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

Skip to comments.

A Return to Triangulation (libertarion vs social right)
National Review Online ^ | 10/25/06 | David Boaz & David Kirby

Posted on 10/25/2006 11:10:46 AM PDT by Blackirish

As the Republican base fragments and Christian conservatives consider a “fast” from politics, the polling data point to a mid-term Republican thumping. Less than two weeks from now, Republicans will begin their post-mortem soul searching. And as the corpses of their House and Senate majorities grow cold, so should Karl Rove’s 2006 campaign strategy.

(Excerpt) Read more at article.nationalreview.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: besthijack; bestthread; blackirish; braad; creation; darwin; darwincentral; darwinhomebase; doublehijacked; evolution; frhero; frlegend; hero; hijack; hijacked; hijackedthread; legend; libertian; minifreepathon; monthlydonorthon; rehijacked; religion; science; socialright; threadjacked; threadjacking
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 351-400401-450451-500 ... 1,651-1,665 next last
To: metmom
You should see how one of their most sacred cow carrys on over there too.

Nice is not the word.

W.
401 posted on 10/25/2006 10:05:31 PM PDT by RunningWolf (2-1 Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 396 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

placemark


402 posted on 10/25/2006 10:05:41 PM PDT by stands2reason (Officially Homeless)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 400 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
I don't want to argue with you, I didn't even want this thread hijacked into an evo/religion thread.

We disagree.

Personally I think Darwin is about 3 bones short of a monkey.

We'll leave it at that.
403 posted on 10/25/2006 10:05:56 PM PDT by Beagle8U (Demonrats want the Gays out of Congress.....stand back and let them purge their base.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 393 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

I am a biologist. I have seen these arguements before. You cannot scientifically refute evolution unless you are a biologist, and you are not a biologist (or an acceptable one) unless you are an evolutionist. THis is circular reasoning.

Also, scientific areas are rarely isolated. The physicist, cosmologist, etc have as much to say about evolution as the biologist, just like biology adds to the knowledge in fields.


404 posted on 10/25/2006 10:05:59 PM PDT by Mom MD (The scorn of fools is music to the ears of the wise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 397 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

This was posted Oct 22, and many, many times before that. Probably hundreds of times. Possibly thousands of times on FR.


405 posted on 10/25/2006 10:06:21 PM PDT by Mamzelle (Nobody likes spam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 348 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Ok, here's a question just off the top of my head, just to cheese you off.

The classic picture of the extinction of the dinosaurs changed greatly upon the finding of a thin layer of Iridium at the K-T boundary.

Cool, we now have heavy metal contamination of the earth from an external source.

My question is, how external is external?

The validity of radiocarbon dating depends (in an ordinary, laboratory scale sense) on the homogeneity of the sample, and the uniformity of conditions. That is, we assume all of the initial amounts of radionuclei (in whichever decay series we are using) were all formed at the same time. This is important because the initial concentrations of daughter particles will be the same. (When the sample gets contaminated, you can get problems in dating, see the Shroud of Turin re-weave and sampling controversy for a non-evo example.)

OK, so were there any amounts of any radionuclei (wherever in the sequence) introduced at the K-T boundary or by any other impacts?

Secondly, if there were, do we know whether the radioisotopes in the comet were formed at the same time as the ones on Earth?

Just stirring the pot, yanking your chain, etc. :-)

Cheers!

406 posted on 10/25/2006 10:07:11 PM PDT by grey_whiskers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 382 | View Replies]

To: stands2reason
"He said that to andysandmikesmom, for crying out loud."

OMG, he did?

I could be mistaken, but IIRC that is who he said that to.

407 posted on 10/25/2006 10:07:57 PM PDT by wyattearp (Study! Study! Study! Or BONK, BONK, on the head!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 391 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U
Personally I think Darwin is about 3 bones short of a monkey.

Your assesment has no apparent basis in fact. There exists no evidence to show that Charles Darwin's sekeletal structure was significantly different than that of any other homo sapiens.
408 posted on 10/25/2006 10:08:08 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 403 | View Replies]

To: Mom MD
I am a biologist.

Then what do you believe is problematic about the theory of evolution?

The physicist, cosmologist, etc have as much to say about evolution as the biologist, just like biology adds to the knowledge in fields.

Could you provide an example of an observation in cosmology that has relevance to the theory of evolution?
409 posted on 10/25/2006 10:09:29 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 404 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio; Beagle8U

OK, Mr. Spock.


410 posted on 10/25/2006 10:10:55 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 408 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Whatever, pal. It's your right to turn the channel anytime you get fed up with the "top." Just don't expect me to bend to your will because that ain't gonna happen.

See, that's just paranoid. I'm not asking you to bend to my will.

Personally, I think you're on the wrong side of this issue, but so what? We don't all have to agree on everything. That's *never* been my point. My point is actually closer to the opposite.

What I am saying is that you need to look around your site with a critical eye. What you are going to see are some sneakback trolls who are chasing some long time freepers away. They're the ones trying to get your site to match up with their dictates. Not us. What's really going on is these guys have a problem with pro-science posters. They're making the site unpleasant for us. They are dictating terms on your site, and they are playing on your sympathies to get away with breaking the rules, painting us as the bad guys and so on.

If you scratch some of these guys, you're itching some real kooks. Western medine is fake, the moon landings are fake, crop circles are real, etc. These are the guys going around trying to drive pro-science folks away. Not Joe or Jane middle America Christian. Honestly, what you need is not more moderation, but better moderation. Bad posters drive away good posters. Bad moderation makes the problem worse.

How do you have a broad based conservative site without a broad base? You let some of these cranks chase people away, it erodes your base. This is a reflection of what is going on in the conservative movement at large. Like I said before, I don't have a problem with you at all. This is a function of what's going on in the larger political scene.

411 posted on 10/25/2006 10:11:08 PM PDT by Liberal Classic (No better friend, no worse enemy. Semper Fi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 374 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
Absolutely no theory in science can be proven. Evolution is no different than any other scientific theory. The theory of evolution can be subjected to experimentation and testing,

That is interesting. Would you provide an example of one of those experiments? I realize that proving that the process of evolution is hard to show due to the apparent length of the process. Has any scientist been able to recreate the "cocktail" that allowed for life to come into being in the first place and, if so, has that cocktail been tested in the lab?

412 posted on 10/25/2006 10:12:17 PM PDT by Texasforever (I have neither been there nor done that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 393 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Me neither. Maybe I need to make a trip on the Shuttle.


413 posted on 10/25/2006 10:12:24 PM PDT by SoldierDad (Proud Father of a 10th Mountain Division 2nd BCT Soldier fighting in Mahmudiyah)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 399 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle
This was posted Oct 22, and many, many times before that. Probably hundreds of times. Possibly thousands of times on FR.

And he keeps posting it, in the hope that one day some creationist will actually read it, and not say the same old "if it was really true, it would be a law, and not a theory" nonsense.

414 posted on 10/25/2006 10:12:35 PM PDT by wyattearp (Study! Study! Study! Or BONK, BONK, on the head!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 405 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U
Darwin is about 3 bones short of a monkey

But you have it backwards, in actuality all they have is about 3 bones of a monkey.
415 posted on 10/25/2006 10:14:44 PM PDT by RunningWolf (2-1 Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 403 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
Could you provide an example of an observation in cosmology that has relevance to the theory of evolution?

Apparent age of the universe.

Stellar fuel--both for age of the universe and the influence of cosmic rays on the flip of the earth's magnetic field, claimed (earlier in this thread) to be related to observations in microscopic fossils.

Stellar fuel for formation of heavy elements including "curve of binding energy" and radionucleides used for radiocarbon dating.

Possible panspermia. Yeah, I know, "abiogenesis is not part of evolutionTM" ...except when a pro-evo poster wants to talk about it.

Cheers!

416 posted on 10/25/2006 10:14:48 PM PDT by grey_whiskers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 409 | View Replies]

To: wyattearp; Mamzelle

Specially made-by-frevos definitions of words are not really authoritative.


417 posted on 10/25/2006 10:16:29 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 414 | View Replies]

To: Mom MD
my religion is as valid as yours.

You hit on something right there that I've been saying.

This isn't about science versus religion. There are vast numbers of Christians and Jews working in science and engineering disciplines.

What we are seeing on these threads is a sectarian conflict. This conflict has been manufactered by people who are advancing their own theology above the theology of others. How many times in these threads have I heard sentiments like "you can't be a Christian if you accept evolutionary theory" and stuff like that. All the time. But there are lots of Christians and Jews who do accept it. Are they nothing but CINOs or whatnot? Certainly these people are no less sincere.

This is a sectarian fight. There exists a group who are trying to drive pro-science folks from conservatism, simple because they believe we don't belong.

418 posted on 10/25/2006 10:16:33 PM PDT by Liberal Classic (No better friend, no worse enemy. Semper Fi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 398 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
That is interesting. Would you provide an example of one of those experiments?

Several experiments are referenced here.

I realize that proving that the process of evolution is hard to show due to the apparent length of the process.

The lack of proof is a fact of all scientific explanations. The mechanism for the process is well-established, however.

Has any scientist been able to recreate the "cocktail" that allowed for life to come into being in the first place and, if so, has that cocktail been tested in the lab?

I do not understand what relevance your question has to the theory of evolution.
419 posted on 10/25/2006 10:18:18 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 412 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Apam made in freevo-pan, home of the obsessive clones.


420 posted on 10/25/2006 10:18:23 PM PDT by Mamzelle (Nobody likes spam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 417 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic; Mom MD

Not all the time, occasionally, sometimes, and my guess would be from the same few posters, although I don't anally keep any records on other freepers.


421 posted on 10/25/2006 10:18:52 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 418 | View Replies]

To: Blackirish

"Leave nanny statism to the dims."

I agree. But sadly it looks like your thread has been hijacked by the creationists vs the evolutionists crowd.

The hallmark of political conservatism has historically been limited govt interference in our lives while accepting individual responsibility. Which is exactly why I joined the Reagan revolution in 1980 to become a Republican. Too many govt regulations interfering in our lives and too little recognition for individual responsibility.

To the hijackers I say this: We need G-d and we need science. Anyone who denies a divine creator has not bothered to look at the miracles of life proven by science. By the same token, anyone who denies science has not bothered to appreciate the discoveries in science that makes our lives better and in many cases gives us more time here with the one's we love.


422 posted on 10/25/2006 10:19:00 PM PDT by takenoprisoner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U

Evos have not yet demonstrated in the "fossil record" that one animal "evolved" into a completely different animal. They use guestimate to try to explain what is unexplainable, and miss miserably on demonstrating their claims. Why would we expect them to use a laboratory experiment to provide evidence of their claims when all of their "proof" is nothing more than speculation?


423 posted on 10/25/2006 10:19:43 PM PDT by SoldierDad (Proud Father of a 10th Mountain Division 2nd BCT Soldier fighting in Mahmudiyah)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 342 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

THe theory of evolution has more holes in it than swiss cheese. For one example, in my college years I was fed the "ontongeny recapitulates phylogeny" line as a great proof of evolution. only one problem - it doesn't.

Cosmology is important to evolution. If you want to have evolution be a workable theory, you need to have the conditions conducive to it. A young universe works against evolution as adequate time is necessary for the development and evolution of biologic particles into life. (and many scientists feel the current estimates of the timeline to the big bang does not leave enough time for evolution. Stephen Hawking lamented that a lot of scientists were running off to join the first church of the big bang)

In order to have evolution, you need adequate energy sources, as evolution flies in the face of the second law of thermodynamics. This is explained away by evolutionists as being due to the injection of outside energy into the system - the energy comes from cosmic rays, the sun, other sources that have everything to do with cosmology. It also feeds in to the mutation rates, etc. Geology also plays an important part here, as well as chemistry. Was there a reducing atmosphere on the young earth as evolution requires?, etc

No scientific field exists by itself, they are all interconnected in one way or another.


424 posted on 10/25/2006 10:19:58 PM PDT by Mom MD (The scorn of fools is music to the ears of the wise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 409 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf
But you have it backwards, in actuality all they have is about 3 bones of a monkey.

That's funny, it certainly looks like they are all there to me.


425 posted on 10/25/2006 10:20:19 PM PDT by wyattearp (Study! Study! Study! Or BONK, BONK, on the head!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 415 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever

Using modern DNA sequencing technology, the genomes of simple, short-lived organisms such as bacteria may be completely read into a computer within hours. This means that we can view genetic markers moving through populations of organisims in near real time. This is the very definition of evolution: the change in allele frequences in populations of organisms over time.


426 posted on 10/25/2006 10:21:08 PM PDT by Liberal Classic (No better friend, no worse enemy. Semper Fi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 412 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio; Texasforever
Theres a whole lotta things you don't understand that gets you out of answering them

BTW, disguised talk-origins links aint proof
427 posted on 10/25/2006 10:21:59 PM PDT by RunningWolf (2-1 Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 419 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf
"But you have it backwards, in actuality all they have is about 3 bones of a monkey."

I really don't care what bones they have to "pick". They can pick them amongst themselves.
428 posted on 10/25/2006 10:23:06 PM PDT by Beagle8U (Demonrats want the Gays out of Congress.....stand back and let them purge their base.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 415 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic

Christians can definitely believe in evolution and still be Christian. Salvation is determined by ones acceptance of the completed work of Jesus Christ, not on what you believe about evolution. I believe they are wrong, but no less Christian.

A lot of Christians are also in the same place I was at one time, taught evolution in science classes as established fact that no one dared question. There were no intellectually honest presentations of facts on the other side of the arguement. I had to find these out through reading and research of my own. When you are young and impressionable in college, and getting into grad school is dependent on your regurgitating what you are taught in the classroom, unfortunately you learn not to ask too many questions.

Its late and I'm running on, but yes, both evolution and creationism are religious viewpoints with scientific evidence on both sides. Thank you for the civil tone of your debate, it is sorely missing here on most threads!


429 posted on 10/25/2006 10:25:08 PM PDT by Mom MD (The scorn of fools is music to the ears of the wise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 418 | View Replies]

To: wyattearp
It was just a list of definitions. The dictionary is full of them. If the Theory of Evolution is unassailable then, in the hands of a competent educator, there should be no problem putting it up against ID in the classroom. You and yours are fond of calling those that take the ID side of the debate ignorant. That may be so BUT, like it or not, a majority of your fellow countrymen believe in some form of intelligent design and they bring those beliefs with them into the classroom. If you and yours are secure in your science then you should be able to cure their ignorance in short order.
430 posted on 10/25/2006 10:25:29 PM PDT by Texasforever (I have neither been there nor done that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 414 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

What the hell for?


431 posted on 10/25/2006 10:25:32 PM PDT by Liberal Classic (No better friend, no worse enemy. Semper Fi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 395 | View Replies]

To: Mom MD

Thank you. Bless you. I'm exhausted, too. I try to stay polite, but Lord knows I lose my temper just like anyone else.


432 posted on 10/25/2006 10:26:43 PM PDT by Liberal Classic (No better friend, no worse enemy. Semper Fi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 429 | View Replies]

To: Mom MD
In order to have evolution, you need adequate energy sources, as evolution flies in the face of the second law of thermodynamics.

You claimed a scientific background, this old saw is about as bad as it gets.

Thank you for outing yourself, I was pretty sure you would in short order.

433 posted on 10/25/2006 10:28:13 PM PDT by Jaguarbhzrd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 424 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic

Guess I got fed up with a smart ass.


434 posted on 10/25/2006 10:28:51 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 431 | View Replies]

To: Mom MD
For one example, in my college years I was fed the "ontongeny recapitulates phylogeny" line as a great proof of evolution. only one problem - it doesn't.

Could you provide evidence to support this assertion? It does not correspond to references that I have seen. I will attempt to locate these references, but I have found some information here.

and many scientists feel the current estimates of the timeline to the big bang does not leave enough time for evolution.

Please provide a reference to support this claim.

In order to have evolution, you need adequate energy sources, as evolution flies in the face of the second law of thermodynamics. This is explained away by evolutionists as being due to the injection of outside energy into the system - the energy comes from cosmic rays, the sun, other sources that have everything to do with cosmology.

Are you saying that the external energy input from the sun is insufficient for evolution to occur? If so, then please explain this claim by showing the energy required for evolution to occur and demonstrating that energy input from the sun is inadequate. If not, then please explain exactly how evolution "flies in the face" of the second law of thermodynamics.

Was there a reducing atmosphere on the young earth as evolution requires?, etc

Explain how evolution requires this. Also, are you suggesting that, if evolution requires such an event, that evidence suggests that this did not occur?
435 posted on 10/25/2006 10:29:18 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 424 | View Replies]

To: Mom MD

There is no scientific evidence for creationism.

And you claimed a biology background, shame on you.


436 posted on 10/25/2006 10:30:29 PM PDT by Jaguarbhzrd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 429 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

That was kind of a childish prank to play on someone. Personally, I think you owe him an apology.


437 posted on 10/25/2006 10:31:08 PM PDT by Liberal Classic (No better friend, no worse enemy. Semper Fi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 434 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
If the Theory of Evolution is unassailable then, in the hands of a competent educator, there should be no problem putting it up against ID in the classroom

The concern is not that Intelligent Design would appear to be more valid than the theory of evolution. The concern is that teaching Intelligent Design in the context of a science classroom would give the incorrect impression that Intelligent Design is science, and that it would create a false impression of what science is.

That may be so BUT, like it or not, a majority of your fellow countrymen believe in some form of intelligent design and they bring those beliefs with them into the classroom.

The number of individuals who "believe" Intelligent Design has no bearing on its lack of scientific merit. It is also interesting to note that many people who claim to believe in "Intelligent Design" have differing ideas of what "Intelligent Design" actually is.
438 posted on 10/25/2006 10:33:01 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 430 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic
FR is becoming more hostile to pro-science people.

I take it you don't get off the "SCIENCE" threads, much huh?

It's hostile EVERYWHERE, not just to the ones of you who think you created the sun and the moon.

This problem seems to come from the top.

Were you sniveling when you posted that? GROW UP.

439 posted on 10/25/2006 10:33:50 PM PDT by Howlin (Why Won't Nancy Pelosi Let Louis Freeh Investigate the Page Scandal?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 360 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
If the Theory of Evolution is unassailable then, in the hands of a competent educator, there should be no problem putting it up against ID in the classroom.

How? What evidence is there for ID? What does the theory of ID state? What does it predict? How do you test it? What would falsify it?

Can you answer any of these questions? If not, then what business does it have in science class?

Seriously, answer these questions. I have been asking them for quite some time, and all I get is insults in return.

440 posted on 10/25/2006 10:34:32 PM PDT by wyattearp (Study! Study! Study! Or BONK, BONK, on the head!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 430 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
I do not understand what relevance your question has to the theory of evolution.

Oh I realize that most evolutionists dodge the initial origins of life question. However; without knowing HOW or WHY life begins and ends then the concept of ID is every bit as valid as ToE. The ToE is just the process of life between it's creation and its demise. Where is the "God" gene that provides the spark to animate an organism. Once evolutionists find that the debate is over.

441 posted on 10/25/2006 10:34:38 PM PDT by Texasforever (I have neither been there nor done that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 419 | View Replies]

To: stands2reason; wyattearp
> He said that to andysandmikesmom, for crying out loud.
OMG, he did?

Nope. It was to me.

I didn't think he cared. (wipes tear)

442 posted on 10/25/2006 10:36:11 PM PDT by dread78645 (Evolution. A doomed theory since 1859.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 391 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic
LOL. That'll be the day.

Now, if you don't mind, I didn't intend to make a career out of this thread when I dropped in to zot a smart assed retread troll this afternoon. So, with or without your permission, I bid you all a good night.
443 posted on 10/25/2006 10:37:08 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 437 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Nite Jim, sleep tight!


444 posted on 10/25/2006 10:38:03 PM PDT by 68 grunt (3/1 India, 3rd, 68-69, 0311)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 443 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Yup.

I see. And so when he and several of us asked what the heck was going on - i.e. was this just a weird software glitch, or had some other member broken into PH's account to do a little vandalism, or had some petty tyrant mod or other PTB decided to up and rip down a member's homepage, or what, it was you who decided not to say word one?

445 posted on 10/25/2006 10:38:14 PM PDT by jennyp (There's ALWAYS time for jibber jabber!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 395 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

Hi Howlin. I've been posting here for a little while. I've been in all kinds of threads.

You talk about childishness, how about Jim deleting someone's profile page just for spite?


446 posted on 10/25/2006 10:38:14 PM PDT by Liberal Classic (No better friend, no worse enemy. Semper Fi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 439 | View Replies]

To: Mom MD
In order to have evolution, you need adequate energy sources, as evolution flies in the face of the second law of thermodynamics.

The 2nd law very specifically applies to a closed system. The earth is not a closed system. There is this thing called the Sun. It is the energy source that makes the 2nd law inapplicable in biology.

447 posted on 10/25/2006 10:38:22 PM PDT by wyattearp (Study! Study! Study! Or BONK, BONK, on the head!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 424 | View Replies]

To: takenoprisoner

What has been hijacked is this thread! Instead of it being about the article posted at the head of this thread, is is FR's Darwinists V. Creationists.


448 posted on 10/25/2006 10:38:30 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 422 | View Replies]

To: takenoprisoner

What has been hijacked is this thread! Instead of it being about the article posted at the head of this thread, it is FR's Darwinists V. Creationists.


449 posted on 10/25/2006 10:38:49 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 422 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
Oh I realize that most evolutionists dodge the initial origins of life question

How, exactly, is this question "dodged"?

However; without knowing HOW or WHY life begins and ends then the concept of ID is every bit as valid as ToE.

This is not a logical conclusion. Knowing the means by which life ultimately originated does not alter the scientific validity -- or lack thereof -- of proposed events that occur within populations of extant life.

The ToE is just the process of life between it's creation and its demise.

This is a vague statement. Evolution is a process that affects populations of imperfectly replicating organisms.

Where is the "God" gene that provides the spark to animate an organism.

What do you mean by "spark"?

I regret that I will be unable to address any response that you make until tomorrow morning, as I must retire for the night at this time.
450 posted on 10/25/2006 10:39:45 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 441 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 351-400401-450451-500 ... 1,651-1,665 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