| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 04/29/2006 1:50:06 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Enough noise from this damn thing. |
Posted on 04/27/2006 8:01:57 AM PDT by Tribune7
I’m happy to report that I was in constant correspondence with Ann regarding her chapters on Darwinism — indeed, I take all responsibility for any errors in those chapters. :-)
(Excerpt) Read more at uncommondescent.com ...
...and yet a few posts later, you admit that the book is not out yet. So how, exactly, do you know she is "dead on right" in what she says in her book, and how can you speak of your opinion on "the manner that she is addressing it" in her book?
Hmmm....
Do you have an actual argument of substance to offer?
He gave you an answer, and it was a direct one. Don't be an ass.
The pro-abortion Republicans are not conservative.
List them all (federal, state, and local, countrywide), and then show us your analysis of their records. We'll wait.
Even if you can do that -- and I doubt you can -- it fails to address RadioAstronomer's point, which sailed right over your head... Even if the *vocally* pro-abortion Republicans are uniformly "not conservative" (and while you're at it, do please exactly define what does and does not constitute "conservative", *that* should be fun), that still doesn't mean that you have ruled out the existence of "truly conservative" politicians who are "pro-abortion" but who keep that fact quiet, knowing that it would upset many of their constituents who vote for them on the conservative issues which are more directly relevant to their offices.
Anti-evolution .. did I say that?
If I were conspiracy-minded, I'd be more likely to suspect that the aggressively anti-science posters are DU moles, working to destroy the public image of conservatives, rather than suspect that conservatives who know science are secret lefties. The former (discrediting conservatives) is a plot that would achieve results the leftists desire. The latter doesn't accomplish anything at all.
No...it wasn't.
The quest began as an exodous from religious persecution...How could God be incidental in that?
They appealed to the Creator, the Supreme Authority, as the giver of their rights and the basis for right government.
Historically, God was central to their quest...look at the documented record.
It doesn't matter if you have the same belief today as they did then...And your belief/beliefs today about our rights don't change what they believed then.
I grew up with and went to college with people who make Ted Kennedy look like Ayn Rand. The Left is as anti-science as anyone we face here. They even share some of the same fetishes. And if you actually pin them down, they have their own version of ID.
My faith in the historical accuracy of this number may seem absurd to you today...
(If Adam was created at the end of that long period of time, then when was there time, on the sixth day, for Eve to be created.)
Well, this makes complete sense if the endowment of a soul is what sets us apart from other life in God's creation. I'm not saying God could not have created her spontaneously. But, this makes sense as well.
(If she was created after Adam, which the Bible says she was, then why not long ages of time for her creation too?
Does it take a long time to give a body a spirit. Even if her spirit were given to her at birth, 130 years is plenty of time to grow up.
(Adam only lived 930 years and Adam and Eve had children when Adam was 130 years old. Adam's creation took long ages of time but Eve's took significantly less than 130 years?)
No, I did not say that Adam's creation took long ages. I said the human body, as we know it, may have taken long ages. 130 years is plenty of time when you consider that it is our spirit, our soul, that makes us human.
(If you believe what the Bible says, how is the history of Adam and Eve's creation consistent with the evolutionary process?)
I don't know that it is consistent with all that is associated with evolution. I feel that are still gaps in the process, and puzzle pieces may also have been put together incorrectly. But, I also think there is much detail not explained in Genesis. This does not mean that Genesis is incorrect.
Can you name any/one?
Socialism is ID, applied to economics. The lefties just can't get their brains around the idea that prosperous economies don't require their "intelligent" guidance.
"It's just that some of us think the evidence shows that "our creator" was a natural process instead of a supernatural person. So what?"Holy cow, jennyp...where to start (at least I don't have to take your skull quiz)?!
Oh yes you do! :-)
A lack of evidence for such a supernatural person behind it all, and a ton of evidence for the mainstream scientific explanation. (Personally I think there's little convincing evidence for any of the explanations for the Big Bang that I've ever heard of, but even there, there's no better evidence for some kind of person as the causative factor here, either. I understand that you, being a religious person, have a hard time visualizing that as anything other than a competing "faith". But really, everything is not a nail. :-)There is a correct, historical context to our Creator and it is the God of the Bible.
Nothing like pure conjecture and going so far out on a limb that you fall out of the tree...What evidence do you have (evolution, or not) that "our creator" was a natural process instead of a supernatural person?
You don't have any evidence of this belief...You only have your secular humanist/naturalist faith.
What is the basis for said faith?
Genesis 2:7 - the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being.
There is nothing in your post that is consistent with this passage.
...and man became a living being.... If you are trying to state that the qualification for living being is that it has a soul, then you can't do that.
Look at Geneisis 1:29, the birds of the air, the beasts of the earth and all creatures that move on the ground have "the breath of life" as well.
How are you therefore concluding that the human body existed but without a soul?
The breath of life does not equal soul.
Hey, don't "do a Coulter" on us.
How to Lie with Statistics, a Book Review
Mark Twain is reputed to have said: "There are lies, damned lies and statistics.", which is a lie in and of itself, and is actually attributed to Disraeli in the front cover of the book How to Lie with Statistics, by Darrell Huff (Norton), is essential to any programmer survival kit, because misleading color graphics are everywhere. The author teaches you how to talk back to a statistic. This brief, humorous, and entertaining book "is a sort of primer in the ways to use statistics to deceive....the crooks already know these tricks. Honest men must learn them in self-defense." The author shows how to take a graph and make it say anything you want.
http://www.robelle.com/smugbook/stats.html
Statistics can mean anything anyone designs them to. They don't *prove* anything.
"Yes, there are a lot of true nutballs at DU. Granted. Sadly, we have a bunch here as well. "
Ahem. We agree on at least one thing sting man! By the way, Dave, I appreciate your pings and energy. If Icky can't see the reality of the aid and comfort given to the DU crowd via the wholesale alignment of reason and rationality, as defined by them, not us, and justified by 'science', so-called, then so be it.
I would jump in more often, btw, but it is golf season. Geophysical poetry has an allure beyond what Freeperville provides.
It has everything to do with the fact that you have no evidence to support that the "big bang" was only a natural event but choose to believe it was anyways...that is a competing faith.
Sometimes...it is a nail.
"They don't even have to that accurate..."
They don't even have to BE that accurate.
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.