what is.. sacred ?

[cripz]

Comments

[charm_of_a_rat]

that's hot.

[essius]

Yep, those trees are a result of pure accident, of cosmological and biological evolution.

[son_et_lumiere_]

an ID proponent?

[essius]

Perhaps, though I would say that if ID is taken as implying the argument from design, I am only weakly an advocate of ID. For there is a difference between a soft and a hard apologetic (see Stephen Davis's Risen Indeed, where he makes this distinction with regard to historical apologetics). I vacillate between these two apologetic-types, but have learned to appreciate the former more than I used to. One need not suppose that a lack of a deductively valid or even probabilistic argument that would convince anyone from any point of view that ID (or theism, or Christian theism, or Protestant evangelical Christian theism) is true indicates that ID (or theism, etc.) is not true.

Make sense?

[cripz]

you're an idiot

[angelpumpingas]

my brother just got a job at a logging company in humboldt. he's making roads for people to use when they go out to cut down the redwoods.

[chrissie7]

Is that the same forest we stood in after your band concert?

Are those trees more sacred than the building you're in, or the bench you sit on? They're just different stages of the same thing. Those trees will either die or be cut down.

[cripz]

bingo.

[ryanescobar]

you think your SOOOOOOOO spiritual and shit