Monday, March 28, 2005

New Indonesian Earthquake

Monday, March 28, 2005 Posted: 1:36 PM EST (1836 GMT)
From:
(CNN) -- Officials in Thailand and Sri Lanka report that residents are evacuating coastal regions in the Indian Ocean after an earthquake with a preliminary magnitude of at least 8.2 struck off the coast of Indonesia Monday.

Uh oh, God's mad, Sweden must have made another law protecting homosexuals.

http://www.godhatesfags.com
http://www.georgewbush.org/forum/lofiversion/index.php?t13098.html
http://How Religion Warps You

21 comments:

Thrasher said...

If it weren't for the complete mischaracterization of religion, you might have a point. Godhatesfags.com certainly does not speak for me, despite the fact that I view homosexuality as morally wrong. With the view of Christianity that you hold, I can see how you fear that America would become another Saudi Arabia; fortunately, your fears are unfounded.

The Theorist said...

Ah, the Phelps family. What a nice group of people. Kinda like Allan Keyes who has cut of his daughter for being gay. Gotta love those Christian family values. I can't believe that he has decided to stay in Illinois even after we sent a clear message that we just don't want people like him around here.

Toad734 said...

RE: Fascist
I don't see how my fears are unfounded. All you have to do is look at what is happening with the FCC, with congress, with the President and with this fucking Schiavo case to know what I am talking about. Look at all the new laws and bills being introduced that are based on Christian morals, or that try to give more power to these right wing Christian groups.
Look at the House of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act HR 235 IH.
Look at what is happening with these faith based initiatives and tell me that this country isn't heading towards a fundamentalist theocracy.
I am not saying it will happen tomorrow but the constitution is lost somewhere in between the pages of someones Bible.

Thrasher said...

Are you saying that churches should not have political opinions? I don't see how HR 235 really leads to theocracy... If HR 235 were to tell us that we are all to pay tithe to the Baptist church, or that we are all to attend Easter services at a local church, or that every student is required to join in prayers before school football games, it would be setting up a particular religion as the required belief system of the state. That is what leads to your dreaded theocracy.

"Look at all the new laws and bills being introduced that are based on Christian morals, or that try to give more power to these right wing Christian groups."

As though other groups aren't doing the same? That's what happens in democracies, or as it were, constitutional democratic republics.

As for the "f---ing" Terri Schiavo case, Congress and the President were doing the job prescribed for them in the Constitution. They were checking the judicial branch (it didn't work, but they were attempting to stop the usurpation of power by the courts). Again, if you take issue with this, then take it up with the Constitution, not those who enforce it.

Toad734 said...

RE:Fascist
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" It doesn't say "A" religion. If it said "respecting an establishment of A religion" I would agree with your Baptist example. However it says establishment of religion, that means bringing religion into our government’s laws.

Churches can have all the political opinions they want but if they want to keep their tax exempt status then they can't talk about them in church or campaign for a candidate under the churches name.

So why wasn't the President in Texas fighting the bill he signed, when the hospital pulled the life support of Sun Hudson against his families wishes? Oh I see, because he was black and didn’t have any money and the Christians weren’t standing outside the hospital and praying for him, that’s why.
And what part of the constitution where they enforcing??
And that brings me to another point; what happened to churches? Why do Christians show up in front of court houses and hospitals to pray all the time, isn't that why they built churches? Besides, it obviously doesn't work.

You should also look at Florida SB2126/HB837 that was created by a conservative Christian republican to keep college professors from talking about evolution, the big bang, dinosaurs, the moon landing the holocaust and other "controversial" issues, unless they teach the creation theory too.
Shouldn't that mean religious colleges have to teach evolution?

NoxiousVerve said...

Ahhh the religion/government argument. It is certainly plain to see that our constitution was founded on the principle of freedom of religion. This is not surprising considering the fact that most of our founding fathers fled England as a result of religious persectution. At the time the Catholic church was still one of the most powerful entities in the world and much of the separation of church and state rhetoric was probably written out of fear that Catholicism would somehow infiltrate American government institutions and make this country unliveable for the protestants.

I highly doubt that the protestants inserted this verbiage into our legal system out of some altruistic belief that everyone should be able to practice any religion that they so chose. That being said, it is there and we should do our best to uphold one of the most unique tenets of our American culture, as it is the separation of church and state that enables equal protection under law.

Okay... so now you know how I feel about this subject from a legal perspective. But, I have to tell you, given the correct circumstances, I would be more than willing to allow some of the religious beliefs to filter into our legal system. For example, Thou shalt not kill. That would be a Christian value that I would support. The last time I checked, the Bible does not say, thou shalt not kill unless there is are really good reason, or thou shalt not kill unless you really want gasoline to drive your car.

Let me see... there are other religious laws that I would be willing to accept. Judge not lest ye be judged. Hmmm... I think this means that you should not be able to attack another man's character on something like his service in Vietnam if you may have had a few errors in judgement yourself. This law would also preclude nearly any drug, Pro-Life, Prostitution, gay marriage, or any other law governing personal choice on the grounds that God would ultimately decide what was right and wrong when that person died. Yeah... I think that I would be willing to accept that law. You see the problem isn't that religion is creeping into our government, it is that personal gain and politics have entered into our religion, thus bastardizing it beyond recognition.

Thrasher said...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Respecting: prep. Concerning; about.

Establishment: n. A thing established, as a business, military organization, household, etc.

Therefore, Congress shall make no law concerning (restricting, regulating, or enforcing) an establishment that is religious in nature.

This does not call for religion to avoid any part in government. What it does is it prevents religious oppression by the government. Rather than attempting to separate religion and government, this clause provides a safeguard which *allows* religion to take part in government without the possibility of that religion setting itself up as the state religion. Every single legislator could be a Hindu, and could want to implement the Caste System and make Hinduism the state religion in the U.S., but thanks to the Establishment clause, we don't have to fear that possibility.

"Churches can have all the political opinions they want but if they want to keep their tax exempt status then they can't talk about them in church or campaign for a candidate under the churches name."

As I understand it, the only thing they can't do is influence people to vote one way or another. That is fair enough; we don't want churches telling people how to vote, but education from a particular worldview is inherent in any religion or ideology.

"So why wasn't the President..."

I dunno. Why weren't you? The case wasn't so highly publicized, unfortunately, but it was a problem. How about we work to stop these problems, instead of blaming W?

"And what part of the constitution where they enforcing??"

They were attempting to check the judiciary, which was running rampant with this case, even barring government agencies from doing their job.

"Why do Christians show up in front of court houses and hospitals to pray all the time...?"

Same reason anyone shows up. Christians just happen to pray too.

RE: Florida SB2126/HB837

"Shouldn't that mean religious colleges have to teach evolution?"

Depends on what colleges this bill affects. Just public colleges (as it should), or private colleges too? For the government to have public colleges teach Evolution alone is tantamount to establishing a state religion. Evolution is a theory that is based on nothing but circumstantial evidence and has yet to be observed or reproduced. Therefore, the scientific method, which tends to be the determining factor in whether a theory is scientific or philosophical, cannot be used on Evolution. Because of this, Evolution is presently a philosophy, and is subject to the Establishment clause by virtue of the fact that it holds characteristics identical to a religion and is in direct competition with most religions.

In other words, if it holds the same characteristics as a religion and competes with religion, it is bound by the same "rules of engagement" as religion.

Thrasher said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Toad734 said...

1st off, Evolution is not a religion and should never be treated as one. Evolution has no church. Football also takes the place of religion every Sunday but that doesn’t mean it’s a religion, or should be treated as such. And it's a bit more than circumstantial evidence; why do we have an appendix, why do cave fish have no eyes, why do I only have 3 wisdom teeth, why are humans getting taller etc...
Poof, there is an Earth now, and it’s written in a book, that is, well that’s less than circumstantial evidence, it’s just written in a book that is the only evidence of creationism.

As far as the College issue goes my point is that it only affects public colleges, that is what’s wrong with it. Colleges shouldn’t teach paganism, mysticism, or any other theory that doesn’t have any scientific backing. If you want to go to college and learn about God and Jesus, go to a Religious college. I don't go to a rap concert and expect to hear Green Day. Public colleges shouldn't have to worry about everyone’s poor little beliefs and conspiracy theories; it’s a waste of time to try. However if you want to learn about science and learn something based on empirical evidence and not faith, avoid Liberty University or religious colleges.

"An establishment that is religious in nature"
Where the hell did you get that?
The constitution is the law of the land, if you can find one reference to religion, God, or Christianity, you win.
Don't you think if they intended this country to be a religious country they might have mentioned that in this nations most important legal document?
And where in the constitution did it say that religion shouldn't be void in our government?
And how are we avoiding religious oppression? I am oppressed by religion everyday, it goes both ways, it doesn’t just mean that you can’t oppress religion; it means religion can't do the oppressing.
Examples of laws that are puritanical and based on religious beliefs:
Dry counties in the south
No liquor sales on Sunday
Restrictions on Abortion
Censorship of art, radio, TV, music
Hiring practices of faith based organizations
The spread of AIDS due to restriction of birth control
Forcing kids in Florida to learn about creationism in College (do you really think it'll stop there?)
The bombing of abortion clinics
No hard liquor advertising on TV
The death penalty
The addition of God on Currency and in the Pledge of Allegiance
etc. etc.

Toad734 said...

RE:Noxious

Funny you should mention thou shall not kill reference. After all the crying about people trying to install the 10 commandments in every courthouse I do find it interesting that only 2 of the 10 commandments are current laws in the US. It is also pretty obvious that those laws are not religious in nature and even in pagan, polytheistic, and communist societies they have had those same laws, with no influence from the Christian "God". I think those almost fall under common sense rules, like don’t sleep in the fire, don’t eat where you shit etc. those were common sense for every society regardless of their religious beliefs. So in other words, we really weren't founded on any of the 10 commandments and Hammurabi, The Greeks and The Romans have had more influence on this countries laws and development than Christianity or the Bible. Hell, only one out of the first 4 or so European settlements in American was founded on religious grounds.

Thrasher said...

I think you missed a large part of what I wrote about Evolution.

Evolution MUST be treated as an ideology, a philosophy, rather than science. I will explain why; read this carefully:

For a theory to be scientific, it must conform to the scientific method; in other words, if you can't use the scientific method to verify a theory, it can not be considered scientific. A theory that is based on circumstantial evidence and can't be verified by the scientific method qualifies as philosophy rather than science.

Now, Evolution can not be observed, reproduced or experimented with, so it can't be verified by the scientific method. Ergo, it is philosophical rather than scientific.

Of course, at this point you are likely to point out that ID is not scientific per the scientific method either. In that point, you would be correct, Creationism is a philosophy as well. The fact of the matter is that the earth and the universe had a beginning, and we don't know (beyond our own convictions) how it happened. We see evidence, but the way we see it is tainted by our own philosophy, be it Evolutionism or Creationism. Therefore, it is crucial that in a public, government-funded college, there should be a range of possible theories of beginnings taught in science class. This is because the school is not to advocate any one religion, and Evolution is bound by that rule as well.

Now, let me clarify something:

Religion: n. a) Any specific system of belief, worship, conduct, etc., often involving a code of ethics and a philosophy OR b) any system of beliefs, practices, ethical values, etc. resembling, suggestive of, or likened to such a system.

Notice that this definition did not mention the need for a church, or even an organized institution.

Evolution is the philosophy of secular humanism, which falls under part B of the definition I gave you. We can argue all day about the fine points of what secular humanism is, but the fact is that it is in competition with all religions, so it is therefore bound by the same rules of engagement.

Now, one of those rules of engagement is defined by the Establishment clause. Evolution is a philosophy of a religion (though not a religion with a church, to my knowledge), and therefore it is a philosophy that can not be taught to the exclusion of other religious philosophies. Evolution can not be excluded from classrooms until it has been scientifically disproven, but neither can any other religious philosophy.

"And it's a bit more than circumstantial evidence; why do we have an appendix, why do cave fish have no eyes, why do I only have 3 wisdom teeth, why are humans getting taller etc..."

Those, sir, are perfect examples of circumstantial evidence. Thank you for saving me the trouble of coming up with them. The evidence you have cited points to the fact that there WAS a cause for these things, but they alone do not prove any particular cause. That is the very nature of circumstantial evidence, and in order for circumstantial evidence to support your argument, it must reasonably prove the point asserted rather than anything else. Good sir, just because cavefish don't have any eyes doesn't tell me if they just became that way, or if God made them that way. For all anyone *scientifically* knows, little gnomes could live in the caves and eat the fishes' eyeballs.

Just a quick side note, the mention of the blind cavefish is a wonderful example against Evolution, particularly the Use-Disuse theory that supports it. Scientists have tried many times to breed fish in the dark, for many generations, but they have found absolutely no DNA changes, and no evidence of the fishes' eyes weakening. In any individual, unused organs may atrophy, but they do not pass on these adaptations to their offspring. The Use-Disuse theory is a theory that was disproved in the 1800s, if memory serves...

Back on track...

"'An establishment that is religious in nature'
Where the hell did you get that?"

You mean you can't see the relationship between "an establishment of religion" and "an establishment of a religious nature?" Are you sure English was your first language?

Because the following questions are completely irrelevant to our debate, I'm going to skip them. I have made no argument as to the Founding Fathers' intentions as to the religious state of our country, outside of the statement they themselves made in the Establishment Clause.

"And how are we avoiding religious oppression? I am oppressed by religion everyday, it goes both ways, it doesn’t just mean that you can’t oppress religion; it means religion can't do the oppressing."

Okay, so how are you being oppressed? You give examples:

"Dry counties in the south"

You don't like your country being dry, then change it. This does not concern an establishment of religion.

"No liquor sales on Sunday"

Again, you can change it. Or just buy your liquor on Saturday.

"Restrictions on Abortion"

This also does not concern an institution of religion. It is subject to the laws created in this nation.

"Censorship of art, radio, TV, music"

Art's another debate altogether, really. Censorship does not concern an establishment of religion, and is subject to the laws created by the people and the people's representatives. Are you advocating anarchy by suggesting that everyone act solely in accordance with their own morals, rather than any mores in their society?

"The spread of AIDS due to restriction of birth control"

AIDS is more efficiently prevented by avoiding illicit sex. I suggest you turn your attention that way if you really wish to prevent it. Furthermore, this does not affect an establishment of religion, and is subject to the laws made by the people and the people's representatives.

"Forcing kids in Florida to learn about creationism in College"

I believe we've already dealt with this. Until a theory is conclusively proven, circumstantial evidence is all we have, and therefore other theories may not be excluded by public colleges.

"The bombing of abortion clinics"

That's against the law anyway, Toad!

"No hard liquor advertising on TV"

This does not affect an establishment of religion, etc. etc.

"The death penalty"

See above; if you want it changed, you have to go through due processes. This is dealt with in the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause, and is open for debate. It does not concern an establishment of religion, etc.

"The addition of God on Currency and in the Pledge of Allegiance"

Such additions reflected (and continue to reflect) the views of the majority of Americans. However, if you want to argue that it is unconstitutional, be my guest. You have that right. You will be met with opposition by the majority, but you have the right to make your case.

Toad734 said...

There are obvious facts that lead to the conclusion of evolution, and even more that discredit creationism. There are no such facts or even clues that lead to the conclusion that one day God, after billions of years of twiddling his thumbs, said let there be light. The only evidence of this event that you have is faith, AKA gullibility, and a book that wasn't printed until thousands of years after this so called event happened, at a time when the church controlled everything. I'm sure they were an impartial influence. If you feel that is a credible theory to teach in schools, then that means we have to teach the Hindus version of creation, the Eskimos, Native Americans etc. Their theory is no more ridiculous than Christianities; none have any evidence to back them up.
However, seeing how I am Agnostic and not an actual Atheist, I do concede that I don't know, you don't know, and nobody knows for sure what happened or how we came to be. I am still forced to look at the most logical of the theories out there, and the one that has the backing of science and has no evidence suggesting that it didn't happen that way, unlike creation theories.
And by the way, regarding your cave fish comment, they didn't become that way over a few generations; it was more like a few billion years.
As far as the "buy your liquor on Saturday" comment; what if we were to make a law saying you could only go to church on Thursday morning? According to your liquor comment that should be fine with you since you could very well go on Thursday morning.
I however feel both are protected under the constitution through amendments and that prohibiting either is in breech of those amendments, the 1st and 21st.
Should a local entity or "the majority", be able to bring back slavery or restrict a woman’s right to vote, and leave it up to the people who oppose it to fight for the change, just because there are more of them? No, these things are protected under the constitution that overrides state and local laws. Not to mention that the morals and beliefs that inspire these laws are only found in Protestant Christianity and Islam. So restricting abortion, banning alcohol, banning birth control in schools, are "morals" that are from the Bible, and were enacted by Christians who decided these things were wrong and bad based on what the Bible says, or based on their interpretation of the Bible. Find me one Atheist who thinks liquor shouldn't be sold on Sunday, or thinks birth control is a bad idea.
I honestly don't know what you are talking about with your "establishment of a religious nature" comment. I am beginning to wonder if English is your first language. You do realize that the theory of evolution didn't exist when the constitution was written so the authors would not have:
A. Meant that evolution or anything else that wasn't a religion be considered a religion.
B. Assume that everyone would just know that the US is a Christian nation, so therefore just leave the words Christian, God and Jesus out of the constitution since it was so obviously implied.

Thrasher said...

RE: blind cave fish...

Here's a project for you: I want to you sit down one day, and add 0+0+0+0 etc. Do it for as long as you can. Now, once your total reaches 50, let me know. Better yet, just tell me when you get to 1.

I don't care if you say it happens over a few generations or a billion, no genetic change equals no genetic change, even after a billion generations.

I think, personally, that in public school and college classrooms, the theories of beginnings should be taught proportional to the beliefs of Americans. 60% believe in Christian Creationism? Spend 60% of your time on it. 1% believe in Eskimo creation? Spend 1% of your time on it. Then offer electives that go more in-depth for the various theories of beginnings, and above all, teach with objectivity. Teach the students to decide for themselves.

"I am still forced to look at the most logical of the theories out there, and the one that has the backing of science and has no evidence suggesting that it didn't happen that way, unlike creation theories."

I do hope that statement was intended as a joke. Let's ignore the fact that the sun would have burned out if life on earth were as old as you say it is.

In 4 billion years, the earth would be covered with anywhere from 54 ft. to 100 miles of meeoric dust. It is not, however. This fact does not support Evolution.

Furthermore, if the earth were as old as it would have to be for your most logical of theories to be true, the amount of lava produced by volcanoes would be equivalent to the size of the earth. Now, that is at the current rate of lava production, and most Evolutionists believe that volcanic activity was much greater in the past. I'd really like to know where all that lava's going...

Also, it is generally agreed upon that the earth's magnetic field is decaying at a certain rate. At that rate, the earth's magnetic field would have been as strong as that of a magnetic star, only a mere 10,000 years ago.

Look at the production of helium as well. If the earth were billions of years old, there would be large quantities of helium in the atmosphere; helium is relatively rare, however.

Also, taking plagues, wars, famines, and other problems into account, human population statistics further discredit any possibility of the earth being as old as Evolutionists require. If Evolutionists were correct, then taking the aforementioned catastrophes into account, the earth would have approximately 10 to the 27,000 power people living on it. As you can see, there are about 6 1/2 billion people on earth. Using the same calculations and taking the same facts into account, Creationism's assertions would point to 4 billion people today, which is a heck of a lot closer than Evolution's estimates.

Water is being formed and added to the earth at a rate of about 1 cubic mile per year. At this rate, there should be no dry land, by Evolutionist standards.

You see, there are more solid facts against Evolution than there are against Creationism; the only argument against Creationism is one's perception.

"As far as the "buy your liquor on Saturday" comment; what if we were to make a law saying you could only go to church on Thursday morning? According to your liquor comment that should be fine with you since you could very well go on Thursday morning"

Buying one's liquor does not concern an establishment of religion, and so on and so forth.

You can make the case that current laws against liquor sales may violate the 21st Amendment, but the 1st is not involved. Remember that little thing about an establishment of religion?

"Not to mention that the morals and beliefs that inspire these laws are only found in Protestant Christianity and Islam. So restricting abortion, banning alcohol, banning birth control in schools, are "morals" that are from the Bible, and were enacted by Christians who decided these things were wrong and bad based on what the Bible says, or based on their interpretation of the Bible."

So if the majority doesn't make the laws, then who does? You?

Everyone's religion affects the laws that they will allow to govern them. Yours does, mine does, and the same with that dude over there. SOMEBODY's gotta make the laws, so it had best the majority. And, as a precaution against any religious majority from regulating religion in the nation, the Founding Fathers included the Establishment clause.

"I honestly don't know what you are talking about with your "establishment of a religious nature" comment. I am beginning to wonder if English is your first language. You do realize that the theory of evolution didn't exist when the constitution was written so the authors would not have:
A. Meant that evolution or anything else that wasn't a religion be considered a religion.
B. Assume that everyone would just know that the US is a Christian nation, so therefore just leave the words Christian, God and Jesus out of the constitution since it was so obviously implied."

You're still missing my point. I have not yet said that the Founding Fathers intended for the US to be a Christian nation (though that argument can be made, I prefer to save it for another time). I have instead stated exactly what they said in the Establishment clause, that Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion. Now, about all Congress could do regarding an establishment of religion was pass laws either restricting, regulating, or enforcing an establishment of religion. They are not allowed to do that because of the Establishment clause.

Of course Evolution wasn't around back then. However, the Founding Fathers wrote the Establishment clause not just as a safeguard against Christianity (or Islam, or Hinduism, or Wicca), but against any religion in the future that might seek to establish itself as the state religion. Including secular humanism.

Toad734 said...

You are making this really easy.

Where the hell did you get this 0+0? If you had ever gone to a real school, and were not just taught the Bible by your parents you would understand this a little better. There are genetic changes that can be documented. One argument that you can appreciate would be why did people live to be several hundreds of years old in the Old Testament but not anymore? I doubt that is true, but as far as propagating the species goes, it would make sense that nature would extend out reproductive life as long as possible in order for the species to survive and multiply. I am not going to get into that one but there is proof of genetic changes, even in your Bible. And there are obvious things that I mentioned before such as people not being born with their wisdom teeth now, we are being born taller, there is also evidence suggesting that our appendix was once used to digest raw meat like lions are able to do. Try eating a raw slab of pork tonight and see where that gets you. Over millions of years of since man has harnessed the power of fire, we had fewer and fewer reasons for needing what would be required to eat raw meat.

As for your 60% creation comment; if you say that we should have an equal representation of people’s beliefs taught in school then does that mean every year we have to conduct a poll to see if it’s gone up or down? Does that mean teachers must set their watch and spend exactly 36 minutes on creationism, 20 minutes on evolution and 4 minutes on every other theory?
And with that logic does that mean we also have to teach children that there are people who believe blacks are inferior, the Holocaust never happened and we never landed on the moon?

Before we get started on your examples of why the earth isn’t millions of years old, you first have to know that everything works in cycles. Ice ages, droughts, volcanic / plate activity, El Nino etc. Nothing happens at a constant, not even population.

Regarding the meeoric dust; I don’t even know what meeoric dust is so it is hard to comment on that.
But if you mean that the earth should be covered in dust if its millions of years old, take a look, what do you call sand and dirt? Have you ever seen a 4000 year old city be excavated? It’s covered in dust several meters deep. Is that the "meeoric" dust you were talking about? Maybe it was the fact that deserts grow? In a five year period 94-99 the Gobi desert expanded by over 20,000 sq miles, how’s that for some dust?

Lava: Where does the lava go? Ever hear of Hawaii? Since most volcanic activity happens underwater most of it stays there until it pops up and becomes an island. This is also responsible for displacing water and this volcanic activity has slowed considerably over the last 3000 years, again not a constant.

Water: "If the same rate of water blah blah..." Well I just explained where some of this water comes from; the other source would be the melting of the ice caps. The ice caps have only started melting since the industrial revolution and we started pouring Carbon Dioxide and Methane into the atmosphere so again not constant. Not to mention the fact that I mentioned earlier of ice ages and draughts. The earth goes through warming period and cool periods. Ever hear of El Nino?

Population: Population is exponential for the most part but again not constant. Thousands, especially millions of years ago the population pockets were sparse and there were no cities. The world population started to explode after WWII when we had our population boom and large areas of the world were modernizing and moving from the farms into the cities, which increased the rate of population, coupled with the implementation of sanitation and medicine in underdeveloped countries. I would like to see this graph that you are talking about that takes into account exponential growth starting from the first Homosapein through all the diseases plagues and wars that mankind has endured.

Magnetism: No the magnetic field is not diminishing, its reversing polarity. During the time of this flop, true north is not going to be as strong, and you are going to end up with magnetic anomalies such as the Bermuda Triangle. A thousand or so years from now true magnetic north will actually be at the South Pole. Again this is a cycle that the earth goes through. This may have been what made the age of exploration possible. It was a time that magnetic fields were stabilizing. That however is just a theory.

What Helium? I don't know much about this but since your other arguments are fairly weak I am not going to research this one, as I am sure it is not going to be the straw that breaks the camels back. I will again point you to circumstantial evidence such as the rate of increase in Carbon Monoxide in our atmosphere over the last 100 years and say that if you did a study of that rate of growth, in that time frame, you would come to the conclusion that we would have all suffocated millions of years ago.

How the hell do you know what the sun should and shouldn't do?

As for your Liquor and Sunday comment, the 1st amendment affords us the freedom of religion, the 21st affords us the freedom to buy and consume alcohol. There is no hierarchy of amendments. If it’s in the constitution, they get equal protection and consideration. What if the State of Illinois, 52% of the people here, decided that this was going to be a dry state from religion, and you could no longer go to church, or go to church on Sundays? That would be unconstitutional under the 1st amendment, just as what South Carolina and Kentucky have done with the 21st amendment. And that decision was based on Religious doctrine, so it's unconstitutial twice.

The "majority" that you refer to in your perfect Democracy, has no affect on the constitution. What do you think the 1st amendment is? It protects unpopular speech and unpopular religion from the majority.

And by the way, secularism is not a religion, it is an absence of religion. Black is not a color, it is an absence of color.

Toad734 said...

I am such an idiot. I missed the best argument for evolution. How about Asians, black people, Indians, white people etc..

On your theory God created Adam and Eve, they were probably Middle Eastern looking if you look at who lives in that area and that it was a tropical climate. If all life came from them, then how do you explain black people, white people and Asians? Either they evolved separately in their own regions or they adapted to their environment through natural selection for millions of years as they spread out and settled in different climates and environments.
Why are a lot of Swedish people pale with blond hair and burn easily in the sun? Because it’s dark for 3 months out of the year there and they don’t need protection from the sun. Why are black people black? They needed protection from the sun and the long hot days that you get from living on the equator, therefore the darker you were the more likely you were to survive, reproduce and carry on your dark traits.
Either way, you cannot deny natural selection.

Maybe we have the cave fish theory backwards, maybe the fish without the eyes came first and therefore the ones that had the genetic mutation of eyes were able to survive in the light and populated the rest of the oceans, leaving the cave fish only able to survive where its predators had no eye sight either. And maybe putting fish with eyes in the dark was the wrong approach for that experiment that you talked about that I doubt was ever conducted; maybe they should have bred the fish without eyes in the light and see if they would eventually develop eyes. Although you would have to do this study over a couple of million years to see the conclusion. I don't have that kind of time.

trick said...

Poor little NeoFascist. I feel badly for him - cut off from the world of reality at such a young age. Being home "schooled" by his religious-tract-educated, lunatic fringe family, it's no wonder he is so full of these supposed facts repudiating evolution. There's no point in debating him, as easy as it would be. He's just a misguided little kid.

Thrasher said...

Poor little Trick... I feel badly for him - willfully cutting himself off from reality to the point that he essentially calls a conservative homeschooler a "fringe lunatic." At his age, there appears to be no hope for him; he is most deserving of our pity.

I will gladly compare the value of my education to yours. No matter how you look at it, I end up being more socially capable and more academically competent than the vast majority of public schoolers (something you obviously can't claim).

Toad734 said...

On the social end however....

trick said...

Neofascist?:

Academically competent people actually read from a variety of sources and consider all the information in the process of determining the reality of the situation. It seems you haven't read much at all (except maybe the bible and some religious tracts) and you haven't truly considered any of it, including the bible.

I believe that your "facts" supporting claims against the time scale of evolution in favor of creationism are laughable. I assume that you have made it all up or you are simply regurgitating information fed to you by your lunatic fringe community. But on the off-chance that I am wrong about this, please educate me. I would very much like for you to post a few links to some sources of information that support your claims.

I am particularly interested in the answers to these questions:

Why would the sun have burned out by now if the Earth is as old as we evolutionists believe. Exactly how long do you think the Sun and Earth have been around, anyway?

Where have you gotten your ideas about meteoric dust and volcanoes and your estimates of "54 ft. to 100 miles" and "lava produced...equivalent to the size of the earth"?

Why do you think that since the Earth's magnetic field is decaying that it has always been doing so at a constant rate?

Why do you think that helium produced on Earth by natural decay would continue to build up in the atmosphere?

Why do you think that water is being formed and added to the Earth?

Last, but definitely not least, where have you gotten your ideas about the Earth's population?

If you would kindly produce some supported facts regarding any of your positions, I would gladly continue this discussion and maybe we can both learn something.

Joe Wiess said...

I asked my grandmother what she learned in school when she was a child. She told me, reading, writing, artithmetic. I asked her how she learned to read, she said, by reading the bible in school.

Prior to the 1950's, children respected thier parents, their community, thier leaders, themselves, and their country. There wasn't very much teen pregnancy, there was no abortion, the family was important. There were no drugs in schools.

However, since the 1950's, without the ten commandments hanging in schools, we've seen: Rampant drug abuse, Students killing each other, teachers, jacking old people for their money, we've seen a rise in crime, we've seen a rise in teen pregancies, we've seen a rise in homosexuality, we've seen murderers walk free, we've seen child abusers walk free (and yes, even the one's in the catholic church.), we've seen people steal from each other, and we've seen people graduate from school, who can't even spell their own names.

Funny, I think I would have rather lived back in the forties.

Toad734 said...

RE: Joe

There was drugs, they just weren't as available, I'm sure students killed each other from time to time, old people got mugged, kids got pregnant, they just ended up getting married, and getting divorced 20 years later, obviously the church was molesting people then, that's why everyone coming forward is 40-50 years old, and I knew a few of my friends dads who went to school and still didn't have a license because they couldn't read.

A rise in all of those things also reflects the simple rise in population. With a greater and more concentrated population, the better chance you have of producing bad seeds and the other things you talked about. It's a simple game of numbers and chance.
In 1945 the US population was 139 million, mostly rural, now it’s about 280 million, mostly urban.

You may have rather lived back in the forties but most women, blacks, Mexicans, homosexuals, Indians would not have.