Posted on 04/21/2005 4:34:42 AM PDT by gobucks
At any rate I do not see "a reference text" and "a textbook" as one and the same. I also note that the individual uses the word "added," which, to my thinking means it is not substituted or used alone. Or do you really think this guy wants all science biology classes taught with the Bible alone as a reference? Shall we ask him if this is what he means? Would you care to bet on the answer?
A better question: Do you think the philosphy of evolution can hold up under scrutiny from the standpoint of forensic crime and still retain the name "science?" If science could sue it would sue to have its good name restored from the usurpation it has endured at the hands of those who cloak conjecture in the garb of objective truth.
Who in their right mind would hold the philosophy of evolution on the same level as forensic crime studies and criminal justice as if the proposition of a billion-year-old earth could hold up by virtue of eyewitness testimony?
Nah. Both "a" and "the" are singular. The "series" you mention may be implied from the context. Bottom line line is you willfully misread the author. Ask him if he meant to say the Bible alone should be used as a biology textbook. Go ahead. Then we can see who is really, and willfully, stupid.
"Then we can see who is really, and willfully, stupid"
I've already seen. It's you. Ping me when you've progressed mentally to the point where simple words such as 'a' no longer confuse you. Until then, there's no point in trying to talk to you.
But volcanic erruptions have never been observed at Yellowstone. Volcanic erruptions do not happen everywhere. And in fact, if you compare any particular area of land, the odds are that it is not a volcano.
Why do you pretend not to understand my point?
Which is, if you're really that thick, that your rules of not believeing anything that is not repeatable, and testable preclude you from believing lots of things that a reasonable person should be able to conclude based on the evidence we do have.
You didn't answer my question. Do you think he meant to say the Bible alone should be used as a biology textbook? I understood his statement to mean otherwise. You willfully construe his words to mean he intends that the Bible should be the only textbook needed for biology classes. Like a typical evolutionist, you overstate your case and expect the rest of the world to follow suit. Fortunately the rest of the world is more reasonable. Even a six-year-old has a better grip.
Good list. But I have a quibble with #10: "The Da Vinci Code"
Dan Brown took a plausible legend (a relationship between Jesus & Mary Magdalene), mixed in some lies (Priory of Sion & Roselyn), some shabby history, and with a heavy dollop of Catholic bashing, cooked up a barely readable murder mystery.
The Da Vinci Code is a just a book, a work of fiction, not a statement of fact. I'm pretty confident most religious folks (creationist or no) reject it.
In other words, if I don't believe in your particular interpretation, then I've "thrown out the whole of scripture". In other words, you accuse me of not believing in God or his word.
.if science shouldn't be politicized, then why don't you stop doing it, OK? My belief in creation isn't political. It's spiritual........and very based on logic and common sense as well.
I don't believe it's scientists that are taking political means to force their ideas on religious believers. It's religious believers who have used the political arena in several jurisdictions in their attempt to force religion into science class. There are a handful of religious funded groups who's sole agenda is using politics to do just that.
Amphibians don't magically develop lungs,
It may appear to be magic to those who do not understand. But it's just evolution, and it happens litteraly every day a little bit at a time. Evolution is one of God's most elegant of creations. It's only too bad you refuse to see His wonderful creation.
and mankind didn't magically develop a soul.
Which is a totally irrelevant subject from evolution. I have respect enough for God to believe that he could give a soul to a grasshopper, should he choose. It does not tweek my ego to think that at some time in the past, 6000 years ago maybe, God gave man a soul. That this doesn't quite jibe with your interpretation of Genesis, well, we just disagree. Just like the Catholics and Protestants in Ireland. Religious disagreements are all over the globe, and have been that way for all time.
I've merely theorized that nothing I could say to you would make you see. So why should I bother?
There have been a great many very detailed posts in these creation threads that should easily prove to any open minded person that evolution in fact exists.
Why should I believe that anything else I could show you would change your hardened opinion?
Every single man, and woman, is a unique creation of God.
It does not matter to me whether God blew up dust and a man appeard, or that a sperm and egg came together to do the job. God still created the man.
Why it is that people are so stubborn to think that somehow Adam was different than all the rest of us I'll never know.
I don't believe that we INHERIT our soul. God gave us each our very own.
If I was created by the joining of egg and sperm, and I have a soul, then it's only logical that Adam was created exactly the same way.
Why would Adam have been different?
I'm sure you'll read some scripture here, but just save it. It's far too easy to interpret scripture in many different ways. Suffice it to say that we read Genesis differently. Yet my viewpoint, I believe, is every bit as viable as any other.
Different denominations have been making claims that "the others" are lying, and going to litteral war over the claims, for thousands of years.
The religious war over the litteral reading of Genesis is no different.
You're still wrong.
Actually, many of the skills used in forensic science were first developed by archeologists and anthropologists. Professions that I feel save in claiming have a 100% acceptance of evolution (yes, yes, I know they have arguments over the details, but not the fact that evolution occurs).
Good for them. But their constructs of history beyond what has been recorded by man are little more than hopeful conjecture.
Every single man, and woman, is a unique creation of God.
Why it is that people are so stubborn to think that somehow Adam was different . . .
I sense some self-contradiction here. What do you mean?
Now, about that challenge
I would initially put forth that human consciousness does not come from mindlessness and assert AI as evidence.
You're rather loquacious I'd say, considering that you're trying to convince someone as ignorant and hardened as I.........though I noticed in all your pontificating, that you didn't provide a shred of factual evidence that evolution actually occurred. Is that possibly because there is none?
And I still find your position that those of us who believe in the inerrancy of Scripture......from beginning to end....... and God's creation are going to lose the 2008 election for Republicans highly amusing.
Let it never be said that hard core evolutionist zealots have no imagination. That may be the funniest thing I've heard since I joined FR more than four years ago.
Thanks for the laugh.
Unfortunately, most educated believers in evolution are tongue-drooping "yuppers" that swallow every gosh-dang just-so story as long as it conforms to general Darwinian ideas.
The history of pathetic "examples" of evolution that have been splashed in our students' texts is a comedy of errors, a parade of corny nonsense. Jonathan Wells "Icons of Evolution" illustrates many of these prominent entertainments.
From Piltdown to peppered moth, from Nebraska Man to Ramapithecus, from areopteryx to eohippus, we have an ongoing marvelous display that lazy credulity is found as easily among materialists as it is among the spiritualizers.
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.