Posted on 07/23/2006 8:49:26 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
What I was referring to here is it's use in angering a poster, A stunt I fell for once on a similar thread. {And got my response pulled by the mod}
And I will cycle it in, sooner or later -- and I'll FReepmail you when I do.
I have seen so many good summaries of Life, the Universe and Everything here on FR, posting them up on my Profile seemed the easiest way to track them and pay tribute to them.
If I had every post that angered a poster pulled I would have like 12 posts left in all the history of FR (at least on these CREVO threads. And the Shaivo threads. And the Holloway threads. And the WOD threads. And the Civil War threads. And the Cooking threads. And the Hobbit threads. And, uh...)
Yes. Has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, but yes.
Actually CG, I dont think Old Landmarks question was a diversion and here is why...when he asks that question, I am conjecturing, that most Christians, will answer that Adam was created as a full grown, young adult male...around 20-30 yrs old...young and full of vitality...
Now, if he was created, as a 20-30 yr old man, and was in that form, a second after being created, hence he was created 'older', than his time from creation would indicate...
Therefore, Old Landmarks, seeks to translate that into God creating dinosaur bones, which 'appear' to be millions of years old, but are in reality, only 1000s of years from their own creation...
I am sure, if I am looking at this incorrectly, Old Landmarks will let me know...
"What I was referring to here is it's use in angering a poster,..."
I in no way used it as a way to anger anybody. I just stated a fact. Any God that creates a universe that APPEARS to be 15 billion years old but is really only 6,000 years old is lying to us. That should not be controversial.
But of course it is your opinion.
Answer my question if you have the courage and I will prove it to you and anyone else who is lurking.
I ask you again:
How old was Adam exactly one half second after he was created?
Then you disagree with evolution.
"It's not possible that she evaluated evolutionist arguments and found them wanting, she must just not know what she's saying."
Yes, it is possible *both* that she evaluated evolutionist arguments and found them wanting, *and* she needs more education on evolution as a science that would convince her. She's not a biologist, but a lawyer, so how is her polemic relevent to whether Darwin is actually good biology?
Coulter is describing Darwinism as a religion for the left.
IMHO, there is some truth to that; Darwinism has indeed become a shibboleth for the Liberals. They are driven by a disregard for Christianity to make it a litmus test in schools. ... but that doesnt mean (a) darwin's theory must be false (if liberals made racial tolerance a religion hould we all become racists?) and (b) conservatives can't or shouldn't claim Darwin as our own.
On the latter point, note that Socialists in the 19th century made a big deal of demonizing the Social Darwinists like Herbert Spencer ... and yet, look at Kennedy's "Rise and Fall of Great Powers" or look at Rothchild's "Bionomics". There are more sophisticated ways of looking at changes to economic systems, societies, etc. through the lens of 'natural selection.
I particularly recommend "Bionomics" as a different way of looking at economics, that very much explains how competition creates progress, in ways classical economics fails to do.
Someone noted on this thread that capitalism is darwinism applied to economics. In a sense he is right. The error of socialists is to assume that 'survival of the fittest' means the extinction (death) of those not fit. They'd like to pretend this means bad stuff for the bottom of the heap. No, not really: What becomes extinct are the inferior economic modes. The buggy whip makes doesnt starve to death; the company may go out of business, but the workers find new jobs, and capital moves out of low margin business to chase better returns. Little is wasted, as old factories get resold and refurbished. Our dynamic economy, where the average worker may have many employers, can provide security for all members of society even as job types/titles, companies, and ways of working change dramatically over time, ever improving due to the pressures of competition.
Ah, dont forget the breast-feeding threads, or the potty training threads, or the circumsision(how do you spell that word?)....they are always good for people getting violently upset, because other people dont want to raise their children, as the so called 'child-rearing' experts on FR want them to raise them...
"But of course it is your opinion."
No it isn't. Learn to read.
"Answer my question..."
Your question is an evasion. It does not deserve to be considered.
"Then you disagree with evolution."
Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with how the universe took shape.
Hey, guys, I tried to answer the question...see my post #406...give me your opinion...
Please explain how. What point of evolutionary theory do I disagree with?
And the "they are doing fireworks at 10:30 at night ON A SUNDAY in Milwaukee and they are loud as heck but I can't see them because some stupid skyscraper is in the way so I get all the pain and none of the fun" threads.
Oh wait -- there aren't any of those, are there?
"Please support this claim with evidence..."
Your posts are evidence. You failed miserably to answer my points.
"Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with how the universe took shape."
Amazing... I almost laughed.
"Amazing... I almost laughed."
Too bad you didn't come up with a coherent reply.
Evolution has NEVER attempted to explain how the universe came to be.
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.