Ps. 22:7-8
Hey, don't look up Giles Corey. Hide your head in the sand.
Posted on 09/13/2005 4:15:07 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
So what would Charles Darwin have to say about the dust-up between today's evolutionists and intelligent designers?
Probably nothing.
[snip]
Even after he became one of the most famous and controversial men of his time, he was always content to let surrogates argue his case.
[snip]
From his university days Darwin would have been familiar with the case for intelligent design. In 1802, nearly 30 years before the Beagle set sail, William Paley, the reigning theologian of his time, published "Natural Theology" in which he laid out his "Argument from Design."
Paley contended that if a person discovered a pocket watch while taking a ramble across the heath, he would know instantly that this was a designed object, not something that had evolved by chance. Therefore, there must be a designer. Similarly, man -- a marvelously intricate piece of biological machinery -- also must have been designed by "Someone."
If this has a familiar ring to it, it's because this is pretty much the same argument that intelligent design advocates use today.
[snip]
The first great public debate took place on June 30, 1860, in a packed hall at Oxford University's new Zoological Museum.
Samuel Wilberforce, the learned bishop of Oxford, was champing at the bit to demolish Darwin's notion that man descended from apes. As always, Darwin stayed home. His case was argued by one of his admirers, biologist Thomas Huxley.
Wilberforce drew whoops of glee from the gallery when he sarcastically asked Huxley if he claimed descent from the apes on his grandmother's side or his grandfather's. Huxley retorted that he would rather be related to an ape than to a man of the church who used half-truths and nonsense to attack science.
The argument continues unabated ...
[snip]
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
Second offense duly noted in your file .....
Well, they'll stone ya when you're trying to be so good,
They'll stone ya just a-like they said they would.
They'll stone ya when you're tryin' to go home.
Then they'll stone ya when you're there all alone.
But I would not feel so all alone,
Everybody must get stoned.
Let's see, if I can follow this... we do partial birth abortions, so it must be okay to drop rocks on the head of 17 year olds. No, that can't be it.
How about, maybe if we drop some rocks on the heads of kids, that will stop abortion....No.
We're currently doing abortions, but we haven't started stoning the kids yet, so the latter is OK...No.
I'm having a problem with your logic here. Could you spell it out for me?
Indeed. We should also stop and consider this: how does it feel to be on your own? With no direction home? Like a complete unknown? Like a rolling stone?
However, in the atheistic mindset of those who reject Christianity, historically and contemporarily, people have no problem with infanticide, (Muslims, Hindus, atheists) or with passing children through Molloch, their idol, which is just sacrificing them to Satan. (Islam, Hindus, atheists)
bluepistolero
Ok, it is clear ... when you 'guys' talk sweet about me like this w/o pinging me, it means something. But what? Ahhhh. It can only mean you miss me. Honestly, I have missed you two guys too, but only a little bit.
I have been busy w/ my 3 month old son - I go out into the backyard w/ my golf clubs and my golf wiffle balls, and he is in the stroller. Then I discuss the finer points of geophysics in motion as I tear up my backyard during practice, taking spin off, then putting it on again (golf wiffle balls are ideal for this kind of practice). I demonstrate to the little man the near magical power as these tiny objects float to within inches of my target, a red and white thermos at 25 yards. Little Gb watches intently while sucking his thumb, and then looks up quizzically after I finish. I tell him golf is alot like prophecy, creating the future in the present. For only when the picture is created in the now does it come true in the then...
(as an aside, I noticed you suffer from a double standard RWP ... touchy when others do it to you, but gee, here you are advocating my comments be laid up on some vast internet mocking board somewhere in PH's vast archives of 'help' ... but you didn't feel the need to ping me. Shame on you oh great paragon of rectitude - and btw, my feelings are hurt; please recall I suffer from fragile self esteem....)
And Thatcherite, I must confess, the fact I made such a deep impression upon you with regards to my G.U.T.S discussion is rather interesting. The Grand Unified Theory of Sex has had quite of few listeners, and I have noticed something... those unhappy w/ just 'who' God is tend to find sex w/ one woman pretty uninteresting, but at the same time the theory of evolution they find very important to them - it is all linked somehow ... funny strange....
I am doing a new line of inquiry: the experience known as 'falling in love'. I have noticed Hollywood movies though on the surface go gaga over this topic actually obfuscate in the extreme about it ... reminding me ALOT of how leftist T.O.E types operate...
I have come to conclude your average T.O.E dude/dudette seems to avoid this subject. Perhaps you two have some thoughts, ideas, about how 'falling in love' VALIDATES the T.o.E. I would love to hear it. But, I suspect neither of you have really anything to say about it, much less have data/studies/links regarding the matter. It is astonishing how much sex fills the broadband lines ... and just how very little falling in love is discussed much out there in cyberland...
Because falling in love really has little to do w/ the sex drive, making kids ...; those are artifacts of the experience.
falling in love has LOTS to do w/ a man wanting to be faithful to just one woman.....
Why, scientifically reasoned, is that ya think?
I'm ... honored. By all means, if your series, I'll find the link for you...
Bwaaaaaaaaaahaaha!
Giles Corey. Google it.
bluepistolero
I told you, google it. Go forth and learn something.
You realize, of course, that aknowledgement is not the same as worship or even tolerance.
Matthew Chapter 24:
4: And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
bluepistolero
Jeremiah 5:21
LOL.
bluepistolero
Ps. 22:7-8
Hey, don't look up Giles Corey. Hide your head in the sand.
Yes, convicted, like a common criminal. That way you will realize that One shed his blood for you, redeemed you, paid the price for your sins. You never choose God, He chooses you.
That's what I thought you meant. Now back to my original question, which you haven't answered. How do you know the Bible it the Word of God?
"However, in the atheistic mindset of those who reject Christianity, historically and contemporarily, people have no problem with infanticide,"
Well, here we have little evidence that the evo crowd is outraged by the abortion practices in the western world. For example, Israeli women, who happen to be serving their requried time in the IDF, if they get pregnant with an unwanted Jewish baby girl or baby boy, why, the Israeli gov't will spend tax revenue for them to get an abortion....
That thread was a while ago, and I am still shaken by the implications of just how .... silent the world is about the topic. No, instead, my comments about Christian sex, 7 months old, still reverberate in cyberspace ...
There is something odd about the attraction of Mollech all right...
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.