Posted on 02/21/2005 9:44:35 AM PST by FNU LNU
As your are positioning yourself as an anti-religious bigot, I think it's astounding that you could have such a cloud of religiosity, and blind faith with regards to your beliefs regarding 'science'.
But, have at it. I suppose if 'Christianity' were so bad, it should go the way of the Ba'al cults. It's got staying power, I'll give it that.
We'll see about the religio-evo creed. Maybe it'll last a couple of thousand years, too. I doubt it. But, it's religious fervor may just push it on, you never know.
Such as?
Good find FNU. Looks like Neanderthal and Homo Sapiens didn't mix. Teddy Kennedy must have been a one-off.
LOL!
Not sure what you mean about him using "Creationist's tactics". The YECs don't accept c14 dating and the OEC have no reason to manipulate the dates. Can you give some names to your serious accusations, or are simply using the Clintonian defense of attempting to muck up everyone else's reputation because your own man's is mucked up?
The article even paints him a Nazi sympathizer, a natural outgrowth of Darwinian thinking.
The only thing I am curios about is that the 7,500 year old skull fragment that was said to be Neanderthal. Did he fake the identity as well as the date, or where there a few hold outs as recently as 7,500 years? THAT would be a big story.
> As your are positioning yourself as an anti-religious bigot
Define "anti-religious bigot."
> I suppose if 'Christianity' were so bad,
Who said anythign about Christianity being "bad?" You seem to protest too much.
> it should go the way of the Ba'al cults. It's got staying power, I'll give it that.
As does Judaism, Hinduism, Zoroastrionism, Islam, sub-Saharan animism...
Now. Are you going to sit there and tell me that none of those have religious "lies" at their core?
> We'll see about the religio-evo creed.
There is, so far as I know, no religion based on evolution, just as there is, so far as I know, no religions based on the theories of relativity and gravity either.
> Not sure what you mean about him using "Creationist's tactics".
Lying and falsification of data.
> Can you give some names to your serious accusations
Start with Duane Gish and Michael behe and go from there.
> Nazi sympathizer, a natural outgrowth of Darwinian thinking.
Incorrect. Nazis were Creationists to the core. They bought into Theosophical babblings about mankind having been created perfect in some golden age.
What religious lies would you be talking about?
> What religious lies would you be talking about?
Put a devout Christian and a devout Muslim in the same room. One will tell you that Jesus was the divien son of God. The other will tell you that Jesus was just a guy. These two beliefs are contradictory and one (or both) *must* be wrong.
Another: A Baptist and a Mormon. One will tell you that Jesus ascended into Heaven after 3 days dead (and after having a brief chat witha few of his associates) and will not bodily return until Judgement Day. The other will tell you that after being dead three days and then chatting with associates, he then went aroudn the world and talked to mesoAmericans. Again, these two beliefs cannot both be true.
A Christian and a Hindu: One says you get one shot *only*, that's it; the other says you re-incarnate a bajillion times. One or both must be wrong.
You decline to describe your passion as 'religious fervor'?
Methinks you decline too disingenuously.
Don't mess with the U.S. He may have been caught because Americans questioned this scame.
People like Professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten and Bill Clinton are giving cigar smokers a bad name.
Regarding religious "lies" - one day each of us will know the truth. And I guess we'll know the scientific truth also.
The title of this article is obviously ridiculous. Science has not built its understanding of the modern history of mankind on the work of one crackpot. Science doesn't move forward based on one or two observations. Findings must be replicated by scientists from various parts of the world using their own equipment and measurments etc. Furthermore peers review the findings with a healthy skeptical eye.
Creationists don't understand how science works, only a creationist would ever think that science would have to be changed based on identifying one guy as a fraud. That's how I know a creationist wrote this headline.
Ping
Nazism was based on the atheist philosophy of Nietzsch, and eugenics, which has philosophical Darwinism underpinnings (Some races and peoples have evolved more than others). And Hitler was an occultist.
Pleasae have some basis to argue against Christianity.
> You decline to describe your passion as 'religious fervor'?
I'm not much for lies or exaggeration.
You decline to define "anti-religious bigot?"
"One or both must be wrong."
Yep. Now, here's the science side: get a strict selectionist, a strict non-selectionist, and a heterochronist in the same room trying to decide on the truth.
According to you, they would all be true.
YEC INTREP - Anthropology - S&T
Your interest in defining this anthropologist's duplicitous actions, and motivations, as that of creationists led me to believe that you didn't put much stock in accurate definitions.
> Pleasae have some basis to argue against Christianity.
Sheesh. Who said anything about Christianity? As I said, Nazis were big into *Theosophical* Creationism. Madame Blavatsky's nonsense. Please research the topic before spouting off further.
> , which has philosophical Darwinism underpinnings
No. Eugenics is something humans have been doign for thousands of years to our farm critters, and *Americans* were doign to ourselves long before the Nazis showed up. Eugenics, boiled down, is simply selective breeding, without any particular philosophical underpinning.
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.