Posted on 07/22/2005 4:46:53 AM PDT by Nicholas Conradin
No, I said "assuming facts not in evidence"
Off to work
Maybe they just don't want to reply to you. If they've been around here long enough, they would know they are wasting their time.
Yes, of course I believe in evil.
I know how logic works and Mike explicitly premised his statements on logic (a concept obviously foreign to you).
second the motion
How do you define "logic"? Just what you accept and believe?
Very nice concise response.
Congrats.
Here's another "ludicrous proposition". Is gravity a causal force? Did it exist prior to the first matter? If not, where did it come from? Who or what brough the causal force of gravity into being?
Gravitational theorists only don't want to talk about the origin of matter because its the biggest fault of their entire theory and they have no answer for it.
Hence why the theory of gravity is in turmoil. Teach the controversy!
Thank you, one.
I'm not bothered, I'm amused at a "conservative" trying to say that facts are subject to belief.
I admit as I have said before that I don't respond to your rantings. Have a nice day.
What makes evil bad?
If an omnipotent god exists, then for our purposes evil is whatever said god regards to be evil.
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - - that's all.'
And there are a lot of us out here. You all just haven't done your jobs I guess.
"What is AIG's peer-review process like, if clangers like these can get through it?"
And what is the evo peer-review process like, if clangers like Prof. Protsch can get through FOR 30 YEARS!!
Specious anecdotal arguments sometimes bite, don't they?
"“If it sounds too good to be true, then it probably is.” Most of us have heard this piece of advice on more than one occasion. Yet, this was exactly the case with a famous Neanderthal fossil discovered in a peat bog near Hamburg, Germany. Prior to its discovery, the evolutionary timeline of ape-like creatures remained extremely “fuzzy” as it approached modern man. There simply were not any fossils that shed light on this period. But a single discovery dated by Professor Reiner Protsch cleared up the picture. Many years ago, he was invited to date the famous skull, which he later pronounced to be the vital missing link between Neanderthals and modern humans. He dated the skull at 36,000 years old, allowing it to fall neatly into the evolutionists’ timeline between Neanderthals and modern man. Finally, thanks to Protsch, the gap had been filled. All the pieces were in place.
For evolutionists, it was too good to be true. And indeed, it was. On February 18, 2005, Protsch was forced to retire in disgrace after a Frankfurt University panel ruled he had “fabricated data and plagiarized the work of his colleagues” (see “Anthropologist Resigns in ‘Dating Disaster,’ ” 2005). If this scenario sounds familiar, you are exactly right (see, for example, Piltdown Hoax). Once believed to be a world-renowned expert on carbon dating, Protsch’s entire professional career is now being questioned. The university noted: “The commission finds that Prof. Protsch has forged and manipulated scientific facts over the past 30 years” (“Anthropologist Resigns…”)."
Nope. Their greatest interest is in getting tenure, or being well-thought-of by their peers, and that's not going to happen if they deny the tenets of the faith.
Geology, physical anthropology, agricultural science, environmental science, much of chemistry, some areas of physics (e.g. protein folding) and even disciplines such as climatology and oceanography ... are at least partially founded on evolution. ... and be prepared to swallow the billions of human deaths that might follow the abandonment of the foundations of medical, mining, environmental, agricultural, and climatological knowledge.
Grossly exaggerates the importance of evolution.
Didn't you say earlier that only God can create?
But precisely none have come from torturing people over semantics in an effort to appear smarter than you are. Even a lot of evolutionists will use monkey/chimp/ape as a colloquial expression for "the evolutionary predecessor of man." Unless you are referring to a specific one, and even if you are but your audience doesn't know Australopithecus from Arcanthropus and doesn't care to, it suffices.
It's a good question.
Do we act freely or is God swept away by His own Creativity?
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.