Posted on 12/16/2004 6:28:43 AM PST by Pokey78
Yes, didn't see an article for a while from him.
Wednesday Evening
7:00pm
Your encouragement is a blessing. I will try to pass it on!
http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/fox_searchlight/i_heart_huckabees/isabelle_huppert/iheartpreg.jpg
Umm...I'm going to have to disagree with steyn on this one.
She may be a two bagger...or even three (where you put the third bag over the dog's head so he'll still respect you in the morning).
Maybe Steyn saw her when she was younger, or perhaps in a movie with a lot of makeup and airbrushing.
Indeed. Good catch!
BUMP to that!
Relax, Vade, creationists aren't an embarassment or a threat to anybody. Just ignore them, unless you share the nutty belief that they might be complicit in "...drag[ging] us back down into the Dark Ages...".
You're right about Steyn and science though - stick to culture and politics. Of course, evolution, in the public arena, has always been politics. So his evo-bashing is fair enough. Some evos occasionally get a little carried away with themselves. Here's the full "Dark Ages" quote from a recent FR thread:
"......
"Like you, I weep for our future."
Don't let it get you down. I'm much more optimistic. We have a few hundred thousand scientists (more than ever before in the world's history) upon whom the future of our species depends. It seems depressingly true that the great majority of the population is stone cold ignorant of science, and a few -- so well represented in these theads -- are openly hostile to any manifestation of reason, but it has always been so.
With all that baggage trying to drag us back down into the Dark Ages, we're still making progress. If some school districts here and there get into astrology and creationism, it's tragic for those kids, but such setbacks aren't universal. Others will carry the torch of reason and learning forward."
The controversy exists much more outside of science than within it. The side-issue FR thread of today threatens to be an election issue down the road. That's where all the action in school board meetings is heading. If sometime, say, a creationist plank gets inserted into a Republican Party platform, we're going to get clobbered.
Been thinking about this one. Didn't mean to keep you waiting but in a way it's an interesting question.
The short answer is that I've probably tried it, but it was a mistake if I did. The stunning thing, at least now that I've thought about it, is that anyone would expect a reasonably informative answer on the Origin of Everything to be short, especially since by conventional accounts the origin of life comes long (some ten billion years) after the origin of the universe.
Of course, "God" is a short answer. The problem is that, for people who don't already think they know all that, it's uninformative.
"Luck" is a short answer, too, but I'm not sure much luck was needed to get intelligent life in the universe, at least in the one we have. "Physics, chemistry, and chaotic phenomena on planets in favorable orbits," is about as short as I'd want to go but even that is just asking for it.
Short answers just generate a barrage of know-nothing questions. And, come right down to it, if you want a short answer for "life, the universe, and everything," you don't want an answer at all.
Merry Christmas to all.
And, to all, a good night.
Are you sure? You seem a sublimely complacent dolt. Just when you think people have finally wised up a bit is when you get a lesson yourself.
The Democrats have to be looking on hopefully as around the country one buffoon after another tries to take over a local school board meeting. At a time when the Dems are--politically speaking--on the mat and gasping, I'm trying to keep a pack of bozos from running in with the oxygen bottle.
Yeah, I'll probably be offline an extra bit over Christmas. However, exposing the constant misrepresentations of militant nutcases is easy and fun. It's not like they come up with new material at any high rate. It's become a hobby and I have no plans to stop.
As for providing oxygen to the Dems, you and your Darwin's Neo-bulldogs here at FR are sure doing your bit to help.
I cannot imagine a basis for this statement in fact or reason, given the "loons and buffoons" stereotype the creationists reinforce to the harm of conservatism in general. The "Darwin's Neo-bulldogs" on this forum do two things which tend to forestall potential gains by the Democrats. We show the world in general that some of us can actually spell "science" if not "Mister." We also prevent fence-sitting lurkers against being gulled by the relentless bad-penny arguments of the creationists.
By comparison, you have in your role of shill from the sidelines now wasted a fair amount of oxygen making the world safe for the loons and buffoons. You're not the first to try to slip into the discussion via that route. I suppose it'll be my fault for being so mean when in a month or so you're posting that there are no transitional forms, evolution cannot account for irreducible complexity, Java Man was a big gibbon, Neanderthal Man was a modern human with rickets, Lucy's skull and kneecap were found a mile apart, Stephen Jay Gould made his hopeful monster theory because of the lack of transitionals, evolution is only a THEORY anyway, if we came from monkeys why are there still chimpanzees, and there are human and dinosaur footprints together in Paluxy, Texas.
I guess I'll have to live with that, mistah science.
Steyn doesn't usually boot one this badly, but in the mid-70's we had three hard winters in a row and the eeekologists were all telling us we would perish in the coming ice age.
Steyn is probably too young a feller to remember the details.
From my Creationist perspective these realities -- physics, chemistry, and chaotic phenomena on planets in favorable orbits-- are evidence of a Creator. Considering the boundaries that these laws permit, there is a definite order within chaos. The laws of physics and chemistry allow for order, that without those laws would be nonexistant.
The early creationist scientists believed the discovery of these "laws" were like a puzzle that our Creator laid out for our creative intelligence to search out. Because they viewed them as evidences of design, they were able to make leaps of logic that helped lay the groundwork for the technology we have today.
If a person takes the time to read through the history of how we have come to the advanced scientific place we are at today, they would, if intellectually honest, lay it on the backs of creation scientists.
1. Most of the greatest scientists of the past 1000 years were Christians and creationists.
2. To these scientists, Christianity was the driving force behind their discoveries.
3. The Christian world view gave birth and impetus to modern science.
Denial would be unbecoming.
The West's period of least progress in science was 500 years of virtual standstill while the Arabs invented algebra and the Chinese invented gunpowder. That period, the Dark Ages, was also the absolute triumph of religion as the controlling force in life, politics, and everything.
The Renaissance was in no small part a liberation from the rule of religion over thought. It was the rebirth of western science.
Hell of a good idea.
I listed many scientists in post #12. Their discoveries and contributions to science are well founded.
The Renaissance was in no small part a liberation from the rule of religion over thought.
You are well aware -- because I have been faithful to enlighten you in the past -- that the religious and intellectual oppression came from a corrupt, power hungry Roman Religious imperialism that had nothing to do with Jesus Christ and His teachings. Because you continue to characterize Christianity with things that are diametrically opposed to it's principles, I can only believe that it is your agenda that clouds your judgment.
bttt
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.
