Posted on 03/31/2007 1:48:09 PM PDT by EveningStar
Heaven knows that Jews couldn't have property.
Only the Church and princes blessed by the Church could hold property!
On what basis should I, or anyone else, trust your objectivity when it comes to this subject?
Did you ever try the chocolate bar in the microwave?
Coulter screwed the pooch and now the spin has started.
Bwahahahaha! Coulter spouted nothing but worn out old drivel.
I believe we disagree on some assumptions, but I only ask questions to learn more. I do not believe that ethos will be changed on the FR threads but the volume of information that can be exchanged is HUGH. :o)
What is your background on these subjects? Mine is strictly educational, although almost rabid. I study these arguments almost daily and have volumes of notes and books. I have been do this for about 12 years. I am not a scientist, nor do I play one on TV, (but I did stay at a Holiday Inn express last night) If you got that joke I'll be really impressed
I'll clear up the questions and get back to you. The arctic graveyards, the Malta caves and Mt. Edna all have voluminous fossil graveyards with literally thousands of fossils piled on top of each other caused by something (volcanic activity, deluvian action or mass geological upheaval) I long for more recent reports on such activities but realize the informational vetting process is a lot more rigid and controlled now than it was in the past, which accounts for most evidential writings available to the layperson being so old.
Back at a later time,
K4
Pinging coyoteman because I used his name in the post, as per FR rules.)
global flood at about 4,300 years ago
I have no opinion on a date for a/the flood. Hydrology is still in dispute over simple things like the age of Niagara Falls and the Mississippi/Missouri river to start stating "without a shadow of a doubt" any ages. The best we/they got are SWAGS (scientific wild a$$ guesses) and general assumptions or time frames. To put exact dates on things that old without irrefutable evidence reminds me of the Leakeys, et. al. When facts are supposed to guide science, why so often does science try to guide the facts? It seems that the hardest thing for a scientist to say is "I don't know."IMO.
Sorry - i tried. Absolutely IMPOSSIBLE to read.
THAT'S NOT MOOPS YOU JERK, IT'S MOORS. IT'S A MISPRINT.
My God have mercy upon your soul for such dispicable sentiments.
Judgement day is upon us soon, brave and good men are ready.
Good catch. Seems beyond the ken of many.
LOL the science people don't know what they are talking about.
They have strayed, and they shall be judged.
Wow what a lot of time you put into that.
You evos really are worried aren't you ? What are you trying to hide ?
Me ? I've got all the facts i need in one handy book. You may remember it from your youth before you scorned it for the "religion" of science.
Its called THE BIBLE.
Amazing - willful ignorance. I've never seen wsuch an eloquent post followed by such a blatant decision to ignore it. And to think conservatives are, allegedly, more rational.
this "clever guy" simply out-clevered himself.
Just, WOW! That's Rosie O'Donnel level stupid right there. And sadly it's far, far from being the only such example in Coulter's book.
I have a couple hundred volumes of antievolution literature. You'd almost have to go back to the 1920's to find that much condensed stupidity in an antievolution screed. Seriously.
Nearly all of the antievolution literature is filled with blatant lies or wild and willful misapprehensions, but little of it is this bad and this sneeringly hyperbolic (even though most of it is very bad and sneeringly hyperbolic!). There's only a very few volumes in the modern antievolution corpus -- e.g. Harold Hill's From Goo to You By Way of the Zoo -- that are as pathetic as Coulter's attempt.
Its called THE BIBLE.
The Bible, the Bible... you mean the one that describes evolution in Genesis 2:7?
Go to post #184 if you need and explanation for that.
Seriously, plain talk, did you even read the article at the top of the thread? The subject is Ann Coulter on evolution. Ichneumon's post was entirely focused on exactly that subject. Ah, I see from your #77 in this thread that you are cognizant of the topic.
So how is a completely topical post "spam"? Or is it only "spam" because it offered a relevant, compelling, detailed and documented refutation of your assertion that "Ann did a great job" debunking evolution?
His post was 100% propaganda.
Gee. I thought E_R_F's comment about "the American Taliban" over the top, but then you popped right up to certify the analogy by implying and threatening, in perfect Taliban fashion, that mortal men will "soon" be enforcing God's judgment. But then you're doubtless immune to recognizing the irony -- and the blasphemy -- in your comment.
Actually, science has placed no date on a global flood, as there has been no scientific evidence for such an event at the appropriate time. Hydrology, geology and other sciences don't come into play.
The date of the global flood, as estimated by biblical scholars, is given variously as:
2252 BC -- layevangelism.com
2304 BC -- Answers in Genesis (+/- 11 years).
2350 BC -- Morris, H. Biblical Creationism. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1993.
2370 BC -- TalkOrigins.com
2500 BC -- http://www.nwcreation.net/biblechrono.html
2522 BC -- Dr. Gerhard Hasel
2978-3128 BC -- http://www.asa3.org/archive/ASA/199605/0162.html
3300 BC -- http://www.biblediscoveries.com/flood1.html
3537 BC -- Setterfield (1999)
The most common date is in the range of 2300-2350 BC, so I used 4300 years ago in my post #252.
To repeat the point of that post, the genetic continuity from 10,300 years ago to living individuals that has been documented in the western US agrees with other evidence that there was no global flood at about 4300 years ago.
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.