And IMMGAHO, your post was not pointless, optional spam, this is.
Posted on 07/07/2007 2:31:35 AM PDT by balch3
Mr Lundbergh is absolutely accurate in his critique of the false pseudo-scientific religion of Darwinism.
The hysterical/irrational reaction of its adherents is similar in many ways to the reaction to Pope Benedict's brilliant Regensburg lecture.
Such people do not like to have their certainties questioned.
For anyone with an open mind, neither historical evidence nor scientific experimentation lend any credibility to this "theory". It remains just that, a preposterous theory, not a matter of fact. It's very much a case of ideology masquerading as science, a crutch for closed minds, an ideology for the deluded.
There's nothing concrete or tangible about it. The contrast with the contribution of its adherents' great ideological enemy (Roman Catholicism) could not be greater. There you have tangible evidence of its reality. For example you can visit the great universities, Oxford, Cambridge, Bologna etc. You can see the Sistine Chapel. You can expand your mind by absorbing the genius of Thomas Aquinas and so on, and so on.
Bad "scientific" ideas (like all bad ideas) have bad consequences. ERIC CONWAY, NAVAN, CO MEATH * Redmond O'Hanlon writes that adherents of evolution rely on "a biased interpretation" (Letters, July 28).
This could not be futher from the truth. One of the main reasons so many books by atheist writers have appeared recently is because of the "intelligent design" concept in the USA.
Over the last few years hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent in an attempt by scientists to find evidence for God's handy work in the natural world. They have even tried (unsuccessfully) to have intelligent design inserted into school science courses on the basis that both arguments deserve equall respect, even though Darwinian evolution has literally mountains of ancient evidence to back it up, and intelligent design has no evidence at all, only theory based on parts of evolution which have not been fully explained by conventional science, yet.
If people such as Mr O'Hanlon can't reconcile evolution with the existence of God, then this is as good as proof that God dosen't exist, in the same way we know the earth is not flat because we know its true shape. Proof is always positive which is why nobody can ever find evidence for the non-existence of God.
Well, I'm convinced. I finally see the light! Yes, yes, it's clear: 1000's of scientists across the world are involved in a massive conspiracy to keep people from God and Jesus. Satanists all of them!!!!!! Bring back the firey stake!!!!!
< /sarc > (just in case it's not clear to some real thick skulls)
The point, not meant as a serious one, is that I was pinged to an Irish list with this anti-evolution item, and here was a Scotch called Evolution. Listening to the whole thing was strictly optional.
I notice that’s from a Catholic Apologetics group. Stubborn cusses, aren’t they?
It's youse "comedians" who are ruining this site!
LOL! The mother of all conspiracy theories.
Yes, a creator who created himself is a rational explanation. Can I get fries with that?
Algore ought to hire this writer to put some additional hyperbole into his flaming Global Warming preposterousness.
Ann made a fool of herself when she took on evolution.
Most of what she included was warmed over tripe of the sort you find on creationist websites.
A summary of the rebuttals can be found here: Index of Creationist Claims.
> “It [the Bible] contains TRUTH - not Facts”.
Amazing.
What kind of twisted thinking is THAT?
If it’s not factual, how can it be truthful?
And if it’s not truthful, how can it be factual?
What am I missing?
Sounds a lot like Dan “false, but accurate” Rather.
You are thinking that's the path. Take the next logical step - the creator always was and always will be. Sure you can have fries, thank the creator for being able to.
And IMMGAHO, your post was not pointless, optional spam, this is.
A literal reading of the Bible would only give you the conclusion that π=3, geocentricism is correct, and that the Earth is only 6000 years old. All rubbish.
I like the Discworld explanation best: God put them there just to fool the scientists.
Yes, that or scientists put them there to fool God.
I know exactly Why Dinosaurs were Created By God, and Exactly Why He caused them to become Extinct!
Exactly Why!!!!
First God Is Omnipotent, Omnipresent and Omnisient.
All Powerfull, everywhere at once, and All Knowing.
and In His Infinite wisdom, He could forsee all the events in the Future of Man’s Life On Earth.
He Knew we would need Cars...to move about in a Modern World.
so in the Past, He made great Creatures, living on Huge Plant eco-systems..the world of Dinosaurs....
then He wiped them out, making the Huge pools of OIL under ground...the (Fosil-fuels)!!! for future Cars trucks, etc. of the Modern World.
a Perfect Plan!
and He left none alive because You can’t have a Brontosaurus stepping all over your front lawn now can you?
I'm surprised that you see such a significant contrast in the two letters. They're both about equally well written. And even though I'm an evolutionist, I readily concede that the second letter as well as the first doesn't cite any actual fact, but deals only in bald assertion and arm-waving generalizations.
But then maybe I'm missing something as I haven't ever looked to the letters sections of newspapers for analysis and testing of scientific theories.
Step One: Stop them laughing at you.
Step one's gonna be tough, so we'll leave it that for now.
You know the copy at that geocentrism cite is better written than the letter balch3 posted, and there are FAR better reasons given for why geocentrism (plus evolution) is a specific attack on the Catholic faith than evolution alone (while accepting the lie of heliocentrism).
This is a classic case of psychological projection.
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.
