a truly progressive judge & education system would allow for the free thought of other ideas, and the questioning of established theories based on an objective look at the evidence.
Well I for one am perfectly happy with the questioning of established theories based on an objective look at the evidence. However, the questioning of established theories based on a bunch of oft-refuted creationist canards is not appropriate behaviour for a high-school teacher.
and Corkscrew- I couldnt agree with you more. I was refering to the abscence of transition skeletons and the complex nature of the cell which brings 'macro evolution' completely into question. with respect and deference to your excellent manners and education.....
but is it really an alliance between big business and churches? At least in Kansas, the alliance is between big business (or those seeking big government tax subsidies), and liberals who believe in taxes to support big government, and schools and dictate to the community how it will educate their children. 'Moderates' in this state belong this 'umbrella tent' of republican business leaders sucking at the government nipple and neo liberals who dont have the courage to run in Kansas as the liberal Democrats they truly are. The countryclub republicans dont mind running with liberals because they could care less what the liberals do to our liberties, as long as they get their government contracts, and tax increases (for the little people only). You will find them at KFUPE, ACLU and Left wing coalition meetings, and you will find Dick Bond, Steve Cloud, Rev. Meanly and Pat Hayes and Blue Valley bank at the microphone.
this is the well hidden secret in Kansas Politics you wont see in the Kansas City Star. oh yeah, and have you picked up the latest Toni Morrison book to see what animal Black people are having sex with now?
now that's quality education
So much for deference to manners . . .
"and Corkscrew- I couldnt agree with you more. I was refering to the abscence of transition skeletons and the complex nature of the cell which brings 'macro evolution' completely into question. "
Really? Macroevolution is not in question among experts in the field. Can you point to any articles published in peer-reviewed science journals which do call macroevolution into question?
I'll refrain from peeing until you do.
Charley,
In your opinion, what would a true "transitional skeliton" look like?
And how would it differ from the ones already claimed fine examples of such?
.
I was refering to the abscence of transition skeletons and the complex nature of the cell which brings 'macro evolution' completely into question.
You mean transitional skeletons like Tiktaalik? Are you aware that there are fossils out there that are so borderline that palaeontologists argue for hours over whether they should be classified as mammal-like reptiles or reptile-like mammals? Are you aware that even creationists can't agree on which fossils from human ancestry are human and which are ape?
Since when does the complex nature of the cell bring macroevolution into question? Are you aware that genetic algorithms are actually capable of producing more efficient designs for things like engines and circuits than humans are capable of*? For many of the complex components of cells, such as flagella, we actually have fairly detailed information as to how they could have evolved.
Heck, we've even seen fairly advanced functionality (nylon digestion) arising spontaneously through random mutation. If RM+NS can do that in just one step, think what it'd be able to do over billions of years with stupidly large numbers of organisms. The idea that "it's complex hence it couldn't have evolved" is an argument from ignorance that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Neither of the issues you raise bring any part of evolution into question. They fall squarely into the realm of creationist canards. Sorry about that.
* More detail available on request
Charley,
Why don't you simply state what you really mean: a truly progressive judge & education system would allow for the teaching of creationism.
What's so difficult about saying that, charley? Lack of conviction? Lack of faith?
Sorry, charley.
Charley, hurry up and post those article citations -- I gotta go bad.
Incompleteness is an inherent property of science and a characteristic that high school graduates should appreciate.
An oft used analogy for evolution is a ladder where the rungs represent successive steps in the evolutionary history of a species, genus or family. Charley's problem, and that of all ID/creationist, is when he sees that ladder, he sees only the spaces between the rungs and is blind to the rungs. Scientists see the rungs and the rails that connect them. Charley, until you remove the motes from your eyes, you will be blind.
Teach science in science class.
Bible study is fine...just name it an elective in High School
And while we are thinking of it, let's talk about a mandatory class on logic.
For instance, such a class could cover real life controversies such as
Abortion..noting that biology teaches us that when a human ovum is fertilized it is a unique individual.
Another topic could be Gun Ownership...showing that guns were primarily thought of for a militia and that's what the ammendment says.
Another topic could be why Astrology isn't real.
Another topic could be scams.
I maintain that many of the controversies we have today come from an inadequate religious training and inadequate science training.
An oft used analogy for evolution is a ladder where the rungs represent successive steps in the evolutionary history of a species, genus or family.This is an unfortunate analagy, as it suggests a progression from Condition A to Condition B, with steps along the way. The tree analagy is better, in that a trunk splits into numerous branches, which in turn, split, and split again. An even better analagy would take into account "horizontal gene transfer" and assimilation of symbionts (somewhere, someone posted such a 3D "tree").
Abortion..noting that biology teaches us that when a human ovum is fertilized it is a unique individual.
Oh stop with that silly garbage already.
A fertilzed egg IS NOT a person. Unique DNA IS NOT a person. It's not a hard concept to grasp. I fail to understand why religious people have such a hard time wrapping their brains around it.
Plumbing and auto shop are more atheistic than evolution, but the fundies would rather spew shit than wade in it.
Boosterz,
Were you "just a piece of DNA"?
No, if you were then you wouldn't be here typing.
You were though, a fertilized ovum at that point in your life.
So, why deny what is the truth?
And if you deny it, then that makes you NOT a human being?
I don't think so.
And that's not my opinion and it's not particularly religious either it's called...
BIOLOGY
Please learn to think.
Were you "just a piece of DNA"?
No, if you were then you wouldn't be here typing.
You were though, a fertilized ovum at that point in your life.
I'd note that, ten minutes before I was a fertilised ovum, I was also an unfertilised ovum and a sperm cell. Obviously this means we should ban contraception...
I wouldn't say yours was a religious opinion, but it's definitely philosophical not scientific. At best you're using vaguely scientific terms (such as "individual") in an extremely loaded fashion.
Which is fine, as long as you're aware that your particular moral interpretation is an interpretation and doesn't necessarily follow directly from the science. As a quid pro quo, I'll ensure that I do the same with my moral interpretation.
Charley's 9:26 post yesterday about Kansas City politics was one of the best statements of the problem I have seen.
Wally: except that he didn't provide any actual evidence for his grandiose claims. I'm not from Kansas, and he left me with no way of assessing whether they were even remotely accurate.
He also didn't identify "I". For all we know, "Wally" and "Charley" are the same person.
Either way, this is astroturf.
Corkscrew, I am in KC and Charley is right. Go to the mainstream coalition site and see who makes it up.
The elite corps. The power. The money. That what its all about. Bellyaching about IDists and creationists just gives the massess something to focus on while the elite sends their kids to private schools and Ivy League instituitons.
And for all we know, subterranean one and boosted are the same person.
Who ya kiddin?
We seen ya at the bookstore.
P. Edward,
This might be of interest to you:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/
rele...60526180749.htm
Man, sometimes you just can't win.
Well, you finally spotted me.
I guess I'll just have to requisition a new trenchcoat from the Illuminati.
Ick,
No, you are just trying to use the tired old "Philosophical" Argument.
Personally, I have no problem with that. To me it's God that decides not you but since you don't believe in God it's still not a good argument.
So, one who knows everything, tell me why you were born?
You see, even those folks like yourself can't prove or disprove everything.
So, one who knows everything, tell me why you were born?
Why do you assume that there is a reason behind my birth?
I am not vain enough to think so. Why do you?
Were you "just a piece of DNA"?
No, if you were then you wouldn't be here typing.
As I've told you before, a person is a neural net. Basically you ARE your brain. I'm not the one who made the claim that a fertilzed egg is an individiual. YOU are.
You were though, a fertilized ovum at that point in your life.
Well D'uh.
So, why deny what is the truth?
The truth is that a fertilzed egg WASN'T me. It's the tissue that LEAD to me. I didn't exist even on a rudimentary level until my central nervous system started developing. It's not a hard concept.
And if you deny it, then that makes you NOT a human being?
That's an example of sophistry at it's finest.
And that's not my opinion and it's not particularly religious either it's called...
BIOLOGY
No, that's called bullshit. And as I said before I've been seeing it used more and more by religious anti-abortion groups. If you think your silly little argument has merit, please, show me a published scientific article that says a fertilized egg is a person. The only thing you will be able to do is dig something up that says a fertilized egg is "unique". In other words it has unique DNA. You then will have to try and equate unique DNA with being a person. In other words you have to be deceitfull to try and reach your conclusion.
To sum it up for you.
Unique DNA = not a person
Neural net/brain = a person
Fertilized egg has unique DNA.
Fertilized egg does not have a brain.
Fertilized egg IS NOT A PERSON.
Please learn to think.
That's like being called stupid by a retarded person.
I'll be waiting for you to link a scientific article declaring that a fertilzed egg is a person. 
So, one who knows everything, tell me why you were born?
You see, even those folks like yourself can't prove or disprove everything.
Non-sequiturs are notoriously difficult to "prove".
Charley's 9:26 post yesterday about Kansas City politics was one of the best statements of the problem I have seen.
Pat yourself on the back why don't ya...
So, one who knows everything, tell me why you were born?
Explain to me what purpose there is to God's existence and I'll explain to you what purpose there is to mine.
Since a single fertilized ovum can eventually become 2, 3, 4 or more persons, how can it be "an individual"?
Also more rarely, up to two weeks after fertilization, two blastocysts can unite and eventually become one person (a chimera). Please explain, Mr. Murray.
I brought up the twin thing before in a different thread. He avoided addressing it there as well.
Boosterz,
No, why don't you explain, since you seem to know everything.
Boy, I wish you had said the same thing to your biology teacher..
he/she would have flunked you..
claiming that a tadpole is not a frog or a fertilized frog egg is not a frog either.
Sorry, in your own way you are just as bad as the fundies.
In what way is he as bad as the fundies? That's a pretty serious accusation - please justify it.
PEM's "support" is of questionable value. Any votes in a cultural firestorm, but I do wish he would buy a dog, or talk more to the one he has about these issues.
Boy, I wish you had said the same thing to your biology teacher..
he/she would have flunked you.
What exactly would they disagree with that I said? Reference please.
claiming that a tadpole is not a frog or a fertilized frog egg is not a frog either.
A fertilzed frog egg ISN'T a frog, it's a fertilzed frog egg. Is an acorn the same thing as an oak tree? You're "misunderstanding" is obviously intentional at this point.
Sorry, in your own way you are just as bad as the fundies.
Really? Being as how you are the one ducking all the points people keep making that point out how wrong your position is, it would seem that YOU are the one engaging in fundy like behavior. Or were you just about to address the twins issue or the chimera issue? Or any of the other points people have brought up? No? I didn't think so.
Hey folks, what was everyone thinking the moment they became fertiziled?
Anyone?
Sorry, you are just as bad as the fundies!
Sorry, you are just as bad as the fundies!
I'm sorry, you seem to have forgotten to address anything in my post.
Are you an astro-turfer or are you normally this silly?
.....Hey folks, what was everyone thinking the moment they became fertiziled?
I don't know about that. But I do know that I am damned tired of going to the funerals of all of those damn blastocysts who didn't take hold.
If only they weren't considered fully human we could just flush and forget.
.
Hey folks, what was everyone thinking the moment they became fertiziled?
"Sure is dark in here. Hey, what's this little tadpole thingy trying to... ARGH! NOO! GROSS!"
Sorry, you are just as bad as the fundies!
a) That doesn't actually answer any of his questions
b) As I said before, that's a serious accusation. If you can't back it up, it's you (not boosterz) who will lose respect as a result. Think Godwin's law. So I ask again, in what way is he as bad as the fundies?
In this way...he believes his side is the ONLY side and there is NO possibility that the other side has any truth.
That is fundamentalism, and that is what is expressed by most of the posters here.
So acutally, since he denies that he is a "fundie" on top of acting like one, he is even WORSE than the fundies.
How's THAT for a serious accusation?
Pretty serious, I guess...except that it is ot an ACCUSATION.
It is a FACT.
In this way...he believes his side is the ONLY side and there is NO possibility that the other side has any truth.
Please cite evidence. All I've seen is his failing to be convinced by certain arguments, which doesn't count as the arguments in question certainly weren't bulletproof (as demonstrated by the flaws that he pointed out, and which have yet to be explained).
If that's fundamentalism then probably everyone here is a "fundamentalist" for disagreeing with (for example) intelligent design.
I'd tend to define fundamentalism as belief in the face of reasoned argument to the contrary. By this definition, the only person in this thread who's behaving like a fundamentalist is the one who ditches the "reasoned argument" approach halfway through and starts launching ad hominems.
Disclaimer: I'm an atheist but, on this issue, I'm officially a fence-sitter. I think there are valid arguments on both sides, but so far I've only seen one side's set on this blog.
It is our brain which makes us characteristically human. So, I have always held that human life begins whenever significant brain activity begins in the cerebal cortex (around the start of the 3rd trimester?). My comprimise solution to the abortion debate is to allow abortion on demand prior to the third trimester, but only in emergency situations afterwards.
Another compromise made in the 20th century was to gas only sub humans, but not humans.
And yet another compromise was for Russia and America to not nuke the hell out of each other. What was your point again?
I think there's a valid argument in there about compromises not necessarily being better than the extremes, and I actually had exactly the same thought on reading FE's post, but you definitely need to clarify.
Also, your phrasing is invalid - no-one in Nazi Germany was suggesting gassing all humans, so gassing "only" sub-humans wasn't a compromise. A better example might have been: would you be happy with the compromise of only gassing people who were Jewish from both parents (rather than half- or quarter-Jewish)?
how were we born? spontaneous generation, just like Darwin's theory...
No, "Charley," it was the stork . . .
how were we born? spontaneous generation, just like Darwin's theory...
Well, personally I was the result of two parents. Which is good as far as the ToE is concerned, as evolution can only occur in the presence of reproduction of some sort.
Spontaneous generation was the hypothesis that rats and seagulls appeared effectively out of thin air in the region of rubbish dumps. Another hypothesis at the time was that there were "mother rocks" that generated the stones that people kept digging up. Equating spontaneous generation with modern abiogenesis research is about as accurate as equating the mother rock hypothesis with modern geology.
In other words, not remotely accurate. If your plans for today do not involve giving the rest of us a good laugh (as opposed to, say, convincing us), I suggest you find a new argument. One that isn't listed on TalkOrigins would probably be a good start - at least then we'd actually feel you'd given some thought to the issue rather than parroting AiG. Who knows, if you come up with an interesting enough objection to evolution, you might even get a little grudging respect round here.
Problem is here very few, if any of you are Mainline Christians. I sincerely doubt if any of you are Christians at all, with the exception of the stray fundamentalist.
I think, some time ago, Pat warned you about this.
Problem is here very few, if any of you are Mainline Christians. I sincerely doubt if any of you are Christians at all, with the exception of the stray fundamentalist.
Is that your way of admitting that your views are based on your religion and not on science?
PEM: I'm not sure what you're getting at. This is probably because it's 2am where I am and I've been doing number theory revision all day. Could you give my brain a helping hand? Cheers.
Pat Hayes and the Leftwing coalition are right about one thing, Christians need to take their children out of public schools. The increase in homeschooling and private schools free of government indoctrination, will only escalate.
I really dont understand Pat's motive in making the comments he made here 'the good, the bad and the ugly'. does he really believe there is an alliance between christians and big business? big businesses have overun the leadership in both parties to the point that we are now living in a gilded age worse than a hundred years ago. (where is teddy roosevelt when we need him?). when Bill Clinton signed GATT NAFTA he instantly became the biggest anti-labor president in american history.
the people Pat associates himself with in JoCo are the big business leaders (country club set) who have no morals or principles other than making a bigger profit via tax abatements, county works projects, school bonds, buildings and depositing ever increasing tax reciepts into their Blue Valley BAnks.. they combine forces with extremist liberals who have all the wrong principles (or none) to call themselves...get this....'moderates'.
(I guess this is some sort of political borrowing from Nixon's silent majority)
If you want to know who they are, check out Mainstream(leftwing) Coalition, KFUPE, NEA, ACLU, and Moderate REpublicans wherever you can find them. No doubt there are many supporters of mainstream or moderate republicans who have no idea that they are neither mainstream nor moderate (notice it is Kansas families united for PUBLIC EDUCATION, not for Kansas children)
In short, the core of moderate republicans are extremely liberal democrats or very wealthy republicans with few principles other than making a lot of money....
Note the implication--adherence to Christian belief demands separation from public education.
IOW, if one doesn't remove one's kids from public ed, one can not be a true Christian.
I think he subconsciously reveals that there is more than one form of indoctrination.
The increase in homeschooling and private schools free of government indoctrination, will only escalate.
Escalate the education crisis in this country is more like it.
You should go on tour. Let everyone see just what "home schooling" produces and we'll see how many people still decide to do it
I really dont understand Pat's motive in making the comments he made here 'the good, the bad and the ugly'.
Be honest, you don't understand 99% of the stuff going on around you, not just Pat's post.
Charley,
Have you forgotten the question about transitional skelitons?
What would one look like and how would it differ from those we think we have found already?
.
In short, the core of moderate republicans are extremely liberal democrats or very wealthy republicans with few principles other than making a lot of money....
And once again you fail to back this up.
Why not provide, say, ten names of moderate republicans who you feel are actually extreme liberals or very wealthy, and an explanation of why you think that? That would at least demonstrate that your claim isn't completely predicated on hot air.
I'm glad I didn't miss any of our trolls actually answering any questions or providing any non-debunked claims. Seems things moved on as always on RSR over the long weekend.
Scientists will not need fossil evidence and transitional skeletons much longer, as they have learned to sequence whole genomes and have far more pwerful ways to examine the past.
"Pat Hayes and the Leftwing coalition are right about one thing, Christians need to take their children out of public schools. The increase in homeschooling and private schools free of government indoctrination, will only escalate."
Yes, fancy exposing themto knowledge and diversity!
Heathens..!
You stand up for your kid's rights to be as backwards as you are, Charlie.
Boosterz,
The problem here is this:
I am a mainline Christian and you are not a Christian at all. That being the case, you think many things that I say are wrong and we are, in effect, talking past each other.
Not all Christians are fundamentalists, I would have thought by now you might understand that concept.
I really have to admit you have a point though...you are never wrong but always right...
The problem here is this:
I am a mainline Christian and you are not a Christian at all. That being the case, you think many things that I say are wrong and we are, in effect, talking past each other.
You're religion has no bearing on what you say being wrong or right. You can't take a statement that is false and make it true but putting religious brackets around it.
Not all Christians are fundamentalists, I would have thought by now you might understand that concept.
I understand it perfectly. What you fail to see is that just like the fundamentalist you are allowing your religion to cancel out observable reality. I'm pretty sure you know you are doing it as well because you failed to address any of the points that were brought up earlier in the post.
I really have to admit you have a point though...you are never wrong but always right...
I could steal someone else's line now but I won't
What observable reality?
What dimension are you in?
Faith is something that you sense because of the grace of God. I can name several instances that I know in which my prayers have been answered of which I'm entirely sure that you or any other person would refute.
But then again, I am not a theologian at all.
What I always find disconcerting is that folks like you who decide to rail against anyone who is Christian don't try to answer for themselves why we beleive.
For instance, why don't YOU try to research the church fathers and then include some of the more recent Christian Authors...real Christians not fundies.
And while you are at it look at a few of the Saints.
But I guess you are just too terribly convinced that you are alway right and never wrong.
And anyway, where in the world did the idea of RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE go?
That, by definition, means not only other religions but those who do not believe at all...
Which includes you.
What observable reality?
What dimension are you in?
Faith is something that you sense because of the grace of God. I can name several instances that I know in which my prayers have been answered of which I'm entirely sure that you or any other person would refute.
We weren't talking about your faith or your silly belief in the power of prayer. We were talking about abortion. You were claiming some silly garbage about how "science has proven that a fertilzed egg is a person" and me and several other people shot that line of crap down. Just so you know, prayer can also be tested. It has been and it was found wanting:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/3...=rssnyt&
emc=rss
What I always find disconcerting is that folks like you who decide to rail against anyone who is Christian don't try to answer for themselves why we beleive.
I'm not "railing" against you about anything. Nor do I give a particular rip about what your specific religious beliefs. You made a statement that was blatantly wrong and I pointed it out in no uncertain terms. Your desire to go off on some odd persecution complex rant instead of addressing the points that were brought up speaks volumes about you.
For instance, why don't YOU try to research the church fathers and then include some of the more recent Christian Authors...real Christians not fundies.
How did you go from lying about abortion to "church fathers"(whoever they are supposed to be)? More to the point, why the hell would I want to "research" them? Is it going to make your initial claim that science has "proven" that a fertilzed egg is a person any less false?
And while you are at it look at a few of the Saints.
Again, what does this have to do with your initial claim?
And anyway, where in the world did the idea of RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE go?
Religious tolerance isn't a license to lie or decieve. Get over your persecution complex. Nothing in this entire discussion has anything what so ever to do "religious tolerance".
Let me summarize for you:
1. You made the claim "noting that biology teaches us that when a human ovum is fertilized it is a unique individual." You said this to justify your abortion stance by trying to equate a fertilzed egg with a person
2. Me and several other people called you on it and provided several examples that handily trash such an absurd statement.
3. Instead of responding to any of the comments directly, you went off on a religious persecution kick. Too bad for you that all someone has to do is scroll back up this thread to see that there is no one attacking you for your religion. Not only that but you were the one accusing ME of being "as bad as a fundamentalist".
Did I miss anything?
and then include some of the more recent Christian Authors...real Christians not fundies.
And again. Who are you to say who is a real Christian? Every Protestant fundie that I know is just as sure that Catholics are not real Christians.
Have you ever heard people who call into fundie radio?
It's like, "I used to be a Catholic? Now I'm a Christian?"
It is to laugh.
Man, I wish you guys would get together to decide once and for all what Christianity is before you go and try to spread it any further.
And once that is done, maybe you can give us some reasons why we should believe True Christianity instead of True Islam, True Hinduism, True Heaven's Gateism, or any of a thousand other religions.
.
And anyway, where in the world did the idea of RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE go?
That, by definition, means not only other religions but those who do not believe at all...
Religious tolerance just means that, where the evidence runs out, you can believe whatever the heck you like. It doesn't mean we have to respect those beliefs, or let you inflict them on other people. {/standard spiel}
In this situation, for example, you're claiming that an embryo is a "person". You have presented no evidence for this and, based on your comments, your view appears to be grounded in religion. This means that it breaches religious tolerance to attempt to enforce it through legislation.
When you come up with a reason to ban abortion that doesn't depend on the possession of a very specific set of religious/philosophical beliefs, get back to us and we can discuss the issue further. Until then, please keep your religion out of our faces.
Commenting by HaloScan
