Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Problem With Evolution
ChronWatch ^ | 09/25/05 | Edward L. Daley

Posted on 09/26/2005 5:44:09 AM PDT by DARCPRYNCE

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300301-341 last
To: Right Wing Professor
That's why we have the Constitution, to protect us from the tyranny of the mob.

Why Professor, you astonish me. A group of people in a local jurisdiction propose to do something of which you disapprove, and you want to haul them into federal court (and call them a mob, to boot). I can see it now: the Professor awakes in a cold sweat from a nightmare of pine-tar torches, pitchforks, and hemp ropes, and of being pursued by rubes who want to teach their kids that the earth is flat, and who will encourage them to marry their first cousins. That more resembles the behavior and the understanding of a Liberal, than someone who purports to be ‘Right Wing.’

What was the complaint, in the first place, that generated this particular variation on the thread? Someone was lamenting the fact that “people in classrooms hearing about intelligent design,” more than anything else, would be made into a political issue. Fate sealed the destiny on that circumstance way back whenever we put government in charge of education. If you don’t want to be subject to the tyranny of the mob, remove the excuse for the tyranny. Instead, you seek to entrench the federal grip, by giving them further opportunities to strengthen precedents establishing their control over local schools.

301 posted on 09/27/2005 7:26:39 PM PDT by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS
I can see it now: the Professor awakes in a cold sweat from a nightmare of pine-tar torches, pitchforks, and hemp ropes, and of being pursued by rubes who want to teach their kids that the earth is flat, and who will encourage them to marry their first cousins.

We had a little discussion a couple of weeks ago with a couple of Christian Reconstructionists, a group who want to throw out parts of the constitution, institute a theocracy, and introduce stoning for homosexuals, adulterers and disobedient children, exactly as laid out in the Bible. These adherents of CR happen also to be vocal creationists.

So, yeah, I do take them seriously. Three hundred years ago we were hanging witches in this country. I'm sorry, but a significant number of your co-religionists seem to have moved not a bit from the mind set that permitted those horrors.

The Discovery Institute have said, in writing, that the teaching of ID in schools is a wedge strategy to get the teaching of religion into schools. Why wouldn't I take them at their word? Why should I trust instead the reassurances of someone I suspect of dissimulating his real motives?

That more resembles the behavior and the understanding of a Liberal, than someone who purports to be ‘Right Wing.’

The Professor, since he knows a little history, remembers that fundamentalist Christians in this country were until recently Democrats who voted for statist economic policies. Now he has to endure being lectured by these johnny-come-latelys about what a conservative is.

If you don’t want to be subject to the tyranny of the mob, remove the excuse for the tyranny. Instead, you seek to entrench the federal grip, by giving them further opportunities to strengthen precedents establishing their control over local schools.

With the massive assumption of federal control of education at the behest of the current President, a little judicial oversight of school districts scarcely seems worth worrying about. In any case, this battle was lost when the 14th amendment was passed. The US Bill of Rights is now binding on the states. You can't go back 150 years to the aftermath of the civil war, any more than you can go back 300 years to theocracy.

302 posted on 09/27/2005 7:54:23 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 301 | View Replies]

To: blowfish

that's what I was saying...the difficulty of painting such a masterpiece couldn't just happen without an artist doing it. A human body is so much more detailed and complex, it only makes sense that there had to be a designer behind it.


303 posted on 09/27/2005 10:18:22 PM PDT by fabian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

yes, living things are produced by "nature"...but what I was saying is that they are so much more detailed and complex than a mere painting. So a designer has to be behind it just as a designer is behind a masterpiece.


304 posted on 09/27/2005 10:23:14 PM PDT by fabian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: fabian

Well, you and I completely disagree. The only evidence you can present is your own incomprehension, and that's not science, that's just incomprehension. Sorry.


305 posted on 09/27/2005 10:38:09 PM PDT by blowfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies]

To: Mylo

"The Nationalist Socialists were Christian..."

"I regard Christianity as the most fatal, seductive lie that has ever existed."—*Adolf Hitler

The Nazi leaders and ideologues were not Christians. They were pagan, some quite explicitly. For the rest, the ancient myths celebrated in Wagner became a pillar of their doctrine of Teutonic racial superiority.

Nazism was itself a "political religion," Cardiff University historian Michael Burleigh stresses in his magisterial "The Third Reich: A New History." It sought to displace the traditional church and command spiritual authority as well as temporal. Its special animus toward Jews was not religious but racial, and it "had one foot in the dark irrationalist world of Teutonic myth, where heroic doom was regarded positively, and where the stakes were all or nothing--national and racial redemption or perdition."

The Nazi attack on Christianity was widely understood at the end of World War II. William Shirer's "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" recounts the Nazi plan for the Christian churches: It included an intention to "exterminate irrevocably . . . the strange and foreign Christian faiths imported into Germany in the ill-omened year 800." Current denominations would be replaced by the National Church. Its altars would have only a copy of "Mein Kampf," with a sword to the left. The Christian Cross would be removed, replaced "by the only unconquerable symbol, the swastika."

"Adolf Hitler’s mind was captivated by evolutionary thinking—probably since the time he was a boy. Evolutionary ideas, quite undisguised, lie at the basis of all that is worst in Main Kampf and in his public speeches. A few quotations, taken at random, will show how Hitler reasoned . . [*Hitler said:] ‘He who would live must fight; he who does not wish to fight, in this world where permanent struggle is the law of life, has not the right to exist.’ "—*Robert E.D. Clark, Darwin: Before and After (1948), p. 115.

"I cannot deny that the theory of evolution, and the atheism it engendered, led to the moral climate that made a holocaust possible."—*Edward Simon, "Another Side to the Evolution Problem," Jewish Press, January 7, 1983, p. 248.


306 posted on 09/27/2005 11:32:36 PM PDT by razorbak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: blowfish; fabian
I think he comprehends very much. His analogies are very illustrative.

You misinterpret your judgments of another's comprehension as evidence, and thats not evidence or even sound scientific method, but it is the way (a large segment) of the cosmo-evo cult on these boards.

Wolf
307 posted on 09/28/2005 6:29:23 AM PDT by RunningWolf (U.S. Army Veteran.....75-78)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 305 | View Replies]

To: razorbak
All the anti-Christian quotes of Hitler are from one source published after Hitlers death and they are suspect at best, and even if true were only secretly whispered to that one suspect source.

The many propaganda pieces that the Nazi's produced for public (German) consumption were VERY CHRISTIAN, and decried the Jews for the murder of Christ.

Hitlers many PUBLIC pronouncements were Christian and designed to inflame Christian sentiment against Jews.

Hitler described himself as a Catholic, he was an alter boy, and he was never excommunicated or renounced his faith.

Pagans have no reason to hate Jews. Christians think they do.
308 posted on 09/28/2005 6:41:16 AM PDT by Mylo ( scientific discovery is also an occasion of worship.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 306 | View Replies]

To: razorbak
Mein Kampf: ". . . I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work." He made essentially the same claim in a speech before the Reichstag in 1938.

In 1941 Hitler told Gerhard Engel, one of his generals: "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so." In fact, Hitler was never excommunicated from the Catholic Church, and Mein Kampf was not placed on the Church's Index of Forbidden Books.

Hitler's biographer John Toland explains Catholicism's influence on the Holocaust. He says of Hitler: "Still a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite detestation of its hierarchy, he carried within him its teaching that the Jew was the killer of god. The extermination, therefore, could be done without a twinge of conscience since he was merely acting as the avenging hand of god. . .."

Hitler is said to have admired the founder of Protestantism, Martin Luther, more than any other German. Among Luther's many denunciations of the Jews, there are such religious sentiments as: "The Jews deserve to be hanged on gallows seven times higher than ordinary thieves," and "We ought to take revenge on the Jews and kill them."

When Hitler was asked in 1933 what he planned to do about the Jews, he said he would do what Christians had been preaching for centuries. And the Nazis carried out their first large-scale pogrom of Jews in honor of Luther's birthday.
309 posted on 09/28/2005 6:50:17 AM PDT by Mylo ( scientific discovery is also an occasion of worship.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 306 | View Replies]

To: razorbak

Hitler on National Socialism and Christianity:

Hitler on signing the Nazi-Vatican Concordat, April 26, 1933: "Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without religious foundation is built on air; consequently all character training and religion must be derived from faith . . ."

In a speech at Koblenz, August 26, 1934, Hitler said: "National Socialism neither opposes the Church nor is it anti-religious, but on the contrary it stands on the ground of a real Christianity . . . For their interests cannot fail to coincide with ours alike in our fight against the symptoms of degeneracy in the world of today, in our fight against a Bolshevist culture, against atheistic movement, against criminality, and in our struggle for a consciousness of a community in our national life . . . These are not anti-Christian, these are Christian principles!"

October 24, 1933, in a speech in Berlin, Hitler said: "We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out."

In a speech delivered April 12, 1922, published in "My New Order," and quoted in Freethought Today (April 1990), Hitler said:

My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.

In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison.

Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross.

As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice . . .

And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only for their wages wretchedness and misery.

When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people are plundered and exploited.""


310 posted on 09/28/2005 7:00:29 AM PDT by Mylo ( scientific discovery is also an occasion of worship.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 306 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf; fabian
Not at all. He states that what he sees around him is too complex to occur without a designer manually assembling the pieces. That observation (and I've no doubt that fabian is an observant person) does not constitute evidence of anything other that the limits of fabian's knowledge.
The one thing thats clear on these threads is that neither side of the argument can persuade the other side of anything,
311 posted on 09/28/2005 7:31:38 AM PDT by blowfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 307 | View Replies]

To: Mylo
Okay so great evil is done by men, madmen like Hitler.

Modern men harvest stem cells from aborted babies, scientists seem to say its good. I say its evil.
What say you?

Wolf

312 posted on 09/28/2005 7:32:47 AM PDT by RunningWolf (U.S. Army Veteran.....75-78)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 310 | View Replies]

To: blowfish
See this is where words fail. Like the words used here of a designer in some corner of the universe manually assembling the pieces.

Wolf
313 posted on 09/28/2005 7:36:31 AM PDT by RunningWolf (U.S. Army Veteran.....75-78)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 311 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf

Science cannot differentiate between what is good or what is evil. Science isn't a morality system. It can only tell you what works and what doesn't.

Many Scientists are opposed to abortion. Many think that adult stem cells hold more promise. So there is no "Scientists seem to say it is good". That is a construction YOU made.


314 posted on 09/28/2005 7:39:28 AM PDT by Mylo ( scientific discovery is also an occasion of worship.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 312 | View Replies]

To: blowfish
See this is where words fail. Like the words used here of a designer in some corner of the universe manually assembling the pieces.

I don't think he really said that and I don't think you really thought he said that. I know I don't says those things but somehow it gets construed that way.

I wont accuse you of this, but it seems a convenient way of a few on 'your side' to dismiss their opponent.

Wolf

315 posted on 09/28/2005 7:40:55 AM PDT by RunningWolf (U.S. Army Veteran.....75-78)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 311 | View Replies]

To: Mylo
Well then thats because I was trying to operate within the parameters of the evos here, many of them state it as 'science says' and no one on your side ever corrects it, then when I use it now its bad logic.

Wolf
316 posted on 09/28/2005 7:44:33 AM PDT by RunningWolf (U.S. Army Veteran.....75-78)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 314 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf
Whatever analogy you want to use, it boils down to the same thing. And the arguments boil down to the same thing: "we don't understand how everything works, so someone or something must have consciously intervened to make it happen."

I don't believe that for a second. Others do believe that. I can live with that.

317 posted on 09/28/2005 7:46:04 AM PDT by blowfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 315 | View Replies]

To: blowfish
someone or something

Thats not my analogy, is it your's?

To me thats another misinterpreting, or even a not grasping of a concept. Someone or something has to be somewhere, therefore cannot be beyond those things.

Wolf
318 posted on 09/28/2005 7:52:58 AM PDT by RunningWolf (U.S. Army Veteran.....75-78)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 317 | View Replies]

To: DARCPRYNCE; All
To the evo gang. Who's idea of a joke is it to keep putting in these your mom is an ape keywords and such.

Is this more demonstration of the highly educated keen sophisticated minds you guys have,

WHAT GOOFBALLS!! LOL HA HA HA.

Wolf
319 posted on 09/28/2005 7:59:58 AM PDT by RunningWolf (U.S. Army Veteran.....75-78)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf
My problem isn't with your construction "Scientists say..." that is a generalization, but OK.

I'll use it. 'Scientists say that the earth orbits the sun.' Or 'Scientists say that non material explanations are not scientific."

My problem was with your "Scientists say it is good/evil." When someone delves into the realm of good and evil they are not doing so as "a Scientist" but as a human being with a morality system.

Science is not a morality system.

Moreover many Scientists are of differing opinions on almost any subject not directly related to science. Such as the nature of good and evil.

So as you don't think I'm avoiding the question (although it has absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about, unless your going to say that only Scientists have abortions, and that this was over a dispute on Scientific interpretation (as the illogical postings of those who attribute the murders of Nazi's and Commie's to Scientific dispute are attempting)), here is my opinion.

I think (not as a Scientist mind you, but as a human) that creating human life for experimentation is evil. However I am glad that President George W. Bush was the first President to authorize embryonic stem cell research on cell lines that were already established. To let something of value go to waste is also evil; although of a less sinister nature.
320 posted on 09/28/2005 9:23:43 AM PDT by Mylo ( scientific discovery is also an occasion of worship.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 316 | View Replies]

To: Mylo
Okay I hear you.

Such as the nature of good and evil, man-kind does it.

Sometimes when man does it he's in the role of a scientist, other times he's a megalomaniac like Hitler, sometimes he's just the night worker at the gas chamber, sometimes he's in the role a deluded priest, sometimes he's the head of the ACLU, sometimes he's terrorist at the controls of an airplane, and on and on and on.

Wolf
321 posted on 09/28/2005 1:55:47 PM PDT by RunningWolf (U.S. Army Veteran.....75-78)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 320 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf
And sometimes he is a religious fanatic who burns a Scientist at the stake for pointing out that the earth revolves around the sun. Yes. Evil.

More Evil has been done in the name of "good" than in any other cause; mostly by religious zealots and Communists- who think that any earthly evil can be justified for the 'paradise' they seek to create.
322 posted on 09/28/2005 2:03:34 PM PDT by Mylo ( scientific discovery is also an occasion of worship.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 321 | View Replies]

To: Mylo
Well I guess thats one difference from me and some individuals on 'each side'.

I see evil as something man-mankind does as what it is what it is, not what it is done in the name of. I don't single out one role of man over another as you have done here to focus on.

To better understanding,

Wolf
323 posted on 09/28/2005 2:46:49 PM PDT by RunningWolf (U.S. Army Veteran.....75-78)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 322 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf
Essential, proper sentence structure is, to better understanding for man-mankind.

what it is, what it is.

I couldn't' have said it better myself....... I guess?

Maybe I shouldn't call attention to the role of grammar to proper understanding as I have done here to focus on.

Just remember. People rarely do evil in the name of evil. They do evil in the name of good. Hitler thought he was a good Christian. Pol Pot thought he would create a paradise on earth.
324 posted on 09/28/2005 3:38:25 PM PDT by Mylo ( scientific discovery is also an occasion of worship.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 323 | View Replies]

To: Mylo
People rarely do evil in the name of evil. They do evil in the name of good. Hitler thought he was a good Christian. Pol Pot thought he would create a paradise on earth.

That is more a statement about the human psyche than anything else. What they do it in the name of is not as significant to me as it is here to the two sides. Man-mankind is seduced by evil, then he does it.

It seems more import to the debaters here to use what evil is done in the name of, than what it is of itself.


----------------------------
Sorry about that. I do a lot of cut and paste even with my own text, and in the rush these things happen, however the grammar could use some improving.

About making up words, new word are made almost every day, the president does it, why cant I make up some to?

Wolf
325 posted on 09/28/2005 4:02:15 PM PDT by RunningWolf (U.S. Army Veteran.....75-78)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 324 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf
"Make some up to?"

Make some up to do what?

Or did you mean make them up ALSO?

that would be "make them up too?"

Sorry. I JUST CAN'T HELP MYSELF.

Thanks for your service. Air Force Vet 89-93.

And recognizing what motivates those who perpetrate evil is essential to understanding evil, and defeating it.

The islamofascists who flew airplanes into the World Trade Center thought they were doing "good". Knowing this is essential to understanding (and destroying) the ignorant bastards.
326 posted on 09/28/2005 4:11:08 PM PDT by Mylo ( scientific discovery is also an occasion of worship.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 325 | View Replies]

To: Mylo
Make some up to do what?

What are you talking about? To look nice of course!

Sorry. I JUST CAN'T HELP MYSELF

Its okay, since I have a trouble with the use of 'to' and 'too' I shall now invent a variable word 'tuw' I will use this word in all places of 'to' and 'too' and the reader can plug-in the form that best fits.

Now Air Force Vet, you have the assignment of delivering a warming device in the megaton range to the islamofascists-terrorists. Wolf will write something distasteful on it, and mess up the syntax and everything else so they have to work at reading it, and then cover for you on the way in.

Wolf

327 posted on 09/28/2005 10:23:44 PM PDT by RunningWolf (U.S. Army Veteran.....75-78)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 326 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf

thank you...I think our thoughts can sometimes get in the way of clear observations.


328 posted on 09/28/2005 11:24:37 PM PDT by fabian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 307 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
The Professor, since he knows a little history, remembers that fundamentalist Christians in this country were until recently Democrats who voted for statist economic policies. Now he has to endure being lectured by these johnny-come-latelys about what a conservative is.

That’s a whole boatload of assumptions there, Professor, all of them wrong (if by johnny-come-lately you mean lately come to this blog, then that’s not an assumption because it’s a matter of record; otherwise you’re wrong on that too). I wasn’t aware that, here in Freeper-Town, proper deference to members of the old-line families was commanded of those who live over on the other side of the tracks.

You’ve propounded quite the templet there, Professor, and it seems, in your mind at least, anyone, who disputes anything you say, or who says something to your disliking, has to fit that templet. Another Liberal gig! (thank you Rush, for proposing and explaining this hypothesis)

This is not the first time Scientists have hit me with this templet, and I’ve put it off to a distemper occasioned by frustration. I can understand that. We all fall prey from time to time. But I’m getting a little tired of it. Instead of attacking what I say, you impugn my motives and then attack those. Another Liberal gig.

Three hundred years ago we were hanging witches in this country. I'm sorry, but a significant number of your co-religionists seem to have moved not a bit from the mind set that permitted those horrors.

Guilt by association. Still boogieing in the Liberal mode. Will you be suggesting next that I am a member of the former slave-holding class?

With the massive assumption of federal control of education at the behest of the current President, a little judicial oversight of school districts scarcely seems worth worrying about. In any case, this battle was lost when the 14th amendment was passed. The US Bill of Rights is now binding on the states. You can't go back 150 years to the aftermath of the civil war, any more than you can go back 300 years to theocracy.

A little judicial oversight of school districts scarcely seems worth worrying about until said oversight steps on your toes; then you’ll be howling like a banshee. Federal control of education isn’t just Bush’s idea. It dates back to the Carter Administration when Carter proposed an education department and got it past Congress. Even prior to that, the peoples resources (mistakenly called federal funds) were being sent to the states (that was the excuse for creating a Secretarial level Ed. Dpt.), but the creation of the federal education department was a sign of the shape of things to come. If you’re genuinely Right Wing, then you know that federal control, not mere ‘oversight,’ whatever that term means, follows close on the heels of ‘federal’ money. Since you’re apparently not willing to concede this fact in the present context, presumably because of my lack of trustworthiness, then I find myself again ‘lecturing’ you on the obvious.

I’m well aware of the implications of the 14th Amendment (and more than a little amused at the quandary of the judiciary in their desperate desire to see the 1st Article made binding on the states, and the 2nd Article not made binding). Notwithstanding, I cannot essay to identify any article which places education under the authority of the federal government, since the articles of the Bill of Rights “altogether respect personal liberty.”

I would prefer that government have nothing to do with education, wishing to bar government authority from asserting any control over the minds of the people, because I do not trust government to discern the true from the false, or to honestly report on it when it does. If we just absolutely must have government involved in education, then let it be at the local level, so when an error in policy or educational practice occurs, the whole nation does not suffer from the error. But that raises complications, since fragmented sovereignty makes control of the people enormously more difficult. That’s why Marxist/socialists favor highly centralized government. What’s your excuse?

I don’t trust you either, Professor, any more than you trust me. So what do we do? Stand around and take potshots at each other’s motives? Break off contact altogether? Or do we discuss the issues? Some of them are pretty darned interesting. I think it’s more than a little important to go back to the future 229 years to a society that had a better grip on government by the consent of the governed than any other I know.

So, here’s to the once and future Republic. May we sing praises to its resurrection as we mourn its passing.

329 posted on 09/29/2005 7:39:57 PM PDT by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 302 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS
This is not the first time Scientists have hit me with this templet, and I’ve put it off to a distemper occasioned by frustration. I can understand that. We all fall prey from time to time. But I’m getting a little tired of it. Instead of attacking what I say, you impugn my motives and then attack those. Another Liberal gig.

Your 301

I can see it now: the Professor awakes in a cold sweat from a nightmare of pine-tar torches, pitchforks, and hemp ropes, and of being pursued by rubes who want to teach their kids that the earth is flat, and who will encourage them to marry their first cousins. That more resembles the behavior and the understanding of a Liberal, than someone who purports to be ‘Right Wing.’

When you get within a few parsecs of practising what you preach, we can resume this discussion. Until then, if I want to listen to cant and hypocrisy, I'll turn on CSPAN.

330 posted on 09/29/2005 7:57:55 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 329 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
"I'll turn on CSPAN."

Turn on CSPAN.

With a sniff, you dismiss a whole people as ‘the mob’ like Marie Antoinette dismissing a Paris rabble with a “Let them eat cake.” Then when I tease you about your superiorist attitude, you respond with a string of Liberal schtick. And, you have the nerve to accuse me of cant and hypocrisy. Look to the beam in your own eye, Professor.

You’re right, our discussions are at an end.

331 posted on 09/30/2005 8:13:47 PM PDT by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 330 | View Replies]

To: moog

We have more in common than you might think,to god a thousand years is but a twinkle of the eye?


332 posted on 10/01/2005 3:54:42 AM PDT by Nooseman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Nooseman

We have more in common than you might think,to god a thousand years is but a twinkle of the eye.

Yes, I agree. But I had enough of the evolution thing the other night:). I only go on those kind of threads for entertainment purposes when I feel bored. I think to debate where we came from is a "religion" in itself to people on both sides of the debate. Now I did have a Grandma who looked like some kind of missing link (bald-headed and big bushy moustache), but that's all I will say:).


333 posted on 10/01/2005 9:48:04 AM PDT by moog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 332 | View Replies]

To: moog
"I think to debate where we came from is a "religion" in itself"

It's not the act of debating "where we came from" that amounts to religion, it's the worldview to which one adheres, and from which one begins to debate, that defines one's faith.
To divorce oneself from such an irrational perspective is to seek true enlightenment.
334 posted on 10/02/2005 3:38:34 PM PDT by DARCPRYNCE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 333 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS
That’s a whole boatload of assumptions there, Professor, all of them wrong (if by johnny-come-lately you mean lately come to this blog, then that’s not an assumption because it’s a matter of record; otherwise you’re wrong on that too...

At leas you can remember back to when you signed up on FR. But remembering back to the 1930s seems to be beyond your reach.

335 posted on 10/02/2005 3:45:26 PM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 329 | View Replies]

To: DARCPRYNCE
It's not the act of debating "where we came from" that amounts to religion, it's the worldview to which one adheres, and from which one begins to debate, that defines one's faith. To divorce oneself from such an irrational perspective is to seek true enlightenment. Of course, I am was referring to religion in a figurative sense, as in what one places importance on. For example, if one values making gaining money above all else at the expense of other things, that becomes his/her "religion" in a sense. To debate where we came from is an art form for some, or in effect almost a "religion" as defined above. True religion of course, is belief and faith in God and adherence to his principles through the Savior Jesus Christ.
336 posted on 10/02/2005 4:02:23 PM PDT by moog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 334 | View Replies]

To: js1138


“At leas you can remember back to when you signed up on FR. But remembering back to the 1930s seems to be beyond your reach.”

DonÂ’t be so dramatic.

You would have us all believe that thousands of school district patrons from each of thousands of school districts scattered across the several states of the Union, intend to suddenly reverse three hundred years of American church/state tradition, and demand that a cardinal be installed as the Secretary of Defense, or an archbishop as Secretary of State, or perhaps a rabbi be named as Secretary of Education. And all this as a matter of Constitutional privilege. You expect anyone to take this kind of extravagant polemics seriously?

Moreover, do you think you can achieve influence over school district patrons, or engender any warm regard from them, by accusing them of marrying their cousins, or that they are demanding flat-earth science be taught? Figure the more abuse you heap on them, the more theyÂ’ll find you irresistibly adorable?

My apologies for the tardiness of my response.

337 posted on 10/06/2005 6:03:39 PM PDT by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 335 | View Replies]

To: Mylo
"Pagans have no reason to hate Jews. Christians think they do."

But the Nazis made up the Jews as a wonderful scapegoat for all problems occurred in Germany.


"Hitlers many PUBLIC pronouncements were Christian and designed to inflame Christian sentiment against Jews."

The Nazis tried to inflame the Christians but that won't make them Christians. His "PUBLIC pronouncements" only seemed to be Christian. He speaks of "Vorsehung" but with no relation to Christianity. He preferred the Nordic deities.


Book: Michael Rißmann: Hitlers Gott: Vorsehungsglaube und Sendungsbewußtsein des deutschen Diktators, Pendo, Zürich/München 2001 ISBN 3-85842-421-8
338 posted on 10/18/2005 5:28:16 AM PDT by MHalblaub (Tell me in four more years (No, I did not vote for Kerry))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 308 | View Replies]

To: moog

LOL,I would never ever speak of my, work worn, apalachian grandma in those terms.Maybe you were makin a funny? i'd make a funny to her face. Yes, I know it is very hard to consider, if our perception of beauty is ingrained ,or divine?


339 posted on 10/26/2005 4:34:21 AM PDT by Nooseman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 333 | View Replies]

To: Nooseman

LOL,I would never ever speak of my, work worn, apalachian grandma in those terms.Maybe you were makin a funny? i'd make a funny to her face. Yes, I know it is very hard to consider, if our perception of beauty is ingrained ,or divine?

It's true. She looked like a pro wrestler. We always show her picture to any prospective fiances of my siblings.


340 posted on 10/26/2005 1:24:24 PM PDT by moog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 339 | View Replies]

To: moog

Bottom line? I got to the part were Doc Wilder-Smith pronounced the origin of life to be part of evolutionary theory.

Just another ignoramus. Most people who think they hate evolution have no idea what it is.


341 posted on 04/12/2007 10:33:52 AM PDT by The Barbarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300301-341 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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