Re: Commentary: The ability to see what is there, and to see what is not
- From: Allen <xpreacher@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 16:35:51 -0600
"[M]adman" <grat@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:eIf6l.111$fE1.94@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
Jason Spaceman wrote:------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the article:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
And sometimes an illusion can be extended through generations.
The history of the world is replete with good examples, and the
history of science consists largely of strange, difficult, but
arguably sane individuals, somehow overriding their own expectations.
They notice contradictions between what they've been taught to expect,
and what is now in front of their eyes, and they are willing to endure
any subsequent persecutions.
To my mind, the perfectly grand example is Darwinist "evolution." A
powerful and plausible suggestion having been made that the plants and
animals of this world have evolved by pure chance through the
arbitrary survival principle in nature -- and thus necessarily from
simple to complex, from homogenous to diverse, from stupid to smart,
from awkward to nimble -- leads almost every paleontologist to seek
this trend in all fossil records. Those records being extremely
fragmentary, he routinely supplies the "missing links" out of his own
carefully coached imagination, until the unfamiliar can be morphed
into the familiar and, in effect, explained away. Darwinism remains
the great octagonal snowflake of our age, persisting now into a
seventh generation.
In the coming year, the sesquicentennial of the publication of the
Origin of Species, and bicentennial of Charles Darwin's birth, we will
be constantly reminded of this "patron saint" of modern atheism and
antinomianism. Our liberal political and academic establishments will
celebrate the triumph of one of their "great liberators" over the
troglodyte religious types.
I do not finally condemn the late Darwin himself, a reasonably honest
man and fine student of natural history. The authors of so many of the
world's governing plausible ideas were likewise reasonably honest,
intelligent men -- teased, by some plausible hunch, into forgetfulness
of the paradoxical, in a universe where the plausible is often the
deadly enemy of the truth.
By contrast, the idea that God could not only make this world (by
whatever means infinitely beyond our comprehension), but people it
with creatures of His love; that He could take upon Himself the
garment of human flesh, in the cause of our redemption -- that His
angels might appear in the hills by Bethlehem to announce something
beyond human comprehension -- this is all quite implausible. Yet, what
if it is true?
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/columnists/ability+what+there+what/1101417/---
Read it at
story.html
--reasonably honest? umm..no
He was NOT an honest man. He stole bits of his ideas from here and bits
of his ideas from there and then mixed them together with a few of his
own. By today's standard he would be considered an intellectual thief, a
copy-right infringer, and, if he worked for a corporation he would be
considered an industrial spy. Then, if that was not enough, after he
wrote his book, he would be considered a plagiarist.
---fine student ? hardly.
He failed most of his life and was utterly shocked when his book did so
well latter in life. He survived on daddy's wealth and hard work /most/
of his life.
--
What we have here is a spoiled brat that was raised by his much older
sisters who allowed for his poor behavior. exaggerations and wild
imaginary stories. Why? Because of their mothers early death and their
fathers often absence.
He was a dreamer. He was restless. He lived in a fantasy world and acted
out that world.
He was drifting in and out of life's choices. Until one day he took an
idea from here and an idea from there and then took a trip. He came back
and wrote down a fad-belief-in-book-version which bored rich Christians
that were sick of an oppressive Catholic Church fell in love with.
The "origins of species" started out as nothing more then a FAD belief
for the rich. (in France of all places) And, for the most part that is
all it is today. It would have remained a fad belief in America had it
not been for a repulsively dishonest media repeating the same lie until
it became as if it were truth. (which they still do today) But as we all
know, a lie elevated to the status of truth is still a lie no matter how
many times it is repeated.We will not get into his love for torturing
insects, shooting dogs or marrying his cousin --at this time.
So there you have the origins of: The Origins of Species.
There is your patron "saint" of modern atheism and the great octagonal
snowflake of our age who sucessfully sold millions some swamp land in
florida.
And you are a lying, faithless bibliolater of troll kind.
Allen
.
- References:
- Commentary: The ability to see what is there, and to see what is not
- From: Jason Spaceman
- Re: Commentary: The ability to see what is there, and to see what is not
- From: [M]adman
- Commentary: The ability to see what is there, and to see what is not
- Prev by Date: Re: Is Ray Martinez Velikovsky reborn?
- Next by Date: Re: all die; oh, the embarrassment re: OT: Africa needs God
- Previous by thread: Re: Commentary: The ability to see what is there, and to see what is
- Next by thread: Re: Commentary: The ability to see what is there, and to see what is not
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
