Evolution Disclaimer Supported

The Advocate (Baton Rouge) ^ | 12/11/02 | WILL SENTELL

[f.Christian]

3000...3001

[Condorman]

Part of a debate is poking holes in the other side's theories.

While I do not disagree with you, I argue that it is at least--or even more--important to present support for your own theory. Many (most readily identifiable on the creo side) are unable to discriminate between the two.

[Fester Chugabrew]

"The right to individual freedom is absolute, for without this freedom he is a slave."

Thanks for taking time to spell out briefly your philosophical take on the questions. I don't see anything in there that strikes me as wildly unreasonable.

There's a bit of a nub that comes into the picture, though, and that is how we attach the moral equivalent of " good" to freedom, and the moral equvalent of "bad" to slavery. This is done with a great amount of consistency throughout history.

It is it really fair to say that Stalin was "wrong" in taking away other people's rights if the moral standard is rendered from each human "existing as his own entity?" In that case ""One man's freedom is another man's slavery" and there's really no need to be concerned about it.

[balrog666]

Approximately 6000 years old.

What? Somebody needs to tell you about Last Thursday-ism.

[viaveritasvita]

For Christians, it's true that the "main" reason for belief in the flood is because the Word of God records it as history in the Bible. This doesn't mean it's the only reason: both science and records of other peoples which have flood histories and, possibly, archeology, adds up to help us believe in a deeper and more reverent way. We are looking at science to confirm what we believe about our origins and meaning. In other words, we don't believe that "science should govern our Biblical interpretations," but rather the other way around (which I believe is the meaning of the sentence you emphasized in Morris' 1970 quote). We don't believe in interpreting scientific theories (or scientific truths) away from God, but toward Him (so to speak).

[B. Rabbit]

how we attach the moral equivalent of " good" to freedom, and the moral equvalent of "bad" to slavery

It is a difficult question that is tough to answer, but I don't think that anybody will argue against it. It is self-evident, maybe? It is like saying the sun will rise tomorrow. Freedom is "good".

"One man's freedom is another man's slavery"

This point however isn't fair. There is no "freedom/slavery" pendulum. One man's freedom does not necessarily mean another's slavery. It is immoral to infringe on others' rights, and Stalin definetely fit that bill. Everybody has this absolute right...

[js1138]

that is how we attach the moral equivalent of " good" to freedom, and the moral equvalent of "bad" to slavery. This is done with a great amount of consistency throughout history.

I'm confused. Are you saying that slavery has always been considered bad? What is consistent here?

[BMCDA]

Aye, but I think it ain't gonna happen. Wherever you go you always see the same old same old...
After a while you feel like Sisyphus but like that old chap you simply feel that that rock has to placed on top of that hill even if you know it will go downhill and you have to start from scratch ;)

[viaveritasvita]

Seeing as this is a conservative site and I'm, therefore, assuming you're a conservative, perhaps you'll understand when I say I want nothing to do with anything coming out of Berkeley! I've been there and done that! The depths to which Berkeley has sunk into liberalism and all that THAT entails is my bottom line rationale for not giving their teachings much authority (altho I'm sure some of their teachings are credible).

Does de Vinci's refutation from 1500 still hold in scientific circles these days? Seems as if some of his concerns must have been either factually confirmed or invalidated?

[viaveritasvita]

I think God created everything. What do you think? Where did matter come from?

[f.Christian]

You can never tighten an evo screw . . .

they are stripped // spun - - -

spin // flip // leap forever . . .

they are glue // truth proof . . .

like greased lightening through a vacuum collection agency - - -

. . . circulating // read - - - in the dead letter office ! ! !

. . . camp 'science' ! ! !

Main Entry: 1camp
Pronunciation: 'kamp
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle French, probably from Old North French or Old Provençal, from Latin campus plain, field
Date: 1528
1 a : a place usually away from urban areas where tents or simple buildings (as cabins) are erected for shelter or for temporary residence (as for laborers, prisoners, or vacationers) < migrant labor camp > b : a group of tents, cabins, or huts < fishing camps along the river > c : a settlement newly sprung up in a lumbering or mining region d : a place usually in the country for recreation or instruction during the summer < goes to camp every July > < computer camp > < football camp >
2 a : a body of persons encamped b (1) : a group of persons; especially : a group engaged in promoting or defending a theory, doctrine, position, or person (2) : an ideological position
3 : military service or life

[f.Christian]

To: BMCDA

I think God created everything. What do you think? Where did matter come from?


3010 posted on 01/05/2003 3:28 PM PST by viaveritasvita


the 'pat' answer . . . evo magic - - - 'bang' // 'plasma' ! ! !

Domino cicle . . . hell - - -

. . . twinkle-twinkle-twicker-tweat(evo science // philosophy) zone ! ! !

[viaveritasvita]

"Aw, the Second Law of Thermodynamics argument again!
Is this nonsense never going to die out?"

Surely you're not saying the Laws of Thermodynamics are nonsense?! Do you not believe the laws of thermo? Surely in science, a law is distinct from (and...above?) a theory. I understand the laws of thermo to be absolute. Is this incorrect?

Of all the creation groups I've investigated, I have the most respect for and agreement with Morris' group, Institute for Creation Research.

[VadeRetro]

We are looking at science to confirm what we believe about our origins and meaning.

To get to what you believe, you have to be so selective in what you take from science as to put the result totally at odds with science. That same link cites quite a number of problems with flood geology.

Real geology shows a complex and very long history for geographic features, as per this (hypothetical case) example. Catastrophically formed features may exist, but they're typically sandwiched between and among ordinary sediments that took a long time each to form. (They also represent periods of deposition separated by long periods in which no deposition, probably even erosion, took place.) Your Colorado Plateau redwall limestone is no exception (and AFAIK nobody but ICR thinks it formed in a flood).

[tpaine]

"The concept that rights only exist if one can defend them has a long philosophical history."

That's a far cry from saying inalienable rights exist because we can defend them.

No one here made that claim. - See my rebuttal to your mistake.

If man is "endowed" with these rights by virtue of a Creator - which is what our forefathers held, wrote out, and defended - then these rights exist apart from our ability to even recognize or defend them.

Exactly my original point, except that a 'creator' is not needed to make that point valid. -- Mans self evident reason & free will are the basis of our rights.

[Fester Chugabrew]

"Are you saying that slavery has always been considered bad?"

No. I'm saying that throughout history mankind has generally, i.e. with some consistency, attached negative moral connotations to slavery. To be sure, moral definitions are fuzzier than math and science, but I would predict, if there is a God who made the universe, there would be a great many consistencies even in what humankind perceives to be "right and wrong."

[f.Christian]

Nothing phases // stuns these evo pcp maniacs . . .

ask them - - -

why half way past the cambrian level . . .

why there are no fossils - - -

they are a collection of unexplained anomolies explaining anomolies . . .

cult science // jargon ! ! !


Main Entry: cult
Pronunciation: 'k&lt
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: French & Latin; French culte, from Latin cultus care, adoration, from colere to cultivate -- more at WHEEL
Date: 1617
1 : formal religious veneration : WORSHIP
2 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3 : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4 : a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator < health cults >
5 a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion
- cul·tic /'k&l-tik/ adjective
- cult·ish /-tish/ adjective
- cult·ish·ly /-lE/ adverb
- cult·ish·ness /-n&s/ noun
- cult·ism /'k&l-"ti-z&m/ noun
- cult·ist /'k&l-tist/ noun
- cult·like /-"lIk/ adjective

[BMCDA]

Where did matter come from?

Well, as far as I know it formed after the universe cooled down some time after the Big Bang. The heavier elements (metals to astronomers) were formed much later in stars.
Since I'm no physicist I'm not that informed about the early stages of the universe, so I think that our Physicist can give you a more conclusive answer.

However, I thought the original question whas "where does wind come from?".

[Fester Chugabrew]

"See my rebuttal to your mistake.

All you did was pretend there is a distinction between "depends on" and "derives from." If you care to tell me how these two differ I might consider whether what you've presented is really a "rebuttal."

[Fester Chugabrew]

"After a while you feel like Sisyphus . . ."

Ha! Great graphic. I agree much has been repeated around here, and even find myself repeating arguments if not in writing at least in my head. We're all kidding ourselves if we think a great problem will be solved for the world on this thread.

OTOH, I would hope we are slightly ahead of Sisyphus, maybe taking one step forward, and .9999999999 steps back.