Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

As usual, Watson pulls no punches.
1 posted on 09/19/2005 3:24:27 AM PDT by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: RadioAstronomer; longshadow; grey_whiskers; headsonpikes; Iris7; PatrickHenry

Ping


2 posted on 09/19/2005 3:25:50 AM PDT by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: snarks_when_bored

"Evolution is a law (with several components) that is as well substantiated as any other natural law, whether the law of gravity, the laws of motion or Avogadro's law. Evolution is a fact, disputed only by those who choose to ignore the evidence, put their common sense on hold and believe instead that unchanging knowledge and wisdom can be reached only by revelation."

All created by the mind of man. So naturalistic and materialistic.


3 posted on 09/19/2005 3:27:50 AM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: snarks_when_bored
that is as well substantiated as any other natural law, whether the law of gravity

That's fine but sometimes laws change.

6 posted on 09/19/2005 3:40:07 AM PDT by bkepley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: snarks_when_bored
This has now been excerpted. All material originating from the Los Angeles Times needs to be excerpted and linked.

Updated FR Excerpt and Link Only or Deny Posting List due to Copyright Complaints

Thanks.
7 posted on 09/19/2005 3:43:47 AM PDT by Sidebar Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: snarks_when_bored
as well substantiated as any other natural law, whether the law of gravity, the laws of motion or Avogadro's law

Any chemist can go in the lab and demonstrate Avogadro's law. Has any evolutionist ever demonstrated macro-evolution under controlled circumstances? Of course not.

9 posted on 09/19/2005 3:44:28 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: snarks_when_bored
"With some variations, this code is the same for viruses, bacteria, worms, human beings, beetles, mice and slugs."

Interesting. And just where in the world did the complicated code come from? Did this complex molecule just pop into existence all by itself?
14 posted on 09/19/2005 3:53:37 AM PDT by Ninian Dryhope
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: snarks_when_bored
I've read up a lot on the creation/evolution debate over the past couple years and determined that evolution is the biggest heap of garbage ever perpetrated on us. I don't want to get in to a whole debate here, because it's been done to death... but I would like to give folks a couple links... I've read tons of stuff, but a few months ago, found this blog... it's not your normal blog with trackbacks, comments, ads, etc.. just check it out you'll see what I mean. Anyway, this is an awesome daily reader... and all but completely stays away from saying anything "religious" other than occasionally pointing out how Darwinists are far more religious and have to leave a lot to their faith to believe their crap, which is why they constantly assume so much.

Anyway, I don't want to ramble, but check this site out... Highly researched and scientific with great commentary on articles.
http://creationsafaris.com/crevnews.htm

Another site is this one http://answersingenesis.org/ that is more toward the "mission" side of things, but one of the biggest creationist organizations, and because of this they have a lot of good information... but it's not a blog-style site with daily updates the way the other site is, which I prefer.. I've gotten to the point where it's one of the first pages I view every day.
21 posted on 09/19/2005 4:02:35 AM PDT by rabair (Religion of Peace Strikes Again.... Sprinkling Peace Shrapnel All Over the World!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: snarks_when_bored
"On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle For Life"

As it most assuredly will always struggle for life, I think we should always preserve the less favoured title of Darwin's work.

22 posted on 09/19/2005 4:03:20 AM PDT by Mobilemitter (We must learn to fin >-)> for ourselves..........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: snarks_when_bored
"..Evolution is a law (with several components) that is as well substantiated as any other natural law, whether the law of gravity, the laws of motion or Avogadro's law. Evolution is a fact, disputed only by those who choose to ignore the evidence, put their common sense on hold and believe instead that unchanging knowledge and wisdom can be reached only by revelation." There you go.....'nuff said.
27 posted on 09/19/2005 4:10:39 AM PDT by Vaquero ("From my dead cold hands")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: snarks_when_bored

The sensationalist liberal LA times mixes again politics, liberal cults of repent and science again using a misguided "entitled" Nobel prize "genius".

Evolution was meant to show the unsensational sensationalism of God's creation. It does take time and faith to grow a flower and make bees "evolve". Scientists retort against the religiously wise with sensationalist be all end all god theories, which really defeat the purpose of the humble "growth" of the animal kingdom. Man becomes a sensationalist artistic animal as opposed to a regular sensing one. He also is superadaptive as he can compute and engineer his own survival in environments which are not good for any animal (eg. living on the moon). Puting man under the yoke of evolution is basicaly an exercise in castration. This bodes ill if we do not note the quantum like leaps of man from animals.


33 posted on 09/19/2005 4:43:58 AM PDT by JudgemAll (Condemn me, make me naked and kill me, or be silent for ever on my gun ownership and law enforcement)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: snarks_when_bored
As usual, Watson pulls no punches.

If he's as dogmatically pro-evolution as some Frevolutionists, he'll be one of the first.

Ping for later reading.
62 posted on 09/19/2005 6:23:39 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (As long as liberalism and I exist, neither one of us is safe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: snarks_when_bored
Invasion of the mentally challenged placemarker.
64 posted on 09/19/2005 6:31:07 AM PDT by balrog666 (A myth by any other name is still inane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: snarks_when_bored
experts on birds, beetles, mollusks and the like

Funny. Einstein needed to call a reference body something in his special theory and so used a train. For the general theory the train wouldn't do, because it wasn't sufficiently deformable, so he used a mollusk.

106 posted on 09/19/2005 9:39:10 AM PDT by RightWhale (We in heep dip trubble)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: snarks_when_bored

The difficulty I have with taking natural selection seriously is that so many of those who argue against it do so out of motives that have nothing to do with the relative merits of the theory...likewise many who favor it.

Any time I try to read something substantive on natural selection I find myself wondering "Is this a real argument, or is the author merely defending his ideological turf?"

It's enough to make one take up basketweaving.


124 posted on 09/19/2005 10:05:28 AM PDT by Oberon (What does it take to make government shrink?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: snarks_when_bored

I do not believe that I, personally, require a creation myth, nor am I interested in how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, nor even on the point.

Darwin was a near contemporary of Diderot. (Or Rousseau.)

Just a bunch of guys who dreamed of being the new Isaac Newton but without all that hard thinking.

No measurement, no science. Numbers, not arm waving.


194 posted on 09/20/2005 1:47:09 AM PDT by Iris7 ("Let me go to the house of the Father." Last words of His Holiness John Paul II)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: All
Those who mischaracterize Darwin as a fraud and some sort of monster should read such passages as the following (from The Voyage of the Beagle, Chapter II):

It may be said there exists no limit to the blindness of interest and selfish habit. I may mention one very trifling anecdote, which at the time struck me more forcibly than any story of cruelty. I was crossing a ferry with a negro, who was uncommonly stupid. In endeavouring to make him understand, I talked loud, and made signs, in doing which I passed my hand near his face. He, I suppose, thought I was in a passion, and was going to strike him; for instantly, with a frightened look and half-shut eyes, he dropped his hands. I shall never forget my feelings of surprise, disgust, and shame, at seeing a great powerful man afraid even to ward off a blow, directed, as he thought, at his face. This man had been trained to degradation lower than the slavery of the most helpless animal.

This was written around 1832 or so, more than a generation before slavery was abolished in the United States.

206 posted on 09/21/2005 8:33:57 AM PDT by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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