Amanda preaches on the Holocaust

amanda.jpgWell, this is a red letter day. Amanda Marcotte gets mentioned here twice. I see she also likes to wear red. Appropriate.
And there’s more symmetry. This is also the same day her former boss, John Edwards, will terminate himself from the presidental race, much as he terminated Amanda for being too liberal.
Which right there explains how far left Amanda leans.
Case in point, Amanda’s January 28 lambast against the March for Life, which included this gem:

[W]hy on earth are all those people standing around listening to speeches while their sex cells die unused inside them? A holocaust! Never mind the actual holocausts where people suffered and died, people with names, families, lives. You know, actual people. Once you start breathing and feeling, these supposed pro-lifers stop caring. I’d suggest they all go take a visit to the Holocaust Museum, which is in the same city as the march after all. Wonder if they could muster up some sympathy for victims of the actual Holocaust, or if real people just interest them less than potential people.

I wonder if Amanda has actually ever toured the Holocaust Museum. If she hasn’t, I’d recommend she steer clear near the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Sandy, MK, Jacque, and I arrived there January 21 when it opened at 10a, and the line of pro-lifers waiting to get in – mostly teens – stretched around the building. Our ticket into the exhibit was stamped 12:45p, so we had to wait nearly three hours.
Pro-lifers understand there’s quite the correlation between the Jewish Holocaust and the Abortion Holocaust.
garbage.jpg
And someday there will be an Abortion Holocaust Museum, perhaps in DC, although likely in Wichita.
And Amanda will find herself in it, as disgraced and on the wrong side of history as the Nazi prison guards who also enabled the killing of millions of innocent people.
[HT: reader Phil]

602 thoughts on “Amanda preaches on the Holocaust”

  1. “[W]hy on earth are all those people standing around listening to speeches while their sex cells die unused inside them? A holocaust!”
    It shows such a lack of respect when someone can’t even articulate the opposing side’s position correctly. It’s the same complete misunderstanding as the lame “every time you scratch your nose, you kill millions of potential lives” argument. I can make a case for bodily autonomy. I can make a case for personhood theory. Why can’t some abortion-choice advocates show us the same respect?

  2. Great Jill…I just finished crying over the holocaust museum and now you want me to visit an “abortion” museum…
    I remember how angry I felt about the “St. Louis” and nobody giving her safe harbor. And how furious I was that all those people just stood around watching…or worse yet, telling themselves that there was nothing to see. The whole world.
    I recently told Bethany not to get too comfortable here, because whenever things got quiet it meant that satan was gathering new minions to send our way…Remember when we thought Cam was bad???
    Then came the wave of TR, Laura, Sally…all of whom turned out to be rather decent folk…
    Abortion reminds me of that. Satan tried the holocaust and while it was devastating, eventually we all came to our senses. So he stepped it up a bit…and now we have abortion.
    Kind of makes the civil war seem tame, doesn’t it?

  3. “Then came the wave of TR, Laura, Sally…all of whom turned out to be rather decent folk..”
    Please MK. They laugh in our faces.

  4. Ahhhhhh…but they’re still here aren’t they? And they’ve accidentally(?) let their human sides show once in a while…
    Truly Jasper, it’s about to get much worse…
    You’ll be wishing for a Laura or two. God help us!

  5. “Why can’t some abortion-choice advocates show us the same respect?”
    Bobby, I think it’s not a lack of respect (or maybe not just a lack of respect). I think it’s an attempt to make her argument, which is a fertilized cell that is aborted is morally equivalent to the unfertilized egg. Believe me, it is hard for the pro-choice crowd to understand and/or respect any arguments against the right to abortion. If all I heard was “abortion is murder” or the rantings of Jasper or Hisman, I’d have no respect either. You and mk, however, and a few others, seem like reasonable people. We just disagree whether abortion is wrong or not. We’d probably get along fine if we kept that topic off the table.

  6. Hal,
    maybe it’s the “others” that hit that nerve with you that you don’t want “hit” because they work on your conscience. Some don’t want to just give you great, big cyberhug when you promote the killing of the preborn. I don’t think they are looking for your “respect”, either. If you are a pro-abort, you obviously don’t know the meaning of the word “respect”.

  7. I think we’d get along well too, Hal. And I see what you mean that she is trying to show there is no difference between a fertilized and unfertilized egg. But it seems to me that when people say things about the nose scratch and what she said above, they are trying to show that if you follow our arguments to their conclusion, then you end up with an absurdity (which is a perfectly valid form of argument.) But consider the fact that one of our criteria for the fertilized eggs humanity is that it has it’s own set of DNA distinct from the mother. This is one criteria that pro-lifers claim (whether you agree with it or not) shows that the fertilized egg is a human. In other words, pro-lifers argue that a NECESSARY condition for something to be a human being is for it to have its own set of DNA distinct from the mother. An unfertilized egg does not have this. So right there, one cannot apply our own logic to argue that the unfertilized egg or skin cells are human beings. We may still disagree about this, but I have never heard the big abortion-choice advocates (who are quite informed about the debate) like Peter Singer and David Boonin make that argument. God love you Hal.

  8. Truly Jasper, it’s about to get much worse…
    You’ll be wishing for a Laura or two. God help us!
    Posted by: mk at January 30, 2008 10:54 AM
    ++++++++++++
    Why is that, mk? you’re scaring me!

  9. Hal,
    That was a really interesting way of putting that…
    a fertilized cell that is aborted is morally equivalent to the unfertilized egg.
    So what do you think happens at the moment of fertilization? I mean, don’t you ever wonder at the enormity of it all? Something, some intanglible, unidentifiable thing happens, and that which was inanimate suddenly becomes animate. Something that was not alive, is suddenly alive. Aren’t you awestruck by that “something”…that life force? Doesn’t that make any difference to you at all?
    I mean these questions sincerely…like when you stare into the ocean and realize how small you, or at the stars and realize how insignificant you are, or see a bird fly or a rainbow and simply marvel at the wonder of it all…that moment, that second, when life begins…I don’t know, it’s so HUGE! And unfathomable. And unknowable. And above me. And beyond my comprehension. I just feel that I owe that moment, that ability, the utmost respect…

  10. Anon,
    It just seems to go in waves…and we ended one bad “scene”, so it follows that a bigger one is coming…always be prepared. When I first came on here Amanda, Midnite and Erin where the posters…We thought they were awful because we’d never heard people express these opinions so bluntly before…but they are wonderful people with one tiny (okay, huge) flaw. They are pro choice. Then Cam joined us…we thought he was the worst of the worst and he made Amanda, Midnite (remember Dahmer, midnite???) and Erin seem like candidates for the nunnery. The came TR, Sally and Laura. Made Cam look like Mr. Rogers…
    So it stands to reason that satans next footsoldiers will step it up a notch…
    I hope I’m wrong…

  11. Who but God goes up to the heaven and comes back down? Who holds the wind in his fist? Who wraps up the oceans in his cloak? Who has created the whole wide world? What is his name

  12. And Amanda will find herself in it, as disgraced and on the wrong side of history as the Nazi prison guards who also enabled the killing of millions of innocent people.
    So pro-choicers=Nazi prison guards? Really? Wow. Really?
    If all I am is a prison guard, where does that leave women who have had abortions, Jill?

  13. If we really wanted to hurt babies we would start mentally, physically and emotionally abusing them a few months after birth when all of their senses kick in.
    Some women just don’t want to be pregnant. They could live in a nice house, have a good job whatever and still have an abortion. Likewise there could be a poor woman, uneducated and unemployed and she can have as many children as she want’s. There could be a fetus with a horrible birth defect and its mother could chose to continue with the pregnancy. We are not saying “All fetuses who are yada yada yada will be aborted.”
    We aren’t going after all fetuses, or any fetuses. If no one wanted to abort we just wouldn’t have abortion. Also most fetuses do not feel pain and the months, sometimes years of fear and torture of the Jews and others during the Holocaust is worth more then to compare it to a possible few minutes of pain.

  14. What evil agenda? So every woman who has had an abortion has had an evil agenda? I’m sure Carla had no evil or malicious intent when she aborted, I think most women do what they feel is best for everyone.

  15. If we really wanted to hurt babies we would start mentally, physically and emotionally abusing them a few months after birth when all of their senses kick in.
    No difference, Jess. And women who have abortions are much more likely to abuse children from subsequent pregnancies, so there you go.

  16. What evil agenda? So every woman who has had an abortion has had an evil agenda? I’m sure Carla had no evil or malicious intent when she aborted, I think most women do what they feel is best for everyone.
    That’s why women are many times the second victims of abortion.
    It all goes back to the people who make money off convincing women they’re worth more without children.

  17. So women who abort do so to hurt their children? I have never met anyone who aborted because they wanted to hurt the fetus. Most people won’t abort if they think the fetus could feel pain. And abortion doesn’t mentally or emotionally hurt the fetus. I mean unless they go to heaven and Jesus tells them their Mom hated them and they will never be loved. But I don’t think Jesus would rub it in their face. I also think as fetuses they wouldn’t care why they were in heaven, just as long as they’re warm and cozy.

  18. I don’t want to bug you Bethany but could I see the study you’re referring too? I think I remember seeing it and I’m curious about the rest of it.

  19. mk:
    Satan hates to hear us pray. I was thinking of posting this on the previous thread. So, I’ll put it here too. Let us pray,
    Our Father, who art in heaven,
    hallowed be thy name.
    Thy Kingdom come,
    thy will be done,
    on earth as it is in heaven
    Give us this day our daily bread.
    And forgive us our trespasses,
    as we forgive those who trespass against us.
    And lead us not into temptation,
    but deliver us from evil.
    For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory. for ever and ever. Amen

  20. mk:
    Satan hates to hear us pray. I was thinking of posting this on the previous thread. So, I’ll put it here too. Let us pray,
    Our Father, who art in heaven,
    hallowed be thy name.
    Thy Kingdom come,
    thy will be done,
    on earth as it is in heaven
    Give us this day our daily bread.
    And forgive us our trespasses,
    as we forgive those who trespass against us.
    And lead us not into temptation,
    but deliver us from evil.
    For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory. for ever and ever. Amen

  21. mk:
    Satan hates to hear us pray. I was thinking of posting this on the previous thread. So, I’ll put it here too. Let us pray,
    Our Father, who art in heaven,
    hallowed be thy name.
    Thy Kingdom come,
    thy will be done,
    on earth as it is in heaven
    Give us this day our daily bread.
    And forgive us our trespasses,
    as we forgive those who trespass against us.
    And lead us not into temptation,
    but deliver us from evil.
    For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory. for ever and ever. Amen

  22. mk:
    Satan hates to hear us pray. I was thinking of posting this on the previous thread. So, I’ll put it here too. Let us pray,
    Our Father, who art in heaven,
    hallowed be thy name.
    Thy Kingdom come,
    thy will be done,
    on earth as it is in heaven
    Give us this day our daily bread.
    And forgive us our trespasses,
    as we forgive those who trespass against us.
    And lead us not into temptation,
    but deliver us from evil.
    For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory. for ever and ever. Amen

  23. mk:
    Satan hates to hear us pray. I was thinking of posting this on the previous thread. So, I’ll put it here too. Let us pray,
    Our Father, who art in heaven,
    hallowed be thy name.
    Thy Kingdom come,
    thy will be done,
    on earth as it is in heaven
    Give us this day our daily bread.
    And forgive us our trespasses,
    as we forgive those who trespass against us.
    And lead us not into temptation,
    but deliver us from evil.
    For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory. for ever and ever. Amen

  24. mk:
    Satan hates to hear us pray. I was thinking of posting this on the previous thread. So, I’ll put it here too. Let us pray,
    Our Father, who art in heaven,
    hallowed be thy name.
    Thy Kingdom come,
    thy will be done,
    on earth as it is in heaven
    Give us this day our daily bread.
    And forgive us our trespasses,
    as we forgive those who trespass against us.
    And lead us not into temptation,
    but deliver us from evil.
    For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory. for ever and ever. Amen

  25. mk:
    Satan hates to hear us pray. I was thinking of posting this on the previous thread. So, I’ll put it here too. Let us pray,
    Our Father, who art in heaven,
    hallowed be thy name.
    Thy Kingdom come,
    thy will be done,
    on earth as it is in heaven
    Give us this day our daily bread.
    And forgive us our trespasses,
    as we forgive those who trespass against us.
    And lead us not into temptation,
    but deliver us from evil.
    For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory. for ever and ever. Amen

  26. mk:
    Satan hates to hear us pray. I was thinking of posting this on the previous thread. So, I’ll put it here too. Let us pray,
    Our Father, who art in heaven,
    hallowed be thy name.
    Thy Kingdom come,
    thy will be done,
    on earth as it is in heaven
    Give us this day our daily bread.
    And forgive us our trespasses,
    as we forgive those who trespass against us.
    And lead us not into temptation,
    but deliver us from evil.
    For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory. for ever and ever. Amen

  27. So they don’t have an evil agenda. they are just misinformed.
    But like I said some women just don’t want children.

  28. So women who abort do so to hurt their children? I have never met anyone who aborted because they wanted to hurt the fetus.
    Most people who abuse their children don’t do so because they want to hurt their children, but because they are overwhelmed, stressed, depressed, etc. Yet, the result is the same. The child is abused.
    Many people who have abortions, don’t do so because they want to kill a child, but because they feel that they will not be able to raise a child and they seek to end their pregnancy. Yet the result is the same. The child dies.

  29. Wait, do any of you think I was sent by the devil to bother you? I wasn’t, and if I really bother you I’ll leave and never come back. Not because of the prayer, I pray often myself, but for the fact you are so disgusted by what I say.

  30. Bethany,
    I know & agree that Carla nailed it. I was actually responding to: “So pro-choicers=Nazi prison guards? Really? Wow. Really?”
    I didn’t specify that. I’m sorry.

  31. Bethany I agree that some women might not abort given better opportunities. I’m not talking about CPC’s, I’m talking about national free health care, better public schools (more funding) and Mom friendly jobs would be a good start.

  32. Sorry, Jess, but I think all reasons to abort are self-centered and that, my friend, is an evil agenda. The “what I want is the only thing that matters” idea does not come from God. And if it doesn’t come from God it is not good, thus evil.
    However, many women don’t realize that until after-the-fact and are miserable because of it.

  33. Here’s some more I just found again:
    Abuse is more likely to occur among “wanted” children. Canadian psychiatrist Philip Ney reports the same findings. He writes, “When I investigated the relationship between child abuse and abortion and reported a direct correlation, people were angry and astonished. It appeared that the rate of child abuse did not decrease with freely available abortions. In fact, the opposite was true. In parts of Canada where there were low rates of abortion there were low rates of child abuse. As the rates of abortion increased, so did child abuse

  34. Ok Anonymous but what about those who don’t believe in your religion? Are they wrong simply because they don’t believe in what you believe?
    Bethany,
    Thanks for the article I just read it. It makes sense, if a woman is poor and stressed and has enough problems she would abort and she does nothing to fix her present situation it will not improve just by having a child. That being said I don’t think it’s the fact these women abort but what drove them to abort that is the reason they’re abusive.

  35. Bethany,
    I know & agree that Carla nailed it. I was actually responding to: “So pro-choicers=Nazi prison guards? Really? Wow. Really?”
    I didn’t specify that. I’m sorry.

    That’s okay..there are so many anonymous’s that I’m getting confused all the time.

  36. I can make a case for bodily autonomy. I can make a case for personhood theory. Why can’t some abortion-choice advocates show us the same respect?
    Bobby, good point, indeed. You’re a rare guy.
    Doug

  37. Dear Jess,
    Oh, for all babies to feel all warm and cozy in their safe little wombs….as God intended. The womb is no longer so safe, eh?
    Stick around, Jess. You are a sweetie and seem to be learning a lot. :)

  38. Thanks for the article I just read it. It makes sense, if a woman is poor and stressed and has enough problems she would abort and she does nothing to fix her present situation it will not improve just by having a child.
    Jess, then did abortion really help her problem? Are the pro-choicers reaching out to these women, to better their conditions, so they can learn how to improve their lives?

  39. To add to the last post I made, pregnancy obviously wasn’t her problem, if she continues to have the problems after having another child. If you give them an abortion and send them back into the conditions they were in before, how are you really helping women?

  40. Anonymous: If you are a pro-abort, you obviously don’t know the meaning of the word “respect”.
    You just pegged the Irony Meter.
    If you had a rational argument, you wouldn’t need silly stuff like “pro-abort.” When Pro-Choicers start calling you a “woman-slaver,” it’d be equal.
    Doug

  41. Thank you Carla. I have a question, you don’t have to answer it, why did you abort and did you feel any angry or malice towards your unborn child before you aborted?

  42. Jess,
    Chillax a bit. It’s only my opinion. You questioned my opinion. I gave you another opinion.
    And of course I think they are wrong, because that’s what I believe. How can I possibly, with my faith, think for a moment that it’s not evil? It’s also fair to say that I don’t expect you to think it’s evil if you do not believe that killing an innocent child in the womb is evil.

  43. “Jess, then did abortion really help her problem? Are the pro-choicers reaching out to these women, to better their conditions, so they can learn how to improve their lives? ”
    That’s what I want to know. No, the abortions didn’t help them. Yes, I do know pro-choicers who want to help them get out of poverty/bad relationships/whatever they need so that they could have the child if they wanted to.
    But then again, some women just don’t want to be pregnant.

  44. Physical punishment – I know some people are totally against it, but my siblings and I got spanked as did every kid on our block, as far as I now, in the 1960s and 1970s. Not a serial-killer or abusive parent among them, now, as far as I know.
    Once in a while I’ll see a kid acting in a certain way, and think, “Now that kid needs a good spanking….”

  45. “”woman-slaver,” it’d be equal.”
    PIP: They call us anti-choicers.
    I do think you are against the legal choice, and that is an awesomely cute picture, PIP.

  46. Doug,
    Are you in favor of abortion? If you had to vote for or against it, which one would you pick? I would pick against it, thus anti-abortion. If you pick for it, you are pro-abortion. It’s simply the shoe that fits. It’s not silly, it’s a cold, hard fact that your side never wants to admit.

  47. AUUGGGHHHH! NOT THE LORD’S PRAYER!!!!
    Oh no…I’m melting…MELTING!!!!!!
    *shrieks horribly and dies*
    Seriously, though, what’s next? Gonna spritz holy water at us with a water gun?

  48. MK – I should have read ahead. You see a progression, as far as things ‘getting worse.’
    So, we’re in a handbasket, eh?

  49. Doug, theres a little bit of difference in simply spanking a child and throwing objects at them, slapping them around, kicking them, biting them, etc.
    But I agree that spanking can be good, used correctly and administered with love. Glad we can agree on that.

  50. Been watching, My Super Sweet Sixteen, Doug?
    Jess, no, and ne’er have. I take it they talk about some kids needing a butt-whippin’ or sometin’ like dat?
    Doug

  51. “I do think you are against the legal choice, and that is an awesomely cute picture, PIP.”
    Thanks :)
    Pregnant women have many choices that don’t involve killing their children. Similarly we are most likely anti-abortion, if pro-life isn’t doing it for you. If pro-choice is simply “choice” while campaign aggressively for abortion why does it offend you if you are called pro-abortion? If you are offended at pro-abortion shouldn’t we similarly feel disrespected if we are called anti-choice?

  52. You know during Catholic mass when the priest comes and flings the holy water at you with the round thing? I’m sorry I don’t know any of the correct terms. I never seem to get any. Oh well you bless yourself anyway when you come in and leave.

  53. Jess,
    Sometimes, I’m afraid that we aren’t clear about what we mean when we say things about abortion.
    At least for me, I think of abortion and the whole mentality as a “thing” of it’s own. I hate it. It makes me sick. I think it’s evil, satanic, depraved, heartless, cold, selfish, and on and on…
    But I don’t think that people who are prochoice are all of those things. I think they just buy into the “mentality”…
    I mean, I really, really, really do believe that satan exists and that he can twist truth and make lies seem so appealing, that good and decent folk fall for it. He’s no amateur.
    Satan is the only “person” that I think fits all those nasty descriptions. Oh, and maybe SoMG. But I’m not entirely sure that they aren’t the same person. (kidding, I’m kidding..sort of)
    So please don’t even think of leaving. Most of those remarks (at least mine) aren’t directed towards people but rather, the lie that abortion is…did that make any sense?

  54. Jess —
    I’m sure you see the ultimate point of the study: If a person deems children disposable before they are born — it doesn’t change after birth. A person who thinks nothing of having one baby sliced up, wouldn’t hesitate to shove a toddler around, if they weren’t meeting the parent’s needs.
    Choosing to abort is a selfish choice and has nothing to do with the quality of schools. That’s really a ridiculous arguement. Like the woman who is that concerned about the quality of schools would not be smart enough to use some protection or consider moving to a place with better school, homeschool or private schooling.
    That is such a liberal nonsensical argument based on the idea that dollars educate children — not parents (with the help of teachers).

  55. Erin,
    Seriously, though, what’s next? Gonna spritz holy water at us with a water gun?
    Too late. Already been done…lol

  56. Haha! Doug, you’re alive!
    Bobby, yeah, and in New Jersey (if you can call that living….)
    Had a job this weekend in NYC, but it got canceled, and this one here – in an oil refinery – is held up because we were supposed to get drug tests prior to arriving.
    The bar/steakhouse built right into this hotel opens at 5 p.m. and just killing some time, for now.
    I think I get Jess’s share of steak.
    Doug

  57. No Doug it’s about kids throwing themselves extravagant birthday parties, think hundreds of thousands of $, and complain if they can’t get the performer they want or whatever. It’s an MTV show. The one now is some girl who arrived at her party in an ice cream truck and she’s going to have break dancers and a skateboard ramp thing and performers and it’s all going to be inside a mall.
    This was one of the cheaper ones : (

  58. “Oh well you bless yourself anyway when you come in and leave.”
    Interesting thing about that (for the Catholics out there), when one blesses themselves with holy water, it removes venial sin. However, the act of contrition and the receiving of the Eucharist at mass also remove venial sin. So unless you have venially sinned in between receiving communion and leaving mass, there’s no reason to dip into the font when leaving.

  59. Doug, did you get a chance to see the other day that I had a funny dream about HisMan teasing you for wearing some kind of funny blue hat?

  60. You know during Catholic mass when the priest comes and flings the holy water at you with the round thing? I’m sorry I don’t know any of the correct terms. I never seem to get any. Oh well you bless yourself anyway when you come in and leave.
    I think that MAY be better than getting hit in the eyeball with the holy water. No matter how many times it happens, it startles me all the same lol.

  61. Doug, lol, why eat steak when you can have a nice shiny apple?
    LB,
    If this country wasn’t so status obsessed, ignorant and overall depressing then yes, I think abortion would go down. Take a look at Denmark.

  62. Bobby,
    I use to drive a woman to daily mass (she’s dead now) and she would practically shower at the font. Then she’d splash you and anyone else within 40 feet of her…the whole time mumbling “I love holy water…”
    And Father Corapi tells the story of the woman that workes as a hair dresser and filled her “spritz” bottles with Holy Water, sprayin’ and prayin’ the whole time she was workin’ on their hair…

  63. Anon: Are you in favor of abortion?
    No, on balance I’m against it.
    ……
    If you had to vote for or against it, which one would you pick?
    Against. All other things being equal, I don’t “like” abortion. “Yuck.” And there are costs and risks which are avoided by preventing pregnancy. Same as for people talking on phones while driving and thus going to darn slow. I’m against it, but wouldn’t outlaw it – sometimes people really need to take or make the call. Likewise, while I don’t see abortion as “good” in a vacuum, I would not prohibit people from having them.
    ……
    I would pick against it, thus anti-abortion.
    Yes, you are anti-abortion, no question about it.
    ……
    If you pick for it, you are pro-abortion.
    Nope, because it’s not me picking it. I leave it to the pregnant woman to decide. I am for her free choice, not abortion, per se.
    ……
    It’s simply the shoe that fits. It’s not silly, it’s a cold, hard fact that your side never wants to admit.
    Wrong – it’s you pretending that the “yes or no” of Pro-Choice is the same as the “yes” of pro-abortion, and that is not true. “Yes or no” is not the same as “yes.” If you need to put emotional spin on stuff, or engage in buzzwordism, it’s your decision.
    The issue is if as a society we let women have the legal choice of abortion. You are against that, in general – I assume, and you certain are against abortion, again in general. Pro-Choicers are for women having the legal choice. If nobody wants abortions, then there won’t be any, and Pro-Choicers are okay with that. Anybody that was actually “pro-abortion” would not be.
    Doug

  64. Doug, lol, why eat steak when you can have a nice shiny apple?
    Jess, because:
    1.) Wasn’t there a story about a nasty old snake and a woman named “Eve” and an apple….?
    2.) And then there was a story about a nasty old queen and a poisoned apple and a girl named “Snow White….”
    3.) They say that “The third time is the charm,” and call me superstititous, but I’m not down with that.
    Doug

  65. “”So unless you have venially sinned in between receiving communion and leaving mass”
    Yes.”
    LOL, Jess.

  66. Jess, that MTV program just goes to show you that child labor laws are too strict – I think those kids should do 12 or 16 hours a day in a nice sweatshop factory for a couple months.
    Doug

  67. Doug, did you get a chance to see the other day that I had a funny dream about HisMan teasing you for wearing some kind of funny blue hat?
    Hey Erin – no, I haven’t been online for a couple days and started with this thread, then will work backwards in time. I will certainly check it out.
    I daydreamed that the propeller on yllas’s beany was turning at over 30 RPM, so I figured it was a good day.
    Doug

  68. “Wasn’t there a story about a nasty old snake and a woman named “Eve” and an apple….?”
    Ha! No, common misconception. The Genesis account only talks about the fruit that Adam partook of, not an apple. Oh yeah!

  69. Doug,
    Oh, I see. You’re against it, but if the woman wants it, you’re for it.
    What about the babies that don’t want it? What do you think the buzzword would be if they were able to choose it?

  70. Hey Jess,
    Had to make Shrek mac and cheese and hotdogs. I know, I know. Bleck. But the kiddoes love it. :)
    I will answer your questions. No problem. Why did I abort? I was desperate, a woman in crisis, I was terrified, I couldn’t see a way “out of the mess I had made” I wanted to be a teacher, who would date me??? I couldn’t see any other way out, and did not seek any voices of reason. I really didn’t know what to do. I was pretty naive about it all. My mom took my sister for one, so I guess that was my example. If I had met a sweet pea named Bethany I KNOW I would have a 17 year old with me today. By the way, I named my baby girl Aubrey. She waits for me in heaven.
    Did I ever feel anger against my unborn child? No. I didn’t think it was a child. I was told it was a clump of cells. It wasn’t until 5 years later when I miscarried a child into my hand that I realized WHAT I HAD DONE!(That is why the pictures of Bethany’s Blessing touch me so much!)
    Cue nasty comments from Sally and Laura….
    Jess, if you click on my name, you can read my abortion story on my blog. It is in the right sidebar. I hate to turn Jill’s blog into mine. :)

  71. It scares me that we think alike sometimes…lol
    MK, I’ve often thought we are very alike in many ways.
    My wife and I visited the Cathedral Church of San Francis of Assisi in Santa Fe, NM, around New Year’s, and it brought tears to my eyes – the beauty, the history, the emotion expressed in the design, fixtures, and art.
    Right across from the Cathedral is the Institute of American Indian Arts Museum. The current exhibit was The Disappeared/Los Desaparecidos “Works by 27 contemporary Latin American artists about those who disappeared at the hands of their own governments.” Talk about horror…..
    There were also works of art, poetry, and pictures by native American military veterans; amazing to see and to get some feeling of how they felt and feel.
    And ‘cuz I felt like loosing some water weight, I just listended to my man Luciano one more time:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VATmgtmR5o4
    Ah, Puccini, you’re still there. Almost a century later, one can reach right through a tunnel in the air and touch the beauty.
    Doug

  72. Pregnant women have many choices that don’t involve killing their children.
    PIP, the legal choice or not is the issue, however on abortion boards – that’s a given.
    ……
    Similarly we are most likely anti-abortion, if pro-life isn’t doing it for you.
    “Pro-Life” is fine with me. An no argument that you are anti-abortion.
    ……
    If pro-choice is simply “choice” while campaign aggressively for abortion why does it offend you if you are called pro-abortion?
    It’s advocating that abortion be legal. It’s not really wanting abortion.
    ……
    If you are offended at pro-abortion shouldn’t we similarly feel disrespected if we are called anti-choice?
    Well, yeah, it’s largely the same thing. Agreed that “anti-choice” isn’t really needed in the debate, since pro-life and pro-choice are understood by all, or even if not, easily clarifable by simply asking.

  73. Lol…Carla, I STILL love kraft mac ‘n cheese and hot dogs. I even cut the hot dogs up into little slices and dip them in ketchup still. My taste buds have yet to advance much past an 8 year old, lol!

  74. Carla,
    Aubrey means “Queen of the Elves”…I love it. Her and Blessing are taking good care of the Liliths etal…

  75. Doug, Oh, I see. You’re against it, but if the woman wants it, you’re for it.
    Yes – on it’s own I don’t “like” abortion, but I think a woman should be able to have one if she wants, to a point in gestation.
    …..
    What about the babies that don’t want it?
    They don’t have any such conceptions or desires. To a point in gestation there is no mental awareness, period.
    …..
    What do you think the buzzword would be if they were able to choose it?
    In the English language I like words with “L’s” in them – often they sound very pretty IMO.
    If there the unborn were thinking, feeling beings like the pregnant woman, it would make a difference to me – thus I mention that point in gestation.
    I understand you feeling that “a life is a life,” etc., but while the pregnant woman is undeniably a thinking, feeling person, to a point in pregnancy the unborn are not.
    Doug

  76. “”So unless you have venially sinned in between receiving communion and leaving mass”
    Yes.”
    Bobby: LOL, Jess.
    Jess not bein’ the biggest carnivore, I thought it might be “veally sinned,” in her case.

  77. Ha! No, common misconception. The Genesis account only talks about the fruit that Adam partook of, not an apple. Oh yeah!
    :: laughing ::
    Bobby, you are so right, and I knew that, once upon a time. The old gray brain, she ain’t what she used to be, ain’t what she used to be….

  78. Doug,
    I thought it might be “veally sinned,” in her case.
    As in, “She was veally, veally bad…”
    Oh, that’s mortal sin, isn’t it?
    Okay, “She wasn’t veally all that bad!

  79. My taste buds have yet to advance much past an 8 year old, lol!
    Erin, don’t know about your taste buds, having never seen them, but the outside of you looks awful good.

  80. So they don’t have an evil agenda. they are just misinformed.
    But like I said some women just don’t want children.
    Posted by: Jess at January 30, 2008 12:10 PM
    Jess,
    Your last sentence is something an 8 year old child would be expected to say about cleaning their room. Not an adult woman about her baby. If she can’t raise the child, there are plenty of people who are willing.

  81. So they don’t have an evil agenda. they are just misinformed.
    But like I said some women just don’t want children.
    Posted by: Jess at January 30, 2008 12:10 PM
    Jess,
    Your last sentence is something an 8 year old child would be expected to say about cleaning their room. Not an adult woman about her baby. If she can’t raise the child, there are plenty of people who are willing.

  82. So they don’t have an evil agenda. they are just misinformed.
    But like I said some women just don’t want children.
    Posted by: Jess at January 30, 2008 12:10 PM
    Jess,
    Your last sentence is something an 8 year old child would be expected to say about cleaning their room. Not an adult woman about her baby. If she can’t raise the child, there are plenty of people who are willing.

  83. So they don’t have an evil agenda. they are just misinformed.
    But like I said some women just don’t want children.
    Posted by: Jess at January 30, 2008 12:10 PM
    Jess,
    Your last sentence is something an 8 year old child would be expected to say about cleaning their room. Not an adult woman about her baby. If she can’t raise the child, there are plenty of people who are willing.

  84. So they don’t have an evil agenda. they are just misinformed.
    But like I said some women just don’t want children.
    Posted by: Jess at January 30, 2008 12:10 PM
    Jess,
    Your last sentence is something an 8 year old child would be expected to say about cleaning their room. Not an adult woman about her baby. If she can’t raise the child, there are plenty of people who are willing.

  85. So they don’t have an evil agenda. they are just misinformed.
    But like I said some women just don’t want children.
    Posted by: Jess at January 30, 2008 12:10 PM
    Jess,
    Your last sentence is something an 8 year old child would be expected to say about cleaning their room. Not an adult woman about her baby. If she can’t raise the child, there are plenty of people who are willing.

  86. So they don’t have an evil agenda. they are just misinformed.
    But like I said some women just don’t want children.
    Posted by: Jess at January 30, 2008 12:10 PM
    Jess,
    Your last sentence is something an 8 year old child would be expected to say about cleaning their room. Not an adult woman about her baby. If she can’t raise the child, there are plenty of people who are willing.

  87. So they don’t have an evil agenda. they are just misinformed.
    But like I said some women just don’t want children.
    Posted by: Jess at January 30, 2008 12:10 PM
    Jess,
    Your last sentence is something an 8 year old child would be expected to say about cleaning their room. Not an adult woman about her baby. If she can’t raise the child, there are plenty of people who are willing.

  88. Believe me, it is hard for the pro-choice crowd to understand and/or respect any arguments against the right to abortion. If all I heard was “abortion is murder” or the rantings of Jasper or Hisman, I’d have no respect either.
    Posted by: Hal at January 30, 2008 11:06 AM
    Sorry to bring this post up late in the thread, but I wanted to weigh in on this with you Hal.
    True. We will probably never ever agree on when life begins or the right to abort. It is impossible for us to understand your arguments for abortion. So let’s set those issues aside.
    Our side is not just about the “abortion is murder” argument. We bring up other issues surrounding this issue every day. Just to name a few: the illegalities and injustices and malpractice and abortion related deaths, and illegal late term abortions,and unsanitary abortion clinic conditions, and statutory rape cover ups, the emotional and physical harm abortion causes, the domestic abuse that surrounds it, and the infertility resulting from abortions, and unlicensed quacks perfoming abortions, etc…. etc…., but rarely if ever do any of the PCers on this site want to honestly acknowledge that these are very real issues and acknowledge they are supporting them by supporting the pro-choice agenda.
    Where is the outrage for these occurances??
    I would think all of the PCers would be more upset than the PLers since your side fought and won the right to safe legal abortions for women and people for the sake of the almighty dollar have bastardized the notion of “safe and legal” abortion.
    Jill posted the article and video of the Spanish abortions clinics who were in clear violation of government law by aborting viable healthy fetuses. Where was the outrage from ANY of you?
    Erin gave me the chills when she posted some trivial issue about the Gloden Globes being cut short when there were photos of a mutilated baby staring right at her.

  89. Erin,
    What a coincidence, I mentioned an 8 year old in my last post and I hadn’t read yours yet.

  90. Erin,
    What a coincidence, I mentioned an 8 year old in my last post and I hadn’t read yours yet.

  91. Erin,
    What a coincidence, I mentioned an 8 year old in my last post and I hadn’t read yours yet.

  92. Erin,
    What a coincidence, I mentioned an 8 year old in my last post and I hadn’t read yours yet.

  93. Erin,
    What a coincidence, I mentioned an 8 year old in my last post and I hadn’t read yours yet.

  94. Erin,
    What a coincidence, I mentioned an 8 year old in my last post and I hadn’t read yours yet.

  95. Erin,
    What a coincidence, I mentioned an 8 year old in my last post and I hadn’t read yours yet.

  96. Erin,
    What a coincidence, I mentioned an 8 year old in my last post and I hadn’t read yours yet.

  97. The old proabort mantras never change, however disproven they may be.
    This garbage about prolifers not caring about anyone who is already born, for instance.
    In addition to their calloused, cruel disregard for innocent human life in the womb, the proaborts aren’t particularly concerned for breathing, ex-utero folks- you remember, these women killed by “safe & legal abortions”- either:
    Diane Adams, 28, died 1992
    Eurice Agbagaa, 26, died 1989
    Leigh Ann Alford, 34, died 2003
    Demitrice Andews, 22, died 1988
    Mickey Apodaca, 28, died 1984
    Gloria Aponte, 20, died 1986
    Charisse Ards, 20, died 1989
    Barbara Auerbach, 38, died 1981
    KB, age 19, died 1988
    Jacqueline Bailey, 29, died 1977
    Brenda Banks, 35, died 1989
    Myrta Baptiste, 26, died 1989
    Lisa Bardsley, 26, died 1995
    Junette Barnes, 27, died 1988
    Deanna Bell, 13, died 1992
    Brenda Benton, 35, died 1987
    Rosario Bermeo, 30, died 1983
    Janet Blaum, 37, died 1974
    Cassandra Bleavins, 20, died 1971
    Linda Boom, 35, died 1995
    Diane Boyd, 19, died 1981
    Mary Bradley, 41, died 1985
    Dorothy Brown, 37, died 1974
    Chanelle Bryant, 22, died 2004
    Dorothy Bryant, 22, died 1986
    Belinda Byrd, 37, died 1987
    Janeth Caldwell, 36, died 1987
    Geneva Calton, 21, died 1979
    Joan Camp, 22, died 1985
    Marla Cardamone, 18, died 1989
    Teresa Causey, 17, died 1988
    Claudia Caventou, 33, died 1988
    Patricia Chacon, 16, died 1984
    Colleen Chambers, 34, died 1984
    Sandra Chmiel, 35, died 1975
    Gwendolyn Cliett, 29, died 1980
    Margaret Clodfelter, 19, died 1980
    Pamela Colson, 31, died 1994
    Geneva Colton, 21, died 1979
    Andrea Corey, 31, died 1993
    Liliana Cortez, 22, died 1986
    Edith Cote, 38, died 1991
    Sheryl Cottone, 23, died 1981
    Twila Coulter, 21, died 1972
    Carol Cunningham, 21, died 1986
    Betty Damato, 26, died 1980
    Mary Ann Dancy, 32, died 1990
    Angel Dardie, 22, died 1982
    Barbaralee Davis, 18, died 1977
    Glenda Davis, 31, died 1989
    Kathy Davis, 26, died 1987
    Margaret Davis, 33, died 1971
    Sharon Davis, 17, died 1983
    Marina DeChapel, 34, died 1978
    Arlin dela Cruz, age 19, died 1992
    Synthia Dennard, 24, died 1989
    Alerte Desanges, 36, died 1994
    Barbara Dillon, 22, died 1981
    Jane Doe of Newark, 20, died 1993
    Laniece Dorsey, 17, died 1986
    Tamika Dowdy, 22, died 1998
    Gwendolyn Drummer, 15, died 1972
    Duarte, Anjelica, 21, died 1991
    Evelyn Dudley, 38, died 1973
    Sherry Emry, 26, died 1978
    Georgianna English, 32, died 1980
    Maureen Espinoza, 16, died 1997
    Gladyss Estanlisao, 28, died 1989
    Erna Fisher, 18, died 1988
    Bonnie Fix, 38, died 1974
    Sharon Floyd, 18, died 1975
    Linda Fondren, 21, died 1974
    Janet Forster, 18, died 1971
    Cristella Forte, 16, died 1986
    Glenna Jean Fox, 17, died 1989
    Jammie Garcia, 14, died 1994
    Josefina Garcia, died 1985
    Marie Gibson, 34, died 1980
    Christen Gilbert, 19, died 2005
    Kathleen Gilbert, 29, died 1985
    Christina Goesswein, 19, died 1990
    Gaylene Golden, 21, died 1985
    Maria Gomez, 39, died 1976
    Edrica Goode, 21, died 2007
    Shary Graham, 34, died 1982
    Doris Grant, 32, died 1971
    Debra Gray, 34, died 1989
    Laura Grunas, 30, died 2006
    Carolina Gutierrez, 21, died 1996
    Angela Hall, 27, died 1991
    Sharon Hamplton, 27, died 1996
    Arneta Hardaway, 18, died 1985
    Gracalynn “Tammy” Harris, 19, died 1997
    Wilma Harris, 17, died 1974
    L’Echelle Head, 21, died 2000
    Sheila Hebert, 27, died 1984
    Donna Heim, 20, died 1986
    Lou Ann Herron, 33, died 1998
    Moris Helen Herron, 26, died 1983
    Rhonda Hess, 20, died 1982
    Betty Hines, 21, died 1971
    Shirley Hollis, 30, died 1991
    Denise Holmes, 24, died 1970
    Barbara Hoppert, 16, died 1983
    Mary Ives, 28, died 1983
    Karretu Jabbie, 24, died 1989
    Louchrisser Jackson, 23, died 1977
    Sandra Kaiser, 14, died 1984
    Patricia King, 24, died 1987
    Giselene Lafontant, 25, died 1993
    Minnie Lathan, 41, died 1978
    Barbara Lerner, 30, died 1981
    Susan Levy, 30, died 1992
    Cora Lewis, 23, died 1992
    Sara Lint, 22, died 1970
    Maria Lira, 19, ded 1974
    Suzanne Logan, 34, died 1992
    Diana Lopez, 25, died 2002
    Linda Lovelace, 21, died 1980
    Elva Lozada, died 1964
    Deborah Lozinski, 17, died 1985
    Dawn Mack, 21, died 1991
    Michelle Madden, 18, died 1986
    Sharon Margrove, 25, died 1970
    Haley Mason, 22, died 2001
    Gail Mazo, 27, died 1979
    Sophie McCoy, 17, died 1990
    Rita McDowell, 16, died 1975
    Myria McFadden, 28, died 1987
    Evangeline McKenna, 38, died 1974
    Kathy McKnight, 36, died 1993
    Kendra McLeod, 22, died 1998
    Lynn McNair, 24, died 1979
    Dawn Mendoza, 28, died 1988
    Yvonne Mesteth, 18, died 1985
    Natalie Meyers, 16, died 1972
    Sandra Milton, 23, died 1990
    Mitsue Mohar, 31, died 1975
    Ruth Montero, 23, died 1979
    Denise Montoya, 15, died 1988
    Beverly Moore, 15, died 1975
    Sylvia Moore, 18, died 1986
    Christine Mora, 18, died 1994
    Maura Morales, 25, died 1981
    Shelby Moran, 60, died 1999
    Katherine Morse, 20, died 1970
    Kelly Morse, 32, died 1992
    Loretta Morton, 16, died 1984
    Kathy Murphy, 17, died 1973
    Dorothy Muzorewa, 25, died 1974
    Guadalupe Negron, 33, died 1993
    Kimberly Neil, died 2000
    Germaine Newman, 14, died 1984
    Sara Niebel, 15, died 1994
    Maria Ortega, 23, died 1970
    Joyce Ortenzio, 32, died 1988
    Venus Ortiz, 29, died 1998
    Linda Padfield, 28, died 1973
    Mary Ann Page, 36, died 1977
    Mary Paredez, 26, died 1977
    Holly Patterson, 18, died 2003
    Shirley Payne, 33, died 1983
    Mary Pena, 43, died 1984
    DaNette Pergusson, 19, died 1992
    Erika Peterson, 28, died 1961
    Katherine Pierce, 27, died 1989
    Katrina Poole, 16, died 1988
    Yvette Poteat, 26, died 1985
    Vanessa Preston, 22, died 1980
    Dawn Ravenell, 13, died 1985
    Jacqueline Reynolds, 22, died 1986
    Erica Richardson, 16, died 1989
    Luz Rodriguez, 40, died 1986
    Magdalena Rodriguez, 23, died 1994
    Rosael Rodriguez, 21, died 1986
    Adelle Roe, age 26, died 2002
    Amanda Roe, 19, died 1970
    Alice Roe, 31, died 1970
    Amy Roe, 35, died 1971
    Annie Roe, 29, died 1971
    Andrea Roe, 26, died 1971
    Anita Roe, 23, died 1971
    April Roe, 17, died 1971
    Audrey Roe, 44, died 1971
    Barbara Roe, 35, died 1971
    Becky Roe, 18, died 1971
    Beth Roe, 35, died 1971
    Betty Roe, 29, died 1974
    Beverly Roe, 21, died 1978
    Brenda Roe, 31, died 1974
    Cherish Roe, died 2005
    Christi Roe, 29, died 1972
    Cindy Roe, 25, died 1972
    Colleen Roe, 31, died 1972
    Connie Roe, 31, died 1972
    Danielle Roe, 18, died 1972
    Dawn Roe, 29, died 1972
    Denise Roe, 27, died 1977
    Donna Roe, 18, died 1973
    Dorothy Roe, 44, died 1973
    Eleanor Roe, 20, died 1973
    Ellen Roe #1, 22, died 1974
    Ellen Roe #2, 18, died 1983
    Erica Roe, 20, died 1974
    Faith Roe, 21, died 1974
    Faye Roe, 18, died 1979
    Gail Roe, 23, died 1975
    Gloria Roe, 35, died 1976
    Isabel Roe, died 1981
    Judy Roe, 42, died 1970
    Julie Roe, 14, died 1972
    Kimberly Roe, 25, died 1970
    Lori Roe, 17, died 1970
    Malorie Roe, 35, died 1974
    Mary Roe, 19, died 1971
    Melissa Roe, 27, died 1992
    Molly Roe, 21, died 1975
    Monica Roe, 31, died 1971
    Nadine Roe, 32, died 1978
    Nancy Roe, 16, died 1972
    Pamela Roe, 38, died 1974
    Patricia Roe, 16, died 1975
    Robin Roe, 21, died 1972
    Roseanne Roe, 37, died 1971
    Roxanne Roe, 17, died 1972
    Sandra Roe, 18, died 1971
    Sara Roe, 22, died 1972
    Serena Roe, 22, died 1980
    Sherri Roe, 20, died 1975
    Sheryl Roe, 23, died 1970
    Susan Roe, 21, died 1992
    Tammy Roe, 33, died 1971
    Tara Roe, died 2005
    Teresa Roe, 19, died 1974
    Terri Roe, 43, died 1991
    Vanessa Roe, 35, died 1973
    Vicki Roe, 23, died 1971
    Wanda Roe, died 2006
    Wendy Roe, 23, died 1972
    Yvonne Roe, 19, died 1999
    Julia Rogers, 20, died 1973
    Rhonda Rollinson, 32, died 1992
    Allegra Roseberry, 41, died 1988
    Sharonda Rowe, 17, died 1981
    Rhonda Ruggiero, 29, died 1982
    Stacy Ruckman, 23, died 1988
    LaSandra Russ, 20, died 1971
    Tamia Russell, 15, doed 2004
    F.S., 16, died 1970
    Stella Saenz, 42, died 1968
    Angela Sanchez, 27, died 1993
    Angela Satterfield, 23, died 1990
    Carole Schaner, 37, died 1971
    Angela Scott, 19, died 1979
    Oriene Shevin, 34, died 2005
    Gloria Small, 43, died 1978
    Deloris Smith, 15, died 1979
    Diane Smith, 23, died 1976
    Laura Hope Smith, 22, died 2007
    Margaret Smith, 24, died 1971
    Teresa Smith, 31, died 1988
    Laura Sorrels, 30, died 1988
    Kathryn Strong, 26, died 1972
    Jennifer Suddeth, 17, died 1982
    Tami Suematsu, 19, died 1988
    Yvonne Tanner, 22, died 1984
    Michelle Thames, 18, died 1987
    Ingrid Thomas, 28, died 1994
    Magnolia Thomas, 36, died 1986
    Hoa Thuy “Vivian” Tran, 22, died 2003
    Elizabeth Tsuji, 21, died 1978
    Cheryl Tubbs, 29, died 1975
    Iris Valazquez, 20, died 1987
    Cycloria Vangates, 32, died 1976
    Veal, Latachie, 17, died 1991
    Brenda Vise, 38, died 2002
    Cheryl Vosseler, 17, died 1969
    Gail Vroman, 20, died 1979
    Pamela Wainwright, 37, died 1987
    Lynette Wallace, 22, died 1975
    Debra Walton, 35, died 1989
    Nicey Washington, 26, died 2000
    Sheila Watley, 31, died 1987
    Diane Watson, 27, died 1987
    Ingar Weber, 28, died 1991
    Robin Wells, 27, died 1981
    Chivon Williams, died 1996
    Ellen Williams, 38, died 1985
    Nichole Williams, 22, died 1997
    Sandra Williams, 30, died 1984
    Shirley Williams, 30, died 1980
    Tanya Williamson, 28, died 1996
    Carole Wingo, 22, died 1974
    Virginia Wolfe, 33, died 1998
    Darlene Wood, 23, died 1982
    Gail Wright, 29, died 1986
    Stacy Zallie, 20, died 2002
    A topic that never seems go lose it’s appeal at NAF conferences is how to cover up abortion cartel “oopsies” — aka maternal deaths. You’d think that such paragons of concern for women as these folks claim to be would focus on medically preventing these botch jobs but NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, the focus has been consistently on legal ways of avoiding responsibilty for them…at least, it has been ever since Warren Hern got booed off the stage at one of these conferences for advocating responsible medicine. Heaven forbid that an abortionist should see any sort of light…but he did feel the heat, and altered his priorities accordingly. Oh, and yes, that is the same Warren Hern who admitted that he got a pseudo-electric “charge” out of the death throes of an innocent child being murdered, and the same one who, in a fit of relative honesty, said,

  98. “It’s advocating that abortion be legal. It’s not really wanting abortion.”
    I’d have to disagree with you there. If you didn’t “want” abortion you would also be helping women to not have one. You actively “want” women to be able to have one. This is effectively pro abortion.
    A republican I talked to once said, “You know, I’m pro-life, but I am also anti-big government, so I don’t want to make women to not have abortions. Rather safe and legal. But I’m still prolife, because I think it’s wrong.”
    I was bewildered. I told her “effectively, you are pro-choice.” And she said, “sort of.” I wanted to say “uh…yes…because if you are pro life you would be against it; pro-lifers think of abortion as killing a human being, and nobody in their right mind would say better safely kill one than “forcing” someone to kill somebody unsafely (?). It doesn’t make any sense to me. I will call you pro-choice if you want to, but really that makes you pro-abortion rights. Isn’t that effectively the same thing. Pro-abort is short for pro-abortion rights. If we leave it at pro-life and pro-choice I’m okay with it. I’m just trying to help you understand why we sometimes refer to it as pro-abort. Some people are more “pro-abortion” than others though.

  99. Carla,
    The Shrek mac n cheese is the best. I mean they all taste the same of course..but me and Gabriella love Shrek the best. She’s also a big hot dog n’ beans girl. mmmmm…healthy fooooood….

  100. Pip,
    I have to disagree with you on one thing. I don’t think “pro-abort” is short for pro-abortion rights. I think it’s an offensive term (as offensive as anti-choice) used to make the other side look bad, implying that they are crazy people that go out and try to talk women into having abortions.
    It’s not necessary to split hairs over terminology. The terms that are accepted in the abortion debate are pro-life and pro-choice, and everyone knows when using those terms it applies specifically to abortion and not anything else.

  101. I think it’s an offensive term (as offensive as anti-choice)
    Why does it offend you if you support abortion..tehrefore you are in support OF abortion?
    used to make the other side look bad
    Sorry, but the dismemberment of babies in the womb does enough for your side looking bad..we don’t really have to TRY in that arena.

  102. Okay…gotta share. Just went down to get a gingerale and the sea monkeys are fornicating on my kitchen countertop! Either that or Johnny glued them together…sheesh, right there in front of all the other sea monkeys! Get a room already!

  103. This is why I have grown fond on the term abortion-choice advocate. Usually the term pro-abortion changes the subject and people begin to argue over that and, like Stephanie said, it just seems to incite people. However, I do think that there is a bit of a smoke screen in the term pro-choice, because it begs the question as to whether or not such a choice should be permitted. I can call myself pro-choice all day, but if I mean the choice to rape someone or have sex with 4 year olds, then no one should have that choice. Abortion-choice advocate has both the words abortion and choice in it (for those of you who couldn’t figure that out on your own), so I think it’s a good term.

  104. Bobby,
    It also implies (prochoice) that we are antichoice…as in my kids get no choice…they must always eat cheerios…We are pro-choice (about inconsequential things) too and it seems deceptive to leave out what we are choosing…
    Abortion-choice advocate seems like a good compromise but it sure is long. Which means it will get shortened to ACA and then we really lose the meaning…
    Of course pro life implies that the other side watnts everyone dead…so that’s not really fair either…
    what to do, what to do…

  105. “It’s not necessary to split hairs over terminology. The terms that are accepted in the abortion debate are pro-life and pro-choice, and everyone knows when using those terms it applies specifically to abortion and not anything else.”
    I gotta agree with MK here. I don’t have a problem using the same terminology. But it is hypocritical to whine about being called a pro-abort when they refer to us as “antichoice.” That was my original point at least. LOL it kind of evolved from there. It’s okay with me either way what the terminology is, but pro-abortion rights is just as normal as pro-gun rights and pro-gay rights. I don’t mind being called pro-gay.
    I guess the rub here is that each term really used is so broad it starts encompassing other things. And it really does start referring to other topic than abortion, often.
    Like “if you were REALLY pro-life, you would think this.” Or “if you were REALLY pro-choice, you would be okay with this.” I’d just rely on the good ol’ words and keep in mind they are used for convenience rather than an entire philosophy. Otherwise on the issue of homosexuals, wouldn’t “anti-gays” be “pro choice?” They believe people “choose” to be gay!
    I do think there are varying people within the “prochoice” camp that are truly “pro abortion” in the strict sense of the word (as opposed to the shortened pro-abortion rights). Many PP workers are like this, complaining there aren’t enough movies portraying abortion as positive! Really! Or those that say “she should have had an abortion.” and stuff like that. Doesn’t seem “pro-choice” at all to me.

  106. Amanda Marcotte is a vile anti-christian bigot. I went on that blog once and was banned after a couple comments. They can’t handle the Truth.

  107. Stephanie:
    It appears to me that the term pro-choice is an oxymoron because it does not convey the meaning of its application. That is, being pro-choice could end up in the murder of an innocent child in the womb.
    On the other hand, pro-life honestly represents the intended meaning of its application which is very simply, always life.
    The term pro-choice is a dishonest term and was coined as a means of watering down its affect. I mean, who really wants to kill a a baby?
    Why your side can’t be honest about what pro-choice results in and in truth stand for it by calling it what it really is, i.e., pro-death, your movement is doomed to failure because the truth always wins out.
    Also, if your side does call it what it really is, it surely loses. Check and mate.

  108. PIP:
    Evolution is a failed theory and will join the ranks of the junk science dump heap years from now.
    You make a huge mistake at being led away from the truth.
    “The grass withers, and the flower fades, but the Word of God shall endure forever”.
    Now that’s something to get excited about.

  109. My Sea Monkeys did that too mk, and then they ate each other (I got a hamster and forgot to feed them). It’s ok though, cause after they die you let the water evaporate and then fill it up again and the dried up scum comes back to life.

  110. Carla,
    I never thought about that term until you brought it up. Yes, I agree. It’s not good for those who have already made ammends. (with themselves & God). Do you have something different in mind? Maybe we can use it here & it will spread across pro-life blogs throughout the world!
    (I dream big)

  111. It’s hard to take too seriously moral or ethical advice from someone who believes “evolution is a failed theory.”
    Ok, I’ve drafted your response too
    “It’s hard to take too seriously moral or ethical advice from someone who killed two of his children.”
    Ok, my turn.
    I didn’t kill my children, we terminated a pregnancy.
    Ok, you’re turn.
    “what were they, hamsters? Of course they were your children”
    My turn.
    I guess we just disagree.
    your turn.
    It’s not a “disagreement,” face the truth. Abortion kills babies and is always wrong.
    My turn.
    says you….
    Your turn.
    Says GOD.
    My turn.
    Ok, whatever, have a nice day. Go Obama!

  112. LOL HisMan. It’s not a science issue with you it’s a spiritual one. If your theology is so weak that its basis for salvation hinges on an (extremely established) scientific theory for validation, this conversation can’t really go any further. Leave it between me and God, mmkay?

  113. pip,
    I agree with you..there is plenty of room for science and God in this world. I personally enjoy learning all that I can about EITHER subject. They are both very extensive and quite amazing subjects to me.

  114. prettyinpink,
    no offense, but why do you keep bringing up evolution, on a blog that talks about abortion, if you don’t want to discuss it and receive alternating opinions?
    or, do you?

  115. Ooooh Anon…. you do dream big! I dunno Redeemed? Forgiven and Set Free? Hardly what you are going for!! :)
    Thank you, Bethany. My children know and love Aubrey as their big sis. Along with Jamie and Lee-the two I miscarried.

  116. “Satan tried the holocaust and while it was devastating, eventually we all came to our senses. So he stepped it up a bit…and now we have abortion.”
    Posted by: mk at January 30, 2008 10:42 AM
    Jess,
    I posted the Lord’s Prayer in response to mk’s post about Satan, the Holocaust and Abortion. It wasn’t directed at you and I’m sorry if you thought so. And please forgive me if I was harsh on my later post. My frustration should not have been directed to you! God bless you.

  117. “Satan tried the holocaust and while it was devastating, eventually we all came to our senses. So he stepped it up a bit…and now we have abortion.”
    Posted by: mk at January 30, 2008 10:42 AM
    Jess,
    I posted the Lord’s Prayer in response to mk’s post about Satan, the Holocaust and Abortion. It wasn’t directed at you and I’m sorry if you thought so. And please forgive me if I was harsh on my later post. My frustration should not have been directed to you! God bless you.

  118. “Satan tried the holocaust and while it was devastating, eventually we all came to our senses. So he stepped it up a bit…and now we have abortion.”
    Posted by: mk at January 30, 2008 10:42 AM
    Jess,
    I posted the Lord’s Prayer in response to mk’s post about Satan, the Holocaust and Abortion. It wasn’t directed at you and I’m sorry if you thought so. And please forgive me if I was harsh on my later post. My frustration should not have been directed to you! God bless you.

  119. “Satan tried the holocaust and while it was devastating, eventually we all came to our senses. So he stepped it up a bit…and now we have abortion.”
    Posted by: mk at January 30, 2008 10:42 AM
    Jess,
    I posted the Lord’s Prayer in response to mk’s post about Satan, the Holocaust and Abortion. It wasn’t directed at you and I’m sorry if you thought so. And please forgive me if I was harsh on my later post. My frustration should not have been directed to you! God bless you.

  120. “Satan tried the holocaust and while it was devastating, eventually we all came to our senses. So he stepped it up a bit…and now we have abortion.”
    Posted by: mk at January 30, 2008 10:42 AM
    Jess,
    I posted the Lord’s Prayer in response to mk’s post about Satan, the Holocaust and Abortion. It wasn’t directed at you and I’m sorry if you thought so. And please forgive me if I was harsh on my later post. My frustration should not have been directed to you! God bless you.

  121. “Satan tried the holocaust and while it was devastating, eventually we all came to our senses. So he stepped it up a bit…and now we have abortion.”
    Posted by: mk at January 30, 2008 10:42 AM
    Jess,
    I posted the Lord’s Prayer in response to mk’s post about Satan, the Holocaust and Abortion. It wasn’t directed at you and I’m sorry if you thought so. And please forgive me if I was harsh on my later post. My frustration should not have been directed to you! God bless you.

  122. “Satan tried the holocaust and while it was devastating, eventually we all came to our senses. So he stepped it up a bit…and now we have abortion.”
    Posted by: mk at January 30, 2008 10:42 AM
    Jess,
    I posted the Lord’s Prayer in response to mk’s post about Satan, the Holocaust and Abortion. It wasn’t directed at you and I’m sorry if you thought so. And please forgive me if I was harsh on my later post. My frustration should not have been directed to you! God bless you.

  123. “Satan tried the holocaust and while it was devastating, eventually we all came to our senses. So he stepped it up a bit…and now we have abortion.”
    Posted by: mk at January 30, 2008 10:42 AM
    Jess,
    I posted the Lord’s Prayer in response to mk’s post about Satan, the Holocaust and Abortion. It wasn’t directed at you and I’m sorry if you thought so. And please forgive me if I was harsh on my later post. My frustration should not have been directed to you! God bless you.

  124. If you are a pro-abort, you obviously don’t know the meaning of the word “respect”.
    Posted by: Anonymous at January 30, 2008 11:14 AM
    ***********************************************
    The PCers who post here have made the point time and again that they are not “pro-abortion,” and this terminology only serves to further offend them. By ignoring their requests to adhere to conventional terminology, you are not only opening yourself up to be labeled “anti-woman” and “anti-choice” but are also displaying the disrespect that you dislike in them. Irony….

  125. PIP:
    You think you can separate science and theology? Who do you think created science?
    No this is about truth.
    Evolution is a lie and I am simply warning you of that.

  126. “no offense, but why do you keep bringing up evolution, on a blog that talks about abortion, if you don’t want to discuss it and receive alternating opinions?”
    Nah, I was just excited about my class and I had to express it. If someone doesn’t want to discuss it rationally I would rather not discuss(/debate) it at all, but if someone honestly wants to know more about it or exchange some ideas I am glad to discuss it. We had a fun discussion a few months ago that was fun. If you have a problem with random topics coming up just say so and I will refrain from saying anything off topic from now on.
    Btw, I am not trying to censor HisMan, I just know the conversation will be fruitless, often many conversations with him are. No offense HisMan, I just know you are very opinionated and won’t listen to this scientific insight, and I will not try to change your beliefs. I see no point in discussing it further with you. I hope no hard feelings.

  127. HisMan,
    I simply think there is room for both. Thanks for the warning. I’ll answer to the man upstairs..if my understanding of evolution send me to hell, well, I’ll see many Christians there.

  128. SamanthaT,
    Ok, I see where you are coming from.
    I’ll make you a deal.
    When your side stops condoning the killing of babies in the womb, I will stop calling you pro-aborts.
    I promise.

  129. “Oh, for all babies to feel all warm and cozy in their safe little wombs….as God intended.”
    Posted by: Carla at January 30, 2008 12:23 PM
    I don’t get this. I know it’s a personal problem, but why does an omnipotent,omniscient god make babies — 50 million of them — just so they can be ripped apart? And furthermore, what exactly is the point in worshiping someone like that?
    *****************************************
    “Evolution is a failed theory and will join the ranks of the junk science dump heap years from now.”
    Posted by: HisMan at January 30, 2008 3:33 PM
    Evolution is a proven theory. Read “The Beak of the Finch” by Weiner. You are very intelligent and have an immense faith; surely you do not doubt that God has the ability to utilize a mechanism so simple as evolution? How do you think nature ended up with so much variety? I think you are selling Him short.

  130. pip,
    I think there is room for both science and God. Evolution and Creation. Like I’ve said, I have no problem with you talking about them…I do however think they should obviously be kept separate. My bio teacher said, if you want to learn about the religious teaching about the beginning of the world, take a theology class, if you want to learn the SCIENTIFIC viewpoint, take a science class. He was a stickler but I liked him. His view on it made sense to me.

  131. Samantha T: I don’t get this. I know it’s a personal problem, but why does an omnipotent,omniscient god make babies — 50 million of them — just so they can be ripped apart? And furthermore, what exactly is the point in worshiping someone like that?
    Samantha,
    I would attemp to answer this if it were a serious question, but it doesn’t take a rocket scientist, or even a monkey to figure out that it is just a feeble attempt to get Christians riled up. Nice try.

  132. “no offense, but why do you keep bringing up evolution, on a blog that talks about abortion, if you don’t want to discuss it and receive alternating opinions?”
    Posted by: Anonymous at January 30, 2008 4:06 PM
    ************************************************
    Huh?
    And evolution describes the mechanism of change that occurs over time in the behavior and physiology of animals. I’d say evolution is a pretty pertinent topic in the abortion realm, because you don’t read about Eve and Sarah and Leah aborting their pregnancies. Just a thought.

  133. “He was a stickler but I liked him. His view on it made sense to me.”
    I agree with him! :)
    They are separate subjects, theology should never be inserted into science curriculum. But I don’t think science and religion inherently contradict each other, either.
    Have you ever seen Kenneth Miller speak? YOU SHOULD. He’s wonderful. A key witness in the Dover trials (and writer of my high school textbook) and a Roman Catholic. He has good insights.

  134. “I would attemp to answer this if it were a serious question, but it doesn’t take a rocket scientist, or even a monkey to figure out that it is just a feeble attempt to get Christians riled up. Nice try.”
    Posted by: Anonymous at January 30, 2008 4:39 PM
    I’m sorry you were offended. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that this is a pretty big stumbling block for someone whose spiritual health you are completely unfamiliar with. Perhaps you could just overlook the question, then, and maybe Bethany or Valerie or Mr. Bambino could help me understand? I’m sure they won’t be “riled up.”

  135. PIP:
    I didn’t say you or anyone else was going to hell because they believed in evolution.
    However, believing any lie, as believing that it’s a choice and not a baby, will ultimately prevent one from living the best life possible.
    Besides, believing any lie opens the door to believing more lies and why wouldn’t I want to protect anyone from that?
    If I didn’t care, I wouldn’t speak.
    I want my life and those of who I love to be saturated in truth.
    Perhaps God is allowing you to learn about the theory of evolution so you can debunk it later in life.

  136. Samantha,
    No, it was a dig at Carla’s beautiful comment.
    You didn’t rile me up or offend me at all.
    When I was younger I used to be pretty manipulative myself. As I grew up, I grew out of it and I was able to spot it rather quickly in others. It’s quite a gift!
    If Bethany, Valerie or Mr. Bambino help you out with this one, I will very much look forward to the responses that you give them. I hope you can prove me wrong and pray that you will take heed in what they will tell you.

  137. “The PCers who post here have made the point time and again that they are not “pro-abortion,” and this terminology only serves to further offend them.”
    tough.

  138. “Perhaps you could just overlook the question, then, and maybe Bethany or Valerie or Mr. Bambino could help me understand? ”
    Sure Samantha. I read your question as quoted by anonymous, but I don’t know if there was a bigger context to the question. But the traditional Christian understanding is given in the doctrine of free will. God gave us the ability to choose right and wrong. So why would he do this? As the bible says (Isiah 51??), God’s ways are so far above our ways, in a sense that we cannot even begin to comprehend. But it seems as if he allows evil and suffering in our world to bring about a greater good.
    When can clearly see that this is his method of accomplishing things through the atonement of Jesus Christ. It is simultaneously the greatest good and the greatest evil the world has ever known. The greatest evil: deicide, human beings killing their creator, killing God. The greatest good: redemption and the offer of divine adoption into God’s family, a share in the divine sonship of Jesus Christ.
    So abortion, the holocaust, Katrina, cancer, all these need to be understood in terms of God’s divine plan and his permissive will. God love you.

  139. SamanthaT:
    Then why has not one, here me, not one species transition fossil ever been found?
    What evolutionists miss or altorgether ignore is genetic mutation is specific to species. I.e, if you brreed more dogs with short snouts with a lesser number of dogs with long snouts, statistically you eventually get a dog that looks like a pug. But from the same breeding cycle you’ll never, ever get a cat.
    Evolution is a loser becasue it denies the creative genius of the Creator. It’s actually a religion because it not based on science it’s based on faith.

  140. That’s the rub, HisMan, I am studying it and have in the past read several books on this subject. I do not see any lie there, only one of the most well-supported theories in the scientific realm. Fascinating!
    It should be said if evolution were to be “debunked” with proper evidence, it should only be more fascinating. Science at its finest.

  141. “Then why has not one, here me, not one species transition fossil ever been found?”
    Check out whale evolution, Thewissen et al 2002.
    Over 24 transitional forms have been found.

  142. But I don’t think science and religion inherently contradict each other, either.
    Neither do I and I agree they should be separate subjects when taught in schools depending on the cirriculum. Obviously not many public high schools offer theology classes so the students will just have to wait until college to voluntarily take those courses.

  143. “students will just have to wait until college to voluntarily take those courses.”
    Or go to a religious college and be required to take these courses :)

  144. PIP:
    Bingo. Examine your OWN words for goodness sake!
    Transitions are found within the same species.
    There is no evidence that a whale ever became a monkey or a shark or a doo-dah. Ask your professor.
    Evolution thoerizes that life came from nothing and developed into single cell life forms which eventually ended up being cats, and dogs, and fish, and well, people, no?
    It would take the denial every bit of common sense that I possess to believe that hog wash.
    No, evolution is an attempt by its adherents to kill or annilate God if, just as a concept, as the act of abortion is or….to make oneself feel unaccountable to a God. You would do yourself wise not to follow such fools.

  145. Samantha T: I don’t get this. I know it’s a personal problem, but why does an omnipotent,omniscient god make babies — 50 million of them — just so they can be ripped apart? And furthermore, what exactly is the point in worshiping someone like that?
    Samantha, I haven’t read to see if anyone has answered your question yet, but my views on it are that God created us for eternity, not just for 70-100 years on this earth. Every single one of us eventually dies. Each of us has an appointed time of death. In Psalms, David says, “So teach us to number our days, that we may apply our hearts unto wisdom.”
    There is a purpose for each and every one of us on this earth, and even though we do not understand it, it is true. There was a reason that my babies died through miscarriage even though I wanted them so badly. I know that, with certainty. God created them for a specific purpose, and I may not know that purpose on this side of Heaven. All I can do is trust that God meant what He said when He said that “

  146. “Transitions are found within the same species.”
    These transitional forms are from other mammals to whales. Isn’t that the whole point of that post. You asked about transitional forms. Some of these forms had legs, which is why the baleen whale has a vestigial hipbone.
    “There is no evidence that a whale ever became a monkey or a shark or a doo-dah. Ask your professor.”
    LOL aren’t strawmans fun?
    “Evolution thoerizes that life came from nothing and developed into single cell life forms which eventually ended up being cats, and dogs, and fish, and well, people, no?”
    Evolution does not say such a thing. Evolution does not really deal with how the first life form came to be (though it didn’t come from “nothing”). Other fields of study do deal with it though. Best not confuse them.
    “It would take the denial every bit of common sense that I possess to believe that hog wash.”
    Or lack of knowledge about the subject matter.

  147. “No, evolution is an attempt by its adherents to kill or annilate God”
    Well at least 80% of scientists are theists so..your argument on this level does not stand.

  148. Jess,
    THere’s a lesson in everything…
    It’s ok though, cause after they die you let the water evaporate and then fill it up again and the dried up scum comes back to life.
    Okay, so there is “scum” on the bottom…add water, you have life.
    How many people say those were sea monkeys all along and how many think they were just so much garbage.
    Not comparing babies to sea monkeys, but since there is no womb and all that’s needed is water, at what point to they actually become sea monkeys?

  149. Bethany,
    God’s image. I don’t think God is a physical being but a spiritual one. “Image” refers to spirit. We are the only creature with an immortal soul.
    God is not subject to his own natural laws, I don’t believe. So I don’t know why he would evolve. I think he is the one that made evolution happen, which speaks volumes for his amazing work.

  150. Bethany,
    I think the Bible can be poetic. So I don’t think that God is an old man with a white beard. I believe with image and likeness it refers to our conscious, our soul, our willingness to be like Him in a spiritual sense.
    This is just my opinion, though…

  151. mk,
    oooh I like the sea monkey analogy. Who would have thought????
    btw, LOL on your 2:29 PM post. It really cracked me up!

  152. PIP, “We are the only creature with an immortal soul.”
    EXACTLY!!!
    Take that, you soul-less apes!!!

  153. And the words image and likeness in that context are derived from the same Hebrew words which are used in this verse:
    Gen 5:3 And Adam 0121 lived 02421 an hundred 03967 and thirty 07970 years 08141, and begat 03205 [a son] in his own likeness 01823, after his image 06754; and called 07121 his name 08034 Seth 08352:
    image: 1) image
    a) images (of tumours, mice, heathen gods)
    b) image, likeness (of resemblance)
    c) mere, empty, image, semblance (fig.)
    likeness:
    n f
    1) likeness, similitude
    adv
    2) in the likeness of, like as

  154. Samantha,
    The answer to that question is one word. The word we are all discussing right now. Choice.
    Story:
    A man is at the barber shop and he and the barber are discussing everything from navel lint to baseball. Eventually, they get around to God.
    The barber says he doesn’t believe in God. Says he can prove it. He says “What kind of a God would let people suffer? War, Death, Illness, Insanity, hatred…No, if there was a God none of these would exist”
    The guy in the chair is stumped. He knows the barber is wrong, but can’t think of how to prove it. He leaves.
    2 blocks away he sees a rather scraggly homeless man, desperately in need of a shave and a shower.
    He goes back to the barber. Tells him he doesn’t believe that barbers exist.
    The barber laughs and says “Of course we exist. I’m right here in front of you”
    The guy say “Nope. I just saw a guy that needed a shave and haircut. What kind of a barber would let people walk around needing haircuts? I conclude from this evidence that barbers don’t exist.”
    Ridiculous says the barber. I’m here, right here waiting. If the guy wants a haircut all he has to do is come to the shop…I’m waiting.
    Hah, says the guy. That’s exactly what God says.

  155. “PIP, “We are the only creature with an immortal soul.”
    EXACTLY!!!
    Take that, you soul-less apes!!!”
    LOL. Why don’t you give yourself a name, Anonymous? Janet did, and I’m really glad she did. The word “Anonymous” isn’t a function!

  156. oh, wait…I’m sorry PIP. re: my 5:42 comment:
    We evolved from apes, but we are the only creatures (per you) with an immortal soul. Now, when something cannot evolve from nothing, tell me: exactly where did that come from?
    hmmmmmmmmmmm

  157. “EXACTLY!!!”
    LOL anon. I think that God created our souls. Souls cannot evolve.
    “b) image, likeness (of resemblance)”
    Why can’t our spirit resemble that of God? He created it.

  158. Bobby,
    Maybe I’ll give myself a name at another time. For now, I’m kindof enjoying being the “anonymous poster”. It truly is fun!

  159. But see, I’m not sure if you’re the same Anonymous that I was talking to about the Orthodox yesterday in the weekend question post…

  160. Er…I treat them as somewhat synonymous. Our soul and spirituality are distinctly human, although at this point in our conversation we are talking about theology where it just comes down to my personal beliefs.
    I really gotta go. I’ll be back after I help feed the homeless :)

  161. Sorry to bring this post up (AGAIN)late in the thread, but I wanted to weigh in on this with you Hal.
    True. We will probably never ever agree on when life begins or the right to abort. It is impossible for us to understand your arguments for abortion. So let’s set those issues aside.
    Our side is not just about the “abortion is murder” argument. We bring up other issues surrounding this issue every day. Just to name a few: the illegalities and injustices and malpractice and abortion related deaths, and illegal late term abortions,and unsanitary abortion clinic conditions, and statutory rape cover ups, the emotional and physical harm abortion causes, the domestic abuse that surrounds it, and the infertility resulting from abortions, and unlicensed quacks perfoming abortions, etc…. etc…., but rarely if ever do any of the PCers on this site want to honestly acknowledge that these are very real issues and acknowledge they are supporting them by supporting the pro-choice agenda.
    Where is the outrage for these occurances??
    I would think all of the PCers would be more upset than the PLers since your side fought and won the right to safe legal abortions for women and people for the sake of the almighty dollar have bastardized the notion of “safe and legal” abortion.
    Jill posted the article and video of the Spanish abortions clinics who were in clear violation of government law by aborting viable healthy fetuses. Where was the outrage from ANY of you?
    Erin gave me the chills when she posted some trivial issue about the Gloden Globes being cut short when there were photos of a mutilated baby staring right at her.
    Posted by: Sandy at January 30, 2008 1:44 PM
    Any PCer care to respond??

  162. Pip,
    I’m sorry. It’s just that when you said, “We are the only creature with an immortal soul.” I thought you said that because you believed it.

  163. Hey Carla,
    If you are still here and interested, I would love to share some initiatives we are working on for women who miscarry. Bethany or MK can get you my e-mail.

  164. Why can’t our spirit resemble that of God? He created it.
    Of course, but in this context it clearly has the same meaning as the other verse about Adam and his son (and many other verses about other people and their sons)…
    Also, I have to wonder, at what point in evolution do evolutionists who are also Christians believe that we acquired our souls? When we were only partially evolved, did we have souls then?
    When we were ape like creatures, did we have souls? Do apes have souls today, that are like ours? Are they really God’s children who will eventually look like us, or may even become more advanced than us, in millions of years time?
    These are among countless other questions that come to mind when I think of evolution when in the God context.

  165. Yeah, that bit about the golden globes. Academy awards will probably be that way too, which is worse.
    But man, it that writer’s strike lasts through the Tonys, and I don’t get to see that…man, heads are gonna ROLL.

  166. Hey Carla,
    If you are still here and interested, I would love to share some initiatives we are working on for women who miscarry. Bethany or MK can get you my e-mail.

    Who wrote this (posted by anonymous)? I’m very interested in this information as I’m writing a book about miscarriage, but you may be someone who has already contributed.

  167. “That is, parents who have been involved in abortion are more likely to abuse and neglect their children. Mothers and fathers who were abused as children are more likely to abort their child”
    Oh, what nonsense! My mother beat me every day and she never would have contemplated an abortion.
    Call us “evil ones” when you or one of your daughters needs an escort into a Planned Parenthood.

  168. Anonymous, I am so very sorry that your mother beat you every day.
    No one ever said that the *only* people who are abusive were abortive, but that it increases the risk greatly.
    There are many other factors which can contribute to this kind of thing.

  169. They are separate subjects, theology should never be inserted into science curriculum. But I don’t think science and religion inherently contradict each other, either.
    Have you ever seen Kenneth Miller speak? YOU SHOULD. He’s wonderful. A key witness in the Dover trials (and writer of my high school textbook) and a Roman Catholic. He has good insights.
    Posted by: prettyinpink at January 30, 2008 4:42 PM
    PIP,
    I agree that theology and science are compatible, so I don’t see what harm there is in discussing both in the same classroom. What do you think about discussing theology in a history class, or theology in a world literature class? I love your idea of having philosophy classes in high school.

  170. They are separate subjects, theology should never be inserted into science curriculum. But I don’t think science and religion inherently contradict each other, either.
    Have you ever seen Kenneth Miller speak? YOU SHOULD. He’s wonderful. A key witness in the Dover trials (and writer of my high school textbook) and a Roman Catholic. He has good insights.
    Posted by: prettyinpink at January 30, 2008 4:42 PM
    PIP,
    I agree that theology and science are compatible, so I don’t see what harm there is in discussing both in the same classroom. What do you think about discussing theology in a history class, or theology in a world literature class? I love your idea of having philosophy classes in high school.

  171. They are separate subjects, theology should never be inserted into science curriculum. But I don’t think science and religion inherently contradict each other, either.
    Have you ever seen Kenneth Miller speak? YOU SHOULD. He’s wonderful. A key witness in the Dover trials (and writer of my high school textbook) and a Roman Catholic. He has good insights.
    Posted by: prettyinpink at January 30, 2008 4:42 PM
    PIP,
    I agree that theology and science are compatible, so I don’t see what harm there is in discussing both in the same classroom. What do you think about discussing theology in a history class, or theology in a world literature class? I love your idea of having philosophy classes in high school.

  172. They are separate subjects, theology should never be inserted into science curriculum. But I don’t think science and religion inherently contradict each other, either.
    Have you ever seen Kenneth Miller speak? YOU SHOULD. He’s wonderful. A key witness in the Dover trials (and writer of my high school textbook) and a Roman Catholic. He has good insights.
    Posted by: prettyinpink at January 30, 2008 4:42 PM
    PIP,
    I agree that theology and science are compatible, so I don’t see what harm there is in discussing both in the same classroom. What do you think about discussing theology in a history class, or theology in a world literature class? I love your idea of having philosophy classes in high school.

  173. They are separate subjects, theology should never be inserted into science curriculum. But I don’t think science and religion inherently contradict each other, either.
    Have you ever seen Kenneth Miller speak? YOU SHOULD. He’s wonderful. A key witness in the Dover trials (and writer of my high school textbook) and a Roman Catholic. He has good insights.
    Posted by: prettyinpink at January 30, 2008 4:42 PM
    PIP,
    I agree that theology and science are compatible, so I don’t see what harm there is in discussing both in the same classroom. What do you think about discussing theology in a history class, or theology in a world literature class? I love your idea of having philosophy classes in high school.

  174. They are separate subjects, theology should never be inserted into science curriculum. But I don’t think science and religion inherently contradict each other, either.
    Have you ever seen Kenneth Miller speak? YOU SHOULD. He’s wonderful. A key witness in the Dover trials (and writer of my high school textbook) and a Roman Catholic. He has good insights.
    Posted by: prettyinpink at January 30, 2008 4:42 PM
    PIP,
    I agree that theology and science are compatible, so I don’t see what harm there is in discussing both in the same classroom. What do you think about discussing theology in a history class, or theology in a world literature class? I love your idea of having philosophy classes in high school.

  175. They are separate subjects, theology should never be inserted into science curriculum. But I don’t think science and religion inherently contradict each other, either.
    Have you ever seen Kenneth Miller speak? YOU SHOULD. He’s wonderful. A key witness in the Dover trials (and writer of my high school textbook) and a Roman Catholic. He has good insights.
    Posted by: prettyinpink at January 30, 2008 4:42 PM
    PIP,
    I agree that theology and science are compatible, so I don’t see what harm there is in discussing both in the same classroom. What do you think about discussing theology in a history class, or theology in a world literature class? I love your idea of having philosophy classes in high school.

  176. They are separate subjects, theology should never be inserted into science curriculum. But I don’t think science and religion inherently contradict each other, either.
    Have you ever seen Kenneth Miller speak? YOU SHOULD. He’s wonderful. A key witness in the Dover trials (and writer of my high school textbook) and a Roman Catholic. He has good insights.
    Posted by: prettyinpink at January 30, 2008 4:42 PM
    PIP,
    I agree that theology and science are compatible, so I don’t see what harm there is in discussing both in the same classroom. What do you think about discussing theology in a history class, or theology in a world literature class? I love your idea of having philosophy classes in high school.

  177. I’m just curious – honestly curious – how many commenters here who are vociferously comparing the Holocaust to safe and legal abortion – are Jewish? Honestly, I do want to know.

    Because it is the height of unbelievable anti-semitism to compare safe and legal abortion to the holocaust. I’m curious, really. I’d like to know how many of you who are doing this have lost family in the Holocaust? I’m not sure if you realize how offense this is to those of us who have lost actual living, breathing family members – that you are comparing children, mothers, entire families not just murdered but savagely maimed and mutilated to a safe and legal medical procedure – 87% of which are done in the first trimester (under 12 weeks)?

    Also, just to be clear, abortion is performed in hospitals, doctor’s offices and clinics around the country. So by your definition all of the women who have an abortion and all of the providers who perform abortion are murderers on the level of the Nazis?

    There are no words to express how absolutely anti-semitic and wrong this truly is. No words. You may not want women to choose abortion as an option. And you have that right. But if you can’t see how this argument only serves to push you to the extreme edges, I’m not sure I can explain it.

    As for the list of women who have died from legal abortion (which is always horrific and terrible and should be recognized), would you mind posting the list of women who have died during childbirth? Or how about the list of women who have died during forced sterilization? Or how about the list of people who have died during cosmetic surgery?

    How is a list of people who have died from a medical procedure helpful to this discussion? Medical procedures are not infallible – there is ALWAYS risk. And I’m sure you know (but maybe conveniently left out), women are TEN TIMES more likely to die during childbirth in this country than they are during an abortion.

    If you’d like to compare the list of the hundreds of thousands of women who have died as the result of illegal abortions, we can. Given the choice between legal abortion and illegal abortion, it’s not hard to see what’s safer for women.

    It would be amazing if no one died from any medical procedures, ever. But all we can do is try and make procedures as safe as possible, create conditions under which potential patients are as informed as possible, and enact laws that ensure that providers are following the guidelines they should for that particular procedure.

    Anyway, I’d still love to know how many of the commenters above are Jewish?

  178. It’s like sitting in a classroom in 5th grade with my hand stuck way up in the air, saying, “oh, oh, oh,” cuz I know the answer. Then the teacher says, “put your hand down, anonymous, and let someone else answer.”
    Then the teacher calls on Jill…….

  179. “entire families not just murdered but savagely maimed and mutilated to a safe and legal medical procedure – 87% of which are done in the first trimester (under 12 weeks)?”
    My goodness, what in the world do you think happens during an abortion? Sweet flowers and perfume out of the womb of the mother?
    No, you get a maimed and mutilated human being.
    Here it is again:
    Abortion is an affront to the creative nature of God, it negates God as Creator,
    Abortion denies the power of God to right a wrong, it negates God as Redeemer,
    Abortion makes that which is good, the birth of human life, into that which is evil, the death of human life, and then calls it good, the very definition of blasphemy,
    Abortion negates the resurrection power of God as it takes flesh that is alive in it’s earthly abode (the womb) and kills it, while God takes that flesh which is dead in it’s earthly abode (the grave) and desires to make it alive,
    Abortion’s desire is to take that which was composed from the chaotic array of elemental molecules into a symphony of life infused with an eternal soul, and turn it back to the entropy of randomness, chaos, nothingness, uselessness.
    Abortion is against all that is hopeful, all that requires faith for success; for it’s solution; annihilation, it’s goal; death, it’s dream; breaking God’s heart, it’s vision, Satan’s ultimate power.
    Abortion is a counterfeit, for the clawprints of Satan are everywhere to be found in its performance;
    Abortion disguises hate as love, bondage as freedom, choice as maturity, sin as righteousness, political correctness as wisdom,
    Abortion pits men against women, mothers against their children, fathers against God,
    Yes, abortion is Satan’s feeble attempt at killing God Himself, for abortion is a metaphor for Satan; it is his coat of arms, his family crest, his logo, his brand, it belongs to him……for he laughs at its willing proponents as they craft their own self-destruction, mantled in self-deception.
    Copyright 2007, 2008 by HisMan
    See any similarity to the visible Holocaust?
    Let’s put it another way:
    The Holocaust is an affront to the creative nature of God, it negates God as Creator,
    The Holocaust denies the power of God to right a wrong, it negates God as Redeemer,
    The Holocaust makes that which is good, the birth of human life, into that which is evil, the death of human life, and then calls it good, the very definition of blasphemy,
    The Holocaust negates the resurrection power of God as it takes flesh that is alive in it’s earthly abode (the womb) and kills it, while God takes that flesh which is dead in it’s earthly abode (the grave) and desires to make it alive,
    The Holocaust’s desire is to take that which was composed from the chaotic array of elemental molecules into a symphony of life infused with an eternal soul, and turn it back to the entropy of randomness, chaos, nothingness, uselessness.
    The Holocaust is against all that is hopeful, all that requires faith for success; for it’s solution; annihilation, it’s goal; death, it’s dream; breaking God’s heart, it’s vision, Satan’s ultimate power.
    The Holocaust is a counterfeit, for the clawprints of Satan are everywhere to be found in its performance;
    The Holocaust disguises hate as love, bondage as freedom, choice as maturity, sin as righteousness, political correctness as wisdom,
    The Holocaust pits men against women, mothers against their children, fathers against God,
    Yes, The Holocaust is Satan’s feeble attempt at killing God Himself, for The Holocaust is a metaphor for Satan; it is his coat of arms, his family crest, his logo, his brand, it belongs to him……for he laughs at its willing proponents as they craft their own self-destruction, mantled in self-deception.
    Copyright 2007, 2008 by HisMan

  180. “The finch argument is a non sequitar.Finches on the Galapogos Islands interbreed all the time.”
    Posted by: HisMan at January 30, 2008 5:02 PM
    I’m sorry, I do not follow. Of course finches breed with other finches. How else would they survive?

  181. “SamanthaT,
    Ok, I see where you are coming from.
    I’ll make you a deal.
    When your side stops condoning the killing of babies in the womb, I will stop calling you pro-aborts.
    I promise.”
    Posted by: Anonymous at January 30, 2008 4:28 PM
    I am pro-life. Hypocrisy does not become either side of this debate.

  182. “Evolution thoerizes that life came from nothing and developed into single cell life forms which eventually ended up being cats, and dogs, and fish, and well, people, no?”
    No.
    “No, evolution is an attempt by its adherents to kill or annilate God if, just as a concept, as the act of abortion is or….to make oneself feel unaccountable to a God. You would do yourself wise not to follow such fools.”
    Posted by: HisMan at January 30, 2008 5:22 PM
    I am really not trying to be insolent or rude here, but I have absolutely no idea where you are coming from. God made all the animals before Adam; why would He not build them in complexity? God is THE scientist.

  183. About the Sea Monkeys mk, they were always sea monkeys. Ok they go from moist sea monkeys to dry sea monkeys back to moist sea monkeys. I don’t really understand how that relates to babies, unless you can get them in powder form.

  184. wow! That felt like me walking into a closed-glass sliding door!
    My bad & my aplogies for insulting you with such a low blow by putting you on “that side”.
    Let me rephrase, then:
    When the other side stops condoning the killing of babies in the womb, I will stop calling them pro-aborts.

  185. “Then why has not one, here me, not one species transition fossil ever been found?”
    Posted by: HisMan at January 30, 2008 4:57 PM
    I’m going to ignore the obvious assertion that every fossil hasn’t been found yet and refer you instead to PIP’s comment about whales. Are you familiar with boas? They have the remnant of a pelvic girdle, present as what are anatomically known as cloacal spurs. In fact, snakes are now classified as a type of modified lizard. Further, please consult Genesis 2:14 where God curses the serpent, and explain to me again why God is not smart enough to employ evolution.

  186. SamT:
    New genes cannot be created from old genes. Each gene in a living organism already has a purpose. A mutation changing an existing gene to a new purpose would destroy the individual. In fact natural selection prevents the creation of new genes. Natural selection, by selecting the traits already in the species which fit the individuals best to the environment, continually enhances the existing genes with the traits that will help the species survive. Creating a new gene out of an old gene will take away an already existing capability of the species, it will detract from the species and make it less successful. Evolutionists may say that this new gene will eventually result in enhanced abilities which will make the species far more successful than it is. However, as Darwin himself admitted:
    “Why should not nature have taken a leap from structure to structure? On the theory of natural selection, we can clearly understand why she should not; for natural selection can act only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a leap, but must advance by the shortest and slowest steps.”

  187. “But it seems as if he allows evil and suffering in our world to bring about a greater good.”
    Posted by: Bobby Bambino at January 30, 2008 4:56 PM
    That’s what the preacher says — and he’s not Catholic! Why did God create evil? Do you understand that it seems like He makes people, especially these tiny babies, just so they can suffer? And then others see this suffering, ask the question that you so graciously answered, and refuse to believe that anyone would create a universe just to endure evil. So then they are eternally punished? It gives me a headache.

  188. @ Bethany 5:42
    If we are created in God’s likeness, how did we end up being so bad? God has free will, too, and He is supposed to have turned out okay.
    :-/

  189. That’s what the preacher says — and he’s not Catholic! Why did God create evil? Do you understand that it seems like He makes people, especially these tiny babies, just so they can suffer? And then others see this suffering, ask the question that you so graciously answered, and refuse to believe that anyone would create a universe just to endure evil. So then they are eternally punished? It gives me a headache.
    I understand your questions, Samantha. The Bible is full of answers to these questions- although they aren’t always the answers we want to hear. If you are sincere (which I completely believe you are) and seek answers from God, reading the Bible and praying to Him for guidance, you will find your answers, I promise. I have asked the same questions myself and have found the answers that I needed.
    Here are some that helped me (there are so many more but I don’t want to take up too much space here)
    Isaiah 55:8,9
    “My thoughts are completely different from yours,” says the Lord. “And my ways are far beyond anything you could imagine. For just as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts higher than your thoughts.”
    Romans 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
    19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
    20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
    21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
    22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
    23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
    A great book to read in this would be Psalms…many times, David asks similar questions to the ones you are asking, and he eventually comes to his answer by the end of the chapter.
    For example, Psalm 10:
    1Why standest thou afar off, O LORD? why hidest thou thyself in times of trouble?
    2The wicked in his pride doth persecute the poor: let them be taken in the devices that they have imagined.
    3For the wicked boasteth of his heart’s desire, and blesseth the covetous, whom the LORD abhorreth.
    4The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God: God is not in all his thoughts.
    5His ways are always grievous; thy judgments are far above out of his sight: as for all his enemies, he puffeth at them.
    6He hath said in his heart, I shall not be moved: for I shall never be in adversity.
    7His mouth is full of cursing and deceit and fraud: under his tongue is mischief and vanity.
    8He sitteth in the lurking places of the villages: in the secret places doth he murder the innocent: his eyes are privily set against the poor.
    9He lieth in wait secretly as a lion in his den: he lieth in wait to catch the poor: he doth catch the poor, when he draweth him into his net.
    10He croucheth, and humbleth himself, that the poor may fall by his strong ones.
    11He hath said in his heart, God hath forgotten: he hideth his face; he will never see it.
    12Arise, O LORD; O God, lift up thine hand: forget not the humble.
    13Wherefore doth the wicked contemn God? he hath said in his heart, Thou wilt not require it.
    14Thou hast seen it; for thou beholdest mischief and spite, to requite it with thy hand: the poor committeth himself unto thee; thou art the helper of the fatherless.
    15Break thou the arm of the wicked and the evil man: seek out his wickedness till thou find none.
    16The LORD is King for ever and ever: the heathen are perished out of his land.
    17LORD, thou hast heard the desire of the humble: thou wilt prepare their heart, thou wilt cause thine ear to hear:
    18To judge the fatherless and the oppressed, that the man of the earth may no more oppress.

  190. “A mutation changing an existing gene to a new purpose would destroy the individual.”
    HisMan, first of all, all variations are not genetic. For example, I have red hair, and my brother has brown, and while that is somewhat genetic, it also has a great deal to do with the nutrients that our mother absorbed while preganant, etc. Additionally, a large mechanism of evolution IS genetic variation. A common example is the variation on the shape of blood cells that leads to sickle cell anemia, in which carriers for the disease do not die, and they are resistant to malaria. That genetic variation makes that group of individuals MORE successful. Some mutations, such as deletion of an entire chromosome, are indeed fatal (and therefore selected against). Others are not harmful. It is a case-by-case issue.
    “Evolutionists may say that this new gene will eventually result in enhanced abilities which will make the species far more successful than it is.”
    No. Evolutionists say that the new gene *may* eventually be selected for. These traits are not automatically better, and evolution does not occur in two hours. The reason why it has been observed in the Galapagos is because those species are geographically isolated.
    Think about the finches. The Galapagos are undergoing a drought. The finches that have the longest beaks are the finches who can dig the deepest for food — because all the food at the surface is dead. The finches with the shorter beaks are starving to death. The finches with the longer beaks are the ones that will survive to reproduce. That is natural selection.

  191. @Bethany, 6:06:
    Evolution does not necessarily state that humans came from apes. It states that humans and apes shared a common ancestor. My adviser has a poster hanging above his bookshelf proposing a path God followed:
    First, He created the amoeba. He was feeling pretty creative, so He made an algae. From there came a cactus. Then He wanted something with legs, so He made a porcupine. He looked at an angel and thought that a flying animal would be great, so He made an owl.
    That’s a rather simplified version, but it’s kind of like when you get started on a craft project, and it gets a little more complex and beautiful than the original idea. And of course, it’s just one perspective.

  192. SamanthaT:
    Thanks for being civil towards me.
    “I am really not trying to be insolent or rude here, but I have absolutely no idea where you are coming from. God made all the animals before Adam; why would He not build them in complexity? God is THE scientist.”
    Many Christians take evolution as a given which can not be challenged and is not worth bothering with. The response that God could have worked his ways through evolution or any way he pleased is totally thoughtless. It goes against the core of Christianity, Judaism and even Islam.
    All religious people who hold the Bible as a sacred book and who follow its precepts know that God is the source of life. Evolution denies this. Some evolutionists will deny that they do not go so far as to say that life started from inanimate matter, but this is nonsense.
    Evolution

  193. “As I grew up, I grew out of it and I was able to spot it rather quickly in others. It’s quite a gift!”
    Posted by: Anonymous at January 30, 2008 4:51 PM
    Obviously, you are quite mistaken. I hope that you reassess your “ability” before you snub someone who really needs *you* to answer her question. If I didn’t have complete faith in MK and Bethany’s abilities to assist me in my spiritual growth, your previous comment would have cemented all the stereotypes about Christians. When people ask questions and get responses like yours, they figure that God either a) is not real or b)really is not worth the fight. That is how you end up with atheists — and a national abortion crisis.

  194. Doug,
    “Listen carefully. Do NOT put ze candle back…”
    Posted by: mk at January 30, 2008 1:50 PM
    …………………………………………………..
    Why do I have Puttin On the Ritz stuck in my head?

  195. Bethany and Samantha,
    Sorry, it’s me Sandy. I don’t know why the site is removing my name from my posts today. It is typed in the name box.?????

  196. Hey Samantha. I think Bethany gave a good reply (it was Isiah 55, not 51. thanks!) I want to answer your last question about if one refuses to believe that a God would create a world with suffering, will they go to hell. I can give you the Catholic understanding of this (which Bethany may or may not agree, so keep that in mind). And that is while yes, Jesus is necessary for salvation and there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, what that means is that anyone who is saved (i.e. goes to heaven) was saved through the atonement of Jesus, whether they know it or not. We believe that God does not punish someone for what they do not know and/or understand. So a person living on an island in the middle of nowhere who has never heard of Jesus can be saved if he likes according to the truth as he understands it. In your example, yes even an atheist can be saved by methods known to God alone if they try to live out what they firmly believe to be truth.
    On the other hand, this by no means is universal salvation. The graces that one receives from the sacraments can not be overemphasized. So while we teach that it is possible to be saved without believing in God or Jesus, we don’t know how many people, if any people at all, actually are saved or how difficult it is.
    But in all of this, we must remember that who God is, first and foremost, is a loving Father, who wants salvation for each and every one of us more than we could possibly imagine. I hope that makes sense. please let me know if you have any questions. God love you, Sam.

  197. SamanthaT:
    The suggested path conflicts with the story of Genesis.
    Why digress to what God has chosen to reveal to us through His word?
    Why not a simple childlike acceptance in humility towards an awesome God?
    And PIP:
    I find it hard to believe that 80% of scientists are theists. Please provide a published scientific poll of that conducted by a reputable polling company.

  198. Of course man did not evolve from a lower species. That does not mean that God creates every single animal that lives. I personally think He’s a little busy elsewhere to worry about how many hundreds of eggs a fruit fly will produce … He’s got His hands full between Darfur and NYC.
    If the very hairs of our heads are all numbered, why would God not be capable of knowing how many hundreds of eggs a fruit fly will produce. Why do you think God did not create every animal that lives? I’m confused. Do you believe in the same God that I do? The God of the Bible created every living thing of the air, the beasts and every creeping thing of the earth, and the humans.
    You know I love you , Samantha, I’m just trying to understand where you’re coming from.
    And sorry I can’t address everything tonight. Ihave to keep popping on and off while I’m doing other things.

  199. If God created the Universe, and gravity, and atoms, and spaghetti, and my kids, I think He can hnadle all of it.
    His ways are not our ways.
    We serve an infinite God who is beyond understanding.
    That’s why trust and faith are so important because ultimateley God cannot be figured out or understood. We may try, however, the more we try, the more the need to ask. Sooner or later we must become as little children. Besides, it’s so much easier and much more fun to not have to worry because He is in control, not me.
    He can be trusted though with our very souls. I love my Abba, Father….Daddy.

  200. “I love my Abba, Father….Daddy.”
    Oh that’s wonderful, HisMan. And that is what Abba means; it’s a loving, affectionate, tender term used to describe one’s male parent. I think it would most accurately be translated as Papa or Daddy, something that a very little child would call her Father. God IS our Father…God is THE Father… it’s too good to be true :)

  201. My goodness, HisMan, I just realized that you have a way of getting me so emotional over Our Lord. What a fire you must light in people! Praise the Lord.

  202. “Please provide a published scientific poll of that conducted by a reputable polling company.
    Posted by: HisMan at January 30, 2008 7:”
    Gee…I thought science was of the devil and lied all the time… why would you want a scientific poll if you think science is crap?

  203. “Do you believe in the same God that I do? The God of the Bible created every living thing of the air, the beasts and every creeping thing of the earth, and the humans.”
    Haha Bethany yes, of course I do. I don’t have the depth of faith that you do, not yet, but that’s what MK is for. ;) But I also have spent enough time looking at T-4 cells and enough nights sitting in the ER sorting medical charts to understand that even now the HIV virus and the common cold mutate so quickly, through faulty gene transcription, that the drug companies can’t keep up.
    Organisms evolve. They just do.

  204. “The suggested path conflicts with the story of Genesis.”
    I disagree. The evolutionary pathway shows that lizards came first, and then some forms of lizards lost their legs. (There actually are legless lizards, you know, like glass lizards.) In the passage, God says to the “serpent” that it will now crawl on its belly. That suggests to me that before the garden incident, the “serpent” had legs.

  205. Obviously, you are quite mistaken. I hope that you reassess your “ability” before you snub someone who really needs *you* to answer her question. If I didn’t have complete faith in MK and Bethany’s abilities to assist me in my spiritual growth, your previous comment would have cemented all the stereotypes about Christians. When people ask questions and get responses like yours, they figure that God either a) is not real or b)really is not worth the fight. That is how you end up with atheists — and a national abortion crisis.
    Posted by: SamanthaT at January 30, 2008 7:26 PM
    ++++++++++
    oh, please. Don’t throw the “he’s an atheist now because of anon” crap at me. I’ve read many your posts here before, and maybe if you had an ounce of revernece towards God I would take you seriously. Also, reread your comments and ask yourself IF I should have taken you seriously knowing what you’ve said about God in the past and how you said it that related post.
    However, I am glad that MK and Bethany are able to assist you in your spiritual matters. You’re proving me wrong so far…let’s see how long it lasts!

  206. Samantha,
    On a lighter note, I do agree with you on the evolution via the mutation of cells, but more of a natural selection thing. You are absolutely correct that cells do mutate, and “evolve”. However, I believe that the HIV virus and the common cold are still the HIV virus and the common cold, just different strains of the same original virus. It’s similar to all of the breeds of dogs we have today. There are more and more breeds all of the time. However, they are all still dogs.
    My problem with evolutionists is when they say that everything evolved from the amoeba, and that we evolved from apes, apes evolved from ???, and so on & so on.

  207. Rae:
    I don’t think science is crap. The tool of science is a gift from God just as is a hammer or a book, that’s all. A hammer and a book both can be used for evil purposes.
    However, the perspective is wrong. History proves this. Science wrongly assumes that the Bible is fantasy and uses it as a tool to disprove or twist its plain truths, rather than assuming that the Bible is truth. My perspective is that the Bible should be assumed to be the truth and, therefore, science should be used not to counter the Bible but to prove its claims.
    For example: Do any serious geologists believe that the Flood occurred when there is an absolute mountain of evidence that it did?
    The Bible says that before the Flood it had never rained on earth. At the start of the Flood it not only rained but that water sprung up from the earth. If it had never rained before teh Flood, obvioulsy, water had been in a geosynchronous orbit around the earth like today’s GPS satellites do (the firmament). Have you ever seen the rings of Saturn. What do you think those are made up of?
    And if water covered the whole earth because of the Flood, it means that it was covered at least to the highest known peak, i.e., Mt. Everest (28,000 feet or about 5 miles). Can you imagine the effects that level of water receding back into the earth caused? So, before the earth, relative homogeneity existed in it’s surface since without rain you have no erosion. After the flood, mega-changes in the earth’s surface occurred where loose soils were now being washed away and exposing bedrock. This was a major cleansing of the earth.
    Scientist can’t agree on how the Grand Canyon was formed, for example. Some say it was becasue of uplift, other say it was because of the scouring effect of the Colorado River. In a way they are both correct in that 20,000 (28,000 – 8,000) feet of water on top of a plateau would have exerted extreme compressive forces on that base soils. As the Flood water receded the massie pressures reduced causing a bouce back of the rock and soils. Further, water rushing through the site would have easily caused the massive canyon, previoulsy buried, to now be exposed. Now, do you hear any so-called scientists talking about that?

  208. I Timothy 6:20
    “O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:”
    Paul is saying, “Timothy, watch out for the false sciences.” True science never disagrees with Scripture. True science and Scripture always fit “hand in glove.” But, it’s these false sciences, the man-made sciences, that cast all the belligerent reflections on the Word of God. They are not true sciences. The reason some sciences are false and not true sciences is that, in them, everything is based on what man thinks. They can actually prove nothing in the laboratory. Compare that to mathematics, which is a true science, because you can never change the makeup of true mathematics. You cannot change the true workings of physics or chemistry, either. But a geologist can come along and say, “Well, we think `such-and-such’,” and then the next generation comes along and they are taught that theory as a truth or absolute fact. I’ve got no argument with theory. If someone wants to come up with a bizarre theory, and he will tell his students in the classroom that it is “strictly theory – we can’t prove it,” then I don’t object to that. I’ve even told kids in high school classes, “if your teacher makes it plain that what he’s teaching is simply some man-made idea, and that it’s only `theory’, I’m not going to complain.” But, educators usually come in and say, “That’s the way it was,” and I have a problem with that.
    Public television programs such as “Nova” are very interesting, but gullible people believe everything that’s said. You can only determine so much from fossil records. The rest is interpolation and assumption. Here’s good example. Go into any basic college geology course and the first thing they throw at their students is a “geologic column,” an “evolutionary geologic column” or time scale. They teamed up with evolutionary biologists and have divided the structure of the surface of the earth into various strata which they associate a particular time period with. That time period is dependent on the fossils found in that one strata. If near the bottom they have found a very simple life form, they maintain that that is the oldest rock on the earth, it’s the farthest down from the top, and consequently, the very earliest of life forms are found in this layer.
    Then, as they find in higher strata

  209. HisMan,
    Have you ever read Les Feldick’s teachings? He’s awesome, in my opinion. Here’s the page on the flood that the above excerpt came from. I really like him, but would like to know what you think. I truly value your opinion. Your posts have been quite the blessing to me!
    http://www.havefaith.org/new_page_4c.htm

  210. Anonymous:
    (I hate that moniker)
    I hereby call you Sunshine…how ’bout it?
    For you were known before the foundations of the world.
    I will look up the web site and tell you what I think. Thank you so much.

  211. Sunshine:
    I went to Mr. Feldick’s site.
    Truth has a way of resonating when you’re truly seeking it.
    His teaching on the Flood is excellent and we agree.
    If only people would accept the Bible as God’s Word the source of all truth and stop dissing it, I believe we would be so much further ahead as a world.

  212. ok. Sunshine it is. I only pray that I can live up to that name! “For you were known before the foundations of the world”. How awesome is that! God knew what I’d be like and STILL created me. Blows my mind everytime!
    Thank you for looking at the link. I’m quite an impressionable person, so I get leery of “just anyone”. My father gave me Les’ book, which is also available online (link I posted). I read almost the whole thing & really like him. He backs up everything with scripture, the way I believe it was meant, and it was very easy to understand, and things that have never been “taught” to me before.
    I appreciate your time and opinions.
    Thanks again!
    :)

  213. Call us “evil ones” when you or one of your daughters needs an escort into a Planned Parenthood
    I’m pretty sure neither me nor my daughter will ever require your services sooo no thanks.
    But I am sorry your mother beat you every day…that must be why you support women not becoming mothers. It is understandable. Not every mother beats her child though.

  214. MidNite678:
    Sorry to hear about your grand dad. What did you call him?
    Without going over it again, I simply believe that evolution is a lie.
    Now, perhpas you have been taught differently, however, truth is no respecter of our opinions, rather, it has to stand on its own merits.
    The THEORY of evolution does not stand up to honest and rigorous analysis, nor does it conform to the assertions of Scripture which clearly state that the “I AM’ created the heavens and the earth and everything, including all life, within them.
    My point is that nowhere is there to be found any evidence that evolution is true.

  215. Hi Annie,
    Do I fit your criteria? Answer: Yes and NO. Yes – I am not one of the posters above … but No, I am not Jewish. It is the same tac that is used by some ardent feminists that men cannot get pregnant so their comments on abortion should be mute.
    Perhaps the reason so many males are not silent is a very deep sense of paternalism/fraternalism. In some ways it is akin to ‘maternalism’ in the sense that all have a fiercely protective aspect. There is little doubt that these can be seen as interfering in questions of body autonomy, but it’s these same feelings that send our soldier/brothers to war; the same feelings when Daddy takes-home-the-bacon-he’s-earned; and that pays for your car … or college … or etc. Here it seems men are to be committed-helpful and just shut-their-mouths!
    ‘Maternalism’ could easily fill a whole book.
    Some years back a friend with the same disabling condition as mine responded to my question about whether euthanasia (which looms large in our world) being like abortion. “Same thing!” was her emphatic response. The mindset is identical …. someone dies so that your life is better.
    By the way do you know of any surgical procedure whose aim is to kill? It is in-fact not
    successful when/if the baby survives.

  216. MidNite678:
    Sorry, but God is the equation.
    You make my point….adherents of evolution always want to leave God out.
    That’s like saying, it’s not a baby, it’s a choice, when, very simply, and wihtout question, it is a baby.

  217. The THEORY of evolution does not stand up to honest and rigorous analysis,
    ummmm except scientific experiments??
    nor does it conform to the assertions of Scripture which clearly state that the “I AM’ created the heavens and the earth and everything, including all life, within them.
    and who created science exactly? Or who created the people with an interest in science to do this sort of research and develop these theories? GOD.
    It does not have to conform to Scripture..they are 2 different concepts..both deserve importance and respect. I have high respect for God and for science. They are both equally interesting to me, but for different reasons.

  218. HisMan:
    I call him Papa. I just saw him, and he put me in a worse mood than I was already in. So, I am sure that I will not sleep again tonight, probably wont eat tomorrow etiher, and more of my hair will fall out…
    ————————————-
    As for evolution, my parents cherish the fact that I made my own decision on things. They explained to me evolution, the big-bang theory and God’s Version. They gave me the facts, and let me decide which one I thought was correct. My parents are very proud of me and the fact that I have a brain and make my own decisions on things.
    They’re not thrilled that I am more liberal than they are; but they know that I make educated decisions, and they support me in that :-)

  219. John,
    Good post. I don’t really know any medical procedure that is meant to kill anything else that is living. Whether it is living because of someone else is a moot point. It is living nonetheless. This “medical procedure” kills a living thing.

  220. Elizabeth:
    I think that is a great stance to have on religion v. science.
    B/c I know that you are religous, but you understand that science is importnat, and that if there is a God, he is the reason science exists and that they are interested in it :-)

  221. Elizabeth,
    But God (scripture) and science need to go hand in hand. When they don’t jive, it’s junk science. Do you have biblical proof, quoting scripture, that evolution is indeed a truth and not a theory?

  222. Midnight,
    Thank you. As a future nurse, it is important for me to have respect for science since it is essential to what I will be doing/studying. I just don’t understand how people can’t separate the two. Science is so very interesting to me as is religion and God. I think they are both huge when it comes to the realm of possibility. I do not believe God put us on this AMAZING planet to just twiddle our thumbs and say “oooo look a birdie.” He gave us such a complex planet and gave people the interest to find out more about it. In the same light, I do not understand how people can look at all of the amazing things here and not think that a higher power had something to do with it.

  223. I guess what I’m trying to say, is that yes, God created Science. He created everything. So, I guess God supports science, but science doesn’t always support Him. Evolution does not.

  224. But God (scripture) and science need to go hand in hand. When they don’t jive, it’s junk science. Do you have biblical proof, quoting scripture, that evolution is indeed a truth and not a theory?
    I never said that they didn’t. But when you are studying the SCIENTIFIC aspect of things..that IS what you are studying. When you are studying the THEOLOGICAL aspects of it, then you are studying those aspects. You seem to think that one disproves the other, and it does not. They are just different areas of examination.

  225. Elizabeth:
    I like you more all the time :-)
    You’ve got the right grasp on the religion and science argument…

  226. MidNite678:
    God will give you the grace to find Him and perhaps you already have. It’s OK if we don’t all agree on all this God, evolution, politics stuff. However, abortion does kill babies and we must’nt forget them.
    Just promise me that you will keep your heart and mind open to Him. He loves you and wants nothing more than to have a relationship with you. After all, what’s more important than that?

  227. @Sunshine:
    a) I don’t believe in the Bible
    b) Since I don’t believe in the Bible I don’t give two fritzes if science and the Bible “jive”.
    Of course evolution is a theory. Gravity is a theory too. Does the Bible explicitly state that gravity is “okay” science?

  228. Evolution does not.
    That all depends on how you view it.
    Since God created every creature and we may have evolved from those creatures, how are we NOT products of God’s creation?

  229. Elizabeth:
    In fact, the earth if filled with the glory of God. That is why it requires intentional and inexcusable self-deception to not believe in Him.
    Everything on heaven and earth is for, in and by Him.
    That is why we believers on this site are trying to show the way out of the darkness.

  230. Midnite,
    You’re not too bad yourself. :) I am sorry you are going through a rough time though. Please try to eat and sleep at least a little..it will help you get through. When we feel bad, we have to force ourselves to do things we don’t feel like doing that ARE good for us in the long run. I know when I’m having a bad day and don’t feel like taking a shower or something..my mom always tries to make me because she knows even though I don’t want to it will make me feel better. And it does a little bit. So just take it one day at a time. Or maybe even an hour at a time if you need to. You always have people here to talk to.

  231. Midnite,
    I must have missed something, but whatever it is you’re going through, I’ll say a prayer for you before I fall asleep tonight.

  232. “I’m sorry. It’s just that when you said, “We are the only creature with an immortal soul.” I thought you said that because you believed it. ”
    i do, but you can judge me all you need to, I don’t care.
    “Also, I have to wonder, at what point in evolution do evolutionists who are also Christians believe that we acquired our souls? When we were only partially evolved, did we have souls then? ”
    As far as I know we don’t assume a specific point, but probably when we had become distinctly human in morphology and genetically. I don’t pretend to know when God did that. God didn’t give us a science textbook, LOL. Or else we wouldn’t have to do all of this work!
    “What do you think about discussing theology in a history class, or theology in a world literature class? I love your idea of having philosophy classes in high school.”
    I think we can discuss them within context but not as a distinct subject. For example in evolution class we address the “special creation” “theory” and why it’s false within the context of the evidence. There is even a section in the textbook on how the theologies of contributing scientists differ (e.g. from Dawkins to Miller). Or we can discuss biblical allusions and context within history. However a real outside discussion does not belong there. If there weren’t such a big to-do in society, evolution textbooks wouldn’t even address theology. In my philosophy and theology classes we have discussed some science too, but within the context of what the philosopher is saying. But there does need a line where you drift off of the subject at hand. If you want a funny creationist story, read the one I just posted on my blog :) Let me know if I’m confusing you!
    “New genes cannot be created from old genes.”
    Ever heard of transposable elements? Alternative splicing?
    “A mutation changing an existing gene to a new purpose would destroy the individual.”
    That makes no sense. I don’t even know where to start.
    “Natural selection, by selecting the traits already in the species which fit the individuals best to the environment, continually enhances the existing genes with the traits that will help the species survive.”
    Not necessarily. If a previously untranslated stretch of DNA were to be translated in short could ADD a feature to an organism that made it more fit for the environment then the population would be selected against the individuals without the add. Usually the add is not too large but may be crucial. The most fascinating studies involve bottleneck populations.
    “Why should not nature have taken a leap from structure to structure? On the theory of natural selection, we can clearly understand why she should not; for natural selection can act only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a leap, but must advance by the shortest and slowest steps.”
    What’s wrong with this? Are you suggesting that you can’t go from having no webbed toes to being slightly webbed to being completely webbed to being a flipper? It has to be foot to flipper in a step? More strawmen.
    “Many Christians take evolution as a given which can not be challenged and is not worth bothering with.”
    Evolution is constantly being questioned and tested, this has been happening for over 100 years. They’ve been trying to disprove Darwin and Wallace from the beginning. Everything we do only adds more perspective and links within the theory. Those damn Christians that let these experimenting scientists get away with it! If you disagree on this scientific basis, you should devise a scientific test, work in out in a lab and publish it.
    “The response that God could have worked his ways through evolution or any way he pleased is totally thoughtless.”
    Why? If God created animals exactly the way they are today then 1. most of them would have died out, by not evolving to changing environments
    2. Fossils are the devil’s works.
    I don’t believe in a deceptive God. I don’t think God would have made it look like everything evolved but didn’t. I believe he created a system that has lasted through time and developed beautiful creatures. There is no reason we cannot believe God was guiding this process.
    “I find it hard to believe that 80% of scientists are theists. Please provide a published scientific poll of that conducted by a reputable polling company.”
    Ahh I was thinking of doctors with the 80% figure. 76 percent of doctors believe in god and 60 percent in an afterlife. 60% of biologists believe in god and 70 percent of social scientists do.
    http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/050811_scientists_god.html
    “On a lighter note, I do agree with you on the evolution via the mutation of cells, but more of a natural selection thing.”
    Well natural selection is a big part of evolution…
    “You are absolutely correct that cells do mutate, and “evolve”. However, I believe that the HIV virus and the common cold are still the HIV virus and the common cold, just different strains of the same original virus. It’s similar to all of the breeds of dogs we have today. There are more and more breeds all of the time. However, they are all still dogs.”
    The response to this is like textbook long to explain in total detail so maybe you could just tell me what about “macroevolution” you don’t believe. Do you not believe in the fossil record and the existence of a transitional form? The DNA similarity and aging technology? Any lingering thing you think separates the “evolution” within species (which with time often lead to diverging species, aka speciation).
    “My problem with evolutionists is when they say that everything evolved from the amoeba, and that we evolved from apes, apes evolved from ???, and so on & so on.”
    Everything didn’t evolve from the amoeba. The first organism was a prokaryote.
    It’s funny that that is “your problem” with evolutionists, because that is the entire point of evolution. Descent with modification.
    All in all that doesn’t mean humans aren’t unique in the eyes of God. I may take a class here called “evolution and christian theology” but I heard the teacher is ridiculous. I might take it pass/fail..

  233. Anti-choice refuting bonanza!
    “How can I possibly, with my faith, think for a moment that it’s not evil?”
    Because the scriptural support of the idea of humanness occurring at conception is weak at best.
    “In addition to their calloused, cruel disregard for innocent human life in the womb, the proaborts aren’t particularly concerned for breathing, ex-utero folks- you remember, these women killed by “safe & legal abortions”- either:”
    There is not much evidence to suggest that making abortion illegal reduces its rate much–it just makes it less safe. As has been said before on this thread, both carrying a baby to term and an illegal abortion is more dangerous than the typical legal abortion.
    “Sorry, but the dismemberment of babies in the womb does enough for your side looking bad..we don’t really have to TRY in that arena.”
    The only time abortion resembles “dismemberment of babies” are those abortions that are done at late term for the health and safety, possibly the life, of the mother.
    “I don’t get this. I know it’s a personal problem, but why does an omnipotent,omniscient god make babies — 50 million of them — just so they can be ripped apart? And furthermore, what exactly is the point in worshiping someone like that?”
    50 million babies get aborted? Way more than that if you count miscarriages. 30-40% of pregnancies miscarry before implantation and are not even noticed by the woman. God is by far the biggest abortionist.
    No one ever said that the *only* people who are abusive were abortive, but that it increases the risk greatly. 
There are many other factors which can contribute to this kind of thing.”
    Correlation is not causation. You cannot rule out the strong possibility that those who get abortions are in general those who do not have the means to take care of children, but cannot always afford an abortion either. Those who don’t have good access to contraceptives are more likely both to bear unwanted children and abort them because they get unintentionally pregnant more often.
    “Good post. I don’t really know any medical procedure that is meant to kill anything else that is living.”
    Except those that kill viruses, bacteria, harmful fungi, parasites, or cancer cells.
    “But consider the fact that one of our criteria for the fertilized eggs humanity is that it has it’s own set of DNA distinct from the mother.”
    So do mutant cells, including cancer cells. Human cells invaded by viruses (which alter the cell DNA) acquire unique human DNA, and we don’t consider them humans. Conception isn’t magic, and it is certainly not consciousness.

  234. Except those that kill viruses, bacteria, harmful fungi, parasites, or cancer cells.
    Wow, I didn’t know that women were giving BIRTH to these. :gasp:
    Learn something new every day.

  235. Maybe some of you PC’ers could help me out with a question. I hear Soooo many of you say you don’t “like” abortion. Why is that you don’t “like” abortion?
    Thanks,
    Truthseeker

  236. “Maybe some of you PC’ers could help me out with a question. I hear Soooo many of you say you don’t “like” abortion. Why is that you don’t “like” abortion?”
    Many find some moral ambiguity in abortion, but think the certainty of an unwanted full-term pregnancy is worse. I do not agree–I do not believe there is any more moral ambiguity in most abortions than squashing a bug. Sure, killing bugs is a minor evil, but preserving one is not worth nine months to one lifetime of misery or even inconvenience.

  237. @PiP: *gigglefit* I love it!
    @Elizabeth: Well technically…with the number of bacteria and what not that naturally live in the vagina, it’s not too much of a stretch to say that some of those critters come out during child birth…in some sort of really round-a-bout way if you’re *really* that bored you could say that yeah, you “give birth” to bacteria.
    :-p
    Though that would be the *easiest* labor ever. :-p

  238. I do not believe there is any more moral ambiguity in most abortions than squashing a bug.
    I think my brain just exploded when I read this comment.
    :wipes brain matter off computer screen:

  239. I do not believe there is any more moral ambiguity in most abortions than squashing a bug.
    WOW, I am PC and all, but I find this comment a tid bit disturbing….

  240. “I do not believe there is any more moral ambiguity in most abortions than squashing a bug.
    WOW, I am PC and all, but I find this comment a tid bit disturbing….”
    To clarify: the reason this is my position is that the development of fetuses at which most abortions occur bug-level or less. Maybe a sizable minority are lizard-level, but I think many women would kill a lizard to avoid nine months of pregnancy or her whole life being diverted, and so would many men if we could get pregnant.

  241. To Amie Newman: In response to your post up above.
    No. I am not Jewish. I grew up being the token “gentile” as a kid. The one main thing I admired the most of all my Jewish friends was their respect and love for LIFE…and how it was revered and celebrated…epsecially since the majority of my friends had family who perished in the Holacaust, or managed to survive and tell their stories.
    How you CAN NOT see the analogy between abortion and the atrocities of the holacaust boggles my mind. Unborn babies and the Jews (YOUR PEOPLE BTW ) were put to death solely because they were deemed “unwanted” or “unfit” or “inferior” or what have you.
    The photos of the piles of bodies at the camps vs. photos of dismembered babies are EXACTLY the same. Both show the cruelty of man in eliminating the “unwanted, inconvenient, inferior, troublesome ” human “debris” .
    Of ALL the races on this planet, you being a JEW, there is no excuse for you to not be against the taking of innocent life, the torture that precedes it, and the lasting effect it has on the survivors. The fact that you are alive and breathing makes YOU personally A SURVIVOR of the holacaust, given your background.
    Perhaps you would have preferred that your ancestors had been given sedation prior to their deaths??? Would this have made it more “safe and humane” ????? Hitler made it LEGAL to kill YOUR people. Did that make it “right”? NO !!!
    Does the fact that it is LEGAL to KILL unborn children, whether by suction, dismemberment, scissors stabbed into their skulls, etc. make it “right”? NO !!!
    You REALLY need to do some heavy duty research on YOUR background before you deny the comparisons of the holacaust and abortion. I suggest you have a good long series of discussions with a rabbi about this…and hope he doesn’t throttle you for your ideas!
    The entire HISTORY of the Jewish people is based on their struggles to maintain LIFE.

  242. “Your comments make me puke.”
    I admire your fortitude. Apparently I made another commenter’s brain explode.

  243. Harq,
    I think you say those things comparing the taking of a human life to squashing a bug just to get people who respect life riled up. If you don’t say something intelligible in your next post your comments aren’t worth a bloggers time.

  244. Anonymous said:
    **************
    Many find some moral ambiguity in abortion, but think the certainty of an unwanted full-term pregnancy is worse. I do not agree–I do not believe there is any more moral ambiguity in most abortions than squashing a bug. Sure, killing bugs is a minor evil, but preserving one is not worth nine months to one lifetime of misery or even inconvenience.
    ***********
    Anonymous, you missed the point of my question. I did not want ask why people who “choose” abortion do so. I want some PC’ers on this site to tell me why they are personally against abortion.

  245. Truthseeker, Janet and Sandy…
    Novena time. I don’t have your emails, so if you would email me I’ll fill you in…
    Thanks
    Samantha T., just for kicks you are welcome to join us too…let me know.

  246. Amie Newman,
    While not everything about abortion can be compared to the holocaust, many things do correlate…and Jewish people don’t seem to have a problem saying so.
    The propaganda used, the dehumanizing of the victims, the “crematoriums”, the indifference of society…the treating of life as so much human garbage…
    http://www.jewsforlife.org/Article_Detail.cfm?ID=924

  247. Samantha @ 8:16,
    Anonymous’s answer at 8:38 was pretty much what I would have said.
    PIP, The Bible, God, and Science go hand in hand. If they don’t, then God didn’t create the world. It’s that simple. If Science doesn’t confirm everything in the Bible in your eyes, and if they are separate issues, then how do you even believe in the God of the Bible? If God created the world, doesn’t it also make sense that Science would be a way of figuring out how God’s design works?
    From answersingenesis (apologies for the length):
    Although evolutionists interpret the evidence in light of their belief in evolution, science works perfectly well without any connection to evolution. Think about it this way: is a belief in molecules-to-man evolution necessary to understand how a computer works, how planets orbit the sun, how telescopes operate, or how plants and animals function? Has any biological or medical research benefited from a belief in evolution? No, not at all.
    In fact, the Ph.D. cell biologist (and creationist) Dr. David Menton, who speaks at many conferences, has stated,

  248. OK she was wearing red. What does that mean or what do you want to pretend it means? Comments like that just make you look like an immature snotty bitch. You criticized ‘feminists’ for acting like ‘teenaged girls’. What a hypocrite you are! You and your hate filled fetus obsessed groupies act like a pack of hate filled tantrum throwing brats ranting and raving against any and every one you do not approve of and making one juvenile snotty bitch brat accusation after another. Then you try to pretend you are morally ‘superior’. You are jokes. Every one of you.

  249. The color of abortion

    Just goes to show the psychological make-up of pro-lifers and pro-aborters is polar(ized) opposite. Amanda Marcotte, in a post entitled, “Harlotry unleashed,” written in response to my post about her yesterday, thought I drew attention to the fact she …

  250. Harq al-Ada,

    Because the scriptural support of the idea of humanness occurring at conception is weak at best.”
    Religion has nothing to do with the evilness of abortion. This is a straw man, and a weak one at that.
    “There is not much evidence to suggest that making abortion illegal reduces its rate much–it just makes it less safe. As has been said before on this thread, both carrying a baby to term and an illegal abortion is more dangerous than the typical legal abortion.”
    This begs the question as to the humanity of the unborn. If the unborn is an intrinsically valuable human being worthy of life ( as pro-lifers claim), then this “safe and legal” business is irrelevant.
    “The only time abortion resembles “dismemberment of babies” are those abortions that are done at late term for the health and safety, possibly the life, of the mother.”
    What is the being that is being aborted? It doesn’t matter what it ‘looks like.’ It ‘looks like’ we like on a flat earth and that the sun rises (literally).
    “50 million babies get aborted? Way more than that if you count miscarriages. 30-40% of pregnancies miscarry before implantation and are not even noticed by the woman. God is by far the biggest abortionist.”
    Here you commit the naturalistic fallacy. You are assuming that what happens in nature (in a predictable fashion in the absence of human intervention) must be morally acceptable when deliberately caused by human action (George and Tollefsen). But in some parts of the world, sadly, infant mortality rates are still very high. So we should be allowed to kill infants because they die all the time anyway?

    “Good post. I don’t really know any medical procedure that is meant to kill anything else that is living.”
    Except those that kill viruses, bacteria, harmful fungi, parasites, or cancer cells.”
    None of those are whole complete beings with the natural capacity for reason.

    “But consider the fact that one of our criteria for the fertilized eggs humanity is that it has it’s own set of DNA distinct from the mother.”
    So do mutant cells, including cancer cells. Human cells invaded by viruses (which alter the cell DNA) acquire unique human DNA, and we don’t consider them humans.”
    ONE of our criteria. This means a NECESSARY CONDITION, not a sufficient condition. Please read more carefully. The cells that you refer to share the same DNA as the parent and are not, as stated above, complete organisms. Basic biology will tell you that the fertilized egg is an organism, a complete whole. The other things are not.
    “Conception isn’t magic, and it is certainly not consciousness.”
    Ah, finally an actual argument- the embryo is not a person because it in not conscious. I suppose I just spent the last 7 hours as a nonhuman, being asleep and unconscious. People in reversible comas wouldn’t be persons then, either. It also looks like, currently, my 2 month old daughter is not a person either.
    The only rational, logical understanding of this is that the product of conception is a human person until death.

  251. PIP: If you didn’t “want” abortion you would also be helping women to not have one. You actively “want” women to be able to have one. This is effectively pro abortion.
    PIP, effectively pro-legal abortion, not pro-abortion per se. As far as helping women not have them, I am all for pregnancy prevention if it’s not wanted. My wife and I have donated to PP at least once, and I know that’s not much, but I really am on the side of prevention versus abortion. Also, what, exactly, would be “actively”? That’s going overboard, like saying somebody actively wants the horrors in Darfur, etc., to continue because they are not directly helping the situation.
    ……
    A republican I talked to once said, “You know, I’m pro-life, but I am also anti-big government, so I don’t want to make women to not have abortions. Rather safe and legal. But I’m still prolife, because I think it’s wrong.”
    I was bewildered. I told her “effectively, you are pro-choice.” And she said, “sort of.” I wanted to say “uh…yes…because if you are pro life you would be against it; pro-lifers think of abortion as killing a human being, and nobody in their right mind would say better safely kill one than “forcing” someone to kill somebody unsafely (?). It doesn’t make any sense to me. I will call you pro-choice if you want to, but really that makes you pro-abortion rights. Isn’t that effectively the same thing. Pro-abort is short for pro-abortion rights. If we leave it at pro-life and pro-choice I’m okay with it. I’m just trying to help you understand why we sometimes refer to it as pro-abort. Some people are more “pro-abortion” than others though.
    Yes, being for abortion rights is certainly correct. I have no problem with you, but some pro-lifers want a buzzword that they think demonizes pro-choicers, consciously or sub-consciously, and it’d be the same deal as calling pro-lifers “woman-slavers.”
    On that Republican, she evidently sees it as worse to have government intruding on a person’s life in this matter versus having a pregnancy end. That’s not saying she “likes abortion,” but that she sees it as worse to prohibit women from having them.
    Doug

  252. HisMan: Evolution thoerizes that life came from nothing and developed into single cell life forms which eventually ended up being cats, and dogs, and fish, and well, people, no?
    Not really. Evolution is not in doubt, any more than gravity is, per the theory of gravity.
    The origin of life could be anything, and we still have evolution going on and plenty of evidence of it in the past.
    Douug

  253. btw how are you supposed to “kill” God?
    PIP, you level up as far as you can, get some really tough armor and one of the best axes, spears, staffs, etc., and of course drink a lot of health potions as you go….
    ; )

  254. PIP: We don’t have a soul-o-meter or have physical evidence it exists.
    True, it’s a matter of unprovable belief, but upon that belief a few Soulometers have actually been constructed and Otis Redding, Aretha Franklin, Marvin Gaye and James Brown scored fairly highly, believe it or not.

  255. Elizabeth,
    You asked me to prove we have a soul. God’s word is proof enough for me. You can reference any one of the 129 passages in the Holy Bible that speak of “soul” and 10 regarding “souls”.
    Evolve, Evolves, or evolved is not mentioned even one time.
    “create” is mentioned 11 times, “Created” is mentioned 47 times, “creates”, once, “creating”, twice, “creation”, 25 times, “creator”, 11 times.
    God’s word is truth for me. I’m sorry we disagree on the subject of evolution.

  256. Jill posted the article and video of the Spanish abortions clinics who were in clear violation of government law by aborting viable healthy fetuses. Where was the outrage from ANY of you?
    Any PCer care to respond??
    Sandy, just how many people do you see really being for the abortion of healthy, viable fetuses?
    Outrage? Yes, terrible things happen in the world, “terrible” in the minds of almost everybody, where there’s not even any debate about it here. I suppose we’re all a big jaded or saturated about some things, with it varying from person to person.
    Not really arguing the issue here – but I think the Spanish deal is just really sad.
    It depends on how one looks at things and even perhaps what “club” one is in – pro-life or pro-choice or environmentalists, Libertarians, etc., etc., ad infinitum.
    I like the abortion argument because it does get down to our rock-bottom basic beliefs and valuations, but the entire thing has its place, and look at the situation in the Sudan, in Darfur, etc.
    There the suffering in many individual lives is greater than that which occurs in a thousand pre-viability abortions, ten thousand, etc. But you don’t see much debate about that.
    I think that all of us “get used to the world” to a large extent, with all the good and bad we see there, and with all the disagreements between us.
    Doug

  257. Maybe some of you PC’ers could help me out with a question. I hear Soooo many of you say you don’t “like” abortion. Why is that you don’t “like” abortion?
    It does have some risks, some costs, it’s messy, “yucky,” etc., like many surgical procedures. My dislike there is not enough that I think women shouldn’t have the legal rights they now do, but still “liking abortion” just sounds funny to me, like “who would really ‘like’ it?”
    Doug

  258. It does have some risks, some costs, it’s messy, “yucky,” etc., like many surgical procedures. My dislike there is not enough that I think women shouldn’t have the legal rights they now do, but still “liking abortion” just sounds funny to me, like “who would really ‘like’ it?”
    She means the moral aspect of the dislike, not the physical aspect of dislike, Doug.

  259. She means the moral aspect of the dislike, not the physical aspect of dislike, Doug.
    Bethany, then that starts for me when I see personality, personhood, sentience, etc., developing and being at least somewhat present, and granted that this is a personal, subjective viewpoint. It’s when I start thinking of the unborn as a “them.”
    Doug

  260. “If Science doesn’t confirm everything in the Bible in your eyes, and if they are separate issues, then how do you even believe in the God of the Bible? If God created the world, doesn’t it also make sense that Science would be a way of figuring out how God’s design works?”
    That’s quite the point. They don’t contradict each other at all. But sometimes it goes against a literal interpretation of scripture. I don’t feel that a literal interpretation is necessary for my salvation, so I don’t think my theology is that flimsy or easily threatened by science and evolution.
    “how plants and animals function? Has any biological or medical research benefited from a belief in evolution? ”
    Evolution is the central theory of biology. Nothing really makes sense without it. And yes research has been benefited. Those working on the AIDS virus need to know a lot about evolution in order to make it work to their advantage. Same with other diseases like cholera, tuberculosis, and syphilis.

  261. I’ve heard Rabbis say that the old testament is primarily aligorical, not to be taken literally, and the purpose of the stories and parables is to teach lessons to mankind. Fundamentalists seem to think the bible began with the King James version.

  262. @SamanthaT,
    suffering was and still is THE most perplexing of all creation. It’s existence certainty is without question, but why would a benevalent God create such?
    I think there MAY be some merit in perceiving of suffering lies along the axis of being independent, an isolate … when he/she suffers, they suffer alone … pain is a singular experience that we all have. This is so much so … that philosophically it exists so that I might know that existence is real and not an elaborate dream. (We just could not imagine the experience of intense pain.)
    As well, could we experience joy without pain? I mean all kinds of pain … even labor pains precede the exhilaration of child-birth. How would we know how precious life is without death? Death is easy to accomplish, but life is ….. remember the poem about Humpty Dumpty … ‘all the king’s horses (power) and all the king’s men couldn’t put Humpty together again!’
    we live a mystery and pain is the gateway to our uniqueness, to ourselves, is not in science (which is comparison). It is not too important about how much pain we have as how we handle it.

  263. Bethany, then that starts for me when I see personality, personhood, sentience, etc., developing and being at least somewhat present, and granted that this is a personal, subjective viewpoint. It’s when I start thinking of the unborn as a “them.”
    And so you personify with the unborn then, Doug?

  264. Right, PIP, because any source that claims that it was God’s creation, not evolution will be “crap” in your eyes.

  265. That’s quite the point. They don’t contradict each other at all. But sometimes it goes against a literal interpretation of scripture. I don’t feel that a literal interpretation is necessary for my salvation, so I don’t think my theology is that flimsy or easily threatened by science and evolution.
    PIP, I agree with you that everything in the bible is not literal. However, if you compare the language with certain texts of the bible with other texts, you can usually very easily tell what is poetic and what is not.
    “and the evening and the morning were the first day”. this is quite obviously a literal passage. Especially when you compare it to others which say the same thing in other contexts. I can find you many, if you’d like.
    Now, here is something that is poetic, or metaphorical:
    4: And I looked, and, behold, a whirlwind came out of the north, a great cloud, and a fire infolding itself, and a brightness was about it, and out of the midst thereof as the colour of amber, out of the midst of the fire.
    5: Also out of the midst thereof came the likeness of four living creatures. And this was their appearance; they had the likeness of a man.
    6: And every one had four faces, and every one had four wings.
    7: And their feet were straight feet; and the sole of their feet was like the sole of a calf’s foot: and they sparkled like the colour of burnished brass.
    8: And they had the hands of a man under their wings on their four sides; and they four had their faces and their wings.
    9: Their wings were joined one to another; they turned not when they went; they went every one straight forward.
    10: As for the likeness of their faces, they four had the face of a man, and the face of a lion, on the right side: and they four had the face of an ox on the left side; they four also had the face of an eagle.
    etc etc…
    Also, if you’ll use a Strongs, or other type of concordance, you can usually find the exact definition of particular words as they were translated from greek or hebrew.
    It really helps a lot in figuring out whether something is to be considered metaphorical or literal.

  266. Funny that with all the new discoveries, all it does is add evidence for the theory of evolution rather than the contrary? It is one of the most well-supported theories in science today.
    PIP, the discoveries you are reading are completely one sided. I am constantly reading about the new failures of the evolutionary theory.
    They are always finding out that bones they thought were ancestors were actually those of apes (frauds). Things like the coelacanth, “vestigal” organs that have been proven to have purpose, come to mind. Things like that happen all the time. Yet, they aren’t nearly as publicized.

  267. This is because they are Bible literalists and not because the evidence points to it. They come with a bias.
    Uh, and evolutionists don’t come with a bias? Come on, let’s be honest here.
    Some I’m sure are not even biologists. I find it hard to believe that someone would believe in this creation story by looking at what we have. On the contrary, the evidence is quite the opposite of what creation would predict.
    Just because you cannot believe it doesn’t make it untrue, PIP.
    The list of Scientists and biologists that I listed have all seen the same evidence you have, only they see it through a different lens than you do.

  268. Doug says:
    **************
    Bethany, then that starts for me when I see personality, personhood, sentience, etc., developing and being at least somewhat present, and granted that this is a personal, subjective viewpoint. It’s when I start thinking of the unborn as a “them.”
    ***************
    Doug, why do you dislike it when other people
    suffer? Why do you even care?
    Doug

  269. It seems to me that “most” pro-choice politicians and most other PC supporters qualify their support of RoeVWade by adding the line, “but I am personally against abortion.” I am just trying to figure out why they say that.

  270. “However, I am glad that MK and Bethany are able to assist you in your spiritual matters. You’re proving me wrong so far…let’s see how long it lasts!”
    Posted by: Anonymous at January 30, 2008 8:27 PM
    FYI, salvation and other spiritual matters involving eternity are not a game. This is not about seeing who can outlast whom. Watching someone post for 15 minutes on a blog does not give you any kind of insight into her life. I suspect your reluctance to post has much less to do with your perceptions about my sincerity and much more to do with your inability to properly answer.

  271. Samantha,
    I’ve watched you post an extreme amount of blasphemous comments about the God I love in the past. Heck, you cannot even capatilize His name.
    Again, I call it like I see it. I never said I was right, and truthfully, there are just some people on this blog that I would not care to ever have a conversation with, let alone, one about God. You have attacked my posts here, and also in the past. Your irreverance to God has spoken much more loudly than you can ever imagine. I still think that you are one of the most manipulative posters here.
    Salvation and eternity is not a game, you are correct. Using blasphemy and irreverance to God to get a question answered is a dangerous game to be played. Amazing how you have absolutely no problem with that!
    As I’ve stated before, God bless those that will indulge in your spiritual walk, if it is even sincere. I have the ability to answer your questions, but not the want to even read your posts when they are filled with blasphemy.
    Erin does a wonderful job of asking questions without being blasphemous. Instead of attempting to insult me for not wanting to answer your quetions (boo-hoo), take a serious look at yourself and see how you present your questions about God on your posts. You may get more questions answered sincerely if you show some respect to the God that I am privelaged to worship and call my Lord.

  272. by the way, Samantha, mk is Catholic and Bethany is Protestant. If you don’t want to get extremely confused, pick one.

  273. “Right, PIP, because any source that claims that it was God’s creation, not evolution will be “crap” in your eyes.”
    Well I do believe evolution was God’s creation. Justifying special creation with arguments like “people in technology don’t use it” or “politician’s don’t use it” is a crap argument.
    “”and the evening and the morning were the first day”. this is quite obviously a literal passage.”
    This is not necessarily true. How long is God’s day?
    “PIP, the discoveries you are reading are completely one sided. I am constantly reading about the new failures of the evolutionary theory.
    They are always finding out that bones they thought were ancestors were actually those of apes (frauds). Things like the coelacanth, “vestigal” organs that have been proven to have purpose, come to mind. Things like that happen all the time. Yet, they aren’t nearly as publicized.”
    Not true. But I will address your examples here. A. aferensis was never proven to be a fraud. Those that were were discovered by other scientists, not creationists.
    “Vestigial” doesn’t mean it can’t have a purpose, it just isn’t used like they were in the past. For example, us having some hair and shiver is still useful, but we don’t rustle it up to look larger towards competitors, do we? We still have muscles attached to our tailbones, but we don’t use it to hang from trees.
    “Uh, and evolutionists don’t come with a bias? Come on, let’s be honest here.”
    Every scientist has some “bias” but if you look at the evidence, it all clearly points to an ancestral past. None of these discoveries are explained by special creation, and in fact are quite the opposite of what special creation would predict. Scientists don’t come to discover things based on their religious belief; they come to discover things based on EVIDENCE! Look at the evidence, Bethany, and you will see what I mean.
    “Just because you cannot believe it doesn’t make it untrue, PIP.
    The list of Scientists and biologists that I listed have all seen the same evidence you have, only they see it through a different lens than you do.”
    Yeah, I’ll say. These scientists all have a problem believing in it because they think it contradicts their theology, so they find silly ways to “attack it.” This “different lens” is quite different than what biology is all about. If you are skeptical, why don’t you devise an experiment and work it out in the lab?
    also, scientists not trained in evolutionary biology can’t really say they’ve seen “all the evidence” could they? Would you honestly trust a historian to tell you that a certain mathematical theory is untrue?

  274. MK,
    “It just seems to go in waves…and we ended one bad “scene”, so it follows that a bigger one is coming…always be prepared. When I first came on here Amanda, Midnite and Erin where the posters…We thought they were awful because we’d never heard people express these opinions so bluntly before…but they are wonderful people with one tiny (okay, huge) flaw. They are pro choice. Then Cam joined us…we thought he was the worst of the worst and he made Amanda, Midnite (remember Dahmer, midnite???) and Erin seem like candidates for the nunnery. The came TR, Sally and Laura. Made Cam look like Mr. Rogers…
    So it stands to reason that satans next footsoldiers will step it up a notch…
    I hope I’m wrong…”
    And where do I fit in?

  275. We should note that Wallace and Darwin thought of evolution by natural selection about the same time, on separate continents, no less. Before that, evolution was still a hypothesis but the mechanism was unknown. They still had lamarckian ideas, etc.
    If you want to see evolutionary responses to creationist videos and arguments, last time we debated I posted about 7 videos. There are more out there, now. Go a head, watch those, and tell me what you think! One such video is a response to Ken Ham, the author of answersingenesis.

  276. Well, I can’t speak for MK, but I like you Enigma. I think you give THE argument in favor of abortion-choice that needs to be addressed. You’ve made me read up a lot.

  277. @PiP,
    a while back I told someone that evolution was an answer to the ‘purpose’ o the universe. You did a double-take with this. I said this because this is the spot where much of the confusion takes place.
    there is a specific element of ‘repeat’ or a definite direction to evolutionary adaptation. If one views these changes as progressive … or in act as ‘bettering’ any species, then what you have is a judgment about WORTH/subjective-value … and not science.
    This same problem occurs in Doug’s logic when he says that the decision to abort is in her best interest. All Doug knows is that she has made a decision. Qualifying that decision as ‘the best’ is Doug’s spin. In evolution: science can only speak that a change has occurred. Any farther characterizing of the change as necessarily positive/progressive instead of regressive is problematic.
    In the same line – is more better??? Is adaptation better.

  278. “by the way, Samantha, mk is Catholic and Bethany is Protestant. If you don’t want to get extremely confused, pick one.”
    Posted by: Anonymous at January 31, 2008 12:05 PM
    Somehow, in the last year, I have picked that up. But thanks for the heads up, kiddo.
    “I’ve watched you post an extreme amount of blasphemous comments about the God I love in the past. Heck, you cannot even capatilize His name.”
    Care to back that up?
    “You may get more questions answered sincerely if you show some respect to the God that I am privelaged to worship and call my Lord.”
    Posted by: Anonymous at January 31, 2008 11:55 AM
    Well, MK, Bethany, John McD, and Mr Bambino have all responded with deep kindness and honesty. I think their answers were pretty sincere, so what are you getting at?

  279. “”Nor has technology arisen due to a belief in evolution.”
    Why does this matter? Evolution is a biological theory not an electric one.
    “Technology has shown us that sophisticated machines require intelligent designers

  280. PIP I think we are going to just have to agree to disagree on this one. I believe wholeheartedly there is ample evidence in this world for creationism, because I have seen bookoodles of it, and I have seen no clear evidence whatsoever for evolution. I have looked.
    Evolution takes just as much faith to believe as Creationism. It is NOT proven, although you may see what you consider to be evidence that supports it (just as creationism can’t be “proven” but we have evidence to support it).
    There is an element of faith to BOTH of our beliefs.
    You start with the presupposition that we must have evolved, and you look for evidence to support your presupposition. I start with the presupposition that the Bible is literally correct in Genesis, and I look for evidence to support my presupposition. Neither of us is going to be openminded about this. So we will have to agree to disagree. Besides, this blog is really about abortion and that’s what I’m more interested in debating anyway.

  281. “Harq al-Ada,

    Because the scriptural support of the idea of humanness occurring at conception is weak at best.”
    Religion has nothing to do with the evilness of abortion. This is a straw man, and a weak one at that.”
    I think a lot of Christians would disagree, though I could be wrong about this one. In any case, I was specifically answering a woman saying she was anti-choice because of her faith.
    “”There is not much evidence to suggest that making abortion illegal reduces its rate much–it just makes it less safe. As has been said before on this thread, both carrying a baby to term and an illegal abortion is more dangerous than the typical legal abortion.”
    This begs the question as to the humanity of the unborn. If the unborn is an intrinsically valuable human being worthy of life ( as pro-lifers claim), then this “safe and legal” business is irrelevant.”
    Yes, it does. But my argument was in response to someone who brought up abortion’s danger to the mother. The fact that AC’s use “for the mother” arguments shows that they are self-conscious about revealing the fact that their goals are anti-woman.
    “The only time abortion resembles “dismemberment of babies” are those abortions that are done at late term for the health and safety, possibly the life, of the mother.”
    What is the being that is being aborted? It doesn’t matter what it ‘looks like.’ It ‘looks like’ we like on a flat earth and that the sun rises (literally).”
    What it looks like matters a lot to your side–that’s why you hold up big signs showing dead fetuses at late stages of development. Never mind that the minority of abortions that are late-term are done to protect the health and safety of the mother and in cases where the baby would probably die anyway.
    “50 million babies get aborted? Way more than that if you count miscarriages. 30-40% of pregnancies miscarry before implantation and are not even noticed by the woman. God is by far the biggest abortionist.”
    Here you commit the naturalistic fallacy. You are assuming that what happens in nature (in a predictable fashion in the absence of human intervention) must be morally acceptable when deliberately caused by human action (George and Tollefsen). But in some parts of the world, sadly, infant mortality rates are still very high. So we should be allowed to kill infants because they die all the time anyway?”
    The term “naturalistic fallacy” is a term that applies only when you believe that divine law is arbitrary, that nature is random. Even in first-world conditions, the probability of implantation is not terribly high. If there is a god, fertilized eggs just don’t seem to be that big a deal to him.

    “Good post. I don’t really know any medical procedure that is meant to kill anything else that is living.”
    Except those that kill viruses, bacteria, harmful fungi, parasites, or cancer cells.”
    None of those are whole complete beings with the natural capacity for reason.”
    All except perhaps viruses and cancer cells are complete beings.

    “But consider the fact that one of our criteria for the fertilized eggs humanity is that it has it’s own set of DNA distinct from the mother.”
    So do mutant cells, including cancer cells. Human cells invaded by viruses (which alter the cell DNA) acquire unique human DNA, and we don’t consider them humans.”
    ONE of our criteria. This means a NECESSARY CONDITION, not a sufficient condition. Please read more carefully. The cells that you refer to share the same DNA as the parent and are not, as stated above, complete organisms. Basic biology will tell you that the fertilized egg is an organism, a complete whole. The other things are not.”
    I concede this point.
    “Conception isn’t magic, and it is certainly not consciousness.”
    Ah, finally an actual argument- the embryo is not a person because it in not conscious. I suppose I just spent the last 7 hours as a nonhuman, being asleep and unconscious. People in reversible comas wouldn’t be persons then, either. It also looks like, currently, my 2 month old daughter is not a person either.”
    Unconsciousness due to sleep is a transient state, and sleep does not always mean unconsciousness. A person is conscious in a sense when she is dreaming. You’re right, though–consciousness is not enough to make someone human. Intelligence does as well. As intelligence is the CAPACITY for thought, it exists even in unconsciousness. Capacity for thought is not the same as potential for it; the former is an immediate and demonstrated thing.
    “The only rational, logical understanding of this is that the product of conception is a human person until death.”
    Keep telling yourself that. The fact that AC’s are usually against contraception as well as abortion suggests that they don’t care that much how many abortions occur, as long as women are punished for having sex.

  282. Once again, you post a picture of stillborn babies claiming that it’s aborted fetuses. If the anti-choice movement wasn’t so hell-bent on perpetuating lies, its arguments might have more credence.

  283. Harq al-Ada,
    “As intelligence is the CAPACITY for thought, it exists even in unconsciousness. Capacity for thought is not the same as potential for it; the former is an immediate and demonstrated thing.”
    At what point in development does this capacity for thought occur?
    “The fact that AC’s are usually against contraception as well as abortion suggests that they don’t care that much how many abortions occur, as long as women are punished for having sex.”
    It’s very disheartening that you assume the worst in pro-lifers. You assume that our motivation for being against birth control is to punish women. I believe that most abortion-choice advocates support abortion because they think that abortion is morally permissible. I don’t think they have evil intentions, just that they are misguided. But Harq al-Ada, can you articulate the reasons why a pro-lifer might be against contraception? God love you.

  284. Jezebel,
    Prove that they are stillborn, please.
    And even if they were stillborn, is that a respectful manner of handling dead children?

  285. BTW Harq al-Ada, sorry I was a bit flippant in my first post to you… I tend to be grouchy in the morning.

  286. Jezebel,
    LOL
    Well, not really LOL
    It’s pretty sad that you seem to think that the proper disposal method of a stillborn is in a black trash bag.
    Aborted, unwanted babies are disposed of in this way by the “caring” individuals that “helped” the so-called mothers rid them of their blessed pregnancies.
    Please, post a picture, a true one, of an aborted baby then. None of the pictures ever posted are “real” to you guys.

  287. Jezie,
    Don’t belive the pics? What do you think happens to babies during and after abortion?
    Do you think they are peacefully put to sleep gracefully delivered, wrapped up in pink and blue blankets and handed over to their “mothers” to be rocked and cradled then respectfully prepared for burial in a gold plated coffin for all eternity?
    How ignorant do you want to remain?
    Go to January archives and pull up the post on Spanish abortion clinics going on strike. Plenty of truth there. Videos included.
    Do your homework on the saline method, the D&E method, the D&X method.

  288. God’s word is truth for me. I’m sorry we disagree on the subject of evolution.
    Sunshine,
    We don’t disagree..I am just capable of having an understanding for each aspect of the beginning of the world. Science looks at it in a SCIENTIFIC way..why would they do anything else? Their ideas are based on science. Religion looks at it from a RELIGIOUS standpoint. Science is based in the physical and religion is based on the spiritual. You can still believe God’s truth and enjoy learning about how science looks at the beginning of the world. They are BOTH equally complex to me. I loved reading my biology book and I love reading the Bible.

  289. Sunshine,
    I also did not ask you to cite in the Bible that we have souls. I of course know it says that in the Bible. WHAT I asked was, cite in the Bible where it says humans are the ONLY creatures with souls.

  290. We don’t disagree..I am just capable of having an understanding for each aspect of the beginning of the world. Science looks at it in a SCIENTIFIC way..why would they do anything else? Their ideas are based on science.
    Elizabeth, I define Science as “studying and trying to understand the world that God created for us”. If I separate God from Science, I am left with nothing to study. There is nothing to study without God. He has to be a part of it.
    Science is based in the physical and religion is based on the spiritual.
    Without God, there would be no physical anything. Science is understanding God’s complex design. Separating God from Science is futile.
    love ya, Elizabeth, you know I do.

  291. I also did not ask you to cite in the Bible that we have souls. I of course know it says that in the Bible. WHAT I asked was, cite in the Bible where it says humans are the ONLY creatures with souls.
    Only humans have an immortal soul, according to the Bible. Only humans were made in the likeness and image of God.
    And we are distinct creatures from the animals, as
    1 Corinthians 15 tells us plainly:

  292. No difference, Jess. And women who have abortions are much more likely to abuse children from subsequent pregnancies, so there you go.
    Posted by: Bethany at January 30, 2008 12:02 PM
    ******************
    One more blatant lie from the antichoice side –

  293. you remember, these women killed by “safe & legal abortions”- either:
    **********
    care to tell us where you got your ‘information’? and would you like to list the names of all the women who died as a result of gestation and birth during the same time frame?

  294. To clarify somewhat more, animals do possess souls. I don’t want to give any indication that I don’t believe they have souls, because it is clear in the Bible that they do. But the difference is that their souls are not immortal. When they die, their soul is gone. They exist no more. When a human dies, his soul lives on.
    Ecc 3:21 Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?

  295. No difference, Jess. And women who have abortions are much more likely to abuse children from subsequent pregnancies, so there you go.
    Posted by: Bethany at January 30, 2008 12:02 PM
    ******************
    One more blatant lie from the antichoice side –

    I cited sources, TR…pay attention.

  296. And here’s another study that is much more thorough:
    http://www.ispub.com/ostia/index.php?xmlFilePath=journals/ijpn/vol6n2/abortion.xml
    Induced Abortion and Child-Directed Aggression Among Mothers of Maltreated Children
    Posted by: Bethany at January 30, 2008 12:18 PM
    ********************
    And every one of those individuals are connected with The Elliot Institute and David Reardon whose pathetic dishonest ‘research’ and his fake Phd has had him laughed out of the mental health care community. Reardon is the same person who tried to pretend that a diagnosis of schitzophrenia and bipolar disorder where “proof” of mental illness after abortion when its obvious those conditions would have existed before the woman ever got pregnant. He also tried to use accidents and illness as ‘proof’ that women who had abortions had a ‘higher death rate’ than women who gestated. The list goes on and on. The man is a joke – his resarch is laughable – and the people associated with him and The Elliot Institute are frauds quacks and fakes, just like Reardon.

  297. Oh Bethany..I am not saying it has to be completely separate at all. Often times when I am getting really in-depth at the wonders of science and things like that..I think…and people don’t believe God exists? Who ELSE could have created such a complex universe? Spontaneous combustion? Luck? No way. So I am not saying that they are separate at all. But at times if you get too in conflict with what your religion and what science teaches you it CAN be helpful to say, “Okay this is the SCIENCE aspect of it.” Does that make sense?

  298. Only humans have an immortal soul, according to the Bible. Only humans were made in the likeness and image of God.
    No arguments there.

  299. Oh Bethany..I am not saying it has to be completely separate at all. Often times when I am getting really in-depth at the wonders of science and things like that..I think…and people don’t believe God exists? Who ELSE could have created such a complex universe? Spontaneous combustion? Luck? No way. So I am not saying that they are separate at all. But at times if you get too in conflict with what your religion and what science teaches you it CAN be helpful to say, “Okay this is the SCIENCE aspect of it.” Does that make sense?
    Yes, I understand what you’re trying to say now. I appreciate you clarifying that for me. :-)

  300. Elizabeth,
    I’ll tell you what. You can do the homework and tell me in the bible where God gave animals and plants souls first and that we evolved from them, ok? I simply refuse to believe that Jesus died for us, my dog, the lizard in Florida, and the jasmine in California. Sorry, ain’t gonna happen. It just doesn’t make a lick of sense.
    I love biology too. Science is absolutely fascinating to me. However, I see God in everything. I do not take God out of anything in order to see it. Does that make sense?

  301. And we are distinct creatures from the animals
    I agree….so does science!

    Yes, but I also believe we always have been… and how could we always be different than animals if we evolved from them?
    Wouldn’t that also mean that animals that exist today could have immortal souls and should be saved and baptized? I’m not making fun, it’s an honest question.

  302. I’ll tell you what. You can do the homework and tell me in the bible where God gave animals and plants souls first and that we evolved from them, ok?
    Haha sorry Anon..I’ve got enough homework to do already and it’s the first week of school. Does EVERYTHING you think have to be literally taken out of the Bible in order for you to believe it?
    I simply refuse to believe that Jesus died for us, my dog, the lizard in Florida, and the jasmine in California. Sorry, ain’t gonna happen. It just doesn’t make a lick of sense.
    I never said Jesus died for the sins of animals. Obviously you are taking my statements out of context.
    However, I see God in everything. I do not take God out of anything in order to see it. Does that make sense?
    I don’t take God out of anything in order to see it either, but I am capable of looking at things in the way they are intended to be looked at.

  303. Bethany, my good friend!
    “Yes, but I also believe we always have been… and how could we always be different than animals if we evolved from them?
    Wouldn’t that also mean that animals that exist today could have immortal souls and should be saved and baptized? I’m not making fun, it’s an honest question.”
    I really try not to take a stand on this issue, but I think I have an answer as to how that might work, although I’m not necessarily saying I believe it or don’t. I think the answer would be that God infused a soul at some point in the evolutionary process, perhaps only 7000 years ago or something, and then THAT BEING that he infused the soul into resulted in the first human, Adam. I think this makes sense because there is such a huge gap in intelligence between human beings and other animals, and so if evolution is true, the human soul being infused by God at some point answers the question of why there is such an enormous gap in intelligence between human beings and the “smartest” other animals, maybe apes.
    Also, since the soul is immaterial, this is not something that could be detected by science. In fact, when God infused the soul wouldn’t be apparent from any fossil records, no matter how good they are the soul has nothing to do with anything that can be observed by science.
    So that’s how I see the two interacting, although again, I personally take no evolutionary stance. Does that make sense? God love you.

  304. Wouldn’t that also mean that animals that exist today could have immortal souls and should be saved and baptized? I’m not making fun, it’s an honest question.
    Science doesn’t measure souls or determine who should or should not be saved or baptized. That’s what religion is for. Like I’ve said, science looks at the physical, not the spiritual. But I think you can baptize your pets just in case. :)

  305. Oh BTW, I don’t know if this is true in any other theology, but in Catholic theology we believe that every living organism has a soul; trees, animals, and humans, but only human beings have a rational, immortal soul (I think we distinguish three kinds of souls- vegetative, sensitive (for animals) and rational). I should have clarified above that God infused the rational soul, or “changed” the soul to be a rational soul.

  306. Elizabeth,
    Well, I guess we can just chalk this up to:
    “we’ll find out when we get there”.
    Thanks for the civil discussion.

  307. Oh BTW, I don’t know if this is true in any other theology, but in Catholic theology we believe that every living organism has a soul; trees, animals, and humans, but only human beings have a rational, immortal soul (I think we distinguish three kinds of souls- vegetative, sensitive (for animals) and rational). I should have clarified above that God infused the rational soul, or “changed” the soul to be a rational soul.
    Bobby..thanks for the info…I was unaware of this but good to know!

  308. “At what point in development does this capacity for thought occur?”
    It comes upon gradually, as does the immorality of killing it. It is less moral to kill or hurt something developed to the level of mammal than to that of a reptile, a reptile to a fish, and a fish to an insect, etc.
    “It’s very disheartening that you assume the worst in pro-lifers. You assume that our motivation for being against birth control is to punish women. I believe that most abortion-choice advocates support abortion because they think that abortion is morally permissible. I don’t think they have evil intentions, just that they are misguided. But Harq al-Ada, can you articulate the reasons why a pro-lifer might be against contraception? God love you.”
    I think AC’s consciously believe that abortion is killing babies. If there wasn’t so much fear of female sexual autonomy, however, more AC’s would question that belief. As for why so many Christians are anti-contraception, it has its roots in Catholicism. In relatively recent history the Catholic Church decided Catholics needed a population boost, so a doctrine revealing the evil of contraception was made.
    .

  309. “care to tell us where you got your ‘information’? and would you like to list the names of all the women who died as a result of gestation and birth during the same time frame?”
    It would take more time than I am willing to give to name them all. From the Guttmacher Institute:
    http://www.guttmacher.org/in-the-know/safety.html
    “The risk of abortion complications is minimal when the procedure is performed by a trained professional in a hygienic setting: Fewer than 1% of all U.S. abortion patients experience a major complication. The risk of death associated with abortion in the United States is less than 0.6 per 100,000 procedures, which is less than one-tenth as large as the risk associated with childbirth. (40) However, 68,000 women in countries where abortion is illegal die each year of abortion complications, and many times this number are injured by unsafe procedures. (5)”

  310. “Bethany, then that starts for me when I see personality, personhood, sentience, etc., developing and being at least somewhat present, and granted that this is a personal, subjective viewpoint. It’s when I start thinking of the unborn as a “them.”
    And so you personify with the unborn then, Doug?
    Yes, to an extent. (No “with” required, though – don’t really know if you meant that.)

  311. “And we are distinct creatures from the animals
    I agree….so does science!”
    According to science, we are animals. We are part of the genus Homo, which is part of the family Hominidae, from the order of Primates, from the class Mammalia, which is in the phylum Chordata. Chordates are nested comfortably within the Animal Kingdom.

  312. But, Bobby, we were created in His image…which means, when He made us, we were already in His image and likeness. At the moment of creation. Which makes it very difficult for me to believe that God would have made us in the image of a beast or creeping creature, and then after millions of years, somehow changed us into His image and likeness. I see no implication that this could even be a possibility in the Bible. None at all. It’s so much easier to just lean on the simplicity of the Bible and the clarity of the scripture within it, than to come up with a long and detailed guess of what might have happened, based on taking some scriptures out of their context (such as the serpant on it’s belly which was mentioned earlier).
    The Bible says that we are supposed to have a childlike faith in Him and His word. How many children do you know who try to figure out ways to decipher other meanings out of a text, or read things into it that weren’t there, rather than simply reading it at face value? Even as a child, I was able to tell poetic language of the Bible from literal language. It wasn’t confusing, because the Bible is written in a way that is simple enough to be understood by a young child.
    I don’t understand why the Bible should be met with such skepticism by people who are supposed to lean on the truth of God’s word?
    This is very perplexing to me.
    Bobby, you are one of the kindest and most caring people I’ve ever met, so please don’t take offense to anything I’ve said, or think that I’m attacking you at all. ;-)

  313. Bobby Bambino, I am not offended by any curtness you observed in yourself. It is a contentious issue.

  314. Doug, why do you dislike it when other people suffer? Why do you even care?
    Truthseeker, it’s like asking, “Why is there such a thing as empathy?” The root cause may be the way our brains are “wired,” and the chemicals that are commonly produced in response to certain stimuli. There is instinctual behavior in people just as in other species, and beyond the nature versus nurture argument there are some things so common among people that I think it’s reasonable to say it’s “human nature.”
    To an extent, when somebody else is hurting, it hurts me.

  315. “Harq,
    That doesn’t mean we aren’t distinct from animals.”
    That may be so. I was addressing the point that we are distinct from animals in a scientific sense.

  316. So that’s how I see the two interacting, although again, I personally take no evolutionary stance. Does that make sense? God love you
    God love you too, Bobby…yes, I understand what you’re saying. :)

  317. suffering was and still is THE most perplexing of all creation. It’s existence certainty is without question, but why would a benevalent God create such?
    John, I think the existence of suffering, among other things, was what led people to come up with the theoretical construct of gods.
    Doug

  318. ” there is a specific element of ‘repeat’ or a definite direction to evolutionary adaptation.”
    Evolution has no direction.
    “If one views these changes as progressive … or in act as ‘bettering’ any species, then what you have is a judgment about WORTH/subjective-value … and not science.”
    Not at all. The species when it evolves becomes more fit for its environment. At the time. There’s no reason to presume that it’s “better” just more fit. Fit meaning, survival and reproduction. Science places no “value” on the subjects of these studies. It can be measured. Subjective value has no measure.
    “This same problem occurs in Doug’s logic when he says that the decision to abort is in her best interest.”
    There is no logical comparison here at all.
    “In evolution: science can only speak that a change has occurred. Any farther characterizing of the change as necessarily positive/progressive instead of regressive is problematic.”
    Well yes. Science measure what occurred and why it did. Look, the patterns of spots have changed when the species geographically diverged. Why? Because those spots helped those species be more fit to its current environment.
    “In the same line – is more better??? Is adaptation better.”
    I guess it depends on how you use the word better- this perhaps is your fallout here. By “better” in science we use it as a quantifier- “the organism was better fit to its environment.” But even then ‘better’ isn’t used very often. In other areas of study, “better” is a qualifier- “I like her better.”
    “Elizabeth, I define Science as “studying and trying to understand the world that God created for us”.”
    Maybe this is your problem. You got the definition all mixed up. Science is finding patterns in nature and discovering reasons for those patterns.
    “I love biology too.”
    Surface biology? Because lingering behind everything is evolution. If you like biology, take an evolution course and tell me what you think.
    “Evolution takes just as much faith to believe as Creationism.”
    Nope. Show me some hard evidence that points to biblical creationism- that you can follow the evidence to the conclusion, not start from the conclusion. I’m completely serious. Show me a piece or collection of evidence that directly points-that anybody from any religion- to biblical creationism. Because you can do that, make inferential conclusions and verifiable predictions, with evolution.
    “It is NOT proven”
    Not in the strict sense, but animals evolving-that is a fact.
    The mechanism- theory. Note that a scientific theory is hard to come by.
    “although you may see what you consider to be evidence that supports it”
    You mean like everything?
    “just as creationism can’t be “proven” but we have evidence to support it”
    show me.
    “There is an element of faith to BOTH of our beliefs.”
    In a sense but two different usages of the word. Scientists have “faith” in the scientific process, but “faith” here is used to mean that we trust it to bring us to solid conclusions. Creationists have “faith” that God pulled a good one on us, and therefore any evidence brought forth is pointless.
    “You start with the presupposition that we must have evolved, and you look for evidence to support your presupposition.”
    But we didn’t. Just looking at history, we started with the presupposition of creation–and ended up with evolution based on facts.
    “I start with the presupposition that the Bible is literally correct in Genesis, and I look for evidence to support my presupposition.”
    Can I see it? Seriously. Direct evidence that supports creationism.
    “Neither of us is going to be openminded about this.”
    I”m pretty open-minded. I started out a creationist in middle school, I started out here as a pro-choicer. If I am shown something contrary to what I previously thought I will change. If a legitimate alternate hypothesis is available that explains the evidence that proves evolution is wrong-that would be even MORE awesome because what a breakthrough that would be! Who doesn’t love scientific breakthroughs! Unfortunately for creationists, this hasn’t been done yet.

  319. Enigma: And where do I fit in?
    Yee Haa! In my opinion you fit in where you want to, and I hope you want to post more here on Jill’s blog, again.
    :: runs around outside shooting guns into the air ::
    Best,
    Doug

  320. I don’t understand why the Bible should be met with such skepticism by people who are supposed to lean on the truth of God’s word?
    Do you think you can accept other things as truths while still accepting God’s truth as well?
    I do..I think there is room for scientific truth and God’s truth..and I don’t believe that they contradict each other.

  321. Building on what Elizabeth said, you can look at something from all different angles but these are angles that we learn separately. Everything we learn is to better understand God’s creation. I mean, we study math in math class, we study history in history class, we study literature in literature class, we study God in theology, theory in philosophy, logic in logic. Nothing necessitates an omission or denial of everything else. But the matters have to be taken on their own merit. We call science: the study of patterns in nature and the reasons for those patterns. This is a separate study than theology, but that doesn’t mean that one necessitates the denial of the other. This is what we often mean when we say that there is room for both “science and God.”
    If you want to know more about it read Kenneth Miller’s “Finding Darwin’s God.”

  322. Johnny M: This same problem occurs in Doug’s logic when he says that the decision to abort is in her best interest.
    Now hang on there, Hoss. It may be in her best interest. I don’t make such unqualified statements as you have me doing, there, usually. Hey baby, ain’t no guarantees, either way, and the same thing goes for deciding to continue a pregnancy.
    I am still for letting the pregnant woman choose, either way, but there is no necessary logic on my part saying that a given case will turn out a given way, nor can there be on anybody’s part.
    ……
    All Doug knows is that she has made a decision. Qualifying that decision as ‘the best’ is Doug’s spin.
    Oh no, no, no – that “best” is first and foremost in her opinion, and that is also not saying it’s impossible she’ll ever have regrets or even regret a given decision, on balance. Let’s be truthful and correct here.
    ……
    In evolution: science can only speak that a change has occurred. Any farther characterizing of the change as necessarily positive/progressive instead of regressive is problematic.
    John, science doesn’t say “better” or “worse” in an unqualified way, in the first place.
    ……
    In the same line – is more better??? Is adaptation better.
    As always, it depends on what is wanted.
    Doug

  323. pip, 5:41 p.m.
    GREAT POST! That is exactly what I am trying to say..I’ve tried explaining it 5 ways from Sunday but some people can’t understand what I’m saying I guess.
    And p.s. because of this stupid fricking weather I have missed my biology class and tonight now..my lab. I am very sad about this. Stupid midwestern snow.

  324. in Catholic theology we believe that every living organism has a soul; trees, animals, and humans, but only human beings have a rational, immortal soul (I think we distinguish three kinds of souls- vegetative, sensitive (for animals) and rational). I should have clarified above that God infused the rational soul, or “changed” the soul to be a rational soul.
    Bobby, very interesting; I did not know that.
    Seems obvious to me that other living things such as dolphins, whales, elephants, dogs, etc., have “souls” if people have ’em. As far as different kinds of souls, well, who knows, really?

  325. As always, it depends on what is wanted.
    Doug…what if one doesn’t know what one wants? And what if one thinks they want doesn’t really turn out to be so? Can you take it back? With abortion, this is a no. Some decisions you just can’t take bac.

  326. “At what point in development does this capacity for thought occur?”
    Harq al-Ada: It comes upon gradually, as does the immorality of killing it. It is less moral to kill or hurt something developed to the level of mammal than to that of a reptile, a reptile to a fish, and a fish to an insect, etc.
    1.) Right on! ‘Dune’ rules!
    2.) Well said on the development.

  327. Bethany: Bobby, you are one of the kindest and most caring people I’ve ever met
    He sure is, isn’t he? There is a massive trustworthiness to him.
    Doug

  328. That doesn’t mean we aren’t distinct from animals.
    Elizabeth, we are animals as far as being mammals, vertebrates, etc., but we are a singular species on earth due to our brains, our tool-making and using capability, and our tendency to pass knowledge down the generations. This applies whether one has religious beliefs or not.
    Doug

  329. Elizabeth, we are animals as far as being mammals, vertebrates, etc., but we are a singular species on earth due to our brains, our tool-making and using capability, and our tendency to pass knowledge down the generations. This applies whether one has religious beliefs or not.
    Yep..that’s what makes us distinct from other animals.

  330. Elizabeth: Doug…what if one doesn’t know what one wants?
    Then one may not have an opinion, one may not care too much about it, or one may just be undecided. Roll dice? Flip a coin?
    ……
    And what if one thinks they want doesn’t really turn out to be so?
    Then they screwed up. It happens.
    ……
    Can you take it back? With abortion, this is a no. Some decisions you just can’t take back.
    Well, sure, same as for giving birth.
    Doug

  331. PIP, 5:41 p.m.
    Elizabeth: GREAT POST!
    :: shaking head :: No doubt!
    Is there such a thing as reincarnation? If so, I want to give it a try and then go back in time and be roughly the same age as PIP and propose to her….

  332. Well, sure, same as for giving birth.
    Except you can choose adoption for your child. There are open or closed adoptions. Seems like there is more options for women who choose to birth then women who choose to abort.
    There are endless decisions after giving birth..Abortion..there’s just an end.

  333. As well, could we experience joy without pain
    If we never walked in darkness, we would never see the stars…

  334. Hey Harq al-Ada,
    “It comes upon gradually, as does the immorality of killing it. It is less moral to kill or hurt something developed to the level of mammal than to that of a reptile, a reptile to a fish, and a fish to an insect, etc.”
    I’m not trying to be pushy or rude, but is there any way you could be more specific? I mean, there must be some point in development when you take the organism and say ‘now it is human and therefore worthy to not be killed.’ It seems to me that a 2 month old is not as developed as an older type of mammal that we might kill, so it would it be morally permissible to kill a two month old?
    “If there wasn’t so much fear of female sexual autonomy, however, more AC’s would question that belief. As for why so many Christians are anti-contraception, it has its roots in Catholicism. In relatively recent history the Catholic Church decided Catholics needed a population boost, so a doctrine revealing the evil of contraception was made.”
    The Catholic Church has taught from day one that contraception is immoral. It had nothing to do with a population boost. What I meant by my question was to for you to articulate an argument against birth control. My point is that in one of your previous posts, you said how opposition to abortion and birth control were about controlling women, as if those who oppose contraception follow blindly what someone just told us to believe. There is very good reason to oppose artificial contraception, but you don’t seem to have been exposed to it. That in itself is fine, except for the fact that you criticize our postion on it without even knowing what our position is. It makes is difficult to dialogue about an issue when one hasn’t even studied it, although perhaps we have a misunderstanding and you have studied it, in which case take back everything I said. But the fact that you claimed it was for a population boost doesn’t seem very promising. Does that make sense? I don’t mean to be rude. God love you.

  335. Bethany, I totally understand and am not the least bit offended. This is one place where (at least for me) I think people of good faith can have legit disagreement (not even saying I disagree with you necessarily) and still be in totally perfect standing with our Lord, since I believe He hasn’t totally revealed how he created the world to us (although I think you disagree with that). It stems from the fact that I don’t think that the interpretation of the Genesis creation story is at all obvious. We can continue this discussion, perhaps later tonight. I’ll respond to what you wrote. God love you, friend.

  336. Oh Enigma,
    If you are still there, I can honestly say that you are unique. Your name is so fitting. You have never been nasty or rude, you have stood firm to your views without ever attacking me or anyone that I can remember. I’d have to put you in a camp all by yourself. Maybe with Doug.
    I was just thinking about you today. You disappeared and I wonder if you’ll ever come back. I think of you as my little sparrow. Watching in the window but quick to flee if she feels that she’s been spotted…
    Ever since I read the book Twig as a little girl, I’ve loved sparrows.
    But no worries Enigma, you were never in the “nasty” camp.

  337. Sandy, I used to work in an abortion clinic and did tissue analysis. I know exactly what aborted fetuses look like. Absolutely nothing like babies.

  338. “1.) Right on! ‘Dune’ rules!
    2.) Well said on the development.”
    Thanks, Doug.
    On another subject, I agree with you that though humans’ homology and ancestry places us firmly in the animal camp biologically, certain characteristics make us different from other animals in important ways. The plasticity of our minds, the capacity for language, etc.

  339. Sandy, I used to work in an abortion clinic and did tissue analysis. I know exactly what aborted fetuses look like. Absolutely nothing like babies.
    mmhmmm..and by magic, they turn into babies once they’re popped out. lol

  340. “there must be some point in development when you take the organism and say ‘now it is human and therefore worthy to not be killed.'”
    All life should be spared if possible. You always have to weigh the moral lapse of killing against the cost of not doing so. For instance, one should not go out of his way to kill an insect that posed no threat, but it would be pointless to feel bad for calling an exterminator if insects in your home have become an inconvenience. If dealing with higher animals, like mice, humane catch-and-release traps are more appropriate than conventional traps or poison.
    As for when a fetus specifically becomes too developed for convenience to be a good enough reason not to kill it, I would say somewhere around the fourth or fifth month. Other reasons, such as the health and safety of the mother, push that back farther, sometimes up to the very end depending on the danger.
    “The Catholic Church has taught from day one that contraception is immoral.”
    I will take your word on that for now. I heard differently, but admittedly that was a long time ago and I do not have the source.
    “That in itself is fine, except for the fact that you criticize our postion on it without even knowing what our position is.”
    You are right. I have made my argument after examining only the positions that I could think of, which are:
    -natural law (which I think is an ephemeral concept highly subject to shifting cultural sentiments and selectively ignored in scripture)
    -population enhancement of white Christians; (I have actually seen this one argued by religious right types in the modern day)
    -control of women’s bodies (many men feel emasculated when their potential offspring get aborted. Some men would like it if women got pregnant as soon as possible so those women would feel like they had to settle down).

  341. Jezebel,
    Sandy, I used to work in an abortion clinic and did tissue analysis. I know exactly what aborted fetuses look like. Absolutely nothing like babies.
    For the types of abortions that you saw, it is quite possible that they didn’t look anything like babies. They had been sucked through a machine or cut to pieces in the womb. It’s not until all of their little bitty pieces are collected, cleaned off and put back together that you see the tiny bodies.
    Did you see abortions at 14 weeks? 12 weeks? 20 weeks?

  342. Jez,
    The pictures of the babies in the waste can were taken some 35 years ago. Because of pictures like that, there are now laws about how we dispose of them. But those are truly aborted babies. As you know, now they are put in tupperware like containers and stored until the “pick up” guy comes and gets them once a week…but 30 years ago? They were just thrown in the dumpster. Baby Choice (one of the babies in the posters that you see) would have been 20 this past August…

  343. Thanks for letting me know your understanding about contraception, Harq al-Ada. I appreciate it. But I wanted to say that I think reading some anti-contraception writings is worth looking into. Janet Smith is a great author on this. I think this http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0002.html is quite good. While there is talk of God and the Catholic Church, and some arguments rely on God, I think you’ll see that the basic bulk of her argument can be argued without mention of God. For anyone who has ever wondered what the problem with contraception is, it is worth giving it a try. God love you.

  344. “Sandy, I used to work in an abortion clinic and did tissue analysis. I know exactly what aborted fetuses look like. Absolutely nothing like babies.”
    Really?

  345. @Doug,
    “….
    All Doug knows is that she has made a decision. Qualifying that decision as ‘the best’ is Doug’s spin.
    Oh no, no, no – that “best” is first and foremost in her opinion, and that is also not saying it’s impossible she’ll ever have regrets or even regret a given decision, on balance. Let’s be truthful and correct here.”
    yep,Doug, let’s. I stand by my analysis … guess you’ll need to prove that such a decision is in fact a good one …. if it’s only you saying ‘best’, we PL’ers may be more inclined to intervene.

  346. Sandy, I used to work in an abortion clinic and did tissue analysis. I know exactly what aborted fetuses look like. Absolutely nothing like babies.
    Posted by: Jezebel at January 31, 2008 7:09 PM
    Yes I am sure they look nothing like babies. After being sucked through a high speed vacuum or torn apart limb from limb what do you expect?
    Just because they don’t look like babies doesn’t make it any less horrible or doesn’t make them any more alive.
    What about later term abortions?

  347. Galileo’s view:
    “I think that in discussions of physical problems we ought to begin not from the authority of scriptural passages, but from sense-experiences and necessary demonstrations; for the holy Bible and the phenomena of nature proceed like from the divine Word, the former as the dictate of the Holy Ghost and the latter as the observant executrix of God’s commands….I do not feel obliged to believe that that same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended to forgo their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them.”

  348. I just went over to that Amanda Marcotte’s blog to read the comments.
    Frankly I’m shocked that people actually say things like that and EXPECT respect from anyone.
    They are sick people I tell you.

  349. ******************
    Doug, why do you dislike it when other people suffer? Why do you even care?
    I think it’s reasonable to say it’s “human nature.” To an extent, when somebody else is hurting, it hurts me.
    Posted by: Doug at January 31, 2008 5:21 PM
    ******************
    Doug, you say part of why you care for others is
    “human nature”. I agree. But on a previous post when I tried to tell you it was part of a woman’s human nature to care for her babies you said that you disagreed because not “all” woman care for their babies. What gives. If it is part of your human nature to care for others then why isn’t it part of a woman’s human nature to care for her babies?

  350. **************
    Galileo’s view:
    “I think that in discussions of physical problems we ought to begin not from the authority of scriptural passages, but from sense-experiences and necessary demonstrations; for the holy Bible and the phenomena of nature proceed like from the divine Word, the former as the dictate of the Holy Ghost and the latter as the observant executrix of God’s commands….I do not feel obliged to believe that that same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended to forgo their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them.”
    Posted by: prettyinpink at January 31, 2008 10:33 PM
    ***************
    PIP – That is one of the same points JPII makes in his Encyclical on “The Theology of the Body.” I know it has been mentioned a few times on this post. Have you ever read any of it?

  351. “For the types of abortions that you saw, it is quite possible that they didn’t look anything like babies. They had been sucked through a machine or cut to pieces in the womb. It’s not until all of their little bitty pieces are collected, cleaned off and put back together that you see the tiny bodies.
    Did you see abortions at 14 weeks? 12 weeks? 20 weeks?”
    Okay, so it DOES matter to antichoicers how far developed an embryo is. It DOES matter to them how their bodies look when dismembered. Not just this comment, but their legal goals and rhetoric in reflect this. So why do they always go on to say the chemical flushing of a 256-cell zygote is just as bad? It is a blatant bait-and-switch.

  352. Bobby,
    “Well, I can’t speak for MK, but I like you Enigma.”
    I appreciate the thought.
    “I think you give THE argument in favor of abortion-choice that needs to be addressed. You’ve made me read up a lot.”
    I do try to offer strong arguements as a general rule. Weak arguements are not fun; they’re far to easy to refute.

  353. Doug,
    “In my opinion you fit in where you want to, and I hope you want to post more here on Jill’s blog, again.”
    To be perfectly honest, I enjoy forcing people to rethink which neat little category that they put me in.
    I may start posting here again regularly, but probably not for several months, at least. If one chooses to study abroad, the least one can do is not spend the entire duration of one’s studies on the computer.

  354. MK,
    “If you are still there, I can honestly say that you are unique. Your name is so fitting.”
    There is a reason that other people gave me the name; I did not pick it.
    “You have never been nasty or rude, you have stood firm to your views without ever attacking me or anyone that I can remember.”
    I may have accidentally attacked a few times (on religion in particular–my beliefs are such that I literally cannot state them without sounding as though I am attacking) but it’s good to know that any momentary lapses have not defined how others see me.
    “I was just thinking about you today. You disappeared and I wonder if you’ll ever come back.”
    As mentioned in above post, I’m not in the States at the moment and feel that I can best enjoy my time here if I minimize computer usage.
    “I think of you as my little sparrow. Watching in the window but quick to flee if she feels that she’s been spotted…”
    More apt then you know.
    “Ever since I read the book Twig as a little girl, I’ve loved sparrows.”
    They are beautiful little birds indeed. One does not need to possess bright colors or an incredible voice to be absolutely beautiful.

  355. Harq,
    Okay, so it DOES matter to antichoicers how far developed an embryo is. It DOES matter to them how their bodies look when dismembered. Not just this comment, but their legal goals and rhetoric in reflect this. So why do they always go on to say the chemical flushing of a 256-cell zygote is just as bad? It is a blatant bait-and-switch.
    Posted by: Harq al-Ada at February 1, 2008 5:05 AM

    It doesn’t matter at all how old the baby is…the point was made that the photos are fake and that Jezebel had never seen and abortion where the babies looked like, well, babies. I was just pointing out that if she only witnessed early abortions then they probably didn’t look like babies.
    But looking like something and being something are two different things. The Sacred Host looks like a round piece of bread…but it’s not.

  356. Rae,
    @MK: Was I ever in the “nasty group”? :-p
    Posted by: Rae at January 31, 2008 8:59 PM

    I can’t remember if you personally said anything nasty, but you were in the “original” crowd and some pretty nasty stuff got said…
    I’d have to go back and reread the old posts…but I don’t think so…

  357. Here is a couple of old posts by Alyssa and Amanda.
    While I understood their point about the Michael Corleone “slap”, look at the way they expressed themselves…my how we have ALL grown!
    Dear Jill,
    As I had mentioned to you previously, I interned last semester at Planned Parenthood. This semester I am interning at another reproductive health agency funded by the March of Dimes.
    I shared my column with my supervisor. She is planning on passing it on to the March of Dimes to release an official statement against you.
    She was so bothered by your piece, that even after I left, she emailed me about it… I have copied and pasted the email below. Enjoy:
    Hi Amanda, You know, the more I thought about that column you showed me, the more angry I got. The March of Dimes has invested so much effort in to educating mothers-to-be on how to best prepare for motherhood – to have a mentally and physically healthy pregnancy. Even though we do not take an official stance on abortion, many of our values are similar to those of most pro life advocates. To have a woman who claims to be so intent on “protecting” babies from abortion, it is incredibly disturbing to me that she would excuse and justify domestic violence. Domestic abuse is a major cause of maternal and infant injury and death, and is therefore, the polar opposite of “Pro Life”. It doesn’t matter what the reason is, even if its abortion – domestic violence is a plague on our society, especially our most vulnerable citizens – infants. Politics and opinions on abortion aside, anyone who claims a “real man” would EVER lay a hand on a woman under ANY circumstances is a fool… no nice word for it… just a fool. It frightens me that any person, male or female, may read this woman’s article and think that there are sometimes “good reasons” to strike a woman.
    Even though I am profoundly disturbed by this column, I thank you for showing it me, and I assure you, it will be passed along to others. This woman’s writing undermines the goals of so many people who have worked so hard to protect women, both pro life and pro choice. It may be nice for once to have one thing to agree on: Jill Stanek is a profoundly disturbed woman with a poor sense of humanity and is an embarassment to any cause she represents.
    See you thursday,
    Andrea
    Posted by: Amanda at March 8, 2007 7:44 PM
    Thank you, Amanda. At least we can get people to see her for the deranged animal she is.
    Posted by: Alyssa at March 8, 2007 7:56 PM
    Ehhh… I love animals Alyssa, most animals I know are smarter than Jill Stanek, in fact even though my cat cannot write, he’d write more inelligently and eloquently than her. I know what you were saying, but we have to find a better analogy!!
    Jill and Ann Coulter should have their own distinct category – perhaps a fungus.
    Posted by: Amanda at March 8, 2007 9:55 PM

  358. PIP 10:33
    Truth is ever to be found in simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things.
    Isaac Newton
    I will accept your challenge but you will have to give me time because next week I will have to be writing articles for Jill while she’s gone, and today I am going out of town to see my cousin’s first baby and won’t be back for the rest of the day. I will continue this discussion when I can.

  359. “Sandy, I used to work in an abortion clinic and did tissue analysis. I know exactly what aborted fetuses look like. Absolutely nothing like babies.”
    Jezebel, meet my baby, blessing who was not sucked through an vacuum and ripped into shreds.
    This is what a 6 (almost 7) week fetus looks like when miscarried naturally (actual size reference= lima bean):
    http://www.preciousinfants.com/babyblessing111.jpg
    http://www.preciousinfants.com/babyblessingtwo.jpg

  360. Harq al-Ada: On another subject, I agree with you that though humans’ homology and ancestry places us firmly in the animal camp biologically, certain characteristics make us different from other animals in important ways. The plasticity of our minds, the capacity for language, etc.
    Yeah, and not to say that elephants, dolphins, etc., don’t have any consciousness about supernatural things, either. Dolphins are better at thinking in some abstract ways than humans, for example.
    We’re big on myths and theoretical constructs like gods, as a race, and we certainly have more of an impact on the planet than any other given species.
    Doug

  361. I do have one question for you though before I go, Kate,
    if we can’t trust that the Genesis account of creation is literal, then how can we trust that the crucifixion and resurrection are in fact, literal, since both accounts use the same type of language?

  362. John: As well, could we experience joy without pain
    MK: If we never walked in darkness, we would never see the stars…
    Right on, you two; that I agree with. It’s relative. Even something which may bring joy at a given moment may lose it’s effect if repeated too many times. There is a need for variety in us.
    Whatever the “wiring” of our brains is, I think that some degree of struggle ends up making us happy.

  363. MK, to Enigma: I was just thinking about you today. You disappeared and I wonder if you’ll ever come back. I think of you as my little sparrow. Watching in the window but quick to flee if she feels that she’s been spotted…
    Enigma, you’ve shown enough of yourself that people on both sides of the argument like you.
    MK, you’re a sweetheart.
    Doug

  364. “1In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.”
    PIP,
    How long is a week to God? Is it 7 days? And if so, how long is a day to God? You asked yourself with the creation account how long a day is to God, when I showed you, “And the evening and the morning were the first day”, but I doubt you would second guess the length of the week described here in Matthew 28:11.
    Is Matthew 28:11 to be translated as literal, or figurative, and if literal, then why?

  365. Johnny M: This same problem occurs in Doug’s logic when he says that the decision to abort is in her best interest.
    “Now hang on there, Hoss. It may be in her best interest. I don’t make such unqualified statements as you have me doing, there, usually. Hey baby, ain’t no guarantees, either way, and the same thing goes for deciding to continue a pregnancy.
    I am still for letting the pregnant woman choose, either way, but there is no necessary logic on my part saying that a given case will turn out a given way, nor can there be on anybody’s part.”
    ……
    All Doug knows is that she has made a decision. Qualifying that decision as ‘the best’ is Doug’s spin.
    “Oh no, no, no – that “best” is first and foremost in her opinion, and that is also not saying it’s impossible she’ll ever have regrets or even regret a given decision, on balance. Let’s be truthful and correct here.”
    yep,Doug, let’s. I stand by my analysis … guess you’ll need to prove that such a decision is in fact a good one …. if it’s only you saying ‘best’, we PL’ers may be more inclined to intervene.
    John, nobody told you that it’s always a good one. There will indeed be regrets, on balance, sometimes, same as for choosing to continue a pregnancy.
    It’s the pregnant woman saying what is best. It’s not up to you or me. I’m Pro-Choice, and don’t think you or I should intervene in her decision.
    As for you and me, what I think is best is to let the pregnant woman follow her own desires in the matter.
    Doug

  366. And within the same chapter, there is some obviously figurative language, and I want to show it to you, to explain how obvious the figurative language is in the Bible:
    Matthew 28:3
    “3His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:”
    Unless you believe that Jesus literally looked like lightning, then you should be able to understand that this is speaking in an abstract way about Jesus appearance, to make a specific point. Yet, earlier in the chapter, obviously, it was speaking of a literal week, and should certainly be read in a literal way. Do you see where I am coming from, Kate?

  367. Bethany, This kind of leads into something I wanted to say about your other post mast night. I think a distinction that may be helpful here is not to think of passages in the bible as literal vs. figurative, but to think about the intent of the author. So in all the crucifixion narratives, what were the authors trying to convey to us? In the creation account, what was Moses trying to convey to us? Is a purpose of the Genesis account to give us a scientific understanding of the way the world was created? I certainly do not have a good answer to the third question. The whole “intent of the author” seems like no distinction at all, but it makes (at least me) think a little bit deeper. Like I’ve told you before though, the bible was written by the Holy Spirit, and contains no errors in anything. God love you.

  368. In the creation account, what was Moses trying to convey to us? Is a purpose of the Genesis account to give us a scientific understanding of the way the world was created?
    Absolutely! That is exactly what I believe his intent was in writing it. I don’t really understand how anyone could read it and not see it as being the point at all. It’s very difficult for me to see it any other way.

  369. Doug, why do you dislike it when other people suffer? Why do you even care?
    “Truthseeker, it’s like asking, “Why is there such a thing as empathy?” The root cause may be the way our brains are “wired,” and the chemicals that are commonly produced in response to certain stimuli. There is instinctual behavior in people just as in other species, and beyond the nature versus nurture argument there are some things so common among people that I think it’s reasonable to say it’s “human nature.”
    “To an extent, when somebody else is hurting, it hurts me.”
    Doug, you say part of why you care for others is “human nature”. I agree. But on a previous post when I tried to tell you it was part of a woman’s human nature to care for her babies you said that you disagreed because not “all” woman care for their babies. What gives. If it is part of your human nature to care for others then why isn’t it part of a woman’s human nature to care for her babies?
    TS, there are indeed things that are very common, but when we talk about “a woman,” then that is one given person, and in no way will she necessarily want to have kids, or have them at a certain time. I’m cool with that – not everybody is the same.
    Also, it is not purely an either/or question. There may be “caring for her baby,” but there may also be conflicting factors for her.

  370. also, there are many verses in Job which confirm the creation account. For example, “”Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? …When I made a cloud its garment, And thick darkness its swaddling band” (Job 38:4-9)5″

  371. “Oops, just to clarify, I know it was not Moses intent, but God’s intent by speaking through Moses. ”
    Right on.

  372. Well, no… it has many purposes.
    To refute athiesm (God created the world)
    To explain how we got here (You’ve got questions- God’s got answers)
    To explain to us how sin began (with Adam and Eve first eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil)
    To give an analogy of how with one man (Adam) sin came to the world, and therefore by one man grace was given to all men (Jesus Christ)
    There are more, but that’s what I can think of right off hand.

  373. That makes sense, Bethany. So I guess the second point (Figurative language is sometimes used to emphasize a point, make a vivid impression, or attract attention) in the Reasons for Figurative Language section in your link is applied in the way I see the creation account (before Genesis 3, the fall, and all that). I see the “first creation account” as showing that man is the culmination of God’s work. Everything else that God creates is “good”, but man is “great.” As far as the “second creation account,” I see it as showing that everything that God created is for man, and that man has dominion over the world. So if that is the primary purpose, then a “figurative” creation account is consistent with the idea that figurative language is used to emphasize a point.
    I should mention, though, that even though I hold to the possibility that it is a figurative creation account, that is not to the exclusion of a literal creation account. The Catholic understanding is that one can hold either position, so I just play the agnostic on this one. So, ehh, what can ya do? God love you, Bethany.

  374. I wish I could stay all day but I have to get ready to go in a few minutes… Is there any way that you could bookmark this page, Bobby (and pip), that way we could continue this discussion when I get back? I’m sure it’ll be bumped down by the time I get back. lol

  375. I should mention, though, that even though I hold to the possibility that it is a figurative creation account, that is not to the exclusion of a literal creation account. The Catholic understanding is that one can hold either position, so I just play the agnostic on this one. So, ehh, what can ya do? God love you, Bethany.
    God love you too, Bobby. I’ll talk to you more when I get a chance!

  376. “Truth is ever to be found in simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things.
    Isaac Newton”
    Isaac Newton also in his work Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy set out rules for arriving at knowledge:
    1. We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
    2. Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes…
    Truthseeker,
    I have read some of it, and find it quite fascinating.
    “if we can’t trust that the Genesis account of creation is literal, then how can we trust that the crucifixion and resurrection are in fact, literal, since both accounts use the same type of language? ”
    Were there eyewitnesses to creation?
    Were there eyewitnesses to Jesus’ death?
    Bethany, I think this is quite obvious.
    “Ways to identify figurative language and separate it from literal language of the Bible:”
    Honestly, I can’t tell you what the “intention” of that Bible story was for sure. Needless to say I think it is saying “God created us,” and is an allegorical story about sin and our relationship with God. I also do not believe in a God that is deceitful; that would make it look like we evolved but didn’t.
    “Is Matthew 28:11 to be translated as literal, or figurative, and if literal, then why?”
    If matthew wrote down his personal experiences, he probably wrote it down in the time frame experienced. However unfortunately nobody was there from the beginning of time. Needless to say I believe God surpasses time and space-humans constructed time. How could there be a human “day” without the sun?
    “Do you see where I am coming from, Kate? ”
    Yes, but I also believe that the taking out of a “rib,” the two Adams (made out of earth/made out of water), and eating fruits of knowledge are not to be taken literally, either. It seems pretty obvious to me. When we read stories like that we call them allegorical.
    ” the bible was written by the Holy Spirit”
    Was the intent of the Bible to lecture us on science? (It used to be thought so). Or was the intent of the Bible to guide us toward spiritual understanding?
    “That is exactly what I believe his intent was in writing it.”
    I guess that is not what I believe. I don’t think the Bible was meant as a science textbook. I believe it means that God created us, created everything around us, and it was good. The rest is about sin..
    For example, separating light and darkness. I believe the intent is not to say in one “day” he literally took light on one side and darkness the other (especially without sun or stars-where should this light come from?). I think “light” and “darkness” are meant to convey that he has set good and evil separate from each other.
    Besides, if God sat down and lectured the writers about evolution, would they understand what iota of what He was talking about? Evolution revolves around genetics, statistics and (subsequently) calculus. Newton invented calculus. Genes and alleles were not discovered until after Darwin published his book! Why would God give them a scientific lecture? It would take forever-look at the size of those textbooks! This is what I don’t understand.
    “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? …When I made a cloud its garment, And thick darkness its swaddling band” (Job 38:4-9)5″
    I don’t think he intended to say, “everything in the creation is scientifically accurate,” do you?

  377. @Doug,
    finally, we have a decided difference of opinion. For some months now, you have asseted the pro-choice cause and find even he thought of intervention as being anti-woman and suggested everyone refrain from intervention in a woman’s abortion decision.
    I agree that direct word intervention can be an affront, but it might be as an oasis in a storm that cries for death (aka Carla). Intervention can also be indirect … seeing that a woman if pregnant receives proper nourishment (especially zinc), so that depressions brought on by pregnancy will not ever occur – no contemplation of abortion nor ‘unwantedness'(also just a psychological manifestation that at times changes dramatically).
    while agreeing that a verbal intervention alone might be unjustified … a more comprehensive intervention including adequate nourishment; financial assistance; advocacy assistance + all kinds of CPC help + even a change of the law would be a rightful intervention. However, would the necessary work now done at the CPC’s stop if laws are changed? Will pregnant women got the help they need?

  378. Doug,
    Kwhen to humbly admit your inconsistency and come over to the dark side. There are a higher percentage of women who care for their babies then are people who care for strangers. So if you say giving a sandwich to a starving person is part of human nature then certainly a woman caring for her children would is part of a woman’s human nature. The percentages cannot be denied. At least be consistent and don’t just try and doublespeak your way out of something that is a clear inconsistency.

  379. Kwhen to humbly admit your inconsistency and come over to the dark side. There are a higher percentage of women who care for their babies then are people who care for strangers. So if you say giving a sandwich to a starving person is part of human nature then certainly a woman caring for her children would is part of a woman’s human nature. The percentages cannot be denied. At least be consistent and don’t just try and doublespeak your way out of something that is a clear inconsistency.
    Truthseeker, there’s no “inconsistency.” You’re also doing Apples & Oranges with “women who care for their babies” and people caring for strangers.
    I will agree that the average woman with kids cares more for those kids than does the average person about strangers. Yet it is still human nature, in general, to care for strangers to an extent, as I have said.
    It is also certainly human nature, in general, for women to care for their kids, even to want to have kids.
    Yet that does not mean that a given woman will. Now we are just talking about individuals. There is “women’s nature in general,” and then there is the nature of a given individual, and they are not necessarily the same thing.
    This is not “doublespeak,” this is just fact.

  380. John: I agree that direct word intervention can be an affront, but it might be as an oasis in a storm that cries for death (aka Carla). Intervention can also be indirect … seeing that a woman if pregnant receives proper nourishment (especially zinc), so that depressions brought on by pregnancy will not ever occur – no contemplation of abortion nor ‘unwantedness'(also just a psychological manifestation that at times changes dramatically).
    John, as before, I’m all for proper nourishment. The thing with Carla is that at the time she felt one way, and there was no way to be sure about the future. Some women end up regretting having kids. Are we to force them to have abortions? Of course not, and likewise, the lack of surety anent the future, by itself, does not justify forbidding the choice.
    ……
    while agreeing that a verbal intervention alone might be unjustified … a more comprehensive intervention including adequate nourishment; financial assistance; advocacy assistance + all kinds of CPC help + even a change of the law would be a rightful intervention. However, would the necessary work now done at the CPC’s stop if laws are changed? Will pregnant women got the help they need?
    “Rightful” is in your opinion, and that may be disregarding what the woman really wants.

  381. @Doug, look at it this way: you keep repeating desired as if these were options on a computer pop-down menu. The problem I have with this is that a shift occurs from this ‘options’-world to the actual. So her computer-type-options are clicked on the ‘intent’ line … and abortion is the sole ‘intent’. While you talk the line of ‘choice’, it seems that the shift to ‘intent’ is not recognized by you.
    The reason I mentioned Carla was not her regret at having an abortion, but her regret about not having a life affirming option, at any time. Her choices were only those of death for her baby. It just does not seem adequate to speak of choice but only offer abortion.

  382. Doug,
    I read your “conversation” with John last night and it got me to thinking. (He has a way of doing that to people.) I came up with a few different scenarios in my head, but I didn’t post them. Just something to think about…. here goes:
    Suppose a good friend tells you she is having an abortion tomorrow. It is her opinion that it is the best decision for her at this time in her life. You offer no advice or judgement on her decision because she is a rational thinking adult. She has the abortion.
    Suppose a second good friend tells you she is going for an abortion tomorrow. She’s visibly depressed having been out of a job for almost a month and is basically scared about having this child. What do you do? Say nothing because she is a rational thinking adult? Do you offer any advice? Possibly tell her to wait, that you’ll help her find a job, because maybe she’ll feel differently then?
    What you do as a friend can have strong impact on her life.
    If you say nothing. Three months later you meet her for lunch at the mall. She tells you she found a great new job and life is pretty good. But she is deeply regretting her abortion and can’t sleep nights because she thinks about the baby for hours on end. Do you wish you had said something because you can see how her decision is affecting her? Or, not?
    Instead, say you offer assistance. You help her find a job. She is relieved, and life is good again. She decides not to have the abortion. She’s excited at the prospect of having a baby, you are happy for her.
    Ultimately, these women’s decision have very different outcomes. Are you certain it was the best decision for each woman? Any doubts? In each scenario, as a good friend, do you think you did everything you could have? Should have?

  383. Doug said:
    **************
    Yet that does not mean that a given woman will. Now we are just talking about individuals. There is “women’s nature in general,” and then there is the nature of a given individual, and they are not necessarily the same thing.
    This is not “doublespeak,” this is just fact.
    Posted by: Doug at February 1, 2008 2:07 PM
    *******************
    Doug, btw, in my previous post I meant to say come over “from” the dark side, and not “to” the dark side. Any way. let’s try this again,
    Definition of human nature is – a “nearly” universal fundamental disposition of humans? Can we agree that nurturing our kids is a nearly universal fundamental disposition of humans? If we can then then it is obvious that wanting to kill our children goes against human nature. It is really just that simple.
    No individual can determine what is “human nature” because they are just one person out of humanity. If an individual’s disposition goes against a “nearly” universal fundamental disposition of humans then it is not part of human nature and it makes their individual nature an aberration an affront to “human nature”.
    In the case of abortion there are usually other outside contributing factors (no money, seeking career, prblems with father etc) that influence the woman to make a decision that goes “against” the part of her human nature that tells her to care for her kids.

  384. Doug, look at it this way: you keep repeating desired as if these were options on a computer pop-down menu. The problem I have with this is that a shift occurs from this ‘options’-world to the actual. So her computer-type-options are clicked on the ‘intent’ line … and abortion is the sole ‘intent’. While you talk the line of ‘choice’, it seems that the shift to ‘intent’ is not recognized by you.
    Nope, there’s no “mystery” about this, John. Sure – there will be intent to continue the pregnancy or to end it, per whatever the primary desire is. I’m for letting her do what she thinks is best.
    ……
    The reason I mentioned Carla was not her regret at having an abortion, but her regret about not having a life affirming option, at any time. Her choices were only those of death for her baby. It just does not seem adequate to speak of choice but only offer abortion.
    I’m not that familiar with Carla’s history, but women do have other options. Why do you say she had no others?

  385. Suppose a good friend tells you she is having an abortion tomorrow. It is her opinion that it is the best decision for her at this time in her life. You offer no advice or judgement on her decision because she is a rational thinking adult. She has the abortion.
    Janet, good question and it has come up before. If I knew somebody well enough then I might well give my opinion. Some of the people here – Bethany, etc., have made themselves known to me enough that if they said they were thinking about having an abortion, I’d really think that it likely was not the best thing, and would tell them of that.
    ……
    Suppose a second good friend tells you she is going for an abortion tomorrow. She’s visibly depressed having been out of a job for almost a month and is basically scared about having this child. What do you do? Say nothing because she is a rational thinking adult? Do you offer any advice? Possibly tell her to wait, that you’ll help her find a job, because maybe she’ll feel differently then? What you do as a friend can have strong impact on her life.
    If you say nothing. Three months later you meet her for lunch at the mall. She tells you she found a great new job and life is pretty good. But she is deeply regretting her abortion and can’t sleep nights because she thinks about the baby for hours on end. Do you wish you had said something because you can see how her decision is affecting her? Or, not?
    Instead, say you offer assistance. You help her find a job. She is relieved, and life is good again. She decides not to have the abortion. She’s excited at the prospect of having a baby, you are happy for her.
    And hypothetically, that could be the case. Hey – there are some people where I’d be hard pressed to think that having an abortion was a good thing, and some where I wouldn’t think having kids is good at all.
    ……
    Ultimately, these women’s decision have very different outcomes. Are you certain it was the best decision for each woman? Any doubts? In each scenario, as a good friend, do you think you did everything you could have? Should have?
    Yeah – if you’re a good friend then you likely know them well enough to have a valuable perspective. Same for somebody that wants to have a child just to keep them company, for them to “have somebody.” Sadly, there are girls like this, and that’s a case where I’d often be against it. Likewise, I told my brother to think twice about marrying this one woman…. (It didn’t last.)
    Doug

  386. Doug, btw, in my previous post I meant to say come over “from” the dark side, and not “to” the dark side. Any way. let’s try this again,
    Oh come on, Truthseeker, if ever there was a Freudian slip….. (Okay, just kidding – I knew whatcha meant.)
    ……
    Definition of human nature is – a “nearly” universal fundamental disposition of humans? Can we agree that nurturing our kids is a nearly universal fundamental disposition of humans? If we can then then it is obvious that wanting to kill our children goes against human nature. It is really just that simple.
    Human nature is “in general,” and maybe that’s nearly universal or maybe it’s just fairly prevalant. I do agree with you that not wanting to kill our kids is pretty universal. However, it’s much different for wanting to continue a pregnancy – there, there is quite a bit of sentiment among women to end them, especially at given times. Additionally, far fewer people think of the unborn as “children” in the first place, so any error in thinking the unborn are the same as the born in the respect of “wanting to care for our children” is further compounded by that.
    ……
    No individual can determine what is “human nature” because they are just one person out of humanity. If an individual’s disposition goes against a “nearly” universal fundamental disposition of humans then it is not part of human nature and it makes their individual nature an aberration an affront to “human nature”.
    That’s pretty reasonable. But there are enough women that don’t want kids that it’s a different deal.
    ……
    In the case of abortion there are usually other outside contributing factors (no money, seeking career, prblems with father etc) that influence the woman to make a decision that goes “against” the part of her human nature that tells her to care for her kids.
    Sure, there will always be other factors. They could increase the desire to have kids as well as to not have them. I’d just say that women are far more than mere child-bearers, especially in this day and age. If a given woman doesn’t want kids, that’s fine with me. I don’t need her to have any, especially against her will. Many, many people are making the choice to be childless, and that’s just fine.
    Doug

  387. @Doug, look at it this way: you keep repeating desired as if these were options on a computer pop-down menu. The problem I have with this is that a shift occurs from this ‘options’-world to the actual. So her computer-type-options are clicked on the ‘intent’ line … and abortion is the sole ‘intent’. While you talk the line of ‘choice’, it seems that the shift to ‘intent’ is not recognized by you.
    The reason I mentioned Carla was not her regret at having an abortion, but her regret about not having a life affirming option, at any time. Her choices were only those of death for her baby. It just does not seem adequate to speak of choice but only offer abortion.
    Posted by: John McDonell at February 1, 2008 3:26 PM
    ……………………………..
    What constitutes a ‘life affirming’ choice?

  388. “I’m not that familiar with Carla’s history, but women do have other options. Why do you say she had no others?”
    Because she said so.
    Read about her abortion experience on her blog. Horribly sad.
    Again, Carla, thank you for baring your soul to the rest of the internet world.

  389. Oh BTW, I don’t know if this is true in any other theology, but in Catholic theology we believe that every living organism has a soul; trees, animals, and humans, but only human beings have a rational, immortal soul (I think we distinguish three kinds of souls- vegetative, sensitive (for animals) and rational). I should have clarified above that God infused the rational soul, or “changed” the soul to be a rational soul.
    Posted by: Bobby Bambino at January 31, 2008 4:20 PM
    +++++++++++
    Bobby,
    I’m not calling you a liar, but not one Catholic that I know of thinks that the above is true, nor have they ever heard of such a thing. Could you please reference a source that this is taught in Catholic theology? Thanks, and as always, God love you, Bobby.

  390. Doug, 6:21 PM,
    “I’d just say that women are far more than mere child-bearers, especially in this day and age.”
    Wow, that’s a back-handed compliment if I ever heard one.

  391. @Sally,
    questions are always easier to form than answers, but I must commend you for this insight. But just what to say to such a question?
    Probably the easiest would be to allow the full-play of the recognized potential of a babe/fetus. If the mother assesses an inadequacy about raising her child, adoption of the child or getting substantial help in raising her child are a few options.
    There are some unusual benefits going this route: the lady would have a good personal sense of accomplishment/responsibility and goals like further education would be done with greater earnestness.

  392. @anon,
    Bobby is quite right. The teaching about different kinds of souls came from T. Aquinas’ work. However, such a distinction may be part of his philosophical perspective and not articulated (but taken for granted) in theological discourse. Many (if not most) modern Catholics are unfamiliar with Thomistic thought – too bad!

  393. John McDonell, 8:59,
    Very nice post. I’ve never seen the word “lady” used in this setting before. How refreshing!

  394. John,
    Thank you for the response.
    I don’t think it’s too bad at all. It seems more like a concept for a fictional book or Hollywood movie for that matter. I can’t imagine many people believing that a tree has any type of soul except for those “tree-hugging, mother nature lovers” that we all became so fond of!

  395. Hey Anon. I probably should have been a bit more precise. The distinction doesn’t seem to be in the Catechism, and I can’t seem to find it in any church documents. So I guess by “Catholic theology” I meant some popular forms of Catholic thought, which isn’t necessarily de fide, but nevertheless is acceptable to hold.
    I think it makes sense, though, because the idea of the soul is that it animates and gives life to the body. We know that death is the separation of the body from the soul, so if the soul animates a creature, then all creatures must have souls. So it seems that a Catholic doesn’t have to believe this. God love you.

  396. “I’d just say that women are far more than mere child-bearers, especially in this day and age.”
    Wow, that’s a back-handed compliment if I ever heard one.
    Well, Janet, in no way did I mean it that way. There remain a lot of bad attitudes toward women in the world, IMO, many of them related to religion.
    Doug

  397. “I’m not that familiar with Carla’s history, but women do have other options. Why do you say she had no others?”
    Carder: Because she said so. Read about her abortion experience on her blog. Horribly sad.
    Okay, I read about it. She really doesn’t even say much about not having other options.
    It’s hard not to sound like I’m criticizing her, but she could have told more people about her pregnancy. She could have let her “thoughts settle.” I don’t mean it as criticism, just as observation. I know it’s an extremely personal and painful thing for her.
    (And of course we’ve seen innumerable posts from pro-lifers about other people who’ve had abortions to the effect of, “Well, you could have done so-and-so..”)
    She did not have an “ideal” childhood but she was 24 when she was pregnant, and that’s old enough for a person to decide, either way.
    Doug

  398. Isaac Newton also in his work Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy set out rules for arriving at knowledge:
    1. We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
    2. Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes…

    I’m really not sure what your point is here. Evolution requires faith. Creationism requires faith.
    “if we can’t trust that the Genesis account of creation is literal, then how can we trust that the crucifixion and resurrection are in fact, literal, since both accounts use the same type of language? ”
    Were there eyewitnesses to creation?
    Were there eyewitnesses to Jesus’ death?
    Bethany, I think this is quite obvious.

    No, it is not at all obvious to me, PIP.
    Must something be eye-witnessed by other parties in order for God to be speaking the truth through another individual? Especially an individual like Moses, who God spoke to face to face?
    There are no eye-witnesses to Evolution either. No one has been able to go back and actually see with their eyes that first amoeba or whatever else evolutionists claim we evolved from (no disrespect, I just hear different ideas of what we evolved from. one day it’s an ape-like creature, another day it’s a lizard, another day it’s a one celled organism- I don’t know which one I’m supposed to believe), and to watch it develop and evolve from that into a human being that we see today. There are no transitional fossils, no actual proof of it happening…only long (many times intelligent) guesses that are perceived to be true by some intellectuals. An intelligent guess is still just a guess.
    To believe Evolution that has no eye witnesses definitely takes a substantial amount of faith to believe, just as to believe Creation that has no eye witnesses definitely takes faith to believe.
    “Ways to identify figurative language and separate it from literal language of the Bible:”
    Honestly, I can’t tell you what the “intention” of that Bible story was for sure. Needless to say I think it is saying “God created us,” and is an allegorical story about sin and our relationship with God. I also do not believe in a God that is deceitful; that would make it look like we evolved but didn’t.

    Why do you believe that the verse that says “In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth” is literal, but that the process through which He says He created us is not?
    “Is Matthew 28:11 to be translated as literal, or figurative, and if literal, then why?”
    If matthew wrote down his personal experiences, he probably wrote it down in the time frame experienced. However unfortunately nobody was there from the beginning of time. Needless to say I believe God surpasses time and space-humans constructed time. How could there be a human “day” without the sun?

    PIP, how could there be an evening and the morning without the sun at all? The Bible says that there was an evening and a morning before the sun existed. God said it happened. I believe Him. Why is this impossible to believe? I ask in total sincerity. If God can create the entire world out of nothing, why can’t he also create the day and night, and then later create the sun, moon and stars? I find it difficult to believe that He could do one, and not do the other.
    the Bible says that day and night, the evening and the morning, existed before God created the sun and the moon. Then He created the sun and moon to “rule over the day and night”.
    The day and night were already established by that time, and there were already evenings and mornings.
    Also, if you will check the context and language of the word “day” in “the evening and the morning were the first day”, it matches perfectly with the language of the following verses, which speak of literal days:
    Exodus 20:11 — For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.
    Exodus 31:17 — ‘It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed.'”
    2 Chronicles 29:17 — Now they began to sanctify on the first day of the first month, and on the eighth day of the month they came to the vestibule of the LORD. Then they sanctified the house of the LORD in eight days, and on the sixteenth day of the first month they finished.
    Nehemiah 6:15 — So the wall was finished on the twenty-fifth day of Elul, in fifty-two days.
    Matthew 26:61 — and said, “This fellow said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and to build it in three days.'”
    Matthew 27:40 — and saying, “You who destroy the temple and build it in three days, save Yourself! If You are the Son of God, come down from the cross.”
    Mark 15:29 — And those who passed by blasphemed Him, wagging their heads and saying, “Aha! You who destroy the temple and build it in three days,
    John 2:19 — Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”
    John 2:20 — Then the Jews said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?”
    Acts 20:6 — But we sailed away from Philippi after the Days of Unleavened Bread, and in five days joined them at Troas, where we stayed seven days.
    “Do you see where I am coming from, Kate? ”
    Yes, but I also believe that the taking out of a “rib,” the two Adams (made out of earth/made out of water), and eating fruits of knowledge are not to be taken literally, either. It seems pretty obvious to me. When we read stories like that we call them allegorical.

    Kate, part of these stories may very well be figurative. Just as in Matthew 28, it begins like this:
    1In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
    This part is literal.
    2And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
    This part is most likely literal.
    3His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:
    This part is obviously figurative. Now, simply because one part of the story is figurative, does this mean that the entire story is to be dismissed as figurative?

    “That is exactly what I believe his intent was in writing it.”
    I guess that is not what I believe. I don’t think the Bible was meant as a science textbook.

    But shouldn’t everything in Science correlate with Scripture? Should the Scripture and Science contradict, if God truly created the world, and if He created Science itself?
    I believe it means that God created us, created everything around us, and it was good. The rest is about sin..
    For example, separating light and darkness. I believe the intent is not to say in one “day” he literally took light on one side and darkness the other (especially without sun or stars-where should this light come from?).

    The same place that the earth came from, Kate. The same place that the Heavens came from. That the dust to create our bodies came from. That our souls came from. That is where I believe the light came from….nothing. God created the light from nothing, and added the sun later. He could have created the day and night and continued them without a sun forever, but He chose to add a sun and moon, as greater and lesser lights to “rule the day and night”.
    I think “light” and “darkness” are meant to convey that he has set good and evil separate from each other.
    Well, yes they are probably very much analogous to this but that doesn’t mean that they cannot be literal as well. Jesus literally died on the cross and rose again, but His death was indeed analogous to Jonah being in the belly of a fish for 3 days, the analogy of the temple being destroyed in 3 days, and other such analogies as well. So simply because His death can be looked at metaphorically, doesn’t mean that it is not to be taken literally as well.
    Besides, if God sat down and lectured the writers about evolution, would they understand what iota of what He was talking about? Evolution revolves around genetics, statistics and (subsequently) calculus. Newton invented calculus. Genes and alleles were not discovered until after Darwin published his book! Why would God give them a scientific lecture? It would take forever-look at the size of those textbooks! This is what I don’t understand.
    Why do you think that I am saying that the Bible is supposed to tell us everything about genetics and calculus?
    I am simply saying that Science and the Bible should always agree, or else it is junk Science – Or, God is contradictory.
    “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? …When I made a cloud its garment, And thick darkness its swaddling band” (Job 38:4-9)5″
    I don’t think he intended to say, “everything in the creation is scientifically accurate,” do you?

    Not necessarily, however, the Bible and Science should always be in agreement.

  399. PIP, I have a couple more questions that just came to me .
    Do you believe Adam was a literal person? Because his story doesn’t end at Creation. In fact, the story continues all through the old testament. At which point do you see it changing from metaphorical to literal? Or do you believe the entire Genesis account through Malachi is figurative?

  400. Here is a list of verses which use the term “evening and morning” with the same root words as the evening and morning described in Genesis:
    Genesis 1:5 — God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.
    Genesis 1:8 — And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.
    Genesis 1:13 — So the evening and the morning were the third day.
    Genesis 1:19 — So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
    Genesis 1:23 — So the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
    Genesis 1:31 — Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
    Exodus 16:8 — Also Moses said, “This shall be seen when the LORD gives you meat to eat in the evening, and in the morning bread to the full; for the LORD hears your complaints which you make against Him. And what are we? Your complaints are not against us but against the LORD.”
    Exodus 16:12 — “I have heard the complaints of the children of Israel. Speak to them, saying, ‘At twilight you shall eat meat, and in the morning you shall be filled with bread. And you shall know that I am the LORD your God.'”
    Exodus 16:13 — So it was that quails came up at evening and covered the camp, and in the morning the dew lay all around the camp.
    Exodus 18:13 — And so it was, on the next day, that Moses sat to judge the people; and the people stood before Moses from morning until evening.
    Exodus 18:14 — So when Moses’ father-in-law saw all that he did for the people, he said, “What is this thing that you are doing for the people? Why do you alone sit, and all the people stand before you from morning until evening?”
    Exodus 27:21 — “In the tabernacle of meeting, outside the veil which is before the Testimony, Aaron and his sons shall tend it from evening until morning before the LORD. It shall be a statute forever to their generations on behalf of the children of Israel.
    Exodus 29:39 — “One lamb you shall offer in the morning, and the other lamb you shall offer at twilight.
    Exodus 29:41 — “And the other lamb you shall offer at twilight; and you shall offer with it the grain offering and the drink offering, as in the morning, for a sweet aroma, an offering made by fire to the LORD.
    Leviticus 6:20 — “This is the offering of Aaron and his sons, which they shall offer to the LORD, beginning on the day when he is anointed: one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour as a daily grain offering, half of it in the morning and half of it at night.
    Leviticus 24:3 — “Outside the veil of the Testimony, in the tabernacle of meeting, Aaron shall be in charge of it from evening until morning before the LORD continually; it shall be a statute forever in your generations.
    Numbers 9:15 — Now on the day that the tabernacle was raised up, the cloud covered the tabernacle, the tent of the Testimony; from evening until morning it was above the tabernacle like the appearance of fire.
    Numbers 9:21 — So it was, when the cloud remained only from evening until morning: when the cloud was taken up in the morning, then they would journey; whether by day or by night, whenever the cloud was taken up, they would journey.
    Numbers 28:4 — ‘The one lamb you shall offer in the morning, the other lamb you shall offer in the evening,
    Deuteronomy 28:67 — “In the morning you shall say, ‘Oh, that it were evening!’ And at evening you shall say, ‘Oh, that it were morning!’ because of the fear which terrifies your heart, and because of the sight which your eyes see.
    1 Kings 17:6 — The ravens brought him bread and meat in the morning, and bread and meat in the evening; and he drank from the brook.
    2 Kings 16:15 — Then King Ahaz commanded Urijah the priest, saying, “On the great new altar burn the morning burnt offering, the evening grain offering, the king’s burnt sacrifice, and his grain offering, with the burnt offering of all the people of the land, their grain offering, and their drink offerings; and sprinkle on it all the blood of the burnt offering and all the blood of the sacrifice. And the bronze altar shall be for me to inquire by.”
    1 Chronicles 16:40 — to offer burnt offerings to the LORD on the altar of burnt offering regularly morning and evening, and to do according to all that is written in the Law of the LORD which He commanded Israel;
    1 Chronicles 23:30 — to stand every morning to thank and praise the LORD, and likewise at evening;
    2 Chronicles 2:4 — Behold, I am building a temple for the name of the LORD my God, to dedicate it to Him, to burn before Him sweet incense, for the continual showbread, for the burnt offerings morning and evening, on the Sabbaths, on the New Moons, and on the set feasts of the LORD our God. This is an ordinance forever to Israel.
    2 Chronicles 13:11 — “And they burn to the LORD every morning and every evening burnt sacrifices and sweet incense; they also set the showbread in order on the pure gold table, and the lampstand of gold with its lamps to burn every evening; for we keep the command of the LORD our God, but you have forsaken Him.
    2 Chronicles 31:3 — The king also appointed a portion of his possessions for the burnt offerings: for the morning and evening burnt offerings, the burnt offerings for the Sabbaths and the New Moons and the set feasts, as it is written in the Law of the LORD.
    Ezra 3:3 — Though fear had come upon them because of the people of those countries, they set the altar on its bases; and they offered burnt offerings on it to the LORD, both the morning and evening burnt offerings.
    Job 4:20 — They are broken in pieces from morning till evening; They perish forever, with no one regarding.
    Psalms 55:17 — Evening and morning and at noon I will pray, and cry aloud, And He shall hear my voice.
    Psalms 65:8 — They also who dwell in the farthest parts are afraid of Your signs; You make the outgoings of the morning and evening rejoice.
    Psalms 90:6 — In the morning it flourishes and grows up; In the evening it is cut down and withers.
    Ecclesiastes 11:6 — In the morning sow your seed, And in the evening do not withhold your hand; For you do not know which will prosper, Either this or that, Or whether both alike will be good.
    Daniel 8:14 — And he said to me, “For two thousand three hundred days; then the sanctuary shall be cleansed.” [

  401. Honestly, I can’t tell you what the “intention” of that Bible story was for sure. Needless to say I think it is saying “God created us,” and is an allegorical story about sin and our relationship with God. I also do not believe in a God that is deceitful; that would make it look like we evolved but didn’t.
    God isn’t deceitful, but the devil sure is. I don’t know why you assume that all of the knowledge you have came from God Himself.
    Consider the source. Who was the one who first started talking about the theory of evolution? What was his life like? Was he devoted to God, or was he against God and religion?
    Do you not think that if someone is angry with God, that the devil won’t give them ample reason to disbelieve God through deceitful words? Don’t you think the devil will take that opportunity whenever he can? The Bible says that he roams around as a lion, seeking whom he may devour.
    The devil actually even attempted to deceive Jesus, using words from the Bible that Jesus (God) himself wrote!
    If you consider the first source of this quest for evolutionary background, you will find it has it’s roots in atheism, and a desire to remove God from the equation.
    I know that you are not an atheist, Kate, but you have to just take a look at the roots.
    Please, take the time to investigate further into the lives and backgrounds of the people who came up with evolutionary theories in the first place.
    Would God teach us about his world and how it works through the lips of an atheist who rejects Him? Perhaps, but I don’t think it is likely.
    I’m just trying to get you to see where I’m coming from, PIP. I know YOU aren’t an atheist, but just take the time to look and see who you are following here.
    As for evidence, we both have the same evidence. All of the evidence you have that you believe points towards evolution, I believe it points towards (the genesis account of) creation.

  402. “I’m really not sure what your point is here. Evolution requires faith.”
    You don’t see it? Even Newton decided that natural phenomena must be assigned natural causes. If you didn’t know, Creation is not natural. It is supernatural.
    Evolution does not require any more faith than any other part of science does. Wanna tell me biology, chemistry, and physics are religions?
    “Must something be eye-witnessed by other parties in order for God to be speaking the truth through another individual? Especially an individual like Moses, who God spoke to face to face?”
    When you are asking if I should take an eye-witness account literally, it seems the answer is quite obvious.
    But when you ask me about an allegorical story; one that if God were to be directly telling Moses would be spoken in Moses’ own perspective, the answer is that I personally think that the whole thing is allegorical. It wasn’t told as an eyewitness account because he wasn’t there.
    “There are no eye-witnesses to Evolution either.”
    Actually we see evolution in everyday observation all the time. All of the evidence of paleontology, geology, and other fields give us historical perspective, and it all leads to an evolutionary past. It can be inferred by things we see with our own eyes and experiments done on earth.
    If you came across droppings in the woods and analyzed the footprints around it and noted the composition of the dung, and discovered that the footprints are deer footprints and it is composed of vegetation in the diet of a deer, would you assume that this poo just appeared the way it was or was is the result of a deer?
    “No one has been able to go back and actually see with their eyes that first amoeba or whatever else evolutionists claim we evolved from (no disrespect, I just hear different ideas of what we evolved from. one day it’s an ape-like creature, another day it’s a lizard, another day it’s a one celled organism- I don’t know which one I’m supposed to believe),”
    The very first organism is probably a single celled, extremely primitive prokaryotic organism. The lizard, ape like creature, etc. are just other parts of the evolutionary tree that lead to humans. Maybe that’s why you got confused.
    “and to watch it develop and evolve from that into a human being that we see today.”
    All of the evidence to point to it there. We solve murder cases based on much less evidence all the time. Unless you believe God just brutally murdered those people himself. Until you can put down just as much evidence that directly references a biblical creation we can’t treat it the same.
    “There are no transitional fossils”
    There are hundreds (if not thousands) of translational fossils. I have linked a video before detailing transitional fossils of apes to humans. Again if you want to look at the over 24 transitional fossils found for the baleen whale, check out Thewissen et al, 2002.
    “no actual proof of it happening”
    We observe evolution happening on a daily basis.
    “…only long (many times intelligent) guesses that are perceived to be true by some intellectuals. An intelligent guess is still just a guess.”
    Well nothing is ever known for sure. But we have a pretty good idea. We weren’t alive when there were dinosaurs but we have a good idea when and where they existed and what they ate and how they lived. We have evidence that atoms exist and electrons exist; we have reason to become to understand the composition of light. It’s ONLY a guess though, so I guess none of it is true.
    “To believe Evolution that has no eye witnesses definitely takes a substantial amount of faith to believe, just as to believe Creation that has no eye witnesses definitely takes faith to believe.”
    That makes no sense. We see evolution happening all the time.
    “Why do you believe that the verse that says “In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth” is literal, but that the process through which He says He created us is not?”
    I take the entire story for what it means. That God created us. Look at the many parables Jesus taught. The main idea of the story was what was taken as true.
    “PIP, how could there be an evening and the morning without the sun at all?”
    Exactly. The world wouldn’t even turn without the gravitational pull of the sun.
    The Bible says that there was an evening and a morning before the sun existed. God said it happened. I believe Him.”
    But let’s be serious, here, and look at things logically. God did not tell us to forget knowledge (as said gracefully by Galileo, above).
    “Why is this impossible to believe? I ask in total sincerity. If God can create the entire world out of nothing, why can’t he also create the day and night, and then later create the sun, moon and stars?”
    It makes no sense that he would create an earthly day or night without any sun or moon, which is necessary for the entire day or night, the entire revolution of the earth. Now if we want to use “day” as a metaphorical time span used by God then it makes more sense.
    “I find it difficult to believe that He could do one, and not do the other.”
    I find it difficult to believe that the Bible is still looked upon as a scientific textbook, after all the lessons we should have learned from the past.
    “Also, if you will check the context and language of the word “day” in “the evening and the morning were the first day”, it matches perfectly with the language of the following verses, which speak of literal days:”
    But seriously, there is no earth day without the gravitational pull of the sun.
    “This part is most likely literal.”
    Ah, so you do believe that a literal sentence can exist in the midst of an allegorical story!
    “But shouldn’t everything in Science correlate with Scripture? Should the Scripture and Science contradict, if God truly created the world, and if He created Science itself?”
    If science and scripture seem to contradict each other and the science is firmly grounded then maybe it’s time we look at scripture in light of this new perspective rather than treating them as if they are at odds.
    “That is where I believe the light came from….nothing.”
    Wow…how cynical ;)
    “God created the light from nothing, and added the sun later. He could have created the day and night and continued them without a sun forever, but He chose to add a sun and moon, as greater and lesser lights to “rule the day and night”.”
    What would you define as light, bethany? What is it?
    “Why do you think that I am saying that the Bible is supposed to tell us everything about genetics and calculus?
    I am simply saying that Science and the Bible should always agree, or else it is junk Science – Or, God is contradictory.”
    Because if God were to tell them that he used evolution he would have to explain in great detail-evolution is quite complex. You are arguing that the creation story is supposed to be a scientific account of what happened, after all.
    Or he could have put it in language he knew the people would understand.
    But see, I don’t think that science and bible contradict each other. I just think it adds more perspective and context to the verses. You think that if it is not literal it’s not true. I think there’s more to it than that.
    “Not necessarily, however, the Bible and Science should always be in agreement. ”
    I agree but I don’t think it’s wise to suppress scientific endeavor because it may contradict a particular reading or perspective of scripture. I thought we learned this lesson after the scientific revolution.
    “Do you believe Adam was a literal person? Because his story doesn’t end at Creation. In fact, the story continues all through the old testament. At which point do you see it changing from metaphorical to literal? Or do you believe the entire Genesis account through Malachi is figurative?”
    I believe that the eden story is an allegory for man’s falling out of favor with God. The lineage is most most likely a tribal recording of ancestry. So “Adam” could be a name for someone in their past, but it doesn’t have to mean a literal fruit had to be picked for sin to exist, or that other people couldn’t have existed at the same time.
    “Here is a list of verses which use the term “evening and morning” with the same root words as the evening and morning described in Genesis:”
    Because “day” is in the same wording doesn’t mean that a metaphorical take on the story wouldn’t work.
    Besides Bethany, you haven’t laid out any evidence for biblical creation. Let’s see it. Remember this must involve inductive reasoning.
    I’ll be back much later, I’m going to volunteer for about 5 or 6 hours lol and I will be back to address your scientific evidence. I look forward to it.

  403. I have to go Bethany but I will address your last paragraph also when I get back.
    But this:
    “As for evidence, we both have the same evidence. All of the evidence you have that you believe points towards evolution, I believe it points towards (the genesis account of) creation.”
    is a copout. Show be something, at least.

  404. Okay PIP, I believe the Fossil record – all of it- is evidence for creationism and I believe the sedimentary layers of earth are evidence for a worldwide flood, for starters.

  405. Evolution does not require any more faith than any other part of science does. Wanna tell me biology, chemistry, and physics are religions?
    For instance, PIP, it takes no faith at all to believe that the human fetus is a human being, because Science can tell you positively, absolutely, with proof that the fetus is a human being.
    It takes faith to believe that we evolved from any other creature because there is no way to test, experiment with, show proof that this happened. There are only educated guesses, at best.

  406. Also, what are your thoughts on this, because this is something that has perplexed me for some time. (I am copying and pasting from a website, because they explain it so much better than I could):
    4. Population Statistics…World population growth rate in recent times is about 2% per year. Practicable application of growth rate throughout human history would be about half that number. Wars, disease, famine, etc. have wiped out approximately one third of the population on average every 82 years. Starting with eight people, and applying these growth rates since the Flood of Noah’s day (about 4500 years ago) would give a total human population at just under six billion people. However, application on an evolutionary time scale runs into major difficulties. Starting with one “couple” just 41,000 years ago would give us a total population of 2 x 1089. 9 The universe does not have space to hold so many bodies.

  407. Let me clarify that what perplexed me was that people believe that billions of years could be possible with those kinds of population statistics.

  408. Actually we see evolution in everyday observation all the time. All of the evidence of paleontology, geology, and other fields give us historical perspective, and it all leads to an evolutionary past. It can be inferred by things we see with our own eyes and experiments done on earth.
    Give me examples.
    If you came across droppings in the woods and analyzed the footprints around it and noted the composition of the dung, and discovered that the footprints are deer footprints and it is composed of vegetation in the diet of a deer, would you assume that this poo just appeared the way it was or was is the result of a deer?
    I don’t know how this is analogous to anything we’ve been discussing, PIP.
    I know that you think you have logical conclusions based on the evidence you see, but you are making assumptions based on guesses. There is absolutely no proof that we evolved from another creature, none whatsoever. There is, however, proof that 1.) Deers exist.
    2.) Deers poo.
    3.) Deers leave their droppings in the woods.
    4.) That deers have a certain type of footprint,
    etc.

  409. The very first organism is probably
    There is the key word- probably. It’s a guess, PIP.
    a single celled, extremely primitive prokaryotic organism. The lizard, ape like creature, etc. are just other parts of the evolutionary tree that lead to humans. Maybe that’s why you got confused.
    And you have proof that we evolved from these creatures?
    “and to watch it develop and evolve from that into a human being that we see today.”
    All of the evidence to point to it there. We solve murder cases based on much less evidence all the time.

    only, the evidence that we use in murder cases is based on things that can be proven. Evolution of human beings is not proven.
    Unless you believe God just brutally murdered those people himself. Until you can put down just as much evidence that directly references a biblical creation we can’t treat it the same.
    Evidence points to an intelligent designer who created the world several thousand years ago. We have the same evidence before us. You look at a skeleton of a monkey (lucy, etc) and think that it must be part human, evolving over billions of years. I look at that same skeleton of a monkey (lucy) and believe that it is a separate type of creature altogether. Especially since it has been proven that the skeleton was absolutely a monkey after all.
    “There are no transitional fossils”
    There are hundreds (if not thousands) of translational fossils. I have linked a video before detailing transitional fossils of apes to humans. Again if you want to look at the over 24 transitional fossils found for the baleen whale, check out Thewissen et al, 2002.

    PIP, you would have to prove that these whales didn’t all exist at the same time. You would have to prove that all or some of them (the ones with teeth, etc) don’t exist today (there are so many creatures that are in the sea that we don’t even know about today). You would have to prove that they aren’t simply various types and “breeds” for lack of a better term, from the same animal group. You can’t prove that they all lived in different times separated by millions of years… For years the Coalecanth was thought to be proof of evolution, existing millions or billions of years ago…but whoops, they found a coalecanth living in the present time. Not proof of evolution, not evidence to support evolution. Not at all.
    I say, give it time, and they’ll find some of these whales that they don’t believe exist today.
    To link these animals together as though they came from one another and evolved into other creature, just boggles my mind. Just because something looks like something else, doesn’t necessarily mean that it came from it.
    We observe evolution happening on a daily basis.
    cells, etc, Anonymous already answered that one pretty well at 8:38. Here is the quote, so you don’t have to search:
    “On a lighter note, I do agree with you on the evolution via the mutation of cells, but more of a natural selection thing. You are absolutely correct that cells do mutate, and “evolve”. However, I believe that the HIV virus and the common cold are still the HIV virus and the common cold, just different strains of the same original virus. It’s similar to all of the breeds of dogs we have today. There are more and more breeds all of the time. However, they are all still dogs.”
    Well nothing is ever known for sure. But we have a pretty good idea. We weren’t alive when there were dinosaurs but we have a good idea when and where they existed and what they ate and how they lived.
    But we have no way to know for sure whether any of our guesses about what they ate, what they looked like, and how they lived are accurate or not. We can simply guess, when it comes to things like that, and hope our guesses are correct.
    We have evidence that atoms exist and electrons exist; we have reason to become to understand the composition of light. It’s ONLY a guess though, so I guess none of it is true.
    Some of it may be and probably is. But we can’t just go around claiming something is proven when it is not.
    “To believe Evolution that has no eye witnesses definitely takes a substantial amount of faith to believe, just as to believe Creation that has no eye witnesses definitely takes faith to believe.”
    That makes no sense. We see evolution happening all the time.

    No, I have never seen a half human walking around, PIP. I have never seen a fossil that was transitional, that could not be explained as simply being another creature within the same animal group. I have never seen evolution happen, and I am pretty sure I never will.
    “Why do you believe that the verse that says “In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth” is literal, but that the process through which He says He created us is not?”
    I take the entire story for what it means. That God created us. Look at the many parables Jesus taught. The main idea of the story was what was taken as true.

    When Jesus told Parables, He expounded on them to His disciples. Some of the things He told were literal, some were figurative. Can we separate the figurative parts from the literal parts? Yes, definitely. They are distinct and easy to tell apart, because the figurative stories always speak in abstract terms, while the literal stories always speak in literal terms.
    “PIP, how could there be an evening and the morning without the sun at all?”
    Exactly. The world wouldn’t even turn without the gravitational pull of the sun.

    Prove that. That is another guess, probably a very intelligent guess, but still simply a guess, PIP. No proof exists that that is true. I’m not saying it’s not true, but simply that there is no proof.
    Do you not believe in a God who can pull the earth around without the sun? How could he create the earth at all if He is incapable of turning the earth without the help of the sun? Why do you not believe that he could have turned the earth Himself, and then set the sun in place to take over the job of turning the earth? It seems to me that’s what happened, according to the Genesis account.
    The Bible says that there was an evening and a morning before the sun existed. God said it happened. I believe Him.”
    But let’s be serious, here, and look at things logically. God did not tell us to forget knowledge (as said gracefully by Galileo, above).

    God is the source of all knowledge, PIP. Without God, there would be no logic.
    “Why is this impossible to believe? I ask in total sincerity. If God can create the entire world out of nothing, why can’t he also create the day and night, and then later create the sun, moon and stars?”
    It makes no sense that he would create an earthly day or night without any sun or moon, which is necessary for the entire day or night, the entire revolution of the earth. Now if we want to use “day” as a metaphorical time span used by God then it makes more sense.

    It makes no sense to you, PIP, but the Bible is clear about the fact that God’s ways are not our ways, and His thoughts are not our thoughts.
    God says that the evening and the morning were the first day. He says that he created the world, and spoke light into existence. You can believe he created the world, but cannot control the light without the sun, I don’t understand that.
    “Also, if you will check the context and language of the word “day” in “the evening and the morning were the first day”, it matches perfectly with the language of the following verses, which speak of literal days:”
    But seriously, there is no earth day without the gravitational pull of the sun.

    I understand what you’re saying, PIP, but I’m telling you that if God cannot pull the earth around without the sun, he can also not create the earth, or all of the creatures within the earth. God does not have to conform to the laws of our world. He created those rules when he created this earth.
    “This part is most likely literal.”
    Ah, so you do believe that a literal sentence can exist in the midst of an allegorical story!

    Absolutely. That’s what I’ve been trying to tell you, PIP.
    “But shouldn’t everything in Science correlate with Scripture? Should the Scripture and Science contradict, if God truly created the world, and if He created Science itself?”
    If science and scripture seem to contradict each other and the science is firmly grounded then maybe it’s time we look at scripture in light of this new perspective rather than treating them as if they are at odds.

    The evolution theory is not firmly grounded, PIP.
    It is a theory, not science. It is a belief system, not science. I know that irritates you and I’m not trying to irritate you, but I simply refuse to believe that evolution is Scientific. You cannot test and experiment Evolution happening to humans. You can draw pictures of what our imaginations can conceive, of half humans, half apes, half human ,half lizards, etc…and humans from the stage of an amoeba cell to the stage of a human ,but this is not proof, but simply the result of one’s imagination.
    There is no proof that a half human ever existed.
    “That is where I believe the light came from….nothing.”
    Wow…how cynical ;)

    lol Well what I mean is that God created it, but He didn’t have to work with anything to get it there. He spoke it into existance. “Let there be light.” and there was light.
    What would you define as light, bethany? What is it?
    The opposite of dark. lol
    Seriously though, and in a nutshell, I think it is energy.

    But see, I don’t think that science and bible contradict each other. I just think it adds more perspective and context to the verses. You think that if it is not literal it’s not true. I think there’s more to it than that.

    I didn’t say if it’s not literal that it’s not true, but that the language of most of the creation account is not figurative. There are parts which could be, but not all. I try to compare scripture with scripture to understand the context and the use of the literal/figurative language in order to understand verses.
    “Not necessarily, however, the Bible and Science should always be in agreement. ”
    I agree but I don’t think it’s wise to suppress scientific endeavor because it may contradict a particular reading or perspective of scripture. I thought we learned this lesson after the scientific revolution.

    I’m not suppressing anything simply because of that. I just find it absolutely inconceivable that we evolved for billions of years. Even if I was an atheist, I would find it difficult to believe that I came from a monkey or a lizard, or that the earth could be old as a billion years.
    I believe that the eden story is an allegory for man’s falling out of favor with God. The lineage is most most likely a tribal recording of ancestry. So “Adam” could be a name for someone in their past, but it doesn’t have to mean a literal fruit had to be picked for sin to exist, or that other people couldn’t have existed at the same time.
    What about Seth and Cain? Do you believe they existed? What about Moses? Did he really exist? Did the pharaoh exist? Did Abram and Sarah and Isaac exist? If so, what makes those stories more believable.
    Besides Bethany, you haven’t laid out any evidence for biblical creation. Let’s see it. Remember this must involve inductive reasoning.
    I’ll be back much later, I’m going to volunteer for about 5 or 6 hours lol and I will be back to address your scientific evidence. I look forward to it.

    Where are you volunteering? I hope you have a pleasant time. :)
    I hope that I have at least helped you to see how I think about this…I may not be able to respond much after this until after the 13th (may have to bring it up on a later date in another post), but I do hope to continue it eventually.
    Of course, I may change my mind and make time if I can do that. lol

  410. “God isn’t deceitful, but the devil sure is. I don’t know why you assume that all of the knowledge you have came from God Himself.”
    Then every theistic evolutionist is consorting with the devil. No wonder you are not Catholic!
    “Consider the source. Who was the one who first started talking about the theory of evolution? What was his life like? Was he devoted to God, or was he against God and religion?”
    Actually the lesser known Alfred Russel Wallace thought of evolution by natural selection independently of Darwin and their first paper on evolution was done together after Wallace had sent him a letter. Wallace was a theist.
    “Do you not think that if someone is angry with God, that the devil won’t give them ample reason to disbelieve God through deceitful words? Don’t you think the devil will take that opportunity whenever he can? The Bible says that he roams around as a lion, seeking whom he may devour.”
    What? That is a pretty big “guess,” (to assume that the devil spoke through the scientists) Bethany.
    “If you consider the first source of this quest for evolutionary background, you will find it has it’s roots in atheism, and a desire to remove God from the equation.”
    You are suggesting that any contribution from an atheist is a drastic effort to remove God; however theists only see evolution as affirmation.
    “I know that you are not an atheist, Kate, but you have to just take a look at the roots.”
    Apparently, you do, too.
    “Would God teach us about his world and how it works through the lips of an atheist who rejects Him? Perhaps, but I don’t think it is likely.”
    Every atheistic contribution to science is untrue?
    “I’m just trying to get you to see where I’m coming from, PIP. I know YOU aren’t an atheist, but just take the time to look and see who you are following here.”
    First of all, you have proven my point- that you don’t believe in evolution not because of evidence, but because you think it contradicts your theology.
    Secondly, we are not following “anyone” like someone follows God. But we recognized him for his idea. We don’t worship Salk for his contribution, but we give him credit.
    “For instance, PIP, it takes no faith at all to believe that the human fetus is a human being, because Science can tell you positively, absolutely, with proof that the fetus is a human being.”
    Then it used to take faith, since DNA technology is a rather new invention?
    “It takes faith to believe that we evolved from any other creature because there is no way to test, experiment with, show proof that this happened. There are only educated guesses, at best.”
    Well, nothing is ever “proven” in science. There’s always room for a breakthrough without looking like jackasses (which we would if we say something is proven and find out later it isn’t.)
    Evolutionary principles of natural selection are basically derivatives of 4 postulates and logic.
    If these 4 are true (and these are all independently testable):
    1.Individuals within populations are variable
    2. the variations are heritable
    3. In every generation, some individuals are more successful at surviving and producing than others
    4. The survival and reproduction are not random
    If these are true, the composition of the population changes from one generation to the next. The frequencies of alleles in the population change. This is called….evolution.
    If you are curious how novel traits can extend from natural selection check out Gould’s explanation of the Panda’s “Thumb.”
    “4. Population Statistics…World population growth rate in recent times is about 2% per year. Practicable application of growth rate throughout human history would be about half that number. Wars, disease, famine, etc. have wiped out approximately one third of the population on average every 82 years. Starting with eight people, and applying these growth rates since the Flood of Noah’s day (about 4500 years ago) would give a total human population at just under six billion people. However, application on an evolutionary time scale runs into major difficulties. Starting with one “couple” just 41,000 years ago would give us a total population of 2 x 1089. 9 The universe does not have space to hold so many bodies.”
    I do not know if the application of the numbers is correct, because I can’t measure human growth rate with much accuracy and therefore can’t be an accurate judge on things like the “2%” number. And honestly I don’t want to take the time on this crappy connection to do tons of research for you on this matter. Remember that humans lived in tribes and often in one area for quite a while (probably eastern africa to begin with). In this dynamic there were predators and prey…which often keeps populations in check. It’s naive to believe that growth from the beginning would be that constant.
    “Let me clarify that what perplexed me was that people believe that billions of years could be possible with those kinds of population statistics.”
    Bethany..no one is arguing that humans have been around for billions of years.
    “Give me examples.”
    I’ve provided many videos for you to watch in the past; if you are curious feel free to dig it up. I’m tired of reposting videos that noone is going to watch. Now, if anything, you need to give ME examples why I should believe your way is scientific.
    “I don’t know how this is analogous to anything we’ve been discussing, PIP.
    I know that you think you have logical conclusions based on the evidence you see, but you are making assumptions based on guesses. There is absolutely no proof that we evolved from another creature, none whatsoever. There is, however, proof that 1.) Deers exist.
    2.) Deers poo.
    3.) Deers leave their droppings in the woods.
    4.) That deers have a certain type of footprint,”
    Let’s look at humans and what we know:
    1. Humans exist
    2. Transitional fossils from early apes to humans exist in the place that evolution would predict them to be
    3. Humans share 99% of their DNA, and morphological chromosomal similarities to chimps and the other great apes
    4. Many genes (like the GULO) gene, have the same characteristics (functional in less related species; nonfunctional in related species).
    5. Phenotypic differences in humans between regions are related in their adaptation to the environment
    6. Certian gene pools are more isolated than others
    Oh my goodness I could go on. This is just off the top of my head, and I haven’t been studying evolution for very long. The evidence is so overwhelming that we have literally thousands of papers that have added contributions to the theory. Nothing makes sense in biology without evolution.
    “There is the key word- probably. It’s a guess, PIP.”
    Bethany, LOL, you must be extremely cynical to believe that everything in science is “just a guess” and therein not true. You accept anything else no problem, some of which is more of a guess than evolution is. There are things we know with increasing certainty-but we don’t claim absolute truth. YOU DO- and don’t even have logic or evidence on your side.
    “And you have proof that we evolved from these creatures?”
    We have strong evidence. “Proof” is nonexistent in science.
    “only, the evidence that we use in murder cases is based on things that can be proven.”
    Nope, just very probable. DNA evidence is based partly on fragment matching but partly on probability.
    “Evolution of human beings is not proven.”
    Violation of the philosophy of science again- nothing is “proven.”
    “Evidence points to an intelligent designer who created the world several thousand years ago.”
    Where? You haven’t shown me any. Just a random word like “fossils.” Can’t you provide something substantial?
    “We have the same evidence before us.”
    Which surprisingly contradicts your story. To be crass I heard a joke today that said “proof that humans are evolving-creationists still exist.” I don’t mean any disrespect Bethany, just thought it was funny at the time :)
    “You look at a skeleton of a monkey (lucy, etc) and think that it must be part human, evolving over billions of years.”
    No, we don’t think it’s part human. It’s its own species. But it’s still a transitional fossil.
    “I look at that same skeleton of a monkey (lucy) and believe that it is a separate type of creature altogether.”
    Well…it is a different species…I don’t think anyone is disagreeing with you there.
    “Especially since it has been proven that the skeleton was absolutely a monkey after all.”
    LOL I don’t think anyone said that it wasn’t a primate. It’s a transitional fossil-it’s its own species that has died out.
    maybe that’s why you all whine about “transitional fossils”- you just don’t know what they are. Both you and HisMan have demonstrated that brilliantly ;)
    “PIP, you would have to prove that these whales didn’t all exist at the same time.”
    We have radiometric dating and geometric column references.
    “You would have to prove that all or some of them (the ones with teeth, etc) don’t exist today (there are so many creatures that are in the sea that we don’t even know about today).”
    If they are found under all of these layers of sand, in a desert, I think it is relatively safe to say the species as it was then is extinct. If a few went over to another part of the ocean, it would have been naturally selected to adapt there better, with other new predators and prey, and speciation would have occurred- they wouldn’t recognize each other as mates had they come into contact again.
    You are awfully cynical for someone who has no evidence of your own. That’s your argument’s major flaw. You think your story is vindicated the more you “prove” evolution false (which you haven’t and aren’t)–but there are over 60 creationist stories out there-which one is true? In order for yours to be on top, you have to demonstrate it. Saying “the bible says its true” is not a demonstration.
    “You would have to prove that they aren’t simply various types and “breeds” for lack of a better term, from the same animal group.”
    If there are of different ages and in different geometrical columns with markable morphological differences, we can safely say they probably wouldn’t interbreed.
    “You can’t prove that they all lived in different times separated by millions of years…”
    We can have a pretttty good idea.
    “For years the Coalecanth was thought to be proof of evolution, existing millions or billions of years ago…but whoops, they found a coalecanth living in the present time. Not proof of evolution, not evidence to support evolution. Not at all.”
    What? When did Coalecanth ever be proof of evolution?
    “I say, give it time, and they’ll find some of these whales that they don’t believe exist today.”
    Alright. I guess until then you’ll actually have to read the paper.
    “To link these animals together as though they came from one another and evolved into other creature, just boggles my mind. Just because something looks like something else, doesn’t necessarily mean that it came from it.”
    That is true. Sometimes things have morphological similarities but actually are not as closely related. Luckily with all the tools at our disposal we can gauge an approximation.
    the fact that these animals were in certain strata and have certain characteristics in common is a good idea.
    But unless someone sat there until one changes into another you aren’t satisfied. But when someone says that we just poofed into existence you blindly follow? If only you scrutinized your own side so much.
    “On a lighter note, I do agree with you on the evolution via the mutation of cells, but more of a natural selection thing.”
    Yes, natural selection is a very big part of evolution, macro or micro.
    “You are absolutely correct that cells do mutate, and “evolve”.”
    But your belief stops there because…?
    “However, I believe that the HIV virus and the common cold are still the HIV virus and the common cold, just different strains of the same original virus. It’s similar to all of the breeds of dogs we have today. There are more and more breeds all of the time. However, they are all still dogs.”
    We bred those dogs-we artificially selected them. They were not under natural selective pressure.
    We are not going to see major macro-changes in our lifetime. If we did, then evolutionary theory might have some problems.
    “But we have no way to know for sure whether any of our guesses about what they ate, what they looked like, and how they lived are accurate or not. We can simply guess, when it comes to things like that, and hope our guesses are correct.”
    We can look at their teeth and say they are a herbivore or carnivore.
    We can look at the fossils and have an idea whether it had fossils, wings, etc.
    We can date the fossils to find out what period of time they lived in.
    But we can’t say it’s “proven” because nothing is ever that certain.
    So would you rather have us denounce anything we know now as false or untrue, even when the evidence is piling up day after day, because you don’t want to see the difference between an educated guess and a blind one?
    “Some of it may be and probably is. But we can’t just go around claiming something is proven when it is not.”
    We never had. You guys are the ones saying that the theory is greatly in danger of being dissolved when the evidence keeps piling up. We can’t PROVE a deer pooed in the woods, but we have a prettty good idea. If someone told me that God zapped some poo in the woods when all this evidence is around I would be pretty confused.
    “No, I have never seen a half human walking around, PIP.”
    LOL since when did we ever say that. We aren’t even under natural selective pressure right now to evolve novel structures (which are more visual manifestations of evolution). Most allelic frequency changes right now in humans are probably a result of sexual selection and other factors like genetic drift.
    “I have never seen a fossil that was transitional, that could not be explained as simply being another creature within the same animal group.”
    There are plenty out there that I have given you to look at. You either refuse to look at it because you are afraid or you simply don’t understand what a transitional form is.
    “I have never seen evolution happen, and I am pretty sure I never will.”
    You don’t study evolutionary changes so you can’t see it quantitatively but honestly you see it every day. You just refuse to acknowledge it.
    “When Jesus told Parables, He expounded on them to His disciples. Some of the things He told were literal, some were figurative.” Can we separate the figurative parts from the literal parts? Yes, definitely. They are distinct and easy to tell apart, because the figurative stories always speak in abstract terms, while the literal stories always speak in literal terms.”he
    You cannot prove that those ‘literal’ stories happened. You weren’t there. Therefore they aren’t true.
    See how circular that argument is?
    “Prove that. That is another guess, probably a very intelligent guess, but still simply a guess, PIP. No proof exists that that is true. I’m not saying it’s not true, but simply that there is no proof.”
    There never is “proof.” Gravity is a scientific theory too. You should be challenging the theory of gravity as well based on this. Can I put you down for someone who believes in intelligent falling?
    “Do you not believe in a God who can pull the earth around without the sun? How could he create the earth at all if He is incapable of turning the earth without the help of the sun? Why do you not believe that he could have turned the earth Himself, and then set the sun in place to take over the job of turning the earth? It seems to me that’s what happened, according to the Genesis account.”
    It makes sense to me that God utilizes the laws of nature that he created. He could breach them if he wanted to, but God could also stop the genocide in Darfur if he really wanted to. For him to use a natural process that lasts for millions of years, that continues to work and is responsible for the diversification and continued survival of both humans and other forms of life, seems to me more brilliant and God-like than anything else.
    “God is the source of all knowledge, PIP. Without God, there would be no logic.”
    That’s not a proper response. God gave us knowledge–he therefore wants us to use it. God gave us the brains to seek and understand his creation here on earth. To stop seeking because of what you are afraid you might see is contrary to your brain’s purpose. The person seeks to understand, to be enlightened. You refuse to consider, because you are afraid of what you might find.
    “It makes no sense to you, PIP, but the Bible is clear about the fact that God’s ways are not our ways, and His thoughts are not our thoughts.”
    I don’t think that verse referred to his creations of the laws of nature.
    We know that mathematics is a human construct. How dare the irrational pi be not perfectly what the Bible has implied. WHAT BLASPHEMY! lol
    “God says that the evening and the morning were the first day. He says that he created the world, and spoke light into existence. You can believe he created the world, but cannot control the light without the sun, I don’t understand that.”
    I just believe the light and darkness to be metaphorical. You are reading the text scientifically, so I’m right there with you.
    Bethany, I am saying:
    “Evolution is so established a theory that unless serious scientific breakthroughs occur it will likely be around for a long long time. I on a personal level think that I can merge my basic acceptance of the Bible with evolution by looking at the creation story in light of what we know. It makes sense that since it is a complex theory (like most things), it would not be explained heavily in the Bible. The Bible is mainly about spirituality so I understand that the first few chapters of genesis are allegorical.”
    You are saying,
    “I think I have a problem with evolution scientifically but I don’t do enough research to really fight you on that. But I believe the Bible is literally true on scientific matters, and therefore no matter what I see anything contradicting that will be the devil trying to tempt me.”
    I want you to actually look at the evidence for what it is. Learn about it, find out about it, with an open mind. Go back through genesis. See where it takes you.
    “I understand what you’re saying, PIP, but I’m telling you that if God cannot pull the earth around without the sun, he can also not create the earth, or all of the creatures within the earth. God does not have to conform to the laws of our world. He created those rules when he created this earth.”
    So he twirled the earth around with this finger so that he could tell Moses it happened in a day?
    “Absolutely. That’s what I’ve been trying to tell you, PIP.”
    You questioned my ability to see the truth behind the allegory.
    “The evolution theory is not firmly grounded, PIP.”
    Actually it is one of the most firmly grounded theories in science.
    “It is a theory, not science.”
    common misconception. Look up scientific theory, and note the difference in the vernacular use of the word theory, and the actual term theory we use in science. It is very difficult for a hypothesis to become theory.
    “It is a belief system, not science.”
    Prove it.
    “I know that irritates you and I’m not trying to irritate you, but I simply refuse to believe that evolution is Scientific.”
    Because you don’t want to.
    “You cannot test and experiment Evolution happening to humans.”
    You can test and experiment on different aspects to come to an assimilated conclusion. (i.e. there were animal footprints here, and the composition of the dung is this…)
    “You can draw pictures of what our imaginations can conceive, of half humans, half apes, half human ,half lizards, etc…and humans from the stage of an amoeba cell to the stage of a human ,but this is not proof, but simply the result of one’s imagination. ”
    Where did this come from?
    “There is no proof that a half human ever existed.”
    strawman.
    “lol Well what I mean is that God created it, but He didn’t have to work with anything to get it there. He spoke it into existance. “Let there be light.” and there was light.”
    Why couldn’t this “voice” and appearance of “light” be the expansion of space?
    “The opposite of dark. lol
    Seriously though, and in a nutshell, I think it is energy.”
    You are treating the creation story by human standards (i.e. days and nights being human day and night). Therefore light would be the electromagnetic radiation that falls within 390nm and 740nm wavelengths. So was this separation of light and dark, the visible wavelengths versus any nonvisible energy?
    “I didn’t say if it’s not literal that it’s not true, but that the language of most of the creation account is not figurative. There are parts which could be, but not all. I try to compare scripture with scripture to understand the context and the use of the literal/figurative language in order to understand verses.”
    Basically here, you are saying that if anything contradicts your literal interpretation it’s not true.
    “I’m not suppressing anything simply because of that.”
    Yes, you are, you refuse to see anything for what it is if you think it conflicts with the literal interpretation.
    “I just find it absolutely inconceivable that we evolved for billions of years. Even if I was an atheist, I would find it difficult to believe that I came from a monkey or a lizard, or that the earth could be old as a billion years.”
    Argument from incredulity. Why is it so hard to believe that the earth is so old? Just because it seems like a long time?
    “What about Seth and Cain? Do you believe they existed? What about Moses? Did he really exist? Did the pharaoh exist? Did Abram and Sarah and Isaac exist? If so, what makes those stories more believable.”
    Probably people from the same geographical location, known by the others. It’s not like they are going to write about the Native Americans. They were going to write about their tribal ancestry.
    “Where are you volunteering? I hope you have a pleasant time. :)”
    Thanks:) I did some more work for campus kitchens and then headed over to help with the obama rally. I’m super exhausted but excited to get to sleep in tomorrow.
    “I hope that I have at least helped you to see how I think about this…I may not be able to respond much after this until after the 13th (may have to bring it up on a later date in another post), but I do hope to continue it eventually.”
    Okay, I don’t mind discussing it whenever. I understand where you are coming from but it frustrates me that you don’t put any effort into understanding evolution first. You would rather go in with the idea it will contradict what you think and end up closing your mind to a really exciting field of study.
    “Of course, I may change my mind and make time if I can do that. lol ”
    LOL I’ll be here ;)

  411. PIP, you keep making one large mistake time and time again. You keep trying to convince me that I rest on faith in my belief in Creationism, but I have never argued that I don’t. I have never argued that I had proof that I could show you that would make you believe in Creationism. I said that I have the same evidence as you, you don’t believe me. You think it’s a cop-out. I still stand by what I said, because it is true.
    As I stated above, when I said we should agree to disagree, “I start with the presupposition that the Bible is literally correct in Genesis, and I look for evidence to support my presupposition.” Why are you then trying to convince me of what I already admitted is true?
    I told you in the beginning that I rest on faith in God’s account of what happened.
    It is obvious that your intent is only to mock me and my faith in the Creation account, claiming some kind of superiority based on intellect, and not to genuinely try to understand my views.
    You are arguing straw men. I never said that my beliefs didn’t require faith. Yet, you keep trying to say that evolution doesn’t require faith, but is so strongly supported by evidence that you consider it to be proven. My point is to show you that evolution takes just as much faith, if not more, as creationism.
    If you could just admit that your beliefs require just as much faith, I really don’t care how you believe the world started. Believe what you want. Just stop trying to demean my beliefs simply because you like your beliefs better.
    As for facts, I already told you that we have the same facts, and the same evidence, and look through it with different lenses. Until you realize that it is NOT a cop-out, and that it is actually true what I’m saying, then you’ll never understand.
    I think we should agree to disagree, because regardless of what you said before, I do not think you are open-minded enough to realize or acknowledge that your beliefs about the beginning of the world require just as much faith as mine do. You simply want to mock and insult my faith.
    And yes, of course I believe the devil can talk through Scientists. Why is that difficult to believe? The devil spoke through Peter once. If he can speak through an apostle of Christ, how can he not speak through a scientist?

  412. BTW, I know you probably don’t mean to mock, I think you probably mean well, but if you could see it from my perspective you would understand why I say that. You have many times mocked my beliefs, and why would you say that I’m silly to believe that God spoke the world into existence? Do you believe in a God that is all powerful or not? I just don’t get that.

  413. “I still stand by what I said, because it is true.”
    Because all the evidence points to the opposite of creationism. If you wanted to explain to me how it points to creationism, by all means.
    “Why are you then trying to convince me of what I already admitted is true?”
    I’m just trying to make you see that it is not necessary and that I think you could take a different approach if you want to see my point of view.
    “It is obvious that your intent is only to mock me and my faith in the Creation account, claiming some kind of superiority based on intellect, and not to genuinely try to understand my views.”
    I do not mean to mock you. I mean to tell you that creationism is not science. If you simply say, “I know it is not scientific but it is what I believe. No amount of evidence will convince me,” then I would be satisfied. You can believe what you want. But it is saying that evidence supports you when it clearly does not. But I still can’t get a scientific perspective from you. Only from the Bible. If creationism stopped trying to peddle itself as science, nobody would care, really.
    “Yet, you keep trying to say that evolution doesn’t require faith, but is so strongly supported by evidence that you consider it to be proven. My point is to show you that evolution takes just as much faith, if not more, as creationism.”
    That is not true. There is no reason to believe that evolution take just as much faith. This is what I’m trying to make you see. If only you gave it a chance and looked into it on its own merit, you would understand, I think.
    “Just stop trying to demean my beliefs simply because you like your beliefs better.”
    Again I’m not trying to demean your beliefs, just prove they are unscientific. I like science, so I personally view the creation story through a scientific lens. If you don’t that is okay, but you tell me your way is scientific. I have never seen a piece of evidence that supports this assertion.
    “If he can speak through an apostle of Christ, how can he not speak through a scientist?”
    What about practically every biologist? Is the devil speaking through all of them, even the religious?
    “You have many times mocked my beliefs, and why would you say that I’m silly to believe that God spoke the world into existence? Do you believe in a God that is all powerful or not? I just don’t get that.”
    I am not saying you are silly just trying to explain my view. What you see as “spoke into existence” is a poof and its there. When I see that passage I see that it’s possible that these could all be natural events. He is all powerful, but that is simply my belief. I think what confuses you is that I want to talk about science at times, and not religion. But when you ask me about what I believe religion wise that is still based on faith. But that is a personal thing. The faith part applies to God, not evolution.
    Science simply doesn’t broach the idea of God, it violates the philosophy of science. I think it is silly that the creationists think that speaking into existence is somehow scientific. But that is simply not true.
    Do you understand what I am saying?

  414. You skipped a lot of questions. What’s up? No more scenarios for you!
    Janet, Holy Crow, let me go back and see what I didn’t do, then…
    ……
    I think I got ’em, actually.
    If somebody is a good friend, then I likely know them well enough to have a feeling what choice would be the best for them in their situation. I’d likely give it.
    If I didn’t give my opinion, and the woman makes what proves in the long run to be the wrong choice, then I’d probably regret it. As I said, though, I would probably talk to her and tell her what I thought.
    Doug

  415. Because all the evidence points to the opposite of creationism. If you wanted to explain to me how it points to creationism, by all means.
    No, it doesn’t, PIP. When I told you about the population number estimates, instead of accepting that as part of my evidence pointing towards creation, you said you simply didn’t have time to try to figure that one out, and simply dismissed it without another thought.
    I am certain that anything else I tell you will be brushed off in this manner as well. That is why I haven’t continued on that path just yet.
    I haven’t seen this video that you keep bringing up, and I would watch it if you posted it.
    I think what confuses you is that I want to talk about science at times, and not religion.
    No, what I’m trying to do is to first get you to understand the most basic part of the foundation of my faith, and then I want to continue from there. If we can’t get past the reasons why I believe the Genesis account is literal as opposed to figurative, there is no reason to go any further (in my opinion).
    What about practically every biologist? Is the devil speaking through all of them, even the religious?
    Absolutely, they could be. I don’t see any reason why not, PIP. Do you think that practically every biologist has a foundation of Faith in the God of the Bible? I don’t. They may be “theists”, but who is the god they vaguely believe in?
    Science simply doesn’t broach the idea of God, it violates the philosophy of science. I think it is silly that the creationists think that speaking into existence is somehow scientific. But that is simply not true.
    What is the difference between a God speaking the world into existence, and the big bang theory, scientifically speaking? And I’m not asking what the differences are in the way they were supposed to have happened, because I already know what astrophysicists say about the big bang and how it was supposed to have happened…I’ve read up on it.
    What I want to know is why one can be considered scientific, when there is no way to really test or measure or prove the big bang, just as there is no way to test, measure, or prove God.
    How is the “big bang” scientific theory, but ID is cannot possibly be considered a scientific theory?
    Why then could one not consider the study of an intelligent designer as scientific, when there is obviously evidence that we are designed by an intelligent creator? We can see evidence that points to a creator, yet you say that is not Science. But you say that evidence pointing to evolution is science, even without tangible proof.

  416. “If I didn’t give my opinion, and the woman makes what proves in the long run to be the wrong choice, then I’d probably regret it. As I said, though, I would probably talk to her and tell her what I thought.”
    Thanks, Doug, that’s the one I was referring to. As a good friend, cane you see how your opinion could be very helpful to a another friend in a difficult situation? That she would welcome your opinion? That you could have spared her the pain?
    I would venture to say that the extreme pro-choicers (by extreme I mean the vocal ones – those who really have a personal stake in their agenda) want men to think that every woman believes exactly what they believe, because it furthers their political agenda. Very few woman, in my experience, live by the “It’s my body, my choice” mantra. If a woman has an important man in her life, she wants to know what he really feels, not what NOW or NARAL tell him he should say.
    Think about it for a second…When Roe v.Wade was passed, they didn’t take a popular vote on the issue. They didn’t ask my opinion, my mom’s, my sisters’, my aunts’, my grandmothers’. A very small vocal minority made the decision in Washington, DC about abortion for all of us. That’s not right. They wrote something into the constitution that wasn’t even there. If you read about the “Jane” movement (I highly recommend it to anyone interested in this debate) , you’ll see that it was a small group of bored, angry housewives from Chicago looking for something meaningful to do. Look where it has gotten us.

  417. “Many people do not realize that the teaching of evolution propagates an anti-biblical religion. The first two tenets of the Humanist Manifesto II (1973), signed by many prominent evolutionists, are:
    “1. Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.
    2. Humanism believes that Man is a part of nature and has emerged as a result of a continuous process.
    “This is exactly what evolution teaches. Many humanist leaders are quite open about using the public schools to proselytize their faith. This might surprise some parents who think the schools are supposed to be free of religious indoctrination, but this quote makes it clear:
    “I am convinced that the battle for humankind

  418. PiP and Bethany,
    I strongly sense that you are both frustrated and perhaps you might find further perception if you adopt a different way of observing/experiencing reality. Humans view their existence in 4 ways: the physical; intellectual; emotional and with ‘faith’. Each of these has it,s own goal or end-point. For physical reality it is purpose; for intellectual reality, it is understanding; for emotional life, it is ‘meaning’, and for ‘faith’, the end-point is significance.
    Most folks are not adept at thinking this way and will use the same words and mean very different things because they speak from a different perspective. These 4 are often marked by a certain age thing: the child is almost totally involved with the ‘physical’ aspects of being. He/she will almost always speak of ‘purpose’ as a guiding principle … will want to be a police officer, a fireman, a teacher, a nurse when grown-up. Strength and agility are measured in physical terms. Although intellectual reality is prominent throughout life, there does seem a period of time when this is dominant … often late teen years to late 20’s. It seems to center on acquiring the tools and jargon for the chosen trade/job/employed-function. ((Please note how often PiP asks Bethany to ‘understand’.)) It is usually the amount of knowledge/skill that is of greatest import. Acquisition of ‘wisdom’ is for another future-time.
    As a person settles-down and raises a family a very much different perspective ensues … responsibility, courage, love and many other emotions are prominent here. They are not necessarily understood by people in another stage …. many 10 year-old boys will find their parents’ smooches – goofy! This is also the point of frustration when younger folk insist that ‘true reality’ functions within a framework of tangible universe (thing-ness) and logic (intellectual).
    In senior years their is much selection and refinement. Intellectual reasoning gives way to wisdom.
    Each of these stages has its own view on what is true. Much of this physical-intellectual world will seem remote and far removed to someone like Bethany who is immersed in a emotions-world. God Himself is comprehended mainly from this perspective. So ‘truth’ for Bethany is listening to her heart as God ‘speaks’ to her through the scriptures. This truth is immediate and very convincing. The ‘science’ books/writings of skill from PiP are no match, because their ‘truth’ is similarity of physical functioning. This is not ‘a living-truth’ and truth’s assurance is captured/controlled within PiP’s mind; Bethany’s Truth lives apart from her being; but being alive and relating to this Truth gives her life … not control – LIFE!

  419. Bethany (6:17 PM):
    “The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new – the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism …”.
    This Humanist Manifesto II came out in 1973. Wasn’t there some other life altering event that year? Hmmmmm…

  420. Wow, John. You have explained my reasoning and faith exceptionally well in your post at 7:15.
    This quote I agree with especially:
    “Much of this physical-intellectual world will seem remote and far removed to someone like Bethany who is immersed in a emotions-world. God Himself is comprehended mainly from this perspective. So ‘truth’ for Bethany is listening to her heart as God ‘speaks’ to her through the scriptures. This truth is immediate and very convincing. ”
    Also, your insight about the difference in perspective of the world, after having responsibilities in life such as a child was very interesting. I always enjoy reading your posts.
    ************
    Janet, I didn’t even think about that date being the same as Roe vs Wade. That is very interesting, indeed!

  421. I just realized that by putting the word “crap” in quotes in my 6:37 post, it probably sounded like I was being irritable. i’m sorry about that. I was simply trying to let PIP know that I understand how she feels about Answers In Genesis, but I would still like her to carefully read and consider the article within it anyway. I wasn’t irritable even though I did sound that way from the way it looks.

  422. 1 Corinthians 15:47 — The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven.
    1 Timothy 2:13 — For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
    Matthew 19:4 — And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’
    Isaiah 45:9 — “Woe to him who strives with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth! Shall the clay say to him who forms it, ‘What are you making?’ Or shall your handiwork say, ‘He has no hands’?

  423. What I’m trying to do is show you more verses which confirm the creation account… There are so, so very many of them, but it takes a while to find them all, so i’m sorry if I post them sporadically.

  424. Ecclesiastes 11:5 — As you do not know what is the way of the wind, Or how the bones grow in the womb of her who is with child, So you do not know the works of God who makes everything.

  425. Job 38:4 — “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding.
    Job 38:5 — Who determined its measurements? Surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it?

  426. By the way, if everything God does has to be understood by Science, and has to be scientifically accurate or else it is figurative, then why do you believe in the virgin birth? Scientifically speaking, this is impossible.

  427. Bobby, sorry it took so long to respond.
    I think the article you cited had some good reasons an individual couple might want to use natural family planning if they are of a Catholic bent. However it presented no good case that people who want to use contraception should not have the option. Even if taking away the option to use contraception could help society as a whole it would be an infringement on individual freedom, and recent evidence suggests that lack of knowledge about and access to contraception is bad for society. Teens in more conservative states where “abstinence only” is the norm have higher teen birth rates. Countries with better contraceptive access and information than ours have lower unwanted pregnancy rates as well as lower abortion rates. The social problems cited in the article are largely part of a greater social upheaval between the early sixties and early nineties (when the speech was given). Some of them are not problems at all, such as women being able to leave bad marriages or survive if their husbands leave them.

  428. Janet: As a good friend, cane you see how your opinion could be very helpful to a another friend in a difficult situation? That she would welcome your opinion? That you could have spared her the pain?
    Well of course, Janet.
    ……
    I would venture to say that the extreme pro-choicers (by extreme I mean the vocal ones – those who really have a personal stake in their agenda) want men to think that every woman believes exactly what they believe, because it furthers their political agenda. Very few woman, in my experience, live by the “It’s my body, my choice” mantra. If a woman has an important man in her life, she wants to know what he really feels, not what NOW or NARAL tell him he should say.
    No doubt – all along I’ve said that the woman is free to weigh the man’s opinion to any degree. Being Pro-Choice is being for what the woman wants, and that may well include what the man wants. NOW and NARAL aren’t telling him he should say anything, necessarily. But of course he’s free to give his opinion.
    ……
    Think about it for a second…When Roe v.Wade was passed, they didn’t take a popular vote on the issue. They didn’t ask my opinion, my mom’s, my sisters’, my aunts’, my grandmothers’. A very small vocal minority made the decision in Washington, DC about abortion for all of us. That’s not right. They wrote something into the constitution that wasn’t even there. If you read about the “Jane” movement (I highly recommend it to anyone interested in this debate) , you’ll see that it was a small group of bored, angry housewives from Chicago looking for something meaningful to do. Look where it has gotten us.
    “Abortion for all of us” (or not) is the decision of individual women, and that is the way it should be. There is no greater good in denying them the legal choice. You are not forced either way, against your will, and that is also a good thing.
    Doug

  429. “No, it doesn’t, PIP. When I told you about the population number estimates, instead of accepting that as part of my evidence pointing towards creation, you said you simply didn’t have time to try to figure that one out, and simply dismissed it without another thought.”
    Actually, I didn’t. I said I don’t know how to really calculate the numbers, and it didn’t really say how it got the 2% figure, but I said that we can’t say something like that is constant. Early in man’s evolution there was much more predator-prey dynamic which keeps many animal populations in check.
    “I am certain that anything else I tell you will be brushed off in this manner as well. That is why I haven’t continued on that path just yet.”
    I feel i have been good at explaining but if you want me to readdress something let me know.
    “I haven’t seen this video that you keep bringing up, and I would watch it if you posted it.”
    That last debate I posted about 6 or 8 videos total. If you remember the post we did that on we could just repost it.
    “No, what I’m trying to do is to first get you to understand the most basic part of the foundation of my faith, and then I want to continue from there. If we can’t get past the reasons why I believe the Genesis account is literal as opposed to figurative, there is no reason to go any further (in my opinion).”
    I do understand that. I think it might be helpful for you to get to know the theory better first. I used to be a creationist when I was young because I was surrounded by them. I gave evolution a chance and it has only been more supported and fascinating since then! All I am asking…is give it a chance.. [chanting] lol
    “Absolutely, they could be. I don’t see any reason why not, PIP. Do you think that practically every biologist has a foundation of Faith in the God of the Bible? I don’t. They may be “theists”, but who is the god they vaguely believe in?”
    I’m not sure, I did not ask. But I believe roughly 40% believe that God ordained us with an immortal soul. That’s not a bad figure. I know that everyone at the university both theologians and biologists have looked at the issue very deeply, and none find a direct conflict. The Catholic Church has said so herself. If all of this religious consensus is all the work of the devil then I guess the Westboro Baptist Church may be right on more things than I thought ;)
    “What is the difference between a God speaking the world into existence, and the big bang theory, scientifically speaking? And I’m not asking what the differences are in the way they were supposed to have happened, because I already know what astrophysicists say about the big bang and how it was supposed to have happened…I’ve read up on it.”
    The big bang theory (and I also have a basic understanding of it, I am not a physicist) basically says that the universe probably began from a state of very high density and pressure that expanded. This was proposed by a Jesuit priest I think, and was originally thought of as a way to bring “religion into it”–but the mathematical and observational evidence has supported it so far.
    “What I want to know is why one can be considered scientific, when there is no way to really test or measure or prove the big bang, just as there is no way to test, measure, or prove God.”
    Well, here is the wikipedia article for it:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
    another: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bb1.html
    “How is the “big bang” scientific theory, but ID is cannot possibly be considered a scientific theory?”
    Because ID presupposes supernatural intervention.
    “Why then could one not consider the study of an intelligent designer as scientific, when there is obviously evidence that we are designed by an intelligent creator? We can see evidence that points to a creator, yet you say that is not Science. But you say that evidence pointing to evolution is science, even without tangible proof. ”
    How can we test the designer? How can we test supernatural intervention? Do we have a god-o-meter? Or do we just give up on explaining how something came to be and call it a supernatural miracle? THAT is not the scientific way to go about things.
    If you want evidence those videos are very apt at explaining some of it.

  430. “No, it doesn’t, PIP. When I told you about the population number estimates, instead of accepting that as part of my evidence pointing towards creation, you said you simply didn’t have time to try to figure that one out, and simply dismissed it without another thought.”
    Actually, I didn’t. I said I don’t know how to really calculate the numbers, and it didn’t really say how it got the 2% figure, but I said that we can’t say something like that is constant. Early in man’s evolution there was much more predator-prey dynamic which keeps many animal populations in check.
    “I am certain that anything else I tell you will be brushed off in this manner as well. That is why I haven’t continued on that path just yet.”
    I feel i have been good at explaining but if you want me to readdress something let me know.
    “I haven’t seen this video that you keep bringing up, and I would watch it if you posted it.”
    That last debate I posted about 6 or 8 videos total. If you remember the post we did that on we could just repost it.
    “No, what I’m trying to do is to first get you to understand the most basic part of the foundation of my faith, and then I want to continue from there. If we can’t get past the reasons why I believe the Genesis account is literal as opposed to figurative, there is no reason to go any further (in my opinion).”
    I do understand that. I think it might be helpful for you to get to know the theory better first. I used to be a creationist when I was young because I was surrounded by them. I gave evolution a chance and it has only been more supported and fascinating since then! All I am asking…is give it a chance.. [chanting] lol
    “Absolutely, they could be. I don’t see any reason why not, PIP. Do you think that practically every biologist has a foundation of Faith in the God of the Bible? I don’t. They may be “theists”, but who is the god they vaguely believe in?”
    I’m not sure, I did not ask. But I believe roughly 40% believe that God ordained us with an immortal soul. That’s not a bad figure. I know that everyone at the university both theologians and biologists have looked at the issue very deeply, and none find a direct conflict. The Catholic Church has said so herself. If all of this religious consensus is all the work of the devil then I guess the Westboro Baptist Church may be right on more things than I thought ;)
    “What is the difference between a God speaking the world into existence, and the big bang theory, scientifically speaking? And I’m not asking what the differences are in the way they were supposed to have happened, because I already know what astrophysicists say about the big bang and how it was supposed to have happened…I’ve read up on it.”
    The big bang theory (and I also have a basic understanding of it, I am not a physicist) basically says that the universe probably began from a state of very high density and pressure that expanded. This was proposed by a Jesuit priest I think, and was originally thought of as a way to bring “religion into it”–but the mathematical and observational evidence has supported it so far.
    “What I want to know is why one can be considered scientific, when there is no way to really test or measure or prove the big bang, just as there is no way to test, measure, or prove God.”
    Well, here is the wikipedia article for it:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
    “How is the “big bang” scientific theory, but ID is cannot possibly be considered a scientific theory?”
    Because ID presupposes supernatural intervention.
    “Why then could one not consider the study of an intelligent designer as scientific, when there is obviously evidence that we are designed by an intelligent creator? We can see evidence that points to a creator, yet you say that is not Science. But you say that evidence pointing to evolution is science, even without tangible proof. ”
    How can we test the designer? How can we test supernatural intervention? Do we have a god-o-meter? Or do we just give up on explaining how something came to be and call it a supernatural miracle? THAT is not the scientific way to go about things.
    If you want evidence those videos are very apt at explaining some of it.

  431. “1 Corinthians 15:47 — The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven.”
    Yes, the physical man and the spiritual man.
    1 Timothy 2:13 — For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
    Men are the head of society. Women were subjugated.
    Matthew 19:4 — And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’
    Yes, men and women are different but special in His eyes.
    Isaiah 45:9 — “Woe to him who strives with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth! Shall the clay say to him who forms it, ‘What are you making?’ Or shall your handiwork say, ‘He has no hands’?”
    Who is arguing that God didn’t make us?
    Isaiah 45:7 — I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create calamity; I, the LORD, do all these things.’
    How does this argue for literal creation story?
    “What I’m trying to do is show you more verses which confirm the creation account… There are so, so very many of them, but it takes a while to find them all, so i’m sorry if I post them sporadically.”
    It’s okay..but it seems most of these verses reference God as the maker of all things, which I have no problem with. I think that God created everything, but I think he used a natural living breathing extending system. In life we don’t separate the two-theology and science- but in education and learning we should, for convention (as referenced earlier in our discussion-what we consider science or not doesn’t necessarily exclude God in the grand scheme of things).
    “Ecclesiastes 11:5 — As you do not know what is the way of the wind, Or how the bones grow in the womb of her who is with child, So you do not know the works of God who makes everything.”
    Yeah, God is a mystery, but we always try to find ways to understand Him and His creation.
    Job 40:15 — “Look now at the behemoth, which I made along with you; He eats grass like an ox.
    Yes, these animals evolve alongside others. Evolution has no direction and therefore there are no higher or lower animals. It is not progressive.
    “Job 38:4 — “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding.”
    Again he was referencing God as a universal maker.
    Job 38:5 — Who determined its measurements? Surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it?
    Again, God as a universal maker.
    “By the way, if everything God does has to be understood by Science”
    I never said this was true. Many ways of God are a mystery and for several reasons are not even touched scientifically. Science doesn’t deal with the supernatural at all. But things studied by science give greater understanding about His creation, I think.
    “and has to be scientifically accurate or else it is figurative, then why do you believe in the virgin birth? Scientifically speaking, this is impossible.
    (there were no eye witnesses to Mary’s conception either)”
    The virgin birth is a supernatural act, defined by the Bible, and therefore science has no comment on described miracles. Part of Mary’s conception was an account from Mary also, who got a visit by an angel, right?
    If we discover things about our world that add new perspective to scripture, I say more the merrier. Obviously the Bible is a book about spirituality and God so there is not much in there that we look to for science. Take the witnessed miracles for miracles at face value though, is generally the way I look at it.
    If there is something you are still confused about feel free to ask.

  432. “I think we should agree to disagree, because regardless of what you said before, I do not think you are open-minded enough to realize or acknowledge that your beliefs about the beginning of the world require just as much faith as mine do. You simply want to mock and insult my faith.”
    Translation: “I R pwnd. I go undr porch now kthx.”
    “No, it doesn’t, PIP. When I told you about the population number estimates, instead of accepting that as part of my evidence pointing towards creation, you said you simply didn’t have time to try to figure that one out, and simply dismissed it without another thought.”
    This is some of the most absurd willful ignorance I have ever seen. You said yourself your population estimates were recent. We know that hunter-gatherer population growth was (and is) much slower than that of agriculturalist population growth. That is why agriculture triumphed over hunting and gathering–farmers’ populations rapidly overtook those of hg’s and people who grow their food have been predominant ever since.
    “Early in man’s evolution there was much more predator-prey dynamic which keeps many animal populations in check.”
    Actually it has more to do with farmers having a large and constant supply of calories so more pregnancies result in live births, and more young children live to maturity.
    “Why then could one not consider the study of an intelligent designer as scientific, when there is obviously evidence that we are designed by an intelligent creator? We can see evidence that points to a creator, yet you say that is not Science.”
    The only way to say you have scientific evidence for a designer is if we have some clue as to her methods. For instance, a detective can ascertain whether an “accident” victim’s brakes were cut with pliers or broke due to wear because pliers make a distinctive kind of cut.
    “Regarding Whale Evolution which you posted about earlier- please do take the time to read this, even if you do consider the source to be “crap”.”
    The lack of validity is not due to its source perse, but because of misleading and bad arguments. It makes bold use of the Argument from Incredulity, for instance.
    Here is another source about whale evolution that demonstrates multiple independent avenues of research converging to support the scientific explanation for whale ancestry. The fact that evidence from different disciplines are used to support hypotheses based in others makes the “historical” sciences truly scientific. You make a prediction of common ancestry based on physical homology? Look at the fossils’ juxtaposition in time. Think certain branches of the phylogenic tree are related based on fossils? Test the DNA of modern would-be descendents. Here is the link:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/

  433. I want to address the question of age of the earth separately, because, Bethany, your belief in it bespeaks a characteristic of mind for which the term “willful ignorance” is not strong enough. Believing in a ~10,000 year old earth is best described as aggressively ignorant.

  434. “Bethany, your belief in it bespeaks…”
    “It” of course meaning specifically a young earth.

  435. Doug, 10:38,
    “Abortion for all of us” (or not) is the decision of individual women, and that is the way it should be. There is no greater good in denying them the legal choice. You are not forced either way, against your will, and that is also a good thing.”
    I could make the same argument for gambling, and a host of other activities, except, most states have criminalized gambling.

  436. Harq that makes sense but very early in our evolution I have no doubt that we were part of the predator-prey dynamic like any other animal until cultural memes evolved to make human defense and food supply more constant.


  437. That last debate I posted about 6 or 8 videos total. If you remember the post we did that on we could just repost it.

    PIP, I don’t even remember the last debate, so there is no way I’d ever be able to find the videos. If you want to show them to me, you’ll have to repost them. It shouldn’t be to difficult to pull the youtube addresses up.
    I do understand that. I think it might be helpful for you to get to know the theory better first. I used to be a creationist when I was young because I was surrounded by them. I gave evolution a chance and it has only been more supported and fascinating since then! All I am asking…is give it a chance.. [chanting] lol
    PIP, I was indoctrinated and immersed in evolutionism when I was a child in public school. I remember very clearly everything that I was taught back then. I was pulled out, put in homeschool, and I was learning about both evolution and Creationism, hearing both sides of the argument.
    I have seen and heard all of it before, and the theory of evolution simply is not convincing.
    What I find a little mind boggling is that you left your initial impression of what the Bible meant, (a literal creation). You abandoned your first impression of what you read from the Bible after going to college, heard the humanistic values, and ideas, and you decided then that they made more sense than the Bible did. However, to compromise, and not become atheist, you decided that you could work God into the evolution equation, and make them agree, by calling the genesis account “figurative” instead. This was your compromise.
    I’m not sure, I did not ask. But I believe roughly 40% believe that God ordained us with an immortal soul. That’s not a bad figure.
    That would mean that 60 percent did not, PIP.
    I know that everyone at the university both theologians and biologists have looked at the issue very deeply, and none find a direct conflict. The Catholic Church has said so herself.
    And this is one of those areas that I disagree with the Catholic church.
    If all of this religious consensus is all the work of the devil then I guess the Westboro Baptist Church may be right on more things than I thought ;)
    The devil can masquerade as an angel of light, PIP. I don’t have to be as extreme as the westboro baptist church to believe that. And if you’ll notice, almost every time the devil deceives people in the Bible, it has to do with their desire to gain more and more knowledge (to be more like a god).
    In fact, the very first sin had to do with Eve’s desire to go against what God said, and to attempt to grasp the knowledge of Good vs evil.
    Now, this is not to say that knowledge itself is evil. However, the continual pursuit of knowledge (as opposed to wisdom and truth) can be deceitful.
    The big bang theory (and I also have a basic understanding of it, I am not a physicist) basically says that the universe probably began from a state of very high density and pressure that expanded. This was proposed by a Jesuit priest I think, and was originally thought of as a way to bring “religion into it”–but the mathematical and observational evidence has supported it so far.
    And yet again, I ask…why is Intelligent design not considered scientific, when mathematical and observational evidence supports it? Note: I’m not talking about creationism here.
    Well, here is the wikipedia article for it:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
    another: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bb1.html

    Yes, I know. But that’s not what I’m asking, PIP.
    Because ID presupposes supernatural intervention.
    So? There is observational evidence that we are intelligently designed. This is just as scientific, if not more so, as the big bang.
    How can we test the designer?
    How can we test the beginning of the earth, and all of that supposed “pressure” that caused the big bang, theoretically?
    How can we test supernatural intervention?
    We can see evidence that the world is not random, but that there is very intelligent design in everything. I’m sure you’re aware of this.
    Do we have a god-o-meter?
    If we did have a God-o-meter, would it prove anything more than the big bang is proven? Do we have a “big bang” o meter? I mean, come on. The question is ridiculous. You yourself said, if you see deer poo and tracks in the woods, wouldn’t that lead you to conclude a deer had been there?
    Well, if you see evidence of a designer, wouldn’t that lead you to believe that there was in actuality, a designer? Come on. The evidence is there for intelligent design, just as much as the big bang evidence is, and I would definitely assume that there was more evidence pointing towards an intelligent designer than for a big bang.
    Or do we just give up on explaining how something came to be and call it a supernatural miracle? THAT is not the scientific way to go about things.
    And the “big bang” is something that could really be seen, observed, and tested? One can only GUESS. As I said before, an intelligent guess is still just a GUESS. There is NO proof of the Big bang.
    If you want evidence those videos are very apt at explaining some of it.
    Somehow I wonder if I’ll ever get the chance to see those videos that you keep bringing up, PIP.

  438. “You abandoned your first impression of what you read from the Bible after going to college”
    No, this clearly occurred when I did individual research on my own, in about 9th grade.
    “That would mean that 60 percent did not, PIP.”
    But many of the 60 percent believe in another kind of god, Bethany. 40% is a pretty nice number actually, for hinting at Christianity.
    “And this is one of those areas that I disagree with the Catholic church.”
    …and believe that the devil is speaking through it?
    “And yet again, I ask…why is Intelligent design not considered scientific, when mathematical and observational evidence supports it? Note: I’m not talking about creationism here.”
    Intelligent design IS creationism.
    It’s not considered scientific because it involves supernatural explanation (violates the philosophy of science).
    What mathematical and observational evidence supports it? I have not seen any.
    “Yes, I know. But that’s not what I’m asking, PIP.”
    You weren’t? I thought you wanted to know the explanation of what it is and how it might relate to God’s existence.
    “How can we test the beginning of the earth, and all of that supposed “pressure” that caused the big bang, theoretically?”
    This was in the links that I gave you.
    “We can see evidence that the world is not random, but that there is very intelligent design in everything. I’m sure you’re aware of this.”
    Evolution is the very antithesis of random. Just because something seems complicated is not enough to give up and attribute it to a miracle. What would be the point of science at all?
    “I mean, come on. The question is ridiculous.”
    Why not? We just can’t test God. If this is the case then we can’t scientifically study Him. You are asking me questions about the big bang. This is covered in the links I posted.
    “Well, if you see evidence of a designer, wouldn’t that lead you to believe that there was in actuality, a designer? ”
    Where is there evidence of a designer? Show me.
    “The evidence is there for intelligent design, just as much as the big bang evidence is, and I would definitely assume that there was more evidence pointing towards an intelligent designer than for a big bang”
    Really? I have not seen any of this evidence.
    “And the “big bang” is something that could really be seen, observed, and tested? One can only GUESS. As I said before, an intelligent guess is still just a GUESS. There is NO proof of the Big bang”
    Predicted effects of the big bang can be observed and tested.
    There is no such thing as proof, but there is a difference between very educated “guesses” and blind ones. You know the difference, I’m sure.
    “Somehow I wonder if I’ll ever get the chance to see those videos that you keep bringing up, PIP.”
    Okay, I will repost them later today.

  439. “And if you’ll notice, almost every time the devil deceives people in the Bible, it has to do with their desire to gain more and more knowledge (to be more like a god)”
    O noes! Teh nollij it hurtz teh brainz! Iz of teh devil!

  440. “In fact, the very first sin had to do with Eve’s desire to go against what God said, and to attempt to grasp the knowledge of Good vs evil.”
    I admit I am ignorant on theological scholarship here. I have always wanted to ask a Christian (this goes for any who are following this exchange) how can Adam and Eve have been culpable for their sin BEFORE they knew about good and evil?

  441. PIP, you’re actually arguing against Intelligent design too?
    Now I know it’s futile to discuss this subject with you. I thought you said you believed in an intelligent creator, which is the only reason I took time out to talk with you about this at all.
    If you don’t see evidence that points to a creator, then why do you even believe in God at all?

  442. http://www.icr.org/research/
    Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE)
    Introduction

    Scientists associated with the Institute for Creation Research have
    finished an eight-year research project known as RATE, or Radioisotopes
    and the Age of the Earth.

    For over a hundred years, evolutionists have insisted that the earth
    is billions of years old, and have arrogantly dismissed any views
    contrary to this belief. However, the team of seven creation scientists
    have discovered incredible physical evidence that supports what the
    Bible says about the young age of the earth.

    Learn about their discoveries and explore the scientific evidence that supports biblical truth here!

    RATE Articles

    Polonium Radiohalos: The Model for Their Formation Tested and Verified (#386) by Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D.

    Radioisotope Dating of Grand Canyon Rocks: Another Devastating Failure for Long-Age Geology (#376) by Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D.

    New Rate Data Support a Young World (#366)
    by Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.

    Carbon Dating Undercuts Evolution’s Long Ages (#364) by John Baumgardner, Ph.D.

    Radiohalos – Significant And Exciting Research Results (#353) by Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D.

    Nuclear Decay: Evidence For A Young World (#352) by Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.

    Potassium-Argon and Argon-Argon Dating of Crystal Rocks and the Problem of Excess Argon (#309) by Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D.

    Evidence for a Young World (#384) by Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.

  443. @PiP
    (in response to your 11:50 post) … every single person operates with all 4 ways simultaneously. Due to age and circumstance, one of these will be more accented than others. Below I’ve posted a video …. please note the difference in attitude to the very same events … an intellectual response is the ‘distance’ provided by this attitude; the little boy wonders … ‘what is the problem?’; Mary is frantic because her Son MAY be hurt …. and the ‘faith’ element understands and contemplates …. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sza4rh1YzsM&NR=1
    @Janet,
    one of my favorite authors is Jean Vanier …’Eruption to Hope’ …. Another is Carlo Caretto. ‘Letters From The Desert’…..

  444. “PIP, that was the point. They’re biased. They’re biased, against God.”
    But they are not the authority on evolution
    “And your beliefs regarding what the fossils mean are not assumptions based on your presupposition that the animals evolved?”
    Just inference.
    “Prove that these were adaptations and not simply the way the whale in question was created. You can’t. No one can.”
    Well its the fact that they have shared characteristics. Now you want to whine that transitional forms where just created? How did it die out?
    “This is an assumption based on the presupposition that we evolved.”
    No, it is what we would expect if they had.
    “I pretty much have the same answer for all of those different species mentioned in the link, so I will spare you the repetition.”
    ….did you read the entire article?
    “I just don’t see any proof. What I see, are people posting different classes of whales, and claiming that they were found to be a certain age, and claiming that one came after the other, adapting over a period of millions of years. I see no conclusive proof, none, PIP. It is all about “probably”, “most likely”, and “theoretically”. It’s all about “must have”, and “could have”.”
    “He could have said something that at least implied it, but He did not. What he said was that in the beginning He created us male and female. I doubt seriously that he is referring to lizards who would become humans at a later date. That would be reading a LOT into His statement that isn’t there.”
    Well in the beginning of humans there were male and female. The point of that phrase gets lost when you try to make a scientific inference from it.
    “Most of the references towards creation refer to the Genesis account, PIP.”
    They either refer to God as a creator or refer to Genesis. I don’t know why God wouldn’t put the story in their own language. Again I doubt that evolution would be described since genetics were unheard of.
    “Why not?”
    Because it’s not about science.
    “But won’t anything that Jesus says be scientifically accurate, regardless? After all, He is God.”
    Why would he need to refer to it? He is talking to people who could care less about the subject.
    “Mar 13:19
    “but that passing reference to creation in Mark 13:19 really doesn’t have much to do with the rest of the passage. ”
    Ah, then the purpose wasn’t to say that the literal creation story wasn’t scientifically accurate?
    “It confirms that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, just as the Genesis account claims.”
    That’s what theistic science claims, too.
    “You can say that the Bible is not meant to be a scientific text book, but I have only implied that it is a historical document, which should agree with Science. And that is what I believe it is.”
    Many historical documents are not scientifically accurate. Science as we know it only really began much later.
    “What?”
    Was that a reference to the great flood? I think the great flood refers to a large local flood.
    :PIP, did God inspire men to write the Bible or not? If God inspired it, it doesn’t matter how men perceived the world, it mattered how God perceived it, and I am pretty sure God knows whether the whole earth was perished or not. If you believe that the Bible was written by man with man’s intentions, and not speaking as they were directed by the holy Ghost, then I can understand your position better.”
    I think God was speaking to them from their perspective.
    “Because the entire reason for the Sabbath was to remember that God created the earth in 6 days, and rested on the Seventh. The seventh day was God’s day of rest. I can find you ample Bible verses to confirm this, if you request it.”
    Yes, but that doesn’t inherently contradict a figurative account. It is a ceremonial celebration not a scientific one.
    “So God lied to them, because He didn’t think they were smart enough to understand evolution, PIP?”
    Who said God was lying? Just telling them from their own perspective.
    “God is now deceitful? What in the world.”
    I did not say that.