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

Skip to comments.

Intelligent Design and the Death of the "Junk-DNA" Neo-Darwinian Paradigm
Discovery Institute ^ | June 15, 2007 | Casey Luskin

Posted on 06/16/2007 1:09:15 AM PDT by balch3

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-130 next last
To: Coyoteman
==If ID and creation “science” were about science, then facts, logic, and reason — scientific evidence — would prevail. What shows that ID and creation “science” are both religion is that belief (scripture or revelation) prevails over scientific evidence.

Actually, it was your very own Richard Dawkins who said that “The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question...”

And the fact that you keep mixing up Creation Science with Intelligent Design indicates that you are ignorant about both.

51 posted on 06/16/2007 10:43:24 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: norton
CLARIFICATION/CORRECTION:

"It's wasn't a prediction, it was a statement of accepted fact."

Thank you:

I will accept: "Sounds to me as though they predicted that
"The things we don't know are just as important as the things we think we do know. That it is foolish, in fact dangerous, to ignore them. And that it is disingenuous to ignore them because the prevailing bias has relegated them to 'junk'" as fact.

And be quite happy to do so.

52 posted on 06/16/2007 10:47:17 AM PDT by norton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: ndt

No, they predict that most of what the Darwinists call “junk DNA” will later turn out to be functional DNA. It’s a solid prediction that flies in the face of Darwinist expectations, and science is starting to confirm the the same.


53 posted on 06/16/2007 10:57:06 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods
We need a citation on that one.

It's going to be someone other than a journalist. After all, there had been (up to a few months ago) a thriving school of neo-Darwinian thought that held that "junk DNA" segments were leftovers from antiquated or functionally discarded and/or "broken" genes, and were being moved thorugh evolutionary methods into non-existence.

More recently we've been hearing that we have retro-viruses "inserted" into our genomes that do incredible things such as controlling the size of the brain, making the placenta functional, etc., etc.

Pretty profound stuff to me if not to you ~ and not at all a surprise if life as we know it here on this little planet in a vast cosmos was "designed" in some "life factory" somewhere, some time in the distant past ~ maybe even in a different universe.

54 posted on 06/16/2007 11:07:24 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: DaGman
ID is also included as a distinct possibility in the Panspermia thesis.

Ergo, ID is not just another restatement of Creationism, particularly if our particular form of life is just a clustering of bio-engines and sensors useful in machines the function of which we cannot yet imagine.

55 posted on 06/16/2007 11:11:07 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
A late 2006 poll by CBS showed that:

Belief system

Creationist view 55%

Theistic evolution 27%

Naturalistic Evolution 13%


56 posted on 06/16/2007 11:12:19 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: fabian

“In many cases darwinists assume they know and then go out and teach that mislead assumption only to find that they don’t know.”

Your statement is unfair. Those who believe in evolution are the ones who made this discovery. It didn’t have anything to do with the Discovery Institute or those who support Intelligent Design. Scientists had a theory that the dna was a relic, and therefore not important. It has been disproven by the scientists who made this discovery. That is how it is supposed to work.

If the Discovery Institute had actually made this scientific discovery, I would be impressed. But I don’t know that they actually do any scientific research. It appears that they criticize the works of those doing the research, but provide little of their own scientific research data.

This results of this study are being used to criticize those who support evolution. But, those who support evolution are the ones that have done this study, made the discovery and published the results. They did not make an assumption and treat it as fact. They made an assumption, tested it scientifically, and shared the results with others. Even though the results are not what was expected, it is an advancement in science, which will be taught to students.


57 posted on 06/16/2007 11:24:02 AM PDT by ga medic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
"Pretty profound stuff to me if not to you ~ and not at all a surprise if life as we know it here on this little planet in a vast cosmos was "designed" in some "life factory" somewhere, some time in the distant past ~ maybe even in a different universe"

As long as we're demanding citations....

58 posted on 06/16/2007 11:30:05 AM PDT by muir_redwoods (Free Sirhan Sirhan, after all, the bastard who killed Mary Jo Kopechne is walking around free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods
Sorry, my data base doesn't go back that far, but I think eventually we'll figure this out ~ probably by reading higher level codes in our DNA.

There's gotta' be something roughly the equivalent of a "Patent Pending" followed by a long number in there.

59 posted on 06/16/2007 11:33:20 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: balch3
I’m confused. Does this mean scientists aren’t really part of a conspiracy against creationism?
60 posted on 06/16/2007 11:39:30 AM PDT by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mark was here

Who is to say that God has not used evolution with a push here or there to get us where we are today.We have no imperical data either way....The existance of God can neither be proven or disproven although I believe a Supreme being exists,


61 posted on 06/16/2007 11:41:51 AM PDT by Papabear47
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

only the ones with blinders on who have been brainwashed by the atheistic religion of Darwinism.


62 posted on 06/16/2007 12:03:10 PM PDT by balch3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Wilhelm Tell
It seems presumptous to call a sequence “junk” just because you don’t see its function.

Not if you are a Darwinian. Randomness implies "chaos and puposelessness" i.e. "junk". ID implies "direction and purpose".

Randomness is a subset of Darwinian thinking. That could predespose a Darwinist not to question the metaphor "junk" but an ID'er would more likely than not assume the "junk" was in fact somehow useful stuff. And it was up to science to discover its purpose.


63 posted on 06/16/2007 12:47:03 PM PDT by Donald Rumsfeld Fan (NY Times: "fake but accurate")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Paradox
Despite what is posted, no one seriously thought that "Junk" DNA was never going to be found to have a function.

If there is no 'junk' DNA, i.e. DNA that now serves no purpose as the species has evolved, that would seem to be a problem for evolutionary theory.

64 posted on 06/16/2007 1:00:21 PM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
"Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."

But what if the "materialist world view" is false? And the "theistic world view" is true? Should we then stick to a false theory in order to prop up a false world view?

65 posted on 06/16/2007 1:03:40 PM PDT by Donald Rumsfeld Fan (NY Times: "fake but accurate")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: balch3
only the ones with blinders on who have been brainwashed by the atheistic religion of Darwinism.

There is nothing atheistic about Darwinism or evolution. The world is the way it is. If you think the truth we discover about the world threatens the existence of God then your faith is very weak.

66 posted on 06/16/2007 2:10:24 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Wilhelm Tell
It seems presumptous to call a sequence “junk” just because you
don’t see its function.


A similar situation existed in natural product chemistry.
The term "secondary products" was applied to many compounds extracted
from plants that didn't seem to fit into any of the "primary" compounds
that were involved in the main metabolic pathways.
The chemists didn't presume the secondary compounds were junk...
they were just classified as something usually not critically
important to the plant, but not yet assigned a role.
Over the years we've found they play roles in plant defense,
allelopathy, and other functions unsuspected previously.
67 posted on 06/16/2007 2:19:10 PM PDT by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody
If there is no 'junk' DNA, i.e. DNA that now serves no purpose as the species has evolved, that would seem to be a problem for evolutionary theory.

According to whom?This is not the case.

68 posted on 06/16/2007 4:01:41 PM PDT by Paradox (Remember Reagan's 11th Commandment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
A late 2006 poll by CBS showed that: Belief system

Creationist view 55%

Theistic evolution 27%

Naturalistic Evolution 13%

Irrelevant. Although personally, I am somewhat disposed to #2.

69 posted on 06/16/2007 4:04:35 PM PDT by Paradox (Remember Reagan's 11th Commandment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Paradox

It’s not irrelevant in terms of latent political potential should ID begin to get the upper hand.


70 posted on 06/16/2007 6:32:08 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Public Opionion polls are no way to conduct this kind of science.


71 posted on 06/16/2007 6:38:05 PM PDT by Paradox (Remember Reagan's 11th Commandment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: ga medic

well that’s a good start. They should never had tried to prejudiced students minds by calling the unknown “junk dna.” That is typical of darwinists...not very honest without even knowing it. Many other holes in the evolution theory are kept out of the classroom along with the competing theories of ID and creationism. It is not that they are not valid as some very deceived minds would have us believe. THe facts prove otherwise...the darkness which has a grip on so many learned minds simply can’t stand the truth so it just tries to claim it is not science. He was always a liar from the beginning and now does his most crafty work through unwitting scientists and teachers. I am glad the evidence is so available nowadays largely through the internet.


72 posted on 06/16/2007 6:43:34 PM PDT by fabian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: fabian
THe facts prove otherwise...the darkness which has a grip on so many learned minds simply can’t stand the truth so it just tries to claim it is not science. He was always a liar from the beginning and now does his most crafty work through unwitting scientists and teachers.


I recommend:

Sagan, Carl
  1996  The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. Random House Inc., New York.

73 posted on 06/16/2007 7:13:28 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

thanks...is Sagan revealing a belief in the spirit world in that book?


74 posted on 06/16/2007 7:20:09 PM PDT by fabian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: fabian
thanks...is Sagan revealing a belief in the spirit world in that book?

No.

75 posted on 06/16/2007 7:22:19 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Paradox
==Public Opionion polls are no way to conduct this kind of science.

Of course not. But if ID scientists manage to convince the public that Darwin’s theory of origins is untenable, then we have the numbers to make a very rapid sweep of the Church of Darwin’s stranglehold on the ideology of science.

76 posted on 06/16/2007 7:33:58 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
But if ID scientists manage to convince the public that Darwin’s theory of origins is untenable, then we have the numbers to make a very rapid sweep of the Church of Darwin’s stranglehold on the ideology of science.

Disproving the theory of evolution would not "prove" ID. For that, you have to have scientific evidence.

And if there was so much scientific evidence for ID, the Discovery Institute would not be running a PR campaign instead of conducting scientific research.

Face it, they are pushing religion under the guise of science. And so far, they have not reached even the level of junk science. Read the court testimony of the Dover case, and see what the folks pushing ID admitted to when they were under oath and had to tell the truth.

77 posted on 06/16/2007 7:40:17 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

it’s happening the more we learn about the incredible complexities of creation. Most people are not as confused and mislead as die hard darwinists. A brainfull of false knowledge is a very big burden!


78 posted on 06/16/2007 7:49:11 PM PDT by fabian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
==isproving the theory of evolution would not “prove” ID.

I assume you mean Darwin’s theory of evolution. There are many competing theories of evolution just waiting for their chance. But disproving Darwin’s theory would certainly remove the current gatekeepers tasked with preventing ID from becoming a mainstream scientific research project.

79 posted on 06/16/2007 7:50:37 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: balch3
Stephen Meyer explaining that this is a prediction of intelligent design

Uh, yeah. Hey, Steve, how is "this is a prediction of intelligent design"? [...cue crickets...]

IOW how do otherwise unexpected, and usefully specific, predictions about the function of DNA sequences follow deductively from the mechanisms and empirical claims of ID. (Especially when ID has no mechanism and makes no empirical claims!)

80 posted on 06/16/2007 7:56:14 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 1 | View Replies]

To: fabian
==A brainfull of false knowledge is a very big burden!

AKA brainwashing. That is precisely what Richard Dawkins et al are doing when they use our public schools to brainwash OUR children into believing that the very living things that “overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design” are but an illusion. If that isn’t false religion, I don’t know what is!

81 posted on 06/16/2007 7:59:58 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
But disproving Darwin’s theory would certainly remove the current gatekeepers tasked with preventing ID from becoming a mainstream scientific research project.

Oh, yeah, preventing IDers from doing actual, original and relevant scientific research advancing ID. The gatekeepers we evilutionists assign to this task is based on the difficulty. Currently we have one small boy and his puppy dog handling this. Part time.

82 posted on 06/16/2007 8:03:28 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 79 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
disproving the theory of evolution would not “prove” ID.

I assume you mean Darwin’s theory of evolution. There are many competing theories of evolution just waiting for their chance. But disproving Darwin’s theory would certainly remove the current gatekeepers tasked with preventing ID from becoming a mainstream scientific research project.

If the theory of evolution is disproved, it will be by another scientific theory. That is unlikely, but possible.

That would make it even harder for ID to replace the new theory of evolution.

The one thing that is preventing ID from "becoming a mainstream scientific research project" is that it is inspired by religious belief, not science! The vast majority of ID proponents are Christian creationists, who believe the Bible is the ultimate authority. When they try to do science it is transparently obvious where their beliefs lie, and their beliefs are not in the scientific method.

Look at your own FR name: GodGunsGuts. It is not IDGunsGuts, or ScienceGunsGuts.

A significant percentage of folks who argue for ID also quote scripture, suggest those who support the theory of evolution are destined to hell, and exhibit other characteristics which suggest that it is not science, but pushing religion, that is their primary motivation.

Why should we believe for a minute that ID is anything more than creation "science" warmed over after the Supreme Court decision of the late 1980s?

83 posted on 06/16/2007 8:05:38 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

==And if there was so much scientific evidence for ID, the Discovery Institute would not be running a PR campaign instead of conducting scientific research.

I hate to break it to you, but that’s the way the real world works. Both sides are engaged in intense PR campaigns. One side is holding on for dear life, while the other side is trying to become mainstream. What do you think “Darwin’s bulldog” was doing when he was going around trying to sell Darwin’s theory of origins?


84 posted on 06/16/2007 8:07:38 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

==If the theory of evolution is disproved, it will be by another scientific theory. That is unlikely, but possible.

Not true. It is possible to falsify bad science with good science without ever having to provide an explanation of the same. For instance, there have been a number of diseases that were thought to be contagious that were proved to be non-contagious without knowing the underlying cause of the disease (ie scurvy, pallegra, beri-beri, etc). This kind of thing happens all the time in science. And in many cases, science cannot provide the explanation until much later.


85 posted on 06/16/2007 8:21:54 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
If the theory of evolution is disproved, it will be by another scientific theory. That is unlikely, but possible.

Not true. It is possible to falsify bad science with good science without ever having to provide an explanation of the same. For instance, there have been a number of diseases that were thought to be contagious that were proved to be non-contagious without knowing the underlying cause of the disease (ie scurvy, pallegra, beri-beri, etc). This kind of thing happens all the time in science. And in many cases, science cannot provide the explanation until much later.

Causes for specific diseases are not well-supported theories, as is the theory of evolution. Your comparison is not accurate.

To overturn the theory of evolution, it will require a competing scientific theory with more explanatory power, power to explain facts which the theory of evolution cannot explain. It will require a theory with better predictive power.

Hint: ID is not even close to being a scientific theory. For the most part it is not even science.

Lets try a test! What is the opinion of ID on these questions: How may IDers where there, and what is the basis for your answer? When did ID occur, and what is the basis for your answer?

86 posted on 06/16/2007 8:33:59 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
==Look at your own FR name: GodGunsGuts. It is not IDGunsGuts, or ScienceGunsGuts.

My screenname is DESIGNED to emphasize that God, guns and guts made America free—and that includes the freedom to pursue science. And while there are many benefits of science, science did not make America free. Science is but a tool used to investigate the nature of things, and thus infinitely inferior to nature’s God.

87 posted on 06/16/2007 8:35:01 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

==To overturn the theory of evolution, it will require a competing scientific theory with more explanatory power, power to explain facts which the theory of evolution cannot explain. It will require a theory with better predictive power.

Wrong again. All you need to do is falsify Darwin’s theory of origins. There’s no need to replace it. Although, it would by definition mean that we are closer to replacing it if only by process of elimination.


88 posted on 06/16/2007 8:37:42 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Look at your own FR name: GodGunsGuts. It is not IDGunsGuts, or ScienceGunsGuts.

My screenname is DESIGNED to emphasize that God, guns and guts made America free—and that includes the freedom to pursue science. And while there are many benefits of science, science did not make America free. Science is but a tool used to investigate the nature of things, and thus infinitely inferior to nature’s God.

Exactly! I realize that this where your belief lies. That is why I can't accept that you really support ID as a scientific study separate from creationism.

You realize that for IDers, intelligent aliens are equal to some "unnamed designer" or the Christian Deity, don't you? That is what they tell us! "We're looking for design, but we don't know (wink, wink) who the designer is!"

Do you begin to see why those of us who actually study the theory of evolution can't take ID seriously? It's religion in a new package, trying to sneak into the science classes where creationism and then creation "science" failed.

89 posted on 06/16/2007 8:45:05 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

==Hint: ID is not even close to being a scientific theory.

Again, there is no need for ID to comprehensively explain the origin of life. If all ID does is find incidences of design in nature, that’s enough. SETI does not seek to to explain the origin of species, and yet it is considered a scientific research project. And besides, ID disproves Darwinian evolution every time it shows that design is a better explanation for any given biological phenomena.


90 posted on 06/16/2007 8:46:55 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
ID and Creation Science are not the same. Certain aspects of ID can be fit into Creation Science, but Creation Science cannot be fit into ID. They are two different research projects. But as Richard Dawkins admits, they are both asking imminently scientific questions...even if he does think the evidence favors Darwinian evolution.
91 posted on 06/16/2007 8:51:46 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Again, there is no need for ID to comprehensively explain the origin of life.

I agree. The theory of evolution does not seek to explain the origin of life either.


If all ID does is find incidences of design in nature, that’s enough.

False! Finding design in nature is easy. Look at snowflakes! That does not prove a designer. You have a major step to fill in there.


SETI does not seek to to explain the origin of species, and yet it is considered a scientific research project.

?????? That is a pretty disconnected statement. Why should SETI explain the origin of species when the theory of evolution handles that quite well? SETI is just looking for signals of a kind that are known to associate with our own civilization, under the assumption that those signals would signify intelligent civilizations elsewhere. What does that have to do with the origin of species?


And besides, ID disproves Darwinian evolution every time it shows that design is a better explanation for any given biological phenomena.

And it has yet to come even close. ID is simply religion lite, and it's not fooling anybody.

92 posted on 06/16/2007 8:56:37 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods
"More desperate babbling by the ID-iot crowd."

When you resort to personal insults, you pretty much admit that you cannot argue the facts on their merits. So much of Evolution has been exposed as fraud and charlatanry that I'm surprised anyone still arguing its validity would dare pose as an academic at all.

While there is ample evidence for Creation, there exists no evidence whatever for Evolution. None.

;-/

93 posted on 06/16/2007 9:03:01 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 9 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
==I agree. The theory of evolution does not seek to explain the origin of life either.

Wrong. The theory of evolution has been extended to attempt to explain the origin of life. Ever hear of the so-called pre-biotic soup?

==False! Finding design in nature is easy. Look at snowflakes! That does not prove a designer. You have a major step to fill in there.

I’m not even going to dignify your sophomoric example with an answer. I suggest you study up on ID before attempting to link non-informational order with the requirements of INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

==SETI is just looking for signals of a kind that are known to associate with our own civilization, under the assumption that those signals would signify intelligent civilizations elsewhere.

They are looking for evidence of intelligence in the universe in much the same way that ID searches for intelligence in nature. Again, study up on ID before making such claims.

==And it has yet to come even close. ID is simply religion lite, and it’s not fooling anybody.

I’m not sure what planet you flew in from, but by my count ID (and Creation Science) is disproving Darwinian evolution left and right.

94 posted on 06/16/2007 9:14:37 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
I particularly enjoy the huge dinosaur footprints imbedded in petrified mud in Texas... with human footprints petrified right inside of them.

When "Nova" showed up to film the discovery, the producers scrapped the footage because it so plainly disproved any notion of Evolution being credible.

Kind of makes Evolutionists look silly, since it is an unimpeachable geoligical record of humans existing right alongside the same creatures which The Theory of Evolution insists all died out "over 60 million years ago..."

Get a grip. Your religion (Evolution) is built upon lies. The Biblical record is unbroken and accurately goes back to the beginning of all time (between 8,000-10,000 years).

;-/

95 posted on 06/16/2007 9:19:47 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 89 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

After your last post it is clear we have no rational basis for discussion. Good night.


96 posted on 06/16/2007 9:20:56 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Gargantua

Correction: “geological”


97 posted on 06/16/2007 9:21:48 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 95 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
"...no rational basis for discussion."

You've got that right! Good night.

;-/

98 posted on 06/16/2007 9:24:31 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 96 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

exactly.


99 posted on 06/16/2007 9:27:32 PM PDT by balch3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

As I said before, may your night be as peaceful as the night Guillermo Gonzalez learned his tenure was denied by the Church of Darwin.


100 posted on 06/16/2007 9:29:49 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-130 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