<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Limbaugh on evolution</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.john-wright.net/2008/04/16/limbaugh-on-evolution/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.john-wright.net/2008/04/16/limbaugh-on-evolution/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=limbaugh-on-evolution</link>
	<description>Not Facebook</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 10:58:14 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert</title>
		<link>http://www.john-wright.net/2008/04/16/limbaugh-on-evolution/comment-page-1/#comment-22260</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Jul 2010 00:16:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.john-wright.net/?p=680#comment-22260</guid>
		<description>Correction, the quote I copied implied that either life started or human lives started in one quick period of time. 
&quot;But to me at least, neither does the idea that we spontaneously combusted into life.&quot;

Based on the evolution time line, it took a long time for one cell organisms to come about, a long time for multi cell, a long time for hugely complex organisms, and the same for us. most steps had hundreds of millions of years in between steps. Based on probability, even something unlikely can very likely occur if you have enough attempts. It just seems with all the time each step took that trial and error of nature finally took the next step and so on.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Correction, the quote I copied implied that either life started or human lives started in one quick period of time.<br />
&#8220;But to me at least, neither does the idea that we spontaneously combusted into life.&#8221;</p>
<p>Based on the evolution time line, it took a long time for one cell organisms to come about, a long time for multi cell, a long time for hugely complex organisms, and the same for us. most steps had hundreds of millions of years in between steps. Based on probability, even something unlikely can very likely occur if you have enough attempts. It just seems with all the time each step took that trial and error of nature finally took the next step and so on.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert</title>
		<link>http://www.john-wright.net/2008/04/16/limbaugh-on-evolution/comment-page-1/#comment-22259</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Jul 2010 00:11:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.john-wright.net/?p=680#comment-22259</guid>
		<description>Jacob, he probably meant from &quot;nonliving&quot; or abiotic to &quot;living&quot; or biotic. 

Robb: &quot;I myself, believe that we are here by intelligent design. From basic life we have evolved into the creatures we are now. No we didn’t get here in 5 days, and no Adam wasn’t created and then Eve. THAT just doesn’t make sense. But to me at least, neither does the idea that we spontaneously combusted into life. So that’s my 2¢ worth &quot;

If you look at the timeline of evolution, you will see that it took a long time for each step of evolution to occur. I mean it took several hundred million years for the first one cell organism(more research will yield a more narrow figure of first life). However, perhaps we will find evidence of life that is dated drastically earlier than the oldest evidence of life currently collected and dated. Also, it took 1,000,000,000 years for one cell life to be accompanied by mult cellular life. Remember one cell organisms multiply very quickly so we are talking not a billion but probably trillions upon trillions of generation. So the macro evolution processes had a lot of time to get things right. Its trial and error. Also, we did not have any really complex life forms(like hundreds or thousands of cells etc) for several more hundred million years and it took hundreds of millions of years more till our oldest primate ancestors came around and then still millions of years more till we came. Why wait so long between steps? and why wait over 3 billion years between earth forming and the forming of the species created in his image? why wait well over what 2 billion years for one cell life to finally become the species that is the focus of gods so called guiding of evolution(homo sapian)? Also, why wait billions of years between the universe forming and the planet forming that will occupy his &quot;children&quot;(humans)? 

It just seems so likely that the most plausible involvement of god is the big bang. Everything else took so long. there is no reason for god to wait; however, naturally all these things although highly improbable would based on probability occur with enough trial and error but would likely take an extremely long time(lot of trial and error) and hence we have the information I listed above. 

Robert</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jacob, he probably meant from &#8220;nonliving&#8221; or abiotic to &#8220;living&#8221; or biotic. </p>
<p>Robb: &#8220;I myself, believe that we are here by intelligent design. From basic life we have evolved into the creatures we are now. No we didn’t get here in 5 days, and no Adam wasn’t created and then Eve. THAT just doesn’t make sense. But to me at least, neither does the idea that we spontaneously combusted into life. So that’s my 2¢ worth &#8221;</p>
<p>If you look at the timeline of evolution, you will see that it took a long time for each step of evolution to occur. I mean it took several hundred million years for the first one cell organism(more research will yield a more narrow figure of first life). However, perhaps we will find evidence of life that is dated drastically earlier than the oldest evidence of life currently collected and dated. Also, it took 1,000,000,000 years for one cell life to be accompanied by mult cellular life. Remember one cell organisms multiply very quickly so we are talking not a billion but probably trillions upon trillions of generation. So the macro evolution processes had a lot of time to get things right. Its trial and error. Also, we did not have any really complex life forms(like hundreds or thousands of cells etc) for several more hundred million years and it took hundreds of millions of years more till our oldest primate ancestors came around and then still millions of years more till we came. Why wait so long between steps? and why wait over 3 billion years between earth forming and the forming of the species created in his image? why wait well over what 2 billion years for one cell life to finally become the species that is the focus of gods so called guiding of evolution(homo sapian)? Also, why wait billions of years between the universe forming and the planet forming that will occupy his &#8220;children&#8221;(humans)? </p>
<p>It just seems so likely that the most plausible involvement of god is the big bang. Everything else took so long. there is no reason for god to wait; however, naturally all these things although highly improbable would based on probability occur with enough trial and error but would likely take an extremely long time(lot of trial and error) and hence we have the information I listed above. </p>
<p>Robert</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jacob Lizon</title>
		<link>http://www.john-wright.net/2008/04/16/limbaugh-on-evolution/comment-page-1/#comment-18406</link>
		<dc:creator>Jacob Lizon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 23 Jan 2010 00:34:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.john-wright.net/?p=680#comment-18406</guid>
		<description>Hey robb, you do know that organic just means that a molecule or compound has carbon or hydrocarbons in it. So no inorganic molecules did not magically turn into organic molecule, they were always organic.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey robb, you do know that organic just means that a molecule or compound has carbon or hydrocarbons in it. So no inorganic molecules did not magically turn into organic molecule, they were always organic.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John</title>
		<link>http://www.john-wright.net/2008/04/16/limbaugh-on-evolution/comment-page-1/#comment-17442</link>
		<dc:creator>John</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Dec 2009 03:49:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.john-wright.net/?p=680#comment-17442</guid>
		<description>Hmm, I think we run the risk of confusing evolution (which explains how life became complex) and abiogenesis (which is an early attempt to explain how life first arose). These should not be confused, even though many scientists are indeed atheists who believe they will find the naturalistic means by which life first arose. I&#039;m personally much happier with people who want to look than with people who think &#039;God did it&#039; is a satisfactory explanation and one which invalidates the need to find out if it is correct.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hmm, I think we run the risk of confusing evolution (which explains how life became complex) and abiogenesis (which is an early attempt to explain how life first arose). These should not be confused, even though many scientists are indeed atheists who believe they will find the naturalistic means by which life first arose. I&#8217;m personally much happier with people who want to look than with people who think &#8216;God did it&#8217; is a satisfactory explanation and one which invalidates the need to find out if it is correct.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robb</title>
		<link>http://www.john-wright.net/2008/04/16/limbaugh-on-evolution/comment-page-1/#comment-17325</link>
		<dc:creator>Robb</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Dec 2009 17:20:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.john-wright.net/?p=680#comment-17325</guid>
		<description>Wow! What fun you have going on here!

Okay first of all John, there are evolutionists who unequivocally believe that there is no way God created man or anything else and that indeed, life was created spontaneously by chance with somehow inorganic molecules becoming organic through unknown processes. In Expelled, there is a scientist who said that life began on the backs of crystals. So yes, evolution does try to explain the &quot;Origin of Species&quot; as Darwin puts it.

Agree though, that Limbaugh should stick to what he knows (not Oxycontin) and stay away from matters for which he has no business offering opinions.

I myself, believe that we are here by intelligent design. From basic life we have evolved into the creatures we are now. No we didn&#039;t get here in 5 days, and no Adam wasn&#039;t created and then Eve. THAT just doesn&#039;t make sense. But to me at least, neither does the idea that we spontaneously combusted into life. So that&#039;s my 2¢ worth :-)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wow! What fun you have going on here!</p>
<p>Okay first of all John, there are evolutionists who unequivocally believe that there is no way God created man or anything else and that indeed, life was created spontaneously by chance with somehow inorganic molecules becoming organic through unknown processes. In Expelled, there is a scientist who said that life began on the backs of crystals. So yes, evolution does try to explain the &#8220;Origin of Species&#8221; as Darwin puts it.</p>
<p>Agree though, that Limbaugh should stick to what he knows (not Oxycontin) and stay away from matters for which he has no business offering opinions.</p>
<p>I myself, believe that we are here by intelligent design. From basic life we have evolved into the creatures we are now. No we didn&#8217;t get here in 5 days, and no Adam wasn&#8217;t created and then Eve. THAT just doesn&#8217;t make sense. But to me at least, neither does the idea that we spontaneously combusted into life. So that&#8217;s my 2¢ worth <img src='http://www.john-wright.net/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':-)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sue</title>
		<link>http://www.john-wright.net/2008/04/16/limbaugh-on-evolution/comment-page-1/#comment-11859</link>
		<dc:creator>Sue</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 May 2009 08:16:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.john-wright.net/?p=680#comment-11859</guid>
		<description>Isnt Limbaugh himself living (or rather half-dead proof) that evolution has never ever occurred.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Isnt Limbaugh himself living (or rather half-dead proof) that evolution has never ever occurred.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John</title>
		<link>http://www.john-wright.net/2008/04/16/limbaugh-on-evolution/comment-page-1/#comment-2183</link>
		<dc:creator>John</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Apr 2008 18:57:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.john-wright.net/?p=680#comment-2183</guid>
		<description>These people go through life never hearing any real science; their churches screen films from Answers in Genesis and read from creationist authors.  It simply never occurs to them that evolution might be entirely compatible with their religious belief.  You&#039;re right about the 100-year-out scenario; Christians too will one day look back at creationism in the same manner we now look back at geocentrism.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>These people go through life never hearing any real science; their churches screen films from Answers in Genesis and read from creationist authors.  It simply never occurs to them that evolution might be entirely compatible with their religious belief.  You&#8217;re right about the 100-year-out scenario; Christians too will one day look back at creationism in the same manner we now look back at geocentrism.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter Henderson</title>
		<link>http://www.john-wright.net/2008/04/16/limbaugh-on-evolution/comment-page-1/#comment-2181</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter Henderson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Apr 2008 22:07:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.john-wright.net/?p=680#comment-2181</guid>
		<description>Hi John. 

I think the term &quot;Darwinism&quot; encompases all modern science now, from geology right through to astronomy (Young Earth Creationists are just as opposed to steller evolution as they are to biological evolution) so they probably view Einstien&#039;s ideas as Darwinism as well.

As a Christian I am appalled at how widespread YECism is within the churches here in NI. I cannot understand why so many Christians so readily accept YECism and reject modern science. 

Theories such as the &quot;Big Bang&quot; have been confirmed time and time again and the discovery of DNA has proven Darwin&#039;s ideas to be correct, not wrong. 

Now it may very well be that science in 100 years time may be completely different to what we know now (as it was 100 years ago) but I cannot possibly imagine either YECism or ID being accepted. How life arose in the first place is certainly something that scientists don&#039;t know. However, I have no doubt that this mystery will be solved through scientific research, eventually.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi John. </p>
<p>I think the term &#8220;Darwinism&#8221; encompases all modern science now, from geology right through to astronomy (Young Earth Creationists are just as opposed to steller evolution as they are to biological evolution) so they probably view Einstien&#8217;s ideas as Darwinism as well.</p>
<p>As a Christian I am appalled at how widespread YECism is within the churches here in NI. I cannot understand why so many Christians so readily accept YECism and reject modern science. </p>
<p>Theories such as the &#8220;Big Bang&#8221; have been confirmed time and time again and the discovery of DNA has proven Darwin&#8217;s ideas to be correct, not wrong. </p>
<p>Now it may very well be that science in 100 years time may be completely different to what we know now (as it was 100 years ago) but I cannot possibly imagine either YECism or ID being accepted. How life arose in the first place is certainly something that scientists don&#8217;t know. However, I have no doubt that this mystery will be solved through scientific research, eventually.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Quinney</title>
		<link>http://www.john-wright.net/2008/04/16/limbaugh-on-evolution/comment-page-1/#comment-2180</link>
		<dc:creator>Quinney</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Apr 2008 21:14:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.john-wright.net/?p=680#comment-2180</guid>
		<description>Well how can Limbaugh even talk about evolution, it&#039;s completely out of his sphere. It&#039;s not like he&#039;s considered the science.  and the same can be said for Ben Stein&#039;s movie in which they made no attempt to consider the science or advance a different theory, it was just assumed that these two (ID and evolution) were equal competing theories without a shred of reason for it.

SQ</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well how can Limbaugh even talk about evolution, it&#8217;s completely out of his sphere. It&#8217;s not like he&#8217;s considered the science.  and the same can be said for Ben Stein&#8217;s movie in which they made no attempt to consider the science or advance a different theory, it was just assumed that these two (ID and evolution) were equal competing theories without a shred of reason for it.</p>
<p>SQ</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John</title>
		<link>http://www.john-wright.net/2008/04/16/limbaugh-on-evolution/comment-page-1/#comment-2179</link>
		<dc:creator>John</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Apr 2008 20:52:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.john-wright.net/?p=680#comment-2179</guid>
		<description>Tina, dunderhead or no, as you say, he definitely got this one wrong.  Embarrassingly so.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tina, dunderhead or no, as you say, he definitely got this one wrong.  Embarrassingly so.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tina T</title>
		<link>http://www.john-wright.net/2008/04/16/limbaugh-on-evolution/comment-page-1/#comment-2177</link>
		<dc:creator>Tina T</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Apr 2008 17:18:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.john-wright.net/?p=680#comment-2177</guid>
		<description>As you say, such colossal ignorance. I may disagree that Rush isn&#039;t a dunderhead, but thank God some people are pointing out how wrong he is anyway.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As you say, such colossal ignorance. I may disagree that Rush isn&#8217;t a dunderhead, but thank God some people are pointing out how wrong he is anyway.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

