<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Galileo, Darwin, and Ken Ham, Part II</title>
	<atom:link href="http://satirica.net/2007/06/28/galileo-darwin-and-ken-ham-part-ii/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://satirica.net/2007/06/28/galileo-darwin-and-ken-ham-part-ii/</link>
	<description>Cataloging idiocy, deceit, stupidity, duplicity, and damn folly since 1994.</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 2008 01:59:16 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Chris Ray</title>
		<link>http://satirica.net/2007/06/28/galileo-darwin-and-ken-ham-part-ii/#comment-675</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Ray</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jul 2008 21:10:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://satirica.net/2007/06/28/galileo-darwin-and-ken-ham-part-ii/#comment-675</guid>
		<description>I do appreciate your advice, and I do think it is cool you are bringin up good topics to rant about, but...
I am not going to worship an allegory.  I would rather waste what un-precious time I have (since I am just an accident), blogging like you I guess.  Come on.  You are so sensationalist, you ignore some of the sides of certain issues.  I am not ignorant that the world around me looks old.  No question.  However, "science" also preaches evolution which has no grounding in science whatsoever ( http://www.arn.org/authors/behe.html )!  It makes no sense, and if you follow it to its logical conclusion, we would be lead to think MIGHT MAKES RIGHT (ending the right you so vehemently blog on about-which is just as important to republicans BTW- but that does not fit in your 1-dimensional point of view, right),  You would also reach the conclusion that we are purpose-less (just what our kids in HS need to hear because their self-esteem is already so healthy) and that some races are not quite as evolved as others-something your liberal friends would love I am sure.  Science is just as much of a religion as anything else.  Why doesnt it just give us the facts and let us reach our own conclusions?  No, it feeds us the most popular scientist's view as fact.  I gues might does make right.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I do appreciate your advice, and I do think it is cool you are bringin up good topics to rant about, but&#8230;<br />
I am not going to worship an allegory.  I would rather waste what un-precious time I have (since I am just an accident), blogging like you I guess.  Come on.  You are so sensationalist, you ignore some of the sides of certain issues.  I am not ignorant that the world around me looks old.  No question.  However, &#8220;science&#8221; also preaches evolution which has no grounding in science whatsoever ( <a href="http://www.arn.org/authors/behe.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.arn.org/authors/behe.html</a> )!  It makes no sense, and if you follow it to its logical conclusion, we would be lead to think MIGHT MAKES RIGHT (ending the right you so vehemently blog on about-which is just as important to republicans BTW- but that does not fit in your 1-dimensional point of view, right),  You would also reach the conclusion that we are purpose-less (just what our kids in HS need to hear because their self-esteem is already so healthy) and that some races are not quite as evolved as others-something your liberal friends would love I am sure.  Science is just as much of a religion as anything else.  Why doesnt it just give us the facts and let us reach our own conclusions?  No, it feeds us the most popular scientist&#8217;s view as fact.  I gues might does make right.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Ray</title>
		<link>http://satirica.net/2007/06/28/galileo-darwin-and-ken-ham-part-ii/#comment-674</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Ray</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:49:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://satirica.net/2007/06/28/galileo-darwin-and-ken-ham-part-ii/#comment-674</guid>
		<description>Why do you say Christians are intolerant?  To tolerate means to put up with someone else's beliefs even when you disagree.  Christians do this all of the time.  Does it mean they have to like it too?  You are implying they just shut up and not have a SAY or POWER in science or social discourse.  I would say that is actually kind of intolerant.  Also, what is wrong with creation science?  It is not like “faith-based” medicine.  Even microbiologists who are not Christians say that DNA is too specific to be an accident, and science itself says something cannot come from nothing.  There is evidence.  I do agree that some people follow Christ out of blind faith.  Please do not make the mistake of thinking all people are like that.   Science and its creator are married and cannot and should not be separated.  Only a God who can stand up to the test of science and logic is a God worth following.  Is he confined to those rules?  No.  But is he consistent with his own creation?  He must be.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why do you say Christians are intolerant?  To tolerate means to put up with someone else&#8217;s beliefs even when you disagree.  Christians do this all of the time.  Does it mean they have to like it too?  You are implying they just shut up and not have a SAY or POWER in science or social discourse.  I would say that is actually kind of intolerant.  Also, what is wrong with creation science?  It is not like “faith-based” medicine.  Even microbiologists who are not Christians say that DNA is too specific to be an accident, and science itself says something cannot come from nothing.  There is evidence.  I do agree that some people follow Christ out of blind faith.  Please do not make the mistake of thinking all people are like that.   Science and its creator are married and cannot and should not be separated.  Only a God who can stand up to the test of science and logic is a God worth following.  Is he confined to those rules?  No.  But is he consistent with his own creation?  He must be.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Minerva</title>
		<link>http://satirica.net/2007/06/28/galileo-darwin-and-ken-ham-part-ii/#comment-79</link>
		<dc:creator>Minerva</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Jul 2007 04:17:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://satirica.net/2007/06/28/galileo-darwin-and-ken-ham-part-ii/#comment-79</guid>
		<description>Here's another couple of good quotes on this topic:

Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. 
--Isaac Asimov

Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear. 
--Thomas Jefferson

Excellent post. It's tragic that these folks are gaining so much air time, influence, and power. I worry for our future, until I read posts such as yours; then I feel comforted knowing that there are those that are speaking out against such tripe.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Here&#8217;s another couple of good quotes on this topic:</p>
<p>Creationists make it sound as though a &#8216;theory&#8217; is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night.<br />
&#8211;Isaac Asimov</p>
<p>Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.<br />
&#8211;Thomas Jefferson</p>
<p>Excellent post. It&#8217;s tragic that these folks are gaining so much air time, influence, and power. I worry for our future, until I read posts such as yours; then I feel comforted knowing that there are those that are speaking out against such tripe.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
