Posted on 01/30/2006 10:27:35 PM PST by Sweetjustusnow
The two scariest words in the English language? Intelligent Design! That phrase tends to produce a nasty rash and night sweats among our elitist class.
Should some impressionable teenager ever hear those words from a public school teacher, we are led to believe, that student may embrace a secular heresy: that some intelligent force or energy, maybe even a god, rather than Darwinian blind chance, has been responsible for the gazillions of magnificently designed life forms that populate our privileged planet.
Good blog, thanks for the link.
Link to Ichneumon's blogger where he tells all.
I guess this make you a .... LIAR... for God!
Your response was to #658.
Yes, just as I already mentioned.
Please re-read #2 as you say for comprehension.
I did.
And you want us to believe post #719 has nothing to do with #658.
Get a grip -- I didn't say it had "nothing to do with #658" -- I already mentioned that it was a reply to that post, of *course* it had "something to do" with it. Sheesh.
That doesn't, however, justify the strange and bizarre things you managed to read into the mere fact that I replied by posting the quote he was describing especially since I did so without comment. I was providing historical context, not arguing a case for or against linking versus pasting, nor "attacking" the author of the quotes, nor anything else you've managed to fantasize about my post.
Whatever your emotional issues are which cause you to be able to "read" all sorts of things into the simple posting of a quote that had been mentioned, please work them out before you reply again.
I was born at night, but not last night....
That's not how it appears.
[We didn't get Gore3000 banned, with or without a conspiracy.]
Now who's hallucinating?
You are, as I've already documented.
Please post where I said you were part of the conspiracy. In other words as you say so often...
"We" being Freepers. As I already documented, and you've failed to acknowledge, Gore3000 was banned not as the result of any "conspiracy", but because he self-destructed in a very public and foolhardy way.
If you are referring to the blogger, take it up with him.
If you are referring to my tagline, take it up with my Master.
If you are referring to me personally, I've been called much worse by much better.
If you are referring to the blogger, take it up with him.
If you are referring to my tagline, take it up with my Master.
If you are referring to me personally, I've been called much worse by much better.
I was unsure to which I referred and now I'm not.
Wow. A one sentence, one post conspiracy. And that's all it took to get G3k banned? I'm impressed.
Take a bow....
;-)
We'll *I"m* still confused. I don't see what prompted your accusation against labette. Was it based on some past dispute? Because it doesn't seem to me that his post #920 would justify it.
I don't know how you were raised, but calling someone a liar without being "sure" about it can be an exciting experience where I come from.
We'll *I"m* still confused. I don't see what prompted your accusation against labette. Was it based on some past dispute? Because it doesn't seem to me that his post #920 would justify it.
You're right and I apologize. I mistook/misread labette's post. Sorry labette.
Woof!
When an individual observer adopts an axiomatic principle it is not arbitrary from the standpoint of the observer. It may, however, be arbitrary in view of all that resides beyond the observer's experience.
I can understand to some degree why intelligent design may not be axiomatic to every observer outside of myself. I can even understand to some degree how one could arrive at other means of expressing the clearly apparent diversity that attends the physical world. What escapes me is how one individual, or group of individuals, considers it a matter of legal consequence to have his own viewpoint proscribed by federal judges to the exclusion of those who may be of a different mind.
May I ask why you think the federal government should enforce non-theistic thought in a public context? May I ask how such a role for federal government comports with conservative principles in general and the founding principles of this nation in particular? IMO it should be a hallmark of conservative principles to welcome free expression and free inquiry. Or does free inquiry cease where science begins?
Thank you.
Woof!
No doubt his bite is worse than mine.
Woof at warp speed?
Where science begins we begin to rely on data, fact, rigorous testing of hypotheses, and theory building.
We leave behind... Well, Heinlein said it best.
What are the facts? Again and again and again—what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what "the stars foretell," avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable "verdict of history"--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973
I'm confused, why would someone want to proscribe their own viewpoint, and who do you imagine is doing so? And how does one proscribe a viewpoint to the exclusion of others? Isn't that rather an oxymoron, like hiding yourself in an attempt to make other people less visible?
May I ask why you think the federal government should enforce non-theistic thought in a public context?
May I ask why you think I think that? I don't.
May I ask how such a role for federal government comports with conservative principles in general and the founding principles of this nation in particular?
It doesn't, which is why I don't hold such a position.
IMO it should be a hallmark of conservative principles to welcome free expression and free inquiry. Or does free inquiry cease where science begins?
Not at all.
I remember those heady days. I was number five with a bullet over at DU...
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.