The Late Osama

[Socrates]

After dying a grisly death in an Afghan cave, Osama
made his way to the pearly gates. There, he was
greeted by George Washington. "How dare you
attack the nation I helped conceive!" yelled
Washington, slapping Osama in the face.

Patrick Henry came up from behind, "You wanted
to end the American's liberty, so they gave you
death!" Henry punched Osama in the nose.

James Madison came next and said, "This is why
I allowed the government to provide for the common
defense!" He took a sledge hammer and whacked
Osama's knees.

Osama was subject to similar beatings from John
Randolph, James Monroe and 67 other people who
had the same love for liberty and America. As he
writhed on the ground, Thomas Jefferson hurled
him back toward the gate where he was to be judged.

As Osama awaited his journey to his final very hot
destination, he screamed, "This is not what I was
promised!" An angel replied, "I told you there would
be 72 Virginians waiting for you. What did you think
I said?"

[GrayPilgrim]

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

That's hillarious.

On a serious note I heard on Fox News this morning that their are unconfirmed reports that he has been captured. We'll see. Last night they reported that they were just hours behind him on his trail. But even if we don't get him and the 72 Virginians don't get him, he will meet his fate before the Throne of the Holy One of Israel.

GP

[Tycho]

I fixed your post.

03-12-2003 @ 07:17 AM
Socrates:After dying a grisly death at prison mate "Bubba's" hands, Socrates made his way to the pearly gates. There, he was greeted by Charles Darwin. "How dare you attack the theory I helped conceive!" yelled Darwin, slapping Socrates in the face.

Galileo Galilei came up from behind, "You wanted to end science, so they imprisoned you!" Galileo punched Socrates in the nose.

Issac Newton came next and said, "If you came after giants, you should have seen farther!" He took a sledge hammer and whacked Socrates' knees.

Socrates was subject to similar beatings from Albert Einstein, Stephen Jay Gould and more than 200 steves who had the same love for intelligence and science. As he writhed on the ground, Issac Newton hurled him back toward the gate where he was to be judged.

As Socrates awaited his journey to his final very hot destination, he screamed, "This is not what I was promised!" God replied, "I told you not to bear false witness. What did you think I said?"

[GrayPilgrim]

Ummm...not so funny Tycho

[Tycho]

03-12-2003 @ 02:35 PM
GrayPilgrim:

Ummm...not so funny Tycho

If you feel that my post wasn't appropriate, please delete the entire thread. Putting oneself above God to sentence people to Hell just isn't a funny topic, whatever position you take.

[spl_cadet]

03-12-2003 @ 01:36 PM
Tycho:
If you feel that my post wasn't appropriate, please delete the entire thread. Putting oneself above God to sentence people to Hell just isn't a funny topic, whatever position you take.

He wasn't putting himself above God. He was doing a funny play on words with virgins and Virginians. You simply made a dumb joke.

[Socrates]

Especially as Tycho is crassly ignorant of the fact that Galileo and Newton were strong Bible-believes and "young-earth" creationists, as was Kepler.

Tycho also ignores the fact that I have nothing against OPERATIONAL science, being a scientist myself. But I do object to materialistic theories of Earth and life history MASQUERADING as science.

[psychopath]

I do not see how Darwinism is inherently materialistic. If I'm not mistaken, Darwin himself believed in God. Just because one accepts biological evolution, it does not follow that he cannot also hold a belief in God and in some sort of immaterial eternal soul.

[Tycho]

03-12-2003 @ 04:18 PM
spl_cadet:
He wasn't putting himself above God. He was doing a funny play on words with virgins and Virginians. You simply made a dumb joke.
In that case, dumb jokes are dumb jokes.

[Tycho]

03-12-2003 @ 06:08 PM
Socrates:
Especially as Tycho is crassly ignorant of the fact that Galileo and Newton were strong Bible-believes and "young-earth" creationists, as was Kepler.
You seem to be incredibly ignorant of the persons mentioned. Brahe died in 1601. Kepler died in 1630. Galileo died in 1642. Newton died in 1727. The Origin of Species was first published in 1859. You might as well say that they were all against atomic theory because they died before that theory was published as well.


Tycho also ignores the fact that I have nothing against OPERATIONAL science, being a scientist myself. After seeing your posts, I rather doubt your credentials.

But I do object to materialistic theories of Earth and life history MASQUERADING as science.
Materialistic theories? How is evolution any more or less "materialistic" than atomic theory or General Relativity? If you're a scientist, then why are you trying to shoe-horn religious beliefs into science?

[Socrates]

Socrates:
Especially as Tycho is crassly ignorant of the fact that Galileo and Newton were strong Bible-believes and "young-earth" creationists, as was Kepler. You seem to be incredibly ignorant of the persons mentioned. Brahe died in 1601. Kepler died in 1630. Galileo died in 1642. Newton died in 1727. The Origin of Species was first published in 1859. You might as well say that they were all against atomic theory because they died before that theory was published as well.Nonsense -- these men were Biblical creationists and young-earthers out of CONVICTION. Galileo commended Copernicus' theory because, in his opinion, it reflected the simplicity of God. Kepler proclaimed that he was thinking God's thoughts after him. Newton wrote far more of Biblical chronology than about science.

But Tycho arrogantly assumes that Darwin's hypothesis would have convinced them otherwise. More likely, they would have joined the leading 19th century scientists Owen, Maxwell and Kelvin in strident opposition to Darwin.


Tycho also ignores the fact that I have nothing against OPERATIONAL science, being a scientist myself.
After seeing your posts, I rather doubt your credentials.After seeing your posts, I couldn't give a monkey's what you think.


But I do object to materialistic theories of Earth and life history MASQUERADING as science.
Materialistic theories? How is evolution any more or less "materialistic" than atomic theory or General Relativity?As I just saud, the latter two involve OPERATIONAL science, while the goo to you theory is a hypothesis about origins explicitly designed to remove God. If you're a scientist, then why are you trying to shoe-horn religious beliefs into science?Because I'm a scientist, I'm trying to EXPOSE evolution for what it is: a religious belief of materialism that MASQUERADES as science by imposing a godless framework upon scientific data.

[Socrates]

Psychopath:

I do not see how Darwinism is inherently materialistic.Gould evidently thought differently http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1347.asp If I'm not mistaken, Darwin himself believed in God. Just because one accepts biological evolution, it does not follow that he cannot also hold a belief in God and in some sort of immaterial eternal soul.You are mistaken. He once trained as a clergyman, but made it very clear that he couldn't wish Christianity to be true, thought that the Bible was on the same level as the myths of the "Hindoos", and couldn't believe in a loving God who would create "nature red in tooth and claw". Of course, this latter point is solved by realising that the current creation is cursed because of Adam's sin.

[Tycho]

03-13-2003 @ 01:33 AM
Socrates:

You seem to be incredibly ignorant of the persons mentioned. Brahe died in 1601. Kepler died in 1630. Galileo died in 1642. Newton died in 1727. The Origin of Species was first published in 1859. You might as well say that they were all against atomic theory because they died before that theory was published as well.Nonsense -- these men were Biblical creationists and young-earthers out of CONVICTION. Galileo commended Copernicus' theory because, in his opinion, it reflected the simplicity of God. Kepler proclaimed that he was thinking God's thoughts after him. Newton wrote far more of Biblical chronology than about science.
And many theists today believe that evolution is a valid mechanism for God's creative powers. They may have been inspired by their religion, but the reason they are heralded as great men is because they did science--the scientific method works regardless of one's religion. In any case, since they lived long before evolutionary theory or atomic theory, calling them creationists or anti-atomicists is disingenious.

But Tycho arrogantly assumes that Darwin's hypothesis would have convinced them otherwise. More likely, they would have joined the leading 19th century scientists Owen, Maxwell and Kelvin in strident opposition to Darwin.
I hypothesize that they would be convinced by the evidence for evolution because they were scientists. What do you have? The vain belief that because they were religious they would reject reason for a unsupported interpretation of Genesis?

After seeing your posts, I couldn't give a monkey's what you think.
It's obvious that you're anything but a scientist. You can't give evidence and you have to support your posts with pathtic insults directed toward your opponents.


Materialistic theories? How is evolution any more or less "materialistic" than atomic theory or General Relativity?As I just saud, the latter two involve OPERATIONAL science, while the goo to you theory is a hypothesis about origins explicitly designed to remove God.
Operational science? You mean like explaining current observations and predicting future ones? That's what evolution does. It makes absolutely no claims on deities. Of course, you've probably been told this many times, but why should you let facts interfere with the demonization of your opponents?

If you're a scientist, then why are you trying to shoe-horn religious beliefs into science?Because I'm a scientist, I'm trying to EXPOSE evolution for what it is: a religious belief of materialism that MASQUERADES as science by imposing a godless framework upon scientific data.
You've merely EXPOSED your motives. You have no interest in science; you're just trying to protect your God-of-the-Gaps.

[Tycho]

03-13-2003 @ 02:01 AM
Socrates:
[Darwin] couldn't believe in a loving God who would create "nature red in tooth and claw". Of course, this latter point is solved by realising that the current creation is cursed because of Adam's sin.
Of course, your point is completely defeated by the whole Old Testament, not to mention the insanity of cursing the whole world because of the actions of two humans.

"Look out! I'm gonna eat a banana! Neptune might explode!"

[GrayPilgrim]

03-13-2003 @ 05:10 AM
Tycho:


Of course, your point is completely defeated by the whole Old Testament, not to mention the insanity of cursing the whole world because of the actions of two humans.

"Look out! I'm gonna eat a banana! Neptune might explode!"


Ummm... The OT and the NT both painthe picture that all creation was subjected to futility becaues of the rebellion of two humans against the Creator who had commanded them not to do something but they listened to the deceiving lies of the serpent and thus all creation is marred. So far from the OT disproving his point it makes it. Moreover, Darwin was not a Christian nor would he allow others to bash it in his presence because of his wife's faith, not his own.

GP

[Pilgrim]

Tycho,

You entered into this thread with an attack on the person of Socrates. You may not agree with what he has posted but you should not be surprised by his response. Your language is obviously designed to be inflammatory and aggresive. I ask you to tone it down.

And to everyone else. We really don't need yet another thread about evolution and creation...please take those discussions to the already started threads in the appropriate forums. Thank you.

Pilgrim

[psychopath]

Me:

I do not see how Darwinism is inherently materialistic.

You:

Gould evidently thought differently http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1347.asp

Gould is an evolutionary biologist. Since this question deals with the philosophy of science, and not the science of Darwinism itself, I really don't care about his opinion. What makes him an authority on the philosophy of science? Even assuming Darwin came up with his theory to further his materialist worldview, it does not logically follow that biological evolution and theism can't be harmonized.


You are mistaken. He once trained as a clergyman, but made it very clear that he couldn't wish Christianity to be true, thought that the Bible was on the same level as the myths of the "Hindoos", and couldn't believe in a loving God who would create "nature red in tooth and claw".

I didn't say Darwin was a Christian, I said I thought he believed in God. Don't be so quick to pass judgment. I actually did a little research on the subject, and there is not strong enough evidence to draw a definitive conclusion regarding his belief in a deity.

Regardless, even if Darwin didn't believe in God, one can still be a Darwinist and a theist at the same time. What about the position that God utilized evolution to create man, and then gave him an eternal soul? There is nothing inherently illogical about such a position; in fact, many people think this is the case. I'm not saying this position is right, but just that it is, at least, logical. Therefore, I still don't see how you can say that Darwinism is intrinsically materialistic.

[Socrates]

Gould documented what Darwin said and believed, and it was crystal clear that Darwin's intention was to undermine the Argument from Design. Gould's historical research is usually well respected.

I have also never claimed that one can't believe that a god used evolution. Rather, I claim that it is not the way the true God of the Bible would have used. See Some questions for theistic evolutionists (and progressive creationists) http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1273.asp

[psychopath]

Gould documented what Darwin said and believed, and it was crystal clear that Darwin's intention was to undermine the Argument from Design.

Though it is obvious that Darwin realized that his theory undermined the Argument from design, I do not think it is "crystal clear" that this was his INTENTION. There is a distinct difference between noticing a consequence of one's ideas and formulating these ideas in order to bring about said consequence. So, if you could show me, from that link, the evidence that Darwin did the latter, that would be great.


I have also never claimed that one can't believe that a god used evolution.

Well, it seemed that way when you said Darwinism is materialistic. Most people consider God immaterial; thus, to say biological evolution is materialistic would equate to saying it is incompatible with a belief in God. Sorry if I misinterpreted.


See Some questions for theistic evolutionists (and progressive creationists) http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1273.asp

I'm not going to get into this right now. Perhaps another time I'll post a response to this article on the Science/Archaeology board.

[Socrates]

No, Gould said that Darwin directly and deliberately targeted the argument from design. Gould proposed that Darwin got it all the time from Captain Fitzroy on the Beagle.

[flipper]

Because I'm a scientist, I'm trying to EXPOSE evolution for what it is: a religious belief of materialism that MASQUERADES as science by imposing a godless framework upon scientific data.

I'm intrigued... I've 'met' online creationist engineers and programmers, but never a scientist. What sort of scientist are you?

[Alden]

03-13-2003 @ 11:49 AM
Pilgrim

And to everyone else. We really don't need yet another thread about evolution and creation...please take those discussions to the already started threads in the appropriate forums. Thank you.

[Tycho]

03-13-2003 @ 12:49 PM
Pilgrim:

Tycho,

Fair enough.

[brother vinny]

:bump:

[Jedidiah]

BV I really hope you feel much better, very soon.

[brother vinny]

BV I really hope you feel much better, very soon.

Is there something wrong?