Replies

Just a few quick observations concerning your post at 240 on this thread.

When making personal remarks about other Freepers, it is customary to ping them so that they may respond if they care to do so.

Concerning the argument over Anthony Flew, the source article to the Freeper excerpted post has expired - but Lurkers can read what was on the wires at this ABC News link

Finally, concerning his attitude about evolution vis-a-vis his change in attitude about God - this from the article:

Over the years, Flew proclaimed the lack of evidence for God while teaching at Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele, and Reading universities in Britain, in visits to numerous U.S. and Canadian campuses and in books, articles, lectures and debates.

There was no one moment of change but a gradual conclusion over recent months for Flew, a spry man who still does not believe in an afterlife.

Yet biologists' investigation of DNA "has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved," Flew says in the new video, "Has Science Discovered God?"

The video draws from a New York discussion last May organized by author Roy Abraham Varghese's Institute for Metascientific Research in Garland, Texas. Participants were Flew; Varghese; Israeli physicist Gerald Schroeder, an Orthodox Jew; and Roman Catholic philosopher John Haldane of Scotland's University of St. Andrews.

Personally, I wonder if Gerald Schroeder's views had any influence on Flew. Here are two articles by Schroeder:

Evolution

Age of the Universe

[ hosepipe asserted -- without evidence -- that "nearly all" fossil fakes were found by "non-evo" scientists ]

Thanks for the ping.. deary..
Dimensio is correct, I had no proof... only an assertion..
Which I made.

Demenso can prove all "its" assertions by Evo dogma..
Which of course is all true.. and is no lie.. because "it" said it..
and seems to be an Evo fundamentalist...

Demenso has an aversion to lies.. and untruth..
You can tell that by the serious and paternalistic demeanor..
I like "hard heads" and Demonso could break things with "its"..
Who could hate being averse to lies and untruth.?...
I was playing in free Republics Semantic Gymnasium with "it"... and it was fun..

Of course, Evos work overtime to DISprove Evolution {the scientific principle}
But just not on THIS planet.. maybe "it" is from Melmac..
Goes ballistic when it gets its fur wet.. and gets very "Queegish" and trys to Bogard you..
Kind of FRENCH really..

Actually, I apologize rather shamefacedly that I only followed the link to this post because I wondered what all the stink was about.... but I did, and I found Schroeder's page. All I can say about his article on the age of the Universe is JUST DAMN!!!!!. This guy has pegged it dead on. I wish more fundies and materialists both would read this. I expecially liked his reference to the fact that talmudic lit "separated" genesis one from the otherwise chronological sequence of events in genesis. (although I would not be too big on that, either, there is alot of generation "skipping" in hebrew genealogies. For example, if you compare chronologies in Genesis, Kings, Chronicles, and Matt/Luke, you will find that one give Harry is father of Mike, is father of Bob, is father of Alan, is father of Bud, is father of Ed...., while chronology II says simply Harry is father of Ed).

At any rate, the point is WELL MADE that before Lamark, before the greek theory of natural selection (there was one, you know), before Darwin, before we knew what a red shift was, the Jews were stating that Gen 1 had nothing to do with chronology...., 1500 B. C.

This view is similiar to mine. Theologians call the panoramic view of the creation account in Genesis the "framework hypothesis" and it has always made good sense to me.

I had never heard of this guy, and would love to read his stuff. thanks for the link, and the info.