Mike Huckabee: Happy anniversary!

Advertisement

A year ago, some dedicated individuals from Routt County, with help from other leaders in Colorado, undertook the Steamboat Conservative Editorial Series. While the rigors of the campaign kept me from reading every weekly installment, what you have seen in this space has been a grassroots attempt to reason through the issues of the day and to educate. It has been an effort to explain Conservative thought and to apply it to current issues. It has been an attempt, and I think a successful one, to dispel the myth that Conservatives are a selfish and hardhearted lot.

To the contrary, Conservatives understand the fundamental truth that problems are not solved by government decreeing that it shall be so. They understand that the force of economics is much like the force of nature - it ultimately cannot be defeated, and any attempt to do so is apt to be laden with adverse and unintended consequences. They understand that the genius of America lies not with its government, but with its people, and that excessive governmental control only stifles that genius. They understand the proper role of religion in our culture and the equal danger of driving religion from the public square. They see the necessity of standards of conduct and the danger of the current trend toward moral equivalence.

I applaud the fact that the authors of the Steamboat Conservative Editorial Series are a group of citizens that took action when they were concerned with the direction that their community seemed to be taking. At the same time, they saw other like-minded folks that were discouraged, felt isolated, and needed a rallying point. Rather than join in the dejection, they decided to do something. They saw the need to be visible and to educate. Taking this route is not the easy way, but it is one that is fundamental to the success of a free democratic society.

I am reminded of my visit some years ago to the Israeli Holocaust Museum, Yad Vashem, with my daughter Sarah, who was 11 at the time. Yad Vashem includes a series of exhibits that walk the visitor through the history of the Nazi persecution of the Jews from the initial hateful rhetoric, finally, to the mass murders at Auschwitz and other sites. I was honestly concerned that the emotional intensity of Yad Vashem was too much for my young daughter, and I noticed that her grip on my hand grew tighter and tighter as we progressed through the exhibits. When we reached the end, after the depiction of the murders at Auschwitz, we came to a guestbook, which included a space for comments. In her 11-year old scrawl, my daughter signed her name and wrote these words, "Why didn't somebody do something?"

I pray that none of us will ever be confronted again with anything as horrible as Nazism, but we all have to understand that the fate of society lies with each of us - that if we are disturbed by societal or political trends, the "somebody" who must do "something" is each of us. To quote Thomas Jefferson, "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."

Like activists across this great country, the authors of this series have, in their own small way and in their own small corner of the world, shouldered this responsibility, to my mind, with distinction - and perhaps with a little bigger audience than they thought they had.

Congratulations and Happy Anniversary! Your good work does not go unnoticed.

Mike Huckabee was the 44th Governor of Arkansas, serving from 1996 to 2007. He is a former chairman of the National Governors' Association and a Baptist minister. He was a candidate for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination and is an honorary member of the Conservative Leadership Council of Northwest Colorado.

Comments

comtboy 7 years, 3 months ago

Hadley - 1. If Gov Huckabee pardoned individuals purely because they spoke of a conversion to the Christian faith it is discrimination and should not be allowed or tolerated. However, if these same individuals had shown a dramatic turn around in their behavior and were completely reformed then I see less of a problem with it... assuming he were not discriminatory in how he distributed pardons. I cannot imagine any political figure would be as stupid as to grant a pardon purely on a religious conversion... to do so would be incredibly naive.

  1. Am I an advocate for an American Theocracy? No. However, one does have to admit that the US Constitution was codified based on certain beliefs that have their roots in judeo-christian values. After all, we do not advocate "honor killings" in this country as a part of our judicial system. To say that one can completely separate the two is an incredibly ingenue idea. I am all for reinforcing these ideals.

Now that we can agree that a religious state (look at Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc) is not the ideal for a republic (we are not a democracy) I would offer this back to you.

Why is it that publically funded institutions discriminate against my belief system and it is perfectly acceptable? (Don't you dare throw at me the 'separation of church and state' argument; it is fallacy).

Why is it the norm for our public school teachers and university system to teach theory as fact and represent only one side of an issue? Why is it ok for my children to learn of Buddha but you mention the word Jesus Christ in a public setting and you are squelched? Have we as a country forgotten how to have a healthy debate using the justification of political correctness? Just as this forum presents ideas and theories from individuals so should our public education system be (remember that was one of the basic tenants of it... free thought and expression).

I have absolutely no desire to squelch your (I do mean this figuratively I am not trying to interpret what you believe) ability to present your toughts and ideas no matter how vehemently I disagree with them.

I just wonder why any mention of the word God or creationism in a public setting is too often labeled indoctrination or worse. If there is no creator then the scientific method will prove this out... eventually, maybe.

Of course, based on my belief system, I would want you to see that your ways are wrong ;). However, I fully respect your ability to form your own beliefs and opinions without attacking you as a stupid, liberal, facist, (I can go on with the labels that some of my compatriots choose to use; don't cheer too quickly, your compatriots do the same thing).

One final note; Joe writes: "You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth". ABSOLUETELY! Isn't that part of what the scientific method is about?

0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 3 months ago

Joe has found a some info regarding coelacanths, it took a little while because we were spelling it wrong.

Here's a link for 424........

http://www.mnh.si.edu/highlight/coelacanth/

0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 3 months ago

As Joe reads the conversation between Hadley and comptboy, he is pleased to see people having a rational discourse on a subject that so many feel so strongly about without resorting to insulting behavior.

Reading comptboy's first paragraph, these comments come to his mind, " The teachings of Jesus are not exclusive to the christian religion. Many are, in fact, much older. Christianity bears a striking resemblance to an older religion, called Mitharism. They share several of the same myths, such as virgin birth, a slain messiah who rises from the dead, 12 followers, miracles, and a winter solstice birthday. There are also similarities between the Jesus of the bible and the character Saoshyant of Zoroastrianism. This makes me think that the myths of the bible are more symbolism & metaphor than they are accurate historical documents, perhaps just a means of primitive man to explain what he didn't understand. There is certainly no empirical evidence that supports the actual existence of the person described in the New Testament. "

Regarding whether creationism vs. evolution, Joe would quote Mark Izaak;

" 1. The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" (Barnhart 1948). In the case of the theory of evolution, the following are some of the phenomena involved. All are facts: * Life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago; * Life forms have changed and diversified over life's history; * Species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors; * Natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change. Many other facts are explained by the theory of evolution as well.

  1. The theory of evolution has proved itself in practice. It has useful applications in epidemiology, pest control, drug discovery, and other areas (Bull and Wichman 2001; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003).

  2. Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time. The fact of evolution was recognized even before Darwin's theory. The theory of evolution explains the fact.

  3. If "only a theory" were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these. Even the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges (Milgrom 2002). Yet the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is still a fact.

  4. Creationism is neither theory nor fact; it is, at best, only an opinion. Since it explains nothing, it is scientifically useless.

0

bcpow 7 years, 4 months ago

Hey Mike, tell us more about how the earth is 6000 years old. Who would have thought that the Flintstones was based on reality?

0

Neil O'Keeffe 7 years, 4 months ago

Mike Huckabee our next VP? God save us! What would Jesus do? Believe!

0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 4 months ago

Joe finds it absolutely hilarious that Snowmaker would cite discredited wanna-be scientist Kent Hovind, and the Institute for Creation research as evidence to support his misguided belief in an imaginary friend. Obviously, Snowmaker only reads things that support what he thinks he already knows.

0

Snowmaker 7 years, 4 months ago

If all you have is "Hey Mike tell us how the Earth is only 6000 years old" then you need to educate your self more then just what is taught in the public school system today. Take a look at "Expelled, no intelligence allowed". Scientist are disproving evolution and they are looking elsewhere for the answers but due to the system they are being fired and expelled instead of others listening to their finds. Look back at Nazi Germany, it was survival of the fittest and the Jews were not the fittest according to Hitler. This is the same basic thing being taught in our schools now.
Having morals, having a belief in an everlasting Savior is a good thing for our short time here on Earth. So many people are being persecuted in this world for their beliefs and we live in a free country but people want bigger government to control our lives. The school system has cut so many programs that use the right side of the brain and they only focus on the left side of the brain to meet ACT and SAT score objectives. Back to the 6000 years old, do a little research on the grassroots movement out there that is finding evidence of Noah's Flood and creation. Nearly every old culture in the world has a history of a flood and also dragons. Should we dismiss what people saw and recorded as history and say the dragons they saw were not real and substitute our dinosaurs, which may have been the same thing. By the way Mike Huckabee is a good man, an excellent speaker and has a grip on what this country needs. Just look and see what he did in the 1990's to bring a democratic state together to make it better. No other candidate has a record of bringing both parties together more then he does. Don't dis-count Mike because he is a Christian and believes the Bible word for word because he could be our next VP. Here are some websites http://www.expelledthemovie.com/ www.drdino.com http://www.icr.org/ Institute for Creation Research http://www.creationmuseum.org/ Creation Museum http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ Center for Creation Science http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/ Intelligent Design Network http://darwinconspiracy.com/ Darwin Conspiracy http://www.judgingpbs.com/ Darwin's Failed Predictions http://www.discovery.org/ Discovery Institute http://www.conservapedia.com/Theory_of_Evolution http://www.arn.org/ Access Research Network http://www.designwatch.org/ Design Watch http://www.reasons.org/ Reasons to Believe http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/ Science Against Evolution http://www.answersingenesis.org/

0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 4 months ago

Joe also just realized that Snowmaker thinks dinosaurs and people existed at the same time !

Joe is currently convulsing with laughter !

0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 4 months ago

Here's a little info on Dr. Dino's background, discovered in 30 seconds of research. Joe is not even going to, at this time, address the 58 federal charges he has been convicted of.

"Kent Hovind is a young-earth creationist who gives frequent public lectures on evolution and creationism. He is well-known for repeating the claim that the remains of a basking shark found by Japanese fishermen off the coast of New Zealand were actually those of a recently deceased plesiosaur.

Hovind claims to possess a masters degree and a doctorate in education from Patriot University in Colorado. According to Hovind, his 250-page dissertation was on the topic of the dangers of teaching evolution in the public schools. Formerly affiliated with Hilltop Baptist Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado, Patriot University is accredited only by the American Accrediting Association of Theological Institutions, an accreditation mill that provides accreditation for a $100 charge. Patriot University has moved to Alamosa, Colorado and continues to offer correspondence courses for $15 to $32 per credit. The school's catalog contains course descriptions but no listing of the school's faculty or their credentials. Name It and Frame It lists Patriot University as a degree mill."

0

Snowmaker 7 years, 4 months ago

Sorry but Flinstonistas don't come up in a google search. Evolution is based on theories and findings that are recent to over 150 years old. To say Ben can't use the base of all evolutionary beliefs that started not that long ago for discussion today is wrong. Just like the three little pigs story, what have you built your house on? Creationist have built it on a solid foundation and the few words in Genesis that we live by have many truths that have and are being proven today. If the early foundations of evolution are not built on a solid foundation then the "facts" of today that are based on a sandy foundation will be washed away when the truth is exposed. Our beliefs are based on what people saw centuries ago. The article you sent has very few facts in it and is just trying to break down the character of Ben Stein instead of really trying to address the questions at hand. Also to call these scientists crazy or what ever else you want to describes them to a tee. Most scientists are out there and are very focused on their work. They are a group of tight knit intelligent people that are also set in their ways. When one, or in this case, several step out of the box they are put out to the wolves. The wolves are the ones that threw them out.

0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 4 months ago

Joe doesn't think that the words in Genesis are a solid foundation, either.

Joe is intelligent enough to realize that evolutionary theory is proven on a daily basis in scientific laboratories, over and over again.

Joe would recognize Snowmaker's comments as falling under one of the "Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian"

"You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old."

0

Snowmaker 7 years, 4 months ago

It is funny to read your little comments and about how funny this is to read what I have to say. Yes Dr Hovind has some questionable stuff related to his education but if he has been convicted of so many federal crimes why isn't he is jail? As far as reading only what supports my beliefs, I tend to read more of it but I grew up in a school system that teaches so much about evolution I didn't have time to think for myself. I am playing catch up now to find the truth. I also read and research all political viewpoints and try to have an unbiased viewpoint of political issues. As far as dinosaurs and humans living together lets open our eyes to a few things. There have been human footprints and dinosaur footprints found together. Petrified trees have spanned several layers of earth that are of different ages. Here is a question, why in the layers we see exposed by road cuts or erosion, there isn't erosion in those layers? Today we see a break down in the layers, not building up. Plants and animals are becoming extinct at alarming rates, not rebuilding or making new ones. Is that because of our pollution or because God created a perfect Earth in Genesis and when Sin was introduced everything has been going downhill from then. Basically today we have two beliefs, Evolution and Creation. What if there is a third one that is very different but is right?

0

Snowmaker 7 years, 4 months ago

If life just happened, why can't scientist take the sludge of amino acids and whatever else and make life? Why does Joe speak in the third person? Kind of like the Sienfeld episode about a weird guy.

0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 4 months ago

Joe will proceed to address these assertions one at a time:

"As far as dinosaurs and humans living together lets open our eyes to a few things. There have been human footprints and dinosaur footprints found together."

Dinosaurs and men do exist together, the difference between what Snowmaker is saying and reality is that dinosaurs exist today as BIRDS.

Joe is going to assume that Snowmaker is referring to the long since discredited Paluxy tracks.

" State Park Ledge..... This shelf, situated above the main track layer in Dinosaur Valley State Park, is across the river from the north-west parking lot. A variety of supposed "man tracks" here were first publicized by Stanley Taylor and crew in the late 1960's, and were subsequently advocated by other "man track" enthusiasts.However, careful analysis of the supposed prints here indicates that they are merely natural irregularities and erosional features of the substrate. Many past "man track" advocates had applied water, oil, or other substances to the markings to encourage the appearance of human shapes; however, without selective highlighting none show clear human features.

The Taylor Site..... This was the Paluxy site most often claimed to contain human tracks, beginning with Stanley Taylor's research and film in the late 1960's and early 1970's, and continuing with other claims throughout the 1970's and 1980's. However, the most thorough analyzes indicate that the alleged human tracks here are elongate, metatarsal dinosaur tracks--made by dinosaurs that, at least at times, impressed their soles and heels as they walked. When the digit marks of such tracks (which are common in the Paluxy Riverbed) are subdued by one or more factors (erosion, sediment infilling, or mud-collapse), they often resemble giant human prints. Most of the tracks on the Taylor Site are largely infilled with a secondary sediment which hardened into the original track depressions. When the tracksite surface is well cleaned, at least some tracks in each trail show shallow tridactyl (three-toed) digit impressions indicating dinosaurian origin, as as well as color and texture distinctions corresponding to the infilled material and further confirming the dinosaurian nature of the tracks. Recent claims that some of these tracks have human prints within them have been shown to be as baseless as the original claims."

0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 4 months ago

Con't.....

"The Baugh/McFall Sites....... In the late 1960's and 1970's one trail on this ledge was considered human by some workers, but later acknowledged by other creationists to consist of eroded, elongate dinosaur tracks. Since 1982 several other sites along this ledge have been excavated by Carl Baugh and associates, who claimed many other "man tracks" there. However, rigorous studies have failed to support such claims. The alleged human tracks on these sites involve several phenomena, including elongate dinosaur tracks and parts thereof; indistinct elongate marks of unknown origin that were not in striding trails; shallow, vague markings in the rock surface or overlying marl; invertebrate trace patterns, and some markings with evidence of deliberate alteration."

Joe thinks that Snowmaker should research before he posts.

0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 4 months ago

Joe thinks "Dr." Hovind isn't in jail because convictions for tax evasion rarely result in jail time.

0

Snowmaker 7 years, 4 months ago

I am waiting for a response to "If life just happened, why can't scientist take the sludge of amino acids and whatever else and make life?" What happened to the others that posted earlier?

0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 4 months ago

Joe stands corrected and should pay attention to his own rules...

Hovind was sentenced on January 19, 2007 to ten years in prison and ordered to pay the federal government restitution of over $600,000. After his prison term finishes, he will have to serve another three years of probation. A tearful Hovind had hoped to avoid prison, telling the court, "If it's just money the IRS wants, there are thousands of people out there who will help pay the money they want so I can go back out there and preach."

0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 4 months ago

Joe will get around to the rest of Snowmaker's misguided assertions, Snowmaker needs to be patient. Unlike Snowmaker, Joe RESEARCHES his material.

0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 4 months ago

Snowmaker says....

"Here is a question, why in the layers we see exposed by road cuts or erosion, there isn't erosion in those layers?"

Answer.......There is.

Again, Joe thinks Snowmaker only reads what he thinks supports what he thinks he already knows.

0

dogd 7 years, 4 months ago

The "genius of private enterprise" was largely lost when companies began to be focused on shareholder perception instead of making the best widgets or delivering the best service. The "genius of private enterprise" is a very real and valid concept, but the hard sad fact is that government (if we can elect some common-sense DOERS, instead of bible-thumping righties, or "honey you need to see yourself as a victim" lefties), is needed to prevent the dissolution of our nation. Since deregulation, the "genius of private enterprise" has been a little hard to find in the energy, airline,and hedgefund...oops hedgefunds have never really been regulated. The problem with putting on the straightjacket of the "true conservative" label these days is that you end up backing the export of important American jobs and industries, and you can't really speak up about printing up obscene amounts of gift cash for the pleasure and benefit of the banking industry . A "true conservative" these days is a pawn for the hedgefunds more than American interests. All forms of big government are bad, but the worst form of BIG GOVERNMENT is huge companies run amok . Balance and common sense are needed right now, as well as a little INTELIGENT RE-regulation here and there.

0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 4 months ago

Snowmaker says:

"Today we see a break down in the layers, not building up. Plants and animals are becoming extinct at alarming rates, not rebuilding or making new ones."

Joe will now type slowly so that Snowmaker can maybe understand.

Joe thinks Snowmaker conveniently forgets that ancient layers in the sediment took millions if not billions of years to accumulate, and that "rebuilding" would not be readily obvious, considering the relatively short life span of humans.

0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 4 months ago

Joe respectfully agrees with dogd's post.

So far, Joe respectfully disagrees with practically everything that Snowmaker has posted.

From what Joe has observed thus far, Snowmaker seems to want to jump to another topic as soon as what he has posted has been disproved.

Joe wonders where Snowmaker's evidence to support the assertion that man and dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time is ?

0

Snowmaker 7 years, 4 months ago

Tax problems, I wish we could have the Fair Tax system in place. Any law-abiding citizen could end up in jail for taxes the way the system is now. Thank you for the insight on Hovind, I will look into it more but he is only one of the many resources I posted above and tax problems doesn't dis-count a lot of what he does because they don't relate to each other very well. As for the tracks in Dinosaur National Park I never heard of those in the studying I did two years ago on it. If they truly are not human then I stand corrected, but with time (thousands of years) the elements can make things like tracks change drastically. Here is another question for you, the Grand Canyon. Did it really form over millions of years? Lets look at current topography of the Colorado River drainage above the Canyon. The rim of the canyon is around 6000' elevation. Go up river and look at what is below that elevation. Grand Junction and the entire valley, Moab, Dinosaur NP, Craig is right about 6000'. Now fill up the canyon with dirt and let the water fill the lake. The lake was extremely large behind it. If the canyon formed over millions of years, when the water crested the top of the rim wouldn't it start eroding at a faster rate every minute like we can demonstrate in a lab? This is a simple dam breach on the biggest scale we have seen. Also where are the tailings from the canyon? There is a lake below it called Mead that was built with a simple concrete dam. Then below are more. Maybe the delta in Mexico is where all the material ended up. It would take a tremendous amount of water at once to push that much material hundreds of miles.

0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 4 months ago

Joe would very much appreciate Snowmaker to cite exactly the sources for his claim about the coexistence of man and dinosaur, not just post links to generally discredited web sites that were created solely to attempt to justify belief in an imaginary friend.

Joe encourages Snowmaker to take his time and to be concise.

Joe will now address the Grand Canyon question, after a few minutes research. Joe doesn't think it will be very difficult.

0

Snowmaker 7 years, 4 months ago

Any of the facts I gave for my side I can find the info online from websites that you will say are not correct and have been dis regarded by the scientific community just like Expelled has shown. As far as the erosion topic goes, we just need to look at the canyons and mountains around us, everything is breaking down. Also I never have seen erosion in the layers around the western USA or the parts of Europe I have been to. The only erosion is what is happening now and and exposing the layers that don't have erosion. Sorry but I have to go and work, I have to be at work some Sundays instead of at church with my family. I will be back later.

0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 4 months ago

Joe found some preliminary facts about the Grand Canyon, which Joe thinks answers at least a couple of Snowmaker's assertions:

"The Colorado River delta is a large delta, containing about 10,000 cubic miles of sediment. This is far more material than would be required to fill the Grand Canyon, and more than could be deposited in a mere 6000 years.

Of course, there is a lot more involved than the Canyon alone. Thousands of square miles of plateau have been deeply eroded over the millennia, and much of this is also found in the delta. Other material has ended up in inland flood plains below the canyon, and lost to wind, and much is completely dissolved and dispersed throughout the oceans. Some links and details are found at http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD210.html "The mouth of the Colorado River does not have enough sediment for the Grand Canyon."

Joe wishes Snowmaker a fine day at work, hopes to continue this debate at a later time.

0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 4 months ago

By the way, Joe has just realized that the sources Snowmaker is using even recognize that the exposed strata in the Grand Canyon date to 1.5 billion years old.

0

seabirth 7 years, 4 months ago

too bad this post turned into a creationism vs evolution argument instead of laughing at another funny conservative commentary.

let's talk about huckabee's record as a "conservative".

On taxes: "By the end of his ten-year tenure, Governor Huckabee was responsible for a 37% higher sales tax in Arkansas, 16% higher motor fuel taxes, and 103% higher cigarette taxes according to Americans for Tax Reform (01/07/07), garnering a lifetime grade of D from the free-market Cato Institute. While he is on record supporting making the Bush tax cuts permanent, he joined Democrats in criticizing the Republican Party for tilting its tax policies "toward the people at the top end of the economic scale" (Washington Examiner 09/13/06), even though objective evidence demonstrates that the Bush tax cuts have actually shifted the tax burden to higher income taxpayers."

On spending: "Under Governor Huckabee's watch, state spending increased a whopping 65.3% from 1996 to 2004, three times the rate of inflation (Americans for Tax Reform 01/07/07). The number of state government workers rose 20% during his tenure (Arkansas Leader 04/15/06), and the state's general obligation debt shot up by almost $1 billion, according to Americans for Tax Reform. The massive increase in government spending is due in part to the number of new programs and expansion of already existing programs initiated by Governor Huckabee, including ARKids First, a multimillion-dollar government program to provide health coverage for thousands of Arkansas' children (Arkansas News Bureau 04/13/06)."

http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/01/a_report_on_mike_huckabees_fis.php

0

seabirth 7 years, 4 months ago

On morals: "the local prosecuting attorney- bombarded with complaints generated by a national animal-rights group-to write a letter to the Arkansas state police seeking help investigating whether David and another teenager had violated state animal-cruelty laws. The state police never granted the request, and no charges were ever filed. But John Bailey, then the director of Arkansas's state police, tells NEWSWEEK that Governor Huckabee's chief of staff and personal lawyer both leaned on him to write a letter officially denying the local prosecutor's request. Bailey, a career officer who had been appointed chief by Huckabee's Democratic predecessor, said he viewed the lawyer's intervention as improper and terminated the conversation. Seven months later, he was called into Huckabee's office and fired."

"(Miller County, Arkansas) Two boy scout counselors, 17 year old Clayton Frady and 18 year old David Huckabee , the son of Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, have admitted to catching a stray dog during their summer session at Camp Pioneer in Hatfield, AR, and hanging the dog by his neck, slitting his throat and stoning him to death."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/78241 http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/12/16/huckabee-squashed-charges-against-his-son-for-stoning-hanging-dog/

boy, that's a stand up conservative. it's too bad the religious nuts have taken over the republican party.

0

Snowmaker 7 years, 4 months ago

There are always two sides to the story. The rest of the article had more to the story then what you posted in here. First Huckabees son was 18 and parents have limited to no control over their children the older they get. Second they put down a stray dog that was in bad shape. Lets remember where they were at, they most likely do put animals down when they are sick and in bad shape without a vet but he probably didn't have a gun available to shoot it. The way they put the dog down is the question but we have no idea what the dog was doing prior to them putting it down. Could it have had rabies or was it aggressive? The article didn't talk about that.

Taxes Most states including CO have put a larger tax on cigarettes for good reasons. A tax for health care for the children of the state, that is a good thing and moving forward. As for the other taxes the state was in bad shape before Huck took office so he was probably playing catch up. The last thing is the governor doesn't just make up new taxes and signs them into law. It takes other elected officials and most of them were democrats.

Grand Canyon Basically those articles give evidence of the delta which I knew about before but the delta is way down stream from the canyon. The evidence of the delta gives better evidence of it happening very quickly with an extremely large amount of water shaping and moving the material.

The evolutionary theory has changed over the years to fit new thoughts and findings but to believe that birds came from dinosaurs is much more of a belief then my faith that God exists.

Here was the first post about this article by bcpow "Hey Mike, tell us more about how the earth is 6000 years old. Who would have thought that the Flintstones was based on reality?" I didn't start the debate that we have had here but I felt the comment above needed to be addressed. Those of you that don't believe in a higher power that is your right in our free country. I also have the same right as you to debate here or anywhere else.

The bottom line in this evolution/creation debate is that it doesn't matter that either of these are taught in schools. To know evolution doesn't make a person a better lawyer, doctor, engineer or person in general but what it does is take away from learning what a person will need in the future.

0

bcpow 7 years, 4 months ago

Let me get this straight.
If our politicians would convince the Jews to crush the Palestinians and occupy all their god given land, we wouldn't have high gas prices or a crashing economy? 7 and rainmaker should get together and chat about the good ole times when the earth was flat and the center of the universe.

0

seven 7 years, 4 months ago

Mike Huckabee

May God bless you for standing up even in steamboat---- to say the least not a God fearing area. Expect to be lambasted and lampooned .

In a leadership role for our country what matters is a person that believes in God and also supports Israel, with that foundation all falls into place. These qualities your heart and soul contains. Our family is still praying that God will at least place you as our next Vice Pres. The 3 remaining Pres. candidates do not seem to support Jerusalem or Israel. Our current Pres. has promised to take Israels land and make a palestinian state but does believe in God. God promised the Jewish people by an everlasting covenent--I will bless those who bless Israel and curse those who curse Israel. For each and every time America came against Israel, America has paid clearly and dearly. For those of us that know Him(Jesus) we are allowed to see the mortgage crisis, the credit crisis, oil price purges and date it by the visits from our politicans who went to Israel to take the God given land and try to give it to the palestinians.

Please remember steamboat and areas like it that believe there is no God and no satan. All satan desires as you know is to blind folks in thinking there is no God. satan could careless if anyone knows he is real. With no God satan wins by deceit.

Was a blessing to see your article on Passover. Many old time prayer warriors take a stand with the humble servant of God turned Pastor, turned Politician, turning America back to the throne of God.

May God bless you and give you strength for the battle.

0

two_planker 7 years, 4 months ago

"In a leadership role for our country what matters is a person that believes in God (seven)"... If our next president is to use God as a guide to run he or she's time in office...god help us all!!! What we need is faith! Faith in that there might one day be a separation of church and state and by doing this it may better serve the great people of this nation.

0

seabirth 7 years, 4 months ago

and people wonder why "conservatives" support tax and spend republicans... because they believe in god.

they believe the subprime mess, oil prices, etc are because of isreal policy... and they think hanging a dog, slitting it's throat, and stoning it is just "putting it down".

and we want a presidential candiate that panders to this group of lunatics?

but of course we wouldn't want someone perceived as "elite" as president. we choose based on who we would want to have a beer with... or in the case of seven and snowmaker... who they would want to burn books with.

0

Hadleyburg_Press 7 years, 4 months ago

They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion. -Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Benjamin Rush, Sept. 23, 1800

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes. -Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

0

seabirth 7 years, 4 months ago

this is a fox news special report: "we have just uncovered quotes by thomas jefferson showing him to hate america and god. we urge our viewers to write their congressman to support bill 15432, which would remove thomas jefferson's image from mt rushmore and the nickel, and put in it's place george w bush's face, who believes in god and loves america..

0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 4 months ago

As Joe takes a seat in front of the monitor and proceeds to read seven's post, he thinks to himself, "Should a freethinking, intelligent, handsome person like Joe even lower himself to a logical deconstruction of this particularly strange and slightly disturbing post?"

He sips his single malt, lights his 30th cigarette of the day and thinks.

He thinks ahead to a nicer, wiser, calmer, saner time when Joe, if he has anything to do with it, will be able to open the pages of his local newspaper and not have to endure the rantings of the undereducated, superstitious, frightened members of his species.

Joe, with a faint smile on his strikingly handsome face, thinks of the children that will no longer be scared of their parent's imaginary friend, of the children who will no longer live in fear of airplanes flying overhead, wondering if the bombs of the faithful will take yet another family member, pet, or friend. He thinks ahead to a time when his friends and neighbors no longer live in fear of an unsubstantiated supernatural being.

Joe takes another sip of his single malt and thinks what a better place the world will become, with no religious hatred, less ignorance, more of an enlightened way of life for it's citizens.

Joe realizes that seven's post only shows the sort of fear and ignorance that organized religion has exploited man with for centuries and centuries. He, for a split second, feels pity for seven and the constant state of terror he must live under.

Joe, the faint smile still on his perfectly shapen lips, thinks of how much happier seven might be if he weren't so scared of dying.

Putting down his glass with a thud, Joe says aloud to himself, "The heck with all that, some people just don't get it ! Someone must take the first step towards enlightening the confused, and it might as well be me."

Then, looking at the bottle he says...

"As long as the scotch lasts"

0

424now 7 years, 4 months ago

All of Jefferson's comments on the matter of Religion could conceivably be parried down to this sentiment.

"Religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God"

Thread,

Government never advocated a separation of a man and his God. Government advocated a freedom to believe what an individual chooses to believe. The spirit of the law was to allow for and provide a haven to those experiencing religious persecution around the world.

Seabirth,

Which specific quote of Thomas Jefferson's showed that he hated the United States? I reviewed the Declaration of Independence and can't find a thing.

0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 4 months ago

Joe slowly raises the shades in his semi-darkened dining room. He blinks in the bright Yampa valley sun, reveling in it's warmth.

He raises his glass in a toast to the giver of all life, the true energy source of all living things as we know them.

He thinks to himself how unnecessary the postulation of an imaginary friend who lives in the sky is. Another smile passes across his perfect aquiline features.

Before raising the shades, Joe had Googled a phrase from Snowmaker's previous post, and was saddened to see his first suspicion had been accurate - Snowmaker had essentially word-for-word copied the gist of Ben Stein's new documentary, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed".

Joe thinks about how this film uses loaded rhetoric, strange images, dubiously-credentialed experts, and personal attacks on a few of the fringe element of otherwise respected scientists to attempt to make the case for the so-called "Intelligent Design" movement.

Joe remembers a few years back, when the news reported of a court case in some Godforsaken place where they don't sell fine whisky, like South Carolina or Arkansas, where a group of "concerned citizens" decided that the case for creationism, which really what the ID folks are promoting, should be taught alongside biology and evolution as "fact".

Joe sips his drink and thinks of his laughter the day that the Board of Education simply said "OK, please provide us with the scientific evidence, really, any evidence, that supports this brand of science".

The group of concerned citizens, not having any of said evidence, slunk slowly away into the shadows, having to be content with occasionally attempting to interject themselves into our laws and our schools.

Joe raises the shades and thinks that that was at least one other day the light shined brightly.

Joe toasts the sun, and hopes for another.

0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 4 months ago

Returning to the computer, Joe notices another post had been added. He reads:

"Religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God"

Joe thinks about how that is true. He then raises the glass to his perfectly shaped, yet masculine lips, takes a sip and says to himself, "I wonder if 424 realizes that unsubstantiated belief could be considered a form of delusion, and therefore a form of insanity?"

Joe remembers, culled from the recesses of his incredibly facile mind, a line from a comedian he once heard:

"If you're praying, it could be called talking to God. If God talks to you, it is called schizophrenia."

Joe returns his penetrating, intelligent yet compassionate eyes to the screen. He realizes he agrees with almost all of 424's post. Then his gaze crosses the words;

"Which specific quote of Thomas Jefferson's showed that he hated the United States? I reviewed the Declaration of Independence and can't find a thing."

What could only be described as a guffaw explodes from Joe's chiseled chest. At first, he thinks 424 is exhibiting a brand of his own particular humor, but soon realizes that he must have simply read Seabirth's post incorrectly.

Joe sips from his glass, thankful that he has the cognitive skills to comprehend the writing in front of him.

0

Hadleyburg_Press 7 years, 4 months ago

Religion, like any inebriant, is mostly benign when partaken of in tempered and private moderation. However, when consumed publicly in large and insatiable quantities it reaches a toxic level that does harm to the indulger and those around them.

0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 4 months ago

Joe raises his glass to Hadley.

"Well said, sir" He says.

He thinks of a story told of Winston Churchill, in which a lady of high society, offended at a slightly impaired Prime Minister said scoffingly, "You're drunk!". To which Churchill replied "Yes Madam, I may be. But tomorrow morning I'll be sober, and you'll still be ugly".

Joe wishes more of our politicians were as quick on their feet as Mr. Churchill.

0

RockyMountainTop7 7 years, 4 months ago

I agree with this quote by Thomas Jefferson that Huckabee used:

"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."

Oh, so very true...

0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 4 months ago

Joe agrees with RockyMountain, which exactly why he posts in these often silly forums.

0

RockyMountainTop7 7 years, 4 months ago

I don't believe that aliens came to planet earth and created living organisms out of mud pots.

Then out of these mud pots humans took billions of years to some how evolve into intelligent beings.

LOL!!!

0

424now 7 years, 4 months ago

Hey Joe,

To consider me insane or deluded is a case the could be proven given the correct environs. Sort of similar to Galileo being considered a heretic by that grandest of political elements, the Catholic Church. We have this limited ability to comprehend the universe that we inhabit. Hopefully without sounding to bohemian, There are far to many possibilities to eliminate before any concerted or final proven fact will emerge on the God question for little ol' me to make a judgment at this point would simply be premature.

As my choices in life have often fell to following my gut instinct, I choose to believe in all mighty God. I don't ask you to and I never will.

Yo Rocky!

That there is a tenant rating 10 if ever a tenant deserved a number rating. Although not a member of his endearing and enduring personal society I hold the mans actions rating reverence.

On the alien thingy, one more of those damnably pesky possibilities that have yet to be eliminated. Sometimes the scientific method just curbs my enthusiasm.

0

nibbler 7 years, 4 months ago

Snowmaker

Thought you should know that Joe_mama, Hadleyburg_Press,Metric_Mike,two_planker and dogd are all the same person. Over on the "Pray for the Peace of Jerusalem" Posting he used to be known as Hunterdog and various other alias's, but his potty mouth finally got him in trouble with the Pilot and they erased his identity when he tangled with Rob Douglas. Instead of using foul language all he can do now is gang up on you with multiple usernames and try to wear you down. He is easy to spot now. Too bad he doesn't try to carry a decent conversation. He purposely wrecks any postings that are spiritual because he hates God and Jesus according to his own postings. The funny part was he got so worked up over the "Jerusalem" postings that he shot himself in the foot playing "quick-draw" with his mouth.

0

freshair 7 years, 4 months ago

Hey Joe, you never did get around to answering "If life just happened, why can't scientist take the sludge of amino acids and whatever else and make life?" C'mon, give it a try....

0

Hadleyburg_Press 7 years, 4 months ago

How to create life? Give me 3 billion years to mix all of the unknown random variables and I bet I could do it...

Nibbler, You speak for god and now you speak for me too? I'm honored. You should know, that I have no hatred for you or your beliefs. I would in fact, continue to defend your right to your beliefs. I only ask that you keep them seperate from the functions of State. Got it? Seperation of church and State.

0

bloggyblog 7 years, 4 months ago

as blog was walking home from a recent trip to margaritaville. blog, in a weary, tequila induced fog, stumbled upon a living, breathing dinosaur! the dinosaur was standing in front of a gas station, with jesus sitting on his back. despite jesus's best efforts the dinosaur just wouldn't move and stood stoically while jesus pleaded " i need a ride back to heaven and your my only hope". but the dinosaur wouldn't budge and jesus soon dismounted and walked on down the road, leaving blog standing by the dinosaur, who still didn't move or answer any of blog's questions. this bizarre experience has left blog with some new insightful thoughts.1- dinosaurs like to hang out in front of gas stations cause thats where they friends and family are. 2- to get to heaven you need to ride a dinosaur but there not very cooperative. 3- pass on that 4'th margarita!

0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 4 months ago

Joe awakes to the sound of birds chirping and the morning sunlight streaming through his bedroom window. He quietly rises from his bed, careful to not awaken Mrs._Mama, and walks downstairs to the coffee maker that is sending the inviting aroma of quality free-trade coffee around the kitchen. He sips his coffee, stetches his lean, yet perfectly proportioned body, and walks outside to the deck.

"Yet another beautiful day in the valley ", he thinks to himself.

Finishing his first cigarette of the day, he steps back inside to the computer, checks his email, and takes care of some business odds and ends that had been allowed to stack up.

Joe finishes his work, and opens the SP & T homepage to catch up on the happenings in town. He notices some new posts in the Huckabee thread, clicks on the link, and reads what had been posted since last he logged on.

Reading 424's post, he smiles and thinks to himself, " Now there's an admirable person, despite his unsubstantiated belief in a higher power, he at least has some reasoning skills and can articulate his thoughts decently."

0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 4 months ago

Con't.

Joe then notices the post from something called a "nibbler", who if Joe remembers correctly, had his/her/it's head handed to him/her/it by Joe's spiritual brother, Hunterdog, in another forum. Seems that this thing called nibbler decided to interject itself in a battle of the wits, but unfortunately showed up unarmed.

Joe, with a smile on his handsome face, remembers how, after being completely shown to be confused with logic and reason, this nibbler thing resorted to calling Hunterdog and other posters in that forum "liars" and screaming something about Hunterdog and others being the same person. Joe recognizes nibbler is trying to use the same tactic in dealing with Joe. Instead of having the ability to debate in a reasonable fashion, Joe sees that this thing called nibbler would repeat the same unfounded, gossipy, childish accusations it attempted to use in the past.

Joe allows a small snicker to escape his amazingly perfect features.

Upon closer examination of this nibbler thing's post, he realizes that it has no cognitive skills, either.

Joe reads it's post, which says " he used to be known as Hunterdog and various other alias's, but his potty mouth finally got him in trouble with the Pilot and they erased his identity when he tangled with Rob Douglas."

Joe has an actual working memory, so he remembers that Hunterdog simply suggested that Mr. Douglas limit himself to one trip to the buffet, that buffet preferably being back in the D.C. neighborhood from which he came.

Joe shakes his head regretfully at Hunterdog's less than tactful comment, and thinks of how Hunterdog was like Mike Tyson, looking for the knockout punch constantly, whereas Joe tends to be kinder and gentler, more like Sugar Ray Leonard, except extraordinarily better looking. Almost like a Greek statue, as his adoring wife reminds him of constantly.

Joe remembers how Hunterdog's correct statement that the current Pope was once a member of the Hitler Youth and a member of the Luftwaffe during the Second World War, before deserting at the war's end with thousands of other German soldiers, was in reality what probably got Hunterdog booted.

Joe takes a moment to remember the friend he never met, Hunterdog, and to mourn the loss of his posts.

Joe returns to nibbler's post, and read's he/she/it's statement " He purposely wrecks any postings that are spiritual because he hates God and Jesus according to his own postings. "

Joe thinks about how difficult it must be to hate something that has yet to be proven to exist.

Joe thinks about how difficult, and how much of a stretch of logic it must be to love something that yet to be proven to exist.

Joe looks out at the rising sun, and thanks whatever power there may be that he can never be included in either group.

0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 4 months ago

Joe continues to freshair's post, and his/her's question"If life just happened, why can't scientist take the sludge of amino acids and whatever else and make life?"

"C'mon, give it a try...." he reads, detecting a challenging tone in freshair's post.

Joe leans back, sips his organic free-trade java, and thinks about how freshair is attempting the long since debated and discredited "God of the Gaps" creationist argument, which basically says that if you can't figure out how something happened or works, a supernatural being must have done it.

Joe thinks about how this argument comes from an ignorant place, not stupid, just unlearned.

Joe considers how lucky he is to have the mental fortitude to read not just things that tell him what he thinks he already knows, but to examine in detail opposing viewpoints.Joe pitys the folks who don't share that same ability.

Finishing his coffee, Joe moves like a cat up the stairs and towards the shower, where a voluptuous, nubile redhead awaits to assist him in his morning preparations.

0

steamboatsconscience 7 years, 4 months ago

joe thine ego is only matched by the recently deceased sbvore all hail Steamboats newest Hemingway! Sans links! I've got a working Underwood and a pack of Galois you can borrow to add some realism to your narcissistic ramblings. Hope you are copywriting all this, I am an opportunist. Next full moon is in 3 weeks. LOL!

0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 4 months ago

As Joe showers and allows himself to be scrubbed by his adoring Mrs. Mama, he thinks about how flattered he is to be thought of in the same light as Hadleyburg Press, Hunterdog, dogd, and two planker.

It warms his heart that there are actually other freethinking, rational humans in this valley, and that unidentifiable things such as a nibbler are not the status quo.

0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 4 months ago

Sitting down for another cup of coffee after the scrubbing ritual, Joe notices a new post in the Huckabee thread.

It appears to be posted by steamboatconscience, whom Joe recognizes as a regular member of the SP & T forums.

Joe reads the post extremely quickly, as one with his superlative mental powers can do, and comes across the word " narcissistic " , used in a descriptive sense.

Joe leans back and ponders the term, and it's particular use to describe Joe, and thinks " Am I narcissistic ? Does the fact that men want to be me and women want to be with me qualify me for such a term ? Is it because my superior intellect, demonstrated by my previous posts, makes others uncomfortable? "

Joe then realizes that he may possibly be slightly self-absorbed, but at least can admit to his faults.

0

freshair 7 years, 4 months ago

The vast majority of mathematicians and physicists who have considered the probabilities involved in the evolutionary model have uniformly concluded that the theory is simply implausible as an explanation for the origin of Life.

0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 4 months ago

As Joe reads freshair's latest post, he wonders if freshair could please cite exactly his/her's source for his/her's ridiculous claim.

As Joe continues to parse freshair's sentence, he thinks to himself " Now what would a vast majority constitute? Would that be 70% ? 80 % ? Joe thinks that certainly, if 80% of all mathematicians and physicists "uniformly concluded" that evolutionary theory is implausable, Joe would have heard of it.

Joe realizes that freshair is showing a fundemental lack of understanding of the scientific method in this particular post. Scientists rarely, if ever, "uniformly conclude" anything, considering that to do so would be opposite of true science.

Joe would like freshair to now cite his/her sources.

0

steamboatsconscience 7 years, 4 months ago

well joey admitting to your faults puts you one step above sbvor in the evolutionary food chain albeit on the lower rungs. conscience made a mistake in the spelling of Gauloises. It has been many years since conscience has smoked them in Paris with his friends Pablo and Jean Paul. But that is another story for another time.

0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 4 months ago

Joe notes that freshair says mathematicians and physicists have made this discovery, noticably excluding biologists, who happen to be supremely qualified to speak to the matter.

Leaning back, it appears to Joe that freshair gets his/her information from the discredited "Intelligent Design" movement. Joe now recognizes this statement as the well-worn Argument from Authority, in which a debater attempts to support his statement by, in this case, anyone with a Ph. D.

Joe says to himself " Well, freshair my friend, I'm awaitng your response regarding your sources".

Joe's dog raises it's furry head and looks at Joe, wondering to which inanimate object he's talking to.

"It's OK doggy," Joe says, " Just another inanimate object, however this one can type on a computer and find the link to the Creation Research Institute".

0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 4 months ago

Joe turns back to the monitor and reads SC's post.

Joe wonders what it is that makes him/her think that Joe resides on the lower rungs of the "evolutionary food chain" (Joe though that chains had links, and that ladders had rungs, but he's been wrong before."?

However, wrong in a glorious, well meaning, amazingly perceptive way that women seem to find irresistable.

0

justathought 7 years, 4 months ago

Your "superior intellect" is proven false by your own admission of "lights his 30th cigarette of the day". Light another and cover your butt, wouldn't want you brain to get too chilled.

SBS, I'd trade this vainglorious gasconader for sbvor (links and all) any day. At least sbvor's diatribe depicted his/her views and not a multitude of self-worshiping ramblings.

0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 4 months ago

Joe returns to the computer, only to find that there had been another post added while he was away, this one by what he considers to be a non-entity, a caustic, narrow-minded ball of frustration that calls itself "justathought".

Yet another smile crosses Joe's well-formed lips as he reads the very sad post by this ball of frustration.

Joe realizes that this poster has absolutely no sense of humor, probably very little education, and is frustrated to the point of resorting to name-calling and otherwise abhorrent behavior usually associated with an unruly, spoiled child.

Joe laughs out loud as he visions what this poster's life must be like, lashing out at everything he/she/it doesn't agree with, trying impose his/her/it's beliefs on others.

Joe wonders what set this particular person off, thinking possibly it could be that Joe has been showcasing his amazing cognitive skills, incredible physical attractiveness, and ability to write from a third-person narrative.

Joe reminds himself to remind justnothought, that 3rd is the number after 2nd, in case there's any confusion.

Joe, however, realizes that justnothought has the right to speak however he/she/it wishes, but that justnothought shouldn't surprised at the inevitable outcome of a debate with Joe.

With that, Joe goes back to the drudgery of work, content that yet another small-minded person has been remnded of just how strange their behavior seems to freethinking, intelligent people.

0

steamboatsconscience 7 years, 4 months ago

joey, joey, joey self absorbency will only get you tossed into the trash like a Brawny paper towel. To get back to what this thread was supposed to be about before it was hijacked by the creationist-evolutionists and joey's (intended ?) mental masturbations, that being Mr Huckleberry's lauding the conservatives of this community. Mr H quote "It has been an effort to explain Conservative thought and to apply it to current issues. It has been an attempt, and I think a successful one, to dispel the myth that Conservatives are a selfish and hardhearted lot." fortunately the most vocal of the neocons, of whom Mr Huckleberry applauds, the poster formerly known as sbvor, did the most damage to the conservatives by his incessant diatribes and putdowns of ANYONE who would dare disagree with him and delighted in applying Limbaugh like labels such as dim, fascist, pimp etc. to all who dared to question him. this spokesman for the conservatives singlehandedly did more damage to the Republican Party in Routt County, and no doubt has been censured by them. unfortunately his manifesto of bile has been removed from public scrutiny by the paper (but may exist in consciences' vaults) but I expect him to resurface (perhaps already) initially in a kinder gentler form. LOL not to be forgotten we have Mr Rich "win one for the Gipper" Akin, cheerleader extrodinaire, Ms Mary K "dittohead" Allen who "passes the popcorn" while lambasting the people's Constitutional right to allow all the states citizens choose their party's representative for President. if you want to see how much respect the writers of these columns have in our community Mr H, read the replies to this column by Mr s uh Epley, http://www.steamboatpilot.com/news/20... might change your views.

0

steamboatsconscience 7 years, 4 months ago

justa gasconader great word! LOL now tell me, who around here has the time or the ego to be spending so much time being such a gasconader? when will the kimono open?

0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 4 months ago

Joe, like Brawny, has the amazing ability to wring himself out and free himself of the weight of the yellow liquid that gets sprayed around these forums. Just another reason housewives find Joe irresistable.

However, Joe agrees with your post. Since Joe has been following these forums for a while before deciding to add his narration, Joe agrees that sbvor did more harm than good. In fact, it appeared that he didn't even read the info contained his own litany of linkage.

0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 4 months ago

Joe understands the implication contained in SC's post, however he actually knows what he's talking about, quite unlike sbvor, and has a highly refined sense of humor, along with an amazing profile (especially from the left side).

0

424now 7 years, 4 months ago

SBC,

Chuckle,

You, are counseling someone else as to their self absorbance? You certainly have the experience to make the attempt. Good luck in that endeavor.

0

steamboatsconscience 7 years, 4 months ago

42 if the shoe fits! but I doubt I'll find Cinderella but a wolf in sheep's clothing? ummmm maybe! LOL

0

Hadleyburg_Press 7 years, 4 months ago

freshair, Are you really using the Discovery Institute - Center for Science and Culture as your itellectual foundation? I am laughing so hard that my banana milkshake just ejected itself out of my nostrils! Thanks for the chuckle...

0

freshair 7 years, 4 months ago

hadleyburger....get a hold and read the list of eminent scientists who have signed the list. Heads of University depts, Prof's emeritus, Ph.d's representing every biological science relevant to all aspects on the origins of Life. And all much more qualified and informed than you and the rest of the members of the Church of Darwinism on the subject.

0

freshair 7 years, 4 months ago

"If life just happened, why can't scientists take the sludge of amino acids and whatever else and make life?"

Orthodox Evolutionists please feel free to reply....intelligently.
0

Hadleyburg_Press 7 years, 4 months ago

Wonderful freshair! You have managed to expose a new topic that could be titled: "the problem with tenure". Personally, I don't care what you believe as long as you don't try to infect the process of learning with your virulent disease known as self imposed ignorance. I shall pity you and your trite existance. How painful a life yours must be to constantly be trying to keep your bubble inflated.

The priests of the different religious sects ... dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight, and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subdivision of the duperies on which they live. -- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Correa de Serra, April 11, 1820, quoted from James A Haught, ed, 2000 Years of Disbelief

0

bandmama 7 years, 4 months ago

forget faith..........Joe, please go on about those lips and such.....what a nice afternoon break for a girl. Cant wait to go home. please continue to teach me about your beliefs.......

0

Hadleyburg_Press 7 years, 4 months ago

424now, I really love the names that these folks affix to their cult. It is such a subterfuge. The WEDGE approach is a prime example of how these folks seek to undermine the seperation of church and State. That is, of course, as long as "we the people" provide public education which is a topic for a whole other thread. Regardless, every time these people have had their day in court, they have been horribly beaten back by the light of logic and reason. Creationism (Itelligent Design) has never been a theory by modern scientific standards, but rather a philosophy that I would expose children to in a religious studies or humanities class. I would also expose children to the bible in a liturature class or the above aforementioned classes. I am very confident that evolution and other scientific theories could stand up against the irrational assaults that forever will be brought against them. Knowledge, will always win out in a true and flourishing Democracy where ideas and opinions can be tested, refuted, and / or upheld. This is one of the reasons why I did not support Huckabee. I strongly felt that his platform advocated the not so subtle errosion of that which I hold most dear, Liberty.

0

bloggyblog 7 years, 4 months ago

bandmama, what about blog? blog can be mysterious and erotic too, check it out. "as blog sits in front of blogs computer, blog brushes away a strand of greasy,stringy hair that is hanging in blogs eyes. blog gently caresses blogs thin,cracked, bleeding lips and tugs at blogs skidmarked boxers that are creating a wicked wedgie. peeling, dead skin fall from blogs puny arms, accumulating on blogs keyboard like freshly fallen winter snow." what do you think? bet you never realized blog was so sexy and the best part, theirs more where that came from!!

0

steamboatsconscience 7 years, 4 months ago

HAHAHAHAHAHHHHAAAA!! conscience just peed his/her/its pants!

0

424now 7 years, 4 months ago

Not that I agree with your lack, or most peoples application, of faith. I walk my path.

After a great deal of soul searching and self examination I still find myself with a firm belief in the all mighty. Couldn't shake it, it just feels to me like God is here. Ooooga boooga and all that.

Although my respect for and membership in any organized religion has passed away with my youth. I have still found in my wanderings pastors, preachers and good ol' normal folk that exhibit an understanding of my refusal to adhere to a complete doctrine of religion when I am satisfied with a piece thereof and repulsed by the rest.

Sadly as I have seen many churches and spoken with a good many preachers. I have found many wanting in moral or intellectual character. What frightened me most was the blind acceptance of their flock. I have allowed my self to be preached at with what I would term nonsense in order to glean a nugget of true wisdom every now and again. My faith in God is mine and I have yet found a human who measures up to the task of speaking for the all mighty.

Low and behold after years of referring to myself as first a Southern Baptist and later a Protestant, I found myself actually practicing an agnostic theist approach to my belief in God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theist

0

424now 7 years, 4 months ago

And Mama,

I won't sensualize where the simple fact will do, I'm six feet tall, built like a brick house and I climb waterfalls for fun.

and I play a wicked guitar riff.

0

bandmama 7 years, 4 months ago

oh bloggy- I didn't mean to leave you out, but the dino experience took me to a whole new level of appreciation for you..... took me by complete surprise, as you were much more subtle at awaking pleasures...where as Joe just pimped himself out. A little lotion may help that arm thing.....everything else....ohhhhhhhhh! MY! What a girl wants...........

0

bandmama 7 years, 4 months ago

424- you sound good too! But how do you climb a waterfall? Unless it is frozen? ahhhhhhhh......mama likes warmth. and I am so sorry to tease and disaapoint you, there is room for only one musician in mama's life....am not completely nuts!

0

Hadleyburg_Press 7 years, 4 months ago

424now, You have my respect and understanding. You also have my sincere gratitude for serving this country and defending just what we are doing here in this forum. Thank you, HP

0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 4 months ago

Joe finally returns home, sits in his chair (or as he likes to think of it, his throne), lights a smoke, sips from his glass and with a modicum of anticipation begins to read the latest posts from the bored and/or lazy in Steamboat Springs who seem to regularly post in the forums.

"Read 'em (sic) and weep", he reads........

So, Joe being a logical, freethinking, albeit stunningly handsome human, reads......

What he reads makes him almost convulse with laughter. He reads Hadley's post, which says " Are you really using the Discovery Institute - Center for Science and Culture as your Intellectual foundation?". Joe could not have said it better, although he probably would have looked better saying it.

Joe sits back, sips from his glass, and thinks about how freshair has either ignored or failed to comprehend Joe's post regarding the Argument from Authority.

He thinks about how people rush past facts in order to post something to further their own agenda, which more often than not means furthering their own pathetic ego.

Joe takes a sip, and thinks about how he's nothing like that, especially the part about furthering egos, since Joe's ego is reinforced daily by the multitude of beautiful women (and embarrassingly, a few men) wanting more of his time, not to mention the reality of his amazingly perfect visage in the mirror on a daily basis.

Joe reads freshair's next post, which does nothing but repeat Snowmaker's previous post (apparently because creationists have no NEW ideas). He realizes that freshair's lack of cognitive skills has forced him to ignore Joe's previous answer, which equates Snowmaker's question to the God of the Gaps postulation. He realizes freshair either misread Joe's previous post, or is too ignorant to understand it.

Joe sips from the glass, and thinks to himself, " At least there's only a few more months of these sort of folks in positions of power."

"Maybe there is a god, although he made it here a few years too late."

Joe lets a smile escape from his incredibly detailed and sensual lips, and thinks about folks like freshair are truly missing the point, and how Joe - in his incredibly indelible way - is trying to bring the truth to the people.

Joe reads on to another post, this time from someone he respects, known throughout the land as "bloggyblog".

Joe reads blog's post regarding his own sensuality, and his hope of displaying said sensuality to bandmama, another of the few humans Joe happens to have respect for.

Joe laughs at blog's post, since he happens to have a sense of humor, unlike some the posters here.

0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 4 months ago

Con't....

Joe then reads on the 424's next post, which postulates 424's physical prowess, not quite as impressive as Joe's, but nevertheless formidible.

Then Joe reads 424's last line "and I play a wicked guitar riff", and decides.....

Joe is a guitar player, and would be honored to "cut heads" any time with 424, either on the guitar or in a debate format.

Joe sits back, sips, and wonders if he is starting to be a little too tough on his newfound friends.

0

424now 7 years, 4 months ago

HP,

Thank you. I am flattered but this is one American you don't have to thank for doing my duty. One male from my fathers family has served in United States Army since the Lusitania went down. In my generation it was me.

I live by one tenent that serves me well.

Be the one to help simply because you are present and able.

0

424now 7 years, 4 months ago

Hey Joe,

If on warm spring nights you walk outside in old town and hear a melodic stream of music that is at once original and captivating you can rest assured that 42 is entranced once again by his six string companion. The ony thing on Gods greeen earth my wife gets to be jealous about.

0

Hadleyburg_Press 7 years, 4 months ago

And so it is evident 424now, that you come from an honorable line that has carried more than its share of the burden to allow the light of freedom to shine brightly as a beacon of hope in a dark world. "Be the one to help simply because you are present and able"; such humble words and yet so damn meaningful.

Joe_Mama, You can play Goldmund and I will play Narcissis.

0

bandmama 7 years, 4 months ago

424-please tell your wife that mama understands and not to have the same self esteem issues I sometimes have.......until I realize I am jealous of STRINGS....... Joe is just so utterly attractive in oh so many ways.................. (bloggy is also! just in a really different way.........really different) I have to go now.....Joe is breathing and I just HAVE to watch!

0

nibbler 7 years, 4 months ago

The only one we have not heard from yet is Jay_K

0

RockyMountainTop7 7 years, 4 months ago

False religion equates to a man's or woman's attempt to build and climb a ladder to God; in the meantime God is reaching out to man or woman.

My ladder wasn't tall enough...:)

0

Eve 7 years, 4 months ago

Well I was asked to check this out by a friend who thinks you all are better than prime time. I must say you all are entertaining.... better than our presidential debates. Joe I do think you have tipped your glass a few too many times, the brain cells are beginning to shrivel despite your best efforts to hydrate. While you must think you are something: athletic and 6ft tall sounds much better. I'll keep checking in and laughing my xxxx off. You should all try to get syndicated :).

0

424now 7 years, 4 months ago

Now theres an idea!

Hey Matt!

Have you got any contacts in La la land or the city that never sleeps?

0

bubba 7 years, 4 months ago

Freshair, I will skip through the rest of the foolishness and address your posts. I normally don't get into the religious discussions, but your assertion that the vast majority of mathematicians find spontaneous life implausible sort of irks me as a mathematician.

First of all, 'plausible' means believable, and often deceptively so. So 'implausible' means not believable, and perhaps deceptively so.

Belief in something, in this context requires faith. Faith means believing in something that cannot be shown to be true. There is absolutely nothing in applied mathematics that cannot be proven, via mathematical proofs. Some items of theoretical math have yet to be proven, but those certainly do not apply to the basic probability concepts we are talking about here. So whether a mathematician finds something 'plausible' is of no more significance to the discussion of evolution than the color of the shirt he or she was wearing when asked what they believe. The physicist part I can't understand why that would be relevant, as they study primarily motion, not probability or organic chemistry, which are the issues here. Either way, opinion does not affect probability.

OK, to answer your 'why can't a scientist produce life' question. The earth, millions of years ago, was covered in primordial soup, and did not have an atmosphere. For millions of years. During this time, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen, the basic building blocks of life, in various combinations covered the earth. Due to the lack of atmosphere, this was an unpredictable place, with solar radiation, sun bursts, meteors hitting, without the protection of the atmosphere all sorts of wierd stuff happened. For millions of years. So over these millions of years, in an area equal to the size of the earth's surface, with all sorts of heat/energy both from the sun, debris from the sky and volcanic activity from within, this mixture of organic compounds was subjected to all sorts of combinations of energy/temperature, etc... In time, perhaps, scientists may be able to create life, but to be fair, it took the first guy millions of years and the entire surface of the earth to do it, so it could take some time (more on this later).

0

bubba 7 years, 4 months ago

(continued) So to tie the concept of why a mathematician's opinion doesn't matter and the millions of years of primordial sludge being exposed to radiation and energy on the surface of the earth, we go to probability.

Say, for instance that the probability of x chemicals joining together is 1 in a million. For simplicity's sake, say that there are a million of these groups of x chemicals in the most simple cell of life, the first cell of life. The probability of all of these chemicals forming is a number that can be calculated. It is infinitesimally small, but is greater than zero, meaning it IS possible. No mathematician will ever tell you that something with a probability greater than zero is impossible. Nor will one tell you that a combination of events that all have a probability of greater than zero can have a probability that is anything other than greater than zero. Therefore, any combination of possible events is possible, no matter how infinitesimally small the actual probability is.

So for a mathematician to say that something is 'implausible' is merely their religious belief, and has no bearing on the math behind it, because if they told you it was impossible, then they are lying, or not a very good mathematician. The only accurate statement they could make would be 'the probability of all of those occuring is not greater than zero by a statistically significant amount.' Which most people take to mean the probability = 0, and therefore it is impossible. This is simply not true, and I believe it to be the source of your confusion.

For example, it is a 100% true statement to say that 'purchasing a powerball ticket does not improve the probability of winning by a statistically significant amount.' This is a true statement. So while the probability of any given ticket winning is greater than zero (1/180,000,000 if I remember correctly), the probability is not statistically different than zero.

0

bubba 7 years, 4 months ago

(Continued)

So we all know that people have won Powerball, so there is proof that things with such low probabilities can occur.

Back to the primordial sludge on the surface of the earth. There were likely billions upon billions of chemical reactions every second in this environment, and this went on for millions of years. This allowed ample time for chemical combinations of all sorts to form, unform, reform, deform and so on. No matter how unfathomably small the probability of some chemicals, through repetition, it became slightly more probable with each second.

Now, the exact chain of events that led up to life forming on earth cannot be known for sure, so the exact probability may be impossible to calculate, but the probability is greater than 0, thus possible.

I personally don't believe in God or Intelligent Design or any of that (I guess you probably knew that by now) but it is certainly not impossible that the chain of events that led to the creation of life involved the hand of God. (that, I believe, has a lower probability than the random series of events that I believe in).

I'll even give you this: the probability that the earth was formed 6000 years ago is also greater than zero, although also infinitesimally small, as almost every advance in nuclear physics and several other branches of science would then be random occurrences, which diminishes that probability further each time a nuclear powerplant makes a lightbulb go on.

I know, I know, that was boring...

0

Hadleyburg_Press 7 years, 4 months ago

If god exists why doesn't he reveal himself to us?

If the answer is that god wants his followers to show voluntary love as expressed in faith, then why do fundamentalists worry themselves with trying to PROVE/DISPROVE this, that or the other as it relates to the gospels. Wouldn't it defeat god's intent to prove anything related to god? Doesn't one's faith have to be stronger the more discredited the gospels are by science? Ergo, fundamentalist should rejoice at every scientific discovery that contradicts the gospels as it gives them an opportunity to show greater devotion through deeper, tested faith. If you answer that god already showed himself to us through jesus or that he reveals himself to us everyday if we listen, I say what would be the harm in making his presence known in an overt, recognizable manner unless his true desire is to seperate the faithful from disengenuous ? So, fundamentalists, I suggest that you support real scientific discover to its fullest extent!

0

RockyMountainTop7 7 years, 4 months ago

I see your point Hadleyburg_Press

I like this quote; I believe it relates:

"Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith. If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God." - James Tour, Nanoscientist

0

freshair 7 years, 4 months ago

When Dr. Behe was at the University of Texas El Paso in May of 1997 to give an invited talk, I told him that I thought he would find more support for his ideas in mathematics, physics and computer science departments than in his own field. I know a good many mathematicians, physicists and computer scientists who, like me, are appalled that Darwin's explanation for the development of life is so widely accepted in the life sciences. Few of them ever speak out or write on this issue, however--perhaps because they feel the question is simply out of their domain. However, I believe there are two central arguments against Darwinism, and both seem to be most readily appreciated by those in the more mathematical sciences.

  1. The cornerstone of Darwinism is the idea that major (complex) improvements can be built up through many minor improvements; that the new organs and new systems of organs which gave rise to new orders, classes and phyla developed gradually, through many very minor improvements. We should first note that the fossil record does not support this idea, for example, Harvard paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson ["The History of Life," in Volume I of "Evolution after Darwin," University of Chicago Press, 1960] writes:

      "It is a feature of the known fossil record that most taxa appear abruptly. They are not, as a rule, led up to by a sequence of almost imperceptibly changing forerunners such as Darwin believed should be usual in evolution...This phenomenon becomes more universal and more intense as the hierarchy of categories is ascended. Gaps among known species are sporadic and often small. Gaps among known orders, classes and phyla are systematic and almost always large. These peculiarities of the record pose one of the most important theoretical problems in the whole history of life: Is the sudden appearance of higher categories a phenomenon of evolution or of the record only, due to sampling bias and other inadequacies?"
    

    An April, 1982, Life Magazine article (excerpted from Francis Hitching's book, "The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong") contains the following report:

      "When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there...'Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life', writes David M. Raup, a curator of Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History, 'what geologists of Darwin's time and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the fossil sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence, then abruptly disappear.' These are not negligible gaps. They are periods, in all the major evolutionary transitions, when immense physiological changes had to take place."
    
0

freshair 7 years, 4 months ago

A Mathematician's View of Evolution Granville Sewell Mathematics Dept. University of Texas El Paso The Mathematical Intelligencer 22, no. 4 (2000), pp5-7

'In 1996, Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe published a book entitled "Darwin's Black Box" [Free Press], whose central theme is that every living cell is loaded with features and biochemical processes which are "irreducibly complex"--that is, they require the existence of numerous complex components, each essential for function. Thus, these features and processes cannot be explained by gradual Darwinian improvements, because until all the components are in place, these assemblages are completely useless, and thus provide no selective advantage. Behe spends over 100 pages describing some of these irreducibly complex biochemical systems in detail, then summarizes the results of an exhaustive search of the biochemical literature for Darwinian explanations. He concludes that while biochemistry texts often pay lip-service to the idea that natural selection of random mutations can explain everything in the cell, such claims are pure "bluster", because "there is no publication in the scientific literature that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred."

0

freshair 7 years, 4 months ago

Even among biologists, the idea that new organs, and thus higher categories, could develop gradually through tiny improvements has often been challenged. How could the "survival of the fittest" guide the development of new organs through their initial useless stages, during which they obviously present no selective advantage? (This is often referred to as the "problem of novelties".) Or guide the development of entire new systems, such as nervous, circulatory, digestive, respiratory and reproductive systems, which would require the simultaneous development of several new interdependent organs, none of which is useful, or provides any selective advantage, by itself? French biologist Jean Rostand, for example, wrote ["A Biologist's View," Wm. Heinemann Ltd. 1956]:

      "It does not seem strictly impossible that mutations should have introduced into the animal kingdom the differences which exist between one species and the next...hence it is very tempting to lay also at their door the differences between classes, families and orders, and, in short, the whole of evolution. But it is obvious that such an extrapolation involves the gratuitous attribution to the mutations of the past of a magnitude and power of innovation much greater than is shown by those of today."

  Behe's book is primarily a challenge to this cornerstone of Darwinism at the microscopic level. Although we may not be familiar with the complex biochemical systems discussed in this book, I believe mathematicians are well qualified to appreciate the general ideas involved. And although an analogy is only an analogy, perhaps the best way to understand Behe's argument is by comparing the development of the genetic code of life with the development of a computer program. Suppose an engineer attempts to design a structural analysis computer program, writing it in a machine language that is totally unknown to him. He simply types out random characters at his keyboard, and periodically runs tests on the program to recognize and select out chance improvements when they occur. The improvements are permanently incorporated into the program while the other changes are discarded. If our engineer continues this process of random changes and testing for a long enough time, could he eventually develop a sophisticated structural analysis program? (Of course, when intelligent humans decide what constitutes an "improvement", this is really artificial selection, so the analogy is far too generous.)
0

freshair 7 years, 4 months ago

If a billion engineers were to type at the rate of one random character per second, there is virtually no chance that any one of them would, given the 4.5 billion year age of the Earth to work on it, accidentally duplicate a given 20-character improvement. Thus our engineer cannot count on making any major improvements through chance alone. But could he not perhaps make progress through the accumulation of very small improvements? The Darwinist would presumably say, yes, but to anyone who has had minimal programming experience this idea is equally implausible. Major improvements to a computer program often require the addition or modification of hundreds of interdependent lines, no one of which makes any sense, or results in any improvement, when added by itself. Even the smallest improvements usually require adding several new lines. It is conceivable that a programmer unable to look ahead more than 5 or 6 characters at a time might be able to make some very slight improvements to a computer program, but it is inconceivable that he could design anything sophisticated without the ability to plan far ahead and to guide his changes toward that plan.

0

freshair 7 years, 4 months ago

Whether at the microscopic or macroscopic level, major, complex, evolutionary advances, involving new features (as opposed to minor, quantitative changes such as an increase in the length of the giraffe's neck1, or the darkening of the wings of a moth, which clearly could occur gradually) also involve the addition of many interrelated and interdependent pieces. These complex advances, like those made to computer programs, are not always "irreducibly complex"--sometimes there are intermediate useful stages. But just as major improvements to a computer program cannot be made 5 or 6 characters at a time, certainly no major evolutionary advance is reducible to a chain of tiny improvements, each small enough to be bridged by a single random mutation.

  1. The other point is very simple, but also seems to be appreciated only by more mathematically-oriented people. It is that to attribute the development of life on Earth to natural selection is to assign to it--and to it alone, of all known natural "forces"--the ability to violate the second law of thermodynamics and to cause order to arise from disorder. It is often argued that since the Earth is not a closed system--it receives energy from the Sun, for example-- the second law is not applicable in this case. It is true that order can increase locally, if the local increase is compensated by a decrease elsewhere, ie, an open system can be taken to a less probable state by importing order from outside. For example, we could transport a truckload of encyclopedias and computers to the moon, thereby increasing the order on the moon, without violating the second law. But the second law of thermodynamics--at least the underlying principle behind this law--simply says that natural forces do not cause extremely improbable things to happen2, and it is absurd to argue that because the Earth receives energy from the Sun, this principle was not violated here when the original rearrangement of atoms into encyclopedias and computers occurred.
0

freshair 7 years, 4 months ago

The biologist studies the details of natural history, and when he looks at the similarities between two species of butterflies, he is understandably reluctant to attribute the small differences to the supernatural. But the mathematician or physicist is likely to take the broader view. I imagine visiting the Earth when it was young and returning now to find highways with automobiles on them, airports with jet airplanes, and tall buildings full of complicated equipment, such as televisions, telephones and computers. Then I imagine the construction of a gigantic computer model which starts with the initial conditions on Earth 4 billion years ago and tries to simulate the effects that the four known forces of physics (the gravitational, electromagnetic and strong and weak nuclear forces) would have on every atom and every subatomic particle on our planet (perhaps using random number generators to model quantum uncertainties!). If we ran such a simulation out to the present day, would it predict that the basic forces of Nature would reorganize the basic particles of Nature into libraries full of encyclopedias, science texts and novels, nuclear power plants, aircraft carriers with supersonic jets parked on deck, and computers connected to laser printers, CRTs and keyboards? If we graphically displayed the positions of the atoms at the end of the simulation, would we find that cars and trucks had formed, or that supercomputers had arisen? Certainly we would not, and I do not believe that adding sunlight to the model would help much. Clearly something extremely improbable has happened here on our planet, with the origin and development of life, and especially with the development of human consciousness and creativity.

0

Hadleyburg_Press 7 years, 4 months ago

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of key cellular structures are strongly contested by the scientific community. The Department of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University has published an official position statement which says "It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific." [1] Behe's ideas about intelligent design have been rejected by the scientific community and characterized as pseudoscience.[2][3][4]

Lehigh University exhibits the following disclaimer on its website:

" While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally and should not be regarded as scientific.[13]

Behe's testimony in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District is extensively cited by the judge[5][6][7][8] in his ruling that intelligent design is not science but essentially religious in nature.

-DOVER TRIAL - Under cross examination, Behe conceded that "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred".[31] During this testimony Behe conceded that the definition of 'theory' as he applied it to intelligent design was so loose that astrology would qualify as a theory by definition as well.[32] Also while under oath, Behe admitted that his simulation modelling of evolution with Snoke had in fact shown that complex biochemical systems requiring multiple interacting parts for the system to function and requiring multiple, consecutive and unpreserved mutations to be fixed in a population could evolve within 20,000 years, even if the parameters of the simulation were rigged to make that outcome as unlikely as possible

"What is more, defense experts concede that ID is not a theory as that term is defined by the NAS and admit that ID is at best "fringe science" which has achieved no acceptance in the scientific community."[7]

-JUDGE JOHN E. JONES III- ,"We therefore find that Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."[8]

-wikipedia-

0

freshair 7 years, 4 months ago

Intelligent Design Is Testable' Michael J. Behe, a leading proponent of intelligent-design theory, says the ruling in the Dover case doesn't affect 'reality.' Interview by Alice Chasan

Q: What is your reaction to Judge Jones' decision in the Dover intelligent design case?

A: I'm very disappointed in it, because not only did he say that the school board was motivated by religious feelings, but he said that intelligent design itself is religious. And I simply disagree with that. It seems that he simply adopted all of the arguments of the plaintiffs and just dismissed out of hand the arguments of the witnesses for the defendants [the Dover Area School Board, which instituted the policy of reading a statement informing students of gaps in Darwin's theory of evolution and directing them to an intelligent design textbook titled "Of Pandas and People."] So, it's a drag.

Q: Judge Jones says the motivation behind the school board's policy was primarily religious and so violated what is known as the Lemon test, arising from the 1971 Supreme Court decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman-that the primary motivation for public-policy decisions cannot be the promotion of a religious perspective.

A: I don't know what the motives of the Dover board were. I didn't listen to their testimony. But the question is, can ID be investigated solely because of interests other than religious ones? I think the answer is clearly yes. It's an explanation that immediately suggests itself when one learns about the complexity of life. And so does not necessarily arise from religious motivations.

Q: Judge Jones argues that while Darwinian theory "cannot yet render an explanation on every point" of the natural world, that "should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classrooms." So he says intelligent design is untestable and therefore not a scientific method. What do you say about that?

A: I think that's simply untrue. Intelligent design is testable. Some scientists have tried to argue that it is false-[but] you can't say that intelligent design is falsifiable, as some scientists have argued and that it is untestable.

0

freshair 7 years, 4 months ago

Q: Is it verifiable?

A: Can you confirm it? Well, intelligent design is an inductive argument. In other words, whenever we have seen a particular kind of phenomenon, it has always been produced by a particular kind of cause. So whenever we see complex functional systems, it's always been our experience that they arise by purposeful design. And the way one refutes an inductive argument is by finding an exception to it. For example, if you say that all swans are white, the only way you can test that proposition or falsify it, is to find a swan that is not white. It doesn't do to keep on finding more swans that are white.

In fact, a number of philosophers of science have argued that scientific theories are tested more by withstanding falsification than they are by confirmation.

Q: You're saying that the argument for intelligent design is falsifiable?

A: Yes, but it has not been falsified.

0

Hadleyburg_Press 7 years, 4 months ago

RockyMountainTop7, Science and the concept of god do not have to be mutually exclusive. It is only fundamentalists like freshair that desperately try to make it so.

0

Hadleyburg_Press 7 years, 4 months ago

freshair, Are you surprised that Behe would defend his opinion after being refuted by real scientists? I find it funny how he states that it is testable and verifiable, and yet offers no hard data from any experiments. No peer review, nothing. Where is the Scientific Method that he employs in his testability statement? Poor, poor man. Hopelessly stuck between reality and mysticism. What a waste of what could have been a promising intellect. Fortunately, you seem to only reside in the one realm.

0

freshair 7 years, 4 months ago

Hadley, how does my supporting the possibility of Intelligent Design infer to you that I must also be opposed to Science? You need to sharpen your skills in Reading Comprehension and Analysis if you wish to contribute on an intelligent level in this debate. As Behe quite accurately put it, to support the probability and/or possibility of ID does not require a 'religious' indoctrination. But , as is evident from you and most of the Pro evolution-to-the-exclusion-of-any-Intelligent Design-possibility/probability, those so vehemently in denial on the possibility of ID, are almost always coming from a pathologically rabid anti-religious indoctrination.

0

freshair 7 years, 4 months ago

The court case hinged on being able to verify ID as a verifiable counter-science to Evolution. Using those parameters, the Judge was justified in making the decision which he made. I don't think you quite comprehend the Big Picture, but that's ok, where ther's Evolution, there's hope for refinement. And , remember, over 700 Scientists have signed their names to a list supporting the feasibility of ID and the inadequacy of Evolution as an explanation for the Origin of Life.

0

Hadleyburg_Press 7 years, 4 months ago

freshair, I bear you no ill will. You are entitled to your opinions and would never deny you them. We should just agree to disagree on this item as to continue this dialogue will yield no fruit. Hopefully, we are all on a journey of knowledge and perhaps one day this will lead our species to come to know god. Sincerely H_P

0

seven 7 years, 4 months ago

no one ever mentions of course that darwin ask for forgiveness and ask Jesus into his life before he died. he realized through all his studies what a fool he had been by following man and not God. choices are free. ever have a gut feeling those in ur circle of thought really want to see u lose?

0

424now 7 years, 4 months ago

One day God decided God wanted company. God was alone in an endless void. God thought for awhile and being God that thinking encompassed all things known and unknowable. Having done the research God said "Let there be light" and the history of everything began.

Bazillions of years later as God was well aware would happen his favorites would grace the cosmos with their presence. God watched as his favorites danced and postured in defiance and adoration. God watched.

0

Hadleyburg_Press 7 years, 4 months ago

The Lady Hope Story A Widespread Falsehood

John D. Hynes III writes:

I have seen this refuted here before, but I don't remember the details. Could someone please explain, or point me to a faq, the details about the supposed deathbed renunciation of evolution by Darwin. In another newsgroup, someone has posted that Darwin converted to Christianity before he died and wrote that he made a mistake in advocating in evolution. A few more details on the spread of the story and its subsequent rebuttal, taken from the book The Survival of Charles Darwin: a Biography of a Man and an Idea by Ronald W. Clark, published by Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1985 (p. 199)

Shortly after his death, Lady Hope addressed a gathering of young men and women at the educational establishment founded by the evangelist Dwight Lyman Moody at Northfield, Massachusetts. She had, she maintained, visited Darwin on his deathbed. He had been reading the Epistle to the Hebrews, had asked for the local Sunday school to sing in a summerhouse on the grounds, and had confessed: "How I wish I had not expressed my theory of evolution as I have done." He went on, she said, to say that he would like her to gather a congregation since he "would like to speak to them of Christ Jesus and His salvation, being in a state where he was eagerly savouring the heavenly anticipation of bliss."

With Moody's encouragement, Lady Hope's story was printed in the Boston Watchman Examiner. The story spread, and the claims were republished as late as October 1955 in the Reformation Review and in the Monthly Record of the Free Church of Scotland in February 1957. These attempts to fudge Darwin's story had already been exposed for what they were, first by his daughter Henrietta after they had been revived in 1922. "I was present at his deathbed," she wrote in the Christian for February 23, 1922. "Lady Hope was not present during his last illness, or any illness. I believe he never even saw her, but in any case she had no influence over him in any department of thought or belief. He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier. We think the story of his conversion was fabricated in the U.S.A. . . . The whole story has no foundation whatever." (Ellipsis is in the book)

Clark's source for Lady Hope's supposed quotations of Darwin is given as Down, the Home of the Darwins: The Story of a House and the People Who Lived There by Sir Hedley Atkins KBE, published by Phillimore for the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 1974.

Henrietta's rebuttal is referenced more fully as: Mrs R B Litchfield, "Charles Darwin's Death-Bed: Story of Conversion Denied," The Christian, February 23, 1922, p. 12

0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 4 months ago

Joe thinks it doesn't matter if Darwin had renounced his discoveries, which of course he didn't (yet another creationist myth), the theory of evolution has still stood up to close scientific scrutiny for all these years.

Joe is amazed that creationists still cling to discredited arguments by the likes of Behe, Gish, and others, in an attempt to further their own agenda, i.e., that the claims made in Genesis are true.

Joe also would ask 424, how god created light on the first day, but didn't create the light-producing entities until the fourth day, according to the Genesis creation myth. Joe is confused as to how that works.

Joe respects everyone's right to believe how they wish, however, the whole discussion can be summed up in this manner:

Joe believes that if god exists, it would probably be very evident.

Joe believes that there is no evidence supporting the existence of a supernatural being, or a "god".

Joe therefore believes that god probably does not exist.

Very simple.

0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 4 months ago

Joe also thinks Christianity entails that God, like any other person, would say and do at least some things we would all see. Since we haven't seen such things, the Christian theory is falsified by the evidence. Christianity also entails that God would have made the universe differently than we observe it to be. So it is falsified again by the evidence. A failed prediction means a failed theory, especially when these failures apply to the very design of the universe itself. At the same time, there is insufficient evidence for any of the essential propositions of Christianity. So the Christian hypothesis contradicts a lot of evidence, makes numerous failed predictions, is not the best explanation of the universe we find ourselves in, and fails to find sufficient evidence in its own support.

0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 4 months ago

Joe would share this link with Hadley regarding Darwin:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG001.html

This site addresses not only the most simplistic of creationist arguments, but much more detailed arguments as well.

0

freshair 7 years, 4 months ago

Joe, other than a bizarre tendency to adopt a 3rd person persona(perhaps you're practising for a role in some upcoming community theatre production of One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest) and a failure to understand that belief in the possibility/probability of Intelligent Design requires no more religiosity than belief in UFO's, and of course, your similar inability to understand the problems with Evolution theory, I'm sure you're just another perfectly well-adjusted bizarro 3rd person-schizophrenic fellow trying to make sense of it all.

As to evidence of 'God's creation', one might well ask, "have you been sightless since birth?'

0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 4 months ago

Joe thinks that freshair is getting a little frustrated, not being able to provide evidence that ID is a science.

Joe thinks freshair's frustration is shown in his pathetic attempt to ridicule Joe, which Joe finds highly ironic considering freshair's misguided belief in a supernatural being.

Joe then sees that freshair attempts to use the old argument "Design is self-evident. You just need to open your eyes and see it."

Joe laughs out loud, and in response would quote Jonathan Wells:

"This claim lacks any substance. It is nothing more than a subjective assertion. That design is far from self-evident is demonstrated by the difficulty people have in trying to describe the objective evidence for it.

There are good reasons why people should see design that is not there. Humans anthropomorphize. We tend to attribute our humanlike qualities to all sorts of things. Since design is what humans do, we attribute it far and wide. Evolution and some human design both involve complex systems dealing with the same physical constraints (Csete and Doyle 2002). Evolution has much in common with a design process. It generates trial-and-error modifications of existing forms and discards the inferior versions. "

0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 4 months ago

Joe would now ask freshair to provide one example of a problem with evolutionary theory, and please explain how said problem strengthens the case for "intelligent design" .

0

Hadleyburg_Press 7 years, 3 months ago

Thanks for the link Joe_Mama but I think I see your ruse. You would lead me astray to the darkness that, he who would not be mentioned, wants his minions to gather at. You would trick me with your shiny things and vile me with your talk of science and stuff and well, more stuff! Eternal damnation is what would await me there where dark creatures lurk, cavort, and play music and dance and have fun. Oh how I long to have fun. Damn! So forget it, I won't go and see what the blasphemers have said to deflect attention from truth and its all just props any how designed to make me miss out on my reward and stuff. Damn dog won't quit humping my leg. Okay, so you keep your science to yourself cause it gives me a headache and, damn dog, well you just don't know. I know, cause, well I just know. And other people know, cause they told me so and thats proof that we know. So there! Take that! Damn dog.

0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 3 months ago

Whoops, one too many "O's"............Stupid kids and their newfangled computer jargon, Joe says.

0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 3 months ago

"Ah," Joe says, " so that's that spot on your trousers"

0

Hadleyburg_Press 7 years, 3 months ago

Here I thought it ment:

Religious Opiner Freeing Less Open Minded Apes Outlooks

0

424now 7 years, 3 months ago

Hey Joe!

Some myths and stories are fun and satisfying, others not so much. If in fact God said let there be light and it took a few days for the universe to align itself with the Almighty's will, so be it.

I won't argue the lack of credible evidence or historical value of Genesis. It's a story told from generation to generation. Thirty two hundred years ago someone more than likely like me tried to explain the unexplainable. He attempted to share with others his unshakable feeling that behind the very fabric of the cosmos there is a God.

Over time the argument was refined and edited. More people agreed and these folks attempted to win friends and influence people. By the 2nd century BC they pretty much had their story straight. Low and behold The Judeo part of Judeo-Christian belief is off and running. Just when they get there the collective acts together, along comes Jesus of Nazareth to flip their whole story on its head. He introduces the concept of a loving God. He starts to preach a completely different way to approach religion and faith. He has great pitch and is completely committed to his philosophy. So much so that he draws the congregation out of temple at such an alarmingly quick rate that the high priests have him crucified.

I could go on but you get the gist. I don't subscribe to the stories that you will have opportunity to find fault with. I have an unshakable feeling that leads me to believe that God is here. My feelings and beliefs are not something to be proven.

0

freshair 7 years, 3 months ago

Joejoe, your deficiency in fully grasping the problem before us continues apace. 'Anthropomorphicazation' is wholly irrelevant when considering ID. Indeed, if planet Earth is to be seen as an example, the incredible diversity of organisms on this planet alone, makes the probability highly unlikely that Advanced Life forms from distant galaxies would be recognizable as such.

I'm afraid that at the present time, you're totally hung up on your obvious difficulties in working through your personal problems with Earth Religions 101. To consider the possibility/probabilty of Intelligent Design requires no religious affiliation, only a consciousness that is able to soar far beyond conventional thought.

0

Hadleyburg_Press 7 years, 3 months ago

Just imagine, the ability the have your conciousness soar, drug free, far above conventional thought (and reason)....

This is what used to happen when I read J.R.R. Tolken.

It is also what used to happen when I read Issac Asimov, although I wouldn't soar above conventional thought, I would merely take it as far out as current logic would allow.

Fiction is a wonderful thing isn't it!

0

justathought 7 years, 3 months ago

If one considers the idea of INTELLIGENT DESIGN, would someone other than the pompous one himself explain Joe's existence.

0

steamboatsconscience 7 years, 3 months ago

Joe's existence would be a strong argument against "Intelligent" Design! HAHA!

0

Hadleyburg_Press 7 years, 3 months ago

And so they went up to it and picked up. They sniffed it and poked at to no avail. So then they proceeded to kick it about in frustration. Looking at each other in total bewilderment , one of them ultimately deficated on it while the other jumped about in a frenzy. What was it you ask? Well by golly, it was just simple humor....

0

RockyMountainTop7 7 years, 3 months ago

What is your world view?

The "facts" don't speak for themselves, but must be interpreted. That is, there aren't separate sets of "evidences" for evolution without intelligent design-we all deal with the same evidence (we all live on the same earth, have the same fossils, observe the same animals, etc.). The difference lies in how we interpret what we study.

If one assumes there is no creator, then the evidence can lead you no where but evolution without any creator. If you assume there is a creator, suddenly the evidence isn't constrained to lead you in only one direction. The very same evidence leads you to design.

0

dogd 7 years, 3 months ago

I see no problem with most concepts involved in intelligent design, except the part where it is intended to be used as a crowbar to open the schoolhouse door for other purposes which don't much relate to a separation of church and state.

But if the word Intelligent is to be capitalized I figure it relates to a wisdom beyond the scope of people, including the ones who preach for a living.

The Bible should be allowed to be used in every school as a scientific textbook. Just as soon as it can be scientifically proven that regular people didn't write it.

I do believe in God. I just do not trust people so much. Every time I am able to finish a conversation with somebody who makes a strong point of exuding righteousness, I do the same thing before walking away. I make a quick check to see if my wallet is still there.

0

424now 7 years, 3 months ago

Once again the intellectual atheists push an incorrect interpretation of The Bill of Rights.

"The Bill of Rights Article # 1

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

I am not saying we need to teach ID in schools as science. I am however saying that the first congress was trying to keep government out of the churches. Not the other way around.

Our public schools are just that public. As has been put forward in these threads before instruction in ID and creationism has a place in a humanities class or a religious study course. Not in the science class along side physics. However in these classes religions other than Christianity need to be taught.

I will now say a prayer for all the creationists who will want to in their hearts attack this post.

0

dogd 7 years, 3 months ago

4: We already have a somewhat intelligent design- keeping religious dogma out of the public schools.

History teaches us that religious fundamentalism has consistenty been one of the most common motivations for unspeakable evil. The founders were aware of that.

Be careful who you call an atheist. To disrespect corporate Christianity is not to deny a fear of God-just a fear of purpose-driven religion.

0

424now 7 years, 3 months ago

Disrespect?

If ever I treat any poster or person with disrespect it is unintentional. However the purpose driven religion of which you speak holds little or no sway over my opinion. I don't fear it although they warrant my attention and at times scrutiny and vocal opposition.

And as always these comments are simply my opinion. Having taken the time to study several religions, I find the humanistic cords common to them all attractive as tenets for living. I believe in God, not any specific religion. As a matter of strict fact I have yet to meet a man, myself included, I believe qualified to speak for God. Corporate Religion in any form smacks of profiteering. I, having no major impact on Corporate Christianity, I am not looking over my shoulder for any martyrs.

After rereading my previous post find that I can substitute several terms in the place of the word atheist without changing the content and message.

0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 3 months ago

As Joe arises from his sleep, looking as perfect as you could imagine - as usual - he thinks to himself, "Wonder what's going on on the Pilot forums today ? Wonder if the Huckabee thread has progressed....or digressed ?"

He sits in front of the computer with a steaming cup of coffee, and begins to read. Starting from where he left off, he reads a long and detailed post from 424, whose posts Joe has actually started to appreciate for their respectful, level headed nature.

Joe reads 424's post, agrees in his steel-trap like mind with some statements, disagreeing with some. Joe thinks that 424's belief in a supernatural being is his or her's right, just as Joe's disbelief in said being is his right. He notes that, at least, 424 seems not subscribe to the literal - truth of the bible movement that sometimes seems so prevalent in these forums.

Joe shifts his amazing eyes - sometimes hazel, sometimes green, sometimes steely gray - to the next post, this one from freshair. Joe correctly notes that freshair has avoided Joe's earlier questions, typical of religious apologists, and reads that freshair seems to be saying "ID has nothing to do with religious affiliation." Joe leans back, sips his coffee, and thinks, " I wonder where freshair thinks that concept came from ? ID is a concept created by folks without the fortitude to accept the current scientific evidence, to further their own agenda. ID is not something that can be taught alongside real science, because it's not science. " Joe realizes that all ID apologists can do is try to pick holes in tried and true science, because they have no evidence to support their postulation.

Joe would ask " If the universe is SO complicated that is HAD to have had a creator, logically, it follows that something must have created the creator."

Joe realizes that freshair has just summarized, albeit clumsily, Aquina's Cosmological Argument or the "first cause " argument.

Joe thinks to himself " If the universe is infinitely old, for instance, every thing could indeed be caused by something else before it; the series of causes could go back forever. But perhaps more importantly, one could hold that the argument succeeds without believing that God exists. There could be multiple uncaused causes--multiple gods, say--or the uncaused cause could be an unintelligent, impersonal force. Finally, the argument holds that God is required to explain the existence of the universe, but offers no explanation for why God exists. If you invoke God to answer the question "Why is there a universe rather than nothing?," you raise the further question "Why is there a God rather than nothing?" The fundamental question--"Why is there something rather than nothing?"--remains unanswered either way; so why invoke a potentially nonexistent God to explain a universe which we know exists?"

0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 3 months ago

Con't....

Having given freshair something to ponder, Joe reads on in the thread.

Joe reads a simplistic, derogatory post from justnothought, which proves that once again, he/her/it lives up to the much more fitting name Joe has given him/her/it.

Joe reads another, this from SC, who attempts to use the same sort of line. Joe thinks to himself how jealousy is a self-defeating emotion, and feels sorry for SC.

Joe reads on, letting his startlingly clear, perceptive gaze focus on posts from another poster Joe respects, dogd. Joe, as usual, agrees with dogd's post.

Joe lights a smoke and reads 424's next post, his respect for 424 growing with each line he reads.

Joe thinks that it's important to say, " I'm not an atheist. Atheism is almost as hard to prove as the existence of a god. I'm an agnostic, because I believe in science. Science continuously upgrades itself as more information becomes available. Unfortunately, followers of organized religion never upgrades itself, unless embarrassed into it. Things like "the earth is flat" and "the earth was created 6000 years ago" would be good examples. However, atheism is the default stance for an intelligent person, since there is no evidence to support the opposing view. I like to give myself a little breathing room, room for more knowledge, so I choose agnosticism."

0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 3 months ago

Joe would like add one more quote, this from the esteemed Richard Dawkins.

"The list of things about which we strictly have to be agnostic doesn't stop at tooth fairies and celestial teapots. It is infinite. If you want to believe in a particular one of them -- teapots, unicorns, or tooth fairies, Thor or Yahweh -- the onus is on you to say why you believe in it. The onus is not on the rest of us to say why we do not. We who are atheists are also a-fairyists, a-teapotists, and a-unicornists, but we don't' have to bother saying so."

0

bloggyblog 7 years, 3 months ago

blog feels the need to warn joe mama, chose your words carefully! you don't want to piss off Zeus! one small thunderbolt and blamo!! no more joe mama. also watch out for Hera, you definately don't want to mess with her.

0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 3 months ago

As Joe reads bloggy's post, he looks fearfully over his well-shaped shoulder.

"Wheew, no Zeus, no Hera, I feel safe. But crap, here comes someone with pamphlets and a scary looking book of myths down the street, knocking on doors, trying to force their beliefs on others. It appears they have brought along their unsuspecting children to lend some sort of normalcy to their questionable actions. "

Joe, being a man of incredible fortitude, invites the confused to supply evidence that support their claims of a supernatural being.

They reply " Look around you, isn't god self evident?"

Joe laughs heartily, and shows them the door.

0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 3 months ago

As Joe watches the confused walk away, mumbling catch-phrases such as "everlasting life" and "eternal damnation", he is reminded of another of "Top Ten Signs You're a Fundie",

You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."

0

freshair 7 years, 3 months ago

'However, atheism is the default stance for an intelligent person, since there is no evidence to support the opposing view. I like to give myself a little breathing room, room for more knowledge, so I choose agnosticism."

Joejoejoe, rethink with the aid of another cigarette and some more coffee. Atheism is the default stance of the unenlightened. It is the flip side of the 'Godly' traditional Earth religions position. Both are joined at the hip, and simply reflect opposing sides of the same mind-set. Very conventional, Dear boy.

The truly rational intelligent person is an agnostic. What is beyond the scope of one's ability to understand, as is the Universe(s) and its accompanying entities known as galaxies and what certainly lies beyond the power of our present science to discover, cannot be discounted solely because we are unable to detect it's presence.

To quote the late renowned physicist Richard Feynman, when asked as he lay dying what his thoughts were on a Creator-God-Intelligent Design etc., "If there's a God, that's okay. If there's not a God, that's okay too.'

Although you are physically bound to this earthly domain, your consciousness will take you as far as you are prepared to journey. You have far to go.

0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 3 months ago

Regarding Mike Huckabee, where this thread started, Joe remembers a website he saw several years ago, known in legend as "2004".....

Governor Huckabee is a former Baptist minister and has been granting large numbers of pardons and clemencies to Arkansas prisoners for jailhouse conversions. Gov. Huckabee does not deny this. In fact he said in a radio interview with KUAR in Little Rock "I would not deny that my sense of the reality of redemption is a factor".

Governor Huckabee has even ignored the unanimous recommendations of the Arkansas parole board to deny release of some violent criminals. When a prosecuting attorney objected to the release of these violent criminals without a logical reason he received this obnoxious reply from the Governor's Office:

"Dear Robert,

The governor read you (sic) letter and laughed out loud. He wanted me to respond to you. I wish you success as you cut down on your caffeine consumption.

Cory Cox Deputy Legal Counsel "

0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 3 months ago

Joe reads freshair's post, lifts his cup to his immaculately formed lips and thinks to himself, " freshair, probably without knowing it, has just made the argument for my position for me. In stating that "atheism is the position of the unenlightened", he brings to light the fact that theism is even more so a position of the unenlightened."

Joe think that freshair might actually be getting it.

0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 3 months ago

While doing a little research on the origins of life, Joe ran across a very interesting paper, which Joe thinks speaks to freshair's earlier question "If life just happened, why can't scientists take the sludge of amino acids and whatever else and make life?"

Joe, after reading this particular research paper realizes, rather than just dismissing freshair's question with a correct-but-too-simplistic repudiation of the "God of the Gaps" theory, thinks he should have pointed out that scientists HAVE created life.

Joe would ask freshair to read the paper entitled "Chemical Synthesis of Poliovirus cDNA: Generation of Infectious Virus in the Absence of Natural Template", easily found through simple Google search.

0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 3 months ago

Joe will now put down the coffee cup and back slowly away from the computer, as requested by Mrs_Mama.

0

justathought 7 years, 3 months ago

It has been said: "Never Argue with an Idiot....They'll drag you down to their level!"

0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 3 months ago

Joe sneaks back to the computer to read yet another inane post from justnothought.

"justnothought," Joe thinks " Your post is certainly true, but I have the intellectual skills to not let myself be dragged down to your level."

0

freshair 7 years, 3 months ago

I 'got' it a long time ago. But I am glad that you agree that atheism is the flip side, the Siamese twin of the God-No God argument. Now that you have admitted your unenlightened condition perhaps a new window of understanding will open for you and you may also 'get it.'

Good Luck.

0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 3 months ago

"Well," Joe thinks to himself, " Once again freshair ignores fact, apparently refuses to further his/her's own knowledge, comfortable in his/her's belief that freshair is already enlightened."

Joe thinks back to earlier posts, in which freshair has been repeatedly shown facts that may or may not dispute what freshair thinks he/she already knows.

Joe sees freshair's tactics as typical of religious apologists, when repudiated, they move on to another topic, rather than address the issues at hand. It is very telling that they seem to be afraid to examine their own belief system in a critical light.

Joe finds it highly ironic that freshair would refer to Joe as unenlightened, it reminds him of his grandmother's old adage about the pot calling the kettle black.

Joe wonders, " What did freshair think of the synthetic life paper Joe pointed out earlier?"

Then Joe realizes freshair didn't bother to read it, since it may contradict what freshair thinks he/she already thinks he/she knows.

Joe thinks back to freshair's challenge regarding creating life, and how freshair, when presented with evidence, resorts to attempting to ridicule Joe, as if freshair were ever capable of doing so .

Joe thinks that freshair's avoidance of true intellectual discourse speaks for itself.

0

steamboatsconscience 7 years, 3 months ago

Joey sez If you invoke God to answer the question "Why is there a universe rather than nothing?," you raise the further question "Why is there a God rather than nothing?" The fundamental question--"Why is there something rather than nothing?" SBC sez One creates from nothing. If you try to create from something, you're just changing something. So in order to create something, you first have to be able to create nothing. so was your amazing physique, perfectly formed lips , naturally curly hair, razor sharp wit and perfectly formed toes created from something? or nothing? or an accident of genetics?

0

freshair 7 years, 3 months ago

Let me sum it all up for you in the words of that famous Chinese philosopher Won Hong Lo, 'It's a wise man who knows he doesn't know.' Get back to me when you reach that stage. In the meantime, try applying the sage advice, Less Is More, on all future attempts at grammatical composition.

0

freshair 7 years, 3 months ago

Just so there's no confusion, my previous was addressed to Jo-ma.

0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 3 months ago

create Pronunciation verb, -ated, -at*ing, adjective verb (used with object) 1. to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes. 2. to evolve from one's own thought or imagination, as a work of art or an invention.

Joe thinks " I'm not sure where exactly SC is coming from, as there seems to be contradictory sentences in SC's post, back to back, no less. Perhaps SC could clarify his or hers statement, since even Joe's oversized brain is failing to grasp the concept."

Regarding Joe's physical appearance, the answers would be:

"Something"

"Genetics, as Joe's mother, Mama_Mama, was also a stunningly attractive physical specimen, and his father, Papa_Mama was an extremely well read, literate, compassionate, yet, no nonsense kind of man."

Joe then repeats, slowly so it can be understood, "Why invoke a potentially nonexistent God to explain a universe which we know exists?"

0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 3 months ago

"Again," Joe thinks to himself, "freshair has proven he/she is incapable of true intellectual discourse, as his/hers avoidance of the issues in favor of attempting to ridicule Joe shows his/hers ignorance."

Joe realizes then, freshair is jealous of Joe. Joe realizes freshair doesn't have the attention span to be able to read and digest Joe's often elaborate posts, which would explain not having read the synthetic life paper.

And Joe understands why. "Fundies have always been opposed to truth, as it threatens their very existence."

"How very, very sad it must be to live in such a world." Joe thinks, logging off.

0

424now 7 years, 3 months ago

42 reads Joe's post following his own last and appreciates the common courtesy of Joe. 42 enjoys logical debates leading to a truth. 42 realizes that he could be complete of base with his beliefs but has chosen his horse placed the bet and will have to live the outcome.

42 thinks for a moment. as 42 can never hope to achieve a steel trap mind, he has to work at this "thinking" thing.

This difficult yet worthy effort leads 42 to one of his favorite concepts. The infinite.

As Joe points out, " If the universe is SO complicated that is HAD to have had a creator, logically, it follows that something must have created the creator."

42 speaks in his carefully coached and respectable attempt at the Queens English. " This stems from a fault I believe exists in the way the human mind is geared to work. We naturally tend to believe that nothing and no-one is infinite. We believe that everything has to have a beginning and an end." This is where 42 crinkles his rather average looking brow and the crows feet appear around his always green eyes. 42 asks,

"Why can't there be not only something infinite and eternal but someone?"

0

comtboy 7 years, 3 months ago

This funny; a guy speaking in third person and providing pats on the back to himself and atributing physical qualities to himself outside of what is reality.... Thanks for the entertainment Joe... that is all it is worth.

I am sorry, but why is anyone encouraging Joe, Hadley, or whoever he/she is... while comedic and entertaining, it really is a waste of text on a page.

Just like the perfect liberal... bunch anyone who disagrees with him/her/it into the "fundamentalist" and "republican" names... who want high gas prices, wantsnothing but big business, want nothing but to tax and spend and are war mongering automatons that cannot think on their own. Joe, get a life...

Until you have searched the universe over and can provide me with empirical evidence to disprove the existence of any supernatural being residing in either the physical or metaphysical spaces of our universe then your espousal of theory as fact is nothing more than your opinion and not worth the attention it has garnered here.

At the end of the day it all comes down to belief and the interpretation of data points doesn't it? I am not sure what takes more faith? ID or drawing the conclusion that a certain jaw structure on a mammal means it walked upright.

0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 3 months ago

Joe would reply, " If that's all you think it's worth, entertainment, then your reading comprehension skills aren't as good as you think."

Joe has explained in previous posts that he is an agnostic, not an atheist, comtboy must not know the difference.

Joe is not required to provide evidence that ID is not a science, nor that a supernatural being does not exist. The creationist apologist is required to provide the empirical evidence to support his or her claims. The knowledge that we currently have is supported by science, quite unlike a faith based belief system.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"

So far Joe has not seen any evidence to support the existence of a supernatural being, but perhaps comtboy has some that Joe is not aware of. If so, maybe comtboy could supply such evidence, rather than just vomiting his opinion like the remnants of an all night margarita binge.

Maybe instead of trying (poorly, I might add) to ridicule Joe for his writing style, and your twisted and unfounded perception of Joe's political views, you could add something constructive to the conversation, although I have grave doubts about your ability to do so.

0

hippiehunter 7 years, 3 months ago

comtboy,

You should really think before you speak. Statements as foolish as the ones you made above are not only laughable, they are wrong on so many levels that they are almost not worthy of answering. Almost.

First of all, political affiliation has no place in a debate such as this (at least what it has become). It takes up space that we could use for more well-developed thoughts, which, ironically, you complain about in your post. Your view of liberals, that they "bunch together anyone who disagrees with them" seems to ignore all of the Bill O'Reillys and Ann Coulters out there who brand someone a godless traitor if they speak out against something such as the conflict in the Middle East. Let's face it: both sides do it way too often. For grown adults, they seem to be unable to get the idea of good and evil, good and bad out of their heads. I'm not saying that people shouldn't have morals, but at this point they should have realized that it's all just different shades of grey.

Next, you say that you need empirical evidence to support the belief that there is no supernatural force in the universe... Wow, does that seem azz-backwards to anyone else? Let me give you this advice: read the following statement slowly just to make sure you don't get confused. YOU make the claim that there is a supernatural force. Are you with me so far? To back up a claim, you need EVIDENCE. Not lost yet, I hope? _Joe is not making a claim, he/she (hey, you never know) is questioning the truthfulness of yours. He/she points out earlier on the idea that the universe works pretty well without a god in it. Still with me? What you need to think about is: why believe in something that has NO evidence and is a complete add-on to an already perfectly working universe? What I'm trying to get at is god seems unnessecary to the workings of the cosmos. People have been asking for centuries why things work the way they do, such as gravity, celestial movements, and evolution. When they had no answer, they said that god did it. Then, we found out perfectly scientific answers for them. Certainly this pattern will repeat itself? Just because we don't know how it works now, it doesn't mean it is god's work. It shows how ignorant is. It's a bit humbling; maybe you should try this kind of thought sometime.

0

hippiehunter 7 years, 3 months ago

By the way, _Joe's opinion DOES belong here. Can you guess why, or are you still trying to comprehend the relatively simple ideas in my last post? It's because this is a FORUM.

Pronunciation: for-em function: noun

1 A: The marketplace or public place of an ancient Roman city forming the center of judicial and public business B: a public meeting place for open discussion C: a medium (as a newspaper or ONLINE service) of open discussion or expression of ideas.

Now, I'd like you to look real, real hard at the third definition. Explain to me why _Joe's opinions don't belong in an online service of open discussion.

0

comtboy 7 years, 3 months ago

Hippie, You attribute claims to me that I did not make. I made no claim that Joe's opinion does not belong here. I simply asked why he is being encouraged and do question their value (personal opionon). I have no desire to squelch discussion and do find them entertaining.

I am so glad that you have the ability to go to a dictionary and look up the meaning of a word. Guess the education is paying off.

I do see that it is one of the key tenants of the scientific method to take what is commonly held as a fact; set a hypothesis and test it eliminating anomalies before coming to a conclusion. Too often the scientific method is used to draw causality when in reality what is observed is merely contributing factor.

I do not see that this has been done, nor could it in a real practical sense, regarding the existence of something that is as abstract as God (as referred to in historical, liturgical and literary texts). At best using the scientific method, to your point, we can say with a definitive answer that the existence of a supernatural being such as God is simply unknown at this time and that the belief in one comes down to a matter of faith based on a set of experiences (or in Joe's words delusions).

Nor can one, using the scientific method, completely rule out the possibility of intelligent design. There are still too many anomalies to rule it out. Until science provides explanations that stand the test of time (e.g. eliminating situations like dinosaurs that had scales now being believed to have feathers) I find it difficult to swallow that you can take scientific postulates as fact. Science by its very nature is this a hypothesis until it is disproved by the scientific method of evaluation, research and experimentation in a controlled environment.

0

comtboy 7 years, 3 months ago

"we found out perfectly scientific answers for them. " Really? Then why did we (society) wash our hands in still water in the based on the science of the middle ages (the age of enlightenment) and spread disease only to learn that what was handed down through Jewish tradition of washing hands in moving water as the most beneficial way to slow the spread of disease? To make the claim that science is exact and perfect is a bit off base don't you think?

You say I have it backwards; I say you do. The fact is that we are absolutely both right... depending on where you sit. There is no empirical evidence that cannot be refuted to show the existence of a divine being nor is there empirical evidence to show that there isn't one. It comes down to faith and beliefs which are very individual.

I do find it philosophically challenging to hear "scientists" claim that dinosaur bones were "put here by satan to confuse us"... but I also see references to dinosaurs in liturgical texts that date back thousands of years before the first fossil was discovered. I also find it offensive to have "scientists" report that an animal has been extinct for millions of years and then have a fisherman drag up a similar animal while fishing off the coast of Japan. These kind of absolutes undermine the intelligence of the average person.

Rarely is the scientific method used in the manner in which Roger Bacon had envisioned it and to call science a perfect explanation is imperfect at best...

By the way, I do agree with you on your political bias and labeling; but rebutt with this. To simply lump anyone who supports the existence of a diety as a "Fundamentalist" is just as ignorant and arrogant (thus the reason for my original lumping Joe as a liberal).

0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 3 months ago

After reading comptboy's latest post, Joe agrees that comptboy never said that Joe's opinions have no place in this forum. Joe suspects, simply, that his writing style and willingness to debate an issue that perhaps comptboy feels strongly about has annoyed him.

Joe agrees with some of comtboy's latest post, however, there are some things that Joe feels comptboy is way off base on.

Regarding the "animal (that) has been extinct for millions of years and then have a fisherman drag up a similar animal while fishing off the coast of Japan"......

Joe is quite familiar with this long since discredited creationist claim. "The carcass was a partly decomposed basking shark, according to tissue samples and descriptions and sketches by witnesses. Reports that it was a plesiosaur were based on a superficial resemblance caused by the pattern in which sharks decay and were spread and exaggerated by news media hype (Kuban 1997)."

also, even if the carcass were a plesiosaur, the find would not have been a challenge to evolution. The theory of evolution does not demand that species go extinct after a certain amount of time.

Reference:

  1. Kuban, Glen J., 1997. Sea monster or shark? An analysis of a supposed plesiosaur carcass netted in 1977. Reports of the National Center for Science Education 17(3): 16-28. http://paleo.cc/paluxy/plesios.htm
0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 3 months ago

In addition, Joe would reiterate that it is not the non-believer's responsibility to provide evidence for a supernatural being. Those making the claims bear the onus of proof.

Having said that, Joe would repeat:

Joe believes that if god exists, it would probably be very evident.

Joe believes that there is no evidence supporting the existence of a supernatural being, or a "god".

Joe therefore believes that god probably does not exist.

0

424now 7 years, 3 months ago

Hey Joe!

I am not disputing the "does not demand that species go extinct" bit. I did some web searches and couldn't find the hard data on the celocanth catch.

Didn't some fishermen pull a living celocanth out of the deep recently?

0

comtboy 7 years, 3 months ago

Joe,

While I respectfully disagree with you I understand your position.

I was not specifically referring to the carcass of the shark that you bring out as an example; I am aware of this example and the propensity of certain creationists to grasp onto something aggressively only to be discredited later (the same thing happens in the scientific community doesn't it; the difference there is that it is more common for a true scientist to admit their mistake). I refer to other prehistoric species previously thought extinct that are re-discovered. Species that "could not exist" in modern times due to climate change, etc, blah, blah, blah (all using the scientific method).

Nor do I deny (it would be complete niavete to do so) that evolution exists and continues to this day. To quote Jeff Goldblum in Jurassic Park "No, I'm simply saying that life, uh... finds a way." I would offer back that many "unnatural" breeding patterns have occurred over the centuries/millenia that provide proof of certain hypothesis.

It is the beginning of life where we differ and the amount of evolution that is hypothesized to occur... yes it is still hypothesis.

Joe says "Joe BELIEVES that there is no evidinece supporting the existence of a supernatural being or a 'god'". Just as some extreme fringes BELIEVE that there is no evidence supporting evolution.

I can understand why Joe would believe that with the knowledge that Joe believes that the human experience with God is a delusion within the minds of the individuals that have experienced evidence or a way for rationalize the very mortal nature of life itself, or a way to place meaning behind very random events.

As you volley that it is the believer's responsibility to prove the existence of a supernatural being, I would respond back to you that it is the responsibility of the non-believer to prove that science is the ultimate knowledge and thus prove that God does not exist. Kind of a stalemate huh?

You look out the window and see the randomness of billions of years of trial and error by molecular anomalies that somehow manage to move down a certain course to provide the necessary structure for me to formulate a thought and compose this not so eloquently worded discussion. Wow, I must admit that belief takes a lot of faith!

I look at the window and am amazed at the work of a creator that set in motion events that allow me to see the changing of the seasons, the complexity of the hills, the moose walking through town and experience in my little world joy over the beauty of it all. Guess that makes me a simpleton huh?

0

armchairqb 7 years, 3 months ago

I thought Bloggy had a patent on third person speech . Bloggy I enjoy- Joe ya gotta go!!!!Ok Simon says joe mama has to go! on wait let armchair get into this Armchairqb says Joes' godda go

0

meethinks 7 years, 3 months ago

ahhh- I know when I have no chance in discussion, but I read this daily, each day gives insight to a very (obviously) popular issue. No one should go unless they are being nasty, which Joe has not been, just honest. armchair- both blog and Joe have brought a refreshing bit of humour here, why so offended? free speech dude/dudette

0

Hadleyburg_Press 7 years, 3 months ago

A couple of comments back, Joe_Mama posted a tidbit about Huckabee that I thought was very interesting. It stated that Huckabee released convicts early based upon jail house conversions. I cannot verify this story and it didn't state whether these conversions were christian only or not. If true, then this is precisely what should be at the heart of the issue. I agree that life,s origin and continual makeup is immensely relevent, but more troubling to me is this form of state sanctioned discrimination. Atheists, agnostics, and possibly non-christians were discriminated against. If this story is true, then I would like to see all those that have supported creationism on this forum, condemn this type of religiously biased politics. Do any of you have the courage to do so? If you do, then you have my respect and understanding, regardless of where our beliefs reside. If not, then you can see why some of us must fight this fight so vehemently on all fronts. The seperation of church and state is the greatest protection we have to ensure religious freedom.

0

Hadleyburg_Press 7 years, 3 months ago

I found this story:

http://www.arkansasleader.com/frontstories/st_07_14_04/huckabee4.html

This clearly shows that Huckabee likes to apply God's Law, (as he interprets it), at the expense of Man's Law. This is what is know as a Theocracy in political science parlance.

THEOCRACY 1 : government of a state by immediate DIVINE GUIDANCE or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided -Websters-

This is something that every American should reject with every fiber of their being.

0

Hadleyburg_Press 7 years, 3 months ago

So my religious friends, here again is my question. Would you subject your dubious beliefs on others, and would you empower the state to use its power to do so? Would you substitute the laws of man, as codified in the US Constitution, with your interpretation of god's laws? Ultimately then, are you an advocate for an American Theocracy?

0

bandmama 7 years, 3 months ago

hadley-thank you for recognizing a defunct sometimes biased, system. That is being overseen by our elected officials... it is a very scary thought, isn't it?

0

Hadleyburg_Press 7 years, 3 months ago

"However, one does have to admit that the US Constitution was codified based on certain beliefs that have their roots in judeo-christian values"

Uh, no we don't.

Thomas Jefferson "I have examined all the known superstitions of the world and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."

Jefferson again "Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and imposters led by Paul, the first great corruptor of the teachings of Jesus."

More Jefferson "The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulturated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves...these clergy in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ."

Jefferson's word for the Bible? "Dunghill."

John Adams "Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions, Doctrines and Oaths, and whole cartloads of other trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in these days?"

Also Adams "The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity."

Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 states "The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."

0

Hadleyburg_Press 7 years, 3 months ago

Here's Thomas Paine "I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book (the Bible)."

"Among the most detesable villains in history, you could not find one worse than Moses. Here is an order, attributed to 'God' to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers, and to debauch and rape the daughters. I would not dare so dishonor my Creator's name by (attaching) it to this filthy book (the Bible)."

"It is the duty of every true Diest to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible."

"Accustom a people to believe that priests and clergy can forgive sins...and you will have sins in abundance."

And; "The Christian church has set up a religion of pomp and revenue in pretend imitation of a person (Jesus) who lived a life of poverty."

Finally let's hear from James Madison "What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyrrany. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy."

Madison objected to state-supported chaplains in Congress and to the exemption of churches from taxation. He wrote "Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."

"(Don't you dare throw at me the 'separation of church and state' argument; it is fallacy)." Really, could you elaborate as to what you mean?

Comtboy, The rest of your statements partially mirror my understanding of our shared tolerance, however, you digress when you again seek to insert untestable and unverifiable philosophy into our imperfect public science education system.

0

Hadleyburg_Press 7 years, 3 months ago

Comtboy, Here is a real world problem for you: A child is gravely ill. The parents belief system is such that they feel the child can be faith healed through prayer. The child will die unless a medical procedure is performed. Do you grant power to the state to remove the child for medical attention? If so, do you have them take the child to the best trained doctor or do you take the child to another faith healer?

So, assuming that you went with the highly trained doctor, I would ask you why the mind of that child is so different from its body? Would you allow the child to taught by faith or by science? Now I can't stand the thought of allowing any child to grow up ignorant, but I am also sensative to the fact that parents have a right to teach their children their belief system. This is probably the one and only reason why I support a voucher system.

0

comtboy 7 years, 3 months ago

Just as you (again not on an individual level) seek to insert the untestable and unverifiable philosophies of Mohamed, Buddah, Gandhi, etc into the public education system?

I would wholeheartedly agree that the "Christian Religion" has perpetuated atrocities that are embarrassing at a minimum, disgusting and detestable. However, these are not the teachings of Jesus Christ (whose name has been tarnished to represent these things). Unfortunately, over the centuries many zealots have twisted and bastardized his philosophies to justify all kinds of crime against each other and against humanity. If you are familiar with the teachings you will learn that the Christ that Christians are to emulate is none of the things mentioned by Paine or Jefferson. Instead this figure is an individual that truly expressed the best of the human condition (remember when everyone wanted to stone the whore as was custom... his response was not judgement).

Unverifiable and untestable pholosophy? Isn't that what much of our "science" is? Unless methods and processes can be verified in a vaccuum aren't they by default untestable and unverifiable to the nth degree using the scientific method? Unless we can replicate conditions to cause (not contribute) a repeatable result isn't it unverifable and untestable. I go back to the point... we represent theory as fact (on both sides).

I would argue that creationism and philosophy (as you put it) are constantly tested... the main flaw is that creationists start with a hypothesis that we are trying to confirm instead of going in open-minded to find a direct conclusion. The bigger issue is test construction.

Tests are constructed around an expected result and we look for major events to prove the test instead of anomalies that disprove; but this occurs with evolutionists as well.

0

Hadleyburg_Press 7 years, 3 months ago

We have come full circle. You are intent upon trying to discredit scientific method so as to give more credence to your belief. As for the teaching about christ and the bible in the public education system, I am all for it. Just not in biology or other hard science classes. Humanities, history, philosophy, and / or religious studies would be the perfect arena for discussions. You will not find a smidgeon of political correctness in my household dear friend. And yes I agree with you that our universities have for the most part become bastions of liberaly motivated, politcally correct, homogenous thought mills. I would tear them all down and start over. And so, on the rest of it let us just agree to disagree unless one of us has something novel to bring to the table. Have a great day, and know that you have my respect and understanding. H_P

0

comtboy 7 years, 3 months ago

To answer your real world problem... not a cop out but a strongly held belief. It is my believe (personal philosophy) that our creator provided us with a brain and an ability to create technologies and medicine. It is our responsibility to use these technologies and medicine. The answer is a combination of real science and faith. Cause/effect science.

Having enough faith in man to understand that a doctor had the ability to provide the tools to heal me; having enough faith in my own body's ability to ward off infections and heal itself through natural processes and enough faith in God to realize that with all controllable anomalies removed He ultimately maintains control on whether I survive the treatments.

Sorry, I am going to go philosophical on you with no basis of evidence... it is purely my personal belief.

To be honest, I struggle with the question of granting the State control; but would lean with 90% certainty to grant control. My belief system would hold that if God so desires to allow the child to die no human interaction will stop it; nor will prayer necessarily help it. At the end of the day if we believe that there is a grand architect that has created us and continues to provide supernatural intervention then ultimately it is His ultimate decision. The most frustrating question is WHY? Why would a child live or die if He is so perfect and good... my answer that I can reconcile in my mind. Our mortal mind cannot fathom a supernatural and immortal being.

I do not support the voucher system; and probably not for the reason you would assume. I am against the voucher system because it breeds ignorance. Ignorance on the side of (in Joe's words) "Fundamentalists" and ignorance in many of my cohorts words "liberals". The bottom line is we need each other. I need you to test my faith and you need me to test your scientific methods.

0

comtboy 7 years, 3 months ago

Problem is much of "hard science" is still theory. Once it gets to cause/effect science I am more than happy to embrace. Example; if you don't wash your hands bacteria will grow, if you cut your hand and bacteria is present it will attempt to spread. If it does spread and is left untreated it will likely kill you. How do we know this? Experimentation in controlled labratory settings using the scientific method.

Your assumption that we came from bacteria does not share this same cause/effect science; there are too many anomalies left to consider before it can go beyond the point of theory.

Much of our science is based on certain presumptions of conditions. First of which is that everything in the geological history of our Earth has been constant. There is too much evidence to support (at least regionally) that this is not the case. We, by human intervention can manually duplicate nature's creation of diamonds in a laboratory environment within a day... certainly not over millions of years (http://www.popsci.com/beers/article/2006-05/flawless-man-made-diamonds). Now, I will not attempt to argue that History is only a few thousand years old.... I do not believe that is the case.

I once read "Asking how long it takes for fossilization to occur is analogous to asking how long it takes to go from New York to San Francisco. The answer is that it depends entirely upon the route and process that is used to get there." Isn't that the way of evolution?

There are too many instances of anomalies for me to rely on scientific theory as fact... like diamonds created overnight, mummies that are certainly not thousands of years old.

0

comtboy 7 years, 3 months ago

Joe, Sure, gravity is theory, but we have thousands of years of the human experience to back it up.

I do also agree that the teachings of Jesus are not universal and only attributable to one man. If it is truth and I am following the truth as it is expressed does it matter that the messianic event occurred thousands of years before? Perhaps it is metaphor as you suggest. Or, we could have all been brought here by aliens and they were representations of this god.

So I offer this back to you this. If I am wrong what have I lost? I have spent my adult life seeking knowledge and truth, caring for my neighbor, giving to worthy causes, living a life that even outside of liturgical texts proves to be healthy, do my best not to wrong another (which is a physical impossibility since that is based on perception). I live a very happy and satisfying life. Should I die tomorrow and that is the end... nothing more, I have no regrets. Of course, if Mohamed is the supernatural creator then I am in trouble, but that is not what you are arguing. You are arguing all religion as myth. What about you? What if you are wrong?

0

comtboy 7 years, 3 months ago

Joe/Hadley,

As I process information that is readily available in my memory and within easy access resources I have a what if for you.

What if the dinosaur destroying asteroid that occurred 65 million years ago (there is debate in the "real" scientific community as to the age and the destruction this "global" event caused) was the creator of the KT boundary changed some of the molecular composition of the surface of the Earth by introducing a foreign body? What if this foreign body changed the rate of decay in geological substances? What if this event instantaneously (geologically speaking) fossilized many of the animals (which make up the smallest portion of discovered fossils)? We are still learning way too much to come up with definitive cause/effect. Another point, how about the recent discovery of fossilized soft tissue (long though an impossibility)

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0324_050324_trexsofttissue.html http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071203103349.htm

How would this impact dating methodologies used today?

Also, assuming this global event occurred what impact would it have on reproductive behaviors on the planet... i.e. what new genetic deformaties would occur over the span of just a couple of lifespans?

Of course I have little solid evidence to back it up other than theory. Do you think this would change our world view?

0

Hadleyburg_Press 7 years, 3 months ago

comtboy, If you believe that god determines all outcomes then you adhere to:

Classical Theism (aka theistic fatalism), no free will. Thank Plato for this one.

If free will is present then you adhere to Open Theisim.

-Open theism makes the case for a personal God who is able to be influenced through prayer, decisions, and actions of people. Although unknowing of the future, God has predictive (anticipatory) foreknowledge of the future through his intimate knowledge of each individual. As such, he is able to anticipate the future, yet remains fluid to respond and react to prayer and decisions made either contrary or advantageous to His plan or presuppositions.-

These are intrinsic philosophical questions for one's belief paradigms and make for wonderful logic and reason debates in a philosophy class.

0

Hadleyburg_Press 7 years, 3 months ago

comtboy, It sounds like you are struggling with two sets of belief systems.
One that allows for a creator that is not in conflict with science and discovery. One that seeks to adhere to god's word through biblical revelation.

-Revelation is the act of revealing or disclosing, or in the theological conception, making something obvious and clearly understood through active or passive communication with the divine.

In monotheistic religions, revelation is the process, or act of making divine knowledge understood, often through direct ontological realization which transcends the human state and reaches into the divine intellect.

Revelation in a religious sense can originate from God, a deity, or their agents such as an angel, and discloses a willed outcome, principles, behaviors, laws and doctrines, although the realized principle can also be interpreted as the realizing principle.

Most religions have religious texts viewed as sacred and revealed by the Divine, the monotheistic religions viewing them as the "Word of God".-

-wikipedia-

0

424now 7 years, 3 months ago

Attempts to insert theocratc ideals into the pollitical forum are not new.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft%3A*%3AIE-Address&rlz=1I7GGLR&q=religious+american+politicians&btnG=Search

I like this comment Compt made "Our mortal mind cannot fathom a supernatural and immortal being."

Heres a quote for this thread, attributed to the allmighty by Moses, who may or may not have taken a hammer and chisel up the mountain and later Jesus,

"I. The Universal Moral Law A. The Law Of Love "First, love God your Creator more than anything else. Then, love all other people the same as you love yourself."

0

424now 7 years, 3 months ago

B. The Ten Commandments 1. "Do not put anything ahead of God your Creator." 2. "Do not make or worship idols." 3. "Do not take the name of God in vain." 4. "Take one day of complete rest each week, in honor of God." 5. "Honor your father and your mother." 6. "Do not commit murder." 7. "Do not commit adultery." 8. "Do not steal." 9. "Do not tell lies against anyone." 10. "Do not covet other people's possessions." C. The Golden Rule "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." II. The Other Commandments Of Jesus 1. "FORGIVE EVERYBODY OF ALL THEIR OFFENSES AGAINST YOU." (Forgive, and be forgiven.) 2. "YOU MUST BE BORN AGAIN." 3. "ABIDE IN ME, AND LET ME ABIDE IN YOU." 4. "LET PEOPLE SEE YOUR GOOD WORKS." (Do not hide your light under a basket.) 5. "END DISPUTES QUICKLY." 6. "WHATEVER CAUSES YOU TO SIN, GET RID OF IT." 7. "DO NOT SWEAR OATHS AT ALL." 8. "DO NOT RETURN OFFENSE FOR OFFENSE." (Turn the other cheek.) 9. "GIVE WHAT PEOPLE ASK OF YOU, AND GIVE MORE THAN IS REQUIRED." (Go the extra mile.) 10. "LOVE YOUR ENEMIES AND THOSE WHO WORK AGAINST YOU." 11. "GIVE TO THE POOR TO PLEASE GOD, NOT TO GAIN APPROVAL FROM OTHER PEOPLE." 12. "PRAY PRIVATELY AND SIMPLY, NOT TO IMPRESS OTHER PEOPLE." 13. "MAKE YOUR PRAYERS BE LIKE THE LORD'S PRAYER." 14. "WHEN YOU FAST, DO IT SECRETLY, NOT FOR SHOW." 15. "STORE UP YOUR TREASURES IN HEAVEN, NOT ON EARTH." 16. "DO NOT WORRY ABOUT YOUR MATERIAL NEEDS." 17. "DO NOT WORRY ABOUT THE FUTURE." 18. "MAKE GOD YOUR HIGHEST PRIORITY, AND HE WILL TAKE CARE OF ALL YOUR NEEDS." 19. "DO NOT JUDGE OTHER PEOPLE." (Judge not, lest ye be judged.)

0

424now 7 years, 3 months ago

  1. "DO NOT GIVE HOLY THINGS TO DOGS OR CAST YOUR PEARLS BEFORE SWINE."
    1. "ASK GOD FOR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO HAVE." (Seek, and ye shall find.)
    2. "FEED THE HUNGRY, CLOTHE THE NAKED, SHELTER THE HOMELESS, COMFORT THOSE IN DISTRESS."
    3. "FOLLOW THE NARROW PATH TO LIFE." (Enter by the narrow gate.)
    4. "BEWARE OF FALSE PROPHETS."
    5. "EXERCISE POWER OVER UNCLEAN SPIRITS."
    6. "LOVE LITTLE CHILDREN, DO NOT DESPISE THEM."
    7. "DO NOT TAKE THE TITLES 'MASTER' OR 'FATHER' FOR YOURSELF."
    8. "RESOLVE DISPUTES IN AN ORDERLY WAY, LIKE THIS . . . "
    9. "DO NOT OPPOSE OTHER BELIEVERS IN CHRIST WHO ARE NOT IN YOUR GROUP."
    10. "HAVE TOTAL FAITH IN GOD FOR EVERYTHING."
    11. "BE LIKE THE GOOD SAMARITAN." (Go, and do likewise.)
    12. "LOVE OTHER PEOPLE AS I HAVE LOVED YOU"
    13. "EAT BREAD AND DRINK WINE IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME."
    14. "WASH ONE ANOTHER'S FEET."
    15. "BE MERCIFUL."
    16. "GO AND TEACH ALL NATIONS, BAPTIZING THEM."
    17. "KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS."
    18. "BE PREPARED FOR YOUR MASTER TO RETURN."

These would be those moral tenents that I alluded to in earlier posts. The religous rules I find having a redeeming quality. This perticular list was comprised and edited. As were the millions written before it. This is only a Christian list. I find the Cristian Rules of engagement easier to grasp and understand. These commandments are very similar to and bare a striking resemblance to commands from other Dieties. There are others,

http://www.submission.org/quran/ten.html

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/ANCINDIA/GITA.HTM

This next is an excellent site for the exploration of the myriad of relions that the human race has brought into being,

http://www.religioustolerance.org/taoism.htm

These along with the teachings of Christ can serve as directives to humanity as a whole. Here in America these tenents are being mixed with religios beliefs from around the world. As with history the storie change location and charicters but the lesson is essentially the same. Leading the majority of the populace is a manner that will promote peacefull coexistance.

0

comtboy 7 years, 3 months ago

Hadley,

I do not see myself in conflict... enlightened, but not in conflict. I do not see the Bible as just religious text and the end all of God's revelation of himself to us. I do see it as the starting point and an introduction to the many complexities and attributes of God... and a good guidebook to live by (although not always). As to where I subscribe, I see God as a being that allows for free will, but is knowing of the ending outcomes. Have you ever seen the movie Next with Nicholas Cage? I kind of see a bit of God in that, constantly reviewing and revising scenarios with the knowledge of every possible outcomes based on the decisions we make; and for those who pray, seek guidance, etc doing the best to make it as painless as possible. If I am outside of what is best for me I have consequences (rob a bank - go to jail; jump off a cliff - die). God's revelation to man through the Bible is for us to minimize these consequences and begin to gain an understanding of the many complex attributes of what we call God. In rare instances I see God working outside of nature for reasons that are unknown to the finite comprehension of humans... like sending His son to show us how to live only to be killed by the very people he was trying to teach.

0

comtboy 7 years, 3 months ago

Oh yeah; I do not see science and religion in conflict, but complementary... once you remove agendas.

0

Hadleyburg_Press 7 years, 3 months ago

comtboy, See what you want to see. I just hope that it doesn't lead you to buy that piece of toast on ebay with the likeness of the virgin mary. ;)

424now, Once your parse out the religious control / devotion language there are lots of good secular social contractual creeds in there that have evolved over the last hundred thousand years to benefit communal living for our species.

0

comtboy 7 years, 3 months ago

No worries on that one. I don't even like toast ;) I do find it interesting that these individuals who see toast in the likeness of the virgin Mary have no concept of what she likely looked like; just our westernized view of her... but that is yet another question. These are the same individuals who create Christian films portraying Jesus in a white robe with a sash looking very Scandanavian.

0

424now 7 years, 3 months ago

Mmmmm cranberry taost with real butter slathered on and hot cup o' columbian coffee. Thats the ticket!

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.