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

Skip to comments.

Why Darwinism Is Doomed
WorldNetDaily ^ | 09/27/2006 | Jonathan Wells

Posted on 09/27/2006 9:56:09 AM PDT by SirLinksalot

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 1,181-1,195 next last
Comment #101 Removed by Moderator

To: finnman69
"If anyone does not believe in Darwinism, i'll take them on a tour in the Museum of Natural History and explain it."

Great let me know where the "life was created by nothing" is located because I would like to see that exhibit. Or if that is being cleaned and not available please direct me to the "Evolutionary Intermediary Species Location" because I have yet to find one of those either.

These damn facts just seem to be getting in the way of Darwinist theory - damn it all. Please help this creationist understand how it all took place. Thanks
102 posted on 09/27/2006 11:20:47 AM PDT by sasafras (("Licentiousness destroyes order, and when chaos ensues, the yearning for order will destroy freedom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.

I've gotta say this.

You have a reading comprehension problem.


103 posted on 09/27/2006 11:23:03 AM PDT by RobRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Names Ash Housewares

If you are a Christian you can read in the Bible that God 'stretched out' the heavens. So our investigation should center around "Wow! How did God do that?" rather than how to figure out starlight traveling for 'hundreds of millions' of years. How in the world can you observe, measure and replicate that in a lab?


104 posted on 09/27/2006 11:23:10 AM PDT by smartymarty (If you know why you believe what you believe leadership is inevitable.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: mugs99
The Old Testament is a Hebrew book. The New Testament is a Christian book. How do you answer those Christians who say you really can't believe both?

Jesus believed the "Old Testament." Paul, who wrote most of the "New Testament" believed the "Old Testament." I consider myself in good company, then, believing the entire Bible.

105 posted on 09/27/2006 11:23:15 AM PDT by Theo (Global warming "scientists." Pro-evolution "scientists." They're both wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Oh you of many questions, what is there to disagree with this article? Please give references. Really though, I was sure that you would ignore this article and pretend you didn't see it. Lie exposed, ignore it. Motto of evos.
106 posted on 09/27/2006 11:24:23 AM PDT by taxesareforever (Never forget Matt Maupin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Sorry if I misread your intention. Jonathan wells is a Moonie. In addition to being incredibly uninformed.


107 posted on 09/27/2006 11:24:46 AM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
I got it. I just ran with your pass, for those who wouldn't...Like post #82. ;-)
.
108 posted on 09/27/2006 11:27:16 AM PDT by mugs99 (Don't take life too seriously, you won't get out alive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.

B,
I know you can read or you wouldn't be able to post here.

So, I am assuming you can easily see what it says.

ampu


109 posted on 09/27/2006 11:29:14 AM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion (outside a good dog, a book is your best friend. inside a dog it's too dark to read)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

m,
So, according to your post, either it means whatever you want it to mean. Or it means nothing. Or no one can know what it means. Which do you go by?
ampu


110 posted on 09/27/2006 11:30:45 AM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion (outside a good dog, a book is your best friend. inside a dog it's too dark to read)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion; RobRoy

You're descending to name calling.

'Bye.


111 posted on 09/27/2006 11:31:36 AM PDT by Buck W. (If you push something hard enough, it will fall over.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero

So we are to assume that you have a full understanding of the universe based on your stated beleive in Darwinism. And further that anyone questioning the science of people with an obvious agenda are ignorant?

Just wondering not attacking.


112 posted on 09/27/2006 11:34:16 AM PDT by driftdiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Al Simmons

Just trying to marginalize the "young earth" crowd.


113 posted on 09/27/2006 11:34:54 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Now I'm doubly embarrased. Not only that, but I've posted twice now on this thread.


114 posted on 09/27/2006 11:35:19 AM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Al Simmons

Thanks for the ping!


115 posted on 09/27/2006 11:37:04 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Everybody who's not a catholic or a holyroller and claims Christian affiliation is either an evangelical or a mormon (whether they are right or wrong).

Don't Bogart that joint my friend...

116 posted on 09/27/2006 11:41:01 AM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.

B,
No name calling. You asked how I know what it says. I read.

I'm assuming you can do likewise. So we both know what it says.

That is a specific response to your question.

My original question to you is...

How do you separate Christianity - that is built on the foundation of the Hebrew scriptures Christ quoted and the New Testament that records His words and acts - from what they actually say?

You replied asking how I know what it says. I read.

If you are saying that even by reading you cannot discern what it means, I'm asking you what you base Christianity on?

ampu


117 posted on 09/27/2006 11:43:39 AM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion (outside a good dog, a book is your best friend. inside a dog it's too dark to read)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Names Ash Housewares

"Big universe. A lot of planets out there. Starlight traveling for hundreds of millions of years and more to reach us. "

And yet in all that space and time we are the only known life in the universe. Funny how two people take the same data and develop different opinions.

"We see other planetary systems forming. I know our system looked the same at one time."

No you assume it looked the same. Unless you have a time traveling gizmo in your pocket there is no way to "prove" your statement.

We agree that freedom to believe differently is whats great (one thing) about this country.


118 posted on 09/27/2006 11:44:07 AM PDT by driftdiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

orbiting moonies placemarker
119 posted on 09/27/2006 11:45:31 AM PDT by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Theo
"Kind" was not used to mean "species" in the most ancient of the texts. Anything before Linnaeus involving "kind" or "species" means little more than "geneal outline" and "it's an animal" or "it's a plant", or "it's another green thing". Those folks didn't know about the microfauna and single celled critters.

You might want to take a look at some of the research done on how human beings categorize "things" (living or dead). There appears to be one or more structures in the brain already hardwired to assist in the categorization.Here's a quicky about how rhesus monkeys do it ~ http://web.mit.edu/~davidf/www/ABCNEWS_CatsandDogs.htm

There are a hundred thousand or more references to "how the brain categorizes" on the net, so read your heart out.

Oh, yeah, the brain "categorizes" different aspects of the same thing ~ e.g. animal shape in one place, animal color in another.

I suspect most of the intensity of emotion about "kind" arises out of the realization by many people that they do, in fact, think that way ~ even if the critters are unrelated.

As an example, remember when folks wanted to believe the black and white giant panda was closely related to the black and white raccoon?

They're not ~ they're just another kind of big ol'fluffy bear that can smash a steel beerkeg with simple, playful strokes.

So, knowing what I know now about how brain categorization works, I understand what the ancients were saying. BTW, I also have to note here that there are instructions in Genesis about how to set up a Memory Palace in your mind to help you remember vast quantities of information better, so that means the ancients, too, had an objective understanding of how we remember. They'd likely not stumble over an idea like evolution, but'd just pop it into the memory slot appropriate for such processes.

120 posted on 09/27/2006 11:47:39 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 1,181-1,195 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