When they're not re-treading they are likely presiding over a Lilith fair someplace with other DU-ers.
Posted on 09/04/2009 8:50:36 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
I can understand the contempt for others reviewing your work when it is uniformly rejected.
move it a few hundred years in advance and you’ll burn me
Any group that gets fanatical can get to the stage where they do that. At least science isn't about fanaticism. We see what happens when science gets corrupted with politics though -- global warming. Science corrupted by religious fanaticism would be just as bad.
liberal nonsense
There you go with personal attacks again, if it doesn't agree with your religion then it must be liberal.
How dare you, of the Christian cult, slander the followers of the Invisible Pink Unicorn (PBUHH), the One True Religion. Heresy! You will be doomed to shovel Her stables for eternity, unbeliever!
Scopes was a criminal trial. Teaching evolution was a crime.
Not at all. I'd already had a few girls, and I kind of wanted a boy too.
It is well known on FR when one pulls out the newbie line, they have little of value to work with.
How about Genesis 1:11-12 ? God commanded the earth to bring forth grass, “and the earth brought forth grass”. Isn’t this evolutionary? Or at least naturalistic? Please note that God does not DESIGN the grass. He COMMANDS the earth to bring it forth. Isn’t this fatal to “intelligent design”, from a literalistic point of view?
Do you believe that Jesus Christ was born of a Virgin? Your evolutionist friend ColdWater, who likes to dish out spiritual advice to Christians, does not. What about you?
Those were not statements, they were questions.
You see tpanther, it takes little incentive for an atheist to being rambling about invisible pink unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters and so on.
So, tell us, AR, why you think cabbages are atheists. How about tire-irons and paint can lids? Are they atheists too? How about a sharp blow to the head? Can that make someone an atheist?
That may be so, but to include it as some sort of rousting out of innocent victims, as you seem to intend, is preposterous.
From University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law:
State v. John Scopes ("The Monkey Trial")
The Scopes Trial had its origins in a conspiracy at Fred Robinson's drugstore in Dayton. George Rappalyea, a 31-year-old transplanted New Yorker and local coal company manager, arrived at the drugstore with a copy of a paper containing an American Civil Liberties Union announcement that it was willing to offer its services to anyone challenging the new Tennessee anti-evolution statute. Rappalyea, a modernist Methodist with contempt for the new law, argued to other town leaders that a trial would be a way of putting Dayton on the map. Listening to Rappalyea, the others--including School Superintendent Walter White--became convinced that publicity generated by a controversial trial might help their town, whose population had fallen from 3,000 in the 1890's to 1,800 in 1925.
The conspirators summoned John Scopes, a twenty-four-year old general science teacher and part-time football coach, to the drugstore. As Scopes later described the meeting, Rappalyea said, "John, we've been arguing and I said nobody could teach biology without teaching evolution." Scopes agreed. "That's right," he said, pulling a copy of Hunter's Civic Biology--the state-approved textbook--from one of the shelves of the drugstore (the store also sold school textbooks). "You've been teaching 'em this book?" Rappalyea asked. Scopes replied that while filling in for the regular biology teacher during an illness, he had assigned readings on evolution from the book for review purposes. "Then you've been violating the law," Rappalyea concluded. "Would you be willing to stand for a test case?" he asked. Scopes agreed. He later explained his decision: "the best time to scotch the snake is when it starts to wiggle." Herbert and Sue Hicks, two local attorneys and friends of Scopes, agreed to prosecute.
Why, something lacking in girls? And you still used the word "lucky".
They have very thin skin. The moment you apply any pressure on them, no matter how slight, they start howling like monkeys about abuse and breaches of etiquette. Imagine that. There's no more asinine spectacle than someone wailing on a crevo thread about breaches of etiquette and violations of 'politeness codes' and so on.
It isn't? Even when people lose their jobs because they don't toe the hardcore, atheistic ToE line?
There have been threads on that very topic, about men who've questioned that and allowed for the role of God in creation, or at least declined to answer where they stand on the God creating the universe and life, and there have been calls for their heads.
And you don't consider that fanaticism?
You didn’t get it.....
CharlesWayneCT is not new to the crevo threads. It’s got nothing to do with having nothing to work with.
Sheesh.....
Sure He would have. You don't know that He didn't design the grass and program it to operate in a certain way, as is true with the rest of creation.
If you design something with certain properties, like the water molecule, then it's going to behave in a certain way under certain conditions; like becoming less dense when turning into a solid, and forming hexagonal lattices to form snowflakes.
So in a sense, it is not necessary for God to create each and every individual snowflake, but the design allows for a tremendous latitude for variety within that framework. The water molecules are working the way they were designed to, which in no way demonstrates that God is not needed nor that God didn't design it.
Isn’t this fatal to “intelligent design”, from a literalistic point of view?
No. How would it bring it forth if it wasn't designed into it in the first place? Isn't it obvious enough to the reader that it happened without stating it? Would it have made any difference to evos if the Bible had said that God designed the earth to produce vegetation? They don't want to take the Genesis account literally, and so if it specifically said that God designed the system to behave in certain ways, many would still get around that by declaring it allegorical.
How can it be naturalistic when something operates on command. If the grass had simply sprung forth on it's own, even then it doesn't justify the naturalistic, God's not needed position, because the possibility is still open that it was designed that way.
*Naturalism* does not in any way eliminate the action of God in the creation of, or the sustaining of everything. Just because we see the mechanisms that He uses, doesn't mean He isn't there or proof that He's not needed.
When they're not re-treading they are likely presiding over a Lilith fair someplace with other DU-ers.
Lew probably has the view of God the Creator as just some kindly, occasionally rapascious little old man that sits around all day doing the equivalent of piecing together toothpick models.
Jesus Christ designed, created and redeemed His universe. And dr_lew is so certain that the creator didn't design grass, why? Because there were no tooth picks with instructions printed for them -- such as dr_lew might think he'd need to design grass?
dr_lew must believe he designed himself. Since he's so intelligent, perhaps he can tell us how he did it.
Yeah she sounds an awful lot like a woman from Darwin Central that used to post here before getting banned- Always carrying on about how ‘your interpretation isn’t the only valid one, and oyu have no right to judge’ Either they were twins, or she’s one in the same
A we al discussed in another thread- even grass has levels of complexity that NEED a metainformaiton level to organize the lower complexities to keep the ‘species’ fit and viable- these levels, as well as the metainformaiton level can not ‘spring forth’ from simple chemicals in a by guess by gosh manner, and the highest level of metainformation present screams that it was designed that way. There is no bank of informaiton found in nature to draw from that even begins to approach the level of complexity found in metainformaiton, and the very fact that metainformation is designed to anticipate, and deal accordingly with, change, shows a level of sophistication far exceeding anythign simpel mutaitons could cobble together from chemical origins
Macroevolution- Creation of the highest order and highest design complexity- without hte need for a designer apparently- (of course they have no answer for metainformation and hte NEED for a designer, they just assume that copying mistakes self-assembled themselves intelligently and resulted in irreducible complexity at ‘some point in the past’, and which completely stopped at ‘some point in the past’ since there is now no evidence self-assembly could produce such complexity)
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.