Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Don’t Call it “Darwinism” [religiously defended as "science" by Godless Darwinists]
springerlink ^ | 16 January 2009 | Eugenie C. Scott and Glenn Branch

Posted on 01/28/2009 11:36:17 AM PST by Coyoteman

We will see and hear the term “Darwinism” a lot during 2009, a year during which scientists, teachers, and others who delight in the accomplishments of modern biology will commemorate the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth and the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species. But what does “Darwinism” mean? And how is it used? At best, the phrase is ambiguous and misleading about science. At worst, its use echoes a creationist strategy to demonize evolution.

snip...

In summary, then, “Darwinism” is an ambiguous term that impairs communication even about Darwin’s own ideas. It fails to convey the full panoply of modern evolutionary biology accurately, and it fosters the inaccurate perception that the field stagnated for 150 years after Darwin’s day. Moreover, creationists use “Darwinism” to frame evolutionary biology as an ism or ideology, and the public understanding of evolution and science suffers as a result. True, in science, we do not shape our research because of what creationists claim about our subject matter. But when we are in the classroom or otherwise dealing with the public understanding of science, it is entirely appropriate to consider whether what we say may be misunderstood. We cannot expect to change preconceptions if we are not willing to avoid exacerbating them. A first step is eschewing the careless use of “Darwinism.”

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


TOPICS: Education; Science
KEYWORDS: belongsinreligion; intelligentdesign; notasciencetopic; oldearthspeculation; piltdownman; propellerbeanie; spammer; toe
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 1,001-1,0501,051-1,1001,101-1,150 ... 1,301-1,329 next last
To: CottShop

why not? answer any way you want then.


1,051 posted on 02/02/2009 12:55:39 PM PST by Ron Jeremy (sonic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1050 | View Replies]

To: trussell

No sorry- I’ve received alright- 3 days now passing a kidney stone- seems to be al I receive. Not tryign to be sarcastic- just that I’ve tried putting my trust in receiving, and just get knocked around for oding so. Not sure what’s goign on- I still beleive He’ll deliver, despite those facts.


1,052 posted on 02/02/2009 12:56:38 PM PST by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1042 | View Replies]

To: Ron Jeremy

You’ll need a court order to get me to answer- mums hte word.


1,053 posted on 02/02/2009 12:57:30 PM PST by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1051 | View Replies]

To: metmom
You can explain away your actions in whatever way you want...fact is, you are the one claiming to be Christian...it's up to you to show your compassion and "Christ-like love of others" to those who are non-believers.

You are on this site, that you don't own, telling others that your way is the only way. He told others not to post on his thread because his voice was silenced on the religious threads, why should his thread be overtaken by those he isn't able to debate on their favorite issues?

I'm not saying anyone is a bad Christian because they wont treat me the way I want to be treated...I'm saying it's a bad Christian who doesn't treat non-believers with the same compassion as they do the believers.

Christians are under an obligation to confront another Christian about it

I guess that's part of the issue here...Coyoteman never claimed to be a Christian...so your confronting him about his beliefs doesn't qualify under this excuse!

1,054 posted on 02/02/2009 1:39:37 PM PST by trussell (I carry because...When seconds count between life and death, the police are only minutes away)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1049 | View Replies]

To: trussell; Religion Moderator
He told others not to post on his thread because his voice was silenced on the religious threads, why should his thread be overtaken by those he isn't able to debate on their favorite issues?

There's a big difference between the mods telling someone to do something and some FReeper who is supposed to be on equal standing with other FReepers telling them what to do.

To the best of my knowledge, the person posting a thread is not by default given rights to moderate it.

If the Religion Mod felt that he was violating posting guidelines for the Religion Forum, then that mod did his/her job by telling him not to post there but that's the mods decision, it is not for someone to take on themselves. The rules for the religion forum are more restrictive than other forums as you ought to well know.

I pinged the Religion Mod simply because I am not familiar with the exact circumstances of cm being told not to post there any more.

1,055 posted on 02/02/2009 2:05:50 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1054 | View Replies]

To: trussell

cm was telling others what they could and could not post. Others were telling him that he couldn’t do that.

How is that unchristian?


1,056 posted on 02/02/2009 2:07:59 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1054 | View Replies]

To: metmom

That isn’t what I considered unchristian...there are several here who are celebrating his banning. There are many who wanted him silenced and they finally got what they wanted, at the cost of having his opinion and knowledge removed from FR.

There are only a few “Science minded” people left...are they on the short list for getting rid of?

Just because a person posts at DC doesn’t mean they are trolling, it just means that is where they have to go to be able to discuss science now.


1,057 posted on 02/02/2009 2:24:34 PM PST by trussell (I carry because...When seconds count between life and death, the police are only minutes away)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1056 | View Replies]

To: metmom

The mods wouldn’t have told him to stay off the Christian threads if some Christians hadn’t constantly complained that he was hurting their delicate sensibilities.

Come on...people need to
Grow up and realize their belief isn’t the only one.
Others have the right to believe as they want.
This would be a mighty boring world if we all believed the exact same way.
Debate is a good thing, it keeps us sharp!

Now that most of the science debate has been silenced, that’s one less topic that can be discussed.


1,058 posted on 02/02/2009 2:39:20 PM PST by trussell (I carry because...When seconds count between life and death, the police are only minutes away)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1055 | View Replies]

To: trussell

There’s plenty of science being discussed on FR and it isn’t just all evolution, and there are plenty of science minded people left to discuss it, even if they don’t accept the hard line evo position on the ToE.

Evolution does not equal all of science and rejecting the hardline no-God, speciation/(macroevolution)/whatever-you-want-to-call-it position of the evolutionists does not equate to rejecting all of science. It does not make one anti-science to disagree with that interpretation of the fossil record.

Science is not supposed to be done by consensus but the minute anyone disagrees with the consensus on evolution, they’re branded and called cretards, IDiots, and other sorts of names along with being accused of taking all kinds of other baseless positions.

Most FReepers are opposed to the misuse of science to further political agenda. When we fight that, we are accused of being anti-science instead of being rightly recognized as anti-agenda. Some, however, are to blinded by their hysteria that they are incapable of distinguishing between the two.


1,059 posted on 02/02/2009 3:03:44 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1057 | View Replies]

To: trussell

People who push evoloserism are in the same religious category as amalekites.


1,060 posted on 02/02/2009 3:05:46 PM PST by wendy1946
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1035 | View Replies]

To: trussell

And all those can apply to the evos as well.

What’s it to them if someone wants to believe God over man?

Why do they have to resort to insults and slander about someone who believes differently than they?

Why the mockery and ridicule that we believe fairy tales, mythology, folklore? Why names like cretards, IDiots, ignorant, and stupid?

Why the obsession to see others think the way they do to the point of having it legislated or enforced through the judiciary?

What exactly, are they trying to accomplish with those means?

The Amish believe in creation. Would you rather not have them as a neighbor? Would evos label them as *ignorant cretards who would have us all live in the dark ages*? Are they stupid for not believing in evolution?


1,061 posted on 02/02/2009 3:12:37 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1058 | View Replies]

To: trussell
Can we handle a lively debate of our beliefs, or do we want nothing more than an echo chamber?

Echo Chamber? Like DC where it's posted up front that opposing views are not welcome?

No lively debate allowed there and it's posted up front for all to see.

Like what the FRevos are trying to turn FR into?

How can one have lively debate when the person posting the thread insists that people who disagree with him leave, as in posts 28 & 49.

1,062 posted on 02/02/2009 3:22:25 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1035 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Most FReepers are opposed to the misuse of science to further political agenda. When we fight that, we are accused of being anti-science instead of being rightly recognized as anti-agenda.

And Coyoteman was opposed to the misuse of science to further a religious agenda. And when he fought that, he was accused of being anti-God instead of being rightly recognized as anti-agenda.

1,063 posted on 02/02/2009 4:19:30 PM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1059 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

You’re going to tell me that the behavior described in post 1,043 is simply being “anti-agenda” and not anti-religion?


1,064 posted on 02/02/2009 4:36:43 PM PST by Mr. Silverback ("[Palin] has not even lived in the Lower 48 since 1987. Come on! Really!" --Polybius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1063 | View Replies]

To: trussell
The mods wouldn’t have told him to stay off the Christian threads if some Christians hadn’t constantly complained that he was hurting their delicate sensibilities.

You do realize the point of the Religion forum is to provide a place for Freepers who are believers to discuss religion, right? A secularist would belong on there like Ken Hamm belongs on Darwin Central, yet Coyoteman being asked not to post there is being treated like some kind of crime.

1,065 posted on 02/02/2009 4:40:29 PM PST by Mr. Silverback ("[Palin] has not even lived in the Lower 48 since 1987. Come on! Really!" --Polybius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1058 | View Replies]

To: trussell
I've watched people of various faiths go after each other over religious differences on these threads that would get them invited to leave if they were posted on any thread in the Religion forum.

It's not just CM and this thread. The science threads turn into a general religion pissing contest the minute they venture anywhere near conflicting with somebody's creation doctrine.

1,066 posted on 02/02/2009 4:40:29 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1035 | View Replies]

To: trussell
Just because a person posts at DC doesn’t mean they are trolling, it just means that is where they have to go to be able to discuss science now.

Malarkey.

Click here.

Fossils and everything. But no flamewars.

Cheers!

1,067 posted on 02/02/2009 5:14:35 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1057 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic; trussell
Malarkey, there is a great deal of trolling going on, see the post that got Coyoteman banned and here just off the top of my head from *this* thread.

Cheers!

1,068 posted on 02/02/2009 5:27:50 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1066 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
Malarkey, there is a great deal of trolling going on,

Yep. And everybody claims their hands are clean.

1,069 posted on 02/02/2009 5:54:25 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1068 | View Replies]

To: trussell
"Can we handle a lively debate of our beliefs, or do we want nothing more than an echo chamber?"

Based upon the responses I've seen posted to your question, the answer is no, we cannot. The howler monkeys always drown out earnest discussion.

As I said earlier, it's a sad day, but it's not the first sad day. I never thought the Peter Principle would apply to a web site.

1,070 posted on 02/02/2009 5:59:47 PM PST by NicknamedBob (It's getting harder and harder to distinguish those ululations of joy from primal screams of anguish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1035 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
You’re going to tell me that the behavior described in post 1,043 is simply being “anti-agenda” and not anti-religion?

No, I'll tell you that post 1043 is not an accurate description of CM's behavior.

1,071 posted on 02/02/2009 6:52:13 PM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1064 | View Replies]

To: trussell

You’re going to look at the DC tread I gave you a link to and tell me that those folks aren’t trolling? You’re going to tell me they respect this site, its members and its owner and should be given respect in return?


1,072 posted on 02/02/2009 7:50:23 PM PST by Mr. Silverback ("[Palin] has not even lived in the Lower 48 since 1987. Come on! Really!" --Polybius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1057 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Yep. And everybody claims their hands are clean.

NOT ME!

Cheers!

1,073 posted on 02/02/2009 7:52:15 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1069 | View Replies]

To: NicknamedBob
Based upon the responses I've seen posted to your question, the answer is no, we cannot. The howler monkeys always drown out earnest discussion.

Take a look again at post 1,043.

Now, go ahead and tell me that a guy like that would only be bannned if we want FR to be an echo chamber.

Go ahead and tell me that he's looking for an "earnest discussion." If you do, I'll have a very good laugh, but I won't try to have you banned. One-sided discussions are for those super-awesome intellectually superior dudes at DC.

1,074 posted on 02/02/2009 7:54:07 PM PST by Mr. Silverback ("[Palin] has not even lived in the Lower 48 since 1987. Come on! Really!" --Polybius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1070 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

It’s a very accurate description of the behavior I witnessed. It is also behavior that should result in a ban even if it was only one percent of his behavior on this site.

What I really enjoy is how evos like Coyoteman and CE2949BB wanted JimRob to throw all the creationists off the site so we wouldn’t look bad, but he’s suppposed to keep people who strap tinfoil to their noggin and mutter about Dominionists taking over the country from their well-staffed phone booth. Good grief, what a persecution complex you folks have.


1,075 posted on 02/02/2009 7:58:23 PM PST by Mr. Silverback ("[Palin] has not even lived in the Lower 48 since 1987. Come on! Really!" --Polybius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1071 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
Go ahead and tell me that he's looking for an "earnest discussion." If you do, I'll have a very good laugh, but I won't try to have you banned. One-sided discussions are for those super-awesome intellectually superior dudes at DC.

You ever contributed to turning a thread into a flame war?

1,076 posted on 02/02/2009 8:00:40 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1074 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers

Okay, you contributed to the flame wars too. So have I. Did it ever get you anything wortwhile you couldn’t have gotten just as well being civil?


1,077 posted on 02/02/2009 8:03:44 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1073 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
I wouldn't have had nearly as much fun, unless I had called out the trolls.

Cheers!

1,078 posted on 02/02/2009 8:08:15 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1077 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
I wouldn't have had nearly as much fun, unless I had called out the trolls.

And your trolling begets more trolling. Before it's done there's noting left but insults and single issue battle lines drawn.

1,079 posted on 02/02/2009 8:12:54 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1078 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Feh. I'm not a troll -- I said my hands weren't clean, i.e. I joined the dispute.

Nice try though.

1,080 posted on 02/02/2009 8:16:45 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1079 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
It’s a very accurate description of the behavior I witnessed

No, it's a very tendentious description of his behavior, and one not backed up by the link you provided in the post. For example, I can't find any instance in your linked thread of CM suggesting that "scientists should work toward eliminating religion," as you claim.

He also, of course, didn't ask anybody to throw creationists off the site.

1,081 posted on 02/02/2009 8:17:16 PM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1075 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
Feh. I'm not a troll -- I said my hands weren't clean, i.e. I joined the dispute. Nice try though.

You never baited anyone for entertainment?

1,082 posted on 02/02/2009 8:17:55 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1080 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
"Now, go ahead and tell me that a guy like that would only be bannned if we want FR to be an echo chamber."

That would not be accurate. There may be any number of asinine reasons why he might be banned.

1,083 posted on 02/02/2009 8:19:26 PM PST by NicknamedBob (It's getting harder and harder to distinguish those ululations of joy from primal screams of anguish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1074 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Quite rarely.

I have *provided* a great deal of entertainment on the crevo threads, however, by posting bad puns and Calvin and Hobbes cartoons.

Cheers!

1,084 posted on 02/02/2009 8:19:50 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1082 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers

Then you seem to have an abrasive sense of humor, particularly when you’re tired.


1,085 posted on 02/02/2009 8:24:44 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1084 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
He also, of course, didn't ask anybody to throw creationists off the site.

Not the site, maybe, but certainly this thread.

And once warned, suggested to JR that the site would be overrun with fringe posters who equated science with Satanism...(post 54) which is when he got banned.

Of course, atheists who come over here from DC to troll (whether out of malicious intent, or lost bitterness in finding out that the sweet laurel wreaths awarded to "Immortal Brigadiers" do not make up for the lively discussion elsewhere on FR) are trying their best to make CM's post a self-fulfilling prophecy.

But the effort is looking increasingly threadbare.

Cheers!

1,086 posted on 02/02/2009 8:30:32 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1081 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers

Do you agree that it’s satanism?


1,087 posted on 02/02/2009 8:35:32 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1086 | View Replies]

To: metmom; trussell

As far as I know, Coyoteman was never told to stay off the Religion Forum. His final thread was in Chat.


1,088 posted on 02/02/2009 8:40:58 PM PST by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1049 | View Replies]

To: trussell
Can we handle a lively debate of our beliefs, or do we want nothing more than an echo chamber?

The answer to your question is in this thread. Repeatedly.

1,089 posted on 02/02/2009 8:46:58 PM PST by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1035 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Then you seem to have an abrasive sense of humor, particularly when you’re tired.

You need to check out some of the threads from two or three years ago.

Here.

Or here.

Cheers!

1,090 posted on 02/02/2009 9:02:04 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1085 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Nice attempt at a strawman, putting words in my mouth, and ad hominem.

Going for the illogical trifecta?

Can you find a post of mine on this thread that directly indicated any such thing on MY part?

And if the only links are indirect, please include the quotes and the chain of "reasoning" that led to your supposition about me.

Cheers!

1,091 posted on 02/02/2009 9:15:53 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1087 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Also check out this thread.

Cheers!

1,092 posted on 02/02/2009 9:16:44 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1085 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande; metmom
Said LeGrande:The gist of the argument was that nothing is faster than the speed of light, therefore an omnipotent God doesn't exist because the speed of light is a limit.

LeGrande, While it would take faith to believe that something could move faster then the speed of light in vacuum because nothing's ever been demonstrated to move faster then the speed of light in vacuum, your assertion (that nothing is faster then the speed of light) is purely dogmatic and as such simply does not prove the non-existence of anything, not even God. (Nor does it prove the existence of anything.)

But I guess this dogmatic ill logic of yours is the same reason you'd ask us to believe that a stationary heavenly body 12 light hours away above the equator would appear in the east while it was really to the west to an observer on the earth, at any instant in time...! [grin]

-Jesse
1,093 posted on 02/02/2009 9:27:34 PM PST by mrjesse (Could it be true? Imagine, being forgiven, and having a cause, greater then yourself, to live for!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1030 | View Replies]

To: NicknamedBob; trussell; gondramB
Check out this post describing posting restrictions on Darwin Central before complaining about an echo chamber here.

IIRC gondramB said on a recent thread that he left DC due to the anti-religious sentiment there.

Cheers!

1,094 posted on 02/02/2009 9:28:39 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1070 | View Replies]

To: mrjesse

>>LeGrande, While it would take faith to believe that something could move faster then the speed of light in vacuum because nothing’s ever been demonstrated to move faster then the speed of light in vacuum, your assertion (that nothing is faster then the speed of light) is purely dogmatic and as such simply does not prove the non-existence of anything, not even God. (Nor does it prove the existence of anything.)<<

Some things can move faster than the speed of light but they can’t include mass.

The reason is that the energy to move a grain of sand the speed of light would be more than all the energy in the universe. In math terms, it approaches infinity.


1,095 posted on 02/02/2009 9:35:34 PM PST by gondramB (Preach the Gospel at all times, and when necessary, use words.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1093 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
Not the site, maybe, but certainly this thread.

As long as we're being sticklers for accuracy, he didn't ask anybody to throw anybody off that thread, either. He asked someone directly to stop posting on the thread.

1,096 posted on 02/02/2009 9:38:13 PM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1086 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers

>>IIRC gondramB said on a recent thread that he left DC due to the anti-religious sentiment there.<<

For the record, it was more complex than that. The behavior that triggered my departure mostly had to do with my failure to disrespect Freep and it was actually my family getting scared by the behavior of one key DC member that tipped the balance. But I’ve also said I was unhappy with a broader anti-Christian sentiment there.

Now, back to your regular programming.


1,097 posted on 02/02/2009 9:39:37 PM PST by gondramB (Preach the Gospel at all times, and when necessary, use words.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1094 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers

You don’t think those are reasonable restrictions for a science-based site?

If you only look for what you don’t like, you can find it.

I’m not sure what is the entirety of Dave’s problem, but he didn’t fit there well.


1,098 posted on 02/02/2009 9:42:21 PM PST by NicknamedBob (It's getting harder and harder to distinguish those ululations of joy from primal screams of anguish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1094 | View Replies]

To: gondramB; grey_whiskers
"The behavior that triggered my departure mostly had to do with my failure to disrespect Freep ..."

That is an outrageous calumny.

It is also more precise to say that the emphasis is non-religious, rather than anti-religious or anti-Christian.

There are many members who feel quite free to express themselves on religious matters, and do. Members, I might add, who are no longer permitted that privilege here.

But it is accurate to say that discussions run to the scientific or evidential side in such matters, rather than emotionalism.

1,099 posted on 02/02/2009 10:40:37 PM PST by NicknamedBob (It's getting harder and harder to distinguish those ululations of joy from primal screams of anguish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1097 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande
Said LeGrande:Seriously, when I believed, I was in darkness. Now that I have made the break, I can hardly believe the weight that has been lifted and how clear everything is.

Wow, if everything is clear now to you, and you still say such absurd things as you do - I would be scared to know what sort of strange things you might have said back then! [double wide grin]

Things like:

"Did you know that if you lower the frequency of sound down enough it becomes a discrete sound particle/wavepacket?"

Or that Pluto will appear overhead when it's actually below the horizon at any instant for an observer on the earth,

You also said that the 20 arc seconds is not due to stellar aberration, but all the sources say that it is. You also said that if the earth were rotating at 180 degrees per 8.5 minutes the sun's optical image would be lagged 180 degrees from its actual position.

So what was it like before? Did cows fly? Did the sun orbit the earth? That would explain why you think the sun's apparent position is lagged by 2.1 degrees at any instant for an observer on earth..

-Jesse
1,100 posted on 02/02/2009 10:55:57 PM PST by mrjesse (Could it be true? Imagine, being forgiven, and having a cause, greater then yourself, to live for!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1001 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 1,001-1,0501,051-1,1001,101-1,150 ... 1,301-1,329 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
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

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