Posted on 01/19/2006 3:35:07 AM PST by Mr170IQ
Thanks, I will check them out. I read Greg Bear, but never Neil Gaiman. I almost finished second book of the Mars series, and then took some time off. I bought all, so I'll return to them. Lots of good ideas and interesting, even if left-leaning pondering on the economy of so far removed colony.
Yes. Several.
Whether it's true or not, many people regard creationists as uneducated boobs, and would use that as a litmus test against any candidate. The entire Dover school board comes to mind.
This is similar to what (centrist) people would think of a Democrat openly advocating full blown communism or socialism. They'd never get elected again, because that's just too far over the edge. So none of them talk in those terms, even though I have no doubt many of them seriously are communist in everything but name.
As I've said many times, teach evolution all day long and the majority of people will still believe God created humans.
Sure. And many of them believe God created them with an incredibly valuable tool called evolution.
That you've blocked from your mind that it is possible for God to have created evolution first just amazes me. And since that's what the evidence shows happened, then you should believe God did it that way.
The concept is no different than believing that God caused the evaporation, which gave us a load of moisture, that made the rain. Evolution is just a process, and God can create processes, can't He?
Oh, boy. That's quite a weight to bear.
Let me take it under advisement, as I'm about 10 projects overloaded right now.
Romans 5:15
And what a difference between our sin and God's generous gift of forgiveness. For this one man, Adam, brought death to many through his sin. But this other man, Jesus Christ, brought forgiveness to many through God's bountiful gift.
If creationists can use a term like "Darwinist," I don't see why we can't return the favor and refer to them as "Swaggartists."
Romans 5:8
But God showed his great love for us by sending Christ to die for us while we were still sinners.
The early Honor Harrington stories by David Weber.
Peter Hamilton's Reality Disfunction series.
Peter Hamilton's Pandora's Star series.
David Feintuch's Hope series. (first 4 books)
I've just bought Simmon's Hyperion, so I'm looking forward to that one.
I like some fantasy too. (though not most of it). Pretty much anything by Robin Hobb is good recently. And for kick-in-the-pants surprises and an endless well of gore the G R R Martin Song of Ice and Fire (like the Borgias meets the War of the Roses)
Stephenson is well worth the investment. He falls towards the technological side of things. I recommend Snow Crash to every one I meet. And anyone interested in computers should be required to read his In the Beginning was the Command Line, if only up to the "MGBs, TANKS, AND BATMOBILES" analogy.
Now you've done it. There's so many SF fans here that this thread will grow and grow.
Here's my recommendation: Alistaire Reynolds "Revelation Space" He's a PhD physicist and does a very good job of weaving current trends in cosmology with and intersting premise why we are apparently the only intelligent life in the galaxy.
That series is very good. But it must be read from the beginning. A friend of mine picked up book 3 by accident and found the whole thing completely incomprehensible. Even if you start from the beginning you are expected to use your head to work out what is going on.
LOL
Show me in the Bible where it details the process God used to create humans. Even if God snapped his fingers and said "let there be humans", at the very least molecular changes must have happened, so obviously many details are left out of the Genesis description. Where does it describe the creation of DNA, for example?
If you want to get hung up with the "Days" time problem, then you're merely a YEC and evolution is the least of your problems. Cosmology and geology might be a better place to start arguing for a YEC rather than evolution.
And I don't equate those who believe in God as the creator with communists.
Nope, you don't get it. Not at all.
For one thing, you imply that believers in God all believe in creationism. That's a distortion, at the very least.
My original point, that you missed, was that creationists would have the same chance of getting elected as communists. That does not "equate" them in any way, except their electability.
I just wouldn't ever vote for anyone who publicly stated God was not the creator.
Then you're no different than the person who wouldn't vote for someone who stated that evolution is false (which implies that the world was created in 7 days).
The problem is that religious ideas such as creationism and communism (and I believe communism *is* a religion, just not a deity based religion) are too hot for politics to handle. Which is why politicians must stay away from them else they will never get elected.
I loved the idea of the Inhibitors. Very interesting and plausible concept.
LOL!
Guess we don't have the same God. You might want to lowercase your "god". Mine isn't an "ape" in any form.
Neither is mine. I don't use ape to refer to His form. I refer to the "ape" as what He made me, i.e., humans in general, out of.
God's form is an Intelligence and a Creator. I try not to assign any physical form to him, though my imagination does get carried away, at times.
Is He a mammal in any form? Or a vertebrate?
Arguments involving simplicity and complexity do not sit well with those who would altogether avoid the notion of intelligent design. Neither does the presence of organized matter that behaves according to laws. To explore the semantic implications of words such as "intelligence" and "design" as they might apply to physical matter would be wholly out of bounds for one who subscribes to the notion that intelligent design has little or nothing to do with the universe as we know it. And while the larger part of evolutionary teaching is based upon reasonable conjecture, its adherents are loath to allow reasonable conjecture in those cases where matter happens to be organized, even if only by appearance. If it has the appearance of evolving, by chuck, it must have evolved. If it has the appearance of being organized, by chuck, it still must have evolved.
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.