PBS Offers Intelligent Design Documentary

CREATION - Evolution Headlines ^ | 04/28/2003 | Illustra Media/CREATION - Evolution Headlines

[f.Christian]

To: whattajoke

waj ...

It is my strong contention that science, and all its tenets, is an important part of conservatism. We consider ourselves more knowledgable and educated (well, we are) and this is all part of that. The minority of YEC's in our world do us an injustice, and make for easy ridicule from the left.


ph ...


Well stated. That is also my position.


112 posted on 04/29/2003 3:00 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)


fC ...


Overlordism ...

I'm only surprised that you publicly admit it (( you 're not joshing // tricking me ? ? )) !

"We consider ourselves more knowledgable and educated (well, we are)" ---


fC ...


Is that only what your worried about ... what leftist think ---

"The minority of YEC's in our world do us an injustice, and make for easy ridicule from the left."

What's the difference between your village and hillary clinton's ?





wj ...

As has been stated here a million times, scientific debate is not meant for public spectacle. Truth be told, it's a tedious, boring exercise detailing minute facts, written out over tens of thousands of pages in hundreds of texts, journals, online resources, museum placards, etc.


fC ...

classic ... elitisim !


To: f.Christian

fC...

Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives(no govt religion--none) who advocated growth and progress---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality... UNDER GOD---the nature of GOD/man/govt. does not change.

LC...

Now I follow, thank you. Actually, I don't disagree with this at all since I see the left as abandoning the uncertianty of democracy and majority rule (( constitutional // law ))** for the assurance technocracy and expert rule (( dictatorship // tyranny ))**.

152 posted on 9/10/02 12:17 PM Pacific by Liberal Classic

** .. .. .. my additions !

Boshevik monopoly (( experts )) ... social // mind engineers ---

Brainwashing (( God // Truth )) -- Indoctrination (( lies // evolution // atheism )) !

Main Entry: tech·no·crat
Pronunciation: 'tek-n&-"krat
Function: noun
Date: 1932
1 : an adherent of technocracy
2 : a technical expert; especially : one exercising managerial authority

Main Entry: tech·noc·ra·cy
Pronunciation: tek-'nä-kr&-sE
Function: noun
Date: circa 1919
: government by technicians; specifically : management of society by technical experts

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Ah so? You are then saying the founders of our country are atheistic while the founders of communistic societies are G-d fearing perhaps?

[general_re]

Evolution is a theory. It won't disprove God.

Indeed. One wonders why so many religious folks seem threatened by it, in that case...

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

Evolutionists argue that amino acids randomly combined to form proteins and then cells.

I thought that Evolutionists argue that higher life forms evolve from lower or less developed life forms. How the whole process got started is less germain than how species came to be in their present forms.

The theory that amino acids randomly combined to form proteins and then cells would be called something else. What...I am not sure.

[Not Insane]

"And yes, the NOT being removed was a veiled insult, only because your response to me was one as well. "

Touche.

Regarding the rest of your post. Evolution means an infinite number of things to people. The word, as used on these threads is like a piece of warm jello, regarding definition.

I firmly accept the concept of micro evolution. The subtleties of evolutionary thinking sometimes are easily acceptable to someone who believes the Bible account of creation, and sometimes not.

One of the more interesting things in the Bible is the mention of the Behemouth and the Leviathon. Both are spoken of as though the contemporary reader had experience with them. Modern scholars have attempted to call them Elephants and Hippos, or aligators. All are preposterous. But the other explanations don't make sense, based on the world view that the same animals that exist today were all that was around then.

We don't know ANYTHING for sure about evolution. Not "evolutionists" or "creationists." And both sides are guilty of the exact same sins. I normally don't participate in these threads because they are exercises in futility from both sides, and both sides can get pretty disrespectful.

You cought me in my "insult." As a matter of fact, I thought long and hard before I hit the post button, and decided I was spending too much time on a minor decision. So you got what you got.

I will put "in a nutshell" my basic attitude about this whole thing: It is an argument between two different religious beliefs. At least one side admits it.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

No, I've not. However, you might note that as the U.S. moves more and more into a socialist direction, social Darwinism comes more and more into play (socialists believe the Constitution is a "living document" - thus supporting the Darwinian view of things).

[Dimensio]

Ah so? You are then saying the founders of our country are atheistic while the founders of communistic societies are G-d fearing perhaps?

I know that it's pretty early May, but mayhaps I could nominate this for non-sequitur of the month award?

[Not Insane]

"If Descartes proved that a specific God existed, then I would love to see the proof. "

The babelfish.

Come to think of it, that proves God DOESN'T exist. 8-}

[PatrickHenry]

But my entire point was that socialists tend more towards the Darwinian point of view, while capitalists do not.

Alas, your entire point is wrong, and you will need to re-think everything. Here's a quote from a source I'm sure you think is beyond reproach:

"A review of the writings of several leading "robber baron" capitalists shows that many of them were influenced by the Darwinian view that the strong eventually will overcome the weak."
DARWIN'S INFLUENCE ON RUTHLESS LAISSEZ FAIRE CAPITALISM. (Institute for Creation Research)

[Doctor Stochastic]

You must read the works of d'Hors first. Never put Descartes before d'Hors.

[Axolotl]

Not at all, I simply said that capitalist economists have bought into Darwinism in a big way, as evidenced by their professional journals. What does that have to do with the founding fathers?

[winstonchurchill]

Idiots on parade. Again. And again. And Again.

I am sorry that your religious (substitute) belief is so endangered by the merest possibility of 'intelligent design'. Contrary to your name-calling approach, I don't think that believers in Darwin are 'idiots' -- merely scared. You shut out facts because they endanger your belief structure.

Your little theory of history as a man-made, self-starting explanation might have propped up your rebellion against God for a generation or two, but it now relies on political coercion to try to prevent on-coming generations from noticing that it has no intellectual clothing at all.

[Dimensio]

The theory that amino acids randomly combined to form proteins and then cells would be called something else. What...I am not sure.

There is no theory. There is a hypothesis called abiogenesis, but it's not yet garnered enough evidence nor applied to enough tests to warrant calling it a theory. Unfortunately, too many people think that evolution has something to do with how the first life forms came about, and creationists often play upon that ignorance as 'proof' that evolution has no answers (of course, it has no answers to a question that it does not ask!)

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

The truth is that Capitalist systems can have many different forms of governments. Even the communists found that they could not get along without it. The more proper response would be comparing our republic (which was designed to work from the bottom up) to communism (which was designed to work from the top down).

Communism is very much like a religion.

[Not Insane]

"Indeed. One wonders why so many religious folks seem threatened by it, in that case..."

I cannot speak for everyone here, but the word "threatened" certainly does not apply in my case. Of course, it was right for many people under Hitler, et-all to be threatened by what adherance to this particular phylosophical belief could cause their leaders to do to them - especially Jews, Gypsies, Blacks and other "less desirables."

[Aric2000]

Never said it did, but it seems to frighten you for some reason.

[Axolotl]

We don't know ANYTHING for sure about evolution. Not "evolutionists" or "creationists.". False.

And both sides are guilty of the exact same sins. False

I normally don't participate in these threads. Me neither

...because they are exercises in futility from both sides, and both sides can get pretty disrespectful. TRUE!

Cheers, Ax

[Dimensio]

However, you might note that as the U.S. moves more and more into a socialist direction, social Darwinism comes more and more into play

Since social darwinism has nothing to do with biological evolution except that some idiots decided that a biological process could be shoehorned into social structure, I'm not sure what you're trying to do here other than divert attention from the real matter at hand.

Evolution is a biological process. Social darwinism is an attempt to apply a mistaken notion of what a biological process is into a social system. It's like trying to create an economic system based upon how gravity works. Bringing up social darwinism into a debate regarding biological evolution is nothing more than distraction.