Posted on 02/21/2005 9:44:35 AM PST by FNU LNU
Or they would all be wrong, or only one would be right.
Yeah, OK. Sure.
> defining this anthropologist's duplicitous actions, and motivations, as that of creationists
I said he used the same tactics. Lies and distortions. And that's the truth.
Are you going to define "Anti-religious bigot?" Or are you liek a DUer, throwing the word "Fascist" around without actually knowing what it means?"
Actually, I just wanted to reestablish our posting. It's always refreshing to see you on a thread. Whether I agree or disagree, you pose an interesting challenge.
And if you want to call me a DUer, that's OK. We both know it's not true. You and I simply use those 'cattle prods' to gain reaction to something we to which we want an answer.
The point of my 'anti-religious bigot' remark was to tweak you for cloning this lying sack of anthropology to 'creationists'. There are enough black marks on both sides of the crevo ledger that no one should feel that comfortable when throwing stones at the other.
My sentence construction in that last post was appalling. I'm eating a Qdoba burrito. It affects me.
So no creationists understand how science works? Pretty broad brush, don't you think?
---------------------------------------------------------
Well, I've never seen a creationist that wasn't either ignorant, brainwahsed or evil. That's what Richard Dawkins said and he is a real scientist.
Besides, if it would be possible that the whole history of modern in man europe would come unraveled based on the exposure of fraud in the work of one scientist then science would be like any other human activity, subject to politics and errors and in need of correction sometimes. Science is above all this.
Your accusations against Behe are libelous rot. Shame on you for calling an honest man a liar. You may disagree with Behe's conclusions, but that does not mean that he is falsifying his data, as this evolutionist did.
The Nazi's were only attempting to act out the logical consequneces of Darwin's ideas. All kinds are in a struggle to survive. Only Aryan life counted to them. The link's between Darwinism at Nazism are too well known to even debate with you- you who are so quick to ascribe evil intent to others. Your conduct is contemptable really.
> The point of my 'anti-religious bigot' remark was to tweak you for cloning this lying sack of anthropology to 'creationists'.
For that to work logically, one would have to assume that the whole world of religion is Creationism-based, and to be opposed to Creationism is to be bigotted against all religions.
Tain't true.
> Shame on you for calling an honest man a liar.
He knows better. But he keeps trotting out the same bilge. What would you call someone like that?
> The Nazi's were only attempting to act out the logical consequneces of Darwin's ideas.
Horsepuckey. Genocide is not a logical consequence of Darwinism, anymore than nuking the bejesus out of, say, Mecca is a logical consequence of the Theory of Relativity.
> Your conduct is contemptable really.
Boo hoo... I guess I'm off your Christmas card list.
Some mormons (morons?) on bicycles came to my door (what's with the bicycle schtick?, the same guys drive an SUV at night when no one is looking), waste of time, seemed like pretend baptists, they are the real enemy. I think I will take a cruise to the Gallapagos and Machu Picchu next year and I will party all the way.
I took your advice. Blavatsky and "Theosophical" teachings are occult, which I mentioned in my reply. They are contrary to Western orthodox christianity and the Christian worldview. Surely you are not implying that they are consistent.
You don't know anything of the sort. In fact, the Guardian is a leftist newspaper populated by secular leftists.
The word creationist has a specific meaning. It refers to those of us who believe that God created the Universe. It is not a curse word, it doesn't imply Luddite and it is not synonomous with ignorant. Just as the left has attempted to dehumanize unborn babies with terms like "just a fetus" and "blob of cells" so the science community is attempting to paint "creationists" with a broad brush.
I would hope you don't jump on that bandwagon.
"For that to work logically, one would have to assume that the whole world of religion is Creationism-based, and to be opposed to Creationism is to be bigotted against all religions.
Tain't true."
Good to hear.
Which religions are you bigoted against? :)
Surely you jest - "science is above all this"? So scientists never have any other agenda than discovering the truth? If only that were true.
> Which religions are you bigoted against? :)
I am opposed to unreason. This does not negate religion... but it does stand opposed to the obviously silly in *any* religion.
Something tells me your sarcasm was a bit too subtle for me to read. If so, disregard previous rant.
> Blavatsky and "Theosophical" teachings are occult, which I mentioned in my reply. They are contrary to Western orthodox christianity and the Christian worldview. Surely you are not implying that they are consistent.
Where did I say they were? Where did I say the Nazis were *Christian* Creationists? I *DID* point of their Theosophical roots a few times.
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.