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

Skip to comments.

Intelligent Design Scientists Will Showcase Evidence Challenging Evolution
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3916&program=DI%20Main%20Page%20-%20News&callingPage=discoMainPage ^

Posted on 03/13/2007 12:35:30 PM PDT by truthfinder9

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 381-392 next last
To: fish hawk
I do enjoy pulling your chain and go on most all these threads about Evolution more for fun than anything else.

So you are just a troll?

101 posted on 03/14/2007 6:10:07 AM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what an Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: fish hawk
Do you get headaches from keeping your mind so tightly closed to reality?
102 posted on 03/14/2007 6:14:17 AM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what an Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy

LOL! Good one! It just shows the problems of the pioneerng days, when educated clergy were in short supply and lay people picked up a Bible and just went nuts.


103 posted on 03/14/2007 6:15:51 AM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what an Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: doc30
Hitler was more of a creationist and believed eugenics was simply carrying out God's will on Earth.

No, he was against the book of Genesis... the eugenic breeding programs are evidence of this all in themselves. Der Fuhrer was a Teutonic pagan...

104 posted on 03/14/2007 6:20:00 AM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
However, many who stump for evolution treat the subject as if it were proven beyond the shadow of any doubt. In fact, I've noticed that, when it is pointed out that evolution is a theory, meaning it is not proven and thus open for inquiry and scepticism (as with anything else in science), that they get themselves all in a huff about how creationists "just don't understand what science means by the word 'theory'", and the implied meaning seems to be that evolution is beyond the pale of investigation (and thus "proven").

Evolution is open to scientific debate. And, as in any scientific dscipline, the cutting edge is where the debate is concentrated. The problem are scientifically illeterate creationists who want to question evolution, but can't get the basic science right first. The same can be said of any theory. The theory of gravity, quantum theory, general and special relativity, atomic theory, etc., are all unproven and open for discussion.

105 posted on 03/14/2007 6:20:23 AM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what an Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood

More accurately, heHitler warped science and religion to fit his own insanity. But his arguements were based in that twisted religion he synthesized from elements of Christianity and paganism.


106 posted on 03/14/2007 6:22:41 AM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what an Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: doc30
More accurately, heHitler warped science and religion to fit his own insanity. But his arguements were based in that twisted religion he synthesized from elements of Christianity and paganism.

More accurate... yes... thank-you...

The big question is that with all of his hyped superiority, why didn't der Fuhrer ever produce children?

107 posted on 03/14/2007 6:26:15 AM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: voltaires_zit
Anybody know if they've got a testable, potentially falsifiable hypothesis to go with that yet?

Ditto for evolution. What's your falsifiable hypothesis for the theory that you were vomited from muck?

108 posted on 03/14/2007 6:48:32 AM PDT by Theo (Global warming "scientists." Pro-evolution "scientists." They're both wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: baubau
The ultimate intent of the evolutionists is not the destruction of the myths and fables in the OT, but the destruction of Christianity as a political force and of its culture, heritage, works of art and demographic numbers through illegal and legal immigration and birth rates.

Believers in compassion, charity, brotherhood and love must also understand that these attributes are most possible and most practiced and appreciated in Western monocultural societies, not muticultural ones.

We Christian Eropean-Americans are in a struggle for our heritage, culture, freedom and very existence, and the anti-Christians are our enemies. Evolution is anti-Christian.

Do you happen to shave your head?

The irony, lost on you I'm sure, is that the anti-evolution screed du jour is that those who accept the legitimacy of the theory of evolution are racists. Well, thanks anyway for providing a nice counter-point to that specious argument.

109 posted on 03/14/2007 7:54:18 AM PDT by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
The big question is that with all of his hyped superiority, why didn't der Fuhrer ever produce children?

He was a socialist. Therefore it's another do as I say, not as I do excuse?

110 posted on 03/14/2007 8:04:32 AM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what an Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9

I haven't posted on a creationist thread in eons because they all end up being the same after a while and descend into name calling. There are two logical positions one can take in this debate:

1) The Atheist approach, where evolution is correct because it is the best explanation without invoking a creator.

2) The Theist approach where you believe that the creator set everything up as it is, and we are just learning some of the workings of the creation, and evolution is a part of that.

Unfortunately, on these threads, you often get people in untenable logical positions, largely based on ignorance of science, evidence, peer review, and a host of other things. So, you get people in these positions:

3) Earth is 6000 years old because the bible says so. Pretty hard to support your position on this one unless all known scientific data is wrong.

4) Evolution is a conspiracy to wipe out Christianity. Why is it never a conspiracy to wipe out Judaism or Buddhism or Hinduism, or Islam, or Taoism, or Shintoism? Could it be that not all these religions are incompatible with evolution?

5) Evolution is a religion, and has priests and acolytes. Religion has stifled science at the point of a spear for centuries(witness the dark ages). You can't have it both ways and laud the achievements of science in technology, medicine, geology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, but then say on the other hand that all of that is based on a false belief, and therefore that airplanes can't possibly fly because evolution is false, can you? Some people do. They somehow seem to think that evolution is not supported by geology, astrophysics, biology, chemistry, archeology, paleontology, oceanography, anthropology, or any other branch of science and somehow stands on its own as a belief system. Does that mean that all those other disciplines, and any advances they have made, are all wrong or based on falsehoods? Or does it mean that Evolution is a better religion than Creationism, since it is based on ideas that have saved millions of lives and made our day to day living easier?

6)One of Evolution or Religion has to be wrong. Why? why can't they coexist, and have religion be about the stuff we don't know(the afterlife, the creation, etc.) and have science be about what we do know(what can see, find, or discover about the world we live in)? Yet, some people are apparently so thinly attached to their religion that if evolution was proved beyond a doubt, than to them, their religion would become invalid. So, evolution is a threat to them personally, and they get mad and hostile whenever a religiously believed item is even remotely questioned.

I'm sure there are others, but these are the main ones I always see. The other thing I don't like a creationists in general(not to pick on anyone specific) is the loose use of terminology to buck up their position. The people at this presentation being referred to as "scientists" for instance. Only Behe is a scientist(when he's researching and publishing in peer reviewed journals), the rest are philosophers and theologists, and that's only going by their degrees. I don't believe a doctor of Philosophy and Theology has any real background in science, only rhetoric and colorful arguments.

Anyway, that's just where I stand.


111 posted on 03/14/2007 8:18:43 AM PDT by The Enlightener
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
In fact, I've noticed that, when it is pointed out that evolution is a theory, meaning it is not proven and thus open for inquiry and scepticism (as with anything else in science), that they get themselves all in a huff about how creationists "just don't understand what science means by the word 'theory'", and the implied meaning seems to be that evolution is beyond the pale of investigation (and thus "proven").

In most cases that is because the layman who opposes uses "theory" as almost the opposite of "fact" or "proved."

We have seen many on these threads who say, "Evolution is just a theory" as if to say, "There is no evidence for it; now if it was was a proven fact then you'd have something!"

This is why I post my list of definitions periodically.

112 posted on 03/14/2007 8:37:41 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9; gobucks; mikeus_maximus; JudyB1938; isaiah55version11_0; Elsie; LiteKeeper; ...
Mini-ping for ID article. The title misses the point; it's all evidence for intelligent design, and it's all evidence for evolution. It depends on who is holding it.




113 posted on 03/14/2007 9:36:29 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
Galileo and Copernicus were hounded for their ideas contrary to the establishment of the day.

"By the church, correct?! To support religious doctrine, the church and true believers attacked the scientists talking about observed fact."

What 'observed fact' is that and what is the observation that proves it?

114 posted on 03/14/2007 10:02:01 AM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: EarthBound
Interesting. Could one not say that these guys are attempting to fight the Evolution establishment?

You obviously do not know the difference between a scientist and a clergyman.

115 posted on 03/14/2007 10:03:39 AM PDT by Junior (Losing faith in humanity one person at a time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9

Looks like they've got one scientist anyway.

But Dr. Behe has already admitted that he believes in evolution and said, under oath, that ID requires no facts.


116 posted on 03/14/2007 10:06:35 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: voltaires_zit
potentially falsifiable hypothesis to go with that yet?

What's falsifiable about evolution?

117 posted on 03/14/2007 10:11:57 AM PDT by DungeonMaster (Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: The Enlightener
"Evolution is a religion, and has priests and acolytes. Religion has stifled science at the point of a spear for centuries(witness the dark ages). You can't have it both ways and laud the achievements of science in technology, medicine, geology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, but then say on the other hand that all of that is based on a false belief, and therefore that airplanes can't possibly fly because evolution is false, can you? Some people do."

Fallacy of Composition, but it was a nice one.

118 posted on 03/14/2007 10:17:18 AM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: voltaires_zit

I don't care how He made us....whether through evolution or otherwise...but I always wonder what evolutionists think about how everything started. What or Who "created" or "evolved" out of nothingness? How does something come from nothing? What was the genesis of the chemicals in the "primordial soup" (pre-big bang and before that)? Evolution does not explain the beginning of everything and that is why I believe it does not explain away God or is "anti-Christian".


119 posted on 03/14/2007 10:20:14 AM PDT by Right in Wisconsin (Have a Happy Day)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: The Enlightener
"3) Earth is 6000 years old because the bible says so. Pretty hard to support your position on this one unless all known scientific data is wrong."

Fallacy of the biased sample, but another good one.

120 posted on 03/14/2007 10:21:21 AM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 381-392 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