Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Crafty Attacks on Evolution
The New York Slimes ^ | 23 January 2005 | EDITORIAL

Posted on 01/23/2005 1:11:01 AM PST by rdb3

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 741-756 next last
To: gobucks
But, here, you and your fellow are agents are very consistent in one thing: completely avoiding discussions of why good, decent, morals are needed regarding sexual behavior among people.

So start a new thread on that topic instead of hijacking these ones.

I suggest you put it in the Religion Forum.

181 posted on 01/24/2005 10:14:15 AM PST by balrog666 (A myth by any other name is still inane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: gobucks

Don't ping me. If I choose to reply to your nonsense, I'll reply to it; but I have no interest in being directed to it.


182 posted on 01/24/2005 10:14:19 AM PST by Right Wing Professor (Evolve or die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: narby
Interpret the "dust" in Gen 2 as the primordial "goop" described by science after God allowed the rain to begin, and you have zero discrepancy between Genesis and science.

Interesting observation. Then, I take it, you wouldn't object to this interpretation being taught to kids in public school?

183 posted on 01/24/2005 10:16:58 AM PST by gobucks (http://oncampus.richmond.edu/academics/classics/students/Ribeiro/laocoon.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

Very well. I won't ping you anymore...


184 posted on 01/24/2005 10:17:55 AM PST by gobucks (http://oncampus.richmond.edu/academics/classics/students/Ribeiro/laocoon.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: gobucks
Interesting observation. Then, I take it, you wouldn't object to this interpretation being taught to kids in public school?

Interpretations of the Bible don't need to be taught in public schools. No matter which interpretation we're talking about. That's your church's job.

Schools should teach science. That's it. End of story.

And if religious people are intellegent enough to see that Genesis doesn't conflict with science, then that's wonderful.

185 posted on 01/24/2005 10:20:33 AM PST by narby ( A truly Intelligent Designer, would have designed Evolution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
So start a new thread on that topic instead of hijacking these ones. I suggest you put it in the Religion Forum."

I'm not hijacking this thread any more, or any less, than you. And, this thread deals with religion from the outset, unless I don't know what the NYTIMES editorial was saying ...

Although the sticker makes no mention of religion and the school board as a whole was not trying to advance religion, a federal judge in Georgia ruled that the sticker amounted to an unconstitutional endorsement of religion because it was rooted in long-running religious challenges to evolution.

Yep, you're right, this thread is not a religious thread....

186 posted on 01/24/2005 10:23:19 AM PST by gobucks (http://oncampus.richmond.edu/academics/classics/students/Ribeiro/laocoon.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: Smartaleck

There is a distinction between so-called and called.


187 posted on 01/24/2005 10:24:06 AM PST by bondserv (Sincerity with God is the most powerful instigator for change! † [Check out my profile page])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: rdb3

The Theory of Evolution does not belong in science classes. It belongs in Culture and Philosophy of Science classes. A teaching made up mostly of reasonable conjecture and wishful thinking (with a fair share of BS thrown in) cannot do the job of teaching how things work. Leave that to science.


188 posted on 01/24/2005 10:24:07 AM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
A teaching made up mostly of reasonable conjecture and wishful thinking (with a fair share of BS thrown in) cannot do the job of teaching how things work. Leave that to science.

You're delusional.

189 posted on 01/24/2005 10:26:15 AM PST by narby ( A truly Intelligent Designer, would have designed Evolution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
False, I have discussed this very issue with you, and I was under the impression that you found my position on the matter acceptable.

Actually, in a couple of posts, on one thread, you did, after many, many goads, finally come out and support monogamy, and I agree you offered some reasons why you thought from an evolutionary standpoint point you thought it was a good idea. But the effort to get you there! My keyboard nearly shorted out!

But, first off, your statements, except for one other by another caustic poster IIRC, are rare. Second, the sheer number of statements supporting ToE regardless, and beating back the efforts of Christians, is quite large.

Third, you don't have any links handy in which any ToE person can state ... "here's the latest body of hard research which defends from the TOE standpoint monogamy!"

Can you imagine how much this disagreement would just evaporate if your side suddenly said, 'ya know, these bible thumpers are really nuts about evolution, but they sure make a good point about the sex craziness in our society! Let's put a 'here are the morals behind responsible love making website' up!

But where in PH's links do you find that?

190 posted on 01/24/2005 10:33:39 AM PST by gobucks (http://oncampus.richmond.edu/academics/classics/students/Ribeiro/laocoon.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: rdb3
The "writers" of the/at the Slimes are far too dumb to pull off anything "crafty".. Knuckle dragging guteral sounds put in print is more like it..

OH!, I see, the creationist's are being "crafty"...
Now, thats possible.. God bless em'..

191 posted on 01/24/2005 10:37:37 AM PST by hosepipe (This propaganda has been ok'ed me to included some fully orbed hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gobucks; Right Wing Professor
Very well. I won't ping you [Right Wing Professor] anymore...

Don't ping me either. I have no interest in your opinions.

192 posted on 01/24/2005 10:39:50 AM PST by PatrickHenry (<-- Click on my name. The List-O-Links for evolution threads is at my freeper homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: gobucks
But, there was no man or critter that was Adam's ancestor, for he was made from dirt. Adam, re-fined dirt, and with him Eve, re-fined Man, introduced sin.

Christ was, and is, the solution for sin - as long as we believe it. But, in its effect, no sin can possibly ever be introduced if the Orthodox ToE, as propagandized, is absoutely correct. For by definition, Adam and Eve can not be the 'first' ancestors of all mankind.

You've just defined the basis of salesmanship -- create a problem (original sin), supply the answer (Jesus died to wipe it away), rake in the bucks (organized religion). It's the same plot as "The Musicman."

You always have the other option: God created man to just enjoy the universe and doesn't need any gimmicks or parlor tricks to ensure everyone gets what's coming to him because He's above all that.

193 posted on 01/24/2005 10:43:20 AM PST by Junior (FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: rdb3
And you or they can call me any name under the sun because of it if you wish. My stance still wouldn't change.

Adopting a position for the sake of political expediency is a tactic used by those who have little or no concern for truth, except for the sake of personal gain and power. Of course, when "survival of the fittest" is the operative norm in one's head, what else does one do but bend as needed?

194 posted on 01/24/2005 10:46:09 AM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
You misunderstood me. My position here is taken because I believe it to be the truth, politics or no politics.


195 posted on 01/24/2005 10:56:04 AM PST by rdb3 (The wife asked how I slept last night. I said, "How do I know? I was asleep!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
The morality, or lack thereof, of our distant ancestors is meaningless regarding the kind of people we choose to be. So what difference could it make if, hundreds of millions of years ago, our ancestors weren't even human?

That was your question ... I answered it.

Don't ping me either. I have no interest in your opinions.

I see that my response was too much of a challenge for you. And now, you don't want me to ping you anymore either.

I think I might be the only one in freeper land accorded such a nobel honor.

As I told RWP, don't slam me by name, or reference, in other threads without a courtesy ping, and I'll be more than happy to let your own statements dangle all by themselves...and not ping you anymore...

And if anyone else out there senses that the kitchen is getting too hot for them, let me know!

196 posted on 01/24/2005 11:15:10 AM PST by gobucks (http://oncampus.richmond.edu/academics/classics/students/Ribeiro/laocoon.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: rdb3
You misunderstood me.

No. I understand you very well. The evo's around here have their panties in a wad because creationists are unwilling to shut up and thus are costing "votes" for the party. As I said, it stands to reason when one's operative norm in life is "survival of the fittest."

197 posted on 01/24/2005 11:16:13 AM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: Junior
You've just defined the basis of salesmanship -- create a problem (original sin), supply the answer (Jesus died to wipe it away), rake in the bucks (organized religion). It's the same plot as "The Musicman."

You always have the other option: God created man to just enjoy the universe and doesn't need any gimmicks or parlor tricks to ensure everyone gets what's coming to him because He's above all that.

Wow, he's above all that ... what a statement of confidence. I tell you what Junior ... I'll just let those words speak for themselves...

198 posted on 01/24/2005 11:18:03 AM PST by gobucks (http://oncampus.richmond.edu/academics/classics/students/Ribeiro/laocoon.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: gobucks
Actually, in a couple of posts, on one thread, you did, after many, many goads, finally come out and support monogamy, and I agree you offered some reasons why you thought from an evolutionary standpoint point you thought it was a good idea. But the effort to get you there! My keyboard nearly shorted out!

Put it down to a combination of

a)I didn't understand the relevance of the issue to the truth of ToE

b) I didn't read your posts that carefully (sorry)

c) I find your obessession with the link between sexual morality and ToE bemusing.

But, first off, your statements, except for one other by another caustic poster IIRC, are rare.

Perhaps because no-one else thinks your obession is relevant, either. So like me they don't see why they should bare their souls on an unrelated issue.

Second, the sheer number of statements supporting ToE regardless, and beating back the efforts of Christians, is quite large.

At least my attempts to be caustic are succeeding.

Funny how some people feel compelled to support the truth, regardless. What do you want us to do? Kowtow to those who lie, or have swallowed the mis-information of the creationism movement.

Third, you don't have any links handy in which any ToE person can state ... "here's the latest body of hard research which defends from the TOE standpoint monogamy!"

No we don't. Perhaps that is because we are bemused by your obsession with this topic. Perhaps it is because we think it is the kind of area where opinions are cheap and hard research is virtually impossible.

Tell you what, since this issue is important to you, why don't you create the aforementioned website?

Can you imagine how much this disagreement would just evaporate if your side suddenly said, 'ya know, these bible thumpers are really nuts about evolution, but they sure make a good point about the sex craziness in our society! Let's put a 'here are the morals behind responsible love making website' up!

How do you know that no-one "on our side" has. The thing is, it has absolutely nothing to do with whether ToE is true or not, which is the point at isseu.

But where in PH's links do you find that?

Nowhere, because you are the only one obsessed with the connection.

199 posted on 01/24/2005 11:20:24 AM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: MortMan

"If you are uncomfortable with differing viewpoints, or are unwilling/unable to defend your position without condescension, perhaps you should occupy a pew and pray for better debating skills."

Hmmmm... This doesn't sound arrogant, right? LOL

Do you just go around picking fights, or do you have anything to contribute?

(btw what I said was not ad hominem-Perhaps you should pray that you understand the term.)


200 posted on 01/24/2005 11:20:51 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 741-756 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson