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.
For lurkers, I'll translate this statement:
"I'll tell everyone that you have no credibility and hope they all believe me because I'm biased and don't want them to listen to you guys."
The truth is, furball, that you can't prove your case anymore than you can defend it. Failing that, you resort to "your momma". You make a claim with 'macro-evolution'; but, you have no case. After 150 years, you're still trying to find the first bit of any obvious evidence. Because you're still in that position, your side has to resort to 'spinning' the evidence as to what it could be under the right conditions, in the right light, viewed through this fine bit of red rock candy.... Oh, and don't forget the pretense and big words that go along with the elaborate fairytale story for every bit of evidence that tends to collapse on itself in the light of day and under any inspection..
Exactly why would that be impossible? My sister thinks she can be a fundamentalist creationist, a witch, and be a good catholic, all at the same time, and she doesn't go up in smoke when she receives communion, no matter how hard I opine that that would be her just deserts. And all over the orient there are staunch catholics who are also staunch buddists. What's so special about Lutherans and Catholics? Other than that would oblige you to torture and kill yourself, if it was the 15th century.
Because Catholics only believe in one God. The trinity is not polythesitic.
Mormons explicitly profess to believe in a plurality of Gods.
Pretty exclusive club you seem to have going here.
No, it's just linguistic convention. The word "Christian" refers to people who believe in certain things. Mormons simply don't believe in those things. It's a simple as that.
There's one way to tell.. look at the Bible and see what it defines a follower of Christ as being. Religionists usually don't like that because they've philosophized up their own definitions due to their failure to live up to that of scripture. Funny, that. When you don't live up to the definition, claim it anyway and make up your own rules.. Perhaps we can all decide to ignore the definition of 'President' of the United states, philosophize up our own definition and all claim to be President of the US. It would have to be true if we all claim it... right.
'Who's really a Christian' placemarker...
If you weren't too busy calling other people ignorant and used the time to become better informed you would know what they had in common. Both Hitler and Luther thought the Churches accepted Jewish lies and not the true faith and both wanted reformation. Neither denied faith or church although Hitler established a Church of State.
You ain't seen nothin' yet! If evolution ever becomes entrenched enough that Christian evolution supporters are no longer needed, prepare yourself to be purged!
Uh...because Lutheranism and Catholicism are contradictory?
My sister thinks she can be a fundamentalist creationist, a witch, and be a good catholic, all at the same time,
Poor girl! Talk about cognative dissonance. I'll pray for her.
Every sunday, for about 1000 years, at the Easter reading of the Passion, following which, on quite a few occasions, the parishioners streamed out of church to do that very thing, at their local ghetto--the place where the church insisted, legally, that they all be rounded up in one convenient location. Google on the Easter pogroms if you want to read about it. And in the Vatican's official publication newspaper, up until about 1920, vicious accusations, and thinly veiled suggestions about a "final solution", were floated weekly. Are you under the impression that there isn't a continuous, 1400 year history of jewish persecutions in every christian country? You think maybe that's just a spontaneous occurance because, gosh dern it, them jews are so annoying?
The life of anyone who claims to be a Christian should compared to Scripture to see if it matches up, not the current thinking of the day. That's the standard. Jesus was pretty precise in what characteristics His disciples should display, the major one of which is love. While it is not possible to know the heart of any man, if someone like Hitler claims to be a Christian and does the things that Hitler did, it can be a pretty good bet he wasn't. Talk is cheap. It doesn't mean anything if there's not the life to back it up and true faith will produce that life.
ummm .....lemme try ..
The Inqisition (any of them)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6016177544545063666&q=Spanish+Inquisition
I said that I was waiting for a Creationist to undermine the evidence explained by evolution. Go ahead. There are 3 floors in the average University Library with evidence for Evolution. When you've read it and want to take issue with something, fine. Until then, tomorrow's a full moon.
Let us hasten to add, there is nothing ignorant about patriotism--the condescending attitude of the NYT about the "easily led" and of Howard Dean about NASCAR fans notwithstanding.
Cheers!
Hated? Well, by some people, yes. To say they were broadly hated is a bit strong. If that were true, how could Jews rise to such prominence in so many professions as doctors, lawyers, financeers, scienctists, and academics? This was already happening long before the 1950's. Goldman Sachs has been a top financial firm in the USA for over 100 years, for example.
That's not to say Jews were completely accepted in society early in the 20th century. Sure there was descrimination and a certain reluctance to accept them into the mainstream. Some Jews had trouble getting into coops on 5th Avenue in New York, for example. The result was what I like to call the Tragedy of Central Park West.
All this started to change in the 50's after the war. In general most people didn't like anyone different from themselves.
That's also a bit strong. I'd say most people try to limit the extent to which they associate with others different from themselves.
You simply have no idea of how much things have changed.
I have a fair idea.
I only pinged you because RW brought you in. It's nice to see that your credibility is still below zero and apparently falling further.
Prove me wrong. I can take it.
So...I'm NOT praying to Mary when I finger my beads? And Jesus and God are NOT separate entities? Aren't those statues of Jesus I see in church? Isn't that a picture of God on the roof of the Sistine Chapel? How come they don't look alike? How come God talks to Jesus in the bible, if they are both the same thing? Does God suffer from schizophrenia? Don't you have just a wee tad of trouble wrapping your lips around the statement "The TRINITY is not POLYtheistic". I keep trying, but I break out in a great big goofy grin every time I try.
Huh. Is that how it works at your church? Only those whose hearts are comparable to Jesus' heart are considered christians? And you bar the door to anyone who doesn't meet that standard?
No. Not in Catholic countries. Easter pogroms were largely limited to Russia and a few other Orthodox countries.
And in the Vatican's official publication newspaper, up until about 1920, vicious accusations, and thinly veiled suggestions about a "final solution", were floated weekly.
That's a vicious lie.Are you under the impression that there isn't a continuous, 1400 year history of jewish persecutions in every christian country?
Continuous persection? No.
This is assuming that the deity is invoked primarily as an explanation of the causation of the phenomenon ("we don't know why" = "Goddidit"TM, and secondly that the phenomenon is agreed to be primarily naturalistic in its essence.
By definition, bringing in God to explain a miracle is not 'pseudoscientific', it is not scientific at all.
Saying that (say) Ball Lightning is "a work of God" is -- except as a figure of speech -- pseudoscientific.
Invoking God in orbital mechanics of the Solar System argues either abysmal ignorance or a belief that God is much more intimately involved in things than generally supposed.
Cheers!
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.