Posted on 07/11/2002 9:44:50 AM PDT by ZGuy
The one thing that might drive me off FR are creationists. It truly upsets me so many otherwise sane conservatives adhere to such mumbo-jumbo. And I have to say that most scientists, whose instincts are generally conservative, are repelled from the conservative movement for exactly this reason. So I wish *you* and your pals would find some new friends. A lot of creationist arguments are entirely consistent with multiculti-liberalism. You might like it there.
"Because right at this minute I don't have the knowledge or imagination to figure out how it could occurred, it can't have occurred"
If Newton had gone through all the things he could see and couldn't explain right at that minute, the law of Universal Gravitation would never have been found.
It is partially a universal law of decay; the ultimate cause of why everything ultimately falls apart and disintegrates over time.
Nonsense. It says heat always flows spontaneously from hot to cold objects, or (another phrasing) entropy always increases in a spontaneous process. But identifying entropy with decay is simply incorrect. Next!
It is well known that, left to themselves, chemical compounds ultimately break apart into simpler materials; they do not ultimately become more complex.
What happens when an epoxy resin sets? What happens when iron rusts?
Squawk! Polly repeating utter nonsense! Squawk!
And that's exactly the point. There *is* no such thing as gravity.
The Earth just sucks.
:-D
(sorry, old, stupid joke, but sometimes I just can't resist a straight line)
They are a small group. But they have a tendency to try to shout down all rational opposition by closing their eyes and minds and repeating the same old nonsense again and again and again.
Read the above erudite prose, and then read this:
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/chapter-01.html
Now which sample of prose evinces the more intellligence? Does anyone really think Darwin's writing is consistent with his being the stupidest white man of all time? Heck, I don't even think medved is the stupidest white man of all time!
We creationists simply believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. We filter everything we believe through that prism. The three of you are all on record, in a public forum, laboring to convince people who may be reading this thread, that the Bible is NOT the inerrant Word of God.
If the three of you are correct, then Christianity is a false religion, and you are right to debunk it, and you have nothing to fear. If you are WRONG, then the words of Jesus Christ WILL apply to you on Judgement Day:
Mat 10:32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 10:33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
The stakes are high for your actions. But after you read this note, you cannot claim ignorance of Jesus words on this matter.
Tell it like it is! Historically, anti-evo has been associated with D*ms and populists (think of the Scopes trial), and evolution has been asociatted with 'pointy-headed Yankee professors'.
If not him, then to whom does that honor belong?
EBUCK
Luke 3:
35: Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,
36: Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
Genesis 10:
21: Unto Shem also, the father of all the children of Eber, the brother of Japheth the elder, even to him were children born.
22: The children of Shem; Elam, and Asshur, and Arphaxad, and Lud, and Aram.
23: And the children of Aram; Uz, and Hul, and Gether, and Mash.
24: And Arphaxad begat Salah; and Salah begat Eber.
So was Salah Arphaxad's grandchild, or his child? And if Cainan was Arphaxad's child, and Cainan begat Salah, then how come Genesis 10:6 says Canaan was the son of Ham?
My own theory is that Luke was trying to show how Jesus was descended from David, to fulfill prophecy, and he added the genealogy of David for completeness, but goofed (or one of his translators goofed) in adding Canaan to the direct line. And it wasn't important to the point he was making, so only a Biblical literalist would consider it a problem.
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.