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

Skip to comments.

Let's Have No More Monkey Trials - To teach faith as science is to undermine both
Time Magazine ^ | Monday, Aug. 01, 2005 | CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER

Posted on 08/01/2005 10:58:13 AM PDT by wallcrawlr

The half-century campaign to eradicate any vestige of religion from public life has run its course. The backlash from a nation fed up with the A.C.L.U. kicking crèches out of municipal Christmas displays has created a new balance. State-supported universities may subsidize the activities of student religious groups. Monuments inscribed with the Ten Commandments are permitted on government grounds. The Federal Government is engaged in a major antipoverty initiative that gives money to churches. Religion is back out of the closet.

But nothing could do more to undermine this most salutary restoration than the new and gratuitous attempts to invade science, and most particularly evolution, with religion. Have we learned nothing? In Kansas, conservative school-board members are attempting to rewrite statewide standards for teaching evolution to make sure that creationism's modern stepchild, intelligent design, infiltrates the curriculum. Similar anti-Darwinian mandates are already in place in Ohio and are being fought over in 20 states. And then, as if to second the evangelical push for this tarted-up version of creationism, out of the blue appears a declaration from Christoph Cardinal Schönborn of Vienna, a man very close to the Pope, asserting that the supposed acceptance of evolution by John Paul II is mistaken. In fact, he says, the Roman Catholic Church rejects "neo-Darwinism" with the declaration that an "unguided evolutionary process--one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence--simply cannot exist."

Cannot? On what scientific evidence? Evolution is one of the most powerful and elegant theories in all of human science and the bedrock of all modern biology. Schönborn's proclamation that it cannot exist unguided--that it is driven by an intelligent designer pushing and pulling and planning and shaping the process along the way--is a perfectly legitimate statement of faith. If he and the Evangelicals just stopped there and asked that intelligent design be included in a religion curriculum, I would support them. The scandal is to teach this as science--to pretend, as does Schönborn, that his statement of faith is a defense of science. "The Catholic Church," he says, "will again defend human reason" against "scientific theories that try to explain away the appearance of design as the result of 'chance and necessity,'" which "are not scientific at all." Well, if you believe that science is reason and that reason begins with recognizing the existence of an immanent providence, then this is science. But, of course, it is not. This is faith disguised as science. Science begins not with first principles but with observation and experimentation.

In this slippery slide from "reason" to science, Schönborn is a direct descendant of the early 17th century Dutch clergyman and astronomer David Fabricius, who could not accept Johannes Kepler's discovery of elliptical planetary orbits. Why? Because the circle is so pure and perfect that reason must reject anything less. "With your ellipse," Fabricius wrote Kepler, "you abolish the circularity and uniformity of the motions, which appears to me increasingly absurd the more profoundly I think about it." No matter that, using Tycho Brahe's most exhaustive astronomical observations in history, Kepler had empirically demonstrated that the planets orbit elliptically.

This conflict between faith and science had mercifully abated over the past four centuries as each grew to permit the other its own independent sphere. What we are witnessing now is a frontier violation by the forces of religion. This new attack claims that because there are gaps in evolution, they therefore must be filled by a divine intelligent designer.

How many times do we have to rerun the Scopes "monkey trial"? There are gaps in science everywhere. Are we to fill them all with divinity? There were gaps in Newton's universe. They were ultimately filled by Einstein's revisions. There are gaps in Einstein's universe, great chasms between it and quantum theory. Perhaps they are filled by God. Perhaps not. But it is certainly not science to merely declare it so.

To teach faith as science is to undermine the very idea of science, which is the acquisition of new knowledge through hypothesis, experimentation and evidence. To teach it as science is to encourage the supercilious caricature of America as a nation in the thrall of religious authority. To teach it as science is to discredit the welcome recent advances in permitting the public expression of religion. Faith can and should be proclaimed from every mountaintop and city square. But it has no place in science class. To impose it on the teaching of evolution is not just to invite ridicule but to earn it.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: acanthostega; charleskrauthammer; creation; crevolist; faith; ichthyostega; krauthammer; science; scienceeducation; scopes; smallpenismen
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,621-1,6401,641-1,6601,661-1,680 ... 1,781-1,792 next last
To: Right Wing Professor
If the diameter is ten cubits, and it's round all about, and its circumference is 30 cubits, then pi = 3.

This is NOT in the Bible....

You are a liar!


1,641 posted on 08/04/2005 12:59:17 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1634 | View Replies]

To: Elsie; b_sharp
Watch it!! This thread will get highjacked to a Mac vs IBM one! You KNOW how nasty THOSE get!!

LOL!

The odd thing is, I've never noticed a correlation between creationist/evo and Mac/PC. We've got all four possible combinations - and they all hate each other.

1,642 posted on 08/04/2005 1:00:42 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1637 | View Replies]

To: spunkets

You Evo's holler when a link is shown (or not) between Darwin and whoever, yet you try to tar us with the brush you abhor.

Amazing!


1,643 posted on 08/04/2005 1:01:23 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1632 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

;^)


1,644 posted on 08/04/2005 1:02:30 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1642 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
This is NOT in the Bible....

Never said it was.

You are a liar!

Your mother wears combat boots, and your daddy's a poopy-head.

1,645 posted on 08/04/2005 1:02:36 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1641 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

That ain't poop; it's ear-wax!


1,646 posted on 08/04/2005 1:03:29 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1645 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
"What are the ODDS that a human will be born that can detect infrared like rattlers can?

Why would anyone want to calculate the odds of a strawman argument? How about we calculate the odds of a creationist developing a strawman argument? One. There you go.

1,647 posted on 08/04/2005 1:13:54 PM PDT by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1613 | View Replies]

To: eleni121
"Enjoy."

I looked at the Wik. links. Their use of the word theory for instance, does not apply to spontaneous generation/abiogenesis whatsoever. There was never anything more than a hypothesis. The total, is a list of disproven hypothesis and very weak theory.

What I do see in that collection is poor reasoning. I see the same poor reasoning in the behind the conclusions of the Council of Orange. The difference between science councils and theological councils, is that weak reasoning gets attacked and overturned in science councils. In theological councils, weak reasoning and falsehood is stamped as dogma, doctrine and unfathomable mystery. Anyone that questions it is branded a heretic and banished. That's real in the theological world. The scientific world doesn't do that.

1,648 posted on 08/04/2005 1:15:07 PM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1628 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
"You got no response from our friends on the other side of the aisle?? "

Your post has to be read by someone before it can be responded to. Some of us work for a living.

1,649 posted on 08/04/2005 1:15:31 PM PDT by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1614 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
"Divide and Conquer"

What's the hidden meaning?

1,650 posted on 08/04/2005 1:22:30 PM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1640 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
 
 

Watch it Ichy: I'm goin' for the record!

PI in the Bible

By Jochen Katz

1 Kings 7:23 He [Solomon] made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim [diameter = 10] and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it. [circumference = 30]

Since circumference = PI x diameter as any elementary geometry book will tell you, but the Bible "seemingly" tells us that PI = 3. Since "this is obviously false, therefore the Bible cannot be from God..." is how some people like to reason.

But obviously the wisdom of God is greater than the wisdom of man:

In this case the word for circumference = "line" ( in Hebrew)
But in this verse "line" is written with an extra letter (  ).

Since Hebrew has no digits, all letters are also numbers, we can take the ratio of (the gematriacal value of) the unusual word form (   ) to the regular word form ( ). Given that the gematrial letter values are = 100, = 6, and = 5 we find that:

++ +
Ratio
5 + 6 + 100 = 111 6 + 100 = 106 111/106 = 1.0471698

False number for PI Ratio TOTAL
3 multiplied by
1.0471698 = 3.14150943...

The real value: PI = 3.1415926...

The difference between 3 x 111/106 and PI is 0.0000832 which is only an error of 0.00026%.

It is interesting to compare the "Solomonic" approximation of PI with the approximations used by the Babylonians and Egyptians.

                              PI = 3.1415926...      Error

Babylon  :     3 1/8   =  25/8   = 3.125             0.0165926
Egypt    :     3 13/81 = 256/81  = 3.16049382...     0.0189012
"Solomon":               333/106 = 3.14150943...     0.0000832
Since the ancient Egyptian or Babylonian approximations are much older than the time of Solomon it might be interesting find out what the usually used approximation of PI was at that time (Solomon was King around 1000 B.C.) in this or other parts of the world. Any helpful information on this question would be very much appreciated.

The "sound exegesis" answer: The Bible is not a scientific text book (though sometimes it makes scientific statements) and this specific passage wasn't intended to reveal the value of PI but to give a description of what the temple and its "furnishing" objects looked like. But given that the value "3" is within less than 5% error compared to the real value of PI = 3.14159... this is an acceptable approximation, even though "31 cubits" length would have been the (correctly rounded) answer that we might have expected. But who knows what "rounding" entailed in these days. And in a certain sense "30" is a "rounder" number than "31". And these last remarks are made all under the assumption that this above mentioned astonishing approximation is NOT intended.

Another interesting aspect, the letters used here    are the only letters in Hebrew that will reveal this ratio with the difference between the gematriacal value of 3 letters and 2 letters. In other words this is the absolute lowest mathematical sequence in Hebrew to produce this ratio.

Taking into account further information a few verses later, provides us with yet another way of understanding the text. In 1 Kings 7:26 we read about this metal pool:

1 Kings 7:26 It [the above mentioned metal pool] was a handbreadth in thickness, and its rim was like the rim of a cup, like a lily blossom. It held two thousand baths.
which we can imagine to be like:

    
    `\                           /'  d = the measured diameter between 
      |                         |        the extreme points of the rim
      |                         |        
      |                         |    but circumference is measured below 
      |                         |        the rim at the actually smaller
      |                         |        diameter c
      \_________________________/
   *--------------d-----------------* 
                                 |/'
      *-----------c------------*

Given this information and assuming that exact numbers are given we could even calculate the width of the rim, if we want to... [that is a home work problem for the interested reader].

Jochen Katz



I prefer pi



"Pi" and More in Torah

The Bible and the Value of "PI"

Does the Bible contain a mathematical error?  Not at all!

  Biblical Value of Pi 

1.0471698, which multiplied by 3 is pi.  "1047" in the Old Testament lexicon can be transliterated as "pi."  Hence, "house of pi."  Indeed, truth is stranger than fiction.

Solomon and the Molten Sea

pi in the bible

In describing the temple that King Solomon built for the King of Kings, several articles of furniture are described.  One of these pieces is “a molten sea.”   II Chronicles 4:2 reads thus, “Also he made a molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim, round in compass, and five cubits the height thereof; and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.”  A supposed discrepancy has arisen from this passage concerning the mathematical accuracy of the Bible.  The value of π (pi) is known to be equal to the circumference of a circle divided by its diameter, 

The aforementioned scripture states that the molten sea was “ten cubits from brim to brim” and “a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about;” thus, its diameter was 10 cubits, and its circumference 30 cubits.  Dividing this circumference of 30 by a diameter of 10 gives a value of exactly 3.  This is where the questions arise.   It is commonly known that the value of π is approximately 3.14159265358979. In fact, this value has been proven so exactly, that its value is known to hundreds of thousands of digits. 

Why then does the Bible appear to give the value of π to be 3?  A diameter of 10 cubits should yield a circle having a circumference of more that 31.4 cubits--not 30 cubits.  Is the Bible just rounding things off?  Are the Biblical values just approximate and not really exact?  If we see here that the scripture is not exact, what other passages also contain words that cannot be received with complete accuracy? 

1 Kings 7:26 It [the above mentioned metal pool] was a handbreadth in thickness, and its rim was like the rim of a cup, like a lily blossom. It held two thousand baths.

If the diameter of this bowl was 10 cubits, then the circumference should have been 31.415926 cubits, and not just 30 cubits!  Any math student will tell you that the circumference of a circle is found by taking the diameter times Pi (3.14159265358979...), is commonly approximated by 22/7 if great accuracy is not needed.   Is this an error?  Think again. The answer is so simple!

The diameter of 10 cubits is from outer rim to outer rim, the way anyone would measure a circular object.  The circumference of 30 cubits, however, was of the inner circle, after subtracting the thickness of the brass (two handbreadths—one for each side) from which the bowl was made.  This would be the number needed to calculate the volume of water.

    the house of pi  

line of thirty cubits did compass it round about

calculation of pi =

(30 x 18) / [(10 x 18) - (2 x 4.05)] = 540 / (180 - 8.10) = 3.1413613 = 3.1414

Let's compare our calculated value of 3.1414 to the real value of "pi", which is 3.1415927. Actually, the parameters given in 1 Kings 7:23-26 gives a direct value for "pi" that is within 2 parts in 10,000, which is fairly accurate. Since the outside diameter of the sea is 10 cubits, what is the inside diameter?

inside diameter = circumference / pi = 30 / 3.1415927 = 9.5493 cubits

And, since the inside circumference is 30 cubits, what is the outside circumference?

outside circumference = diameter x pi = 10 x 3.1415927 = 31.4159 cubits.

God makes no mistakes, mathematical or otherwise. The Scriptures do not contain error.  By the way, Solomon built this sea in 1000 B.C., long before the Greeks rediscovered Pi (p).  We may not understand some things at first glance, but the problem is with us, not with the Bible. Ancient standards of measure vary widely, a cubit is generally taken to be about 18 inches, although there are different types of cubits ("common" and "royal", varying from 17 to 22 inches). A handbreadth is taken to be about 3 inches, sometimes being defined as one-sixth of a cubit.

 Something else to ponder:

First, mathematically, take the etymology of the words hehvawquof and vawquof (the Hebrew word used in this verse, versus the usual word for circumference), and you'll find that the ratio of their numeric value (via Gametria) [(5 + 6 + 100)/(6 + 100)] is 1.0471698, which multiplied by 3 is pi

Just for the heck of it look up word number "1047" in the Old Testament lexicon.  It is "Beth Peor", spelled beth peor.  Beth is translated "house of," and the first three letters of the last portion, peh, ayin, vaw could very easily be transliterated as "pi."  Hence, "house of pi."  Indeed, truth is stranger than fiction.



I believe I'll have another piece of pi, please.



SolomonsPi2.gif (15276 bytes)

The old myth of king
Solomon's wrong pi

Click on picture to enlarge it  
= 15 Kb

The political value of Solomon's Pi

Most textbooks on the history of science assert that ancient Near Eastern mathematicans did not know how to compute the circle constant pi, and that the Bible gives the very inaccurate value of  pi = 3  for this important number. 

They refer to the reported dimensions of the “sea of cast bronze” which king Solomon placed before the Temple he built in Jerusalem, as described in 1 Kings 7:23:

“It was round in shape, the diameter from rim to rim being ten cubits; it stood five cubits high, and it took a line thirty cubits long to go around it.”

Indeed, the Rabbis who wrote the Talmud a thousand years after Solomon asserted this value based on those verses. They may not have been mathematicians, but they knew how to divide thirty by ten and get three. They affirmed as late as the middle of the first millennium CE:

“that which in circumference is three hands broad is one hand broad”.

Scholars of the Enlightenment era were glad to concur with that interpretation because it allowed them to wield this blatant falsehood in the Bible as an irresistible battering ram against the until then unassailable inerrancy of the religious authorities.

Their Colonial era successors further embraced that poor value for Solomon’s pi to belittle the mathematical achievements and abilities of the ancient non- European civilizations, and to thereby better highlight those of their own group.

The views of these scholars survive to the point that this purported lack of mathematical intelligence under the reign of a king renowned for his wisdom is still an article of faith among mainstream historians of science trained to read this obviously primitive value into the text.

One of the most popular books on "A History of Pi" even offers eight translations of that biblical passage into seven different languages, presumably to drive home the point, with the common mainstream method of proof by repetition, that in every one of those translations the diameter remains ten cubit and the circumference thirty1.    

However, the disparagers of Solomon’s pi omit half the evidence. The rest of the passage they cite shows their dogma is based on a hit- and- run calculation of the type that would make any undergraduates flunk their exam.

It seems that none of those who so compared the diameter and circumference of Solomon’s Sea of Bronze, as reported in 1 Kings 7:23 and 2 Chronicles 4:2, bothered to read on. Both accounts state three verses later that the rim of said vessel was

“made like a cup, shaped like the calyx of a lily”.

In other words, the rim was flared, and the ten- cubit diameter measured across its top from rim to rim was therefore larger than that of the vessel’s body which “took a line thirty cubits long to go around it”.

The surveyors would hardly have tried to stretch their measuring rope around the proud outside of that rim where it would never stay up.  The only practical way to measure such a flared vessel is to stretch the rope around the body below that rim, as suggested on the picture above.

The circumference and diameter reported were thus not for the same circle, and deducing an ancient pi from these unrelated dimensions would be about as valid as trying to deduce your birth date from your phone number.
 

The volume and shape of Solomon's Sea

Moreover, the measuring unit conversions supplied by modern archaeology allow us to compute the inside volume of that vessel and to thereby find its shape.  With the stated circumference, wall thickness, and height, only a cylinder can contain the volume of 2,000 bath given in 1 Kings 7:26.

The cubit length which had been used in various Jerusalem buildings and tombs of Solomon’s time was 20.67 inches2, according to the archaeologist Leen Ritmeyer who investigated the standards used in those structures.  Like the ancient Egyptian cubit of typically similar length, it was divided into seven hand breadths of four fingers each.

The bath was a liquid measure of “approximately 22 liters”, as Harper’s Bible Dictionary states.  It was one tenth of a “kor” in the well- known dry- measuring system which is also described in Ezekiel 45:14.  Its use for liquids is confirmed by eighth century BCE storage jars, found at Tell Beit Mirsim and Lachish, that were inscribed “bath” and “royal bath”3.  A liter is 61.0237 cubic inch, so 2000 bath equal 304.04 cubic cubit.

As calculated and illustrated in the above diagram, the 2000 bath of water from 1 Kings 7:26 fill that cylinder close to its top, to a height of 4.511 cubit above the inside bottom.  The outside height was five cubit, and the bottom was one seventh of a cubit thick, so the 2000 bath leave only a shallow rim of about 0.3461 cubit above the water level, depending on how accurate the "about 22 liter" conversion factor is.

SolomonsPirimdetailgif.gif (6344 bytes)

The rim flare inscribed into the computed rectangle looks indeed like that of a cup, or like the calyx of a lily.

The height and width of that rim, computed with the proper pi, produce an elegant flare that matches the biblical description.  The same holds true for approximations to pi from about 3 1/8 to 3 1/6 which all produce lily- like rims and are all closer to the proper value than the alleged but unsupported pi = three.

These conversions also make it clear that the copyist of the much later4 parallel history in 2 Chronicles 4:6 misread that volume when he gave it as 3,000 bath. No matter how much you fudge the math or squeeze the water, this volume does not fit into a vessel with those dimensions.
 

The mainstream denial of ancient Pi

Solomon’s mathematicians and surveyors, and their ancient colleagues throughout the ancient Levant, were therefore not necessarily the clumsy clods portrayed in current history books. 

The accuracies of transmitted lengths which Ritmeyer found in the actual dimensions those ancient builders left us in stone show that they worked with great care.  It strains belief that their surveyors could have misread the rope around that vessel by almost two and a half feet in a circumference of less than 52 feet.

Nor is there any rational reason to assume that the ancient number researchers were so innumerate that they could not have computed a fairly good value of pi, as close to the real one as that of Archimedes, or even closer.  They had the same basic mathematical tool kit which Archimedes used many centuries after the Babylonians and Egyptians developed it.  They had perhaps also more patience and motivation than Archimedes to continue with the simple but repetitive calculations required for better approximations.

However, the backwardness of ancient Near Eastern mathematics has become a cornerstone of the prevailing prejudice against pre- Greek accomplishments.  Examining that cornerstone exposes the scholarly bias on which it was founded.

The reason for the current denial of ancient pi seems to be that the tool required for the calculation of pi is analytical thinking, the same mode of thought on which all the rest of so- called Western science is based, and which must therefore be Western.

Most history books tell us that this superb achievement and gift to all humanity had to wait for the unique genius of the glorious Greeks, and that the invention of inquisitive and logical thinking was the decisive contribution from these purported founders of said science.

The Greeks were, in the words of a highly respected Egyptologist born at the height of the English Empire:

“... a race of men more hungry for knowledge than any people that had till then inhabited the earth”5 .

Reflecting the same then typical attitude which refers to those other people as “that” instead of “who”, an equally respected historian of science quoted approvingly Plato’s partisan remark :

“... whatever Greeks acquire from foreigners is finally turned by them into something nobler6.

This cultural bias led some of those afflicted by it not only to disregard obvious facts, as in the case of Solomon’s pi, but even to fabricate evidence, as needed to support their supposed superiority. 

1,651 posted on 08/04/2005 1:24:54 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1645 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
"No more than ASSUMING there is 'stuff' between ancient crittern+12,382,987 and ancient crittern+12,382,988.

If you are referring to abiogenesis calculations, you seem to have missed my point that those calculations are useless. Why would I or anyone else assume something based on useless calculations?

If you are referring to transitional fossils, the links are based on morphological, environmental, and genomic similarities as well as the temporal sequence.

Evolutionary scientists use both deductive and inductive reasoning just as any science does. All deductive logical structures eventually boil down to inductive premises. Every single bit of reasoning we do has inductive reasoning somewhere in its history, including your religion and my science. Why would this reasoning work for your religion but not for evolution?

The larger the number of data points available to the inductive reasoning processe the more likely it is to be accurate.

1,652 posted on 08/04/2005 1:34:44 PM PDT by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1625 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp
Why would anyone want to calculate the odds of a strawman argument?
 
Strawman??
 
Oh; let's use EVOLUTIONARY DATA.
Try THIS: 
 
What are the odds that Ichy's picture here is, indeed, illustrative of what actually happened?
 
What are the odds that F. Eoarctops eyehole will enlarge into E. Biarnosuchus big one? 
 
What are the odds that  E. Biarnosuchus eyehole will reduce into D. Spheracodon's small one?
 
What are the odds that  D. Spheracodon's eyehole will enlarge (again)  into C. Haptodus' HUGE one?
 
        
 

1,653 posted on 08/04/2005 1:36:10 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1647 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
"Live rabbits don't obey the simple minded physical laws that dead rabbits obey.

Thermodynamics?

1,654 posted on 08/04/2005 1:36:28 PM PDT by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1624 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
"You Evo's holler

I am spunkets and I did not holler. I asked specific questions regarding a theological council between muslims and Christians.

"when a link is shown (or not) between Darwin and whoever,

If Darwin uses BS from some council of unscientific source I'll point that out. If folks pervert something, I'll point that out too.

" yet you try to tar us with the brush you abhor."

I asked what the purpose and common goal was, for holding a council with the muslims.

1,655 posted on 08/04/2005 1:36:47 PM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1643 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
So which is it? Is it a misreading of Hebrew letters, or is it the width of the brim?
1,656 posted on 08/04/2005 1:38:30 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1651 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp
Thermodynamics?

Ballistics!

1,657 posted on 08/04/2005 1:39:10 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1654 | View Replies]

To: balrog666; Right Wing Professor
I was trying to use absurdity to illustrate your absurdity, but its all to absurd
1,658 posted on 08/04/2005 1:46:31 PM PDT by chariotdriver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1603 | View Replies]

To: eleni121
When you post material from a web site you should always post the link to the site. Otherwise people reading the post may think it is an original work.

Do it like so:

[a href="?"][b][big]XXX[/big][/b][/a]

Replace the "[" brackets with "<" and the "]" brackets with ">"

The ? gets replaced by the site's url. The XXX is replaced by the title of the link that will show up in the thread. Nothing to it.

(Information supplied generously by PatrickHenry,
Slightly modified by me)

Here is the link for almost your entire post

1,659 posted on 08/04/2005 1:48:16 PM PDT by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1627 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

Nice.


1,660 posted on 08/04/2005 1:50:19 PM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1651 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,621-1,6401,641-1,6601,661-1,680 ... 1,781-1,792 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