Woman to Woman

By bet

October 30, 2005 09:41 PM | Link to this

countably awake:intolerably:abbreviates prerogative:sleight arrogant flaking internet profitable forex day trading strategy internet profitable forex day trading strategy http://www.online-forex-trading-currency-exchange.com/profitable-forex-day-trading-strategy.html http://www.online-forex-trading-currency-exchange.com/profitable-forex-day-trading-strategy.html Tex?

By Ken

October 31, 2005 07:32 AM | Link to this

Don’t we have better, more interesting topics for these two women to debate…?

Anyway…

Diane makes one very obvious, and possible her first, logical point. A standard must be created to define what is scientific and what isn’t. Unfortunately, that will not happen until we get a truly national school curriculum where we teach all children the same material. Until then, we ae at the mercy of the various local and state school boards.

By CMaire

October 31, 2005 08:01 AM | Link to this

Didn’t we exhaust this topic last week? Shaunti, ID is NOT science, enough with the Discovery Institute’s talking points, it’s NOT SCIENCE!!! Don’t waste my child’s time or try to confuse (convert) my child with disclaimers/stickers in science class!! Teach my child the science that has been accepted by all major scientists world-wide, and leave the rest either to optional philosophy or history of religion classes (HS level) or college level study. Let ID or anyone else with an alternative hypothesis do the science experiments, publish in the mainstream scientif journals (which ID has not done) and get their theory approved by the real scientific community—THEN put it in High School science books to teach our young people.

I have to go teach (I substitute) so I won’t have time to come back to this blog. Those of you following Kitzmiller vs. Dover please bring Shaunti up to speed so that she can get a possible clue. Thanks!

By CMaire

October 31, 2005 08:01 AM | Link to this

Didn’t we exhaust this topic last week? Shaunti, ID is NOT science, enough with the Discovery Institute’s talking points, it’s NOT SCIENCE!!! Don’t waste my child’s time or try to confuse (convert) my child with disclaimers/stickers in science class!! Teach my child the science that has been accepted by all major scientists world-wide, and leave the rest either to optional philosophy or history of religion classes (HS level) or college level study. Let ID or anyone else with an alternative hypothesis do the science experiments, publish in the mainstream scientific journals (which ID has not done) and get their theory approved by the real scientific community—THEN put it in High School science books to teach our young people.

I have to go teach (I substitute) so I won’t have time to come back to this blog. Those of you following Kitzmiller vs. Dover please bring Shaunti up to speed so that she can get a possible clue. Thanks!

By chuck

October 31, 2005 08:04 AM | Link to this

At the MERCY? KEN? Who is better than the local board to determine what children should be taught in LOCAL Schools, funded by LOCAL tax dollars and whose members are elected by LOCAL citizens?

The fedral government has NO ROLE in public education curriculum according to the Constitution. We should not even have a federal bureacracy for education. The only POSSIBLE role for the feds is in the “promote the general welfare” statement in the preamble but that itself is specious. The preamble sets out what the Constitution is supposed to do, but it never defines that phrase with an article that would allow federal meddling in the state’s right to determine the education of children in that state. That is a matter for state legislatures, boards of education and LOCAL citizens.

Additionally, in response to the topic at hand, the courts have gone WAY OVERBOARD in its interpretation of the Establishment Clause. That is one reason why it is imperative that we select strict constructionists for the federal courts including the Supreme Court.

The Constitution clearl states the role of the federal government as it pertains to religion:

“Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Only Congress can violete the establishment clause. STATES CANNOT. Many individual states included in their own constitutions a state establishment clause for that very reason. We would save untold millions of dollars every year if the Federal courts established ONCE and for ALL that they will not take cases regarding so-called violations by city or state governments involving the establishment clause. We would save BILLIONS more if we reduced the Department of Education to just a clearinghouse for information…A palce where states can download the latest research on teaching and learning and then decide on their own how to use that information.

By chuck

October 31, 2005 08:06 AM | Link to this

oops “violate”

By Chris Rhetts

October 31, 2005 08:16 AM | Link to this

In order to agree with Ms Feldhahn’s opinion is to be ignorant of the the actual facts. I would therefore conclude that she is too. The initial deliberations on cirriculum change by the Dover School Board were about inserting creationism as an alternative to evolution. “Intelligent design” was later substituted for creationism only after one board member’s consultation with a pro ID law firm. The ID “companion text” was a slick but phony textbook in which the word “creationism” had also been changed, tellingly, to “intelligent design.” All of the facts regarding the Dover trial, including trial transcripts, are readily available on the net. “Intelligent design” is nothing more than a thinly desguised attempt to comprimise science with religion. While this may not sound like a bad idea to a some people, consider this: When the bird flu virus becomes pandemic to the human race, as most experts are predicting, it will not be the kooks in the ID crowd we will turn to for help. It will instead be scientists with a thorough understanding of the principles of evolution. And it is those very principles which ID is trying to undermine.

By Ken

October 31, 2005 08:25 AM | Link to this

Chuck… Of course at the mercy of he local school boards. I never said what the local school boards did was illegal or unconsitutional.

Without a central curriculum for our nation’s education system, we will continue to get disperate educational results around the country. See how the South consistently ranks lower than the other regions of our nation. Do you think tha is coincidental…?

For example…

The history classes I took through my high school graduation were far different than those my wife took. If you ask her, she’ll tell you that my history education was far superior to hers due to the depth and the breadth of the material. That was a decision made by local school boards. A good one for me and a poor one for her.

So thank you for the lesson on the Consitution, although I didn’t need it. I actually had an entire semester in my pre-college education devoted to the Constitution. Something that most people in this country do/did not have the opportunity to receive. Which is very unfortunate, considering it is one of the few most important documents in the world.

Education is supposed to be the great equalizer in this country. However, right now it isn’t. All children do not receive the same education, b/c all children do not get the same curriculum or materials.

The very basis of our country is that an educated electorate makes decisions on who the leaders of this country shall be. The key is educated. If the electorate cannot make logical, educated choices about their elected officials, then we are doomed to fail.

By Richard

October 31, 2005 08:26 AM | Link to this

If in fact, as Shaunti alleges, neither Darwin’s theory of evolution nor Intelligent Design (ID) have ever been proved, we should not teach either. Somehow ID advocates do not call for banning of the teaching of Evolution. They want ID to be taught, period. If they can’t do that then they want supposed flaws of Evolution to be taught. They believe that the supposed gaps, holes, and anomalies in Evolution are evidence of design. They are not. It’s bizarre that Shaunti believes that we urge students to question and probe and unearth anomalies in every area of science except Evolution. Do students in High School have the background necessary to debate the merits of Quantum Theory, Relativity, Atomic Theory, Plate Tectonics, etc? Is there enough time in the classroom to do all this? Are Teachers in possession of such in-depth knowledge of all these scientific theories to be able to guide the unearthing of alleged anomalies? Should students in history classes discuss whether for example, the Holocaust actually happened and unearth anomalies to the standard historical accounts of it? Shaunti takes Dr. William Dembski’s pronouncements at face value. He does have PhDs in Philosophy and Mathematics, but he is not a scientist. A PhD does not a scientist make. Scientists further the frontiers of their chosen area of interest. They do research in the lab and in the field testing hypotheses, formulating experiments, making discoveries, advancing understanding, etc. A PhD in Mathematics gives you the grounding and background to do research in Mathematics, but not necessarily in any other field of science. Shaunti would have done better if she had asked Scientists in Biology.
Albert Einstein never accepted Quantum Theory. Now, Einstein was a physicist arguing against a theory in his own field of expertise. Being that Einstein was an accomplished scientist the community of physicists took notice of his objections. However, this did not halt research into Quantum Theory, on the contrary, as soon as experimental results confirmed the Theory, it really did not matter what his opinion on the matter was. So, if experimental results trumped even Einstein’s objections to a theory in his own field of expertise, experimental results in Evolutionary Biology make Dr Dembski’s comments totally irrelevant.
When Newton formulated his Law of Gravitation he was criticized because of the religious implication of this new ‘Law’. It gave rise to the idea of the Clockwork Universe, where things proceeded by natural cause and effect mechanisms. God was not guiding the universe constantly. There was no need for Angels to push planets around the sun – they did that on their own. He was also criticized because his ‘Law’ had a bunch of holes, gaps and anomalies. It could not account precisely for the orbit of Saturn or Mercury among other things. It was not until the discovery of Uranus, Neptune, Pluto and later on the development of Relativity Theory that all these orbital ‘gaps’ and ‘anomalies’ were resolved. Newton’s Law of Gravitation is a Law because it explains one aspect of Gravity, namely the magnitude of the force between two bodies. However, a Theory to explain the full nature of gravity (what it is, how does it propagate, etc) had to wait until Einstein developed his General Theory of Relativity. So you see, gaps and anomalies in scientific theories have never required any supernatural explanations, only more experiments and investigations. Advocates for ID just argue. Shaunti claims that some scientists have published dozens of peer-reviewed ID articles in top scientific journals. This is absolutely, patently, false. Shaunti has been misinformed. You don’t have to look too far to find that no ID advocate, regardless of their credentials has published any article showing any evidence for ID in any scientific journal. ‘Nature’ and ‘Science’ are the two top journals. Anyone can do a quick search in either and verify this. However, Shaunti would do a great service to everyone if she could in fact list the dozen articles she alluded to and the names of the top scientific journals they were published in. The only traction that ID has gained has been among politicians, school boards, and religiously motivated groups. It has not made any traction in the Scientific Community or in the community of Biology Teachers. In other words, it has not gained any traction among those who are best positioned to evaluate its purported scientific merit. ID does not mention who the designer is, but it does not take a PhD to figure out who it is, does it? Does anyone seriously believe the designer is some extraterrestrial race? The only reason the designer is not mentioned is because it would blow their cover and show ID for what it is – an attempt to introduce religion in the science classroom. If indeed ID were to specify that the designer was some extraterrestrial race the same religious groups that support it now would turn against it and fight it for the same reason they fight against Evolutionary Biology – it contradicts their literal interpretation of the Bible. As it is, these same groups are, for the time being, willing to support any and all efforts that diminish the teaching of evolution and even call into question its scientific standing. This is all ID is.
It was precisely because of the Heliocentric Theory’s religious implications that Galileo got in trouble with the church, not because of holes, gaps, or anomalies. It is precisely because of its religious implications that the Theory of Evolution is attacked by some (not all) religious groups. Indeed science took a great leap forward when Galileo was brave enough to free science from being run by religion and seek the truth. Since then Science has proceeded without fear or concern for any religious implications its findings may have, it has only been guided by evidence. Now Shaunti and advocates of Intelligent Design want science to be brave enough to jump back under religion’s control to soothe their religious sensitivities.

By Billy

October 31, 2005 08:29 AM | Link to this

I am not ususally among those who lament the topics chosen for this weekly point/counterpoint. And I would not join in this week were it not for the fact that this is just an extension of last week’s topic on which myself and several others engaged in lively debate. So I am left to wonder why this topic was chosen this week, and I believe I have found the answer.

Shaunti, like most ID proponents, refuses to take “No” for an answer.

“Because Darwin’s theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence. …Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view…â€?…Yes, it’s a theory, but as has been said repeatedly here and elsewhere, a theory in the scientific world is much more than a theory as John Everyman might see it.

In the general public’s idea of a theory, then, yes, ID and evolution are both theories. But there is no scientific basis for ID. Shaunti says that is why it should be discussed, so that kids will become scientists and find a way to test ID. She says this because she knows we can never develop such an experiment, which no doubt pleases her, because such an experiment would run the risk of disproving the so-called “theory”.

She says there’s no establishment of religion in the disclaimer, but we all know that ID proponents would never believe an ancient race of aliens created us and everything around us. It was God pulling the strings in their minds. So what will they do when a Dover science teacher, forced to mention ID , decides to posit that we were created as an alien ant farm for a science project for some alien fifth grader’s science fair project for North Krvlox Middle School? I’m sure we’ll then hear the right raging about there being no scientific basis for such a “theory”. To which we, of course, can argue that absence of proof is not the same thing as proof of absence. No, the very point of ID is to inject God into the classroom discussion.

I have to ask — Why stop with ID? I’ve got a theory. I call it Intelligent Accident. The other day I was making ribs. I do a nice dry rub that I’ve developed over the past yar or two. The final touch is rosemary. It adds a nice flavor…Well, we were out of rosemary the other day. I had to play around. I decided at that last minute to go a little spicy and added some chili powder to the rub. Well, the ribs turned out well, but not at all what I intended. I think something similar happened to God. He was in the kitchen, cooking us up, and he ran out of something. Common sense? Rationality? I don’t know. But he had to substitute something in, or maybe he left that ingredient out all together. Regardless, we were the result. Or perhaps, as Gary Larson suggested, we just came out half-baked.

Anyway, I think I’d like the disclaimer in Dover to mention my Intelligent Accident theory. I mean, it holds every bit as much scientific water as ID…

By The72John

October 31, 2005 08:46 AM | Link to this

By all means, let’s avoid standards. Let’s ignore the fact that the US is pretty much LAST among industrialized nations in education already. Let’s let small county school boards populated by religious fundamentalists dictate the curriculums of our school districts.

Good job, Chuck. It’s obvious that your goals aren’t education.

By Gil Gibson

October 31, 2005 09:03 AM | Link to this

Diane inadvertently gives us a clue to what is behind all the illogocal and incoherent arguments she makes when she says “Truth is subjective.”

By Jack

October 31, 2005 09:04 AM | Link to this

This should be changed to the man to man forum. Later.

By Chilao

October 31, 2005 09:13 AM | Link to this

Did not we do this subject, essentially, last week? The journalists both must have found all of last week’s posts ‘invigorating’, to want to do it again.

Yes, I know there are some slight distinctions between the two weeks topics, both Intelligient.

As a member of the ACLU, I certainly like their involvement in Pennsylvania. LOL First time I have heard them referred to as American Taliban however. I usually reserve that label for the Leviticus quoters.

By Chilao

October 31, 2005 09:14 AM | Link to this

oops, should have been “both Intelligient Design”.

By Billy

October 31, 2005 09:15 AM | Link to this

Yeah, the Taliban reference was priceless. Isn’t it the right that usually gets all up in arms about the facist comparisons? And aren’t the ACLU and Taliban on opposite ends of the social spectrum?

By Chilao

October 31, 2005 09:16 AM | Link to this

let’s see, INTELLIGENT…. okay, got it. (I think)

By Chilao

October 31, 2005 09:19 AM | Link to this

American Taliban connotes killing people for thinking/behaving differently, so I’ll leave my version with the Old Testament (alledged Christian) quoters.

By Just Being Me

October 31, 2005 09:19 AM | Link to this

Okay, I have an idea. It sounds like you all (and presumably all those who have yet to chime in) are as tired of these redundant and/or boring topics as I am.

Instead of complaining, why don’t we take this week to brainstorm possible columns we’d like to see Shaunti and Diane discuss, and make recommendations? Perhaps Shaunti’s part-time stay-at-home-mom/assistant will read them and communicate the good ones back to her???

Who’ll be first?

By boredwoman

October 31, 2005 09:20 AM | Link to this

Wasn’t this last weeks subject, just in a different package?

I say we hijack this subject to something else…like how the religous right ran Meirs out of town on a rail..

Frankly, I’m loving watching the conservatives turn on each other.

By Brian Curtis

October 31, 2005 09:23 AM | Link to this

Never mind creationism… what we REALLY need to be teaching in science classes is the Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster theory:

http://www.venganza.org/

Just like “intelligent design,” the Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster has exactly as much evidence in its favor. It’s everey bit as plausible. And it qualifies as “science” to the exact same degree.

If the schools don’t bow to my personal whim and teach this equally valid, equally possible theory in every public science classroom in America, then I’m being oppressed! Call the lawyers!

By Chilao

October 31, 2005 09:26 AM | Link to this

My theory is that with ALL that we know about the WHOLE universe, we will eventually learn that ALL OF IT fits into a space the size of a tick on some bizarre hairy alien creature.

heh, it’s a theory. (lower-case). COULD be correct, right?

LMAO

By The72John

October 31, 2005 09:27 AM | Link to this

Frankly, I’m loving watching the conservatives turn on each other.

Yeah - maybe they’ll rip each other apart like the murderous, mindless dogs they are.

By Van

October 31, 2005 09:27 AM | Link to this

It appears they are stuck on this and related topics. Maybe we need someone from the blogashere to suggest a better one.

By The72John

October 31, 2005 09:33 AM | Link to this

How about…Was Harriet Miers really just a stalking horse, or is George Bush just too stupid for such a sophisticated strategy? Discuss.

By Ken

October 31, 2005 09:37 AM | Link to this

Harriet Miers was exactly that… I actually mentioned this to a couple of my firends at work two weeks ago.

People can dislike Bush, call him names, call him all kinds of things, disagree with his administration (which I do right now on several items). However, regardless of what we think, we must admit that he and his cohorts are very smart and very talented at the games of politics.

I don’t believe this administration does ANYTHING without having the political outcome carefully calculated. The Harriet Miers nomination included.

By vince

October 31, 2005 09:40 AM | Link to this

Once again I’m amazed that discrimination done within the domain of Christianity goes unnoticed. The American Taliban = ACLU? Is she serious? Does Shaunti even have a clue about the ACLU? Does she know that not a single free speech trial was ever won in the Supreme Court until the ACLU became involved? Suffrage? Hello? The ACLU does not support specific beliefs, the ACLU supports the basic freedom rights to assemble and express themselves. The ACLU’s presence in Kitzmiller vs. Dover is not about evolution, it is about enforcing the seperation of church and state. But I suppose since Shaunti attended a surmon where the ACLU was labeled the American Taliban, that’s as far as her research went. I guess any entity opposing ID being taught in schools then would be the American Taliban. So, folks, The United States Supreme Court is the next American Taliban. Edwards v. Aguillard, The Supreme Courtcourt determined that teaching creationism in public schools violated the Establishment Clause of the United States constitution.

But, the question at hand, do the ID Disclaimers violate the constitution? Yes, it would violate the constitution. Creationism is based on religious theory. Even trying to hide creationism under the label of Intelligent Design would show no secular purpose of being taught, so the impetus would be clearly promoting religion.

By Jack

October 31, 2005 09:42 AM | Link to this

I thought the universe was a nucleus of an atom that is part of the gig toe of a giant cow living in a giant pasture in space.

By Vince

October 31, 2005 09:48 AM | Link to this

Topic suggestion:

Do you think replacing G. Washington’s image on the one dollar bill with a fetus is pro-life?

By The72John

October 31, 2005 09:49 AM | Link to this

The Religious Right don’t like the ACLU because they so frequently attempt to do things that the ACLU is forced to oppose. What they don’t realize is that the ACLU devotes the same time and energy to DEFENDING the rights of religious people as they do OPPOSING the imposition of religious into the public sector.

The RR (The REAL American Taliban) honestly believes that they should have the right to put their narrow view of religion wherever they want to, be it tax-payer funded property or events, public schools, government meetings, what ever. Because they are so adamant and self-righteous in their convictions that they are absolutely right and everyone else is absolutely wrong, they simply can’t comprehend the idea that religion is a private exercise and not one that should be supported by public funds.

The ACLU, on the other hand, DOES recognize this, and acts to defend the public from the depredations of the Religious Right. Because they are out to protect the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, they are evil, seeing as how the Religious Right doesn’t really give a damn about freedom.

By vince

October 31, 2005 10:04 AM | Link to this

Another topic submissions:

Why do Pro-Life people eat meat/chicken?

By Billy

October 31, 2005 10:07 AM | Link to this

I don’t think the question at hand (Constitutionality) is what matters. But since it’s the question, I’ll say my answer is: maybe. It depends on who’s on the Court. I will say this — I do believe that many justices have, in the past, taken more of a loose reading of the Constitution. The Right, however, always argues that we need a strict constructionist Court. That’s fine. I’ll go with that, allowing a slight break in the wall between Church & State, since a definite wall was not written into the First Amendment as such. But read the Second Amendment. Ooh, see that? Yup, you read right. The “Right to Bear Arms” is every bit the stretch of the Second Amendment as the “Separation of Church & State” is of the First. Who on the Right is willing to give up his guns?

I didn’t think so…

I agree we should help with some topics. I would like to see medical marijuana revisited, and perhaps this time Shaunti can come up with an argumen other than “I had a family member who smoked marijuana and then he died a few years later.” How about Plan B? The RR is still out to prevent that; some of them are arguing that rapists/child molesters will use it to “cover up their crimes”. (I know if my wife or daughter were raped, I’d want them to have the baby so we could test for DNA and prove who did it…)

By Just Being Me

October 31, 2005 10:11 AM | Link to this

Topic: Regardless of the crime committed, are juveniles ever mature enough to be charged as adults?

By Just Being Me

October 31, 2005 10:14 AM | Link to this

Medical Marijuana is a good one…

How about the “right to work” rules? Should they be tightened to force employers to justify termination?

By Just Being Me

October 31, 2005 10:16 AM | Link to this

…Or public surveillance cameras… Do they violate a citizen’s right to privacy? Can they aid in providing a safer environment for citizens? Do they help reduce crime?

By ARR

October 31, 2005 10:19 AM | Link to this

American Taliban??? Uh, isn’t the Taliban a group of oppressive, narrow-minded, religious zealots? So it seems like a person arguing for the forced teaching of religion in our public schools, even for those students who are atheists, non-Christians, etc. is more closely aligned with Taliban-like tendencies. Look, this country may have been founded by Christians, but we are not today a Christian nation.

I love how religious conservatives like to advocate small government, so small that they want to shrink it so that it’s small enough to fit into our brains and bedrooms to tell us how to think and what to do with our own bodies.

Also, like many who are ignorant of scientific theory, Shaunti resorts to that tired old argument that we should teach ID because “Darwin’s theory is just a theory.” Shaunti, just do a little research and look up the definition of a scientific theory. A scientific theory is NOT the opposite of a fact. Shaunti, why can’t you get a real scientist, like one from a legitimate University, to back up your arguments? Instead of constantly relying on talking points from this bogus Discovery Institute, get some real scientists behind your arguments as to what we should teach in science class.

By Just Being Me

October 31, 2005 10:21 AM | Link to this

Do violent depictions in movies, music, television programs, video games, etc. contribute to violent behaviors in society?

Or, how about a discussion on the “Fair Tax.”

By Ken

October 31, 2005 10:24 AM | Link to this

Billy… Interesting argument, but the language you use is incorrect.

The first ammendment does not say “separation of church and state”. It specifically refers to establishment of religion which is very different.

The second ammendment does specifically say “the right of people to keep and bear arms.” That clearly states that citizens have the right keep and bear arms.

Unfortnately, that leads directly back to one of my previous posts. I was teaching a confirmation class and many of my students referenced how the Constitution states/documents the ‘separation of church and state’. The Constitution does not say that anywhere. They are not being taught what the Constitution says and then challenged to consider what it means. Instead they are being taught one interpretation as the actual wording of the document without any background as to why that interpretation was made. Very scary stuff.

By The72John

October 31, 2005 11:00 AM | Link to this

I believe Billy’s point was that gun enthusiasts are quick to take a liberal interpretation of the 2nd ammendment, which some argue was intended to address the formation of militias and not individual gun ownership. However, many of those SAME people are loathe to take a similar interpretation of the first ammendment, even though writings of Jefferson, for instance, CLEARLY indicate that the current judicial interpretation of the Establishment Clause is in line with the intent of the 1st ammendment.

It’s kind of like the post-9/11 reaction of the NRA. Even though there was clear evidence - in fact, it was documented on a laptop seized from an al-qaeda safehouse - that the lax gun laws in the US, particularly those involving big gun shows - were being used to arm our foes. While we were told that the disturbing violations of the 1st ammendment written into the “patriot” act were necessary to protect us, no one would even DARE suggest that we fix the loopholes that were allowing terrorists to stockpile weapons.

How about THAT for a topic.

By Michael H.

October 31, 2005 11:08 AM | Link to this

In addition to William Dembski the other shining “star” in the firmament of the intelligent design is Michael Behe, who was spoken of so much last week. His testimony in this case was about as clear and convincing as the nonsense posted by the ID defenders last week. Here is a sample that speaks for itself (the full transcript is available on line.)

The questioner is Eric Rothschild, the lawyer opposing the school board in the Pennsylvania case. The answers are from Michael Behe.

Q: Please describe the mechanism that intelligent design proposes for how complex biological structures arose. A: Well, the word “mechanism” can be used in many ways. … When I was referring to intelligent design, I meant that we can perceive that in the process by which a complex biological structure arose, we can infer that intelligence was involved. … Q: What is the mechanism that intelligent design proposes? A: And I wonder, couldâ€â€?am I permitted to know what I replied to your question the first time? Q: I don’t think I got a reply, so I’m asking you. You’ve made this claim here (reading): “Intelligent design theory focuses exclusively on the proposed mechanism of how complex biological structures arose.” And I want to know, what is the mechanism that intelligent design proposes for how complex biological structures arose? A: Again, it does not propose a mechanism in the sense of a step-by-step description of how those structures arose. But it can infer that in the mechanism, in the process by which these structures arose, an intelligent cause was involved.

By HestonQuote

October 31, 2005 11:09 AM | Link to this

“Out of my cold dead hands…”

By The72John

October 31, 2005 11:13 AM | Link to this

Hmm, Heston, exactly. I wonder what makes people, most of whom claim to be devoutly Christian, cling to strongly to an instrument of death, yet so lightly to the idea of Liberty. Perhaps the Declaration of Independence should have been written to read “Life, Guns and the Pursuit of Happiness”, since we seem to hold Liberty so cheaply.

By Billy

October 31, 2005 11:16 AM | Link to this

Ken — I am fully aware of the text of the two amendments. You cannot cite “the right of people to keep and bear armsâ€? without adding the first portion of the amendment, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…” We no longer have true militias. And any “militias” we do have sure as hell aren’t well regulated. The reason for the amendment, as stated by the amendment itself, is no longer valid. Ergo, the amendment is archaic and unnecessary, at least by a strict constructionist reading.

By lozen

October 31, 2005 11:31 AM | Link to this

Shaunti says, In this precedent-setting trial they claim that Intelligent Design (ID) is an “inherently religious view.â€? ID is an inherently religious view. Wonder how Alito would vote on it? Imagine your child in the classroom: Teacher: “Children we’ll get to our lab experiments shortly but first, let me tell you about Jesus.”

By Ken

October 31, 2005 11:34 AM | Link to this

Billy… That is your POV of strict constructionist and I have mine. If you want to add he ‘militia’ portion to the second ammendment, then you need to add the remainder of the first ammendment.

We can argue ‘thr right to bear arms’ until the cows come home. The real argument should be in what rights does the government do to regulate the purchase of fire arms.

For the record, I do not own a firearm. I have only ever fired a fire arm one time, and that was a revolutionary era rifle, at camp as an eigth grader, to demonstrate what a soldier would have gone through at that time. Boy was that rifle heavy.

However, I know many gun enthuiasts who responsibly own and use firearms. They hunt. They go to shooting ranges. They skeet shoot. They keep a weapon for protection. They have all of the appropriate permits, licenses, etc. Owning a gun does not mean you want to kill something or someone. Besides, a person can kill using many other means and methods. So perhaps we should takes equipment from archers or weapons from masters of the martial arts.

Should we simplify gun laws. Absolutely. Should we severly punish those who break gun laws. Absolutely. But to take away my right, one that is CLEARLY defined in the Constitution, b/c of some bad apples is preposterous.

By DB

October 31, 2005 11:40 AM | Link to this

I’m reading. I just don’t see the point in this anymore.

By The72John

October 31, 2005 11:48 AM | Link to this

Well, the Tokugawa learned what happened when you completely confiscate the weapons of the peasantry, not that I’m suggesting that gun owners are peasants.

I do think that the hysterical reactions of the NRA to any attempt to regulate gun ownership verges on the utterly irrational. Yes, an argument can be made that the BoR requires that gun ownership be legal, but that doesn’t mean that Federal and State governments don’t have the right or the obligation to set controls on that ownership.

Let’s examine another hypocrisy of the Right wing. The Right insists that gun control is unconstitutional because it’s guaranteed by the 2nd Ammendment. However, the right to VOTE is also guaranteed by the Constitution, yet the same bunch of Right-wingers who are so adamantly opposed to gun control have absolutely no qualms in setting restrictions on people’s right to vote.

So…it’s OK to go to a gun show and buy an AK-47 without showing ID, but it’s NOT OK to go down to the local old folk’s home and cast a vote without a license. Interesting.

By Billy

October 31, 2005 11:54 AM | Link to this

Ken — I am not arguing against the right to bear arms. I am arguing that they have both been interpreted similarly — liberally — to offer protection for rights beyond how they actually read. If we were going to argue that the interpretation of one of them needs to be a stricter one, I would without a doubt go for a stricter interpretation of the second…

By Billy

October 31, 2005 12:05 PM | Link to this

72John — Thanks for summing up my point so well. People rail against the ACLU for its supposed extremism, but the same people support the NRA, which is every bit as extreme. Street Sweeper? Is that really necessary for regular civilians to own? Explain exactly how using taggets (sp?) to facilitate the tracing of explosives infringes in any way on the 2nd Amendment. I’m a bright guy, and I can’t wrap my brain around that one…

I think maintaining a liberal reading of the 1st Amend. is far more important than maintaining the liberal reading of the 2nd. To call for a strict interpretation of the 1st while maintaining the current liberal interpretation of the 2nd is hypocritical idiocy.

By chuck

October 31, 2005 12:14 PM | Link to this

First..Ken, the question was about the Constitutionality of the disclaimer. The disclaimer is certainly constitutional without regard to its merit.

John84321, The US is NOT last among industrialized nations in education. We are the only nation that tests EVERY STUDENT. In Japan for instance, students who are not “college material” are moved into a vocational track in the 8th grade. Those students are not tested. There are many examples across the board. If as you assert, that were the case, you would not see our economy booming and our standard of living so high. This is not about “standards” it is about constitutionality.

By The72John

October 31, 2005 12:24 PM | Link to this

Please, Schmuck, it’s not about Constitutionality. You don’t REALLY give a rat’s a* about Constitutionality. All you REALLY want is to carry out your religious-crazy agenda and turn this country into a right-wing theocracy. You only claim Constitutionality when it suits your purposes.

And yes, we really ARE behind every other nation. If you compare OUR college-bound high school graduates to the college-bound graduates of the equivalent educational system in Western Europe and Asia, there is a significant difference between the levels of education in math, science, history, foreign language, geography, etc. etc. etc.

Our standard of living, by the way has been consistently falling by degrees for a while now, and while the economy isn’t crashing and burning, it isn’t exactly booming, either.

By Jack

October 31, 2005 12:26 PM | Link to this

They’ll get my guns when they pry them from my cold, dead hands.

By chuck

October 31, 2005 12:30 PM | Link to this

BTW John90210, Exactly what restrictions on the RIGHT TO VOTE, have these right wingers tried to put into place?

By The72John

October 31, 2005 12:33 PM | Link to this

Requiring an additional ID, Cluck, what else? I don’t remember the Constitution saying “As long as you have a valid picture ID”.

Explain to me how that’s any different than requiring an ID to buy a gun at a gun show?

By Chilao

October 31, 2005 12:36 PM | Link to this

The reason for the (2nd) amendment, as stated by the amendment itself, is no longer valid. Ergo, the amendment is archaic and unnecessary, at least by a strict constructionist reading.

The actual reason for the existence of the 2nd Amendment is so that the citizenry would have a means to defend/offend against a repressive government.

By Jack

October 31, 2005 12:38 PM | Link to this

Chilao. Exactly. BTW John, when the consitution was signed, only landowners had the right to vote.

By The72John

October 31, 2005 12:44 PM | Link to this

Yes, Chilao. That was the INTENT. However, that is not explicit in the text of the ammendment itself. The 2nd A. doesn’t say “So that we may fight off future oppressive leaders”.

Religious-righters make much of the fact that the words “separation of church and state” don’t appear in the 1st A. They’re only “strict constructionists” when it suits them.

Jack, there HAVE been some ammendments on voter’s rights since the Constitution was signed, ya know.

By SUZAN

October 31, 2005 12:48 PM | Link to this

I believe that the people who adamatly appose the statement about intelligent design are terrified that they may just be wrong. I really dont believe there are athiest. they onky exist so long as they are healthy and making money after that I have seen many an athiest find the lord as soon as they find out they have a serious illness. Darwinism cannot be discribes as fact. It is a theory, just like intelligent design. The truth is not one person on this planet can say with any realy surety how it all began it is all theory. We could have been seeded as a planet to create a colony from another world. That makes just as much sense as Darwinism. As the storey about the Constitution stating that there must be a seperation between church and state. There is no such statement in the constitution. That is a quote that was in a letter written to a friend of Thomas Jefferson. Never once is it mentioned in the Bill of Rights or the US Constitution. The US Constitution states that there shall be no goverment sposered religion, but it also state that the goverment shall not take away the right for a person to worship. That simply put means that the ACLU is often the very orginization that trys to impede the rigjts of the US citizens to worship as they please in their community. There is no such thing as a utopia and as long as we live in a free society I expect my rights to be respected as well. If one is a Christian now is seems to be the trend to try and stop any and all prayer or worship associated with this religion. We are now being treated as the enemy. But Christ said”blessed are you if men curse and rivile you for my names sake” Well if you are Christian prepare to face the comming persecution because it’s going to get a lot worse on those of us who understand the truth and what comes next. Christians are being persecuted world wide now and as a matter of fact more Christians have been killed in this century that all the previous centuries since the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

By Ken

October 31, 2005 12:51 PM | Link to this

Billy… I gues that’s where we differ. I do not see a ‘liberal’ interpretation of the second ammendment, but I do of the first ammendment based on the language of the original document. That is where I love this country, b/c two rational individuals can have a difference of opinions and not worry about getting thrown in a gulag.

One othe thing…

You ask is it really necessary for someone to wn a ‘stree sweeper’. Valid question, but couldn’t you ask the same question for a variety of other items as well…? We own many things, far beyond the need of the average person, even to the detrement of society. The bottom line is this… The street sweeper did not cause the damage, the person pulling the trigger did.

When a drunk person kills kids while driving impaired, do we outlaw alcohol…? Do we outlaw vehicles…? No. We punish the individual to the fullest exent of the law for the crime committed.

Chuck… I admitted that what local school boards did was within the bounds of the Constitution. That, however, does not mean I believe that is the right thing to do.

Our society is rooted in the fact that educated people vote and make decisions for our society. Without a solid education for EVERYONE, we cannot live up to those ideals. I want everyone to be tested, and I still want to be on top. With all of our resources, that should not be unachievlable.

The72John… You are correct in outing the right-wing fanatics who want IDs to vote and not buy a gun. And there are left-wing fanatics who would argue the opposite opinion. Both are absolutely preposterous.

You see… you should need to have an ID to do BOTH.

By Billy

October 31, 2005 12:51 PM | Link to this

Chilao — that was the reason then, but it’s not the way it is stated. And I won’t feel our government is opressive unless they change how the First Amendment has been interpreted…And you left out that Blacks counted as 3/5 of a person. That shows that the Constitution isn’t infallible. Hell, the very existence of amendment shows it was intended to be changed with time. If, as time goes on, we no longer need the 2nd amendment as it is stated, I don’t care if it goes. If we interprest the 1st Amend. to mean that there should be no mention of God in any public/government institution, then that’s what the framers intended. If we repeal the religion portion of the amendment, then that’s what the framers intended.

By The72John

October 31, 2005 12:55 PM | Link to this

Nice, Susan - you might try sentences, paragraphs, grammar and spelling next time.

Just so you understand, the ACLU has never and will never try to stop you from worshiping as you choose. The problem is that YOU, as an obvious religious fanatic, believe that you should be allowed to force your religion on other people. You think you should be able to set up your nativity scene on public property, or hold prayer meetings on the courthouse lawn, or have the principal down at your school stand up in front of a diverse student body and lead them in a Christian prayer.

For you, that’s “free exercise of religion”. Any attempt to keep you from forcing your religion down the throats of anyone and everyone is “persecution”.

Persecution? Please - get over yourself. Or to put it like YOU can understand it, Get down off the Cross- someone needs the wood. Y’all do more persecuting of non-fundamentalists in a day than the Inquisition did in a year. And then you add in this BS “ooh, we’re so persecuted” nonsense. Makes me want to vomit.

By Jack

October 31, 2005 12:57 PM | Link to this

Chilao I think John is one of those bed-wetting libs. Better he not have a firearm, he might hurt someone.

By The72John

October 31, 2005 01:01 PM | Link to this

Ken, I don’t have any problem with requiring an ID to vote. I DO suspect the motives of the people putting forth the legislation, and I also question the choice of required ID. I would like to see a state-provided, tax-payer funded identification used as a voter ID. After all, voting is a RIGHT, and it shouldn’t be abrogated by additional requirements, no matter how insignificant the cost of that requirement.

And before you say anything, sure - If you want to extend that to gun buyers, I’ve got no problem with that.

By Raylene

October 31, 2005 01:02 PM | Link to this

How about we talk about all these people killing their kids, and what should be done to them. School books don’t matter all that much if all the kids are being killed.

sorry I am sick of stupid topics.

By The72John

October 31, 2005 01:03 PM | Link to this

Gee Jack, because I disagree with you on something I become a bed-wetter? Someone’s got his panties in a wad.

By Raylene

October 31, 2005 01:07 PM | Link to this

Hey Jack! what are you going to be for Halloween? a pirate? hehehe

By chuck

October 31, 2005 01:07 PM | Link to this

John316, here is why the test that you are speaking of isn’t a fair representation of the American Educational System.

*The first question that must be asked of such broad results, however, is whether the tests themselves accurately represent the countries’ student populations. International surveys such as these are not given to every student in each participating country; the tests’ organizers pick out statistical samples that are supposed to represent each country’s entire student population. Even so, schools�especially in the United States�sometimes decline to participate in the tests, potentially skewing the sample. As far as accurate sampling is concerned, early incarnations of the tests were not encouraging. In the first TIMSS general achievement test, conducted in 1995, only 5 of 21 participating countries met the study’s guidelines for conducting representative samples. While most countries participating in the latest studies have dramatically improved their overall sampling, the United States remains a notable exception. Only 73 percent of U.S. students chosen to be sampled were actually tested, a figure below the “minimum acceptable� rate of 75 percent. In most other countries, that number was well over 90 percent. If the omitted 27 percent of U.S. students were even slightly above or below average, their exclusion casts serious doubts on the accuracy of the U.S. sample.

The studies also inevitably confront large differences between countries’ school systems. “In Cyprus, students taking the advanced mathematics test were in their final year of the mathematics and science program; in France, the final year of the scientific track; in Lithuania, the final year of the mathematics and science gymnasia; in Sweden, the final year of the natural science or technology lines; and in Switzerland, the final year of the scientific track of gymnasium,� Professor Iris Rotberg of George Washington University wrote in Science concerning the 1995 TIMSS assessment, which tested high-schoolers. “In contrast, students in several countries, including the United States, attended comprehensive secondary schools. The major differences in student selectivity and school specialization across countries make it virtually impossible to interpret the rankings.� In TIMSS, especially, tests are conducted by grade-level rather than by age. In elementary and middle school, where topics are often covered and learned over the course of a few weeks, the risk of comparing students at incommensurate stages of their education is great.

Broad curricular differences have probably had a role in deflating U.S. scores. TIMSS and PISA use the same test in every participating country, and the material that makes it onto the test is selected through a winnowing process that leaves the tests considerably narrower than any single country’s general curriculum. Countries that include large amounts of material in their typical curricula are therefore at a disadvantage compared to those countries that focus their curricula more intensely on fewer subject areas. Regardless of its other merits or failings, the American strategy of repeated exposure to a broad range of subjects�American textbooks are the bulkiest in the world�is likely to lend itself to unduly poor performance on standardized tests, as full understanding of any single concept takes longer to develop.

Demographics and culture are also thought to confound the results of cross-national comparisons. In the United States, the tested students come from every socioeconomic rung, while other countries sometimes lack some rungs because of cross-border employment. For example, much of the labor force in Hong Kong (which is treated on the tests as an independent entity) is made up of tens of thousands of low-paid Filipino household workers whose children live and are educated in the Philippines; in light of the extensive literature tying socioeconomic indicators to educational achievement, this cross-border employment surely affects both countries’ scores. A similar situation obtains in other places with significant immigration and cross-border commerce, as Gerald Bracey points out in a 1997 article in the journal Educational Researcher. “Each morning thousands of Malaysians enter Singapore to sweep streets, pick up garbage, and do other low-level jobs. They return to their homes at night, relieving Singapore of having to educate the children of poor laborers,â€? Bracey writes. “If one reads the [domestic] educational research literature, one is struck by the lengthsâ€â€?the extreme lengthsâ€â€?that researchers go to to ensure that samples in their studies are comparable….The research community would never accept test results in this country that simply compared scores in an inner-city slum and an affluent suburb as if they were comparable,â€? he writes. The opposite circumstance holds in the United States: Students from all socioeconomic rungs are educated and scored on these tests.

Amid this deluge of confounding factors, the inference that the U.S. education system is going down the tubes is an unjustified logical leap. The United States is still pumping out tremendous numbers of new Ph.D.s in the sciences�more, in fact, than our economy can presently absorb, as there is a well-reported dearth of jobs for newly-minted science Ph.D.s. The same is true in engineering: According to a recent National Science Foundation report, the number of engineers graduating from U.S. schools will continue to grow into the foreseeable future, outstripping the number of available jobs. Of these new engineers and Ph.D.s, an increasing number are foreign-born�but increasing even faster is the percentage of those who decide to stay in the United States. Federal research funding for scientific research and development has consistently risen in absolute terms and as a fraction of discretionary spending�and industry research dollars have risen dramatically on top of that, to the tune of 7 percent per year in real terms�according to calculations by the Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes at Arizona State University. (Alarmist media reports often use GDP, against which research spending has fallen, as a comparative baseline.) And countries that have “outperformed� the United States in educational studies for many years�a number of European countries top this list�still fail to rival the U.S. in any measure of research productivity. When Bill Gates and others seem to appeal for school reform in the U.S., perhaps they are merely providing their companies with political cover and a post hoc justification for employing foreign engineers who, while not better educated than U.S. workers, are often significantly cheaper.*

If you want to read the full report you can find it at:

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/9/soa/education.htm

BTW, Statistics can be used to prove whatever you want them to prove.

By The72John

October 31, 2005 01:11 PM | Link to this

And just so you know, Jack, we were discussing the hypocrisy of taking an absolutist interpretation of the 1st A, and a broad interpretation of the 2nd A. We weren’t talking about gun ownership in general.

Just so we’re clear, I personally do not like guns. I think they are dangerous, and I think they are far too widely available. I don’t understand a culture that loves guns to the exclusion of everything else. I don’t understand how people who claim to believe in the sanctity of life are so carried away with them. I don’t understand why people are so passionately attached to something that has one intended purpose - to kill another human being. I think that people who keep a cabinet full of guns and croon over them and stroke them every night are obviously trying to compensate for a small p***.

That said, if you want to own guns, great. I have lots of friends who are gun owners. I don’t pretend to understand them, but that’s OK. I have friends who are hunters, and why I understand the need for hunting to fill the niche of a predator in a eco-system lacking them, I don’t understand the need to kill things.

The very fact that you would think that not liking guns makes me somehow less masculine, or a “bed wetter” suggests that you’re one of those people trying to compensate for something. My dislike of guns does not make me less manly. It does not make me a wimp. It does not make me a bed-wetter. However, your comment DOES make you an immature, childish jack-A*.

By Brian Curtis

October 31, 2005 01:12 PM | Link to this

Susan:

It was good of you to put so many mistakes and errors in a single paragraph, for our convenience. Let’s go through some of the more glaring mistakes, shall we?

“People who oppose ID are terrified tha they may be wrong.� Not even close, and it shows how little you know about science. Rather, it’s the creationists and their ID operatives who are terrified of being proven wrong; that’s why they so carefully exclude any specifics and testable claims from their so-called “theory.�

“I don’t really believe there are atheists.� That’s okay… they don’t believe in you either.

“Darwinism is a theory, just like intelligent design.� And the Flying Spaghetti Monster. And the Easter Bunny. Some theories are just better than others; that’s what we have science for, to sort the good ideas from the stupid ones. And ID has failed every test to even get in the running.

“Not one person can say how it all began.� Which has what to do with evolution? Do you bother to learn about the thing you’re criticizing, or do you just rely on what Pastor Bible-Thumper preaches every Sunday?

“The ACLU often impedes the right of citizens to worship as they please.� When they please to use government facilities and authority to impose their faith on others, yes indeed the ACLU interferes. And a good thing, too! Otherwise we wouldn’t HAVE any religious freedom; everybody would be a blind, ignorant fundamentalist.

“Christ said Blessed are you if men curse and rivile you for my name’s sake.� So quit yer whining! You’re getting blessed for all this alleged “abuse,� right? Although I suspect Jesus won’t be too happy with what some of your are doing ‘in his name.’

By Jack

October 31, 2005 01:13 PM | Link to this

Hi Raylene. Missed ya. I’ll be one of those extreme right-wing, gun-totin, oil rich war monger.

Oh and John. I don’t wear panties, I eat them.

By SUZAN

October 31, 2005 01:13 PM | Link to this

Well Bless you John 72, Glad I got a reaction of of you. Perhaps you try and do some research of the truth of the persecution of the Christian Church In the last century. I would also like to say that spitong out the personal name calling and ungliness is the very nature to which I refer. The people who claim to be so tolorent are only tolorent to to thier own veiws and beliefs. You know you owe you right to speak freely and worship your way to the founding fathers that gave up thier lifes, freedoms, land, and futures to ensure ours.
When you are so ugly and intolorent to others you show the true nature of your being. God keep you john 72

By Ken

October 31, 2005 01:13 PM | Link to this

Billy… The framers intended one thing 200 years ago and ammendments simply reflect the values of the current generation.

The framers clearly intended to restrict voting rights for a very specific set of reasons. Future generations then expanded those voting rights to what we see today. We are not representing their intentions, we are representing our current values. Sometimes, in the case of prohibition, we realized the ammendment was wrong.

Not to mention… With the strict guidelines for getting ammendments passed, I don’t think you’ll ever see the first or second ammendment altered/repealed.

Those ammendments, like many other aspects of the Constitution, reflect a very delicate and amibiguous compromise that leaves room for some interpretation. I, personally, do not agree with the current interpretation of the first ammendment, but that will change over time.

By BonnieJean

October 31, 2005 01:15 PM | Link to this

I cosign Suzan……I have a topic….how about how do get paid free and blog ALL day. It’s one thing to pop in and out but it’s another to blog ALL DAY LONG. That’s called stealing. Bet the big boss man doesn’t know you’re blogging all day, with very IN-DEPTH discussions and getting a check for it.

Did I spell everything right John?

By Raylene

October 31, 2005 01:20 PM | Link to this

lol @ bonniejean.

By The72John

October 31, 2005 01:22 PM | Link to this

Susan, I didn’t call you anything that isn’t accurate, you are a religious fanatic, and that means that yes, I am hostile towards you. I am intolerant of your own intolerance. As long as you are willing to go about your life without intruding on others, I’m tolerant. But the minute you start trying to tell me or someone else that they CAN’T do something because it’s against your religion, I’m going to be intolerant. Sorry, but that’s the way it is.

Gee Jack…you eat panties. I’m going to revise my estimate of your age down by at least a couple of years.

By Jack

October 31, 2005 01:23 PM | Link to this

Let me make myself clear John. Your posts sounded like those of a bed-wetter. The reason for the voter ID law was not to make it harder to cast votes but to make it harder for those who use voter fraud to win elections. The last election had many counties who had more votes cast then registered voters. Is that ok with you?

By The72John

October 31, 2005 01:27 PM | Link to this

Actually, there have been no recorded incidents of polling place voter fraud, Jack. In each case, those numbers were caused by absentee balots. How about we actually solve what’s causing the problem rather than trying to disenfranchise an entire section of voters, most of whom happen to be Democrats. Is that OK with you?

By Raylene

October 31, 2005 01:27 PM | Link to this

yeah, they are doing it so that we don’t get moron’s like bush elected twice again.

By Ken

October 31, 2005 01:32 PM | Link to this

Suzan… As much as it pains me, we, the Christian Church have brought much of the persecution upon ourselves. Please understand that when I say we, I do not necessarily mean me and you in particular.

You see… We need to be better than the rest of the world. We are to live differently, but without judgement. We are to be in but not of the world. We are called to be examples and unfortunately, we have not always done a good job of that. It puts us in a very precarious position.

By Jack

October 31, 2005 01:35 PM | Link to this

Idiot.

By The72John

October 31, 2005 01:37 PM | Link to this

Right back at ya, Jack.

By Ken

October 31, 2005 01:45 PM | Link to this

Jack is correct… There were several counties, in Ohio, where the number of registered voters far outcounted the number people in the county.

Here is an idea for you… Why not make voting day a National Holiday. MANDATORY NO WORK.

Here is another idea… Why not restrict exit polling so that the network news doesn’t declare a state winner at 1:00 in the afternoon.

Here is another idea… Why not make the voting apparatus for national elections identical regardless of the state. I personlly liked the electronic voting we used in Georgia last year.

Here is another idea… Have the polls open from midnight to midnight on voting day.

By Renee

October 31, 2005 01:45 PM | Link to this

JBM I like your topic ideas. LOL. I see the topics are still insane.

By The72John

October 31, 2005 01:49 PM | Link to this

Oh, see, I thought we were talking about Georgia, not Ohio. Gosh, my bad. Wonder how much of that fraud we perpetrated by Republicans? You know, the same Republicans who hired people to register voters and then tear up any forms where the person registered as a democrat?

Yeah, the Republicans REALLY care about the right to vote.

By Raylene

October 31, 2005 01:53 PM | Link to this

i don’t give a crap what people register as, as long as they stop voting for damn idiots.

By Billy

October 31, 2005 01:57 PM | Link to this

Ken, I meant that the Bill of Rights was written and ratified basically by the same people as the Constitution itself. If they hadn’t intended for it to be changed as the world changed, wouldn’t they have included those amendments in the main body of the Constitution rather than add them on afterward, thereby avoiding the precedent of allowing amendments in the first place?

And Guns don’t kill people, people don’t kill people, bullets kill people. It’s not that the person behind the street sweeper isn’t to blame, it’s that the only purpose of the street sweeper is to kill people. Cars serve another purpose. It’s kind of like the difference in the way we treat tobacco and food, even though obesity kills as many people as tobacco related crap. Food at least has a purpose beyond making you sick.

By SUZAN

October 31, 2005 02:12 PM | Link to this

This is my last post for the day. John While it may be true that many Christians may not be the best examples of what we stand for, there are many of out here working very hard to push for a better world to live in. In our church we are tollerent of all peoples regardless of sexual orientation, race, gender whatever we are a progressive church that works to help those who cant help themsleves by providing shelters and homes to get people and families off the streets and out of debt. We help get them vocational training and additional education and back into thier own homes and we try and follow them through tier first year to help them sty on top. We work in the political arena to help help promote peace and we strongly protest wars of any kind. We are activly engaged in supporting milatary families and assisting people with daycare for thier children as well as foreign missions to help build communities that thrive. Although we are human and not perfect I make no apologies for being a Christian and for working to help rid the world of the ugliness that harms so many. I for one am proud of who I am and the direction in which i am moving. I pray that all here find peace and I know many here will hate me just for what I believe and that is okay. but I see no reason to take a beating lying down with out expressing what I know to be true. God bless and keep all here and the peace of Christ be with you

By ARR

October 31, 2005 02:12 PM | Link to this

Jack: there has not been a single recorded instance of voter fraud of the type at which the voter ID law is directed. there is simply no evidence of a history of people attempting to vote by impersonating another voter in person to fradulently change the result of an election. nearly all of the recorded fraud occurs with absentee ballots. guess what? absentee ballots are exempt from the voter ID law. guess what else? the overwhelming majority of absentee ballots are submitted by Republican voters. don’t take about preventing voter fraud when there is no voter fraud of the type the law is directed at, and where the law ignores the source of nearly all georgia voter fraud.

oh, and calling someone an “idiot” is clearly a surefire way to win a debate.

By ARR

October 31, 2005 02:14 PM | Link to this

SUZAN: it’s great that you think your church is tolerant of all “peoples.” but arguing that we should teach ID in public schools is an inherently intolerant viewpoint. you can’t be tolerant if you want to force your religious views into public schools. ID is NOT science. your religion is blinding you from grasping that fact.

By Renee

October 31, 2005 02:18 PM | Link to this

Raylene - Don’t you just want people to register to vote and vote, no matter who they vote for?

As far as the voter registration laws, it’s just another way to make people go through more red tape and jump through hoops. I think it is evident that putting the restictions up would favor one party over another, which is not indicative of a democracy.

By Terry

October 31, 2005 02:32 PM | Link to this

Ken: There is no such thing as a national election. Go read the Constitution.

By Terry

October 31, 2005 02:38 PM | Link to this

Renee: I seem to remember that President Jimmy Carter was part of a commission to study problems in voter fraud and one of their key recommendations was Photo IDs.

I don’t think the concept of having to prove who you are in order to vote is a violation of the Constitution. We’ve just got to keep working on the method to use to ensure that proof. Any positive suggestions? Or do you just want to rant?

By The72John

October 31, 2005 02:49 PM | Link to this

I don’t have any objections to requiring ID to vote. I DO have objections to the requirement being such that it seems to discriminate against a particular class of voters, whether that discrimination was intentional or not.

I have a problem with people who say “Well, it’s a small price to pay.” Why? Because there shouldn’t be any price attached to voting. It’s a right guaranteed by the Constitution, and any fee attached to it, no matter how small, is wrong.

I am perfectly in favor of state-issued voter ID cards provided free of cost to the voter and rolled out over a period of time to give people the chance to get the card.

By Terry

October 31, 2005 02:51 PM | Link to this

On the intelligent design debate (yes we beat this one to death last week, but we’ve got a few new zealots):

Bottomline: Any mention of ID in any science classroom is another step back to the Dark Ages where questioning and doubt were considered heresy.

By Terry

October 31, 2005 02:52 PM | Link to this

The72John: Excellent idea!!

By Renee

October 31, 2005 02:53 PM | Link to this

Nope! I prefer to continue ranting, with you.

Why do you feel the need to attack me. If someone makes a statement that is not in agreement with you, then is it defined by ranting?

Personally, I have no problem with plunking my id down when I vote. I have done it, and will continue to do it if requested to. I personally cannot imagine going through life on a day to day basis without a photo id. However, there is a large part of the community who does not have id’s for whatever reason (that goes into a whole different discussion). I believe the vast majority of people lacking photo id’s would fall under one political party, thus them not voting obviously would benefit the other political party. So of course one party would push harder than another to get this to be law. I think using voter fraud is a cop out.

By Jack

October 31, 2005 03:02 PM | Link to this

There is no fee. IDs will be provided free by the state. John. I call um like I see um. If you don’t like it, good!

By Terry

October 31, 2005 03:04 PM | Link to this

Renee: There was no personal attack intended. But you do continue to complain about the problem without proposing any reasonable solutions.

And you make an accusation of political bias. You based this statement on a personal belief that the vast majority of people lacking Photo IDs are of one political party.

The inference I got from that is that you are referring to poor, under educated, and ill-informed people. Can I also infer from this statement that the inverse would also be true - that the better educatend and more intelligent among us are of a the other prominent political party?

By Terry

October 31, 2005 03:06 PM | Link to this

Please excuse the typos…I’m multi-tasking!

By The72John

October 31, 2005 03:11 PM | Link to this

Jack, you’re incorrect. The ID’s MAY be provided free by the state, assuming the person signs a statement that they are indigent. However, there is no specific definition of indigence. Anyone else is required to pay $20, and that amounts to a poll tax.

And Jack, I really don’t care what you think.

By Renee

October 31, 2005 03:15 PM | Link to this

The inference I got from that is that you are referring to poor, under educated, and ill-informed people. Can I also infer from this statement that the inverse would also be true - that the better educatend and more intelligent among us are of a the other prominent political party?

You can infer what you like, but that’s not what I said. I do think however, that poorer people do usually fall into the Democratic political party. I don’t, however, put poor, undereducated, and ill-informed into the same category. Poor does not equal undereducated to me or ill-informed or vice versa. I think that’s one thing wrong with our country, we lump people into these categories. And I definitely do not think the Republicans represent the most intelligent and/or better educated (kind of redundant)among us.

My personal political affiliation is not of either of the two majorities. So then what category would that put me in?

By The72John

October 31, 2005 03:16 PM | Link to this

Actually, Terry, it’s not education. The groups least likely to have licenses are the elderly and urbanites, because they are less likely to drive. These two groups also tend to vote Democratic. It’s not question of education or socio-economic status.

By Terry

October 31, 2005 03:20 PM | Link to this

Renee: Same as me - an independent mind. Although I tend to favor Rep. views on money matters and defense.

But you bring up an interesting observation: Why do the poorer people seem favor the Democratic party? History proves that the Dems are not favorable to the poor when it comes to fiscal legislation.

By Terry

October 31, 2005 03:24 PM | Link to this

The72John: Yes, I actually agree with your assessment (but sometimes it’s just fun to take the other side in a debate to really understand a person’s position).

It is interesting to look at a county-by-county breakdown of the last 2 presidential elections. Almost all large cities went Dem, but almost all small-town and country counties went Rep. (including California, where the state itself went Dem)

Again - why?

By chuck

October 31, 2005 03:24 PM | Link to this

John222, You are the new winner of the “DRAMA QUEEN AWARD”. Your winning statement was: (drum roll please)

I personally do not like guns. I think they are dangerous, and I think they are far too widely available. I don’t understand a culture that loves guns to the exclusion of everything else. I don’t understand how people who claim to believe in the sanctity of life are so carried away with them. I don’t understand why people are so passionately attached to something that has one intended purpose - to kill another human being.

Let’s take those statements one at a time:

1) You don’t have to like OR own guns. That is your prerogative as an American.

2) Yes guns are widely available, but ownership is well restricted and documented. They are also legal products to be bought and sold, so why would they not be widely available?

3)Our culture loves guns “to the exclusion of everything else?” You don’t really believe that now do you? If so, that pretty much removes the last shred of credibility you had on this board.

4) Guns have many purposes. Killing humans is ONE OF THEM. They are great for target practice, hunting, intimidation AGAINST the threat of violence. I gaurantee that an intruder would leave the house at the sound of my Mossberg being racked. Skeet shooting is a blast.

5) What makes you think that pro-lifers are the biggest supporters of gun rights. That is just not true. Like much of the country, we are divided on this issue. The Bible often speaks of the right to defend oneself against deadly force and to preserve life. There is no ambiguity there. Just like many who are pro-life are in favor of the death penalty. They are separate issues. One life is innocent, the other is paying the consequence for taking a life.

By The72John

October 31, 2005 03:31 PM | Link to this

Chuck, please don’t talk to me about credibility - you have none. I’m sorry that my OPINION about guns is so offensive to you. I believe that I did say that it was an OPINION, and that if you wanted to own guns you could. I also even believe I mentioned that I had friends who owned guns.

And yes, Chuck, I do know people who talk about their guns with the same love they talk about their children. I DO think that people who would rather have their civil liberties violated than lose their guns have serious issue.

Sorry if my OPINION doesn’t match yours, Chuck. I guess I’m just not a big enough redneck.

By Just Being Me

October 31, 2005 03:32 PM | Link to this

~waving~ Hey Renee!

Hey John, if the person isn’t indigent, wouldn’t they most likely already have a state-issued ID?

By Terry

October 31, 2005 03:38 PM | Link to this

The72John: You said The groups least likely to have licenses are the elderly and urbanites, because they are less likely to drive. Don’t these people ever cash checks?

By Just Being Me

October 31, 2005 03:43 PM | Link to this

Terry, what if they just deposit the check in the bank???

By The72John

October 31, 2005 03:45 PM | Link to this

Possibly they use other forms of ID, Terry? Who knows. Are you disputing that these groups are less likely to have driver’s licenses? The state tracks how many licenses are issused and it is possible to compare that information to other demographics…it’s not like they’re having to guess how many people of voting age out there don’t have licenses…

By Terry

October 31, 2005 03:52 PM | Link to this

The72John: Don’t go getting defensive. It was really just a question. The real question should be: how many people in GA don’t have some form of photo ID?

By Terry

October 31, 2005 03:53 PM | Link to this

Anybody want to debate flat income tax vs. consumption tax?

By Terry

October 31, 2005 04:01 PM | Link to this

Just Being Me: Possibly. And they could use their cash card for all purchases so they wouldn’t need a photo ID.

But this whole argument that photo ID for voters is politically biased assumes that there is really a problem where there is a whole bunch of people that will be disenfranchised. I was just curious as to how big this problem really is? 10% of the population? 1%? .0001%? What is the demographic we’re talking about here? In real terms, not just some conceptual (politically biased) guesses.

By chuck

October 31, 2005 04:02 PM | Link to this

I’m not offended by your position at all. I just believe that when people make statements that are so over the top they should be challenged. It has nothing to do with being a “redneck” as you so sophomorically labeled it.

I think the real problem with you is that you have a deep-seeded hatred of God and as a sideshoot of that, you hate America and the freedoms we have. You want to restrict gun ownership and the free expression of religion. You probably want to restrict the ownership of SUV’s and make us all drive solar powered skateboards.

By Just Being Me

October 31, 2005 04:04 PM | Link to this

~waving at Terry~

Count me in. I’m on consumption’s side. Only problem is, I’m leaving in about 10 minutes.

By Terry

October 31, 2005 04:05 PM | Link to this

Chuck: Yeah! Let’s all go back to horse and buggy!! I’m a horse rancher and that would sure help my business!

By chuck

October 31, 2005 04:06 PM | Link to this

Bein’ a redneck and all Terry, I just love hoppin on old Bronk and ridin’ off into the sunset.

By Terry

October 31, 2005 04:09 PM | Link to this

Just Being Me: Ok, maybe tomorrow. I’m on the flat income tax side!

The problem I have with consumption it that it could end up just as convoluted as our current system. With loopholes and exceptions for consumers based on their level of income or stated usage of the purchase or ???

And, you’d have to put the retail store in charge of making these decisions and collecting the taxes. That’s an area ripe for tax fraud.

So far I haven’t heard a good answer for these types of problems.

Flat income tax, on the other hand, doesn’t have these particular inherent problems. The only real issue I can see is in the initial setup of lower limits of inclusion and exemptions for children, etc. Once set up, it’s much easier to manage.

By The72John

October 31, 2005 04:14 PM | Link to this

You have the gall to accuse ME of being sophmoric and then follow that up with something as simplistic as my having a hatred of God? Are you really stupid and sanctimonious? And then, on top of that, I hate AMERICA?

Let me be perfectly honest with you, Chuck. I have absolutely NO problem with God, the idea of God, a belief in God, etc. What I DO have problems with are small-minded, self-righteous, sanctimonious people like you whose idea of God is so primitive that a two-year old child can grasp it, and who are so terrified of anything that might make them question those perconceptions that they block out anything that doesn’t conform to that narrowness.

I have a PROBLEM with people who tell me I hate America because I despise the narrow conservatism currently infecting it. I despise the political philosophy that thinks that CONFORMITY is FREEDOM. I love Freedom, Chuck, but I question whether you do.

You see, Chuck, I don’t care if you worship in your house, in your church, with your friends, wherever you please. When you try to force me to worship with you, and make laws based on nothing more than your own religious prejudices, we have a problem. That’s not freedom, Chuck. You have free exercise of Religion, Chuck, and I fully support that. What YOU want is the ability to make EVERYONE endure your narrow brand of orthodoxy, whether they believe in it or not.

If you think that my dislike for you, your narrow idea of religion so rooted in hatred and ignorance, or your jingoistic, self-righteous, sanctimonious brand of faux Patriotism means I hate God or hate America, well, I can’t help you. But you can rest assured that I have nothing but ill-will for YOU.

By SUZAN

October 31, 2005 04:22 PM | Link to this

Could not resist…. hey arr if Darwinism is a theory and me or my children are forced to listen to only one side does that not make it a theocratic educational system. Because Evolution and Darwinism is only….. A theory in fact; there is not proof positive that these are the basis for the creation of the earth or the species of man.

following are a few other thoughts from scientific sources:

An Estimate of the Probability for Attaining the Necessary Parameters for Life Support Parameter Probability that feature will fall in the required range

galaxy size .1

galaxy type .1

galaxy location .1

star location relative to galactic center .2

star distance from closest spiral arm .1

z-axis extremes of star’s orbit .1

proximity of solar nebula to a supernova eruption .01

timing of solar nebula formation relative to supernova eruption .01

number of stars in system .2

star birth date .2

star age .4

star metallicity .05

star orbital eccentricity .1

star’s distance from galactic plane .1

star mass .001

star luminosity relative to speciation .0001

star color .4

3H+ production .1

supernovae rates and locations .01

white dwarf binary types, rates, and locations .01

planetary distance from star .001

inclination of planetary orbit .5

planetary axis tilt .3

rate of change of axial tilt .01

planetary rotation period .1

rate of change in planetary rotation period .05

planetary orbit eccentricity .3

surface gravity (escape velocity) .001

tidal force .1

magnetic field .01

albedo .1

density .1

planetary crust thickness .01

oceans-to-continents ratio .2

rate of change in oceans-to-continents ratio .1

global distribution of continents .3

frequency and extent of ice ages .1

asteroid and comet collision rate .1

change in asteroid and comet collision rates .1

mass of body colliding with primordial Earth .002

timing of collision with primordial Earth .05

rate of change in asteroid/comet collision rate .1

proximity and mass of Jupiter .01

major planet eccentricities .1

major planet orbital instabilities .1

drift rate and rate change of major planets .1

atmospheric transparency .01

atmospheric pressure .1

atmospheric electric discharge rate .1

atmospheric temperature gradient .01

carbon dioxide level in atmosphere .01

oxygen level in atmosphere .01

chlorine level in atmosphere .1

iron quantity in oceans .1

tropospheric ozone quantity .01

stratospheric ozone quantity .01

mesospheric ozone quantity .01

water vapor level in atmosphere .01

oxygen-to-nitrogen ratio in atmosphere .1

quantity of greenhouse gases in atmosphere .01

frequency and extent of forest and grass fires .01

soil mineralization .1

quantity of sea-salt aerosols .1

quantity of decomposer bacteria in soil .01

quantity of mycorrhizal fungi in soil .01

quantity of nitrifying microbes in soil .01

quantity of sulfur in soil .1

quantity of sulfur in planet’s core .1

tectonic activity .1

volcanic activity .1

decline in volcanic activity .1

viscosity of Earth’s core at core boundaries .01

biomass to comet-infall ratio .01

regularity of cometary infall .1

dependency factors (estimate) 100,000,000,000

longevity requirements (estimate) .00001

Probability for combined occurrence of all 75 parameters = 10-99

Maximum possible number of planets in universe = 1023

Taken from Ross, H. 1998. Big Bang Refined by Fire. Reasons To Believe, Pasadena, CA.

The Scientific Case Against Evolution A Review of Michael Denton’s Evolution: A Theory in Crisis & Michael J. Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box by Robert Locke

I AM NOT A CREATIONIST, and must confess that until recently, I treated people who questioned evolution with polite dismissal. But there has recently emerged a major trend in biology that has been suppressed in the mainstream media: evolution is in trouble. More importantly, this has absolutely nothing to do with religion but is due to the fact that the ongoing growth of biological knowledge keeps producing facts that contradict rather than confirm evolution. These two books – Michael Denton’s Evolution: A Theory in Crisis and Michael J. Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box – describe this phenomenon.

The first surprising thing Denton points out is that there has always been a dissident faction of highly distinguished scientists, of impeccable credentials and no religious motivations, who have declined to concede that evolution has been proved. This is inconvenient for evolutionists who would like to dismiss their opponents as Bible-thumping hicks and claim that questioning evolution is tantamount to questioning the value or validity of science. He also points out biologists like Richard Owen, who were prepared to allow that evolution had taken place but thought that other causes were involved in bringing about the origin of species.

The first big problem with evolution is that the fossil record increasingly does not, honestly viewed, support it, a fact that famous Prof. Steven Jay Gould of Harvard has described as “the trade secret of paleontology.” Evolutionary theory claims that there once existed a whole series of successive forms of the various organisms alive today. These supposedly changed by infinitesimal amounts with each generation as they evolved into the present varieties, so the fossil record should show these gradual changes. But it doesn’t. Instead, it shows the sudden emergence of new species out of nowhere, fully complete with all their characteristics and not changing over time. It is almost entirely devoid of forms that can plausibly be identified as intermediates between older and newer ones. This is popularly known as the “missing link” problem, and it is massively systematic across different species and time periods. Worse, this problem is getting worse, not better, as more fossils are discovered, as the new fossils just resemble those already found and don’t fill in the gaps. In Darwin’s day, it was easy to claim that the fossils were there but had not been discovered. Problem is, we now have hundreds of thousands of well-catalogued fossils, from all continents and geologic eras, and we still haven’t found these intermediate forms. As Denton puts it,

“Despite the tremendous increase in geological activity in every corner of the globe and despite the discovery of many strange and hitherto unknown forms, the infinitude of connecting links has still not been discovered and the fossil record is about as discontinuous as it was when Darwin was writing the Origin.”

hugs Suz

By Billy

October 31, 2005 04:27 PM | Link to this

Dammit Suzan, “theocratic” has nothing to do with the word “theory”, and since you believe such and are obvious;y a moron I have chosen not to read any farther down your post.

By SUZAN

October 31, 2005 04:31 PM | Link to this

Since Darwinism is worsghiped as a religion in the world of science I propose it is a theocracy and futher by you simple attitude of refusing to look any futher into what is printed you must then be a zealot of that religion. I rest my case. A also find that name calling is normally a sign that the ability to debate a subject calmly and with out rancor is most normally because of a lack of true conviction or knowledge of the subject

thanks Suz

By The72John

October 31, 2005 04:36 PM | Link to this

Darwinism as religion is another traditional ID/Creationist bit of obfuscation - evolution as religion.

It’s not a religion - it’s just the best science out there. You don’t accuse physicsits of “worshiping” Einstein, do you?

By rob

October 31, 2005 04:40 PM | Link to this

How about this: “Because Darwin’s theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence. …Humans sprang from the brow of Zeus is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view…�

Why not that on the disclaimers?

By The72John

October 31, 2005 04:41 PM | Link to this

No, no - that was Athena. Humans were made by the Titans.

By Terry

October 31, 2005 04:44 PM | Link to this

Susan: Well you’ve just proven to the readers that you don’t understand probability theory or scientific method. But you took a lot of space doing it!

And ,no I’m not going to get into a point-by-point discussion of your errors. But, here’s a quick overview:

Bottomline: Any mention of ID in any science classroom is another step back to the Dark Ages where questioning and doubt were considered heresy.

By SUZAN

October 31, 2005 04:45 PM | Link to this

I think perhaps John in some cases you indeed could say that many in the field of science do worship Einstein. And if many in the world of science refuse to look at any and all probabilty based on idealism it then takes on the conotations of worship. While I may be deslexic and unable to type or spell at times, it does not interfere with my ability to reason. While I believe that there is a case for evolution and even that some parts of evolution are indeed built into the frame of life and universe, I do not believe that it explains nor every will explain all the questions or answers. While I am also openly Christian, I also have a deep respect for the world of scientific discovery and I am quite fascinated by all that has come to light in this day and age that we live. I do know that we can not assume to know all the answers and I do know that a very large part of the population inclouding many of the best thinkers in ther world concure that intelligent design is indeed a probable theory.

thanks

Suz

By rob

October 31, 2005 04:53 PM | Link to this

Dohhhh! I’m such an unevolved idiot sometimes…

Anyway, you got my drift, it’s about as observed, reviewed and proven as ID, so why not?

By The72John

October 31, 2005 04:56 PM | Link to this

Well, Suz, there are a few problems with what you’ve said.

First - I can’t even begin to address the worship issue. Relativity is the underpinning of theoretical physics because it so far seems to work. That’s not worship, that’s practicality. The same goes for Evolution.

Second - ID, while fine as a philosophical movement, does absolutely NOTHING to advance the science you claim to be such a fan of. That’s the problem - it isn’t science, it’s philosophy. It doesn’t beg any questions, it doesn’t lead scientists on to greater discoveries.

If anything, ID STIFLES science. You are, in effect, saying “Well, we can’t explain that right now, so it must be God”. Can you imagine what the state of the world would be like right now if the earliest pioneers of science had that attitude?

Again, there is absolutely NO conflict between evolution and religion. If God or some other divine, omnipotent, ominscient being DID create the universe and the life within it, then He did so in a rational fashion. The world IS rational, we know that. It works by rules, even if those rules are sometimes beyond our current understanding. If we study hard enough, we learn at least something of those rules, and the more we dig the more we learn.

Evolution no more seeks to establish the origins of the universe than it does to explain the tax code - it simply looks at the processes by which life develops and continues.

By Billy

October 31, 2005 04:57 PM | Link to this

Suzan — Had you been here last week you would have seen me calmly, rationally debating the issue. All week. Pardon my curt, mean tone, but I have had it with people who try to frame evolution as a religion. How is it a religion? Explain it to me. There’s more evidence to support it that there is or has been for any religion ever. And don’t call me an evolutionist, as it’s not a word and I do not “worship” evolution. It is just the most logical, most scientific explanation for life as we know it.

By SUZAN

October 31, 2005 05:13 PM | Link to this

terry, you kind and patient criticsism is of course always welcomed. While I am no scientist as many on this board are not, I do have some common sense. Now while I understand only a microism of what you do obviously I can read and understand the bases for these theories. One question I would have is based on Genesis. in the first few chapters that discribe the creation. let me quote if not too offensive…. 001:001 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

001:002 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

001:003 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

001:004 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

001:005 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. 001:006 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 001:007 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

001:009 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

001:011 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

001:012 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

001:020 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

001:021 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

001:022 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

001:024 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

001:025 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

001:026 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. No I hope this does not make anyone nash thier teeth, but If you read this in the order of the creation does it not follow the same pattern that evolution seems to state. the earth was water and gas, then ground appeared and plant life started. Next came sea life then land life follwed last by human.

Hmmmm

and it was written thousands of years before the theory of evolution was every proposed.

Im only saying look at all of the eveidence and try and learn from all sorces. this is book and belief is not the enemy. The enemy is a closed mind. I think that we can learn to ask new questions and perhaps study the truth as man has known it to be for thousands of years. geesh people just dont want to see truth write in front of them

thanks terry Suz

By Ken

November 1, 2005 07:10 AM | Link to this

Suzan… I liked your last post, but I know the response before it even comes out… That Darwin shaped his theory to fit the Biblical creation story so as to lend legitimacy.

The story may come out in a variety of forms (I have heard several) but the underlying theme is the same.

Terry… Sorry for using an incorrect term ‘national election’. You are correct. That does not exist technically under the Constitution. Each and every election is a state election, but… If the Constitution can set the day of the election, it can also be used to set other parameters.

As for flat versus consumption tax…

Definitely flat tax. No deductions. No filing status. One tax bracket with a threshold of non-taxable wage based on the zip code where an individual lives.

By Terry

November 1, 2005 07:35 AM | Link to this

Susan: You said we should look at all of the evidence. What evidence? Science requires independently testable hypotheses based on evidence, but ID has no scientific basis.

Genesis is not evidence, it’s a story of creation based on ancient oral tradition and myth. And it’s imperfect translation by King James scholars leaves much to be desired.

Again, I will ask: Can you (or anybody) else make a scientific hypothesis for ID? With independently verifiable test to either prove or refute the hypothesis?

Science and religion are separate and should have no influence on each other (unless people like you insist on tying them together). Science is a disipline based on questioning and doubt. Religion is a philosophy based on faith. Faith is the opposite of questioning. A scientist can never accept any answer based solely on faith of belief.

Ken: I don’t think the current questions in evolution are based on Genesis, but the cosmological theory of Big Bang is clearly based on “Let There Be Light.” Without Western religious influences, we might not have a Big Bang theory and would instead be focused on proving the Steady State Universe hypotheses.

By Brian Curtis

November 1, 2005 07:38 AM | Link to this

Things that belong in a science class: · Atomic theory · Theory of gravitation · Cheesy fake-volcano models · Evolution and the theory of natural selection · Kepler’s Laws · Relativity · Optics experiments

Things that do NOT belong in a science class: · Supreme Court nominations · Baseball’s designated-hitter rule · The Easter Bunny · Intelligent design/creationism · Last night’s episode of “Desperate Housewives�

All of these latter topics might make interesting discussions… but they have nothing to do with science.

By Terry

November 1, 2005 07:47 AM | Link to this

Intelligent design could, and should, be taught in philosophy classes. ID could also reasonably be mentioned in astronomy/cosmology classes as an underlying cause for Big Bang.

But there is no scientific way to tie ID to biology. Why are ID proponents so caught up in putting ID in biology classes?

The only answer I got last week was that these other classes (philosophy and cosmology) are not mainstream, required classes. So the real agenda is getting ID taught to all students in any class IDers can get it into, it’s not really a concern for scientific thought.

By Lyrazel

November 1, 2005 08:08 AM | Link to this

Hard to think when so much balderdash is being spewed but here is my hurl. Ok, if the Pledge of Allegiance is no longer being said because it mentions God and many students are athiest how does one teach ID without mentioning a deity? Which deity is to be mentioned? All religons have creation myths—and further—why say Hindus are wrong and Christians right? What about Souix creation-myths? If teaching deity involvement or higher intellegence in science, why not of UFO-brought intellegent life-forms? Abductees who submitted to anal probes can be examined during Science Labs… Let us not forget the visit from the local chapter of born-from-Dolphin-Whale types who consider their evolution theory just as valid and have webbed toes to prove it. Personally, I would argue no schoolboard should be given stickers. Cost of placement and removal of stickers for textbooks should not have a place in the school budget. Parents that want their children to understand ID should use the home/church/temple as a wonderful place to teach theories and religion! Let teachers stick to teaching test-appropriate material approved by NCLB.

By Boscoe

November 1, 2005 08:10 AM | Link to this

As a scientific hypothesis, the theory of evolution trys to determine the development of various species of plants and of animals on our earth, and, using palæontology and other sciences, such as comparative morphology, embryology, and bionomy, to show how in the course of time they gradually evolve from their beginnings by only natural causes of specific development. The theory of evolution, then, as a scientific hypothesis, does not consider the present species of plants and of animals as forms directly created by God, but as the final result of an evolution from other species existing in former periods. THAT’S WHY IT IS CALLED “the theory of evolution”, or “the theory of descent”, since it implies the descent of the present from extinct species. This theory is opposed to the theory of constancy, which assumes the constancy of organic species. The theory of evolution, therefore, does not concern itself with the origin of life. It merely looks into the genetic relations of species, and families, and trys to arrange them according to natural series of descent. Is the theory of evolution based on observed facts? It is still only an hypothesis. The formation of new species is directly observed in but a few cases, and only with reference to such forms as are closely related to each other. Comparing the scientific proofs for the of the theory of evolution, we find that they grow more numerous and weighty, the smaller the circle under consideration, but become weaker and weaker, if we include a greater number of species. There is, in fact, no evidence whatever for the common genetic descent of all plants and animals from a single primitive organism. Thus the theory of evolution is NOT scientific fact, if you insist on teaching it in schools you have to teach other propable causes to the origin of life which is unknown to science.

By Ken

November 1, 2005 08:15 AM | Link to this

Terry… My reference to Genesis revolves around the matching of the Genesis story to our theory of how life evolved on the Earth.

Regardless of the translation, the text of Genesis was written down multiple thousand years ago. It lists the order in which God created the world. That order is very similar to the theory of how life evolved on Earth, again I am speaking to the order of life (light, day/night, land/water, fish, birds, land creatures, man).

I beleive Suzan’s question was, and I’m paraphrasing… Is it merely coincidental that the creation story, recorded thousands of years ago, resembles the scientific theories we are just now beginning to understand that surround the evolution of life on Earth?

Suzan, if I am incorrect, please chime in.

By Terry

November 1, 2005 08:18 AM | Link to this

Boscoe: So what you’re saying is that we should just accept ID as the answer to the all things we still don’t know in science? Just stop questioning. Evolution is heresy!

I’m not even going to get into the proven aspects of science - you’re apparently too blinded by your faith to understand scientific reasoning. Zealots and religious intolerance are the root of all evil!

Enough!

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness

These plurals (us, our) are no accident in translation. The original Hebrew word Elohim is a plural - gods. Yahweh Elohim should be translated Jehovah of the gods, not Lord God or Lord Jehovah.

Genesis was not a story of monotheism, it was a myth of a group of gods no more valid than the gods of Mount Olympus or Asgard.

I will be glad when humanity finally grows up and no longer needs childish bedtime stories!

By DB

November 1, 2005 08:19 AM | Link to this

Terry: Thanks for continuing with this important issue! You’re doing a good job. Some people will learn from your contributions although chuck and suz probably won’t. I haven’t had much time to contribute.

Chuck: I’m still waiting for your scientific argument of ID even though we’re on a different blog. Have you read about Ensatina? Are you going to play the role and keep denying everything? Is it common for ID proponents to play this game of “leaving things out” and never admitting what’s obvious to them? I don’t think you’re that ignorant chuck.

Suz: You need to take a refresher course in both science and evolution. You’re idea of science and evolution is absolutely incorrect. Be sure to brush up on the difference between a scientific theory and an ordinary theory that a layperson can spout out. Don’t listen to the local preacher, and use a modern biology book or a few scientists(that have actually published scientific studies) as representatives for science and the theory of evolution. You’d be surprised how much you’d learn. Look at it this way, at least you would know enough about evolution to debate your side. However, it would be very tough. Also, you should read our last blog about the issue.

By SUZAN

November 1, 2005 08:20 AM | Link to this

Boscoe you are my hero!! Thats what ive been trying to say that there are other theories out there and they should all be studied. While Creationism is in deed based on the bible, I think there is some truth th what is printed even in in the form of legend. While there are many other creationist beliefs I think all may hold some truth and possible clue to our origins. Instead of saying that evolution is the only way lets look at all of the possible theories and see where it leads. While many would say that we should never follow fable, I k ow many an archiological discovery has been made from myth and fable. It is very important to not close any door that may open up minds to questions. Geesh Bosco I think you the man Suz

By Brian Curtis

November 1, 2005 08:22 AM | Link to this

Boscoe: Who has been teaching evolution as having anything to do with the origin of life? That’s a separate question.

If there HAD been any such claims for evolution, you’d have a valid objection. But evolution says nothing—nothing whatsoever—about the origin of life, any more than it discusses planetary orbits or alpha radiation.

Evolution is the best available theory to explain the observed facts, and THAT’s why it’s taught in science classes. It’s also why ID and creationism are NOT taught… because they don’t qualify as good science.

By Terry

November 1, 2005 08:23 AM | Link to this

Susan, Boscoe, Ken: Again I will ask - Can you (or anybody else) make a scientific hypothesis for ID? With independently verifiable test to either prove or refute the hypothesis?

We’re approaching 1000 posts in this topic (including last weeks) and ther has not been one scientific argument for ID!

By DB

November 1, 2005 08:24 AM | Link to this

chuck: Also, remember that if you’re a man of your word, you will explain to us, scientifically, the exact hypothesis of ID and several examples of evidence supporting your hypothesis, not lack of evidence. Again, that is if you’re a man of your word and live up to your promise.

By The72John

November 1, 2005 08:24 AM | Link to this

Yes well, the problem is that ID doesn’t open up anything. It closes everything. Can’t explain something? God! Should we bother to look into it? NO, because it’s just God!

By Billy

November 1, 2005 08:25 AM | Link to this

“other propable causes” — I think that should read “other probable scientific causes”. Or maybe possible scientific causes; I don’t know if more than one explanation for something can be “probable” at the same time.

“The theory of evolution, then, as a scientific hypothesis, does not consider the present species of plants and of animals as forms directly created by God, but as the final result of an evolution from other species existing in former periods.” The only part of your statement that would be a mistake is the “final result” part. Many evolution supporters probably fell into this line of thinking years ago; maybe some do now. The fallacy of Darwin’s theories was not the “descent of man” but the idea that man was somehow the apex species in the process. It was still teleological in nature. Most of us today know that to not be true.

Of course the theory of evolution does not concern itself with the origins of life. That is like saying that the theory of relativity doesn’t concern itself with geology or that Paul Tagliabue doesn’t concern himself with the World Series of Poker.

While you argue that evolution is not really supported by science you say, “Comparing the scientific proofs for the of the theory of evolution, we find that they grow more numerous and weighty, the smaller the circle under consideration…” That sounds like there is evidence to me.

By DB

November 1, 2005 08:27 AM | Link to this

Suz: As soon as you can support the “true legends” of the Bible with testable, specific scientific hypotheses and evidence supporting them, I’ll agree it should be taught in a science classroom.

By hewhoasks

November 1, 2005 08:33 AM | Link to this

Let’s join in the fun. What should the label applied to an “intelligent design” textbook say? what should the counter-label next to the “intelligent design” label in textbooks say?

For the latter something like:

The above (or below) label expresses an overtly anti-scientific viewpoint and is largely based on deliberate misinterpretation of the word “theory,” as it is used in “theory of evolution.” A theory is “a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Newton’s theory of gravitation.” That is the definition of “theory” meant in “theory of evolution.”

Science is characterized by study of what can be observed and then formulating explanations for what is observed. “Intelligent design,” so-called, makes unscientific attacks on small aspects of evolution or on what the “intelligent design” advocates claim is evolutionary theory and refrains from the task of tying together all that has been observed and that has been seen to support and strengthen the theory of evolution. There is no science in “intelligent design.”

By Billy

November 1, 2005 08:35 AM | Link to this

Speaking of Darwin, did y’all hear about that preacher who took the live microphone into the baptismal pool? I hereby nominate him for a Darwin Award. Evidently, as an evangelical fundamentalist, he didn’t take precautions to avoid getting electrocuted because some of the things scientists claim to know about electricity are only theories.

;-)

By SUZAN

November 1, 2005 08:44 AM | Link to this

Ken thank you for understanding my point. Yes I do find it interesting that a story written and retranslated over thousands of years bare the very same hypothisis that is presented in todays schools for how the earth evolved. While I may not be a scientist I am open to learning. And I do keep an open mind to those who can state thier cause in a logical and open way. I do however find it most sad that those here who seem to have all the answers ad the most nasty about presenting thier side. It is sad that we as humans can not have a debate where all can learn and discuss with out the snide and ugly word meant to cause another person to fell stupid and uninteeligent. This is to me a sign of something missing in that person. While I am no scientist I do read a great deal and I find all areas of study interesting. I do not on the other hand try and make another human feel inadequate are stupid. I appreciate all here who are willing to listen and to teach. But those who feel it necessary to be ugly should step back and see what in thier overall make up is missing and why are they so very defensive. Can you not make a point or statment with out trying to hurt or desparage another person?

thanks Suz

By hewhoasks

November 1, 2005 08:47 AM | Link to this

SUZAN:

The theory of evolution is not a “theory, just like intelligent design.” The “theory of evolution” is a theory under what is in my dictionary definiton 1: “A coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: *Newton’s theory of gravitation.” It is deliberate misinterpretation of the word “theory” that is used to make intelligent design a similar “theory.” Intelligent design is not a coherent anything, isnot a coherent group of general propositions.

Intelligent design is also not science.

Christians are also not prevented from praying in the United States. If I suggested to you that you pray in secret would I be echoing the ACLU or would I be echoing someone else? If the desire is to engage in prayer done to be seen by men just what is the status of that?

By Terry

November 1, 2005 08:47 AM | Link to this

Susan: Great, you and Ken keep congratulating each other. It’s easier than actually defining ANY science behind ID. Again, where’s your evidence for ID?

By Lyrazel

November 1, 2005 09:02 AM | Link to this

What is the difference between ID and folklore?

By Ken

November 1, 2005 09:02 AM | Link to this

Terry… I never said that ID was scientific. In fact, I have repeated said that it is not and should not be taught as such. I don’t want it taught anywhere except as part of my Sunday School class, confirmation, etc. Once we start to teach religion as part of government sanctioned courses, both lose their meaning.

The concept of ID, or whatever you want to call it, is based on faith and faith alone. That means it cannot be proven, and I prefer to not try and prove it. I have better and more pressing issues to spend my time on.

By Ken

November 1, 2005 09:04 AM | Link to this

I meant “repeatedly said”

By DeltaX

November 1, 2005 09:04 AM | Link to this

Suz,

What you do not understand about our frustration is this:

There is a well documented standard as to what the scientific process is: None of the IDers have ‘gotten up to speed’ and learned this first. [ie learn your topic before trying to debate it]

Who does anyone think they are to skip the process of papers submitted to journals, testing, development of a structure; to be accepted into ‘science.’

And although the IDers skipp all the schooling and testing; we (the scientific community) are in fact tenatious in our efforts to help you understand that you are misunderstanding some huge points.

But after days/weeks/months of this tolerance and explaining; we are relizing that the majority of you can understand the issue; but choose not to because you have a set world view in which you think they conflict.

By Lyrazel

November 1, 2005 09:06 AM | Link to this

Given the argument, next time you visit your doctor ask her to apply ID to your treatment being medicine is a science theory too…

By Boscoe

November 1, 2005 09:11 AM | Link to this

Terry. Genesis 1:26. And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth. Let us make man to our image… This image of God in man, is not in the body, but in the soul; which is a spiritual substance, endued with understanding and free will. God speaketh here in the plural number, to insinuate the plurality of persons in the Deity. Should you like further religious education I can make myself available. More to the point, I said nothing of the sort that ID is the only answer. all I said was that the theory of evolution most definitely is not. Where is the evidence for evolution? How could the immune systems of all animals and some plants have evolved? Each immune system can recognize bacteria, viruses, and toxins that invade the body. Each system quickly mobilizes just the right type of defenders to search out and destroy these invaders. Each system has a memory and learns from each invasion attempt. If the extensive instructions that direct an animal or plant’s immune system were not already programmed into the organism’s genetic system when it first appeared on the earth, the first of thousands of potential infections would undoubtedly have destroyed the organism. This would have nullified any rare genetic improvements that might have accumulated. In other words, the large amount of genetic information governing the immune system could not have started to accumulate in a slow, evolutionary sense.

Brian,But evolution says nothing—nothing whatsoever—about the origin of life, any more than it discusses planetary orbits or alpha radiation. WHAT? The Title of the theory is called Origin of species you nitwit. The theory of evolution is about the origin of life and how life came to be as we know it. You argue scientific fact without understanding the science involved.

Billy,While you argue that evolution is not really supported by science you say, “Comparing the scientific proofs for the of the theory of evolution, we find that they grow more numerous and weighty, the smaller the circle under consideration…� That sounds like there is evidence to me. Billy what happens to that evidence when the research group becomes larger? It seemingly falls apart. So much for evidence.

By hewhoasks

November 1, 2005 09:19 AM | Link to this

Suzan:

Just read your post with the probabilities. Most of those are also probabilities that the intelligent designer would find a planet suitable for life as it is on earth - so they are useless in making a comparison between evolution and intelligent design (except under the less-than-scientific rules followed by the followers of intelligent design.) If there’s a .1 probability that our galaxy location (and I have difficulty seeing how the location of the galaxy affects life as it is on earth) it’s a .1 probability for the intelligent designer, too. The intelligent designer faces the same problem for finding a planet suitable for earth-like life, yet it appears the intelligent design advocates don’t mention that.

Even then the intelligent desing proponent comes up with 1023 possible planets in the entire universe. That’s 1022 more than needed to explain Earth. Or, looked at the other way, there’s a better than 1000 to 1 chance, by the figures given, that conditions for life arising spontaneously would occur somewhere in the universe. It takes a non-scientist like an ID advocate to claim a 1000 to 1 chance means it couldn’t happen. There’s a 100% chance that the life forms on that planet, if they develop sufficient intelligence, will know that (a) they are life forms and (b) they are on that planet. They are not in any way restricted by the number of non-suitable planets for the support of life: they are, by definition, on a planet that does support life.

The entire “debate” is false, anyway. Intelligent design is simply creationism with overt citation of “God” removed, in order to not be instantly seen as being religion, which cannot be forced into science classrooms. Creationism is adherence to archaic, pre-scientific thought and language. Creationism isn’t religion, creationism is an abberation forced onto religion (Christianity) by its adherents. Creationists insist on their own “”literal” interpretation of the Bible. There’s perhaps more than one key word there, but “interpretation” is significant enough. Creationists don’t foster what the Bible says, the foster what they claim the Bible says, what they claim th ewords of the Bible do to restrict reality. You will find, if you look, that Christian religions as a whole do not adhere to creationism. You will find, if you look, that Judaism, the religion from which the Old Testament has come, does not adhere to creationism. It issn’t Christianity and the Bible that is foremost for the creationists, it is their own authority. Obviously nothing in the Bible confers such authority on a minor Christian sect, or group of sects: creationists make the assertion strictly on their own. It is the creationists who place themselves, mere men, above God. Scientists are humble enough to look at what is and to restrain themselves to describing that.

By Billy

November 1, 2005 09:20 AM | Link to this

Boscoe — I don’t buy your argument, but, regardless, evidence within a smaller group is still evidence, and infinitely more evidence than there is for ID. The Origin of Species means speciation, not the beginnings of life. It is an explanation of how life diversified, not how it came into existence. You argue scientific fact without understanding the science involved.

” How could the immune systems of all animals and some plants have evolved? Each immune system can recognize bacteria, viruses, and toxins that invade the body. Each system quickly mobilizes just the right type of defenders to search out and destroy these invaders. Each system has a memory and learns from each invasion attempt. If the extensive instructions that direct an animal or plant’s immune system were not already programmed into the organism’s genetic system when it first appeared on the earth, the first of thousands of potential infections would undoubtedly have destroyed the organism. This would have nullified any rare genetic improvements that might have accumulated. In other words, the large amount of genetic information governing the immune system could not have started to accumulate in a slow, evolutionary sense.” This is a complete fabrication, an attempt at positing an argument based on the typical creationist/ID thought process of “We can’t figure it out right now, so it must be God’s doing.”

By SUZAN

November 1, 2005 09:32 AM | Link to this

following is a wonderful debate on crationism and evolution& darwinism. It is equally exciting to read from both perpective and should prove fun to read

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/fte/darwinism/index.html

Darwinism: Science or Philosophy Proceedings of a symposium entitled Darwinism: Scientific Inference or Philosophical Preference? Held on the Southern Methodist University campus in Dallas, Texas, USA, March 26-28, 1992. Sponsored by The Foundation for Thought and Ethics, Dallas Christian Leadership, and the C. S. Lewis Fellowship Editors Jon Buell and Virginia Hearn

suz

By Billy

November 1, 2005 09:38 AM | Link to this

“Darwinism: Science or Philosophy Proceedings of a symposium entitled Darwinism: Scientific Inference or Philosophical Preference? Held on the Southern Methodist University campus in Dallas, Texas, USA, March 26-28, 1992. Sponsored by The Foundation for Thought and Ethics, Dallas Christian Leadership, and the C. S. Lewis Fellowship Editors Jon Buell and Virginia Hearn”

Let’s see — a symposium held at a Christian university, sponsored by three groups that are ID proponents and/or Christian organizations? Yeah, I’m sure that will be very enlightening…

By DeltaX

November 1, 2005 09:43 AM | Link to this

Susan,

You inquire why people are getting intolerant; I explain to you why; and you ignore the reason.

Instead of learning what the terms mean in science, Like philosophies, all terms must be defined so we are on the same page; IDers are not on the same page. And checking out a science seminar at a church does not cut it.

This is all coming from a christian that believes in ID; but understands that is faith - which is kind of important in our spiritual beliefs.

So, Keep the faith; but keep it faith - not pseudo-science.

By Billy

November 1, 2005 09:44 AM | Link to this

Suzan, I’m not going to read that page because it’s probably going to be exactly what Chuck’s been cutting and pasting (verbatim) onto the board for the past week. And why is it that the only “scientists” ID proponents can find to quote are Behe and Dembski?

By SUZAN

November 1, 2005 09:53 AM | Link to this

Hewhoasks thank you for your wondrerful and interesting explanations. were all here willing to express themselves in such a way and be willing to open up to other possiblities it could be a fun and lively place to be instead of the hard edged character is has most of the time now. At any rate you have given me some other areas I wish to reasearch on my own and I apprciate your kind rebuttal

thanks Suz

By Vince

November 1, 2005 09:58 AM | Link to this

Topics for debate:

Why do Pro-Life people eat beef and chicken?

Replace Washington’s image on the one dollar bill with a fetus.

Doez SuZin gotz spall chahks?

By SUZAN

November 1, 2005 10:06 AM | Link to this

vince thanks for the attention
suz

By Boscoe

November 1, 2005 10:08 AM | Link to this

The Origin of Species, is the origin of how plants and animals and man became to be plants and animals and man from the same origin,i.e. how we got here! The ORIGIN (the point at which something begins) of species of life. This is a complete fabrication, an attempt at positing an argument based on the typical creationist/ID thought process of “We can’t figure it out right now, so it must be God’s doing.â€? Billy, how long do you deny that evolution has flaws? You could go on for another century with this claim. You put yourself into the creationalists catagory with this arguement. You despise them becuase they can find no significant scientific eviendence to support ID, but you defend evolution theory when confronted with the same lack of scientific evidence by saying “just because we can’t figure it out doesn’t make it false”. What’s the difference here Billy?

By hewhoasks

November 1, 2005 10:10 AM | Link to this

SUZAN

This is from “Chapter 1” on the web page to which you referred: “The prestige of the scientific establishment, and of the intellectual class in general, is heavily committed to the proposition that evolution - as George Gaylord Simpson used the term - is either a fact, or a theory so well supported by evidence that only ignorant or thoroughly unreasonable people refuse to believe it.”

Once again, misuse and misinterpretation of the word “theory.” “Theory of evolution” is not like a “theory” postulated by a prosecutor in a criminal trial.

Science is not wordplay, does not depend on or arise from wordplay. Science is tied to observation of what is, is not empty philosophical reasoning.

The sentence quoted also a shoddy attempt to shift focus from the facts and onto the “prestige of the scientific establishment, and of the intellectual class,” an ill-disguised ad hominem attack. The implication is that those who support the theory of evolution do so out of a concern for their prestige, not from a devotion to the truth.

But forget that. Where’s the actual science in the cited web page? As you are not a scientist let me caution you that philosophy, no matter how appealing you find it, isn’t necessarily science. Let me further caution you that intellignet design advocates get their foot in the door with some quasi-scientific morsel and then, once inside, switch form science to philosophy. When we are debating science we are debating science. Philosophy has no authority over science, is not superior to it.

By The72John

November 1, 2005 10:19 AM | Link to this

There isn’t a lack of scientific evidence for evolution. There is substantial evidence. If there weren’t, the scientific community would never have elevated the hypothesis to the level of a theory.

The religious fanatics say “There are some parts of the puzzle you lack, therefore your entire theory must be flawed”. This is pure sophistry. It is a logical fallacy of the first degree, not that religious fanatics are particularly logical.

Sorry, Bozo, but the fact that we haven’t learned everything yet does not make the things we HAVE learned invalid, and it certainly does not make your primitive superstition accurate.

By hewhoasks

November 1, 2005 10:21 AM | Link to this

SUZAN:

Thank you for your kind reply. Please be aware that I have no problem with any minister (or any person) proclaiming the wonder of God’s creation - other than in the science classroom. While intelligent design and the theory of evolution aren’t similar in being “theories” they are similar in that the proponents of both weren’t there when most of it happened. Intelligent design advocates have some truly weird notions about the intelligent designer (let’s just call him “God” for now): He’s omnipotent yet he cannot, according to the intelligent designers, have used evolution as the means of His design. So the intelligent design advocates are placing substantial restrictions on God ad his actions, solely on their own authority. Similarly, the intelligent design advocates try to insert themselves into the practice and teaching of science but fall silent when asked to show the science behind what they claim. The disadvantage they face there is that scientists speak up right away: God remains silent when the intellignet design advocates utter their false doctrine. Aparently they take that silence as affirmation by God of their idiosyncratic beliefs. Uh, no. Not usually.

They’re a waste of time. How are the trees down your way: turning color yet (I’m in Wisconsin, many leaves have already fallen)?

By Ken

November 1, 2005 10:24 AM | Link to this

Boscoe… Of course evolution has flaws. Noone here has indicated otherwise. Evolution is based on identifiable, quantifiable scientific fact. As many folks have said, multiple times, that it is the best explanation man can put forth on November 1, 2005.

Why must we continue to go round and round with this issue…? Let the scientists do their job, and continue to give us the facts they can prove. Let the Sunday School teachers do their job, and teach that God is the creator of all, including the evolutionary process that we can scientifically observe.

By Billy

November 1, 2005 10:37 AM | Link to this

Thank you 72John and Ken. That is exactly what I’d have said had I been able to get back to the board earlier.

Boscoe — You need to accept the difference between human/plant/animal life as we know it now and life in general. Evolution makes no attempt to answer how/when life started. As in those first microscopic organisms that I believe formed in a pool of primordial ooze. Scientist have replicated parts of this process in experiments, showing that it indeed could have happened. This is not in the scope of evolution and no scientist apart from Behe and Dembski would claim otherwise. It’s as if evolution were the study of how the car has developed over the past century and your response is that it neglects to show who invented the horse and buggy.

By DeltaX

November 1, 2005 10:37 AM | Link to this

Boscoe;

The difference is you are only focusing on the holes (things that we do not know and need theories that can be tested). There are many holes in evolution; but to say there are holes shows there is structure for those hole to be in.

Now, ID is one big hole with no structure; and it has no testable paramiters.

By Brian Curtis

November 1, 2005 10:44 AM | Link to this

Boscoe: “You argue scientific fact without understanding the science involved� Funny charge, coming from you. Because if you took the trouble to actually learn about evolution, you’d already know that it doesn’t address the origin of life… only the development of different species AFTER life had appeared. “Nitwit� indeed.

This is another distraction tactic anyway: a classic that scientists have learned to both expect and ignore. We’re not debating the evidence for evolution (that’s overwhelming, and a given); what we’re debating is whether intelligent design has any evidence whatsoever. And it doesn’t.

Here’s the unpleasant reality: Criticizing evolution won’t make ID any truer; trying to prove or disprove various claims about Jesus and the Bible won’t make ID any truer. Tearing down science itself is what’s needed to enthrone ID in the classroom… and understandably, people who respect science and reason aren’t about to let that happen.

Only hard, solid, scientific evidence presented in a consistent, scientifically valid framework earns you admission to the category of “science.�

And ID doesn’t have that. All the complaining in the world, all the protestations of “Evolution CAN’T be true because I can’t understand it, and I don’t wanna!â€?, won’t change that. It’s not enough to snarl about how much you hate evolution; you have to come up with a valid, scientific alternative before you get a hearing in science.

Any takers…?

By SUZAN

November 1, 2005 10:48 AM | Link to this

Hew, thanks again for being willing to look and read and explore whle we may never agree on all we can all agree to look and learn. Yes the trees are beginning to turn and it is a lovely 55* F this morning but it should be about 70* f this afternoon. Come visit us in Atlanta is is a wonderful city with lots to do. I have to sign off on this today but I enjoyed this greatly this morning. I enjoy spirited debate that up holds respect and gentleness for all veiws no matter where they come from or how wrong or right they may be. It is an excellant learning process and you (again) have given me mush to read, explore for my self. On to the next subject I hope to have the privillage to speak with you again on this forum warmest regards Suz

By Randy

November 1, 2005 10:48 AM | Link to this

This debate and all other debates on Christianity, all come down to the difference in good and evil, right and wrong etc. I asked myself the other day, why do I stand where I stand in relation to the subject of evolution and my question was answered. On one of the detective shows there was a case of a 23 year old girl who decided she wanted more money, so she became a prostitute, then that lead to something really horrible. She did a “snuff” film and they actually killed her. Then last night as my children were doing Holloween, we saw one of our neighbors who cheats on his wife, throws it in her face and laughs at her. Then I knew why I’m the way I am, someone needs to be on the side of good, what’s right and Jesus. I’ll stand with Jesus anyday.

By Billy

November 1, 2005 10:51 AM | Link to this

*”By Randy

November 1, 2005 10:48 AM | Link to this

This debate and all other debates on Christianity, all come down to the difference in good and evil, right and wrong etc. I asked myself the other day, why do I stand where I stand in relation to the subject of evolution and my question was answered. On one of the detective shows there was a case of a 23 year old girl who decided she wanted more money, so she became a prostitute, then that lead to something really horrible. She did a “snuffâ€? film and they actually killed her. Then last night as my children were doing Holloween, we saw one of our neighbors who cheats on his wife, throws it in her face and laughs at her. Then I knew why I’m the way I am, someone needs to be on the side of good, what’s right and Jesus. I’ll stand with Jesus anyday.”*

WTF?

By chuck

November 1, 2005 10:53 AM | Link to this

Not much time today, but here is one example of a testable hypotheses in ID:

i. Observation: The ways that intelligent agents act can be observed in the natural world and described. When intelligent agents act, it is observed that they produce high levels of “complex-specified information” (CSI). CSI is basically a scenario which is unlikely to happen (making it complex), and conforms to a pattern (making it specified). Language and machines are good examples of things with much CSI. From our understanding of the world, high levels of CSI are always the product of intelligent design.24

ii. Hypothesis: If an object in the natural world was designed, then we should be able to examine that object and find the same high levels of CSI in the natural world as we find in human-designed objects.

iii. Experiment: We can examine biological structures to test if high CSI exists. When we look at natural objects in biology, we find many machine-like structures which are specified, because they have a particular arrangement of parts which is necessary for them to function, and complex because they have an unlikely arrangement of many interacting parts. These biological machines are “irreducibly complex,” for any change in the nature or arrangement of these parts would destroy their function. Irreducibly complex structures cannot be built up through an alternative theory, such as Darwinian evolution, because Darwinian evolution requires that a biological structure be functional along every small-step of its evolution. “Reverse engineering” of these structures shows that they cease to function if changed even slightly.

iv. Conclusion: Because they exhibit high levels of CSI, a quality known to be produced only by intelligent design, and because there is no other known mechanism to explain the origin of these “irreducibly complex” biological structures, we conclude that they were intelligently designed.

By Billy

November 1, 2005 10:53 AM | Link to this

Randy, could you have possibly made a more thorough attempt to completely derail the topic than you just did? A snuff film? What, some sick perv bastards killed a prostitute, therefore ID should be taught in science class?

By DeltaX

November 1, 2005 10:58 AM | Link to this

So Randy further defined his faith on bad tv.

And proved it by putting people down in order to show how high up he is.

Sorry buddy, but your down here with all the rest of us sinners. You just are imagining yourself next to jesus throwing them stones;)

You do not even fit in your own structure without paradox.

By Observer

November 1, 2005 10:59 AM | Link to this

Yessiree, if you are not a Christian, you will make snuff films. It probably all started with that Playboy the junior high guys were passing around. Where’s Whitey when you need her?

By The72John

November 1, 2005 11:05 AM | Link to this

“CSI”, apart from being a darn good fictional show, is also a darn good fictional concept invented whole cloth by the chief ID proponent. It has no scientific credibility whatsoever.

http://www.talkorigins.org/design/faqs/nfl/#csi

Here’s a nice resource for debunking this mans garbage. Unlike Chuck, I don’t see the need to cut and paste vast amounts of fantasy.

By The72John

November 1, 2005 11:08 AM | Link to this

Did someone slip Randy some “special” candy last night? WTF is he talking about?

By wtf

November 1, 2005 11:12 AM | Link to this

Randy, this is not a debate about Christianity. this is a debate about science. Evolution is science has been since the beginning. Christianity is a religion created by man about 2000 years ago to explain things that he didn’t understand and to force other people to behave a certain way because of a fear a man-made concept called God.

By DeltaX

November 1, 2005 11:13 AM | Link to this

Chuck,

Your first statement has a halt: From our understanding of the world, high levels of CSI are always the product of intelligent design

The italisized is what you aim to prove; not what is known as fact. Because you start with that point as assumed fact and it is also what you aim to prove, it is circular.

Same as the bible’s words providing proof that the bible is fact.

By Terry

November 1, 2005 11:13 AM | Link to this

chuck: Finally, a reasoned attempt at a scientific hypothesis for ID!!!! Thanx!!

Now to you hypothesis: You said “because there is no other known mechanism to explain the origin of these ‘irreducibly complex’ biological structures, we conclude that they were intelligently designed.” So, the independently verifiable experiment would be to select one of these complex biological structures and prove that it is irreducible. Of course, if it is reducible then it would refute ID. Would you be ok with that possibility?

Of course, a scientist would never stop digging until the irreducible is reduced. Scientists hate the unknown. Or are you also proposing that we should stop digging once someone says something is irreducible?

I think what you’re really saying is that the absence of evidence to the contrary is, in and of itself, evidence of intelligent design?

A basic scientific principle is that the absence of evidence can NEVER be taken to be the evidence of absence.

Now try proving ID in the affirmative. That is without violating this principle.

By Billy

November 1, 2005 11:19 AM | Link to this

Chuck, you’re killing me…

By DeltaX

November 1, 2005 11:28 AM | Link to this

There are scientists who also believe that there is a creator. They, I assume, would be over-joyed to find in their experiments a fingerprint of a designer.

There are also scientists who are agnostic. They I assume could care less if they found the fingerprint of god in a study.

And there are scientists that are also atheist, and would be surprised to find the fingerprint of god in one of their studies.

The point? By following the scientific process all three will come to the same conclusion: truth - because they all follow this process, the degree of ones faith vs another is insubstantial.

But you IDers are saying that ID will discover something different than the scietific process will bc it assumes a creator? No, you will find the same things if you follow a scientific process. So what IS the point of ID besides to create a new scientific religion.

By Terry

November 1, 2005 11:29 AM | Link to this

Here’s some cut-and-paste facts that I believe are a mirror to the current debate in biology:

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same god who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. - Galileo

On 31 October 1992, 350 years after Galileo’s death, Pope John Paul II gave an address on behalf of the Catholic Church in which he admitted that errors had been made by the theological advisors in the case of Galileo. He declared the Galileo case closed, but he did not admit that the Church was wrong to convict Galileo on a charge of heresy because of his belief that the Earth rotates round the sun.

By The72John

November 1, 2005 11:33 AM | Link to this

Hey Terry, what was the date on that first set of propositions - 2004?

By DB

November 1, 2005 11:44 AM | Link to this

chuck: Irreducibly Complex Structures do not exist in biology. It’s an illogical argument. You see, things are being refined all at once. Remember the whole clotting factors IC system? Well, that’s being dissected right now and is pretty much explained. Biological evolution can takes things in ancestors and “tweaks” them for different uses that contribute to survival or fertility. There is no mystery there. It’s just a lack of information as to how and when it took place.

Now show me how CSI’s are a result of a designer and not some other process. Simply because it’s inexplicable by other means doesn’t mean it has to be a designer. Where is this designer? And what is it. You see, in science you have to have a set of variables and narrow things down to the most probable cause or causes. Your conjecture of CSI has no control and no evidence of the creator. It doesn’t narrow down to anything, it “widens” the cause to be anything(actually most IDer’s want that to be God). What other reason would make them argue so much against reality?

Again, you’re using the absence of evidence to support a designer of some sort, which is unable to be disproven, one of those important requirements in scientific thought, and you even claimed that yourself. It’s also a tenet of science that absence of evidence cannot be used as evidence.

If what you call in your last post science, I am afraid of the future!

You still haven’t come up with one, SPECIFIC and testable, hypothesis with one shred of evidence. Sorry, you can’t test opinion. It’s like asking someone to scientifically prove they love their mother. They can’t!

Conclusion, ID is not science.

By Brian Curtis

November 1, 2005 11:51 AM | Link to this

Ummm, Randy? You don’t have to oppose science to be “on the side of Jesus.� Most Christians have no problem with science, or with evolution in particular. The two are not incompatible, except in the minds of fundamentalists.

Jesus wasn’t opposed to thinking—-but too many of his followers are. A religion that makes science its enemy is a religion that’s opposes using the brains God gave us.

By DB

November 1, 2005 12:00 PM | Link to this

ii. Hypothesis: If an object in the natural world was designed, then we should be able to examine that object and find the same high levels of CSI in the natural world as we find in human-designed objects.

So, chuck, are you saying we have successfully designed robots or whatnot to be as advanced as our own bodies? Are you kidding me? Are you saying the things we design should be more complex than biological systems? This is crazy! Also, this does not satisfy the requirement for a hypothesis to be specific and testable. And there’s no mention of and “Intelligent Designer” in it. How ironic. You have to somehow link CSI to “Intelligent Designer”, which has not been even remotely done.

Sorry, chuck, and what you refer to as “Irreducibly Complex Structures” can be explained through the theory of evolution anyway.

Take the heart for example. The heart is a structure that is found in most animals, and the heart has been a part of every organism(fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals) all the way to mammals. The heart has been changed to become more efficient and more customized to each organism(for survival). If you take away the heart, the organism dies. So, it is part of your irreducibly complex system. Evolution explains it quite well. It also explains all other organs and organ systems quite well. The organism doesn’t survive if they aren’t there!!!! Therefore, if anything, the presence of these systems bolsters the theory of evolution.

You’re not doing too well for passing ID as science.

By Boscoe

November 1, 2005 12:08 PM | Link to this

The difference is you are only focusing on the holes (things that we do not know and need theories that can be tested). There are many holes in evolution; but to say there are holes shows there is structure for those hole to be in. DeltaX, that’s like saying a structure is stable and trustworthy with holes where supporting members are supposed to be. It’s still a building,but I wouldn’t put any money on the reliablity of that structure. Holes don’t show strength they show weakness. Billy,Scientist have replicated parts of this process in experiments, showing that it indeed could have happened. That’s fine now just show me the evidence of those experiments that prove what you say. John,* Sorry, Bozo, but the fact that we haven’t learned everything yet does not make the things we HAVE learned invalid, and it certainly does not make your primitive superstition accurate.* Yes, it does you jackass! If there were enough scientific evidence to support it it wouldn’t be a theory now would it? There are scientific “facts” that support the theory and there are just as many that undermine it. Even Darwin expresses some doubt in his own book! Brian, OK Brian, The lack of evidence to support evolution supports creation becuase the two are incompatible and opposite of each other. Creation theorists state God created man therefore there is no evidence to be found to trace a change in the species of man. Evolution fails to support evidence of this species change. The lack of evidence for evolution supports the theory of creation. Evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics which have a hell of alot more scientific backing than evolution ever has. Evolution also is damn near impossible mathmatically. According to the most-widely accepted theory of evolution today, the sole mechanism for producing evolution is that of random mutation combined with natural selection. Mutations are random changes in genetic systems. Natural selection is considered by evolutionists to be a sort of sieve, which retains the “good” mutations and allows the others to pass away.Since random changes in ordered systems almost always will decrease the amount of order in those systems, nearly all mutations are harmful to the organisms which experience them. Nevertheless, the evolutionist insists that each complex organism in the world today has arisen by a long string of gradually accumulated good mutations preserved by natural selection. No one has ever actually observed a genuine mutation occurring in the natural environment which was beneficial (that is, adding useful genetic information to an existing genetic code), and therefore, retained by the selection process. For some reason, however, the idea has a certain persuasive quality about it and seems eminently reasonable to many people.consider a very simple putative organism composed of only 200 integrated and functioning parts, and the problem of deriving that organism by this type of process. The system presumably must have started with only one part and then gradually built itself up over many generations into its 200-part organization. The developing organism, at each successive stage, must itself be integrated and functioning in its environment in order to survive until the next stage. Each successive stage, of course, becomes statistically less likely than the preceding one, since it is far easier for a complex system to break down than to build itself up. A four-component integrated system can more easily “mutate” (that is, somehow suddenly change) into a three-component system (or even a four-component non-functioning system) than into a five-component integrated system. If, at any step in the chain, the system mutates “downward,” then it is either destroyed altogether or else moves backward, in an evolutionary sense. Therefore, the successful production of a 200-component functioning organism requires, at least, 200 successive, successful such “mutations,” each of which is highly unlikely. Even evolutionists recognize that true mutations are very rare, and beneficial mutations are extremely rare—not more than one out of a thousand mutations are beneficial, at the very most.

By DB

November 1, 2005 12:11 PM | Link to this

Boscoe: As for the immune systems. They are quite different in different organisms, namely from plant to animal. How did they evolve? It’s quite simple, bacteria, viruses, fungi, and others all threaten the survival of an organism and make it more unlikely that that organism will pass on those genes that account for the weak immune systems. In other words, they all have a common selective pressure, INFECTION. Those plants and animals most resistant to disease are the ones you see, period. Don’t take the word immune system and think it’s the same in each organism. Immune just means resistance.

By Ken

November 1, 2005 12:13 PM | Link to this

Chuck… You are trying to prove something that is unprovable (is that a word). You are trying to rationalize, something that is irrational. Attempting to do so simply drains you of energy that could be spent on things more useful.

You will never convince non-belivers that God created this world and all that lives in it. That is why it is called faith. A person either has it or they don’t. Many people on this BLOG do not have it. The best we can do is live out our lives through our faith and pray that the spirit opens their hearts.

By DB

November 1, 2005 12:17 PM | Link to this

Boscoe: The Origin of Species is not about “How we got here.” It’s about how might speciation takes place in that he found striking similarities between species. If only Darwin knew better than to use “Origin” in his title, we may not be having this conversation! Maybe it should have been, “Evidence for Speciation”; then all the Church would not have been offended, and maybe they wouldn’t have paid so much attention to it. It was NOT called “The Origin of Life” the last time I checked. And Darwin never claimed to explain that. He was a pretty darn good scientist for his time, among others.

By Terry

November 1, 2005 12:19 PM | Link to this

Boscoe: Please learn basic paragraph structure!

You can take shots at evolution all day long, it still doesn’t make ID a science. At least we can prove that organisms do evolve. Can you prove intelligence?

Again I will ask - Can you make a scientific hypothesis for ID? Without relying on the absence of evidence as your sole claim to validity! And with independently verifiable test to either prove or refute the hypothesis?

By Boscoe

November 1, 2005 12:19 PM | Link to this

DB, the immune system would have to mutate and create on its own the very resistance of which you speak of before the infection/virus/bacteria attacked, (per evolution theorists - unless you’re implying that the resistance was there to begin with which is creation theory) otherwise it would not survice the infection. The odds of that happening for one virus or infection is remote let alone a myraid of diferent viruses, bacteria, or infections. You have a better chance to get hit by lightning ten times in the same day.

By DeltaX

November 1, 2005 12:21 PM | Link to this

Boscoe;

You aggreed that holes show lack of knowledge; but then left out that ID is one big hole.

What factual structure is there that you can reference in ID?

By The72John

November 1, 2005 12:24 PM | Link to this

Yes, it does you jackass! If there were enough scientific evidence to support it it wouldn’t be a theory now would it? There are scientific “facts� that support the theory and there are just as many that undermine it. Even Darwin expresses some doubt in his own book!

Is this the kind of logic they teach in the Christian indoctrination camps, Bozo? Despite your protestations to the contrary, the only people claiming that there isn’t substantial scientific evidence to support the theory of evolution are the religious fanatics such as yourself.

A Theory in science, need we say it again, is pretty much the highest level of certainty to which most hypotheses can ascend. Something doesn’t BECOME a theory until there is overwhelming evidence in its favor.

Now, I realize that you are a typical brainwashed looney, and there’s really no point in explaining this to you. You DO realize that some time has gone by since Darwin posited his theory, don’t you? You DO realize there has been testing since then?

Moron. And just so you know, evolution does NOT violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Those who say it does have an imperfect understanding of the law. I know, I know - it’s on ALL the ReligiousFruitcake.Org sites. It’s still wrong.

Down with the Pope! Down with fanatics! Down with Boscoe!

By Terry

November 1, 2005 12:25 PM | Link to this

Ken: You hit the nail on the proverbial head. You can’t prove that God created this world and all that lives in it. That is why it is called faith.

And faith does not belong in any science class! High school science should be trying to teach students how to formutalte a scientifically hypothesis and then use the scientific method to either prove or refute the hypothesis.

Students are taught to question everything in science and doubt the results of their own experiments until independently verified.

Faith is the opposite of doubt. To scientists, doubt is a way of being. Why in the world would you even want to put you faith under that kind of microscope?

By Terry

November 1, 2005 12:29 PM | Link to this

DB: don’t waste your time trying to teach zealots about the science behind evolution. The don’t even understand the basic concepts of scientific thought. You’re just wasting you energy.

Focus on making them prove any aspect of ID. Just one provable fact would be nice.

By DeltaX

November 1, 2005 12:29 PM | Link to this

Boscoe;

There very well could have been virus predators that got assimilated into the biology of simple organisms very early on and are now a part of the system. [see: this is testable]

You should read up on wholistic systems vs hierarchical ones; it would provide possible answers a lot of your ignorant questions.

By Jack

November 1, 2005 12:33 PM | Link to this

72John you are a legend in your own mind.

By Boscoe

November 1, 2005 12:39 PM | Link to this

Terry, don’t you worry about my english skills and focus on the topic. At least we can prove that organisms do evolve. OK Terry what scientific proof can you offer? Are you about to PROVE the theory of evolution for us? PAY ATTENTION FOLKS THIS COULD BE BIG! The actual proofs of inteelegent design exsist in respect to paleontology. Paleontology proves that man did not come from animals. Paleontology also proves that man desended from man, which is in support of creation. Those are scientific FACTS!

By Zing

November 1, 2005 12:40 PM | Link to this

I learned about Creationism in church school and I learned about Darwin’s theory in public school. There were no stickers then. Why should there be stickers now? The Bible hasn’t been proved to be true - matter of fact, there are been quite a few things proven as myths. But there aren’t any stickers on the Bible. All is was written for was controll of the masses by the priests and kings starting with Constantine when he had the first Bible written. Darwin hasn’t been proven to be 100% correct either. So, I guess it’s up to the individual to figure out what is right for him/her after being able to learn about each theory.
Mine is that God is a massive energy ball. He doesn’t look like humans - the Greek and Roman gods looked like humans. We are all created from him - thus our energy we call a soul. Does it matter if we were apes when we first incarnated? No, we evolved into what we are today but our souls stayed the same - created as a part of God.

By Billy

November 1, 2005 12:40 PM | Link to this

Boscoe — “Billy,Scientist have replicated parts of this process in experiments, showing that it indeed could have happened. That’s fine now just show me the evidence of those experiments that prove what you say.”

What do you mean? I was saying that that is not evolution. Repeatedly, in fact. You refuse to accept the definition of the term. Why is it so hard to accept that the beginning of life (a protist or whatever that first organism was) is not the same thing as the development and adaptation of that organim, hundreds of milions of years later, into a rich variety of species? IT IS NOT THE SAME THING!

By The72John

November 1, 2005 12:46 PM | Link to this

Like I said before, Jack. Right back at ya, schlub.

By chuck

November 1, 2005 12:47 PM | Link to this

UHHHH Terry, I think you’ve lost it brother. The Bible DOES NOT TEACH THAT THE EARTH IS THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE OR THAT THE SUN REVOLVES AROUND THE EARTH. That was an idea that was not based on scripture but on the opinion of the Roman Catholic Church. Neither does the bible teach that the earth is flat. If you want a lesson on that go to:

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencebible.html

By Boscoe

November 1, 2005 12:50 PM | Link to this

John besides tossing around insults what do you have? Something doesn’t BECOME a theory until there is overwhelming evidence in its favor. THEORY-a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena. I don’t see ANYWHERE in the definition here to indicate anything about scientific EVIDENCE! Is evolution plausable - to many yes. Is creation plausable - to many yes. The point to make is that there is no overwhelming evidence to support one beleif over the other. That, in and of itself, is enough to support the notion that other theories should be taught in school.

By DeltaX

November 1, 2005 12:50 PM | Link to this

We are not your daddy Boscoe.

You want to be ignorant; you have that freedom.

You want to be educated in what is real: Go read a book! Maybe one without an adjenda?!?

You are worse than kids in the backseat: “Are we there yet?” Over and over without ever thinking for yourself.

I will pray that god illuminates your ignorance so you can join us in evolving - it is a mental thing also.

By chuck

November 1, 2005 12:53 PM | Link to this

It’s called planting seeds Ken.

By Boscoe

November 1, 2005 12:53 PM | Link to this

Billy, so what’s the fuss over teaching the theory of creation in school then if they are not the same thing? Math and Art are two different classes yet nobody is making an issue of it, why then should creation and evolution be any different?

By DeltaX

November 1, 2005 12:58 PM | Link to this

Ok.

I have decided.

You are just regular dumba$$e$ - not meanin’ no harm. (I guess this is what I was supposed to learn from Duke ‘o Hazzard.)

Idiots: Enjoy the fray and good luck.

To the people trying to educate the idiots: Good luck and back out before they cause a short in your brain - it is not worth it. Lets use this energy we all have and push this absurd CC adjenda back to the middle ages where it belongs with our votes.

By Boscoe

November 1, 2005 12:59 PM | Link to this

Plaese DeltaX, you post on the same blog as I do. If you are that much more intellegent go somewhere to be challenged a little more. I don’t see you offering anything worthwhile to the conversation other than the occasional outburst regarding advise you have for others. It’s like blogging with Dr. Phil when you’re here.

By Billy

November 1, 2005 12:59 PM | Link to this

Boscoe — “OK Terry what scientific proof can you offer?” How about having to have my wisdom teeth cut out? What about the appendix?

Boscoe, your logic astounds me. Math is taught in Math class, art in Art class, and science in science class. You can’t teach creationism in public school because of the 1st amendment, unless you do it as part of a comparative religions or philosophy class, and even then you cannot teach it as fact. Because we don’t know. And if you think we do then you’re an idiot.

The point of this discussion is that ID has no scientific basis and therefore has no purpose in a science class. Evolution, despite your feeble attempts to convince people otherwise, does have a scientific basis as well as a plethora of evidence supporting it.

That should be the end of the discussion.

By The72John

November 1, 2005 01:01 PM | Link to this

Well Boscoe, then you are woefully ignorant about the scientific definition of a theory. But then, you are woefully ignorant about a lot of things.

The “theory” of creation has about as much to do with science as Shakespeare does. It’s not science, never WILL be science…it’s fiction, plain and simple. I don’t care if you think it’s plausible or not - there is no evidence for a magical “poof there’s the world” literal Biblical nonsense.

There IS, on the other hand, enormous evidence in favor of evolution. But, you won’t get that - I understand. Wilfull ignorance is an ugly thing, but it does exist. Just look at you, and Chuck, and Randy.

By Boscoe

November 1, 2005 01:10 PM | Link to this

How about having to have my wisdom teeth cut out? What about the appendix? How does this prove the theory of evolution? No your defense of not teaching the theory of creation is a constitutional issue? You can’t debate evolution so you go to the old standby - the 1st amendment?Whose the idiot? There is scientific evidence that supports creation, such as the example I gave earlier, which is why there is a push to have it in the schools in the first place. That’s why they have taken it to court. There is as much scientific evidence to support creation as there is evolution.

By DB

November 1, 2005 01:12 PM | Link to this

Boscoe: No, the instructions for all cells and all cellular structures and activities, including the immune system, are in the DNA in the nuclei of the cells of that organism(except RBC’s in most animals). Therefore, the DNA holds all the secrets to the organisms survival whether it’s the immune system or the big toe, and the mututions in the DNA create changes in the immune system, which are selected for by the pathogenic microorganisms.

You really need to brush up on your biology.

By Boscoe

November 1, 2005 01:13 PM | Link to this

John perhaps you didn’t read this before. Paleontology proves that man did not come from animals. Paleontology also proves that man desended from man. There are no provable signs of Natural selection Those are scientific FACTS! Creation-2 Evolution-0

By SUZAN

November 1, 2005 01:14 PM | Link to this

this is from the article some you you would not go read it just great hugs

Suz

The first big problem with evolution is that the fossil record increasingly does not, honestly viewed, support it, a fact that famous Prof. Steven Jay Gould of Harvard has described as “the trade secret of paleontology.” Evolutionary theory claims that there once existed a whole series of successive forms of the various organisms alive today. These supposedly changed by infinitesimal amounts with each generation as they evolved into the present varieties, so the fossil record should show these gradual changes. But it doesn’t. Instead, it shows the sudden emergence of new species out of nowhere, fully complete with all their characteristics and not changing over time. It is almost entirely devoid of forms that can plausibly be identified as intermediates between older and newer ones. This is popularly known as the “missing link” problem, and it is massively systematic across different species and time periods. Worse, this problem is getting worse, not better, as more fossils are discovered, as the new fossils just resemble those already found and don’t fill in the gaps. In Darwin’s day, it was easy to claim that the fossils were there but had not been discovered. Problem is, we now have hundreds of thousands of well-catalogued fossils, from all continents and geologic eras, and we still haven’t found these intermediate forms. As Denton puts it,

“Despite the tremendous increase in geological activity in every corner of the globe and despite the discovery of many strange and hitherto unknown forms, the infinitude of connecting links has still not been discovered and the fossil record is about as discontinuous as it was when Darwin was writing the Origin.”

The quantity, quality, and range of the recovered fossils is impeccable. But the more we dig, the more we keep finding the same forms over and over again, never the intermediates. Various ad hoc explanations for the gaps in the fossil record, like a temporary dearth in the environment of the chemicals needed for organisms to produce the hard body parts that fossilize well, do not stand scrutiny.

The usual response of evolutionists at this stage in the argument is a theory they call punctuated equilibrium, Gould’s great contribution, which basically says that evolution occurs not gradually but in spurts. This would explain why there are gaps and not continuity in the fossil record. The problem with this theory, which is too complex to go into in detail here, is that while it explains away the non-existence of small gradations, it still requires there to be large ones (the individual spurts) and even these aren’t in the record. Furthermore, for punctuated equilibrium to have occurred, a very precise set of conditions have to have obtained throughout the entire past period represented in the fossils, and this is unlikely.

Another development that has undermined evolution is the spread of computers into evolutionary biology. Basically, computers have shown that the neat evolutionary trees that get drawn up are in fact based on imaginary relations of similarity and difference that owe more to the human mind’s tendency to perceive patterns than to the raw biological data. Computers have shown that when the characteristics of different living things are encoded in numerical form and the computer is asked to sort them into sequences based on their similarities and differences, the computer can find any number of ways of doing so that have just as much support in the data as those drawn up by humans to fit an evolutionary tree. The data say “no evolution” just as loudly as they say “evolution”; it’s just the pattern-craving human mind that gives prominence to the former way of viewing it. This is known as phenetic analysis. When the computer is constrained to push the data into an evolutionary tree, (this is called cladistic analysis) it tends to generate trees with all species as individual twigs and no species forming the crucial lower branches of the tree that evolution demands. As a result of this, many biologists have in practice stopped using the idea of ancestors and descendants when classifying new species. When the British Museum of Natural History did this a few years ago, they started a small war in scientific circles.

Evolution also suffers from the problem that many putative sequences which look logical based on the progression of one set of anatomical characteristics suddenly look illogical when attention is switched to another set. For example, the lungfish superficially seems to make a good intermediate between fish and amphibian, until one examines the rest of its internal organs, which are not intermediate in character, nor are the ways in which its eggs develop. And if different species have common ancestors, it would be reasonable to expect that similar structures in the different species be specified in similar ways in their DNA and develop in similar ways in their embryos; this is frequently not so. So evolutionary relationships depend upon an arbitrary choice of which characteristics of the organisms in question are considered most important, and different relationships can be “proved” at will.

Furthermore, Denton argues, the classic cases printed in biology textbooks to show the evolution of present-day organisms from their supposed ancestors are in fact highly conjectural if not downright false. We read the same examples coming up again and again in textbook after textbook because there are only a few species for which an even remotely plausible fossil genealogy can be propounded out of the 100,000 fossil species known to paleontology. He takes the horse as an example and points out that several of the standard claims about the pattern of equine evolution, such as the gradual reduction of the side toes, are extremely questionable and that the morphological distance covered from the earliest horse to the present horses is so small, compared with the vast changes that evolution must encompass, that it is questionable whether the series, even if true, proves much at all. And even the emergence of one species from another has never been directly observed by science.

Another problem with evolution that continues to worsen is that it remains incapable of explaining how anything could evolve that doesn’t make biological sense when incomplete. The wings of birds are the classic example: what good is half of one? Other examples abound. This is a problem that evolutionary theory has promised a solution to for a long time and not delivered. Worse even than visible examples like wings are the complex chemical reactions and molecular structures that living things are made of. This is the principal point of Darwin’s Black Box (these micro-processes are the black boxes), a book too technical to be satisfying reading for the layman but that convincingly argues that many of these micro-processes make sense either complete or not at all. There are no plausible accounts of how they could have evolved from other simpler processes because as one hypothesizes back down the hypothetical chain of complexity, one comes to a point at which the process simply won’t work if it gets any simpler. At this stage, the process couldn’t have evolved from anything else because there is nothing simpler for it to have evolved from. And at this stage, the process is still far too complex to have been thrown together by any known non-living chemical event. At one time, knowledge of the complex processes of living things was limited enough, and hopes for the discovery of intermediate processes that they could have evolved from wide-open enough, that evolutionists could ignore this problem. But as biological research has progressed, this gap too has been filled with more and more inconvenient facts. As in the case of the other problems challenging evolution, the key thing here is the intellectual direction: research is consistently making the problem worse, not better.

Another similar example: one of the things that has happened since evolution was first proposed is that biology has achieved a precise cataloging of the thousands of different proteins that make up organisms. It was hoped that a thorough cross-species comparison of these would reveal the kinds of relationships of graded similarity that evolution implies. But it hasn’t. Instead, it has given the same picture of distinct species that examination of gross anatomy does. It’s the same old story of a tree with all twigs and no branches! Worse, analysis of the closeness and distance between different species reveals bizarre results. For example, according to the sequence difference matrix of vertebrate hemoglobins in the standard Dayhoff Atlas of Protein Structure and Function, man is as close to a lamprey as are fish! This problem repeats itself with other characteristics of organisms that have been brought within the scope of evolutionary comparison since Darwin’s day.

Another problem with evolution that has only gotten worse with increasing biological knowledge is the question of how life initially emerged from dead matter. As recently as the early 50’s, it was still possible to hypothesize that discoveries would reveal the existence of entities intermediate between single-celled organisms and complex lifeless molecules. The existence of these intermediates (certain kinds of viruses were candidates for the role) would imply the possibility of an evolutionary transition from dead chemicals to intermediates to life. Unfortunately, the discovery of DNA in 1953 killed this hypothesis in its simplest form, and subsequent discoveries have only made the matter worse. Vast numbers of microorganisms are now known, as are vast numbers of complex molecules, but nothing in between. Furthermore, even the simplest possible cell imaginable within the limits of biology, let alone the simplest actually existing cell, is far too complex to have been thrown together by any known non-living chemical event. So even if evolution has an explanation of how species evolve from one to another, it has no way to “get the ball rolling” by producing the first species from something that is not a species.

There are even distinguished philosophers of science, like Sir Karl Popper, a man of impeccable credentials and no religious ax to grind, who have openly questioned whether evolution is a science at all, in principle and not just in practice, because its assertions are not potentially falsifiable. A true science, like physics, makes claims that can be tested and thus potentially falsified; this vulnerability is what makes it worthy of belief when despite this, the falsification does not happen. But evolution does not make claims of this kind. Furthermore, it is one of the touchstones of science that it is based on repeatable experiments. The data used to support evolution are neither experiments nor repeatable, nor can they be, since the origin of species on earth was a unique event. This doesn’t necessarily make evolution nonsense, but it strongly suggests it doesn’t have the right to demand the kind of acquiescence that physics demands on the strength of its being straightforwardly a science. What exactly evolution is, if Popper is right and it is not quite a science in the conventional sense, is an open question. It is probably not without significance that what is now called biology used to be called natural history, an older and perhaps more appropriate concept.

Anyone who doubts that the bulk of the scientific community could be wrong about a fundamental question like this should consider the case of Newtonian physics, which was thought to be unshakable until Einstein disproved it. (Lest anybody quibble about the approximate validity of Newtonian physics at non-relativistic speeds, may I point out that Newtonian physics was formerly thought to be valid at all speeds, throughout the universe, and this Einstein refuted.) Evolution is not a fraud being perpetrated upon the public, but it is a theory that has far too many problems to be treated as something that everyone is obliged to believe in on pain of being classified as a fool, as if it were the claim that the earth goes around the sun. Its credibility will continue to wane (or wax) with additional developments in biology over the coming years, but the absolute prerequisite for solving this intellectual puzzle is for free debate on the issue to be permitted again. I am quite happy to change my position if new facts come out, and I urge my readers that this is the only rational view.

By Boscoe

November 1, 2005 01:19 PM | Link to this

DB, No, the instructions for all cells and all cellular structures and activities, including the immune system, are in the DNA in the nuclei of the cells of that organism(except RBC’s in most animals). Therefore, the DNA holds all the secrets to the organisms survival whether it’s the immune system or the big toe, and the mututions in the DNA create changes in the immune system, which are selected for by the pathogenic microorganisms. How did it get there DB? Evolution claims the organism mutates changes. DNA must have mutated in precisely the right way each and every time in order to be effective against future viruses and bacteria. It’s like organisms can tell future events.

By The72John

November 1, 2005 01:20 PM | Link to this

Boscoe, I realize that your religious-freak background has taught you that you can just SAY something and it is true, but just because you repeat a phrase over and over and over doesn’t make it accurate. And you’re also using yet another Creationist dodge (big surprise)by saying man came from animals. It’s a common ancestor, you dolt.

By Boscoe

November 1, 2005 01:20 PM | Link to this

SUZAN At a girl, baby!

By DB

November 1, 2005 01:20 PM | Link to this

chuck: I think Ken’s seeds will germinate because they’ll have water, and your seed will continue to shrivel. You should listen to Ken. He’s willing to accept things as they are and still hold to his faith.

By Boscoe

November 1, 2005 01:23 PM | Link to this

John you evolutionist freak, I didn’t say man came from animals. I said Paleontology proves man does NOT come from animals!

By DB

November 1, 2005 01:26 PM | Link to this

Boscoe: It’s called NATURAL SELECTION. The mutations happen randomly. They will have either a neutral effect on the organism, a harmful or even fatal effect, or a beneficial effect. The beneficial effects will be continued because the organism is more likely to survive. Take sickle cell anemia for example. One base pair of DNA changes, and the mutation occurs at the same rate in populations across the globe. That one change makes hemoglobin just a little different and in turn makes the Red Blood Cell shaped like a banana instead of an empty jelly donut. The sickle cell trait is more common in Africa and equatorial regions because those that are carriers of the trait are resistant to Malaria, which happens to be the infectious disease responsible for the most deaths in the world now and ever before. It’s called natural selection that sickle cell carriers survive and pass on that mutation, so although there are the same numbers of the mutations occuring per conception in say, Europe, than in Africa, there are more Africans with the disorder because their ancestors were more likely to survive and pass it on.

By Boscoe

November 1, 2005 01:27 PM | Link to this

Well I’ll leave you folks to your incomprhesible meanderings. I have to go and control the masses now. Hope to see you there. Especially you Suzan ;)

By The72John

November 1, 2005 01:30 PM | Link to this

Well, Boscoe, you Papist idiot, evolution is not a religion. It’s science. See, this is the problem you religious idiots have. It’s not a religion to which I ascribe, it’s just science. I don’t have any vested interest in proving that it’s true, unlike you who have an obvious interest in avoiding anything that might shatter your superstitious delusions.

Now, when you said Paleontology proves that man doesn’t come from animals, since we were talking about evolution, CLEARLY shows that you THINK that evolution says that man comes from animals. You didn’t HAVE to say it directly - it’s called subtext, stupid. Do you understand now, little Christer?

Doubtful.

By Billy

November 1, 2005 01:31 PM | Link to this

BOSCOE — “How does this prove the theory of evolution? No your defense of not teaching the theory of creation is a constitutional issue? You can’t debate evolution so you go to the old standby - the 1st amendment?Whose the idiot? There is scientific evidence that supports creation, such as the example I gave earlier, which is why there is a push to have it in the schools in the first place. That’s why they have taken it to court. There is as much scientific evidence to support creation as there is evolution.”

MORON! Go to the top of the page! We are supposed to be discussing whether ID violated the Constitution! IT DOES! Your “scientific evidence” to support creation is that we don’t know exactly how some things work(ed) and we don’t have explanations for everything. That is the opposite of science. That is the attitude that got scientists labeled heretics for centuries.

Maybe scientists should quit working on evolution and start working on time travel. That way you can go back to the Dark Ages or the Inquisition when you would obviously be happier!

By The72John

November 1, 2005 01:34 PM | Link to this

Save us if the Catholic Church thinks it should get involved in science again. It’s only a matter of time before they start executing heretics again.

By Boscoe

November 1, 2005 01:43 PM | Link to this

DB, It’s called NATURAL SELECTION. The mutations happen randomly. Even evolutionists recognize that true mutations are very rare, and beneficial mutations are extremely rare—not more than one out of a thousand mutations are beneficial, at the very most. Sickle Cell is NOT a beneficial mutation. Continuous beneficial mutations are a mathmatical improbablity for one species let alone millions. John,evolution is not a religion. Yes it is. You have zero actual scientific proof. your beleifs in evolution are based on your faith in science. Now, when you said Paleontology proves that man doesn’t come from animals, since we were talking about evolution, CLEARLY shows that you THINK that evolution says that man comes from animals. John, doesn’t evolution say via natural selection we all mutated from a simple organism? A staple in the evolutionists case is that man decended from the apes. Sounds like somebody is saying man decended from the animals. You’re awfully emotional for someone who doesn’t care John. Do you need a hug? Billy, Paleontology proves that man did NOT come from animals. Paleontology also proves that man desended from man. There are NO - ZERO, ZIP, NADA provable signs of Natural selection - Those are scientific FACTS!

By Boscoe

November 1, 2005 01:45 PM | Link to this

Save us if the Catholic Church thinks it should get involved in science again. It’s only a matter of time before they start executing heretics again THAT’S IT JOHN - YOU’RE FIRST ON THE LIST! You have to stop you’re making me laugh so hard I can’t breathe.

By The72John

November 1, 2005 01:48 PM | Link to this

Oh Boscoe, I am irritated because I am forced to share this planet with idiots like you who stare fact in the face and blindly ignore it because of their ignorant superstition.

Evolution has NO proof? This statement alone indicates that you are absolutely scientifically ignorant. And if that weren’t enough, you pull out the “Man descended from the apes” line. Boscoe-Bozo, evolution does NOT say that man descended from Apes. It says that man and other primates share a COMMON ANCESTOR, chode.

Again, typical religious fanatic crap. Why don’t you go practice crossing yourself and leave the sane people alone.

By The72John

November 1, 2005 01:50 PM | Link to this

Please - do us all a favor and stop breathing. One less member of the Inquisition to plague the world.

By vince

November 1, 2005 01:51 PM | Link to this

Nobody wants to chat about pro-life folks who eat beef and chicken? Or, putting a fetus on the one dollar bill?

I love these passages from “Inherit The Wind”. For those of you not into human history, this play is based on The Scopes Trial from 1925. Yes, that is a whole 80 years ago.

Henry Drummond: Can’t you understand? That if you take a law like evolution and you make it a crime to teach it in the public schools, tomorrow you can make it a crime to teach it in the private schools? And tomorrow you may make it a crime to read about it. And soon you may ban books and newspapers. And then you may turn Catholic against Protestant, and Protestant against Protestant, and try to foist your own religion upon the mind of man. If you can do one, you can do the other. Because fanaticism and ignorance is forever busy, and needs feeding. And soon, your Honor, with banners flying and with drums beating we’ll be marching backward, BACKWARD, through the glorious ages of that Sixteenth Century when bigots burned the man who dared bring enlightenment and intelligence to the human mind!

Brady: It’s not an opinion. It’s a literal fact — which the good Bishop arrived at through careful computation of the ages of the prophets, as set down in the Old Testament. In fact, he determined that the Lord began the Creation on the 23rd of October, 4004 B.C. at, uh, 9:00am.

Drummond: [Is] that Eastern Standard Time? Or Rocky Mountain Time? It wasn’t Daylight Saving Time, was it, because the Lord didn’t make the sun until the fourth day.

Brady: That is correct.

Drummond: That first day, what do you think, it was 24 hours long?

Brady: [The] Bible says it was a day.

Drummond: Well, there was no sun out. How do you know how long it was?

Brady: The Bible says it was a day!

Drummond: Well, was it a normal day, a literal day, 24 hour day?

Brady: I don’t know.

Drummond: Isn’t it possible that it could have been 25 hours? There’s no way to measure it; no way to tell. Could it have been 25 hours?!

Brady: It’s possible.

Drummond: Then you interpret that the first day as recorded in the Book of Genesis could’ve been a day of indeterminate length.

Brady: I mean to state that it is not necessarily a 24 hour day.

Drummond: It could’ve been 30 hours, could’ve been a week, could’ve been a month, could’ve been a year, could’ve been a hundred years, or it could’ve been 10 million years!!

I know, those are only lines from a play, but considering the fact that not many people are aware of The Scopes Trial and that is was 80 years ago… well, there’s something a bit eerie here. We’re debating a topic that is making us go backward. But, if evolution doesn’t exist, who can measure progress or non-progress? Are we doomed to repeat the same things over and over when we ignore evolution? Or, is this the way things are?

I’m amazed at how people dismiss fossils dating back millions of years ago for the sake of ID. I’m also amazed at how religions much older than Christianity are swpet under the carpet too. If evolution doesn’t exist, then I guess Adam & Eve had to dodge traffic on 285 too?

By FatMoose

November 1, 2005 01:54 PM | Link to this

Boscoe,

It is called backup DNA. Organisms can revert to past DNA sequences for quick access (think ‘undo’ in your word document). It is easy to comprehend billions of organisms doing simple tasks, but doing them very efficiently.

Now a organism absorbs another; incorperating the new DNA; rinse and repeat for a few eons. Now you have a complex system with all this old DNA as backup (what those simple organisms ‘learned’ works well through trial/error [i.e. mutations]) This new complex organism is able to swap backup DNA for what is currently used and give rise to spontanious specialization.

The above is a (possibly bad) theory. It can be proved/disproved with tests over time and it relies on past facts.

By The72John

November 1, 2005 01:56 PM | Link to this

Vince, arguing about pro-lifers eating meat is as specious an argument as some of the ID’ers are making about evolution. Pro-lifers claim to support HUMAN life, they make no claims of vegetarianism.

And I have NO idea what you’re talking about when you say something about putting a fetus on a $100 bill.

By chuck

November 1, 2005 02:00 PM | Link to this

ID DOES NOT AND CANNOT VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.

While I may not be an expert on molecular biology, I am an expert on the Constitution. That is exactly the reason why we need strict constructionists on the court. I don’t see how ANYBODY could read the first amendment and see ANY POSSIBLE way that the teaching of ANYTHING in a state run public school could violate it.

The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO SAY IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF AMERICA. tHIS IS WHAT congress HAS THE RIGHT TO DO ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION:

Section. 8. Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Clause 2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Clause 4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

Clause 5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

Clause 6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Clause 9: To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

Clause 10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy;

Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Clause 17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, byCession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And

Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

This is what the courts can do

Section. 2. Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)—between Citizens of different States, —between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Clause 3: The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

These are the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. Notice what I have emphasized in bold letters.

Article [I.] (See Note 13) Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Article [II.] A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Article [III.] No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Article [IV.] The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Article [V.] No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Article [VI.] In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Article [VII.] In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Article [VIII.] Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Article [IX.] The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Article [X.] The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The states are in charge of education. PERIOD. States cannot violate the establishment clause because they are NOT CONGRESS. This insanity came about when FDR loaded the courts with LIBERAL JUDICIAL ACTIVISTS in the 1930’s and 1940’s.

SO FELLOWS, if you want to change this argument from SCIENCE to the CONSTITUTION, MAKE YOUR CASE.

By The72John

November 1, 2005 02:07 PM | Link to this

So, we need strict constructionists because they support your position, is that it? Every other judicial philosophy, whatever it be is flawed because YOU DON’T ACCEPT IT, is THAT IT, Mr. Middle School Teacher?

Funny, there are many REAL experts on the Constitution out there who seem to disagree with you. That suggests that your ABSOLUTE position is flawed, doesn’t it?

Everson v. Board of Education - set the precedent that the Establishment clause is protected by the due-process clause and therefore is extended to all levels of government.

I know, Chuck. That’s what you call Judicial Activism - nice new catch phrase of the neo-nazi movement of the Republican Church of Fundamentalist Jesus - but REALLY it’s just the court EVOLVING.

By vince

November 1, 2005 02:16 PM | Link to this

TheJohn72 - Thanks for clearing that up for me. So, pro-lifers do not think all life is precious, but only human life is precious. Well, I didn’t know until today that human life had such imperialistic importance. A soul is a soul is a soul. And if anyone really thinks other living creatures do not think, feel, hurt, react, procreate, eat, sleep, etc., then I suppose that is the mysterious portal I’ve been looking for that opportunes bigotry. I mean, lets face facts, if we can differentiate between human life and other life forms, then why not differentiate within humans? I guess that’s why it was ok for Gov. G. Dumbya Bush to sit by quietly and do nothing when James Byrd was dragged to his death tied up to the back of a truck, and then turn around a month later and veto an anti-hate crimes bill for Texas.

By The72John

November 1, 2005 02:22 PM | Link to this

Well, Vince, I’m still saying your argument is flawed, but if one thing IS true it’s that Christian Fundamentalism is ALL about hatred.

Hatred of non-Christians, hatred of gays, hatred of muslims, hatred of foreigners, hatred of science - hate, hate, hate. They positively ooze with it.

I guess that’s why I hate THEM so much. But then, I don’t pretend to belong to a religion that teaches love, either.

By chuck

November 1, 2005 02:24 PM | Link to this

Everson held that since the 14th Amendment extended due process to the states that it also extended the 1st amendment to the states.

First, due process already extended to the states by virtue of the 5th amendment and the addition to the 14th didn’t change anything in that regard. The court seriously overreached.

A careful reading of the 14th amendment finds NO MENTION of religion in ANY form. The case was decided WHEN? 1947 after the court was loaded with FDR socialists.

By Bruce

November 1, 2005 02:24 PM | Link to this

Susan,

Although it was a very time consuming read I find it interesting that not one of the evolution experts we have posting, this week and last, have addressed you last post.

By Brian Curtis

November 1, 2005 02:24 PM | Link to this

Boscoe: You’re demonstrating the same basic misunderstanding of the word “theory� as has plagued creationists for decades… not to mention all last week, if you’d care to look at the archives. Evolution, and other scientific theories, do not-—repeat NOT—-get somehow “promoted� to facts if enough evidence is uncovered. A fact is an observation; the theory is what explains the observation, and they don’t shift from one to the other once we’re sure of the answers.

Science consists entirely of theories: gravitation, atomic structure, cosmology, relativity… the list is endless. And the amount of evidence underlying each one varies, with evolution leading the pack. It’s one of the best supported theories in all of science, with more evidence than any other compiled to substantiate it. It would takes WEEKS to go through all the evidence you categorically deny: evidence of species change, evidence that man descended from non-human ancestors, beneficial mutations, etc.

It’s all there, for anyone who can be bothered to look at the facts. (www.talkorigins.org might be a helpful starting point, if you truly wanted to learn about evolution before condemning it.) Your grasp of thermodynamics, paleontology, and probability all show a disturbing lack of education. And your ‘arguments’ about information theory, irreducible complexity, etc., point to a probable cut-and-paste job from your favorite creationist crackpot sites. As I said, we could spend weeks spelling out all the facts and evidence you refuse to consider.

But in a way, it’s all irrelevant. Because the debate here is about intelligent design, not evolution. Evolution doesn’t need defending, after all. It’s earned its place in the scientific structure, where ID and creationism have not. And taking shots at evolution won’t change that. The fact that you disbelieve in evolution is your affair, but it won’t help promote ID to the status of respected science. Nothing will, because ID has NOTHING to support it.

Once more: Any gaps in the evidence to support evolution DON’T translate into automatic support for creationism/ID… rather, it would support an alternative, scientific theory (if one were offered). And so far, none has been proposed. You fallaciously assume that everyone would be convinced that the Bible were literally true if you could just somehow cast enough doubt on evolution-—but the two are only opposed in your own mind, and in the minds of similarly confused fundies.

Creationism is a belief structure—-an opinion, perhaps even a philsophical perspective. What it’s NOT, is science. ID—-which is creationism trying to disguise itself as science-—likewise fails the test. Evolution isn’t going away just because you criticize it—-and if evidence ever DID turn up discrediting it (which is one way you can tell a scientific theory from a religious claim—the possibility of being disproved), the replacement would be another, better scientific theory. Still not the Bible, because the Bible STILL isn’t science.

Yes, other theories could be taught in school—-other valid, workable, scientific theories. Do you have one to offer? Because creationism sure isn’t, even when it calls itself “intelligent design.�

By Terry

November 1, 2005 02:25 PM | Link to this

chuck: Yer right, the Constitution doesn’t say what a local school can teach. But they can hold back Federal funding if that school doesn’t teach subject it believes to be appropriate for the overall education of American children.

But fear not, religious zealots are in control of the country right now. Pretty soon science itself will be banned and we won’t have to worry about it!

Now, back to the question that continues to drive this debate: Boscoe said: “Paleontology proves that man did not come from animals. Paleontology also proves that man desended from man. Those are scientific FACTS!”

What proof are you referencing? Which peer review journal was it in?

By The72John

November 1, 2005 02:26 PM | Link to this

I see Chuck. The court overreached because YOU say they did. And it was just because they were FDR socialists.

Of course it was Chuck. The liberal monster is hiding under your bed - watch out or it will eat you!

Silly Chuck…it’s not like the Court OVERPOWERED people and forced them to accept their decision. If the court was ABLE to make that decision, then it follows that it had the RIGHT to do so, doesn’t it?

As always, it’s only judicial activism when it doesn’t support your crusade for theocracy and ignorance.

By Brian Curtis

November 1, 2005 02:27 PM | Link to this

Bruce: It’s the same tired pseudoscience we’ve seen plenty of times before. Stephen J. Gould went to his grave regretting how many creationist wackos insisted on misquoting him and claiming him as a “supporter” of their vapid perspective.

Gould never once doubted that evolution had occurred, and was continuing to this day; his writings pointed to hundreds of instances of evolutionary change. Like a good scientists, he proposed a different model for the underlying mechanisms of evolutionary change. And creationist nutjobs took this as ‘proof’ that evolution was a house of cards ready to fall. Poor man.

By Observer

November 1, 2005 02:28 PM | Link to this

1947 after the court was loaded with FDR socialists

so we can discount any rulings of the future Supreme Court, assuming Alito is confirmed, as after the Court was loaded with GOP Gestapo boys?
hahahahahahaha

By Bruce

November 1, 2005 02:33 PM | Link to this

Thanks BC, I’ll just go back to reading this week because it sure sounds like you are saying that because it doesn’t agree with what you believe it holds no merit. But when one of us say that about your guys we are the idiots. I have to give you credit your good, man…..

By Terry

November 1, 2005 02:36 PM | Link to this

Brian Curtis: That was a very good summarization of the over 1,000 posts we’ve had on this subject. The problem is, you’re wasting your energy (and ability at clear thought) on this audience. The proponents of ID seem uncapable of scientific thought or any higher order reasoning. If you present any of them with more than one concept at a time, they can’t follow it. They are only capable of nit-picking and focusing on meaningless diversions.

Yes, this should be a discussion of any proof of ID and not a defense of the science of evolution (or gravity or anything else). But, as the old saying goes, “if you can’t dazzle them with briliance, baffle them with bs.”

By hewhoasks

November 1, 2005 02:45 PM | Link to this

Huh? What? Where’d everybody go?

By DeltaX

November 1, 2005 02:46 PM | Link to this

Although it was a very time consuming read I find it interesting that not one of the evolution experts we have posting, this week and last, have addressed you last post.

I did not address it because I clearly stated that she read up non-adgenda material before trying to discuss a concept (science in general) that less than 20% of americans understand.

It is not our job to teach people who are reluctant to clear the ignorance they hold; but to discuss the issue intelligently with facts

By Brian Curtis

November 1, 2005 02:53 PM | Link to this

Terry: You’re probably right, but if we don’t try to educate people, who will?

Bruce: Thank you! But seriously: if you have evidence for a theory, then by all means make it available. But if you simply have an opinion… well, we’ve all got those. That doesn’t mean they qualify for inclusion in the science curriculum.

Thus far, evolution has evidence supporting it; ID has none. Which do YOU think we should spend time on?

By DeltaX

November 1, 2005 02:56 PM | Link to this

Boscoe [and anyone else interested];

(Q1)If a man is runs ten miles an hour down a street from point A to point B in a straight line. And the distance from point A to point B is 5 miles; How long does it take him to get from point A to point B?

By Whateva

November 1, 2005 03:01 PM | Link to this

1/2 an hour? Water breaks included in the 10-mph rate?

By chuck

November 1, 2005 03:03 PM | Link to this

Wonder what happened to all of the other posts. I only see 8 now.

By Bruce

November 1, 2005 03:08 PM | Link to this

Last week, after realizing I didn’t know enough to contirute, I tried to LISTEN and LEARN. You guys made a very good agrument and I began to understand where you were coming from. This week was about the same, I was understanding your point of view.

I just found it odd that not one of you touched that post until I asked why. It makes me think that maybe you didn’t respond because that is the truth. And to add to the confusion all BC did was discredit the author.

Can any of you tell me where the missing link is? Have you seen it? Tell me have you seen it?

By Terry

November 1, 2005 03:12 PM | Link to this

Bruce: The absence of evidence is not the same as the evidence of absence. PLEASE show me one proof of ID that doesn’t rely on the “absence of other evidence” dribble!

By ConvosGetSoOld

November 1, 2005 03:13 PM | Link to this

Can any of you tell me where the missing link is?

Now that is the strongest argument I have heard yet for ID. ROTFLMAO

By DeltaX

November 1, 2005 03:17 PM | Link to this

Whateva,

Good!

(Q2)Now how many points are between point A and B?

By Billy

November 1, 2005 03:17 PM | Link to this

Bruce — Can you show me where it isn’t? Everywhere that it isn’t? Couldn’t we just go around like that forever?

By The72John

November 1, 2005 03:19 PM | Link to this

PLEASE show me one proof of ID that doesnââ.¬â.¢t rely on the ââ.¬Å.absence of other evidenceââ.¬?

Isn’t that the essence of ID? In the absence of evidence we assume God. Whereas, a scientist, in the absence of evidence, continues to seek it.

It’s why ID will never, ever, ever be science. It’s the antithesis of science.

By DeltaX

November 1, 2005 03:21 PM | Link to this

And now for the crusher:

(Q3)How long does it take to travel through an infinite number of points?

See, IDers, This shows that all models can have holes - even gaping ones like this; but still serve a function until something better comes along - not just anything that comes along!

By Whateva

November 1, 2005 03:22 PM | Link to this

Now how many points are between point A and B?

an infinite number of points. simple math. ok, maybe high school learned. Think that is a geometry thing.

Or were we talking water-fill spots?

By Terry

November 1, 2005 03:27 PM | Link to this

How about a little mind experiment. Ya’ll know what a mind experiment is don’t ‘cha? It was made famous by Einstein, but has been around a lot longer.

Anyway…

What if we chemically created amnesia in a controlled group of people and then put them in a room with the Bible and Darwin’s book. Which book do you think they would believe as factual and which book would they believe to be mythology?

By Whiley

November 1, 2005 03:28 PM | Link to this

Hands down this is the worst topic I’ve seen. What woman is so bored & has so little to do in her life, that she even considers if intelligent design disclaimers on public school books violate the Constitution????

Why not debate why electric cars & solar powered houses are too expensive for the average working person.

By Terry

November 1, 2005 03:34 PM | Link to this

Whiley: Why not debate whether or not electric cars and solar powered houses will ever work good enough to be viable alternatives in our society?

We are debating what our children should be learning in our (tax funded) public school science classes. Is this not an important issue?

By Billy

November 1, 2005 03:35 PM | Link to this

There should be no debate, yet here we are…

By Terry

November 1, 2005 03:36 PM | Link to this

Billy: True enough. Philosophical topics such as ID sould not even be considered in a science class. But, as you say, here we are!

By Whateva

November 1, 2005 03:38 PM | Link to this

We are debating what our children should be learning in our (tax funded) public school science classes. Is this not an important issue?

That was actually last week’s topic. This week’s topic concerns if a disclaimer in the science text violater the Constitution.

not that this place ever stays on Topic, but.

DeltaX - good analogy there with the points on a line.

By Whateva

November 1, 2005 03:39 PM | Link to this

violateS - no, Depeche Mode was not on my mind.

By Terry

November 1, 2005 03:51 PM | Link to this

Anybody there??

By Brian Curtis

November 1, 2005 03:56 PM | Link to this

Looks like we lost the last day’s comments.

By Terry

November 1, 2005 03:59 PM | Link to this

Well, we were off topic anyway. The real question is what is the legal recourse if a local school board decides to put an ID disclaimer on a biology text?

By Ken

November 1, 2005 04:12 PM | Link to this

The same way people have fought school prayer and the Pledge… You would have to take them to court.

By hewhoasks

November 1, 2005 04:15 PM | Link to this

Recourse? Require a disclaimer for the disclaimer: “ID is anti-science.”

By The72John

November 1, 2005 04:19 PM | Link to this

I like the idea of putting disclaimers on Bibles.

By Terry

November 1, 2005 04:19 PM | Link to this

Maybe we should push for a disclaimer on all Bibles stating that they are unproven myths!

By Billy

November 1, 2005 04:23 PM | Link to this

These people kill me. The only way evolution is a myth is when people believe we are the pinnacle of the evolutionary process…

By DeltaX

November 1, 2005 04:25 PM | Link to this

Can the disclaimers on bibles read: Inside this book lies the proof of what is in this book; and if you want more proof: read it twice.?!?!?

Please! I would get a smile on my face instead of a grimace when confronted by the fundies preaching on the corners!

By Terry

November 1, 2005 04:30 PM | Link to this

Yep, only in religion can you find people blinded by their faith to the exclusion of any reasoning.

By DeltaX

November 1, 2005 04:44 PM | Link to this

Why not debate why electric cars & solar powered houses are too expensive for the average working person.

Because with the current movement to reduce science to bile, there will not be any scientists to discover more efficient ways of creating those things!

Whiley is still only concerned with her needs. *Whiley looks up to sky and screams “Alas! Life is not fair!!!!” and gets a reply “It is more fair than you relize poor thing. You make your life - so if your life sucks, guess who is to blame.”

god does have a humor; and many of you are the punchline;)

By Terry

November 1, 2005 04:55 PM | Link to this

From the Baylor University department’s web site (Baylor is one of the most rigid religious institutions in the country):

“Evolution, a foundational principle of modern biology, is supported by overwhelming scientific evidence and is accepted by the vast majority of scientists. Because it is fundamental to the understanding of modern biology, the faculty in the Biology Department at Baylor University, Waco, TX, teach evolution throughout the biology curriculum. We are in accordance with the American Association for Advancement of Science’s statement on evolution. We are a science department, so we do not teach alternative hypotheses or philosophically deduced theories that cannot be tested rigorously.�

By Lyrazel

November 2, 2005 07:25 AM | Link to this

Just how many government mandates will it take to put the stickers into textbooks and how much government funding will it cost to remove said stickers from textbooks?

By Ken

November 2, 2005 07:55 AM | Link to this

Lots to put them in. None to take them out. Parents and students can do that all by themselves.

By Ken

November 2, 2005 08:00 AM | Link to this

We will continue to have this issue until we centralize the education of our nation’s chlidren.

Most folks on this BLOG nkow that I am very much against the expansion of government, however, this is one of the very few areas I think the Feds should be in control. We MUST have standardized curriculum and educational patterns if we want all children in this great land to get the same, quality education.

Let the colleges/universities create their own courses of study, but to not make elementary/junior high/high school education standard across the country will eventually divide this country. In fact, that division is already occurring and will continue to fracture our people.

By chuck

November 2, 2005 08:08 AM | Link to this

Baylor University is not religious at all. At ONE TIME it received most of its funding from the Southern Baptist Convention, but for the last 25 years the percentage of funding has gone down to a miniscule percentage and Baylor’s adherence to Biblical standards has gone down proportionally. That is a non-argument.

Here is a disclaimer for the Bible: Read at your own risk. Be prepared for a life altering experience.

By hewhoasks

November 2, 2005 08:25 AM | Link to this

I seem to have trouble posting the link to this story. Do a Google News search for “victimized dover squabbled” - it’s quite interesting.

By Ken

November 2, 2005 08:32 AM | Link to this

For the folks who wanted to talk about tax plans yesterday, here is a link to the executive summary produced by the President’s Tax Reform Panel:

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/execSUMM.pdf

I would prefer even more simplification, but it I thought it was several stpes in the right direction.

By The72John

November 2, 2005 08:35 AM | Link to this

How about:

Warning - consumption of this material may may cause rigid thinking, a loss of reason, feelings of irrational hatred towards others, hypocrisy, an overwhelming need to proselytize, and a decrease in compassion.

That sounds far more accurate.

By Terry

November 2, 2005 08:38 AM | Link to this

Wow, how quickly we condemn the largest Baptist university in the world when it doesn’t match our agenda. No judgements there.

By Ken

November 2, 2005 08:40 AM | Link to this

Why make caustic remarks like that…?

And you wonder wy many relgious people feel persecuted and threatened…?

Do you know the most common theme in the Bible…? Taking care of the poor. I think I read somewhere that if you removed all of the versus relating to caring for the poor and less fortunate, nearly 1/6 of the texts would be removed. That sounds like a text of compassion, not hate.

Narrow interpretation of the text causes all of those negative traits you describe, not the text itself.

By Terry

November 2, 2005 08:42 AM | Link to this

Yeah, that what Muslims say about the Q’uran too.

By Boscoe

November 2, 2005 08:43 AM | Link to this

Please - do us all a favor and stop breathing. One less member of the Inquisition to plague the world. – Very nice , very appropriate John! I told you you were a little to emotional for this stuff. I guess that’s why I hate THEM so much. But then, I don’t pretend to belong to a religion that teaches love, either. Making new friends John? We need to work on your people skills…you get a lot better of a response when you’re polite. Now a organism absorbs another; incorperating the new DNA; rinse and repeat for a few eons. Now you have a complex system with all this old DNA as backup (what those simple organisms ‘learned’ works well through trial/error [i.e. mutations]) This new complex organism is able to swap backup DNA for what is currently used and give rise to spontanious specialization. Moose….How does reverting to the old DNA help the organism fight nfection if the virus or bacteria mutated into a new form? Take the flu for example. It mutates or changes every year so that people can get the flu every year. A fact is an observation; the theory is what explains the observation, and they don’t shift from one to the other once we’re sure of the answers. Excuse me Brian, but I believe when a theory is proven scientifically it becomes a law of a particular science, such as, the LAWS of thermodynamics or Newtons LAWS. I don’t remember reading about the LAW of evolution and I suspect I won’t anytime soon. As I said, we could spend weeks spelling out all the facts and evidence you refuse to consider. Just like you ignore the evidence from Paleontology? Please, spend weeks, it will keep you occupied at least for a while. Any gaps in the evidence to support evolution DON’T translate into automatic support for creationism/ID… rather, it would support an alternative, scientific theory. BINGO! maybe that’s why those involved want that sticker in the text book. Thank you very much! It is not our job to teach people who are reluctant to clear the ignorance they hold; but to discuss the issue intelligently with facts You’re right Delta, but we’ll keep trying to help you anyway, because that’s what we do. You don’t have to thank us, we understand.

By Terry

November 2, 2005 08:53 AM | Link to this

Boscoe: You still don’t seem to understand the concept of a scientific theory. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not “guesses” but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than “just a theory.” It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.

You have yet to propose meaningful tests for ID, I have found no reports of current research on this concept in any relevant scientific disciplines, and I can find no body of research on ID published in relevant scientific journals. So, ID has not been demonstrated to be a scientific theory.

By wtf

November 2, 2005 08:55 AM | Link to this

chuck: here’s another disclaimer for the Bible: “The following is a work of fiction. Any resemblance between the characters herein and real persons living or otherwise is purely coincidental and unintended because the foregoing is a mythological work with no basis in reality.”

By Ken

November 2, 2005 09:01 AM | Link to this

Wow, I can’t seem to type today…

Terry… Any document can be picked apart to demonstrate negative traits. Shucks… Huck Finn has been banned in some schools.

Any document must be taken in it’s entirety. The Bible, the Torah, the Constitution. To not see that demonstrates the same intolerance that you and other folks on this BLOG speak out against. Generalizations are very dangerous regardless of who or what you may be generalizing.

Right now, you make generalizations about people of faith and find no fault in it. Yet if someone made generalizations about different races, genders or sexual orientations you would be greatly offended. Accepting one while denouncing the other is like the pot calling the kettle black.

By The72John

November 2, 2005 09:04 AM | Link to this

You may find it caustic, Ken. I find it true. Maybe after centuries of being the persecutors, it’s justified that you feel a little persecuted yourselves, though I still find it laughable whenever someone says they are persecuted for being Christian.

It’s Christians who stand outside the funerals of AIDS victims screaming “F* burn in hell” in the faces of their friends and families. It’s Christians who stand outside Planned Parenthood offices screaming venom at young, emotionally fragile women. It’s Christians who stand up on television and talk about how the poor (you know, those people you claim to have compassion for, are to blame for their own poverty and deserve whatever they get. It’s Christians who advocate the US bombing half of the third world back to the stone age. It’s Christians who are trying to change the laws of this country to force everyone who isn’t Christian to submit to their ideals of how we should live.

That said, I’m not talking about every Christian - just the fundamentalists. Unfortunately, they are the ones with the most power over our hapless president and his administration and they are the ones shaping the issue. If you aren’t one of those people, then I’m sorry if I offend you, but I just call it like I see it.

Chuck, Randy, Boscoe - obviously all fit into this category.

By Terry

November 2, 2005 09:07 AM | Link to this

Ken: I find lots of fault in religion.

Clearly, it must be possible to live ethically without presuming to know things about which we are so obviously ignorant. There is no need for belief in rewards and punishments that transcends this life to justify our moral behavior in this life. No personal God needs to be worships to live in awe of the splendor and immensity of this universe. And no pagan rituals need to be rehearsed for us to love our neighbor or to realize that our happiness is linked to theirs.

We, as a species, need to realize that presumed knowledge where one has only pious hope is, in and of itself, evil. Wherever convictions grow in inverse proportion to its justification, intolerance grows. Where we have reasoned evidence we have no need for faith. People who harbor strong convictions without evidence should be at the margins of our society, not at it’s helm. The litmus test for reasonableness should be that anyone who wants to know how the world works, either physically or spiritually, must be open to new evidence.

When will we finally dispense with the dogma of faith? Our pagan beliefs are archaic and should no longer be sheltered from genuine inquiry and criticism.

By Ken

November 2, 2005 09:07 AM | Link to this

WTF… Actually, the best (or worst) you could do is use the classic disclaimer that this is a “dramatization of actual events.”

Many places in the Bible are historically accurate and many people in the Bible did actually exist and many of the actions did take place.

By The72John

November 2, 2005 09:10 AM | Link to this

Yet if someone made generalizations about different races, genders or sexual orientations you would be greatly offended.

Funny you mention those groups, Ken. All of them have either been or are currently being persecuted, marginalized, vilified, or otherwise mistreated by the very religious people you are trying to defend.

Sucks when the abused fight back against the bullies, doesn’t it, Ken.

By Stewie

November 2, 2005 09:11 AM | Link to this

I’m not commenting on any of the evolution issues because everything posted was covered last week, but in response to Chuck’s assertion that Baylor University is not religious:

Baylor was recently in the news for expelling a gay student from it’s theology program…because his homosexuality violated the religious philosophy of the school.

Brigham Young also teaches Evolution, so does Notre Dame, Duke University and a number of other private universities that are based on, or originated from religious philosophy. The reason is obvious: accredidation, i.e., enrollment, i.e., money.

Bob Jones University in SC teaches evolution with an emphasis on the contribution of a Christian God. This “school” is only accredited by some obscure Christian School Accrediting body.

By The72John

November 2, 2005 09:15 AM | Link to this

The Georgia Baptist Convention is currently trying to destroy the academic reputation of a college that consistently ranks in the top 15 Southern college. One of their goals is to force all faculty to sign a “statement of belief” that aligns with fundamentalist, biblical literalist traditions. They also want to eliminate the teaching of Evolution in the biology department.

This is just another reason to despise these people.

By Ken

November 2, 2005 09:19 AM | Link to this

Terry… Spoken by a person who has been truly hurt by organized religion.

You do not offend me. My faith far exceeds anything you or anyone else in this world can say or do to me.

You, however, contradict yourself. You display the same intolerance as the individuals you ridicule. You use the same negative caustic language that they use. If you want to truly transcend them, be an example to them. Your life is your best witness to the world.

By DeltaX

November 2, 2005 09:30 AM | Link to this

Ken,

I am christian, but will no longer claim a denomination - and more-over, I figure them pretty much evil. I am barely able to use the label christian bc of what it has been used for and become - which I find is a long way from what christ’s message is/was.

The book people refer to as the bible has been manipulated by layers of ego-centric rulers (christ even warns of this - but people find no importance in the clear warnings of false christians and what seems like the way).

I, after years of trying to find a place of worship; found organized religions to be the antithesis of what christ actually promotes.

So, Where did I finally find a place to worship? In my community, side-by-side with other humans - not whites/blacks/mormons/catholics/etc - but humans with the sole purpose of a good goal: raising a house with habitat for humanity for example.

By The72John

November 2, 2005 09:34 AM | Link to this

Ken, I’ve spent most of my life being either tangentially or directly persecuted, insulted, abused, ridiculed, threatened and condemned by Christians who sound very much like Chuck or Randy or Boscoe. My father, college educator, regular church goer, choir director, and possibly the kindest, least judgmental man on the planet, has been constantly under attack by the Religious Right because, according to them, he is a “secular humanist”.

Yes, there are good Christians out there, and I’m sure that they outnumber the bad, but it’s the bad who are doing the damage and being the most vocal.

Terry’s point is well taken; there is a substantive difference between a person who is moral because he has made a deliberate, thoughtful choice to be so, and someone who behaves in a certain way because he is afraid of authority.

To quote Einstein: “A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.”

By FatMoose

November 2, 2005 09:35 AM | Link to this

You know what I would like to explore as a topic? Is there such a thing as an adult?

I believe in children, adolesence, and a physically mature person; but do not think I can think of anyone I know pretty well as being more adult in their actions than people I knew at 18-25yrs. Granted, their reactions are more metered; but their actions are still just as senseless!

By Billy

November 2, 2005 09:41 AM | Link to this

CHUCK — Regarding Constitutionality, Does Section 8 Clause 1 (The first part of that post) not read “…the general welfare…”? I can honestly say that putting ID, even a disclaimer supporting it, into science classes could seriously undermine the general welfare, and I fully believe that any school system that insists on its inclusion shouldd have all federal funding yanked.

Furthermore, if the federal government cannot require that science classes actually teach the kids science, then what can they require of schools? By your argument “No Child Left Behind” is unconstitutional, is it not?

By Terry

November 2, 2005 09:41 AM | Link to this

Ken: No, I haven’t been hurt by religion. That must be your personal defense mechanism against anybody who disagrees with your closed view of the world.

I also see no contradiction in my words. It is high time to cease being tolerent of religious dogma that blinds people to overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I live in the middle of the ‘Bible Belt’, and I am very tolerent of people as individuals. It is the unfounded faith in ancient myths and dogmatic rituals that I am growing weary of.

Religion is at best a crutch - an excuse to accept a less than ideal existence in this life because of a misguided faith in a better life after death.

Religion teaches love and compassion, but the actions of the religious peoples in all ‘God Fearing’ sects displays hatred and intolerance. The words and the actions don’t align. I choose to believe the actions and, therefore, must assume the words are lies.

If religion was a living concept that was open to new evidence it would discard ancient mythologies and embrace new concepts for spirituality and enlightment. But it has proven time and again that the power of conviction in direct conflict with evidence is all that matters. When convictions grow in inverse proportion to its justification, it is evil personified.

By Ken

November 2, 2005 09:44 AM | Link to this

DeltaX… That is a great story. I wish more people took the path you chose… the one where an individual finds the best place to worship God.

I would disagree with you on some aspects, like the evil of denominations. Evil is such a strong word, and using it implies that nothing good comes from the local Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Catholic, Lutheran, etc. church, which I think we both can agree is not the case.

By Billy

November 2, 2005 09:51 AM | Link to this

Apparently TPTB in the Methodist Church are coming out in opposition to the war and calling for an end to it. Both bush & Cheney are members of Methodist Churches. Y’all think this will sway them at all?

By Billy

November 2, 2005 09:52 AM | Link to this

Yeah, right…

By Ken

November 2, 2005 09:54 AM | Link to this

Terry… Please accept my apologies. I did not want to imply anything, only make an observation. Your words and hatred are very reminiscent of those made by people who have been hurt by the church. Unfortunately, those numbers are too large and I have met too many of them.

I also apologize that you and I see differences in the definition of evil. Child molesters are evil. Rapists are evil. Murderers are evil. Men who abuse their wives are evil.

By The72John

November 2, 2005 09:55 AM | Link to this

Aren’t they Southern Methodists as opposed to United Methodists?

By DeltaX

November 2, 2005 09:59 AM | Link to this

Ken,

I am sure there is the first half we would agree on; but…

No we would not agree that is not the case. I see how the denominations raise their kids - for one serious example of the culture they create - and it fills kids with shame. I do think the general tide of influence in organized religion is directly contrary to christ’s teachings - and therefore evil/bad/not-good. This is a f******* (like alcoholism), not an instance (vs getting to drunk one night) - and gets passed down, generation to generation; producing miserable lives which in turn blame everyone around them for the misery.

No - deviation from christs words is a evil/bad thing. People would be better off meditating on goodness than hearing manipulated scripture that is called the word.

By The72John

November 2, 2005 10:05 AM | Link to this

Your words and hatred are very reminiscent of those made by people who have been hurt by the church. Unfortunately, those numbers are too large and I have met too many of them.

And yet you seemed puzzled by hostility towards the church. Have you ever stopped to ask your self WHY there are so many people who “have been hurt by the church”?

I also find your definition of evil somewhat simplistic. Evil is far more complex than you have defined it, and not necessarily tied to the specific behaviors you’ve mentioned. While I agree that those things you’ve mentioned are horrible, “evil” is less about actions and more about intent.

The person who is willfully cruel is evil, even if he never lays a hand on someone. A person who, through action or inaction, brings harm on others is evil. Evil is the absence of compassion and the absence of caring. It is selfishness, calousness, indifference. It’s allowing rigidity of thought to allow the suffering of others to continue, or the failure to act when it is within your power to do so.

That’s evil.

By Boscoe

November 2, 2005 10:09 AM | Link to this

Terry I beleive I gave this definition.THEORY-a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena. That said, I’m not talking about every Christian - just the fundamentalists - more importantly those that disagree with you are fundamentalits. Right John?

By FatMoose

November 2, 2005 10:14 AM | Link to this

Boscoe: The definition you found supplies three options (note the ‘or’ between each option - ‘or’ means one of the three can apply) and the one below is the one you are trying to grasp.

So if you looked up the criteria for scientifically acceptable general principle you would discover what we already know: ID is not a scientifically acceptable general principle.

By The72John

November 2, 2005 10:16 AM | Link to this

Actually no, Boscoe. Fundamentalists are the people like you who want to force everyone else to believe like them. Frankly, I don’t care if you worship a giant space-chicken. It’s the fact that you want to make everyone ELSE worship the giant space-chicken that I have a problem with.

Is this a hard concept for you to understand?

By DeltaX

November 2, 2005 10:21 AM | Link to this

The72John,

Maybe this will help people understand our point against ID:

If the theory of evolution did not exist; nor any other theory like it - ID would still be shunned by anyone who follows the scientific process!

It is not a this vs that debate for anyone who follows the scientific process; but it is for the IDers - that is the rub.

By vince

November 2, 2005 10:27 AM | Link to this

Hey John72,

Bigotry is a huge problem. And I agree with you, under the umbrella of Christianity there seems to be no boundaries to which bigotry can exist.

Saw this George Dumbya quote today, and boy if this doesn’t seal the deal in the case again Dumbya and the impetus for the Iraq war…

“Would the United States and other free nations be more safe or less safe with Zarqawi and bin Laden in control of Iraq, its people and its resources?”

And this Dumbya quote is just good for laughs…

I appreciate Lieutenant General Michel Maisonneuve. She’s in the Canadian Air Force. She’s NATO Headquarters Supreme Allied Commander Transformation Chief of Staff.

Michel is a man, a he. That is just too funny.

By The72John

November 2, 2005 10:41 AM | Link to this

Good point DeltaX. The conflict is entirely one-sided. ID hurls itself against evolution like the proverbial barbarians at the gates, but evolution largely ignores ID.

I think it’s interesting that there are so many fundamentalist web sites attacking evolution, and so few sites bothering to rebut the attacks. It’s like science as a whole is ignoring a bothersome gnat, and only a few people are rising to the bait.

What truly mystifies me is this: Let’s assume the existence of God. Personally, I don’t have a problem philosophically with the idea of Divinity - I just think that the typical understanding of God is incredibly limited. We’re to believe that a being capable of creating the universe is so immature and spoiled that he demands constant worship or he condemns people to an eternity of torment?

So - God exists, God created the universe. Wouldn’t he have done so in a rational way? Aren’t we able to observe the rules by which that creation functions? Even if we don’t fully understand those rules, we know they exist. Why, then, must we assume that current gaps in our understanding are mystical? That IS what ID says, basically - we don’t understand now therefore there is no logical explanation, ever?

It’s so scary to me - ID represents the END of scientific curiosity. It represents the END of seeking knowledge. If we allow science to be overrun by modern-day Luddites, then we are dooming ourselves to increasing ignorance and superstition, all because the fundamentalists need to create affirmation for their literal beliefs where none exists.

By vince

November 2, 2005 10:49 AM | Link to this

72John - I totally agree, which is why the other day I argued that both sides could be taught, if not for awareness, but to teach children early in life that diversity without understanding is like pool tables in River City.

By The72John

November 2, 2005 10:52 AM | Link to this

Vince, we explained that you can’t teach both sides in a science class if both sides aren’t science. That is capitulating to the insanity of the religious right and lending legitimacy to a fantasy.

I’m all for harmony, but sacrificing educational and scientific integrity is not the way to achieve it.

By Stewie

November 2, 2005 10:59 AM | Link to this

72John,

The scientific community doesn’t respond to the creationist/anti-evolution crowd because to do so gives these extremists credibility they don’t deserve, which I agree with to an extent, but if the anti-intellectual crowd keeps gaining influence the academics are going to have to respond.

The creationists are experts at manipulating the ignorant by being intellectually dishonest (i.e., taking scientific quotes out of contexts) and by outright lies. Academics are going to have to confront this and without alienating lay people.

The Ivory Tower may become too dangerous a place for college professors.

By vince

November 2, 2005 11:01 AM | Link to this

Oh, and the other point I really liked came from “Inherit The Wind”.

“Isn’t it possible that [the first day] could have been 25 hours? The Bible says the sun was created until the fourth day. The first day could have been 30 hours, could have been a week, could have been a month, could have been a year, could have been 100 years, or it could have been ten million years!�

By vince

November 2, 2005 11:07 AM | Link to this

72John - “We” explained to “me”. That’s very above it all. Should I kiss your ring the next time I’m lucky enough to be in your presence?

And I suppose you’ve first hand experience with the “insanity” this blended learning would create?

Teaching science and ID together is not to promote insanity, its to teach people at an early age that there can be more than one point of view on any topic. And, slapping science smack dab along side ID should help children see just how fiction differs from reality.

By DeltaX

November 2, 2005 11:14 AM | Link to this

Personally, I don’t have a problem philosophically with the idea of Divinity - I just think that the typical understanding of God is incredibly limited.

I totally agree with your posting; and especially the above quote. I cannot believe the box people put god in; although references we have of him - be it christian or another religion - show that god is highly complex and is not to be ‘understood.’ Which would make sense if he is the sum of all systems; For example light, which is barely understood at all - and has many of the same characteristics.

I personally believe in god; but like you, understand that I cannot wrap my head around the concept - and if I believe I can, I would know I have it wrong.

Taoism says: You are never further from the truth as when you say “I have it!”

By Billy

November 2, 2005 11:16 AM | Link to this

Yes, slapping science and ID next to each other should show the difference between fiction and reality, but many children are raised by brainless idiots who believe the Bible is literally the word of God and, as such, should be taken literally. Adding ID to science class lends it credibility, which, as a scientific theory, it is completely lacking. As a philosophical theory, fine, but not a scientific one.

By Stewie

November 2, 2005 11:20 AM | Link to this

This morning I heard on the radio about a woman that was arrested for trying to physically knock a demon from her baby…the child died as a result of it’s injury.

This woman observed something unexplained in her child and instead of taking the logical approach and having the child examined, she determined that the only plausible explanation for this child’s complex behavior was that it was possessed by a demon.

Should children by taught (perhaps within inches of their lives) at an early age that an alternate explanation to a medical condition is due to demonic possession?

This is obviously an extreme example of the danger of ignorance, but it’s still an apt analogy to the teaching of Intelligent Design.

By The72John

November 2, 2005 11:21 AM | Link to this

The scientific community doesn’t respond to the creationist/anti-evolution crowd because to do so gives these extremists credibility they don’t deserve

Yup, that’s what I was getting at…

And it’s already dangerous for academics. There have been numerous examples lately of students attempting to dictate the content of coursework. For instance, a freshman at Chapel Hill a couple of years ago filed a complaint against a professor because he was required to read the Koran. We are allowing the lunatic fringe to pick and choose what they study because they don’t want to be exposed to foreign ideas.

The anti-intellectuals and post-modernists have decided that “opinion” is as important and valid as empirical fact. And of course, anytime someone is “offended” by the education to which they are exposed they can claim that the professor is just “a liberal”, as if that explains it all.

The inmates are in charge of the asylum.

By The72John

November 2, 2005 11:26 AM | Link to this

Sorry to offend you, Vince, but it’s the truth - I and several others tried to impress on you that teaching ID in a science class, whatever your intent, gives credibility as science to that hogwash. It’s obvious that you are a mediator-type, and under most circumstances that’s a great thing. When it comes to teaching something like Science, it’s a BAD thing.

By Boscoe

November 2, 2005 11:56 AM | Link to this

John today at 10:41 AM you said this That IS what ID says, basically - we don’t understand now therefore there is no logical explanation, ever? Now that’s funny because at 10:19 yesterday you said Sorry, Bozo, but the fact that we haven’t learned everything yet does not make the things we HAVE learned invalid. Is it only OK for evolutionists to use this excuse? Must be the WAY you say it that makes you inteeeellajent. Well SHA-ZAM John!

By Billy

November 2, 2005 11:56 AM | Link to this

My wife’s been watching the trial of a woman who stoned her 8 and 6 year-old boys to death and permanently maimed her 18 month-old. She said God told her to do it. She and Andrea Yates were supposed to be witnesses for God together. She went to a church where people got filled with the holy spirit and spoke in tongues.

I wonder if she believes in creationism or evolution…

By Billy

November 2, 2005 12:08 PM | Link to this

Boscoe — quit saying “Evolutionists”. The things we know are not invalid just because there are some things we don’t. That is what John was saying. Id says that there are some things we don’t know and, as such, we cannot see any system at work apart from magic.

ID is not science.

By The72John

November 2, 2005 12:11 PM | Link to this

Bozo, I wonder if you were born stupid, or is it a side-effect of your Catholic brainwashing?

Do you honestly lack the intellectual ability to distinguish between the two phrases you have quoted?

One says - Just because we don’t know EVERYTHING doesn’t mean that the things we HAVE learned are not true. For instance, if I’m a beginning algebra student, my innability to work a two-variable equation does not mean that I am similarly unable to work a single-variable equation. Lack of COMPLETE knowledge does not negate what knowledge one does have.

The OTHER says - Just because we don’t know something right now, that does not mean we won’t know it later. ID says that because we lack certain knowledge NOW, there is no answer for it EVER, other than “God”.

These aren’t hard concepts…obviously you aren’t a Jesuit or you wouldn’t be so obtuse.

By Boscoe

November 2, 2005 12:31 PM | Link to this

I understand you evolutionist jackass. I don’t understand every facet of creationism so it’s invalid. You don’t understand every facet of evolution but that doesn’t make it invalid and anybody who thinks otherwise is a redneck. You pompus fool, you’re drowning in your own arrogance and you don’t even realize it.

By Billy

November 2, 2005 12:37 PM | Link to this

Boscoe, it doesn’t matter how much creationism you do or do not understand, it would still be invalid as a scientific concept. And quit saying “evolutionist”; it’s a word fabricated by creationists/ID supporters to portray science as religion. Which it is emphatically not.

By Jack

November 2, 2005 12:38 PM | Link to this

You were born that way John. Arrogant creatin.

By DeltaX

November 2, 2005 12:39 PM | Link to this

Boscoe: And you’re drowning in your own ignorance and you don’t even realize it.

You still do not get it: ID is not science.

You have ignored every correction of your absurd notions (which began as trying to be helpful by most - but now we are exhausted) - and you just keep cycling through the same error filled/ignorant angles; while learning NOTHING.

By FatMoose

November 2, 2005 12:48 PM | Link to this

“I’ve never yet met any intelligent-designer who actually read ‘Rare Earth,’” Ward told me. “They all hear about it, and just assume that we say that life is unique to Earth. They’ve never even taken the trouble to read the two sentences of the ‘Rare Earth’ hypothesis — that life ought to be everywhere, with complex life at much lower frequency. It’s ‘rare’ in terms of animals, dummies!” - The tree of alien life: Paleontologist Peter Ward

Typical ignorance of IDers.

By The72John

November 2, 2005 12:54 PM | Link to this

Actually, no, you moron, I’m not drowning in my arrogance. You are continuing to show how stupid you really are.

We aren’t talking about a personal understanding of evolution or creation. We’re talking about the basic assumption that YOU put forth a while back, which was that because there are “holes” in evolutionary theory, the entirety of the theory must be wrong.

That was YOUR statement, drone. It has been refuted, and you can’t handle it, so you deliberately misconstrue the refutation.

And, simpleton, you still can’t slide Creation in with evolution because you can’t TEST CREATION, dolt.

Lol. Evolutionist. Funny. Why don’t you just go back to encouraging the spread of AIDS in Africa and contributing to world poverty. That seems to be the only thing you people are good at.

By The72John

November 2, 2005 12:58 PM | Link to this

Sorry Boscoe - I forgot…molesting children and covering it up. Y’all are good at that, too.

By Ken

November 2, 2005 01:11 PM | Link to this

Do scientists ever fudge data in an effort to get more grant money…?

Do scientists ever falsify testing in an effort to get their drugs approved or to get published in the latest journals…?

Do journalists ever plagerize or fudge facts in an effort to get more recognition or spread a particular story or smear an individual they don’t like…?

Humans make mistakes. All humans, inclugin you an me. To focus on the iniquities of humanity and it’s institutions is an ill-favored view. Wouldn’t it be better to instead focus on all of the good done…? Good that far outweighs the bad in nearly all cases.

By Dan

November 2, 2005 01:12 PM | Link to this

The constitution states CONGRESS shall enact no LAW supporting the establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

So unless a law is enacted by congress supporting or prohibiting a specific religion, it is not unconstitutional. This is one of the more specifically written amendments. In my opinion done intentionally due to the inflamatory subject matter. All other exhortations and rants regarding separation of church and state are manufactured political rhetoric, and simply nonsense

By Terry

November 2, 2005 01:24 PM | Link to this

The72John: I can understand Boscoe calling you names and making judgements about you without evidence - after all, he is a devout religious person. But you appear to have a logical, reasoning intelligence. Please don’t stoop to his level.

Boscoe: Bottom line - Scientific discussion demands experimental evidence. You have yet to propose meaningful tests for ID, you have references no reports of current research on ID at any relevant scientific society meetings, and you have referenced no body of research on ID published in relevant scientific journals. So, you have yet to demonstrate that ID is a scientific theory.

If you are unable to do any one of these things, please get past your unfounded convictions and quit whining about things you so obviously don’t understand!

By The72John

November 2, 2005 01:25 PM | Link to this

Ken, if you’re speaking about my comments about the Catholic Church, then I question whether the good done outweighs the bad. Are there good individual Catholics? Assuredly. Are there good priests, good parishes, good Bishops? Of course. Do these groups do good? Of course.

However, as an institution, the Church is a power-hungry, corrupt organization that ignores the issues of the modern world in favor of long-outdated superstition. The failure of the church to change its rhetoric on reproduction and birth control in the face of rising third-world populations, increasing poverty, and the spread of disease is reprehensible, as is the disgusting cover-up of molesting priests and the transparent attempts to yet again make gay men the scapegoat. All of these can be laid at the feet, not of some wayward individual, but of the highest leaders of the worldwide institution.

Dan, yet again - the protections of the 1st ammendment were extended to every level of government by the Supreme Court in 1947 - Everson v. Board of Education. The court ruled that the 14th A’s due process clause included freedom of religion as a protected liberty, and therefore was applied equally to all levels of government.

That’s not manufactured political rhetoric, it’s judicial fact.

By The72John

November 2, 2005 01:27 PM | Link to this

My apologies Terry - there’s something about religious fanatics that brings out the worst in me.

By DeltaX

November 2, 2005 01:30 PM | Link to this

Dan,

By definition we are not a theocracy - so although congress shall make no law…; religion is expected to be omitted from govmt. I figure the founders did not expect religion to be infused into gvmt with the obvious given definition - and since congress can make no law, we have little structure to go by: Except the GIVEN DEFINITION, which should be enough.

Ken, There is not a function in place in the institutions you name that further a culture of dishonesty and intolerance - therefore you will find instances of people doing wrong, but not a culture.

Where-as organized religion is historically/factually: Sickeningly slow to reverse obvious wrong doings (molestation->holocoust->slavery); denies those wrongs until the evidence has been amassed to an absurd amount; continues to be exclusionary to all people that are different for as long as possible; promotes ignorance regarding anything adult (pitfalls of life, sex, sex ed,kids are treated like property).

By Ken

November 2, 2005 01:46 PM | Link to this

Is someone or something intolerant because of a belief that a particular action or lifestyle is wrong…?

By Terry

November 2, 2005 01:50 PM | Link to this

Ken: Only if they try to push their belief on others, either by legal edict or by underhanded stealth (like stickers on text books).

By NativeAtlantan

November 2, 2005 01:53 PM | Link to this

The72John - Do religious “fanatics” get you worked up or just religion in general? It’s hard to tell by your posts

By Terry

November 2, 2005 01:55 PM | Link to this

NativeAtlantan: I don’t know about The72John, but for me the answer is an emphatic YES.

By DeltaX

November 2, 2005 01:59 PM | Link to this

In america, everyone is to be tolerated - except those that remove others freedoms.

The religous act of intolerance is used by the function of converting everyone; and precipitates in the form of: Ten Commandments, Stickers, Gay Hating….

By The72John

November 2, 2005 01:59 PM | Link to this

Could you be more specific, Ken? I see where you’re going here, and I can even concede that depending on one’s perspective the answer would change, but I’d like you to be a little more specific.

For instance - murder is an action that no one would (we hope) tolerate, and I doubt strongly that anyone would argue that someone who didn’t condone murder was intolerant.

Pre-marital or extra-marital sex, on the other hand is more subjective. My PERSONAL take on tolerance is that you if you do not accept a person’s right to live as he or she wants to live, so long as that living does not affect you, then you are intolerant.

Someone else may have a different interpretation.

By Whiley

November 2, 2005 02:01 PM | Link to this

Religious debates again, ho hum.

What time does Will & Grace come on tonight?

By The72John

November 2, 2005 02:07 PM | Link to this

NativeAtlantan, as long as religion serves a benign cause, then there is no argument. When religion and the religious seek to control, harm, manipulate, subjugate, or otherwise affect the lives of others, then we have a problem. I also have a problem with religious extremeism that ignores reality in favor of dogma or orthodoxy.

Any ire on my part has been directed at those individuals or institutions that fit this description.

By Scalia

November 2, 2005 02:12 PM | Link to this

Will and Grace comes on at 10:30 and midnight on the WB. It comes on at 11 p.m. on Lifetime.

Enjoy. I love that show.

By NativeAtlantan

November 2, 2005 02:31 PM | Link to this

The72John - Do you have the same issues with government? Government is often used to “control, manipulate, harm, subjugate, and otherwise affect the lives of others”

By NativeAtlantan

November 2, 2005 02:36 PM | Link to this

Terry - thanks for the “emphatic YES” but there were choices there. Wanna make one?

By The72John

November 2, 2005 02:38 PM | Link to this

That would depend on the issue, NativeAtlantan. Government has positive and negative aspects.

Of course, I take government a little less personally, for the most part. Government has never held a rally against me or shouted in my face through a loudspeaker how sinful I am.

By DeltaX

November 2, 2005 02:38 PM | Link to this

NativeAtlantan;

Government is often used to “control, manipulate, harm, subjugate, and otherwise affect the lives of others�

Seeing as the functional gmvt laws/rules are dynamic and can change; that institution needs a finger on the pulse at all times - since it can be corrupted.

Hence why so many people dislike Homeland Security.

The difference is that religous rules are slow to change - if at all. Organized religion is as much of a dynamic system as the gvmt.

That is my take on it; hope you do not mind the input.

By The72John

November 2, 2005 02:39 PM | Link to this

I’m pretty sure that was meant to be an all-inclusive “yes”.

By DeltaX

November 2, 2005 02:43 PM | Link to this

Organized religion is as much of a dynamic system as the gvmt.

That should read: Organized religion is not nearly as much of a dynamic system as the gvmt.

By Kelvin

November 2, 2005 02:49 PM | Link to this

It bothers me that Christian extremists will kill abortion doctors, support a war, and then complain about abortion. Most rational behind it is: the babies are defenseless. So a doctor, not armed, is not defenseless?

By NativeAtlantan

November 2, 2005 02:51 PM | Link to this

DeltaX - Not at all, thanks for the input. I am not expressing my opinion at this point, simply asking questions.

The72John - Yeah I thought it might be all inclusive too, but I thought I would let Terry tell me rahter than make the assumption

Of course, I take government a little less personally, for the most part. Government has never held a rally against me or shouted in my face through a loudspeaker how sinful I am

No probably not. The government is much more subtle, but if you don’t hink they make decisions that can adversely affect your life on a regular basis, you aren’t paying attention

By Terry

November 2, 2005 02:58 PM | Link to this

NativeAtlantan: Religion is the root of all evil. It proports to espouse ideals of love while practicing intolerance and bigotry, it claims to teach peace while waging war, etc. Religious fanatics are just the fringe element that actually believes they have the ‘God given’ right to force their dogma on others.

We are in the middle of a religious war (solely based on ancient myths and unfounded beliefs) that threatens to destroy us all. Our current environment of political correctness makes reasoned discussion of the issue of religion at any kind of meaningful level impossible.

By The72John

November 2, 2005 03:10 PM | Link to this

Now see, there’s where Terry and I differ. I don’t think that religion is the root of all evil, but I do agree that a great deal of evil has sprung from religion.

Actually, I find the study of religions (if you take the fanatics out of the equation) fascinating. There are many amazing people out there who do remarkable things in the name of their faith, who display care and compassion for others, who are open-minded, etc.

Unfortunately, there are also the scary people who kill those who don’t share their convictions, and, to my mind, the even scarier types who smile to your face during the day but condemn you and rail against you behind your back in the evenings.

By Terry

November 2, 2005 03:32 PM | Link to this

Yes, The72John, there are great people throughout history that have done good works in the name of their religion. But, they are the exception, not the rule.

Religion is the antithesis of knowledge and learning. If you study any of the 3 major monothesis religions popular in Western thought, you find that they, by their very nature, are intolerent.

Auschwitz, the gulag, and the inquisitions all testify to the dangers of not thinking critically enough about ideologies (secular or otherwise). My argument against religion is not a blind embrace of athesim as dogma. The problem is dogma itself - of which every religion has more that it’s fair share. Society will only cease to suffer when people become reasonable. Conviction without justification is inherently hostile. There is no foundation within Christianity, Judiasm, Islam, or any other religion for religious tolerence and diversity.

Spirituality can AND MUST exist without religion or we as a species are doomed to religious violence forever.

By Jack

November 2, 2005 03:38 PM | Link to this

Hi Whiley and Scalia. maybe someday they willhave a topic worth talking about without religion vs. science debate. See ya next week. ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

By NativeAtlantan

November 2, 2005 03:41 PM | Link to this

TERRY - Religion is the root of all evil. It proports to espouse ideals of love while practicing intolerance and bigotry, it claims to teach peace while waging war, etc. Religious fanatics are just the fringe element that actually believes they have the ‘God given’ right to force their dogma on others.

No, religion cannot do anything for itself. People certainly do those things in the name of religion but that does not make the religion inherently evil. A hammer can build you a house or kill a person, but the hammer is not at fault. It is how it is employed that makes the difference

We are in the middle of a religious war (solely based on ancient myths and unfounded beliefs) that threatens to destroy us all. Our current environment of political correctness makes reasoned discussion of the issue of religion at any kind of meaningful level impossible.

It is only impossible because you appear to share the same traits that your religious fanatics do. An inflexibility and intolerance for things you do not agree with in substance. The only difference is the side of the line you choose.

The72John - Yes, there are both types of people in religion, as with any other facet of life. A great deal of evil has sprung up from religion, and if you think about it, the zealous embrace of many different avenues human beings find themselves drawn to in their lifetimes.

Look how obsessed we are over appearance, sports, music, etc.

By DB

November 2, 2005 03:48 PM | Link to this

Boscoe: Your statement: “Even evolutionists recognize that true mutations are very rare, and beneficial mutations are extremely rare—not more than one out of a thousand mutations are beneficial, at the very most.”

That’s exactly why natural selection takes millions of years. And yes, beneficial mutations are rare, and MUTATIONS are not. You’re quoting science from your local church or church-based magazine. Get with the picture and update yourself on scientific knowledge before you go spouting inaccurate information as FACT.

They happen every million to billion base pairs of DNA during replication in most eukaryotes, which makes a mutation occur about every 3 seconds in one of your cells in your digestive tract alone. Call that rare, but with the large numbers, it’s not so rare.

As for sickle cell, you are wrong in that it’s not beneficial. That is why it is so prevalent in Africans! You’re paying too much attention to the HOMOZYGOUS RECESSIVE individuals who die from sickle cell. However, what you don’t know is that for every HOMOZYGOUS RECESSIVE individual there are 2 or more carriers who carry out a normal life and are resistant to Malaria. I suppose to you that’s only a cosmic coincidence. However, the rest of the world(where there is little or no Malaria) has much lower frequencies of the trait altogether. So, although sickle cell does cause disease in a few cases, the population that has many carriers will be resistant to Malaria. It’s called natural selection.

I can’t believe you’re even arguing against natural selection. Even the most vehement anti-evolutionists accept natural selection. If you’re not going to update your scientific knowledge, at least update your anti-evolution prattle. You should be saying, “No Macroevolution”. But then I’ll show you evidence of that. And you’ll move your discussion further away.

I love how you keep “moving” your argument every time I explain your inconsistencies and inaccuracies and show you evidence or correct your obvious lack of knowledge. Almost all of the scientific information you offer is absolutely inaccurate. Where did you learn it?

By Billy

November 2, 2005 03:49 PM | Link to this

NativeAtlantan — If religion cannot do anything for itself and, therefore, cannot be evil, then neither can it be good, you must agree. Just as those who do unspeakable things in the name of religion are what is evil about religion, so must those who do good things in the name of religion be what is good about religion.

By Whateva

November 2, 2005 03:55 PM | Link to this

Where did you learn it? (flawed science spouted as fact)

Let’s see, do we get three guesses, and the first two maybe don’t count?

As in religion seems to always adjust its perception/explanation of things to accomodate more recent science findings.

By NativeAtlantan

November 2, 2005 03:56 PM | Link to this

Billy - Yes, I think that is true to an extent. I think that often religion is confused with faith. They are not even remotely the same. You can be very religious and not be faithful.

Sort of like the difference between the Constitution and the tax code. The Constitution is seen as a living document that is written to beinterpreted for intent. The tax code is a large group of rules and if it ain’t in there, it doesn’t exist. Which do you think seems more reasonable?

By Terry

November 2, 2005 03:59 PM | Link to this

NativeAtlantan: In some ways I see your point. I should point out that, although I am committed to my belief, I am not emotional about it. Show me evidence to the contrary and I will GLADLY modify my theories concerning religious dogmas.

I have spent my life being tolerent of religion. I have watch the religious intolerence and religious violence grow in this country and throughout the world. And I have studies, to the best of my ability the root causes of these events. I base my beliefs on evidence as I perceive it to be (and no, I will not get into a philosophical debate on perception here).

Take an honest look at the foundation of terrorism - Muslim, Jewish and Christian and show me the evidence that we are learning anything new about spirituality. Show me PLEASE where any of our religious thought is open to new evidence and willing to divest itself of ancient mythologies and unfounded dogmas.

I am old and dying (yes, we all are, but my remaining time is more well defined, at least acording to my doctors). So, in some ways, I am desperate to create the changes that I perceive are needed in this world to ensure that my children and grandchildren have a more hopeful future. And, yes, I see religion as the enemy in this pursuit.

By Ken

November 2, 2005 04:02 PM | Link to this

Terry… Saying that people doing good in the name of religion is the exception and not the rule is like saying that all news is bad news b/c there is very little of it reported at 6:00 on the TV.

The problems will always get the headlines. They will always get more pages in the history books. Will always be first and foremost on our minds b/c the problems cause debate and critical thinking.

Noone critically debated or discussed the successful food ministries in this city, or the refugee relocation efforts, or the battered women’s shelters, or the etc. That list can go on and on and on from just the individuals that I know alone.

By Honesty's the best policy

November 2, 2005 04:06 PM | Link to this

the even scarier types who smile to your face during the day but condemn you and rail against you behind your back in the evenings

i.e. WHITE people

By Ken

November 2, 2005 04:06 PM | Link to this

NativeAtlantan… Great post splitting ‘religion’ from ‘faith’ b/c the two are not joined at the hip as many folks speak.

By Terry

November 2, 2005 04:07 PM | Link to this

NativeAtlantan: You said: No, religion cannot do anything for itself. People certainly do those things in the name of religion but that does not make the religion inherently evil. A hammer can build you a house or kill a person, but the hammer is not at fault. It is how it is employed that makes the difference

But a hammer is just a tool. Religion is a philosophy and belief system. Not a good analogy. Religion, by its very nature, teaches the follower how to look at the world and how to interact with it.

By The72John

November 2, 2005 04:10 PM | Link to this

Possibly it’s because a little evil can outweigh a lot of good?

10 murders committed in the name of God or Allah or JHVH outweigh 1000 people being fed at a soup kitchen.

4000 murders committed in the name of Allah was enough to condem a religion of 1.5 billion people in the eyes of many.

To my eyes there is little positive done in the name of religion that does not have strings attached, but I’ll freely admit that I am jaded. I’d love to be convinced otherwise, but I don’t see it happening.

By DeltaX

November 2, 2005 04:12 PM | Link to this

NativeAtlantan,

The people that do great things in the name of religion, that I can think of, have had a stronger mind and will than most. Therefore, I feel they have the sense to refuse the incidious nature of organized religion - most people do not.

I believe that organized religion is evil - and as you pointed out, religion is different than faith.

Which implores the question: Was Jesus promoting faith or religion? And the answer, compared to what the churches do, shows that religions missed his point.

By Billy

November 2, 2005 04:13 PM | Link to this

Regarding the government influencing 72John’s life — I have no doubt that he does realize this. Were I to make assumptions based on his post, I would infer he is talking about morons like Fred Phelps who sents his idiot minions out to protest gays. The government tells 72John he cannot be killed for sexual orientation. If he is killed for that reason, the killers will be punished, not overlooked as may have happened in the past. The government may be a little slow to change, but religious institutions, as a rule, are much slower. As in the earlier post that mentioned Pope John Paul II apologizing for the treatment of Gallileo while never actually admitting the Church was wrong, even after some 500 years.

By Billy

November 2, 2005 04:14 PM | Link to this

Dammit, I meant “sends”.

By Terry

November 2, 2005 04:15 PM | Link to this

Ken: Read ALL of my last number of posts (02:58, 03:32, 03:59, and even 9:41) so that you do not take concepts out of context. Then I would appreciate hearing your opinion.

By NativeAtlantan

November 2, 2005 04:16 PM | Link to this

Terry - Please accept my sincere condolences on your condition.

I have to tell you I think you are either kidding yourself or trying to fool me when you say you aren’t emotional about your beliefs. Your posts have shown you to be very adamant about your position. Going so far as to refer to as an enemy. With your belief and conviction that you must stand in the breach against religion for your children and grandchildren’s sake to make a better world for them, it is hard to take you seriously when you say you aren’t emotional. It is fine to be emotional about it if you feel that way, however it seems silly to deny it. IMO, commitmment without any emotional attachment will not hold long.

Last I checked, no religion in this country forced anyone to join up. They may try to show you how they are correct or why you should believe, but no one is conscripting you. Since there is no mandate for you to be a part of any religion, why should you or I dictate what they believe? Most people you know own cars, but most of them don’t drive drunk and ram it into a school bus. So is the car the problem or the operator? To follow your logic, we would need to outlaw cars, rather than punish the person responsible.

There is also a myriad of violent acts being committed daily without religion being involved…so why is religious violence so much worse? Hypocrisy is not limited to believers or non-believers.

By Billy

November 2, 2005 04:16 PM | Link to this

Good point Terry.

“But a hammer is just a tool. Religion is a philosophy and belief system. Not a good analogy. Religion, by its very nature, teaches the follower how to look at the world and how to interact with it.”

It is a tool in the same way a hammer is a tool if you consider the possibility that hammers have a sticker that reads, “If someone refuses to pick up the this hammer and help you build, feel free to bash them in the head with it.”

By NativeAtlantan

November 2, 2005 04:22 PM | Link to this

DeltaX - I believe that Jesus was promoting faith and relationship, not religion. He made a point very often that the religious leaders and religion itself was missing the forest for the trees.

Terry - There was nothing wrong with my analogy, even if you don’t get it. Your worldview is a “tool” in which you “construct” your life.

By DeltaX

November 2, 2005 04:24 PM | Link to this

Last I checked, no religion in this country forced anyone to join up.

Well, You sure about that?

That is what people worry about when religion states it has a right to post its rules (10 commandments) on govmt property; or amend textbooks; or say a prayer to jesus before a school meeting….

By NativeAtlantan

November 2, 2005 04:26 PM | Link to this

Billy - ok thats just stupid..if you have nothing to add to the conversation, please dont waste our time

By NativeAtlantan

November 2, 2005 04:30 PM | Link to this

DeltaX - I agree in a way with the textbooks and plaques…not really concerned about it. But if a child or adult wants to say a prayer to himself, who are you or I to infringe that if it is at school. If they are leading others or commanding a group prayer then we have a different issue, but individual exercise not infringing on the rights of others to choose not to follow suit should be (ands is constitutionally) allowed

By DeltaX

November 2, 2005 04:33 PM | Link to this

NativeAtlantan

I believe that Jesus was promoting faith and relationship, not religion.

Nice, that is exactly what I (try to) follow. Having faith that things are as they should be covers one major aspect of spirituality; and having a relationship keeps one on the straight and narrow w/o bs rules (once you have a real relationship with something/someone, it is near impossible to do them wrong).

I believe those are the two most important aspect of spiriuality - dead on man!

But, how did those concepts get so burried???

By Terry

November 2, 2005 04:33 PM | Link to this

NativeAtlantan: I am adamant about my convictions. That does not in and of itself require that I also tie my emotions to it. I am still learning (and hopefully will continue to do so), so, as I said, so me evidence that my concepts are unfounded and I will modify my beliefs accordingly.

No religion isn’t forced on anyone, but those that speak out against it are ostricized. But, for the sake of argument, let’s look at what you are saying (at least if I’m reading you right).

You seem to be saying that we should be tolerent of religion. But that same tolerence allows the intolerence of other religions to grow (i.e., our tolerence of Muslim extremist throughout the 90s just allowed it to fester and grow). However, if one is intolerent of other religions it will still continue to fester and grow. That’s a no-win that seems to be part-and-parcel with religion itself.

Each of our 3 major religions, by their very nature, says that non-believers are wrong and must be converted or subjugated or killed (depending on the religion and the zealousness of the believer). There is no room for reason and logic.

So, tell me, how are we going to stop the violence? How do we as a species finally loosen the shackles of our dogmas and begin to truly embrace spirituality. When will we realize that our own happiness and well-being is tied in a very real sense to our neighbors. That, after all is what religion is suppose to be teaching. Based on results, we better find another way!

By Billy

November 2, 2005 04:36 PM | Link to this

No, it’s perfectly legitimate. The drive to get ID in science classes is stupid. I agree that faith and religion are separate things. So is spirituality. But most religions are exclusive, meaning that nonbelievers are going to hell or at the very least not going to heaven. These people are partryed as heathens/infidels/atheists/Democrats for a belief. The religion is telling its followers that the nonbeliever is less of a person than the pious man. Whether the followers use this or not, and how they use it varies. But we have to admit that most religions dictate that is up to the believer to affect change in the world to meet the “goals” of the religion, be it saving souls, killing all the infidels, or what.

By DeltaX

November 2, 2005 04:38 PM | Link to this

NativeAtlantan,

individual exercise not infringing on the rights of others to choose not to follow suit should be (ands is constitutionally) allowed

I completely agree with the above.

(Understand that I am a christian; and pray myself in the manner described above - my family and I have shunned organized religion is all.)

By The72John

November 2, 2005 04:38 PM | Link to this

That is what people worry about when religion states it has a right to post its rules (10 commandments) on govmt property; or amend textbooks; or say a prayer to jesus before a school meeting

Or when they start passing laws that discriminate against groups of people of whom they disapprove, or imposing government controls over aspects of peoples lives that should be private, or ignoring the law in favor of their own agenda, etc…

To me, that’s a de facto forced joining, if nothing else.

By NativeAtlantan

November 2, 2005 04:47 PM | Link to this

DeltaX - Don’t know how that happened, but it did, even 2000 years ago.

Terry - You say you aren’t emotional; to me you appear to be. No matter, they’re just opinions.

If you and I were discussing race, instead of religion, you would be labeled a bigot. How do we stop the violence? We have laws and law enforcement. If you commit murder, regardless of your reasons religious or otherwise, then you should pay the price called for by law for it. Violence is not advocated by the vast mojority of any religion. Again, back to those who have a lot of religion or a lot of faith. Violence can be wrong regardless of religion being an issue involved. Perhaps concentrate on the criminal and the crime and leave the profiling to the FBI, hmmm?

You get ostracized for speaking out? The horror! Quit whining. You talk to me about conviction and backbone and then cry about “being ostracized”. MLK, Ghandi, Rosa Parks (RIP) and many others thought that was an easy price to pay because they were committed

By DeltaX

November 2, 2005 04:49 PM | Link to this

More importantly:

What can be done about the corruption of religion? It cannot change itself - that we know; and if outsiders change it, they will yell persicution.

Seems we can only hope people grow up? [leading to my big question earlier: Do people ever grow up? And if not, is that why they need a big-daddy in the sky instead of a spiritual god?]

By Ken

November 2, 2005 04:49 PM | Link to this

The72John… You just described any run of the mill political action group.

By NativeAtlantan

November 2, 2005 04:52 PM | Link to this

Billy -

The religion is telling its followers that the nonbeliever is less of a person than the pious man.

Clearly, you have no idea what the different religions believe.

By The72John

November 2, 2005 04:55 PM | Link to this

There is a significant difference between violence on the street and violence that causes the deaths of hundreds of thousands.

By NativeAtlantan

November 2, 2005 04:55 PM | Link to this

DeltaX - good questions…I will think about them and answer tomorrow as I may not have the time before 5pm to give it its due

By NativeAtlantan

November 2, 2005 04:58 PM | Link to this

There is a significant difference between violence on the street and violence that causes the deaths of hundreds of thousands.

That is so true…I have been waiting to see how long we would go before discussing the outlawing of those who practice medicine or nuclear physics! Off with their heads!!

By DeltaX

November 2, 2005 05:00 PM | Link to this

Ken,

You just described any run of the mill political action group

But look at what organized religion wants compared to any run of the mill political action group; They want others to LIVE how they see fit.

Any run of the mill political action group besides religion is looking at policy change based on their understanding of america or the constitution (taxes, gun control, funding) - not their understanding of religion.

There is a difference of scope.

By The72John

November 2, 2005 05:00 PM | Link to this

I have been waiting to see how long we would go before discussing the outlawing of those who practice medicine or nuclear physics! Off with their heads!!

And you accused Billy of being silly?

By Terry

November 2, 2005 05:03 PM | Link to this

Now you’re getting emotional. If you really believe that violence is not advocated by any religion, you need to do a lot more study. Start with Deut. 13:7-11, then try Lev. (all of it).

Then explain the madrasas throughout the Mid-East. Or the reasoning (without religion) for the response by Muslims to a sucessful suicide bombing. They cheer and dance in the streets, not because of a political victory, but because they KNOW, with all their heartand soul that the bomber has just won a special place in Heaven. Why does 80% of the Muslim community in England not condemn the London bombings. You really want to be tolerent of this mindset? You really want to wait until they have nuclear power to realize the danger.

There is no whinning on my part. Just total disbelief that our dogmas have blinded us so thoroughly to the danger. We sit here in our private space and discuss replacing scientific inquiry, reason and logic with ancient religious mythologies. We should be questioning our very beliefs and searching for new spiritual answers that are more appropriate to our current world.

You actually come across as a reasonable person. Please commit yourself to being open to new evidence and then go do your own study of at least some of what I’m saying.

By Randy

November 3, 2005 08:31 AM | Link to this

I want to compliment the Christians on this site, the arguments you all have made are spectacular. I know we are suppose to believe by faith, but you all have proven that believing is logical also. To the non-Christians, keep searching for the truth, open your hearts and conscience as that is the avenue Jesus takes to find you. God Bless.

By Billy

November 3, 2005 08:36 AM | Link to this

“By NativeAtlantan

November 2, 2005 04:52 PM | Link to this

Billy -

The religion is telling its followers that the nonbeliever is less of a person than the pious man.

Clearly, you have no idea what the different religions believe.”

NativeAtlantan, you have no idea what I know. I know as much about the Bible as many, if not most, people who consider themselves Christians. I’ve taken classes in comparative religion and philosophy. And religion was a big part of classes I’ve taken on the Middle East and India. While I don’t claim to be an expert on any religion, I’m not going to sit here and say things I just made up.

We (many religions) raise people in an environment where they take in the message “God will let you into heaven but smite the heathens and send them to hell.” Like it or not, that is part of the message of many religions. Not the whole message, but still a part of it. Much like you can tell someone they’re worthless over and over and they start to believe it, if you tell them someone else is worthless they’ll start to believe that. It’s not a stretch, and you telling me I don’t know what religions believe dosn’t change that fact. It’s why we have Fred Phelps, who I mentioned above, running a web site called “godhatesfags.com” and protesting all over the place with signs that read “AIDS cures f*”. It’s disgusting.

By DeltaX

November 3, 2005 08:43 AM | Link to this

Randy, That statement confuses me.

See, I am a christian, but also understand that ID is not science. [I also understand the evils that organized religion did to jesus’ word - in case you are referring to that discussion.]

So, your statement includes and exclude me - making me wonder exactly what you read on here and how you interpreted it.

So, What exactly what arguments you all have made are spectacular? List form is fine.

By DeltaX

November 3, 2005 08:54 AM | Link to this

NativeAtlantan,

I believe Billy is explaining, simply put, that the church and organized religion is hierachical - instead of what jesus preached which would be whole-archical [ex - god is the sum of father/son/holy ghost. They are not a tier, one being above another.]

Any system that is hierarchical has to deal with who/what is above who/what. Where as in a whole-archical system (cells form organs, organs form organ systems, organ systems form an organism - all which are systems in systems that are important on any level and equal: think the phrase ‘cut off his nose to spite his face’ show that hierachy overlayed on wholeachies is an illogical notion)

So, at the very least it promotes a this better than that system as a method of thinking. Which is very limited and does not alow pluraulist thinking; leading to the typical black/white way of thinking so prevelant in religion.

By Billy

November 3, 2005 09:36 AM | Link to this

DeltaX — Yes, to an extent, I suppose, but I was mostly just referring to religion as a tool of socialization. Itinstills certain values in people from a young age. If part of that is “believers go to heaven and nonbelievers go to hell” then, after hearing that all their lives, those people are not going to value the life of a nonbeliever nearly as much as they would a believer. That’s the whole point of madrasas.

By Whateva

November 3, 2005 09:44 AM | Link to this

The Lutheran minister who was removed from being a minister by the Lutheran Governing Board(equivalent) because he prayed at Yankee Stadium after 9/11 on the same level as other religions, with clergy members of other faiths. By doing so, the board felt he diminished their belief that only the Lutheran religion is the path to heaven. So he was unworthy of being a Lutheran minister. Simple example of many available of ‘Our way is the only right way’.

By The72John

November 3, 2005 09:51 AM | Link to this

Anyone who doesn’t think that religion attempts to engender feelings of superiority in its followers need only look back through this week’s blog alone. Statements of moral superiority abound, based only on the fact that the person is a “believer”.

Even Ken, who is by far the most reasonable of the religious folks made some statement about how Christians were “better” than non-Christians, and “in the world but not of it” or something along those lines. Certainly sounds like a moral superiority complex to me.

By Whateva

November 3, 2005 10:06 AM | Link to this

So religion indeed serves a good purpose. It allows those who would otherwise have low-self-esteem an opportunity to feel Superior-Than-Thou due to their chosen(often culturally) religion. Isn’t it interesting that most people end up in the religion in which they were raised?

By Randy

November 3, 2005 10:12 AM | Link to this

I think non-Christians misinterpet Christians, on how we think we are superior. I don’t think I’m superior, I think I know something that non-Christians don’t know. It’s like Anne Rice the horror writer, who converted to Christianity a few years back, now some of her fans want her to write like she use to about vampires etc and she said her heart won’t let her go there now that she is a Christian. We don’t feel superior, we just don’t want to go there(in our minds). It’s like my next door neighbor(he’s moved now), he would cheat on his wife, talk about it in front of her and I can’t go there. I can’t have anything to do with him. It’s not because I feel superior, it’s like oil and water, they don’t mix.

By chuck

November 3, 2005 10:13 AM | Link to this

Billy, The Section 8 statement that you referred to has to do with the power of congress to collect taxes. That’s the problem with some of the fools we have had appointed to the Supreme Court. They don’t care about what the Constitution SAYS…they care about their own personal agendas that have more to do withtheir desire to become a SOCIALIST country than to interpret the CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A LAW WHICH IS SUPPOSED TO BE THEIR SOLE FUNCTION. Determining the contstitutionality of a law means reading the law to see if it violates any constitutional provision. It does not mean that they should look at how society has changed and then mold the constitution to fit that. Justice Kennedy even stated last month that justices should look at INTERNATIONAL LAW when deciding the constitutionality of an AMERICAN LAW. He should be IMPEACHED. If AMERICANS don’t like the Constitution as it is, they should CHANGE IT. The Constitution is a LIVING DOCUMENT. It has a built in process. Until it is Changed through the Amendment Process, it should be read AS IS.

DeltaXhausting, You made a statement yesterday that expresses an attitude I find common among young adolescents, but rarely in mature adults:

In america, everyone is to be tolerated - except those that remove others freedoms.

So no matter how HARMFUL AN ACTION IS TO SOCIETY AS A WHOLE, WE SHOULD TOLERATE IT?

How about pedophilia, polluters (they don’t impinge on anyone’s FREEDOMS, just their ability to enjoy them), speeders, meth heads, heroin addicts, people who run red lights as long as they don’t hit anyone, truant students, absent parents who don’t pay child support, parents who abandon their children, and on and on.

I’m sorry, but the vast majority of Americans don’t want to live in your warped little world.

By Billy

November 3, 2005 10:21 AM | Link to this

Chuck — I realize that it’s about taxes, but they are empowered to collect taxes to promote the general welfare. Teaching ID is contrary to promoting the general welfare. Therefore the feds have the right to withold that tax money if ID is taught. The people should not subsidize a non-science taught as science.

And you didn’t answer my question about NCLB, I think. Would that not also be every bit as unconstitutional as the govt asserting its authority by banning ID?

By Randy

November 3, 2005 10:21 AM | Link to this

Chuck, You hit the nail on the head, the supreme court justices can’t find anything in our constitution so some want to go to more secular countries so they can CREATE new laws the way they want it, not the way our founding fathers intended.

By The72John

November 3, 2005 10:28 AM | Link to this

Chuck-the-shmuck, you know exactly what DeltaX meant by his statement. But, since you are a typical fundamentalist, conservative jerk, you are deliberately misconstruing it, and ignoring the caveat attached.

If someone’s behavior or life does not harm someone else, it should not be prohibited by the laws of a free society. You know as well as I that this is what DeltaX meant. Of course, as a Christian bigot, this offends you because you want to be free to gay bash, non-Christian bash, oh lets face it - you just want to be free to legally bash anyone and everyone that your little religion disagrees with.

By The72John

November 3, 2005 10:31 AM | Link to this

Oh and by the way Chuck, way to go. Suggest that a judge should be impeached because he expressed an opinion. Way to defend that Constitution you keep prattling on about, jackass. I guess freedom of Speech is only OK if it supports your “warped little world”.

I suspect that Justice Kennedy has forgotten more about the Constitution than you have ever known, or ever WILL know.

By Randy

November 3, 2005 10:32 AM | Link to this

Does The72John, say anything without insulting the person he is addressing??? Strong(Not).

By DeltaX

November 3, 2005 10:33 AM | Link to this

Chuck

DeltaXhausting, You made a statement yesterday that expresses an attitude I find common among young adolescents, but rarely in mature adults

And what do you think about name calling? Is that adult?

So no matter how HARMFUL AN ACTION IS TO SOCIETY AS A WHOLE, WE SHOULD TOLERATE IT? The belief of something harmful may be an opinion (for you may believe a same sex marriage is harmful - which is not fact); you asserting opinion here, or fact?

Here is a reply to your list that proves, conversely, not your point, but what I am saying:

• pedophilia = removes anothers rights

• polluters (they don’t impinge on anyone’s FREEDOMS, just their ability to enjoy them); not able to ejoy freedoms = removes anothers rights

• speeders, meth heads, heroin addicts, people who run red lights as long as they don’t hit anyone, absent parents who don’t pay child support, parents who abandon their children, and on and on = actions that remove others rights

Every example falls under a persons rights(truant students are minors and must attend school-> children do not have full rights/priveleges: drinking, war, driving).

You do not even understand the simple nature of our justice system, do you? It is not based on right/wrong moral issues; except ONE: Peoples inherent rights/freedoms.

And it is the church/religion that pushes the want of moral law - which of course is based on religious beliefs; not jesus’ word even.

By The72John

November 3, 2005 10:35 AM | Link to this

Delta, Chuck understands one thing, and one thing only. The hatred of anything non-Christian. That, and jingoistic, facist-like “patriotism”. It’s really scary that he teaches children.

Hey Chuck, do you make them wear swastikas to work and beat up the jewish kids?

By Randy

November 3, 2005 10:36 AM | Link to this

Let’s keep the constitution like the Founding Fathers intended, it’s been great for 200 years. They were very sharp. No need to try to get something from other countries that are no where near as successful and the USA. Also, we need to stop catering to the 4 or 5 percent of people(probably less) who don’t want things they way that they have always been. Let’s stay strong.

By The72John

November 3, 2005 10:37 AM | Link to this

That should read “to class”.

Hey Chuck, can you teach us how to goosestep? Or do we need shiny black boots for that?

By DeltaX

November 3, 2005 10:42 AM | Link to this

Suggest that a judge should be impeached because he expressed an opinion.

Then Bush needs to me impeached as well; bc that was a daily statement (you do know that they send our the script of the day, right? [fact]) that was resounded by many in his administration; including Bush himself [I heard three statements of this in the same day - the one you refer to and two others bw fox, npr, abc news].

Study before you spout bile!

And Christ would commune with your neighbor and see if he could help - not condemn and abandon. Only old testiment teaching would promote abandonment/hatefullness - Christ refruted OT and that was a large reason of his coming.

By DeltaX

November 3, 2005 10:48 AM | Link to this

The72John

Thing is; he does not follow Christs words. So, no - not a christian.

Therefore, I wonder what he is? Scary stuff.

Crazy also that people do not understand that by definition we are a secular gvmt. It gets no easier than that - yet people still do not get it. The founders did not put anything in the constitution regarding religion because they did not believe the ignorance could rise to the level of changing a definition. I would have made the same mistake - always giving people too much credit!

By The72John

November 3, 2005 10:50 AM | Link to this

Randy, do you live in a fantasy world? Oh, check that. We already know the answer is “yes”.

Do you HONESTLY think that less than 4% of the population don’t want things “like they’ve always been”? Do you have any idea how moronic that statement is?

Do you actually read the news? Do you realize that the last two elections have been the tightest in history? Do you realize that polls show that this country is split pretty much down the middle along conservative/liberal lines?

Maybe you’re buying the “mandate myth”. I mean, you buy into a lot of other myths. But seriously, get your head out of your a*.

By Randy

November 3, 2005 10:53 AM | Link to this

Chuck, You are absolutely right. What we are dealing with on this site is a extremely small percentage of Americans who have let the mass media, hollywood, their pride(ego)etc. influence them and get in the way of what is right. They want to change the USA and make it more secular. Why, I have no idea, as I’m very happy with the way things have been throughout the years, with a Christian country and the way the Founding Fathers drew up the constitution. We need to cater to what the overwhelming majority want in this country not what a few people who don’t know and don’t know they don’t know, want. Your great Chuck and very intelligent. Keep up the good work.

By The72John

November 3, 2005 10:54 AM | Link to this

Randy, you are too stupid to live. You know that, right?

By DeltaX

November 3, 2005 10:59 AM | Link to this

They want to change the USA and make it more secular. ?!?!?!?!?!?

I’m very happy with the way things have been throughout the years, with a Christian country and the way the Founding Fathers drew up the constitution. ?!?!?!?!?!?

Boy are you two in a fantasy!

I am keeping this post for everytime you say you think you know something! Crazy, crazy, crazy…

72John; So, do you think people everbecome adults? Or just grow? [stepping out of that conversation - too remedial]

By chuck

November 3, 2005 11:02 AM | Link to this

72INTHEJOHN, You proved my point. You decided what DELTAXcretion MEANT, I went by what he WROTE. And what a stupid statement…I hope that a SUPREME COURT JUSTICE knows more about the Constitutiopn than me, but when you make a statement that the SUPREME COURT of the UNITED STATES, should determine whether our laws are CONSTITUTIONAL BASED ON INTERNATIONAL LAW AND NOT ON THE CONSTITUTION, it makes one wonder whether he knows as much about the Constitution as he NEEDS to. In my opinion, he committed a violation of his oath of office, just by making the statement. If he makes decisions on Constitutionality using ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE CONSTITUTION, he violates his oath…an impeachable offense.

BTW, I am free to “gay-bash” as things are now, if by that you mean that I think the “lifestyle choice” is sin and is harmful to America and that I will speak out against it every chance I get. If you mean that I think gays should be BASHED physically, then you would be dead wrong. I believe it is you that wants a fascist government in place. I believe that your opinions have included having Christians rounded up and exterminated? Sound Hitleresque to me.

You stated DeltaXpelled, that those things remove someone’s rights. That is just your opinion.

If you want to go by opinions, then here is one for you. 55% of Americans DON’T BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION. I guess that means that we shouldn’t be teaching it in school?

By Randy

November 3, 2005 11:05 AM | Link to this

The72John, You are completely wrong, when you think we are split down the middle. Bush won the election last year without many Christian votes. He didn’t have the African-American vote, Hispanic vote, many Unions made their members vote Democratic because that is the way they have always voted. You have people like my aunt, who is 78 years old, devout Christian, but would vote Democratic if they ran a monkee(how she was raised). The only votes Bush got was from younger, caucasian, Christians for the most part. Keep dreaming. Why don’t you look at the numbers, 95% of people in the USA believe in God, 86% go to church at least once a year etc. You are in the vast minority.

By chuck

November 3, 2005 11:07 AM | Link to this

Randy, you are too stupid to live. You know that, right?

That’s a very tolerant statement for you there 72INTHEJOHNDOINGHISBOYFRIEND

By Randy

November 3, 2005 11:11 AM | Link to this

The most intolerant person on this site is The72John. He is mad at the world. Sorry, that the universe was created in the beginning(I call him Jesus) and he set down some commandments. They are real hard ones to, don’t murder, steal, lie, commit adultry etc. I guess it would be better if we could whatever we wanted and go to heaven. The72John, you are weak.

By DeltaX

November 3, 2005 11:16 AM | Link to this

72INTHEJOHNDOINGHISBOYFRIEND, DELTAXcretion, DeltaXpelled

Doesnt writing stuff like that trigger something in you that makes you feel childish?

It should.

Neither of you obviously have any idea what christ said; but only the dogma the mothership fed you. You are what you eat.

By The72John

November 3, 2005 11:16 AM | Link to this

Well, it’s an interesting corollary to the other discussion. What do you mean by “adult”? Are we talking emotional intelligence, the acceptance of responsibilites, what? What is your criteria for adulthood?

Now, Randy and Chuck are clearly Dualists - I mean DANG are they dualists. Absolutes all the way, NO shades of gray, NO room in their philosophy for ANYONE else who doesn’t toe their line. Is THAT adult? It certainly describes a lot of people, but studies of emotional and intellectual development clearly show that this is the absolute BOTTOM of the ladder of both those categories.

So, are Randy and Chuck adults? Am I being an adult when I insult them, call them names, etc.? No, probably not, but you know, I just can’t help myself.

By DeltaX

November 3, 2005 11:18 AM | Link to this

Um Randy,

You believe that christ set down some commandments?

Which?

By Terry

November 3, 2005 11:20 AM | Link to this

DeltaX: “Do not think that I have come to bring peace. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.� (Matthew 10:34-35) Or how about “…slay them in my presence.� (Luke 19:26-27) Of course there’s a lot more in the OT. Study before you spout bile!

The72John: this country is split pretty much down the middle along conservative/liberal lines. That’s a rather simplistic assertion. I voted Rep, but I disagree with them strongly on some issues. However I have even more issues with Dems.

Randy: Yes, this country was founded on Christian ideology. And, believe it or not, for the most part, I have been ok with that. But that ideology is blinding us to the religious war we are now waging. It is stopping us from asking the questions we need to be asking.

The72John & Randy: Take a look at http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/7902

And, I know that there are those that do not see this war that way. Study the crusades. Study mid-eastern history since the fall of the Ottoman Empire (at the end of WW-I). Study the history of Muhammad and Q’uran.

Chuck: I do not wat Christians rounded up and exterminated. But whatever we have been doing isn’t working. We’ve got to think outside the box of ancient religious dogmas and be open to new solutions!

By Randy

November 3, 2005 11:24 AM | Link to this

Moses got the 10 commandments, but Jesus is God in his human form. So God(Jesus) would be the author of the 10 commandments. Sunday school 101. Weird question.

By Whateva

November 3, 2005 11:25 AM | Link to this

(I call him Jesus) and he set down some commandments

Actually some of the Jewish Biblical Ten Commandments are direct ripoffs(reproductions) of the earlier Ancient Eqyptians Forty Negative Confessions

The Egyptians: “I have not sold short the bushel” translates to the Biblical: “Thou shalt not provide false witness”.

Both involve lying.

By The72John

November 3, 2005 11:27 AM | Link to this

Lol Chuck, I don’t think that ANYONE should be rounded up and exterminated - that’s what you want, not me.

And seriously, are you so arrogant that you don’t think the US should even EXAMINE international law when it comes to making a decision? That’s what Kennedy actually said, that international precedent should be TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. GOD FORBID we try to maintain our place in the world. Or do you think we should continue to plow on arrogantly disregarding the world around us? I suspect you do.

Randy, you are patently insane. Bush won without many Christian votes? Unions MADE their people vote Democrat? You seriously don’t live in the real world do you?

You accuse me of being “weak” because I don’t buy in to your limited philosophy. Funny - I don’t need strict laws to tell me what is moral or ethical. I am more ethical and moral than you will EVER be, and guess what, I have to make the decisions about morality on my own. I don’t do things because I’m AFRAID I’ll be punished, I do what’s right because it’s right. It’s you who are weak, Randy, because you couldn’t make a decision for yourself if you had to.

And LOL, I’M the most intolerant person here? You crack me up, jerk. My friends are of every stripe and every philosophy. Christian, conservative and liberal, straight, gay, American, foreign. I don’t discriminate against ANYONE on ANY basis. Except hate. And you, Randy, and you, Chuck, EXUDE hatred like slime.

By DeltaX

November 3, 2005 11:32 AM | Link to this

The72John,

Well, lets start by looking at what gvmt/people expect from adults; and what ‘adults’ tell children they must prepare in order to be a functioning adult.

For the most part I think an adult is expected to: Respect others rights; that may sum it up - I am kind of blanking, but maybe that is because that is it?

[Tangent - See wife swap last night? Fundie swapped with a New Age’ish lady and was dry-heaving because of the demons in the house! She has a meltdown when she returns home (next weeks episode) and tells the camera man: “Get the F out of my house in the name of jesus!” - might be related to chuck, randy, boscoe, et al?]

By DeltaX

November 3, 2005 11:34 AM | Link to this

And Christ; who is god also; refruted the OT.

So he took it back.

Or do you have input that differs?

By Terry

November 3, 2005 11:35 AM | Link to this

Whateve: There were actually more than 10 commandments, and Leviticus define the punishment for each - death.

By Randy

November 3, 2005 11:36 AM | Link to this

Terry, This is not a religious war, in the sense of Christian vs. Muslim. To the muslims anyone who is not a muslim, is an infidel and must be converted or killed. Last week I described a group of tourists who were kidnapped in South America and the muslim terrorists who captured them tried to ransom them, couldn’t and started asking them what they believed, some were Christian, some said they were agnostic/atheist. They ended up killing the ones who said they were atheist/agnostic and freed the Christians. They don’t like Christians but they like atheists/agnostics less. This was on an educational channel and had no reason to spin it one way or the other. So the problem is not with the Christians, but with the Muslims. I personally think 99% of muslims are good people, just lead wrong. Jesus doesn’t want to make you love him, if he did he could just create some robots. He wants you to love him, for him. Sometimes non-Christians look at us flawed Christians and use that as an excuse not to accept Christ, but that’s just it we are human and flawed. For example, I would never say anything consciencely to keep someone from accepting Jesus, but I may have done that just because I’m human and don’t know the right thing to say.

By DeltaX

November 3, 2005 11:38 AM | Link to this

Old Testiment.

New Testiment.

Guess which is what jesus came to deliver? Guess which was refruted by jesus?

What is it with people that they miss that jesus came to break from OT.

By Billy

November 3, 2005 11:40 AM | Link to this

CHUCK — Is NCLB unconstitutional or not?

By SUZAN

November 3, 2005 11:43 AM | Link to this

HI all I know you missed me I was out sick yesterday, ut Im better now. I found tis facinating quote by Stphen Hawkins and I thought you may want to read it. I know I just love pullimg some of your chains. Hello Boscoe!!! hope your doing well. the is :

In 1983, Jim Hartle and I, proposed that the state of the universe should be given by a Sum over a certain class of Histories. This class consisted of curved spaces, without singularities, and which were of finite size, but which did not have boundaries or edges. They would be like the surface of the Earth, but with two more dimensions. The surface of the Earth has a finite area, but it doesn’t have any singularities, boundaries or edges. I have tested this by experiment. I went round the world, and I didn’t fall off.

The proposal that Hartle and I made, can be paraphrased as: The boundary condition of the universe is, that it has no boundary. It is only if the universe is in this no boundary'' state, that the laws of science, on their own, determine the probabilities of each possible history. Thus, it is only in this case that the known laws would determine how the universe should behave. If the universe is in any other state, the class of curved spaces, in theSum over Histories”, will include spaces with singularities. In order to determine the probabilities of such singular histories, one would have to invoke some principle other than the known laws of science. This principle would be something external to our universe. We could not deduce it from within the universe. On the other hand, if the universe is in the “no boundary” state, we could, in principle, determine completely how the universe should behave, up to the limits set by the Uncertainty Principle.

It would clearly be nice for science if the universe were in the no boundary'' state, but how can we tell whether it is? The answer is, that the no boundary proposal makes definite predictions, for how the universe should behave. If these predictions were not to agree with observation, we could conclude that the universe is not in theno boundary” state. Thus, the “no boundary” proposal is a good scientific theory, in the sense defined by the philosopher, Karl Popper: it can be falsified by observation.

If the observations do not agree with the predictions, we will know that there must be singularities in the class of possible histories. However, that is about all we would know. We would not be able to calculate the probabilities of the singular histories. Thus, we would not be able to predict how the universe should behave. One might think that this unpredictability wouldn’t matter too much, if it occurred only at the Big Bang. After all, that was ten or twenty billion years ago. But if predictability broke down in the very strong gravitational fields in the Big Bang, it could also break down whenever a star collapsed. This could happen several times a week, in our galaxy alone. Thus, our power of prediction would be poor, even by the standards of weather forecasts.

Of course, one could say that one didn’t care about a breakdown in predictability, that occurred in a distant star. However, in quantum theory, anything that is not actually forbidden, can and ~will happen. Thus, if the class of possible histories includes spaces with singularities, these singularities could occur anywhere, not just at the Big Bang and in collapsing stars. This would mean that we couldn’t predict anything. Conversely, the fact that we are able to predict events, is experimental evidence against singularities, and for the “no boundary” proposal.

So what does the no boundary proposal, predict for the universe. The first point to make, is that because all the possible histories for the universe are finite in extent, any quantity that one uses as a measure of time, will have a greatest and a least value. So the universe will have a beginning, and an end. However, the beginning will not be a singularity. Instead, it will be a bit like the North Pole of the Earth. If one takes degrees of latitude on the surface of the Earth to be the anallogue of time, one could say that the surface of the Earth began at the North Pole. Yet the North Pole is a perfectly ordinary point on the Earth. There’s nothing special about it, and the same laws hold at the North Pole, as at other places on the Earth. Similarly, the event that we might choose to label, as “the beginning of the universe”, would be an ordinary point of spacetime, much like any other, the laws of science would hold at the beginning, as elsewhere.

From the analogy with the surface of the Earth, one might expect that the end of the universe would be similar to the beginning, just as the North Pole is much like the South Pole. However, the North and South Poles correspond to the beginning and end of the history of the universe, in imaginary time, not the real time that we experience. If one extrapolates the results of the “Sum over Histories” from imaginary time to real time, one finds that the beginning of the universe in real time can be very different from its end. It is difficult to work out the details, of what the no boundary proposal predicts for the beginning and end of the universe, for two reasons. First, we don’t yet know the exact laws that govern gravity according to the Uncertainty Principle of quantum mechanics. Though we know the general form and many of the properties that they should have. Second, even if we knew the precise laws, we could not use them to make exact predictions. It would be far too difficult, to solve the equations exactly. Nevertheless, it does seem possible to get an approximate idea, of what the no boundary condition would imply. Jonathan Halliwell and I, have made such an approximate calculation. We treated the universe as a perfectly smooth and uniform background, on which there were small perturbations of density. In real time, the universe would appear to begin its expansion at a minimum radius. At first, the expansion would be what is called inflationary. That is, the universe would double in size every tiny fraction of a second, just as prices double every year in certain countries. The world record for economic inflation, was probably Germany after the First World War. The price of a loaf of bread, went from under a mark, to millions of marks in a few months. But that is nothing compared to the inflation that seems to have occurred in the early universe: an increase in size by a factor of at least a million million million million million times, in a tiny fraction of a second. Of course, that was before the present government.

This inflation was a good thing, in that it produced a universe that was smooth and uniform on a large scale, and was expanding at just the critical rate to avoid recollapse. The inflation was also a good thing in that it produced all the contents of the universe, quite literally out of nothing. When the universe was a single point, like the North Pole, it contained nothing. Yet there are now at least 10 to the 80 particles in the part of the universe that we can observe. Where did all these particles come from? The answer is, that Relativity and quantum mechanics, allow matter to be created out of energy, in the form of particle anti particle pairs. So, where did the energy come from, to create the matter? The answer is, that it was borrowed, from the gravitational energy of the universe. The universe has an enormous debt of negative gravitational energy, which exactly balances the positive energy of the matter. During the inflationary period, the universe borrowed heavily from its gravitational energy, to finance the creation of more matter. The result was a triumph for Reagan economics: a vigorous and expanding universe, filled with material objects. The debt of gravitational energy, will not have to be repaid until the end of the universe.

The early universe could not have been exactly homogeneous and uniform, because that would violate the Uncertainty Principle of quantum mechanics. Instead, there must have been departures from uniform density. The no boundary proposal, implies that these differences in density, would start off in their ground state. That is, they would be as small as possible, consistent with the Uncertainty Principle. However, during the inflationary expansion, they would be amplified. After the period of inflationary expansion was over, one would be left with a universe that was expanding slightly faster in some places, than in others. In regions of slower expansion, the gravitational attraction of the matter, would slow down the expansion still further. Eventually, the region would stop expanding, and would contract to form galaxies and stars. Thus, the no boundary proposal, can account for all the complicated structure that we see around us. However, it does not make just a single prediction for the universe. Instead, it predicts a whole family of possible histories, each with its own probability. There might be a possible history in which Walter Mondale won the last presidential election, though maybe the probability is low.

The no boundary proposal, has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. It is now generally accepted, that the universe evolves according to well defined laws. These laws may have been ordained by God, but it seems that He does not intervene in the universe, to break the laws. However, until recently, it was thought that these laws did not apply to the beginning of the universe. It would be up to God to wind up the clockwork, and set the universe going, in any way He wanted. Thus, the present state of the universe, would be the result of God’s choice of the initial conditions. The situation would be very different, however, if something like the no boundary proposal were correct. In that case, the laws of physics would hold, even at the beginning of the universe. So God would not have the freedom to choose the initial conditions. Of course, God would still be free to choose the laws that the universe obeyed. However, this may not be much of a choice. There may only be a small number of laws, which are self consistent, and which lead to complicated beings, like ourselves, who can ask the question: What is the nature of God? Even if there is only one, unique set of possible laws, it is only a set of equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations, and makes a universe for them to govern. Is the ultimate unified theory so compelling, that it brings about its own existence. Although Science may solve the problem of ~how the universe began, it can not answer the question: why does the universe bother to exist? Maybe only God can answer that.

By Terry

November 3, 2005 11:47 AM | Link to this

Randy: 80% of the Muslims in England would not condemn the London bombings.

As I said. PLEASE study the history of Muhammad, the Q’uran, the Crusades, and mid-eastern politics since WW-I.

Usama’s organization isn’t al Qaeda (the Base) - by his own admission in a Fatwa in 1998 it’s The World Islamic Front for Jihad against Jews and Crusaders.

Yes, some of the more moderate Muslims would prefer a peaceful jihad, but the very basis of their belief is jihad (I will leave it to you to learn the real meaning of that word as defined in Q’uran, but if you need help I can point you to the significant Sura {verses}). Myrterdom against unbelievers (including ‘People of the Book’ {Jews & Christian})is the highest level of religious honor in accordance with the Q’uran itself.

PLEASE STUDY before making statements of conviction without justification.

By DB

November 3, 2005 11:50 AM | Link to this

chuck: Your 55% number is quite misleading in that you think we should treat science as a democratic institution. Also, I would guess that >90% of people in the U.S. don’t truly understand what is a scientific theory, and that same 90% don’t even understand the theory of evolution and recognize the evidence. You, Randy, and Boscoe(among others) serve as perfect examples. The conclusion, therefore, is that we should teach MORE science and less non-science in the classroom. Expectations should be higher and so on. If people knew more about science, ID wouldn’t even have half the attention is has.

Religion is completely separate from this(and science) and in no way pushes Hollywood or society toward a “secular” country. Lack of consequences, lack of self control, coddling children too much, lack of respect for others, and a gross lack of civil duty is what makes our society worse. To say it’s all due to the lack of “Christian Values” is absolutely moronic. You guys talk about our society of the past yet forget to mention the U.S. is composed of people trying to find religious freedom. And you won’t believe this, but some were coming here for secular reasons and even commercial reasons. The main themes, in my opinion, were life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which can mean many things.

By DeltaX

November 3, 2005 11:52 AM | Link to this

Suzan,

Read it before; but did you?

So God would not have the freedom to choose the initial conditions.

By Terry

November 3, 2005 11:53 AM | Link to this

Randy: You are obviously a devout man. But don’t let that devotion blind you to evidence that might contradict you current world view.

By DB

November 3, 2005 11:59 AM | Link to this

Suz: So what does this have to do with ID? Scientists aren’t trying to disprove the existence of God. I wish people would realize that!!!! It’s been over 300 years now, not mentioning many scientists and mathematicians thousands of years before that. I think many misinterpret it as so. Agreeing that evolution occurs doesn’t mean you can’t believe in God.

It’s just another example of how people don’t know what science is. The theory of evolution is dealing with those “boundaries” within the Universe. Can’t you guys get that?

Also, I really wish people would stop name-calling. It’s getting quite redundant and childish, and it contributes nothing whatsoever to learning.

By DeltaX

November 3, 2005 12:02 PM | Link to this

Also, I really wish people would stop name-calling. It’s getting quite redundant and childish, and it contributes nothing whatsoever to learning.

I concur!

By The72John

November 3, 2005 12:07 PM | Link to this

Also, I really wish people would stop name-calling. It’s getting quite redundant and childish, and it contributes nothing whatsoever to learning.

Sorry - sometimes I just can’t help myself. The Chucks of this world infuriate me.

By DB

November 3, 2005 12:07 PM | Link to this

I love how we all end up talking about the merits of each religion as if they’re really any different.

By Terry

November 3, 2005 12:09 PM | Link to this

DB: Scientists aren’t trying to disprove the existence of God. That’s true, UNLESS, we actually include ID as science. Then it would be a scientific duty to try and disprove any and every hypothesis put forth under the concept of ID.

By DB

November 3, 2005 12:11 PM | Link to this

72: You only give people like that satisfaction or justification by acting that way.

It doesn’t infuriate me. It took me a long time to realize it shouldn’t.

I feel bad for them. Just as they feel bad for me. How ironic.

By DeltaX

November 3, 2005 12:11 PM | Link to this

DB,

What I was hashing out is ‘religion’ and not religion vs religion.

I am talking about religion from inside the realm of christ.

By DeltaX

November 3, 2005 12:13 PM | Link to this

Scientists aren’t trying to disprove the existence of God. That’s true, UNLESS, we actually include ID as science. Then it would be a scientific duty to try and disprove any and every hypothesis put forth under the concept of ID.

Nice point Terry!

By Terry

November 3, 2005 12:15 PM | Link to this

DB & The72John: NEVER tie your emotions to your convictions. It gives you no room to modify those convictions when new evidence is presented!

And remember that your emotions are yours. When you allow others to control them, you are giving them more power than they deserve.

By DB

November 3, 2005 12:16 PM | Link to this

Terry: I tend to disagree with you on that one. Science simply tries to explain how the Universe works. I don’t think that has anything to do with disproving the existence of God. And, since disproving or proving the existence of God is impossible, it therefore cannot be part of science. Science would first have to have a definition of God, which it doesn’t. However, some scientists probably think they’re trying to disprove God.

By DB

November 3, 2005 12:18 PM | Link to this

I have emotions. And I definitely tie them to my convictions. However, upon new evidence, I change my emotions along with my convictions.

By SUZAN

November 3, 2005 12:21 PM | Link to this

Thank you DeltaX I agree, the name calling and rudness here is appalling. Good afternoon all. I wish to express that I am not concerned with the notion that evolutionist try to prove or disprove God’s existance. However, It seems to me that so many on this blog have been tring to do just that. Further, I would say that many can be so rude to the point of sadness. I read from every point and angle that I can. I am no scientist,that is true. I am human and as such I try and treat all with respect and wish no other than that for my self. If bloggers here are so very brilliant as to undermind other thoughts and opinions then show you credintials please. I printed artical from S. Hawkins because I felt it offered very clear evidence that the theories surrounding the beginning are as many as can be imagined, and that while these theories are all vallied in some ways others hold no more truth only more eveidence. Yes Delta, thank you for your support I did read it and understand it. While I may not have the ability to verbilize what I read I do try to internailze and discuss what I read. I appreciate bloggs as they assist in helping me to understand other points of veiw and to understand other’s knowledge. It would be very nice though if simple politness could be apprciated at the same time.

Hugs Suz

By Bobb

November 3, 2005 12:21 PM | Link to this

I don’t question evolution, but I do question the idea that it go started all of a sudden one day when just the right chemical compounds met up in some sludge. The odds seem too great for that to happen randomly.

Look, I don’t even know how the theory of evolution is taught in schools now days or how they approach the beginnings of life, but I do know that I don’t want the public school system teaching children about anything that even comes close to religion - and that includes sticking disclaimers in textbooks. Not because I’m opposed to religion, because I’m not, but because the public schools have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination to do so without interjecting personal beliefs and biases into the discussion - and the label is bound to provoked a discussion.

Let the schools teach evolution as science. Let the parents and the church instill a desire in children to know the one who designed evolution and all science. No labels required.

By Terry

November 3, 2005 12:22 PM | Link to this

DB: No, you mis-understand. I agree with you 100%. Science has nothing to do with the question of God, either proving or disproving.

My point is, that IF we consider ID within the halls of science, then we would have to begin to apply scientific methods to the question of ID, which would require that we also define, in scientific terms, the proof or refutation of the I part of ID.

By Terry

November 3, 2005 12:24 PM | Link to this

Bobb: YES - one of the more reasoned statements of the debate!

By The72John

November 3, 2005 12:24 PM | Link to this

DB & The72John: NEVER tie your emotions to your convictions. It gives you no room to modify those convictions when new evidence is presented!

Sorry Terry, I guess you’ve never been literal spat upon by a Chuck-type before. Maybe you would be a little more emotional if you had.

By DB

November 3, 2005 12:25 PM | Link to this

I look at it that ID is not science because it’s merely untestable and based solely on opinion, not to mention that evolution has a whole lot of validity(and it can’t coexist with ID). I don’t even bother with the idea of disproving God because it’s a waste of time either way. As for asking me if God exists. I’m comfortable in saying I have no idea.

Some people may think science is disproving the existence of “God” according to their definition, but that’s not the goal of Science.

By DB

November 3, 2005 12:27 PM | Link to this

Bobb: Great point!

By chuck

November 3, 2005 12:29 PM | Link to this

Yes Billy, I think that NCLB is unconstitutional. In Georgia it has led to “teaching of the test”. It has completely changed the focus of education. I love accountability. My students always do well on standardized tests, among the best in the state, but administrators want us to change what we are doing. The FEDS have NO BUSINESS in education.

I think we could rid ourselves of the deficit if we just followed the Constitution. Get rid of:

Department of the Interior Department of Labor Department of Education Department of Agriculture Department of Energy Department of Health and Human Services Department of HUD The EPA

Then, cut Congessional pay by 2 thirds, and limit them to 100 days in Washington per year. Cut EVERY OTHER government Bureaucracy EXCEPT the military (only that part of the military outside of the pentagon would be safe)by 2 thirds. Empty Washington and put the government back in touch with REAL AMERICANS. We don’t need a drug czar and we don’t need HUD. Sell ownership of public housing to the residents and finance the sales price at 0% interest with payments to match the amount of rent they are currently paying. Eliminate the department of Indian Affairs. Turn all “reservations over to the Indians who can prove ancestry and divide it among them to do with as they please. Those lands would then be subject to STATE laws, property taxes, etc.

I want the Federal government off of our backs. It won’t happen unless we change the way we think about the function of it and unless we follow the strict construction of the Constitution.

By Terry

November 3, 2005 12:31 PM | Link to this

DB: I think you meant that it CAN coexist with ID.

Also, I think ID is based on a stronger word than opinion. Just look at the level of emotion throughout this blog (and last weeks). I’m not even sure what the right word is. I see it as dogma (which is the closest I get to becomming riled). Or unfounded conviction, or something else, but it’s more than just an opinion.

By Terry

November 3, 2005 12:35 PM | Link to this

chuck: For the first time in almost 2 weeks. I AGREE with you (scary thought, ain’t it)! Although, it’s an idealistic desire. (And I’d probably want to modify some of your solutions, the basic idea is excellent!)

By Billy

November 3, 2005 12:38 PM | Link to this

Well, Chuck, I disagree with much of your proposal, but I commend your consistency.

By Just Being Me

November 3, 2005 12:41 PM | Link to this

Chuck, I’m really surprised by your idea of Christianity. Do you really think that your ideas are Christ-like????

I recently had a conversation with a fellow Christian in which we discussed Christian tolerance, and lack thereof. To me, intention is the measuring stick. You can say that you speak out against gays, but would never support physical bashing. Well, mental, emotional or any other type of bashing is just as bad as physical bashing for gays, straights, non-Christians, Christians, poor, rich, conservative, liberal, etc… Christ wouldn’t bash anyone, and that’s the difference between Christ and SOOOO many of his “followers” - so-called “Christians.”

When you “speak out” against this stuff because you disagree with it, what is your intention? Are you guiding them to “truth” in the spirit of love and meekness? Jesus said that he drew people unto him with LOVINGKINDNESS. Not by “speaking out/bashing” with hurtful words. The Bible says that if a brother who is overtaken in a fault, those who are spiritual should RESTORE him in the spirit of MEEKNESS, considering themselves in case they later find themselves struggling with a similar fault.

It never ceases to amaze (and deeply hurt) me to come across so-called Christians who think it’s okay to bash “sinners” for any reason. I’m really sick of it.

By SUZAN

November 3, 2005 12:47 PM | Link to this

Thank you “just being me” What a wonderful post. I must say that I too have fallen short of the Christ like behaver I should have and have found that a loving word does more to bring me back to the truth of my convictions than critis, or anger.

By Terry

November 3, 2005 12:48 PM | Link to this

Just Being Me: don’t you find a dicotomy between Christian tolerance and the concept of a brother who is overtaken in a fault, those who are spiritual should RESTORE him in the spirit ??

Aren’t you saying be tolerant but fix them anyway?

By Terry

November 3, 2005 12:52 PM | Link to this

How does limiting government become un-Christian?

By DeltaX

November 3, 2005 12:53 PM | Link to this

Suzan,

Sorry, But I have read all of SHawkins work and am burnt out from talking it with my nephews/friends.

Change of direction some: I do like that there are people out there trying to look at things like spirituality and conciousness from a scientific perspective (SHawkins does this as well as Ken Wilber - but they are consistent in which is science and which is an ‘idea’). And if someone came up with a correlation that was valid from a scientific standpoint; I would personally be thrilled - but without science; it will be another mar on the face of spiritual people b/c of a group that thinks itself elevated because they created a religion out of christs words.

By Just Being Me

November 3, 2005 01:03 PM | Link to this

Terry, first of all, it’s not about what I’m saying because those are not my words, they’re Biblical words spoken by the issue-laden Apostle Paul in a letter to the Galatians. Despite Paul’s shortcomings, notwithstanding the many questions people have about the Bible, I don’t think the average level-headed person will deny the wisdom of this statement.

To respond to your question, the idea is not “be tolerant and fix them anyway.” The idea is that if someone is OVERTAKEN in a fault, to restore them (or REBUILD them, pray for them, edify them, love them, hug them, say kind words to them, encourage them). A Christ-like person, if he thought there was something to be “fixed” would leave the “fixing” to the “Fixer”. Christians are no more powerful to fix a problem than non-Christians, except that Christ, the “Fixer” fix it on their behalf.

My opinion is that if a Christian believes a person is at fault, or in sin, or just plain wrong, they should shower that person with lovingkindness in the spirit of MEEKNESS, and pray for them, trusting God to “fix” them if they need to be fixed.

I don’t find that to be dichotomous at all.

By DeltaX

November 3, 2005 01:04 PM | Link to this

Swiped this, but it makes a good point:

After all, in the days before his crucifixion, when Jesus summed up his message for his disciples, he said the way you could tell the righteous from the damned was by whether they’d fed the hungry, slaked the thirsty, clothed the naked, welcomed the stranger, and visited the prisoner. What would we find about Chuck, Boscoe, and Randy?

By SUZAN

November 3, 2005 01:06 PM | Link to this

Thank you DeltaX a very valid point and well put. Ireally do appreciate this point and it could indeed be a way of introducting ID as a point of phylosphy and perhaps opening thoughts and ideas in other directions. It has been an interesting week with a lot said on this subject. I missed last week, I would like to say to all here though that I have much to consider and more research to do and I own this to people willing to discuss this in an open, and passionate way.

Really I love this! Suz

By Just Being Me

November 3, 2005 01:10 PM | Link to this

Oh, and Terry, in responsse to your 12:52, my opinions about Chuck’s “un-Christian”ness wasn’t related to his limiting government post. It was in response to his 11:02. I’m slow :-)

By chuck

November 3, 2005 01:11 PM | Link to this

I am a true conservative Billy. While I think that Bush was a better choice than either of the opponents he faced in his 2 elections, I hate what he has done in increasing the size and scope of the federal government. NCLB, the Dept. of Homeland Security, The Medicare Drug Plan, the Katrina spending…all unnecessary and expensive. I am not against securing the homeland, only against creating a new bureaucracy to do it. A better approach would have been forced coordination of military intelligence, fbi and cia. There are BETTER ways to do things.

By Terry

November 3, 2005 01:16 PM | Link to this

JBM: That worked well for the Jews against the Nazis, didn’t it?

Will you also apply that level of pacifism to the jihadist when they come knocking?

It worked for Ghandi (and others) because they were dealing with reasonable people and/or societies.

When your enemy has no scruples, your own moral scruples become another weapon in his hand. There is also a time to pick up the sword in the face of unreasoning evil.

By The72John

November 3, 2005 01:20 PM | Link to this

Chuck’s ideas would ultimately be in opposition to the principals of Christ. I don’t say Christians because, well. You know.

While the changes he desires might allow him and his cronies to create the kind of theocracy they so desperately crave, it would also lead to increased poverty, the increased abuse of labor by corporations, etc. These aren’t hysterical imaginings, either. One need only look at the history of business in this country before we began to regulate labor, etc. to see how companies act when there is no one looking over their shoulder.

I think we need only look at one statement to see what a “true” Christian Chuck really is: He disapproves of the Katrina spending. Apparently, he would rather all those people be left to rot and die. What a nice man. Really.

By The72John

November 3, 2005 01:21 PM | Link to this

darn it, principles.

By Terry

November 3, 2005 01:22 PM | Link to this

chuck: I’d be happy to just start with getting rid of the Endowment for the Arts, unlimited Welfare, funding for PBS, and all the pork spending out representative do.

(I could insert a political joke here, but I don’t believe in political jokes….too many of them have been elected!)

By DB

November 3, 2005 01:26 PM | Link to this

Terry: I was thinking after our last few posts that you and I were talking on different levels with the God talk. I did mean that ID and evolution can’t coexist, but I meant(with my terrible prose) that they can’t coexist in a science classroom or as science in general. I wasn’t specific enough.

And, yes, ID is dogma, but to me, dogma is only opinion, but you’re right in that it is “bigger” than opinion.

By DeltaX

November 3, 2005 01:33 PM | Link to this

Maybe it will be best if this country does continue on this path; then there will be a mass exodus to fair and realistic countries; leaving the bloated whore to her pagan/christian followers like boscoe, chuck, and randy?

Heck, I have an attachment to the ideals that all are equal and have a right to pursue happiness - not the physical earth I stand on.

I am going to start looking at moving me and my family. (I am sure the three fundies will be overjoyed.)

By Terry

November 3, 2005 01:38 PM | Link to this

I’d also like to see a real flat-tax admendment (not this half-baked plan that currently in the mix). And a real closing of our border.

The72John: Yes, help the poeple affected by Katrina. Find them jobs and teach any and every able-bodied “victim” to work. Welfare didn’t begin as a hand-out, it was a stop-gap until one could find work, it was a hand. The New Deal create lots of government funded programs for those willing to work (Hoover Dam, Glen Canyon, massive road projects, etc.) The Welfare State is an abysmal failure. Again, we need new solutions.

By SUZAN

November 3, 2005 01:48 PM | Link to this

DeltaX, Actually we need you here. It takes a lot of differnet opinions ands watch-dogs to keep the country fair and going in the right direction. I dont always agree with what every one prints, believes or wants, but I respect their rights to speak thier mind and thier right to reach for as much as they can get in this country. I have had the previlage to travel around the world and I do know that as bad as it is here, it is much better than most palces out there. Although for how long I dont know. I do know thought that as long as we have the rights to dialog and oppose or to protest and vote we stand a better chance the this concpt than others in the world. Stay put you are needed and it takes a lot of us to pull this wagon suz

By Terry

November 3, 2005 01:48 PM | Link to this

DeltaX: You said pagan/christian - isn’t that redundant?

Also, what country has more freedoms than the USA (in spite of our short-comings)?

By Terry

November 3, 2005 01:50 PM | Link to this

Here’s another first: Susan, I agree with you!

By Just Being Me

November 3, 2005 02:01 PM | Link to this

Terry:

That passage has nothing to do with pacifism, nor does it speak to how a Christian should treat his/her enemies. You’re either taking it out of context, or you’re applying it to the wrong situation. If you want to argue about scriptures that say to feed your enemies, bless those who persecute you, clothe them, turn the other cheek, etc… we can do that, but that’s not what this is about.

This particular passage admonishes Christians to treat other people who face struggles, live sinful lives, or have difficult faults with meekness and lovingkindness. It doesn’t say to be stupid and let them knock you over the head with a 2 x 4. It has nothing to do with fighting wars and battles, or al-Quaida…

Why would you oppose treating fellows with lovingkindness? Is it just because it’s biblical or do you really have a good reason for your apparent opposition to the selfless restoration of a fellow human?

By Terry

November 3, 2005 02:02 PM | Link to this

JBM: I’m still unclear. What does that say about the majority of the world that has never accepted Christ? Is it not you duty as a Christian to convert these people? Are you not your brother’s keeper in this reguard?

You also did not explain how Christian tolerance applies to those that choose to believe in a path other than Christ?

By Terry

November 3, 2005 02:07 PM | Link to this

JBM: I think we’re talking across each other. But my last post focuses my question much better. I am not opposed to treating people with kindness. I am a firm believer that we need to realize that our neighbors happiness is, in a very realistic way, linked to our own!

By Just Being Me

November 3, 2005 02:08 PM | Link to this

After all, in the days before his crucifixion, when Jesus summed up his message for his disciples, he said the way you could tell the righteous from the damned was by whether they’d fed the hungry, slaked the thirsty, clothed the naked, welcomed the stranger, and visited the prisoner. What would we find about Chuck, Boscoe, and Randy?

If that’s the Savior’s measuring stick then this gay girl might make it to heaven after all!! :-)

By DeltaX

November 3, 2005 02:08 PM | Link to this

There are many coutries that are currently ahead of america in every catagory that makes up ‘quality of life.’ That, minus no longer being in the most religious/narrow minded coutry [US] and being in one that is secular would be a relief.

Terry, I though about that and put it that way to express that the american christian is really in a pagan in disguise. [no offence to pagans - as I am going by the definition the bible used, meaning the other kings army]

And although I will get slack for this, mainly by ignorant folk; but I am half turkish and am looking to move to my dads home-town of Ismir. Although there is a lot of religion; the govmt is more secular than ours. [good article the other day on how the turkish womans rights spokesperson laid into bush (in person) - they have cojonas, and sense.]

Thanks Suz, but I do not care to be vilified any longer for no reason except for the Religious Right to force its way - and now our leaders are just as ignorant/arrogant.

By chuck

November 3, 2005 02:13 PM | Link to this

JBM, You misread my post. I don’t believe in BASHING anybody. I was accused of that and responded. You will see if you re-read my post that what I was talking about is in no way considered bashing UNLESS your position is that homosexuality is not SIN. You also conveniently left out the context of the passage. Sinners cannot be “restored” unless they repent. The sinner is required to renounce and turn away from the sin. In Matthew Jesus teaches the church what to do with unrepentent sinners in the church…He said to withdraw fellowship from them. They are to be put out of the church. When Jesus spoke with the woman at the well, He did not condone her sin, He forgave them but He also said GO AND SIN NO MORE. He said the same thing to the woman caught in adultery.

Yes Jesus certainly taught that we should love sinners, but that does NOT mean that we should condone OR TOLERATE THAT SIN WITHIN THE CHURCH.

Jesus said in Luke 17: (contemporary English version)

3So be careful what you do. Correct any followers of mine who sin, and forgive the ones who say they are sorry.

By Terry

November 3, 2005 02:23 PM | Link to this

DeltaX: Whatever you decide about moving - CREATE a good life! I do wish to express my concern for your desire to move to Turkey. It is very near the current center of violence in this iteration of our 1400-year Religious War. Be vigilent, ALWAYS be open to new evidence concerning all of your beliefs, and be happy!

By Just Being Me

November 3, 2005 02:25 PM | Link to this

Okay, Terry. Let me see if I can get my thoughts out clearly.

What does that say about the majority of the world that has never accepted Christ?

Galatians 6:1 (the scripture I referenced) simply discusses how to treat brothers (or sisters) who have faults. It doesn’t necessarily relate to unbelievers, although I believe it can. To answer your question, the scripture says that we should restore them (rebuild, edify, encourage, love, etc) with meekness. Another scripture I referenced earlier says that we should draw them with lovingkindness.

Is it not you duty as a Christian to convert these people? Some Christians believe that it is their duty, and I guess that’s where we disagree. I don’t believe it’s my duty to “convert” unbelievers. I believe that if I follow Christ’s instructions and love them for who they are, regardless of what they believe, they will be drawn to God by my lovingkindness. Another scripture says that Christians should let their light shine so brightly that others (presumably non-Christians) would see our good works and choose to glorify God too. So, to answer this question, no, it is not MY duty to convert them. It’s my duty to love them. I believe that we were put on this earth for two reasons only. 1. To honor God, and 2. to share his story with love. That’s it. I’m his “representative” so to speak. It’s my job to show non-Christians what CHRIST looks like. Who he is. And, if I do it well, they’ll be drawn to him too.

Are you not your brother’s keeper in this reguard? I think I answered this. I am most certainly my brother’s keeper. I keep him through lovingkindness and frequent prayer.

You also did not explain how Christian tolerance applies to those that choose to believe in a path other than Christ?

I think the last few paragraphs should respond to this question pretty clearly. Bottom line, I’m not crazy about the word “tolerate.” But, I believe Christians should LOVE and pray for those who “choose to believe in a path other than Christ.” I don’t believe in browbeating them, judging them, ridiculing them, bashing, bible-thumping, condemning, etc. Jesus made it clear: With lovingkindness have I drawn thee.

By The72John

November 3, 2005 02:32 PM | Link to this

I love how the religious freaks like Chuck justify their prejudices and mistreatment of people. It’s not WRONG because they’re SINNING. I can be as nasty and bigoted as I want and it’s OK because they SIN.

Chuck shows about as much compassion for his fellow man as a venomous snake. If that’s what being Christian is, no thanks.

By Randy

November 3, 2005 02:47 PM | Link to this

How many people on this site really feel, that when they stand before God and he judges them, that they are going to heaven??? I mean I have broken many of the 10 commandments and if it wasn’t for forgiveness(through what Jesus did) I would be in major trouble. Y’all have never lied, stole, looked at someone other than your wife with lust, etc???

By Ken

November 3, 2005 02:48 PM | Link to this

The72John… I never said anyone WAS better. I said we need to aspire to be better. We need to hold ourselves to a higher standard. We need to be even more careful of what we say and do b/c the scrutinous lens of others will constantly be on us. Every word, every action, every motive will be under constant attack.

I believe you “catch more bees with honey than vinegar” and rather than being all “fire and brimstone” I would rather express the compassion and love that Christ’s Church brings forth. B/C unlike you, I will not immediately invalidate 1000 people fed in a soup kitchen based on 10 horrific murders. I would rather feed 10000 and eliminate the horrific actions.

By DeltaX

November 3, 2005 02:50 PM | Link to this

Chuck,

Humor us and point to where it says homosexuality is a sin.

OT was refruted by christ, so you cannot use that; and if that is your only recouse; which it will be: What is the direct traslation. I will tell you: Men should not lay with BOYS. Just as the commandment is Thou shalt not murder.

All of the commandments - if you are going to try to revive the OT against christs wishes; deal with murder and lying in one form or another.

Terry, It may be close in proximity; but mentally I heard much less flack there last year. The notions people have are quite incorrect regarding turkey - it is more secular that US any day! [Example: We deal with the word god in gvmt facilities; turkey will not even allow the two letters which no longer exist in the turkish language used in gvmt, because the were of arabic times when they were a theocracy]

By Terry

November 3, 2005 02:56 PM | Link to this

JBM: Thank you. If more people had your understanding of a spiritual life, I would not be so opposed to Religion. (Although, I still find it to be the most judgemental and intolerant group of organizations in existence.)

And I think that’s the difference, too many “religious” people have lost the faith - they have no idea how to live a spiritual life. And the vast majority of modern religious thought does not teach spirituality.

If we had the strength of our own morals enough to throw away every Bible, Torah, & Q’uran and just live a moral life we’d all be better off. I’m not saying they are all equally evil, but they all are part of the problem!

It’s not these book that make a person, it’s how the person chooses to show up in the world. Ancient dogmas close people to true spiritual growth (Enlightment). It’s not the ritual that matters, it’s the individual.

I hate it when people say “God has been good to me” or “God’s will be done” or even “Have a nice day”. We are each responsible for how we show up in the world. Don’t just HAVE a nice day - CREATE it! In some way, the concept of karma is more in line with my spirituality.

And, just cause I gotta say something to try and create growth, for your part, quoting the Book is fine when talking with like minded people. But you understand more than just the words. Use you own words more to talk to non-Bible people.

By DeltaX

November 3, 2005 02:57 PM | Link to this

Randy,

Y’all have never lied, stole, looked at someone other than your wife with lust, etc???

Yes, and I ask for forgiveness. But more-over [why more-over than asking for forgiveness? bc repeating the same bad behaviour after your ‘lesson’ is no longer ignorance - but an insult to yourself]; I examine what brought me to such a decision. And when it is your religion that brings about hate, bigotry and malice; who do you ask forgivness from?

By The72John

November 3, 2005 02:59 PM | Link to this

Ken, you said:

Every word, every action, every motive will be under constant attack.

Don’t tell me you actually believe this. Don’t tell me you buy into the “Poor, persecuted Christian” philosophy. Trust me, I know what it’s like to be persecuted, and if you’re in the majority, like Christians in this country are, you AREN’T being persecuted. If you think you are, then you have a serious martyr complex.

Frankly, I don’t buy your act, Ken. I think your far more interested in being an apologist for the fanatics in your ranks that you are in eliminating their negative impact. That’s just the impression I get - you gently admonish the bigots like Randy and Chuck, but you never outright condemn their behavior. I think you’re more interested in sweeping the horiffic behavior under the rug than in getting rid of it.

And by the way, I didn’t say I discounted a 1000 people fed, I said that people’s perceptions work that way. If I see a religious organization out there doing good work, then I’m the first to applaud it.

By Just Being Me

November 3, 2005 03:04 PM | Link to this

Chuck: I won’t even respond to that. I now see where you are coming from and we are so far apart that it wouldn’t even be worth it to respond.

You and I obviously have very different views on what it means to be like Christ.

By Ken

November 3, 2005 03:05 PM | Link to this

DeltaX… To answer your question, there are very few references in the Bible that actually say that homosexuality is a sin, and the few that do could be read with multiple contexts. That is where we have the ambiguity right now. It is not as clear as ‘Thou Shalt Not Murder’ unless of course you count ‘Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery’ which is debateable.

However, to stir the pot even more, and to be even handed in the discussion, every mention (the few that there are) of homosexuality is negative. There is not a single positive reference to an explicit homosexual relationship. Every image of marriage is between a man and a woman.

So, we ae now left with the difficult issue of deciding what we believe is right and wrong. You may believe something different than me, but that is all right with me.

BTW… I am curious… Where does it say that the Old Testament was refuted by Christ…?

By SUZAN

November 3, 2005 03:11 PM | Link to this

Delta X, Strong women are almost never appreciated and never accepted until we dead. Stay strong and stay here is you can. I am one of those Christians who understands that not all can follow my path but I am commanded to be ready to give an answer for the joy that lives with in me and to do so with gentleness and respect

stay we need stromg women in this country. Okay that’s my vote

Suz

By Just Being Me

November 3, 2005 03:16 PM | Link to this

Terry, for the most part, I too, have given up on religion. I hate that I feel that way, but I guess I’ve seen one too many Christians who have no idea what Christianity is really about. It hurts me to no end that so many people have been turned off from CHRIST because of the very people that claim to represent him. We aren’t to be recruiters, but fishers of men. Our bait should be love.

But, understand that I am Christian. Not because I like the religion, but because I strive to be just like Christ. I love the Bible, and it is the guideline for my life, so I can’t really leave it out of my daily conversation - particularly when I’m talking to another supposed Christian. I quoted scripture to try to correct Chuck for his judgmental attitude. But, I don’t apologize for quoting scripture. As much as I abhor religion, I am a minister. I can’t deny my roots, my heartfelt belief, and my love for God and His word.

My prayer for today is that non-Christians’ ears will be deafened to the ignorance of “Christians” who think, speak, and act like Chuck. It saddens me to no end. Please do not judge us all by the likes of Chuck. I assure you that people like him are in the minority in the body of Christ.

DeltaX - PLEEEEEASE don’t start that one up…

By The72John

November 3, 2005 03:18 PM | Link to this

That’s basic theology - the Coming of Christ replaced the Old Covenants with the New. That’s why it’s “OK” to eat shellfish, pork, etc., wear blended clothing, why you no longer have to sacrifice goats, etc.

He didn’t refute the OT, exactly, but He eliminated the holiness laws, etc. Of course, He also says that the two only Commandments that have any meaning are Love God, and Love Thy Neighbor - which, if you think about it basically encompasses the other Commandments - if you love your neighbor you wouldn’t steal from him, bang his wife, or covet his a* - but most of the fundies have conveniently ignored the “Love thy Neighbor” part in favor of the more popular “Berate thy neighbor and legislate against him that he may be a second-class citizen” commandment. Oh wait, Christ never said that.

I don’t remember the exact passage, but this is the explanation given by my college theology prof.

By chuck

November 3, 2005 03:18 PM | Link to this

Delta, I don’t know where you get the idea that Christ refuted the Old Testament.

Matt. 5:17”Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Romans 1:18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. 21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

The same verses from Young’s Literal Translation:

18for revealed is the wrath of God from heaven upon all impiety and unrighteousness of men, holding down the truth in unrighteousness.

19Because that which is known of God is manifest among them, for God did manifest [it] to them,

20for the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world, by the things made being understood, are plainly seen, both His eternal power and Godhead — to their being inexcusable;

21because, having known God they did not glorify [Him] as God, nor gave thanks, but were made vain in their reasonings, and their unintelligent heart was darkened,

22professing to be wise, they were made fools,

23and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of fowls, and of quadrupeds, and of reptiles.

24Wherefore also God did give them up, in the desires of their hearts, to uncleanness, to dishonour their bodies among themselves;

25who did change the truth of God into a falsehood, and did honour and serve the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed to the ages. Amen.

26Because of this did God give them up to dishonourable affections, for even their females did change the natural use into that against nature;

27and in like manner also the males having left the natural use of the female, did burn in their longing toward one another; males with males working shame, and the recompense of their error that was fit, in themselves receiving.

28And, according as they did not approve of having God in knowledge, God gave them up to a disapproved mind, to do the things not seemly; It seems to me that the Bible teaches that homosexuality is a sin

By Terry

November 3, 2005 03:18 PM | Link to this

Ken: As you say gay is a personal decision of right or wrong.

So why does our country argue so much about laws concerning this issue. Isn’t that a clear violation of Separation? We must each find our own path and making laws to edict right and wrong is the highest form of judgment and intolerance.

By Terry

November 3, 2005 03:25 PM | Link to this

Ken: And your book says that they should be put to death. Is that also your belief? Is this the literal word of God? Do you feel the need to go kill some gays?

By Terry

November 3, 2005 03:27 PM | Link to this

Excuse me, that last post should have been addressed to chuck!!!!!

By Just Being Me

November 3, 2005 03:29 PM | Link to this

Suzan, I think Delta’s a guy??

By Whateva

November 3, 2005 03:30 PM | Link to this

Why is homosexuality still a ‘sin’ but eating pork and shellfish is not? Why do not good OT readers offer their daughters as slaves? Actually they still may in the WV high hills, under the guise of a young ‘wife’. Couldn’t resist.

By DeltaX

November 3, 2005 03:30 PM | Link to this

It seems to me that the Bible teaches that homosexuality is a sin

After all that posting the most conviction you have is It seems.

You have the right by your belief to figure those things? To remove onothers rights based on It seems?????

The72John Thanks for answering the OT question; I really do not feel like educating anymore; or getting into the same rounds that I have already done tons of times.

I implore you all that would like to follow christ to look closer; he even implores you to do such.

Suz, Hope it does not burts your bubble; but you know I am male, right? Should not make a difference, but with some on here guys are evil! Evil I say;) I enjoy that you are actually here to listen and learn as well as provide - we do not get much of that.

By Terry

November 3, 2005 03:31 PM | Link to this

JBM: No, they are not the minority. At least not vocally!!! And I am not asking you to give up your scripture (although I wish your spirituality was strong enough to do just that). Just watch your audience. It creates deaf ears when talking to non-bible people.

By Terry

November 3, 2005 03:34 PM | Link to this

Hey, chuck - I’m a hedonist. What does your book say about me?

By Just Being Me

November 3, 2005 03:34 PM | Link to this

I’m willing to bet my bottom dollar that Chuck eats pork and seafood, wears polyester and other blended fabrics, and breaks all the other Levitical laws.

I’m also willing to bet he can come up with some scripture that, in his mind, frees us from all the Levitical laws except the one against homosexuality.

By Terry

November 3, 2005 03:38 PM | Link to this

Yeah, the Levitical laws. In madern parlance: Shoot ‘Em!!

By The72John

November 3, 2005 03:42 PM | Link to this

Ah, I bet he sacrifices an animal at least once a week and offers up burnt offerings unto the lord. He just strikes me as THAT KIND OF GUY.

By Terry

November 3, 2005 03:43 PM | Link to this

The72John: No, modern christians still believe in love thy neighbor. They’ve just added the caveat: don’t get caught!

By Just Being Me

November 3, 2005 03:45 PM | Link to this

Terry, not to be nitpicky, but I realize that quoting from the Bible doesn’t always go over very well with “non-Bible” people, as you put it. But, my initial comment was directed toward Chuck, who purports to be a “Bible person.” I quoted the scripture to him, and then you asked me to explain it further.

By DeltaX

November 3, 2005 03:45 PM | Link to this

JBM,

As much as I abhor religion, I am a minister.

DeltaX - PLEEEEEASE don’t start that one up…

Then please, as a minister; you assist in ending it by educating people what actually has happend to christ’s words - and is now a cacophany of sects of a vile religion in place of a relationship and faith.

[Tangental post: Steed legally married his first wife in 1965, according to court documents. The second and third wives were married — or “sealedâ€? as the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints refers to it — to him in religious ceremonies in 1975 and 1985. The three women are sisters.] Yes, Christ infused into false religion is a tricky thing…but limited to mormons? Baptist are different? Pick a denomination….

By chuck

November 3, 2005 03:47 PM | Link to this

DELTA, are you dense or are you just acting that way? You obviously have no idea what rhetoric is and how it is used in debate. One rhetorical device is described below from the website:

http://www.virtualsalt.com/rhetoric.htm

Understatement is especially useful in dealing with a hostile audience or in disagreeing with someone, because the statement, while carrying the same point, is much less offensive. Compare:

The second law of thermodynamics pretty much works against the possibility of such an event. The second law of thermodynamics proves conclusively that that theory is utterly false and ridiculous.

I suggest if you want to be listened to on any blog, that you look into a crash course on rhetoric. Otherwise you’ll continue to look foolish.

By Just Being Me

November 3, 2005 03:55 PM | Link to this

DeltaX, surely you know by now where I stand on the homosexuality argument. You’ve witnessed my comments on the subject time and time again. I do NOT shy away from attempting to educate people on the true spirit of Christ, and what I believe his intentions are for us, as it relates to love.

I have simply tired of talking to walls about it. The bottom line is that I can “preach” about it until I’m blue in the face, but some people (the likes of Chuck) will believe what they want to believe, regardless of what obvious truths you show them. I am one of those folks that doesn’t really like to talk just to hear myself talking.

And, I think you know this, but just in case it wasn’t clear, my comment about being a minister was unrelated to my plea directed to you.

By The72John

November 3, 2005 03:56 PM | Link to this

Just so you know, Chuck, the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not undermine evolution. I realize that’s not what you were getting at, but I always like to jump on your repeated ignorance.

See Chuck, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics deals with closed systems. Life, and the universe, is an open system. In a closed system, the amount of entropy can not decrease. In an open system, however, order from chaos is common. Crystals…snowflakes…lightning…

Nice try though. Pray harder next time.

By Whateva

November 3, 2005 04:02 PM | Link to this

And I am sure Steed can quote scripture or other ‘divine’ works, such as the Book of Mormon, to justify marrying three sisters. Would have to make him right, would it not?

By DeltaX

November 3, 2005 04:03 PM | Link to this

JBM,

Sorry, It was in desperation in the muck of ignorance that I replied to you.

I know that you have been forthcoming in shooting people straight - and I share your exhaustion as well.

By The72John

November 3, 2005 04:05 PM | Link to this

Well, let’s look at polygamy…what’s the big deal? So, the guy wants to have three wives, and apparently they have no objection to being 1 of 3, so why do we have such a problem with it? It’s a FELONY for goodness sake, with jail time as a possibility.

Oh right - it’s yet another example of Religious-based discriminatory law. I forgot.

By DeltaX

November 3, 2005 04:10 PM | Link to this

The72John;

And they are sister! What a hoot!

Check this too: VATICAN CITY - A Vatican cardinal said Thursday that the faithful should listen to what secular modern science has to offer, warning that religion risks turning into “fundamentalism� if it ignores scientific reason. [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9913712/]

So is this ID thing over now?

See, chuck et al - even your pagan leaders have the sense to use the word fundie when refering to religion and science! Not the non-christians; which doesnt include me anyhoo. So you are hugely mistaken on ALL fronts.

By Just Being Me

November 3, 2005 04:11 PM | Link to this

Okay, confession time…

Hey John, I actually considered being a 2nd wife once. Seriously considered it, too. LOL!

Just thought I’d throw some humor in there at the end of the day. (True humor, of course)

By NativeAtlantan

November 3, 2005 04:12 PM | Link to this

My aplogies for the belated responses to posts, but I had more pressing matters this morning. Just to respond to a few, however…

DeltaX - I understood what Billy was saying. I simply think he was making the same mistake that many Christians make when referring to their faith either through ignorance or distortion.

If someone is a Christian, and by definition that Jesus was the Christ, Son of God and one with God, then the following things must be true…

• ALL fall short of the glory of God [regardless of your beliefs, Christian or not]

This necccessitated to sacrifice of Jesus life to atone for ALL OF OUR SINS. This DOES NOT in any way make Christians or any other group superior to one another. Taking an attitude that being a Christian makes you better is prideful and stupid, the same as it would if you subscribe to a different worldview.

• Jesus said that he came not to abolish the law but to fulfill it. He was referring to Jewish prophecies of the coming Messiah. The reason the Pharisees and Sanhedrin of his day were aggravated by him was because He told them they were missing the point by adding a bunch of laws that God didn’t. This is why Jesus made that statement.

• I find it interesting that when individuals protest the Bible they automatically turn to Leviticus. This, IMO, reeflects a basic misunderstanding that the Bible is not merely a set of rules but, particularly in the OT a historical view of the Jews of ancient civilization. If you are a Christian, then Leviticus has no bearing on you but for historical perspective as it is not the way Jesus taught. IMO if you believe JEsus’ teachings, that makes Leviticus pretty moot. Though it is rough reading and the worst thing opponents can find in the Bible, so of course it is constantly referred to

By Terry

November 3, 2005 04:14 PM | Link to this

JBM: Point taken. I too am not trying to be critical.

On a different tangent. It is exceedingly rare to converse with a learned Christian that truely understands. I would be interested on your views of our current conflict with Islam? Have you read/studies Muhammad’s foundations or teachings?

I am particularily interested in other views and/or translations of Q’uran sera 9:5 “Verse of the Sword” and the common mullah intrepretation of how it abrogates previous verses from the Medina section of the Q’uran.

By DeltaX

November 3, 2005 04:20 PM | Link to this

NativeAtlantan,

OT [lev] arises not bc we want to knock christianity; but because the christians on here use the OT as their personal device to promote inequality - and more-over; the institution/church does this as well.

By The72John

November 3, 2005 04:24 PM | Link to this

I find it interesting that when individuals protest the Bible they automatically turn to Leviticus. This, IMO, reeflects a basic misunderstanding that the Bible is not merely a set of rules but, particularly in the OT a historical view of the Jews of ancient civilization

I understand PERFECTLY well that the Bible is a historical view of a particular ancient civilization. What I find even more interesting is that you are apparently ignorant of the fact that every time someone like Chuck decides its time to justify their unreasoning hatred of gay people, he or she almost ALWAYS quotes Leviticus.

Then, when called on it, they invariably say things like “Well, THOSE rules don’t matter any more, but the OTHER ones still do”.

The lack of understanding isn’t ours.

By Just Being Me

November 3, 2005 04:30 PM | Link to this

Terry, I’m afraid I don’t know much about the Koran. But, as simplistic as it may sound, I think our (US) conflict with Islam boils down to our intolerance for anything/anyone that is un-American or non-Christian, and our president’s apparent fascination with war and need to flex his American muscle.

Hate to leave after a comment like that, but it’s clock-out time for me. Catch up with ya tomorrow!

Good night all!

By NativeAtlantan

November 3, 2005 04:33 PM | Link to this

The72John - If you intend to criticize me, please do me the favor of reading my whole post instead of waiting for a chance to take a shot.

This necccessitated to sacrifice of Jesus life to atone for ALL OF OUR SINS. This DOES NOT in any way make Christians or any other group superior to one another. Taking an attitude that being a Christian makes you better is prideful and stupid, the same as it would if you subscribe to a different worldview.

This part of the post was typed with the intention of making the point that using the Bible as a weapon, regardless of passage referred to, is prideful and ignoring the Christian teachings of Jesus. That includes anyone - me, you, Chuck, whoever. Based on teaching “he who is without sin, cast the first stone”, I would think we all would have to drop our rocks pretty quickly.

I am not ignorant of anyone using that tactic, it just is not a tactic I take and I chalk it up to human error rather than an error in Christ’s teachings. You obviously took that as a jab at you, which it wasn’t supposed to be at all. To know that, you would have had to read and comprehend my whole post,rather than take it out of context, but I am probably asing too much.

By NativeAtlantan

November 3, 2005 04:36 PM | Link to this

asing = asking..apologies, typing too fast

By The72John

November 3, 2005 04:47 PM | Link to this

I did read your whole post, NativeAtlantan, and while I didn’t take it as a personal jab, I did find it offensive. You said, in very superior fashion, that you find it “interesting” that “people” always jump to Leviticus.

I think you don’t realize how often Leviticus is used as a weapon against gay people. For you to arrogantly proclaim that we are silly for pointing out the hypocrisy of that suggests that you have NO understanding of what you’re talking about.

And guess what - I think your Bible is nothing more than the collection of oral tradition and mythology. It has an important place culturally in the Western world, but I don’t give it any kind of holy significance. So, your “prideful” comment is completely irrelevant.

Ill make a deal. If YOUR people stop telling me what an abomination I am, I’ll stop telling you to shove your hypocritical shrimp up your a*.

By Terry

November 3, 2005 04:50 PM | Link to this

JBM: I agree with you - half way. The other half is the Muslim intolerance for anything/anyone that isn’t Islam.

But it goes a little deeper on their side in that war is a core tenet of the Q’uran. The word Islam itself means ‘submission.’

This lack of concern and understanding is a major problem. After years of study, I am more convinced than ever that we are in the middle of a religious war that has endured for almost 1400 years.

But why should we care. Let the liberals and the ‘politically correct’ have their way and we’ll all need to be learning the Q’uran soon enough.

By DeltaX

November 3, 2005 04:58 PM | Link to this

The72John,

Although I know where your frustration comes from; I believe if you present your idea in a nicer fashion, NativeAtlantan will understand the rational. This is not chuck…etc.

NativeAtlantan has listened and processed information on this BLOG; showing he can talk points without the anger.

Trying to keep what yin/yang we have here; been some of the best BLOGING yet on this site - and would like it to continue into when ALL the standard idiots return;)

Have a good night - been enjoyable. Mostly;)

By NativeAtlantan

November 3, 2005 04:58 PM | Link to this

The72John -

I do realize how often Leviticus is used as a weapon, moron. Learn to read. You want people to have a reasonable discussion (at least I thought that’s that you were driving at, but perhaps you just want to rant)

Before you go off on me about somethiing I didn’t say — READ THE FLIPPIN’ POST. Sorry I can’t write it in crayon for you. My point, which you have missed twice, is that if one is to live by Christian teachings (regardless of what you think of them) then using the BIBLE as A WEAPON is WRONG!!!!! DO YOU GET WHAT I AM SAYING?? I WAS DEFENDING THE POSITION THAT TO USE THAT AS A WAY TO DEMEAN PEOPLE IS A MISUSE OF BIBLE SCRIPTURE!!!

I do find it interesting that people jump to Leviticus because in each respect, that is using the Bible as a weapon, whether you believe it to be the Word of God or “is nothing more than the collection of oral tradition and mythology”.

My point was, though you’ll never get it, that it is wrong for people to use their Bible as a weapon and IT IS JUST AS WRONG FOR YOU TO BERATE PEOPLE SIMPLY BECASUE OF THEIR FAITH. You want to talk hypocritical?? You sit there b*** about being harangued but have no problem dishing it out because you’ve got it all figured out, right? Want hypocritical? Look in the mirror, becasue you won’t find it here.

By NativeAtlantan

November 3, 2005 05:01 PM | Link to this

Deltax - thanks for the compliments. Sorry to denigrate into anger, but putting words in my mouth to serve his own purposees was just a bit much

By NativeAtlantan

November 3, 2005 05:02 PM | Link to this

Deltax - thanks for the compliments. Sorry to denigrate into anger, but putting words in my mouth to serve his own purposes was just a bit much

By Boscoe

November 4, 2005 07:21 AM | Link to this

If evolution is such a sound scienctific theory why does this happen to those who question its legitimacy? Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith- Dr Wilder-Smith with three scientific doctorates, an academic career spanning 40 years and publication of over 100 scientific papers and more than 40 books in 17 languages was not immune to censorship. This is an account in Dr Wilder-Smiths own words of they way in which he was silenced because he “dared to question evolutionary belief” (Ankerberg & Weldon, 1999, p. 99). It is by such methods, [blatant censure] often bordering on psychoterror, that the latter day phlogiston theory (Neodarwinism) still manages to imprint itself in pretty well all scientific publications today. I myself gave the Huxley Memorial Lecture at the Oxford Union, Oxford University, on February 14, 1986. My theses were well received even by my opponents in the debate following the lecture. But I have been to date unable to persuade any reputable scientific journal to publish the manuscript. The comment is uniformly that the text does not fit their scheme of publications. I recently (December 1986) received an enquiry from the Radcliffe Science Library, Oxford, asking if I had ever really held the Huxley Memorial Lecture on February 14, 1986. No records of my having held the lecture as part of the Oxford Union debate could be found in any library nor was the substance of this debate ever officially recorded. No national newspapers, radio or TV station breathed word about it. So total is the current censorship of any effective criticism of neo-darwinian science and on any genuine alternative. (Cited in Ankerburg & Weldon, 1998). Professor Dean Kenyon- Professor Kenyon has a Ph. D. in biophysics from Stanford University, teaches biology and evolution at San Francisco State University, is co-author of a standard biophysics text book, Biochemical Predestination and has researched the origin of life for many years. For most of his academic career, Kenyon was a committed evolutionist however eventually, as a result of his research, he changed his tune. This research required him to logically conclude that it was impossible for life to evolve naturalistically. He did what any good scientist would do; he looked for alternatives” (Ankerberg & Weldon, 1999, p. 100). As a result of this questioning Kenyon added 3 lectures to his introductory biology course at San Francisco State University which was brought to the notice of Dr John Hafernik, Chair of the Biology Department. Hafernik decided that Kenyon was teaching creation and told him to refrain from continuing to teach this in his classes. Hafernik also told Kenyon that only “non-theistic evolution could be taught” (Ankerberg & Weldon, 1999, p. 100). As a result of this Kenyon was removed from teaching the basic biology class and relegated the task of teaching labs, a job primarily given to graduate students. Kenyons credentials are exemplary. Not only does he have his Ph.D. in biophysics from Stanford but he also completed post doctoral work at the University of Southern California, Berkley, Oxford University and NASA. Kenyon was not attempting to insert religion or creation in his classroom, but simply presenting to students the logical implications of the results of his research. Kenyons case was such a blatant example of academic bigotry that even the San Francisco State University’s Academic Freedom Committee ruled in Kenyon’s favor (Ankerberg & Weldon, 1999, p. 100). Regardless Kenyon was not reinstated, Hafernik, the Biology Chair, refusing to allow him to continue teaching the basic biology course. The Wall Street Journal and the American Association of University Professors openly came out in support of Kenyon, support that was not to be found from his fellow S.F.S.U biology collegues.

Evolution is no less a faith in science than religion is founded upon faith in the supernatural. Evolution is mathmatically impossible and the evidence of mutations linking one species to another is completely absent. Call me a moron all you want it doesn’t make evolution anymore real than you think it is. It is your faith. Billy science IS a religion.

By Terry

November 4, 2005 07:59 AM | Link to this

Boscoe: I am tired of trying to reason with fanatics.

Go read the American Association for the Advancement of Science data on the subject. This is the organization that sets the standard of what science is taught in our schools in the U.S.

The theory of biological evolution is more than “just a theory.” It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. There are still many puzzles in biology about the particular pathways of the evolutionary process and how various species are related to one another. However, these puzzles neither invalidate nor challenge Darwin’s basic theory of “descent with modification” nor the theory’s present form that incorporates and is supported by the genetic sciences.

If you are incapable of dealing with modern scientific thought and methods, stop wasting everybody time with your dribble.

You, sir, have yet to propose meaningful tests for ID, you can cite no current research concerning ID within relevant scientific diciplines, and you can cite no body of research on ID published in relevant scientific journals. So, you have still not demonstrated ID to be a scientific theory.

By Lyrazel

November 4, 2005 08:01 AM | Link to this

Can one get worked up in a lather over Deuteronomy or Numbers?

By Boscoe

November 4, 2005 08:18 AM | Link to this

Terry, do you call everybody who disagrees with you a “fanatic”? First of all, I don’t have to prove ID. I don’t care if you don’t beleive in its premise or not. Quit being so emotional about it. My criticisms have been limited to the lack of evidence supporting the theory of evolution. The American Association for the Advancement of Science is one of the organizations that has used the tactics I described above when anybody refuses to accept evolution theory as gospel. There IS a significant lack of evidence for evolutionists that merits reviewing other probable explainations. It is your failure to grasp the flaws of evolution THEORY (NOT A LAW JUST A THOERY)that shows your inability to deal with modern scientific thought and methods. Stop wasting my time with your dribble. You have said nothing to support evolution theory other than to quote organizations that say its so. Don’t you have any original thoughts of your own?

By Billy

November 4, 2005 08:33 AM | Link to this

NativeAtlantan — “This DOES NOT in any way make Christians or any other group superior to one another. Taking an attitude that being a Christian makes you better is prideful and stupid, the same as it would if you subscribe to a different worldview.”

“…if one is to live by Christian teachings (regardless of what you think of them) then using the BIBLE as A WEAPON is WRONG!!!!! DO YOU GET WHAT I AM SAYING?? I WAS DEFENDING THE POSITION THAT TO USE THAT AS A WAY TO DEMEAN PEOPLE IS A MISUSE OF BIBLE SCRIPTURE!!!?

NA, that is my point. I know using the Bible as a weapon is wrong, I agree that “Taking an attitude that being a Christian makes you better is prideful and stupid.” But surely you can admit that that is exactly what happens with many people. The nature of the religion is what promotes this; it takes an active effort to counter it. And I’m not saying it’s just Christianity. It’s Islam, it’s Judaism, it’s Hinduism. Many people of these religions are open-minded and humble. Many others feel that the world is intended for them (God’s “Chosen People”) or that God will smite nonbelievers. I know it’s worng; that’s the point. But it still happens.

Boscoe — yes, I have faith in science, but it is not blind faith. The difference between science and religions is that in the field of science if you can disprove something held to be true you are considered to have made great strides in the advancement of knowledge. With religions if you disprove something they burn you at the stake.

Look up the definition of “religion” and the first definitions you see for any of the entries will refer to a reverence for a “supernatural” force or entity as the creator of the world. Science is the antithesis of this. Furthermore, I do not revere science. I do not get dressed up in a suit and tie and drive halfway across town to listen to some guy in a white smock tell me that I’ll go to heaven if I believe in inertia.

By Terry

November 4, 2005 08:55 AM | Link to this

“A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.”

By even saying that evolution ‘not a law just a theory’ you are demonstrating your lack of understanding of the subject.

My history of posts within this BLOG clearly demonstrates my ability at original thought on a variety of subjects. But it gets old rehashing the same things over and over.

There is no lack of evidence and testable proof for evolution. But no matter what evidence is given you seem to be unwilling to modify or even question your unfounded convictions.

If someone wants to get published in any respectable scientific journal they have to have independently testable hypotheses and/or results. Any other submissions are rightly deemed quackery and denied acknowledgement by the scientific community.

Your arguments are old and have been refuted many, many times over the last two weeks (over 1,600 total posts).

By Terry

November 4, 2005 09:11 AM | Link to this

NativeAtlantan: It’s funny that you mentioned inertia as your example. My 16yo daughter is taking a test in inertia and momentum today in her physics class. If I though it would help her grade, I might be tempted to get dressed up in a suit and tie and drive halfway across town to listen to some guy in a white smock! ;)

By Billy

November 4, 2005 09:15 AM | Link to this

Terry, I mentioned inertia…

By Terry

November 4, 2005 09:17 AM | Link to this

Billy - oops, my bad!!

By Ken

November 4, 2005 09:19 AM | Link to this

Wow… One afternoon of work and I miss so much.

Terry… The reason there is so much discussion about the gay issue is that so many do see it differently and see how that lifestyle affects our society differently.

I do not believe it violates the ‘Separation’ ideal for a couple of reasons. First, there is not ‘Separation’ in the Consitution. There is establishment, not separation. Secondly, and more importantly, I know many secular people on both sides of the issue, therefore I do NOT believe it is soley driven by religion. I would make the same case for other issues as well.

Also…

I think people who have read my previous posts on the gay issue, or other social issues in general would know, that I do not want the government dictating ANY part of my personal life.

Billy… Science is not necessarily the antithesis of religion. Why is it not possible to learn scientifically about our wonderful and complex world, learn how it works, how it behaves and then use that knowledge to make life on this Earth better AND believe that God gave us this wonderful and complex world…? I believe that it is possible and in fact know of many greater scientists than myself who would agree.

By Just Being Me

November 4, 2005 09:26 AM | Link to this

JBM: I agree with you - half way. The other half is the Muslim intolerance for anything/anyone that isn’t Islam.

Terry, that was definitely an erroneous omission on my part. You are absolutely right.

By Billy

November 4, 2005 09:27 AM | Link to this

Ken, I didn’t mean that one could not believe in both science and a religion, but that science itself is not a religion, as religions are beliefs in the supernatural while science deals strictly with what is observable and testable.

By Terry

November 4, 2005 09:33 AM | Link to this

Ken: Thanx for the reply. And, yer right, there is no separation, but that is the way current thinking has intrepreted the clause. I wish they would go back to the establishment way of thinking about the issue.

However, Billy is right about science bing the antitheses of religion in terms of how the thought processes work within each area. One is solely based on faith and the other is really based on doubt. A scientist must doubt everything, even his own results, until independently verified.

That does not mean that a scientist cannot be religious. They are not mutually exclusive. They just cannot argue over the same points with any real understanding. Their whole view of the issue is thought about differently (faith vs. doubt).

Just look at the flow of this blog on this one issue. The ID proponents and the pure science proponents are really talking across each other because they are looking at the same issue with two different set of blinders.

By The72John

November 4, 2005 09:33 AM | Link to this

NativeAtlantan, perhaps you should consider the context in which your post was delivered. The only person who had mentioned Leviticus was using it in self-defense. By criticizing the use of that particular device, you SEEMED to be attacking that person, and by extension the use of that device AS self-defense.

You MAY have intended to criticize the religious jerks who whip that out, but it certainly did not come across that way, whatever you THINK you intended.

By Whateva

November 4, 2005 09:37 AM | Link to this

NatitiveAtlantan - if so many alledged Christians were not busy quoting Old Testament ugly rules to justify their no-acceptance of homosexuality, while they chow down on the pork BBQ, perhaps non-believers would not immediately think of the book of Leviticus when these kinds of discussions about the Bible come up.

By Terry

November 4, 2005 09:39 AM | Link to this

JBM: The real problem from all of my research is that the Islam faith is based on violence. Bush just seems to be the first president to be committed to saying enough (Clinton tried, but wasn’t truely committed - remember Desert Thunder).

And that’s why I was looking for other views of particular sura within the Q’uran. I understand (at least in part) Muhammad’s history and how it is reflected in their book. Now I’m focusing on the background to a number of fatwas issued by various mullahs.

By SUZAN

November 4, 2005 09:47 AM | Link to this

Good morning all, Ken and Boscoe I have a wonderful web site for you to read and I think you will find it facisnating. http://www.equip.org/free/DC745.htm Billy, I do beleive that science does elevate, with many, to a form of religion. while it should not happen it does. Whenever someone closes their point of veiw and begins to idealize a belief system as the absolute truth it elevates it to a form of religion and reduces the bases for science by preventing an open mind to any other point of veiw. that to me is the same as creating a god or idol to worship. While ID, Crationism and/or Evolution may not be the sum and total of all options to how this universe or our planet come into existance, we at this stage will never really get past these points as we have all closed our minds to these system of beliefs. Whether these beliefs ae based on fact or faith(and in both ID and Evolution a portion of both must be present in each) most people have closed thier minds to looking beyond what we now know and believe, to even test other hypothosis, or so it seems to me.

Suz

By Terry

November 4, 2005 09:53 AM | Link to this

Good morning Susan! You kinda hit on one of the misconceptions with this whole evolution vs. ID debate when you said “how this universe or our planet came into existance.” Evolution does not address this question. Cosmology does.

By Just Being Me

November 4, 2005 09:55 AM | Link to this

Whateva, Right on!

By Terry

November 4, 2005 09:55 AM | Link to this

If someone wants to argue for ID in cosmology. That’s a whole different ball game. As long as we have the Big Bang theory, that’s open game!

By SUZAN

November 4, 2005 10:03 AM | Link to this

Terry, I believe you have in that I was unclear in what I meant. When I speak about (and I should have said this) how this Universeor our planet came i to existance I refer more to the verysubject on which we have been discussing this last week. The existance of Life and how life came about in our universe/planet. I was very unclear about that. My husband always says I do that to him as well.. Sorry. and thank you for pointing that out suz

By SUZAN

November 4, 2005 10:05 AM | Link to this

You know Terry I believe we should be giving these girls the topics we have so much fun with these issues and I live the passion of the arguments both for and against this week. It has been stimulating reading

By Just Being Me

November 4, 2005 10:09 AM | Link to this

The real problem from all of my research is that the Islam faith is based on violence.

Terry, I haven’t done any research on this at all (it’s not really one of my “areas of interest”), so I don’t know whether or not this statement is true. But, I do know that Islamic extremists are undeniably a violent people. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that this is due, at least in part, to a violent example set by Muhammad… I do think, though, that there is a difference between the Islamic culture, and the Islamic religion, and it also obviously varies across the different regions. American Muslims have a (relatively) better example in Farrakhan (though I find some of his teachings deplorable, he is still a non-violent kind of guy). But, it seems that in the Iraqs and Afghanistans of the world, the only example they have is Muhammad who, as you pointed out, must have been a pretty strong proponent of violence in the name of Allah…

By DB

November 4, 2005 10:14 AM | Link to this

Here’s an article everyone on here should read: http://today.reuters.com/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyID=2005-10-28T160403Z01SCH843728RTRUKOC0_US-SCIENCE-USA.xml

By The72John

November 4, 2005 10:16 AM | Link to this

Farrakhan is not a Muslim - he is a member of the Nation of Islam. The Nation of Islam has about as much to do with actual Islam as, say, Scientology has to do with Christianity.

By Just Being Me

November 4, 2005 10:16 AM | Link to this

Hey Suzan:

I agree. See my 10/31 post at 9:19a.

JBM

By Terry

November 4, 2005 10:24 AM | Link to this

JBM: And you have also inadvertently pointed to another part of the problem. A Christian has a lot of trouble with the very concept of a violent religion. There are a number of points I could make in favor of my view of this, but it would just be my word. I emplore every reasonable person to do their own research (not just the liberal or conservative talking points {PBS, CBS, Fox, etc.)

The one point I will make is that the Q’uran makes no bones about its focus on conversion of all non-believers and all other offenses that you or I might consider morally or ethically wrong are okay to a believer if it furthers the goal of conversion (i.e., lying, breaking contracts, etc. are okay if it serves Allah).

You’re right in that most Muslims are not violent. It is still very telling that they do not condemn the violence.

The “Verse of the Sword” I was referring to earily supposedly abrogates all previous verses of peacefully co-existence with non-believers, even the ‘People of the Book’ (Jews & Crusaders). I’m still studying.

By SUZAN

November 4, 2005 10:27 AM | Link to this

JBM I do agree with you, while the people of the culture are a mst hospitable people the belief in the afterlife of a martyr and the desperate poverty of the current populations in the middle east would of course give rise to an increase in the beliefs for any kind of world better than this one(heaven). Take these facts and combine them with a systems that trains the youth that we are evil and impure and that our lifestle will send them to hell and the fact that they are often removed from thier homes by extremist groups for training at very young ages and you have the making for an army that is always willing to die for thier beliefs through suicide while killing as many as possible. These people veiw this as an act of heroism. This kind of fundlemintelist that terrifies me as there is no way to reason with this kind of dogma or brainwashing.

By Just Being Me

November 4, 2005 10:30 AM | Link to this

John, your saying that Farrakhan is not a Muslim is like my belief that Jehovah’s Witnesses are not Christians. They (JWs) consider themselves Christian, but I don’t. Farrakhan considers himself Muslim, you don’t.

By Just Being Me

November 4, 2005 10:34 AM | Link to this

Terry, what sparked your interest in this subject?

By Terry

November 4, 2005 10:34 AM | Link to this

the Qur’an, it is written that the world is divided into two sections; the home of Islam (dal ar-Islam) and the home of war (dal ar-harb), and that this division would last until all non-believers were forced to submit to Islamic law or were killed – this is jihad.

Any sect that follows this basic core tenet of Islam (which by the way means ‘submission’) is Muslim. Although they still fight among themselves as to who has devine authority to intrepret the Q’uran.

By Terry

November 4, 2005 10:39 AM | Link to this

My interest was sparked by a desire to understand what could possibly convince a young college student to willing blow himself up while killing as many women and children as he could. My interest was further sparked by a need to understand why so many throughout the House of Islam cheered and danced in the street when this happened.

I now understand these things - RELIGION. The blind belief in ancient mythologies and unfounded dogmas.

Now I’m looking for where it’s going and how to stop it!

By Terry

November 4, 2005 10:42 AM | Link to this

I guess if you wanted to know why I am so adamantly opposed to religion it would be this. We can AND MUST find a way to spirituality without religion.

By DeltaX

November 4, 2005 10:43 AM | Link to this

Boscoe;

Whats your reply to this:

VATICAN CITY - A Vatican cardinal said Thursday that the faithful should listen to what secular modern science has to offer, warning that religion risks turning into “fundamentalism� if it ignores scientific reason. [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9913712/]

And you are not a fundie because we disagree; you are a fundie bc of what you have hard-wired your brain - you no longer can learn.

By Billy

November 4, 2005 10:45 AM | Link to this

Suzan — absolute truth is science, as far as absolute truth can be determined. Science is only concerned with what is true, as far as truth can be tested. Refusing to accept creationism or ID as valid “theories” for science class isn’t being close-minded, nor is it elevating science to a religion. It is simply the way science work. We’ve said countless times that if someone can put forth a scientific experiment that backs an idea other than evolution then it could be a valid scientific theory. Otherwise, it’s bunk.

By hewhoasks

November 4, 2005 10:46 AM | Link to this

Suzan

I think what you say about scientists having (possibly) “closed thier minds to looking beyond what we now know and believe, to even test other hypothosis” is surely an opinon form outside science. The whole point of science is to learn what we don’t know. In school, it is true, the science that is taught is what has been learned, but the day-to-day job and challenge of active scientists is to learn more.

The problem as far as creationism and intelligent design is concerned is that there is no scientific hypothesis to test. Surely you notice that the intelligent design advocates put almost all their rhetoric and effort into claims that evolution is wrong. They have not shown any solid scientific basis for their claims. When that is pointed out they attack the scientists, claiming, as you have, that the scientists have closed minds. The minds are open, but you have to earn attention by scientific evidence and thinking.

There’s a lot to know in modern biology. When non-biologists knock on the door and start chanting “intelligent design” without showing any grounding in what is known doesn’t it make more sense to essentially ignore the non-biologists? It is obviously impossible to retro-teach the intruder all that is known about biology that indicates what the intruder is claiming is nonsensical. If the intruder turns to other non-biologists and piously complains “see how they ignore other ideas” the intruder is putting a false spin on what is happening.

How much time should a geologist give to a flat-earth advocate? It’s about the same.

By Just Being Me

November 4, 2005 10:54 AM | Link to this

Well, be careful, Terry.

LOL! Just kidding. I don’t find it humorous, but I couldn’t resist a little humor in response to your “now I’m looking for where it’s going and how to stop it!”.

I think your quest is really noble. But, as you would expect, I disagree with your definition of “religion.” I think religion is bad. I try to shun the very appearance of religion. But, it cannot be simply be reduced to a “blind belief in ancient mythologies and unfounded dogma.”

I can’t really get into what I think would be a more accurate description without getting into the misuse of the term “religion” and related misconceptions. But, being a Christian does not automatically make one “religious” any more than being a felon makes one “evil.”

I’m Christian, but I’m definitely not religious.

By DeltaX

November 4, 2005 10:55 AM | Link to this

Terry, I would highly recommend that you study Islam completely though - my grandparents on back were muslim. Like christianity; there are many branches that do not adhere to the jihad notion.

And a more accurate translation of Islam would be: to make peace, surrender, derived stem of lem, to be complete. I know this because there are turkish words for peace that are derived from the same root.

Religion is a function that is highly resistant to change[good or bad]; change causes dissonance that usually spikes, then returns to norm after the change is done; but religion does not change - so the state of the religion/conflict becomes more and more dissonant. After reaching a feverish pitch; the followers of religion are capable of anything.

Refer to any of the american fundies; mid-east; and even easterners that took confusist to the Nth degree.

Religion is the corruption of spirituality. When you mix equal parts spirituality and self doubt/childishness; you create religion. That is why one can see tha allure of religion - the spiritual context [Jesus, faith, relationship] - but then you run into the self doubting part that demands humans are crap.

By Terry

November 4, 2005 11:03 AM | Link to this

DeltaX: I am still studying, but I could point our any number of sura concerning jihad, myrtrdom, and violence.

But you are right. Religion is corruption of spirituality. How will we every grow up and throw away our childish mythologies? I don’t believe in censorship or book burning, but I might make an exception for our ‘holy books’.

When I was young, I was a Liberal and a Christian (Church of God & Baptist). But when I grew up, I put away childish things.

By Just Being Me

November 4, 2005 11:14 AM | Link to this

LOL @ that play on scripture, Terry. Cute :-)

By The72John

November 4, 2005 11:17 AM | Link to this

Just Being Me, I’m not going to argue this subject with you, but if you do even cursory research on the Nation of Islam, you will see that they are NOT Muslim. The NoI has adopted some of the trappings of the Muslim faith but has a distinctly different philosophy and background, claiming that a man named W. Fard Muhammad was embodied as the Messiah in the 1930s, and passed his teachings on to Elijah Poole, who became Elijah Muhhamad. It would be like me claiming to actually be Christ, founding a church and calling it Christian.

By DeltaX

November 4, 2005 11:18 AM | Link to this

Terry;

As for removing the corruption of religion - I think it comes down to raising kids much better; more like a human than property.

Religion takes spirituality and adds in a pappa in the sky - and our reference of pappa is the guy that whips your butt if you done wrong (sorry for the added southrn’ accent) - or gives you candy when you are good.

If parents applied and taught faith and relationship as the two main componets to raising a child - the children would not ‘mature’ into needy, self doubting ‘adults’ that always need something to complete them.

By Terry

November 4, 2005 11:20 AM | Link to this

DeltaX: You could also refer to the Christian Inquisition of the 15th-19th century. But Muhammad was a war lord, so a lot of this mentality is at the very foundation of the faith.

Yes, as I said, not all Muslims are violent. But fully 80% will not condemn terrorism or jihad.

For a Muslim to deny jihad is like a Christian denying Christ. You can temper it and strive for peaceful change, but it’s still there.

You said that you grandparents were Muslim. For a Mulim to deny Islam carries a penality of death. I would be curious as to how they made the transition.

By Terry

November 4, 2005 11:22 AM | Link to this

DeltaX: Yes, I like your solution, over all. How many generations will it take?

By Ken

November 4, 2005 11:24 AM | Link to this

DeltaX… So are you proposing that we not teach our children right and wrong…?

By The72John

November 4, 2005 11:27 AM | Link to this

Terry, I’m interested to know what your source is on this supposed 80% of all Muslims that won’t condemn terrorism or bombings. Everything I’ve read suggests the opposite.

Please just don’t requote your London bombing figure - I want a source.

By Terry

November 4, 2005 11:28 AM | Link to this

Ken: No, just loose the mythos! We have morals and ethics without requiring that it come from outside. Get rid of Santa Claus!

By Ken

November 4, 2005 11:33 AM | Link to this

Terry… So you have no problem with my belief of what is right and what is wrong, so long that I do not base it on what you refer to as “mythos”.

By The72John

November 4, 2005 11:37 AM | Link to this

The problem, Ken, is that when you base your whole idea of right and wrong on some kind of rigid ideology, all kinds of nastiness starts to creep in. We can all agree that it’s wrong to murder someone, or to steal, and we can probably come to a relatively strong consensus on what constitutes unethical behavior.

The problems start when the ideologies start pointing fingers at actions that don’t hurt anyone and calling them wrong. That’s when the lunatic fringes of whatever theology or ideology your talking about start to think that it’s OK to kill or otherwise hurt someone who isn’t hurting them.

By Terry

November 4, 2005 11:47 AM | Link to this

The72John: I quote the London bombings figure because it’s one of the few that actually got media coverage and independent verification by other polls. There was another one a few years ago in Chicago after some rather intense violence in Israel. I believe, if memory serves, they showed a 67% approval.

Ken: Your beliefs are yours. If they serve you reaching spirituality, they serve you. Ancient mythologies and unfounded dogmas are the basis of religion. These things, more often that not, get in the way of spirituality. They serve as a barrier to spiritual growth and harmony. Their very existence breeds intolerance and judgment.

But we’ve already been through this thread.

And, I don’t mean to be rude or abrupt, but I gotta go out for a while. Hopefully I’ll be back prior to closing of this blog. But if not, I hope everybody I have communicated with CREATES the best life they possibly can (it really is up to you) - even my ideological opponents.

By The72John

November 4, 2005 11:50 AM | Link to this

Terry, that’s great. What’s your SOURCE? Because the articles I read after the London bombing said pretty much eactly the opposite. I’ve read your past posts - I want a source.

By Just Being Me

November 4, 2005 11:53 AM | Link to this

John, you’ve missed my point. I’m not trying to argue about whether or not Farrakhan IS Muslim - I can’t argue that because I truly don’t know. What I’m saying is that Farrakhan (and all his followers) considers himself to be Muslim.

I can argue (and have argued) all day about why Jehovah’s Witnesses are not really Christians, or why Chuck isn’t a true Christian, but at the end of the day it doesn’t matter because the fact is that whether or not they truly ARE Christians, they believe that they are Christians.

Do you understand what I’m saying?

By DeltaX

November 4, 2005 11:55 AM | Link to this

For a Mulim to deny Islam carries a penality of death. I would be curious as to how they made the transition.

Turkey is a secular country and would not permit such a law; nor does much of the Islam practiced in turkey. As for condemning terrorism or bombings - I know that over 80% of Turkey alone condemns it. Depends on where you are looking.

Turkey’s main issue are the eastern cultures of Turkey that are fundie or fundie’ish (no sep bw state/church) - and deal with them pretty direct and harsh because of the same thing we are discussing about christian religions. Turkey will do what the US does not have the ball$ to do - exlpain politly, the first time, that religion has no place in our govmt.

Ken, Do you need the bible to tell you the difference bw right/wrong? Really now; if so, please explain how/why.

By The72John

November 4, 2005 12:04 PM | Link to this

Just Being Me, you said that Muslims in the US had a better example in Farakhan. The Muslims we are discussing don’t LISTEN to Farakhan - many of them probably consider him to be a heretic. Nation of Islam is a racial separatist movement that borrows some from true Islam. I don’t care if they think they are true Muslims or not - the Muslims that we’re talking about, the Muslims that might buy into the the jihadist philosophies we’re debating, have absolutely nothing to do with Farakhan. He and the Nation of Islam are utterly irrelevant to this discussion. It’s like saying that Catholics in this country listen to the leader of the Mormon church.

By Ken

November 4, 2005 12:13 PM | Link to this

DeltaX… Let’s make it even more abstract. What is right and wrong…?

On what do we base the definition of what is right and what is wrong…?

By Just Being Me

November 4, 2005 12:14 PM | Link to this

Terry, have a great day! Nice talking with you this week.

JBM

By SUZAN

November 4, 2005 12:26 PM | Link to this

Hewhoaks, I am sorry if you missunderstood my message. What I said was”Billy, I do beleive that science does elevate, with many, to a form of religion.” I also said” Whether these beliefs ae based on fact or faith(and in both ID and Evolution a portion of both must be present in each) most people have closed thier minds to looking beyond what we now know and believe, to even test other hypothosis, or so it seems to me.” This is not an insult to scientist but PART OF HUMAN NATURE. When we invest time and talent into something we believe in for the search of the truth we can oft times be diverted by our quest. It is something we all fight against and it is common in every walk of life. Please note that I also said that the very fields of evolution and ID to have a degree of faith as well as a fact. This then is no insult by any nature. I work with many around many fine scientist now in the medical field and they are devoted to finding many cures for cancer and other dieases. Human Nature does make some of them not open sometimes to even each other and I have seen this as well. it’s all in the hypotosis

By Just Being Me

November 4, 2005 12:27 PM | Link to this

The Muslims we are discussing…

John, Who is the we you’re referring to? Terry and I were discussing violence and Islam, period. Not particular sects of Islam, just Islam in general. I mentioned that, as it relates to violence, I think the Muslims in this country have a better example OF NON-VIOLENCE in Farrakhan.

Now, as I said, and I’ll say again for the last time, you don’t have to believe he’s Muslim. Frankly, I don’t care whether he’s Muslim or not. I’m happily Christian, and I’m not interested in the Islam faith to any degree. My POINT (the same point… hasn’t changed) is that HE believes he is Muslim, and hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of Muslims follow him and believe that he is Muslim.

What I think doesn’t matter one bit because I’m not Muslim and I don’t care.

Now, Farrakhan might be “utterly irrelevant” to the discussion of jihad that you are having, but he absolutely was not irrelevant to the discussion Terry and I were having about Muslim violence.

Question (strictly from my own curiosity): Are you Muslim or Caucasian, by chance? I’m just curious.

By DeltaX

November 4, 2005 12:28 PM | Link to this

We would have to define the scope then: right/wrong in total? Or R/W as it pertains to society and their laws?

I would opt for the first, seeing as we may not care what the societal laws are when it comes to our children.

[flying by seat of pants here] And in that case it would be anything that caused the mind/body/spirit harm that would perminently reduce the efficiency of any or all of those three…

By DeltaX

November 4, 2005 12:44 PM | Link to this

Suzan,

Do you keep up with quantum mechanics? String theory? Different Gravitational test hypothosis?

The get as far reaching into the ‘unknown’ as science can, while mantaining a scientific approach. String theory for example is really out there; and the only thing that keeps it from being a ID’ish is that there is math at its roots.

I also like string theory bc [I may regret this; many people do not have the mind to understand where science ends and conjecture begins - but if you can do it without getting confused, it is fun stuff] but a boundless number of vibrating strings causing a chorus of melody is not to far off from “god spoke and there was…” [cannot remember the exact text]

By Billy

November 4, 2005 12:50 PM | Link to this

Suzan — ID has no basis in scientific fact! That’s it. The discussion should end. Yes, I have faith as far as science is concerned, and yes, that extends to evolution, but my faith in science is not a product of the same process as your faith in God/Jesus/various men writing about events that happened thousands of years ago. My faith in science is a product of repeated observation of phenomena and repeated testing of said phenomena according to the scientific method. Your faith is the product of a desire, whether innate or instilled through life experience, to find a divine reason for being, or assure you that there’s more to life after you die, or whatever. I don’t know which ones, if any, apply to you. You might have another reason for your faith. But it is not scientific, and, as such, involves the supernatural and is therefor classified as “religion” or “spirituality”. Science is science.

By Ken

November 4, 2005 12:52 PM | Link to this

DeltaX… In the rearing of children, I agree that it would be the first as well. However, what causes the mind/body/spirit harm and how do you determine if something permenantly reduces the efficiency of all three (from your previous post)?

How does divorce fit into those parameters…?

How does abortion fit into those parameters…?

How does adultery fit into those parameters…?

How does protection of animals and the environment fit into those parameters…?

(FYI… These are rhetorical questions.)

Answering those questions becomes an exercise in relativism, which means that different parents are teaching their children different sets of values.

By The72John

November 4, 2005 12:59 PM | Link to this

Sigh. JBM, you are really off on this. I think you are vastly overestimating Farakhan. I’ll say this again.

The point is not whether or not I think or Farakhan thinks he is a Muslim, it’s whether Muslims think he is. You say you were discussing violence in Islam - that is exactly why Farakahn is irrelevant. The ONLY people who follow and listen to Farakhan are Nation of Islam members, and they aren’t the people we’re concerned about. There are no Jihadist philosophies in NoI - at the risk of repeating myself yet again, it’s a racial separatist movement. It’s members want separate schools and to rediscover the lost tribe of Shabbaz. They are completely disconnected from the philosophical underpinnings that lead to the idea of Jihad

I’m making an issue of this because if you want to have a rational dialogue about violent tendencies in Islam, you have to discuss Islam.

Look at it this way - the two sects of true Islam have been at war for centuries over whether or not the entirety of Muhammad’s writings should be considered Holy, or only the part that he wrote while he was in his trance. Do you REALLY think that they are paying attention to the leader of a group that claims that Allah manifested himself through some guy in Detroit in the 30’s?

And I am Caucasian and agnostic, to answer your question.

By DeltaX

November 4, 2005 01:11 PM | Link to this

how do you determine if something permenantly reduces the efficiency of all three (from your previous post)?

(body)Well, if the body ails from doing something; and cannot recover…

(mind)If something makes you depressed: like beating yourself up

(Spirit) Lets come back to this one later; seeing as there is no real way of testing the spirit.

And your list is not that difficult; it is just that you have a couple of functions in there, which are more complex. I bet it is like newton found; there is only a x and a y in a projectile - although it seems more complex than that. [example: divorce, if performed by adults that understood right/wrong could go through it without messing up kids or themselves]

Abotion will have to wait for now - bc that does directly involve exactly when someone is a person that has a right to live. This aspect will complicate things to the point of us never getting anywhere.

Adultery; you are crapping on someone else, which is no good for your mind - bc psychology has a good amount of data that if something is not able to be rationalized, the mind will suffer [exception for this would be anti-social behaviour disorder - and some other disorders I would suspect].

Environment: well - in the end it will effect our bodies, the wrong doing to another effects our mind.

But, I believe if you teach a child to have real relationships with the world (environment for example), they will claim their part of the responsibility; and would, in effect, remove the need of teaching every right/wrong. And when one asks; you refer to the greater function [ex:environment] and reflect the question back to them:

“Mom, why is littering bad? Well, you know the birds you like to feed…” not, “because it is wrong!” Or “bc it is a sin!” bc anyone can rationalize the instance; but rationalizing the function is another story.

By SUZAN

November 4, 2005 01:13 PM | Link to this

DeltaX I have begun the reading of String theory with my more recnet reading of Hawkins. It is quite interesting and reminds me somewhat of Carlo Castanada. Anyway that another far reaching typ of mythology or metaphyscical belief. Hey I have to sign off for the afternoon. I hope all her, Billy,Terry, Hewhoasks, Ken, Boscoe, DeltaX and JBM, John72, lets see did I miss anyone I hope not! have a wonderful weekend and I truly hope to visit with you all next week. This is a most wonderful group that I have become quite fond of this week in spite of the many different beliefs and views. You as individuals and as a group on this blog are exciting, funny, quick witted and fun!!! thank you

have a sunny warm fall weekend..next week guys lets see what the girls come up with next week. this is just like having a bunch of brothers and sister to argue with it is great fun! Suz

By Just Being Me

November 4, 2005 01:25 PM | Link to this

Okay, John. We’re really not on the same page at all. I don’t think you understand/understood my point to one degree.

You said, “The ONLY people who follow and listen to Farakhan are Nation of Islam members”

Remember how the dialogue between you and I started? You stated, in response to a comment I made to Terry, that Farrakhan is not Muslim.

That was the beginning of my discussion with you. My response to that was, AND IS, the following three statements, no more, no less:

Your tangent was totally irrelevant to the point I was making. I believe Terry got my point. Discussion (or my part in it) closed.

Thanks for at least being civil.

By The72John

November 4, 2005 01:41 PM | Link to this

I do not care whether he is or isn’t Muslim, nor do I care what other people think about whether he is or isn’t Muslim.

Follow this with:

I do think, though, that there is a difference between the Islamic culture, and the Islamic religion, and it also obviously varies across the different regions. American Muslims have a (relatively) better example in Farrakhan

So…how would Farakhan provide a positive example to American Muslims if they don’t consider him part of their faith, and how do you reconcile your two statements?

You can’t, and that’s why you’re ending your part of the discussion.

By NativeAtlantan

November 4, 2005 01:45 PM | Link to this

Billy - thanks for at least reading the posts.

The72John - You are a jacka$$. Not because you choose atheism, or becasue you are/aren’t a person of color, not becasue you may be hetero/homosexual. Just because your an a—-ole. What I said was apparent to plenty of people on this blog, but not you becasue you have made you mind up already and are as closed minded as the people you berate and criticize. You and Chuck are two peas in a pod.

By hewhoasks

November 4, 2005 01:51 PM | Link to this

“Hewhoaks, I am sorry if you missunderstood my message. What I said wasâ€?Billy, I do beleive that science does elevate, with many, to a form of religion.â€? I also saidâ€? Whether these beliefs are based on fact or faith(and in both ID and Evolution a portion of both must be present in each) most people have closed thier minds to looking beyond what we now know and believe, to even test other hypothosis, or so it seems to me.â€? This is not an insult to scientist but PART OF HUMAN NATURE.”

I fully agree about HUMAN NATURE, more than you’d ever know. I’ve seen it in more than one area in which I have interest.

Yes, there are those who give knee-jerk support to evolution. that includes s cietists who are broadly aware of all the details that corroborate the theory and non-scientists who choose to believe the scientists. I’d say my mind is closed: unless real scientific evidence and unless a full treatment of all that is know about species and genetices (in other words, a full theory) is provided there’s no real reason to listen to Creationists and intelligent design advocates.

Let’s say I’ve been going to car dealers, telling them I’m looking for the best car for me and my specific needs. The differnt salesmen tell me, in differing degrees, the real or claimed advatages of what they offer. I decide on one. The night before I go in to sign the contract to buy the car I want I get a call from the salesman at ID motors, who starts badmouthing the car I intend to buy and its manufacturer, tells me all sorts of nonsensical and extraneous things unrelated to what I said I was looking for in a car. My mind is closed to what he says; I make no apology. Should I?

The creationists and the ID advocates haven’t come up with any science to back their claims. As far as science goes there’s no problem in rejecting them out of hand. Is there? The arguments made by the creationists and the intelligent design advoactes aren’t arguments based on science, they are arguments based on other things, such as philosophy. Just how long should scientists have to listen to the same non-scientific arguments? There was no global flood, for example. The authors of the Bible couldn’t even research such a flood: they were confined to one small area of the earth and didn’t receive news reports from Australia, what is now Tibet, from the Americas. Something happened that involved water and may have gone on for what may have been 40 days and nights. Fine. A good story, a very incomplete glimpse into the past. As far as the authors of Genesis were concerned (and the “authors” may have lived hundreds of years before anything was written down) the whole world flooded - or that was the best way they found to describe what happened. There are marine fossils at the top of Mt. Everest. There’s not enough water on earth for a flood to reach that high (as surely is very obvious.) Those fossils got there by geological processes, and had to have been formed millons of years ago.

Most Christians accepted that science disproved literal interpretation of the Bible about 300 years ago. Only a small minority of Christians want to go backwards.

P.S. Nothing I can think of that I’ve seen from you makes me think you’re close-minded.

By The72John

November 4, 2005 02:02 PM | Link to this

Gee NativeAtlantan, it really has nothing to do with my being open-minded or not - it has everything to do with you making a sanctimonious comment about how using the Bible as part of an argument was un-Christian, when the only person using that argument was using it as a counter to hate propaganda. How in the WORLD could I misinterpret that? And how the hell does that make me CLOSE-MINDED? So sorry if reserving the right to defend myself makes me CLOSE-MINDED.

And if you will look back, you will see that a NUMBER of people responded in similar fashion. And seriously - the Bible has been used to validate arguments for centuries. You saying that it shouldn’t be isn’t going to change it, and I sure as hell am not going to stop using the weapon wielded in MY direction back at the people wielding it in the first place.

If you think that makes me an a*****, then fine. I really don’t care. If I have to trample over you to defend MY rights, then I sure as hell will. A*****.

By Just Being Me

November 4, 2005 02:03 PM | Link to this

You can’t, and that’s why you’re ending your part of the discussion.

Actually, that’s not why I’m ending my part of the discussion. I’m ending it for two reasons: (1) With all due respect, my comment wasn’t an “open” one despite the fact that it was posted openly on a blog - it was directed specifically to Terry, and I indicated such. (2) I’ve seen some of your derogatory comments on this post, and I don’t want to be the subject of any of them. So, I’m quitting while I’m “ahead.”

But, I get the feeling you won’t believe any of my two reasons are true, so I’ll continue the discussion just to answer your question. I realize I’m a fool for continuing this conversation when we are definitely not on the same page at all. But, what the heck, life’s short.

So…how would Farakhan provide a positive example to American Muslims if they don’t consider him part of their faith, and how do you reconcile your two statements?

My two statements you posted don’t have to be reconciled. One is solely my opinion, the other speaks more to perception and maybe a bit of fact. But, to answer your first question above, Farrakhan can provide a positive example to the many American Muslims who DO consider him a part of their faith.

What you’re doing is eliminating from the equation those Muslims you don’t believe are Muslims. I’m not doing that at all. I’m assuming, for THIS discussion’s sake only, that all who say they are Muslim, are Muslim.

Therefore, this statement is true: Farrakhan, who believes he is Muslim, is a positive example to other Americans who believe they are Muslim, and believe that Farrakhan is Muslim.

Is that better for you?

By The72John

November 4, 2005 02:08 PM | Link to this

If you can show that there is a single American Muslim - one who is NOT a member of the Nation of Islam, who considers Farakhan to be a Muslim, then that would be a valid statement.

You won’t, by the way, because the Islamic faith does not recognize the Nation of Islam as a legitimate sect. This is the whole point that I’ve been making the whole time.

By NativeAtlantan

November 4, 2005 02:16 PM | Link to this

The72John - Thanks for proving my point, that you are simply a fanatic with a different point of view than. You are an idiot because you think I was attacking you, regardless of what I said or how I explained it, because that’s what you want to believe in the first place. I hope that chip on your shoulder is heavy. Sure, I think you are an ahole, because you clearly are an ahole. It’s laughable that you would call anyone sanctimonius or arrogant or pmpous or any other adjectives like that since you seem to personify those terms. Please don’t feel like (in the metaphorical sense) that you are trampling over me to defend your rights in some kind of righteous indignation. I haven’t assaulted your rights at any point in time, so climb down off your horse, Lancelot. If you were speaking in the literal/physical sense (I would assume you weren’t) then you clearly have had a break with reality, because it would never happen.

By DeltaX

November 4, 2005 02:29 PM | Link to this

Terry/72John/NativeAtlantan

Got into another thread for a bit: Can you catch me up on the general hoopla?

[I love how everytime we blow apart one of boscoes posts; he disappears - why can’t he just stay gone?;)]

By The72John

November 4, 2005 02:33 PM | Link to this

Well DeltaX, basically NativeAtlantan can’t grasp the fact that his comment about Leviticus was offensive. That’s pretty much the whole point. And now, because I found it offensive, I am apparantly a fanatic like Chuck. Oh, and NativeAtlantan is also making some kind of posturing about his physical prowess. Apparently he can’t imagine that anyone could trample him, metaphorically or otherwise.

By NativeAtlantan

November 4, 2005 02:34 PM | Link to this

DeltaX - Terry is contributing worthwhile posts, 72John is pitting bile, and I am spitting it back at him

By NativeAtlantan

November 4, 2005 02:35 PM | Link to this

DeltaX - Terry is contributing worthwhile posts, 72John is spitting bile, and I am spitting it back at him

By NativeAtlantan

November 4, 2005 02:38 PM | Link to this

72John - Oh I am quite sure there is someone out there, surely several, who could trample me metaphorically or otherwise, you just aren’t it.

What YOU CAN’T GRASP was the Leviticus comment wasn’t directed at you. It was directed at ANYONE who uses it as an offensive weapon, regardless of stance.

By The72John

November 4, 2005 02:44 PM | Link to this

I find it interesting that when individuals protest the Bible they automatically turn to Leviticus. This, IMO, reeflects a basic misunderstanding that the Bible is not merely a set of rules but, particularly in the OT a historical view of the Jews of ancient civilization. If you are a Christian, then Leviticus has no bearing on you but for historical perspective as it is not the way Jesus taught. IMO if you believe JEsus’ teachings, that makes Leviticus pretty moot. Though it is rough reading and the worst thing opponents can find in the Bible, so of course it is constantly referred to.

Hey NativeAtlantan…maybe you are unaware, but your use of words like “protest” and “opponent” SEEM to indicate that you are directing your comments, not at the Christians using Leviticus as a weapon, but against the people “protesting” the Bible.

By The72John

November 4, 2005 02:47 PM | Link to this

And what do you base that on, NativeAtlantan?

By SUZAN

November 4, 2005 02:51 PM | Link to this

Hewhoasks I just cam eback n for a second and caught your note. Thanks for the complement. I am far from having the education that some here have but I am trying to learn and to keep myself open to the truth. I will gladly admit to being Christian and a follower of Christ’s teaching and I hope that one day I will at least get a little closer to the love he had for mankind. I know that when you leave this place we call our live the only thing valuble you take with you is love. Nothing else really counts except how you treat other on this planet. I am only human though and I often fall short of the mark, in facct daily I fall short. But to have the chance to converse with others here and in other bloggs and it is very facisinating to learn all the points of view on many subjects. For me it is also a study in human nature and beliefs that make up who we are. This is a very interesting group of people andf I feel quite privalaged to have had the chance to speak with all here. anyway Im trying to get out work for the weekend I hope I see you all back next week
Hey john 72 and JBM, you guys be sure to kiss and make up b4 you sign off today..lol suz

By NativeAtlantan

November 4, 2005 02:54 PM | Link to this

IMO if you believe Jesus’ teachings, that makes Leviticus pretty moot

The point is, though you missed it, that using LEviticus as an arugment if you claim to be Christian is contradictory because it runs counter to Christ’s teachings. Following Christ = Christian. IF you ignore Christ’s teachings in favor of an OT reference just to make a out of context point, then I would think that is hypocritical. That’s my opinion. The staement ou quoted directed criticism at BOTH sides of the fence, but you just took out what offended you rather than the whole of the statement…big shock there.

By Just Being Me

November 4, 2005 02:54 PM | Link to this

John for the LAST time, and I really mean it this time. This is my last comment to you on this subject.

the Islamic faith does not recognize the Nation of Islam as a legitimate sect.

This is why we aren’t on the same page. You are stuck on whether or not Farrakhan (and his followers) belong to a legitimate sect of Islam and therefore are or aren’t truly Muslims. I am, for the sake of this discussion, assuming that everyone who says he is Muslim, really is… regardless of who acknowledges them as Muslim, regardless of whether or not they have the “Certified Muslim” card.

This is the whole point that I’ve been making the whole time.

I understood your point from minute 1. You just don’t understand mine.

Nice chatting with ya.

The End.

By Randy

November 4, 2005 02:54 PM | Link to this

The72John, Anne Rice the horror writer became a Christian a few years back, so there is hope for you. If your problem is your lifestyle, your lifestyle is just a sin, just like any other sin done by anybody, including myself and it can all be forgiven. You haven’t done anything that can’t be forgiven. Just remember Jesus loves you as much as anybody.

By ASHLEY

November 4, 2005 03:06 PM | Link to this

Randy, you seem like such a nice young man. We could use more people like you in the world. You truly uphold the Christian beliefs, and have a truly Christian soul.

The heathens and heretics on this blog could use a good thrashing of Christian logic and beliefs. Some day, they will wilt like the grass just like it was predicted in the bible.

Bless you.

Now…Evolution deserves no place in school. Christian bible study and the bible should take that place. All the kids need to be learning is christianity, arithmetic, writing, and reading. All of that can be taught by the bible. Puritan ways need to come back, and I am serious.

By The72John

November 4, 2005 03:07 PM | Link to this

Randy, please take this in the spirit in which it is delivered: Go screw yourself.

Native - what you don’t seem to realize is that criticism directed at both sides of the fences is unwarranted. It’s because you were CRITICIZING the use of Leviticus as a defense that I was OFFENDED. You are CRITICIZING me for responding to an attack with counter information from the same source. I didn’t “pick” what to be offended by - you yourself have just confirmed that you were CRITICIZING using Leviticus as a defense.

JBM - Seriously, I’m not trying to be dificult here, but you’re basically saying “Person X is an influence on People Y becuase he thinks he is a Person Y, even if People Y don’t agree.” I really don’t think you DO understand the logical inconsistency there, but I’m willing to stop arguing about it.

Randy, again if you missed it the first time: Go screw yourself.

By Just Being Me

November 4, 2005 03:10 PM | Link to this

The point is, though you missed it, that using LEviticus as an arugment if you claim to be Christian is contradictory because it runs counter to Christ’s teachings. Following Christ = Christian. IF you ignore Christ’s teachings in favor of an OT reference just to make a out of context point, then I would think that is hypocritical. That’s my opinion. The staement ou quoted directed criticism at BOTH sides of the fence, but you just took out what offended you rather than the whole of the statement…big shock there.

Hey Native, I guess I missed your point too. If I had caught that point I would’ve responded sooner. For the record, referring to Levitical law is not equivalent to denying Christ’s teachings. I accept the OT Word of God, and I accept the NT Word of God. Accepting one does not mean denying the other. I accept Christ’s teachings completely. Unfortunately for some homophobes and homo-haters, Christ did not “teach” about homosexuality.

By DeltaX

November 4, 2005 03:16 PM | Link to this

Like randy knows something about being christian…

No, you know about being a baptist, methodist, or some other currupt version of christs words - there is a world of difference.

Doesn’t it state in the bible that there is no forgivness for changing the word?[This is a question - meaning I do not know this answer;)]

By NativeAtlantan

November 4, 2005 03:19 PM | Link to this

72John - You are CRITICIZING me…blah blah blah

You overestimate your importance in what I was crticizing. You aren’t the only peson to use that passage in an offensive (emphasis on the first syllable)manner. I was not criticizing defense. There was no defense, simply offensive strikes from both sides. There is a difference. Like most close-minded fanatics, however, you’ll only see one side of it. Which is fine if thats what you want to do, just don’t expect me to agree with you. Opinions are like [72John’s]…everybody has one.

By The72John

November 4, 2005 03:23 PM | Link to this

NativeAtlantan you are truly hilarious. One, the only way in which I am either close-minded or fanatical is when it comes to defending my own rights. You are absolutely clueless if you think that using Leviticus is OFFENSIVE on my part.

Second, I wasn’t OVERESTIMATING my personal importance, you jackass, I was responding to the general tenor of your post. You STILL don’t see how it was offensive, even though other people have JUST TOLD YOU they didn’t understand your point.

By DeltaX

November 4, 2005 03:26 PM | Link to this

JBM,

How can you sythisize the OT Word of God and Christ’s teachings completely?

They are in direct opposition.

Want proof? Get a bible that has color codes for what jesus said himself[red in my bible]; and compare those verses it with OT verses.

By Just Being Me

November 4, 2005 03:34 PM | Link to this

DeltaX, I already have one. Can you rephrase your question, please. I don’t understand it.

Thx

By NativeAtlantan

November 4, 2005 03:36 PM | Link to this

72john - Nothing I said should have offended you. That was not the intent, but you can take it an twist it to your own agenda if you like, I don’t really care at this point. You don’t care about being right or just, simply getting in the last shot so you can feel superior. That point has been made blantantly clear to me.

JBM - If you want an explanation of my posts and what I mean by it, please feel free to email me at nativeatlantan70@yahoo.com. I’ll be happy to discuss it with you, as you seem to be a reasonable, well-spoken person

By DeltaX

November 4, 2005 03:38 PM | Link to this

JBM;

If you compare what jesus actually said against the OT; they do not go together - they contradict each other.

By Just Being Me

November 4, 2005 03:40 PM | Link to this

Randy, I can see that you’re not trying to be difficult. However, you don’t seem to be comprehending what I’m saying. So let me use your example and maybe this will help. By the way, I’m not trying to get you to agree with me. I just want you to understand what I’m saying, whether you agree or not. Your example proves to me that you DON’T understand what I’ve been saying.

For the record, I completely see the logical inconsistency of the example you stated.

Here’s your take on what I’m saying: Person X is an influence on People Y becuase he thinks he is a Person Y, even if People Y don’t agree.

Here’s what I’m really saying: Person X is an influence on People Y because he thinks he is a Person Z, and People Y think they are People Z too.

By DeltaX

November 4, 2005 03:45 PM | Link to this

Yeah ASHLEY;

I always wanted to have a slave wife that had to wear collars, not cut their hair, and only wear long skirts!

You know you could just become mormon and stay sweet!

By Billy

November 4, 2005 03:45 PM | Link to this

JBM — If person X is an influence on People Y because he thinks he is a Person Z and People Y think he is a Person Z, then since People Y think he is a Person Z he is also an influence on Person Z…

Though that’s neither here nor there…

By The72John

November 4, 2005 03:46 PM | Link to this

Why am I “twisting it to my own agenda” Native?

You’re the one who brought it up in the first place! I’m not trying to feel superior, I’m trying to express to you how angry you made me when you wrote what you wrote, and explain why.

Let me put it very simply to you. For years, people have been quoting Leviticus as a justification for the persecution of gay people. Now, whether or not you think it is un-Christian to do so - actually, I agree with you completely there - it is still factual that it occurs. The traditional response to these quotes is to point out the many OTHER things in Leviticus that are no longer followed by the people who are using that self-same set of rules as a justification for their prejudice.

In essence, your post says that by responding in this fashion, by using that as a response, that I am also being un-Christian. Is that basically it?

See, I’m VERY reasonable except on this one issue. I’m guessing you’re a white heterosexual Christian male, so you probably have about zero understanding of what it’s like to be consistently persecuted.

By Just Being Me

November 4, 2005 03:51 PM | Link to this

DeltaX, I understood that part. Was your question rhetorical? I wasn’t sure if you wanted me to answer or not, but if you did want me to answer I need you to rephrase b/c I didn’t get the question… lol!

Anyway, my comment was in relation to Jesus’s teachings on homosexuality - and there weren’t any. Atlanta Native said something about referring to Levitical law being equivalent to rejecting Christ’s teachings, and my response was that Christ didn’t teach about homosexuality.

AtlantaNative, no offense - you seem like a pretty reasonable person too - but I’m not really interested in having an extended conversation about homosexuality and the Bible. I’m gay. I love the Lord. And, I do my best to live just like Christ did. End of my story.

By The72John

November 4, 2005 03:51 PM | Link to this

I give up.

However, I don’t forgive you for calling me Randy.

By NativeAtlantan

November 4, 2005 03:55 PM | Link to this

Why am I “twisting it to my own agendaâ€? Native? I don’t know why you are doing it. I can only assume it is because you are emotionally charged by the subject.

I’m guessing you’re a white heterosexual Christian male, so you probably have about zero understanding of what it’s like to be consistently persecuted

Yes, you are guessing, and incorrectly.

Now, whether or not you think it is un-Christian to do so - actually, I agree with you completely there - it is still factual that it occurs.

It is un-Christian to do so, that is a main point of what I am saying. Glad there is one point on which we can agree. Yes, sadly, it does occur.

The traditional response to these quotes is to point out the many OTHER things in Leviticus that are no longer followed by the people who are using that self-same set of rules as a justification for their prejudice.

Perhaps that is the traditional response. I find it to be the wrong one. If you find that person(s) to be offensive when they do that, why would you take the same tactic? If someone is infrining on your rights, that’s one thing. If they are saying that your homosexuality (just assuming here, not based on knowledge that you are) is wrong based on a book you regard as “oral history and mythology” then why argue it. Speech does nothing to you, only action does, unless you allow it.

By Just Being Me

November 4, 2005 03:55 PM | Link to this

Billy, Person Y can only be an influence on People Z if People Z accept his influence. If People Z don’t believe that Person Y is “one of them” then they probably wouldn’t accept his influence.

By The72John

November 4, 2005 03:57 PM | Link to this

Because, Native, you undermine the legitimacy of their argument…it’s a basic tool of debate. Surely you see the logic in that.

By Just Being Me

November 4, 2005 04:00 PM | Link to this

Oops!!! :-) I’m sorry John. I guess now everyone knows that I secretly dream of Randy at night!

LOL

By NativeAtlantan

November 4, 2005 04:02 PM | Link to this

JBM - I wasn’t making a reference to homosexuality when referring to Leviticus or Christ. There are many harsh things listed in Lev. other than homosexuality. My point was referring to the whole book, not just a passage on homosexualiy. That point was that Christ taught love, forgiveness, etc., and using His Word to hammer someone else doesn’t line up with that teaching. I wasn’t even referring to homosexuality, but rather, the idea in general that berating someone and belittling them because you disagree is not loving or understanding, therefore, un-Christ-like, particularly if you use the Bible to do it.

By Billy

November 4, 2005 04:02 PM | Link to this

I meant Person X is an influence on People Z by virtue of People Y believing Person X is a Person Z…

wha???

By NativeAtlantan

November 4, 2005 04:07 PM | Link to this

72John - I see why you think it’s logical, but I don’t think you are accomplishing your goal of undermining their argument. You don’t believe the Bible, they do. Do you think any of that has changed? Who are you trying to prove to that their argument is off? Yourself or your opponents?

By Just Being Me

November 4, 2005 04:08 PM | Link to this

I’m still confused on how it is “un-Christian” to use any part of the Bible to refute a claim based on the Bible.

If someone says it’s wrong to be gay because the Bible says so in Leviticus. And, I respond that Leviticus also says it’s wrong to eat shellfish, how is that UN-CHRISTIAN?

If I read correctly, Native, both you and John agreed on that. One of you please explain to me how that is un-Christian?

(Keep in mind that I leave at 4:30p - lol)

By The72John

November 4, 2005 04:13 PM | Link to this

Well, you’re right about at least one thing - this is a very emotionaly charged issue for me. So, if I come across harsh I apologize, but I still don’t agree with your point. While I can concede that it was not intended to be offensive, to me it was. That’s the best I can do.

I don’t see that asking someone if they eat shellfish is hammering them, and to be honest when someone is trying to explain why my civil rights should be taken away, the last thing I’m concerned about is Love and Forgiveness.

Anyway - I’m willing to call truce if you are.

By Just Being Me

November 4, 2005 04:16 PM | Link to this

Native, your 4:02 made things a bit clearer for me. I think I understand what you’re saying. But, I thought that yesterday, your point was mainly in reference to my raising the Levitical law as a concern. In that case, I didn’t use that reference to berate, attack, or even correct someone. I was simply saying to Chuck (I think it was Chuck) that you can’t quote Lev. 18:22 to tell me that I’m wrong for being gay, if you ignore Lev. 18:21 yourself.

Billy, huh??????

By The72John

November 4, 2005 04:16 PM | Link to this

Ok, one last stab at this.

Someone tells me - I hate you. I say - Why. They say - because the Bible tells me to. It’s in Leviticus. I say - but Leviticus also says that you shouldn’t eat shellfish, yet I see you chomping down on that Red Lobster shrimp platter. They say - “”.

Basically, it’s a way of stripping the excuse away from them. They don’t hate me because the Bible tells them to. They hate me because they are ignorant. Sometimes, you can actually make people realize that. Sometimes you can just make yourself feel just a little bit better after you’ve been spit on.

By Terry

November 4, 2005 04:17 PM | Link to this

I’m back! But I don’t have long.

The72John: A couple of things to catch up on. I see that you had asked for more specifics on jihad survey data. I’m sorry, I don’t have old references to the data. However, there was a poll by the Washington Post a few months ago that is rather telling about the older attitudes and some of the recent changes in opinions about terrorist. It’s at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/14/AR2005071401030.html. It actually shows support for Islamic terrorism is down to about 50% in some key Mid-Eastern countries!!!! That’s a good sign. Also, on the London thing. There were a number of polls, and we all know about the accuracy of a poll - it really depends on the question you’re asking. One of them ask if Muslims condon terrorism and the response was around 20%. Another ask if they would condemn terrorism at it was up around 80%.

Also, I’m bi-, so I get persecuted from both sides (believe it or not). Quoting Lev. back to them puts you at their level. I’d suggest either ignore (not always easy) OR focus on ‘judge not that ….’ type of stance. And, try to stay as far away from that mindset as you can. You’re not gonna change them any more that we’ll change Boscoe or chuck’s view of evolution.

By Terry

November 4, 2005 04:19 PM | Link to this

The72John: Typo in my post - that 80% that would not condemn.

By Terry

November 4, 2005 04:20 PM | Link to this

Oh, and for DeltaX: That Washington Post poll shows excellent secular response from Turkey…I think it was way down below 10% support terrorism.

By Terry

November 4, 2005 04:24 PM | Link to this

bye, again!!!

By Just Being Me

November 4, 2005 04:26 PM | Link to this

John, I still don’t see how that’s “un-Christian,” but frankly, I’m brain-fried right now. Long day, long week, home awaits! Thanks for stimulating my brain today.

Welcome back, Terry.

Everyone have a great weekend and those who pray, pray that Diane and Shaunti come up with a better topic for next week! :-)

By NativeAtlantan

November 4, 2005 04:26 PM | Link to this

72John - Sorry you found it offensive. That was never the intent. Truce is fine with me.

Since it is obviously either not explained well by me, or lost in translation but here is what I was trying to convey

I can’t make you believe what I believe and I wouldn’t want to. You would have to make your faith choice based on your own mind and heart or it wouldn’t be a choice.

I’m not advocating for or against homosexuality. Or shellfish consumption (I love shellfish). Or pork (man, a good BBQ sandwich..tasty) I’m not your Dad and can’t make your choices for you. I prefer to tend to my own backyard, which has plenty of disarray to deal with to try and impose myself on someone else’s

By NativeAtlantan

November 4, 2005 04:30 PM | Link to this

I’d suggest either ignore (not always easy) OR focus on ‘judge not that ….’ type of stance.

TERRY< THANKS FOR MAKING MY POINT BETTER AND MORE SUCCINCTLY THAN I DID!!!

By NativeAtlantan

November 4, 2005 04:32 PM | Link to this

which has plenty of disarray to deal without to try and…

sorry typo

By DeltaX

November 4, 2005 04:33 PM | Link to this

Enjoy your wekend people!

Hanging with the nephews, throwing the frisbee for the dog and generally chilling.

Come back next week; you guys, as much as this topic got yuriled up, are pretty honest and complete in your agruements - the normal folk on here ain’t quite so…

So, I guess that I am saying that a common enemy will bring you all together;0 And this blog need ya.

Take care and be safe.

By The72John

November 4, 2005 04:34 PM | Link to this

It’s really the opposite of judging - I’m not criticizing the person for eating shellfish or wearing blended fabrics. It’s more like saying “How can you judge me when you yourself are violating the sames rules you are quoting at me?”

It’s sort of a “remove the beam in your own eye” kind of thing.

By The72John

November 4, 2005 04:40 PM | Link to this

Anyway, to sum up: ID bad.

peace.

By Billy

November 4, 2005 04:41 PM | Link to this

JBM, I was basically saying that Nation of Islam influences people, specifically their opinions of Islam itself, of which NoI is not really a part. Like “Christian” abortion clinic bombers influence my opinion of Christianity even though most Christians would aruge bombing a clinic is not the work of a Christian.

By NativeAtlantan

November 4, 2005 04:46 PM | Link to this

y’all have a good weekend

By Randy

November 4, 2005 04:57 PM | Link to this

To sum up the week, Intelligent Design is probably the most important thing a child could know. However, to be politically correct we can’t put it into school. Hopefully, all the mothers and fathers who really love their children will tell them about it and introduce them to Jesus Christ