Posted on 01/26/2006 1:47:10 PM PST by jennyp
maybe it would be helpful to discuss this in class??
Is this really a think piece? What kind of argument can you make for or against creationism of for or against intelligent quoting two people who designed systems of trade and commerce?
Regardless what is written after these quotes the writer is deluded to think that anyone with common sense is going to bit on this kind of premise
Only Loonie Libs talk drag out hollywood starlets to talk about the danger of Alar
This is like getting someone who makes spaghetti strands to give a lecture and demonstrate gene splicing
Years ago I managed an auto parts store and one day this korean called "On the phone he said "Hello my name kim." and he said nothing else so I hung up He called back a minute later and said Hello my name kims mo-bla I need parts and there was another long pause he as for socks and brakie shooz -- this man called himself a master mechanic his experiance as it turned out driving a round a junkyard buggy and cutting off car and truck parts with a cutting torch. In my estimation old Kim was closer to the real thing than this liberal wannabe thunker
NUFF SAID
The complex, sophisticated results of a vibrant economy are the result of intelligent, voluntary participation in transactions viewed as beneficial by all involved parties.
Score one for intelligent design.
Exactamundo. Can you believe this idiot published this piece without it ever dawning on him that his argument actually works against him? Unbelievable!
That's the whole point, science has not even come close to proving the theory of evolution, so they teach it doctrinally as a big, fat LIE. Darwin himself said that evolution could never be proven unless the linking fossils or the transitional forms could be found. So far neither have been found.
There have been, however, some elaborate hoaxes and imaginary 'discoveries' by the Darwinists in their zeal to shoot down Biblical references to creation and lift Darwin up in its place. So Christians don't really 'fear' evolution, (as the lying title insists), they just love the Truth and loathe satanic lies.
He doesn't seem very objective to me. Perhaps a presentation of thoughts in the market place of ideas would be better served with a positive presentation rather than an attempt to demonize others...but hey, that's just me.
Huh? I don't get the connection between the literal and not you are implying here.
|
The objective basis for ethics in man is the same one that causes me to avoid some very dark alleyways. The writer's argument for replacing heavenly based ethics with those of man falls very short here.
Muleteam1
Fear drives most men. Only thought can overcome fear.
Wrong. The Bible marked the birth of creationism.
Why don't we have fur? Surely fur would make more sense to protect us from the elements. The apes we supposedly evolved from have it. Why would nature have us get rid of fur? Survival of the fittest? Did we evolve to need clothes for protection? Why don't we have feathers? No protection from the rain? We are the highest lifeforms on the planet, what gives?
Usually when one side wants to present all the evidence and have a debate, and the other side wants to shut the doors and close down the discussion, it is the 2nd group that is questioned as to what they are afraid of.
Just an observation, about nothing in particular.
Wonder if next time some person running for office will have the guts to stand up and say, "Of course I'm not going to debate my opponent, he has nothing to say, and you should ask him why is so afraid that he wants to debate me about anything."
We are afraid of precisely what has happened! The dogma of inter-species evolution is taught to our children as settled fact, which it definitely is not, and, perhaps worse, as good science. It is an affront to good principles of science and serves as forced indoctrination into atheism and denial of Christ.
Evolution, as it is currently taught, is antithetical to the deeply-held beliefs, faith and religious experience of the majority of mankind. It is a direct assault on the very existence and power of God.
"A good character helps us to be happy, a bad one guarantees us misery."
And just what is a "good" character? Nietsche's definition or a Christian definition? They are not the same, in fact, are complete opposites.
So which is it eh?
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.