Posted on 09/27/2006 9:56:09 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
You do understand that is not a rebuttal - it is just your opinion based on unrelated issues. Your religious intolerance is not an intellectual rebuttal. Why don't you address the article rather then attempt to read the man's mind and guess his motives.
I wrote: "Darwinism is absolutely not compatible with Scriptural Christianity." I am not able to recant. Frankly, I don't see that statement as either rude or counterproductive. I do, however, see the Darwinists (who disbelieve the clear teaching of Scripture and seek to diminish the power and sovereignty of the Creator) consistently being rude to Bible-believing Christians.
Are you claiming all aspects of evolution have been proved to the degree that they can be considered facts? If not, you have faith and I think you just called yourself a kook.
I asked for examples of lies - you put a quote and ask a leading question. Are you planning on showing us the lies in the article?
HINT: one must know a statement is untrue when we say it for it to be a lie.
The Evo's accusations often sound identical to the Democrat Moonbat slogan that "Bush lied"
I do choose my analogies carefully. The point is made.
Private?
I guess this evo thinks everybody should follow the herd and never think outside of the herd-mindset.
What question do you think I sidestepped - I was not responding to a question. Could you please support your accusation.
The only apparent basis the man has for making the assertions and drawing the conclusions in this article is his religion.
So a Ph.D in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California at Berkeley is not a basis to comment on evolution. That is a silly statement. Do you have a Ph.D in cell and molecular biology - if not, who are you to question his credentials.
So you plan is to attack the author personally rather than address what the article actually says?
There are so many flaws in the Museum (that even darwinists themselves disclaim) that it isn't even funny no thanks! Publically paid indocrination is not for me!!
Where are transitionals for the eye?
This is not true: I can name many noted scientists who do
not accept Darwinism.
Where he got his degree from is irrelevant to the question of what motivated him to pursue it in the first place.
So a Ph.D in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California at Berkeley is not a basis to comment on evolution.
Upon what basis in cell and molecular biology does he conclude that TToE is "first and foremost a weapon against religion"?
So instead of debating the issues (like most) you instead insult "creation" in an adhomnia attack "insutls conservatism". Did I EVER carry out adhominim attacks agasint Darwinsists (Despite the fact tha tI believe they are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay wrong?), and say that they "insult conservatism"? Guess it's easier to demean rather than debate on the issues, huh..?
Name one!
I am asserting it is a lie to say that evolution is anti-religious. A flat lie.
If it isn't a lie, tell me how evolution is anti-religious, and a statement that the earth moves is not anti-religious. Tell me how physics is not anti-religious when it determines the age of the universe. Tell me how geology is not anti-religious when it determines the age of the earth. Tell me how medicine is not anti-religious when it relieves the pain of childbirth.
Religion has been accommodating the findings of science for as long as there has been science. Most people are willing to heed the warning of St. Augustine.
Good company, indeed.
The old and new testaments are the inspired Word of God - both written by Jews. The new testament is a continuation of the old testament.
Very well said! Thanks.
So are you saying the content of his studies are irrelevant. It does sound like you could be making excuses for your inablity to refute this article. So using your logic - what schools you went too and your credentuals are irrelavent, all you care about is what you have decided is his persons motives.
Upon what basis in cell and molecular biology does he conclude that TToE is "first and foremost a weapon against religion"?
Wells also has a Ph.D. in theology from Yale University - do some research before you post. Do you have a Ph.D. is theology?
Buck,
I don't know why you have a conviction that you don't want to share. I am speculating that you consider your reasoning a private part of your faith. I'm giving you an out. If you want to explain further, I'm all ears.
Best to you,
ampu
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.