Posted on 08/11/2002 3:59:04 PM PDT by vannrox
She did so here at the end of that "Let it all hang" thread that wound up being locked.
I called you an "old man". I apologize. Would I push the abuse button today? No. That would make my reaction of long ago an over-reaction today. I apologize.Medved's continued flaunting of that earlier post (from the same thread) merely shows the poverty of his position. BTW, his own moral outrage is a late invention:923 posted on 4/7/02 10:31 PM Eastern by Nebullis
Pardon the dumb question, but how do you "grope" somebody via electronic media? Is that kind of like the scene in "Keystone Hotel" where the pie goes through the phone line and sploowies the police chief from out the receiver?842 posted on 4/7/02 7:25 PM Eastern by medved
And this invalidates the theory of evolution in which way?
History changes with human convenience, don't you know. It would be awful if we came from apes. It might even make us totally lawless if we knew. Therefore, we didn't.
When your best friend is a bat, it's a little hard to gin up any human empathy.
...and Giordano Bruno is the most famous martyr in the history of science.
Bruno, the Dominican, the philosopher, the most famous martyr in the history of science? I didn't know that!
He defended science, it is true. But he wasn't all that knowledgable on whatever science subjects he wrote.
Best known perhaps for his (at the time) heretical view that the universe was infinite, Bruno not only outraged the Church, but invariably alienated his benefactors with a mouth that never seemed to have learned the fine art of knowing when to shut up.
A smart man, possessed of a rather extraordinary memory, Bruno authored about 20 books, and thus could rightly claim to be an important part of the Italian Rennaisance. As one who was constantly excited by new ideas, he actively embraced many, if not most, of the new ideas in science of his day, even if he didn't fully understand them.
Although his passing, and the events leading up to it, are noteworthy examples of the intellectual ferment and questing for new ideas that was the Rennaisance, calling him the scientific equivalent of Moses is a real stretch, one I've never heard before.
It's worth noting, too, that his contemporaries (who really were scientists), Kepler and Galileo, didn't think all that much of him.
Those who have a distaste for all things religious will doubtless have a Romantic view of this "most famous martyr in the history of science", but viewed a little less dispassionately, one is forced to conclude...Moses he ain't.
CA....
heh heh ...he said "Homo".....heh heh heh
Are we in agreement that evil exists and that Stalin embraced it?
If you believe that good and evil exist, that right and wrong are absolutes, and that the spiritual is ultimately far more important than the material; you will be suspicious of ideas which lead to evil.
But I agree, that Stalin's deeds don't invalidate the science of Darwin. It is a huge warning, however, that we should not use science as a basis for morality or put scientific thinking above moral thinking.
Can you come up with an idea that cannot possibly in any way, no matter how its twisted, ever lead to evil?
But I agree, that Stalin's deeds don't invalidate the science of Darwin. It is a huge warning, however, that we should not use science as a basis for morality or put scientific thinking above moral thinking.
Would an example of some loon (or group thereof), using religion for evil ends convince you that we should not use religion as a basis for morality or put religious thinking above moral thinking?
Posted by Junior, in post 186: "I find this comment* interesting for a number of reasons. First, there is an implicit racist statement: "stupidest white man" -- not "stupidest man." Secondly, there is the ad hominem: not only is Darwin stupid, but Gould and Eldredge are "feebs." Thirdly, there is absolutely nothing of substance in this posting at all. It is simply name calling. And this coming from a man who believes: Earth orbited Saturn closely without being torn apart by tidal forces, frozen and irradiated; the Grand Canyon was formed by a lightning bolt despite the lack of fulgarites; that dinosaurs lived only a few thousand years ago despite lack of paleontological evidence; and that humans are the result of genetic engineering on the part of a person or persons unknown. Methinks this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
The "comment*", in question, which is yours medved, which you do seem to repeat many times:
For the lowdown on Chuck Darwin, stupidest white man of all time and his BS theory, and on the continuing efforts of feebs like Steve Gould and Niles Eldredge to keep the charade going for another generation:
My question to you medved is this: Do you really believe the Earth orbited Saturn at one time? Or that humans are the result of genetic engineering? Or that the Grand Canyon is the result of lightning strike(s)?
I'm really just curious right now more than anything. I can see you have your hands full debating others, so, just simple yes or no answers will suffice, thanks.
There are FReepers who seem to think that the thought of evolution or the ideology of science leads to murder -- and have presented comparative body counts to prove that athiests are -- because of their beliefs -- morally superior to theists.I am not impressed by comparative body counts. I am deeply disturbed by people who want me to believe in the absense of evidence, even in the presence of counterevidence. The notion that belief in itself is good is a steppingstone for tyrants.
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.