GarthP2000

BAHH! Humbug!! (gives TommyZ a sno-cone)

Just something (that was emailed to me) to ponder, as Christmas (Happy Holidays? Kwanzaa? Winter Solstice?) comes yonder. >'Twas some weeks before Christmas, and all thru the town, >decorations were hung over trees not yet brown. >"Why the rush?" I did muse, "to be merry and gay, >when we've not even set our Thanksgiving buffet?" > >Yet the 'Christians' were out, and they dared to declare, >"You won't let us be Christians! It just isn't fair! >We want to hear 'Christmas' when we go to the stores, >To buy our big-screen TVs and dress our daughters like whores!" > >I puzzled a bit at their public distress; >Surely Jesus would not have endorsed such a mess? >It was He, after all, who was heard to intone, >"When you pray, go away, thou shalt do it alone!" >(Matthew 6:5-6) > >"You have every freedom in this land of ours, >To go pray in the courthouses, schools, even bars! >The problem, you see, is that if you had your druthers >You'd dictate the prayers that should be said by all others!" > >"But our nation," they cried, "is a Christian-y land, >We're being oppressed, you don't understand! >The Founding Fathers were God-fearing all, >They would want us to celebrate Mass at the mall!" > >I puzzled some more, for a cursory glance >Through the History books showed a very slim chance >That the great men who founded our Nation would care >If you're Christian or Jewish or something more rare! > >Washington, Jefferson, Adams, and Paine, >State-sponsored worship they all did disdain. >One can imagine just how much more >They would have detested religion pushed by a store! > >"Besides," I then thought, "I'm as Christian as you, >but have many friends - Atheist, Muslim, and Jew. >My 'Happy Holidays' doesn't slight your belief, >But acknowledges theirs - so what's your beef?" > >But my words of good sense fell on ignorant ears, >Who continued to rail against their imaginary fears. >So to you, dearest friends, these two words I transmit; >Happy Holidays to all - even stupid hypocrites. Enjoy!

Jonny! Welcome to the 'Big Mouth & Damn Proud of It Club'! Speaking as it's founding member.

Actually, the study, and the test that is based upon that study, is flawed. Why? Because it makes no differentiation between racism/bigotry and prejudice. We ALL have prejudice. ALL of us. ... We do NOT all have racism/bigotry. Now what is the difference between racism/bigotry and prejudice? Prejudice is simply cultural differences and preferences between us as individuals and as groups. Racial. National. Regional. Cultural. Musical. Art. Etc. We all have our preferences in all those areas and other areas. And as to whom we care to associate with, and even marry. For example, I do not want marry a black woman. It's simply not my preference to do so. Is that prejudice? Yep. Is it racism/bigotry? Nope. I like rock n roll a lot better than rap. Prejudice? Yup. Racism/bigotry? Nope. ... See? Where racism/bigotry comes into play is when malevolence and disregard for the human being enters the picture. In one of my above examples, IF I choose not to marry a black woman BECAUSE I view her as inferior, THEN it becomes racism/bigotry. One thing I notice about some of the people who do not make that distinction, is that they will use racism/bigotry as a kind of guilt-tripping control over other people, especially for the purpose of self-serving goals. I think that the lady lawyer in this case is a clear example of this.

Another point that maybe you happen to miss Jonny, and that is the factor of 'forgiveness' ain't something that is required in a _court of law_. You can't mix the court of law and personal forgiveness and expect them to be irrevocably intertwined. Personal forgiveness is ... personal. And if someone wants to 'take the high road' and forgive his transgressors in the legal system, well hey, that's his right, and maybe the perps might be shamed by it, and learn to do better. But to make that a kind of prerequisite in our legal system, ... ahhh, ..... no. As for one thing, it's not the state's job to shake its finger at us and go, "Now now now, shouldn't you *forgive*? What would Jesus do?", that sort of thing. Oh by the way, your taxes do not pay for civil suits. That is up to the 2 'contestants' in the matter. That is part of what the monetary part of the lawsuits cover. Now its true that the system needs some major sort of tort reform for sure, beginning with a cap upon what lawyers can leach---err I mean earn off of the settlements. I think it does in any event.

So you can't find "Believing that whatever happens is part of God's unfathomable will is not much different than believing in random chance." in the Bible. And your point is?

Ouch!

... So Sudo, ..... ya still eating chili?

Yee Gads! Come to think of it, David has a valid point here! Those *were* the good old days! Scenario: George W. Bush 1973: Dubya is somewhere off at some private college getting smacked up with cocaine and relishing over his lazy dayz in the Alabama National Guard with his frat buddies. 2006: Dubya is now President of the United States, has the country involved in a very costly and unpopular war, and has one of the lowest approval ratings of any president. :o Scenario: Garth's hair 1973: Garth is growing a head full o' hair like a hippy, and enjoys listening to an FM radio station that plays album rock. 2006: Garth is developing a serious male baldness pattern, and now has to use Turtle Wax for the increasing shiny area on the top of his head. Meanwhile there are no radio stations that play album rock anywhere to be found.

Well, then they wouldn't be creationists, not according to the biblical account in any event. But there are those who believe that God utilized the evolutionary process to 'create' the world.

No doubt the sources you exhibit have seen flaws in Darwin's version of the evolutionary theory. Where you fail is in your usage of them to debunk evolution as a whole. ... Like I said, the theory of evolution has grown and matured over the past 150 years, which would include the debunking of some of Darwin's interpretation of the evolutionary process. (Thought I'd try blue this time. :) ) And all you have done by the illustrating of Gould and Eldredge is to strengthen that argument. ... Because for one thing, why is then that Gould and Eldredge are still evolutionists? Hhmmmm? You're slipping up.

"http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/after/after.htm" ?? ROFLMAO!! No wonder the site sounded familiar! It is the famed Genesis Park. In the maintenace area of the site, look at the list of contributors. One of them (and he is one of the main ones) is Dr. Kent Hovind, that quack I was telling you about earlier. The same 'scientific' source who maintains that the speed of light slows down over time. The same 'scientific' source that maintains that the flood caused the Grand Canyon. The same 'scientific' source who accused people who accept evolution as 'worshiping time as God' simply because they pose the element of time over the millenia and the eons as to how evolution can work. If him and his supporters is what you can come up with to show why the 'evidence' supports Creationism, ..... This is like using TWI as a main source for honest biblical research! Well done! Thank you for my Laugh of the Day. .

"EF Schumacher" And that has to do with being 'mechanistic', ..... how? And as a result, with the science-faith conflict in this topic? :unsure:

Mechanistic? ........ or more skeptical and scrutinizing. *Especially* in regards to those of us who 'got took' by various religious individuals/groups who expect us to take their spiritual take on life at face value, or because of their claim that *they* knew what God's will was. ..... ..... why, I believe that is one thing that we have in common, Evan. That very similar kind of experience that we had in TWI.

Excellent point, Lindy! :) That is something that I didn't think of, but it is a valid distinction indeed.

Gee Mark, is this your attempt at trying to show how evolution and/or secular viewpoints are likened to a faith-based religion? <_< I think you can do better than that lame attempt. T-bone, You still fail to show how evolution is based on materialistic philosophy. If this philosophy did influence his evolutionary viewpoints like you seem to portray (all 'observations' aside <_< ), then the theory of evolution would have died with him, and others like him. Yet the fact that religious people of many different stripes accept evolution is still something you haven't addressed. Have you (or Evan for that matter) utilized your 'sharpened thinking' as far as that goes? Ok, how's this for but one example. In the biblical account (and this addresses both the Young Earth _and_ the Old Earth varieties, as well as any other variation of the biblical account), the sun, moon, and all the stars/planets are formed *after* the 'null and void' situation in Genesis 1:2. After. Which would make the sun, moon, and the stars/planets no older than approx. 6,000 years. (Remember, we aren't utilizing the Genesis account in a figurative/hyperbolic sense, as Creationism teaches that the account is literal). Yet *tons* of information/evidence/facts reveal that the sun, moon, and the stars/planets are all far older than 6,000 years. ... That example alone causes at least a serious question of doubt to be raised about the Creationist account. At the very least! ... Consider that as but one example; I can give others, but I now refer you to what just occurred to me in what you write in your last post as something that actually undermines creationism (as it is officially defined), rather than enhances it: The reason I believe this undermines, or at the very least puts pause to Creationism, is that Creationism requires a literal interpretation of the scripture. Ie., as it is written. Because once you put it in a figurative sense, Creationism is off the table. There are a good many Intelligent Design advocates who do this, as well as Christians who accept evolution as the physical means of creation. Ie., God did it, but He didn't do it according to the literal Genesis account or He did it via evolution. By the way, I submit that there is one thing you gotta admit about Darwin's philosophy. He would have never endeavored to manipulate the courts and the law to integrate that philosophy into the public school systems in such a dishonest manner like many Creationists do today with Creationism. For if their attempts are so honest, why would that Dover PA judge chastise them so severely like he did, hmmm?

Now you know and I know that philosophical materialism goes a helluva lot farther than that paragraph Darwin stated. Also keep in mind that evolution, ALL of it, the entire premise, is not based upon whatever philosophy/religion Darwin may or may not have had. Keep in mind that you have religious people of various persuasions and beliefs ranging from liberal to even conservative (like that judge in Dover PA) who accept the scientific viability and evidence of the evolutionary theory. Or what about all the geological/archeological/astronomical evidence/information that directly counters and contradicts the biblical account? You going to simply label that as 'philosophical materialism', and think that washes it away? If Darwin's views on philosophical materialism was the main thing Darwin had to go on for the theory of evolution, his theory would have died with him. But it hasn't. Instead, it has grown and matured over the past 150 years, all due to more and more scientific inquiry, research, and discovery of more evidence. This desperate measure to tie evolution to some secular/so called 'atheistic' philosophy is just that: desperate. First religious authorities tried to ban evolution outright in the schools. That failed. Then they tried the 'equal time' bulls**t, then the 'scientific terminology' routine. (I documented this in that legal document I posted) Hell, some of them even tried to tie Darwinism/evolution with Hitler and the Nazi Master Race philosophy. Can you believe that? (I even remember hearing John Schoenheit doing just that on his tape dealing with evolution) :blink: ... And at the root of it all is the stiff resistance against a theory that dares portray a portion of the Bible as not being true. I oughtta know. I used to believe likewise. I know the mindset. I've read up quite a bit on Darwin. And for sure, his prime motivation in finding out about biology, zoology, and the evidence that led him to believe that evolution was viable (if not true) _was_ scientific. His trips (as documented in his diaries) on the HMS Beagle shows this plainly. Like any real scientist, who is bound/loyal to neither religious/political motivations. No doubt he wasn't a religious man, and no doubt he was a 'materialist' of some form or fashion. But notice that that was a view that came later in life, and apparently one that _he_ felt being more true than religious teachings about the matter. But also notice that there are those of the religious persuasion who, even tho' they accept the Darwin theory, do NOT accept the materialist philosophy. ... Which causes me to discount the theory of evolution as simply being based upon that brand of philosophy, that it transcends whatever philosophy any of us might hold. _You_ might not accept that, but then again, that is your opinion, and goes no farther than that. I suspect that this debate will no doubt continue for a good many years more. But I'd be willing to bet even $$money$$ that more and more evidence supporting evolution, and discounting the Genesis account, will continue to mount, creationist song-and-dance notwithstanding. And if that brings about the unfortunate effect of tearing down and discounting your spiritual beliefs, ........ well, I would have thought that a Spiritual Truth that is (supposedly) immovable would have been a helluva lot harder to crack than that. Don't you? <_<

How about his secret recipe for Sno Cones.

That Richards should apologize to the 2 guys, yes. That he should pay them, no! Or better yet, make this an episode for The People's Court. And the judgement should be that Richards pays for their night out at the comedy club: entry fee, drinks, and so on, ... but their 'attorney' gets NOTHING. :blink: Bet your bottom dollar *she's* the one who will be 'offended' now.

Then perhaps you can either post or provide links to material authored by Darwin himself where he clearly stated that accepting evolution required a belief in 'philosophical materialism'. The material I read about his views as regarding evolution didn't even deal with any kind of materialism whatsoever. Seems to me (from what you post) that the only ones postulating this belief about Darwin are the creationists interpreting Darwin's view according to that manner. ... And simply associating the book Pandas to Charles Darwin in that context just won't do. Your move.

Ohh looky! Evidently the W.O.W.s of today haven't learned to 'travel light'. This is what you get when you travel straight from the Rock to your assignment w/o checking in the RV first.

Here is a little bit of history behind how the Creationist movement 'evolved' , and one thing I noticed that it shows, was that it didn't originate from a purely scientific standpoint, but rather via a means of achieving a Constitutionally legal standing in the public schools by changing the usage of their terms. Check this segment out: Bolded emphasis mine.(Segment from the www.pamd.uscourt.gov site, a PDF document. For those not having a PDF reader, here is the HTML version of the page. Notice that with each succeeding items in bold, they try a tactic to succeed where the previous tactic failed. Ie., they were all tactics with the central emphasis of routing out evolution and putting the biblical account back in its place in the public schools. Tactics that has *nothing* to do with scientific inquiry and discovery. V-e-r-y interesting & revealing legal history here, as I had no idea how the current Creationist ideas/terms came into usage before. Now I do. <_<

I love this! I really do! A well disguised creationist/intelligent design site disguised as an 'objective science' site. Well done, I must say! ... See, this is what you find when you go to their 'About Us' page, and read up on what their agenda _really_ is. See, the thing blocking them from objectively learning about evolution, and the (yes Virginia) increasing evidence supporting it, is that, at the basis of all their presentation, is still not allowing themselves to question their scripture/doctrine re: the biblical account. Arguments of 'irreducible complexity' and the like scientific sounding phrases are used to attempt to protect the 'integrity of the scriptures' from being challenged by any science, particularly the evolutionary biology variety. Flawed argument of the false dilemma variety. The reason that you aren't able to observe it happening is the same reason why you don't observe the movement of the continents over the millenia. Ie., its to darn s-l-o-w for direct observation. But via other tests; archeological, geological, and the like variety, geological scientists can conclude that the plates and continents do indeed move.Also keep in mind that the theory of evolution in Darwin's time was far more limited in scope and knowledge, as compared with what we know today. It (if you'll pardon the term) evolves. :) It isn't a theory 'in crisis', unless you consider the 'crisis' the fact that it isn't a static and complete science. And nobody claimed that it was. And I laugh at the term, as it seems to suggest that the evolutionary scientists are quite insecure in their holding of the idea. ... Funny! As it always seems to me that its the Creationists who are the ones 'in crisis', what with their desperate measures to include creationism to be taught as a science on school boards across the country. That's why I find it refreshing that the judge in Dover PA ruled like he did. Anywho, we could go on and on about this, but having been in (and left) the creationist camp, frankly I found that their attempts to 'scientize' the biblical account, ... shall we say, lacking, due to what I explained above. Particularly when time after time, creationist supporters seem to hit this 'invisible wall' where they just will NOT question (as in challenge) the scriptures/central doctrine when that, and evidence/information that supports evolution, collide. Sorry, but I don't regard that as a really honest way of finding out the facts, do you? P.S., oh by the way, I do believe I did explain and retract what I said about the catty-dog link, did I not? So please stop trying to use that as a straw man argument against the position of evolution. ... mmm-kay? And to Cynic, Then please explain to us all how it is that many Christians (and I'm not just referring to the theologically 'liberal' ones, as the judge in Dover PA clearly illustrates; he was a Baptist, if I recall correctly) accept the evolutionary stance. And please also document where Darwin set up the theory from a philosophical 'there cannot be a creator god' standpoint?

Now why couldn't his 10,000th post have happened on the THE thread, hmmmm?

One thing that people don't realize about 'where is the missing link' defense. Ie., there IS no 'missing link'. Ie., evolution all occurs over a progression of time. There is no ONE generation where it jumps from one species/genus to another. And thats where the 'where is the missing link' folks trip up. And genus is a level above the species. Ie., there are various species within a genus. And this doesn't address categorizations like families and other divisions. Which, as someone else pointed out, are man-made. Are there missing 'gaps' in the theory of evolution? Yep. But have you noticed that the gaps continue to shrink and/or get filled in as the years and decades go by? And more and more evidence that does this continually point towards the evolutionary process, and away from the 6-day/biblical account of creation. Now many people seem to take this discounting of the biblical account as a sign of moving away from God. Perhaps you should rethink this approach. Because if the existence/gospel of God is dependent upon the account in Genesis being taken as The factual truth as put in the 1st - 3rd chapters, you are placing your entire faith upon the account in Genesis being rendered as a scientific/factually true account. And even those who utilize the Old Earth Theory (which still depends on the account in Genesis) in the same manner, there are still too many factual flaws to be taken seriously on a scientific basis. ... And that's a m-i-g-h-t-y shaky ground to base one's faith upon, if you ask me.