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

Skip to comments.

The story behind Darwin's warm little pond
ARN ^ | November 6, 2009 | David Tyler, Ph.D.

Posted on 11/07/2009 6:08:03 PM PST by GodGunsGuts

Sooner or later, students of abiogenesis will encounter Darwin's 1871 letter to Joseph Hooker with his speculations on the spontaneous generation of life. He was returning some pamphlets which triggered the reaction: "I am always delighted to see a word in favour of Pangenesis, which some day, I believe, will have a resurrection." The next paragraph has his "big if" dream: ...

(Excerpt) Read more at arn.org ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: antiscienceevos; belongsinreligion; creation; darwin; darwiniacs; darwinism; evolution; evoreligionexposed; godsgravesglyphs; intelligentdesign; notasciencetopic; propellerbeanie; science; spammer; templeofdarwin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100 next last

1 posted on 11/07/2009 6:08:04 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Pangenesis, ah yes,my microbes tell me we were there.
2 posted on 11/07/2009 6:09:47 PM PST by Candor7 (The effective weapons Against Fascism are ridicule, derision, and truth (.Member NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
1871.

Hard to believe the world was completely hoodwinked in less than a hundred years.

shoot, with global warming, it was less than 20. Maybe 50, if you include the whole "ecology" indoctrination.

3 posted on 11/07/2009 6:13:08 PM PST by the invisib1e hand (the obama doctrine: "let's not rush to any conclusions...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: metmom; DaveLoneRanger; editor-surveyor; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; MrB; GourmetDan; Fichori; ...
Has anyone else noticed what Darwin considered one of his chief regrets with respect to Origins?
4 posted on 11/07/2009 6:14:32 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the invisib1e hand

I don’t want to discuss it on this thread, but don’t forget about what’s on my profile page!


5 posted on 11/07/2009 6:17:12 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

whoa. here I was thinking it was a plague.


6 posted on 11/07/2009 6:19:13 PM PST by the invisib1e hand (the obama doctrine: "let's not rush to any conclusions...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Well let's see:

“It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present. But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, - light, heat, electricity &c. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.”

...

“In the absence of any real corroborative evidence, it is impossible to guess what Darwin thought about the nature of the first living beings. In any case, Darwin's remarks should not be read to imply that he was thinking in terms of prebiotic chemistry, but rather that he recognized that the chemical gap separating organisms from the non-living was not insurmountable.”

...

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” (Source on page 490 here)

(Ah, the CREATOR! Oh, NO!!!!)

...

“[to Hooker] But I have long regretted that I truckled to public opinion & used Pentateuchal term of creation, by which I really meant “appeared” by some wholly unknown process. - It is mere rubbish thinking, at present, of origin of life; one might as well think of origin of matter.”

[to the Athenaeum] “Now is there a fact, or a shadow of a fact, supporting the belief that these elements, without the presence of any organic compounds, and acted on only by known forces, could produce a living creature? At present it is to us a result absolutely inconceivable. Your reviewer sneers with justice at my use of the “Pentateuchal terms”, “of one primordial form into which life was first breathed”: in a purely scientific work I ought perhaps not to have used such terms; but they well serve to confess that our ignorance is as profound on the origin of life as on the origin of force or matter.”

...

“As for myself I cannot believe in spontaneous generation & though I expect that at some future time the principle of life will be rendered intelligible, at present it seems to me beyond the confines of science.” (Letter 5282, 1866)
“I have met with no evidence that seems in the least trustworthy, in favour of the so-called Spontaneous generation. I believe that I have somewhere said (but cannot find the passage) that the principle of continuity renders it probable that the principle of life will hereafter be shown to be a part, or consequence of some general law; but this is only conjecture and not science.” (Letter to Wallich, 1882)

...

“The intimate relation of Life with laws of chemical combination, & the universality of latter render spontaneous generation not improbable.” (2nd Notebook, 1837)
“Though no evidence worth anything has as yet, in my opinion, been advanced in favour of a living being, being developed from inorganic matter, yet I cannot avoid believing the possibility of this will be proved some day in accordance with the law of continuity. [. . .] If it is ever found that life can originate on this world, the vital phenomena will come under some general law of nature.” (Letter 13711, 1882)

...

“Indeed, a careful examination and critical reading of his public and private writings shows that what appear to be contradictory opinions on the problem of the emergence of life are the result of texts read out of context, sometimes maliciously, as shown by some publications of creationist groups and advocates of the so-called intelligent design.”

...

“Nor should we be misled by a sop Darwin attached to later editions of his Origin of Species. The first edition ended with the famous flourish: “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one [. . .]” To smooth ruffled feathers, later editions read: “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one [. . .]” Some are fooled by this sop even to this day. But what did Darwin himself say about this little addition? “I have long regretted that I truckled to public opinion & used [a] Pentateuchal term of creation, by which I really meant ‘appeared’ by some wholly unknown process.”” (Wiker, B. 2009)

...

As a final thought, Darwin was intellectually honest enough to see the difference between his philosophical materialism (which demanded some form of spontaneous generation) and empirical science (which gave no support for it).

...

Unfortunately, today's “scientist” still churns out propaganda as truth and the sheeple have made it into a RELIGION.

7 posted on 11/07/2009 6:28:07 PM PST by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: the invisib1e hand

1871.
Hard to believe the world was completely hoodwinked in less than a hundred years.

shoot, with global warming, it was less than 20. Maybe 50, if you include the whole “ecology” indoctrination.


Many on FR are hooked on this garbage.

They’ll believe whatever they are told.


8 posted on 11/07/2009 6:29:53 PM PST by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Oh my !

Did you see he even had a PHd?

November 6, 2009 | David Tyler, Ph.D.

Gee, educated people can disagree with the LEFTISTS.


9 posted on 11/07/2009 6:31:46 PM PST by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Life didn’t spring from spontaneous generation. Like Topsy, it just sort of growed.


10 posted on 11/07/2009 6:46:08 PM PST by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: nmh

Thanks for the high lights.


11 posted on 11/07/2009 7:31:13 PM PST by rae4palin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
...It is mere rubbish thinking, at present, of origin of life; one might as well think of origin of matter."[Darwin]

I'm glad to learn that Darwin was at least an honest enough materialist to recognize that materialism is not supported by science.

12 posted on 11/07/2009 10:51:42 PM PST by AndyTheBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the invisib1e hand

“Hard to believe the world was completely hoodwinked in less than a hundred years.

shoot, with global warming, it was less than 20. Maybe 50, if you include the whole “ecology” indoctrination.”

Don’t forget the link between HIV and AIDS, heliocentrism and continental drift.

You can’t believe anything “scientists” tell us these days.


13 posted on 11/07/2009 11:04:46 PM PST by SargeTheSane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Since you brought it up, another subject that you are on the lunatic fringe of.
If HIV doesn’t cause AIDS, then why not get injected with it?


14 posted on 11/07/2009 11:50:24 PM PST by Wacka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SargeTheSane; Admin Moderator; Jim Robinson

Welcome to FR n00b. I went through your brief posting history, and what did I find? You champion Republican turncoats like Arlen Specter and Scozzafava, you call conservatives “stupid”, and you called Sarah Palin a “moron.” Did you perchance join this forum to insult conservatives?


15 posted on 11/08/2009 12:12:04 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

This has been pointed out to you numerous times, The evolutionary theory does not address the origins of life.

“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

Why do you continue to post these dishonest assertions after being corrected numerous times, did God give you an exemption from Exodus 20:16?

16 posted on 11/08/2009 2:37:26 AM PST 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: nmh
Yes it really looks like this guy is on the cutting edge of evolutionary scientific research.

After joining the Department of Clothing Design and Technology at Manchester Metropolitan University, he has pursued a number of research interests related to responsive manufacturing and systems modelling. Earlier work was concerned with flow line systems and management strategies to optimise performance. Research interests over the past decade relate to teamworking in new product development and its relation to operational practices, and the optimisation of performance of textile/apparel supply chains. Since March 2000, he has managed the North West Advanced Apparel Systems Centre, a European-funded initiative to support clothing and textile companies in NW England.

17 posted on 11/08/2009 2:42:47 AM PST 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 9 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
I don’t want to discuss it on this thread, but don’t forget about what’s on my profile page!

Ah. So you're an HIV-doesn't-cause-AIDS nutter. Not surprising. People rarely embrace only one pseudoscience. I don't recall all the instances off the top of my head but, I've noticed in passing at various times that most FR antievolutionists believe firmly in some other variety of lunacy. For instance just the other day I noticed that one of you guys (although I don't remember who) is promoting chiropractic on their homepage. IIRC we also have believers in Atlantis, UFOs and psychic powers.

18 posted on 11/08/2009 7:14:20 AM PST by Stultis (Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia; Democrats always opposed waterboarding as torture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Stultis

And editor-surveyor believes the sun goes around the earth.


19 posted on 11/08/2009 7:56:46 AM PST by Wacka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: nmh

Yes, look how many groupies GGG has.


20 posted on 11/08/2009 7:59:29 AM PST by Wacka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Wacka

Oh, gee. Yeah. I forgot. I sincerely apologize to all FR geocentrists who may participate in these threads. I didn’t mean to leave you out!


21 posted on 11/08/2009 8:14:27 AM PST by Stultis (Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia; Democrats always opposed waterboarding as torture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Stultis; Wacka

Projecting again, I see. The truth is that your fellow Temple of Darwin fanatics are one of the most pseudoscientific and supersitious groupings in the country. But that really shouldn’t come as a surpise, seeing how your evo-materialist coreligionists also believe that life came from non-life, intelligence from non-intelligence, and that the complex, specified, super-sophisticated DNA code came from pond scum plus lightening:

“What Americans Really Believe,” a comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that traditional Christian religion greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of astrology. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience than evangelical Christians.

The Gallup Organization, under contract to Baylor’s Institute for Studies of Religion, asked American adults a series of questions to gauge credulity. Do dreams foretell the future? Did ancient advanced civilizations such as Atlantis exist? Can places be haunted? Is it possible to communicate with the dead? Will creatures like Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster someday be discovered by science?

The answers were added up to create an index of belief in occult and the paranormal. While 31% of people who never worship expressed strong belief in these things, only 8% of people who attend a house of worship more than once a week did ...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html


22 posted on 11/08/2009 10:17:04 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS; Alamo-Girl; GodGunsGuts
Life didn’t spring from spontaneous generation. Like Topsy, it just sort of growed.

No, that's not right, dear YHAOS: Like the grey-eyed Athena, it simply sprang forth fully formed from the brow of Zeus....

23 posted on 11/08/2009 10:30:51 AM PST by betty boop (Without God man neither knows which way to go, nor even understands who he is. —Pope Benedict XVI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Yes. I've long been aware of that particular study (not checking just now, but assuming the one I recall is the same one you cite, but maybe not) finding that evangelicals are less likely than liberal Christians or secularists to have paranormal beliefs.

IIRC correctly, that survey was not particularly large, and it was conducted on college students, who may or may not represent the general population well. Or maybe I misremember. But anyway, it doesn't matter much. I don't particularly dispute the finding.

However it doesn't contradict my assertion that those who accept one pseudoscience or fringe belief tend to also accept others. Even if evangelicals are indeed less likely to fall into that category (and many evangelical Christians do indeed either accept evolution, or aren't particularly adamant in their skepticism of it) I hold that it still applies to those who do. Certainly, as noted, we find abundant evidence of that right here in FreeRepublic.

24 posted on 11/08/2009 10:33:30 AM PST by Stultis (Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia; Democrats always opposed waterboarding as torture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts; Alamo-Girl
Has anyone else noticed what Darwin considered one of his chief regrets with respect to Origins?

That he had used the "Pentateuchal language" of a Creator breathing life into existence??? That sort of thing wasn't politically correct in Darwin's circle of acquaintance back then; i..e., philosophical materialists/hardcore rationalists strongly inclined to the doctrine of philosophical positivism.

25 posted on 11/08/2009 10:35:59 AM PST by betty boop (Without God man neither knows which way to go, nor even understands who he is. —Pope Benedict XVI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Wacka

“Yes, look how many groupies GGG has.”

I’ve noticed that some of the more amusing groupies have been absent from his threads despite the obligatory mass ping. I wonder if even they have had enough.


26 posted on 11/08/2009 10:37:18 AM PST by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Stultis

==However it doesn’t contradict my assertion that those who accept one pseudoscience or fringe belief tend to also accept others.

I couldn’t agree more, that is why those who accept darwood’s pseudoscientific fairytale are much more likely to accept the existence of the occult and paranormal, such as ghosts, Big Foot, psychic healing, Lock Ness Monster, haunted houses, UFOs, clairvoyance, little greene men from Mars, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc....


27 posted on 11/08/2009 10:49:08 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: SargeTheSane
You can’t believe anything “scientists” tell us these days.

Or salesmen, or politicians, or the guidance counselor at school, or the traffic cop you asked for directions, or the kid at the drive through window, or pretty much anyone else.

28 posted on 11/08/2009 10:50:27 AM PST by the invisib1e hand (the obama doctrine: "let's not rush to any conclusions...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

Not only was it not politically correct within Darwin’s own circles, he himself didn’t believe it and apparently felt ashamed for writing dishonestly in an attempt to gain a wider acceptance for his evo-atheist creation myth.


29 posted on 11/08/2009 10:58:39 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Wacka

“Yes, look how many groupies GGG has.”

What is “GGG”?

What I value is straight science without the propaganda as in evolution or Darwin’s nonsense that he didn’t even believe in.


30 posted on 11/08/2009 11:11:46 AM PST by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: nmh; Wacka

“What I value is straight science without the propaganda as in evolution or Darwin’s nonsense...”

Do you consider biblical creationism to be real science?


31 posted on 11/08/2009 11:47:07 AM PST by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts; Alamo-Girl
...and apparently felt ashamed for writing dishonestly in an attempt to gain a wider acceptance for his evo-atheist creation myth

Here you are attributing motives to Darwin — which is a very unscientific thing to do. But then it seems people do that sort of thing all the time nowadays....

Somehow, I just don't think it's right, or appropriate in a scientific discussion.

JMHO, FWIW

32 posted on 11/08/2009 12:25:25 PM PST by betty boop (Without God man neither knows which way to go, nor even understands who he is. —Pope Benedict XVI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

Did you read the post? Darwin was ashamed of himself for “truckling to public opinion” because he substituted the word “creator” for what he really meant, which was “appeared.” What do you call it when a person deliberately says one thing, when they really mean something entirely different?


33 posted on 11/08/2009 12:44:04 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
What do you call it when a person deliberately says one thing, when they really mean something entirely different?

What do you call it when someone misrepresents what the Bible says and won't own up to it?

34 posted on 11/08/2009 12:58:07 PM PST by ColdWater ("The theory of evolution really has no bearing on what I'm trying to accomplish with FR anyway. ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

I call that person, CW.


35 posted on 11/08/2009 12:59:21 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: nmh; GodGunsGuts
What is “GGG”?

GGG is a YECer that has to meet his minimum number of new threads per day, misrepresents that Bible and won't own up to it.

36 posted on 11/08/2009 1:00:49 PM PST by ColdWater ("The theory of evolution really has no bearing on what I'm trying to accomplish with FR anyway. ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
I call that person, CW.

I call that person GGG.

In Genesis 3 you will find that all creation was cursed because of the Fall.

Where does the Genesis 3 say this? We are up to verse 10 and you still will not admit you have misrepresented the Bible.

37 posted on 11/08/2009 1:04:49 PM PST by ColdWater ("The theory of evolution really has no bearing on what I'm trying to accomplish with FR anyway. ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

By saying that I am misrepresenting the Bible, you are calling me a liar. Which means you are ignorant, or a liar, or both. But there is only one way to find out. So let’s hear it. What evidence do you have that I am misrepresenting/lying about the Bible?


38 posted on 11/08/2009 1:05:20 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

I told you I want you to read the whole thing. Have you read all of Genesis 3 yet?


39 posted on 11/08/2009 1:06:23 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
By saying that I am misrepresenting the Bible, you are calling me a liar. Which means you are ignorant, or a liar, or both. But there is only one way to find out. So let’s hear it. What evidence do you have that I am misrepresenting/lying about the Bible?

In Genesis 3 you will find that all creation was cursed because of the Fall.

40 posted on 11/08/2009 1:07:33 PM PST by ColdWater ("The theory of evolution really has no bearing on what I'm trying to accomplish with FR anyway. ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
I told you I want you to read the whole thing. Have you read all of Genesis 3 yet?

We are up to verse 10. As I said, we will go through them one by one till you we go through them all. Or until you admit you misrepresented Genesis 3.

41 posted on 11/08/2009 1:08:52 PM PST by ColdWater ("The theory of evolution really has no bearing on what I'm trying to accomplish with FR anyway. ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

Keep reading. But in the meantime, why don’t you tell me how I am misrepresenting Genesis 3.


42 posted on 11/08/2009 1:10:30 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts; count-your-change

None has come to defend you. Even count-your-change beat it out of Dodge.


43 posted on 11/08/2009 1:13:32 PM PST by ColdWater ("The theory of evolution really has no bearing on what I'm trying to accomplish with FR anyway. ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

Why would anyone need to defend me? As usual, you have be cornered and you are refusing to answer questions.


44 posted on 11/08/2009 1:16:04 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts; Alamo-Girl
Darwin was ashamed of himself for “truckling to public opinion....”

On the publishing history, I find it curious that the Creator evidently was not mentioned in the first edition of Origin of Species, but only appears in the second and later ones. So when did Darwin actually start truckling to public opinion? Why would he truckle to it in the first place? One supposes he wasn't looking for confirmation from theists in order for his theory to be accepted.

Still, any way you slice it, these are not scientific questions.

IMHO, Darwin hoists himself on his own petard if we just read him and take him at his word as to what the evidentiary standard needs to be for his evolution theory to prove correct. All these speculations about his personal, psychological motivation simply detracts from this.

Or so it seems to me, FWIW.

Thanks so much for writing, GGG!

45 posted on 11/08/2009 1:22:26 PM PST by betty boop (Without God man neither knows which way to go, nor even understands who he is. —Pope Benedict XVI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

“GodGunsGuts to SargeTheSane; Admin Moderator; Jim Robinson “

“To: GodGunsGuts I repeat, stop hitting the abuse button. 210 posted on 10/22/2009 3:29:31 PM PDT by Admin Moderator”


46 posted on 11/08/2009 2:09:06 PM PST by ColdWater ("The theory of evolution really has no bearing on what I'm trying to accomplish with FR anyway. ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
"Like the grey-eyed Athena, [life] it simply sprang forth fully formed from the brow of Zeus...."

Oh darn, and here all along I thought it was Topsy. Topsy will be badly shaken to know this.

47 posted on 11/08/2009 2:33:53 PM PST by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
Me: “What is “GGG”?

You: GGG is a YECer that has to meet his minimum number of new threads per day, misrepresents that Bible and won't own up to it.

Clearly that doesn't include me and I don't apprecaite you misrpersenting me to fit whatever YOUR agenda is.


I'm also not a “YECer” or yes person.


I see no misrepresentation on this thread about the Bible. When I do see a misrepresentation of the Bible, I comment on it. I may not catch every one that misrepresents the Bible since I have a life outside of FR.

So, knock off the mindless name calling and misrepresenting ME!

48 posted on 11/08/2009 3:57:21 PM PST by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: nmh
Clearly that doesn't include me and I don't apprecaite you misrpersenting me to fit whatever YOUR agenda is.

Huh? I made no reference to you or your agenda.

49 posted on 11/08/2009 4:02:52 PM PST by ColdWater ("The theory of evolution really has no bearing on what I'm trying to accomplish with FR anyway. ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

I am referring to these exchanges to ME!

The story behind Darwin’s warm little pond
Sunday, November 08, 2009 4:00:49 PM · 36 of 49
ColdWater to nmh; GodGunsGuts

What is “GGG”?

GGG is a YECer that has to meet his minimum number of new threads per day, misrepresents that Bible and won’t own up to it.

Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies


The story behind Darwin’s warm little pond
Sunday, November 08, 2009 6:57:21 PM · 48 of 49
nmh to ColdWater

Me: “What is “GGG”?

You: GGG is a YECer that has to meet his minimum number of new threads per day, misrepresents that Bible and won’t own up to it.

Clearly that doesn’t include me and I don’t apprecaite you misrpersenting me to fit whatever YOUR agenda is.

I’m also not a “YECer” or yes person.

I see no misrepresentation on this thread about the Bible. When I do see a misrepresentation of the Bible, I comment on it. I may not catch every one that misrepresents the Bible since I have a life outside of FR.

So, knock off the mindless name calling and misrepresenting ME!

Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies


“Huh? I made no reference to you or your agenda.”

I have no agenda but to speak the truth.


50 posted on 11/08/2009 4:06:46 PM PST by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100 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