logo Sign In

A Big Debate for the New Century — Page 2

Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: ricarleite
the movie is almost remade shot-by-shot


and that's the problem. Whats the point making it the exact same way again. This puts it in the same category as the remake of Psycho. That's problem with remaking a classic. If you change anything people will be mad at you for changing somthing that was in the original, and if you change nothing whats the point of making it?
Author
Time
Post link
More money apparently.

That seems like a really good watch, is it out on DVD anywhere? The first one that is.
"I don't mind if you don't like my manners. I don't like them myself. They're pretty bad. I grieve over them during the long winter evenings."
Author
Time
Post link
Yes it is out on DVD. I own it. although unfortunatly, there are not extras on the DVD. I know the remake was on VHS. I don't know weither it made it to DVD or not.
Author
Time
Post link
DP
"I don't mind if you don't like my manners. I don't like them myself. They're pretty bad. I grieve over them during the long winter evenings."
Author
Time
Post link
Pfft, cheater, acting like it never happened.
"I don't mind if you don't like my manners. I don't like them myself. They're pretty bad. I grieve over them during the long winter evenings."
Author
Time
Post link
acting like what never happened?
Author
Time
Post link
Coming in a little bit late here...

"And it's not "random", it dosen't work like that. On every specie, future generations may have different atributes, and if those atributes are better for survival, those "different" species are most likely to survive and perpetuate their own species. It's logical to me."

You have to be careful about using the word "random", because interactions between said organism and the environment can lead to widely varying effects. I'm reminded of the white moths in England that blended in well with the local white trees. There were far fewer brown moths, because they stood out more, and were easily caught and eaten.

After decades of heavy industrialization, the pollution had turned the trees brown, and thus the white moths were now in short supply, and the brown moths could rest easy. The pollution aspect was certainly not something nature had in mind, so a "random" change, either in the environment or the organism (i.e. mutation), can occur. The sheer number of physiological errors that can occur when something goes wrong (in utero, etc.) prevents the ID from not having random occurences. They can be logically followed and deduced after the fact, but are not always predictable prior.

"3- Does the complex almost mathematical code in DNA have a natural (random, blind) order?"

Sounds like someone's not heard of the "Golden Ratio" or "Fibonacci Numbers".

"The only "proof" I've ever seen was a poster on the wall in my grade-school science classroom of a long line of apes starting at the beginning of time, each one standing more erect than the other. Perhaps when they find this year's missing link?"

With all due respect, the lack of proof you've seen lies more in your lack of experience with it, rather than any perceived lack of said proof. This line of reasoning is like closing your eyes at an intersection, so you could tell the traffic cop that you didn't see the red light. Now, this is not to say that the proof is 100% definitive, but there is plenty to see, should you so choose to study it.

"For instance, the case in Georgia where the school board wanted to put stickers on the text books stating that evolution is a theory, and that many people consider it to be flawed."

Which is ironic, because as much as I am an evolutionist, I have no problem with this statement at all. It is still a theory, regardless of how well supported it is. I don't think there's a God pulling the strings, but there's still a whole universe of knowledge that we don't have access to. Who knows - Douglas Adams could be right.

"Have you guys heard the news that some scientists are questioning whether the spead of light is even a constant? These are secular scientist and they have been studying this and researching it and they think that Einstien was wrong about the speed of light being a constant."

Well, I don't know about light going faster, but light can be slowed down.

"Same with evolution. He likes to think that evolution still happened over the course of the number of years that scientists believe it to have happened but that the Bible refers to that entire process as a "day."

I liked it. Seemed to work for me."

What did he say about the process of dinosaurs?

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: Sadly, I believe the prequels are beyond repair.
<span class=“Bold”>JediRandy: They’re certainly beyond any repair you’re capable of making.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: You aren’t one of us.
<span class=“Bold”>Go-Mer-Tonic: I can’t say I find that very disappointing.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>JediRandy: I won’t suck as much as a fan edit.</span>

Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: MeBeJedi
Coming in a little bit late here...

"3- Does the complex almost mathematical code in DNA have a natural (random, blind) order?"

Sounds like someone's not heard of the "Golden Ratio" or "Fibonacci Numbers".

"The only "proof" I've ever seen was a poster on the wall in my grade-school science classroom of a long line of apes starting at the beginning of time, each one standing more erect than the other. Perhaps when they find this year's missing link?"

With all due respect, the lack of proof you've seen lies more in your lack of experience with it, rather than any perceived lack of said proof. This line of reasoning is like closing your eyes at an intersection, so you could tell the traffic cop that you didn't see the red light. Now, this is not to say that the proof is 100% definitive, but there is plenty to see, should you so choose to study it.

"For instance, the case in Georgia where the school board wanted to put stickers on the text books stating that evolution is a theory, and that many people consider it to be flawed."

Which is ironic, because as much as I am an evolutionist, I have no problem with this statement at all. It is still a theory, regardless of how well supported it is. I don't think there's a God pulling the strings, but there's still a whole universe of knowledge that we don't have access to. Who knows - Douglas Adams could be right.

"Have you guys heard the news that some scientists are questioning whether the spead of light is even a constant? These are secular scientist and they have been studying this and researching it and they think that Einstien was wrong about the speed of light being a constant."

Well, I don't know about light going faster, but light can be slowed down.

"Same with evolution. He likes to think that evolution still happened over the course of the number of years that scientists believe it to have happened but that the Bible refers to that entire process as a "day."

I liked it. Seemed to work for me."

What did he say about the process of dinosaurs?


I'd be interested in reading the Golden Ratio..I'm curious as to how blind forces can account for the staggering amount of information in a single sequence of DNA. Kind of like the "if you put 100 monkeys (or was it Homo Erectus?) at a type writer for a couple of hundred years you'd eventually get Shakespeare" example.

As far as the "proof" of evolution, I accept your challenge to study it (already have to some extent). Thankfully I won't be doing it in a university because there it's already case closed. I will say that commonality does not necessarily translate to a single point of origin-ie: There are 5 buildings made of concrete, did they evolve from the sidewalk?

I'm glad you're open to the"sticker" on the book idea. I'm curious, would you be open to teaching alternative theories to evolution in the classroom so long as they are taught as theory? It is regrettable that generations of indoctrination can't be undone, ie: Telling people that the Miller "primordial seas" experiment was a joke.

A parable: A man and his son are walking down the street. The boy looks at a huge building and says "Wow, how did that building get here dad?" "Well son, a lot of people in construction crews, and civil engineers, and building managers built that building". A little while later they come to a suspension bridge "Wow! How did this bridge get here dad?" "Well son, again it was construction people, engineers, and the like". "How did we get here dad?" "Well, by accident son".
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
"A parable: A man and his son are walking down the street. The boy looks at a huge building and says "Wow, how did that building get here dad?" "Well son, a lot of people in construction crews, and civil engineers, and building managers built that building". A little while later they come to a suspension bridge "Wow! How did this bridge get here dad?" "Well son, again it was construction people, engineers, and the like". "How did we get here dad?" "Well, by accident son"."

But that depends on what you mean by "accident". None of these structures built themselves, and none those structures existed in that state (size, capacity, materials) when the very first of their kind was built. As the knowledge of humans increased, so did out ability to build these things as they are now, but make no mistake - there were accidents along the way - both good and bad. If you were to look at the first "bridge" made by man thousands of years ago, you probably would have been very hard-pressed to visualize what they currently are today.

Consider this - the Grand Canyon now stands where there was once a great plain of flatlands. If you were to take a person from that era, and bring them to present day Arizona, and tell them that the huge valleys were created by the Colorado river over thousands of years, how quick do you think he would be to believe you?

Another thing about "accidents" - many of out greatest inventions were created by accident, hence the colloquial use of the term "Eureka!" Hell, even the defining of gravity was predicated by an apple "accidentally" falling from a tree. What makes the difference is whether or not the new knowledge or insight can later be proven.

Another good example is gambling. People keep trying to come up with methods about how to win at lotteries and slot machines (use favorite numbers, insert quarter with left hand, etc.), thinking that they are somehow "improving" their chances. Regardless of the fact that you are more likely to be hit by lightning, millions of people "believe" that they have a better chance of winning the big bucks. How much sense does that make?

Here's something else to ponder - I saw an ad with Steve Jpbs where he said his lottery numbers were always "1-2-3-4-5-6", because those six numbers have as much a chance of winning as any other six numbers. Do you agree, disagree, or do you understand both sides of this argument?

And as to the "There are 5 buildings made of concrete, did they evolve from the sidewalk?" argument - if you think this simplistic example validates your stance in any wat, then perhaps this isn't a topic that you should try to discuss. Whether or not a theory starts out this way, the scientific process is designed to find out id the theory is true or not. If it turns out that what used to be touted as "truth" is revealed to be a false theory, it is not the fault of the Scientific Method - it is the fault of the practitioners, or perhaps new counter evidence has been found.

I could play the straw-man argument, and ask where God came from: the inevitable answer being that he's always been around. Now you want me to believe this person with tremendous powers has always existed, and only recently created man? Earth was created in 7 days, then we had Adam and Eve, and a bunch of begating up until today, and yet there's evidence that the Earth, not to mention the surrounding universe, has been around for millions and billions of years. (If you think the math is wrong, keep in mind that a lot of that same math is used by the engineers that build building and bridges, as well those who put men on the moon.)

Hell, I could even make this scenario: What if a person believed with all their heart and faith that the buildings were not the result of evolution, but that the concrete has been there since before time itself, and it created the buildings in its own image. AT one point, the buldings were demolished by a non-believer, but they miraculously rebuilt themselves a week later? What if this believer even wrote a book explaining how his beliefs about the concrete and buildings should guide one's choices (Title: My Life as a House), and that the words come from the concrete itself?

How much credence would you give that belief? Would it make more sense to you as a theory? Which would be easier to change with counter-evidence? Also, before you laugh and/or get angry at this analogy, think about all the news stories about people seeing Jesus' face in the dirt of a basement window, or the natual coloration of a brick in their fireplace. Once or twice a year, something like this comes up, and thousands of people flock to these sites to view what they believe to be the face of Jesus. Is this ridiculous, or faith?

Keep in mind that Christianity, and its belief in a single, benevolent God, is a rather recent phenomena compared to other world religions, and yet it has gone over quite an evolution, itself. If you've read the Old Testament, then you know what I'm talking about (you know, that whole "research" thing I was talking about?) Not only has the concept of God and what he does changed from its inception to today, but there are also widely varyibg beliefs between current-day congregations of all countries.

Now, were all these differences brought about by the Scientific Method, or it is simply people focusing on their favored beliefs of God, and recreating him in their own image? Whose God is the real "God", then. If homosexuality is truly an abomination, then can a homosexual truly believe in God? Does God really care if the homosexual believes in him or not?

Before you answer, keep in mind: More people have been killed throughout our history in the name or God (or religion) than for any other reason. We have the Crusades, the Inquisition, and even the knowledge and official admission of thousands of boys and girls molested by members of the Church. Where was God then? Is this simply the fault of the practitioners, or does some of the blame fall on the creator of the practitioners as well?

Or does this simply fall into the convenient catch-all: "The Lord works in strange and mysterious ways."?

As to the Word of God - The Bible. Even if the first Bible contained the word of God, think of the thousands of years of translations, additions, ommissions and rewrites that have occured by the hand of man, either "accidental" or even intentional. I might remind you that in the early days, the churches liked being the sole "interpreter" of the Bible, and so chose to keep it in Latin and other "high languages" to prevent the regular peasantry from reading it for themselves. Regardless, the Bible is now found in English, but there are several different versions of the Bible, each preferred by different people. (The very thing that the church tried to avoid.)

Think of it this way. Take Bossk's example: "He likes to think that evolution still happened over the course of the number of years that scientists believe it to have happened but that the Bible refers to that entire process as a "day." What if his friend is wrong about the length of the day? Is this blasphemy? Does he go to hell because he is wrong about what God means by a "day" in the bible? What if someone else believes otherwise? How is one to find out who is right and who is wrong? Which person is the better believer? Keep in mind that such discussions do take place and split beliefs, such as whether or not Jesus should be worshipped as being on the same level as God, himself.

Of course, this doesn't take into account the many things that we now know to exist prior to the existance of man, and therefore, the existance of the Bible, which would explain why we don't read about the dinosaurs between the creation of the Earth and the appearance of Adam and Eve. H

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: Sadly, I believe the prequels are beyond repair.
<span class=“Bold”>JediRandy: They’re certainly beyond any repair you’re capable of making.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: You aren’t one of us.
<span class=“Bold”>Go-Mer-Tonic: I can’t say I find that very disappointing.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>JediRandy: I won’t suck as much as a fan edit.</span>

Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: MeBeJedi
"A parable: A man and his son are walking down the street. The boy looks at a huge building and says "Wow, how did that building get here dad?" "Well son, a lot of people in construction crews, and civil engineers, and building managers built that building". A little while later they come to a suspension bridge "Wow! How did this bridge get here dad?" "Well son, again it was construction people, engineers, and the like". "How did we get here dad?" "Well, by accident son"."

But that depends on what you mean by "accident". None of these structures built themselves, and none those structures existed in that state (size, capacity, materials) when the very first of their kind was built. As the knowledge of humans increased, so did out ability to build these things as they are now, but make no mistake - there were accidents along the way - both good and bad. If you were to look at the first "bridge" made by man thousands of years ago, you probably would have been very hard-pressed to visualize what they currently are today.

Consider this - the Grand Canyon now stands where there was once a great plain of flatlands. If you were to take a person from that era, and bring them to present day Arizona, and tell them that the huge valleys were created by the Colorado river over thousands of years, how quick do you think he would be to believe you?

Another thing about "accidents" - many of out greatest inventions were created by accident, hence the colloquial use of the term "Eureka!" Hell, even the defining of gravity was predicated by an apple "accidentally" falling from a tree. What makes the difference is whether or not the new knowledge or insight can later be proven.

Another good example is gambling. People keep trying to come up with methods about how to win at lotteries and slot machines (use favorite numbers, insert quarter with left hand, etc.), thinking that they are somehow "improving" their chances. Regardless of the fact that you are more likely to be hit by lightning, millions of people "believe" that they have a better chance of winning the big bucks. How much sense does that make?

Here's something else to ponder - I saw an ad with Steve Jpbs where he said his lottery numbers were always "1-2-3-4-5-6", because those six numbers have as much a chance of winning as any other six numbers. Do you agree, disagree, or do you understand both sides of this argument?

And as to the "There are 5 buildings made of concrete, did they evolve from the sidewalk?" argument - if you think this simplistic example validates your stance in any wat, then perhaps this isn't a topic that you should try to discuss. Whether or not a theory starts out this way, the scientific process is designed to find out id the theory is true or not. If it turns out that what used to be touted as "truth" is revealed to be a false theory, it is not the fault of the Scientific Method - it is the fault of the practitioners, or perhaps new counter evidence has been found.

I could play the straw-man argument, and ask where God came from: the inevitable answer being that he's always been around. Now you want me to believe this person with tremendous powers has always existed, and only recently created man? Earth was created in 7 days, then we had Adam and Eve, and a bunch of begating up until today, and yet there's evidence that the Earth, not to mention the surrounding universe, has been around for millions and billions of years. (If you think the math is wrong, keep in mind that a lot of that same math is used by the engineers that build building and bridges, as well those who put men on the moon.)

Hell, I could even make this scenario: What if a person believed with all their heart and faith that the buildings were not the result of evolution, but that the concrete has been there since before time itself, and it created the buildings in its own image. AT one point, the buldings were demolished by a non-believer, but they miraculously rebuilt themselves a week later? What if this believer even wrote a book explaining how his beliefs about the concrete and buildings should guide one's choices (Title: My Life as a House), and that the words come from the concrete itself?

How much credence would you give that belief? Would it make more sense to you as a theory? Which would be easier to change with counter-evidence? Also, before you laugh and/or get angry at this analogy, think about all the news stories about people seeing Jesus' face in the dirt of a basement window, or the natual coloration of a brick in their fireplace. Once or twice a year, something like this comes up, and thousands of people flock to these sites to view what they believe to be the face of Jesus. Is this ridiculous, or faith?

Keep in mind that Christianity, and its belief in a single, benevolent God, is a rather recent phenomena compared to other world religions, and yet it has gone over quite an evolution, itself. If you've read the Old Testament, then you know what I'm talking about (you know, that whole "research" thing I was talking about?) Not only has the concept of God and what he does changed from its inception to today, but there are also widely varyibg beliefs between current-day congregations of all countries.

Now, were all these differences brought about by the Scientific Method, or it is simply people focusing on their favored beliefs of God, and recreating him in their own image? Whose God is the real "God", then. If homosexuality is truly an abomination, then can a homosexual truly believe in God? Does God really care if the homosexual believes in him or not?

Before you answer, keep in mind: More people have been killed throughout our history in the name or God (or religion) than for any other reason. We have the Crusades, the Inquisition, and even the knowledge and official admission of thousands of boys and girls molested by members of the Church. Where was God then? Is this simply the fault of the practitioners, or does some of the blame fall on the creator of the practitioners as well?

Or does this simply fall into the convenient catch-all: "The Lord works in strange and mysterious ways."?

As to the Word of God - The Bible. Even if the first Bible contained the word of God, think of the thousands of years of translations, additions, ommissions and rewrites that have occured by the hand of man, either "accidental" or even intentional. I might remind you that in the early days, the churches liked being the sole "interpreter" of the Bible, and so chose to keep it in Latin and other "high languages" to prevent the regular peasantry from reading it for themselves. Regardless, the Bible is now found in English, but there are several different versions of the Bible, each preferred by different people. (The very thing that the church tried to avoid.)

Think of it this way. Take Bossk's example: "He likes to think that evolution still happened over the course of the number of years that scientists believe it to have happened but that the Bible refers to that entire process as a "day." What if his friend is wrong about the length of the day? Is this blasphemy? Does he go to hell because he is wrong about what God means by a "day" in the bible? What if someone else believes otherwise? How is one to find out who is right and who is wrong? Which person is the better believer? Keep in mind that such discussions do take place and split beliefs, such as whether or not Jesus should be worshipped as being on the same level as God, himself.

Of course, this doesn't take into account the many things that we now know to exist prior to the existance of man, and therefore, the existance of the Bible, which would explain why we don't read about the dinosaur
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
"get a clue. How many millions were sacrificed on the altar of state sanctioned atheism in the 20th century, ie: Communism, Socialism, Facism (all related)?"

Religion has been around far longer than those politcal concepts have, even long before Christianity was invented.

"Can't make an omlette without breaking a few eggs!"

Does that go for the Crusades and Inquisition as well?

"I never mentioned one word about Jesus, the bible, etc; However that seems to be the preferred response of naturalists when someone DARES question how life can evolve without a guiding force, ie: Q: What caused the Big Bang? A: Religious Nut!!!!"

Well, my point is that it comes down to evidence versus simple belief. The Scientific method demands proof, whereas Faith is apparently enough in and of itself. Oftentimes, it is recommended not to question God's intent in regards to such difficult questions (I'm reminded of George Carlin's question about God and the rock.)

I do think there is an "intelligent design". The sheer complexity of the human body, with all of its systems and interactions required for "life" demand such. A better question would be: is the design, itself, also evolving? Life on earth does change, and will continue to do so, but are we what was what was intended, or are we not at the final product yet, or have we passed our shelf life already?

It's obvious that there are guiding forces - but I don't think it's one supernatural being looking down on all of us. There are many predictable and reproducible causes and effects of life, some of which we are now on control of ourselves (for better or worse), but all of this is based on quantifiable research and math. There are definite patterns of actions and reactions in all known forms of life. Whether or not you think this is the nature of the system, itself, or that someone else set all this up, wound up the key, and just let it go seems to be the difference of opinion here. I think the system, itself, is capable of regulating itself (much like the human body), whereas other people need to believe that there's a central intelligence pulling all the strings, if for no other reason than to give life an overall purpose other than simply existing.

"did the micro-chip populate itself with transistors? Or did the acid and base jump out of the test tubes and mix themselves?"

I'm not sure why you continue focusing on such odd examples. How does this compare to evolutionary biology and origins of life - or is this more of the de-evolution you were referring to? Maybe you should try in terms of when the scientists finally got Dolly's (the sheep) mammary cells to divide and differentiate correctly. That would make a lot more sense.

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: Sadly, I believe the prequels are beyond repair.
<span class=“Bold”>JediRandy: They’re certainly beyond any repair you’re capable of making.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: You aren’t one of us.
<span class=“Bold”>Go-Mer-Tonic: I can’t say I find that very disappointing.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>JediRandy: I won’t suck as much as a fan edit.</span>

Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: MeBeJedi
"get a clue. How many millions were sacrificed on the altar of state sanctioned atheism in the 20th century, ie: Communism, Socialism, Facism (all related)?"

Religion has been around far longer than those politcal concepts have, even long before Christianity was invented.

"Can't make an omlette without breaking a few eggs!"

Does that go for the Crusades and Inquisition as well?

"I never mentioned one word about Jesus, the bible, etc; However that seems to be the preferred response of naturalists when someone DARES question how life can evolve without a guiding force, ie: Q: What caused the Big Bang? A: Religious Nut!!!!"

Well, my point is that it comes down to evidence versus simple belief. The Scientific method demands proof, whereas Faith is apparently enough in and of itself. Oftentimes, it is recommended not to question God's intent in regards to such difficult questions (I'm reminded of George Carlin's question about God and the rock.)

I do think there is an "intelligent design". The sheer complexity of the human body, with all of its systems and interactions required for "life" demand such. A better question would be: is the design, itself, also evolving? Life on earth does change, and will continue to do so, but are we what was what was intended, or are we not at the final product yet, or have we passed our shelf life already?

It's obvious that there are guiding forces - but I don't think it's one supernatural being looking down on all of us. There are many predictable and reproducible causes and effects of life, some of which we are now on control of ourselves (for better or worse), but all of this is based on quantifiable research and math. There are definite patterns of actions and reactions in all known forms of life. Whether or not you think this is the nature of the system, itself, or that someone else set all this up, wound up the key, and just let it go seems to be the difference of opinion here. I think the system, itself, is capable of regulating itself (much like the human body), whereas other people need to believe that there's a central intelligence pulling all the strings, if for no other reason than to give life an overall purpose other than simply existing.

"did the micro-chip populate itself with transistors? Or did the acid and base jump out of the test tubes and mix themselves?"

I'm not sure why you continue focusing on such odd examples. How does this compare to evolutionary biology and origins of life - or is this more of the de-evolution you were referring to? Maybe you should try in terms of when the scientists finally got Dolly's (the sheep) mammary cells to divide and differentiate correctly. That would make a lot more sense.


Wheat bread!! There's an example for you! Just kidding. Anyway, it's been real. We can go around and around for days if not months. BTW: I almost majored in Behavioral Psych, so I appreciate what empiricism means. I also believe that there are things that science has yet to explain, meaning it may eventually explain, or it may never explain. Lack of an explanation does not mean something does or does not exist. For example, your "Who created God" example: My take on that is that it's a chicken and the egg scenario. I don't know which came first, I only know that there are chickens and there are eggs in the world.

No hard feelings I hope. Man, you guys are REALLY going to hate my guts when I start writing a column for the new site.

Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
LOL...actually, you've been doing just fine. I know this kind of discussion can bring about problems because it does get into people's beliefs, but I've said pretty much what was on my mind. For the record, I am agnostic, but I do go with my wife to her (new) church, and my daughter goes to a religious preschool. I love listening to her sing "He's got the whole world in his hands" ("itty-bitty babies" is my favorite part. She does it so well. )

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: Sadly, I believe the prequels are beyond repair.
<span class=“Bold”>JediRandy: They’re certainly beyond any repair you’re capable of making.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: You aren’t one of us.
<span class=“Bold”>Go-Mer-Tonic: I can’t say I find that very disappointing.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>JediRandy: I won’t suck as much as a fan edit.</span>

Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: MeBeJedi
LOL...actually, you've been doing just fine. I know this kind of discussion can bring about problems because it does get into people's beliefs, but I've said pretty much what was on my mind. For the record, I am agnostic, but I do go with my wife to her (new) church, and my daughter goes to a religious preschool. I love listening to her sing "He's got the whole world in his hands" ("itty-bitty babies" is my favorite part. She does it so well. )


I think we can agree that there's one thing that is beyond question in this universe, it's that little girls can melt daddy's heart. Mine has owned me since the second she was born and I held her in my arms. Then my son cam along and he just punches me in the gut every couple of minutes and then tries to tackle me.

Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
My 3 1/2 year old girl is the rough one. She likes to tackle me. My 1-yr-old boy is a sweetheart - always smiling and laughing (and pretty damned healthy for a kid who had open heart surgery at six months of age.)

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: Sadly, I believe the prequels are beyond repair.
<span class=“Bold”>JediRandy: They’re certainly beyond any repair you’re capable of making.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: You aren’t one of us.
<span class=“Bold”>Go-Mer-Tonic: I can’t say I find that very disappointing.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>JediRandy: I won’t suck as much as a fan edit.</span>

Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: MeBeJedi
My 3 1/2 year old girl is the rough one. She likes to tackle me. My 1-yr-old boy is a sweetheart - always smiling and laughing (and pretty damned healthy for a kid who had open heart surgery at six months of age.)


Ouch...my son also had some issues, but not that severe. A kidney issue that kind of fixed itself, then the muscles in his neck were too tight and he couldn't turn his head until he was like 6 months old. Also, he had speech problems for a while but now he never STOPS talking. It is amazing how your world changes after becoming a parent.

Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
Agreed. It didn't occur to me until watching "A Beautiful Mind", when the baby was in the bathtub and the water level was up to his face. I found myself clenching my fists and almost jumping out of my seat to save him. Wow!

BTW, I ran across this odd off-topic discussion while reading about "activist judges". I though the comparisons were very interesting.

Americans vs. Europeans

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: Sadly, I believe the prequels are beyond repair.
<span class=“Bold”>JediRandy: They’re certainly beyond any repair you’re capable of making.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: You aren’t one of us.
<span class=“Bold”>Go-Mer-Tonic: I can’t say I find that very disappointing.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>JediRandy: I won’t suck as much as a fan edit.</span>

Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: MeBeJedi
Agreed. It didn't occur to me until watching "A Beautiful Mind", when the baby was in the bathtub and the water level was up to his face. I found myself clenching my fists and almost jumping out of my seat to save him. Wow!

BTW, I ran across this odd off-topic discussion while reading about "activist judges". I though the comparisons were very interesting.

Americans vs. Europeans


I'll check it out.

Yes, my wife will tell you, if I'm watching tv or a movie and I see anything about a child being abused I FREAK out and will not watch it. I have almost started fights over the way some parents treat their kids. Was in a bowling alley on "Midnight Bowling" night with the loud music...REALLY loud, and someone had a newborn there. Thought I was going to rip their spine out.


Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
Most people who don't believe in Darwin's theory of evolution do so from a religious standpoint. They think that the theory goes against what is written in the bible and somehow demeans the idea of God as creator. But is it not possible that God is the creator and evolution is his method?

War does not make one great.

Author
Time
Post link
Only if you also believe he left out some crucial details when writing the Bible. Did he think we would never find out?

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: Sadly, I believe the prequels are beyond repair.
<span class=“Bold”>JediRandy: They’re certainly beyond any repair you’re capable of making.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: You aren’t one of us.
<span class=“Bold”>Go-Mer-Tonic: I can’t say I find that very disappointing.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>JediRandy: I won’t suck as much as a fan edit.</span>

Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your Father
Most people who don't believe in Darwin's theory of evolution do so from a religious standpoint. They think that the theory goes against what is written in the bible and somehow demeans the idea of God as creator. But is it not possible that God is the creator and evolution is his method?


WOW...here's another doosy for you. BTW, Yoda: No hard feelings over Kyoto. I don't intend to offend anyone (to be honest that wouldn't stop me anyway), but I hope it won't stand in the way of intelligent discourse in the future.

OK...in order to answer this I've got to move away from my original question of is ID viable when compared against EB and put on my "religous hat". So, here goes. I've heard this attempted before, I believe one of my college professors (Western Civ) called it "The Great Watchwinder" theory. Meaning that God created the universe as evidenced by science (including evolutionary forces) and then stepped back.

I am a Christian. Speaking as a Christian, my faith (and that of the next two largest religions, Judaism & Islam) demands my belief in a personal God who actively participates in guiding us in our lives. Again, as a Christian, I pray to God on a daily basis for guidance in my life, enlightenment, etc; Taking the designed-evolutionary theory from this point, it's a non-starter for me and many other Christians (I will not ascribe my beliefs as a Christian to the entire body of what amounts to millions of people who are Christian in name only, and not in practice, just as I do not want their practices or lack thereof ascribed to me).

The problem as I see it from this stand point is not an evidentiary one, however it's a moral one that can lead to evidence of creationism. By this I mean that taking the model you described above, it means one of two things:

1. That since the God of the universe stepped back the instant he was done creating things he does not care what happens after that. This leads to a lack of absolute truth, most specifically resulting in moral relativism, situational ethics, etc; For example, if we knew for an absolute certainty that God did create the universe but did not set any rules that govern it's operation (which we already know to be false btw: laws of motion, gravity, etc) we could justify anything. That way lies chaos. If there is no absolute truth then how can one ever denounce the war in Iraq, the crimes of which any of the nation states of the world are guilty, genocide, etc; We're left with who has the power to impose their beliefs or assert their authority over everyone else?

2. That God did set rules to the way the universe operates after or during the creation (again, observable physical laws we already know about), including rules that govern human behavior (although I can already hear MeBeJedi saying "Well, you've got to be careful about calling them laws, as that's just the name we give to behaviors that we observe"...hah: Beat you to it!). We've seen this time and time again: behaviors have consequences. We choose to break those laws. That is why the world is in the shape it is in. That's one of the unique things about Christianity IMO: It offers answers to the following questions: Where do we come from? What has gone wrong with the world? What can we do to stop it? How can man move to the next level?

Which explanation makes more sense? To me, option #2 is more viable, and IMO is made even more so in that it instructs us to do that which is opposite to our nature: obey the laws that govern our behavior or face the consequences.

The folks who would agree with option #1 will tend to believe in the "better man" theory, meaning that if we just adopt the right political or economic systems, everything will be oooooookay. The great socialist failures of the 20th century are a prime example of this (although there are many who would disagree and say "That's just because the "right" people weren't in charge"). Is unbridled capitalism better? No...however the alternative of "Benign Totalitarianism" that we're being fed now is not a good alternative. But I'm straying off topic. This position also seems to me like it smacks of adolescent rebellion against authority, meaning: Fine, I'll agree to a created universe, but DON"T IMPOSE YOUR MORALITY ON ME!! Assuming a moral law in addition to physical laws, those two positions are by definition mutually exclusive, and are symptomatic of the much greater problem of moral relitivism in society today. It is now practically a crime to criticize certain "protected" groups of people based on your moral or religious belief. This type of forced tolerance is frightening to say the least, and is not true tolerance. It is a thinly veiled demand of acceptance disguised as tolerance, but I'm wandering again.

MeBe: I'm not clear on what you meant by what you said about the bible. However I'll say that when someone asks me about who wrote the bible or what was done before it, I won't say "That's science. I only teach creationism", unlike many naturalists who will immediately say the reverse when you ask what caused The Big Bang. Are there questions the bible doesn't answer? Yes. And I'll be the first to admit it.

Love and Kisses....

JediSage

Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: JediSage
Quote
Originally posted by: MeBeJedi
Agreed. It didn't occur to me until watching "A Beautiful Mind", when the baby was in the bathtub and the water level was up to his face. I found myself clenching my fists and almost jumping out of my seat to save him. Wow!

BTW, I ran across this odd off-topic discussion while reading about "activist judges". I though the comparisons were very interesting.

Americans vs. Europeans


I'll check it out.

Yes, my wife will tell you, if I'm watching tv or a movie and I see anything about a child being abused I FREAK out and will not watch it. I have almost started fights over the way some parents treat their kids. Was in a bowling alley on "Midnight Bowling" night with the loud music...REALLY loud, and someone had a newborn there. Thought I was going to rip their spine out.


OK...here's my reply to the Activist Judges link:

This is a long, ugly thread regarding judges. IMO:
This issue needs to be addressed from multiple
directions:

1. The Democratic fillibuster of judicial nominations
is unconstitutional. There is no middle-ground here.
There is absolutely no historical precedent of needing
a super-majority to break a fillibuster, nor is their
any constitutional grounds on which their resistance
can be based. The law reads that they shall offer "...advice
and CONSENT" to the nominations. The battle cry that
Republicans (I'm an independent, btw) are trying to
destroy Senate rules and 200 years of tradition are
outright lies. Lies that are being trumpeted by the
media without so much as a request for a clarification
of the Democratic position or pointing out the errors
in what they're saying.

2. Let's be honest...the Judiciary is the last bastion
of Democratic political power in the US at this time.
They desparately need to defend it to the death, which
to be honest I can understand. However, the belief
that they seem to be under and that sadly too many of
the American people seem to subcribe: That the word of
the courts is the last word on all issues is not
accurate. The system of checks and balances was
always meant to be transitory. Meaning, the courts
could rule a law written by Congress or signed by the
President as being unconstitutional, however the
Congress and President could do the same to the
Judiciary. For example: 1832, President Jackson citing
constitutional concerns vetoed a bill in spite of
prior court ruling, stated the following:

"The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must each
for itself be guided by it's own opinion of the
Constitution. Each public officer who takes an oath to
support the Constitution swears that he will support
it as he understands it, and not as it is understood
by others..."

This also precludes any notion of looking to outside countries traditions/precedents in terms of legal ruling. Our system of laws is derived from English Common law and, like it or not, Judeo-Christian tradition. Those should be the only "outside" influences that should be considered in the US legal system. Unfortunately, this is not happening, and the roots of our legal system are being slowly whittled away (ie: Is a man's home REALLY his castle anymore?). The left is seeking to empower non-elected enties, like the EPA, the FDA, and the Judiciary, which does nothing but usurp the power of American citizens and render the notion of our system of government useless (we live in a Constitutional Republic, btw, not a Democracy).

As for the notion of executing under-age criminals, I can't believe there are actually people in the world who feel that someone learns the difference between right and wrong on the exact second that they turn 18. Don't know about you, but when I was 17 I knew it was a terrible crime to tie someone up and toss them from a railroad bridge. I believe in restorative justice, meaning that the criminal must make restitution to the victim(s), and also should not be put to death, BUT must pay a price. How they make restitution in a capital murder case, I do not know.

The UN: Don't get me going. The most dangerous organization on the planet right now, IMO, with an avowed socialist agenda.

Love and Kisses,

JediSage
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
Actually, I was just referring to the comparison of religion and morality between Americans and Europeans, but you made some other good points as well.

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: Sadly, I believe the prequels are beyond repair.
<span class=“Bold”>JediRandy: They’re certainly beyond any repair you’re capable of making.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: You aren’t one of us.
<span class=“Bold”>Go-Mer-Tonic: I can’t say I find that very disappointing.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>JediRandy: I won’t suck as much as a fan edit.</span>

Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: MeBeJedi
Actually, I was just referring to the comparison of religion and morality between Americans and Europeans, but you made some other good points as well.


OH, ok. Sorry to go off topic like that.

My take on Europe being "more moral" than us, according to the threads is I'm trying to restrain myself from laughing too hard. We're talking about a group of countries that stood by and let others put themselves in harms way for the last 50 years, ie: the Cold War (with the exception of England), who refused to do anything when they knew what was happening to the Jews in Germany prior to the outbreak of WWII, who actively tried to stop us from invading Iraq in spite of the fact that it was a known madman we were going to deal with who had poisoned his own people and was guilty of countless other atrocities. They have institutionalized euthenasia (not sure if I spelled that right...REALLY tired right now), cradle to the grave welfare, selective free speech rights, no right to keep and bear arms to defend themselves (the violent crime rate in England is up since handguns were banned), no right to privacy in their computer systems (by law citizens in England have to surrender their crypto passwords to police), are openly hostile to the Christian religion, are militantly securlar (a philosophy, btw), have state sponsored drug clinics (great idea that was!), the list goes on and on.

Their point about divorce is misleading, given that the marriage rate is also down, and the native European birthrate is DANGEROUSLY down. Europe is no longer controlled by Europeans given the massive middle-eastern migration to the continent.

These are the types of progressive results that atheistic socialist ideaologies have wrought.

Unfortunately many of these same issues are arising here, particulary with regards to the welfare state, selective free speech, religious persecution, and gun control.

We live in dark times, to be sure.
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com