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

Skip to comments.

Why Darwinism Is Doomed
WorldNetDaily ^ | 09/27/2006 | Jonathan Wells

Posted on 09/27/2006 9:56:09 AM PDT by SirLinksalot

Why Darwinism is doomed

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted: September 27, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Jonathan Wells, Ph.D.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

© 2006

Harvard evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould wrote in 1977: "Biology took away our status as paragons created in the image of God." Darwinism teaches that we are accidental byproducts of purposeless natural processes that had no need for God, and this anti-religious dogma enjoys a taxpayer-funded monopoly in America's public schools and universities. Teachers who dare to question it openly have in many cases lost their jobs.

The issue here is not "evolution" – a broad term that can mean simply change within existing species (which no one doubts). The issue is Darwinism – which claims that all living things are descended from a common ancestor, modified by natural selection acting on random genetic mutations.

According to Darwinists, there is such overwhelming evidence for their view that it should be considered a fact. Yet to the Darwinists' dismay, at least three-quarters of the American people – citizens of the most scientifically advanced country in history – reject it.

A study published Aug. 11 in the pro-Darwin magazine Science attributes this primarily to biblical fundamentalism, even though polls have consistently shown that half of the Americans who reject Darwinism are not biblical fundamentalists. Could it be that the American people are skeptical of Darwinism because they're smarter than Darwinists think?

On Aug. 17, the pro-Darwin magazine Nature reported that scientists had just found the "brain evolution gene." There is circumstantial evidence that this gene may be involved in brain development in embryos, and it is surprisingly different in humans and chimpanzees. According to Nature, the gene may thus harbor "the secret of what makes humans different from our nearest primate relatives."

Three things are remarkable about this report. First, it implicitly acknowledges that the evidence for Darwinism was never as overwhelming as its defenders claim. It has been almost 30 years since Gould wrote that biology accounts for human nature, yet Darwinists are just now turning up a gene that may have been involved in brain evolution.

Second, embryologists know that a single gene cannot account for the origin of the human brain. Genes involved in embryo development typically have multiple effects, and complex organs such as the brain are influenced by many genes. The simple-mindedness of the "brain evolution gene" story is breathtaking.

Third, the only thing scientists demonstrated in this case was a correlation between a genetic difference and brain size. Every scientist knows, however, that correlation is not the same as causation. Among elementary school children, reading ability is correlated with shoe size, but this is because young schoolchildren with small feet have not yet learned to read – not because larger feet cause a student to read better or because reading makes the feet grow. Similarly, a genetic difference between humans and chimps cannot tell us anything about what caused differences in their brains unless we know what the gene actually does. In this case, as Nature reports, "what the gene does is a mystery."

So after 150 years, Darwinists are still looking for evidence – any evidence, no matter how skimpy – to justify their speculations. The latest hype over the "brain evolution gene" unwittingly reveals just how underwhelming the evidence for their view really is.

The truth is Darwinism is not a scientific theory, but a materialistic creation myth masquerading as science. It is first and foremost a weapon against religion – especially traditional Christianity. Evidence is brought in afterwards, as window dressing.

This is becoming increasingly obvious to the American people, who are not the ignorant backwoods religious dogmatists that Darwinists make them out to be. Darwinists insult the intelligence of American taxpayers and at the same time depend on them for support. This is an inherently unstable situation, and it cannot last.

If I were a Darwinist, I would be afraid. Very afraid.

Get Wells' widely popular "Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jonathan Wells is the author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to Darwinism and Intelligent Design" (Regnery, 2006) and Icons of Evolution (Regnery, 2000). He holds a Ph.D. in biology from the University of California at Berkeley and a Ph.D. in theology from Yale University. Wells is currently a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute in Seattle


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: backwardsthinking; crevolist; darwinism; darwinismhasfailed; doomed; evofury; fishwithfeet; headinsand; pepperedmoths; scaredevos; wearealldoomedputz; whyreligionisdoomed; wingnutdaily
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 301-350351-400401-450 ... 1,151-1,195 next last
To: grey_whiskers; metmom
I was little fast off the draw -- I mean it in concert with the other sciences which work together to make drugs. THAT chemistry needs TToE as a theoretical foundation.

Oh and DANG I forgot to spell check my response ;( I am SURE I misspelled Pharmaceuticals.

351 posted on 09/27/2006 7:40:38 PM PDT by freedumb2003 ("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 348 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog

Anyone who joins a cult has suspect mental faculties, especially if he got into science because his "prophet" called him to do so.

Are you a Moonie or something?


352 posted on 09/27/2006 7:45:56 PM PDT by stands2reason (The map is not the territory - A. Korzybski)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
My intention is always to highlight what the Bible actually says to remove confusion. Many people who have not spent time reading the Bible only have other peoples idea's of what the Bible says. I laid the scripture out there for all to see, rather than attempt to explain what the Bible says. The passages are abundant and straightforward in their declaration.

Your post was pretty heavy handed. You suggest that because you have memorized the words of the Scriptures (I assume in their original languages), that you are somehow excluded from human interpretation.

There are 2 issues here: 1) Scripture is not a source of science and 2) Genesis is open to interpretation (and is contradictary).

The fact people have and do interpret the Bible differently doesn't mean they are wrong.

353 posted on 09/27/2006 7:46:23 PM PDT by freedumb2003 ("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 350 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

Just call me terse! You said it better, though.


354 posted on 09/27/2006 7:46:33 PM PDT by Buck W. (If you push something hard enough, it will fall over.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 345 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents
100 years from now, our descendants will all be living in a North American caliphate, and this silly little debate won't be permitted.

Or they will be merely unable to read or write anything except Scripture and will depend on Mexico and Vietnam to provide all science and technology.

355 posted on 09/27/2006 7:47:44 PM PDT by freedumb2003 ("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.

Brevity is the soul of wit.


356 posted on 09/27/2006 7:48:11 PM PDT by freedumb2003 ("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 354 | View Replies]

To: stands2reason

Yes it is.

The Lie: Evolution (Paperback)
by Ken Ham (Author)


357 posted on 09/27/2006 7:48:14 PM PDT by taxesareforever (Never forget Matt Maupin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

Comment #358 Removed by Moderator

To: taxesareforever

aren't there more important things to be worried about?


359 posted on 09/27/2006 7:49:41 PM PDT by Uncle Billy ("A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away all you have")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 357 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog

Are they not supposed to be interested in other areas of science?

Why do creos call all science they don't like "evolution"?


360 posted on 09/27/2006 7:49:44 PM PDT by stands2reason (The map is not the territory - A. Korzybski)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog

I thought you were sincere.

Next time I know better.


361 posted on 09/27/2006 7:50:26 PM PDT by stands2reason (The map is not the territory - A. Korzybski)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: Luka_Brazi
Here is the quote you had, I found the source. The full context is rather different than you made it out to be:
It's exactly as I posted it. Nothing in his letter supports your assumptions.
"I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect"...It is too profound for the human intellect. You can't define God. You can't explain the nature or workings of God. Darwin was honest enough to admit; "I don't know".

Deists don't question that, agnostics do. Darwin was clearly an agnostic (he said so explicitly).
I gave you the definition of the word "agnostic" by the man who created that word. Darwin used "agnostic" as Huxley defined it. They lived at the same time and Huxley was a supporter of Darwin and the theory of evolution.
Deists are agnostic exactly the same as Huxley defined the word "agnostic"...Exactly the same as Darwin used the word "agnostic".

Yes we were, explicitly so. Please go back and check
If you insist...Explain God to me.
.
362 posted on 09/27/2006 7:52:47 PM PDT by mugs99 (Don't take life too seriously, you won't get out alive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

So evos are having abortions because they don't treat their women right?

Okaaaaaay....


363 posted on 09/27/2006 7:53:20 PM PDT by stands2reason (The map is not the territory - A. Korzybski)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Time to abandon thread.

Guess you interpretation of "abandon" is different than everyone elses.

364 posted on 09/27/2006 7:56:49 PM PDT by taxesareforever (Never forget Matt Maupin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
Your post was pretty heavy handed. You suggest that because you have memorized the words of the Scriptures (I assume in their original languages), that you are somehow excluded from human interpretation.

Dude,

Where are you getting this stuff. I don't have those passages memorized. I am not trying to impress anyone. Those passages relate specifically to scripture teaching a non-evolutionary beginning to mankind. Don't you agree that it is good to look at the evidence?

I am an admitted irrecoverably flawed individual. My only hope is in the flawless One. He has commissioned me to let others know they are in the same predicament as me. This message tends to tick people off.

365 posted on 09/27/2006 7:57:58 PM PDT by bondserv (God governs our universe and has seen fit to offer us a pardon. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 353 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Billy
aren't there more important things to be worried about?

If you think so, what are you doing on this thread?

366 posted on 09/27/2006 7:59:08 PM PDT by taxesareforever (Never forget Matt Maupin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 359 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever
Time to abandon thread.

Guess you interpretation of "abandon" is different than everyone elses.

I left the thread for a few hours to get some work done. But there is always some nonsense to rebut, so I just couldn't stay away.

What, did you miss me?

367 posted on 09/27/2006 8:05:21 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 364 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
Dude, Where are you getting this stuff.

Your posts.

I don't have those passages memorized. I am not trying to impress anyone. Those passages relate specifically to scripture teaching a non-evolutionary beginning to mankind.

But now you admit that 1) You aren't reading the originals so you have no idea what the Scriptures say and 2)the Scriptures are silent on TToE and are subject to interpretation (unless we want to return to YOUR interpretation, but we have covered that, haven't we?)

Don't you agree that it is good to look at the evidence?

Sure. Do you have any? A faith-based text which has been able to spawn hundreds of sects all basing their belief system on a particular interpretation of that text isn't "evidence." Even if I was to concede (which I don't) the Bible as a proper reference, we would still have to deal with which interpretation.

I am an admitted irrecoverably flawed individual. My only hope is in the flawless One. He has commissioned me to let others know they are in the same predicament as me. This message tends to tick people off.

Admitting you are flawed is OK. Not correcting that flaw (in your case, extreme hubris), is NOT OK.

Your message of us all being flawed isn't ticking anyone off. All Christians know they are flawed. Your self-important designation as "flaw-teller" is more quaint (and sad) than off-putting.

But your trying to tie a more general (and appropriate) interpretation of Genesis with somehow not "knowing" Christ is egotistical in the least.

I'll leave you with a classic joke (I hope you'll understand when you read it and apologies [if needed] to my Jewish friends).

Two Rabbis go into the Temple after some serious, serious and extreme Holy reading. The first Rabbi, overtaken with his love and devotion for G-d, prostrates himself and says "Oh Lord! Before you I am NOTHING!"

The second Rabbi, overtaken by his love and devotion, also prostrates himself and says "Oh Lord! Before you I am NOTHING!"

A janitor working in the back of the Temple sees these and hears these Rabbis and, in a moment of pure love, prostates HIMSELF and says "Oh Lord! Before you I am NOTHING!"

The first Rabbi looks at the janitor and then tells the other Rabbi "so look who thinks he's nothing."

368 posted on 09/27/2006 8:30:06 PM PDT by freedumb2003 ("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 365 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

So soon -- Jeeze it isn't even the fourth inning ;)

You must be from Los Angeles.


369 posted on 09/27/2006 8:31:08 PM PDT by freedumb2003 ("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Gordongekko909

I believe god created evolution.


370 posted on 09/27/2006 8:34:42 PM PDT by Blackirish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: stands2reason

I said exactly what I meant. Have you a problem with that?


371 posted on 09/27/2006 8:37:36 PM PDT by Frwy (Eternity without Jesus is a hell-of-a long time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
That (#368) reminds me:


372 posted on 09/27/2006 8:38:18 PM PDT by Revolting cat! ("In the end, nothing explains anything!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 368 | View Replies]

To: stands2reason

I sure do.


373 posted on 09/27/2006 8:39:04 PM PDT by Frwy (Eternity without Jesus is a hell-of-a long time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: Revolting cat!

Once again my lengthy post has been outdone by brevity!

I am sure there is a lesson in here for me.

If I can only figure out what it is.

Hmmmmm....

;)


374 posted on 09/27/2006 8:39:33 PM PDT by freedumb2003 ("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 372 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.
We don't NEED ice cream, but ....

Say What???? ;)

375 posted on 09/27/2006 8:43:28 PM PDT by freedumb2003 ("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

It makes sense when you read the original post!


376 posted on 09/27/2006 8:46:59 PM PDT by Buck W. (If you push something hard enough, it will fall over.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 375 | View Replies]

To: finnman69

ohboyohboy! Do we get to see Piltdown Man?! Such is the quality of "proof" of Darwinism...


377 posted on 09/27/2006 8:52:38 PM PDT by 13Sisters76 ("It is amazing how many people mistake a certain hip snideness for sophistication. " Thos. Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Blackirish
I believe god created evolution.

God created a Universe so incredibly awesome and intricate that if Man investigates millions of years he (man) will just brush the surface. The more we learn, the more astounded we are at the beauty and symmetry of the Universe (and who knows about "other Universes."

And the God who created it all stands OUTSIDE of this Universe and ALL Universes. And this God saw this dust speck of a planet and its people and sent His Son to save us. He could have flicked us out of existence with a thought. Instead He gave us Love and tried to teach us Love through His Word and the words of His Son.

It saddens me that Creationists would limit God so much. They see him as Q or Gandalf writ large. A God they can comprehend and deal with. A very, very small God.

Of course the ID crowd is even worse. They think that God needs to keep reaching in and tweaking and changing things "on the fly" since He didn't really know how things would happen. This little-g God is closer to the "what does god need with a starship" variety.

My God -- the God of Abraham and God the Father -- is capable of anything. He gave us so much. To throw it back in His face by limiting Him is a (sadly ineffective) tantrum.

But your version works (capital G, though).

378 posted on 09/27/2006 8:54:43 PM PDT by freedumb2003 ("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 370 | View Replies]

To: Frwy

Well, what is it?


379 posted on 09/27/2006 8:56:01 PM PDT by stands2reason (The map is not the territory - A. Korzybski)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 373 | View Replies]

Comment #380 Removed by Moderator

To: freedumb2003

God.

Thanks.


381 posted on 09/27/2006 8:57:29 PM PDT by Blackirish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 378 | View Replies]

To: 13Sisters76
ohboyohboy! Do we get to see Piltdown Man?! Such is the quality of "proof" of Darwinism...

At least two mistakes.

Piltdown was a hoax which was quickly figured out because it didn't fit. Friedrichs and Weidenreich had both, by about 1932, published their research suggesting the lower jaws and molars were that of an orang. They were correct. The final debunking in the early 1950s was just icing on the cake. And it was paleontologists and other evolutionary specialists who figured it out, not creationists.

Second, you should know that no theory is science is considered "proved." A theory is simply the best explanation we have for the data--and its an explanation that has withstood many tests. There is also the hypothesis, which is an idea which may or may be supported by data, and which has not yet withstood many tests. The theory of evolution passed that stage over a century ago.

Your attempt at humor is noted, but in making these two very noticeable mistakes you have only made yourself look silly.

382 posted on 09/27/2006 9:02:01 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 377 | View Replies]

To: 13Sisters76
ohboyohboy! Do we get to see Piltdown Man?! Such is the quality of "proof" of Darwinism...

I LOVE it when your type (you don't mind if I classify you as "your type," do you?) brings up Piltdown Man.

Piltdown Man is a triumph for TToE. As long as there as been science and money associated with it, there have been scam artists who want to take advantage of it for the bucks.

But science itself, in its operational methods, exposed Piltdown Man and showed how was a hoax.

Unbeknownst to many, there are passionate, knock-down, drag out fights within the TToE community about the meaning and proper placement of new AND OLD data as they continue to strive for the proper framework.

And singling out a single (or even several) hoaxes as undermining TToE is like singling out Cold Fusion as undermining Physics.

And now that Pluto isn't a planet, I guess it is time to toss Astronomy out the window.

Now, let us contrast with Religion. And I'll start with Scientology... (need I go on, or will you force me to bring in islam?)

383 posted on 09/27/2006 9:02:13 PM PDT by freedumb2003 ("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 377 | View Replies]

To: All
Someone help me out here.

Are Darwinism and Creationism mutually exclusive?

Why couldn't Darwinism be God's mechanism?

384 posted on 09/27/2006 9:07:38 PM PDT by steelyourfaith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Am I overly poetic tonight?

But we can see how the CR/Iders evolve.

They used to bring up Piltdown Man and other Hoaxes as "proof" against TToE. When we turned the argument around and demonstrated how science polices its own (as opposed to religion and other philosophy), they eventually stopped using that so-called "argument." This is, of course, the self-preservation instinct in action.

Those who post hoax-based assertions either leave or cease to do so. Postinian Darwinism in action.

I haven't seen a "Piltdown Man" post in months. So I hope people will forgive my glee. It was like fresh blood to a vampire.


385 posted on 09/27/2006 9:09:34 PM PDT by freedumb2003 ("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 382 | View Replies]

To: steelyourfaith
Someone help me out here. Which way did you come in? (bada bump!)

Are Darwinism and Creationism mutually exclusive?

"Creationism" as defined on these threads usually means literal interpretation of Genesis: 7 days means 168 hours as we know them now (a handful accept some vagueness about the "light" thing). Adam and Eve appeared {poof} fully formed with no background (nor clothes).

From that perspective, they are not only mutually exclusive, but TToE is Heresy.

Why couldn't Darwinism be God's mechanism?

Many of us Christians who understand TToE believe that TToE (the CR/IDers tend to substitute the term "Darwinism" for "Evolution" and TTYTT, it doesn't have a lot of meaning) is exactly that: a part of God's plan (look back a few posts for my rather elaborate description of the whole debate).

386 posted on 09/27/2006 9:21:24 PM PDT by freedumb2003 ("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 384 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.
It makes sense when you read the original post!

I read the original post. It may make the point, but it doesn't make sense.

Next time use an analogy with more argumentative elasticity! ;)

387 posted on 09/27/2006 9:23:54 PM PDT by freedumb2003 ("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 376 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

Whether or not the American public accepts evolution or not is irrelevant to whether or not evolution is fact. American lack of education, whether they be the product of govenment schools or not, doesn't change the facts of evolution.


388 posted on 09/27/2006 9:35:34 PM PDT by DaGman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steelyourfaith

I think you have a good handle on it. The theological position of mainstream Christianity and Judaism is that the Lord exists beyond scientific scruitiny. The only conflict that exists between science and faith is that which people manufacture. I personally know many people in the biological sciences who have no problem with the theory of evolution.


389 posted on 09/27/2006 9:39:07 PM PDT by Liberal Classic (No better friend, no worse enemy. Semper Fi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 384 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
I admit that I have not been following the discussion on these boards, and I appreciate your response .... but

TToE = The Theory of Evolution?
CR/IDers = ?
TTYTT = ?

I'm just curious, and a bit lazy (as I do not feature reading through the entire thread), ... do Creationists deny Darwinism?

390 posted on 09/27/2006 9:45:46 PM PDT by steelyourfaith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 386 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
Am I overly poetic tonight?

But we can see how the CR/Iders evolve.

They used to bring up Piltdown Man and other Hoaxes as "proof" against TToE. When we turned the argument around and demonstrated how science polices its own (as opposed to religion and other philosophy), they eventually stopped using that so-called "argument." This is, of course, the self-preservation instinct in action.

Those who post hoax-based assertions either leave or cease to do so. Postinian Darwinism in action.

I haven't seen a "Piltdown Man" post in months. So I hope people will forgive my glee. It was like fresh blood to a vampire.

There are always new converts who have not had some of the facts explained to them. They visit the creationist websites and think they are ready to slay the dragon of Darwinism.

They don't realize that, when it comes to the theory of evolution, the creationist websites are loaded with distortions, omissions, and outright lies.

Piltdown is a good example. The creationist websites will portray this as a fatal blow to the theory of evolution, instead of a deliberate hoax which fooled a few British scientists for a couple of decades--the hoaxer fed them what they wanted to find! That's always a winner.

Much like what the creationist websites feed the believers.

391 posted on 09/27/2006 9:47:01 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 385 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic
The only conflict that exists between science and faith is that which people manufacture.

You, my FRiend, have made it into the inner circle that many FReepers aspire to.

You have made it onto my "Potential Tag Line" list.

Tell your family and make a bumper sticker.

Snack proud and strong!

392 posted on 09/27/2006 9:50:15 PM PDT by freedumb2003 ("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 389 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper
The "70 million year" figure is highly debatable, and, contrary to popular belief, highly subjective. There are huge disagreements as to the validity of the "accepted" ages....or what those ages actually are.

'highly debatable' like what really caused the WTC towers to collapse.

Creationists are much like the WTC conspiracists in terms of their similar passionate achievement of total belief in something that did not happen.

393 posted on 09/27/2006 9:54:04 PM PDT by finnman69 (cum puella incedit minore medio corpore sub quo manifestu s globus, inflammare animos)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic
Well said.

An Aristotelian/Objectivist, OTOH, would have difficulty with accepting any concept beyond those which can be logically proven, eh?

394 posted on 09/27/2006 9:56:18 PM PDT by steelyourfaith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 389 | View Replies]

To: steelyourfaith
"TToE = The Theory of Evolution?"
Yes
"CR/IDers = ?" Those who would put religion in to science (and school): CR=Creationists, ID=Proponents of "Intelligent Design"

"TTYTT = ?"
To Tell You The Truth

"I'm just curious, and a bit lazy (as I do not feature reading through the entire thread), ... do Creationists deny Darwinism?"

"Darwinism" is an epithet as used by CR/IDers and is imprecise. But those who literally interpret Genesis (in their words -- very few have read the original text in the original language) take umbrage at TToE and concoct a conflict.

"D
395 posted on 09/27/2006 9:57:52 PM PDT by freedumb2003 ("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 390 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper
The "70 million year" figure is highly debatable, and, contrary to popular belief, highly subjective. There are huge disagreements as to the validity of the "accepted" ages....or what those ages actually are.

But not in magnitude.

You are describing Galactic Linguists debating the prevalence of "jynnantonnyx."

396 posted on 09/27/2006 10:00:42 PM PDT by freedumb2003 ("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

Thank you very much.


397 posted on 09/27/2006 10:03:14 PM PDT by Liberal Classic (No better friend, no worse enemy. Semper Fi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 392 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
There are always new converts who have not had some of the facts explained to them. They visit the creationist websites and think they are ready to slay the dragon of Darwinism.

"Here is a squirt gun with lemon juice. Aim for the dragon's Right eye! You will come home with the dragon's skin as a robe!"

LOL -- you have to admit they are cute when they are young.

398 posted on 09/27/2006 10:05:28 PM PDT by freedumb2003 ("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 391 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic

Thank YOU -- it is a good one and will probably be up in the rotation pretty soon! :)


399 posted on 09/27/2006 10:06:22 PM PDT by freedumb2003 ("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 397 | View Replies]

To: doc30
But I don't recall you ever getting deep into the mud pits like others have.

Thanks... I think.

I'm mainly here for the puns, with the occasional 5-yard penalty for piling on, or offsides, by one group or the other. :-)

Cheers!

400 posted on 09/27/2006 10:13:01 PM PDT by grey_whiskers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 347 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 301-350351-400401-450 ... 1,151-1,195 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