Posted on 09/22/2006 2:09:33 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
Ah, I see..I do believe you have a fine point here...in fact, if I remember correctly, it has always been believed by many, that the Salem Witch Trials were nothing but a grab for goods and land...accuse someone of being a witch, get them hanged, and then grab their household goods, and land...nothing 'religous' about it...just good old fashioned greed...
Tricky...
The Romans were familiar with the phenomenon:
tacere consentire est
"Tacere consentire est"
May I have a translation, please...
To be silent is to consent.
Ah, thanks PH...I shall have to remember this...quite a true sentiment, and one appropriate to this thread...
Over 200 more votes have come in. Prior FR polls typically receive around 6,000 votes before they're ended. This one now has 4,492 votes, almost 75% complete.
The important votes are from those who have expressed an opinion on the poll question, so I'm ignoring all votes for "undecided" or "pass." Those with an opinion have voted as follows:
Yes (put creationism in science class) 2,590 votesPercentage voting "No" is 36.9%
No (keep creationism out of science class) 1,514 votes
Total votes (excluding "undecided" or "pass") 4,104
The "transported here" humans are inexplicably similar to a particular "not transported here" ape species, which appears in every genetic way to be our sister species.
"Sensible people do not ignore all the evidence gathered since 1350 or try to filter it through a medieval mindset to reach the conclusion they desire"
"If people can't deal with that, it's not a problem with the science, it's their own personal problem."
What year was the printing press with movable type invented in?
What was the first book printed with that printing press?
What year did the scientific revolution start (Kepler, Francis Bacon etc.)?
Who was Einstein referring to when he remarked 'had made the greatest change in our conception of reality'
http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/Faraday.php
Perhaps there is a connection....[ Many historians (for ex. Francis Schaeffer) have explored the topic in detail.]
Perhaps Michael Faraday, one of the greatest physicists of and one of the finest experimenters of all time (according to Einstein), was not a 'sensible' person because he like Bacon was convinced that the book of God's world and the book of God's word had the same author.
Perhaps we would still be living without electricity if Faraday didn't explore the book of God's world.
Perhaps Fadaday didn't have a "personal problem."
Perhaps Darwin and subsequent followers had/have a their "own personal problem" with God.
Perhaps, maybe or possibly, you might have an assertion problem.
: )
Maybe there's some naturalistic theory as to how a moon gets a wall around it on a great circle arc which can be seen from space, but I've never heard such a theory.
The other possibility would be that they had demokkkrats or palestinians (or evolutionites) or some such there and built a wall to keep them on their own side of it.
Let me take your virginity on this one. Impact. Liquification. Cooling and hardening. Small object, low gravity, tectonically inactive, high-relief structures can stay essentially forever. (Or until obliterated by subsequent impacts.)
There are lots of maria-filled craters on the moon. I'm surprised you've never seen it.
Big-time non-sequitur, in fact.
You might want to take a harder look at the picture. The little moon has a wall all the way around it which neatly divides the moon into two equal halves. If that were an easy thing to have happen, all by itself, then why don't other bodies in our system have such walls? Again, there is no rational theory as to how that could happen naturally.
You seem to be asserting that the UN is doing good things.
No, I am not. I am asserting that peace is a worthy objective. If you want to understand where I am coming from you have to know that I went to a Quaker college and am influnced by their work.
I did not buy the liberalism, but I understand that being a Christian is proactive. You do not wait for someone to attack you so you can kill him, if it is within your means to avoid violent conflict.
How this works out in real life is not a simple thing. I am not a democrat and I basically agree with Bush's foreign policy. Sometimes a lesser conflict avoids a greater conflict.
Nathanael Greene was a Quaker.
Einstein was not a creationist.
Perhaps Michael Faraday, one of the greatest physicists of and one of the finest experimenters of all time (according to Einstein), was not a 'sensible' person because he like Bacon was convinced that the book of God's world and the book of God's word had the same author.
The fact that one has to go back to the mid-1800's or earlier to find great scientists who didn't 'believe' in evolution is hardly a point in favor of its apologetic opponents.
Perhaps Darwin and subsequent followers had/have a their "own personal problem" with God.
Darwin doesn't have "followers" any more than any of the other great scientists you mentioned. The only people who seem to attribute to Darwin this sort of reverence are those who, for some strange reason, are hellbent in denying what it is that he discovered.
So I absolutely was looking at the wrong thing. I'm not dodging or brazening that in the slightest way.
So, do I think you have a great case for Iapetus (as most people spell it) as the place from which humans arrived here?
I think it fails on certain Occam's Razor grounds.
For one thing--no doubt this will disgust you no end--I suspect (no peeking, either) that the great circle ridge is still a maximum case of an impact crater ridge, the same kind of feature as the one I was mistakenly looking at on the more obvious crater. There isn't much else going to reshape moons of that size except certain funny period orbital resonances, etc. But I'll admit in this case that I may be the only one who would think so and that all informed speculation is following other lines.
The problem is more with your idea. For one, you propose it as the alternative to thinking humans originated here on Earth along with other DNA life including our genetic sister species, the chimpanzees, who seem more related to us than to other outwardly similar apes (gorillas, organutans). We actually fit well into the kind of nested hierarchy of relatedness a phylogenetic tree of common descent would produce, a fact which would be the bizarrest possible coincidence if we alone were somehow unrelated to the other life and delivered here by Raelian genetic engineers.
Then, there's the question of what humans building a ring around cold, dead, little Iapetus were eating, drinking, and breathing. Then there's the question of what humans were doing building a ring around cold, dead, little Iapetus.
Yes, humans planted a flag on our own little cold, dead, moon, while they ate, drank, and breathed stored resources. Call me when we build the Great Wall of Luna.
Which is to say we don't have the technology right now to do that kind of thing. But we had it once and somehow lost every tiny bit of it getting here. Why?
Placemarker.
Prime!
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.