Posted on 12/11/2009 5:57:16 PM PST by Jim Robinson
Free Republic is a fringe right-wing Christian fundamentalist site... or so they say... and they might even be right.
We don't go for any of that godless left-wing big government socialist malarkey. And we do put our faith and trust in God, not government. We are pro-God, pro-Life, pro-Family, pro-Country and pro-Liberty.
We do not believe that government or science knows what's best for us or our children. We will make our own decisions thank you very much.
Every once in a while some group of posters get together and try to bend Free Republic to their will. Now, we tend to be pretty free-wheeling around here and will take a lot of guff and a lot of obnoxious insults from a lot of people, but eventually a breaking point is reached.
For example, when a group of RINO lovers recently banded together to try to force FR to accept an abortionist/gay rights RINO as our presidential candidate, they soon found themselves on the outs.
And a few years ago a group of evolutionists tried to force FR over to their way of thinking and they soon found themselves on the outs.
FR is a pro-God, pro-Creator, pro-Life, pro-Liberty site.
And now we have yet another group of Darwinists trying to have their Darwinist way with us. Well, as I've said before what doesn't kill us will only make us stronger.
Darwin Central has again declared war on FR. They have ping lists and email lists and will try to pull away as many FReepers as they possibly can. So be it. Those who would rather go with Darwin, please go. I sure as hell won't try to stop you.
FR will remain a pro-God, pro-Life, pro-Liberty, pro-Creator conservative site.
We wholeheartedly believe that our unalienable rights are a gift from God our Creator not from man or government. And no man, no government will ever deprive us of same.
Keep your powder dry.
Actually what confuses me more is that your posting history will show that in most times past you were on Darwin Central apologist's side of the debate.
If I recall correctly in that we are both scientists whose careers have been cultivated in the pharmaceutical realm, you and I sparred a couple of times some years ago on what are the very obvious statistical impossibilities of the evolutionary premise, whether random chance and/or biological evolution was something which played a part of antibiotic drug development, and whether studies accomplished in combinatorial chemistry were based on principles modeled after intelligent design or after random chance.
Happy to see that since you now say you readily agree with Jim Rob at this time, it appears you may have seen the light.
"Ravasi said it this way: Creationism belongs to the “strictly theological sphere” and could not be used “ideologically in science.”
First of all, thank you so very much for completely avoiding the point I made. It really gives me confidence. And second of all, your splitting of "truth" into "scientific" and "theological" spheres gives the lie to the common theistic evolutionist slogan that "all truth is one."
"Reason" simply refers to the internal consistency of thought. It does not assume naturalism, uniformitarianism, or any other such thing. One may begin with the uniformitarian assumption and create a worldview that is 100% reasonable. One may also begin with the assumption that Genesis is literally and historically true and accurate and create a worldview that is just as reasonable.
The use of the word "reason" as an antonym for "science" is in error.
It's terrible to be fundamentally wrong! But you'll recover...
Contact the Vatican press office and maybe you can get them to issue a correction.
http://www.vatican.va/news_services/press/
"The use of the word "reason" as an antonym for "science" is in error."
Contact the Vatican press office and maybe you can get them to issue a correction.
The distinction between "reason" and "science" (or empiricism) is as old as Plato and Aristotle. And you are aware of this or you would not be running from the issue.
Any organization that accepts the supernatural events related in the "new testament" has no business sitting in judgment on Genesis.
You are entitled to your opinion as are the billion plus Catholics who disagree with you.
Science isn't about truth anyway, but the best explanation for the data.
Nothing in science is proved, therefore nothing can be said to be certain.
Why would the church adjust Scripture to fit scientific theory?
The Vatican under Pope Benedict XVI has been trying to stress its belief that there is no incompatibility between faith and reason.
That's a kind of backhanded statement. Who said faith is opposite of reason? Or that faith is not reasonable?
Amen and God Bless you and everyone on FR for their constant efforts to convey this message. So many people sometimes think they are smarter than others and strive for titles after their names or master's degrees, that they often forget the Master!
If that's what you want to believe and you're comfortable with that, that is your choice, but the Vatican speaks for the Roman Catholic Church only, not all of Christendom. Citing all of the Catholic church statements in the world are meaningless to those outside the Catholic Church.
It proves nothing, especially that their interpretation and opinion is correct. All it does is give Catholics the freedom to believe in evolution.
Any organization that accepts the supernatural events related in the "new testament" has no business sitting in judgment on Genesis.
You are entitled to your opinion as are the billion plus Catholics who disagree with you.
And thank you for acknowledging that this opinion is indefensible. As it is internally contradictory, it is the very definition of something contrary to "reason" regardless of how many billion people hold to it.
You know, if my thoughts were as loopy as that I'd want to redefine "reason" too.
It is important that we speak the same language if we are to discuss the issue. Truth is a theological term. Error, precision, accuracy, and fact are scientific terms.
By who? AP?
If science isn't done by consensus, why should religion be?
Christian Taliban? CHRISTIAN TALIBAN?
Odd expression...never heard that one before...can't imagine what kind of hate monger would equate Christians in America to the Taliban - people who ravage villiages and murder innocent women and children - even using the term Christian Taliban SOUNDS LIKE SOMEONE WITH MORE THAN A SMALL DISLIKE OF CHRISTIANITY...and certainly someone with no sense of history, logic, proportion...or reason.
LOL, what balderdash. Try peddling this line to the legal system. I suppose in your world, it isn't true that the sky is blue?
The use of the word "reason" as an antonym for "science" is in error.
By who? AP?
By anyone who confuses the two.
To repeat myself: "science" is (or is supposed to be) empiricism. "Reason" is any mode of thought used to solve a problem that is logically consistent. Both uniformitarian evolutionism and literalist creationism are reasonable given the premises of each. The confusion of one with "faith" and one with "reason" is a childish error.
It's pretty regular occurrence on the creation/evolution threads. It has been cause for banning for those who won't back off from it. The rest just know when to stop for the time being and pick it up again at a later date.
Steve-b constantly claimed to be religious (primarily posing as a Catholic) and did his best to stir up animosity amongst religious FReepers.
He's not religious? Thank you for outing him.
“Christian Taliban” is a term used by people with low IQs to describe social conservatives against whose arguments on these issues they are unable to stand.
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.