tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21307924.post680495373208590323..comments2024-01-03T02:37:17.197-06:00Comments on Conservative Commentary: ...But There Is No Assault On Religion From The LeftRoberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17457956739752722879noreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21307924.post-13380598247885631552012-12-11T09:18:57.604-06:002012-12-11T09:18:57.604-06:00[url=http://dcxvssh.com]OJZSwvHMRTG[/url] , nYBWZY...[url=http://dcxvssh.com]OJZSwvHMRTG[/url] , <a href="http://bjfuswuq.com" rel="nofollow">nYBWZYwIzufSiTpXz</a> , http://yuxeflk.comAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21307924.post-43423417074728671082007-10-15T07:51:00.000-05:002007-10-15T07:51:00.000-05:00"You call me stupid in your post, and I’m listenin..."<I>You call me stupid in your post, and I’m listening, for where stupidity is involved, you are quite an expert, friend.</I>"<BR/><BR/>(snicker!) That was friggin' weak!Wadicalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16759878578214086966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21307924.post-75686585158500690712007-10-15T07:12:00.000-05:002007-10-15T07:12:00.000-05:00dj black adam,You call me stupid in your post, and...dj black adam,<BR/><BR/>You call me stupid in your post, and I’m listening, for where stupidity is involved, you are quite an expert, friend.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21307924.post-42224337992507422132007-10-15T03:07:00.000-05:002007-10-15T03:07:00.000-05:00"An intellectual bigot in the defense of evolution..."An intellectual bigot in the defense of evolution."<BR/><BR/>lol, actually you are: "An intellectual bigot who is too stupid to know when they are being called stupid".<BR/><BR/>But hey, you like it, I love it.DJ Black Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15258897246879725176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21307924.post-69179881508751489272007-10-14T21:03:00.000-05:002007-10-14T21:03:00.000-05:0048% of college graduates 50% of adults with some c...<I>48% of college graduates <BR/>50% of adults with some college <BR/>41% of adults with high school or less.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm no statistician but ....correct me if I'm wrong. None of those values are a Majority. Wonder what the other 52% of college graduates believe, Shaw? Sounds like a middle of the road, "some do some don't" survey to me.<BR/><BR/>Not exactly compelling evidence. <BR/><BR/>I also find some "bias" in your cited survey. You think that survey included those with Theology or Divinity degrees? Or do you just not consider those people to be "post graduates"? Conveneintly it does not say. I don't put a lot of stock in surveys and polls. Since none can be all inclusive, their "results" are conjecture at best. <BR/><BR/>You are the most condescending elitist I've ever had the mispleasure of crossing swords with. You are compelled by that which we find uncompelling, yet you call into question the intelligence of anyone who refuses to conform simply because you cite that the majority of academics believe it. Who cares? We all agree that the academia is your little elitist, exclusive club to which admittance and tenure is only granted to those who are like minded. No one here disputes that. But it's a poor platform from which to argue. <BR/><BR/>Your precious academia: <I>"Look at us up here in this ivory tower! We only let in those who think like us. The rest...we laugh out of the building. We entertain no dissenting point of view. We are an exclusive club. Listen to us. Believe us. Conform to us. We are the open-minded freethinkers!"</I><BR/><BR/>Hmmmm. No thanks. I choose to think for myself, not to parrot the beliefs of some tenured beatnik hippy who thinks for me. Better hurry back now, Shaw....the collective is calling.Wadicalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16759878578214086966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21307924.post-5865180728497040122007-10-14T18:30:00.001-05:002007-10-14T18:30:00.001-05:00that wasn't for people who hold to the theory of e...<I>that wasn't for people who hold to the theory of evolution, that was for people who ASSUME that people who don't are uneducated or stupid.</I> --dj black adam<BR/><BR/>I didn't say it, sir. The survey produced that data. You are enraged by it, and I understand. <BR/><BR/>The survey shows that the more fundamental one is in one's religious beliefs, and the less education one has, the more one is apt to reject evolution.<BR/><BR/>There are always sports* in these data--<BR/><BR/>*Biology. an organism or part that shows an unusual or singular deviation from the normal or parent type; mutation.<BR/><BR/>There's no denying that there are educated people who reject the fact that Darwin's theory of evolution explains how life evolved on the planet. But those educated people who think this way are rare.<BR/><BR/>That's just the way it is.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Oh, and "Lutheranism." Thanks for the correction. I needed that.<BR/><BR/><I>You obviously are at the least an intellectual bigot.</I>--dj black adam<BR/><BR/>In the case of defending evolution against irrationality, THAT, my good man, is a wonderful compliment. I shall wear it as a badge of honor. <BR/><BR/>"An intellectual bigot in the defense of evolution."<BR/><BR/>I like it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21307924.post-85686408231185097732007-10-14T18:30:00.000-05:002007-10-14T18:30:00.000-05:00DJ, the differences in opinions is what makes the ...DJ, the differences in opinions is what makes the blogosphere worth exploring. Opinions from every point in the spectrum are welcomed here, as long as they remain civil and within the bounds of decency. <BR/><BR/>I have only removed one post in the entire lifespan of my house here. Bring what you wish! I aprpeciate your discourse and the pointed debates.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17457956739752722879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21307924.post-18602143883435453742007-10-14T17:46:00.000-05:002007-10-14T17:46:00.000-05:00Shawn:The Darwin example with his social Darwinism...Shawn:<BR/><BR/>The Darwin example with his social Darwinism is not that his "discoveries" be thrown out, but that some of those same discoveries were utilized as predicates for his incorrect conclusions about the science fiction of race.<BR/><BR/>For a looonnggg time, many folks inside and outside the academic / science community believed that trifle as fact. So unlike you I don't take any body's word on subjects they claim a mastery in, I will ALWAYS review things myself AND come to my own conclusions on what I accept or reject. You used Martin Luther in this example:<BR/><BR/>"One other thing. Should we condemn Lutherism because Martin Luther was a lethal anti-semite..."<BR/><BR/>Actually it's called "Lutheranism" Now, I don't think I implied or inferred anyone should be condemned for their faults, I will say that I look at ALL of Martin Luther's THEOLOGY very carefully because I am aware of his Antisemitism.<BR/><BR/>You wrote: <BR/><BR/>"And thanks for being so gracious in not calling me names, but just calling my comments "...sophomoric and infantile prattle..." And then referring to me and those who hold to the theory of evolution as "idiots."<BR/><BR/>No, I deleted certain comments before I read yours, you obviously have no problem dishing it out, so I felt no need to go soft on your "infantile prattle". As for "IDIOTS", that wasn't for people who hold to the theory of evolution, that was for people who ASSUME that people who don't are uneducated or stupid. You obviously are at the least an intellectual bigot, so I see no need to extend you courtesies you are unable or unwilling to extend yourself.DJ Black Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15258897246879725176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21307924.post-81055925933592573152007-10-14T14:20:00.000-05:002007-10-14T14:20:00.000-05:00One other thing. Should we condemn Lutherism beca...One other thing. Should we condemn Lutherism because Martin Luther was a lethal anti-semite, who was responsible for this:<BR/><BR/><B>On the Jews and Their Lies (German: Von den Jüden und iren Lügen; in modern spelling Von den Juden und ihren Lügen) is a 65,000-word treatise written by the acknowledged founder of the Reformation, the German, Martin Luther, in 1543, three years before his death.<BR/><BR/>In the treatise, Luther wrote that the Jews are a "base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth." They are full of the "devil's feces ... which they wallow in like swine," and the synagogue is an "incorrigible whore and an evil slut ..." He argues that their synagogues and schools should be set on fire, their prayer books destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes razed, and property and money confiscated. They should be shown no mercy or kindness, afforded no legal protection, and these "poisonous envenomed worms" should be drafted into forced labor or expelled for all time. He also seems to advocate their murder, writing "We are at fault in not slaying them."</B><BR/><BR/>Richard Wagner was an anti-semite, but should I stop listening to his sublimely beautiful music? Should I never again read T.S. Eliot's "The Waste Land" because of his anti-semitism?<BR/><BR/>Your Dawin example does not change what his discoveries gave to science.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21307924.post-30869099704057380662007-10-14T13:41:00.000-05:002007-10-14T13:41:00.000-05:00There was a time when the “majority” (your boy Dar...<I>There was a time when the “majority” (your boy Darwin chief amongst them) educated and non educated alike believed I was inferior because of my African Ancestry, so sorry if I am not moved by the “majority think / masses mentality” model, I tend to think things through for myself.</I> --dj black adam<BR/><BR/><BR/>Ronald Reagan, who lived in this century and should have known better, opposed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 as <B>“...humiliating to South.”</B> <BR/><BR/>Reagan never supported the use of federal power to provide blacks with civil rights. He opposed the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965. Reagan said in 1980 that the Voting Rights Act had been “humiliating to the South.” While he made political points with white southerners on this issue, he was sensitive to any suggestion that his stands on civil rights issues were politically or racially motivated, and he typically reacted to such criticisms as attacks on his personal integrity. <BR/>Source: The Role of a Lifetime, by Lou Cannon, p. 520 Jul 2, 1991 <BR/><BR/>But thee observations have nothing to do with this discussion so let's not go there okay? since my family includes persons of color.<BR/><BR/>And if you read my post carefully, I did not, nor did the survey say ALL creationists. You continue to put words in my mouth.<BR/><BR/>I was very careful to point out that IT WAS THE SURVEY THAT MADE THESE CLAIMS, NOT ME. I DID NOT DO THE PRESUMING!<BR/><BR/>And thanks for being so gracious in not calling me names, but just calling my comments "...sophomoric and infantile prattle..." And then referring to me and those who hold to the theory of evolution as "idiots."<BR/><BR/>You are indeed a gentleman and a scholar.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21307924.post-12426728320081576892007-10-14T13:15:00.000-05:002007-10-14T13:15:00.000-05:00Thank you for your welcome Robert, I have added yo...Thank you for your welcome Robert, I have added you to my blogroll, I enjoy alot of what I have read here so far. We share some views and differ on some, but you present your positions very well!DJ Black Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15258897246879725176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21307924.post-88106386819935578312007-10-14T12:50:00.000-05:002007-10-14T12:50:00.000-05:00DJ, just thought I would step in and welcome you t...DJ, just thought I would step in and welcome you to my place. There are some spirited discussions here on occasion!<BR/><BR/>Please come by as often as you wish, even when it is a little more tame.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17457956739752722879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21307924.post-54378532828086339852007-10-14T12:03:00.000-05:002007-10-14T12:03:00.000-05:00Shaw wrote:“But it's not just you, my friend, who ...Shaw wrote:<BR/><BR/>“But it's not just you, my friend, who holds those mistaken ideas. A survey of US citizens has found that "...creationists (I am a creationist, as I believe God created the Universe) continue to be older (I’m well under 40), less educated (U of I Chicago Grad, Student at U of C Masters of Theology / JD program), Southern (I’m from Chicago), politically conservative (my friends call me Tovarisch), and biblically literal (That is quite a misnomer, I read the Bible literally when it intends to be literal and understand the difference of literary techniques of ancient writings, which you might want to try)...”<BR/><BR/>You presume wayyy too much Shaw, but that is always the case with your kind, which is why for all the intellect you claim you have, you are forever learning never coming to knowledge of TRUTH. <BR/><BR/>I deleted some comments where I insulted you, I felt that was unnecessary amongst adults, however; it appears you are not capable of discussing this topic without resorting to sophomoric and infantile prattle and insults, summed up as “If you were smart, you would accept our theory as the end all”. Utterly Inane. Obviously you are unable to discuss the greater social actuality of the effects of your precious “theory” or admit to its limits as what is fact and what is conjecture, preferring to play semantics to avoid truth.<BR/><BR/>Bwahahahaha! You idiots just don’t get the fact that there are educated people, who are not “conservative” (by your definition) who aren’t southern Baptist who UNDERSTAND your science, but just don’t find it as the LIMIT of knowledge.<BR/><BR/>And as far as where I stand in relation to “the rest of the world”, please, I generally question anything I believe and am damn worried if I agree with the “majority”.<BR/><BR/>There was a time when the “majority” (your boy Darwin chief amongst them) educated and non educated alike believed I was inferior because of my African Ancestry, so sorry if I am not moved by the “majority think / masses mentality” model, I tend to think things through for myself.DJ Black Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15258897246879725176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21307924.post-50479475986038477302007-10-14T11:49:00.000-05:002007-10-14T11:49:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.DJ Black Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15258897246879725176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21307924.post-6964832880795365202007-10-14T09:09:00.000-05:002007-10-14T09:09:00.000-05:00dj black adam,You and a few other people who post ...dj black adam,<BR/><BR/>You and a few other people who post here have problems with reading what is posted.<BR/><BR/><I>"Today, the theory of evolution is an accepted fact for everyone..."</I><BR/><BR/>I didn't say that. James D. Watson did. Now if you think you know more than he does about biology, let me ask you in which legitimate scientific journals have you been published with your idea that evolution is fraudulent?<BR/><BR/>Oh. I thought so. What you've written is opinion. I, on the othere hand, would tend to believe a man who has proven credentials in science.<BR/><BR/>But it's not just you, my friend, who holds those mistaken ideas. A survey of US citizens has found that "...creationists continue to be older, less educated, Southern, politically conservative, and biblically literal..."<BR/><BR/>That is not me talking but the results of a survey. You can read it all here and find out where you all stand in relation to the rest of the world.<BR/><BR/>http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm <BR/><BR/>more highly educated adults believe in "evolution:"<BR/><BR/> 74% of people with post-graduate degrees believe in "evolution," as do: <BR/> 48% of college graduates <BR/> 50% of adults with some college <BR/> 41% of adults with high school or less. <BR/><BR/>I disagree with the way the question is framed. Asking someone if they "believe" in evolution is like asking someone if they believe in Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. Evolution is not a belief, it is based on sound evidence.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21307924.post-59052515875665699632007-10-13T23:46:00.000-05:002007-10-13T23:46:00.000-05:00@Shaw"Today, the theory of evolution is an accepte...@Shaw<BR/><BR/>"Today, the theory of evolution is an accepted fact for everyone..."<BR/><BR/>Bwahahahahaha!!!<BR/><BR/>O.K. follow me my “scientific” friend, I ‘ll dwell in the temporal and spatial limitations you choose to singularly dwell in for the sake of explaining to you what you seem to be willfully ignorant of.<BR/><BR/>Mosquitoes changing generation to generation is an observation of generational organism change, which is a FACT. Now if you want to call organisms changing generation to generation “Evolution” then Evolution is a "fact".<BR/><BR/>However, that is a bit misleading, because what is actually the “fact” that Neo Darwinism is explaining in that is “generational organism change” which may be a “part” of the broader definition of “evolution”, but is not the part that is what is generally pushed and defined in the social political discussion regarding “Evolutionary Theory” and how it relates to the origins of the Human Species.<BR/><BR/>Which is this, science posits that between 8 and 4 mya, gorillas, then chimpanzee divided from the line leading to the humans; partially based on the “FACT” that human DNA is 98.4 percent identical to the DNA of chimpanzees. Now Shaw, believe it or not I think that is a good guess, an educated guess even, BUT, it is not provable as of yet, and is not a “Truth” that it is posited by some in your atheistic community. BTW, Shaw, Evolution claims that ONE species (The common ancestor to apes like chimps and humans), became the different species of Apes we have today. That my friend, cannot be proven.<BR/><BR/>So we can play semantics all day, but at the end of the day, you know what the problem is, which is that somehow, you “atheist” believe that even if you were to prove that ONE Primate species became many other Primate species, it wouldn’t prove your position on the non existence of God or the non-uniqueness of humanity.<BR/><BR/>As far a science goes, like I said to you before, just because most of you folks believe a theory to be fact and use it as a postulate to formulate other ideas, doesn’t mean that it will endure, like I said with the flawed scientific facts of “race” which were later proved wrong, just because majority believes something, doesn’t mean it will endure or is unchallengeable. <BR/><BR/>So you can quote scientists who speak the language of “science” and ignore the broader social political ramifications of what the true discussion is, but that is not only duplicitous, but is intellectually fraudulent and deceptive.<BR/><BR/>Further, you need to stop forwarding false hoods about what the ancients believed or taught in the esoteric and religious traditions, as it is apparent you speak without knowledge.DJ Black Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15258897246879725176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21307924.post-79913607056355586492007-10-13T23:10:00.000-05:002007-10-13T23:10:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.DJ Black Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15258897246879725176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21307924.post-63626153478772599872007-10-13T21:15:00.000-05:002007-10-13T21:15:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.DJ Black Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15258897246879725176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21307924.post-90478124411050560722007-10-13T21:08:00.000-05:002007-10-13T21:08:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.DJ Black Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15258897246879725176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21307924.post-2015984715060583912007-10-13T20:38:00.000-05:002007-10-13T20:38:00.000-05:00"Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty...<I>"Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean <B>"absolute certainty"</B>; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world.</I>"<BR/><BR/>ha. I am a self aware, living breathing person and neither you nor your science can tell me why. Nor can you tell me where I came from. You can hypothecize and theorize but you cannot factualize. <B>THERE'S YOU AN "ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY" FOR YOU, SHAW.</B><BR/><BR/><I>"dj black adam, Who says I'm discussing this with you?"</I><BR/><BR/>You injected yourself into this thread. You're fair game to all participants.<BR/><BR/>Of the thousands...nay MILLIONS of fossils, your "science"...your "RELIGION" cannot produce ONE...not ONE friggin example of a fossil from a species in the midst of "evolving". The "missing links" are mysteriously missing not just from Man's alleged ancestors but also from every stinking species on the planet. <BR/><BR/>If what you say is true, then the mathematical liklihood of me digging in my garden and not finding a fossil would be a statistical improbability. I should hardly be able to kick the dust outside without overturning fossils. Yet your faith remains untilted, unwavered and unchanged. Yeah, evolution is most definitely a "religion". It's not an <I>"imperfect fact"</I>, Shaw. We "wingnuts" tend to call a spade a spade. It's an "inconvenient, incomplete, and inconclusive THEORY!" Your reluctance to acknowledge that FACT is a prime example of just what the heck we're talking about. You say any suggestion to the contrary will get you laughed out of a modern classroom. I don't doubt that. But that is the point in its clearest form. No "evolutionist" is open to free discussions of the problems with this theory or debate it's inconsistencies at least not in the context of entertaining an alternative theory. It is taught as fact with no facts to back it up. Its blind acceptance by the academia is out of keeping with every scientific procedure, ethic, and mantra. To us, it's no more "science" than warp drive or teleportation, theoretically possible...maybe. Scientific fact, hardely...it's science fiction. <BR/><BR/>You want to keep calling it an "imperfect fact", fine. But if you want to convince those of us who dissent...PROVE IT, then come back to us. Otherwise, the rest of this is just your religion against ours.<BR/><BR/><I>"“Today, the theory of evolution is an <B>accepted fact for everyone but a fundamentalist minority</B>, whose objections are based not on reasoning but on doctrinaire adherence to religious principles” <BR/>--James D. Watson</I><BR/><BR/>Please cite data confirming the claim that evolutionists are the majority and Creationists are a minority. I believe you'll have a hard time producing such data short of cutting and pasting quotes from someone who just decided to say it. US data will suffice, but World data would be even more interesting. <BR/><BR/>Saying it is so, doesn't make it so.Wadicalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16759878578214086966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21307924.post-1851242297595446652007-10-13T16:33:00.000-05:002007-10-13T16:33:00.000-05:00dj black adam,Who says I'm discussing this with yo...dj black adam,<BR/><BR/>Who says I'm discussing this with you?<BR/><BR/>Why would I discuss this subject with someone who would be laughed out of any serious school of science or any serious educational institution on the planet?<BR/><BR/>No, sir. It it you who is "forwarding fallacies" and is confused ("Darwin has not,nor has any scientist established the "Fact" of evolution, in showing ONE Species turning into ANOTHER species..")<BR/><BR/>Darwin never posited that. You really don't know what you're talking about.<BR/><BR/>You and the people who insist that evolution is "only a theory" and is not "fact" are a minority on this planet.<BR/><BR/>Again, I'll let someone who actually knows what he's talking about put it in his own words:<BR/><BR/><B>“Today, the theory of evolution is an accepted fact for everyone but a fundamentalist minority, whose objections are based not on reasoning but on doctrinaire adherence to religious principles” <BR/> --James D. Watson</B>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21307924.post-35524185742741943462007-10-13T12:51:00.000-05:002007-10-13T12:51:00.000-05:00Darwin has not,nor has any scientist established t...Darwin has not,nor has any scientist established the "Fact" of evolution, in showing ONE Species turning into ANOTHER species.<BR/><BR/>It just AIN'T so, no matter how much you WISH it were, and no matter how many word games you play, IT AIN'T so.<BR/><BR/>Until you can show some intellectual integrity, I see no further reason to discuss this topic with you, you continue to be intellectually fraudulent and instead of truth, you wish to forward fallacies.DJ Black Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15258897246879725176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21307924.post-23643644883131975832007-10-13T11:46:00.000-05:002007-10-13T11:46:00.000-05:00Robert, I want to clear something up. I responded...Robert, I want to clear something up. I responded to the writer of the article you posted. You said someone emailed it to you and claimed it was written by Paul Harvey, but you doubted it. So you posted this litany by, essentially an unknown author. I responded to that anonymous author when I used the word ignorant. Not you. <BR/><BR/>Some people here accused me of calling them ignorant. I called the writer of that anonymous screed ignorant.<BR/><BR/>No Christian in this country is being prevented from praying in his/her home or place of worship. Not one. Not one Christian is being prevented from praying to God everyday all day long. Not one.<BR/><BR/>I will not be drawn into arguments over minutia on whether a document was dated AD or not, and whether that proves that "God" is in the Constitution. When the Catholic Church put Galileo under house arrest and threatened him with torture because he said the earth moves around the sun, the Church was the arbiter of all temporal matters. I made a mistake in my haste in typing "Bible" I should have "Church." <BR/><BR/>In any event, my errors do not in any way discredit Evolution as a fact. I'll let someone smarter and more informed on this subject than anyone who posts here explain:<BR/><BR/>"In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was." <BR/>Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.<BR/><BR/>Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.<BR/><BR/>Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21307924.post-6359947064213237712007-10-13T09:21:00.000-05:002007-10-13T09:21:00.000-05:00...nor did the Bill of Rights, (though technically......nor did the Bill of Rights, (though technically "part" of the Constitution it is a completely separate document) have a date that contained, for the benefit of all who may be confused by not doing so, the words "In the Year of Our Lord". Based on <I>my</I> research, it's hit and miss. They may or they may have not used such nomenclature. It may have been "acceptable", but it is hardly accurate to claim that is was "common". Do you ever research before you write? Ever thought about it? You should try it. You'll find much less controversy would arise as a result of your comments would you only ensure that the material contained therein is limited to that which is "factual" and that those nuggets that you include that are simply nothing more than your ill-contrived idealistic opinions are properly labeled as so.<BR/><BR/>BTW, Well played DJ!Wadicalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16759878578214086966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21307924.post-80022982876673283352007-10-13T09:06:00.000-05:002007-10-13T09:06:00.000-05:00@ Shaw:You wrote: "As to all of you who mock evolu...@ Shaw:<BR/><BR/>You wrote: "As to all of you who mock evolution as "only a theory," my only reaction is to shake my head and feel profound pity. And walk away."<BR/><BR/>Actually, you should be shaking your head in profound stupidity and walk away. It is the epitome of intellectual fraudulence to posit that ANY theory is a FACT. If the "Theory" of evolution was a "FACT" it would cease to be called the "Theory of Evolution".<BR/><BR/>I can give you, its the best THEORY you guys got going, however unlike you folks, I am not inclined to limit myself to the temporal and spatial reality that you can measure to understand the greater actuality we are part of. Western science in its arrogance is good for what its good for, I'll concede that, but of this universe and its processes you are but children trying to make sense of something that is truly beyond your apprehension.<BR/><BR/>For example, the Bible has always posited that man has a common ancestry, that the human family is a family, common origins that divided by tribe, not a group of different "races". You scientist in your pride and ignorance (Darwin Amongst them) forwarded the fiction of RACE as a fact, and just recently you all have come to understand that humanity is NOT the divided mongoloid, negroid and caucasoid ignorance that you all posited for hundreds of years, scripture was right, you all were wrong, simple as that, so pardon me if I think your THEORIES can be questioned or mocked when one fraudulently posits such theories as facts.<BR/><BR/>You sit there and attribute Catholic doctrine, that was predicated on science and philosophy at the time (not Scripture in regard to how the earth was viewed). The ancients KNEW the world was ROUND, it was the scientist of those times who started that flat idiocy, there is no scripture you can point to that says the earth is "flat" or that the earth is the center of the universe. The fact that you repeat such ignorance is tantamount of your lack of understanding of the subject of spirituality or any of the ancient text from the Enuma Elish to the Vedas.<BR/><BR/>My advice to you, is to stick to what you can prove in science and to try to prove your THEORIES, because when you attempt to talk about spirituality you mix it up with theology, dogma and religion, the fact that you obviously don't know the difference, shows your lack of knowledge or understanding.DJ Black Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15258897246879725176noreply@blogger.com