Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Professor Limbaugh Debunks Junk Earth Science (Creation/evolution linked to environmentalism)
Rush Limbaugh | August 10, 2005 | Rush Limbaugh

Posted on 09/06/2005 7:02:43 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-114 last
To: ohioWfan
You see what you want to see; it is as simple as that.
101 posted on 09/07/2005 2:07:50 PM PDT by malakhi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan
To each of you, I would suggest that you also do some research outside your own realm........including study of the Scripture itself with open minds. And may your Creator reveal the truths therein that you struggle so hard to deny.

I'm sure you find it difficult to believe, but I have done so. I have also done an extensive study of the history of the time, the texts in question, apocryphal texts, secondary sources, etc.

Now, how much reading have you done of sources which dispute what you believe? Have you ever seriously considered any alternate viewpoints?

102 posted on 09/07/2005 2:12:15 PM PDT by malakhi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: malakhi
You see what you want to see; it is as simple as that.

And you?? You see it as it IS, I take it?

103 posted on 09/07/2005 2:13:04 PM PDT by ohioWfan (If my people which are called by my name will humble themselves and pray......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: malakhi
Have you ever seriously considered any alternate viewpoints?

Yes.

104 posted on 09/07/2005 2:15:48 PM PDT by ohioWfan (If my people which are called by my name will humble themselves and pray......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger; xzins; Dataman
RUSH: I believe in Creation.

Obviously, Rush is an embarrassment to conservatism and he should slink away into obscurity.(at least according to the evos on this site)

105 posted on 09/07/2005 4:16:02 PM PDT by AndrewC (Darwinian logic -- It is just-so if it is just-so)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan
There are numerous manuscripts in the original language and translations dating from an historically close time period.

There are also the Vedas and the Norse sagas. So?

There is corroborating non Biblical verification.

Really? Where?

There is archaelogical verification.

There is also archaeological refutation. For instance, the Exodus and the conquest of Canaan as depicted in the Bible are not supported by archaeology.

There were eyewitnesses to the events that were still alive when the manuscripts were around who did not dispute the events.

Within the Bible. That's asking the source to verify the source. It's rather circular reasoning, don't you think?

The texts themselves point to their authenticity, in that they are not whitewashed nor 'enhanced.' (You don't write about your own betrayal and severe weakness if you want to promote your own philosophy........a test of authenticity that the Gospels pass).

Sure you do. That's the great drama of it all. Classical writing and mythology is full of betrayals and setbacks -- and like the Bible, everything turns out all right in the end.

You've not really done anything other than say "it is because I say it is."

106 posted on 09/07/2005 4:34:06 PM PDT by Junior (Just because the voices in your head tell you to do things doesn't mean you have to listen to them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; AndrewC; betty boop; Dr. Eckleburg; Calvinist_Dark_Lord; Frumanchu; P-Marlowe; ...
CALLER: Okay.

RUSH: I'm just going to tell you why I don't believe this stuff.

CALLER: Okay.

RUSH: I believe in Creation.

CALLER: Mmm-hmm.

RUSH: I believe in God.

CALLER: Mmm-hmm.

RUSH: I believe that the idea that human beings have the ability to destroy what we couldn't create if we had to. No human being. Start from scratch. We can't even explain the existence of the earth, scientifically. We've got to go back to something called the Big Bang, and then we've got to try to make guesses as to we were all spermazoid, promozoics. We came out of the ocean. We walked four legs and two legs, but nobody really knows for sure. We have these theories. There were the other day some theory was just debunked big time and I don't remember off the top of my head what it is, but the idea if you look at this planet and you look at all the changes this planet has undergone that we can document historical for thousands of years, the forces that cause change on this planet dwarf the combined efforts of all human beings today. We couldn't any more move a continent. We couldn't any more destroy a mountain. We couldn't any more drain an ocean. We couldn't any more destroy ozone. We couldn't any more raise the temperature if we were freezing to death. We couldn't steer a hurricane away from where it's headed. We can't stop a thunderstorm. We can't make a clear sky rain. We can't do one thing climatologically that we wish we could do when we're faced with disaster or when we're faced with drought. We can't make it stop raining. We can't cause it to rain. We can't raise the sea level. We can't drain a river. We can't fill a river. We can't create the water out of nothing that will fill a river that used to run robustly and now is dried up for other economic reasons or evolutionary reasons. We can't do any of these things. We don't have the capacity. We don't have the wherewithal. We don't have the knowledge. We don't have the equipment. We're basically a bunch of passengers along for the ride on this planet. The idea that we can destroy this is simply above my ability to comprehend. Look at how Eileen Collins, the shuttle astronaut, spoke of how "thin" the atmosphere is.

CALLER: Ha ha ha. I know.

Continue reading from this point that's about midway through the article. Rush gives an outstanding apologia for the existence of God.

107 posted on 09/07/2005 7:50:34 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Thanks for the ping!


108 posted on 09/07/2005 8:17:33 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: xzins; Alamo-Girl; AndrewC; betty boop; Dr. Eckleburg; Calvinist_Dark_Lord; Frumanchu
When I was in school I was taught that the earth was 4 billion years old. Now we are taught that it is six billion years old.

It really doesn't seem like it was that long ago that I was in school. It's hard to believe that I'm over two billion years old, but I guess I am. You can't argue with "science".

109 posted on 09/07/2005 8:21:49 PM PDT by P-Marlowe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

LOLOLOL! Thank you for the chuckle!


110 posted on 09/07/2005 8:23:08 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Thanks, x. That's nice to see spoken over the public airwaves.

STEVEN WRIGHT: "My theory of evolution is that Darwin was adopted."


111 posted on 09/07/2005 11:30:02 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg (Steven Wright: "So what's the speed of dark?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: texianyankee; roylene; JayB; ElkGroveDan; markman46; palmer; Bahbah; Paradox; FOG724; ...
(((GLOBAL WARMING PING)))



You have been pinged because of your interest in environmentalism, alarmist wackos, mainstream media doomsday hype, and other issues pertaining to global warming. Freep-mail me to get on or off.



This was replayed as the best-of show yesterday, and I thought I'd give it a bump with the global warming ping list.

They mention things like the Ozone Hole® here, which compells me to post a few links to read up on the Ozone Hole®.

Measurements indicate the ozone hole® is natural

New window into ancient ozone holes® (Ozone Hole® is nothing new)

NASA's AURA satellite peers into Earth's ozone hole® (Smaller than in previous years)

The last article above also points out that we have only been measuring the Ozone Hole® for 26 years. (First measurements taken in 1979)

Do we HONESTLY expect to have little to no flunctuations in a hole that big by measuring data for 26 years?? If you believe evolutionists (which Rush doesn't, by the way, judging from this transcript and the quote I highlight in the first comment) then this is scarcely a tiny drop of moisture in the vat of time they call billions of years.
112 posted on 12/13/2005 10:40:51 AM PST by DaveLoneRanger (**THE FCC HAS EDITED THIS TAGLINE FOR CONTENT** M-rry Chr-stm-s!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Ya can't be right about everything, all of the time. As much as I like Rush, I agree with him maybe 85% of the time.


113 posted on 12/13/2005 10:54:28 AM PST by Paradox (Time to sharpen ole Occam's Razor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

"and if you put a source of atomic chlorine into the stratosphere, in the presence of particles upon which it can react with ozone, it will destroy the ozone."

Specify a 'source' of atomic chlorine which will continuously gernerate that flow and a source of certain particles which, in combination with atomic chlorine, will destroy the ozone, and it's source, the sun.


114 posted on 02/25/2006 4:25:40 PM PST by UCANSEE2 (and miles to go before I sleep.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-114 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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