Posted on 01/26/2006 1:47:10 PM PST by jennyp
But the point being made was that "submission" is not "morality", it's "Islam"
Ooooh---then maybe in some flashy colors!
As xzins has already pointed out, that's a statement of pure metaphysical (religious) faith, without a hint of science in it. It's on par with saying, "When each atom in evolution's system acts according to it's rules, computers assemble themselves spontaneously."
I admire a faith which depends on a 1 in 10^300 chance (or whatever you want to calculate the odds of random abiogenesis at). I just wish you guys were honest enough to admit your faith for what it is, and cease teaching such religious ideals in our science classes.
Prove a designer did it.
Prove that an intellegence produced your post, which has far less information in it than a "simple" cell.
And I suppose you've never thrown around the term "Darwinist".
I've usually said "evolutionist" or "evo" for short. Why? Is Darwinist a purjorative?
The equivalent would be for me to refer to you guys as "godless" on a continual basis. Which I can start doing if you want, but I'll wager that you'll start calling me down on using prejudicial language to color the debate. And you'd be right to do so--just as I'm right to call you down for the equivalent.
Then you admit that Genesis is not literal.
Not at all. I think Genesis is entirely literal. However, I also know enough Hebrew, its original language, to point out that yom ("day") may speak of a period of time longer than 24-hours, an age, as it does in the common Biblical phrase "the Day of the Lord." Ergo, I can conceed the issue of the age of the universe for the sake of discussion without having to agree to the absurd evolutionary paradigm that matter + energy + time = complex information. Setting my room on fire does not result in it becoming more organized, nor does randomly splattering paint on a canvas produce a work on par with The Last Supper or the Mona Lisa.
As for the "development of man," when you guys manage to produce some missing links that aren't either chimpanzees, arthritic men, pigs' teeth, or outright frauds that are actually distinguishable enough from modern man to be an issue, I'll worry about it. Until then, I owe you no apology for my belief that Man is a special creation of God. I wouldn't argue that that belief should be taught in a biology class, of course. I just want you guys to stop padding the evidence presented to the kids with unsupported leaps of logic and known frauds. I also want you to knock off the hypocrisy of pretending that IDers could get a fair hearing in peer reviewed journals when we all already know what happens to those who dare to let them be heard.
You wouldn't think that'd be too much to ask, but apparently it is.
Funny position for a professed atheist to take. Is it your position that this presupposition is a "useful lie" then?
Thanks, you always make me laugh!
"If you think this outcome requires no intelligence, why don't growing, wealthy economies spring up from schools of fish, or swarms of bees?"But neither swarms nor schools are led by an all-knowing leader who decides what the swarm will do or what shape it will take. And I doubt that the individual bees or fish have any concept that they are even part of a swarm, much less understand where the swarm is going or what the swarm is "deciding" to go after.This is a good point. Hayek stated that the "extended order" arose without the need for one person to know everything, and argued [convincingly, IMO] that no one person COULD know everything, and any system based on central "rational planning" was therefore doomed to fail. However, he did not argue that the "extended order" arose out of circumstances where no one knew anything.
Oh no... not out of hat. I picked Stephen Biko specifically because his is one of many animal skulls one might find in South Africa. Lovely to see an evolutionist use the term "ape-like nonhuman" as if "human", "ape" or "animal" meant anything to them. What's it mean to you?
If you think this is a scholarly essay, you should start listening to Air America political commentary. I don't think the creationists are afraid of anything; it's the evolutionists who sould about as rabid as the Democratic Party.
Yes, yes - I get the picture. You're going to continue in your quixotic defense of an idiotically racist statement, rather than simply own up to it. We all get it, I'm sure.
Splashing paint on canvas a billion times might be the sort of "art" only an evolutionist could appreciate.
Then your side is lying to children in school by pretending that it is and pretending further that you have a valid theory of abiogenesis, the "primordial soup" nonsense. Your side is also being awfully persnickidy about ID, given that you're admitting that you have no alternative to explain away the need for intellegent design for the first cells to form, let alone to explain the evolutionary leaps (i.e. the Cambrian explosion) since then.
If the Evos were honest and simply broadcast to everyone, "Sorry, but at the present time we have no valid theory of abiogenesis," the issue of teaching ID in school wouldn't even be on the table.
This thread is an advertisement for "Anti-Evos Gone Wild".....
One thing Cs are not afraid of is Bird Flu.
No, it is not my position, it is logic. Test it. Aristotle gave us the tools...
Thank you. Now crawl back to evolution central where you can all commiserate about how playing the race card failed to work because the Christian thing just doesn't give a crap about what you call it. It's a lesser animal that can't be reasoned with and not quite evolved enough yet to understand evolution. ;-)
Are those crickets I hear?
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.