Posted on 09/24/2005 7:20:09 AM PDT by gobucks
You can take Genesis and match it to the creation of the Universe. For example,1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Gaseous clouds condense and compact into spheres called planets. Heavy cloud cover limits light as torrential rains fall to create oceans, etc.
1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Suunshine breaks through, after millenia.
1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
Rotational day/night periods.
1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
Self explanatory. Flooding rains receded, land dried. Etc.
As for the "days", try explaining a billion years to a shepherd.
Evolution has been extended and used by most as a natural progression for all things that exist. I'm merely using the common vernacular for the umbrella discussion.
Maybe so, but it was in continuation of a discussion you began by referring specifically to "Darwinism" (regarding it's alledged favorability to atheistic leftism). "Darwinism" clearly refers to the particular biological theory. Clarity would be enhanced by the use of appropriate adjectives -- e.g. "cosmic," "universal," etc -- if you're shifting the topic.
Exactly paint people who subscribe to TOE as liberals and or communists is not an argument. Last time I checked TOE was not a political stance. However, ID'ers seem to want to paint it that way.
Einstein would disagree. A quote from him.
"Science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. "
This quote is from a very interesting read. If you care to follow up on it refer to site http://www.ctinquiry.org/publications/torrance.htm
Really? By whom?
Talk to the average Jane and Joe.
" I need not read the evolutionists comments"
At least you are consistent. :) A foolish consistency is the Hobgoblin of little minds.
I hardly see how the intruduction of pseudo-scientific nonsense as a supposed "alternative" or teach about non-existant "problems with the theory is going to help.
Wow. A faith statement, and pithy too. And, to boot, I'm too slooooow or idiotic to decipher your masterfully worded statements. Be that as it may, we're here together, in Freeperland. I have a gift for you:
Our Forgotten Goddess: Isabel Paterson and the Origins of Libertarianism.
See, I have this theory. Leftists, as a rule, are feminists. However, three women took on a subject that is claimed by the right, economic liberty. But funny, none of them had good marriages, and in fact fully fit the bill of 'feminist'. And, of course, none of them had kids (Rand even hated dogs she claimed, bless her heart). I have this theory. "Real leftists" who label themselves as such have a problem w/ Fathers.
ALthough this article was wonderful in its evidence it provided to validate my theory, that a bunch of angry women who were betrayed by their Dads are going to come up w/ profound libertarian nonsense..., I am still missing a key piece of the pie. Ayn Rand's Dad.
I would love to know the facts about her Dad, her relationship with him. Let's face it. Her relationship w/ Frank was simply sick, utterly sick. This guy, Frank, wimp distilled, had to be an echo of her actual Dad. Women in general marry men like their Dads. Ayn's Dad must have been a real disappointment. He certainly didn't bring her to America.
"real conservatives" stultis? Do you see your confidence within your words? Where does that come from? I of course don't know you, nothing about your family. But, allow me to say this about what I have discovered about leftists.
Your average leftist, especially the ones w/ a rep that is well known ... they had pretty bad relationships with their Dads. Some of them are quite open about it (Bill Burr makes Dad hating part of his comedy act even). The highest paid leftist TV actor in Hollywood, Raymond, .... he once said that if his Dad had hugged him just once, he likely wouldn't have made that disgusting TV show 'Everybody Loves Raymond". Why would Ray do that ... except for the confidence he has created which has as a sole purpose to fill in the blanks where his Dad should have bestowed such confidence. Your average leftist hates "Dad" - and when they detect some man or woman who was fortunate enough to have a real Father, their envy just kills them; they are provoked by force into leftism as a way to overcome their discomfort of witnessing that experience that they have craved but were denied. Thus, they get mad, and seek revenge - some by making stupid TV shows; others by engaging in filth.
Because, personally, their own Dad screwed them terribly. Often times, he was physically present, but a drinker. As often, he just up and left and never came back. He was .... a GUY in his impact - he had a chance to make the name given to the kid stand for something, but instead, he bestows a legacy that nothing is trustworthy.
Now, what is interesting is that leftists KNOW what a REAL leftist is supposed to look like. They have great confidence. But, here you are, claiming to have a confident grasp of what 'real' conservatives look like.
I think I can tell you one thing for certain about a 'real' conservative: he knows how to love his wife, such that when she walks into a room, his love bestowed upon her creates a loveliness within her that is smashingly attractive - the kind of attractiveness where questions are raised about just what is he doing that is so.... right.
Real conservatives understand that leftism, libertarianism, atheism, zealous adherence to empiricism, homosexuality, abortion, and above all feminism, are mere symptoms of widespread abdication and effeminancy by MEN. Women are absolutely not to blame for all these ills.
Men, guys actually, wet-pasta-spined boys posing inside the bodies of men are the problem. And this epidemic disease we are witnessing of girliness in men has a source (among others): leftist ideas (including evolution) that are permeating public school via the past successes of populist movements, such that science itself is yammering for what unionists always yammer for: protection. Don't you wonder why it is evolution is so weak that it allows room for so many 'dissenters'?
Business democrats everywhere do indeed cry out for the protection of 'science', the distilled purity of science ... that which protects their moral license frameworks, and captures their rapt attention to NPR as they drive home every night.
Look stultis ... you are obviously a bright guy. But let's agree on something: you are not going to be able to tell me how adhereing to pure rationalism is going to help me solve my personal issues associated w/ my wife and kids ... and I am certainly not going to provide any help to you about how you should make your wife feel loved. Right? (And of course, at this point you would argue, T.O.E has nothing to do with how a marriages are conducted. You are mistaken.)
Oh no don't get me wrong God and a sincere belief in a God has much to do with science. Cloning, destruction of fetuses for scientific gain etc... requires a moral understanding that cannot be acheived without faith.
What this argument is about is taking the wonderful thing that evolution is and replacing it with ignorance.
If God gave us the ability to define the world around us then we should use it. If God gave us the ability to think then we should think. I do not think that with these God given abilities we should subscribe to the supernatural.
One of the reaons I like this site is the differing opinions and I respect them all but I one day hope for an ID TOE arument that runs less than 10000 posts.
Science is supposed to be objective study of what is, not the creation of what you want to be.
Matchett, your post is awesome.............I guess the truth about who Darwin was bothers some.
Do I have your permission to copy it for future reference?
I didn't know you were a Freudian.
So, I guess he is using nonscientific methods to hire those people....
it is just blind, random luck and chance ... he has simply evolved into making these great decisions.
It must have been the exposure to baseball. There's lots and lots of stats in baseball.
We agree on the fact he doesn't make the sun shine. But gee, the eyes of his daughters ... they shine brightly, every time they are on tv. Ever notice that Chelsea got tons more tv time than these two girls? Laura Bush ... she too just glows ... but compared to Frau Hillary, one hardly ever sees Laura. It is a flat out shame...
What a bogus, vaccuous comment, Stultis.
You usually use your brain, and even when I don't agree with you, I respect you.
This is leftist airheaded nonsense, and beneath you.
Darwin's motives have everything to do with his 'scientific' study, resulting in TOE.
I thought touchy feely was a leftist tactic/argument. I thought conservatives dealt with hard facts.
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.