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

Skip to comments.

Mercury’s Magnetic Field is Young!
CMI ^ | Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.

Posted on 09/04/2009 8:50:36 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts

Once again, a NASA space probe is supporting the 6,000-year biblical age of the solar system...

(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: antiscienceevos; bigfool; bigfoolishdarwinists; creation; cultofdarwinexposed; evocultistsexposed; evoidiotsexposed; evolution; garbage; garbageisdarwinism; idiot; intelligentdesign; jerk; moron; nasa; science
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 621-640641-660661-680 ... 801-813 next last
To: tpanther
the fraud of peer review

I can understand the contempt for others reviewing your work when it is uniformly rejected.

move it a few hundred years in advance and you’ll burn me

Any group that gets fanatical can get to the stage where they do that. At least science isn't about fanaticism. We see what happens when science gets corrupted with politics though -- global warming. Science corrupted by religious fanaticism would be just as bad.

liberal nonsense

There you go with personal attacks again, if it doesn't agree with your religion then it must be liberal.

641 posted on 09/05/2009 11:37:11 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 628 | View Replies]

To: tpanther
How many pink unicorn cultists are in your group?

How dare you, of the Christian cult, slander the followers of the Invisible Pink Unicorn (PBUHH), the One True Religion. Heresy! You will be doomed to shovel Her stables for eternity, unbeliever!

642 posted on 09/05/2009 11:39:34 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 625 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC

Scopes was a criminal trial. Teaching evolution was a crime.


643 posted on 09/05/2009 11:40:13 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 605 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
Girls are unlucky?

Not at all. I'd already had a few girls, and I kind of wanted a boy too.

644 posted on 09/05/2009 11:42:14 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 597 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Your noob is showing....

It is well known on FR when one pulls out the newbie line, they have little of value to work with.

645 posted on 09/05/2009 11:51:47 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 491 | View Replies]

To: metmom

How about Genesis 1:11-12 ? God commanded the earth to bring forth grass, “and the earth brought forth grass”. Isn’t this evolutionary? Or at least naturalistic? Please note that God does not DESIGN the grass. He COMMANDS the earth to bring it forth. Isn’t this fatal to “intelligent design”, from a literalistic point of view?


646 posted on 09/06/2009 12:02:13 AM PDT by dr_lew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 606 | View Replies]

To: Ira_Louvin; GodGunsGuts; metmom
I have stated before that

Do you believe that Jesus Christ was born of a Virgin? Your evolutionist friend ColdWater, who likes to dish out spiritual advice to Christians, does not. What about you?

647 posted on 09/06/2009 1:21:08 AM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode (<<== Click here to learn about Evolution!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 443 | View Replies]

To: Ira_Louvin
Yes I do believe in each of those statements as a matter of faith

Those were not statements, they were questions.

648 posted on 09/06/2009 1:25:24 AM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode (<<== Click here to learn about Evolution!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 468 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat; tpanther
How dare you, of the Christian cult, slander the followers of the Invisible Pink Unicorn (PBUHH),

You see tpanther, it takes little incentive for an atheist to being rambling about invisible pink unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters and so on.

So, tell us, AR, why you think cabbages are atheists. How about tire-irons and paint can lids? Are they atheists too? How about a sharp blow to the head? Can that make someone an atheist?

649 posted on 09/06/2009 1:35:31 AM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode (<<== Click here to learn about Evolution!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 642 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
Scopes was a criminal trial.

That may be so, but to include it as some sort of rousting out of innocent victims, as you seem to intend, is preposterous.

From University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law:

State v. John Scopes ("The Monkey Trial")

The Scopes Trial had its origins in a conspiracy at Fred Robinson's drugstore in Dayton. George Rappalyea, a 31-year-old transplanted New Yorker and local coal company manager, arrived at the drugstore with a copy of a paper containing an American Civil Liberties Union announcement that it was willing to offer its services to anyone challenging the new Tennessee anti-evolution statute. Rappalyea, a modernist Methodist with contempt for the new law, argued to other town leaders that a trial would be a way of putting Dayton on the map. Listening to Rappalyea, the others--including School Superintendent Walter White--became convinced that publicity generated by a controversial trial might help their town, whose population had fallen from 3,000 in the 1890's to 1,800 in 1925.

    The conspirators summoned John Scopes, a twenty-four-year old general science teacher and part-time football coach, to the drugstore.  As Scopes later described the meeting, Rappalyea said, "John, we've been arguing and I said nobody could teach biology without teaching evolution." Scopes agreed.  "That's right," he said, pulling a copy of Hunter's Civic Biology--the state-approved textbook--from one of the shelves of the drugstore (the store also sold school textbooks).  "You've been teaching 'em this book?" Rappalyea asked.  Scopes replied that while filling in for the regular biology teacher during an illness, he had assigned readings on evolution from the book for review purposes. "Then you've been violating the law," Rappalyea concluded.  "Would you be willing to stand for a test case?" he asked. Scopes agreed. He later explained his decision: "the best time to scotch the snake is when it starts to wiggle." Herbert and Sue Hicks, two local attorneys and friends of Scopes, agreed to prosecute.


650 posted on 09/06/2009 2:10:58 AM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 643 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
Not at all. I'd already had a few girls, and I kind of wanted a boy too.

Why, something lacking in girls? And you still used the word "lucky".

651 posted on 09/06/2009 2:18:08 AM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 644 | View Replies]

To: tpanther
And just look how they squeal when less than 10% of their own garbage is flung back at them!

They have very thin skin. The moment you apply any pressure on them, no matter how slight, they start howling like monkeys about abuse and breaches of etiquette. Imagine that. There's no more asinine spectacle than someone wailing on a crevo thread about breaches of etiquette and violations of 'politeness codes' and so on.

652 posted on 09/06/2009 4:26:23 AM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode (<<== Click here to learn about Evolution!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 400 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat; tpanther; GodGunsGuts; Fichori
Any group that gets fanatical can get to the stage where they do that. At least science isn't about fanaticism.

It isn't? Even when people lose their jobs because they don't toe the hardcore, atheistic ToE line?

There have been threads on that very topic, about men who've questioned that and allowed for the role of God in creation, or at least declined to answer where they stand on the God creating the universe and life, and there have been calls for their heads.

And you don't consider that fanaticism?

653 posted on 09/06/2009 5:38:32 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 641 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater; CharlesWayneCT

You didn’t get it.....

CharlesWayneCT is not new to the crevo threads. It’s got nothing to do with having nothing to work with.

Sheesh.....


654 posted on 09/06/2009 5:41:03 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 645 | View Replies]

To: dr_lew
Please note that God does not DESIGN the grass.

Sure He would have. You don't know that He didn't design the grass and program it to operate in a certain way, as is true with the rest of creation.

If you design something with certain properties, like the water molecule, then it's going to behave in a certain way under certain conditions; like becoming less dense when turning into a solid, and forming hexagonal lattices to form snowflakes.

So in a sense, it is not necessary for God to create each and every individual snowflake, but the design allows for a tremendous latitude for variety within that framework. The water molecules are working the way they were designed to, which in no way demonstrates that God is not needed nor that God didn't design it.

Isn’t this fatal to “intelligent design”, from a literalistic point of view?

No. How would it bring it forth if it wasn't designed into it in the first place? Isn't it obvious enough to the reader that it happened without stating it? Would it have made any difference to evos if the Bible had said that God designed the earth to produce vegetation? They don't want to take the Genesis account literally, and so if it specifically said that God designed the system to behave in certain ways, many would still get around that by declaring it allegorical.

655 posted on 09/06/2009 5:54:18 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 646 | View Replies]

To: dr_lew
Or at least naturalistic?

How can it be naturalistic when something operates on command. If the grass had simply sprung forth on it's own, even then it doesn't justify the naturalistic, God's not needed position, because the possibility is still open that it was designed that way.

*Naturalism* does not in any way eliminate the action of God in the creation of, or the sustaining of everything. Just because we see the mechanisms that He uses, doesn't mean He isn't there or proof that He's not needed.

656 posted on 09/06/2009 5:58:41 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 646 | View Replies]

To: goat granny; tpanther; metmom; Old Landmarks; CottShop; GodGunsGuts
Most of us have recognized this old goat from other threads.

When they're not re-treading they are likely presiding over a Lilith fair someplace with other DU-ers.


657 posted on 09/06/2009 6:45:46 AM PDT by Agamemnon (Intelligent Design is to evolution what the Swift Boat Vets were to the Kerry campaign)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 596 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Dr_lew suffers from too small a view of the Creator.

Lew probably has the view of God the Creator as just some kindly, occasionally rapascious little old man that sits around all day doing the equivalent of piecing together toothpick models.

Jesus Christ designed, created and redeemed His universe. And dr_lew is so certain that the creator didn't design grass, why? Because there were no tooth picks with instructions printed for them -- such as dr_lew might think he'd need to design grass?

dr_lew must believe he designed himself. Since he's so intelligent, perhaps he can tell us how he did it.


658 posted on 09/06/2009 7:12:15 AM PDT by Agamemnon (Intelligent Design is to evolution what the Swift Boat Vets were to the Kerry campaign)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 655 | View Replies]

To: Agamemnon

Yeah she sounds an awful lot like a woman from Darwin Central that used to post here before getting banned- Always carrying on about how ‘your interpretation isn’t the only valid one, and oyu have no right to judge’ Either they were twins, or she’s one in the same


659 posted on 09/06/2009 7:38:39 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 657 | View Replies]

To: metmom

A we al discussed in another thread- even grass has levels of complexity that NEED a metainformaiton level to organize the lower complexities to keep the ‘species’ fit and viable- these levels, as well as the metainformaiton level can not ‘spring forth’ from simple chemicals in a by guess by gosh manner, and the highest level of metainformation present screams that it was designed that way. There is no bank of informaiton found in nature to draw from that even begins to approach the level of complexity found in metainformaiton, and the very fact that metainformation is designed to anticipate, and deal accordingly with, change, shows a level of sophistication far exceeding anythign simpel mutaitons could cobble together from chemical origins

Macroevolution- Creation of the highest order and highest design complexity- without hte need for a designer apparently- (of course they have no answer for metainformation and hte NEED for a designer, they just assume that copying mistakes self-assembled themselves intelligently and resulted in irreducible complexity at ‘some point in the past’, and which completely stopped at ‘some point in the past’ since there is now no evidence self-assembly could produce such complexity)


660 posted on 09/06/2009 7:47:15 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 655 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 621-640641-660661-680 ... 801-813 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