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 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 1,301-1,329 next last

1 posted on 01/28/2009 11:36:17 AM PST by Coyoteman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

:-)

2 posted on 01/28/2009 11:39:53 AM PST by mgstarr ("Some of us drink because we're not poets." Arthur (1981))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

To Anger them even MORE.. I refer to is as BS

to the libs and scientists I say...

What good is “Darwin’s Survival of the FITTEST,” when you LIBERALS Always put in place POLICIES that THWART Darwin at every turn.. are you LIAR or HYPOCRITE...

They always come back with “YOu want to leave the Poor to DIE??” ... when I return with ..”IT was GOOD enough for DARWIN!!”

They run for the HILLS.


3 posted on 01/28/2009 11:41:31 AM PST by gwilhelm56 (MULLAH HUSSEIN - which part of "Congress shall make no Law" - do you NOT UNDERSTAND??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

yeah, Darwinists are weird.

In la-la land dancing around a theory-tale.

How many intermediate forms do they have? Oh yeah, NONE.


4 posted on 01/28/2009 11:42:00 AM PST by chuck_the_tv_out
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chuck_the_tv_out

just because you say it, don’t make it so home-boy.


5 posted on 01/28/2009 11:48:54 AM PST by Vaquero ( "an armed society is a polite society" Robert A. Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: chuck_the_tv_out

Technically, it would be wierd seeing Darminists dancing around anything. I do not believe there are any Darwinists alive anymore. They’ve all passed on from old age by now.


6 posted on 01/28/2009 11:52:51 AM PST by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what an Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: chuck_the_tv_out
How many intermediate forms do they have? Oh yeah, NONE.

Here is an intermediate or transitional. Note its position in the chart below:



Fossil: KNM-ER 3733

Site: Koobi Fora (Upper KBS tuff, area 104), Lake Turkana, Kenya (4, 1)

Discovered By: B. Ngeneo, 1975 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)

Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7), Homo erectus ergaster (25)

Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)

Cranial Capacity: 850 cc (1, 3, 4)

Information: Tools found in same layer (8, 9). Found with KNM-ER 406 A. boisei (effectively eliminating single species hypothesis) (1)

Interpretation: Adult (based on cranial sutures, molar eruption and dental wear) (1)

See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=33

7 posted on 01/28/2009 12:00:53 PM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
“Definitions of darwinism on the Web:

a theory of organic evolution claiming that new species arise and are perpetuated by natural selection
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Darwinism is a term used for various different movements or concepts related to a greater or lesser extent to Charles Darwin's work on evolution. The meaning of Darwinism has changed over time, and depends on who is using the term.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism

The principles of natural selection set out by Charles Darwin in the Origin of Species (1859) and other writings; The evolution and common ...
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Darwinism”

I'll stop using the term Darwinist or Darwinism when the Darwinists stop referring to me as a creationist and/or a fundamentalist, etc.

8 posted on 01/28/2009 12:14:21 PM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
that picture is a mix of ape skulls & badly deteriorated human skulls.

The most well known australopithecine is ‘Lucy’, a 40% complete skeleton found by Donald Johanson in Ethiopia in 1974 and called Australopithecus afarensis.7 Casts of Lucy’s bones have been imaginatively restored in museums worldwide to look like an apewoman, e.g. with ape-like face and head, but human-like body, hands and feet. However, the original Lucy fossil did not include the upper jaw, nor most of the skull, nor hand and foot bones! Several other specimens of A. afarensis do have the long curved fingers and toes of tree-dwellers, as well as the restricted wrist anatomy of knuckle-walking chimpanzees and gorillas.8,9,10

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i1/apemen.asp
9 posted on 01/28/2009 12:15:41 PM PST by chuck_the_tv_out
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

INTREP


10 posted on 01/28/2009 12:16:59 PM PST by LiteKeeper (Beware of socialism in America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
I'll stop using the term Darwinist or Darwinism when the Darwinists stop referring to me as a creationist and/or a fundamentalist, etc.

How does that work on a collective/individual basis? Do you refer to anyone who believes ToE is plausible as a "Darwinist" as long as there's one person who calls you a "creationist"?

11 posted on 01/28/2009 12:18:37 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: gwilhelm56
to the libs and scientists I say...

What good is “Darwin’s Survival of the FITTEST,” when you LIBERALS Always put in place POLICIES that THWART Darwin at every turn.. are you LIAR or HYPOCRITE...

Why would anyone confuse an observation of how nature works with a prescription for running a society?

They always come back with “YOu want to leave the Poor to DIE??” ... when I return with ..”IT was GOOD enough for DARWIN!!”

When and where did Darwin write this?

They run for the HILLS.

There is more than one reason for doing so.

12 posted on 01/28/2009 12:24:57 PM PST by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

I won’t call Dawinism “Darwinism” when you all stop mis-calling Creation Theory/I.D. “relgion”!


13 posted on 01/28/2009 12:31:21 PM PST by JSDude1 (R(epublicans) In Name Only SUCK; D(emocrats) In Name Only are worth their weight..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chuck_the_tv_out

But they’re connected by green lines! That’s gotta count for something, right? Maybe proof that one leads to the other and they’re all related. But then again....


14 posted on 01/28/2009 12:33:55 PM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: gwilhelm56
To Anger them even MORE.. I refer to is as BS

At least we know what the objective is now.

15 posted on 01/28/2009 12:35:22 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Moreover, creationists use “Darwinism” to frame evolutionary biology as an ism or ideology

"They" are not the only ones doing so, lol.

16 posted on 01/28/2009 12:36:58 PM PST by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chuck_the_tv_out

**However, the original Lucy fossil did not include the upper jaw, nor most of the skull, nor hand and foot bones! Several other specimens of A. afarensis do have the long curved fingers and toes of tree-dwellers, **

Darwinist or LIBERAL Or Socialist SCUM .. all the same.
Why let a few FACTS get in the way of a good AGENDA... DARWINISTS are Good at that .. AlBORE is even better, with his GloBULL WARMING !


17 posted on 01/28/2009 12:44:02 PM PST by gwilhelm56 (MULLAH HUSSEIN - which part of "Congress shall make no Law" - do you NOT UNDERSTAND??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: chuck_the_tv_out
Several other specimens of A. afarensis do have the long curved fingers and toes of tree-dwellers, as well as the restricted wrist anatomy of knuckle-walking chimpanzees and gorillas.

"The larger australopithecine body included changes to the spine, pelvis and leg joints that make walking an effective form of locomotion. Though still capable of climbing and resting in trees, a habitual bipedal posture freed the hands to manipulate, carry and throw objects. Though the finger and toe bones are curved and proportionally longer than in humans, afarensis hands were similar to humans in most other respects."

http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/hfs2.html

"The hands of apes and humans differ considerably with regard to proportions between several bones. Of critical significance is the long thumb relative to other fingers, which is the basis for human-like pad-to-pad precision grip capability.... In this article, the manual proportions of Australopithecus afarensis from locality AL 333/333w (Hadar, Ethiopia) are investigated by means of bivariate and multivariate morphometric analyses.... Our results indicate that A. afarensis possessed overall manual proportions, including an increased thumb/hand relationship that, contrary to previous reports, is fully human and would have permitted pad-to-pad human-like precision grip capability. We show that these human-like proportions in A. afarensis mainly result from hand shortening, as in modern humans, and that these conclusions are robust enough as to be non-dependent on whether the bones belong to a single individual or not."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12662944

Hmm. Like an ape in some ways, like a human in others. Could it be--gasp!--a transitional???

18 posted on 01/28/2009 12:48:26 PM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
The authors of the article made this statement:

“At best, the phrase is ambiguous and misleading about science. At worst, its use echoes a creationist strategy to demonize evolution.”

Fair is fair, if the authors can use the broad brush so can I. So why not call the ToE true believers Darwinist as long their leading spokesmen call me something I am not.

Or are the ToE followers getting ready toss Darwin back into the primordial soup?

19 posted on 01/28/2009 1:03:11 PM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
Dr Marvin Lubenow quotes the evolutionists Matt Cartmill (Duke University), David Pilbeam (Harvard University) and the late Glynn Isaac (Harvard University): ‘The australopithecines are rapidly sinking back to the status of peculiarly specialized apes … .’11

This is why we have the term "Darwinist": people that support the crazy theory despite clear scientific evidence against. Even the evolutionists say australopithecus (southern ape) is an ape.
20 posted on 01/28/2009 1:04:42 PM PST by chuck_the_tv_out
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: gwilhelm56

Let’s call it what it is, Satanism. That’s where it comes from - Satan- and he’s who they will spend eternity with for blaspheming against God. It’s good to know that God is just. I’d love to see the smirks fall from their faces when they find out what their eternal future is going to be.

:)


21 posted on 01/28/2009 1:08:40 PM PST by ToGodBeTheGlory ("Darwinism" is Satanism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Are the green lines supposed to show that those assigned the older dates evolved into the one above? That there is a clear evolutionary link between them?


22 posted on 01/28/2009 1:09:59 PM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

23 posted on 01/28/2009 1:10:45 PM PST by mgstarr ("Some of us drink because we're not poets." Arthur (1981))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
Fair is fair, if the authors can use the broad brush so can I.

If everybody follows that, then as long as somebody does it, everybody is going to do it.

24 posted on 01/28/2009 1:10:56 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
I would think you should address those thoughts to the authors of the article. They are complaining about others using the term Darwinism while using the term creationist. All I'm asking is that they don't do what they complain about.

Are evolutionists going to repudiate Darwinism? And if not Darwinism, What is a better term?

25 posted on 01/28/2009 1:40:50 PM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
I would think you should address those thoughts to the authors of the article.

I could, but how would I address the post?

Or you can pretend you're arguing with Richard Dawkins, and I can pretend I'm arguing with Fred Phelps, and it can turn into just another crevo bitchfest.

26 posted on 01/28/2009 1:47:01 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
Are evolutionists going to repudiate Darwinism? And if not Darwinism, What is a better term?

Jay Gould said the "dirty little secret of paleontology is Darwin got it wrong". But getting the ToE establishment to agree is like pulling teeth. Won't happen. Because Darwin is a god to them.


27 posted on 01/28/2009 1:52:03 PM PST by Donald Rumsfeld Fan (Sarah Palin "The Iron Lady of the North")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: ToGodBeTheGlory
Let’s call it what it is, Satanism. That’s where it comes from - Satan- and he’s who they will spend eternity with for blaspheming against God. It’s good to know that God is just. I’d love to see the smirks fall from their faces when they find out what their eternal future is going to be.

This is a science thread. Religious dogma has no role in science, nor on this thread. Please take it elsewhere.

28 posted on 01/28/2009 2:07:40 PM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: chuck_the_tv_out
Even the evolutionists say australopithecus (southern ape) is an ape.

So are you and I. So what?

29 posted on 01/28/2009 2:14:08 PM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman; ToGodBeTheGlory
This is a science thread. Religious dogma has no role in science, nor on this thread. Please take it elsewhere.

Perhaps to TGBTG there is no difference.

30 posted on 01/28/2009 2:15:04 PM PST by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

This was in the article......Glenn Branch
Email: branch@ncseweb.org, he’s co-author I guess.

Here I must say evolution is married to Darwin, he may old and tired but a divorce just isn’t possible. It’s either kill the old gent and bury him or live with him and explain to the grandkids he’s gone dotty.

I’m going to go with Darwinism and actually anyone can call me what they wish (seeing they will anyway no matter).


31 posted on 01/28/2009 2:17:39 PM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Donald Rumsfeld Fan
Gould didn't think neo-Darwinism was the be all but he made it clear that evolution its self was not to be questioned whatever the actual means.
32 posted on 01/28/2009 2:21:01 PM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

I suggest that terms such as Darwinism are of limited use at present. Although Darwin might have anticipated the whole ID premise, a lot of significant evidence has come to light since 1859 and a great deal of thought expended on what it means.

If we wish to distinguish arguments based upon faith and idolatory from those based upon evidence and rational thought then invoking the name of a single gifted scientist who died a long time ago and is therefore no longer around to defend or refine his position is self defeating. Darwin proposed a theory that explained a great deal about the origins and diversity of life but did so before there was much understanding of the mechanism by which this could occur - genetics. That he was so correct is a credit to his thinking and especially the parsimony of that thought.

In the field of physics, would anyone, of reasonable credibility, own up to being a “Newtonian”, in the light of everything that has been discovered since the eighteenth century? Newtonian physics works fine and dandy for most purposes but we now know it to be an incomplete view of the world as it actually is.

To attach a label like “Darwinism” to modern evolutionary theory is like telling me I’m typing this on a reticulated difference engine called a Babbage.


33 posted on 01/28/2009 2:23:17 PM PST by Anatheme
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

“This is a science thread. Religious dogma has no role in science, nor on this thread. Please take it elsewhere.”

You never reply to my posts, but I’ll re-state this again. This is - in fact - a religion thread. It’s called Secular Humanism, and you push it day in and day out.

“Secular Humanism - Main Tool is Evolutionary Thought
Secular Humanism is manifested in Evolutionary Theory. To satisfy the fundamental question of “Where did we come from?” children are taught the doctrine of Evolution.....”

http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/secular-humanism.htm

“Secular Humanism - Excluding God from Schools & Society
Secular Humanism is an attempt to function as a civilized society with the exclusion of God and His moral principles. During the last several decades, Humanists have been very successful in propagating their beliefs. Their primary approach is to target the youth through the public school system..”

http://www.secular-humanism.com/

That’s your agenda - you push it, expect to get pounded for it.


34 posted on 01/28/2009 2:26:10 PM PST by scottdeus12 (Jesus is real, whether you believe in Him or not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Anatheme
To attach a label like “Darwinism” to modern evolutionary theory is like telling me I’m typing this on a reticulated difference engine called a Babbage. I'm betting it uses Franklinism as a power source ... ?
35 posted on 01/28/2009 2:30:24 PM PST by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs

Formatting ... formatting ... !


36 posted on 01/28/2009 2:30:56 PM PST by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

“This is a science thread. Religious dogma has no role in science, nor on this thread. Please take it elsewhere.”

This is a Conservative website. Evo-Atheism has no role in conservatism, nor on any thread on this board other than to show the depths that Satan will go to spread his lies. Please take your NEA-loving cult elsewhere.


37 posted on 01/28/2009 2:34:21 PM PST by ToGodBeTheGlory ("Darwinism" is Satanism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: ToGodBeTheGlory
“This is a science thread. Religious dogma has no role in science, nor on this thread. Please take it elsewhere.”

This is a Conservative website. Evo-Atheism has no role in conservatism, nor on any thread on this board other than to show the depths that Satan will go to spread his lies. Please take your NEA-loving cult elsewhere.

Are you suggesting that evolution, a science which fully follows the scientific method, is not permitted in conservatism, or on this website?

38 posted on 01/28/2009 2:39:14 PM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Don’t you love being lectured on what belongs here from someone who joined 1/03/09?


39 posted on 01/28/2009 2:43:31 PM PST by mgstarr ("Some of us drink because we're not poets." Arthur (1981))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: ToGodBeTheGlory; Coyoteman
Looks like my guess upthread was correct.

This is a Conservative website. Evo-Atheism has no role in conservatism, nor on any thread on this board other than to show the depths that Satan will go to spread his lies. Please take your NEA-loving cult elsewhere.

TGBTG has been here twenty days. Coyoteman, on the other hand, has been around a mere eight years. Nice work exposing the ignorance of the newbies, TGBTG!

Let's pretend, shall we, that this really is a science thread.

TGBTG has made an assertion, namely, "Evo-Atheism has no role in conservatism, nor on any thread on this board other than to show the depths that Satan will go to spread his lies."

Breath-taking.

Kindly demonstrate, scientifically speaking,
1) The Theory of Evolution is the same as "Evo-Atheism," taking care to define exactly what "Evo-Atheism" might be,
2) That "Evo-Atheism" has no role in conservatism, listing any other scientific theories that are forbidden by conservatism,
and that the Theory of Evolution is A) a lie, and B) originating with Satan.

Satan having exactly what to do with a thread on science?

40 posted on 01/28/2009 2:50:46 PM PST by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs
Looks like my guess upthread was correct.

I rather liked #23 too =)

41 posted on 01/28/2009 2:55:23 PM PST by mgstarr ("Some of us drink because we're not poets." Arthur (1981))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: mgstarr

Good cartoon.


42 posted on 01/28/2009 2:58:00 PM PST by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

I’m not just suggesting, I’m saying that evolution is not science and is of Satan. It has no place in Conservatism.


43 posted on 01/28/2009 3:13:02 PM PST by ToGodBeTheGlory ("Darwinism" is Satanism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: ToGodBeTheGlory; Coyoteman
I’m not just suggesting, I’m saying that evolution is not science and is of Satan. It has no place in Conservatism.

Feel free to demonstrate all of the above.

44 posted on 01/28/2009 3:16:45 PM PST by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs

Satan has everything to do with this thread, because the thread is about Darwinism and evo-atheism, which are of Satan. It matters not how long one has been posting here, it matters what they have been posting. I have been posting the Word, and evo-atheists have been posting the words of the Deceiver.

Remember, God is the final Admin.


45 posted on 01/28/2009 3:19:03 PM PST by ToGodBeTheGlory ("Darwinism" is Satanism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: ToGodBeTheGlory

You keep posting that, but you’ve never posted a word as to why we should believe you.


46 posted on 01/28/2009 3:20:08 PM PST by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman; ToGodBeTheGlory
This is a science thread. Religious dogma has no role in science, nor on this thread. Please take it elsewhere.

You're on the wrong forum to be moderating. This is FR not DC.

Or did you forget where you were?

47 posted on 01/28/2009 3:22:26 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs

Read the Word. God wrote down everything we needed to know. It’s written in plain English for even the slow to understand.


48 posted on 01/28/2009 3:24:24 PM PST by ToGodBeTheGlory ("Darwinism" is Satanism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: ToGodBeTheGlory
Please stop posting religious dogma on this science thread.

Your belief has no role in science.

49 posted on 01/28/2009 3:24:44 PM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

God created science just like He created everything else. Got news for you. God and freedom of religion take no back seat to anyone on this forum. Freedom of religion reigns supreme in this land. If you don’t like it, shove it.
Jim


50 posted on 01/28/2009 3:25:50 PM PST by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 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