Posted on 03/30/2009 12:58:22 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
The New York Times got the preview story wrong, and the Washington Post editorial writer probably was too rushed to question the charges of "creationism" coming from the National Center for Science Education, the Darwin-only lobby. So this week's important decisions by the Texas Board of Education (TBOE) on how to teach evolution were predicated in the media by the big question of whether teachers should provide both "strengths and weaknesses" of Darwin's theory. Those words might sound benign, readers were told, but they really are "code words" (take the press' word for it) for creationism and religion.
To the media left, any questioning of Darwin is reserved for denizens of Dogpatch.
So, what did the TBOE do? Well, it turns out that they are fairly adroit politicians. They did remove language providing for "strengths and weaknesses" and then added new language--quite a lot of it--providing that students will learn, for example, to "analyze, evaluate and critique scientific explanations…including examining all sides of scientific evidence… so as to encourage critical thinking by the student." Perfect! A policy distinction without a difference! In fact, the new standards are just fine, an improvement, in fact. Now teachers can tell the kids about the scientific evidence in a variety of fields that seems to contradict the Darwinian account as well as the supposed evidence in support.
Once again the NCSE was too-smart-by-half. It ran blogs making fun of religion, while organizing public speakers who gave fulsome testimony to their Christian faith and how compatible it is with "evolution" (meaning Darwinian evolution). To the purists like Richard Dawkins and P.Z. Myers it probably makes them look like toadies.
In the end, the rhetoric meant to evoke fundamentalist cranks was mixed with pious statements doing the very kind of religious posturing the Darwinists project onto their foes, and reminding me of the church scenes from Blazing Saddles. It all backfired.
By demonizing specific words--and making the elimination of them the test of "science"--the NCSE and its state distributor, the Orwellian-named Texas Freedom Network, simply allowed the Board to do the obvious word shuffle. Okay, no "strengths and weakness, " but instead, we'll pass similar ideas in different words, and everyone will be happy. Except, of course, the NCSE and the TFN.
Don't expect the media to figure this out from the NCSE Talking Points memo, but the insiders get the picture. Dawkins must be enjoying a caustic chuckle at the expense of the NCSE.
Nothing you posted changes what I said.
I suggest reading the entire book of Hebrews, carefully.
Sowing.
Hebrews has no bearing and should not be introduced into an evolution thread. It is irrelevant.
I imagine a less intelligent Laura Richmond “The movement “Islamic Jihad” is neither Islamic or Jihadist; discuss amongst yourselves.”
It bears on his bad theology, which is the subject of a sub-discussion, which you are not a part of.
Atlaw is being deliberately disingenuous. He is so consumed by hatred for biblical creationists that he will do anything, no matter how sick, no matter how twisted, no matter how morally repugnant...to include falsely linking Christians to Islamist Terrorists..
This all began, when atlaw falsely tried to imply that the Muslim creationist, Harun Yahya , is somehow my mentor.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2218326/posts?page=36#24
I replied to this unfounded accusation with the following:
“I worship Jesus Christ, the Creator of the Universe and everything in it. However, I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that Harun Yahya et al are performing a wonderful service re: the War on Terror. When Muslim’s become creationists, they tend to openly and publicly denounce terror carried out in the name of Islam. As such, the more Muslims who become creationists (even if it’s of the Muslim variety) the more that helps the US and its allies in the War on Terror. It also increases the likelihood that many of those same Muslims will become Christians, for they will find that the first Creationists-proper were all BIBLICAL creationists. Once they realize that their creationist ideas came from Christendom, this will cause many of them to pause and compare the Qu’ran to the Bible. Once they realize that the Qur’an is inferior to the Bible, some of those very same seekers will come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. As such, many souls will be saved, and it will help us win hearts and minds in the War on Terror even more once they realize the Jews are God’s chosen people (and doubly so once they realize that their Lord and Savior was born a Jew!).”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2218326/posts?page=36#25
Atlaw, who behaves just like a slimy lawyer, ignores my reply above and pretends like I just admitted that I’m on the payroll for Harun Yahya!:
“Still pushing this little lie for Mr. Yahya, eh GGG? Well, I guess you don't want to piss off the guy who's paying your bills.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2218326/posts?page=36#31 I would also like to show how Mr. Lawyer deliberately takes my quotes out of context in order to smear me, and gain unfair advantage for his materialist, anti-creationist agenda. For instance Mr. Lawyer takes quotes from two different replies and fuses them together to make it look like I am saying something I am not. Here is how Mr. Lawyer quotes me:
“Actually, the majority of radical Islamist terrorists despise creation, and are materialist to the core. . . . All of them are hardcore Commie-Materialists who worship at the alter of evolutionary materialism . . .”
The first part is accurate. I truly believe that the majority of radical Islamist terrorists despise creation, are primarily politically motivated, and are materialist (and nihilist) to the core. However, Mr. Lawyer snatched the second part of the quote was from a TOTALLY DIFFERENT REPLY, and is trying to deliberately deceive the reader into believing that they both dealt with the same subject. In reality, the second part of the quote that Mr. Lawyer took out of context was in response to specific question directed at me from Mr. Lawyer:
“Please, name these mysterious, materialist, non-radically-religous and non-creationist Islamic radicals, GGG.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2218326/posts?page=36#33
My reply:
“All of them are hardcore Commie-Materialists who worship at the alter of evolutionary materialism”) was specifically referring to a list of Islamo-Commie terrorists and terrorist groups going all the way back to the Islamic Marxist movement that was started by the Bolsheviks in 1916. In that same reply, I spoke of the Commie-Terrorist roots of the PLO, how Bin Laden’s right hand man, Ayman al-Zawahiri, is a known KGB agent, and finally how a study found that the majority of Lebanese Hezbollah suicide bombers turned out to be secular Communists and socialists. I was referring to these specific terrorists when I said “All of them are hardcore Commie-Materialists who worship at the alter of evolutionary materialism.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2218326/posts?page=36#36
In the end, whether you agree with me or disagree with me, it is clear that Mr. Lawyer is willing to engage in slimy, dishonest, slanderous and disruptive behavior in the service of his agenda to discredit Christian creationists.
==Atlaw writes: "Let's compare your words to those of your Islamic-Creationist mentor, shall we?"
Atlaw is being deliberately disingenuous. He is so consumed by hatred for biblical creationists that he will do anything, no matter how sick, no matter how twisted, no matter how morally repugnant...to include falsely linking Christians to Islamist Terrorists..
This all began, when atlaw falsely tried to imply that the Muslim creationist, Harun Yahya , is somehow my mentor.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2218326/posts?page=36#24
I replied to this unfounded accusation with the following:
“I worship Jesus Christ, the Creator of the Universe and everything in it. However, I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that Harun Yahya et al are performing a wonderful service re: the War on Terror. When Muslim’s become creationists, they tend to openly and publicly denounce terror carried out in the name of Islam. As such, the more Muslims who become creationists (even if it’s of the Muslim variety) the more that helps the US and its allies in the War on Terror. It also increases the likelihood that many of those same Muslims will become Christians, for they will find that the first Creationists-proper were all BIBLICAL creationists. Once they realize that their creationist ideas came from Christendom, this will cause many of them to pause and compare the Qu’ran to the Bible. Once they realize that the Qur’an is inferior to the Bible, some of those very same seekers will come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. As such, many souls will be saved, and it will help us win hearts and minds in the War on Terror even more once they realize the Jews are God’s chosen people (and doubly so once they realize that their Lord and Savior was born a Jew!).”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2218326/posts?page=36#25
Atlaw, who behaves just like a slimy lawyer, ignores my reply above and pretends like I just admitted that I’m on the payroll for Harun Yahya!:
“Still pushing this little lie for Mr. Yahya, eh GGG? Well, I guess you don't want to piss off the guy who's paying your bills.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2218326/posts?page=36#31 I would also like to show how Mr. Lawyer deliberately takes my quotes out of context in order to smear me, and gain unfair advantage for his materialist, anti-creationist agenda. For instance Mr. Lawyer takes quotes from two different replies and fuses them together to make it look like I am saying something I am not. Here is how Mr. Lawyer quotes me:
“Actually, the majority of radical Islamist terrorists despise creation, and are materialist to the core. . . . All of them are hardcore Commie-Materialists who worship at the alter of evolutionary materialism . . .”
The first part is accurate. I truly believe that the majority of radical Islamist terrorists despise creation, are primarily politically motivated, and are materialist (and nihilist) to the core. However, Mr. Lawyer snatched the second part of the quote was from a TOTALLY DIFFERENT REPLY, and is trying to deliberately deceive the reader into believing that they both dealt with the same subject. In reality, the second part of the quote that Mr. Lawyer took out of context was in response to specific question directed at me from Mr. Lawyer:
“Please, name these mysterious, materialist, non-radically-religous and non-creationist Islamic radicals, GGG.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2218326/posts?page=36#33
My reply:
“All of them are hardcore Commie-Materialists who worship at the alter of evolutionary materialism”) was specifically referring to a list of Islamo-Commie terrorists and terrorist groups going all the way back to the Islamic Marxist movement that was started by the Bolsheviks in 1916. In that same reply, I spoke of the Commie-Terrorist roots of the PLO, how Bin Laden’s right hand man, Ayman al-Zawahiri, is a known KGB agent, and finally how a study found that the majority of Lebanese Hezbollah suicide bombers turned out to be secular Communists and socialists. I was referring to these specific terrorists when I said “All of them are hardcore Commie-Materialists who worship at the alter of evolutionary materialism.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2218326/posts?page=36#36
In the end, whether you agree with me or disagree with me, it is clear that Mr. Lawyer is willing to engage in slimy, dishonest, slanderous and disruptive behavior in the service of his agenda to discredit Christian creationists.
(There is a sharp difference between these Turkish creationists, who in my experience have dressed in 3-pc. business suits and are impeccable in their behavior, and the Islamist fanatics we are so rightly concerned about in other contexts.)
Anyway, the idea that Christian creationists are taking marching orders or even are much influenced by Islamic creationists is just silly. Most Christian creationists are not even aware of their Islamic counterparts, who are clearly getting their ideas from the larger and better established Christian organizations, not vice versa. Atlaw is pushing a rather ridiculous and untenable line of reasoning, and I think the average reader will perceive that easily enough just based on simple logic and common knowledge of the creation/evolution topography.
Doesn’t matter.
Half the kids still won’t be able to read at a 4th grade level.
One quarter of them won’t even finish high school.
It’s still public school.
Thanks for your thoughtful response, Liberty. I will be posting an ever expanding version of the above, everytime Mr. Lawyer attempts to slime Creationists/IDers by falsely linking them to Islamist terrorism.
Never heard of it before. Do you know the history behind it?
No, I don’t know the history.
First I ever heard of it was on that thread.
Whatever the case, I see a lot of those tactics employed on these threads.
LOL. SOME of the Mormons on the other threads argue the exact same way.
Atlaw and his ilk are at the end of their rope. - There is nothing really left of the TOE, and they have run out of plausible misdirection to feed to the news media while they swim in circles in their lifeless swamp searching for a new beginning.
Ok class! - Each of you has the materials for the next exercise on your desk; a cucumber, and a condum....
==Atlaw and his ilk are at the end of their rope.
It certainly seems that way given the desperate (and outright dishonest) measures they use to prop up the increasingly discredited Temple of Darwinistic Materialism.
The Flamer’s Bible
Revision 1: Dec. 2, 1987 by Joe Talmadge
In the time I have been posting to net, I have encountered flame wars of epic proportions (Brahms Gang vs. Tim Maroney), and flame wars of a more modest nature (MIT vs. CIT). Flaming has evolved into a highly-stylized art form, complete with unwritten rules and guidelines.
Here, I have attempted to document the Art of Flaming, in such a way as it will be interesting to old hands (flame masters) and novices (virgins) alike. Without a further ado, then, I present:
The Twelve Commandments of Flaming
1. Make things up about your opponent: It’s important to make your lies sound true. Preface your argument with the word “clearly.” “Clearly, Fred Flooney is a liar, and a dirtball to boot.”
2. Be an armchair psychologist: You’re a smart person. You’ve heard of Freud. You took a psychology course in college. Clearly, you’re qualified to psychoanalyze your opponent. “Polly Purebread, by using the word ‘zucchini’ in her posting, shows she has a bad case of penis envy.”
3. Cross-post your flames: Everyone on the net is just waiting for the next literary masterpiece to leave your terminal. From rec.arts.wobegon to alt.gourmand, they’re all holding their breaths until your next flame. Therefore, post everywhere.
4. Conspiracies abound: If everyone’s against you, the reason can’t *possibly* be that you’re a ********. There’s obviously a conspiracy against you, and you will be doing the entire net a favor by exposing it.
5. Lawsuit threats: This is the reverse of Rule #4 (sort of like the Yin & Yang of flaming). Threatening a lawsuit is always considered to be in good form. “By saying that I’ve posted to the wrong group, Bertha has libeled me, slandered me, and sodomized me. See you in court, Bertha.”
6. Force them to document their claims: Even if Harry Hoinkus states outright that he likes tomato sauce on his pasta, you should demand documentation. If Newsweek hasn’t written an article on Harry’s pasta preferences, then Harry’s obviously lying.
7. Use foreign phrases: French is good, but Latin is the lingua franca of flaming. You should use the words “ad hominem” at least three times per article. Other favorite Latin phrases are “ad nauseum,” “vini, vidi, vici,” and “fettuccini alfredo.”
8. Tell ‘em how smart you are: Why use intelligent arguments to convince them you’re smart when all you have to do is tell them? State that you’re a member of Mensa or Mega or Dorks of America. Tell them the scores you received on every exam since high school. “I got an 800 on my SATs, LSATs, GREs, MCATs, and I can also spell the word ‘premeiotic’.”
9. Accuse your opponent of censorship. It is your right as an American citizen to post whatever the hell you want to the net (as guaranteed by the 37th Amendment, I think). Anyone who tries to limit your cross-posting or move a flame war to email is either a communist, a fascist, or both.
10. Doubt their existence: You’ve never actually seen your opponent, have you? And since you’re the center of the universe, you should have seen them by now, shouldn’t you? Therefore, THEY DON’T EXIST! This is the beauty of flamers’ logic.
11. Lie, cheat, steal, leave the toilet seat up.
12. When in doubt, insult: If you forget the other 11 rules, remember this one. At some point during your wonderful career as a flamer you will undoubtedly end up in a flame war with someone who is better than you. This person will expose your lies, tear apart your arguments, make you look generally like a bozo. At this point, there’s only one thing to do: insult the dirtbag!!! “Oh yeah? Well, your mother does strange things with vegetables.”
My flames will be witty, insulting, interesting, funny, caustic, or sarcastic, but never, ever, will they be boring.
Here endeth the scriptures.
Let’s not forget that a led-off with #1 !!!
I'm not sure where in Hebrews you can find anything that would contradict GGG. However, many Christians(if not the vast majority) believe along the lines of the Nicene Creed. Anyway, my King James version of the Bible states Hebrews 1:2,5,8-10 thusly.
Hbr 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
Hbr 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
Hbr 1:8 But unto the Son [he saith], Thy throne, O God, [is] for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness [is] the sceptre of thy kingdom.
Hbr 1:9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, [even] thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
Hbr 1:10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
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.