Posted on 04/20/2003 10:36:35 AM PDT by JHL
On Easter of all days, Gary Trudeau uses his Doonesbury cartoon to insult Christians in general, and George Bush's faith in particular. How quick the liberals are to condemn someone else's faith and belief system, but just let a Christian say anything negative about another's belief system and how quick they are to invoke an injunction against "judgementalism."
You can read the cartoon for yourself at the following link CLICK HERE for cartoon
The irony is... they're the 'haters'. They're the ones who don't want a public dialog on issues. If you'd have a Peanuts cartoon lampooning (insert your group or individual here), then there'd be hell to pay and it'd be called hate speech and incitement of hatred against that group.
What a bunch of narrow minded phonies.
You're also good at hurling out a lot of high-brow, intelligent sounding insults, declaring me and all others who believe in creation ignorant and absurd. Typical tactic from the left, but your declaration of ignorance does not make it so, no matter how many times you say it, no matter how many times you chuckle under your breath, and no matter how many times you "back up" your claims with more unproven theories. It simply means that you posted a lot, called a lot of names, and did a lot of attempted browbeating.
As for creationists being responsible for atheism, that's really really rich. No, it's laughable.
Later...
MM
Oh, one quick observation: You say that evolutionists don't like to debate creationists because creationists don't like to have written debates. When did written debates become the norm?
Oh, one quick observation: You say that evolutionists don't like to debate creationists because creationists don't like to have written debates. When did written debates become the norm?In science, ever since science became complicated enough to require it. Which is the last few hundred years. There are some scientists quite good in verbal debates, e.g. Kenneth Miller. But when a professional creo debater comes to a local college, gets the local bio prof to debate him, and then proceeds to snowball by (like you did) throwing out as many ridiculous arguments as possible, there is no easy way to respond, and the bussed-in faithful are impressed. In a written debate, claims are clear and documentation, or lack of it, can be checked. I don't care if you think I'm elistist or liberal or what. It's not like all evolutionists are liberal. Harvard evolutionary biologist E.O. Wilson hangs out with Newt Gingrich regularly, I'm told. E.O. Wilson once got a pitcher of water dumped on his head by a liberal protestor because the protestor thought that Wilson's ideas were reactionary. Funny how evolution takes the flack for both communism and capitalism, facism and 60s liberalism, etc. The critics can't get their story straight. Anyway, the only thing that matters is evidence. If someone posts well-supported arguments for an alterative theory, then you might change my mind. However, claiming that there is no evidence for evolution, and then refusing to respond to it when it is posted, is not impressive. eagleman
Read my response again. I will indeed respond to you, but this had turned lengthier than I have time for right this moment. I've been working 14-16 hours per day for the past several weeks and still am—I can take brief breaks but not one that will take a long time to intelligently respond to. As soon as I'm caught up enough to breathe, I will indeed respond to your points in detail.
MM
Prior to that, he would jab everyone a little. Republicans more, but still.. he got his licks in on the liberal side also.
After Gore lost, he just never was the same. He became mean and spiteful, I can't tell you the last time I actually smiled reading one of his cartoons. I don't think they're even meant to be funny now.. They are just part & parcel of the personal jihad he's been on since the general election.
Trudeau personifies the phrase "Get over it"
Exactly. The "written debates of science" take place in scholarly science journals, precisely for the reasons you have articulated. It is, btw, the same reason that medicine conducts it's written "debates" in medical journals -- it's the only way to prevent the snake oil salesmen and Quack practitioners from bullsh*itting a scientifically ill-informed public.
There's no shortage of Homeopaths trying to peddle their "Essence of Pussywillow" cures, but not very many of them publish research in scholarly medical journals.... for reasons that should be obvious.
Insulting Christians on Easter is not Christian bashing? Calling Christians idiots is not Christian bashing? Only a Christian bashing atheist like yourself would dare to say that.
There are numerous arguments between even those who do such dating about the dates derived by such means. While the decay of radioctive substances at certain specific rates is well established scientifically, the ability of such methods to date long buried items which have been subjected to many environmental pressures is not. Further, the only which we have been able to verify by external evidence - carbon-14 dating (which is accurate only within the last 50,000 years at most) had to be calibrated for some 20% error by historical evidence.
Well, you got one thing right. Evolution is not science. It dismisses cause and effect for random events.
Unfortunately, in practice it usually is.
Totally false. In practice scientists totally disregard evolution. The greatest advances in biology today are being done by disregarding evolution. Evolution teaches that one can haphazardly construct highly intricate systems. Science knows better that is why most research today is being done in finding the connections between different genes, functions, and systems in organisms - something which evolution has denied since its inception.
There is no evidence for evolution, none at all. Not a single species has ever been seen transforming itself into a more complex species, not one. However, every day we see species reproducing their own kind - just like it says in the Bible.
And yes, you must reject God to believe in evolution. Not only do just about all the hardcore evolutionists here on this forum prove it, but the theory itself, by being completely materialistic, denying the divine origin of life and man completely attest to its total atheism.
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.