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

Skip to comments.

Can America Survive Evolutionary Humanism?
Mens News Daily ^ | June 19, 2007 | Linda Kimball

Posted on 06/20/2007 5:24:39 AM PDT by spirited irish

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 561-579 next last
To: Vaquero
What the creationists due is put their faith in a book that was written by bronze age dwellers of the middle east.

Evolutionists put their faith in a book written by a man on a long sea voyage with nothing better to do with his time.

41 posted on 06/20/2007 6:45:41 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: GraniteStateConservative
We don’t stone people for gathering firewood on the Sabbath, at least.

No, (some) evolutionists just gas Jews for being, well, Jews.

42 posted on 06/20/2007 6:55:12 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (Fred Thompson is Duncan Hunter without the training wheels)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Except that there is more science to support evolution than there is, for example, to support Noah's flood.

No, there's not. There's not a shred of actual evidence that would independently support macroevolution, if one didn't approach the matter from a preconceived evolutionary worldview. Evolution is a "spin", not a science.

43 posted on 06/20/2007 6:57:03 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (Fred Thompson is Duncan Hunter without the training wheels)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero

Evolution proponents (I include myself) know how life progressed from lesser to more complex forms, but the actual origin can only be speculated on.

I would say you only think you know, actually you only believe in your theory, no more, because you have no proof only the beliefs of like thinking individuals.


44 posted on 06/20/2007 6:57:34 AM PDT by ontap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero
yes there are holes in the fossil records.

Saying that there are holes in the fossil record to justify the complete lack of intermediary fossil structures is like arguing that a few welfare pimps are the reason why the whole welfare system is broken.

if the whole thing were laid bare with all the possible combinations and evolutionary changes I would then believe in creationism, because it would be a MIRACLE to have find all that stuff and it would have had to be exposed to us all at once by a supreme intellect.

So, instead you'll put your faith in a pseudo-scientific philosophy like evolution which rests on partial evidence which doesn't even actually support the philosophy?

YOU'RE faith is strong, my friend....

45 posted on 06/20/2007 7:01:42 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (Fred Thompson is Duncan Hunter without the training wheels)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Evolutionists put their faith in a book written by a man on a long sea voyage with nothing better to do with his time.

yes and physicists put their faith in a man who failed high school math. and rocket scientists put their faith in a man who built terror weapons for the Nazi's....

the man you deride, was a scientist who went on a voyage of discovery and yes he had nothing better to do.....whats your point?

46 posted on 06/20/2007 7:03:22 AM PDT by Vaquero (" an armed society is a polite society" Heinlein "MOLON LABE!" Leonidas of Sparta)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

So, instead you’ll put your faith in a pseudo-scientific philosophy like evolution which rests on partial evidence which doesn’t even actually support the philosophy?

Actually they put their faith in the belief that a rock came to life. And accuse us of believing in a myth!


47 posted on 06/20/2007 7:05:50 AM PDT by ontap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
Well, evolutionism has served as a philosophical enabler for everything from totalitarian Communism to eugenics and Nazism, for one.

Are you making the argument that none of those philosophies would exist without being able to rely on having the ToE to abuse, and that America cannot deal with those philosophies or survive if they exist at all?

48 posted on 06/20/2007 7:08:35 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: spirited irish

bump o’rama


49 posted on 06/20/2007 7:13:42 AM PDT by ▀udda▀udd (7 days - 7 ways Guero >>> with a floating, shifting, ever changing persona....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Are you making the argument that none of those philosophies would exist without being able to rely on having the ToE to abuse, and that America cannot deal with those philosophies or survive if they exist at all?

Nope, I think you read far too much into what I said. I *would* say that those philosophies did/do desire our destruction (whether they can or not depends on us), so why should I countenance a philosophy which underlies them and gave them a basis for their existence?

50 posted on 06/20/2007 7:14:07 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (Fred Thompson is Duncan Hunter without the training wheels)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero

What you’re ignoring. Discrediting the Bible because it was written by a *bunch of bronze age goat herders* (which by the way is not true) and then basing a whole theory on the writings of one man is inconsistent. If the Bible lacks credibility because it was authored by men, then anything else authored by men deserves the same consideration.

BTW, you should check up on who it was that wrote the books of the Bible. Perhaps you could then identify for us the goat-herders who wrote it because I’m coming up short on goat herder authors.


51 posted on 06/20/2007 7:15:14 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
Nope, I think you read far too much into what I said. I *would* say that those philosophies did/do desire our destruction (whether they can or not depends on us), so why should I countenance a philosophy which underlies them and gave them a basis for their existence?

You can't very well maintain that the philosophy "gave them their basis for existence", while denying that your're claiming they would never have existed without it.

52 posted on 06/20/2007 7:16:22 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
No, (some) evolutionists just gas Jews for being, well, Jews.

"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter."

-- that guy you're talking about (who also lauded Martin Luther as a great German for having translated the Bible)

Don't try to tie him to us. He's one of your'n.

53 posted on 06/20/2007 7:17:59 AM PDT by GraniteStateConservative (...He had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here...-- Worst.President.Ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: GraniteStateConservative

Guess you’ve never heard of “metaphor”, hunh?


54 posted on 06/20/2007 7:20:27 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (Fred Thompson is Duncan Hunter without the training wheels)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: ontap

They put their faith in a science that demonstrates that spontaneous generation is impossible and yet expect us to believe that somehow life came into existence out of some chemical soup, in defiance of spontaneous generation.

Spontaneous generation is impossible but life came from non-life.

That takes faith as well, to believe that something happened in direct contradiction to what evidence the scientific method provides and they teach.

OK.


55 posted on 06/20/2007 7:21:20 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
while denying that your're claiming they would never have existed without it.

And when did I claim either of those things?

56 posted on 06/20/2007 7:22:59 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (Fred Thompson is Duncan Hunter without the training wheels)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
No, there's not. There's not a shred of actual evidence that would independently support macroevolution, if one didn't approach the matter from a preconceived evolutionary worldview. Evolution is a "spin", not a science.

So all those biologist and anthropologist and geneticists and paleontologists and geologists and anyone else who doesn't sign on to the Biblical account of creation are deliberately basing their entire body of work on nothing? That there is, as you claim, not a shred of factual evidence but instead its all made up? No lack of ego in that claim of your's, is there?

And so you're claiming there IS more evidence for Noah than evolution?

57 posted on 06/20/2007 7:24:18 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
And when did I claim either of those things?

Do you believe (or expect me to believe) that saying the philosophy is their basis for existence doesn't imply that they would not have existed without it?

58 posted on 06/20/2007 7:28:24 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr
What is an abyss of naturalism? It is the hole that swallows up any meaningful statement of morality, meaning, or even in the final analysis, basis for belief in rationality. It is quite amusing to watch the naturalists prate about the bad ethics of creationists (some of the statements of creationists ARE quite bad), when naturalism reduces all ethics to personal choice. People without a worldview firmly rooted in the concept of an immanent and transcendent creator - God have "both feet planted firmly in the air" when it comes to meaning, morals, epistemology, and even their precious "laws of science." The last of these is particularly amusing to watch, as you try to help the dunderheads realize that there is no POSSIBLILTY of "laws of science" without the concept of transcendent absolutes. There is statistical probablility, and nothing more. Moreover, even that probabilility, given the expanse of the universe and the tiny bit of knowledge we have about it, is fairly shitty. These people remind me of little children who cover their eyes with their hands and then declare that you are not there because you are outside their field of vision.

The "abyss of naturalism" is the hole that eventually swallows science itself.

59 posted on 06/20/2007 7:33:18 AM PDT by DreamsofPolycarp (Libertarianism: u can run your life better than government can, and should be left alone to do it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
So all those biologist and anthropologist and geneticists and paleontologists and geologists and anyone else who doesn't sign on to the Biblical account of creation are deliberately basing their entire body of work on nothing? That there is, as you claim, not a shred of factual evidence but instead its all made up? No lack of ego in that claim of your's, is there?

I'm saying that they're interpreting legitimate empirical observations THROUGH their preconceived philsophical system, to arrive at the conclusions necessary for their system to maintain its internal consistency.

Evolutionists, for instance, will point to genetics, and say, "There ya go", as if the mere existence of genetics was, in and of itself, proof of evolution. But it's not. Genetics is merely the empirical observation that organisms pass on heredity to their descendants, and the subsequent determination through empirical experimentation of the mechanism by which this takes place. However, the fact of heredity and intraspeciation is not, itself, proof for macroevolution, which is a whole 'nuther ballgame that relies on speculations not supported by either laboratory experimentation, nor from substantiating evidences from other fields (i.e. no fossil intermediates, no increase in information-carrying capacity through mutation, etc.)

And so you're claiming there IS more evidence for Noah than evolution?

Yes. In fact, the small populations of "kinds" present after the Noah event are a better explanation for the rapid speciation within kind that Is observed in the fossil records. Small populations interbreeding after being separated from each other geographically (so no intercourse between two populations) leads to greatly accelerated differentiation between populations, especially in species with short lifespans and/or frequent mating periods.

60 posted on 06/20/2007 7:36:12 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (Fred Thompson is Duncan Hunter without the training wheels)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 561-579 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