Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Churches urged to back evolution
British Broadcasting Corporation ^ | 20 February 2006 | Paul Rincon

Posted on 02/20/2006 5:33:50 AM PST by ToryHeartland

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 701-750751-800801-850 ... 2,301-2,341 next last
To: eleni121

How would you know?


751 posted on 02/20/2006 7:47:08 PM PST by ml1954 (NOT the disruptive troll seen frequently on CREVO threads)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 750 | View Replies]

To: csense
Recapitulation theory (ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny) is nonsense, and has been shown to be nonsense.

It's not exactly like Haekel thought it was, in that the embryo does not go through all the evolutionary steps in its phylogeny.

But it's not complete nonsense either; Haekel noticed some real phenomena and generalized too far.

In fact, there is an uncanny resemblance between the evolution of reptiles into mammals and the embryological development of the jaw and ear

Ear, Nose & Throat Journal, Sept, 2003 by Robert Thayer Sataloff, Jesse C. Selber

In the embryology of present-day mammals, the developmental process in the bones and muscles of the first and second branchial arches involves a re-enactment of the evolutionary process than begot the mammalian middle ear. Meckel's cartilage grows back to meet a primary jaw joint and becomes enveloped by intramembranous bone. The posterior portion ossifies into the articular, while the posterior portion of the upper jaw ossifies into the quadrate. In mammals, the dentary expands to make up the entire mandible, while the condyle grows back to meet the squamosal component of the cranium, forming the second jaw joint. The articular, quadrate, and stapes separate from the other intramembranous bones of the jaw and become isolated as middle ear components--that is, the malleus, incus, and stapes.

752 posted on 02/20/2006 7:47:27 PM PST by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 745 | View Replies]

To: ml1954

How would you know?
.................................................
how would I know what spitfire?


753 posted on 02/20/2006 7:51:16 PM PST by eleni121 ('Thou hast conquered, O Galilean!' (Julian the Apostate))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 751 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
Those with the guns do make the rules. That's why the Founders put the Second Amendment in the Constitution.

If the University Professors were in charge of the government, our rifles and pistols would do us zero good against their military. Think Waco Texas (not that I agree with Branch Davidians in any way). Proof that the Second Amendment only works in a nation where communities require personal responsibility and character. Science does not produce personal responsibility or character.

Dover is in York County, which supported George W. Bush in the last two presidential elections. According to unofficial vote totals for 2004, Bush received 114,621 votes and John Kerry received 63,628 votes. [my note: that's about 64% for Bush]

There are many Theistic Evolutionary Catholics in that area of the Blue state.

The Gallup Organization has been polling the public on this issue since 1982, when 38 percent indicated a belief in the creationist explanation of life's origin, 33 percent believed in theistic (God-directed) evolution, and 9 percent chose the “no God” account. The trend has been steadily toward creationism, and by November 2004, 45 percent chose the creationist explanation, 38 percent the theistic evolutionist account, and 13 percent the “no God” explanation.

Link

754 posted on 02/20/2006 7:55:25 PM PST by bondserv (God governs our universe and has seen fit to offer us a pardon. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 737 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
Our Declaration of Independence contradicts the core beliefs of Evolutionists. It is hard to call on a Source superior to all men, when that superior Source is not a definer of rights. Anything else leaves us with, "He with the biggest guns makes the rules", completely disarming freedom. A theistic evolutionist strips the superior Source of His personal attention to individuals in His creation.

You are the first persom to EVER use the Declaration of Independence as science text. Please provide the cross-reference to or from other scientific works. What does the Declaration say about Evolution? About Physics? (standard CRIDer run/fallacy #2: Strawman and #4: Begging the question)

No one is attempting to deny God. This is a standard CIDer canard and strawman. Science is silent on God and attempts to explain how things work and why they work. Science depends on non-supernatural explanations.

Then you have no problem with alternate common sense explanations explaining life. Again your interpretation of the facts is the limited one. Science by definition should not be limited when such a large number of credible scientists wish to weigh in.

And planes are held up by angels. You can make unsupported statements all you want, but an assertion is not an "alternate common sense explanation." It is an ignorant shot in the dark. And please O please site specifically how many biologists have weighed in in support of Creationist mythology. Oh, and name them. (standard CRIDer run/fallacy #1: pure lies presented as "facts" or "arguments.")

Remember that next time you drive a car or fly. Or use the bathroom. Or plug in your computer.

I am sure you will acknowledge that none of these "discoveries" demonstrates a speck of superiority. Having a cell phone with iTunes on it doesn't add a whit to a person's character. In fact it is an easy case to make that a person who has indulged in higher education exhibits stunted character growth.

You must be taking lessons from RunningWolf or Havoc or Creationist in non sequituers and strawmen. No one, certainly not me, has brought up any issues of superiority, character or anything else that is philisophical or sociological. Mine was a strictly scientifi argument that says you can't pick and choose which parts of science you can decide to "believe" or not. (CRIDer run/fallacy #2 again among others)

Salvation through knowledge is beginning to fall on deaf ears as people begin to recognize the agenda of the materialists who, by definition, are forced to deny unalienable rights. The evidence of a superior intelligence contributing to the lives of His creatures is trumping the Naturalistic Only dogma!

Nice rant -- not argumentation of any kind, doesn't address the topic at hand -- just ranting. (Standard CRIDer run #8 -- yell "Praise the Lord" and fall on the floor).

I ask again -- can't you CRIDers take on arguments using facts and logic? Your entire post addresses issues that have nothing to do with TTOE or its scientific basis.

755 posted on 02/20/2006 7:57:28 PM PST by freedumb2003 (American troops cannot be defeated. American Politicians can.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 699 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name; Dimensio
God's a liar? or is Dimensio and his thinking? Your choice.

False dichotomy (Standard CRIDer Run/Fallacy #10).

Creationists lie to advance their agenda. We can prove it -- even in this very thread. In fact your childish attempt to create some sort of "trap" for me is also a form of a lie.

756 posted on 02/20/2006 8:01:42 PM PST by freedumb2003 (American troops cannot be defeated. American Politicians can.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 711 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American
Get over it. Darwin sucks. He had bad teeth too.

Res Ipsae Loquuntur

LOL!!!! Funniest rejoinder of the thread! :)

757 posted on 02/20/2006 8:04:43 PM PST by freedumb2003 (American troops cannot be defeated. American Politicians can.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 742 | View Replies]

To: ToryHeartland
The problem is with the US political scene rather than Darwin. Darwin was correct. Theology finds answers to the question, "why", and science finds answers to the question, "how."

People have found that they can sometimes control the minds of others by using an issue such as this.That's all this really is. And, it is only a problem here in the USA.

Thanks for a great post. It's nice to see some mental hygiene at this web site for a change.

758 posted on 02/20/2006 8:08:55 PM PST by Bogie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ToryHeartland

From the article:

But Mr Omenn warned that teaching intelligent design will deprive students of a proper education, ultimately harming the US economy.

"At a time when fewer US students are heading into science, baby boomer scientists are retiring in growing numbers and international students are returning home to work, America can ill afford the time and tax-payer dollars debating the facts of evolution," he said. Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/sci/tech/4731360.stm

Can someone please tell me what actual technology will suffer regardless of the outcome of this debate? Examples please, with how either ID or evolution is needed to develop the technology.


759 posted on 02/20/2006 8:09:20 PM PST by Binghamton_native
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

Thanks


760 posted on 02/20/2006 8:13:41 PM PST by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 757 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp
I have read the articles there, and here are some answers to those

The Problem of Information for the Theory of Evolution - Has Dawkins really solved it?

The Problem of Information for the Theory of Evolution - Has Tom Schneider Really Solved It?

Climbing Mount Improbable - A review of Richard Dawkins’ book

761 posted on 02/20/2006 8:20:46 PM PST by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 732 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American
[Biblical shape of the Earth]
Job 26:7
He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing

this is Job speaking. in Ch. 38:4-6, the Lord responds, and says

4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;

IE Job says the Earth hangs upon nothing, and the Lord corrects him and says it has a foundation and a corner stone.




Taking verses out of context is why you are confused. Job and the Lord are having a conversation and are NOT talking about the "shape of the earth"!

Nothing Job has said is wrong. That remained the same. The Lord is speaking in a metaphor. When a building is created they lay a foundation and a cornerstone and this is what the Lord is referring to - when He created the world. He's asking Job WHERE were YOU when I created the earth? What makes YOU think I need to ANSWER TO YOU.

Job made the statement

Job 26:7
He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing

in the 26 chapter of the book of Job.

Between that and chapter 38 allot has happened to Job.

Job is looking for answers to all the hardships he has endured. He is asking the Lord questions:

Job 38:4-7

[4] Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
[5] Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
[6] Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
[7] When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

etc.

You see the Lord doesn't answer to Job. That's why He is asking Job these questions. It's like saying hey Job, who do YOU think YOU are? Where YOU there when I did this etc.? The Lord is putting Job is his place.

Later Job is blessed for keeping his faith.

Job 42:12 & 13

[12] So the LORD blessed the latter end of Job more than his beginning: for he had fourteen thousand sheep, and six thousand camels, and a thousand yoke of oxen, and a thousand she asses.

[13] He had also seven sons and three daughters.

You see the whole time Job was being tested. We know it since it is stated in the beginning. The Lord allowed Satan to do these terrible things to Job, KNOWING that Job would be true to Him.

Job 1:8-12 and read on

[8] And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?

[9] Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought?

[10] Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land.

[11] But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face.

[12] And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD.

Read on!

The cornerstone metaphor is used elsewhere.

Here's another example that may help clarify this for you:

Eph.2:20

[20] And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

It is CHRIST that is the corner stone of the body of believers.
762 posted on 02/20/2006 8:22:22 PM PST by nmh (Intelligent people believe in Intelligent Design (God))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 716 | View Replies]

To: stands2reason

"That's a false statement, and you know it.

The worst thing is, you will never stop saying it, and when called a liar, you'll run weeping to the mods. How pitiful."

No there is NO evidence whatsoever and YOU know that too. Evolution is a religion. You want to believe in it even though NOTHING supports it and especially not logic.

Initially I conversed with this Dim person - whatever his name is. Then he became obnoxious and I started ignoring him. Mind you he's been harassing me for OVER six months. Today, I simply had enough! He's way out of line! Unlike others, I announce that I've had enough and what I will do about it. Let that be a warning to you too. I see no reason to put up with childish harassment and personal attacks - part of the rules here.

What I regret is that I did not report his abuse MONTHS ago.


763 posted on 02/20/2006 8:26:39 PM PST by nmh (Intelligent people believe in Intelligent Design (God))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 694 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
Science does not produce personal responsibility or character.

Neither does math. Did you have a point?

There are many Theistic Evolutionary Catholics in that area of the Blue state.

Who appear motivated to vote, at least on the local level, against ID in science class.

If you went to my link you also saw Gov. Taft, Gov. Bush, and especially Sen. Santorum all distancing themselves from ID being taught in science class.

764 posted on 02/20/2006 8:28:56 PM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 754 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
Time is Nature's way of making sure that everything doesn't happen at once.

Or happen twice.

765 posted on 02/20/2006 8:32:44 PM PST by dread78645 (Intelligent Design. It causes people to misspeak)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 491 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
For some reason you continue to present conventional scientific interpretations as the only reality. Science is individuals presenting information that explains reality within the available limitations current technology has on measuring observations. As technology improves through intelligent engineering, a more accurate grasp of our naturalistic reality becomes more revealed. Science in and of itself is exciting.

However, relegating our God given intelligence and curiosity to random chance spits in the eye of our Creator.

If we measured the percentage of our reality that we understand, it would be less than 1 percent, being that we are trapped on a minuscule planet with primitive instruments. Guessing about reality is entertaining, but it doesn't stop people from flying planes into buildings.

Minus the transforming power of Jesus Christ, there never would have been a country like the United States. Freedom has always been based on people of character. There are obvious supernatural forces at work in our reality. Israel is back in the land after having been scattered for thousands of years and that little strip of land has the entire world in illogical turmoil.

Allowing conventional science to dictate reality leads to a society enslaved to elite scientists forcing prescriptions to tranquilize boys into submission; a generation of people cutting tasty fat foods from their diets needlessly; aborting human beings because they are legally defined only in materialistic terms...

My comments cut to the heart of the debate!

766 posted on 02/20/2006 8:34:39 PM PST by bondserv (God governs our universe and has seen fit to offer us a pardon. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 755 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
An opinion based in ignorance. Biblical assertions have the strong proof behind them of fulfilled prophecy, and the statistical science that is documented in "The Bible Code Bombshell." The fact that you are too pig-headed to even read that powerful scientific evidence limits the value of your opinion severely.

You refuse to accept an hypothesis that is grounded in science, meaning that it will have to follow existing science findings, but will accept something as tenuous as supposed Bible prophecy simply because it agrees with your belief system. Hmmm.

You really are averse to science and the scientific method aren't you?

767 posted on 02/20/2006 8:35:35 PM PST by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 702 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

sort of "trap" for me



Get at least ONE thing right tonight, you trapped yourself with YOUR OWN WORDS! Your the childish one with your backpeddling. It's no wonder you can't grasp basic truth.


768 posted on 02/20/2006 8:39:11 PM PST by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 756 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp
"I find it interesting that creationists are not willing to accept abiogenesis (which would follow known physical laws), but are willing to not only accept, but base their living philosophy on, magic."

What known physical laws would explain abiogenesis? And who said that creationists base their philosophy for living on magic? I presume you can support that second statement with some references.

769 posted on 02/20/2006 8:40:46 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 676 | View Replies]

To: ToryHeartland

Intelligent Design is not an "assault on science." It asserts that science was created by intelligence, and we have been discovering that intelligence for centuries.


770 posted on 02/20/2006 8:42:12 PM PST by Minuteman23
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp
You really are averse to science and the scientific method aren't you?

He admits to putting stock in The Bible Code Bombshell. I'd say that he's openly admitted to eschewing all rational thought.
771 posted on 02/20/2006 8:42:33 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 767 | View Replies]

To: Minuteman23
Intelligent Design is not an "assault on science." It asserts that science was created by intelligence, and we have been discovering that intelligence for centuries.

Er, no, it does not assert that. Intelligent Design asserts that as species emerged from common ancestry an unspecified designer intervened directly on specific populations of organisms and used unspecified methods to "design" certain features that could not evolve without such intervention.
772 posted on 02/20/2006 8:44:09 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 770 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name
I wasn't responding to you or anything you said - I was responding to FreeDum's post to you about exposing Creationist lies.

And your "calling God a liar" claim was a complete non-sequitur. No one here has claimed that any deities have lied.
773 posted on 02/20/2006 8:45:39 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 722 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

Ridiculous. Would you care to back that nonsense up with a link to something respectable?


774 posted on 02/20/2006 8:48:09 PM PST by Minuteman23
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 772 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke; Jo Nuvark
Ah, the same old tired, *If you don't accept the ToE you're a hypocrite for availing yourself of modern medicine.*

Knowing about antibiotic resistance is not dependent on accepting the ToE; it came about the hard way, by observing it. If it was, then doctors and scientists should have predicted that it would happen instead of handing out antibiotics like candy until, oops... now we have antibiotic resistant bacteria. Obviously, knowing about and accepting the ToE did nothing to prevent the health crisis we face now. Shouldn't the ToE been able to predict that?

And not accepting the ToE is not the same as rejecting science off hand. There are many branches of science that can be successfully practiced without evolution ever entering into them. Good science depends on the scientific method not adherence to a theory. Too many theories in the past have changed and continue to change by the day. So why should people be condemned because of being skeptical of one?

775 posted on 02/20/2006 8:57:49 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 677 | View Replies]

To: Minuteman23
Ridiculous. Would you care to back that nonsense up with a link to something respectable?

You mean to perhaps Michael Behe's own words on the matter?
776 posted on 02/20/2006 8:58:25 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 774 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
Look Again
777 posted on 02/20/2006 9:00:58 PM PST by bondserv (God governs our universe and has seen fit to offer us a pardon. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 764 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

Yeah Dimensio! Quit posting facts and exposing Creationist' lies and logical fallacies by throwing their words in their face.



Here - read above what someone posted. Exposing Creationist's lies???? Where do we get THE TRUTH that the poster calls lies. From God's Word! So that's calling God a liar. WE don't make things up, we go to HIS Word.


778 posted on 02/20/2006 9:06:37 PM PST by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 773 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003; RunningWolf; Havoc; Creationist; bondserv

Here's a courtesy ping to let you (RunningWolf, Havoc, Creationist)know that you are being discussed and give you a chance to defend yourself, which someone apparently forgot.


779 posted on 02/20/2006 9:10:12 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 755 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
And your "calling God a liar" claim was a complete non-sequitur. No one here has claimed that any deities have lied.

Basically, if you are calling creationists liars for telling you what God has said in His word, yes you are calling God a liar. If creationism is a lie, than God lied when He said He did it.

780 posted on 02/20/2006 9:14:29 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 773 | View Replies]

To: ToryHeartland
To answer your question, neither view can be emperically proven. Both are held on faith. One side attempts to escape this by interpreting all the evidence to bolster the theory, rather than letting it guide the theory - reinforcement syndrome redux. But fundamentally, both views - old earth and young earth - are faith propositions: we don't have time machines.

Ultimately, one will believe the view that fits with his lifestyle and desires - for God, or for life without morals or consequences.

781 posted on 02/20/2006 9:18:13 PM PST by Lexinom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ToryHeartland; PatrickHenry; nmh; Elsie; eleni121

Tory...your article surely has generated a lot of thought, a lot of emotional outbursts, and a lot discussion...

What I wonder about is this...if one wishes to have something taught, which questions evolution as it is now taught, just what do they want taught..I mean, there is strict creationism, which as I understand it, asserts that all living things were created by God, in an instant, in the form we see today...and created in just six days...and that the earth is around 6 thousand years old...and then there is intelligent design, which is very different in that it seems to grant that some 'supernatural being'(ID, to my knowledge, never really asserts this being as God),was the initial creator of some life form, which then went on to evolve...and ID also seems to grant that the earth is millions, or billions of years old...

I guess, what confuses me, is that creationism/Intelligent Design seem to have very little in common with each other, except that they both grant the initial creation to be done by a 'being'...creationism grants the creation to God, whereas ID grants the creation to any 'powerful being', whether God, or some other being, or I suppose even aliens from outer space...so I see very little in common between Creationism and Intelligent Design...

So, if opponents to Evolution want alternatives taught, just what alternative do they want taught?...ID? Creationism?...I mean, one must admit that there is great difference between these two...they disagree on many points, and thus we see that even the opponents to evolution cannot agree on alternate competing ideas...and then, there are widely varying and differing ideas about which 'religion', supports which alternate ideas, and would adopting that religions ideas about this, then lead to trying to slip the teaching of a specific religion into public school?...


There are those that would try to claim that this would never happen...I call that, burying ones head in the sand...if one wants to present an alternate idea to evolution, based on ones own particular religions stand on this issue, then naturally, we come to teaching the religious views associated with that religion, and thus are teaching a particular religion...

There are many religions that I would never want taught to my children, and I believe that many also feel that same way...by adopting one religions views on evolution, and how they feel their views challenge evolution, it would seem to me, to necesarily be teaching a specific religion in public school...is that really what some here are advocating?

I really would appreciate the thoughts of others on this...

Since I came to this thread rather late, I have posted late, and now must leave the thread...but I am hopeful, that tomorrow, someone can answer some of my questions...



782 posted on 02/20/2006 9:19:15 PM PST by andysandmikesmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Basically, if you are calling creationists liars for telling you what God has said in His word, yes you are calling God a liar.

I don't call them liars for that. I call creationists liars when they make claims that are very easily and demonstratably false to anyone -- regardless of whether or not they are a creationist -- who is objective. In nmh's case, I have pointed out that nmh denied making comment about Antony Flew despite a prior post where he (or she) did exactly that.
783 posted on 02/20/2006 9:26:04 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 780 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name
Exposing Creationist's lies????

Yes. Creationists have lied. Such events are documented.

Where do we get THE TRUTH that the poster calls lies. From God's Word! So that's calling God a liar.

You are misrepresenting the reason that creationists are called liars. You are also assuming your conclusion, which is a logical fallacy.
784 posted on 02/20/2006 9:28:55 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 778 | View Replies]

To: Lexinom
Ultimately, one will believe the view that fits with his lifestyle and desires - for God, or for life without morals or consequences.

False dichotomy. Not all who accept evolution are atheists. Not all who accept evolution lack a belief in morals and/or consequences. In fact, very few would fit such a description.
785 posted on 02/20/2006 9:34:43 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 781 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper

Can you tell me, in your own words, how one measures the quantity of information present in a genome?


786 posted on 02/20/2006 9:37:53 PM PST by aNYCguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 761 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

Yes. Creationists have lied. Such events are documented.

You are misrepresenting the reason that creationists are called liars



What have I lied about? What have I misrepresented? I showed you what was said and you say I am misrepresenting something? If I cut to the chase and you don't like it - don't twist it to I'm misrepresenting anything.

From where/Who/what do you get your beliefs? You got a more truthful book than the Bible and a better teacher than God?


787 posted on 02/20/2006 9:42:26 PM PST by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 784 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name
God didn't kill His Son. Our sins did.

Forgive me, but it seems you haven't thought this through very clearly. Could you please explain, concisely, how "our sins" killed God's Son?
788 posted on 02/20/2006 9:48:04 PM PST by aNYCguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 727 | View Replies]

To: aNYCguy

you haven't thought this through very clearly



How so?


789 posted on 02/20/2006 9:50:17 PM PST by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 788 | View Replies]

To: Jo Nuvark
I can prove God exists with every breath I take. "I am" witness to God's existence.

Similarly, I can prove I can fly with every breath I take. "I am" witness to my own incredible power of magical levitation.

It seems that I learn a fascinating new form of argument on every new crevo thread!
790 posted on 02/20/2006 9:59:37 PM PST by aNYCguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 633 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name
What have I lied about?

I didn't actually call you a liar. I've seen a number of clearly false statements from you, but thus far I've seen no clear evidence that you actually know them to be false.

What have I misrepresented?

I don't call creationists liars simply for professing creationism, and I know no one else who does. I call creationists liars when they lie. And when I say "lie", I mean make statements that are false even to someone who does not accept evolution. For example, Kent Hovind has claimed that two samples taken from one wooly mammoth specimen produced two different dates. In reality, the samples were taken from two different specimens. Kent Hovind is lying. In the case that triggered this discussion, nmh made a demonstratably false claim about philosopher Antony Flew (demonstratably false as in it was in direct contradiction to the statement of the article, and nmh repeated the false claim even when the relevant part of the article was quoted) and then later nmh denied saying anything at all about Antony Flew, even though nmh's previous posting on the matter was directly linked.

I showed you what was said and you say I am misrepresenting something?

Yes. You are misrepresenting the reason that creationists are called liars.

If I cut to the chase and you don't like it - don't twist it to I'm misrepresenting anything.

It has nothing to do with whether or not I like it. It has to do with the fact that your representation of why creationists are called liars does not reflect reality.
791 posted on 02/20/2006 10:01:04 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 787 | View Replies]

To: nmh
No there is NO evidence whatsoever and YOU know that too. Evolution is a religion. You want to believe in it even though NOTHING supports it and especially not logic.

Wrong. Your choice of ignoring the evidence -- not even bothering to refute it scientifically--doesn't make it go away. Just stick your fingers in your ears and go "LALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALALALALALALALA"

792 posted on 02/20/2006 10:05:11 PM PST by stands2reason (It's now 2006, and two wrongs still don't make a right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 763 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

They only check the sign up date when they suspect a troll.

Like they think we are. :-)


793 posted on 02/20/2006 10:09:03 PM PST by stands2reason (It's now 2006, and two wrongs still don't make a right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 679 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name

God is bigger than science. Science shouldn't try to deal in the spiritual or supernatural.


794 posted on 02/20/2006 10:12:00 PM PST by stands2reason (It's now 2006, and two wrongs still don't make a right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 681 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name; Dimensio

Basically once she tells you something is so, anytime after that you say anything different, now you are a liar.

Well that is just once piece of the demented 10,000 fragment liar kaleidoscope. It is almost impossible to not be a liar in the demented world unless you worship at the altar of darwinistic evolutionism, its main deity the flying spaghetti monster.

Wolf


795 posted on 02/20/2006 10:12:54 PM PST by RunningWolf (Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 791 | View Replies]

To: Jo Nuvark

I always thought it was our immortal soul that was created in God's image, not our bodies.


796 posted on 02/20/2006 10:15:32 PM PST by stands2reason (It's now 2006, and two wrongs still don't make a right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 673 | View Replies]

To: Jo Nuvark

Let him howl. That's what he does best.


797 posted on 02/20/2006 10:17:56 PM PST by stands2reason (It's now 2006, and two wrongs still don't make a right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 664 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke

SSDD

or is it SSSS?

(same s#!+, same thread)


798 posted on 02/20/2006 10:21:10 PM PST by stands2reason (It's now 2006, and two wrongs still don't make a right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 658 | View Replies]

To: Junior

See the post above hers. (tee hee)


799 posted on 02/20/2006 10:25:29 PM PST by stands2reason (It's now 2006, and two wrongs still don't make a right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 704 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

You know what, with all you babbling, you say nothing.

It stands. You are calling God a liar. God created the world and every living thing in it. If you do not accept His Word, The Bible, you have no capacity for truth.

Yet you hang onto what Kent says. A mere man who depends on God for his every breath. Why do you look up to man? How lowly do you think of yourself? Animals do that - oh I forgot - you belief humans are animals. But then again, I guess Kent's (monkey brain) is an animal too.

Remember, at one time, 'man" said the world was flat. However, those who seek truth knew better - the bible explains it - and doesn't explain it as flat.

So, keep believing man - they are always finding something new and denouncing what they said yesterday.

But God always was, always will be, and will always remain the same. TRUTH DOESN'T CHANGE. On that note - no more chit-chat. I'm not into talking to animals but I do wish you all the best and may you have enough pee-pee pads for all you needs.


800 posted on 02/20/2006 10:35:01 PM PST by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 791 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 701-750751-800801-850 ... 2,301-2,341 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