| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 04/29/2006 1:50:06 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Enough noise from this damn thing. |
Posted on 04/27/2006 8:01:57 AM PDT by Tribune7
I’m happy to report that I was in constant correspondence with Ann regarding her chapters on Darwinism — indeed, I take all responsibility for any errors in those chapters. :-)
(Excerpt) Read more at uncommondescent.com ...
Christianity is simply the belief that Jesus is the Son of God sent by God to redeem humans through belief in Him as our Savior. God has revealed Himself to us through the Bible. We are all free to accept that revelation or reject it. I don't know what is in someone else's heart. But I know the Bible is clear that God is our creator.
Yeah, but by their unreasonable definition you'd be a germ worshipper ;^)
If Adam was created at the end of that long period of time, then when was there time, on the sixth day, for Eve to be created.
If she was created after Adam, which the Bible says she was, then why not long ages of time for her creation too?
Adam only lived 930 years and Adam and Eve had children when Adam was 130 years old. Adam's creation took long ages of time but Eve's took significantly less than 130 years?
If you believe what the Bible says, how is the history of Adam and Eve's creation consistent with the evolutionary process?
We didn't say that they were.
that make every issue about evolutionary science
We don't. We do, however, respond when *OTHER* people make an issue of evolutionary science, as happens annoyingly often. If folks would stop telling lies about evolutionary biology and those who research it and/or understand its validity, we'd be more than happy to stop spending our time countering the propaganda, and would have a lot more time to spend on other pursuits.
and attack everyone/anyone/Ann Coulter that does not agree with their "scientific" philosophies/evolutionary belief systems
Again, we don't. Please try to follow the conversation. Ann Coulter is being taken to task here not for "not agreeing" with any particular "belief system", but for promulgating gross falsehoods about evolutionary biology (and those who understand it) in an attempt to attack people who may not agree with HER "philosophy/belief system".
She's the one who is at fault in the way you describe, not us. We're just pointing out the many ways that she, and most anti-evolutionists in general -- are engaging in falsehoods, propaganda, and slanders in a misguided attempt to "support" conservatism, when unfortunately the end result will be a little bit of "preaching to the choir", and a whole lot of damage to the conservative movement.
Not everyone is as scientifically illiterate as the anti-evolutionists, and every time some prominent conservative spouts laughable nonsense on the topic of science, countless people who might otherwise find conservative positions compatible with their own outlook end up writing off conservatism as being made up of a bunch of ignorant kooks. It does the same damage to conservatism as Michael Moore does to liberalism, and for exactly the same reasons. People who loudly spout obvious nonsense, falsehoods, and propaganda, don't do the political group they're associated with any favors whatsoever, especially when they're not only not laughed off by their own political associates, but are cheerfully cheered on and amen'ed.
Ann Coulter has really screwed up on this one. Unlike politics -- where often things rely on personal preferences or idealogies -- in science there really *are* right answers and wrong answers. And tens of millions of Americans are equipped to spot the wrong answers in Ann Coulter's new book from a mile away. At best, she's making a fool of herself. More likely, she's making conservatism in general look foolish to vast numbers of Americans.
It follows logically that of those that accept evolution, a majority (most) HAVE to be Christian.
It follows logically? That's not facts, that's deduction.
44+39+10=93 Hmmmm. What happened to the other 7%? If the percentages are for the study sample, someone goofed.
"No argument here!!!"
Well, we can agree on something. :)
What are the wrong answers in her book?
[What about abortion?]
Have you ever noticed how pro-abortion politicians/peoples are usually also pro-gun control, pro-affirmative action, pro-gay rights and etc., etc., etc. Not exactly conservative thinking. Do you know any pro-abortion peoples that are conservative in their thinking (I do not believe that it is even possible, btw)?
So you feel that loyal conservatives *ARE* single issue voters after all. Nice of you to disagree with yourself.
I am sure that there are many things that we can agree on.
"It's disturbing to me that those who claim to be Christians (meaning that they believe the Bible is the inspired word of God) can also believe that God flat out lied in Genesis."
They don't believe that God lied. They believe that those who wrote the book wrote an allegory whose main point was that God is the creator of the world.
"Have a wonderful Carolina weekend."
Thanks! It's supposed to be great weather here the next few days. You have a great weekend there!
That would be refreshing, but the anti-evolutionists keep trying to argue against it.
Then they need to state that *undecided* category. Sloppy.
LOL!
You are willing to overlook the absurd claim that a human being lived 930 years, and are worried about how the length of a day affects that number!
Germ-worshipping placemarker.
Dave, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but some people really *are* intellectually superior to some others. I can understand why the "others" often resent that fact being made clear, though, and try to convince themselves that it's only a matter of "posturing" and not reality.
Then again, I guess I can't be certain that frevos AREN'T Democrats.
Ah, yes, the old slur, spewed out when you have no substantive insult, but want to fling one anyway. It's pathetic.
Nonsense. Facts are things that are true regardless of whether you believe in them or not. Since there is no objective evidence of the existence of any deity, the only thing supporting the concept that these rights exist is the same regardless of your beliefs about God, namely human belief. Some believe that there is a God who gives you these rights and others believe that these rights are part of human nature. Either way they are formed of nothing more than human belief.
Certainly, John Adams, Sam Adams, John Hancock, John Morton, Robert Treat Paine, Benjamin Rush, Roger Sherman, Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon and other signers thought so.
As men of their time, it wouldn't surprise me that they did. (And as public men of their time, I'd expect them to express belief regardless of how they felt if, in fact, they felt differently.) Nevertheless, their revolution was not aimed at vindicating their rights as Christians, but the rights as Englishmen. They may have believed in a deity from whom these rights sprang, but they fought to secure those rights, regardless of where they came from.
Can you name a founder that did not attribute the existence of our rights to God (with primary source documentation)?
That's irrelevant. I'm not saying that they didn't believe in God, let's assume for the sake of argument there wasn't any. I'm saying they were fighting to obtain their rights. Look at any of their written works and notice that the passages devoted to rights, liberty and government overwhelm those dealing with God or religion. It's not even close. Why? Because their concern was, again, with the fact of their liberties, not what they believed was their source.
Their invocation of God was incidental to their quest for liberty. One would have to be a daft fool to believe that if the Founders were convinced of the non-existence of God that they would happily be slaves or would have ceased seeking liberty. Their rhetoric would have changed, sure, but their goal, their quest, would have been identical.
Which is all of the track of my main point, which is that anyone who says you have to be a Christian to be a conservative is not only wrong, but also an enemy of conservatism and, ultimate, this great nation of ours.
None of the others could provide a name...Can you provide a name of a pro-abortion conservative?
I only vote for conservatives...this would eliminate all those who are pro-abortion.
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.