The Briefing Room
General Category => Editorial/Opinion/Blogs => Topic started by: Machiavelli on May 13, 2019, 08:45:26 pm
-
Razib Khan
National Review
May 13, 2019
It is a crowning achievement of Western civilization and a rejoinder to the modern myths of the Left.
As an evolutionary geneticist and a conservative, I take some interest in critiques of Darwinism. I have come to expect that every few years a new book by Michael Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, will trigger commentary relaying his skepticism of evolutionary theory to the interested public. And this will result in vociferous rejoinders from evolutionary biologists.
But evolutionary biology is nothing for conservatives to fear, because it is one of the crowning achievements of modern Western civilization. It should be viewed not as an acid gnawing at the bones of civilization, but as a jewel. The science built upon the rock of Charles Darwin’s ideas is a reflection of Western modernity’s commitment to truth as a fundamental value. And many Christians well-versed in evolutionary science find it entirely compatible with their religious beliefs.
More (https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/05/evolutionary-theory-crowning-achievement-western-civilization/)
-
Check out Bret Weinstein and his wife Heather Heying. Both members of the Intellectual Dark Web and both "Evolutionary Biologists."
It is fascinating knowledge.
-
I don't 'fear' evolution. 'Fear' is a co-opted leftist term used as a veiled way to scream 'heretic' while hiding the faith aspect of their doctrines.
If we evolved, scientists sure haven't made a very good case of it. Give me something that holds water and I might listen.
-
I don't 'fear' evolution. 'Fear' is a co-opted leftist term used as a veiled way to scream 'heretic' while hiding the faith aspect of their doctrines.
If we evolved, scientists sure haven't made a very good case of it. Give me something that holds water and I might listen.
I have no doubt that various species "evolved."
How and at the direction of what forces, I am not certain. I believe in a higher power, that directed it.
-
I just use common sense. No explosion...mess...created such an orderly life as our planet IS.
OUR BODY'S. Plants needing male & female to re-produce. Our body's taking in oxygen from plants who use our co-2 for their life.
SYNERGY.
-
I have no doubt that various species "evolved."
How and at the direction of what forces, I am not certain. I believe in a higher power, that directed it.
........ :thumbsup:
-
Parts is parts.
-
I don't 'fear' evolution. 'Fear' is a co-opted leftist term used as a veiled way to scream 'heretic' while hiding the faith aspect of their doctrines.
If we evolved, scientists sure haven't made a very good case of it. Give me something that holds water and I might listen.
@Free Vulcan
Thank you. That was a smug attempt by the author similar to "homophobia" BS.
Here's the thing. I'm not going to try to find ways to fit the Bible into evolutionary theory. Rather,I'm going to see if evolution fits into the Bible. It doesn't. I know a lot of Christians recoil at the idea of being viewed as an unsophisticated snake-handler, but oh,well.
If it took millions of years for life to evolve, what's the basis for the sabbath? Where does it even come from? It's based on the creation week, so if that didn't happen...?
The Bible says that sin, death, suffering, etc. came into the world after the Garden--in other words, after Adam and Eve brought it about. But the fossil record shows plenty of death and suffering before humans showed up. Both can't be right.
The men who wrote down the Bible believed in the creation account; they referred to it many times. Jesus Himself spoke of "He who made them at the beginning", which is the same phrase used in Genesis. In other words, humans did not come along toward the end of an evolutionary process.
I know I'm expected to call Jesus a liar so intellectuals will approve of me, but it's not happening.
If we go down the road of the creation account being an allegory, then how much more Scripture is allegorical? How do we know what we can trust? Why did Jesus even die on the cross if we can't be sure that sin came into the world and requires His redemption?
Charles Darwin vacillated between agnosticism and outright atheism, at one point in 1880 saying in a letter that He didn't believe the Bible as a divine revelation and therefore not in Jesus Christ as the Son of God. Somebody want to tell me why on earth I should accept his attempt to explain away God's creation? Or why I'm supposed to say, "Oh well, harrumph, I'm sure it fits in somewhere, and what do I know."
Yeah, nope.
-
This Khan character is shilling for Evolution.
Up front, it's a Theory, A THEORY; possessing
none of the science in Euclid, Pythagoras,
Copernicus, Galileo and Newton, to name a few.
This is the core reason it is a THEORY which
means it remains a speculation!!!!!
-
I have no doubt that various species "evolved."
How and at the direction of what forces, I am not certain. I believe in a higher power, that directed it.
Same here, and well said.
-
I don't fear the Theory of Evolution. The critical flaw with the theory is that there is no creation. It just assumes that the second law of thermodynamics is not valid, the Cambrian explosion never happened, and that the first bit of fossil evidence that would prove the theory true has yet to be discovered.
-
I don't fear the Theory of Evolution. The critical flaw with the theory is that there is no creation. It just assumes that the second law of thermodynamics is not valid, the Cambrian explosion never happened, and that the first bit of fossil evidence that would prove the theory true has yet to be discovered.
TOE is not about the original creation. It doesn't even try to explain it.
-
The rate at which scientific knowledge is growing, is fast--exponential.
In the field of DNA alone, There will be medical treatments using genetics in no time at all.
Soon pre-natal DNA tests might predict quite a wise range of possible outcomes.
-
I have never feared evolutionary theory, as incomplete as it may be sometimes.
The creation poem in Genesis was not an eyewitness account. There were no eyewitnesses at the time. Whoever wrote it either a) made it up (probably not) or b) received it, either directly or indirectly, from a vision or dream. Genesis itself concedes that visions and dreams must be interpreted and are not to be taken literally (see the story of Joseph and the prophecies).
Humanity's uniqueness is something beyond genetics.
-
I have never feared evolutionary theory, as incomplete as it may be sometimes.
The creation poem in Genesis was not an eyewitness account. There were no eyewitnesses at the time. Whoever wrote it either a) made it up (probably not) or b) received it, either directly or indirectly, from a vision or dream. Genesis itself concedes that visions and dreams must be interpreted and are not to be taken literally (see the story of Joseph and the prophecies).
Humanity's uniqueness is something beyond genetics.
I wonder why we understand Jesus to have spoken in parables (as He said He did), but do not read any of the OT as having been spoken in parables?
-
I don't 'fear' evolution. 'Fear' is a co-opted leftist term used as a veiled way to scream 'heretic' while hiding the faith aspect of their doctrines.
If we evolved, scientists sure haven't made a very good case of it. Give me something that holds water and I might listen.
Leftists love to claim people who disagree with them are "phobics" of one stripe or another, and I'm pretty tired of it. Claiming your opponents are "mentally ill" (and deserving of being locked up) is a long used tactic, the Soviets weren't the only practitioners. How many insane asylums were there in Siberia, BTW? Still there?
This applies to every (insert policy here)-phobia the Rats spew. It's possible to disagree with somebody without "fearing" them.
-
I have never feared evolutionary theory, as incomplete as it may be sometimes.
The creation poem in Genesis was not an eyewitness account. There were no eyewitnesses at the time. Whoever wrote it either a) made it up (probably not) or b) received it, either directly or indirectly, from a vision or dream. Genesis itself concedes that visions and dreams must be interpreted and are not to be taken literally (see the story of Joseph and the prophecies).
Humanity's uniqueness is something beyond genetics.
You’re right that there were no human eyewitnesses to creation, unless Moses—who wrote it—was given a vision. Or he could have just been told what happened. Either way, that’s what Scripture is considered to be by Christians—written by man, inspired by God.
But if you believe it was made up, then you’re presented with the Sinai (Exodus) account which says creation took 6 days. Also written by Moses. And in the NT, Jesus told his disciples if they believed Moses’ writings, they would believe Him. But if they didn’t believe Moses’ writings, He asked them “how will you believe me?â€
Scripture is supposed to be a revelation, and instruction. Its purpose isn’t to confuse.
It honestly intrigues me—and I mean this sincerely—that there’s so much resistance to the concept of the 6 day creation. Not just here, but in general. I mean, do we think God isn’t capable? He could create the universe, but that time frame was more than He could handle? 🤷🏻â€â™€ï¸
-
I wonder why we understand Jesus to have spoken in parables (as He said He did), but do not read any of the OT as having been spoken in parables?
You answered your own question. Jesus made it clear whenever He spoke in parables.
-
You answered your own question. Jesus made it clear whenever He spoke in parables.
No, no he didn't. He revealed much to his apostles, but not to people in general.
-
No, no he didn't. He revealed much to his apostles, but not to people in general.
Okay, but you didn’t make that distinction before. The disciples wanted to know why He used parables, and He explained. There were people listening who didn’t believe Him. They would recognize that He was using a story as illustration, but the non believers wouldn’t get the point. Those who did believe would understand and progress in faith as a result. They would be made to think.
When Jesus spoke about the events and people in Genesis, He used no parables. He confirmed them as historical fact.
-
Okay, but you didn’t make that distinction before. The disciples wanted to know why He used parables, and He explained. There were people listening who didn’t believe Him. They would recognize that He was using a story as illustration, but the non believers wouldn’t get the point. Those who did believe would understand and progress in faith as a result. They would be made to think.
When Jesus spoke about the events and people in Genesis, He used no parables. He confirmed them as historical fact.
‘But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.’ 2 Peter 3:8–9
I'm not sure why we're even arguing this. The events in Genesis were of time before days, so it's silly to even argue that we're talking Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, etc., when God had not created them yet. We're obviously talking indeterminate periods of time.
If I could prove to you conclusively that the day referred to in Genesis is not what we now call the standard 24 hour/365.25 days/year, would that affect your faith at all? Of course not. Why is it necessary that days in Genesis are 24 hour, contemporary days?
-
‘But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.’ 2 Peter 3:8–9
But the context here. Peter isn’t talking about creation; he’s speaking about the human impatience to want quick action from God. He says a day is LIKE a thousand years, not that a day IS a thousand years. And he’s referring back to a Psalm:
“For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.’
I'm not sure why we're even arguing this. The events in Genesis were of time before days, so it's silly to even argue that we're talking Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, etc., when God had not created them yet. We're obviously talking indeterminate periods of time.
It’s not at all obvious. There’s no reason to think so and plenty of evidence to support a 6-day period. I haven’t gone into much of it.
“So far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Gen. 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s Flood was understood to be worldwide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.â€
That’s James Barr, professor of Hebrew at Oxford University. This is Marcus Dods, a 19th century theologian at New College in Edinburgh:
“If, for example, the word “day†in these chapters does not mean a period of twenty-four hours, the interpretation of Scripture is hopeless.â€
He’s right. Once we start choosing different parts of the Bible which don’t really mean what they say, we can toss the entire thing.
If I could prove to you conclusively that the day referred to in Genesis is not what we now call the standard 24 hour/365.25 days/year, would that affect your faith at all? Of course not. Why is it necessary that days in Genesis are 24 hour, contemporary days?
See, this is what I don’t understand, though, and I genuinely find it intriguing. Why would you want to? Why is it so important to disprove a six day creation? It makes no sense. Why is the concept so unthinkable and intolerable? We’re talking about an all-powerful God, right? He could have willed this whole thing into being with a thought or a blink. He didn’t even need six days.
-
....
See, this is what I don’t understand, though, and I genuinely find it intriguing. Why would you want to? Why is it so important to disprove a six day creation? It makes no sense. Why is the concept so unthinkable and intolerable? We’re talking about an all-powerful God, right? He could have willed this whole thing into being with a thought or a blink. He didn’t even need six days.
Why would we want to understand God and His ways? (As much as we mere mortals can?) Is that what you are asking?
-
I was encouraged to read "Inherit the Wind," about the Scopes Monkey Trials when I was a teenager.
-
Why would we want to understand God and His ways? (As much as we mere mortals can?) Is that what you are asking?
No. I’m asking why a statement of belief in the 6 day creation has become controversial among Christians.
-
I was encouraged to read "Inherit the Wind," about the Scopes Monkey Trials when I was a teenager.
@truth_seeker
No doubt you were. Inherit The Wind openly mocked religion and the South. It was instrumental in drawing the line for people—believe as we tell you or be mocked with no mercy as an ignorant snake-handling hick. People don’t want to be mocked. They want to be seen as intelligent, intellectual.
It’s interesting because if Inherit The Wind were about politics instead of religion we would have zero tolerance. The play and the movie are progressive, biased, grossly inaccurate attempts to destroy the Biblical POV in favor of evolution. And supported by the ACLU. I can’t even begin to go into the details of the deliberate misrepresentation of the real Scopes trial and its participants; it’s all easily found online.
Take that description 👆 and change it a little to a progressive, biased, grossly inaccurate, ACLU-supported play/ movie about Donald Trump. Or Mike Pence, or conservatives in general. We wouldn’t give it the time of day.
Inherit The Wind portrays the people of the town where it took place as a bunch of backward Southern idiots, with a girl screaming that Clarence Darrow was the devil and running away in terror like some superstitious 10th century serf. Does this seem realistic in any way? Or maybe like a production with an agenda?
William Jennings Bryan wasn’t a raving jerk in real life. Clarence Darrow was an outspoken agnostic. Yet Darrow is portrayed as the sensible, enlightened man who wants to save us from “medieval nonsense.â€
As for the actual trial? Scopes wasn’t even a biology teacher. The ACLU was looking for someone to test the law—they placed a newspaper ad—and he agreed to do it. Much of the pro-evolution evidence submitted to the court was later thoroughly discredited. Piltdown Man, for one.
The 90th anniversary of the Scopes trial was celebrated by sources such as Politico, Time, Vox, NPR, and The Progressive.
See the problem?
-
No. I’m asking why a statement of belief in the 6 day creation has become controversial among Christians.
Well....for the reasons I expressed above, which you dismissed. So, there we are.
-
The story of the Garden is a parable. It should be the goal of every Christian to return there - to be reconciled with the Father - to dwell in the relationship that Adam/Eve had with G-d.
-
The story of the Garden is a parable. It should be the goal of every Christian to return there - to be reconciled with the Father - to dwell in the relationship that Adam/Eve had with G-d.
@Hoodat
Nope. The NT writers referred to it as factual. Jesus referred to it as factual. If it’s a parable, sin didn’t occur with man’s fall—it was around long before he showed up. And that negates the need for redemption. It’s all meaningless.
-
@QueenCatofAragon
I am not disputing the factual account. I just think that the overall message should be lost over what clock G-d was using. The principle storyline is the relationship Adam had with the Father and how that relationship suffered through Adam's actions. Christ came to reconcile us to the Father and to restore that Garden relationship - so that the law would be fulfilled in us - so that we would be made perfect just as our Father in heaven. The most moving part to me is when G-d cried out to Adam, 'where are you? We have relationship here every day'. G-d was letting us know what was important to Him. He wants a family.
-
@truth_seeker
No doubt you were.
snip
See the problem?
@QueenCatofAragon
Thanks. Are there other books I should avoid? Or better yet let's burn some books. We can start with Geology books, medical books.
-
@QueenCatofAragon
I am not disputing the factual account. I just think that the overall message should be lost over what clock G-d was using. The principle storyline is the relationship Adam had with the Father and how that relationship suffered through Adam's actions. Christ came to reconcile us to the Father and to restore that Garden relationship - so that the law would be fulfilled in us - so that we would be made perfect just as our Father in heaven. The most moving part to me is when G-d cried out to Adam, 'where are you? We have relationship here every day'. G-d was letting us know what was important to Him. He wants a family.
@Hoodat
The timeline is part of the factual account, though, and important to the credibility of the rest of the book. We have so much that points to the six day creation. Jesus's and the apostles' acceptance of its historicity; the Hebrew grammatical construction and word for "day" which point to a sequential narrative and a 24 hour period, including the context in which that particular word is used elsewhere.
If it didn't happen that way, and Darwin's atheistic ideas are correct, then suffering and death were present in the world a long time before Adam came along. That means God created a terrible world, not one that was "very good." Paul lied when he said sin entered the world through one man. Jesus and the disciples were wrong. Peter's statement about the eventual restoration to the perfect state that existed before the Fall is a lie, as well, because there was no such thing. How do you resolve those contradictions?
Christians are trying to adjust the Bible to fit evolutionary theory. It should be the other way around.
-
@QueenCatofAragon
Thanks. Are there other books I should avoid? Or better yet let's burn some books. We can start with Geology books, medical books.
@truth_seeker
Just stop. You want to show me where I said we should ban or burn books?
Trying to paint me as a Puritan won't work. Aren't you the guy who believes in avoiding frivolous, time-wasting non-factual "entertainment?"
-
@Hoodat
The timeline is part of the factual account, though, and important to the credibility of the rest of the book. We have so much that points to the six day creation. Jesus's and the apostles' acceptance of its historicity; the Hebrew grammatical construction and word for "day" which point to a sequential narrative and a 24 hour period, including the context in which that particular word is used elsewhere.
If it didn't happen that way, and Darwin's atheistic ideas are correct, then suffering and death were present in the world a long time before Adam came along. That means God created a terrible world, not one that was "very good." Paul lied when he said sin entered the world through one man. Jesus and the disciples were wrong. Peter's statement about the eventual restoration to the perfect state that existed before the Fall is a lie, as well, because there was no such thing. How do you resolve those contradictions?
Christians are trying to adjust the Bible to fit evolutionary theory. It should be the other way around.
Of course that is true, how else would they define it? But, what was a day before God created it?
Of course it isn't that simple:
yowm
yome
from an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literal (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figurative (a space of time defined by an associated term), (often used adverb):--age, + always, + chronicals, continually(-ance), daily, ((birth-), each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, X end, + evening, + (for) ever(-lasting, -more), X full, life, as (so) long as (... live), (even) now, + old, + outlived, + perpetually, presently, + remaineth, X required, season, X since, space, then, (process of) time, + as at other times, + in trouble, weather, (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), X whole (+ age), (full) year(-ly), + younger.
-
The problem I have with the arguments of evolutionists are starkly illustrated in this article. Namely the theory of Darwnism. That's what they with and end with.
Darwin's theory was first published 150 years ago, when science was rudimentary and we didn't even know the structure of DNA. At best his conclusions are pure speculation. With what we know today it's a shallow gloss over of biological processes and how they work.
It would be like ignoring Einstein and just going with Newton, except Darwin's theory isn't even up to Newton's level. To constantly cite Darwinism like the Left loves to do is the height of hypocrisy. They hold to the most ignorant type of religion as they call creationists cultists and kooks.
But they stick with Darwin because it's a good bludgeon to keep people ignorant and in their place. The science itself is a great deal more back and forth, but they don't want to open it up for debate, because it's an article of faith with them.
So while I keep an open mind, at the same time they need to make a better argument. So far their tea is pretty weak.
-
Christians are trying to adjust the Bible to fit evolutionary theory. It should be the other way around.
@QueenCatofAragon
Please understand, in no way am I trying to adjust the Bible to fit evolutionary theory. Besides, the Cambrian explosion by itself destroys the whole 'common ancestor' tenet of Evolution. Darwin himself (who was not an atheist) stated plainly that his theory would be either proven or disproved within a century and a half through the discovery (or non-discovery) of fossil evidence.
As for Genesis, our concept of day and night is relative to the sun shining its light on a rotating earth. Yet the sun did not appear until the fourth day. So days one, two, and three occurred without the very instrument we use to mark time. And since God transcends time, He may view it in different terms than we do. For a Being that has been around since time began, have you ever considered the relativity of God?
The bottom line is that the Creation itself is beyond our understanding:
For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now.
Romans 8:18-22
-
@QueenCatofAragon
Please understand, in no way am I trying to adjust the Bible to fit evolutionary theory. Besides, the Cambrian explosion by itself destroys the whole 'common ancestor' tenet of Evolution. Darwin himself (who was not an atheist) stated plainly that his theory would be either proven or disproved within a century and a half through the discovery (or non-discovery) of fossil evidence.
As for Genesis, our concept of day and night is relative to the sun shining its light on a rotating earth. Yet the sun did not appear until the fourth day. So days one, two, and three occurred without the very instrument we use to mark time. And since God transcends time, He may view it in different terms than we do. For a Being that has been around since time began, have you ever considered the relativity of God?
The bottom line is that the Creation itself is beyond our understanding:
For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now.
Romans 8:18-22
@Hoodat
Once again, the questions I asked are not addressed (not just by you) and the subject was changed. 🤷🏻â€â™€ï¸
In the Genesis account, God created light, separated it from the dark, and called the first morning and evening a day. That’s before the sun and moon were made.
He may, He might—but we have enough evidence to know. Not going to repeat any of it; it will probably be ignored again. But it’s not possible to say it’s beyond us when He wanted us to know and gave us an account to that end.
You’re not going to defend Darwin, are you? Yes, as I said in an earlier post, he went back and forth between agnosticism and atheism. Saying you don’t believe in the Bible or Jesus Christ is pretty much textbook atheism.
This has been an amazing thread.
-
Oh, good grief....
-
Of course that is true, how else would they define it? But, what was a day before God created it?
Of course it isn't that simple:
The question about the day was just answered elsewhere.
As for the word “yomâ€, yes, actually it’s that simple. There are different meanings. But context.
1) The Hebrew word "yom"
The Hebrew word for day, yom, as in English, is used both for a literal, twenty-four-hour day and also for an indefinite period of time, such as in the expression “For the day of the Lord is at hand†(Joel 1:15). However, the word, yom, always means a twenty-four-hour literal day when it is used with a numeral—day one, day two, first day, second day, etc. There are no exceptions to this rule. In the Genesis Creation account, yom is used with a numeral, indicating that it intends the reader to understand that these are literal days of twenty-four hours.
@Sanguine, will you answer the question I asked earlier? Why is it so important to try and disprove 6 day creation? I’m asking sincerely.
-
....
@Sanguine, will you answer the question I asked earlier? Why is it so important to try and disprove 6 day creation? I’m asking sincerely.
I did answer it. Again, you dismissed my answer.
I'm out. This is not rational, respectful discussion and I want no more of it. Please accept my apologies for having ever responding to this thread.
-
Oh, good grief....
Oh, good grief, what? Shut down the thread if you’re that bothered by a POV that goes against the exact argument leftists use to try and disprove belief in God.
-
GOD.
-
I did answer it. Again, you dismissed my answer.
I'm out. This is not rational, respectful discussion and I want no more of it. Please accept my apologies for having ever responding to this thread.
Holy cow, really? If it hasn’t been cordial why hasn’t a Mod said anything? You know it’s been cordial. Where have I been rude? And no, you didn’t answer my question, though you pin others down when you want an answer. Enjoy your tantrum, I guess.
@Sanguine
-
You know what, who needs this shit? I mean seriously. I keep giving this place chances but it keeps getting nuttier.
Hey, @Sanguine, if you were the Mod who gave me that permanent ban last time—and we know you’re one—do me a favor and make it stick this time, babe.
See y’all around the internetz. Or not.
-
I don't understand. I thought that it was a pretty good discussion, I was enjoying reading the posts. :shrug:
-
You know what, who needs this shit? I mean seriously. I keep giving this place chances but it keeps getting nuttier.
Hey, @Sanguine, if you were the Mod who gave me that permanent ban last time—and we know you’re one—do me a favor and make it stick this time, babe.
See y’all around the internetz. Or not.
Sorry, just now reading this. Just to set the record straight - I am the mod for the Texas and Intellectual Dark Web topics. On those topics I can moderate comments, though I very seldom do. I can't permanently ban anyone, either from those topics or the board in general. (Which is probably a good thing.)
Questions for you: if you got a permanent ban how is it you are here? And, who is "we" in "and we know you’re one"?
-
You know what, who needs this shit? I mean seriously. I keep giving this place chances but it keeps getting nuttier.
Hey, @Sanguine, if you were the Mod who gave me that permanent ban last time—and we know you’re one—do me a favor and make it stick this time, babe.
See y’all around the internetz. Or not.
Sanguine does not have the power to ban people. This conversation is becoming toxic. Not gonna drop a ban hammer on anybody but I may lock the thread.
-
There is a whole lot more about Evolution, than Darwin and Judeo-Christian Biblical Creationism.
Various scientific disciplines have advance far and fast, in regard to earth's and humans' origins.
I was NOT raised to be a young earth Biblican Southern Christian. (My most recent ancestor from theSouth was born in 1793 in South Carolina
I was ALSO Not raised to mock them.
I WAS raised by Christians that encouraged study of science. Two generations before me, in the oil business. My mother and her mother earned college degrees in science.
Since my childhood, many advances have VALIDATED science, not the least of which was putting men on the moon, treating polio with vaccines, etc.
The sun has circled the earth earth has circled the sun many times since early monothestic faiths in the mideast sought to record a plausible history of eartth and mankind.
Here is one fairly recent discovery, which advances knowledge. Göbekli Tepe
which dates to approximately 12,000 years ago.