Posted on 04/19/2006 3:57:51 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
You are completely, utterly, absolutely, unconscionably, unspeakably, and mind-numbingly WRONG.
And if that isn't clear, let me state again: WRONG.
There's a clue in the way the examplars in the chart are labeled, starting with 'A' for the earliest and coming forward in time.
Time--on earth, at least--is indeed unidirectional; perhaps it is different on the strange little solipsistic planet you appear to inhabit.
But you are absolutely correct to reject the concept you hold of the theory of evolution, for it is painfully clear that your concept of ToE bears absolutely no similarity to the ToE of science. If you honestly believe, as you have stated, that "you can look at the 'data' EITHER way and STILL make the same Evo claim," then your simple choice is surely:
[1] Take the time to actually find out what the theory of evolution is, and replace your appalling ingorance with a dose of education, or
[2] Leave it alone altogether. You can always amuse yourself, as you did earlier on this thread, by really cheap, nasty and offensive shots of calling folks Nazis (something I regularly encounter from liberals, who have no conception of how ugly and demeaning that is to millions of people who suffered at the hands of real Nazis).
Also, inconsistency of principle is a form of hypocrisy. You can't oppose abortion on the principle that it's wrong to kill children and then support a parent's right to kill their child in some other way. I guess to some people, it's NOT about the principles, but about being on a side. As a libertarian, I see that a lot from certain people who think I should abandon my principles for the sake of a "side".
They don't seem to be so much against medicine as they are against science and in favor of quackery.
Exactly the same personality type proliferates on the Left, involving belief in pyramid power, ESP, junk science, quack medicine.
Competent doctors will always educate their patients as to the risks of treatment and the probability of success. Quacks always promise certainty (with the escape clause that you have to really, really believe).
What gets me is the "no-win" situation they love to present. On the one hand, scientists think they know everything. In my experience, only one type of book has ever been presented as "infallible", and it ain't a science book. On the other hand, they (scientists) are always correcting themselves, so how can you trust anything they claim?
More inconsistency.
Thanks for your kind words..I do try to remain civil when I can, tho its very tempting sometimes to lash out and call people names,or say really, really nasty things...but then I figure, heck, I am then reducing myself to a lower level, and I dont really want to do that...(and in addition, I might get myself banned)
I also agree with you about taking sides...holding oneself to their own principles can be difficult, when your 'side', thinks you should abandon those principles, just to give support to them, even tho you may disagree completely with their stand on their 'pet' project...
Editor-surveyor: And I answered that I have no objection to trauma surgery, but that was not the answer that you desired. It's the witchcraft to which I object; the prescription of deadly poisons to mask symptoms, thus accelerating death, when effective natural substances without side effects are available (of course you can't make money off of natural substances).
Thatcherite: "He never did answer"
Editor: I've never met an honest evolutionist; you're no exception.
You can tell when editor-surveyor is lying. The posts where he lies are signed with his name.
The weird thing about this is that I assumed initially I must be wrong. I went and found that question of mine expecting to find Editor-Surveyor's response. I was completely ready to frame my apology for having maligned him. What on earth is going on in Editor-Surveyor's mind when he writes his post? Did he think that I wouldn't check? Does he think that as long as he is "witnessing" honesty doesn't matter, because after all he is only lying to an evolutionist... [shakes head in wonderment]
Interesting choice of words. And deliberate, I'm sure!
I'm still waiting for him to explain why he wants to consign our wounded troops to hell for the sin of denying God's healing power. He certainly wouldn't allow this to happen to his own children.
Oh, wait....nevermind.
I fully support any adult's right to practice faith healing on himself.
In the case of Jim Hensen I regret the result, but still, it was his right.
Watcha wanna bet he drops off this thread or ignores you from here on out?
And then in another few months when I remind him of it he'll be able to invent a reply that he gave, and accuse me of lying again. ;)
I bet he doesn't even know who Jenner, Lister, Banting, Ross, and Fleming were.
I think if you consider the above sentence carefully you will see that Toryheartland is referring to the evolutionary change in words as a process that is analogous to the processes in biological evolution. It is the morphology, the words and sentence structure, that is undergoing change just as the morphology of biological organisms undergo change. The meaning of the words is not the process but the target of the process.
mu.
nonsensical complaint.
If you consider it, you will possible stumble upon why that complaint is so very silly.
How curious, sagebrush. ;)
Jenner was an athlete in the 70s, Lister invented mouthwash, Banting was a purveyor of crepe paper, Ross sewed the first American flag, and Fleming wrote all those 007 novels...
"and Fleming wrote all those 007 novels..."
And could do a mean double axle.
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.