Posted on 10/13/2009 8:10:10 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
And the creats wonder why I don’t want to give my real name on here.
I don’t care what your name is.
Its your disgusting deceptive agenda that I despise. You’re a dupe for something that you don’t even understand.
Enoch’s writings are a reasonable fit with the physical evidence, so no gymnastics are required.
The gymnastics are on your part, trying to cast doubt on a solid reality. Your dogma has failed at every turn, yet you still attempt to glue a false blessing of science to it.
The physical evidence repudiates your sham dogma.
“Enoch’s writings are a reasonable fit with the physical evidence, so no gymnastics are required.”
You sure they’re Enoch’s? You sure you ‘interpreted’ the words correctly? Too bad he wasn’t privy to knowledge of bacteria and anti-biotics, now that would have been something out of the ordinary, huh?
“Your dogma has failed at every turn”
wrong again. Science’s only dogma is the process. So the process has produced findings that you also agree with,so long as it doesn’t contradict the dogma of your religious,non-scientific beliefs. When the process produces explanations that contradict you religious, non-scientific dogma suddenly there’s a problem with the process. You don’t get to have it both ways-that called intellectually dishonest.
Good luck with that.
"Science’s only dogma is the process"
You have nothing to do with science, irrelevent. - Your dogma is naturalism, which is disproven by all observation (that is science, in case you didn't know), and propaganda, which is a form of artistic expression I guess.
"When the process produces explanations that contradict you religious, non-scientific dogma..."
Imaginary scenario, no dogma, and to date, no contradiction. Nice try though, more artistic expression? - Having it both ways is your specialty, and naturalism is deeply dishonest. Own it with pride!
Corr:
they HADEN’T degenerated as far as we have...
Liberals knew they had to 'fix' the system. This is why liberals, (they hate the real Constitution and our legal history) use 'Judicial Activism' to reinvent the meaning of the First Amendment to force out all ideas of reality other than naturalism.
Any person who can read history and who is also honest cannot make the first amendment mean the foundational principle that their is a 'Creator' cannot be assumed in any and all Public Schools.
This is one of the biggest and most destructive lies in the arsenal of the very dishonest far left.
They use the courts to force God out of the schools and they control the schools. This is why all liberals worship the Public School monopoly.
Again, the left uses the liberal courts (they all use the liberal revised Constitution) to force their liberal viewpoint on all students while censoring the traditional views that the parents had always taught.
It does not matter what parents or even voting determines when one side, the liberals, ignore four hundred years of legal history and illegally legislate 'trump cards' from the bench.
once again you type too fast and try to tell me what I am or what I think . . . not real conducive to conversation or respect of your opinion.
Tell me, what do you think would happen if some scientific evidence shows that natural selection is but a small part of some other larger explanation for the momentum of evolution? Is there room for science to examine the claim and run it through a neutral process to determine the validity of the claim?
What would happen when evidence is discovered that solidifies the claim that the first 5 books of the old testament were definitely written by several different authors, hundreds of years after the stories supposedly happened and that the stories are historically inaccurate and most likely never happened. Is there room in religious belief to process the new evidence and still leave religious belief intact?
see I posed a question, give it a try . . .
Since science (the real physical evidence) has shown evolution to be nothing but a pipe dream, Your hypothetical is too far fetched for an answer.
You’re full of dream scenarios that will never be, and shouldn’t expect anyone to take any of them seriously.
Your hopes and dreams as expressed in your questions reveal a very immature mind. Stop hoping and accept reality.
“see I posed a question, give it a try . . .”
To no avail. This has been an interesting thread. By far the most interesting questions to arise has been-where in the Constitutional fabric is the origins of the right to a childhood education? And on what basis did the public school system begin? Was it a noble idea to insure equality in opportunity that was eventually hi-jacked by the socialist/statists or did it begin with a less-than-Constitutional-intent?
Anyway, editor-surveyor-good luck with your narrow world view as exposed by your postings. Perhaps in the future you should invest in some quality poster board and a good sharpie-this,I fear, is the appropriate forum for your future rantings about Enoch etc.
Good Luck in the future.
Right? I don't know if it exists even now. Inner city kids certainly don't get an education. - The availability of education has been a priority here for four hundred years. The statists started taking over in the early to mid 19th century. Look for a copy of "The Leipzig Connection" by Paolo Lionni (ISBN: 0-89739-001-6)
BTW, Enoch's epistles are readily available in print, and well read. No need for posters; those with genuine intellectual curiousity already have it covered.
“Right? I don’t know if it exists even now.”
I don’t know either. But an earlier poster pointed out that me paying to educate someone else’s child is socialism or collectivism at best. So, on top of the obvious results of the failed public school education experiment, isn’t it also a socialist idea? Is there an alternative? On face it seems like a good idea to ensure some equality of opportunity by providing basic skills for all to then go forth and pursue their own version of happiness.
I’ll agree ahead of time that the ‘good idea’ is not the reality, and that it’s been turned into a Manchurian-model of reliance indoctrination. Seems like just another example of the left being judged by their intent rather than the their results-ask the kids in America’s top ten poverty cities.
It would seem to be a state issue, but is there any way to rip the $$ and control from the federal government?
Thank you for the source material reference. I will look into it.
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.