Skip to comments.We're not in Kansas anymore (Krauthammer slams Intelligent Design)
Posted on 11/18/2005 7:58:33 AM PST by UncledaveEdited on 11/18/2005 6:57:43 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
WASHINGTON -- Because every few years this country, in its infinite tolerance, insists on hearing yet another appeal of the Scopes monkey trial, I feel obliged to point out what would otherwise be superfluous -- that the two greatest scientists in the history of our species were Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein, and they were both religious.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
As I originally posted, we have our artifacts, you have your little black book written by men that thought the sun revolved around the earth.
your repeated challenge is really very silly. This is an on-going debate.
hmmm. Name ONE SCIENTIST that says that evolution did not occur. Let the debate begin ...
To say that "evolution did not occur" is so simplistic it's funny. Good bye.
That was ONE SHORT DEBATE! Thank you.
Dear, dear, pathetic prophetic,
You are so blinded by your self-righteous "knowledge" of the Bible and ID, that you seem incapable of reading what Krauthammer actually wrote. His article, while attempting to counter ID as a science, clearly praises God and His divine design of a beautiful and elegantly simple universe. While you might disagree with Mr. Krauthammer's assertions, to jump to the conclusion that he doesn't believe in God makes you sound like a complete zealot and total wack-job. You missed out on The Spanish Inqusition by a few hundred years, my friend.
Then again, "Nobody expects The Spanish Inquisition!" here on FR
So, you are saying that jews can get to the Father without going through the son?
Sorry if you are offended, but my statement remains valid. Unless a jew is a beliver in Jesus Christ, he will never get to heaven through Moses. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see the whole jewish community to come home to their messiah.
No, but it remains true nonetheless. Nothing would make me happier that to see the jewish community at home with their messiah.
The worst thing to consider is their appointment with judgement. In the book of revelation 90% of the jews are destroyed. At the same time 144,000 jewish evangelists will led the world into the Kingdom of Jehovah in the greatest revival of all time.
Why does your God always feel the need to cause misery and death when his creations goof up?
> We have a group of quasi-literate, working class types revolutionizing the world despite active opposition by every earthly power in the world, and without scintilla of expectation of earthly gain, in fact with the expectation of torment and persecution. And most amazingly they were successful. Would you call that a miracle?
Look up the history of the Mormons and get back to us.
> How about in 1917, 75,000 people gathered to witness a miracle. They witnessed a miracle. Here's the newspaper report
Amazing what people can see when they want to, yes? If the sun had in fact "danced," you'd think someone somewhere else would ahve noted it.
> Muhammad was never the subject of skeptical inquiry.
Neither, so far as existing records attest, was Jesus Christ. Long dead before anybody seemed to care.
> Mocking Christ on the road to Golgatha, putting guards on the tomb etc.
Again, hearsay. And even if so... not exactly indicative of anything important.
Might does not make right.
Darwinism has absolutely no inherent right to be taught as the sole theory explaining life.
Once that is understood science can be liberated from its shackles.
Are you being provocative? As I suspect you well know, Jews do not believe the Messiah has come.
But there is no other theory.
LOL Thats so SOS. Exvolution does not expalain the origin of life and never has purpoted to do so. Evolution expalins evolution nothing more nothing less, Sigh
But what if they don't want to? O Seculo was anti-religious.
Neither, so far as existing records attest, was Jesus Christ. Long dead before anybody seemed to care.
The records do attest unless you if you pick and choose the records.
Is your postion that if a miriacle is reported, it can't be true? That's circular reasoning.
Yes they can! Your interpretation of heaven or the route there is not written in stone. Last time I checked Jesus was a jew.
Maybe that is why they won't report the Pope's miracle.
> O Seculo was anti-religious.
It's a newspaper. Newspapers report things. If a bunch of people gather together *expecting* to see a miracle and get themselves into a lather and wind up seeing something in the clouds, it is to some degree news.
> The records do attest unless you if you pick and choose the records.
OK. What records are on hand of investigators circa 30 AD? Not 90 AD, not 60 AD, but 30 AD... right there, right then. Surely if, as the claim goes, there was a feller wandering around making a fool out of the local religious leadership, you'd think they would have sent out someone to check.
> Is your postion that if a miriacle is reported, it can't be true?
One wonders how you dreamed that up.
"For he will render to every man according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality" (2:6-11)."
Hold this one close
Actually it fits quite well with those who see themselves as gods...the suprior elitist intellectuals of this country...for as you say...if all is chance, than how could we be so lucky to have the likes of the Clintons? Unless of course they were gods...or god like...
Of course if there is a real god or super intelligence...that makes all men who lust for the power of a god SOL...
They seek to control the realm of incredibility, by being the only ones qualified to define it.
There are probably with the rest of the records of Pontius Pilate. Do you believe that Pilate was prefect of Judea at the time of Christ?
I happen to agree with Charles...I do believe in God, believe the Bible, and also believe in evolution...I see it like Charles does, that evolution could very well be a process that God created and used...and yet, here on FR, there are howls that go up from those that claim they have the only possible interpretation of the Bible, and that their personal interpretation cannot be reconciled with evolution...and frankly they claim, they do not understand how anyone can believe in the Bible, in God, and in evolution all at the same time...well, as far as I am concerned, that is their problem, not mine...
I have been told, that for believing as I do, that the God I believe in must be a 'monster'...how 'Christian', of such a person to rant so...lets face it, everyone can read the Bible, and get something different out of it, or see it in a different way...it just seems to me, that those who insist that evolution cannot be reconciled with the Bible, are people who insist on limiting God...they want Him to have acted, only in the way that they believe He did...in other words, God had better fit into their own personal reading of the Bible, or else...or else what?, is what I wonder...is evolution so threatening to some, that if they should die, and find that evolution was indeed, Gods way of doing things, would that shake their beliefs?
I believe that God is so grand, so wonderful, so powerful, that He can and does do whatever He wishes...I will not put Him into a little box, and say He must have acted this way or that, because of my own personal interpretation of the Bible...I leave that up to God...however He did, whatever He did, in whatever time frame He chose, is His business, not mine...
I also dont believe that God would be so sadistic, as to leave behind all that fossils that have been found, as a cruel joke, trying to trick us...I dont believe that God gives us such a wonderful thing as a brain, and then expects us to disbelief what the fossils show us...
Then again, I am acquainted with some folk, who believe that all the dinosaur bones that have been found, are actually 'plants', from the devil...they believe that God would have never created something such as a dinosaur, so they prefer to hide their heads in the sand, and say that the 'Devil did it'...which is a little twist on those, who cannot come up with an rational argument against evolution, and throw up their hands, and say 'God did it'...
And for the umpteenth time, why to IDers, and creationists constantly come up with the same lame, invalid arguements...like, "If we evolved from apes, why are the apes still here?"...How many times, do they have to be given the answer, before it sinks in...or is it willfull ignorance?...Or another one, "What happens when one species gives birth to another completely different species?....good grief...I am not greatly versed in science, but even I know evolution never makes the claim that all of sudden one species comes from another species, lickety split, in one generation...and then we have the always favorite arguement, "Evolution cannot be, because evolution cannot make living matter from dirt", or some such statement...how longer must this go on?...evolution never, never, ,ever says anything about the origin of living matter...And yet, over and over and over again, those who believe in evolution are asked these same lame questions, and over and over again, the evolutionists give the answers, and yet most of the IDers and creationists, just pretend they did not hear the answer of did not understand the answer, and keep asking the same lame questions....or else, they are purposefully refusing to accept the answers, ,and think they are being 'cute', by asking the same nonsense...
There are so many people who do believe in God, believe in the Bible, and also believe in evolution...and I am one of them...and one other thing...there are too many who think and proclaim that those of us who believe in evolution are going to 'hell'...so you think you know the mind of God and can predict what happens to me, or anyone else?...I think not...and where do you have the proof that God considers belief in evolution to be some sin? You can have your own personal beliefs, but condemning someone else, because they dont believe in the Bible, the same way that you do, really is not right...just agree, that we disagree, and each one worry about your own 'soul'...
And I can sum it up just as well : a pox on both their houses!
>>OK. What records are on hand of investigators circa 30 AD?
> There are probably with the rest of the records of Pontius Pilate.
Ah. You *do* realize that that measn that those records are as valid as the documents that record Pilate's dealigns with alien battle lords for Zeta Reticuli, yes?
> Do you believe that Pilate was prefect of Judea at the time of Christ?
It is a reasonable conclusion to draw that Pontius Pilate was prefect of Judea at aroudn the time that Jesus was said to exist, yes.
If for no other reason than the records of his existence, while not overwhelming, are not exactly unbelievable. The mere supposition of his existence and doings do not stretch physics or common sense.
Now, if Pilate was said to bilocate, turn bright glow-in-the-dark green on command and hover six feet above his guests, then there'd be cause for doubt.
> evolution could very well be a process that God created and used
A perfectly reasonable and even scripturally justifiable position to take.
God is full of mercy and grace. Nonetheless, He remains holy, but because we are sinners by definition; it's our behavior alone that leds to the problems of death, misery and pain. If God was some sort of divine wishing well then the whole notion of our having free will would be the real joke.
Do you mind telling me what you putting your faith into during these trying times? Some folks have money, others guns and food stockpiles; where do you place your trust?
What version of the Bible is this one from?
This is difficult for you to figure out?
Well, I'm just stating a historical fact. The bus came and the jews of today missed it. Most of the early church was jewish. Some scholars estimate that 50% of all jews followed this schism from judiasm.
Your rationale is flawed. Let's unpack your last statement
"Yes they can!>>>>>> Your interpretation of heaven or the route there is not written in stone. Last time I checked Jesus was a jew."
"Yes they can!>>>>>><<<<<< Something must have changed. Before Jesus a jew had to go to Jerusalem yearly for the absolution ceremony where the high priest put the collective sin of the nation onto the scapegoat. What changed was profound, most jews became Christians.
Your interpretation of heaven or the route there is not written in stone.>>>>>>><<<<<<< In Stone's Hebrew Bible, the scripture reads "the only pathway to the father's house goes through his son,the Bridegroom" BTW, the old testament has over 500 separate prophecies that could only have been solved by Jesus alone. It took 70 rabbi's 120 years to write the Hebrew Bible. Actually, the text of the commandmants was written on stone tablets and compiled by jews that did not understand what was being said.
Last time I checked Jesus was a jew.">>>>>><<<<<< Yes, He was born a jew I agree. In the early roman church bishops would will their sons their bishoprics, did that make them compentant theologians? No, so being born a jew doesn't help much. It might actually make you stiff necked and proud.At the appointed time Jesus was baptised into His ministry and Jesus became the universal Savior. He became a priest of the Order of Melcheczadek, which was something understood to be older and more exalted than either Abraham or Moses.
I'm not sure I understand your point. Is it that different men of different cultures at different times describe the divine in different ways and therefore the divine does not exist?
Or is your point that because Elron Hubbard started a religion and he was something, I guess, of a charlatan, then Christ is equally a charlatan because he also started a religion?
While I am certainly not a scholared apologist I'll attempt to answer these two rather simple points;
In the first case, I believe that men are born w/ what Pascal described as a God shaped vacuum and that they have always sought to fill that vacuum. Naturally, this effort is expressed in the multitude of idioms reflecting diffrences in time and culture. Some are more articulate, some more honest, some more profound. What I find amazing is not the diffrences but the similarities, for example if you took a Buddist holyman and a Christian holyman (not to be confused w/ a TV evangelist) and sat them side by side you would witness a remakable harmony between the two.
Why I am a Christian and not a Buddist is point 2:
As Christians we are taught to test all spiritual claims using reason and logic. And to further test these claims against the witness of Holy Scripture. In this way we come to a better more perfect understanding of Christ and the Trinity. Its not hocus pocus, but rather the teachings of some of the wisest and greatest thinkers of history.
Ulimately, of course, the decision to give one's life to Christ is a personal one; it cannot be otherwise. There is a great gulf of difference between Muhammad and Hubbard and Christ, it is up to the honest man to discover that for himself.
However, if your point is that all religion is bunk, then you are a fool and we really have nothing to discuss.
Like I said, Jews - who recognize JC as a historical figure, btw - do not recognize that the Messiah has come. I don't know how to state it more plainly than that. Not sure what you're getting at.
We know Pilate was the prefect of Judea -- it's in the Bible. You've expressed suspicion over the matters relating to Jesus due to the lack of state records. Where are the records for the rest of Pilate's activities-- budgets, appointments, other civic disturbances, crucifixions etc.?
> We know Pilate was the prefect of Judea -- it's in the Bible.
For the sake of illustration, consider for a moment this hypothetical: "The New Testament stories of Jesus were works of fiction intended to trick people into a new religion."
Now, even though this was written 30 years after the fact, if you wanted to convince people that your story was for real, you'd have to use *real* and commonly known figures. Just as if I were to try to create a new religion today based on the mystical exploits of Zander P. Whifflebottom thirty years ago... if one of those exploits was meeting with the President of the United States, I'd better not say that he met with President Stimpson J. Cat in the Rhombus Room of the Gray House in the US capital city, New Megalopolis, East Illinois.
> I'm not sure I understand your point. Is it that different men of different cultures at different times describe the divine in different ways and therefore the divine does not exist?
No. It's that people tend to invent things. Whether for political power, insanity, superstition, a desire to just see the best doen or whatever, people make stuff up. And we should always bear this in mind when confronted with the extraordinary.
> is your point that because Elron Hubbard started a religion and he was something, I guess, of a charlatan, then Christ is equally a charlatan because he also started a religion?
Not exactly. My point is that we *know* charlatans sometimes invent religions. But "miracles" and whatnot are *not* verified events. Most "miracles," once examiend, turn out to befrauds, the rest mistakes or misinterpretations. There has yet to be a real-deal miracle in the scientific era that has been adequately explored and determined to be impossible to be anything *other* than a miracle.
> I believe that men are born w/ what Pascal described as a God shaped vacuum and that they have always sought to fill that vacuum.
Some clearly are. Some clearly are not. And there are vast gradations between the extremes.
> if your point is that all religion is bunk...
Nope. I have one of my own, as it turns out. However, I do not say that "X is true" in such matters, but rather that "I believe X." Because certainty about such things, when there is no real evidence (especially when a vast multitude of wholly different religions see the same speck of evidence and all claim that that proves *their* religion right), is scientifically unfounded.
I am not personally offended, for I am not a Jew. But I know this to be true that your attitude, and that of others like you, are the reason that the ACLU exists, that Michael Newdow (and his Ilk, past, present and future) also exist and why Jews tend to be Democrats.
Your attitude that a Jew is inferior to a Christian before the same God of Jesus Christ, who was a Jew, is the reason that Jesus Christ has been tossed out of the public square in the USA. I know you can't see the connection, because your pious sanctimony has blinded you to its consequences.
You suffer from the proverbial, sliver and log in the eye paradox. Your exclusion of others has caused others to want to exclude you.
IMPO, I think that Jesus would be ashamed of you, but then, I don't pretend to speak for Jesus, as do you.
BTW, I believe that it is you who has inverted the Almighty's priorities. The Jew will get to Heaven just fine with Moses. It' s you, the Gentile, who is lacking of God's favor and cannot get to Heaven without Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, you have insulted his servant, Moses and His Son with your self righteous conceit.
You have taken Satan's bait and swallowed it whole: "Pride".
That's the theory I was going on when I read the New Testament for the first time.
In the News/Activism forum, on a thread titled We're not in Kansas anymore (Krauthammer slams Intelligent Design), Steve_Seattle wrote:
"The theory of evolution is basically a denial that there is ANY intelligence in the universe. It requires that a Boeing 747 be regarded as a product of blind chance. Why? Because if all of nature operates according to blind mechanism, natural selection, and inexplicable mutations, then there is no reason or guiding intelligence ANYWHERE in the process from the pre-biotic soup all the way to the 747."
This is a self-evidently stupid statement.
Evolution by natural selection explains precisely HOW complexity can emerge from random changes. Natural selection acts as the "ratchet," favoring certain changes over others.
If you don't understand this, you're too ignorant to be making public comments on the subject. And if you do understand it, then you're deliberately lying and will go to Hell when you die.
If you were going to trick someone into a new religion, would you tell them their founder was executed with theives? That they should expect the same persecution as their founder? Would you tell men, that women were their equal? Masters that slaves were their equal? Slaves to love their masters? How would you account for the leaders refusal to acquire wealth and power, but embrace torment? A happy afterlife? Rome promised that by honoring their civic gods? Judiasm promised that by following the Torah? Why didn't they triumph?
The only explanation for the success of Christianity is that it's true.
So that's the log in your eye, you're a Jehovah's Witness! I have never known them to be anti-Semites as well, but I get the impression that you would welcome Adolph Eichmann into your fold if he were not now spending his eternity in the infernal regions.
> If you were going to trick someone into a new religion, would you tell them their founder was executed with theives?
Maybe. Zealots love a good martyr. And many love to *be* martyrs. If you get the BDSM crowd togehter with religious fervor... watch out!
> How would you account for the leaders refusal to acquire wealth and power, but embrace torment?
Huh. I wonder what relevance that has to this discussion. Did, or did not, the early Christian church start seekign out, oh, I dunno, Roman *Emperors?* Did the Christianization of Scandinavia go top-down or bottom up? Did or did not the fall of the Icelandic Republic as a going concern happen after the place was Christianized and the churches started collecting all the wealth?
> The only explanation for the success of Christianity is that it's true.
Uh-huh. I always love those "The only explanations is..." explanations.
I thought I drank a lot, but man, you got me beat.
That was the largest accumulation of nonesuch as I've seen in a freepin fortnight--call borbounbreath for clarification.
Damn; I hate callin' forth that knucklehaed but he's got it all over you per lineal thought....
Call me in the mornin', perhaps you'll gain control of sentence structure. In the mean time keep thinkin'
Who is we?
You dunno. The answer is no. Have you ever read the Bible?
Did the Christianization of Scandinavia go top-down or bottom up?
Did or did not the fall of the Icelandic Republic as a going concern happen after the place was Christianized and the churches started collecting all the wealth?
No. The Althing was established in 930. Iceland became Christian in 1000. It remained independent until 1262 when it submitted to the King of Norway. The Althing, however, remains and except for a period in the early 19th Century met regulary.
The only explanation for the success of Christianity is that it's true. Uh-huh. I always love those "The only explanations is..." explanations.
As opposed to what? People were tricked because they love martyrs?
>> Did, or did not, the early Christian church start seekign out, oh, I dunno, Roman *Emperors?
> You dunno. The answer is no.
Ah. So much for Emperor Constantine...
> Have you ever read the Bible?
>>Did the Christianization of Scandinavia go top-down or bottom up?
Nope, top down. King Olaf Tryggvasson slaughtered those who did not convert.
>>Did or did not the fall of the Icelandic Republic as a going concern happen after the place was Christianized and the churches started collecting all the wealth?
The answer you're looking for is "yes." You might find this enlightening:
> People were tricked because they love martyrs?
Well, people joined up with the Heaven's Gaters and lopped their nuts off, so...