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 ... 201-250251-300301-350 ... 1,151-1,195 next last
To: Virginia-American

OK, some creationists ARE tards! I was wrong. ;)


251 posted on 09/27/2006 3:31:17 PM PDT by RobRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: js1138; My2Cents
100 years from now 100 years from now, science will have progressed to such a point that gene therapy will provide cures to many forms of mysticism. (Imagine 1b muzzy savages becoming agnostics - LOL.) The chemical mechanisms that create such capabilities will most likely be redirected to entertainment & other forms of mental stimulation.
252 posted on 09/27/2006 3:31:53 PM PDT by Chuck Dent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: stands2reason

Yes, the YECs are "strawmen".


253 posted on 09/27/2006 3:32:34 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

An excellent goal, imo. BTW, Marxists have a tenacious hold on irrationality almost equal to that of a Darwinist


254 posted on 09/27/2006 3:33:59 PM PDT by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog

Love that Pamela Anderson example ~


255 posted on 09/27/2006 3:34:32 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: Cinnamon Girl

Why do you think the article you linked to does not describe a transitional?


256 posted on 09/27/2006 3:35:14 PM PDT by stands2reason (The map is not the territory - A. Korzybski)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.
"Darwinism" teaches nothing of the sort. Evolution is an explanation of, to be brief, how we got here. It describes a theorized mechanism, one which is perfectly compatible with Christianity.

Let's see what Jesus Christ of "Christianity" said:

Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

This should impact the discussion.

Just in case someone wants to attribute this comment to "allegory" here is the supporting Scripture:

Gen 3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Gen 5:1 This [is] the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

Deu 4:32 For ask now of the days that are past, which were before thee, since the day that God created man upon the earth,

Gen 5:5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

New Testament references to Adam.

Luk 3:38 Which was [the son] of Enos, which was [the son] of Seth, which was [the son] of Adam, which was [the son] of God.

1Cr 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul;

Jud 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

1Ti 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

Acts 17:26 From one man he created all the nations throughout the whole earth. He decided beforehand which should rise and fall, and he determined their boundaries.

Other pertinent scriptures:

Zec 12:1 The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him.

Isa 42:5 Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:

Isa 45:18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I [am] the LORD; and [there is] none else.

Isa 40:21-22
Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth?

Isa 64:4 For since the beginning of the world [men] have not heard, nor perceived by the ear, neither hath the eye seen, O God, beside thee, [what] he hath prepared for him that waiteth for him.

Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.


257 posted on 09/27/2006 3:35:55 PM PDT by bondserv (God governs our universe and has seen fit to offer us a pardon. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: stands2reason

There are stories of this happening in the wild though. Then there's Ted, the rejected chimpanzee who had 47 chromosomes ~ somebody was doing some "testing" of the hypothesis with that little fellow.


258 posted on 09/27/2006 3:36:12 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Love that Pamela Anderson example ~

Thank you - I thought it was witty too.

259 posted on 09/27/2006 3:37:28 PM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: Al Simmons

http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm


260 posted on 09/27/2006 3:38:11 PM PDT by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: stands2reason; Last Visible Dog
Fertility levels for the hybrid animals (ligers, tigons, etc.) are far too low for replacement levels in the wild even if they did occur there. Not to mention they show a number of behavioral confusions reflecting the differences in how lions and tigers behave out there. An interesting genetic difference can lead to gigantism in ligers and runtiness in tigons. That is, at least one important growth hormone's gene is on the X chromosome in one species and the Y in the other.

They're speciated from each other, just not too long ago. If all we had were fossil skeletons, we'd have no clue that it had happened at all, BTW.

We have examples of even more recent and less complete speciation, such as rings species in birds and salamanders. Horses and donkeys are an example of a more complete speciation. (Mules and hinnys are almost always sterile.)

In fact, we have almost any degree of speciation and not-quite speciation one might expect if evolution were producing the diversity of life. What we don't see are any easy, natural groupings of created kinds unrelated to each other.

261 posted on 09/27/2006 3:40:33 PM PDT by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy

I think the more important issue is that Christians should not quarrel about religious issues, and when they DISCUSS, in love, the inevitable divergent issues, they should make sure to do so where non-Christians overhear them, as the non-Christians are distracted from the main point by what is really surplussage.

(Not my original thought, it's from C.S. Lewis's preface to "Mere Christianity.")

99.99% of the Bible is very clear, and agreed to by all denominations and flavors of Christians.

We should spend more time on those parts, as they are hard enough to put into practice.

When we have those down, let's worry about the remaining .01%


262 posted on 09/27/2006 3:42:22 PM PDT by MeanWestTexan (Kol Hakavod Lezahal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog; muawiyah
Mentioning mules reminds me of the Neo-Darwinist beleif that two similar things not being able to reproduce is the only and solid proof of specizations. Interesting. So does that mean a horse and a donkey are the same species since they can reproduce? The evo logic seems flimsy.

It's not a "belief", it's part of the definition of "species".

Take an island with plenty of grass and water. Introduce 100 stallions and 100 jennies. 100 years later it will be free of equids. Same thing with 100 mares and 100 (male) donkeys. If you have co-ed horses and asses, 100 years later you still will have two popoulations that breed true. Therefor horses and donkeys are different species.

263 posted on 09/27/2006 3:45:43 PM PDT by Virginia-American (What do you call an honest creationist? An evolutionist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American
This does not apply to flowering plants. It's theoretically possible to find dissimilar species of flowering plants that can "breed" so that you could take a gene from something like corn and through clever breeding insert it in the genome for an oak tree.

Floweing plants do everything different than the other critters on Earth.

264 posted on 09/27/2006 3:50:04 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: MeanWestTexan

Makes sense to me.

But I allowed myself to get into the Christianity sidetrack here becuase there is a valid point to be made. Specifically, that this issue IS in the 99.99% and not in the .01% as some would claim.

Let's be frank here, I have listened to two "Christian" ministers give strong arguments that the Bible is silent on Homosexuality. I'll bet that is in Lewis' 99.9% as well.

I believe this issue as well as the "evolution compatibility with Christianity issue" is, as Lewis said, "those parts" (the 99.99%)

One must make similar logical leaps in both arguments to support the counter viewpoint.


265 posted on 09/27/2006 3:52:21 PM PDT by RobRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: DeweyCA
Good grief, we know that no REAL scientist has any doubts about evolution!!

The actual fgure is something like 99.8% of biologists, paleontologists, geneticists etc. In other words, 998 out of a thousnad professionals accept evo, 2 don't.

266 posted on 09/27/2006 3:52:27 PM PDT by Virginia-American (What do you call an honest creationist? An evolutionist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: bondserv

OK--one more time. Although evolution is perfectly compatible with Christianity, it is not compatible with a literal reading of the Bible. You believe the literal word of the Bible. That's great, but you can't accommodate an understanding of evolution.


267 posted on 09/27/2006 3:52:44 PM PDT by Buck W. (If you push something hard enough, it will fall over.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
" Evo Strategy: if you can't intellectually challenge someone's positions - you can always spew personal insults "

The article is rubbish Mr. Evo-Bozo Alert!!!

268 posted on 09/27/2006 3:58:59 PM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
3. Is Icons of Evolution refuted by Dr. Wells’s religion?

He's not just a backsliding Methodist, he's in a mild-control cult for heaven's sake! I'm appalled at the number of freepers ready to shill for the Moonies just because of this issue.

269 posted on 09/27/2006 3:59:58 PM PDT by Liberal Classic (No better friend, no worse enemy. Semper Fi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy


I view this as a distraction; you do not. Opinions differ; that's why there are horse races.

I would highly recommend Lewis's book.

Me, being raised Jewish, always accepted the mose common Jewish answer on this debate.


270 posted on 09/27/2006 4:01:31 PM PDT by MeanWestTexan (Kol Hakavod Lezahal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American

You said: The actual fgure is something like 99.8% of biologists, paleontologists, geneticists etc. In other words, 998 out of a thousnad professionals accept evo, 2 don't.

The article said:

"The issue here is not "evolution" – a broad term that can mean simply change within existing species (which no one doubts)."

IOW, the article was wrong when it said "which no one doubts" Apparently at least two guys do. ;)


271 posted on 09/27/2006 4:05:19 PM PDT by RobRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: Luka_Brazi
Darwin was an agnostic who said he didn't know if God existed. He also didn't believe in God. There is no inconsistency.

Lol!
Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Darwin: "I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws"...Who was the designer of those laws?

If you believe that the existence of a God is not knowable, you are not a Deist. Deists believe that a God does exist.
Again...That reading comprehension problem. It is the knowledge that is beyond human comprehension. Knowledge is proof. That is what both Darwin and Huxley were referring to. I even gave you Huxley's definition of agnostic...Huxley created the word "agnostic". My idea of God may differ from yours but I can't prove my faith is right and you can't prove your faith is right.

Now you're changing the goalposts. We were talking about God's existence, not his nature. Deists do not doubt God's existence.

No, we were not talking about God's existence. We were talking about Darwin's agnosticism. Darwin could not define God. Huxley could not define God. You can not define God.

Darwin's book was a direct assault on ID. He despised ID.
Again...Darwin: "I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws"...How does that differ from intelligent design?

He was dismayed when Asa Gray accepted his theories of natural selection by claiming that God directed it.

Rubbish. Gray helped Darwin develop the theory of evolution. Gray wrote "Darwiniana" praising Darwin. The only "dismay" was Darwin's fear that religious zealots would have him and Gray imprisoned or hung!

Darwin didn't think anybody was directing it.
Nor does any other Deist.
"I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe, and especially the nature of man, and to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance."...Charles Darwin
Designed Laws...Providence
.
272 posted on 09/27/2006 4:06:53 PM PDT by mugs99 (Don't take life too seriously, you won't get out alive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: MeanWestTexan

With all due respect:

I would view this as a distraction on a Christian thread. I consider it on topic in a Crevo thread.

Also,

I currently have three copies of Mere Christianity at home and have given out at least three times that many. I also taught a Sunday school class on this book and it's biblical concepts.

I consider Lewis to be the greatest Christian apologist and writer of the 20th century. He introduced me to paradigms I had never even considered before.

The first time I read it was the second most defining moment of my life. The Bible became new again!


273 posted on 09/27/2006 4:18:09 PM PDT by RobRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy

Good for you! It's a great book.

And, yes, I understand this is "on topic" for a "Crevo" thread.

My point is that the entire "Crevo" dispute is a distraction, and the venom and back-and-forth has done more to drive thinking people from inquiring about Christianity than anything in recent history, aside from Communism.


274 posted on 09/27/2006 4:26:35 PM PDT by MeanWestTexan (Kol Hakavod Lezahal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion

Actually, Christ is the basis for Christianity. I can't recall whether it was Fr. John Romanides or Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos who provided the lapidary phrase, "Christianity is a way of life based on a Person, not an ideology based on a text."

Wierd notions like 'Biblical inerrancy' only arose when protestants, generations removed from any organic connection with that way of life, tried to reconstruct the Faith using only the Church's principle books as their starting point. Nothing like the "Biblical Christian" attitude toward Scripture can be found in any of the Ante-Nicean Fathers, nor in the writings of the Cappadocians Fathers, nor St. Athanasius (all contemporaries with the fixing of the Christian canon).


275 posted on 09/27/2006 4:29:00 PM PDT by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Gordongekko909

Bring on the BIG GUNS! Where is Coyoteman when you need him?


276 posted on 09/27/2006 4:29:04 PM PDT by upcountryhorseman (An old fashioned conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

There you are: I thought I had set you straight!


277 posted on 09/27/2006 4:32:58 PM PDT by upcountryhorseman (An old fashioned conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: upcountryhorseman
There you are: I thought I had set you straight!

Well, at least you have a sense of humor. That sometimes helps on these threads.

278 posted on 09/27/2006 4:37:08 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: drangundsturm

Darwin himself said that if transitionals were not found
his theory would be in question.


279 posted on 09/27/2006 4:38:52 PM PDT by upcountryhorseman (An old fashioned conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: The_Reader_David

TRD,
I agree with what you wrote to a degree.

Christianity - as revealed in Scripture - is a relationship with Christ.

Where I sense I would disagree with you comes in how we know Christ. I believe it is through the revealed word alone that the relationship is formed and grows. Scripture is the basis for that relationship. And it is the "truth test" for all claims. Otherwise, we have only opinion instead of revealed truth.

If you are putting forth the argument that you can know the Person of Christ through any other means, then you have no way of knowing that the "Christ" you have met is not Krishna, or another imposter. Any teaching should be compared to the Scriptures - or else why was it so important to "any of the Ante-Nicean Fathers, ... Cappadocians Fathers, or St. Athanasius (all contemporaries with the fixing of the Christian canon)" to definitively declare which books were inspired of God? Hmmm? Apparently, the importance of this canon was apparent to them as it should have been. St. Paul declares that all scripture is inspired by God. Apparently he also believed scripture important.

In the absence of Scripture, do you rely on the men you quoted?

To close on where we agree with each other...

If someone knows the scripture alone, but doesn't have a personal relationship with the Savior, he is bankrupt.

best to you,
ampu


280 posted on 09/27/2006 4:42:55 PM 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 275 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
You are a real blow-hard. I went back to the post of which you claim I took you out of context - you are so full of it - I quoted the entire paragraph.
Lets review:
#160
mugs99: "I'm a Deist. We are agnostics. We believe that the question of God's existence isn't answerable. To answer the question of God's existence would require proof. Do you have that proof?"


ROFL!
You tell me that you didn't take it out of context then you make this asinine post showing that you did take it out of context!
CONTEXT:
Luka_Brazi: "Deists believe that a creator created the world, set it in motion, and then stepped back. The deist's God is not a personal God. They are not agnostics though; agnostics believe that it is not possible to know if there is or isn't a God".
Mugs99: Lol!
Your dodging. You said: "He was an agnostic, not a Unitarian, meaning he didn't think the question of God's existence was answerable." You went from not answerable to not possible. In any case, Darwin believed in intelligent design and evolution.

"I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance."... Charles Darwin
That is the way all Deists look at everything.

I'm a Deist. We are agnostics. We believe that the question of God's existence isn't answerable. To answer the question of God's existence would require proof. Do you have that proof?


The context is Luka_Brazi's attempt to define a Deist to refute the possibility that Darwin was a Deist. My reply that God's existence isn't answerable is a direct reference to the previous post and quote...And my statement stands. To answer the question of God's existence would require proof. Darwin can not answer the question. I can not answer the question. You can not answer the question, unless you have proof...Do you?
.
281 posted on 09/27/2006 4:43:11 PM PDT by mugs99 (Don't take life too seriously, you won't get out alive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: stands2reason
There are gnostic deists.
I haven't met any...but would like to!
282 posted on 09/27/2006 4:45:27 PM PDT by mugs99 (Don't take life too seriously, you won't get out alive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.

Buck,
You never really ever answered my original question. But you put forth a claim. I simply asked you what Christianity - in your view - was based on if not the scriptures? If you do not wish to share any of the thought that leads you to that statement, you have that right.

best to you,
ampu


283 posted on 09/27/2006 4:46:23 PM 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 136 | View Replies]

To: MeanWestTexan

That is a valid point. That is why I try to ALWAYS keep it respectful and avoid name calling. It is about the facts at hand.

Generally speaking, I used to limit my attendance on crevo threads to the first 200 posts. But I have noticed a strong trend in favor of the creationists in the last few months. The evo "spam" is less and less effective as the "baffle them with bs" ploy. It makes it more interesting and all parties are welcome.


284 posted on 09/27/2006 4:52:46 PM PDT by RobRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: upcountryhorseman
Darwin himself said that if transitionals were not found his theory would be in question.

It is fortunate for his theory, then, that transitional fossils have been found.
285 posted on 09/27/2006 4:57:10 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels
I understand what you are saying, I understand your arguments, and I disagree with them.

I think that you're naive (possibly a factor of youth?).

In any event, we both believe in Jesus, so let's stop there.

286 posted on 09/27/2006 4:57:41 PM PDT by Al Simmons (Holocaust deniers and other anti-semites are the lowest form of human scum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Things to ponder:

At the current rate of progress, in a generation or so, gene therapies may become available that promise to raise IQ by perhaps 1 std deviation. However, if a side effect is an increase in scientific comprehension and a reduction in mystical belief, how many people will volunteer?

How wide will the wealth gap grow as more intelligent, educated professional classes continue to generate higher incomes and intra-breed? Could this behaviour eventually lead to a new form of human species? At some point in the future, would IDers follow Neanderthals into extinction?

287 posted on 09/27/2006 4:58:00 PM PDT by Chuck Dent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

Seems like Darwinism is about as doomed as the War on Drugs...I keep reading where it's doomed but every morning it's still there and nothings changed.


288 posted on 09/27/2006 4:59:14 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stands2reason
"Most of them end up as bitter atheists."

Most of whom? Kids who are raised to believe a lie and then leave the faith as a result?

289 posted on 09/27/2006 4:59:48 PM PDT by Al Simmons (Holocaust deniers and other anti-semites are the lowest form of human scum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: Chuck Dent
At the current rate of progress, in a generation or so, gene therapies may become available that promise to raise IQ by perhaps 1 std deviation. However, if a side effect is an increase in scientific comprehension and a reduction in mystical belief, how many people will volunteer?

How wide will the wealth gap grow as more intelligent, educated professional classes continue to generate higher incomes and intra-breed? Could this behaviour eventually lead to a new form of human species? At some point in the future, would IDers follow Neanderthals into extinction?

Another factor to consider: increase in wealth and intelligence often results in declining birth rates. Many western countries are below replacement levels, and are only kept at a stable or rising rate by immigration. Countries with little to no immigration (Russia) are declining in population.

What would that do to the mix?

290 posted on 09/27/2006 5:04:19 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

Comment #291 Removed by Moderator

To: bornacatholic

Excellent link! Bookmarked for future reference! Thanks!


292 posted on 09/27/2006 5:05:57 PM PDT by Al Simmons (Holocaust deniers and other anti-semites are the lowest form of human scum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents

I hope you're not right.


293 posted on 09/27/2006 5:06:21 PM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: MeanWestTexan
"My point is that the entire "Crevo" dispute is a distraction, and the venom and back-and-forth has done more to drive thinking people from inquiring about Christianity than anything in recent history, aside from Communism."

Excellently put. (I envy you. I miss good ole San Antone where I spent 8 years on active duty....)

294 posted on 09/27/2006 5:09:21 PM PDT by Al Simmons (Holocaust deniers and other anti-semites are the lowest form of human scum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
These creationist goons make thinking conservatives look bad.

Reagan was a creationist.

Most of those posting on FR are creationist/IDers

Most of those posting on the Daily Kos, however, are Darwinist.

295 posted on 09/27/2006 5:09:36 PM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
The one statement is a gem: "The truth is Darwinism is not a scientific theory, but a materialistic creation myth masquerading as science."

Thanks for the post!

296 posted on 09/27/2006 5:12:39 PM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
"Most of those posting on FR are creationist/IDers"

This is a HIGHLY dubious point. If anything the ratio seems to be about even, in my own experience.

How about this:

Most people posting on FR believe in God. Most people posting on DU don't.

Believing in God and accepting the theory of evolution as proven fact are NOT mutually exclusive beliefs - otherwise half of FR must be godless, which I personally know is not the case....

297 posted on 09/27/2006 5:12:45 PM PDT by Al Simmons (Holocaust deniers and other anti-semites are the lowest form of human scum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7

Further clarification: Many (most) of those Freepers who accept evolution as fact believe in "ID" in the sense that God was, and must be the creator, if you believe he exists. What we do not accept is the attempt of some to "put God in a box" and define Him and His creation by a simple-minded (mis)understanding of Biblical geneology....


298 posted on 09/27/2006 5:15:21 PM PDT by Al Simmons (Holocaust deniers and other anti-semites are the lowest form of human scum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion

I'm not trying to vex you, but I will answer by asking what you mean by "based on"? I will answer that, of course, Christianity is "based on" scripture, but I do not hold to the literal truth of each word and event. You do, and hence you would define "based on" as something much more strict and literal.


299 posted on 09/27/2006 5:17:08 PM PDT by Buck W. (If you push something hard enough, it will fall over.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 283 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic
I'm appalled at the number of freepers ready to shill for the Moonies just because of this issue.

FReepers are smart enough to differentiate between bad and good. People can hold both bad and good ideas. Wells is no exception and neither are you and me.
300 posted on 09/27/2006 5:17:47 PM PDT by SirLinksalot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350 ... 1,151-1,195 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