Skip to comments.
Evolution Disclaimer Supported
The Advocate (Baton Rouge) ^
| 12/11/02
| WILL SENTELL
Posted on 12/11/2002 6:28:08 AM PST by A2J
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 3,601-3,620, 3,621-3,640, 3,641-3,660 ... 7,021-7,032 next last
To: tpaine
Some sort of marketing ploy . . .
coup - - - the new constitution(pc // living) vs the wrong(old // God) constitution ! ! !
To: viaveritasvita
V wrote ", of course, your lordship! I must have forgotten you know it all. "
Obviously I know a bit more than you if you think this planet is 6000 years old :)
Have fun spending the rest of your life in a hazy religion inspired mental laziness, or should I call it emotionally charged reliogious mental masturbation 6 of one half dozen of the other.
When you get a clue call someone who cares.
To: viaveritasvita
V wrote ", of course, your lordship! I must have forgotten you know it all. "
Obviously I know a bit more than you if you think this planet is 6000 years old :)
Have fun spending the rest of your life in a hazy religion inspired mental laziness, or should I call it emotionally charged reliogious mental masturbation 6 of one half dozen of the other.
When you get a clue call someone who cares.
To: Alamo-Girl
Just curious: Aside from the fact that we can't model the observable behavior of the brain, do you personally believe there is something going on other than material processes?
Allowing for the fact that "matter" is pretty weird stuff at the quantum level.
To: Sentis
At least you've gotten an answer. Now let's see if g3k has the guts to answer.
To: Doctor Stochastic
I guess they got to me, I can't even spell Scientologist. (Or Dianetics for that matter.)
To: Sentis
Some sort of LIBERAL marketing ploy . . .
scam - - - rip off . . .
coup - - - the new constitution(pc // RELIGION // false science) vs the wrong(old) constitution ! ! !
To: js1138
What! Space!
To: js1138
Thank you so much for your question!Aside from the fact that we can't model the observable behavior of the brain, do you personally believe there is something going on other than material processes?
Since you are I are polar opposites in our basic worldview (you believe the material world is all that there is) - I don't expect you to agree with me on anything. But here goes...
I perceive a spiritual realm which is separated from the natural realm by the 'firmament.' The brain acts like a receiver for the spirit in addition to performing command functions, synchronizations and data acquisition for the physical body.
To: Alamo-Girl
It is baffling to me when one word is used in a technical sense yet another in a common sense.The word "set" has many meanings ranging from an action to an Egyptian god to a mathematical concept to an army of chess pieces. Debit and Credit are not quite what one might think in accounting.
To: Sentis
Have fun spending the rest of your life in a hazy religion inspired mental laziness, or should I call it emotionally charged reliogious mental masturbation
Placemarker for me.
Can I use that? PLEASE!! It's wonderful!!
3,631
posted on
01/07/2003 9:23:10 PM PST
by
Aric2000
(The Theory of Evolution is Science, ID and Creationism are religious, Any Questions?)
To: js1138
NEW science vs old science . . . snake oil - - - switching labels // brands . . .
. . . Liberal lies // liars- - - liberalosts // bias ! ! !
. . . moles // dupes too ! ! !
To: Condorman
I love you guys. I tell you that there are those who use the word "evolution" as part of a "theory" that the universe came into existence by accident and you say that's not true. I provide links. You say the words don't really mean what they say they mean.
OK, what does Dawkins really mean when he titles his book: The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design?
To: Aric2000
Religous fascism // bigotry too!
To: Alamo-Girl
Since you are I are polar opposites in our basic worldview (you believe the material world is all that there is)... Not quite true. Prior to quantum theory, a meterialist would have a tough time tryoing to fit all phenomena into the matter box. But matter, as we now see it, is a lot closer to what was traditionally called spirit. It has all the spookiness of spirit but none of the hokiness.
To: Doctor Stochastic
Thank you so much for your post! Indeed, even in common usage, words such as "set" can have several meanings. However, in a debate - it baffles me when a participant uses one word in a technical sense, but another in a common sense. I would expect more consistency. Also, it is troubling to me when a participant uses the same word alternately - technical then common.
To: js1138
I apologize for misinterpreting your previous statement of worldview. What do you believe?
To: Alamo-Girl
It is baffling to me when one word is used in a technical sense yet another in a common sense. I am willing to keep an open with evolution as a theory of biology albeit it should certainly not be above criticism or questioning or assumed as true.
What concerns me are those who use evolution as an excuse to deny God's existence. What concerns me even more is that there are those who deny that some expand the theory of evolution to cosmology in an attempt to do so.
How this can be denied so vehmenently boggles my mind.
To: Aric2000
Have fun in your fanatical dreamland.
3616 posted on 01/07/2003 9:02 PM PST by Aric2000 (The Theory of Evolution is Science, ID and Creationism are religious, Any Questions?)
Left wing lunatic fringe STATIST science . . . FREEks ! ! !
To: Alamo-Girl
What do you believe? Not to initiate a game of phone tag -- but about what?
I believe that matter, as presently understood, will occupy the best minds for the foreseeable future. What is the point of speculating about unseen spirits when everyday materialism contains such mysteries as vacuum energy, virtual particles, quantum entanglement -- all great mysteries worthy of religious awe -- with the added benefit of being accessible to study. The material phenomena have features that lend thamselves to laboratory study with experiments that can be replicated and verified. They do not depend on singular events witnessed by people of unverifiable reliability.
I accept the knowledge of your heart. I do not deny it. But overall I am troubled by the attempt to spread the word of one's personal revelations. Too many charismatic bullies have taken this path.
Science has bred its share of bullies, as several on this thread have taken delight in pointing out. But bullies who preach falsehoods that are subject to verification are, in the long run, less dangerous.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 3,601-3,620, 3,621-3,640, 3,641-3,660 ... 7,021-7,032 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson