Posted on 02/12/2006 10:32:27 AM PST by PatrickHenry
If you think I'm so irrelevant, then ignore me... you blood-sucking Evolutionist Tax-Parasite.
Or need I remind you: "The Argument from Intimidation is a confession of intellectual impotence." ~~ Ayn Rand
What "antiChristian spirit"?? I see a bunch of people attacking science because the real world does not coincide with what their religious beliefs led them to expect of the world. Thus, they thrash out at reality and science, or concoct imbecilic notions like ID.
If anything, there is an "anti-science spirit" alive in certain parts of the Christian community. That would be their (your) affair, except that it has the potential to damage the conservative and/or Republican communities.
Oh, yeah... some Atheists's gonna presume to tell me about a "Christian" attitude. That's bloody well funny.
News flash to the Pagans: I'm Orthodox Presbyterian. We invented "Fundamentalism" long before those "nice" Southern Baptists got ahold of the idea. We smoke, we drink, we dance, we chew, and we do go out with girls who do... provided, of course, that they believe that the Bible is the Inerrant, Infallible Word of God.
Tell you what... I won't presume to lecture you on whether or not you are "doing it right" when it comes to your own Extra-Marital Fornication; and in turn, you won't presume to lecture me on whether or not I am "doing it right" when it comes to my own Religion.
I think that's a fair trade.
Of course, there is the fact that evolution isn't atheistic any way. You lose on both accounts.
Bollocks. On a half-shell, with sauce.
Whether or not "Evolutionism" can be possibly reconciled with Christianity (and it cannot be, according to Orthodox Presbyterianism -- again, don't presume to tell me my own Religion) -- the fact remains that Evolutionism is THE "Creation Myth" of Atheism -- which HAS BEEN RULED to be a Religion according to the Courts of the United States.
Thus, Atheistic-Religionism (which has been DEFINED as a RELIGION by US Law) currently enjoys a $500-billion-per-year GOVERNMENT SUBSIDY in favor of its own "Creation Myth", that of Evolutionism.
Again: your font/prose style makes you look like you're on drugs.
Whine, whine, whine. The fact is, you don't want to part with your Government-sponsored Stalinist Education Monopoly. You are unwilling to compete against Christian Demographics in the Free Market, and let "Survival of the Fittest" take its course. Abolish the Gubmint Skools, force Evolutionists to Compete in the Free Market... and your theory is DEAD.
Demography is Destiny.
Best, OP
You're delusional.
You have not a clue what a species is. But you are willing to harague a poster if they don't know what a dog is.
I gave the standard definition of what a species is. If you don't like it or don't understand it, don't blame me. And the troll in question was speciously claiming that you can tell what's a species from ordinary appearances. I asked him to demonstrate this using two members of the dog family. He couldn't. Would you care to try?
Not my bag.
I'm perfectly willing to abolish Government Schooling entirely, and let the Free Market sort it out. Are you Evolutionists willing to abolish the Government Schools, Trust the Free Market, and let the chips fall where they may?
I wasn't using the argument from intimidation. That would be your thing (all the Bold letters, the name calling, and so on).
You are "intimidated" by Bold letters and "name-calling"?
Good grief, man... get a grip, and grow a spine. "Argument from intimidation" does not refer to whether or not your opponent uses BOLD LETTERS; it refers to the cowardly attempt to evade your Opponent's argument by presumptively claiming unproven superiority... such as, I dunno, whining about my type-face being "childish" -- rather than answering my arguments.
In which regard, I return to my original point: "If the Education of Children in America is ever returned to the Authority of Parents and the Competition of the Free Market, Evolutionism in America is DEAD."
Never heard back from you on that.
Again: Evolution isn't atheistic. It does not say that God doesn't exist. It says nothing pro or con about God, which makes evolution like every other scientific theory.
Again, Bollocks on a half-shell, with sauce. Evolutionism DOES CLAIM that Humans ARE NOT the Direct Creation of God, which contraverts the Opinion of 54% of the American Public; and what is more, Evolutionism IS the exclusive "Creation Myth" of Atheism, which HAS BEEN RULED to be a RELIGION by the Courts of the United States of America.
As I said: The fact is, you don't want to part with your Government-sponsored Stalinist Education Monopoly. You are unwilling to compete against Christian Demographics in the Free Market, and let "Survival of the Fittest" take its course. Abolish the Gubmint Skools, force Evolutionists to Compete in the Free Market... and your theory is DEAD.
Best, OP
In order to reconcile the two, one must deflate both.
Is there any real value in adding to this being the power of "injecting" a soul into a carefully-guided, brainiac experimental creature?
Besides, it doesn't seem to me that one has a single, informational piece of evidence on which to stand. It simply isn't there. Everything about this almost-omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent Creator is SPECULATION.
Now, Orthodox Presbyterian is a libertarian. He makes a valid libertarian point.
There is no justification in government running schools and requiring anything in them.
No more than there is a problem between Christianity and Physics, Christianity and Thermodynamics, Christianity and Mathematics.
The dichotomoy is invented by people why want to take PART of the Bible literally.
Creationism is not a "theory." It is a "belief." It has NO rigorous methodology that can be used to evaluate and challenge its findings. It is mythology, no more scientifically valid than aboriginal worship of an airplane made of straw.
Many of the anti-evos on FR offer up this dichotomy. Most of the evos say it is a false dichotomy, but I (as an atheist) am unsure about that. I find the "either evolution is false or the Holy Bible is false" syllogism somewhat convincing, but from the other end of the argument. The physical evidence that supports evolution is wide, varied, and extremely convincing. The physical evidence that falsifies the literal interpretations of the Book of Genesis is so comprehensive as to make clinging to a literal reading of Genesis a bizarre act in the face of modern knowledge. So the natural conclusion of the "either science (lets face it, we aren't just talking about evolution here) or the Bible" syllogism put forward by many anti evos is that the Holy Bible is false.
"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. St Augustine of Hippo, 'On the Literal Meaning of Genesis'"
Let's examine your latest post:
I didn't say say I was an atheist. Most evolutionists aren't. You're reasoning skills are almost as bad as your faux Christian attitude.
You didn't say you were, you didn't say you weren't. Anyway, pure Ad Hominem on your part, with no Fact Claims available for evaluation by anyone. A worthless post.
Good for you. Why are you acting so un-Christian then?
Pure sniping. I shall speculate that you are disappointed that I am unwilling to fold and say, "sorry, guv'nor", before your brilliant analysis of "the proper Christian Attitude".
Anyway, no Fact Claims available for evaluation by anyone; and therefore, another purely-worthless post.
Your obsession with sex is revealing.
Revealing... OF WHAT? If you're going to throw out an Insult by Innuendo, at least you could offer a PUNCH LINE.
Good Grief. Anyway, no Fact Claims available for evaluation by anyone; and therefore, another purely-worthless post.
Absolute lie. Evolution has NOTHING to say about the existence of a God, pro or con. NO science does. The question isn't a scientific question. You are WAY out of your league.
Au Contraire. Evolutionism postulates the totally-unproven claim that God (if He exists at all), HAS NOT directly created the Race of Man by Direct Divine Creation. This places Evolutionism in DIRECT opposition to the heartfelt beliefs and traditions of at least 54% of the Working, Tax-Paying American Public.
IN ADDITION, by claiming the Macro-Evolution of single-celled Organisms to Man, Evolutionism makes a direct (and wholly-unproven) Fact-Claim that the Religion of Orthodox Presbytery IS WRONG.
If you are Teaching in the Publik Skools that My Religion IS WRONG, then you ARE teaching a Religious Fact-Claim in the Publik Skools. And you have abolutely NO RIGHT to steal my Tax Dollars and pass Anti-Truancy Laws for the Establishment of Your Religion -- you lying, Government-dependent, tax-dollar-suckling Evolutionist parasite.
You have it EXACTLY backwards. Creationism/ID isn't science but it's proponents want to use the power of the government to force it into the classroom by redefining what science means. Creationists are right-wing postmodernists.
Again, au contraire. I don't want to use the power of Government at all.
Whaddyasay we abolish the Government Skools entirely, auction off all the Prime Acreage and Facilities to private Capitalist businessmen and entrepreneurs in order to thereby pay off frigging-enormous amounts of Government Debt, and instead deliver a $500-per-month Voucher or Tax Credit (Parent's Choice) to every American Parent in order to send their children to the School of Their Choice (...Hell's Bells, my Kid Brother went to a high-class Episcopalian Academy for only $350 a month; at $6,000 per-child per-year, the Republic would actually be SAVING money)... and in return, you Evolutionists stop whining about "separation of Church and State".
After all, given that the United States 7th Circuit Court of Appeals HAS RULED that, according to the Constitution of the United States, ATHEISM is a RELIGION, it's hardly fair that ONLY the Atheistic Religion enjoys a massive Government Subsidy for its Evolutionistic "Creation Myth".
**********
NOPE. I do not see that happening. You see, Evolutionism is a Parasitic Social Meme -- ultimately incapable of acheiving Free-Market Success amongst a Hard-Working and Tax-Paying Populace, Evolutionism depends upon Massive Government Subsidy for its Propagation and Continuation.
Best, OP
In other words, by your own admission:
Given, then, that by your own admission: Evolutionism requires the Negation of a Religious Belief, it is not only "Religious" itself, it is indeed Religiously "Fundamentalist" (i.e., a Belief which requires the Negation of Other's Beliefs).
You naughty, naughty, Tax-Suckling Evolutionist Parasite.
Don't you know that the Government Subsidy of your own Beliefs, OVER AND AGAINST other people's Religious Beliefs, is against the First Amendment to the Constitution?
That is simgularly the most bizzare post I have ever seen on FR.
Creationism is a GURGLING MUD-HOLE, whose turgid, murky waters originate in the bottomless depths of DARK AGE IGNORANCE, whence they seep up and discharge the MUCK OF ANCIENT DAYS.
Okay. I thank you for your opinion.
Incidentally, my compliments on your spelling.
A tribute to our fine Government Schools.
Best Regards, OP
But don't depend upon Government Tax-Dollars.
(smirk).
best, OP
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.