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

Skip to comments.

Leaked PBS Memo Reveals Improper Political Agenda
Discovery Institute via US Newswire ^ | 09/27/2001 | Discovery Institute

Posted on 09/27/2001 7:43:35 AM PDT by Nora

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-298 next last
To: Pete
This absolutely outrageous statement only serves to show your complete lack of objectivity on the issue.

I'm entirely objective. Evolution is the only rational theory in the game. You want to put science on an equal standing with swami-lore, and you say I'm lacking in objectivity?

101 posted on 09/27/2001 11:35:15 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: woollyone
It most certainly is observable - try "The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time" By Jonathon Weiner, a Pulitzer Prize winning observation of evolution.
102 posted on 09/27/2001 11:35:52 AM PDT by Ice-D
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: toddhisattva
"Drug and pesticide resistance. The "Evolution" series has concentrated heavily on these beneficial mutations. Maybe you should watch it."

Oh yeah, genetic engineering. Shows intellegent design huh! As in a Creator. In this case though it is man that has stepped in the place of God. Maybe you sould watch your arguments, for your a are arguing for intelleget design.

More pointedly, can you show us an example of a corn plant turning into a bean plant? After all, this is what evolutionists must be able to explain away; macroevolution.

baa

103 posted on 09/27/2001 11:40:36 AM PDT by woollyone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: toddhisattva
"Drug and pesticide resistance. The "Evolution" series has concentrated heavily on these beneficial mutations. Maybe you should watch it."

Oh yeah, genetic engineering. Shows intellegent design huh! As in a Creator. In this case though it is man that has stepped in the place of God. Maybe you sould watch your arguments, for your a are arguing for intelleget design.

More pointedly, can you show us an example of a corn plant turning into a bean plant? After all, this is what evolutionists must be able to explain; macroevolution.

baa

104 posted on 09/27/2001 11:40:56 AM PDT by woollyone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: woollyone
- try "The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time" By Jonathon Weiner,

This is too funny. I was just about to tell you, you'd probably be getting a link about the big beaked finches or the moths that changed color. There's also a flower that morphed into a flower!!! Can you believe that one???
105 posted on 09/27/2001 11:41:06 AM PDT by dubyagee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: All
I know everybody has jumped all over this, but who has actually read the memo? I just finished reading it, and it seems like a marketing plan! I think this 'report' by the Discovery Institute is quite disingenuous. Here is a sample of the memo;

Science and religion can coexist. With this project we address the question of how life develops on Earth from the point of view of science, and not from the spiritual realm. Both realms can coexist side by side, but they speak to entirely different questions: one to the How, the other to the Why? Many key people who have spoken out on evolution, from Dr. Jane Goodall and Dr. Ken Miller to Pope John Paul III and Rev. Dr. Arthur Peacocke are helping us reinforce the idea that science and religion are not mutually exclusive. Belief in evolution does not challenge religious beliefs. Pope John Paulll has declared that evolution is a time-tested scientific theory that does not contradict the tenets of the Roman Catholic Church. Catholicism, conservative and reform Judaism, and many Protestant denominations such as The United Church of Christ and the Episcopal Church acknowledge that evolution is the description of a mechanism that governs the natural processes of life on Earth. Evolution does not claim to say anything about the existence of God, or about people's spiritual beliefs.

Just seems like a sensible marketing plan considering the nature of this topic.

106 posted on 09/27/2001 11:42:50 AM PDT by Ice-D
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: dubyagee
Instead of calling it laughable, and dashing off non-sequiters, why not sensibly refute it?
107 posted on 09/27/2001 11:44:33 AM PDT by Ice-D
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: woollyone
errr.. Don't you think he's talking about things like bacteria that has developed resistance against drugs? Or are you suggesting that they too are man-made?
108 posted on 09/27/2001 11:44:50 AM PDT by anguish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
swampi-lore---you!
109 posted on 09/27/2001 11:47:07 AM PDT by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Ice-D
"It most certainly is observable - try "The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time" By Jonathon Weiner, a Pulitzer Prize winning observation of evolution."

Again, finch's beaks may change through breeding, as my Golden Retreiver is a product of selective breeding. Can a Finch's beak turn into a pair of lips? If so, would it survive? I can also point out the exmples of the woodpecker and the Cleaner-Fish and demonstrate that it is an impossibility for these creature to have evolved naturally. Each of these two examples show intellegent design.

But can you demonstrate a finch turning into a lizzard, or a dog? That's the type of transition that is required for evolution to be believable...that a species can turn into another species.

baa

110 posted on 09/27/2001 11:50:00 AM PDT by woollyone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Southack
... there is no evidence of the first required step in the entire Evolutionary process

There is (protein molecules are formed in various natural ways) but no truly living cell has yet been produced in the lab. What of it? Are you saying that until that final step is taken, your sticking with Noah's Ark? No science is acceptable to you, until it has achieved finality? And until then, you're sticking with mythology? I suppose you won't ever visit a doctor, for anything, until all disease is conquered. Neat way to think. You happy with it?

111 posted on 09/27/2001 11:54:18 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Ice-D
A moth changes its colors. A bird develops a larger beak. A flower becomes a different kind of flower. I see nothing here to refute. These things in no way, shape, or form, show that given enough time a sea creature, or monkey, or anything else could eventually become a human being. Now if you had eternity, maybe.......
112 posted on 09/27/2001 11:56:05 AM PDT by dubyagee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: toddhisattva
Again people with ad hominem attacks with statements like this: "since one of the most-used mantras of the Talibanic creationists is"

So do you like being called a homophobe? I cannot respect or even take seriously anyone with such blatant disrespect for other opinions. Again a sign of immaturity. I can see you are as rabid about evolution as the homosexuals are about their agendas and there is no middle ground, just dogma and insults when your opinion is questioned.
113 posted on 09/27/2001 11:57:31 AM PDT by Nyralthotep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Here is what you said:

Only a sincere desire to take back education from the Taliban creationists

. And:

I'm entirely objective. Evolution is the only rational theory in the game. You want to put science on an equal standing with swami-lore, and you say I'm lacking in objectivity?

Comparing creationists to the Taliban and using terms like "swami-lore" are hostile and emotional statements. Ad hominem is a fallacy of logic. All of these are signs of a lack of objectivity. You may believe that you are objective but your inflammatory posture betrays your bias.

114 posted on 09/27/2001 11:58:26 AM PDT by Pete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: 537 Votes
It's not the function of the federal government to launch advocacy campaigns on local government. If you're against gun control, why are you in favor of federal government control of local government? Won't that lead to a totalitarian state too?

Gosh, I never thought about that hmmmm... hmmmmm... interesting... PBS issues a memo (I read the whole thing, I don't know what memo Discovery Institute's John West was reading, 'cuase he isn't even close.) basically saying that it's goal was to foster scientific literacy amongst some target audiences, including high school students, and basically to drum up interest in the program. The memo also states that, while it is a film about Evolution, that they have dedicated an hour of the program to the complaints of Creationists.

Yep. That equates with the federal government "controlling" local government. It's the exact same thing as coming to take away my guns. I can see why one should be alarmed. uh huh.

115 posted on 09/27/2001 11:58:37 AM PDT by Wm Bach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: f.Christian
Definition 1. an evil or lawless person, often beyond hope of redemption.

If directed at me personally I have to ask, do you know me? If directed at anyone who believes in Evolution it sounds much like a Muslim Mullah chant of "infidel" to anyone that is perceived as being a threat to their terrorist murder squads. In my opinion it you that is beyond redemption and you prove it every time you post.

116 posted on 09/27/2001 12:02:39 PM PDT by WRhine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Nora
Your tax dollars at work.
117 posted on 09/27/2001 12:03:08 PM PDT by daniel boob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: woollyone
That's it? That's your obesrvable evidence? And you're gonna rest your entire theory on a mere 200 alleged exaples? Darwin claimed that there would be thousands of such examples! Your 200 finds are but 1/100th of the fossil record. Actually, the number of transition examples should be almost as many at the fully mutated variety.

Those are just the vertebrates. (Admittedly, vertebrates fossilize better than do a lot of the invertebrate life forms. Nevertheless, there's a growing fossil records for invertebrates including protozoans.)

What's so "iffy" about the two hundred examples I gave you that you can excuse dithering between "not ONE" and "just ONE?" Discredit an example for me:

A comparision of Eusthenopteron, a lobe-finned fish, with Acanothostega, an early amphibian:

A Comparision of their skulls.

What's an amphibian doing with a fish head?

A Framing Narrative from Glenn R. Morton, recovering Young Earth Creationist.

118 posted on 09/27/2001 12:03:38 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky
bump
119 posted on 09/27/2001 12:08:25 PM PDT by fella
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Comment #120 Removed by Moderator

To: Nora
Continued funding of PBS' stinking left-wing, liberal reactionary, anti-American diatribe has to end once and for all. First they are completely redundant. Second, they are utterly biased and suspect. Third, they are a major tax drain on the local and national level being only a part of the vast left-wing "public" education media that includes the equally ridiculous and squalid NPR.
121 posted on 09/27/2001 12:11:32 PM PDT by Imperial Warrior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WRhine
The law/truth of Darwin you live by? The jungle--chest thumpers?? Write your own history--science???
122 posted on 09/27/2001 12:11:34 PM PDT by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: rvoitier
"Evolution makes me wonder that if we came from apes, then why are they still here?"

Good question.
-sigh-
Apparently...no one's told you of the new developements that Clintigula's NEA have discovered.

Yea, the tree doesn't fall far from the apple.

123 posted on 09/27/2001 12:15:18 PM PDT by Landru
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: woollyone
Can a Finch's beak turn into a pair of lips?

If the environment called for it.

If so, would it survive?

If the adaptation was a result of a change in environment, then the change would be necessary for survival.

I can also point out the exmples of the woodpecker and the Cleaner-Fish and demonstrate that it is an impossibility for these creature to have evolved naturally. Each of these two examples show intellegent design

I don't think they do. Mutualism supports evolution. Please expand.

But can you demonstrate a finch turning into a lizzard, or a dog?

Sure, have you got a couple hundred finches, a lot of land and a few hundred thousand years?

124 posted on 09/27/2001 12:16:05 PM PDT by Ice-D
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: KC_Conspirator
Abolish Public Television

Abolish Public Education

Let parents and the free market rule.

125 posted on 09/27/2001 12:17:06 PM PDT by Aggressive Calvinist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #126 Removed by Moderator

To: Steve0113
How about the fact that "our rabid religious nuts" don't make a habit of murdering those who disagree with them?

Ever hear of the abortion clinic murders, Salem witch trials, writings about the savage american indians who know not God and are therefore no better than animals, or maybe the Inquisition? I find no fault with religeon, only those who think they have the ultimate answer in their religeon, be it Christianity, Islam, Hinduism or whatever. These fundamentalists are the dangerous ones, historically. I think Pascal had it right.
127 posted on 09/27/2001 12:22:07 PM PDT by marsis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Ice-D
Sure, have you got a couple hundred finches, a lot of land and a few hundred thousand years?

That's wishful thinking. By evolutionary standards, it'd take a lot longer than that.
128 posted on 09/27/2001 12:26:10 PM PDT by dubyagee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: dubyagee
But long enough to see a change
129 posted on 09/27/2001 12:27:56 PM PDT by Ice-D
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Steve0113
How about the fact that "our rabid religious nuts" don't make a habit of murdering those who disagree with them?

You might want to share that info with some of the anti-abortion crowd, what with their website with the crossed off names and all.

130 posted on 09/27/2001 12:29:19 PM PDT by ThinkPlease
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: f.Christian
The law/truth of Darwin you live by? The jungle--chest thumpers?? Write your own history--science???

You undermine your own cause by your incoherence and irrationality. Keep on posting. LOL.

131 posted on 09/27/2001 12:30:14 PM PDT by WRhine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Splain this...

The Cleaner fish lives in a certain variety of brightly colored coral that is attractive to the barracuda. The barracuda swim over to this coral and hover with their mouths open while the CleanerFish swims into his mouth and feeds on the bacteria that are on the barracuda's teeth. The barracuda allows this to happen and doesn't eat the cleaner fish. Without this activity, the teeth of the Barracuda would rot out and kill it and the Cleaner Fish wouldn't survive.
Splain how the barracuda "evolved" this behavior of alowing fish to swim in thier mouths and not eating them.
OR, how the Cleaner Fish learned to swim in the mouths of larger fish, knowing they wouldn't be eaten.
Or, how the barracuda learned which type of coral to hover near.

All of these traits had to mutate in these organisms at the same time or this phenomena would bot be happening today. Swimming into the mouth of a larger fish is not what is termed "survival of the fittest". Allowing fish to swim in your mouth without eating them is not "survival of the fittest". This is a great example of intellegent design and refutes the evolutionary theory.

Even if these events were to have mutated silmultaniously, these mutations would have had to breed offspring with the same mutations and they would have had to interact only within the the mutated relationships...for instance, if the mutated Cleaner Fish treid his teeth-cleaning stunt in a non-mutated barracuda, he'd be lunch...end of that evolution! Can't happen. Didn't happen.

Evolution is a theory, not fact. And those that hold to it fail to realize that their belief that it is fact is based upon thier faith...faith that there isn't a Creator God. If there is a God, then they aren't Him and are under His reign. This is the core issue with most (not all) evolutionists...submission.

God loves you. His burden is easy and light. Turn to Him and be saved.

...it's lightning...gotta go for now...

baa

132 posted on 09/27/2001 12:35:21 PM PDT by woollyone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: WRhine
How do you decide which frog is rational--cohearent?

Water--frogs do seek their own destiny--level??

133 posted on 09/27/2001 12:40:08 PM PDT by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: ThinkPlease
you've got mail
134 posted on 09/27/2001 12:40:17 PM PDT by marsis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Why do some mammals lay eggs? Why do some reptiles give live birth? So? There is little doubt that all species have evolved ...physically in particular but the essence of this argument is about the origins of life or more precisely...mankind. School is still out on that subject insofar as I know. Both schools of thought here are basically theories which cannot be "proven". One is based on an examination of patterns being revealed as our technology and discoveries improve and the other is based on faith in a written word that a number of us have chosen to ascribe to. These two schools of thought do not necessarily have to be mutually exclusive.
135 posted on 09/27/2001 12:43:19 PM PDT by wardaddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: woollyone
But can you demonstrate a finch turning into a lizzard, or a dog? That's the type of transition that is required for evolution to be believable...that a species can turn into another species.

Nope, I don't think that will ever be possible. The circumstances the allowed for the path for proto-critter to become proto-finch and proto-lizard, and proto-dog will likely never be the same. Sure, it is possible for speciation to occur, but it will take millions of years for the finch or the dog to evolve. Who knows what the future finch will look like?

136 posted on 09/27/2001 12:45:32 PM PDT by ThinkPlease
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
"There is (protein molecules are formed in various natural ways) but no truly living cell has yet been produced in the lab. What of it?"

There is no evidence of inanimate objects evolving into any animated form whatsoever. This means that there is utterly no EVIDENCE to support the first required step of the Evolutionary Process on an inanimate planet.

In science, one should be a bit suspicious of any theory that fails to find evidence to support the very first step of said theory.

I see, however, that you have religiousesque FAITH is said theory even without said evidence. That's fine, but call your beliefs religion because they aren't based upon tangible scientific evidence.

137 posted on 09/27/2001 12:45:38 PM PDT by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: toddhisattva
Hey, I even fell for that "Christ risen from the dead" crap

If I wrote Hey I even fell for that "Talmudic rabbinical crap"...I would be rightly admonished by many.

Personally I think the abuse button is for sissies but you went way over the line. You should be ashamed. Please try not to go ad hominum if possible.

138 posted on 09/27/2001 12:46:57 PM PDT by wardaddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
"What's an amphibian doing with a fish head?"

One could say the same thing about various automobiles over the years, yet it wasn't the cars per se which evolved, but rather the DESIGNERS of the cars evolved.

Likewise, seeing the same DNA code (i.e., same skull) re-used in two different species isn't evidence that one species evolved into another so much as it is evidence that the designer of the two species had a reason to re-use some of his old DNA code.

139 posted on 09/27/2001 12:49:53 PM PDT by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: marsis
Actually, history has proven the Godless such as Hitler and Lenin and Beria and Stalin and Pol Pot to be much more dangerous than religious Christian fundamentalists. I can't speak for other religions. We are unfortunately learning that in particular Islam may have a new lesson for us all in that regard.
140 posted on 09/27/2001 12:51:54 PM PDT by wardaddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Nyralthotep
Unfortuantely they assume that the only way the latter element can be present is by decay but they don't actually know what the proportions of the elements are because again, nobody was there to test the sample after it's formation

Not true. Due to the fact that each daughter product has its own rate of decay, the scientist can look at the ratio of all of the daughter products and determine quite accurately the origional ratios of the isotopes/elements.

141 posted on 09/27/2001 12:51:56 PM PDT by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

Comment #142 Removed by Moderator

To: wardaddy
Hitler was Catholic, sorry, and hid behind his religeon while usurping control of Germany. Muhamad Ali had a great answer the other night when asked how he felt about what those of his faith did to the USA, maybe someone can quote it, I would have to paraphrase.
143 posted on 09/27/2001 12:57:40 PM PDT by marsis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy
And, I wasn't picking out only the Christians, it is fundamentalist belief that can lead to depravity. And I omitted the Jewish faith, please include with the rest.

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it with religious conviction." -- Blaise Pascal
144 posted on 09/27/2001 1:02:11 PM PDT by marsis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Southack
There is no evidence of inanimate objects evolving into any animated form whatsoever. This means that there is utterly no EVIDENCE to support the first required step of the Evolutionary Process on an inanimate planet.

Let's Amend that statement. There is no DIRECT evidence to support that first step. However, there are indirect steps all over the universe that sure lead me to believe that all we have to do is continue looking. For example, deep in the heart of giant million solar mass molecular clouds, astronomers have been finding complex organic molecules. If organic molecules can form out in the middle of nowehere through simple collisional processes, who is to say that complex organic molecules didn't form here on earth? Is it such a leap to bridge the gap between intermediate complex molecules to the really complex things like amino acids and DNA? I don't think so. I definitely think we have to KEEP LOOKING! The data is out there to support abiogenesis, we just have to find it.

I see, however, that you have religiousesque FAITH is said theory even without said evidence. That's fine, but call your beliefs religion because they aren't based upon tangible scientific evidence.

What you seem to call faith, I would call Inductive Reasoning. It is an important step in any theoretical endeavor.

145 posted on 09/27/2001 1:03:59 PM PDT by ThinkPlease
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Sicon
Facts?? I am an anthropology major and have taken almost 30 hours worth of archaeology classes and several hours of independant studies with profs, and I will tell you that not one of them could show proof, with all their big words, that evolution is a fact...Most don't even try. Some do...Can you prove that creation is a fable, or that evolution is more than a theory? thats what I though.....
146 posted on 09/27/2001 1:06:31 PM PDT by ag2000jon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Nyralthotep
anything more than theories. I don't want theories taught to my children as fact. I want them taught as theories

The facts do not support creationism as being taught as a theory.

147 posted on 09/27/2001 1:12:40 PM PDT by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: woollyone
They're shrimp, not fish. There's an evolved protocol in which the shrimp advertise themselves by extending their antennae from their hiding places. The fish respond by hovering nearby in a "non-threatening" (I assume that to mean "head-averted") posture.

In the wild, cleaner shrimp make their living by picking parasites and necrotic tissue off fish. The shrimp typically rest upside down under ledges with their white antennae sticking out to advertise their cleaning services. Fish solicit cleaning by taking a particular posture near the shrimp that indicates the fish is not a threat. The shrimp swim out and climb all over the fish, picking it over for edible morsels, and even reaching into the gills or climbing into the mouths of large fish.

To get to your fore-ordained conclusion, you leap to a couple of assumptions: 1) there's no benefit if the shrimp aren't doing the teeth, and 2) there's no way for the fish to live without the shrimp. You build a wall of impossibility around the existing situation and claim it could not have evolved.

The shrimp's service is beneficial, yes, but not essential. Many fish, not just barracudas, use the cleaner shrimp. It confers an advantage to the fish where available (ie, where there are cleaner shrimp). But there are fish including barracudas in many places without cleaner shrimp. The service is not essential.

Note too that the shrimp don't just work inside the fishes mouths. They work all over the body. Thus, the problem is no different than having birds cleaning parasites from hippos or crocodiles. You don't have to have full-blown trust up front. It's enough if a hungry critter takes a chance and snatches a meal from the hide of a nearby predator and the predator experiences relief from that maddening irritation. That will get things going.

But let's step back and look at what you attempted in another way. You claimed not to know of a single transitonal species save a questionable feathered dinosaur. That's pretty sad. Challenged on that, you revert to a bit of badly-memorized stump-the-dummies minutiae, demolished in a single web search.

Cheering for the gaps. Rooting for ignorance. This "science" offers no progress.

148 posted on 09/27/2001 1:13:18 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: ThinkPlease
***How about the fact that "our rabid religious nuts" don't make a habit of murdering those who disagree with them? ***

You might want to share that info with some of the anti-abortion crowd, what with their website with the crossed off names and all.

=====================================================

Add to your response the fact that the victims of the Spanish Inquisition and witches of Salem might like to take issue with that remark.

149 posted on 09/27/2001 1:14:27 PM PDT by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Southack
One could say the same thing about various automobiles over the years, yet it wasn't the cars per se which evolved, but rather the DESIGNERS of the cars evolved.

There's no evidence for cars coming into being via reproductive acts by other cars. Living things seldom come into being except by the reproductive acts of other living things. So where does it make sense to put the evolution?

150 posted on 09/27/2001 1:18:27 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-298 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