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 1-50 ... 1,001-1,0501,051-1,1001,101-1,1501,151-1,195 next last
To: Dimensio

To you, everything is questionable. So if I was to admit error, that would even be questionable to you. Therefore, I don't want you to question your own questionableness so therefore I won't admit anything to you.


1,051 posted on 10/01/2006 6:48:21 PM PDT by taxesareforever (Never forget Matt Maupin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1049 | View Replies]



1,052 posted on 10/01/2006 7:02:13 PM PDT by balrog666 (Ignorance is never better than knowledge. - Enrico Fermi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1051 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever

Making excuses for not admitting error does not change the fact that you were in error.


1,053 posted on 10/01/2006 7:31:35 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1051 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

In your questionable mind everyone except you and your ideas are in error. You would think the error of evolutionary thought would totally occupy your thought pattern.


1,054 posted on 10/01/2006 7:52:17 PM PDT by taxesareforever (Never forget Matt Maupin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1053 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever
In your questionable mind everyone except you and your ideas are in error.

Making false accusations against me does not demonstrate that your claims are true.
1,055 posted on 10/01/2006 7:59:56 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1054 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

Just that I am right. And does that make me feel so good.


1,056 posted on 10/01/2006 8:05:02 PM PDT by taxesareforever (Never forget Matt Maupin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1055 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever

Given that I have acknowledged error in the past, your claim is demonstratably false.


1,057 posted on 10/01/2006 8:41:23 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1056 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
"...which calls into question your qualification on claiming that any part of it is "doomed"..."

I never, in any posting, claimed that Darwin's Theory is "doomed."

Which calls into question your ability to discern fact from delusion. If you must set up non-existent straw-men to make your point, you're actually ceding that you haven't one. Get a brain, then get a manual which explains how to use it properly... n'kay?

PTBS.

;-/

1,058 posted on 10/01/2006 9:17:04 PM PDT by Gargantua (For those who believe in God, no explanation is needed; for those who do not, no explanation exists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 984 | View Replies]

To: andysandmikesmom
I say, have you any barbecue sauce?

;-/

1,059 posted on 10/01/2006 9:21:45 PM PDT by Gargantua (For those who believe in God, no explanation is needed; for those who do not, no explanation exists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1018 | View Replies]

To: Gargantua
I never, in any posting, claimed that Darwin's Theory is "doomed."

You are correct. I had mistakenly misatttributed someone else's declaration that the theory is "doomed" to you. This does not, however, alter the fact that you attributed elements to the theory that are not actually a part of the theory, which does call into question your credibility when speaking on the theory.

Which calls into question your ability to discern fact from delusion.

My statement was a mistake, not a delusion. Your insults do not lend credibility to your claims.

Get a brain, then get a manual which explains how to use it properly... n'kay?

Insulting me not only does not demonstrate that your claims are factual, but they are also a violation of the terms of usage for this forum.
1,060 posted on 10/01/2006 10:01:59 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1058 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
"My statement was a mistake..."

Your admission, while candid, does not lend credibility to your assertions. Moreover, your repeated linguistic malaprop and tortured grammar, when viewed alongside your admitted conceptual error, paint you more as an opinionated poseur rather than an informed academic.

I'll reserve the balance of my time, leaving you the hollow pleasure of pretending to debate the dullards who are sucked in by your pointless, palsied, and errant pseudo-intellectual one-upsmanship.

Remember, nothing less than SPF 80. Don't leave Earth without it.

;-/

1,061 posted on 10/01/2006 10:29:00 PM PDT by Gargantua (For those who believe in God, no explanation is needed; for those who do not, no explanation exists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1060 | View Replies]

To: Gargantua
Your admission, while candid, does not lend credibility to your assertions.

Attacking me for my admitted error does not demonstrate that your false claims are accurate.
1,062 posted on 10/01/2006 10:44:58 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1061 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

No it's not. Let me see you state that your support of evolutionary theory is an error.


1,063 posted on 10/01/2006 11:26:40 PM PDT by taxesareforever (Never forget Matt Maupin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1057 | View Replies]

To: Gargantua
Moreover, your repeated linguistic malaprop and tortured grammar, when viewed alongside your admitted conceptual error, paint you more as an opinionated poseur rather than an informed academic. I'll reserve the balance of my time, leaving you the hollow pleasure of pretending to debate the dullards who are sucked in by your pointless, palsied, and errant pseudo-intellectual one-upsmanship.

I think my irony meter just broke.
1,064 posted on 10/02/2006 1:30:35 AM PDT by aNYCguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1061 | View Replies]

To: ml1954

You need to go back to the post you referenced. I clearly outlined my position there.

You have no evidence that the universe is acentric. You have a belief.

And an inability to understand what 'no physical significance' means.


1,065 posted on 10/02/2006 5:40:55 AM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 901 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever
Let me see you state that your support of evolutionary theory is an error.

Why should I do that when I have no reason to believe that it is in error? You are retroactively altering your claim, which is not an honest action.
1,066 posted on 10/02/2006 5:45:15 AM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1063 | View Replies]

To: js1138
So what's your point? That's just a fancy statement of the anthropic principle, something dreamed up by physicists.

My point ? Simple --- It is NOT BEYOND the realm of science to postulate INTELLIGENT CAUSES FOR LIFE.
1,067 posted on 10/02/2006 6:46:26 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 872 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
My point ? Simple --- It is NOT BEYOND the realm of science to postulate INTELLIGENT CAUSES FOR LIFE.

And this leads to what kind of research? Biochemical research to find a naturalistic path, or navel gazing?

1,068 posted on 10/02/2006 6:51:52 AM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1067 | View Replies]

To: js1138
The origin of diversity in life is pretty much settled, and it is stochastic.

Is it now ?

There still exists arguments over Darwinian evolution (evolution by natural selection acting on random mutations) because we have practically no actual examples of speciation (new species forming) ever been observed.

Hence, we really have no way of knowing for sure whether Darwin had the right idea. THAT is the point of Jonathan Well's argument ( see this thread for instance ).

I have to say that the Darwinist is taking a great deal on faith. And those Darwinists who also happen to be fanatics by temperament ( see for instance Richard Dawkins) behave just as other fanatics do when they think they have found certainty.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not talking about you. But sadly, there are a lot of them and Dawkins is simply one of those who act like the so called "fundamentalists" so many Darwinians decry. The constraint being that stochastic variations have to survive and reproduce. The question of original life cannot be settled by sitting on your ass and thinking about it. Its a matter for research.
1,069 posted on 10/02/2006 6:52:58 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 874 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
My point ? Simple --- It is NOT BEYOND the realm of science to postulate INTELLIGENT CAUSES FOR LIFE.

If you accept Denton's point of view, I have no argument. He accepts naturalism and empiricism in all aspects of scientific investigation. Including biogenesis.

1,070 posted on 10/02/2006 6:53:42 AM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1067 | View Replies]

To: js1138
And this leads to what kind of research? Biochemical research to find a naturalistic path, or navel gazing?

It leads to the same kind of research we can do today.

The difference being the CONCLUSIONS THAT CAN BE DRAWN FROM IT. Michael Behe being an ID supporter, is not stopped from doing his research and publishing his work in Scientific journals.

There are numerous efforts underway in labs to do just this. The effort to identify the minimum number of genes to support an independent single-cell organism is an area of on-going research.

If mankind succeeds in the afore mentioned effort to create an artificial cell, would that not strengthen the design inference (since we could then say unequivocally that the only force demostrated to be capable of generating life is intelligence)?
1,071 posted on 10/02/2006 6:55:43 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1068 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

Personalities don't really matter. Science routes around fanatics and bullies the way the Internet routes around point failures.

The value of any idea in science is proportional to the quality of the research it suggests.


1,072 posted on 10/02/2006 6:57:10 AM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1069 | View Replies]

To: js1138
If you accept Denton's point of view, I have no argument. He accepts naturalism and empiricism in all aspects of scientific investigation. Including biogenesis.

ALL REASONABLE VIEWS ( INCLUDING DEMBSKI's and Behe's ) must be considered. That includes the possibility of intelligence actually producing life.
1,073 posted on 10/02/2006 6:57:28 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1070 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
Behe specificially stated that astrology would qualify as a "scientific theory" based upon his definition of the term. I have seen no one suggest that he accepts astrology, but his own words suggest that he believes it scientific.

As long as you do not suggest that he believes it has to be taught in class, I have no arguments with you. He clearly does not believe it and HE SAID SO TOO in a lecture I attended at Lehigh University.
1,074 posted on 10/02/2006 6:59:13 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 876 | View Replies]

To: Gargantua
Your admission, while candid, does not lend credibility to your assertions. Moreover, your repeated linguistic malaprop and tortured grammar, when viewed alongside your admitted conceptual error, paint you more as an opinionated poseur rather than an informed academic. I'll reserve the balance of my time, leaving you the hollow pleasure of pretending to debate the dullards who are sucked in by your pointless, palsied, and errant pseudo-intellectual one-upsmanship.

You use your tongue prettier than a 20 dollar whore! That investment in a thesaurus is paying off handsomely.

1,075 posted on 10/02/2006 6:59:16 AM PDT by freedumb2003 ("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1061 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
If mankind succeeds in the afore mentioned effort to create an artificial cell, would that not strengthen the design inference (since we could then say unequivocally that the only force demostrated to be capable of generating life is intelligence)?

If we orbit a satellite, doesn't that strengthen the inference that intelligence is the only force demonstrated to be capable of inserting an object at the precise velocity between falling into a planet and escaping from it?

1,076 posted on 10/02/2006 7:01:58 AM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1071 | View Replies]

To: PFC
The main idea he seems to be saying is that since most Americans don't believe in evolution, it must not be true. So, basically the laws of nature are up for a popular vote like American idol contestants.

Nope, I don't think Wells is saying because a majority believes in something, it is true. I have heard Wells in church debates clearly rejecting the notion of "majority rules" in science. In fact, he cites Galileo and Copernicus as men who were IN THE MINORITY during their time who were eventually proven right.

His point is this --- If Darwinists of Dawkin's influence continue to stifle open exchange of ideas and use their influence to either bad-mouth, suppress, and use the power of government to prevent countering ideas ( like ID for instance ) from being heard, it will not do Darwinism any good in the eyes of the public. The tendency would be for the public to ask --- WHAT DO THEY HAVE TO HIDE ?

Well's second point is this --- We cannot compare the 21st century with Galileo's time where few people could even read or write then. Today, we have the internet. People are MORE EDUCATED than they were before ( and by that, I include people worldwide, not only Americans). We have the internet, newpapers and all sorts of media ... to call those who express doubt in Darwinism IGNORAMUSES ( see the many posts in this thread for instance ), is UNCONVINCING to say the least.

If Darwinists want to convince people after over 150 years of presenting their ideas, they have to show good evidence for what they present as true.

I have heard it being argued that “The burden of proof is indeed on the Darwinist to prove Darwinism. However it is also the burden of proof of the IDist to prove design. ”

But is it? Design has always been self evident which is what Darwin and his followers have tried to counter. We could just let them come up with some evidence first, but after a century and a half unconvincing evidence, it has fallen to ID to show us quite precisely how to detect design.
1,077 posted on 10/02/2006 7:08:47 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1042 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
ALL REASONABLE VIEWS ( INCLUDING DEMBSKI's and Behe's ) must be considered. That includes the possibility of intelligence actually producing life.

There are infinite ways of mapping reality, many of them "rational" in the sense that they comport with observed data.

The question of which are to be taken seriously is determined by which produce questions amenable to research.

The question of intelligence producing life is a reasonable one, and biochemists are working on that one. But you should think about the history of science to get some perspective on this. Producing life in the laboratory is a demonstration that supernatural powers are not required. The followup question is, what kind of conditions could be equivalent to the laboratory conditions.

This is analogous to the discovery of natural selection. Darwin observed that human plant and animal breeders could produce dramatic changes in the morphology of populations simply by incremental selection. He then realized that the same kind of incremental selection applied without human intervention.

1,078 posted on 10/02/2006 7:12:48 AM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1073 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
If Darwinists want to convince people after over 150 years of presenting their ideas, they have to show good evidence for what they present as true.

What is your response to Yockey's assertion that "Darwinism" has been proven beyond doubt? He bases his conclusion on information theory.

1,079 posted on 10/02/2006 7:16:05 AM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1077 | View Replies]

To: js1138
What is your response to Yockey's assertion that "Darwinism" has been proven beyond doubt? He bases his conclusion on information theory.

My response is --- LET THE DEBATE CONTINUE !! It is good for truth seekers.

I refer you to an Australian Scientist's reply to Yockey, here :

http://www.idnet.com.au/files/pdf/Doubting%20Yockey.pdf

Also, I refer you to this site :

http://evolutionblog.blogspot.com/2006/03/notable-book-reviews.html

It says among other things :

----------------------------------

The current issue of Quarterly Review of Biology has a couple of book reviews that are worth looking at.

First, Christoph Adami rips into Hubert Yockey's new book Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life. Yockey will be familiar to devotees of evolution/creationism disputes because of his endorsement of various probability arguments against naturalistic explanations of the origin of ife. Yockey's arguments are considerably more sophisticated than the ones offered by the creationists, but they are no less wrong for that.

Anyway, Adami is very unimpressed with the present volume:

These are only mild idiosyncrasies compared to the author's serious departures from accepted scientific standards of conduct. To begin with, at least half of the (poorly edited) book is a nearly verbatim copy—including typographical errors—of the author's previous volume, Information Theory and Molecular Biology (1992. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press). This information is disclosed nowhere in the current book. The parts that are new to this volume are a mixture of historical and philosophical notes on origin-of-life research and researchers (in a section entitled The Life of Walther Löb, we learn the names and ages of the four daughters of the electrochemist at the time of his death), and reiterations of the same points already put forth in the older material. Even worse, some literature sources are either changed to conform or falsified. The sequence data for much of the presentation in Chapter 6—unchanged since its 1992 inception—is ostensibly from the Protein Information Resource 2003, but checking with the 1992 book reveals that the source is a 1986 paper. Despite its appearance as rigorous by the use of mathematical jargon, many derivations in this book (all of them already present in the 1992 version) are deeply flawed either mathematically, or by the use of inappropriate biological assumptions, or both. What is most surprising is that such a volume could pass an impartial peer review process. Cambridge University Press would do well to examine the circumstances of this and the previous book's approval and editing process. (Emphasis Added)

Phony rigor to disguise mathematical emptiness? Small wonder creationists like Yockey so much.

The comments about peer review are also well-taken. Passing peer-review is a necessary condition for meriting serious consideration from knowledgeable people. Sadly, it is far from sufficient.

----------------------------------------

I'd say this on the outset ---- He rightly says biological information is non-material.

This statement of course leads to the question, “if biological information is non-material, can it ultimately then have a material source”. ?

I am personally inclined to say NO ( and Philip Johnson seems to agree ).

I have not seen anyone demonstrate mathematically through algorithmic information theory that it would lead to a contradiction to assume material causes create large scale artifacts of specified information.
1,080 posted on 10/02/2006 8:00:54 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1079 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot; betty boop

I haven't read the book, but Betty Boop has. Perhaps she'd care to respond.


1,081 posted on 10/02/2006 8:21:57 AM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1080 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
“if biological information is non-material, can it ultimately then have a material source”. ?

Can you give me an example of information that is not instantiated?

1,082 posted on 10/02/2006 8:24:20 AM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1080 | View Replies]

To: Al Simmons
Hey! We have the same cutlery!

Good post.

1,083 posted on 10/02/2006 9:13:15 AM PDT by LibertarianSchmoe ("...yeah, but, that's different!" - mating call of the North American Ten-Toed Hypocrite)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 796 | View Replies]

To: js1138

Placemarker


1,084 posted on 10/02/2006 9:36:48 AM PDT by Jaguarbhzrd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1082 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

God created all the languages (see tower of Babel) so I firmly believe that while minor things can be lost in translation nothing which God has wanted mankind to know has been lacking throughout the ages. He states that His laws are written on our hearts - therefore no matter the interpretation of the 10 commandments mankind knows intuitively not to steal, kill, lie, dishonor God nor parents, etc.

Does it really matter what scholars and experts say or doesn't the clear language in the Bible define a literal day ('there was evening and there was morning')?

Here's something to simplify it even more. My late uncle - John - was mentally retarded from birth and never exceeded the intellectual capacity of a 5-6 year old yet he heard enough of the Bible and believed in his heart that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God and accepted Him as his Lord and Saviour. The Bible is also clear that when the innocent die - those not aware of their sins, those who have not reached a mental age of accountability regardless of their physical age - go directly to be with God in heaven. John was 49 years old when he died and only God could know if he truly reached a mental age of accountability. I know of and have seen very many 6-8 year old children confess faith in Jesus Christ - including my own adopted son, my own biological daughter, and 2 more step-children who I love as much as my own kids. We all need to come to Christ with awe and reverence and child-like faith.

Intellect can be a hindrance and detriment if you allow 'pride to go before the fall'...


1,085 posted on 10/02/2006 10:27:18 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 542 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

You should really think about going into the field of comedy. You have a gift to make people gag, I mean, laugh.


1,086 posted on 10/02/2006 11:01:06 AM PDT by taxesareforever (Never forget Matt Maupin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1066 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels
God created all the languages

It's interesting that we have vast stores of information on the process of that creation. From this:

Fæder ure þu þe eart on heofonum; Si þin nama gehalgod to becume þin rice gewurþe ðin willa on eorðan swa swa on heofonum. urne gedæghwamlican hlaf syle us todæg and forgyf us ure gyltas swa swa we forgyfað urum gyltendum and ne gelæd þu us on costnunge ac alys us of yfele soþlice.

to this:

Our father which art in heauen, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdome come. Thy will be done, in earth, as it is in heauen. Giue vs this day our daily bread. And forgiue vs our debts, as we forgiue our debters. And lead vs not into temptation, but deliuer vs from euill: For thine is the kingdome, and the power, and the glory, for euer, Amen.

to this:

Our Father, who art in heaven, Hallowed be thy Name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, On earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, As we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, But deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever and ever. Amen.

And, of course there's all those Italians still speaking Latin.

1,087 posted on 10/02/2006 11:10:40 AM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1085 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels
I am sorry about your Uncle -- it sounds like he died in grace.

Your story makes our point: The Bible is a spiritual text. It does indeed write on the heart aboud how to live your life. I agree with you that a childlike approach to God and Jesus is probably the best way to approach Him.

But when attempting to use a spiritual manual as a scientific text, you then have to look at the exact text and determine if it has scientific heft.

To do that you need to know EXACTLY what was said and the proper context within which it was said.

1,088 posted on 10/02/2006 11:27:51 AM PDT by freedumb2003 ("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1085 | View Replies]

To: js1138

"Ask, and ye shall ignore"


1,089 posted on 10/02/2006 11:29:47 AM PDT by LibertarianSchmoe ("...yeah, but, that's different!" - mating call of the North American Ten-Toed Hypocrite)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1022 | View Replies]

To: LibertarianSchmoe

Elsie's a credit to his side.


1,090 posted on 10/02/2006 11:31:44 AM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1089 | View Replies]

To: js1138; Elsie

I am actually starting to lean back and enjoy Elsie's one liners.

They don't any particular intellectual damage and are some times quite witty.

And, as you say, he shines a light.


1,091 posted on 10/02/2006 11:46:15 AM PDT by freedumb2003 ("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1090 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

Brightest bulb in the pack.


1,092 posted on 10/02/2006 11:51:29 AM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1091 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Our Father, who art in heaven, Hallowed be thy Name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, On earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, As we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, But deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever and ever. Amen.

Did you ever read "Good News?" (the "standard colloquial English" Bible). I think that one went:

"Hey Dad, you are #1. Whatever you want, you got. Forgive me when do bad and forgive them what does bad to me. Help me not to screw up and keep me away from bad dudes. You the Man."

And this is NOT sacrilege, but a reasonable modern English restatement of this passage.

1,093 posted on 10/02/2006 11:51:41 AM PDT by freedumb2003 ("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1087 | View Replies]

To: js1138

I think the problem with his side is that, in the end, all questions are rhetorical because all answers are known.


1,094 posted on 10/02/2006 11:51:51 AM PDT by LibertarianSchmoe ("...yeah, but, that's different!" - mating call of the North American Ten-Toed Hypocrite)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1090 | View Replies]

To: js1138

Like the one the Grinch had to replace.


1,095 posted on 10/02/2006 11:52:13 AM PDT by freedumb2003 ("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1092 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever

Insulting me does not demonstrate, to any degree, that your claims are correct.


1,096 posted on 10/02/2006 11:52:40 AM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1086 | View Replies]

To: LibertarianSchmoe
I think the problem with his side is that, in the end, all questions are rhetorical because all answers are known.

That must be why he sent me off for an hour to find stuff he asked for, and then never responded.

I could live with his beliefs if he were a gentleman.

1,097 posted on 10/02/2006 11:56:42 AM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1094 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
Insulting me does not demonstrate, to any degree, that your claims are correct.

I wasn't insulting you. I was complimenting you.

1,098 posted on 10/02/2006 1:04:13 PM PDT by taxesareforever (Never forget Matt Maupin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1096 | View Replies]

To: Gargantua

Having fun, little spammer?...its amusing to watch you tho..you are nothing, if not predictable...no reasonable discussion comes from you, just lots of spam...we know you will pop up again, and spam with the same silly questions...continue on, I am sure you will...


1,099 posted on 10/02/2006 1:50:53 PM PDT by andysandmikesmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1059 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot; js1138
... But sadly, there are a lot of them and Dawkins is simply one of those who act like the so called "fundamentalists" so many Darwinians decry. ...

That's only when he's wearing his theologian's hat. Newton could be the same way.

1,100 posted on 10/02/2006 2:15:43 PM PDT by Virginia-American (Don't bring a comic book to an encyclopedia fight)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1069 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 1,001-1,0501,051-1,1001,101-1,1501,151-1,195 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