Skip to comments.
Free Republic Poll on Evolution
Free Republic ^
| 22 September 2006
| Vanity
Posted on 09/22/2006 2:09:33 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 ... 1,621-1,636 next last
To: Finny
I believe in God and I accept evolutionary theory. The two are NOT exclusionary. Refusal to see that they are is based solely on human pride. Your syntax here is contradictory, to wit:
"Refusal to see that they are (exclusionary[understood]) is based solely on human pride.
Anyway, your statement is no more or less indicative of hubris than the position you're criticizing.
121
posted on
09/22/2006 10:23:18 PM PDT
by
csense
To: csense
It all, very well, could be a false premise. In other words, it's only as good as the next piece of evidence, or the next, possibly more compelling, theory. Darwinism is the only scientific theory that seems to be immune to questioning and critical inquiry.
122
posted on
09/22/2006 10:24:49 PM PDT
by
My2Cents
(A pirate's life for me.)
To: Doctor Stochastic
""Conduction" should be "Conducting.""Of course it should.
To: Coyoteman
If all of the tests have been supporting a particular theory, for, say, 150 years, do you think its safe to bet the rent money against that theory?Would you bet your life on such a theory? Better yet, would you bet your soul....
124
posted on
09/22/2006 10:27:09 PM PDT
by
csense
To: csense
If all of the tests have been supporting a particular theory, for, say, 150 years, do you think its safe to bet the rent money against that theory? Would you bet your life on such a theory? Better yet, would you bet your soul....
Trite.
Have any data?
125
posted on
09/22/2006 10:29:30 PM PDT
by
Coyoteman
(I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
To: My2Cents
It all, very well, could be a false premise. In other words...
The words are fine the way they are.
126
posted on
09/22/2006 10:30:15 PM PDT
by
csense
To: csense
Pssst....I was agreeing with you.
127
posted on
09/22/2006 10:32:16 PM PDT
by
My2Cents
(A pirate's life for me.)
To: Coyoteman
I see, so my response, which is not fundamentally dissimilar from your own, is trite, yet....
128
posted on
09/22/2006 10:32:26 PM PDT
by
csense
To: PatrickHenry
I've studied religions, philosophies and sciences. Logic and metaphysics. The questions are eternal as are the answers.
Creation....one of my professors of Ontology said, 'God see the world through our eyes. God surveys all that has begun through his creations."
Science reveals the patterns of the evolutions that have occurred on this world and evidence is disputable but not irrefutable. All things on Earth have their time, which is both a scientific and Biblical truth. Research in telemeres in the cells predict end and change. Research in our times involving stem cells is conflicted by a search for the fountain of youth and the promise of medical relief from maladies that have plagued man and all creatures since times immemorial. Research that worships the Idols of the Market. We seek renewal and a return to a more youthful and healthy state once experienced and which will probably forever be sought. Time will always deny us this as it has all that have gone before.
There exists layers of evidence of the past lives that present us with the opportunity to briefly understand the complexity of life in our world and the changes it has endured and survived. This is the way of the world which is studied, theorized, argued and incorporated into a theology or cosmology that will eventually succumb to eventuality.
On another note, I'm picking the NY Giants to win Sunday.
129
posted on
09/22/2006 10:33:47 PM PDT
by
BIGLOOK
(Keelhauling is a sensible solution to mutiny.)
To: My2Cents
ooops, sorry for the friendly fire...
130
posted on
09/22/2006 10:37:08 PM PDT
by
csense
To: csense; Coyoteman
"It all, very well, could be a false premise. which again, for all practical purposes, amounts to nothing more than speculation and conjecture" A theory isn't a premise.
"A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory."
The correspondence principle applies to established theories. Those are theories that are backed with substantial evidence. What that means is that the old theory must appear as a special case of any newer, more general theory.
To: Coyoteman
Have any data?As to the existence of the soul?
Only my subjective experience that, each and every day, supports my observation that we are fundameentally distinct from every other organism that inhabits this planet. Personally, I think it's a sad state of affairs that supposedly reasonable, intelligent, mature adults fail to see what a child knows to be true.
132
posted on
09/22/2006 10:45:15 PM PDT
by
csense
To: csense
Good night. We'll contend again on another occasion.
133
posted on
09/22/2006 10:47:07 PM PDT
by
Coyoteman
(I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
To: spunkets
A theory isn't a premise.But an hypothesis is.
The correspondence principle applies to established theories. Those are theories that are backed with substantial evidence. What that means is that the old theory must appear as a special case of any newer, more general theory.
Falsification does not require the invocation of an alternate theory.
134
posted on
09/22/2006 10:59:11 PM PDT
by
csense
To: texten
Um, is that what it means to "freep" a poll? I just thought it was a call to freepers to go vote once. I think their is a misuse of the term here, too. Freeping a poll has never meant cheating on a poll. It is a just a term for notifying everyone here so they can vote en masse on a poll.
135
posted on
09/22/2006 11:04:54 PM PDT
by
Elyse
To: csense
A hypothesis is not a premise either.
"Falsification does not require the invocation of an alternate theory."
Nothing at all is required. It is as I said previously, whether you like it, or not, others will develop a more general theory which will include the old as a special case. They will never be required to do that. they just will, because they want to.
To: csense
BTW, the new theory is more general. It is not alternate.
To: Hacksaw
In order to circumvent that ruling, {poof!}, ID is hatched. The Wedge Strategy lays out the entire plan. They were so brazen, they even laid out their entire plot on an anti ID website.
It is called, "Getting caught with your hand in the cookie jar". How Johnson must regret writing the strategy down. First rule of dishonest conspiracy... don't commit anything to documents.
138
posted on
09/23/2006 12:41:14 AM PDT
by
Thatcherite
(I'm PatHenry I'm the real PatHenry all the other PatHenrys are just imitators)
To: trumandogz
The truth is, you will never convince the Evolutionist of this.....the sad thing is that when they do realize it, it will be too late to change the mind.
139
posted on
09/23/2006 1:10:13 AM PDT
by
tgambill
(I would like to comment.....)
To: spinestein
You'll get your chance this November. Mark it on your calendarActually 'it's been marked on my calendar for many years now. To wit:
Keep mealy mouthed technocrats from elsewhere out of local business.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 ... 1,621-1,636 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson