Posted on 06/07/2006 11:39:07 AM PDT by boryeulb
Then you just don't get it.
Thanks for the ping. I haven't read this book, but I agree with her thesis that liberalism is a godless religion.
I do recall a show on PBS or Discovery Channel, where it speculated on the origin of dolphins, and indeed the thought was land mammals who lived by the sea (think sea lions or similar creatures) eventually evolved into pure sea dwellers.
This particular program speculated humans evolved from cetaceans, not apes, because of the way our arm and leg hair grows (in a streamline). Seriously.
Personally, I don't think Ann is too far off the mark. But I think it was a dog, not a bear that fell into the water. Sea lions seem a lot like dogs, and the few dolphins I have had the pleasure of meeting remind me more of a Labrador Retriever than a bear.
Evolution? Maybe. Or maybe God knew there would be seafarers someday, and they would need friendly animals around.
Of course, no doubt a big wooly mammoth fell into the ocean and evolved into the blue whale.
I guess to the hard left, the truth hurts.
The lefties can't handle the truth! This is "talking truth to the dumb".
No, not seriously.
My opinion that Coulter fans have room temperature IQs may not have to be revised, but I'm inclined to think they heat their houses like the English.
Back to Chuck… Apparently others in the scientific commune were embarrassed by his statement and he decided to revise it by removing the sentence - “Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.” Although in fairness, he regretted omitting this passage.
But, if we are going to quote a mere sentence and decide if an individual is worth reading - I submit this sentence:
You have expressed my inward conviction, though far more clearly and vividly than I could have done, that the universe is not the result of chance.Again, I am apparently not privy with the ability to discern what Darwin might or might not have meant by this statement ; )
Darwin
Very well said.
Sunday school is not a public school.
This is interesting. Reading throught this thread, I get to post 28 and read what Dracian has to say. People like myself are being fleeced. In 28 posts so far, I count six posters who dislike AC. They are Dracian, saganite, HarmlessLovableFuzzball, FourtySeven, Rogueisland, and Right Wing Professor. My question - if you dislike her so much, why bother reading a thread about her? Also, have any of you read her book? I mean it has only been out two days. I know there are fast readers out there but here we have six fast readers who all dislike AC. I do not know what she fully says about evolution. My question - has evolution been proven or is it still theory? And if theory, why can we not treat it as such? I am not a scientist - nor do I play one on television - but I will read her entire book first before I risk commenting on what she has to say about evolution. In the meantime, it seems to me, you six posters get some sort of perverse pleasure participating on a thread concerning a woman you dislike.
What precisely does your Bible tell you about judging others?
Good points!
While I was mostly on your side, I will jump in here and state that none of us know Sagan's religious beliefs. And what does the term 'born again' really mean? What if a person always believed in God and Jesus, why does that person have to be 'born again?' I am truly offended and pissed off by people such as yourself who walk through life with a holier than thou attitude and treat others condencendingly if their belief does not match your own. And, of course, it never does. I am not worried about Sagan's salvation. He's dead and it's much too late for me to do anything about it, if I could at all, anyway. I am however, worried about my own salvation. With that said, this is a thread concerning AC. You want to preach, go to a thread about preaching.
Is that true? That is one funny story!
"it would take less time for (1) a single-celled organism to evolve into a human being through mutation and natural selection"
So, what are the opposing theories? The "Poof" theory? Does anyone at all believe that a God could create all of this through evolution? Or does it just have to be a swipe of the hand and it is? I have no problem with the fact that God did it, but I also believe God is one heck of a scientist. There is WAY too much evidence to support scientific theory for people to keep reverting back to "God did it." Fine, God did it. Now, as Einstein once said, "I want one equation that allows me to read the mind of God." And before you attack these statements, don't forget, without pure science you don't have medicines, cures for diseases, or anything else in your life that makes you comfortable. When you live you life purely by religion, you live like fundamentalist Muslims. That is, in a mud hut, drinking goats milk and killing your daughters for having godless thoughts of having sex. God is GREAT, that is why we are able to accomplish all that we have. By using the gift of the Scientific Method that God gave us, we can reason, discover, and invent, and hopefully survive. But no one is going to survive with, "God did it." as their only observation.
OK, since this is an important issue and there are others involved, I need to share God's word with you. In John 3:3, Jesus Himself says, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." It's not my word, it's His. If you are offended by His word, you're offended by Him, not me. You can take it up with Him. I have no beef with you. You commented that you are worried about your own salvation. That's good! If you read John chapter 3, you will see the path to assurance of salvation. Thanks for listening.
It's neither enlightening nor entertaining to debate someone who offers no insight. Good day to you.
If the home is deserving, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you. If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town. Matthew 10:13-15
It does not mean you continually beat people over the head with Jesus. You plant the seed and if it is not accepted, you move on. God will than handle it from there. You - and others like you - tend to believe that God is too busy or maybe He appointed you to handle it for Him. News Flash - He has not!
Actually, I did at one time. I loved her appearances on Hannity & Colmes, as well as many of the editorials she wrote. Then I heard about her comment at CPAC, and was seriously put off by it. But I said, "Well, she's human, she's allowed to make a mistake", and now I read that she rejects evolution?
Hey, some want to embrace her, that's fine. I still agree with 90% of what she says politically (I think), but the two issues I spoke of in my OP are some of the most important in the minds of the "moderate"; they are, as I said, the stereotype of what many think conservatives are: Ignorant about science, and racist. Of course calling a religious group a name isn't "racist", just like simply rejecting evolution doesn't make one stupid or a "rube", but in the minds of the American voter they do, so I question her judgement.
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.