Although this is a little overdue, back in September was my one year anniversary as a blogger. So to begin off my "New" year into bloggerdom I have changed the banner but kept the template. I did not want to go to drastic. The banner change was not only a reflection of something fresh and new but I felt the background was rather symbolic of the nature of the topics and the discussions that go on here. Rather stormy at times :)
My goal from the outset was to stir the proverbial pot. Discussing the things that fly in the face of an all too politically correct society that is afraid to say the simple words..."I Disagree".
Regarding my views on such racy topics such as abortion, gay marriage, homosexuality, Canadian politics, terrorism, evolution, war in Iraq/Afghanistan, our soldiers, religion, and so on I would say that I have remained true to my moniker. Not because I actually am intolerant of people with opposing views but my experiences in a mostly dominated liberal society have branded me as such.
As I like to say, "If you ever want to be branded as INTOLERANT, then win an argument with a Liberal!" I make no bones about my views. In a true and free society I should be entitled to them with a degree of respectful disagreement not verbal diarrhea and rageful tongue lashings from those who profess to belong to the "Tolerant elite".
For the most part I can say I have been pleasantly surprised by a number of you from the "Left" side of the spectrum. Although I never expected to have so many of you come to a site that disagrees with your own personal views, values, and ideologies I am glad to welcome you. I value and appreciate your input and respect your right to disagree with me.
I may not have met the bulk of you in person but I consider many of you my friends. From the "Left" I think of Lucy, Karen, KA, Mandora, The Queen of light and Joy, and Dr. Marco. From the "Right" or more to the right I think of Bewoulf (Pro theism), Jeff (African Perspective), Nog , and new friend Courtney. I also remember "Q" whose input I miss. I hope he is reading this and stops in to say hello. If I missed others please accept my apologies.
I am proud to say I have only ever deleted one comment from this site in it's entire existence. It came on what I felt was definitely the most heated discussion of the past year. That was June 4/06 entry "The sick mind of the Progressive left". The comment did not address the topic and was just slinging mud in quite a vulgar manner. It was a touchy subject as it challenged certain ideologies of the extreme far left.
Yet some dumbass remarks I will allow to stand. For example, October 7/06 entry "AIDS: A gay mans disease" warranted a comment from "anonymous" referring to me as a disgrace to Christian bikers. I was not sure what being a Christian or a biker had to do with writing a piece about what a gay and lesbian organization was promoting but I allowed it to stand because I do support freedom of expression (within reason). And really, considering my personal past, I have heard a lot worse.
As I embark on a new year on blogger I hope many of you will continue to come by and submit your input. I value you as people, even IF some of you have views that are warped (LOL)
I leave you with this as I would not be the The Intolerant One if I did not.
Evolution is dumb
Abortion is mean
Gay marriage is wrong
Euthanasia is twisted
Safe sex=False sense of security
Atheism is sad
Liberal=indecisive (better take a poll!)
Religion sucks
Relationship with Christ is salvation and TRUTH!
Now show me the love.
Until next time...
40 comments:
:)
Congratulations on reaching a year TIO. We may have opposing views on many things but i have always enjoyed reading your blog and what you have to say on matters.
It seems that i started not long after you and yours was one of the first that i visited and a year later i am still coming here after many others have been wiped off my bookmarks.
We probably will disagree many more times but i am proud that we have always kept it civil and respectful.
Well done on an excellant blog, now if only we could get you to post a bit more often!!
TIO
You won an argument with a liberal? When?
:-)
I like the new look. Much better than the horse-riding militant Jesus.
Atheism isn't sad; it's just lonely.
I'm so glad to be included among your lefty friends! Congrats on a year-plus of blogging. It's no small task.
Lucy,
Thank you for your kind words. I would most definetley like to post more often then I do.
But I do have obligations that must take priority. A wife, 3 kids, a full time job, a church plant I am involved in, and my passion the biker ministry.
Sometimes I am amazed I get on here at all. I also often find when I am visiting your site or other's and I get caught up in the heat of debate before I know it time has flown by and the next article I had intended on writing on that particular day now has to wait.
Not to mention I sometimes have too many things to post on that I sometimes walk away because I cannot make up my mind. I usually like to attempt the articles that stoke the fire. Those ones can take alot of thought on how it is presented.
I look forward too many more interludes with you ;)
Karen,
"You won an argument with a liberal?"
Haha! If I never won an argument I would never have earned the honorable title of "Intolerant".
"When?"
Typical woman. You want the male species to remember the exact year, day, time, and hour (minutes if possible). Too many victories to pinpoint any one time :)
"I like the new look. Much better than the horse-riding militant Jesus."
Thanks for the compliment. But the militant Jesus ? It was just Christ on a horse in His white robe. No weapons, military fatigues, and He even had a soft look in His eyes. I don't get it, what was so militant?
"Atheism isn't sad; it's just lonely."
That is what makes it sad. The atheist lives without hope. That is why they are lonely. To me that is sad.
"I'm so glad to be included among your lefty friends! "
I am glad you hunted me down girl.
"Congrats on a year-plus of blogging. It's no small task."
No small task indeed with commenter's/friends like yourself holding my feet to the fire! (LOL)
TIO
Haha! If I never won an argument I would never have earned the honorable title of "Intolerant".
I thought the title was self-endowed for the purpose of creating an intriguing blog title. Which it is.
Typical woman. You want the male species to remember the exact year, day, time, and hour (minutes if possible).
Yep. Whassamatter? Weren't you paying attention? BTW, does this blog make me look fat?
Too many victories to pinpoint any one time :)
IOW, it never happened. :-) Hope you're better at alibis, if you ever should need one!
I don't get it, what was so militant? The whole aura looked militant to me, with the lightning and all. There was a soft look in his eye? I sure missed that.
The atheist lives without hope. That is why they are lonely. To me that is sad.
First off, that was supposed to be a joke. Bad one, I guess.
Second, I don't live without hope, and no atheist I've met impresses me as doing that. We just don't hope for the same things as you do.
There is some lonliness, due to lack of social interaction with other like-minded people. We aren't open or populous enough to group together regularly.
But it's not sad.
TIO,
Congrats on your anniversary. May your posts bring ravage opposition, name calling, trolls and ankle biting galore.
Basically yours,
~wulf
TIO:
Hey, thanks, I think of you as a friend as well.
Let's take a shot at a coupla things:
Evolution is dumb
I think this is based more on a 'how it makes me feel' hypothesis.
Abortion is mean
Hey, it sucks, but it's a woman's issue - us guys should stay outta it.
Gay marriage is wrong
I feel this is bigotry, pure & simple. Sorry.
Euthanasia is twisted
Now THAT would make for interesting discussion.
Safe sex=False sense of security
Hmmm, I'd say substitute 'religion' for 'safe sex'.
Atheism is sad
Then why am I such a jolly person? ;)
Liberal=indecisive (better take a poll!)
Err, ummm....Gee, I can't make up my mind about that statement. LMAO!
I dunno about anyone else, but I'm fairly decisive for a bleedin' heart libbie.
Religion sucks
Couldn't agree more. Hey! Write that down on your calendar! Holy crap!
Probably different rationale, I'll bet.
Relationship with Christ is salvation and TRUTH!
Personally, rather have a relationship w/a living, breathing human, but to each their own, I always say.
That out of the way, I'll have to grudgingly admit: I admire you. You at least make the effort to embody the principles you preach, which is more than I can say about the rest of the demographic you belong to.
Short version: you walk the way you talk.
But I think you need to do more scientific research/read more science books. Purely a suggestion.
Oh Intolerant One, how great Thou art! (for a Canadian). Before you go on and on, two of my kids are Canadians!
Anyway, anyone who survives a year blogging is either extremely brave, extremely insensitive or extremely stupid. Sadly, there are some two-faced people around who repay loyalty with back-stabbing. What's new, pussycat?
Anyway, well done, sir! Cheers!
Beowulf,
LOL Thanks for the inspiration bro!
Karen,
"I thought the title was self-endowed for the purpose of creating an intriguing blog title. Which it is."
It was self endowed, sort of. But I would never have obtained the moniker if it were not for the "left". It often seems when one disagrees and the lefty is losing ground they often revert to this mode of self defense by pointing out one's intolerance towards non conformity. (IE their way or you are ....)
You'll notice that KA's statement towards those who think gay marriage is wrong is a form of bigotry. I rest my case :) People can think it is wrong. That does not make them bigoted or intolerant.
"BTW, does this blog make me look fat?"
Absolutley....... NOT! BTW my dear that is a form of entrapment. Nice try ;)
"The whole aura looked militant to me, with the lightning and all. "
Your not going to believe this but my wife said the same thing. I felt the portrait portrayed Christ in His majesty, power, and authority as God and King. However I did not see as militant. When I think of Christ I do not see him as this meek timid wimp.
My goodness, when the legion of soldiers came to arrest Him in the garden the moment he said "I am He" they ALL fell back at the power of his words alone. That is power and majesty! I love it.
KA,
"Let's take a shot at a coupla things"
LOL Never at a loss for words. I knew you wouldn't let me down :)
"I think this is based more on a 'how it makes me feel' hypothesis."
Uhmmmm nope! It is just dumb. I have always held to that "belief" even in my atheistic period of life.
"Hey, it sucks, but it's a woman's issue - us guys should stay outta it."
Sorry but I disagree here. It takes two to tango and that little "apple seed" did not happen by chance (unless of course you apply evolutionary science LOL) That baby belongs just as much to the man as it does to the woman. If she does not desire to carry a baby for the next nine months then she has the option to smack "his" hand when he goes for the zipper.
I do agree a woman has the right to do with her body as she chooses. However when life enters that womb she forfeits that right. Now it is somebody else's body she is making a decision for and she does not have that right.
"I feel this is bigotry, pure & simple."
Hey, you would not be a liberal if you did not think of myself and others of having bigoted views on said subject. As I have said many times in the past, one is not allowed to disagree with homosexuality/gay marriage without being labeled for exercising a fundamental freedom. Your statement is typical liberal rhetoric, pure and simple.
"Hmmm, I'd say substitute 'religion' for 'safe sex'."
You could. I USED to. Although there is no shame to the believer for leaning on God.
That being said, "Safe sex" is still a false sense of security.
"Couldn't agree more. Hey! Write that down on your calendar! Holy crap!
Probably different rationale, I'll bet."
It is down on every calendar in the house. Maybe a new anniversary to celebrate for next year!
I am sure our rationale is quite different. I see the true church of Jesus Christ and I see imitator who have maligned His teachings and institutionalized their followers for the sake of personal prestige and power. They are more about self service, ritualism, etc. They have lost the whole point of why God created man in the first place which was for relationship/fellowship with Him.
If you will recall in the scriptures where Christ publicly rebuked the "religious Pharisee's" for the hypocrisy and the hardships they were constantly imposing upon the followers. As Christ told His disciples. "Listen to what they teach but do not act as they do".
"That out of the way, I'll have to grudgingly admit: I admire you."
(sniffle) The respect is mutual. I recognize that you are a man of great intelligence. I d not take our discussion's lightly. One thing I see to often in this world is "us vs. them" (maybe sometimes it has to be that way) but there is really no reason why people of opposing views cannot maintain a friendship.
"Short version: you walk the way you talk."
That one hit home and I thank you for the compliment. My witness and testimony before my fellow man are important to me as I will be brought to account for it one day. I am by no means a perfect individual but I love God and would never intentionally do something to bring shame to His name. That is why I find your statement encouraging so thank you again (bawling like a baby LOL)
Anonymous,
Thanks for stopping in Q ;)
TIO
My goodness, when the legion of soldiers came to arrest Him in the garden the moment he said "I am He" they ALL fell back at the power of his words alone. That is power and majesty! I love it.
Or perhaps he'd just been eating onions and garlic.
Your not going to believe this but my wife said the same thing. Heh. Great minds. I'll have to buy her lunch...
,,,but seriously, Christ on a horse? You may as well have had him driving a HumVee painted in desert camo.
TIO:
Haha! If I never won an argument I would never have earned the honorable title of "Intolerant".
Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but for myself, the actual winning of an argument would have to be me (or the other side) admitting as much. Or a designated arbitrator.
It's hard to pinpoint it via blogging. Sometimes, I just don't have the time or inclination to respond further (sometimes I just make my point & leave it at that). Other times, I just digest it for a while.
Having the last word doesn't really constitute as much in my book.
Uhmmmm nope! It is just dumb. I have always held to that "belief" even in my atheistic period of life.
Despite the piles of evidence otherwise? I’d advise giving it some more thought.
Sorry but I disagree here. It takes two to tango and that little "apple seed" did not happen by chance (unless of course you apply evolutionary science LOL) That baby belongs just as much to the man as it does to the woman. If she does not desire to carry a baby for the next nine months then she has the option to smack "his" hand when he goes for the zipper.
All valid points, but when people are poverty-stricken & left w/little to do (due to lack of money), it’s gonna happen anyways. Short of imposing some sort of enforcement, it’ll have to stand for now. The woman bears the brunt of the tango – I’ll have to lean towards the woman. I’m pro-choice AND pro-life – the woman comes first.
I do agree a woman has the right to do with her body as she chooses. However when life enters that womb she forfeits that right. Now it is somebody else's body she is making a decision for and she does not have that right.
We’re never going to agree on that – you posit a soul, I say it’s a clump of cells until it resembles a human.
Hey, you would not be a liberal if you did not think of myself and others of having bigoted views on said subject. As I have said many times in the past, one is not allowed to disagree with homosexuality/gay marriage without being labeled for exercising a fundamental freedom. Your statement is typical liberal rhetoric, pure and simple.
It’s one thing to say it: it’s another entirely to legislate it. Denying a distinct group of people a common right given to others? That’s discriminatory.
You could. I USED to. Although there is no shame to the believer for leaning on God.
I have more of a problem w/the sharing, especially when it becomes coercion. It gets you thru those dark hours before dawn? Have at it. Folks have foibles – I can forgive that.
That being said, "Safe sex" is still a false sense of security.
Life is insecure. Being is insecure. Being human is to err, & prone to die 1 day.
It is down on every calendar in the house. Maybe a new anniversary to celebrate for next year!
Hehehe.
I am sure our rationale is quite different. I see the true church of Jesus Christ and I see imitator who have maligned His teachings and institutionalized their followers for the sake of personal prestige and power. They are more about self service, ritualism, etc. They have lost the whole point of why God created man in the first place which was for relationship/fellowship with Him.
Our rationales do differ greatly. Religion is ripping this world apart. & I can’t abide elitism – it’s just how I was raised. Exclusion is the enemy of liberty.
If you will recall in the scriptures where Christ publicly rebuked the "religious Pharisee's" for the hypocrisy and the hardships they were constantly imposing upon the followers. As Christ told His disciples. "Listen to what they teach but do not act as they do".
A substantial disconnect, I’d say. Most folks learn via example.
(sniffle) The respect is mutual. I recognize that you are a man of great intelligence. I d not take our discussion's lightly. One thing I see to often in this world is "us vs. them" (maybe sometimes it has to be that way) but there is really no reason why people of opposing views cannot maintain a friendship.
I really appreciate that, big guy. Especially since I got into a few forays at onecosmos. Most theists wallow in stereotyping atheists: it’s nice that some don’t. So thanks. Nice to know some don’t consider me ‘infrahuman.’
That one hit home and I thank you for the compliment. My witness and testimony before my fellow man are important to me as I will be brought to account for it one day. I am by no means a perfect individual but I love God and would never intentionally do something to bring shame to His name. That is why I find your statement encouraging so thank you again (bawling like a baby LOL)
Hey, de nada, amigo.
TIO
Hey!
I finally sent you a pic of my tattoo!
Look for kagee630 in your email. :)
karen:
I finally sent you a pic of my tattoo!
Grrrr.....
Yeesh, I show you mine, you won't show me yours? (pouts)
Oh my. Did that come out somewhat squalid?
ka
Sorry baby. I forgot. I'll send it on!
Sorry I have not been responding folks. My computer was misbehaving. I had to take it too computer boot camp for some discipline.
I will be getting back to you all later this afternoon. :)
KA,
"Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but for myself, the actual winning of an argument would have to be me (or the other side) admitting as much. Or a designated arbitrator.
It's hard to pinpoint it via blogging. Sometimes, I just don't have the time or inclination to respond further (sometimes I just make my point & leave it at that). Other times, I just digest it for a while.
Having the last word doesn't really constitute as much in my book."
You make a good point here. I agree with many of your statements. As you can attest to your points with those of my views many can be reactionary responses that border on childish. From my stand point and experience when engaging many of those on the more left side of the spectrum I have often come across those who cannot validate their point or respond in a mature manner. It is easier for them to throw that good ole' intolerant , label at me. I assume that when that is their last recourse of action I usually (in my own mind) claim victory :)
"Despite the piles of evidence otherwise? I’d advise giving it some more thought."
I hope you understand that my position is not one of "selective" evidence. I am familiar with a lot of the content that you and other evolutionists bring forth. I also read up on what other's within the same science community have to say as the reality is they are not all in agreement. To accept one science as bona fide and dismiss another's because it does not align with the "status quo" is rather counter productive to the entire concept of scientific discovery.
Although I have written on creation evidences in the past I actually, as of late, try to focus more on evolutionary /primordial theory's and their inconsistencies. Are there evidences that suggest?" Yes there are. Are they concrete and conclusive? No I would disagree. This continues to leave room for other considerations. But suggestion of a theory that has been around for over a century and leaves more questions then answers is not very convincing.
I compare it to a local Penitentiary inmate up here by the name of David Milrigard. 30 years ago he was sentenced to life in prison for 25 years for 1st degree murder. His whole life he plead innocence. Yet according to hair at the scene of the crime, last seen eyewitness testimony, and numerous other "evidences" he was convicted and sent to jail. 23 years into his 25 years sentence thru new advanced scientific technological breakthrough's (DNA) it was discovered he was in fact innocent of the crime.
Evidence can indeed suggest and point us a certain direction but that does make something to what it really is or was.
As science continues to "discover" I find it is also re-discovering itself. If evolution was that convincing it would have been ultimately proven a long time ago.
"I’m pro-choice AND pro-life – the woman comes first."
OK stalemate. I say any life comes before mommies unexpected interruption into her career.
"We’re never going to agree on that – you posit a soul, I say it’s a clump of cells until it resembles a human."
Interesting considering science recognizes a single bacterial cell as a living organism. Seems like a contradiction. Not only that but the entire process of how the egg is fertilized is amazing within itself. Sperm can't "wiggle" if it's dead! That looks a lot like "life" running the marathon up the fallopian tube :)
"Denying a distinct group of people a common right given to others? That’s discriminatory."
Here we go again. Here is the definition of marriage:
- the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
-the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities
- a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife
- the formal declaration or contract by which act a man and a woman join in wedlock.
OK now we have established the definition of the word the question becomes "Does this discriminate against homosexuals?". Let's answer the obvious. Under the definition of the word/terminology, "Is a homosexual not allowed to marry because he is gay?" The answer is clearly no! He/she has not been denied the right to marry therefore no discrimination exists. Yes it must be the opposite sex but they are not denied the right to marry because they are gay.
If a gay man wanted to marry a woman and was denied BECAUSE he was gay then yes, there is a case for discrimination. You use the word rather loosely in this particular argument.
" Most theists wallow in stereotyping atheists: it’s nice that some don’t."
I can't. I use to be one. If anything I can have a sympathetic slant (no longer an agreeing one) with the atheist. It is that sympathy that helps me to remember you folks in my prayers.
Karen,
",,but seriously, Christ on a horse? "
It was symbolic of the second coming that is prophesied in the book of Revelation where Christ in fact does return on a white horse with the armies of Heaven.
BTW I got your "Tatty" photo. I know you felt that it was rather simplistic but you have to look at the ink quality of the job itself.
Quality speaking you have a really good piece on you. Thanks for finally getting it to me.
Now you need to start working on that next one we discussed on an earlier thread ;)
And yes KA I did get the photo before you :p (sigh...I like being the favourite)
KA,
Apolgies. The following sentence:
"Evidence can indeed suggest and point us a certain direction but that does make something to what it really is or was."
Should have read:
"Evidence can indeed suggest and point us a certain direction but that does notmake something to what it really is or was."
Sorry if my "miss" caused confusion.
TIO:
You make a good point here. I agree with many of your statements. As you can attest to your points with those of my views many can be reactionary responses that border on childish. From my stand point and experience when engaging many of those on the more left side of the spectrum I have often come across those who cannot validate their point or respond in a mature manner. It is easier for them to throw that good ole' intolerant , label at me. I assume that when that is their last recourse of action I usually (in my own mind) claim victory :)
Well, we all are passionate people, from all sides of the spectrum.
For the record, when I 1st visited, I was rather incensed, & did lash out a bit.
I hope you understand that my position is not one of "selective" evidence. I am familiar with a lot of the content that you and other evolutionists bring forth. I also read up on what other's within the same science community have to say as the reality is they are not all in agreement. To accept one science as bona fide and dismiss another's because it does not align with the "status quo" is rather counter productive to the entire concept of scientific discovery.
Well, no. Here’s many of the issues:
1. Creationism is simply not a science.
2. It’s not about status quo, it’s about evidence & facts.
Although I have written on creation evidences in the past I actually, as of late, try to focus more on evolutionary /primordial theory's and their inconsistencies. Are there evidences that suggest?" Yes there are. Are they concrete and conclusive? No I would disagree. This continues to leave room for other considerations. But suggestion of a theory that has been around for over a century and leaves more questions then answers is not very convincing.
That’s a tad more reasonable, but still. There is room for other considerations. There always is. But science doesn’t posit absolutes: there’s always going to be a margin for error, there’s always going to be more questions than before. That’s just the way of it. This theory has been around for over a century: in that time, even on a weekly basis, the evidence that posits it is continously growing. I think I spot a trend here: you are attracted to religion because of the certainty it provides. Evolution seems to be ‘uncertain’. You attack it primarily because 1) it offends you (correct me if I’m wrong), 2) it rattles that certainty you feel you need, and 3) it’s not all cut & dried, all answers provided, end of story.
I think you’re making unreasonable demands. Science changes, it evolves, & that which doesn’t fit, gets scrapped.
I compare it to a local Penitentiary inmate up here by the name of David Milrigard. 30 years ago he was sentenced to life in prison for 25 years for 1st degree murder. His whole life he plead innocence. Yet according to hair at the scene of the crime, last seen eyewitness testimony, and numerous other "evidences" he was convicted and sent to jail. 23 years into his 25 years sentence thru new advanced scientific technological breakthrough's (DNA) it was discovered he was in fact innocent of the crime.
& that, my friend, is a perfect example of science correcting itself. I feel for the man: that sucks the great hairy bird, it does.
Evidence can indeed suggest and point us a certain direction but that does not make something to what it really is or was.
No it doesn’t. This takes time & effort. We can apply that to the concept of forensic science. A tooth is not a person entire. But it can lead to the reconstruction of a murder victim, or medical records can give the police a definite lead.
As science continues to "discover" I find it is also re-discovering itself. If evolution was that convincing it would have been ultimately proven a long time ago.
It has been, multiple times. Selah.
OK stalemate. I say any life comes before mommies unexpected interruption into her career.
Is every sperm sacred then? That is a living organism.
Interesting considering science recognizes a single bacterial cell as a living organism. Seems like a contradiction. Not only that but the entire process of how the egg is fertilized is amazing within itself. Sperm can't "wiggle" if it's dead! That looks a lot like "life" running the marathon up the fallopian tube :)
I still stand on this: if it doesn’t resemble a human (i.e., the quickening), then it has no more standing than a clump of cells.
OK now we have established the definition of the word the question becomes "Does this discriminate against homosexuals?". Let's answer the obvious. Under the definition of the word/terminology, "Is a homosexual not allowed to marry because he is gay?" The answer is clearly no! He/she has not been denied the right to marry therefore no discrimination exists. Yes it must be the opposite sex but they are not denied the right to marry because they are gay.
Then it’s got to go. Change the definition.
I note that you chose definition 1.a
http://www.answers.com/marriage
a. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
b. The state of being married; wedlock.
c. A common-law marriage.
d. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.
If a gay man wanted to marry a woman and was denied BECAUSE he was gay then yes, there is a case for discrimination. You use the word rather loosely in this particular argument.
No, you demand a concrete definition for a condition in life that is far from concrete.
This will change, & I will fight this discrimination till my dying days.
KA,
"For the record, when I 1st visited, I was rather incensed, & did lash out a bit."
I often anticipate that from first time visitors. Once they can appreciate why I present what I do and why it usually develops into something more productive and positive. Even if we remain at odds. Besides, I would be a liar if I told you I have never done the same thing at another site. We are all fallible.
"you are attracted to religion because of the certainty it provides"
Religion? You already know my sentiments on that. I am about relationship and daily communion with God. Not ritualism and rehearsed/repetitive prayers that are empty and shallow.
I think you would have to understand more of me as person and my history. Prior to my conversion I could care less about the "after life" or whether I lived or died. At that time of my life I was already "dead" inside. I was cold, callous, and hard person who knocked religion and God. I made all the typical references that religion was nothing but a crutch for weak people to lean on who are afraid to deal with death.
9 years ago I had an experience that most people will not have. It was the "road to Damascus" experience that the apostle Paul went thru. I cannot force someone to believe what I went thru but I was of a very sober and sound state of mind when this occurred. I have met God in way that was literally life changing for me.
He spoke and I heard. It was incredible and a moment that I have never forgotten. No one can claim that I had some "sub conscious" conviction due to my past as not a single member of my family or circle of friends had any ties to religion/faith. I know what went down in my home on the night of July 20, 1997. I know that Jesus Christ is everything the Bible speaks of.
And that, my friend, is why even IF evolution was proven beyond all shadow of doubt it would never even taint my belief in God. I have met Him the way Paul did and the doubt is just non existent for me.
" You attack it primarily because 1) it offends you (correct me if I’m wrong), 2) it rattles that certainty you feel you need, and 3) it’s not all cut & dried, all answers provided, end of story."
Attack? I would disagree. I question it not attack it. Is it offending? Your not offended when you are compared an animal? Prior to my conversion, as I have told you in the past, I always questioned the logic behind this theory. The more I look into it the more ridiculous it comes across to me. My older son (9 years old) just asked me two days ago "Why do people want to believe we are monkeys Dad? If that is so why are there still monkeys around today? "
A simple question that I know many would have a hypothesized theory for an answer. But not an actual straight forward answer. It was this simple question I was asking many years before. As an atheist I was never interested in speculations. I wanted meat and potatoes. I still do and until (if that day even happens) where the suggested evidence behind evolution is cemented I will continue to question it all. But I question the science and the evidences with science and evidences. I often try to use sources that are recognized and respected within the science community.
You mentioned Behe in a previous thread. I think I have used him once in total although he is a recognized biochemist. You don't like him so I bring Dr. Roy Britten into the fray questioning his own original findings. These are legitimate men of science. I will continue to hunt down the credible sources who may at one time have supported certain evidences of evolution that now question it. The trend I seem to pick up on is noticing that they are often quickly dismissed by the evolutionist because "that guy is no longer on their team". Well there are alot more of them out there. I hope to post on this subject again soon but I still have to post on the contradictions of my conservative government to honor my word to you.
"I think you’re making unreasonable demands."
And your not by thinking everybody should simply recognize evolution in it's broken form?
I do not feel I am unreasonable at all. Like you I am curious and want answers. Maybes, probably's, might be's, possibilities, speculations, most likely's, and very god chance's do not answer the question. It is not unreasonable to desire a firm answer to a question. It is not unreasonable to question an answer that is not complete. And if the answer has holes in it it is not unreasonable to poke at some more.
"It has been, multiple times. "
It has? Where have I been? I thought it was still called a theory.
"I still stand on this: if it doesn’t resemble a human (i.e., the quickening), then it has no more standing than a clump of cells."
The whole abortion debate hinges on whether life begins at conception not whether a fertilized female egg resembles a human. The "living organism" is still "living". It is life. However by your admission I would be correct in assuming you would oppose late term abortion?
"Then it’s got to go. Change the definition."
LOL the ever faithful liberal response. If it does not suit our agenda we will just redefine it.
How can you guys function with such instability? This is exactly why liberals have no real position on anything.
"I note that you chose definition 1.a
http://www.answers.com/marriage"
Uhhhh no I went to the dictionary. I think that is one of those books that the "left" is trying to get branded as hate literature because too many words n the English language don't support their ideologies. :)
"No, you demand a concrete definition for a condition in life that is far from concrete.
This will change, & I will fight this discrimination till my dying days."
Concrete certainly is more logical as opposed to confusion. It is not discriminated so stop calling it that. Your argument does not hold up when the term is applied.
I will respect your right to fight it just as I will continue to fight against it from my end. Still friends? :)
TIO:
Religion? You already know my sentiments on that. I am about relationship and daily communion with God. Not ritualism and rehearsed/repetitive prayers that are empty and shallow.
Okay, let’s call it faith then.
I think you would have to understand more of me as person and my history. Prior to my conversion I could care less about the "after life" or whether I lived or died. At that time of my life I was already "dead" inside. I was cold, callous, and hard person who knocked religion and God. I made all the typical references that religion was nothing but a crutch for weak people to lean on who are afraid to deal with death.
Fascinating. I was the polar opposite of that. I was (& still am) a gregarious, loving, tolerant individual, who respected religion greatly.
9 years ago I had an experience that most people will not have. It was the "road to Damascus" experience that the apostle Paul went thru. I cannot force someone to believe what I went thru but I was of a very sober and sound state of mind when this occurred. I have met God in way that was literally life changing for me.
I could, if I were a psychiatrist or biochemist, explain that in physiological terms, but I am neither, & so will refrain.
He spoke and I heard. It was incredible and a moment that I have never forgotten. No one can claim that I had some "sub conscious" conviction due to my past as not a single member of my family or circle of friends had any ties to religion/faith. I know what went down in my home on the night of July 20, 1997. I know that Jesus Christ is everything the Bible speaks of.
I respect your right to believe that: but I also reserve the right to criticize it as well.
And that, my friend, is why even IF evolution was proven beyond all shadow of doubt it would never even taint my belief in God. I have met Him the way Paul did and the doubt is just non existent for me.
If so, then perhaps you should do some more research.
Attack? I would disagree. I question it not attack it. Is it offending? Your not offended when you are compared an animal?
No, not at all. Why should I be? We share so many commonalities w/the animal kingdom, it’s just sense. I'm special enough just existing: why do I need anything else?
Prior to my conversion, as I have told you in the past, I always questioned the logic behind this theory. The more I look into it the more ridiculous it comes across to me. My older son (9 years old) just asked me two days ago "Why do people want to believe we are monkeys Dad? If that is so why are there still monkeys around today? "
I’ve mentioned this in the past: evolution theory doesn’t posit a linear mode – it is rather a pool. It’s a common, shared ancestry – we aren’t ‘monkeys’, we’re related. It’s not a progression of ‘okay, that’s all done – dump the old, bring in the new’. Not how it works. I’ve done a post recently on speciation – you may want to take a gander at it.
Here is a video clip on the subject - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs1zeWWIm5M - by a theist no less, a Catholic named Ken Miller.
A simple question that I know many would have a hypothesized theory for an answer. But not an actual straight forward answer. It was this simple question I was asking many years before. As an atheist I was never interested in speculations. I wanted meat and potatoes. I still do and until (if that day even happens) where the suggested evidence behind evolution is cemented I will continue to question it all. But I question the science and the evidences with science and evidences. I often try to use sources that are recognized and respected within the science community.
This from a guy who posted on ‘What women want?’ For the record I’m figuratively speaking a ‘meat & potatoes’ man meself. My experience has been that the more 1 demands concreteness, the less 1 gets it. Besides which, asking for a solid straightforward answer in a field that spans multiple disciplines is just begging for frustration.
You mentioned Behe in a previous thread. I think I have used him once in total although he is a recognized biochemist. You don't like him so I bring Dr. Roy Britten into the fray questioning his own original findings. These are legitimate men of science. I will continue to hunt down the credible sources who may at one time have supported certain evidences of evolution that now question it. The trend I seem to pick up on is noticing that they are often quickly dismissed by the evolutionist because "that guy is no longer on their team". Well there are alot more of them out there. I hope to post on this subject again soon but I still have to post on the contradictions of my conservative government to honor my word to you.
I don’t like Behe, for a lotta good reasons. In the Dover trial, he wanted to open the definition of science so far that it would include astrology (he admitted as much!). His mousetrap construct failed miserably, the blood cascade demo is easily debunked, & he refused to identify the ‘designer’ somewhere around 30 times. Dembski could only get a piece of sheepskin via the DI, & his academic record is pretty sad. I’ve already pointed out the Britten breakdown – you’re adding the math properly, but missing the ramifications of the divisors. Besides, 93 or 99 %, that's outrageous odds anyways. I would advise not betting against it.
And your not by thinking everybody should simply recognize evolution in it's broken form?
Hey, evolution has a million ways (embellishment) to prove it false. No 1’s done it. Question? Sure. Criticize? Sure. But do the research, don't dismiss outta hand.
I do not feel I am unreasonable at all. Like you I am curious and want answers. Maybes, probably's, might be's, possibilities, speculations, most likely's, and very god chance's do not answer the question. It is not unreasonable to desire a firm answer to a question. It is not unreasonable to question an answer that is not complete. And if the answer has holes in it it is not unreasonable to poke at some more.
Yeesh, don’t poke around in Quantum mechanics then. No, liberal doses of skepticism are a good thing. Every now & again, I poke around on the other side. Sadly, the other side fails miserably.
It has? Where have I been? I thought it was still called a theory.
That’s 1 of those ID fallbacks that’s giving me gray hairs. Go look that up, please.
The whole abortion debate hinges on whether life begins at conception not whether a fertilized female egg resembles a human. The "living organism" is still "living". It is life. However by your admission I would be correct in assuming you would oppose late term abortion?
You would be correct. However, this 'life begins at conception' theory is relatively recent: mid-20th CE. Prior to that, even the Judaic tradition held that a child isn't a child until the head crowned the vulva. I've done a post on this too. Note that most governments don't give a fetus rights until AFTER it's born.
LOL the ever faithful liberal response. If it does not suit our agenda we will just redefine it.
Let me give you a lesson in redefinition: no, how’s about 2? Okay then.
When I was approx. 13 (true story, no word of a lie), I read the dictionary a lot (yeah, I was a literary geek). I came across the word ‘masturbation’. I kid you not, Webster’s had only 1 definition: ‘Self-pollution’. So I asked me mam. She looked at me in disgust. I told her the definition. She said, “that’s exactly right.”
The 1914 edition of the Brittanica Encyclopedia listed black people as folks that were racially inferior.
How can you guys function with such instability? This is exactly why liberals have no real position on anything.
It’s not instability, it’s flexibility. I have real positions on many, many things. I’m just not locked into them: if I’m given evidence that I’m wrong, I’ll reconsider my position(s).
Remember, softness overcomes hardness.
Uhhhh no I went to the dictionary. I think that is one of those books that the "left" is trying to get branded as hate literature because too many words n the English language don't support their ideologies. :)
Oh, gimmee a break. We’ve battled over this before. A dictionary is a general consensus of what the majority defines a word’s meaning as. & since the majority is wrong so often, historically, that’s why the argument from popularity is a logical fallacy. Go look up the word ‘dictionary’. 100 yrs. from now, it’ll have changed dramatically.
Concrete certainly is more logical as opposed to confusion. It is not discriminated so stop calling it that. Your argument does not hold up when the term is applied.
You’re denying a select group of people a right that everyone else has. That’s discrimination, pure & simple. See? How's that for a solid position?
I will respect your right to fight it just as I will continue to fight against it from my end. Still friends? :)
Always friends. I respect your right to an opinion, but if said opinion is baloney, I’ll call it that. Meat & potatoes & all that.
You see TIO, you need to DO MORE RESEARCH! Everybody knows that if you are unconvinced of evolution, that it’s obviously because you’re a religious obscurantist who only reads your own ‘believers’ material.
It’s only obvious that if you disagree, you haven’t read from the worlds more elite, such as Dawkins, Dennett, Eldredge, Futuyama, Gell-Mann, Gould, Kitcher, Lewontin, Mayr, Raup, Maynard Smith, & the like. So any time you find yourself not convinced_ DO MORE RESEARCH! You intolerant cave man! and embrace science.
Quit acting like a monkey :-)
BF:
Everybody knows that if you are unconvinced of evolution, that it’s obviously because you’re a religious obscurantist who only reads your own ‘believers’ material.
Or, perhaps, you don't want to admit the obvious, for reasons of your own.
It’s only obvious that if you disagree, you haven’t read from the worlds more elite, such as Dawkins, Dennett, Eldredge, Futuyama, Gell-Mann, Gould, Kitcher, Lewontin, Mayr, Raup, Maynard Smith, & the like.
How odd. I haven't read any of those people. Have you?
You intolerant cave man! and embrace science.
Oh, go retreat back to your cave. ;)
KA,
“How odd. I haven't read any of those people. Have you?”
Yes, all except for Raup, who is getting dusty on my shelf. I’m surprised you haven’t read them. I think web sites (like talkorigins and answersingenesis) are over used by both sides and people assume that they can read those sites in lieu of good books. Anyway, I hit the subject hard a couple years ago, so I haven’t read the latest from Dawkins and Dennett (though they look like good reads).
I like to read material from opposing view points. It helps me stay informed and keeps me “in check.” I encourage other theists (who have a solid foundation of faith) to read diverse material. However, as of late, I have been unable to tackle many books. My classes keep me reading close to two hundred pages a week, which leaves little time for ‘extra curricular’ reading. To adjust, instead of just reading a chapter hear and there (though I still periodically do that) I occasionally read blogs as supplementary reading.
Don’t let my sarcasm fool you. I think the authors I listed are brilliant, but blinded by other philosophical issues. I take evolution seriously, but it gets old every time I disagree with someone, on this and some other issues, that I am immediately told to go read X book, or do more research. People automatically (not necessarily you) assume that I have not read, or bothered to read such and such material and assume that I am ignorant of X. Sometimes I am, but will admit so willingly. Other times, I may be more informed of the opposition’s position than they are. I am sure you get this feeling often when you cross paths with the average theist. Of course, all the books that I have read don’t make me an expert on any subject, and I still think I am lacking in the scientific arena (especially now since it’s been a while). But don’t think that just because somebody disagrees (and this goes for both sides) that they are ignorant, or stupid, because that’s thrown around far too much.
Peace
Beowulf,
LOLOLOL I love those videos. We need more of that "crap" in the public education sysytem :)
Your right, I need to reseach more.
KA,
"Okay, let’s call it faith then."
Thank you. At least in my case. I am a Christian which is a follower of Christ. Not a "religious" person.
"I could, if I were a psychiatrist or biochemist, explain that in physiological terms, but I am neither, & so will refrain."
You could attempt at an explanation in order to deny someone's experience with the living God. But you could never validate it. It would be science making a futile attempt to explain away God.
"I respect your right to believe that: but I also reserve the right to criticize it as well."
So that goes both ways then correct?
"If so, then perhaps you should do some more research."
I will always continue. But you seem dismissive of those that are credible who do not support the theory.
"No, not at all. Why should I be? We share so many commonalities w/the animal kingdom"
Like flinging poo at each other? (ROFLMAO) ....sorry those videos really tickled the funny bone.
Maybe you have a point there. I mean those monkeys, aside from masturbating openly in front of one another and having sex with their two year old offspring, really are just like us.
"It’s a common, shared ancestry – we aren’t ‘monkeys’, we’re related. It’s not a progression of ‘okay, that’s all done – dump the old, bring in the new’. "
So we did not evolve from monkeys we are just related? And we still support evolutionary theory because..... (BTW I will check out the video clip after work, Pulling the night shift this week)
"Besides which, asking for a solid straightforward answer in a field that spans multiple disciplines is just begging for frustration"
Probably just as frustrating as not having the straight forward answer and being told only one of them is acceptable in a field that spans multiple disciplines.
I know I have not finished up here but I have to head out to work. Catch up to you people later.
TIO:
You could attempt at an explanation in order to deny someone's experience with the living God. But you could never validate it. It would be science making a futile attempt to explain away God.
It would then be down to the individual to validate it.
Let me play heretic here: how do you know that your holy book wasn’t written by Old Scratch? That it was all an illusion, to mislead humanity, let them walk down the wrong road?
So that goes both ways then correct?
What kinda question is that? Of course it does.
I will always continue. But you seem dismissive of those that are credible who do not support the theory.
Find me someone credible, then. I have already shared my dismissal of the 2 foremost proponents, & I think the criticisms are valid.
Like flinging poo at each other? (ROFLMAO) ....sorry those videos really tickled the funny bone.
Exactly. The commonalities are overwhelming.
Maybe you have a point there. I mean those monkeys, aside from masturbating openly in front of one another and having sex with their two year old offspring, really are just like us.
I wish there were more vast dissimilarities, or that I could agree w/you, but it’s there, like it or not.
I live close to S.F: if I were that depraved, I could easily find all the behavior listed above if I looked for it.
So we did not evolve from monkeys we are just related? And we still support evolutionary theory because..... (BTW I will check out the video clip after work, Pulling the night shift this week)
Because of the DNA similarities, the genomes, the alleles, the fossil record, forensics, medical ‘miracles’ provided us via evolution, backbone of biology…need I go on?
Probably just as frustrating as not having the straight forward answer and being told only one of them is acceptable in a field that spans multiple disciplines.
I’ll give you a straightforward answer: evolution works. It has a proven track record. There’s evidence galore. Every week, a new link surfaces.
Now, still want to bet it’ll be around in a 1/4 of a CE?
BF:
Don’t let my sarcasm fool you. I think the authors I listed are brilliant, but blinded by other philosophical issues. I take evolution seriously, but it gets old every time I disagree with someone, on this and some other issues, that I am immediately told to go read X book, or do more research. People automatically (not necessarily you) assume that I have not read, or bothered to read such and such material and assume that I am ignorant of X. Sometimes I am, but will admit so willingly. Other times, I may be more informed of the opposition’s position than they are. I am sure you get this feeling often when you cross paths with the average theist. Of course, all the books that I have read don’t make me an expert on any subject, and I still think I am lacking in the scientific arena (especially now since it’s been a while). But don’t think that just because somebody disagrees (and this goes for both sides) that they are ignorant, or stupid, because that’s thrown around far too much.
Well, I hear ya. I just got thru thrashing on a Young Earther on another blog. Argumentum ad Hovind, as you put it so well. You & TIO are more honest than most - that's why I even moderate my tone w/either of you.
But, I'm sorry guys, but ID isn't valid. It's unfalsifiable, all the arguments are easily debunked, the DI has spent millions on research, & have nothing to show for it. A single biologist in 1 year publishes more peer-reviewed papers than the entire institute ever has. They had to go & found their own scientific community. Creationism was put to bed in 1981, & it's not gotten any better.
Whether you believe in a deity or not, evolution is here to stay.
Someone wrote a very good essay at answers.com - http://www.answers.com/evolution
"As we discuss in the course of this essay, the idea of an underlying conflict between evolution and Christianity (or any other religion, for that matter) is almost entirely without merit. On the other hand, it is theoretically possible that all the processes of evolution took place without a creator—but this still should not pose a threat to anyone's idea of God."
Read the whole thing.
Long Rider Says:
I was referred here by a biker at the Chopper Underground forum several months ago, and have been lurking off and on ever since. I'm really digging the respectful vibe between TIO and Ka. I have lurked at One Cosmos and was very disappointed that Godwin does not moderate the comment section. The frequent flyers seem to want to "smack down" any opposing thought by any means necessary.
When I have a "public" debate in cyberspace, I try to always ask myself, "what is more important, edification or victory?" Unfortunately, most are more interested in the later.
It's been several years since I have studied theory building, so please don't nitpic the newbie! Here goes... Evolution is a Grand Theory, so it cannot be proven with simple experimentation like gravity or electricity can. Grand theories are more like scientific "philosophies" that try to describe the grand scheme of things. Grand theories are a framework or supposition that more concise theories are based upon.
Evolution, because it's very definition, requires great expanses of time that far excede our ability to observe the process as it happens. There are far more gaps in the fossil record than most Evolutionists want to admit. There are far more questions about the actual amount of time required for Evolution and the Big Bang to be a viable concept that most Evolutionists want to admit.
I readily admit that I cannot truly fathom a million years, but I haven't met a athiest yet that would admit that they cannot truly fathom the complexity of a living, breathing, thinking, digesting, seeing, hearing, gestating, smelling, feeling human being. From muscle contraction and endocrinology, to arterial blood gases and neurotransmitter theory, the sheer complexity and interdependance of all these systems and more that make up biological life is staggering. A theist sees the resiliance of life, the programming complexity of the genome, and the great equalizer that is the Second Law of Thermodynamics and sees the work of the Creator, the atheist sees the products of evolution. The Darwinian sect is in denial that Evolution requires any faith at all.
I too, had a road-to-Damascus experience that transformed me in everyway that could ever possibly matter. Since then, I've had periods of rebellion and anger to be sure. I've had long stretches were I felt no devine presence at all. Still, it is impossible for me to revert back to the man I used to be. I believe that I have been phyisiologically altered to the extent that it is a true impossiblility. At the end of the day, I'm still smitten with the Man Upstairs and am a certain of his existance as I am of the sun.
I know fully well that the surge of overwhelming ecstasy that sent this skeptical and rational man to the point of sobbing was the flooding of endorphins, serotonin, and dopamine in the synapses of the right temporal lobe of my brain. I also know that the buck did not stop there. I know that it was a personal act of God. The lid of heaven was lifted for the briefest of moments and my heart was broken from the experience. I cannot prove that it happened any more that an unbeliever can prove that it didn't.
Now, my .02 about abortion.
TIO:I say any life comes before mommies unexpected interruption into her career.
Ka:Is every sperm sacred then? That is a living organism.
LONG RIDER(me!)A sperm and an egg are NOT organisms. Heck, by themselves they only have half of the chromosomes necessary for a complete genome. They are merely cells from two individual organisms.
TIO:Interesting considering science recognizes a single bacterial cell as a living organism. Seems like a contradiction. Not only that but the entire process of how the egg is fertilized is amazing within itself. Sperm can't "wiggle" if it's dead! That looks a lot like "life" running the marathon up the fallopian tube :)
Ka:I still stand on this: if it doesn’t resemble a human (i.e., the quickening), then it has no more standing than a clump of cells.
LONG RIDER: The term "fertilized egg" is not accurate, and is actually a misnomer. The correct term is Zygote. Sperms meet egg, one wiggles in and the chromosomes do that nifty-spiffy square dance of life. Alakazam! Alprazolam! *poof!*
You got yerselves a zygote, the first stage human of development. NOW we've got an distinct organism. Once the chromosomes have settled into a stable pattern, it is an individual human life. That is a scientific fact. It doesn't matter if you can see him or her. It doesn't matter if he or she has developed any features that can be recognized by the lay person as human. Scientifically speaking, he or she is an individual human life. That is an undeniable fact.
Crap, I'm tired and I'm rambling. Peace be unto each of you. May my God and your Fate bring the best to you. I'm goin' to bed!!!
Jimmmmmmmm
Long Rider:
Evolution, because it's very definition, requires great expanses of time that far excede our ability to observe the process as it happens. There are far more gaps in the fossil record than most Evolutionists want to admit.
Actually, no matter how many gaps get filled, the other side demands several more. This was readily admitted (& still is, to this day).
There are far more questions about the actual amount of time required for Evolution and the Big Bang to be a viable concept that most Evolutionists want to admit.
Sure there are questions. That's what any science worth it's salt will admit. No easy answers: it requires patience.
I readily admit that I cannot truly fathom a million years, but I haven't met a athiest yet that would admit that they cannot truly fathom the complexity of a living, breathing, thinking, digesting, seeing, hearing, gestating, smelling, feeling human being.
You just have. Read Dawkins' 'The Blind Watchmaker': he readily admits it as well.
From muscle contraction and endocrinology, to arterial blood gases and neurotransmitter theory, the sheer complexity and interdependance of all these systems and more that make up biological life is staggering. A theist sees the resiliance of life, the programming complexity of the genome, and the great equalizer that is the Second Law of Thermodynamics and sees the work of the Creator, the atheist sees the products of evolution. The Darwinian sect is in denial that Evolution requires any faith at all.
Let's substitute the word 'confidence' then. From induction to deduction, there's a pattern emerging.
I sense an appeal to wonder deeply imbedded in your stream-of-consciousness post.
I feel a sense of wonder every day. From the sound of my pulse to the warble of birds in the morning to the graceful arch of a deer running.
I do not require that there be someone behind it.
Now: do you really understand the 2nd Law?
It doesn't matter if he or she has developed any features that can be recognized by the lay person as human. Scientifically speaking, he or she is an individual human life.
But not a person. Not even close. Whatever happened to 'looks like a duck, quacks like a duck?'
Function follows form.
Howdy Long Rider and welcome. Thanks for joining in.
I just checked into the comment section and I myself am too tired to ramble right now but I appreciate you coming by.
When I am more "alert" I will jump into the fray.
I appreciate whomever sent you this way. Hope to see you become a regular.
Long Rider is back. Not exactly tan, but rested!
Ka said: Actually, no matter how many gaps get filled, the other side demands several more. This was readily admitted (& still is, to this day).
The concerns I have is that sometimes the gaps are filled with bogus claims or out-and-out fakes. The claims make the main stream, but when they are discovered to be fake, the retractions are covered up. Classic case in point, several years ago Nasty Geographic had fossil of a feathered dinosaur on the cover. It wound up being fake. I kept on expecting to see a retraction or correction, but did not find one. None was ever sent out into mainstream either. They kissed a loyal subscriber goodbye because of it (I like "The Horse, Backstreet Choppers" better anyway!) The only way I found out was by the Marvels of the Internet. 15 years ago, I wouldn't have know. Yeah, yeah, I know many other feathered fossils have reportedly been found since. And if those fossils ARE real, then they are A true missing link. Still, actions like this doesn't instill confidence in me.
Ka: Let's substitute the word 'confidence' then.
HeHeHe! Why would the substition be necessary? The theory is your answer to the mysteries of life. It's your answer to questions about the history and future of mankind. It's you answer to what really motivates us. It's your answer to what makes us good and what makes us bad. It and any other scientific theory is the explanation of the miraculous. You believe the theory can contain all of that and more. The answers to darn near everthing, including female behavior! Buddy, if that ain't faith, I don't know what is!
Ka:Now: do you really understand the 2nd Law?
Lessee...everything that has order will loose it over time. Every thing that is of a higher order will degrade to a lower one. ENTROPY. Kaos, with a K to honor you!
I avoided the tempation to Wiki it. So I looked it up in one of my old textbooks. Ebbring's General Chemistry, 2nd Ed. (1987) p. 684 ..."A law stating that the total entropy of a system AND IT'S SURROUNDINGS (emphasis mine)ALWAYS increases for a spontaneous, or natural, process."
And that destroys any idea of "life out of ooze". According to your faith, relatively simple chains of amino acids spontaniously occurred in the Ooze, and instead of degrading and becoming more random and entropic they became MORE orderly. For evolution to occur this didn't just happen once, but has continued to occur ever since.
I'm not a scientist, but I know that for something to become a law it has to pass the test every time. A theory is not held to such a rigorous standard. A Grand theory definately isn't. If I understand this correctly, I can grab you by the wrist, break into the chemisty lab of the local junior college and with the help of this 19 year old text book WITH OUT FAIL show you the second law of thermodynamics to be true, in real time, every time.
For Evo to be true either the second law is wrong, or life gave it the middle finger and did it anyway. That, my friend, is yet another indication of faith. I ain't knocking you for that. Just like you are not knocking my faith. Just be honest with yourself.
I said: It doesn't matter if he or she has developed any features that can be recognized by the lay person as human. Scientifically speaking, he or she is an individual human life.
Ka: But not a person. Not even close. Whatever happened to 'looks like a duck, quacks like a duck?'
Function follows form.
We can discuss personhood and "being" later, first you either need to prove my statement wrong, or admit I'm right.
Scientifically speaking, a zygote is an individual human life. You are far smarter and better read than this old country boy/biker from Paris Texas (Only 10 miles from Bug Tussle!) *hawk...pit-tooey*. So there's a good chance I'm wrong. I would actually LOVE for me to be wrong in this case, so help a guy out!
Love and prayers,
Jimmmmmmm
Long Ryder:
The concerns I have is that sometimes the gaps are filled with bogus claims or out-and-out fakes. The claims make the main stream, but when they are discovered to be fake, the retractions are covered up. Classic case in point, several years ago Nasty Geographic had fossil of a feathered dinosaur on the cover. It wound up being fake. I kept on expecting to see a retraction or correction, but did not find one. None was ever sent out into mainstream either.
This is simply untrue. The field abounds w/hoaxes that are uncovered & dismissed immediately. ‘Nasty Geographic’? WTF? The archaeopteryx? Whatever are you talking about? The Chinese fossil? The scientist that discovered that uncovered the falsehood.
HeHeHe! Why would the substition be necessary? The theory is your answer to the mysteries of life. It's your answer to questions about the history and future of mankind. It's you answer to what really motivates us. It's your answer to what makes us good and what makes us bad. It and any other scientific theory is the explanation of the miraculous. You believe the theory can contain all of that and more. The answers to darn near everthing, including female behavior! Buddy, if that ain't faith, I don't know what is!
Yeah, let’s just dismiss it, since it seems to cover everything w/normal deduction & induction, sans a supernatural source. I can see why everyone’s so hot & bothered about it.
Lessee...everything that has order will loose it over time. Every thing that is of a higher order will degrade to a lower one. ENTROPY. Kaos, with a K to honor you!
You have it partially correct. Fact is, you’re thinking in a linear fashion. It doesn’t ALWAYS degrade – it can remain in a fluid form of stasis, spreading out.
And that destroys any idea of "life out of ooze". According to your faith, relatively simple chains of amino acids spontaniously occurred in the Ooze, and instead of degrading and becoming more random and entropic they became MORE orderly. For evolution to occur this didn't just happen once, but has continued to occur ever since.
Here, I use answers.com (it’s far more reliable than Wiki):
” It is claimed that evolution, by increasing complexity without supernatural intervention, violates the second law of thermodynamics. This law posits that in an idealised isolated system, entropy will tend to increase or stay the same. Entropy is a measure of the dispersal of energy in a physical system so that it is not available to do mechanical work. The claim ignores the fact that biological systems are not isolated systems. Simple calculations show that the Sun-Earth-space system does not violate the second law because the massive increase in entropy due to the Sun and Earth radiating into space dwarfs the small decrease in entropy caused by the evolution of life. In statistical thermodynamics entropy has been envisioned as a measure of the statistical "disorder" at a microstate level, leading to the mistaken idea that entropy implies increasing chaos. In fact, the flow of matter and energy through open systems allows self-organization enabling an increase in complexity without guidance or management. Examples include mineral crystals and snowflakes. Life inherently involves open systems, not isolated systems, as all organisms exchange energy and matter with their environment, and similarly the Earth receives energy from the Sun and emits energy back into space.
I'm not a scientist, but I know that for something to become a law it has to pass the test every time. A theory is not held to such a rigorous standard. A Grand theory definately isn't. If I understand this correctly, I can grab you by the wrist, break into the chemisty lab of the local junior college and with the help of this 19 year old text book WITH OUT FAIL show you the second law of thermodynamics to be true, in real time, every time.
What a roundabout way to say, “I can prove it via research”. A ‘Grand theory’? Again, gravity is a ‘theory’, the earth revolving around the sun is a ‘theory’.
The second law isn’t under dispute. You don’t understand it properly.
For Evo to be true either the second law is wrong, or life gave it the middle finger and did it anyway. That, my friend, is yet another indication of faith. I ain't knocking you for that. Just like you are not knocking my faith. Just be honest with yourself.
I am excruciatingly honest. However, my ‘faith’ as you claim it, is based on far more substantial evidence than yours is. The 2nd law is NOT in conflict w/evolution. The kinks in abiogenesis are being worked out (not fast enough for my taste, but what are ya gonna do?).
For the record, I knock your faith on a regular basis. Feel free to take a few swings at my 'faith'.
We can discuss personhood and "being" later, first you either need to prove my statement wrong, or admit I'm right.
Oh my. Which definition do you prefer?
”1. A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.
2. A person: the extraordinary humans who explored Antarctica.
Or?
1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of humans: the course of human events; the human race.
2. Having or showing those positive aspects of nature and character regarded as distinguishing humans from other animals: an act of human kindness.
3. Subject to or indicative of the weaknesses, imperfections, and fragility associated with humans: a mistake that shows he's only human; human frailty.
4. Having the form of a human."
Scientifically speaking, a zygote is an individual human life. You are far smarter and better read than this old country boy/biker from Paris Texas (Only 10 miles from Bug Tussle!) *hawk...pit-tooey*. So there's a good chance I'm wrong. I would actually LOVE for me to be wrong in this case, so help a guy out!
Oh, I used to use that old ploy. Play coy & dumb.
When it’s a blastula, or when it’s a gastrula?
Let’s look at it, then:
A human being, as we categorize 1, has two legs, two arms (hopefully!), 20 digits, breathes the air, in short, is distinctly recognizable.
An embryo, however, goes thru numerous changes long before it bears any resemblance to a human. It even has, at 1 point, gills (known as pharnygea), & at 1 point, actually sports small fins in gestation. At most points in the early months, there’s very little difference between a puppy, kitten, or infant human in development (embryonically speaking).
Is it life? Certainly. A tumor is a form of life. If it grows in a human? When do we ascribe intrinsic value? I posted on this a while back - http://biblioblography.blogspot.com/2006/10/quickening.html – the ‘quickening’ is where the child begins kicking. That’s where I draw the line.
Unless you can provide scientific measurement of the phrase ‘soul’, I’m going to have to go the route of similarity.
As a liberal, I consider all life precious. But I will always err on the side of the life extant vs. the life possible.
” http://www.vindicatingthefounders.com/library/index.asp?document=50
Harris v. McRae
Dissenting opinion by Thurgood Marshall
"The consequences of today’s opinion—consequences to which the Court seems oblivious—are not difficult to predict. Pregnant women denied the funding necessary to procure abortions will be restricted to two alternatives. First, they can carry the fetus to term—even though that route may result in severe injury or death to the mother, the fetus, or both. If that course appears intolerable, they can resort to self-induced abortions or attempt to obtain illegal abortions—not because bearing a child would be inconvenient, but because it is necessary in order to protect their health. {Footnote: Of course, some poor women will attempt to raise the funds necessary to obtain a lawful abortion. A court recently found that those who were fortunate enough to do so had to resort to "not paying rent or utility bills, pawning household goods, diverting food and clothing money, or journeying to another state to obtain lower rates or fraudulently use a relative’s insurance policy…. [S]ome patients were driven to theft." Women’s Health Services, Inc. v. Maher, 482 F. Supp. 725.} The result will not be to protect what the Court describes as "the legitimate governmental objective of protecting potential life," but to ensure the destruction of both fetal and maternal life. "There is another world ’out there,’ the existence of which the Court …either chooses to ignore or fears to recognize." Beal v. Doe (BLACKMUN, J., dissenting). In my view, it is only by blinding itself to that other world that the Court can reach the result it announces today."
& do spare me the ‘activist judge’ speech (a pre-emptive strike, if you will).
In short, again, I am pro-life, but I am pro-choice FIRST - & my rationale is based on equal amounts of empathy & sense.
Legal & rare I say.
Lond rider here.
First of all, I'm being truthful when I say that I wish it were not the killing of an individual human life. Man, it would make things SO much easier for every one, and true equality for women would be assured.
I am about as much of a realist as a Christian can be. I know that if abortion was illegal, in addition to the things you have listed and quoted above, the risk of evil men cruising around and spreading their seed like a neandertal, then fighting for custody is a real possibility. So, I am Pro-life, but understand that that keeping it legal is necessary.
Abortion is the killing of:
An Individual. That genome will only exist once, never to be seen again. Unique and laden with the heritage of a thousand generations at their worst and greatest.
Human: Simple genetics. He or she won't develop into an ameoba (sp?), neandertal, dolphin etc. Nope. He or she will not develop into one of us. He or she already is one of us.
Life: He or she is organic, consumes energy to both maintain homeostasis and continue to grow, again has "that DNA thing going on", has the ability to reproduce.
So, scientifically speaking, abortion is the killing of an individual human life.
There are something like seven different characteristics of our personality that are based on genetics. Most talent, maybe even all talent, comes straight from the genome. Most basic physical attributes are determined at conception. Gender is determined at conception. Possibly even sexuality (I hope not for the homosexuals sake). I suspect as we learn more and more about genetics, the whole nature vs nurture thing will be turned once again on its ear. Much of Skinner and other baby boomer era behaviorist's theories might well be seen as niave or the hight of huberus (sp).
My point being, we are more complicated at the time of our conception than many realize. Much more of who we are was determined during that magical period in our lives than what we want to admit. Tabla Rosa, my ass. ;)
Being a liberal doesn't make you consider all life precious (Sciavo [sic} may have been one Ambien away from saying, "Ka is Ka-razy!", but most libs wanted to put her out of everybodies misery) any more than being a concervative makes me so. We consider all life precious because we both have insight, hope and love deeply.
I'm not a debater. You obviously have honed skills that I don't have. You have probably gotten into countless cyber shitfests. So you are probably perpetually spring-loaded in a pissed-off position.
I have a dry and gently sarcastic sense of humor. Gets me in trouble all the time. Don't take me as nasty or insulting. I wasn't playing coy and dumb, it was my feeble atempt at self-depricating humor. Probably premptive too, bigotry against Texans, Southerners, and country folk is all the rage since one cannot make fun of anyone else anymore.
Crap, its 0530 here and my Ramble Alert System went to bed hours ago.
Love and prayers.
Jimmmmmmm
BTW, Paris IS only 10 miles from Bug Tussle!
Jimmmmm
Long Ryder:
First of all, I'm being truthful when I say that I wish it were not the killing of an individual human life. Man, it would make things SO much easier for every one, and true equality for women would be assured.
Well, there's that pesky definition thingamabob again.
I am about as much of a realist as a Christian can be. I know that if abortion was illegal, in addition to the things you have listed and quoted above, the risk of evil men cruising around and spreading their seed like a neandertal, then fighting for custody is a real possibility. So, I am Pro-life, but understand that that keeping it legal is necessary.
I appreciate your rationality on the subject.
Abortion is the killing of:
Human: Simple genetics. He or she won't develop into an ameoba (sp?), neandertal, dolphin etc. Nope. He or she will not develop into one of us. He or she already is one of us.
Hey, I'd as soon as let each 1 slide on in & join the party, myself.
Life: He or she is organic, consumes energy to both maintain homeostasis and continue to grow, again has "that DNA thing going on", has the ability to reproduce.
So, scientifically speaking, abortion is the killing of an individual human life.
It probably is.
There are something like seven different characteristics of our personality that are based on genetics. Most talent, maybe even all talent, comes straight from the genome. Most basic physical attributes are determined at conception. Gender is determined at conception. Possibly even sexuality (I hope not for the homosexuals sake). I suspect as we learn more and more about genetics, the whole nature vs nurture thing will be turned once again on its ear. Much of Skinner and other baby boomer era behaviorist's theories might well be seen as niave or the hight of huberus (sp).
Do you perchance have a link to the info on the 1st 3 sentences?
My point being, we are more complicated at the time of our conception than many realize. Much more of who we are was determined during that magical period in our lives than what we want to admit. Tabla Rosa, my ass. ;)
It's actually Rasa. & no, I don't think that that much of us is pre-determined in that phase. Environmental influences play a much larger factor than that. Being raised as a Buddhist monk as opposed to a Mongol under Genghis Khan, for example.
Being a liberal doesn't make you consider all life precious (Sciavo [sic} may have been one Ambien away from saying, "Ka is Ka-razy!", but most libs wanted to put her out of everybodies misery) any more than being a concervative makes me so. We consider all life precious because we both have insight, hope and love deeply.
Well, in perspective, it was a quality-of-life issue. The govt contravened the spouse's judgment. That sorta govt interference is a LITTLE much.
I'm not a debater. You obviously have honed skills that I don't have. You have probably gotten into countless cyber shitfests. So you are probably perpetually spring-loaded in a pissed-off position.
Good point. I usually have my dukes up (so to speak). Sorry.
I have a dry and gently sarcastic sense of humor. Gets me in trouble all the time. Don't take me as nasty or insulting. I wasn't playing coy and dumb, it was my feeble atempt at self-depricating humor. Probably premptive too, bigotry against Texans, Southerners, and country folk is all the rage since one cannot make fun of anyone else anymore.
I don't.
Reminds me of an old joke:
A Texan & a man from Oxford walk into the restroom at the same time to pee. The Oxford man finishes up 1st, & begins to studiously wash his hands. The Texan finishes up, zips up, & walks out. The other man, horrified, finishes his oblations, & rushes out & after the other man.
"Sir! Sir!" exclaims the ivy leaguer, "Where I come from, we wash our hands after we go to the bathroom!"
"Hell," drawls the Texan, "Where I come from, we don't piss on our hands."
Post a Comment