Posted on 05/12/2006 12:13:47 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
In his op-ed "Evolution's bottom line," published in The New York Times (May 12, 2006), Holden Thorp emphasizes the practical applications of evolution, writing, "creationism has no commercial application. Evolution does," and citing several specific examples.
In places where evolution education is undermined, he argues, it isn't only students who will be the poorer for it: "Will Mom or Dad Scientist want to live somewhere where their children are less likely to learn evolution?" He concludes, "Where science gets done is where wealth gets created, so places that decide to put stickers on their textbooks or change the definition of science have decided, perhaps unknowingly, not to go to the innovation party of the future. Maybe that's fine for the grownups who'd rather stay home, but it seems like a raw deal for the 14-year-old girl in Topeka who might have gone on to find a cure for resistant infections if only she had been taught evolution in high school."
Thorp is chairman of the chemistry department at the University of North Carolina.
Absolutely
A sane person would bet that the reason the other 10s of millions of christian germans were virulently anti-semitic, is the same reason Hitler was anti-semitic.
Well said and succinct.
Martin Luther was possibly the most virulent jew-hater of all time, as attested to by his writings. One of the reasons the Lutherans had for breaking off from Rome was the perception that Rome had grown soft on its doctrinally and biblically-based obligation to press and afflict the Jews into being baptized and drawn into the catholic church--by, for example, kidnapping their children to be baptized and brought up in the RC church. And, incredibly enough, to modern perceptions, that was far from the worst of it.
You are acting like a troll, don. I didn't claim to be in charge of the argument. I answered one point out of your argument and made it quite clear I just plain wasn't interested in the others. The condition of Adolph's soul is not the same thing as a historical analysis of anti-Semitism on the continent. One can lead to a discussion of the other, but it doesn't HAVE to.
It's in severe doubt in devout christian apologist circles. It is not in severe doubt in historical circles, such as those of the custodians of the USArmy intelligence evaluation.
Claiming that one of the greatest mass murderers in history was "really a Christian" is ONLY going to cause you to lose all credibility, except with the atheist club around here.
Hitler co-opted elements of Christian theology to make his race-based pseudo-philosophy more palatable in the social context of the times. Just as Bubba and Jimmuh Carter donned the mantle of evangelical Christianity in the States to further their careers.
Oh, indeed, how was anti-semitism "steeped into the culture of Europe", other than by the Catholic Church's 1400 years of intense propaganda?
That's a question for a professional historian. Like I said, that's not what I am concerned with.
Hitler, like millions of other Germans, was anti-semitic because he was educated in a famously anti-semitic church
Yup. But somehow none of the other German leaders, from the Kaiser to Hindeburg, ever felt it their duty to engage in genocide; and to invade the rest of Europe and Russia; and to exterminate as many Jews as they could reach in every country they subjugatted. Hitler was an outlier in the data. For you to insist that he was a mainstream, sincere Christian will not earn you any credibility.
Cheers!
That's the beauty. God is without origin. I am the First and the Last. Everything outside of God has an origin.
Jesus commanded alms to be given. The body of Christ is an organization. The Apostle Paul told Gentile churches to support the Jewish church in Jerusalem. If no offerings, no maintenance, support missionaries, different groups in churches, etc. That is why most churches have yearly budgets for their congregations.
So it seems that you are content with the condemnation you have heaped on yourself. We choose to sin. God is perfect by nature. We cannot justify ourselves before God which why Christ lived the life He did and died in our place. Whether or not we like it we have earned death (eternal separation from God)by our sinning. This world is condemned, whether we like or not. We are all stand guilty before God. We, in ourselves, cannot change that condition. God's nature is sinless. He lives in a sinless place. Only God can change a human, making him fit for heaven. Our only hope is someone who has paid our sin debt which is Jesus Christ.
These arguments are intimately entertwined, and I have a point, and I care about it; this is not a rhetoric class exercise for me, and you're not the daddy of this conversation.
The condition of Adolph's soul is not the same thing as a historical analysis of anti-Semitism on the continent. One can lead to a discussion of the other, but it doesn't HAVE to.
If you don't want to argue about something, just refrain from doing so--sheesh.
The condition of Adolf's soul came up as an epistimological point on account of your question concerning my "certainty". If you don't want answers, don't ask questions, and particularly don't follow that up by continuing this inappropriate attempt to control the conversation by by patronizing me. Who taught you to argue in this spinless manner? It lacks onions.
It's in severe doubt in devout christian apologist circles. It is not in severe doubt in historical circles, such as those of the custodians of the USArmy intelligence evaluation.
Claiming that one of the greatest mass murderers in history was "really a Christian" is ONLY going to cause you to lose all credibility,
How someone feels about some thesis is not a measure of its likelihood.
except with the atheist club around here.
And historians not affiliated the the RC church, and only a handful of those, and the USArmy intelligence branch, and pretty much any of his biographers.
Hitler co-opted elements of Christian theology to make his race-based pseudo-philosophy more palatable in the social context of the times. Just as Bubba and Jimmuh Carter donned the mantle of evangelical Christianity in the States to further their careers.
Not a relevant argument. There can be no serious doubt that Hitler started out christian, and got his anti-jewish bias from the same source as those to whom he appealed.
Oh, indeed, how was anti-semitism "steeped into the culture of Europe", other than by the Catholic Church's 1400 years of intense propaganda?
That's a question for a professional historian. Like I said, that's not what I am concerned with.
Right, because you prefer not to cope with the tellingly obvious, about which there is no significant historical doubt, even within the RC church.
Hitler, like millions of other Germans, was anti-semitic because he was educated in a famously anti-semitic church Yup. But somehow none of the other German leaders, from the Kaiser to Hindeburg, ever felt it their duty to engage in genocide; and to invade the rest of Europe and Russia; and to exterminate as many Jews as they could reach in every country they subjugatted. Hitler was an outlier in the data.
Hitler is extremely far from the only christian who has murdered jews wholesale in christian countries. The fact that many people refrain from murdering jews, doesn't gainsay that many have, historically, in the name of christianity.
For you to insist that he was a mainstream, sincere Christian will not earn you any credibility.
...with christian apologists, which I already conceded.
Woh, woh you took my jelly bean analogy WAY beyond its intended bounds. The only thing I was using it for was to illustrate a non-random selection scheme ("DRAW FIVE") from a random source ("throw any number of reds in greens in a bucket"), giving a random result--my analogy goes no further and is not intended to. Don't read in anything more than that. Of course reds and greens would change if it were an evolutionary analogy--but it's not. It's not a generational analogy of any kind. It's only an analogy to non-random selection from a random source.
The overall RESULTS of evolution are random. That is the only thing I've been trying to say in this discussion. Natural selection is NON-random--we agree. The most reproductively able will dominate the evolutionary path. So what. The selection process is non-random but the initial traits from which we choose ARE random. Therefore the overall evolutionary process is random.
Do you believe if life were removed from the earth and the evolutionary process began again from the simplest organism that evolution would proceed in such a manner as to produce the identical organisms that populate the earth now? Non-random evolution forces that conclusion.
This is nonsense at face value. There are many kinds of processes with random inputs and non-random outcomes. A casino can operate just fine with a completely random source for its various games. The more perfectly random, the more predictable the outcome.
In evolution it is selection that shapes outcomes, not the source of variation.
Is the location at which the mutation-causing gamma ray strikes the DNA a random one?
Commanded? Could you point out CH & Verse?
What went wrong that you hate science and scientists so much?
<< So it seems that you are content with the condemnation you have heaped on yourself. >>
I leave condemation to yous guys. LOL!
<< We choose to sin. >>
Can we choose not to? Are we able to avoid sin? A large segment of Christianity says no -- another large segment says yes. When y'all get it worked out, let me know.
From my fifty years of studying the Bible, it seems to clearly say that we sin because we are sinners. The sin nature is inherited from Adam. We are condemned because we are "in Adam."
If you are in that group that says we can avoid sin entirely, but we "choose" to sin anyway -- are you ready to accept that someone, somewhere may have avoided sin entirely by "choosing not to"? If not -- then saying "we choose to sin" is meaningless.
<< Whether or not we like it we have earned death (eternal separation from God)by our sinning. This world is condemned, whether we like or not. >>
Hank will beat the hell out of you forever and ever because you are incapable of kissing his feet. Why are you incapable? Because he made you that way? Why did he make you that way? Because your great-great-great-granddaddy ate a piece of off-limits fruit.
<< We are all stand guilty before God. We, in ourselves, cannot change that condition. >>
AHA! If we cannot change it -- then we didn't "choose it." You can't have it both ways. If we can "choose to sin" then we can "choose NOT to sin." If we can "choose not to sin," then we CAN help it. Your argument is running in circles.
<< God's nature is sinless. He lives in a sinless place. Only God can change a human, making him fit for heaven. Our only hope is someone who has paid our sin debt which is Jesus Christ. >>
Unless you kiss Hank's feet, he will beat the crap out of you forever. You don't have the ability to do so, unless he gives you that ability. But it's your fault.
I preached it for thirty-seven years. Ran myself in circles just as you are doing to yourself. But since, according to you, I am condemned to getting the crap beat out of me for eternity -- why not just leave me alone and let me enjoy what little time I have here before all that starts?
I like Christians. I like Christian ethics. You won't have any success getting me to accept Christian doctrines about sin and salvation -- so it would be a better use of your time to just "shake the dust off your feet" with respect to me and my "condition" -- and take comfort in your assurance that Hank will beat the crap out of me forever.
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.