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

Skip to comments.

Creationism makes a comeback in US
abc news ^ | Mon Jun 25, 2007 11:24am AEST | Mark Simkin

Posted on 06/25/2007 5:55:14 PM PDT by Alien Syndrome

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-238 next last
To: Coyoteman

One of the recent bird/dinosaur fossils was found to be
a hoax...even National Geographic magazine ran with it
for a while, then had to retract their statements. I
think this was in the late 90’s or early 2000’s.
Some of the drawings of Ernst Haeckel(sp?) in his famous series
of the embryological development of different species
were found to have been falsified. Even as early as 1972
my textbook on embryology recognized that the drawings
left much to be desired. I think one can remember the
phrase “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny”...I don’t
think that concept and it’s proof(the drawings) are taught
anymore, cause later research has shown that there are
great differences if the embryos of different species
at the same “stage”, and the drawings were glossed over
to make the theory of “orp” seem true.
Not that it really matters, but that’s a total of three
...can anyone remember any more off the top of their head?


101 posted on 06/25/2007 9:09:21 PM PDT by Getready (Truth and wisdom are more elusive, and valuable, than gold and diamonds)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Getready
One of the recent bird/dinosaur fossils was found to be a hoax...even National Geographic magazine ran with it for a while, then had to retract their statements. I think this was in the late 90’s or early 2000’s. Some of the drawings of Ernst Haeckel(sp?) in his famous series of the embryological development of different species were found to have been falsified. Even as early as 1972 my textbook on embryology recognized that the drawings left much to be desired. I think one can remember the phrase “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny”...I don’t think that concept and it’s proof(the drawings) are taught anymore, cause later research has shown that there are great differences if the embryos of different species at the same “stage”, and the drawings were glossed over to make the theory of “orp” seem true. Not that it really matters, but that’s a total of three ...can anyone remember any more off the top of their head?

So, you claimed there were hoaxes all over the place and you can't come up with more then two?

But what about that Chinese "hoax"? That was a fraud by a local Chinese fellow trying for a few extra bucks for his fossil. That fooled National Geographic for a while, but scientists quickly sniffed out the fraud and exposed it. To try and claim that as a "hoax" by evolutionary scientists is absolutely incorrect. It was scientists who detected the fraud.

As for Haeckel, here is what appears to be a straight story. Make as much hay of that as you want.

Lets have all the rest of the hoaxes! Bring them on (if you can).

102 posted on 06/25/2007 9:19:32 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Alien Syndrome
I more than supported the need for competent science in the class room.

How do you define "competent science?" Is it only that which is explicitly stated in the Bible?

Can we retain the current model of the universe, or do we have to go back to Ptolemy's epicycles? Do we have to reject the Apollo missions, the Martian Rovers, all the numerous probes that have supposedly been sent out to study the solar system? The Bible says all that stuff out there is just lights - how can men or machines land on and study a speck of light? All that space stuff must just be a hoax, right?

A few weeks back there was a poster on another thread who stated that scientists can't prove the Sun converts hydrogen to helium by means of nuclear fusion, because no one has landed on the Sun and brought back a sample. (Link). His rejoinder was that the current knowledge of the Sun was "a figment of some eggheaded geek's hypothesizing about crap imagined do (sic) to his lack of testosterone." Does that fit your definition of "competent science"?

And that's just basic astronomy and stellar mechanics. I haven't even mentioned fields like chemistry, classical and modern physics, medicine, etc. Is it "competent science" to condemn modern medicine as a tool of Satan, as has been done by some posters here? Maybe we should just go back to drilling holes in peoples' heads to let the evil spirits out. Hey, that's how it was done in the Dark Ages.

103 posted on 06/25/2007 9:25:23 PM PDT by CFC__VRWC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Getready; DaveLoneRanger

There was one I just saw on FR recently, I think within the last week or so. Some guy in England? Maybe Dave knows. I think it was an article he pinged.


104 posted on 06/25/2007 9:27:27 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

I’d pay $12 to see that movie.


105 posted on 06/25/2007 9:28:13 PM PDT by HitmanLV ("Lord, give me chastity and temperance, but not now." - St. Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Alien Syndrome
Perhaps in time the evolutionist will realize the damage that they caused to our country by promoting atheism and its philosophy of “do what ever you want, no matter what the harm is done by it”. I only hope that it won’t be too late.

If evolutionists are doing so much damage to this country, why wait around for some future awakening that may never even happen in the first place? The longer you wait, the more damage they do to this country, right? Sounds to me like you believe they need to be silenced, one way or another, and sooner rather than later.

106 posted on 06/25/2007 9:32:25 PM PDT by CFC__VRWC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]


Darwins Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution The Battle of Beginnings: Why Neither Side Is Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate Science and Its Limits: The Natural Sciences in Christian Perspective
Darwin's Black Box:
The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution

by Michael J. Behe
hardcover
Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference
The Battle of Beginnings:
Why Neither Side Is Winning
the Creation-Evolution Debate

by Delvin Lee "Del" Ratzsch
Science and Its Limits:
The Natural Sciences in Christian Perspective

Del Ratzsch


107 posted on 06/25/2007 10:14:31 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Time heals all wounds, particularly when they're not yours. Profile updated June 23, 2007.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: popdonnelly
If God created everything, why couldn’t God create evolution?

      Oh, He could have.  But if He did, He lied about it.  On the other hand, is He not capable of creating everything exactly as He said He did?

108 posted on 06/25/2007 10:22:29 PM PDT by Celtman (It's never right to do wrong to do right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: metmom; Admin Moderator

The Darwin gang from the antifreeper site are here again showing their classy act. Check out the keywords. Their collective IQ is about a 4


109 posted on 06/25/2007 10:25:49 PM PDT by 1000 silverlings (Matthew 24:23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]


110 posted on 06/25/2007 10:41:17 PM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Alien Syndrome
"What I found was all those little questions I had as an evolutionist had answers, and pretty logical answers as I looked at it."

Well that's his problem right there. You don't use evolution to answer geology questions silly!
111 posted on 06/25/2007 10:48:03 PM PDT by ndt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Biblical creation fact:
Genesis 1
1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.


112 posted on 06/26/2007 12:00:19 AM PDT by taxesareforever (Never forget Matt Maupin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: 1000 silverlings
KEYWORDS: creationism; creationuts; cretards; crevo; dlrcravescock; evolution; freetards; fsmdidit; grandcanyon; metmomisabitch; metmomisacunt; tehstupidburns; theoidiots; truth; Click to Add Keyword

There's absolutely no excuse for using such personal insults. I''ve come to know this person through personal emails, and she is a very fine person indeed.

If someone doesn't agree with another poster's point of view, then take it up on the debating floor.

This however, is simply childish, and not worthy of someone who calls themself an adult...least of all an educated adult.

113 posted on 06/26/2007 1:30:39 AM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: RightWingAtheist

I wouldn’t know, I only look at the pretty pictures.


114 posted on 06/26/2007 4:55:17 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Alien Syndrome
Now it is time to get some competent science in the classroom instead of just evolution

Creationism isn't science any more than astrology is science.

115 posted on 06/26/2007 4:57:29 AM PDT by from occupied ga (Your most dangerous enemy is your own government, Benito Guilinni a short man in search of a balcony)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
Posts like yours just make me cringe.

The various scientific theories for evolution are explained in the science classroom. And I might point out that science is taught not as an absolute unlike your religion. Scientists continually run experiments and look at observations to either confirm our hypothesiss or disprove the scientific theory.

Creationism can be taught in the school and scientists such as me won't complain. However, it must be taught in the philosphy or religious classroom and not the sceince classroom since ID/creationism make initial absolute conclusions prior to running any expernments.

116 posted on 06/26/2007 5:07:23 AM PDT by hawkaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: hawkaw

In a sense creationism is like global warming. They’re both religion. They both totally ignore the scientific method of fitting your conclusion to the observations, but rather they start with the conclusion, and work backward ignoring or trying to discredit any facts that don’t fit with ther belief. Neither one can stand up to the light or reason. Their supporters try to shout down the opposition frequently insulting those who disagree with them. And above all they’re both wrong.


117 posted on 06/26/2007 5:13:19 AM PDT by from occupied ga (Your most dangerous enemy is your own government, Benito Guilinni a short man in search of a balcony)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: 1000 silverlings

That much? I’ve come to expect that sort of thing from DC from what I’ve seen on my forays there. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised to see it spill over here.

I guess that’s what being a highly educated scientist type does to you?


118 posted on 06/26/2007 5:16:16 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga
In a sense creationism is like global warming. They’re both religion. They both totally ignore the scientific method of fitting your conclusion to the observations, but rather they start with the conclusion, and work backward ignoring or trying to discredit any facts that don’t fit with ther belief. Neither one can stand up to the light or reason. Their supporters try to shout down the opposition frequently insulting those who disagree with them. And above all they’re both wrong.

How can it be determined that creationism is wrong using a system that is always self-correcting, meaning that what was previously taught was wrong? How can you use something that's wrong, or you're never sure is right, to disprove something else? The only way to demonstrate something is wrong, is to use something that is true or right. Since we've been told that science isn't about truth, then there must be something else. What is it?

119 posted on 06/26/2007 5:20:51 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: BipolarBob
Stupid Statement Indeed when one cannot post to the right person. Here's your sign.

Hey Compadre, it was intended for you. You did post #2 didn't you? Or was it the other BipolarBob.

120 posted on 06/26/2007 5:20:52 AM PDT by D Rider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: D Rider

Nope, I posted post #3.


121 posted on 06/26/2007 5:23:58 AM PDT by BipolarBob (Yes I backed over the vampire, but I swear I didn't see it in my rear view mirror.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Since we've been told that science isn't about truth, then there must be something else

Who told you that a creationist? I have to confess you've totally confused me. What are you talking about?

122 posted on 06/26/2007 5:28:49 AM PDT by from occupied ga (Your most dangerous enemy is your own government, Benito Guilinni a short man in search of a balcony)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: CFC__VRWC; Alien Syndrome

Why are you provoking AS so much? What kind of response are you looking for?


123 posted on 06/26/2007 5:32:55 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga
And above all they’re both wrong.

You said creationism is wrong. On what basis do you make that decision? What evidence do you use to determine that?

Who told you that a creationist?

Now I'm confused here.

124 posted on 06/26/2007 5:36:55 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Alien Syndrome
Neanderthal and Lucy have both been proven to be apes (Neanderthal was a gorilla

Double Dog Call Tou

Cite one recognised respected Creationist who states "Neanderthal was a gorilla"

And to make it possible I will accept "recognised respected" by the Creationist community - whicch means you can sue the usual clowns - Henry Morris, Duane Gish, Ken Ham, or similar (I'll even give you Walter Brown and Kent Hovind)

Find one

125 posted on 06/26/2007 5:41:44 AM PDT by Oztrich Boy (It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong. - Voltaire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy
hee! "sue". When I mistype, it's awesome

I meant "use"

126 posted on 06/26/2007 5:47:22 AM PDT by Oztrich Boy (It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong. - Voltaire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Boxen; Marysecretary
I don't know about religions, but hundreds of cultures do.

 D = Destruction by Water
. G = (God) Divine Cause
. W = Warning Given
. H = Humans Spared
. A = Animals Spared
. V = Preserved in a Vessel
D . . H A V 01 Australia- Kurnai
D . W H A V 02 Babylon- Berossus' account
D G W H A V 03 Babylon- Gilgamesh epic
D G W H . V 04 Bolivia- Chiriguano
D . . H A V 05 Borneo- Sea Dayak
D . . H A V 06 Burma- Singpho
D G . H A V 07 Canada- Cree
D G W H A V 08 Canada- Montagnais
D G . H A V 09 China- Lolo
D . W H A V 10 Cuba- original natives
D G W H A V 11 East Africa- Masai
D G W H . V 12 Egypt- Book of the Dead
D G . H . V 13 Fiji- Walavu-levu tradition
D G W H A . 14 French Polynesia- Raiatea
D . . H A V 15 Greece- Lucian's account
D G . H A V 16 Guyana- Macushi
D G . H . V 17 Iceland- Eddas
D G . H . V 18 India- Andaman Islands
D . W H A V 19 India- Bhil
D G W H . V 20 India-Kamar
D . W H A . 21 Iran- Zend-Avesta
D G . H . V 22 Italy- Ovid's poetry
D G . H . V 23 Malay Peninsula- Jekun
D . W H . V 24 Mexico- Codex Chimalpopoca
D . W H A V 25 Mexico- Huichol
D G . H . V 26 New Zealand- Maori
D . W H A . 27 Peru- Indians of Huarochiri
D . W H . V 28 X . Russia- Vogul
D . W H A V 29 U.S.A. (Alaska)- Kolusches
D G . H A V 30 U.S.A. (Alaska)- Tlingit
D . W H A V 31 U.S.A. (Arizona)- Papago
D G . H A V 32 U.S.A. (Hawaii)- legend of Nu-u
D . . H A V 33 Vanualu- Melanesians
D . . H A V 34 Vietnam- Bahnar
D . . H A V 35 Wales- Dwyfan/Dwyfan legend
35 18 17 35 24 32 Total Occurrences out of 35

127 posted on 06/26/2007 5:51:14 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
I’m not quite sure what argument you chart is supposed to support, but let’s go through the categories provided. Given that human settlement was, and continues to be, concentrated along waterways (rivers, lakes, oceans & seas), it should come as no surprise that flood events figure prominently in cultural histories. Some, in fact, rely on flooding to reinvigorate agricultural lands. That humans are spared also seems rather obvious; if they weren’t, how would the story be propagated? Obvious too is the need for a vessel; how else could one survive a flood? Especially if, for the sake of the myth, the “world” is underwater. And an agricultural society (as most early societies were), is certainly going to value animals, so that commonality seems clear. That leaves us with the two remaining categories, divine cause and warnings; you will note that each of these is only mentioned in half of all cases cited. Hardly a ringing endorsement of what you are presenting as proof.
128 posted on 06/26/2007 6:12:48 AM PDT by stormer (Get your bachelors, masters, or doctorate now at home in your spare time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: metmom
You said creationism is wrong. On what basis do you make that decision? What evidence do you use to determine that?

On the fact that there is not any physical evidence to support creationism nor can there ever be any evidence to support it. By the very nature of it, it is not science, but rather religion. There is plenty of physical evidence to support evolution. Creationism, at least as I understand it, basically says "here a miracle occurs."

When you're talking about scientific theories those without evidence are usually considered to be wrong. For that matter how can you prove that we all weren't created with our memories and history just five minutes ago. You can't, but I still maintain that is also wrong.

...confused...

You said science is not about truth. Au contraire, science IS about truth.

129 posted on 06/26/2007 6:14:07 AM PDT by from occupied ga (Your most dangerous enemy is your own government, Benito Guilinni a short man in search of a balcony)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: metmom
“...the searchers thought they would only have a few inches of snow and ice to deal with. Instead it was 268 FEET of ice.”

http://westerngeologist.blogspot.com/2006/03/gisp2-ice-core-and-age-of-earth.html

You may find this interesting. Rather than regurgitating an item some untrained “researcher” cites as PROOF for whatever hairbrained idea they support, you can actually learn from folks who study this type of thing for a living.

130 posted on 06/26/2007 6:26:04 AM PDT by stormer (Get your bachelors, masters, or doctorate now at home in your spare time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga
On the fact that there is not any physical evidence to support creationism nor can there ever be any evidence to support it.

There's plenty of corroboration of the creation account in the Bible by science. See post 64.There's the same physical evidence to support creation that there is to support it just happening, out of nothing, by itself.

You said science is not about truth. Au contraire, science IS about truth.

Not according to some of your compatriots. Besides, science may be about the search for truth, but it is not truth itself. It hasn't arrived yet. What has been accepted to be fact in the past is now shown to be wrong. How are you so sure that what we know now is true?

If that's the case, then you can't use science to disprove anything else, because there's no way of being sure that the science you're using is correct. You can't use something that is wrong, or even that might be wrong, to disprove something else.

131 posted on 06/26/2007 6:28:16 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Alien Syndrome
"We see some very large folding in the canyon where sedimentary layers, which are laid down horizontally, have been curved or carved in big bends, some of them 300 feet tall, and this is done without cracking the rock. How do you do that with hard rock?"

If you can't figure out the obvious, you really shouldn't be writing a book about it.

132 posted on 06/26/2007 6:33:58 AM PDT by Psycho_Bunny (When's MY turn? What crimes may I commit and recieve amnesty for?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stormer

The point was that the people looking for the planes worked on the assumption of a relatively small amount of ice buildup based on what science said it should be. They were working in assumptions, therefore, some processes occur faster than previously thought. They were working on assumptions that weren’t true. If you start out with wrong assumptions, then how can your conclusions be reliable?


133 posted on 06/26/2007 6:34:32 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: metmom

You follow the evidence. If scientists did not routinely correct their assumptions based on evidence, you would have nothing to talk about.

The difference between science and other ways of attempting to acquire knowledge is that science is iterative.


134 posted on 06/26/2007 6:38:21 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Larry Lucido
God created the universe over a slightly longer period of time. (A day is as a thousand years, etc.)

The book of Genesis has been misread for years. Those six days of creation were not earth days. "And the evening and the morning was the first day." note that
G D did not create our Sun until the third day according to Genesis. Therefore we can logically deduce that days in question were in fact based on another system. Possibly were a single day may in fact be Millions or Tens of Millions of Earth years long.

The advent of man I find misread as well Genesis states that man was created on the sixth day and that G D then rested. Then it tells of how G D saw that of the men he created that there was no man that tilled the soil. He then create a new man slightly different from the others, ergo Adam and Eve were created on the eight day or after. This explains where Cain got his wife from.
135 posted on 06/26/2007 6:43:32 AM PDT by smug (Free Ramos and Compean:)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Yep.


136 posted on 06/26/2007 6:46:19 AM PDT by Marysecretary (GOD IS STILL IN CONTROL.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: BipolarBob

It’s an amazing section and fills me with awe everytime I read it. Now, I can’t really say the same for NUMBERS (LOL). Mxxx


137 posted on 06/26/2007 6:51:23 AM PDT by Marysecretary (GOD IS STILL IN CONTROL.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Boxen

No, I can’t. I’ve read it over the years and been amazed that so many religions have the same story of the flood. I believe it to be true because the Bible says so, but it’s also written in other places. Google it.


138 posted on 06/26/2007 6:53:04 AM PDT by Marysecretary (GOD IS STILL IN CONTROL.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Marysecretary

It’s as if floods were fairly common.


139 posted on 06/26/2007 6:56:14 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Source of chart?


140 posted on 06/26/2007 7:47:39 AM PDT by Boxen (If we can hit that bull's-eye, the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards...Checkmate!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: metmom
See post 64.

That isn't evidence. Just someone's opinion.

There's the same physical evidence to support creation that there is to support it just happening, out of nothing, by itself

Well if you define creationism as the big bang, because there isn't any physical model that explains the initiation of the universe (hand of God is as good as anything) then I'll have to agree; however, if you define it as some arbitrary event that happened within human history, then I'll have to say you're wrong. Like I said earlier, neither you nor I can prove that creation didn't happen 5 minutes or 5 seconds ago, but conceptually that's just silly.

There is good consistent physical evidence for everything that happened right back to the inflationary stage, and then earlier than that who knows. so if you're defining that God created the universe with the big bang, then that is the sort of creationism that makes sense. otherwise I can't agree.

141 posted on 06/26/2007 8:17:26 AM PDT by from occupied ga (Your most dangerous enemy is your own government, Benito Guilinni a short man in search of a balcony)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Your posts are interesting. Do you think the universe had a beginning?


142 posted on 06/26/2007 8:34:56 AM PDT by Texas Songwriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
We have different perspectives on the same evidence.

Yet somehow when I present you with some of that evidence and ask for the creationist explanation, no answer is forthcoming.

143 posted on 06/26/2007 9:03:32 AM PDT by ahayes ("Impenetrability! That's what I say!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Alien Syndrome

Neanderthal man—Not a hoax.

carbon 14 dating—Not a hoax.

sediment layers—Ehh wot? Not a hoax.

dinosaurs and humans living in different time periods—Not a hoax.

Lucy—Not a hoax.

Thanks for trying!


144 posted on 06/26/2007 9:05:36 AM PDT by ahayes ("Impenetrability! That's what I say!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Alien Syndrome

Are you funning me?


145 posted on 06/26/2007 9:08:19 AM PDT by ahayes ("Impenetrability! That's what I say!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: smug
"The book of Genesis has been misread for years. Those six days of creation were not earth days. "And the evening and the morning was the first day." note that G D did not create our Sun until the third day according to Genesis. Therefore we can logically deduce that days in question were in fact based on another system. Possibly were a single day may in fact be Millions or Tens of Millions of Earth years long."

Do you think that's why he put "and the evening and morning..." in there? Oh well, since we don't believe that, we'll just ignore that little bit.

"The advent of man I find misread as well Genesis states that man was created on the sixth day and that G D then rested. Then it tells of how G D saw that of the men he created that there was no man that tilled the soil. He then create a new man slightly different from the others, ergo Adam and Eve were created on the eight day or after. This explains where Cain got his wife from."

"Oh rats!", God said, "I forgot to create a man to till the soil!" (slaps forehead). Course, he didn't want to put that in Genesis, so he conveniently left that out.

146 posted on 06/26/2007 9:11:19 AM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: csense; metmom

yes, these are the people who want to get a hold of your children at 5 or 6 years old.


147 posted on 06/26/2007 9:11:21 AM PDT by 1000 silverlings (Matthew 24:23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: newguy357

This article, IMO, is designed to paint the religious right as lunatics, to scare people away from voting republican.


148 posted on 06/26/2007 9:17:46 AM PDT by GSWarrior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: js1138
"If scientists did not routinely correct their assumptions based on evidence, you would have nothing to talk about."

Emphasis on *routinely*.

"The difference between science and other ways of attempting to acquire knowledge is that science is iterative."

Er, have they been moving elements around on the periodic table again? Has the electromagnetic spectrum been moving around again? Have they changed the laws of chemistry again?

Or are you incorrectly equating science with metaphysics?

149 posted on 06/26/2007 9:27:48 AM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: ahayes

I’m not sure what post you’re referring to, but as can be expected, I am not an expert (not even heavily informed) on many scientific aspects of creationism. A lack of response from me cannot and should not be interpreted as proof for evolution.

I refer to myself as an informed layman. You all refer to me as a blithering idiot, and that’s on your good days. Yet for all the raving accusations of stupidity, you still think you score a point by challenging me, the ignorant twit, with your facts for your interpretation and then do a little doggy dance of joy when I don’t respond.

It seems you are either delighted with stumping an “idiot” or you don’t buy your own accusations, and only spew them to vent. Which is it?


150 posted on 06/26/2007 9:39:04 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-238 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