Posted on 07/20/2002 2:08:38 PM PDT by yankeedame
I'll describe mine. I have far too high an opinion of God to believe that the clowns of so-called "creation science" are speaking for Him.
Incrementalism.
Start at the earliest level(s) and keep adding until it's in the universities.
The PostHoleDiggers then reproduce themselves.
Man has always lived near water. The "whole earth" in that context meant the inhabited part; we are now living on areas which were viewed as plateaus prior to the flood and were sparsely if at all inhabited. The waters of the flood have not gone anywhere; there was simply not as much water on the Earth before the flood as there is now. As to salt, that apparently came with the flood. There is no reasonable theory as to a source of the salt in the oceans, on this planet at least.
This is an old talk.origins archive post. Basically, I had challenged the talk.origins crew (bandarlog) to see if they could tell the difference between ideological writing samples from the famous racist and evolutionist, Chuck Darwin, and the famous racist and evolutionist, Adolf Hitler. A champion (Pflanze) from amongst the bandarlog arose to take up the challenge:
Subject: Re: Darwin/Hitler Test
From: medved@access.digex.net (Ted Holden)
Date: 1997/05/11
Message-ID: <3375fdd4.143923491@newsreader.digex.net>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,alt.fan.splifford,alt.christnet,talk.origins
On 11 May 1997 12:06:52 GMT, cwpf@news.utk.edu (Charles W Pflanze) wrote:
Therefore, here, too, the struggle among themselves arises less from inner aversion than from hunger and love. In both cases, Nature looks on calmly, with satisfaction, in fact. In the struggle for daily bread all those who are weak and sickly or less determined succumb, while the struggle of the males for the female grants the right or opportunity to propagate only to the healthiest. And struggle is always a means for improving a species' health and power of resistance and, therefore, a cause of its higher development.
>This is more likely Darwin's work. Anyone doing experimental or
>developmental work in biology knows and uses all the the above
>observations. What's the big deal?
"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races throughout the world...
>This is more likely Hitler's work. Now we read about civilized races
>exterminating "savage races."
My reply:
Congratulations, you have earned an incredible distinction for yourself; you can tell your grandchildren that you were the first to flunk the official alt.fan.splifford Hitler/Darwin test. In years to come, after evolutionism has been laugh to scorn and is no longer taught in civilized nations, your name will be famous. Textbooks will note that, once it became obvious that even a genius such as Charles Pflanze could not tell the difference between Darwin's writings and those of Adolf Hitler, it was pretty much all over but the shouting.
I am also a geologist/geochemist and was fortunate enough to have had as a mentor a very fine Christian geology professor who believed that evolution was the mechanism God chose to create the Universe and all life within.
My personal belief is that if God did create the Universe, then He necessarily must follow the very laws He created, thus I believe evolution to be the best model we have to date of the origins of life.
I also believe we are not the only other life that exists in the Universe.
Anything else you would care to know about me?
That's the reason for the effort to rid American academia of evolutionism.
For the lowdown on Chuck Darwin, stupidest white man of all time and his BS theory, and on the continuing efforts of feebs like Steve Gould and Niles Eldredge to keep the charade going for another generation:
My world? Okay. Anyway, I have no desire to give you a course in biochemistry, even if I were qualified to do so. If you care to learn about biology, evolution, and the structure of DNA, there are probably thousands of well-written books produced by experts on the subject. If you prefer to remain in your world and believe that all such works are bogus, that's your choice.
You are apparently refering to his book Dialogo. I will qualify my statement: I didn't mean to imply Galileo never published. What I had in mind were incidences like what happened between him and Johannes Kepler, when Kepler asked Galileo for one of his telescopes, but being an @ss he refused to give Kepler one. Galileo would pull stunts like write his discoveries to Kepler only in anagrams so Kepler couldn't understand them. What I should have said was Galileo very rarely shared his discoveries.
Indeed, it was the publication of that book which triggered the Inquisition's actions against Galileo. The pretext for the proceeding was, in effect, publishing without permission, but the documents to prove that charge have never surfaced.
Pope Urban VIII suspected that the character 'Simplicio' (or Simplicius; I forget which) was a caricature of himself. I believe Urban initiated the trial for personal reasons and that most of the ten Inquisitors couldn't care less.
The actual charges, and the plea that they extracted from Galileo (said to be under threat of torture) was all about his "heresy" in teaching about the solar system: Heresy charges against Galileo and Galileo's confession.
I will concede the point that the "official charges" were of heresy. However, a number of high Church officials and Jesuit astronomers agreed with Galileo, and many had refuted the Ptolemaic system even before Galileo had been born. (Being a Lutheran, I am thoroughly embarassed that Martin Luther called Copernicus a "fool" for supporting a sun-centered system.) So the official charges were not unanimously supported.
Galileo himself was a commited Catholic and saw no disagreement between science and faith. You no doubt have heard of many scientists who held the same view, such as Kepler, Newton, Pasteur, Linnaeus, Faraday, Babbage, Dalton, and many others.
You might read this (as I have done): The Galileo Affair, by Maurice A. Finocchiaro, University of California Press, 1989. It's probably a more scholarly treatment of the subject than an article in a creationist journal.
Unless you have read the Creation T.J., you are hardly in a position to make that assertion. However, I will take my own advice and look up Finochiaro's book.
Of course, I'll concede the point if you can produce the personal hate mail you've gotten from Him.
It's really unfortunate you have to resort to name-calling. Judging from your Galileo post, you seem to be smart enough to defend your position without having to call people "clowns".
Interestingly enough, there is an undeniable parrot-like quality to your posts.
One has to infer that from all the problems idiots have in life, like getting laughed at for being sucked into stupid ideologies like evolutionism...
It's probably true that the Pope felt insulted, and probably for good reason. And as you point out elsewhere, Galileo did have his supporters. Nevertheless, he was forced to confess heresy, his book was banned, and he died under house arrest. Those are the facts. There's not a lot of room to sweep this event under the carpet. It's one of the most momentous episodes in the intellectual history of the West.
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.