[GodGunsGuts]

Notice that New Scientist admits that Darwin’s theory would not have gotten off the ground without the acceptance of his so-called “Tree of Life.” Creation Scientists have been pointing out that Darwin’s tree did not fit the evidence ever since its inception. If you read Origins, you will note that Darwin could not supply any scientific data to back up his tree—it was purely hypothetical. And yet the Evos bought it, hook, line and sinker. Not surprisingly, the article makes no mention of the fact that Creation Scientists (and more recently ID Scientists) have been pointing out the lack of evidence for Darwin’s tree for over 150 years.

[vladimir998]

There was a tree of life...it was in the Garden.

I’m just saying...

[Cedric]

Ya really got ‘em goin’ yesterday, GGG!

[FreedomProtector]

Thanks for posting.

[LearsFool]

[sickoflibs]

Isnt Tree of Life part of ID ? They all pass the design detection meaning commonality. Is this Creation vs ID?

[demshateGod]

Evolution is not compatible with Christianity...

[Blood of Tyrants]

Finding what they classify as "snake genome" in a cow only shows that they don't understand what in the world they are talking about.

[org.whodat]

But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. "We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," says Bapteste.

And we have no evidence that one damn word in that whole statement is true.

[Rebel_Ace]

You remind me of a poster from quite a while back. His moniker was "Willie Green". I do not know what became of him.

The reason you remind me of "Willie Green" is that nearly every day, for about two years straight, Willie would post an article or opinion piece relating to his pet cause in life. In his case, it was "High Speed Magnetically Levitated Trains". (He should be happy, the Porkulus bill apparently has billions for one)

Every day, he would post. He would cite the same studies. He would point to the same sources. He would have PRECISELY THE SAME arguments with THE SAME PEOPLE over and over again. He would convince NO ONE. NO ONE would convince him. He would have his cheering section shouting "AMEN!". He would have the same detractors shouting "IDIOT!" Each and every thread was a near carbon copy of all the others.

Now, as I read the purpose of Free Republic in its mission statement, it is for the disemmination of political information and events, with discussions to aid in the promotion of of the conservative principles laid down in our Founding Documents.

I come here to keep abreast of current political events, read analysis and opinion about the actions of our as well as other governments, and learn what might be happening that could affect the liberties and freedoms I cherish about the good ol' U.S. of A. I am sure that a fairly high percentage of Free Republic members and lurkers do the same.

When I am interested in some other topic, say "Comic Books" for example, I might visit another site, such as SuperHeroHype, where they discuss COMICS and not POLITICS.

It simply occurs to me that you might find your time better spent, and your postings better received, on a site that primarily concerns itself with religious matters.

If your purpose in repeatedly posting essentially the same arguments over and over is to "convert" any heathens reading them, you might find a more receptive audience at a site for people seeking religious answers, and not political information. If your purpose is to hear your ideas cheered by others, again you will get a better response at forums exclusively devoted to religous matters.

No, I am not yelling at you, "HEY! DON'T POST HERE!" You are free to do what you want, as long as your postings do not upset the folks running Free Republic (they have the final say as to who has posting privilages here, not me). What I am asking is that in all honesty, is this the best forum for the topic you seem to hold so dear? Do you not feel even the slightest pang of pointless repetition when you post the same thing over and over?

With regards to POLITICS and GOVERNMENT, a 4 billion year old earth and a 6000 year old earth affects Obama's stimulus package how? A 4 billion year old earth leads to the inevitable conclusion that you need Gun Control? Is that how it works? A 6000 year old earth implies that Federal income taxes should be bracketed in three tiers?

Just seems a tad off topic for daily postings on a POLITICAL forum.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

I think it’s likely that Darwin drew his tree of life as an analogy to family trees, which have been around for a long time. Family trees are gross oversimplifications, of course. For example, one of my ex-wife’s father’s brothers married one of her mother’s cousins. That required drawing a few extra lines in the family tree (making it—horrors!—look something more like a web), but it didn’t mean she was no longer related to the great-grandfather back in Russia.

[FourtySeven]

I found this rather amusing; for what it's worth.

As we celebrate the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth, we await a third revolution that will see biology changed and strengthened. None of this should give succour to creationists, whose blinkered universe is doubtless already buzzing with the news that "New Scientist has announced Darwin was wrong". Expect to find excerpts ripped out of context and presented as evidence that biologists are deserting the theory of evolution en masse. They are not.

Nor will the new work do anything to diminish the standing of Darwin himself. When it came to gravitation and the laws of motion, Isaac Newton didn't see the whole picture either, but he remains one of science's giants. In the same way, Darwin's ideas will prove influential for decades to come.

Source.

The entire article is an interesting read (not the editorial, but the article sourced in the OP). I'd highly recommend it.