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

Skip to comments.

The Problem With Evolution
ChronWatch ^ | 09/25/05 | Edward L. Daley

Posted on 09/26/2005 5:44:09 AM PDT by DARCPRYNCE

Charles Darwin, the 19th century geologist who wrote the treatise 'The Origin of Species, by means of Natural Selection' defined evolution as "descent with modification". Darwin hypothesized that all forms of life descended from a common ancestor, branching out over time into various unique life forms, due primarily to a process called natural selection.

However, the fossil record shows that all of the major animal groups (phyla) appeared fully formed about 540 million years ago, and virtually no transitional life forms have been discovered which suggest that they evolved from earlier forms. This sudden eruption of multiple, complex organisms is often referred to as the Cambrian Explosion, and even Darwin knew about the lack of evidence in the fossil record to support his theory a century and a half ago.

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


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: animoacids; anothercrevothread; bacterialflagellum; charles; charlesthaxton; code; complexity; creation; creationsim; crevolist; crevorepublic; darwin; darwinschmarwin; deankenyon; descent; design; dna; doublehelix; embryos; enoughalready; evolution; fable; genetics; genisis; god; homology; id; intelligent; irreducible; jonathanwells; judeochristian; keywordbonanza; legend; macroevolution; michaelbehe; michaeldenton; micromachines; modification; molecule; moralabsolutes; morphology; mutation; myth; natural; needanotherkeyword; origin; paulnelson; phillipjohnson; proteins; selection; selforganization; speciation; species; stephenmeyer; thumpgoesthebible; toomanykeywords; vertebrates; walterbradley; williamdembski; yomommaisanape
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-341 next last
To: doc30

Parody is a lot of fun. And parody begets more parody, especially on the Internet. It's contagious. Did the god of your parody religion die for you?


51 posted on 09/26/2005 6:44:29 AM PDT by wallcrawlr (http://www.bionicear.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: WildHorseCrash

Your put downs are low class.


52 posted on 09/26/2005 6:46:57 AM PDT by wallcrawlr (http://www.bionicear.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: DARCPRYNCE

In the first place, ID is not the same thing as Creationism. Secondly, Evolution theory is just as faith-based as any other theory concerning the origin of life.

ID is indeed creationism, just a little beyond it. Both require the existence of a supreme creator or guiding force. That is understood to be God no matter what. God is the premise behind creation and also is the premise behind ID. I agree with your last statement too. Evolution requires "faith" as well. There are some merits--things to change and adapt to different conditions, but it does require some stretching.


53 posted on 09/26/2005 6:47:07 AM PDT by moog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Mylo

I only made an observation about the fervor with which some FReepers react to statements on this subject, especially if those statements are pro-Creation and/or anti-evolution.

Were you trying to prove my point?


54 posted on 09/26/2005 6:48:06 AM PDT by Marauder (The height of hypocrisy: Members of congress upset because someone lied to them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: DARCPRYNCE

Of course, just seeing the complexity of God's creations is enough proof to me that there was something behind it all.


55 posted on 09/26/2005 6:48:48 AM PDT by moog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Owl_Eagle
Damnit, I'm distantly related to a pine tree and if you can't see that, you're a Bible thumping creationist!!!

I'd have guessed your distant cousin was an oak, walnut, or pecan tree, myself! ;-P

56 posted on 09/26/2005 6:49:08 AM PDT by MortMan (Mostly Harmless)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DARCPRYNCE

While fossils exist and can provide for us evidence for the ToE, it cannot go further back because there is no physical evident for what existed BEFORE the fossils. All the ideas on what conditions existed on the Earth to support the evolution of life are mere speculation. Evolutionists are forced to use words like "must have been", "conditions favorable to the development of life", "probably", ad nauseum. What they are forced to do is recreate the conditions that they think must have been needed for life to develop.


57 posted on 09/26/2005 6:50:29 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Mylo

"Now how many massacres were initiated by differences in Scientific ideology?"

I don't know, but the communists, who are basically atheistic, killed many millions of innocent men, women and children over a relatively short span of time... more than religious zealots have over the course of known human history.


58 posted on 09/26/2005 6:51:45 AM PDT by DARCPRYNCE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: metmom

All the ideas on what conditions existed on the Earth to support the evolution of life are mere speculation.

There are indeed some records from geological processes. However, being able to tell exact dates is suspect.


59 posted on 09/26/2005 6:52:13 AM PDT by moog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: tamalejoe
Evolutionists are making evolution into a political issue by insisting that it be taught as a fact in public schools at public expense, and that all other competing theories be ruled out apriori and labeled as religion or pseudoscience.

Ultimately this one will be settled at ballot boxes and in courtrooms.

That's a sad testament. These creatards are trying to ram their religious bullcrap into schools and informed, educated and intelligent conservatives are forced to hope that the federal judiciary steps up to the plate to turn back these maniacs and actually uphold the Constitution. That these people are motivated to try and destroy the science of evolution along with the First Amendment is a sad testament to how pitifully small the conservative movement is becoming. It's becoming a bought-and-paid-for arm of "Cristo-theocracy, Inc." ("Believe man rode dinosaurs, and send me money. Cha-ching!")

60 posted on 09/26/2005 6:53:24 AM PDT by WildHorseCrash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Attacking a persons character is always a good way to prove your point and win an argument.

LOL. I just asked a question. Interesting that you went there, though - if I were into character assessments, that'd be gold, without a doubt.

61 posted on 09/26/2005 6:53:37 AM PDT by general_re ("Frantic orthodoxy is never rooted in faith, but in doubt." - Reinhold Niebuhr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Owl_Eagle
1.) M (matter) + T (time) + E (energy) = ABIOGENESIS (the development of living organisms from nonliving matter)

Only the most rabid, frenzied, fevered intellect would wonder if this is false. Anyone who doubts the extrapolations and inferred conclusions of the intellectual giants of science is to be ridiculed as a barefoot bumpkin. To resist the smooth reasoning and self congratulatory smugness of the intelligentsia is a fools errand. The editors of all the important journals can safely dismiss your rambling as loony speculations reminiscent of pre-Darwin churchmen. To persist in a belief in a Creator, Intelligent Designer (Architect of the Universe), Father in Heaven is to be dismissed as someone worthy of consideration. Anyone who holds such a backwards opinion should not be considered for any position in the highly praised, often quoted, obviously correct, speculative areas that contribute to the education of the unwashed masses in the area of biology.
62 posted on 09/26/2005 6:53:50 AM PDT by carumba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Seruzawa
Sorry bud, but Hitler (a self described Catholic) sold the Holocaust to the German people (mostly Lutheran and Catholic)as revenge for the killing of Christ.

Communists believed in Lamarkian evolution (Lysenkoism) that is as unsupported as a scientific theory as Communism is unsupported as an economic theory.

Eugenics is anti-evolutionary as it assumes that humans and artificial selection know more than natural selection. Eugenics would try to "breed out" or eliminate sickle cell anemia genes, a really BAD MOVE where malaria is endemic and the Sickle cell anemia gene MUTATION leads to NATURAL SELECTION whereby a high percentage of the population is heterozygous for the mutant allele and therefore malaria resistant.
63 posted on 09/26/2005 6:55:14 AM PDT by Mylo ( scientific discovery is also an occasion of worship.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
FR says you signed up on the date show above. Is that incorrect?
64 posted on 09/26/2005 6:58:25 AM PDT by general_re ("Frantic orthodoxy is never rooted in faith, but in doubt." - Reinhold Niebuhr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: DARCPRYNCE
100 million -vs- over a billion. Not exactly showing your knowledge of history with that one.

And Communists were as blinded by their ideology into not believing in Darwinian evolution (they liked Lamarkian evolution as put forth by Lysenko) or genes or DNA as Creationists are into thinking that God made a universe that "lies" with long billion light year trails of light in a 6,000 year old universe.
65 posted on 09/26/2005 6:58:43 AM PDT by Mylo ( scientific discovery is also an occasion of worship.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: AZConcervative

AZConservative,

Can you unquestionably refute the fact that my kitchen microwave created the entire universe 2 minutes ago from nothing, and implanted false memories and fossils?


66 posted on 09/26/2005 6:59:03 AM PDT by bigmac0707
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Mylo

Now how many massacres were initiated by differences in Scientific ideology?
_____________________________________

Probably about 50 million in the 20th century alone.


67 posted on 09/26/2005 6:59:55 AM PDT by Rippin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: moog

I guess I'm thinking more along the lines of very early atmospheric and oceanic conditions. It seems that there is some disagreement on the oxygen content of the atmosphere and the gravitatioal attraction. From what I've read on these threads lately there are fossils that support both the oxygen rich and oxygen poor atmosphere. There was also the discussion about a flying creature that would have required a denser atmosphere to fly which would have required a stronger gravitational attraction. Aren't there also dinosaurs which would have required less graviation to survive; for example: for the blood to flow up their necks?


68 posted on 09/26/2005 7:00:27 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: LanPB01
You might be interested in this.

Thanks.

69 posted on 09/26/2005 7:00:34 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Disclaimer -- this information may be legally false in Kansas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: bigmac0707

Hey!!! My microwave just changed my MAC and Cheese to a black, smoldering orb! I'm sure it could create things too!


70 posted on 09/26/2005 7:01:32 AM PDT by moog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: WildHorseCrash



Are you having a meltdown?
Maybe take a break and go for a walk.


71 posted on 09/26/2005 7:02:41 AM PDT by wallcrawlr (http://www.bionicear.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan

Perhaps... either that or I signed up years ago, then forgot all about the place. Either way, I've been posting here regularly for the past several months.


72 posted on 09/26/2005 7:02:50 AM PDT by DARCPRYNCE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: carumba
There are plenty of Biologists who believe in a creator, an architect of the universe, and/or an intelligent designer. They just won't willfully blind themselves to the mechanism whereby genetic diversity is generated (mutation) and how genetic similarity is conserved or beneficial traits are more likely to be passed on(selection).

Saying that the two are incompatible is the primary intellectual fallacy of Creationists.
73 posted on 09/26/2005 7:02:52 AM PDT by Mylo ( scientific discovery is also an occasion of worship.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: metmom

I do believe that different conditions have existed at different times throughout the earth's history. And some of that is confirmed by geological processes. BUT again, things have been different at different times. We just don't know EXACTLY when. With all sorts of flying things now, I don't know about the flying stuff.


74 posted on 09/26/2005 7:04:01 AM PDT by moog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Blonde
So your problem with science is that it takes into account new evidence as it becomes available?

That greatly glosses over what evolutionists do.

The conclusion comes first: All life evolved from a common ancestor.

This conclusion is never questioned. That would be sacrilege.

New evidence is found, scientists see that their theory on how evolution "must have worked" is incorrect, so they alter their theory and say evolution "must have worked this way". But then new evidence is found and so the scientists say "Ooops. I guess evolution worked THIS way".

And they say "that's what a good scientist does, we take into account new evidence as it becomes available." I say it's BS. A good scientist checks his premise once in a while. Your premise is your conclusion. And your conclusion is your premise. It's rotten science.

75 posted on 09/26/2005 7:04:52 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: moog

LOL!


76 posted on 09/26/2005 7:07:10 AM PDT by bigmac0707
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: DARCPRYNCE

Talk about whipping a dead horse.

This garbage goes on and on ad infinitum. Reading this continuing collection of drivel and misguided nonesense gives me mental indigestion.

Theologians shouldn't be teaching biology.

Biologists shouldn't be teaching theology.

Evolution has nothing to do with the belief in a divine being or the Biblical rendition of creation, unless you are an atheist out to disprove religion, or a religious nut with an ayatollahesque interpretation of scripture.

I submit that society could do better with either of the two last mentioned groups of people who continue to create an issue where there is none and contribute nothing worthwhile to the study of religion or biology.

Evolution rationally explains the development of life on earth. No serious biologist can possibly ignore it.

Evolution has nothing to do with removing the Hand of the Divine Creator from the laws by which it functions.


77 posted on 09/26/2005 7:11:54 AM PDT by ZULU (Fear the government which fears your guns. God, guts, and guns made America great.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mylo
How many wars were started over Scientific interpretation?

Well, there was the Suez Neutrino Conflict of '72, and of course the Top/Truth Quark Naming Schism which resulted in much bloodshed.

And of course, the Dark Matter Wars smolder even today among the Physics Tribes of Borneo.

78 posted on 09/26/2005 7:12:14 AM PDT by RogueIsland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: damoboy
No different fromt he American Indian stories about creation, dealing with Raven laying an egg in the river of life, and turtle comes along and puts the egg on his back, and the egg becomes the universe or some such. Equally nonsense.

Yes, those silly Indians. Why, they should believe that an invisible man in the sky magically created everything in six days. Because, you know, that makes so much more sense.

79 posted on 09/26/2005 7:12:17 AM PDT by Ace of Spades (Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: WildHorseCrash

"No matter how many times you point out to cretards that they can't learn real science by reading a bible tract, they still insist that they know, scientifically, that one of the most well-understood and established theories in science is somehow "in controversy" because their pathetic religious feelings requires them to believe that fact."

You might want to actually take the time to read my article before you suggest that criticising evolution theory makes a person religious. In the first place, Intelligent Design theory has nothing whatsoever to do with religion. Secondly, Evolution theory, no matter how well understood you may think it is - and it isn't very well understood by most people - or how well established in the scientific community, it's still NOT FACT, and anyone who suggests otherwise, is an imbecile.


80 posted on 09/26/2005 7:12:40 AM PDT by DARCPRYNCE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Mylo

That is a long ways from the abiogenesis origens fobbed off on the minds full of mush youth.


81 posted on 09/26/2005 7:14:56 AM PDT by carumba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: DARCPRYNCE

"Perhaps... either that or I signed up years ago, then forgot all about the place. Either way, I've been posting here regularly for the past several months."




So you have. I have a question for you: You wrote this story that you posted, right?

If so, could you let us know what your qualifications are for writing about this subject?


82 posted on 09/26/2005 7:15:39 AM PDT by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: moog

God is not religion. A religion is a belief system requiring a certain amount of blind faith, and while most are based upon a belief in a supreme being, some are not. It takes just as much faith to believe in one unproved theory as it does to believe in another, regardless of whether or not God is included in the equation.


83 posted on 09/26/2005 7:19:08 AM PDT by DARCPRYNCE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: metmom

It's my opinion that all reasonable theories concerning the origin of life should be taught in schools, however, they should be confined to philosophy classes.


84 posted on 09/26/2005 7:24:24 AM PDT by DARCPRYNCE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan

follow the link.


85 posted on 09/26/2005 7:27:12 AM PDT by wallcrawlr (http://www.bionicear.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Mylo

"100 million -vs- over a billion. Not exactly showing your knowledge of history with that one."

What makes you think that a billion people have been killed because of religion?


86 posted on 09/26/2005 7:27:27 AM PDT by DARCPRYNCE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: DARCPRYNCE

"It takes just as much faith to believe in one unproved theory as it does to believe in another, regardless of whether or not God is included in the equation."




I disagree with your statement. On one hand, we have a theory of evolution, with a pretty obvious set of evidentiary fossils to look at. These can be seen in any large natural history museum. One can draw one's own conclusions after viewing them. Faith is not required to believe that evolution was the process that led to speciation.

On the other hand, we have various human religions, each with its own creation story. The evidence for these is a bit more difficult to view. We have some old writings, going back to a time when the writers were living in a world with no explanations for much of anything. From these writings we are to believe that some invisible entity waved its arms and spoke the universe into existence and created all the lifeforms in that universe. Sorry, but that does require faith to believe.

So a planet teeming with fossil evidence of the theory of evolution versus a belief in an invisible supernatural entity of one sort or another which simply caused things to appear suddenly.

The two things are very, very different, indeed. Many people do have the faith required to believe in supernatural entities. Others do not and rely on physical evidence.

You cannot equate belief in supernatural entities and belief that scientific theories are correct. That's a confabulation.


87 posted on 09/26/2005 7:29:19 AM PDT by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: wallcrawlr

Thanks. I did follow the link, and found this:

"About the Writer: Edward Daley is a freelance writer who resides in New England. He is owner of the website, The Daley Times-Post, which can be accessed at: "

My question remains: What are the author's qualifications for writing about the theory of evolution and Intelligent Design? That question is not answered at that link, so I asked our poster, who claims this to be his writing.


88 posted on 09/26/2005 7:32:41 AM PDT by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: DARCPRYNCE

I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with the evolutioists insisting that creation/ID not be taught just because THEY don't believe in it. They're doing the same thing they comdemn in creatonists. This is like the Scopes trial in reverse. At first all the evolutionists wanted was equal time for their theory. Now look where we've arrived. They tell us that fossils STRONGLY SUPPORT evolution and yet treat it as fact after they tell us that you can't prove anything in science. I can't believe that they feel free to attack someone's world view and then be surprised when there's a reaction. They may know a lot about evolution but seem to be lacking in knowledge of human nature.


89 posted on 09/26/2005 7:34:24 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: wallcrawlr
Are you having a meltdown? Maybe take a break and go for a walk.

Ha ha. No. No meltdown. Just sick and tired of brainless creationists soiling the good name of "conservative."

90 posted on 09/26/2005 7:34:50 AM PDT by WildHorseCrash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: moog

Saying something has no natural explanation because it is complex is not scientific, it is capitulation. ID offers no scientific insight that is not included in other theories that do not require reworking all of science to make it fit.


91 posted on 09/26/2005 7:38:40 AM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: ZULU

"Evolution has nothing to do with the belief in a divine being or the Biblical rendition of creation."

Yet it is still as religious in nature as believing in a creator of all things, because one has to have a certain amount of blind faith in an unproved theory in order to believe it. Religions are belief systems, and not all of them require a belief in God. Furthermore, ID and Creationism are two separate theories. The fact that they both suppose that a creator is responsible for all life, doesn't make them identical.


92 posted on 09/26/2005 7:38:52 AM PDT by DARCPRYNCE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: wallcrawlr
Parody is a lot of fun. And parody begets more parody, especially on the Internet. It's contagious. Did the god of your parody religion die for you?

Did the god of your parody religion die for you? The point I'm making is that a religious statement has no factual basis in reality. Anyone can claim anything and it is impossible to disprove them. It can be said of anything. Elves, Big Foot, the Loch Ness Monster, the Tooth Fairy, Humpty Dumtpy are all real. Can you disprove this?

93 posted on 09/26/2005 7:40:54 AM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan

I understand the skepticism. Whats different though is that he's listed his resources. I found that helpful.
If a person doesnt like what he writes at least then a person can see if the information he's sourcing is credible (relative judgement).


94 posted on 09/26/2005 7:42:58 AM PDT by wallcrawlr (http://www.bionicear.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: moog
In the first place, ID is not the same thing as Creationism.

ID is the same as creationism. Ever hear of the Wedge document? ID is a back door attempt to introduce creationism in schools. A lot of creationist organizations, like the Discovery Institute, have people saying that the designer in ID is the God of the Bible. You can't get more religious than that and it shows that ID is the code term for creationism.

95 posted on 09/26/2005 7:43:12 AM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: moog

The trouble with ID is that, even though many of the theories are equally untenable, they keep trying to twist the logic to make them usable.
--->

If you think that is only true in this particular field of study, you haven't been following the discussions/ arguments/ research in the realm of high energy physics and cosmology (quarks, gluons, WIMPs, "dark matter", superstrings, superstructure, chronons, etc...) during the past few decades. So many of those concepts and hypotheses have been incredibly counter to Occam's Razor, not to say anything about how poorly they fit data and observations - but they keep trying to twist them into further knots...

Even the sacred Hubble "constant" is now under honest attack from some quarters as a result - finally.


96 posted on 09/26/2005 7:45:00 AM PDT by AFPhys ((.Praying for President Bush, our troops, their families, and all my American neighbors..))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: DARCPRYNCE
You might want to actually take the time to read my article before you suggest that criticising evolution theory makes a person religious.

Oh, I read the "article." It was amateurish crap. It was filled with a description of the science that was so far removed from reality as to be essentially a lie. (And that's not just the portions, like the description of the Cambrian Explosion, that weren't a complete joke.) In fact, it was to the real science of biology and evolution what child's scribble is to a photograph.

In the first place, Intelligent Design theory has nothing whatsoever to do with religion.

Bullcrap. Where did this supposed Intelligent designer come from? Further, hang around here for a few days and one of these religious kooks will let you in on the secret that it's their way of getting Genesis read as science. (Shhhhh. The "Designer" is Jehovah, you're just not supposed to say it. First Amendment and all...)

Secondly, Evolution theory, no matter how well understood you may think it is - and it isn't very well understood by most people - or how well established in the scientific community, it's still NOT FACT, and anyone who suggests otherwise, is an imbecile.

No, Evolution is a fact. Just as Gravity is a fact. The Theory of Evolution (i.e., the modern synthesis) is the theory that explains that fact. And anyone who claims not to believe in evolution is, in the words of the esteemed Prof. Dawkins, "ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)."

97 posted on 09/26/2005 7:45:28 AM PDT by WildHorseCrash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: WildHorseCrash

I'm going to have to scroll through your forum posts to see if its possible for you to actually post a comment without making a disparaging comment towards someone.

If I feel like I have all the answers I can just read an evo thread and realize there are people much "smarter" than me because they'll tell me they are. Usually they do it with as much sarcasm as possible.


98 posted on 09/26/2005 7:46:21 AM PDT by wallcrawlr (http://www.bionicear.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: WildHorseCrash
"Oh, I read the "article." It was amateurish crap."

Hey, don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel about the article, OK?

99 posted on 09/26/2005 7:47:20 AM PDT by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan

"I disagree with your statement. On one hand, we have a theory of evolution, with a pretty obvious set of evidentiary fossils to look at."

ID does not disregard the fossil evidence. In fact, it explains it better than Evolution does.

"On the other hand, we have various human religions, each with its own creation story."

Which are no different, fundamentally, than the evolution story, which is just as unsupported by the facts.

"The two things are very, very different, indeed. Many people do have the faith required to believe in supernatural entities. Others do not and rely on physical evidence."

Yet, the physical evidence does not support the theory that life came about completely by random chance, out of lifeless chemicals, and then evolved into many different organisms.
Furthermore, just because science cannot prove the existence of a creator doesn't mean that one doesn't exist. It simply means that human beings have limited abilities to discover the nature of life.


100 posted on 09/26/2005 7:48:14 AM PDT by DARCPRYNCE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-341 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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