2006 7:18:10 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 768 | View Replies]

To: HappyFeet

You should read it. It's very educational and could rescue you from your approval of the silly aphorism that evolution is "nothing but a gap."


873 posted on 04/29/2006 7:19:51 AM PDT by ahayes (Yes, I have a devious plot. No, you may not know what it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 847 | View Replies]

To: backslacker; Ichneumon; Right Wing Professor; Conservative Texan Mom
Conservative Texan Mom: Likewise, some evos equate the religious to fanatics, and believe that it will lead to ignorance and another dark age.[Post #99]

RightWingProfessor: Speaking only for myself, my agenda is protecting science, and biological science in particular, a pursuit on which I've spent most of my working life, from political attacks by religious fundamentalists, who seem to think we're still in the Middle Ages and that the Enlightenment never happened. [from post#45].

874 posted on 04/29/2006 7:23:16 AM PDT by BMCDA (If the human brain were so simple that we could understand it,we would be so simple that we couldn't)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 863 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
so you are saying the physical movement of indivuals is analogous with divergent evolution?

And who says creatoids can't learn something ...

875 posted on 04/29/2006 7:25:43 AM PDT by dread78645 (Evolution. A dying theory since 1859.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 414 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon; RunningWolf; wallcrawlr; AndrewC; metmom; Conservative Texan Mom

Odds..... and spin...

 

However, an analysis by Ekland suggests that in the sequence space of 220 nucleotide long RNA sequences, a staggering 2.5 x 10^112 sequences are efficent ligases [12]. Not bad for a compound previously thought to be only structural. Going back to our primitive ocean of 1 x 10^24 litres and assuming a nucleotide concentration of 1 x 10^-7 M [23], then there are roughly 1 x 10^49 potential nucleotide chains, so that a fair number of efficent RNA ligases (about 1 x 10^34) could be produced in a year, let alone a million years. The potential number of RNA polymerases is high also; about 1 in every 10^20 sequences is an RNA polymerase [12]. Similar considerations apply for ribosomal acyl transferases (about 1 in every 10^15 sequences), and ribozymal nucleotide synthesis [1, 6, 13].

We are quite convinced now.

876 posted on 04/29/2006 7:27:56 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 770 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon; RunningWolf; wallcrawlr; AndrewC; metmom; Conservative Texan Mom

Your link contains the idiot ramblings of an anti-evolutionist masturbating...

Ah... such vivid imagery!
877 posted on 04/29/2006 7:28:45 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 770 | View Replies]

To: Sam Hill
Your preposterous claim that "constantly professed to be a Catholic/Christian" is a flat out lie.

Let me remind you. You made a claim that Hitler's 12 April 1922 speech was intended to be sarcastic. I have challenged you to identify anything in that speech to indicate Hitler was being sarcastic when he said that his "feeling as a Christian points" him to his "Lord and Savior as a fighter", or indeed elsewhere in that section of the speech. You have not done so, for obvious reasons; he was not being sarcastic, there is nothing that would even suggest he was being sarcastic, and you simply made that up. Instead you initiated an ad hominem attack on me. You are probably well aware I could have quoted many other instances where Hitler proclaimed himself to be Christian. But what is the point? You refused to confront the first except with dishonesty and denial.

You are a raving ideologue who isn't interested in an intellectual discussion, but in shouting down your opponent. Merely mentioning that Hiller was a product of an environment in which religiously-justified Christian antisemitism was the norm, and that his speech in 1922 in Munich would not have been anything particularly out of the norm, something that no one familiar with the history of Germany and Central Europe in the late 19th/early 20th century would deny, caused you to attack my sanity, And then you have the chutzpah to complain when I compared your agenda with that of another guy who's interested in rewriting history.

Strictly for the benefit of the lurkers, Table Talk was edited by Martin Bormann from original transcripts made by two scribes Bormann chose, and while it purports to be a record of Hitler's dinner time meanderings, there is no independent evidence of the veracity of the material. And Bormann was definitely anti-Christian and in particular anti-Catholic. So relying on Bormann's accounts, which dramatically at variance with Hitler's public proclamations, is tendentiousness at its worst. Your entire argument depends on taking the word of a Nazi monster with his own agenda.

I will close this exchange, and consign you to my virtual ignore list, with the remark that of all fanatics I've run into on FR, you are among the most unpleasant.

878 posted on 04/29/2006 7:38:20 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 849 | View Replies]

To: swmobuffalo
I subscribe to the fact that science has yet to prove that "chance" created the intricacies of the human body, the precise aerodynamics of an eagle's wing or the somewhat clumsy nearly impossible flight of a bumblebee.

INDEED!



NIV Romans 9:20-22
 20.  But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, `Why did you make me like this?'"
 21.  Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
 
NIV Isaiah 29:15-16
 15.  Woe to those who go to great depths to hide their plans from the LORD, who do their work in darkness and think, "Who sees us? Who will know?"
 16.  You turn things upside down, as if the potter were thought to be like the clay! Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, "He did not make me"? Can the pot say of the potter, "He knows nothing"?
 

NIV Isaiah 45:9-13
 9.  "Woe to him who quarrels with his Maker, to him who is but a potsherd among the potsherds on the ground. Does the clay say to the potter, `What are you making?' Does your work say, `He has no hands'?
 10.  Woe to him who says to his father, `What have you begotten?' or to his mother, `What have you brought to birth?'
 11.  "This is what the LORD says-- the Holy One of Israel, and its Maker: Concerning things to come, do you question me about my children, or give me orders about the work of my hands?
 12.  It is I who made the earth and created mankind upon it. My own hands stretched out the heavens; I marshaled their starry hosts.
 
 
 
NIV Isaiah 64:8-9
   Yet, O LORD, you are our Father. We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand.
 
 
 
NIV Jeremiah 18:2-6
 2.  "Go down to the potter's house, and there I will give you my message."
 3.  So I went down to the potter's house, and I saw him working at the wheel.
 4.  But the pot he was shaping from the clay was marred in his hands; so the potter formed it into another pot, shaping it as seemed best to him.
 5.  Then the word of the LORD came to me:
 6.  "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter does?" declares the LORD. "Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel.
 

 

879 posted on 04/29/2006 7:42:04 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 784 | View Replies]

To: WildHorseCrash
Very impressive.

Yeah, lotsa pitchers and numbers in it!

880 posted on 04/29/2006 7:43:29 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 790 | View Replies]

To: Sam Hill
The "professor" just called me a Neo-Nazi.

No, I called you a historical revisionist, rewriting the history of the Nazi era to fit your own agenda. That's only one of your many manifest deficiencies.

881 posted on 04/29/2006 7:43:55 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 855 | View Replies]

To: pby
...The quest began as an exodous from religious persecution...

Puritans and Quakers. Doesn't apply to Virginia, the Carolinas, Georgia, etc .

882 posted on 04/29/2006 7:44:34 AM PDT by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 727 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
Your posts are more and more surreal.

NIV 2 Peter 3:16
He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

883 posted on 04/29/2006 7:45:37 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 792 | View Replies]

To: BMCDA

Thanks for answering this, and thanks for pinging me.


884 posted on 04/29/2006 7:47:11 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 874 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
Yes, we already know Dawkins doesn't like religion. So?

"He's a top-notch Evo; we adore him. Therefore anything ELSE he says gets a pass from us!"

--EvoDude

885 posted on 04/29/2006 7:50:43 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 835 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman; metmom; wallcrawlr; AndrewC; RunningWolf
Yes, we already know Dawkins doesn't like religion. So?

"He's a top-notch Evo; we adore him. Therefore anything ELSE he says gets a pass from us!"

--EvoDude

886 posted on 04/29/2006 7:51:11 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 835 | View Replies]

To: ml1954; Right Wing Professor; Howlin; Deb; kcvl; Mo1; Enchante; nopardons; veronica; KJC1; ...
And yes, Hitler was an adamant believer in evolution. Much of his theories is based on Darwinism as he understood it.)

"Now I not only smell a troll, I hear a troll. I didn't ask that and you are repeating a frequently repeated error and anti-evolution creationist myth that has just as frequently been rebutted and shown to be false."

+++

I will bother to give you a better response than your post deserves.

I didn't say you had asked that. I am addressing the subtext of bringing Hitler into this conversation at all. It seems to rub some of the people here, such at the RWP, who are so proud of being atheistic evolutionists--that Hitler was an atheistic evolutionist.

So much so that RWP even felt compelled to lie about Hitler and make him out to be just the opposite.

Survival of the fittest, especially as it showed up in so-called Social Darwinism, is at the core of Hitler's political and philosophical thinking, as even the most cursory reading of him would reveal.

Yes, Hitler may seem to have bridled at man being descended from monkeys, but only slightly. (He was attracted to the idea that the moon split off from the earth during the time men existed, and this colored some of his thinking here.) But even in his questioning, he generally, albeit grudgingly accepted it.

I once possessed a work on the origins of the human races. I used to think a lot about such matters, and I must say that if one examines the old traditions, the tales and legends, from close up, one arrives at unexpected conclusions. It’s striking to realise what a limited view we have of the past. The oldest specimens of handwriting we possess go back three or four thousand years at most. No legend would have reached us if those who made and transmitted them hadn’t been people like ourselves. Where do we acquire the right to believe that man has not always been what he is now? The study of nature teaches us that, in the animal kingdom just as much as in the vegetable kingdom, variations have occurred. They’ve occurred within the species, but none of these variations has an importance comparable with that which separates man from the monkey—assuming that this transformation really took place.

That is about the extent of Hitler's doubts about evolution. The rest of his extant remarks and speeches are replete with his belief that evolution, the struggle of the fittest, was the law of nature.

The following, like the quotes hitherto, are from Table Talk, but there is similar evidence of his thinking everywhere:

Originally war was nothing but a struggle for pasture-grounds. To-day war is nothing but a struggle for the riches of nature. By virtue of an inherent law, these riches belong to him who conquers them. ..

That’s in accordance with the laws of nature. By means of the struggle, the elites are continually renewed.

The law of selection justifies this incessant struggle, by allowing the survival of the fittest.

Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure.

++++

In any case, is it we who created nature, established its laws? Things are as they are, and we can do nothing to change them. Providence has endowed living creatures with a limitless fecundity; but she has not put in their reach, without the need for effort on their part, all the food they need. All that is very right and proper, for it is the struggle for existence that produces the selection of the fittest.

++++

One must not put a curb on individuals. On the contrary, one must avoid whatever might prevent them from rising. If one systematically encourages the selection of the fittest, the time will come when talents will again be, in a sort of way, the privilege of an elite.

++++

As in everything, nature is the best instructor, even as regards selection. One couldn’t imagine a better activity on nature’s part than that which consists in deciding the supremacy of one creature over another by means of a constant struggle.

++++

It was with feelings of pure idealism that I set out for the front in 1914. Then I saw men falling around me in thousands. Thus I learnt that life is a cruel struggle, and has no other object but the preservation of the species. The individual can disappear, provided there are other men to replace him.

++++

The present system of teaching in schools permits the following absurdity: at 10 a.m. the pupils attend a lesson in the catechism, at which the creation of the world is presented to them in accordance with the teachings of the Bible; and at 11 a.m. they attend a lesson in natural science, at which they are taught the theory of evolution. Yet the two doctrines are in complete contradiction. As a child, I suffered from this contradiction, and ran my head against a wall. Often I complained to one or another of my teachers against what I had been taught an hour before—and I remember that I drove them to despair.

The Christian religion tries to get out of it by explaining that one must attach a symbolic value to the images of Holy Writ. Any man who made the same claim four hundred years ago would have ended his career at the stake, with an accompaniment of Hosannas...

One day finally, under the battering-ram of science, dogma will collapse. ...

What is contrary to the visible truth must change or disappear— that’s the law of life.

Does the knowledge brought by science make men happy? That I don’t know. But I observe that man can be happy by deluding himself with false knowledge. ...

++++

It’s senseless to encourage man in the idea that he’s a king of creation, as the scientist of the past century tried to make him believe. That same man who, in order to get about quicker, has to straddle a horse— that mammiferous, brainless being! I don’t know a more ridiculous claim.

++++

The Russians were entitled to attack their priests, but they had no right to assail the idea of a supreme force. It’s a fact that we’re feeble creatures, and that a creative force exists. To seek to deny it is folly. In that case, it’s better to believe something false than not to believe anything at all. Who’s that little Bolshevik professor who claims to triumph over creation? People like that, we’ll break them. Whether we rely on the catechism or on philosophy, we have possibilities in reserve, whilst they, with their purely materialistic conceptions, can only devour one another.

++++

When I was a child, only actors and priests had shaven faces. At Leonding, the only civilian whose face was beardless was regarded as the most extreme of eccentrics. The beard gives character to some faces, but it’s easier to descry the true personality of a shaven man. By the way, the evolution that has taken place in the sense of sobriety seems to accord with the laws of nature. Hasn’t man gradually, through the ages, cleared away some of his hair?

++++

One must start by accepting the principle that nature herself gives. all the necessary indications, and that therefore one must follow the rules that she has laid down. ...

In aviation, too, we see that the natural laws retain all their original, value. The Zeppelin was on this account a completely artificial construction. Nature, obviously, has rejected the “lighter-than-air” principle; she has provided no bird with any sort of balloon, as she has done in the case of the fish. ... The current design of ships certainly does not conform to the laws of nature; if it did, then we should find fish furnished with some sort of propulsive element at the rear, instead of the lateral fins with which they are endowed. Nature would also have given the fish a stream-lined. head, instead of that shape which corresponds more or less exactly to a globule of water.

++++

By the law of nature, the most important person of a nation should be the best man.

++++

One may be repelled by this law of nature which demands that all living things should mutually devour one another. The fly is snapped up by a dragon-fly, which itself is swallowed by a bird, which itself falls victim to a larger bird. This last, as it grows old, becomes a prey to microbes, which end by getting the better of it. These microbes, in their turn, find their predestined ends. ...

The toad knows nothing of his previous existence as a tadpole, and our own memory serves us no better as regards our own previous state. That’s why I have the feeling that it’s useful to know the laws of nature—for that enables us to obey them. To act otherwise would be to rise in revolt against Heaven.

If I can accept a divine Commandment, it’s this one: 'Thou shalt preserve the species.' The life of the individual must not be set at too high a price. If the individual were important in the eyes of nature, nature would take care to preserve him. Amongst the millions of eggs a fly lays, very few are hatched out—and yet the race of flies thrives. What is important for us, who are men, is less the sum of knowledge acquired than the maintenance of conditions that enable science constantly to renew itself.

++++

It’s a mistake to think that man should be guided by his greed. Nature spontaneously eliminates all that has no gift for life. Man, alone amongst the living creatures, tries to deny the laws of nature.

++++

Peace can result only from a natural order. The condition of this order is that there is a hierarchy amongst nations. The most capable nations must necessarily take the lead. In this order, the subordinate nations get the greater profit, being protected by the more capable nations. 

It is Jewry that always destroys this order. It constantly provokes the revolt of the weak against the strong, of bestiality against intelligence, of quantity against quality. It took fourteen centuries for Christianity to reach the peak of savagery and stupidity. We would therefore be wrong to sin by excess of confidence and proclaim our definite victory over Bolshevism. The more we render the Jew incapable of harming us, the more we shall protect ourselves from this danger. The Jew plays in nature the role of a catalysing element. A people that is rid of its Jews returns spontaneously to the natural order.

++++

I have always been an ardent disciple of the belief that, in a struggle between peoples, the people with the higher average morale must ways emerge victorious. In my opinion, that an inferior people should triumph over a strong is a negation of the laws of nature.

++++

To not know this, is to not nothing anything about Hitler. You, like RWP, seem to revel in making pronouncements on a subject about which you are ignorant.

Why is that?

887 posted on 04/29/2006 7:52:01 AM PDT by Sam Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 866 | View Replies]

"Else the Modern Prophet" Placemarker


888 posted on 04/29/2006 7:57:40 AM PDT by ahayes (Yes, I have a devious plot. No, you may not know what it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 883 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

"No, I called you a historical revisionist, rewriting the history of the Nazi era to fit your own agenda. That's only one of your many manifest deficiencies."

Again, you are a joke. I have gotten many Freepmails warning me that you have (shall we say) "problems" in dealing in a rational ways with a discussion. You certainly have demonstrated it here.

You claimed Hitler was a Christian. I proved that he was not. You then go on to post what you seem to think is some kind of personal revelation that Hitler and Nazi Germany were anti-Semitic.

That is not rational argumentation. That is some kind of mental illness.

As I noted above, it seems very important to you that you are a an atheist. Your posts here and elsewhere across the internet proclaim this proud achievement.

In that you remind me of homosexuals who insist on gay marriages and every other kind of social recognition. And I suspect both stem from your insecurities and a craving for some kind of acceptance--even permission.

That is why it is so important to you to maintain the lie that Hitler was a Christian.

Likewise, since you have put so much into being an evolutionist, it is essential to you to promote the lie that Hitler did not believe in evolution.

And the truly laughable thing is that you call yourself such a defender of truth and science.


889 posted on 04/29/2006 7:59:21 AM PDT by Sam Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 881 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
Ignorance is curable, but the afflicted has to want to be cured.

 


Mammal-Like Reptiles

As previously stated, a succession of transitional fossils exists that link reptiles (Class Reptilia) and mammals (Class Mammalia). These particular reptiles are classifie as Subclass Synapsida. Presently, this is the best example of th e transformation of one major higher taxon into another. The morphologic changes that took place are well documented by fossils, beginning with animals essentially 100% reptilian and resulting in animals essentially 100% mammalian. Therefore, I have chosen this as the example to summarize in more detail (Table 1, Fig. 1).  

    
Comparisons
 
 
M. Eyes =           ?       
   Nose =           ?    
   Teeth incisors = ?
 
 
 
K. Eyes =           ?       
   Nose =           pointy
   Teeth incisors = smaller fangs 
 
 
 
J. Eyes =           Medium
   Nose =           stubby    
   Teeth incisors = BIGGER fangs 
 
 
 
I. Eyes =           Medium
   Nose =           more pointy
   Teeth incisors = big fangs
 
 
 
H. Eyes =           Bigger
   Nose =           more blunt
   Teeth incisors = Even more 
 
 
 
 
G. Eyes =           real SMALL
   Nose =           Real pointy
   Teeth incisors = More
 
 
 
 
 
F. Eyes =           Smaller
   Nose =           Blunt
   Teeth incisors = Thin, less
 
 
 
 
E. Eyes =           HUGE!
   Nose =           pointy, again
   Teeth incisors = Smaller
 
 
 
 
D. Eyes =           Smaller
   Nose =           Holes bigger
   Teeth incisors = Bigger
 
 
 
 
C. Eyes =           Huge, again!
   Nose =           broader
   Teeth incisors = very small
 
 
 
 
B. Eyes =           less huge
   Nose =           narrower
   Teeth incisors = ??
 
 
 
 
A. Eyes =           big
   Nose =           rounded
   Teeth incisors = small
 

Skulls and jaws of synapsid reptiles and mammals; left column side view of skull; center column top view of skull; right column side view of lower jaw. Hylonomus modified from Carroll (1964, Figs. 2,6; 1968, Figs. 10-2, 10-5; note that Hylonomus is a protorothyrod, not a synapsid). Archaeothyris modified from Reisz (1972, Fig. 2). Haptodus modified from Currie (1977, Figs, 1a, 1b; 1979, Figs. 5a, 5b). Sphenacodo n modified from Romer & Price (1940, Fig. 4f), Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 16);note: Dimetrodon substituted for top view; modified from Romer & Price, 1940, pl. 10. Biarmosuchus modified from Ivakhnenko et al. (1997, pl. 65, Figs. 1a, 1B, 2); Alin & Hopson (1992; Fig. 28.4c); Sigogneau & Tchudinov (1972, Figs. 1, 15). Eoarctops modified from Broom (1932, Fig. 35a); Boonstra (1969, Fig. 18). Pristerognathus modified from Broom (1932, Figs 17a, b,c); Boonstra (1963, Fig. 5d). Procynosuchus modified from Allin & Hopson (1992, Fig. 28.4e); Hopson (1987, Fig. 5c); Brink (1963, Fig. 10a); Kemp (1979, Fig. 1); Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 14). Thrinaxodon modified from Allin & Hopson (1992, Fig. 28.4f);Parrington (1946, Fig. 1); Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 13). Probainognathus modified from Allin & Hopson (1992, Fig. 28.4g); Romer (1970, Fig. 1); Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 12). Morga nucodon modified from Kermack, Mussett, & Rigney (1981, Figs. 95, 99a; 1973, Fig. 7a); Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 11). Asioryctes modified from Carroll (1988, Fig. 20-3b). Abbreviations: ag = angular; ar = articular; cp = coronoid process; d = dentary; f = lateral temporal fenestra; j = jugal; mm = attachment site for mammalian jaw muscles; o = eye socket; po = post orbital; q = quadrate; rl = reflected lamina; sq = squamosal; ty = tympanic. .
 
 
 


 
Are you convinced yet?
 
Oscillating eye sizes,
head shapes that shift back and forth,
teeth that are large, then small, then large again.
 
Yeah; I believe this stuff!

(The chart is from The Fossil Record: Evolution or "Scientific Creation" by Clifford A. Cuffey. It is on part 5 of a multipart article. The beginning of the article is here.  )

There are some Evo's who think... "It effectively demolishes the entire creationist argument. Excellent reading!"

After seeing these pix; do you?

890 posted on 04/29/2006 8:01:03 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 845 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster
 
...sandal wearing bronze age goat herders...

 
 A large part of the evolution deception has the purpose of denying the sin nature, and that man offends a Holy God, and needs a Savior Who existed in the bosom of the Father BEFORE there was a star, or a planet, or a gas, or a vapor or a cell. (Proverbs 8).
 
 


NIV 1 Peter 1:17-21
 17.  Since you call on a Father who judges each man's work impartially, live your lives as strangers here in reverent fear.
 18.  For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers,
 19.  but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect.
 20.  He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.
 21.  Through him you believe in God, who raised him from the dead and glorified him, and so your faith and hope are in God.
 
 

NIV 1 Corinthians 2:7
  No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began.
 

NIV 2 Timothy 1:8-10
 8.  So do not be ashamed to testify about our Lord, or ashamed of me his prisoner. But join with me in suffering for the gospel, by the power of God,
 9.  who has saved us and called us to a holy life--not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time,
 10.  but it has now been revealed through the appearing of our Savior, Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.
 

NIV Titus 1:1-4
 1.  Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ for the faith of God's elect and the knowledge of the truth that leads to godliness--
 2.  a faith and knowledge resting on the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time,
 3.  and at his appointed season he brought his word to light through the preaching entrusted to me by the command of God our Savior,
 4.  To Titus, my true son in our common faith:   Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.
 
 
Just how did these ignurt goat-herders have such a concept as 'before time' anyway???
 
 

891 posted on 04/29/2006 8:05:57 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 860 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster
(An oak tree is an acorns way of making more acorns)

Hey!!!

Get rid of this ANTI-Evolutionary tagline!!

--EvoPolice

892 posted on 04/29/2006 8:06:54 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 861 | View Replies]

To: pby
...animals also had the breath of life.

But NOT the 'Breath of LIFE'.

893 posted on 04/29/2006 8:08:58 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 868 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
Was Paul WRONG about these???

Yes.

(Except for the I Timothy part. Paul didn't write it.)

894 posted on 04/29/2006 8:17:21 AM PDT by dread78645 (Evolution. A dying theory since 1859.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 537 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
"Strictly for the benefit of the lurkers, Table Talk was edited by Martin Bormann from original transcripts made by two scribes Bormann chose, and while it purports to be a record of Hitler's dinner time meanderings, there is no independent evidence of the veracity of the material."

You have been busy at the leftwing loony bin, the NoBelief site:

Hitler's Table Talk
http://www.nobeliefs.com/HitlerSources.htm


You might consider venturing a little further than gleaning your sum of knowledge from a site that thinks 9/11 was perpetrated by George Bush.

Bormann was Hitler's shadow. He was a chain-smoking, alcoholic and meat eater, who constantly tried to give up all these things to be like his idol, Adolf Hitler.

It betrays a total and absolute ignorance of Bormann and Hitler to pretend that he would have purposefully and systematically rewritten Hitler's thoughts--which were being recorded for posterity. He wouldn't have dared. Not in a million years.

But more tellingly, the "two scribes" Heim and Picker, both survived Bormann and the war. Picker even went on to author other books. Either one of them could have easily come forward and said that "Table Talk" misrepresented their notes. They didn't.

Furthermore, most of the other participants in these conversations, such as Christa Schroeder, also lived long past the end of the war and the publication of Hitler's conversations. They also wrote books, gave interviews, etc. They could have (and would have) objected to any misrepresentation of Hitler's thoughts. They didn't.

However, I just picked "Table Talk" because it is the most concentrated form of Hitler's thoughts on the subject. But similar expressions also appear in his other books and of course his speeches.

I have presented quite lengthy and thorough documentation of my claims. You have just made assertions and the most ludicrous personal attacks.

You have revealed yourself to be the worst kind of propagandist and liar. All to promote your agenda.

Funny, isn't that what you claim your opponents here do?

(And for the record, I am an atheist and I probably accept more of Darwin's theories than that I reject. I also had never even heard of Intelligent Design until a few weeks ago. So you and your pals can save your "superior than thou" attacks.)

You are clearly mentally unbalanced and a waste of time.

895 posted on 04/29/2006 8:18:54 AM PDT by Sam Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 878 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman; Elsie
...There is no evidence at all that evolutionists are any less moral than creationists...

However, there is evidence that atheists are more law-abiding than theists, namely the percentage of atheists in prison (0.2%) is lower than the percentage of atheists in the general population (at least 3%).

Source

896 posted on 04/29/2006 8:20:19 AM PDT by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 792 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

Great post, as usual.

I'd like to add that the essay you posted on the reptile-to-mammal transition is from the website of the Gulf Coast Section of the Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists.

These are the people who make big $$ prospecting for oil and other minerals. They are 100% behind standard science.

The market has spoken. If some nonstandard form of geology or paleontology were true, you could use it to find oil.


897 posted on 04/29/2006 8:46:10 AM PDT by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 845 | View Replies]

To: ahayes
[Two Adams]

Poor Eve! :-o

Lilith. (or the succubus/great owl/night creature/arrow snake)

Poor Adam(s)!

898 posted on 04/29/2006 8:47:27 AM PDT by dread78645 (Evolution. A dying theory since 1859.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 599 | View Replies]

To: stands2reason

Your arguments are refuted continually.


899 posted on 04/29/2006 9:01:05 AM PDT by demoRat watcher (Keeper of the Anthropocentrism Ping List)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 323 | View Replies]

To: swmobuffalo
It is preposterous to think that all this came about by chance.

No, not by chance. It was bound to happen by chemistry. It so happened that carbon based life got the first foot-hold, but it's possible that life based on silicon or phosphorus-nitrogen could've occurred.
That's the "chance" : C* life versus S* or PN* life.

900 posted on 04/29/2006 9:11:49 AM PDT by dread78645 (Evolution. A dying theory since 1859.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 634 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 801-850851-900901-950951-962 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
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

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