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

Skip to comments.

Brain Secretions and Gravity (DARWIN HIMSELF EXEMPLIFIES THE MADNESS THAT IS DARWINISM)
Uncommon Descent ^ | October 29, 2009 | Gil Dodgen

Posted on 10/30/2009 11:01:32 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts

Why is thought, being a secretion of the brain, more wonderful than gravity, a property of matter? It is our arrogance, it is our admiration of ourselves…

— Charles Darwin, age 29, in his notebook

This is an incredible comment. It is difficult to understand how anyone with a brain could not observe that thought produces such things as symphonies, literature and mathematics, while gravity just makes things fall down and holds planets in their orbits.

Furthermore, thought does not secrete like insulin from a pancreas, it is willed (at least that’s what I do, and I assume others do as well).

Darwin was far more simpleminded, naive, and superficial in his thinking than I realized. I already knew that he was simpleminded, naive, and superficial in his thinking when he ignored the obvious evidence of design in nature, in favor of his “random variation and natural selection can turn microscopic bugs into Mozart, given enough time” thesis.

How this patently absurd idea could have completely taken over the intellectual elite is still a mystery to me, when all the evidence of modern science contradicts it. The only conclusion I can reach is that they are desperately trying to deny the obvious, because they hate the light.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: antiscienceevos; atheism; atomsdonotexist; belongsinreligion; catholic; christian; corruption; creation; darwin; darwindrones; darwiniacs; darwinism; education; electricityisfire; evangelical; evolution; evoreligionexposed; godsgravesglyphs; gravityisahoax; intelligentdesign; materialism; moralabsolutes; notasciencetopic; philosophy; propellerbeanie; protestant; science; spammer; templeofdarwin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-85 next last

1 posted on 10/30/2009 11:01:34 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: metmom; DaveLoneRanger; editor-surveyor; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; MrB; GourmetDan; Fichori; ...

If you’re not laughing, you’re crying...PING!!!


2 posted on 10/30/2009 11:09:42 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

No, the vast majority just shake their heads and deeply wish you a swift recovery.


3 posted on 10/30/2009 11:19:37 AM PDT by xcamel (The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
“while gravity just makes things fall down and holds planets in their orbits.”

Yeah, no big deal there...

4 posted on 10/30/2009 11:25:45 AM PDT by Redgirl (ibama - it's all about him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xcamel

There’s no reason to make this personal. 3G’s just carrying the torch.

I notice the trend in creationism is to at least become familiar with the the science. You don’t see a lot of the old, “I carbon tested a rock and it was only 50,000 years old” nonsense any more.

That’s a very recent and positive trend.

(Now if they can just get the science right.)


5 posted on 10/30/2009 11:38:49 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
It is difficult to understand how anyone with a brain could not observe that thought produces such things as symphonies, literature and mathematics, while gravity just makes things fall down and holds planets in their orbits.

Gil needs to go learn some sciency stuff. Without human thought, there would be no mathematics and symphonies and literature. Without gravity, there would be no Earth, no life, no sun, no stars, no universe. No tides, no atmospheres......but hey, let's limit gravity to "making things fall down" so we can bash someone.

6 posted on 10/30/2009 11:42:25 AM PDT by ElectricStrawberry (Didja know that Man walked with vegetarian T. rex within the last 4,351 years?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Anybody else notice that the author failed to state the gravity is a scientific theory just like evolution?

Photobucket

7 posted on 10/30/2009 11:42:32 AM PDT by Ira_Louvin (Go tell them people lost in sin, Theres a higher power ,They need not fear the works of men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%; GodGunsGuts

You don’t see a lot of the old, “I carbon tested a rock and it was only 50,000 years old” nonsense any more.
<><><><><><>

Nope. Now we have arguments from the creationists that our 12 billion year old universe and the ~6000 year old earth owe their existence to the exact same creation event.

GGG doesn’t post much from the ID side of the world, but since this merely opines about the naivete of Darwin, it has passed the post it test.

GGG - All thought is not willed. Since the foundation of the argument laid out here is fatally flawed, it renders his conclusions suspect at best.


8 posted on 10/30/2009 11:55:01 AM PDT by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
"Why is thought, being a secretion of the brain, more wonderful than gravity, a property of matter? It is our arrogance, it is our admiration of ourselves…"

Although characterized and vilified as an atheist or worse from the devil, Darwin was actually a religious man. His wonderment was answered in other works by his conclusion that gravity was given to all things and creatures, but thought and the ability to reason, was a gift God gave only to man.

9 posted on 10/30/2009 11:57:22 AM PDT by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%

Your brain is obviously secreting.


10 posted on 10/30/2009 11:58:10 AM PDT by Deb (Beat him, strip him and bring him to my tent!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Ira_Louvin

‘zactly.


11 posted on 10/30/2009 12:03:39 PM PDT by xcamel (The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Deb

Ooooo!

I like it.


12 posted on 10/30/2009 12:07:17 PM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%

That’s the part that’s not going to happen. I take great umbrage at the cherry-picking-science-as-foregone-conclusion to prop up “creationary” beliefs.


13 posted on 10/30/2009 12:07:56 PM PDT by xcamel (The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: dmz
Now we have arguments from the creationists that our 12 billion year old universe and the ~6000 year old earth owe their existence to the exact same creation event.

It's the same time counted differently.

Like here.

I suspect quantum mechanics can be used to formulate a solution. ;)

(I hope I'm not gonna be sorry I suggested that.)

14 posted on 10/30/2009 12:15:25 PM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: xcamel

But it exposes creationist audiences to chunks of science.

This is something they’ve never tried before and I think will have an impact over time.

I suspect this is part of God’s plan for these folks.


15 posted on 10/30/2009 12:17:47 PM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%

My what an optimistic soul... Bless you.


16 posted on 10/30/2009 12:20:20 PM PDT by xcamel (The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

Could you get a little more specific (using links and examples) about what you mean about Darwin being a religious man?


17 posted on 10/30/2009 12:37:17 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: dmz
==All thought is not willed.

What is your point here, that Darwin's notion that the thoughts we think are of no more significance than any other physical law or process simply because unwilled thoughts might co-exist with willed thoughts?

18 posted on 10/30/2009 12:46:47 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

So you don’t agree with the author that thought is willed? You recognize that his premise is flawed?

What becomes, in your line of thinking, of conclusions drawn from faulty premises?


19 posted on 10/30/2009 12:52:17 PM PDT by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: dmz; GodGunsGuts
"What becomes, in your line of thinking, of conclusions drawn from faulty premises?"

What becomes, in your line of thinking, of conclusions drawn from faulty premises?

If all thought is not willed, then can we assume that your support of evolution is not willed?

20 posted on 10/30/2009 1:04:06 PM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: dmz
First, Darwin was labeling all thought as no more significant than any other physical law or process. Second, I don't think you can prove that there is any such thing as a completely unwilled thought. Third, if thinking itself is in fact designed by God, then all thought is willed at some level. But what caught my eye was the madness that philosophical materialism leads to. Namely, when the materialist turns on his own rationality and declares it just as arbitrary and meaningless as every other inanimate law, process, or object. Science would never have gotten off the ground if such thinking prevailed. Thank goodness modern science continues to barrow from Judeo-Christianity by assuming (at least through their actions) that both man and universe are rational!
21 posted on 10/30/2009 1:05:50 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%

Yes, it exposes evolutionists to rational thought imposed on the science.

This is something they’ve never tried before and I think it will have an impact over time.

I suspect this is part of God’s plan for these folks.


22 posted on 10/30/2009 1:09:49 PM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Were all of Darwin's theories accepted by science?

If not, what does his musings about thinking, written in a notebook at the age of 29, have to do with the wide acceptance of his theory of natural selection?

23 posted on 10/30/2009 1:18:43 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
"Could you get a little more specific (using links and examples) about what you mean about Darwin being a religious man?"

I always thought Darwin a rather simple-minded, spiteful soul who was angry at God for the death of his daughter and set out to point as many people away from God as he could.

24 posted on 10/30/2009 1:21:16 PM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
You might be onto something. Perhaps focusing on the Darwinian ideas that science has already rejected will make it easier for scientists to go ahead and falsify the rest of his pseudo-scientific myths.
25 posted on 10/30/2009 1:21:38 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan

And confirmed by the release of his private notebooks.


26 posted on 10/30/2009 1:23:50 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
"Could you get a little more specific (using links and examples) about what you mean about Darwin being a religious man?"

Sure. Charles Darwin was educated in religious schools and was very active in his parish throughout much of his life. Later in life he became hostile to organized religion and those who claimed religious authority directly in response to the stinging accusations and criticisms he received for suggesting a theory to explain scientific observation. I am sure you have extensive literature on Charles Darwin, but the public entity created by his theory and the private man were two completely different creatures.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2004/PSCF3-04Lamoureux.pdf

http://darwin-online.org.uk/EditorialIntroductions/Freeman_LifeandLettersandAutobiography.html

Life and Letters of Charles Darwin: Chapter on religion

http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/darwin/index.shtml

27 posted on 10/30/2009 1:29:42 PM PDT by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

Because Darwin is the antichrist. If you looked closely under what hair he had left at his death, I bet you could have found the 666.


28 posted on 10/30/2009 1:39:39 PM PDT by Wacka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Perhaps focusing on the Darwinian ideas that science has already rejected

Is this your first admission that scientists don't worship at the Temple of Darwin?

29 posted on 10/30/2009 1:42:37 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

But what caught my eye was the madness that philosophical materialism leads to. Namely, when the materialist turns on his own rationality and declares it just as arbitrary and meaningless as every other inanimate law, process, or object.
<><><><><><><><

I don’t see the words arbitrary and meaningless anywhere in Darwin’s quote. Perhaps it was in the penumbra?


30 posted on 10/30/2009 1:58:43 PM PDT by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

There has never been a period when all scientists worshiped Darwin’s materialist creation myth. Both creationists and evolutionists of various stripes opposed him right from the beginning...and still do. And now the IDers have joined the ever growing chorus of Darwin critics. But neo-Darwinian evolution is still the reigning evo-atheist creation myth, and while it is indeed rapidly crumbling under the weight of massive scientific falsification, they still have the brute government power to enforce their DoDo (Darwin only, Darwin only) policy for a little while longer. But their time is rapidly running out, and they know it. That is why they are frantically searching for a new synthesis, lest they be without a new God-denying evolutionary theory to replace the old one.


31 posted on 10/30/2009 1:59:31 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Darwin's notebooks are available online for any interested.

He also made this comment that should draw our interest:

"After a brief comment on boyhood morality, he(Darwin) goes on to register a protest against a contradiction in contemporary thought: it is accepted that the whole Newtonian universe of the astronomers, vast and awesome as it may be, operates according to natural law;

N Notebook, p. 36. Courtesy of Cambridge University Library.

* Letter, Charles Darwin to Charles Lyell, August 21, 1861. ML 1, 194.

[page] 369 The Notebooks on Man, Mind and Materialism

but the much more limited universe of living things is deemed so wonderful as to require the idea of a special intelligence, “the artificer,” who designs and creates each living thing. Darwin adds a reflection on human psychology: if we admired the universe as much as we did “the wonderful structure of a beetle,” we would apply the argument from Design to the former as much as to the latter, and not accept the operation of either according to natural law.”

Ellipses added

32 posted on 10/30/2009 2:01:34 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dmz
"I don’t see the words arbitrary and meaningless anywhere in Darwin’s quote."

Do you really believe that a quote can only be assessed with words contained within the quote? Wow, that's rather simplistic. Don't you think?

"Perhaps it was in the penumbra?"

It was just un-willed thoughts...

33 posted on 10/30/2009 2:12:30 PM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

I’ll take that as a yes. Scientists don’t worship Darwin. That’s how they were able to reject his Pangenesis theory, while the acceptance of Natural Selection became almost unanimous after the work of Ronald Fisher, Edmund Ford and others involved in the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis.


34 posted on 10/30/2009 2:18:20 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
"And confirmed by the release of his private notebooks."

Which, if actually read, reveal a religious but conflicted man who was tormented by the clergy and the pious for daring to express what he has witnessed. As a result Darwin gave up on religion, but never on God.

No one worships Charles Darwin. The attacks on him are an attempt to undermine his message by discrediting or vilifying the messenger.

35 posted on 10/30/2009 2:18:59 PM PDT by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
""After a brief comment on boyhood morality, he(Darwin) goes on to register a protest against a contradiction in contemporary thought: it is accepted that the whole Newtonian universe of the astronomers, vast and awesome as it may be, operates according to natural law;"

"..but the much more limited universe of living things is deemed so wonderful as to require the idea of a special intelligence, “the artificer,” who designs and creates each living thing."

This is what I mean about Darwin being simple-minded. There are a couple of classic fallacies in these statements that Darwin should have recognized.

It is a simple thing to recognize that life merely required the same creative start that the universe received, proceeding thereafter according to mechanisms and properties inherent at its creation.

Darwin apparently did not realize that the fact that each new generation of life did not require a creative act on God's part does not mean that God didn't create life any more than the fact that the change of seasons doesn't require a creative act on God's part means that the universe wasn't created.

Were he a true scientist, Darwin should then have looked for the mechanisms and properties of life that generated the things observed. This would have been science. Instead, Darwin promoted the philosophical conclusion that God did not create life.

This is the fallacy of necessity where an unwarranted conclusion is reached based on the necessity of one of the premises. The fact that life proceeds by generation without creative requirement does not necessarily mean that life was not created. Darwin continued his error by invoking the fallacy of affirming the consequent by interpreting all observations strictly in terms of his initial belief.

Pity the poor fools who can't see the massive fallacies Darwin committed and blindly accept Darwin's simple-minded fallacious assessment.

36 posted on 10/30/2009 2:47:56 PM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
“Instead, Darwin promoted the philosophical conclusion that God did not create life.”

That statement is not correct.

“It is no valid objection that science as yet throws no light on the far higher problem of the essence or origin of life” (Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species. 6th edition, 1882. p. 421).

37 posted on 10/30/2009 3:11:26 PM PDT by Ira_Louvin (Go tell them people lost in sin, Theres a higher power ,They need not fear the works of men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Ira_Louvin
“Instead, Darwin promoted the philosophical conclusion that God did not create life.”

"That statement is not correct."

Wrong. The statement is correct.

You are using a definition of 'life' as some invisible, simple, self-replicating form that would lead to all others (i.e., evolution). I am using life in the context of the different baramin that could be identified in Darwin's day. Darwin certainly promoted the philosophical conclusion that God did not create the various baramin the were observed in his day, but rather was limited to some simple self-replicating form that eventually led to all others.

This distinction does not remove the fallacies in Darwin or his adherent's thinking. Having admitted that God is needed for the invisible simple form, Darwin's mistake in thinking that all subsequent forms had to be generated by evolution is still intact. As is his mistake in interpreting all observations through his 'a priori' belief that this invisible, simple, original form could generate all of the observed baramin.

38 posted on 10/30/2009 3:45:25 PM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
This quote is very plane:

It is no valid objection that science as yet throws no light on the far higher problem of the essence or origin of life” (Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species. 6th edition, 1882. p. 421).

All your pseudoscience, misdirection, and distortion, cannot change the facts.

Baramin is a made up pseudoscientific term. Show me one creditable peer-reviewed paper on that subject.

39 posted on 10/30/2009 4:05:16 PM PDT by Ira_Louvin (Go tell them people lost in sin, Theres a higher power ,They need not fear the works of men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts; GourmetDan

LOL!

Is it part of God’s plan to reveal Himself to the evo-folks as well?

Or do they already know everything?


40 posted on 10/30/2009 4:40:11 PM PDT by tpanther (Science was, is and will forever be a small subset of God's creation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
"Were he a true scientist,"

What do you know about "true science"? Based upon 19th century standards Darwin was a giant. That for over 100 years there has been legitimate, and as yet unresolved debate over his observations and the causes he suggests speaks volumes. Remember, Darwin did not have the advantage of DNA research or Google searches, or a million other tools and discoveries that have happened since his death.

41 posted on 10/30/2009 4:49:01 PM PDT by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Ira_Louvin; GourmetDan
"Baramin is a made up pseudoscientific term."

Baramin is the mystic coefficient that resolves all scientific conflicts of the creationist's algorithms.

42 posted on 10/30/2009 4:54:10 PM PDT by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
I always thought Darwin a rather simple-minded, spiteful soul who was angry at God for the death of his daughter and set out to point as many people away from God as he could.

Darwin wrote a preliminary 230 page essay on the theory of natural selection in 1844, Seven years before Annie Darwin died.

So really your "always thought" supports Darwin's point about the properties of the emmissions of the skull wetware being not that exceptionable.

43 posted on 10/30/2009 7:04:25 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy (Halfway honest people reject Darwinism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Thanks for the ping!


44 posted on 10/30/2009 9:41:36 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Well said.


45 posted on 10/30/2009 10:04:30 PM PDT by rae4palin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ira_Louvin
"This quote is very plane:"

I think you mean 'plain', but yes.

"It is no valid objection that science as yet throws no light on the far higher problem of the essence or origin of life” (Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species. 6th edition, 1882. p. 421)."

Darwin was trying to equate the origin of life problem with an incomplete theory of gravity. This is why we see evos constantly parroting the same argument. However, when 96% of the matter and energy of the universe is deemed 'invisible' in order for the theory of gravity to work on astronomical scales, one has to wonder if the analogy was a serendipitous indictment of evolution by Darwin's own hand.

"All your pseudoscience, misdirection, and distortion, cannot change the facts."

What fact do you think I'm trying to change?

"Baramin is a made up pseudoscientific term. Show me one creditable peer-reviewed paper on that subject."

As is the assumed, invisible, simple form that Darwin postulated. Even to this day. Using your standard, Darwin would not have been able to publish his philosophy.

46 posted on 10/31/2009 7:55:57 AM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
"What do you know about "true science"? Based upon 19th century standards Darwin was a giant. That for over 100 years there has been legitimate, and as yet unresolved debate over his observations and the causes he suggests speaks volumes."

I know that 'true science' deals with what is observable and testable. Billions of years of assumed history, assumed life forms and assumed processes are not 'true science'. That is philosophy.

"Remember, Darwin did not have the advantage of DNA research or Google searches, or a million other tools and discoveries that have happened since his death."

Darwin committed several logical fallacies in proposing his new 'theory' that is fundamentally-based on ancient pagan ideas. Maggots spontaneously appearing on carcasses and rats spontaneously being generated by garbage dumps were some of those ancient pagan ideas.

Darwin simply made these ancient pagan ideas untestable by making the organisms 'simple' and pushing them back into unobservable, assumed time frames. Thus making his theory unfalsifiable and dependent on the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

47 posted on 10/31/2009 8:05:58 AM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
"Baramin is the mystic coefficient that resolves all scientific conflicts of the creationist's algorithms."

We can use science's term for groups of interbreeding species.

What term would you like to use?

48 posted on 10/31/2009 8:08:47 AM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy
"Darwin wrote a preliminary 230 page essay on the theory of natural selection in 1844, Seven years before Annie Darwin died."

Are you saying that Darwin wasn't angry at God for the death of his daughter or that he didn't set out to point as many people away from God as he could?

"So really your "always thought" supports Darwin's point about the properties of the emmissions of the skull wetware being not that exceptionable."

As does your post...

49 posted on 10/31/2009 8:11:06 AM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
"What term would you like to use?"

How about "Bullsh*t", it seems to suit the concept pretty well.

50 posted on 10/31/2009 8:46:52 AM PDT by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-85 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