Posted on 02/20/2006 5:33:50 AM PST by ToryHeartland
No, I just don't think that "conservative" is, or should be, synonymous with "uneducated" or "ignorant."
Any takers?
LOL
Now that's funny!
I sorry you feel this way, for ALL of us are "uneducated" or "ignorant" about many things and there is not enough time left in our lives to overcome this fact.
Well guys; thanks for ANOTHER 2 hours of my life gone!
I logged in this morning at 600 and noticed the thread was up to 851!!!
Finally, after reading and commenting, it's gotten to 925.
How many man(woman) hours are used up in this manner?
Sigh........ breakfast calls!
"How many man(woman) hours are used up in this manner?"
Far too many. I'm speaking from experience.
"Sigh........ breakfast calls!"
I hope that isn't a new euphemism. :)
crickets...
It depends if you regard outlandish claims for things that did not occur "lies"--
And it was fruit flies, not crickets.
Interesting. For someone who is so unwilling to see the obvious metaphors in the Creation, Fall of Man and Great Flood in Genesis 1-11 (in spite of overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary), you seem quite liberal in the application of metaphorical interpretation to other parts of the Bible. Very interesting indeed (though not atypical).
So the evolutionists are then justified because they *exposed* these hoaxes? Then they can sweep under the rug the fact that they prepetrated the hoaxes and go on to tell people what paragons of virtue and integrity they are. After all, since evolutionists have no reason to lie...wait a minute, hoaxes ARE a lie...hmmm
Then you contend that suffering has transactional value?
But how does that square with a just god?
You said you could point us to the thread. I would appreciate your doing so.
Those are his requirements for giving a student a letter of personal reccommendation.
__________
This is the crux of the Dini issue as well IMHO. He should be able to determine who does and who does not get a recommendation based on criteria he establishes. It is his professional reputation he is putting out there.
That is quite a silly response.LOL... Well, it's nice that you were amused. I must say that I found your reply to my response to by quite silly as well. Indeed, a philosophical treatise was the last thing I expected from my little banter. But, I should have expected that. People who take philosophy seriously are the types to obsess over meaningless minutia.
All questions are "unanswerable" in that sense...Not really. Some questions are unanswerable and some are not. I can't answer the question "is there a God?" but I can answer the question, "what did I eat for breakfast today?" (Oatmeal, fruit and eggs.)
The validation of your own existence and that of the cosmos is "unanswerable." Yet you merrily go along accepting both on FAITH, every day.Nope. I experience both my existence and the existence of the cosmos through sense data every day. Until such time that those sense data are proved to be unreliable on the scale necessary to make questions of my existence and that of the universe tenable, there is no element of faith involved.
Indeed, your participation in this thread assumes you accept several unverifiable assertions: Your existence, the existence of the persons to whom you respond, meaningfulness and knowability of propositional truth. None of these things can be "answerable" in the sense you post above.As I've explained, I can verify my own existence. As for the existence of the person to whom I am responding, in a strict sense I do not know if they are a person or an intelligent machine. But I can rationally conclude, given my knowledge of human behavior, the way in which the Internet and FR functions, coupled with the lack of any awareness that a machine capable of intelligent thought exists, I can be reasonably sure that there is, in fact, a person on the other end of the Internet line. Can I be certain? Not certain, but reasonably sure; close enough that it doesn't make any functional difference. Finally, meaningfulness and knowability of propositional truth are knowable to the extent that language gives us the ability to express and understand each others thoughts. So long as I can discern the meaning of that which you assert, I find that these things are at least as certain as I need them functionally to be.
Are you asserting that you never worry about ANYTHING? Unless you are a poster child for zoloft, I think not.I don't worry about things, like the existence or non-existence of God, that I know cannot be proved or disproved.
You are concerned about many things. Probably the same bag of crap that confronts all of us, including money, career, relationships, and your place in the web of those things. You have as little means of independent verification of those things as one does of the existence or non-existence of God, yet you assume they exist and predicate much of your activities on the idea that they do exist and have meaning.Not really. I can't look in my wallet or open my paycheck and see God, but I can see money and the things that it can bring, such as health, home, property, etc. I experience my career every day in an immediate, objective, tangible way. Not so with God. I've spent time with people with whom I've had relationships, had them express things to me, had me react to them, had them react to me; we've learned from each other, loved and lived with each other. I've seen, heard, and felt all that which a human being does to indicate depth of feelings. Not so with God.
These things are knowable in a way God is not.
If you want to question the existence of anything, that is your prerogative and I firmly support your right to do so, whether it be God, the Bible, the validity of dialectic materialism, or some vagaries of string theory.That's nice. But it's not that I'm "questioning the existence" of anything. I was saying that the question of whether God exists is unknowable.
However, if you spout out some silly nonsense implying some issues are "answerable" while others are not, and you just don't worry about those which are not, then be prepared to have someone call that asinine yawlp the rubbish that it is.LOL... I'm sure I'll survive your silly opinions.
Then there's the ID crowd that claims it was all there at "inception". Anthropic principle. Fine tuned. Life is inevitable given the nature of nature.
If this is science then some of it should be testable.
They don't seem to care about anything being testable, except when they think they've discovered a test that might falsify the TOE, LOL. It's all based on 'revealed knowledge'.
You almost need a program to know all of the different versions and permutations of Creationism/ID and how fundamentally they disagree with each other.
And they don't even seem to know how much they disagree with each other.
That's a fair point, if a bit overly literal. I see nothing wrong with hoping that conservatives exercise at least a passing familiarity with that body of basic knowledge that all educated people should have.
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.