Posted on 06/09/2006 6:16:57 AM PDT by tomzz
Much of my last post was taken from The Catholic Encyclopedia. Do you know what a fact-narrative is? Facts are sprinkled within a story used as a vehicle for conveying a larger truth.
You neve answered my last question: do you believe Esther, Ruth, and Tobit to be historical books in the same way Matthew is historical?
The difficulty in maintaining an ethical debate resides with both sides. Did you see where I wrote as much, or are you intent on creating a guilt complex as if my side of the debate is intent on asserting perfect motives and methods for itself while denying it to others?
I do not deny for one moment that your side of the issue is intent upon maintaining an ethical debate. But it can't happen. Neither can it happen on my side. It is an ideal, just like perfect objectivity is an ideal. But it is unattainable. I trust the reader can weed out unethical remarks and practices on either side, while aiming to fit assertions into a pattern that is in accord with the facts we have to deal with.
You asked a yes or no question, to which my answer is, "Yes." But the answer must be qualified in view of weaknesses demonstrated by all concerned.
Now I'd like to ask you two questions:
1.) Where does our sense of ethics come from?
2.) By whose standard should ethical behavior be judged?
You'd think you'd have a monopoly on whining...
See Occam's razor
CW: Huh? How can demineralization produce soft tissue that was not already there?
The letter in question cites examples.
"Hendrik Poinar of McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, cautions that looks can deceive: Nucleated protozoan cells have been found in 225-million-year-old amber, but geochemical tests revealed that the nuclei had been replaced with resin compounds. Even the resilience of the vessels may be deceptive. Flexible fossils of colonial marine organisms called graptolites have been recovered from 440-million-year-old rocks, but the original material--likely collagen--had not survived."Your answer (well, AiG's) is inadequate. There's really no excuse to continue trolling for suckers with discredited material like that long-ago-banned freeper used to do all the time.Some of the tougher biopolymers (especially chitin, lignins and proteins) may degrade very slowly in a fossil...etc.
It might be. At least that is what ID would conjecture when understood as manifesting organized matter that performs specific functions.
thank you!
My understanding is that we are all believers, but the object of faith tends to be different for each. The biblical texts were given by the proper object of faith, spelling out clearly both its singularity and personhood. As a result many are joined together having the same object of faith. Obviously not all people are given to accept the authority and accuracy of the biblical texts, and so their faith resides in something, or someone, else.
You are so right.
I was sort of hoping that somebody here would want to talk about Ann Coulter and what she had to say about evolution and evolution believers, but that doesn't appear likely. I'll be happy if this thread helps sell a few more copies of Godless and gets the word out on evolution and a number of other topics involved in the left's approach to science. The book is worth the $20 it takes to buy a copy.
True, and beautifully said.
I thought it was about right. Sorry it seems to have drawn a little grey-whiskered blood.
I can forgive anyone buying and reading one of her books (I did that); what I can't understand is making the mistake again.
The "misapplication of genetics" to which we are referring is based upon Darwinian theory and practice. There is a proper use for genetic research, to be sure. Fortunately it leaves Darwinian principles/implications by the wayside and focuses upon detailed structures and functions which most likely did not originate without intelligence or design. Hopefully, at least when it comes to human genetics, it also recognizes that each individual is a special creation of God to be treated with care and respect. (Or is it unscientific to be compassionate?)
Interesting to note, meanwhile, that some who espouse Darwinian principles consider the idea helpful in allowing them to be "intellectually fulfilled atheists." But then, we all know atheism and Darwinism are as far apart from each other as East is from West (/s).
I got a free copy of High Crimes and Misdemeanors as part of attending FR's House Managers' dinner in DC. It struck me as slow, almost technical. [The book, not that wonderful evening!] Didn't get very far with it. From snippets I have seen here and there, her style seems to have livened up a bit since then, at some expense in sober thought.
If that is the case, then whole classes of students are in no position to question Darwinism's historical reconstructions. "It's in your textbook. Herr Scientist speaketh." Fact is, the issue is in debate between scientists of various convictions, so it is no surprise the debate spills over into the public domain.
Now, what were you doing in posting that "bone of contention" twice? Do you really think it makes any difference to the proponents of a theory capable of ad hoc revision whether a dinosaur presently occupies CBS news headquarters or can only be found in a single occurrence as a picture on a cave wall?
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.