New Dinosaur Species Found in India

AP ^ | August 13, 2003 | RAMOLA TALWAR BADAM

[Aric2000]

That's true, I will let you guys deal with her then, your posts are always a lot better then mine anyway.

I'll just lurk and learn, as I sometimes do.

[longshadow]

"Mars approaches opposition" placemarker

[biblewonk]

Maybe my response should have been "have you ever read the bible?". Then if you said yes I could have asked if you believe it and then if you said yes I could have mentioned the creation account of stars and the sun being made on the 4th day etc.

If I'm gunshy it's because I've been shot so many times on this forum.

Sorry

[Aric2000]

Well, if you are ever set up, you let us know where and when.

We will support you in any way shape or form we can.

Believe it or not, we actually like you AndrewC, Lord knows why, ;), but we'll back you up if that ever becomes necassary, and I think I speak for most of us on this side of the aisle, so to speak.

In the meantime though, I am NOT acting on my suspicions and will not, unless absolutely and totally 100% convinced, in the meantime, VI will be my friend.

[Da_Shrimp]

There is nowhere in Scripture that the Bible makes a universal command to force conversion, torture, or anything of the like.

It happened nonetheless. Darwin did NOT make his theory into something that allowed elimination of 'lesser' peoples, but sundry nutters latched onto it. Is that Darwin's fault?

[Right Wing Professor]

As far as "Christians" doing these things, I just don't believe that these people were Christians- at least not in the biblical sense.

I don't believe that the people who practised social Darwinism understood that the theory of evolution, as a scientific theory, cannot be used to provide a moral basis for actions.

[Aric2000]

And you're a poophead for being able to see it when I can't!!

I saw it as a little red dot in the sky, you get to see the icecaps, argh, ya bum!! ;)

[whattajoke]

I don't recall anyone answering that, because they all the sudden seem to appear, like the Cambrian explosion

No fair. You are not allowed to use "Cambrian explosion" in any of your arguements. In your world, there is no such thing, no "Cambrian" period at all, and only 2 "explosions" with the Adam and Eve procreation miracle, and the post-Noah incest fest.

At any rate, your personal inability to comprehend something does not mean it didn't happen.

[Right Wing Professor]

Away with yer modesty!

[DittoJed2]

At any rate, your personal inability to comprehend something does not mean it didn't happen.
Tell it to the "scientists" who can't use the scientific method to explain God creating the universe so they try to explain him away by postulating it through naturalistic means.

[RadioAstronomer]

Oh, are you a Christian?

Does that matter? I have never denigrated Christian beliefs on this site, nor ever will. What I believe or not believe is very personal to me and I prefer not to post them publicly.

However, I have no problem discussing the bible or biblical passages. Nor do I intend to disparage them in anyway either.

[DittoJed2]

No, but they were not inconsistent in latching onto it. To use Christianity as an excuse to kill folks or force conversions is being completely inconsistent with the plain sense of Scripture (both Old and New Testaments taken in the historical and theological contexts).

[RadioAstronomer]

Sorry

Nawww... My fault as well. I overreacted.

[AndrewC]

In the meantime though, I am NOT acting on my suspicions and will not, unless absolutely and totally 100% convinced, in the meantime, VI will be my friend.

There is no harm in that, but ignoring means ignoring. (HEADLINE left off of tagline.)

[biblewonk]

OK so you read the bible but don't believe it. Then what good does it do me to point out where it says what?

[DittoJed2]

I don't believe that the people who practised social Darwinism understood that the theory of evolution, as a scientific theory, cannot be used to provide a moral basis for actions.
Could be. Or it could be that evolution can not be considered philosophically neutral. The scientific method itself is, certainly. But Darwinism is a world view. Those becoming social Darwins were not being inconsistent with the implications of that worldview. Others who didn't take that path weren't being inconsistent either.

[RadioAstronomer]

Tell it to the "scientists" who can't use the scientific method to explain God

Except God and faith are not apart of science.

[biblewonk]

Well, I've spent so many hours debating with people on the whole spectrum of belief from C vs E threads to RC vs Protestant threads to Calvin vs Arminian threads that it's really really hard to figure out where to start. I seem to remember you as being an evolutionist and I always seem to see you on these threads. If the FR had a really good search engine I could go back and try and remember what our relationship is but it doesn't so I can't.

[Right Wing Professor]

But Darwinism is a world view

No, it's just a scientific theory. Dawkins made an excellent point in 'The Selfish Gene' that were the scientific ideas he was putting forward to be turned into a moral philosophy, he would reject them.

[Da_Shrimp]

To use Christianity as an excuse to kill folks or force conversions is being completely inconsistent with the plain sense of Scripture (both Old and New Testaments taken in the historical and theological contexts).

Thanks for the answer, DittoJed2, I appreciate it!

I'm going to argue with you, though: the 'plain sense' of 'Darwinism' does not argue a case for killing folks either. It's a faulty interpretation completely inconsistent with Darwin' writings.