Skip to comments.
Evolution is preposterous
The Irish Independent ^
| July 7, 2007
| CIARAN FARRELL,
Posted on 07/07/2007 2:31:35 AM PDT by balch3
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 361-366 next last
the title says it all.
1
posted on
07/07/2007 2:31:36 AM PDT
by
balch3
To: balch3
I only meant to paste the first letter. The second is Darwinist garbage.
2
posted on
07/07/2007 2:43:27 AM PDT
by
balch3
To: balch3
I'm a firm believer in Evolution.
That it happened by God's design in God's time.
"Oi! You over there in the puddle with the 18 eyes and 36 legs...yes you! Stand upright, breath oxygen, walk over here and paint the 'Mona Lisa'!"
OK, not quite, but something along those lines. : )
3
posted on
07/07/2007 2:48:29 AM PDT
by
Caipirabob
(Communists... Socialists... Democrats...Traitors... Who can tell the difference?)
To: balch3
Over the last few years hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent in an attempt by scientists to find evidence for God's handy work in the natural world. They have even tried (unsuccessfully) to have intelligent design inserted into school science courses on the basis that both arguments deserve equall respect, even though Darwinian evolution has literally mountains of ancient evidence to back it up, and intelligent design has no evidence at all, ...
Good find. Tell it brother!
4
posted on
07/07/2007 2:50:52 AM PDT
by
dread78645
(Evolution. A doomed theory since 1859.)
To: balch3
Mr. Farrell is a bit.....passionate in his viewpoint.
Being Creationist is not the same as being a flat Earther.
- It is obvious that the Earth is round (squashed sphere). Even before humans were able to go into space, this was shown via sound science with shadows at a particular time at two locations. Furthermore, on flat land, and especially on the ocean, looking around you to the horizon looks as though it's a circle. If 'horizon views' on flat land or water look as though they are circles, you could conclude that the Earth is a sphere (with people looking as far as they can until their view is tangent (or close to it--the Earth's mass bends the view a bit) with the sphere).
- Macroevolution on the other hand, is extremely far from proven, and sometimes they have to include very unsound science for their hypothesis to work. (i.e. this isn't technically Macroevolution, but long ageism. The universe is larger than it should be if the big bang happened when scientists believe it did and the energy and material expanded at the speed of light (roughly c if not c). This is explained by having space expand faster than the speed of light, which doesn't violate relativity. But space expanding faster than c hasn't been demonstrated, much less proven. It was practically conjured up from thin air simply to explain why the universe is as large as it is while being 'only' some 13 or so billion (American) years old.
5
posted on
07/07/2007 3:08:08 AM PDT
by
Jedi Master Pikachu
( What is your take on Acts 15:20 (abstaining from blood) about eating meat? Could you freepmail?)
To: balch3
6
posted on
07/07/2007 3:16:02 AM PDT
by
HighWheeler
(A true liberal today is a combination of socialist, fascist, hypocrite, and anti-American.)
To: Jedi Master Pikachu
The problem with your second point is that the science is known to be in its infancy. We’re learning new things every day, and there are many big mysteries yet to be solved. They’ve been studying evolution for what? About 150 years yeah? I’m going to paraphrase Men In Black (yeah I know, bad movie to quote in a science thread but there’s a really good quote that explains the viewpoint). “A thousand years ago everybody KNEW the Earth was the centre of the universe. Five hundred years ago everybody KNEW the Earth was flat. Imagine what you’ll know tomorrow.”
We see evolution in (Human) behaviour, why can’t it exist in biology? The problem with the “young Earth” theory is that it doesn’t stand up to scientific inquiry either. But the difference between scientists and creationists is that scientists are always willing to entertain a new theory if it is supported by facts, creationists are not.
7
posted on
07/07/2007 3:30:21 AM PDT
by
AntiKev
("No damage. The world's still turning isn't it?" - Stereo Goes Stellar - Blow Me A Holloway)
To: Jedi Master Pikachu
Just wanted to add “I’ve never understood how God could expect His creatures to pick the one true religion by faith - it strikes me as a sloppy way to run a universe.” - Robert Heinlein through Jubal Harshaw in Stranger in a Strange Land
8
posted on
07/07/2007 3:31:37 AM PDT
by
AntiKev
("No damage. The world's still turning isn't it?" - Stereo Goes Stellar - Blow Me A Holloway)
To: balch3
9
posted on
07/07/2007 3:55:01 AM PDT
by
raybbr
(You think it's bad now - wait till the anchor babies start to vote.)
To: Colosis; Black Line; Cucullain; SomeguyfromIreland; Youngblood; Fergal; Cian; col kurz; ...
10
posted on
07/07/2007 4:07:39 AM PDT
by
Tax-chick
(John Edwards is a gamma male. "Yeah, buddy, that's his own hair!")
To: raybbr
11
posted on
07/07/2007 4:21:40 AM PDT
by
Past Your Eyes
(Some people are too stupid to be ashamed.)
To: balch3
You mean you only meant to use the garbage you agree with don’t you? It’s pathetic when you have to post letters to the editor from an Irish paper to try and prove your point.
12
posted on
07/07/2007 4:37:38 AM PDT
by
saganite
(Billions and billions and billions----and that's just the NASA budget!)
To: balch3
the title says it all.LOL!
To: balch3
Question is, how do you get people (evolutionites in this case) who are massively wrong to stop acting arrogant about it?
To: rickdylan
To: balch3
I only meant to paste the first letter. The second is Darwinist garbage. But also more accurate than the first.
16
posted on
07/07/2007 5:53:45 AM PDT
by
Non-Sequitur
(Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
To: Misterioso
Only Darwin (and a few million medical doctors and scientists) could understand Evolution.
17
posted on
07/07/2007 5:54:06 AM PDT
by
Does so
To: Does so
And yet have to resort to name calling to defend the theory.
18
posted on
07/07/2007 6:02:19 AM PDT
by
omega4179
(El 43.o presidente de los Estados Unidos De Norteam?rica Jorge W Bush)
To: Non-Sequitur
But also more accurate than the first. What, you don't see how the directive to "visit the great universities, Oxford, Cambridge, Bologna etc" applies to topic of evolution? That portion of the text doesn't seem to follow the rest of the letter. There must be a Latin phrase to explain such things...if only I could think of it... ;-)
To: raybbr
Yes he did! The God I know is powerful enough to do that. I have never seen anything to argue about here. Evolution was Gods plan and it is brilliant!
20
posted on
07/07/2007 6:04:49 AM PDT
by
Ditter
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 361-366 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson