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

Skip to comments.

Why evolution is a political question
Morse Code ^ | May 8,2007 | Chuck Morse

Posted on 05/08/2007 9:24:03 PM PDT by Chuckmorse

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-331 next last
To: Coyoteman
The very cool thing about a “scientific theory” is that can always be modified.

TOE proponents have been “modifying” the Theory since it first came to light.

That is just fine, and probably as it should be, but the fact that it requires updating and modifying is in my view a good enough reason for other ideas to be allowed to be modified in “Science’ classes.

My biggest bone of contention in all of this is that always there seems to appear some lawyers dressed in collegiate robes calling themselves “Judges” who have been quite busy dictating a specific curriculum to parents who simply do not accept the exclusive teaching of just one continuously “modified” scientific theory.

That is BS, and people are not going to just sit back and take it any more

Besides, that is exactly the opposite of how it should be in a school that is supported by taxes. In a tax funded school, "everything" should be taught in order to please all of the people all of the time.

It ain't that way though, because Liberals have taken over, just as Hitler and Stalin declared they would, through public education.

Schools these days are more interested in teaching a lot of PC nonsense then they are actually concerned about education. ID for example is just as valid as TOE because there is no way to "prove" one is more valid than the other. You know, I know it, and a lot of FReepers also know it, among others.

51 posted on 05/09/2007 11:15:42 AM PDT by Radix (I live my life like there is no yesterday!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Nevadan

nevada- what coyote describes is NOT macro-evolution but micro-evolution plain and simple- the evo crowd desperately needs for the definition of macro-evolution to include any change what-so-ever in order to support the unprovale hypothesis that mutations can create major structural changes that would seperate KINDS (another word they shrink from). s the evos know, mutations have never, ever been shown to create new unique organs which would be required to produce NEW KINDS. Small structural changes in microevolution usually involve either LOSS of information, or a remodling of information already present, and not the needed GAIN of NEW information needed for new unique organs. Pointing out these obvious definitions of NEW information however will illicit an accusation of psuedoscience and ‘Creatyionists trying to redefine science” will come from the evo crowd who beleive any change, no matter how small or no matter the fact that the change only works on information already present amounts to macroevolution.


52 posted on 05/09/2007 11:15:48 AM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: gcruse

Pinging...


53 posted on 05/09/2007 11:17:13 AM PDT by CarrotAndStick (The articles posted by me needn't necessarily reflect my opinion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Nevadan

Ramapithecus Widely recognized as a direct ancestor of humans. It is now established that he was merely an extinct type of orangutan.

Piltdown man Hyped as the missing link in publications for over 40 years. He was a fraud based on a human skull cap and an orangutan’s jaw.

Nebraska man A fraud based on a single tooth of a rare type of pig.

Java man Based on sketchy evidence of a femur, skull cap and three teeth found within a wide area over a one year period. It turns out the bones were found in an area of human remains, and now the femur is considered human and the skull cap from a large ape.

Neandertal man Traditionally depicted as a stooped ape-man. It is now accepted that the alleged posture was due to disease and that Neandertal is just a variation of the human kind.

And the star of the show...

Australopithecus afarensis, or “Lucy” Considered a missing link for years. However, studies of the inner ear, skulls and bones have shown that she was merely a pygmy chimpanzee that walked a bit more upright than some other apes. She was not on her way to becoming human.

Homo erectus Found throughout the world. He is smaller than the average human of today, with a proportionately smaller head and brain cavity. However, the brain size is within the range of people today and studies of the middle ear have shown that he was just like current Homo sapiens. Remains are found throughout the world in the same proximity to remains of ordinary humans, suggesting coexistence

Australopithecus africanus and Peking man Presented as ape-men missing links for years, but are now both considered Homo erectus.

The Most Recent Find
In July 2002, anthropologists announced the discovery of a skull in Chad with “an unusual mixture of primitive and humanlike features.” The find was dubbed “Toumai” (the name give to children in Chad born close to the dry season) and was immediately hailed as “the earliest member of the human family found so far.” By October 2002, a number of scientists went on record to criticize the premature claim — declaring that the discovery is merely the fossil of an ape.


54 posted on 05/09/2007 11:34:56 AM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Radix
ID for example is just as valid as TOE because there is no way to "prove" one is more valid than the other. You know, I know it, and a lot of FReepers also know it, among others.

ID is a religious belief. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory.

55 posted on 05/09/2007 11:42:14 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Stultis

“Missing Link, or Just Jawboning About Ear Evolution?”

http://creationsafaris.com/crev200703.htm


56 posted on 05/09/2007 11:54:06 AM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Jedi Master Pikachu
Re: #12

Good summation.

57 posted on 05/09/2007 12:02:15 PM PDT by El Cid (... and him that cometh to me [Jesus] I will in no wise cast out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Radix

yes radix, the ‘theory’ of evolution is scientific, while the ‘theory’ of creation isn’t- don’t ya know that only the congregation of evos are allowed theories? Don’t ya realize that only the congregation of evos are allowed to fit evidences and make wild leaps of judgements in efforts to connect dissimiliar species by pointing out a few similiarities in their DESIGNS? Don’t disparage ‘science’ by infering that other theories without the massive holes and impossibilities is a valid alternative to the dogmatic trasitionless theory of evo. Lightneining stuck some muck, single wrong-sided amino acids ‘created’ from this muck somehow avoided combining with the other handed amino acids that would have killed them all off when comming into contact with them, and then these wroinh-handed amino acids overcame impossible scenarios and somehow avoided the destructive energies of the world that surely would have killed anything off, then made impossible leaps to protiens and then went on to somehow induce an incredible amount of NEW unique information needed for macro-evolution to become man, and that is that- don’t ya understand?


58 posted on 05/09/2007 12:03:36 PM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: CottShop; Nevadan; Coyoteman
Thanks for the link, but creationist quibbles about that particular fossil (Yanoconodon) aren't relevant to and don't invalidate the point I was making.

The question was whether "major structural changes" can, as a matter of plausibility and possibility, arise in microevolutionary (creationist definition) steps. IOW if a "major" structural change can arise in stepwise fashion without any of the individual steps being "major".

Clearly and inarguably the difference between reptilian jaw bones and mammalian ear ossicles is both "major" and "structural". Equally clearly a stepwise transition between the two, without any step being "major" is at least possible because we actually have examples of the stages. Of course mainstream scientists think those examples actually are steps in a real transitional series, but even if you reject that the mere fact of being able to arrange even a hypothetical transition, if with real fossils, shows at least the possibility of achieving "major" change in "non-major" steps.

59 posted on 05/09/2007 12:30:46 PM PDT by Stultis (I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
I heard a rumor once that on occasion during the intra cellular replication process certain misalignments can occur.

So then when the tDNA makes a “mistake” things can run a little amok at the other end.

Funny, I also heard that when such events do occur they are almost always “negative” in their impact to the particular organism.

I sort of think that what I heard was that whenever the little amino acids do not line up correctly, the result is called a “mutation” and my Biology teacher a long time ago before he died once said to me that “all mutations” result in a degrading of the individual species.

This is one of the things that has long confused me, because I had the notion in my head that things were getting better all of the time, especially among biological organisms.

So then, anyhow, many years later, I decided to take Biology Courses again.

Now of course they do things very different. They don’t teach about plants & animals anymore.

Now they teach about “molecules” and cellular function and energy consumption and the sliding scales of O2 and lots of big words and how they interact and ATP results and then you get “action potentials” and stuff happens and life goes on, and procreation results.

I truly enjoyed that business about the "punctuated equilibrium" because I learned a lot about the history of professional baseball when I perused through the writings of Stephen J. Gould. He was very big on that "modify" thingy.

Of course they have real evidence of “evolution” happening in front of our eyes because some finches get bigger populations when it rains out, and smaller populations when it doesn’t. They also have those mosquitoes in the London Subway System to prove” stuff to us great unwashed.

The thing is, any group who insists that other views should not be allowed, expressed, or taught in a public setting is guilty of censorship. Pure and simple.

Censorship.

There is nothing new under the Helios.

60 posted on 05/09/2007 12:46:06 PM PDT by Radix (I live my life like there is no yesterday!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Stultis
I generally stay off the Crevo theads as a rule, but an item I have offered is about its context in the cultural, social, legal and educational rhelms.

Leftist Dewey-tainted educators have violated the Constitution by adopting an Established Religion. That established religion is secular humanism. The biggest proponents of treating evolution as a fact-instead-of-theory are not the scientific educators, but, instead the social science and liberal arts educators that want all God centered religious thought dismissed as superstition and use a bludgeon of Evolution to do so by offering to young minds the blank choice of either you believe in science or you believe in God. It is done subtlely, but it is given to most of our young in just that blank a manner.

Dewey, that over-rated star in the educators heaven, promoted secular humanism as a religion. Not only that, he promoted it to replace Christianity in cultural, educational and social spheres.

We are living in the case now where most of our governmental educational system has adopted it as an established religion and the entire dismissal of theistic belief is first advanced with evolution as an established fact to dismiss biblical creation or general creation in order to undermine all religious teachings.

61 posted on 05/09/2007 12:46:52 PM PDT by KC Burke (Men of intemperate minds can never be free...their passions forge their fetters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Stultis

well it is relevent inthat it shows that the ‘evidence’ is based on sketchy circumstances. There was no evidence shown by those hypothesising that the fossils (which could very plausibly have been deformed through the fossilization process) evolved an ear structure. While it is possible for MICRO evolution to move a certain feature, to suggest that it did happen in such a way as to construct and assemble the complex hearing systems we now enjoy is a far leap of conjecture and does nothign to show a transitional experience through genetic favouring of certain traits. As well, you speak of ‘quibbling’ yet, to ignore the biological impossibilities of even the ‘beginnings of life’ and then to set two fossils next to one another and suggest evolution is being witnessed, (while ignoring the more abundant differences) is as well nothing but quibbling about speculatives that ignore the problems and impossibilities of the biology included in abiogensis. It’s like saying I have gold that I beleive came from lead, and showing some similarities between the two by pointing out the wieghts are ‘close’ or the solidness of the two metals are similiar, or pointing out that both can be easily scratched etc. The ‘evidence’ for the ‘evolution of the ear’ is suspect at best, and there are no real ‘transitional stages’ that show the complete progression of the structures to the middle ear. Showing a jaw bone with a low structure, then one with a bit higher and another with a bit higher one yet shows nothign but variation within kinds and not a progressive ‘transition’ as has been purported by those who wish to beleive the process did happen.

I will cede that the fella should not have said ‘major structural changes’ can’t happen because even a loss of limbs can be major structural changes, and we know for fact that microevolution can produce this effect- however, the proper wording should have been now NEW information has been observed in nature showing the macroevolution of one species to another KIND. NEW information is needed for NEW organs to appear where no information for such organs exist-


62 posted on 05/09/2007 12:53:06 PM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Chuckmorse
Why evolution is a political question

Because, like global warming, it's religion passing itself off as science.

63 posted on 05/09/2007 12:54:32 PM 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 1 | View Replies]

To: Radix

you said: “The thing is, any group who insists that other views should not be allowed, expressed, or taught in a public setting is guilty of censorship. Pure and simple.”

Bingo- if the hypothesis of evolution is so sound, you’d think that there would be nothign to fear from opposing evidences- yet, because the hypothesis of evolution is so problematic and actually biologically impoissible, there is a need to keep that ‘durned crazy design based opposition’ out of the classroom in order to avoid the tough questions about the biological impossibilities of evolution


64 posted on 05/09/2007 12:58:46 PM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: DungeonMaster

Yup- speaking of which- RI students will now need to view ‘an inconvenient truth’ by al gore in order to graduate:

http://www.thesourcedaily.com/world-and-domestic-news/ri-students-must-watch-inconvenient-truth-to-graduate/


65 posted on 05/09/2007 1:00:10 PM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Jedi Master Pikachu

Creationism is a theological theory, which has it that God created the heavens and the earth out of nothing and that he stillsustains them. This is quite consistent with evolutionary theory provided that this theory is not confined to what Charles Darwin and Thomas Huxley taught almost century and a half ago or even to what is said today. Science is based on appearances and deductions from appearances. To a degree, so is faith. Jesus appeard to his disciples after his death and this is recorded. The materialist rejects what is recorded because nothing of the sort has appeared to him. Not content with this, many of them try to contend that the Gospels are fabrications as as to rule out any possibility of asking the question: Did the disciples really see Jesus? At bottom it is because they assume that such an event is impossible.


66 posted on 05/09/2007 1:02:38 PM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

Amazing....but then again not really. All part of why we homeschool and why I am not a big fan of a college education.


67 posted on 05/09/2007 1:15:35 PM 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 65 | View Replies]

To: Chuckmorse
While there is evidence of inter-species evolution, there is no proof of the basic thesis presented by Charles Darwin which is that one species evolves into another.

Isn't that the very definition of inter-species evolution? Evolving from one species into another? Perhaps the author confused inter- with intra-.

68 posted on 05/09/2007 1:54:12 PM PDT by Caesar Soze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CarrotAndStick

This shouldn’t have to be explained to any semi-educated adult. The fact that is does points up to a deliberate ignorance, or if you will, the simi-educated who really deserve simian descent.


69 posted on 05/09/2007 2:08:10 PM PDT by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Not debunked.

I have replied to Fido969. Please follow the exchanges therein, below.

70 posted on 05/09/2007 2:14:47 PM PDT by CarrotAndStick (The articles posted by me needn't necessarily reflect my opinion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Fido969
Over billions of years random actions should have reduced us to gamma rays flying around in 3 Celsius degree space, or maybe some clumps of atoms stuck together by gravitational forces.

Colossians 1:16-17
16. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.
17. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

71 posted on 05/09/2007 2:26:59 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: CarrotAndStick
Over those billion years, they can do amazing things.

This is REAL easy to say;
but REAL hard to show!

72 posted on 05/09/2007 2:29:04 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Stultis
This is certainly a "major structural change," but it occurred by tiny steps distributed across many different species.

And the 'scientists' are REAL sure about this!

73 posted on 05/09/2007 2:32:10 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Elsie; gcruse
Over those billion years, they can do amazing things.
This is REAL easy to say; but REAL hard to show!

Granted. Trying to make logical sequence in a scientific manner might seem easy. But what is much, much easier still, stupider even, by an exponential degree, is to rely on 2000-year-old tales desert travellers cooked up when they had nothing else to do in their camps.

74 posted on 05/09/2007 2:36:14 PM PDT by CarrotAndStick (The articles posted by me needn't necessarily reflect my opinion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

ID is a religious belief. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory.

 

(Whistling....)


75 posted on 05/09/2007 2:42:16 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
This shouldn’t have to be explained to any semi-educated adult.

A big-rig driver??

76 posted on 05/09/2007 2:45:56 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: CarrotAndStick
But what is much, much easier still, stupider even, by an exponential degree, is to rely on 2000-year-old tales desert travellers cooked up when they had nothing else to do in their camps.

Ah...Desert Tales...

Is THIS what they call them now, in Comparative Religion 101?

77 posted on 05/09/2007 2:48:30 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

LOL
That’s right.
You don’t have to tell a truck driver that the fuel going into his tanks reverses the entropy of sitting in the depot.


78 posted on 05/09/2007 2:50:18 PM PDT by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
And the 'scientists' are REAL sure about this!

Yep! So sure that they PREDICTED many of the specifics of how this transition took place BEFORE the fossils were found. For instance, since the mammalian ear bones are involved in the reptilian jaw joint, and an animal obviously can't chew without a jaw joint, it was predicted that some critters among the "mammal-like reptiles" must have had a double jointed jaw, with both the reptilian and the mammalian articulations operative in the same creature.

There's not reason on earth to predict such a thing apart from the assumption that the transition really took place, must have done so by gradual steps, and basically that evolution is true (mammals did evolve from reptiles). But indeed exactly such critters were subsequently found as fossils.

79 posted on 05/09/2007 2:55:51 PM PDT by Stultis (I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Stultis

Interesting. Thanks for that.


80 posted on 05/09/2007 2:59:46 PM PDT by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

Calling it whatever, the fact remains it doesn’t explain the world around us as much as modern science does. It is clueless about 65-million year old dinosaur fossils, for instance. Or about the Earth being spherical, or of it going around the Sun, and not the other way round.


81 posted on 05/09/2007 2:59:46 PM PDT by CarrotAndStick (The articles posted by me needn't necessarily reflect my opinion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: CarrotAndStick; Elsie

Ah, now you’re talking my language! I could tell you stories!

http://www.cellardining.com/desserts.html


82 posted on 05/09/2007 3:04:00 PM PDT by durasell (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Elsie; Coyoteman
I've always wondered:

The critter that was chimp's and my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grampa - did he have thumbs on his feet or not?

If not, then chimps ARE more 'evolved' than us, for they got these OTHER two tool holders on the ends of their legs.

If so, then WE have managed to LOSE those two wonderful tool holders!

Go figger...

"It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but rather the one most responsive to change."

- Charles Darwin.

83 posted on 05/09/2007 3:05:58 PM PDT by CarrotAndStick (The articles posted by me needn't necessarily reflect my opinion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: durasell

Interesting. However, stories we’ll reserve for bedtime, when the Desert Tale Theories have to be put to rest...


84 posted on 05/09/2007 3:07:16 PM PDT by CarrotAndStick (The articles posted by me needn't necessarily reflect my opinion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
to suggest that it did happen in such a way as to construct and assemble the complex hearing systems we now enjoy is a far leap of conjecture

No, it isn't actually. The fossil evidence is good, and even if we didn't have that you can actually SEE the relevant bones moving from the jaw into the ear during the embryological development of some mammals. This has been observed specifically in kangaroos.

There's no question of the homologies involved.

85 posted on 05/09/2007 3:10:57 PM PDT by Stultis (I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: durasell
I've been enjoying something  similar from Wal-Mart lately.

86 posted on 05/09/2007 3:13:35 PM PDT by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: CarrotAndStick

You cannot change someone’s belief system with logic or science.


87 posted on 05/09/2007 3:14:46 PM PDT by durasell (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: gcruse

Is there a tale behind that?


88 posted on 05/09/2007 3:15:34 PM PDT by durasell (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: durasell

I’ve noticed that.

If they weren’t reasoned into it, they can’t be reasoned out of it. That’s the danger of voluntary suspension of critical facilities.


89 posted on 05/09/2007 3:16:09 PM PDT by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: gcruse

Science and religious belief are not mutually exclusive. Yet there is a belief that they are incompatible. We’ve yet to see the full impact of the demonization of Darwin.


90 posted on 05/09/2007 3:18:55 PM PDT by durasell (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: durasell

I can try, can’t I?

;^)

Lols aside, I know you have a point, but every blow makes a crack, no matter how tiny.


91 posted on 05/09/2007 3:19:42 PM PDT by CarrotAndStick (The articles posted by me needn't necessarily reflect my opinion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: CarrotAndStick

Arguing — even logically — just strengthens faith. Add to that the fact that folks no longer trust logical arguments of any complexity — they feel they’re being tricked in some way to betray what they “know to be true.”


92 posted on 05/09/2007 3:22:23 PM PDT by durasell (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: durasell

That category of humanoids, I truly fear!

;^)


93 posted on 05/09/2007 3:25:23 PM PDT by CarrotAndStick (The articles posted by me needn't necessarily reflect my opinion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: durasell

When people have to be ‘tricked’ into thinking for themselves, something’s wrong.


94 posted on 05/09/2007 3:25:24 PM PDT by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: gcruse; CarrotAndStick
The world’s complicated and scary. Most people want to live their lives in peace without a lot of complications.

Trust of the MSM is at an all time low. Trust of the gubmint is at an all time low. Stuff is happening they don’t quite understand, but intuitively fear.

Where should they put their trust?

95 posted on 05/09/2007 3:30:22 PM PDT by durasell (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: durasell
We’ve yet to see the full impact of the demonization of Darwin.

Frankly, I think we should replace all science textbooks with illustrations like this detail from a mosaic in the Florence Baptistry.

Life before science was nasty, brutish and short. We may yet see a return to the Dark Ages if this nonsense continues.

96 posted on 05/09/2007 3:37:00 PM PDT by Alter Kaker (Gravitation is a theory, not a fact. It should be approached with an open mind...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

Won’t happen. It’s just that the world will divide up real quick.


97 posted on 05/09/2007 3:39:19 PM PDT by durasell (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: durasell
Where should they put their trust?

Some people don't even try to deal with issues.  This from a Freeper:

"God does NOT help those who help themselves
. That isn’t even in the Bible. God helps those who surrender their problems to Him and allow Him to work them out."

Pretty frightening, eh?

98 posted on 05/09/2007 3:41:06 PM PDT by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: durasell
The world’s complicated and scary. Most people want to live their lives in peace without a lot of complications.

I could bet good money on saying that I've mentioned the exact same to someone here a couple of weeks ago. Almost ditto, it feels like deja-vu!

:^)

99 posted on 05/09/2007 3:42:32 PM PDT by CarrotAndStick (The articles posted by me needn't necessarily reflect my opinion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
Pretty frightening, eh?

Words fail me, unsurprisingly, though. At this day and age? Going by the said person's "experiences" I find it unfair that I'm not able to bring up an any-time, narcotic-free high like that. I have more than a few problems to surrender, were it so easy!

We have very, very interesting days ahead of us. All the best! Lol!

100 posted on 05/09/2007 3:48:39 PM PDT by CarrotAndStick (The articles posted by me needn't necessarily reflect my opinion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-331 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