Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

In The Beginning God, Not Darwin, Created
Post Scripts ^ | 10/11/09 | One Vike

Posted on 10/11/2009 6:56:59 AM PDT by OneVike

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-221 next last
To: metmom

Modern day science as it’s practiced and promoted, has become religious.

<><><><><><>><<><

Wow. All modern day science has become religious? Not a single scientific effort made today is actually scientific?

Do you think that might be a bit of an overstatement?


151 posted on 10/12/2009 6:40:09 AM PDT by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer; whattajoke; OneVike
“There was an article I posted from Answers Magazine that pointed out how conservative churches are losing their children to the ways of the world while they are still in Junior and Senior High school.” ~ OneVike

"While “the ways of the world” implies the secular world, This article seems to make no mention of obviously money-grubbing TV preachers, and other dubious groups masquerading as “religion” as also contributing to the demise of religion.

"In my opinion, those providing “false” religion are more of a threat that those that are secular. “false” religion does more to turn people away than the secular does to lure people away from conservative religion - and having a pool of non-religious folks offers the promise of enlightenment that can and should drive the faithful. ~ #21 RFEngineer

I think the internal debate (YEC vs OEC, geo vs heliocentrists, Flood vs. Not really a worldwide flood, etc) is great. It doesn't happen enough... and I wish this thread would really delve into it. ~ #74 whattajoke

IMO, the most enlightened / knowledgeable debates go on HERE

152 posted on 10/12/2009 7:08:00 AM PDT by Matchett-PI (A Socialist becomes a Fascist the minute he tries to enforce his "beliefs" on the rest of us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: dmz; OneVike

No, because I didn’t say what you’re asking, not did I imply it.

Evos need to stop reading into things and extrapolating what things they can out of in in their bid to ridicule creationists.

I can think of almost nothing that evos have twisted trying to make creationists look bad.

But then, evos are good at extrapolating and stretching things, otherwise, there would be no way they could justify their interpretation of the fossil record.


153 posted on 10/12/2009 7:10:54 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke; Matchett-PI; OneVike; GodGunsGuts; Fichori; tpanther; valkyry1; Mr. Silverback; ...
I think the internal debate (YEC vs OEC, geo vs heliocentrists, Flood vs. Not really a worldwide flood, etc) is great. It doesn't happen enough... and I wish this thread would really delve into it.

So, are you going to answer the question of *Why*?

You are an evolutionist. Everyone knows where you stand.

Why do you consider it so great that there is an internal debate between YEC and OEC?

Why do you think that it doesn't happen enough?

Why do you wish this thread would really delve into it?

What do you hope to gain from a debate like that considering your evolutionist views?

Are you hoping to learn something?

154 posted on 10/12/2009 7:16:32 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: metmom

OK. Perhaps i should have asked, what did you mean when you wrote “Modern day science as it’s practiced and promoted, has become religious” in post 54 of this thread?

It is open to considerable interpretation. One of which was mine that you have now rejected as inaccurate. I’m fine with that; I am now simply looking for understanding of your words.


155 posted on 10/12/2009 7:20:01 AM PDT by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
"But evolution is not science and evolution is a 'religion'!"

Strictly biological evolution is science. Adding a metaphysical interpretive component (philosohy) to that limited area of scientific study, takes it out of the scientific realm making it scientism / evolutionism, also known as Philsophical Naturalism, and THAT is a religion.

156 posted on 10/12/2009 7:35:28 AM PDT by Matchett-PI (A Socialist becomes a Fascist the minute he tries to enforce his "beliefs" on the rest of us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: metmom; whattajoke
metmom to whattajoke: "..Why do you wish this thread would really delve into it?"

I suspect that he knows that if people don't know the right questions to ask, they'll never get the right answers. :)

You may want to spend some time HERE. After that, you might come up with some different questions. bttt

157 posted on 10/12/2009 7:49:42 AM PDT by Matchett-PI (A Socialist becomes a Fascist the minute he tries to enforce his "beliefs" on the rest of us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman; count-your-change
However, I think, even if one theorizs some life may have existed before the Genesis creation event, that life must surely (excluding the angels) have been extinguished before the current creation. So, I believe those who attempt to use “gap theory” to give a more ancient lineage to man or beasts currently living, must be mistaken in that regard.

The Gap theory may be a ploy of evolutionary religious people to justify their belief that their ancestors were warthogs and such; but as I pointed out in post #62, there is indication of a 'gap' where the heavens and earth that once were, were destroyed, along will ALL physical life that may have existed...

We know that the 'prince of this world' was cast out of heaven and seeks who he may devour on this earth...We don't know when he was cast out...

Anyway, that's the Gap theory that I am referring to...NOT evolution...But life in some form that existed on earth before Gen. 1:2 that was completely destroyed and became without form and void...

Interestingly, the KJV translators with respect to Noah in the command to start over used the term replenish the earth...They used the same term when speaking of Adam...Replenish the earth...Fill again...

But like I said, it's a theory...It sure would help explain a lot of things...

158 posted on 10/12/2009 8:05:38 AM PDT by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman

We’ll continue to try and maintain hope that the water soaks in.


159 posted on 10/12/2009 8:34:30 AM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

“But like I said, it’s a theory...It sure would help explain a lot of things...”

Yes, I think that’s important to keep in mind. There may be suggestions of these things in the Bible, but I haven’t really seen enough clear cut evidence to say that, for example, dinosaurs existed only before the current creation. It may be a useful theory to explain some things we observe in nature, but then again it raises other questions.

For example, if corporeal life begins in the 6 day creation, then we can assume all fossils have arisen since then, and we have a concrete timeline to work with as we attempt to explain that physical evidence. However, if we do not know when the first animals lived on earth, then we don’t know when the first fossils originated. Instead of assuming much of the fossil record was laid down in Noah’s flood, we would have to admit that the layers from Noah’s flood could be located much higher in the geological column.


160 posted on 10/12/2009 9:26:03 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

“A perfect design cannot be corrupted.”

You don’t seem to understand the nature of sin. By creating beings with free will, the opportunity for sin is an unavoidable consequence. The only way God could seem to satisfy your definition of perfection, would be to create mere automatons or puppets.


161 posted on 10/12/2009 9:35:32 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman

And then God says He created pretty much everything except humans after it’s own kind...An indicator of two things...One, that these things existed before the creation as we know it and two, evolution is entirely out of the question...


162 posted on 10/12/2009 9:37:18 AM PDT by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
OTOH, it was your buddies that crossed the line with the personal attacks on this RELIGION thread.

I hadn't noticed that. If you're right about that, that'll be very unusual.

163 posted on 10/12/2009 11:15:17 AM PDT by tpanther (Science was, is and will forever be a small subset of God's creation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: metmom
So, are you going to answer the question of *Why*?

Sure.

You are an evolutionist. Everyone knows where you stand.

For the record, I don't introduce myself as such at parties. Just as you don't introduce yourself as a creationist. "Evolutionist" is not a label. I do hold a biology degree and my resume does note that. It does not, however, identify me as an "evolutionist."

Why do you consider it so great that there is an internal debate between YEC and OEC?

Of course you picture me snickering in my ivory tower at the know-nothings battling it out. And of course you'd be wrong. It's very interesting to me... I grew up in a strong Christian family and have always been interested in inter-denominational debate. The endless arguing over "true" Christians IS interesting - no matter where one stands on that debate. I just happen to be on the outside looking in.

Why do you think that it doesn't happen enough?

Because - on FR - it doesn't. You know that over the years I've been wishing creationists would - at least ONCE - agree that some source material has been quote-mined unfairly or admit that a jailed tax-cheat with a degree from a diploma mill may not be the best person to learn that humans and dinosaurs lived in harmony. Or that those who accept heliocentrism would perhaps note to the geocentrists that their ideas on the solar system are wrong, etc. It just never happens.

It's like the creationists have an unspoken bond that "We believe God created everything and no matter how wrong you may be about a particular part of that creation, it's okay with me because of the greater good." I have an issue with that. If a fellow "evolutionist" provides incorrect information, I will point that out. Without hesitation. That's the honesty and integrity of science. For something supposedly much more honest (Christianity), I wish the creationists would step up to the plate more often. (It has happened a bit on this thread.)

No one has a problem doing so on other FR topics. We all do it all the time as the need arises. So why the silence on this issue. I'm sorry, it IS interesting.

Why do you wish this thread would really delve into it?


See above.

What do you hope to gain from a debate like that considering your evolutionist views? Are you hoping to learn something?

I'm always hoping to learn something. I live my life with that hope. I've been waiting for years now for an actual honest-to-goodness "Intelligent Design" proponent to speak up. GGG posts plenty of ID articles (which he has noted he does not necessarily agree with to a very large degree) but all I see are creationists and evolutionists. Now with this thread, OneVike was hoping for a YEC vs. OEC discussion. And like I said, it has come about a bit, which is cool.
164 posted on 10/12/2009 11:34:05 AM PDT by whattajoke (Let's keep Conservatism real.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Thanks for the ping!


165 posted on 10/12/2009 12:02:44 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

You’ve walked onto thin ice here.

I have pointed out on previous threads that Young Earth Creationism implies that Yahweh acts like Loki the Trickster. That is, the overwhelming evidence of the earth’s old age is either real, or God is misleading us.

Secondly, if God “doesn’t do wasteful,” then life can’t begin at conception—since many millions of zygotes are created but discarded from the womb before the mother even knows a conception has occurred.


Huh? “Thin ice”?

To understand God’s Word is getting onto thin ice?

Not only that, but to suppose that he’s “misleading” people just because certain people don’t get it, is every bit as ridiculous.

As far as wasteful eggs, they’re not fertilized yet, it takes two to tango sort o speak.

That’s like saying it’s wasteful to have created all the oxygen particles in the atmosphere merely because they’re not all consumed by oxygen consumers.


166 posted on 10/12/2009 1:15:42 PM PDT by tpanther (Science was, is and will forever be a small subset of God's creation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
A perfect design cannot be corrupted.

Huh?

Source?

167 posted on 10/12/2009 1:21:21 PM PDT by tpanther (Science was, is and will forever be a small subset of God's creation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke

“If a fellow “evolutionist” provides incorrect information, I will point that out”.

Really?

I’ve not seen that, not only by you of your “fellow evos”, but by ANY evo.

Well, I take that back, recently “tenacious” something or other pointed out the mischaracterization of creationists on the idea that someone will go to hell if they believe in evolution, corrected his “fellow evo” on such nonsense.

But even then, that was more about eternal religious ideas than evo-religious ideas.

It’s laughablke how all over the map evos are...from origins not having anything to do with evolution, to evolution is theory not fact, to how it’s actually taught in public screwels to how insignificant evolution is in regards to the application of biology specifically and science generally.

IN FACT that would be all time consuming in regards to or compared to this subject!


168 posted on 10/12/2009 1:56:36 PM PDT by tpanther (Science was, is and will forever be a small subset of God's creation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: dmz; metmom
OK. Perhaps i should have asked, what did you mean when you wrote “Modern day science as it’s practiced and promoted, has become religious” in post 54 of this thread?

It is open to considerable interpretation. One of which was mine that you have now rejected as inaccurate. I’m fine with that; I am now simply looking for understanding of your words.

Really? You ask that with a straight face?

169 posted on 10/12/2009 2:04:12 PM PDT by tpanther (Science was, is and will forever be a small subset of God's creation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: dmz; tpanther

Much of modern science has become to mixed with ideology and is used to push agendas for one thing, as in global warming and evolution.

Global warming is obvious. I know a lot of evolutionists disagree with the evolution angle, but evolution has become the weapon of choice in the war against religion. There’s a real dearth of protest against misusing science in political and ideological gain.

It is being misused and abused by those who want to hijack it, and the lack of protest from the scientific community is alarming. That silence implies a fair degree of agreement with what’s going on.

Instead of what used to be the search for knowledge and the application of it for the betterment of mankind’s lot, science has become, for many, what they put their confidence in in looking for the answers that only religion can provide. It is being treated, mostly by the atheist/agnostic, the same way that believers treat religion and their faith in God.

The scientific method is useful for exploring our universe. It is useless for providing the answers about the meaning of life, and that is just what is happening today. The faith that some put in science equals the faith that others put in God.

Thus, for some, science has become their religion.


170 posted on 10/12/2009 2:19:20 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: tpanther
“If a fellow “evolutionist” provides incorrect information, I will point that out”.

Really?

Yes, really. It's how science works. In fact, there was a very recent inane ICR article posted here recently that made fun of that very concept. That is, scientists challenging other scientists' findings. It happens every day.

it’s laughablke how all over the map evos are...from origins not having anything to do with evolution, to evolution is theory not fact, to how it’s actually taught in public screwels to how insignificant evolution is in regards to the application of biology specifically and science generally.

I note you did not write that they disagree about the validity of evolution. Or the mechanisms in a general sense. I credit you for that. You've pointed out some areas of biology on the periphery of evolutionary theory (btw, everyone knows by now how evolution is a theory AND a fact. You've been directed to the explanation about 1000x by now.)

And really, accepting your criticism, I have yet to read an evolutionist condemning a fellow evolutionist to eternal damnation for philosophizing that the origin of life is related to the theory of evolution. Have you?
171 posted on 10/12/2009 2:49:18 PM PDT by whattajoke (Let's keep Conservatism real.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

I’m not sure about your view that “after it’s own kind” implies that God was re-creating these creatures in the likeness of some that previously existed. I’ve never heard that position before, so I’ll have to do some research into the Hebrew when I get home and see what I can come up with.


172 posted on 10/12/2009 3:12:44 PM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke; metmom
Yes, really. It's how science works. In fact, there was a very recent inane ICR article posted here recently that made fun of that very concept. That is, scientists challenging other scientists' findings. It happens every day.

You've GOT to be kidding me! No, ummmmm, sooooo aptly named one....that's not correcting fellow evos...that's actually attacking creationists for rightly pointing out the cult-like atmosphere of evolution and any and every examination is attacked as "religious attacks on science".

As a matter of fact, now that I'm thinking about this subject, I've seen this idea about dino soft tissue before and every liberal on FR has crawled out of the woodwork to smear and squeal and shout down debate about it.

You would be well served to carefully read #170.

And that's not at ALL how science works.

I know it's some partial IDEAL theory of how it works, but in practice it simply doesn't happen and for hundereds if not thousands of times people have provided you with the hot air cult example of your fellow liberal evo-cultist algore to illustrate just how broekn down science is on many levels.

I suppose liberals just don't want to understand they've hijacked science, and definitely don't want to hear it.

I note you did not write that they disagree about the validity of evolution.

OF COURSE they don't disagree about their evo-religion! That's not at all in contention, but yet another helpless strawman argument. Geeee, that wouldn't even be tolerated!

Or the mechanisms in a general sense. I credit you for that.

I don't know about the mechanisms, I've seen quite a bit of arguments, on both sides of the aisle btw...about micro vs. macro-evolution, etc. etc. etc.

And FWIW, I think the actual discussion and scientific communication can be both enjoyable and informative, on FR and formally speaking.

As far as your last question...ummmm why would there ever be a need?

If an evo-cultist accepts evolution as their religion outright, if they're an atheist or agnostic, it's not even an issue in play.

If one is confused and dismisses Genesis and the veracity of scripture, then I suppose they can just pick and choose what parts of the Bible to accept and which to reject on the basis of their own sensisibilities.

That's not how it works, but personally I'd never condemn a person to hell for such mis-guided beliefs...

First, I'm not the ultimate judge...

second, I honestly try not to judge a person's eternal destination.

third, I'd pray for them, since this is just a senseless thing to get uptight about...origins...or the idea that people are really nothing more than soulless great apes...people will believe what they want to believe anyway...it's their choice.

But to pretend this discussion arises on here because creationists are actually doing that,

as opposed to the REALITY of evos mis-representing creationists for that...along with 'flat earth' this and 'Jesus riding dinosaurs' that...

is pretty laughable and the only people that buy into that nonsense are the FR liberals on here that don't know they stick out like sore thumbs!

173 posted on 10/12/2009 4:21:43 PM PDT by tpanther (Science was, is and will forever be a small subset of God's creation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: tpanther
You've GOT to be kidding me! No, ummmmm, sooooo aptly named one....that's not correcting fellow evos...that's actually attacking creationists for rightly pointing out the cult-like atmosphere of evolution and any and every examination is attacked as "religious attacks on science".

The only one who apparently is permitted to challenge a *scientist* is another *scientist*.

And since evos/scientists decide that they get to define the terms, they get to decide who qualifies as a *real scientist* and is allowed to challenge another without earning a screed about religious attacks on science.

Not that you see much of scientists challenging other scientists going on. Peer review weeds them out.

Good thing science isn't done by consensus.

174 posted on 10/12/2009 4:27:06 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: tpanther

Blah blah blah. I just remembered that I declared that I would never post to you again. I honestly had forgotten, but you’ve refreshed my memory.

I’m eager to see all the others who frequent the religion forum to reign in your deplorable lack of decorum.

Have a lovely evening.


175 posted on 10/12/2009 4:29:58 PM PDT by whattajoke (Let's keep Conservatism real.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke

awwww....tat’s the other thing...besides making up rules liberals never intend to keep for themselves, they can’t take what they dish out either.


176 posted on 10/12/2009 6:06:02 PM PDT by tpanther (Science was, is and will forever be a small subset of God's creation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: tpanther

xoxo


177 posted on 10/12/2009 6:13:15 PM PDT by whattajoke (Let's keep Conservatism real.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: tpanther

>Source?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2359966/posts?page=106#106


178 posted on 10/12/2009 6:30:35 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: tpanther
Not only that, but to suppose that he’s “misleading” people just because certain people don’t get it, is every bit as ridiculous.

"Don't get it" in what way??

Obviously, the earth can't be on;y a few thousand years old without (a) MAJOR changes in laws of physics (so major that they'd be bizarre...roasting anything on the earth with faster radioactive decay, which would require wood being non-flammable in the past, etc., or (b) God created it with the look and evidence of age (e.g., trapped argon gas at levels that correspond to millions of years of potassium breakdown, etc.)

I suggest that even if God didn't just make things look old, and instead changed the laws of physics so radically from how things work now, it's misdirection. Besides, if He did that, then the definition of time and "days" is meaningless. (BTW, I don't know (m)any YECs who acknowledge time as anything other than an external universal dimension. Do you acknowledge the work of Einstein and others who followed?)

As far as wasteful eggs, they’re not fertilized yet, it takes two to tango sort o speak.

I didn't write about unfertilized eggs.

Please address what I wrote instead of a red herring. Thanks.

To understand God’s Word is getting onto thin ice?

No...To base understanding of God's Word on willful disregard of the evidence.

179 posted on 10/12/2009 8:00:27 PM PDT by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

I know your asssertion #106, but what’s your source?


180 posted on 10/12/2009 8:15:10 PM PDT by tpanther (Science was, is and will forever be a small subset of God's creation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

c. something you don’t understand...

Like for instance Man being created in God’s image a fully functioniing adult. If God can do that, then certainly he can create a world that looks older than it is.

It’s not “willfull disregard of the evidence”.

It’s interpreting it in a way that some can not or will not acknowledge.


181 posted on 10/12/2009 8:19:42 PM PDT by tpanther (Science was, is and will forever be a small subset of God's creation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: tpanther
what's your source?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2359966/posts?page=106#106

182 posted on 10/12/2009 9:42:54 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: tpanther
Like for instance Man being created in God’s image a fully functioniing adult. If God can do that, then certainly he can create a world that looks older than it is.

I never said He couldn't.

Methinks another reading of the thread is in order, my FRiend.

183 posted on 10/12/2009 9:53:58 PM PDT by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Thanks. I appreciate the calm and reasoned reply.

It is much less sweeping a statement than the one I originally questioned you on, and considerably more accurate (IMO) as a result.


184 posted on 10/13/2009 7:40:59 AM PDT by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: tpanther; metmom

Really? You ask that with a straight face?

<><><><><><

Sure did. And got a calm and reasoned (presumably also with a straight face) reply (thanks again metmom).

Chuckling. It’s called conversation. You might give it a try sometime.


185 posted on 10/13/2009 7:48:21 AM PDT by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: Gondring
I never said He couldn't.

Methinks another reading of the thread is in order, my FRiend.

I never said you said He couldn't...I merely pointed out to you the possibility you failed to mention...

so if anyone needs to re-read anything...

that would be YOU.

186 posted on 10/13/2009 11:34:30 AM PDT by tpanther (Science was, is and will forever be a small subset of God's creation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater; metmom

Is it that you’re embarassed you have no source and just make things up as you go along...

or embarassed that you ARE your source?

Either way, I do understand your embarassment.


187 posted on 10/13/2009 11:42:50 AM PDT by tpanther (Science was, is and will forever be a small subset of God's creation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: dmz; metmom

Sure did. And got a calm and reasoned (presumably also with a straight face) reply (thanks again metmom).

Chuckling. It’s called conversation. You might give it a try sometime.


No kidding...REALLY dmz???

Uhhh yeah dmz...I’m aware of #170, in fact I referenced it to another poster.

metmom has infinitely more patience than I do, so what’s your point?

(She always does, and yet she’s still regularly attacked anyway.)

Frankly, I’ve seen post #170 posted on here, explained and re-explained on news/religion.etc. in about these exact same words for several YEARS now, thus my question to you.

It amazes me that on FR of all places, there’s still resistance to the idea that liberals hijack science to advance their ideology.


188 posted on 10/13/2009 12:05:24 PM PDT by tpanther (Science was, is and will forever be a small subset of God's creation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: tpanther; metmom

metmom has infinitely more patience than I do, so what’s your point?

<><><><><><><><>

No point. You jumped into the middle of a calm and reasoned discussion with your typical sarcasm. I don’t mind, it’s worth a chuckle or two.


189 posted on 10/13/2009 1:21:56 PM PDT by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: tpanther; dmz
metmom has infinitely more patience than I do, so what’s your point?

Actually, the desire to not get banned overrides my desire to say what I'm thinking many times.

I don't know walking away from the keyboard is patience or not.

But thanks for the vote of confidence. I do try.

190 posted on 10/13/2009 1:54:56 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: dmz; metmom

“No point”.

Well, you’ve got honesty going for you! ;)


191 posted on 10/13/2009 2:33:22 PM PDT by tpanther (Science was, is and will forever be a small subset of God's creation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: tpanther
Either way, I do understand your embarassment.

I am not embarrassed. Please do no make personal comments about that which you have no comprehension. You are not a god.

192 posted on 10/13/2009 6:08:53 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

Do you have any other explanations?

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt...

the way I see it when someone asks you for your source and you just keep sourcing yourself...

speaking of...

“you are not a god”...

what then is your explanation?

Do you, after all, have any idea whatsoever why something of perfect design has to necessarily be uncorruptable?

I’ve never heard of such an idea.


193 posted on 10/13/2009 6:47:03 PM PDT by tpanther (Science was, is and will forever be a small subset of God's creation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
Are you referring to the serpent that talked?

You do understand that the 'serpent' was not an actual snake, but was a representation of what was 'within' mankind?

Take any human, and tell them they cannot do something. See what happens.

194 posted on 10/13/2009 7:07:00 PM PDT by UCANSEE2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2
You do understand that the 'serpent' was not an actual snake, but was a representation of what was 'within' mankind?

Oh. I understand now, I think? Sort of like how the 'days' in Genesis are not really our 24 hour days. Thank you.

So, when God had the snake slither away forever to eat dust, God was throwing evil out from 'within' man?

195 posted on 10/13/2009 7:11:06 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
Oh. I understand now, I think?

Thanks for the response. Sorry for the formation of the statement.

It was a terrible way to put it.

I think the serpent was meant to refer to the Bible principle that God gave free will to man, and with it he chose to disobey God.

I should not have stated it as if it was a 'given' you were ignorant of, or that I insisted you believe.

So, when God had the snake slither away forever to eat dust, God was throwing evil out from 'within' man?

I don't believe God had the snake slither away forever to eat dust, and if God was throwing evil out from 'within' man, it didn't work.

Let me now ask, was the snake to blame for Eve's decision? Adam's?

Did God blame the snake? Is that why he told the snake he would be under the heel of man?

196 posted on 10/13/2009 8:47:52 PM PDT by UCANSEE2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2
Did God blame the snake?

He was certainly ticked off at the serpent!

14: And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

197 posted on 10/13/2009 8:52:27 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: tpanther

An honest evo, is that what you are calling me?

Surely my honesty must be a cover for reproductive advantage, as that is all that is motivating us evos. Even though we don’t know it.


198 posted on 10/14/2009 6:54:04 AM PDT by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: dmz
Soulless great apes can be honest without covering for reproductive advantage, I'm sure of it! ;)
199 posted on 10/14/2009 12:17:31 PM PDT by tpanther (Science was, is and will forever be a small subset of God's creation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: tpanther

Soulless great apes can be honest
_____

Stop. You’re making me blush.

Why do I feel better about being called a soulless great ape than an evo-fascist atheist?


200 posted on 10/14/2009 12:23:32 PM PDT by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-221 next 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
Religion
Topics · Post Article

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