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.
My verbatim quote from post 1144 is: "You are acting like a troll, don."
I rest my case.
The germane argument was about my motivations
The germane argument for you, was about your motivations. The germane argument for me was to answer the question "where did Hitler's anti-semitism come from?" And that was in response to a half-baked suggestion that Hitler murdered jews because of Darwin. To the best of my knowledge, this thread is more about evolution and Darwin, than it is about your exclusionary desire to talk about WWII.
Unless you confine your inquiry to scientists, of course.
If you are in that group that says we can avoid sin entirely, but we "choose" to sin anyway --
You, and your similar thinking colleagues on this and other threads, are frustrating in the extreme. I suspect that you all do it on purpose, for entertainment reasons of your own; but recognize that there are scientists in these threads who are sincerely trying to educate you. The insistence that "there is no evidence" in the face of every bit of scientifically sound evidence that is presented to you, is reminiscent of a 4-year-old with her fingers in her ears saying "I can't hear you!" If that's the role you have chosen to play, congratulations. You're very good at it. If it reflects your real mind-set, then I truly pity you....
I had written:
<< But since, according to you, I am condemned to getting the crap beat out of me for eternity >>
Elsie responded:
<< No; according to the Book...... >>
I completely agree with you that the "Book" does say the same thing. When someone believes what the book says about eternal punishment, and repeats what it says, it is "according to him," too -- so I was not trying to say that the other poster came up with that all on his own. Many people try to soften or misdirect the Bible's statements about eternal fire, but I see it for what it actually says.
However -- not a single one of the many passages you cited says anything about that at all! LOL! Just a pet peeve with me -- even if something IS in the Bible, it is twisting scripture -- and disrespectful of the God you believe to be behind it -- to misuse it this way.
<< NIV Proverbs 4:13 >>
<< NIV Hebrews 3:6 >>
<< NIV Hebrews 3:14 >>
<< NIV Hebrews 6:11 >>
<< NIV Hebrews 12:3 >>
<< NIV 2 Timothy 2:11-13 >>
<< NIV 2 Peter 2:20-21 >>
<< NIV 2 John 1:8 >>
<< NIV Jude 1:21 >>
<< NIV Revelation 2:25 >>
<< NIV Revelation 3:11 >>
LOL! Not a single one of those passages says anything about eternal punishment. It would have been a simple matter to quote several passages that DO speak about eternal punishment. I mean -- "lake of fire forever and ever" -- "where the worm dieth not" -- "wailing and gnashing of teeth" -- etc.
You missed the boat entirely! But don't worry. According to the "Book" and you and many others -- I am gonna get my eternal beatings soon enough. I better enjoy myself while I can!
Yeah, okay. I'm condemned. The beatings will soon commence. I better enjoy the time I have left. You seem to be enjoying my future prospects pretty much. I'm happy to help make you happy.
Preaching about Hell without being totally broken-hearted about those one is trying warn -- well, that just doesn't seem right to this old reprobate. But -- whatever.
Huh? Theories?
How would you test ID? what sort of fossil of lab result does it predict? What does it say cannot happen?
Until you have some answers to these questions, ID remains idle speculation, nothing more.
I am??
Seems to me you imagine too much.
Something that CG had a falling out with me about.
Preaching about Hell without being totally broken-hearted about those one is trying warn -- well, that just doesn't seem right...
Why not?
Jonah finally spoke the warning that GOD wanted, and was PISSED about it!
Even a donkey gets to warn folks from time to time!
<< Jonah finally spoke the warning that GOD wanted, and was PISSED about it! >>
Again, you twist scripture. It looks habitual. Hmmmm.
Let's get the real story. Jonah preached the warning -- and he was PISSED that God relented when the people repented. Then God rebuked JONAH for that attitude.
Seems to me your own citation proves my contention, not yours. But -- no big deal. You are free to choose your own attitude. No skin off my teeth -- at least until Hank starts beating me.
Jonah 31. Then the word of the LORD came to Jonah a second time:
2. "Go to the great city of Nineveh and proclaim to it the message I give you."...Jonah 41. But Jonah was greatly displeased and became angry.
2. He prayed to the LORD, "O LORD, is this not what I said when I was still at home? That is why I was so quick to flee to Tarshish. I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity.
3. Now, O LORD, take away my life, for it is better for me to die than to live."
4. But the LORD replied, "Have you any right to be angry?"
Of course not: you KNOW those. I was trying to show the 'condemned forever' thoughts you claim were not necessarily true.
Just a pet peeve with me -- even if something IS in the Bible, it is twisting scripture -- and disrespectful of the God you believe to be behind it -- to misuse it this way.
A possible assumption; but that is not the 'intention' that I had.
After 37 years of leading the flock, I'm sure that there have been times when reading Scripture, the Lord has pointed out a DIFFERENT thing in it, even after you've read it many times before.
The same is in effect here: you see the words as saying one thing; to me, they've have other meanings as well.
Hey! This could be phlogiston chemistry's big chance!
<< Now; just WHAT have I TWISTED? >>
The meaning of the scripture -- just as this latest attempt did. You originally claimed that Jonah warned of God's wrath and was PISSED about it. The book of Jonah does not indicate that.
Your citation in this latest attempt just proves my assertion that you are twisting the scripture. You quoted the beginning of ch. 4, where it tells us that Jonah got angry -- but your citation ALSO tells us WHY Jonah got angry.
He was not angry because he was preaching hell-fire. He was angry that his preaching WORKED! The people repented -- and God relented. In that very passage you quote -- you prove my contention completely!
If you care more about winning points in a debate than you do about treating the Bible with basic respect, there's nothing I can do to help you. But if you really do love the Bible as God's word -- then you will repent of this mistreatment of that word. If it really is God's word -- you are not only disrespecting the Word of God -- you are disrespecting the God of that word.
And I noticed that you completely passed over the fact that not a single one of your other scripture citations had anything to do with the topic of Hell. I do not believe in the divine inspiration of the Bible, but I am treating it with more respect than you are. I find that ironic.
But don't worry -- my beatings will soon commence! LOL!
Exactly.
Science curriculum must teach the dominant theory.
One, the number of school hours devoted to science is limited. There is barely even enough time to give students a solid foundation in mainstream science, to say nothing of spending time on tangets about alternative theories and minority viewpoints.
Two, as most schools are operated as college prep, science curricula prepare students for the subjects as they will be taught at university. When they go on to college students who choose to take biology classes are going to be expected to know about evolutionary theory, because evolutionary theory is foundational to our modern understanding of biology.
Just doing my part to kick "American Idol" out of the smoky backroom.
I had written:
<< However -- not a single one of the many passages you cited says anything about that at all! >>
You replied:
<< Of course not: you KNOW those. I was trying to show the 'condemned forever' thoughts you claim were not necessarily true. >>
I said that, according to the other poster, I was condemned to an eternity of punishment. You replied: "Not according to him; according to the Book." Then you listed a long series of Biblical passages that had nothing to do with eternal punishment.
But now -- you seem to be saying above that you do not even believe that the Bible preaches eternal damnation for me after all??? You cited those passages to tell me that I am wrong to believe that Christianity condemns unbelievers to Hell?
If so -- you are AGAIN twisting scripture, because, as you state above, I KNOW the passages that DO say exactly that. Like the other poster, you seem to be arguing in circles.
I had written:
<< Just a pet peeve with me -- even if something IS in the Bible, it is twisting scripture -- and disrespectful of the God you believe to be behind it -- to misuse it this way. >>
You responded:
<< A possible assumption; but that is not the 'intention' that I had. >>
I accept that you did not intend to twist the scriptures or disrespect them in citing those passages.
<< After 37 years of leading the flock, I'm sure that there have been times when reading Scripture, the Lord has pointed out a DIFFERENT thing in it, even after you've read it many times before. >>
Many have said, and rightly, IMO: Scripture has one primary meaning, and many applications. If all competing meanings are equally valid, then what is the point of citing any passages to support anything at all?????
I do not subscribe -- nor did I when I was a believer -- to this post-modernist idea that one can come up with a meaning that is foreign to the text -- and consider that meaning valid. The writers had a primary meaning in mind, and it is the exegete's responsibility to do everything he can to accurately understand THAT meaning.
<< The same is in effect here: you see the words as saying one thing; to me, they've have other meanings as well. >>
But they can't have opposite meanings. The logical law of noncontradiction applies here. The Bible either condemns nonbelievers to Hell or it does not. It is clear to me -- and to most Christians -- that it does. I do not try to weasel around that, like so many Christians do.
I realize that there are a few Christians who do not agree about that doctrine. They believe annihilationism or something else. They are considered heretics by the majority -- but I don't really care, either way.
I would be happy to agree with the "no-hell" group, but I do not choose my interpretations according to personal preferences. That is disrespectful to the text, whether or not I accept it as divine.
Like I said -- it seems pretty clear to me that the Bible does teach eternal punishment in a burning Lake of Fire -- what I have analogized to "Hank will beat the crap out of your forever."
If you do not believe in eternal punishment, that's fine with me. Neither do I. If you do believe in eternal punishment, that's fine, too. I don't. But I do believe that that is exactly what the Bible does teach. I'll let you Christians hash that out among yourselves.
I'll be down in Hell with that other "Newtonist," getting the crap beat out of me -- forever. LOL!
Yeah, yeah, and they accuse the Clintons of sucking all the oxygen out of the room.
Cheers!
ID most certainly IS falsifiable, but I know it will be hard for you to accept it.
This link is around the same size as your post, so it won't take you much time to read it:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=494
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.