Posted on 08/13/2003 9:02:05 PM PDT by nwrep
I too reread this thread. She was unwilling to look at what was being presented to her.
With respect.
Mike
Well, since you brought it up.... visibility was the best so far this year on Saturday night; a huge Canadian air mass had just moved thru the night before, and the dew points were down in the low 40's. The air was much more stable than it was just a few days earlier, though it was by no means ideal.
Notwithstanding the atmospheric turbulence, the Southern polar cap was so clearly visible it looked like it was about to jump out and crawl down the telescope tube. Even distinct dark surface features were faintly, and fleetingly visible in the Southern hemisphere of Mars.
All that was visible using a 100 year old 6" refractor.
Here's what another amateur accomplished with a 16" scope and some computer enhancment the other night:
http://www.sg-planets.org/mars/mars200308221617ut.jpg
It appears the ancients - thousands of years before Qumran - followed meteor activity very closely both as omens and in order to collect the iron. Some of them call the meteors "falling stars" - but nowhere have I found any indication that they believed stars could die.
So, I'm still looking for the first notion that stars arise and die by becoming "lightening."
It's an odd notion. I don't recall ever reading anything else like it. Meteors (so-called shooting stars, perhaps thought to be dying stars) are quite unlike lightning. And novae are obviously not lightning. It may be that ol' Enoch is all alone in this one.
The Nazi confiscation of the property of hundreds of Catholic monasteries strongly suggests that Hitler did not respect the Catholic church. Indeed, he is on record as saying that he would try to reduce the temporal power of the Church once the war was over. The Nazi Dissolution of the Monasteries: A Case-Study, E. D. R. Harrison, The English Historical Review, Vol. 109, No. 431. (Apr., 1994), pp. 323-355.
Sure you could. Just go to AIG and spam article after article, ignoring any real rebuttal (or laughter). If you have to, spam it once again, and claim any opposition from the science crowd is because they are evil, conspiratorial, atheist Darwinists. Imply that they are Nazi's and that you speak directly from God - that'll get the other Creationists on your side.
I don't know that it accomplishes anything but to make one look like an silly, ignorant #$*&, but anyone could do it.
I have a hard time believing that anyone could believe such self-congratulatory claptrap as this, but it's par for the course for all too many creationists. Almost inevitably there appears some variation on, "The evos listened and talked for 2,766 posts, they analyzed the weaknesses, they found some amusingly naive, they offered to discuss all the evidence and take some key points as case studies, and when a creationist ran away in frustration that the evos didn't accept the 'obvious' truth of her beliefs, by gosh, it means creationists are being persecuted into silence by the evilutionist conspiracy!!!!!"
The fact that the swan song followed the obligatory Nazi insinuations just makes it all the more familiar.
I'm also always amazed at how often creationists demonstrate a real talent for psychological projection. The following came from creationists on this thread:
"You apparently have difficulty understanding that I have no wish to discuss anything with you."And yet, it's the *evolutionists* who supposedly silence people with opposing views? Pull the other leg now."NOTE TO ALL EVOLUTIONISTS ON THIS THREAD. DO NOT POST TO ME ANYTHING HAVING TO DO WITH THIS THREAD."
Frankly I'll miss DittoJed2. She at least was willing to discuss the actual issues, whereas the majority of frequent creationist posters to these threads have devolved into either empty ridicule or endless variations on "here's what's wrong with you guys" (including, for example, Agreement-lawyering). While DittoJed2 was participating, even amidst all her exasperated declarations that we were "BLIND", "arrogant", etc., we spent most of our time on a science thread discussing *science* for a change.
The echt GSHS is impossible to counterfeit, and definitely one of a type. I read all available posts by GSHS(redux) and my working hypothesis is that the posts are being written by a committee. The earliest ones seem like the real GSHS, the ones written after ALS was booted do not.
That's not quite how I remember it. One side was discussing science; the other side was waving it away or bashing it (because it changes with the wind, or because it doesn't deal with the supernatural, or because it refuses to recognize God, or because it's too dogmatic, or biased, or the deck is stacked in the peer review process, or because it's an evil worldview, or because it undermines morality, etc.). And then the Hitler stuff was brought out. And then goodbye. Frankly, that wasn't much of a science discussion. But it was remarkably civil, until the end. And it wasn't the science side that dragged it into the mud.
Hitler used Christian symbols and ideas for his own purposes but Hitler was clearly not a Christian. Hitler used Christianity for his own purposes. (Hitler also used Roman symbols - do you claim Hitler was also a Roman?)
Your “link” is not from a reliable source – it is somebody that had a point to make (anti-Christian) and set out to pick through evidence to “build” a case (rather than find the truth). Yes – Hitler used parts of Christianity but Hitler was no Christian.
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.