Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Gordon Greene; buccaneer81
What terms did I use incorrectly? Why don't you take the time to look up "myth?" There are several meanings, and the one that myth=something untrue is well down the list. Check out:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/myth

You people are threatening the survival of Christianity with your arrogant stubbornness. Whether the earth is 6000, or 12000, 100,000 years old, or whatever, has absolutely no relevance to man's need for salvation. The real "moral" of Genesis is that we are broken, we can't fix ourselves, but God would provide a remedy. Yet you are willing to let the Gospel be held up to ridicule by linking it inexorably to an idea (young earth) which is utterly indefensible scientifically.

I am certainly not an evolutionhead. As a scientist, I find the evidence for evolution pretty convincing, and that for an ancient earth overwhelming. However, I have posted repeatedly against the teaching of evolution in secondary (let alone middle) school, because it is anything but fundamental science, and no one at that level really needs it; what they need is math, physics, and chemistry. (The Left and other materialists want it taught because it can be used to support their low opinion of mankind.) I have been ridiculed by real evo-lovers for taking that stand. I also once posted that the co-discoverer of the MRI, a genius who has done more for mankind than all the evolutionary scientists put together, was a young-earth creationist! That got me trashed by the evo-fanatics. I also posted in defense of the Pennsylvania community which wanted ID taught in its schools. I've also posted in support of people who use logic and science to question evolution. Many evolutionists are more interested in pumping dogma into the heads of the young than doing real science. I suspect they are pedagogues rather than working scientists. Real science is not dogma, and real religion can't be mere dogma either. The core of Christianity is love of God and love of man. You can't get people to show those qualities by memorizing some verses, or burning incense and chanting something. Love has to be modeled by believers, just as Christ did for us.

217 posted on 03/29/2009 8:13:54 AM PDT by hellbender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies ]


To: hellbender; GodGunsGuts

Good night, man... you’re a scientist. That means you’ve had some semblance of an education. That being the case, you have to know you’re not dealing with scientists on here.

A better word could be chosen. You’re familiar with the traditional usage of the word “myth” and a teacher of all people should know to evaluate his audience. And if you want to be taken seriously you might look at the company you keep here. If you don’t speak differently than the other evolutionists on here you’ll be lumped together with them.

And as for “us people” threatening the survival of Christianity... another assinine statement. If that is the case then it was threatened by the writers of the scripture because that is where we get our information.

tut-tut


222 posted on 03/29/2009 8:31:31 AM PDT by Gordon Greene (www.fracturedrepublic.com - Believe God is a myth? You'll have a helluva time in eternity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies ]

To: hellbender
You people are threatening the survival of Christianity with your arrogant stubbornness. Whether the earth is 6000, or 12000, 100,000 years old, or whatever, has absolutely no relevance to man's need for salvation. The real "moral" of Genesis is that we are broken, we can't fix ourselves, but God would provide a remedy. Yet you are willing to let the Gospel be held up to ridicule by linking it inexorably to an idea (young earth) which is utterly indefensible scientifically.

I am certainly not an evolutionhead. As a scientist, I find the evidence for evolution pretty convincing, and that for an ancient earth overwhelming. However, I have posted repeatedly against the teaching of evolution in secondary (let alone middle) school, because it is anything but fundamental science, and no one at that level really needs it; what they need is math, physics, and chemistry. (The Left and other materialists want it taught because it can be used to support their low opinion of mankind.) I have been ridiculed by real evo-lovers for taking that stand. I also once posted that the co-discoverer of the MRI, a genius who has done more for mankind than all the evolutionary scientists put together, was a young-earth creationist! That got me trashed by the evo-fanatics. I also posted in defense of the Pennsylvania community which wanted ID taught in its schools. I've also posted in support of people who use logic and science to question evolution. Many evolutionists are more interested in pumping dogma into the heads of the young than doing real science. I suspect they are pedagogues rather than working scientists. Real science is not dogma, and real religion can't be mere dogma either. The core of Christianity is love of God and love of man. You can't get people to show those qualities by memorizing some verses, or burning incense and chanting something. Love has to be modeled by believers, just as Christ did for us.

Excellent post

225 posted on 03/29/2009 8:39:45 AM PDT by org.whodat (Auto unions bad: Machinists union good=Hypocrisy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson