Posted on 01/28/2005 4:28:41 PM PST by metacognative
They don't realize the widespread understanding of what their scam is, and that no amount of arcane blather means that made-up nonsense is evidence.
I notice that you bear false witness against me, again. How do you resolve this with your Maker? Are you allowed to lie when it fits the agenda?
Way to tell those creationists! BRAVO.
If you are representing the Christian faith, that is an odd thing to say.
Now a bit of Captain [...Morgan's Spiced Rum], or Maxwell House Coffee (the coffee that heats itself?)...
PS Didn't whoever it was who MISquoted "Creationists being put in concentration camps" say at the time that they didn't have the text at hand. I'm willing to bet they were blowing smoke or hadn't ever rousted up the original source to know they were wrong. At least, I hope so. Free Republic ought to have some standards, even on a crevo thread...
Cheers!
I notice that you bear false witness against me, again. How do you resolve this with your Maker? Are you allowed to lie when it fits the agenda?
You know, there is an odd similarity between the ongoing dispute continued in that post, and your tagline concerning CBS.
Perhaps wishful thinking (i.e. hoping you had conceded more than you really had) plays a part, just as the forged documents did with Dan Rather. You know, the "...there will be no apology, nor should there be" line.
Full Disclosure: You betcha I'm only paraphrasing!
Again, scientists have trained themselves into certain mental habits and attitudes in order to foster disciplined inquiry: screening out as much BS as possible while trying to remain open to new possibilities.
Yet even 'science' may be hijacked for politics as the current debates over global warming demonstrate.
Cheers!
It took me thirty seconds to find the quote in context. It's not like you weren't warned the quote was bogus.
This is not an isolated case. When creationists quote scientists to embarass them, the quotes are invariably taken out of context. Occasionally you will find a popular writer like Dawkins who says outragous things, but when you go after practicing scientists you are more often than not, promoting falsehoods. Count on it. Just stop trying. Short quotes are almost never representative of what a person is arguing, particularly if the snippet seems stupid or outrageous. That should be a clue that something is wrong with the quote.
I notice you ducked the part about having to resolve your lies and false witnesses to your Maker. Does that mean you won't be going to heaven? Oh, I forgot. You can be as evil as you like as long as you accept JC into your heart.
Wrong scene.
Not "could". By definition it is ZERO, not non-negative.
Wild,
I'm sorry, you must have me confused with someone else on this thread. Please re-check the recent posting history...
Cheers!
Full Disclosure: See how easy it is to get confused about a quote? ;-)
(Homo sapiens and H. sapiens sapiens?) The sudden injection is necessary, of course, otherwise there would be no distinction upon which to base Catholic morality, which is speciesist to the core. You can kill adult animals for meat, but abortion and euthanasia are murder because human life is involved.Catholicism's "net" is not limited to moral considerations, if only because Catholic morals have scientific implications. Catholic morality demands the presence of a great gulf between Homo sapiens and the rest of the animal kingdom. Such a gulf is fundamentally anti-evolutionary. The sudden injection of an immortal soul in the timeline is an anti-evolutionary intrusion into the domain of science.
More generally it is completely unrealistic to claim, as Gould and many others do, that religion keeps itself away from science's turf, restricting itself to morals and values. A universe with a supernatural presence would be a fundamentally and qualitatively different kind of universe from one without. The difference is, inescapably, a scientific difference. Religions make existence claims, and this means scientific claims.
The same is true of many of the major doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. The Virgin Birth, the bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Resurrection of Jesus, the survival of our own souls after death: these are all claims of a clearly scientific nature. Either Jesus had a corporeal father or he didn't. This is not a question of "values" or "morals"; it is a question of sober fact. We may not have the evidence to answer it, but it is a scientific question, nevertheless. You may be sure that, if any evidence supporting the claim were discovered, the Vatican would not be reticent in promoting it.
Either Mary's body decayed when she died, or it was physically removed from this planet to Heaven. The official Roman Catholic doctrine of Assumption, promulgated as recently as 1950, implies that Heaven has a physical location and exists in the domain of physical reality - how else could the physical body of a woman go there? I am not, here, saying that the doctrine of the Assumption of the Virgin is necessarily false (although of course I think it is). I am simply rebutting the claim that it is outside the domain of science. On the contrary, the Assumption of the Virgin is transparently a scientific theory. So is the theory that our souls survive bodily death, and so are all stories of angelic visitations, Marian manifestations, and miracles of all types.
There is something dishonestly self-serving in the tactic of claiming that all religious beliefs are outside the domain of science. On the one hand, miracle stories and the promise of life after death are used to impress simple people, win converts, and swell congregations. It is precisely their scientific power that gives these stories their popular appeal. But at the same time it is considered below the belt to subject the same stories to the ordinary rigors of scientific criticism: these are religious matters and therefore outside the domain of science. But you cannot have it both ways. At least, religious theorists and apologists should not be allowed to get away with having it both ways. Unfortunately all too many of us, including nonreligious people, are unaccountably ready to let them.
I suppose it is gratifying to have the pope as an ally in the struggle against fundamentalist creationism. It is certainly amusing to see the rug pulled out from under the feet of Catholic creationists such as Michael Behe. Even so, given a choice between honest-to-goodness fundamentalism on the one hand, and the obscurantist, disingenuous doublethink of the Roman Catholic Church on the other, I know which I prefer.
Y’all can look up these passages ifn’ ya’ll don’t believe! It’s all right there for students to believe! This ain’t no preacher… He be required readin’!
Well, YEE-HAWWW!!! Y’all, let’s find out what these here fundamentalists are preachin’:
Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality. Scientism's single-minded adherence to only the empirical, or testable, makes it a strictly scientifc worldview, in much the same way that a Protestant fundamentalism that rejects science can be seen as a strictly religious worldview. Scientism sees it necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim cannot be apprehended by the scientific method. In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth.
Let not reality intrude on the Precious Theory.
Ooh, *another* misleadingly out of context quote of what I was actually saying! Did you not understand what I was saying, or are you just having fun lying about it?
Why would he "admit" to such a lie? And why would you put such a lie into his mouth?
The hope is fine -- just know it for what it is -- hope and not reality.
*Another* lie. There is an *enormous* amount of hard science about "mammal-level species evolution". A substantial number of links to some of it has been posted to this very thread already.
Please explain *why* you anti-evolutionists lie like this, and so transparently. I just don't understand it. Are you *TRYING* to discredit religion and conservatism?
Are you implying that Dawkins stuff is printed in high school textbooks?
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/dawkins_18_2.html
This looks like an opinion magazine to me.
Please re-check post #705.
When I referred to 'wishful thinking' I was referring to your opponent, and that they perhaps believed you were conceding far more than you actually had. I explicitly did not mean to imply that you were the one performing wishful thinking!
Full Disclosure:
31. "Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity." ~ Nick Diamos
quoted on this web page:
Quotes on Stupidity
Hey, how do *you* guys feel about metacognative's recent slanderous lie? He's on your side, you know, so be careful when you talk about "their scam" and such.
But do feel free to point out which of the material I've posted is actually "made-up nonsense", so I can prove just how much of a liar *you* are. Bring it on -- the more anti-evolutionists I can expose as chronic liars in this thread, the better.
Thank you. It's been a long day and I am posting between other activities ...
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.