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

Skip to comments.

Keep Darwin's 'lies' out of Polish schools: education official
AFP via Yahoo! News ^ | October 14, 2006

Posted on 10/14/2006 11:16:50 AM PDT by lizol

Keep Darwin's 'lies' out of Polish schools: education official 2 hours.

WARSAW (AFP) - Poland's deputy education minister called for the influential evolutionary theories of Charles Darwin not to be taught in the country's schools, branding them "lies."

"The theory of evolution is a lie, an error that we have legalised as a common truth," Miroslaw Orzechowski, the deputy minister in the country's right-wing coalition government, was quoted as saying by the Gazeta Wyborcza daily Saturday.

Orzechowski said the theory was "a feeble idea of an aged non-believer," who had come up with it "perhaps because he was a vegetarian and lacked fire inside him."

The evolution theory of the 19th-century British naturalist holds that existing animals and plants are the result of natural selection which eliminated inferior species gradually over time. This conflicts with the "creationist" theory that God created all life on the planet in a finite number.

Orzechowski called for a debate on whether Darwin's theory should be taught in schools.

"We should not teach lies, just as we should not teach bad instead of good, or ugliness instead of beauty," he said. "We are not going to withdraw (Darwin's theory) from the school books, but we should start to discuss it."

The deputy minister is a member of a Catholic far-right political group, the League of Polish Families. The league's head, Roman Giertych, is education minister in the conservative coalition government of Prime Minister Jaroslaw Kaczynski.

Giertych's father Maciej, who represents the league in the European Parliament, organised a discussion there last week on Darwinism. He described the theory as "not supported by proof" and called for it be removed from school books.

The far-right joined the government in May when Kaczynski's ruling conservative Law and Justice (PiS) party, after months of ineffective minority government, formed a coalition including LPR and the populist Sambroon party.

Roman Giertych has not spoken out on Darwinism, but the far-right politician's stance on other issues has stirred protest in Poland since he joined the government.

A school pupils' association was expected to demonstrate in front of the education ministry on Saturday to call for his resignation.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: creationism; crevolist; darwin; education; enoughalready; evolution; faith; keywordwars; moralabsolutes; poland; preacher; religion; seethingnaturalists; skullporn
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 1,051-1,070 next last
To: lizol
There is always the third possibility: monkeys evolved into humourless evomoonies, while the rest of us were created from clay!


151 posted on 10/14/2006 7:27:52 PM PDT by Revolting cat! (We all need someone we can bleed on...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lizol

Yes lets keep darwin lies out of schools.

For example the untrue claim that darwin "recanted" on his death bed. Lets keep that particular "darwin lie" out of schools.

The untrue claim that there are no transitional fossils. Lets keep that "darwin lie" out of schools too.

The untrue claim that the knee bone of the fossil known as lucy was found a mile away from the rest of the body. Lets keep that lie out of schools too.

I can think of many more. The claim that human tracks were found alongside dinosaur tracks. Another lie to keep out of schools.

So many darwin lies. So little time.


152 posted on 10/14/2006 7:34:53 PM PDT by bobdsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thomaswest

Actually, I'm on your side. My comment was to which side of the human anatomy these threads usually show others. The backside.


153 posted on 10/14/2006 7:41:37 PM PDT by satchmodog9 (Most people stand on the tracks and never even hear the train coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
No problem. The answer is that Abiogenesis has nothing to do with TToE.

LOLOLOL

OK, first not to point out too hard that that evos usually manage to work in abiogenesis somewhere in their worldview , my question had nada to do with abiogenesis.

I asked if you believe all life came from a single cell via undirect means NOT if that cell came into existence via random chemical reactions.

154 posted on 10/14/2006 7:45:35 PM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
"The real question is: can science be perverted by atheism? Can or not?"

No!

If an atheistic scientist was to pervert the data, the model or the theory the theistic scientists, which outnumber the atheistic scientists would call him on his foolishness.

Science is very competitive and adversarial. Methodological naturalism requires that the data any scientist gathers, the calculations he makes (Biology makes heavy use of probability and statistics) and the logic behind conclusions made be available to other scientists in the same field. This means that any scientist who believes his pet project is more accurate than any other's, or is just skeptical, can critically analyze the other's work and find errors in methodology, data collection, calculations and conclusions which he/she is quite willing to publicly announce.

Even when papers are presented at symposia, questions following the presentation can be devastating to unprepared scientists.

A case in point is the claim made by NASA some years ago that a meteorite from Mars contained possible traces of life which was quite forcefully and publicly refuted by another group of scientists who had examined the same meteorite.

In the case of atheistic scientists trying to get one past other scientists, the chance of success given the number of theistic scientists, of all faiths, is just about nil.

Contrary to what most anti-evolutionists would like you to believe, there is no possible way for a conspiracy among the divergent belief systems of scientists to occur. Competition alone would prevent it.

155 posted on 10/14/2006 7:51:04 PM PDT by b_sharp (evolution is not, generally speaking, a global optimiser, but a general satisficer -J. Wilkins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: nmh

You do realize that ID accepts Evolution, ID states that evolution did indeed happen, but that some small microscopic creatures cannot be explained because of irreducible complexity.

You do realize this, do you not?

If not, perhaps you should unhitch your little creationist wagon from it.


156 posted on 10/14/2006 7:53:33 PM PDT by Jaguarbhzrd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
Now it seems Poland is slipping into fundamentalism and anti-scientific paranoia

Yeah, those stupid Christians. People who believe the Bible are science illiterates. Even the scientists who formulated the scientific process -- Bible thumping idiots.

157 posted on 10/14/2006 7:55:02 PM PDT by Theo (Global warming "scientists." Pro-evolution "scientists." They're both wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Jaguarbhzrd

Some may, but not all. Some IDers believe God not only designed "all this," but also brought it about as described in Scripture and as supported by the evidence.


158 posted on 10/14/2006 7:57:00 PM PDT by Theo (Global warming "scientists." Pro-evolution "scientists." They're both wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: lizol
Clay, the stuff of life.


159 posted on 10/14/2006 7:58:42 PM PDT by Revolting cat! (We all need someone we can bleed on...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thomaswest

"I disagree that we nasty "evilutionists" get on these threads merely to give you heartburn.

It's the other way around, pal.

Evolutionists start the threads looking for an audience to brainwash, and when the audience comes the evolutionists lambast them with their fanatical dogma.

Non-evolutionists are not the ones looking for an audience; it's the evilutionists that do.

You make it sound as if non-evolutionists start these threads and then you come in, which is NOT true and you know it.

Thank God there are so few evilutionists.


160 posted on 10/14/2006 7:59:38 PM PDT by stultorum (dont hire illegal aliens)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk

There is no more evidence that life evolved here on the earth than there is for it to have been delivered or engineered by extraterrestrials...

How do evolutionists feel about teaching that life came from outer space? They already teach the Big Bang theory...

161 posted on 10/14/2006 8:03:00 PM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: thomaswest

Fascinating. I did not know Jonathan Wells was a Moonie.

The lack of acceptance of ID (or creationism, for that matter) is the reason Answers in Genesis reaches out to a lot of churches. Interestingly, so does Eugenie Scott and her friends.


162 posted on 10/14/2006 8:03:23 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (Lord, help me to be the Christian conservative that liberals fear I am.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Revolting cat!

There is no more evidence that life evolved here on the earth than there is for it to have been delivered or engineered by extraterrestrials...

How do evolutionists feel about teaching that life came from outer space? They already teach the Big Bang theory...

163 posted on 10/14/2006 8:04:13 PM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

"Perhaps if you could produce some evidence for your position it would help?

The evidence is all around you to see.

Ever seen the miracle of a child growing? Have you ever intently looked into their faces and in their smile and innocence seen the face of God?


164 posted on 10/14/2006 8:06:23 PM PDT by stultorum (dont hire illegal aliens)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever

"Finally, someone with some sense on the issue."


Another misconception, that the earth is so called "round". The bible clearly states that God created the "firmament" or a vast solid dome. Much like a snow globe. The idea that the earth is "round" is just unproven Scientific Theory. The earth is a giant dome and there is no such thing as evolution!


165 posted on 10/14/2006 8:07:06 PM PDT by LauraleeBraswell (Sarcasm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: stultorum; DaveLoneRanger
Non-evolutionists are not the ones looking for an audience; it's the evilutionists that do.

You make it sound as if non-evolutionists start these threads and then you come in, which is NOT true and you know it.

Paging DaveLoneRanger! Here's one you missed on your ping list!

Stultorum--Check out the number of science threads started by Dave and then pinged to the creation ping list, where they are promptly overrun by anti-science Luddites.

166 posted on 10/14/2006 8:07:28 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk; bornacatholic; ninenot; sittnick; Convert from ECUSA; Tax-chick

There is no more evidence that life evolved here on the earth than there is for it to have been delivered or engineered by extraterrestrials...

How do evolutionists feel about teaching that life came from outer space? They already teach the Big Bang theory...

167 posted on 10/14/2006 8:09:17 PM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

"Billions of fossils, observed micro-evolution, thousands of scientists and millions of science hours be damned.

Rocks, evolutionists, and studying of this nonsense a theory does not make.

It's a lot of crap.

There is no evidence that man is a descendant of apes.


168 posted on 10/14/2006 8:11:23 PM PDT by stultorum (dont hire illegal aliens)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon; dighton; Senator Bedfellow
Orzechowski said the theory was "a feeble idea of an aged non-believer," who had come up with it "perhaps because he was a vegetarian and lacked fire inside him."

Good grief. Is this mean Polish jokes are about to return?

169 posted on 10/14/2006 8:12:40 PM PDT by aculeus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
There is no more evidence that life evolved here on the earth than there is for it to have been delivered or engineered by extraterrestrials...

That would be false. And posting this falsehood three times in a row does not make it more likely.

(Reminds me of the way Goebbels would do things.)

170 posted on 10/14/2006 8:12:51 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: stultorum
Rocks, evolutionists, and studying of this nonsense a theory does not make.

It's a lot of crap.

There is no evidence that man is a descendant of apes.

Unsupported conjecture ===> Placemarker <===

171 posted on 10/14/2006 8:14:44 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: stultorum; thomaswest
The evolutionists are only here to throw sh*t on the Christians... that is their sole purpose...

Since I am not an orthodox atheist, I say screw them.

GET EVOLUTION OFF OF EDUCATIONAL WELFARE !!!

There is no more evidence that life evolved here on the earth than there is for it to have been delivered or engineered by extraterrestrials...

How do evolutionists feel about teaching that life came from outer space? They already teach the Big Bang theory...

172 posted on 10/14/2006 8:15:05 PM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

"Next up: Doubt about that silly "physics" thing. And "chemistry."

Evolution is NOT a science; it's dogma, belief, faith and a tool to brainwash the people whose religion gave rise to science in the first place. I'm talking about Christianity.


173 posted on 10/14/2006 8:15:16 PM PDT by stultorum (dont hire illegal aliens)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
(Reminds me of the way Goebbels would do things.)

Your fond memories are none of my concern...

174 posted on 10/14/2006 8:16:16 PM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
Now if only we can get rid of that ridiculous spherical earth lie and get started fantasy that removed the earth from the center of the universe. (sarc?)

How stupid can you get.

The Bible does describe the "circle" of the earth.

Oppose God all you want and see how far you get. Good luck.

175 posted on 10/14/2006 8:17:02 PM PDT by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: thomaswest

Not really...but you can keep thinking that if you want.


176 posted on 10/14/2006 8:20:31 PM PDT by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: cookcounty
Related issue, does anyone seriously argue that Darwin's the agnosticism is not related to embracing a closed naturalistic system to explain all phenomena?

Yes. Many scholars think Darwin's ultimate rejection had more to do with the horrific death of his beloved daughter, Annie. Darwin himself attributed it to his abhorrence of the doctrine of damnation. In any case Darwin was exposed to "free thinkers," both in his own family, and at University (Edinburgh, which he attended before the much more pious Cambridge) and through the social circle of his older brother, Erasmus, long before he mooted the origin of species, but he remained a believer nevertheless.

It always amuses me how some insist that it is possible to believe that God "used" evolution to bring about the biological world, When asked how that is possible, they cite, "well so-snd-so belives it." When pressed for the actual argument of how this works, however, there isn't any argument there, just some more feel-good ad hominems.

It appears you haven't read anything by thoughtful theistic evolutionists. I'll give you some recommendations when I have time.

Quickly googling, for the moment, here (pdf file) is a lecture by one notable, Simon Conway Morris.

177 posted on 10/14/2006 8:21:15 PM PDT by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: cookcounty
" Related issue, does anyone seriously argue that Darwin's the agnosticism is not related to embracing a closed naturalistic system to explain all phenomena?

When Darwin left on the Beagle, he was very much the normal Christian of the time, in fact studied Theology at university, and was particularly enamored of Paley's argument for an Intelligent Designer. At the time of his departure he was what we would now class as an IDist. His agnosticism did not develop until his return. Although some doubt crept in during the voyage he spent the voyage compiling an enormous amount of raw data (and keeping meticulous notes) which he didn't seriously consider until a while after returning to England. The first years were spent in identifying and cataloging specimens.

"It always amuses me how some insist that it is possible to believe that God "used" evolution to bring about the biological world, When asked how that is possible, they cite, "well so-snd-so belives it." When pressed for the actual argument of how this works, however, there isn't any argument there, just some more feel-good ad hominems.

Since God is supposedly all powerful, how is it possible that he couldn't use Evolution? I believe your question is more precisely - How could someone not take the Bible literally.

Easy, they worship God and not the Bible.

What really amazes me is that Biblical literalists are more willing to believe that there exists some all powerful, all knowing ethereal 'mind' that is not only capable of creating life but the entire Universe while still failing to insert any kind of consistency into the Biblical creation stories, but are unwilling to believe that mechanisms such as trial and error, which humans use 'all he time' and which have been observed in nature can actually be used by nature.

178 posted on 10/14/2006 8:26:00 PM PDT by b_sharp (evolution is not, generally speaking, a global optimiser, but a general satisficer -J. Wilkins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: Jaguarbhzrd
"You do realize that ID accepts Evolution, ID states that evolution did indeed happen, but that some small microscopic creatures cannot be explained because of irreducible complexity."

No. Intelligent Design, God, does NOT accept evolution. I don't care what some compromised mortal has to say. Trying to redefine God into an evolutionist won't cut it here. Evolution did NOT happen. The evidence is all around you. I notice how you can't explain how the human eye "evolved". You can't. Explain how the eye "evolved".
LOL!

"You do realize this, do you not?"

I ASK YOU, why don't you realize that evolution could not have possible happened. It's sheer lunacy to suggest evolution is true.

"If not, perhaps you should unhitch your little creationist wagon from it."

Again, you come with the usual gibberish. You can't prove anything "evolved" You can't explain anything. As you stated with the COMPLEXITY involved with living creatures, human or otherwise, evolution falls short and highlights just how ridiculous it is.

BTW, whenever you find this ape that humans are supposed to be derived from, explain how the lungs, heart, brain, eye etc. were formed BEFORE this being took its first breath. You can't. Because NO LIFE "evolved".

YOU, are a WASTE of MY TIME.
179 posted on 10/14/2006 8:32:50 PM PDT by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God) .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood

"The evolutionists are only here to throw sh*t on the Christians... that is their sole purpose...

Exactly!

The enemies of Christianity know that their pseudo science is bogus, fake, phony and fraudulent. They can fool some of the people some of the time, but they can't fool the vast majority of people.

The only reedeming feature about these neo anti-Christians is that there are so few of them and, hence, easily annihilable.

And the battle continues as it has for 2 thousands years.


180 posted on 10/14/2006 8:34:08 PM PDT by stultorum (dont hire illegal aliens)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: stultorum

Darn it!

annihilable = annihilatable.

Does such a word even exist?


181 posted on 10/14/2006 8:35:09 PM PDT by stultorum (dont hire illegal aliens)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: Theo
"Even the scientists who formulated the scientific process..."

And those very theistic scientists are the ones who recognized the necessity of divorcing the supernatural from the scientific. This is quite the opposite of those current theists who desire to slip theology back into science. In other words, the current crop of anti-evolutionists want to take us back to the time *before* the scientific process was developed.

182 posted on 10/14/2006 8:35:49 PM PDT by b_sharp (evolution is not, generally speaking, a global optimiser, but a general satisficer -J. Wilkins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp
while still failing to insert any kind of consistency into the Biblical creation stories

The Biblical creation stories are quite consistent and when you compare them with the other views on the origin of the world at the time (3000 years ago) you will be amazed how akin they are to the modern scientific theories. Taking into account that the Bible is not to be a biology handbook for XX century but a description of spiritual relationship between God and Creation the scientific accuracy of Biblical account is sufficient.

Much better in any case that Germanic primordial cow licking the first giant out of piece of ice or scientific theories from that time.

183 posted on 10/14/2006 8:40:22 PM PDT by A. Pole (Russian proverb: "All are not cooks that walk with long knives")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: stultorum
"There is no evidence that man is a descendant of apes."

What kind of evidence would you accept for evolution and why?

184 posted on 10/14/2006 8:41:10 PM PDT by b_sharp (evolution is not, generally speaking, a global optimiser, but a general satisficer -J. Wilkins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: lizol; TheRake; rogator; kellynla; redgirlinabluestate; DadOfTwoMarines; aimee5291; GatorGirl; ...

+

If you want on (or off) this Catholic and Pro-Life ping list, let me know!



185 posted on 10/14/2006 8:42:02 PM PDT by narses (St Thomas says “lex injusta non obligat”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thomaswest; nmh
Interesting that YOU get so huffy. And accuse everyone else of being "nasty".
Yeah, emotional/huffy responses are so RARE on these threads. It's a good thing it's only confined to pro-creation Freepers. I mean, if an evo were to behave similarly, that would just make you look like a HYPOCRITE. Or something.
And then claim that "intelligent design" is about science and not about religion and your particular god!!
ID isn't creationism, and ID isn't about religion or faith. Well, it includes faith, just as evolution does.
What we always suspected about you. You just post to say that "my god is bigger, better, wiser than your god".
You should have asked me, I could have told you that. Assuming, of course, that your "god" is different from the one I serve.
You are not interested in how the natural world works--science--you are missionarizing for "it's all about me" and "my god".
Why do you draw a line of mutual exclusivity between science and faith in God?
186 posted on 10/14/2006 8:50:25 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (Lord, help me to be the Christian conservative that liberals fear I am.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
"Unsupported conjecture ===> Placemarker <==="

Since you and your evolutionist comrades make the assertion that man is descendant from apes, about you and your friends giving us all the evidence for once?

You can't because there is none.

187 posted on 10/14/2006 8:50:58 PM PDT by stultorum (dont hire illegal aliens)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp

The kind that proves beyond a reasonable doubt to scientists that man is descendant from apes.

If we are descendant from apes, how come apes are still around?

I know this question has been asked several times, and I ask it again only because it's a valid question, which evolutionists still haven't answered, other than with a canned, ready-made non-direct response.


188 posted on 10/14/2006 8:54:18 PM PDT by stultorum (dont hire illegal aliens)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
You have more patience with these morons that I have.

Even with a moniker like this:

Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God)

they want to tell ME what Intelligent Design is. God is the Intelligent Designer!

They can't tell you why grass is green. How did grass come about into being. They can't explain how the human eye "evolved". They can't tell you how life started. They can't explain how a heart, lungs, brain, evolved before the LIVING creature took a breath! They can't explain squat! Yet they will have you believe that after millions or is it billions now ... that somehow all this stuff just happened on it's own.

If there are doubts they add more time to it. For some reason they think the more TIME there is, the more feasible all this is. Evolution is an insane RELIGION that doesn't add up - NEVER HAS and people are tired of these silly fairy tales. Puffed up people that have NO KNOWLEDGE - except godless nonsense that they WISH to believe.
189 posted on 10/14/2006 8:59:03 PM PDT by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God) .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: stultorum
"Evolution is NOT a science; it's dogma, belief, faith and a tool to brainwash the people whose religion gave rise to science in the first place. I'm talking about Christianity."

Actually those theistic scientists who were instrumental in the development of the scientific method were the ones who recognized the importance of *not* including their God in their experiments and their conclusions.

190 posted on 10/14/2006 9:06:05 PM PDT by b_sharp (evolution is not, generally speaking, a global optimiser, but a general satisficer -J. Wilkins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
The falsehood of Darwinism is the claim that the universe is a dead purposeless machine ruled by chance.

Do you care to point out the passage where Darwin claims "that the universe is a dead purposeless machine ruled by chance?" I've read him extensively, and never have I run accross such a passage.

191 posted on 10/14/2006 9:08:14 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Theo
Yeah, those stupid Christians.

No, I'm lashing out against stupid fundamentalists. Not all Christians are fundamentalists. In fact, I'm a Christian who's not a fundamentalist.

192 posted on 10/14/2006 9:09:57 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: satchmodog9
FR will show the world the face it chooses to show the world.
It's called Mooning

At least on threads referencing Jonathan Wells.

193 posted on 10/14/2006 9:12:13 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
The calculations show that the complexity of life cannot be accounted by so crude and slow mechanism.

Examples? State your assumptions. Don't leave out any steps. Check your work.

194 posted on 10/14/2006 9:14:00 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: stultorum
"The kind that proves beyond a reasonable doubt to scientists that man is descendant from apes.

That's been done. The vast majority of scientists, especially those in the fields related to Evolution have no doubt that man shares common ancestors with the other Great Apes.

That doesn't really answer my question. I asked what evidence *you* would accept and why.

"If we are descendant from apes, how come apes are still around?

Because speciation occurs when one population splits into two separate populations each following its own path. The population of our common ancestor with the chimpanzees split into two populations, one became the chimps we are familiar with and the other group became us. The common ancestor we have with chimps had a common ancestor with Gorillas. That population split into two, one group leading to modern Gorillas and the other leading to the common ancestor of the group that later split and lead to chimps and man.

The question really is equivalent to asking 'Why are there still Standard Poodles when we have Toy Poodles.

"I know this question has been asked several times, and I ask it again only because it's a valid question, which evolutionists still haven't answered, other than with a canned, ready-made non-direct response.

The answers you get are similar not because they are 'canned' responses but because they stem from the same information and the same logical consequences of Evolution.

195 posted on 10/14/2006 9:24:54 PM PDT by b_sharp (evolution is not, generally speaking, a global optimiser, but a general satisficer -J. Wilkins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp

Note that the usual scatalogical postings by Creationists have occured. Their silence echos their assent.


196 posted on 10/14/2006 9:32:33 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

I don't run an elitist ping list, but nor do I solicit.

Perhaps it would be worth considering the number of science threads started by evolutionists which degrade into anti-creationist slurs before said creationists ever arrive?

Your comments are getting progressively worse; now you're name-calling. You had some measure of respect in debate, but you seem to be on a downhill slide...


197 posted on 10/14/2006 9:46:05 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (Lord, help me to be the Christian conservative that liberals fear I am.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: lizol

Orzechowski said the theory was "a feeble idea of an aged non-believer," who had come up with it "perhaps because he was a vegetarian and lacked fire inside him."

OMG that is too funny!

How many times can this reporter write "coservative" and "right wing" in an article?? Geesh.


198 posted on 10/14/2006 9:53:49 PM PDT by peggybac (Tolerance is the virtue of believing in nothing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp

Not true.

Christianity gave rise to the greatest civilization of all times and all that is known in science.

Other religions gave some, but only because they fed on the benevolence of Christianity.


199 posted on 10/14/2006 10:01:42 PM PDT by stultorum (dont hire illegal aliens)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: aculeus
Good grief. Is this mean Polish jokes are about to return?

Was Orzechowski away?

200 posted on 10/14/2006 10:04:39 PM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 1,051-1,070 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