He's probably the greatest theologian alive today.
;^)
Posted on 10/25/2006 11:10:46 AM PDT by Blackirish
As the Republican base fragments and Christian conservatives consider a “fast” from politics, the polling data point to a mid-term Republican thumping. Less than two weeks from now, Republicans will begin their post-mortem soul searching. And as the corpses of their House and Senate majorities grow cold, so should Karl Rove’s 2006 campaign strategy.
(Excerpt) Read more at article.nationalreview.com ...
What say you, O Fearless Leader?
Do you not recognize tongue in cheek when you see it?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1725737/posts?page=996#996
A sense of humor is not an evolutionists strong point. That's probably why they walk around with such a chip on their shoulder. They're so easy.
He's probably the greatest theologian alive today.
He's probably the greatest theologian alive today.
;^)
It's a scientific theory, not a way of life, not a religion, it has no effect on the way we live our lives, most of us are theistic.
Where do you people come up with this stuff?
Or, why is it so important to you, that evolution be looked at as a religion, instead of the scientific theory that it is.
Why does science threaten your religion, and why are people that understand evolution, and science, such a threat to you?
You are saying the "loyalty oath" was tongue in cheek?
I am overjoyed to hear that. I was about to post a message on my home page to the effect that "I am no longer posting."
Your comments on this thread, and a comment just made on another thread asking, "Since when did Freerepublic have an intelligent science community?" were just too much for this reasonably intelligent (on a good day) scientist.
Thank you for the clarification.
V-A:He's probably the greatest theologian alive today.
So I thought Darwinism was not a religion and now here your telling us that Dawkins is probably the greatest theologian alive today. Make up your minds.
Warning: This may be sarcasm.... I think; because you certainly cannot be referring to Pat Robertson when stating that *he* is the greatest theologian alive today.
Because you defend it with religious fervor and tolerate no dissent. And apparently are more than happy to allow the courts to force in on an unwilling public.
Doesn't smack of tongue in cheek to you? *sigh*
It shouldn't be forced on anyone, unless they are taking a science course, and then they need to learn at least the basics of it. It should be taught in science class, not in a social studies course, a religious studies course, a theology course etc, now ID on the other hand, that should be taught in a religious studies course, or a theology course, but not in a science course.
Pretty simple if you ask me, teach science in science class, if it's not science, then it shouldn't be taught there.
Evolution is scientific, ID is not.
I thought she meant Pat Robertson. I was scratching my head over that one!
The only reason that it went to court was because the school boards were trying to force a nonscientific hypothesis, namely ID, onto an unwilling public, who believed, and rightly so, that it had not gone through the scientific rigors that evolution had, and until it has, it has no place in a science classroom.
The court agreed.
ID is trying to slip in via a public school curriculum, instead of through scientifically rigorous tests of it's hypothesis. This is not the way science is done.
Popular vote, schoolboard vote etc, does not a scientific theory make.
How dare you!
Moments ago, I just left a retirement ceremony for one of my best friends retiring as a Lt Col USAF. We stood together under the flag of the United States as the national anthem played. One of my thoughts was of all the flag draped coffins and national anthems being played for the heroes that have died over the past year. Some of my friends are over there right this minute. Very moving and poignant moment.
I have spent the better part of my adult life (with a brief hiatus to NASA) defending this nation both in and out of uniform. I stood many a watch during the cold war both in various control rooms and crammed in the back seat of F4s waiting for the Soviets to push thru the Fulda Gap. I also assisted during that terrible day now referred to as 9/11.
And to be called a Marxist and/or communist?
What an evil affront! /rant off.
Thank you for your service, this conservative appreciates it.
Is that the one that pretends to support stem cell research but actually authorizes cloning? (Sorry I'm a little vague on it; I don't live in Missouri and haven't been following it very closely).
But to be clear on the underlying question, I support stem cell research to the extent President Bush does. As far as I have been able to discern, all the advances in stem cell research have come through the use of adult stem cells or neonatal stem cells, and nothing at all of any use has resulted from embryonic stem cells. By "of any use," I mean anything successful.
Michael Fumento has done some excellent reporting on this subject.
I do not support human cloning, and I most certainly do not support government funding for human cloning.
The Pope points out (elsewhere in his document), that there are, more properly theories of evolution. My reading of the Pope's statement is that he accepts speciation, but not the idea that man is indistinguishable from any other animal. Man's having a soul is why he is in the image and likeness of God, and what sets him apart from animals. And that that could not have come about by any natural process.
That would appear to put JPII in the "theistic evolution" camp.
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.
