Churches urged to back evolution

British Broadcasting Corporation ^ | 20 February 2006 | Paul Rincon

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"So much for Peer Review!"

Peer review worked. It was never accepted in a scientific journal.

[Elsie]

I'd say, in reply, that 'truth' seems to have a very broad meaning, the way you describe it.

As I understand it, one can only understand [God's Word] through the tradition's of the Fathers (meaning, of course, the RCC.)

To us Protestants, this means the Word (written) is trumped by what men say about it. (Even Junior would probably say that this is illogical.)

[Elsie]

If God is the origin and definition of all laws, why should He be subject to laws about how He can and cannot save people?

Potter and the clay; right?

[darbymcgill]

So you're saying that I should have considered the possibility that the poster merely believed that every word he spoke came directly, and unerringly, from God himself.

I'm sure you can prove it didn't

Okay. I admit that I did not consider such a possibility. Now that I do consider it, I still don't see how I can consider the poster as anything but supremely arrogant and delusional

Ok, I'll play your little game. Are you saying that anyone who believes that the Bible is the transcribed word of God and uses those words to support their world view is arrogant and delusional? (you left out liar, but I'll give you a pass, for obvious reasons)

oops... supremely arrogant and delusional

And therefore, anyone considered arrogant and delusional can by your definition be summarily dismissed.

Did I get that right?

[Elsie]

Excellent analysis.

Yeah!!

What he said!

--EvoDude

[Dimensio]

Ok, I'll play your little game. Are you saying that anyone who believes that the Bible is the transcribed word of God and uses those words to support their world view is arrogant and delusional? (you left out liar, but I'll give you a pass, for obvious reasons)

No, I do not.

[Elsie]

Elsie is a catagory 0 creationist

What??

I don't even make the LIST at 1130????

---

(Or have you LIED?? ;^)

[PatrickHenry]

Point is, I think it would be good to put a handle on some of these folks to save a lot of hassle and time week in and week out.

I mostly ignore 'em all. Saves time. Avoids flame-wars. That's what my tagline is all about.

[Elsie]

...unaffected by interaction with opponents.

You err.

Sometimes I'm deeply wounded and slink off to lick 'em.

[Thatcherite]

A nod and 'good morning' when passing on the street is always the polite thing to do.

I'll bear that in mind when it occurs.

[Elsie]

It is common courtesy to ping the person you are maligning.

Who; ME?

NAY!

---

NIV Romans 15:3
For even Christ did not please himself but, as it is written: "The insults of those who insult you have fallen on me."

[Quark2005]

So much for Peer Review!

The whole point CG is making is that National Geographic jumped the gun when it should have waited for more peer review. Hopefully this (usually quality) popular mag learned its lesson from circumventing the peer review process. (Creation 'scientists' never seem to learn that lesson...)

In any case, good scientific magazines and journals retract errors when they are identified (which only serves to increase the accuracy of science over time). When are advocates of creationism going to start retracting some of these 542 long-since-identified inaccuracies and distortions? *

* The number 542 may not be exactly correct. Of course, creationist logic dictates that if this number is slightly off, then no statement made here contains any truth at all.

[Elsie]

ok....

[Elsie]

(which is out of place in a science thread)

BooHoo!

---

Until someone ELSE brings it up, I think you see very little of 'Scripture' posted by me.

But say the secret word and the duck WILL descend!

[darbymcgill]

No, I do not.

Ok then, from which part of the post did you logically infer that the poster was an arrogant, delusional liar?

[Elsie]

I mostly ignore 'em all. Saves time.

He pings us minions and WE do the dirty work!!

--EvoDude <Evil_laugh_mode>