Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: YHAOS

I read what you write but all I hear is the crying of a spoiled brat who thinks he owns the language. You don’t. Creationism as defined is USELESS. Crying about it to me doesn’t change that.

I will readily admit that evolution and the theory of natural selection does nothing to answer the origins of life or the meaning of life or what God values in us all or any number of questions. But it is the only useful scientific model that explains how species change and have changed.

The Pope is not a creationist as defined. Neither am I. Neither are many millions of Christians. Crying about it and trying to use non standard definitions will not change it. Creationism as defined is useless. Science is useful. Creationism and Christianity are not synonymous.


184 posted on 01/18/2013 8:30:04 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies ]


To: allmendream; YHAOS
I read what you write but all I hear is the crying of a spoiled brat who thinks he owns the language. You don’t. Creationism as defined is USELESS. Crying about it to me doesn’t change that.

Look who's whining talking....

The king of making up definitions on the run.

187 posted on 01/18/2013 9:29:22 PM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies ]

To: allmendream; metmom; grey_whiskers
You claim that you “hear” what I write, but it’s clear that you suffer the same reading comprehension problems from which all Propagandists suffer: you “hear” only what your schemes permit you to hear; you “see” only what your schemes permit you to see.

You allege that Creationism “as defined” is useless. “As defined” by whom? Your allegation “as defined” is an abject confession that you can only proceed if you are allowed to dictate terms and meanings, and your incessant crying and moaning is an abject confession that you are aware that you are not being allowed to advance your propaganda unopposed. And in front of the entire Forum assembly too! How shameful and embarrassing for you!

Now, you allege that my use of definitions is “non standard.” Which definitions?
the Compact Oxford English Dictionary, revised edition 2003?
the Webster’s Universal Dictionary of the English Language, unabridged, 1937?
the The original 1828 Webster’s Dictionary?
the Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, 11th Edition – which shows no change since 1880?
the Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th Ed. 2005?
the The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.?
the Webster's Revised Unabridged, 1913 Edition?
or, perhaps the CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA?
How are they “non standard”? Do you rate yourself superior to all the authorities represented by the above publications? By whose authority are they deemed “non standard”? Explain in detail how this is so, or stand exposed as a fraud.

You are quite correct in saying that Christianity and Creationism are not synonymous. Of course not. Creationism is a tenet of Christianity; the most important tenet; That the Judeo-Christian God is the Creator of the Universe, and of Mankind. What is your point in asserting something not in dispute? Do you think it somehow salvages your soiled reputation?

204 posted on 01/19/2013 1:17:04 PM PST by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson