Conclusions From Uncounted Creation/Evolution Debates

PatrickHenry | 10 June 2006 | PatrickHenry (vanity)

[gusopol3]

so it would be fair to infer that the reason you post here rather than on Democratic Underground, where you would have virtually no representative of the other side, is that you seek to drive a wedge between Bible believing Christians, whose outlook is conservative, and liberal Christians, whose doctrine is more "acceptable" to you.

[PatrickHenry]

Tagline. Tagline. Tagline.

[b_sharp]

"belief in/ acceptance of evolution is of far less import to a rational or scientific worldview than the bloviators on these threads purvey. In fact, the major effort made by the evolutionists on these threads is to attempt to inflict collateral damage on adherents of conservative Christian doctrine, whom they consider to be their social abd intellectual inferiors."

Your goggles are giving you a much distorted view of what proponents of evolution think of religions in general. Whether anti-evolutionists are Christian(conservative or otherwise) or not is irrelevant. What is of concern is the attempts of an activist sect of religion (primarily Christian) attempting to redefine science and methodological naturalism into a system useless to anyone but theological extremists.

As has been shown historically and currently, science is most effective if the methods used are separate from the belief system of the scientist. Any change in this will reduce the Western world to a scientific third world culture.

Practice your religion in your homes and in your churches. Teach your children your beliefs. Support Christian charities and fulfill your heartfelt Christian duties. Communicate your beliefs to others on the streets, in the malls and at work.

Don't mess with that aspect of western culture that has produced the wealth and technology (including military) that has given Western countries the edge.

BTW, no proponent of evolution considers Christians (as a group) to be inferior in intellect. There are *some* anti-evolutionists who refuse to examine the evidence placed in front of them that when it comes to their blind adherence to a rigid interpretation of their religious text(s) are considered somewhat irrational.

[b_sharp]

"They're doing apologetics rather than science."

They haven't apologized to me yet for their tactics.
(See, I can do equivocation too)

[freedumb2003]

In fact, the major effort made by the evolutionists on these threads is to attempt to inflict collateral damage on adherents of conservative Christian doctrine, whom they consider to be their social abd intellectual inferiors.

Assumes facts not in evidence. But it is interesting that the CRIDers are the ones who make assumptions, starting with the VERY INCORRECT assumption that those who understand TToE are NOT Christian.

[Gumlegs]

I like your second 2. better than your first 2.

I suppose you evo-scientist are now going to tell us how many 2s we can have.

[gusopol3]

"Ladies and Gentlemen, this evening it is my modest intention to tell you in the short time we have together . . . everything you will ever need to know about the human beast.

I take that term, the human beast, from my idol, Emile Zola, who published a novel entitled The Human Beast in 1888, just 29 years after Darwin's The Origin of Species broke the stunning news that Homo sapiens--or Homo loquax, as I call him--was not created by God in his own image but was precisely that, a beast, not different in any essential way from snakes with fangs or orangutangs . . . or kangaroos. . . or the fang-proof mongoose. Darwin's doctrine, Evolution, leapt from the pages of a scientific monograph into every level of society in Europe and America with sensational suddenness. It created a sheerly dividing line between the God-fearing bourgeoisie who were appalled, and those people of sweetness and light whose business it was to look down at the bourgeosie from a great height."

From Tom Wolfe's lecture @ http://www.neh.gov/whoweare/wolfe/lecture.html

I'm not sure whether he's wearing the same goggles I am or not; I guess you'll know.

[Gumlegs]

Vade: And I've already heard "good works" don't work.

PH: You're in a heap o' trouble, boy!

He's in trouble no matter which way it is.

[PatrickHenry]

I suppose you evo-scientist are now going to tell us how many 2s we can have.

Somehow this reminds me of Pierre the bridge builder.

[b_sharp]

"so it would be fair to infer that the reason you post here rather than on Democratic Underground, where you would have virtually no representative of the other side, is that you seek to drive a wedge between Bible believing Christians, whose outlook is conservative, and liberal Christians, whose doctrine is more "acceptable" to you."

Interesting how the definitions of 'Christian' change according to intent. On one hand we have many anti-evolutionists claiming that only literalists who believe in a 6000 year old Earth, the Noachian flood, the Tower of Babel and the spontaneous generation of all life on Earth can be considered true 'Christians'. On the other hand we have those same anti-evolutionists claiming that evolution is against all 'Christians', whether those Christians accept evolution or not. And now on the gripping hand we have a division between 'Liberal' Christians and 'Conservative' Christians. (Since when does political affiliation change the definition of Christian)

Come on, get your story straight. Does the word Christian describe only those that have faith in a literal interpretation of Genesis, or does it include all who accept Christ into their lives?

If you guys can't get it straight, how are we to know who we are supposed to be against?

[gusopol3]

"adherents of conservative Christian doctrine"

read before you write

[bvw]

The executive summary is you haven't learned anything from uncounted debates for those were all points you entered the debate room with.

And sad, for to take the effort to put a post together that shows very clearly that you never give any attention whatsoever to a single thing the other side says, whilst labeling the post as if you have carefully paid all due attention. Delusional, sadly delusional.

How "nice" it is per your constantly proffered "Everyone be nice" for you since your mind is so set that the ears are deaf and eyes blind -- this one post is the proof of that, for it neither gives any credence nor even restates any points that have been brought up -- most many times repeated in variant forms -- points opposed to your initial positions.

Nice, well because, by such a remarkable demonstration of delusional thinking, you show that have earned the proper reward your motivations work for -- the fruit of the "Ignorance is Bliss!" tree. How sweet it must be for you! Enjoy, my friend!

You have won! You are the winner!

For so you proclaim it to yourselves.

[gusopol3]

I generally speak only for myself, but since you're here to speak for me , why don't you just talk to yourself?

[Gumlegs]

Are you posting from personal experience?

[PatrickHenry]

I don't build bridges ... or do the other things.

[Gumlegs]

You'll never know how greatly relieved the janitorial pool is to read this.

[freedumb2003]

I said what I meant and meant what I said.

[PatrickHenry]

But I missed one three ...

[MHGinTN]

Another actor made that line (heap o trouble, boy) more famous in Dodge commercials ... Joe Higgins: Joe's business card had two vultures up in a tree watching a guy drag himself across the desert; one vulture turns to the other and says, "Wait hell, I'm gonna kill somethin'".

[gusopol3]

didn't question your ability to talk, only to read