Posted on 12/11/2002 6:28:08 AM PST by A2J
Go for it. But, guided by experience, I agree you'll come to a point where, as you say, you will make a "leap of faith." Tell me, why do you feel you ought to make that leap? Why should I leap with you?
The rest of us will deal with the real world. I think it's time for your meds...
From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs does not sound like greed. It sounds like enforced charity.
Gee, I just pointed out a little while ago how civil these threads are when you're not around. Few insults are flung about and most people actually discuss the subject at hand. Then you show up and it all goes in the crapper. Go figure.
Bit of a contradiction there. Once you introduce force into the picture, it's not charity. It's theft. Such a system is run solely for the benefit of those doing the stealing. Sounds like greed to me.
Yep, - and we disagee on that reason. - Big deal.
What you are engaged in is pure spin.
If I am, so are you.
I am not sure what you are so afraid of
Me? Afraid of what? You must be looking in a mirror.
or what improvement you think would be made by your revision,
My comment was not about improving/revising, as you admit in your first sentence above.
it is in the end a trivial point as I doubt the National Archives are going to give heed to your suggestions. You have nothing to loose in your suggestions, but the men who wrote and signed the Declaration of Independence put all they owned, all they loved and their very lives on the line when the ink dried on that piece of paper. Now with as much as they had to lose don't you think they were a little more interested in just what exactly it said?
Is the 'creator' bit a "trivial point " or not? - Obviously, I think it is.
- You don't, - so whats the big deal?
Yup, amazingly stupid but not amazing that you think it is great. As the award winner I would not expect you to post anything that is true. In fact the first 'lie' it 'disproves' is by a total lie which has already been discussed here:
Biological evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time, and that's it! Any creationist who says differently is a liar.
As already pointed out numerous times, you cannot get from a bacteria to a human being by just rearranging the genes in the gene pool. A bacteria has some 600 genes and a human some 30,000 genes. A bacteria has a genome of some one million DNA base pairs, a human a genome of some 3 billion DNA base pairs. Therefore, you cannot get from bacteria to man without a lot of creatin' going on.
What this shows is that the evolutionists here, in the site mentioned, in talk origins, in textbooks, are ashamed of the so called 'evidence' they have for evolution. They know quite well that they cannot justify the tremendous amount of creation necessary for evolution to be true and they are trying to keep the lie alive by totally changing the meaning of the theory of evolution. A quick look at Darwin's definition of the theory of evolution:
"It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the external conditions of life, and from use and disuse;. a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows."
From: Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"
Just by comparing Darwin's definition to that which evolutionists now claim the definition to be shows quite clearly what an empty shell the theory has become.
That's what it finally degrades to. But enforced charity is the main idea behind communism. That this simply cannot work should be more than obvious (eighty years of history should convince everyone).
What I find most astonishing is that he spends so much time and energy attempting to debunk such a flawed version of the theory without ever bothing to learn or understand what it is he is actually arguing against.
There are quite a few like this on FR. He just happens to be one of the most vocally misperceptive.
Because you keep approaching the Theory of Evolution as if it is a belief system. It's not. It is only and exactly a scientific theory in which most scientists have a high degree of confidence.
And here's another secret: if a discovery is made that runs counter to the structure created by the theory of evolution, and another theory is proposed that sucessfully encompasses everything we know now plus that new discovery, then I, for one, will cheerfully abandon the current theory in favor of the new one.
It happened to geocentrism, classical mechanics, relativity, and leech cures. But right now there are no serious anomalies unexplained by evolution, and no other theory which better explains the evidence.
Actually, he doesn't. The strident cries of "liar" and "slime" indicate he subconsciously knows he's wrong but he cannot bring himself to admit it, least of all to himself.
Truly, I believe scientists in the Intelligent Design movement want more, not less, research.
So how should I consider this judgement from a bag of pulsating protons, electrons and neutrons such as comprise your undirected being? Since we all showed up in this universe by chance and are thereby only accountable to chance, I reckon it makes no difference.
You know, I can think of no more convenient frame of mind to justify any kind of chicanery than evolutionism. For if all is here by chance, then anything goes as far as processes are concerned, whether they be political, scientific, religious, or none of these.
A person can claim to be a creationist and be a Hitler, but why should we care? In the end it's evolution! A person can claim to be a Christian and do the Jim Jones Jugfest, but why should we care? In the end it's evolution!
So, I suppose you will not at all be justified in caring if I suggest you kiss a pulsating black hole. Even if you do care, why should anyone if in the end it's evolution?
Their actions don't show it though. Most of their written stuff consists of whining and there isn't much attempt on their part to get published in peer-reviewed journals.
Your questions seem simple on the surface, but they are not. The leap of faith I've made in regard to creationism, however, is not much different than swinging my legs out of bed and setting them on the floor. I don't "feel" about it, or think long and hard to myself whether I should do it. I just do, and the floor is there.
I'm certain charges of "crackpot" and such may spill forth as I write this, but I take what the Bible says at face value as true, and as a result I interpret the universe around me according to it. The intellectual fit is as comfortable to me as, well, climbing out of bed. There simply has not been anything in my experience that contradicts what the Bible says. And to really irk the geniuses around here, I will gladly say that my experience and reason are subjected to what the Bible says in simple terms.
"Billions of years" in the mouths of evolutionists only confirms to me that an eternal, almighty God has made all this stuff, just as it is written in Scripture. And the greatest thing is, the more scientists have the tools to look at the universe in detail, the more intelligence and design is observed, just as it should be, and just as could be PREDICTED if the Bible is true. Truly amazing.
It would be entirely unreasonable of me to demand that you, or anyone else, take the same leap of faith with me. I suppose I could encourage you to, but I'm not even comfortable with that. There are many people, indeed perhaps most in the world, who don't make that leap, but I am obligated to treat them decently nevertheless, an obligation at which I often fail miserably.
Who knows. Maybe if you had a chance to pick up a Bible and read it, it would fit like a pair of comfortable shoes. If you have questions that you feel uncomfortable discussing in this public forum, by all means I will be happy to discuss them with you via Freep Mail.
What is the difference between "faith," "belief system," and "high degree of confidence?" A "high degree of confidence" in WHAT? A "high degree of confidence" in a "process" that has yet to be fully explained!
There's nothing sneaky about it. No games. No charades. No demands of concurrence so we can "ruin" peoples minds with religion. Good heavens. Better watch out! The bogey man's coming!
Show me the "intellectual dishonesty" in my arguments thus far, and I'll show you Piltdown Man, or better yet, PatrickHenry's attempts to distance communism from evolutionism.
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.