Posted on 02/05/2002 8:18:30 AM PST by JediGirl
For those of us who are constantly checking up on the crevo threads, why do you debate the merits (or perceived lack thereof) of evolution?
Ah, but I gave a link to the source. In any event, attacks on "postmodernism," whatever it is, are not the same thing as attacks on evolution.
The number of imaginable ways has no relation to the number of actually possible ways. What we can conceive of is a (very large) superset of that which is possible. The denominator is determined by what is actually possible, not what we can imagine is possible. To put it another way, imagine trying to statistically analyze any ordinary phenomenon where you had to consider not just what is actually possible, but everything you could imagine is possible no matter how absurd. A meaningful analysis will never result from such a standard.
I do appreciate your post. I have a friend who is much more "up to speed" than I on the subject and I forwarded the source to him.
Thanks for straightening me out on that.
;^)
Of course not. The Constitution is about religious as a roadmap or a blueprint. The Framers left the matter of religion to the State governments. I was simply replying in a sardonic way totoddhisattva's over-assertion that God isn't in the Constitution and that it is an 'atheist' document, as if it were the product of atheists. But I don't think atheists would have been caught dead dating a Constitution document "in the year of our Lord", or "ordaining" it, or referring therein to "blessings", or "Sundays excepted".
The point is that the Constitution took root in the religious/cultural/polital millieu of the time, a time in which outspoken atheists in the colonies were few and far between. The religious underpinnings of American political and legal institutions have been written about extensively by legal scholars and historians. It's just a fact that church governments, although not exclusively so, provided models for colonial civil governments and also for our constitutional system.
Cordially,
I'm sorry you're afraid to research the quotes you rely on. <sigh>Such naïve use of quotes, innocently borrowed no doubt from a godly source you trust, and believing you have something with which to smite the godless mainstream theory of biology. Dig deeper, incindiary. CLICK HERE & don't stop until you've found the real stories behind each of those quotes that sounded so convincing. When you discover that they're utterly cynical Clintonian truth-twisting games being played on you, hopefully you'll feel like I did when I discovered that all ten of the Hollywood Ten really were Communist cadre.
258 posted on 2/5/02 10:29 PM Pacific by jennyp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: jennyp
Well of course you're going to say something like that... your theory is under attack.
LOL......I was thinking the same thing! Actually, I think what we may have witnessed is the shortest account here on FreeRepublic. < wink >
Ah, but the quotes, when taken in context reveal a meaning exactly opposite of that which you intended.
OK, I can't be the only one here familiar with Nietzsche, Foucault, and philosophical postmodernism.
Yes, and sometimes a bit too enthusiastically. Article VI of the Constitution, for example, states:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation [that is, a religious or a non-religious oath], to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.It's entirely clear that the Framers intended to create a secular [but clearly not atheist] government. The document is unambiguous on this, as are the writings of the Framers. The ideas for the institution they created came from many sources, and among the most important were the state governments and the state constitutions which were drafted after the Revolution.
Weren't you on the OJ jury?
Aww, too bad for you.
Race, I think you're an intellectually honest person in general. But you've been around these threads long enough. You know these quotes are lies by context dropping. Incindiary, I don't know you, but you also claim your list of quotes are honest. Here's the link to incindiary's list of damning quotes that you two claim are convincing evidence that evolution is really a house-o-cards. Please point out the best quote of the bunch, that best proves your case.
IOW, put up.
(Re: your quote mining) Is your theory so weak that you resort to misquoting people?
But, even if your point is true, (and I am judging by some earlier post a little back on this thread by SJ Gould I think), that he was upset at the quote being used, but the point of the quote the creationist used, the quote is not what was the objection, it was the inference made by creationists through the quote that "AHA! Evolutionists condemn themselves!"
I will read that thread you posted, but I am willing to bet that most of these evolutionists do believe the basic point of the quote used, they just didn't say it to reveal their disbelief in evolution, they said it as a statement of fact concerning evolution, while still defending evolution with the rest of the context of their paragraph where the quote was taken from.
...(off to the link...)
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.