“Debate on church doctrine and or threads on specific religious matters may be best posted in the religion forum, but the defense of religious freedom, especially against those who wish to deprive us of same belongs front and center on FR....They banned God and prayer and creationism from public schools and public places, but I’ll be damned if they’re gonna ban Him or it from FR!”
—Jim Robinson
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2203455/posts?page=78#78
Ping!
Brian Thomas MS* is startlingly dense, isn’t he?
More false conclusions made by the usual suspects.
Far too many inorganic entities and processes exhibit ‘purpose’...
Dust and gas coming together to form suns and planets, magnets sticking together..
Are they “organisms” ???
It’s an animal instinct..like eating. Some people eat to stay alive, some live to eat. The later get fat and die early. That will be $35.00 plus Obama tax which comes to about $20,000. You are welcome.
Two better questions:
1 What defines an Obamanism?
which naturally leads to:
2 What defines an Obamasm?
At first glance I thought it said Orgasm..........
Misread your title.....Thought it read “What Defines an Orgasm”
So what...it is still crap
Sounds like “One purpose for all” is being derived from the same source of “One size fits all”...how monolithic and unimaginative. Of course, that is the purpose.
Silly me. I always thought the way to determine whether or not something was an 'organism' was anything with the ability to reproduce.
Genetic replication
This belongs in religion. It has nothing to do with defense of religious freedom.
Oh,organism...
Is that like the special purpose Navin Johnson had in “ The Jerk”?
Why you should not post from ICR and expect to be taken seriously. Pay attention to the last sentence particularly.
“ICR claims it “met or exceeded” the 21 Standards of Certificates of Authority. In fact, ICR did not meet several of those standards which was the basis of the THECB’s refusal to grant the Certificate of Authority. Three of those unmet standards were faculty qualifications, the curriculum, and academic freedom of the faculty and students.
ICR’s claim that it suffers from “anti-accommodational evolution-only-science enforcement policy practices” is frankly absurd. ICR has every right in the world to teach its Creationist pseudoscience to paying students and can continue to do that, so that falsifies its claim of illegal victimization by the State of Texas. It has no right, however, to demand that its graduating students be awarded a Texas-certified Master of Science degree, since under no definition of science or practice of legitimate science education in the United States is ICR’s curriculum “science.”
http://pandasthumb.org/