Replies

I’ll have to 2nd GGG’s evaluation of your personality.
You can always tell when you have some “designated hitter” (DH) backed in a corner, they attack you personally instead of addressing the argument.

Here are the posts:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2224273/posts?page=13#13
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2224273/posts?page=19#19

And, I suppose, since they aren’t EXACTLY “2 posts” after my assertion, you’ll call me a liar and not address the contents of the posted link.

And, I suppose, since they aren’t EXACTLY “2 posts” after my assertion, you’ll call me a liar and not address the contents of the posted link.

And I suppose, since you didn't ping me to either post (just like you didn't ping me to your personal attack in post 118), you'll offer some new excuse for not just lying, but for also ignoring common courtesy. It's always instructive to witness the "morality" of creationists in actual practice.

And your "authority" is a commentary about Judge Roy Moore containing idiocy like the following?

The case-law approach, studying judges decisions rather than the Constitution, is now practiced and taught to all aspiring law students. Blackstone's Commentaries on the Law, the foundational texts on common law, revealed and eternal law, were discarded as outdated, since it taught that certain rights and wrongs never changed - particularly those related to human behavior. . . . So infused with biblical teaching were Blackstone's books and teachings on the common law, that law students, as a direct result of studying Blackstone's Commentaries, came to a saving faith in Jesus Christ.

Please. Neither you nor the author of that "paper" have any clue what Blackstone's commentaries actually are. They are commentaries on English common law, not on the Bible or the American Constitution. And a glaring hint as to the actual content of Blackstone's Commentaries is contained in the two words "common law."

The common law is the "system of laws originated and developed in England and based on court decisions, on the doctrines implicit in those decisions, and on customs and usages rather than on codified written laws."

Read that carefully. That's what the U.S. civil legal system is based on. That's what Blackstone's Commentaries are about.

So when the author of your ridiculous "paper" decries the evil practice of "the case-law approach," he is decrying the evil practice of following Blackstone's lead.

Perhaps the sheer idiocy of the block-quote above from your authoritative "paper" is now clear (though I suspect you will remain obstinately convinced that the "case law approach" is somehow an evil product of "evolutionism").