Thomas sez:
OrionWorks wrote:
Thomas sez:
The discussion in question was on the Wall Builders, all one
I suspect many progressives have difficulty following the logic
attributed to comments such as ...a biblically based legal system is
superior to all others. from the very next comment
OrionWorks wrote:
Thomas sez:
The discussion in question was on the Wall Builders, all one
I suspect many progressives have difficulty following the logic
attributed to comments such as ...a biblically based legal system is
superior to all others. from the very next comment where
Thomas sez:
The discussion in question was on the Wall Builders, all one
word .com, program. David Barton talks about the beliefs of
the founding fathers. It was clear to us that a Biblically
based legal system is superior to all others. This is not
clear to many people, particularly those
Hey Jeff,
Yea !, They haven't even got warmed up yet. After religion- evolution
somebody got started on global warming and next will be politics.
Just shows you what a good education at one of our universities will buy.
After all , if they don't teach you to hold your drinks at the Dime Box
thomas malloy wrote:
As for Radical Islamists R I's teaching their children to be shaids
(martyrs), they are honoring their god. Dawkins can't see any
difference between the two religious systems.
Of course he can!
You may not agree with Dawkins -- I have some quarrels with him
myself --
On 7/2/2008 12:40 AM, thomas malloy wrote:
Jed Rothwell wrote:
thomas malloy wrote:
Harry Veeder wrote:
Did Dawkins say exactly that?
It was reported on one of the Salem Radio Network talk shows. They
are normally reliable, but not inerrorant.
Dawkins did say exactly that:
]:Creationism (was Re:OT: periodic table)
Howdy Vorts,
The bartender at the Dime Box Saloon stops serving tequila to patrons that
get into arguments on either religion or politics.
It is a waste of time and eventually results in somebody breaking the
mirror behind the bar which starts a brawl. A smart
Harry Veeder wrote:
On 7/2/2008 12:40 AM, thomas malloy wrote:
Jed Rothwell wrote:
thomas malloy wrote:
Harry Veeder wrote:
Did Dawkins say exactly that?
It was reported on one of the Salem Radio Network talk shows. They
are normally reliable, but
thomas malloy wrote:
Harry Veeder wrote:
Did Dawkins say exactly that?
It was reported on one of the Salem Radio Network talk shows. They
are normally reliable, but not inerrorant.
Dawkins did say exactly that: teaching religion is a form of child
abuse. He said that in the book and
Howdy Michel,
A real old antique Mickey Mouse watch is valuable just like Disney stock is
up up.
This has little to do with the mysterious planet you made reference to...
well.. err. except .. if you drink enough French wine it can get your head
spinning like the planet you told us about.
Jed Rothwell wrote:
thomas malloy wrote:
Harry Veeder wrote:
Did Dawkins say exactly that?
It was reported on one of the Salem Radio Network talk shows. They
are normally reliable, but not inerrorant.
Dawkins did say exactly that: teaching religion is a form of child
abuse. He said
Harry wrote..
Is this intended as an argument against an eternal universe?
Didn't ask that question, Perhaps you can give your insight on the subject.
The measure and the thing being measured are not necessarily one and the
same thing.
You may have become attached to the unattached to
the verse about the sun rising out of the ocean.
Could you give me a more specific reference so I can look it up. Thanks.
-Original Message-
From: Michael Foster [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 5:59 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Creationism (was Re:OT
Jeff Fink wrote:
When we consider excavated observations ranging from the Cambrian explosion
to overthrusts to polystrate tree trunks, it is clear to me that the
theory of evolution is fatally flawed and totally bankrupt.
And it is clear to me that you don't know much about biology, or
On 5/2/2008 7:55 AM, R.C.Macaulay wrote:
Harry wrote..
Is this intended as an argument against an eternal universe?
Didn't ask that question, Perhaps you can give your insight on the subject.
I was trying to understand your remark.
The measure and the thing being measured are not
no, fundamentalist christian creationists are less than 3 percent of
the population.
They just shout a lot louder then everyone else.
On 2/4/08, Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In school it's only mentioned in a historical context here. I understand
there are very many (10%?)
Thomas sez:
TheTwincities Creation Science Society has a DVD of
Dr. Dawkins debating another scientist. He seems so
reasonable. OTOH, he maintians that teaching your children
about the Bible is child abuse. Those are fighting words!
Surprisingly, there are times when I actually sympathize
OrionWorks sez:
The Creationists lost their case. It's my understanding that for the
moment Intelligent Design aka Creationsism is not considered a
viable scientific theory and should not be taught in schools as an
alternative scientific theory.
Thomas sez:
The aforementioned show just
]:Creationism (was Re:OT: periodic table)
Jeff Fink wrote:
When we consider excavated observations ranging from the Cambrian explosion
to overthrusts to polystrate tree trunks, it is clear to me that the
theory of evolution is fatally flawed and totally bankrupt.
And it is clear to me that you don't
Did Dawkins say exactly that?
I saw him interviewed on the BBC late last year and he said
he objected to the religious labelling of children,
as in My child is Catholic or That child is Jewish.
He said they should be free to self-identify with a particular
religion when they are old enough.
Harry Veeder wrote:
Did Dawkins say exactly that? [about child abuse]
Dawkins says a lot of things. Some, taken out of context, sound
pretty extreme. But mainly he is a typical witty, British academic
intellectual -- nothing to be afraid of.
I saw him interviewed on the BBC late last
Jed sez:
...
Dawkins has a misplaced belief in the open mindedness of science. He
thinks that scientists are easily willing to give up beliefs in the
fact of evidence that contradicts them. He obviously does not know
the history of cold fusion. Brian Josephson has a link to a document
On 5/2/2008 4:26 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Harry Veeder wrote:
Did Dawkins say exactly that? [about child abuse]
Dawkins says a lot of things. Some, taken out of context, sound
pretty extreme. But mainly he is a typical witty, British academic
intellectual -- nothing to be afraid of.
Howdy Vorts,
The bartender at the Dime Box Saloon stops serving tequila to patrons that
get into arguments on either religion or politics.
It is a waste of time and eventually results in somebody breaking the
mirror behind the bar which starts a brawl. A smart patron knows when thing
start
OrionWorks wrote:
Thomas sez:
TheTwincities Creation Science Society has a DVD of
Dr. Dawkins debating another scientist. He seems so
reasonable. OTOH, he maintians that teaching your children
about the Bible is child abuse. Those are fighting words!
Surprisingly, there are times
Harry Veeder wrote:
Did Dawkins say exactly that?
It was reported on one of the Salem Radio Network talk shows. They are
normally reliable, but not inerrorant.
I saw him interviewed on the BBC late last year and he said
he objected to the religious labelling of children,
as in My child
From Michel Jullian
In school it's only mentioned in a historical context here. I understand there
are very many (10%?) creationists in the US, I was just wondering if/to
what extent public school teaching was affected by this.
Michel
You may find the following amusing. ;-)
A PBS NOVA
However, I suggest that the absence God does not mean the absence of a
spiritual intelligence. This intelligence is presumed to have developed
at the same time intelligence was developing in the material world.
Religion confuses this intelligence with a God. In fact, it is simply
another
Michael Foster wrote:
As God works in mysterious ways, I can't see why evolution isn't one of them.
Many religious biologists agree. However, by and large scientists and
biologists in particular tend to be atheists. The best explication
for their reasoning can be found in R. Dawkins, The
I really hate to jump in on such a subject that is so
far off topic, but this is something that has bugged
me for years. I really don't understand what the
argument is about. I'm not religious, nor am I much
of an atheist (requires too much faith in the unknown).
As God works in mysterious
On 4/2/2008 7:06 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
However, I suggest that the absence God does not mean the absence of a
spiritual intelligence. This intelligence is presumed to have developed
at the same time intelligence was developing in the material world.
Religion confuses this intelligence
Harry Veeder wrote:
On 4/2/2008 7:06 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
However, I suggest that the absence God does not mean the absence of a
spiritual intelligence. This intelligence is presumed to have developed
at the same time intelligence was developing in the material world.
Religion confuses
Like a primal world wide web?
Exactly!
Ed
Harry
I think the password is 42.
Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Howdy Vorts,
We best leave the debate of Creationism vs. Evolution to the academians
since they are the intellectuals.
After all the talk is finished there remains one central word that has never
been examined in regards to the pros and cons.
That word is TIME. Forget about how long ago
On 4/2/2008 11:27 PM, R.C.Macaulay wrote:
Howdy Vorts,
We best leave the debate of Creationism vs. Evolution to the academians
since they are the intellectuals.
After all the talk is finished there remains one central word that has never
been examined in regards to the pros and cons.
Jed Rothwell wrote:
Michael Foster wrote:
As God works in mysterious ways, I can't see why evolution isn't one
of them.
The Dawkins book has attracted a lot of emotional attacks, but by and
large I think it is a quiet philosophical exposition which should not
upset any intelligent
36 matches
Mail list logo
