Pheobe Debates The Theory of Evolution

Original scene from the show... Friends. ^ | NA | NA

[conservababeJen]

good afternoon to you too.

I never was one for fitting nicely into everyone else thinktank. FWIW, I'm still reading up on the info you shared with me....(and not about the dirt).

[AndrewC]

It is from Petroushka. As to Prokofiev, I especially like his violin concertos.

[Right Wing Professor]

I said no offense intended

I'm not offended. Amused, perhaps.

[AndrewC]

I'm glad it wasn't too nasty.

This is private isn't it?

[Nebullis]

It's just a propaganda tool intended to provoke an association between their evil doctrines and a piece of music.

Music was used as a propaganda tool. The more beautiful music was ever more effective. The Nazi era (and shortly after) produced some of the most beautiful performances and recordings of Beethoven, Schubert, Bach and Mozart that are still enjoyed today. Just listen to a era recording from Kurtwangler.

[CobaltBlue]

I always thought Ayn Rand's political philosophy could be summarily expressed using the time-honored American maxim, "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."

[Nebullis]

Typo: Furtwangler.

[exmarine]

I always thought Ayn Rand's political philosophy could be summarily expressed using the time-honored American maxim, "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."

Isn't there an underlying assumption here of "do no harm"? Why is it wrong to do harm? Who says?

[exmarine]

Yes, you are right.

[Junior]

My story was to illustrate my dislike of fundamentalists has roots in actual events. I do not distrust them because of some half-remembered Thirty Years War propaganda, nor because of urban legends of their practices. My distrust of them comes from actual encounters with them. Needless to say, the actions of the few self-professed fundamentalists on these threads (flame-baiting, misquotes, blatant twisting of others' words) have done nothing to alleviate my perception of them. Their actions and words on this thread are anethema to everything Christ taught, yet they hold themselves out to be the only true Christians.

Until I actually see some Christian behavior from these folks, I will stand by my views of them.

[conservababeJen]

*sigh*, I never was very good at shutting up when I said I would.... I doubt my virtual ignore will work very well, so perhaps you'll be kind enough to start that ball rolling so I won't have to keep replying.

You may not find this a religious venue, but many disagree. I have interest in this topic from a Christian perspective and until JR tell me otherwise, I will continue to share, read and learn.

I too was born and raised Catholic. I am not clueless (maybe I need to brush up on what I was taught back then).., but I don't recall having a "Catholic heaven". Heaven is Heaven.

I was baptized Catholic, made all of my Sacraments up to Confirmation. I spent half of my high school years in Catholic HS. I was an Atheist from age 17-23. I then found Christ in non-denominational, fundamentalist Christianity. I was also a Liberal Democrat until 1995. I mention this because I have understanding for various spectrums of faith/non-faith and politics....hence my interest in all the above. This is why I'm here.

[Aric2000]

Yes, they were indeed provocative, and very funny by the way.

But as of now, I am going to abide by the spirit of the socalled agreement.

As long as others control themselves, I will continue to abide by it.

And I agree with Juniors 1330 to a tee.

[CobaltBlue]

It's not a question of "who says."

It's a simple, objective fact that if we all agreed not to initiate force or fraud against each other, we'd all be better off.

Certainly better off than those who initiate force against each other based on their personal beliefs about God.

[f.Christian]

To: dely2

The "theory of Creationism"? I don't think I touched on that. The *theological* notion that the universe and humanity were "created" by an omnipotent God cannot be "disproven" by any form of empirical "science." That's ridiculous.The Christian "Creatio ex nihilo" by definition is, in real theology, beyond human cognition. It is a revealed "mystery" if you want to get theologically technical about it.There is no form of empirical or laboratory science which can "prove" that the universe was *not* created by a loving God. That's absurd in the extreme. That's why ... atheistic scientism --- is epistemologically dubious. There are no "scientific" data which in any way "prove" Christian theology to be "wrong" about anything. The existence of God, the immortality of the soul, the drama of redemption, and the divinity of Christ, for instance, are not within the realm of the physical sciences. It's fine to adhere to the various "theories" of evolution if that proves entertaining. "Evolution" does not present propositions or evidence which alter Christianity. That's expecting science to provide a metaphysics, a total view of reality.

78 Posted on 08/08/2001 17:39:24 PDT by veritas_in_enigma

That's expecting science to provide a metaphysics, a total view of reality.

[balrog666]

Placemarker!

[exmarine]

It's a simple, objective fact that if we all agreed not to initiate force or fraud against each other, we'd all be better off.

Then Ayn Rand says. What about people who don't buy into Ayn's morality? Is her morality any truer or better than another person who may enjoy sadistic pleasures, say, like Marquis de Sade? In relativism, it's all equal - that's my point. In relativism, cruelty and non-cruelty are equal. The only way around that conclusion is to claim that moral absolutes exist independent of human preference. In the absence of that claim, morality is just preference and nothing more, and there can be no moral difference between torturing a baby and feeding the poor.

[exmarine]

It's a simple, objective fact that if we all agreed not to initiate force or fraud against each other, we'd all be better off.

This only speaks to the pragmatic practicality of morality not the truth of morality. But even this doesn't work because you can't predict the long run.

[conservababeJen]

ha! nope :)

[f.Christian]

To: gg188

Yes, basically the narrative of scientism, loosely allied with the theory of progress, has a mythological structure and is enmeshed in mythological imagery. Just look at the pictures - the idealized image of modern man "ascending" from the darker, hairier, more bestial ape-like hominids. What is denied, the spiritual and moral nature of man, is considered unreal. Evolutionary scientism cannot explain the meaning and significance of man. There is no empirical basis for concluding that man is merely a material and organic being, without a spiritual purpose, and therefore, a suitable subject for experimentation and social engineering. And that is what the popular, vulgar notion of "Evolution" is about - a gnostic ideology intened to replace, to nullify, the Christian understanding of human nature. No one can claim that the agnostic and atheist scientific materialists get so emotional and upset about imposing "Evolution" in public education because they merely want to exhibit possible "theories" of interpretation of the fossil record of monkey bones! They want to be God. And they want to ... drive a weird social agenda --- into Brave New Frankensteinism. There's no empirical evidence which mandates such power maneuvers. It's in the realm of the non-rational. The epistemological errors are performed by the followers of the gurus of scientism.

20 Posted on 08/08/2001 13:43:43 PDT by veritas_in_enigma

They want to be God. And they want to drive a weird social agenda into Brave New Frankensteinism.

[Aric2000]

Good enough CBJ.

As of now, I am going to abide by the agreement, if you are willing to let bygones be bygones, I am as well.

If that is the case, neither of us will have to put the other on Virtual ignore.

I will behave myself, and I will admit, that I have been rather harsh.

Again, I will start with a clean slate with you, wil you do the same with me?

All is forgiven and in the past, let us start again in a bit more enlightened and tolerant way. agreed?