Posted on 07/04/2002 9:49:26 PM PDT by Phil V.
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:40:29 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
A fossil previously mistaken for the remains of an extinct fish turns out to hold the earliest known creature to have emerged from the Earth's waters and walk on land some 350 million years ago.
This ancestor of every four-limbed, backboned animal living today -- the first creature clearly designed to walk on land, with forward-facing feet -- fills a major gap in the evidence for the evolution of vertebrates from sea to land, scientists say.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
He IS serious. Really, really serious.
Do a google search on Ted Holden aka medved and you'll see how serious he is.
But it's funny, nonetheless ;-D
You might want to learn how to read first; I never said that. What I HAVE said, numerous times, is that without God, there is no real basis for morality. An atheist or evolutionist has no rational or logical argument against Dahmer.
108 above. Of course you'd have to read it and comprehend it first...
Even with medved's obvious great intellect, STILL I doubt that he could make *the earth orbiting Saturn* sound half as ridiculous as the so-called evidence of evolution presented on this board.
What I get out of that is that you can't conceive of any argument against Dahmer, so you just take God's word for how you should think about him.
And what would be wrong with taking God's Word for truth, especially when it comes to issues of morality?
Perhaps you would prefer we all come up with our own individual codes of moral behavior, without trusting any input from any outside source...just so we can all call ourselves independent thinkers?
If this is the case then all truth is relative which proves medved's point.
You didn't grasp what I said. And I definitely am not saying that "all truth is relative." I said that medved was incapable of deciding whether Dahmer was good or evil, without reference to God. And that was based on his declaration that without God, an atheist couldn't figure it out, meaning that medved had no idea how a man, alone without God's guidence, should react to Dahmer.
Thanks, it sounds like you've figured it out. I've even tried to dream up something as stupid as evolution just to see if I could do it, and I've never succeeded at it.
One other thing to consider is that nobody, myself included, is jumping up and down demanding that the Saturn thesis be taught as a "fact" in public schools at public expense, which is precisely what the evos are demanding for their own ideology. In fact, they're demanding that no OTHER ideological doctrine ever be taught alongside theirs.
Picture it this way. Take a look at the pyramids and imagine that the atheists, evos, pervos and what not are all correct, that there is no god, no afterlife, nothing like that at all. We came from dirt which just sort of got lucky for a while and, after we die, that's every bit of it, dust again for all eternity.
Now, picture some dude living at the time those pyramids were being used, 3000 years ago or thereabouts. Suppose this guy wanted to grope other people on internet forums, rape, pillage, steal chickens, steal hubcaps (off chariots), and do it with chickens and pigs, and suppose that H.G. Wels has got his time machine hooked up so that this guy and you are holding a conversation, and the guy asks your permission to do all that stuff or, at least, he asks if you know of any rational reason why he shouldn't.
Whatcha gonna tell the guy? Is there anything which anybody living at the time of the pyramids could possibly have done which would affect you or anything in your world in any way at all? I mean, the guy's been dust for 3000 years and, other than the pyramids themselves, every trace of that guys world and existence are dust at most. Do you actually know of some reason which can be logically deduced from atheistic and evolutionary beliefs why that guy shouldn't just go ahead with his plan??
Any idea how pathetic that suonds?
You didn't grasp what I said.
I never claimed you were saying that "all truth is relative."
I was simply stating my belief that without God and His word as the reference point for absolute truth, there is no solid foundation for moral standards, and therefore all truth becomes relative.
I said that medved was incapable of deciding whether Dahmer was good or evil, without reference to God. And that was based on his declaration that without God, an atheist couldn't figure it out, meaning that medved had no idea how a man, alone without God's guidence, should react to Dahmer.
I don't think this proves medved incapable of deciding a question of good or evil without reference to God...but simply that medved has decided to trust God as the ultimate authority on good and evil.
Thank you for your contribution to the discussion.
Have a nice day.
Why use a time machine to visit the pyramids? We too will all be dust, the sun will eventually become a red giant, all life on earth will die, the whole universe will dribble out to nothing ... so if there's no God, why shouldn't we all -- right now -- just run around and have have relations with chickens? Why didn't Darwin do it with chickens?
The reason isn't terribly difficult to grasp. Even without reference to God, man can determine good and evil. I've previously given a couple of scriptural examples of this (one where Abraham argues with God about the destruction of Sodom; and the other where Moses argues with God to save the golden-calf worshipping Hebrews). If you trust your bible, then trust it when it shows you that we can know good and evil -- even when God takes the opposite position.
And then there's this: some people just get their kicks by being good. There is pleasure in being good, and righteous, and honorable. God or no God, medved, some of us just enjoy being good people. But you've declared that without God you're unable to figure all of this out. That's strange, but I'll take your word for it.
If God hates idiots, you must be at the top of His list. Seems to me that frogs, salamanders, crocodiles, alligators and caymans pretty much refute your above statement, but then again, you never actually think through the implications of what you write. The first critters with feet vice fins were fully aquatic -- they used their feet to maneuver in shallow, plant-filled water (which placed them in the perfect position of becoming semi-aquatic and then wholly terrestrial).
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.