Posted on 11/08/2009 12:10:22 PM PST by Schnucki
I did not write the statement, I said the man had a true point!!
>>>Archimedes was a Nazi!
I don’t know if he was a Nazi but he certainly was an opportunist. He always had an angle.
>>I don’t know if he was a Nazi but he certainly was an opportunist. He always had an angle.<<
I have been LOL on that one since early this morning when I read it. I had to hit the airport, so I didn’t get a chance to thank you for restoring some levity to an overly-tense thread until my layover.
A major European publication accurately reporting on the motivations of the school shooters and fairly quoting Ann Coulter deserves it.
That was worth asking twice :-)
ping
Hat-tip to Tribune7 for locating this one...ping!
Why would they? They don’t read anything before comment on other threads!
Second that.
That's great. We can now 'correct the record' and point out that evolution is firmly based on the simple logical fallacy of affirming the consequent, among others.
Why do atheists and evos continue to attack Christianity and Christ and attribute horrors from the Crusades, the Inquisition, and Islam to Him and his teachings?
Evos have a much harder time with people not believing their theory than Christians have with others not believing Christ.
I don't see what it is to them if people don't want to believe the ToE. Perhaps one of these FReepers could explain why it's so all fired important that everyone HAVE to agree with them.
Why don't they simply accept that someone can look at the fossil record and come to a different conclusion about it?
Why the insistence in believing lockstep with some manmade construct about how they think that the variety of life on this planet came from?
How? Give us some examples of anything that can threaten Christianity, mush less science.
Since I am not an atheist I can't answer for them. I am a Christian who believes, as does my Church, that Evolution and Creation, Science and God, are not contradictory or incompatible. I personally believe in Intelligent Design. I do not attack Christians, I only attack falsehoods. God doesn't need the assistance of lies to make His story believable.
Then why do you believe in evolution when God said in His word.....
Gen 2:7 then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.
and....
Gen 2:19a Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens ...
The only lies that are being promoted to make God's Word more believable, are that He used evolution instead of doing it the way He said He did.
The lie is trying to fit Scripture to match science instead of just accepting Scripture as it is.
Does is fit with current scientific thinking? Not in all respects but who's to say that current scientific thinking is right anyway? Science is subject to change and revision as new data comes in. How can that be used as a reliable standard to determine the truth or accuracy of something else.
Above all, a scientist should realize the value is using standards that do not change. That's why the SI is used for scientific research.
Why when there's a conflict, is Scripture wrong by default?
>>That’s great. We can now ‘correct the record’ and point out that evolution is firmly based on the simple logical fallacy of affirming the consequent, among others.<<
Thanks again. I just want people who read these to know that most of us know what science is, how it operates and how TToE works and are not willfully ignorant.
You can keep your eyes as shut as you wish.
>>Why don’t they simply accept that someone can look at the fossil record and come to a different conclusion about it?<<
That is fine. You can believe in ID or even Biblical 6 days all you want. What you can’t do is try to say that is anything other than theology.
By suggesting children should be taught, and science accept that ID or any creation story is a scientific “alternate theory” is completely and factually wrong by any and every definition of the word.
As far as discussions about the “what we can’t see behind what we can” — I think that is a great and rather enjoyable discussion with many interesting avenues of pursuit.
You should know that by now, MM.
You're welcome again. If you are implying that invoking the fallacy of affirming the consequent in support of evolution is 'science', be my guest. I want the people who read these threads to know that you think supporting theories with logical fallacy is 'how science and TToE works'.
You can keep your eyes as shut as you wish.
>>Give us some examples of anything that can threaten Christianity, mush less science.<<
It threatens Christianity by marginalizing its adherents. If people think the messenger is a nut, then ANY message that person brings, especially the Good News we are asked to spread and share, is rendered meaningless and we end up with the opposite result.
That is significant damage to Christianity. And our Lord deals in Truth — which is the highest and best of all qualities. Willful ignorance is turning your back on the Truth and thus, God and His Son — who IS The Truth.
>>If you are implying that invoking the fallacy of affirming the consequent in support of evolution is ‘science’, be my guest. I want the people who read these threads to know that you think supporting theories with logical fallacy is ‘how science and TToE works’.<<
Hmm — you put me in a dilemma. Is using a fallacious fallacy, as you have done, a meta fallacy? Or is it like using the Easy Button to find the Easy Button?
I will ponder on that — good night and nice try on using some grown-up words that someone probably just used on you. I could pinch your little cheeks.
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.