Posted on 04/25/2008 12:26:24 PM PDT by Jim W N
Intelligent design is a religious belief, not a scientific theory.
And there is a tremendous amount of support for the theory of evolution. I studied a lot of the fossil evidence myself in grad school.
I think my dad used to buy turkey chicks from there!
Practice, dedication, and perseverance.
Pretty much applies to everything doesn’t it.
LOL! I agree, and I have kept chickens...
I always thought that if they weighed 50 pounds, humans would be their prey.....
I watched them catch a frog one time, they played “chicken football” with the parts, after they dismembered it...
*shiver*
The proof should be found in chicken pudding!
I’m pretty certain your first picture is “Archaeoraptor”, first appearing in Nat’l Geographic in November 1999. If you research it you’ll find that it was a hugely embarrassing hoax for the magazine.
Actually, it is the theory of evolution that is an atheistic humanist religious doctrine requiring giant leaps of faith. True science (and common sense) supports intelligent design while science has many problems and little-to-no evidence to support evolution. There are countless examples and evidence of intelligent design rendering it pretty much irrefutable. There is NO evidence, for example of species jumping, required for evolution.
Sorry, you have been fed a series of lies.
So they tasted like chicken? No wonder the cave people wiped ‘em out.
Wow, good answer. Is that what the liberals do whenever they're confronted with hard facts that refute their pet theories? Since you sited your grad school in arguing for evolution, I'd say you were the one who's been indoctrinated and fed the standard-issue liberal pabulum of lies.
Wow, good answer. Is that what the liberals do whenever they're confronted with hard facts that refute their pet theories? Since you sited your grad school in arguing for evolution, I'd say you were the one who's been indoctrinated and fed the standard-issue liberal pabulum of lies.
Liberals ignore reality and see the world as they imagine it, or want it to be.
I have studied the actual "hard facts" supporting evolution, handling hundreds of fossil casts for hundreds of hours in grad school, as well as studying other aspects of the field.
That is not some "standard-issue liberal pabulum of lies" -- that is evidence. And I have seen it for myself, which probably makes me the only one still posting on FR to have that background.
And what you bring to "refute" those mountains of evidence is religious belief and such internet luminaries as Answers In Genesis. Belief, not evidence. (Hey, there's a good tagline in there somewhere!)
Sorry, denying reality when it stares you in the face is a liberal trait, not a conservative one.
Hey there, I've been where you are, so I'm not knocking your state of mind. But, as a person of intellect, have you ever considered applying the Scientific Method to scripture? I challenge you to test God and see. Every where there is a conditional clause or a promise within the Bible, test it out and see if you come back with a fact, based on the application of the Scientific Method. I did, and could not get past the evidence. If you seek truth, you will find it.
Can you not look at the complexity of a single cell and all of it's parts and say "there is a God?" Niche coined the term "God is dead" but one only needs to open their eyes, or look in the mirror, and see the marvels of His creation.
We could get into a whole boatload of apologetics and many other rabbit trails but starting with the application of the Scientific Method to scripture is challenge enough. Have fun, should you accept the challenge, and may the truth be with you! :)
If you can see how credible God is through the promises within scripture, then you will see the validity of the so called faith-based theories like Genesis, and it's account of creation. One thing is true, God does not lie, and he can not lie because it is not in His character to do so.
The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.- Ronald Reagan ("A Time for Choosing" address)
Liberals fill themselves with a myriad of facts and then leap to mythical conclusions. Coyoteman, I think you and I have been down this road before. The existence of fossils (truth) does not validate Darwin's atheistic and fatally flawed Theory of Evolution (myth).
Since I don't know how to copy over a link, I refer you to an earlier discussion we had on this below:
The Abolition of Man? How Politics and Culture Have Been Dehumanized in the Name of Science Friday, March 07, 2008 10:45:12 AM · 260 of 272 Jim 0216 to Coyoteman From an earlier post: Giving examples (of intelligent design pointing to an intelligent designer/creator) feels like pointing out trees in a forest, but here's a couple that I've given before:
- DNA - a miraculous and incredible amount of intelligent information and code in an infinitesimally small building-block of life.
- Your ear - The inner ear has three multi-directional nerve/sensors elegantly designed to help you keep your balance. They're called semicircular canals - three loops of fluid-filled tubes that are attached to the cochlea in the inner ear. They help us maintain our sense of balance. Each of these loops goes in a different direction, so that all three together helps maintain one's equilibrium no matter what angle your body is in.
- Any detailed study of a leaf or your eye or anything in your body or any living thing. More evidence than the sand of the sea.
Sorry Coyoteman, but again, calling the evidence I've presented and dismissing intelligent design as "religion in disguise" doesn't refute intelligent design. Calling these facts "a statement of my beliefs" doesn't refute these facts. I couldn't care less about the Discovery Institute, and calling it silly has nothing to do with refuting intelligent design. I'm not impressed with whatever these attempts are to somehow deflect focus on the undeniably of intelligent design. I'm also not I impressed with evolutionists' "evidence" which is paltry, sad, and often found to be a fraud.
Next.
Sure, the global flood about 4,350 years ago. It fails miserably any test using the scientific method.
My own work in archaeology disproves any such flood at 4,350 years ago in the area in which I work. But I'm a latecomer; the early creationist geologists seeking to prove the flood gave up about 200 years ago. The last holdout I believe gave up in 1831.
DNA evidence also disproves the flood story. There is continuity of mtDNA between a skeleton in southern Alaska dated to 10,300 years BP and living individuals of that same lineage stretching from California to the tip of South America. There was no discontinuity and replacement with mtDNA from near eastern sources.
The list of fields of investigation that have disproved the global flood at 4,350 BP is quite long.
You are denying evidence before your very eyes, so there is nothing I could do to show it to you.
bang a gong, get in on, get it on
We came to the end of this discussion two months ago when it appeared you had no response to the overwhelming evidence of intelligent design.
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.