Posted on 12/18/2004 5:56:30 PM PST by PatrickHenry
Hey we're ahead! Spooky!
Being a YEC requires disbelief in the entire base of scientific knowledge.
I think that proportion that believe in YEC is the same proportion that is functionally illiterate. That was my point.
Usually, though, it isn't the principal catching them, it is the principal catching hell for them that gets feet moving and retractions made. That and laws on the books in a number of states that require accuracy and integrity in textbooks - causing said lies to disappear lest the community be marred by a public defrocking.. lol
Ah, I thought you meant which religion. The first for me, the fourth for you.
When was evolution first required in public schools?
So all Creationists to you, are functionally illiterate? Seems rather, shall we dare say it? Small minded and bigoted
An utter nonsensical lie. Do you ever open your mouth to utter other than this kind of garbage?
Are you implying that being an evolutionist, then, requires a significant arrogance, bigotry and willful ignorance of creationism?
Kwanza is bringing out his true nature
Still that ignorant huh. Can you add? Subtract? I thought it was Creationists you guys said couldn't do simple math or sum such.
You are going staight from point A to point B! No creationist, ever, especially on this board, has ever achieved such intellectual heights! You are to be commended
I have no interest in Havoc. No one who posts on these threads is ever convinced by the opposition. I post for lurkers. I think Havoc's post is a classic. It doesn't need a response or commentary. I don't even want to characterize it. Those who read it will know what to think.
Let me excerpt it slightly. I originally argued that in order for Havoc to be correct, all of physics, chemistry, biology and geology would have to be wrong, and havoc would have to be smarter than all the scientists who have lived in the past 200 years.
Havoc's response was basically, no problem. He meets that standard. I don't think lurkers will have any trouble understanding that.
That should be an incredible shame to the feigned scientific set. Their theory is so full of lies and they are so set against correcting the lies that laws have to be passed to force them to do so! Incredible, but somewhat satisfying, since it exposes the fraud to the general public and has damaged the efforts of the secularists to move evolution from the realm of values to the realm of fact.
It is semantics. Case in point. I do not believe in evolution. That would make it faith based. However, I do accept the evidence that supports the theory of evolution. Such is science.
How does that make the point I raised meaningless?
Your point is not meaningless, however, a faith-based debate is. Evolution is not faith based.
Being as dirt-dumb as the creationists supposedly are, they sure do confound the enlightened pseudo-scientific elite amateurs.
And what if it did? Would we require equal time in the schools for the Christian "unburning stove" theory?
The problem with macroevolution and even perhaps the old universe is that the hypotheses of mainstream science spill over into metaphysics.
Oh, well. You really only have two choices when your worldview conflicts with observable reality, not four - attempt to maintain your worldview in the face of the evidence by sticking your head in the sand, or revising your worldview to take the evidence into account. If you find physical reality incompatible with God, I submit that the problem is neither with God nor reality, but with your conception of one or both - God cannot be incompatible with reality, and so if there's a problem, it's your problem to solve as you will. Either you misunderstand God, or you misunderstand the universe, but in both cases, neither God nor the universe are affected in the slightest bit by your opinion or your politics or your metaphysics or your worldview. Next time try not to have a metaphysical worldview that is dependent on some aspect of the physical world that you don't fully understand, is my suggestion - then you never have to worry about conflicts between God and His creation.
(sigh) I wist I culd unnerstand them big wurds you use, but Im two dum, dum as a post
Excuse the cheap shot, but that does help explain why they remain unconvinced.
I originally argued that in order for Havoc to be correct, all of physics, chemistry, biology and geology would have to be wrong, and havoc would have to be smarter than all the scientists who have lived in the past 200 years.
That's an absurd assertion. ALL of physics? All of chemistry? You are certainly intimate with the straw man fallacy! There is but one conclusion to be drawn from your fantastic fabrication: Havoc is not refutable so you must manufacture his position in order to deal with it.
I hope the lurkers you think you are persuading can see that your challenge is to a windmill, not Havoc.
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.