Replies

In this thread, you said:

Creationism is a religious/political movement which threatens to marginalize the conservative movement
9 posted on 07/09/2003 2:25 PM CDT by Junior

Then you said:

Simply because it might gore a sacred cow or two does not mean it should be singled out for special treatment. If that were the case, I think quantum theory should be banished from school curriculums as it gives me pounding headaches.
99 posted on 07/09/2003 3:58 PM CDT by Junior ("Eat recycled food. It's good for the environment and okay for you...")

Conservatism has always been about religion and politics. Only you guys put your "science" agenda above those two.
This website is supposed to be about furthering conservatism. The founder even recently (twice that I know) made it clear the goal here was to defeat liberals and further conservatives. None of your behavior even comes close to either of those two goals. In fact, pushing evolution, especially in the manner that you do it, furthers liberals, who mostly hold to the identically same belief systems as most evolutionists do. As Ann Coulter recently pointed out, "Conservatives, by and large believe in God, and liberals believe they are gods". Your entire premise, agenda, goal and behavior is in direct odds with what most conservatives are, and have been, just as much as the recent SCOTUS decisions are at odds with the 14th Amendment.
Am I claiming all evolutionists are liberals? Hardly. But most are, and most conservatives are christians. The belief that evolution is universally accepted is a self-serving self-deceiving empty banner. And certainly most conservatives harbor no happiness in having their faith or God being treated and guffawed at in the manner you evolutionists on FR are more often than not, doing. Denial is absurd. Redefining your statements that are taken ill by those they are directed at is nonsense. On the whole, but not in every case, the offended defines what is offensive. When you are confronted by the offended, you just take license to claim the offended is playing the victim or too stipud to comprehend your most annointed definition.

In the first post you say what many darwinites have said when cornered. Your biggest fear is that YOU will be marginalized. You somehow have obtained the "swamp gas" notion that truth, regardless of source, is something to fear. "Truth" must be dispensed through a narrow slit posessed only by those that exhibit few signs of real conservatism, want nothing or very little to do with religion, and spend more time fretting over self-conjured strawmen than politics. It is precisely as if you all had an agenda. And that agenda has absolutely nothing to do with conservative politics, as pointed out by a poster above.

In your 2nd post, you wish to take up the absurdity of the very basis of point put forth by you in the first post.

So which is it?
Is it wrong to single religion/creationism/ID for "special treatment" or not?

Doubtful the question put forth will be answered as it was given, so you all may continue the character assassination of christians. I just wanted to point out a few patterns of consistent inconsistencies by those who can hardly spare a post without insults to God and His believers, while patting each other on the back about how great you all are, and how pathetically dumb everyone else is.

In the first post you say what many darwinites have said when cornered. Your biggest fear is that YOU will be marginalized. You somehow have obtained the "swamp gas" notion that truth, regardless of source, is something to fear. "Truth" must be dispensed through a narrow slit posessed only by those that exhibit few signs of real conservatism, want nothing or very little to do with religion, and spend more time fretting over self-conjured strawmen than politics. It is precisely as if you all had an agenda. And that agenda has absolutely nothing to do with conservative politics, as pointed out by a poster above.

Well said and worth repeating.

Conservatism should be a battle about truth and freedom, not simply about conserving old ideas that don't work.

Should we conserve affirmative action after it has been around half a century? Should we conserve slavery? That went back to the bible ya know.

Truth is truth. If God wants to explain to us why things appear older than 6,000 years, but in actuality are not, he is quite powerful enough to let us in on the secret.

I am not trying to "christian bash" here, just fundamentalist bash. Most jews, who are the people, who the torah was handed down to, don't accept the science in it as God breathed, but take it as people trying to understand how God created the universe.

I am sure that God could change the speed of light so that a star from 50,000 light years away, could shine light on us now, in the "6,000" years the universe has been in existence. But, I believe that is nefarious, and it is not an attribute I would attribute to the creator.

It is very conservative to respect science. Not to worship it mind you, but to not stick our heads in the sand and try to make it go away. It does not make God not exist, if the entire world wasn't covered in a flood. It doesn't make God vanish if there were Neanderthals 10,000 years ago.

I am a bit disturbed honestly at the "faith" of fundamentalists, who seem to say that if the science recorded by goat herders was false, that rejects God in any way whatsoever.

I personally choose to believe that the Noah story is both false based on the science of it, and the morality of it. I reject a claim that God would kill unborn children, toddlers, the mentally feeble, the aged, and all but two of each species of animals, when a more "surgical strike" was possible. This is not rejecting God. This is rejecting the veracity of a story that science and reason reveals as untrue.