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 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 301-341 next last
To: metmom
If I even found a penny on the ground, I would presume it was minted somewhere in the US. Shouldn't those billions of years been able to produce a lump of copper in the exact size and shape of a penny with a randomly etched pattern on it that just happens to resemble a specific man and building?

You may have noticed that lumps of copper, unlike DNA strands, do not produce imperfect copies of themselves. This particular straw man argument against evolution is one of the oldest and lamest, and is refuted at least once every couple weeks right here on FR.
151 posted on 09/26/2005 10:53:22 AM PDT by aNYCguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: metmom
I fail to see the problem with wanting to teach the best theory we have about how we got here. I think the problem is teaching it as the ONLY theory.

The definition of a scientific theory can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Science

Intelligent Design is not a theory. Creation by an omnipotent god is not a theory. Considering these facts, what other theories would you suggest teaching in school alongside evolution? What other theories exist?
152 posted on 09/26/2005 10:56:49 AM PDT by aNYCguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: metmom
"I have a problem with the evolutioists insisting that creation/ID not be taught just because THEY don't believe in it."

I have no problem with ID and creationism being taught in schools, so long as they're not taught in science class. They aren't science. If you want the schools to have a "spiritual beliefs" class, or a religion class, then I have no problem with ID, creationism, karma, reincarnation, and any other topics or ideas related to religious and spiritual beliefs being taught, so long as they're presented in context.

If we're talking about bringing ID into a science classroom (so-called "equal time"), then I would also require that the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Scientology, and Raelianism be given "equal time". My guess would be that the kids will find all but one to be rather hilarious.
153 posted on 09/26/2005 11:01:44 AM PDT by NJ_gent (Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: DARCPRYNCE

This means nothing. I suppose since most people don't even know what is meant by "Phyla" they don't realize that being a creature with a backbone puts you in the same Phyla as a Trout or a Toad.

Here is a list of all the Phyla.

Phylum Common Name Number of Species
Porifera sponges 10,000
Symplasma glass sponges 500
Placozoa placozoan 1
Cnidaria hydroids, jelly fish, sea anemones, corals 10,000
Ctenophora comb jellies 100
Rhombozoa small; obscure parasites 75
Platyhelminthes flatworms 25,000
Orthonecta orthonectidans 10
Gnathostomula gnathostomulans 100
Gastrotricha gastrotrichs 450
Nematoda roundworms 20,000
Nematomorpha nematomorphs 325
Kinorhyncha mud-dragons 150
Loricifera loriciferans 100
Priapula priapulans 17
Rotifera rotifers 1800
Acanthocephala thorny-headed worms 1000
Onychophora velvet worms 70
Uniramia uniramians or ateloceratans 1,000,000 These Phyla togther make up a group traditionally called Arthropoda, because they share a hardened exoskleton and jointed legs.
Chelicerata chelicerates (98% arachnids) 63,000
Crustacea crustaceans 40,000
Pentastoma tongue worms 100
Tardigrada water bears 600
Mollusca molluscs 100,000
Sipuncula peanut worms 350
Echiura echiuroid worms 150
Annelida segmented worms 15,000
Pogonophora beard worms 150
Nemertea nemertine worms 900
Entoprocta entoprocts or kamptozoans 150
Cycliophora cycliophoran 1
Phorona phoronans 20
Brachiopoda brachiopods 350 (25,000 fossil)
Bryozoa bryozoans or ectoprocta or polyzoa 4300
Chaetognatha arrow-worms 90
Echinodermata star fish, sea cucumbers, sea urchins 7000
Hemichordata hemichordates 90
Chordata chordates (including ourselves!) 42,500


154 posted on 09/26/2005 11:03:57 AM PDT by voteconstitutionparty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doc30
Posted by doc30 to moog On News/Activism ^ 09/26/2005 7:43:12 AM PDT · 95 of 152 ^ "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

I didn't say that. I replied to it. Read further down in the reply for my take on it.

155 posted on 09/26/2005 11:04:42 AM PDT by moog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: AFPhys
"So many of those concepts and hypotheses have been incredibly counter to Occam's Razor"

Actually, Superstring Theory greatly simplifies the universe. Instead of there being all these fundamentally different things flying around interacting in very complex ways, everything is represented as manifestations of very simple things.

"not to say anything about how poorly they fit data and observations"

Some of the cosmology stuff (dark matter, et al) goes rather far off the observe/report path that makes science great, but what precisely is wrong with particle physics and String Theory, in terms of mismatching data?
156 posted on 09/26/2005 11:06:44 AM PDT by NJ_gent (Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: AZConcervative

Agreed, but why the utter disdain for those of us that do believe?

HUH???? I think you met this for someone else. I haven't gotten on anyone here and am a firm believer in the Bible and creationism. That is throught faith and my own confirmation of it. However, I do believe science is important too.


157 posted on 09/26/2005 11:07:14 AM PDT by moog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: DARCPRYNCE

The problem with "the problem with evolution" is that 1) pre-Cambrian diversity has been found (the organisms are unexpectedly tiny) and 2) the gentic evidence is that the various major lines diverged far earlier.


158 posted on 09/26/2005 11:08:58 AM PDT by edsheppa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doc30

refreing to things like the dragonflies from the Cambrian that had 2 foot wingspans

Thanks for the comment. I'm glad mosquitoes aren't that size.


159 posted on 09/26/2005 11:09:27 AM PDT by moog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: doc30

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.

Boy, that's a mouthful to say:)


160 posted on 09/26/2005 11:10:18 AM PDT by moog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: voteconstitutionparty

If anything, since so many different Species came from so few Phyla, the factoid misrepresented in this article actually supports the idea that evolution happened.


161 posted on 09/26/2005 11:12:42 AM PDT by voteconstitutionparty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: AFPhys

AAARRRRGH!!!! I have got to put those tags in there so that people will stop referencing things I'm replying to. :)

Some of those "other" theories are fascinating. It will be interesting to see what comes out over the next few years.


162 posted on 09/26/2005 11:13:07 AM PDT by moog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: DARCPRYNCE

What a waste of bandwidth.


163 posted on 09/26/2005 11:14:17 AM PDT by elbucko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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

The Raelians, Scientologists, Moonies, and the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster all have lovely explanations for fossil evidence based on "Intelligent Design". Are we to give them equal time as well? They're all perfectly valid under base ID, which declines to name the supposed designer(s).

"Which are no different, fundamentally, than the evolution story"

Evolution isn't a story; it's observable and observed fact. The Theory of Evolution tells the story of how that fact brought us to where we are today from the first lifeforms on Earth.

"Yet, the physical evidence does not support the theory that life came about completely by random chance, out of lifeless chemicals"

Your beef here is with the theory of Abiogenesis; not the Theory of Evolution. The Theory of Evolution deals not with how life began, but with how it has changed over time.

"then evolved into many different organisms."

Speciation has been observed many times in nature.

"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."

Science does not seek to prove or disprove that which cannot be observed, measured, and studied. As we have not yet reached the boundaries of scientific understanding of the origins of life on this planet, it's rather silly to begin discussions of what science will or will not be able to prove in the future.
164 posted on 09/26/2005 11:15:52 AM PDT by NJ_gent (Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: DARCPRYNCE

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

Good comment though I would say (with regards to the Wiccans), what many people seem to regard as religion IS based upon a belief in a supreme being.


165 posted on 09/26/2005 11:16:11 AM PDT by moog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: metmom
"In order for science to categorically state that God does not exist"

I think virtually anyone with any scientific background would say that such a thing is completely impossible. Science does not deal with metaphysics, philosophy, or the supernatural.
166 posted on 09/26/2005 11:17:52 AM PDT by NJ_gent (Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
"The moment you claim that the TOE attempts to explain life's origin, then you identify yourself as another of the long line of folks who are arguing against something they don't even understand at the definitionary level."

Very well said. Bravo.
167 posted on 09/26/2005 11:19:37 AM PDT by NJ_gent (Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: metmom
"The complexity of life is evidence enough for some people to believe in creation." ... "Why do evolutionists not consider that to be a valid evidence for creation"

Because 'Wow... cool!' isn't a part of scientific investigation.
168 posted on 09/26/2005 11:24:29 AM PDT by NJ_gent (Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: NJ_gent
Good post. I, too, have no problem with creationism being taught in school so long as it is not taught in science class. I have no issue for the topic to be assigned for papers in English class, or the subject of debate in UIL forensics club. I have no problem with the topic being discussed in philosophy class. For that matter, I have no problem with prayer by students in school or at school functions such as commencement. (Though I believe praying at sporting events to be a bit hokey) Nor do I have a problem with use of school facilities by religious organizations after school hours.

However, science class should teach the prevailing scientific theory. Actual class time devoted to science education is limited enough as it is. Students spend far too few hours being taught science to have them diluted with digressions about controversial or minority theories. There are simply too many minority theories in science to treat the subject this way. Science class must teach the prevailing scientific theory. There's not enough time for anything else. You are absolutely right that if you let the camel's nose under the tent with creationism that other religions are going to want their "equal time" as well. Wait until CAIR gets wind of it.

Furthermore, most schools are geared towards college prep. If the purpose of public school is to prepare students for university, then the curriculum needs to take this into account. Students who enter science and engineering disciplines need to be taught the same science that they will be exposed to when they reach the university level. The time for the student to delve into debates within science is after that student has a solid foundation in science and mathematics. Students will not get a solid foundation in science if they are constantly being pulled one way and another by competing political pressures. Science education is already weak enough without letting it be diluted by special interest groups.
169 posted on 09/26/2005 11:24:40 AM PDT by Liberal Classic (No better friend, no worse enemy. Semper Fi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: DARCPRYNCE
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 isn't true, but it's not really the issue, is it?

170 posted on 09/26/2005 11:24:54 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NJ_gent

Science does not deal with metaphysics, philosophy, or the supernatural.

I do think the divide will blur a little with some of the stuff that will probably come out later this century (e.g. string theory).


171 posted on 09/26/2005 11:25:15 AM PDT by moog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: bobbdobbs
I wanted to be a spaghetti acolyte, but I can't stand the sight of sauce.

To a pastafarian, is Atkins "he who must not be named?

And those with celiac disease are just plain out of luck.

172 posted on 09/26/2005 11:29:32 AM PDT by malakhi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: NJ_gent
Science does not seek to prove or disprove that which cannot be observed, measured, and studied. As we have not yet reached the boundaries of scientific understanding of the origins of life on this planet, it's rather silly to begin discussions of what science will or will not be able to prove in the future.

But that is not the point. The point is to stop research. A couple monts ago Harvard announced a million dollar seed grant to study biogenesis, and the creationists were beside themselves that science would commit itself to solving the problem.

173 posted on 09/26/2005 11:30:02 AM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: malakhi

To a pastafarian, is Atkins "he who must not be named?

Is a vegetarian an anti-pastafarian???


174 posted on 09/26/2005 11:30:36 AM PDT by moog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: moog

only if he's anti-pasta.


175 posted on 09/26/2005 11:31:20 AM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: damoboy
And Barbara Streisand and her ilk... goign to be like 20,000 years from now, even though no one can tell me if it is goign to rain next weekend when I got to Disney World. Didn't Jimmy Carter tell us we were undergoing Global cooling? The Bible has neevr let me down yet,...

Except in spelling, grammar, sentence structure and critical thinking.

176 posted on 09/26/2005 11:32:47 AM PDT by muleskinner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: js1138
"The point is to stop research."

Precisely, because a very small but vocal group of people have somehow convinced a much larger group of people that science is out to kill their God. Those secure in their faith ought to welcome anything science has to offer, as it could never possibly do any such thing. Those involved in science would agree that science has no such aims, nor any such ability.

Science seeks the discovery of natural truth - nothing more, nothing less. It is as relentless as the innate human thirst for knowledge, and it will never stop. Those who fear science fear truth.
177 posted on 09/26/2005 11:45:08 AM PDT by NJ_gent (Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: malakhi

Actually, the chaos prior to the great noodle extrusion is referred to as antepasta.


178 posted on 09/26/2005 11:49:36 AM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: wallcrawlr

Thanks for the ping!


179 posted on 09/26/2005 11:52:14 AM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: js1138

This discussion is baking my noodle.


180 posted on 09/26/2005 11:54:27 AM PDT by Liberal Classic (No better friend, no worse enemy. Semper Fi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: NJ_gent
"Those who fear science fear truth."

Nice. And as one "involved in Science" I would agree that Science does not have the ability or the aim to delve into that which cannot be reproducibly observed and measured.

There are as many believers among Scientists as among non-Scientists. Many Scientists share the philosophy of my tagline "Scientific discovery is also an occasion of worship".
181 posted on 09/26/2005 11:55:40 AM PDT by Mylo ( scientific discovery is also an occasion of worship.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: wallcrawlr
Well, thats why I suggested a walk. If you cant handle the fact that evo is not accepted by everyone then maybe the discussion isnt good for you to be a part of. There are plenty of other threads to join in on. Ones that cause you so much stress cant be good for your health.

This doesn't cause me any stress. Pointing out the idiocies of this claptrap is FUN!!

I seriously doubt your namecalling brings more people into the evo flock.

Well, I am not evangelizing on behalf of anything. A scientific theory is accurate or not on its own and depends not a whit on whether the general public believes it. But, further, so long as there is a First Amendment, the drive to teach this ID/creationism drivel in school science classes will fail, irrespective of its popularity with the ill-informed.

---

No, God created the universe is a fact, just as Jesus came to this earth and died for your sins is a fact. The Holy Bible explains that fact. And anyone who claims not to believe in this is, in the words of God, “a fool”. Look it up.

I've looked it up and the Jews say Jesus was just a man and certainly no Messiah; the Muslims say he was a prophet of Allah and has disdain for the Christians who insult him by saying he was the Son of God; the Rastafarians are p.o.'ed that you didn't point out that Haile Selassie I was the Messiah returned, thereby denying his divinity; and the Hindus, atheists, Buddhists, Animists, Wiccans, Confucionists, agnostics, Sikhs, etc., etc., etc., all had more important things to discuss.

182 posted on 09/26/2005 11:56:15 AM PDT by WildHorseCrash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: NJ_gent

Thanks. These threads are always fascinating.


183 posted on 09/26/2005 12:01:03 PM PDT by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: wallcrawlr
The Holy Bible explains that fact. And anyone who claims not to believe in this is, in the words of God, “a fool”.

You are attempting to prove something by assuming the conclusion that the Bible is the word of God. Some creationists argue that logic is important. Apparently others don't.

184 posted on 09/26/2005 12:06:28 PM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

Comment #185 Removed by Moderator

To: WildHorseCrash; js1138
Look it up

Dude, you missed the most important source. The actual Bible. Why read what others have to say about him when he tells you in his own words.

Apply this to something close to you. Would you like me to tell you about Darwin from what others who are "enemies" or friends say. You would not accept those others as reliable sources of someones character...why would you accept it about God? Read his word and you do not have to concern yourself about what others say.

If you approach him in humility, he will reveal himself to you personally.

FYI:
Take a look at Biblical Hermeneutics The Science of Interpreting the Bible.

186 posted on 09/26/2005 12:20:44 PM PDT by wallcrawlr (http://www.bionicear.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic; js1138; moog; bobbdobbs

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1491393/posts?page=51#51


187 posted on 09/26/2005 12:23:50 PM PDT by wallcrawlr (http://www.bionicear.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: wallcrawlr
Why read what others have to say about him when he tells you in his own words.

...

Take a look at Biblical Hermeneutics The Science of Interpreting the Bible.

OK ...

188 posted on 09/26/2005 12:30:43 PM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: moog

My mistake. My quote vs post detector suffered interference at that time.


189 posted on 09/26/2005 12:35:21 PM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: DARCPRYNCE
Problem with evolution:

It creates long threads of argument so one can sleep well at night thinking that he or she has gotten their point of view or religious dogma down pat. What's happened has happened, start living in the present and try to make it better.
190 posted on 09/26/2005 12:36:44 PM PDT by wolfcreek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DARCPRYNCE
The way I see it ... IS..
Evolution is theory to combat the notion that humans Do have a "spirit".. BY saying the human body is all there is.. i.e DNA, us being "primates", like that..

Its an attack on the human "spirit" and any other kind of "Spirit".. i.e God..

Is the human body a vehicle for a spirit?..
or merely or grandly a "three dimensional lifeform".?..

Because those are the questions that evolution poses..
Where did the human body come from?.. is minutia..
And is argued as a diversion from the REAL questions.. on purpose or not..

Intelligent atheists should be saying, "If there is no god, well, there ought to be one... as a lament not proudly as if they knew something as a mere primate.. If there is no god then one should be invented immediately.. The smartest thing mankind ever did was invent Gods.. them being Primates.. Apeing reality..

d;-)~.'.'

191 posted on 09/26/2005 12:37:27 PM PDT by hosepipe (This Propaganda has been edited to include not a small amount of Hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe

Every culture has invented a God.

Does this tell you something about the nature of the infinite?

Or does it tell you something about the nature of man?


192 posted on 09/26/2005 12:40:22 PM PDT by Mylo ( scientific discovery is also an occasion of worship.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: metmom
When attempting to understand evolution and evolutionists, I get very hung up on the "betweens" that do not exist in nature (or the fossil record, as far as I know.)

The other day I was watching the hummingbirds after the cardinal flowers. The blur of the wings, the angling balance of the tail, the hovering, the fearlessness of humans, moving backwards and downwards like a helicopter...no other bird can do these things. No other bird is so small, or burns so much fuel. So, where's the "in between " bird and hummingbird--? For such differences to emerge, you'd need several "missing links."

It's this logical problem that I don't hear addressed, or the question I always ask--how do you evolve an immune system while you're busy trying to evolve a beating heart? And eyes, and the skin...the computer-hormone chemical system that makes an organism's organs all "talk" to one another? And don't you always need a Mrs. to go with your newly-evolved Mr. Species?

Why hasn't centuries of breeding livestock, in geographic isolation, not produced a new species of something? If it happens so readily by accident, why can't it be reproduced on purpose?

I did study some biology, and believe that it is really impossible to study life without using the "tree of life" theory as a paradigm to illustrate the interrelatedness of organisms.

And the "scientists" themselves use language dogmatic, patronizing and unscientific. They don't speak in terms of "best reasonable explanation"--but insist that you believe--

193 posted on 09/26/2005 12:44:51 PM PDT by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Mylo
[ Does this tell you something about the nature of the infinite? Or does it tell you something about the nature of man? ]

BOTH.. but both terms, "infinite" and "nature of man" are nebulous terms.. with infinite iterations..

Humility and gratitude are not nebulous and are two of the rarest things on earth.. and doors into "awareness".. Awareness into what?.. I dunno, I havent fully arrived there yet myself..

194 posted on 09/26/2005 12:51:14 PM PDT by hosepipe (This Propaganda has been edited to include not a small amount of Hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: wallcrawlr
Apply this to something close to you. Would you like me to tell you about Darwin from what others who are "enemies" or friends say. You would not accept those others as reliable sources of someones character...why would you accept it about God? Read his word and you do not have to concern yourself about what others say.

But my point is that the Jews, Muslims, Rastas, Hindus, etc. all claim to be friends of God, and that you are the "enemy of God," just as you are claiming to be the friend of God and that they are the enemies. You say the Bible is his word, and the others say you are wrong. On that evidence, determining who is a "fool" and who is not is simply a fruitless challenge.

195 posted on 09/26/2005 12:54:53 PM PDT by WildHorseCrash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: NJ_gent
re: Science seeks the discovery of natural truth - nothing more, nothing less. It is as relentless as the innate human thirst for knowledge, and it will never stop. Those who fear science fear truth.)))

Well, you do have a saintly view of scientists. Sometimes it looks to me like a relentless thirst for Grant Money. Science can be a tough business, sometimes a corrupting one, and it'd be nice to think that it was a Monastery of Truth-Seeking...maybe on good days, it is.

We can make a Shaman of a scientist as easily as we did Jim Jones. They are limited by "original sin"---just like all of us.

196 posted on 09/26/2005 12:56:06 PM PDT by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: DARCPRYNCE

There was a NOVA program last week about the "Scablands" in Washington. Apparently they're fairly unique geologically - dry waterfalls, areas that look like waves lapping, etc, and 1 guy - don't remember his name - proposed that they had been formed by a large flood of water about 15,000 years ago. He didn't know where the water might have come from.

The scientists of the day said - how could that be, we know the earth was formed millions of years ago in a low process - and basically shut him up for a number of years.

Then, about 10 years later, another scientist discovered some unique geological features in Montana. It looked like there was a glacier there, forming a large body of water, and then the glacier gave way and the water was released, thereby forming the scablands and other unique features.

I fell asleep a little while after, but understand from a friend that the scientists finally decided that this was one of many things that affected the geology over huge amounts of time.

Short and not very good summary, but I thought it was interesting that the bias (can I say that about scientists??) of his colleagues prevented the true information from being recognized for many years.

We may have just a bit of that kind of groupthink going on these days, whatcha think?


197 posted on 09/26/2005 1:00:05 PM PDT by Wicket (God bless and protect our troops and God bless America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WildHorseCrash
But my point is that the Jews, Muslims, Rastas, Hindus, etc. all claim to be friends of God, and that you are the "enemy of God," just as you are claiming to be the friend of God and that they are the enemies. You say the Bible is his word, and the others say you are wrong. On that evidence, determining who is a "fool" and who is not is simply a fruitless challenge.

I see what you are saying. If you dont see any difference between those religions than sure...thats what you'd think. The god those other religions discuss is not the same as mine. Mine is the God of the Bible. The Christian God.
Dealing with the afterlife is ultimately more important than how we all started here. Maybe someday you can PM me and we'll discuss why Christ matters.

And btw, my "fool" reference is simply doing a biblical word search on "fool". Proverbs has great short quotes full of wisdom and wit. It is not how I define that word...its how Gods Word does.

198 posted on 09/26/2005 1:26:39 PM PDT by wallcrawlr (http://www.bionicear.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: WildHorseCrash
"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."

Yeah, that representative republican form of government can be a real bitch, especially if you don't have the majority.

199 posted on 09/26/2005 1:27:19 PM PDT by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: doc30

okay:)


200 posted on 09/26/2005 1:29:34 PM PDT by moog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 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