Posted on 12/09/2010 7:56:44 AM PST by spirited irish
Yes, so luckily for creationists that they, on the whole, avoid such things as higher education. Ignorance is their strength!
After all, that book learning might turn people away from thinking the Earth is only a few thousand years old. I mean it is only contradicted by Biology, Physics, Geology, Astronomy, etc, etc.
You know that all creationists are not YE. I am a creationist and accept that the earth is a couple of billion years old or so.
You like to lump everyone together to suit your venom. Doesn’t work.
I don’t agree with all the creationist beliefs on this thread. But I’m not hatefilled so I don’t slam them for differences.
It’s also true that institutions of higher learning are in the main meat grinders grinding out generations of leftists. Of course some manage to not get indoctrinated, but most do get influenced to one degree or another. You conveniently avoid this point due to being blinded by the miasma of your arrogance.
You should know that not everyone who accepts evolution is an atheist and/or a moral relativist; and yet the entire theme of this thread is to try to link them to suit their venom. It doesn’t work.
The less educated someone is the more likely they are to be a creationist.
Oh, but you lump Higher Education in with leftism, communism, affirmative action liberalism, etc, to suit your venom. Doesn’t work.
On the other hand there is the Ruling Class....the liberal-bred barbarians This class is comprised of the people we commonly think of as Leftists, that is, Socialists, Communists, Marxists, Liberals, Progressives, and anarchists. But it also includes people identified as rightwing, notes Codevilla. They are certain positivist GOP and Wall Street insiders, global corporatists, and international bankers.
That's a little too simplistic, no? Ruling classes like ours may well think that they are privileged in everything.
But even among "the little people", there can be feelings of entitlement. See the recent mortgage crisis for evidence.
It would be nice to think that the healthy normal common people have only to throw off the parasitic elite, but that's not exactly how things are.
And aren't there problems with the "healthy people vs. sick elite" model beyond that?
Doesn't it flatter members of movements for change and make them perhaps too self-righteous?
I agree. Evolution by itself does not deny God or deny that God made us. If He chose to do via evolution, so be it.
I will admit that the left has consistently asserted that evolution proves there is no God. It proves no such thing and they need to be challenged every time they claim that.
My venom?
I merely pointed out some facts.
You don’t like them.
So what else is new.
You editorialized in some “venom” on my part. That is not a fact, that is your attempt to mind read me and attribute motive and emotion to me. Rather lame on your part.
This article stated a flat out lie. I pointed it out. People didn’t like that.
I pointed out that creationists sources OFTEN lie, and they are pretty sure they can (and do) get away with it more often than not, because creationists are most common among the least educated segments of the population. Some people REALLY didn’t like me pointing THAT out.
But there it is.
A fact that you didn’t like.
The more educated someone is the less likely they are to be a creationist.
That is a fact.
lj: And we all know that institutions of higher learning are filled with letfists, atheists, wymmin’s studies teachers, Darwininisst, communists, affirmative action hires, homosexuals, and the like, who instill their beliefs in their students.
Spirited: Since Whittaker Chambers time, evolutionary modernists (leftists, et al) have occupied positions of power and influence over our culture, politics, foreign policy, and economy.
Shortly after Hitler took control, John Dewey and legions of evolutionary modernists brought the infamous Frankfurt School to America with funding from certain powerful industrialists.
The Frankfurt School was created by Lenin, KGB agents, and others of that ilk. Upon arrival here, the Frankfurt School, with assistance from treacherous collaborators throughout arts and entertainment, media, academia, law, and politics set about planting the seeds of evil which in our own time have come to full “bloom.”
Among the rotten fruit: Satanism, filth as art, irrationalism as “reason,” obscenity as “free speech,” narcissism as self-esteem, revised history (amd’s history, btw), and of course Darwinism as “science.”
Their evil intent was nothing less than turning our culture upside-down and in their own words, “make it stink so bad that Americans will hate their own country.” They succeeded, and the “Ruling Class” is the result.
In 1970, former KGB agent Yuri Bezmenov did an interview with Ed Griffin in which he explained exactly how the Frankfurt School and later KGB agents “ideologically and psychologically” subverted almost an entire generation of Americans. It is the 60’s generation (today’s Ruling Class) who were programmed to absolutely believe as good and true the ideology of traditional America’s enemies, that is, Marxists, Socialists, etc.
“They are programmed to think and react to certain stimuli in a certain pattern,” noted Bezmenov. Consider for example amd’s mindless insistence that creationists are always ignorant liars, that Darwinism is “true,” and creation is false. This is programmed belief which, as Bezmenov notes, cannot be changed even when the programmee is exposed to authentic information.
Ruling Class beliefs are irrational, but as Bezmenov said, “Even if you prove that white is white and black is black, you still cannot change the basic perception and the logic of behavior.”
I’ve read your comments (some of them that I run into) for a long time.
It’s clear that you write with a lot of anger and hatred. Anyone can see that.
There are two schools of thought, here.
1. God created everything including all the species, not using evolution.
2. There is no God the creator, everything is accidental and species evolved and are still evolving.
Which is true?
I am convinced beyond the slightest tinge of a sliver of doubt that the first is true.
THere is a small subset of people who try to force 1 and 2 together by claiming that God used evolution. But it’s a mismarriage and only exists because people are afraid of the kind of vemon you and your ilk sling about. Another reason is many people have been brainwashed - yes, brainwashed - by evolution/Darwinist lies in schools, from gradeschool on up to graduate level.
Your attempt to paint all creationists as exactly the same doesn’t fly with me. For another thing, I have more in common with a YE creationst than I do with either a godless Darwinist, or a weak minded believer in God who tries to make a mis-marriage of evolutionary theory and God.
A YE creationist accepts that God created everything with a plan and purpose, even if I disagree with some of the details of the “how”; whereas with evolutionists - either atheists or the weak minded - I disagree 100%.
Sorry, but you are absolutely wrong about Communism during the time of Stalin being Darwinist. This is not “revised history” it is the absolute 100% truth. Scientists in the Soviet Union under Stalin were forced to denounce Darwin's theory or they were forbidden to work in science, arrested and/or killed.
It is “revised history” by a cheap ignorant propagandist to try to claim that Stalin was a “Darwinist”.
But creationists are not only ignorant, they lie.
And most creationists are so uneducated that they cannot even recognize the lie.
Educate yourself, if you are not afraid that too much information will shatter your fragile world view!
God created everything, even random events are controlled by God, species evolved and are still evolving.
So how does your long ages of the Earth work out, got a timeline?
Earth created billions of years ago, but all life was “poofed” into existence contemporaneously? Humans walked with dinosaurs?
How is that ANY different than being a YEC other than that you are willing (at least) to admit that the data ABSOLUTLEY doesn’t support a few thousand year old universe and instead is much more compatible with it being billions of years old.
I have to give you SOME credit for at least abandoning the idiocy of a few thousand year old Earth and Universe, but once you start accepting data WHERE DOES IT STOP???
Apparently, with you, on the subject of biology.
I agree with you 100% if not more.
I was raised in a highly academic elitist and leftist family, every member of which for generations (except for a tiny few who only had the four year degree) had multiple higher degrees. I know first hand the elitist academic leftist viewpoint, mindset, and belief system. Facts? Ha ha! They don’t see them at all.
I got out as fast as I could.
I have less than no interest in debating the creation of the earth or universe with you.
Pearls before swine is not recommended in either the Bible or the Vedas.
It must be rough to have beliefs so outlandish that you are embarrassed to even state what they are! LOL!!!!
A Yabba Do Time, A Dabba Do Time!
Pearls + Swine = not recommended.
Have fun with your mind!
Your insipid posts are hardly pearls, but thanks for calling me a swine, shows where your heart really is!
God bless you.
The author did in fact address the demoralized condition of the “little people” right here:
“... before we can be effective warriors for truth cautions Solzhenitsyn, we must first cast out our own lies and other sins through confession and repentance. For only with a clean conscience can we be effective warriors for truth.”
"Proof" is a term used in logic and math; of course you're right that the scientific method is not about the "proof" of anything, nor can it be.
You are correct: the Pope should have said there is "much scientific evidence of evolution."
My problem with your statements regarding what the Popes have endorsed is that in neither case were they speaking of Darwinian evolution (at least that I can find). If you have a cite to the contrary, please share it with me (us).
My impression is they were speaking of the Big Bang/inflationary universe theory, which is an evolutionary model with increasingly strong evidentiary support. But this model appears to be irrelevant to Darwin's concerns: It deals with physical cosmology, not biology.
I agree with you that there is nothing to preclude God from using an evolutionary model to manifest His creative Will. In fact, I believe He did. But to say as much is not to grant that either Pope endorse(d) Darwin's theory.
If you can find a statement to the effect that either did, it would be news to me....
I came across these lines in my reading recently, which seem relevant to your evidently uncritical embrace of Darwin's theory:
There is a sharp yet oft-overlooked distinction between scientific knowledge and scientistic belief. And the difference is simple: authentic knowledge of a scientific kind refers necessarily to things that are observable in some specified sense, and affirms a verifiable truth; scientistic belief, on the other hand, is distinguished precisely by the absence of these positivistic attributes. Thus, no matter what may be its "scientific status," the latter refers to entities that are not in truth observable, and affirms something that is in fact unverifiable. And yet, in spite of this lack of empirical content, scientistic beliefs are by no means irrelevant or extraneous to the scientific enterprise; they too have a role to play, however unrecognized their nature and function may be. We must remember that science does not operate in a vacuum, and that only the smallest portion of what is normally presupposed in technical discourse is itself subject to scientific analysis. Recognized or not, there is always a dark field around the white spot, a grey region that shades off into obscurity. Basically what confronts us here is the imaginative and the equivocal: the "scientific unconscious," one is tempted to say. But however one may wish to designate this rationally obscure and protean realm, it is there, and it rounds out the picture. — Wolfgang Smith, Cosmos and Transcendence (1984), p. 9This "grey region that shades off into obscurity" is, of course, the subjective ground on which "scientistic faith" rests; and it profoundly affects the quality (verifiability) of "scientific knowledge."
JMHO FWIW
Thanks so much for writing, allmendream!
If they are "controlled," then how can they be "random?"
What on earth do you mean by this word, "random?"
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.