PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Vestigal organs:
       evolutionist red herring

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I thought all YECs were.


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 3:51 PM on December 1, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

timbrx

If it endangers my personal liberty I'm willing to fight.

Does ToE endanger your personal liberty?


Our current political situation is the child of evolutionary thought. I am opposed on the grounds that it impinges on my liberty and contradicts the intent of our nation's founders and of the constitution.


Timbrx - I think it was the intent of the founders of our constitution to seperate  church and state, was it not?  A good number of them were not zealous Christians, such as yourself.  A good number of them were deists, and perhaps even agnostics.  That's one reason why the courts have ruled against Creationism being taught in public school science classrooms.  

As for your liberty, do people teach evolution in the church that you attend?

Evolution is clearly a part of scientific inquiry, not part of any religion.  Keep your righteous ignorance out of public school science classrooms, I say.  

As far as individual liberty is concerned, it is the religious right that would take those iindividual liberties away!
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 4:12 PM on December 1, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

derwood
You are thus irrational and incompetent.

By your measure perhaps. I work hard, pay my bills on time, am thrifty and self reliant, I earn a living by providing services for others who hire me because I am rational and highly competent, I deal with people from a position of respect whether they are very wealthy of barely getting by, and I am well respected in my community in turn. What more would you ask? That I kowtow to your opinions unquestioningly?

wisp
Even if that was true, it's irrelevant when you try to decide if Evolution is right or wrong.

Is it? If it's right than murder is okay as long as I'm in charge (survival of the fittest a la Hitler, Stalin, Mao)
If evolution is the only answer to the question "why am I here" than the only answer is whatever I want it to be.

apoapsis
So you are declaring that one cannot be a Christian without believing in a young earth?

If I were than I wouldn't have said that I believed in an old earth as a "new christian" now would I?

orion
Timbrx - you're not a conspiracy theorist, are you?

I believe that Satan conspires against humanity and people are tools. I believe that people plot and plan to do things to benefit themselves that would shock you and I were we to know the details of their depravity.

Does ToE endanger your personal liberty?

In and of itself it is as benign as any religion. But when individuals use it to enslave others than yes, it is a danger. We have generations of people in this country who were taught to believe in self deification (humanism) by the very institutions that claim to exist for the betterment of society.


timbrx:
Our current political situation is the child of evolutionary thought. I am opposed on the grounds that it impinges on my liberty and contradicts the intent of our nation's founders and of the constitution.


Timbrx - I think it was the intent of the founders of our constitution to seperate  church and state, was it not?

No, it was the intent of the founders to keep government out of the affairs of the church. "Congress shall make no law respecting (with respect to) the establishment of a religion nor the restriction thereof." There is no such phrase "separation of church and state" in the constitution.

A good number of them were not zealous Christians, such as yourself.  A good number of them were deists, and perhaps even agnostics.

Regardless of their individual levels of piety they signed a document that was designed to promote individual self government an limit the powers of the state. Evolution removes the impediment of moral absolute and promotes lack of self government resulting in the need for stronger more restrictive government.

That's one reason why the courts have ruled against Creationism being taught in public school science classrooms.

The first trial ruled against evolution being taught in schools. But the ACLU used the result as a propaganda tool to turn public sentiment. The whole notion of the state dictating educational requirements is counter to the vision of limited government.

As for your liberty, do people teach evolution in the church that you attend?

Yes, they do. Along side of creation. To children and adults.

Evolution is clearly a part of scientific inquiry, not part of any religion.

Do you really believe that?

Keep your righteous ignorance out of public school science classrooms, I say.

Keep your intrusive government out of the business of education, I say.

As far as individual liberty is concerned, it is the religious right that would take those iindividual liberties away!

Sort of like, say, gun control? Oh yea, that's the liberal left that wants to make sure that only criminals can have guns.

 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 7:49 PM on December 1, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

timbrx
wisp
Even if that was true, it's irrelevant when you try to decide if Evolution is right or wrong.
Is it?
No doubt about it.
If it's right than murder is okay as long as I'm in charge (survival of the fittest a la Hitler, Stalin, Mao)
Why?

Are you trying to pass an equivocation fallacy? Are you trying to confuse "right" as in "in tune with reality" for a scientific theory, with the deontic "right" for a political view?

That's so deeply wrong, timbrx!
By that i mean "out of tune with reality".

Your argument would only be relevant when you're trying to decide whether a true knowledge should be known by everyone or not.
If what you're actually saying is that Evolution isn't a true knowledge, then your argument is utterly irrelevant.

From the political point of view, i think Nature is horrible more often than not. And we need to understand it in order to avoid that.

By denying its principles you're an accomplice.

If evolution is the only answer to the question "why am I here" than the only answer is whatever I want it to be.
Come again?

Timbrx, you only responded to the less relevant part of my post. Why is that?

If time is the issue, why not chose the more relevant parts to answer instead of that?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 8:12 PM on December 1, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 7:49 PM on December 1, 2009 :
apoapsis
So you are declaring that one cannot be a Christian without believing in a young earth?

If I were than I wouldn't have said that I believed in an old earth as a "new christian" now would I?


That's not clear at all.  You've obviously been influenced by those who say that you can't be a TROO™ Christian if you believe in long ages.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 9:29 PM on December 1, 2009 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 01:49 AM on December 2, 2009 :
derwood
You are thus irrational and incompetent.

By your measure perhaps. I work hard, pay my bills on time, am thrifty and self reliant, I earn a living by providing services for others who hire me because I am rational and highly competent, I deal with people from a position of respect whether they are very wealthy of barely getting by, and I am well respected in my community in turn. What more would you ask? That I kowtow to your opinions unquestioningly?

You have taken Derwood's point outwith the context of the discussion, thereby rendering your retort pointless. Your competency at your job and respect within your community bears no relevance to your competence to argue evolution.
because it fits in with my desire to believe the Bible.
your desire to believe in the bible renders you incompetent to argue, from a scientific perspective, evolution. Were you being deliberately obtuse or did you genuinely not understand the context? (I'm nowhere near as clever as most of the people on this site, but i thought that the context of Derwood's point was glaringly obvious...)

Is it? If it's right than murder is okay as long as I'm in charge (survival of the fittest a la Hitler, Stalin, Mao)
If evolution is the only answer to the question "why am I here" than the only answer is whatever I want it to be.
This doesn't really make sense. Are you trying to equate ToE the the development of morals within a society? If you are, then obviously you are talking nonsense, if not (which I'm sure is more likely the case) then could you please explain what it is that you mean.


No, it was the intent of the founders to keep government out of the affairs of the church. "Congress shall make no law respecting (with respect to) the establishment of a religion nor the restriction thereof." There is no such phrase "separation of church and state" in the constitution.

I think that you mis-interpret that Timbrx. That phrase looks to me like it is saying that Goverment will not impose upon nor restrict the state to a specific religion. It says nothing of keeping the "government out of the affairs of the church" but more, of keeping the church out of the affairs of government.
Regardless of their individual levels of piety they signed a document that was designed to promote individual self government an limit the powers of the state. Evolution removes the impediment of moral absolute and promotes lack of self government resulting in the need for stronger more restrictive government.

How so?

Evolution is clearly a part of scientific inquiry, not part of any religion.
...
Do you really believe that?

A rhetorical question, obviously


-------
Lester in logical fallacies
That’s IN MY HEAD –you know, kind of like a pneumonic helps people to remember;,

Lester in Naturalism
the reality is that medical doctors have no training in evolution

Lester in 'Scientists Assert:
Ancestors assumes evolution.
 


Posts: 320 | Posted: 06:01 AM on December 2, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 7:49 PM on December 1, 2009 :
derwood
You are thus irrational and incompetent.

By your measure perhaps. I work hard, pay my bills on time, am thrifty and self reliant, I earn a living by providing services for others who hire me because I am rational and highly competent, I deal with people from a position of respect whether they are very wealthy of barely getting by, and I am well respected in my community in turn. What more would you ask? That I kowtow to your opinions unquestioningly?


You declared that you believe in YECism because it comports with your biblical ideology.  That seems to me to be a pretty poor reason to reject an entire field of scientific studfy AND all of its ancillaries.    I find kowtowing to the prejudices, myths, cultural mores, and folklore of a pre-technological tribe of goat herders and nomads to be irrational and the product of incompetence and ignorance.

However, let us look at your position on the issue at hand - you I take it that you are not a PhD holding science expert like Lester (the guy who did not know what phenotype means) - I also take it that you do not have a background in any biological science or any science related to evolution (e.g., geology, physics, etc.).  

Yet you dismiss evolution because it conflicts with your religious views.

Am I to kowtow to your uninformed opinion unquestioningly because a majority of scientifically illiterate Americans agree with your position?
Because you find it comforting to your worldview?

I am respected in my community, too.  I was promoted ahead of my peers while in the army, I received awards for my academic achievements, I worked full time AND went to school full time AND was married at the time AND still earned a 3.5+ undergrad GPA and a
3.8 graduate GPA.  I was asked to be the keynote speaker at a major conference and be the spokeman for those favoring molecular phylogenetics over morphological systematics just months after I graduated (I had to decline due to previous committments).
Why should I kowtow to your religio-political views, especially when it is your ideology that governs your positions, not the evidence?

Why should I NOT correct your erroneous claims when I kow them to be erroneous?  Why should I allow you to assert falsehoods when I know they are false?  So as not to hurt your feelings?  So you won't call me names and consider me 'arrogant' and 'condescending'?  

Do you coniser ALL people with superior knowledge to you on any subject who correct you to be 'condescending asses', or just when it comes to evolution?

wisp
Even if that was true, it's irrelevant when you try to decide if Evolution is right or wrong.

Is it? If it's right than murder is okay as long as I'm in charge (survival of the fittest a la Hitler, Stalin, Mao)


Like here....

You, like so many in the world (and not just creationists, I am sad to say) are incorrectly interpreting "survival of the fittest" to mean "might makes right".  
I know, I know - I am being an arrogant elitist for correcting your erroneous belief.

Of cours,e what of the Christian missionaries who were responsible for the slaughter of indiginouis peoples for the crime of not wanting to convert?  What of the grand inquisitors who seemed to delight in torturing and murdering thousands because they might not have been Christian enough?


If evolution is the only answer to the question "why am I here" than the only answer is whatever I want it to be.


Please do not conflate your personal depravities with what evolution actually indicates.  Evolution actually indicates that altruism is a beneficial survival trait.  

Many years ago, I was having an IM conversation with a YEC on AOL.  He informed me that if it were not for his fear of God's qwrath, he would be raping and pillaging and stealing.  How sad, I thought.  I, as an atheist who accepts evolution, have never had such thoughts ro feelings, and I have never felt the urge to do such things.  
I suppose for such folk, religion is a benefit to society.  But it also shows how many such people think.  Which is a bit frightening.

orion
Timbrx - you're not a conspiracy theorist, are you?

I believe that Satan conspires against humanity and people are tools.

Had you considered the possibility that people like YOU might be the ones being used by Satan?


I believe that people plot and plan to do things to benefit themselves that would shock you and I were we to know the details of their depravity.

Like BTK - remember him? Good Christian man.  Elder in his church.  Respected in his community. Tied up, raped, and killed a bunch of women.  


Does ToE endanger your personal liberty?

In and of itself it is as benign as any religion.

Except that it is not a religion.

But when individuals use it to enslave others than yes, it is a danger.

Like in biblical times?

We have generations of people in this country who were taught to believe in self deification (humanism) by the very institutions that claim to exist for the betterment of society.
We also have generations of people taught that certain types of people are evil and that God doesn't like them, so it is OK to hate them and be mean to them and to deny them equal rights.

timbrx:
Our current political situation is the child of evolutionary thought. I am opposed on the grounds that it impinges on my liberty and contradicts the intent of our nation's founders and of the constitution.


What liberties of your's does accepting evolution impinge upon?

Have you ever heard fo Thomas Jefferson?

He re-wrote the bible to get rid of the superfluous bits.  You can read about it here.


Or read his letter to the Danbury Baptists?

He makes it pretty clear that the 1st Amendment weas intended to keep church and state seperate.

I'll bet you think America is a Christian Nation, too, right?

The founders saw it differently:

  Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;

- Treaty with Tripoli (1796-1797)

Please note the date.  Who was president then?  Who was in Congress then?


Timbrx - I think it was the intent of the founders of our constitution to seperate  church and state, was it not?

No, it was the intent of the founders to keep government out of the affairs of the church. "Congress shall make no law respecting (with respect to) the establishment of a religion nor the restriction thereof." There is no such phrase "separation of church and state" in the constitution.


See above.

Context is a wonderful thing.

As for your liberty, do people teach evolution in the church that you attend?

Yes, they do. Along side of creation. To children and adults.


And I am sure that they teach it accurately and honestly.  Though if your sentiments expressed ehre are the result of what you are programmed to accept in church, then I suspect that those 'teaching' is are not qualified to do so and/or are simply lying for Christ.  



Evolution is clearly a part of scientific inquiry, not part of any religion.

Do you really believe that?

Yes.  Claims to the contrary are ridiculous.


Keep your righteous ignorance out of public school science classrooms, I say.

Keep your intrusive government out of the business of education, I say.


Right - leave edumacation up to the kids parents!  Parents dropped out fo grade school?  So what!  Parents are members of Aryan Nation?  So what!

Parents are Tea Bagger anti-gubment nuts who think T. McVeigh si a hero?  So what!  


As far as individual liberty is concerned, it is the religious right that would take those iindividual liberties away!

Sort of like, say, gun control? Oh yea, that's the liberal left that wants to make sure that only criminals can have guns.



Yeah, thats what they want.

Because we recently saw how well armed and armored people do when confronted with a gun wielding criminal.  A criminal that was in jail and was let out by Huckabee because the criminal claimed he had found God.

Does anyone else find it weird how frequently a love of guns goes hand in hand with religious fervor?

Looks like we are only some turbans away from YEC suicide bombers....







-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 09:15 AM on December 2, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

derwood
You, like so many in the world (and not just creationists, I am sad to say) are incorrectly interpreting "survival of the fittest" to mean "might makes right".
And that STILL has no bearing in Science.

It's a silly interpretation, of course. Perhaps if i believed that this knowledge would actually make societies to become dictatorships (like religions already have), or the law of the jungle, i wouldn't want for this knowledge to be known.

YECs shouldn't agree, unless they believe this is a true knowledge.

Many years ago, I was having an IM conversation with a YEC on AOL.  He informed me that if it were not for his fear of God's qwrath, he would be raping and pillaging and stealing.  How sad, I thought.  I, as an atheist who accepts evolution, have never had such thoughts ro feelings, and I have never felt the urge to do such things.  
I suppose for such folk, religion is a benefit to society.
I have thought about it... Is it possible for a person to be so ignorant and vile that religion would be a good thing for them?

Sadly, i think the answer is affirmative.

But not timbrx... I don't believe that about him.

Is it possible that Christianism could protect us (smart, honest and nice people) from those Christians' inherent depravity and violence?

I don't like to think that way...

But it also shows how many such people think. Which is a bit frightening.
I honestly think that they just say it. They don't really mean it. They just like to talk. If they lost their faith they wouldn't go killing and raping.
I think...

timbrx
I believe that Satan conspires against humanity and people are tools.
Had you considered the possibility that people like YOU might be the ones being used by Satan?
Yeah... What if Satan made the nasty and cruel rules of Evolution?
Then we're the ones that want to expose him, and Christians are being guided by him in order to stop us. They're helping Satan to get away with it!

That's pretty much my interpretation of Lucifer (light bearer). He was the most beautiful of Yahweh's angels.

I think Lucifer means intelligence and knowledge. And we make it serve our basic selfish instincts.

Understanding evolutionary psychology has allowed me to contemplate my evolved selfishness. I'd say it made me a better person. That concept of Lucifer has less influence in my life thanks to that.

Which is more than religion has done for most Christians...

derwood
timbrx
As for your liberty, do people teach evolution in the church that you attend?
Yes, they do. Along side of creation. To children and adults.
And I am sure that they teach it accurately and honestly.  Though if your sentiments expressed ehre are the result of what you are programmed to accept in church, then I suspect that those 'teaching' is are not qualified to do so and/or are simply lying for Christ.
MARTIN LUTHER, Catholic Priest and later leader of Reformation movement (1483-1546 A.D.)

"What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church...a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them."

timbrx
As far as individual liberty is concerned, it is the religious right that would take those iindividual liberties away!
Sort of like, say, gun control? Oh yea, that's the liberal left that wants to make sure that only criminals can have guns.
Yeah, thats what they want.

Because we recently saw how well armed and armored people do when confronted with a gun wielding criminal.  A criminal that was in jail and was let out by Huckabee because the criminal claimed he had found God.

Does anyone else find it weird how frequently a love of guns goes hand in hand with religious fervor?
Yes. Me. I'm amazed at that. I don't really understand it...

Timbrx, why would you want a gun? Would you kill someone? What about "Thou shalt not kill"? What about "Turn the other cheek"? What about "love your enemy"? What about "If a man asks for your shirt give him your cloak as well"?

To me it looks like Christians tend not to ask themselves "What would Jesus do?".

Perhaps they do, and the answer they find is "Get crucified and die", since they pay more attention to Jesus' death than his life and word.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 11:34 AM on December 2, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Derwood

Timbrx

Orion

As far as individual liberty is concerned, it is the religious right that would take those iindividual liberties away!


Sort of like, say, gun control? Oh yea, that's the liberal left that wants to make sure that only criminals can have guns.


Yeah, thats what they want.

Because we recently saw how well armed and armored people do when confronted with a gun wielding criminal.  A criminal that was in jail and was let out by Huckabee because the criminal claimed he had found God.

Does anyone else find it weird how frequently a love of guns goes hand in hand with religious fervor?

Looks like we are only some turbans away from YEC suicide bombers....


Timbrx - IMO, the 2nd amendment (right to bear arms) was the one BIG mistake the founders made.

Yes Derwood, I find it quite a paradox that among the most adament supprters of the 2nd amendment are those who show religious fervor - the fundamentalist Christian right.  Paradoxtical because I wonder what their good lord and savior, Jesus Christ, would have to say about it.  

Timbrx - I'm glad to hear that you're respected and competent in your community, job, and church.  But when it comes to issues of science, you and Lester show that you let your religious righteousness over-ride any sense of reason.

As for evolution leading towards immorality, you clearly don't have a clue what you're talking about.  I happen to think that most people are basically good.  Surely no one is infallable, but I agree with Derwood that altruism is a quality that a majority of people share to one degree or another.  A quality that evolved.  Do you think that morality comes from a belief in God?  If you do, then I really feel sorry that you think that way, because that notion is just plain wrong.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:12 PM on December 2, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Such rich and fertile ground for debate!

Religion, politics, history, science.... We left out art!

I am not a coward and would be very happy to address any one of these posts on an individual basis. You may e-mail me freely as my address is posted in my profile. I particularly like the topics involving history and politics.

For the sake of brevity and because I've ignored derwood for so long I'm only going to answer his post this time. Apologies to all , though I know you'll find ample fodder in this post.

Posted by derwood at Wed December 2, 2009 - 09:15 AM

You declared that you believe in YECism because it comports with your biblical ideology.  That seems to me to be a pretty poor reason to reject an entire field of scientific studfy AND all of its ancillaries.

Maybe it is. But I won't separate myself from my beliefs just to fit in to a secular worldview.  

  I find kowtowing to the prejudices, myths, cultural mores, and folklore of a pre-technological tribe of goat herders and nomads to be irrational and the product of incompetence and ignorance.

You are not forced to by a government run educational system. Frankly I'm not being forced to put my child into that system either but I believe I would be if I don't stand now for my liberties.

However, let us look at your position on the issue at hand - you I take it that you are not a PhD holding science expert like Lester (the guy who did not know what phenotype means) - I also take it that you do not have a background in any biological science or any science related to evolution (e.g., geology, physics, etc.).

Well deduced.

Yet you dismiss evolution because it conflicts with your religious views.

You mistake me. I don't dismiss evolution. If I did I wouldn't bother with this argument. No, I take evolution very seriously to be a threat if allowed to run roughshod over any other worldview.

Am I to kowtow to your uninformed opinion unquestioningly because a majority of scientifically illiterate Americans agree with your position?
Because you find it comforting to your worldview?

Not at all. You are free to believe what you want. I respect your beliefs as an individual.

Why should I kowtow to your religio-political views, especially when it is your ideology that governs your positions, not the evidence?

I applaud your accomplishments. Your credibility as a learned man have never been in question even if your style has.
As I said, I don't expect you to compromise your beliefs because of my poor opinions. I don't know all of the answers and could never even pretend to stand equal in your field. However if there's one thing I've learned from these debates is that ALL of us are governed by our individual ideology.
Why should I NOT correct your erroneous claims when I kow them to be erroneous?  Why should I allow you to assert falsehoods when I know they are false?  So as not to hurt your feelings?  So you won't call me names and consider me 'arrogant' and 'condescending'?

By all means correct my errors with regards to what is known. But don't dictate to me what my conclusions should be.
Do you coniser ALL people with superior knowledge to you on any subject who correct you to be 'condescending asses', or just when it comes to evolution?

Only those who smugly categorize me according to some predetermined template while mocking my core beliefs and principals.

wisp
Even if that was true, it's irrelevant when you try to decide if Evolution is right or wrong.

Is it? If it's right than murder is okay as long as I'm in charge (survival of the fittest a la Hitler, Stalin, Mao)



Like here....

You, like so many in the world (and not just creationists, I am sad to say) are incorrectly interpreting "survival of the fittest" to mean "might makes right".  
I know, I know - I am being an arrogant elitist for correcting your erroneous belief.

Of cours,e what of the Christian missionaries who were responsible for the slaughter of indiginouis peoples for the crime of not wanting to convert?  What of the grand inquisitors who seemed to delight in torturing and murdering thousands because they might not have been Christian enough?

Sadly the depravity of man knows no bounds. I'm certainly not going to defend the forcing of religion in any form. That is why I'm here. I believe that the ToE has enough "religious" in it to merit resistance.
The example of the "big three" mass murderers is relevant in that they each espoused evolution as their rationalization for their actions. Forcing religion is always wrong even if the religion is the state.

Evolution actually indicates that altruism is a beneficial survival trait.

Too bad common sense is not. At least survival traits can be learned.  

orion
Timbrx - you're not a conspiracy theorist, are you?

I believe that Satan conspires against humanity and people are tools.

Had you considered the possibility that people like YOU might be the ones being used by Satan?

Sure. Satan loves causing confusion especially in the church.

But when individuals use it to enslave others than yes, it is a danger.

Like in biblical times?

Yes.

We also have generations of people taught that certain types of people are evil and that God doesn't like them, so it is OK to hate them and be mean to them and to deny them equal rights.

Unfortunately true. As long as humans are in the equation there will be ignorance and abuse in EVERY institution.

What liberties of your's does accepting evolution impinge upon?

Not accepting evolution does not impinge upon any liberty of mine as of yet. However evolutionary thought in government is poised to impinge greatly on all of our liberties even as soon as January 2010 if congress passes the so called health care reform act.

Have you ever heard fo Thomas Jefferson?

He re-wrote the bible to get rid of the superfluous bits.  You can read about it here.


Or read his letter to the Danbury Baptists?

He makes it pretty clear that the 1st Amendment weas intended to keep church and state seperate.

I'll bet you think America is a Christian Nation, too, right?

The founders saw it differently:

 Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;

- Treaty with Tripoli (1796-1797)

Please note the date.  Who was president then?  Who was in Congress then?

The Treaty of Tripoli was consistent with a limited Federal government. It was intended that the states decide whether or not to consider themselves Christian. In those days the congressmen actually represented their respective states and understood this. This treaty, though clever, was infective in prevent war.


timbrx:
No, it was the intent of the founders to keep government out of the affairs of the church. "Congress shall make no law respecting (with respect to) the establishment of a religion nor the restriction thereof." There is no such phrase "separation of church and state" in the constitution.

Context is a wonderful thing.

Indeed it is. So why is the federal govt. intruding into the affairs of states?

Right - leave edumacation up to the kids parents!  Parents dropped out fo grade school?  So what!  Parents are members of Aryan Nation?  So what!

Parents are Tea Bagger anti-gubment nuts who think T. McVeigh si a hero?  So what!

And who determines what's right and whats wrong? According to ToE, it is merely what is pragmatic for the individual. No absolute morality. No absolute anything except for the Power of Almighty Govt.  

As far as individual liberty is concerned, it is the religious right that would take those iindividual liberties away!


timbrx:
Sort of like, say, gun control? Oh yea, that's the liberal left that wants to make sure that only criminals can have guns.


Yeah, thats what they want.

Yes it is! "If guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns" remember that? Try and outwit that logic.

Because we recently saw how well armed and armored people do when confronted with a gun wielding criminal.

Not because of gun laws but because of ridiculous P.C. restraints placed on police.
A criminal that was in jail and was let out by Huckabee because the criminal claimed he had found God.

Context, remember? Huckabee reduced his sentence to 48 yrs. making him eligible for parole. The Parole board let him out.

Does anyone else find it weird how frequently a love of guns goes hand in hand with religious fervor?

I'd say it goes hand in hand with the love of liberty and the constitution. I think it's weird that liberal leftists think it's weird for conservatives to want to "conserve" their rights.

Looks like we are only some turbans away from YEC suicide bombers....

Context again. The followers of the "turban" believe that if they kill you they go to heaven. The followers of Christ believe that it is better to die so that YOU might go to heaven. One is utterly selfish, the other is utterly selfless. It's people who corrupt the ideals and make selfish Christians and non-murderous Muslims.



 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 1:03 PM on December 2, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

timbrx
Yet you dismiss evolution because it conflicts with your religious views.
You mistake me. I don't dismiss evolution. If I did I wouldn't bother with this argument. No, I take evolution very seriously to be a threat if allowed to run roughshod over any other worldview.
You dismiss the FACT of Evolution (by denying its factuality). You take the Theory of Evolution as something wrong but serious.

You are free to believe what you want.
Yeah but...
I respect your beliefs as an individual.
...no. My beliefs could tell me that the women in your family are my god's gift to me. You don't have to respect that.

We have been mistakenly educated to respect beliefs. It's a silly thing.

derwood
Do you coniser ALL people with superior knowledge to you on any subject who correct you to be 'condescending asses', or just when it comes to evolution?
Only those who smugly categorize me according to some predetermined template while mocking my core beliefs and principals.
I love mocking people's beliefs, and i love it when they mock mine.

Do you believe me when i tell you that my mocking your beliefs doesn't mean that i don't respect you, timbrx?

My friends and i have a great time mocking each other.

The example of the "big three" mass murderers is relevant in that they each espoused evolution as their rationalization for their actions.
What about nuclear energy?

That must be a lie too, since they used it to blast people.

When they use gravity to discriminate against fat people, we'll join and say that gravity is a lie too. Just like when we denied races in order to make racism look weaker.
The intention was good, no doubt.

Evolution actually indicates that altruism is a beneficial survival trait.

Too bad common sense is not.
Yes indeed. Altruism is a survival trait in some circumstances. In some it's not.

We need to educate ourselves in order to keep selfishness at bay.

derwood
timbrx
But when individuals use it to enslave others than yes, it is a danger.
Like in biblical times?
Yes.
Hahaha! I love you, man!

We also have generations of people taught that certain types of people are evil and that God doesn't like them, so it is OK to hate them and be mean to them and to deny them equal rights.

Unfortunately true. As long as humans are in the equation there will be ignorance and abuse in EVERY institution.
True. But education can make us better. Specially knowing the cause and mechanisms of our selfishness, violence and biases.

By the way, the Bible talks crap about many people in quite a judgmental and discriminating way.

derwood
Right - leave edumacation up to the kids parents!  Parents dropped out fo grade school?  So what!  Parents are members of Aryan Nation?  So what!

Parents are Tea Bagger anti-gubment nuts who think T. McVeigh si a hero?  So what!
And who determines what's right and whats wrong?
Certainly not Science!

Or Music.

Or Mathematics.

Religions have been doing quite a poor work so far, except for a few oriental ones that are quite good.

Timbrx, you know Evolution isn't about right and wrong. Please, stop saying that.

According to ToE, it is merely what is pragmatic for the individual.
That's a strawman, timbrx. Please, take that back. The ToE doesn't speak about it. That would be a personal interpretation.

Steven Pinker believes it's possible that there are absolute moral principles. That, just like 1+1=2 is a human construct that has a connection with the structure of the Universe, perhaps that's also true about some moral principles. Perhaps something like the "golden rule" is engraved in the structure of the Universe.

Who knows...

That's the only way Science could talk about "right" and "wrong" in a real sense, but it would still be playing with words.

No absolute morality. No absolute anything except for the Power of Almighty Govt.
Gravity doesn't pass an absolute morality either.
Wanna ban Gravity too?

derwood
Does anyone else find it weird how frequently a love of guns goes hand in hand with religious fervor?
I'd say it goes hand in hand with the love of liberty and the constitution.
Isn't the word of Jesus above that?
Will you kill a person just for the love of the Constitution, in spite of everything Jesus said?

I think it's weird that liberal leftists think it's weird for conservatives to want to "conserve" their rights.
I think he didn't say "conservatives".



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 2:21 PM on December 2, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 1:03 PM on December 2, 2009 :
Posted by derwood at Wed December 2, 2009 - 09:15 AM

You declared that you believe in YECism because it comports with your biblical ideology.  That seems to me to be a pretty poor reason to reject an entire field of scientific studfy AND all of its ancillaries.

Maybe it is. But I won't separate myself from my beliefs just to fit in to a secular worldview.  

I do wonder why religionists hide behind this 'worldview' argument so often - could it be that this is all they really have?

  I find kowtowing to the prejudices, myths, cultural mores, and folklore of a pre-technological tribe of goat herders and nomads to be irrational and the product of incompetence and ignorance.

You are not forced to by a government run educational system.

We are de facto 'forced' to accept such nonsense if we are to be public servants.  We are de facto 'forced to' when taking oaths or using money or attending public events.
But your implicit hatred and paranoia of 'big gubment' is noted.

Frankly I'm not being forced to put my child into that system either but I believe I would be if I don't stand now for my liberties.
So - did you stand up for your liberties when Bush was reading your emails and listening in on your phone conversations?

So you favor 'local control' of school curricula?  What if the majority of those in your locality favor teaching Aryan Nation propaganda - that OK with you?  That the Holocaust never happened?  It would not be big gubment, after all.  Or do you favor homeschooling - which I see as a tool for the indoctrination of children rather than their education.  If you homeschool, I do hope that you do not use that Werner charlatan's book...

However, let us look at your position on the issue at hand - you I take it that you are not a PhD holding science expert like Lester (the guy who did not know what phenotype means) - I also take it that you do not have a background in any biological science or any science related to evolution (e.g., geology, physics, etc.).

Well deduced.

Not that hard, actually.  But tell me - do you believe that Lester actually has a legitimate science related doctoral degree?

Yet you dismiss evolution because it conflicts with your religious views.

You mistake me. I don't dismiss evolution. If I did I wouldn't bother with this argument. No, I take evolution very seriously to be a threat if allowed to run roughshod over any other worldview.

I meant that you dismiss it as a legitimate, reality-based, evidence-backed scientific theory.  
But you be sure to let us all know when 'In Darwin We Trust" is printed on our money, won't you?

Am I to kowtow to your uninformed opinion unquestioningly because a majority of scientifically illiterate Americans agree with your position?
Because you find it comforting to your worldview?

Not at all. You are free to believe what you want. I respect your beliefs as an individual.

It is so cute how you've decided to come across as this meek 'victim' instead of the pompous know it all that you usually do, but I don't think anyone is buying it.

Why should I kowtow to your religio-political views, especially when it is your ideology that governs your positions, not the evidence?

I applaud your accomplishments. Your credibility as a learned man have never been in question even if your style has.


Um, sure, OK...  I thought you folks venerated substance over symbolism?

As I said, I don't expect you to compromise your beliefs because of my poor opinions. I don't know all of the answers and could never even pretend to stand equal in your field.

And yet all we need to do is look at the things you've written in this forum to see that all of that is hokum.

You most certainly present your 'opinions' as objective and invincible fact.  A sampling:


The entire premise is built on the presupposition of evolution. Human - ape similarities does not support evolution. Evolution supports evolution. And since evolution is supported only by its own presupposition than evolution is unsupported.


Brilliant.  Only the folksy wisdom of a bible believing christian could be so clear and logically consistent.


I don't believe that change from one kind  to another has ever been demonstrated because it has never occurred.


And you know it has never occurred, well, because you 'interpret' the same evidence we do a 'different way', i.e., the RIGHT WAY!  
Right?


However if there's one thing I've learned from these debates is that ALL of us are governed by our individual ideology.


So YECs frequently assert.  And so you have rested your pop psychological diagnoses upon your ideology:

Either way it is a false assumption based on the EVOS doctrine that only the uneducated and brainwashed since birth could possibly believe in creation. Did you go to college? Of course. But you weren't indoctrinated into this elitist liberal mentality. You weren't railroaded in your beliefs to think the way professors think so that you could make grades and not be labeled as "peculiar" by your peers. You are a totally free thinker. Right? Wrong. You were shaped by your environment the same as everyone else. You elitists love to pat each other on the back and congratulate each other for your superior intellects while us uneducated backwoods hicks make fools of ourselves by expressing beliefs that put us outside of the "mainstream" of society....


Am I a member of the elite?  Yes, by definition:

elite, élite [ɪˈliːt eɪ-]
n
1. (sometimes functioning as plural) the most powerful, rich, gifted, or educated members of a group, community, etc.

I am one of about 1% of the U.S. population that has an earned research doctoral degree.  

But I am not powerful or rich.  By definition, however, a number of people that I am sure you admire and agree with are most certainly of the elite.  Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, Cheney, etc. - all elite.

Am I an elitist:

e·lit·ism or é·lit·ism (-ltzm, -l-)
n.
1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.

to a far lesser extent, perhaps, I don't expect 'favored' treatment, but I think it is common sense that those lacking relevant knowledge of a subject that I possess expertise in would defer to my opinions on the matter.  That is not to say that I think I am always right about anything - no, I leave such hubris to internet creationists - but in matters in which I am an 'expert', common sense  and humility dictate that one lacking such expertise should defer, just as I would defer on matters like geology, physics, economics, etc. to those with legitimate expertise in such areas.  Then, I am just a liberal elitist.

Again, those that I am sure you admire ooze elitism from every pore, for surely Palin, Limbaugh, the folks at ICR, etc.. are elitists in the extreme.

But you've got us all pegged:

The problem here is that the liberal mind functions differently than the conservative mind. Liberals love to tell others how to live and think while blasting anyone who lives and thinks differently.


Now, tell me again how your pals treat homosexuals?  Minorities?  Those you brand 'elitists'?  What your opinons of 'librals' are?

You people are bigoted and intolerant in the extreme and are so blinded by your delusions of grandeur that you can't even see it.

See above.
And the new Republican 'purity' test?
I especially liked that last sentence  - very projective.  Yeah, I had 12 credits of psych in college - oops, I forgot about your apparent hatred of what you called "higher education".  After all, those of us who actually took the time to become educated on a subject, maybe even gain some expertise on a subject, are just a bunch of elitist eggheads who never do anything good.
Right?

Why should I NOT correct your erroneous claims when I kow them to be erroneous?  Why should I allow you to assert falsehoods when I know they are false?  So as not to hurt your feelings?  So you won't call me names and consider me 'arrogant' and 'condescending'?

By all means correct my errors with regards to what is known. But don't dictate to me what my conclusions should be.

And yet you reject all such corrections, i.e., you believe that you cannot possibly be wrong on any of your pontifications.  If you misunderstand the evidence, then how can your conclusions be rational?  
I am sure you really thought you were 'right' and really onto something when you wrote this to me:

What if it, say, pulls on the anus from outside of the anal canal? Like when a dog twitches his tail to cut off a crap? Or like when humans do likewise to their coccyx?

Except that humans CANNOT do that to their coccyx.  


By the way - it was in that thread that you called me a condescending ass.  Looking at the replies in that thread, it seems that your primary beef with my posting style was that I showed that you were wrong on pretty much everything you claimed.  Sure, I was a bit sarcastic, but your namecalling was totally unwarranted.  But it was a good pretense for you to use to start ignoring me.


Anyway, allow me:

The bible supports creation. And since creation is supported only by the presupposition that the source that dictates it to be so is absolutely true then creation is unsupported.

Do you coniser ALL people with superior knowledge to you on any subject who correct you to be 'condescending asses', or just when it comes to evolution?

Only those who smugly categorize me according to some predetermined template while mocking my core beliefs and principals.


Like what you've done to 'liberals' and 'elitists'?

You reap what you sow.
wisp
Even if that was true, it's irrelevant when you try to decide if Evolution is right or wrong.

Is it? If it's right than murder is okay as long as I'm in charge (survival of the fittest a la Hitler, Stalin, Mao)



Like here....

You, like so many in the world (and not just creationists, I am sad to say) are incorrectly interpreting "survival of the fittest" to mean "might makes right".  
I know, I know - I am being an arrogant elitist for correcting your erroneous belief.

Of course, what of the Christian missionaries who were responsible for the slaughter of indiginouis peoples for the crime of not wanting to convert?  What of the grand inquisitors who seemed to delight in torturing and murdering thousands because they might not have been Christian enough?

Sadly the depravity of man knows no bounds. I'm certainly not going to defend the forcing of religion in any form. That is why I'm here. I believe that the ToE has enough "religious" in it to merit resistance.

And you would know, of course.  What is 'religious' in ToE?
Lets see if - before you start ignoring me again - you can actually articulate a legitimate argument that would convince a skeptic.  

The example of the "big three" mass murderers is relevant in that they each espoused evolution as their rationalization for their actions.

Did they, now?  Can you support that with something other than the unsupported polemicist nonsense in Weikart's books?  Maybe a section from one of their speeches or writings saying something along the lines of 'I do this in the name of evolution' or 'evolution dictates that this be done'.  Or is it all a matter of you folks 'interpreting' the 'evidence' the 'right way'?

Evolution actually indicates that altruism is a beneficial survival trait.

Too bad common sense is not. At least survival traits can be learned.  

And all too often, common sense is neither, even when it is claimed.
orion
Timbrx - you're not a conspiracy theorist, are you?

I believe that Satan conspires against humanity and people are tools.

Had you considered the possibility that people like YOU might be the ones being used by Satan?

Sure. Satan loves causing confusion especially in the church.

Then how is it that you are so sure of your position?

But when individuals use it to enslave others than yes, it is a danger.

Like in biblical times?

Yes.

Do you hold the same disdain then for Christianity (or at least the impetus for it) as you do for other 'religions'?

We also have generations of people taught that certain types of people are evil and that God doesn't like them, so it is OK to hate them and be mean to them and to deny them equal rights.

Unfortunately true. As long as humans are in the equation there will be ignorance and abuse in EVERY institution.

And yet you single out just one for your bile.

What liberties of your's does accepting evolution impinge upon?

Not accepting evolution does not impinge upon any liberty of mine as of yet. However evolutionary thought in government is poised to impinge greatly on all of our liberties even as soon as January 2010 if congress passes the so called health care reform act.


Right - because health care is a direct descendant of evolutionary thought - helping others with their medical problems is totally evolutionary and anti-Christian.  Why, it is my understanding that Jesus actually KILLED the sick and di dnot care about them at all.  I think there is a line in the bible wherein Jesus orders a brother to kill his own for not being able to pay his hospital bill.

But wait - I thought you folks like to declare that murderers justify their crimes with evolution?  

So now not only is evolution resonsible for socialism AND fascism, but now it is responsible for murder AND health care?

Wow...

I can only imagine the gyrations that the right-wing mind must go through to justify so many internally inconsistent and contradictory beliefs all at once.


Have you ever heard of Thomas Jefferson?

He re-wrote the bible to get rid of the superfluous bits.  You can read about it here.

Or read his letter to the Danbury Baptists?

He makes it pretty clear that the 1st Amendment was intended to keep church and state seperate.

I'll bet you think America is a Christian Nation, too, right?

The founders saw it differently:

 Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;

- Treaty with Tripoli (1796-1797)

Please note the date.  Who was president then?  Who was in Congress then?

The Treaty of Tripoli was consistent with a limited Federal government. It was intended that the states decide whether or not to consider themselves Christian.

Um... No, it simply declared that THIS NATION was not IN ANY WAY founded on the Christian religion.  It says nothing of states.
Do you know about the concept whereby a state's laws cannot breach the U.S. Constitution's laws?  State's rights extend only so far as the U.S. Constitution.


In those days the congressmen actually represented their respective states and understood this. This treaty, though clever, was infective in prevent war.

By clever, what do you mean?  Were the founders in Congress at the time and President Washington unaware of the basis for the 'founding' of this nation, or were they lying to the Tripolians?

timbrx:
No, it was the intent of the founders to keep government out of the affairs of the church. "Congress shall make no law respecting (with respect to) the establishment of a religion nor the restriction thereof." There is no such phrase "separation of church and state" in the constitution.

Context is a wonderful thing.

Indeed it is. So why is the federal govt. intruding into the affairs of states?

I was referring to Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists wherein he made it quite clear that his intention was to create a wall of seperation between church and state.  
And again that whole Article. VI.
Clause 2 thing:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.


Right - leave edumacation up to the kids parents!  Parents dropped out fo grade school?  So what!  Parents are members of Aryan Nation?  So what!

Parents are Tea Bagger anti-gubment nuts who think T. McVeigh si a hero?  So what!

And who determines what's right and whats wrong?

And now the moral relativist speaks?

According to ToE, it is merely what is pragmatic for the individual.

It is?  Can you cite some passages to support that claim?  I am unaware of any tenet, clause, article, section, treatment, etc. under the umbrella of the ToE that even hits on human cultural or social behavior.   But you seem to think you know something I don't, so please inform me.

No absolute morality. No absolute anything except for the Power of Almighty Govt.  

Again, please show me where the ToE says anything about the government or rights or anything else.

I think we are all seeing that classic amalgam of religious zeal and right-wing extremism.
It is pretty common these days, sadly for the nation.

As far as individual liberty is concerned, it is the religious right that would take those iindividual liberties away!


timbrx:
Sort of like, say, gun control? Oh yea, that's the liberal left that wants to make sure that only criminals can have guns.


Yeah, thats what they want.

Yes it is! "If guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns" remember that? Try and outwit that logic.

Where do you think outlaws get most of their guns now?
Do you really think that the Wild West is what a modern society should try to emulate?  

Because we recently saw how well armed and armored people do when confronted with a gun wielding criminal.

Not because of gun laws but because of ridiculous P.C. restraints placed on police.

Right, that must have been it....  You hear that on FOX did you?

A criminal that was in jail and was let out by Huckabee because the criminal claimed he had found God.

Context, remember? Huckabee reduced his sentence to 48 yrs. making him eligible for parole. The Parole board let him out.

It was still Huckabee's action that led to his release.  He would not have even been eligible had it not been for the Huckster's religious fervor.

Does anyone else find it weird how frequently a love of guns goes hand in hand with religious fervor?

I'd say it goes hand in hand with the love of liberty and the constitution.

Right... Love of liberty, like we would all have in a one-party right-wing government...  But I don't think you folks really care all that mcuh for the Constitution.

I think it's weird that liberal leftists think it's weird for conservatives to want to "conserve" their rights.

I think it is weird that right-wingers get their panties in bunch every time a non-right wing nut gets elected and they go all paranoid.
Where was your concern about your 'rights' when Bush Co. was in office, squandering them away to enrich their cronies and send other people's kids off to die for them?

Looks like we are only some turbans away from YEC suicide bombers....

Context again. The followers of the "turban" believe that if they kill you they go to heaven.

You may want to look into the concept of 'martyrdom.'  I think you've been getting your edumucation on Islam from folks like Beck.

Hey - funny Beck line.  He was ranting about Obama's Afghanistan policy and he went on about how you have to trust your commanders and do what they want.  He invoked Lincoln, and explained how he had to fire commander after commander until he got one that worked for not doing their jobs because he listened to them....

Pardon my profane elitism, but Glen Beck is a fucking retard and anyone who thinks he is a 'patriot' is no better.

But I digress...

The followers of Christ believe that it is better to die so that YOU might go to heaven.

So when are you folks going to start offing yourselves?

One is utterly selfish, the other is utterly selfless. It's people who corrupt the ideals and make selfish Christians and non-murderous Muslims.

So, which is more selfish - wanting to allow interracial marriage or to outlaw it?  
Wanting to outlaw homosexuality or wanting to allow such folk to live at peace with the same rights as others?  And so on...

(Edited by derwood 12/2/2009 at 6:44 PM).

(Edited by derwood 12/2/2009 at 7:00 PM).


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 6:34 PM on December 2, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Derwood

Timbrx

The followers of Christ believe that it is better to die so that YOU might go to heaven.


So when are you folks going to start offing yourselves?


I have to admit - I laughed heartedly at that reply!  :0)

Derwood

So, which is more selfish - wanting to allow interracial marriage or to outlaw it?  
Wanting to outlaw homosexuality or wanting to allow such folk to live at peace with the same rights as others?  And so on...


Yes, I too would like to hear the righteous and liberty-loving Timbrx answer those questions.  Timbrx - why is it that the fundamentalist religious right (good God fearing Christians that they are) oppose those things, and those people?

Timbrx

Not accepting evolution does not impinge upon any liberty of mine as of yet. However evolutionary thought in government is poised to impinge greatly on all of our liberties even as soon as January 2010 if congress passes the so called health care reform act.


I have to ask this - what on earth does evolution have to do with health care reform?

Timbrx - I really do fail to see what evolution has to do with morality.  'Big 3 murderers'?  You're referring to Hitler, Stalin, and .... ?  But Hitler and Stalin didn't care much for ToE.  

Say, have you been watching 'Expelled!' again?  Or maybe reading Ann Coulter?

I know quite a few people who accept evolution as a fact, yet they are among the most law-abidding and peaceful people that you could find anywhere.  But according to Creationist dogma, they should be just the opposite - lawless, uncaring, unloving, crime-ridden, etc.

You (and Lester, who has expressed similar opinions) simply don't have a clue what you're talking about.  That you are once again making empty assertions without thinking.

Morality does not come from a belief in God, or by reading the Bible.  In fact, the Bible contains numerous passages attributed to God that would clearly be considered immoral, indeed hideous, today - passages in which God clearly condones rape, enslavement, and murder.

Likewise, immorality does not come from evolution.  Evolution is just a fact of nature that we observe.  Yes, we know you object to that last statement.  But your objections don't make evolution untrue.  
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 9:57 PM on December 2, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Derwood

Timbrx

The followers of Christ believe that it is better to die so that YOU might go to heaven.


So when are you folks going to start offing yourselves?


I have to admit - I laughed heartedly at that reply!  :0)

Derwood

So, which is more selfish - wanting to allow interracial marriage or to outlaw it?  
Wanting to outlaw homosexuality or wanting to allow such folk to live at peace with the same rights as others?  And so on...


Yes, I too would like to hear the righteous and liberty-loving Timbrx answer those questions.  Timbrx - why is it that the fundamentalist religious right (good God fearing Christians that they are) oppose those things, and those people?

Timbrx

Not accepting evolution does not impinge upon any liberty of mine as of yet. However evolutionary thought in government is poised to impinge greatly on all of our liberties even as soon as January 2010 if congress passes the so called health care reform act.


I have to ask this - what on earth does evolution have to do with health care reform?

Timbrx - I really do fail to see what evolution has to do with morality.  'Big 3 murderers'?  You're referring to Hitler, Stalin, and .... ?  But Hitler and Stalin didn't care much for ToE.  

Say, have you been watching 'Expelled!' again?  Or maybe reading Ann Coulter?

I know quite a few people who accept evolution as a fact, yet they are among the most law-abidding and peaceful people that you could find anywhere.  But according to Creationist dogma, they should be just the opposite - lawless, uncaring, unloving, crime-ridden, etc.

You (and Lester, who has expressed similar opinions) simply don't have a clue what you're talking about.  That you are once again making empty assertions without thinking.

Morality does not come from a belief in God, or by reading the Bible.  In fact, the Bible contains numerous passages attributed to God that would clearly be considered immoral, indeed hideous, today - passages in which God clearly condones rape, enslavement, and murder.

Of course, I don't think most Christians would condone such actions.  Yet people point to the Bible as being a source of their moral guidance.

Go figure.

Likewise, immorality does not come from evolution.  Evolution is just a fact of nature that we observe.  Yes, we know you object to that last statement.  But your objections don't make evolution untrue.  




 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 10:28 PM on December 2, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

timbrx
The followers of Christ believe that it is better to die so that YOU might go to heaven.
And guns. Lots of guns.

Perhaps you want to tell people "I absolve you from your sins!", and then BANG, thus sending them to Heaven before they had any chance to commit any new sins.

Or holy ice bullets!!!
Or holy bullets, easier still...

derwood
So now not only is evolution resonsible for socialism AND fascism, but now it is responsible for murder AND health care?

Wow...

I can only imagine the gyrations that the right-wing mind must go through to justify so many internally inconsistent and contradictory beliefs all at once.
Seemingly Pascal makes them wager all the time (even though it doesn't seem clear at all that 'believing' would grant you any god's favor, or that the real god doesn't actually favor skepticism).

They would do well purchasing an E-Monk.

This is a fabulous labor-saving device that can do all your believing for you. The de luxe model is advertised as 'Capable of believing things they wouldn't believe in Salt Lake City'.

derwood
timbrx
derwood
Am I to kowtow to your uninformed opinion unquestioningly because a majority of scientifically illiterate Americans agree with your position?
Because you find it comforting to your worldview?
Not at all. You are free to believe what you want. I respect your beliefs as an individual.
It is so cute how you've decided to come across as this meek 'victim' instead of the pompous know it all that you usually do, but I don't think anyone is buying it.
I am. I don't think it comes easy for him to respect our 'beliefs', but i think he tries, because that's what he'd like for himself.

Nevertheless, sorry, timbrx. I don't respect your beliefs.

Perhaps everyone has some erroneous beliefs, and i respect none of them.

timbrx
However if there's one thing I've learned from these debates is that ALL of us are governed by our individual ideology.
Not when deciding what has scientific merit.

Well, perhaps you would call our will to decide what has scientific merit 'an ideology'...

The ToE's aptitude to produce correct predictions (you're blind if you don't see them) and useful techniques is akin to the technicians' ability to produce, say, computers.

Yet you don't call those 'ideologies'.

timbrx
By all means correct my errors with regards to what is known. But don't dictate to me what my conclusions should be.
Funny. In one occasion someone told me something quite similar when i told him that the twenty first century had begun in 2001 and not in 2000.

I don't see a difference. If i tell you that the first year was 1 (not 0), and that if you add one century (100 years) you get 101, am i obliged to stop there, if you don't make the little extra effort to figure the right conclusion?

Actually, when i show you ANY piece of evidence you could say that i'm passing my own conclusions.
There's no way out of that!



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:13 AM on December 3, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

wisp:
Nevertheless, sorry, timbrx. I don't respect your beliefs.


I guess what I mean to say is that I respect your natural right to form your own beliefs irregardless of the content of said belief.

That said, I do respect the content of your beliefs even though I disagree with your conclusion.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 10:54 AM on December 3, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I guess what I mean to say is that I respect your natural right to form your own beliefs irregardless of the content of said belief.
Ok.

Perhaps it's just me, but i don't believe in anything like "natural rights". I went to Law school, but i never believed in anything like "rights" (which comes to show you that i wasn't indoctrinated).

Those are just empty concepts that each person fills with whatever they like (like "freedom" or "responsibility").

I have shown people things they didn't want to see in order to change their beliefs. I have succeeded. Some of them were grateful.

If people have that right, i'll step on it cheerfully. Because people's beliefs are not among my highest values.

I'm a pusher.

If i don't try to show you how ridiculous your beliefs are, chances are i don't care about you.

And i like being treated the same way, so i'm following Jesus' advice. =D


(Edited by wisp 12/3/2009 at 11:53 AM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 11:41 AM on December 3, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This is one of the reasons why I find creationists so frustrating - they ask you something, you answer, they ignore the answer.


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 12:57 PM on December 4, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Timbrx

The example of the "big three" mass murderers is relevant in that they each espoused evolution as their rationalization for their actions.


Hmmm, I wonder where he got this lie from?  Interestingly, I found a good YouTube speaker on the subject of Creationist dishonesty.

Aron Ra:

How could Creationism not be dishonest

This guy is good!

Notice on the 2nd half of the other video, 'Cameron and Comfort dissing Darwin', his comments regarding Hitler.  Of course, Comfort's comments about Darwin are totally untrue as well.

(Edited by orion 12/4/2009 at 11:51 PM).
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 11:43 PM on December 4, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yeah, Aron Ra is more than good.

Did you check his series "Foundational falsehood of creationism # ___"?

They are the best!



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 04:47 AM on December 5, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wisp

Did you check his series "Foundational falsehood of creationism # ___"?

They are the best!


Ah!  You are apparently already familiar with Aron Ra.  I might have known!  :0)

Yes, in the process of watching them now.  Excellent.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 09:22 AM on December 5, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Oh, yes!

Fencer just posted one of that series in the thread "numbers". The 8th video, about mutations and "information".

I used his video about taxonomy to show Lester that we ARE apes and animals under any scientific definition we choose to adopt.

There's genius behind that beard.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:18 PM on December 5, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wisp

There's genius behind that beard.


I agree.  I looked him up - I believe he's in the process of getting his degree in paleontology.

 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 1:29 PM on December 5, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Man, I hate it when creationists ignore demolitions of their piffle...


Quote from timbrx at 1:03 PM on December 2, 2009 :
Posted by derwood at Wed December 2, 2009 - 09:15 AM

You declared that you believe in YECism because it comports with your biblical ideology.  That seems to me to be a pretty poor reason to reject an entire field of scientific studfy AND all of its ancillaries.

Maybe it is. But I won't separate myself from my beliefs just to fit in to a secular worldview.  

I do wonder why religionists hide behind this 'worldview' argument so often - could it be that this is all they really have?

  I find kowtowing to the prejudices, myths, cultural mores, and folklore of a pre-technological tribe of goat herders and nomads to be irrational and the product of incompetence and ignorance.

You are not forced to by a government run educational system.

We are de facto 'forced' to accept such nonsense if we are to be public servants.  We are de facto 'forced to' when taking oaths or using money or attending public events.
But your implicit hatred and paranoia of 'big gubment' is noted.

Frankly I'm not being forced to put my child into that system either but I believe I would be if I don't stand now for my liberties.
So - did you stand up for your liberties when Bush was reading your emails and listening in on your phone conversations?

So you favor 'local control' of school curricula?  What if the majority of those in your locality favor teaching Aryan Nation propaganda - that OK with you?  That the Holocaust never happened?  It would not be big gubment, after all.  Or do you favor homeschooling - which I see as a tool for the indoctrination of children rather than their education.  If you homeschool, I do hope that you do not use that Werner charlatan's book...

However, let us look at your position on the issue at hand - you I take it that you are not a PhD holding science expert like Lester (the guy who did not know what phenotype means) - I also take it that you do not have a background in any biological science or any science related to evolution (e.g., geology, physics, etc.).

Well deduced.

Not that hard, actually.  But tell me - do you believe that Lester actually has a legitimate science related doctoral degree?

Yet you dismiss evolution because it conflicts with your religious views.

You mistake me. I don't dismiss evolution. If I did I wouldn't bother with this argument. No, I take evolution very seriously to be a threat if allowed to run roughshod over any other worldview.

I meant that you dismiss it as a legitimate, reality-based, evidence-backed scientific theory.  
But you be sure to let us all know when 'In Darwin We Trust" is printed on our money, won't you?

Am I to kowtow to your uninformed opinion unquestioningly because a majority of scientifically illiterate Americans agree with your position?
Because you find it comforting to your worldview?

Not at all. You are free to believe what you want. I respect your beliefs as an individual.

It is so cute how you've decided to come across as this meek 'victim' instead of the pompous know it all that you usually do, but I don't think anyone is buying it.

Why should I kowtow to your religio-political views, especially when it is your ideology that governs your positions, not the evidence?

I applaud your accomplishments. Your credibility as a learned man have never been in question even if your style has.


Um, sure, OK...  I thought you folks venerated substance over symbolism?

As I said, I don't expect you to compromise your beliefs because of my poor opinions. I don't know all of the answers and could never even pretend to stand equal in your field.

And yet all we need to do is look at the things you've written in this forum to see that all of that is hokum.

You most certainly present your 'opinions' as objective and invincible fact.  A sampling:


The entire premise is built on the presupposition of evolution. Human - ape similarities does not support evolution. Evolution supports evolution. And since evolution is supported only by its own presupposition than evolution is unsupported.


Brilliant.  Only the folksy wisdom of a bible believing christian could be so clear and logically consistent.


I don't believe that change from one kind  to another has ever been demonstrated because it has never occurred.


And you know it has never occurred, well, because you 'interpret' the same evidence we do a 'different way', i.e., the RIGHT WAY!  
Right?


However if there's one thing I've learned from these debates is that ALL of us are governed by our individual ideology.


So YECs frequently assert.  And so you have rested your pop psychological diagnoses upon your ideology:

Either way it is a false assumption based on the EVOS doctrine that only the uneducated and brainwashed since birth could possibly believe in creation. Did you go to college? Of course. But you weren't indoctrinated into this elitist liberal mentality. You weren't railroaded in your beliefs to think the way professors think so that you could make grades and not be labeled as "peculiar" by your peers. You are a totally free thinker. Right? Wrong. You were shaped by your environment the same as everyone else. You elitists love to pat each other on the back and congratulate each other for your superior intellects while us uneducated backwoods hicks make fools of ourselves by expressing beliefs that put us outside of the "mainstream" of society....


Am I a member of the elite?  Yes, by definition:

elite, élite [ɪˈliːt eɪ-]
n
1. (sometimes functioning as plural) the most powerful, rich, gifted, or educated members of a group, community, etc.

I am one of about 1% of the U.S. population that has an earned research doctoral degree.  

But I am not powerful or rich.  By definition, however, a number of people that I am sure you admire and agree with are most certainly of the elite.  Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, Cheney, etc. - all elite.

Am I an elitist:

e·lit·ism or é·lit·ism (-ltzm, -l-)
n.
1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.

to a far lesser extent, perhaps, I don't expect 'favored' treatment, but I think it is common sense that those lacking relevant knowledge of a subject that I possess expertise in would defer to my opinions on the matter.  That is not to say that I think I am always right about anything - no, I leave such hubris to internet creationists - but in matters in which I am an 'expert', common sense  and humility dictate that one lacking such expertise should defer, just as I would defer on matters like geology, physics, economics, etc. to those with legitimate expertise in such areas.  Then, I am just a liberal elitist.

Again, those that I am sure you admire ooze elitism from every pore, for surely Palin, Limbaugh, the folks at ICR, etc.. are elitists in the extreme.

But you've got us all pegged:

The problem here is that the liberal mind functions differently than the conservative mind. Liberals love to tell others how to live and think while blasting anyone who lives and thinks differently.


Now, tell me again how your pals treat homosexuals?  Minorities?  Those you brand 'elitists'?  What your opinons of 'librals' are?

You people are bigoted and intolerant in the extreme and are so blinded by your delusions of grandeur that you can't even see it.

See above.
And the new Republican 'purity' test?
I especially liked that last sentence  - very projective.  Yeah, I had 12 credits of psych in college - oops, I forgot about your apparent hatred of what you called "higher education".  After all, those of us who actually took the time to become educated on a subject, maybe even gain some expertise on a subject, are just a bunch of elitist eggheads who never do anything good.
Right?

Why should I NOT correct your erroneous claims when I kow them to be erroneous?  Why should I allow you to assert falsehoods when I know they are false?  So as not to hurt your feelings?  So you won't call me names and consider me 'arrogant' and 'condescending'?

By all means correct my errors with regards to what is known. But don't dictate to me what my conclusions should be.

And yet you reject all such corrections, i.e., you believe that you cannot possibly be wrong on any of your pontifications.  If you misunderstand the evidence, then how can your conclusions be rational?  
I am sure you really thought you were 'right' and really onto something when you wrote this to me:

What if it, say, pulls on the anus from outside of the anal canal? Like when a dog twitches his tail to cut off a crap? Or like when humans do likewise to their coccyx?

Except that humans CANNOT do that to their coccyx.  


By the way - it was in that thread that you called me a condescending ass.  Looking at the replies in that thread, it seems that your primary beef with my posting style was that I showed that you were wrong on pretty much everything you claimed.  Sure, I was a bit sarcastic, but your namecalling was totally unwarranted.  But it was a good pretense for you to use to start ignoring me.


Anyway, allow me:

The bible supports creation. And since creation is supported only by the presupposition that the source that dictates it to be so is absolutely true then creation is unsupported.

Do you coniser ALL people with superior knowledge to you on any subject who correct you to be 'condescending asses', or just when it comes to evolution?

Only those who smugly categorize me according to some predetermined template while mocking my core beliefs and principals.


Like what you've done to 'liberals' and 'elitists'?

You reap what you sow.
wisp
Even if that was true, it's irrelevant when you try to decide if Evolution is right or wrong.

Is it? If it's right than murder is okay as long as I'm in charge (survival of the fittest a la Hitler, Stalin, Mao)



Like here....

You, like so many in the world (and not just creationists, I am sad to say) are incorrectly interpreting "survival of the fittest" to mean "might makes right".  
I know, I know - I am being an arrogant elitist for correcting your erroneous belief.

Of course, what of the Christian missionaries who were responsible for the slaughter of indiginouis peoples for the crime of not wanting to convert?  What of the grand inquisitors who seemed to delight in torturing and murdering thousands because they might not have been Christian enough?

Sadly the depravity of man knows no bounds. I'm certainly not going to defend the forcing of religion in any form. That is why I'm here. I believe that the ToE has enough "religious" in it to merit resistance.

And you would know, of course.  What is 'religious' in ToE?
Lets see if - before you start ignoring me again - you can actually articulate a legitimate argument that would convince a skeptic.  

The example of the "big three" mass murderers is relevant in that they each espoused evolution as their rationalization for their actions.

Did they, now?  Can you support that with something other than the unsupported polemicist nonsense in Weikart's books?  Maybe a section from one of their speeches or writings saying something along the lines of 'I do this in the name of evolution' or 'evolution dictates that this be done'.  Or is it all a matter of you folks 'interpreting' the 'evidence' the 'right way'?

Evolution actually indicates that altruism is a beneficial survival trait.

Too bad common sense is not. At least survival traits can be learned.  

And all too often, common sense is neither, even when it is claimed.
orion
Timbrx - you're not a conspiracy theorist, are you?

I believe that Satan conspires against humanity and people are tools.

Had you considered the possibility that people like YOU might be the ones being used by Satan?

Sure. Satan loves causing confusion especially in the church.

Then how is it that you are so sure of your position?

But when individuals use it to enslave others than yes, it is a danger.

Like in biblical times?

Yes.

Do you hold the same disdain then for Christianity (or at least the impetus for it) as you do for other 'religions'?

We also have generations of people taught that certain types of people are evil and that God doesn't like them, so it is OK to hate them and be mean to them and to deny them equal rights.

Unfortunately true. As long as humans are in the equation there will be ignorance and abuse in EVERY institution.

And yet you single out just one for your bile.

What liberties of your's does accepting evolution impinge upon?

Not accepting evolution does not impinge upon any liberty of mine as of yet. However evolutionary thought in government is poised to impinge greatly on all of our liberties even as soon as January 2010 if congress passes the so called health care reform act.


Right - because health care is a direct descendant of evolutionary thought - helping others with their medical problems is totally evolutionary and anti-Christian.  Why, it is my understanding that Jesus actually KILLED the sick and di dnot care about them at all.  I think there is a line in the bible wherein Jesus orders a brother to kill his own for not being able to pay his hospital bill.

But wait - I thought you folks like to declare that murderers justify their crimes with evolution?  

So now not only is evolution resonsible for socialism AND fascism, but now it is responsible for murder AND health care?

Wow...

I can only imagine the gyrations that the right-wing mind must go through to justify so many internally inconsistent and contradictory beliefs all at once.


Have you ever heard of Thomas Jefferson?

He re-wrote the bible to get rid of the superfluous bits.  You can read about it here.

Or read his letter to the Danbury Baptists?

He makes it pretty clear that the 1st Amendment was intended to keep church and state seperate.

I'll bet you think America is a Christian Nation, too, right?

The founders saw it differently:

 Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;

- Treaty with Tripoli (1796-1797)

Please note the date.  Who was president then?  Who was in Congress then?

The Treaty of Tripoli was consistent with a limited Federal government. It was intended that the states decide whether or not to consider themselves Christian.

Um... No, it simply declared that THIS NATION was not IN ANY WAY founded on the Christian religion.  It says nothing of states.
Do you know about the concept whereby a state's laws cannot breach the U.S. Constitution's laws?  State's rights extend only so far as the U.S. Constitution.


In those days the congressmen actually represented their respective states and understood this. This treaty, though clever, was infective in prevent war.

By clever, what do you mean?  Were the founders in Congress at the time and President Washington unaware of the basis for the 'founding' of this nation, or were they lying to the Tripolians?

timbrx:
No, it was the intent of the founders to keep government out of the affairs of the church. "Congress shall make no law respecting (with respect to) the establishment of a religion nor the restriction thereof." There is no such phrase "separation of church and state" in the constitution.

Context is a wonderful thing.

Indeed it is. So why is the federal govt. intruding into the affairs of states?

I was referring to Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists wherein he made it quite clear that his intention was to create a wall of seperation between church and state.  
And again that whole Article. VI.
Clause 2 thing:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.


Right - leave edumacation up to the kids parents!  Parents dropped out fo grade school?  So what!  Parents are members of Aryan Nation?  So what!

Parents are Tea Bagger anti-gubment nuts who think T. McVeigh si a hero?  So what!

And who determines what's right and whats wrong?

And now the moral relativist speaks?

According to ToE, it is merely what is pragmatic for the individual.

It is?  Can you cite some passages to support that claim?  I am unaware of any tenet, clause, article, section, treatment, etc. under the umbrella of the ToE that even hits on human cultural or social behavior.   But you seem to think you know something I don't, so please inform me.

No absolute morality. No absolute anything except for the Power of Almighty Govt.  

Again, please show me where the ToE says anything about the government or rights or anything else.

I think we are all seeing that classic amalgam of religious zeal and right-wing extremism.
It is pretty common these days, sadly for the nation.

As far as individual liberty is concerned, it is the religious right that would take those iindividual liberties away!


timbrx:
Sort of like, say, gun control? Oh yea, that's the liberal left that wants to make sure that only criminals can have guns.


Yeah, thats what they want.

Yes it is! "If guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns" remember that? Try and outwit that logic.

Where do you think outlaws get most of their guns now?
Do you really think that the Wild West is what a modern society should try to emulate?  

Because we recently saw how well armed and armored people do when confronted with a gun wielding criminal.

Not because of gun laws but because of ridiculous P.C. restraints placed on police.

Right, that must have been it....  You hear that on FOX did you?

A criminal that was in jail and was let out by Huckabee because the criminal claimed he had found God.

Context, remember? Huckabee reduced his sentence to 48 yrs. making him eligible for parole. The Parole board let him out.

It was still Huckabee's action that led to his release.  He would not have even been eligible had it not been for the Huckster's religious fervor.

Does anyone else find it weird how frequently a love of guns goes hand in hand with religious fervor?

I'd say it goes hand in hand with the love of liberty and the constitution.

Right... Love of liberty, like we would all have in a one-party right-wing government...  But I don't think you folks really care all that mcuh for the Constitution.

I think it's weird that liberal leftists think it's weird for conservatives to want to "conserve" their rights.

I think it is weird that right-wingers get their panties in bunch every time a non-right wing nut gets elected and they go all paranoid.
Where was your concern about your 'rights' when Bush Co. was in office, squandering them away to enrich their cronies and send other people's kids off to die for them?

Looks like we are only some turbans away from YEC suicide bombers....

Context again. The followers of the "turban" believe that if they kill you they go to heaven.

You may want to look into the concept of 'martyrdom.'  I think you've been getting your edumucation on Islam from folks like Beck.

Hey - funny Beck line.  He was ranting about Obama's Afghanistan policy and he went on about how you have to trust your commanders and do what they want.  He invoked Lincoln, and explained how he had to fire commander after commander until he got one that worked for not doing their jobs because he listened to them....

Pardon my profane elitism, but Glen Beck is a fucking retard and anyone who thinks he is a 'patriot' is no better.

But I digress...

The followers of Christ believe that it is better to die so that YOU might go to heaven.

So when are you folks going to start offing yourselves?

One is utterly selfish, the other is utterly selfless. It's people who corrupt the ideals and make selfish Christians and non-murderous Muslims.

So, which is more selfish - wanting to allow interracial marriage or to outlaw it?  
Wanting to outlaw homosexuality or wanting to allow such folk to live at peace with the same rights as others?  And so on...



-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 2:20 PM on December 28, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:





-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 08:52 AM on December 31, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:














-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:33 AM on December 31, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

timbrx at 4:56 PM on December 1, 2009:
I can see why you think I'm ridiculous now. But I'm okay with that. The way I see it, it matters more to me that I believe the earth is young than it matters to you that you believe the earth is old. Your livelihood may be connected to the earth being old but my eternity is connected to the earth being young. If I'm wrong I'll never know. If your wrong, well... there's hell to pay.


Actually, Mike's position is even more far fetched. It doesn't involve simply "accepting Jesus in his heart", but believing that the earth is young.

Why is that particular belief so important as to save your soul?

Where does that bipolarity (young Earth = Heaven, old Earth = Hell) come from?

And what's to "pay"???

Do i have to pay because i came across a giant amount of evidence?

Well, then why did you plant it there, Yahweh?

And, if there's evidence on the contrary, why did you harden my heart and blinded my eyes, Yahweh?

Why, after giving me wits and reason, did you come up with this???


And then this



What do you want from me, mighty Yahweh?


When you opened Mike's eyes, why didn't you give him good arguments?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:57 PM on January 12, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What happened? Did we not show them enough vestigials?

I remember that timbrx denied them categorically, and that Lester accepted them as devolution... And then it all ended up in the silence we've come to know so well.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 09:40 AM on July 1, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Remember this?

Timbrx denied vestigiality. Lester said it was devolution. I showed them their profound and meaningful disagreement, and they never acknowledged it.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 11:03 AM on September 22, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 11:03 AM on September 22, 2010 :
Remember this?

Timbrx denied vestigiality. Lester said it was devolution. I showed them their profound and meaningful disagreement, and they never acknowledged it.



Whats this?  YECs not in agreement on something?  Clearly YECism is IN CRISIS!



-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 11:38 AM on September 22, 2010 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.