Posted on 08/29/2006 6:51:14 AM PDT by headsonpikes
We all know the basic alternatives that form the familiar "spectrum" of American politics and culture.
If a young person is turned off by religion or attracted by the achievements of science, and he wants to embrace a secular outlook, he is told--by both sides of the debate--that his place is with the collectivists and social subjectivists of the left. On the other hand, if he admires the free market and wants America to have a bold, independent national defense, then he is told--again, by both sides--that his natural home is with the religious right.
But what if all of this is terribly wrong? What if it's possible to hold some of the key convictions associated with the right, being pro-free-market and supporting the war, and even to do so more strongly and consistently than most on the right--but still to be secular? What if it's possible to reject the socialism subjectivism of the left and believe in the importance of morality, but without believing in God? ....
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
More like VIRTUAL COWARDICE...
Some of us are... but those things cannot travel off world, can they? Neither can they destroy the planet... Humans can.
(Technically speaking and according to university level biology texts; a virus is not a living thing.)
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Removing their origin from Earth does not default it to non-natural processes.
Even things now on the earth are not the result of natural process... any human involvement is artificial... animal husbandry and agricultural hybridization...
Just as an interesting side note here... We could argue that the AIDS virus (a DNA virus) is a mechanism for the impersonal forces of nature that weeds out the unfit filth among us... if natural forces are impersonal, they do not care if the innocent are infected as well... (Of course, it is obvious that the human activity and/or BEHAVIOR chiefly associated with the transmission of AIDS is contrary to what is written in the Judaic book of Genesis.)
While you guys are so obsessed with keeping evolutionism on educational welfare and hating the Judaic creationists, there is a bigger issue...
Why don't you direct your energy to help figure out a way to kill off the Islamofascists instead?
A more worthy accomplishment than debating creationists.
No meds about it. Anarchists and atheists will suffer the most under a system of authority they refuse to recognize. Liberty has its constraints.
I do not have the time, the funds, nor the inclination. If you wish to claim some sort of shallow victory based on that, go ahead- won't hurt my feelings.
When you finish, please provide irrefutable evidence concerning the existence of guilt in a 4 year old human child (anecdotal doesn't count), followed by irrefutable evidence of the existence of the Judeo-Christian deity (I don't really want you to, but I think you get the point now.)
Grow up son.
If you are suggesting that those who are poor and oppressed are so because they are wicked and those who are rich and happy are so because they are good, you need to step away from the keyboard and go immediately read Job and repent as Eliphaz did. This "wealth and health" philosophy is pernicious because it is used as grounds for despising those who suffer and as a way to rationalize one's oppression of others--if I hurt you and get away with it, it must be because you are evil and God is set against you. The Bible explicitly condemns this. In the conclusion of Job, God tells Job's friends who told him that he would not suffer if he were not a sinner, "My wrath is kindled against you and against your two friends, because you have not spoken of Me what is right as my servant Job has." Shame on you.
LOL. Thanks for the yucks.
Not at all. I didn't say anything about the "poor and oppressed." The fact is we are all subject to the moral law as laid down in the Decalogue, and it is administered through earthly authority, and that authority is valid insofar as it is in accord with the moral code emanating from the Creator. Whoever attempts to deny or fight that law will suffer punishment, including employees (slaves) who have their heads up their a$$ and think they can disobey their employers (masters) at will.
(Rod Serling voice:)
Beyond this border lies a state of mind. It's a state of NO mind. It's a state of not minding much if your science education bites the big one.
true... especially illiterate and apparently somewhat insane ones.
says the fellow who "fell into the pit he hath digged"...
Grow up son.
learn to use my language properly, "dad"
Children posing and posting as adults can be readily identified by these traits.
Sorry about that, it was the best I could do on such short notice.
"Some of us are... but those things cannot travel off world, can they?
What does that have to do with it?
You original statement was that if evolution were true why are humans, whom in your words should be the most highly evolved, not adapted well enough to our environment to live without clothes.
I asked what makes you believe we are the most highly evolved (MHE). Instead of giving me an example of an evolvable feature that makes us the MHE you make a evolutionarily nonspecific generalization that 'we dominate' everything on Earth. I make a quick comment that we do not dominate and now you come up with a change of tactic and claim we are the most capable to venture into space.
This is an interesting choice of accomplishment given your previous suggestion that the Earth may have been seeded from space. If Earth was seeded from space by anything more than amino acids, then one possibility is that we were seeded by bacteria, which as I mentioned in the previous post are capable of existing, unaided by technology, in extreme environments we cannot.
Again, I ask the question - what evolvable trait do we have that makes us the MHE species on the planet?
Neither can they destroy the planet... Humans can.
Actually we cannot. At most we can initiate another snowball Earth. That will not destroy the physical Earth nor will it destroy all life. No matter what we do, at least at our current level of technology, we can not destroy the Earth; life will go on well after we have destroyed ourselves.
We do not have the power to even come close to the changes the ancestors of cyanobacteria wrought some ~3.3 billion years ago.
"(Technically speaking and according to university level biology texts; a virus is not a living thing.)"
Whether a virus is alive is still up for debate. None the less Virii and prions have evolved.
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Removing their origin from Earth does not default it to non-natural processes.
"Even things now on the earth are not the result of natural process... any human involvement is artificial... animal husbandry and agricultural hybridization..."
Actually, according to the StoE we are a natural part of the environment.
That we (or anything else) can produce artifacts is not proof that life on Earth is the product of non-natural processes. 'Can' is not evidence of 'did'. If you posit two processes that can produce the same effect the only way to successfully determine which is responsible for the effect is by collection and analyzing data and extrapolating conclusions. The most direct method of deciding which is the most likely is to try to falsify them both.
Your position that Earthly life is the result of non-natural processes has so far only one data point - it is possible. The position that Earthly life is the result of natural process has that same data point - it is possible - and has many more besides, from the fossil record, to patterns in the genome, to the 'natural' occurrence of complex molecules such as amino acids, alcohol and sugars in space.
Since nature can build stars, amino acids, hydrogen clouds, and organisms which far predate all known artifacts it looks like 'natural' is the default position (if any exists), not the 'artificial'.
"Just as an interesting side note here... We could argue that the AIDS virus (a DNA virus) is a mechanism for the impersonal forces of nature that weeds out the unfit filth among us... if natural forces are impersonal, they do not care if the innocent are infected as well... (Of course, it is obvious that the human activity and/or BEHAVIOR chiefly associated with the transmission of AIDS is contrary to what is written in the Judaic book of Genesis.)
Is there any thread possible in which you could stick to the issue at hand without bringing in your irrelevant obsession?
that's fine, as I nitpicked neither sentence structure nor spelling.
I noted a serious error in word choice, one which made your statement devoid of meaning.
I corrected it.
Since then, you've been throwing a tantrum, and I've been laughing at you, infant.
Devoid of any actual intelligent input on the topic, you have taken the JR high route. Laughing alone in your pathetic existence about jokes only you "get".
There are no "serious errors" on word choices. Unless you admit that your use of the word "illiterate" to describe those who have exposed the imbecility of your posts was a "serious error" on your part.
We can do this all day. It is nonsense, but no worse than the nonsense you have been spouting "King".
Now I think jealous. Here all this time I thought you wanted me, and here you go off pinging a whole bunch of OTHER guys.
posturing person: one who puts on airs of erudition by using fancy terminology where simple terms suffice.
illiterate posturing person: such an one who, instead of using the correct word "subscribe", incorrectly uses "ascribe" in a context wherein it has no meaning.
vain illiterate posturing person: such an one who is corrected in his error, yet fights tooth and nail against such correction
foolish vain illiterate posturing person: such an one who posts definitions in attempt to bolster his vain fight, which instead illustrate ever more fully his error
vainglorious/delusional foolish vain illiterate posturing person: such an one who, having had his head handed to him repeatedly and inarguably, declares victory.
Of course, as you have stated that you do not >cough< "ascribe" to empiricism, the fact that you suffer contrary-to-fact delusions of supremacy surprises no one.
dither on as long as titillates your pseudo-intellectual narcissistic fancy, I care not, neither shall I attempt your improvement nor in any other manner attend you further.
"firewall 6" is now in effect.
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.